Fringe or Not Fringe? Strategies for Localizing Supported Accommodation in a Post‐Deinstitutional Era

Abstract

Finding suitable locations for supported accommodations is crucial both for the wellbeing of individuals with psychiatric disabilities (PD) and to achieve the objectives of the mental health care reform in order to create opportunities for social inclusion. This article explores municipal strategies for localizing supported accommodations for people with PD. In a multiple case study, interviews with 20 municipal civil servants from social services and urban planning were conducted. Three strategies were identified and further analyzed with a public location theory approach: (1) re‐use, i.e., using existing facilities for a new purpose, (2) fill‐in, i.e., infilling new purpose‐built facilities in existing neighborhoods, and (3) insert, i.e., inserting new premises or facilities as part of a new development. The article shows that the “re‐use” strategy was employed primarily for pragmatic reasons, but also because re‐using former care facilities was found to cause less conflicts, as residents were supposedly used to neighbors with special needs. When the “fill‐in” and “insert” strategies were employed, new accommodations were more often located on the outskirts of neighborhoods. This was a way to balance potential conflicts between residents in ordinary housing and residents in supported accommodations, but also to meet alleged viewpoints of service users’ need for a quiet and secluded accommodation. Furthermore, ideas associated with social services’ view of social inclusion and urban planning’s notion of “tricky” tenants significantly influenced localization strategies. Finally, this article is also a call for more empirical research on the decision‐making processes, use of strategies (intended or not) and spatial outcomes, when localizing supported accommodation for people with PD and other groups in need of support and service.

The Spaces of Social Services as Social Infrastructure: Insights From a Policy-Innovation Project in Milan

“…According to this theoretical trend, space is co-determined and constantly reshaped by the relationship between human and physical environment and can be interpreted as a sociocultural process (Gagliardi, 1990). In this "relational perspective" (Fjellfeldt et al, 2021) stands the "generative power" (Weick, 1995) of space for organisations, a continuous process of learning by/from doing that simultaneously reshapes spatial features, social interactions, and the meanings and goals of organisations themselves. From this viewpoint, the way spaces are planned, designed, maintained, and practised (Star, 1999) acquires a renewed importance, for the intertwining of spatial features and human behaviours generates a "social surplus" to the functional features of the physical environment (Amin, 2008).…”

A Healthy City for All? Social Services’ Roles in Collaborative Urban Development

“…People with PD, who are experiencing serious and longterm consequences of mental health problems, are an often-neglected group of citizens but who equally need to be given spatial and social opportunities to live healthy lives and, possibly, have opportunities to recover (Fjellfeldt et al, 2021;Friesinger et al, 2019). Historically, mental health care and support provision in the Western context is characterized by treatment, care, and management in particular institutional, spatial arrangements, often characterized by relatively sizable asylums isolated from the rest of the community (Högström, 2012).…”

Health geographies III – Landscapes of care

“…Research on the inter-scalarity of landscapes of care in the context of decentralization and austerity leads to observation of new spatializations and contradictions in urban care and associated planning and decision-making. For example, Swedish researchers have explored how efforts to move psychiatric mental health care away from large institutional buildings to other kinds of care (like community clinics, home-based care, supported living, or financial allowances) are leading to ‘new urban frontiers’ for care, highlighting the often unintended outcomes of decisions and efforts by both planners and service providers (Fjellfeldt et al, 2021; Högström, 2018; Markström et al, 2023). Macpherson et al (2023) similarly highlight the instability and fragmentation of landscapes of care and support for people with learning disabilities in the context of restructuring and austerity England and Scotland.…”