Homelessness Assessment

WHERE DO WANT TO GO?

A. BEST PRACTICES	B. RECOMMENDATIONS
C. PERFORMANCE MEASURES

A. Best Practices

The Austin/Travis County area provides numerous services for people in homeless situations. Many of these services are similar to ones that have been recognized as best practices by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. For example:

• Shelter and transitional housing tailored to various sub-populations
  
• A range of services in one location for survivors of domestic violence
  
• Comprehensive case management by an interagency collaboration
  
• Health care for homeless people

The local community addresses a wide range of needs through its continuum of care for homeless services. Countless service models that work well in other localities are also working in Austin/Travis County. A thorough description of those services is beyond the scope of this assessment, but the services are listed in Appendix A.

Other services that have been recognized as best practices are under development in Austin and Travis County:

• Expanded shelter for single adult women and women with children
  
• Low-demand shelter for homeless men
  
• Facility that will permanently house an overnight shelter for men, a day resource center with numerous services, a health clinic, and a dining area
  
• Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) housing
  
• Sobriety center / crisis stabilization

Service providers and local planning bodies are beginning to address other issues that have worked well in other geographical areas:

SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING (SROS)

The Houston area office of HUD recognized New Hope Housing, Inc.'s SRO as a best practice in 2000. Single Room Occupancy housing provides housing for individual adults. Each resident has his or her own bedroom, and kitchen and bath facilities may be located in each room or shared with other residents in a common room. Rental costs are typically very low, thus providing affordable housing for people who earn low incomes. Rents pay for the operating costs of the facility. Construction costs for the 130-unit facility were shared by New Hope Housing, which is a faith-based organization, private organizations including the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority, which built Enron Field, corporations, and the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County. Public officials had initially shied away from funding the project because New Hope's SRO was the first project of its kind in Houston. After the first year of operation, though, public funds were designated for the project: $500,000 in bond money for building 47 more units. Ten local agencies provide supportive services to residents of the SRO (Best Practices 2000 "Local" Winners, Houston Area Office, (http://www.hud.gov/bestpractices/2000/houston.html).

An Austin service provider, The Capital Area Homeless Alliance (CAHA) is currently seeking funding to develop an SRO in Austin. The nonprofit group has already partnered with a nonprofit housing development organization and with the Housing Authority of the City of Austin. CAHA has also applied for federal funds through the local area's consolidated application for the Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Grant. Finally, CAHA has discussed funding options with the City of Austin government. Various entities working together could result in the creation of the first SRO housing complex in Austin.

Top Of Page

CONNECTING PEOPLE WITH MAINSTREAM RESOURCES

In order to better meet the multiple and complex needs of people in homeless situations, linking clients to "mainstream" social service systems is important. Some mainstream resources include Medicaid and other public health insurance programs, Social Security programs, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and food stamps. Researchers, government officials, and service providers may have differing opinions about how best to meet the needs of people in homeless situations. Some people advocate for providing services that are targeted specifically to people who are homeless. These services would meet specific needs of the population in a coordinated manner. Other people suggest that a separate service delivery system might "institutionalize" homelessness, creating inefficiency and not motivating mainstream services to reach out to and serve homeless people. Most experts, however, maintain that a combination of both systems works well. In 1994 the federal Interagency Council on the Homeless supported the middle ground position by emphasizing the need for mainstream programs to adapt to meet the special needs of homeless people, ensuring their access to mainstream services and benefits (U.S. General Accounting Office, June 1999, Report to Congressional Committees, Homelessness: State and Local Efforts to Integrate and Evaluate Homeless Assistance Programs).

To assist in the linking effort, HUD and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have invited state governors to apply to participate in developing innovative solutions and addressing policy challenges related to housing needs and service provision. Particularly, state teams will take part in a regional policy-building forum where action plans for each state will be created to improve access for homeless persons to mainstream health and human service programs. HUD is working to integrate services on a federal level and providing assistance for integrating services on state and local levels.

The Federal government's recognition of the importance of connecting people with mainstream resources was reflected in the 2001 HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Grant application. The application required that proposed projects include a certification stating that the funded organization(s) would make efforts to link clients with mainstream resources. Also, the Exhibit One portion of the application needed to explain how the local area was already connecting clients with mainstream resources.

