HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/12/2016 - HOMELESSNESS INITIATIVES UPDATEDATE:
STAFF:
July 12, 2016
Beth Sowder, Director of Social Sustainability
Jackie Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainabillity Officer
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Homelessness Initiatives Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to provide an overview of the state of homelessness and local current
homelessness initiatives. Additionally, an overview and update of the Homeward 2020 Action Items for 2016 will
be discussed. Staff will also seek direction on the camping ordinance in light of these initiatives and research from
other communities.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback does Council have on existing and proposed programs, and are there other programs related
to homelessness that the community should focus on?
2. What changes to the Camping Ordinance, if any, does Council wish to consider at this time?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
State of Homelessness
Recently, the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) released an annual report on the State of
Homelessness in the United States. This report provides basic data related to the number of individuals
experiencing homelessness, the number of individuals at risk of homelessness, and the volume of homeless
assistance provided in each state.
These data illustrate that while some communities and states are making strides in developing permanent
housing solutions and reducing the number of people experiencing homelessness, homelessness continues to be
a social issue many cities struggle to address as effectively and efficiently as possible.
Population Summaries
In 2015, on any given night, an estimated 564,708 individuals experienced homelessness in the United States.
Just over 69% of those experiencing homelessness were staying in emergency shelters or transitional housing
programs, with the remaining 31% of individuals staying outside, in unsheltered areas. Since 2007, both the
overall number of individuals experiencing homelessness as well as the rate of homelessness in the United
States has declined. In 2007, over 647,000 individuals experienced homelessness (21.5 individuals per 10,000
U.S. residents). In 2015, just under 565,000 individuals experienced homelessness (17.7 individuals per 10,000
U.S. residents).
In Colorado, 9,953 individuals experienced homelessness on any given night, with 2,819 (or 28%) staying outside
in unsheltered locations. While Colorado’s overall number of people experiencing homelessness declined slightly
from 2014 (down 0.7% from the previous year), the number of individuals staying in unsheltered situations across
the state increased by almost 45% over the previous year. Approximately, 18.6 individuals per 10,000 people in
Colorado (0.186% of the population) are experiencing homelessness on any given night, a slightly higher
population rate than is seen nationally.
July 12, 2016 Page 2
In 2015, 301 individuals were surveyed as part of the Point-in-Time Count in Fort Collins. Around 25% of those
surveyed were staying outside, in unsheltered locations. In the 2016 Point-in-Time Count in Fort Collins, the total
number of individuals surveyed dropped slightly to 290. In addition, the proportion of individuals staying in
unsheltered location declined to represent 21% of those surveyed.
Comparison of national, state, and local populations and population rates of homelessness (2015 Point-
in-Time)
Homeless
Population
Percent
Unsheltered
Population Rate
(per 10,000
people)
Population Rate
(as percentage of
total population)
United States 564,708 30.7% 17.7 0.177%
Colorado 9,953 28.8% 18.6 0.186%
Fort Collins
(2015)
301 24.6% 19.0 0.190%
Fort Collins
(2016)
290 21.0% 18.0 0.180%
Denver
County/City
(2015)
3737 16.1% 54.8 0.548%
Boulder County
(2015)
658 21.8% 20.6 0.206%
Colorado
Springs/El Paso
County (2015)
1073 22.6% 15.9 0.159%
Grand
Junction/Mesa
County (2015)
507 18.9% 34.1 0.341%
Pueblo County
(2015)
776 75.5% 47.4 0.474%
Homeless Assistance
To have a complete response system to homelessness, communities should provide both emergency shelter
options and permanent housing options. Permanent housing options includes both those options that provide
short-term assistance to regain housing (rapid rehousing) and those options that provide long-term housing
assistance (permanent supportive housing). In addition, transitional housing units are in operation; this type of
housing has been in decline nationally over the past five years, as more effective and efficient permanent housing
options become more prevalent.
Across Colorado, emergency shelter beds and permanent housing units (including both rapid rehousing and
permanent supportive housing units) are provided. Similar to national trends, Colorado increased its permanent
housing supply and decreased its transitional housing supply from 2014 to 2015.
Similarly in Fort Collins, emergency shelter beds are available. The capacity of emergency shelter in Fort Collins
in 2016 was around 298 beds. Bed capacity is estimated annually, based on usage from previous years.
Therefore, in facilities where a single unit could be used for either a single individual or a family, the capacity can
vary greatly from year to year depending on how many people end up using each single unit. The variance in
emergency shelter capacity in Fort Collins is more a factor of this variance than actual changes in capacity from
2015 to 2016. There is transitional housing available and dedicated to specific populations (i.e. domestic violence
survivors). Permanent housing includes both rapid re-housing and permanent supportive housing. The majority
July 12, 2016 Page 3
2015 Emergency Shelter
Beds
Permanent Housing Options Transitional Housing
National 264,440 379,524 161,827
Colorado 3,782 4,183 4,390
Fort Collins 260 200 18
System Recommendations to Address Homelessness
Nashville, TN recently commissioned a study to assess its capacity to effectively address homelessness, both
with consideration of governance changes and system re-designs needed. (Attachment 1) The following five
recommendations were provided related to components of Nashville’s homelessness system which would need to
be redesigned:
1. Prioritize households with the highest needs through a coordinated entry system and removal of program
barriers.
a. What’s being done in Fort Collins: coordinated entry is one of six action items identified in the
2016 Action Plan for Homeward 2020 (more detailed information below).
2. Provide shelter diversion to households who are still in housing.
a. What’s being done in Fort Collins: prevention and shelter diversion is one of six action items
identified in the 2016 Action Plan for Homeward 2020 (more detailed information below).
3. Invest in rapid rehousing.
a. What’s being done in Fort Collins: expanding rapid rehousing is one of six action items identified
in the 2016 Action Plan for Homeward 2020 (more detailed information below).
4. Expand resources available through landlord recruitment and housing navigation.
a. What’s being done in Fort Collins: a collaborative of service providers in Fort Collins, called the
Housing Work Group, has adopted landlord engagement as one primary area on which to focus.
To date, representatives from the Housing Work Group have presented to the Northern Colorado
Rental Housing Association regarding the need for landlords to participate in efforts to reduce
homelessness and the financial benefit of accepting housing vouchers; have conducted a
landlord focus group to better understand the reservations some landlords may have toward
renting to people with vouchers as well as those programs or strategies that may incentivize them
to accept housing vouchers; and, have incorporated a section on accepting housing vouchers to
the City-facilitated training for landlords. Additional work will continue through 2016 to expand the
number of landlords willing to accept housing vouchers or work with rapid re-housing providers.
5. Engage additional providers to participate in the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)
a. What’s being done in Fort Collins: improving the utility of HMIS is one of six action items identified
in the 2016 Action Plan for Homeward 2020 (more detailed information below).
Complete Housing First Homelessness Response System
In Fort Collins, we strive to provide a complete system to respond to homelessness by utilizing the Housing First
methodology and implementing a Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement System. The visual below
explains how this system works by properly assessing the needs of people is varying states of homelessness
which includes currently homeless, provisionally housed or accommodated, and housed but at-risk of becoming
homeless. This is the first step of the Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement System which then helps
identify the housing needs and barriers, navigating the system and obtaining necessary documents, and
accessing the housing that is appropriately matched to the household’s needs.
July 12, 2016 Page 4
What Fort Collins Has and What Needs Improvement/Resources
In Fort Collins, there are some key services of the homelessness response system that are mostly resourced
although continual improvements and resources are still needed. These include:
Transitional Housing: No longer seen as a best practice for the majority of people experiencing
homelessness; Housing First systems adhere to the philosophy that all households are housing ready. In
Fort Collins, this resource is provided by:
o SummitStone Health Partners
o Crossroads Safehouse
o Matthews House - HOST Home
Connections to Mainstream Resources: Includes benefits, employment services, and other resources that
can help a household with few to no barriers resolve their homelessness. In Fort Collins, this resource
provided by:
o Homeless Gear - Dedicated Navigator Program
o Multiple providers offering case management services
The services somewhat resourced with some improvements/resources needed in Fort Collins include:
Emergency Shelter - In Fort Collins, this service is provided by:
o Catholic Charities
o Fort Collins Rescue Mission
o Crossroads Safehouse
July 12, 2016 Page 5
o Faith Family Hospitality
Outreach - In Fort Collins, this service is provided by:
o Outreach Fort Collins (see more detailed information below)
o Homeless Gear Nighttime Street Outreach (volunteer-based)
Prevention - In Fort Collins, this service is provided by:
o Neighbor to Neighbor
o Homelessness Prevention Initiative
o Salvation Army
Permanent Supportive Housing - In Fort Collins, this service provided by:
o Fort Collins Housing Authority
Redtail Ponds PSH 60 units
Single Room Occupancy (SROs) 27 units
Veterans Administration Supportive Housing (VASH) Vouchers, 135
Tenant-based Rent Assistance (CDDT) 10 units
o SummitStone Health Partners
Approx. 15 shelter + care vouchers
The services that need significant resources in Fort Collins include:
Shelter Diversion - In Fort Collins, this service is provided by:
o Crossroads Safehouse
Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement System (CAHPS)
o A regional team has been working since spring to establish CAHPS although this is expected to
be a lengthy process
Rapid Rehousing - In Fort Collins, this service is provided by:
o Volunteers of America
o Rocky Mountain Human Services
o Homeless Gear - One Village One Family
o Neighbor to Neighbor
o Catholic Charities
Homelessness Initiatives Underway
Outreach Fort Collins
Led by a collaborative Task Force/Board with representatives of Homeward 2020, Downtown Development
Authority, SummitStone Health Partners, UC Health, Homeless Gear, City of Fort Collins Police Services and
Social Sustainability Department, Outreach Fort Collins is a community-driven outreach effort to maintain
downtown Fort Collins as a safe and welcoming place for all while connecting the community’s most vulnerable to
the services and supportive networks available. It is a professionally staffed, on-the-street team working in the
downtown area. The goals include building relationships with community members, services providers,
businesses, and community services in an effort to address and deescalate disruptive behaviors downtown.
This team assists with resolving on-the-street conflicts or disruptions that currently pull emergency responders
away from their primary task of maintaining public safety while compassionately building trusting relationships to
understand the needs of community members to assist and accurately refer them to appropriate services.
Outreach Fort Collins will positively impact the lives of those living in, working in, and visiting downtown.
July 12, 2016 Page 6
Based on successful street outreach models across the country, Outreach Fort Collins is a visible team of trained
and highly skilled professionals with a regular schedule of outreach throughout the downtown. They will cover the
walkable downtown business district.
Outreach Fort Colling began operating last month, and will have three staff in its pilot year. The Program Director
is Nick Verni-Lau who brings years of outreach and housing experience working with Denver’s homeless
population. Emily Harms is an outreach worker who has experience working as a volunteer with Homeless
Gear’s Street Outreach Program. Lastly, Lisa Dunworth, a behavioral health clinician hired through an in-kind
position provided by SummitStone Health Partners, and has experience volunteering with Homeless Gear’s Street
Outreach Program.
Metrics and Outcomes will include:
Contacts (calls, nature of calls, who initiated call, location, time, outcome)
Proactive contacts/building relationships with individuals and businesses
Response rates and ability to deescalate situations
Referrals and consultation around accessing systems of care
Service coordination
Step by step support to resolve issues
Perception and knowledge of Outreach Fort Collins by various stakeholders
Perception of safety downtown
By carefully tracking the calls made to OFC and the response to calls, patterns can be recognized, hot-spots
identified, and the ability to address frequent calls from a proactive stance enhanced. In particular, one of goals is
to decrease time spent by Police downtown on calls that do not concern criminal behavior. There will be a close
working relationship with downtown officers, as well as the leadership in the police department, to accurately track
interventions that in the past would have been a police call.
Currently OFC is working with various agencies in Fort Collins who also work with individuals and families who
are experiencing homelessness: Homeward 2020 tracks data surrounding the annual Point in Time count;
Homeless Gear and the Murphy Center for Hope work daily with the same population and track data on client
usage; the police department tracks data on calls involving the homeless population; lastly UC Health tracks
hospital usage by those who are homeless. OFC has set up and will continue to develop data tracking tools to be
able to identify trends, gaps in services, and also compare data with other agencies.
Additional evaluation systems will be developed and implemented in the first year of programming. At this point,
staff are determining what other evaluation will be necessary.
Municipal Court Special Agency Sessions
Special Agency Sessions (SAS) were added to the Municipal Court in August 2014 to address public concerns
with quality of life violations (such as camping, littering, open container, etc.) for people experiencing
homelessness and/or with other service needs. The sessions are intended to balance compassion and
resourcefulness with accountability. The program was created as a collaborative effort involving the Municipal
Court, City Attorney’s Office, Police Services, and now functions also in collaboration with the Social Sustainability
Department. The Murphy Center and SummitStone Health Partners were a part of the originating agencies. The
SAS Resource Specialist is now an employee of the City’s Social Sustainability Department, and provides case
management for all participants of the program. Since this position became part of the City in December 2015,
there has been a 13% increase in the successful completion rate of participants in the program (from 32% in 2015
to 45% in 2016).
