Jay Klein

Debra Nelson

Institute on Disability

University of New Hampshire

In the last decade, homeownership has become a reality for hundreds of people historically excluded from what is perhaps the most sought-after American dream. Over the last decade, through the efforts of many individuals and organizations, a great deal has been learned about overcoming obstacles, capitalizing on opportunities, and navigating the process of purchasing a home. This article discusses the findings of a national survey of 26 homeownership initiatives and of technical assistance activities and outcomes in the 23 states involved in one federally supported initiative, the National Home of Your Own Alliance.

Keywords: Homeownership; National Home of Your Own Alliance; Research

On September 1, 1993, the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) entered into a five-year cooperative agreement with the Institute on Disability at the University of New Hampshire. The purpose of this agreement was to create a national information and technical assistance center on homeownership, control, and personalized support. The purpose of this center, the National Home of Your Own Alliance (Alliance) was to design and implement a set of strategies to increase opportunities for people with developmental and other disabilities to own and control their own homes. When it ended, the Alliance had promoted homeownership nationwide through technical assistance to statewide pilot projects in 23 states.

The Alliance was guided by the belief that people with disabilities are entitled to the same range of choices and opportunities as other citizens. This includes deciding where and with whom to live. These simple choices, taken for granted by many adults, are not typically within the grasp of people with disabilities. The Alliance demonstrated that service funds and disability-related entitlements, if used imaginatively, could support people with disabilities to own their own homes.

National data from the initial years of the Alliance provide compelling evidence of a housing disparity between adults with and without disabilities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 1994-95 SIPP data [5], of the estimated 53.9 million with disabilities, less than half (i.e., 48%) either own or rent their own homes. Instead, they live in someone else's home or in an institutional setting. In comparison, virtually all adults without disabilities either own or rent their own homes.

This disparity becomes even more significant when data concerning adults with developmental and other severe disabilities are considered. Most of these adults receive residential services from and live in institutions, medical or psychiatric facilities, group homes, adult foster care arrangements, or supervised apartments. Of the 394,284 people with developmental disabilities who live in out-of-home placements, only about 45,000 people (8.8 percent) receive supported living services [1]. Even if we assume that all of these individuals hold their own leases and have control over day-to-day aspects of their homes or apartments, the overwhelming majority (91.2%) still live in places that are owned and controlled by someone else. [1].

The 1998 publication "State of the States in Development Disabilities," [1] reports that the number of people living in large institutions decreased by 60% between 1967 and 1996. Despite this decrease, housing options for people with disabilities continue to reflect principles and practices of our institutional past, such as congregate living and externally and professionally controlled houses. Residential services available to people with disabilities in this country do not adequately meet their needs or desires. Often people with disabilities are isolated from their families and communities and deprived of ordinary life experiences. Attention to individual needs, choices, and preferences is compromised for most people with disabilities living in community residences [2].

Prior to 1995, little research existed on the status of homeownership nationwide. Even less data existed on homeowners with disabilities and the programs designed to support them. In 1996, the Alliance partially filled this void by surveying 14 homeownership initiatives in 12 Alliance states throughout the United States [4]. An informative snapshot emerged of early homeownership efforts and the people they served. The survey included 415 people with disabilities who purchased 319 homes between 1991 and 1995, most of which were existing single-family homes. Most home purchasers were in the low- or very low-income range and qualified for low-income housing assistance programs. In fact, 10 of the 14 participating initiatives reported an average annual income of $8,000 or less for home purchasers. Predictably, the annual incomes of home purchasers varied across states and within initiatives, ranging from a low of $5,200 in Arkansas to a high of $29,000 in Massachusetts. The majority of home purchasers had multiple sources of income, including full- or part-time employment, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Medicaid, food stamps, and rent or other contributions from household members. Homeownership initiatives were administered primarily by non-profit agencies or organizations that worked closely with commercial banks and state housing entities. At least half of these initiatives reported that they collaborated with realtors and service organizations specifically serving people with disabilities.

