Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) measures of community integration for people with disabilities who used to be homeless

Community integration significantly lags behind housing stability success rates for people with disabilities who used to be homeless. One challenge of researching community integration is that it is multi-dimensional and difficult to measure. Specifically, community integration encompasses physical, social, and psychological integration. Measures of community integration often rely on self-report assessments quantifying physical or social participation, but fail to capture the individual’s spatial presence in the community or proximity to resources. While accessibility to resources is an environmental factor that may promote or impede integration, there is limited empirical investigation into the impact of proximity of community features on resource use and integration. This presentation uses an innovative Geographic Information Systems (GIS) approach to measure community integration of adults with disabilities who were previously homeless by assessing how proximity to community features relates to the size of an individual’s “activity space,” or spatial presence in the community.

Questionnaires assessed integration and treatment services used for 37 previously homeless individuals who now had permanent housing in Boston. All participants self-reported a physical or psychiatric disability; 62% reported both. In-person interviews also asked individuals to draw current locations, activities, or resources important to them, which were then plotted on a geographic map using GIS. GIS analysis calculated the area of each individual’s activity space, representing the individual’s general spatial distribution of interactions in the community. GIS also measured the proximity of various community features to one’s home address.

GIS measures of community integration were significantly associated with proximity to community resources and treatment services. Significant relationships were found between activity space size and proximity to the number and type of community features in one’s home area. Larger activity spaces associated with neighborhoods with less community features, and smaller activity spaces corresponded with greater resource availability within one’s immediate area. Activity space size also varied based on proximity to different types of resources, namely transportation and health care. Community integration outcomes did not differ between congregate and independent housing, but using case management and attending group treatment were linked to greater spatial presence in the community and more engagement in activity locations. It is possible these services kept participants connected to the community. Findings suggest ongoing challenges of successful integration may vary not just based on proximity to, but relative importance of, specific community features. Combining traditional survey methods with GIS provides a more comprehensive approach to evaluating community integration with vulnerable populations.