OpeningDoorsEndingHomelessnessInBristolConnecticut

Running Head: OPENING DOORS: ENDING HOMELESSNESS IN BRISTOL CT 1
Opening Doors: Ending Homelessness in Bristol Connecticut
Travis Londen
University of Saint Joseph

OPENING DOORS: ENDING HOMELESSNESS IN BRISTOL CT 2
Homelessness is an ever-growing issue in the United States. The 2015 national Point in
Time Count showed that on a single night in January, there were 564,708 people experiencing
homelessness in the United States (US Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD],
2015). In Bristol, the results showed a total of 81 persons dealing with homelessness
(Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness [CCEH], 2015).
In 2011, the US Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) began to develop
Opening Doors, a national strategic plan to end homelessness across the country. During this
development USICH set four goals for ending homelessness. The goals set by USICH were: to
end veteran homelessness by 2016, end chronic homelessness by 2017, end family homelessness
by 2020, and end unaccompanied youth homelessness by 2020 (2015). However, “ending
homelessness” does not mean that no person will ever become homeless. To clarify this, the
USICH defined what it meant to end homelessness. Ending homelessness means that all
communities will have a developed system that prevents homelessness from occurring, and can
also quickly respond when such events do occur (USICH, 2015). This is accomplished through
development of resources, greater intervention for persons at risk of homelessness, and
immediate access to emergency and crisis services. USICH (2015) outlines 10 objectives and 66
strategies that when put into place could end all forms of homelessness by 2020.
One of the major focuses of Opening Doors was utilizing a Housing First model.
Housing First has been the presenting model for many countries in their efforts to address
homelessness; however, only following the presentation of Opening Doors in 2010 did Housing
First become the determined federal model for ending homelessness. Housing First is designed
to focus on providing safe and affordable permanent housing to a person experiencing
homelessness. With Housing First, anyone who is experiencing homelessness is considered

housing ready, regardless of factors like addiction, mental health issues, or criminal record
(USICH, 2015). With this change in model, several studies have come forward to support the
use of Housing First. One of the most basic needs for human survival is a safe shelter to stay in.
The goal of Housing First is to meet this need. In providing a person with housing and follow-up
treatment, they are more likely to succeed in self sustainability.
The Housing First model is employed through two types of programs, the first being
Permanent Supportive Housing. Permanent Supportive Housing is a federally funded Housing
First model that is specifically for the dual diagnosed chronically homeless person. This is
determined through Vulnerability Index – Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Prescreen
Tool (VI-SPDAT), a universal tool used by providers that yields a score which helps to
determine the level of need of a person experiencing homelessness. The VI-SPDAT allows for a
person who is literally homeless to verify whether they are eligible for either rapid rehousing or
Permanent Supportive Housing. The VI-SPDAT is a stepping stone to get the necessary services
to provide the necessary assistance to get a person out of homelessness. Once it is determined
that a person meets the requirements for Permanent Supportive Housing, they must undergo
evaluations. They are given a housing voucher and funding to receive support from mental
health specialists. There are two forms in which Permanent Supportive Housing exists: housing
that is specifically designated for use as Permanent Supportive Housing, or similar facilities, or
the use of private housing, which utilizes an outside service provider as case management for the
client.
Permanent Supportive Housing has already showed great success. We can ascertain that
this success is viable by looking at the outcomes for issues raised in a community that is facing
homelessness. For example, many communities face the issue of a high number of visits to

hospitals’ emergency services by persons experiencing homelessness. Many people
experiencing homelessness do not have insurance, and will seek medical attention from
emergency services, due to the fact hospitals cannot turn anyone away. In addition, frequent
visits to emergency services can be caused by the “competing priorities” of life on the street,
which puts personal health care low on the list of persons dealing with homelessness (Gelberg,
Gallagher, Andersen, & Koegel, 1997 as cited in Russolillo, Patterson, McCandless,
Moniruzzaman & Somers, 2014). This means that when health issues arise for this population,
they often reach a high level of need by the time treatment is finally sought. Ideally, using the
Housing First model to would help lower the number of frequent visits to hospitals by formerly
homeless persons. In a study done by A. Russolillo, M. Patterson, L. McCandless, A.
Moniruzzaman and J. Somers (2014), the researchers examined the frequency of visits of
Housing First recipients at urban emergency departments in Vancouver, Canada. The study
showed that participants in Housing First programs decreased their number of visits to
emergency services by one visit per year, from the previous average of 4.8 visits per year
(Russolillo, Patterson, McCandless, Moniruzzaman, & Somers, 2014). This decrease was shown
to be in the “Scatter Site” model which integrates supportive housing sites with general housing,
including the private market (Russolillo, Patterson, McCandless, Moniruzzaman, & Somers,
2014). This shows that supportive housing programs can improve the general health of formerly
homeless persons. This helps decrease traffic in emergency services and cuts costs for the
community.
Another benefit to the Housing First model is the lower cost of services. The sooner a
person is off the street and into independent housing, the lower the cost on society. The
Department of Housing and Urban development [HUD] (2010), released a study on the overall