These early efforts demonstrated that homeownership was attainable for 415 people who might never have qualified for mortgages under traditional criteria (i.e., based on annual income and employment and credit history). Instead, these initiatives used flexibility, creativity, and perseverance to identify innovative and successful strategies to overcome these and other common barriers. For example, initiatives overcame prohibitively high housing costs by assisting homeowners in purchasing foreclosed homes, or homes in need of renovation, and by accessing soft second mortgages with flexible conditions such as low interest, no interest, or deferred payments.

As the homeownership movement gained momentum nationwide and some initial barriers began to be addressed, the Alliance recognized the need to conduct a second survey to update the "state of the states" and to ascertain whether the experiences of programs in the 12 states surveyed during the original study were consistent with those of other initiatives and in other states. This article presents the results of this second Alliance survey, conducted in 1998. The findings may be useful to people with disabilities or others with low-incomes who wish to become homeowners, and to family members and service providers who offer assistance with this process. The article may also offer guidance to housing professionals, such as lenders, realtors, builders, and others with an interest in homeownership initiatives.

In the spring of 1998, the authors revised and expanded the survey instrument used in the first study [4]. The revised instrument was mailed to contact persons in two states (i.e., Idaho and Alabama) for review. In response to their feedback, several items on the instrument were revised. The final instrument contained 30 multiple-part questions related to: (1) agency or organizational administration; (2) homeownership initiative characteristics; (3) key partners in the process; (4) home purchasers’ demographics; (5) types of homes purchased; (6) barriers and strategies; (7) programmatic outcomes; and (8) future plans in the area of homeownership and control.

A multi-step process was used to identify homeownership programs for participation in the survey. First, contact persons in the 22 states and the District of Columbia participating in the Alliance were telephoned by Alliance staff, who explained the purpose and methodology of the survey. State contacts that agreed to participate in the survey assumed responsibility for gathering information from programs that were part of their state’s homeownership initiative. Second, an extensive list of leaders of homeownership initiatives in the remaining 28 states and territories was developed. This list was developed from information provided by Alliance staff and through a review of mail and electronic mailing lists. Alliance staff then telephoned these contact persons to request their participation in the study.

Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia agreed to participate in the survey. Nineteen of the states and the District of Columbia were members of the Alliance. Completed surveys were received from: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Washington, DC.

The survey and a letter of explanation were mailed to each contact person. Contact persons collaborated with homeownership programs in their states to complete the surveys. A $100 stipend was paid to each respondent to increase participation and to compensate respondents for their time and effort. Completed surveys were mailed back to the Alliance. Alliance staff reviewed them and, if necessary, telephoned state contacts to obtain missing information and/or to clarify responses.

Homeownership initiatives operated under the auspices of a wide variety of organizations. Half of the 26 respondents reported that their initiatives were administered by non-profit, private organizations. Only one respondent indicated that the initiative was administered by a for-profit, private organization. The remaining respondents reported administration by various public entities, including state agencies, a developmental disabilities planning council, institutions of higher education, an informal interagency coalition implementing the Fannie Mae HomeChoice demonstration, and an independent (tax exempt) state council.

While the majority (n=16) of the responding initiatives served people with developmental disabilities, nearly all identified multiple purposes. These organizations included state social service agencies (n=6), Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) that served people with low-incomes (n=5), housing developers (n=4), and public agencies with model demonstration projects or other advocacy programs (n=3).

The geographic area targeted by initiatives ranged from a single city or town in one instance to an entire state. Seventy-three percent (n=19) of the initiatives served an entire state. Fifteen percent (n=4) served people in multiple counties, 8% (n=2) served a single county, and 4% (n=1) served a single municipality.

