Delaware | Iowa | Louisiana | Maryland | North Dakota | Ohio | Vermont | Virgin Islands | West Virginia | Wisconsin

DELAWARE SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Lots of funders in Delaware
• Small State, e.g., accessible legislators, networking, less geographical challenges
• Expertise in State
• System of State service centers
• Integrated behavioral health services that use best practices
• Homeless Planning Council and Continuum of Care – Statewide, nationally recognized quality application for Continuum of Care
• Staffed Homeless Planning Council that is State-wide
• Dedicated advocates
• Federal reps have held State office and have feel for State issues
• State economy is comparatively good
• Federally-funded programs and local programs (e.g., offender re-entry grant, PATH, systems-change grant)
• State Housing Authority is also State Finance Authority – allows them to partner on things like capacity building program

Weaknesses

• People with multiple challenges not able to access mainstream housing or employment resources
• Fragmented funding requirements from Feds can prohibit collaboration
• Small State, e.g., limited population, small number of fed reps, bureaucracy and favoritism, pre-determined roles, multi and conflicting tasks, “a good old network,” lack critical mass of people to attract additional funding
• Homelessness is misunderstood and is not a popular issue (e.g., among electorate)
• Lack of coordination of services
• Information gap
• Difficult to get good data to inform policy-makers and funders
• Jeopardy of decrease in affordable housing
• Transportation
• Habitual use of services and processes
• Doing things the way they’ve always been done
• Crisis driven as opposed to strategic planning
• Not enough resources or alternatives (especially around housing issue)
• Lack of outcome-based performance measures
• Historic tendency to criminalize or institutionalize non-normative behavior
• Few groups that work together collaboratively with other service providers
• Multiplicity of eligibility requirements
• Lack of cooperation in targeting resources
• Difference between northern and southern Delaware; rural vs. urban
• Lack of community-based treatment services

Opportunities

• Engage Office of Labor Market Information in process, provide data
• Focus groups with homeless and formerly homeless persons
• Implementation of HMIS and involve mainstream providers, e.g., Help Line
• Create an information bridge
• Offender re-entry grant
• Lack of critical mass of people means can be a demonstration site and make an impact
• Education among consumers and general population
• Housing First initiative
• Integrating housing and employment (Corporation for Supportive Housing)
• Use research data to convince policymakers that serving this population makes sense, e.g., potential savings
• Gaps assessment from Homeless Planning Council, improve protocol or use HMIS for use in policy influencing
• Improve access to mainstream housing, including home ownership, e.g., Section 8 conversion program
• Policy Academy process
• Involving more partners increases recognition that there are a lot of issues involved – all part of the same large issue
• Opportunity to develop better and stronger linkages between housing and services of all kinds

Threats

• Possible change in leadership in government
• Fear of being undermined by revealing vulnerabilities or lack of knowledge
• Economic paranoia – not wanting to look for new opportunities and holding on to what you have – “circle the wagons”
• Potential loss of McKinney funds to provide basic services
• Competing priorities
• Increasing housing prices
• Politically risky to take on this issue without public education
• Local land use decisions and political will are not there for this population
• NIMBY and fear of further decline in the tax base

IOWA SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Dedicated and trained to serve homeless
• New Iowa Council on Homelessness with 15 years of experience
• Service Point – Statewide HMIS
• Ability to create collaborative efforts
• Willingness to seek solutions to challenging problems/issues
• Small State
• Those who work in this area all know each other
• Community health centers being developed (new)
• Three Health Care for the Homeless providers in State
• Solving this problem is within our reach
• State housing trust fund
• Good network of local/community-level services from Continuum of Care
• Have a supportive governor
• Mainstream agencies interested in working with this population, Veterans Administration, VETS, workforce development, public health
• Low rate of uninsured
• SSI (with ICM 50% first time)
• Largest number of high school graduates
• Great place to raise kids

