COM 0067.004 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Initially, group homes were limited to either mentally ill or intellectually retarded individuals requiring minimal therapeutic intervention. Gradually, this was extended to individuals requiring constant monitoring and other medical/psychiatric services. But, as time went on, other groups found that services were either not available in the community mental health centers or were not covered by vazious third party payers. Such groups included the homeless, individuals afflicted with HN/AIDS, recovering alcohol and drug addicts, newly released felons in half-way houses, as well as others. A philosophy developed that these individuals did not require intense hospital type supervision, but could be helped in "family" type small group living situations. However, they did not fit any recognized category and the sitting of these homes in residential neighborhoods was problematic. Because the original philosophy was to integrate the group home residents into the surrounding community and involve local citizens in the rehabilitative process, the eazly operators (after a period of what Dear called "autonomous" approaches to sitting), engaged in intensive community outreach- often in an attempt to defuse community opposition. Sometimes this worked, but sometimes the opposition was too well organized and intense. At this point, the mutual stereotyping of both the operators and the communities began in earnest bringing in the vazious acronyms that were noted above. Earlier, I alluded to the issues of the funding cycles as a reason why the early philosophy of community involvement was discazded. Governmental and other fenders, who would provide the money under vazious contract and grant arrangements, found that they could not justify paying unless services were actually being delivered to clients. This meant that residents had, in the case of group homes, to be living in the home and receiving documented (and approved) services. Opportunity costs (e.g., community outreach prior to sitting) were not covered since they could not be firmly allocated to particulaz clients. Operators had to demonstrate that they had a suitable site that was up and running before they could even apply for funds. Additionally, the finite funding cycle (often a single fiscal year) meant that funds have to be, at the very least, encumbered within a short period of time after being allocated by the legislatures. Failure to spend might mean a lower allocation in the next funding cycle. This approach virtually guazanteed that opposition to sitting would develop since operators were encouraged to obtain a suitable facility first, then apply for funds, and then move the clients in, all without any necessary involvement of the surrounding neighborhoods. Indeed, various legal authorities advised candidate operators to quickly close on properties before any opposition could develop. Into this situation, stepped the Federal government in the guise of the Fair Housing Acts. The Fair Housing Acts which had originally prohibited housing discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, etc. later expanded the protected classes to include the disabled (including those with various emotional or mental conditions). This was certainly a laudable aim since many of these groups had nowhere to go and were often left to the mercies of houses in unsafe and unstable neighborhoods. Since the acts were originally designed to combat racial and religious prejudice (does anybody remember that many new developments at the end of World Waz II had covenants prohibiting sale to blacks and Jews?), they assumed that neighborhoods would be opposed to locating any member of a protected class in their midst. Therefore, the acts (and the court cases that followed) discouraged pre- sitting outreach. Again, the opposition was demonized and had its motivations attributed to the basest of reasons. Following the guidance outlined above, most prospective operators abandoned any interest in pre- sitting outreach and adopted a tactic called aggressive autonomy. No neighborhood attitudes could be possibly helpful to the clients and therefore they were to be combated with every legal tactic possible, if not simply ignored. Any impediment or restriction deployed by a community was to be fought, politically if possible, legally if not (both approaches aze on display in the proposal before us today). The aim was two fold: beat down the barriers to sitting and collect the prize-the money that was now