Most of the homeownership initiatives reported that they were guided by respect for the individual's right to self-determination, defined as the opportunity for people to make decisions about where and with whom they live, the type of home they prefer, the type of services they receive, and who provides these services. The terms "personal choice," "person-centered," "individual supports," and "personal futures planning" frequently appeared in programmatic literature submitted with surveys. People with disabilities served on advisory boards or steering committees of 92% (n=24) initiatives.

Homeownership initiatives had been operating for various lengths of time, ranging from less than a year to eight years. Seventy-three percent (n=19) had been operating for between two and four years. Three initiatives had been providing services for between five and eight years. Nearly all of the initiatives (96%) planned to continue to offer services indefinitely.

Most initiatives had four common features: (1) they relied heavily on collaboration with critical partners; (2) they worked diligently to arrange necessary financing for homeowners; (3) they used a team approach; and (4) they promoted education for homebuyers and key partners. A brief description of the ways initiatives incorporated each of these key features follows.

Respondents identified collaboration with key partners as one of the most critical variables related to the success of their homeownership initiatives. All respondents indicated that they relied heavily on partnerships with key collaborators. All but one initiative reported they established partnerships with people with disabilities. Ninety-two percent (n=24) reported partnerships with realtors and lenders (e.g., state housing finance authorities, mortgage corporations, and commercial banks); 88% (n=23) with state agencies and developmental disabilities planning councils; 85% (n=22) with housing organizations; 77% (n=20) with families, neighbors, and independent living centers; 73% (n=19) with developmental services agencies and University Affiliated Programs (UAPs); 58% (n= 15) with protection and advocacy organizations; 39% (n=10) with neighborhood, family, volunteer, or community service organizations; and 15% (n=4) social justice organizations.

Responding initiatives also identified the roles assumed by key collaborators. People with disabilities participated in policy decisions for many initiatives, serving on steering or advisory committees. They also assisted with marketing, engaged in advocacy activities, and conducted presentations on homeownership. Families, neighbors, and independent living centers supported homeownership participants in several ways. For example, they provided natural supports, offered financial assistance, helped with home maintenance, acted as trustees, made applicant referrals to initiatives, and served on policy and planning committees. Lenders played a number of roles that included originating mortgages and providing assistance with down payments and closing costs, renovations and, in some cases, program administration. Realtors worked with home seekers to locate their homes, collaborated with program staff in conducting workshops and training sessions on homeownership, assisted with marketing and home inspections, and served on advisory committees.

State agencies and developmental disabilities planning councils provided information on existing resources and model demonstrations, technical assistance, marketing/public awareness, applicant referrals, and in some cases, financial support for down payment and/or closing costs. Housing organizations and builders provided information on existing resources, such as mortgage programs, homeownership counseling and classes, and education on home maintenance. They also assisted initiatives with home accessibility issues. One state collaborated with two outside organizations that worked specifically on non-profit home building and renovation projects in certain neighborhoods.

Developmental disabilities service agencies and UAPs provided many in-kind services and contributions. They conducted outreach activities, technical assistance and training on homeownership issues and public benefits, and offered guidance, support, advocacy and community-based programs for homeowners. Specific UAP contributions included national information sharing, grant writing to support the initiatives, and homeownership program sponsorship.

Protection and advocacy organizations provided assistance with legal information and fair housing enforcement, and served on advisory boards. Community service organizations provided community supports in several ways. For example, neighborhood organizations helped with home modifications, information and referral, and marketing. Family organizations helped initiatives to locate natural supports and services and to advertise, and served on participant planning teams. Volunteer organizations assisted with pre- and post-homebuyer education, repairs and maintenance, and in other needed areas. Social justice organizations provided a variety of services including: legal assistance, pro bono lawyers, advocacy initiatives, and advertising and/or marketing.

The second common feature of responding initiatives was their creativity in arranging financing for homeowners. Many initiatives blended funds from a variety of sources such as state housing finance authorities, private lenders, and the borrowers themselves. By promoting change in the housing and lending industries, many initiatives succeeded in easing some of the barriers that prevent people with disabilities from becoming homeowners. For example, with support from the various initiatives, many lenders were willing to rewrite their underwriting criteria, offer below market mortgage rates, offer second mortgages, and accept alternative sources of income and credit history in lieu of traditional requirements.

