HOW COMMUNITIES PREVENT HOMELESSNESS:

HOW COMMUNITIES PREVENT

HOMELESSNESS:LESSONS FOR

HOWARD COUNTY

BACKGROUND

• Bridges’ Stabilization Services Task Force• Researched family homelessness

prevention strategies to:• Educate selves and others• Identify successful strategies• Identify strategies potentially

appropriate for Howard County

Selection of Best Practices Communities

• Reviewed select literature• Focused on NAEH’s Promising

Strategies to End Family Homelessness• Solicited staff recommendations

Selection of Best Practices Communities (continued)

• Selected communities with:–Similar demographics–Relevant strategies–Success!

Five (5) Questions• What are your key success factors?• What are your program components?

Key points of client intervention? • What have been your major

barriers/pitfalls/issues?• How do you determine success?• What are/have been your funding

sources?

Communities Interviewed

• Sacramento, CA• Boston, MA• Montgomery County, MD• Dayton, OH• Columbus, OH• Lancaster County, PA• Hennepin County, MN• Fairfax/Falls Church, VA

FINDINGS

Success Factors

• Community Commitment– Support from key leaders– Community partners working together in single

system

• Case Management• Relationships and work with landlords• Use of both a holistic approach and

housing approach

Key Program Components

• Assessment• (Intensive) case management• Housing First• Landlord/tenant relationships,

involvement, mediation• Legal assistance (eviction prevention)

Key Program Components (continued)

• Flexible financial assistance• Referrals to community-based

supportive services • Follow-up

Intervention/Entry Points

• Central intake - Single or uniform entry process• Catchment areas (by zip code);

service centers• Shelters• Schools

Intervention/Entry Points (continued)

• Court system: eviction filings, rental delinquencies

• Public Housing Authority• Departments of Social Services, welfare

offices• 2-1-1; 311;information and referral

agencies

Barriers

• Community buy-in and support• Engaging all relevant services, not just

housing• Limited funds• Staffing requirements• Affordable housing

Barriers (continued)

• Severity of poverty• Number of families needing assistance• Limitations and inflexibility of funding

criteria and rules• Mistrust and turf issues among and

between agencies

Measurement and Evaluation

• Significant variability• Rate of return for assistance within “x”

(often 12) months • Period of time housing is maintained• Comprehensive system of data collection

and analysis is important; HMIS used by some

Funding• Multiple resources with as much flexibility as

possible• Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-

Housing Program (HPRP)• Community Development Block Grant

(CDBG)• Temporary Assistance to Needy Families

(TANF)• State and local government funds

Funding (continued)

• Local tax revenue (recordation tax, property tax levy, human service levy)• Private sector (foundations, United

Way, churches, corporations and businesses)• State Trust Fund• Grants

Next, we will hear from some of these successful

communities!

BREAK!