 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Profile of the Current Toledo Homelessness Services System
Revised 09/23/99
INTRODUCTION
The following is a preliminary profile of the structure of the homelessness service system in Toledo. It is intended to stimulate discussion about current and desired approaches to addressing the problem of homelessness. It is not presented as a definitive document or as the preferred way of structuring homelessness services. As the Service Provider Task Force works together and with The Collaboratory, we will seek your assistance in improving the accuracy and usefulness of this profile.Information for this report was collected from a variety of sources, including the 1998 and 1999 applications for the HUD Continuum of Care competitions, United Way funding documents, U.S. Census Bureau reports, and interviews and conversations with various individuals within the Toledo homelessness services community.
THE TOLEDO COMMUNITY
In 1990 the City of Toledo had a population of 332,943 and Lucas County had a total population of 462,361. The Census Bureau has predicted that the population in Lucas County (including Toledo) has been decreasing steadily since 1990, and was estimated in 1995 to be 455,018 (a 1.59% decrease from 1990). Educational attainment in the community is low, with only 17% of the population completing a 4-year college education. County-wide unemployment (5.1% in 1995) is close to the national average, although unemployment in the inner-city of Toledo is reported to be nearing 20%. The 1995 median income in the community was $33,695 and 14.4% of the population was officially below the standardized poverty level.These statistics indicate a community that is struggling economically and otherwise, and interviews with community members confirm this observation. Providers of homeless services indicated (without scientific data) the following trends in Toledo:
- high inner city unemployment
- high teen pregnancy rates
- high teen HIV/AIDS infection rates
- high unwed parent birth rate
- struggling public school system
- low number and poor training programs for unskilled workers
- a very racially-segregated community
Demographic characteristics of the homeless community in Toledo are unknown at this time. Currently, no accurate or valid studies regarding the prevalence of homelessness in Toledo are available. The Coalition on Housing and Homelessness in Ohio reports that they are developing a tool for measuring the prevalence of homelessness and point-in-time data for the homeless for each county in Ohio. Unfortunately, this tool is still in testing and implementation stages, and no data are available at the current time. Nationwide, demographic characteristics are changing for the homeless population, with female-headed homeless families comprising the fastest growing segment of the population (Wasson and Hill 1998). Additionally, mental illness and drug abuse continue to be prevalent among homeless persons (Government Accounting Office 1999). Initial discussions with providers of homeless services in Toledo indicate that these national trends are occurring in the local community and further data are required to determine the extent of these problems in Toledo.
Although exact statistics on the number of homeless individuals is unavailable, the process of developing a Continuum of Care application requires the development of a “gaps analysis,” or an informal way of determining the approximate need for services in a community. The 1999 gaps analysis indicated the total and unmet need for the various homeless services as:
| Total Need | Available | Unmet Need | |
| Emergency Shelters | 961 | 327 | 634 |
| Transitional Housing | 1,644 | 314 | 1,330 |
| Permanent Housing | 1,146 | 627 | 519 |
| Total | 3,751 | 1,268 | 2,483 |
As this indicates, transitional housing units are the highest need in the Toledo community. Overall, a total need of 3,751 units of housing are needed for currently homeless families and individuals in the Toledo area.
Although Toledo has been an economically depressed city, there are indications that Toledo is beginning to see better times. Development corporations have begun to reinvest in the inner city, converting abandoned warehouses and buildings to livable apartments and condominiums. Many of these newly developed units are high-scale apartments, although in order to receive tax subsidies, many of them designate space as low-income. This results in a new dynamic within the inner-city with a mix of upper, middle, and lower class community members living together.
STRUCTURE OF HOMELESSNESS SERVICES
Nineteen housing agencies offer a total of 27 programs within four subsystems: emergency shelter, transitional housing facility, permanent housing service, or supportive service. We have also identified at least 18 additional agencies that offer supportive services to homeless persons.Subsystem 1: Emergency Shelters
General information: Subsystem includes all emergency shelters, including nonprofit, faith-based, and other providers. Generally provide shelter for men only, women only, women with children, or families. Usually have a maximum stay of 30 days.
Funding Sources (1998): United Way, FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Board, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and private sources.
Emergency shelters are the intake point for a person entering the entire system of homelessness services. There are 10 emergency shelters in Toledo (37% of all programs) with a total of 297 beds available. The average capacity is 29.7 individuals, with a range from 6-66 individuals. Primary funding for the emergency sheltering subsystem comes from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs.