A third common feature of responding initiatives was their use of a team approach. Many initiatives used a team of individuals (including the potential homebuyer) to generate an individualized plan for the home buying process that best fit the person’s needs and preferences. The goal of these teams was to provide support, planning, and financial assistance throughout the home buying process. Initiatives frequently used person-centered teams to identify and coordinate needed supports. Teams also engaged in a variety of activities specific to home purchasing, including the planning process, the application process, arranging down payment and closing costs, budget development, establishing credit worthiness, and viewing homes. Team members also offered pre- and post-purchase counseling and accompanied potential homebuyers to appointments with attorneys, bankers, realtors, architects, credit counselors, and other engagements.

According to survey respondents, teams were firmly committed to a goal of self-determination and control for individuals with disabilities. For example, Pennsylvania encouraged people with disabilities to follow the same procedures as any other homebuyer, noting, "We are always there to support the participant if there is a need, but we want the person to do as much as possible on their own." However, half of the initiatives also used guardianships and trusts, wherein people other than the person with a disability had primary control over homeownership decisions.

The fourth and final common feature of initiatives was their commitment to education for both homebuyers and key partners. Eighty-one percent (n=21) indicated that they featured homebuyer education classes. Two initiatives also undertook the education of housing professionals (e.g., housing counselors, lenders, realtors, non-profit developers) to enhance their ability to support people with disabilities to purchase homes by offering educational opportunities such as workshops, classes and meetings.

A variety of full- and/or part-time administrators and direct service providers staffed initiatives. Only one initiative had a full-time (i.e., defined as working 35 or more hours per week) administrator for its initiative. Sixty-two percent (n=16) of initiatives had one or two part-time administrators (i.e., defined as working less than 35 hours per week), while 35% (n=9) of initiatives had no administrator. Half (n=13) the initiatives reported employing at least one full-time staff person working directly with participants. In addition, direct service providers were employed part-time by 42% (n=11) of the initiatives. Thirty-one percent (n=8) employed one part-time staff while 11% (n=3) employed 3-4 part-time staff members.

External funding for administration was obtained from one or more sources for all but one initiative that responded to the survey. That initiative reported that their informal, interagency coalition had no real funds to operate their homeownership initiative, but did so with "in-kind" services of part-time staff members dedicated to helping participants through the home buying process. Seventy-three percent (n=19) of responding initiatives said they received funds from developmental disabilities planning councils, 31% (n=8) were supported, at least in part, by federal grants, and 46% (n=12) received funds from state agency grants. Forty-two percent (n=11) of the organizations primarily used their own funds to cover the operational and administrative costs associated with their initiatives. The total administrative cost per year of operation, including staffing, ranged from $0 to $345,000.

At the time of the survey, 481 people had become homeowners (i.e., actually closed on a home) through initiative activities. Of that number, 37% (n=180) purchased (i.e., closed) their homes during the 12 months prior to the survey. The types of homes purchased included: varied from single-family homes (76%), condominiums (15%), co-ops (4%), mobile homes (3%) and duplexes (2%). Most of the homes purchased were existing homes, but 20% were newly constructed homes.

The mean length of time it took people to become homeowners varied across initiatives from 1 or 2 months to a full year. Forty-six percent (n=12) of the initiatives indicated that it took about 6-12 months to complete the process.

The homeownership process began with a series of recruitment and selection activities that included screening according to criteria established by initiatives. The section that follows describes how people were recruited and selected to participate in initiatives. This section also offers a brief description of the homebuyers themselves, including average age, income, and where and with whom they lived before buying a home.

