Over the last several years, better information has
emerged about how different homeless service models really work, which
has prompted a discussion about what we as a community might do to make
sure that our housing and service programs reach as many people as
possible with the best outcomes possible. We have started using words
like efficient and effective
to describe the promising practices such as Rapid Re-housing and
Housing First. At times, the conversation can be uncomfortable. The
decisions we need to make are hard. And of course having hard and
uncomfortable discussions when we are experiencing budget cuts are all
that much more difficult and uncomfortable. And at the center of many of
these discussions at both the local and national levels has been the
subject of transitional housing.
I get asked on a regular basis about HUD’s position on transitional
housing. Some people think that HUD simply wants to get rid of this type
of housing altogether. To those folks I often say this – HUD does not
advocate the wholesale removal of one type of homeless resource in a
community (like emergency shelter or transitional housing) with the
replacement of another (like rapid re-housing). That would be
short-sighted, and does not take into account the specific needs of
communities. What HUD really wants is for communities to be strategic,
to have the tough conversations, and really use their data to be sure
that whatever programs they have in place to serve families and
individuals experiencing homelessness are part of a larger system
approach, and have the best outcomes possible.
Transitional housing is an eligible component of the Continuum of Care
(CoC) Program and can be a necessary part of a CoC’s homeless assistance
portfolio.
However, it is time for CoCs to look at transitional housing programs
with a critical eye – look at recent research, review each program’s
eligibility criteria, analyze outcomes and occupancy rates, and make
sure the services offered (and paid for) actually match the needs of
people experiencing homelessness within the CoC. Many transitional
housing programs may need to change their program design or serve a
different population. For example, some may need to remove strict
eligibility criteria that result in those families that really need
intensive services being screened out (often resulting in low
occupancy). In other cases, the best course of action is to reallocate
the transitional housing program in favor of a more promising model.
For many years, using HUD funds for transitional housing was the only
funding alternative for serving families and individuals that did not
need permanent supportive housing. With rapid re-housing now eligible
under both the CoC Program and the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG)
program, there is an alternative and promising option for families with
low-barriers that need shorter interventions. Rapid re-housing can be
done with a lower cost per household – increasing the total number of
households that can be served with the same amount of funding. If the
majority of households served in your CoC's transitional housing are
families with lower barriers, you should consider reallocating those
projects into new rapid re-housing projects for families.
Similarly, as CoCs move to a more direct Housing First approach,
eligible households with disabilities that will need long-term
assistance likely do not need an interim stay in transitional housing.
For example, a CoC that has a high number of people in transitional
housing
waiting for placement into permanent
supportive housing should consider reallocating those transitional
housing units into new permanent supportive housing.
We know that there are families and individuals who need more
assistance than rapid re-housing offers but who do not qualify for
permanent supportive housing. Transitional housing should be reserved
for those populations that most need that type of intervention –
programs that serve domestic violence survivors and youth and those that
provide substance abuse treatment come to mind first – rather than
being used either as a holding pattern for those that really need
permanent supportive housing or those that need less intensive
interventions.
As we move forward, I hope that we can continue the conversation about
what interventions can have the most positive impact. Change is hard,
and there are a lot of details that need to be discussed when
approaching the question of transitional housing at both the national
and local levels. But with open discussion, the use of data, and the
commitment to systems change rather than a program-oriented approach we
can ensure that homeless services dollars are used to the biggest
possible benefit for those whom we all serve.
Below are some interesting readings on transitional housing to spark local discussion:
Don’t forget to check back to
SNAPS Weekly Focus page
over the coming weeks as we will continue to post related materials and
TA products related to each weekly focus, as they become available.
As always, we thank you for your commitment to ending homelessness.
Ann Marie Oliva
Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.