cost for a first-time homeless family and individual, comparing the cost of traditional homeless
services and the new Housing First model. The study goes beyond day to day costs and explores
the cost-to-services ratio that occurs with first time homelessness. The lowest cost service for
homelessness is individual emergency shelter services. However, these facilities tend to have the
lowest availability of services. The cost is dramatically higher for families dealing with
homelessness. For example, in Houston, Texas, the average monthly cost for emergency shelter
is $1,391 per family (HUD, 2010). This cost is even higher in transitional shelters, by about
$500 to $2000 (HUD, 2010). This is $743 more than the average fair market cost per month for
a two bedroom apartment in the same city (HUD, 2010). In contrast, the cost associated with
Permanent Supportive Housing for a family is $799 in Houston (HUD, 2010). This study also
focuses on several other cities across the country; in all cases, it shows a lower cost for
Permanent Supportive Housing compared to traditional services, for both individual and family
situations. By lowering the overall cost of services, the Housing First model can help reallocate
funding that is needed to provide other services for homelessness and homelessness prevention.
Once housing programs are developed, and those currently in the shelter system or
thosing living on the street are housed, the next step is to develop a system of support. These
supports must prevent those who are at risk from becoming homeless, and quickly react when
homelessness is identified. This system is outlined in Opening Doors as a community-wide
response to enact services that prevent homelessness whenever possible, and when this is not
possible, to ensure the experience is brief and does not recur (USICH, 2015). The idea is for
each community to have the best understanding of what that would take and what agencies could
best provide theses prevention services. USICH (2015) puts strong focus on using a coordinated
entry system, which would be a single universal that evaluates and facilitates all services for

someone at risk or who is dealing with homelessness. The idea is that one system would allow
for both assessment and intervention to happen simultaneously, as opposed to a person getting
connected with a case manager, and then getting recommendations to outside services. In
Connecticut, there is a similar system set in place. In order to be considered for Housing First
and to recieve a bed in the shelter, a person dealing with homelessness must called 211 infoline
in order to have their information entered into the the database and have a VI-SPADT completed.
One other proposed service outlined in Opening Doors is the creation of affordable
housing, especially in suburban and affluent areas. It is very important for communities to
integrate affordable housing throughout the community for many reasons. Specifically for the
stigmatized issue of homelessness, such integration helps normalize those who have been
homeless back into everyday life. The study previously mentioned, by Russolillo, Patterson,
McCandless, Moniruzzaman, and Somers (2014), examined outcomes for people housed through
Housing First. The study found that the greatest decrease in emergency medical services usage
was among the population that was integrated into general community housing, as opposed to
those in a housing facility specifically for those in need of services. This further supports the
need for communities to increase affordable housing.
Bristol is an ever-growing city located in west central Connecticut. With a population of
over 60,000 people, Bristol is a diverse city in many ways. Bristol is increasingly facing the
challenge of homelessness. There are many causes of homelessness within Bristol. Overall,
however, Bristol’s many service providers work in unison to help prevent and work towards
ending homelessness. In the last Point In Time Count, the city of Bristol reported 81 homeless
persons (CCEH, 2015). This was a 33% increase since 2011 (CCEH, 2015). Of that 81, a total

of 72 of them are sheltered (CCEH, 2015). Although there are many other factors that contribute
to the increase, it is clear that the issue of homelessness as a whole has escalated in Bristol.
However, just over year ago, the Ending Homelessness Task Group was created through
the work of several agencies. This group focused on providing services to people dealing with
homelessness and on creating a long term plan to end homelessness in Bristol. In the beginning
the group focused on research and gaining understanding of the situation in Bristol. As the
group aged, it grew dramatically and joined representatives from almost all of the service
providers in Bristol. The group sought to continue to grow resources towards the goal of ending
homelessness. One major resource created by the End Homelessness Task Group was the
creation of the position of Housing Coordinator. The position was focused on outreach and
assistance to those in need of housing, to help them navigate the system and receive either
Permanent Supportive Housing or rapid rehousing. Since beginning her job, the current housing
coordinator has helped six chronically homeless individuals get housed through Permanent
Supportive Housing (D. Berube, personal communication, April 20, 2016). In addition, she has
helped three other individuals get approved for Permanent Supportive Housing. Rapid re-
housing has presented more of a challenge, as the housing coordinator was only able to get one
person of the ten approved. Although this has been a great success, those waiting for housing
still face many barriers to overcome in the process of getting that housing.
Another step that the End Homelessness Task Group took towards ending homelessness
in Bristol was the creation of a winter day warming center. This center filled the need for a
warm shelter during the gap in time in which the area’s morning soup kitchen was closed but
dinner was not yet served. This became a great resource because it allowed for service providers
to meet with clients who wouldn’t normally come through their doors. Another great asset of the

weekday warming center was that it featured desktop computers that anyone could use. The
computers were mainly used for finding and applying for jobs and various services that can
support those who are experiencing homelessness. Along with this the task group has also had
many days of free haircuts for those experiencing homelessness. And have also had a member
volunteer to work with people to write their resumes and improve their chances of finding a job.
Bristol’s End Homelessness Task Group has made great strides to ending homelessness
within Bristol, yet there are still many barriers that prevent the task group from fully achieving
this goal. One of the biggest barriers is the lack of understanding of homelessness in the
government and even residents of the city. An important piece of ending homelessness within a
given city is community connection. Opening Doors stresses many times throughout the writing
that the community is extremely important in coming together to truly end homelessness.
Bristol, like many cities, has a “not in my backyard” mentality from many of its residents.
Another issue is the mistaken belief that if the city provides more services to support a person
dealing with homelessness, then people outside of Bristol will come to the city in search of
services. The other issue is the misconception of what it means to be homeless. Many people
believe that a person who is homeless has chosen that lifestyle, or may deserve to be homeless
for some other reason. This belief is not held by the majority of Bristol residents, but it does
seem to be popular among those who voice their opinions the loudest. This misunderstanding of
the homeless population extends beyond opposition to increasing services. Many of the persons
approved for both Permanent Supportive Housing and rapid re-housing are in fact unable to find
housing due to their backgrounds. Many landlords will not rent to persons with addiction or
persons with criminal backgrounds. Given the nature of homelessness, many persons, especially
the chronically homeless, have had issues with the legal system. Because of this, landlords are

often able to find loopholes in the system that allow them to deny housing to formerly homeless
persons.
One of the other barriers Bristol faces is the recent increase in condemnations and
evictions. Evictions can present a challenge on a case-by-case basis. However, there is limited
assistance available for those who are at risk of eviction. Additionally, within the last few years
the number of town-based condemnations has increased dramatically, which is both a good and
bad thing for the city and its residents. All of the condemnations were for unsafe housing
conditions. However, the follow-up from the city government with residents of the buildings
that have been condemned is very limited. In poor housing conditions, rent is typically very
discounted, and those who may not be able to get housing in other locations are able to find
accommodations within these terrible conditions. When their building is condemned, residents
are forced out into the street, oftentimes losing any security deposit they have paid. One extreme
example is that of a building in downtown Bristol, which was condemned and left 22 residents
without a place to go, as the absentee landlord refused to do anything about the property (D.
Berube, personal communication, April 20, 2016). Bristol has some services in place to assist
those displaced due to condemnations, but this assistance is limited. Additionally, even though
the affordable housing market in Bristol is larger than in most cities, there is still a long wait for
any property, especially for public housing. Because there is a competitive market for affordable
and low-income housing, landlords find themselves in a position to screen applicants for those
who might be considered the best prospective tenants.
These barriers may limit Bristol and its service providers in achieving the goal of ending
homelessness; however, they do not make it impossible. There are many routes for Bristol to
take to help overcome these barriers, but the first and most critical step would be raising

awareness. In Bristol and across the nation, the misunderstanding of what it means to be a
person experiencing homelessness is one of the biggest barriers to ending homelessness.
Unfortunately, homelessness is treated as a condition, as something a person “is,” rather than as a
challenge that a person is facing at a point in time. By raising awareness throughout the
community that homelessness is not a disease, Bristol can gain the support it needs to help end
homelessness. This idea has come up many times within the task group,but to truly move
forward in its goal, this needs to be a more immediate priority. In addition, raising awareness
will benefit the work of the task group, as greater awareness helps speed change in the city’s
laws and policies that affect the treatment and services a person experiencing homelessness can
receive. With greater community support, the priorities of the community will begin to show
within the political system.
Once the task group has been able to reach out to the community to help people
understand what it really means to be homeless, there are several policies that they can help
lobby to end homelessness. One direction this approach could take is to focus on affordable
housing. A good policy that can promote affordable housing in Bristol comes from the example
of Fairfield Connecticut. Fairfield has recently passed an ordinance that requires all new housing
developments over ten units to have ten percent of the housing designated affordable for persons
at twenty percent of the median income (Nelson, Barnhart, & Llodra, 2016). The strongest part
of this ordinance is that there is no loophole that would allow contractors or developers to get out
of having affordable units. This not only supports the growth of affordable housing, but it
creates these units integrated with the rest of the population, rather than segregating affordable
housing to certain neighborhoods or areas.