Weaknesses

• No mental health division – solely Medicaid
• Medicaid under siege
• Restructuring the Department of Health Services (DHS) – currently in flux
• Structure of the Department of Public Health (DPH) to provide services
• Not structured in a way to pursue opportunities (esp. funding)
• Small group who work in this issue all know each other – need to expand group
• No central point of contact for homeless issues (working on it)
• Loss of dedicated staff person two years ago
• Fragmented services
• Infrastructure is lacking in State agencies and providers – bare bones
• Homelessness is seen as an individual failure
• Ninety five percent of the battle is perception of homelessness
• Job cuts and lack of training/technical assistance
• Few CM agencies to work with homeless
• Rural outreach/engagement
• Substance abuse and mental health services (detox, aftercare)
• Dual diagnosis is a “dirty” word
• Have 99 counties
• Poor communication/cooperation between counties and cities
• Form of unfunded mandates from State legislature
• Attitude of “rugged individualism”
• State revenue structure unable to fund its public expenditures
• No State general fund appropriations dedicated to homelessness
• Lack of continuation of services for those being discharged from corrections – discharge planning
• Urban/rural problem
• Wages are very low
• Lack of affordable housing (severe crisis)
• Transportation issues, especially for rural
• No public transportation
• Maturing HMIS system to collect accurate data
• Providers are not “data-collection friendly” - don’t understand that it is an important thing to do
• Losing providers – infrastructure is fragile despite manageable numbers
• Hard for State’s fragmented system, hard to compete for Federal funding
• Lack of basic services for people who are homeless – e.g., MH case management
• SSI
• Brain drain – youth leaving State
• Lack of living wage jobs
• Need for public awareness campaign and paradigm shift around homelessness
• NIMBY
• Government is not seen as force for positive change

Opportunities

• Data collection network
• To change attitudes about homeless
• Develop better relationships with faith-based organizations
• Chance to create new structures for the State
• New partners and energy at table for new Statewide initiatives
• Find ways to capture and direct our children to positive activities in State

Threats

• There is no money – State budget crisis
• New Interagency Council on Homelessness requirements for State agencies
• Housing issues for those coming out of corrections system
• Erosion of middle class – danger of losing housing
• Budget and program cuts on city, State and Federal levels
• Health costs
• Changing players due to job cuts
• Aging population (housing, nursing homes)
• Substance abuse (methamphetamine), hepatitis
• Corrections draining resources
• In current environment (money), creative process shuts down – moves to survival mode and very competitive
• Threat of having funding cut if become advocate – balance of power

LOUISIANA SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Care and compassion of all the people
• Homeless coalitions covering the entire State
• Philanthropic giving (Baton Rouge Area Foundation, Greater New Orleans Foundation, Community Foundation of Shreveport-Bossier, etc.)
• Strong non-profit organizations (e.g., first charitable community pharmacies in the U.S., LANO – Louisiana Association of Non-Profit Organizations)
• Strong, organized interagency action council
• Leadership from two to three coalitions on Policy Academy team
• Individually, State departments are very strong
• State offices and staff are committed to homeless programs
• Diversity of available resources both financial and non-financial
• Representation of Governor’s Office
• Strong religious communities
• Talent and resources within the State (e.g., three State-run university systems, national center for women’s health, data is captured in shelters that serve people who are homeless because of domestic violence)
• Yearly Statewide homeless conference
• Strong networking system
• Growing identification of the problem (e.g., point-in-time and shelter survey, HMIS in number of regions)
• Louisiana Advocacy Coalition for the Homeless
• Growing partnership between public and private (e.g., concerted effort to work with community development organizations, faith-based, non-profit and private housing and homeownership)
• Homeless services working with housing organizations

Weaknesses

• Lack of public awareness
• Not enough shelters (e.g., domestic violence, substance abuse, women and children, adolescent)
• Disconnect between delivery systems
• State funding is inadequate and has been reduced in some areas for existing programs
• Federal funding is inadequate
• Growth before quality standards (e.g., community-based organizations, small faith-based)
• Lack of affordable housing and long waiting lists
• Incongruence between mission and priority of the lead State agency charged with addressing homelessness
• Performance standards tied to mainstream programs inhibits a chronic homeless person’s ability to access services and succeed
• Cumbersome data requirements
• Difficulties for capturing comprehensive data for non-Federally or State-funded entities
• Limited funding for administrative costs in homeless programs (e.g., ESG, SHP)
• Increased requirements attached to funding
• Lack of HMIS utilization on the State and local level
• Lack of outreach strategies to engage chronic and rural homeless
• Lack of integrated data systems among State agencies
• Less visible homeless population
• Criminalization of homelessness
• Lack of funding coordination of mainstream providers
• Targeted funding opportunities are cumbersome, short-term, and do not mirror needs of the local community
• Statewide discharge policy conflicts with the HUD definition of homelessness
• Lack of integration between mental health and substance abuse treatment systems

