Organizational Approaches to Furthering Community in Supported Housing Programs

Background/Purpose

Furthering community – in terms of place and social connection – has long been a goal of community-based supported housing programs for individuals with serious mental illness. Yet directors of nonprofit organizations that develop, site, and implement these housing programs often struggle with how community connection is realized, despite the centrality of the concept to the principles of such housing programs. The study objective was to explore organizational policies and efforts aimed at facilitating the community and social connections of housing residents. Primary research questions were: 1) What practices do housing directors employ to facilitate community connections of residents of the supported housing units that their organizations administer? 2) Which efforts do they perceive as working or not, and why? 3) How are residents engaged in this process?

Methods

In-person semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect qualitative data from directors and managers of nonprofit organizations that provided supported housing to individuals with serious mental illness in a northeastern state. Such units included apartments or houses in which continuous or noncontinuous staff and social service supports were provided by mental health organizations. Respondents were purposefully sampled from a list of all nonprofits in the state that provided such housing. Respondents represented organizations with median budgets of $7.1 million, and that collectively provided housing for over 3,000 individuals. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative responses to open-ended questions using case and cross-case analysis.

Results

The intentional location of residences in walkable neighborhoods with access to commercial districts and public spaces was named by respondents as a key element in promoting community presence and enhanced connectivity as residents could independently travel to and engage with local activities, libraries, stores, parks, et al. The placement of the residences shaped, to various degrees, opportunities for residents’ community connections. There was less consensus regarding individually-focused efforts. Commonly, organizations used person-centered goal setting to engage residents in exploring personal and community interests. Differences centered on the degree and nature of staff involvement in facilitating connections. In about half the sites, housing staff focused on providing information that residents could then choose to pursue on their own (i.e. upcoming community events; classes at libraries; YMCA hours). Among others, staff were directly involved in facilitating engagement, for example, by accompanying residents to community events; initiating a connection to volunteer opportunities, etc. These variations appeared to be related, in part, to whether organizations posited staff actions as positive facilitation of social connection, or as representing a violation of principles of residents’ self-determination.

Conclusions/implications

Respondents drew on “geographies of opportunity” in intentionally siting housing in neighborhoods viewed as conducive to community connection because of walkability, transportation, and commercial districts. Other approaches variously engaged staff and residents in efforts that actively or more passively aimed to advance connections. Future research with larger samples can further understandings of the effects of practices to enhance community presence. Such evidence, including the voices of residents, is essential to informing policy and practice in the implementation of central tenets of community-based supported housing,