2017 State of Utah Comprehensive Report On Homelessness

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
ON HOMELESSNESS
State of Utah 2017
WORKFORCE
SERVICES
HOUSING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON HOMELESSNESS
State of Utah 2017
The Utah Department of Workforce Services, Housing and Community Development Division,
Homeless Programs Office wishes to thank Utahs homeless services providers for their expertise and
support in the data collection and analyses for this report.
Funding
Funding for this report was provided by the State of Utah Housing and Community Development Division through
the Pamela Atkinson Homeless Trust Fund.
All rights reserved October 2017

Utah Housing and Community Development Division
Homeless Programs Office
1385 South State Street, Fourth Floor
Salt Lake City, Utah 84115
http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/
WORKFORCE
SERVICES
HOUSING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
housing.utah.gov
Equal Opportunity Employer/Program
Auxiliary aids and services are available upon request to individuals with disabilities by calling (801) 526-9240. Individuals with speech
and/or hearing impairments may call the Relay Utah by dialing 711. Spanish Relay Utah: 1-888-346-3162.
Table of Contents
Introduction 2 Shelter the Homeless Plan 29
Measuring Homelessness 3 Operation Rio Grande 30

The Definition of Homelessness 4
2016 Homeless System
Utah Homeless Management
Information System 4 Performance Measures 31
The Complexity of Counting 5 Statewide Performance Measures 31
Federal HUD System Performance
The Face of Homelessness 8 Measures 32
Chronically Homeless 9
How to Help People in Homelessness 38
Families 10
Volunteer Resources 38
The Intersection of Intergenerational
Poverty and Child Homelessness 11 Pamela Atkinson Homeless Trust Fund 39
Unaccompanied Youth 15
Local Homeless Coordinating
Domestic Violence Victims 16
Committee (LHCC) Profiles 40
Veterans 17
Works Cited 68
A Systemic Approach for Solutions 18
Housing Crisis Response System 18
Housing First Philosophy 19
Coordinated Entry and Assessments 20
Assessments as a Tool for Prioritization 21
The Service Prioritization Decision
Assistance Tool 21
Housing Prioritization Lists 22
Domestic Violence Victims and
Coordinated Assessment 22
Components of a Homeless
Response System 23
Diversion 23
Day Services 24
Street Outreach 24
Emergency Shelter 24
Rapid Re-Housing 25
Transitional Housing 26
Permanent Supportive Housing 27
Affordable Housing 27
State of Utah | 1
Introduction
T he Utah Department of Workforce Services, Housing and Community Development Division and
its State Homelessness Programs Office are pleased to release the 2017 Comprehensive Report on
Homelessness in Utah.
This has been a challenging and productive year in the states efforts to reduce homelessness and support
struggling individuals and families. Through hard work and partnerships at the local and state level
involving government, nonprofit organizations, for-profit businesses and private citizens, great strides have
been made to secure funding, plan for an improved resource center service model and increase public
safety in Salt Lake Citys Rio Grande district, which houses many homeless resources.
Funding Public Safety

In the past two years, the Utah State Legislature With the long-term plan in place, state, county
has allocated $24 million for the construction and and city leaders took action in August 2017 to
operation of three new homeless resource centers immediately and permanently address the increase
to be located in Salt Lake County. Salt Lake City in violence and drug use in the Rio Grande district.
and Salt Lake County will provide additional The two-year effort has been called Operation
funding and private citizens and businesses have Rio Grande and includes three phases focused on
also stepped up to the plate. Notably, the Miller public safety, assessment and treatment of homeless
Foundation pledged $10 million in matching funds individuals and the dignity of work, or helping
to encourage others to donate, and Salt Lake people to become employed and more self-reliant.
City businessman Pat King donated $4 million See more about Operation Rio Grande on page 30.
in support of the womens resource center. An
additional $6 million in state and federal funds We know that homelessness is not just a Salt Lake City
supported programs serving those who are issue, and its not just an issue for politicians to worry
homeless statewide. about. It is a statewide humanitarian and economic
issue that affects our public safety and quality of life.
The cross-jurisdictional, bipartisan collaboration
Resource Center Model and community involvement that we have seen in
Based on a study of needs and costs, the state, the last year proves that Utahns know this and know
county and city coalition determined that three that by working together, we can make a significant
resources centers, each with a capacity of 200-250 improvement for the state and for individual lives.
people, will create the most cost-effective shelter
system that also promotes quality services and
public safety. Two resource centers will be built
in Salt Lake City and one in South Salt Lake.
While the site selection process was a difficult
one, all partners are on board to ensure that the Jonathan Hardy
new service delivery model is a success for people Director, Housing and Community
experiencing homelessness, for service providers Development Division
and for the cities and neighborhoods where the
resource centers are located. To learn more about
the resource center model, see page 29.
2 | Homelessness Report
Measuring Homelessness
H omelessness is a challenging issue that is experienced by a fluid population. The complexity of
homelessness is underscored by its many definitions, even among federal agencies. The scope of
homelessness is difficult to measure because homeless individuals have no fixed residence and, therefore,
move in and out of homelessness, often for short periods of time. In order to measure this population,
community leaders must rely on a variety of data sources to inform them about trends, demographics and
outcomes. The prevailing data used is collected in a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).
The Continuum of Care

The Continuum of Care (CoC) is the primary decision-making entity that is defined in the funding
application to HUD as the official body representing a community plan to organize and deliver
housing and services to meet the specific needs of people who are homeless as they move to stable
housing and maximum self-sufficiency. Utah has three CoCs: Salt Lake, Mountainland, and Balance
of State. The Salt Lake continuum consists of Salt Lake County. The Mountainland continuum
consists of Utah, Summit, and Wasatch counties. The Balance of State continuum consists of all
other counties not contained in the other two continua. The CoCs have a variety of responsibilities
such as oversight of the Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS), developing and
implementing strategic plans, identification of housing and service capacity and gaps, ensuring
broad and inclusive participation, overseeing and submitting the consolidated annual homeless
assistance application (Technical Assistance Collaborative Inc, Abt Associates).
State of Utah | 3
The Definition of Homelessness

Understanding terms helps define the work that 2. Individuals and families who will imminently
needs to be done. There are many definitions of lose their primary nighttime residence
homelessness even within the federal governmental
3. Unaccompanied youth and families with children
agencies. The variation in definitions between these
and youth who are defined as homeless under
agencies can further complicate data collection.
other federal statutes who do not otherwise
For example, some agencies, such as the Utah State qualify as homeless under this definition
Office of Education (USOE), are guided by other
federal definitions and, therefore, include broader 4. Individuals and families who are fleeing, or are
estimates, such as the number of school children attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating
living in doubled-up situations. violence, sexual assault, stalking, or other
dangerous or life-threatening conditions that
This report primarily refers to the U.S. Department relate to violence against the individual or a
of Housing and Urban Developments (HUD) family member (U.S. Department of Housing
definition of literal homelessness as defined in the and Urban Development, HEARTH: Defining
Final Rule of the Homeless Emergency Assistance Homeless 2)
and Rapid Transition to Housing Act (HEARTH
Act), as described in the following four categories:
1. Individuals and families who lack a fixed, Note on Literal Homelessness
regular, and adequate nighttime residence,
This report utilizes HUDs definition of literal
including a subset for an individual who is homelessness that is found in the HEARTH
exiting an institution where he or she resided Act. This definition of homelessness does not
for 90 days or less and who resided in an include individuals who move in with family
emergency shelter or a place not meant for or friends, a housing situation also known as
human habitation immediately before entering doubling up or couch-surfing.
that institution
Utah Homeless Management Information System

In 2001, Congress asked HUD to take the lead in utilization on both a client and system level is a key
gathering better-quality data about homelessness. strength to an effective HMIS. HMIS implementations
In order to meet this objective, HUD required are vital in developing unduplicated counts, analyzing
federally funded public and nonprofit organizations utilization patterns of people entering and exiting
to implement homeless management information the homeless assistance system, and evaluating
systems (HMIS). Although initially HMIS was the effectiveness of these systems. HMIS contains
mandated for use by specific federal funding sources, client assessment data on housing barriers, income,
additional federal, state, and local funding sources and other factors that may contribute to their
have begun to use HMIS as a means of data homelessness. The data is primarily self-reported.
collection. The three Continua of Care in Utah have
HMIS is web based and allows homeless assistance
chosen to work together and have a single, statewide
providers to create a coordinated and effective
implementation of an HMIS known as UHMIS.
housing and service delivery system. As communities
In Utah, HMIS software applications are designed to come to understand the complex needs that people
record and store longitudinal, client-level information experiencing homelessness face, they are better able
on the characteristics and service needs of homeless to provide a more responsive system of homeless
individuals. The ability to study and analyze service service provisions.
Although HMIS is used by a majority of homeless Against Women Act (VAWA), domestic violence
service providers statewide, there are some agencies service-provider agencies are not able to share any
that do not actively enter data into the system. For identifying information of the people they serve,
example, due to confidentiality laws in the Violence including names, through HMIS or any other system.
The Complexity of Counting

The Point-in-Time (PIT) count is a physical count of all on a single night. The data gathered from the PIT not
homeless persons who are living in emergency shelters, only better inform community leaders and providers
transitional housing, and on the streets on a single night. about whom they serve and the difference they make, but
This count is conducted annually in Utah during the last also indicate where Utah stands in its work to help those
week in January and provides a snapshot of homelessness experiencing homelessness relative to the nation.
Estimates of Homeless People by State 2016
On January 25, 2017, 2,852 Utahns were

UT
identified as homelessa 1.6% increase 2,852
from the 2016 PIT.
Share of Homeless
Population
Less than 1%
1%-2.9%
3%-6%
Greater than 6%
State of Utah | 5
The PIT is the result of extraordinary community The HIC serves as an annual Point-in-Time count
collaboration and reflects a statewide effort to engage of housing dedicated to homeless individuals and
and assess the unsheltered population. The PIT requires families. For a programs bed to be counted in the
participation by all shelters in the State of Utah, HIC, homelessness must be included in eligibility
including shelters that do not normally participate determination. The HIC includes a variety of homeless
in HMIS data collection. After the PIT data are housing options, including emergency shelters,
collected, the data are carefully validated, clarified, transitional housing, safe havens, permanent supportive
and cleaned in order to meet HUDs high data quality housing, and rapid re-housing programs. While the
standards. Ongoing, quarterly PIT counts are conducted PIT counts homeless families and individuals housed
throughout the year. These quarterly PITs are more in emergency shelters, transitional housing, and safe
limited in scope than the annual PIT count as only havens, the HIC counts beds for homeless in additional
about 80 percent of the homeless providers participate. settings. As transitional housing programs have shifted
The only providers that participate in the quarterly and retooled to become better aligned with best
PIT counts are those that contribute to the HMIS data practices as permanent housing programseither rapid
collection system. re-housing or permanent supportive programsthe
number of homeless individuals and families captured
In addition to the PIT, a simultaneous annual inventory on the PIT count has been affected while the HIC
is conducted of all housing dedicated to the homeless. reflects the shift in housing type.
The Housing Inventory Count (HIC) is conducted to
assess bed capacity against need as measured by the PIT. The HIC examines the resources available to serve the
The number of clients enrolled in housing programs on homeless on the same night the PIT assesses the number
a single night is compared to the number of program of homeless individuals and families within the system.
beds available that night. The resulting utilization rate The number of clients enrolled in a housing program is
informs communities about the capacity that currently measured against the number of beds available within
exists within the homeless network and identifies that program. Comparing the number of people to
housing types where additional capacity may be needed. the number of beds creates a snapshot of utilization of
resources and system capacity.
Note on Transitional
Housing
People who are housed in
transitional housing during the
Point-in-Time count are counted
as homeless.
When people change from
transitional housing programs
to permanent housing such as
Rapid Re-Housing, they are no
longer classified as homeless on
the PIT count.
Utilization of Beds, January 2017 What is Counted on the HIC

and PIT
Salt Lake County CoC
Point-in-Time Count:
Emergency Shelter 94% Persons in:
Transitional Housing 79% Emergency Shelters
Rapid Re-Housing 100% Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Safe Havens
Housing 97%
Unsheltered Persons (people who are
staying in public or private places not
designated for or ordinarily used as a
Mountainland CoC regular sleeping accommodation for
human beings, including cars, parks,
Emergency Shelter 100% abandoned buildings, bus or train stations,
Transitional Housing 100% airports, or camping grounds during the
hours between sunset and sunrise)
Rapid Re-Housing 100%
Permanent Supportive
100% Housing Inventory Count:
Housing
Number of beds and units available on the
night of the PIT, including domestic violence
providers:
Balance of State CoC
Emergency Shelters
Emergency Shelter 89% Transitional Housing
Transitional Housing 100% Safe Havens
Rapid Re-Housing 100% Permanent Supportive Housing
Permanent Supportive Rapid Re-Housing

