[ Indiana | Kansas | Massachusetts | Montana | New Jersey | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Dakota | Texas | Utah ]

INDIANA SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Interagency task force on homelessness
• Existing HMIS & statewide under development
• Indianapolis blueprint
• Knowledgeable people working on the issue
• FSSA & other state agencies committed to issue
• Good local level examples can be replicated
• Dept of Ed efforts
• Examples of coordinated efforts among service providers in state
• CHIP, ICHHI
• Support from exec branch
• Tripled number of Federally qualified health centers
• Grassroots planning efforts
• Relatively low housing costs & existing housing stock that can be used
• Feasibility of achieving goal of ending chronic homelessness
• Statewide coverage in MH system, implementation of evidence-based practices
• Flexible funding for shelter, transitional & perm housing
• Long standing continuums
• Willingness to address issue
• Focus on front & back end
• 10 PATH outreach teams (soon to be 11)

Weaknesses

• Multiple applications
• Lack of coordinated info system
• Lack of overall coordinated effort
• Demand exceeds capacity
• Redirected resources
• Lack of money
• Lack of housing for very low income people/wait lists (section 8)
• Cultural issues/language barriers
• Limits of categorical funding
• Prejudice/stigma about MI, SA, homelessness
• End of a political cycle
• No concerted effort to bring in new funds
• Lack of understanding of problem & solutions/need for public awareness & education
• Long waits for housing, benefits, etc.
• Lack of transportation, outreach
• Lack of supports
• Turf issues
• Rural challenges
• Hidden homelessness/ denial of issue in rural areas, self-reliance
• Resources not targeted to population
• Difficult to get data, especially in rural areas
• No coordinated decision making mechanism to fill gaps (‘funding council’)

Opportunities

• Consumer/advocacy groups from mainstream (MH)
• Funders collaborative examples/models of system wide collaboration
• Coordination of info systems
• Enhance strategic plan
• Time of economic change
• Overcrowding in prisons, opportunity for diversion
• Indianapolis Blueprint
• Timing/state & local political cycle
• State & local partnerships to promote work across systems/Continuums of Care
• Housing Trust Fund
• Research from ICHHI
• Coordinated grassroots efforts
• Past models for case management that worked
• Enhancing local linkages
• Expand on use of ACT model, dual diagnosis treatment
• Coordination with local private & state universities
• Support local efforts being implemented
• HMIS compatibility statewide
• Faith-based community (DOC, Faith Works); capacity building & training
• Private sector collaboration

Threats

• Changing politics
• Budget
• Turf issues (internal & external)
• Staff time/resources
• Preconceived biases, why change?
• Commitment of key stakeholders
• Changing of key staff
• Understanding why chronic vs. other homelessness
• Past experiences with doing this before
• Competing issues
• No accountability mechanism for implementation/ success of plan
• Breakdown of communication among agencies
• Differing philosophies, need to understand & respect

KANSAS SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Increased awareness of problem
• Existing statewide network/task force
• Single state agency for most entitlement/benefit programs
• Strong commitment from housing & mental health on homeless issues
• Governor interested in population
• Excellent state & local staff committed to issue
• Excellent HUD staff
• Involvement of faith community
• Homeless Veterans Stand- Down
• Sharing information, technology/resources
• Smaller, less dense population than other states
• Existing state & local collaborations
• Relatively low-cost housing
• Politicians open to discussion
• KDFA
• Statewide homeless summit every year
• Good model programs (MAP, re-entry program)
• Relatively small number of homeless people
• Post-ACCESS funds in 3 sites from legislature

Weaknesses

• Lack of adequate funding
• Lack of statistics/data on homelessness
• Breakdown in support systems (family, government)
• HIPAA
• Rural, urban & frontier areas of state
• Inadequate communication
• Lack of political will in legislature
• Stigma
• Turf issues
• Funders prescribed structures limit access
• Lack of information sharing between federal agencies
• Fragmented service delivery
• NIMBYism
• Lack of benefits for singles
• Inadequate low-income housing
• Most homelessness hidden (doubled up)
• Language barriers
• Overcrowded, substandard housing
• Federal minimum wage
• Lack of job training & employment opportunities

Opportunities

• Statewide homeless coalition now a 501c3
• Possible funding from grants/foundations
• KDFA
• Starting statewide Continuum of Care
• Networking opportunities
• Private sector partnerships & resources
• For profit spin-offs from non profits
• Best practices
• Untapped existing resources
• Rural outreach/regional summits
• Educate advocates in rural areas on accessing mainstream resources (Medicaid)
• National focus on homelessness
• Training/educational opportunities
• Entitlement community database/existing HMIS in some communities
• Possibility of National Housing Trust Fund, other national initiatives
• Technology available to access resources (United Way of the Plains)
• TBRA, Section 8, Shelter Plus Care
• Working Healthy/Ticket to Work
• Homeless Veterans Stand- Down