The Austin/Travis County Continuum of Care for Homeless Services coordinates services and efforts with mainstream resources as follows:

• Case managers play a strong role in educating clients about their options under the Medicaid system as well as helping them to apply for benefits, if they choose. The Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP) has been active both in advocating for the client's rights to benefits and in educating both service providers and clients about client rights. As a member of the Self-Sufficiency Coalition and a presenter at the Texas Homeless Network statewide conference, CPPP has shared information about Medicaid rules with many homeless service providers.
  
• The state and local community have put considerable focus on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and conducting outreach to eligible children. The Insure-a-Kid program targets homeless children in families at the SafePlace shelter. The Indigent Care Collaborative, which focuses on improving and coordinating health care resources, includes a CHIP Outreach Coalition to reach eligible children, including children in homeless situations.
  
• Through the Self-Sufficiency Coalition, representatives of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program and providers of homeless services are able to communicate regularly in both directions. As a result of the extensive collaboration of the Self-Sufficiency Coalition, a welfare-to-work self-sufficiency process was developed. A primary goal of the process is to give each client ownership of the decisions reached and choices made with a specific understanding of the benefits and consequences of each. In addition, homeless services case managers assist clients in strategically deciding whether or not to access TANF and inform them of certain waiver rules (e.g., for victims of Domestic Violence).
  
• The Food Stamp Program regularly sends information to non-profit food pantries, homeless shelters, child care centers, and labor ready programs. The fliers and posters explain the program, eligibility requirements and how to apply. Food Stamp program staff and homeless service providers collaborate closely through the Self-Sufficiency Coalition.
  
• The Austin/Travis County Mental Health and Mental Retardation Center (MHMR) receives approximately $3 million in Mental Health Block Grant funding. These block grant funds are used in part to operate the Supported Housing Program at ATCMHMR's Adult Mental Health program. ATCMHMR receives approximately $1.6 million in Substance Abuse Block Grant funding. Some of the Substance Abuse dollars support the ACCESS program, which provides outreach, treatment and support to individuals diagnosed with both mental illness and substance abuse issues. PATH dollars support outreach and case management to chronically homeless persons with serious mental illness.
  
• The Workforce Investment Act brings $1.2 million into Austin/Travis County. The Capital Area Workforce Development Board is responsible for developing and implementing workforce services, in conjunction with community-based organizations. In addition to providing basic job training, preparation and placement, WIA funds are used to provide subsidized child care, temporary shelter, rental/utility assistance, and supportive services that are often critical to homeless persons participating in such programs.
  
• Through the Welfare-to-Work Grant Program, the Austin Works Together project, in collaboration with the Workforce Development Centers, was recently implemented to provide comprehensive case management services for TANF recipients and TANF-eligible public housing residents. Central East Austin Community Organization, the agency operating the program, collaborated extensively with homeless service providers through the Self-Sufficiency Coalition in order to develop the case management model used.

Top Of Page

SERVICE INTEGRATION

Integrated social service systems rather than fragmented and uncoordinated services better meet the multiple and complex needs of people in homeless situations. Integrating delivery systems usually involves changing the ways that agencies share information, resources, and clients. Those changes may include pooling funds, consolidating programs, developing cross-agency strategic plans, or using a centralized management information system. Integrated services provide a holistic approach to working with individuals to meet all their needs, whereas separate services address only one or a portion of individuals' needs. Finally, integrated services ensure that individuals are offered all the services they need regardless of which service they seek (U.S. General Accounting Office, June 1999, Report to Congressional Committees, Homelessness: State and Local Efforts to Integrate and Evaluate Homeless Assistance Programs).

West Virginia's Governor's Interagency Task Force on the Homeless created the Homeless Shelters Program to consolidate funding available to providers of homeless services into one pool. The program combines the activities and resources of several state bodies including the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Department of Health and Human Resources, the Department of Education, and the West Virginia Housing Development Fund. Service providers complete one application rather than several in order to apply for funds for emergency shelters, transitional housing, supportive housing for persons with disabilities, and essential social services. "The program and application process is a well-designed effort to make available all the assistance the state can identify to assist homeless [service] providers on a competitive basis" (http://www.hud.gov/ptw/docs/wv0498.html, p. 1).

Service providers in Austin and Travis County have already integrated some services.

• Service providers have worked together for the past five years to complete and submit a consolidated application to HUD for the Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Grant ("SuperNOFA"). Also, service providers' participation in the City of Austin's Consolidated Plan planning process (facilitated by the Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Office-NHCDO) ensured that homeless services were identified as a need in the community. During 2001 an NHCDO employee participated in the process of developing the Continuum of Care application, bringing full-circle the cooperation between the City government's Consolidated Plan process and the broader community's Continuum of Care process.
  
