We know there’s a shortage of affordable and supportive housing for people with disabilities. But we wanted to think about it more — why it exists, what we know works, and then how to think about new solutions. Here’s what we learned in recent problem scoping workshops across the Bay Area.

Too many people are unaware of the challenge that people with disabilities face when trying to find housing. For those aware of the disability housing crisis, the resounding response is “we need more housing”. We’re all about more, so we agree with the need for more housing for people with disabilities generally. But, we wanted to dive deeper into this idea of “more housing” and get into the details about the factors driving the shortage of housing, why we need more housing, what’s working or not working right now, and what interventions and resources would be needed to make more possible.

While we’ve studied the issues around disability housing for over three years, we recently brought together diverse teams of stakeholders to help us think them through in more detail.

We convened three teams across the Bay Area — in Silicon Valley, the East Bay, and in San Francisco. Team members included affordable housers, market-rate developers, architects, parents, self-advocates, city and county staff, and disability organizations. After introductions, team members participated in two workshop activities, the results of which are discussed below.

One of the best parts of these workshops is that we were able to get perspectives from both people who are intimately aware of the issue of disability housing (individuals, parents, service organizations) and people who have less experience (developers, designers, housers, community leaders, funders). The combined perspectives were key.

Check out what we did and what we learned!

The first activity centered on creating problem statements to define the disability housing crisis. Participants were given data about the problem and also came with their own experiences around this issue. We worked with participants on delineating between the technical and adaptive elements of the challenge, thinking about both what the problem was and why it existed. Participants had the opportunity to test different problem statements throughout the workshop and in a post-survey. Together our Bay Area teams’ problem scoping work can be summarized with a three-pronged problem definition:

Different participants prioritized these three pieces differently, but we thought each were equally important to address. The issue of access takes the focus on developing units and advocating for funding and resources. Alignment challenges make us want to define stronger strategies for engaging other housers in these efforts and create solutions that better leverage different partners or resources. When we think about issues of awareness, we might look to campaigns that raise the profile of disability housing needs, fight common misconceptions, and or work against more isolating approaches to disability housing.

For the second activity, we asked stakeholders to closely examine six existing housing models and consider the pros and cons of each. These models were based on real-life communities we’ve visited and studied. They ranged from affordable to market rate, rural and suburban, big and small. Some integrated mixed communities, others were 100% for people with disabilities. Our goal was not to pick our favorites, or “best” or “worst” models, but to facilitate holistic and open discussions surrounding topics like affordability, amenities and support, and community. A couple of key themes emerged from this discussion of existing models:

It is often suggested that people with disabilities can be housed with other populations needing supportive housing, such as homeless individuals or seniors. Some team members applauded the mixed population idea, as they believed the opportunity to get roofs over the heads of as many folks as possible was the best solution to the housing crisis in the Bay Area. Others expressed hesitation at the idea of mixing units for people with disabilities alongside formerly homeless individuals, citing safety concerns and differing supportive service needs. The issue of senior and disability also often arises; that mix should be done carefully and with an eye towards the value of a multigenerational community versus recognizing that housing preferences and best- practices may change for people of different ages.

Looking at the six models, we often discussed the question: “Is this model inclusive?” Is a model inclusive if it is disability-specific, but located in a central part of downtown and close to transit and community features? Is a model inclusive if one person with a disability lives in a building where nobody else has a disability? Is a model inclusive if it is disability-specific, but has hired staff without disabilities on-site at all times? The Kelsey defines inclusion as a mixed community that specifically integrates housing for people with disabilities alongside other housing, ideally with supports that help neighbors connect and be included. Participants had diverse definitions but, mostly preferred some level of inclusion.

Many people cited the extreme diversity of support needs within the disability community, and how this diversity means there will never be a one size fits all solution to the disability housing crisis. In particular, parents and self-advocates had strong opinions about what absolutely would and would not work support-wise in a housing model.

The activity revealed that best-practices and appealing housing types are relatively universal. Often the key elements team members noted as positive or negative (affordability, location, amenities, size, etc) were the same factors that should be considered in all housing development. What makes a development “good” or “bad” does not have to be, and perhaps should not disability specific.

We asked team members to fill out a post-workshop survey which helped us finalize the problem statements. Part of the survey also asked team members to rank the most and least important factors to consider when thinking about the disability housing crisis. These elements were a summary of points made during the workshops or the problem statements participants created in small groups.

We were not surprised to find a large focus on lack of supply, funding, and subsidy. We were surprised, however, to find many who thought the least important problem was disability-specific housing models or the isolation of people with disabilities. In follow up conversations with stakeholders, some said this answer was driven by the assumption that inclusive models were a given because of The Kelsey’s emphasis on inclusion. Others said that inclusion was important but not as important as supply generally.

The Kelsey remains committed to integrated, inclusive models. Our belief is that supply and inclusion need not be mutually inclusive. We also believe that an urgent need for a supply today should not lead us to build models that do not adhere to progressive models of inclusion and best-practices of disability supports and services.

The results of these workshops will help us continue our work in the Bay Area around developing inclusive housing and inform the policies and resources we need to advocate for. Having a more specific understanding of the problem makes engaging partners, supporters, and champions more effective.

For these three stakeholder teams, we’re gearing up for the next series of workshops around ‘Aligning Resources’. Stay tuned for more findings.

If you’re interested in diving deeper into the issues of inclusive housing, hosting stakeholder workshops, or working with us on a project please contact us!

We’re committed to open-sourcing new ideas and sharing systems-level 

thinking that can make communities more inclusive. Learn with us.

www.thekelsey.org/learn

We welcome you to reference our work, but please credit us when you do.