Housing 93%
Other Permanent Housing
State of Utah | 7
The Face of Homelessness
H omelessness is a complex social and economic problem that affects Utahns from all walks of life.
According to the 2017 Point-in-Time count (PIT) in Utah, 65 percent of those experiencing homelessness
are individuals and 35 percent are families or children (Utah Homeless Management Information System,
Statewide PIT Count 2017). According to the 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) generated
by HMIS, homelessness tends to be episodic; 53 percent of Utahs homeless families and 71 percent of
Utahs homeless individuals exit emergency shelters within one month of entering them (31).
Homeless Individuals and Families in 2016-2017 PIT
Persons in
1,810
Households
with No 2016 PIT 2.3% 1,852
2017 PIT
Children
Persons in
Households
with Adults
979
2016 PIT
-0.8% 971
2017 PIT
and Children
Persons in
Households
with Only
18
2016 PIT
38.9% 25
2017 PIT
Children
Chronically Homeless
Chronic homelessness is defined as an unaccompanied The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
homeless adult individual (persons 18 years or older) with notes, People experiencing chronic homelessness cost
a disability who has either been continuously homeless the public between $30,000 and $50,000 per person per
for a year or more OR has had at least four separate year through their repeated use of emergency rooms,
occasions of homelessness in the past three years, hospitals, jails, psychiatric centers, detox, and other crisis
where the combined occasions total a length of time services (People Experiencing).
of at least 12 months (U.S. Department of Housing &
Urban Development, HEARTH: Defining Chronically Since the 2017 PIT, there has been a three percent
Homeless 2). This population experiences a variety of decrease in the number of chronically homeless
health and social challenges, including substance abuse, individuals. There was an increase in the number of
mental health disorders, criminal records, and extended people in chronically homeless families, at 22 people. That
periods of unemployment. These challenges can pose number is more in line with the 2015 PIT number of 17,
significant barriers to maintaining stable housing. contrasted to the historically low 2016 number of six.
Chronic Homeless Count in 2016-2017 PIT
Chronically 168
Homeless
163
Individuals 2016 PIT 2017 PIT
Chronically
Homeless 6 22
Persons in 2016 PIT 2017 PIT
Families
Chronically
Homeless 21 21
Veterans 2016 PIT 2017 PIT
State of Utah | 9
Families
While the consequences of homelessness are devastating in 2015 (2015 Policy Snapshot 8). Of those families,
for anyone, families are particularly impacted. National national data indicate between 70 percent and 80 percent
research from the National Alliance to End Homelessness exit homelessness to stable housing within six months (9).
suggests that families found in shelters generally have In Utah, 281 homeless families were identified during
younger heads of households and that more than half the 2017 PIT, representing a decrease of 5.7 percent
of the children living in shelters and transitional housing compared to the previous year (Statewide PIT Count).
are under the age of five (2015 Policy Snapshot 8). The The negative impacts of homelessness on children are
stress and challenges of homelessness often contribute well documented. Nearly all aspects of life (including
to the break-up of families and adversely affect the physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and behavioral)
development of children (The National Center on Family are affected by homelessness (Hart-Shegos 2). Children
Homelessness 45). Nationally, shelters and transitional benefit from the early intervention of housing stability
housing programs supported about 157,000 families and supportive services (3).
Excerpt from Utahs Sixth Annual Report UTAHS
SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT
on Intergenerational Poverty 2017 ON INTERGENERATIONAL POVERTY, WELFARE DEPENDENCY

AND THE USE OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 2017
U TA H I N T E R G E N E R AT I O N A L W E L F A R E R E F O R M C O M M I S S I O N 2 0 1 7 R E P O RT
The Intersection of Intergenerational Poverty

and Child Homelessness
In 2017, the Utah Legislature amended the As is the case with intergenerational poverty,
Intergenerational Poverty Mitigation Act (Act) homelessness is often intergenerational and ending
to include evaluation of the intersection between it requires more than a place to sleep, just as
child homelessness and intergenerational poverty ending intergenerational poverty requires more
(IGP). This modification recognizes the research than financial resources. In Utah, there is an
indicating the impact homelessness has on child increasing need to understand the full impact of
development and academic outcomes. This issue homelessness. Before the impact is understood, it
has gained particular importance in Utah where is necessary to identify the homeless population.
there are increasing concerns regarding the growing Among states, Utah is ranked eleventh nationally
homeless population, including homeless children. in identifying homeless students.
A quality education can be the most important tool for helping children and families lift
themselves out of a recurring pattern of housing instability.
Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness
Top Challenges Homeless Children Face

in Attending School
Family worried about basic
82%
survival needs
Lack of transportation 43%
Inability to do homework due 42%
to lack of study area
Lack of clothing and supplies 30%
Poor health and medical care 29%
0% 50% 100%
State of Utah | 11
Excerpt from Utahs Sixth Annual Report
on Intergenerational Poverty 2017
Similarly, it is necessary to evaluate the data to fully

understand the scope and nature of the challenges Nearly half of the IGP adults lack
confronting these children before establishing goals affordable housing. These individuals are
to reduce homelessness among children experiencing paying 30% or more of their income to
intergenerational poverty. Even before the Act was housing, exposing them to increased risk
amended, previous reports on intergenerational for homelessness.
poverty evaluated the intersection between poverty
and homelessness. Since 2015, there have been slight
improvements in housing stability among families There has been little change in the rate of IGP
experiencing intergenerational poverty, as represented families who lack access to affordable housing. Among
by (1) decrease in housing mobility; (2) decrease in adults experiencing intergenerational poverty, 48
utilization of homeless services; and (3) decrease in percent are paying more than 30 percent of their
use of emergency shelter services. income for housing and over 30 percent are paying
more than 50 percent of their income for housing.
An important factor in maintaining housing stability is
access to affordable housing. When affordable housing The lack of affordable housing may be impacting
is not available, family stability is affected. Housing the housing mobility of children experiencing
is affordable when families pay less than 30 percent intergenerational poverty. Although the rate of
of their income for housing. When families pay more housing mobility has decreased, as reported among
than that, they are considered cost burdened and family economic stability data, IGP children are still
may experience difficulties meeting other basic needs moving at a much higher rate than the 17 percent of
such as food, clothing, transportation or medical care. all Utahns who moved at least once in 12 months.
Additionally, families who are cost burdened face Between 2013 and 2016, the percent of IGP children
instability, which may be reflected in frequent moves who moved at least once in twelve months decreased
and in some cases, homelessness. from 41 percent to 35 percent.
IGP Use of HMIS Declines

All HMIS Services, 2014-2016
2014 2015 2016
20%
16%
15% 14%
10% 10%
10% 8% 9% 9%
7%
0%
IGP Adults IGP Young IGP Kids
Adults
As is the case with the decrease in housing mobility, there

was also a decrease in the utilization of homeless services
identified and tracked in Utahs Homeless Management
Information System (HMIS). The intergenerational
poverty reports have analyzed the intersection between
families experiencing intergenerational poverty and
HMIS since the 2015 report. Since the Fourth Annual
Report on Intergenerational Poverty, the percent of
families experiencing intergenerational poverty and
utilizing HMIS services has declined. In 2016, only 10
percent of the individuals experiencing intergenerational
poverty utilized HMIS services, a decrease of 2 percent
from 2015.
Although there was a modest decrease in the use of

HMIS services in 2016, there were still 4,233 children
experiencing intergenerational poverty whose families
utilized those services.
In addition to the decrease in utilization of HMIS services,
there has been a change in the type of services utilized
by those families. This change may also reflect increases
in housing stability. In 2016, there was a decrease in the
number of enrollments among intergenerational poverty
children in emergency shelter services and an increase
in enrollments for services that may lead to housing
stability, such as rapid rehousing, transitional housing and
permanent supportive housing.
Increases in Rapid Housing as Shelter Use Decreases

All HMIS Services Types, Percent of Episodes
2015 2016
40%
35%
32%
29%
20% 23%
16%
14%
10%
0%
Emergency Homeless PH - Rapid
Shelter Prevention Re-Housing
State of Utah | 13
The shift in focus to housing stability and increasing homelessness. As the Every Student Succeeds Act is
access to services promoting housing stability may implemented, including its more extensive provisions
be leading to the decrease in the use of emergency of services to homeless students, Utah may increase
shelter services among children and their parents its identification of homeless children, allowing a
experiencing intergenerational poverty. In 2016, only more extensive analysis in the future.
three percent of IGP children and seven percent of
IGP adults utilized emergency shelter services. In fact,
the intergenerational poverty population is utilizing i
UT CODE 35A-9-303(1)(b), (2)(e)(i)(A).
emergency shelter services less frequently than the ii
Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness
entire population using those services. In 2016, of the (ICPH), Out of the Shadows: A State-by-State Ranking
HMIS enrollments among the IGP population, 29 of Accountability for Homeless Students.
percent were in emergency shelters compared to 35 iii
See Utahs Fourth Annual Report on Intergenerational
percent of the entire HMIS population. At this point, Poverty, Welfare Dependency and the Use of Public
it is unclear whether these decreases will continue or Assistance, 2015; Utahs Fifth Annual Report on
the reason for the decline. Intergenerational Poverty, Welfare Dependency and the
Use of Public Assistance, 2016, https://jobs.utah.gov/
Although the issue of homelessness continues to edo/intergenerational/igpr.html.
receive tremendous attention and the negative impact iv
The rate of housing cost burden is determined
of homelessness on children is well researched, through individuals receiving SNAP benefits. SNAP
it does not seem to impact the intergenerational recipients are required to report the cost of housing.
poverty population to a greater degree than other Among the IGP adult cohort, 81 percent receive SNAP.
populations. Given the limited data available and v
Statewide housing mobility rates are provided by the
the small number of children identified in HMIS, U.S. Census, ACS 1-year Survey, 2014.
it is difficult to analyze additional barriers and
challenges confronting children experiencing IGP
and homelessness, such as health and educational
impacts. At this point, the outcomes established for
the children experiencing IGP may provide the best
indication of outcomes for children experiencing
Unaccompanied Youth
Youth (as identified on the PIT count) are
Youth
Youth (as identified on the Point-in-Time
unaccompanied persons under age 25. Little is known
count) are unaccompanied persons
nationally about the scope of youth homelessness. As
under age 25 who are not present with
HUD Deputy Secretary for Special Needs Ann Marie
or sleeping in the same place as their
Oliva notes:
parent or legal guardian and are not a
One of the challenges that we face is that we parent present with or sleeping in the
lack sufficient research and data to help us make same place as his/her child(ren).
more informed decisions about what works to end
youth homelessness. We know that the strategies
that work for chronic and veterans homelessness
are not always the right strategies for youth,
but we need better data to craft youth-specific Parenting Youth
strategies. HUD requires communities to include Parenting youth are youth who identify
youth experiencing homelessness in their Point- as the parent or legal guardian of one
in-Time counts, and we are strongly encouraging or more children who are present with
communities to improve their outreach to ensure or sleeping in the same place as that
that all youth are counted and that programs youth parent, where there is no person
serving youth are entering data into HMIS over age 24 in the household.
(Youth Homelessness).
The need for improved data prompted HUD to

require the inclusion of runaway homeless youth
data in HMIS (Framework 6). According to the
2017 PIT, there were 164 unaccompanied youth,
17 youth parents, and 48 children of youth parents
experiencing homelessness in Utah in January 2017
(Utah Homeless Management Information System,
Statewide PIT Count 2017).
2017 PIT Unaccompanied Youth
164 34 39 48
Sheltered Unsheltered Sheltered Sheltered
Unaccompanied Youth Youth Parent Child of Youth Parent
State of Utah | 15
Domestic Violence Victims