Since the program started thru May 2016:
85 participants entered the program
30 successfully completed the program (36% completion rate)
July 12, 2016 Page 7
10% or less overall recidivism rate (recidivism is tracked three ways: while in the program, 6 months after
the program, and 1 year after the program)
Numerous improvements to the program have been made including:
Information sessions held at the Salvation Army
Volunteer opportunities identified for participants
bike safety trainings for participants (collaboration with FC Bikes)
Shower vouchers provided by Northside Aztlan Center
Single-ride bus passes provided by Transfort
Notary training and certification of SAS Resource Specialist which is useful to participants
Participant exit survey implemented with the following results in first 6 months (Dec. 2015 - May 2016):
(Attachment 2)
o 77% strongly or somewhat agree that they were able to complete goals
o 67% felt the right amount of contact was spent with Resource Specialist
o 78% would recommend the program to someone else
o 78% felt their quality of life was improved due to participating in this program
o Some response to “the most beneficial part of the program”:
“to meet with someone that knows the right material to help you”
“getting back on my feet”
“being able to come to court every month and have at least one goal accomplished to tell
the Judge”
“not going to jail”
“friendship”
Community-based Shelter Model
Late last year and earlier this year, City Councilmembers and City staff visited the Room in the Inn overflow
shelter model in Nashville, TN. After returning, staff was directed to begin adapting the model to operationalize
something similar in Fort Collins.
Staff has been working diligently to identify community partners interested in assisting in a variety of ways to
implement this model by November 1 for the winter overflow months (November thru April). This model will assist
with the ability for the overflow shelter plan to have more flexibility and elasticity to better provide an increased
number of shelter beds as needed. A few key reasons for implementing this model include:
1. The 2016 and previous Point-in-Time Counts indicate a need to expand shelter beds.
2. The need for shelter beds is dynamic and changes frequently, therefore, a flexible option that can
expand would be beneficial.
3. This could fill the gaps that currently exist for people with unique needs, such as having a pet, staying
with a partner, concerns about staying with a large number of people, and respite care. An effort is
being made to identify whether interested community partners have the ability to fill some of these
gaps/needs.
4. This is an important step to explore whether there is a need for year round additional shelter beds.
This pilot season will provide information regarding need, utilization, and ability to find willing partners
to inform future decisions.
As staff has worked through the planning phases to operationalize this pilot, the following work has been done:
Phase 1 April - July
Outreach to community partners to gauge interest and willingness to participate. This was done
by meeting with various groups (e.g. Fort Collins Church Network, Interfaith Council) as well as
individual partners and by distributing a survey to assess interest and questions in a variety of
areas.
July 12, 2016 Page 8
Met with existing shelter providers to discuss coordination, possibilities for assistance, and any
concerns.
Once recruitment is final, development of a coordination framework and program plan will be
finalized.
To date, over 25 partners have expressed interest in providing volunteers, space, and/or training.
Phase II August - November
Planning, implementation, and coordination with current shelter process.
Convene meeting in August consisting of the shelter providers, participating partners, and other
stakeholders to discuss an operational plan to implement prior to November launch.
Staff will work closely with existing service providers (shelters, Homeward 2020, Murphy Center,
etc.) to solicit input and keep them informed throughout the process.
Staff will work with Catholic Charities to provide volunteer training and orientation video.
Staff will work with Homeless Gear and other partners to identify and fill gaps regarding needed
materials and supplies.
Staff will coordinate with the shelters and the Murphy Center about pick-up and drop-off locations
and other operational and staffing details.
Desired Outcomes
Partner with up to ten community partners to participate in the program on a rotating basis with a
small number of people at each location (no more than 15).
Pilot program that runs November thru April, with up to three locations operating at any one time
to provide important overflow shelter beds.
Complete full pilot season to provide the City with important data about the viability of the
program in an on-going fashion.
It is important to note that there may be some challenges to overcome regarding the Land Use Code and Zoning
requirements. This has not been an issue in other communities, and staff is working on identifying potential
solutions.
2016 Action Plan for Homeward 2020
In January 2016, a group of about three dozen stakeholders met to review progress on the 10 Year Plan and
prioritize action items for 2016 (Attachment 3). The 6 action items identified include:
1. Improve data collection via Homelessness Management Information System (HMIS) - lead and active
agencies are Homeward 2020, Catholic Charities, Homeless Gear, Murphy Center, City of Fort Collins,
Fort Collins Housing Authority, SummitStone Health Partners, Volunteers of America, Veterans Affairs
a. Assess validity and utility of community-level reports, determine adjustments to community-level
reports, input all client data from Murphy Center
b. Pull community reports, craft resource strategy for local data administrator
c. Secure resources for local data administrator, request integration and implementation of swipe
cards
d. Create protocol for pulling sheltered PIT from HMIS
2. Increase permanent supportive housing supply - lead agency (developer)/owner/property manager is Fort
Collins Housing Authority with partner service agencies - SummitStone Health Partners, Homeward 2020,
Larimer County Criminal Justice Services, Catholic Charities, Neighbor to Neighbor, Veterans Affairs, City
of Fort Collins
a. Secure property for project
b. Apply for low-income housing tax credits
c. Development process
July 12, 2016 Page 9
3. Increase rapid rehousing supply - lead and active agencies are Homeward 2020, Homeless Gear,
Neighbor to Neighbor, Volunteers of America, Rocky Mountain Human Services, Crossroads Safehouse,
Homelessness Prevention Initiative
a. Reviewed current data, gain additional information from local providers, assess community’s
rapid re-housing needs
b. Research available resources and other communities’ strategies for providing rapid re-housing,
outline implementation plan for building rapid re-housing stock
4. Implement Outreach Fort Collins - lead and active agencies include City of Fort Collins (Social
Sustainability and Police Services), Homeless Gear, Homeward 2020, Downtown Development Authority,
UCHealth, SummitStone Health Partners
a. Secured fiscal sponsorship with Colorado Nonprofit Development Center, hired program director
and outreach worker, secure remaining resources
b. Establish evaluation measures
c. Implement program
d. Program evaluation
5. Implement robust homelessness prevention and shelter diversion strategies - lead agency is Homeward
2020 and active agencies are still to be determined
a. Convene gathering of participants to review current assessment of national best practices and
local resources
b. Outline current gaps in local prevention/diversion system, identify gaps that could be filled by
current providers, identify resources needed and possible sources
c. Create prioritized implementation plan
6. Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement System (CAHPS) - lead and active agencies are
Homeward 2020, North Front Range Continuum of Care, Balance of State Continuum of Care, Fort
Collins Housing Authority, City of Fort Collins, Homeless Gear, Murphy Center, United Way 211, Larimer
County Veteran Services, SummitStone Health Partners, Catholic Charities
a. Participated in the Coming Home Colorado Action Lab to develop the structure for coordinated
entry focused first on veterans
b. Reported out results of first 100-day intensive coordinated entry pilot (assessed 104 veterans and
housed 36 by end of May)
c. Larimer and Weld Counties will continue to work regionally to develop a CAHPS that serves all
households experiencing homelessness or at-risk of homelessness
d. A regional CAHPS coordinator will be hired by the United Way of Weld County (with partial
funding provided by the Office of Behavioral Health) to manage and develop this process for
Northern Colorado
e. Build sustainability for the veterans’ process and begin development of process for chronic
homelessness
f. Goal to house 50 more veterans in next 100 days (ending in late August)
Camping Ordinance
Information provided in Attachments 4 and 5
Next Steps
Written updates will be provided for each of the programs as progress is made:
Outreach Fort Collins - Report after the summer season and then quarterly
Special Agency Session - Annual report from Municipal Court
Community-based Shelter Program - Report prior to implementation and again after the winter season
(May)
Homeward 2020 2016 Action Plan - End of year report
July 12, 2016 Page 10
ATTACHMENTS
1. Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (PDF)
2. Special Agency Session Exit Survey Results December 2015 through May 2016 (PDF)
3. 2016 Action Plan for Homeward 2020 (PDF)
4. Memo to Council June 30, 2016 re: Continued Enforcement of the City's Camping Ordinance (PDF)
5. Report of Camping Violations Filed in Municipal Court January 1 thru June 28 for 2015 and 2016 (PDF)
6. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
NNashville Homeless
System Assessment Report &
Recommendations
Commissioned by the Metropolitan Homelessness
Commission, Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency,
& Frist Foundation
March 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
TTable of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2
I. Background and Purpose of Report ........................................................................................................ 7
II. Methodology: Information Sources and Analysis Process ...................................................................... 7
III. Background on Nashville’s Homeless System ......................................................................................... 9
A. Numbers and Characteristics of Homeless People in Nashville ........................................................ 9
B. System Inventory ............................................................................................................................ 10
C. Households Served in HMIS Participating Programs ...................................................................... 11
D. Governance Structure .................................................................................................................... 12
E. Key Accomplishments .................................................................................................................... 13
F. System Challenges .......................................................................................................................... 14
IV. Results: Analysis of System Performance ............................................................................................. 15
A. HMIS Data Quality .......................................................................................................................... 15
B. Alignment of Inventory and Investment with Need ....................................................................... 17
C. System Performance ...................................................................................................................... 17
1. Bed and Unit Utilization Rate ................................................................................................... 18
2. Entries from Homelessness ..................................................................................................... 19
3. Lengths of Stay ......................................................................................................................... 21
4. Exits to Permanent Housing ..................................................................................................... 22
5. Cost Per Exit to Permanent Housing ........................................................................................ 23
6. Returns to Homelessness ........................................................................................................ 24
V. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 25
A. Governance Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 25
1. Establish New Unified Governance and Decision-Making Entity ............................................. 25
2. Recommended Implementation Steps for New Governance Entity ........................................ 27
B. System Re-Design Recommendations ............................................................................................ 30
Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. 33
Appendix A: List of Interviewees ........................................................................................................... 33
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 22 of 333
Executive Summary
Introduction
The City of Nashville’s Metropolitan Homelessness Commission (MHC), Metropolitan Development and
Housing Agency (MDHA), and the Frist Foundation (NDMC) have engaged Focus Strategies to assess the
performance of the existing homeless system and the community’s efforts to reduce homelessness.
Between June and December 2015, we collected and analyzed data to assess the performance of
individual programs, program types, and the system as a whole. We also conducted telephone interviews
with key stakeholders to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the current system, and to
assess what kinds of changes the City of Nashville could consider to support its goals. The results of our
analysis are presented in this report and will be used by MHC, MDHA, and the Frist Foundation to inform
the next steps in Nashville’s system planning work, including developing an integrated set of strategies to
further reduce homelessness and an updated governance model to carry out the new direction.
Shifting from Homeless Programs to a System that Ends Homelessness
In recent years, communities around the United States have begun to make the shift from simply having a
collection of programs that serve homeless people to more intentionally creating systems to end
homelessness. Federal policy priorities are also moving in this direction. The U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) is encouraging communities to assess the effectiveness of their current
efforts and engage in a process of transformation towards Housing Crisis Resolution or Housing Crisis
Response systems. In a fully realized Housing Crisis Resolution System, all the programs and services in
the system work collectively to ensure that homelessness is rare, brief and non-recurrent1. Housing Crisis
Resolution incorporates coordinated entry and prioritizes households with the highest needs for
assistance, uses data to assess system and project performance, and ensures that all the components,
programs, and services are oriented to a common set of objectives: rapidly moving people who are
homeless into housing.
Nashville Homeless System Accomplishments and Strengths
The City of Nashville and Nashville/Davison County CoC have implemented a number of impressive
initiatives to address homelessness. The community has many strengths it can build upon to develop a
Housing Crisis Resolution System:
x There is engaged and committed leadership (including the Mayor’s Office, MHC, MDHA and the
Frist Foundation) who are willing to explore what system changes are needed and to achieve
greater reductions in homelessness by aligning interventions with evidence-based practices and
federal policy priorities;
x The whole community is involved in existing efforts to make changes, including non-profit
providers, faith-based providers, housing developers, property owners and landlords, publicly
funded service systems, and the philanthropic community;
1 Ending homelessness, as defined by the US Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), means having a system
in which homelessness is rare, brief and non-recurrent. Another definition, found in the HEARTH Act, is a system in
which no one is ever homeless for longer than 30 days.
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 33 of 333
x All the key components of what Nashville needs to build a system to end homelessness are
already in place or under development, including street outreach (to both chronically homeless
people and youth), Coordinated Entry for some populations, prevention/diversion efforts, shelter
and interim housing, a small but growing inventory of rapid re-housing, and permanent
supportive housing;
x The How’s Nashville campaign has demonstrated that significant progress can be made by
prioritizing those homeless households with the highest needs for assistance and leveraging
mainstream housing and services systems to help meet those needs, including Housing Choice
Vouchers (Section 8); and
x There is a large and very engaged community of faith congregations, faith-based service
providers, private foundations and other non-governmental resources that support the work
currently underway (including operation and funding of much of the community’s shelter and
transitional housing inventory) – presenting an opportunity for the public and private sectors to
work together to set and meet common goals.
