The Homelessness Pulse Project: First Quarterly Report - OneCPD

hudhre.info

The Homelessness Pulse Project: First Quarterly Report - OneCPD

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following principal staff of the nine participating Continuums of Care played an invaluable role

in this report by providing and interpreting the data they so carefully collect and maintain:

Phoenix/Mesa Maricopa County CoC: Sarah Graham and Brande Mead

Bridgeport/Stratford/Fairfield: Russ Cormier and Judy Sklarz

District of Columbia: Tom Fredericksen and Darlene Matthews

Lakeland/Winterhaven, Polk County: Mark Spiker and Michael Watkins

Kentucky Balance of State: Carol Anne Sell and Davey King

Shreveport/Bossier/Northwest: Lane Richardson

New York City: Jay Bainbridge

Cleveland/Cuyahoga County: Carolyn Nabakowski and Ruth Gillett

Richmond/Henrico, Chesterfield, Hanover Counties: Margot Ackermann, Kelly

King Horne, and Evan Scully

The report was prepared by Abt Associates Inc. Contributing staff members include Lauren Dunton,

Judith Feins, John Griffith, Kate Ryan, and Christopher Blaine. Jeff Smith was responsible for design

and production.

The project also has benefited from the support of HUD staff in the Office of Community Planning

and Development, notably Mark Johnston, Ann Oliva, and Julie Hovden. In addition, Alvaro Cortes

and Mary Joel Holin of Abt Associates and Dennis Culhane of the University of Pennsylvania

provided valuable guidance and assistance in coordination with the preparation of the 2008 Annual

Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR).


WHAT THE HOMELESSNESS PULSE PROJECT DOES

The Homelessness Pulse project is intended to help the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) gain a better understanding of the impact of the current economic crisis on

homelessness. This understanding relies heavily on collecting up-to-date information on how counts

of homeless persons may be changing as the crisis unfolds.

HUD reports to Congress each year in the Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) on the status

of homeless populations and services in the United States, drawing on a nationally representative

sample of communities and presenting a comprehensive analysis. But at present, the data on

homelessness reported to HUD—whether through the AHAR or through the homeless services funding

process—are only collected annually, which limits HUD’s ability to track real-time changes in

homelessness.

To address this limitation, HUD has partnered with nine Continuums of Care nationwide to collect more

timely data on homelessness. A Continuum of Care (CoC) is a community’s or region’s plan to

organize and deliver housing and services that meet the needs of homeless individuals and families to

obtain stable housing and maximize self-sufficiency. The data—which will be collected on a quarterly

basis—will help to gauge whether rising unemployment, increased foreclosures, and a slumping

economy are leading to marked increases in homelessness.

The up-to-date information will enhance HUD’s ability to respond to the economic crisis and

inform public policy. But the report draws on a very small number of volunteer communities,

so it cannot give as reliable or complete a national picture as the AHAR. Its contents should be

taken as suggestive—not definitive— of how homelessness may be changing during these

uncertain economic times. In the coming months, HUD intends to expand the number of communities

reporting to the Pulse project to track real-time changes in homelessness more reliably.

WHAT’S IN THIS REPORT?

This is the first of the quarterly reports from the Homelessness Pulse project. In it, we:

Introduce the participating sites, with a brief summary on how they were selected;

Present the annual point-in-time (PIT) counts of sheltered and unsheltered homeless

individuals and families, gathered in the last week of January 2009;

Compare these 2009 PIT counts to the 2008 PIT counts for the same CoCs;

Examine the quarterly PIT counts collected by the CoCs at the end of March 2009;

Convey some anecdotes and first-hand qualitative data from the CoCs; and

Describe what is coming in subsequent reports.

WHO’S REPORTING PULSE DATA?

Nine CoCs volunteered to participate in the project (see Exhibit 1). These CoCs are located throughout

the Unites States and represent different types of jurisdictions (urban, suburban, rural, and mixed). The

selected CoCs are not a representative sample of communities, but rather they provide an early

indication—a “pulse”—of how the extent and nature of homelessness may be changing over time.

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 1


Exhibit 1 summarizes the characteristics of the nine participating CoCs, which together cover almost

20 million people, or 6.5 percent of the U.S. population. The individual sites are briefly profiled in

Attachment A.

The nine participating CoCs contained 64,585 beds in emergency shelters and transitional housing in

2008, or about 16 percent of the nation’s total inventory of emergency shelter and transitional housing

beds. 1 Of these beds, 71 percent (over 46,000) were located in New York City. Over 60 percent of

the beds in the Pulse CoCs were for families, while the remaining beds (nearly 40 percent) were for

individuals.

