Place and community inclusion: Locational patterns of supportive housing for people with intellectual disability and people with psychiatric disorders.
Use GIS mapping of housing locations to verify whether adults with ID are actually integrated into neighborhoods versus clustered with adults with psychiatric disorders.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Wong et al. (2018) mapped where adults with intellectual disability actually live. They compared census-tract data for people in supportive housing for ID versus housing for psychiatric disorders.
The team used GIS tools to count residents per tract and neighborhood disadvantage scores. No tests or treatments were given; it was a pure location study.
What they found
Adults with ID were spread across more neighborhoods and lived in less poor areas than adults with psychiatric disorders. The ID group also had fewer people per tract, hinting at better scatter.
The data say housing systems still cluster people, but the ID cluster is looser and in richer zip codes than the mental-health cluster.
How this fits with other research
Chaplin (2009) warned that generic psychiatric services fail adults with ID. Irene’s maps now show one reason: the two groups live in different neighborhoods, so shared clinics may be in the wrong spots.
Lokman et al. (2025) zoomed in on one ID housing site and found that safe community outings hinge on warm ties with local police and shop owners. Irene gives the wide-angle view; Suzanne shows the street-level work needed after placement.
Robertson et al. (2014) found annual health checks uncover lots of unmet needs for adults with ID. Pair their finding with Irene’s maps and you see why transport and local provider lists must be written into care plans—clients may live far from specialists.
Why it matters
Before you write another ISP, open a free GIS map. Drop pins on the client’s house, day program, doctor, and bus stop. If the pins form a tight cluster, great. If they sprawl across tracts, add travel training, tele-health, or relocation to the plan. The map takes five minutes and saves months of missed appointments.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Map your adult client’s address and usual community spots; if any essential location is more than 30 min away, add travel or tele-service goals to the ISP.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
PURPOSE: This study examines the locational patterns of publicly-funded supportive housing for people with intellectual disability (people with ID) and people with psychiatric disorders (people with PD). METHODS: Administrative data provided housing locations of 4599 people with ID and people with PD in one urban county and one suburban county in the United States. Census tract data captured neighborhood characteristics. Descriptive statistics and spatial analysis were used to analyze the distribution of supportive housing sites. RESULTS: People with ID were more dispersed across a larger number of census tracts with smaller number of residents per tract than people with PD. While spatial dispersion in favor of people with ID was consistent across both counties, difference in dispersion was more pronounced in the urban county. People with PD were concentrated in neighborhoods with more socio-economic disadvantage, more residential instability, and a higher level of race/ethnic diversity than people with ID. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that spatial-analytic method can serve as a useful tool for assessing the extent to which integrated housing is achieved for people with ID and people with PD. Interpretation of findings should be given due consideration of the policy context and neighborhood characteristics of the study communities.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2018 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2018.08.009