My impression is that SRO housing was never "constructed" per se. Rather, it was converted from housing for the nineteenth century's middle class that had become unfashionable. What that implies is that, unlike today, there did not have to be political discussion about its emergence. Today, unfortunately, there are few incentives for politicians to advocate for new SRO construction.
I worked for nearly a decade in the state psychiatric hospital system. It is scary to outsiders, but not inhumane and can, if properly funded, deliver reasonably good care. It is, however, labor-intensive: three shifts a day, 365 (or 366) days a year. The cost of that care was why state governments were looking at "deinstitutionalization" even before Thorazine came along. Before the Civil War, the South wanted to keep the federal government small and weak enough to be unable to challenge slavery, so responsibility for asylums was relegated to state governments. This carve-out was reproduced in Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s. This will have to change if treatment of the homeless mentally ill is to succeed.
I will always advocate for Supportive housing instead of psychiatric facilities. Supportive housing is the most effective model for keep mentally ill people housed and accessing the healthcare they need. See the conclusions from multiple peer-reviewed studies: Housing First programs improved housing stability and reduced homelessness more effectively than Treatment First. In addition, Housing First programs showed health benefits and reduced health services use. Healthcare systems that serve homeless patients may promote their health and well-being by linking them with effective housing services. link to this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513528/
Seconding the comments, we definitely need more supportive housing. Our daughter is currently waiting for this. She has developmental issues and uses a wheelchair. I don't want to flat-out declare that nothing is available (Professionals in the field have told us this) but the process is making us increasingly discouraged.
I would think that supportive housing would make economic sense because of the explosive growth in people using home care attendants, including CDPAP. There are many good reasons to have people under one roof.
Yeah, the way my commutes were so long and inefficient was actually one of my top reasons for not returning to the city even after the vaxports were dropped.
A thoughtful essay. Two thoughts in response:
My impression is that SRO housing was never "constructed" per se. Rather, it was converted from housing for the nineteenth century's middle class that had become unfashionable. What that implies is that, unlike today, there did not have to be political discussion about its emergence. Today, unfortunately, there are few incentives for politicians to advocate for new SRO construction.
I worked for nearly a decade in the state psychiatric hospital system. It is scary to outsiders, but not inhumane and can, if properly funded, deliver reasonably good care. It is, however, labor-intensive: three shifts a day, 365 (or 366) days a year. The cost of that care was why state governments were looking at "deinstitutionalization" even before Thorazine came along. Before the Civil War, the South wanted to keep the federal government small and weak enough to be unable to challenge slavery, so responsibility for asylums was relegated to state governments. This carve-out was reproduced in Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s. This will have to change if treatment of the homeless mentally ill is to succeed.
A linkage that is implied but not explicitly stated in the article: Some SROs became more unpopular in part because of deinstitutionalization.
Wait you're not British and you graduated from Stony Brook? (class of '04 here)
Haha why did you think I was British? I'm '11. Did my bids in Roosevelt, Tabler, and West Apartments
You wrote for The Guardian//G Quad and Roosevelt vet here (O'Neill building and Keller respectively)
I will always advocate for Supportive housing instead of psychiatric facilities. Supportive housing is the most effective model for keep mentally ill people housed and accessing the healthcare they need. See the conclusions from multiple peer-reviewed studies: Housing First programs improved housing stability and reduced homelessness more effectively than Treatment First. In addition, Housing First programs showed health benefits and reduced health services use. Healthcare systems that serve homeless patients may promote their health and well-being by linking them with effective housing services. link to this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513528/
Seconding the comments, we definitely need more supportive housing. Our daughter is currently waiting for this. She has developmental issues and uses a wheelchair. I don't want to flat-out declare that nothing is available (Professionals in the field have told us this) but the process is making us increasingly discouraged.
I would think that supportive housing would make economic sense because of the explosive growth in people using home care attendants, including CDPAP. There are many good reasons to have people under one roof.
Excellent!
Yeah, the way my commutes were so long and inefficient was actually one of my top reasons for not returning to the city even after the vaxports were dropped.