Exhibit 1: Sites Participating in the Homelessness Pulse Project

Continuum

of Care CoC Name Type of CoC

AZ-502

CT-503

U.S.

Location

# of

Counties

Principal

Cities

2008

Population a

Phoenix/Mesa/Maricopa

County Regional Southwest 1 Phoenix, Mesa 3,954,598

Bridgeport/Stratford/

Fairfield Regional Northeast 1 (part) b Bridgeport 244,607

DC-500 District of Columbia City Mid-Atlantic 0 Washington, DC 591,833

FL-503

KY-500

LA-502

Lakeland/Winterhaven,

Polk County Regional South 1 Lakeland 580,594

Kentucky Balance of Balance of

Frankfort,

State

State South 118 Elizabethtown 3,273,254

Shreveport/Bossier/

Northwest Regional South 9 Shreveport 533,539

NY-600 New York City City Mid-Atlantic 5 New York City 8,363,710

OH-502

VA-500

Cleveland/Cuyahoga

County Regional Midwest 1 Cleveland 1,283,925

Richmond/Henrico,

Chesterfield, Hanover

Counties Regional Mid-Atlantic 7 Richmond 962,696

TOTAL, 9 Continuums of Care 19,788,756

a. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.html. County figures are estimates for 2008; city figures

are estimates for 2006.

b. CT-503 contains only portions of Fairfield County, CT.

WHAT DO THE JANUARY POINT-IN-TIME DATA SHOW?

In January 2009, a total of 67,243 persons were homeless and most were persons in families.

All Continuums of Care were required to conduct a point-in-time (PIT) count of homeless persons in

January 2009. To do this, each CoC selected one night during the last full week of January to perform a

count of all sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons in their jurisdiction. PIT counts include onenight

“street counts” of unsheltered homeless persons living in places not meant for human habitation

(e.g., streets, abandoned buildings, vehicles, or parks), as well as tallies of the number of sheltered

homeless persons based on a census of emergency shelters and transitional housing occupants on the

1

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development,

The 2008 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, forthcoming, July 2009, p. 61. An updated

Housing Inventory Chart (HIC) bed count for 2009 for the Pulse sites will be provided in the future.

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 2


designated night. PIT counts are required by HUD biennially, although all the CoCs participating in the

Homelessness Pulse project chose to conduct a PIT count in January 2008.

The data from the nine participating CoCs show that in late January 2009 a total of 67,243 persons

were homeless (60,371 sheltered persons and 6,872 unsheltered persons). Of this total, 55 percent

were in households with dependent children, and 45 percent were in households without dependent

children—either individuals alone or persons in multiple adult households. (See the first panel of

Exhibit 2.)

The pie chart in the second panel of

Exhibit 2 shows that about 61 percent of

sheltered homeless persons were in

households with dependent children, a

higher proportion than the family share of

the total (sheltered and unsheltered) PIT

count. This is because households with

dependent children make up a very small

portion—just 6.4 percent—of the

unsheltered population (third panel of

Exhibit 2). Exhibit B-1 (in Attachment B)

provides the detailed data for these January

2009 point-in-time counts.

Between 2008 and 2009, the annual PIT

counts declined overall but there was

some variation across communities.

Across the nine CoCs reporting, the

January PIT count declined from 72,875 in

2008 to 67,243 in 2009 (see Exhibit 3).

Exhibit B-2 (in Attachment B) shows the

PIT counts for each reporting CoC.

Comparing annual PIT data must be done

with care, because the methodologies used

by CoCs to conduct these counts can vary

between CoCs and may even vary within a

CoC over time. Also, these methodologies

have changed over time. Most have

become more rigorous, and thus the

reliability of the estimates has improved

recently. These improvements partly are

attributable to the guidance and technical

assistance that HUD has provided to CoCs

throughout the country, in an effort to

increase the accuracy of their PIT counts.

For example, HUD has focused on

reducing the opportunity for doublecounting

homeless persons by suggesting

Exhibit 2: Counts of Homeless Persons in

Nine Continuums of Care, Jan. 2009

45%

39%

94%

Total Homeless Persons

Persons in Households with Dependent Children

Persons in Households without Dependent Children

Sheltered Homeless Persons

Persons in Households with Dependent Children

Unsheltered Homeless Persons

Persons in Households with Dependent Children

55%

Persons in Households without Dependent Children

61%

Persons in Households without Dependent Children

6%

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 3


de-duplication strategies and encouraging CoCs to use their Homelessness Management Information

Systems (HMIS) to de-duplicate sheltered counts. As a result, a reduction in the number of homeless

persons from year to year could be attributable to a CoC's improved counting techniques.