Opportunities

• Support from present administration
• Maximize State assets
• Policy Academy as an opportunity to increase communication among agencies, public awareness and awareness within State agencies
• Develop a seamless system of care for homeless
• Utilize individuals and information to complete ten-year plan
• Chance to think creatively
• Targeted Federal and State funding for homeless programs
• Develop meaningful homeless policy
• Federally-funded pilot program for integrated mental health and substance abuse treatment programs
• New housing trust fund
• HUD Second Chance Program
• Helping homeless agencies become more aware of how to access mainstream Federal dollars for housing (e.g., CDBG, HOME)
• Create levels of housing to meet people where they are
• Bringing together the different regions of the State and sharing information and strategies
• State/Federal collaboration (e.g., issues of stigma surrounding mental health and homelessness)
• Innovative ideas to solve the problem of homelessness
• Policy Academy recommendations as part of State ten-year plan
• Reinforces the No Child Left Behind Act
• Corrections Organized for Re-entry (CORE) as it relates to discharge planning
• Growing tourism industry in South Louisiana has an interest in ending chronic homelessness
• Working with the VA on re-entry programs
• Office of Mental Health starting Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams around the State
• Continuum of Care permanent housing bonus
• International Downtown Association has selected New Orleans for studying how the local business community can support the Continuum of Care
• Interest in historical preservation creates opportunities to renovate affordable housing
• Seeing chronic homelessness as a Statewide issue not regional

Threats

• Changing administrations
• Criminalization of homelessness
• Turfism
• Competition for funding
• Potential increase in number of homeless persons due to wars
• Potential increase in number of homeless due to poor economy
• Resistance to uniform data gathering
• Resistance to uniform definitions
• Department of Corrections expanding at the expense of other State department resources
• Lack of trust among homeless population
• Charity hospital cuts
• Reduction in funding
• Rising crime rate and homeless victimization
• Discouragement because of the enormity of the task of ending homelessness
• Over-extended team member leading to burn out
• Planning without implementation and outcome
• Too much process without product
• Mental health considered a luxury rather than necessity
• Belief that homelessness is too large a problem to solve
• Public is de-sensitized to chronic homelessness
• Lack of preventative mental health initiatives

MARYLAND SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Data – city-level data on housing costs and availability, health insurance; chart of how public incomes compare to housing costs; hourly wage by jurisdiction (www.nlihc.org); Governor’s Commission on Homelessness and Hunger reports
• Last meeting of State Interagency Council on Homelessness – inventory of services offered by agencies
• Small State where people know each other (24 jurisdictions) – fairly easy for people at State level to know who’s who at local level and be aware of problems (varies by region/jurisdiction)
• Acknowledgement that there is a problem and that solutions lie within our power
• Strong relationship between State mental health, substance abuse, and HIV agencies
• State Medicaid Managed Care recognizes homeless as special population and requires case management
• Executive order formalizing State Interagency Council on Homelessness
• State Health Secretary – publicly says health care is a right (public mental health system institutionalized)
• Medicaid managed care reform and welfare reform – maturing systems so not as swamped with change
• Existing collaboration between agencies (e.g., substance abuse in correctional system, Shelter Plus Care, various interagency and citizen-involved task forces and workgroups)
• A lot of expertise in many areas at the national and State level – people can be involved in cutting edge activities
• Knowledge of available Federal funding streams
• Proximity to DC
• Hospital system in MD is an all payer system

Weaknesses

• Don’t know about effectiveness of welfare reform
• Some lack of accountability within and backlash resulting from so many workgroups and task forces
• Ongoing discrimination – strong NIMBY, little or no enforcement of fair housing and ADA laws
• Data – inconsistency, isolation of data sets, lack of coordination, region specific as opposed to State specific
• State does not fully maximize presence of Veterans Administration programs – need for more communication
• Communication challenges between State and local levels
• High turnover among case workers – due to low salary, high case loads, stress, insufficient funding, and lack of support
• Eighty percent of people who experience homelessness have no health insurance, not qualified for Medicaid
• Disparity between housing needs and affordable housing stock
• Historically, no corporate architecture of State agencies – operating in silos
• Insufficient and inaccessible shelter and other service and housing systems
• At the State level, not always successful in getting block grant funding
• Lack of political will
• Lack of public awareness of diversity of homeless population
• State disability benefit insufficient and vulnerable
• Insufficient discharge planning

