• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Utah 2009 Comprehensive Report on Homelessness

Utah 2009 Comprehensive Report on Homelessness



The purpose of this report is to inform interested parties of the state of homelessness in Utah.

The purpose of this report is to inform interested parties of the state of homelessness in Utah.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.


11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • Thanks for your example you set for others if my organization can help let me know PPP here to examine. www.hopelesstohopeful.weebly.com and www.hopelesstohopefulorganization.webs.com both make the homeless they own solution we make them ready to be contributing citizens see our PPP here called hopeless to hopeful
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Utah 2009 Comprehensive Report on Homelessness Utah 2009 Comprehensive Report on Homelessness Document Transcript

    • comprehensive report on homelessness Utah 09
    • Comprehensive Report on Homelessness State of Utah 2009 All rights reserved © October, 2009 Utah Division of Housing and Community Development State Community Services Office 324 South State Street, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 801.538.8700 www.housing.utah.gov Authors Jayme Day, SCSO Jonathan Hardy, SCSO Lloyd Pendleton, SCSO Layout & Design Seth Jeppesen, SCSO Funding Funding for this project was provided by the State of Utah Division of Housing and Community Development through the Pamela Atkinson Homeless Trust Fund Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank all of those who took the time and effort to provide their expertise and information in the preparation of this report.
    • STATE OF UTAH COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON HOMELESSNESS 2009 Letter from the Division of Housing and Community Development 1 Introduction 5 THE STATE OF HOMELESSNESS IN UTAH 8 Causes of Homelessness 9 Number of Homeless Individuals 13 Duration of Homelessness 18 Geography of Homelessness 21 Homelessness and Health 25 Characteristics of Homeless Subpopulations 26 ― Domestic Violence Victims 26 ― Homeless Families 28 ― Homeless Youth 30 ― Chronically Homeless Individuals 32 ― Homeless Veterans 34 ― Disabling Conditions 36 SYSTEM OF HOMELESS SERVICES IN UTAH 40 Coordination of Services 41 Homeless Interventions 44 Impact of Interventions on Homeless System 47 Statewide Initiatives 48 Local Homeless Coordinating Committee Profiles 51 Appendix 65
    • 4 introduction
    • ▪ H omelessness is a complex social and economic subsidy, such as a voucher, while looking for problem that has negative consequences not shelter or housing only for homeless individuals but also for their • Facing eviction within a week, having no families and their communities as a whole. backup residence identified and lacking the resources and support networks to obtain Impact on Individuals and housing • Being discharged from an institution, having no Communities residence identified and lacking the resources For homeless individuals and families, homelessness and support networks to obtain housing can expose them to traumatic events or aggravate their current circumstances making it more difficult A person is considered chronically homeless if he or to access needed resources and regain the ability she is an unaccompanied individual, 18 or older, with to support themselves. Children are particularly a disabling condition, and has been homeless for at vulnerable to adverse effects of homelessness, which least one year, or four times in three years. can interrupt their schooling, development of positive peer and mentoring relationships, and expose them Not included in the HUD definition of homelessness to dangerous or unhealthy environments. Early are individuals who move in with family or friends, experience with homelessness can have long term also known as “doubling up”, or those who move from effects for children and young adults, including home to home or are “couch surfing”. becoming homeless later in life. Communities also feel the impact of homelessness. Measuring Homelessness Studies nationwide have found the cost of Measuring the scope of homelessness is difficult due homelessness for communities is significant (NAEH, to the nature of the problem. Homeless individuals 2001). Higher utilization of emergency services such have no fixed residence and therefore move in and as emergency rooms, police and ambulance response, out of homelessness often for short periods of time and jail stays are more common among homeless making them difficult to track. individuals due to their increased exposure to outdoor elements, violence, and other unsafe or unhealthy HUD requires that all states with federally-funded environments. Without the ability to pay for emergency homeless services participate in “Point-in-Time” (PIT) services or other services, these costs are covered by counts on the last week in January in odd years. The the taxpayer. PIT count is a physical count of all homeless persons living in emergency shelters, transitional housing, Defining Homelessness and on the streets on a single night. Utah has chosen The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban to conduct its count every year. This enables policy Development (HUD) considers an individual to makers and advocates to determine the size and be homeless if he or she lacks a fixed, regular, and characteristics of the homeless population; however adequate nighttime residence and has a primary it does not capture those who experience only brief nighttime residence that includes – episodes of homelessness nor does it account for changes throughout the year due to economic and • Sleeping in places not meant for human social forces. habitation, such as cars, parks, sidewalks, or abandoned and condemned buildings In addition to the point-in-time count, the Utah • Sleeping in an emergency shelter Homeless Management Information System (UHMIS) • Spending a short time (30 consecutive days is another source of information on homelessness in or less) in a hospital or other institution, but Utah. The function of UHMIS is to collect information ordinarily sleeping in the types of places from participating homeless agencies on their mentioned above clients and the services they provide. With further • Living in transitional/supportive housing, but implementation, UHMIS will be able to disseminate having come from the streets or emergency accurate assessments of trends and the effectiveness shelters of interventions for addressing homelessness in Utah • Staying temporarily in a hotel on some type of such as the information provided in this report. 5
    • ▪ Report on Homelessness in Utah Approach to Homelessness in Utah This report outlines the trends in homelessness in The vision of the state of Utah is that everyone has Utah over the last few years as well as the solutions access to safe, decent, affordable housing with the implemented to significantly reduce the number of needed resources and support for self-sufficiency and people that experience homelessness. Trends will well-being. focus on the magnitude, geography, and duration of homelessness in Utah. This report will also address The State of Utah’s goals are to end chronic homelessness as it pertains to the many groups homelessness, create a system of homeless services that experience homelessness most often. These that most effectively aids those experiencing groups include domestic violence victims, homeless homelessness, and overall to reduce the amount of families, military veterans, and those with a disabling homelessness in Utah by 2014. condition. Guiding Utah is a “Ten-year action plan” developed by Utah’s Homeless Coordinating Committee. The major Facts about Homelessness in Utah goals of this plan are to: • In 2009, 0.6% of Utah’s population is homeless • End chronic homelessness by moving people or 15,525 individuals, according to HUD’s off the streets and into permanent housing definition of homelessness. with supportive services • Homeless individuals are most often • Expand access to affordable housing and temporarily homeless and 36% stay in shelters reduce overall homelessness by 40 percent for less than 7 days while 67% are homeless for less than 6 weeks. • Prevent homelessness by easing people’s transition from domestic violence shelters, • A smaller portion, or 9% of the homeless jails, prisons, mental health institutions and population, is chronically homeless or remain foster care homeless for long periods of time. The vast majority are male, and 19% are veterans. All • Create a statewide database to chart outcomes struggle with a disabling condition such as a and drive change physical disability, mental illness, or addiction. Many have multiple conditions. State of Utah’s Initiatives • The fastest growing segment of the homeless In order to prevent homelessness from occurring in the population are homeless persons in families, first place, targeted interventions including housing which in 2009 makes up 46%. They are mostly assistance for poor families and creating discharge female headed single parent families with plans that ensure housing for individuals leaving young children and are more often racial and institutions are being implemented. ethnic minorities. • Most homeless people are from Utah, For those who have been homeless for extended including 74% of homeless individuals and periods and have a disabling condition, the State of 88% of homeless families. Utah has adopted the Housing First approach which provides permanent supportive housing to chronically • Most homeless individuals live in urban areas, homeless individuals so they can focus on stabilizing and 89% live along the Wasatch Front mostly their disabling condition in a safe and supportive in Salt Lake and Weber Counties; however environment. Carbon and Grand Counties have the highest concentration of homeless individuals as a percent of the population. Source: NAEH 2001 “The Cost of Homelessness” 6
    • ▪ Myths and Facts Homeless people suffer from the hardship of their condition, but also face alienation and discrimination fueled by stereotypes. Here are some of myths and realities of homelessness. MYTH — People who are homeless stay homeless for a long time. FACT — The vast majority of homeless Utahns—67 percent—are temporarily homeless. They stay in shelters for brief periods, for days or weeks, and often do not return. MYTH — Most are single men. FACT — Persons in families are the fastest growing, comprising 46 percent of Utah’s homeless population. MYTH — The homeless population is transient, migrating to cities with the best services. FACT — 74 percent of Utah’s homeless population lived in Utah when they became homeless. MYTH — They are to blame for their situation. FACT — Many are victims of circumstance: illness and trauma from violence or abuse. About 28 percent are children. Source: 2008 Utah Homeless Count Client interviews conducted by the Utah Division of Housing & Community Development and the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. 7
    • 8 the state of homelessness in Utah
    • CAUSES OF HOMELESSNESS T he causes of homelessness are very complex and a home. These barriers are especially difficult for include many factors that are both structural individuals who are already homeless. (e.g. housing and job markets) and individually based. Structural forces are often the underlying Poverty or contributing factors that make people more vulnerable for becoming homeless in the event of Lack of a stable income makes finding and maintaining a personal crisis. Although it would be difficult to housing difficult for those living below or near the predict homelessness based on these factors alone, federal poverty level, especially if other factors such as the majority of homelessness would not occur in their a disability or being responsible for children increase absence. Immediate causes of homelessness most the financial demands for individuals and families. often relate to personal crises that include the loss of a Federal poverty guidelines are determined annually job or income, sudden or chronic illness, divorce, death based on inflation rates and the proportion of a in the family, incarceration or an abusive relationship. person’s income that is spent on food. In 2009, a family Many of these situations can make housing precarious of four making less than $22,050 a year is considered for individuals who are already vulnerable due to to be living in poverty. poverty, lack of affordable housing and other economic and social factors. Any financial, health, or personal crisis for those in poverty can make housing precarious. Individuals who become homeless are often the poorest of the Housing poor as they most likely have exhausted all financial The primary cause of homelessness is housing related and social resources to maintain their housing. Once crises. These include evictions, a lack of affordable homeless, individuals are also more susceptible to housing, or having barriers to housing. Evictions can additional crises, thus creating a cycle of poverty and be the result of owing rental or mortgage payments or homelessness that can be difficult for individuals to due to noncompliance with a housing contract such escape. as criminal behavior or having unauthorized tenants. For whatever reason, loss of a job, divorce, unexpected Unemployment bills due to health or house or auto related repairs can create a situation where individuals are not able to Unemployment contributes to poverty and therefore make payments for a time, leading to eviction. is an important factor for homelessness. When job markets decline, there are fewer full time jobs available There is often a lack of affordable housing in that offer a living wage and benefits. Barriers to communities either due to having too few rental employment include lack of education, training, skills, properties or having rental and owner properties that social networks, experience, and often a lack of available are more expensive than individuals or families can jobs in an area that forces many to move and therefore afford based on their income. Moving costs, deposit or separates them from their social networks of support. down payment and first months rent or mortgage also For individuals who are already homeless, finding a make housing less accessible for people with limited job is difficult if they do not have access to resources funds. such as a computer to generate a resume or search for jobs, appropriate attire for a job interview or the There are many barriers individuals face in obtaining transportation to get to a job let alone a job interview. housing in the first place, some of which include In addition, an address and other contact information having a criminal record, poor credit history, being are also required for most job applications. unemployed, not having money for a deposit, lacking transportation, needing references for a loan Lack of Health Care Insurance application or landlord, lacking identification, lacking Lack of health insurance leaves individuals more access to information about available properties or vulnerable to incur debt and therefore less able lacking the ability to navigate the process of finding to pay rent or mortgage if an emergency medical 9
