1. Introduction

Background of the Study

For decades, the global approach toward persons with disabilities and the elderly was characterized by protective isolation. Vulnerable populations were often relegated to large-scale residential institutions under the guise of specialized care and safety. However, this model frequently resulted in the systemic stripping of individual agency and spatial segregation of marginalized groups from the rest of society.

In the 21st century, a profound paradigm shift has emerged, moving away from institutionalization toward ‘independent living’ and ‘community-based inclusion.’ This transition is not merely a change in the physical location of care; it represents a fundamental recognition of the right to autonomy. In this context, housing is redefined – not as a passive site of clinical supervision, but as a vital platform for social, economic, and political participation.

Research Objectives

The primary objective of this study is to examine how the right to housing choice serves as a core indicator of social justice and substantive equality. While many nations have adopted policies for de-institutionalization, a significant ‘fair housing gap’ remains. Many individuals transitioning out of institutions find themselves limited by a lack of accessible housing or the absence of integrated support services, effectively resulting in trans-institutionalization rather than true independence.

By utilizing the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – specifically SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities) – this paper aims to analyze the legal and systemic barriers that prevent housing the vulnerables from exercising their right to self-determination. The study will argue that fair housing must encompass the affirmative duty of the government to provide integrated environments where individuals can choose where, how, and with whom they live.

Methodology

This research employs a qualitative comparative methodology to evaluate international norms and case studies against the domestic administrative framework of South Korea. Taking national legislation, policy roadmaps, and international guidelines as the units of analysis, the study moves beyond a simple descriptive comparison to analyze how different legal and financial systems facilitate the right to housing choice and de-institutionalization.

The United States and the European Union were selected as primary comparative subjects due to their distinct yet complementary approaches to social inclusion. The United States was chosen specifically due to its extensive history with exclusionary zoning regulations and discriminatory practices like redlining, which were historically utilized as tools for institutionalized segregation. However, the U.S. now provides a vital model of how a judicial integration mandate, catalyzed by the Fair Housing Act and the landmark Olmstead v. L.C. decision, can be used to affirmatively dismantle these structures by defining unjustified institutionalization as a form of illegal discrimination.

In contrast, the European Union offers a comprehensive policy-driven framework centered on strategic funding and the availability of integrated community-based services rather than purely judicial intervention. The EU serves as a benchmark for its use of financial conditionality, specifically prohibiting the use of structural and investment funds for the construction or renovation of residential institutions while mandating their use for community-based living projects. By analyzing these cases, the research follows a systematic procedure beginning with a normative review of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) and the SDGs to establish a global standard for autonomy. This is followed by a comparative case analysis of the transition from Treatment First to Housing First paradigms.

Finally, a gap analysis is conducted to identify discrepancies between these international benchmarks and the South Korean National Roadmap for De-institutionalization, ultimately proposing the Korean Integration policy model. The research acknowledges certain methodological limitations, primarily its reliance on macro-level policy documents and official reports, which may not fully capture the subjective lived experiences of individuals transitioning out of care. In this context, the proposed model functions as a governance framework that organizes policy instruments under a rights-based mandate, with an emphasis on institutional design rather than causal explanation. Furthermore, the study recognizes the challenges of legal transplanting, noting that differences in housing market structures and administrative traditions between Western nations and South Korea require a cautious, context-sensitive approach to ensure institutional compatibility.

2. Conceptual and Normative Frameworks

The Evolution of Fair Housing

The history of fair housing in the United States is a narrative of transition – moving from a state-sponsored system of racial segregation to a modern framework that seeks to affirmatively dismantle those very structures. This evolution is characterized by three distinct phases: the era of institutionalized segregation, the landmark legislative breakthrough of 1968, and the subsequent expansion toward a proactive integration mandate.

Throughout the early 20th century, the U.S. government played an active role in enforcing racial homogeneity in residential neighborhoods. The Wagner-Steagall Housing Act of 1937 established the public housing system but frequently reinforced patterns of concentrated poverty and segregation by locating developments solely in marginalized areas (HUD exchange). Concurrently, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) utilized ‘Redlining’ – a discriminatory practice that systematically denied mortgages to residents in minority neighborhoods, labelling them as ‘hazardous’ for investment. These policies, coupled with racially restrictive covenants in property deeds, effectively barred non-White citizens from the suburban wealth-building boom following World War II (Academy Bank, 2024).

The tide began to turn with the Civil Rights Act of 1968, specifically Title VIII, commonly known as Fair Housing Act. Its passage was catalyzed by two major events: the release of the Kerner Commission Reports, which warned that the nation was moving toward two societies, one black, one white – separate and unequal, and the tragic assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr (walawlibrary, 2024).

Signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson just seven days after King’s death, the 1968 Act initially prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Crucially, it did not merely forbid private discrimination; it introduced the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) mandate, requiring the government to take proactive steps to reverse segregation (HUD Archives, 2022).

The scope of fair housing protection grew as society recognized additional forms of exclusion. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 added sex as a protected class, addressing barriers faced by women in the credit and rental marks (Haas, 2024). The Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) of 1988 was the most significant structural change, adding disability and familial status to the protected list. It also granted HUD significant enforcement powers, such as the ability to bring cases before Administrative Law Judges, which transformed FHA from a symbolic gesture into a powerful regulatory tool (Shcill & Friedman, 1999).

In recent years, the evolution of fair housing has centered on the integration mandate. Landmark rulings such as Olmstead v. L.C. of 1999 interpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) alongside the FHA to establish that unjustified institutionalization is a form of discrimination, reinforcing the right to live in the ‘most integrated setting (PRRAC, 2020).’