Opportunities

• Governor’s Office for Individuals with Disabilities raised to Cabinet level
• A lot of expertise in many areas – people can be involved in cutting edge activities
• Addressing discrimination – leadership from the Governor
• Finding and maximizing resources
• State does not fully maximize presence of Veterans Administration programs – need for more communication
• Awareness within developmental disability administration of homeless issues
• More internal communication
• Changing the eligibility requirement for Medicaid
• Highlighting successful local models
• Enhanced access to SSI
• Collaborations with State and nonprofits to create increased employment opportunities – for example Goodwill, Health Care for the Homeless and Catholics Charities; Mayor’s Office and State employment
• Tapping into faith-based community organization programs and resources
• Tapping into private sector resources
• Maximizing State housing trust funds
• 2000 public housing unit vacancies in Baltimore City
• Governor’s on Housing Policy - potential source of data; coordinate and exchange information
• Develop corporate architecture of State agencies – breaking down silos
• Start looking at the Continuum of Care plans from around the State
• State Medicaid Managed Care recognizing homeless as special population and requiring case management is not fully utilized
• State allocating funds to upgrade public housing
• Raising awareness and education – e.g., among public officials, the general public and within neighborhoods (press conferences, letter writing campaign)
• Integrate the MD self-sufficiency standard language in framing the poverty issue
• Homeless prevention initiatives with prison population
• Program and policy training for local providers and case worker staff
• Create more adult education opportunities
• Discharge planning is outlined in regulations – but needs to be enforced

Threats

• Poor economy and budgetary constraints (threat of loosing funding does not inspire creativity or collaboration)
• NIMBYism and misunderstanding of the homeless population
• Local and Federal constraints and regulations (e.g., confidentiality, data requirements, categorical funding, regulations, etc.)
• Lack of coordination and common vision between the Policy Academy team and State ICH
• Lack of ongoing staff support
• Adequate follow through and commitment
• Potential for fizzling – fundamental systems change takes money
• Setting your sights too low

NORTH DAKOTA SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Strong North Dakota Coalition (NDCHP) willing to be involved
• Wide array/network of services
• Smaller State population facilitates quicker response
• Dedicated providers
• Belief in the Continuum of Care
• Available, affordable education
• Creative, resourceful people
• Open housing units, vouchers in rural North Dakota
• Internet-based network of resources
• Emergency housing availability
• Relatively manageable homeless population
• Fairly high level of Federal funding for housing
• Collaboration between providers
• Increased housing development capacity
• State Fair Housing law

Weaknesses

• Lack of coordination of some services
• Independent culture
• Lack of jobs and services in rural North Dakota
• Few State dollars for homelessness
• Political climate
• Disconnect between service providers and the public and policymakers
• Lack of capacity
• Lack of accessible transportation
• Low wage structure
• Lack of affordable housing
• Difficulty for nonprofits to raise money
• Methamphetamine use high and not treated effectively
• So much dependence on State and Federal program
• Dual incomes needed to maintain households
• Highest per capita alcoholism in nation
• Inadequate data on homelessness
• Lack of public awareness of need
• NIMBY mentality
• Service provider money is hard to get
• Providers unaware of all resources available
• Shortage of transitional housing
• Eighteen – twenty-one age group difficult to reach
• Different program eligibility requirements
• Lack of affordable housing
• Inconsistent discharge planning
• Service providers don’t have enough time and money

Opportunities

• Educating each other on individual programs and procedures
• Create a public understanding campaign
• Develop legislation to support plan
• Easy access to a small media market
• Policy Academy 6
• HMIS
• Faith-based organization/CBO initiatives
• Available access to State legislators
• SHARE Network (Internet resource)
• Increase Federal money for homelessness
• SURTC (Statewide transportation coordination plan)
• Event like Hunger and Homeless Awareness Week
• Link existing housing units to support services
• Merging the needs for increased workforce with economic development
• Networking between programs
• Collaboration as strength in grant opportunities

Threats

• NIMBY
• HUD supportive services are ending
• People’s perception of welfare
• Our conservative ‘wait and see’ attitude
• Budget shortfall
• Less charitable giving
• Shelter closings
• Inability to change attitudes
• Public indifference and fear
• Lack of leadership for homeless issues
• Stigma
• Policy and administrative changes
• Waiting too long for consensus
• North Dakota “nice”
• Federal resources are shrinking