    • ▪ situation occurs or chronic illness exists and is costly of violence within abusive relationships due to the to manage. Often people without health insurance increased levels of stress. forgo preventative medical checkups or keeping up with treatments necessary to keep their medical Divorce condition under control. This may cause a more serious condition or disability to occur making it more difficult For many people, two or more sources of income are to maintain employment and therefore income and necessary to maintain housing. Becoming a single housing. For homeless individuals, health problems are person or parent household due to divorce means created or exasperated by increased exposure to the housing payments must be made on one’s own or outdoors and crowding in shelters. In addition, poor divorcees may have to move to accommodate their health conditions make escaping homelessness much loss of income. Divorce can put people with limited more difficult for individuals seeking employment and resources at increased risk for homelessness, especially housing. single women with children. Decline in Public Assistance Incarceration Public Assistance has declined over the last 10 years Individuals leaving prisons or jails have barriers to making it more difficult for individuals living near housing due to their criminal record, which also or below the poverty level to avoid homelessness. narrows their employment opportunities. Recidivism Homelessness is often an impermanent state where rates for homeless individuals are high and often are public assistance can make the difference between due to charges of loitering, trespassing, and public whether individuals or families become homeless or intoxication. not. In addition, public assistance can help homeless individuals regain housing. Family and Social Ties People turn to family and friends most often for Important social services for those with limited support during a financial, health, or personal crisis. resources include housing subsidies, food stamps, Any type of crisis such as a loss of a job, health unemployment benefits, health insurance, etc. emergency, divorce, etc. can also put a strain on those family members or friends. This support network may Disabling Conditions not be able to ameliorate the crisis for long depending Homelessness is often the consequence of mental on their circumstances leaving individuals vulnerable illness, physical disability, or substance abuse for to homelessness without aid from institutional those who do not have access to family or institutional supports. For individuals, childhood exposures to supports. Often these conditions are co-occurring poverty or victimization can not only affect their future as with individuals who use drugs or alcohol to self- circumstances but those of their family making their medicate other illnesses or disabling conditions. safety net less reliable in times of need. Homelessness may also create or exacerbate these conditions. Disabling conditions often occur for military veterans making this population particularly Causes of Homelessness vulnerable to homelessness. in Utah Domestic Violence The 2009 Annual Report on Poverty in Utah reported a Individuals and families fleeing sexual, emotional, shortage of 30,988 affordable housing units in Utah in or physical abuse are considered homeless by the 2009. Many Utahns are renters (28%) and Fair Market Department of Housing and Urban Development when Rent (FMR) is $736 for a two-bedroom apartment, seeking refuge at a shelter. Victims’ living situations requiring a household income well above the poverty and employment are precarious due to violence and level. In Utah, 9.8% of people live below the poverty trying to avoid an abusive partner. Homelessness is line, or 256,283 individuals, which is less than the US often considered both an outcome and contributing at 12.5%. However, several areas in Utah have poverty factor of domestic violence. Poverty, unemployment rates higher than the US (US Census Bureau, 2007). and situational crises may cause increasing rates 10
    • ▪ The unemployment rate in Utah was 5.3% in March of Trends in Utah 2009 compared to the US at 8.5%. All counties in Utah Figure 1 displays the self-reported causes of were lower than the US rate during this period. While homelessness for homeless individuals and families in Utah is faring better than the US in terms of jobs, many Utah in 2008 and early 2009. It is important to note individuals remain without health insurance, about that these are self-reported factors for what individuals 10.7% in 2008 and 8% for children, many of whom live and families felt were the largest contributor to their at or near the poverty level. The combination of a lack situation. These are not necessarily the only factor. of affordable housing, poverty, unemployment, and a For instance someone may report a financial crisis as lack of health insurance makes people more vulnerable the cause of their homelessness but that may have to becoming homeless in the event of a crisis. resulted from the loss of a job. Figure 1 — Self-Reported Causes of Homelessness in Utah: Jan 2008 — May 2009 Individuals 2008 10 12 17 6 6 4 13 25 2 5 2009 6 18 19 5 4 2 10 25 2 8 2008 7 6 7 5 11 19 7 22 1 15 Families 2009 5 5 10 4 14 13 6 31 1 11 percentage Source: UHMIS 2008-2009 Note: UHMIS participating agencies only Financial Problems Employment Problems Health Problems Legal/Civic Problems Housing Problems Victimization/Divorce New to the Area Situational Crisis Way of Life Other 11
    • ▪ Unaccompanied Individuals who are homeless report 55% of families are reportedly headed by females and more problems with employment and their health as 80% of individuals are male. contributing factors compared with families, while families report victimization/divorce and housing Figure 2 displays the self-reported living situation problems more frequently than individuals. Individuals prior to becoming homeless for homeless individuals reported higher percentage of employment and and families in Utah in 2008 and early 2009. Families health problems in early 2009 than in 2008 but a lower were most often living with relatives or friends or percent of financial problems and being new to the area considered to be living in a “doubled up” situation, relative to other contributing factors of homelessness. while individuals were most often living on the Families year over year differences show a decline in streets or places not meant for habitation. For the victimization and divorce, reporting more situational most part these trends have remained constant from crises and housing problems for what caused their 2008 through early 2009, however the proportion of state of homelessness, however these data do not families previously owning increased relative to those include information from domestic violence shelters who were renting in 2009. due to its sensitive nature. In terms of characteristics, Figure 2 — Self-Reported Previous Living Situation for Homeless Individuals in Utah: Jan 2008 — May 2009 Individuals 2008 8 2 6 6 10 10 7 37 2 9 3 2009 7 2 6 5 11 11 9 37 1 8 3 2008 12 5 31 12 11 4 19 7 Families 2009 15 8 1 28 13 10 8 13 5 percentage Source: UHMIS 2008-2009 Note: UHMIS participating agencies only Owned Condo or House Foster Care or Group Home Hospital Hotel or Motel — Not Paid by Voucher Jail, Prison or Juenile Detention Living with Family or Relatives Living with Friends Others Place Not for Habitation (streets, etc.) Psychiatric Facility Sources: Rented Room, Apartment or House NCH June 2008 Fact Sheet #1 “Why are People Homeless?” Substance Abuse Treatment Facility The 2009 Annual Report on Poverty in Utah DWS March 2009 “Utah’s Monthly Employment Situation Report” 12
    • NUMBER OF HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS C ounting the number of homeless individuals In order to project the number of people who will across the state is a challenging task. experience homelessness throughout the year, or an Homelessness is often a temporary situation annualized count, these rates of turnover are applied and homeless individuals who are not in shelters to the Point-In-Time count. or temporary housing are difficult to locate. This creates the potential to underestimate the size of the Number of Homeless Persons in Utah homeless population for any given period of time. Basic estimates combined with an annual physical On January 28th, 2009 it was estimated that 3,525 count have been used to determine the size of Utah’s people were homeless. From this it is projected that homeless population. The number of homeless roughly 15,525 people will experience homelessness people varies based on how homelessness is defined. in Utah throughout 2009. Homelessness has increased These estimates determine many service and funding by 8% since 2008; however, chronic homelessness decisions in order to most appropriately address has declined by 5%. These changes are larger in homelessness. 2009 compared to a 2005-2007 baseline where chronic homelessness has declined by 19% and total Methodology – Determining the homelessness has increased by 14%. Number of Homeless People Figure 3 is a map of Utah that displays the number of homeless persons and the percent of each county’s Point-In-Time population estimated to be homeless in 2009. The The federal government requires that each state percent of the population in Utah who is homeless is perform what is called a “Point-In-Time” (PIT) count estimated to be 0.6% for 2009. where all homeless persons are counted on a single night during the last week of January on odd years. Utah performs this count every year. This includes both sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons. The PIT count is based on the HUD definition of homelessness and therefore does not count multiple families or households who are doubling up in a single residence due to lack of a permanent residence. Annualization The Point-in-Time is a prevalence measure — or a snapshot — of the number of people who experience homelessness on a given night. People are often homeless only for a short period of time, making this estimate a drastic undercount of the number of people who experience homelessness throughout the year. Analysis has been conducted to determine the incidence rate or amount of turnover that occurs within the homeless population. It has been determined that those persons experiencing short term homelessness is about five times the number that is seen on a single night. Those who are chronically homeless or are unsheltered are considered to have longer bouts of homelessness, and it has been determined that this population is about two times greater than that observed on a single night. 13
    • ▪ Figure 3 — Estimated Number of Homeless Individuals in Utah: 2009 % of County Population Cache 0% 702 Box Elder Rich 0.01% − 0.20% 65 0 0.21% − 0.60% State Avg: 0.6% overall Weber 0.61% − 0.90% 2,060 Morgan 0.91% − 2.03% Davis 0 645 Daggett Summit 0 114 Salt Lake Tooele 9,766 86 Wasatch 10 Duchesne Utah 140 Uintah 323 230 Juab 0 Carbon 396 Sanpete 0 Millard 0 Emery Grand 14 101 Sevier 108 Beaver Piute Wayne 2 0 0 Iron 95 Gar eld 0 San Juan 109 Washington Kane 559 0 14