Interviews with providers and funders in the Toledo community indicate several difficulties within the emergency shelter subsystem. First, no standardized information system or software is used to track and assist with the case management of clients. This results in low outcome data regarding the relative success of current and past clients of the subsystem. Second, the recidivism rates for former emergency shelter clients is very high, leading to invalid data on unduplicated clients.
After the end of a stay at a homeless shelter, a homeless individual will either move to transitional housing or permanent housing, or will return to being homeless. The expected movement (as depicted by HUD’s “Continuum of Care” approach) is to move from emergency shelter to transitional housing in conjunction with supportive services.
Subsystem 2: Transitional Housing Facilities
General information: Subsystem includes all transitional facilities for individuals, women with children, and families. Some facilities are restricted to populations requiring specialized services (such as substance abuse treatment or mental health services). Length of stay ranges from 4 months to over 1 year.
Funding Sources (1998): United Way, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), City of Toledo, State of Ohio, and private sources.
There are 12 transitional housing programs (44.4% of all housing programs) in the Toledo area, operating 231 housing units, with an average of 19.25 units per program and a range of 9-40. Capacity data are recorded in units for two reasons. First, some agencies can house anywhere from one individual to an entire family in one unit. Second, most agencies report their capacity in number of units or families that they can serve at one time rather than reporting a total number of beds. Accordingly, this statistic would be much larger if considering the total number of individuals served by the transitional housing facilities subsystem (hence the discrepancy from the gaps analysis total of 314). The primary source of funding for this subsystem is HUD’s Supportive Housing Program, awarded through the competitive Continuum of Care process.
During interviews, current service providers and funders indicated several concerns within the transitional housing facility subsystem in Toledo. First, not enough transitional housing exists in the Toledo area. In fact, this is the area identified by all interviewees as the most important place for future development of services. Second, the lack of an information system and tracking software is impairing the ability for transitional housing providers to successfully move clients to permanent housing and measure their success. Third, the largest amount of resources in the entire homelessness services system is invested in this subsystem because of the extensive need of supportive services to ensure the proper and successful transition to self-sufficiency. Interviewees also identified that recidivism rates in the homelessness services system is very high, probably due to the lack of a tracking system (to successfully follow up with former clients) and the need for large amounts of resources for support services (to ensure successful transition to permanent housing facilities). This recidivism problem is leading to a non-linear process of clients moving from emergency shelters to transitional housing, back to the street, then to emergency shelters again, etc. This non-linear process for homeless service usage is compounded by the need for substance abuse treatment, mental health services, general health services, child care needs, and a variety of other concerns. A final concern in this subsystem is the lack of an individual responsible for locating possible permanent housing units for those individuals coming out of the transitional facilities.
If the client’s stay in a transitional housing facility is successful, and permanent housing can be located, the client will move to the permanent housing subsystem. Unfortunately, as can be seen from the conditions listed above, many obstacles prevent moving into the final subsystem, and a significant number of transitional housing clients drop out of the system temporarily only to return to emergency shelters at a future time.
Subsystem 3: Permanent Housing Facilities
General information: Subsystem includes permanent housing facilities, Section-8 voucher providers, Section-8 housing providers, and community and neighborhood development corporations. Length of stay is indefinite.
Funding Sources (1998): U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Public Housing Authority, City of Toledo, State of Ohio, United Way, and private sources.
There are 318 permanent housing units available in the Toledo area, provided by 5 programs (18.5% of total number of programs),with an average of 53 and a range of 5-250 units per program. A majority of programs in this subsystem do not actually operate housing facilities, but rather refer individuals to appropriate housing options.
The providers and funders indicated the same problems for the permanent housing facility subsystem as those identified in the other subsystems: lack of a coordinated information and tracking system, difficulty determining success measures, and financial constraints. As well, interviewees indicated that traditional community development corporations (CDCs) have not collaborated or communicated well with the rest of the homeless services system to ensure the proper development of needed permanent, low-income housing. A final concern was raised regarding the availability of low-income units, because the total number identified as available for the homeless are also up for rent on the open housing market. Hence, if all units are currently occupied, no data are available to determine the number of individuals in those units who are formerly homeless and have successfully negotiated their way through the homelessness services system.
Although the name “permanent housing facility subsystem” suggests self-sufficiency and an exit from the system, providers indicate that this is rarely the case. In fact, most individuals will reenter the system at some future time, usually into emergency shelters or transitional housing serving substance abuse or mental health clients. This occurs even though many permanent housing providers do offer on-site, ongoing supportive services for residents of their programs.
Subsystem 4: Support Services
General information: Subsystem includes those agencies and programs, not contained within housing facilities, that provide auxiliary services to the homeless population. Services include substance abuse treatment providers, health care, mental health treatment, food assistance, case management services, credit services, and legal assistance.