• Most providers of homeless services are members of the Homeless Task Force, a planning body of the Community Action Network (CAN). It is through the Homeless Task Force that the Continuum of Care is analyzed and developed and through which agencies network and establish linkages.
  
• The CAN is the comprehensive health and human services policy and planning coalition for Austin and Travis County and is responsible for making recommendations for allocation of local funds (City and County) to address health and human services needs. The CAN links the components of housing, homelessness, behavioral health, physical health, basic needs, and criminal justice to facilitate coordination throughout the health and human services continuum. Funding through the City/County social service grants is competitive, and applicants are strongly encouraged to collaborate with other service providers so that clients may access the complete range of services they need.
  
• The City and County have begun using a "managed services organization" approach to funding substance abuse services and community court treatment services. The Austin Travis County MHMR Center, using managed care tools, subcontracts with local homeless and substance abuse providers and provides service coordination services. Regular MSO meetings address issues related to linkage.
  
• Austin/Travis County homeless services programs continue to work toward full implementation of an automated client data system. Each person receiving services from a homeless service provider will be entered into the data system. The new system will provide more accurate, complete information, will allow real time data sharing and will facilitate movement of clients from one service provider to another.
  
• The Community Resource Coordination Group (CRCG) for Adults meets regularly to staff cases in order to enhance coordination and communication among service providers who are involved with each individual.
  
• Downtown Austin Community Court is an example of integrated services. The Court allows people who have been charged with a misdemeanor to receive mental health or substance abuse treatment rather than prosecution. Treatment rather than criminal sentencing ideally prevents individuals from going into and out of homelessness and the correctional system.
  
• The Access to Community Care and Effective Services and Supports (ACCESS) program integrates services for people who are both in a homeless situation and experiencing mental illness.
  
• Literacy Austin provides literacy training to people who read at a fifth-grade level or lower. Literacy Austin has consulted with the Capital Area Homeless Alliance about holding literacy classes for people in homeless situations at the interim ARCH day resource center and overnight shelter facility.
  
• Austin Community College provides English as a Second Language classes and General Equivalency Degree classes through several local providers of homeless services: Caritas of Austin, Casa Marianella, and American Youthworks.

A new integration effort involves the Resource Development Committee of the Homeless Task Force. This group guided the Continuum of Care application process in 2001. The committee is currently working to identify various sources of funding for local homeless services and to strategically plan "across agencies" for how those funds will be for allocated. This community-wide planning has occurred for some services such as outreach and case management but not for funding on a large scale.

Top Of Page

PROVIDING HOUSING FIRST

The National Alliance to End Homelessness, among others, advocates for serving people in homeless situations by first providing them with permanent housing, and then addressing their other needs with up to one year of home-based supportive services. This approach decreases the need for emergency shelter and transitional housing and greatly reduces the amount of time that people remain in homeless situations; however, it also relies on the availability of affordable permanent housing in an area.

Hennepin County, Minnesota's, Rapid Exit Program has been recognized as a best practice by the National Alliance to End Homelessness. Services are targeted toward individuals and families who are currently residing in a county-funded shelter and who have moderate to severe barriers that hinder them from obtaining housing in the open market. A Rapid Exit Coordinator, whose position is funded by the Minnesota Family Homeless Prevention and Assistance Program (FHPAP), conducts assessments with each individual or family within one week of their entering the shelter. The assessments plus criminal history, credit, and housing checks are compiled by the Coordinator and the clients, and that information is given to one of the agencies that contracts with the county to individually assist clients to locate and secure permanent housing or to provide transitional housing. The agencies may also provide supportive services such as case management, legal assistance, financial assistance, and assistance with obtaining household items and food. Money from FHPAP and HUD (Supportive Housing Program [SHP] and Emergency Shelter Grants Program [ESG]) fund the program.

Hennepin County and its contracted agencies in this program also addresses systemic housing issues that help individuals to obtain housing:

• When housing for low-income renters is sold, the program encourages the new owner to retain the units as affordable housing.
  
  • The staff work to reduce the "disincentives" of landlords' participation in the Section 8 housing program.
    
• Staff members develop relationships with local landlords.
  
• Staff members locate potential housing units.
  
• The program can co-sign leases for program participants.
  