Threats

• More budget cuts on the horizon
• Turnover of staff at local & state level during next 10 years
• Stagnant thinking
• Increase in homelessness due to recession
• Conservative state – politicians & general public
• Inability to identify problem/have open discussion of issues
• “Feeder” systems/discharge policies contribute to problem
• Increased cost of providing services
• War, disease, unemployment…
• Turf issues, particularly in rural areas
• Systems insufficient, lack of options
• Closing state hospitals (MH/DD)

MASSACHUSETTS SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Existing networks working on issue
• Strong, well-informed advocates
• Legacy of public investment by state on homelessness
• Strong commitment to health & human services
• Network of providers that knows chronic population
• Executive order to establish commission
• Past task forces on the issue
• Statewide programs/resources to build off of
• Coordinated C of C system
• Faith-based involvement
• Involvement of foundations
• Successful track record of Federal grants
• Service & housing models
• Strong academic community for evaluation, collaboration
• Public attitude
• Long-term, good working relationships
• Data expertise in public health
• Health Care for the Homeless electronic record
• City of Boston prioritizing of homeless people for housing resources
• EOHHS discharge planning policy
• Network of experienced non-profit housing developers

Weaknesses

• Lack of connection to education, employment & training resources
• Housing costs
• Impact of budget cuts
• Lack of collected, tracked & shared data
• Lack of clear oversight/ accountability
• Lack of public understanding of issue & system
• Lack of public & private $ for continuum of SA treatment
• Lack of investment by private sector health system for MH
• Lack of resources to prevent homelessness for those coming from treatment, corrections, etc.
• NIMBYism
• Lack of understanding of opiate treatment programs
• Immigration issues
• Transportation issues
• Site acquisition difficulties
• Lack of SROs & rental units
• Gaps in understanding/identifying subpopulations & targeting resources
• Lack of joint/interagency programming, procurements
• No common procurement standards
• All VA programs dry/sober facilities which excludes many
• Improper application of Cori/criminal history poses unnecessary challenges for chronic population
• Network of providers serving chronic population does not link clients to housing services
• Need to improve knowledge among health & human service providers about housing system/resources & vice versa
• Emergency room diversion makes access to crisis/stabilization and other services difficult

Opportunities

• Prioritizing of homeless people for housing resources (production set asides, focus on 30% AMI)
• Governor’s executive commission
• US ICH Director & ICH regional coordinator from MA
• Downsizing of state resources forces examination of current practices/efficiencies
• Bringing housing first & other models to state
• Reactivation of ICH, Federal initiatives
• Involvement of private foundations
• Sympathetic media outlets on homelessness
• Opportunity to use new models to serve MI population (ACT teams)
• Faith & community-based involvement
• Mayor Menino’s leadership on US Conference of Mayors
• VA resources
• Consumer involvement/opportunity to expand voice
• EOHHS approach to interagency technology systems (MIS)

Threats

• Continued budget crisis/cuts (MH, housing, Federal, SA)
• Loss of Mass Health Basic
• Continued threats to loss of methadone services
• Section 8 crisis
• Public attitude/compassion fatigue

MONTANA SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Population is small; facilitates communication and coordination
• Everybody knows everyone
• Commitment is deep
• Legislators are easier to access than in most states
• Senior senators have national influence
• Finite number of access points for services (fewer “doors”)
• Missoula model: At-risk housing coalition
• Strong sense of community across the state
• Numerous community continuums
• Montana Continuum of Care Coalition
• Supportive and generous public
• Fairly good population profile information
• VA hospital that has actively reached out to homeless vets
• PATH program
• Inventory of shelter and housing is very complete
• Recovery homes for single adults
• Two ACT teams
• Involvement of universities (internships, class research projects, advisory roles, etc.)
• Fannie Mae involvement, especially in disability and native American housing
• Electronic benefits transferring
• Participating in the Policy Academy – getting started…
• Some strong foundation support in certain communities (e.g., St. Vincent’s in Billings)
• Very active and aggressive in pursuing federal and other funding
• State-wide housing coordinating team (in development)

