Does Everybody that Experiences Chronic Homelessness Need Permanent Supportive Housing?
I have heard many well-intentioned service providers speak of Permanent Supportive Housing as the only housing option for persons that have experienced chronic homelessness. Permanent Supportive Housing is an important housing option for all communities to have, and many persons that have experienced chronic homelessness may choose this option. But let me repeat: may choose this option.
Let us also be clear about chronic homelessness and use the HUD definition:
An unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more OR has had at least four (4) episodes of homelessness in the past three (3) years. The individual must have been on the streets or in an emergency shelter (not transitional housing) during these episodes.
Where there is error is thinking that Permanent Supportive Housing, whether it is through a scattered-site model of supports or a congregate model of supports, is the only housing model that will work for people that have experienced chronic homelessness. That type of mentality reinforces a housing placement mindset rather than a housing choice mindset. If we believe in client-centered service delivery then we need to wrap our heads around what it means to offer meaningful choices, not on thinking we know what is best for the people that we serve.
A 2007 study examined what Housing First means to people served through a Housing First program. It shows a very strong relationship between housing satisfaction and whether the individual felt they had a choice in where they live. Altogether, 55% of service participants that felt they had a choice in where they live were very happy with their housing. By comparison, 15% of the respondents that felt they had no choice in where they live reported being very happy with their housing. Only 2% of those surveyed in the report that felt they had a choice in where they live reported being very unhappy in their housing.
Some service providers will make statements that sound convincing as to why people that have experienced chronic homelessness require Permanent Supportive Housing.
One of the claims is that many of these individuals have a mental illness. As a person who lives with a mental illness, this line of argument doesn’t personally ring true for me. I don’t live in Permanent Supportive Housing. Lest you dismiss my line of reasoning because I am only a sample size of one, consider that most people with a mental illness do not experience chronic homelessness. That is a fact. Many people that have experienced mental illness may engage in some form of supports for the rest of their lives, but those supports are most often found in community, not through Permanent Supportive Housing and housing case managers.
Another of the claims is that many of these individuals have experienced addiction to alcohol or other drugs. Let’s take a poll: raise your hand if you or someone you know has had one or more drinks of alcohol in the last 30 days. Most survey data on substance use would reveal that most of you probably raised your hand. I’m not asking for the keys to your place. Even when you consider persons with problematic substance use, most of these individuals do not experience chronic homelessness. Those who choose sobriety may be linked into an array of community resources to help support them in this regard for the rest of their lives, but that does not mean they need Permanent Supportive Housing in all instances.
My last example is related to life skills. Often I have heard service providers claim that one of the reasons chronically homeless individuals require Permanent Supportive Housing is because they lack the life skills to be housed without permanent supports in community. While some people will take longer than others to learn and retain skills, it is untrue and defeatist to think that chronically homeless people cannot (re)learn the life skills necessary for more independent living. Some may want and benefit from the additional life skills support available in most Permanent Supportive Housing, but not all chronically homeless people that have compromised life skills have to be in Permanent Supportive Housing.
Fundamentally, in a lot of instances the focus on having people move into Permanent Supportive Housing rather than an approach with supports that promotes greater independence over time is because we are so fixated on the deficits in the lives of a chronically homeless person that we fail to see the strengths that they possess. Having a disabling condition and a history of long periods of homelessness fails to see future potential nor does it embrace recovery.
No doubt, some individuals have rather substantial life issues such as frail medical conditions, reduced cognitive functioning, developmental delays and the like. But what do each of these – and others – bring to the table that we can build off of in our service delivery and then put this in the context of a service plan offer that focuses on housing stability rather than thinking our mission is to somehow fix or heal people? I would argue that one of the major impediments is that the assessment tools used in many communities (those that have assessment tools anyway) glob onto a deficit orientation rather than a strength-based orientation. Higher acuity should not be a life sentence to Permanent Supportive Housing if that is not what the individual wants. Furthermore, any acuity assessment used in housing programs should focus to areas where people have strengths that can be built off of for housing stability.
None of this is an argument against Permanent Supportive Housing. It is an awesome, life-changing experience for many who choose it. There are some phenomenal Permanent Supportive Housing providers in the world. And I hope there are more of them. More Permanent Supportive Housing can and should be created in every community. This is why so many of the Alliance’s resources on re-tooling Transitional Housing (which does not have discernibly different housing stability outcomes and costs upwards of 10 times more than permanent housing) hold such promise. In fact, even when an individual is choosing to go the Permanent Supportive Housing route it is best to offer choices amongst different models and approaches to Permanent Supportive Housing.