• The program can pay double security deposits for individuals with poor rental history.
  
• The program provides ongoing case management and assistance with landlord-tenant issues.

In the last biennium, the program served 1,714 families (6,933 family members). Thirty-four percent of the families served had been homeless before entering the Rapid Exit Program, but 91% did not return to a shelter within one year, and 85% did not return to a shelter within two years. The individuals who returned to shelter decreased their average length of stay in a homeless situation from 29.5 days to 10 days. These data show significant outcomes, especially since the program targets individuals and families with challenging barriers to obtaining housing. (http://www.endhomelessness.org/best/rapidexit.htm)

Two recent studies have shown positive outcomes of new approaches in service delivery to people with mental illness who are in homeless situations. First, California's Community Mental Health Treatment Program served approximately 1,100 people in three counties in 18 months with $14 million. The program created a community-based mental health care system, providing outreach, less debilitating mental health medications, and assistance with housing, job training, and money management. The program has reduced homelessness and increased participation in mental health treatment. The program has saved $7.3 million in hospital and jail costs. Participants had 78% fewer hospital visits than in 1999, 85% fewer days in jail, and 69% fewer days in a homeless situation. Finally, full-time employment for participants increased by 155% (http://www.dmh.cahwnet.gov/PGRE/AB-34-LegisRpt.pdf). Follow-up studies from this pilot project have also shown successful outcomes (http://www.dmh.ca.gov/docs/Homeless-Mentally-Ill-Leg_rpt.pdf).

Second, a New York study showed the benefits of providing services to persons with mental illness through supportive housing rather than through "homeless" services. A housing program known as "New York/New York" combined state and city funds to provide supportive housing to people with serious mental illness. Prior to placement in housing, individuals with severe mental illness used an average of $40,449 in public services, mainly acute-care hospitals, emergency shelters, and the criminal justice system. Placement in supportive housing resulted in housing stability for the individuals and reductions of $16,282 per housing unit in collateral service costs. The reduction in costs to public services paid for 95% of the housing costs (Culhane, Metraux, and Hadley, 2001). The study showed that dedicating money to pay for housing with support services offset costs to some public services and had positive outcomes for individuals.

[From: "The Impact of Supportive Housing for Homeless People with Severe Mental Illness on the Utilization of the Public Health, Corrections, and Emergency Shelter Systems: The New York-New York Initiative" by Dennis P. Culhane, Stephen Metraux, and Trevor Hadley, May 2001, published by the Fannie Mae Foundation]

Top Of Page

EMERGING TRENDS

FOCUS ON PREVENTION OF HOMELESSNESS

HUD and HHS have begun to focus more heavily on preventing homelessness rather than providing assistance after people become homeless. Federal, state, and local experts recognize that to address the complexities of homeless issues, involvement from mainstream service providers and multiple funding sources is needed. Health, human service, and housing programs for people with low incomes and for other people who are at risk of homelessness should be considered when planning for homeless services. Facts that support the shift in focus to prevention of homelessness include:

• People with low incomes are five times more likely to experience homelessness than people with higher incomes.
  
• Over half the people who fall into a homeless situation recover quickly, often with their own resources, and have no further interaction with the homeless assistance system.
  
• Persons who have both low incomes and chronic illnesses are most likely to continually use the homeless services system. They use nearly half the resources while representing only 10 to 15 percent of the entire homeless population.
  
• Many people in homeless situations have no health insurance.
  (Request for Applications, Policy Academy for State and Local Policymakers, Improving Access to Mainstream Services for Persons Who Are Homeless, Health Resources and Services Administration, July 2001).

These data indicate that assisting people to increase their incomes and resources, treat their chronic illnesses, and obtain health insurance could prevent them from becoming homeless. This would, in turn, reduce the number of people in homeless situations rather than simply serve those who become homeless.

New regulations in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program allows states and counties to use TANF funds for homeless prevention activities. The programs can serve not only families who receive monthly TANF cash benefits but also other low-income families. TANF funds for homelessness prevention measures are not defined as "assistance" under the TANF program if the benefits deal with a crisis situation or other specific instance of need; if the benefits are provided as one-time assistance or during a short term, or a period not to exceed four months; and if the benefits are not meant to meet recurrent or ongoing needs. These benefits may be considered "emergency assistance" but not "TANF assistance" that would trigger a individuals' lifetime time limit on receiving TANF benefits and would not require them to assign their child support rights to the state. Homelessness prevention assistance can also be provided to a person more than once within a 12-month period. Some benefits that are not defined as "TANF assistance" include first and last months' rent deposits, security deposits, help with locating housing, services that help prevent eviction, emergency housing, temporary shelter, and outstanding debt that a person owes for rent, mortgage, or utilities. The TANF funds can prevent homelessness for families who are working, enabling them to retain their housing and employment. The funds can also reduce the need for homeless shelters and other more costly services.

Based on evidence that subsidized housing, with or without supportive services, is sufficient to end homelessness for most families, and given the important role of subsidized housing (everywhere it has been examined) in ending homelessness among people with serious mental illness, we propose a shift to selected strategies of prevention, such as providing housing subsidies to those with worst-case housing needs, supporting employment and transitional assistance to poor, young people setting up households for the first time, and focusing efforts on communities from which large proportions of homeless people originate (Shinn and Baumohl, as quoted in Sard, 2001, p. 3).
From: Sard, Barbara. 2001. Using TANF Funds for Housing-Related Benefits to Prevent Homelessness. Published by the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities. http://www.cbpp.org/4-3-01TANF.htm

How this shift in emphasis to preventing homelessness will play out on the state and local levels remains to be seen. Will new dollars be targeted toward prevention services? Will existing funds be re-allocated to prevention efforts, at the risk of de-funding other services?

INTEGRATION OF SERVICES AT ALL LEVELS

Lack of program coordination between HUD and HHSD on the federal level influences service integration on a local level. For example, HUD and HHS grants often have similar goals but differing eligibility criteria, funding cycles, and reporting requirements. Those differences make integrating and coordinating services on a local level difficult (U.S. General Accounting Office, June 1999, Report to Congressional Committees, Homelessness: State and Local Efforts to Integrate and Evaluate Homeless Assistance Programs).

Again, the issue of providing services in a "homeless" services delivery system (HUD) versus a mainstream system (HHS) arises. HUD Secretary Mel Martinez has suggested moving some funds for homeless services to HHS. HUD would continue to pay for emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent housing, and HHS would pay for supportive services to people in homeless situations. HUD also plans to refine its approach to service delivery by:

1. proposing legislation to re-direct homeless funding into housing development
   
2. helping people who are chronically homeless to access permanent housing and supportive services
   
3. providing homelessness prevention services to individuals who are at risk of becoming homeless, and
   
4. building stronger ties with community- and faith-based organizations

Secretary Martinez has also reactivated the federal Interagency Council on the Homeless that will coordinate the activities of 15 agencies. The goals of the Council are to improve the delivery of federal services to people in homeless situations and to make the services more responsive to them (HUD News, July 20, 2001, HUD No. 01-070, http://www.hud.gov/news/index.cfm). Whether any changes are made, and which changes are made, remains to be seen.

Top Of Page

B. Recommendations

The recommendations stemming from this assessment reflect suggestions from the Continuum of Care grant application process, the development of the CAN Urgent Issues Plan for Homeless Services, and research conducted for this assessment.

The 2001 Urgent Issues Plan for Homeless Services in Austin/Travis County can be found in Appendix E.

The 2001 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Grant planning committee set the following goals for the local area:

Goals and Strategies

	GOALS FOR HOMELESS SERVICES
Prevention	Ø Maintain and expand current prevention programs Ø Increase the effectiveness of current prevention efforts through improved collaboration and cooperation among service provider
Outreach & Assessment	Ø Improve planning and access to services by providing centralized information and referral and developing a centralized intake and data collection system Ø Bring services to the client through an enhanced mobile outreach effort
Emergency Shelter	Develop additional emergency shelter to address unmet needs of hard-to-reach homeless people, families, and youth
Transitional Housing	Expand availability of transitional housing with case management to help all homeless populations make the transition to permanent housing
Permanent Affordable Housing	Fully utilize existing resources and develop new approaches to provide adequate affordable housing for persons who are at risk of homelessness and homeless persons who are ready to live in permanent housing
Permanent Supportive Housing	Provide additional housing with case management and supportive services to help homeless persons with special needs live as independently as possible
Supportive Services	Develop an accessible continuum of services that provides homeless persons with the comprehensive skills, assistance and support they need to transition out of homelessness

Based on the Continuum of Care goals, the Urgent Issues Plan for Homelessness, and research on best practices in homeless services that was conducted for this assessment, the Homeless Task Force has established the following goals. Some build on current efforts while others constitute new efforts.

