"Supported housing" (independent, normal housng and flexible, individualized services and supports) has become an increasingly prominent alternative to clinically managed residential programs for consumers of mental health services. In research on supported housing in New York City, one of the local sites for SAMHSA's current "Housing Initiative" Cooperative Agreement, we have identified two distinct streams of thought and practice that have fed the supported housing movement. There are, in effect, two distinct "genealogies" of supported housing: the one, hailing from a tradition advocating normal (and less-structured) housing alternatives to mental health residential programs for persons with severe mental illness; the other from the movement to stem rampant homelessness by increasing the supply of low-income housing. Although they overlap, each lineage has distinctive premises, guiding concerns and a developmental logic. This presentation traces how these play out in program practices designed to address issues of community building, community integration, empowerment and stigma. We argue here that any effort to fairly assess the effectiveness of supported housing must consider the contrasting premises and promises of each tradition and the distinctive visions of the "social good" that motivate them.
Learning Objectives: Attendees will be able to 1) Identify two distinctive versions of the "supported housing" model; 2)Identify goals and outcomes associated with each variant of supported housing; 3) Describe the relationship between assumptions, goals of each variant of the model and the service practices and approaches used by supported housing programs linked to the contrasting traditions
Keywords: Homelessness, Housing
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Organization/institution whose products or services will be discussed: None
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.