What I don’t want is a very narrow mindset that sees Permanent Supportive Housing as the only option to chronic homelessness. We cannot and should not pigeonhole people in that way. (Plus, if we look at the numbers of chronically homeless people there is absolutely no way to financially afford Permanent Supportive Housing as the only option.)
Undoubtedly, Permanent Supportive Housing tendencies in many communities reinforce that there can be a difference between what we think and what we know. I also think that it demonstrates why, in some communities, there is a difference between being committed to ending homelessness and simply wanting to end homelessness. I’d ask communities that have Permanent Supportive Housing to best determine how to maximize the potential of this type of housing when they are working on coordinated access and common assessment tools. And I would beg communities to reinforce Permanent Supportive Housing as a choice for people that have experienced chronic homelessness, but not the only option.
Be Grateful
At one point in my life I was an angry practitioner. Why? I spent pretty much all my time frustrated about what I could not do or things I could not control instead of grateful for what I could do. I had to learn to change my perspective to one that embraced gratitude.
For example:
I’d dwell on the past and live in history or find myself anxious about the future rather than focusing on the present, yet the present is where I can exercise the greatest influence.
When clients lost their housing I’d think of the housing work of our program as a failure rather than being grateful that there was an opportunity to learn and re-house the person.
I’d lament external reviewers of the program rather than being grateful that there was another set of eyes that could offer a different perspective.
I’d get lost in despair about the poverty that people experienced, rather than being grateful that they could be housed and still be poor rather than living in economic poverty and still being homeless.
When my staff team seemed to be less energized I’d get frustrated with what I saw sometimes as weakness or apathy, rather than being grateful that some of the most talented people I had ever met were sticking with the work during the low times and that I had the opportunity to express my gratitude for all that they do and re-energize them.
When people would ask pointed questions about why housing homeless people is a good idea from a policy and fiscal perspective, I’d find myself angry with their value orientation or lack of ability to see the big picture rather than being grateful that I had an opportunity to educate and influence.
I’m not a huge personal fan of the pseudo-science and incomplete psycho-social connections that dominates so much of the self-help genre. I have never personally been able to be happy through positive affirmations or follow a simple step-by-step guide to happier living. My own journey through depression and interactions with others offers a personal perspective where that doesn’t work for me (and no disrespect intended if it works for you).
But what I do know is that we can shift our orientation on what happens around us. We can focus on gratitude. We can be grateful for all that we are able to achieve, rather than being lost, confused, frustrated or angry by the limitations that are often outside of our control. Personally, I know that once I started paying more attention to what I could do and the strengths that I did have my worldview changed to one of gratitude. Gratitude most certainly trumped the deficit orientation that I had focused on before. I became a better leader and manager. I became a better mentor. And I became truly passionate about ending homelessness as a real possibility, rather than an empty promise.
Therapeutic Incarceration
A dozen times in the past few weeks I have found myself speaking about therapeutic incarceration. It has nothing to do with jails or prisons. It is about how some homeless and housing service providers treat their clients. I didn’t coin the term (see The Therapeutic Incarceration of Homeless Families Naomi Gerstel, Cynthia J. Bogard, J. Jeff McConnell and Michael Schwartz Social Service Review Vol. 70, No. 4 (Dec., 1996), pp. 543-572) though I wish I had. And it sounds like something I would say.
When I use the term, I am talking about those non-profit (and sometimes government) programs that go out of their way to hold onto the households that they serve. They smother them with service plans more oriented on trying to heal or fix people that trying to house and support them regardless of their imperfections. They keep them in life skills programming, for example, refusing to talk about housing options until they have demonstrated success in the program. Or they have them stay in a compliance-based a transitional housing model. Or they keep providing case management services to them years from when they first encountered them, unfortunately (naively?), thinking that their supports are necessary to keep them housed.
News flash – and it can suck to hear – that ain’t what the job is supposed to be.
When it is more about our desire to hold onto people then it is wrong.
When we think we can intervene to prevent any mistakes from happening, then it is wrong. (Aren’t mistakes a learning opportunity? Don’t we all make them?)
When a case manager doesn’t want someone to “graduate” (I hate that term, but I don’t have a better one, so it will do for now) from their program, what does that say about their orientation towards helping people achieve greater independence over time? (We shouldn’t be paying for “friends for life” programs.)