    • ▪ Table 1 Top Five % of Population Locations with the Highest # of Counties that is Homeless Homeless Persons 2009 1 Carbon Salt Lake 2 Grand Weber 3 Salt Lake Cache 4 Weber Davis 5 Duchesne Washington Source: Utah PIT 2009 Number of Children who are Number of Homeless Persons in Utah Homeless in Utah Compared with the US The US Department of Education includes “doubling Figure 4 is a US Map of the PIT count for all states up”, or living with another family due to lack in the United States in 2008 including the rate of permanent residence, in their definition of of homelessness per 10,000 persons. The rate of homelessness for school children.Table 2 displays the homelessness in Utah is 0.13%, or 13 per 10,000 which number of children who are homeless. This includes is the number of homeless on a single night compared those families who are doubled up and therefore yields to the state’s population. The overall rate for the US is a higher number than what is included in the Point-In- 0.22%. Time count which is based on the HUD definition of homelessness. Table 2 — Number of Homeless School Children in Utah: 2006—2009 2006 2007 2008 2009 Doubled up with another family 7,792 7,587 6,424 8,528 Hotel or motel 342 408 206 303 Emergency or transitional shelter 628 713 384 446 Car, park, or campground 163 108 91 100 Inadequate facilities 729 705 564 628 Unaccompanied minor 433 474 347 383 Statewide total 10,087 9,995 8,016 10,388 Source: Utah Department of Education Point-in-Time Counts 15
    • ▪ Figure 4 — Number of Homeless Individuals on a Single Night in the USA: 2008 WA 0.34% (21,954) 0.15% − NH ME (2,019) MT 0.20% ND 0.15% − VT (2,632) 0.15% 0.10% (954) (1,417) (615) MN OR 0.15% 0.54% (7,644) (20,653) ID WI 0.10% NY 0.22% − MA SD 0.10% (14,506) (1,464) 0.07% (5,449) 0.31% WY (579) (61,125) 0.14% MI (751) 0.28% (28,248) 0.11% − RI IA PA (1,196) NE 0.11% 0.12% 0.13% − CT NV 0.22% (3,346) (15,378) (4,627) OH 0.48% (3,985) 0.11% (12,610) UT IL IN 0.12% (12,912) 0.13% 0.11% 0.16% − NJ (3,434) CO (14,724) (7,395) WV (13,832) CA 0.11% VA 0.43% 0.30% (2,016) 0.11% − DE (157,277) (14,747) KS MO 0.11% (933) 0.06% 0.13% KY (8,469) (1,738) 0.19% 0.16% − MD (7,687) (9,219) (8,137) NC 1.02% − DC (6,044) TN 0.13% 0.16% (12,411) AZ OK (9,705) 0.19% 0.11% AR SC (12,488) NM (3,846) 0.11% 0.13% 0.15% (3,255) (5,660) (3,015) AL MS 0.12% GA 0.07% (5,387) 0.20% (1,961) (19,095) TX HI 0.17% LA 0.47% (40,190) 0.12% (6,061) (5,481) Source: NAEH.org; HUD AHAR 2009 FL AK % of State’s Population that 0.27% 0.24% is Homeless per 10,000 (50,158) (1,646) 0.00% − 0.11% 0.12% − 0.14% 0.15% − 0.21% USA − 0.22% 0.22% − 0.46% Total # of homeless individuals 0.47% − 1.02% in USA − 664,414 16
    • ▪ Trends those without shelter; however, the goal is to accommodate all individuals who need shelter or Figures 5 and 6 display how the number of homeless housing. have changed in Utah from 2006 to 2009 and includes trends for family and chronically homeless Overall homelessness has increased since 2007 subpopulations as well as the percent of the population in addition to the number of families who are in Utah. The percent of the homeless population homeless across the state. However, chronic that is sheltered has increased each year starting homelessness has consistently declined each year from 86.7% in 2006 to 92.8% in 2009 and by far the since 2006. smallest population of homelessness has remained Figure 5 — Number of Homeless Individuals on a Single Night in Utah: 2006—2009 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 Total # of Homeless Individuals # of Chronically Homeless Individuals 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 # of Homeless Families with Children Source: Utah Point-in-Time Counts # of Sheltered Homeless Individuals # of Unsheltered Homeless Individuals Figure 6 — Estimated Annual Number of Homeless Persons in Utah: 2006—2009 18000 0.60% 16000 0.50% 14000 12000 0.40% 10000 0.30% 8000 6000 0.20% 4000 0.10% 2000 0 0.00% 2006 2007 2008 2009 # of Homeless Persons Source: Extrapolation of Utah Point-in-Time Counts # of Chronically Homeless Persons % of State Population 17
    • DURATION OF HOMELESSNESS Measuring Duration of Homelessness FY09 compared to 37 the previous Fiscal Year or an T increase of 2.1% (please see Table 3). This increase is he length of time someone is homeless varies by due to a 6% increase in the length of stay in domestic an individual’s or family’s situation. The majority of violence shelters. individuals are homeless for less than 6 months and most often for less than 7 days. The length of time individuals are homeless is often measured by the Overall Trends number of nights they remain in emergency shelters or Most individuals are homeless for less than 7 days transitional housing. These are termed “Shelter Nights” and this rate has increased in FY09 (see Figure 7). 93% or “Housing Nights” and include the total number of of individuals were homeless for less than 6 months. nights per person in shelters or housing programs so that if 50 people stayed in a shelter for 2 nights that would equate to 100 shelter nights. Figure 7 — Length of Stay in Emergency It is often not possible to measure the length of time Shelters in Utah: July 2007 — June 2009 unsheltered individuals spend on the streets beyond 2500 self-reported durations. A person or family may 2000 become homeless more than once and these durations # of Clients of homelessness are called “episodes”. A homeless FY08 1500 FY09 individual may live in a variety of settings within the 1000 same episode, such as in an emergency shelter, on the streets, in transitional housing, etc. making it difficult to 500 track an individual’s total duration of homelessness. 0 7 Days or Less 1 Week to 6 6 Weeks to 6 6 Months or Length of Stay in Emergency Shelters Weeks Months More Source: UHMIS FY08-FY09 in Utah Note: HMIS participating shelters only The average length of stay for homeless individuals in emergency shelters in Utah is 43 days for FY09 compared to the previous year’s average of 46 days. While this does not take into account the number of The number of persons in families in homeless shelters times a person may be homeless it demonstrates that increased by 4.6% in 2009 but their average length of homelessness is often short term, but even though it stay in emergency shelters has declined by 24%. The may last for the short period, the experience can often overall average length of stay in emergency shelters have long term adverse effects for individuals and for homeless individuals has decreased by 6.5% for families. FY09. When combining homeless and domestic violence shelters the average length of stay becomes 38 for Table 3 — Number of Clients and Emergency Shelter Nights, Utah: July 2007 — June 2009 Total # of # of Emergency Average # of Shelter Period Clients Shelter Nights Nights per Client FY08 9198 340,724 37.0 FY09 9485 358,756 37.8 % Change 3.1% 5.3% 2.1% Sources: UHMIS, DCFS FY08-FY09 18
    • ▪ Figure 8 — Length of Stay in Emergency Shelters for Homeless Individuals and Families, Utah: 2008 Individuals 30% 32% 32% 7% Families 18% 27% 43% 13% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: UHMIS 2008 Note: HMIS participating shelters only 7 Days or Less 1 Week to 6 Weeks 6 Weeks to 6 Months 6 Months or More Unaccompanied individuals are often homeless Length of Stay in Transitional for shorter periods than individuals in families (see Figure 8). It often requires more time and resources Housing and Permanent Supportive to accommodate the needs of a family rather than Housing in Utah unaccompanied individuals. Transitional housing stays have increased for families by 13% and decreased for individuals by 18% in The following two figures (9,10) graph the number FY09 compared to the previous year. Length of stay of emergency shelter nights on a monthly basis in in permanent supportive housing has increased by terms of the total number of shelter nights and the 4% in FY09 compared to the previous year. A longer average number of shelter nights per client per month length of stay is considered a positive outcome as long for Fiscal Years 2008 – 2009. The average length of as it is resulting in stabilization or efforts towards self- stay has declined overall since July 2007 for families sufficiency for individuals. and remained relatively constant for unaccompanied individuals. 19
    • ▪ Figure 9 — Average Length of Stay in Shelters per Month State of Utah: July 2007 — June 2009 70 Average # of Nights Per Individual or Family 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 r nu r em r em r r r r em r J a be J a be ch ch e ec be br y br y O be O be ov e ov e ly e ne ay ay M y M y te t te t il il A 7 A 8 us s Fe uar Fe ar D mb pr pr r r N tob N tob J u un 0 0 Se g u ua ua ar ar m m 20 20 M M Ju ug A A J n e u c c ly ec p p Ju Se D Source: Utah Homeless Management Information System FY08 - FY09 Families Note: HMIS participating shelters only Individuals Total Figure 10 — Total Number of Shelter Nights per Month State of Utah: July 2007 — June 2009 35,000 Families Individuals 30,000 Total Total # of Shelter Nights 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 r r er er ct r ct r r r J a be J a be ch ch br y br y O be O be e ov e ne J u une ay ay M y M y te st p ust il il A 8 Fe uar Fe uar D mb D mb pr pr r r N ob N ob 0 Se ug u ua ua em em ar ar m m 20 M M Ju ug A A J n n e e te ly ec ec A ov p Se Source: Utah Homeless Management Information System FY08 - FY09 Note: HMIS participating shelters only 20
    • GEOGRAPHY OF HOMELESSNESS C 60.52% 15.04% 11.00% haracteristics of areas can play a role in 3.99% 2.82% Location of Services† homelessness not only in terms of local Table 5 — Top Five Counties or Regions in Utah Where Homeless Individuals and structural forces that cause homelessness but they also determine the types of situations in which Mountainlands 2008 Davis County homeless persons end up living and the services Five County Salt Lake Morgan Weber/ County available to those individuals. Geographic Origin of Homeless Individuals in Utah Origin of Sheltered Salt Lake 61.07% 15.92% 13.24% Most homeless individuals in Utah come from this 2.82% 2.62% state. In 2008, 74% of homeless individuals reported Individuals Homeless being from Utah. 2008 Morgan Services are Located: 2008, 2009 Weber/ County County County County Davis Utah Five Table 4 — Self-Reported Location of Origin for Homeless Individuals in Utah: 2008 Rank State 2.03% 1.05% 0.95% 0.91% 0.83% as a % of County 1 Utah 74% Homelessness Population 2 Nevada 5% 2009 3 California 4% Duchesne Salt Lake 4 Arizona 3% Carbon Weber Grand 5 Florida 1.5% Source: UHMIS 2008 62.90% 13.27% 4.52% 4.15% 3.60% The origin of homeless individuals within Utah is Annualized PIT Count depicted in Figure 11, which is a map of Utah zip 2009 Washington codes and is based on 1,904 self-reports from HMIS Salt Lake Cache Weber in 2009. A higher proportion of homeless individuals Davis across the state report being from the areas around Vernal, Price, Helper, Cedar City, St. George, Brigham City, and along the Wasatch Front. Development of services around these areas, including measures to 37.40% 19.40% 10.80% Utah Population 2008 8.30% 5.00% prevent homelessness, is informed by where homeless individuals originate. Figure 11 does not include information for domestic violence victims which may Washington distribute differently across the state. Salt Lake Weber Davis Utah Location of Homeless Individuals in Utah Table 5 displays the top five areas where homelessness Rank 1 2 3 4 5 occurs across the state in addition to where the most services are located. By far, most homelessness and homeless services exist in Salt Lake County, primarily †Note: Services include emergency shelter, transitional housing, case management, and other supportive ser- in Salt Lake City. vices (does not include DV services) Sources: UHMIS 2008, Utah PIT 2009, US Census Bureau 2008 21
    • ▪ Figure 11 — % of Homeless Population in Utah Reporting Zip Code as Previous Address 1 2 3 4 5 6 Source: UHMIS 2008 22
    • ▪ Location of Subpopulations of Homeless Individuals Subgroups of the homeless population such as individuals, families and chronically homeless individuals, have unique characteristics and circumstances making them more or less prevalent in certain areas across the state. Table 6 displays the most prevalent areas for homeless subpopulations in Utah. Families are unique when compared to categories of unaccompanied homeless individuals. Table 6 — Top Five Counties in Utah Where Homeless Individuals are Located Based on Subpopulations: January 28th, 2009 Unaccompanied Homeless Persons in Chronically Homeless Unsheltered Homeless Rank Homeless Individuals Families Individuals Individuals 1 Salt Lake 62.6% Salt Lake 63.8% Salt Lake 50.4% Salt Lake 40.78% 2 Weber 20.5% Cache 9.7% Weber 13.6% Utah 16.86% 3 Carbon 3.6% Davis 7.9% Utah 12.7% Weber 8.63% 4 Washington 3.1% Weber 4.9% Carbon 4.0% Carbon 8.24% 5 Utah 2.9% Washington 3.7% Grand 3.3% Grand 7.06% Sources: Utah PIT 2009 Urban and Rural Table 7 — Proportion of Urban and Rural Homelessness in Utah Homelessness in Utah for Homeless Most of the homeless individuals from Subpopulations: January 28th, 2009 Utah come from urban areas consistent with homelessness nationally. Homeless %/# in Urban %/# in Rural Subpopulations Areas Areas Specifically, 89% of homeless individuals in Utah come from the Utah Population 81% 19% Wasatch Front and Washington County 2008 2,213,896 522,528 for both 2008 and 2009. This means that 11% of homelessness originates Unaccompanied 90% 10% in rural areas across the state. Individuals in Shelters 1662 180 In terms of services, 91% of services were received in urban areas; 61% 82% 18% Homeless Persons in of which were in Salt Lake County in Families 2008. While the majority of services 1163 257 exist in urban areas roughly 15% of all homeless individuals currently live Chronically 81% 19% Homeless in rural areas (see Table 7) making Individuals 569 131 it important to address needs in a variety of settings. Unsheltered 73% 27% Homeless Individuals 185 70 Sources: Utah PIT 2009 23
