Table of contents
  1. Story
    1. Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington: Data Science Data Publication
    2. Tableau's Public PlanitMetro
    3. MORE EXAMPLES TO FOLLOW 
  2. Slides
    1. DC Report Knowledge Base Visualizations
      1. Slide 1 DC Report Knowledge Base
      2. Slide 2 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Sample Visualizations
      3. Slide 3 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 1-4
      4. Slide 4 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 5-8
      5. Slide 5 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 9-12
      6. Slide 6 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 13-16
    2. Tableau's Public PlanitMetro Visualizations
      1. Slide 1 Data Science for Tableau’s PlanitMetro with Spotfire
      2. Slide 2 Data-Visualization-DC: Time Maps & Elusive Buses
      3. Slide 3 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations
      4. Slide 4 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Data Set Downloads
      5. Slide 5 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Federal Workers Railmap
      6. Slide 6 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Federal Workers Railmap Summary Data
      7. Slide 7 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Federal Workers Railmap Underlying Data
      8. Slide 8 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Spotfire
  3. Spotfire Dashboards
    1. Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington: Data Science Data Publication
    2. Tableau's Public PlanitMetro
  4. Research Notes
  5. Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington
  6. Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington 2015 Report
    1. Report Author
    2. Executive Summary
      1. Map
    3. Introduction
      1. How We Define Homelessness
    4. How Many Local Residents Are Experiencing Homelessness?
      1. Table 1 Literally Homeless By Jurisdiction 2014-2015
      2. How Has the Region’s Homeless Population Changed?
      3. Table 2 Literally Homeless by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015
      4. A volunteer surveyor visits a campsite in Prince William County, Virginia, on January 28, 2015.
    5. The Region's Homeless By Total Population
      1. Figure 1 Total Population of Metropolitan Washington Region
      2. Table 3 2015 Share of Population That is Homeless
      3. Household Composition
      4. Family Households
      5. Table 4 Household Composition for MWCOG Region
      6. Table 5 2015 Literally Homeless Persons in Families by Jurisdiction
      7. Table 6 Change in Literally Homeless Persons in Families by Jurisdiction
      8. Children in Homeless Families
        1. Figure 2 Proportion of Homeless Single Adults To Homeless Persons in Families, 2011-2015
        2. Photo credit: Homeless Children’s Playtime Project
      9. Children in Households with Only Children (Unaccompanied Minors)
      10. Table 7 Households With Only Children Under Age 18 by Jurisdiction, 2014 and 2015
      11. Photo credit: Elvert Barnes
      12. Demographic Profile of the Region’s Homeless Population
        1. Figure 3 Regional Homeless Single Adults Demographic Profile (Race)
        2. Figure 4 Regional Homeless Adult Persons in Families Demographic Profile (Race)
        3. Figure 5 Regional Total Population Demographic Profile (Race)
    6. Homeless and the Working Poor
      1. Figure 6 Employed Single Homeless Adults
      2. Figure 7 Employed Adults in Homeless Families
      3. Figure 8 Employed Single Homeless Adults
      4. Figure 9 Employed Adults in Homeless Families
      5. Income
        1. Figure 10 Source of Income for Homeless Single Adults
    7. Unsheltered Homes
      1. Distribution of Region’s Unsheltered Homeless Single Adults
        1. A volunteer Point‐in‐Time surveyor in Frederick County, Maryland (January 2014). Credit: Harriet Wise Photography
        2. Figure 11 Distribution of Region's 1,072 Unsheltered Single Adults
      2. Comparison of Unsheltered Homeless Single Adults by Jurisdiction
        1. Table 8 Comparison of Unsheltered Single Adults by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015
        2. Photo credit: Elvert Barnes Photography, 2007.
        3. Table 9 Unsheltered Single Adults as a Percentage of Total Homeless by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015
    8. Chronic Homelessness
        1. Table 10 Chronically Homeless Single Adults by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015
      1. Table 11 2015 Shelter Status of Chronically Homeless Single Adults
      2. Chronically Homeless Families
        1. Photo credit: Elvert Barnes Photography, 2005
    9. Subpopulations
      1. Figure 12 The Region's Homeless Subpopulations
      2. Homeless Veterans
        1. Figure 13 The Region's Veteran Subpopulations
        2. Figure 14 Homeless Veteran Single Adults: Source of Income
        3. Figure 15 Homeless Single Adult Veterans (Race)
        4. Figure 16 Homeless Adult Veterans in Families (Race)
        5. Table 12 Homeless Veterans by Jurisdiction
      3. Transition Age Youth
        1. Figure 17 Homeless Young Adult/Transition Age Youth: Source of Income
        2. Figure 18 Transition Age Youth Subpopulations
        3. Table 13 Homeless Transition Age Youth (TAY) by Jurisdiction 2015
        4. Figure 19 Single Young Adult/ Transition Age and 20 Young Adult/Transition Age Youth in Families (Race)
    10. Continua of Care in the Metropolitan Washington Region
      1. Photo credit: Fairfax County & New Hope Housing
      2. Table 14 2015 Winter and Year Round Inventory of Beds in the Washington Region
    11. Permanent Supportive Housing-The Formerly Homeless
      1. Table 15 Formerly Homeless People in Permanent Supportive Housing All COG CoCs
      2. Figure 21 Regional Distribution of Beds by Facilities/Type
      3. Figure 22 Permanent Housing Solutions for Formerly Homeless Single Adults: 2014-2015
      4. Figure 23 Permanent Housing Solutions for formerly Homeless Families: 2014-2015
      5. Figure 24 Region's Literally and Formerly Homeless in Permanent Supportive Hosuing, Rapid Re-Housing & Other Permanent Housing
    12. Conclusions and Recommendations
      1. Photo credit: Paul DesJardin, MWCOG, Point‐in‐Time count 2015
      2. Table 16 Living Unsheltered, in Winter Beds, in Emergency Shelter, In Safe Havens, or in Transitional Housing
    13. References
      1. 1
      2. 2
      3. 3
      4. 4
      5. 5
      6. 6
      7. 7
      8. 8
      9. 9
      10. 10
      11. 11
      12. 12
      13. 13
      14. 14
      15. 15
      16. 16
      17. 17
      18. 18
      19. 19
      20. 20
      21. 21
      22. 22
      23. 23
      24. 24
      25. 25
      26. 26
      27. 27
      28. 28
    14. Appendix: Homelessness Enumeration Narrative Reports
      1. Alexandria, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Significant Accomplishments Since the 2014 Winter Enumeration
        3. Homless Point-In-Time Results
        4. Homelessness Prevention, Shelter Diversion and Housing Placement
        5. Future Trends in Homelessness
      2. Arlington County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
          1. 10‐Year Plan to End Homelessness
          2. Continuum of Care
          3. Highlights
          4. Current Inventory of Beds
          5. Point in Time Count
          6. Chronically Homeless, Veterans & Domestic Violence Sub‐populations Count
          7. Conclusion
      3. District of Columbia
        1. Homeless Services in the District of Columbia
        2. Changes Since Point‐in‐Time 2014
        3. Shelter and Housing Inventory in 2015
        4. Point‐in‐Time Results
      4. Fairfax County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing
        3. Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results
        4. Permanent, Permanent Supportive Housing and Rapid Re‐housing Placements
      5. Frederick County, MD
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Homeless Point‐In‐Time Results
      6. Loudoun County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results
        3. Summary of Results
        4. Permanent Housing
        5. Permanent Supportive Housing
        6. Rapid Re‐Housing
      7. Arlington County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
          1. 10‐Year Plan to End Homelessness
          2. Continuum of Care
          3. Highlights
          4. Current Inventory of Beds
          5. Point in Time Count
          6. Chronically Homeless, Veterans & Domestic Violence Sub‐populations Count
          7. Conclusion
      8. District of Columbia
        1. Homeless Services in the District of Columbia
        2. Changes Since Point‐ in‐Time 2014
        3. Shelter and Housing Inventory in 2015
      9. Fairfax County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing
        3. Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results
        4. Permanent, Permanent Supportive Housing and Rapid Re‐housing Placements
      10. Frederick County, MD
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Homeless Point‐In‐Time Results
      11. Loudoun County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results
        3. Summary of Results
        4. Permanent Housing
        5. Permanent Supportive Housing
        6. Rapid Re‐Housing
    15. Homeless Services Committee Members

Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington

Last modified
Table of contents
  1. Story
    1. Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington: Data Science Data Publication
    2. Tableau's Public PlanitMetro
    3. MORE EXAMPLES TO FOLLOW 
  2. Slides
    1. DC Report Knowledge Base Visualizations
      1. Slide 1 DC Report Knowledge Base
      2. Slide 2 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Sample Visualizations
      3. Slide 3 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 1-4
      4. Slide 4 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 5-8
      5. Slide 5 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 9-12
      6. Slide 6 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 13-16
    2. Tableau's Public PlanitMetro Visualizations
      1. Slide 1 Data Science for Tableau’s PlanitMetro with Spotfire
      2. Slide 2 Data-Visualization-DC: Time Maps & Elusive Buses
      3. Slide 3 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations
      4. Slide 4 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Data Set Downloads
      5. Slide 5 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Federal Workers Railmap
      6. Slide 6 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Federal Workers Railmap Summary Data
      7. Slide 7 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Federal Workers Railmap Underlying Data
      8. Slide 8 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Spotfire
  3. Spotfire Dashboards
    1. Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington: Data Science Data Publication
    2. Tableau's Public PlanitMetro
  4. Research Notes
  5. Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington
  6. Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington 2015 Report
    1. Report Author
    2. Executive Summary
      1. Map
    3. Introduction
      1. How We Define Homelessness
    4. How Many Local Residents Are Experiencing Homelessness?
      1. Table 1 Literally Homeless By Jurisdiction 2014-2015
      2. How Has the Region’s Homeless Population Changed?
      3. Table 2 Literally Homeless by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015
      4. A volunteer surveyor visits a campsite in Prince William County, Virginia, on January 28, 2015.
    5. The Region's Homeless By Total Population
      1. Figure 1 Total Population of Metropolitan Washington Region
      2. Table 3 2015 Share of Population That is Homeless
      3. Household Composition
      4. Family Households
      5. Table 4 Household Composition for MWCOG Region
      6. Table 5 2015 Literally Homeless Persons in Families by Jurisdiction
      7. Table 6 Change in Literally Homeless Persons in Families by Jurisdiction
      8. Children in Homeless Families
        1. Figure 2 Proportion of Homeless Single Adults To Homeless Persons in Families, 2011-2015
        2. Photo credit: Homeless Children’s Playtime Project
      9. Children in Households with Only Children (Unaccompanied Minors)
      10. Table 7 Households With Only Children Under Age 18 by Jurisdiction, 2014 and 2015
      11. Photo credit: Elvert Barnes
      12. Demographic Profile of the Region’s Homeless Population
        1. Figure 3 Regional Homeless Single Adults Demographic Profile (Race)
        2. Figure 4 Regional Homeless Adult Persons in Families Demographic Profile (Race)
        3. Figure 5 Regional Total Population Demographic Profile (Race)
    6. Homeless and the Working Poor
      1. Figure 6 Employed Single Homeless Adults
      2. Figure 7 Employed Adults in Homeless Families
      3. Figure 8 Employed Single Homeless Adults
      4. Figure 9 Employed Adults in Homeless Families
      5. Income
        1. Figure 10 Source of Income for Homeless Single Adults
    7. Unsheltered Homes
      1. Distribution of Region’s Unsheltered Homeless Single Adults
        1. A volunteer Point‐in‐Time surveyor in Frederick County, Maryland (January 2014). Credit: Harriet Wise Photography
        2. Figure 11 Distribution of Region's 1,072 Unsheltered Single Adults
      2. Comparison of Unsheltered Homeless Single Adults by Jurisdiction
        1. Table 8 Comparison of Unsheltered Single Adults by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015
        2. Photo credit: Elvert Barnes Photography, 2007.
        3. Table 9 Unsheltered Single Adults as a Percentage of Total Homeless by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015
    8. Chronic Homelessness
        1. Table 10 Chronically Homeless Single Adults by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015
      1. Table 11 2015 Shelter Status of Chronically Homeless Single Adults
      2. Chronically Homeless Families
        1. Photo credit: Elvert Barnes Photography, 2005
    9. Subpopulations
      1. Figure 12 The Region's Homeless Subpopulations
      2. Homeless Veterans
        1. Figure 13 The Region's Veteran Subpopulations
        2. Figure 14 Homeless Veteran Single Adults: Source of Income
        3. Figure 15 Homeless Single Adult Veterans (Race)
        4. Figure 16 Homeless Adult Veterans in Families (Race)
        5. Table 12 Homeless Veterans by Jurisdiction
      3. Transition Age Youth
        1. Figure 17 Homeless Young Adult/Transition Age Youth: Source of Income
        2. Figure 18 Transition Age Youth Subpopulations
        3. Table 13 Homeless Transition Age Youth (TAY) by Jurisdiction 2015
        4. Figure 19 Single Young Adult/ Transition Age and 20 Young Adult/Transition Age Youth in Families (Race)
    10. Continua of Care in the Metropolitan Washington Region
      1. Photo credit: Fairfax County & New Hope Housing
      2. Table 14 2015 Winter and Year Round Inventory of Beds in the Washington Region
    11. Permanent Supportive Housing-The Formerly Homeless
      1. Table 15 Formerly Homeless People in Permanent Supportive Housing All COG CoCs
      2. Figure 21 Regional Distribution of Beds by Facilities/Type
      3. Figure 22 Permanent Housing Solutions for Formerly Homeless Single Adults: 2014-2015
      4. Figure 23 Permanent Housing Solutions for formerly Homeless Families: 2014-2015
      5. Figure 24 Region's Literally and Formerly Homeless in Permanent Supportive Hosuing, Rapid Re-Housing & Other Permanent Housing
    12. Conclusions and Recommendations
      1. Photo credit: Paul DesJardin, MWCOG, Point‐in‐Time count 2015
      2. Table 16 Living Unsheltered, in Winter Beds, in Emergency Shelter, In Safe Havens, or in Transitional Housing
    13. References
      1. 1
      2. 2
      3. 3
      4. 4
      5. 5
      6. 6
      7. 7
      8. 8
      9. 9
      10. 10
      11. 11
      12. 12
      13. 13
      14. 14
      15. 15
      16. 16
      17. 17
      18. 18
      19. 19
      20. 20
      21. 21
      22. 22
      23. 23
      24. 24
      25. 25
      26. 26
      27. 27
      28. 28
    14. Appendix: Homelessness Enumeration Narrative Reports
      1. Alexandria, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Significant Accomplishments Since the 2014 Winter Enumeration
        3. Homless Point-In-Time Results
        4. Homelessness Prevention, Shelter Diversion and Housing Placement
        5. Future Trends in Homelessness
      2. Arlington County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
          1. 10‐Year Plan to End Homelessness
          2. Continuum of Care
          3. Highlights
          4. Current Inventory of Beds
          5. Point in Time Count
          6. Chronically Homeless, Veterans & Domestic Violence Sub‐populations Count
          7. Conclusion
      3. District of Columbia
        1. Homeless Services in the District of Columbia
        2. Changes Since Point‐in‐Time 2014
        3. Shelter and Housing Inventory in 2015
        4. Point‐in‐Time Results
      4. Fairfax County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing
        3. Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results
        4. Permanent, Permanent Supportive Housing and Rapid Re‐housing Placements
      5. Frederick County, MD
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Homeless Point‐In‐Time Results
      6. Loudoun County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results
        3. Summary of Results
        4. Permanent Housing
        5. Permanent Supportive Housing
        6. Rapid Re‐Housing
      7. Arlington County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
          1. 10‐Year Plan to End Homelessness
          2. Continuum of Care
          3. Highlights
          4. Current Inventory of Beds
          5. Point in Time Count
          6. Chronically Homeless, Veterans & Domestic Violence Sub‐populations Count
          7. Conclusion
      8. District of Columbia
        1. Homeless Services in the District of Columbia
        2. Changes Since Point‐ in‐Time 2014
        3. Shelter and Housing Inventory in 2015
      9. Fairfax County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing
        3. Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results
        4. Permanent, Permanent Supportive Housing and Rapid Re‐housing Placements
      10. Frederick County, MD
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Homeless Point‐In‐Time Results
      11. Loudoun County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results
        3. Summary of Results
        4. Permanent Housing
        5. Permanent Supportive Housing
        6. Rapid Re‐Housing
    15. Homeless Services Committee Members

  1. Story
    1. Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington: Data Science Data Publication
    2. Tableau's Public PlanitMetro
    3. MORE EXAMPLES TO FOLLOW 
  2. Slides
    1. DC Report Knowledge Base Visualizations
      1. Slide 1 DC Report Knowledge Base
      2. Slide 2 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Sample Visualizations
      3. Slide 3 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 1-4
      4. Slide 4 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 5-8
      5. Slide 5 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 9-12
      6. Slide 6 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 13-16
    2. Tableau's Public PlanitMetro Visualizations
      1. Slide 1 Data Science for Tableau’s PlanitMetro with Spotfire
      2. Slide 2 Data-Visualization-DC: Time Maps & Elusive Buses
      3. Slide 3 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations
      4. Slide 4 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Data Set Downloads
      5. Slide 5 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Federal Workers Railmap
      6. Slide 6 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Federal Workers Railmap Summary Data
      7. Slide 7 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Federal Workers Railmap Underlying Data
      8. Slide 8 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Spotfire
  3. Spotfire Dashboards
    1. Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington: Data Science Data Publication
    2. Tableau's Public PlanitMetro
  4. Research Notes
  5. Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington
  6. Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington 2015 Report
    1. Report Author
    2. Executive Summary
      1. Map
    3. Introduction
      1. How We Define Homelessness
    4. How Many Local Residents Are Experiencing Homelessness?
      1. Table 1 Literally Homeless By Jurisdiction 2014-2015
      2. How Has the Region’s Homeless Population Changed?
      3. Table 2 Literally Homeless by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015
      4. A volunteer surveyor visits a campsite in Prince William County, Virginia, on January 28, 2015.
    5. The Region's Homeless By Total Population
      1. Figure 1 Total Population of Metropolitan Washington Region
      2. Table 3 2015 Share of Population That is Homeless
      3. Household Composition
      4. Family Households
      5. Table 4 Household Composition for MWCOG Region
      6. Table 5 2015 Literally Homeless Persons in Families by Jurisdiction
      7. Table 6 Change in Literally Homeless Persons in Families by Jurisdiction
      8. Children in Homeless Families
        1. Figure 2 Proportion of Homeless Single Adults To Homeless Persons in Families, 2011-2015
        2. Photo credit: Homeless Children’s Playtime Project
      9. Children in Households with Only Children (Unaccompanied Minors)
      10. Table 7 Households With Only Children Under Age 18 by Jurisdiction, 2014 and 2015
      11. Photo credit: Elvert Barnes
      12. Demographic Profile of the Region’s Homeless Population
        1. Figure 3 Regional Homeless Single Adults Demographic Profile (Race)
        2. Figure 4 Regional Homeless Adult Persons in Families Demographic Profile (Race)
        3. Figure 5 Regional Total Population Demographic Profile (Race)
    6. Homeless and the Working Poor
      1. Figure 6 Employed Single Homeless Adults
      2. Figure 7 Employed Adults in Homeless Families
      3. Figure 8 Employed Single Homeless Adults
      4. Figure 9 Employed Adults in Homeless Families
      5. Income
        1. Figure 10 Source of Income for Homeless Single Adults
    7. Unsheltered Homes
      1. Distribution of Region’s Unsheltered Homeless Single Adults
        1. A volunteer Point‐in‐Time surveyor in Frederick County, Maryland (January 2014). Credit: Harriet Wise Photography
        2. Figure 11 Distribution of Region's 1,072 Unsheltered Single Adults
      2. Comparison of Unsheltered Homeless Single Adults by Jurisdiction
        1. Table 8 Comparison of Unsheltered Single Adults by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015
        2. Photo credit: Elvert Barnes Photography, 2007.
        3. Table 9 Unsheltered Single Adults as a Percentage of Total Homeless by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015
    8. Chronic Homelessness
        1. Table 10 Chronically Homeless Single Adults by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015
      1. Table 11 2015 Shelter Status of Chronically Homeless Single Adults
      2. Chronically Homeless Families
        1. Photo credit: Elvert Barnes Photography, 2005
    9. Subpopulations
      1. Figure 12 The Region's Homeless Subpopulations
      2. Homeless Veterans
        1. Figure 13 The Region's Veteran Subpopulations
        2. Figure 14 Homeless Veteran Single Adults: Source of Income
        3. Figure 15 Homeless Single Adult Veterans (Race)
        4. Figure 16 Homeless Adult Veterans in Families (Race)
        5. Table 12 Homeless Veterans by Jurisdiction
      3. Transition Age Youth
        1. Figure 17 Homeless Young Adult/Transition Age Youth: Source of Income
        2. Figure 18 Transition Age Youth Subpopulations
        3. Table 13 Homeless Transition Age Youth (TAY) by Jurisdiction 2015
        4. Figure 19 Single Young Adult/ Transition Age and 20 Young Adult/Transition Age Youth in Families (Race)
    10. Continua of Care in the Metropolitan Washington Region
      1. Photo credit: Fairfax County & New Hope Housing
      2. Table 14 2015 Winter and Year Round Inventory of Beds in the Washington Region
    11. Permanent Supportive Housing-The Formerly Homeless
      1. Table 15 Formerly Homeless People in Permanent Supportive Housing All COG CoCs
      2. Figure 21 Regional Distribution of Beds by Facilities/Type
      3. Figure 22 Permanent Housing Solutions for Formerly Homeless Single Adults: 2014-2015
      4. Figure 23 Permanent Housing Solutions for formerly Homeless Families: 2014-2015
      5. Figure 24 Region's Literally and Formerly Homeless in Permanent Supportive Hosuing, Rapid Re-Housing & Other Permanent Housing
    12. Conclusions and Recommendations
      1. Photo credit: Paul DesJardin, MWCOG, Point‐in‐Time count 2015
      2. Table 16 Living Unsheltered, in Winter Beds, in Emergency Shelter, In Safe Havens, or in Transitional Housing
    13. References
      1. 1
      2. 2
      3. 3
      4. 4
      5. 5
      6. 6
      7. 7
      8. 8
      9. 9
      10. 10
      11. 11
      12. 12
      13. 13
      14. 14
      15. 15
      16. 16
      17. 17
      18. 18
      19. 19
      20. 20
      21. 21
      22. 22
      23. 23
      24. 24
      25. 25
      26. 26
      27. 27
      28. 28
    14. Appendix: Homelessness Enumeration Narrative Reports
      1. Alexandria, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Significant Accomplishments Since the 2014 Winter Enumeration
        3. Homless Point-In-Time Results
        4. Homelessness Prevention, Shelter Diversion and Housing Placement
        5. Future Trends in Homelessness
      2. Arlington County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
          1. 10‐Year Plan to End Homelessness
          2. Continuum of Care
          3. Highlights
          4. Current Inventory of Beds
          5. Point in Time Count
          6. Chronically Homeless, Veterans & Domestic Violence Sub‐populations Count
          7. Conclusion
      3. District of Columbia
        1. Homeless Services in the District of Columbia
        2. Changes Since Point‐in‐Time 2014
        3. Shelter and Housing Inventory in 2015
        4. Point‐in‐Time Results
      4. Fairfax County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing
        3. Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results
        4. Permanent, Permanent Supportive Housing and Rapid Re‐housing Placements
      5. Frederick County, MD
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Homeless Point‐In‐Time Results
      6. Loudoun County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results
        3. Summary of Results
        4. Permanent Housing
        5. Permanent Supportive Housing
        6. Rapid Re‐Housing
      7. Arlington County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
          1. 10‐Year Plan to End Homelessness
          2. Continuum of Care
          3. Highlights
          4. Current Inventory of Beds
          5. Point in Time Count
          6. Chronically Homeless, Veterans & Domestic Violence Sub‐populations Count
          7. Conclusion
      8. District of Columbia
        1. Homeless Services in the District of Columbia
        2. Changes Since Point‐ in‐Time 2014
        3. Shelter and Housing Inventory in 2015
      9. Fairfax County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing
        3. Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results
        4. Permanent, Permanent Supportive Housing and Rapid Re‐housing Placements
      10. Frederick County, MD
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Homeless Point‐In‐Time Results
      11. Loudoun County, VA
        1. Description of Homeless Services
        2. Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results
        3. Summary of Results
        4. Permanent Housing
        5. Permanent Supportive Housing
        6. Rapid Re‐Housing
    15. Homeless Services Committee Members

Story

Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington: Data Science Data Publication

In preparation for another "bake-off" of data science analytics and visualization tools, I was asked to prepared the Washington, DC homeless data. I did a Google search and found Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington, which was a PDF file, that I converted to Word and then copied to MindTouch using the following steps:

1. Make the table of contents H1's (Header Level 1)

2. Remove the <div>'s by using View Source in MindTouch edit mode. Note this can be slow and time consuming because all of the 104 page document is being edited in memory. Using Google Chrome Find there were about 135 hits that were highlighted and deleted. It took on the first 30 or so to make the document fully editable.

3. Hand edit the document for H2-5, etc. sections, figures, tables etc.

4. Copy the figures from Word to PowerPoint and rename and insert in MindTouch.

5. Copy the tables to Excel for import to Spotfire.

There are 16 tables to use in Spotfire and other analytics tools and 24 figures to recreate from those tables. Let's have the bakeoff!

Important Conclusions: The data for the 19 Figures are not in the report!

Tableau's Public PlanitMetro

Source: https://public.tableau.com/profile/planitmetro#!/

Here is another example of mining a Meetup for interesting data that could be used for our Bakeoff #2 and Federal Blogs.

This features the use of Tableau: https://public.tableau.com/profile/planitmetro#!/

using 28 CSV data sets.

I imported them all into Spotfire and visualized Origins_AM_data.

The goal would be to reproduce what Tableau has done in their workbook and more in a series of Sporfire tabs.