When anybody suggests that allowing people to fully make their own decisions is a set up for failure, it is wrong.
When dependent awareness is worn as a badge of courage rather than focusing attention on how we can get people to a place where they are fully integrated with other community services and can be interdependent, it is wrong.
I can hear some critics now. What about the young mom without parenting skills? What about the youth that has run away from home? What about the person with mental illness? What about the person who has experienced repeated institutionalization in hospital, mental health facility and/or prison?
A mistake is just another way of doing things. Sure, it comes with consequences. But we have all made mistakes, right? Isn’t that an essential aspect of free will?
Are you going to be in the young mom’s life until her child is 18? No. Provide a good foundation and let her make mistakes.
Are you going to stay in the youth’s life until their synaptic firing and wiring is advanced enough that they make decisions like a full-fledged adult? No. And, by the way, grown-ups make poor decisions too.
Do we really think every person with mental illness requires a substitute decision maker? Have you never heard of the concept of recovery? Oh, and allow me to introduce you to lingo we people with a mental illness use in our circles – nothing about us without us.
And I could go on.
If anybody suggests that a client surrenders their free will in order to engage with a homeless and housing service program, then it is time to take away all of their funding and focus our investment on those programs and services that would rather see homeless individuals and families empowered. Keeping homeless individuals and families stuck “in the system” is an indictment on us all. People attached to an organization years later isn’t a sign that the organization is doing a good job – it is, in fact, the exact opposite.
So, let us promote greater independence. Let us support people in re-integrating with community. Let us realize that the true value of our work is in realizing that it is not about us – it is about the people that we serve. Let’s stop imprisoning human potential.
The “Yes, buts…”
“I agree with prioritizing clients being a better practice than first come first, served, but I think our staff will have too hard of a time with that.”
“I agree with focusing on housing stability before launching into a complete case plan, but our clients really need longer case management before they are ready to be housed.”
“I agree with the idea of working with a smaller group of people really intensely to solve their homelessness, but our funders want to see high numbers of people we interact with.”
“I agree that we should know the difference our program makes in people’s lives, but we don’t have the time nor are we required by our funders to track those types of changes.”
“I agree that we should spend time talking about how to better work like a system, but our CoC thinks they already do that really well.”
“I agree that we need to have an assessment tool, but youth are too different from other populations to be assessed.”
“I agree that publicly reporting how we are doing relative to targets would be helpful, but our staff would freak out.”
“I agree that we should offer person-centred services, but there are some administrative things that we are required to do that makes that impossible.”
“I agree that we should be non-judgmental and meet people where they are at, but people need to be sober for at least 7 days before they can really make a decision about housing.”
“I agree that providing supports to people in their homes is really needed in our community, but our agency has a policy that staff can’t leave the office because of worker safety.”
“I agree we should have centralized intake and common assessment to get the right person to the right program, but we need to keep our shelter beds full and our programs maxed out so that we get paid.”
“I agree that targeting prevention resources are difficult, if not impossible, but we feel it is important to provide a safety net to anybody that comes through our door…until we run out of money.”
“I agree that our staff can use more training, but we’d rather spend all of the money we get on direct client costs.”
And I could go on. All of these are examples of things I have jotted down as I have heard them over the past few weeks. Needless to say, there is an epidemic of “yes, but” mentality that can impede our ability to make lasting, effective change.
The “yes, but” response is interesting because people tend to accept the premise of the argument. They tend to agree with the evidence as presented to them. They tend to nod when data is used to highlight when/how/why something different may be considered. It is the action that is required as a result of the evidence that they resist. And the resistance is grounded in a range of rationale like organizational history, what is felt to be an imposed requirement by funders (which can be real), values, perception of client needs (regardless of evidence), fear of staff resistance – and so on.
The “yes, but” is a good case study in how people and organizations don’t always resist change (they agree that a future desired state may be better); they resist transitions (come up with a reason not to move to the desired state).
When the forum is appropriate, people that have attended my seminars or workshops know that the question I follow with is “But…what?” When there is a well-founded reason to consider a practice different than what we are doing, I like organizations and people to embrace the discussion of how we get from the current state to the desired future state. I am not so naïve to think it happens overnight. People may have feelings hurt. Organizations can be in a state of flux while they work through the change. Leaders (not just managers) have to grab the gauntlet and manage the risk and structure in moving forward. Champions are often needed. Staff have to be supported as they weather the transition.