OHIO SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Tax credits, housing trust fund, and HOME
• Governor and Lt. Governor very supportive of affordable housing initiatives
• State-level commitment to interagency council
• Willingness to look at how we do things
• Strong advocates for housing (COHHIO, NAMI, OCCH, Community Connection, CSH)
• Diverse local providers and advocates
• One State application for two separate departmental funding streams (Housing Trust fund RFP and Ohio Department of Mental Health service dollars)
• Commitment of the team to this issue
• ODMH as collaborator sets example
• Local plans to end homelessness (Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo, Stark Co.) will help drive State process
• Department of Corrections re-entry “Ohio Plan”
• Mental health housing development agencies – about 14 Statewide
• State and national-level champions
• Ohio has long-term leadership in homelessness that has been active nationally; benefit equal model programs; willing to take risks
• Level of expertise of the team and elsewhere in the State
• Excellent public and private collaborations (with private sector filling in a lot of gaps; e.g., ODMH, corrections and Health Foundation collaboration on ACT teams; corporate partners, etc.)
• Local communities with established models that work
• Previous success with supportive housing to build from
• Affordable Housing Task Force agenda
• ODMH had vision of “housing as housing”
• Balance of State Continuum of Care process (training, coordination and funding)
• Rent subsidy program under ODMH
• Ohio’s Congressional delegation
• Commitment of directors of State agencies

Weaknesses

• Limited resources
• Lack of resources for primary health care
• TANF three-year time limit
• Varying degrees of accountability in the system
• Lack of State-level strategy
• Challenge of addressing needs of Ohio’s diverse populations
• Limited programs to reach extremely low- income population
• Lack of trust among key players
• Disjointed and unfocused; no common agenda
• Underutilization of resources
• Fragmentation
• Laws and regulations that limit access to housing
• Lack of common language
• Lack of recognized facilitator/leader for this event
• No Statewide policies
• Lack of a regional focus in the balance of State Continuum of Care
• Little or no collaboration
• ODADAS & ODMH have separate Medicaid billing requirements
• Lack of understanding of the scope and breadth of the problem – not on the radar screen
• NIMBYism
• No clear State-wide picture of homelessness
• More than our share of prison beds
• Service providers are over “stretched” in terms of staffing, capacity, etc.
• Eighty eight counties; local control of PRC and SSBG
• Exclusionary zoning
• Lack of affordable housing
• Lack of permanent supportive housing
• Lack of timely cash benefit resources for individuals
• Bureaucracy limits access for consumers
• Systems are not linked with one another for client-level data
• Lack of early intervention prior to discharge from institutions
• State agency funding reductions
• Lack of recognition of housing assistance as a specialty

Opportunities

• The Policy Academy
• County home rule
• State can take more active role with counties in promoting evidence-based practices
• Improvement of Federal and State disability determination process
• Policy academy is creating a mandate for cooperation
• To create a State-wide interagency council
• To think outside the box
• To revisit laws and regulations related to access to housing
• As a State, we must be open to change
• Greater opportunity for inclusiveness
• Opportunity to hook this initiative with other State-wide initiatives and priorities (e.g., School success; welfare reform; growing the economy, etc.)
• Relationship development
• New allocation plan at OHFA provides opportunity to link to this initiative & others
• Ohio’s colleges and universities (e.g., program planning and evaluation)
• Opportunity for ODOD funding program to follow the strategy
• To have housing as part of discharge planning in every institution
• Section 811 as source of funding for housing
• Opportunity to learn from tenants in current supportive housing projects
• To coordinate and collaborate among the many agencies involved in this issue
• ACT may become a Medicaid billable service
• To utilize the really strong advocates in Ohio
• Nurture and development of the public and political will at the State and local levels
• Opportunity to research, learn from, and use evidence-based practices
• National ELHSI initiative
• Draft a plan to end homelessness
• Additional resources in the housing trust fund
• To showcase Ohio to the feds
• To coordinate some training and technical assistance within Ohio (variety of sources – CSH, COHHIO, Ohio-CDC, State agencies, etc.)
• Learn from what ODMH and ODOC have already done in terms of collaboration