Given the relatively small size of the unsheltered homeless population in Nashville, the existing inventory
of programs, and the resources currently invested in the homeless system, getting to a system in which
homelessness is rare, brief and non-recurrent is a realizable goal. To accomplish this objective, the
community will need an updated leadership and governance model that can successfully bring together
private and public sector resources, as well as some comprehensive strategies for re-design of the
interventions available to homeless people.
Summary Results of System Performance Assessment
Key performance assessment results from our analysis are summarized below.
Key FFindings
1. Governance
Collectively, the CoC, MDHA, MHC, and housing and service providers and the
broader Nashville community have come together to implement an impressive array
of efforts to address homelessness. While the providers in the community are
generally making the effort to coordinate and collaborate, at present each program
operates independently based on their individual goals and agency missions. This
lessens the collective impact and makes it difficult for all the parts to work together
towards a common set of goals. We found that there is no comprehensive plan to
tackle homelessness systematically, which is also reflected in a lack of unified
leadership and governance structure. The need for a more formalized and clear
governance and decision-making process, and higher level coordination, is evident in
the assessment of system performance.
2. Data Quality
aand HMIS
Participation
Generally speaking, the quality of the data in the Nashville/Davidson County CoC’s
HMIS system is of high quality, with relatively few missing data elements. However,
the usefulness of the data is somewhat limited by the relatively low rate of
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 44 of 333
Key FFindings
participation by providers, particularly those operating emergency shelters (and some
transitional housing). Though these providers are not required by their funding
sources to participate, including them would significantly improve the community’s
ability to assess system performance.
3. System
PPerformance
Using data drawn from HMIS and individual program budgets, as well as data from
the Rescue Mission’s HMIS-compatible database, Focus Strategies assessed the
performance of emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re-housing and
permanent supportive housing on the following metrics. Our findings are summarized
in this report.
a. Bed and
UUnit Utilization
We found a relatively low bed and unit utilization rate in many areas of the system:
72% for single adult shelter beds, 75% for family transitional housing, and 80% for
transitional housing for single adults. This suggests that system inventory is not being
used to maximum capacity and likely is partly the result of programs having high
barriers to entry and restrictive eligibility criteria.
b. Entries from
HHomelessness
Currently many of the programs in the system are serving a high number of
households who were not literally homeless upon entry2. In particular, 47% of families
entering shelter and 39% entering transitional housing were coming from housed
situations. This reflects the fact that each program is establishing their own individual
eligibility criteria and may not require households to be literally homeless upon entry.
In a high performing system, beds are prioritized for people who are literally
homeless while those who are still housed are diverted from entering the system (and
housing is preserved or new housing is secured). This finding is also likely related to
the presence of high entry barriers among some of the programs in the system.
c. Lengths of
Stay
Lengths of stay are relatively high in all system components, and particularly
transitional housing where the average stay is 159 days for single adults 298 days for
families. Program providers often structure their service models on the assumption
that longer stays lead to higher rates of exit to permanent housing. Yet, as noted
below, the data does not support this assumption.
d. Rate of Exit
tto Permanent
Housing
The rate at which households exit emergency shelter and transitional housing to
permanent housing is relatively low, with transitional programs exiting only 48% of
single adults and 67% of families to permanent housing. By comparison, rapid re-
housing, which has the same or shorter lengths of stay, is faring much better on this
measure, with 78% of single adults and 99% of families exiting to permanent housing.
e. Cost Per
PPermanent
Housing Exit
Nashville’s Rapid Re-Housing programs are not only achieving better results in terms
of the numbers of households who exit to permanent housing, but they also do so
more cost effectively. The cost for each permanent housing exit from rapid re-
housing is one-third the cost of transitional housing for singles and one sixth the cost
of transitional housing for families.
2 “Literal homelessness” means living in a place not meant for human habitation (e.g. street, car, camp) or in an
emergency shelter.
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 55 of 333
Key FFindings
f. Rate of
Return to
HHomelessness
For households who exit to permanent housing, the rate of return to homelessness is
generally very low across all program types. There is no information to suggest that
people who secure permanent housing more quickly and cost effectively using rapid
re-housing are more likely to experience a loss of housing and return to
homelessness. Rate of return is calculated by looking at all the households who exit
to permanent housing in a year and then seeing if any of them re-enter any homeless
program in the next 12 month period.
Summary of Recommendations for New Governance Structure and System Re-Design Strategies
Based on the information we have gathered and analyzed about the existing system, Focus Strategies
makes the following recommendations about the governance structure and the system re-design
strategies needed to make further progress on reducing homelessness in Nashville. These
recommendations are detailed further in our report.
Governance RRecommendations
1. Establish a New
Unified Governance
and Decision-Making
Entity
The single most important initial step for Nashville is for the community
leadership to come together and identify or create a single governance
structure and lead entity that will be tasked with moving forward
transformation of the current collection of programs into a Housing Crisis
Resolution System. This new leadership structure and lead entity must: involve
high-level decision makers, include private and public funders aligned around a
common set of objectives, have the ability to oversee a system planning
process, and have the authority to set policy and implement identified
strategies to end homelessness. Based on our assessment of the existing
governance structure, Focus Strategies recommends that the Metropolitan
Homelessness Commission (MHC) be reconfigured to serve as the lead entity
of the new governance structure, with functions currently housed within
MDHA shifting over to MHC in a phased process.
System Re--Design Recommendations
2. Use Coordinated
Entry and Remove
Program Barriers To
Ensure that Literally
Homeless and Higher
Need Households
Can Be Prioritized
The existing programs and services in Nashville that provided data for this
analysis are serving large numbers of people who are not literally homeless,
even while there are many unsheltered individuals in the community. To make
faster progress on ending homelessness, the new governance entity will need
to adopt policies and strategies to ensure that programs are prioritizing people
who are living outdoors, in vehicles, or in emergency shelter. These policies
would include the removal of entry barriers and requirements to accept
referrals from coordinated entry.
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 66 of 333
System Re--Design Recommendations
3. Provide Shelter
Diversion to Those
Who Are Still Housed
Nashville’s new coordinated entry system should integrate a strong shelter
diversion component to help keep households who are not yet homeless from
entering the system. This can build upon the diversion/prevention effort that
was recently launched as part of the coordinated entry system for families. To
be maximally effective, shelter diversion should target those households who
are imminently going to be homeless within a few days.
4. Invest in High
Performing Rapid Re-
Housing
Rapid re-housing programs in Nashville are achieving strong results in exiting
people to permanent housing with low rates of return to homelessness in
comparison to either shelter or transitional housing. This suggests that the
system could likely house more homeless people with an expansion of rapid
re-housing and a shift of resources from lower performing transitional
housing. This approach can complement the work already being done by the
2016 by 2016 campaign and focus on the non-chronically homeless
population.
5. Increase System
Capacity in Landlord
Recruitment and
Housing Navigation
As Nashville seeks to expand rapid re-housing and continue the 2016 by 2016
campaign to house chronically homeless people using Housing Choice
Vouchers and other permanent supportive housing vouchers, the high cost of
housing will make it difficult for participants to locate appropriate units.
Experience from other communities suggests that this problem can be
mitigated through expending system resources on staff who are dedicated to
cultivating relationships with landlords and to helping clients with their
housing searches.
6. Engage Providers
Not Currently
Participating in HMIS
A key obstacle to conducting effective system planning in Nashville is the
relatively low rate of participation in HMIS, particularly among providers who
do not receive federal homelessness funding (and therefore are not required
to participate). With many key programs not currently contributing data, it is
very difficult to have a complete system-level understanding of where clients
are entering the system, what programs they access, and the results of the
interventions. The CoC (through MDHA, which manages the HMIS) is working
to expand participation. To support the development of a Housing Crisis
Resolution System, the new leadership/governance entity will need to be
involved in engaging non-participating providers and developing strategies to
include them in the system.
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 77 of 333
I. Background and Purpose of Report
The City of Nashville’s Metropolitan Homelessness Commission (MHC), Metropolitan Development and
Housing Agency (MDHA) and Frist Foundation (NDMC) have engaged Focus Strategies to assess the
performance of the existing homeless system and the community’s efforts to reduce homelessness. The
City of Nashville has made a strong local commitment to addressing homelessness, as evidenced by the
success of the How’s Nashville campaign to address chronic homelessness as well as many other
homeless initiatives. However, while the community has taken some strides towards reducing the
numbers of homeless people3, it lacks an overarching plan to align and coordinate the many different
programs and activities underway.
The goal of our technical assistance is to assist MHC and MDHA, to develop a new set of system
objectives and strategies that will better integrate the different components of the system and ensure
resources are invested in interventions that will yield the greatest results. This includes recommendations
about how to create a more streamlined and effective governing structure for homeless activities that
can advance the identified system objectives.
Focus Strategies has completed our analysis of the performance of the existing homeless programs in
Nashville and of the system as a whole. The results of our analysis are presented in this report along with
our recommendations for system re-design and changes to the governance structure for homeless-
related initiatives.
II. Methodology: Information Sources and Analysis Process
A. Data Sources
This report is based on work conducted by Focus Strategies from June through December 2015. To
compile this report, we conducted several different types of analysis:
x Document Review: Focus Strategies reviewed existing planning and governance documents and
reports including the Strategic Plan to End Chronic Homelessness in Nashville 2005-2015; the
2013 Nashville/Davidson County CoC Collaborative Application, CoC Gaps Group Bylaws, CoC
Interim Rule, Consolidated Planning documents, MHC Bylaws, and progress reports.
x Stakeholder Interviews. We conducted telephone interviews with key stakeholders representing
different system components and areas of expertise, including stakeholders knowledgeable
about the community’s emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent supportive
housing programs, as well as the specific interventions for homeless youth, single adults, families
and chronically homeless people and people with disabilities. The interviews with these key
stakeholders provided rich information about the strengths and weaknesses of the existing
system and areas for meaningful change. A complete list of individuals who participated in the
interview process is provided in Appendix A.
3 The Point in Time Homeless Count went down slightly in 2015 to 2,154 (from 2,234 in 2014).
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 88 of 333
x Performance Data: Focus Strategies conducted an analysis of data provided by MDHA and MHC
staff. The data was collected from three main sources: (1) the community’s inventory of
emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re-housing and permanent supportive housing units
as documented in the annual Housing Inventory Count (HIC) prepared by MDHA; (2) client data
exported from the community’s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) for the two
year period from July 2013 to June 2015; and (3) program budget data collected directly from
homeless program providers. The data were input into a customized Excel tool developed by
Focus Strategies (Base Year Calculator – BYC) which generates an analysis of HMIS data quality for
each project as well as the performance of each project across a range of measures. The results
of this analysis are summarized in Section IV of this report, with the individual project data
presented at the level of program types: emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re-
housing, and permanent supportive housing.
x Point in Time Count. Data from the Nashville/Davidson County Point in Time (PIT) counts from
2014 and 2015, coordinated by MDHA, was used for context on the size and composition of the
homeless population.
B. Programs Included in Data Analysis
The performance analysis presented in this report incorporates data on programs in the City of Nashville
that provide housing, shelter and services to homeless people. The programs analyzed fall into four
categories: (1) emergency shelters; (2) transitional housing; (3) rapid re-housing and (4) permanent
supportive housing. Descriptions of these program types are provided in Section IV. The scope of the
analysis is limited only to these four program types and does not include homelessness prevention
assistance for people at-risk of homelessness, or other types of safety net assistance or mainstream
system services provided to people who are homeless.
The universe of programs analyzed included any of the above program types that were on the
community’s Housing Inventory Count (HIC) and that also participate in the Homeless Management
Information System (HMIS) and for which there was two years of data available. To understand program
performance in relation to the level of financial investment, data was collected from individual providers
about their project budgets, including the total annual operating cost of each program, its revenue
sources, and amounts.
C. Rescue Mission Program Data
The Nashville Rescue Mission does not participate in HMIS, but they do maintain an HMIS-compatible
database and provided Focus Strategies with an export of client data for the analysis period. Since the
Rescue Mission operates the majority of emergency shelter beds in the system, obtaining this data was
critically important to developing a complete picture of system performance. However, since the Rescue
Mission data is not part of the larger HMIS system, we were not able to determine which of the Rescue
Mission clients were also served in other programs, so including their data likely inflated the total
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 99 of 333
numbers of clients served in the system (Section III.C). Also, we were not able to determine whether
clients exiting Rescue Mission programs entered into other homeless programs in the system, or if clients
from other homeless programs in the system entered Rescue Mission programs, so the rate of return to
homelessness presented in Section IV.C.6 under-represents the actual rate of return. The Rescue Mission
did not provide budget data, so their programs are not reflected in the cost-effectiveness analysis in
Section IV.C.5.
III. Background on Nashville’s Homeless System
This section provides a general overview of the current system of housing and services for homeless
people in the City of Nashville, including data on who is homeless in the community, the inventory of
homeless programs and their capacity, and an overview of the community’s homeless governance
structure and key system initiatives.
A. Numbers and Characteristics of Homeless People in Nashville
The table below presents data from the most recent Homeless Point in Time Count (PIT), conducted in
January 2015. The count found a total of 2,154 homeless people, comprising 1,890 households. The data
shows that the majority of the homeless population in Nashville is sheltered, with 54% of counted
households living in emergency shelters and 21% living in transitional housing. There were 470
unsheltered households, comprising 25% of the total households counted.