Weaknesses

• Lack of funding and other resources (e.g., staffing, housing, etc.) in a large, diverse state
• Need for training for front-line staff about engaging and retaining people who are chronically homeless
• Education of agencies and programs
• Public perceptions about homelessness
• Unknown size and scale of the homeless population
• Fragmentation of services and funding sources
• Turf battles (state and local)
• Nature of chronic homelessness – pride, invisible, itinerant
• Nature of service delivery system – lacks flexibility, takes a long time to act, place-bound, “business as usual”
• Not just homeless, have multiple problems and issues, unique to each person
• Lack of affordable housing stock and housing subsidies
• Shortage of intensive case management (includes supportive services necessary to keep people in housing)
• Lack of transportation
• Limited access to professional services (e.g., health care, dental, etc.)
• Low wages; lack of jobs
• Aging out of foster care systems
• No resources for prevention of homelessness
• Lack of housing options for teen moms
• Methamphetamine
• Absence of local government commitment in most communities
• Uneven development of services across the state leading to concentration of homelessness in specific areas – throws off the natural support networks of communities
• Lack of state discharge planning
• Ability of service providers/systems to understand the reality or perceptions of people who are chronically homeless
• Denial of SSI applications is higher than the national average
• Access to ACT teams for those who need them
• Little foundation support
• Inconsistent business community support
• Barriers to housing such as high security deposits
• Lack of targeted funding for housing on the services side
• Everybody THINKS they know everybody

Opportunities

• Numerous community continuums that all coordinate in one application
• Policy Academy
• State-wide housing coordinating team (in development)
• Collect statewide information from mainstream programs about housing status
• Mandate for HUD’s HMIS (Homeless Management Information System)
• Coordinate with DPHH about how to best gather data on housing status, needs and wants for people with disabilities
• Opportunities to coordinate and mobilize state resources
• Build awareness across the state based on the survey and the strategic plan that we are developing
• Bring new resources to bear – not just state, but local, foundation, business, etc.
• Chafee funds for transitioning youth – possibly underutilized
• Ten months from now is when we need to be ready for the next legislative session
• Track changes related to homelessness and housing status that result from budget reductions
• Establishing ACT teams in more communities and using Medicaid and Medicare to partially or fully fund these services
• Grant-writing task force and website that would give access state-wide to information relevant to grant writing
• Using GIS to map need/utilization of services
• Co-occurring Task Force (training opportunities and grant possibilities)
• Annual hunger and homelessness conference – October 2003 is next one
• State Veteran’s Office has new funds for stand downs & other activities
• Mobile Veterans Affairs office will be available for outreach to veterans
• Montana Home Choice – has 3-year federal (CMS) grant related to housing for people with disabilities
• Take greater advantage of the media to build awareness and public support
• Annual state-wide survey of people who are homeless
• Building on the President’s initiative to address chronic homelessness
• Develop a needs statement for focusing our efforts and influencing public opinion
• Montana/Wyoming Tribal Council
• SSI outreach training (Yvonne Perret or Michelle Thibiteau) and demonstration program (see fact sheet at www.NLCHP.org)
• National interest in the uninsured
• Access to corrections and justice departments and court system
• CSAT has technical assistance – opportunities for training
• Mental health annual conference
• Contracts with mental health centers and substance abuse treatment facilities
• PATH – look at how funds are being utilized; focus on best or promising practices
• Regionalized management of MH system is being implemented and may be an opportunity to focus some efforts related to homelessness
• Models for non-threatening approaches to engaging people
• Federal FQHC certification gives access to increased funds and other opportunities – work with primary care and behavioral health care
• Northwest Area Foundation -- $10 million initiative
• Montana Coalition of Churches
• Montana Faith Health Cooperative
• Regional HHS director interested in Montana’s faith-based & tribal initiatives
• School districts homeless education liaisons (thru Office of Public Instruction)
• Encouraging change from the grass roots level – esp. related to sharing information across state agencies

Threats

• Need to be sure that this issue fits within legislative budget
• Reductions in cash assistance to families may strain existing homeless service programs
• Difficulties sharing information across state agencies, esp. access to housing information
• Lack of direction from the federal level encouraging sharing of information
• Budget concerns: local, county, and state levels
• Change in administrations – state and federal
• Aging out of administrators – experience and brain-drain
• Competition for funds
• Staffing issues: layoffs, training, wages
• More unfunded mandates
• Changes in national housing policy – esp. efforts to block grant Sec. 8
• Becoming dependent on federal funds – dollars end and need remains
• Sustaining interest and focus among members of this team
• Economy of the state and the nation
• Natural resistance to change within ourselves and our agencies