A variety of methods were used by initiatives to identify and recruit potential homebuyers. Direct referral was reported by 81% (n=21) of the initiatives. Other sources of referrals reported by initiatives included: conferences (n=19), distribution of brochures (n=19), newspaper ads or other media (n=15), and personal interviews (n=14). A few initiatives also reported that they recruited via "word of mouth," outreach to other agency staff, newsletters, walk-ins, independent living centers, and previous participants.

Once potential buyers were identified, participants were selected according to established criteria. A common criterion for most initiatives was the person’s desire to own a home. Over three-quarters of the initiatives required that participants have a disability. About a third of these initiatives specified that the disability must be developmental. A few initiatives selected families of children with disabilities. Other frequently identified requirements included: meeting guidelines for income and debt or expense ratio 62% (n=16); meeting guidelines for low-income assistance 50% (n=13); having a good credit history 50% (n=13); having personal assistance in place 50% (n=13); and/or having stable employment 23% (n=6). Several initiatives listed additional criteria for participants including: ability to contribute one percent of the sales price to the purchase; adequate health care coverage; desire to live within a certain area; ability to contribute a minimum of $250; must be a first time homebuyer; must buy existing housing; and/or must purchase housing within a geographic area stipulated by the initiative.

Homebuyers ranged in age from 18 years to 70 years. However, the majority of participants were between 30 and 45 years of age. Information on the prior residences of homebuyers was available for only 58% (n=280) of the participants. Prior to buying houses, over half of these individuals 56% (n=156) lived in their own apartments, 52% (n=145) of which were located within apartment complexes, and 4% (n=11) of which were located in residences. Fourteen percent (n=40) of the people rented single-family homes. Thirteen percent (n=37) of participants lived in congregate community residences, such as group homes or intermediate care facilities (ICFs-MR). Of the remaining homebuyers, 2.5% (n=7) had lived in nursing homes, 1.8% (n=5) in duplexes, and 1.4% (n=4) in institutions. Of the remaining 12%, two individuals were homeless or living in city-owned emergency housing and 29 individuals were living in other situations, such as boarding homes, their families’ homes, or with friends.

Information on the living arrangements immediately prior to moving into their homes was available for 43% (n=207) of homebuyers. Participants who lived in the community prior to buying their homes experienced a variety of arrangements. Twenty-nine percent (n=59) of the participants lived with a spouse or significant other, while 26% (n=54) of the participants lived alone and 15% (n=32) lived with one or more friends. Twenty-three percent (n=47) of the participants lived with family members. Of these, 21 were single parents living with their children.

Information on personal assistance needs was reported for 203 people. At the time of closing, 37% (n=75) of these homebuyers needed no personal assistance. Of the remaining 128 homeowners who did receive personal assistance 29% (n=60) received personal assistance 13 or more hours per day; 19% (n=38) received personal assistance 1-4 hours per day; and 15% (n=30) received personal assistance 5-12 hours per day, as shown in Table 1.

Personal income of home purchasers came from a variety of sources. Most had multiple sources of income and qualified for low-income assistance. Sources of income frequently included full- or part-time employment, federal or state program assistance, and rent or other income contributions from household members or family. For this study, "full- time employment" was defined as 35 or more hours per week, while "part- time" was considered less than 35 hours per week. Fifteen percent (n=81) of the homeownership participants worked full-time, while nearly 20% (n=108) were employed part-time. Federal or state program (e.g., SSI, SSDI, food stamps) were the only source of income for 44% (n=237) homebuyers. Eighteen percent (n=97) received income from a spouse, significant other, family member, or roommate(s). A few participants received income from less common sources such as a county board "cost of living contribution," an intermediate bond fund monthly dividend, child support, workmen’s compensation, and educational assistance (e.g., for a mother finishing courses for a degree).

As reported in Table 2, the average annual income for home purchasers ranged from a low of $5,496 for participants in the Missouri initiative to a high of $40,572 for New Mexico initiative participants. The overall average annual income for all participants in initiatives that provided income level data was $16,299.