    • ▪ Homeless School Children The Department of Education includes doubling up or living with another family in their definition of homelessness for school children. Table 8 lists the most prevalent areas for homeless children in Utah by their living situation. The majority of homeless children live in urban areas, however 22% of homeless children are in rural areas, primarily San Juan, Tooele, Cache, and Iron counties (please see LHCC profiles for more information). Table 8 — Top Five Geographic Locations for Homeless School Children by Type of Living Situation, Utah: 2009 Salt Lake 34.1% Doubled Up with Utah 23.3% another Family Davis 11.0% Total = 8,528 Weber 9.2% Tooele 4.9% Salt Lake 27.4% Living in a Hotel Davis 14.5% or Motel Total = Utah 12.5% 303 Tooele 11.9% Weber 9.6% Salt Lake 70.2% Davis 7.8% Living in a Shelter Utah 7.2% Total = 446 Weber 4.9% Washington 3.6% Living in a San Juan 20.0% Car, Park, Utah 14.0% Campground or Tooele 12.0% Public Place Total Salt Lake 11.0% = 100 Davis 10.0% Living in a San Juan 55.6% Place without Utah 14.6% Adequate Salt Lake 6.8% Facilities Davis 5.1% Total = 628 Weber 4.9% Salt Lake 55.9% Unaccompanied Weber 12.0% Youth - Runaways Tooele 7.6% or Throwaways Washington 5.2% Total = 383 Davis 5.0% Salt Lake 34.4% Utah 21.0% Total = 10,388 Davis 10.3% Weber 8.8% San Juan 6.5% Source: Utah Department of Education PIT, 2009 Source: Utah Department of Education PIT, 2009 24
    • HOMELESSNESS & HEALTH P oor health can be both a cause and consequence of homelessness. Disabling conditions such as a mental illness, substance abuse problem, or physical that based on the age of homeless individuals who have died in Utah, homeless individuals have a life expectancy of 48 years. On average 50 homeless disability can make it difficult for individuals to maintain individuals die per year in Utah. Causes of death employment and income and therefore housing. include cancer, liver failure, respiratory failure, stroke, Lacking health insurance also puts people at greater overdose, accident or injury sometimes the result of risk of financial and housing crises if an unexpected violence (Fourth Street Clinic). illness or chronic ailment becomes too costly. Fourth Street Clinic, a health clinic in Salt Lake City Individuals also suffer many adverse health Utah with services dedicated to homeless individuals consequences from being homeless due to served 5,914 homeless clients in 2008. The top five malnutrition, sleep deprivation, extensive walking, diseases or ailments presented at the clinic included and exposure to extreme heat and cold, unsanitary and diabetes, hypertension, asthma/COPD, depression crowded living conditions, and violence. Hypothermia, and substance abuse. Only 20% of those clients had dehydration, parasite infestations, and dermatological, any type of health insurance, the majority of which respiratory, circulatory, and musculoskeletal problems was the Medicaid program. are often present due to these conditions. Health Interventions for Homeless Poor living conditions increase the likelihood of exposure to infectious agents as well as wear down Individuals in Utah an individual’s immune system making homeless A higher prevalence of disease and other disorders individuals more susceptible to infectious diseases combined with limited resources causes many and injuries. In addition, disabling conditions such as homeless individuals to seek care in emergency chronic illnesses that existed prior to homelessness are care settings. Homeless individuals are less able to often worsened due to these living conditions making take advantage of prevention or early interventions it more difficult for homeless individuals to regain creating a more severe and costly situation later on. housing or employment. Health care interventions provided at little or no cost as well as tailored to the unique circumstances of Homeless individuals are 3 to 4 times more likely to homeless individuals are important for ameliorating have poor health due to illness or injury compared many of these health problems, thus creating a more to those with housing. Safe and decent housing is cost effective and humane approach. therefore crucial for health, and in turn good health for housing. Health institutions that co-locate services such as primary and specialty care, pharmacy, dental clinic, Health Statistics for Homeless and coordination of care with other health providers are important for addressing a variety of homeless Individuals in Utah health conditions. The life expectancy for the US is 78 years old and is slightly higher for Utahns, however it is estimated With the recent epidemics of Swine Flu and West Nile Virus, health preparedness plans are important for homeless individuals who have Figure 12 — Life Expectancy 80 increased vulnerability. Constant surveillance is important for 70 preventing an epidemic among 60 age this population, as well as a 50 plan for triage and sheltering 40 and treatment in the event US Population Utah Homeless Population of an outbreak, as has been Source: http://www.fourthstreetclinic.org/health_homelessness.php implemented with tuberculosis. Source: Fourth Street Clinic, 2009 25
    • CHARACTERISTICS OF HOMELESS SUBPOPULATIONS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE D omestic violence is defined as physical and maintain their anonymity. As a result, it is not possible emotional abuse within an intimate partner or to prevent duplication when assessing trends and cohabiting relationship. Most often victims are characteristics for this population. women and women with children. Domestic violence victims who seek shelter are considered a homeless Trends subpopulation by HUD when they are temporarily sheltered by a public or private institution because The number of victims who seek shelter has increased they are unable to return to their homes. Roughly 21% in Utah in Fiscal Year 2009 from Fiscal Year 2008. While of homeless persons in Utah are sheltered victims of the number of episodes has decreased, the length of domestic violence. stay for households within episodes has increased on average. Individuals and families received a greater Safety is very important for domestic violence victims amount of services, including case management and seeking shelter. Therefore, any information obtained shelter nights, and fewer individuals were turned away from victims is not shared publically in order to from shelters across the state. Table 9 — Number and Demographics Across the State % Change Trends reported by Domestic Violence Shelters in Utah: FY08 FY09 from FY08 Jul 2007 – Jun 2009† to FY09 # of Calls to Shelters 35,250 29,708 -16% Average # of Case Management Hours per Client 15.4 16.2 5% # Turned Away‡ 3,275 2,658 -19% # of Sheltered Individuals 3,382 3,409 1% Total # of Episodes for Households 1,755 1,664 -5% # of Shelter Nights 76,767 81,793 7% Average # of Shelter Nights per Episode per Household 43.7 49.2 12% Average # of Shelter Nights per Client 22.7 24.0 6% % of Episodes with Homelessness reported as a Contributing 43% 41% -5% Factor % of Clients reporting Homelessness as a Contributing Factor 41% 38% -7% DV Shelter Nights as a % of All Homeless Shelter Nights 22.5% 22.8% 1% †Note: These data only include information from 15 of the 16 shelters in Utah. ‡ Turned away due to lack of capacity or inappropriate setting for individual. Sources: Utah Division of Child and Family Services; DCFS G1 Report; “No More Secrets Report: 2009” 26
    • ▪ Figure 13 — Characteristics of Domestic Violence Victims in Shelter: Utah, July 2007 — June 2009 4000 3409 3382 3500 FY08 3000 FY09 2500 1751 1726 1755 2000 1667 1636 1631 1742 1664 1500 900 842 813 818 1000 500 25 31 0 Total Female Male Total Female Male # of Clients Total # of Adults Children Episodes for Households Sources: Division of Child and Family Services; "No More Secrets Report: 2009" Contributing Factors Multiple factors contribute to domestic violence and to victims seeking shelter. The top five contributing factors reported by victims when entering a domestic violence shelter from July 2007 through June 2009 are increasing violence, victim’s activities being controlled by a perpetrator, financial problems, victim’s unemployment, and homelessness. Roughly 41% of episodes of domestic violence report homelessness as a contributing factor when entering a domestic violence shelter. Services Many services exist across the state to aid victims of domestic violence and their families. Utah currently has 16 shelters located across the state that offer 440+ shelter beds for adults and children as well as cribs for infants. Other services provided include: casework, safety planning, group counseling, support groups, community resource education, referrals for employment, housing, AFDC aid, mental health, health care, legal services, perpetrator treatment referrals, children’s services, and assistance in acquiring protective orders. Source: No More Secrets Report 2009, HMIS, DCFS, 2-1-1 27
    • ▪ Homeless it is a matter of poor families competing over a limited amount of affordable housing (Culhane, 2004; NAEH Families 2005). F amilies who are homeless are often the unseen Number of Homeless Families in faces of homelessness. Contrary to popular no- Utah tions of homelessness, half of the overall home- Consistent with national data, homeless individuals in less population nationally is made up of persons in families make up 46% of the total homeless population families (NAEH 2007). Homelessness can have devas- in Utah. Homelessness has increased for families and tating consequences for families and can ultimately especially for children. According to the 2009 PIT, 76% result in the breakup of the family and adversely affect of homeless families are headed by single mothers children’s development. and single parent households have increased by 15% since 2008. It is estimated that 1 in 12 poor families will become homeless, however it is difficult to predict which of Table 10 displays the number of homeless families those families will experience homelessness and often and persons in families for the last two fiscal years. Overall the number of families has Table 10 — Trends for Homeless Families in increased by 19% in FY09 and 26% in emergency shelters specifically. The Utah: 2008 — 2009 largest increase is among the number of % children at 37% in emergency shelters All Homeless Housing and Shelters FY08 FY09 in FY09 since the previous fiscal year. Change Sixty-one percent of homeless families # of Homeless Families 800 954 19.3% are in emergency shelters in Utah for # of Persons in Homeless Families 2035 2417 18.8% FY09. Overall homelessness in families has increased mostly in emergency # of Persons in Homeless Families shelters apart from domestic violence (includes Domestic Violence 5417 5826 7.5% shelters. These increases are likely due Counts) to the recent economic crisis. % Emergency Shelters Only FY08 FY09 Change Characteristics of Homeless # of Families 459 580 26.4% Families in Utah # of Adults in Families 604 747 23.7% Poor families are often difficult to dis- # of Children in Families 508 696 37.0% tinguish from homeless families. The NAEH (2005) reports that common Sources: UHMIS & DCFS July 2007 – June 2009 characteristics of homeless and poor Table 11 — Characteristics of Heads of Families in Utah: 2008 % Male (parents only) 24% Mental Illness 16% % White 51% Physical Disability 7% Median Age of Parents 31 Drug Abuse 19% Median Age of Children 6 Alcohol Abuse 9% % of Household Heads with at History of Domestic 57% 36% least a High School Degree Violence % of Household Heads that are % of Children not 26% 18% employed currently in school % Receiving Benefits 88% % From Utah 88% Source: UHMIS 2008 28
    • ▪ families include extreme poverty, Figure 14 — Race and Ethinicity of Homeless single mothers, low education lev- Families in Utah: 2008 els, young parents and children, less social support, and racial and ethnic 90 minorities, high levels of govern- 80 ment assistance, and high rates of 70 domestic violence. 60 Homeless Families percentage Total Homeless Population 50 Total Utah Population The majority of household heads of 40 homeless families in Utah are wom- 30 en with young children. Only 57% 20 of household heads of homeless 10 families have at least a high school 0 degree or the equivalency com- American Asian Black Pacific Latino White pared to 87.7% for Utah’s general Indian Islander population in 2008 (UHMIS 2008; Source: UHMIS 2008 US Census Bureau 2008). Half of the children in homeless families are Table 12 — Previous Living Situation Reported by younger than 6 years old and most Heads of Families and Unaccompanied Individuals are under 2 years old. 88% of home- who are Homeless, Utah: 2008 less families are from Utah, which is higher than any other homeless Families Individuals group. Doubled Up 39% 22% Owned or Rented Place 30% 15% Discharged from Institution 5% 12% Families in Utah also tend to be Streets 7% 37% more diverse than other homeless Motel or Other 19% 14% subpopulations and the general Source: UHMIS 2008 population with African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians be- Figure 15 — Self-Reported Cause of Homelessness ing disproportionately represented among homeless families. Figure According to Heads of Families, Utah: 2008 14 represents the contrast between 8% – Other Financial – 6% homeless families and the general 1% – Way of Life population in Utah in terms of race. Employment – 8% Homeless families tend to Health – 7% stay in emergency shelters 21% – Situational Crisis longer than unaccompanied homeless individuals and Legal / Civic – 6% nearly half spend longer than 6 weeks in a shelter. Families tend to have been doubled up with another family or 7% – New to the area Housing – 15% friends prior to becoming homeless. Most report a situ- ational crisis, divorce or vic- 21% – Victimization / divorce timization, and housing cri- Source: UHMIS 2008 ses as the major factors that Sources: lead to their homelessness. Culhane, D. Presentation, “Family Homelessness: Where to go from here?” October 2004. National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH), report “Family Homelessness” February 2007. National Alliance to End Homelessness, report “Family Homelessness in our nation and community: A problem with a solution” April 2005. 29
    • ▪ Homeless homeless individuals on that night, less than half of which were in Salt Lake County (45%); the remainder Youth are largely in Washington, Weber, Iron and Utah Counties. This may not account for all homeless youth H who are unsheltered as they may be more difficult omeless youth are teenagers and young adults, to locate. The Volunteers of America Homeless Youth typically aged 15 to 22, who end up on their Resource Center estimated serving 855 homeless own without the involvement of parents or youth during the 2009 fiscal year, an increase of 37% guardians and without a permanent, safe place to stay. from the previous year. According to the HUD definition, homeless youth are living on the streets, in shelters, or in places not meant Homeless youth spend less time in emergency shelters for habitation. Beyond the scope of this definition, than other homeless individuals. Overall, only 85% of youth who are staying with friends or acquaintances homeless youth report staying in a shelter, of which for short periods, also called couch surfing, similar to 76% stayed in shelter less than 6 weeks and 45% stayed the notion of doubling up also have access to services less than 7 days. However homeless youth experience in the community. homelessness for longer periods of time according to many national studies (Burt, 2007). The Homeless Homeless youth are a particularly vulnerable group, Youth Resource Center reported that 39% of homeless and are more likely to be physically or sexually abused youth were homeless for longer than one year. Based while living on the streets (NAEH, 2006). Homelessness on information collected by UHMIS, 31% of homeless at an early age is also a risk factor for experiencing youth reported living on the streets prior to receiving homelessness later in life. Teenage and young adult assistance from homeless providers in 2008. years are critical developmental stages for physical, social and behavioral health. Exposure to violence, abuse, neglect, substance abuse, lacking positive Characteristics and Risk Factors for role models, and poor living conditions can have a Homeless Youth profound affect on an individual’s emotional, mental According to national reports on youth homelessness, and physical well-being throughout their lifetime. unaccompanied youth have unique risk factors as Ultimately, these circumstances can affect one’s compared to other homeless groups. Homeless youth opportunity for employment, housing, and overall or street youth are primarily homeless because they no self-sufficiency. longer reside with family members and cannot depend on family for support either due to limited resources Number of Homeless Youth and or family conflicts. Abuse, mental illness, substance Duration of Homelessness in Utah abuse, difficulties in school, leaving state’s custody, sexual orientation, and young parenthood have all According to the Point-in-Time count on January 28th, been reported to contribute to youth homelessness. 2009 there were 95 unaccompanied young adults between the ages of 18 and 22 staying in shelters in Teenagers or young adults often lack skills, resources, Utah and 2 unaccompanied teenagers between the and maturity. In addition to being on their own, ages of 14 and 17. This is 3% of the overall number of youth are therefore less able to support themselves Table 13 — Characteristics of Homeless Youth in Utah: 2008 % Older than 18 93% % with Mental Illness 19% % Male 67% % Abuse Drugs 35% % White 83% % Abuse Alcohol 18% % From Utah 75% % Pregnant 7% % Completed High % from State’s 48% 19% School Custody % Employed 12% % Receive Benefits 14% Source: UHMIS 2008 30
    • ▪ making them more vulnerable to becoming homeless. Nationally, half of homeless youth have not completed high school or the equivalency, consistent with homeless youth in Utah (Burt, 2007; UHMIS 2008). Physical, emotional, and sexual abuse are cited as the largest factors contributing to youth homelessness nationwide, which is consistent with what homeless youth in Utah reported as the primary cause for their homelessness (NAEH, 2006; VOA, 2008). In terms of economic factors, families may be no longer able to support older children due to a financial or housing crisis. In Utah, 25% of homeless youth report housing, financial, or employment problems as the primary cause for their homelessness (UHMIS, 2008). Health is another important consideration for homeless youth. Many report having a mental illness or abusing alcohol or drugs making self-sufficiency more difficult to achieve. Many also report having used or abused drugs or alcohol at much younger ages and may have been exposed early in their homes or communities. Sexual orientation is often cited in studies of homeless youth as one of the contributing factors in youth’s reason for being expelled or running away from home (Burt, 2007). Nationally, youth identifying as a minority in terms of sexual orientation have a much higher rate of homelessness than heterosexual youth (NAEH, 2009). Other factors include youth pregnancy or parenthood which nationally is 3 times higher among homeless youth than their non-homeless counterparts (NAEH, 2006). Leaving state’s custody either through aging out of foster care, exiting juvenile justice detention centers or substance abuse treatment programs makes youth more susceptible to becoming homeless. This is largely due to the factors that put them into state’s custody in the first place and that youth are often on their own when they leave those institutions. Sources: National Alliance to End Homelessness “Fact Sheet on Youth Homelessness” 2006. National Alliance to End Homelessness “Explainer” April 10, 2009. Testimony of Martha Burt “Understanding Homeless Youth: Numbers, Characteristics, Multisystem Involvement, and Intervention Options”: June 19, 2007. Volunteers of America of Utah’s Report on Homeless Youth Statistics: October 2008. 31
    • ▪ Chronic Homelessness Definition of Chronic Homelessness but because they do not have an address they cannot T obtain these services. In addition, spending significant he Department of Housing and Urban Develop- time on the streets, or places not meant for habitation, ment (HUD) defines a chronically homeless person further compounds their disabling conditions. as an unaccompanied adult with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for over one year or experienced homelessness more than 4 times in a 3 year period. Table 15 — Characteristics of Chroni- cally Homeless Individuals in Utah: 2008 Table 14 — Annualized Number of % Male 80% % Military Veteran 19% Chronically Homeless Individuals, % White 82% % Mental Illness 27% Utah: 2006 — 2009 Median Age 46 % Physical Disability 31% % From Utah 63% % Drug Abuse 26% # % Receiving # % of Total 31% % Alcohol Abuse 32% Chronically Public Benefits Year Homeless Homeless Homeless Persons Population Source: UHMIS 2008 Persons 2006 13,362 1,914 14% 2007 11,970 1,530 13% 2008 14,375 1,470 10% 2009 15,525 1,400 9% Chronically homeless individuals spend a significant Source: State of Utah Point-In-Time counts 2006 – 2009 amount of time in jails, prisons, emergency rooms, treatment facilities, and shelters due to their disabil- ing conditions and their increased exposure to vio- Number of Chronically Homeless lence and the elements. Figure 16 shows the various Individuals in Utah long term living situations that chronically homeless individuals experience, roughly half of which is on the It is estimated that there will be 1,400 chronically street. The most common cause for homelessness re- homeless individuals in Utah in 2009. Of those individ- ported by chronically homeless individuals is health uals, roughly 40% will be living on the streets or places related followed by a situational crisis and other fac- not meant for habitation. tors (see Table 16). The number of chronically homeless individuals has declined in recent years as a result of the housing first Barriers to Housing initiative, which provides permanent supportive hous- While chronically homeless individuals only make up ing for this subpopulation. around 9% of the overall homeless population they consume many more resources due to being home- Characteristics of Chronically less for a longer period. According to HMIS, chronically homeless individuals consumed 297 years worth of Homeless Individuals in Utah shelter or on average more than 8 months of shelter Chronic homelessness is mostly characterized by the nights throughout 2008. In addition to being home- disabling conditions that cause and or prevent a per- less for long periods, complications with long term son from becoming self-sufficient. Mental illnesses health issues such as mental illness, substance abuse, and physical disabilities are coupled with drug and and other disabilities increase the number of barriers alcohol abuse making this population particularly dif- that exist for housing and employment for these indi- ficult to treat. Many do qualify for mainstream services viduals. 32
    • ▪ Figure 16 — Previous Living Situation for Chronically Homeless Individuals in Utah: 2008 Apartment or house – 9% 48% – Place not meant for habitation Other – 7% Health / treatment facility – 6% Hotel or motel – 7% Jail or Prison – 5% 18% – Living with family or friends Table 16 — Top 5 Self-reported Cause of Homelessness for Chronically Homeless Individuals in Utah: 2008 Rank Self-reported Cause 1 Health Problems (20%) 2 Situational Crisis (19%) 3 Employment Problems (14%) 4 New to the Area (13%) 5 Financial Problems (7%) Source: UHMIS 2008 Table 17 — Length of Stay for Chronically Homeless Individuals, Utah: July 2008 — June 2009 Total Shelter Nights 108,409 # Clients in Shelter 448 Average Shelter Nights per Person 242 Total Transitional Housing Nights 48,607 # Clients in Transitional Housing 271 Average Transitional Housing Nights per Person 179 Source: UHMIS 2009 33
    • ▪ Homeless Table 18 — Characteristics of Homeless Veterans in Veterans % Male Utah: 2008 95% Under Fire 19% M any US military veterans become % White 84% Mental Illness 25% homeless due to physical % Individual 93% Mental Illness Long term 18% disabilities and mental illnesses % From Utah 55% Physical Disability 37% resulting from combat. In general, most Benefits (VA Medical) 25% Drug Abuse 21% organizations use the Department of % Chronically Homeless 27% Alcohol Abuse 29% Veterans Affairs (VA) eligibility criteria to Source: UHMIS 2008 determine who is a veteran and which veterans can access services. Most homeless military Characteristics of Homeless Veterans veterans are poor and come from disadvantaged communities according to the National Coalition for in Utah Homeless Veterans. The majority of homeless veterans Homeless veterans are mostly in their forties and fifties in Utah served in Vietnam (37%) and 23% served in and are unaccompanied. Many report a disabling the Persian Gulf (UHMIS, 2008). condition, including mental illness or physical disability, which often co-occur with substance abuse. According to UHMIS 29% of veterans with mental Number of Homeless Veterans in illness also report substance abuse as well as 12% of Utah veterans with a physical disability. Eighteen percent of The United States Department of Veterans Affairs veterans with a physical disability also report having a estimated that 1,600 veterans experienced mental illness. homelessness in Utah in fiscal year 2008. In 2000, the US Census put the number of veterans in Utah at Homeless veterans most often report health and about 160,000 (The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will situational crises as the most immediate causes for have changed the number of veterans in Utah since their situation and are more likely to have been living this estimate). Based on this, 1% of military veterans in on the streets or places not meant for habitation. Utah are homeless. According to the 2009 PIT count, it was estimated that 108 military veterans were homeless in Utah on a single night. Figure 17 — Age of Homeless Military Veterans, Utah: 2008 45 40 35 percentage 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ age Source: UHMIS 2008 34
    • ▪ Barriers to Housing Disabling conditions such as mental illness, physical disability, and substance abuse are often barriers to housing and employment for US military veterans. These conditions also make it more difficult for services to provide the continuity of care required to help homeless veterans attain healthy and stable living conditions. Figure 18 Self-reported Cause of Homeless for Military Veterans, Utah: 2008 Health — 23% Employment — 6% Legal/Civic — 4% Financial — 12% Housing — 6% Victimization/Divorce — 3% Other — 6% Way of Life — 4% New to the Area — 13% Situational Crisis — 20% Source: UHMIS 2008 Figure 19 Previous Living Situation for Homeless Veterans, Utah: 2008 Jail or Prison — 4% Hotel or Motel — 10% Living with Family — 8% Hospital — 3% Living with Friends — 9% Owned — 9% Other — 7% Treatment Facility — 5% Rented — 11% Place not for Habitation — 32% Psychiatric Facility — 2% Source: UHMIS 2008 Source: The United States Department of Veteran Affairs US Census Bureau 35