Top Of Page

I. BUILDING ON EXISTING EFFORTS

A. CONTINUE DEVELOPMENT OF PERMANENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INCLUDING SROS

The one factor that all people in homeless situations have in common is that they have no place to live. The creation of an adequate amount of permanent affordable housing cannot be overemphasized. In the short run, more housing is needed to decrease the "bottleneck" that currently exists and keeps people from moving from one part of the homeless continuum of care to the next. In the long run, more housing is needed so every individual and family can have a place to live that they can afford. This will result in more stability for the individuals and the prevention of homelessness.

B. CONTINUE FUNDING AND DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING

More transitional housing opportunities are needed to help people move from one part of the continuum of care to the next. By definition, supportive services are provided with transitional housing. Transitional housing can be provided at one location or several locations. Service providers may pay all, some, or none of a client's rent, depending on the program. Transitional housing provides a period of time for people to build their skills, receive counseling, become employed, and participate in services that will lead them to self-sufficiency. It is an important step between homelessness and independent living for many people.

C. CONTINUE FUNDING AND DEVELOPMENT OF EMERGENCY SHELTER

Although shelter space is available in the community for families, single adults, youth, and elderly people, the supply is inadequate. The small number of transitional housing opportunities and permanent affordable housing units often means that people remain in shelter care longer than they actually need shelter care because they are waiting for transitional or permanent housing.

Keeping families together when they are living in emergency shelters is helpful to families both practically and emotionally. In many cases, women and children live together in one shelter or one section of a shelter while fathers and older male children live in a different shelter or another section of a shelter. Families that continue living together during the time that they are participating and services can maintain communication, plan as a family, and support each other much more easily than if the members are separated. With the opening of more shelter for single adult women and women with children, space will become available in existing family shelters for families that include a male member who is 18 years of age or older. Families are the fastest-growing segment of the homeless population, however. Shelter bed availability is constantly assessed by service providers in the community in order to accurately report demand and to guide service development.

D. CONTINUE FUNDING OF SUPPORTIVE SERVICES

Losing the ACCESS program would mean that persons who are both in a homeless situation and experiencing mental illness would have less access to social services. The ACCESS staff work to bring people into the mainstream social service system, using approaches and strategies that are geared specifically toward people who have lived on the streets. The ACCESS program helps individuals to increase their quality of life and it reduces homelessness.

The Passages case management program is a collaboration of six local organizations that share resources in order to provide comprehensive self-sufficiency services to Austin's homeless population. Passages offers six to eighteen months of intensive case management and supportive services to homeless participants who are committed to attaining self-sufficiency. Passages participants each develop a self-sufficiency plan that addresses housing, income, life skills, and personal issues. Without case management, individuals would have to navigate service systems on their own which could hinder their progress in exiting homelessness.

Other supportive services are also critical to successfully transitioning people out of homeless situations. People in homeless situations often need more than a permanent place to live in order to become as self-sufficient as possible; therefore, continued funding of supportive services continues to be a need in the community.

E. CONTINUE FUNDING COMPONENTS OF THE HOMELESS INITIATIVE

The City of Austin's Homeless Initiative was built on the Homeless Task Force's 1996 Comprehensive Plan and 1997 Implementation Options reports. Accomplishment of the goals outlined in the Initiative has resulted in more shelter space for survivors of domestic violence, more shelter for adult women and women and their children, more shelter for adult men, and more substance abuse treatment available to homeless people. Continued funding to reach the remaining goals will result in the development of SRO housing and the construction and operation of a permanent Austin Resource Center for the Homeless that will house a shelter for men, a day resource center with co-located agencies and services to meet basic needs, and a health clinic. Reaching all the goals will bring full-circle the process of assessing, planning, and executing the plan for homeless services in Austin/Travis County that was begun in 1996.

Top Of Page

II. NEW EFFORTS

A. INCREASE ACCESS TO MAINSTREAM HUMAN SERVICE, HEALTH, AND HOUSING RESOURCES

Researchers, government officials, and service providers have differing opinions about how best to meet the needs of people in homeless situations. Some people advocate for providing services that are targeted specifically to people who are homeless. These services would meet specific needs of the population in a coordinated manner. Other people suggest that a separate service delivery system might "institutionalize" homelessness, creating inefficiency and not motivating mainstream services to reach out to and serve homeless people. Most experts, however, maintain that a combination of both systems works well (U.S. General Accounting Office, June 1999, Report to Congressional Committees, Homelessness: State and Local Efforts to Integrate and Evaluate Homeless Assistance Programs).

Educating and encouraging mainstream program personnel about serving people in homeless situations is critical. Mainstream resources include providers of basic services such as housing, food, clothing, and emergency financial assistance, as well as providers of local, state, and federal benefits.

The "Best Practices" section of this document more fully describes the following three recommendations. These recommendations reflect emerging national trends and philosophical shifts in the way that homelessness is addressed.

B. INTEGRATE SOCIAL SERVICE SYSTEMS AT ALL LEVELS

Integrated social service systems rather than fragmented and uncoordinated services better meet the multiple and complex needs of people in homeless situations. Integrated services provide a holistic approach to working with individuals to meet all their needs, whereas separate services address only one or a portion of individuals' needs. Finally, integrated services ensure that individuals are offered all the services for which they are eligible regardless of which service they seek first.

For example, providers of homeless services could use a centralized management information system (MIS). In this model, a person could seek employment training at Agency X, where a case manager assists the person to complete an online application form with details about the person's needs. The computer program would then automatically assess that person's eligibility for benefits such as TANF, food stamps, Social Security benefits, and Veterans' Administration benefits. The person could choose to have his or her information sent electronically to other agencies that could provide the additional services for which he or she qualifies. This MIS could then also track the services that the person eventually receives so that any future interactions with the social service system would be recorded, and the person would not have to complete basic information every time he or she sought services. This example shows how a system can change to better serve people in homeless situations. Services can also be integrated by pooling funds, consolidating programs, and developing cross-agency strategic plans.

Integrating services on local, state, and federal levels would ideally lead to increased knowledge about services, less duplication of services, more coordinated efforts that would benefit consumers and providers, and a more holistic approach to meeting needs.

C. INCREASE HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION EFFORTS

To address the complexities of homeless issues, involvement from mainstream service providers and multiple funding sources is needed. Health, human service, and housing programs for people with low incomes and for other people who are at risk of homelessness should be considered when planning for homeless services. Assisting people to maintain permanent affordable housing, increase their incomes and resources, treat their chronic illnesses, access childcare and transportation, and obtain mental health care could prevent them from becoming homeless. This would, in turn, reduce the number of people in homeless situations rather than simply serve those who become homeless.

D. PROVIDE HOUSING FIRST

Providing housing first to a person experiencing homelessness removes a significant barrier to that person becoming self-sufficient. Living accommodations can be provided through public housing, housing subsidies, and permanent affordable housing. Once a person has a place to live, he or she can focus on obtaining other services. Also, services can be provided through mainstream resources rather than through a "homeless" services system. This practice aligns with the objectives of decreasing length of time spent in shelters, linking people in homeless situations to mainstream resources, and reducing homelessness. In addition, this technique depends on the availability of an adequate supply of affordable housing and continued funding of case management and other supportive services. Research supports the effectiveness of this approach in helping individuals to get out of homelessness and the efficiency of serving people in their own living accommodations instead of through a homeless services system.

Top Of Page

C. Performance Measures

Although many individual homeless service agencies and programs track their own performance, there is currently no system-wide measurement system for homeless services in place. The Community Action Network (CAN) is dedicated to developing homelessness performance measures that will enable the community to track its progress in achieving the goals identified in the Community Assessment vision:

Austin/Travis County will be a community where all persons will have the opportunity to live in safe, decent and affordable housing.

One way to capture changes in the homeless services system over time is to utilize regularly published federal, state, and local data as outcome indicators. These indicators can serve as a baseline measurement for future assessments. Listed below are some suggested indicators for measuring the performance of homeless services:

Table 8. Performance Measures Developed for City/County Social Services Contracts with Homeless Service Providers
Type of Indicator	Description
Quantitative	Number of emergency shelter beds in the community Number of persons who receive emergency shelter Number of persons who receive case management Number of persons who access permanent, affordable housing as a result of services provided Estimated number of homeless persons in Austin/Travis County
Qualitative	Change in the proportion of people moved out of homelessness as a result of services provided Coordination of mainstream services (resources) with homeless services Change in the proportion of people with repeat episodes of homelessness Coordination of funding sources for homeless services in the community

Top Of Page

2001 Homeless Assessment Home Page