The overall population is largely single adults without children (93% of all households counted). Of the
1,752 homeless single adults counted, 647 or 37% are chronically homeless, defined as: (1) currently
unsheltered or in emergency shelter; (2) having been continually homeless for at least a year or four or
more times within the last three years; and (3) having a disability that significantly impairs ability to
secure and sustain housing.4
2015 Homeless Populations
4 The data in HMIS does not reflect the current HUD definition of chronic homelessness that went into effect in
January 2016.
Sheltered
Unsheltered TOTAL
All Households/All persons Emergency Transitional Safe
Haven
Number of Persons (Children) 97 161 0 1 259
Number of Persons (age 18 to
24) 159 34 0 23 216
Number of Persons (Adults) 860 365 8 446 1,679
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 1,022 390 8 470 1,890
TOTAL PERSONS 1,116 560 8 470 2,154
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 110 of 333
2015 HHomeless Subpopulations5
Sheltered Unsheltered TOTAL
Chronically Homeless Individuals 290 357 647
Chronically Homeless Families 5 0 5
Persons in Chronically Homeless Families 14 0 14
Veterans 25 47 72
Severely Mentally Ill 162 42 204
Chronic Substance Abuse 423 117 540
Persons with HIV/AIDS 105 28 133
Victims of Domestic Violence 288 80 368
B. System Inventory
The table below presents a summary of the homeless system’s overall capacity. This includes data on
participation levels in HMIS, which is drawn from the most recent Housing Inventory Count (HIC) from
January 2015.
System Capacity
Program Type Number of
Providers
Number of
Programs
Number of
Beds
Percentage of
Beds
Participating in
HMIS6
Emergency Shelter 10 16 1,619 1%
Transitional Housing 14 23 583 59%
Rapid Re-Housing 4 5 108 71%
Permanent Supportive Housing 7 16 1,350 65%
Total 35 60 3,664 36%
The Nashville homeless system currently has a very large inventory of emergency shelter, comprising 48%
of all beds. There is also a sizeable inventory of transitional housing and permanent supportive housing.
There is relatively little rapid re-housing, as this is a relatively new program type for the community.
One of the challenges facing the Nashville system is the relatively low HMIS participation rate for all the
program types in the system. Most notably, only 1% of existing shelter beds are reporting data into the
HMIS. The Rescue Mission and Room in the Inn operate most of the shelter inventory but do not
participate in HMIS. As noted above, the Rescue Mission does use an HMIS compatible database and is
able to produce reports on clients served and their outcomes (i.e. whether they exit to permanent
5 Subpopulation categories are not mutually exclusive so these figures do not sum to the total homeless
population. People may be represented in multiple categories.
6 Domestic violence (DV) programs are prohibited from entering data into HMIS, which impacts participation rates.
For the rapid re-housing programs, there is 100% participation of non-DV programs.
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 111 of 333
housing).7 However, since this information is not integrated with the rest of the programs in the system,
it is not possible to understand or track the movement of clients between HMIS participating and non-
participating programs and thereby understand how the system as a whole is functioning. The
participation rates for other system components (transitional housing, rapid re-housing, and permanent
supportive housing) are higher, but still below what is desirable for system planning purposes.
The CoC has recently re-allocated some funds to create a new dedicated HMIS grant that will help MDHA
focus efforts on bringing more of the system inventory into HMIS, which will likely begin to address this
problem. Having higher participation in HMIS will be critical if the community is to have access to the data
needed to inform system planning.
C. Households Served in HMIS Participating Programs
The data below shows the total number of people served in HMIS participating programs and in Rescue
Mission programs in Nashville in 2014-2015. Over the course of the year period, these programs served
8,183 people.8 Of these, 77% were adults 25 and older, 9% were transition age youth (TAY) ages 18 to
249, and 14% were children. About 20% had a disability, 9% were veterans, and 6% were chronically
homeless.
Total Unduplicated People
8,183
# %
Age
Adults 25+ 6,262 77%
TAY 18 - 24 729 9%
Children 1,122 14%
Missing 70 1%
Total Unduplicated Adults
6,991
# %
Gender
Male 4,757 68%
Female 2,226 32%
Other 4 0%
Unknown 4 0%
Disabled10 1,385 20%
Veteran 659 9%
Chronically Homeless 396 6%
Domestic Violence 261 4%
7 Room in the Inn also uses an HMIS compatible database for many of their programs but that data is not included in
this analysis.
8 This number may be inflated because the Rescue Mission clients cannot be de-duplicated from the clients of the
other programs.
9 TAY includes unaccompanied young adults ages 18-24 and also young adults age 18-24 who have minor children,
or what HUD refers to as “parenting youth.”
10 Disability as indicated by a "Yes" answer in the universal data element "Disabling Condition"
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 112 of 333
The following tables show the unduplicated number of people served in 2014-2015 by program type.
Individuals who received services from more than one program type are reflected more than once (i.e.,
in each of the service types they received). Program types with short lengths of stay tend to serve a
larger number of people than those with longer or unlimited lengths of stay. Emergency shelters
housed 6,607 or 77% of total people served, while permanent supportive housing served 995 (12%).
ES TH RRH PSH
Total Unduplicated People
6,607 796 217 995
# % # % # % # %
Age
Adults 25+ 5,152 78% 666 84% 122 56% 692 70%
TAY 18 - 24 668 10% 40 5% 9 4% 47 5%
Children 731 11% 88 11% 74 34% 254 26%
Missing 56 1% 2 0% 12 6% 2 0%
ES TH RRH PSH
Total Unduplicated Adults
5,820 706 131 739
# % # % # % # %
Gender
Male 4,084 70% 560 79% 78 60% 341 46%
Female 1,735 30% 146 21% 51 39% 394 53%
Other 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%
Unknown 1 0% 0 0% 2 2% 1 0%
Disabled11 826 14% 234 33% 18 14% 430 58%
Veteran 354 6% 303 43% 20 15% 49 7%
Chronically Homeless 8 0% 123 17% 35 27% 212 29%
Domestic Violence 28 0% 85 12% 26 20% 150 20%
D. Governance Structure
The leadership and oversight of efforts to address homelessness in Nashville is divided between two main
entities:
x The Nashville/Davidson County Continuum of Care (CoC) “Gaps Group” oversees the
development of the community’s annual funding application to HUD and sets policies governing
the distribution of CoC funds, assesses needs, and coordinates the bi-annual homeless point in
time count. The Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) is the lead agency that
staffs the CoC and also manages the HMIS system. The MDHA’s Homeless Coordinator is
responsible for the day-to-day work of the CoC. The Gaps Group membership is open to any
interested agency or individual and is composed primarily of representatives from housing and
service providers, including agencies receiving CoC funding. There are several standing
committees, including a Governance Committee, Nominations and Bylaws Committee, HMIS
11 Disability as indicated by a "Yes" answer in the universal data element "Disabling Condition"
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 113 of 333
Committee and Grant Review Committee. Ad Hoc committees are formed as needed to assist
with a range of activities (e.g. coordinated entry committee, youth committee, health committee,
etc.).
x The Metropolitan Homelessness Commission (MHC) was formed in 2005 at the behest of the
Mayor to oversee the implementation of Nashville’s Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness
(2005 to 2015). The MHC is staffed by and operates within the Metropolitan Department of
Social Services (MSS) of the Government of Nashville and Davidson County. Commission
membership includes individuals appointed by the Mayor (including three homeless or formerly
homeless individuals currently), members of the Metro Council, and staff from Metro
government, including Department Directors. One member of the Commission sits on the CoC’s
Governance Committee to ensure coordination between the two groups. Beginning in 2013, the
MHC has spearheaded the implementation of the How’s Nashville Campaign, which is based on a
collective impact model and has its own leadership structure. Campaign partners housed 900
chronically homeless people through the end of 2014. The MHC has recently launched a new
2016 by 2016 initiative to end chronic and veterans’ homelessness by the end of 2016. There
have been 906 chronically homeless veterans and non-veterans housed between January 1 and
December 31, 2015.
Additionally, there are other groups working on homelessness in the community, including the
Nashville Coalition for the Homeless, which advocates for solutions to homelessness.
E. Key Accomplishments
Collectively, the CoC, MDHA, MHC, housing and service providers and the broader Nashville community
have come together to implement an impressive array of efforts to address homelessness. Some key
accomplishments and system strengths that were highlighted during our interviews are listed below (this
is not intended as a comprehensive list of all programs and initiatives in the community):
x There is a tremendous degree of involvement by the faith community in solutions to
homelessness. This includes shelter and transitional housing programs operated by the Nashville
Rescue Mission and Room in the Inn, transitional housing and other programs operated by faith-
based organizations, as well as the many congregations that have opened their doors to provide
emergency shelter for homeless people.
x Housing and service providers in the community operate a diverse range of programs, including
many that are targeted to specific populations, including homeless and at-risk youth, people with
substance abuse issues, homeless families, people with disabilities, and other populations.
x There is a strong community emphasis on outreach to the large number of unsheltered
individuals living around downtown Nashville, including mental health outreach operated by the
Mental Health Cooperative and employing an innovative Critical Time Intervention (CTI) model, as
well as a youth outreach program operated by the Oasis Center.
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 114 of 333
x Rapid re-housing is still relatively limited but has begun to expand, with programs operated by
several different providers.
x The How’s Nashville campaign has helped to transform the community’s approach from “making
homelessness less miserable”, as one interviewee put it, to one that is focused on getting people
into permanent housing as quickly as possible. Through an innovative partnership with the MDHA
to dedicate Housing Choice Vouchers for chronically homeless people, recruitment of private
landlords, use of housing navigators, and linkages with mainstream services systems, this
campaign has successfully housed an impressive number of chronically homeless people in a very
short period of time and helped to begin shifting the community’s understanding of what works.
x How’s Nashville has also been the starting point for Coordinated Entry in Nashville, with all
chronically homeless people being assessed using the VI-SPDAT and a central waiting list created
to ensure that those with the highest vulnerability are prioritized for assistance. Based on the
success of this effort, the community is poised to launch a pilot coordinated entry for homeless
families in November 2015. Five city-funded staff will comprise the new Family Shelter Intake
Team (FSIT) to complete assessments, help families collect required documentation for
prevention assistance, and make referrals to prevention, shelter, and housing resources. The goal
will be to use emergency shelter as the last resort and do everything possible to keep families in
housing by using local and federal prevention resources.
F. System Challenges
Although there are many strong elements in Nashville’s efforts to end homelessness, one consistent
theme that Focus Strategies heard in our interviews was the lack of a plan to tackle homelessness
systematically and a unified governance structure to implement such a plan. While the providers in the
community are generally making the effort to coordinate and collaborate, at present each program
operates independently based on their individual goals and agency missions, which lessens the collective
impact and makes it difficult for all the parts to work together towards a common set of goals. Although
the MHC has set some specific objectives in relation to ending chronic and Veteran homelessness and has
developed strategies to meet those objectives, it does not provide a framework for addressing
homelessness among other populations or involve the full range of organizations aside from those
providing permanent supportive housing. The Nashville/Davidson County CoC, with MDHA as the lead
agency, has a broader mandate to address all types of homelessness, which are set forth by HUD in the
CoC Interim Rule. While the CoC and its committees are addressing a broad range of homelessness issues,
the work remains somewhat narrowly focused on what is needed to develop a competitive CoC funding
application rather than on broader system planning.
The implications of not having a strong and united leadership and governance entity tasked with
developing an overarching system to end homelessness have become more evident in recent years, as
federal policy priorities have shifted and communities are being asked to move from simply having a
collection of services and programs to developing systems to end homeless, or Housing Crisis Resolution
Systems. A fully realized Housing Crisis Resolution System incorporates coordinated entry systems that
prioritize households with the highest needs, uses data to assess system and project performance, and
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 115 of 333
ensures that all the components, programs, and services are oriented to a common set of objectives:
rapidly moving people who are literally homeless into housing. In Nashville, the need to make this shift
comes at a time when the community is experiencing rapidly rising rents and low vacancy rates, an issue
that many of those interviewed noted as a significant obstacle to making progress on ending
homelessness.
IV. Results: Analysis of System Performance
The sections below present our analysis of homeless system performance using data drawn from HMIS,
the Housing Inventory Count (HIC) and provider project budget information. Data presented includes the
Rescue Mission (from their HMIS-compatible database) unless otherwise noted. We have also included
information provided by key stakeholders where relevant to help provide context for the data, or in cases
where the data does not appear to align with what we learned from stakeholders.
A. HMIS Data Quality
A key precondition to any assessment of system performance is the availability of high quality data.
Based on our assessment, we found the data quality from the HMIS system to be excellent for most
variables. The tables below show the percentages of missing data for key data fields. Values in red are
areas where the quality of data could be improved.