Please see

Title: TableauPlanitMetro-Spotfire

Location: https://spotfire.cloud.tibco.com/spotfire/library?guid=5e531360-2dfe-4377-816e-af0a6b3bf95f

Web Player location: https://spotfire.cloud.tibco.com/spotfire/wp/ViewAnalysis.aspx?file=/users/bniemann/Public/TableauPlanitMetro-Spotfire

Path: /users/bniemann/Public/TableauPlanitMetro-Spotfire

Time: 11/2/2015 4:50:14 PM

Author: bniemann

MORE EXAMPLES TO FOLLOW 

Slides

DC Report Knowledge Base Visualizations

Slide 1 DC Report Knowledge Base

HomelessData-Spotfire-2015 DC Report Knowledge Base.png

Slide 2 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Sample Visualizations

HomelessData-Spotfire-2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Sample Visualizations.png

Slide 3 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 1-4

HomelessData-Spotfire-2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 1-4.png

Slide 4 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 5-8

HomelessData-Spotfire-2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 5-8.png

Slide 5 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 9-12

HomelessData-Spotfire-2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 9-12.png

Slide 6 2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 13-16

HomelessData-Spotfire-2015 Washington DC Homeless Report Tables 13-16.png

Tableau's Public PlanitMetro Visualizations

Slides

Slide 1 Data Science for Tableau’s PlanitMetro with Spotfire

Semantic Community

Data Science

Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington

BrandNiemann11022015BSlide1.PNG

Slide 2 Data-Visualization-DC: Time Maps & Elusive Buses

http://www.meetup.com/Data-Visualization-DC/events/226395373/

BrandNiemann11022015BSlide2.PNG

Slide 3 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations

https://public.tableau.com/profile/planitmetro#!/

BrandNiemann11022015BSlide3.PNG

Slide 4 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Data Set Downloads

BrandNiemann11022015BSlide4.PNG

Slide 5 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Federal Workers Railmap

https://public.tableau.com/profile/planitmetro#!/vizhome/FederalWorkersrailmap/OriginsAM

BrandNiemann11022015BSlide5.PNG

Slide 6 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Federal Workers Railmap Summary Data

Summary

BrandNiemann11022015BSlide6.PNG

Slide 7 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Federal Workers Railmap Underlying Data

Underlying

BrandNiemann11022015BSlide7.PNG

Slide 8 Tableau Public PlanitMetro Visualizations: Spotfire

Web Player

BrandNiemann11022015BSlide8.PNG

Spotfire Dashboards

Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington: Data Science Data Publication

For Internet Explorer Users and Those Wanting Full Screen Display Use: Web Player Get Spotfire for iPad App

Error: Embedded data could not be displayed. Use Google Chrome

Tableau's Public PlanitMetro

For Internet Explorer Users and Those Wanting Full Screen Display Use: Web Player Get Spotfire for iPad App

Error: Embedded data could not be displayed. Use Google Chrome

Research Notes

Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington 2015 Report

Source: http://www.mwcog.org/store/item.asp?...ICATION_ID=189 PDF Word

Results and Analysis from the 2015 Point‐in‐Time Count of Persons Experiencing Homelessness in the Metropolitan Washington Region

Prepared by The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ Homeless Services Planning and Coordinating Committee

CoverPage.png

Report Author

Hilary Chapman Council of Governments

With Assistance From Sophie Mintier and Greg Goodwin Council of Governments

May 13, 2015

Photo credit (cover): scribbletaylor

Executive Summary

For the 15th consecutive year, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ (COG) Homeless Services Planning and Coordinating Committee has conducted a regional enumeration of the area’s homeless and formerly homeless population.

This year’s enumeration and survey occurred on January 28, 2015. The report provides a one‐day “snapshot” of the region’s homeless population within nine metropolitan Washington area jurisdictions. It is important to note that this “snapshot” by definition provides one perspective on the state of homelessness in the metropolitan Washington region on only one day, and the count may be influenced by numerous variables, such as  weather and bed availability by jurisdiction. The 2015 Point‐in‐Time (PIT) Enumeration resulted in a total count of 11,623 literally homeless individuals.

The region’s population of persons experiencing homelessness decreased by 2.7 percent (or 323 people) from 2014. This is an improvement from the 2014 PIT, when the number of persons experiencing homelessness increased by 3.5 percent. Since 2011, the population of literally homeless persons has decreased by 2.2 percent (or 256 people). Six of nine jurisdictions recorded decreases in the number of persons experiencing homelessness in 2015. In the City of Alexandria, decreases in one demographic were offset by increases another, resulting in no change in the total number of homeless persons counted. As in  past years, the District of Columbia has the largest proportion of the region’s homeless population (63 percent). Montgomery County experienced a 23 percent increase (209 persons) primarily due to an increase in homeless families. Frederick County, Maryland also experienced an increase from 2014 (26 percent) but this is based upon 65 individuals and therefore the population size may be too small to be truly significant.

The region measured success not just  by the 2.7 percent decrease in the regional total of persons experiencing homelessness, but also by the 8,587 single individuals and family members who were counted in permanent supportive housing on the night of the PIT and are no longer considered homeless. In addition, in 2015, 3,784 formerly homeless individuals were rapidly re‐housed and an additional 1,891 formerly homeless persons were counted in other permanent housing. This  brings  the regional total of formerly homeless persons in 2015 to 14,262, an additional 2,619 people housed than at this time last year. The significant number of people placed in permanent housing has constrained the incidence of homelessness in the region and helped prevent it from growing unchecked.

Yet another regional success story is the continued decline in chronic homelessness. The number of chronically homeless  persons   declined by 1,030 (31 percent) between 2011 and 2015 and by 230 persons (9 percent) from 2014 to 2015. Success is attributed in part to additional HUD‐VASH (Veterans Administration Supportive Housing) vouchers, HUD Continuum of Care program funding targeting the chronically homeless, participation by most of the region’s Continua of Care in the 100,000 Homes Campaign and related efforts, and an increase in permanent supportive housing options.

Coordinated efforts from the local all the way to the federal level at the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Veterans Affairs have also had a positive impact on reducing the number of veterans experiencing homelessness in our region. Between 2011 and 2015, the region counted 138 fewer homeless veterans (19 percent reduction). This demonstrates the success that the region can achieve in ending homelessness with access to additional dedicated housing resources, such as HUD‐VASH vouchers.

For the first time in 2015, as required by HUD, the region collected more detailed demographic data on Transition Age Youth (TAY); young adults aged 18 to  24. Transition Age Youth are more likely to be  in families than single, and gathering more detailed information about them will inform efforts to respond appropriately to their unique needs. This year the region counted 1,538 Transition Age Youths.

Arlington County achieved the greatest percentage decrease (18 percent) in its literally homeless population this year, while the District of Columbia recorded the greatest decrease in the number of persons experiencing homelessness (450 fewer persons) this year.

The employment picture is mixed; although the economy is recovering in many sectors, it has not had a significant impact on decreasing unemployment and increasing earned income among persons experiencing homelessness.

Data collected this year confirm what each jurisdiction has observed in practice, that the single greatest barrier to ending homelessness in our communities is the diminishing number of affordable and available permanent housing opportunities for the lowest income households.

The 2015 report highlights several key, recurring themes:

  1. The significant increase in the number of formerly homeless persons in permanent and permanent supportive housing;
  2. The positive impact of shelter diversion and homeless prevention programs;
  3. The lack of living wage jobs continues to prevent people experiencing homelessness from achieving housing stability; and
  4. The need for additional resources to increase the supply of affordable housing available to the lowest‐ income households.

Dedication to addressing the region’s homelessness challenges has resulted in steady, measurable progress in providing shelter and wrap‐around services to homeless individuals and families. The region’s practitioners are implementing  best practices and know which strategies best serve people experiencing homelessness in the metropolitan Washington area. However, there remain significant challenges highlighted in this year’s numbers. Accurately counting and addressing the needs of homeless unaccompanied youth remains problematic, not just for our region, but nationwide. The rise in family homelessness throughout the region in particular reflects the stark reality about the lack of sufficient affordable housing. Reversing the trend in  rising  family homelessness observed during the past four years will require a renewed dedication to creating and preserving affordable housing opportunities for low‐ income families to allow them to be stably and independently housed for the long‐ term.

Note: The map (right) represents those jurisdictions which are members of the Metropolitan  Washington Council of Governments. However, Charles County data is not included in this Point-in- Time report. Unlike the other jurisdictions, Charles County provides its homelessness data to the Baltimore HUD Field Office.

The following report includes a count of the region’s residents who are:

  • Unsheltered persons living  on the streets, including parks, alleys, and camp sites;
  • Staying in an emergency or hypothermia shelter or safe haven;
  • Living in transitional housing where they receive supportive services designed to help them move into some form of permanent housing; and
  • Formerly homeless people now living in permanent supportive housing or other permanent housing who are receiving supportive social services.

Map

Map.png

Introduction

The 2015 Point‐in‐Time Enumeration provides information on the number of unsheltered persons in the region as well as figures on how many persons utilize winter shelters, year‐round emergency shelters, safe havens, transitional housing and permanent supportive housing. The PIT also provides information on the extent to which homeless persons in each jurisdiction live with disabling conditions or belong to various subpopulations.

The metropolitan Washington region’s homeless services system consists of nine jurisdictions, each representing a local Continuum of Care (CoC) that receives federal funding through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Program to assist its homeless population. The participating jurisdictions are:

  • The City of Alexandria, Virginia;
  • Arlington County, Virginia;
  • The District of Columbia;
  • Fairfax County, Virginia, including data from the City of Falls Church and the City of Fairfax;
  • Frederick City and County,  Maryland;
  • Loudoun County, Virginia;
  • Montgomery County, Maryland;
  • Prince George’s County, Maryland, including data from the City of Bowie; and
  • Prince William County, Virginia, including data from the City of Manassas and the City of Manassas Park.

Although Charles County, Maryland is a  COG member, the County’s homeless enumeration figures are not tracked as part of this report. Charles County submits its enumeration results to the Baltimore, Maryland HUD office and not the Washington, DC HUD office, unlike  the other COG member jurisdictions.

The report includes narratives that were prepared by each of the respective jurisdictions. The narratives briefly describe each jurisdiction’s homeless Continuum of Care and provide detailed explanations of their respective enumeration results. Some of the region’s jurisdictions use a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) to count their homeless population, in  addition to other methodologies. HMIS is an electronic data collection system that is used to produce an “unduplicated” count of homeless people for the respective jurisdictions, improve program operations, measure program performance, and coordinate services community‐wide.

Similar to past enumerations, the 2015 count does not include people who “double up” with relatives or friends, in accordance with HUD guidelines that mandate that jurisdictions conduct Point‐in‐Time counts at least biennially. HUD’s requirements for conducting the annual Point‐in‐Time count can be found in its Standard and Methods for Point‐in‐Time Counts of Homeless Persons and Annual Housing Inventory Updates at http://www.onecpd.info.

Due to the high housing cost burden and reduced affordable housing options, several local jurisdictions and service providers are concerned that many more of the region’s residents are at risk of experiencing homelessness. While not yet considered homeless, many households are believed to be doubled up and/or living in overcrowded situations, due to difficult economic conditions. Homelessness is often the next step for such households once the family members or friends who have been sheltering them can or no longer will do so.

How We Define Homelessness

The region’s jurisdictions use HUD’s definition of homelessness which is defined as people who reside in emergency shelter, transitional  housing, domestic violence shelters, runaway youth shelters, safe havens, or places not meant for human habitation, such as streets, parks, alleys, abandoned buildings, and stairways.

Literally Homeless persons, which may also be referred to as “homeless” in  this report, include Households without Children, Households with Adults and Children and Households with Only Children, who may be sheltered or unsheltered, as described above.

Formerly Homeless persons in this report include those who, on the night of the PIT, had moved into permanent supportive housing, were rapidly rehoused, or moved into other permanent housing designated for homeless persons. This does not  include homeless persons who are able to secure other permanent housing outside of the homeless system, including a non‐subsidized apartment or room, moving in with a relative or friend, or receiving a mainstream rental subsidy.

Data for the 2015 enumeration were collected in the following three categories, as defined by HUD:

  1. Households without Children. Households without children consist of only adults age 18 or over. In this report, we also refer to households without children as “single adults.” The vast majority of households without children are single persons, although this category may include couples without minor children or  a parent and an adult child over the age of 18. These households are counted as single adults for purposes of the Point‐in‐Time count.
  2. Households with Adults and Children. Households with adults and children contain at least one adult age 18 or over and at least one child under age 18. In this report, we also refer to households with adults and children as “homeless families.”
  3. Households with ONLY Children. Households with ONLY children contain no adults age 18 or over, only persons under age 18, including  teenage  parents under 18 with at least one child, or  other households with only persons under age 18.

How Many Local Residents Are Experiencing Homelessness?

As of January 28, 2015, 11,623 people throughout the metropolitan Washington region indicated that they were homeless, a decrease of 2.7 percent from 2014. Table 1 illustrates the region’s 2015 homeless enumeration across jurisdictions compared to last year.

Arlington County experienced the largest percentage decrease in its homeless population count since last year, reducing  its literally homeless population by 18 percent. Several other CoCs experienced reductions in their homeless populations, such as in Prince William County (8 percent), the District of Columbia and Loudoun County (both at 6 percent), Prince George’s County (4 percent), and Fairfax County (2 percent). In the City of  Alexandria, decreases in one demographic were offset by increases in another, resulting in no change in the total number of homeless persons counted.

Table 1 Literally Homeless By Jurisdiction 2014-2015

Jurisdiction

2014

2015

Change 2014 ‐2015

Percent Change 2014 ‐ 2015

City of Alexandria

267

267

0

0%

Arlington County

291

239

‐52

‐18%

District of Columbia

7,748

7,298

‐450

‐6%

Fairfax County

1,225

1,204

‐21

‐2%

Frederick County

246

311

65

26%

Loudoun County

179

168

‐11

‐6%

Montgomery County

891

1,100

209

23%

Prince George's County

654

627

‐27

‐4%

Prince William County

445

409

‐36

‐8%

TOTAL

11,946

11,623

‐323

‐2.7%

Montgomery County and Frederick County were the only jurisdictions which experienced an increase in their literally homeless populations from 2014 to 2015. The change in Frederick County (65 persons) is relatively small. The greatest increase   was in Montgomery County, which experienced a 23 percent increase (209 additional literally homeless persons) since 2014. The same trend is not true for the  five year period of 2011 to 2015, as shown in Table 2, which illustrates the numerical and percentage change in the region’s homeless population.

How Has the Region’s Homeless Population Changed?

Six of nine of COG’s CoCs experienced decreases in their homeless populations between 2011 and 2015. Arlington County and the City of Alexandria have the largest percentage decreases in the number of people experiencing homelessness at 48 percent and 36 percent, respectively. Arlington County attributes the large reduction in its homeless population to several factors, including successful street outreach efforts, community efforts to house chronically homeless individuals as part of the 100,000 Homes national campaign, and a strategies shift, as the CoC has worked during the past two years to change transitional housing programs over to rapid re‐housing. This year, the last transitional housing program was converted which resulted in an additional 48 persons being counted as formerly homeless.

The City of Alexandria attributes its  decrease in sheltered persons experiencing homelessness on the night of the count in part to the efforts of its Housing Crisis Response System, which has been in place since 2012. This system allows the City to more efficiently and effectively assess the needs of persons seeking shelter and best utilize community resources by offering diversion services to reduce the number of households entering the shelter system.

Fairfax County, Arlington County, and  Prince William County achieved the greatest reductions in terms of the total numbers of homeless persons from 2011 to 2015 (345 persons, 222 persons, and 157 persons respectively). Fairfax County attributes the decrease in homeless single adults primarily to the successful 100,000 Homes Campaign effort, increased and reallocated HUD funding for permanent supportive housing programs targeting this population, and additional HUD‐VASH (Veterans Administration Supportive Housing) vouchers allocated over the past few years.The number of people in families decreased due to enhanced prevention and diversion efforts, deliberate reductions in transitional housing, implementation of strong rapid rehousing interventions, and strategic  use of mainstream resources such as housing choice vouchers.

Three jurisdictions, the District of Columbia, Loudoun County, and Frederick County, experienced increases in their homeless populations since 2011. In Loudoun and Frederick Counties, the increase during four years is the result of 12 and 31 individuals respectively; therefore, the population size may be too small to be truly significant. The District of Columbia has the largest local percentage increase in homeless people in the region, and accounted for 752  additional literally homeless persons during the same period.

A combination of factors, including the region’s increased supply of permanent supportive housing, increased use of rapid re‐housing, and homeless prevention and diversion efforts account for some other jurisdictions’ consistent declines in homelessness and the region’s 2.7 percent reduction from 2014.

Table 2 Literally Homeless by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015

Jurisdiction 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Percent Change 2011‐2015

City of Alexandria

416

352

275

267

267

‐36%

Arlington County

461

451

479

291

239

‐48%

District of Columbia

6,546

6,954

6,865

7,748

7,298

11%

Fairfax County

1,549

1,534

1,350

1,225

1,204

‐22%

Frederick County

280

285

275

246

311

11%

Loudoun County

156

164

166

179

168

8%

Montgomery County

1,132

982

1,004

891

1,100

‐3%

Prince George's County

773

641

686

654

627

‐19%

Prince William County

566

467

447

445

409

‐28%

TOTAL

11,879

11,830

11,547

11,946

11,623

‐2.2%

 

Significant challenges remain, however. Increases in the region’s already‐high rents make it very difficult for extremely low income households to find or maintain housing that they can afford. In addition, wages have not increased to keep pace with the rising cost of housing. A shortage of living wage jobs compounds the difficulty in finding and maintaining affordable housing. Federal spending cuts due to sequestration enacted in 2013 have frozen or reduced the availability of Housing Choice Vouchers throughout the region.

A lack of affordable, permanent housing opportunities remains the most significant and persistent obstacle to ending homelessness in our region.

A volunteer surveyor visits a campsite in Prince William County, Virginia, on January 28, 2015.

Photo credit: Bart Everson, 2007.

A volunteer surveyor visits a campsite in Prince William County, Virginia, on January 28, 2015.png

Photo credit: Bart Everson, 2007

Photo credit Bart Everson, 2007.png

The Region's Homeless By Total Population

Table 3 highlights the number of homeless people counted in the metropolitan Washington region as a percentage of its total population. Including the District of Columbia, there was a 0.22 percent incidence of homelessness in the region. This figure is essentially unchanged and represents a slight decrease from 0.23 in 2014. Excluding the District, the incidence of homelessness is 0.09 percent for the region’s suburban population, which is unchanged from 2014 as well as 2013.

HUD’s 2014 Continuum of Care Point‐in‐ Time data state that there are 640,466 homeless people in the country. This figure represents 0.2 percent of the nation’s total population of 318,881,992 (as of July 2014), compared to the region’s rate of 0.22 percent.

As shown in Table 3, of every 1,000 residents in the region, 2.2 persons are homeless. The District of Columbia has the largest local incidence of homelessness within the metropolitan Washington region, accounting for 63 percent of the region’s total homeless population. Of every 1,000 people in the District, 11 are homeless, a decrease from last year when it was 12.

Another way to evaluate the size of the literally homeless population over time is to compare it to the region’s population growth. Since the first regional enumeration in 2001, the total number of literally homeless persons has remained steady between 11,000 and 12,000, while the region’s population region has grown dramatically (Figure 1). Therefore, compared to population growth, the rate of homeless persons per thousand (also described in Table 3) has declined over time.

Figure 1 Total Population of Metropolitan Washington Region

Figure1.png

Table 3 2015 Share of Population That is Homeless

Jurisdiction 2014 Total Population* 2015 Literally Homeless Homeless as Percent of Total Population Homeless Persons per 1,000 People

Alexandria

150,575

267

0.18%

1.8

Arlington County

226,908

239

0.11%

1.1

District of Columbia

658,893

7,298

1.11%

11.1

Fairfax County1

1,175,622

1,204

0.10%

1.0

Frederick County

243,675

311

0.13%

1.3

Loudoun County

363,050

168

0.05%

0.5

Montgomery County

1,030,447

1,100

0.11%

1.1

Prince George's County

904,430

627

0.07%

0.7

Prince William County2

503,349

409

0.08%

0.8

Region with D.C.

5,256,949

11,623

0.22%

2.2

Region without D.C.

4,598,056

4,325

0.09%

0.9

*Source: Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, March 2015.

1 Includes the Cities of Fairfax and Falls Church

2 Includes the Cities of Manassas and Manassas Park

Household Composition

Table 4 compares the 2011 through 2015 enumeration survey responses from the three main categories of homeless households. Family homelessness (the number of persons in homeless families) decreased 3.4 percent from 2014 to 2015, but increased 9.1 percent between 2011 and 2015. In contrast to the metropolitan Washington region, at the national level, family homelessness declined by 11 percent between 2010 and 2014 and three percent between 2013 and 2014. 1

Family Households

Tables 5 and 6 illustrate the 2015 survey responses from the region’s homeless families. As of January 28, 2015, a total of 1,806 family households were counted as homeless, a decrease of 4 percent from 2014. The regional decrease recorded this year is attributed primarily to the 8 percent reduction (318 persons in families) in the District of Columbia. 2 One distinguishing characteristic of homeless families is that the age of adults in homeless families tends to be much younger than of homeless single adults. For example, in the District of Columbia, the median age of a homeless single adult is 49, but the median age of a homeless adult with children is 25. 3  For the 2015 enumeration, 25 percent of adults in homeless families were between the ages of 18 and 24.

Table 4 Household Composition for MWCOG Region

Year Total Single Adults

Total Persons in Families

Total Persons in Households with ONLY Children

Regional Total

2015

5,929

5,678

16

11,623

2014

6,057

5,880

9

11,946

2013

6,115

5,405

27

11,547

2012

6,204

5,611

15

11,830

2011

6,647

5,206

26

11,879

2011 ‐ 2015 Percent Change

‐10.8%

9.1%

‐38.5%

‐2.2%

 

Four jurisdictions – the City of Alexandria, Fairfax County, Frederick County, and Montgomery County – experienced an increase in the number of homeless persons in families from 2014 to 2015. The count of homeless persons in families increased  most significantly since 2014 in Montgomery County (74 percent). Five of the nine CoCs recorded reductions from 2014 to 2015: Arlington County (34 percent); the District of Columbia (8 percent); Loudoun County (14 percent); Prince George’s County (19 percent); and Prince William County (11 percent).

The picture changes slightly when viewing the data during the longer period of 2011‐ 2015, however. Five of the nine regional CoCs  recorded increases in family homelessness during this time, resulting in an overall regional increase in homeless families of 9.1    percent. The   largestincreases in the number of homeless persons in families occurred in the District of Columbia (789 persons, or 29 percent) and Montgomery County (128 persons, or 34 percent). Frederick, Loudoun and Prince George’s Countiesrecorded smaller increases of 19 persons, 18 persons, and 15 persons, respectively. The City of Alexandria, Arlington County, Fairfax County,  and Prince William County all recorded reductions in family homelessness during the same four‐year period (29 percent, 61 percent, 19 percent, and 43 percent respectively).

The trend of rising family homelessness is a major challenge the region faces in its efforts to end homelessness in a high‐cost housing market. Although the numbers of homeless persons in families are small in outer suburban jurisdictions such as Loudoun and Frederick Counties, the numbers of homeless people are persistent.

More populous jurisdictions, such as Montgomery County and the District of Columbia, are faced with higher numbers of homeless families as well as increased competition for a diminishing number of affordable housing units (both subsidized and    market    rate), which is a major contributor to the growth in family homelessness recorded during this period. 4 Other contributing            factors include a reduction in available Housing Choice Vouchers from local public housing authorities due to federal budget cuts (sequestration) and a rise in young adult heads of household (age 18‐24) with limited education and work experience who have exhausted the ability to stay doubled up with friends or family.

Table 5 2015 Literally Homeless Persons in Families by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction Number of Families Adults in Families Children in Families Persons in Families

City of Alexandria

34

37

71

108

Arlington County

22

26

49

75

District of  Columbia

1,131

1,428

2,049

3,477

Fairfax County

213

285

430

715

Frederick County

37

43

87

130

Loudoun County

27

34

54

88

Montgomery County

159

184

318

502

Prince  George's County

112

139

220

359

Prince  William County

71

85

139

224

ALL COG COCs

1,806

2,261

3,417

5,678

Note:  Chart  above does  not  include Households  with Only Children.

 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey, the Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area’s (MSA) median monthly homeownership costs are $2,176 and median monthly gross rent is $1,481. More than 30 percent of the region’s households pay more than a third of their incomes to satisfy these monthly housing  costs. Almost half of all renter households in the region, many of  whom are very low income, have struggled with high housing costs, including more than 150,000 with a severe housing cost burden (i.e. paying more than 50 percent of monthly income towards housing costs). 5  In the District of Columbia, a person earning the minimum wage ($8.25) would need to work 3.4 full‐time jobs to be able to afford a two‐bedroom apartment at the Fair Market Rent. 6 The region’s lowest‐income households face significant challenges affording housing, especially as the area’s increased housing demand drives up rental rates. This trend makes otherwise affordable units unaffordable for households, especially as they  compete with the general population for housing. In  a study released in 2014, the Urban  Institute found that 40 percent of units in the region that were affordable to extremely low‐income renters were occupied by higher‐income households. 7

Table 6 Change in Literally Homeless Persons in Families by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Percent Change 2011‐ 2015

City of Alexandria

152

139

90

88

108

‐29%

Arlington County

193

188

211

113

75

‐61%

District of  Columbia

2,688

3,187

3,169

3,795

3,477

29%

Fairfax County

883

837

747

695

715

‐19%

Frederick County

111

116

104

105

130

17%

Loudoun County

70

95

85

102

88

26%

Montgomery County

374

381

366

288

502

34%

Prince  George's County

344

362

370

441

359

4%

Prince  William County

391

306

263

253

224

‐43%

ALL COG COCs

5,206

5,611

5,405

5,880

5,678

9%

 

Children in Homeless Families

It is important to note that children face particular adverse effects of homelessness. Children are often dislocated from familiar surroundings, relatives, friends, and neighborhood schools when their families become homeless. Children must also contend with the stigma associated with being homeless when navigating their new surroundings and making friends. Children experiencing homelessness may have poor nutrition, increased incidence of health impairments, higher exposure to violence and severe emotional distress. 8 These conditions eliminate feelings of safety and predictability that are important for healthy growth.

COG’s 2015 enumeration identified 3,417 homeless children, representing 29  percent of the region’s total homeless population (11,623), which remains unchanged from last year. Children account for 60 percent of all people in homeless families; this percentage has remained consistent since 2010.

Figure 2 on the following page shows the gradual change in the proportion of homeless families to single adult homeless persons between 2011 and 2015.