Threats

• NIMBYism and lack of education about affordable housing
• Loss of jobs – esp. manufacturing jobs
• Predatory lending
• Fear of homelessness/stigma
• Push to get on SSI may conflict with employment as a goal
• Action steps require changes that must be implemented by agency staff that are already invested in other issues
• Asking people to do more with less
• Troubling economic times
• Bureaucracy is slow and often traditional
• Serious competing needs for available resources
• Federal, State and local budget priorities that come ahead of this one
• Certain parochialism in agencies that inhibit buy-in around this issue
• Loss of treatment and support dollars to support people in housing (esp. for alcohol and drug treatment)
• Mindset of self-sufficiency threatens the increased supply of permanent supportive housing
• Federal emphasis on demonstration programs – where does the long-term funding come from?
• Lack of housing for people in the criminal justice system especially those with special needs
• Gentrification
• Urban sprawl
• Harm reduction – conversation is fracturing
• Lack of understanding of and lack of acceptance of the culture of homelessness – need for cultural competence related to homelessness
• Criminalization of homelessness
• Maintaining commitment and action – need early “wins”

VERMONT SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Existing systems of care/support
• Existing Continuum of Care and their services
• Knowledge base of Policy Academy and workgroup participants
• Size of Vermont
• Existing models that can be replicated, e.g., transitional housing in Rutland and housing partnership in Barre
• Diverse group of people who have diverse knowledge and experiences
• Governor’s administration support for homeless programs
• Partnerships with for-profit landlords
• Direct access to legislative bodies
• Continuums of Care are solution oriented
• Good grant writers on team
• Team members are very experienced in these issues, plus new people who can bring new perspectives

Weaknesses

• Migrating people to municipalities where services are
• State size (rural isolation)
• Limited vision in seeing this issue only for those with limited resources. Economic development issue
• Better coordination/flexibility
• Continuum of Care lack resources to complete array of services in geographic areas
• Lack of knowledge among team members of what each one can influence
• May not have the right people coming to Policy Academy – burden to carry the message forward
• Need to comply with Federal funding “silos” and Federal regulations
• Lack of communication with Federal Interagency Council
• Programs based on gross income
• Low priority, lack of public will
• Lack of knowledge of general public about this issue – don’t want to face it
• Don’t see those who are homeless
• NIMBY
• Lack of adequate staffing and volunteers
• Lack of quality jobs
• Problems of economy of scale, requirements
• Compartmentalized public health system
• Not tapping social clubs and civic groups with social goals
• Lack of collaboration between housing authorities and supportive service providers
• Lack of economic and community development link

Opportunities

• Creative solutions for strategies
• Check supply and demand
• Use replicable models
• Involve local government service officers and other untapped resources
• Create a better system
• Build more affordable housing, more housing in general, continuum of housing
• Creating additional transitional housing
• Join for-profit and non-profit providers to address poverty
• More collaboration between housing and support services
• Federal Interagency Council energy and visibility
• More comprehensive assessments across all services, common definitions
• Learn from other States
• Reorganization of Agency of Human Services to help people understand issues of shelter.
• Citizen legislature who cares about people they represent. Need to educate them on these issues
• Stop targeting resources and use State resources more wisely
• Educate the public as well as legislature – put a face on homelessness, cost issues
• Coordination/flexibility among programs, e.g., HUD regulations or inter-departmental
• Increased advocacy
• Development of uniform approach
• Recovery elements

Threats

• Economic times are going to get more difficult
• Housing stock is out of line with demand
• Fear of change – resistance
• Federal funding limitations, especially for rural programs
• Growing heroin problem
• Need for more housing (sprawl)
• Prison overcrowding
• Turf issues
• Regulatory requirements
• Budget constraints
• Time
• Changing leadership, e.g., governor
• Disconnect between Feds and States
• “Same old, same old”
• Belief in self-reliance
• Federal policy of targeting populations, categorical approach – creates competition

VIRGIN ISLANDS SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• • Variety of benefits: TANF, general assistance (about $200/month), old age assistance, SSDI, food assistance
• Small size population (homeless and general population) and small number of providers
• One-stop center with SRO
• Providers: Bethlehem House, Adullum Shelter, Methodist Outreach Center, St. Croix Mission Outreach, the Village, Catholic Charities, Shaky Acres, Families in Need, Family Resource Center, Safety Zone, Lutheran Social Services, Women’s Coalition
• Recognized need throughout the community
• Knowledgeable group of professionals who are committed to addressing issue
• Single hospital system for all islands
• Willingness of Federal agencies and consultants to provide technical assistance
• Virgin Islands Alliance Against Homelessness meets monthly
• Collaboration among existing agencies
• Community of resilience
• Small size ensures participation of policymakers and word-of-mouth outreach
• Weather/climate
• Personal connections between helpers and people who are homeless
• Willingness of family members to help
• Community Foundation of the Virgin Islands and United Way
• Positive relationships with police