NEW JERSEY SWOT ANAYLSIS

Strengths

• Monarch Housing – assists providers to apply for mainstream
• NJ CSH, Supportive Housing Association, growing supportive housing industry
• Interdepartmental relationships to develop housing
• Existing resources, knowledge
• Talent & commitment of stakeholders
• Capacity of consumers
• Strong homeless provider network
• Movement toward consolidated assistance programs within mainstream
• Have SA funding
• Initiatives to get people into benefit programs
• Best practices
• Expertise
• Sharing agreements
• Sense of urgency
• Strong collaborative approaches
• Strong houses or worship
• Non-profit provider network

Weaknesses

• Lack of matching service dollars
• Disjointed systems
• Lack of shared knowledge
• Poor transportation system
• Fear of population, labeling, stigma
• High cost of housing
• Too much planning, not enough action
• Not enough focus on chronic
• Inadequate treatment for mental health & substance abuse issues
• Bias & racism, NIMBY
• Shelters & motels & institutions seen as homes
• Higher funding priority given to shelter & transitional housing
• Lack of land
• Access to information about mainstream services/resources
• Workforce readiness system – doesn’t serve homeless
• Continuum of Care process weak
• Onerous regulatory restrictions
• Overburdened service delivery systems
• Not including homelessness & supportive housing in community redevelopment initiatives
• Underfunded programs
• Demand for housing outweighs supply
• Contradictory political support
• No one “owns” the issue, no single point of accountability
• Medical model mental health treatment programs
• Lack of legal assistance
• Legal services not integrated into planning
• Lack of living wage employment
• Strong home rule
• Lack of engagement of private sector
• Lack of incentives for developing permanent supportive housing

Opportunities

• Current commitment from government & private sector
• Smart growth
• Community development planning - attention to employee housing & transportation
• Collaboration
• Marketing
• Statewide database (HMIS)
• Training
• Institutionalize coordinating body
• Gaps easily identified
• Regulatory changes that don’t require legislation
• Change conversation, assets based, marketing
• Push toward mixed income communities, inclusion of homeless
• Combining current existing resources to leverage new ones
• Continue to expand knowledge & capacity of providers
• Development of new income streams/private – public partnerships
• Prepare foundation/plan to address chronic homelessness – help leverage new resources
• Possibly reallocate resources
• Impact of legislative policy, engage legislature
• Strong housing market
• Universities – untapped resource?

Threats

• Politics
• Budget cuts
• Economy
• Increased demand
• Lack of homeless voters
• Smart growth
• Mixed income housing
• Lack of alternatives to hotels/motels
• Lack of leadership
• Fear
• Possible litigation
• Philosophical clashes (harm reduction, housing first)
• Bias & racism
• Competing priorities
• Federal spending trends
• Federal policy (Section 8)
• Turf issues - agency & community competition
• Home rule
• Lack of political/public will
• Brain drain/burnout
• Fragmented funding at Federal & state levels
• Acceptance of homelessness

PENNSYLVANIA SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Steering Committee
• Commitment and development of the regional homeless advisory boards
• Strong, comprehensive, year-round planning process for C0C balance of state
• Local housing option teams – about 20 counties involved thus far
• Local public housing authorities involved in collaboration with mental health and other service agencies
• “Hammering Out Housing Solutions”
• Increased participation on Steering Committee of criminal justice, veterans, children and youth, DCED Regional Directors, and Dept. of Labor and Industry
• More collaboration with local homeless assistance providers
• Medical Assistance Program for Workers with Disabilities
• COMPASS – allows people to apply for some mainstream services on-line (includes screening)
• HMIS activities is broader than just balance of state; will provide better data
• Have understanding of rural outreach issues and models
• Have some of the best research in the country on urban areas and programs
• DPW upgrade and integration of client-level information systems
• Sophisticated provider network – both formal and informal
• Expect to have at least one project within each of the four C0Cs that targets chronic homelessness
• Youth in transition programs that may be able to serve as models for both urban and rural areas
• Five pilot programs for co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders
• Mental health court and hospital diversion pilot programs
• Clearinghouse, website, technical assistance and newsletter through OMHSAS
• Pilot project for forensic discharge planning
• Forensic Interagency Task Force
• Diversity – blend of rural, suburban and urban
• County-based service system provides opportunities for local involvement and collaboration
• Dedicated professionals and volunteers at both the state and local levels
• Community Action Programs