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 116 of 333
TOTAL
DATASET
ES TH RRH PSH
Total Cases 3,477 186 1,354 410 1,234
Total Adult Cases 2,748 173 1,187 267 903
Percent Missing
# missing
values
TOTAL
DATASET
ES TH RRH PSH
ClientID 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Program Type 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Prior Living 252 7% 5% 1% 14% 5%
Entry Date 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Destination * 10 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Program Name 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Organization Name 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HouseHoldID 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
DOB 33 1% 6% 0% 3% 0%
Gender 28 1% 4% 0% 4% 0%
Disabled 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Chronic Homeless 391 14% 23% 16% 4% 9%
Vet 50 2% 6% 1% 2% 2%
Domestic Violence 40 1% 1% 1% 3% 1%
Income at Entry 1,164 42% 70% 19% 8% 66%
Total Amount Income Entry 1,115 41% 18% 19% 12% 70%
Employment at Entry 1,115 41% 18% 19% 12% 70%
Income at Exit * 12 1% 3% 1% 12% 70%
Total Amount Income Exit 1,115 41% 18% 19% 12% 70%
Employment at Exit * 12 1% 3% 1% 12% 70%
One of the most important data elements to examine when assessing project performance and system
performance is Prior Living Situation and Exit Destination. These data elements provide critical
information about: (1) how people are accessing the system and whether they are literally homeless
when they enter and; (2) whether they exit the system into permanent housing or some other
destination. To understand whether programs are being effective in helping homeless people to secure
housing, it is critical to have high data quality for these two questions.
Focus Strategies examined the rate of missing and unknown data for Prior Living and Exit Destination
from the main HMIS system as well as from the Rescue Mission data set. The results for HMIS data are
presented in the table above; the HMIS data quality of these variables is excellent. The Rescue Mission’s
data, however, generally did not capture Prior Living or Exit Destination consistently. Given the size and
importance of the Rescue Mission programs to Nashville’s overall efforts to address homelessness, these
data quality issues are significant. The missing data elements, combined with the Rescue Mission and
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 117 of 333
other emergency programs maintaining separate data systems that are not integrated with the HMIS,
makes it difficult to establish a clear picture of who is being served in the system and where they go when
they exit.
B. Alignment of Inventory and Investment with Need
The graph below illustrates the relationship between Nashville’s adult only and family households in
terms of population size, current system capacity and investment levels. Though family households
comprise just 7% of the total homeless population, 22% of financial investments are allocated to families.
A similar disparity is found in the system inventory, where 13% of the bed capacity is designated for just
7% of the total homeless population. On the single adult household side, 78% of investment and 87% of
bed capacity is allocated to the remaining 93% of Nashville’s homeless population. This disproportional
allocation of resources toward families in relation to the size of the population of homeless families is
quite common and evident in a number of communities Focus Strategies has analyzed.
C. System Performance
In recent years, federal homelessness policy has shifted to looking at how well communities are
performing in their efforts to reduce homelessness. To further these objectives, HUD has strongly
encouraged communities to evaluate the effectiveness both of individual programs as well as the overall
system in meeting specific performance measures. Focus Strategies has developed a set of performance
metrics that build upon HUD’s measures as articulated in the HEARTH Act and Opening Doors: The Federal
Strategic Plan to End Homelessness. While the measures we use are all aligned with HUD’s goals, we also
incorporate cost effectiveness, so that communities can understand not just system performance, but
also performance in relation to the level of investment and the likely impact of investing in alternatives.
93%
7%
87%
13%
78%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Adult HHs Family HHs
Homeless Population, Capacity and Investment
Population Capacity Investment
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 118 of 333
This section presents our analysis of Nashville’s system performance on six measures:
1. Bed and Unit Utilization Rate
2. Program Entries from Homelessness
3. Lengths of Stay
4. Rate of Exit to Permanent Housing
5. Cost per Permanent Housing Exit
6. Returns to Homelessness
1. Bed and Unit Utilization Rate
This metric measures the average daily occupancy of programs in the system, as calculated using HMIS
data. Maximizing the use of available bed capacity is essential to ensuring that system resources are being
put to their best use and that as many homeless people as possible are being served given the existing
inventory.
The table below presents the utilization rate for emergency shelter, transitional housing and permanent
supportive housing.12 This data uses bed utilization for single adult programs, and unit utilization for
family programs (because sometimes a unit in a family program might have unfilled beds simply due to
housing a smaller sized family than the unit is designed to accommodate).
We found that utilization rates in many parts of the system are below 90%. Utilization rates for
emergency shelters for single adults and transitional housing for families were the lowest at 72% and 75%
respectively. In a high-performing system, we would expect to see utilization rates above 90% for all
system components. When programs are underutilizing their ability to serve homeless households, an
opportunity to reach and assist more people is being missed.
This finding was consistent with information we collected during the stakeholder interviews relating to
program entry barriers and views about Housing First approaches. In a system that is strongly oriented to
the Housing First philosophy, programs have relatively few barriers to entry so that households with the
greatest needs are served and no one is screened out of assistance due to not being “housing ready.”
While the providers in Nashville appear to have a solid understanding of Housing First, opinions expressed
in the interviews suggested that there is a broad spectrum of practice in this area, with some programs
strongly aligned with Housing First principles and others operating more on an a Housing Readiness
model. The existence of unfilled beds in the system is likely related, at least in part, to the existence of
entry barriers that are preventing some homeless households from accessing assistance.
12 Note: Rapid re-housing is not included in this analysis because this program type does not have a fixed bed capacity and so the
methodology applied to the other program types does not generate a comparable result.
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 119 of 333
2. Entries from Homelessness
This measure looks at the degree to which programs are serving people with the most acute housing
needs, namely those who are literally homeless (meaning they are living outdoors, in a vehicle, or in an
emergency shelter). While certain funders may allow programs to serve people who are living in other
situations (e.g. people living in motels, people in doubled-up situations, people living in their own
apartments but at-risk of eviction), successfully reducing homelessness depends on prioritizing those with
the highest need for available units. This measure reflects the federal policy goals of ending chronic
homelessness and prioritizing literally homeless people for permanent housing. To create a “right sized”
system in which there is an appropriate housing intervention for all homeless people, those who are not
literally homeless must be diverted from entering the homeless system to begin with, thereby making
resources available for those with nowhere to live.
The graphs below show the prior living situations for households entering emergency shelter, transitional
housing, rapid re-housing, and permanent supportive housing in Nashville. The first chart shows the
percentage of people coming from literal homelessness (streets, vehicles, emergency shelter) and the
second one shows the percentage coming from non-homeless situations (e.g. living with friends and
family, living in subsidized or unsubsidized rental housing, in a motel or in an institution). Currently, all of
the system components are admitting many people from housed situations. This is particularly notable in
the system components serving families, where 47% of shelter entries and 39% of entries to transitional
housing are from non-homeless situations. The 2015 Point in Time Count showed that there were 470
unsheltered people in the community (22% of all those counted), and that unsheltered homelessness has
increased since 2014, so system resources could be better targeted to serve those who are most
vulnerable and have nowhere to live. (Note that the figures from the two graphs below do not total to
100% of entries because some people are entering from unknown/missing locations, institutions, and
miscellaneous other types of locations).
72%
80%
86%
162%
75%
91%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ES TH PSH
Utilization Rate
Adult HHs Family HHs
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 220 of 333
This data appears consistent with what we learned from the bed utilization data (see above) and suggests
some programs may be screening out households with higher needs. It also suggests that the system
overall could likely divert many of the still-housed people from entering shelter to begin with. A robust
diversion program would significantly reduce the number of housed people entering shelter and
transitional housing. Experience from other communities shows that some people with unstable housing
situations can be assisted to remain in place with some problem solving, mediation, and small amounts of
flexible financial assistance. If even a portion of these “at risk” households are prevented from entering
shelter, it frees up resources to assist those who have already lost their housing and have nowhere to go.
20%
25%
55%
38%
14%
30%
68%
47%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
ES TH RRH PSH
% ES/Unsheltered entries
Household Entries from Homeless Prior Living
Adult HHs Family HHs
16%
12%
18%
8%
47%
39%
13%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
ES TH RRH PSH
% Housed locations
Household Entries from Non-Homeless Prior Living
Adult HHs Family HHs
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 221 of 333
A new coordinated entry system for families recently launched in November 2015 and incorporates a
prevention/diversion component. This is a good first step towards implementing system-wide diversion.
The metric associated with where people have lived prior to entering PSH is also very important as it
helps illustrate whether PSH projects in the community are prioritizing those with the greatest housing
needs. In addition to looking at prior living data, Focus Strategies assessed the demographic data on PSH
program participants (presented in Section III.C, page 8). HMIS data shows that of the 739 people served
in PSH during the analysis period, only 29% were chronically homeless and 58% had a disability. This
suggests that this system component is not serving those households with the highest needs. Many of
these households probably entered PSH many years ago when HUD did not require PSH to serve literally
homeless people, so the data on those who have recently entered would likely show a higher rate of
chronic homelessness and disability, particularly given that the How’s Nashville 2016 by 2016 campaign
has been targeting this population in recent years. However, this data shows that much of the existing
PSH inventory is not serving households with the highest needs.
3. Lengths of Stay
Achieving relatively short lengths of stay in emergency shelter, transitional housing, and rapid re-housing
programs is essential to ending homelessness. Every day a person is homeless has an associated cost, and
reducing lengths of stay results in a quicker rate of exit and a lower cost per exit, which in turn allows
more people to be housed. The HEARTH Act has established a goal that no one is homeless longer than
30 days. As part of system right-sizing, the entire system must strive for the shortest stays needed to
reach this goal.
Length of stay in Nashville programs was calculated based on HMIS data using the entry and exit dates for
each program stay recorded in the system. Currently none of the system components have achieved
lengths of stay below 30 days. Transitional housing stays are the longest, with an average of 159 days for
single adults and 298 for families. Rapid re-housing program stays, by contrast, are about the same for
single adults and much shorter for families. This data should be considered in particular in relation to the
rate of exit to permanent housing, presented in the next section. Many transitional housing programs are
designed with relatively long lengths of stay based on the assumption that longer stays allow households
to develop the skills and resources they need to successfully secure housing upon exit. Yet this data
shows that in spite of these longer stays, participants in rapid re-housing programs have much higher
rates of permanent housing exit. The longer stays in transitional housing are not yielding stronger
outcomes.
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 222 of 333
4. Exits to Permanent Housing
While helping households exit shelter and transitional housing quickly is a key strategy to end
homelessness, it is just as important to understand where people go when they exit. The rate of exit to
permanent housing is a very important metric and one that HUD has asked communities to report on for
several years. This measures the degree to which a project assists clients to move to a housed situation,
and is a critical aspect of project performance.
The next graph shows the rate of exit to permanent housing for all emergency shelter, transitional
housing, and rapid re-housing programs in Nashville. For the purpose of this measure, “permanent
housing” includes any housed situation that is not time-limited, such as a market rate apartment, a
subsidized housing unit, shared housing with a roommate, or staying permanently with family and
friends.
As shown in the table below, the rate of exit to permanent housing for emergency shelter programs in
Nashville is very low at only 11% for single adults and 5% for families. We note, however, that most of the
emergency shelter inventory is not currently included in the HMIS system, so these results do not really
tell us much about the actual rate of exit from shelter to housing13. The results for transitional housing
are better at 48% and 67%, respectively, but still below what would be expected in a high performing
system. As discussed in the next section, emergency shelters and transitional housing are not cost-
effective strategies to reduce homelessness in general, and low performance on the rate of exit further
reduces cost effectiveness. Typical performance for exits from emergency shelter to permanent housing
13 The data in this table does include exit destination information from the Rescue Mission, but much of that data is
incomplete so probably under-represents the actual rate of exit to permanent housing.
43
159 169
59
298
114
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
ES TH RRH
Number of days
Average Length of Stay
Adult HHs Family HHs
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 223 of 333
are 20%14, while the HUD standard for transitional housing exits to permanent housing is greater than
80%.
Rapid re-housing has a far higher success rate on this measure than either shelter or transitional housing
with 78% of single adults and 99% of families exiting to permanent housing. This is true even while the
lengths of stay in rapid re-housing are the same or shorter than in transitional housing. Thus, there is no
evidence that staying longer in a given program results in a higher rate of successful exit.
5. Cost Per Exit to Permanent Housing
To create a more efficient system, it is essential that investments are aligned with the objective of ending
homelessness. Cost per permanent housing exit is a key performance measure because it assesses not
only whether a program is helping clients to move to permanent housing, but also whether they do so in
a cost effective manner. As funds are shifted from expensive programs to those that are more cost
effective per person served, system capacity will increase and the numbers of homeless people will be
reduced.
The graph below shows the average cost per permanent housing exit for all program types. These figures
are calculated using the total program cost, utilization of beds/units and client length of stay (cost per day
is calculated and then multiplied by the number of days the individual/family was in the program).