Next time your organization is grappling with making a move that you have the evidence to believe is the right direction and find yourselves confronted with the “yes, but”, try one or more of the following:
Respectfully and calmly inquire “but what?” to figure out what is at the core of the resistance. Another way to reframe this is to use “yes…and” rather than “yes, but”.
Encourage people to talk about their values. It can often be assumed that people working in the same organization share the same values and perspectives on issues. That is not always the case. Knowing those differences helps with navigating different feelings and perspectives on the issue at hand.
Continue to use evidence – data points and evaluated examples – that support the change that is being considered. Proof that something may be a better way of doing work is better than emotional anecdotes.
Ask people to join you in having a solution-focused approach. That is to say, have people engage in dialogue about all that is required to make something work or make a particular change rather than noting just the barriers to moving forward.
When other people or organizations (like funders) are seen to be as the only thing stopping you from achieving the direction you want to go, invite them to engage with you in moving forward. Not all funders are connected enough to day to day realities that they understand well enough that their good intentions may not completely jive with good operational practice
Promote a culture of your peers that agrees that they will deliberately try to be creative first and critical second when confronted with new ideas or innovative approaches to service that are different than current practice.
Acknowledge that working through change to a new desired state of operation is rarely 100% correct. If we accept a “process” approach to working towards improvement, then we can learn and grow while we reflect and try.
Think about the end users of your services while you discern the value of making the change happen.
Create a simple evaluation framework to compare performance from the current way of delivering service to the new way that service is being tried.
The “yes, buts” can kill change and smother attempts at innovation. Our job is not to maintain the status quo at all costs. Our job is to focus on a hopeful new reality where the mission of ending homelessness is achieved. When there are compelling reasons to change or try service delivery differently, it is in the best interests of the people that we serve to demonstrate we are integrating that knowledge into practice.
“We are Not Venture Capitalists”
This is a quote written on a white board in the office of a Continuum of Care that I am doing some work with. I saw it on a recent visit and loved it. In some way, shape or form I think all of us that have worked as a funder in our career have had similar experiences with people calling out of the blue looking for money to open a shelter or start an outreach program or begin a meal program or build housing or start a drop-in or something similar. When I was a funder working in government it would seem that once or more per month I’d get a call or email from some organization or person I had never heard of seeking funds for a housing or homeless program.
I don’t know enough about the people who make these calls out of the blue to form a comprehensive opinion, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that they are well-intentioned and mean well, but generally without extensive (or any) experience in delivering homeless and housing services.
I think the fact that calls are received seemingly out of nowhere by people and organizations that have no real experience in receiving funds or delivering programs says a lot about service provision to people that experience homelessness. Allow me to make five very general observations about what this may mean:
The “Outside World” doesn’t see what is happening in homeless and housing service delivery as a professional service delivery system, methodically planned and strategically funded.
Funding is not promoted in the public eye as competitive, strategic investment.
The general public thinks anybody can do this work.
Housing as the solution to homelessness has not been promoted enough – most of the time fund-seekers are looking to operate emergency services.
Ending homelessness is a business; but too often it is still seen as a charitable response.
What can be done about it? Well, I am not so naïve to think the calls out of the blue will stop completely. There will continue to be well-intentioned people seeking money to assist with their campaign to – most often – feed, shelter or clothe homeless people. But we can improve our messaging on what is happening in our community. Some suggestions:
Link and plaster references to your 10 Year Plan, its intent and achievements in just about every document and medium that you have at your disposal (assuming the Plan is up to date and being put into action). Anybody who calls out of the blue should be asked how what he/she is aiming to have funded is aligned with the local Plan to End Homelessness.
Talk about “strategic investment in ending homelessness” not just funding to homeless programs. Ask the person who calls out of the blue how what they are requesting aligns with the other “x” thousands/millions of dollars in investment in the system already and how any contribution to them will help leverage additional success.
Use words like “professional” to describe the types of services being delivered to people that are homeless. Ask the person who calls about their experience, expertise and education. Ask them what they think the main currents of thought and practice are in homeless service delivery and how what they want to do contributes to proven practices to end homelessness.
Housing. Housing. Housing. If the conversation isn’t about housing as the solution in all that you do you are ceding ground to those that think emergency responses are the answer to homelessness. It’s okay to ask people that call you out of the blue how what they want to do helps people achieve and become stable in housing. This doesn’t mean, say, that your community is anti-shelter. But let’s assume they want to open another one…ask them why they think another shelter is needed and how that shelter will help people move successfully into housing.