Today, this evolution aligns with SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), which emphasizes inclusive urbanization. Modern fair housing practice has shifted from a passive ‘right to be left alone’ to an active right to housing choice, ensuring that all individuals – regardless of disability, age, or background – have equal access to ‘areas of opportunity’ that provide better health, education, and economic outcomes (Habitat for Humanity, 2021).

This shift from a passive right to an active choice can be theoretically grounded in the Capabilities Approach. According to this framework, true freedom is not merely the absence of coercion but the presence of combined capabilities—the union of an individual’s internal abilities and the political, social, and economic environment that allows those abilities to be exercised (Lee, 2023). In the context of disability, housing functions as a critical external condition that transforms potential into actual functioning. Therefore, the right to housing choice is not just a secondary welfare benefit; it is a fundamental entitlement that ensures the substantive freedom necessary for individuals to lead a life they have reason to value.

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The CRPD, adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2006 and entered into force on May 3, 2008, represents a historic milestone as the first comprehensive human rights treaty of the 21st century. Its significance was immediate; upon opening for signature in 2007, it garnered the highest number of opening-day signatories in the history of UN conventions. Furthermore, its rapid negotiation – concluded in just four years – reflects a global urgency to address the long-standing systemic exclusion of individuals and disabilities.

The primary contribution of the CRPD is its fundamental redefinition of disability. It marks a decisive transition from a ‘medical and charity model’ to a ‘human rights-based model.’ For decades, persons with disabilities were viewed as passive objects requiring medical treatment, social protection, and charitable pity. The CRPD replaces this paternalistic view, recognizing them instead as subjects of rights. This shift empowers individuals as active agents of their own lives, capable of making free and informed decisions and participating as integral members of the community.

The CRPD serves as a dual-purpose instrument, blending traditional human rights with a social development dimension. It adopts an inclusive categorization of disability, reaffirming that all individuals – regardless of the type of impairment – must enjoy universal fundamental freedoms. Rather than creating new rights, the convention clarifies how existing rights apply specifically to the lived experiences of persons with disabilities. Crucially, it identifies where society must provide adaptations to ensure these rights can be effectively exercised, while mandating reinforced protection in areas where rights have been historically violated (UN DESA, 2006).

Building upon this transformative subject-based approach, Article 19 of the convention specifically translates these principles into a concrete right to live independently and be included in the community, directly challenging the legacy of institutional segregation. The CRPD Article 19 states:

States Parties to the present Convention recognize the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others, and shall take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the community, including by ensuring that:

a) Persons with disabilities have the opportunity to choose their place of residence and where and with whom they live on equal basis with others and are not obliged to live in a particular living arrangement;

b) Persons with disabilities have access to a range of in-home, residential and other community support services, including personal assistance necessary to support living and inclusion in the community, and to prevent isolation or segregation from the community;

c) Community services and facilities for the general population are available on an equal basis to persons with disabilities and are responsive to their needs.

Article 19 is widely regarded by scholars as one of the most intersectional and transformative provisions of the treaty, as it defines independent living not as the ability to perform daily tasks alone, but as the exercise of freedom of choice and control over one’s own life (Quinn & Degener, 2002).

Sub-clause (a) of Article 19 is designed to end forced placement in institutions. Individuals must have the opportunity to choose their place of residence and with whom they live on an equal basis with others. Sub-clause (b) recognizes that housing alone is insufficient, the convention requires access to a range of community support services, including personal assistance. This facilitates social inclusions and prevents the trans-institutionalization that often occurs when individuals are moved from large wars to small-scale group homes that still maintain institutional characteristics. Sub-clause (c) ensures public services and facilities – from transportation to healthcare – must be responsive to the needs of persons with disabilities, and that they are not hidden or isolated within the community.

In 2007, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities issued General Comment No.5, which remains the most authoritative interpretation of Article 19 (CRPD, 2017). The committee emphasizes that de-institutionalization requires more than just the closure of buildings; it necessitates a structural reform of social care systems. It explicitly links Article 19 to the broader 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, specifically SDG 10.2 (promoting social and political inclusion) and SDG 11.1 (ensuring access to safe and affordable housing).

From the perspective of Fair Housing, Article 19 transforms the right to a house into the right to an integrated life. It aligns with the ‘Integration Mandate” found in progressive domestic laws, arguing that segregation, whether in a hospital or a segregated housing complex, is a form of discrimination (Quinn & Degener, 2002). By mandating that support services must be decoupled from housing, Article 19 ensures that a person’s need for assistance does not cost them their right to choose where they call home.

The SDG Nexus

The principles of fair housing – non-discrimination, spatial integration, and equal opportunity – are inherently woven into the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. By aligning fair housing with the SDGs, the right to a home is elevated from a domestic legal issue to a global mandate for human dignity. This nexus ensures that housing policy is viewed not merely as a matter of infrastructure, but as a primary tool for leaving no one behind.

1) SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

Fair housing is fundamentally a mechanism for achieving SDG 10, particularly target 10.2, which aims to empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of disability or status. In the context of disability rights, inequality is often spatial. When persons with disabilities are confined to institutions or segregated housing complexes, they are denied the social inclusion promised by SDG 10.

Achieving SDG 10 requires the affirmative dismantling of segregated living patterns. Fair Housing provides the legal framework to ensure that vulnerable populations are not just housed, but are included in the economic and social fabric of society. True equality is impossible as long as certain groups are geographically isolated from the rest of the community (UN, 2015).

2) SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

SDG 11 represents the most direct link to housing policy, specifically target 11.1, which calls for ‘universal access to adequate, safe, and affordable housing and basic services.’ Fair housing discourse expands the definition of adequacy in SDG 11 to include accessibility and integration.

For a city to be truly sustainable and inclusive under SDG 11, housing must be located in areas of opportunity – neighborhoods with access to transport, employment, and healthcare. Fair housing laws ensure that the location of housing does not become a new form of inequality. A city cannot be considered sustainable if its housing stock is physically inaccessible to the elderly or if its zoning laws effectively exclude persons with disabilities from certain neighborhoods (Habitat for Humanity, 2021).

3) SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions)

SDG 16 focuses on effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions and equal access to justice for all. The justice aspect of SDG 16 is crucial for the enforcement of the right to self-determination.

De-institutionalization is a direct application of SDG 16. Strong, just institutions are those that protect an individual’s right to make informed decisions about their own lives. Protecting the right to self-determination means that housing authorities and social care systems must be held accountable when they make residential decisions for individuals instead of with them. When fair housing laws are enforced by inclusive institutions, they protect the legal agency of the most vulnerable citizens (Tars, 2021).

Capabilities Approach

The realization of the right to independent living requires a shift from viewing housing as a mere resource to understanding it as a constituent of a combined capability. According to the capability approach, fundamental rights are not fully realized until an individual possesses both internal abilities and the external political, social, and economic environment necessary to exercise them (Lee, 2023). Institutionalization represents a structural failure of this environment, as it isolates the individual from the conditions required to transform their innate potential into lived experience. Therefore, the state’s duty to ensure independent living is not just a negative duty of non-interference but a positive obligation to provide the material substrate—specifically stable housing—that allows these combined capabilities to mature.

3. Global Policy Landscapes: Comparative Case Studies

The United States

The case of Olmstead v. L.C. (527 U.S. 581) originated with two women, Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson, who were institutionalized in a Georgia state psychiatric hospital. Despite clinical assessments from state professionals confirming they were capable and ready to live in community-based settings, they remained confined in the institution for years due to a lack of available community ‘slots’ and funding. They sued the state under Title II of the ADA, alleging that their unnecessary segregation constituted a form of discrimination.

In a transformative opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court held that the "unjustified institutional isolation of people with disabilities is a form of discrimination" prohibited by the ADA (Justial, 1999). The Court’s reasoning rested on two critical social judgments: first, the perpetuation of stigma and second, diminishment of life quality. The former is about institutional placement of those who can benefit from community life reinforces the unwarranted assumption that such persons are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life. The latter says that confinement severely restricts "everyday life activities," including social contacts, work options, and family relations, which are essential for economic independence and cultural enrichment (Law.Cornell.Edu, 2001).

The Court established a specific legal standard to determine when a state must provide community-based services. States are required to transfer individuals to integrated settings when the following three conditions are met (OlmsteadRights, 2015). For the professional recommendation, the State’s own treatment professionals determine that community placement is appropriate for the individual. Also, the affected individual does not oppose moving from institutional care to a less restrictive setting. Last but not least, there should be reasonable accommodation, taking into account the state’s available resources and the needs of others with similar disabilities. The court recognized a ‘fundamental alteration’ defense, allowing states to resist immediate placement if it would inequitably deplete the mental health budget to the detriment of others.

The Olmstead decision is often described as the ‘Brown v. Board of Education’ for people with disabilities because it established the integration mandate – the requirement that services be provided in the ‘most integrated setting appropriate (Harvard Law Review, 2025).

In the decades following the ruling, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has aggressively enforced Olmstead, requiring states to develop Olmstead Plans with concrete benchmarks for de-institutionalization (American Bar Association, 2025). However, implementation remains uneven. Recent scholarship highlights that the fair housing gap persists, as waiting lists for home- and community-based services (HCBS) remain long, and emerging crises like homelessness disproportionately affect individuals with disabilities, often leading to new forms of trans-institutionalization through the criminal justice system.

The European Union

While the United States relies heavily on judicial intervention to enforce disability rights, the European Union (EU) has developed a comprehensive policy-driven framework for de-institutionalization. This approach is rooted in the European Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030 and is legally underpinned by the EU’s ratification of the UN CRPD as a regional organization.

The EU’s commitment to de-institutionalization is centered on the principle that all persons with disabilities have the right to live independently and participate in their communities. The European Strategy emphasizes that independent living is not about self-reliance, but about having the same degree of self-determination and control over one's life as anyone else (European Commission, 2021).

Unlike the U.S. integration mandate, which focuses on the illegality of segregation, the EU framework focuses on the availability of community-based services. The Strategy mandates that member states must shift their social care budgets away from maintaining buildings toward funding Personal Assistance (PA) and individualized support (European Commission, 2021).

A landmark development in this framework was the publication of the UN Guidelines on Deinstitutionalization, including in Emergencies (2022), which the EU has adopted as a technical benchmark. These guidelines provide a road map for states to dismantle institutional systems. Key pillars include the prohibition of new institutions, individualized funding, and the right to redress. States are instructed to stop investing in new residential facilities, regardless of size, as even small group homes can maintain institutional cultures (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2022). The EU promotes a shift toward money following the person, where funding is given directly to the individual to hire their own support staff, rather than being paid to an institution (European Network on Independent Living (ENIL), 2022). The guidelines emphasize that survivors of institutionalization have a right to reparations and support for their transition back into society (Inclusion Europe, 2023).

