Objective-Stable housing is a fundamental human right, and an important element for both mental health recovery and social inclusion among people with serious mental illness. This article reports findings from a study on the recovery orientation of structured congregate community housing services using the Recovery Self-Assessment Questionnaire (RSA) adapted for housing (O'Connell, Tondora, Croog, Evans, & Davidson, 2005).Methods-The RSA questionnaires were administered to 118 residents and housing providers from 112 congregate housing units located in Montreal, Canada.Results-Residents rated their homes as significantly less recovery-oriented than did proprietors, which is contrary to previous studies of clinical services or Assertive Community Treatment where RSA scores for service users were significantly higher than service provider scores. Findings for both groups suggest the need for improvement on 5 of 6 RSA factors. While proprietors favored recovery training and education, and valued resident opinion and experience, vestiges of a traditional medical model governing this housing emerged in other findings, as in agreement between the 2 groups that residents have little choice in case management, or in the belief among proprietors that residents are unable to manage their symptoms. Research on housing for people with SMI increasingly favors independent, supported, housing over traditional congregate models such as foster homes or group homes. While supported housing is considered a fundamental improvement in housing for this population (Nelson, 2010), no single, evidence-based model of housing has emerged to guide research and practice (Rog, 2004;Tabol, Drebing, & Rosenheck, 2010). Studies have revealed substantial differences in staffing, levels of support, and environmental characteristics among different housing types, as well as definitional confusion (Isaac, 2007;Priebe, Saidi, Want, Mangalore, & Knapp, 2009). One meta-analysis suggested the need to examine outcomes in terms of different population subgroups (Leff et al., 2009).
Conclusions and Implications for Practice-ThisResearch on housing preferences consistently shows that people with SMI prefer independent housing with low restrictiveness and supports as needed (Fakhoury, Murray, Shepherd, & Priebe, 2002;Forchuk, Nelson, & Hall, 2006;. Living in one's preferred home predicts successful outcomes and is associated with perceived choice and control over the environment (Boydell, 2006;Nelson, Sylvestre, Aubry, George, & Trainor, 2007). By contrast, service providers tend to endorse structured settings such as group homes for their clients (Corrigan, Mueser, Bond, Drake, & Solomon, 2008;Tsai, Bond, Salyers, Godfrey, & Davis, 2010). Residents in congregate housing may also prefer that model for the security it provides, particularly when age and physical health concerns are taken into account (White, 2013;.Other research has identified key elements in recovery-oriented housing, beginning with the assumption that residents are full citizens wi...