Use data appropriately on websites, newsletters, press releases, etc to speak about progress relative to targets…this is the parlance of business…the desire to measure results. Consider asking the caller what their business plan is to optimize the likelihood for success, the measures they think they would need to capture in service delivery and their approach to evaluating what they are doing to continuously improve their response.
All of these questions are also things you can put into an annual funding request for proposals; or if you are a service agency, areas that you can address in your funding submission even if your funders did not ask for it. These are examples of five areas where our ability to demonstrate excellence in service delivery goes a long way to distance the work of ending homelessness as just another hand-out. The “hand-out” is the furthest thing from the work done the past couple of decades to have solution-focused interventions pin-pointed at the need to invest in ending homelessness.
Home Making
In the effort to end homelessness, it has been my experience – generally speaking – that getting chronically homeless people into housing is the easy part. Providing the supports to help them stay there is the harder part. Here are a few tips that frontline workers can consider when supporting people in their apartment unit to help with the transition of a blank apartment into a place that feels like home.
Positive reinforce the housing choice.
On the day of move in, meet the person moving in at least one hour before you are supposed to meet the superintendent for getting the keys and moving in. One, this will reduce the likelihood of the person disappearing. Two, if you are even earlier than you said you would be when you show up at the encampment of shelter, you can tell the person that you are early because you are so excited about them moving in. Before they set foot at the building, take the time to engage in positive reinforcement. Let the genuinely know that you think this is a great step for them. Let’s say the apartment is downtown and that was one of the most important criteria in the housing search, reinforce how amazing it is that you were able to find a place that was close to downtown. Let’s say they wanted a smaller place so that it would be easier to clean, before you set foot in the unit talk about how glad you are that they found a smaller place so that it is easier to clean.
If we are sincere in our enthusiasm it is infectious. Our infectiousness will positively reinforce the housing choice that has been made.
Arrange furniture for the day of move in.
If you leave the apartment unit blank looking, it is going to feel more like a prison cell or place where they may have squatted than a place to call home.
Whether your organization has a budget to purchase new furniture or you rely on some great social purpose enterprises (I think of the likes of FIND in Edmonton), make sure that you arrange for the furniture delivery on the day of move-in.
A lot can be said for the new tenant having a say in the furniture that goes into their unit rather than them just being handed furniture that they had no say in. People who have a say in the couch, bed, coffee tables, etc are much more likely to take care of them long term.
While I have seen many a chronically homeless person be overcome with emotions on the day of move in when they get their keys, I have seen more actually break down and weep with joy when the furniture that they picked out arrives and they have a say in where it is set up in their place. Powerful.
Ensure basic needs are in place.
Sometimes this can be achieved as part of the furniture organization, but it is absolutely critical. On the day of move in, people need to have basic needs like toiletries, plates, linens, toilet paper, light bulbs, pots, cleaning supplies, basic spices, etc. If the basics aren’t in place, the individual will have to go elsewhere to have their basic needs met, which will make the place feel less like home.
In some communities I have seen church groups and high school students pull together “welcome home” kits that can be given to the person on the day of move in. It is one less thing to worry about, doesn’t take away from whatever meager income supports they may have, and ensures that the basics are taken care of.
Bring three picture frames.
If you go to a discount or dollar store you can pick up a few picture frames really inexpensively. Give them to the person on the day of move in as a moving in present. Tell them to fill each picture frame with something or someone that is important to them and display them in their apartment.
I have been amazed over the years at how many clients have taken this task seriously and used it to create a focal point in their new apartment. Yes, photographs are common for the frames, but I have also seen tenants create new artwork, put poetry or biblical quotes, press leaves and flowers, put in a small mirror, etc within the picture frames.
Like most of us, we decorate our homes with those things that we enjoy…that represent us…that bring joy to our lives. The picture frames help with this journey.
Bake cookies on the next visit.
A bit schmaltzy, but I think nothing says home like the scent of fresh baked cookies. Plus the time that the cookies are baking provides you the opportunity for engaged discussion with your client. And, if you get an inexpensive cookie sheet it is one more thing they have for their kitchen for cooking in the future.
As an approach to creating bookends, I have also been known to encourage cookie making when the support relationship hits significant milestones or the individual is ready to move on from the program.
Bring a small plant one week after move in.
One of the things I love about Ikea and similar stores is that you can get some indoor plants for super-duper cheap. It doesn’t break the bank to give a newly housed person a $1 plant. It is a good home-making gift.