One of the most powerful tools in the EU’s arsenal is its financial conditionality. The EU prohibits the use of EU Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) for the construction or renovation of long-stay residential institutions. Instead, these funds must be used for community-based living projects, such as accessible social housing and community health centers. This provides a direct financial incentive for member states – particularly in Central and Eastern Europe – to overhaul their legacy social care systems.

Despite these robust guidelines, the EU faces significant challenges. Advocacy groups such as ENIL point out that many member states continue to use EU funds for "mini-institutions"—group homes that house 6 to 12 people but still restrict residents' freedom of choice regarding food, schedules, and visitors (ENIL, 2022). This phenomenon of hidden institutionalization remains a primary hurdle in achieving the full spirit of fair housing within the European context.

Key Takeaways

The analytical synthesis of the United States’ judicial approach and the European Union’s strategic framework reveals a fundamental administrative evolution: the transition from the traditional treatment first model to the housing first paradigm. From the perspective of fair housing, this transition represents the structural decoupling of an individual’s right to a home from their compliance with social or medical services. Historically, social care systems operated on a linear or staircase model, which functioned under the paternalistic assumption that individuals must prove their housing readiness before being granted permanent residence (OECD, 2020).

The fundamental flaw of the linear treatment first model lies in its systematic erosion of individual agency. From a capabilities perspective, a human being is an active subject capable of setting goals and making choices, rather than a passive object of clinical care (Lee, 2023). By conditioning housing on medical compliance, the linear model treats residents as immature entities whose agency is suspended until they reach arbitrary clinical benchmarks. This administrative trap fails to recognize that agency is not a fixed trait but a dynamic capacity developed through the very act of making choices in a stable environment. Consequently, the Housing First approach is not merely an efficiency-driven policy; it is a necessary restoration of the individual as a self-determining agent.

In this archaic framework, persons with disabilities were required to achieve specific clinical benchmarks, such as sobriety or psychiatric stabilization, within the confines of an institution. This created an administrative trap where the most vulnerable populations remained indefinitely segregated because they could not meet the very benchmarks that the stability of a home is designed to facilitate (Tsemberis, 2010). By making housing conditional upon medical compliance, the linear model effectively violates the Liberty of Choice enshrined in UN CRPD Article 19 and contradicts the core non-discrimination principles of Fair Housing.

In contrast, the housing first model operates on the inverse logic that permanent housing is a fundamental human right and a necessary prerequisite for any successful social or medical intervention (National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH), 2022). The primary fair housing breakthrough of this model is the legal separation of tenancy from treatment. Under this framework, an individual enters into a standard lease agreement, thereby gaining the full legal rights and responsibilities of any other tenant in the community. While intensive support services, such as case management and healthcare, are offered proactively, the individual retains the right to refuse these services without the threat of eviction or loss of their home. This decoupled structure ensures that a person's need for assistance does not cost them their right to choose where they call home, thereby fulfilling the Integration Mandate by promoting scattered-site housing throughout regular residential neighborhoods.

The administrative significance of the housing first model for fair housing and the SDGs cannot be overstated. By removing the readiness test, the model shifts administrative resources from the surveillance and evaluation of the individual to the modification of the environment through the provision of personal assistance and physical adaptations. This shift aligns closely with SDG 11 by creating more sustainable and cost-effective urban social systems, as evidence consistently demonstrates that providing permanent housing first is far more efficient than the "revolving door" of emergency rooms, shelters, and long-term institutions (NAEH, 2022).

Furthermore, by empowering individuals as tenants and citizens rather than patients or inmates, the model protects the right to self-determination emphasized in SDG 16 and reinforced through the disability rights framework of the CRPD. This paradigm provides a vital benchmark for evaluating contemporary social policies, raising the critical question of whether emerging national roadmaps genuinely prioritize individual autonomy or continue to reproduce institutional control under new nomenclature.

From a rights-based policy perspective, the central requirement of CRPD Article 19 is not the provision of housing per se, but the institutional guarantee of choice. Alternative autonomy-respecting models may preserve individual agency in principle; however, many continue to condition access to housing on compliance, readiness, or professional assessment. From a capability-oriented understanding of autonomy, such conditionality undermines substantive choice by withholding the stable material conditions necessary for exercising agency. Because treatment administered in the absence of housing stability paralyzes individual autonomy, the Housing First paradigm must be recognized as an indispensable 'material substrate' for the substantive realization of rights. Housing First therefore emerges not merely as a normatively preferable option, but as an institutionally necessary design to operationalize the right to choice under conditions of administrative discretion and resource constraint.

4. Analysis of the South Korean Context

Legislative Framework

The formal administrative commitment to de-institutionalization in South Korea was established with the announcement of the National Roadmap for De-institutionalization and Community Support in 2021. This transition is governed by a hierarchical structure of administrative laws that increasingly incorporate the language of rights and social inclusion.

The Framework Act on Residence serves as the constitutional foundation for housing policy, explicitly stating in Article 2 that all citizens possess the right to a decent residential life in a stable dwelling environment protected against physical or social danger (Framework Act on Residence). For vulnerable populations, this right is further specialized under the Act on the Support for Housing Disadvantaged Persons, Including Persons with Disabilities and Aged. This statute creates a mandatory obligation for the state to provide housing tailored to the safety and convenience of these populations, establishing the legal basis for physical adaptations and preferential supply in public housing programs.

