Increase - WestCAP

Report
Working Together to End
Homelessness
ROBYN THIBADO (WEST CAP) & CARRIE POSER (INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY ALLIANCES) –
BALANCE OF STATE CONTINUUM OF CARE
SEPTEMBER 2014
Overview of the Presentation

Introduction

Continuum of Care

Background

Purpose

Definitions

Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness – Opening
Doors

What can a Public Housing Authorities (PHA) do to help?

Where do we go from here?
“Because far too many Americans go homeless on any given night, this
bill provides comprehensive new resources for homeless Americans.”
-President Obama, May 20, 2009
HEARTH ACT



Helping Families Save Their Homes Act

President Obama signed into law on May 20, 2009

Became Public Law 111-22
Division B of this law is the HEARTH Act

Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing

Reauthorizing and amending already existing legislation, McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act
HUD developed 6 sets of regulations to implement this legislation. Two relevant
components to today’s discussion include the Definition of Homeless and the COC
Program Interim Rule
Continuum of Care

The Continuum of Care program is designed to assist sheltered and unsheltered
homeless people by providing the housing and/or services needed to help
individuals move into transitional and permanent housing, with the goal of long-term
stability.

According to 24 CFR Part 578.1(B), the primary purpose of the COC Program is to:

Promote community-wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness.

Provide funding for efforts by nonprofit providers, States, and local governments to rehouse homeless individuals and families rapidly while minimizing the trauma and
dislocation caused to homeless individuals, families, and communities as a consequence
of homelessness.

Promote access to and effective use of mainstream programs by homeless individuals
and families.

Optimize self-sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness.
History of Continuum of Care System

HUD began implementing the COC process in 1995 through the Notice of Funding
Available (NOFA).

Each year, the NOFA guided the development of COCs and encouraged
communities to work together to address homelessness in a coordinated manner. In
addition, HUD published user guides and FAQs and other technical assistance
materials to assist communities develop effective COCs.

This method resulted in scattered information not easily located.

The COC Program Interim Rule changes this.
Continuum of Care Interim Rule

The Continuum of Care Interim Rule formalizes the following COC responsibilities:

Coordinating, or be involved in the coordination of, all housing and services for
homeless persons within its geographic area.

Coordinating McKinney-Vento funds awarded within its geographic area.

Establishing & operating the HMIS within its geographic area.

Establishing and operating, or designating, the centralized or coordinated assessment
to be used within its geographic area.
What is the Continuum of Care?
In order to carry out the primary purpose of the COC Program, HUD requires
representatives of relevant organizations to form a Continuum of Care to serve a
specific geographic area. These representatives include:

nonprofit homeless providers,

mental health agencies,

victim services providers,

hospitals,

faith-based organizations,

universities,

governments,

affordable housing developers,

businesses,

law enforcement, and

advocates,


public housing agencies,

school districts,
organizations that serve homeless and
formerly homeless veterans, and
homeless and formerly homeless
individuals.

social service providers,
What does the Continuum of Care
have to do?

Operate the Continuum of Care

Conduct meetings,

Monitor,

Evaluate performance,

Establish a coordinated assessment system with written standards and prioritization

Designate & operate an HMIS

Planning

System Coordination

Point-in-Time Count

Annual Gaps Analysis

Participate in the Consolidated Plan
Components of a Homeless System



Prevention

Assist individuals and households at risk of homelessness to maintain their housing by
providing housing relocation and stabilization services and/or short-term emergency
financial assistance

Examples: limited emergency rental assistance to prevent eviction, landlord-tenant
mediation, financial counseling
Outreach & Intake Assessment

Services target the most vulnerable of the homeless population who are often unable or
unwilling to accept emergency shelter services

Examples: street outreach to people residing in parks, campgrounds, or places not meant
for human habitation
Emergency Services

First stop – point of entry into the homeless system

Examples: congregate buildings for households with children, hotel/motel vouchers, shortstay apartments
Continue Components



Supportive Services

Those services needed for a person to move towards self-sufficiency and permanent
housing.

Examples: job readiness and job skill training, benefits counseling, housing search &
placement
Transitional Housing

Interim placement for persons or households, opportunity for clients to gain stability needed
to transition and maintain permanent housing

Example: 24 month housing program with supportive services
Permanent Housing

Permanent affordable housing is long-term, safe, decent housing for individuals and
households.