Figure 2 Proportion of Homeless Single Adults To Homeless Persons in Families, 2011-2015

Figure2.png

Photo credit: Homeless Children’s Playtime Project

Photo credit Homeless Children’s Playtime Project.png

Some of the region’s public schools have reported higher numbers of homeless children than are reported in the annual Point‐in‐Time. The primary reason for this  is that area public schools track the number of homeless children on a cumulative basis throughout the school year, compared to the one‐day snapshot of the region’s homeless provided by the Point‐in‐Time count. Also, the self‐reported homeless information used by public schools is based upon definitions provided by the U.S. Department of  Education.  Children counted by public schools may or may not be literally homeless according to the HUD homeless reported they were “doubled up” with family or friends; 9 and, as reported by the U.S. Department of Education, the population of homeless students rose again in the subsequent 2012‐2013 school year, with similar unstable housing conditions. 10 Based upon HUD’s guidelines, local jurisdictions cannot count people who live  in doubled up situations for the Point‐in‐ Time count.

Children in Households with Only Children (Unaccompanied Minors)

The region’s Continua began providing data to HUD regarding homeless children in definition, and may be living in doubled up     situations. The National Center for Homeless Education reported that during the 2011‐2012 school year, 75 percent of students    that self‐identified as being households without adults  in  2012.  In 2015, the Point‐in‐Time enumeration captured 16 homeless persons in Households with Only Children. Of these 16 children, 11 were single individuals and one household was comprised of multiple children. The region’s CoCs are working to eliminate the numbers of homeless households with only children in order to avoid a future adulthood of chronic homelessness.

Table 7 provides a breakdown of households of homeless children without adults by jurisdiction. In 2015 for the first time, the region also counted participants in Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY) programs funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS defines homeless youth slightly differently than HUD; these youth are individuals who are “not more than 21 years of age…for whom it is not possible to live in a safe environment with a relative and who have no other safe alternative living arrangement.” This definition includes only those youth who are unaccompanied by families or caregivers. 11 The small number of Households with Only Children counted in 2015 reflects the challenges of counting homeless youth accurately. One difficulty is the HUD definition of homelessness, which excludes persons who are “doubled up” or “couch surfing,” a form of shelter often used by youth.  Also, methods often used  for counting homeless adults do not accurately capture survival strategies particularly common to youth, such  as being mobile and transient, latching onto friends and staying in groups, or trying to hide in plain sight. In addition, many homeless youth do not want to be found because they may be fleeing abuse or fear being placed in foster care. Most are not connected to formal supports such as the child welfare, juvenile justice, and mental health systems and many avoid or are unaware of available services. 12

Table 7 Households With Only Children Under Age 18 by Jurisdiction, 2014 and 2015

Jurisdiction 2014 2015 Absolute Change 2014 ‐ 2015

Alexandria

0

0

0

Arlington  County

0

0

0

District  of Columbia

5

7

2

Fairfax County

0

1

1

Frederick  County

0

0

0

Loudoun County

0

0

0

Montgomery County

0

0

0

Prince  George's County

4

8

4

Prince  William County

0

0

0

TOTAL

9

16

7

 

There are many challenges with counting homeless youth, and because their experiences with homelessness are episodic, single point‐in‐time counts will always underestimate the true number of homeless youth. Taking note of seasonal conditions that affect whether youth will seek shelter or stay on the street, some homelessness researchers make sure they count in more than one season. 13

Photo credit: Elvert Barnes

Photo credit Elvert Barnes.png

Demographic Profile of the Region’s Homeless Population

In 2014, we began reporting questions regarding ethnicity and race in addition to age and gender. The ethnic and racial categories included in the Point‐in‐Time questionnaire were specified by HUD and generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and are not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. The survey question on ethnicity asks respondents to identify whether or not they are Hispanic or Latino (people who identify their ethnic origin as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race 14). In addition,  the  categories of the race item include racial and national origin or sociocultural groups. Race and ethnicity were self‐reported and individuals were able to choose “multiple races” to indicate their racial mixture, such as “American Indian” and “White.”

Of the 5,929 homeless single adults (Figure 3) who responded to these questions, 93 percent were over the age of 24, and the majority (74 percent) was male. For those who responded to the question regarding ethnicity, 91 percent self‐identified as non‐ Hispanic or non‐Latino. The racial breakdown included 72 percent African‐ American, 22 percent white, and three percent as multiple races. Three percent declined to respond or the information was not recorded. The remaining categories (Asian, American Indian or Alaska native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander) all were one percent or less of the total literally homeless single adult population. In Frederick and Loudoun Counties, the single adult racial profile differs slightly from the rest of the region.  In Frederick and Loudoun, the majority of single adults experiencing homelessness are white (71 and 61 percent respectively), and in Fairfax County, 49 percent of the single homeless adults identified racially as white and 44 percent identified as African‐ American or black.

Figure 3 Regional Homeless Single Adults Demographic Profile (Race)

Figure3.png

The demographic profile of families experiencing homelessness (Figure 4, following page) differs from that of single adults in a few key characteristics. In homeless families, the majority of adults  (82 percent) are female. The age of the  adult in a homeless family also tends to be younger. Thirty‐one percent are aged 18 to 24 and 67 percent are over age 24. Ethnically, 93 percent of adults in homeless families are Non‐Hispanic/Non‐Latino, and racially, 85 percent are African‐American.

Figure 4 Regional Homeless Adult Persons in Families Demographic Profile (Race)

Figure4.png

White adults in families experiencing homelessness make up 11 percent of the regional literally homeless family population, two percent are Asian, with the other racial categories all one percent or less.

Again, the demographic profile of adults experiencing homelessness in families in Frederick County and Loudoun County  differ from the rest of the region. In Frederick County, 56 percent of homeless adults in families are white and 42 percent are African‐American or black, and in Loudoun County, 56 percent of adults in families are white, and 38 percent are African‐American or black.

In contrast, the region’s racial breakdown (Figure 5) shows that 58 percent of the population is white and only 26 percent is African‐American or black. With the exceptions of Frederick and Loudoun Counties, homeless persons are disproportionately more likely to be black  or African‐American than they are in the general metropolitan Washington regional population.

Figure 5 Regional Total Population Demographic Profile (Race)

Figure5.png

Homeless and the Working Poor

Employment, or an adequate and reliable source of income, is crucial to a household’s ability to either afford a place to live or move out of homelessness. According  to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the metropolitan Washington region’s unemployment rate  for February 2015 was 4.9 percent, compared to 5.5 percent for the nation. The region’s unemployment rate decreased very slightly, by 0.2 percentage points, from 5.1 percent in February 2014. While the region’s unemployment rate has remained largely unchanged over the last year, this obscures the economic outlook for many of our region’s residents who struggle with homelessness. In particular, unemployment continues to be a concern for those without a high school diploma, bachelors or advanced degree. Employment rates for workers with less than a high school degree have fallen 9 percent since the great recession in 2009. 15

Overall, 24 percent of adults experiencing homelessness are employed; employment status could not be determined for 12 percent. The rates of employment vary by household type, however. Figures 6 through 9 illustrate the employment status (including full‐ and part‐time employment) for homeless single adults, homeless families, and households with only children throughout the region. Also included are percentages for homeless persons for whom employment status was unknown.

Approximately 20 percent of all single  adults experiencing homelessness are employed, a slight increase of one percent from 2014 (Figure 6). The lower rate of employment for homeless single adults (compared to adults in families) is attributed to higher incidences of conditions that make securing and maintaining employment difficult, such as physical disabilities, and multiple behavioral and chronic health issues, including substance abuse and mental illness. Approximately 67 percent of single adults are unemployed, and employment status could not be determined for 13 percent of the adults in this category.

Figure 6 Employed Single Homeless Adults

Figure6.png

Data from the 2015 enumeration suggests that 39 percent of homeless adults in families with children are employed (Figure 7), but the picture varies significantly by jurisdiction. In the City of Alexandria, for example, 78 percent of these adults are employed, compared to 22 percent in the District of Columbia (Figure 9). Approximately 51 percent of adults in these families region‐wide are unemployed and employment status is unknown for 10 percent. Although the total numbers are small (18), five jurisdictions recorded children in homeless families who were employed on the night of the enumeration.

Figure 7 Employed Adults in Homeless Families

Figure7.png

None of the youth in the region’s households with only children (unaccompanied minors) are employed. This is attributed to the youths’ age, levels of employability, and housing status.

While the Washington region – when compared to other national metropolitan areas – has a lower unemployment rate, it remains one of the country’s most expensive areas in which to live. Coupled with slow or negative wage growth, particularly for the lowest‐income workers, the area’s high housing costs further constrain  a low  income  household’s ability to remain housed.16 The reality is stark for the region’s homeless households as evidenced in the following charts.

Figure 8 shows that, in eight of nine of the region’s participating CoCs, less than 40 percent of single homeless adults are employed. This trend remains essentially unchanged from the past two years, although rates have varied for individual jurisdictions. For example, Prince George’s County’s single adult employment percentage rose from 23 percent in 2014 to 30 percent in 2015.

Figure 8 Employed Single Homeless Adults

Figure8.png

In contrast, in six of nine local jurisdictions, more than 50 percent of adults in family households are employed (Figure 9). Again, Prince George’s County had the greatest gain in this category, with a 55 percent increase over last year. Employment also rose for homeless adults in families in the City of Alexandria, Arlington County, the District of Columbia, Fairfax County, Frederick County, and Loudoun  County. Only two jurisdictions, Montgomery County and Prince William County, had decreases in their percentages of adult homeless family members who were employed, and those changes were small (4 percent and 2 percent respectively). Although the percentage of employed adults in families increased (3 percent) in 2015, the overall picture of employment remains challenging. The availability  of living wage jobs remains a key obstacle to ending homelessness, even for those individuals who are already employed.

Figure 9 Employed Adults in Homeless Families

Figure9.png

Income

While a portion of the region’s homeless population reports receiving monthly income, a large number of homeless people do not receive any monthly income.  In 2015, 78 percent of adults in families reported having income, but only 40 percent of single adults reported income.

Over half (52 percent) of all homeless adults who have income reported that employment wages and salaries were their primary source of income. The next largest sources of primary income following employment were: disability (such as Supplemental Security Income), followed by “other” sources of income, retirement (such as Social Security) and last, public assistance (such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Figure 10 illustrates the primary source of income for the 4,187 homeless people who provided this information.

Figure 10 Source of Income for Homeless Single Adults

Figure10.png

Unsheltered Homes

On January 28th, outreach workers for the region’s Continua of Care went into their communities to count the area’s unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness. Outreach workers counted people living on the streets, in alleys, under bridges, in local parks, in camp sites, and in other places frequented by homeless people. According to the 2015 count, 1,118 persons (approximately ten percent of the region’s 11,623 homeless people) were unsheltered. Of these, 1,072 were single adults, 39 were persons in 9 families with adults and children, and seven children  from Households with Only Children were unsheltered. The 1,118  unsheltered  persons counted represent a 26 percent increase from 2014, but is still below levels recorded during 2010 to 2013. Overall, regional homelessness among single adults declined by 4 percent during the four year period between 2011 and 2015.

The fact that the unsheltered count rose from the Point‐in‐Time of 2014 may be attributed to a variety of factors, such as  the weather conditions on the night of January 28, 2015, and an increased number of volunteer surveyors on the night of the count. The District of Columbia recorded  the greatest number of volunteer surveyors in 2015 than they had ever managed in the past. The trend of declining unsheltered persons during the prior four year period is encouraging; however, the difference is due to only 49 fewer persons and is therefore essentially unchanged.

In those jurisdictions that recorded a decrease in the unsheltered count, a number attributed their success in part to housing the most vulnerable chronically homeless during the past year as part of the 100,000 Homes Campaign. Arlington County, the District of Columbia, Fairfax County, Frederick City, Montgomery  County, and Prince William County joined the successful campaign, which met its goal in the summer of 2014. Several CoCs are participating in the subsequent campaign, Zero: 2016. The Zero: 2016 campaign is an effort to end chronic and  veteran homelessness outright by December 2016. 17

Distribution of Region’s Unsheltered Homeless Single Adults

Figure 11 provides the distribution of the region’s total unsheltered homeless single adults by locality. The District of Columbia accounts for 51 percent of the region’s unsheltered homeless single adults. This figure increased from 45 percent of the region’s total in 2014. Five jurisdictions’ (Alexandria City, Arlington County, Fairfax County, Montgomery County, and Prince William County) share of the region’s unsheltered homeless single adult proportion of the population decreased from the count last year, while one (Frederick County) remained unchanged.

A volunteer Point‐in‐Time surveyor in Frederick County, Maryland (January 2014). Credit: Harriet Wise Photography

A volunteer Point‐in‐Time surveyor in Frederick County, Maryland (January 2014). Credit Harriet Wise Photography.png

Figure 11 Distribution of Region's 1,072 Unsheltered Single Adults

Figure11.png

Comparison of Unsheltered Homeless Single Adults by Jurisdiction

Table 8 provides the breakdown of the number and percentage of unsheltered homeless single adults within each locality from 2011 to 2015. Four jurisdictions experienced an increase in their unsheltered populations during the four‐ year period: the District of Columbia (239), Frederick County (16), Prince  George’s County (11), and Loudoun County (9). Arlington County recorded the greatest percentage decrease in its unsheltered homeless population (72 percent), followed by Montgomery County (54  percent), Fairfax County (50 percent), the City of Alexandria (45 percent), and Prince William County (17 percent). Overall, the region’s percentage of unsheltered homeless single adults decreased by 4 percent from 2011 to 2015. Table 9 represents the percentage of each individual jurisdiction’s literally homeless population that was unsheltered between 2010 and 2014.

Table 8 Comparison of Unsheltered Single Adults by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015
Jurisdiction 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

 

Percent Change 2011 ‐ 2015

Alexandria

42

22

29

23

23

‐45%

Arlington County

137

131

146

51

39

‐72%

District of Columbia

305

679

512

396

544

78%

Fairfax County

135

178

104

66

68

‐50%

Frederick County

44

70

69

49

60

36%

Loudoun County

29

29

38

26

38

31%

Montgomery County

226

130

143

95

103

‐54%

Prince George's County

102

166

168

82

113

11%

Prince William County

101

89

110

98

84

‐17%

TOTAL

1,121

1,494

1,319

886

1,072

‐4%

It is important to note that although most individuals who are unsheltered are single adults, there were families with adults and children (9 households, or a total of 39 adults and children) as well as three Households with Only Children, for a total  of  seven  unaccompanied minors, counted on the night of the Point‐in‐Time enumeration on January 28th. Although the total numbers are small, this is the second year in a row that the region counted unsheltered homeless persons in families.

Photo credit: Elvert Barnes Photography, 2007.

Photo credit Elvert Barnes Photography, 2007.png

Table 9 Unsheltered Single Adults as a Percentage of Total Homeless by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015

 

Jurisdiction 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Percent Change 2011‐ 2015

City of Alexandria

10%

6%

11%

9%

9%

‐15%

Arlington County

30%

29%

31%

18%

16%

‐45%

District of Columbia

5%

10%

8%

5%

7%

59%

Fairfax County

9%

12%

8%

5%

6%

‐35%

Frederick County

16%

25%

25%

20%

19%

23%

Loudoun County

19%

18%

23%

15%

23%

22%

Montgomery County

20%

13%

14%

11%

9%

‐53%

Prince George's County

13%

26%

25%

13%

18%

37%

Prince William County

18%

19%

25%

22%

21%

15%

Chronic Homelessness

The nine CoCs in the region are working to reduce the region’s chronically homeless population. HUD defines an individual experiencing chronic homelessness as an unaccompanied adult with a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years. The definition of a chronically homeless family includes an adult member of a family who has a disabling condition and meets the same time period requirements as for an unaccompanied adult. Persons under the age of 18 are not counted as chronically homeless individuals, nor are other adults  in the family who do not meet the HUD definition. However, all members of the family household are counted as persons in a chronically homeless family.

Numerous studies 19 have found that  housing chronically homeless individuals helps these individuals lead a more stable and independent life,  can  achieve significant reductions in the overall homeless population and can help communities save taxpayers’ money, particularly for medical and other emergency services. One recent study, completed by the University of North Carolina at Charlotte in February 2014, found that an 85‐bed facility for chronically homeless individuals saved $1.8 million in health care costs, with 447  fewer emergency room visits (a 78 percent reduction) and 372 fewer days in the hospital (a 79 percent reduction) in its first year of operations. 20

Table 10 Chronically Homeless Single Adults by Jurisdiction, 2011-2015
Jurisdiction 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Change 2011 ‐ 2015

City of Alexandria

109

60

69

63

48

‐56%

Arlington County

154

175

156

74

68

‐56%

District of Columbia

2,093

1,870

1,764

1,60918

1,593

‐24%

Fairfax County

258

353

243

196

203

‐21%

Frederick County

88

95

58

90

89

1%

Loudoun County

22

18

28

20

20

‐9%

Montgomery County

344

199

222

176

156

‐55%

Prince George's County

134

102

73

47

34

‐75%

Prince William County

87

55

47

38

60

‐31%

All COG CoCs

3,289

2,927

2,660

2,313

2,271

‐31%

 

Chronically Homeless Single Adults Nineteen percent of the region’s homeless single adults are chronically homeless. The total represents a 2 percent decrease from last year and an 8 percent decrease since 2011. The decrease in chronically homeless single  adults may be attributable to permanent supportive housing placements, in particular, increased availability of HUD‐ VASH (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Veterans Administration Supportive  Housing) vouchers and other permanent housing options. Several of the region’s CoCs also attribute success in reducing the number of persons experiencing chronic homelessness to participation in the 100,000 Homes Campaign, which successfully met its goal to house 100,000 chronically homeless persons in June 2014. 21 Six of the nine jurisdictions experienced decreases in their chronically homeless single counts since 2014 and eight of nine experienced decreases between 2011 and 2015.  The  two jurisdictions with the greatest percent reductions since 2014 are Prince George’s County (28 percent) and the City of Alexandria (24 percent).

Table 11 provides the sheltered status breakdown of the chronically homeless single adults counted as part of the 2015 Point‐In‐Time Enumeration.  Most chronically homeless residents suffer from severe physical health and mental health‐ related impediments. Health impediments may include physical disabilities and substance use disorders. The problem is more acute when individuals suffer from multiple challenges. To provide appropriate services for a person experiencing chronic homelessness, jurisdictions and service providers must ensure that individuals are adequately screened and diagnosed. Additionally, in many cases, people need medical assistance and/or other regimented methods of care and counseling. People may not immediately respond to the care they receive, or their care may be required for the remainder of their lives. In such instances, proper case management services are essential.

Table 11 2015 Shelter Status of Chronically Homeless Single Adults

Jurisdiction Total Chronically Homeless Single Adults Number of Sheltered* Chronically Homeless Single Adults Number of Unsheltered Chronically Homeless Single Adults Percentage of Chronically Homeless Single Adults Who Are Unsheltered

City of Alexandria

48

32

16

33%

Arlington County

68

49

19

28%

District of Columbia

1,593

1,273

320

20%

Fairfax County

203

155

48

24%

Frederick County

89

38

51

57%

Loudoun County

20

5

15

75%

Montgomery County

156

107

49

31%

Prince George's County

34

17

17

50%

Prince William County

60

13

47

78%

All COG CoCs

2,259

1,689

582

26%

*Refers to chronically homeless persons residing in Emergency, Winter Shelters, and Safe Havens and excludes transitional housing.

Chronically Homeless Families

Most chronically homeless families across the region reside in emergency and/or winter shelters. There were 84 chronically homeless families (244 adults and children) counted in the region in 2015, including 66 families in the District of Columbia. Frederick County, Maryland was the only jurisdiction that did not count any chronically homeless families. None of  these families were unsheltered.

Photo credit: Elvert Barnes Photography, 2005

Photo credit  Elvert Barnes Photography, 2005.png

Subpopulations

According to the 2015 enumeration, a significant number of the region’s homeless population suffers from physical disabilities, substance use disorders, severe mental illness, or were formerly institutionalized and discharged directly into homelessness. The high incidence of substance use disorders, severe mental illness, or co‐ occurring disorders among the homeless population is similar among all CoCs in the region. Nationally, approximately 25 percent of the homeless population suffers from some form of severe mental illness. 22

During the 2015 enumeration, the two most prevalent characteristics among Households without Children were being formerly institutionalized or suffering from severe mental illness. A formerly institutionalized person may have been released from a treatment facility due to a mental or physical illness or was formerly incarcerated and released directly into homelessness. A possible solution for this problem is better discharge planning from institutions like correctional facilities and more housing options.

Among families, the most defining characteristic is an incidence of domestic violence, either as a contributing factor to the current episode of homelessness on the night of the enumeration, or having a history of domestic violence. Thirty percent of the families who responded in the subpopulation categories indicated having experienced domestic violence in the past, and 19 percent reported their current episode of homelessness was related to domestic violence. Beginning with the 2013 enumeration, HUD requested data on persons who had a history of domestic violence. In order to maintain base data for trend comparison, both elements are collected and are shown in the subpopulations for Figure 12. As expected, the number of persons with a history of domestic violence at any time (DV‐H) is much higher than the number for whom domestic violence is the reason for the current episode of homelessness (DV‐CE). Regionally, the number of single adults who were homeless as a result of a current episode of domestic violence (DV‐CE) increased 65 percent from 123 in 2014 to 203 in 2015, although it is still below the number recorded in 2012 of 317. However, the number of single adults (669) who were identified as having a history of domestic violence at any time (DV‐H) is more than three times the number of single adults whose current episode of homelessness  was caused by domestic violence.  There was a similar pattern for persons in families, though less pronounced. The numbers of persons in families whose current episode of homelessness was the result of domestic violence rose from 261 in 2014 to 1,101, a significant 322 percent increase, and a 47 percent increase from 2013. In the 2015 Enumeration, 1,726 persons in families  were identified as having a history of domestic violence at any time. In 2014, 593 persons in families reported having a history of domestic violence at any time, which represents an increase of 191  percent from 2014 to 2015, and a 16 percent increase from 2013 to 2015. Some jurisdictions have considered the possibility that the rise in the incidence of domestic violence may be attributed in part to increased awareness of the issue stemming from publicity and media campaigns that arose in response to several incidents of domestic violence involving professional athletes in the past year.

Figure 12 The Region's Homeless Subpopulations

Figure12.png

Homeless Veterans

Veterans are another subset of the homeless population tracked by HUD and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This is the second year that the region’s CoCs collected separate data on single adult homeless veterans as well as homeless veterans in families to better understand this subpopulation.

Nationally,  veterans represent approximately 9 percent of the homeless population. In contrast, the  percentage of veterans experiencing homelessness in the metropolitan Washington region is 5 percent in 2015, which is unchanged from 2014. Of the total 584 homeless veterans included in the 2015 enumeration, 68 were women (12 percent).  Figure 12 graphically represents this homeless population; veterans are broken out separately as individuals in Households without Children as well as Households with Adults and Children. Female veterans are a subset of the “All Veterans” category. Homeless veterans, like other homeless persons, have a high incidence of substance use disorders, severe mental illness, or co‐occurring disorders, as shown in Figure 13. The second most distinguishing characteristic  for homeless veterans without children was having a physical disability.

Figure 13 The Region's Veteran Subpopulations

Figure13.png

For those veterans who reported having income, 45 percent reported that employment was the primary source of income. The likelihood of having a disability is reflected in the veteran populations’ source of income; 34 percent of veterans with income noted SSVI/SSI/VA disability and retirement as their primary source of income, as shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14 Homeless Veteran Single Adults: Source of Income

Figure14.png

The majority of homeless veterans who reported their race selected Black or African‐American (65 percent of single adults and 85 percent of adults in families).  White veterans made up the  next largest group, with 22 percent of single veterans and 13 percent of adult veterans in families (Figures 15 and 16, following page).

Figure 15 Homeless Single Adult Veterans (Race)

Figure15.png

Figure 16 Homeless Adult Veterans in Families (Race)

Figure16.png

HUD and the VA, through the  VA’s Supportive Housing program (VASH) and Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF), have focused efforts to increase the supply of housing choice vouchers to put more homeless veterans into permanent housing. The VASH and SSVF programs are the only voucher programs that have been spared in recent federal budget cuts. For that reason, with a coordinated, concerted effort, there is an opportunity for the region’s CoCs to continue to make progress housing homeless veterans during 2015. A number of jurisdictions (Arlington County, the District of Columbia, and Montgomery County) have signed on to the Zero: 2016 campaign, pledging to end chronic and veterans’ homelessness by the end of 2016. Still others have signed onto the Mayor’s Challenge to End Veterans’ Homelessness (City of Alexandria, Fairfax  County, and the District of Columbia) by December 2015.

Table 12 on the following page demonstrates that during the period of 2010 to 2015, the region reduced the number of veterans experiencing homelessness by 19 percent. At the national level, veteran homelessness was reduced by 33 percent between 2010 and 2014.

Newer veterans’ programs, such as the Supportive Services for Veterans and Families (SSVF) and the VA’s Supportive Housing program (VASH), may have contributed to the region’s decrease in homeless veterans. Not all jurisdictions have access to these programs, however.

Table 12 Homeless Veterans by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Percent Change 2010 ‐ 2015

City of Alexandria

19

27

20

11

18

12

‐37%

Arlington County

17

29

24

14

21

19

12%

District of Columbia

512

515

531

499

408

408

‐20%

Fairfax County

66

55

60

67

51

46

‐30%

Frederick County

12

7

7

13

10

13

8%

Loudoun County

4

10

8

9

7

6

50%

Montgomery County

56

41

37

31

34

24

‐57%

Prince George's County

32

15

24

25

20*

34

6%

Prince William County

0

40

27

23

19

18

‐55%**

TOTAL

718

739

738

692

588

580

‐19%

*The total for Prince George's County was revised following the publication of the 2014 Point‐in‐Time enumeration results.  The corrected number is reflected above.

**Prince William County's percent change covers the period 2011‐2015, as there were zero homeless veterans counted there in 2010.

Transition Age Youth

For the first time in 2015, as required by HUD, the region’s CoCs collected demographic information on persons experiencing homelessness who are considered young adults, or Transition Age Youth (TAY). Transition Age Youth are between the ages of 18 and 24 and face a number of unique challenges on their path to a successful adulthood, including finding employment with health benefits, as they may have become too old for Medicaid or SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program).  Youth who may be “aging out”  of foster care (reaching age 18 without returning to their birth families or being adopted) or leaving juvenile detention facilities face significant challenges in finding affordable housing and employment as well. 23

At the national level, every year, approximately 24,000 youth age out of foster care and are expected to transition to independent living. Of those youth aging out, approximately one in five will experience homelessness. Further, at the national level, three in ten homeless adults have had experience in the foster care system. 24

In 2015, the region counted 1,539 persons who were between the ages of 18 and 24, representing 13 percent of the total literally homeless population and 21 percent of the total persons in homeless families. Persons who fit this age category were much more likely to be in families than single adults; 78 percent of all homeless persons in TAY households were in families.

Just as in other homeless families, 60 percent of persons in homeless TAY families are children.

