“The Apartment is for You, It’s Not for Anyone Else”: Managing Social Recovery and Risk on the Frontlines of Single-Adult Supportive Housing
This multi-method qualitative study examines frontline provider perspectives on consumer social relationships and barriers to social recovery in supportive housing programs for adults with serious mental illness. Thematic analyses show that guest and occupancy policies that enforce the “single” nature of single-adult supportive housing challenge consumer rights to self-determination in the realm of social recovery. Findings also highlight the ways in which providers act to reinforce and subvert these policies while mitigating risk in this service setting. Recommendations for enhancing the recovery orientation of supportive housing and implications for the design of the homeless service system are discussed.
KeywordsMental health recovery Supportive housing Case management Qualitative
This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH F31MH100772), as well as a fellowship from the New York University Global Research Initiative. The author would like to acknowledge Drs. Deborah Padgett and Victoria Stanhope and the study team from the larger parent study (NIMH R01MH084903).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The author reports no competing interests.
- Barrow, S., McMullin, L., Tripp, J., & Tsemberis, S. (2007). Consumer integration and self-determination in homelessness research, policy, planning, and services. Paper presented at the 2007 National Homelessness Conference, Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
- Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Crystal, S. (1984). Homeless men and homeless women: The gender gap. Urban and Social Change Review, 17(2), 2–6.Google Scholar
- Davidson, L., Rowe, M., Tondora, J., O’Connell, M. J., & Lawless, M. S. (2008). A practical guide to recovery-oriented practice: Tools for transforming mental health care. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.Google Scholar
- Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy, 30th Ann. Ed.: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- Locke, G., Khadduri, J., & O’Hara, A. (2007). Housing models. Washington, DC: National Symposium on Homelessness Research.Google Scholar
- New York Real Property Law §§ 235-f.Google Scholar
- Padgett, D. K. (2016). Qualitative methods in social work research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
- Padgett, D. K., Tiderington, E., Smith, B. T., Derejko, K. S., & Henwood, B. F. (2016). Complex recovery: Understanding the lives of formerly homeless adults with complex needs. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 1–11.Google Scholar
- Parsell, C. (2015). Surveillance in supportive housing: Intrusion or autonomy? Urban Studies, 0042098015613205. doi: 10.1177/0042098015613205.
- Rosenheck, R., Bassuk, E., & Salomon, A. (1999). Special populations of homeless Americans. In Practical lessons: The 1998 National Symposium on Homelessness. Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the US Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
- Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Sheedy, C. K., & Whitter, M. (2009). Guiding principles and elements of recovery-oriented systems of care: What do we know from the research? HHS Publication No. (SMA) 09–4439. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.Google Scholar
- Shinn, M., & Weitzman, B. (1996). Homeless families are different. In J. Baumohl (Ed.), Homelessness in America: A reference book. National Coalition for the Homeless and Oryx Press.Google Scholar
- Stefancic, A. (2014). “If I stay by myself, I feel safer”: Dilemmas of social connectedness among persons with psychiatric disabilities in Housing First. Retrieved from Columbia University Academic Commons, doi: 10.7916/D83B5XSS.
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2003). Blueprint for change: Ending chronic homelessness for persons with serious mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders. (DHHS Pub. No. SMA04-3870). Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.Google Scholar
- Tiderington, E. (2015a). “We always think you’re here permanently”: The paradox of “permanent” housing and other barriers to recovery-oriented practice in supportive housing services. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. doi: 10.1007/s10488-015-0707-0.Google Scholar
- Tiderington, E. (2015b). The dilemmas of permanency and accountability: A qualitative investigation of barriers to and facilitators of recovery-oriented practice in supportive housing (Doctoral dissertation). Retreived from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3721212).Google Scholar
- Tsemberis, S. (2010). Housing first: Ending homelessness promoting recovery and reducing costs in I. In G. Ellen & B. O’Flaherty (Eds.), How to house the homeless. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). The President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Achieving the promise: Transforming mental health care in America. Final Report. (DHHS Pub. No. SMA-03-3832). Rockville, MD: Author.Google Scholar
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). National consensus statement on mental health recovery (Brochure). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA05-4129/SMA05-4129.pdf. Accessed 2 Aug 2016.