Reso 2006-127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Alameda Countywide Homeless and Special Needs Housing Plan 45 9. Tightening public sector budgets. Due to budget problems at the local, state, and federal government levels, systems and providers are struggling to maintain what they have. They face additional difficult cuts. 10. Inconsistent political and popular support. Although many people are involved with trying to end homelessness and assist people who are homeless, living with a mental illness, and/or living with HIV/AIDS, these issues do not have as much political and popular support as will be needed to take care ofthem. Context for Implementation of the Plan's Recommendations Each system has evolved over time in response to the issues, regulations, and resources available to address its primary issue. The distinction between systems manifested themselves in this planning process, starting with estimating the populations involved and the resources available to them. In trying to answer the question "who is homeless?", the Sponsoring Agencies found that each system tracks housing and homeless status differently. The homeless services system actually maintains two different homeless definitions: "chronic" homelessness among single adults has been defined very specifically by HUD, which requires jurisdictions receiving federal homeless funding to complete a count every two years, and more broadly, "community-defined" homelessness. The HIV / AIDS and behavioral health systems, on the other hand, usually only record this information once-at the first service contact of the year, or if it comes up as a service-related issue during the year~and base it on a working, rather than technical, definition of homelessness. Therefore information between the systems is neither directly comparable nor uniformly available. These differences extend to housing and services activities as well. For example, in the HIV/AIDS system, HOPW A funds "transitional housing," based on a definition established by HUD's Office of HI VIA IDS Housing, while the Ryan White program funds "short-term housing" using the definition established by the HIV/AIDS Bureau of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). While these housing programs are similar in intent and function~and in many cases HOPW A and Ryan White fund the same providers-they are not the same. As a result, even within a single system, programs are using different concepts, names, and regulations for similar activities. This is just one among many gaps and inconsistencies between systems that confuse consumers and make systemic collaboration the exception, at this point, rather than the rule. The plan's sponsors recognized that even after nearly two decades of interagency coordination and proactive planning, housing and services in Alameda County for the plan's populations are still largely fragmented. Although many jurisdictions and their local provider organizations routinely communicate and collaborate effectively, each jurisdiction in Alameda County sets its own priorities, establishes its own policies, and makes independent funding decisions. In addition, although most joint planning efforts have been programmatic collaborations, each system and its individual provider organizations have different eligibility criteria, points of entry, and waiting list policies. As a result, from the perspective of consumers, there appears to be no "system," but rather an array of potential services that individuals must get into largely on their own and which are usually full. Addressing these service system gaps and barriers was a primary motivation in developing the Alameda Countywide Homeless and Special Needs Housing Plan.