Exhibit 3: Changes in Total PIT Homeless Population Count by Pulse Site, 2008-2009

Homeless Population

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

51000

50000

49000

48000

47000

46000

45000

44000

43000

0

AZ-502 CT-503 DC-500 FL-503 KY-5001 LA-502 OH-502 VA-500

42000

NY-600

Site

Total Persons 2008 Total Persons 2009

The overall decline from 2008 to 2009 (5,632 persons) was distributed unevenly across the nine

participating communities. Five of the communities experienced moderate changes in their overall

homeless population (8 percent or less in either direction), while four communities experienced larger

shifts. Among the communities that experienced a sizable shift, the Lakeland/Winterhaven/Polk

County CoC in Florida was the only community to experience a large increase in its total homeless

population, from 655 to 820 (25 percent). The rest experience large decreases: the Kentucky Balance

of State CoC saw a 22 percent drop; the Shreveport/Bossier/Northwest Louisiana CoC experienced a

20 percent decrease; and New York City had an 11 percent decrease. 2

2

For consistency with the other sites, these New York City counts are constructed differently than the counts

they release locally. These numbers include households with dependent children staying in McKinney-

Vento funded, Department of Homeless Services (DHS), Department of Housing Preservation and

Development (HPD), HIV/AIDS Service Administration (HASA), and Department of Youth and

Community Development (DYCD) emergency shelter and transitional housing beds, as well as households

without dependent children staying in DHS, HPD, HASA, and DYCD emergency shelters and transitional

housing, programs for multiple adult households without children, drop-in centers, and faith-based beds.

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 4


Between 2008 and 2009, several communities experienced sizable changes in their counts of

unsheltered homeless persons.

While shifts in the sheltered population were marginal, there were some larger changes in the counts

of unsheltered persons. For example, the number of unsheltered homeless persons more than doubled

in Lakeland/Winterhaven/Polk County CoC, from 156 to 377. Three other CoCs

(Phoenix/Mesa/Maricopa County, Bridgeport/Stratford/ Fairfield, and Richmond/Henrico,

Chesterfield, Hanover Counties) also experienced increases in their unsheltered counts. The

remaining five CoCs experienced decreases in their unsheltered counts, ranging up to 70 percent for

the Kentucky Balance of State.

The substantial decrease in Kentucky (over a thousand persons) is due to the particular local

circumstances at that time and may not reflect a true decrease in unsheltered homelessness. Kentucky

Housing Corporation (KHC) and the Kentucky Interagency Council on Homelessness (KICH)

indicate that the extreme weather conditions experienced by much of the state during the timing of the

PIT count resulted in a potential undercount of the unsheltered homeless population. In the aftermath

of the storm, the Kentucky Balance of State was given permission by HUD to reschedule the

unsheltered count for February 24, 2009, although the sheltered count was conducted as scheduled.

Splitting the PIT count across two days resulted in several implementation issues, including

difficulties in recruiting volunteers for the unsheltered count and in expanding the geographic

coverage of the enumeration. 3

The District of Columbia also experienced a reduction in the number of individuals without shelter, as

well as in emergency shelters, from 2008 to 2009. According to staff at the Community Partnership

in Washington DC, the District of Columbia CoC initiated a new program in September 2008 to place

400 persons from the streets and shelters into permanent supportive housing. The success of this

initiative explains the drop in the CoC’s unsheltered and emergency shelter counts between 2008 and

2009.

After excluding New York City, the total homeless population declined slightly, but family

homelessness increased from 2008 to 2009.

Excluding New York City, among the eight other CoCs reporting to the Pulse report, about 37 percent

of all homeless persons on a single night in January 2009 were in households with dependent children

and 63 percent were in households without dependent children, a change from 36 percent and 64

percent in 2008, respectively. 4 The number of people in families with dependent children increased

by 1.3 percent between 2008 and 2009, from 8159 persons in 2008 to 8267 persons in 2009. Despite

the increases in family homelessness, overall homelessness declined over the same period by 1.4

percent among the eight CoCs.