14 National Alliance to End Homelessness, Performance Improvement Calculator (PIC), Sample data from 14
communities. http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/performance-improvement-calculator
11%
48%
78%
5%
67%
99%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ES TH RRH
% of all exits
Rate of Exit to Permanent Housing
Adult HHs Family HHs
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 224 of 333
As shown in the table below, the cost per permanent housing exit for transitional housing programs is
much higher than the cost for rapid re-housing programs. On the single adult side, each successful exit is
$4,107, or about a third the cost of an exit from transitional housing. The difference is even more striking
when considering the family programs, where rapid re-housing is one-sixth of the cost of transitional
housing per permanent housing exit. This is consistent with many national studies which have found that
rapid re-housing typically is more cost effective and achieves better housing outcome than transitional
housing. If investments were to shift from these more costly interventions to those that are more cost
effective, the overall system would be able to house many more homeless households. It is important to
point out that while we have included cost per permanent housing exit for shelters in this table, this
information does not present a complete picture of shelter costs, since budget and HMIS data is not
available for most of the shelter inventory. Actual costs per permanent housing exit from shelter is likely
much higher than what is presented in this table.
6. Returns to Homelessness
Reducing lengths of stay and increasing rates of exit to permanent housing has to be balanced by
ensuring that people who exit programs do not return to homelessness. Tracking this metric allows
communities to assess whether programs are helping place clients into permanent housing situations that
“stick” and are appropriate for their needs. For the purpose of this analysis, returns to homelessness is
calculated by looking at all households who exited programs and determining whether any had a new
entry into a homeless program within 12 months.
The next graph presents rate of return to homelessness for people who exited emergency shelter,
transitional housing and rapid re-housing in Nashville between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015 with an exit
$2,279
$13,561
$4,107
$58,253
$8,992
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
ES TH RRH
Average Cost per Household Exit to Permanent Housing
Adult HHs Family HHs
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 225 of 333
destination that was a permanent housing situation. The rate of return from emergency shelter is likely
not very representative, since this largely reflects only those who exited from the Rescue Mission to
permanent housing and then returned to the Rescue Mission.15 For transitional housing and rapid re-
housing, the rate of return is quite low, between 1% and 6% depending on the program type. While this
analysis is not as comprehensive as it would be if the Rescue Mission data were in HMIS, and cannot show
a complete returns to homelessness analysis, it does at least show that among the programs in HMIS the
returns rate is extremely low. This result supports the conclusion that rapid re-housing is just as effective,
if not more so, in helping people move quickly to a permanent housing situation that sticks.
V. Recommendations
Based on our assessment of the performance of the existing system and the information we have
collected about governance and oversight, Focus Strategies has developed the recommendations related
to governance structure as well as strategies for system re-design.
A. Governance Recommendations
1. Establish New Unified Governance and Decision-Making Structure and Lead Entity
The single most important initial step for Nashville is for the community leadership to come together and
identify or create a single structure and lead entity that will be tasked with moving forward in
15 The Rescue Mission operates the majority of the Emergency Shelter inventory and their data is not integrated
with HMIS. Also, more than 80% of exits from their program are to unknown destinations, so the 18% return rate
does not provide much useful information and is likely not representative of the true rate of return for people who
exit ES to permanent housing.
18%
6%
1%
6%
2%
6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
ES TH RRH
% of PH exits
Rate of Return to Homelessness
Adult HHs Family HHs
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 226 of 333
transforming the current collection of programs into a Housing Crisis Resolution System (HCRS). Key
features of this new structure should include:
x Involvement of high-level community leadership (elected leaders, leaders from publicly funded
service systems, private funders, and influential community members) willing to take on the
project of creating a Housing Crisis Resolution System that quickly returns people who have lost
their housing to a state of being housed. This new lead entity should use data to inform decisions
and ensure that the purpose and goals of the system are well understood by providers, clients,
decision-makers and the public.
x Strong alignment of local funders around a common set of goals. To make changes that will result
in more effective strategies to address homelessness, the new governance structure must include
the key funders of the existing set of interventions. Funders will have agree on some common
strategies to achieve those goals, even if it means no longer supporting programs the community
perceives as essential and effective, if these programs are not achieving the identified objectives.
Given that a significant portion of the existing Nashville homeless system does not receive public
funding, key private funders will need to come to the table if this work is to be effective. Both
public and private funders will have to agree to invest their resources in proven interventions that
target homeless people with the greatest needs, have low barriers to entry, and result in
homeless people gaining and maintaining housing at the least cost possible. Existing resources
need to be allocated with the objective of ending homelessness, not merely providing services to
make homelessness more tolerable.
x Ability to oversee a system planning process to design a Housing Crisis Resolution System. The
new governance structure must be set up with a mandate and a committee structure that will
allow it to work through a process that will lead to the adoption and implementation of a Housing
Crisis Resolution System that has strong support and buy-in, is feasible to implement, and will
have a real impact on homelessness. The key challenge of the planning process is deciding who
will have input and how their input will be used. Since the main features and strategies that
actually end homelessness are already well known and supported by evidence, the work to get
there is less about “what will we do?” than “how will we do it?” The leadership entity and
structure must meaningfully involve organizations who are currently funded by the existing
system and who may have to change their programs when the HCRS is implemented.
x Authority to set policy and implement identified strategies to end homelessness. Once the HCRS
system objectives and strategies have been identified, the new governance structure and lead
entity must have the authority to oversee implementation through policy setting, making funding
allocations and establishing performance based contracting systems, providing technical
assistance to help providers align to new expectations, and tracking progress towards meeting
system goals.
x Data gathering and analysis capabilities. The new lead entity should have the capability to gather
and analyze data on the performance of the system and the individual programs within the
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 227 of 333
system, so that resources can be directed towards those interventions that yield the best results
and progress towards reducing homelessness can be tracked.
2. Recommended Implementation Steps to Create New Governance Structure and Lead Entity:
As currently constituted, neither of the two existing governance entities (MHC or the CoC) has the
authority or the resources to serve as a unified governing structure or lead entity with the features
described above. Each one has important strengths, but also some key gaps that will make it difficult to
take on the role of the centralized governance entity without some major changes.
x The existing CoC structure consists of a CoC Governing Committee and a set of subcommittees.
As the CoC lead agency, MDHA provides staff support to the committee work, including
completing the CoC application and administering federal CoC planning and HMIS funds. MDHA
also directly manages CoC grants for permanent supportive housing (S+C). The existing CoC
committee structure is fairly informal and the CoC does not have any organizational or staffing
capacity beyond what is provided by MDHA. MHDA is a large and sophisticated public agency
with a strong track record in management of federal funding sources. The agency is very capable
of implementing federal and local policy initiatives, but has not taken a visionary or agenda-
setting role as it relates to ending homelessness. As the CoC lead agency, MDHA does not view its
role as charting the course for system change, and tends to focus more on compliance with
federal and local funding source requirements.
x MHC plays a more visionary role for the overall homeless system, though its mandate is
somewhat narrowly focused on addressing chronic homelessness. The Commission and its staff
are held in high regard by all community stakeholders, and the community looks to them for
leadership on ending homelessness. MHC is seen as able to manage change initiatives and do
both planning and implementation work. Their main weakness is in the area of organizational
capacity. MHC is somewhat minimally staffed and has limited organizational infrastructure. It has
a track record of managing City funds but is not equipped to handle the complexity of federal
funding and compliance requirements. MHC is housed within MSS which provides some
infrastructural support (HR, IT, finance) but the Commission is not strongly integrated into City
government functions.
Based on its existing role and set of core competencies it appears that the MHC is best positioned to be
transformed into a new homeless policy setting and decision making structure and lead entity, with
functions and funding sources currently housed within the CoC and at MDHA eventually coming under
the oversight of the MHC. This shift will likely need to happen in two phases, with policy functions
shifting over first, then funding sources coming over once the reconfigured MHC has sufficient capacity
and infrastructure to manage federal funding. A phased approach will also give MDHA time to make the
needed administrative and organizational shifts to transfer CoC, ESG, HOPWA and any other funding
sources that will shift over to the MHC.
On the next page we have outlined some of the key steps and elements of this two-phase process.
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 228 of 333
Phase One (2016): Homeless System Planning and Policy Setting Functions Transition to MHC
x Amend MHC Ordinance/Dissolve CoC Board (“Gaps Group”). As a first step, the City will need to
amend the ordinance creating the MHC to broaden the Commission’s purpose and make it the
entity in Nashville/Davidson County responsible for policy and decision-making for ending
homelessness for all populations (not just chronic homelessness). The MHC will also need to be
named as the CoC Board. The CoC Regulations require that there is a general CoC membership
body, which is open to all interested agencies and individuals by invitation. There is also a
required Governing Board that acts on behalf of the membership and is selected based on a
written process that must be updated at least every five years. We would propose that the MHC
becomes the CoC Governing Board, and also convener of the larger CoC membership group
which would be open to all interested participants. Once the Commission is named the CoC
Board, the existing “Gaps Group” that serves as the CoC Board should be dissolved.
x Revisit MHC Composition. The Commission currently includes a mix of individuals appointed by
the Mayor, members of the Metro Council, and Metro Government officials. It is a fairly large
body and attendance is reported to be inconsistent. We recommend that as part of the
amendment of the Commission’s charter, the City should re-think and re-structure how seats are
allocated with the goal of maximizing the Commission’s ability to make decisions, align funding,
and drive implementation of identified strategies to reduce homelessness – in other words it
needs to be a group that is less advisory and more action-oriented. Some issues to consider in
deciding on Board composition would include:
x To maximize its ability to oversee system change, members should consist primarily of
individuals who are able to make policy and funding decisions, such as elected leaders,
City Department heads or their deputies, other key public systems (e.g. hospitals), and
private funders. Other members can be included to ensure a balanced perspective, but
making the board too large and inclusive will dilute its ability to be nimble and action-
oriented. The current size of the board (19 members, 7 of whom are ex officio) could
probably be whittled down to something closer to 10 or 12 members.
x CoC regulations require that the CoC Board must include representation from a homeless
or formerly homeless individual.
x Involvement of service and housing providers on the Board can pose challenges for the
kind of decision-making needed to drive systems change, as it asks providers to separate
their agency’s interests from the interests of the system as a whole, which are not always
aligned. Providers can be more meaningfully involved through workgroups and
committees, providing input and helping to work through how the Board’s policy
decisions will be implemented at the program and program-type level.
x Advocacy groups that are not directly funded by the homeless system also have an
important role to play, and could be included both on the Board as well as in committee
work.
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 229 of 333
x Create New Subcommittees/Workgroups: To ensure broad involvement and input from a range
of stakeholders and people with different areas of expertise as it relates to ending homelessness,
the Commission should create a committee structure that meaningfully involves all interested
organizations and individuals, including housing and service providers, the faith community,
business leaders, advocates, universities, hospitals, publicly funded systems and others. The
committees and workgroups should be organized around the community’s goals for ending
homelessness and should at a minimum include:
o Executive Committee – overseeing operation of the Commission
o CoC Application/Funding Committee – open only to organizations without conflicts of
interest (no CoC grantees), this group would oversee priority setting for the annual CoC
application as well as the project ranking and review process
o HMIS Committee – overseeing policy and governance for the HMIS system, policies and
procedures, data quality plan, etc.
o Data and Performance Measurement – overseeing an ongoing process of setting both
system and project level performance benchmarks, assessing and monitoring progress,
identifying strategies for continuous quality improvement
o Coordinated Entry – overseeing process for design and implementation of both
coordinated entry and shelter diversion components of the system
o Coordinated Exits/Housing Interventions – overseeing process to “right size” available
housing interventions (rapid re-housing, permanent supportive housing)
o Population Specific Work Groups – overseeing strategies for specific populations, e.g.
veterans, families, single adults, chronically homeless people, youth.
o Funders collaborative – pulling together public and private funders of the homeless
system to develop shared objectives and align their funding outcomes with the
Commission’s overall direction, so that privately funded components of the system can
be better coordinated with the publicly funded programs.
x Expand MHC Staff Roles: The City needs to redefine roles and create new position descriptions
for MHC staff, with a clear articulation of their function as point person(s) for development and
implementation of homeless system policy. The Director of the Commission could be re-titled to
emphasize its policy role, such as by becoming Homeless Policy Director or Coordinator. The CoC
planning and administrative functions currently being done by MDHA staff would shift to the
MHC staff, including convening required CoC meetings, managing the annual CoC application
process, conducting the annual PIT count, evaluation of project performance, and other
functions. Either there would be a CoC Coordinator position created at MHC or those
responsibilities could be divided up among existing MHC staff. Additionally, MHC staff would
handle all homeless-system planning and implementation activities (more broadly than just the
CoC work), including possibly overseeing the development of an update to the 10 Year Plan or
creation of a new strategic plan to end homelessness, building off the recommendations in this
Focus Strategies report. MHC staff would also staff the commission and its
committees/workgroups, attend meetings of other bodies as appropriate, and respond to
information requests and media inquiries. MHC currently has 4 full time positions, so the City will
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 330 of 333
need to explore whether additional staff is needed to handle all these functions and how they
would be paid for.
x Explore Limited Funding Shifts. In the short term, MDHA would continue to manage CoC, ESG and
other federal sources providing funding for homeless activities, but priority setting for use of
these funds would shift to the Commission. One exception might be the CoC Planning funds,
which could potentially shift over to the Commission in 2016.
Phase Two (2017-2018): Federal, State and Local Funding for Homeless Activities Transitions to MHC or
New “Department of Homeless Solutions.”