The administrative delivery of welfare services for those transitioning from institutions is primarily rooted in the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities. Article 9 of this Act holds the state and local governments responsible for supporting the self-reliance of persons with disabilities, which serves as the statutory hook for de-institutionalization funding and personal assistance programs (Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities). Furthermore, the Act on Guarantee of Rights and Support for People with Development Disabilities represents a significant normative advancement in South Korean law. This Act explicitly recognizes the right of individuals with developmental disabilities to independently determine their dwelling, directly echoing the autonomy principles of UN CRPD Article 19 and SDG 16.

Despite these legislative pillars, the Korean administrative framework faces challenges regarding the enforceability of housing as a substantive right. The Act on Sup[ort for Homeless Persons and Persons at Risk of Homelessness, while providing a basis for housing-led interventions, often employs discretionary language – using terms like ‘may provide’ – which can lead to administrative blind spots where the state’s responsibility is not strictly mandated.

Moreover, the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities and Remedy against Infringement of Their Rights provides a mechanism for legal redress, yet it has not been fully utilized to challenge the systemic segregation inherent in large-scale residential facilities. Consequently, the current legislative framework provides a robust foundation for community living, but its effectiveness depends on shifting from a discretionary welfare model to a rights-based administrative mandate that views institutionalization itself as a violation of the national residential standard.

Implementing Models

The practical implementation of de-institutionalization in South Korea is best exemplified by the Supportive Housing model. Pioneered by the Seoul Metropolitan Government, this model represents the most advanced domestic application of the housing first principle. Unlike traditional residential facilities or group homes, Supportive Housing provides permanent public rental housing where the resident holds a legal lease, effectively decoupling the right to housing from the requirement for clinical treatment (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2020).

A critical component of this model is the strict adherence to physical accessibility standards, which ensures that the right to a home is not undermined by environmental barriers. Administratively, these standards are governed by the Act on the Support for Housing Disadvantaged Persons, Including Persons with Disabilities and the Aged. Article 9 of this Act mandates the installation of specific convenience facilities in housing units intended for disadvantaged populations to ensure safety and mobility (Act on the Support for Housing Disadvantaged Persons, Including Persons with Disabilities and the Aged).

In practice, the accessibility of Supportive Housing units is achieved through universal design principles and tailored modifications.

A barrier-free living environment should be met. Units are designed to eliminate height differences and ensure wide doorways and corridors that accommodate wheelchair movement. According to the Enforcement Decree of the Act, public rental housing must meet specific standards, such as entrance ramps with a slope of 1/18 or less and non-slip flooring materials in bathrooms and kitchens.

The facilities of the housing should be tailored safely. Key modifications include the installation of emergency call buttons, height-adjustable sinks, and grab bars in bathrooms. Furthermore, smart home technologies – such as audible alarms and emergency exit lighting – are increasingly integrated to protect residents during disasters (Ministry of Health and Welfare, 2021).

Also, for individuals living in existing community housing, Article of the Act on Housing Disadvantaged Persons allows the state to provide loans from Housing and Urban Fund to cover remodeling costs, ensuring that even private residences can meet accessibility benchmarks.

Despite these technical standards, a significant challenge remains in the geographic accessibility of these units. While the units themselves may be barrier-free, they are often located in areas with poor access to public transportation or essential community services. From a fair housing perspective, true accessibility must encompass the entire living environment, ensuring that the resident is not house-bound due to external barriers in the surrounding neighborhood. Achieving the goals of SDG 11 therefore requires not only the construction of barrier-free units but also the integration of these units into well-connected, inclusive urban neighborhoods.

Critical Barriers

The synthesis of international legal benchmarks and South Korea’s domestic landscape reveals a significant discrepancy in the normative and administrative enforcement of the right to community living. In the United States, the transformative power of the Olmstead v. L.C. decision lies in its classification of unjustified institutional isolation as a form of discrimination, which created a mandatory, enforceable obligation for states to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate (Justial, 1999).

This judicial standard essentially converted the concept of community integration from a discretionary social service into a protected civil right, allowing individuals to seek legal remedy when their autonomy is restricted. In contrast, while the South Korean legislative framework – including the Framework Act on Residence and the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities – formally recognizes the importance of independent living, it currently lacks a corresponding judicial mandate that defines institutionalization itself as an act of discrimination. This leads to an administrative environment where community placement is frequently treated as a discretionary welfare benefit, a distinction that fundamentally undermines the efficacy of the 2021 National Roadmap for De-institutionalization.

The UN CRPD, in its 2022 review of the Republic of Korea, echoed these concerns by highlighting the persistent reliance on segregated living arrangements and the insufficiency of individualized support services. The Committee’s observations underscore that de-institutionalization under Article 19 must go beyond the physical closure of large-scale facilities and address the structural readiness barriers that prevent individuals from accessing community housing (CRPD, 2022). For South Korea to bridge this gap, the administrative language of its statutes must transition from the current discretionary terminology to a mandatory framework. This would ensure that the state's role is not merely to provide charity but to fulfill an affirmative legal obligation to protect the self-determination and housing choice of all citizens, regardless of the severity of their disability (Tars, E.S., 2021).

