Sometimes decisions we make as support providers are so complex and intense, yet we fold them up and toss them in a box- giving far too little thought.
Thinking specifically on how we determine where and with whom people live. When I contemplate the different life experiences that people supported have lived, I think from the two extremes. College of Direct Support has a course on the history of disabilities where it reviews the horrors once lived in an institution, extreme ONE. To an article I read some time back in the Colorado Gazzette about young men living in their own apartment, extreme TWO. So many factors to equate, funding, resources, desires, availability and the list goes on and on.
It is easy to identify how much money to we have, what resources in staff do we have and what type of living quarters are available; but how to you determine someone’s desire?
I am extremely curious on how all you other providers determine who will live where and with whom. Share your all time favorite success story and/or the one story you wish you could re-write for someone.
Cheryl raises an important question around the matters of individual choice and self advocacy in house mate selection. Related to this equation is where the provider is also a landlord. On the positive side providers can sometimes offer much higher quality living arrangements than found in the community; sometimes these are even subsidized to make them more affordable. On the other hand, there is a potential conflict of interest when the provider has an opening and needs to fill it.
We balance this by inviting potential housemates (and guardians) to meet on a number of occasions. They will have dinner or dessert together at the house, have an evening outing etc. In addition to touring the house, meeting each other and generally having fun, they also can talk about personal interests, sharing common goods, etc. Personal choice and self advocacy are valued elements of the decision making process.
We were asked to serve two young males, both with challenging behaviors which put every group living arrangement in jeopardy. After introducing them to each other, they agreed to live together in a two person apartment. Although previously unsuccessful in other 24 hour settings, they are now making great progress and plan to stay together in an hourly apartment setting later this year.
*Bryan Thayer*
This is very challenging! We are experiencing some of this decision making right now. It is difficult to identify a “method” that works. Each situation is as individual as the people involved.
The most critical thing that I’ve learned is to involve the people who know the person best in helping them work through making the decision.
Some of the PCT tools have been extremely helpful in helping to identify the “details” about how a person likes to spend their time. It can help to avoid the “pitfalls” and “conflicts” that arise over what could be categorized as small things. However, it is not a small thing to mess with someone’s morning routine – sorry I simply cannot smell coffee in the morning. It is diffcult at other times too – but if had to live with someone someone that drinks strong coffee in the morning… Let’s just say it won’t be pretty.
Bryan’s point about being landlord is also a big consideration. We are fortunate that many of our supervised settings are owned by local landlords. It does provide a different component to the planning of living arrangements.
In short, our successes are due to the people who know people well being involved. Our not so successful situations have been times when we are rushed into making a decision due to crisis situations. Unfortunately those do occur and we just have to work through them.
Thanks Cheryl for raising this very important and challenging aspect of providing supports.