Single adult TAYs have two subpopulation characteristics that distinguish them from the other single homeless adults: they are more likely to have been institutionalized and have a history of foster care (Figure 17). Similar to the larger adult single homeless population, they were also likely to suffer from severe mental illness and to have experienced domestic violence in their past.

Figure 17 Homeless Young Adult/Transition Age Youth: Source of Income

Figure17.png

Homeless persons in TAY families were  most likely to have experienced domestic violence in the past (at a rate of nearly  three times those of single adult TAYs), followed by having an episode of domestic violence which led to their current experience of homelessness on the night of the count. They were slightly less likely than single adult TAYs to have a history of foster care. This is shown in Figure 18 (following page).

Figure 18 Transition Age Youth Subpopulations

Figure18.png

Table 13 Homeless Transition Age Youth (TAY) by Jurisdiction 2015
Jurisdiction Single Adults (TAY) Persons in   Families (TAY) Total (TAY)

City of Alexandria

6

27

33

Arlington County

5

18

23

District of Columbia

193

910

1,103

Fairfax County

52

67

119

Frederick County

18

4

22

Loudoun County

7

9

16

Montgomery County

27

87

114

Prince George's County

15

45

60

Prince William County

20

29

49

TOTAL

343

1,196

1,539

 

Transition Age Youth, or young adults, who report having income were most likely (40 percent) to report their primary source of income was from employment. However, perhaps reflecting their young age, they were nearly as likely (37 percent) to be receiving some form of public assistance, such as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy  Families). Similarly, none of the adult TAYs reported receiving income from retirement. Ten percent of those who responded reported disability funds as their primary source  of  income, with the remaining 13 percent as “other”.

Reflecting the same characteristics as the larger homeless population, the majority of single TAY adults who reported their race selected Black or African‐American (73 percent) as well as adults in TAY families (94 percent). White Transition Age Youth made up the next largest group, with 22 percent of single adult TAYs and 5 percent of adult TAYs in families, as shown in Figures 19 and 20.

Figure 19 Single Young Adult/ Transition Age and 20 Young Adult/Transition Age Youth in Families (Race)

Figure19and20.png

Continua of Care in the Metropolitan Washington Region

The metropolitan Washington region’s inventory of facilities to shelter those residents experiencing homelessness and house the formerly homeless has moved well beyond the 1980s model which primarily focused on emergency shelters. The current multi‐faceted Continuum of Care (CoC) model focuses heavily on providing permanent housing solutions while continuing to provide emergency shelter. The model for assisting persons experiencing homelessness has changed in part due to the recognition that it is difficult to adequately address the systemic and personal problems many homeless people have with the emergency shelter‐based model. Emergency shelters cannot provide the intensive longer‐term assistance many people experiencing homelessness need in order to become more self‐sufficient. Housing models such as transitional, rapid re‐housing, and permanent supportive housing programs can provide this assistance.

Table 14 provides the region’s 2015 distribution of emergency, winter, transitional, safe haven, rapid re‐housing, and permanent supportive housing beds for homeless individuals, unaccompanied minors, and families. These facilities were available in the winter months during the Point‐In‐Time enumeration and during the year’s warmer months from April to October.

Between 2011 and 2015, the region added 706 permanent supportive housing beds to its year‐round facility inventory. This represents a smaller increase over the prior four year period, in part because for the first time in 2014, the regional inventory included rapid re‐housing beds.  Some  of the beds previously classified as permanent supportive housing are now classified as rapid re‐housing. The region added 1,039 rapid re‐housing beds in 2015, bringing the total inventory of permanent supportive housing and rapid re‐housing beds to 12,512. This represents an increase of 54 percent from 2011 when the  region counted a total of 8,125 permanent supportive housing beds. The region’s increased supply of permanent supportive housing and rapid re‐housing beds is consistent with the national initiative to use a Housing First 25 model. Persons in rapid re‐housing and permanent supportive housing are no longer considered homeless; they are counted as formerly homeless persons. The region recorded 1,726 winter/ hypothermia beds in 2015, a decrease of 22 percent since 2011.

The region continued to lose transitional beds from 2011 through 2015. During this period, the region provided 1,187 fewer beds, or a 31 percent decrease. The reduction in transitional housing beds is due to several factors. One main factor is a resource reallocation to focus  on prevention and permanent supportive housing. An additional factor is the high operating costs for transitional beds. Each year, operating costs increase. As funding  to support transitional housing declines, the region’s jurisdictions are faced with the need to eliminate beds as a result. In  several jurisdictions some transitional housing units have been converted to  better meet the identified individual CoC needs, such as providing more rapid re‐ housing (Arlington County) or permanent supportive housing (Fairfax County). Overall, the reduction in transitional  housing beds reflects a change in approach that emphasizes permanent housing solutions.

The percentage distribution of the region’s homeless bed/facility type remains relatively unchanged  from  2011. Permanent supportive housing beds in 2015 comprise 36 percent of the region’s inventory serving homeless and formerly homeless households. This represents a decrease of three percent since 2014. This is primarily attributable to the fact that in previous years, rapid re‐housing placements were included in the permanent supportive housing count. In 2014, these categories were broken out, resulting in a slight decrease in the number of reported permanent supportive housing beds.

Transitional housing beds comprised 15 percent of the region’s homeless beds, which remains unchanged from last year. The distribution of emergency and winter shelter beds decreased by two percent last year, from 35 percent to 33 percent. The region currently has a total of 24,270 beds for its residents experiencing homelessness across each of the facility categories; this number has increased by 4,207 beds since 2011. Table 14 on the following page represents this regional resource.

Photo credit: Fairfax County & New Hope Housing

Photo credit Fairfax County & New Hope Housing.png

Table 14 2015 Winter and Year Round Inventory of Beds in the Washington Region

Type Year Beds for Singles Beds for Unaccom panied Youth Beds for Persons in   Families All Beds: Winter Percent Distribution in Winter All Beds: Warm Months Percent Distribution in Warm Months
Winter Beds 2015

1,476

0

250

1,726

7%

 

 

2014

1,671

0

1,636

3,307

14%

   

2013

1,371

0

284

1,655

8%

   

2012

1,387

0

737

2,124

11%

   

2011

1,557

0

663

2,220

11%

   

 

Emergency Shelter Beds

2015

2,727

30

3,552

6,309

26%

6,309

28%

2014

2,772

19

2,344

5,135

21%

5,135

25%

2013

2,783

6

2,354

5,143

24%

5,143

26%

2012

2,777

16

1,676

4,469

22%

4,469

25%

2011

2,941

22

1,343

4,306

21%

4,306

26%

 

Transitional Housing Beds

2015

1,249

0

2,418

3,667

15%

3,667

16%

2014

1,311

0

2,416

3,727

15%

3,727

21%

2013

1,392

2

3,269

4,663

22%

4,663

23%

2012

1,541

13

2,775

4,329

22%

4,329

24%

2011

1,738

4

3,605

5,347

27%

5,347

32%

 

 

Safe Haven

2015

56

0

n/a

56

0.2%

56

0.2%

2014

66

0

n/a

66

0.3%

66

0.4%

2013

66

0

n/a

66

0.3%

66

0.3%

2012

64

0

n/a

64

0.3%

65

0.4%

2011

65

0

n/a

65

0.3%

65

0.4%

Permanent Supportive Housing Beds

2015

4,442

0

4,389

8,831

36%

8,831

39%

2014

5,020

0

4,408

9,428

39%

9,428

53%

2013

4,867

0

5,138

10,005

46%

10,005

50%

2012

4,448

0

4,512

8,960

45%

8,960

50%

2011

4,507

6

3,612

8,125

40%

8,125

49%

 

Rapid Re‐ Housing Beds

2015

328

0

3,353

3,681

15%

3,681

16%

2014

127

0

2,515

2,642

11%

2,642

15%

2013

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2012

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2011

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

 

 

TOTALS

2015

10,288

30

13,962

24,270

 

22,554

 

2014

10,840

29

10,804

24,305

 

17,822

 

2013

10,477

8

11,045

21,532

 

19,876

 

2012

10,388

n/a

9,626

19,946

 

17,758

 

2011

10,808

n/a

9,223

20,063

 

16,610

 
Percent Change Since 2011   ‐5% n/a 51% 21%   36%  

Permanent Supportive Housing-The Formerly Homeless

Homeless service providers and  government housing officials are often asked, “How many people are now housed who were once homeless?” The question was harder to answer when governments followed the emergency shelter model of the 1980s. Under this model, chronically homeless people comprised the majority of homeless people and were less likely to receive permanent housing.

Table 15 Formerly Homeless People in Permanent Supportive Housing All COG CoCs

Year Households Without Children Households with Adults and Children Total

2015

4,287

4,300

8,587

2014

4,835

4,296

9,131

2013

4,488

5,029

9,517

2012

4,240

4,417

8,657

2011

4,244

3,458

7,702

Percent Change since 2011 1.0% 24.3% 11.5%

 

Housing First is an alternative model to the emergency shelter or transitional housing model. A core principle of the Housing First model is that the most vulnerable homeless are more responsive to interventions and social services support after they are in their own housing, rather than while living in temporary or transitional housing facilities. Under a Housing First model, homeless individuals and families at risk of homelessness can obtain the confidence and skills to manage challenges and control their lives.

The ultimate goal of the metropolitan Washington region’s homeless Continua of Care is to move people out of homelessness into a level of independent living. Permanent supportive housing provides formerly homeless residents with much needed wrap‐around services to assist them in their efforts to live as independently as possible. Some of these services may include substance abuse counseling, life skills training, health care, mental health services, and job training. Many of these crucial supportive services and housing subsidies are provided by the region’s CoCs, comprised of local governments, nonprofits, and other human services agencies. Table 15 provides information on the region’s formerly homeless residents living in permanent supportive housing.

According to the 2015 enumeration, there are 8,587 formerly homeless people currently residing in permanent supportive housing; this represents a decrease of 544 people (6 percent) from 2014. This may be attributable in part to the fact that persons in permanent supportive housing and rapid re‐housing programs were counted together prior to 2014. Table 15 cites the region’s number of formerly homeless living in permanent supportive housing.

Between 2011 and 2015, the metropolitan Washington region’s supply of permanent supportive housing beds increased by 11.5 percent or 885 beds. The region currently has 8,831 permanent supportive housing beds, representing 37 percent of the region’s total bed inventory (see Figure 21).

Figure 21 Regional Distribution of Beds by Facilities/Type

Figure21.png

According to Figure 21, 33 percent of the region’s distribution of beds is for winter and emergency shelter. This remains similar to the previous two years. A new bed category in 2014, Rapid re‐housing accounts for 15 percent of the region’s inventory. Transitional housing comprises 15 percent of the region’s bed inventory; this figure remained unchanged from last year.

The District of Columbia’s 5,680 permanent supportive housing beds represent 64 percent of the region’s total number of permanent supportive housing beds, which is a two percent decrease from last year. As described previously, this is due to the way in which permanent housing was counted in in prior years. In 2013, permanent supportive housing and rapid re‐housing beds were counted together. In 2014, when the permanent supportive housing and rapid re‐housing beds were counted separately, the permanent supportive housing bed count declined slightly. This trend continues in 2015 as well.

Montgomery County has 22 percent of the region’s permanent supportive housing beds at 1,931 beds, an increase of two percent from last year. This increase supports the County’s commitment to its Housing First Initiative which gives priority to the continued creation of more permanent supportive housing.

Figure 22 (following page) compares the literally homeless and formerly homeless populations from 2011 through 2015. The totals of literally and formerly homeless adults are mutually exclusive and should not be combined. The data for formerly homeless for 2014 and 2015 reflect not only persons in permanent supportive housing, but other forms of permanent housing such as rapid re‐housing and other permanent housing. According to HUD, formerly homeless people living in permanent housing are not counted as part of the literally homeless that live on the streets, in emergency shelter, or in transitional programs. By definition, the formerly homeless includes people presently living in permanent housing following a period of living on the street or in emergency or transitional shelter.

Figure 22 Permanent Housing Solutions for Formerly Homeless Single Adults: 2014-2015

Figure22.png

In the past four years, there has been a significant increase in the region’s formerly homeless population living in permanent supportive housing. In 2015, despite the challenging budget environment, there were 8,587 formerly homeless persons living in permanent supportive housing.

Beginning in 2014, the nine participating Continua of Care gathered data on other permanent housing options in addition to permanent supportive housing. Other permanent housing options include rapid re‐housing, which primarily serves homeless families, and other supportive housing options. When the definition of permanent housing is expanded beyond permanent supportive housing to include rapid re‐housing and other permanent housing, the total number of beds in the region increases from 8,831 to 15,003 and the total number of persons placed in permanent housing solutions increases from 8,587 to 14,262. This represents an additional 6,172 beds and an additional 5,675 formerly homeless persons. The differences in the use of permanent supportive housing and other permanent housing strategies are represented graphically by Figures 22 and 23.

Figure 23 Permanent Housing Solutions for formerly Homeless Families: 2014-2015

Figure23.png

As mentioned previously, it is important to note that the Point‐in‐Time count is only a one‐day snapshot of the homeless population in the metropolitan Washington region.

Although the number of literally homeless has remained stable for the past four years, people become homeless every day and this number is fluid. The lingering effects from the great recession in 2009 continue to negatively impact employable homeless households and the stagnant or declining growth in wages for lower‐skilled jobs remains a critical obstacle to ending homelessness. The region’s focus on preventing homelessness, rapidly re‐housing those residents who do experience homelessness, and creating more permanent supportive housing has constrained the number of literally homeless and prevented it from growing unchecked.

Figure 24 Region's Literally and Formerly Homeless in Permanent Supportive Hosuing, Rapid Re-Housing & Other Permanent Housing

Figure24.png

*Note: data for 2014 and 2015 includes rapid re‐housing and other permanent housing placements. Data collected prior to 2014 includes permanent supportive housing only.

Conclusions and Recommendations

As of January 28, 2015, 11,623 people throughout the metropolitan Washington region were homeless. This represents a slight decrease of 2.7 percent over last year’s count of 11,946 homeless people. Six jurisdictions experienced a decline in their homeless populations in 2015 on the night of the count. The decreased homeless  count may be attributed in part to the continued use of local and federal dollars to prevent homelessness, to rapidly re‐house persons who become homeless, and to provide permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless individuals and others with disabling conditions. These proven  best practices, in use throughout the metropolitan Washington region, have kept the homeless population from growing unchecked during a time of rapid population growth and increasing housing prices. In fact, what may be more  significant than the 2.7 percent reduction in the regional homeless population is the fact that over 14,000 formerly homeless people were residing in some form of permanent housing on the night of the count in 2015.

Our region faces significant challenges in its efforts to end homelessness. Several of these key challenges include high rents that continue to climb and make it very difficult for extremely low income households to find or maintain housing that they can afford, 26 and wages that have not increased to keep pace with the rising cost of housing, particularly for less‐educated workers. 27  In addition, the region’s declining supply of affordable housing continues to expand the gap between the options available for the lowest‐income households and the increasing need.

To address these challenges, and others,  the Homeless Services Planning and Coordinating Committee recommends that each jurisdiction continues its efforts to reach out, assess, and house unsheltered homeless people. The region’s CoCs have in place, or are developing, systems to rapidly re‐house homeless people from emergency shelters into appropriate permanent housing.

Emergency shelters do not provide the intensive longer‐term assistance many chronically homeless persons need in order to become more self‐sufficient. As a result, CoCs in the region are increasingly focusing on permanent supportive housing while continuing to provide emergency shelter. As reflected in this year’s report, since 2011, 6,560 additional formerly homeless persons were placed in some form of permanent housing. The Committee recommends that each of the region’s CoC jurisdictions continuously increase its permanent supportive housing inventory. The provision of supportive wrap‐around services as part of this approach helps homeless people become more confident and independent once their challenges are diagnosed and addressed.

Permanent supportive housing is one solution to ending homelessness that is particularly effective for individuals who suffer from chronic homelessness. However, most individuals in emergency shelter do not require the high level of care associated with permanent supportive housing. The greatest need in the metropolitan Washington region is housing that is affordable to the lowest‐income households, combined with a subsidy to be able to support the housing costs in this region and remain independently housed  for the long‐term. Rapid re‐housing is a newer approach in our region to ending homelessness for families facing a short‐ term economic crisis. However, without adequate affordable housing options, we will not be successful in assisting these families achieve self‐sufficiency and preventing a future return to homelessness. As such, affordable housing for all income levels, including subsidized housing targeted for extremely low income households, must be available across the region in order for the metropolitan Washington region to realistically reduce and eliminate homelessness. Resources from the local, state and federal level should be maximized in order to achieve an end to homelessness.

In addition to sharing approaches to ending homelessness through prevention, Rapid Re‐housing and providing additional permanent supportive housing, a number of the region’s CoCs participated in the 100,000 Homes Campaign. The 100,000 Homes Campaign worked to  find permanent homes for 100,000 of the country’s most vulnerable homeless individuals  and  families  and  achieved its goal in June of 2014. 28  The Campaign’s approach embraces a Housing First model, and has developed a methodology to prioritize who to house according to who is most vulnerable. Arlington County, the District of Columbia, Fairfax County, Montgomery County, Prince  William County, and Frederick County were members of the 100,000 Homes Campaign. Prince George’s County joined in late April 2014. Several of the region’s CoCs have also signed on to the Zero: 2016 Campaign, the successor to the 100,000 Homes Campaign. Its goal is to end veterans and chronic homelessness by the end of 2016. Several have signed the HUD Mayor’s Challenge to end homelessness for veterans by the end of 2015 (City of Alexandria, District of Columbia, and Fairfax County). These are only two of several initiatives undertaken by the region’s CoCs to prevent and end homelessness throughout the year.

While the provision of housing is the most important element of the solution to ending homelessness, the importance of jobs that pay wages high enough to allow individuals and families to be financially stable and remain housed for the long‐term cannot be overstated. Jurisdictions should continue to provide job training opportunities to lower‐skilled and low‐wage workers, and partner with employers to create ladders of opportunity to careers with higher‐ paying jobs.

In conclusion, the nine jurisdictions comprising COG’s Continuum of Care worked hard to decrease the region’s homeless rate over the past year. For the past several years, the CoCs implemented HUD’s Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re‐ housing Program to provide homelessness prevention assistance to households who would otherwise become homeless – many due to the economic crisis – and to provide assistance to rapidly re‐house persons who did become homeless. In past years, the federal government’s stimulus funds were a critical support to the region’s efforts to provide more permanent housing and supportive services to its homeless population and to prevent homelessness. The HUD Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) will provide the region’s CoCs with additional resources to reduce and eliminate homelessness throughout the metropolitan Washington region. The ESG program can be used to support homelessness prevention and rapid re‐ housing, enabling jurisdictions to continue successful programs initiated with the HPRP (Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re‐ Housing Program) stimulus funding. However, funding challenges at the federal level have the potential to stall gains seen in providing housing to homeless persons during the past five years.

Despite these challenges, member local jurisdictions’ Housing First models and emergency rental assistance programs have proven successful and the region must continue these best practice efforts in order to realize the goal to provide permanent, affordable homes for all of its residents and end homelessness, rather than merely managing it through the provision of emergency shelter.

Photo credit: Paul DesJardin, MWCOG, Point‐in‐Time count 2015

Photo credit Paul DesJardin, MWCOG, Point‐in‐Time count 2015.png

Table 16 Living Unsheltered, in Winter Beds, in Emergency Shelter, In Safe Havens, or in Transitional Housing

Jurisdiction Year Single Persons Unaccompanied Youth Persons in   Families All Persons

Alexandria

2015

159

0

108

267

 

2014

179

0

88

267

 

2013

185

0

90

275

 

2012

213

0

139

352

 

2011

264

0

152

416

2011‐2015 Percent Change

 

‐39.8%

N/A

‐28.9%

‐35.8%

Arlington County

2015

164

0

75

239

 

2014

178

0

113

291

 

2013

266

2

211

479

 

2012

263

0

188

451

 

2011

268

0

193

461

2011‐2015 Percent Change

 

‐38.8%

N/A

‐61.1%

‐48.2%

District of Columbia

2015

3,814

7

3,477

7,298

 

2014

3,948

5

3,795

7,748

 

2013

3,690

6

3,169

6,865

 

2012

3,754

13

3,187

6,954

 

2011

3,832

26

2,688

6,546

2011‐2015 Percent Change

 

‐0.5%

N/A

29.4%

11.5%

Fairfax County

2015

488

1

715

1,204

 

2014

530

0

695

1,225

 

2013

603

0

747

1,350

 

2012

696

1

837

1,534

 

2011

666

0

883

1,549

2011‐2015 Percent Change

 

‐26.7%

N/A

‐19.0%

‐22.3%

Frederick County

2015

181

0

130

311

 

2014

141

0

105

246

 

2013

171

0

104

275

 

2012

169

0

116

285

 

2011

169

0

111

280

2011‐2015 Percent Change

 

7.1%

N/A

17.1%

11.1%

Loudoun County

2015

80

0

88

168

 

2014

77

0

102

179

 

2013

81

0

85

166

 

2012

69

0

95

164

 

2011

86

0

70

156

2011‐2015 Percent Change

 

‐7.0%

N/A

25.7%

7.7%

Montgomery County

2015

598

0

502

1,100

 

2014

603

0

288

891

 

2013

638

0

366

1,004

 

2012

600

1

381

982

 

2011

761

0

374

1,135

2011‐2015 Percent Change

 

‐21.4%

N/A

34.2%

‐3.1%

Prince George's County

2015

260

8

359

627

 

2014

209

4

441

654

 

2013

298

18

370

686

 

2012

279

0

362

641

 

2011

429

0

344

773

2011‐2015 Percent Change

 

‐39.4%

N/A

4.4%

‐18.9%

Prince William County

2015

185

0

224

409

 

2014

192

0

253

445

 

2013

183

1

263

447

 

2012

161

0

306

467

 

2011

175

0

500

675

2011‐2015 Percent Change

 

5.7%

N/A

‐55.2%

‐39.4%

MWCOG Region

2015

5,929

16

5,678

11,623

 

2014

6,057

9

5,880

11,946

 

2013

6,115

27

5,405

11,547

 

2012

6,204

15

5,611

11,830

 

2011

6,650

26

5,206

11,882

2011‐2015 Percent Change

 

‐10.8%

N/A

9.1%

‐2.2%

References

My Note: There are problems with these references in both the PDF and Word versions of the document.

1

https://www.onecpd.info/resource/3031/pit‐and‐hic‐data‐since‐2007/ My Note: Could not be found

2

For much of the year following Point in Time 2014, the daily occupancy of shelter and housing programs in the District of Columbia were lower than the occupancy on the same day in the previous year (as was the case on PIT 2015). This was largely due to households moving from the shelter system and into permanent housing resources. While the CoC continues to see more new households enter the system, the increased rate of exit, particularly for many long‐staying persons and families, kept year‐to‐ year counts lower in FY2015 for most of the winter. (See District of Columbia Jurisdictional Narrative in the appendix of this report for additional information).

3

The Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness, Homelessness in the District of Columbia, The 2014 Point in Time Enumeration: http://www.community‐partnership.org/facts‐and‐figures My Note: Could not be found

4

http://www.dcfpi.org/disappearing‐act‐affordable‐housing‐in‐dc‐is‐vanishing‐amid‐sharply‐rising‐housing‐costs  My Note: Could not be found

5

http://www.urban.org/research/publication/housing‐security‐washington‐region/view/full_report My Note: Could not be found

7

http://www.urban.org/research/publication/housing‐security‐washington‐region/view/full_report My Note: Could not be found


8

National Center for Homeless Education, http://center.serve.org/nche/briefs.php, Domestic Violence, Homelessness, and Children’s Education.Page 1.

10

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data‐mine/2014/09/23/there‐are‐more‐homeless‐students‐now‐than‐ever‐before My Note: Could not be found

11

http://findyouthinfo.gov/youth‐topics/runaway‐and‐ homeless‐youth/federal‐definitions#_ftn My Note: Could not be found

12

The Urban Institute, Youth Count! Process Study: 10.

13

http://www.healthycal.org/archives/11079 My Note: Could not be found

15

The Commonwealth Institute, DC Fiscal Policy Institute and Maryland Center on Economic Policy, Bursting the Bubble, The Challenges of Working and Living in the National Capital Region: 5.

18

The count of chronically homeless persons in the District of Columbia was corrected following the publication of the 2014 Point‐in‐Time enumeration results. The revised number is published above in Table 10.

19

http://www.endhomelessness.org/libra...try/supportive‐housing‐is‐cost‐effective My Note: Could not be found

and

http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/housing‐homeless‐mentally‐ill‐pays‐itself‐according‐university‐pennsylvania My Note: Could not be found

20

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/housing‐ first‐homeless‐charlotte_n_5022628.html My Note: Could not be found

and

http://inside.uncc.edu/news/item/chhs‐study‐demonstrates‐housing‐program‐helps‐save‐lives‐money My Note: Could not be found

25

Housing First is an approach to solving homelessness that emphasizes providing housing first, and making use of clinical services optional. This strategy has proven successful in stabilizing persons experiencing homelessness, lowering returns to homelessness, and reducing the use of crisis services. For more information:

http://usich.gov/usich_resources/fac...using_first_in My Note: Could not be found

and

http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/what‐is‐housing‐first My Note: Could not be found

26

http://www.urban.org/research/publication/housing‐security‐washington‐region/view/full_report, p. 5 My Note: Could not be found

Appendix: Homelessness Enumeration Narrative Reports

Alexandria, VA

Description of Homeless Services

The Partnership to Prevent and End Homelessness in the City of Alexandria (The Partnership) is made up of public and private non‐profit homeless, housing, and mainstream service providers, faith‐based and educational institutions, advocates, former homeless consumers, and other community stakeholders and serves as the homeless services Continuum of Care (CoC). The Partnership develops and implements the strategic plan and coordinates and oversees the delivery of prevention and homeless services to persons experiencing or at‐risk of  homelessness in the City of Alexandria.

The Housing Crisis Response System is the CoC’s centralized and coordinated approach to addressing the needs of persons experiencing or at‐risk of homelessness in the City of Alexandria. The comprehensive screening and assessment process ensures that all households seeking shelter are screened for diversion services, creating an opportunity to address the housing crisis with targeted assistance while averting unnecessary entry into the shelter  system.   Intended outcomes include 1) a reduction in the number of first‐time shelter entries, the prevention of reoccurring episodes of homelessness, and 3) shortened lengths of homelessness.

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA HOUSING CRISIS RESPONSE SYSTEM SERVICE COMPONENTS

 

 

COMPONENTS

 

DESCRIPTION

 

Outreach

Progressive engagement, mental health and substance abuse services, case management, and limited housing‐related services for persons experiencing serious mental illnesses—including those with co‐occurring substance use disorders—who are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of becoming homeless.