Safety is an especially important concern for those many domestic violence service providers throughout
fleeing a domestic violence situation. Any information the state. The data provided for the 2017 PIT indicate
that is obtained from victims is not shared publicly but a nearly 20 percent increase in homeless domestic
is tracked in an aggregated, de-identified form by the violence victims over the past year.
Survivors of Domestic Violence in 2016-2017 PIT
Domestic
579
Violence
(Adults) 2016 PIT 6.6% 617
2017 PIT
Domestic
Violence
(All)
802
2016 PIT
19.8% 961
2017 PIT
Survivors of domestic violence include all homeless individuals

and families who reported experiencing domestic violence, not
just those at domestic violence shelter.
Veterans
In late 2009, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs The VA Salt Lake City Health Care Systems
(VA) announced an ambitious goal to end Veteran Homeless Program believes in a comprehensive,
homelessness. Since that time, the VA Salt Lake integrated approach to ending veteran homelessness.
City Health Care System has been working in close In addition to the community partnership programs
collaboration with national and local stakeholders to mentioned above, VA offers the following programs to
prevent veterans from becoming homeless and help provide mental health, substance use and vocational
those who are homeless become housed as quickly as rehabilitation services:
possible. Significant progress towards ending veteran
homelessness has been made. The nationwide 2016 Health Care for Homeless Veterans an outreach
PIT Count shows that homelessness among veterans program to identify and assist Veterans
has decreased by nearly 50 percent since 2010. Locally, Homeless Patient-Aligned Care Team a
the most significant decrease is shown in the 2017 specialized health care team providing medical and
State of Utah PIT Count, with 240 veterans counted psychiatric care
as homeless compared to 335 veterans in 2016. Some
Veteran Justice Outreach a diversion program for
portion of that decrease may be attributed to the fact
legally involved veterans
that veteran status is now being verified through the VA
and not just self-reported. National Call Center for Homeless Veterans
The State of Utah has been working closely with Developments in data sharing have improved
the VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, elected communication and collaboration between agencies
officials, community organizations and homeless working to assist veterans. Weekly meetings are held
service providers to make veterans a top priority and to review a by-name list and coordinate efforts to
end veteran homelessness. Community partnerships quickly house veterans. Early verification of veteran
are the key to making and sustaining progress. Various status is essential to connecting veterans to the array of
housing programs are available for homeless veterans available programs and services.
and those at-risk of homelessness. Specific programs
include Housing and Urban Development - Veterans Despite the gains being made, there is more work to
Affairs Supportive Housing, which is like a Section 8 do to address the many causes of homelessness among
housing voucher but also provides clinical and case- veterans. These include poverty, underemployment,
management services through the VA. The Grant lack of access to affordable housing, isolation from
and Per Diem program offers transitional housing with family or friends, mental health issues, or substance
supportive services to help veterans achieve stability, use that may develop or worsen as a result of service-
increase their skill level and/or income, and obtain related injuries, trauma, or housing instability. The
greater self-determination. Supportive Services for VA is committed to working with the community and
Veteran Families assists low-income veterans through continuing efforts to end veteran homelessness.
rapid re-housing and prevention.
PIT Homeless Veterans
2014 2015 2016 2017

317 336 335 240
State of Utah | 17
A Systemic Approach for
Solutions
Housing Crisis Response System
Family or individual retains housing or gains new housing,

bypassing shelter
Targeted Family or individual exits shelter on own Community-

prevention based
and permanent
diversion Rapid re- housing
housing (includes
and links Individuals market
to services and families rate and
Emergency Second for whom RRH subsidized)
shelter with assessment and/or TH is
safety, crisis and
as needed Transitional unsuccessful community-
stabilization, and have high
Coordinated and housing housing based
assessment with needs services and
search
for support services supports
individuals
and families
with a Permanent
housing Families and individuals with highest needs supportive
crisis housing
RRH Rapid Re-Housing

TH Transitional Housing
Source: United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
A Systemic Approach for Solutions
Housing First Philosophy

Housing First is a paradigm shift from the traditional
housing ready approach. According to the Housing
First philosophy, everyone is ready for housing, regardless
of the complexity or severity of their needs, notes
Ann Marie Olivia (Why Housing First 1). Housing
First reduces thresholds for entry to housing, including
sobriety and mandated treatment. National studies
indicate that this approach produces higher housing
stability rates, lower rates of return to homelessness, and
reductions in public costs stemming from crisis services
and institutions (United States Interagency Council
on Homelessness, Housing First Checklist 1). Utah
communities recognize the success and embrace the
effectiveness of the Housing First approach to housing
the homeless.
In order for Housing First to be effective, clients

choices must be available in housing selection and
service participation. When a client is able to exercise
that choice, he or she is more likely to be successful in
maintaining housing and making life improvements.
The National Alliance to End Homelessness writes:
Housing First does not require people experiencing

homelessness to address the all of their problems
including behavioral health problems, or to graduate
through a series of services programs before they
can access housing. Housing First does not mandate
participation in services either before obtaining
housing or in order to retain housing. The Housing
First approach views housing as the foundation for
life improvement and enables access to permanent
housing without prerequisites or conditions beyond
those of a typical renter. Supportive services are
offered to support people with housing stability
and individual well-being, but participation is
not required as services have been found to be
more effective when a person chooses to engage Housing First is not a program;
(Housing First Fact Sheet 1). it is a system-wide orientation
and response.
Ann Marie Oliva
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special
Needs, U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development
State of Utah | 19
Coordinated Entry and Assessments

Coordinated entry and assessment develops tailored coordinated entry processes into their homeless
interventions and right-sized assistance for Utahns service delivery system in a way that both meets the
experiencing homelessness. This approach considers requirement under the HEARTH Act and the unique
an effective system to be person centered, to prioritize structure of each community.
those with the greatest need without precondition, As communities proceed with implementation efforts,
to include all subpopulations and to coordinate so it has become apparent that coordinated entry and
that wherever individuals seeking services enter, they assessment is not only a best practice for serving
will be able to participate in the same assessment consumers and a way to more efficiently use available
and linkage process where providers use a uniform resources, but it is also an excellent tool to shift agency
decision-making approach. Communities throughout and single-service-minded thinking to holistic services
the state have made significant progress to integrate and overall community needs.
Coordinated Assessment identifies the right services to match

the needs of each individual, streamlining the path to stable housing.
Coordinated Stable
Assessment Housing
Supports to Housing
Self-resolve Prioritization
Homelessness
Assessments as a Tool for Prioritization

Communities in Utah have largely adopted a phased SPDAT takes approximately eight minutes to complete.
assessment approach for coordinated entry, where It is a triage tool intended to quickly identify persons
homeless service providers have access to multiple who should be engaged for a more full assessment such
assessment tools to provide situational assessments. as the Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool
This approach follows the principle of only collecting (SPDAT) and additional services. Much like the way
as much information as is needed at a given time triage would work in a hospital emergency room setting,
and avoids a depth of assessment that would be time the VI-SPDAT prescreen is a brief, self-report assessment
consuming and unnecessary for a given households to help identify the presence of an issue based in that
current need. Service providers rely on a variety of persons own perspective and prioritize persons for the
different assessment tools in order to assess the needs more comprehensive assessment. The results of these
of the people they serve. One of the more commonly assessments help providers identify whether additional
adopted tools includes the Vulnerability Index Service assessments such as the longer SPDAT are needed and
Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) to how to prioritize Utahns experiencing homelessness for
quickly assess the acuity of homeless Utahns. The VI- housing and services based on greatest need.
The Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool

The Service Prioritization Decision Assistance in which the SPDAT can be used to augment the work
Tool (SPDAT) is an evidence-informed tool used to of case management and overall service delivery, from
evaluate a persons acuity related to housing stability. informing individualized service plans to advocating
It has been recognized nationally as an effective for clinical services.
coordinated assessment tool to prioritize individuals
and households for housing and services based on Function 3: Evaluate how individuals and
need. The Balance of State and Mountainland families are changing over time
CoCs officially selected the SPDAT as a coordinated Long-term assessment of performance measures such
assessment prioritization tool, and all communities in as SPDAT scores and outcome monitoring can be used
those CoCs are working toward implementation. to track changes in programming and service delivery.
Over time, this will lead to healthy discussions about
There are three distinct functions that Utah hopes to service delivery and show trends in program efficacy.
realize by using the SPDAT assessment. These functions
are to: 1) Assist with service prioritization, 2) Help program What the SPDAT is not:
participants and supportive service providers to identify A case management employee evaluation tool:
areas of focus for service delivery, and 3) Help evaluate The SPDAT does not directly measure areas of
how individuals and families are changing over time. case manager performance; rather, it helps to
measure participant change in acuity in domains
Function 1: Assist with service prioritization
that directly impact housing stability.
Communities have chosen to use the SPDAT as a
coordinated assessment service prioritization tool in A retroactive eligibility tool: It is important that
order to draw from the highest acuity households when we do not inappropriately apply one function of
identifying new eligible placements for programming. the tool to make claims regarding an unassociated
activity or area. For example, an individuals
Function 2: Help program participants and acuity score once enrolled into a program does not
supportive service providers to identify areas indicate whether or not the client should have been
of focus for service delivery served by that program.
Unlike other measures of self-sufficiency, the SPDAT A replacement for the expertise and experience of
focuses assessment on domains that directly impact a an agency: The SPDAT should inform, not dictate,
participants housing stability. There are several ways prioritization and supportive services.
State of Utah | 21
Housing Prioritization Lists

Communities with limited emergency services will need
to work with neighboring communities who provide
such services to homeless persons in their area. All
available resources should be prioritized and offered
to individuals at the top of the SPDAT-assessed list
and limited only by funding requirements. This list
should be continually used by the community. Each
of the highest acuity persons should be assigned lead
case managers who will attempt diversion exercises,
identify needed mainstream resources, and find creative
solutions to transition out of homelessness regardless
of which resources are and are not available. When a
housing resource becomes available, the hosting agency
should identify the first eligible person from the top
of the list and assess them for program eligibility and
intake. HMIS allows persons anywhere within the
Mountainland and Balance of State CoCs to be referred
to a housing intervention within their home community.
The unified system has the ability to bring great benefit
to consumers.
Domestic Violence
Victims and Coordinated
Assessment
Due to confidentiality laws in the VAWA, domestic
violence service provider agencies are not able to share
any identifying information of the people they serve,
including names, through HMIS or any other system.
This has posed a significant challenge for including
homeless domestic violence survivors as a part of the
coordinated assessment process and could have created
a scenario where domestic violence survivors would
have been screened out of resources inadvertently. As
of August 2015, domestic violence service providers are
now able to access the coordinated assessment list in
HMIS and, through use of an alias, the survivors they
assess with the SPDAT show up in the single community
prioritization list to receive services based on acuity.
Response System
U tah communities have refined interventions and housing projects to more appropriately meet the needs of
Utahns experiencing homelessness. From programs that divert individuals and families from entering the
homeless system to permanent supportive housing projects, the array of options has grown in recognition that
one size does not fit all.
Diversion
When safety is not a concern, diversion programs target those
who are applying for entry to shelter and seek to divert them
from entering the homeless system by connecting them with
alternative housing resources, including friends and family.
Limited financial support may be provided to maintain
permanent housing (National Alliance to End Homelessness,
Closing the Front Door 13).
In spring 2017, the state sponsored Ed Boyte from the