The integration of global housing first principles suggests that the South Korean model must more aggressively decouple the right to a residence from the provision of welfare services. While the pilot programs for Supportive Housing in Seoul have demonstrated the feasibility of this approach, the national rollout is hindered by the lack of a unified funding structure where the money follows the person rather than the institution (Tsemberis, S., 2010). Without such structural reform, the administrative system remains vulnerable to NIMBY phenomenon and geographic marginalization, as local governments may prioritize avoiding social conflict over fulfilling the individual's right to integrated community life. Ultimately, the successful realization of fair housing in South Korea requires a shift in the administrative paradigm, recognizing that true social inclusion under SDG 10 and SDG 11 is achieved only when an individual’s legal agency and physical location are no longer conditioned upon their perceived readiness for society.

5. Synthesis and Discussion

The Synthesis of Global Norms and the Korean Integration Policy Model

The synthesis of the global normative framework with the South Korean administrative landscape reveals a profound discrepancy in how the right to community living is legally conceptualized and enforced. At the international level, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), particularly Article 19, establishes a rights-based model where the autonomy and self-determination of the individual are paramount. This global standard, interpreted through General Comment Number 5, defines independent living not as a clinical milestone to be achieved, but as an inherent right to exercise freedom of choice and control over one’s own life (CRPD, 2017). Within this framework, any form of institutionalization is viewed as a systemic failure to provide the necessary community-based adaptations and support services required for full social inclusion. This normative ideal is further reinforced by the SDGs, where SDG 10 and SDG 11 frame the dismantling of spatial segregation as a prerequisite for reducing inequalities and building inclusive, sustainable cities (UN, 2015).

In contrast, the South Korean domestic framework, while increasingly adopting the language of international standards, remains administratively anchored in a welfare-based model that prioritizes institutional stability and clinical assessment over individual choice. Although statutes such as the Framework Act on Residence and the Act on the Support for Housing Disadvantaged Persons provide a legal basis for housing support, they primarily function as discretionary welfare provisions rather than enforceable civil rights. Unlike the United States, where the Olmstead v. L.C. decision utilized the Americans with Disabilities Act to mandate community-based services as a remedy against discrimination (Justia, 1999), South Korean administrative law often treats community placement as a benefit provided based on available resources and perceived readiness. This administrative discretion creates a significant normative gap, as the state effectively retains the power to determine the appropriateness of a living arrangement, thereby contradicting the CRPD’s mandate that individuals should not be obliged to live in any particular setting.

To bridge this discrepancy, this study proposes the Korean Integration Policy model, which theorizes de-institutionalization as a mandatory rights-resource nexus. This model offers an original theoretical contribution by synthesizing the judicial mandatory integration established in the United States with the strategic financial flexibility of the European Union’s individualized funding models (European Commission, 2021). Under this framework, housing is redefined as an enforceable civil right that is structurally supported by a systemic redirection of budgets from institutions to the individual. By establishing this nexus, the South Korean administrative paradigm can undergo a fundamental shift from viewing de-institutionalization as a policy of facility transformation to a mandate of rights fulfillment. This ensures that the state’s role is not merely to provide charity but to fulfill an affirmative legal obligation to protect the self-determination and housing choice of all citizens, moving the domestic discourse closer to the global standard of housing as an absolute right rather than a conditional reward for rehabilitation.

The necessity of the Housing First paradigm is further reinforced by the principle of human diversity. Traditional institutional models rely on abstract and averaged standards of care that ignore the unique conversion factors—the personal, social, and environmental variations—that determine how an individual transforms resources into well-being. Since no single institutional setting can accommodate the diverse lived experiences and spatial needs of all persons with disabilities, the state must prioritize scattered-site housing that allows for individualized adaptations (Lee, 2023). By decoupling housing from a one-size-fits-all service mandate, the Korean Integration policy model ensures that the right-resource nexus is sensitive to the specific contexts of individuals' lives, fulfilling the CRPD’s mandate of authentic social inclusion.

Supportive Housing as a Housing First Mechanism

The practical implementation of this paradigm is best exemplified by the Supportive Housing model, pioneered by the Seoul Metropolitan Government, which represents the most advanced domestic application of the housing first principle (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2020). This approach operates on the inverse logic that permanent, stable housing is a fundamental human right and a necessary prerequisite for any successful social or medical intervention (NAEH, 2022). Unlike traditional residential facilities or group homes, Supportive Housing provides permanent public rental housing where the resident holds a legal lease, effectively decoupling the right to housing from the requirement for clinical treatment. By making housing unconditional upon medical compliance, the model addresses the administrative significance of empowering individuals as tenants and citizens rather than patients or inmates.

A core mechanism of this model is the structural decoupling of tenancy and treatment, which ensures that an individual enters into a standard lease agreement and gains the full legal rights and responsibilities of any other tenant in the community. While intensive support services such as case management and healthcare are offered proactively, the individual retains the right to refuse these services without the threat of eviction or loss of their home. This decoupled structure ensures that a person’s need for assistance does not cost them their right to choose where they call home, thereby fulfilling the integration mandate by promoting scattered-site housing throughout regular residential neighborhoods (Tsemberis, 2010).

Furthermore, the model shifts administrative resources from the surveillance and evaluation of the individual to the modification of the environment through the provision of personal assistance and physical adaptations. By removing the readiness test, the Supportive Housing model addresses the administrative trap where the most vulnerable populations remain indefinitely segregated because they cannot meet the very benchmarks that the stability of a home is designed to facilitate. This creates more sustainable and cost-effective urban social systems, as evidence consistently demonstrates that providing permanent housing first is far more efficient than the revolving door of emergency rooms, shelters, and long-term institutions (OECD, 2020). The physical accessibility of these units, governed by the Act on the Support for Housing Disadvantaged Persons, ensures that barrier-free living environments are met through universal design principles and tailored modifications, such as grab bars and audible alarms (Ministry of Health and Welfare, 2021).