Examples: housing vouchers, mainstream housing, project-based subsidies
Continue Components


Rapid Rehousing

Rental assistance combined with supportive services aimed to help individuals and
families attain and retain permanent housing with limited stays in homelessness.

Examples: financial assistance in the form of short/medium rental assistance, security
deposit, first/last month rent, services tailored to the needs of the tenant
Permanent Supportive Housing

Combines housing assistance and supportive services, onsite or through partnering
agencies.

Examples: rental assistance and case management in scattered site for the homeless
who have co-occurring substance use and mental illness.
Wisconsin HUD-recognized
Continuum of Care Layout


The State of Wisconsin is divided into 4 separate HUD-recognized Continua.

Milwaukee (www.milwaukeecoc.org)

Racine (www.racinecoc.org)

Dane (www.unitedwaydanecounty.org)

Balance of State – remaining 69 counties (www.westcap.org/wi-boscoc)
Each continua has its own leadership, governance structure,
committees/workgroup, coordinated assessment system, policies, and funding.
Balance of State Continuum of
Care

The Balance of State Continuum of Care is a 501c3 organization.

Membership of the organization is comprised of 21 local continua. Each must:


Represent a defined non-overlapping geographic area;

Include representation from private and non-profit sectors of the community,
including individuals experiencing homelessness or were formerly homeless;

Meet at least quarterly;

Send a representative from a local COC agency to two quarterly meetings of the
Balance of State COC.
The leadership of the Balance of State COC resides in a volunteer Board of
Directors, at minimum 11 and at maximum 15 individuals.

Robyn Thibado (West CAP) – President of the Board

Carrie Poser (ICA) – Vice President of the Board
21 Local Continua

Brown

North Central

CAP

Northeast

Central

Northwest

Coulee

NWISH

Dairyland

Ozaukee

Fox Cities

Rock-Walworth

Indianhead

Southwest

Jefferson

Washington

Kenosha

Waukesha

Lakeshore

West Central

Winnebagoland
Why is the COC important?

Develop proactive solutions rather than reactive stop-gaps

Coordinate targeted homeless resources and mainstream resources for a more
efficient and effective system

Identify common goals for which to advocate

Increase community “buy-in” and access to mainstream resources
Homeless Definition

Category 1


Category 2


Individuals and families who will imminently (within 14 days) lose their primary
nighttime residence with no subsequent residence, resources, or support networks
Category 3


Literally homeless individuals and families
Unaccompanied youth or families with children and youth who meet the
homeless definition under another federal statute and 3 additional criteria
Category 4

Individuals and families fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence with no
subsequent residence, resources, or support networks
United States Interagency Council
to End Homelessness (USICH)

Developed Opening Doors, the first-ever Federal strategic plan to prevent and
end homelessness.

Result of a partnership between 19 Federal agencies and partners such as the
Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA).

Opening Doors is a roadmap for joint action, providing a reference framework
for the allocation of resources and alignment of programs.

Includes 10 objectives and 58 strategies

Requires the Federal government to work in partnership with State and local
governments, as well as the private sector, to employ cost-effective, comprehensive
solutions to end homelessness.
Federal Strategic Plan: Opening Doors

HUD is focused on the 4 major goals of Opening Doors. Funding and policy decisions
are guided by these goals.

End Chronic Homeless by 2015**

End Veteran Homeless by 2015

End Family and Youth Homeless by 2020

Set a path to ending all homelessness

Update on Chronic Homeless goal**: USICH is in the process of adjusting to extend to
2016 because Congress did not fund at the level needed to reach the goal by 2015.

Progress on each goal is tracked through HUD’s annual point-in-time (PIT) data.
Homelessness by the Numbers in WI


In 2013, there were 27,556 people that experienced homelessness (reported by providers
who use HMIS).

18% increase since 2010

64% meet the definition of “newly homeless”
During the January 2014 PIT, there were 6,058 people experiencing homelessness on 1
night.
Provider Type*
# of
People
Household Composition
# of
People
Sub-population
# of
People
Emergency
Shelter
3,111
Household with children
3,129
Chronic
Homelessness
448
Transitional
Housing
2,544
Household without
children
2,910
Veterans
542
Unsheltered
343
Household with only
children
19
Victims of DV
1,380
*There were also 60 people in Safe Havens.
January PIT - Statewide Totals
January PIT - Statewide
Totals
Balance of State
Dane
Milwaukee
Balance of State
Racine
3500
6000
3000
5000
2500
4000
2000
3000
1500
2000
1000
1000
500
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Milwaukee
Racine
4000
7000
0
2009
Dane
0
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
National Success vs. WI Success

Using the January PIT count, the number of people experiencing homelessness in
Wisconsin has increased since 2010.