 

Day Shelter

Facility to meet the basic needs of chronically homeless individuals including showers, laundry, lockers, phone and voicemail services, mailing address, case management, outreach, and linkage and referral to community resources.

Homeless Services Assessment

Centers

Assistance for persons experiencing or at‐risk of homelessness to determine the best immediate next step to effectively address the housing crisis. Services include screening for diversion services or emergency shelter as appropriate, basic needs assessment, and mainstream and community resource linkages and referrals.

 

Diversion & Prevention

Temporary support to persons at‐risk of homelessness including case management, housing counseling, linkage to mainstream resources, landlord‐tenant mediation, job search assistance and employment services, budgeting/financial management, and financial assistance.

Emergency

Shelter

Temporary lodging and supportive services for homeless individuals and families.

 

Domestic Violence Program

Crisis intervention and supportive counseling services to victims of domestic and sexual violence. Services include temporary accommodations, 24‐hour hotline, individual counseling, support groups, and court and medical facility accompaniment.

Rapid Re‐housing

Temporary supportive services and limited financial assistance to aid persons experiencing homelessness to quickly return to and remain in permanent housing.

Winter Shelter

Seasonal shelter from November 1 to April 15 to protect persons experiencing homelessness from exposure‐related conditions such as hypothermia and frostbite during cold weather months.

Safe Haven

Supportive housing for hard‐to‐reach homeless individuals with serious mental illness who have been unable or unwilling to participate in housing or supportive services.

Transitional

Housing

Extended supportive housing targeting homeless individuals and families needing additional assistance to facilitate a move to permanent housing.

Permanent Supportive Housing

Permanent housing with supportive services including barrier‐free units for individuals designed to allow formerly homeless adults with children and individuals with serious mental illness to live in the community as independently as possible.

Permanent Housing Resources

Public housing units with and without supportive services; private income‐based apartment units; Housing Choice voucher‐subsidies; as well as rent relief subsidy for seniors and the disabled.

 

Combined, the two emergency shelters provided a total of 124 year‐round beds (80 for households without children and 44 for households with adults and children). We attribute a consistent underutilization resulting in the 15 percent (21‐bed) reduction to a combination of 1) efficiencies in preventing homelessness, diverting shelter entry and rapidly rehousing homeless persons; and 2) the increase in permanent supportive housing beds to serve the chronically homeless. There is a plan to reallocate 9 of the 21 beds to provide additional permanent support housing for singles.

The Domestic Violence Program shelter increased its inventory of undesignated year‐round beds from 17 to 21 in response to the heightened need of persons in imminent danger of domestic or sexual violence. At the time of the 2015 enumeration, it also utilized two overflow beds to accommodate a large family of eight.

From November 1 to April 15, an additional 67 undesignated beds were provided through Winter Shelter to protect persons experiencing homelessness from exposure‐related conditions such as hypothermia and frostbite during cold weather months.

Combined, the transitional housing inventory consisted of 84 beds (22 for households without children and 62 for households with adults and children). Four of eight beds for single women that were taken offline in 2013 and intended to remain offline temporarily for renovation were yet unavailable as of the night of the 2015 enumeration due to a delay in the provider’s building renovation project.

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA CONTINUUM OF CARE HOMELESS SERVICES UNIT & BED INVENTORY

 

 

INVENTORY TYPE

Units for Households with Adults & Children

Beds for Households with Adults & Children

Beds for Households without Children

Year‐Round Beds

Winter Shelter

19*

48*

Emergency Shelter

44

83+

124

Domestic Violence Program Shelter

20^

3

21

Transitional Housing

20

62

22

84

Safe Haven

12

12

TOTAL

20

145

168

241

− Not Applicable

* These numbers represent a combined total of 67 undesignated cold weather seasonal beds to serve households without children and those with adults and children. Designations are made each year based upon average occupancy during the Winter Shelter season.

⁺Three beds, which are not reflected in the year‐round bed total, represent motel vouchers used to shelter three convicted sex‐offenders who for safety reasons could not be housed in emergency shelter.

^This includes 2 overflow beds that were added to accommodate an 8‐person household.

‡This number includes operating capacity, which is determined by family size for occupied units, as well as maximum capacity for vacant units.

Significant Accomplishments Since the 2014 Winter Enumeration

RIGHTSIZING THE HOUSING CRISIS RESPONSE SYSTEM

The City of Alexandria has combined the Homeless Services Assessment Centers (HSAC) for families and singles under one roof. All households seeking shelter in the City of Alexandria are able to request assistance and an assessment at a centralized location. HSAC utilizes standardized assessment tools including the Vulnerability Index‐Service Prioritization and Decision Assistance Tool (VI‐SPDAT) for singles to efficiently determine household needs and effectively provide assistance through diversion services, homeless prevention services, and as  a last resort, emergency shelter.

PLAN TO END VETERAN HOMELESS

The City of Alexandria is working diligently to meet the goal of ending veteran homelessness in our community by 2016.  In an effort to develop the most comprehensive plan possible, the  CoC has developed and expanded partnerships with several veteran service providers including SSVF providers, the Veterans Administration, and the local housing authority. Targeted efforts have been made in quickly placing identified veterans experiencing or at‐risk of homelessness into stable permanent housing. In partnership with the Alexandria Redevelopment  and  Housing Authority, we successfully housed four veterans using set‐aside Housing Choice vouchers. Our homeless shelter providers have successfully assisted five additional veterans using VASH vouchers and SSVF Rapid Re‐housing assistance. Since the 2014 enumeration, 56 percent of homeless veteran households in the City of Alexandria have ‘made it home’ to permanent housing.

2014 ANNUAL HOMELESS ASSESSMENT REPORT TO CONGRESS (AHAR)

The City of Alexandria successfully contributed data in all possible categories to  the  2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report and the 2014 Veterans Annual Homeless Assessment Report. Each report consisted of the following six categories plus report summaries: 1) Emergency Shelters for Families; 2) Emergency Shelters for Individuals; 3) Transitional Housing for Families; 4) Transitional Housing for Individuals; 5) Permanent Supportive Housing for Families; and 6) Permanent Supportive Housing for Individuals.

The AHAR pulls data directly from HMIS for the October 1 to September 30 reporting year using universal as well as program specific data elements to provide Congress information on the number of persons experiencing homelessness on a single night (at several points‐in‐time); a descriptive analysis of characteristics and service use patterns; nationwide trends in homelessness; and the size and use of the housing inventory of residential programs for homeless persons. This is significant since only CoCs with adequate data quality are eligible to participate. HUD strongly encourages data contributions to the AHAR, considering participation a benchmark of a high‐quality HMIS implementation.

Homless Point-In-Time Results

The Partnership conducted the 2015 Winter Point‐in‐Time count by collecting data through the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) as well as manual surveys completed by homeless services program staff (i.e., outreach, day, winter and emergency shelter, transitional housing, and safe haven). A manual count of unsheltered homeless persons was conducted under the leadership of the Alexandria Community Services Board Homeless Services/PATH Coordinator. Reflected below are the demographic and sub‐population comparisons of the 2013, 2014, and 2015 enumerations.

HOMELESS COUNT BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE

A total of 267 persons experiencing homelessness were identified, the same number as 2014 and a 3 percent decrease from 2013. There were no households with only children identified in the 2015 count. There were 159 households without children, an 11 percent decrease from 2014 and a 14percent decrease from 2013. There were 111 single men, a 13 percent decrease from 128 in 2014 and an 18 percent decrease from 135 in 2013.  There were 48 single women,  a 6percent decrease from 51 in 2014, and a 4 percent decrease from 50 in 2013. We attribute the decrease in large part to our increase of permanent supportive housing beds as well as improved screenings at the Homeless Services Assessment Center (HSAC) to more efficiently and effectively assess the needs of persons seeking shelter and best utilize community resources by offering diversion services to reduce the number of households entering the shelter system.

On the night of the count 34 households with adults and children were literally homeless, a 6 percent increase from 2014 and a 3 percent increase from 2013. The number of persons in families rose considerably to 108 from 88 in 2014, a 23 percent increase and from 90 in 2013. The number of adults increased by 3 percent from 36 in 2014 to 37 and decreased by 3 percent

from 38 in 2013. The number of children increased by a significant 37 percent from 52 in 2013 and 2014 to 71 in 2015 as a result of larger family sizes. We attribute the increase, which was observed in the emergency and Domestic Violence Program shelters, in part to the recent publicity and media campaigns in response to several incidents of domestic violence involving professional athletes.

TOTAL COUNT AND BREAKOUT BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE

 

PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS

2013

2014

2015

% Change 2013 ‐ 2014

% Change 2014 ‐ 2015

Total Persons

275

267

267

‐3%

0%

HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS

2013

2014

2015

% Change 2013 ‐ 2014

% Change 2014 ‐ 2015

HOUSEHOLDS  WITHOUT CHILDREN

Men

135

73%

128

72%

111

70%

‐5%

‐13%

Women

50

27%

51

28%

48

30%

2%

‐6%

Total Households

185

179

159

‐3%

‐11%

HOUSEHOLDS WITH ADULTS &  CHILDREN

Total Households

33

32

34

‐3%

6%

Single  Parent Households

31

94%

30

94%

33

97%

‐3%

10%

Adults

38

36

37

‐5%

3%

Children

52

52

71

0%

37%

Total Persons in Households

90

88

108

‐2%

23%

 

Eighty‐six percent of households without children were sheltered, while 14 percent were unsheltered on the street or in places unfit for human habitation. The number of unsheltered households without children was unchanged at 23 for 2014 and 2015, a decrease of 21 percent from 29 in 2013. One hundred percent of households with adults and children were sheltered (44 percent in emergency shelters; 12 percent in the domestic violence program shelter; and 44 percent in transitional housing).

 

LOCATION ON THE NIGHT OF THE COUNT

2013

2014

2015

% Change 2013 ‐ 2014

% Change 2014 ‐ 2015

Unsheltered

29

11%

23

9%

23

9%

‐21%

0%

Sheltered

246

89%

244

91%

244

91%

‐1%

0%

Total Persons

275

267

267

‐3%

0%

HOUSEHOLDS  WITHOUT CHILDREN

Unsheltered

29

15%

23

13%

23

14%

‐21%

0%

Winter Shelter

35

19%

40

22%

35

22%

14%

‐13%

Emergency Shelter

79

44%

87

49%

71

45%

10%

‐18%

Emergency  Shelter for Registered Sex

Offenders

4

2%

2

1%

3

2%

‐50%

50%

Domestic Violence  Program Shelter

2

1%

2

1%

3

2%

0%

50%

Transitional  Housing

24

13%

15

8%

15

9%

‐38%

0%

Safe Haven

12

6%

10

6%

9

6%

‐17%

‐10%

Total Households

185

179

159

‐3%

‐11%

HOUSEHOLDS WITH ADULTS &  CHILDREN

Unsheltered

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0%

0%

Winter Shelter

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0%

0%

Emergency Shelter

13

39%

11

34.5%

15

44%

‐15%

36%

Domestic Violence  Program Shelter

2

6%

1

3%

4

12%

‐50%

300%

Transitional  Housing

18

55%

20

62.5%

15

44%

11%

‐25%

Total Households

33

32

34

‐3%

6%

 

BREAKOUT BY LOCATION ON THE NIGHT OF THE COUNT

LOCATION ON THE NIGHT OF THE COUNT

2013

2014

2015

% Change 2013 ‐ 2014

% Change 2014 ‐ 2015

Unsheltered

29

11%

23

9%

23

9%

‐21%

0%

Sheltered

246

89%

244

91%

244

91%

‐1%

0%

Total Persons

275

267

267

‐3%

0%

HOUSEHOLDS  WITHOUT CHILDREN

Unsheltered

29

15%

23

13%

23

14%

‐21%

0%

Winter Shelter

35

19%

40

22%

35

22%

14%

‐13%

Emergency Shelter

79

44%

87

49%

71

45%

10%

‐18%

Emergency  Shelter for Registered Sex

Offenders

4

2%

2

1%

3

2%

‐50%

50%

Domestic Violence  Program Shelter

2

1%

2

1%

3

2%

0%

50%

Transitional  Housing

24

13%

15

8%

15

9%

‐38%

0%

Safe Haven

12

6%

10

6%

9

6%

‐17%

‐10%

Total Households

185

179

159

‐3%

‐11%

HOUSEHOLDS WITH ADULTS &  CHILDREN

Unsheltered

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0%

0%

Winter Shelter

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0%

0%

Emergency Shelter

13

39%

11

34.5%

15

44%

‐15%

36%

Domestic Violence  Program Shelter

2

6%

1

3%

4

12%

‐50%

300%

Transitional  Housing

18

55%

20

62.5%

15

44%

11%

‐25%

Total Households

33

32

34

‐3%

6%

  • Data not collected.

 

HOMELESS COUNT BY SUBPOPULATION

As reflected in the chart below, the 2015 enumeration has yielded significantly lower counts in some of the subpopulation categories. We suspect that the substantial decreases are directly related to compliance with the new HUD standards, which, as anticipated by HUD, have resulted in a more accurate count than in the past.

Thirty percent of households without children met HUD’s definition of “chronic homelessness,” a 24percent decrease from 2014. Twenty‐one percent had a diagnosable substance use disorder, a 23percent decrease from 2014; 22percent had a serious mental illness; and 15percent had a co‐occurring diagnosable substance use disorder and serious mental illness. Eight percent had a physical disability, and 10percent had chronic health conditions.

There were two households with adults and children identified as chronically homeless in 2015. There were none identified in 2014. In 2013 there was one household identified, representing less than 1percent of households with adults and children that year. Six percent of households with adults and children were homeless as a direct result of domestic violence.

CHRONIC HOMELESS AND SUBPOPULATION BREAKOUT

 

CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS

2013

2014

2015

% Change 2013 ‐ 2014

% Change 2014 ‐ 2015

Households  without Children

69

37%

63

35%

48

35%

‐9%

‐24%

Households with Adults &   Children

1

<1%

0

0%

2

0%

‐100%

SUBPOPULATIONS (ALL ADULTS)

2013

2014

2015

% Change 2013 ‐ 2014

% Change 2014 ‐ 2015

Veterans

11

5%

18

8%

12

6%

64%

‐33%

Chronic Substance Abuse

48

22%

53

25%

41

21%

10%

‐23%

Serious Mental Illness

44

20%

65

30%

43

22%

48%

‐34%

Co‐Occurring (formerly  Dual‐Diagnosis)

25

11%

32

15%

29

15%

28%

‐9%

Physical  Disability

11

5%

19

9%

16

8%

73%

‐16%

Chronic  Health Conditions

36

16%

23

11%

20

10%

‐36%

‐13%

HIV/AIDS

6

3%

4

2%

1

1%

‐33%

‐75%

Limited  English

6

3%

12

6%

11

6%

100%

‐8%

Formerly  Institutionalized^

33

15%

14

6.5%

16

8%

‐58%

14%

Homeless Due  to Domestic Violence

2013

2014

2015

% Change 2013 ‐ 2014

% Change 2014 ‐ 2015

Total Households

16

7%

11

5%

12

6%

‐31%

9%

Single Women

4

8%

3

6%

4

8%

‐25%

33%

Women  w/Minor Children

12

39%

8

28%

8

25%

‐33%

0%

Children

20

38%

11

21%

11

15%

‐45%

0%

Total Persons

36

13%

22

8%

23

15%

‐39%

5%

Persons  counted include singles and adults in families, and may be counted in more than one subpopulation.

^Discharged to homelessness from a  hospital, jail/prison, mental health facility, foster care, long‐term care facility, etc.

EMPLOYMENT & MONTHLY INCOME FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT CHILDREN

Thirty‐six percent of persons in households without children were employed, an increase from 30percent in 2014.

Sixty‐four percent of persons in households without children reported receiving no income. Of the 36percent receiving income, the majority (45percent) reported a gross monthly income of $501‐$1,000. Forty‐one percent had a monthly gross income higher than $1,000. Sixty‐seven percent of persons receiving income reported employment as their primary source. Twenty‐ eight percent reported disability income as the primary source.

EMPLOYMENT IN HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT CHILDREN

 

EMPLOYMENT

2013

2014

2015

% Change 2013 ‐ 2014

% Change 2014 ‐ 2015

HOUSEHOLDS  WITHOUT CHILDREN

185

179

159

 

Not Reported

0

0%

2

1%

0

0%

‐100%

No

126

68%

123

69%

101

64%

‐2%

‐18%

Yes

59

32%

54

30%

58

36%

‐8%

7%

 

GROSS MONTHLY INCOME FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT CHILDREN

 

GROSS MONTHLY  HOUSEHOLD INCOME

2013

2014

2015

% Change 2013 ‐ 2014

% Change 2014 ‐ 2015

HOUSEHOLDS  WITHOUT CHILDREN

185

179

159

 

Not Reported

8

4%

2

1%

2

1%

‐75%

0%

No

76

41%

77

43%

71

45%

1%

‐8%

Yes

101

55%

100

56%

86

54%

‐1%

‐14%

Income Amount

$1‐150

3

3%

0

0%

4

5%

‐100%

$151‐250

5

5%

8

8%

3

3%

60%

‐63%

$251‐500

7

7%

13

13%

5

6%

86%

‐62%

$501‐1,000

58

57%

61

61%

39

45%

5%

‐36%

$1,001‐1,500

17

17%

11

11%

16

19%

‐35%

45%

$1,501‐2,000

8

8%

4

4%

13

15%

‐50%

225%

More  than $2,000

3

3%

3

3%

6

7%

0%

100%

Primary Source of Income

Wages

54

53.5%

51

51%

58

67%

‐6%

14%

Retirement

2

2%

8

8%

1

1%

300%

‐88%

Disability

42

41.5%

34

34%

24

28%

‐19%

‐29%

Public Assistance*

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0%

0%

Other**

3

3%

6

6%

3

3%

100%

‐50%

No Reported

0

0%

1

1%

0

0%

‐100%

*General Relief or Refugee Support

**Spousal Support, Panhandling, etc.

EMPLOYMENT & MONTHLY INCOME FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH ADULTS AND CHILDREN

Seventy‐eight percent of adults in households with adults and children were employed, an increase from 72percent in 2014.

Ninety‐seven percent of adults in households with adults and children reported receiving income, an increase from 86 percent in 2014. Of those receiving income, 75 percent reported employment as the primary source. For 17 percent TANF was the primary source; and disability income was the primary source for 3 percent. Despite the 6 percent increase in employment, there was an overall decrease in the gross monthly income amount (19 percent = $251 to $500; 31 percent = $501 to $1,000; 28 percent = $1,001 to $1,500; 14 percent = $1,501 to $2,000; and 8 percent = greater than $2,000).

 

EMPLOYMENT (ADULTS)

2013

2014

2015

% Change 2013 ‐ 2014

% Change 2014 ‐ 2015

HOUSEHOLDS WITH ADULTS &  CHILDREN

38

36

37

 

Not Reported

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0%

0%

No

12

32%

10

28%

8

22%

‐17%

‐20%

Yes

26

68%

26

72%

29

78%

0%

12%

GROSS MONTHLY INCOME FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH ADULTS AND CHILDREN

 

GROSS MONTHLY  HOUSEHOLD INCOME

2013

2014

2015

% Change 2013 ‐ 2014

% Change 2014 ‐ 2015

HOUSEHOLDS WITH ADULTS &  CHILDREN

38

36

37

 

Not Reported

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0%

0%

No

8

21%

5

14%

1

3%

‐38%

‐80%

Yes

30

79%

31

86%

36

97%

3%

16%

Income Amount

$1‐150

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0%

0%

$151‐250

0

0%

1

3%

0

0%

0%

‐100%

$251‐500

6

20%

2

6%

7

19%

‐67%

250%

$501‐1,000

12

40%

6

19%

11

31%

‐50%

83%

$1,001‐1,500

3

10%

9

29%

10

28%

200%

11%

$1,501‐2,000

7

23%

8

26%

5

14%

14%

‐38%

More  than $2,000

2

7%

5

16%

3

8%

150%

‐40%

Primary Source of Income

Wages

26

87%

23

82%

27

75%

‐12%

17%

Retirement

0

0%

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

Disability

0

0%

1

4%

1

3%

0%

Public Assistance*

4

13%

2

7%

6

17%

‐50%

200%

Other**

0

0%

2

7%

0

0%

‐100%

*General Relief, Refugee Support or TANF

**Child Support, Spousal Support, Panhandling, etc.

HOUSING NEED

The greatest barriers to ending homelessness in our community are 1) extremely low incomes (i.e., low fixed income and the lack of a living wage received by persons experiencing homelessness), and 2) the lack of fixed affordable permanent housing opportunities for the lowest income households (i.e., those with an income 30 percent and below of the area median income of $109,200). For households without children, 19 percent needed permanent supportive housing; 21 percent needed a rental subsidy; 29 percent needed affordable permanent housing; 2 percent needed assisted living; 4 percent needed transitional housing (the majority for substance use treatment); 14 percent needed safe haven; and 11 percent needed emergency shelter triage and additional assessment. For households with adults and children, 6 percent needed affordable permanent housing; 65 percent needed a rental subsidy; 20 percent needed transitional housing; and 9 percent needed permanent supportive housing.

To assist formerly homeless persons, the CoC currently operates 38 permanent supportive housing beds for households without children and 3 permanent supportive housing units totaling 8 beds for households with adults and children whose heads of household have a serious mental illness. On the night of the count 98 percent of the beds were occupied. The three households (100 percent) occupying the permanent supportive housing units were identified as ready to move on to permanent housing, but could not due to the lack of available affordable housing.

Homelessness Prevention, Shelter Diversion and Housing Placement

PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR CHRONICALLY HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS

In 2013 the CoC reviewed a six‐year comparison and found that on average 36 percent of individuals counted during the PIT enumerations were chronically homeless. After further analyzing the housing need of persons experiencing homelessness and the efficiency of homeless bed utilization, it elected to bolster the permanent supportive housing inventory to better serve chronically homeless individuals many of whom are unsheltered,  and therefore, the most vulnerable in our community. At the time of the 2015 count, a review of an eight‐year comparison found that the average number of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness remains constant at 36 percent.

At the time of the 2014 enumeration, the City of Alexandria designated ten additional permanent supportive housing beds to serve chronically homeless singles increasing the bed coverage from 7 percent to 32 percent in an effort to align it with the demonstrated community need. In July of 2014 the permanent supportive housing provider was able to add an additional bed to the inventory by successfully securing and occupying a 3‐bedroom unit effectively bringing the total to 38 (34 percent).

To date there has not been a demonstrated need to designate PSH beds to serve chronically homeless households with adults and children.

HOMELESS PREVENTION, DIVERSION & RAPID RE‐HOUSING

Since 2013 the City of Alexandria Housing Crisis Response System has enabled the CoC to more efficiently and effectively assess the needs of persons seeking shelter, best utilize community resources, quickly return households to permanent housing, and significantly reduce the number of households entering the shelter system.

  • Prevention – 64 households (13 without children and 51 with adults and children) totaling 188 people at‐risk of homelessness were aided to retain permanent housing. Services included case management, linkage to mainstream resources, financial assistance, landlord‐tenant intervention, job search assistance, employment services, budgeting/financial management and housing counseling.
  • Diversion – 123 households with children sought shelter and 54 households (44 percent) were diverted from entering the City of Alexandria’s shelter system. Diversion methods included financial and/or case management services to obtain or maintain housing, and when appropriate, linkage to supports and resources in communities of origin.
  • Rapid Re‐Housing – 42 households (30 without children and 16 with adults and  children) totaling 71 people were assisted to swiftly return to permanent housing after becoming homeless. Services included case management, housing search assistance, rental assistance, and housing stability related financial aid.

Overall the rapid re‐housing strategy appears to be having an impact on reducing homelessness in the City of Alexandria; however, it is not without its unique  challenges:

  1. Households still struggle to find affordable units for which they qualify; 2) The extent of need for rental assistance consistently exceeds original projections; 3) The assistance must be tailored to fit the household’s budget and ability to sustain housing costs post‐ assistance, which often limits the household’s ability to meet its housing need; and 4) Grantors’ guidelines for rapid re‐housing funding assistance dictate that rental subsidies not exceed fair market rents, which creates a barrier for households to access the limited permanent housing for which they qualify. This is a result of the City of Alexandria’s high demand rental market where there is a huge gap between the fair market rents and the market rates.
Future Trends in Homelessness

The disparity between high housing costs and extremely low household incomes remains the highest barriers to preventing and ending homelessness in the City of Alexandria. However, as the CoC continues to create efficiencies to right‐size our system a few emerging needs have become evident:

  1. The need for on‐going supportive services to assist low income, formerly homeless households who remain extremely vulnerable – who are a crisis away from the risk of or recidivism into homelessness.
  2. The need to revisit provider policies that have inadvertently resulted in cyclical shelter stays for persons with a diagnosable substance use disorder, and to incorporate CoC‐ level harm‐reduction policies specifically related to service provision for this population.
  3. The need for coordination and collaboration with and among community partners that provide emergency assistance (e.g., food, furniture, financial aid) to persons who are essentially at–risk of homelessness, but who never present as such in the Housing Crisis Response System, which results in duplicative, inefficient and costly service provision as well as a misrepresentation of the community need.

Given the housing and economic factors, it is difficult to predict future trends of homelessness for the City of Alexandria. Although a continued public outcry in response to the decline of limited affordable housing opportunities has resulted in planning and development for households at 60 percent to 80 percent of the area median income ($109,200), the cost of permanent housing is expected to remain high in general, particularly for the populations we serve with incomes of 30 percent of area median or less. Therefore, the City of Alexandria CoC is committed to finding innovative and non‐traditional ways to continue providing prevention and rapid re‐rehousing assistance as well as seeking federal, state and local funding to this end.

Arlington County, VA

Description of Homeless Services
10‐Year Plan to End Homelessness

Arlington County has a 10‐Year Plan to End Homelessness, which is governed by the Arlington County Consortium (ACC). The ACC is a private/public partnership of more than 100 members from the non‐profit, faith, and local business communities. The plan’s primary goal is that no individual or family shall lack access to decent, affordable housing. Achievement of this goal is predicated on the following broad strategies:

  • INCREASING housing affordability
  • MOVING individuals and families from the streets and shelters quickly into permanent, stable housing
  • PROVIDING the vital services that households need to maintain their housing
  • PREVENTING homelessness at every opportunity

Four 10 Year Plan committees led by the Executive Committee support the implementation of goals by ensuring that best practice solutions are used within the Continuum of Care (CoC). Best practice approaches include centralized intake and assessment, progressive engagement within all programs, rapid re‐housing and permanent supportive programs, and use of outcome‐ focused data to determine the CoC’s decision making. The 10 Year Planning committees work in concert to ensure that available federal, state and local resources are used strategically to meet the needs of Arlington homeless households and those at risk of becoming homeless.

The County’s Department of Human Services coordinated the 2015 Point‐in‐Time (PIT) survey on January 28, 2015 in conjunction with the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) and the Arlington non‐profit partners.

Continuum of Care

Arlington’s CoC is a network of interconnected programs and services to assist people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. It provides a foundation for the broader community partnership working toward the shared goals of the 10 Year Plan Consortium. Arlington’s CoC program areas and operating entities include: homeless prevention, street outreach,  emergency shelter, transitional housing, Safe Haven, and rapid re‐housing and permanent supportive housing options.

Highlights

In June 2014, Arlington County reached its goal to house 100 homeless persons identified as vulnerable through the 100 Homes Campaign initiated in October 2011, and in doing so housed the 100,000th vulnerable homeless person that helped the 100,000 Homes Campaign reach its goal. Even after reaching the goal, outreach workers, shelter and housing  providers,  and mental health and substance abuse specialists continued to track the vulnerable homeless population on the street, assign them a lead worker, and work toward bringing them in off the streets.

Arlington County sustained key outcomes for families. In FY 2014, almost 85 percent of all households exiting family shelters went to permanent housing. And among adults  exiting  family shelters and adults who left Rapid Rehousing the employment rates were 84percent and 89percent respectively. Another provider of transition in place services shifted programming to the rapid re‐housing model.

Arlington County implemented its Centralized Assessment System (CAS) in September 2014. CAS provides one centralized intake process for households who need assistance because they are at risk of becoming homeless, are homeless and have nowhere to go, or have other housing related problems. Households are assessed and screened for specific housing  options,  including prevention assistance that helps households maintain existing housing or obtain other, more affordable housing; access to emergency shelter for those households who cannot be diverted from homelessness; and access to rapid re‐housing and permanent supportive housing for households who must stay in emergency shelter. Diversion services are showing initial success, and a robust and collaborative case conferencing process is yielding results in working with the most difficult cases.

Current Inventory of Beds

The table below illustrates the County’s current inventory of beds (emergency shelter and transitional housing) available to within the continuum of care on the day of the count.

 

Year‐Round and Winter Inventory of Beds

Beds for Individuals

Beds for Families

All Year‐ Round Beds

Winter Beds

Hypothermia/Overflow/Other (Additional winter Capacity)

 

0

 

0

 

0

 

73

Emergency Shelter Beds

44

82

126

0

Transitional Housing Beds

12

4

16

0

Safe Haven

6

0

0

0

TOTAL

62

86

142

73

Five Arlington homeless shelters provide a safe, structured environment for singles and families who are experiencing homelessness. The County is opening a new Homeless Services Center (HSC) in June 2015 which will replace the existing hypothermia shelter beds and the current day programming. The HSC has will have 50 emergency shelter beds, five medical respite beds, and capacity to accommodate an additional 25 individuals in extreme winter weather. The HSC beds will be coordinated through the Centralized Access System.

Point in Time Count

Arlington County experienced a drop in the number of total persons counted for a second straight year.

 

Arlington County Point in Time Count

2012

2013

2014

2015

Percent Change 2014‐2015

Singles

263

268

178

164

‐8%

Families

188

211

113

75

‐34%

TOTAL

451

479

291

239

‐18%

 

The factors contributing to the reduction in the numbers include:

  • Street Outreach: Successful street outreach efforts resulted in the 2015 PIT Survey yielding a count of 39 persons compared to 51 persons counted in 2014.
  • Community efforts to house homeless individuals are working: The CoC has been a part of the 100,000 Homes national campaign, which resulted in over 100 persons being housed in Arlington. The CoC will continue this effort by participating in the Zero: 2016 national campaign that will focus on housing homeless veterans and the chronically homeless. Most households have been placed in permanent supportive housing or connected to a VASH voucher.
  • Strategies Shift: Over the past two years, the CoC has worked to change transitional  housing programs over to rapid re‐housing. This year, the last program was converted  which accounted for 48 fewer persons being counted.
Chronically Homeless, Veterans & Domestic Violence Sub‐populations Count

 

Chronically Homeless Table

2013

2014

2015

Percent Change 2014 to 2015

Chronically Homeless – Sheltered Households without Children

 

156

 

74

 

79

 

7%

Chronically Homeless – Sheltered Households with

Children

 

0

 

0

 

2

 

200%

TOTAL

156

74

81

9%

 

Veteran Table

2014

2015

Percent Change 2014 to 2015

Veteran –Sheltered Households

without Children

19

17

‐11%

Veteran – Sheltered Households with

Children

3

2

‐33%

TOTAL

22

19

‐14%

 

Domestic Violence Current Table

2014

2015

Percent Change 2014 to 2015

Domestic Violence Current (DVC) – Sheltered Households without

Children

6

14

133%

Domestic Violence Current (DVC) – Sheltered Households with Children

10

22

120%

TOTAL

16

36

125%

 

Arlington County experienced a slight (7 percent) increase in the number of persons being counted as chronically homeless and homeless veterans. The CoC is a participant in the national Zero: 2016 Campaign that focuses on housing veterans and the chronically homeless. The CoC will utilize permanent supportive housing, Supportive Services for Veterans Families, Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers, and local housing assistance funds to house these households. The CoC did experience an increase in the number of persons with a current episode of domestic violence causing their homelessness which is in line with the reported increase in persons calling the DV hotline. The CoC has made DV households a priority population and will utilize rapid re‐housing resources to house the individuals and families.

Conclusion

Arlington’s numbers are encouraging and show promise in new strategies to prevent and end homelessness. However, a single night and one year’s count do not tell the complete story of this complex issue. Much work remains to be done. Affordable housing is a primary component of Arlington’s strategy and the development of affordable housing continues to be a costly endeavor. The 10 Year Plan looks forward to the completion of Arlington’s Affordable Housing Study, which is now being presented to the community and includes plans to maintain housing affordability. The CoC will continue to evaluate and refine strategies to ensure community needs are met.

District of Columbia

Homeless Services in the District of Columbia

Homeless services in the District of Columbia include prevention assistance, supportive  services, street outreach, drop‐in centers, meal programs, severe weather/winter and emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, permanent housing, and permanent supportive housing. In 1994, The District was one of the nation’s first jurisdictions to implement the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Continuum of  Care  (CoC) model to address homelessness. This model seeks to address immediate barriers to stable housing while working with individuals and families experiencing homelessness to obtain  and/or maintain permanent or supportive housing as quickly as possible.

The Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness (TCP) has been the CoC Lead Agency since the model was implemented in the District. In this role TCP is responsible for the management, oversight, and operation of the programming funded by HUD and the District of Columbia Department of Human Services (DHS) pursuant to a competitively procured contract with District government.

Additionally, TCP is the District’s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) System Administrator. The HMIS is the District’s primary repository for storing and tracking client level information provided by consumers of homeless services. The District’s Point in Time information is collected primarily through the HMIS. The District was one of the first CoCs nationally to use the HMIS to conduct Point in Time; as of the 2015 count, 90 percent of the information collected was submitted through the HMIS (the remaining information was submitted by providers via phone interviews or through paper form surveys conducted with consumers in their respective programs). Utilization of the HMIS at Point in Time helps TCP ensure that the District’s count is comprehensive and that the results accurately reflect the size of the city’s homeless population on a given day. The results of Point in Time are used regularly by TCP, city leaders, and community stakeholders in implementing services for homeless individuals and families living in the District.

In its role as CoC Lead and the HMIS System Administrator, TCP has conducted the Point‐in‐ Time count on behalf of the District of Columbia annually since 2001.

Changes Since Point‐in‐Time 2014

Since the 2014 Point in Time, the District of Columbia CoC has:

  • Adopted a new Strategic Plan which will guide the Continuum’s work toward ending long‐term homelessness and to make homelessness “rare, brief, and non‐recurring”
  • Increased its investment in permanent housing solutions, including:
    • a new 40‐unit program serving chronically homeless men with a focus on veterans implemented in partnership with the D.C. Department of Human Services (DHS), Department of Behavioral Health (DBH), the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA), The Community Partnership, and Friendship Place;
  • TCP secured funding via the HUD CoC Program Grant application process to implement a 22‐unit permanent supportive housing program to serve chronically homeless veterans operated by Community Connections;
  • DHS and TCP have increased their investment in the locally funded Family Rehousing Stabilization Program (FRSP), a rapid re‐housing program serving homeless families in the District (this investment includes the implementation of an FRSP program that specifically serves families headed by transition aged youth);
  • Increased its investment in services for both unaccompanied minors and transition age youth, including:
  • DHS and TCP implemented a 12‐bed transitional housing program for LGBTQ transition aged youth; and
  • DHS and TCP implemented a 6‐bed crisis program for minors.
  • Fully implemented its Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement (CAHP) System for singles and is developing protocols for housing homeless youth

For much of the year following the 2014 Point‐in‐Time count, the daily occupancy of shelter and housing programs in the District were lower than the occupancy on the same day in  the previous year (as was the case on PIT 2015). This was largely due to households moving from the shelter system and into housing resources named above. While the CoC continues to see more new households enter the system, the increased rate of exit, especially for many long‐ staying persons and families, kept year‐to‐year counts lower in FY2015 for most of the winter.

Shelter and Housing Inventory in 2015

SHELTER & HOUSING INVENTORY

Category

Units/Beds for Singles

Units for Families

Beds in Family Units

Winter Shelter

682

405

1,312

Emergency Shelter

2,256

406

1,295

Transitional Housing

950

428

1,190

Rapid Rehousing

185

888

2,736

Permanent & Permanent Supportive Housing

4,473

1,139

3,427

Point‐in‐Time Results

TCP coordinates with District and federal government agencies, professional  outreach providers, and more than 300 trained community volunteers to conduct a census and survey of homeless persons living on the streets. On January 28, 2015, teams were dispatched to canvass the District from 10:00pm to 2:00am. Information was collected on paper survey forms; TCP transferred this data into the HMIS to produce the count of unsheltered persons on the night of Point‐in‐Time. These data were augmented by meal providers, drop‐in centers, and the public library where staff conducted surveys on clients served the day after PIT who first indicated whether they had spent the night of the Point‐in‐Time on the street, in shelter, supportive housing, or in another housing arrangement so that they could be counted accordingly.

In order to get the full data set of the HUD‐defined Literally Homeless population, TCP generated HMIS data for all HMIS participating emergency shelter and transitional housing providers for January 28, 2015. TCP created an Excel form for all non‐HMIS participating or privately funded providers to provide data on clients served on the date of Point‐in‐Time (note: domestic violence providers only provide de‐identified information). Data for the  HUD  Formerly Homeless population was collected in a consistent manner.

The table below details the total number of people counted during Point‐in‐Time 2015. The number of single persons, the number families, and the number of persons in those families are also included along with Point‐in‐Time 2014 information for the purposes of comparison. As shown, there were reductions among both single persons (‐3.3 percent) and well as families (percent) counted from year to year, though counts in both categories were higher than during the 2013 count.

 

HOMELESS COUNT BY CATEGORY

Category

2015

2014

Percent Change

Total Number Counted

7,298

7,748

‐5.8%

Total Number of Singles

3,821

3,953

‐3.3%

Total Number of Families

1,131

1,231

‐8.1%

Total of Persons in Families

3,477

3,795

‐8.4%

Total Adults in Families

1,428

1,559

‐8.4%

Total Children in Families

2,049

2,236

‐8.4%

 

In addition to the count, unsheltered and sheltered persons were surveyed about their needs as a part of Point‐in‐Time. The following table shows the rates at which persons counted self‐ reported living with the HUD‐recognized disabilities or that self‐reported belonging to any of several HUD‐ and/or Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments‐defined priority homeless subpopulations such as United States Military Veterans or persons for whom limited English proficiency is a barrier to receiving service.

 

DISABILITIES & SUBPOPULATIONS

 

Unaccompanied Single Persons

Adults in Families

Total (All Adults)

Chronic Substance Abuse (CSA)

14.9%

1.5%

11.2%

Severe Mental Illness (SMI)

13.3%

8.6%

12.0%

Dual Diagnosis (CSA & SMI)

11.1%

2.5%

8.8%

Chronic Health Problem

10.3%

1.8%

8.0%

Living With HIV/AIDS

2.1%

0.6%

1.7%

Physical Disability

16.9%

2.9%

13.0%

Domestic Violence (DV) History

10.7%

27.0%

15.1%

Homeless Due to DV

2.7%

15.3%

6.2%

Limited English Proficiency

7.4%

2.7%

6.1%

U.S. Military Veterans

10.3%

1.1%

9.5%

 

Chronic Homelessness

There were 1,593 unaccompanied homeless adults and 66 families in the District who met the federal definition of chronic homelessness at PIT. HUD defines the chronically homeless as persons who are disabled and who have been continuously homeless for a year or more, or who have been homeless four times within the past three years.

Income & Employment

Persons surveyed at Point‐in‐Time also responded to questions about income and employment. While 62.6 percent of single persons and 14.2 percent of adults in families reported that they had no income of any kind, 19.3 percent of singles reported that they were employed at PIT as were 25.1 percent of adults in families. Consistent with previous years’ counts, income from employment was the most common income source reported among unaccompanied homeless adults, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (or TANF) was the most commonly reported income source among adults in families.

Permanent Housing, Permanent Supportive Housing, and Rapid Rehousing Placements

At the Point‐in‐Time, TCP also counted persons in permanent housing, permanent supportive housing, and rapid rehousing programs to obtain a count of those HUD defines as Formerly Homeless. While this does not include all persons who were homeless at some point in the past, it is a comprehensive count all persons who were homeless, but who now permanently reside in housing who likely still would be homeless were it not for these dedicated resources.

During Point‐in‐Time 2015, a total of 4,230 formerly homeless unaccompanied single men and women were in permanent and permanent supportive housing, as were 1,514 adults and 1,879 children in 1,128 formerly homeless families. The 2015 count of formerly homeless also included 185 single persons 888 families in rapid re‐housing programs funded by the DC DHS, HUD and the VA.

Fairfax County, VA

Description of Homeless Services

In 2008, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors established the Office to Prevent and End Homelessness (OPEH) to manage, coordinate and monitor day‐to‐day implementation of the community’s plan to end homelessness within the next 10 years. OPEH supports the Fairfax‐ Falls Church Community Partnership to Prevent and End Homelessness which engages nonprofits, businesses, faith‐based communities, and county agencies in its efforts to implement the 10‐Year plan, which focuses on rapid re‐housing and prevention by increasing the availability of permanent affordable housing. OPEH also works closely with the independent Governing Board of the Community Partnership as well as a wide range of committees and workgroups to build awareness and provide strong leadership for the plan. In addition, OPEH supports a new prevention and rapid‐rehousing model (regional Housing Opportunities Support Teams or HOST) that provides services and resources to at‐risk and homeless families and individuals, thus preventing them from becoming homeless or ending their homelessness quickly. OPEH partners with a wide range of non‐profit and governmental service providers who provide the entire range of homeless services, including outreach, homelessness prevention, rapid‐rehousing, emergency shelter, hypothermia prevention, transitional housing programs, permanent supportive housing and affordable permanent housing. Our CoC continues to increase the number of people moving into permanent housing by applying rapid rehousing and housing first strategies, as well as the utilization of mainstream resources and the expansion of permanent supportive housing. OPEH manages the HMIS and acts as the CoC lead, preparing and submitting the Continuum of Care application and ensuring compliance with all HUD mandates.

During 2014, the Fairfax‐Falls Church Community Partnership to Prevent and End Homelessness continued progress in implementing the Ten‐Year Plan. Significant accomplishments include:

  • Fairfax County met its target of housing 50 of the most vulnerable individuals by the end of the first year of its 100,000 Homes campaign. Many of those housed were among those who utilized the most services throughout the years and were also chronically homeless.
  • In FY 2014, a total of 926 people moved into permanent housing from the county’s shelters for families with children and single adults, representing a twenty‐three percent increase from the previous year.
  • In FY 2014, the county’s homeless family shelters continued to improve efficiency in serving and rapidly moving people into permanent housing as the average length of stay in shelter was 70 days, a twenty‐seven percent decrease from the previous year.
  • Construction was completed on Kate’s Place, six units of Permanent Supportive Housing for families built and supported by Fairfax County, co‐located with a family emergency shelter. Families with a long history of homelessness and child welfare involvement will enter the program in early 2015.
  • Fairfax County Chairman Sharon Bulova signed on to the Mayor’s Challenge to End

Veteran’s Homelessness. Fairfax County is coordinating with Veterans’ Affairs, regional SSVF providers, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a range of partners to achieve this goal locally by the end of 2015.

  • The Office to Prevent and End Homelessness released a RFP for all county funded shelters, hypothermia prevention programs, PSH programs, community case management, housing location, and other homeless services which will provide better coordination of services and bring all contracts and operations in alignment with the Fairfax County 10‐Year Plan.
  • A new Coordinated Access, Assessment and Assignment system is under development. Building on the strides we have already made in this area, and with technical assistance from the Technical Assistance Collaborative, our CoC has launched a comprehensive plan to develop and implement a system based on best practices that will comply with HUD mandates.
  • A collaborative process that included representatives from government and non‐profit agencies resulted in the provision of a Hypothermia Prevention Program in 55 locations throughout the County, primarily in houses of worship. The collaborative established strategic processes for ensuring that locations not originally intended for overnight use met all applicable fire and building codes ensuring safe shelter for our hypothermia guests in an expedited manner. This approach is considered a best practice model that helped secure passage of a much needed change in the 2012 Virginia building code.
  • Our CoC has continued to add Permanent Supportive Housing through both reallocations and new projects as part of the HUD CoC Program competitions. We received funding for new bonus projects in 2012 and 2014. In addition, four transitional housing grants were reallocated during 2013 and 2014. Altogether these new PSH projects, two of which are already operational, will provide PSH to 93 chronically homeless adults.

 

Year‐Round and Winter Inventory of Beds

 

Beds for Individuals

Beds/Units for Persons in Families

All Year‐ Round Beds

Winter Beds

Hypothermia/Overflow/Other (Additional winter Capacity)

 

255

 

0

 

 

255

Emergency Shelter Beds

(includes DV shelters)

150

358/93

508

Counted in hypothermia/overflow

Transitional Housing Beds

27

433/135

460

n/a

TOTALS

432

791 / 228

968

255

*Overflow beds are available for both individuals and persons in families as necessary throughout the year.

Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing

There are currently 8 regular emergency shelter programs in Fairfax County operating year round. All shelters are operated by non‐profit partner organizations with funding through county contracts with additional funding secured by the non‐profits. Two of these facilities serve families with children and single adults impacted by domestic violence. There are three family shelter programs, two utilizing congregate facilities and one using leased apartments. In addition, there is one shelter facility which serves both families and single male and female adults. This shelter also contains a medical respite section for those in need of nursing care. There are two emergency shelter facilities that serve male and female adults.

These shelters have the capacity to provide overflow beds as needed throughout the year.   They are primarily used during the winter but are used for extreme heat or other emergencies as well. Our county also maintains a motel program as overflow for families. In addition, there are 5 hypothermia prevention programs operated in three fixed sites and two that rotate  among faith based congregations.

In 2014 our community’s Safe Haven was reclassified as Permanent Supportive Housing; reflecting the way it had been operating for many years. The county does operate a small facility as a safe haven; targeting a chronically homeless seriously mentally ill population. Our range of shelter programs includes a shelter for homeless youth operated by a nonprofit. Following HUD guidance this program has been included in the 2015 PIT and HIC for the first time. In addition, a small program for veterans that was previously classified as transitional is now included as emergency shelter in accordance with HUD guidance. Overall, emergency shelter capacity remains basically the same as previous years.  However, we continue to work  to balance resources put towards shelter versus permanent housing.

There are three transitional housing programs that serve single adults in Fairfax County. One of these programs serve female veterans specifically, one serves young adults who are still attending Fairfax County Public Schools and no longer reside with their families, and one serves men recently released from correctional institutions. There are sixteen transitional housing programs for families. Six of these programs serve people impacted by domestic violence, one serves female veterans and their families, and one serves young mothers and their children. These programs are operated by non‐profit and government agencies with various combinations of HUD CoC Program funds, private funding, and contracts with the county. Overall, transitional housing inventory for both single individuals and families has decreased  due to shifting priorities and reallocations of HUD CoC Program funding.

Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results

As shown in the table below, the overall point‐in‐time count for 2015 declined from 2014, from 1,225 people to 1,204 people, an almost 2 percent reduction. This number includes an increase of 20 people in families, a decrease of 42 single adults, and an increase of one unaccompanied youth for a total decrease of 21 persons in the past year.      There were two more families than

the previous year but the families had more members. This ends our continual decline in the number of families and number of people in families since 2008. The number of single adults continued to decline for the third consecutive year.

 

HOMELESS COUNT BY CATEGORY

 

Category

2015

2014

2013

Percent Change 2014

to 2015

Percent Change 2013

to 2015

Total Number Counted

1,204

1,225

1,350

‐2%

‐11%

Total of Singles

488

530

603

‐8%

‐19%

Total Number of Families

213

211

230

1%

‐7%

Total of Persons in Families

715

695

747

3%

‐4%

Total Adults in Families

285

288

295

‐1%

‐3%

Total Children in Families

430

407

452

6%

‐5%

Unaccompanied youth

1

0

0

n/a

n/a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The number of people in families is generally the same as the previous year. The main reason that there was not a decline was lack of access to our local homeless preference Housing Choice Vouchers, which were temporarily suspended due to federal sequestration. Despite this significant loss of resources, strong prevention efforts, prioritizing rapid re‐housing from family shelters, and strategically reducing the numbers of transitional housing units has kept the  family homeless population basically unchanged from last year. The decrease in single adults is due to the continued success of the 100,000 Homes Campaign, increased and reallocated HUD funding for PSH programs targeting this population, and additional VASH vouchers allocated during 2014.

The number of homeless individuals sheltered through winter seasonal overflow and hypothermia prevention programs decreased slightly this year. As those in emergency shelter and those unsheltered remained basically the same, this reflects the general decline in the homeless single adult population. This data suggests that intensified outreach efforts continue to be successful and that our winter seasonal and hypothermia preventions programs are meeting the needs of this population. The number of individuals who were identified as unsheltered increased from 66 to 68. The number of chronically  homeless  individuals  increased from 196 to 203. These slight increases in both populations maybe due to our improved and better coordinated outreach counting on the night of the PIT, in addition to the extra days allowed by HUD for counting the unsheltered.   In addition, one program serving

veterans was reclassified by the VA and HUD as emergency shelter, which added to our chronic homeless numbers. Our CoC continues to have a minimal number of chronically homeless families; this year there were 6 chronically homeless families, comprising 16 adults and children on the night of the PIT.

Overall, single individuals represented 41 percent and families represented 59 percent of all people counted.  Among adults in families 78 percent were female and 22 percent male.  Among single individuals 73 percent were male, 27 percent female and there were two transgendered individuals as well. Children under age 18 in families were 36 percent of all persons counted, increasing slightly from last year. This number includes one unaccompanied minor. Youth households, consisting of families where all members were under the age of 25, comprised 4 percent (29) of the families and 11 percent (52) of the single individuals.

 

HOMELESS SUBPOPULATIONS

 

Individual Adults

Adults in Families

Children in Families*

TOTAL

Substance Use Disorder

93

5

98

Severe Mental Illness

122

19

141

Co‐occurring Disorder

53

2

55

 

 

 

 

 

Living With HIV/AIDS

5

1

6

Physical Disability

69

9

78

Chronic Health Problems

74

13

87

Domestic Violence‐‐ History

57

128

214

399

Domestic Violence‐‐ Current

22

100

190

312

Limited English Proficiency

55

58

113

U.S. Military Veteran

39

7

46

 

 

 

 

 

*Children under 18. Adult children 18 and over living in families are counted with adults in families.

 

The major subpopulations are noted in the chart above. In addition, among single adults, only 25 percent were reported as employed and 48 percent reported having any income.  In  families, 62 percent of persons age 18 and over were employed and 81 percent reported having some source of income. These numbers are consistent with last year’s numbers. For single individuals, 55 percent were reported as chronic substance abusers, seriously mentally ill, or both, the same as last year. Among all persons in families, 41 percent were homeless due to domestic violence, an increase from 33 percent last year. This increase in DV numbers reflects the expansion of capacity as programs have chosen to concentrate on serving those affected by domestic violence. Limited English proficiency was noted for 20 percent of adults in families, but only 11 percent of single individuals. The 2015 count included 46 veterans or 6 percent of  all adults; this is a decrease from 51 in 2014.

Permanent, Permanent Supportive Housing and Rapid Re‐housing Placements

Our CoC continued to increase the number of people moving into permanent housing by applying rapid rehousing and housing first strategies, as well as the utilization of mainstream resources and the expansion of permanent supportive housing.

During FY2014 a total of 926 people were moved from emergency shelter to permanent housing. Hundreds of these people were rapidly rehoused as our community continued the momentum of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Rapid Rehousing Challenge by launching a CoC challenge under the leadership of a non‐profit partner. A range of funding was utilized to provide Rapid Rehousing, including the federal Emergency Solutions Grant program (ESG) and the Commonwealth of Virginia Homeless Solutions Program, along with funding from the County of Fairfax and private donations.

Permanent Supportive Housing resources were expanded by strategic utilization of HUD CoC Program funding. During FY 2014 100 people, 80 single individuals and 20 people in 6 families moved into PSH, via new programs and vacancies in continuing programs. In addition, VASH voucher expansion allowed for 65 additional people to be served by this significant resource. Additional VASH vouchers have already been allocated for utilization in 2015 and funding has already been secured for major expansion of PSH for chronically homeless single adults.

One of the key sources of ongoing rental subsidies, the Housing Choice Voucher Program, was drastically curtailed the past two years due to sequestration. As our Public Housing Authority has maintained a homeless preference for a number of years the elimination of this housing option has both contributed to the high number of families becoming homeless and has significantly impacted the number of homeless moving to permanent housing as well. In addition, although we continue to document substantial achievements in our efforts to prevent and end homelessness, extremely high rental costs and the severe shortage of very low‐income housing in Fairfax County remain major challenges in full implementation of our 10‐Year Plan.

