Search results

A partnership of agencies in South West England commissioned a review of supported housing, with the primary aim of linking supported housing (and the Supporting People programme) with other regional strategies and initiatives such as housing, health, crime reduction and community safety. The review produced a new conceptual framework for the planning and management of housing and support services, with a strong emphasis on aims and outcomes. It also brought together data on current services across the region and identified key trends and issues to be addressed. Many of the recommendations and proposals have been incorporated into the draft Regional Housing Strategy, due to be finalised in May 2005.

The National Housing Federation's initiative, In Business for Neighbourhoods, urges all housing associations to ensure that they focus on users, to diversify funding and manage costs, while working in partnerships with others to serve the whole population of a community or neighbourhood. General‐needs housing providers can't be ‘in business for neighbourhoods’ without meeting the needs of frail older people, care leavers, people recently released from prison or women fleeing domestic violence. Providers of supported housing hold in their hands many of the tools to enable this engagement.Supported housing is the only part of the housing association sector with a clear and untainted focus on users, the only part with a rigorous focus on costs and efficiency and the only part developed through partnership, owing everything to partnership. In their report, In Business to Support People ‐ the Future of Supported Housing, Julia Unwin and Peter Molyneux argue that supported housing agencies must be allowed to find ways to grow as organisations and to cope with a highly unstable market if they are to respond effectively to the challenges posed by increasing demand for citizenship and choice.

This article is a study of how Nottinghamshire Drug and Alcohol Action Team used Drug Intervention Programme monies to support partnership working in Nottinghamshire to secure supported housing for drug‐using offenders who were fast‐tracked into treatment by their involvement with the Criminal Justice System. The article identifies lessons learnt in relation to partnership engagement, community involvement and the importance of involving wrap‐around services in holistic delivery of supported housing and treatment. It also identifies the ongoing challenges of meeting the needs of service users alongside those of housing providers, and looks at very quick wins in relation to housing for substance misusers from bond schemes and use of established debt advisors who can support individuals in their resettlement needs.

The shared housing model has been used widely for many years in association with supported housing. It is the subject of debate among providers and commissioners, who may regard it as old‐fashioned and not conducive to independent living, but for some clients and organisations it continues to offer a positive option in helping alleviate loneliness and isolation. Current growth in the work of social landlords and their agents includes a wider range of client groups with a variety of aspirations and support needs. Shared housing may offer new opportunities to these groups. With the new emphasis on neighbourhoods and inclusion, does the shared housing model possess attributes that commend it to communities in new ways, or is it a model of the past? The article offers suggestions to enable shared housing to be evaluated as part of housing associations' business plans while keeping a focus on residents' views, as reflected in 25 case study locations.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how residualisation is experienced across a supported housing provider in an English county. The analysis is in three parts: firstly, it focuses on organisational provision, including impacts of change on decisions on market entry and exit; secondly, it reviews evidence on service provision and the adaptations services are making to reflect the changing pressures of the sector; finally, it considers the impacts on service delivery and the experiences of those that rely on the provision.

The analysis uses interview data across the organisation, together with material from the UK Government department consultation (2017) and a UK Parliamentary Select Committee inquiry (2017) to examine the impacts across the different tiers of service, including the day-to-day experience of residualised services for those that deliver and receive that support.

The paper concludes that residualisation is a direct outcome of the neoliberalisation of welfare states, introducing limits to state involvement and funding, a greater emphasis on quasi-market involvement in the sector and a shifting of responsibility from government to individuals.

It not only demonstrates the impacts of reducing state support on the supported housing sector but also emphasises the importance of residualisation as a conceptual framework applicable to the wider implications of austerity and neoliberal ideology.

This paper demonstrates the way that the burden of responsibility is being shifted away from the public provision of support and onto the individuals. This can be problematic for the individuals who are vulnerable as a result of their economic medical or social circumstances.

The retreat of the state from supported housing is both a political change and an austerity-led change. This article provides insight from a single-supported housing provider. In so doing, it illustrates the pressure such an organisation is under.

This paper provides a unique insight from the perspective of all levels of a supported housing service provider, combined with the analysis of government consultation and parliamentary inquiry.

Housing and support are essential if people misusing drugs and alcohol are to address their substance misuse and their other physical, mental and emotional health needs. If their housing and related support needs are not addressed at each stage of the treatment journey, they are much less likely to enter or remain in treatment. This article outlines the policy context, discusses barriers in service development, explores the role of housing with support for substance users and gives examples of imaginative commissioning and provision. It is based on recent work for the Department of Health Care Services Improvement Partnership.

Recovery for residents who experience co-occurring problems and live in supported housing takes place in everyday contexts. This study aims to explore residents’ self-reported recovery and quality of life and examine the relationships between these factors and issues in supported housing.

A cross-sectional study was conducted at 21 supported housing sites in six cities across Norway. A total of 104 residents (76 men and 28 women) responded to measures of recovery (Recovery Assessment Scale – Revised), life satisfaction (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life), affect (single items), staff support (Brief INSPIRE) and sense of home (single items).

Linear regression analyses indicated associations between recovery and staff support (B = 0.01, 95% CI = 0.01-0.02, ß = 0.39), housing satisfaction (B = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.07-0.22, ß = 0.38), sense of home (B = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.14-0.32, ß = 0.49) and satisfaction with personal economy (B = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.05-0.17, ß = 0.33). Similarly, associations were found between life satisfaction and staff support (B = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.02-0.04, ß = 0.46), housing satisfaction (B = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.46-0.80, ß = 0.60), sense of home (B = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.42-0.87, ß = 0.51) and satisfaction with personal economy (B = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.19-0.50, ß = 0.39).

The findings imply that core issues in supported housing, namely, staff support, housing satisfaction, sense of home and satisfaction with personal economy, are associated with recovery and quality of life.

To reduce rates of homelessness, recent efforts have been directed toward developing non-conditional supported housing programs that prioritize the delivery of housing support and individual services, without tenancy conditions (i.e. maintaining sobriety and adhering to mental health treatment). As promising as these programs are, findings generally show that while housing stability is improved, other individual outcomes remain largely unchanged. No review to date has synthesized the collective evidence base of non-conditional housing programs, rather the focus has been on specific programs of delivery (e.g. Housing First) or on specific population groups (e.g. those with mental illness). The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the extent to which non-conditional housing interventions improve housing and well-being outcomes for all persons.

A systematic search of the literature was conducted for randomized controlled studies that evaluated the effectiveness of a non-conditional housing intervention in improving housing and health outcomes among any participant group.

A total of 31 studies were included in this review. Non-conditional supported housing programs were found to be most effective in improving housing stability as compared to health and well-being outcomes. Policymakers should consider this when developing non-conditional supported housing programs and ensure that housing and other health-related outcomes are also mutually supported.

This is the first review, to the authors’ knowledge, to synthesize the collective impact of all non-conditional supported housing programs. The current findings may inform the (re)design and implementation of supported housing models to prioritize the health and well-being of residents.

This paper considers the funding of supported housing schemes. These are schemes that house vulnerable people with special needs in the community. The paper looks at why the future of these schemes has been threatened by a series of legal decisions interpreting the housing benefit regulations.The paper analyses the relevant regulations and looks at how they apply to supported housing schemes. It then sifts through the details of the case law and concludes by looking at the lessons that may be learned in the future.

Social inclusion means ensuring that all individuals, despite any particular perceived ‘differentness’ (Sayce, 2000; Harrison & Davis, 2001) or disadvantage in life, may nevertheless feel at home in the world and find a sense of belonging in their local community. But the most important place to feel at home is at home.