While the short term transition of MHC to having oversight of planning and policy making will help create
a more unified approach to ending homelessness in Nashville, it will be difficult for the Commission to
hold responsibility for planning without having authority to make decisions about funding. As much as
possible, funding for the homeless system should move under the MHC. At the same time, the HMIS
system should also shift over so that MHC can have some direct ability to collect and analyze data and can
take the lead on increasing HMIS participation, improving data quality, and using data to inform decision-
making.
As the MHC takes on these expanded administrative functions, a further set of changes will likely be
needed to ensure it has sufficient organizational infrastructure. One option would be for the Commission
to transform into a City Department (e.g. the Dept. of Homeless Solutions), though it would need to
retain some sort of appointed or elected governing board in order to continue to have broad community
buy-in and to meet HUD CoC requirements.
Since MDHA is the lead agency for the administration of the Consolidated Plan and its four related grant
programs, including ESG and HOPWA, these programs would continue to be managed by MDHA.
However, CoC and ESG regulations require that the CoC have strong involvement in priority setting for
use of these funds and evaluation of ESG grantee performance. We recommend that the MHC hold
responsibility for developing the strategic framework for use of ESG and HOPWA funds, in collaboration
with MDHA, to ensure they are strongly aligned with Nashville’s overall plan to end homelessness. For
MHC to play a role in policy setting for the allocation of ESG and HOPWA, MDHA will need to make
changes to their administrative documents, particularly the Consolidated Plan (which sets forth how ESG
and HOPWA funds will be managed). The five year Consolidated Plan is currently in its third year, so any
change in how these federal funds are managed could be folded into the next Consolidated Plan Update
that would begin in 2017. If there are any CDBG funds being used specifically for activities relating to
homelessness, the plan would also need to address how these funds will be coordinated with MHC.
B. System Re-Design Recommendations
While our main recommendation relates to changes to the community’s governance model and decision-
making processes, Focus Strategies has also developed some recommendations about the key strategies
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 331 of 333
this new governing entity will need to pursue in order to transition from the existing approach to a
Housing Crisis Resolution System.
1. Use Coordinated Entry and Removal of Program Barriers to Ensure that Literally Homeless and Higher
Need Households Can Be Prioritized
The system performance assessment reveals that the existing programs and services in Nashville are
serving large numbers of people who are not literally homeless, even while there are many
unsheltered individuals in the community. To make faster progress on ending homelessness, the new
governance entity will need to adopt policies and strategies to ensure that programs are prioritizing
people who are living outdoors, in vehicles or in emergency shelter. Some elements of coordinated
entry are either already in place or about to be launched, and these efforts should be re-visited and
refined to ensure they are designed to ease access into housing for those who have the greatest
housing barriers and need the most support from the homeless system to become housed. At the
same time, programs in the system have to reduce their entry barriers and agree to accept referrals
from the coordinated entry system.
2. Provide Shelter Diversion To Those Who Are Still Housed. Nashville’s new coordinated entry system
also would benefit from the integration of a strong shelter diversion component to help keep
households who are not yet homeless from entering the system. This can build upon the
diversion/prevention effort that recently started as part of the coordinated entry system for families.
To be maximally effective, shelter diversion should target those households who are imminently
going to be homeless within one to three days. Generally, this intervention is targeted to households
that do not have their own rental unit but are living informally with friends or family or in a motel.
Diversion differs from traditional homelessness prevention, which generally provides assistance with
back rent for those who are living in their own rental unit and facing a potential eviction. While
traditional prevention programs may be effective at preventing evictions, data suggests that few of
the households assisted would ever enter the shelter system even if they did not receive prevention
help.
3. Invest in High Performing Rapid Re-Housing. The performance data we analyzed demonstrated that
the existing rapid re-housing programs in Nashville are achieving strong results in exiting people to
permanent housing at relatively low cost and with low rates of return to homelessness in comparison
to either shelter or transitional housing. This suggests that the system could likely house more
homeless people with an expansion of rapid re-housing and a shift of resources from lower
performing transitional housing. Providing rapid re-housing at a much larger scale is the key solution
to ending homelessness for the non-chronically homeless households in the community.
4. Increase System Capacity in Landlord Recruitment and Housing Navigation. As Nashville seeks to
expand rapid re-housing and continue the 2016 by 2016 campaign to house chronically homeless
people using Housing Choice Vouchers and other permanent supportive housing vouchers, the high
cost of housing will make it difficult for participants to locate appropriate units. Experience from
other communities suggests that this problem can be mitigated through expending system resources
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 332 of 333
on staff who are dedicated to cultivating relationships with landlords and to helping clients with
searching for and securing housing. Currently those households who are assisted by How’s Nashville
have access to housing navigators, but this service is not available to all clients who need it. A
community-wide landlord outreach/liaison program coupled with expanded resources for rapid re-
housing would likely yield strong results.
5. Engage Providers Not Currently Participating in HMIS. A key obstacle to conducting effective system
planning in Nashville is the relatively low rate of participation in HMIS. With many key programs not
currently contributing data, it is very difficult to have a complete system-level understanding of
where clients are entering the system, what programs they access, and the results of the
interventions. To support the development of a Housing Crisis Resolution System, the CoC and the
new leadership/governance entity must continue to engage non-participating providers and develop
strategies to include them in the system.
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 333 of 333
Appendix A: List of Stakeholder Interviews
Interviewee Organization Date of Interview
Erik Cole Mayor’s Office (MHC Commissioner Ex Officio) 12/29/15
Will Connelly Metro Homelessness Commission 1/6/16
Glenn Cranfield Nashville Rescue Mission (MHC Commissioner) 12/11/15
Liz Allen Fey Strategy and Leadership LLC (MHC Chair) 12/15/2015
Rachel Hester Room in the Inn 8/28/2015
Jessica Hoke Nashville CARES 8/12/2015
Angie Hubbard Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency 12/10/2015
Joyce Lavery Safe Haven Family Shelter 8/19/2015
Rusty Lawrence Urban Housing Solutions 8/28/2015
Daryl Murray Welcome Home Ministries 8/10/2015
Traci Pekovitch Mental Health Cooperative 9/1/2015
Steven Samra Center for Social Innovation (MHC Commissioner) 1/11/16
Beth Shinn Vanderbilt University 8/17/2015
Tom Ward Oasis Center 8/10/2015
Special Agency Session
Exit Survey
Results 12/2015-5/2016
(This is an anonymous survey. We appreciate your honest responses)
1. Do you feel that you were able to complete goals that matter to you?
Strongly Agree 44% Agree 33% Disagree 21% Strongly Disagree
2. Do you feel that the amount of contact with the resource specialist was…..?
The right amount 67% Not enough Too much 22%
3. Was the Special Agency team considerate and helpful with your situation?
If yes…how?
“To find better ways to be more stable & find place to live”
“Very helpful”
“She was the(re) whenever I needed her. She is a wonderful woman”
“They were always all about me & my household & what we need to do to successfully become
stable”
“Let me graduate”
“Yes. She is a great person with a great heart”
“Helped me make connections needed & listened if a bad day”
If no…why?
4. Was the length of time in the program…..?
The right amount 56% Not enough Too much 33%
5. What was the most beneficial part of this program?
“Got things going”
“To meet with someone that knows the right material to help you. The meetings & resources /
Andrea very awesome”
“Visiting”
“Getting back on my feet. She did a great job, I couldn’t ask for anyone better”
“Being able to come to court every month & have at least one goal accomplished to tell the
judge”
“Not going to jail”
“Friendship-openniss(ness)”
“Easy to get ahold of & ask a ?’s – if she couldn’t answer gave advice on who could”
6. What was the least beneficial part of this program?
“The meetings when could be getting more done”
“None-it was all helpful”
“Everything was fine”
“There is none”
“Walking”
ATTACHMENT 2
7. Would you recommend this program to someone else?
Yes 78% No 11%
8. Do you feel that your quality of life has improved due to participating in this program?
Yes 78% No 11%
Thank you for your feedback and for being a part of the Special Agency Session!
“Thank you”
“Andrea is awesome and is for the job. Nice pick. She is helpful and I can tell she cares about
me”
1
2016 Action Plan to Make Homelessness Rare, Short-Lived, and Non-Recurring
Introduction
In January 2016, a group of about three dozen stakeholders met to review progress on the 10 Year Plan and prioritize action items for the upcoming year
during the Community Conversation 2.0. This Action Plan reflects those priorities. Additional work is being conducted throughout the community to
address the immediate and long-term needs of people experiencing homelessness, and those activities are also acknowledged in this Action Plan. Each
year, Homeward 2020 will convene the affiliates of Homeward 2020 to review progress on action items and set priorities for the upcoming year.
Participants in the 2016 Community Conversation 2.0
Lynn Barker, Fort Collins Homeless Coalition Gary Darling, Larimer County Criminal Justice Services
Marcia Davis, Homeward 2020 board member Jason Dennison, Downtown Business Association
Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Homeless Coalition Dave Edwards, Homeward 2020 board member
Melanie Falvo, United Way of Weld County Vanessa Fenley, Homeward 2020
Joe Frank, Homeward 2020 board member Alison Hade, City of Loveland
Amanda Hodge, Homelessness Prevention Initiative Eddy Hopkins, Peak Community Church
John Hutto, Fort Collins Police Services/Homeward 2020 board member Ken John, Homeless Gear/Homeward 2020 board member
Diane Jones, Homeward 2020 board member Bill Kneeland, Kneeland Law/Homeward 2020 board member
Christine Kneeland, Homeward 2020 board member Kathleen Lane, Fort Collins Municipal Court
Guy Mendt, Catholic Charities/Homeward 2020 board member Jeff Mihelich, City of Fort Collins
Patty Netherton, Fort Collins Municipal Court Bob Overbeck, Fort Collins City Council
Randy Ratliff, SummitStone Health Partners/Homeward 2020 board member David Rout, Homeless Gear
Beth Sowder, City of Fort Collins, Homeward 2020 board member Bryan Tribby, Homeward 2020 board member
Wade Troxell, Mayor of Fort Collins Kevin Unger, UCHealth
Laura Walker, Larimer County Human Services Tatum Webb, Cheyenne VA Medical Center
Lin Wilder, Health District of Northern Larimer County Marcy Yoder, United Way of Larimer County
Annette Zacharias, Faith Family Hospitality Cheryl Zimlich, Bohemian Foundation/Homeward 2020 board member
Mary, Fort Collins Homeless Coalition Jessica, Fort Collins Homeless Coalition
Gordan Thibedeau, United Way of Larimer County, Homeward 2020 board member
Matt Robenalt, Downtown Development Authority, Homeward 2020 board member
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Priority Populations for 2016: Veterans and Chronically Homeless Households
Homeward 2020 and affiliates are working to meet the needs of all individuals experiencing homelessness. To best leverage resources, including federal
and state funding, current momentum in the community, and political will, priority populations will be identified. While still progressing towards creating a
system that helps every person and family move out of homelessness and retain their housing, focusing on certain priority populations can demonstrate
to the community and funders that Fort Collins is capable of creating systemic change for those specified populations, and that the systems and
processes put in place to create change for those populations can then be expanded to the full breadth of populations experiencing homelessness in Fort
Collins. Based on trends in current funding resources, political will, and momentum in the community, veterans and chronically homeless households are
designated as priority populations for 2016.