Weaknesses

• Lack of political will
• Lack of coordination and communication among state departments
• Singling out the homeless population from among all those in need
• Employment and Training has not been involved until AFTER people are in housing
• Lack of involvement from PA Housing Finance Agency and local Housing Authorities
• Large, rural areas with inadequate transportation
• Misperception about rural homelessness
• Lack of demographic profile regarding chronic homelessness
• Lack of organizational capacity to develop and implement programs
• NIMBYism and denial of existence
• Lack of targeted financial resources
• Homelessness is the last priority
• Inconsistent community collaboration
• Lack of resources for matching fund requirements
• Mismatch between what the population needs and the way that programs are targeted
• Regulations on eligibility are barriers to serving this population
• There is little assistance for people who have difficulty accessing available services
• Language and cultural issues/barriers
• Virtually no outreach to chronically homeless persons in rural areas
• Definitions of homelessness – state, federal
• Billing for case management is complicated and restrictive
• Lack of integrated case management
• Inadequate supply of safe, decent and affordable housing and subsidies especially for people with less than 30% of median
• Fair market rents are inadequate to support actual costs of housing
• Lack of prevention and education
• For children exiting foster care there is a lack of transitional services and permanent housing
• Lack of quality dual diagnosis treatment at the provider level
• Lack of opportunities to bring providers together for cross-training
• Lack of political power of people who are homeless
• State-wide homeless advocacy groups seem to have lost momentum
• Lack of participation by homeless or formerly homeless people
• No centralized housing point of focus

Opportunities

• Opportunity to collaborate with other departments around training (e.g. Mental Health training grant)
• Partnering Homeless Assistance Program county contacts with mental health housing specialists during quarterly meetings
• Partnering with Community Action Programs (esp. Work Centers initiative)
• Family Savings Accounts
• Link with Family Centers
• Integration of DPW information systems
• Build on model of Community Collaboratives
• Policy Academy
• Timing of the new administration
• Stakeholder Planning Team (appointed by the Secretary of DPW)
• National Conference on Fairweather Lodges is being held in PA in 2005
• Exploring foundation support
• A lot of faith-based providers; getting more involved in the formal provider network; opportunities for partnerships
• Additional housing and community development funds available this year (state and CDBG)
• PHFA has reserves that they make available for specific projects – good gap funding possibility
• Integrated case management is becoming more of a reality
• Focus on performance indicators and performance-based contracting
• New leadership at state level that is focused on cross-system integration
• New federal funding targeted to chronic homelessness
• Continuum of care
• Funding cuts create new opportunities to do things differently
• Educate HUD about the problems in rural areas
• Working with housing authorities to get a preference for people who are homeless
• Utilization rates of public housing is on the decline; opportunity to approach them to help place people who will have services available
• Ask HUD for more local discretion to meet local needs, e.g., to move underutilized vouchers to family reunification program
• Work with police (communication, collaboration, cross-training)
• Collaborate with business sector

Threats

• Drastic funding cuts
• Political dynamics around the Section 8 program
• HUD tying utilization rates to accessing mainstream Section 8 vouchers
• Process for getting Section 8 is not friendly to this population and should be reviewed
• Poor economic conditions
• Potential increases in homelessness, people in jail, etc. due to drastic cuts
• Increased waiting lists for services
• Recruitment and retention of direct service staff who are underpaid
• Competition for workforce with other long-term care providers
• Reduced capacity to match federal funding and increased requirements to have match
• People not being willing to collaborate due to restricted funding options
• Getting buy-in from decision-makers in state departments
• Reduced workforce and increased responsibilities at the state and local levels
• Competing priorities
• Not enough opportunity to plan given the reactive, crisis mode we’re in now
• Shift to chronic homelessness threatens ability to address larger issue of homelessness, particularly in rural areas
• May end up with many more families in long-term homelessness
• Low utilization rates of Sec. 8 vouchers, low Fair Market Rates

RHODE ISLAND SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Small state
• Treatment system for SMI provides most of key service system components
• Neighborhood Opportunities Program
• Housing Resources Commission
• ACCESS program
• Use of Section 811 program
• CSH’s presence
• Rhode Island Housing
• Statewide HMIS being implemented
• Media gives positive attention to issue
• Longstanding network/system of providers
• PATH Programs
• LIHTC targeted to non-profits
• Some political will to address the issue
• Behavioral healthcare system moving toward integrated treatment for co-occurring disorders
• Sen. Jack Reed
• Going Home/re-entry initiative
• Family Life Center for ex-offenders
• Veteran’s action program
• New interest by philanthropy in RI
• Strong community development organizations
• Prevent ‘one-way tickets’