A few things that I have seen that come out of having a plant – the client talks to their plant; the client cares for the plant; the client is exposed to sunlight because the plant is in a windowsill. I have heard many stories of plants from childhood.
Go grocery shopping within the first week together and make a stew or chili.
A quick way to assess the skill level in budgeting and shopping while also promoting food security is to go grocery shopping. This is usually a longer visit where you can get to know the client better. It allows you to interact with the client in a range of settings. You also get a sense of whether there are any things missing in the basic supplies provided.
Yes, stews and chilis are simple meals. But they are also quite healthy and cost effective. Plus, freezing single portions helps with budgeting food and resources throughout the month. I also think a well stocked freezer is a sign of a place being lived in, and removes worries that clients are going hungry for no reason.
Get a dry erase marker.
Credit where credit is due, this one comes from my buddy Kathy who is one of the most creative case managers I have ever met who has since gone on to become a program supervisor of a Permanent Supportive Housing building.
With the dry erase marker you can write reminders on the fridge (assuming it is one of those glossy white ones…practice in a discrete place first). Things like next home visits, doctor visits, important phone numbers, etc can all be written write on the fridge in one place. Genius.
Give them a calendar.
I have seen some agencies create calendars of their clients with important community phone numbers, but you don’t need to get that creative. Regardless of when the person moves in throughout the year, make sure they have a calendar. In one place in the apartment they can keep track of all appointments, the date, etc. It isn’t a bad idea to put a pen or pencil on a string and attach it to the calendar.
Create a personal guest policy.
I created this one early on in my career. I found I was frustrated if a superintendent or landlord tried to lay out the rules for visitors that were quickly broken and an eviction seemed imminent. Me telling people the rules also seemed to fly in the face of client-centred strategies that I really believed in.
So, very soon after move in I asked clients to create their personal guest policy. This was the client putting into their own words when they thought it would be ideal for them to have guests over, what they thought would be acceptable activities when guests were over, if there were any guests that they did not want over under certain conditions, and what actions they would take if the guest policy wasn’t followed.
The guest policy was never 100% successful, but it did offer something tangible to work off of when there were issues with guests. I could ask questions like “So what part of your guest policy do you think needs to be reconsidered or changed in light of…”
Some clients over the years posted their guest policy in a very visible place that others could see when they came to visit. Cool idea.
Roll up your sleeves to teach skills.
It is naïve to think all chronically homeless people we serve have all of the skills necessary to maintain housing; while at the same time it is unfortunate that some housing workers think they have no skills.
We need to start from positions of strength, and it is really only in spending time with our clients that we fully appreciate what they are capable and incapable of. It is my contention that we need to be willing to roll up our sleeves and actively engage in teaching these skills. Being a successful housing worker means that we have to be prepared to do laundry with people, clean up an apartment with people, scrub showers and toilets with people, go grocery shopping with people, etc. There is generally no other support in the community ready to do those things. Plus, if we see our role as promoting stability in housing first and foremost, we are on the front lines of making that skill development possible. We do with people, not for people, and over time see the skills transfer to the client in their pathway to greater self-sufficiency.
Bring some putty that can be used for hanging posters, pictures, etc.
You don’t want to put a bunch of holes in the apartment walls and the putty is rather inexpensive. If you give the putty to the person on or shortly after the day of move in and encourage them to put things up on their walls, it can take very little time to see the place transform into a decorative space. Whether it is newspaper clippings, artwork, posters, baseball cards or whatever, the individual is transforming the wall space into their own home without damaging the apartment. Plus, as because we want people to be engaged in meaningful daily activities, this type of opportunity is a great way to have people engaged in the activities of home making.
Conduct home visits on time for the length of time you said you would in the early weeks.
The last tip is to conduct home visits more frequently and usually for a greater length of time shortly after a person has moved into their apartment. This helps reinforce in the home making process that you have a vested interest in their success. It also lets you quickly catch any issues that may compromise wellness in housing in the early days. Adjusting strategy then can be critical for long term success.
It is my contention – and affirmed by people that I have supported in making the transition from chronic homelessness to housing – that the more an apartment feels like home the less the likelihood of damage to the apartment and the greater the likelihood that the person/family will stay there long term and be satisfied with housing. It also reinforces the need to focus on housing choices rather than housing placements, which are also proven to result in better long-term housing outcomes.
If you have great ideas on how to help create home, put them in the comments section of the blog below so that others can read them and borrow from your wisdom.