To evolve the current supportive housing policy into a national standard, the administrative framework must ensure that the provision of a home is legally independent of an individual’s participation in clinical services. This necessitates a redirection of policy toward a system where everyone can decide for themselves how they live and make use of community resources (Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, 2019). By institutionalizing this model, South Korea can bridge the gap between abstract legislative pillars and the enforceability of housing as a substantive right. This paradigm shift provides a vital benchmark for evaluating contemporary social policies, raising the critical question of whether emerging roadmaps truly prioritize the autonomy of the individual or continue to maintain institutional control.

The Fairness Gap and Spatial Justice

Despite the progress of pilot programs, the realization of fair housing in South Korea faces a significant fairness gap characterized by the discrepancy between abstract legal rights and the actual availability of substantive residential choices. This gap is most evident in the phenomenon of spatial stratification, where supportive housing and community facilities are often concentrated in specific urban sub-markets or tucked away in the outskirts of population centers to minimize social conflict (Han, 2022). From the perspective of fair housing, this results in a form of geographic marginalization that isolates persons with disabilities from areas of opportunity, such as employment hubs and robust transportation networks. While the 2021 National Roadmap aims to transition over 30,000 individuals into the community, the lack of a diverse and decentralized housing supply remains a primary hurdle (Global Online Information System for Disability, 2022).

The social dimension of this fairness gap is further exacerbated by the NIMBY phenomenon, which functions as a powerful informal barrier to community integration. Research indicates that the siting of special schools or public housing for disadvantaged groups frequently triggers intense opposition from local residents, often driven by perceived harms to property values or neighborhood safety (Park & Kim, 2025). This social exclusion creates a two-tiered housing market where persons with disabilities are funneled into segregated enclaves or small-scale facilities that, while technically located in the community, maintain institutional characteristics and restrict authentic social interaction. For women and elderly residents of public housing, the erosion of community bonds directly correlates with decreased acceptance of inclusive neighborhood planning (Park & Kim, 2025).

To mitigate these barriers and achieve spatial justice, the K-Integration model promotes the use of scattered-site housing as a social de-sensitizer. By integrating barrier-free units into diverse, mainstream public rental housing stocks, the state can normalize community living and reduce the visibility of facilities that often trigger social stigma. This geographic invisibility ensures that de-institutionalization is not merely a physical relocation but an authentic inclusion into the economic and social fabric of society. Achieving the goals of SDG 11 therefore requires not only the construction of barrier-free units but also the integration of these units into well-connected, inclusive urban neighborhoods (Habitat for Humanity, 2021).

Furthermore, the administrative system must address the historical critical fairness gap between resources allocated to institutional care versus community-based support. Historically, the South Korean social care system has expanded institutions while many Western nations moved toward de-institutionalization, leading to an institutionalized society where agency is systematically stripped from the individual. Achieving housing fairness requires a redirection of policy toward a system that decouples support services from housing and ensures that everyone can decide for themselves how they live. True accessibility must encompass the entire living environment, ensuring that the resident is not house-bound due to external barriers in the surrounding neighborhood.

Strategic Policy Roadmap for the 2026 Reform

The anticipated 2026 expansion of the Individual Budget System provides a critical window for this systemic reform in South Korea (The Asia Business Daily, 2026). To ensure this reform leads to genuine rights fulfillment, it must be coupled with the formal adoption of an integration mandate within South Korean administrative law, similar to the judicial standard established in the United States (Justia, 1999). This would require amending the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities or enacting the proposed De-institutionalization Support Act to replace discretionary terminology with mandatory language. By shifting from provisions stating the government may provide support to a requirement that the government shall provide services in the most integrated setting, the state creates an enforceable administrative obligation (Tars, 2021).

In conjunction with legal reform, implementing a money-follows-the-person financial model through the 2026 individual budget system will break the structural dependence on large-scale facilities. Instead of allocating block grants to institutions, the administrative system should empower individuals with personalized budgets that they can use to procure housing and support services in the community (European Network on Independent Living, 2022). This decoupling of funding from the facility is essential for achieving the decoupling of housing from treatment. By allowing residents to choose their own personal assistance and housing providers, the state fosters a competitive market for community-based services that are responsive to the unique needs of the individual, rather than the operational needs of the institution.

The systemic implementation of the housing first model should be prioritized to overcome the administrative readiness barriers and social NIMBY phenomenon. The central government should expand the Seoul-style Supportive Housing model into a national standard, ensuring that individuals are provided with permanent, scattered-site housing as the first step of their transition (OECD, 2020). To mitigate local opposition, the administrative process must incorporate inclusive urban planning that avoids the concentration of disability housing in specific neighborhoods. This legal shift would allow individuals to challenge unnecessary institutionalization as a violation of their residential rights, thereby providing the judicial teeth necessary to realize the goals of self-determination regarding SDG 16.

Ultimately, the successful realization of fair housing in South Korea requires a fundamental shift in the administrative paradigm, recognizing that true social inclusion under the SDGs is achieved only when an individual’s legal agency and physical location are no longer conditioned upon their perceived readiness for society. The integration of global housing first principles suggests that the model must more aggressively decouple the right to a residence from the provision of welfare services. Without such structural reform, the administrative system remains vulnerable to geographic marginalization, as local governments may prioritize avoiding social conflict over fulfilling individual rights. By synthesizing judicial, financial, and spatial strategies, the K-Integration model provides a robust roadmap for fulfilling international obligations and protecting the self-determination of all citizens.