Adding the data from New York City changes the portrait of homelessness just described. Including

New York City data, the share of people in families with dependent children increases to 55 percent

and the proportion without dependent children declines to 45 percent. In addition, the 1.3 percent

3

4

In addition, the Kentucky Balance of State found a large increase in the number of “precariously housed”

people (defined as either being doubled up with another household; living in housing without plumbing,

electricity, or adequate heat; or facing eviction within seven days). This number increased 29 percent from

2008 to 2009, jumping from 5,262 to 6,776.

Nationally, The 2008 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (forthcoming) shows that 38

percent of all homeless persons were in households with dependent children in January 2008, while 62

percent were counted as individuals.

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 5


increase in family homelessness changes to a 3.7 percent decline in family homelessness. This

represents a decrease of 326 households or 1,413 persons in families. In addition, the slight 1.4

percent decline in overall homelessness changes to a 7.7 percent decline when the New York City

data are included.

Patterns of change from 2007 to 2009 were less pronounced.

Patterns of change from 2007 to 2009 are difficult to discern. Looking over the three-year period, the

share of persons in households with dependent children among all homeless persons (for the nine sites

combined) was 55 percent in 2009, a slight increase from the 51 percent in 2007 and 53 percent in

2008. Two sites (AZ and DC) experienced both an increase in the total PIT counts and an increase in

the number of persons in households with dependent children between 2007 and 2009. Exhibit 4

illustrates these small shifts by site, and Exhibit B-3 provides the detailed counts.

Summary of the PIT Counts

To sum up, there are no very clear trends in the 2007-2009 annual count data. There was a decrease of

7.7 percent in the PIT total over these years across the nine CoCs combined, and five of the nine sites

saw decreasing PIT totals over the past three years. There were variations among the CoCs on

changes in the sheltered/unsheltered shares. And there were also differences in how the share of

persons in households with dependent children changed. Only in two Pulse sites were there overall

increases in PIT counts coupled with increases in persons in households with dependent children.

Exhibit 4: Annual Point-In-Time Individual and Family Population Changes by Pulse Site,

2007-2009 1

10000

9000

8000

60000

7000

50000

6000

5000

40000

4000

3000

30000

2000

20000

1000

0

10000

AZ-502 2007

AZ-502 2008

AZ-502 2009

CT-503 2007

CT-503 2008

CT-503 2009

DC-500 2007

DC-500 2008

DC-500 2009

FL-503 2007

FL-503 2008

FL-503 2009

KY-500 2007

KY-500 2008

KY-500 2009

Pulse Site and Year

LA-502 2007

LA-502 2008

LA-502 2009

OH-502 2007

OH-502 2008

OH-502 2009

VA-500 2007

VA-500 2008

VA-500 2009

0

NY-600 2007

NY-600 2008

NY-600 2009

Persons in Households with Dependent Children

Persons in Households without Dependent Children

1 The 2007 AZ-502 (Phoenix/Maricopa County) count has been corrected from previously published estimates based on a recent review by the CoC.

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 6


WHAT DO THE QUARTERLY POINT-IN-TIME DATA SHOW?

For the first quarter of 2009, the nine CoCs reported a combined total of 61,280 sheltered

persons on March 31, 2009.

On March 31, 2009, the nine CoCs reported a combined total of 61,280 sheltered persons. Of the

sheltered total, 37,248 were persons in families (60.8 percent) and 24,031 were individuals (39.2

percent). There were very striking differences among the participating sites in the proportion of

persons in families, ranging from a high of 68 percent (New York City) and down to 15 percent

(Cleveland/Cuyahoga County OH). 5

Before comparing the quarterly counts from March with those from January, an important caveat

should be recognized. There are differences to consider when comparing annual PIT data to quarterly

PIT data. The CoCs collect the quarterly PIT count of sheltered homeless persons only, using their

HMIS, on a designated night (in this instance, March 31, 2009). These systems do not cover all

residential programs in each CoC, making it necessary to adjust statistically the raw numbers of

homeless persons to account for programs that do not participate in HMIS. The statistical adjustment

assumes that bed usage is the same in HMIS-participating and non-participating programs.

In addition, the definition of “family” used in the quarterly count differs from the reporting category

in the CoC application (i.e., “households with dependent children”). For the purposes of the quarterly

reports, a family is comprised of at least one adult over the age of 18 and at least one child under the

age of 18. An unaccompanied person under the age of 18 is considered an individual. Similarly,

parenting youth and their children are counted as two individuals, not as a family. In contrast, for the

annual count, a household with dependent children could include a parent under 18 and their child.