Weaknesses

• Lack of data
• Shortage of affordable housing – not a wide range
• Influx of people from outside the Virgin Islands
• No SSI
• Barriers to client access: lack of identification; immigration issues
• Need for improved community mental health services and substance abuse services
• High cost of living
• One hospital per island; need to coordinate
• Limited understanding of the problem by many people
• Geographic separation of the islands
• WIFM – What’s In It For Me
• Lack of shelter – especially for men in St. Croix
• Lack of funds
• Need to focus on priorities
• Involvement of private industry could be stronger and more visible
• Lack of personnel
• Need for collaborative effort among agencies
• Lack of transportation
• Need for more sensitivity from the community
• Lack of commitment
• Fragmented and uncoordinated system
• Medicaid is capped
• High level of uninsured between the ages of 21-59
• Competitive agendas
• No transitional housing
• Lack of displaying potentials and abilities
• Lack of rehabilitation for substance abusers
• Need for more communication and information across systems
• Our efforts don’t include homeless or formerly homeless people

Opportunities

• Cross-training among mainstream services
• Increased coordination of one-stop center with other mainstream and targeted providers
• Increased housing stock and options (with supportive services)
• Discharge planning with hospitals and corrections
• Doing focus groups at hospitals with homeless or formerly homeless individuals
• Availability of technical assistance
• Grants (private and public) that we haven’t tapped yet
• Newly established employee assistance program could help employees before they become homeless
• Commitment from administration
• Availability of occupational therapy programs
• Opportunities to create taxes and surcharges to assist the homeless (e.g., tax on restaurants for one day)
• Taking full advantage of CBOs rather than using government in their place
• Networking with similar agencies in other jurisdictions
• Looking at best practices and ways they could be adapted to VI
• Talking to experts at Policy Academy (Ann O’Hara, Carol Wilkins, etc.)
• Opportunity to help people become more aware of the issues and problem
• Opportunity to re-involve the Veterans’ Administration
• Opportunity to involve Department of Labor

Threats

• If this issue goes unchecked, it will mushroom and become a much larger problem
• Increase of the population
• Insufficient funding
• National or international incident that may threaten existing funding
• Natural disasters
• Change in the administration’s focus (nationally or locally)
• Hardships on local businesses caused by increased homelessness
• Refusal of some key agencies to collaborate
• Team process isn’t institutionalized and may fall apart
• Threat to children and families

WEST VIRGINIA SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Free clinic system
• Strong community health system
• Effective shelters, scattered around State
• Great resource people to work together
• Used to collaboration
• Strong peer organizations (NAMI)
• Small State, relationship-based at policy level
• HMIS operating in Huntington and other communities
• Experience with provision of services
• Policy Academy team is a group of can-do people
• Some Federal money
• Strong faith-based leadership
• Good foundation with State Supreme Court ruling on homelessness
• Awareness of need
• Well developed Continuums of Care
• Excellent services, especially health care, case mgmt outreach – may not be enough
• Developing State-wide provider network
• Number of groups Statewide committed to serving homeless and families

Weaknesses

• Dependence on Federal funds
• Large number of other populations that compete for services, e.g., elderly, jobless, working poor
• High rate of dual disorders
• Limited State funding
• Turf issues
• Competitive bid process
• Lack of unified strategic plan
• Lack of (need to increase) public awareness
• Incomplete data/picture of homeless
• Utilization management – limited services
• Misperception of housing situation – housing in disrepair
• Lack of State-level legislation (commitment?) to this issue
• General population/legislators does not perceive the need to serve homeless – perceived as an urban problem
• Shortage of permanent affordable housing
• Resources are available but not tapped
• SSI/SSDI – dual eligibility
• No inventory of funding streams (tapped and untapped)
• Broken Community mental health/substance abuse system that drains resources
• One million people on public assistance
• High housing costs, low-income jobs
• Unwillingness to collaborate on State level in some segments
• Small State impacts amount of Federal funding
• Inadequate data collection and reporting systems
• Challenge to connect service to those who need it in rural State (transportation)
  Need for affordable and accessible medical and dental care
• Being rural State, homeless are hard to see
• No dedicated funding source for homeless services in State – no increases with soaring population
• Lack of one group as homeless champion
• Consumers of services are non-voting – no advocacy Statewide
• Local Public Housing Authorities can close waiting lists if they want
• Lack of transitional programs and support services
• Lack of clean data