Weaknesses

• Siting difficulties for new housing
• Lead paint removal laws
• Small size poses challenges/less resources
• Established/tight network of providers
• No formal system/point of accountability for homeless issues
• Discharges from DOC, DCYF, MHRH & hospitals into homelessness
• Lack of adequate discharge planning & training among shelter staff
• Limited resources for treatment of non- SPMI/non-CSP
• Lack of SA treatment slots for uninsured
• State budget crisis
• No halfway houses for transitioning offenders
• Lack of permanent supportive housing
• Private not for profits provide most of homeless services
• Intense competition between non profits for limited resources
• PHA regulations
• New leadership in executive & legislative branches
• “Rhode Island way of doing things” – informal, old network
• Lack of performance/outcome measures in system
• 60% drop out rate in Providence school system; high adult literacy rate
• Lack of job training & adequate employment opportunities
• 1,200 people per year are homeless without income (GPA cut)
• DOC and hospitals not at HRC table

Opportunities

• Size of state – pilot programs
• Successful at getting waivers
• Excellent networking opportunities
• First statewide HMIS
• New state & city gov’t
• Gov’t taking critical look at itself
• Policy Academy process
• State agencies interested in expanding supportive housing
• Colleges/Universities – untapped resource
• Interest at Federal level on integrating behavioral health & primary health care, corrections, housing
• Real interest on part of State Council of Churches and United Way of RI
• Faith-based community w/track record of providing housing
• RItecare for access to health care services
• Cost-benefit analysis
• Housing Resources Commission (HRC)

Threats

• Economy
• Conservative national agenda/lack of federal resources
• Escalating numbers of homeless people (23% increase last year)
• Budget choices at state level
• Lack of substance abuse treatment facilities
• Turf issues
• Lack of prevention resources
• Local opposition to building affordable housing
• Resistance to change
• Lack of quality education
• $ stuck in institutional boxes
• Lack of belief in prevention
• Lack of understanding how to implement prevention systems
• Impact on emergency shelter system
• Ability to attract & retain qualified staff
• Difficult population to serve

SOUTH DAKOTA SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Community health centers
• Small population of state – means solutions are possible
• Weather limits numbers
• Economy – jobs are available, unemployment rates are below national average
• Mental health and alcohol and other drug infrastructures
• Some collaboration between agencies
• 2 active coalitions (Sioux Falls and Rapid City) – working toward community awareness; moving kids out of shelter system quickly (Sioux Falls)
• “Can do” attitude
• PATH grant
• Halfway house for mental health and alcohol and other drug (AOD) problems simultaneously
• 2 programs for pregnant women and their children, primarily for AOD
• Program for pregnant teenagers and their children, primarily for AOD
• County poor relief programs (need to enforce the law)
• System of detox services across the state
• Shelters already in existence
• RX access; patient medication programs; indigent drug programs
• Project-based and tenant-based assistance; 2 tenant-based rental assistance programs targeted toward homeless
• Medicaid, TANF, SCHIP
• Good outcome data and prevalence and needs assessments (AOD)
• Food stamp programs, 11 meal programs, 47 food pantries, statewide food bank
• Charities and faith-based organizations
• Targeted tax credits created move-ups and opened up housing
• Private developers/owners working with service providers
• Bus pass program in Sioux Falls
• Yankton – 20-unit permanent housing project (financed under CoC)
• Dept. of Human Services has AOD, mental health, developmental disabilities
• One stop centers with multiple services co-located in 5-6 major cities

Weaknesses

• Getting a firm number of how many are actually homeless (and subpopulations – mental illness, substance abuse, specific ages, etc.)
• Lack of training among service providers
• Lack of education & awareness among service agencies about what’s available & how to link people to services
• Lack of education and awareness among general public about homelessness
• Lack of evidence-based programs
• Cultural challenges
• Geographic distances
• Lack of affordable, permanent housing (in some parts of the state)
• Lack of emergency shelter beds and transitional and supportive housing
• Lack funding
• Competing interests/priorities and lack of ability to get people to the table
• Lack of choices and opportunities for consumer success
• Addressing multiple issues
• Lack of outreach
• Stigma
• Public pressure to “clean up” and get people off the street
• Belief that offering services will mean people will come from other places
• Burned bridges
• NIMBYism
• Lack of statewide HMIS
• Lack of case management in most areas
• Lack of medical coverage (except for community health centers)
• Services are scattered around
• Disincentive to identify homeless because of costs to system

Opportunities

• HUD Continuum of Care funding (need better representation at community level)
• HUD/HHS/VA collaborative funding opportunities
• Other funding sources for housing that aren’t directed toward homeless that could be utilized – HOME, housing tax credits
  Using evidence-based models to address the population
• Funding options for down payments/deposits
• Looking into successful case management models for adaptation (e.g., pregnant women’s programs, developmentally disabled programs in SD)
• Educating mainstream service providers about resources (e.g., panel that travels to conferences, cross-training between targeted and mainstream providers)
• Linking up with tribal healers
• Cultural diversity training
• Helplines – Veterans, domestic abuse existing – something for consumers?
• Department of Education resource book not funded anymore – need to find $$ and a home for it – web page
• Department of corrections $$ for discharge planning; re-entry grants
• AOD programs in corrections run by DHS
• Collaboration with Veterans Administration, Indian Health Service, Tribes
• Local United Ways – look at targeting homelessness and housing
• Habitat for Humanity
• Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
• Collaboration and funding from city, county, state governments
• Possibility of support from the governor’s office
• Strong faith-based connections to services in rural areas
• Outreach within rural and Native American communities by health and behavioral health providers
• Change of Indian Health Services to Community Health Centers, including integration of primary health care and behavioral health
• New State Administration

Threats

• Tax cuts and war
• Economy overall
• Local and neighborhood resistance (NIMBY)
• Gentrification – removal of substandard or marginal housing
• Political climate (locally) – understanding the issues; blaming the homeless for their condition
• What are you willing to give up in terms of resources to focus on “new” issue/group?
• Thinking outside the box; taking risk of trying something new
• Failure
• Raise expectation that we’re always going to do this, so hard to demonstrate or try something
• Allocating sufficient time to the Policy Academy
• Potential turf issues; other stakeholders feeling left out
• State – Tribal relations in relation to homeless
• Lack of human resources – people to do the work

TEXAS SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Willingness of faith-based organizations to get involved
• Desire to collaborate is strong
• Texas Homeless Network
• 29 local homeless coalitions
• Texas Interagency Council for the Homeless
• Understanding of evidence-based practices at the state agency level (e.g., ACT, supported housing, integrated treatment of co-occurring disorders)
• Nationally recognized experts on team
• Desire to make things happen
• Experience with doing more with less
• Creative risk-takers; willing to be leaders
• Willingness to follow through with our plan
• Active philanthropic support
• Success in securing grant funds
• Numerous collaborative initiatives among state agencies
• Vista volunteers
• Cross-training initiative

Weaknesses

• Lack of funding
• Elimination of state agencies
• Lack of political will
• Lack of understanding of the magnitude of the problem (among state and local elected officials, general public)
• Stigma and discrimination
• “Hunker down” mentality – not willing to change anything
• Lack of system-wide collaboration
• Fragmented service system
• Reluctance by some agencies to include faith-based organizations
• Reluctance by the mainstream systems to embrace evidenced-based practices
• Lack of focus on prevention

Opportunities

• “Finding the Way Home” to be distributed to legislators
• Funding cuts are an opportunity to push the mainstream systems to adopt evidence-based practices (e.g., public mental health, Department of Human Services)
• Funding cuts offer opportunities to look at creative solutions (e.g., fatherhood initiative)
• Engage and collaborate with the faith-based community, volunteers, and philanthropic community
• Use Interagency Council’s advisory group mechanism to add and diversify key stakeholders
• Designation of TDHCA as lead agency on homelessness
• Texas Interagency Council is an advisory committee to the TDHCA board
• Increased federal funding targeted to homelessness (PATH, Chronic Homelessness initiative)
• Inclusion of faith-based organizations in grant-making initiatives
• Being able to demonstrate cost recovery or efficiency (“Lives in the Shadow”)
• Development of HMIS in local areas
• Public awareness campaign
• President’s new budget has several new initiatives for systems change and collaboration (e.g., New Freedom Initiative, Medicaid)
• Local collaborations around access to the “front door” and across systems

Threats

• Reduced funding
• What if agencies merge or disappear
• Interruption of momentum
• Loss of leadership
• Changing priorities
• Stigma and discrimination
• Taking a “thin layer of sand” and scattering it even further
• State’s economic condition (e.g., deterioration of housing stock)
• National focus isn’t on these issues (e.g., war)
• Ineffective or poorly managed services