Four of the nine CoCs (CT, DC, FL, and NYC) experienced an increase in their sheltered

counts during the first quarter of 2009, and the remaining communities experienced a decline.

With these caveats in mind, the total sheltered count in March (61,280) is slightly higher than the

January sheltered count (60,371). Across the nine CoCs in the Pulse project, four communities (CT,

DC, FL, and NYC) experienced increases in their sheltered counts during the first quarter; the

remaining sites experienced declines.

Exhibit 5 (below) shows the January and March counts side-by-side for each site. It also shows the

percent of persons in families at each point in time. While the proportion of persons in households

with children rose across all the CoCs combined, six experienced a reduction in the proportion of

households with children and only three (FL, NYC, and VA) experienced increases.

WHAT DO THE LOCAL PROVIDERS SEE?

The data provided by the participating CoCs offer a snapshot of one-night counts and trends for a

small proportion of CoCs nationwide. The stories they tell can add to our understanding of what is

happening on the ground. Here is a selection of observations from these sites relative to the first part

of 2009 (extending about two months past the March quarterly data).

5

New York City’s data for Quarter 1 2009 represent HMIS beds only. These figures include persons in

DHS and HPD shelters, and transitional shelters funded by McKinney-Vento funds. Excluded are survey

data on drop-ins, faith-based beds, and non-McKinney-Vento programs run by HASA and DYCD.

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 7


Exhibit 5: Sheltered PIT Changes from January to March 2009

2009 Annual PIT Counts and First Quarterly PIT Counts

AZ-502 CT-503 DC-500 FL-503 KY-501

Jan '09 Mar '09 Jan '09 Mar '09 Jan '09 Mar '09 Jan '09 Mar '09 Jan '09 Mar '09

All

Individuals 2,109 1,582 144 261 3,613 3,679 355 377 940 947

All Persons

in Families 2,518 1,427 125 131 2,294 2,304 88 161 1,742 1,108

Total 4,627 3,009 269 392 5,907 5,983 443 538 2,682 2,055

Pct

Individuals 45.6% 52.6% 53.5% 66.6% 61.2% 61.5% 80.1% 70.0% 35.0% 46.1%

Pct Persons

in Families 54.4% 47.4% 46.5% 33.4% 38.8% 38.5% 19.9% 30.0% 65.0% 53.9%

LA-502 NY-600 OH-502 VA-500 Total

Jan '09 Mar '09 Jan '09 Mar '09 Jan '09 Mar '09 Jan '09 Mar '09 Jan '09 Mar '09

All

Individuals 389 369 13,880 14,975 1,624 1,552 742 290 23,796 24,032

All Persons

in Families 350 193 28,746 31,481 488 277 224 165 36,575 37,247

Total 739 561 42,626 46,457 2,112 1,830 966 455 60,371 61,280

Pct

Individuals 52.6% 65.7% 32.6% 32.2% 76.9% 84.8% 76.8% 63.7% 39.4% 39.2%

Pct Persons

in Families 47.4% 34.3% 67.4% 67.8% 23.1% 15.2% 23.2% 36.3% 60.6% 60.8%

From Virginia:

The Richmond CoC believes that the current economic situation is substantially affecting their client

base. A case manager who works directly with homeless clients said recently: “I’ve seen greater

number of higher functioning people—individuals who have held professional, skilled-craft

positions—in housing crisis. The idea of entering a shelter system is the ultimate sign of personal

failure.” Another case manager stated that the shelter systems are seeing an increasing number of

new clients: “I believe that I am seeing an equal amount of chronic clients and new clients who have

never been in the homeless situation but are now, due to the economic crisis.” Precariously housed

families have also been affected by the economic downturn. Family counts in shelters are reportedly

on the rise, and one case manager believes the families may enter shelters after leaving the homes of

family and friends: “With little resources and space, families are calling upon these clients to either

contribute more or leave.”

Even though many citizens and clients within the Richmond CoC have been negatively affected by the

current economy, the Executive Director of a local program remains optimistic about improvements in

the future. The Executive Director had the following to say after the release of the 2009 point-in-time

count numbers: “The results of the winter point-in-time count offered few surprises in light of the

current economy. We are, however, optimistic about positive change in the coming months, due to the

strategic deployment of stimulus monies into our regional service system. We have also seen proven

results with our ongoing partnerships with area service providers and local governments.”