Funding Sources (1998): U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), United Way, City of Toledo, State of Ohio, private agencies (fee for service), other private funders.
A variety of support services are offered to the homeless; some agencies provide services exclusively for the homeless population, while others serve the homeless in programs designed for the whole community. Either way, the need for support services to the homeless are paramount in achieving self-sufficiency.
Several concerns are evident within this subsystem. First, no attempt has recently been made to determine the number of individuals served by supportive services in the Toledo community. As well, this may be a difficult number to determine due to the nature of supportive services, including such issues as confidentiality, anonymous services (such as food assistance), non-comparable data by agencies, and other issues. Second, a significant number of faith-based organizations offer supportive services to the homeless population, but they are not traditionally included in discussions because of their reliance on church-based funding streams, rather than receiving government or private funds. Providers and funders indicated that this is an important part of this subsystem and must be included. Third, there has been little past coordination between support services and the other three subsystems, creating a dynamic where one of the key indicators of success for a homeless person (support services) is left out of the discussion on how to best serve the homeless population. As well, tracking and outcome data are needed to determine success of support services in relation to the other three subsystems.
OUTPUTS OF THE SYSTEM
As has been described throughout this profile, the current system in Toledo lacks the infrastructure and software to determine current outputs and outcomes of the system. This problem has also been identified in various current literature as a difficulty with the homelessness systems in various cities in the United States. Software programs such as ANCHOR have been implemented with varying degrees of success in many communities.Although strong data are unavailable, all providers who were interviewed said that all emergency shelters, transitional housing facilities, and permanent housing facilities are occupied at capacity levels. Based on this information, it can be assumed that 863 individuals and families are being served in the system on any given day. However, this does not lend any information as to the number of individuals served in a year, or the number of individuals who continually cycle within the system and receive double and even triple services.
Also, the lack of a tracking system makes it impossible to determine who successfully leaves the homeless services system and becomes self-sufficient. Many individuals discussed that when a homeless person leaves transitional housing, little information is gathered on the future path of that individual. They may become self-sufficient in a Section-8 subsidized unit, they may rent an apartment on the open-market, they may move in with family or friends, or they may become homeless again. This results in difficulty determining the relative success of the various support services and transitional housing programs in the Toledo area.
IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS
This preliminary profile is meant to illuminate the current system of homelessness services that is operating in Toledo. Although it can certainly inform efforts to redesign the full system of services, users should keep in mind that this is a profile of the way the system exists now, not necessarily of the way the system should be. For example, while we had to organize the report around the four subsystems, which is the way most data are reported, this approach may not be the ideal design for a more effective system. This profile does, however, call attention to several important conclusions:First, the lack of a coordinated data set and tracking software is debilitating to the system. Without this information, providers, funders, and governmental overseers have no ability to determine the success of their programs, or where future investments should be made.
Second, data are needed on what type of clients each facility serves. For example, some emergency shelters offer services for only women who are victims of domestic violence and their children. This is a very specific characteristic of a possible client, and a bed that is reserved for a specific type of person. As well, programs that serve different individuals probably have differing cost structures which could impact the future distribution of scarce resources.
Third, the faith-based community is an inextricable part of the Toledo homelessness services system. While not fully represented in this system profile, the faith-based community offers valuable, successful, and compassionate services to homeless individuals in the Toledo community. These services are often volunteer-driven, resulting in a relatively inexpensive way of providing services for the community. This section of the homelessness services community must be involved at every step in designing a new, comprehensive service system.
Fourth, the current system is funding-driven. That is, most agencies provide those services for which they can receive funding. This results in a system that is extremely dependent on outside sources for financial support, which drives the program priorities of agencies. Agencies are thus required to offer programs that may not be what is needed most in the community.
We hope that this information will help members of the Toledo community understand existing efforts and challenges as they consider how to improve their systems approach to homelessness.
References
General Accounting Office. (1999). Homelessness: State and local efforts to integrate and evaluate homeless assistance programs. Washington, D.C.: United States General Accounting Office.
Wasson, Renya Reed, and Hill, R.P. (1998). The process of becoming homeless: An investigation of female-headed families living in poverty. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(2): 320-42.
The Collaboratory for Community Support
7423 Hickory Ridge Drive
Ypsilanti, MI 48197-9487
Phone: 734-623-4952
www.thecollaboratory.us
For more information, email us: jcrubicon@aol.com
Home | About Us | Our Motivation
Services | Current Projects| Publications | Biographies | Contact Us
Our Clients | Links
© 2000 The Collaboratory for Community Support
This web site is maintained on InMotion Hosting