*Reported only one income

According to the Alliance mission statement, one important criterion for homeownership and control for people with disabilities concerns the actual name on the deed. When people with disabilities are sole owners or joint owners by choice with a spouse, family member or friend, and their names appear on the deed, the home truly belongs to them. In this survey, two-thirds of the homeowners were sole owners or deed/mortgage holders, and one quarter were joint owners with a spouse or significant other. The remainder owned their homes jointly with a roommate with a disability, a family member, or someone else.

Notably, home purchasers have shown a great deal of responsibility in paying for their homes. Survey respondents reported that there had been no foreclosures or refinancing of homes since their initiatives began operating. In only three instances did initiatives report that participants were delinquent with their payments: one for 30 days and two for 60 days.

Given the potential benefits of the homeownership initiatives, it was not surprising that 42% (n=11) of initiatives had waiting lists. Ohio and West Virginia had the fewest number of people waiting to participate (n=3), while Massachusetts had a waiting list of 250 people. States dealt with waiting lists in various ways. Some operated on a first-come, first-serve basis or gave priority for those "most in need" or "most able to afford." Others began the initial steps of the process prior to fully enrolling people or ranked the applications and then committed funding when the person found a house.

As anticipated, initiatives encountered a number of challenges as they attempted to support people with disabilities through the homeownership process. These barriers and challenges were remarkably similar to those in previous studies [3,4] and to one another, despite geographic and other differences among initiatives. The nine most commonly cited barriers were: (1) high cost of or lack of affordable housing; (2) obtaining mortgages/lending criteria; (3) funding for down payments, closing costs, and renovations; (4) credit (lack of history; poor history); (5) buyers’ income (low or no income, nontraditional sources, disincentives to save due to public benefit restrictions); (6) maintenance and repair costs; (7) attitudes/lack of awareness among lenders, buyers, providers, family members, and community members; (8) support services; and (9) legal issues (e.g., competency questions, guardians). Table 4 provides an overview of barriers experienced by some of the initiatives and examples of successful approaches used to overcome these challenges.

This article presented a snapshot of 26 homeownership initiatives that assisted people with disabilities to own homes in 25 states and the District of Columbia between 1996-1998. In a previous study [4], 14 programs reported that a total of 415 people were able to purchase homes between 1991 and 1995. It should be noted that some of these programs did not participate in this study. If they had, the total number of homes purchased would have been much higher. For instance, the Atlantis homeownership program in Colorado reported 250 home closings within a two-year period in the first study. Colorado was not a participant in this study. Furthermore, the number of home purchases supported by several initiatives was affected by the length of time programs had been operating. Some were so new that no closings had yet occurred.

Through various approaches, and with a variety of goals in mind, these initiatives and the people they assisted wrestled with numerous financial and attitudinal barriers to achieve the ultimate American dream: owning a home of their own, for 481 people with disabilities. Much has been learned from the successes and failures of these efforts, including strategies to convince reluctant lenders, creative ways to address financial challenges, the importance of collaborating with key partners, and the importance of adhering to a set of principles or values in which people with disabilities are the owners of their homes and the controllers of their personal assistance services. What began as experimental or model demonstration efforts in the early 1990's have now become standard procedure in many places. All 26 initiatives were able to sustain their homeownership activities beyond the start-up/demonstration year(s).

In spite of the work of the 26 state initiatives that participated in this study, four disturbing facts remain:

1. The majority of individuals with disabilities in the United States who receive residential services still reside in places that are owned and controlled by others.
2. These services often isolate people from their families and communities, deprive them of ordinary life experiences and choices, and ignore individual needs and preferences in favor of administrative convenience [2].
3. Few people with disabilities living outside their families' homes receive supported community living services [1].
4. Although people with significant disabilities were among the homeowners, they clearly represented a small minority of the homebuyers in this study.