However, using the same measurement, the number of people nationally has been
decreasing!
Nationally
Balance of
State
Dane
Milwaukee
Racine
Total # Persons
Decrease
Increase
Increase
No Change
Decrease
# Sheltered
Decrease
Increase
Increase
No Change
Decrease
# Unsheltered
Decrease
Decrease
Increase
Decrease
No Change
# Persons in families
Decrease
Increase
Increase
Increase
Decrease
# Chronic Homeless
Decrease
No Change
Increase
No Change
Increase
# Veterans
Decrease
Decrease
No Change
No Change
Increase
PIT data indicates that
between 2012 – 2013
chronic homelessness
increased 19.10% in
Wisconsin.
What can Public Housing Authorities
(PHA) do to help?

The real work of ending homelessness happens at the community level, through
partnerships between homeless service providers, COC leaders, municipal and State
governments, philanthropy, community & business leaders, and public housing
authorities.

According to HUD, there are 6 specific ways PHAs can partner to end homelessness:

Establish Homeless Preference

Move-Up Strategy Implementation

Screen “In”

Streamline Application Processes

Create Eviction Prevention Program

Project-based vouchers to create supportive housing with on-site services
HUD Notice PIH 2013-15

In June 2013, HUD provided guidance on housing individuals and families
experiencing homelessness through the Public Housing and Housing Choice
Voucher programs (Notice PIH 2013-15).

This guidance encourages PHAs to:

Review discretionary admissions and termination/eviction policies to determine if any
changes can be made to remove barriers for serving the homeless population.

Manage the waiting list to provide homeless populations increased access to the
PHA’s programs.

Partner with homeless service providers, Continuums of Care, and other organizations
to serve the homeless population.
Homeless Preference

According to HUD, “Homelessness and waitlists don’t mix well. A PHA’s greatest tool
for increasing program access for individuals and families experiencing homelessness
is establishing a preference in their admissions policies.”

PHAs can take a variety of actions to allow homeless populations better access to
their programs, including:

Establishing a strong outreach strategy in partnership with the local continua,

Strengthening the process for contacting applicants on their waiting list (e.g., contacting
applicants via email or phone),

Establishing flexible intake and briefing schedules (e.g., provide a window of time for
appointments), &

Establishing nondiscriminatory preferences in their admissions policies for persons
experiencing homelessness.

The preference could also be a subset, such as: chronically homeless, homeless veterans, homeless
identified as most vulnerable through community-based assessment strategies.

To determine local need, PHAs should:

Work collaboratively with the local continua.

Use COC HMIS data and PIT counts in order to determine whether and to what
extent there is need for a homeless preference.

By coming to the table, PHAs are able to use the resources available to the
local continua and the local continua can better understand the pressures
and competing demands facing PHAs – including limited supply of vouchers
and units.

COCs and homeless service providers can benefit the PHA by:

Identifying and “pre-qualifying” eligible people who are experiencing homelessness,

Making referrals to PHAs,

Making supportive services available to households that qualify for PHA waiting list
preferences,

Providing assistance with the PHA’s application process, and

Helping with housing search, move-in costs, providing furniture, food and other
essentials (when available).
Real Life Examples of this Working

The Housing Authority of the City of Asheville, NC (HACA) actively participates in
the community’s 10-year plan to end homelessness and ongoing collaboration
meetings with community partners.


When initially implemented, the homeless preference was limited to chronic
homelessness. Now, it has expanded to include those that have been homeless for
more than 90 days.
The Loudoun County Virginia PHA amended its administrative plan to establish a
waiting list preference for persons experiencing homelessness.

As housing vouchers become available through turnover, every tenth (10th) voucher
is made available to a person who is homeless.

MaineHousing has given people experiencing homelessness a preference
(extra points toward accessing the wait list) for Housing Choice Vouchers.


There are also cumulative preferences in order of priority for victims of domestic
violence, veterans and homeless families 2+, disabled, elderly and individuals.
In response to data identifying approximately 1,000 to 1,200 individuals
experiencing homelessness who are frequent users of emergency
departments, the Ann Arbor Housing Commission jointly applied for a grant
from the Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) with local COC partners.