    • ▪ Disabling Conditions D isabling conditions such as mental illness, Victims of domestic violence and military veterans are physical disabilities, and problems with drug prone to experiencing some of these disorders due to and alcohol use can all be factors that are both their exposure to traumatic events. causes and consequences of homelessness. These conditions become barriers to housing, employment, Substance Abuse and overall well-being. Drug and alcohol abuse, whether a primary cause of homelessness or the result of coping with their new Mental Illness living situation, creates a barrier to housing that can Mental illness is often a precursor to homelessness, be difficult for individuals to breach without treatment however being homeless can also impact an and support. In addition, many who abuse alcohol and individual’s mental health. Living on the streets or drugs may end up with criminal records due to their in a shelter can exacerbate an individual’s mental use and having a criminal background places a limit condition due to the stress of those circumstances in on job and housing opportunities. addition to the difficulty with maintaining treatment. Homelessness may also create mental health problems Substance abuse also increases individual’s risk if individuals experience traumas while homeless. for overdose, injury, violence, loss of family or Access to regular health appointments and medication friend support, and death from long term abuse. along with other types of regular health services is Methamphetamine, heroin, and prescription drugs limited for homeless individuals and many end up self- are commonly abused drugs. medicating their condition by using drugs or alcohol. Physical Disability Managing a mental illness requires social and economic resources, making an individual or family Loss of mobility or physical functioning for those with with limited resources more vulnerable to homelessness limited economic or social resources increases an in the event of a financial crisis. Mental illness is a individual’s risk for homelessness. Physically disabled burden in terms of stress as well as finances making it individuals need homes that are adapted to their level more difficult to maintain social and family supports of functioning or aid from other family, friends, or for those with long term and severe conditions, let other aid workers to complete tasks of daily life such as alone employment or housing for those afflicted. bathing, eating, shopping, cleaning etc. With limited resources, individuals may have family members and Common mental health disorders in the homeless friends without the means or time to help and they population include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, themselves may not be able to afford daily care or major depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. medical care for their condition. Table 19 — Characteristics of Homeless Individuals Reporting a Disabling Condition, Utah: 2008 Drug Alcohol Mental Physical Overall Abuse Abuse Illness Disability Percent from Utah 74% 79% 73% 80% 64% % Male 69% 66% 78% 62% 75% % Family 27% 15% 6% 13% 8% % White 80% 84% 85% 85% 85% Military Veterans 12% 14% 18% 19% 29% History of Domestic Violence 13% 20% 18% 24% 15% Public Health Insurance (Medicaid, 51% 48% 51% 64% 66% Medicare, VA Medical) Source: UHMIS 2008 Note: This information does not include data from domestic violence shelters 36
    • ▪ Figure 20 — Age of Homeless Individuals that Report a Disabling Condition, Utah: 2008 40 35 30 Overall Drug Abuse 25 percentage Alcohol Abuse Mental Illness 20 Physical Disability 15 10 5 0 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ Source: UHMIS 2008 Statistics for Homeless Individuals in Utah who Report having a Figure 21 — Length of Stay in Emergency Shelters Disabling Condition for Homeless Individuals Reporting Disabling Ages for those reporting a Conditions, Utah: 2008 disabling condition seem to differ depending on the condition 40 and differ greatly from the general homeless population. 35 These individuals are most often unaccompanied white males from 30 Utah and have a median age of 42 Overall years old. 25 Drug Abuse percentage Alcohol Abuse Mental Illness The majority of homeless 20 Physical Disability individuals with a disabling condition stay in shelters for 15 less than 6 months, especially those who abuse drugs. These 10 individuals tend to be younger as well. The majority have had 5 experience living on the streets or in places not meant for habitation 0 which may explain their relatively 7 Days or 1 Week to 6 Weeks to 6 Months or shorter length of stay in emergency Less 6 Weeks 6 Months More shelters. They also report health problems or a situational crisis as Source: UHMIS 2008 the biggest factor causing them to become homeless. 37
    • ▪ Figure 22 — Previous Living Situation for Homeless Individuals Reporting a Disabling Condition, Utah: 2008 35 30 Overall Drug Abuse 25 Alcohol Abuse percentage 20 Mental Illness Physical Disability 15 10 5 0 Owned Hospital Hotel or Jail or Living with Living with Place Not Psychiatric Rented SA Motel Prison Family Friends For Facility Place Treatment Source: UHMS 2008 Habitation Facility Figure 23 — Self-Reported Cause of Homelessness for Individuals Reporting a Disabling Condition, Utah: 2008 40 35 Overall 30 Drug Abuse percentage 25 Alcohol Abuse Mental Illness 20 Physical Disability 15 10 5 0 Financial Employment Health Legal/Civic Housing Divorce/ New to the Situational Way of Life Other Problems Problems Problems Problems Problems Victimization Area Crisis Source: UHMIS 2008 38
    • ▪ Co-occurring Health Conditions Many disabling conditions are co-occurring where abuse are highly correlated at 46%, while physical homeless individuals will suffer with more than one disability is only moderately associated with mental condition at a time, often times several. Table 20 illness and only slightly with substance abuse. Mental displays to what extent homeless individuals deal with illness seems to consistently overlap either with more than one of these conditions. Drug and alcohol substance abuse or physical disability. Table 20 — Percent of Disabling Conditions Reported by Homeless Individuals that Overlap, Utah: 2008 Mental Drug Alcohol Physical % Correlation Illness Abuse Abuse Disability Mental Illness - 24% 20% 23% Drug Abuse 24% - 46% 7% Alcohol Abuse 20% 46% - 11% Physical Disability 23% 7% 11% - Source: UHMIS 2008 Barriers to Treatment and Recovery Many barriers exist for treatment and recovery for Stress and living in an environment that both supplies homeless individuals dealing with mental illness, and encourages substance abuse, in addition to substance abuse or physical limitations. Treatment or lacking healthy social support can make treatment recovery from these conditions is crucial for individuals and recovery for addiction more difficult, especially for to become more self-sufficient and capable of those with a mental illness or physical disability that employment and maintaining housing. abuse alcohol or drugs. Source: Utah Addiction Center Utah Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health 39
    • 40 system of homeless services
    • COORDINATION OF SERVICES STATEWIDE State of Utah’s Vision communities throughout Utah, and ultimately to create T statewide strategic plans for effective interventions to he vision of the state of Utah is that everyone has prevent and reduce homelessness. access to safe, decent, affordable housing with the needed resources and support for self-sufficiecy and Several subcommittees of the SHCC are working on well-being. specific elements of creating a coordinated, statewide plan. These include discharge planning, affordable State of Utah’s Goals housing, supportive services, and information The State of Utah’s goals are to end chronic systems committees. Finally, a subcommittee exists homelessness, create a system of homeless services to coordinate local efforts to address homelessness that most effectively aids those experiencing across Utah. homelessness, and overall to reduce the amount of homelessness in Utah by 2014. Local Homeless Coordinating Committees (LHCCs) Organization of Utah’s Efforts to There are 12 LHCCs in Utah, which are counties or Address Homelessness neighboring counties combined that are chaired by Efforts to address homelessness exist at many levels elected officials of those communities (see figure 26). of government including federal, state, and local Each LHCC has created a 10-year plan to end chronic agencies. In addition non-profit, volunteer, and faith homelessness and reduce overall homelessness by based organizations are involved in these efforts. In 2014. These ten year plans create benchmarks specific order to create effective and efficient interventions to communities across Utah to meet these goals. to both prevent and end homelessness for both Other functions of the LHCCs are to 1) prioritize and urban and rural areas, a high level of coordination is coordinate funding to implement supportive service required. programs to reduce and prevent homelessness, 2) use the Homeless Management Information System Three entities exist statewide to foster this level of (HMIS) to report and manage services and progress, coordination. These include committees at the state and 3) develop a “pathway” to self-sufficiency for and local levels, and the continua of care. homeless individuals. Specifically these committees address the barriers to State Homeless Coordinating housing for members of their communities in terms of Committee (SHCC) ensuring affordable housing, employment, sufficient The State Homeless Coordinating Committee (SHCC) income, adequate transportation, supportive services, is a committee of state and local stakeholders, accessible health care, and by reducing domestic chaired by the Lieutenant Governor of Utah, who violence. represent a broad spectrum of interests pertaining to homelessness in Utah. These stakeholders include Continua of Care directors of state agencies such as human services, The US Department of Housing and Urban corrections, health, workforce services, and education. Development (HUD) under the McKinney-Vento In addition representatives of volunteer and religious Act requires that every state receiving federal funds based organizations, homeless providers, homeless establish one or more Continuum of Care (COC) advocates, as well as businesses and housing entities. The purpose of COCs is to strategically align authorities are members of the committee. community’s efforts for serving homeless individuals by identifying duplication and or gaps in services The purpose of this committee is to coordinate efforts and creating strategic plans for meeting local 10 year across the state in order to understand the barriers plans. This includes developing and implementing a people face while trying to maintain housing in 41
    • ▪ Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) for performance reports to the federal government that tracking and reporting progress towards those ends. determine funding on a competitive basis. COCs must maintain and report a housing inventory to HUD, establish local priorities for initiatives, manage There are three Continuums of Care (COCs) in Utah. a yearly Point-in-Time count, develop discharge These are the Salt Lake County COC; Mountainlands planning procedures for institutions that temporarily COC that incorporates Utah, Wasatch, and Summit house individuals, increase community awareness of counties; and the Balance of State COC that includes homeless issues, and write grants and provide annual all remaining counties in the state. Allocation of State Funds for Homeless Services by Category: FY2008-2009 Figure 24 FY 2009 HUD Continuum of Care — 1% Emergency Home Repair — 6% Accessibility Design — 1% Operation and — 9% Case Management — 27% Maintenance Homeless Prevention — 5% Essential Services — 4% Day Care — 1% Food — 0% Mass Feeding — 0% Transitional Housing — 11% Other — 15% Temporary Shelter — 18% Outreach — 2% Figure 25 FY 2008 3% — HUD Continuum of Care Emergency Home Repair — 9% Case Management — 19% Accessibility Design — 1% Operation and — 9% Day Care — 1% Maintenance Food — 1% Mass Feeding — 2% Homeless Prevention — 5% Other — 8% Essential Services — 5% Outreach — 2% Transitional Housing — 13% Temporary Shelter — 22% 42
    • Funding Funds from federal and state governments are directed towards local Major funds for homeless services include the Pamela Atkinson Homeless governments and service providers with defined purposes for serving Trust Fund (PAHTF), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and Critical Needs homeless individuals as well as preventing and reducing homelessness. Housing (CNH) sources. The allocation of these funds is presented in Private funding is also secured for these purposes through charitable the following graphs for the last two fiscal years according to service foundations, businesses, non-profits, and faith based organizations. categories. Table 21 — State of Utah Funding for Homeless Services: FY2008 — 2009 FY2008 FY2009 % Category PAHTF ESG CNH TOTAL % PAHTF ESG CNH TOTAL % Difference Case Management $595,148 - - $595,148 19% $780,825 - $120,000 $900,825 27% 8% Day Care $20,000 - - $20,000 1% $20,000 - - $20,000 1% 0% Food $20,000 - - $20,000 1% $0 - - $0 0% -1% Mass Feeding $76,000 - - $76,000 2% $0 - - $0 0% -2% Other $240,000 - - $240,000 8% $316,499 - $162,000 $478,499 15% 7% Outreach $66,700 - - $66,700 2% $66,030 - - $66,030 2% 0% Temporary Shelter $681,816 - - $681,816 22% $584,954 - - $584,954 18% -4% Transitional Housing $395,990 - - $395,990 13% $369,564 - - $369,564 11% -2% Essential Services - $163,100 - $163,100 5% - $143,080 - $143,080 4% -1% Homeless Prevention - $148,000 - $148,000 5% - $151,450 - $151,450 5% 0% Operation and - $260,384 - $260,384 9% - $286,782 - $286,782 9% 0% Accessibility Design - - $25,000 $25,000 1% - - $32,500 $32,500 1% 0% Emergency Home - - $262,800 $262,800 9% - - $212,680 $212,680 6% -2% HUD Continuum of - - $98,000 $98,000 3% - - $31,000 $31,000 1% -2% New Construction - - $0 $0 0% - - - $0 0% 0% TOTAL $2,095,654 $571,484 $385,800 $3,052,938 - $2,137,872 $581,312 $558,180 $3,277,364 - - Source: SCSO Office ▪ 43
    • STAGES OF HOMELESSNESS INTERVENTIONS LEVEL OF PREVENTION TARGET POPULATION TYPES OF SERVICES PREVENTION • Households with an evic- • Rental assistance tion notice plus other • Utility assistance relevant risk factors • Case management - fi- • Individuals being dis- nancial, housing charged from institutions OUTREACH • Persons who are home- • Basic survival items, food, less and living outside or sleeping bags, coats, and in places not suitable for other necessities habitation • Transportation, referrals EMERGENCY SHELTERS • Households with short-term • Shelter bed barriers to housing • Case management • Referrals to housing assis- tance TRASITIONAL HOUSING • Households who have a • Medium-term housing as- targeted need for a struc- sistance tured program (substance • Case management abuse, domestic violence) PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE • Chronically Homeless Indi- • Permanent housing sub- HOUSING viduals and Families sidy • Case management • Counseling 44
    • COST CHALLENGES ACTIONS / FUTURE GOALS $$ Targeting households who would be- • Discharge planning proto- come homeless without assistance. cols for all institutions 80% of those with an eviction notice do not become homeless in the short term. $ Oftern requires a trust building pro- • Continue to refer clients cess before someone will seek ser- directly into housing first vices. programs with current out- reach workers serving as case managers $ As a safety net of last resort; it is dif- • Refer households with ficult to know of a problem until it long -term barriers to other presents at the door. housing program types • Reduce the length of stay incrementally each year $$$ Often those entering these programs • Limit transitional housing need housing support longer than development to specific the 18-24 months offered by the pro- target populations gram. $$$$ Although a cost-effective solution • Identify long-term sources to the community, it is often a chal- of funding for case man- lenge to find ongoing support dollars agement to facilitate con- for the case management involved tinued development with these programs. • Develop standard proto- col and goals for these projects and client prog- ress plans 45
    • 46
    • IMPACT OF INTERVENTIONS ON THE HOMELESS SYSTEM Homeless System Defined tions describes how the system of services is targeted H by characteristics together with the challenges, rela- omelessness is experienced in a variety of set- tive cost and the future goals of each service. tings and includes multiple entry points. In Utah, there are various systems of care that provide services to those experiencing homelessness and assist them Services Provided in Fiscal Year 2009 in ending their homeless experience. 201 permanent supportive housing units have been added to the existing 184 units to serve chronically Services offered include: homeless individuals. • Emergency Shelter • Transitional Housing 358,756 emergency shelter nights were provided in- • Permanent Supportive Housing cluding domestic violence shelters, an increase over • Case Management the previous year by 0.6%, however more individuals • Detoxification were served. • Meals • Transportation Assistance 213,496 transitional housing nights served individuals • Rental and Utility Assistance working towards stable housing options for housing • Outreach and Engagement programs participating in HMIS. Case Management services include assisting home- Major Outcomes less persons to access standard mainstream benefits for which they may qualify. These benefits include Declines in length of stays in emergency shelters and employment services, food stamps, and other finan- transitional housing have enabled homeless programs cial assistance. to serve additional people without expanding their existing facilities. Although these systems exist, they can be limited by capacity and funding. At times, homeless individuals This change is largely due to the Housing First initia- self navigate through community systems of care in tive, which provides permanent supportive housing an uncoordinated and isolated effort. This can include to those homeless individuals who would otherwise using emergency rooms for primary health care issues remain on the streets, in shelters, or in transitional and cycling through jails and detoxification centers housing for extended periods due to their severe situ- which are used as de facto housing facilities. ations. Homeless individuals have improved their self-suffi- Goals ciency in terms of housing stability, employment, in- The ultimate goal of any homeless intervention is to come, food security, and health care by greater than end the homeless experience as quickly as possible 10% over the course of 6 months while receiving sup- for the individual with the least fiscal impact to com- portive services. munity systems. Investments of public and private dollars are targeted toward innovations that promote cost savings to the community and perform a better service in ending homelessness for the client. Each in- tervention has solutions tailored to certain subpopu- lations of homeless clients. Services and interventions are targeted to unique characteristics of the client. The previous section on stages of homeless interven- 47
    • STATEWIDE INITIATIVES Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Accomplishments January 2005 – January 2009: Homelessness • 219 Housing Units Added T • 33% drop in Chronically Homeless as percent he process to develop a ten year plan to end of the nightly shelter population chronic homelessness and reduce overall home- • Cost Savings of $3.3 Million to community lessness in Utah began in 2003. This process was af- systems firmed by the Legislature in the 2004 General Session • Additional 1,007 Homeless Individuals with House Joint Resolution 9 and a ten-year plan was served within our shelter system with no new approved March 2005. emergency facilities or programs. • 20% Increase in self sufficiency for clients Chronically Homeless Individuals represent a small portion (9%) of the homeless population, but con- sume 50 to 60% of the resources. They are also high Preventing Homelessness users of emergency services which include: Homeless Prevention is designed to target financial • Emergency Room/Hospital Visits assistance for crisis housing situations to individuals • Police/Fire/Ambulance Response and households who would become homeless with- • Jail Stays out assistance. This includes offering rental assistance • Detoxification Visits for those with an eviction notice or a utility shut off notice that would cause an imminent homeless situa- In the approach to end chronic homeless, the State tion for an individual or family. adopted the “Housing First” model which entails plac- ing chronically homeless individuals into housing As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment with case management support. Case managers meet Act (ARRA), Congress created the Homelessness Pre- regularly with these individuals to help them maintain vention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP). This their housing and reduce or eliminate other barriers to program will help in providing substantial investments self sufficiency. into prevention and re-housing programs beginning October 1, 2009. This concept is designed to achieve the following three results: In addition to these emergency situations it is critical to have proper discharge planning policies in place at 1. Reduce Emergency Service Costs institutions of care and other potential feeders into 2. Improve Self Sufficiency homelessness. Individuals leaving foster care, mental 3. Reduce the time of stay in our emergency hospitals, jails and prisons should not be discharged sheltering system into a homeless situation and should have pre devel- oped strategies to maintain a stable housing situation The following will be used to determine the success of upon exit. the ten-year plan: • Place Chronically Homeless Individuals in Rapid Re-Housing housing with weekly case management visits • Study pre and post housing costs and service Rapidly re-housing persons already homeless has be- utilization come an increasing focus both locally and nationally. • Measure self sufficiency pre housing and This entails providing security deposits, rental and util- every quarter post housing to measure impact ity assistance in the short term to those experiencing on lives of homeless individuals homelessness to end the homeless episode and be- • Measure the percentage of chronically gin to transition to the family into a long term plan to homeless individuals within the emergency maintain housing. shelter system The newly enacted HPRP will also assist this potential population statewide and gives the state a great op- 48
    • ▪ portunity to reduce the length of stay in shelters and assist in giving short term stability to the household while helping them to access long term supports such as employment, budgeting and mainstream resourc- es. SOAR Initiative This program is designed to identify clients who are qualified to apply for SSI/SSDI. It is difficult at times to collect the necessary documentation for individu- als living in unstable housing situations. This creates a long term process for navigating through the neces- sary steps to qualify for this long term income support. This puts a huge strain on the State’s General Assis- tance (GA) Program which only allows for a very short window of ongoing financial support. The SOAR initiative has helped to align every step of the process and reduce the time from the start of the application to qualification of SSI/SSDI benefits. Re- cent analysis has shown this to be reduced to a period of four months as opposed to an average of 18 months prior. 49
    • ▪ Permanent Supportive Housing Projects in Utah Palmer Court Salt Lake City • Construction completed in May 2009 • Permanent Supportive Housing • 201 Total/Affordable Units • Funding: Federal, State, Founda- tions and Private • Populations: Chronically homeless individuals, homeless families. • Developer/Owner/Manager: Shelter the Homeless Committee II Grace Mary Manor South Salt Lake • Construction completed in March 2008 • Permanent Supportive Housing • 84 Total/Affordable Units • $196,200 in Annual CoC Assistance • Population: Chronically homeless individuals • Developer/Owner/Manager: Housing Oppor- tunities, Inc. Sunrise Metro Apartments Salt Lake City • Permanent Supportive Housing • 100 Total Units • $62,461 in Annual CoC Assistance • Population: Chronically homeless individu- als • Developer/Owner/Manager: Housing Assis- tance Management Enterprise Source: Compiled by the Salt Lake Continuum of Care 50
    • Figure 26 — Map of Local Homeless Coordinating Committees in Utah Bear River AOG Weber/Morgan Counties Davis County Salt Lake County Tooele County Mountainland AOG Uintah Basin AOG Carbon/Emery Six County AOG Counties Grand County Five County AOG San Juan County Number of Homeless State Characteristics* UTAH TOTAL School Children—2009* UTAH TOTAL State Population — 2008 2,736,424 Doubled-up with Another Family 8,528 % of State in Poverty — 2007 9.8% Live in Hotel or Motel 303 Unemployment Rate — 2009 5.3 Live in a Shelter 446 # of Affordable Housing Units — 2009 16,971 Live in a Car, Park, Campground, 100 or Public Place Number of Homeless Live in a Place without 628 Individuals—2009* Adequate Facilities Total # of Homeless Individuals 15,525 Unaccompanied Minors 383 % of Population that is Homeless 0.6% TOTAL 10,388 % of Total Homeless Population — # of Sheltered Individuals 15,015 Capacity of Homeless # of Unsheltered Individuals 510 Facilities* # of Chronically Homeless Individuals 1,400 # of Emergency Shelter Bed 1,556 # of Homeless Individuals in Families 7,100 # of Transitional Housing Beds 1,770 # of Permanent Housing Beds 2,002 52 *For a complete list of sources referenced please see page 64.
    • BEAR RIVER AOG Cache LHCC Box Elder Rich Homeless Providers Info Chair ― Kathy Robison Vice Chair ― Stefanie Jones Contact Number ― 435.713.1432 County Characteristics BOX ELDER CACHE RICH County Population — 2008 49,015 112,616 2,205 % of County in Poverty — 2007 8.3% 12.9% 9.0% Unemployment Rate — 2009 6.3 4.4 4.1 # of Affordable Housing Units — 2009 251 800 24 Number of Homeless Individuals—2009 Total # of Homeless Individuals 65 702 0 % of Population that is Homeless 0.13% 0.62% 0 % of Total Homeless Population 0.42% 4.52% 0 # of Sheltered Individuals 65 698 0 # of Unsheltered Individuals 0 4 0 # of Chronically Homeless Individuals 0 22 0 # of Homeless Individuals in Families 45 690 0 Number of Homeless School Children—2009 Doubled-up with Another Family 25 177 0 Live in Hotel or Motel 0 5 0 Live in a Shelter 0 4 0 Live in a Car, Park, Campground, or Public Place 1 3 0 Live in a Place without Adequate Facilities 0 13 0 Unaccompanied Minors 0 5 0 TOTAL 26 207 0 Capacity of Homeless Facilities # of Emergency Shelter Bed 15 32 0 # of Transitional Housing Beds 0 32 0 # of Permanent Housing Beds 0 0 0 53
    • CARBON & EMERY Carbon COUNTIES LHCC Homeless Providers Info Chair ― Joe Piccolo Vice Chair ― John Fazzio Emery Contact Number ― 435.637.5010 County Characteristics CARBON EMERY County Population — 2008 19,549 10,510 % of County in Poverty — 2007 15.4% 11.4% Unemployment Rate — 2009 5.9 5.1 # of Affordable Housing Units — 2009 147 14 Number of Homeless Individuals—2009 Total # of Homeless Individuals 396 14 % of Population that is Homeless 2.03% 0.13% % of Total Homeless Population 2.55% 0.09% # of Sheltered Individuals 354 0 # of Unsheltered Individuals 42 14 # of Chronically Homeless Individuals 56 14 # of Homeless Individuals in Families 45 0 Number of Homeless School Children—2009 Doubled-up with Another Family 26 61 Live in Hotel or Motel 5 0 Live in a Shelter 2 0 Live in a Car, Park, Campground, or Public Place 0 0 Live in a Place without Adequate Facilities 0 0 Unaccompanied Minors 0 1 TOTAL 33 62 Capacity of Homeless Facilities # of Emergency Shelter Bed 41 0 # of Transitional Housing Beds 0 0 # of Permanent Housing Beds 16 0 54
    • DAVIS COUNTY LHCC Homeless Providers Info Davis Chair ― Louenda Downs Vice Chair ― Mary Ann Nielson Contact Number ― 801.733.0712 County Characteristics DAVIS County Population — 2008 295,332 % of County in Poverty — 2007 6.3% Unemployment Rate — 2009 4.8 # of Affordable Housing Units — 2009 1,592 Number of Homeless Individuals—2009 Total # of Homeless Individuals 645 % of Population that is Homeless 0.22% % of Total Homeless Population 4.15% # of Sheltered Individuals 643 # of Unsheltered Individuals 2 # of Chronically Homeless Individuals 20 # of Homeless Individuals in Families 560 Number of Homeless School Children—2009 Doubled-up with Another Family 934 Live in Hotel or Motel 44 Live in a Shelter 35 Live in a Car, Park, Campground, or Public Place 10 Live in a Place without Adequate Facilities 32 Unaccompanied Minors 19 TOTAL 1,074 Capacity of Homeless Facilities # of Emergency Shelter Bed 72 # of Transitional Housing Beds 161 # of Permanent Housing Beds 38 55
    • FIVE COUNTY AOG LHCC Beaver Homeless Providers Info Chair ― Mary Reap Contact Number ― 435.586.8462 Iron Garfield Washington Kane N TO LD NG R IE HI E NE RF AV ON AS County Characteristics GA KA BE W IR County Population — 2008 6,162 4,658 44,540 6.577 137,589 % of County in Poverty — 2007 9.5% 10.6% 19.3% 9.4% 8.9% Unemployment Rate — 2009 5.2 8.8 6.3 6 7.1 # of Affordable Housing Units — 2009 12 0 484 46 1,156 Number of Homeless Individuals—2009 Total # of Homeless Individuals 2 0 95 0 559 % of Population that is Homeless 0.03% 0 0.21% 0 0.41% % of Total Homeless Population 0.01% 0 0.61% 0 3.60% # of Sheltered Individuals 0 0 95 0 529 # of Unsheltered Individuals 2 0 0 0 30 # of Chronically Homeless Individuals 2 0 10 0 44 # of Homeless Individuals in Families 0 0 75 0 265 Number of Homeless School Children—2009 Doubled-up with Another Family 0 4 120 0 338 Live in Hotel or Motel 0 12 5 0 27 Live in a Shelter 0 0 4 0 16 Live in a Car, Park, Campground, or Public Place 0 0 4 0 4 Live in a Place without Adequate Facilities 0 10 15 0 8 Unaccompanied Minors 0 1 6 0 20 TOTAL 0 27 154 0 413 Capacity of Homeless Facilities # of Emergency Shelter Bed 0 0 35 0 78 # of Transitional Housing Beds 0 0 22 0 96 # of Permanent Housing Beds 0 0 0 0 16 56
    • GRAND COUNTY LHCC Homeless Providers Info Chair ― Audrey Graham Grand Contact Number ― 435.259.1346 County Characteristics GRAND County Population — 2008 9,589 % of County in Poverty — 2007 14.8% Unemployment Rate — 2009 7.7 # of Affordable Housing Units — 2009 95 Number of Homeless Individuals—2009 Total # of Homeless Individuals 101 % of Population that is Homeless 1.05% % of Total Homeless Population 0.65% # of Sheltered Individuals 65 # of Unsheltered Individuals 36 # of Chronically Homeless Individuals 46 # of Homeless Individuals in Families 25 Number of Homeless School Children—2009 Doubled-up with Another Family 1 Live in Hotel or Motel 0 Live in a Shelter 4 Live in a Car, Park, Campground, or Public Place 0 Live in a Place without Adequate Facilities 1 Unaccompanied Minors 0 TOTAL 6 Capacity of Homeless Facilities # of Emergency Shelter Bed 9 # of Transitional Housing Beds 0 # of Permanent Housing Beds 0 57
    • MOUNTAINLANDS AOG Summit LHCC Homeless Providers Info Chair ― Larry Ellertson Vice Chair ― Bill Hulterstrom Wasatch Contact Number ― 801.374.2588 Utah County Characteristics UTAH SUMMIT WASATCH County Population — 2008 530,837 36,100 21,066 % of County in Poverty — 2007 11.4% 5.0% 5.9% Unemployment Rate — 2009 4.9 4.7 5.7 # of Affordable Housing Units — 2009 1,084 491 80 Number of Homeless Individuals—2009 Total # of Homeless Individuals 323 114 10 % of Population that is Homeless 0.06% 0.32% 0.05% % of Total Homeless Population 2.08% 0.73% 0.06% # of Sheltered Individuals 237 112 10 # of Unsheltered Individuals 86 2 0 # of Chronically Homeless Individuals 178 4 10 # of Homeless Individuals in Families 110 100 0 Number of Homeless School Children—2009 Doubled-up with Another Family 1,989 61 90 Live in Hotel or Motel 38 0 6 Live in a Shelter 32 0 0 Live in a Car, Park, Campground, or Public Place 14 2 0 Live in a Place without Adequate Facilities 92 0 0 Unaccompanied Minors 13 0 0 TOTAL 2,178 63 96 Capacity of Homeless Facilities # of Emergency Shelter Bed 160 15 0 # of Transitional Housing Beds 157 26 0 # of Permanent Housing Beds 254 0 0 58
    • SALT LAKE COUNTY LHCC Homeless Providers Info Chair ― Palmer DePaulis Salt Lake Vice Chair ― Kerry Steadman Contact Number ― 801.468.2183 County Characteristics SALT LAKE County Population — 2008 1,022,651 % of County in Poverty — 2007 9.0% Unemployment Rate — 2009 5.1 # of Affordable Housing Units — 2009 7,983 Number of Homeless Individuals—2009 Total # of Homeless Individuals 9,766 % of Population that is Homeless 0.95% % of Total Homeless Population 62.90% # of Sheltered Individuals 9,558 # of Unsheltered Individuals 208 # of Chronically Homeless Individuals 706 # of Homeless Individuals in Families 4,530 Number of Homeless School Children—2009 Doubled-up with Another Family 2,912 Live in Hotel or Motel 83 Live in a Shelter 313 Live in a Car, Park, Campground, or Public Place 11 Live in a Place without Adequate Facilities 43 Unaccompanied Minors 214 TOTAL 3,576 Capacity of Homeless Facilities # of Emergency Shelter Bed 752 # of Transitional Housing Beds 1,012 # of Permanent Housing Beds 1,623 59
    • SAN JUAN COUNTY LHCC Homeless Providers Info Chair ― Toni Turk Vice Chair ― Cleal Bradford San Juan Contact Number ― 435.678.4035 County Characteristics SAN JUAN County Population — 2008 15,055 % of County in Poverty — 2007 31.6% Unemployment Rate — 2009 8.3 # of Affordable Housing Units — 2009 43 Number of Homeless Individuals—2009 Total # of Homeless Individuals 109 % of Population that is Homeless 0.72% % of Total Homeless Population 0.70% # of Sheltered Individuals 95 # of Unsheltered Individuals 14 # of Chronically Homeless Individuals 24 # of Homeless Individuals in Families 85 Number of Homeless School Children—2009 Doubled-up with Another Family 304 Live in Hotel or Motel 0 Live in a Shelter 0 Live in a Car, Park, Campground, or Public Place 20 Live in a Place without Adequate Facilities 349 Unaccompanied Minors 1 TOTAL 674 Capacity of Homeless Facilities # of Emergency Shelter Bed 26 # of Transitional Housing Beds 0 # of Permanent Housing Beds 0 60
    • SIX COUNTY AOG Juab LHCC Homeless Providers Info Sanpete Millard Vice Chair ― Maureen Allred Contact Number ― 435.896.9647 Sevier Piute Wayne RD E ET NE ER LA E NP AB UT AY VI County Characteristics IL SA JU SE W M PI County Population — 2008 9,983 12,082 1,404 25,520 20,014 2,589 % of County in Poverty — 2007 10.0% 12.7% 16.2% 14.1% 12.6% 11.4% Unemployment Rate — 2009 7.7 4.5 4.5 6.5 6 6.7 # of Affordable Housing Units — 2009 24 0 0 85 118 0 Number of Homeless Individuals—2009 Total # of Homeless Individuals 0 0 0 0 108 0 % of Population that is Homeless 0 0 0 0 0.54% 0 % of Total Homeless Population 0 0 0 0 0.70% 0 # of Sheltered Individuals 0 0 0 0 108 0 # of Unsheltered Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of Chronically Homeless Individuals 0 0 0 0 18 0 # of Homeless Individuals in Families 0 0 0 0 90 0 Number of Homeless School Children—2009 Doubled-up with Another Family 18 64 6 39 44 8 Live in Hotel or Motel 0 3 0 0 3 0 Live in a Shelter 0 0 0 0 4 0 Live in a Car, Park, Campground, or Public Place 10 1 0 0 1 0 Live in a Place without Adequate Facilities 8 6 2 0 0 0 Unaccompanied Minors 1 4 0 7 13 0 TOTAL 37 78 8 46 65 8 Capacity of Homeless Facilities # of Emergency Shelter Bed 0 0 0 0 74 0 # of Transitional Housing Beds 0 0 0 0 17 0 # of Permanent Housing Beds 0 0 0 0 0 0 61
    • TOOELE COUNTY LHCC Homeless Providers Info Chair ― Colleen Johnson Tooele Vice Chair ― Karen Kuipers Contact Number ― 435.830.7953 County Characteristics TOOELE County Population — 2008 56,941 % of County in Poverty — 2007 6.9% Unemployment Rate — 2009 6.1 # of Affordable Housing Units — 2009 581 Number of Homeless Individuals—2009 Total # of Homeless Individuals 86 % of Population that is Homeless 0.15% % of Total Homeless Population 0.55% # of Sheltered Individuals 70 # of Unsheltered Individuals 16 # of Chronically Homeless Individuals 46 # of Homeless Individuals in Families 40 Number of Homeless School Children—2009 Doubled-up with Another Family 421 Live in Hotel or Motel 36 Live in a Shelter 10 Live in a Car, Park, Campground, or Public Place 12 Live in a Place without Adequate Facilities 5 Unaccompanied Minors 29 TOTAL 513 Capacity of Homeless Facilities # of Emergency Shelter Bed 19 # of Transitional Housing Beds 0 # of Permanent Housing Beds 34 62
    • UINTAH BASIN Daggett AOG LHCC Homeless Providers Info Duchesne Chair ― Mike Mckee Uintah Vice Chair ― Kathleen Cooper Contact Number ― 435.722.6090 County Characteristics UINTAH DUSCHESNE DAGGETT County Population — 2008 29,885 16,861 938 % of County in Poverty — 2007 10.8% 12.0% 7.5% Unemployment Rate — 2009 5 5.9 4.5 # of Affordable Housing Units — 2009 62 118 0 Number of Homeless Individuals—2009 Total # of Homeless Individuals 230 140 0 % of Population that is Homeless 0.77% 0.83% 0 % of Total Homeless Population 1.48% 0.90% 0 # of Sheltered Individuals 230 130 0 # of Unsheltered Individuals 0 10 0 # of Chronically Homeless Individuals 0 10 0 # of Homeless Individuals in Families 90 0 0 Number of Homeless School Children—2009 Doubled-up with Another Family 20 77 0 Live in Hotel or Motel 6 1 0 Live in a Shelter 0 0 0 Live in a Car, Park, Campground, or Public Place 7 0 0 Live in a Place without Adequate Facilities 0 13 0 Unaccompanied Minors 2 0 0 TOTAL 35 91 0 Capacity of Homeless Facilities # of Emergency Shelter Bed 59 0 0 # of Transitional Housing Beds 0 0 0 # of Permanent Housing Beds 6 0 0 63
    • WEBER/MORGAN COUNTIES LHCC Weber Homeless Providers Info Morgan Chair ― Jan Zogmaister Vice Chair ― Sharon Downing Contact Number ― 801.399.8416 County Characteristics WEBER MORGAN County Population — 2008† 227,487 8,669 % of County in Poverty — 2007† 10.5% 4.2% Unemployment Rate — 2009‡ 6.4 5.1 # of Affordable Housing Units — 2009* 1,681 0 Number of Homeless Individuals—2009 Utah PIT Count Total # of Homeless Individuals 2,060 0 % of Population that is Homeless 0.91% 0 % of Total Homeless Population 13.27% 0 # of Sheltered Individuals 2,016 0 # of Unsheltered Individuals 44 0 # of Chronically Homeless Individuals 190 0 # of Homeless Individuals in Families 350 0 Number of Homeless School Children—2009 Utah Department of Education (PIT) Doubled-up with Another Family 785 4 Live in Hotel or Motel 29 0 Live in a Shelter 22 0 Live in a Car, Park, Campground, or Public Place 0 0 Live in a Place without Adequate Facilities 31 0 Unaccompanied Minors 46 1 TOTAL 913 5 Capacity of Homeless Facilities Utah Continuum of Care Housing Inventory # of Emergency Shelter Bed 169 0 SOURCES: # of Transitional Housing Beds 247 0 †US Census # of Permanent Housing Beds 15 0 ‡Utah Department of Workforce Services *Utah Housing Corporation 64
    • APPENDIX — RESOURCE GUIDE For Homeless Utahns For immediate assistance, dial 2-1-1. Or, for a list of service providers in your area, visit housingworks.utah.gov. For Our Partners Homelessness is a statewide problem requiring locally grown solutions. Following is a list of state and national groups that offer guidance on how to get started. Utah Links National Links Utah’s Social Services Hotline National Alliance to End Homelessness www.informationandreferral.org www.endhomelessness.org Crusade for the Homeless National Center on Family Homelessness www.crusadeforthehomeless.org www.familyhomelessness.org The Road Home homeless shelter National Low Income Housing Coalition www.theroadhome.org www.nlihc.org Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake National Coalition for Homeless Veterans www.hacsl.org www.nchv.org Housing Authority of Salt Lake City Re-Entry Policy Council www.haslcutah.org www.reentrypolicy.org National Network to End Domestic Violence www.nnedv.org National Alliance on Mental Illness www.nami.org National Healthcare for the Homeless Council www.nhchc.org The Urban Institute www.urban.org 65