Cleveland Mediation Center to provide diversion training to
homeless service providers statewide. Both Mountainland and
Balance of State CoCs officially have adopted diversion as the
front door of their coordinated entry system. It is expected that
new diversion funding support will be available statewide as
several homeless service providers newly adopt diversion as a
preferred practice. Salt Lake County completed a first year of
diversion. Results are below.
FY 2017 Salt Lake County Diversion Results
37 (33%) 169 (45%)

Diverted Diverted
113 6 (16%) 372 24 (14%)

Singles Returned to Families Returned to
Attempted Homelessness Attempted Homelessness
State of Utah | 23
Response System
Day Services
Day services provide safe places for homeless individuals to
bathe, do laundry, eat, receive case management services,
and work on self-resolution of their homeless issues.
Street Outreach
Sometimes those experiencing homelessness do not
proactively seek services. Many agencies throughout the
state have developed street outreach programs to find the
homeless and connect them with services. Street outreach
has grown over the past year in both breadth and depth.
More communities have developed qualified teams that seek
out unsheltered individuals, families, and youth. Outreach
workers connect Utahns living on the streets or in other
places not meant for habitation with shelter and services.
Emergency Shelter
Emergency shelters include any facility designed to provide
overnight sleeping accommodations for the homeless.
As McDivitt and Nagendra explain, Emergency shelter
serves as temporary, short-term crisis housing with crisis
services to alleviate peoples immediate housing crisis as a
first step to being quickly and permanently re-housed (56).
2016 Length of Stay Emergency Shelter
Individuals in
Emergency Shelter 48% 23% 17% 7% 3% 2%
Persons in Families in
28% 25% 34% 10% 1%
Emergency Shelter
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Length of Stay 1 week or less 13 months 69 months

1 week1 month 36 months 912 months
Response System
Rapid Re-Housing
Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) is an approach which According to the National Alliance to End
reconnects an individual or family to housing as Homelessness, in order to follow established best
quickly as possible and provides limited assistance practices for an RRH model, there are four necessary
to re-establish housing stability. Recently, RRH activities that RRH programs should provide:
has emerged as a preferred model among several 1. Standard Landlord Outreach: A RRH provider
federal agencies, including HUD, the VA and the must haveeither on staff or through a formal
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
relationship with an organizationstaff who
Federal support stems from several studies, including
recruit landlords and encourage them to rent
a Georgia HMIS study which identified persons
to homeless households. The landlord outreach
exiting emergency shelter as being four times more
function should result in landlords reducing
likely to return to homelessness than those exiting an
RRH program, and persons exiting from transitional their barriers to homeless households accessing
housing being 4.7 times more likely to return to rental units. Organizations should be able
homelessness (National Alliance to End Homelessness, to identify specific landlords that they have
Rapid Re-Housing 3). In a study conducted in seven recruited into the program.
states, 75 percent of RRH clients exited to permanent 2. Financial Assistance: A RRH provider must
housing (3). Moreover, recent studies indicate that it provideeither directly or through formal
is much more cost effective to house families through agreement with another organization or
RRH than to house families in emergency shelters
agencyfinancial assistance for permanent
(Spellman et al. 5).
housing costs, which may include rental
deposits, first months rent, last months rent or
temporary rental assistance. Financial assistance
is not contingent upon service compliance but
rather upon compliance to the terms of the
lease.
3. Case Management: A RRH provider must be
able to provide home-based case management
serviceseither directly or through a formal
agreement with another organization or
agencythat link program participants with
services in the community, such as child care,
employment, education, and other services
as well as intervene in conflicts between the
landlord and program participant.
4. Assessment of Housing Barriers: An RRH
provider must assess the housing barriers of
potential program participants with a focus on
the immediate, practical barriers to moving into
housing. The housing barrier assessment should
be used to help program participants to move
into housing. The housing barrier assessment
is not a sustainability assessment (Necessary
Activities 1).
State of Utah | 25
Response System
Transitional Housing
Transitional housing programs offer temporary housing, Important to Note: National best practices are showing
up to 24 months, as well as supportive services, including that many people who historically have been assisted
case management. This model may be appropriate for in transitional housing may be served more efficiently
specific subpopulations, including: in other program models, such as rapid re-housing or
permanent supportive housing. The majority of people
Survivors of domestic violence or other forms of experiencing homelessness do not require lengthy stays
severe trauma who may require and prefer the in transitional housing in order to successfully acquire
security and onsite services provided in a congregate and sustain permanent housing. People whose primary
setting to other available housing options barrier to housing stability is economic in nature do
Unaccompanied youth, including those who may be not require transitional housing, nor do people with
pregnant or parenting youth (ages 1624), who are serious mental illnesses who may be served better by
unable to live independently (e.g., unemancipated other program models. Long-term stays in transitional
minors), or who prefer a congregate setting with housing programs therefore should be reserved for those
access to a broad array of wraparound services to individuals with severe or specific needs who choose
other available housing options transitional housing over other services that would help
them more quickly reconnect to permanent housing
Certain individuals and heads of households (National Alliance to End Homelessness, The Role of
struggling with a substance-use disorder or Long-Term 12). Over the last few years, several of these
individuals in early recovery from a substance-use transitional housing programs in Utah have shifted to a
disorder who may desire more intensive support to rapid re-housing model as a way to serve more Utahns
achieve their recovery goals and better leverage limited resources.
2016 Length of Stay Transitional Housing
Individuals in
Transitional Housing 3% 11% 21% 27% 17% 21%
Persons in Families in
3% 13% 17% 19% 14% 33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Response System
Permanent Supportive Housing

The most intensive of housing options, permanent Supportive Housing 12). Moreover, this housing
supportive housing (PSH) is only offered to those with a approach also creates a total savings for the system. A
disability and generally serves the chronically homeless. study in Denver noted an average net savings of $2,373
The effectiveness of Housing First philosophy-based per person housed in PSH. The study examined public
PSH programs have been documented well nationally; costs incurred for common homeless services, including
long-term housing, coupled with wraparound services, health care and hospital stays, emergency room visits, and
improves the stability and health of clients (United States interactions with law enforcement, and weighed these costs
Interagency Council on Homelessness, Permanent against the cost for housing in a PSH project (Snyder).
2016 Length of Stay Permanent Supportive Housing
Individuals in PSH 2% 6% 11% 14% 66%
Persons in Families 1% 2% 18%

7% 15% 56%
in PSH
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Affordable Housing
In Utah, the Department of Workforce Services and in Utah for a two-bedroom apartment, as established
other government entities believe the solution to by HUD for 2017, is $885 per month. The hourly wage
homelessness is housing. Connecting homeless people needed to afford that rent is $17.02 per hour, but the
to housing ends their homelessness, but finding the average renter wage is $13.26 per hour (National Low
resources to help people access housing isnt always Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 238). An
easy. Unfortunately, economic trends are making this affordability gap exists even among those employed at
task even harder. There simply is not enough extremely average renter wage. Most homeless individuals earn far
affordable housing available in Utah to move people out less than this amount. Many simply receive Supplemental
of homelessness as quickly as needed with very limited Security Income (SSI), and affordability becomes that
housing stock and a tight rental market. much more of a challenge. Unit affordability and
availability is not an issue exclusive to the Wasatch
Utah has a shortage of affordable housing. Creating a Front but is a challenge faced by communities statewide.
sufficient supply of affordable units alleviates pressure on The credit and criminal histories that challenge many
the homeless system placed by those who simply cannot experiencing homelessness further limit unit availability.
afford rent. Affordable rent, as defined by HUD, is 30
percent of income. The average Fair Market Rent (FMR)
State of Utah | 27
Response System
FY2017 Utah FMR Local Area Summary Wages & Affordability of Fair
Market Rent for 2 BDRM/Month
$861
$681
Rent cost for
$685
$859 2 BDRM FMR: $885
$859
$859
$1,033 $826
$900 $377 $689
$801 $929 Rent affordable Rent affordable w/
$756 with full-time job full-time job paying
$818 $840 paying min. wage mean renter wage.
$818
$650
$539
$650 Rent affordable
$228
$650 $813
to household at Rent affordable
$650 30% Area Median to SSI recipient
$650 Income (AMI)
$650 $816 $650
$650
Average Housing Costs by
$650
Metro Area
$650
$824 $821
Box Elder County
UT HUD Metro FMR Area $685
Logan
UT-ID Metro Statistical Area $681
Ogden-Clearfield
Provo-Orem
UT Metro Statistical Area $818
Salt Lake City

St. George
UT Metro Statistical Area $824
Tooele County
FY2017 Utah FMR Metropolitan Area Summary

for 2 BDRM/Month
Shelter the Homeless Plan
Shelter the Homeless, Inc. is a nonprofit organization
whose aim is to benefit individuals and communities by:
Owning land and facilities for the benefit of
individuals who are experiencing homelessness, who
RESOURCE CENTER
have in the past experienced homelessness, or who PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT
are at-risk of experiencing homelessness; TIMELINE
Selecting and monitoring providers of services for June 2017 to June 2019
such individuals;
For three Homeless Resource Centers
Fostering accountability for public safety in relation to Located in Salt Lake County:
homeless services and helping to integrate homeless
service facilities into the neighborhoods where they 275 High Ave, Salt Lake City
200 Men+Women / 60,000 sq. ft.
are located.
131 E 700 S, Salt Lake City
Shelter the Homeless was created in 1988 to serve 200 Women / 60,000 sq. ft.
the public good through the alleviation of human 3380 S 1000 W, South Salt Lake
suffering. The first facility created to fulfil this mission 300 Men / 90,000 sq. ft.
was a single community shelter located in downtown
Salt Lake City which was operated by Travelers Aid
Society, now known as The Road Home. Over time, Developer in place Jun. 2017
ownership expanded to include the family shelter in Finalize purchase/transfer Nov. 2017
Midvale and two housing complexes located in Salt of all sites and additional
Lake City, Palmer Court and Wendell Apartments. parcels
Design process: Jun. 2017 -
predesign, schematic Jan. 2018
2017 Update design, design
development,
construction design
In early 2017, the Utah State Legislature passed HB
441 which allocated $10 million to support system-wide Demolition, site Occurs
excavation, site/soil during design
changes in the way homeless services are delivered,
mitigation (if necessary) process
including the development of three new homeless
resource centers. As the owner of the Salt Lake Permitting process Feb. - Apr.
2018
community shelter located at 210 South Rio Grande
Street, Shelter the Homeless was asked to work with Construction May 2018 -
city, county and state leaders and all stakeholders on May 2019
closing that facility on or before June 30, 2019. That Inspections May - June
effort requires not only the design and development of 2019
new resource centers, but also ongoing system planning Sites Operational June 2019
to achieve the necessary efficiencies in the homeless
service system to reduce demand for emergency shelter. For more information about Shelter the
Shelter the Homeless is working together with all Homeless, please visit www.homelessutah.org
stakeholders towards achieving these goals and help
provide better services to those in need.
State of Utah | 29
Operation Rio Grande
O peration Rio Grande is a three-phase plan to restore public safety in the Rio Grande District of Salt Lake City,
after drug use and violence escalated in the area. The state, city and county are collaborating to remove the
criminal element that preyed on the neighborhood and create a place that is safe for homeless individuals to access
service providers located in the area. The operation began in August, 2017, and is expected to continue through the
summer of 2019 when the planned homeless resource centers open.
Phase 1: Public Safety and Restoring Order Phase 2: Assessment and Treatment
Identify, arrest and lock up dangerous criminals. Assess, treat and support individuals.
Actions: Actions:
Sustained effort to restore public safety Initial assessment
Apprehending and eradicating all criminal elements Identification, background, services being used,
within the area services in need, etc.
Multi-agency effort through June 2019 Clinical assessment
- More than five times the normal law Mental health
enforcement for daily shifts (24/7 coverage) Substance use
- On-site Mobile Command Centers Substance abuse treatment
Increased frequency of street cleaning by
Department of Health Aggressive prosecution with treatment options
Aggressive prosecution, utilizing jail bed space for Housing assistance
serious crimes Referrals to enhanced community services with
Flexibility to address criminal activity that moves to streetscape changes to improve safety
adjacent locations and neighborhoods Obtain the 1115 Medicaid Waiver (pending CMS
Outcomes: approval) to increase funding support for specific
populations.
Significant reduction in criminal activities
Targeted enforcement on violence, drug trafficking Outcome:
and usage More individuals receiving treatment
Hardened criminals off the streets and in jail and support
Phase 3: Dignity of Work

Public/private partnership to increase
employment opportunities and training.
Actions:
Create more work opportunities
Volunteers and business community support
Provide direct workforce development
Job coaching
Soft skills training
Hard skills training
Outcome:
Employment and improved quality of life
2016 Homeless System
Performance Measures
Statewide Performance Measures
The State Homelessness Programs Office has been it will be possible to create a baseline from which to
examining more closely what outcomes contribute improve, gauge programs in relation to HUD system
most to the stabilization of those experiencing performance measures, and inform the programmatic
homelessness. The State Homelessness Programs approach that should be taken to homelessness in
Office presently utilizes performance measures as a Utah. These measures will reflect many of the system-
means to score and prioritize applications to receive level performance measures issued by HUD but will
state funding. By monitoring performance outcomes, be measured on an agency level.
State of Utah | 31
Homeless System Performance
Measures
Federal HUD System HUD System

Performance Performance
Measures
Measures Job and
income growth
Length of for homeless
For many years, HUDs review of the impact episode persons
of its funds on reducing homelessness has
been conducted on a program-by-program
basis. A community-level understanding
of performance had to be pieced
together. However, with the passing of the
Successful Number of
HEARTH Act, a system-level evaluation of placement in homeless
permanent persons
performance became law. HUD developed housing
several system-level performance measures
in order to help CoCs more accurately
measure their impacts, successes and Return to
challenges in regard to homeless prevention homelessness
Homeless
and ending homelessness. These system- prevention/
placement
level performance measures will provide
communities with data that will help inform Number of persons
strategic decisions in the development of the homeless for the
first time
homeless system.
Performance Measure: Length of Time People Remain Homeless
Total Persons Average Number of Nights Homeless Median Number of Nights Homeless
FY15 FY16 FY15 FY16 Difference FY15 FY16 Difference

Persons in emergency shelter 7,609 8,745 66 60 -6 28 25 -3
Persons in emergency shelter

8,477 9,251 94 74 -20 37 28 -9
and transitional housing
Mountainland CoC
Persons in emergency shelter 1,397 1,365 13 12 -1 4 4 0

1,468 1,413 30 28 -2 4 4 0

Persons in emergency shelter 2,891 3,597 39 34 -5 15 15 0

2,960 3,653 44 37 -7 17 16 -1
Measures
Performance Measure: The Extent to Which Persons Who Exit Homelessness to

Permanent Housing Destinations Return to Homelessness
This measures clients who exited street outreach, emergency shelter, transitional housing, or permanent housing to a
permanent housing destination in the date range two years prior to the report date range. Of those clients, the measure reports
on how many of them returned to homelessness as indicated in the HMIS for up to two years after their initial exit.
Persons
who entered Returns to Returns to
permanent homelessness Returns to homelessness
housing 2 in less than 6 homelessness in in 13-24 Total returns
years prior months 6-12 months months in 2 years

Exit was from street outreach 59 5 8% 3 5% 30 51% 38 64%
Exit was from emergency shelter 755 96 13% 91 12% 241 32% 428 57%
Exit was from transitional housing 298 14 5% 15 5% 32 11% 61 20%
Exit was from safe haven 11 1 9% 0 0% 4 36% 5 45%
Exit was from permanent housing 1,027 117 11% 68 7% 189 18% 374 36%
Total returns to homelessness 2,150 233 11% 177 8% 496 23% 906 42%
Mountainland CoC
Exit was from street outreach 0 0 - 0 - 0 0% 0 -
Exit was from safe haven 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
Exit was from permanent housing 154 11 7% 7 5% 10 6% 28 18%
Total returns to homelessness 191 12 6% 8 4% 12 6% 32 17%

Exit was from street outreach 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 1 100%
Exit was from permanent housing 395 11 3% 6 2% 29 7% 46 12%
Total returns to homelessness 886 44 5% 16 2% 100 11% 160 18%
Safe Haven: A form of supportive housing that serves hard-to-reach homeless persons with severe mental illness and other
debilitating behavioral conditions who are on the street and have been unable or unwilling to participate in housing or
supportive services.
State of Utah | 33
Measures
Performance Measure: Number of Homeless Persons
Change in PIT Counts

This measures the change in PIT counts of sheltered and unsheltered 2015 2016
homeless persons as reported on the PIT (not from HMIS). PIT Count PIT Count Difference
Total PIT Count of sheltered and unsheltered persons 2,176 1,891 -285
Emergency shelter total 1,411 1,434 23
Safe haven total 22 0 -22
Transitional housing total 653 400 -253
Total sheltered count 2,086 1,834 -252
Unsheltered count 90 57 -33
Mountainland CoC
Total PIT Count of sheltered and unsheltered persons 203 178 -25
Emergency shelter total 86 76 -10
Safe haven total 0 0 0
Total sheltered count 165 137 -28
Unsheltered count 38 41 3
Total PIT Count of sheltered and unsheltered persons 646 738 92
Emergency shelter total 415 474 59
Total sheltered count 548 600 52
Unsheltered count 98 138 40
Measures
Performance Measure: Number of Homeless Persons (Continued)
Change in Annual Counts

This measures the change in annual counts of sheltered homeless
persons in HMIS. FY15 FY16 Difference
Unduplicated total sheltered homeless persons 8,624 9,382 758
Emergency shelter total 7,714 8,858 1,144
Safe haven total 29 1 -28
Transitional housing total 1,261 650 -611
Mountainland CoC
Unduplicated total sheltered homeless persons 1,537 1,455 -82
Emergency shelter total 2,466 1,410 -56
Unduplicated total sheltered homeless persons 3,207 3,783 576
Emergency shelter total 3,135 3,728 593
State of Utah | 35
Measures
Performance Measure: Employment and Income Growth for

Homeless Persons in CoC Program-funded Projects
Change in total income for adult system stayers FY15 FY16 Difference
Number of adults (system stayers) 463 335 -128
Number of adults with increased total income 157 84 -73
Percentage of adults who increased total income 34% 25% -9%
Mountainland CoC
Number of adults (system stayers) 71 74 3
Number of adults with increased total income 10 14 4
Percentage of adults who increased total income 14% 19% 5%
Number of adults (system stayers) 66 77 11
Number of adults with increased total income 12 7 -5
Change in total income for adult system leavers FY15 FY16 Difference
Number of adults who exited (system leavers) 218 379 161
Number of adults who exited with increased total income 89 142 53
Mountainland CoC
Percentage of adults who increased total income 33% 34% 0%
Measures
Performance Measure: Number of Persons Who Become Homeless for

the First Time
Change in the number of persons entering emergency shelter, safe haven, transitional
housing and permanent housing projects with no prior enrollments in HMIS FY15 FY16 Difference
Number of persons experiencing homelessness for the first time (entering emergency shelter,
5,042 5,899 8,57
transitional housing or permanent housing without an entry in the previous 24 months)
Mountainland CoC
1,357 1,246 -111
3,153 3,720 567
Performance Measure: Successful Placement from Street Outreach and

Successful Placement in or Retention of Permanent Housing
Change in exit to or retention to permanent housing FY15 FY16 Difference
Percent successful exits from street outreach to permanent housing 9% 10% 0%
Percent successful exits from emergency shelter, safe haven, transitional

38% 23% -16%
housing and permanent housing/rapid re-housing to permanent housing
Percent successful exits or retention in permanent housing 94% 94% 0%
Mountainland CoC
Percent successful exits from street outreach to permanent housing 100% 0% -100%

33% 43% 10%
Percent successful exits or retention in permanent housing 84% 81% -4%
Percent successful exits from street outreach to permanent housing 50% 26% -24%

47% 45% -2%
Percent successful exits or retention in permanent housing 68% 85% 18%
State of Utah | 37
How to Help People in
Homelessness
Volunteer Resources
If you would like to volunteer and help make a difference for fellow Utahns experiencing homelessness, there
are many opportunities to participate:
1 Contact your Local Homeless Coordinating

Committee (LHCC) and attend local meetings:
BRAG LHCC (Box Elder, Cache, Rich)
Contact: Stefanie Jones stefaniej@brag.utah.gov
Carbon/Emery Counties LHCC

Contact: Barbara Brown barbjobrown@gmail.com
Davis County LHCC

Contact: Kim Michaud kim@daviscommunityhousing.com
Grand County LHCC

Contact: See local agencies listed on LHCC profile
Iron County LHCC (Iron, Beaver, Garfield, Kane)

Contact: Peggy Green peggyg@careandshare-ut.org
Mountainland LHCC (Utah, Summit, Wasatch)
2
Contact: Marie Schwitzer maries@unitedwayuc.org
Call 2-1-1 to find local agencies in need
Salt Lake County LHCC
of assistance.
Contact: Megan Mietchen mmietchen@hacsl.org
3
San Juan County LHCC
Contact: See local agencies listed on LHCC profile Contact your local volunteer center for
additional opportunities:
Six County LHCC (Juab, Millard, Sanpete, Sevier, http://heritage.utah.gov/userveutah/find-volunteer-
Piute, Wayne) opportunities
Contact: See local agencies listed on LHCC profile
Tooele County LHCC

Contact: Tooele Valley Resource Center (435-566-5938)
Uintah Basin LHCC (Daggett, Duchesne, Uintah)

Contact: Kim Dieter kimd@ubaog.org
Washington County LHCC

Contact: Carol Hollowell chollowell@switchpointcrc.org
Weber/Morgan Counties LHCC

Contact: Stacy Skeen sskeen@co.weber.ut.us
How to Help People in
Homelessness
Pamela Atkinson Homeless Trust Fund

By caring enough to donate even one dollar Utahns
can give hope to individuals and families experiencing
homelessness. Donations can be made on the Utah
state tax form each year.
All donations to the trust fund go directly

to organizations statewide that provide vital
services and assistance to individuals and
families experiencing homelessness.
Even small donations make a big impact for

those experiencing homelessness.
Your donation helps the trust fund leverage

investments in homelessness and provides
a flexible state-funding source focused on
delivering critical services.
Donate on your Utah State tax form

Your small donation can make a BIG difference
$1 PAHTF $3* Hot

meal
Panhandler
$4 PAHTF $12* Day of

shelter
*Donations are leveraged with state and federal funding, increasing

value. Dollar amounts are approximate.
State of Utah | 39
Local Homeless Coordinating
Committee (LHCC) Profiles
State of Utah
Weber- Morgan
Data Sources Counties LHCC
Bear River
LHCC Davis County LHCC
2017 Utah Housing Inventory Count
Salt Lake County
2017 Utah Point-In-Time Count LHCC
Utah Department of Workforce Services,
Housing and Community Development
Division, Homelessness Programs w Tooele
County LHCC
Mountainland Uintah
LHCC Basin
LHCC
Six County Carbon-

LHCC Emery Grand
Counties County
LHCC LHCC
Iron County
LHCC
San Juan
County
Washington
LHCC
2017 Housing Inventory
State County
LHCC
Number of Beds
1,132 Type of Housing
Emergency Shelter
2,583
2,562 Permanent Supportive Housing

Rapid Re-Housing
474
LHCC Profiles
2015 2017 PIT Summary
Headcount 2015 State Total 2016 State Total 2017 State Total
Family of adult and minor 1,194 959 1,167
Households only children 11 17 25
Sheltered
Households no children 1,594 1,595 1,610
Total 2,799 2,571 2,802
Family of adult and minor 22 20 -
Households only children - 1 -
Unsheltered
Households no children 204 215 278
Total 226 236 278
Family of adult and minor 1,216 979 1,167
Total
Total 3,025 2,807 3,080
Households 2015 State Total 2016 State Total 2017 State Total
Family of adult and minor 357 291 330
Sheltered
Total 1,945 1,895 1,965
Family of adult and minor 7 7 -
Households only children - 1 -
Unsheltered
Households no children 194 207 278
Total 201 215 278
Family of adult and minor 364 298 330
Total
Total 2,146 2,110 2,243
NOTE: Households no children total may not match the headcount if more than one adult is present
Domestic violence (all persons) 884 113

Homeless Domestic violence (adults) 555 113
Subpopulations: HIV/AIDS 66 11
2017 PIT Count Substance abuse 559 115
Mental illness 788 118
Veterans 203 17
Chronically homeless veterans 8 2
Chronically homeless families 7 0
Chronically homeless persons 126 44
Sheltered
Unaccompanied youth 164 34
Unsheltered
Youth parent 39 0
Child of a youth parent 48 0
State of Utah | 41
LHCC Profiles
Bear River Association of Government

(BRAG) LHCC
Box Elder, Cache, & Rich
Local Workforce Services Homeless Subpopulations:

Employment Centers
2017 Single Night Count
Brigham City (866) 435-7414
138 West 990 South
Brigham City, UT 84302
Logan (866) 435-7414 Domestic violence (adults) 11 0
180 North 100 West HIV/AIDS 0 0
Logan, UT 84321
Substance abuse 0 0
Mental illness 0 0
Herm Olsen Veterans 0 0
Chair
Norma Olsen
Vice-
Stefanie Jones Chronically homeless families 0 0
Chair Sheltered
Chronically homeless persons 0 0 Unsheltered
Homeless Housing and Shelter
Providers Youth parent 2 0
Bear River Association of Child of a youth parent 4 0

Governments (BRAG)
Community Abuse Prevention
Services Agency (CAPSA)
New Hope Crisis Shelter
BRAG
LHCC Profiles

Type of Housing
13
Number of Beds Emergency Shelter
43
43 Transitional Housing
84 Permanent Supportive Housing
60 20 Rapid Re-Housing

BRAG LHCC
Headcount 2017 BOS CoC Total 2017 State Total
2015 2016 2017
Family of adult and minor 40 41 18 184 1,167
Households only children - - 22 25

Sheltered
Households no children 6 9 4 286 1,610
Total 46 50 22 492 2,802
Family of adult and minor - - - - -
Households only children - - - - -
Unsheltered
Households no children 5 2 - 74 278
Total 5 2 - 74 278

Total
Total 51 52 22 566 3,080
BRAG LHCC
Households 2017 BOS CoC Total 2017 State Total
2015 2016 2017
Family of adult and minor 15 12 6 75 330
Sheltered
Total 21 20 10 383 1,965
Family of adult and minor - - - -
Households only children - - - -
Unsheltered
Households no children 4 1 74 278
Total 4 1 74 278
Total
Total 25 21 10 457 2,243
State of Utah | 43
LHCC Profiles
Carbon-Emery Counties LHCC

Employment Centers
Price (866) 435-7414
475 W. Price River Dr. #300
Price, UT 84501 Domestic violence (all persons) 0 0
Emery County (866) 435-7414 Domestic violence (adults) 0 0

550 West Highway 29 HIV/AIDS 0 0
Castle Dale, UT 84513
Substance abuse 0 0
Mental illness 0 0
Chair Chris Gravett, LCSW Veterans 0 0
Co-Chair Layne Miller Chronically homeless veterans 0 0
Price City Council
Member Chronically homeless families 0 0
Chronically homeless persons 0 0 Sheltered
Unaccompanied youth 0 0 Unsheltered
Southeastern Utah Association of Child of a youth parent 0 0
Local Governments
Carbon
LHCC Profiles

Type of Housing

9 Rapid Re-Housing

Carbon-Emery LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Family of adult and minor 4 - - 184 1,167
Households only children - - - 22 25
Sheltered
Households no children 1 3 - 286 1,610
Total 5 3 - 492 2,802
Unsheltered
Households no children - 4 - 74 278
Total - 4 - 74 278
Total
Total 5 7 - 566 3,080
Carbon-Emery LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Family of adult and minor 2 - - 75 330
Sheltered
Total 3 3 - 383 1,965
Unsheltered
Total - 4 - 74 278
Total
Total 3 7 - 457 2,243
State of Utah | 45
LHCC Profiles
Davis County LHCC

Employment Centers
Clearfield (866) 435-7414
1290 East 1450 South
Clearfield, UT 84015 Domestic violence (all persons) 53 9
South Davis (866) 435-7414

Domestic violence (adults) 24 9
763 West 700 South HIV/AIDS 0 0
Woods Cross, UT 84087
Substance abuse 2 0
Mental illness 2 0
Chair Commissioner Jim Veterans 0 0
Smith
Davis County Chronically homeless veterans 0 0
Commissioner
Vice-Chair Kim Michaud Chronically homeless persons
Deputy Director, Davis 01 Sheltered
Community Housing Unaccompanied youth 1 2 Unsheltered
Youth parent 2 0
Providers
Davis Behavioral Health

Davis Citizens Coalition Against
Violence (DCCAV)
Davis Community Housing
Authority
Family Connection Center
Davis
LHCC Profiles

Type of Housing
Number of Beds 31 Emergency Shelter

Rapid Re-Housing
34

Davis County LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 54 63 53 492 2,802
Family of adult and minor 3 - - - -
Unsheltered
Households no children 15 5 8 74 278
Total 18 5 8 74 278
Total
Total 72 68 61 566 3,080
Davis County LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 21 23 23 383 1,965
Unsheltered
Total 15 5 8 74 278
Total
Total 36 28 31 457 2,243
State of Utah | 47
LHCC Profiles
Grand County LHCC

Employment Centers
Moab (866) 435-7414
457 Kane Creek Blvd Domestic violence (all persons) 0 0
Moab, UT 84532
HIV/AIDS 0 0
Chair Mary McGann
Grand County Council Substance abuse 0 0
Member
Mental illness 0 0
Veterans 0 0
Providers
Four Corners Behavioral Health

Moab Solutions Chronically homeless persons Sheltered
0 0
Seek Haven Unsheltered
Youth parent 0 0
Grand
LHCC Profiles

Type of Housing

None Permanent Supportive Housing
Rapid Re-Housing

Grand County LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 10 2 - 492 2,802
Unsheltered
Total - 9 - 74 278
Total
Total 10 11 - 566 3,080
Grand County LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 6 2 - 383 1,965
Unsheltered
Total - 9 - 74 278
Total
Total 6 11 - 457 2,243
State of Utah | 49
LHCC Profiles
Iron County LHCC

Iron, Beaver, Garfield, & Kane Counties

Employment Centers
Beaver (435) 438-3580
875 North Main Domestic violence (all persons) 15 0
Beaver, UT 84713
Cedar City (435) 865-6530
HIV/AIDS 0 0
176 East 200 North
Cedar City, UT 84721 Substance abuse 3 0
Mental illness 6 0
Kanab (435) 644-8910
468 East 300 South Veterans 0 0
Kanab, UT 84741 Chronically homeless veterans 0 0
Panguitch (435) 676-1410 Chronically homeless families 0 0
665 North Main Chronically homeless persons 0 0
Panguitch, UT 84759
Unaccompanied youth 1 0 Sheltered
Youth parent 3 0 Unsheltered
Chair Ron Adams Child of a youth parent 4 0
Cedar City Council
Member
Vice-Chair Peggy Green

Executive Director,
Iron County Care and
Share
Secretary Cindy Rose

Providers
Canyon Creek Womens Crisis

Center
Cedar City Housing Authority
Iron County Care & Share
Iron LHCC Profiles

Type of Housing
5
3
60 Rapid Re-Housing

Iron County LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 51 43 29 492 2,802
Unsheltered
Total 1 4 - 74 278
Total
Total 52 47 29 566 3,080
Iron County LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 32 30 19 383 1,965
Unsheltered
Total 1 4 - 74 278
Total
Total 33 34 19 457 2,243
State of Utah | 51
LHCC Profiles
Mountainland Association of
Governments LHCC
Summit, Utah, & Wasatch Counties
Local Workforce Services Homeless Housing and Shelter Providers

Employment Centers Center for Women and Children Mountainlands Community
in Crisis Housing Trust
Park City (801) 526-0950 Community Action Services and Peace House
1960 Sidewinder Drive #103 Food Bank Provo City Housing Authority
Park City, UT 84068 Food and Care Coalition / Transient Services Office
Heber (801) 526-0950 Friends of the Coalition
United Way Utah County
69 North 600 West Suite C Golden Spike
Heber City, UT 84032 Wasatch Mental Health
Housing Authority of Utah
County
Lehi (801) 526-0950
557 West State Street
Lehi, UT 84043
Provo (801) 526-0950 Homeless Subpopulations:
1550 North 200 West
Provo, UT 84604
Spanish (801) 526-0950
Fork 1185 North Canyon Creek Pkwy. Domestic violence (all persons) 105 16
Spanish Fork, UT 84660
HIV/AIDS 1 4
Chair Andrew Jackson Substance abuse 29 8
Executive Director,
Mountainland Mental illness 45 13
Association of Veterans 0 3
Governments
Vice-Chair Lynell Smith
Deputy Director,
Housing Authority of Chronically homeless persons Sheltered
4 4
Utah County Unsheltered
Admin. Youth parent
Marie Schwitzer 1 0
Assistant
MTLD
LHCC Profiles

Type of Housing
Number of Beds 81 97 Emergency Shelter

60
Rapid Re-Housing
200

Mountainland LHCC
Headcount 2017 MTL CoC Total 2017 State Total
2015 2016 2017
Households only children 11 8 1 1 25
Sheltered
Total 165 137 105 105 2,802
Unsheltered
Total 38 41 41 41 278
Total
Total 203 178 146 146 3,080
Mountainland LHCC
Households 2017 MTL CoC Total 2017 State Total
2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 96 87 86 86 1,965
Unsheltered
Total 33 39 41 41 278
Total
Total 129 126 127 127 2,243
State of Utah | 53
LHCC Profiles
Local Workforce Services Homeless Housing and Shelter Providers

Employment Centers Asian Association of Utah Salt Lake County Youth
Services
Catholic Community Services
Metro (801) 526-0950 South Valley Sanctuary
720 South 200 East Family Promise Salt Lake
Family Support Center The Road Home
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Utah Community Action
Midvale (801) 526-0950 First Step House
Utah Nonprofit Housing
7292 South State Street Housing Assistance
Corporation
Midvale, UT 84047 Management Enterprise
Valley Behavioral Health
South (801) 526-0950 Housing Authority of the County
of Salt Lake Volunteers of America
County 5735 South Redwood Road
Taylorsville, UT 84123 Housing Authority of Salt Lake Wasatch Homeless
City Healthcare
Housing Opportunties Inc. West Valley City Housing
Authority
Chair Rob Wesemann Rescue Mission of Salt Lake
Executive Director, YWCA Salt Lake City
NAMI, Utah
Vice-Chair To be elected 8/17/17

Homeless Subpopulations:
Secretary To be elected 8/17/17

HIV/AIDS 62 5
Substance abuse 448 79
Veterans 170 7
Chronically homeless persons 97 31 Sheltered
Unaccompanied youth 113 22 Unsheltered
Youth parent 30 0
Salt Lake
LHCC Profiles

Type of Housing
Number of Beds
623
Emergency Shelter
1,718
2,082 Permanent Supportive Housing
Rapid Re-Housing
296

Headcount 2017 SLC CoC Total 2017 State Total
2015 2016 2017
Households only children - - 6 6 25
Sheltered
Households no children 1,253 1,198 1,239 1,239 1,610
Total 2,062 1,823 2,168 2,168 2,802
Unsheltered
Total 78 57 161 161 278
Total
Total 2,140 1,880 2,329 2,329 3,080
Households 2017 SLC CoC Total 2017 State Total
2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 1,484 1,382 1,501 1,501 1,965
Unsheltered
Total 74 54 161 161 278
Total
Total 1,558 1,436 1,662 1,662 2,243
State of Utah | 55
LHCC Profiles

Employment Centers
Blanding (866) 435-7414
544 North 100 East Domestic violence (all persons) 0 0
Blanding, UT 84511
HIV/AIDS 0 0
Chair Currently vacant
Substance abuse 0 0
Mental illness 0 0
Providers Veterans 0 0
Gentle Ironhawk Shelter Chronically homeless veterans 0 0
Sheltered
Chronically homeless persons 0 0 Unsheltered
Youth parent 0 0
San Juan
LHCC Profiles

Type of Housing

21
Rapid Re-Housing

2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 5 2 - 492 2,802
Unsheltered
Households no children - - - 74 278
Total - - - 74 278
Total
Total 5 2 - 566 3,080
2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 3 2 - 383 1,965
Unsheltered
Households no children - - - 74 278
Total - - - 74 278
Total
Total 3 2 - 457 2,243
State of Utah | 57
LHCC Profiles
Six County Association of Government

LHCC
Juab, Millard, Sanpete, Piute, Sevier, & Wayne Counties

Employment Centers
Nephi (801) 526-0950
625 North Main Domestic violence (all persons) 26 1
Nephi, UT 84648
Delta (435) 864-3860
HIV/AIDS 0 0
44 South 350 East
Delta, UT 84624 Substance abuse 5 0
Manti (435) 835-0720 Mental illness 0 0

55 South Main Suite 3 Veterans 0 0
Manti, UT 84642
Richfield (435) 893-0000
115 East 100 South
Richfield, UT 84701
Sheltered
Junction (435) 893-0000 Unaccompanied youth 30 0 Unsheltered
550 North Main Youth parent 0 0
Junction City, UT 84740 Child of a youth parent 0 0
Loa (435) 893-0000
18 South Main
Loa, UT 84747
Chair Garth Tooter Ogden

Sevier County
Commissioner
Co-Chair Wendy Hanson

Independent Living
Specialist, Ability First

Providers
New Horizons Crisis Center

Six County AOG
Six County LHCC Profiles

Type of Housing

18 45
Rapid Re-Housing

Six County LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 32 13 26 492 2,802
Unsheltered
Households no children - - 2 74 278
Total - - 2 74 278
Total
Total 32 13 28 566 3,080
Six County LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 19 7 17 383 1,965
Unsheltered
Households no children - - 2 74 278
Total - - 2 74 278
Total
Total 19 7 19 457 2,243
State of Utah | 59
LHCC Profiles
Tooele County LHCC

Employment Centers
Tooele EC (866) 435-7414
305 North Main
Street Suite 100 Domestic violence (all persons) 5 0
Tooele, UT 84074 Domestic violence (adults) 5 0
HIV/AIDS 0 0
Chair Wade Bitner Substance abuse 0 0
Tooele County Mental illness 2 0
Commissioner
Veterans 0 0
Co-Chair DeAnn Christiansen
Executive Director,
Tooele County Chronically homeless families 0 0
Housing
Secretary Wendy Bangerter Sheltered
Unsheltered
Youth parent 0 0

Providers
Tooele County Housing Authority

Valley Behavioral Health / Tooele
County Relief Services
Valley Behavioral Health / Tooele
Valley Resource Center
Tooele LHCC Profiles

Type of Housing

50 Rapid Re-Housing

Tooele County LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Family of adult and minor 15 6 - 184 1,167
Sheltered
Total 24 11 - 492 2,802
Unsheltered
Households no children 12 - 8 74 278
Total 12 - 8 74 278
Family of adult and minor 15 6 - 184 1,167
Total
Total 36 11 8 566 3,080
Tooele County LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Family of adult and minor 5 2 - 75 330
Sheltered
Total 12 7 - 383 1,965
Unsheltered
Households no children 12 - 8 74 278
Total 12 - 8 74 278
Family of adult and minor 5 2 - 75 330
Total
Total 24 7 8 457 2,243
State of Utah | 61
LHCC Profiles
Uintah Basin Association of Government

LHCC
Daggett, Duchesne, & Uintah Counties

Employment Centers
Roosevelt (866) 435-7414
140 West 425 South 300-13
Roosevelt, UT 84066 Domestic violence (all persons) 3 0
Vernal (866) 435-7414
1050 West Market HIV/AIDS 0 0
Drive Vernal, UT 84078 Substance abuse 0 0
Mental illness 0 0
Veterans 0 0
Chair Vaun Ryan
Roosevelt City Mayor Chronically homeless veterans 0 0
Co-Chair Kim Dieter
CSBG Coordinator, Chronically homeless persons 0 0
Uinta Basin Unaccompanied youth 1 0 Sheltered
Association of
Youth parent 0 0 Unsheltered
Government

Providers
Uintah Basin AOG

Uintah County
Womens Crisis Center
Turning Point Shelter
Uintah Basin LHCC Profiles

Type of Housing

Rapid Re-Housing

Uintah Basin LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 25 12 9 492 2,802
Unsheltered
Total 6 9 - 74 278
Total
Total 31 21 9 566 3,080
Uintah Basin LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 15 10 4 383 1,965
Unsheltered
Total 6 9 - 74 278
Total
Total 21 19 4 457 2,243
State of Utah | 63
LHCC Profiles

Employment Centers
St. George (435) 674-5627
162 North 400 East
Suite B100 Domestic violence (all persons) 24 18
St. George, UT 84770 Domestic violence (adults) 14 18
HIV/AIDS 0 2
Chair Jimmie Hughes Substance abuse 17 28

St. George City Mental illness 13 25
Council Member
Veterans 22 7
Co-Chair Matt Loo
Economic and
Housing Director, Chronically homeless families 0 0
City of St. George
Sheltered
Secretary Karen Christensen Unaccompanied youth 5 3
Unsheltered
Youth parent 1 0
Homeless Housing and Shelter Child of a youth parent 1 0
Providers
Dove Center
Erin Kimball Memorial
Foundation
Five County AOG
Southwest Behavioral Health
St. George City
St. George Housing Authority
Switchpoint CRC Friends of
the Volunteer Center
Washington LHCC Profiles

Type of Housing

97
Rapid Re-Housing
47 10

2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 107 89 77 492 2,802
Family of adult and minor 10 20 - - -
Households only children - 1 - - -
Unsheltered
Total 45 94 56 74 278
Households only children - 1 - 22 25
Total
Total 152 183 133 566 3,080
2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 68 67 60 383 1,965
Family of adult and minor 3 7 - - -
Households only children - 1 - - -
Unsheltered
Total 33 79 56 74 278
Total
Total 101 146 116 457 2,243
State of Utah | 65
LHCC Profiles
Weber-Morgan County LHCC

Employment Centers
Ogden (866) 435-7414
480 27th Street
Ogden, UT 84401
Chair James Ebert

HIV/AIDS 3 0
Weber County Substance abuse 55 0
Commissioner
Co-Chair Jeni Canter
Executive Director, Veterans 31
Lantern House Chronically homeless veterans 0 0
Secretary Stacy Skeen Chronically homeless families 0 0
Chronically homeless persons 23 Sheltered
0
Unaccompanied youth Unsheltered
Homeless Housing and Shelter 30 0
Archway Youth Services Child of a youth parent 0 0
Homeless Veterans Fellowship
Housing Authority of Ogden City
Ogden Rescue Mission
Problems Anonymous Action
Group
St. Annes Center
Weber County Housing Authority
Your Community Connection
Youth Futures
LHCC Profiles
Weber
Type of Housing
127
146 415 Permanent Supportive Housing
Rapid Re-Housing
27

