One thought on “Housing for NYC’s Most Vulnerable Under Scrutiny for ‘Screening’

  1. These evaluations were completely controlled by the assessor – contrary to “industry” standards. And, speaking of industry, let’s follow the money here: supported housing means concentrations of diagnostic codes and support services, generally ministered by a single agency, in one place, contrary to the Olmstead decision. Recently a local nursing home was ordered to relocate their long-term residents with severe mentally illness to a community setting. NYS allocated funds – ultimately, an institutional placement was proposed with a small number (fewer than 20%, as I recall) of so-called affordable apartments to induce community acceptance. The agency asserted that the “community integration” meant there would be recreation facilities in the building: no one in the community would ever see the residents; furthermore, all residents would follow strict medication regimes (?!?). Wrong on so many levels. “Housing First” was originally crafted with push-in services for people located IN the community, rather than business opportunities for so-called not for profit operators (what do you think motivates the cherry-picking?) . Let’s not pursue Creedmore-style solutions! A smaller IRA residence allows better support services and better community integration/acceptance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *