HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 5-13-19 Joint Work SessionMay 13, 2019, Joint Work Session
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
May 13, 2019
5:30 p.m. JOINT WORK SESSION OF THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AND THE
LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Meeting of May 13, 2019;
Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding
Councilors Betty Taylor, President Emily Semple, Vice President Mike Clark Greg Evans Chris Pryor Claire Syrett Jennifer Yeh Alan Zelenka
5:30 p.m. JOINT WORK SESSION OF THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AND THE
LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1.JOINT WORK SESSION: Presentation of Implementation Plan for Homeless
and Supportive Housing System Report Recommendations
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session
For the hearing impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours' notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 541-682-5010. City Council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast laterin the week.El consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene agradece su interés en estos asuntos de la agenda. El lugar de la reunión tieneacceso para sillas de ruedas. Se puede proveer a un intérprete para las personas con discapacidad auditiva si avisa con48 horas de anticipación. También se puede proveer interpretación para español si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación.Para reservar estos servicios llame al 541-682-5010. Las reuniones del consejo de la ciudad se transmiten en vivo porMetro Television, Canal 21 de Comcast y son retransmitidas durante la semana.
For more information, contact the Council Coordinator at 541-682-5010, or visit us online at www.eugene-or.gov.
Memorandum Date: May 3 , 2019
Meeting Date: May 13, 2019
TO: Lane County Board of Commissioners and Eugene City Council
PRESENTED BY: Karen Gaffney, Director H&HS
Steve Manela, Human Services Division Manager, Lane County
Peter Chavannes, Senior Program Supervisor, City of Eugene
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: DISCUSSION ONLY MEMORANDUM: PRESENTATION
OF THE IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK FOR THE
HOMELESS AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING SYSTEM
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
I.MOTION
None: Discussion Only.
II.AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to update the City of Eugene and Lane County
elected officials on the status of the framework development and implementation plan for
recommended improvements and transformation of the homeless service and supportive
housing system. Options will be presented for the development of additional capacity for:
homeless outreach and crisis response; prevention and diversion of homelessness; a
highly functional coordinated entry system that actively works with those in need of
housing and services; a navigation center services and a low-barrier shelter as a vehicle to
move more participants into permanent housing with the appropriated health and social
service supports that they need; and the development of additional Permanent Supportive
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
Housing for people with behavioral health and/or chronic health conditions that other
have significant barriers to their stable housing.
III. BACKGROUND/IMPLICATIONS OF ACTION
A. Board Action and Other History
In the fall of 2017, Lane County, with the participation and additional funding
support of the City of Eugene, selected the Technical Assistance Collaborative
(TAC) to conduct a public shelter feasibility study and homeless service system
analysis for Lane County. TAC presented their final report at a Joint Elected
Officials meeting on January 22, 2019.
After that meeting, a Steering Committee formed to develop an implementation
plan based on the report’s recommendations. The Committee is comprised of
Eugene City Manager Jon Ruiz, Lane County Administrator Steve Mokrohisky,
the City of Eugene Mayor Lucy Vinis, Eugene City Councilor Claire Syrett, Lane
County Commissioners Heather Buch and Pat Farr, Poverty and Homelessness
Board Chair Pat Walsh, Lane County Human Services Division Manager Steve
Manela, and Homeless/Formerly Homeless Representative on Poverty and
Homelessness Board Kris McAllister.
This presentation will provide an overview of the Steering Committee’s work in
identifying options for the development of additional capacity for: homeless
outreach and crisis response; prevention and diversion of homelessness; a highly
functional coordinated entry system that actively works with those in need of
housing and services; a navigation center services and a low-barrier shelter as a
vehicle to move more participants into permanent housing with the appropriated
health and social service supports that they need; and the development of
additional Permanent Supportive Housing for people with behavioral health
and/or chronic health conditions that other have significant barriers to their stable
housing.
B. Policy Issues
The TAC public shelter feasibility study and homeless service system analysis
and subsequent work by the Steering Committee will provide options for local
elected officials to consider in addressing improvements to the area’s homeless
service and supportive service system and the development of a public shelter.
C. Board Goals
The Lane County Strategic Plan calls for addressing the community’s need for
affordable housing and addressing homelessness. Specifically, it calls for
increasing housing options for residents to reduce the incidence of homelessness
and increase affordability. Specific strategies include: convening, sponsoring, and
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
implementing a collaborative multi-jurisdictional affordable housing action plan;
identifying and implementing programs for supportive housing, short-term
transitional housing, and long-term and permanent solutions to address
homelessness; increasing access to prevention and treatment services and
developing programs; and for developing policy focused on behavioral health,
community health, and youth.
D. Financial and/or Resource Considerations
Lane County along with its City partners in the Human Services Commission will
need to continue to identify, fund, perform resource development for grants and
advocate for resources to continue to fund shelter and supportive housing
development, operations and services. The Steering Committee’s
recommendations will outline options for use of resources needed to address
housing and service needs of homeless populations in Lane County.
E. Health Implications
Poor health can contribute to being homeless, and being homeless can lead to
poor health. Limited access to health care can make it worse. That is why the
health of people experiencing homelessness is worse than that of the general
population. Common health problems include:
• Problems caused by being outdoors
• Bronchitis and pneumonia
• Wound and skin infections
• Mental health problems
• Substance abuse problems
Many women experiencing homelessness are victims of domestic or sexual abuse.
Homeless children have high rates of emotional and behavioral problems, often
from having witnessed abuse and the trauma of experiencing homelessness.
For many, the daily struggle for food, shelter, clothing, and safety relegates health
to a distant priority which, in turn, exacerbates disease, complicates treatment,
and drives excess mortality.
F. Analysis
On any given night, more than 1,642 Lane County residents are homeless and
1,135 are without shelter. Many have been homeless for more than one year. The
number of unsheltered persons has become acute. School districts in Lane County
report that 2,544 of their students were homeless during the last school year.
Annual figures show that 15,454 individuals who sought services from local
human services programs were homeless at some point during the year (2018).
The framework and recommendations presented today will provide a roadmap to
the development of a system that will transform the current homeless services and
housing system and reduce the number of homeless Lane County residents.
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
IV. Alternatives/Options
Information only, no action requested at this time.
V. RECOMMENDATION
N/A, presentation only.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
Presentation Slides
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
Homeless System Transformation
1 | Page
This Implementation Framework is designed to move forward with the Technical Assistance
Collaborative’s (TAC) 10 recommendations delivered to the Lane County Commissioners and Eugene City
Councilors in January 2019. TAC recommendations may be broadly organized into three categories:
1) Expanding the edges of the homeless service and supportive housing system by enhancing and more
effectively outreaching to people experiencing homelessness and building out the inventory of
supportive housing and services;
2) Strengthening the core of Lane County’s coordinated systems approach to homelessness by better
coordinating a strategic and data driven community-wide response, adding to diversion, prevention,
coordinated entry, navigation services; and
3) Enhancing the rapid response by providing better emergency housing with integrated supportive
services and housing navigation; building a new low-barrier 75-bed Shelter/Navigation Center;
developing mobile socio-health care teams to serve people where they are and allocating flexible funds
to creatively respond to emerging needs.
3+ Year Implementation Framework
The Framework below identifies key milestones for each year of implementation. The majority of TAC’s
recommendations are achievable in 3 years. However, the complexity inherent in developing
Permanent Supportive Housing necessitates a 5+ year implementation strategy for this item.
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
Homeless System Transformation
2 | Page
Making an Immediate Difference
• Establishment of a year-round navigation center at the Dusk to Dawn site providing expanded supportive
navigation services as a bridge strategy until a new Emergency Shelter/Navigation Center opens.
• Design and siting work toward a new 75-bed, Low-Barrier Emergency Shelter/Navigation Center.
• Develop and implement mobile street outreach teams to deliver services to people where they are.
• 51 units of Permanent Supportive Housing, the Commons on MLK, beginning construction Fall 2019
• Strengthening system coordination for diversion, coordinated entry, navigation and move on strategies.
• Flexible Funding to respond to people’s immediate needs.
• Collective impact process led by a Strategic Initiatives Manager.
Links to Existing Efforts
TAC implementation will complement and link to existing homeless and supportive housing and service programs
and initiatives sponsored by the City of Eugene and Lane County to address homelessness. The following are some
examples of existing initiatives that have added capacity in recent years:
Dusk to Dawn: Established by Lane County and the City of Eugene in December 2015, Dusk to Dawn provides sites
for people to sleep overnight. A St. Vincent de Paul site for individuals in northwest Eugene has been expanded
over the past three years from 80 beds, to 115, and this year to 215 beds. St. Vincent de Paul also operates a site
that serves families with children in southeast Eugene that has a capacity to serve 20 families.
Car Camping and Safe Parking Programs: Car Camping and Safe Parking programs, run in partnership with St.
Vincent de Paul, currently host over 90 single spaces and 8 family spaces at over 43 addresses, both public and
private. The Cities of Eugene and Springfield, and Lane County, sponsor these programs. St. Vincent de Paul
administers the program, providing sanitary facilities as well as camper screening and placement.
Rest Stops: Rest stops provide approved sites where people experiencing homelessness can sleep in tents or
Conestoga huts, keep their belongings, and receive assistance connecting with social services. Currently, 5rest
stops managed by local non-profits are in operation, serving up to 92 people at any one time.
Community Outreach and Response Team (CORT): A partnership between the Downtown Eugene Police Team
and CAHOOTS, this team identifies top users of police resources in the downtown area and spends two days a
week working with individuals to help them address underlying needs and barriers. CORT has helped 31% of their
clients enter housing.
Frequent User System Engagement (FUSE): Lane County’s FUSE, is a supportive housing program for the top 100
homeless individuals who have been the most “frequent utilizers” of Lane County’s public services including law
enforcement, jails, and emergency medical services. A partnership between Lane County, Laurel Hill, ShelterCare,
Willamette Family Treatment, Senior & Disabled Services, local jails and law enforcement, FUSE engages people
with outreach, case management, housing search, housing units and/or rental assistance, care coordination and
ongoing support. In its pilot year, participants experienced an 82% drop in arrests, a 75% drop in citations, a 26%
decrease in emergency room visits, a 53% drop in healthcare costs, and a 50% decline in jail intakes.
Veterans BY-Name List (VBNL): VBLN is used by veteran advocates, veteran-specific services, and housing projects
with dedicated beds for veterans to link housing and related services to homeless veterans. Since March 2016, 529
homeless veterans on the VBNL have been housed and 1,804 individuals have been assessed for the VBNL.
Timing:
The County Administrator and Eugene City Manager will bring their recommendation for financing the first year of
the implementation plan to the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Eugene City Council for approval.
Additional service capacity will be phased in during year one.
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
HOMELESS SERVICE SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
A N E C O U N T Y . O R G / S H E L T E R
S T U D Y
EXPAND DIVERSION
& RAPID EXIT
STRATEGIES
EXPAND AND COORDINATE
STREET OUTREACH
TENANCY SUPPORTS
75 BED
EMERGENCY SHELTER
BEST PRACTICE TRAINING
EXPAND AND COORDINATE
RAPID REHOUSING
350 UNITS PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
MOVE-ON STRATEGIES
COORDINATED ENTRY
CHANGES
LANDLORD
PARTNERSHIPS
LaneCounty.org/ShelterStudyMay 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
LANE COUNTY
SHELTER FEASIBILITY STUDY
DECEMBER 2018
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS0203
06
INTRODUCTION
1. BACKGROUND (2)
2. METHODOLOGY (2)
OVERVIEW OF HOMELESS POPULATION
IN LANE COUNTY
1. ALL PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS (3)
2. FOCUS ON SINGLE ADULTS (5)
CURRENT HOMELESS SYSTEM FOR SINGLE ADULTS
1. OUTREACH (6)
2. DIVERSION (6)
3. EMERGENCY SHELTER (6)
4. COORDINATED ENTRY (7)
5. DAY CENTERS/ACCESS CENTERS (8)
6. TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (8)
7. RAPID RE-HOUSING (8)
8. PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING (8)
9. TENANCY SUPPORTS (9)1012
EXTERNAL CHALLENGES IN LANE COUNTY
1. WHAT DEMOGRAPHIC DATA TELLS US
ABOUT LANE COUNTY (10)
2. GREATER DEMAND DOES NOT TRANSLATE TO MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING (11)
3. HIGH NUMBER OF NEWLY HOMELESS (11)
STRATEGIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. SYSTEM-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS (12)
2. ADD LOW-BARRIER EMERGENCY SHELTER (18)
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In Lane County, the number of people experiencing homelessness
has been steadily increasing in recent years with a large portion
(69%) of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness.
Nationally, about a third of people experiencing homelessness
(34.5%) are in unsheltered locations, while about two-thirds
(65.5%) are in sheltered locations.1 With the high number of people
living on the streets, in cars, in tents, and other places not meant
for human habitation, it is crucial that Lane County implement
well-planned and effective strategies to move people out of
homelessness and into safe and secure housing.
The Technical Assistance Collaborative (TAC) developed this report
as part of a Public Shelter Feasibility study commissioned by Lane
County in collaboration with the City of Eugene. The purpose
of the study was to assess the crisis response system in Lane
County, identify gaps and bottlenecks within the system, and
outline best practices and strategies to address areas of need and
improvement. This report outlines ten key recommendations for
Lane County and its partners to address the current homeless
crisis with a particular focus on unsheltered homelessness among
single adults. The recommendations include strategies to address
system-wide issues as well as the need for low-barrier emergency
shelter beds. The key system-wide recommendations are as
follows:
1. Expand and better coordinate outreach services by pro-
actively engaging people who are on the streets or living
in places not meant for human habitation (cars, tents,
abandoned buildings, etc.) and connecting them to
services – these activities are a key part of ending
homelessness in any community.
2. Expand diversion and rapid exit services strategies, which
is an emerging practice whereby individuals or families
seeking emergency services are immediately engaged in an
exploratory conversation to determine if there are alternative
options, even if temporary, that would help them avoid or
quickly exit literal homelessness.
3. Expand and better coordinate rapid re-housing (RRH)
resources. RRH uses a progressive and individualized manner
to provide short- to medium-term rental assistance, along
with housing-focused services, in an effort to rapidly move
households out of homelessness.
4. Create additional permanent supportive housing (PSH)
and increase utilization, as Lane County has a significant
population of highly vulnerable, long-term homeless
individuals in both sheltered and unsheltered situations. The
current PSH units throughout the county are underutilized
and inadequate in meeting the needs of the community.
5. Implement effective move-on strategies, which are an
emerging practice that allows mainstream or other affordable
1 https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2017-AHAR-Part-2-Section-1.pdf
housing subsidies or units to replace the subsidy of a PSH
project and thus free up the intensive service package a PSH
project has to offer.
6. Expand and increase utilization of tenancy supports. While
rental assistance and subsidies are an important component
in ending homelessness, tenancy supports also play a
critical role in ensuring clients can maintain their housing
permanently.
7. Increase effectiveness of coordinated entry. A community’s
coordinated entry system is the primary mechanism for
ensuring that those experiencing homelessness are connected
to interventions that will rapidly end their homelessness.
8. Create centralized and coordinated landlord and housing
partner management; landlords and other housing partners
are critical stakeholders in the effort to end homelessness.
9. Provide training to ensure implementation of best practices,
as training and professional development are critical to any
homeless crisis response system. High staff turnover, evolving
practices and promising models, unique client needs, and the
overall need for highly specialized services all contribute to the
need for ongoing training.
10. In addition to the above nine system-wide recommendations,
TAC recommends that Lane County develop a new year-round
low-barrier emergency shelter to serve 75 people.
While increasing emergency shelter beds will help respond to the
immediate crisis of unsheltered single adults in the community,
without expansion of other system components as well as policy
alignment, training, and implementation of best practices across
the CoC, the county will be unable to make a significant impact on
single adult homelessness. TAC recommends that Lane County
capitalize on its existing partnerships with the City of Eugene, local
non-profit service providers, the local community, emergency first
responders, and elected officials to plan, implement, operate, and
evaluate the recommendations in this report.
PAGE 1
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
INTRODUCTION
1. BACKGROUND
In March of 2018, Lane County, in collaboration with the City
of Eugene, secured the services of the Technical Assistance
Collaborative Inc., (TAC) to conduct a public shelter feasibility
study. As part of the study, TAC was to assess the current homeless
crisis response and service system within Lane County, including
resource capacity and gaps within various system components
such as coordinated entry (CE), diversion, outreach, day shelters,
emergency shelters (ES), transitional housing (TH), rapid-rehousing
(RRH), and permanent supportive housing (PSH). Since that time,
TAC has conducted a comprehensive review and analysis of Lane
County’s homeless service and crisis response system, culminating
in this report. The report outlines a number of recommendations
related to Lane County’s homeless system overall, as well as
specific recommendations for the creation of a public emergency
shelter.
2. METHODOLOGY
TAC’s methodology to complete a shelter feasibility study focused
on conducting a comprehensive assessment and analysis of all
major system components within Lane County’s homeless system.
While emergency shelters play a crucial role in addressing a
person’s immediate housing crisis needs, it is important to note
that shelter alone cannot be a community’s singular strategy to
end homelessness. For this reason, TAC approached this study
with a system-wide lens and ensured our analysis incorporated
data and information from multiple sources within different
system components.
Below is a detailed description of our methodology and steps
leading to the findings and strategic recommendations in this
report. Over the course of seven months, TAC completed the
following:
Data and Information Collection
TAC collected and reviewed data from the following sources:
• Lane County’s Homelessness Management Information
System (HMIS) including Annual Performance Reports for
ES, TH, RRH, and PSH, and custom reports provided by Lane
County
• Coordinated entry system reports
• Homeless Point-in-Time counts from 2011 to 2018
• Housing Inventory Chart (HIC) from 2018
• Federal fiscal year 2016 and 2017 system performance
measures (SPM) reports
• Lane County CE written standards
• Poverty and Homelessness Board (PHB) Strategic Plan 2016-
2021
• PHB governance charter
Stakeholder Interviews & Meetings
TAC gathered information from a wide range of Lane County
stakeholders. Over the course of six months, TAC staff conducted
over 30 stakeholder interviews, participated in a Poverty and
Homelessness Board Meeting, facilitated two focus groups,
and presented at the joint public meeting of the Eugene City
Council and Lane County Commissioners. Stakeholder interviews
and meetings occurred both on-site and off-site, and included
representation from the following groups:
• Staff from Lane County and the City of Eugene
• Emergency shelter providers, housing providers, housing
developers, advocates, consumers, funders, and other
community stakeholders
• Eugene City Council Members and Lane County
Commissioners
• A list of the specific agencies interviewed is provided in
Appendix A.
Analysis & Assessment of Information
Throughout the course of the data collection and stakeholder
interviews, TAC continuously assessed the information obtained
to understand each system component, how these components
are accessed by clients, and how the components relate to
or interact with each other. This analysis included evaluating
demographic information of those experiencing homelessness,
highlighting salient data points, identifying system gaps, evaluating
performance issues, and identifying overarching themes. The data
and information analysis provided the basis for the development of
the system map, key recommendations, and the system modeling.
Development of the System Map
TAC drafted an accessible, easy-to-understand map of the Lane
County homeless service system. The map illustrates the primary
aspects of the homeless service system including emergency
shelter, alternate shelter options, day access centers, outreach,
coordinated entry, and the housing options available. The map
highlights the myriad of “paths” an individual or family experiencing
a housing crisis could take to address their crisis such as accessing
PSH, RRH, TH, or other affordable housing and private market
housing. The goal of the map is to present the system flow and
illustrate where specific gaps within the system exist, as well as
identify where households get “stuck” without adequate resources
to address their homelessness crisis. The map of Lane County
Homeless Service System is included in Appendix B.
Development of System Modeling
TAC created a scenario planning tool to model the impact of
modifications to various aspects of the county’s crisis response
system. The system modeling took into account factors such as
the number of people experiencing homelessness, the amount
of resources available within each system component, and the
utilization and turnover rate for each of the system components.
TAC used the system modeling to refine and “right-size” our
recommendations. The system modeling analysis is included in
Appendix C.
PAGE 2
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
OVERVIEW OF HOMELESS POPULATION IN LANE COUNTY
1. ALL PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
One of the primary datasets available on homelessness is data from the Point-in-Time (PIT) count. HUD requires Continuums of
Care (CoC), such as Lane County, to conduct a count on a single night of the people in a community who are experiencing homelessness,
including sheltered and unsheltered populations. While HUD requires only a biannual count, Lane County traditionally conducts a
PIT count every year.
Lane County conducted its 2018 PIT count on January 31, 2018, and identified 1,641 persons experiencing homelessness.
The chart below shows the number of people experiencing homelessness2 and the corresponding living situation for those
persons from 2011 through 2018.3
CHART 1: 2011-2018 PIT
The chart above illustrates that after a downward trend beginning in 2012 through 2016, the number of people experiencing homelessness
has been increasing. Note that unsheltered homelessness accounts for the entire seven percent increase in overall homelessness
between 2017 and 2018. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines unsheltered homeless situations
as locations not meant for human habitation, including living on the streets, living in vehicles, and living in “alternative shelter
options” (e.g., car camping, rest stops, Conestoga huts).
As part of the PIT count, communities must identify whether a person is an individual, a member of a family unit, or an
unaccompanied youth under the age of 18. In addition, communities must identify if a person is chronically homeless,
indicating that the person has experienced long-time or repeated homelessness and has a disability. Tables 1 and 2 (next page)
provide the demographics of persons experiencing homelessness collected as part of the 2018 PIT count.
2 2018 PIT Data provided directly from Lane County.
3 The PIT is a snapshot of people experiencing homelessness on any given night. Lane County estimates that over 15,000 people experienced homeless in Lane County in the last year.
2500
2011
2000
2111
1905
1751
1565
1473 1451 1529
1641
2012
1500
2013
1000
2014
500
2015
0
2016 2017 2018
TRANSITIONAL
EMERGENCY
UNSHELTERED
TOTAL
PAGE 3
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
TABLE 1: # OF HOMELESS PERSONS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE
Sheltered Unsheltered Total
Single Adults 356 1009 1365
Families with Children 138 113 251
Children Only 13 12 25
Total 507 1134 1641
TABLE 2: 2018 HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS
Status Sheltered #Sheltered %Unsheltered #Unsheltered %Total
Chronically Homeless 112 22%601 53%713
Serious Mental Illness 121 24%426 38%547
Substance Use Disorder 73 14%339 30%412
Veteran 53 10%120 11%173
The number of single adults experiencing homelessness far exceeds the number of persons in families with children or
unaccompanied minors (see Table 1). Single adults account for 83 percent of all people experiencing homelessness, persons
in families with children account for 15 percent, and unaccompanied minors account for two percent.
While gaps in emergency shelter resources exist for all populations in Lane County, the difference between the number
of people experiencing homelessness and the number of emergency shelter beds is greatest for single adults who account
for the majority of those experiencing homelessness, as evidenced in Chart 2 below.
CHART 2: NUMBER OF ES BEDS BY POPULATION
1500
1200
900
600
300
0 FAMILIES SINGLE ADULTS CHILDREN ONLY
# OF DEDICATED ES BEDS
# OF PERSONS HOMELESS
OVERVIEW OF HOMELESS POPULATION IN LANE COUNTY
63
251
364
1365
12 25
PAGE 4
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
2. FOCUS ON SINGLE ADULTS
Over 1,300 single adults are experiencing homelessness on any given night in Lane County, accounting for 83 percent of all
people experiencing homelessness in the community. During the night of the PIT count, 1,009 of these single adults were in
unsheltered locations, comprising 89 percent of the unsheltered population.
CHART 3: 2018 PIT SINGLE ADULTS
Compared to national data, Lane County has a much higher incidence of homelessness amongst single adults. Nationally,
67 percent of the overall homeless population is single adults and 33 percent are people in families.4 A closer look at this
population indicates that many are chronically homeless, have a serious mental illness, a substance use disorder, and/or
are Veterans.
Lane County’s 2018 PIT count identified 713 people who were chronically homeless, with 112 living in sheltered locations
and 601 living in unsheltered locations. Furthermore, data showed that 24 percent of sheltered people and 38 percent of
unsheltered people identified as having a serious mental illness (SMI), and 14 percent of sheltered people and 30 percent
of unsheltered people had a substance use disorder (SUD).
Data indicates that the Lane County unsheltered single adult population is
significantly higher than many other similar communities:
• Out of 399 CoCs across the country, Lane County ranks as the CoC with
the 40th highest number of unsheltered people
• Of “Smaller, City, County, and Regional CoCs” across the country, Lane
County ranks 6th in the number of chronically homeless single adults 5
• In Lane County, 0.27 percent of the population is unsheltered, as compared
to Portland with 0.20 percent, and Seattle with 0.25 percent6
Given the high incidence of homelessness among single adults, many of whom are people with disabilities experiencing
chronic homelessness, TAC determined that additional analysis of Lane County’s homeless service system and potential
recommendations should focus primarily on addressing single adults.
4 2017 AHAR.
5 2017 AHAR.
6 Based on comparing data in 2017 AHAR and US Census Population Data.
1500
2011
1200
2012
900
2013
600
2014
300
2015 2016 2017 2018
TRANSITIONAL
EMERGENCY
UNSHELTERED
TOTAL0
Chronic Homelessness Definition: HUD defines
chronic homelessness as a single adult (or head
of household in a family) who has been homeless
consistently for at least one year, or who has
had four episodes of homelessness over three
years, of which episodes total at least 12 months
of homelessness.
OVERVIEW OF HOMELESS POPULATION IN LANE COUNTY
1480 1435
1369
1257 1227 1214 1249
1365
PAGE 5
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
Understanding all aspects of the homeless system for single
adults, from outreach to permanent supportive housing, and
how these are accessed by clients, is critical to developing shelter
recommendations.
1. OUTREACH
Outreach is an extremely important activity designed to help
establish supportive relationships, give people advice and support,
and provide access to the services and supports that will help
them move off the streets to permanent housing. Outreach is a
necessary system component to access hard-to-reach individuals
and should be connected to an overall concerted effort to end
homelessness. Best practice in outreach requires moving outside
the walls of agencies to engage people experiencing homelessness
where they are physically located and to connect with those
who may be disconnected and alienated from both mainstream
services and supports and services targeting people experiencing
homelessness. The best practice in outreach is housing-focused.
TAC identified several gaps and barriers within the current
outreach system. Currently, there are limited outreach programs
focused on connecting unsheltered single adults to permanent
housing. Within Lane County, there are four outreach programs
that “touch” single adults. These include the White Bird SAMHSA
PATH program, the Shankle program, ShelterCare’s FUSE Program,
and the Looking Glass street outreach project that serves youth
who are predominantly 18 and older. Although these programs
provide essential services to those they serve, the staff capacity
across these programs is insufficient to effectively engage the
number of unsheltered single adults who currently live on the
streets and in places not meant for human habitation. A review of
the number of persons served with outreach services showed that
approximately 1,000 persons receive outreach services annually.7
With over 1,000 single adults living in unsheltered locations on
any given night during the year, it is clear that additional outreach
efforts are needed.
In addition to insufficient staffing, the Lane County outreach
services design does not allow for system-wide engagement
strategies. Currently, each program operates independently and
is focused only on its specific target population, (e.g., SMI). Finally,
outreach services and case management are not always housing-
focused nor housing placement oriented.
2. DIVERSION
Diversion, or rapid exit, is a best practice strategy that communities
incorporate into their homeless crisis response system to prevent
homelessness for people seeking shelter by helping them identify
immediate alternate housing arrangements and, if necessary,
connecting them with services and financial assistance to help
them return to permanent housing quickly. Diversion services
7 Based on 2017 Outreach APR.
can reduce the number of households becoming homeless,
the demand for shelter beds, and the size of program waitlists.
Diversion services can also help communities achieve better
outcomes and be more competitive when applying for federal
funding. Diversion services are offered immediately prior to, or
immediately after, a household becomes literally homeless. In
general, diversion practices are emerging and communities are
working to identify the best way to implement diversion services
and resources locally.
There are currently no robust diversion programs in Lane County,
nor distinct diversion efforts at points of shelter entry; TAC
considers this to be a gap in the overall homelessness system.
Based on a review of the data available on lengths of stays in
emergency shelters, it is likely that a number of people enter
shelter in Lane County who – if diversion were provided – could
either be diverted prior to shelter entry or within a short period of
time after shelter intake.
3. EMERGENCY SHELTER
Emergency shelters are a facility or type of crisis housing (e.g.,
crisis beds, motel vouchers) with the primary purpose of providing
safe temporary shelter for people experiencing a housing crisis.
Emergency shelters provide a temporary place for people to stay,
meet basic needs such as food, safety, and hygiene, and offer some
level of support to seek and obtain housing. Emergency shelters
and other types of crisis housing play a critical role in a system’s
response to homelessness, as people in a housing crisis will always
need a safe and decent place to go that is immediately available.
Low-barrier orientation is considered best practice for emergency
shelters. Low-barrier shelters have a housing-first orientation and
few, if any, barriers to entry, such as sobriety requirements or
background checks.
Within Lane County, there are currently 364 year-round emergency
shelter beds dedicated for single adults. During stakeholder
interviews, it was noted that current shelter providers face staffing
challenges, as well as physical design layouts, that limit options
on how many people can be served on any given night. These
emergency shelters do not use a low-barrier model. In turn, some
of the most vulnerable people continue to sleep on the streets and
in places not meant for human habitation around Lane County,
primarily in the City of Eugene. In addition, there does not seem to
be a strong focus on housing-related case management to quickly
exit individuals from shelter into permanent housing.
A review of the emergency shelter data8 shows that most people
entering the shelter system are coming directly from homeless
situations. Eighty percent of those coming from homeless
situations were coming from unsheltered locations (See Chart 4 &
Chart 5).
8 Data from 2017 Emergency Shelter APR.
CURRENT HOMELESS SYSTEM FOR SINGLE ADULTS PAGE 6
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
Half of the people who enter the shelter system exit within 14 days. It is likely that a portion of these people could be diverted at entry if
diversion and rapid exit practices were in place,9 as discussed above. Also noteworthy is that a smaller percentage of people have lengthy
periods of stays of 90 days or more (Chart 6). These long-term stayers represent a “clog” in the system, where there is an inability to move
people out of shelters and into permanent housing destinations. One other issue highlighted in the data analysis is that current existing
beds are not being fully utilized, with a utilization rate of 85 percent system-wide. This may be related to staffing capacity issues as well as
the higher-barrier model that is being employed.
CHART 6: SINGLE ADULTS BY LENGTH OF TIME (LOT) IN EMERGENCY SHELTERS
Although changes to existing shelter practices may create better system performance, the current emergency system is privately funded,
and does not receive any local, state, or federal funding for any operations. This limits the ability of Lane County and the City of Eugene to
require changes in practices to more low-barrier models in existing shelter operations.
4. COORDINATED ENTRY
Coordinated Entry (CE) is a system that works by establishing a common process to understand the situation of all individuals and families
who are experiencing a housing crisis, and request assistance through the homeless crisis response system. Core elements of CE include
establishment of crisis system access point(s), the use of a standardized assessment process to gather information on program participants’
preferences and housing needs, and a standardized referral process that prioritizes households with the highest needs to appropriate and
available housing resources.
Lane County Health and Human Services is responsible for overseeing Lane County’s coordinated entry system. Currently, participating
agencies conduct assessments at 11 different physical access points throughout the system. In addition, one agency also conducts
assessments via mobile outreach. Lane County uses the Vulnerability Index Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT)
9 The program exit data available is not reliable, with over 75% of destinations reporting missing data.
CURRENT HOMELESS SYSTEM FOR SINGLE ADULTS
CHART 4: LIVING SITUATION AT PROGRAM ENTRY CHART 5: HOMELESS SITUATION
HOMELESS SITUATIONS
INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS
OTHER LOCATIONS
HOMELESS SITUATIONS
INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS
INTERIM HOUSING
PLACE NOT MEANT FOR HABITATION
71%71%
80%
19%
1%
22%
7%
800
1000
600
400
200
0 <7 DAYS 7-14 DAYS 15-30 DAYS 31-90 DAYS 91-180 DAYS 181-365 DAYS
827
287 310
465
215 161
PAGE 7
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
as its common assessment tool. This tool provides a score for each
assessed individual; this score is then used to determine what
specific intervention should be offered to that person, and their
prioritization on the centralized waitlist (CWL). For single adults, a
VI-SPDAT score of 8+ will place them on the CWL for permanent
supportive housing, while a score of 4-7 will place them on the CWL
for a rapid re-housing intervention.
The coordinated entry system was established in 2015; since then,
1,493 assessments have been completed (as of 6/30/18). Of these
completed assessments, 76 percent of persons assessed were
single adults.
Through its CE policies and procedures, Lane County requires
that assessments be updated every six months or the assessment
will “expire” and the household will be removed from the CWL.
Since available housing resources are limited, a large portion of
people who are assessed will not be offered a resource within this
timeframe, and may become disconnected during this period.
Since CE was implemented, 709 singles adults have been removed
from the CWL list, 549 of which were due to an expired assessment.
Forty-three percent of people assessed (both single adults and
families) have been removed from the CWL without ever being
referred to a housing resource.
The current system design presents a number of challenges.
First, it “wastes” resources of the assessing agencies and gives
some people in need of a housing intervention “false hope.”
Second, not all homeless resources participate in CE, specifically
PSH and Transitional Housing units. In addition, while the CE
system incorporates some mobile outreach doing assessments,
there is no fully dedicated CE outreach team to do assessments
system-wide. There also is no “walk-in” capacity as most
assessments require an appointment, which means the person
in need will have to “follow up” with an appointment at a later
time. Finally, given the number of people who are experiencing
homelessness and are living on the streets or in shelters, there is
insufficient assessor and navigator capacity.
5. DAY CENTERS/ACCESS CENTERS
Day shelters or access centers in Lane County provide emergency
and basic needs assistance including food, clothing, laundry
and shower facilities, supplies, telephone and internet access,
housing location services, advocacy, and transportation assistance.
Currently there are three day shelters/access centers within Lane
County. One access center, Service Station, is designed to provide
basic assistance for single adults.
6. TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
TH is a temporary model of housing, the purpose of which is to
facilitate the movement of homeless individuals and families
into permanent housing within 24 months. Transitional housing
can be a necessary part of a CoC’s homeless assistance portfolio,
especially where services offered actually match the needs of
people experiencing homelessness. This type of housing should
be reserved for those populations who need this particular
type of intervention, rather than being used for those who
need permanent supportive housing or who need less intensive
interventions.
There are currently 47 transitional housing beds for single adults
within Lane County. The majority of these beds are targeted to
Veterans and youth populations. Based on TAC’s analysis, the
existing TH beds available do respond to a need in the community,
and at 92 percent, have the highest utilization rate of all programs.
However, some performance improvements might be needed.
Of particular note is that 19 percent of households who exit TH
to permanent housing return to homelessness within 2 years.
7. RAPID RE-HOUSING
RRH is an intervention, informed by progressive assistance and
a housing first approach, that is a critical part of a community’s
effective homeless crisis response system. Rapid re-housing quickly
connects families and individuals experiencing homelessness
to permanent housing through a tailored package of resources
that may include the use of time-limited financial assistance and
targeted supportive services. Rapid re-housing programs help
families and individuals living on the streets or in emergency
shelters solve the practical and immediate challenges to obtaining
permanent housing while reducing the amount of time they
experience homelessness, avoiding a near-term return to
homelessness, and linking them to community resources that
enable them to achieve housing stability in the long-term.
There are 50 units of RRH dedicated to single adults. These units
are administered across five different programs in Lane County.
These programs do not operate or interact in a systematic way,
but are instead siloed within the different agencies that administer
the programs. In addition, the RRH system resources – mainly the
resources dedicated to staff positions, navigators, housing search
workers, and landlord engagement liaisons – are underfunded,
thereby limiting the effectiveness of this component. Currently, at
74 percent, RRH resources have the lowest utilization rate system-
wide. This may be due to the challenges providers face in locating
housing and quickly moving households out of homelessness.
8. PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
PSH is a housing model designed to provide housing assistance
(project- and tenant-based) and supportive services on a long-
term basis. PSH is considered a best practice.
Lane County currently has just over 400 PSH units for single adults.
This number is inadequate to serve the number of homeless
households who are eligible for, and would benefit from, the
resources of PSH, and it presents a sizable gap in the PSH system.
In addition, of these 400 PSH units, 223 are Veterans Affairs
CURRENT HOMELESS SYSTEM FOR SINGLE ADULTS
PAGE 8
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
Supportive Housing (VASH) units dedicated to chronically homeless Veterans. The VASH units represent roughly 58
percent of the PSH units in Lane County, but homeless Veterans represent roughly 11 percent10 of the homeless population.
PSH as a system resource is not “right-sized” within the overall Lane County homeless and crisis response system. This
reality has already been recognized by the Lane County Poverty and Homelessness Board, which outlined the need for
additional PSH in its five-year strategic plan. The PHB committed to coordinate with service provider partner agencies
within Lane County to create an additional 600 units of supportive housing for people who are chronically homeless,
including Veterans and youth; those who experience mental illness, domestic violence, and/or drug and alcohol abuse;
and those exiting the criminal justice, foster care, and/or child welfare systems.11
Although PSH is a much-needed resource within the system, the PSH resources that currently exist are not fully utilized,
with a utilization rate of 87 percent. Similar to the issues in utilization for RRH, this is partly due to difficulties in finding
housing opportunities for people with a number of barriers in a market with limited housing stock. Additionally, once
households move into housing assisted with PSH, there is very limited turnover within the programs (2 percent annual
turnover rate).
9. TENANCY SUPPORTS
Tenancy supports and services are any types of support to help a household obtain and remain in permanent housing.
Tenancy supports can range from housing search, landlord tenant mediation, case management for budgeting, and
assistance in increasing both employment and non-employment income. While case management services do exist
within programs, some stakeholders noted that tenancy supports are underfunded and are not available on the scale
needed to serve people in PSH and RRH. The 2017 System Performance Measures showed that across the different
system interventions, 21 percent of households who exited to permanent housing returned to homelessness within
two years.More robust tenancy supports would improve housing-related outcomes across the system.
10 FY18 Lane County Point-in-Time Count.
11 Lane County Poverty and Homelessness Board Strategic Plan 2016-2021.
CURRENT HOMELESS SYSTEM FOR SINGLE ADULTS
PAGE 9
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
Data from this study and other sources suggests that the persistence of the county’s single adult homeless population is due in part to
demographic variables and rental stock realities over which the county has limited, if any, control.
1. WHAT DEMOGRAPHIC DATA TELLS US ABOUT THE LANE COUNTY
POPULATION’S NEED FOR HOUSING
Lane County demographic data describes a county population that is older, more disabled, and less employed than other parts of the
state. Perhaps in part because of these characteristics, the data paints Lane County as strikingly poorer than several other Oregon
counties, the rest of Oregon, and the United States as a whole.12
TABLE 3: ESTIMATED POVERTY RATES, U.S. CENSUS
Geographic Area Poverty Rate
Lane County 18.3%
United States 12.7%
State of Oregon 13.3%
Marion County, OR 13.6%
Multnomah County, OR 14.2%
Portland, OR 16.9%
The county has more people over the age of 65 compared to the United States as a whole or to the State of Oregon (See Table 4 below).
TABLE 4: PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION AGE 65 YEARS AND OLDER, U.S. CENSUS
Geographic Area Percent of Persons 65 Years of Age and Older
Lane County 18.7%
United States 15.6%
State of Oregon 17.1%
Marion County, OR 15.3%
Multnomah County, OR 13%
Portland, OR 11.6%
TABLE 5: PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION AGE 16 OR OLDER IN CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE, U.S. CENSUS
Geographic Area Percent of Persons Age 16 or Older in the Civilian Labor Force
Lane County 59.2%
United States 63.1%
State of Oregon 61.9%
Marion County, OR 61.8%
Multnomah County, OR 68.7%
Portland, OR 69.5%
The county has fewer people age 16 and older employed in the civilian labor force. In September 2018, the State of Oregon reported an
unemployment rate of 4.2 percent for Lane County, compared to 3.2-3.5 percent in the tri-county area surrounding Portland, and 3.8
percent for the state as a whole. Lastly, Lane County has a higher percentage of people with disabilities under age 65.
12 The Census indicates limitations to comparing poverty data across geographies.
EXTERNAL CHALLENGES IN LANE COUNTY PAGE 10
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
TABLE 6: PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION WITH A DISABILITY, U.S. CENSUS
Geographic Area
Percent of Persons with a
Disability Under Age 65
Lane County 12.17%
United States 8.6%
State of Oregon 10.3%
Marion County, OR 11.1%
Multnomah County, OR 10.0%
Portland, OR 11.6%
For the most part, Lane County officials cannot alter these demographic variables of age, disability, and poverty.
However, these characteristics are likely associated with a greater need for affordable housing, as well as a higher
risk for eviction and homelessness.
2. GREATER DEMAND DOES NOT TRANSLATE TO MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Like many communities across the country, pressure on the rental market has been increasing, resulting in low vacancy
rates; the current Lane County rental vacancy rate is 2.9 percent. There is limited new production in the county.
Unfortunately, even the combination of high demand and low vacancy rates has not organically resulted in increases in
rental housing generally, and affordably priced housing specifically. The U.S. Census indicates that there were only 842
building permits issued in Lane County in 2017, compared to 1,346 in Marion County and over 7,000 in Multnomah County.
Interviews with staff indicate that there is a lack of incentive, as well as capacity, for new rental development. We also note that
an estimated 90 percent of the county is federally-owned land.
3. HIGH NUMBER OF NEWLY HOMELESS
The number of new people experiencing homelessness in Lane County has increased steadily in recent years.13 On average,
Lane County sees about 130 newly homeless people entering the homeless and crisis response system each month.
There is no reliable data available as to where newly homeless people live prior to becoming known to the Lane County
crisis system. It is likely that some people entering homelessness for the first time are long-term Lane County residents or
people with ties to Lane County, and some are from “other communities” and found their way to Lane County.
It is important to note that Lane County is not the only entity experiencing increasing homelessness, including unsheltered
homelessness. The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (AHAR)14 found that the number of people experiencing
homelessness is increasing in all states on the West Coast. In California, the number of people experiencing homelessness
has increased by 13.7 percent, in Washington State it has increased by 1.4 percent, and in Oregon it has increased by 5.4 percent.
Staff indicated that elected officials and others feel pressure from the Martin v. Boise case. In this Boise, Idaho case, the court
found that “as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent homeless people for
sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise that they had a choice in this matter.”15 TAC encourages the county
to fully implement the range of recommendations below in order to begin to decrease this very visible population and minimize
any potential pressure to criminalize homelessness in the county.
13 2017 System Performance Measure 5.2.
14 2017 AHAR.
15 https://www.nlchp.org/Martin%20vs.%20Boise%202018.pdf.
EXTERNAL CHALLENGES IN LANE COUNTY
PAGE 11
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
While increasing emergency shelter beds will help respond to the
immediate crisis of unsheltered single adults in the community,
without expansion of other system components as well as policy
alignment, training, and implementation of best practices across
the CoC, the county will be unable to make a significant impact
on single adult homelessness. Below, TAC provides a number
of system-wide strategic recommendations in addition to the
recommendation of increasing low-barrier shelter beds.
TAC created a modeling tool in order to determine the “size” of
the various recommendations, including the additional number of
units or increased staffing. Information about this modeling tool is
available in Appendix C.
1.SYSTEM-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Expand and Better Coordinate Outreach
Outreach services – proactively engaging people who are on the
streets or living in places not meant for human habitation (cars,
tents, abandoned buildings, etc.) and connecting them to services
– are a key part of ending homelessness in any community. This
is especially true in Lane County, given the diverse geography
of the CoC and the high number and significant vulnerabilities
of unsheltered homeless adults throughout the county. As
described above, Lane County does have some outreach activities,
but they tend to be for specific populations or are not clearly
defined in terms of geographic coverage and linkages to services.
TAC’s outreach recommendations rely on the principle that
outreach should be fully coordinated and have linkages back to
emergency shelter and permanent housing opportunities. Lane
County’s outreach priorities should focus on those individuals
who have been homeless the longest and present with the most
significant barriers so as to connect those individuals to the limited
permanent housing assistance (both RRH and PSH) available
through Coordinated Entry. The county should also ensure that
outreach workers are trained in administering the CoC’s common
assessment tool and such assessments are done in accordance
with the Coordinated Entry protocol (as discussed below).
Further, outreach within the county should be mapped to ensure
no gaps in coverage. TAC recommends an actual mapping process
where all outreach and coordinated entry personnel work together
to identify on paper (a map) where outreach coverages exist and
where gaps remain. A focused effort should be made to convene
all outreach partners on a periodic basis to engage in coverage
discussions as well as case conferencing to strategize around
difficult to engage households who may need to be prioritized
for service linkages. Outreach workers targeting specific and/or
general populations should have a clear communication protocol
back to the coordinated entry system and amongst shelter and
other outreach teams so that all parts of the crisis response system
are working in concert, without gaps or duplication in efforts.
As part of this recommendation, TAC recommends, among other
direct outreach personnel, one full-time equivalent (FTE) county
Outreach Coordinator/Manager who would be responsible for
coordinating outreach efforts and implementing streamlined
communication and service linkage protocols. This position
would help outreach teams for both general and specific
populations cross-coordinate efforts, as well as support data
collection processes and linkages to the Common Assessment and
Coordinated Entry process. This position would also coordinate
with the coordinated entry staff for case conferencing and other
strategy meetings. The 1 FTE takes into account that this individual
may also play the role of a direct outreach worker and supervisor
of all outreach workers and activities. The role of Outreach
Coordinator/Manager should be responsible for ensuring that
outreach and coordinated entry communication and referral
protocol are consistent with the larger system of care.
Specific Outreach Recommendations
1. TAC recommends expanding street outreach to include a
minimum of five FTE outreach workers and one FTE County
Outreach Coordinator/Manager.
2. TAC recommends expanding/redesigning street outreach to
become a coordinated system-wide approach, connected to
coordinated entry, emergency shelters, and other housing
opportunities.
3. TAC recommends ongoing and increased use of mobile
technology (tablets) with HMIS embedded. This would allow
for entries into an “Outreach” project in HMIS before a
common assessment is complete, so that there is real-time
accounting of all individuals or families living in unsheltered
situations.
4. TAC recommends a small annual ‘barrier buster’/flexible
fund of $50,000 in financial assistance for those engaged by
outreach. This assistance should be used only when funds can
assist a household in reconnecting to permanent housing. For
instance, a small car repair to allow an individual to access
employment opportunities, or reconnecting a family’s cell
phone service so they can coordinate housing and education
needs. This fund would operate similarly to the diversion fund
noted below, and may in fact cover many of the same types
of costs, particularly when a household has an opportunity to
reconnect with family or friends on a temporary or permanent
basis. Emergency supplies and crisis goods may be paid for
using this fund if and when no other community resources are
available to meet that need.
STRATEGIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE 12
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
B. Expand Diversion and Rapid Exit Services
Homelessness diversion and rapid exit (collectively called diversion
in this context) strategies are an emerging practice whereby
individuals or families seeking emergency services are immediately
engaged in an exploratory conversation to determine if there
are alternative options, even if temporary, that would help them
avoid or quickly exit literal homelessness. Diversion strategies rely
on personnel trained in conflict resolution and mediation who
have the skills and mindset to engage in difficult conversations
with clients at the time of crisis. Homelessness diversion aims
to help reconnect people with their family, friends, other social
networks, or communities of origin. These practices identify who
may be willing to provide space for a household to live, identify
connections for people back to their community of origin, and
mitigate illegal or confusing landlord practices (such as when
someone thinks they must leave their unit but still have a legal
right to that housing).
Unlike homelessness prevention, which often occurs days or weeks
before someone faces literal homelessness, diversion and rapid
exit services should be positioned directly at the “front door” of
a shelter, both existing and new, or in an outreach setting. This
intervention focuses on alternative safe options for people who
are presenting for crisis services and believe they have no other
safe housing option or place to stay that night or for those who
entered a shelter or homelessness in the last few days. Diversion
relies heavily on making quick, appropriate connections to a client’s
familial and/or social networks in order to resolve the immediate
need for crisis services. Diversion is primarily conducted in shelters
or service centers, but outreach teams should also be trained in
basic diversion techniques for those cases that must be explored in
an unsheltered situation. Of note, diversion efforts should be made
with all clients presenting for services or shelter but only a fraction
of those will actually be diverted, even temporarily. Diversion
refocuses the discussion from “I need a shelter bed tonight” to “I
need a safe place to stay tonight,” a subtle but significant paradigm
shift in how homeless services respond to people in early crisis.
In addition to diversion specialists, TAC recommends that the
city/county provide a limited ‘barrier buster’ or flexible fund for
diversion assistance with clear protocol for when and how to use
such limited funds. Examples of financial assistance might be to
pay a family member a time-limited stipend to house someone,
gas or food vouchers for host families, transportation costs to
reconnect individuals to their community of origin (based on
their choice and available support), and other limited payments.
While financial assistance is helpful, it is important to note that
the true essence of strong diversion practices rely on highly skilled
diversion specialists who are able to have sometimes challenging
and lengthy exploratory conversations with people who are
seeking emergency services.
Specific Diversion Recommendations
1. TAC recommends that diversion be implemented system-
wide and have six specific diversion specialists and $50,000 in
(annual) diversion financial resources. For example, assuming
130 newly homeless individuals per month and a 20 percent
diversion rate, this amounts to an average of $200-$300
per successfully diverted household. Within this framework,
many households may not need any financial assistance
to be diverted (family member allows them to stay without
any financial incentive), while others may need $500-$1,000
in assistance (transportation costs to a family member in
another state along with a food voucher to assist the host in
providing for the household). Financial assistance should be
flexible enough to meet emerging needs while also ensuring
accountability in how funds are disbursed.
2. Diversion specialists should be positioned at and rotate
through various emergency shelter and crisis service
centers at key times of the day/week when newly homeless
households typically present for services.
3. Financial assistance should be highly targeted through
written policies and procedures for payment commitments
and distribution (minimum host expectations, limits on
amounts, assurance that assistance aids in longer-term
housing opportunities).
4. TAC recommends that the CoC provide a system-wide
diversion training for direct care practitioners and work to
orient diversion and rapid exit services within the front
door of all emergency access points.
Diversion: Diversion is an intervention designed to assist
people in finding immediate alternatives to emergency shelter
or prolonged homelessness. Diversion practices rely on:
• Skilled staff in mediation and problem solving
• Limited, targeted financial assistance to reconnect
people with family, friends or other social networks
• A change in approach from "How can we get you into
shelter " to "How can we find someplace safe for you to
stay while you work on your long term housing plans."
• A strong coordination across outreach, shelter, housing
and other crisis service partners
STRATEGIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE 13
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
C. Expand and Better Coordinate RRH Resources
While a limited resource in Lane County, RRH services can fill
an important gap in the system’s efforts to house households
as quickly as possible. RRH provides, in a progressive and
individualized manner, short- to medium-term rental assistance
along with housing-focused services in an effort to rapidly move
households out of homelessness. RRH operates as a progressive
assistance model whereby the least amount of assistance needed
to end a client’s homelessness is offered first, and that assistance
is increased or continued only if and when the household needs it
to sustain their tenancy. RRH resources should be highly flexible.
Similar to other housing interventions, RRH should be distributed
equitably, not equally. That is, each household receives a unique
service and assistance package that fits their household needs
(equity), rather than all households receiving equal (or the
same) amount of assistance regardless of individual household
circumstances, strengths, and housing barriers. This applies to
both the intensity and frequency of supportive services as well as
the amount and duration of financial assistance.
Of note, while financial assistance is a critical component to any
RRH project, strong case management and housing services are
often equally or more important to the project’s success. A typical
RRH grant should include at least 40-50 percent of the funds going
to support case management and housing search activities (labor).
Financial assistance should be flexible, but limited to only what a
household needs. This means that the tenancy support services
in RRH play a critical role in a project’s success and the delivery
of high quality tenancy supports requires training and ongoing
professional development for case managers, housing navigators,
managers, and fiscal staff.
RRH projects are difficult to operate and require a very discreet
set of housing-focused skills. TAC recommends a review of all RRH
projects to ensure each has the capacity to deliver RRH services
well. This includes a focus on staff training, provider capacity to
make timely payments to landlords (within 2-3 business days
when necessary), the ability to co-locate in shelters and other
emergency settings so services can reach those who need it most
regardless of their physical location and in accordance with the
Coordinated Entry Prioritization protocol, targeting criteria, and
other performance factors. Standard documentation expectations
should be in place to expedite RRH enrollments and allow for quick
payments for units in order to remain competitive in the tight
housing market. RRH providers should also be fully engrained
into a system-wide landlord and housing partner outreach and
relationship management strategy, as described below. Lane
County should also consider using RRH for people with higher
vulnerabilities than the current coordinated entry protocol allows
(thus the need for highly tuned supportive service and tenancy
supports) and targeting limited PSH units to replace the RRH
subsidy should some households still need permanent affordability
after the RRH intervention is complete.
Generally, TAC recommends consolidating RRH resources in any
given community so that the RRH providers can tailor their work to
this type of intervention. If and when new or increased RRH funds
are available, TAC recommends those resources be awarded to a
smaller group of providers who can then deliver RRH services in
settings across the county. RRH, similar to PSH, is a system-wide
resource and when many providers receive small amounts to serve
their own clients, this dilutes the quality and level of services that
can be delivered overall.
Specific RRH Recommendations
1. Use RRH resources as a system-wide intervention not
constrained to any one provider, even if funds are managed
and delivered by a discreet set of highly skilled organizations.
2. Create system-wide RRH written standards and expectations,
including training expectations, focused on households with
higher vulnerability, and flexible, progressively administered
housing and financial assistance.
3. Coordinate with and participate in a system-wide landlord
and housing partner outreach and relationship management
strategy (see Landlord Engagement Strategy recommendation
further below).
4. Include training and expectations related to housing first, crisis
response, client choice, and progressive assistance. Training
should also include tenancy support models that focus on
tenancy access and preservation rather than clinical or other
long-term personal outcomes.
5. Incorporate four dimensional tenancy supports (Breadth,
Depth, Frequency, and Duration) as a foundation for
housing services.
6. If Lane County were able to identify an additional $500,000 in
annual RRH funds (from any or multiple sources), $350,000
of which would focus on individual adults and the remaining
targeted to families, significant strides could be made in
promoting private market rental connections. At an average
cost of $4,000 per household in assistance (services and
financial assistance combined), this would allow Lane County
to serve an additional 125 households annually with flexible,
client-centered housing services. This $4,000 recognizes that
some households may need only a security deposit and light
rental assistance, while others (particularly those who score
for PSH but no PSH is immediately available) may need
longer-term financial and tenancy support assistance).
STRATEGIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE 14
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
D. Create additional PSH & Increase Utilization
Lane County has a significant population of highly vulnerable,
long-term homeless individuals in both sheltered and unsheltered
situations. The current PSH units throughout the county are
underutilized and inadequate to meet the needs in the community.
PSH is a proven model of housing that provides robust wraparound
case management services with permanent unit affordability
based on household income.
Regarding utilization, Lane County should review all PSH projects
to look for ways to make sure all available units/subsidies are
used. This includes both better utilization of existing housing,
whether private market or specifically subsidized, construction
of housing specifically for PSH, and incentives to include project-
based style PSH opportunities in other new housing development
projects. Utilization also relies on a deep commitment to housing
first principles and connections to the formal coordinated entry
process. Lane County should consider written standards and
expectations that require PSH providers to alert the housing
referral system immediately when units become available or are
anticipated to become available. PSH providers should move
quickly in connecting with referrals and allowing for immediate
access to PSH once those referrals are made. Further, annual and
ongoing staff training protocol should be in place to ensure that
case managers have the skills and capacity to help people retain
their housing once they enter a PSH project, thus reducing rates of
recidivism into homelessness and demonstrating better outcomes
at the project and system level. Finally, Lane County should explore
move-on strategies whereby mainstream housing vouchers replace
the PSH subsidy to allow for permanent affordability for those who
need a housing subsidy but may not need the intensive PSH service
package once they are stabilized in housing. Move-on strategies
rely on client choice and many clients will never sustain housing
without the services PSH offers; however, some clients may be
able to maintain their housing with a voucher that does not include
those services.
More efficient means of utilizing and providing services in the
current PSH portfolio will not be sufficient for Lane County.
Lane County must also identify new PSH units through both the
creation of physical units and the provision of tenant-based or
project-based rental assistance in existing housing. In identifying
opportunities for increased utilization of existing resources or the
creation of new PSH resources, Lane County should consider how
to mitigate any additional costs or staffing issues that may arise for
those mainstream or PSH providers willing to dedicate resources
(e.g., participation in CE and HMIS).
Specific PSH Recommendations
1. TAC recommends adding 350 new PSH units (new creation
and repurpose and increased utilization of current existing
units to be accessible to Extremely Low Income people
experiencing homelessness).
2. In the past few months, Lane County has received funds
for 60 housing first PSH units and 33 targeted Mainstream
Vouchers.16 Lane County should continue to apply for and/or
support developers in applying for these funds as appropriate.
3. Lane County has a significant pool of VASH resources
specifically targeted to the Veteran population and should
identify any barriers to efficient implementation, including
project-basing some of the vouchers, and once these are
resolved, consider expanding the program.
4. Ensure PSH is targeted to the most vulnerable single
individual adults by making all referrals to PSH through
Coordinated Entry.
5. Ensure PSH providers coordinate with and participate
in system-wide landlord and housing partner outreach
and relationship management strategies (see Landlord
Engagement Strategy recommendation further below).
6. Ensure the crisis response system – especially case managers
– understands how to leverage reasonable accommodations.
7. Consider increasing the PHA payment standard to allow
greater competition of vouchers within the private market.
8. Ensure effective participation in system-wide landlord
engagement strategies to increase access to units and
quicker housing search (see Landlord Engagement Strategy
further below).
E. Implement Effective Move-On Strategies
Move-on strategies are an emerging practice that allows
mainstream or other affordable housing subsidies or units to
replace the subsidy of a PSH project and thus free up the intensive
service package the PSH project has to offer. Move-on strategies
rely on a high level of coordination with local voucher systems
and engagement with mainstream affordable housing owners to
ensure that targeting is transparent and clear, and mitigate against
any unintended consequences of transitioning a unit or household
to a new subsidy or unit. The premise of move-on strategies is that
some, though not all, households in PSH may continue to need
the affordability of the subsidy but do not need the permanent
supportive services that PSH provides. For these households,
mainstream subsidies and units can replace the subsidy provided
so that the PSH provider can use the subsidy and service package
to house someone coming out of literal homelessness. While some
households may need the housing assistance and services offered
in PSH for the foreseeable future, there are households who may
be able to “move-on” from PSH but have no other permanent
housing options. Lane County should explore the different
possible areas for move-on strategies to include preferences
within the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) portfolio and
in multifamily developments created with federal, state, or local
financing. It is important to note that these strategies will result in
no costs to the county, city or other entities.
16 Some of these will divert from homelessness.
STRATEGIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE 15
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
F. Expand and Increase Utilization of Tenancy Supports
While rental assistance and subsidies are an important component
in ending homelessness, tenancy supports also play a critical role in
ensuring clients can maintain their housing permanently. Data on
returns to homelessness from PH suggests that tenancy supports
may not be as available or effective as needed; in 2017, 21
percent of people who exited to permanent housing returned
to homelessness.
Tenancy supports are activities related to ensuring a tenant
complies with their lease. This might include budgeting assistance
to ensure rent is paid on time and in full, training on keeping
the apartment clean, providing support to request reasonable
accommodations, and developing a positive relationship with
the property owner. Lane County should consider system-wide
training and support protocols that allow for ongoing professional
development of case managers and other housing specialists. This
could include a mix of online, in-person, and peer-to-peer training
and sharing opportunities. In contracting, funders should ensure
that proposals include an adequate level of supportive service
and case management staff for the target population. Housing
providers must build a culture of housing first, whereby tenant
screening barriers and housing retention barriers become the
primary focus of all housing intervention; that is, ensure clients
can pursue larger personal goals but keep the primary focus of
services on ensuring housing can be obtained or maintained even
if a client still faces significant personal challenges or engages in
risky behavior.
1. Ensure providers are able to effectively provide and bill for
tenancy supports.
2. Require capacity development on service delivery and billing,
and training and supports on the delivery of best practices.
G. Increase Effectiveness of Coordinated Entry
A community’s coordinated entry system is the primary mechanism
for ensuring that those experiencing homelessness are connected
to interventions that will rapidly end their homelessness.
Coordinated entry works by establishing a common process to
assess the situation of all households who request help through
the housing crisis response system. Each coordinated entry system
should incorporate four core elements within their process: 1)
Access Points, 2) Standardized Assessment Process, 3) Prioritization
of Households, and 4) Referral to Housing and Supportive Services
Resources.
While Lane County has established a coordinated entry system
with each of these core elements, there are a number of specific
areas where improvements are needed to increase system access,
improve housing connections, and implement an effective and
consistent process throughout the system. In order to increase
system access, it is necessary to establish a direct connection
between outreach staff and the coordinated entry system. This
should include ensuring that outreach staff act as assessors and
developing an ongoing communication plan between outreach
staff, the Outreach Coordinator/Manager, and the Coordinated
Entry Administrative Analyst/Manager. Given that outreach staff
are primarily in the field, it is important that mobile technology
is available to staff to conduct assessments. In addition, Lane
County should add two full-time county-funded assessor positions.
These assessors should be placed at a location that allows for
walk-in appointments, and they should also be able to conduct
assessments over the phone as needed.
In order to improve the efficiency of the assessment process,
Lane County should consider implementing a phased assessment
approach in order to capture information on an as-needed basis
throughout the process. The initial assessment phase could
occur at the first interaction with the system and collect only the
information essential to understanding the person’s immediate
needs, which may include verifying the household’s current
housing status and whether they are at risk of harm due to a
variety of factors such as a perpetrator of domestic violence or
a medical condition that requires immediate attention to ensure
the physical health and well-being of the household. Additional
assessment phases, including the completion of a VI-SPDAT, would
occur only after a household has been unable to resolve their
housing crisis after a certain period of time (e.g., 14 days after
initial assessment) and based on their homeless history (e.g., only
chronic singles receive a VI-SPDAT assessment). Once a VI-SPDAT
is completed, the system should provide a straightforward way to
make updates to the assessment if a household’s circumstances
change or to confirm that the information is still valid. This should
help minimize the number of “expired” assessments.
In addition to the recommendations related to access points and
assessment phases, there are specific changes needed in the
prioritization and referral processes to incorporate a dynamic
prioritization process. The Coordinated Entry process currently
“assigns” referrals to the CWL for PSH or RRH based on the VI-
SPDAT score. Instead of trying to “match” vulnerability levels to
particular interventions, the system should prioritize people for
whatever resources are available at that time. This means that if a
RRH slot is available, the person with the highest need on the CWL
should receive it, even if that person scored a “17” on the VI-SPDAT.
Dynamic prioritization takes into account both the changing
nature of the population of people who have been prioritized as
well as the availability of resources. It supports a faster and more
efficient process for matching and referring people to programs,
and accepts that there may not be enough of the most needed
resources to help all households who request help. As part of
implementing a dynamic prioritization process, it is important that
the system have robust housing navigation and case conferencing
protocols in place. Lane County requires at least 2-3 Housing
Navigators to assist those individuals and families with the highest
need to prepare for housing. This may include accompanying
persons to all housing-related appointments and other necessary
social services. Housing navigators should have in-depth
knowledge of local systems to keep the process running smoothly
and eliminate any barriers to moving a household off the street
STRATEGIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE 16
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
and into housing as quickly as possible. Housing navigators should
work closely with outreach, coordinated entry, and other provider
staff as necessary.
Finally, it is important that a case conferencing process be
established to include the Outreach Coordinator/Manager, housing
navigators, and coordinated entry administrative analysts. Case
conferencing is a process by which all appropriate supports and
resources can connect to each other to strategize around the
needs of everyone on the CWL at once. The process also allows
the CoC to translate individual data points into a bigger picture
snapshot, enabling evaluation, troubleshooting, and process
improvement across the entire local housing system.
Specific CE Recommendations
1. Ensure referrals for all units dedicated to people experiencing
homelessness (including non-CoC funded projects) are made
through the CWL.
2. In addition to assessors at provider agencies and through
outreach staff, add two county-level FTE assessors who have
the capacity to conduct assessments through walk-ins and
via phone. Outreach staff who conduct assessments should
be provided mobile technology whenever possible to ensure
assessments are placed into the system in “real-time.”
3. Ensure coordinated entry is fully connected to and engaged
with the system-wide outreach team (see outreach
recommendations).
4. Create strong housing navigation systems, including two
to three FTE navigators throughout the system to connect
people to diversion, outreach, emergency shelters, PSH,
and RRH. Housing navigators will participate in the case
conferencing process as well.
5. Eliminate separation and use of “buckets” for referrals to
CWL for PSH & RRH. The Coordinated Entry system should
allow people to access any of the resources for which they
qualify, and not presume that certain households will not be
successful in RRH.
6. Implement a progressive and phased assessment approach.
This could include a tiered approach based on when
assessments occur and the level of assessment provided in
each phase.
7. Revise how assessments are updated to decrease the number
of “expired” assessments. The CE system should not require
that households go through a full assessment to remain active
in the system.
8. Establish a case conferencing process among outreach,
navigator, and coordinated entry staff to allow for a dynamic
prioritization of households on the CWL.
H. Create Centralized and Coordinated Landlord and
Housing Partner Management
Landlords and other housing partners are critical stakeholders in
the effort to end homelessness. Oftentimes, landlord relationships
are managed at the provider or even staff level, resulting in
fragmentation when it comes to housing referrals and unit
matching. Lane County should consider adding two FTE Housing
Partner Coordinators whose sole job is to recruit new housing
partners, create and maintain landowner relationships, and track
levels of risk tolerance across housing partners. Similar to By-Name
Lists of homeless households, Lane County should establish, either
online or in a single database, a By-Name Landlord Management
Tool. This would allow tracking of open units and willing landlords,
and also provide a place to note risk aversion; for instance, noting
which landlords will take individuals with past evictions vs. those
who will not, as well as other factors that would help the housing
match process.
A risk associated with a centralized landlord management structure
is variability in how different housing providers engage with
and respond to landlord needs. Lane County should consider
implementing a Housing Partner Handbook that outlines the basic
expectations of housing providers when engaging with landlords
and responding to landlord complaints, as well as communication
protocol and minimum service expectations. This document could
be accompanied by Memoranda of Understanding that commit
the Continuum to providing landlord contacts and opportunities
in exchange for service provider commitments relative to the
communication protocol and the minimum service expectations
outlined. Further, Lane County should institute a quarterly service
provider landlord case conference system whereby housing
providers can share information and lessons learned related to
their direct interaction with area housing partners and landlords.
Lane County should also consider a more robust landlord
engagement strategy that both educates landlords on the housing
services provided and validates landlord concerns in working
with “housing programs.” This would include public messaging
from county and city officials, uniform marketing material for the
entire CoC, a housing partner seminar (supported by a private
foundation) to recruit and inform housing partners of the efforts
to end homelessness, and a social media strategy to highlight
strong housing partners in the community. Lane County, in
partnership with funders, should also consider a clear, transparent
risk mitigation fund that can be used if or when excessive damage
is done to units or rent loss becomes an issue. Other strategic
partnerships may also be helpful for when damage is done in a unit
(for instance, a local carpenter union contributing charitable time
to fix units) or when clients need basic furnishings or necessities
when entering units (for instance, a partnership with the colleges to
obtain dormitory furniture when it is replaced).
STRATEGIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE 17
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
I. Training to Ensure Implementation of Best Practices
Training and professional development are critical to any homeless
crisis response system. High staff turnover, evolving practices and
promising models, unique client needs and the overall need for
highly specialized services all contribute to the need for ongoing
training. Lane County should review current resources that can
be used for training and consider pooling resources or providing
cross-cutting training throughout the county. For example,
have each provider contribute a modest amount to attend a
countywide housing first training utilizing professional trainers.
TAC recommends that Lane County set aside a budget of roughly
$75,000 annually to assist in continued training costs, which may
include but are not limited to: staff time to oversee a position to
coordinate and communicate upcoming trainings and available
free trainings, funds for hiring ‘experts’ to train staff on specific
topics when free trainings are not available, costs associated with
staff travel time and expenses to attend trainings (i.e., national
trainings), and cost for software, if applicable, to attend remote
trainings.
TAC recommends Lane County establish a training and professional
development protocol that addresses, at minimum, the following:
• Housing First, Progressive Assistance and Client
Choice (Annual)
• Rapid Re-housing Practices (Annual and when a new
provider begins)
• Coordinated Entry (Annual and when significant changes
are made)
• Tenancy Supports and Case Management (Annual in person,
quarterly online)
• CoC Start Up Trainings (Whenever offered by HUD)
• Project and Fiscal Management (Annual for housing
assistance administrators)
• HUD Webinar Trainings (All; every provider must have at
least one attendee)
• VA SSVF Monthly Webinar Series (All SSVF providers)
• New Staff Orientation (All new staff, online modules specific
to program type)
• SOAR (one SOAR specialist mandatory for each provider, or
countywide SOAR training)
• Ongoing webinars offered by national partners such as TAC,
NAEH, and others.
2. ADD LOW-BARRIER EMERGENCY
SHELTER
TAC recommends Lane County expand emergency shelter for
single individuals. As discussed above, Lane County’s current
shelter capacity for single adults is limited, and the beds that do
exist can be difficult to access. Individuals with some of the most
significant vulnerabilities and challenges – criminal histories,
behavioral health issues, etc. – are often unable to access Lane
County’s existing year-round emergency shelter.
Emerging emergency shelter models, predominately known
as navigation centers, are replacing older shelter models that
traditionally required gender segregation, high barriers and rules
to entry, and no place for personal possessions or partners. While
navigation centers can ‘look’ different, the overarching principles
are the same and include, at minimum, the opportunity for people
to enter with partners, pets, and their possessions. Navigation
centers are designed to serve people who are living in unsheltered
places, on the streets, in encampments, or other places not meant
for human habitation. These individuals can be very vulnerable and
are often fearful or reject accessing traditional shelter and services,
typically due to psychological and/or physical barriers. Navigation
centers are low-barrier, and provide intensive case management to
connect people to public benefits, health services, and permanent
housing, through a housing first philosophy.
TAC recommends that Lane County develop a new year-round
emergency shelter – a navigation center – to serve 75 people. In
preliminary recommendations, TAC discussed a 50-75 bed shelter.
In this final report, TAC provides design and cost recommendations
for 75 beds, with the intention that as the number of unsheltered
individuals in Lane County decreases over time, the emergency
shelter could be scaled back to 50 beds.
Expanding shelter beds is critical to impacting visible homelessness
in the county. Ending homelessness for single individuals, however,
is unlikely unless the county makes system-wide changes to other
crisis system components such as those described in this report.
Shelters will keep people safe and help to engage them in changing
their situation. However, without flow in other system components,
such as PSH, these individuals will find it difficult to exit a shelter to
a permanent housing situation.
TAC’s emergency shelter recommendations are consistent with the
navigation center model, and include specific recommendations in
three areas: shelter location, physical structure, and operations.
Shelter Location Considerations
In identifying a location for the new shelter, the county will want
to consider costs and proximity to services and amenities. TAC
recommends that the county identify a county- or city-owned
vacant lot that is available for a new structure, or county- or
city-owned underutilized property that can be repurposed and
rehabilitated for the shelter. Using county- or city-owned land or
property will be cost-effective. In addition, using public property
may help to mitigate or “ride out” any community opposition that
develops. The majority of existing navigation centers are located
on government-owned land or land temporarily available before
an affordable housing project is developed on the site.
The second consideration in land/property is location. TAC
recommends that the shelter be centrally located. It should be
easily reached by people who are homeless and near amenities
that may be needed such as public bus lines, day shelters, and
health care services.
STRATEGIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE 18
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
Convenient: A navigation center model is most successful when
located in “walkable” areas or near public transportation. It is
imperative that people can access a bus line and that the shelter
offer bus vouchers/passes for clients. A less centrally located
shelter will be more difficult for clients to access. In addition, a
location with no access to public transportation may place a greater
strain on staff and operations, as case managers would need to
spend more time coordinating transportation arrangements for
client appointments and to connect clients to resources that are
not based at the center.
Accessible: The shelter should be opened 24/7, allowing people to
come and go throughout the day. This is necessary for people to be
able to access on-site services, as well as services in other parts of
Lane County without worrying about a safe place to stay that night.
This is especially important for clients employed to work the 3rd/
night shift.
Neighborhood Politics: Neighborhood “buy-in” is important
in making the new shelter a success. Once a site is identified,
outreach, education, and marketing to the local residential and
business community should be done immediately. Through Lane
County and its partners, the community process should include
buy-in that results in the entire neighborhood committed to the
shelter and its occupants’ ultimate success.
Shelter Structure Considerations
The physical structure and model of the shelter will impact costs
and must be taken into account.
Shelter structure lay-out/design: In order to serve 75 people
in new shelter beds, models of the actual structure or buildings
may vary. As discussed earlier, TAC is recommending 75 beds
initially, but as Lane County and its partners work to decrease the
number of vulnerable people living on the streets and in need of
beds at the new emergency shelter, the number of beds will be
able to be reduced. Therefore, TAC recommends the new shelter
design anticipate at least partial repurposing of the property.
Other navigation centers use a “temporary” structure that will be
repurposed to permanent housing in the future. There are several
common design options. TAC recommends that Lane County
consider which of these options is the best fit once the land or
property is secured. Navigation centers in other communities
include unused office buildings, former school buildings, SROs, and
modular trailers.
Regardless of the option selected, TAC recommends the following
elements. Dormitory style living is more cost effective and secure
than individual rooms for each person/couple. The dormitory
structure can be one large space with partitioned sections/
areas. The structure should be mixed gender and include the
option for a couple (regardless of gender) to sleep in beds next
to each other, allow pets in the space with their owner, and
provide a safe location to securely store people’s possessions.
Best practices within the navigation model include communal
spaces for comfort and opportunities for clients to interact, both
indoors and outdoors. The space should also include showers,
bathrooms (either single use or two separated facilities so clients
feel comfortable and safe using the facility of their choice), a
kitchen and dining area, staff offices/space, secure space for intake
procedures, as well as private/confidential meeting spaces
with clients.
Accessibility in Structure: The facility should be designed and
operated as a low-barrier shelter, which accommodates those who:
• Have substance use disorders and/or mental health issues
• Require harm reduction supplies, including condoms,
clean needles, access to a safe disposal such as sharps
containers, etc.
• Require access to primary health care
• Require physical accessibility
In addition to the above accommodations, the shelter design
should also consider the following accessible features for people
with disabilities:
• Exterior and interior common areas intended for shelter
users (including landscaped open space, outdoor recreation
areas, walkways and program spaces) should be universally
accessible
• Stairs and ramps must be easily usable by people with
reduced mobility and impaired vision
• Rough-in wiring in the building entry/lobby for future
automatic door opener
• Accessible washrooms should have resilient, non-slip floors,
and knee clearance under the sink
• Roll-in showers should be provided for wheelchair-accessible
showering
• Doors, faucets, and showerheads should have lever handles
rather than knobs
• Light switches, thermostats, other controls, and storage
should be mounted at a height accessible for a person in a
wheelchair
• Outdoor seating area/common space is durable, low
maintenance, and universally designed
Cost of structure: As mentioned previously, there are several
considerations when analyzing costs of the structure. Typically,
these costs are one-time costs associated with the construction
of a new building or acquisition (e.g., purchase of land or modular
trailers) or rehabilitation of an existing structure. In addition to
traditional building costs, one-time costs may also include kitchen
appliances, furniture for clients, furniture and equipment for staff
offices, etc. Nationally, the one-time costs incurred by navigation
centers with 50-75 beds range from $712,000 to $2.4 million, with
an average cost of $1.6 million. Many of the navigation centers are
in large, high cost cities, and therefore the cost in Lane County may
be below the national average.17
17 See Appendix D: Research on National Emerging and Promising Practices in Emergency
Shelter.
STRATEGIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE 19
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
Shelter Operations Considerations
Shelter operational policies and practices, the design and cost of
staffing, shelter hours, populations served, services being provided,
and tracking data for performance and evaluation must all be
carefully considered in order to ensure the navigation center is
effective. Consistent with other navigation center models, TAC
recommends that Lane County issue a request for proposals to
outsource the shelter operations to either a single local non-profit
partner agency, or a partnership of non-profits with a single agency
as a distinctive lead.
Shelter principles and practices: Based on emerging best
practices for emergency shelters, TAC recommends that the
shelter be low-barrier and low-threshold to entry and throughout
shelter stays. This theory encompasses the following three “P’s”:
pets, partners, and possessions. Clients arriving with pets should
be able to enter and stay at the shelter with their pets. The pets
should be permitted to stay in the dormitories with their owners,
and should also have outdoor space; case managers shall help
connect owners with pet services (e.g., veterinary services, support
animal certificates, etc.). Partners are allowed to enter together as
clients. Since TAC is recommending that the dormitories are mixed
gender, clients may request beds next to a partner of any gender.
When a couple presents, the practice should be to provide case
management individually to each person, not as a couple. However,
if both partners consent, housing plans can be coordinated. The
third “P” stands for possessions. The shelter should have lockers/
cubbies with locks in each dormitory for small possessions, and
also have a storage area on-site for larger possessions. In addition,
consistent with best practice low-barrier principles, the shelter
should not have any preconditions to entry such as sobriety,
required participation in mental health treatment, or requirements
for service participation. As a safety and legal issue, most
navigation centers do not allow substance use on-site.
Shelter Hours: Immediate and easy access to the shelter is
another key principle of shelter operations. The shelter should be
accessible 24/7, allowing clients to come and go freely throughout
the day. Policies and expectations should include that clients do
not “lose” a bed unless they do not check in with the center for
72 hours and cannot be located by the case manager. TAC does
not recommend an arbitrary length of stay, as past navigation
centers have found this is not an effective practice. The length of
stay should be flexible, with clear expectations that the shelter is a
temporary resource that connects people to permanent housing.
The shelter should never discharge people into a continued
homeless situation, except where the continued presence of a
guest threatens the safety of other guests or staff.
Population to be served: TAC recommends that the shelter have
a clear definition of the target population to be served in the
shelter, (e.g., people who are unsheltered – living on the streets
or in places not meant for human habitation including tents,
encampments, and under bridges) – who have barriers to using
traditional shelters, and have the greatest length of time homeless
and are extremely vulnerable. TAC recommends that the shelter
adopt a guiding principle that names the target population. For
example, “Lane County’s emergency shelter’s goals are to assist
people who are unsheltered in obtaining permanent housing as
rapidly as possible, and to increase the capacity of providers to
provide tailored services utilizing an intensive service model based
on flexible, housing first practices.”
Shelter admittance should be only by referral. Referrals should
be made by an outreach team (as discussed earlier as a system-
wide recommendation) that includes outreach workers (their
service partners) and first responders’/police officers. Lane County
should develop referral policies and procedures including clearly
identifying referral access points, referral agencies, and referral
eligibility requirements. Lane County and its partners should create
a By-Name list of the high-needs, longest stayers on the streets for
referrals to the new shelter beds. Once a person is referred to the
shelter and has accepted a bed, a coordinated entry assessment
can be administered at the shelter, and the person will be added
to the central waitlist. While this model supports active outreach
for clients to be referred to the shelter, there should also be staff
at the shelter with diversion skills who can work with people who
show up at the shelter without an outreach team referral.
Pilot program for Veterans: TAC recommends that Lane County
carve out beds within the 75 new shelter beds as a pilot for
Veterans who meet the eligibility criteria for the shelter. The pilot
should set aside five beds for Veteran referrals. Case managers will
work to quickly connect the Veterans to available and underutilized
VASH vouchers through the housing authority. An evaluation of
the pilot could include a comparison of the length of shelter stay
for pilot participants and other guests. TAC expects the length of
stay will be shorter for those who have access to readily available
permanent housing resources. This may help inform future
planning for housing resources in Lane County.
Services to be provided and resources available: Providing
access to both services and housing resources will be key to the
shelter’s success. Staff at the shelter must be able to provide
intense housing-focused services. Case management is organized
to quickly route clients into housing or to other long-term
placements. The practice should be to provide intensive housing
search assistance to each guest residing at the shelter, including
but not limited to: assistance in applying for affordable housing
lists; assistance with enrollment in any rapid re-housing or
permanent supportive housing opportunities to which guests may
be matched through the coordinated entry system; advocacy on
behalf of clients; identification of roommates for shared housing
opportunities; and exploring relocation to other communities
and/or reunification with family in accordance with client choice.
Additional resources at the shelter should include access to
showers, laundry, food and meals, secure and accessible storage,
connections to other mainstream benefits including health care/
STRATEGIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE 20
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
Medicaid, employment and training opportunities, and applications
to entitlement benefits for which the clients are eligible. In many
navigation centers, kitchens are available 24/7, and meals are made
available through partnerships with local food pantries as well as
the Meals on Wheels program.
In addition to housing-focused intensive case management, the
likelihood of positive outcomes, (i.e., people exiting to permanent
housing), is greater when there are affordable housing resources
available. Earlier in this report, TAC recommended making rapid
re-housing resources available to help people exit the shelter to
permanent housing, both as a flexible fund and for short- and
medium-term rental assistance. Lane County should be realistic
about how ‘rapidly’ people can leave the shelter. Based on initial
evaluations from current navigation centers, the process to house
people (with PH/PSH resources) takes an average of two months,
and even longer if there are no back-end PSH resource for each
bed at the center and for clients with more significant individual or
systemic barriers. The average length of stay in a navigation center
is 48 days, and clients being serviced by “diversion/rapid exit”
should have an average length of stay of two days.
TAC suggests Lane County incorporate an additional $500,000 in
rapid re-housing/flexible housing funds per year, for two years,
to be phased in as a resource to assist clients in the shelter with
housing resources. After the initial two years, if the $500,000
resource is still available, it is suggested that the funds become a
part of the CE system as a whole.
Staffing Structure: TAC also recommends a staffing structure
based on other navigation models’ best practices and lessons
learned. As mentioned above, TAC recommends that Lane County
RFP the oversight of the center to a non-profit agency to run day-
to-day operations, including the on-site staffing. In order to provide
the intensive case management, the case manager caseload should
be roughly 20:1, client to case manager ratio. There should also be
at least three case managers on-site at all times.
Case management staff will work to connect clients to housing
options and assist clients in overcoming housing barriers.
This includes collection of government-issued documents
(e.g., identification, birth certificates), working to resolve more
complicated housing barriers (e.g., cleaning up warrants, accessing
resources for utility arrears), as well as connecting clients to outside
health care services (e.g., general health care, mental health and/
or substance abuse services). In addition to case managers being
on-site, TAC also recommends that mainstream benefit eligibility
workers are invited on-site to help clients apply for Medicaid
and health care benefits. A licensed medical professional should
also be on-site – during established times/days of the week – to
provide basic health care services (e.g., wound care, medication
management). The following full time equivalent (FTE) positions
would “right size” staffing needs for a 75 bed shelter in
Lane County:
TABLE 7: SHELTER STAFF
1 FTE Project Manager On-site to oversee shelter
operations and staff
12 FTE Case Managers On-site case managers and
service coordinators
.5 FTE Licensed Mental
Health case manager
On-site mental health services
provided
.5 FTE Licensed Substance
Abuse case manager
On-site substance abuse
services provided
2 FTE On-call case managers On-call case managers and
service coordinator
3 FTE Janitorial staff On-site janitorial duties
1 FTE Facilities supervision Oversees maintenance and
janitorial staff
1 FTE Maintenance staff Performs day-to-day
maintenance at the shelter
Based on average case manager and employment rates in Lane
County, when fully operational the shelter staffing costs would be
between $650,000 -$790,000 annually.
Evaluation and performance measurements: As with any new
initiative, the continued success of the shelter will be based on
performance outcomes and evaluation. TAC recommends that
Lane County establish initial and continued robust data collection
procedures of center clients, services, and outcomes. Performance
outcomes should be established and made clear to all partners.
Performance measurements should include length of stay,
number of exits to permanent housing, and number of returns
to homelessness. Lane County should also continuously evaluate
the number and characteristics of those served and compare it
to PIT data to ensure the shelter is serving the most high-need
unsheltered populations. Data on length of stay (LOS) should
also be reviewed closely. LOS evaluations should be reviewed to
determine if specific resources or services offered impact the LOS
(e.g., LOS is shorter for people who received a PSH resource upon
entering the shelter). The LOS evaluation can help Lane County
understand the factors that contribute to longer client shelter
stays, and also help the shelter identify and address any barriers
to housing or understand what populations are best served by the
shelter’s model. Data on race and ethnicity should also be collected
and evaluated, in order to ensure equal access to this critical
resource.
STRATEGIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE 21
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
CONCLUSION
IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
With collaboration and effective coordination, Lane County and the City of Eugene, along with other stakeholders across the county, are
well-positioned to drive system changes that will impact the unsheltered homeless crisis, as well as make significant strides to ending
homelessness throughout Lane County.
Whether decreases in unsheltered homelessness will be realized in a meaningful way depends largely on the ability to implement
TAC’s recommendations in a timely and thorough way. Upon review of this report, TAC strongly encourages Lane County to create an
implementation plan to carry out the recommendations outlined here. While a new low-barrier shelter may take up to a year or two
to design and develop, the other recommendations can begin to be implemented fairly quickly once resources are identified.
A new low-barrier shelter alone will not decrease the overall literal homeless numbers, but once created, it will offer a safe and secure
place for many of Lane County’s most vulnerable people experiencing homelessness. To have a truly evident impact on the overall
homelessness crisis requires broad and sweeping changes throughout the homeless system. TAC’s system modeling puts forward a
three-year timeframe to implement our recommendations in order to have the demonstrable impact desired. However, the county
and its partners will need to determine which recommendations are most viable and able to be implemented and at what point in that
period or another timeframe. TAC believes that all of the recommendations must be implemented as a ‘package deal’ and considers any
determination on the order of implementation best made at the local level.
To assist the county and partners in developing an implementation plan, TAC has created both a cost analysis (Appendix E) and a list of
potential funding sources for each recommendation (Appendix F). Once implementation begins, it is critical that system performance
evaluation occur to ensure the intended impact of recommendations takes place and determine whether additional changes are needed
to address homelessness in Lane County.
PAGE 22
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: LIST OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS (24)
APPENDIX B: SYSTEM MAP (25)
APPENDIX C: SYSTEM MODELING (26)
APPENDIX D: NATIONAL EMERGING AND PROMISING PRACTICES
IN EMERGENCY SHELTER (28)
APPENDIX E: COST ANALYSIS FOR SYSTEM WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS &
LOW BARRIER SHELTER (30)
APPENDIX F: POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES (32)
APPENDIX G: DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS (34)
PAGE 23
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
APPENDIX A: LIST OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
TAC has interviewed staff from the following homeless provider agencies and programs:
• St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County
»Service Center Staff
»Supportive Services for Veterans Families (SSVF) staff
»Family Shelter Staff
»Executive Director
• Eugene Mission
»Executive Director
»Shelter Staff
• Homes for Good
• Nightingale Health Sanctuary
• ShelterCare
• Catholic Community Services of Lane County
• Poverty and Homelessness Board (PHB) subcommittee Lived Experience Advisory Group for
Unhoused Engagement (LEAGUE) member meeting
• Focus group discussions
»Poverty and Homelessness Board
»Community advocates
• Eugene Police Department
• City of Eugene Parks and Recreation staff
• Looking Glass
• White Bird/Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets (CAHOOTS)
• Community Court
• Community Outreach Resource Team (CORT)
• Lane County Staff for;
»Coordinated Entry
»Frequent User System Engagement (FUSE)
»Community Service Worker
PAGE 24
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
:
S
Y
S
T
E
M
M
A
P
C
E
S
C
E
S
C
E
S
SI
N
G
L
E
H
O
U
S
E
H
O
L
D
:
VI
-
S
P
D
A
T
s
c
o
r
e
o
f
8
+
FA
M
I
L
Y
H
O
U
S
E
H
O
L
D
:
VI
-
S
P
D
A
T
s
c
o
r
e
o
f
9
+
SI
N
G
L
E
H
O
U
S
E
H
O
L
D
:
VI
-
S
P
D
A
T
s
c
o
r
e
o
f
4
-
7
FA
M
I
L
Y
H
O
U
S
E
H
O
L
D
:
VI
-
S
P
D
A
T
s
c
o
r
e
o
f
4
-
8
NO
N
-
C
H
R
O
N
I
C
HO
U
S
E
H
O
L
D
WI
T
H
C
H
I
L
D
R
E
N
PE
R
M
A
N
E
N
T
SU
P
P
O
R
T
I
V
E
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
Fa
m
i
l
y
U
n
i
t
s
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
U
n
i
t
s
RA
P
I
D
-
R
E
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
Fa
m
i
l
y
U
n
i
t
s
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
U
n
i
t
s
Yo
u
t
h
U
n
i
t
s
TR
A
N
S
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
HO
U
S
I
N
G
Fa
m
i
l
y
U
n
i
t
s
NA
V
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
UN
S
H
E
L
T
E
R
E
D
/
L
I
T
E
R
A
L
L
Y
HO
M
E
L
E
S
S
AT
R
I
S
K
O
F
HO
M
E
L
E
S
S
N
E
S
S
L
A
N
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
HO
M
E
L
E
S
S
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
Y
S
T
E
M
PE
R
M
A
N
E
N
T
SU
P
P
O
R
T
I
V
E
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
En
t
r
y
S
y
s
t
e
m
PH
Y
S
I
C
A
L
A
C
C
E
S
S
P
O
I
N
T
S
Ca
t
h
o
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Sh
e
l
t
e
r
C
a
r
e
St
.
V
i
n
c
e
n
t
D
e
P
a
u
l
L
i
n
d
h
o
l
m
C
e
n
t
e
r
St
.
V
i
n
c
e
n
t
D
e
P
a
u
l
1
s
t
P
l
a
c
e
St
.
V
i
n
c
e
n
t
D
e
P
a
u
l
S
S
V
F
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
G
l
a
s
s
Y
o
u
t
h
Wi
l
l
a
m
e
t
t
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
La
n
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
o
v
e
t
a
i
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ce
n
t
r
o
L
a
t
i
n
o
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
o
Eu
g
e
n
e
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
Wo
m
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
MO
B
I
L
E
O
U
T
R
E
A
C
H
Sh
e
l
t
e
r
C
a
r
e
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
D
E
N
T
R
Y
F
R
O
N
T
D
O
O
R
DV
PHPH TH
CE
DA
Y
A
C
C
E
S
S
CE
N
T
E
R
S
PR
E
V
E
N
T
I
O
N
&
D
I
V
E
R
S
I
O
N
Fa
m
i
l
y
B
e
d
s
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
B
e
d
s
Yo
u
t
h
B
e
d
s
Do
m
e
s
t
i
c
V
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
B
e
d
s
ES
EM
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
S
H
E
L
T
E
R
43
%
RE
M
O
V
E
D
F
R
O
M
CW
L
F
O
R
E
X
P
I
R
E
D
AS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
AL
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
T
O
S
H
E
L
T
E
R
O
P
T
I
O
N
S
Ca
r
C
a
m
p
i
n
g
Sa
f
e
S
p
o
t
s
Co
n
e
s
t
o
g
a
H
u
t
s
PH
TR
A
N
S
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
HO
U
S
I
N
G
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
En
t
r
y
S
y
s
t
e
m
DE
N
I
E
D
E
N
T
R
Y
O
R
E
X
I
T
E
D
Un
d
e
r
t
h
e
i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
o
f
d
r
u
g
s
/
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
Ot
h
e
r
n
o
n
-
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
14
%
W
H
O
E
X
I
T
P
H
re
t
u
r
n
t
o
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
n
e
s
s
wi
t
h
i
n
2
y
e
a
r
s
19
%
W
H
O
E
X
I
T
T
H
T
O
P
H
re
t
u
r
n
t
o
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
n
e
s
s
wi
t
h
i
n
2
y
e
a
r
s
X
X
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
TH
ST
A
R
T
HE
R
E
RE
G
U
L
A
T
E
D
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
L
E
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
&
NA
T
U
R
A
L
L
Y
O
C
C
U
R
R
I
N
G
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
L
E
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
2.
9
%
r
e
n
t
a
l
v
a
c
a
n
c
y
r
a
t
e
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
Fa
m
i
l
y
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
Yo
u
t
h
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
Do
m
e
s
t
i
c
Vi
o
l
e
n
c
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
PH ES CE
THHo
u
s
i
n
g
T
y
p
e
s
:
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Sh
e
l
t
e
r
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
En
t
r
y
LE
G
E
N
D
DV
PAGE 25
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
APPENDIX C: SYSTEM MODELING
TAC created a scenario planning tool to model changes to different aspects of Lane County’s homeless response system and the impact
this would have on the number of single adults experiencing homelessness. This system modeling took into account factors such as the
number of single adults experiencing homelessness, the amount of resources available within each system component, and the utilization
and turnover rate for each of the system components. TAC used the system modeling to refine and “right-size” our recommendations.
The tables below outline the current system and three different scenarios created from the system modeling. Data in green indicates a
change from the current system.
Table 1 shows the current system resource capacity dedicated to single adults and the corresponding utilization rate and turnover rate.
Table 2 shows the number of single adults in Emergency Shelter (ES), Transitional Housing (TH), and those living in unsheltered locations.
It also presents the monthly number of newly homeless single adults who enter the system for the first time.
TABLE 1: CURRENT SYSTEM CAPACITY1
ES TH RRH PSH
Individual Beds/Units 364 47 50 407
Utilization Rate 85%92%73%87%
Turnover Rate 9%10%11%2%
TABLE 2: CURRENT DAILY STAYERS AND THOSE ENTERING HOMELESSNESS2
# of Individuals
Emergency Shelter 325
Transitional Housing 31
Unsheltered 1009
Total Literally Homeless 1365
Monthly Newly Homeless into System 130
As demonstrated in the tables above, the current system resource capacity is not fully utilized and improvements in utilization and turnover
(where appropriate) should increase system flow and overall capacity. However, those changes alone will not address the need given the
high number of single adults experiencing homelessness. The three scenarios modeled demonstrate the following:
1. Impact on system at 12 months if no changes occur.
2. Impact on system at 12 months if 75 low-barrier ES beds are added.
3. Impact on system at 36 months if 75 low-barrier ES beds added, increased system utilization & turnover occur, diversion strategies
implemented, and 350 PSH units added.
SCENARIO 1: MAKE NO CHANGES TO SYSTEM CAPACITY
ES TH RRH PSH
Individual Beds/Units 364 47 50 407
Utilization Rate 85%92%73%87%
Turnover Rate 9%10%11%2%
SCENARIO 1: IMPACT ON SYSTEM
Current System System at 12 months
Unsheltered 1009 1092
Total Literally Homeless 1365 1503
Estimated Unmet PH Housing Need 1393 1393
1 Data on bed/units from 2018 Housing Inventory Chart. Utilization rate and turnover rate provided by Lane County custom report.
2 Based on 2018 PIT and analysis of HMIS data.
PAGE 26
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
SYSTEM MODELING
As shown above, if no changes occur to the system, unsheltered homelessness and overall homelessness among single adults will
continue to rise due to new people continuing to enter the system and no improvements to system flow to exit people into housing.
SCENARIO 2: ADD 75 LOW-BARRIER EMERGENCY SHELTER BEDS
ES TH RRH PSH
Individual Beds/Units 439 47 50 407
Utilization Rate 85%92%73%87%
Turnover Rate 9%10%11%2%
SCENARIO 2: IMPACT ON SYSTEM
Current System System at 12 months
Unsheltered 1009 977
Total Literally Homeless 1365 1426
Estimated Unmet PH Housing Need 1393 1393
In Scenario 2 above, with the addition of 75 low-barrier ES beds, there is still an increase in overall homelessness among single
adults but the number of unsheltered homeless decreases. The reasons for the continued overall increase are the same as in
Scenario 1: newly homeless single adults continuing to enter the system and there are no changes to system flow.
Scenario 3 incorporates the additional low-barrier ES beds as well as number of system-wide changes using strategies recommended
by TAC and implemented within a 3-year timeframe. The system-wide changes include:
• Increase Utilization Across Interventions
• Increase Turn Over Across Interventions
• Increase Diversion
• Addition of 350 Units of PSH
SCENARIO 3: ADD 75 LOW-BARRIER ES BEDS & SYSTEM-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
ES TH RRH PSH
Individual Beds/Units 439 47 50 757
Utilization Rate 90%95%85%95%
Turnover Rate 20%20%15%5%
SCENARIO 3: IMPACT ON SYSTEM
Current System System at 36 months
Unsheltered 1009 0
Total Literally Homeless 1365 467
Estimated Unmet PH Housing Need 1393 283
With the addition of the 75 low-barrier ES beds, 350 PSH units, diversion strategies, and increased utilization and turnover through
various recommendations, there is potential for a significant impact on unsheltered homelessness and a major decrease in overall
homelessness among single adults. The system modeling in scenario 3 is centered on Lane County implementing all of TAC’s
recommendations including those related to outreach, diversion, emergency shelter, rapid-rehousing, permanent supportive
housing, coordinated entry, navigation, landlord engagement, and tenancy supports.
PAGE 27
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
APPENDIX D: NATIONAL EMERGING AND PROMISING PRACTICES IN
EMERGENCY SHELTER
The recommended emergency shelter model components are based on the work TAC completed to date with Lane County; analysis of
data and stakeholder interviews, creation of a map of the system, analysis of currently funded programs’ utilization and performance as
well as their demand, availability, and need. In addition, TAC researched emerging trends and promising practices with experts in the field,
National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH), as well as communities who have very recently designed, implemented, and conducted early
evaluations on new emergency shelter models. Examples of this include emergency shelter design and components, as well as some early
recommendations, based on four communities: San Francisco Navigation Center- Mission Navigation Center, Seattle Navigation Center,
Los Angeles- A Bridge Home, Berkeley Navigation Center- STAIR. Details of the recommendations provided for these communities are
outlined below.
San Francisco, CA
In March 2015, the San Francisco Navigation Center launched a pilot program to respond to homeless encampments, long-term and
extremely vulnerable people living on the streets who are not able or willing to access traditional shelters. The Navigation Center was
a partnership among the Mayor’s Office of Housing Opportunity; Partnerships; and Engagement; the Human Services Agency; and the
Department of Public Health; Episcopal Community Services (lead service provider); and a non-profit partner. There are currently five
Navigation Centers in San Francisco, the Mission Navigation Center is the model highlighted in this paragraph. The navigation center is
designed to shelter and rapidly house a difficult-to-serve population; through a referral process and intense case management, it is able
to connect them to stable income, public benefits, and permanent housing. The Center serves 75 people a given time, and includes meals,
a common courtyard, storage for belongings, showers, laundry, and dormitory accommodations for couples, pets, and possessions, on a
24-hour basis. After eight months of Navigation Center operations, the Controller’s Office conducted several evaluations and created the
following recommendations to improve the Navigation Center going forward:
• Create clear policies and procedures for referral decisions; all stakeholders should be clear and agree on criteria to determine which
clients are referred
• Establish performance measurements related to housing outcomes and appropriate service populations; the city must establish
performance metrics, set targets, and then regularly assess whether the model meets those targets
• Improve benefits retention; analysis needs to be completed to understand why some clients lost benefit connections
• Spread lessons learned from the Navigation Center throughout the shelter system; city leaders and service providers explore policy
changes that will help make traditional shelters similarly welcoming for clients, and foster a sense of working together toward
tangible goals
• Expand Homeward Bound data collection; the human service agency should institute broader data collection practices related to the
housing resources, including tracking successful versus unsuccessful referrals for all program participants
Los Angeles, CA
In September 2018, the City of Los Angeles opened its first- of a total of 12 sites to serve 1,500 people- new emergency shelters through
the initiative “A Bridge Home.” The title reflects how the shelters will operate as an emergency bridge to permanent housing for people
who are living unsheltered on the streets in encampments, and are extremely vulnerable. The fist site, El Pueblo, serves 45 people, 30 men
and 15 women, at any given point in time. The structure consists of several subdivision trailers built into living facilitates, stitched together
with an outdoor deck which providers communal space. The shelter is open/accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, is open to partners
and pets, and will store possessions people arrive with. Clients also have access to showers, medical care, and intensive services to provide
connections to first permanent housing, as well as mainstream benefit, health care, and pet services. As this site implements the navigation
center model, as well as opens additional sites, evaluations will be conducted to measure outcomes and make recommendations.
Seattle, WA
In 2017, the Seattle Navigation Center opened. The City of Seattle Human Services Department made available $1.67 million, open to non-
profits or federally recognized Indian tribes eligible to apply. The local non-profit, DESC, is the lead agency for the Navigation Center. The
Navigation Center is a low-barrier, service-enriched shelter targeting high-needs homeless adults with high vulnerabilities living unsheltered
in encampments. On-site services include hygiene facilities, 24/7 staffing, and intensive case management that includes development of
pathways to permanent housing, income, health care, and stability. People are welcomed as singles, pairs, or groups; with pets; and with
access to secure storage for their belongings. The dormitory-style facility has no curfew and provides shower, bathroom, and laundry
facilities, as well as comprehensive case management, behavioral health services, meal services through a partnership with OSL, and
connections to benefit programs and housing. The Navigation Center can accommodate up to 85 guests at a time.
PAGE 28
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
In March 2018, the University of Washington released the results of an extensive study of the Seattle Navigation Center; below are the
recommendations most relevant to Lane County:
• Both outreach and on-site staff should be clear and transparent with communication about the Center’s purpose, policies, and
procedures—especially regarding length of stay—to avoid misunderstandings and to ensure potential guests can make an
informed decision about whether the Center will be a good fit
• Length of stay should be flexible and renewable based on individual guests’ needs and the availability of permanent housing or
other appropriate accommodations (e.g., long-term residential treatment)
• The Center offers the option of separate-gender or coed sleeping spaces and accommodates room change requests, as needed.
These options should be continued to ensure guest comfort and safety
• More staff on swing, night, and weekend shifts are needed. We further recommend all-staff trainings (ideally ongoing) in cultural
humility, de-escalation, harm-reduction approaches, trauma-informed care, and motivational interviewing
• All-stakeholder meetings should be regularly convened on a monthly basis to clarify priorities, roles and procedures and create
clear communication channels. Front-line staff and guest perspectives should be taken into consideration in planning, instituting,
and enforcing changes in higher-level policies and procedures
Berkeley, CA
In June 2018, the City of Berkley partnered with several organizations to open the STAIR Center (a loose acronym for Stability, Navigation,
and Respite). STAIR offers a 45-bed, 24/7, service-rich shelter housed in a series of modular trailer buildings on 2nd Street between Cedar
and Virginia Streets in West Berkeley. Following national best practices for low-barrier shelters, the STAIR Center provides accommodations
for pets, partners, and possessions. On-site housing navigators maintain a client ratio of 20:1. There is no curfew for program residents
and no arbitrary maximum length-of-stay. Bay Area Community Services (BACS) adheres to a flexible harm reduction philosophy regarding
substance use. The building model consists of 45 beds, made of modular trailers, with two main dormitory areas (both trailers), an intake
room, a kitchen, bath, and shower trailer (ADA compliant), staff offices, and meetings places space. Referrals are made to the Center
through outreach workers and the coordinated entry system.
These recent examples on new and emerging emergency shelter design, implementation, and recommendations illustrate that the
recommendations TAC has put forth in this report for Lane County are very much aligned with current leadership and stakeholder
promising practices in serving unsheltered, extremely vulnerable people living on the streets, in order to ultimately permanently house
people and eradicated unsheltered homelessness in Lane County.
NATIONAL EMERGING AND PROMISING PRACTICES IN EMERGENCY SHELTER
PAGE 29
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
*Sa
l
a
r
i
e
s
a
r
e
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
f
o
r
C
O
L
A
i
n
2
0
2
0
a
n
d
2
0
2
1
@
2
.
8
%
**
Th
e
P
H
A
m
a
y
i
n
c
u
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
s
t
s
d
u
e
t
o
H
M
I
S
e
n
t
r
y
(
e
.
g
.
s
t
a
f
f
a
n
d
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
s
)
a
n
d
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
v
o
u
c
h
e
r
s
RE
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
#
1
.
SY
S
T
E
M
-
W
I
D
E
RE
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
S
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
NE
E
D
E
D
(
I
.
E
.
S
T
A
F
F
)
AN
N
U
A
L
C
O
S
T
(S
A
L
A
R
Y
+
F
R
I
N
G
E
IF
S
A
L
A
R
Y
I
S
L
I
S
T
E
D
)
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
AN
N
U
A
L
CO
S
T
S
20
1
9
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
CO
S
T
S
20
2
0
*
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
CO
S
T
S
20
2
1
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
CO
S
T
S
A.
E
x
p
a
n
d
&
B
e
t
t
e
r
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
5
F
T
E
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$4
0
,
0
0
0
@
5
=
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
5
,
6
0
0
$2
1
1
,
3
5
7
1
F
T
E
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
/
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
$5
5
,
0
0
0
@
1
=
$
5
5
,
0
0
0
$5
5
,
0
0
0
$5
5
,
0
0
0
$5
6
,
5
4
0
$5
8
,
1
2
3
Mi
l
e
a
g
e
,
d
a
t
a
p
l
a
n
s
,
p
h
o
n
e
s
,
of
f
i
c
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
$2
4
,
0
0
0
$2
4
,
0
0
0
$2
4
,
0
0
0
$2
4
,
0
0
0
$2
4
,
0
0
0
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
f
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
f
u
n
d
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
E
s
t
.
C
o
s
t
A
$3
2
9
,
0
0
0
$3
2
9
,
0
0
0
$3
3
6
,
1
4
0
$3
4
3
,
4
8
0
B.
E
x
p
a
n
d
D
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
&
Ra
p
i
d
E
x
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
6
F
T
E
D
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
$3
5
,
0
0
0
@
6
=
$
2
1
0
,
0
0
0
$2
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
5
,
0
0
0
$2
1
5
,
8
8
0
$2
2
1
,
9
2
5
Di
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
f
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
f
u
n
d
/
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
E
s
t
.
C
o
s
t
B
$2
6
0
,
0
0
0
$1
5
5
,
0
0
0
$2
6
5
,
8
8
0
$2
7
1
,
9
2
5
C.
E
x
p
a
n
d
a
n
d
B
e
t
t
e
r
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
Ra
p
i
d
R
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
(
R
R
H
)
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ne
w
R
R
H
f
u
n
d
s
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
o
f
w
h
i
c
h
$
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
de
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
a
d
u
l
t
s
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
E
s
t
.
C
o
s
t
C
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
D.
C
r
e
a
t
e
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
S
H
&
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
U
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Ne
w
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
V
A
S
H
,
Ma
i
n
s
t
r
e
a
m
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
s
$0
No
c
o
s
t
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
**
E.
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
Mo
v
e
-
O
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
No
c
o
s
t
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
$0
No
c
o
s
t
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
F.
E
x
p
a
n
d
&
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
U
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
of
T
e
n
a
n
c
y
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
s
No
c
o
s
t
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
$0
No
c
o
s
t
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
G.
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
E
n
t
r
y
S
y
s
t
e
m
3
F
T
E
N
a
v
i
g
a
t
o
r
s
3@
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
=
$
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$8
0
,
0
0
0
$1
2
3
,
3
6
0
$1
2
6
,
8
1
4
2
F
T
E
A
s
s
e
s
s
o
r
s
2
@
$
3
5
,
0
0
0
=
$
7
0
,
0
0
0
$7
0
,
0
0
0
$7
0
,
0
0
0
$7
1
,
9
6
0
$7
3
,
9
7
5
1
F
T
E
C
E
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
1
@
$
5
5
,
0
0
0
=
$
5
5
,
0
0
0
$5
5
,
0
0
0
$5
5
,
0
0
0
$5
6
,
5
4
0
$5
8
,
1
2
3
To
t
a
l
E
s
t
.
C
o
s
t
G
$2
4
5
,
0
0
0
$2
0
5
,
0
0
0
$2
5
1
,
8
6
0
$2
5
8
,
9
1
2
H.
C
r
e
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
i
z
e
d
&
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
L
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
&
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
2
F
T
E
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
s
2
@
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
=
$
8
0
,
0
0
0
$8
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$8
2
,
2
4
0
$8
4
,
4
5
3
To
t
a
l
E
s
t
.
C
o
s
t
H
$8
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$8
2
,
2
4
0
$8
4
,
4
5
3
I.
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
o
E
n
s
u
r
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
B
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
Co
s
t
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
pr
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
s
,
h
i
r
i
n
g
e
x
p
e
r
t
s
i
n
t
o
p
i
c
s
,
tr
a
v
e
l
f
o
r
s
t
a
f
f
t
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
s
e
t
c
.
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
E
s
t
.
C
o
s
t
I
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
E
:
C
O
S
T
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
F
O
R
S
Y
S
T
E
M
W
I
D
E
R
E
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
S
&
L
O
W
B
A
R
R
I
E
R
S
H
E
L
T
E
R
PAGE 30
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
RE
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
#
2
.
AD
D
L
O
W
-
B
A
R
R
I
E
R
S
H
E
L
T
E
R
ON
E
T
I
M
E
C
O
S
T
AN
N
U
A
L
C
O
S
T
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
C
O
S
T
F
O
R
RE
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
La
n
d
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
i
f
c
o
u
n
t
y
/
c
i
t
y
o
w
n
e
d
l
a
n
d
)
$0
$0
Co
s
t
o
f
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
(
N
a
v
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
m
o
d
e
l
s
r
a
n
g
e
f
r
o
m
$
7
1
2
,
0
0
0
t
o
2
.
4
M
)
$1
.
6
M
1
$0
a
f
t
e
r
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
t
a
r
t
u
p
$1
.
6
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
Ot
h
e
r
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
d
i
r
e
c
t
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
s
)
2
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
(
s
e
e
c
h
a
r
t
o
n
pa
g
e
2
1
o
f
r
e
p
o
r
t
)
$7
2
0
,
0
0
0
$7
2
0
,
0
0
0
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
(
R
R
H
)
/
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
c
o
s
t
o
f
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
o
f
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
n
a
v
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
2
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
o
s
t
s
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
u
n
t
i
l
a
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
.
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
s
o
f
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
s
—
b
e
y
o
n
d
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
—
m
a
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
t
a
x
e
s
,
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
co
s
t
s
,
t
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
,
l
o
a
n
/
d
e
b
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
d
e
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
.
COST ANALYSIS FOR SYSTEM WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS & LOW BARRIER SHELTER
PAGE 31
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
APPENDIX F: POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
The table below contains information on potential funding sources that can be used to pay for the costs associated with the different
recommendations outlined in TAC’s report. Lane County, the City of Eugene, and other partners should explore each of these potential
sources to determine availability and appropriateness. Each of these funding sources will have eligibility and program requirements, and
may require an application. Additionally, it is more than likely that some of these sources are already being utilized in the community for
other purposes not related to addressing homelessness. A description of each funding source is located at the end of the table.
Type of Program or Activity Potential Capital Funding Sources
Potential Operations, Staffing,
or Services Funding Sources
Emergency Shelter • CDBG – Public Facilities
• ESG
• State, county and city government
• Private funds
• CDBG
• ESG
• EFSP
• State or local government
• Private
Rapid Re-housing N/A • CSBG
• EFSP
• ESG
• HHS CFCIP
• HOME TBRA
• CoC
• TANF
• VA SSVF
• State, county and city government
• Private
Permanent Supportive Housing • CDBG
• FHLB AHP
• HOME
• LIHTC
• NHTF
• CoC
• State or local government
• Private
• CDBG
• HCV including HUD-VASH
• HOME TBRA
• HOPWA
• CoC
• LIHTC
• Medicaid
• Section 811 (PRA)
• SAMHSA
• State or local government
• Private
Diversion N/A • ESG
• TANF
• State or local government
• Private
Outreach N/A • ESG
• CoC
• RHYA
• SSVF
• State or local government
• Private
Coordinated Entry
including Navigation
N/A • ESG
• CoC
• SSVF
• State or local government
• Private
Landlord Engagement N/A • ESG
• CoC
• SSVF
• State or local government
• Private
PAGE 32
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
Description of Potential Funding Sources
• CDBG – Community Development Block Grant from HUD provides community development funding for facilities, housing and other
improvements and services; available through entitlement jurisdictions or states.
• CSBG – Community Services Block Grant from HHS provides funds to alleviate the causes and conditions of poverty in communities.
• EFSP – Emergency Food and Shelter Program from FEMA provides limited funding for food, shelter, and rent, mortgage or utilities;
distributed through local United Ways.
• ESG – Emergency Solutions Grant – Crisis response funding from HUD for shelter, street outreach, prevention and rapid rehousing;
available through entitlement jurisdictions or states; see ESG webpage for more information about recipients and information on caps
on use for shelter.
• FHLB AHP – Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program provides funding for housing for very low income people; available
the regional Federal Home Loan Banks.
• HCV (including VASH) – Housing Choice Vouchers (formerly known as Section 8 vouchers) are administered by many Public Housing
Authorities and provide rental assistance to low income households.
• HHS CFCIP – Chafee Foster Care Independence Program from HHS provides states funds for housing for youth ages 18-21 that have
left foster care.
• HOME (including HOME TBRA) – Home Investment Partnerships Program from HUD provides funding to build, buy or rehabilitate
affordable housing or tenant based rental assistance (TBRA); available through entitlement jurisdictions or states; see HOME webpage
for more information about program requirements and recipients.
• HOPWA – Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS from HUD provides for the housing needs of people living with HIV/AIDS.
• HUD CoC – Continuum of Care Program funding from HUD provides funding to quickly re-house homeless individuals and families;
available through Continuums of Care; see CoC webpage for more information about requirements for the program and CoCs.
• LIHTC – Low Income Housing Tax Credits from the IRS provides funding to build, buy or rehabilitate affordable housing; available
through state Housing Finance Agencies.
• Medicaid – health care program for low income people that can, in some situations, provide funding for eligible services for eligible
people in PSH; available through state agencies; information about how Medicaid support PSH can be found at this link.
• NHTF – National Housing Trust Fund is an affordable housing program from HUD that will buy, build or rehabilitate housing for
extremely low income people; the funds will be distributed by a state agency or its designee; NHTF spending plans are currently being
developed by the States.
• Private (including grants or loans) – includes foundation, corporations, banks and private individuals; information about some local
philanthropic resources can be found at this link.
• RHYA – Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs from HHS includes a Street Outreach Program (SOP) providing grants for street-
based outreach or drop-in centers.
• SAMHSA – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of HHS provides services in supportive housing for people with
a mental illness or substance abuse disorder.
• Section 811 (PRA) – Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Program from HUD provides rent subsidy in affordable housing for people
with disabilities.
• State or local – each state, county or city may dedicate local resources to housing or services program for low income people including
people experiencing homelessness.
• TANF – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families from HHS can provide emergency or short-term assistance; a description of how
TANF can be used for people experiencing homelessness can be found at this link.
• VA SSVF – Supportive Services for Veteran Families programs from the VA provides supportive services and limited financial assistance
to prevent homelessness and rapidly rehouse Veteran households experiencing homelessness.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
PAGE 33
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
APPENDIX G: DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
Chronically Homeless Individual: refers to an individual with a disability who has been continuously homeless for one year or more or has
experienced at least four episodes of homelessness in the last three years where the combined length of time homeless in those occasions
is at least 12 months.
Coordinated Entry System (CES): a system that works by establishing a common process to understand the situation of all individuals
and families who request assistance through the homeless system. The core elements include: established access point(s), the use of a
standardized assessment process to gather information on program participants’ preferences, and the barriers that households face to
regaining housing. Once the assessment has identified the most vulnerable people with the highest needs, the CoC’s standards are used to
prioritize households for referral to appropriate and available housing resources.
Continuums of Care (CoC): the collaboration of local stakeholders representative of relevant organizations that coordinate homeless
services across a specific geography. The CoC must establish a Board to act on its behalf, and may appoint additional committees to fulfill its
responsibilities, all of which must be documented in a governance charter.
Continuum of Care Program (CoC Program): a HUD funded program designed to promote communitywide commitment to
the goal of ending homelessness; provide funding for efforts by nonprofit providers, and State and local governments to quickly rehouse
homeless individuals and families while minimizing the trauma and dislocation caused to homeless individuals, families,
and communities by homelessness; promote access to and effect utilization of mainstream programs by homeless individuals and families;
and optimize self-sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness.
Diversion/Rapid Exit: a strategy that prevents homelessness for people seeking shelter by helping them identify immediate alternate
housing arrangements and, if necessary, connecting them with services and financial assistance to help them return to permanent housing.
Diversion services can reduce the number of households becoming homeless, the demand for shelter beds, and the size of program wait
lists. Diversion services can also help communities achieve better outcomes and be more competitive when applying for federal funding.
Diversion services are offered immediately prior to, or immediately after, a household becomes literally homeless.
Emergency Shelter: is a facility with the primary purpose of providing temporary shelter for homeless people.
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG): a HUD funded program to assist individuals and families quickly regain stability in permanent housing
after experiencing a housing crisis or homelessness. ESG provides grants by formula to states, metropolitan cities, urban counties and U.S.
territories to support homelessness prevention, emergency shelter and related services.
Fair Market Rent (FMR): are published in the Federal Register annually by HUD at the beginning of each federal fiscal year (10/1). HUD
establishes FMRs to determine payment standards or rent ceilings for HUD-funded programs that provide housing assistance. FMRs are
available here: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html.
Harm Reduction: an approach or strategy aimed at reducing the risks and harmful effects associated with substance use and addictive
behaviors for the individual, the community, and society as a whole. In the context of Housing First programs, harm reduction provides
relief from sobriety requirements while also attending to personal goals and strength-based service design.
Homeless Individual/household: describes a person or group of people who identify as a family, who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate
nighttime residence; or a person fleeing domestic violence and has no other resources or housing options available and without these
homeless crisis resources would be homeless as defined above.
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS): a computerized data collection application designed to capture client-level
information over time on the characteristics and service needs of men, women, and children experiencing homelessness, while also
protecting client confidentiality. It is designed to aggregate client-level data to generate an unduplicated count of clients served within a
community’s system of homeless services. An HMIS may also cover a state or regional area, and include several CoCs.
PAGE 34
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
Housing First (HF): a model of housing assistance that prioritizes rapid placement and stabilization in permanent housing that does
not have service participation requirements or preconditions (such as sobriety or a minimum income threshold). Transitional housing
and supportive services only projects can be considered to be using a Housing First model if they operate with low-barriers, work
to quickly move people into permanent housing, do not require participation in supportive services, and, for transitional housing
projects, do not require any preconditions for moving into the transitional housing (such as sobriety or minimum income threshold).
Recovery housing can be a an important part of a Housing First system so long as people choose that type of sober environment as
part of their personal goals/preferences and where recovery-oriented housing is not the only option for people seeking to obtain
permanent housing.
Housing Inventory Count (HIC): is produced by each CoC and provides an annual inventory of beds that assist people in the CoC who
are experiencing homelessness or leaving homelessness, usually conducted the last week of January.
Outreach: involves moving outside the walls of the agency to engage people experiencing homelessness who may be disconnected
and alienated not only from mainstream services and supports, but from the services targeting homeless persons as well. This is
incredibly important work designed to help establish supportive relationships, give people advice and support, and provide access the
services and supports that will help them move off the streets to permanent housing. Outreach is important in order to access hard-
to-reach individuals, and should connected to an overt and concerted effort to end homelessness.
Permanent Housing: community-based housing without a designated length of stay, and includes both permanent supportive
housing and rapid re-housing. To qualify as CoC Program permanent housing, the program participant must be the tenant on a
lease for an initial term of at least one year, which is renewable for terms that are a minimum of one month long, and is terminable
only for cause. Other permanent housing programs, such as SSVF and state/local funding sources, only require the minimum lease
requirements for based on the state or local regulations.
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH): is a housing model designed to provide housing assistance (project- and tenant-based)
and supportive services on a long-term basis to formerly homeless people. HUD’s Continuum of Care program, authorized by the
McKinney-Vento Act, funds PSH and requires that the client have a disability for eligibility.
Permitted Village/Encampment: offer outdoor, temporary accommodations for people who are living unsheltered in conditions
that threaten their health and safety. Villages offer tiny house-like living structures, community kitchens, hygiene services and case
management to clients that have lived outside for extended periods of time or for whom traditional shelter may not be a good fit. A
person successfully exits a village when they leave the village to move to permanent housing.
Point-in-Time Counts (PIT): are unduplicated 1-night estimates of both sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations. The 1-night
counts are conducted by CoCs nationwide and occur during the last week in January of each year.
Homelessness Prevention (HP) Services: services used to assist people who are currently housed but face an imminent risk of
becoming literally homeless. Homelessness Prevention programs help people remain in their homes, with the use of one-time
financial assistance and/or time-limited case management. A person or household successfully exits a prevention program when they
remain in their current housing or another permanent housing situation, without becoming homeless during the interim.
Rapid Rehousing: an intervention, informed by a progressive assistance, Housing First approach that is a critical part of a community’s
effective homeless crisis response system. Rapid re-housing rapidly connects families and individuals experiencing homelessness
to permanent housing through a tailored package of assistance that may include the use of time-limited financial assistance and
targeted supportive services. Rapid rehousing programs help families and individuals living on the streets or in emergency shelters
solve the practical and immediate challenges to obtaining permanent housing while reducing the amount of time they experience
homelessness, avoiding a near-term return to homelessness, and linking to community resources that enable them to achieve housing
stability in the long-term.
Sheltered Homelessness: refers to people who are staying in emergency shelters, transitional housing programs, or safe havens
Supportive Services for Veteran Families: Veterans Affairs (VA) funded program that provides both rapid re-housing and homelessness
prevention, depending on a household's current housing situation and need. SSVF's program regulations prioritize RRH interventions.
It is expected that SSVF grantees (501C(3) non-profits) and community partners prioritize resources to meet the needs of all eligible,
literally homeless Veteran households, while only offering HP services to the most vulnerable Veteran households. As part of the
community plan for ending Veteran homelessness, this may require that HP services be offered only when an SSVF grantee or
community is able to meet the needs of all eligible literally homeless Veterans.
DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
PAGE 35
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1
Transitional Housing: housing where all program participants have signed a lease or occupancy agreement, the purpose of which is to
facilitate the movement of homeless individuals and families into permanent housing within 24 months.
Unsheltered Homelessness: refers to people whose primary nighttime location is a public or private place not designated for, or ordinarily
used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for people (for example, the streets, vehicles, or parks).
Victim Service Provider Agency: a private nonprofit organization whose primary mission is to provide services to victims of domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. This includes rape crisis centers, battered women's shelters, domestic violence
transitional and permanent housing programs, and other programs of this nature.
DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
PAGE 36
May 13, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item 1