ATTACHMENT 3
2
Action Items Timeline 2016 Tasks Accomplished Related Long-term Goal
(from 10 Year Plan)
Improved data collection via HMIS
Lead: Homeward 2020
Participants: Catholic Charities,
Homeless Gear, 211, City of Fort
Collins, Fort Collins Housing Authority,
SummitStone Health Partners,
Volunteers of America, Veterans
Affairs
Q1 • Assess validity and utility of community-level
reports for Q4 2015
• Decide on adjustments needed to community-level
reports pulled quarterly
• Input all client data from Murphy Center to HMIS
• All new staff (Homeless Gear and Murphy Center)
trained on HMIS
• Clarify the Demand
• Sustain Efforts
Q2 • Pull community-level reports for Q1 2016 and
review data
• Collectively craft resource strategy for local data
administrator
• Execute contract for temporary local database
consultant/trainer
Q3 • Pull community-level reports for Q2 2016 and
review data
• Secure resources for local data administrator
• Request integration of swipe cards for Catholic
Charities Overflow and for Murphy Center
Q4 • Pull community-level reports for Q3 2016 and
review data
• Secure resources for local data administrator
• Implement swipe cards at Catholic Charities
Overflow and Murphy Center
• Create protocol for pulling 2017 sheltered PIT from
HMIS (where possible)
• Craft action steps for 2017
Increase permanent supportive
housing supply
Lead: Fort Collins Housing Authority
Participants: SummitStone Health
Partners, Homeward 2020, Larimer
County Criminal Justice Services,
Catholic Charities, Neighbor to
Neighbor, Veterans Affairs
Q1 • Secure property for project
• Develop/Identify Housing
and Services Needed
Q2 • Apply for low-income housing tax credits
Q3 • Continue with development process
Q4 • Continue with development process
Increase rapid re-housing supply
Lead: Homeward 2020
Participants: TBD
Q1 • Review current data
• Gain additional information from local providers
• Use information to assess community’s rapid re-
housing needs
3
Outreach Fort Collins – Downtown
response
Lead: Fort Collins Police Services,
Homeless Gear, DDA, City of Fort
Collins, UC Health, Homeward 2020
Q1 • Secure fiscal sponsorship
• Post for outreach worker and supervisor
• Secure remaining resources needed for program
implementation
• Develop/Identify Housing
and Services Needed
Q2 • Hire, train, and onboard staff
• Establish evaluation measures
• Begin implementing program
Q3 • Implementation and evaluation
Q4 • Implementation and evaluation
Implement robust homelessness
prevention and shelter diversion
strategies
Lead: Homeward 2020
Participants: TBD
Q1 • Convene gathering of likely participants to review
current assessment of national best practices and
local resources
• Develop/Identify Housing
and Services Needed
• Enhance Housing
Retention Efforts
Q2 • Outline current gaps in local prevention/diversion
system
• Identify gaps that could be filled by current
providers (potentially with additional resources)
• Identify resources needed and possible sources
Q3 • Create prioritized implementation plan
Q4 • TBD – dependent on implementation plan
Coordinated entry and access
Lead: Homeward 2020, North Front
Range Continuum of Care, and
Balance of State Continuum of Care
Participants: Fort Collins Housing
Authority, Homeless Gear, Murphy
Center, 211, Larimer County Veteran
Services, SummitStone Health
Partners, Catholic Charities, City of
Fort Collins
Q1 • Participate in the Coming Home Colorado Action
Lab to develop the structure for coordinated entry,
focused first on veterans
• Streamline Housing
Access
Q2 • Complete 100-day intensive coordinated entry
pilot, as a follow-up to the Coming Home Colorado
Action Lab
• Report on results from Coming Home Colorado
Action Lab
Q3 • TBD – dependent on outcomes from initial pilot
with Coming Home Colorado Action Lab
Q4 • TBD – dependent on outcomes from initial pilot
with Coming Home Colorado Action Lab
1 of 2 | P a g e
City Manager’s Office
PO Box 580
300 LaPorte Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 30, 2016
To: Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers
From: Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Tyler Marr, Policy and Project Analyst
Through: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Re: Continued Enforcement of The City’s Camping Ordinance
Bottom Line
City Staff does not recommend any changes to the camping ordinance, which prohibits camping
on public property, including parks and natural areas. Staff believes this is an important tool to
maintain and improve the safety of all people in Fort Collins and ensures responsible
stewardship of public land.
Background
The camping ordinance in Fort Collins has been a source of community concern over the past
year and a half, with those against the ban on camping asking Council to direct staff to at least
stop enforcing the law and preferably repeal it. Others believe that the camping ban is
necessary for safety reasons and for the preservation of our parks and natural areas. As a point
of reference, staff has researched other jurisdictions to learn about their experiences and
regulations surrounding public camping. Staff especially looked for municipalities that have had
success with allowing public camping, but were unable to find a model that had demonstrated
positive results.
Comparison Cities
Eugene, Oregon
Eugene has a homeless count of approximately 3,000 individuals according to the City’s
website; although the official point in time count numbers are far less. The City continues
to see growth in their homeless population year after year.
The City of Eugene has a camping ban in place that applies to most public spaces.
Eugene has a car camping program and also has one sanctioned camping site, which
allows for 15-20 people to camp legally on a parcel of City-owned land for up to ten
months. The City provides this service as a part of their transitional housing plan, and
trash, sewer and electricity are provided on site. This program has an extensive waiting
list and has stringent entry requirements.
Anecdotally, on-street camping, while technically illegal, largely goes unenforced. Police
and non-profit outreach teams respond on a complaint basis to camping issues. The City
ATTACHMENT 4
2 of 2 | P a g e
has occasionally issued exemptions for periods of time or events, such as “Occupy
Eugene,” only to have camps grow so large, unruly, and at sometimes violent, that police
needed to clear them.
Positives to this approach include a perception of positive relationships between police
and the homeless.
Vancouver, Washington
Clark County, of which Vancouver is the primary population center, has a homeless
population of 663 persons.
In response to the federal government’s statement in September, 2015 related to the
City of Boise “criminalizing homelessness,” Vancouver leaders voted to amend their
camping ban to allow public camping from 9:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m., in large part because
of their lack of shelter (they have approximately 200 beds)
Sanctioned an existing “tent city” of approximately 80 people.
Large, additional permanent camps began to spring up around the City’s largest year-
round shelter, which is noted as the only place that both homeless men and women can
get three meals a day.
The number of campers who were originally located in one camp near the shelter
increased from about 20 individuals to approximately 150 in three months’ time.
Eventually, due to the unsafe and unsanitary conditions and complaints from neighbors,
police were instructed to clear established camps, though some remain or resurfaced
shortly after police efforts. Pushback from the community has been steady and
newspaper articles have raised concerns about the safety in newly established camps.
Denver, Colorado
The City of Denver has approximately 5,200 homeless individuals
Prior to May, 2012 Denver did not have a ban on public camping.
The Occupy Denver protests, in addition to business owner and tourist complaints about
cluttered and unsafe sidewalks, helped trigger a Council response in the form of a 24/7,
City-wide camping ban.
Upon passage of the law, it was noted by several Councilmembers that the ban was
needed to improve safety, image, and address concerns related to transients and
“Occupy” protesters.
Denver has performed multiple sweeps of homeless camps since the passing of this law
in 2012, the most recent one occurring this spring due to the continual build up.
Portland, Oregon
The City of Portland has approximately 3,800 homeless individuals
Portland does allow for camping in City-sanctioned sites.
o In order to be sanctioned, camps must be affiliated with a nonprofit, located on
City-approved land, and have no more than 25-30 people.
o The city provides basic sanitation and restrooms to these sanctioned camps.
o The City has nine service-provided sanctioned camps.
In addition to allowing sanctioned camps, the City allows for camping public places with
the following conditions:
o Only sleeping bags and tarps on sidewalks
o Tents allowed from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. on rights of way other than sidewalks
o No more than six people in a location.
3 of 2 | P a g e
Camps that are in violation of these policies are cleaned up or “swept” by City officials on
a nuisance or interference basis and recorded on the City’s website.
o Portland swept 40 camps from January to April of 2016.
Portland has seen a 17% decline in chronic homelessness over the last two years,
though the number of unsheltered homeless has remained constant over the same time
period.
Nashville, Tennessee
Nashville has a homeless population of approximately 2,300 persons. At the last point-
in-time count, they were providing shelter to almost 2100 of those individuals through
their congregational model and permanent shelters.
Despite their ability to shelter a majority of their homeless population, concerns about
growing camps in the city’s parks led to a decision to implement a ban of camping in
2015.
Enforcement of this policy has been limited to widespread camps where concerns of
safety and public accessibility to parkland became prominent.
Nashville has focused on providing those in encampments with support to find shelter
rather than enforcement and citation of the ordinance. The number of people in known
camps went from 50 in March of this year to about 20 in mid-April.
Viable Alternatives
To support a ban on camping, the City has to be active and committed to helping the community
provide viable alternatives to camping. In recent years, the City has taken many steps to help
those most likely to camp, including:
Providing funding for overflow shelters,
Annual direct funding for service providers,
Land for permanent housing solutions,
Utilizing Special Agency Sessions in lieu of fines or jail time for offenders.
Additionally, staff is working with community partners to continue to assist the homeless
community, including efforts to:
expand the number of available shelter beds,
update the emergency shelter plan,
launch Outreach Fort Collins,
implement a program similar to Nashville’s Room In The Inn community-based shelter
model.
Council will be updated on these efforts as a part of the work session.
Staff Recommendation
Given the experience of other communities, with some allowing for public camping, some
having long-standing camping bans and others having just recently enacted them, it is clear that
not all communities have agreed on how to address these problems. Given that Portland and
Vancouver, who allow camping, have large numbers of unsheltered homeless persons, staff
does not view our situation as similar.
When looking at this research in conjunction with City priorities and the concerns expressed by
residents and visitors about camping individuals, staff currently recommends that the camping
ban remain intact. Given other efforts, we presently don’t view camping as a short or long-term
4 of 2 | P a g e
solution that will make inroads in our housing first model. We are looking forward to a productive
dialogue with Council about this subject.
Camping Violations Filed in Municipal Court
Jan 1st thru June 28th
Violation 2015 2016
17‐181 Camping on Public Property 89 73
17‐182 Camping on Private Property 9 7
20‐193(d) Natural Areas Violation‐Camping 11 30
23‐203(d) Recreation Area Violation‐Camping 4 3
Total 113 113
ATTACHMENT 5
1
Homelessness Initiatives Update
Jeff Mihelich, Jackie Kozak Thiel, Beth Sowder, Vanessa Fenley
7-12-16
ATTACHMENT 6
Direction Sought
2
1. What feedback does Council have on
existing and proposed programs, and
are there other programs related to
homelessness that the community
should focus on?
2. What changes, if any, does Council
wish to make to the Camping
Ordinance at this time?
Background
3
Homeless
Population
Percent
Unsheltered
Population Rate
(per 10,000 people)
United States 564,708 30.7% 17.7
Colorado 9,953 28.8% 18.6
Fort Collins
(2015)
301 24.6% 19.0
Fort Collins
(2016)
290 21.0% 18.0
Homeless Assistance
4
• Need both emergency shelter
options and permanent housing
options
• National
• Colorado
• Fort Collins
System Recommendations
5
• Nashville, TN study:
– Recommendations
– What is being done in
Fort Collins
Complete Housing First
Homelessness Response System
6
7
Complete Housing First
Homelessness Response System
Mostly Resourced in Fort Collins
• Transitional Housing
• Connection to Mainstream Resources
8
Additional Resources Needed
Fort Collins
• Emergency Shelter
• Outreach
• Prevention
• Permanent Supportive Housing
9
Significant Resources Needed
Fort Collins
• Coordinated Assessment and
Housing Placement System
• Rapid Re-Housing
• Shelter Diversion
10
Outreach Fort Collins
11
• Summary
• Staff
• Metrics and Outcomes
Special Agency Sessions
12
• Summary
• Improvements
• Data
“Getting back on my feet”
“Meeting someone who
knows how to help you”
Community-based Shelter Model
13
• Nashville, TN –
Room In The Inn
• Work done to date
• Implementation and Timeline
• LUC changes to enable
additional shelters
• Desired outcomes
Schedule Overview
14
April -August
Outreach &
Recruitment
• Volunteers
• Facilities
(churches, non-
profits, etc.)
• Administrative
help
• Transportation
August -November
Training and
Preparation
• Aug meeting
with participating
partners
• Volunteer
Training
• Identification of
final needs
November
Program
Launch
• Goal: 5-10
community
organizations
• Will run through
April, 2017
• Evaluation
throughout
2016 Action Plan – Homeward 2020
15
1. Coordinated Assessment and
Housing Placement System
2. Rapid Re-Housing
3. Homelessness Prevention and
Shelter Diversion
4. Permanent Supportive Housing
5. Data Collection – HMIS
6. Outreach Fort Collins
Camping Ordinance - Research
16
• Some cities with large numbers of
unsheltered persons have allowed public
camping
• Many still have performed
camping sweeps
• Camping bans continue to be
implemented/enforced in other cities
• Enforcement effectiveness varies
• Unsanctioned camping is not seen as
safe, reliable tool to assist people
experiencing homelessness.
Camping Ordinance – Recommendation
17
No changes are recommended at this
time for the following reasons:
• Availability of shelter
• Not a short or long-term solution
to reach homelessness goals
• Viewed as unsafe to people and
habitat
• Ongoing efforts in other areas will
have far greater positive impacts.
Next Steps
18
Updates for all programs:
OFC – after summer
SAS – annual
Shelter Program – prior to
implementation; after winter
HW2020 – end of year
Direction Sought
19
1. What feedback does Council have on
existing and proposed programs, and
are there other programs related to
homelessness that the community
should focus on?
2. What changes, if any, does Council
wish to make to the Camping
Ordinance at this time?
20
Homelessness Initiatives Update
Jeff Mihelich, Jackie Kozak Thiel, Beth Sowder, Vanessa Fenley
7-12-16
Other activities that were discussed and considered as potential priority action items for the 10 Year Plan include the following:
• Access to evening and early morning shelter
• Develop a landlord engagement strategy
• Develop medical respite care
• Develop processes to ensure people do not transition into homelessness when leaving hospitals, jail, or other institutions
• Examine strategies to decriminalize homelessness
• Develop a Pay for Success process to create sustainable financing for permanent supportive housing
• Address personal property storage issues
• Enhance education-focused communications and marketing strategies
• Monitor legislation related to homelessness
Many of these activities are currently underway and may still be pursued by Homeward 2020 and its affiliate organizations in the coming year. But the
majority of time and effort of the staff and board of Homeward 2020 will focus on the six priority action items identified above.
• Develop/Identify Housing
and Services Needed
Q2 • Research available resources and other
communities’ strategies for providing rapid re-
housing
• Outline implementation plan for building rapid re-
housing stock
Q3 • TBD – dependent on implementation plan
Q4 • TBD – dependent on implementation plan
of these resources (149 Housing Choice Vouchers and units) were dedicated to veterans.