6. Conclusion

Summary

This research has examined the evolution of fair housing through the lens of de-institutionalization, comparing the global normative framework with the administrative realities of South Korea. The study established that international standards, specifically UN CRPD Article 19 and SDGs 10, 11, and 16, have shifted the global paradigm from a medical model of "care" to a human rights-based model of autonomy. Through the analysis of the United States’ judicial approach in Olmstead v. L.C. and the European Union’s strategic funding guidelines, it was demonstrated that successful de-institutionalization requires a mandatory integration mandate and the structural decoupling of housing from welfare services. The housing first paradigm emerged as the most effective administrative framework for realizing these goals, as it prioritizes immediate community integration and preserves the individual’s legal agency as a tenant rather than a patient.

In the South Korean context, while the 2021 National Roadmap and the existing legislative framework – including the Framework Act on Residence and the Act on Rights of People with Developmental Disabilities – provide a necessary foundation, significant gaps remain. The research identified a fairness gap rooted in the discretionary nature of Korean administrative law, where community living is often treated as a welfare benefit rather than an enforceable right. Furthermore, social barriers such as the NIMBY phenomenon and the lack of a decentralized, scattered-site housing supply continue to result in spatial stratification and geographic marginalization. Ultimately, the study suggests that for South Korea to fulfill its international obligations and achieve true social inclusion, it must transition to a mandatory rights-based system supported by individualized funding models like the personal budget system.

Suggestion

Future scholarly inquiry should move beyond macro-level policy analysis to conduct empirical, longitudinal studies on the socio-economic impacts of the 2026 Individual Budget System expansion. Specifically, research is needed to provide a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of supportive housing versus institutional care in the Korean context, while also developing innovative urban planning models to mitigate NIMBYism and foster genuine community acceptance.

References

• Academy Bank. (2024). The history of fair housing in the United States.
• Act on the Support for Housing Disadvantaged Persons, Including Persons with Disabilities and the Aged.
• Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities.
• American Bar Association. (2025). The Olmstead decision at 25: Federal enforcement of the integration mandate.
• Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2017). General comment No. 5 on the right to live independently and be included in the community (UN Doc. CRPD/C/GC/5).
• Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2022). Concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of the Republic of Korea (CRPD/C/KOR/CO/2-3).
• European Commission. (2021). Union of equality: Strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities 2021-2030.
• European Network on Independent Living. (2022). The right to independent living: EU policy and implementation.
• Framework Act on Residence.
• Global Online Information System for Disability. (2022). Disability and deinstitutionalization: Why must the disabled be locked up in institutions?.
• Haas, M. (2024). Fair Housing Act. EBSCO. Research Starters.
• Habitat for Humanity. (2021). Housing and the Sustainable Development Goals.
• Han, S. (2022). Spatial stratification and socio-spatial inequalities: The case of Seoul and Busan in South Korea. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(23). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01035-5Article
• Harvard Law Review. (2025, January). Community integration of people with disabilities a quarter century after Olmstead v. L.C.
• HUD Archives. (2022, April 11). Fact sheet: On the 54th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act.
• HUD Exchange. Fair housing history in brief. Accessed January 10, 2026. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/fair-housing/fair-housing-in-action-phas-everyday-practice/overview/fair-housing-history-in-brief/
• Inclusion Europe. (2023). De-institutionalization: Progress and challenges in Europe.
• Justial. (1999). Olmstead v. L. C., 527 U.S. 581.
• Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs. (2019). A study on the paths of community settlement for de-institutionalized persons with disabilities.
• Law.Cornell.Edu. (2001). Olmstead v. L. C. syllabus and opinion.
• Lee, E. (2023). Capabilities approach and the constitution: Centering on three understandings of fundamental rights from a capabilities perspective. Public Law, 52(1), 33-63. https://doi.org/10.38176/PublicLaw.2023.10.52.1.033Article
• Ministry of Health and Welfare. (2021). National roadmap for de-institutionalization and community support for persons with disabilities.
• National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2022). What is Housing First?.
• OECD. (2020). Strategies to address homelessness: Housing First as a systemic response.
• Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2022). Guidelines on de-institutionalization, including in emergencies.
• OlmsteadRights.org. (2015). The Olmstead Supreme Court decision in a nutshell.
• Park, G. R., & Kim, J. (2025). Social connections to neighbors and NIMBYism among public housing residents in Seoul. American Journal of Community Psychology, 76(3-4), 449-458. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.70006ArticlePubMedPMC
• PRRAC. (2020). Affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). Poverty & Race Research Action Council.
• Quinn, G., & Degener, T. (2002). Human rights and disability: The current use and future potential of United Nations human rights instruments in the context of disability. United Nations.
• Shcill, M.H. & Friedman, S. (1999). The Fair housing amendments act of 1988: The first decade. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 4(3). http://www.jstor.org/stable/20868475
• Seoul Metropolitan Government. (2020). Development of a Seoul-type housing service model.
• Tars, E. S. (2021). Housing as a human right. National Low Income Housing Coalition.
• Tsemberis, S. (2010). Housing First: The Pathways model to end homelessness for people with mental illness and addiction. Hazelden Publishing.
• The Asia Business Daily. (2026). Introduction of the 2026 individual budget system for people with disabilities.
• United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
• United Nations. (2006). Article 19 - Living independently and being included in the community. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Disability.
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
• walawlibrary. (2024, April 29). 56 years of the Fair Housing Act. Medium.

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by