I Have My Own Lease-So Why the Service Plan Again? Perspectives on Service Planning in Supportive Housing

Mimi Choy-Brown, Emily K. Hamovitch, Carolina Cuervo, Victoria Stanhope

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    Abstract

    Objective: This study aimed to understand multiple stakeholder perspectives implementing a recoveryoriented approach to service planning in supportive housing programs serving people with lived experience of mental illnesses. Method: Multiple stakeholders (N = 57) were recruited to participate in focus groups (N = 8), including 4 with tenants, 2 with service coordinators, 1 with supervisors, and 1 with leadership. Supportive housing programs were purposively sampled from a recovery-oriented organization serving 1,500 people annually. Stakeholders' experiences with service planning and implementing a recovery-oriented approach to service planning were explored. The authors conducted inductive thematic analyses combined with a conceptual matrix, which yielded themes across and within multiple stakeholder focus groups. Results: Three themes emerged: (a) an institutional reminder-service planning experiences elicited negative emotions and served to remind people of experiences in institutional settings, (b) one-size-fits-all service planning-stakeholders perceived the use of quality assurance tools within the planning process as rigid to others' interests beyond their own, and (c) rules and regulations-reconciling funder requirements (e.g., completion dates) while also tailoring services to tenants' particular situations challenged providers. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: Even in a recovery-oriented organization, findings suggest that service planning in supportive housing has limitations in responding to each tenant's iterative recovery process. Further, in this context where people can make their home, stakeholders questioned whether the very presence of ongoing service planning activities is problematic. However, tenant-service coordinator relationships predicated on mutual respect and esteem overcame some service planning limitations.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)313-320
    Number of pages8
    JournalPsychiatric Rehabilitation Journal
    Volume39
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Dec 1 2016

    Fingerprint

    Focus Groups
    Organizations
    Emotions

    Keywords

    • Recovery-oriented practice
    • service planning
    • supportive housing

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Health Professions (miscellaneous)
    • Rehabilitation
    • Psychiatry and Mental health

    Cite this

    I Have My Own Lease-So Why the Service Plan Again? Perspectives on Service Planning in Supportive Housing. / Choy-Brown, Mimi; Hamovitch, Emily K.; Cuervo, Carolina; Stanhope, Victoria.

    In: Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, Vol. 39, No. 4, 01.12.2016, p. 313-320.

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    Choy-Brown, Mimi ; Hamovitch, Emily K. ; Cuervo, Carolina ; Stanhope, Victoria. / I Have My Own Lease-So Why the Service Plan Again? Perspectives on Service Planning in Supportive Housing. In: Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal. 2016 ; Vol. 39, No. 4. pp. 313-320.
    @article{62f6baae3299445790b37428ea04c19e,
    title = "I Have My Own Lease-So Why the Service Plan Again? Perspectives on Service Planning in Supportive Housing",
    abstract = "Objective: This study aimed to understand multiple stakeholder perspectives implementing a recoveryoriented approach to service planning in supportive housing programs serving people with lived experience of mental illnesses. Method: Multiple stakeholders (N = 57) were recruited to participate in focus groups (N = 8), including 4 with tenants, 2 with service coordinators, 1 with supervisors, and 1 with leadership. Supportive housing programs were purposively sampled from a recovery-oriented organization serving 1,500 people annually. Stakeholders' experiences with service planning and implementing a recovery-oriented approach to service planning were explored. The authors conducted inductive thematic analyses combined with a conceptual matrix, which yielded themes across and within multiple stakeholder focus groups. Results: Three themes emerged: (a) an institutional reminder-service planning experiences elicited negative emotions and served to remind people of experiences in institutional settings, (b) one-size-fits-all service planning-stakeholders perceived the use of quality assurance tools within the planning process as rigid to others' interests beyond their own, and (c) rules and regulations-reconciling funder requirements (e.g., completion dates) while also tailoring services to tenants' particular situations challenged providers. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: Even in a recovery-oriented organization, findings suggest that service planning in supportive housing has limitations in responding to each tenant's iterative recovery process. Further, in this context where people can make their home, stakeholders questioned whether the very presence of ongoing service planning activities is problematic. However, tenant-service coordinator relationships predicated on mutual respect and esteem overcame some service planning limitations.",
    keywords = "Recovery-oriented practice, service planning, supportive housing",
    author = "Mimi Choy-Brown and Hamovitch, {Emily K.} and Carolina Cuervo and Victoria Stanhope",
    year = "2016",
    month = "12",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1037/prj0000202",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "39",
    pages = "313--320",
    journal = "Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal",
    issn = "1095-158X",
    publisher = "Boston University",
    number = "4",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - I Have My Own Lease-So Why the Service Plan Again? Perspectives on Service Planning in Supportive Housing

