202/811 study: is small beautiful?
Interesting HUD-commissioned report out from Abt Associates on "implications of project size" for disability and senior housing under Secs. 202 and 811.
The writers spent considerable time looking at how or whether these special-purpose buildings provided supportive services. They found that regardless of project size, Sec. 202 (disability) buildings were less likely than 811 (seniors) buildings to help residents arrange their supportive services, and one-third of the Sec. 202 project sponsors in the study "reported they play little or no role in coordinating services for residents because their residents arrange their own services." In general building managers were not enthusiastic about providing services beyond "those that residents need to live as independently as possible in their homes" -- they preferred that residents be helped by other organizations. "Sponsors typically view housing as housing, not as a therapeutic setting."
Otherwise the study found 65% of interviewed residents liked their buildings, but that complaints, when made, mainly had to do with other tenants, and most residents didn't get to know neighbors outside the building. It recommended that HUD encourage smaller 202/811 projects in the future, these being generally more popular with both residents and neighbors. A further comment called for designing maximum privacy into the units -- which is good advice given the crab-barrel dynamics that can develop among troubled tenants living close together.
It's interesting to see that many building managers would really rather not be service providers. There certainly do seem to be built-in difficulties whenever a single organization tries to provide both property management and more personal forms of assistance such as counseling or health care. ....in fact, do any readers here have comments about the fit between property management and service provision in supportive housing projects?
The writers spent considerable time looking at how or whether these special-purpose buildings provided supportive services. They found that regardless of project size, Sec. 202 (disability) buildings were less likely than 811 (seniors) buildings to help residents arrange their supportive services, and one-third of the Sec. 202 project sponsors in the study "reported they play little or no role in coordinating services for residents because their residents arrange their own services." In general building managers were not enthusiastic about providing services beyond "those that residents need to live as independently as possible in their homes" -- they preferred that residents be helped by other organizations. "Sponsors typically view housing as housing, not as a therapeutic setting."
Otherwise the study found 65% of interviewed residents liked their buildings, but that complaints, when made, mainly had to do with other tenants, and most residents didn't get to know neighbors outside the building. It recommended that HUD encourage smaller 202/811 projects in the future, these being generally more popular with both residents and neighbors. A further comment called for designing maximum privacy into the units -- which is good advice given the crab-barrel dynamics that can develop among troubled tenants living close together.
It's interesting to see that many building managers would really rather not be service providers. There certainly do seem to be built-in difficulties whenever a single organization tries to provide both property management and more personal forms of assistance such as counseling or health care. ....in fact, do any readers here have comments about the fit between property management and service provision in supportive housing projects?
posted by Martha Bridegam at 10:50 PM
<< Home