Opportunities

• Balance of State, not covered by Continuum of Cares
• Sustainability – identify opportunities for funding
• Strength of Policy Academy team in getting things done
• Get State buy-in for this issue
• New governor
• Good timing
• Workforce investment legislation (State) – Legislative commission that requires State agencies’ reporting on funding, services delivered, population (potential forum for this group’s activities)
• Federal support for issue – administration, funding
• Easy to expand HMIS system
• Increase networking and consensus building
• Varied financial funding sources for housing (Shelter plus Care, 811s,) that aren’t being tapped
• Data from 11 shelters
• Create visibility plan for issue

Threats

• Most State agencies are taking a budget cut
• Lame duck administration
• Homelessness is not a priority
• Diminishing and fragmenting overall Federal funding
• Iraq, war, economy
• Legislation that creates homelessness, e.g., offenders
• NIMBY
• Fees in “free” clinic especially in rural areas – doesn’t cover pharmacy. Issues are chronic diseases. No Federal support
• HIV population and other infectious diseases
• Timing out of benefits (e.g., Welfare to Work)
• If aren’t compliant on 10 year plan, will be left behind
• WV has highest percent of home ownership in country but housing stock is 40-50 years old
• No guidelines for those “at risk” for Federal funding
• WV has become known as a “homeless friendly” State because of better services
• Growing homeless population
• Growing elder population who are becoming homeless
• Elder abuse

WISCONSIN SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Education system and access
• Attitude of new administration towards collaboration, especially Governor
• Committed team
• Social services system throughout the State
• Caring community
• Existing funding and resources
• Housing authority esp. at State level
• Local control
• Local systems and programs
• HMIS
• Dynamic leadership
• Commitment from Federal agencies
• Health care access
• Excellent providers
• Statewide coalitions/Continuum of Care
• Model programs
• Strong faith community
• Risk takers for innovation and improved services

Weaknesses

• Too many layers of government
• Economy
• Budget cuts
• Local control
• Competing issues in the political arena
• No integrated access system
• Lack of affordable housing
• Lack of existing funding and resources
• Homeless are not visible
• Stigma
• Coordination of existing funding and resources
• Low paying jobs
• No “one-size-fits-all” solution
• Lack of existing non-profit resources related to housing
• Lack of cultural tolerance
• Complex and challenging population
• Lack of evaluation and evidence-based remedies for those facing multiple barriers
• Lack of cross-system collaboration
• Lack of community interest in taking ownership in resolving the problem
• Focus tends to be on short-term rather than long-term solutions
• Urban vs. rural issues
• Incompatible data sources
• Lack of tolerance for persons in poverty
• Relatively high taxes in State
• Lack of public transportation outside core cities

Opportunities

• Better cross-system collaboration
• Expansion of IDAP Milwaukee model
• Wisconsin foundations are focused on this issue
• Investigating new sources of revenue
• Regional approaches to job creation
• Partnerships
• Better utilization of existing revenue and resources
• New market tax credit
• Lots of good ideas if we tap them
• Redirect focus and attention to this issue
• Good State-wide models for combining resources
• Ex-offender re-entry initiatives
• Strong faith community
• Enlightened construction community
• Government downsizing
• Presumptive eligibility system for SSI
• HMIS
• Multiple data sources
• Better utilization of universities
• Smart growth plans
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield Foundation
• Grow Wisconsin
• Business incentives for employing people who are homeless (at living wage)
• Minimum wage increase
• Use of media/publicity – increase visibility around this initiative

Threats

• Additional cuts/freeze taxes mentality
• Stigma
• Political posturing and competing philosophies
• Economic uncertainties (jobs, funding, etc.)
• Increasing homeless population
• Continued rising cost of housing and failure of wages to keep pace
• Continued war costs (diverts funds from necessary resources at home)
• Federal funding
• Increasing costs of health care
• Jail population and the “lock ‘em up mentality”
• Government’s commitment to finding workable solutions
• Lack of discharge planning from all systems
• Inappropriate use of corrections
• Lack of political will
• NIMBY
• Lack of disaster planning for homeless population
• Blaming the victim
• Climate is particularly harsh for people who are homeless
• Street sweeps of homeless people
• Criminalization of homelessness