With this grant, these partners are linking supportive and health services with
housing resources provided by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

These resources were made possible by the Commission’s adoption of a limited
preference that makes available public housing and Housing Choice Vouchers
available for up to 40 individuals identified as high utilizers of crisis health services.
Additional Resources – Homeless
Preference

USICH Solutions Database contains profiles of model programs and practices
that have demonstrated results, including profiles of programs that are
implemented in partnership with PHAs that have established waiting list
preferences for persons experiencing homelessness.
http://usich.gov/usich_resources/solutions/

Corporation for Supportive Housing’s (CSH) PHA Toolkit includes profiles of
several PHAs that have established waiting list preferences for persons
experiencing homelessness. These PHAs have established partnerships with
community organizations to identify, refer, and provide ongoing support
services, as needed, to people who qualify for housing assistance based on
these preferences. http://www.csh.org/phatoolkit
Move-Up Strategy

One of the strategies in Opening Doors is to create greater incentives for people to move on from
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) as they are ready, but the lack of affordable housing stock in many
communities creates barriers to making this a reality.

PSH is long-term, community-based housing combined with supportive services, for people with disabilities
who are homeless. There is no time limit. Because it is a scarce resource, it should be targeted to serve
those who need it most.


To free up the spot for someone in crisis who needs to intensive services available in PSH, a PHA could
establish a preference that would allow for a “move up” or “move on” strategy for these clients.


EXAMPLE: a single male enters a PSH 5 years ago with no income. He needed counseling, case management, and
help applying for SSI. However, he remains in the program because his limited income makes it impossible for him to
remain housing stable with a rent subsidy.
It would help a formerly homeless person stay stably housed & open a PSH slot to someone with higher service
needs, been homeless the longest, and/or has the greatest vulnerabilities.
In partnership with the COC, the COC could identify persons or families in PSH that meet criteria- no
longer need supportive services to remain stably housed but need affordable housing & wish to move on.
Real Life Examples of this Working

The Chicago Housing Authority launched “Moving On,” a pilot program for
persons living in PSH who no longer need intensive services and want to move to
other affordable housing in the community. Applicants with stable housing
histories can move on to other housing using a Housing Choice Voucher.

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) has created a “Moving
On” preference by including an admission preference in the Housing Choice
Voucher program for formerly homeless Shelter Plus Care (S+C) residents who
have stabilized their lives in that program and no longer require the supportive
housing environment in order to maintain their housing.

Transfer to the voucher program enables people who previously experienced
homelessness to exercise tenant mobility and move on with their lives, and this frees
up their supportive housing unit for a new person experiencing chronic homelessness
who needs it.
Screen In

Many PHAs can modify their tenant screening criteria, policies, and procedures in an effort to
reduce barriers to housing access for people experiencing homelessness.



This is particularly important for those people who have had contact with the criminal justice system as a
result of problems with mental illness or substance use.
Federal law gives substantial flexibility to PHAs and housing providers to adopt local policies
regarding criminal backgrounds and other screening criteria. Required prohibitions include:

Lifetime sex offender registrant

Methamphetamine production in federally assisted housing

Within 3 years of federally assisted housing eviction for drug-related crime

Currently engaged in illegal drug use or threatening activity
HUD has provided encouragement to PHAs, including a letter from the Secretary of HUD sent to all
PHA Executive Directors. The letter specifically asks PHAs to:

Review their policies related to criminal history

Consider more flexible, reasonable admissions policies

Balance safety concerns with the importance of providing individuals a second chance at improving their
lives and becoming productive citizens.
Real Life Examples of this Working

The Housing Authority of the City of Dallas, Texas revised tenant screening standards to
conform to the federal requirements. This eliminated some standards that had created
barriers to using PHA programs to assist people experiencing homelessness.


The Housing Authority’s Executive Director participates as a member of the board that governs the
Metro Dallas COC and the decision was informed and motivated by her involvement in the region’s
collaborative efforts to end homelessness.
The Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) changed its tenant screening criteria in an effort to
reduce barriers to housing for people experiencing homelessness.

Before making the change, SHA had required a waiting period ranging from 2 – 20 years (depending
on offense) after an applicant has been released from incarceration.

Instead, SHA adopted a uniform time of 12 months following release from incarceration.

A profile is included in the CSH PHA toolkit, including the resolution adopted by SHA’s Board of
Commissioners, the background memo for the Board of Commissioners explaining the rationale for the
proposed policy change, and the changes SHA made to its Administrative Plan.

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) modified its
tenant screening policies in collaboration with advocacy organizations
working to end homelessness.

When HUD PIH-Notice 2013-15 made clear that homeless admission criteria
may not differ from the standards for other applicants, HACLA amended its
Administrative Plan to reduce the admission barriers for all applicants.

Through the Section 8 Administrative Plan process, HACLA:

Sharply reduced the number of years for denial of admission due to criminal
convictions,

Permitted treatment options for drug and alcohol related convictions, and

Eliminated some kinds of criminal activity from the list of denial reasons
Coordinated Assessment



HUD is requiring all communities funded through its Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) or
COC program to implement a centralized/coordinated intake and assessment system.

The purpose of this system is to ensure that access to homeless services in a community are
streamlined and quickly accessible.

To determine need, the system relies on a common set of measures or tools for assessment.
Type of system:

Centralized - a single point of entry for accessing all types of homelessness assistance.

Coordinated system – multiple points of entry.
Referrals are based on consistent criteria and a comprehensive understanding of each
program’s requirements, target populations, and available openings and services.
Housing & Service Intervention

Pre-coordinated Assessment


Is this person eligible for my program?
than is this person eligible for any
program in my community?
Each organization’s documents and
intake policies & procedures are
different and unique.

Coordinated Assessment

Is this person eligible for any program in
the community?

Standard forms and assessment are
used by everyone, for every client.
HEARTH Act forced communities to creates a client-centered, system driven, and
accessible process.
PHA Involvement with Coordinated
Assessment System

As one of the larger providers of affordable housing in the community, PHAs can be
a critical contributor of this process. Such as:

Identifying applicants for rental assistance who are experiencing or at-risk of
homelessness and encouraging them to also seek assistance through the community’s
coordinated entry system

Provide housing opportunities for individuals and families based on referrals from the
community’s coordinated entry and centralized assessment process.
Real Life Examples of this Working

Chicago has implemented a Central Referral System (CRS) for PSH and PH with shortterm support services. The Central Referral System prioritizes people for these housing
resources based on responses to the Vulnerability Index and length of homelessness.


The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) cross references applicants to the CRS against its waiting
lists, which allows them to make more targeted referrals to PSH that use project-based
vouchers provided by CHA. The supportive housing providers work with community partners to
reach out to these individuals.
The executive director of the Housing Authority of the City of Dallas, Texas is on the
board of the metro Dallas COC, and she participates in regional planning efforts related
to ending homelessness.

Participation in collaborative planning with other community organizations has informed the
housing authority’s decisions to:

Expand programs and partnerships to facilitate access to permanent housing for homeless people,

Modify tenant screening policies to reduce barriers to housing assistance for persons experiencing
homelessness.

Dedicate project-based housing vouchers to help develop PSH

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) collaborated with
Home For Good, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, County
departments, the VA of Greater Los Angeles, and other partners to
develop a pilot coordinated entry system for chronically homeless persons
in the Skid Row area.


During the pilot:

They adopted a standardized assessment tool that prioritizes persons based on length
of homelessness and vulnerability.

They adopted a streamlined, universal application form for PSH.

They used this process to prioritize clients for some of HACLA’s targeted housing
choice vouchers, Shelter Plus Care subsidies, project-based voucher-funded PSH, and
HUD-VASH vouchers.
Now they are expanding the pilot beyond Skid Row and into other communities
in the city and county of Los Angeles, with a goal of the coordinated entry
system becoming the standardized system through which persons are prioritized
for and access all PSH.
Collaboration with Local Continua –
Real Life Examples


The Loudoun County Virginia PHA is part of the county’s continuum of care. The PHA
provides the local continua with space and facilitation for monthly meetings, a
coordinator, and administrative support.

The PHA has strengthened working relationships with nonprofit organizations that serve
people experiencing homelessness.

The PHA has also established a waiting list preference for homeless applicants as a direct
result of its collaboration with community organizations.
MaineHousing provides funding for staff to convene and support the Continuum of
Care.

PHA staff provide leadership and support to engage community partners in using HMIS and
participating in the PIT count.

The PHA administers other sources of funding for housing programs.

The PHA has invested in the goals and priorities established by the COC and Maine’s Plan to
End & Prevent Homelessness.
So what are we asking for?

Get involved with your local continuum of care.



Come to the table – share your expertise.

Attend the next local continua meeting

Discuss what you do and what you have to offer

Hear what barriers to ending homelessness exist in your community
Consider making some changes to the way you do business.


Handout – contact name & information
Based on the needs and barriers in the community, what changes would you consider to
the way you do business?
Think about how the homeless service providers can be of assistance in return.

What assistance could you use from the homeless service providers and other local
continua members?

What issues are you struggling with?
Final Thoughts

Homelessness is a complex problem.

The response to homelessness is complicated.

But the solution or cure is simple.
HOUSING

If we don’t do it, then who?

If not now, then when?
Additional Resources: HUD Guidance

HUD COC 101 for PHAs Webinar, August 2013. https://www.hudexchange.info/trainingevents/courses/coc-101-for-phas-webinar/

HUD Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing: Defining “Homeless.”
CFR 91, 582, and 583. December 2011.
https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/HEARTH_HomelessDefinition_FinalRule.
pdf

HUD Implementing a Move-Up Strategy Webinar, November 2013.
https://www.hudexchange.info/training-events/courses/implementing-a-move-up-strategywebinar/

HUD PHA 101 for COCs Webinar, August 2013. https://www.hudexchange.info/trainingevents/courses/pha-101-for-cocs-webinar/

HUD Study of PHA’s Efforts to Service the Homeless, December 2013.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FFJdOwq_So&feature=youtu.be

Letter from HUD Secretary, Shaun Donovan to PHA.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=secretarymessageho
meless.pdf

Overview of PIH Notice 2013-15: Guidance on Housing Individuals and Families
Experiencing Homeless Through the Public Housing and Housing Choice
Voucher Program Webinar. Joint webinar between CPD and PIH, August
2013. https://www.hudexchange.info/training-events/courses/overview-ofpih-notice-2013-15-guidance-on-housing-individuals-and-familiesexperiencing-homelessne/

Trenessa Sidney, HUD PIH. Partnering with PHAs to End Homelessness, May
2014.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=THNMay2014PresPart
wPHAs.pdf

US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and
Indian Housing. NOTICE PIH 2013-15 (HA), June 2013.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=pih2013-15.pdf
Additional Resources: USICH

Kristy Greenwalt, former USICH Director of Housing Policy. Why PHAs? June 2012.
http://usich.gov/blog/why_phas

Marking the Case: Partnering with Public Housing Authorities. NAEH Conference
Presentations, February 2014. http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/5.5making-the-case-partnering-with-public-housing-authorities

PHA Guidebook to Ending Homelessness. United States Interagency Council to
End Homeless (USICH).
http://usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/PHA_Guidebook_Final.pdf

USICH: Opening Doors. http://usich.gov/opening_doors/
Additional Resources: Best Practices

Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH). Public Housing Agencies Toolkit. http://usich.gov/blog/New_PHA_Toolkit

CSH: Working with Public Housing Authorities to Catalyze Homeless System Transformation. May 2014.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=CorpforSupportiveHousing.pdf

Dallas Housing Authority. A Housing Authority and Homeless Coalition Partnership: Permanent Supportive Housing, May 2014.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=MetroDallasHomeAlliance.pdf

Deborah De Santis, President & CEO of CSH. Public Housing Authorities are a Critical Partner to Supportive Housing, November
2013. http://usich.gov/blog/csh_phas

Housing Authorities: Essential Partners in Ending Homeless. A publication of the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities
(CLPHA), 2013. http://www.clpha.org/uploads/Publications/CLPHA2013Publication-HousingAuthoritiesEssentialPartnersinEndingHomelessness.pdf

Housing Authority of the City of Austin (HACA). Brining Opportunity Home, May 2014.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=AustinHousingAuthority.pdf

Houston Housing Authority, May 2014. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=HoustonHousingAuthority.pdf

Judson Brown, Dallas Housing Authority. Ending Homelessness in the Dallas-Fort
Worth Metroplex by Targeting our Resources, May 2014.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DallasHousingAuthori
ty.pdf

Preston Prince, CEO & Executive Director of Fresno Housing Authority. Fresno
Housing Authority: Working to End Homelessness in their Community,
November 2013. http://usich.gov/blog/fresno_pha

SAHA: San Antonio Housing Authority, May 2014.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=SanAntonioHousingA
uthority.pdf

Texas Homeless Network: May 21-22nd, 2014.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=FortWorthHousingAut
hority.pdf

Tory Gunsolley, President & CEO of Houston Housing Authority. Project-Based
Vouchers Can Help End Homelessness: Our Work in Houston, May 2013.
http://usich.gov/blog/HHA

similar documents