The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10.10.2018 Homeless Services Systems Analysis Report PPTLANE COUNTY HOMEL AND SHELTER FEASIB ANALYSIS OF NEED. S AND PRELIMINARY Technical Assistance Collaborative October 10, 2018 TACTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COLLABORATIVE STU 1 Objectives for this Presentation 1. Overview of homelessness in Lane County 2. System Map 3. Challenges facing Lane County 4. Preliminary Recommendations 5. System Modeling I WHO IS HOMEL LANE C 3 2018 Point in Time Count (PIT) All Homeless Persons Lane County 2018 Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless Annual Count 2500 - 2111 1905 2000 1751 (A 0 1565 1642 i 1473 1451 1529 CL 1500 N N d °J 1000 E 0 5�mill 0 won Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Unsheltered 1406 1254 1102 909 961 934 1003 1135 Emergency 367 392 388 331 411 405 442 412 Transitional 1 338 259 261 325 101 112 84 95 Total 2111 1905 1751 1565 1473 1451 1529 1642 2018 PIT- Homeless Single Adults Lane Co. 2018 Sheltered & Unsheltered Homeless Single Adults Annual Count 1600 1480 — 1435 It 1200 N 73 1000 a a, 800 cn 600 0 w 400 E O 200 2 0 1369 1365 � Unsheltered 1158 1077 997 936 876 833 882 1009 � Emergency 283 288 311 270 325 334 336 325 Transitional 39 70 61 51 26 47 31 31 TOTAL 1480 1435 1369 1257 1227 1214 1249 1365 Percentage of People Who Are Homeless Single Adults % of Homeless Single Adults in the 2018 Annual Count Percent of Total Count (Adults, Families with Children, Youth) 1000/0 +s^, 90% 80% Q 70% a 50% dq 50% Ln 40% Lei W -75 30% 20% O = 10% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2415 2016 2017 2018 �5heltered 46% 55% 57% 48% fig% 74 70% 70% Unsheltered 82% 8696 90% 92% 91% 89% 88% 89% :TOTAL 70% 75% 78% 75% 83% 84% 82% 83% Demographics- 2018 Point In Time- All Homeless persons vimmlpa Unsheltered # Unsheltered % HomelessChronically .• Serious Mental 121 24% 426 38% Illness Substance Use 73 14% 339 30% Disorder Vetera n 53 10% 120 11% Lane County In Context • Unsheltered single adult population is very visible o 42nd out of 399 Continuums of Care (CoCs) for total number of unsheltered people o Of "Smaller, City, County and Regional CoC" across the nation Lane County ranks 6th in chronically homeless number of single individual adults I LANE COUNTY HON SYSTE m •------------------------- LEGEND Populations: Housing Types: ®Family SPermonent ; Qlndividual Housing ®Youth OTransitional ; Housing , ®veteran QEmergency ; ODomestic Shelter , P ovidere Coordinated ; Entry 000 ffl I AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS EMERGENCY SHELTER Family Beds Individual Beds Youth Beds Domestic Violence Beds 000 M �� UNSHELTERED/LITERALLY HOMELESS ES PREVENTION 8 DIVERSION DAY ACCESS CENTERS DENIED ENTRY OR EXITED Under the influence of drugs/alcohol Other non-compliance OUTREACH 4 O O t - Z PHYSICAL ACCESS POINTS Catholic Community Services ShelterCare®* Z St. Vincent De Paul Lindholm Center ® 0 W p Sc Vincent ce Paul 1st Place Q QSt. Vincent De Paul 55VF Is Z Looking Glass Youth® opt Willamette Family Treatment®I® 0 Lane County Dovetail Project ®®® Centro Latino American Q ® Q Eugene Mission ®Q Womenspace Q MOBILEOUTREACH OOH ShelterCare M) ALTERNATIVE TO SHELTER OPTIONS Car Camping Rest Stops Conestoga Huts HOMELESS SERVICE SYSTEM SINGLE HOUSEHOLD: VI-SPDAT score of 8+ FAMILY HOUSEHOLD: VI-SPDAT score of 9+ SINGLE HOUSEHOLD: CE V -SPOAI Score of 4a FAMILY HOUSEHOLD: VI-SPDAT score of 4-8 I: MNAVIGATION NON•CHRONIC HOUSEHOLD WITH CHILDREN REMOVED FROM CWL FOR EXPIRED PERMANENT W SUPPORTIVE HOUSING u Family Units Individual Units PH ® 0 RAPID -REHOUSING W Family Units u Individual Units Youth Units LPH TRANSITIONAL W HOUSING u Family Units TH 19% WHO EXIT TH TO PH reIUFD t0 hOmelessOe55 within 2 years X J14% WHO EXIT return to homelessness within 2 years REGULATED AFFORDABLE HOUSING 8 NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING .ental vacancy rM, PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING Outside of Coordinated Entry System TRANSITIONAL HOUSING Outside of Coordinated CHALLENGES 11 External Challenges • Relatively higher need o Higher poverty rate o Lower employment rate o More seniors o More people with disabilities under age 65 o Low per capita income and high housing costs = less housing for people in poverty • Inadequate rental stock o Pressures on the rental market o Low vacancy rates (2.9% rental vacancy) o Lack of incentiv%apacity for new development • Oregon State and Lane County unsheltered data o High number of newly homeless people touching your system 12 Shelter Capacity Challenges • High # of newly homeless people entering your system (roughly 130 people enter Lane County homeless system per month) • Increasing # of unsheltered single adults • Existing shelter options are not low -barrier while the majority of unsheltered have high barriers leaving many unconnected to services • Year round existing permanent emergency shelter beds o Play a critical role in the system o Not practicing a Housing First model o Have limited staffing/staffing challenges o Structure layouts may limit options o Largest emergency shelter provider does not receive any local, state or federal government funds 13 Housing Placement Challenges &System Bottlenecks • Overall lack of affordable housing stock in Lane County (both regulated and naturally -occurring) • Low vacancy rates • Increasing rents • Difficulty engaging private market landlords • Longer housing search timeframes due to housing barriers • Limited navigation attached to Coordinated Entry (CE) • No general homeless preference in multi -family or public housing programs • Limited "move -on" opportunities 14 RLLIMIINARl' OMMENDATIi DISCUSSION 15 Preliminary Recommendations • Emergency Shelter (ES) • Outreach • Homelessness Diversion • Rapid Rehousing (RRH) • Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) • Tenancy Supports • Coordinated Entry (CE) 0 Expand Shelter & Increase Utilization • Expand permanent Housing First oriented shelter beds • TAC modeling recommends 50-75 beds for single adults • To be effective, shelter should follow Housing First Orientation o Immediate and easy access o Housing -focused services o Rapid exits to permanent housing o Measure outcomes to improve performance • Work with existing emergency shelter providers to increase utilization of year round beds • Consider placing City/County funded staff on-site at existing shelters for navigation, housing centered case management o Targeting long-term shelter stayers for rapid replacement can greatly reduce System -wide Length of Stay for Emergency Shelter 17 System -Wide Policy and Practice Alignment • Outreach: expand, increase, ensure efficiency/coordination • Diversion: Implement a system -wide diversion strategy • Rapid Re -Housing: Expand and better utilization of Rapid Re -Housing resources o Landlord recruitment and management o Written standards and expectations o Housing first, Crisis Response, Client Choice o Housing Navigation o Four Dimensional Tenancy Supports 11 System -Wide Policy and Practice Alignment • Permanent Supportive Housing o Move -on strategy o Housing first, Crisis Response, Client Choice o Create new Permanent Supportive Housing Units o Better utilize current PSH portfolio • Review homeless preference policies for opportunities • Tenancy Supports o Progressive Assistance- Right Person, Right Resource, Right Time o Flexible & Client -Centered o Post -Placement & Retention • Coordinated Entry: Improve effectiveness of Coordinated Entry and overall System Coordination 19 EM MODE 20 System Modeling for Homeless Single Adults: Current Factors & Assumptions Current System Capacity bmm Individual Beds/Units 364 47 50 407 Utilization Rate 85% 92% 73% 87% Turnover Rate 9% 10% 11% 2% Current Daily Stayers and Those Entering Homelessness IFF OT inaiviauar. Emergency Shelter 325 Transitional Housing 31 Unsheltered 1009 Total Literally Homeless 1365 Monthly Newly Homeless into System 130 System Modeling: Add Emergency Shelter Beds • Add 50-75 Low -barrier Emergency Shelter Beds dk Individual Beds/Units 439 47 50 407 Utilization Rate 85% 92% 73% 87% Turnover Rate 9% 10% 11% 2% • Impact on System Unsheltered 1009 977 Total Literally Homeless 1365 1426 Estimated Unmet PH 1393 1393 Housing Need System Modeling: All Recommendations • Add 75 Additional Emergency Beds • Increase Diversion • Increase Utilization Across Interventions • Add 350 Units of PSH • Increase Turn Over Across Interventions Individual Beds/Units 439 47 50 757 Utilization Rate 90% 95% 85% 95% Turnover Rate 20% 20% 15% 5% Unsheltered 1009 0 Total Literally Homeless 1365 467 Estimated Unmet PH 1393 283 Housing Need 1200 1000 ON HI1 200 IN System Modeling Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 —ES Units —PSH Units —Utilization —Turnover —Unsheltered 24 Coming Attractions... Final Report will include: o Budget Estimates of different recommended strategies o Best Practices to Incorporate o Effective ways to implement recommendations 25 QUESTION DISCU 26