Frederick County, MD

Description of Homeless Services

Frederick County, Maryland is fortunate to have a wide‐range of governmental, private non‐ profit and faith‐based organizations that together have established an almost seamless service delivery system targeted to addressing the needs of homeless individuals and families. Major providers of homeless services include the Advocates for Homeless Families, Frederick Community Action Agency, Frederick Rescue Mission, Heartly House, Religious Coalition for Emergency Human Needs, Mental Health Management Agency of Frederick County, and the Student Homelessness Initiative Partnership ‐ all of these agencies are active members of the Frederick County Coalition for the Homeless.

During 2014, the Religious Coalition for Emergency Human Needs (RCEHN) established a Family Emergency Shelter that rotates between various church facilities, but serves as a more cost‐ effective alternative to motel placements. In addition, the RCEHN expanded the Linton Emergency Shelter for adults from a winter‐only shelter to a 12‐month shelter that is open year‐round. The Frederick Community Action Agency (FCAA) expanded its Housing First Program to a total of 25 beds in 21 units of permanent supportive housing (some are two‐ bedroom units).

Established in 1983, the Frederick County Coalition for the Homeless (FCCH) is the oldest local coalition working to end homelessness in Maryland. The FCCH is a coalition comprised of governmental and non‐profit human service and community development organizations, religious institutions, for‐profit businesses such as banks, local government officials, interested citizens, and homeless and formerly homeless persons. The FCCH meets monthly in order to coordinate the planning of local homeless services, discuss local needs and approve new projects, and advocate for additional resources to address homelessness.

 

Year‐Round and Winter Inventory of Beds

 

Beds for Individuals

Beds/Units for Persons in Families

All Year‐ Round Beds

Winter Beds

Hypothermia/Overflow/Other (Additional winter Capacity

80

0/0

 

80

Emergency Shelter Beds

1

61/15

62

0

Transitional Housing Beds

51

93/32

144

0

TOTALS

132 beds

154 beds

47 units

206 Beds

80 beds

Homeless Point‐In‐Time Results

The most recent Point‐in‐Time Survey for both sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations was conducted on January 28, 2015. Survey tools were distributed and thoroughly discussed at a regular monthly meeting of the Frederick County Coalition for the Homeless (FCCH). All emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and motel placement providers were instructed on how to use the survey instrument and when to conduct the Point‐ in‐Time Survey. Whenever possible, surveys were to be completed directly by the people who were homeless; however, shelter staff could utilize administrative or HMIS data if a person was unable to directly complete the survey. A total of 311 homeless persons (comprised of 224 adults and 87 children) completed the point‐in‐time survey; the largest household type was 181 single‐individuals.

The Point‐in‐Time Survey instrument contains specific questions regarding all HUD‐defined homeless subpopulations (e.g., veteran, alcohol abuse problem, drug abuse problem) and contains specific questions about the length of time that a respondent has been homeless.   With regard to disabling conditions, the following data was reported: 67 respondents reported a substance abuse problem/addiction; 60 respondents reported chronic health problems; 36 respondents reported having physical disabilities; 44 respondents reported serious mental health problems; 41 respondents reported substance abuse problems and co‐occurring mental health problems; 20 respondents (including children) reported that they are survivors of  current domestic violence; 13 respondents reported that they are veterans; 1 respondent reported a diagnosis of HIV or AIDS; and a total of 89 respondents (all single individuals) reported being “chronically homeless”.

 

HOMELESS COUNT BY CATEGORY

Category

2015

2014

2013

Percent Change 2013 to

2015

Total Number Counted

311

246

275

13.0%

Total Number of Singles Individuals

181

141

171

5.8%

Total Number of Families

37

36

38

‐2.6%

Total of Persons in Families

130

105

104

25%

Total Adults in Families

43

41

39

10.3%

Total Children in Families

87

64

65

33.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

EMPLOYMENT

Category

Total Number Employed

Total Number of Single Individuals

17

Total Number of Adults in Families

24

Total Number of Children in Families

2

 

 

SUBPOPULATION DATA

Subpopulations

Single Individuals

Persons in Families

Total

Substance Use Disorder

65

2

67

Serious Mental Illness

38

6

44

Co‐Occurring Disorder

36

5

41

U.S. Veteran

13

0

10

Living with HIV/AIDS

1

0

1

Domestic Violence Survivor (including children) 1

3

17

20

Physical Disability

36

0

36

Chronic Health Problem

56

4

60

Limited English (adults only)

0

1

1

Chronically Homeless

89

0

89

 

 

According to the 2015 Point‐In‐Time data, homelessness in Frederick County increased by a total of 36 persons from the 2013 PIT count of 275 persons. It is important to keep in mind that the Point‐in‐Time survey is a “one‐day snapshot” of homelessness and may not be reflective of all trends experienced in a local jurisdiction.

1 This figure includes adults and children who reported a current episode of domestic violence.

Loudoun County, VA

Description of Homeless Services

Loudoun’s continuum of homeless services includes seasonal cold weather shelter for adults  (16 beds; flexible capacity), emergency shelter for adults and families (79 beds), and transitional housing for adults and families (91 beds). Daytime “drop‐in” services are also  provided. Services are provided by Loudoun County Department of Family Services (DFS) under contract with Volunteers of America Chesapeake, The Good Shepherd Alliance, and Loudoun Citizens for Social Justice (12‐bed domestic violence shelter). Homelessness prevention services are provided by DFS, and also by INMED Partnerships for Children (INMED). INMED’s program provides longer‐term case management to a smaller number of family households. INMED also provides intensive case management for families with young children living in Loudoun emergency homeless shelters and transitional housing facilities to help them gain stability to become self‐sufficient in permanent housing. Rapid Re‐housing assistance for adults and families is provided by The Good Shepherd Alliance and Volunteers of America at emergency shelter sites. Loudoun has been successful in launching a Permanent Supportive Housing Program for chronically homeless households by adding 4 PSH units serving chronically homeless households during the year. Funding has been obtained to expand this program by adding up to 15 units in Fiscal Year 2016; the expansion will be accomplished by converting one Transitional Housing Program to PSH.

 

Year‐Round and Winter Inventory of Beds

 

Beds for Individuals

Beds\Units for Persons in Families

All Year‐Round Beds

Winter Beds

Hypothermia/Overflow/Ot her

(Additional winter Capacity)

16

 

 

16 (flexible to serve

more if needed)

Emergency Shelter Beds

13

66

79

0

Transitional Housing Beds

9

82

91

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results

The January 28, 2015 count identified 168 persons (80 single adults and 88 persons in families) experiencing homelessness. Compared to 2014 results when 179 persons were counted, there was a 6 percent decrease in the number of literally homeless persons. For the one‐year period from 2014 to 2015 the results document a 12 percent decrease in the number of homeless families and a 3.8 percent increase in the number of homeless singles. The number of chronically homeless individuals identified for 2015 is 20; the same number as in 2014, and represents a 29 percent decrease from 2013 when 28 chronically homeless adults were identified. For 2015 one chronically homeless family was identified. The 2015 PIT results are consistent with the 2013 PIT results.

 

HOMELESS COUNT BY CATEGORY

Category

2015

2014

2013

Percent Change 2013 to

2015

Total Number Counted

168

179

166

1%

Total of Singles

80

77

81

‐1%

Total Number of Families

27

31

24

12.5%

Total of Persons in Families

88

102

85

3.5%

Total Adults in Families

34

40

29

17%

Total Children in Families

54

62

56

‐4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employment among single homeless adults rose to 43 percent in 2015, up from 40 percent in 2014. Adults in families show a 71 percent rate of employment for 2015, representing a significant increase over 2014 when 60 percent of adults in families were employed. Employment is the most common source of income among all homeless adults in 2015, followed by Disability Income.

The most commonly occurring sub‐populations among homeless adults for 2015 are Domestic Violence Victim (22 adults), Serious Mental Illness (22 adults), and Chronic Health Condition (22 adults). In 2014 the top three sub‐populations by order of prevalence were Chronic Health Problem, Domestic Violence Victim, and Substance Use Disorder. The number of adults reporting Serious Mental Illness is up slightly from last year (22 in 2015 vs.18 in 2014). The number of adults with a history of Domestic Violence is the same as last year (22 adults for 2014 and 2015).  The number of adults with Substance Use Disorder decreased significantly  over last year (9 in 2015 vs. 17 in 2014). For 2015, there is a slight increase in the number of adults with a Physical Disability (9 in 2014 vs. 13 in 2015). The table below provides more detail on  sub‐populations.

 

2015 HOMELESS SUBPOPULATIONS

 

Individual Adults

Adults in Families

Children in Families

TOTAL

Substance Use Disorder

9

0

0

9

Serious Mental Illness

22

0

0

22

Co‐Occurring Disorder

12

0

0

12

 

 

 

 

 

Chronic Health Condition

20

2

0

22

Living With HIV/AIDS

0

0

0

0

Physical Disability

11

2

0

13

Domestic Violence Victim

9

13

7

29

Limited English

1

1

0

2

U.S. Veterans

4

1

0

5

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Results

The number of homeless persons decreased from 179 in 2014 to 168 for 2015. Both the  number of homeless families and the total number of persons in the families have decreased significantly since last year. The number of homeless families counted for 2015 was 27 (containing 88 persons) down from 2014 when 31 homeless families (containing 102 persons) were counted. A slight increase in the number of homeless singles was observed between 2014 and 2015 (from 77 in 2014 up to 80 in 2015). The increase in homelessness among singles is evident in the higher number of unsheltered adults counted this year (from 24 in 2014 up to 36 in 2015). The decrease in the number of homeless families reported this year may be due to shorter lengths of stays by families in Transitional Housing and shelter programs. The number  of homeless identified during the 2015 PIT count represents a significant decrease from 2014, and the 2015 results are consistent with the 2013 PIT count results. The availability of Rapid Re‐housing services at two emergency shelters is one factor that may have contributed to the lower number of homeless identified this year. The expansion of permanent supportive  housing over the coming year should help to reduce the number of unsheltered chronically homeless adults by providing housing support to a population with many barriers to accessing housing. It is difficult to predict if homeless numbers will decrease in the future, however, the availability of resources dedicated to prevention of homelessness, rapid re‐housing, permanent supportive housing, and increased coordination within the Loudoun Continuum of Care demonstrates a strong commitment to assisting persons to remain in and obtain permanent housing.

Permanent Housing

The number of households exiting to permanent housing (PH) from VOA‐operated programs includes: 37 households from Emergency Shelter into PH and 4 households from Transitional Housing into PH. The Good Shepherd Alliance programs exited 15 households (combined total from Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing) into PH.

Access to affordable housing and subsidized housing options continues to be limited in Loudoun. The federally funded Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program currently serves 623 households, with 75 of the vouchers designated for households with disabilities. The HCV wait list is closed to new applicants at this time. Reductions in federal funding for the program, coupled with high rental housing costs, limit the number of households that can be served and increase wait times for those on the wait list. Three small subsidized senior housing projects also exist, serving persons aged 60 and over. The Affordable Dwelling Unit (ADU)  rental program provides 320 rental units to households at income levels between 30 and 50 percent  of Area Median Income (AMI). The majority of Loudoun’s homeless have incomes at 0 to 30 percent of AMI, a level too low to qualify for the ADU rental program. Developers of new rental housing units in Loudoun County have proffered some units for households at a variety of income limits including some units for households with extremely low and very low incomes. It is uncertain when these units will become available. A Housing Stakeholders Group (HSG), appointed by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, met over the course of 2014 and developed forty‐five recommendations to help address affordable housing needs in Loudoun. The Board adopted several HSG recommendations in January 2015, and they will be implemented.

Permanent Supportive Housing

The inventory of permanent supportive housing (PSH) for homeless persons increased during the year. Four units of PSH for chronically homeless were added during the year, and the units were occupied by four adults as of January 28, 2015. Three of the rental units housing the PSH consumers are new rental units for households with incomes at 0 to 30 of AMI that became available in 2014. Through the reallocation of HUD CoC grant funds, the PSH program will expand by up to 15 additional units during FY 2016. In order to accomplish this expansion, one Transitional Housing Program will be converted to PSH. Mental Health (MH) Residential  Services provides 14 permanent supportive housing (PSH) beds for individuals in group homes, supervised apartments, and private residences. This housing is not specifically for homeless persons, but homeless persons with severe mental illness, developmental disabilities, or  chronic substance abuse issues may be served if there are openings, and if eligibility criteria are met.

Rapid Re‐Housing

Rapid Re‐housing (RRH) services are available for both single individuals and family households through The Good Shepherd Alliance and the Volunteers of America, Chesapeake (providers that also operate Emergency Shelter). Two regional Supportive Services for Veterans providers also offer RRH services to Veterans in Loudoun.      On January 28, 2015 the number of formerly

homeless households receiving RRH financial assistance included 9 adult households (including 11 persons) and 7 family households (including 22 persons).2 The number of  households assisted with RRH in prior years includes 42 for FY 2014, and 32 for FY 2013.

2 The January 28, 2015 RRH data includes only households receiving RRH financial assistance for January 2015; it is not a year‐to‐date figure.

Arlington County, VA

Description of Homeless Services
10‐Year Plan to End Homelessness

Arlington County has a 10‐Year Plan to End Homelessness, which is governed by the Arlington County Consortium (ACC). The ACC is a private/public partnership of more than 100 members from the non‐profit, faith, and local business communities. The plan’s primary goal is that no individual or family shall lack access to decent, affordable housing. Achievement of this goal is predicated on the following broad strategies:

  • INCREASING housing affordability
  • MOVING individuals and families from the streets and shelters quickly into permanent, stable housing
  • PROVIDING the vital services that households need to maintain their housing
  • PREVENTING homelessness at every opportunity

Four 10 Year Plan committees led by the Executive Committee support the implementation of goals by ensuring that best practice solutions are used within the Continuum of Care (CoC). Best practice approaches include centralized intake and assessment, progressive engagement within all programs, rapid re‐housing and permanent supportive programs, and use of outcome‐ focused data to determine the CoC’s decision making. The 10 Year Planning committees work in concert to ensure that available federal, state and local resources are used strategically to meet the needs of Arlington homeless households and those at risk of becoming homeless.

The County’s Department of Human Services coordinated the 2015 Point‐in‐Time (PIT) survey on January 28, 2015 in conjunction with the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) and the Arlington non‐profit partners.

Continuum of Care

Arlington’s CoC is a network of interconnected programs and services to assist people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. It provides a foundation for the broader community partnership working toward the shared goals of the 10 Year Plan Consortium. Arlington’s CoC program areas and operating entities include: homeless prevention, street outreach,  emergency shelter, transitional housing, Safe Haven, and rapid re‐housing and permanent supportive housing options.

Highlights

In June 2014, Arlington County reached its goal to house 100 homeless persons identified as vulnerable through the 100 Homes Campaign initiated in October 2011, and in doing so housed

the 100,000th vulnerable homeless person that helped the 100,000 Homes Campaign reach its goal. Even after reaching the goal, outreach workers, shelter and housing  providers,  and mental health and substance abuse specialists continued to track the vulnerable homeless population on the street, assign them a lead worker, and work toward bringing them in off the streets.

Arlington County sustained key outcomes for families. In FY 2014, almost 85 percent of all households exiting family shelters went to permanent housing. And among adults  exiting  family shelters and adults who left Rapid Rehousing the employment rates were 84percent and 89percent respectively. Another provider of transition in place services shifted programming to the rapid re‐housing model.

Arlington County implemented its Centralized Assessment System (CAS) in September 2014. CAS provides one centralized intake process for households who need assistance because they are at risk of becoming homeless, are homeless and have nowhere to go, or have other housing related problems. Households are assessed and screened for specific housing  options,  including prevention assistance that helps households maintain existing housing or obtain other, more affordable housing; access to emergency shelter for those households who cannot be diverted from homelessness; and access to rapid re‐housing and permanent supportive housing for households who must stay in emergency shelter. Diversion services are showing initial success, and a robust and collaborative case conferencing process is yielding results in working with the most difficult cases.

Current Inventory of Beds

The table below illustrates the County’s current inventory of beds (emergency shelter and transitional housing) available to within the continuum of care on the day of the count.

 

Year‐Round and Winter Inventory of Beds

Beds for Individuals

Beds for Families

All Year‐ Round Beds

Winter Beds

Hypothermia/Overflow/Other (Additional winter Capacity)

 

0

 

0

 

0

 

73

Emergency Shelter Beds

44

82

126

0

Transitional Housing Beds

12

4

16

0

Safe Haven

6

0

0

0

TOTAL

62

86

142

73

Five Arlington homeless shelters provide a safe, structured environment for singles and families who are experiencing homelessness. The County is opening a new Homeless Services Center (HSC) in June 2015 which will replace the existing hypothermia shelter beds and the current day programming. The HSC has will have 50 emergency shelter beds, five medical respite beds, and capacity to accommodate an additional 25 individuals in extreme winter weather. The HSC beds will be coordinated through the Centralized Access System.

Point in Time Count

Arlington County experienced a drop in the number of total persons counted for a second straight year.

 

Arlington County Point in Time Count

2012

2013

2014

2015

Percent Change 2014‐2015

Singles

263

268

178

164

‐8%

Families

188

211

113

75

‐34%

TOTAL

451

479

291

239

‐18%

 

The factors contributing to the reduction in the numbers include:

  • Street Outreach: Successful street outreach efforts resulted in the 2015 PIT Survey yielding a count of 39 persons compared to 51 persons counted in 2014.
  • Community efforts to house homeless individuals are working: The CoC has been a part of the 100,000 Homes national campaign, which resulted in over 100 persons being housed in Arlington. The CoC will continue this effort by participating in the Zero: 2016 national campaign that will focus on housing homeless veterans and the chronically homeless. Most households have been placed in permanent supportive housing or connected to a VASH voucher.
  • Strategies Shift: Over the past two years, the CoC has worked to change transitional  housing programs over to rapid re‐housing. This year, the last program was converted  which accounted for 48 fewer persons being counted.
Chronically Homeless, Veterans & Domestic Violence Sub‐populations Count

 

Chronically Homeless Table

2013

2014

2015

Percent Change 2014 to 2015

Chronically Homeless – Sheltered Households without Children

 

156

 

74

 

79

 

7%

Chronically Homeless – Sheltered Households with

Children

 

0

 

0

 

2

 

200%

TOTAL

156

74

81

9%

 

Veteran Table

2014

2015

Percent Change 2014 to 2015

Veteran –Sheltered Households

without Children

19

17

‐11%

Veteran – Sheltered Households with

Children

3

2

‐33%

TOTAL

22

19

‐14%

 

Domestic Violence Current Table

2014

2015

Percent Change 2014 to 2015

Domestic Violence Current (DVC) – Sheltered Households without

Children

6

14

133%

Domestic Violence Current (DVC) – Sheltered Households with Children

10

22

120%

TOTAL

16

36

125%

 

Arlington County experienced a slight (7 percent) increase in the number of persons being counted as chronically homeless and homeless veterans. The CoC is a participant in the national Zero: 2016 Campaign that focuses on housing veterans and the chronically homeless. The CoC will utilize permanent supportive housing, Supportive Services for Veterans Families, Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers, and local housing assistance funds to house these households. The CoC did experience an increase in the number of persons with a current episode of domestic violence causing their homelessness which is in line with the reported increase in persons calling the DV hotline. The CoC has made DV households a priority population and will utilize rapid re‐housing resources to house the individuals and families.

Conclusion

Arlington’s numbers are encouraging and show promise in new strategies to prevent and end homelessness. However, a single night and one year’s count do not tell the complete story of this complex issue. Much work remains to be done. Affordable housing is a primary component of Arlington’s strategy and the development of affordable housing continues to be a costly endeavor. The 10 Year Plan looks forward to the completion of Arlington’s Affordable Housing Study, which is now being presented to the community and includes plans to maintain housing affordability. The CoC will continue to evaluate and refine strategies to ensure community needs are met.

District of Columbia

Homeless Services in the District of Columbia

Homeless services in the District of Columbia include prevention assistance, supportive  services, street outreach, drop‐in centers, meal programs, severe weather/winter and emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, permanent housing, and permanent supportive housing. In 1994, The District was one of the nation’s first jurisdictions to implement the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Continuum of  Care  (CoC) model to address homelessness. This model seeks to address immediate barriers to stable housing while working with individuals and families experiencing homelessness to obtain  and/or maintain permanent or supportive housing as quickly as possible.

The Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness (TCP) has been the CoC Lead Agency since the model was implemented in the District. In this role TCP is responsible for the management, oversight, and operation of the programming funded by HUD and the District of Columbia Department of Human Services (DHS) pursuant to a competitively procured contract with District government.

Additionally, TCP is the District’s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) System Administrator. The HMIS is the District’s primary repository for storing and tracking client level information provided by consumers of homeless services. The District’s Point in Time information is collected primarily through the HMIS. The District was one of the first CoCs nationally to use the HMIS to conduct Point in Time; as of the 2015 count, 90 percent of the information collected was submitted through the HMIS (the remaining information was submitted by providers via phone interviews or through paper form surveys conducted with consumers in their respective programs). Utilization of the HMIS at Point in Time helps TCP ensure that the District’s count is comprehensive and that the results accurately reflect the size of the city’s homeless population on a given day. The results of Point in Time are used regularly by TCP, city leaders, and community stakeholders in implementing services for homeless individuals and families living in the District.

In its role as CoC Lead and the HMIS System Administrator, TCP has conducted the Point‐in‐ Time count on behalf of the District of Columbia annually since 2001.

Changes Since Point‐ in‐Time 2014

Since the 2014 Point in Time, the District of Columbia CoC has:

  • Adopted a new Strategic Plan which will guide the Continuum’s work toward ending long‐term homelessness and to make homelessness “rare, brief, and non‐recurring”
  • Increased its investment in permanent housing solutions, including:
    • a new 40‐unit program serving chronically homeless men with a focus on veterans implemented in partnership with the D.C. Department of Human Services (DHS), Department of Behavioral Health (DBH), the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA), The Community Partnership, and Friendship Place;
  • TCP secured funding via the HUD CoC Program Grant application process to implement a 22‐unit permanent supportive housing program to serve chronically homeless veterans operated by Community Connections;
  • DHS and TCP have increased their investment in the locally funded Family Rehousing Stabilization Program (FRSP), a rapid re‐housing program serving homeless families in the District (this investment includes the implementation of an FRSP program that specifically serves families headed by transition aged youth);
  • Increased its investment in services for both unaccompanied minors and transition age youth, including:
  • DHS and TCP implemented a 12‐bed transitional housing program for LGBTQ transition aged youth; and
  • DHS and TCP implemented a 6‐bed crisis program for minors.
  • Fully implemented its Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement (CAHP) System for singles and is developing protocols for housing homeless youth

For much of the year following the 2014 Point‐in‐Time count, the daily occupancy of shelter and housing programs in the District were lower than the occupancy on the same day in  the previous year (as was the case on PIT 2015). This was largely due to households moving from the shelter system and into housing resources named above. While the CoC continues to see more new households enter the system, the increased rate of exit, especially for many long‐ staying persons and families, kept year‐to‐year counts lower in FY2015 for most of the winter.

Shelter and Housing Inventory in 2015

SHELTER & HOUSING INVENTORY

Category

Units/Beds for Singles

Units for Families

Beds in Family Units

Winter Shelter

682

405

1,312

Emergency Shelter

2,256

406

1,295

Transitional Housing

950

428

1,190

Rapid Rehousing

185

888

2,736

Permanent & Permanent Supportive Housing

4,473

1,139

3,427

Point‐in‐Time Results

TCP coordinates with District and federal government agencies, professional  outreach providers, and more than 300 trained community volunteers to conduct a census and survey of homeless persons living on the streets. On January 28, 2015, teams were dispatched to canvass the District from 10:00 pm to 2:00 am. Information was collected on paper survey forms; TCP transferred this data into the HMIS to produce the count of unsheltered persons on the night of Point‐in‐Time. These data were augmented by meal providers, drop‐in centers, and the public library where staff conducted surveys on clients served the day after PIT who first indicated whether they had spent the night of the Point‐in‐Time on the street, in shelter, supportive housing, or in another housing arrangement so that they could be counted accordingly.

In order to get the full data set of the HUD‐defined Literally Homeless population, TCP generated HMIS data for all HMIS participating emergency shelter and transitional housing providers for January 28, 2015. TCP created an Excel form for all non‐HMIS participating or privately funded providers to provide data on clients served on the date of Point‐in‐Time (note: domestic violence providers only provide de‐identified information). Data for the  HUD  Formerly Homeless population was collected in a consistent manner.

The table below details the total number of people counted during Point‐in‐Time 2015. The number of single persons, the number families, and the number of persons in those families are also included along with Point‐in‐Time 2014 information for the purposes of comparison. As shown, there were reductions among both single persons (‐3.3 percent) and well as families (percent) counted from year to year, though counts in both categories were higher than during the 2013 count.

 

HOMELESS COUNT BY CATEGORY

Category

2015

2014

Percent Change

Total Number Counted

7,298

7,748

‐5.8%

Total Number of Singles

3,821

3,953

‐3.3%

Total Number of Families

1,131

1,231

‐8.1%

Total of Persons in Families

3,477

3,795

‐8.4%

Total Adults in Families

1,428

1,559

‐8.4%

Total Children in Families

2,049

2,236

‐8.4%

 

In addition to the count, unsheltered and sheltered persons were surveyed about their needs as a part of Point‐in‐Time. The following table shows the rates at which persons counted self‐ reported living with the HUD‐recognized disabilities or that self‐reported belonging to any of several HUD‐ and/or Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments‐defined priority homeless subpopulations such as United States Military Veterans or persons for whom limited English proficiency is a barrier to receiving service.

 

DISABILITIES & SUBPOPULATIONS

 

Unaccompanied Single Persons

Adults in Families

Total (All Adults)

Chronic Substance Abuse (CSA)

14.9%

1.5%

11.2%

Severe Mental Illness (SMI)

13.3%

8.6%

12.0%

Dual Diagnosis (CSA & SMI)

11.1%

2.5%

8.8%

Chronic Health Problem

10.3%

1.8%

8.0%

Living With HIV/AIDS

2.1%

0.6%

1.7%

Physical Disability

16.9%

2.9%

13.0%

Domestic Violence (DV) History

10.7%

27.0%

15.1%

Homeless Due to DV

2.7%

15.3%

6.2%

Limited English Proficiency

7.4%

2.7%

6.1%

U.S. Military Veterans

10.3%

1.1%

9.5%

 

Chronic Homelessness

There were 1,593 unaccompanied homeless adults and 66 families in the District who met the federal definition of chronic homelessness at PIT. HUD defines the chronically homeless as persons who are disabled and who have been continuously homeless for a year or more, or who have been homeless four times within the past three years.