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 8


From Louisiana:

The Shreveport/Bossier/Northwest CoC has seen some fluctuations in their 2008-2009 and January-

March 2009 PIT counts. One of the emergency shelter managers commented that they had virtually

no families during the January 2009 PIT. She could not point to a cause but noted that the number

was very unusual. The drop in both sheltered and unsheltered persons is something the community

has noticed, but it is consistent with most of the rest of the state. Some regions may attribute that to

the hurricane victims, who are gradually moving back home or attaining permanent housing in the

communities where they were homeless for some time.

From Kentucky:

The reports from agencies around the State of Kentucky emphasize how rapidly conditions seem to be

changing. In western Kentucky, an emergency shelter provider says:

I would like to share with you some of the issues I have personally seen over the past

few months relating to the dismal economy and its toll taken on the homeless

population…. After the ice storm, which interfered with the point-in-time count, we

saw a slight decline in numbers. I truly thought our shelter would have been

inundated, but it was the complete antithesis. We had our numbers of those who were

here before the ice storm took place, but [starting] about a month or month and a half

ago, our phones have not stopped ringing. We have had to turn away or refer families

of 4-6 people due to our now full capacity shelter. We have kept record of the waiting

list, which continues to grow. About one month ago, our waiting list was growing

faster than I could make referrals. One day last month, we had to turn away 3

families due to full capacity.

WHAT’S COMING IN FUTURE HOMELESSNESS PULSE REPORTS?

This initial report has provided only a portion of the data ultimately expected from the project. The

participating sites are working on reporting about new clients coming to their homeless services

providers each quarter. We will be able to describe the new clients broken down between families and

individuals and between emergency shelter and transitional housing residents. There will be more

detail on household type and also on living arrangements the night before program entry. Finally, we

expect to have some data on stability of living arrangements prior to program entry for these new

clients.

Each quarter’s data collection process will also include an opportunity for the leadership of these

Continuums of Care to share the stories they are hearing from their local providers. The combination

of data and observations—along with the expansion of the Pulse project to more sites when OMB

approval is obtained—should help HUD gain a better understanding of the impact of the current

economic crisis on homelessness.

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 9


ATTACHMENT A

Homelessness Pulse Site Selection and Site Profiles

Homelessness Pulse Site Selection

Nine Continuums of Care were recruited to participate in this project. The CoCs are located

throughout the Unites States and represent different types of jurisdictions (urban, suburban, rural, and

combinations). Several criteria were used to select them:

(1) The type of CoC (city, regional, or balance of state);

(2) The population in the jurisdictions covered by the CoC;

(3) The part of the country where the CoC is located;

(4) How well the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) covers beds among

emergency shelters and transitional housing programs, especially among family

programs; and

(5) The quality of the CoC’s HMIS data.

City CoCs cover only the providers and programs within the boundaries of a major U.S. city.

Regional CoCs–as we are using the term—cover a combination of types of jurisdictions. This could

be a principal city with surrounding suburbs and unincorporated county (for example, Phoenix, Mesa,

and the rest of Maricopa County, AZ) or a combination of urban and suburban communities (such as

Bridgeport, Stratford, and Fairfield, CT), or several counties with any municipalities within them

(such as the nine parishes in northwest Louisiana that make up the Shreveport/Bossier/Northwest LA

CoC). A “balance of state” continuum encompasses areas not organized into more local provider

networks; among the Pulse sites, Kentucky is an example of this type.

The selected CoCs are not a representative sample of communities. HUD may expand the voluntary

group in the future, but the focus will still be on early indications—rather than actual measurement—

of how the nature and extent of homelessness may be changing in this period.

Profiles of the Participating Sites

1. Phoenix/Mesa/Maricopa County (AZ)

This Continuum of Care covers all of Maricopa County. Maricopa is Arizona’s largest county in

population, with nearly 4 million of the state’s 6.5 million residents. 6 About half the Maricopa

population lives in the cities of Mesa and Phoenix.

2. Bridgeport, Stratford, and Fairfield (CT)

The three southwestern Connecticut jurisdictions in this Continuum of Care—one urban, two

suburban—have a combined population of about 250,000 people.

3. The District of Columbia (DC)

This network of service providers focuses on homeless persons in the Nation’s capital. The city’s

2008 population was just under 600,000.

6

All population figures are official population estimates from the Bureau of the Census. County figures are

estimates for 2008; city figures are estimates for 2006.

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 10


4. Lakeland/Winterhaven/Polk County (FL)

This Continuum of Care covers all of Polk County in central Florida. Its principal cities are

Lakeland and Winterhaven, and the total county population in 2008 was estimated at nearly

600,000.

