1.6: Addressing Family Homelessness in Rural Communities

Addressing Family Homelessness in Rural Communities
Jonathan Hardy
Director, State Community Services Office
State of Utah
NAEH Conference
February 10, 2011
Oakland, CA
8 February 2011

2 + 2 ≠ 4
Eviction Notice + Rental Assistance ≠ Homelessness Prevention

Prevention Strategies
Eviction Prevention vs. Homelessness Prevention

Eviction Prevention
Huge Target Market
Easy Outcomes (Keep people in their present housing situation)
Benefits
Stability for Households, especially children
Saves costs associated with the cycle of moving
Keeps more housing options available for household

Eviction Prevention (cont.)
Challenges
Not nearly enough resources
Starts to supplant natural support systems
Possibly prolonging the inevitable in an unsustainable housing option

Homelessness Prevention
Hard to define target market
Often times they don’t actively present prior to becoming homeless
Frequently require a greater number of resources.
Greater housing failure than eviction prevention market

Utah’s Available Resources
HPRP = Homelessness Prevention
TANF = Either HP or Eviction Prevention

Questions to ask for Homeless Prevention
How much does it cost to prevent homelessness in the eviction prevention market?
How much does it cost to do targeted intervention in the homelessness prevention market?

Example
Eviction Prevention
10 households served @ $1,000
2 households would have become homeless
Total cost of homelessness prevention = $5,000 per household

Example (cont.)
Homelessness Prevention model
3 families served who are precariously doubled up @ $3,000 per household
2 of those families would have become homeless without assistance
Total cost of preventing homelessness = $4,500 per household.

How do we know we are effective at targeting homeless prevention efforts?
Utah Study of Prevention efforts
Random Assignment
Tracking unserved populations
Do clients in the prevention programs look like the clients entering the shelter system?

Local Homeless Coordinating Committee (Model) End Chronic Homelessness and Reduce overall Homelessness by 2014 Faith Based Orgs. Sheriff Dept. of Human Services Police Chief Continuum of Care Housing Authorities Businesses Dept. Workforce Ser. Colleges/Tech. Schools MISSION Financial Institutions At Large Elected Official Chair Dept. of Corrections Dept. of Health Schools/PTA Local Government Leaders Domestic Violence Vice-Chair United Way Native America Housing Authority Service Agencies Community Clinics Formerly Homeless

Local Homeless Implementation Plan Local Homeless Coordinating Committee
Funding
State (PAHTF, CNH, ESG, OWLF,CIB)
Private
Federal
Block Grants (HPRP, CSBG, CDBG, SAPTBG, MHBG).
Entitlements (SSI,SSDI, DBA-Vets)
Mainstream Programs (Food stamps, SCHIP, TANF, Section 8, Home, DVA, Public/Indian Housing)
Homeless Targeted Programs (Cont. of Care, Health Care, PATH, Employment, etc.) *
State 10-Year Plan January 28, 2008
Actions
Housing
Reduce D V
Prevention
Employment
Income Support
Discharge Planning
HMIS/Outcome Measures
Transportation
Supportive Service
Health Care
Other
Political Leader Chair
HUD REQUIREMENTS
Consolidated Housing Plan
Continuum of Care Annual Strategies
State Committees
Homeless Coordinating Committee
Discharge Planning
Affordable Housing
Supportive Services
Information Systems
Local 10-Year Plan * Education (DOE), Homeless Vets – Transitional Housing (DVA), Treatment for the Homeless (SAMHSA), Runaway (ACF/DHHS)

Utah Dept. of Workforce Services
Houses all of the mainstream benefit programs
TANF
Food Stamps
Medicaid
General Assistance
Unemployment Insurance
Employment Programs, etc.

DWS (cont.)
Have local “one-stop” physical locations for benefits
90% of interactions can be completed without entering an office
Centralized policy and procedures
Involved in every Local Homeless Coordinating Committee

Utah HPRP/TANF Major Goals & Objectives
Reduce Overall Shelter Demand
Make Systems Change (Virtual Centralized Intake Model)
Streamline and Simplify Process for Clients

Rural Implementation of Prevention Programs
Basic Assumptions
Limited Case Management Experience
Government organizations are the main service delivery system
Few emergency shelters
Mostly “precariously housed”

Implementation (cont.)
“Virtual Centralized Intake”
No wrong door to seek services
Cross Referral and Training on programs
One source for collecting documentation and interacting with client
Centralized approach to qualifying for benefit programs

Housing DWS Programs TANF GA Food Stamps UI Employment Services Medicaid WIC CHIP Landlord/Utility Company July 15, 2009 Client Entry & Assessment Case Mgmt Agency Housing Relocation and Stabilization Financial Assistance Client Placement in Services Lead HPRP/TANF Agency Rapid Re-housing Prevention HPRP & TANF Virtual Centralized Intake

1.6: Addressing Family Homelessness in Rural Communities

by National Alliance to End Homelessness

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 28

Statistics