The initiatives participating in this study provided an opportunity to understand more about the impact of homeownership on the lives of people with disabilities, the systems that provide personal assistance, and the collaboration that is critical for success. These various state coalitions have created opportunities to overcome challenges to homeownership faced by people with disabilities. The collaboration between the public and private sectors (e.g., social services, lending and housing industries) has led to the commitment of millions of dollars toward homeownership initiatives across the country. In addition, Fannie Mae, the world's largest secondary mortgage corporation, has developed HomeChoice, the first national mortgage product tailored exclusively to the needs of borrowers with disabilities. HomeChoice is being piloted in 20 states and the District of Columbia. This 50-million dollar experiment on underwriting single-family houses is designed to accommodate the mortgage underwriting needs of individuals with disabilities and families who have a member with a disability. HomeChoice's underwriting criteria use flexibility never before seen in the lending industry. If the product is successful, it is highly probable that Fannie Mae will extend this flexibility to other consumer groups and individuals.

While this study is useful for generating hypotheses about home purchase processes, larger and more controlled studies must be conducted to verify these concepts. A comprehensive and integrated set of research studies to examine affordable housing and homeownership for individuals with severe disabilities is needed. Further research is needed to identify the variables predictive of successful affordable housing and homeownership. In addition, the processes involved in overcoming barriers to affordable housing and homeownership, and the effects of affordable housing and homeownership on the quality of life of persons with disabilities must be investigated.

In conclusion, review of the data obtained in this study suggests a number of pressing issues remain to be addressed. The following recommendations are offered:

1. Additional research to document the process and benefits of affordable housing and homeownership. More qualitative and quantitative research is needed to examine the process for, benefits of, and barriers to homeownership and affordable housing for people with disabilities. Research is required to assist policy makers, service providers, people with disabilities, housing professionals, lenders, and the public to make decisions regarding homeownership for people with disabilities.
2. Involvement of people with disabilities in leadership positions in housing related fields. Despite accomplishments over the last six years, few people with significant support needs are included in making decisions and setting policy on affordable housing and housing finance on federal, state, and local levels. In addition, there is a substantive need for broader representation, participation, and leadership of people with disabilities from diverse backgrounds.
3. Collaboration and information sharing. Currently, there is no national network of individuals and organizations to specifically address the homeownership and affordable housing issues of people with disabilities. National, state, and local organizations that address issues related to affordable housing, asset accumulation, and housing finance for individuals with low-income typically assist specific target groups of people. Frequently, these organizations do not collaborate or share information with organizations outside of their targeted group. Although much of the work of these organizations could benefit all people with low-incomes, including people with disabilities, most organizations lack this expanded perspective. There is a tremendous need for a national network of individuals working on housing issues. This network must include national, state, and local organizations and individuals with disabilities to address the above named issues.
4. Information, training, and technical assistance. People with disabilities, family members, policy makers, service providers, and representatives from the private sector (e.g., lenders, realtors, and private mortgage insurers) need information, training, and technical assistance to promote homeownership and affordable housing for all citizens. In particular, skills and knowledge must be enhanced in the two areas. First, assisting individuals who have very low-incomes to purchase their homes. Second, designing flexible supports and services that are matched to the needs of each individual. That is, "a la carte" as opposed to "package deals" that force people to live in a certain building in order to receive a particular kind of assistance.
5. Federal, state, and local policies that support affordable housing and homeownership, rather than congregate housing models. Currently, policies at the federal, state, and local levels promote and support congregate housing such as institutions, ICF-MRs, and group homes. Restrictions on Medicaid Waivers, Section 8 vouchers, asset accumulation and federal housing programs make it difficult to utilize these sources for homeownership and affordable housing. There is a tremendous need to change national and state housing policies so that they facilitate rather than hinder opportunities for homeownership and affordable housing for people with disabilities.

One potential vehicle to address the unmet needs related to homeownership and control for people with disabilities would be a national center on housing and economic development. Such a center could be established using public and private funds from among the critical homeownership partners. A national center would ensure that the efforts of the 1990's reported in this article are continued in the new century, enabling thousands more people to join the ranks of American homeowners.