5. Kentucky Balance of State

This large Continuum of Care covers 118 of Kentucky’s 120 counties, with a total population of

almost 3.3 million people. The only parts of the state in separate CoCs are the two largest cities—

Lexington and Louisville—and their surrounding counties (Fayette and Jefferson). This

Continuum represents 77 percent of the state’s population.

6. Shreveport/Bossier/Northwest (LA)

Nine parishes in Northwest Louisiana have joined together to coordinate services for homeless

persons. These parishes (Bienville, Bossier, Caddo, Claiborne, De Soto, Natchitoches, Red River,

Sabine, and Webster) have a combined population of just over half a million people. Shreveport

is the principal city, with about 200,000 residents.

7. New York City (NY)

This network of service providers focuses on homeless persons in the Nation’s largest city. The

2008 population was estimated at 8.36 million across the five boroughs.

8. Cleveland/Cuyahoga County (OH)

This Continuum of Care represents 1.28 million people (Ohio’s most populous county).

Cleveland is the principal city in the continuum, which also includes a few smaller cities

(Cleveland Heights, East Cleveland, Euclid, and Parma). Together, these cities account for half

the county’s population.

9. Richmond/Henrico, Chesterfield, and Hanover Counties (VA)

Seven counties in central Virginia—plus the independent City of Richmond, the state capital—

make up this CoC. The combined total population is almost one million people, with a fifth of

them in the City of Richmond.

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 11


ATTACHMENT B

Detailed Supporting Exhibits

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 12


Exhibit B-1: 2009 Annual Point-In-Time Count, All Sheltered and Unsheltered Persons

2009 Annual PIT Counts

Type

Unsheltered Transitional Housing Emergency Shelters

Homeless Population

AZ-502

CT-503

DC-500

ES- Households with Dependent

Children 304 18 203 10 177 36 8,258 81 21

ES – Persons in Households with

Dependent Children (adults and

children) 1,033 58 683 36 633 124 26,441 252 60

ES – Households without

Dependent Children 1,452 68 2,632 161 615 140 9,470 958 261

ES – Persons in Households

without Dependent Children 1,452 69 2,632 161 676 141 10,904 966 261

TH – Households with Dependent

Children 455 20 500 16 338 75 773 80 63

TH – Persons in Households with

Dependent Children (adults and

children) 1,485 67 1,611 52 1,109 226 2,305 236 164

TH – Households without

Dependent Children 636 75 981 194 247 248 2,970 651 481

TH – Persons in Households

without Dependent Children 657 75 981 194 264 248 2,976 658 481

Unsheltered – Households with

Dependent Children 41 2 0 11 44 5 0 1 0

Unsheltered – Persons in

Households with Dependent

Children (adults and children) 226 4 0 38 146 19 0 5 0

Unsheltered – Households without

Dependent Children 2,692 42 321 336 271 71 2,328 118 184

Unsheltered – Persons in

Households without Dependent

Children 2,692 42 321 339 330 72 2,328 126 184

FL-503

KY-500 1

LA-502

NY-600 2

OH-502

VA-500

Total Emergency Shelter 2,485 127 3,315 197 1,309 265 37,345 1,218 321

Total Transitional Housing 2,142 142 2,592 246 1,373 474 5,281 894 645

Totals

Total Sheltered Persons 2009 4,627 269 5,907 443 2,682 739 42,626 2,112 966

Total Unsheltered Persons 2009 2,918 46 321 377 476 91 2,328 131 184

Total Beds in 2009 HIC 4,184 418 6,526 573 2,489 810 46,921 2,062 602

2009 Bed Utilization Rate 110.6% 64.4% 90.5% 77.3% 107.8% 91.2% 90.9% 102.4% 160.5%

Total Persons 2009 7,545 315 6,228 820 3,158 830 44,954 2,243 1,150

1 For KY-500, all bed counts are based on the CoC’s 2008 Housing Inventory Data

2 For consistency with the other sites, these New York City counts are constructed differently than the counts they release locally. These numbers include

households dependent children staying in McKinney-Vento funded beds, as well as Department of Homeless Services (DHS), Department of Housing

Preservation and Development (HPD), HIV/AIDS Service Administration (HASA) and Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD)

emergency shelter and transitional housing beds, as well as households without dependent children staying in DHS, HPD, HASA and DYCD emergency

shelters and transitional housing, programs for multiple adult households without children, drop-in centers, and faith-based beds.