    AU - Choy-Brown, Mimi

    AU - Hamovitch, Emily K.

    AU - Cuervo, Carolina

    AU - Stanhope, Victoria

    PY - 2016/12/1

    Y1 - 2016/12/1

    N2 - Objective: This study aimed to understand multiple stakeholder perspectives implementing a recoveryoriented approach to service planning in supportive housing programs serving people with lived experience of mental illnesses. Method: Multiple stakeholders (N = 57) were recruited to participate in focus groups (N = 8), including 4 with tenants, 2 with service coordinators, 1 with supervisors, and 1 with leadership. Supportive housing programs were purposively sampled from a recovery-oriented organization serving 1,500 people annually. Stakeholders' experiences with service planning and implementing a recovery-oriented approach to service planning were explored. The authors conducted inductive thematic analyses combined with a conceptual matrix, which yielded themes across and within multiple stakeholder focus groups. Results: Three themes emerged: (a) an institutional reminder-service planning experiences elicited negative emotions and served to remind people of experiences in institutional settings, (b) one-size-fits-all service planning-stakeholders perceived the use of quality assurance tools within the planning process as rigid to others' interests beyond their own, and (c) rules and regulations-reconciling funder requirements (e.g., completion dates) while also tailoring services to tenants' particular situations challenged providers. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: Even in a recovery-oriented organization, findings suggest that service planning in supportive housing has limitations in responding to each tenant's iterative recovery process. Further, in this context where people can make their home, stakeholders questioned whether the very presence of ongoing service planning activities is problematic. However, tenant-service coordinator relationships predicated on mutual respect and esteem overcame some service planning limitations.

    AB - Objective: This study aimed to understand multiple stakeholder perspectives implementing a recoveryoriented approach to service planning in supportive housing programs serving people with lived experience of mental illnesses. Method: Multiple stakeholders (N = 57) were recruited to participate in focus groups (N = 8), including 4 with tenants, 2 with service coordinators, 1 with supervisors, and 1 with leadership. Supportive housing programs were purposively sampled from a recovery-oriented organization serving 1,500 people annually. Stakeholders' experiences with service planning and implementing a recovery-oriented approach to service planning were explored. The authors conducted inductive thematic analyses combined with a conceptual matrix, which yielded themes across and within multiple stakeholder focus groups. Results: Three themes emerged: (a) an institutional reminder-service planning experiences elicited negative emotions and served to remind people of experiences in institutional settings, (b) one-size-fits-all service planning-stakeholders perceived the use of quality assurance tools within the planning process as rigid to others' interests beyond their own, and (c) rules and regulations-reconciling funder requirements (e.g., completion dates) while also tailoring services to tenants' particular situations challenged providers. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: Even in a recovery-oriented organization, findings suggest that service planning in supportive housing has limitations in responding to each tenant's iterative recovery process. Further, in this context where people can make their home, stakeholders questioned whether the very presence of ongoing service planning activities is problematic. However, tenant-service coordinator relationships predicated on mutual respect and esteem overcame some service planning limitations.

    KW - Recovery-oriented practice

    KW - service planning

    KW - supportive housing

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988864900&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988864900&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1037/prj0000202

    DO - 10.1037/prj0000202

    M3 - Review article

    VL - 39

    SP - 313

    EP - 320

    JO - Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal

    JF - Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal

    SN - 1095-158X

    IS - 4

    ER -