UTAH SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Homeless Trust Fund -- State tax form check off box for donations for homeless services
• State Homeless Coordinating Committee
• Strong network of providers who work well together
• PATH grant funding
• Mental Health and Substance Abuse Block Grants
• Real Choice grants through DHS as model
• Legislature – some good support there
• Momentum – have been working on demonstrating outcomes for several years with Rensselearville Institute
• Buy-in from key stakeholders
• Utah Issues research work defining the literature and an overall model
• Balance of state Continuum of Care means that the entire state is now covered
• Staff person funded to provide technical assistance and training from Utah Issues
• Existing legislation provides for County training on developing plans for affordable housing
• Long-range planning committee in Salt Lake City (e.g., shifted approach to tax credits for affordable housing)
• Lt. Governor
• Targeted case management under Medicaid since 1991
• Mental health services in the state includes treatment-based housing and outreach components
• Access to private funding (e.g., Eccles Foundation)
• Involvement of faith-based organizations (LDS welfare system)
• General public is very giving and generous – both funds and volunteers
• Four Street Medical Clinic – federal Health Care for the Homeless program
• Department of Workforce Services new leadership is more accessible and integrated
• Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health is now integrated
• Div. of Substance Abuse and Mental Health has specifically targeted housing and services for people who are homeless
• Good leadership at the state level
• Department of Community and Economic Development is knowledgeable about homelessness issues and actively involved – “they actually get it”
• Association of Governments as model for working with rural areas
• State is good about keeping the rural areas “in the picture”
• Good language availability among volunteers and returning missionaries; DCED offices address this specifically

Weaknesses

• Need to identify and provide resources for the champion of this plan
• Not a common definition of homelessness (or chronic homelessness) -- Once people become serviced, they are no longer considered homeless and eligible for targeted services
• Not having a comprehensive system now – pieces developed, but not complete
• State and other funding (including federal) is inadequate and at times ineffectively allocated
• Lack of effective service delivery models for serving the population
• Sluggish economy
• Increased demand for emergency shelter
• Lack of flexibility to address needs that fall through the cracks
• Many of the people who are chronically homeless are not covered under state agency services
• Access to Social Security benefits (delusional, mobility, documentation, etc.)
• Capacity issues within the homeless services network – limits ability to change and grow
• Attitudes and stigma toward homelessness
• Utah -- Our prophets are home grown
• Not telling our story well enough to get people to invest scarce resources; must give them results; need to hire the right “storyteller”
• Need to be better advocates; tell our story better
• Legislators’ focus on tax cuts and reluctance to raise new taxes
• Private funding sources are down lately as well
• Need legislative champions
• Compromised and multiple data collection systems – makes it difficult to measure and show outcomes
• Lack of safe and affordable housing
• Poverty
• Limits to primary care and dental care
• Geography – rural nature of the majority of state
• Cultural incompetency and lack of awareness that may affect access
• Need and lack of information about homelessness among State’s Native American population

Opportunities

• Cost-benefit analysis
• Legislative champions
• HUD Homeless Management Information System
• Model advocacy team of State Olene Walker Housing Trust Fund
• Tell our story better through better collaborative data collection
• Re-examine targeted case management definition of population eligible and qualified providers
• Department of Workforce Service and food stamps
• Size of population is manageable and concentrated within a relatively small, urban area
• Rural issues are on the agenda – get 20% of Homeless Trust Fund
• Tapping into good will in the state through education
• Campaign for Homeless Trust Fund to increase contributions
• Receptivity of Utah State government to increase funds
• Policy Academy
• Upcoming federal and private grants (SAMHSA, HUD/HHS/VA, Social Security Administration Outreach Demo)
• Give homeless providers the capacity to provide mental health and substance abuse services
• Co-location of services – bring the services to people rather than making them go to each separate service
• Connecting those who want to give to others with people in need
• Election in 1.5 years
• Salt Lake City Council is taking on affordable housing as a key issue this year
• Working with the criminal justice system
• State-wide training program for case managers to achieve some consistency in knowledge and service
• Possibility of developing studio apartments in downtown SLC
• Doing more with vouchers; vacancy rates are pretty good
• Possibility of doing more set-asides for people who are homeless through the Housing Trust Fund

Threats

• Legislative cutbacks
• Lack of education of legislators
• Not being able to find or get commitment from champions
• Territorial tendencies of individual providers
• Distractions can fracture our focus and splinter efforts
• Complacency
• Ignorance
• Stigma
• Gentrification
• Economy
• Gap between creation of affordable housing and the number of people living at 150% and below the federal poverty level
• Making sure that the plan is targeting the most affected population
• Needs of the jail and prison populations
• Unfunded mandates
• Number of detox beds is outstripped by demand (both drug and alcohol)
• Lack of support services – e.g., HUD’s new emphasis on housing over services
• Lack of incentives for developing new housing units
• Paternalism; enabling people to remain dependent; pigeon-holing people
• Expiring privately owned, HUD subsidized housing -- possibly becoming market rent