Another immediate step for Bristol to end homelessness is to continue to reach out to
those experiencing homeless and increase the outreach efforts. The winter day warming center
was a great success, with over 70 unduplicated visitors in one month, many of whom had never
received services from the providers. The housing coordinator was able to meet with many new
faces and help many people start receiving services. Reaching out to those who have yet to
receive services not only helps those people work their way out of homelessness, but also
empowers all people who are experiencing homelessness. When they are shown that someone
wants to help them and does not pass judgement on them, people experiencing homelessness
gain the motivation to make a better life for themselves with the assistance of the task group.
The task group has considered the idea of extending the funding for this center, and finding other
resources to develop a community center that could help connect members of the community as
well as networks of service providers. Funding is an issue that comes up in all practical
considerations of programs to help end homelessness. The issue of funding is mired in political
and legislative concerns that are beyond the scope of this research, but it is important to
recognize that funding can be a major obstacle to the implementation of many programs.
The final step to help end homelessness in Bristol would be to organize a single point of
entry into the system for a person experiencing homelessness. This entry point does not
necessarily have to be a physical location but create a single team that outreaches and helps
clients through the process of applying for and receiving the services they need. Currently, just
about any major service provider in Bristol can help a person get a VI-SPADT completed, or at
least direct a person to the right location to get one done. However, there is a clear need for a
definite location for this. At this time, the housing coordinator hired by the task group works out
of Bristol’s Community Services. This has served as a good location but still requires a lot of

outreach work. More providers on the ground would greatly benefit people experiencing
homelessness. The housing coordinator position is a part time position, which limits the reach of
the person in this position. The other provider that helps to organize and assist people in the
Housing First approval process is the local emergency shelter. The downside to this is that they
are only able to provide this service to current residents to the shelter at this time. Since a person
is only able to get into the shelter through the formal infoline application process, the emergency
shelter is not able to reach persons who are not guests of the shelter. At this point in time, the
majority of Bristol’s persons experiencing homelessness are within the shelters. However, the
point in time count limits the distance a counter can travel off the road into potential
encampments, meaning this number may not be an accurate description of the population living
on the street. A team would be the most effective approach, focusing on outreach service
providers who are able to literally meet their clients where they are, thus increasing the chances
of reaching everyone with the services necessary to help them out of homelessness.
Altogether, Bristol is on the right track toward ending homelessness. Using Opening
Doors as a guide, there is a greater promise of ending homelessness within the time frame set by
the USICH. The Ending Homelessness Task Group has made great strides toward its goal in the
short year it has been assembled. With the great success of the Housing Coordinator position, as
well as the winter day warming center, the task group has built great momentum to continue
toward its end goal. Within the task group, several subgroups have begun to emerge, focusing
on sustainability of the group and big picture goals. As the group continues to grow, its
sustainability will be an important consideration; until the group is able to end homelessness,
there will always be a need for its presence. The next steps for the task group should be aimed
towards the plans explained in Opening Doors, with the substantial academic research that

supports this plan. Bristol is a unique case that truly proves the strength in communities coming
together. Although financial resources are nearly non-existent for the task group, it still achieves
great, measurable changes that have helped increase the potential for change for a person
experiencing homelessness. Through community outreach, continued policy lobbying, and
creating a streamlined singular point of entry for services, the goal of ending homelessness in the
city comes into view. These goals ultimately rely on many factors, and as times change the task
group will have to continue to adapt to those changes. Given the work of the task group and its
continued actions with service providers, the goal of ending homeless in Bristol is not only
possible but probable.

References
Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness (2015). Fact Sheet for Bristol’s Point in Time Count
Results.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research
(2010). Costs Associated with First-Time Homelessness for Families and Individuals.
Nelson C, Barnhart M, & Llodra P, 2016 Partnership for Strong Communities Panel Discussion
Affordable and Fair Housing, Hartford Conn.
Russolillo, A., Patterson, M., McCandless, L., Moniruzzaman, A., & Somers, J. (2014).
Emergency Department Utilization Among Formerly Homeless Adults with Mental
Disorders after one year of Housing First Interventions: a Randomized Controlled Trial.
International Journal Of Housing Policy, 14(1), 79-97.
doi:10.1080/14616718.2014.884881
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (2015). Opening Doors Federal Strategic
Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness

OpeningDoorsEndingHomelessnessInBristolConnecticut

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (13)

En vedette

En vedette (16)

Similaire à OpeningDoorsEndingHomelessnessInBristolConnecticut

Similaire à OpeningDoorsEndingHomelessnessInBristolConnecticut (20)

OpeningDoorsEndingHomelessnessInBristolConnecticut