Income & Employment

Persons surveyed at Point‐in‐Time also responded to questions about income and employment. While 62.6 percent of single persons and 14.2 percent of adults in families reported that they had no income of any kind, 19.3 percent of singles reported that they were employed at PIT as were 25.1 percent of adults in families. Consistent with previous years’ counts, income from employment was the most common income source reported among unaccompanied homeless adults, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (or TANF) was the most commonly reported income source among adults in families.

Permanent Housing, Permanent Supportive Housing, and Rapid Rehousing Placements

At the Point‐in‐Time, TCP also counted persons in permanent housing, permanent supportive housing, and rapid rehousing programs to obtain a count of those HUD defines as Formerly Homeless. While this does not include all persons who were homeless at some point in the past, it is a comprehensive count all persons who were homeless, but who now permanently reside in housing who likely still would be homeless were it not for these dedicated resources.

During Point‐in‐Time 2015, a total of 4,230 formerly homeless unaccompanied single men and women were in permanent and permanent supportive housing, as were 1,514 adults and 1,879 children in 1,128 formerly homeless families. The 2015 count of formerly homeless also included 185 single persons 888 families in rapid re‐housing programs funded by the DC DHS, HUD and the VA.

Fairfax County, VA

Description of Homeless Services

In 2008, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors established the Office to Prevent and End Homelessness (OPEH) to manage, coordinate and monitor day‐to‐day implementation of the community’s plan to end homelessness within the next 10 years. OPEH supports the Fairfax‐ Falls Church Community Partnership to Prevent and End Homelessness which engages nonprofits, businesses, faith‐based communities, and county agencies in its efforts to implement the 10‐Year plan, which focuses on rapid re‐housing and prevention by increasing the availability of permanent affordable housing. OPEH also works closely with the independent Governing Board of the Community Partnership as well as a wide range of committees and workgroups to build awareness and provide strong leadership for the plan. In addition, OPEH supports a new prevention and rapid‐rehousing model (regional Housing Opportunities Support Teams or HOST) that provides services and resources to at‐risk and homeless families and individuals, thus preventing them from becoming homeless or ending their homelessness quickly. OPEH partners with a wide range of non‐profit and governmental service providers who provide the entire range of homeless services, including outreach, homelessness prevention, rapid‐rehousing, emergency shelter, hypothermia prevention, transitional housing programs, permanent supportive housing and affordable permanent housing. Our CoC continues to increase the number of people moving into permanent housing by applying rapid rehousing and housing first strategies, as well as the utilization of mainstream resources and the expansion of permanent supportive housing. OPEH manages the HMIS and acts as the CoC lead, preparing and submitting the Continuum of Care application and ensuring compliance with all HUD mandates.

During 2014, the Fairfax‐Falls Church Community Partnership to Prevent and End Homelessness continued progress in implementing the Ten‐Year Plan. Significant accomplishments include:

  • Fairfax County met its target of housing 50 of the most vulnerable individuals by the end of the first year of its 100,000 Homes campaign. Many of those housed were among those who utilized the most services throughout the years and were also chronically homeless.
  • In FY 2014, a total of 926 people moved into permanent housing from the county’s shelters for families with children and single adults, representing a twenty‐three percent increase from the previous year.
  • In FY 2014, the county’s homeless family shelters continued to improve efficiency in serving and rapidly moving people into permanent housing as the average length of stay in shelter was 70 days, a twenty‐seven percent decrease from the previous year.
  • Construction was completed on Kate’s Place, six units of Permanent Supportive Housing for families built and supported by Fairfax County, co‐located with a family emergency shelter. Families with a long history of homelessness and child welfare involvement will enter the program in early 2015.
  • Fairfax County Chairman Sharon Bulova signed on to the Mayor’s Challenge to End

Veteran’s Homelessness. Fairfax County is coordinating with Veterans’ Affairs, regional SSVF providers, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a range of partners to achieve this goal locally by the end of 2015.

  • The Office to Prevent and End Homelessness released a RFP for all county funded shelters, hypothermia prevention programs, PSH programs, community case management, housing location, and other homeless services which will provide better coordination of services and bring all contracts and operations in alignment with the Fairfax County 10‐Year Plan.
  • A new Coordinated Access, Assessment and Assignment system is under development. Building on the strides we have already made in this area, and with technical assistance from the Technical Assistance Collaborative, our CoC has launched a comprehensive plan to develop and implement a system based on best practices that will comply with HUD mandates.
  • A collaborative process that included representatives from government and non‐profit agencies resulted in the provision of a Hypothermia Prevention Program in 55 locations throughout the County, primarily in houses of worship. The collaborative established strategic processes for ensuring that locations not originally intended for overnight use met all applicable fire and building codes ensuring safe shelter for our hypothermia guests in an expedited manner. This approach is considered a best practice model that helped secure passage of a much needed change in the 2012 Virginia building code.
  • Our CoC has continued to add Permanent Supportive Housing through both reallocations and new projects as part of the HUD CoC Program competitions. We received funding for new bonus projects in 2012 and 2014. In addition, four transitional housing grants were reallocated during 2013 and 2014. Altogether these new PSH projects, two of which are already operational, will provide PSH to 93 chronically homeless adults.

 

Year‐Round and Winter Inventory of Beds

 

Beds for Individuals

Beds/Units for Persons in Families

All Year‐ Round Beds

Winter Beds

Hypothermia/Overflow/Other (Additional winter Capacity)

 

255

 

0

 

 

255

Emergency Shelter Beds

(includes DV shelters)

150

358/93

508

Counted in hypothermia/overflow

Transitional Housing Beds

27

433/135

460

n/a

TOTALS

432

791 / 228

968

255

*Overflow beds are available for both individuals and persons in families as necessary throughout the year.

Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing

There are currently 8 regular emergency shelter programs in Fairfax County operating year round. All shelters are operated by non‐profit partner organizations with funding through county contracts with additional funding secured by the non‐profits. Two of these facilities serve families with children and single adults impacted by domestic violence. There are three family shelter programs, two utilizing congregate facilities and one using leased apartments. In addition, there is one shelter facility which serves both families and single male and female adults. This shelter also contains a medical respite section for those in need of nursing care. There are two emergency shelter facilities that serve male and female adults.

These shelters have the capacity to provide overflow beds as needed throughout the year.   They are primarily used during the winter but are used for extreme heat or other emergencies as well. Our county also maintains a motel program as overflow for families. In addition, there are 5 hypothermia prevention programs operated in three fixed sites and two that rotate  among faith based congregations.

In 2014 our community’s Safe Haven was reclassified as Permanent Supportive Housing; reflecting the way it had been operating for many years. The county does operate a small facility as a safe haven; targeting a chronically homeless seriously mentally ill population. Our range of shelter programs includes a shelter for homeless youth operated by a nonprofit. Following HUD guidance this program has been included in the 2015 PIT and HIC for the first time. In addition, a small program for veterans that was previously classified as transitional is now included as emergency shelter in accordance with HUD guidance. Overall, emergency shelter capacity remains basically the same as previous years.  However, we continue to work  to balance resources put towards shelter versus permanent housing.

There are three transitional housing programs that serve single adults in Fairfax County. One of these programs serve female veterans specifically, one serves young adults who are still attending Fairfax County Public Schools and no longer reside with their families, and one serves men recently released from correctional institutions. There are sixteen transitional housing programs for families. Six of these programs serve people impacted by domestic violence, one serves female veterans and their families, and one serves young mothers and their children. These programs are operated by non‐profit and government agencies with various combinations of HUD CoC Program funds, private funding, and contracts with the county. Overall, transitional housing inventory for both single individuals and families has decreased  due to shifting priorities and reallocations of HUD CoC Program funding.

Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results

As shown in the table below, the overall point‐in‐time count for 2015 declined from 2014, from 1,225 people to 1,204 people, an almost 2 percent reduction. This number includes an increase of 20 people in families, a decrease of 42 single adults, and an increase of one unaccompanied youth for a total decrease of 21 persons in the past year.      There were two more families than

the previous year but the families had more members. This ends our continual decline in the number of families and number of people in families since 2008. The number of single adults continued to decline for the third consecutive year.

 

HOMELESS COUNT BY CATEGORY

 

Category

2015

2014

2013

Percent Change 2014

to 2015

Percent Change 2013

to 2015

Total Number Counted

1,204

1,225

1,350

‐2%

‐11%

Total of Singles

488

530

603

‐8%

‐19%

Total Number of Families

213

211

230

1%

‐7%

Total of Persons in Families

715

695

747

3%

‐4%

Total Adults in Families

285

288

295

‐1%

‐3%

Total Children in Families

430

407

452

6%

‐5%

Unaccompanied youth

1

0

0

n/a

n/a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The number of people in families is generally the same as the previous year. The main reason that there was not a decline was lack of access to our local homeless preference Housing Choice Vouchers, which were temporarily suspended due to federal sequestration. Despite this significant loss of resources, strong prevention efforts, prioritizing rapid re‐housing from family shelters, and strategically reducing the numbers of transitional housing units has kept the  family homeless population basically unchanged from last year. The decrease in single adults is due to the continued success of the 100,000 Homes Campaign, increased and reallocated HUD funding for PSH programs targeting this population, and additional VASH vouchers allocated during 2014.

The number of homeless individuals sheltered through winter seasonal overflow and hypothermia prevention programs decreased slightly this year. As those in emergency shelter and those unsheltered remained basically the same, this reflects the general decline in the homeless single adult population. This data suggests that intensified outreach efforts continue to be successful and that our winter seasonal and hypothermia preventions programs are meeting the needs of this population. The number of individuals who were identified as unsheltered increased from 66 to 68. The number of chronically  homeless  individuals  increased from 196 to 203. These slight increases in both populations maybe due to our improved and better coordinated outreach counting on the night of the PIT, in addition to the extra days allowed by HUD for counting the unsheltered.   In addition, one program serving

veterans was reclassified by the VA and HUD as emergency shelter, which added to our chronic homeless numbers. Our CoC continues to have a minimal number of chronically homeless families; this year there were 6 chronically homeless families, comprising 16 adults and children on the night of the PIT.

Overall, single individuals represented 41 percent and families represented 59 percent of all people counted.  Among adults in families 78 percent were female and 22 percent male.  Among single individuals 73 percent were male, 27 percent female and there were two transgendered individuals as well. Children under age 18 in families were 36 percent of all persons counted, increasing slightly from last year. This number includes one unaccompanied minor. Youth households, consisting of families where all members were under the age of 25, comprised 4 percent (29) of the families and 11 percent (52) of the single individuals.

 

HOMELESS SUBPOPULATIONS

 

Individual Adults

Adults in Families

Children in Families*

TOTAL

Substance Use Disorder

93

5

98

Severe Mental Illness

122

19

141

Co‐occurring Disorder

53

2

55

 

 

 

 

 

Living With HIV/AIDS

5

1

6

Physical Disability

69

9

78

Chronic Health Problems

74

13

87

Domestic Violence‐‐ History

57

128

214

399

Domestic Violence‐‐ Current

22

100

190

312

Limited English Proficiency

55

58

113

U.S. Military Veteran

39

7

46

 

 

 

 

 

*Children under 18. Adult children 18 and over living in families are counted with adults in families.

 

The major subpopulations are noted in the chart above. In addition, among single adults, only 25 percent were reported as employed and 48 percent reported having any income.  In  families, 62 percent of persons age 18 and over were employed and 81 percent reported having some source of income. These numbers are consistent with last year’s numbers. For single individuals, 55 percent were reported as chronic substance abusers, seriously mentally ill, or both, the same as last year. Among all persons in families, 41 percent were homeless due to domestic violence, an increase from 33 percent last year. This increase in DV numbers reflects the expansion of capacity as programs have chosen to concentrate on serving those affected by domestic violence. Limited English proficiency was noted for 20 percent of adults in families, but only 11 percent of single individuals. The 2015 count included 46 veterans or 6 percent of  all adults; this is a decrease from 51 in 2014.

Permanent, Permanent Supportive Housing and Rapid Re‐housing Placements

Our CoC continued to increase the number of people moving into permanent housing by applying rapid rehousing and housing first strategies, as well as the utilization of mainstream resources and the expansion of permanent supportive housing.

During FY2014 a total of 926 people were moved from emergency shelter to permanent housing. Hundreds of these people were rapidly rehoused as our community continued the momentum of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Rapid Rehousing Challenge by launching a CoC challenge under the leadership of a non‐profit partner. A range of funding was utilized to provide Rapid Rehousing, including the federal Emergency Solutions Grant program (ESG) and the Commonwealth of Virginia Homeless Solutions Program, along with funding from the County of Fairfax and private donations.

Permanent Supportive Housing resources were expanded by strategic utilization of HUD CoC Program funding. During FY 2014 100 people, 80 single individuals and 20 people in 6 families moved into PSH, via new programs and vacancies in continuing programs. In addition, VASH voucher expansion allowed for 65 additional people to be served by this significant resource. Additional VASH vouchers have already been allocated for utilization in 2015 and funding has already been secured for major expansion of PSH for chronically homeless single adults.

One of the key sources of ongoing rental subsidies, the Housing Choice Voucher Program, was drastically curtailed the past two years due to sequestration. As our Public Housing Authority has maintained a homeless preference for a number of years the elimination of this housing option has both contributed to the high number of families becoming homeless and has significantly impacted the number of homeless moving to permanent housing as well. In addition, although we continue to document substantial achievements in our efforts to prevent and end homelessness, extremely high rental costs and the severe shortage of very low‐income housing in Fairfax County remain major challenges in full implementation of our 10‐Year Plan.

Frederick County, MD

Description of Homeless Services

Frederick County, Maryland is fortunate to have a wide‐range of governmental, private non‐ profit and faith‐based organizations that together have established an almost seamless service delivery system targeted to addressing the needs of homeless individuals and families. Major providers of homeless services include the Advocates for Homeless Families, Frederick Community Action Agency, Frederick Rescue Mission, Heartly House, Religious Coalition for Emergency Human Needs, Mental Health Management Agency of Frederick County, and the Student Homelessness Initiative Partnership ‐ all of these agencies are active members of the Frederick County Coalition for the Homeless.

During 2014, the Religious Coalition for Emergency Human Needs (RCEHN) established a Family Emergency Shelter that rotates between various church facilities, but serves as a more cost‐ effective alternative to motel placements. In addition, the RCEHN expanded the Linton Emergency Shelter for adults from a winter‐only shelter to a 12‐month shelter that is open year‐round. The Frederick Community Action Agency (FCAA) expanded its Housing First Program to a total of 25 beds in 21 units of permanent supportive housing (some are two‐ bedroom units).

Established in 1983, the Frederick County Coalition for the Homeless (FCCH) is the oldest local coalition working to end homelessness in Maryland. The FCCH is a coalition comprised of governmental and non‐profit human service and community development organizations, religious institutions, for‐profit businesses such as banks, local government officials, interested citizens, and homeless and formerly homeless persons. The FCCH meets monthly in order to coordinate the planning of local homeless services, discuss local needs and approve new projects, and advocate for additional resources to address homelessness.

 

Year‐Round and Winter Inventory of Beds

 

Beds for Individuals

Beds/Units for Persons in Families

All Year‐ Round Beds

Winter Beds

Hypothermia/Overflow/Other (Additional winter Capacity

80

0/0

 

80

Emergency Shelter Beds

1

61/15

62

0

Transitional Housing Beds

51

93/32

144

0

TOTALS

132 beds

154 beds

47 units

206 Beds

80 beds

Homeless Point‐In‐Time Results

The most recent Point‐in‐Time Survey for both sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations was conducted on January 28, 2015. Survey tools were distributed and thoroughly discussed at a regular monthly meeting of the Frederick County Coalition for the Homeless (FCCH). All emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and motel placement providers were instructed on how to use the survey instrument and when to conduct the Point‐ in‐Time Survey. Whenever possible, surveys were to be completed directly by the people who were homeless; however, shelter staff could utilize administrative or HMIS data if a person was unable to directly complete the survey. A total of 311 homeless persons (comprised of 224 adults and 87 children) completed the point‐in‐time survey; the largest household type was 181 single‐individuals.

The Point‐in‐Time Survey instrument contains specific questions regarding all HUD‐defined homeless subpopulations (e.g., veteran, alcohol abuse problem, drug abuse problem) and contains specific questions about the length of time that a respondent has been homeless.   With regard to disabling conditions, the following data was reported: 67 respondents reported a substance abuse problem/addiction; 60 respondents reported chronic health problems; 36 respondents reported having physical disabilities; 44 respondents reported serious mental health problems; 41 respondents reported substance abuse problems and co‐occurring mental health problems; 20 respondents (including children) reported that they are survivors of  current domestic violence; 13 respondents reported that they are veterans; 1 respondent reported a diagnosis of HIV or AIDS; and a total of 89 respondents (all single individuals) reported being “chronically homeless”.

According to the 2015 Point‐In‐Time data, homelessness in Frederick County increased by a total of 36 persons from the 2013 PIT count of 275 persons. It is important to keep in mind that the Point‐in‐Time survey is a “one‐day snapshot” of homelessness and may not be reflective of all trends experienced in a local jurisdiction.

1 This figure includes adults and children who reported a current episode of domestic violence.

 

HOMELESS COUNT BY CATEGORY

Category

2015

2014

2013

Percent Change 2013 to

2015

Total Number Counted

311

246

275

13.0%

Total Number of Singles Individuals

181

141

171

5.8%

Total Number of Families

37

36

38

‐2.6%

Total of Persons in Families

130

105

104

25%

Total Adults in Families

43

41

39

10.3%

Total Children in Families

87

64

65

33.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

EMPLOYMENT

Category

Total Number Employed

Total Number of Single Individuals

17

Total Number of Adults in Families

24

Total Number of Children in Families

2

 

 

SUBPOPULATION DATA

Subpopulations

Single Individuals

Persons in Families

Total

Substance Use Disorder

65

2

67

Serious Mental Illness

38

6

44

Co‐Occurring Disorder

36

5

41

U.S. Veteran

13

0

10

Living with HIV/AIDS

1

0

1

Domestic Violence Survivor (including children) 1

3

17

20

Physical Disability

36

0

36

Chronic Health Problem

56

4

60

Limited English (adults only)

0

1

1

Chronically Homeless

89

0

89

 

Loudoun County, VA

Description of Homeless Services

Loudoun’s continuum of homeless services includes seasonal cold weather shelter for adults  (16 beds; flexible capacity), emergency shelter for adults and families (79 beds), and transitional housing for adults and families (91 beds). Daytime “drop‐in” services are also  provided. Services are provided by Loudoun County Department of Family Services (DFS) under contract with Volunteers of America Chesapeake, The Good Shepherd Alliance, and Loudoun Citizens for Social Justice (12‐bed domestic violence shelter). Homelessness prevention services are provided by DFS, and also by INMED Partnerships for Children (INMED). INMED’s program provides longer‐term case management to a smaller number of family households. INMED also provides intensive case management for families with young children living in Loudoun emergency homeless shelters and transitional housing facilities to help them gain stability to become self‐sufficient in permanent housing. Rapid Re‐housing assistance for adults and families is provided by The Good Shepherd Alliance and Volunteers of America at emergency shelter sites. Loudoun has been successful in launching a Permanent Supportive Housing Program for chronically homeless households by adding 4 PSH units serving chronically homeless households during the year. Funding has been obtained to expand this program by adding up to 15 units in Fiscal Year 2016; the expansion will be accomplished by converting one Transitional Housing Program to PSH.

 

Year‐Round and Winter Inventory of Beds

 

Beds for Individuals

Beds\Units for Persons in Families

All Year‐Round Beds

Winter Beds

Hypothermia/Overflow/Ot her

(Additional winter Capacity)

16

 

 

16 (flexible to serve

more if needed)

Emergency Shelter Beds

13

66

79

0

Transitional Housing Beds

9

82

91

0

 

 

 

 

 

Homeless Point‐in‐Time Results

The January 28, 2015 count identified 168 persons (80 single adults and 88 persons in families) experiencing homelessness. Compared to 2014 results when 179 persons were counted, there was a 6 percent decrease in the number of literally homeless persons. For the one‐year period from 2014 to 2015 the results document a 12 percent decrease in the number of homeless families and a 3.8 percent increase in the number of homeless singles. The number of chronically homeless individuals identified for 2015 is 20; the same number as in 2014, and

represents a 29 percent decrease from 2013 when 28 chronically homeless adults were identified. For 2015 one chronically homeless family was identified. The 2015 PIT results are consistent with the 2013 PIT results.

 

HOMELESS COUNT BY CATEGORY

Category

2015

2014

2013

Percent Change 2013 to

2015

Total Number Counted

168

179

166

1%

Total of Singles

80

77

81

‐1%

Total Number of Families

27

31

24

12.5%

Total of Persons in Families

88

102

85

3.5%

Total Adults in Families

34

40

29

17%

Total Children in Families

54

62

56

‐4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employment among single homeless adults rose to 43 percent in 2015, up from 40 percent in 2014. Adults in families show a 71 percent rate of employment for 2015, representing a significant increase over 2014 when 60 percent of adults in families were employed. Employment is the most common source of income among all homeless adults in 2015, followed by Disability Income.

The most commonly occurring sub‐populations among homeless adults for 2015 are Domestic Violence Victim (22 adults), Serious Mental Illness (22 adults), and Chronic Health Condition (22 adults). In 2014 the top three sub‐populations by order of prevalence were Chronic Health Problem, Domestic Violence Victim, and Substance Use Disorder. The number of adults reporting Serious Mental Illness is up slightly from last year (22 in 2015 vs.18 in 2014). The number of adults with a history of Domestic Violence is the same as last year (22 adults for 2014 and 2015).  The number of adults with Substance Use Disorder decreased significantly  over last year (9 in 2015 vs. 17 in 2014). For 2015, there is a slight increase in the number of adults with a Physical Disability (9 in 2014 vs. 13 in 2015). The table below provides more detail on  sub‐populations.

 

2015 HOMELESS SUBPOPULATIONS

 

Individual Adults

Adults in Families

Children in Families

TOTAL

Substance Use Disorder

9

0

0

9

Serious Mental Illness

22

0

0

22

Co‐Occurring Disorder

12

0

0

12

 

 

 

 

 

Chronic Health Condition

20

2

0

22

Living With HIV/AIDS

0

0

0

0

Physical Disability

11

2

0

13

Domestic Violence Victim

9

13

7

29

Limited English

1

1

0

2

U.S. Veterans

4

1

0

5

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Results

The number of homeless persons decreased from 179 in 2014 to 168 for 2015. Both the  number of homeless families and the total number of persons in the families have decreased significantly since last year. The number of homeless families counted for 2015 was 27 (containing 88 persons) down from 2014 when 31 homeless families (containing 102 persons) were counted. A slight increase in the number of homeless singles was observed between 2014 and 2015 (from 77 in 2014 up to 80 in 2015). The increase in homelessness among singles is evident in the higher number of unsheltered adults counted this year (from 24 in 2014 up to 36 in 2015). The decrease in the number of homeless families reported this year may be due to shorter lengths of stays by families in Transitional Housing and shelter programs. The number  of homeless identified during the 2015 PIT count represents a significant decrease from 2014, and the 2015 results are consistent with the 2013 PIT count results. The availability of Rapid Re‐housing services at two emergency shelters is one factor that may have contributed to the lower number of homeless identified this year. The expansion of permanent supportive  housing over the coming year should help to reduce the number of unsheltered chronically homeless adults by providing housing support to a population with many barriers to accessing housing. It is difficult to predict if homeless numbers will decrease in the future, however, the availability of resources dedicated to prevention of homelessness, rapid re‐housing, permanent supportive housing, and increased coordination within the Loudoun Continuum of Care demonstrates a strong commitment to assisting persons to remain in and obtain permanent housing.

Permanent Housing

The number of households exiting to permanent housing (PH) from VOA‐operated programs includes: 37 households from Emergency Shelter into PH and 4 households from Transitional Housing into PH. The Good Shepherd Alliance programs exited 15 households (combined total from Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing) into PH.

Access to affordable housing and subsidized housing options continues to be limited in Loudoun. The federally funded Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program currently serves 623 households, with 75 of the vouchers designated for households with disabilities. The HCV wait list is closed to new applicants at this time. Reductions in federal funding for the program, coupled with high rental housing costs, limit the number of households that can be served and increase wait times for those on the wait list. Three small subsidized senior housing projects also exist, serving persons aged 60 and over. The Affordable Dwelling Unit (ADU)  rental program provides 320 rental units to households at income levels between 30 and 50 percent  of Area Median Income (AMI). The majority of Loudoun’s homeless have incomes at 0 to 30 percent of AMI, a level too low to qualify for the ADU rental program. Developers of new rental housing units in Loudoun County have proffered some units for households at a variety of income limits including some units for households with extremely low and very low incomes. It is uncertain when these units will become available. A Housing Stakeholders Group (HSG), appointed by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, met over the course of 2014 and developed forty‐five recommendations to help address affordable housing needs in Loudoun. The Board adopted several HSG recommendations in January 2015, and they will be implemented.

Permanent Supportive Housing

The inventory of permanent supportive housing (PSH) for homeless persons increased during the year. Four units of PSH for chronically homeless were added during the year, and the units were occupied by four adults as of January 28, 2015. Three of the rental units housing the PSH consumers are new rental units for households with incomes at 0 to 30 of AMI that became available in 2014. Through the reallocation of HUD CoC grant funds, the PSH program will expand by up to 15 additional units during FY 2016. In order to accomplish this expansion, one Transitional Housing Program will be converted to PSH. Mental Health (MH) Residential  Services provides 14 permanent supportive housing (PSH) beds for individuals in group homes, supervised apartments, and private residences. This housing is not specifically for homeless persons, but homeless persons with severe mental illness, developmental disabilities, or  chronic substance abuse issues may be served if there are openings, and if eligibility criteria are met.

Rapid Re‐Housing

Rapid Re‐housing (RRH) services are available for both single individuals and family households through The Good Shepherd Alliance and the Volunteers of America, Chesapeake (providers that also operate Emergency Shelter). Two regional Supportive Services for Veterans providers also offer RRH services to Veterans in Loudoun. On January 28, 2015 the number of formerly

homeless households receiving RRH financial assistance included 9 adult households (including 11 persons) and 7 family households (including 22 persons). 2 The number of  households assisted with RRH in prior years includes 42 for FY 2014, and 32 for FY 2013.

2 The January 28, 2015 RRH data includes only households receiving RRH financial assistance for January 2015; it is not a year‐to‐date figure.

Homeless Services Committee Members

Page statistics
1528 view(s) and 156 edit(s)
Social share
Share this page?

Tags

This page has no custom tags.
This page has no classifications.

Comments

You must to post a comment.

Attachments