Weber-Morgan LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Households only children - 9 18 22 25
Sheltered
Total 213 323 276 492 2,802
Unsheltered
Total 23 11 - 74 278
Total
Total 236 334 276 566 3,080
Weber-Morgan LHCC
2015 2016 2017
Sheltered
Total 165 255 250 383 1,965
Unsheltered
Total 23 11 - 74 278
Total
Total 188 266 250 457 2,243
State of Utah | 67
Works Cited
Community Solutions. Zero: 2016 Dashboard. July 2015. 22 September 2015.
Cushman and Wakefield. 2014 Year End Market Review. Salt Lake City: Cushman and Wakefield, 2014.
Day, Jayme, et al. Comprehensive Report on Homelessness State of Utah 2012. Annual Report. Salt Lake City: Utah Housing
and Community Development Division, 2012.
Day, Jayme, Jonathan Hardy, and Lloyd Pendleton. Comprehensive Report on Homelessness State of Utah 2009. Annual
Report. Salt Lake City: Utah Division of Housing and Community Development, 2009.
EquiMark Multifamily Investment Services. Greater Salt Lake Multifamily Report. Salt Lake City: EquiMark Multifamily Investment
Services, 2015.
Firth, Perry. Homelessness and Academic Achievement: The Impact of Childhood Stress on School Performance. 8 September
2014. 7 September 2016 <http://firesteelwa.org/2014/09/homelessness-and-academic-achievement-the-impact-of-
childhood-stress-on-school-performance/>.
Hart-Shegos, Ellen. Homelessness and its Effects on Children. Minneapolis: Family Housing Fund, 1999.
HomeAid America. Top Causes of Homelessness in America. n.d. 7 September 2016 <http://www.homeaid.org/homeaid-
stories/69/top-causes-of-homelessness>.
HUD Exchange. Resources for Chronic Homelessness. 2014. 7 September 2016 <https://www.hudexchange.info/
homelessness-assistance/resources-for-chronic-homelessness/>.
McDivitt, Kay Moshier and Cynthia Nagendra. Best Practices of Emergency Shelters: The Critical Role of Emergency Shelter in
an Effective Crisis Response System. n.d. Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness. 28 July 2016 <http://cceh.org/
wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Connecticut-Emergency-Shelter-Training-Final-For-Participants.pdf>.
Montgomery, Nancy. Troops Discharged for Misconduct at Greater Risk of Homelessness. 25 August 2015. Military.Com. 7
September 2016 <http://m.military.com/daily-news/2015/08/25/troops-discharged-for-misconduct-at-greater-risk-of-
homelessness.html>.
Moore, Kathleen and Jayme Day. Comprehensive Report on Homelessness State of Utah 2011. Salt Lake City: Utah Division of
Housing and Community Development, 2011.
Muoz, Barbara and CAP Utah. Annual Report on Poverty in Utah 2014. Salt Lake City: Community Action Partnership of Utah,
2014.
National Alliance to End Homelessness. 2015 Policy Snapshot. 13 July 2015. National Alliance to End Homelessness. 7
September 2016 <http://www.endhomelessness.org/page/-/files/Policy%20Snapshot_7.10_finalversion.pdf>.
. Chronic Homelessness Policy Solutions. 18 March 2010. National Alliance to End Homelessness. 6 August 2015 <http://
www.endhomelessness.org/page/-/files/2685_file_Chronic_Homelessness_Policy_Solutions.pdf>.
. Closing the Front Door: Creating a Successful Diversion Program for Homeless Families. 16 August 2011. National Alliance
to End Homelessness. 7 September 2016 <http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/closing-the-front-door-
creating-a-successful-diversion-program-for-homeless>.
. Coordinated Assessment Toolkit. 28 August 2013. National Alliance to End Homelessness. 7 September 2016 <http://www.
Works Cited
endhomelessness.org/library/entry/coordinated-assessment-toolkit>.
. Cost Savings with Permanent Supportive Housing. 1 March 2010. National Alliance to End Homelessness. 15 August 2016
<http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/cost-savings-with-permanent-supportive-housing>.
. Housing First Fact Sheet. 20 April 2016. National Alliance to End Homelessness. 20 July 2016 <http://www.endhomelessness.
org/page/-/files/2016-04-26%20Housing%20First%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf>.
. Necessary Activities of Best Practice Rapid Re-Housing Programs. 17 January 2014. National Alliance to End Homelessness. 28
July 2016 <http://www.endhomelessness.org/page/-/files/RRH%20Necessary%20Activities.pdf>.
. Rapid Re-Housing: A History and Core Components. 22 April 2014. National Alliance to End Homelessness. 7 September 2016
<http://www.endhomelessness.org/page/-/files/RRH%20Core%20Elements%20Brief.pdf>.
. The Role of Long-Term, Congregate Transitional Housing in Ending Homelessness. 4 March 2015. National Alliance to
End Homelessness. 9 August 2016 <http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/the-role-of-long-term-congregate-
transitional-housing-in-ending-homelessness>.
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. Media Information: A quick reference on homeless veterans for media professionals. n.d.
7 September 2016 <http://nchv.org/index.php/news/media/media_information/>.
National Health Care for the Homeless Council. Homelessness & Health: Whats The Connection? June 2011. National Health
Care for the Homeless Council. 7 September 2016 <http://www.nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Hln_health_
factsheet_Jan10.pdf>.
National Low Income Housing Coalition. Out of Reach 2017. Washington DC: National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2017.
. Report Ties Lack of Affordable Housing to Family Homelessness. 22 December 2014. National Low Income Housing Coalition.
<http://nlihc.org/article/report-ties-lack-affordable-housing-family-homelessness>.
Oliva, Ann Marie. SNAPS In Focus: Why Housing First. 24 July 2014. HUD Exchange. 15 August 2016 <https://www.hudexchange.
info/onecpd/assets/File/SNAPS-In-Focus-Why-Housing-First.pdf>.
. SNAPS in Focus: Youth Homelessness. 14 October 2014. HUD Exchange. 26 August 2016 <https://www.hudexchange.info/
news/snaps-in-focus-youth-homelessness>.
Salt Lake County. Collective Impact on Homelessness Steering Committee Outcomes. n.d. SLCO.org. 29 August 2016 <http://slco.
org/uploadedFiles/depot/fRD/homeless_services/FinalCIOutcomes.pdf>.
Salt Lake Housing and Neighborhood Development. 5000 DOORS - FAQ. 2014. 6 August 2015 <http://www.slc5000doors.com/faq/>.
Snyder, Kaitlyn. Study Data Show that Housing Chronically Homeless People Saves Money, Lives. 30 June 2015.
EndHomelessness.org. 7 September 2016 <http://www.endhomelessness.org/blog/entry/study-data-show-that-housing-
chronically-homeless-people-saves-money-lives#.VeiKZflVhBe>.
Spellman, Brooke, et al. Cost Associated With First-Time Homelessness for Families and Individuals. 23 March 2010. HUD User. 6
August 2010 <http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/povsoc/cost_homelessness.html>.
Suchar, Norm. Field Notes: Collective Impact and Homelessness. 15 January 2014. National Alliance to End Homelessness.
<http://www.endhomelessness.org/blog/entry/field-notes-collective-impact-and-homelessness#.VeigmvlVhBd>.
Technical Assistance Collaborative Inc, Abt Associates. Resource Strategies For Homeless Veterans. n.d. U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs. 10 August 2016 <www.va.gov/homeless/ssvf/docs/ssvfuniversity/resource_strategies_for_homeless_
veterans.pptx>.
The Associated Press. Report: Combat troop discharges increase sharply. 19 May 2013. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 7
September 2016 <http://www.myajc.com/news/news/national/report-combat-troop-discharges-increase-sharply/nXwsk/>.
State of Utah | 69
Works Cited
The National Center on Family Homelessness. The Characteristics and Needs of Families Experiencing Homelessness. Needham,
MA : The National Center on Family Homelessness, 2011.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Final FY 2016 Fair Market Rent Documentation System. 2016. HUD User. 28
July 2016 <https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/fmrs/FY2016_code/2016state_summary.odn>.
. Obama Administration Announces Nearly 50 Percent Decline In Veteran Homelessness. 1 August 2016. HUD.gov. 22 August
2016 <https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2016/HUDNo_16-117>.
. HUD Releases the System Performance Measures Introductory Guide and Additional Resources. 24 July 2014. HUD
Exchange. 22 June 2015 <www.hudexchange.info/news/hud-releases-the-system-performance-measures-introductory-
guide-and-additional-resources>.
. 2016 Housing Inventory Count and Point-in-Time Count of Homeless Persons: Data Submission Guidance. February 2016.
HUD Exchange. 10 August 2016.
. Expanding Opportunities to House Individuals and Families Experiencing Homelessness through the Public Housing (PH)
and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Programs Questions and Answers( Q&As) September 2013. September 2013. Portal.
Hud.Gov. 7 September 2016 <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=PIH2013-15HomelessQAs.pdf>.
. Final FY 2017 Fair Market Rent Documentation System. 2017. HUD User.
. Point-in-Time Count Methodology Guide. 2016. HUD Exchange. 22 August 2016 <https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/
documents/PIT-Count-Methodology-Guide.pdf>.
. Resources for Chronic Homelessness. 2014. HUD Exchange. 7 September 2016 <https://www.hudexchange.info/
homelessness-assistance/resources-for-chronic-homelessness/>.
. Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH): Defining Chronically Homeless Final Rule.
4 December 2015. HUD Exchange. 26 July 2016 <https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Defining-
Chronically-Homeless-Final-Rule.pdf>.
. System Performance Measures in Context. July 2014. HUD Exchange. 18 July 2016.< https://www.hudexchange.info/
resources/documents/system-performance-measures-in-context.pdf>
. The 2016 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) To Congress Part 1: Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness.
November 2016. HUD Exchange.
. Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act. 2014. HUD Exchange. 12 August 2016 <https://www.
hudexchange.info/homelessness-assistance/hearth-act/>.
. Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH): Defining Homeless Final Rule.
November 2011. HUD Exchange. 2 August 2016 <https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/HEARTH_
HomelessDefinition_FinalRule.pdf>.
. Expanding Opportunities to House Individuals and Families Experiencing Homelessness through the Public Housing (PH)
and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Programs Questions and Answers (Q&As) September 2013. September 2013. Portal.
Hud.Gov. 8 September 2016 <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=PIH2013-15HomelessQAs.pdf>.
. AHAR: Part 1PIT Estimates of Homelessness. October 2014. HUD Exchange. 2014. <https://www.hudexchange.info/
resources/documents/2014-AHAR-Part1.pdf>.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Homeless Veterans: About the Initiative. 13 July 2015. VA.Gov 8 September 2016 <http://
www.va.gov/homeless/about_the_initiative.asp>.
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. Family Connection: Building Systems to End Family Homelessness. 2013.
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. 8 September 2016 <http://usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_
library/Final_V3_Family_Connections.pdf>.
Works Cited
. Framework to End Youth Homelessness: A Resource Text for Dialogue and Action. 2013. United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness.8 September 2016 <https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/USICH_Youth_Framework__
FINAL_02_13_131.pdf
. People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness. 15 April 2016. United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. 2 August
2016 <http://usich.gov/population/chronic>.
. Permanent Supportive Housing. n.d. United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. 7 September 2016 <https://www.
usich.gov/usich_resources/solutions/explore/permanent_supportive_housing/>.
. The Housing First Checklist: A Practical Tool for Assessing Housing First in Practice. n.d. United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness. 8 September 2016 <http://usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Housing_First_Checklist_FINAL.pdf>
Utah Department of Health. Medicaid Adult Expansion Overview. May 2016. Health.Utah.Gov. 2016 August 2016 <http://health.
utah.gov/MedicaidExpansion/pdfs/MedicaidAdultExpansionOverview.pdf>.
Utah Department of Workforce Services, Housing and Community Development Division State Community Services Office. Utah
HMIS Data Support for Homeless Providers in Utah Point in Time Report. 29 June 2015. UtahHMIS.Org September 2015
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/2lv1t4qnpd3t3hy/2015%20State%20PIT%20count%20for%20Profiels_06172015.pdf?dl=0>
Utah Homeless Management Information System. 2017 Statewide PIT Count. April 2017. Utah HMIS Data Support for Homeless
Providers in Utah. 17 September 28 <https://drive.google.com/a/utah.gov/file/d/0ByKOdmT_SjUxTmphV204YU5tWjA/
view>.
. Balance of State CoC AHAR Report. 2016. Utah HMIS. 28 September 2017 <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7ByQiptIiMmakx
GTTFCa0pYZTg3UW51bTlCMjBULXN3Umhj/view>.
. Mountainland CoC 2015 AHAR Report. 2016. Utah HMIS. 28 September 2017 <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7ByQiptIiMm
QkZjZ0Z2aWN3QWlPNUI4NElsU1gtTkpvdHpj/view>.
. Salt Lake CoC 2015 AHAR Report. 2016. Utah HMIS. 28 September 2017 <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7ByQiptIiMmMkV
0XzYwWldiLW11YzI3c0pDMkFKR2puU1JV/view>.
State of Utah | 71
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON
HOMELESSNESS
State of Utah 2017
Need Help?
To find homeless services near you, call 2-1-1
WORKFORCE
SERVICES
HOUSING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT

2017 State of Utah Comprehensive Report On Homelessness

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 State of Utah Comprehensive Report On Homelessness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT

All rights reserved October 2017

Measuring Homelessness 3 Operation Rio Grande 30

Funding Public Safety

The Continuum of Care

The Definition of Homelessness

Utah Homeless Management Information System

The Complexity of Counting

Estimates of Homeless People by State 2016

On January 25, 2017, 2,852 Utahns were

Utilization of Beds, January 2017 What is Counted on the HIC

Permanent Supportive Rapid Re-Housing

Homeless Individuals and Families in 2016-2017 PIT

Chronic Homeless Count in 2016-2017 PIT

on Intergenerational Poverty 2017 ON INTERGENERATIONAL POVERTY, WELFARE DEPENDENCY

The Intersection of Intergenerational Poverty

Top Challenges Homeless Children Face

Similarly, it is necessary to evaluate the data to fully

IGP Use of HMIS Declines

2014 2015 2016

As is the case with the decrease in housing mobility, there

Although there was a modest decrease in the use of

Increases in Rapid Housing as Shelter Use Decreases

The need for improved data prompted HUD to

2017 PIT Unaccompanied Youth

Unaccompanied Youth Youth Parent Child of Youth Parent

Domestic Violence Victims

Survivors of Domestic Violence in 2016-2017 PIT

Survivors of domestic violence include all homeless individuals

PIT Homeless Veterans

2014 2015 2016 2017

Family or individual retains housing or gains new housing,

Targeted Family or individual exits shelter on own Community-

RRH Rapid Re-Housing

Source: United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

Housing First Philosophy

In order for Housing First to be effective, clients

Housing First does not require people experiencing

Coordinated Entry and Assessments

Coordinated Assessment identifies the right services to match

Assessments as a Tool for Prioritization

The Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool

Housing Prioritization Lists

In spring 2017, the state sponsored Ed Boyte from the

FY 2017 Salt Lake County Diversion Results

37 (33%) 169 (45%)

113 6 (16%) 372 24 (14%)

2016 Length of Stay Emergency Shelter

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Length of Stay 1 week or less 13 months 69 months

2016 Length of Stay Transitional Housing

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Length of Stay 1 week or less 13 months 69 months

Permanent Supportive Housing

2016 Length of Stay Permanent Supportive Housing

Individuals in PSH 2% 6% 11% 14% 66%

Persons in Families 1% 2% 18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Length of Stay 1 week or less 13 months 69 months

$650 $816 $650

Salt Lake City

FY2017 Utah FMR Metropolitan Area Summary

Phase 3: Dignity of Work