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 13


Exhibit B-2: Change in Annual Point-In-Time Population, 2008-2009

2008 and 2009 Annual PIT Counts

Homeless Population

AZ-502

CT-503

DC-500

FL-503

KY-500

LA-502

NY-600

OH-502

VA-500

Total Emergency Shelter, 2009 2,485 127 3,315 197 1,309 265 37,345 1,218 321

Total Transitional Housing, 2009 2,142 142 2,592 246 1,373 474 5,281 894 645

Total Sheltered Persons 2009 4,627 269 5,907 443 2,682 739 42,626 2,112 966

Total Sheltered Persons 2008 4,763 311 5,666 499 2,416 898 46,955 2,091 907

Sheltered Change, 2008-2009 -2.9% -13.5% 4.3% -11.2% 11.0% -17.7% -9.2% 1.0% 6.5%

Total Unsheltered 2009 2,918 46 321 377 476 91 2,328 131 184

Total Unsheltered 2008 2,426 31 378 156 1,611 144 3,306 151 166

Unsheltered Change, 2008-2009 20.3% 48.4% -15.1% 141.7% -70.5% -36.8% -29.6% -13.2% 10.8%

Total Persons 2009 7,545 315 6,228 820 3,158 830 44,954 2,243 1,150

Total Persons 2008 7,189 342 6,044 655 4,027 1,042 50,261 2,242 1,073

Total Change, 2008-2009 5.0% -7.9% 3.0% 25.2% -21.6% -20.3% -10.6% 0.0% 7.2%

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 14


Exhibit B-3: Point-in-Time Counts for Homelessness Pulse Sites, 2007-2009

Annual Point-in-Time Counts

2007 2008 2009

CoC Num

Persons in

Households

with

Dependent

Children

Persons in

Households

without

Dependent

Children

TOTAL

Persons in

Households

with

Dependent

Children

Persons in

Households

without

Dependent

Children

TOTAL

Persons in

Households

with

Dependent

Children

Persons in

Households

without

Dependent

Children

TOTAL

AZ-502 1 2,402 5,025 7,427 2,503 4,686 7,189 2,744 4,801 7,545

CT-503 138 218 356 149 193 342 129 186 315

DC-500 1,603 3,717 5,320 1,836 4,208 6,044 2,294 3,934 6,228

FL-503 209 593 802 110 545 655 126 694 820

KY-500 2,813 1,503 4,316 2,314 1,713 4,027 1,888 1,270 3,158

LA-502 353 504 857 553 489 1,042 369 461 830

NY-600 29,015 21,357 50,372 30,267 19,994 50,261 28,746 16,208 44,954

OH-502 499 1,686 2,185 452 1,790 2,242 493 1,750 2,243

VA-500 241 917 1,158 242 831 1,073 224 926 1,150

Total 37,273 35,520 72,793 38,426 34,449 72,875 37,013 30,230 67,243

1. The 2007 AZ-502 (Phoenix/Maricopa County) count has been corrected from previously published estimates based on a recent review by the CoC.

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 15


Exhibit B-4: Quarterly Point-In-Time Count of ALL Sheltered Clients (Adjusted for

HMIS Coverage), March 2009

Type

Emergency Shelters

Transitional Housing

Homeless

Population AZ-502 CT-503 DC-500 FL-503 KY-500 1 LA-502 NY-506 OH-502 VA-500

ES- Individuals 1,290 125 2,729 186 764 186 12,019 1,111 127

ES - Persons

in Families 386 51 727 46 677 25 30,111 54 53

ES - Families 106 18 229 22 209 7 8,978 17 22

TH- Individuals 292 135 950 191 183 183 2,956 442 163

TH - Persons

in Families 1,041 80 1,577 115 432 168 1,371 223 112

TH - Families 328 24 500 39 138 60 456 80 42

Total Sheltered

Persons 3,009 392 5,983 538 2,055 561 46,457 1,830 455

Total Beds in

2009 HIC 4,184 418 6,526 573 2,489 810 46,921 2,062 602

Bed Utilization

Rate 71.9% 93.7% 91.7% 93.8% 82.6% 69.3% 99.0% 88.7% 75.7%

1 For KY-500, all bed counts are based on the CoC's 2008 Housing Inventory Data.

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 16


Exhibit B-5: Change in Homeless PIT - January 2009 to March 2009 (Adjusted for HMIS Coverage)

July 2009 The Homelessness Pulse ProjectFirst Quarterly Report Page 17

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines