an exploration of the road home rapid rehousing program...
TRANSCRIPT
An Exploration of The Road Home Rapid Rehousing Program in Salt Lake County
QUALITATIVE FINDINGS
1 | Page
Funding Support The Research Incentive Seed Grant Program University of Utah Institutional Support City & Metropolitan Planning Department Metropolitan Research Center Road Home Partners Michelle Flynn Jeniece Olsen Emily Horton Dee Norton Erin McNeal Michelle Hoon
Authors Ivis García Keunate Kim Sayma Khajehei Liz Arnold Mehrnaz Fereydouni Jake Gallaher Marissa Garcia Byron Head Hanna Hutcheson Lily Oswald Jay Sheng Brandon Siracuse Meadow Wedekind Yi Wei Shannon Williams Ellen Wofford
Suggested Citation García, I., et. al. (2019). An Exploration of The Road Home Rapid Rehousing Program In Salt Lake County: Qualitative Findings. Salt Lake City: Metropolitan Research Center.
Photo Credits CC-0, Pxfuel images of families, https://www.pxfuel.com/
2 | Page
Table of Contents ABSTRACT ......................................................................................... 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................. 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................. 7 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 7 RAPID REHOUSING ................................................................................... 7 ABOUT THE ROAD HOME ........................................................................ 8 RESEARCH QUESTION AND METHODS .................................................. 9 KEY FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 10
Tenants ................................................................................................... 10 The Process of Finding Housing ..................................................................... 10 Returning to Shelter ............................................................................................. 10 Relation with Landlord or Property Manager ......................................... 11 Relation with Case Managers and Service Providers ........................... 11 Program Improvement ....................................................................................... 11
Landlords .............................................................................................. 11 Getting Involved ..................................................................................................... 11 Economic Security of the Property Owners ............................................. 11 Location of Units .................................................................................................... 11 Relationship with Tenants ................................................................................ 12 Relationship with Road Home Staff .............................................................. 12 Program Improvement ....................................................................................... 12
Case Manager and Service Providers ....................................... 12 Role and Getting Involved ................................................................................. 12 About the Rapid Rehousing Program .......................................................... 12 Program Changes .................................................................................................. 12 Relationships with Owners and Managers ............................................... 12 Small vs. Large Landlords ................................................................................. 12 Helping the Landlords Bottom-Line............................................................. 12 Lenient Landlords ................................................................................................. 13 Location of Units .................................................................................................... 13
SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................................................... 13 REPORT ORGANIZATION ....................................................................... 13
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 15 DEFINITIONS OF HOMELESSNESS ........................................................ 15 NATIONAL STATISTICS AND TRENDS .................................................. 15 INDIVIDUAL AND STRUCTURAL FACTORS .......................................... 16 EMPLOYMENT ......................................................................................... 17 CHILDCARE .............................................................................................. 17 HOUSING COST........................................................................................ 18 TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................. 18 SUBSTANCE ABUSE ................................................................................ 19 INCARCERATION ..................................................................................... 19 DISABILITY .............................................................................................. 20 EVICTIONS ............................................................................................... 20 CASE MANAGEMENT .............................................................................. 21 PROPERTY OWNERS .............................................................................. 22
METHODS ........................................................................................ 24
QUALITATIVE FINDINGS ............................................................ 27 TENANTS.................................................................................................. 27
Impact of the RRHP on Tenant’s Security ............................. 27 The Process of Finding Housing ................................................. 30 Returning to Shelter ........................................................................ 32 Relation with Landlord or Property Manager..................... 35 Relation with Service Providers ................................................. 37 Improving the Rapid Rehousing Program ............................. 37
LANDLORDS ............................................................................................. 40 Getting Involved ................................................................................. 41 Economic Security of the Property Owner ............................ 41 Location of Units ............................................................................... 41 Relationships with Tenants .......................................................... 42 Relationships with Road Home Staff ........................................ 42 Program Improvement ................................................................... 43
CASE MANAGERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE ............................................. 44 Role and Getting Involved ............................................................. 44
3 | Page
About the Rapid Rehousing Program ...................................... 45 Program Changes .............................................................................. 47 Relationships with Owners and Managers ............................ 49 Small vs. Large Landlords ............................................................. 50 Helping the Landlord’s Bottom-Line ........................................ 52 Lenient Landlords ............................................................................. 52 Location of Units ................................................................................ 54
RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................. 57 TENANTS.................................................................................................. 63
Revise Eligibility Criteria ............................................................... 63 Prepare Families for the RRHP Subsidy .................................. 63 Define Subsidy Length ..................................................................... 63 Incrementally Increase the Rent of Tenant ........................... 64 Case Management Related to Employment .......................... 64 Childcare Subsidies ........................................................................... 64 Assistance with Furniture and Other Necessities ............... 65 Always Offer Rides to See Apartments ..................................... 65 Access to Transportation ............................................................... 65 Assistance Finding Housing .......................................................... 66 Pay Application Fee .......................................................................... 66 More Time to Find a Place............................................................. 66 Rent at 30% After the Subsidy is Over ..................................... 66
PROPERTY OWNERS AND MANAGERS ................................................ 67 Protecting Landlords of Income Interruption ...................... 67 Centralizing Rental Applications ............................................... 67 Master-leasing .................................................................................... 68 Improve Communication with Landlords .............................. 68 Shorter Leasing Agreements ........................................................ 68 Location of Units ................................................................................ 69
CASE MANAGERS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS...................................... 69 Incentivize Families for Achieving Goals ................................ 69 Case managers Should Keep in Touch ..................................... 70 Streamlining Documentation ...................................................... 70
CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 72
REFERENCES .................................................................................. 76
Figure 1. City & Metropolitan Students from the University of Utah at The
Road Home Midvale Center Family Shelter at a facility tour with Road Home Staff
4 | Page
Abstract The Road Home (TRH) is an organization providing services to homeless individuals and families in the Salt Lake City area. TRH is perhaps best known for their emergency shelters, but the organization also administers Rapid Rehousing subsidies, designed to help families experiencing homelessness transition back into stable housing. The Rapid Rehousing Program (RRHP) allows families to find housing in the private rental market and will cover the initial costs and several months of rent for clients. While the program has seen much success in helping homeless families find rental housing, some families still end up returning to emergency shelters. This report aims to determine why some families return to the shelter and what can be done to improve Rapid Rehousing and related services to reduce the occurrence of families returning to the shelter. First, we introduce the topic of homelessness and how it affects families both on the local and national levels. We then describe the methods used to collect qualitative data and the key findings of focus groups and interviews conducted with families experiencing homelessness, landlords, case managers and service providers. Finally, we identify recommendations for program improvements based on information gathered from families experiencing homelessness, landlords, and case managers and service providers. It is our hope that the information presented in this report can and will be used by TRH to improve the RRHP in a way that reduces the rate of families returning to their emergency shelters.
“When I had the Rapid Rehousing,
I felt safe.”
5 | Page
Acknowledgements This study was funded by The Research Incentive Seed Grant Program at the University of Utah. Dr. Ivis García is the PI and Ph.D. student Keuntae Kim was the research assistant of this research project. Dr. García involved her Fall 2019 course Community Engagement in Planning which consisted of the following Ph.D. and Master students in Urban Planning and Architecture: Sayma Khajehei, Liz Arnold, Mehrnaz Fereydouni, Jake Gallaher, Marissa Garcia, Byron Head, Hanna Hutcheson, Lily Oswald, Jay Sheng, Brandon Siracuse, Meadow Wedekind, Yi Wei, Shannon Williams and Ellen Wofford. All students contributed by conducting research, interviews and focus groups as well as writing, coding and analysis.
The research team is housed in the Metropolitan Research Center (MRC) at the City & Metropolitan Planning Department. Its mission is to conduct pioneering research that responds to pressing public issues by providing evidence used locally and nationally to improve decisions affecting the built environment and access to opportunity.
The Road Home staff provided guidance for the study, and made themselves available for consultation, clarifying issues throughout the process and recruiting participants. Road Home staff have been engaged in the entire process starting from applying to the grant, setting the parameters of the study at the beginning, reviewing drafts and offering very useful feedback, providing data and documents, and in general making themselves available through to the end. Dr. García would like to thank Michelle Flynn, Jeniece Olsen, Emily Horton, Dee Norton, Erin McNeal and Michelle Hoon.
We also thank the tenants, property owners/managers, case managers and social service providers who shared their insights by participating in the various interviews and focus groups—we are grateful for the input.
We are grateful to everyone for their cooperation; this report is, however, the independent work of the Metropolitan Research Center. Opinions do not necessarily reflect the Road Home.
Figure 2. City & Metropolitan Students from the University of Utah in the
classroom learning about Asset-Based Community Development
7 | Page
Executive Summary Introduction One quote from a focus group anonymous participant particularly summed up some of the structural challenges that TRH and other service providers face, “[Social service providers] almost wish that [some of the families experiencing homelessness] had worse standings [in terms of vulnerability scores]—because you want them to get these services.” This case manager explained that the Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (SPDAT) is the assessment tool of choice. And, although everyone who comes through TRH is highly vulnerable from the medical, economic or social perspective, there are not enough Rapid Rehousing funds to be able to serve everyone. In this scenario, where resources are scarce, the most vulnerable end up receiving the priority.
Case managers often are unable to match families or individuals with programs or resources only because another person or family’s insecurity slightly outranks theirs. The fact that case managers and social service providers are often conflicted with surpassing allocating resources to families facing homelessness when another family has slightly worse standings speaks to a fault in the system—from dwindling resources to lack of political will. This project tasked this class to delve into the challenges that tenants, case managers, social service providers, and landlords face in relation to the RRHP and potential recommendations moving forward. Each focus group and interview conducted throughout this project contained a wealth of information, each with different perspectives on the program as a whole.
Rapid Rehousing Rapid Rehousing is a strategy used to quickly allow those experiencing homelessness to access a residence and be supported in a manner that will lead them to self-sufficiency. This service employs a housing first model which aims at placing individuals in stable housing, which allows them to focus on the other issues that may have caused them to become homeless (e.g. finding employment, dealing with their substance use, etc.).
This program typically has three major components: (1) recruiting landlords and finding appropriate housing, (2) providing moving and rent assistance and, (3) offering access to case management and other supportive services. Rapid Rehousing has been proven to be more cost effective than traditional interventions and enables individuals to experience homelessness for shorter periods of time than a standard shelter approach (Burt et al., 2016). Often, families do not need to spend long periods of time in shelter to regain independence.
The RRHP is considered a light-touch intervention, while Permanent Supportive Housing is reserved for the most vulnerable households. Housing first prioritizes helping people experiencing homelessness locate and move in to housing, then
8 | Page
providing individualized and voluntary supportive services as needed” (The Road Home, 2019).
Although funding is limited for both TRH and Rapid Rehousing Program, these approaches are instrumental for families facing homelessness in Salt Lake County, Utah. The RRHP allows families to work with case managers who find housing options with public or private landlords. Families ultimately have the choice of where they’d like to live and what units are within their price range, proximate to necessary services and employment/schools, and in locations preferable to families, instead of being assigned housing by service providers or case managers.
The RRHP at TRH connects families within their shelter to a support system that leads them to a stable housing situation. While in the shelter, case managers work with these families to locate housing, find employment, and create a plan that allows them to transition back into a permanent residence. Recipients of the program are placed in housing and are granted financial assistance to allow them to integrate into a balanced lifestyle. Case managers continue to monitor and provide support to these families to ensure they meet their goals of renting on their own.
About the Road Home The client for this research project is The Road Home, a private, non-profit service agency headquartered in Salt Lake County, Utah. The mission of TRH is “to help people step out of homelessness and back into our community” (The Road Home, 2019). The services that TRH provides can be broken up into four main categories.
First, is emergency shelter. TRH operates the South Salt Lake Men’s Resource Center and the Midvale Family Resource Center, where single men and families, respectively, can go when they find themselves with nowhere else to go.
The second category is emergency services. These services include obtaining identification documentation, mail receipt and holding, and secure document storage).
The third category is case management. TRH staff will help people obtain important documents, find job training, and secure supplies necessary to re-enter the workforce, qualify for housing, and otherwise function as members of the community.
Finally, TRH also provides services to help people find and maintain housing. As the Central Housing Agency in the Salt Lake County Continuum of Care, TRH follows a housing first framework. This approach is grounded in the belief that a lack of stable housing is the source of many other problems faced by people experiencing homelessness. This housing support takes two primary models: permanent supportive housing (PSH) and progressive engagement.
PSH is the program for people that qualify as “chronically homeless,” meaning the person or family has been homeless for 365 days or more and the head of household has a disabling condition. Progressive engagement is a lighter touch model that focuses on procuring housing for an individual or family as quickly as possible. The RRHP, which is the subject of this research project, falls under the progressive engagement model. RRHP was established in 2009 and since then has served over 3,000 families.
9 | Page
Figure 3. City & Metropolitan Students from the University of Utah at The
Road Home Midvale Center Family Shelter
Research Question and Methods The research question is two-fold, asking both: Why do families experiencing homelessness exit and return to the shelter? What recommendations can increase household capacity to stay out of homelessness? The study utilized qualitative research methods to collect data regarding participants from three groups related to the Rapid Rehousing Program, those being tenants currently using the program, landlords leasing to program tenants (currently or formerly), case managers (who advice families and connect them to resources) and social service providers (who provide services outside of The Road Home). Qualitative methods included focus groups and one-on-one interviews, conducted over
October and November 2019. Each participant also completed a group-specific survey containing questions about the program experience, providing the study with demographic and descriptive data for analysis.
The focus groups were conducted with participants from the tenant and social service provider groups. Three focus groups took place with RRHP tenants at both the Road Home and Palmer Court, totaling 23 participants. One focus group was conducted with social service providers totaling 6 participants. Each of these meetings were approximately one and a half hours long. Two one-on-one interviews were conducted with landlord participants. One meeting took place over the phone and lasted approximately twenty minutes; the second interview was administered at Bingham Creek Library in West Jordan, Utah, and took closer to one and a half hours.
Questions for all three participant groups were organized around the general themes of relationships between participant groups and how the RRHP could be improved; tenant-specific questions delved deeper into the experiences and feelings associated with security, program subsidies, and exiting shelter, while the landlord, case manager and social service provider questions primarily revolved around involvement, RRHP unit locations, and the economic impact on property owners. Both the focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically coded using the Atlas.ti software program.
10 | Page
Key Findings This following section analyzes data collected from tenants, property owners and managers, case managers and service providers. It provides an overview of the context in which the Road Home is operating, who is currently benefiting, input from stakeholders, and the likely challenges and opportunities it faces moving forward.
Tenants Impact of the RRHP on Tenant’s Security Some tenants did not feel safe in the shelter. Others reported feeling that they did not have privacy and the Road Home felt overcrowded. There were complains about other residents stealing from them or abusing their children. Road Home residents also reported that their kids misbehave in the shelter and that they learn new behaviors from other children which undermine their parenting. Parents felt that in the shelter it was harder to discipline their children and some felt that the mere fact of being in the shelter could be perceived as a sign of them being bad parents.
Once families had a place on their own they felt safer. Their children behave better after having their own space. Kids were able to do their homework and concentrate. Parents felt they had better relationships with their children and their spouses after being housed. Some felt that they could have closer relationships with friends and family because they could host people when they had an apartment. People expressed that having a place to call home was very important to them.
A few complain about how moving into a new place, contributed to more expenses. Others felt less secure in the new
housing because the incidence of crime in their building. And some expressed concern about what would happened once their subsidy ended. Not knowing for how long they would have the assistance make them feel insecure.
The Process of Finding Housing There are a number of barriers finding housing such as application fees, background and credit checks, criminal and eviction records. Participants spoke about how case managers help them to find housing by put in their paper work in order, searching for landlords, and taking them to appointments. Most enjoy the liberty of finding their own place, instead of being assigned one. Others expressed not having a lot of choice in terms of the units because their background records were not the best. People expressed anxiety with the time they had to find a place and the possibility of losing their opportunity to participate in the program. Others wanted to move out of the shelter as soon as possible and they felt that the process to find housing took too long. A number spoke about feeling discriminated by having a subsidy that identified them as a family experiencing homelessness.
Although every single participant valued having their own apartment, some felt that they were not ready to assume the responsibility of a lease and they would like more time at the shelter to have a more stable source of income. Even when everyone valued having a place on their own, some felt compelled to spend the little money they had in furnishing the apartment and making it feel like home.
Returning to Shelter According to our records, the lived experiences of homeless families returning to shelter varied from one person to another
11 | Page
person. The majority of them return to shelter because of issues related to: experiencing medical emergencies, unreliable jobs, low-paid jobs, losing transportation, being changed with a misdemeanor, childcare difficulties, disability issues, among others. Participants were considering for a second or their time the Rapid Rehousing Program as a method of making it on their own eventually. Even though some people were planning to pay rent own their own the first time they receive the voucher, all experience unexpected difficulties while in the rapid Rehousing Program.
Relation with Landlord or Property Manager Some of interviewees reported complaints with private landlords. Although this pathway to returning to shelter was not that clear from our conversations, some seem to argued that it was in part the reason they return to the Road Home after they had left the shelter for certain period. Some of the reasons the reported were: maintenance grievances, additional fees, personal disputes with property managers or landlords, issues related to not including extended visitors in the lease, complaints from neighborhood regarding visitors or noise, stereotypes or discrimination for them being homeless before, evictions, among others.
Relation with Case Managers and Service Providers Importance should be placed on case managers and social service providers who can play leading role in serving families experiencing homelessness. According to records provided by interviewees, they said that they kept good relationship with case managers and service providers and could get along well with staff and directors of the Road Home and other organizations.
Program Improvement Respondents had many ideas about how to improve the program for participants, and there were a few common themes that came up: finding steady employment while at the Road Home, help families with childcare to be able to find employment, reduce the amount that tenants have to pay from 30% to 20%, keeping their rent at 30% after the subsidy is over, help them pay for the application fees, having more time to find a place, always getting rides to see an apartment, receiving assistance to get furniture and they things they need for their new apartment, offering furnished apartments, having a centralized application, units in better locations, knowing for how long they would have the subsidy, assistance findings jobs or better jobs, and communicating with landlords.
Landlords Getting Involved Landlords got involved because they were approached by the Road Home.
Economic Security of the Property Owners Landlords reported that participating in the program not necessarily helped them to fill vacant units in where they would lose rent. The current market has created a demand for housing to the point that being part of the RRHP doesn’t necessarily help them financially. Instead, they are choosing to participate to help families.
Location of Units Landlords reported their units as basic but providing opportunities for tenants like access to transit, schools, employment, etc.
12 | Page
Relationship with Tenants Property owners had diverging experience with tenants paying the rent. One property owner reported evicting their tenant for not payment. Landlords with bad experiences were less likely to continue with the program. Property owners reported experiencing both good and not so good communication with tenants.
Relationship with Road Home Staff Property owners reported experiencing both good and not so good communication with Road Home staff.
Program Improvement Suggestions included for the tenants to put together some initial payment to obtain the apartment as a form of buying into the program. This payment could be given back to them to pay rent if they needed it in the future. There were suggestions about offering financial management courses to tenants.
Case Manager and Service Providers Role and Getting Involved The job of the Road Home case manager is to help families to find housing, while the job of the housing case manager is to help them stabilize once they are participating in the RRHP.
About the Rapid Rehousing Program Case managers described the RRHP is unique in nature as it prioritizes family preference in housing and is considered a light-touch service, encouraging families to find financial and housing independence with the help of a short-term boost.
Program Changes
There are three changes that case managers have observed since the program started (1) At first it was expected to help a family for 3-months and that number has been increasing closer to the 5-month mark, (2) At the same time they are able to help less families than at the beginning, (3) Families that are more vulnerable and score higher in the Vulnerability Index—Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Prescreen Tool (VI-SPDAT) get priority.
Relationships with Owners and Managers Most relationships with property owners through the Road Home and RRHP are positive and ongoing; although, naturally some relationships evolve over time and sometimes ties are cut either from the landlord’s end with the RRHP or from the Road Home’s end with landlords.
Small vs. Large Landlords Case manages spoke of differences between large and small landlords as it pertains with the background checks. Small landlords were more lenient in this regard while large companies were not—although it also depends on the quality and desirability of the units. Both small and large landlords were likely to evict a tenant for non-payment.
Helping the Landlords Bottom-Line The research team asked about how the program affected the financial sustainability of property. Case managers seem to agree that the program was good for the bottom line of landlords who usually rented to low-income tenants and struggle with vacancies or non-payments anyway. This could be also associated with the location and quality of the units themselves and how desirable they were to begin with.
13 | Page
Lenient Landlords Some case managers did not agree with the lenient or generous landlords because they put themselves in vulnerable or bad situations. Examples included letting the tenants borrow the landlords’ card, having tenants cleaning their personal home and not collecting rent for months, resulting in an eviction.
Location of Units Families are not paired with a specific home but rather they are presented a variety of options available, and they get to choose where they’d like to live and what is feasible for them in terms of employment opportunities, transportation, etc.
Significance According to Utah homelessness statistics, as of January 2018, Utah had an estimated 2,876 people experiencing homelessness on any given day (US Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2018). And in 2017, approximately 17 people were experiencing homelessness for every 10,000 people in the general population of the United States (The State of Homelessness in America, 2018). Homelessness is an issue that cannot be ignored, and this research is valuable for understanding how the Rapid Rehousing Program is working locally. This qualitative research provides a unique insight into the experiences and opinions of those experiencing homelessness and the RRHP.
Report Organization In the remainder of this report, first a literature review will be presented to examine the phenomenon of families experiencing homelessness and examine its relationship with other socio-economic conditions such as housing affordability,
transportation availability, education, substance abuse, and disability, among others. Secondly, the methods used for gathering our qualitative data and composing our recommendations will be outlined. After the methods are presented, we will move into findings. The findings of this qualitative study will be divided into three parts, based on tenant input, landlord input, case managers and social service providers input. A wide variety of recommendations will be given that vary in effectiveness and ease of implementation.
14 | Page
15 | Page
Literature Review Definitions of Homelessness Homelessness can be a difficult condition to define. The word “homeless” often connotes a specific type of person based on preconceived notions of what homelessness is, but in reality, homelessness is a complex condition affecting many people in many different ways. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development has four categories under which people may be considered “homeless”: (1) literally homeless, (2) imminent risk of homelessness, (3) homeless under other federal statutes and, (4) fleeing/attempting to flee domestic violence (Munthe‐Kaas, Berg, & Blaasvær, 2018).
The first category (literally homeless) is the most traditional type of homelessness and describes an “individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence” (HUD, 2012). This includes any individual or family whose nighttime residence (whether public or private) is a place not designed or intended for human habitation, people living in shelters and other temporary housing, and people exiting an institution where they have resided 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or place not intended for human habitation immediately before entering that institution (HUD, 2012).
People who fall under category 2 (imminent risk of homelessness) are not currently homeless but are expected to become homeless within 14 days or less and does not have any ability to obtain subsequent residence (HUD 2012).
People considered homeless under other federal statutes (category 3) are those under age 25 and considered homeless
under other federal laws, have not had permanent housing during the 60 days prior to applying for homeless assistance, have experienced persistent housing instability within the 60 days prior to applying for homeless assistance, and are expected to continue in this status for an extended period of time (HUD, 2012).
The final category (fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence) describes individuals or families who are fleeing or trying to flee domestic violence, have no other residence, and lack the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing (HUD, 2012).
National Statistics and Trends Every year, on a single day in late January, a nationwide Point in Time (PIT) count of the homeless population is conducted (Council of Economic Advisors, 2019). This massive undertaking is conducted by each Continuum of Care (CoC) within their service areas (city, county, group of counties, or even an entire state), and the count includes only those who meet the definition of “literally homeless” (Council of Economic Advisors, 2019). In 2018, the most recent year for which PIT data is available, 552,830 homeless individuals were counted in the United States (HUD, 2018). Approximately 35% (194,467) of those individuals were unsheltered while 65% (358,363) were sheltered (HUD, 2018). About 20% of those counted as homeless in 2018 had a severe mental illness, and 16% suffered from chronic substance abuse (HUD, 2018). In 2017, among all adults who used a shelter at some point, 44% were living with a disability of some sort (Council of Economic Advisors, 2019).
16 | Page
From 2007-2018, nationwide sheltered homelessness is estimated to have decreased by about 33,000 individuals. The White House Council of Economic Advisors (2019) suggests this decrease may be artificial due to the fact that individuals in transitional housing are considered homeless while those in Rapid Rehousing are not. Since both types of housing are intended as temporary housing stabilization measures and the nationwide decrease in transitional housing beds has been almost equally offset by the number of Rapid Rehousing beds, there is some validity to the idea that homelessness counts are artificially low. If individuals in Rapid Rehousing were also counted as homeless, the number of sheltered homeless individuals would have increased by 66,000 from 2007-2018 (Council of Economic Advisors, 2019). Indeed, median housing costs continue to rise quicker than inflation and wages in most major cities, and studies by Corinth and Haranatty (2017) found that for every 1% increase in rent within a CoC, homelessness rates also increase by approximately 1%.
From 2007-2018, the unsheltered homeless population is estimated to have decreased by 61,000 individuals, although data from 2007-2010 is believed to contain serious inaccuracies due to count methodology errors (Council of Economic Advisors, 2019). Focusing on data from 2010-2018, unsheltered homeless individuals fell by about 39,000, with about 88% of this decline resulting from a decrease in unsheltered homeless families (Council of Economic Advisors, 2019). Data on the number of homeless individuals in families should be interpreted cautiously, however, due to the relatively high difficulty in accurately counting homeless families. Counting errors and changes in count methodology may be responsible for some of the observed decline in families
experiencing homelessness, especially considering that data from nine states indicates extremely high decreases in homeless individuals in families, ranging from decreases of 70% to 96% (Council of Economic Advisors, 2019).
Individual and Structural Factors Analyzing individual and structural factors are the primary tools to understand the reasons of causing homelessness. According to Kim and Garcia, individual factors are “demographic characteristics and personal physical characteristics associated with the risk of homelessness” (Kim & Garcia, 2019). For example, gender, age, and physical disabilities. Age is an important individual factor in homelessness. According to Culhane and Metraux’, “Children under age 5, at a rate of 0.0248, have the highest shelter utilization rate among the age groups studied and the overall rate for blacks is 2.3 times that of the overall population” (Culhane & Metraux, 1999). In addition, mental barriers could be an essential individual characteristic. According to Bassuk and Rosenberg’ statement, “Many of their children had serious developmental and emotional problems. Homeless mothers had more frequently been abused as children … Psychiatric disabilities may have been another contributing factor in the minority of homeless women” (E L Bassuk & Rosenberg, 1988). Family violence and the experiences of abuse are not only the primary factors that cause mental issues, but also are the main reasons of entering homelessness.
Moreover, structural characteristics are major factors in homelessness. According to Kim and Garcia, “Structural factors are factors associated with the risk of homelessness that measures social and economic conditions of homeless families
17 | Page
before entering the shelter and becoming homeless” (Kim & Garcia, 2019). For example, employment status. According to Gould and Williams’ statement, “The Unemployment Rate is related to the number of homeless people in family groups in Missouri emergency shelters by county for both winter and summer dates, controlling for the other variables in the study” (Gould & Williams, 2010). Increased unemployed rate increases the number of families who experience homelessness.
Employment As described above, one of the structural factors that affect homelessness is unemployment, and the increasing rate of income inequality is associated with being homeless. Challenging economic conditions and income instability result in losing the house in a low-income family and consequently lead to being homeless (Kim & Garcia, 2019). The National Coalition for the Homeless (2009) noted wage growth has collapsed and lead to increasing the number of people who cannot afford their living costs (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2009). Calvo, Carbonell, and Badia (2018) researched on the relation between unemployment and homelessness during the economic recession and found the increasing global unemployment directly increases the global homelessness and male homelessness (Calvo, Carbonell, & Badia, 2018).
Melbourne (2018) studied the relationship between homelessness and finding or keeping a job. According to her study, the number of homeless people who lose their job is more than others. One reason for this issue can be a stigma associated with homeless people; they may have a shortage of proper time structure and frequent moves, and difficulty in
maintaining hygiene (Melbourne, 2018). In terms of employment and its effect on overcoming homelessness, Kim and Garcia (2019) wrote having experiences of gaining money through employment can enable homeless families to be less dependent on shelter stay and financial assistance. Moreover, it can qualify them to find a job sooner and exit the shelter and end their family homelessness (Kim and Garcia 2019).
According to quantitative research conducted by Kim and Garcia (2019) about 80% of families that experienced homelessness and participated from the Rapid Rehousing Program could secure their own housing after they can stabilize their own family members and seek reliable job positions successfully. However, relatively small percentage of number of RRHP participants (about 20%) could not secure their own house or apartment because of various reasons such as losing employment or experiencing a financial emergency. For other is an issue of obtaining better employment, where they do not have to pay for 70% of their income toward housing.
Childcare For many employees finding a job and maintaining it starts from their homes by attempting to balance all of the family’s responsibilities. For those with family responsibilities, the ability to stay in a job depends on the accessibility to safe and affordable childcare. For working parents and specifically single mothers, receiving child care assistance is associated with remaining employed (Boushey, 2002). Single mothers are usually unskilled or semiskilled women who may regularly have fewer networks with other family members and friends who can help them to care for their kids (Letiecq, Anderson, & Koblinsky, 1996). They also have less accessibility to the well-
18 | Page
paying jobs with medical and childcare subsidy, as well as very low housing and transportation costs. Most mothers usually move from one job to another one seeking some slight advantage such as a better shift, childcare subsidy or more convenient transportation without improving their earnings in the long-term.
The low-wage structure and lack of low-and-moderate housing costs prevent many marginalized families from achieving their goal of housing (Sidel, 1998). Therefore, without some external intervention, the life of these families can be a redundant cycle of high risk of homelessness (Swick, 2005). In this regard, external assistance for childcare helps parents of low-income families and specifically single mothers have better opportunities to be involved in the labor market and secure appropriate housing and welfare (Ruhm, 2011). The findings of recent studies show that childcare subsidies are critical for the well-being of low-income families and help them for care so they can work or participate in education and training (Boushey, 2002; Hahn, Rohacek, & Isaacs, 2018). Hence, these subsidies would empower the families to improve their earnings, be self-sufficient, and decrease the risk of being homeless.
Housing Cost There is a strong link in Utah between homelessness and a lack of affordable housing. A recent article published in the Salt Lake Tribune stated that “homelessness continues to be an issue for many Utahans, but community leaders believe it is because there is a dearth of affordable housing options” (Wood, 2018). According to a recent analysis of Utah’s housing market, the median sales price of a new home in Salt
Lake County in 2018 was $418,376, which is a 61% increase from the median price in 2010 (Wood, 2018). This rapid increase in housing costs means that there is a quickly shrinking amount of affordable housing in Salt Lake County and throughout Utah. In part because of the housing shortage, homelessness is becoming more prevalent. After decreasing homelessness by nearly 91% between 2005 and 2015 after adopting a housing first model, homelessness has spiked again and nearly doubled between 2016 and 2018 after stopping the program (Scruggs, 2010). These statistics clearly demonstrate the vital nature of stable housing for people seeking to permanently exit homelessness.
Pamela Atkinson, an advocate for the homeless, explained the importance of providing affordable housing to solve the homelessness issue by saying that “the idea is that those who are homeless can somehow obtain affordable housing, they can then work on other aspects of their lives, including finding gainful employment and health insurance or conquering addiction and mental health issues” (Leonard, 2018). This quote also demonstrates the difficulty of overcoming homelessness when there is a lack of affordable housing, because without a stable home, it is difficult to do things like find a steady job or address mental health issues. Thus, the lack of affordable housing in Utah not only initially is causing more homelessness, but it is further exacerbating the cycle of homelessness.
Transportation Transportation is the lynchpin of city life. The complex system connects people with their desired destinations, whether they be homes, places of work, schools, recreational activities,
19 | Page
grocery stores, or social services. The ability to move through a community is crucial for survival in today’s society. However, transportation is often a significant barrier for people experiencing homelessness (Murphy, 2019). Traditional research efforts do not do a good job of capturing input from people experiencing homelessness (Hui & Habib, 2017). Perhaps the single-most influential transportation data collection effort, the household travel survey, does not capture the unhoused population in a given area. Because of this lack of data, there is a dearth of policies and programs that address transportation barriers for people experiencing homelessness.
One of the primary barriers to transportation for people experiencing homelessness is cost. The high cost of transportation means that they often have to make tradeoffs. For instance, if a person can only afford one round-trip fare on the transit system for a day, he or she may have to choose between going to work or going to the grocery store. Because of this limitation, people often cannot take trips for social purposes, such as visiting friends or going to community centers (Hardman, 2019). This contributes to the social isolation of people who are experiencing homelessness.
Substance Abuse The relationship between substance abuse, occurring in the forms of both alcohol and illicit substance use, and homelessness is both well-researched and positively correlated. There is an abundance of published primary literature discussing the relationship between substance abuse, predominantly alcohol dependence, and homelessness. There is also often a recurring question in the primary literature that ponders: does substance abuse cause homelessness, or is
substance abuse a symptom of homelessness; the answer is ultimately both (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2009). Persons experiencing homelessness have some of the highest incidence rates of alcohol dependence, as both a causative factor of their homelessness, and as a mechanism which allows them to cope with experiencing homelessness and other co-occurring socioeconomic factors (Polcin, 2016).
Conrad et al. illustrates and outlines the implementation of eight different projects and logic models detailing how to address substance abuse within the context of homelessness (Conrad et al., 1999). Much of the literature discusses different housing programs, anywhere from linear housing to housing first; the former requires abstinence and sobriety, the latter focuses on housing stabilization before addressing substance-related symptoms and causes of homelessness (Collins, Malone, & Clifasefi, 2013). Further reported in Collins et al. (2013), and substantiated by the aforementioned publications, is that individuals experiencing homelessness are often faced with the dilemma of required substance abstinence with limited to no support before housing and other aid will be provided to them.
Incarceration Having a criminal record can be a cause for homelessness, as well as a significant barrier for people who are trying to find permanent housing. One reason for this is the difficulty a criminal record causes in finding employment. One study conducted in Montreal included interviews with individuals experiencing homelessness, and concluded a section dedicated specifically to criminal backgrounds by saying, “Participants attributed the difficulty they experienced trying to find and
20 | Page
maintain a job to their criminal record” (Poremski, Woodhall-Melnik, Lemieux, & Stergiopoulos, 2016).
Another reason is that criminal records increase the risk of homelessness is the difficulty it creates in finding housing units that will accept them. Even though housing is critical to preventing recidivism, “those with criminal records...are routinely denied access to housing, even if their offense was minor” and unlikely to impact their viability as a renter (Schneider, 2018). This difficulty extends even to public housing. Corinne A. Carey, a researcher with the Human Rights Watch recognized the need for some rules to protect other residents from potentially dangerous individuals, but concluded that “U.S. policies are so arbitrary, overbroad, and unnecessarily harsh that they exclude even people who have turned their lives around and remain law-abiding, as well as others who may never have presented any risk in the first place” (Human Rights Watch, 2019). It is clear that criminal records and homelessness are closely connected, and will continue to be so until housing policies change.
Disability Individuals experiencing homelessness commonly experience physical or mental disabilities. According to the 2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report, 45% of the homeless population had some form of mental illness (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2015b). This statistic shows that those with mental illness may be much more susceptible to experiencing homelessness which further hinders their ability to access treatment and care providers.
The inability to access medical care unsurprisingly causes homeless individuals to experience higher rates of physical
disability as well (Beer et al., 2012; Oakes & Davies, 2008). Health issues in this population are often exacerbated by their inability to access acute treatment, and further worsened by unsanitary shelter and exposures (Zlotnick, Zerger, & Wolfe, 2013). Untreated conditions can lead to chronic illness and a deteriorating well-being.
Individuals who have a physical or mental disability are also more likely to become homeless than those who do not. The type of disability is also directly correlated with the risk level of entering into homelessness (Beer et al., 2012). Without external support, one experiencing these disabilities may struggle to gain access to adequate care, or to retain employment. This often strands these individuals in a scenario in which they cannot maintain their disability, rendering housing an unfeasible endeavor.
Physical and mental disability can cause homelessness and also presents yet another barrier to overcoming it (Beer et al., 2012). Medical care and treatment are yet another expense in which this population cannot afford to have access to (Zlotnick et al., 2013). This conflict further contributes to unemployment and leads individuals with limited choices and a diminished quality of life.
Evictions Although forceful evictions can become a significant factor which affects the low-income tenants in negative ways, there exists no comprehensive data which can be collected and analyzed nationwide (Chester Hartman, 2010). Nonetheless, the studies that have been conducted thus far show that evictions can become one of the most cited reasons for people ending up in the shelter (Carolyn, 2012). There are complex
21 | Page
issues that can lead to evictions, but the number one issue is the inability to pay rent (Desmond, 2015). When people lose their jobs or experience a financial or medical crisis and they do not have savings, it is very easy to lose one’s home (Crane & Warnes, 2000). Families in this situation will be notified by the leasing office that they will be evicted if they are not able to pay the rent. Even subsidized housing helps families to pay rent, if people do not pay their own portion of their rent—30 percent of their income—they could still face a forceful eviction (Cusack & Montgomery, 2017).
Domestic violence will force women to separate or divorce becoming single female households and raising up kids on their own, often times with little or no income (Desmond, 2012). Women recently divorced or running from domestic violence situation oftentimes cannot afford to pay the rent in full. This might result in their eviction along with their kids. In addition, some low-income women cannot move up and get promoted in their current job positions while housing rents are going up (Ellen L. Bassuk, 1993). As a result, some of female tenants cannot afford to pay the elevated rent fees and end up being evicted.
Evictions affect one’s credit history, affecting their future housing search (Gold, 2016). Even if there I no formal eviction, when homeless families have had some bad rental history and negative record with previous landlord managers or office, that event can also impose negative impact on their future application. Those who have bad credit history, have been formally evicted or do not have good references from landlords end up in low-quality housing.
Case Management Case management is an essential element in helping people experiencing homelessness to overcome that obstacle and find housing. Homelessness if often not the only problem that these individuals struggle with, but it has been shown that quality of life improves when independent housing is obtained (Hubley, Russell, Palepu, & Hwang, 2014). Case managers have been found to improve housing stability, remove employment barriers for persons struggling with substance abuse, and overall reduce their substance use (de Vet et al., 2013). Without the involvement of case managers, it can often be more difficult for individuals to obtain subsidies that would help to fund housing, or even find housing on their own. As subsidies are often short term, case managers play an important part in helping people stay in their housing long-term. A connection to the community and resources that are available to individuals is also a way in which case managers and social service providers help to stabilize people who have experienced homelessness. The case manager’s responsibilities aren’t just to help people find housing, but to assist them with moving in, introducing them with people and opportunities in the community, and find employment and secure a stable income (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2016). Accessing these resources and acquiring this knowledge without a case manager makes it exponentially more difficult for anyone to do on their own. Having someone available with training and experience helping people find stable housing and employment is a huge benefit to those who have suffered with and experienced homelessness.
22 | Page
Property Owners The literature that examines the relationship between landlords and homelessness focuses on the key issues of eviction, discrimination, and tenant and landlord rights. Eviction, being the event that most likely leads to homelessness (Sussman & Sullivan, 2018), is a process that is primarily within the landlord’s control and as such, as created with terms that tend to favor landlord rights. While the eviction process most commonly follows a failure of the tenant to pay rent on time, studies have shown that the eviction process also proceeds due to landlord discrimination against the tenant(s) for issues such as drug use, domestic violence disturbances, and income-based bias (Fleming et al., 2019; Park, 2009). Government mandated protections are well-established for landlords, but tenant protection clauses have been increasingly added as amendments to state level real estate codes, particularly to protect tenant(s) from domestic violence related safety risks (Park, 2009). Utah State Code Fit Premises Act was amended in May 2018 to include a section on the “domestic violence victim’s right to terminate rental agreement,” and includes specific exceptions during which tenants cannot be faulted for terminating or amending a lease agreement (Utah Administrative Code 57-22-5, 2018).
A separate but related issue concerning landlords and homelessness is the lack of understanding between parties. Studies show that events sponsored by social service organizations and agencies help create a dialogue between landlords and people experiencing homelessness that are also potential tenants (Foster, 2016). By breaking the stereotypical image of a person experiencing homelessness, a level of
empathy and understanding can be fostered by landlords, allowing them to see the homelessness issue as a human issue. As Gordan, London social service provider for homelessness issues, states, “There are so many reasons people become homeless—often it is due to relationship breakdown or loss of employment, which could happen to any of us. Many just need a place of their own so they can really start to rebuild their lives”(Salvation Army, 2016).
23 | Page
24 | Page
Methods This research attempts to investigate why people become homeless and why they cannot maintain their housing after exiting shelters. The approach used to achieve this goal is a qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews and focus groups along with surveys. Qualitative interviewing is a standard method in the social sciences. The conversations provide the researcher with the opportunity to gain comprehensive information from the social aspects of interviewees’ lives (Brinkmann, 2013). The focus groups also helped the research to engage the users of the Rapid Rehousing Program in the study. According to Bloor et al. (2019), focus groups provide the researchers with valuable data on the group meanings related to an issue (Bloor, Frankland, Thomas, & Robson, n.d.). These conversations offer this study with a considerable amount of data that has been managed by qualitative coding to draw out the findings. The coding helped us to reduce the massive amount of data to focus on more in-depth and nuanced insights (Saldana, 2015).
Four focus groups and three semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted between October 15, 2019, and November 6, 2019; a total of 30 shelter tenants, two landlords, and six social service providers attended in our study. All the focus groups and interviews were done based on the University of Utah’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), and all the students completed their IRB training before the field study. The following is a methodology overview for the focus groups and interviews for the three targeted populations, including tenants, landlords, case managers and social service providers.
The professor contacted the Road Home shelter and sent them flyers with consent forms to get their help to recruit attendees. In the brochures and the consent forms, the goals of the research were described and introduced to the participants. In the contact letter, The Road Home was asked to help the study reach out to the tenants who benefited from the Rapid-Rehousing Program rental subsidy, the landlords, and the social service providers who were worked with Road Home. All the focus groups were scheduled with Road Home, and then they informed the possible participants. However, none of the landlords showed up at their scheduled time. Therefore, the researchers contacted the list of landlords provided by Road Home and rescheduled the meetings. In the third attempt, one of the landlords agreed to conduct an interview with us on the phone. Another face-to-face interview was scheduled with one of the landlords.
Similar to the landlords, one of the scheduled focus groups with tenants resulted in one participant. The team decided to conduct an interview with the one tenant that showed up. At the end, three tenant focus groups and one interview were conducted. The locations were in the Road Home and Palmer Court shelters. The Road Home informed participants about the time and location of the conversations by sending out flyers. The attendees were asked to reserve 2-hour time slot, while the meetings took one and a half hours on average. While people waited for the others to arrive, they enjoyed refreshments, filled out a survey and signed the IRB consent form for the University of Utah. The facilitators used a focus group guide to direct the conversation. Similarly, one focus group with social service providers was conducted at Palmer Court. However, interviews with landlords were conducted on the phone, and
25 | Page
one of them was conducted face-to-face at the Bingham Creek library. Similar to focus groups, interviewees were asked to fill out surveys at the beginning of the conversation.
Figure 4. City & Metropolitan Students from the University of Utah at Road
Home’s Palmer Court Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, and copious notes were taken during the meeting. During the focus group, participants were given the opportunity to share their experiences and thoughts about the program in a casual environment and with complete confidentiality. The questions of the meetings were organized based on important themes that the research looks for them. For example, the questions were categorized based on relationships between tenants, landlords, and case managers, the sense of security, and improvement of the program, etc. Once the questions and answers concluded, the facilitators appreciated the attendees’ effort, and the tenant participants were paid $25 gift cards. A total of four focus
groups were conducted with tenants, case managers and social service providers, and three in-depth semi-structured interviews with tenants and landlords.
All the recordings were transcribed and loaded in Atlas.ti for qualitative thematic coding. All the manuscripts were coded based on the research themes under three categories of the participants, including tenants, landlords, and social service providers. Therefore, the findings were analyzed based on the codes and elaborated in its section of this report with the bulk of quotes.
The limitations of conducting this research can be categorized into two main issues. The first one is the limitation of focus group methodology, in general, in which it includes the inability of generalize the findings. This report is not able to reflect the opinions and experiences of all landlords, tenants, case managers and social service providers. It does, however, draw on a wide range of perspectives. By highlighting these different viewpoints and finding their points of convergence, the study provides useful information that can inform future planning and policy making. Also, the recruitment of landlords was another limitation of this research in which we could not have a wide range of attendees for this category to outline the landlords’ viewpoints comprehensively. Like any other self-reported data, there are limitations to qualitative data: for example, members might not express their concerns due to lack of trust, people might not remember well the details of an occurrence, they might exaggerate or underplay a situation, etc. This report attempts to remain as close to the spirit of the focus groups and interviews as possible by heavily sampling quotes from the conversations.
26 | Page
27 | Page
Figure 5. City & Metropolitan Students from the University of Utah at The
Road Home Midvale Center Family Shelter
Qualitative Findings Tenants Impact of the RRHP on Tenant’s Security Our focus group findings with 30 clients of Road Home showed that some tenants did not feel safe in the shelter. Some reported feeling that they did not have privacy and the Road Home felt overcrowded. There were complains about other residents stealing from them or abusing their children. Road Home residents also reported that their kids misbehave in the shelter and that they learn new behaviors from other children
which undermine their parenting. Parents felt that in the shelter it was harder to discipline their children and some felt that the mere fact of being in the shelter could be perceived as a sign of them being bad parents.
Once families had a place on their own they felt safer. Their children behave better after having their own space. Kids were able to do their homework and concentrate. Parents felt they had better relationships with their children and their spouses after being housed. Some felt that they could have closer relationships with friends and family because they could host people when they had an apartment. People expressed that having a place to call home was very important to them.
A few complain about how moving into a new place, contributed to more expenses. Others felt less secure in the new housing because the incidence of crime in their building. And some expressed concern about what would happened once their subsidy ended. Not knowing for how long they would have the assistance make them feel insecure. The following section describes how the sense of security among residents changed from the Road Home to their new apartment.
A participant shared: “The Road Home has officers and a security but I do not feel safe. People still bring some drugs. And, some people suffer from mental problems. There is fighting, cursing each other out. This is just a rough place to be.” Some of our attendees asserted that the lack of private space and crowded shelter prevent them from feeling secure. A participant said:
“(At) the Road Home we had none, like no privacy. You know, they’re walking around all the time, not just the staff, but like the other residents. They were stealing his (her son’s) clothes and he didn’t keep his
28 | Page
clothes in there, his shoes. They steal your food, like, it was terrible. It was like, there were bedbugs. That place is horrible. It was just like jail except for you could have your kid. Exactly the same feel. That’s what it reminded me of, like, I had a hard time there. I hated being in there.”
A couple expressed being able to have better relationships when they were in an apartment, “You have better relationships with your kids and also with your partner too. As others said, in the Road Home there is no privacy at all.”
Many participants had negative feelings about their situation and deep concerns about violence and how it impacts their kids physiological and mental health. They are also worried about the long-terms impacts of homelessness in their kids’ behavior as well as their future. One participant believed that:
“I mean, you can control who comes into your house and who doesn’t. At the shelter, you can’t control...Yeah. The other day, a 14-year-old grabbed my son by the neck and slammed him down on the ground for no reason...And I feel like the shelter just screws up the kid’s minds. Yeah. Well, it’s definitely not a place for kids.”
Another participant talked about their kids behavior, “At the shelter kids are very annoyed. Hum, they would get irritated for everything. I think this is unusual. This this their way of dealing with stress. They have temper outburst because this is not normal. So, I do worry about my kids’ mental health. I am concerned. I am not sure if this would have an impact long-term, so I want to have my own place again as soon as possible.”
Another parent expressed:
“It’s very hard to set up family rules in the shelter. Other kids do things differently because of their parents. And, then, your kids want to be able to do the same things that the other kids do, right? And, sometimes you get into disputes with the parents over your kids and their kids. This place has a culture and is not our family culture, but is the culture that the other parents and their kids create.”
A mother said that she questioned if she was a good parent or not,
“My children are my life, they keep me optimistic. Sometimes I worry because I am putting them through this. I sometimes do not believe on myself and then I question if I am a good parent. I love them, but I am not sure if when they grow up they would understand. Know this is difficult for them, I just hope they do not blame me.”
Some people talked about how having a place made everyone in the family have their own space and get along, “My boys were not fighting that much with each other or us when they had an apartment. They could go to their rooms and be grouchy there. We would be in the living room, then they would come out and be calmer.” Others talked about their children behaving better, “They were not as angry when we had the subsidy. They were less frustrated, they slept better. Had their own space to sleep and play, do their homework and can concentrate.” Another woman said that she could not really received visitors at the Road Home, but when she had the subsidy she could
29 | Page
have family and friends over. This improved her social relations,
“The benefits extended about feelings about home and guests in our home. Sometimes I have friends or my family. People felt welcome in my home. At the Road Home it was very hard, people could not settle down, talk or relax at their own leisure. I could give people some food and snacks. I liked welcoming people to my home. I felt more connected too.”
Feeling at home was a topic brought to the discussion. A woman said,
“When I moved to my apartment, I was moving on a budget. But I did not have to spend a lot in making my place feel like home. I received items from charity, or I save money by going to Goodwill and Dollar Tree. I felt amazing getting all that stuff. I got free food and stocked up my refrigerator. I did not feel homeless anymore.”
Another woman expressed that she spent more money in the new apartment and that made her more financially insecure,
“I did not figure out a budget. After moving out from the Road Home to the apartment I had some savings because I was receiving disability. So, I had an income, but I did not calculate how much I had for everything, my phone, rent, food. I knew I already had expending problems. I knew. But I wanted to have a decent home. Instead of saving the money as backup for rent I spend in making the apartment nice. Buying furniture and things. It adds up!”
The attendees of the focus groups believed that while the shelter is not a place for feeling safe, the Rapid Rehousing Program had a positive impact on their life. This statement magnifies the role of assistance in their feeling of security, “When I had the Rapid Rehousing I felt safe.”
While some of them believed that a private rental through the RRHP is safer than the shelter, being unsure about the length of assistance makes them feel insecure. For example, one of the attendees who is currently in the RRHP said:
“I feel more secure knowing I’m not gonna lose my house or my apartment. I get nervous, though, every month because I don’t know if they’re going to help. Like, I’m not sure if they’re gonna keep helping me. So, I mean, they help, but then it’s kind of like stressful at the same time.”
Several participants mentioned that not knowing for how many more months they would have the subsidy made them feel very insecure. Some people felt insecure still because the place they ended up renting has its own problems. A woman expressed,
“My housing case manager found me this place, it is the only place that would take me because I did time. But I have a family and other people do not. There is a lot of single men in the building and I do not feel that safe. There are guys shooting up in the hallways, sometimes they are passed out. I tell them ‘there are kids here!’”
Another woman said, “I grew up in the Rose Park area. I had many apartments there too. I know how it is already. There
30 | Page
is a lot of gang bangers. I know those guys. I did not want to end up there again. But I did.”
A gentleman expressed, “I know the complex that you are talking about in Rose Park. There is a lot of drug dealing going on there. Officers go there all the time they ask for information. A lot of people who have felonies, like me, end up there. Everyone concentrates in the same housing developments. The people are trouble, and that affects our families, but they would not take us anywhere else.”
The next section explains some of the difficulties that tenants experienced finding housing.
The Process of Finding Housing There are a number of barriers finding housing such as application fees, background and credit checks, criminal and eviction records. Participants spoke about how case managers help them to find housing by put in their paper work in order, searching for landlords, and taking them to appointments. Most enjoy the liberty of finding their own place, instead of being assigned one. Others expressed not having a lot of choice in terms of the units because their background records were not the best. People expressed anxiety with the time they had to find a place and the possibility of losing their opportunity to participate in the program. Others wanted to move out of the shelter as soon as possible and they felt that the process to find housing took too long. A number spoke about feeling discriminated by having a subsidy that identified them as a family experiencing homelessness.
Although every single participant valued having their own apartment, some felt that they were not ready to assume the responsibility of a lease and they would like more time at the shelter to have a more stable source of income. Even when everyone valued having a place on their own, some felt compelled to spend the little money they had in furnishing the apartment and making it feel like home. The following section described into more detail the issues described above.
Tenants were asked how difficult or hard was to obtain the subsidy. One tenant offers their opinion:
“Not difficult. It just it takes a while like a long process and you need patience because what the homeless thing going on there, there’s a lot of people right now. So, the list is long. You need patience and it’s a long process. It’s likely the quickest program. It’s simple. It’s just takes a long time.”
Another tenant explained that once they were approved for the voucher they needed to find a home on their own, with the help of the case manager.
“I try to find on my own in Apartments.com and other places online. Making a list of the places and looking for good places in nice areas, like in the city where I can access things, with space for my kids. The place we end up picking we hear from a friend that told me about this one place. Then I told the Road Home staff I found a two-bedroom and they help me to set up everything. I like the fact that we get to choose the place.”
Another participant shared their experience,
31 | Page
“The case manager helped me to find a place. She explained the process and got in contact with the landlord. She got all the forms I needed to get into housing. She talked to me, call me. She took me to see the place too. They pay a deposit to get into housing. I was very happy with how it went.”
Others felt pressured to choose the place that the case manager showed them,
“She keeps showing places that I do not like. I feel she is pushing me for these places that I do not want to be in. I wanted to find something I like and I want to take my time, because I know I still have time to be selective. But is like they want you to be outta here, I get it! I just don’t like to be pushed you know.”
However, just finding a landlord that would rent to them it is complicated enough. As a tenant explained,
“We have up to 45 days to find a place. And I could not find one. If you do not find a place during that time you have to stay here again until they put you on some list. I think until like you start again, which it’s totally fine. Here we go again. Yeah. I have to be re-approved again and then try to look for another place.”
Some of them struggle to find landlords because many private owners would not like to work with them. A participant said:
“Guess it really depends on the situation. I think our situation is really hard. We can only work with private landlords. It’s really hard to find a private landlord who’s willing to work with you. You know,
if they dealt with people from the Road Home before, maybe they’ve got burnt a couple of times. Then now you know, now they say, you’re from the Road Home. They’re like, oh, no way, that, we ain’t messing with nobody from the Road Home. It is hard, especially if you have to only deal with, you know, private landlords.”
A number expressed difficulties having to pay for the application fees.
“You need to pay for the application fee. It’s like $35 each one. I have paid for three thus far. After you apply they get back to you, and they can deny you, of course. Most places have a security deposit too. In our case we pay for the application fee ourselves but the Road Home pays for the deposit and other expenses.”
Other participants discussed additional expenses related to rent such as utility bills,
“Water and electric, some [apartments] include the [utility] bills and for other ones is an extra billing on top of the rent. Separate bills are bad. We found a place that included the water and electricity. Our base rent was good, but if we had to pay for water and electric that would have made me more anxious. We could not get phone, cable, internet, and all that stuff. We could not afford that monthly. We could not afford any of it.”
Another tenant made a comment about not being ready to be on their own by the time they got the subsidy,
32 | Page
“I wished they did not pushed s into getting housing so quickly because I do not feel ready. I think they should help us find a job first so we can then pay the rent. We would use the time in the Rapid Rehousing better. I was not ready that is why I am back to the shelter. I wished I also had more time here, but they push you to get the subsidy again and find housing. But I do not feel ready. It is stressful.”
Some tenants felt that it was particularly hard for them to get approval for subsidized housing because they have had some bad history with landlords. For example, they had to pull up their credit or rental history if they wanted to get approved for their new rental.
“Many of us have very bad credit. There are landlords that do not want us. They do not want to drop the credit check or the scores. Some landlords are choosy and picky. In a way, they have to trust the Road Home. They (the Road Home) have money and they put us in the home because they offer a security deposit. I think landlords get a good deal. They (the case manager) made sure to negotiate for us.”
In addition, some of them responded they would also have difficulties in finding subsidy if they have had criminal history before. That could affect their capability to finding a landlord that would approve their RRH subsidy.
“If you have a criminal background it is harder to qualify for housing. This makes things difficult, especially to find housing that is safe or at least away from crime and the things that brought you to using or prison. It’s hard to get good rental housing.”
Background checks are needed before their final approval for the subsidy, but some of them take longer than expected. This becomes frustrating for households:
“I have been sort of pre-approved for my housing, but the one thing that I am missing to be approved is my background check. I do not have a background problem at all. My case manager said that this is not typical. But I do not know how this works. I feel right now stuck.”
Finally, for those who have an eviction on their record is harder to find a place,
“I have only two more weeks to find a place. Yeah. Being on your own. Is that easy? No, I do not think so. I have an eviction. So is not easy at all to find the apartment.”
Returning to Shelter According to our records, the lived experiences of homeless families returning to shelter varied from one person to another person. The majority of them return to shelter because of issues related to: experiencing medical emergencies, unreliable jobs, low-paid jobs, losing transportation, being changed with a misdemeanor, childcare difficulties, disability issues, substance abuse relapse, among others. Participants were considering for a second or their time the Rapid Rehousing Program as a method of making it on their own eventually. Even though some people were planning to pay rent own their own the first time they receive the voucher, all experience unexpected difficulties while in the rapid Rehousing Program. These situations are described below in detail.
33 | Page
One of the participants said: “I always had a job. I’ve actually had a job, but I had to quit. One of my kids got sick and ended up needing surgery. So, I’ll be looking for a job. But we are signed up with a temp agency.” Some other attendee said: “The only thing I needed to do is to get my assistant job as first aid. I was looking for something that would raise my income.” Another participant shared,
“When I was in the apartment I had two jobs. They were semi-full time and the hours just fluctuated. I was just trying to buy food, which is very expensive. I have a medical situation too. I need medical supplies. So, I could not keep up. If you have a job, two jobs, you should be able to afford a place.”
Another woman discussed her situation, “I had a good job for a long time and they paid very well. Full-time benefits, medical and dental insurance, retirement, sick days, vacations…but I was terminated because the was a change of ownership. In that old job, I started in a very low position, but then I gained seniority and I did good. Unfortunately, I cannot find a good job like that one. I just have now a low-wage job, its above minimum wage, but I cannot really afford an apartment without the portion from the Road Home.”
A business owner, who recently had return to the shelter, shared her view,
“I have always been self-employed. I had my ups, ups, and down, downs. This is one of the downs in my business. Like last time, I do not have the funds to pay for the first month, last month, all the cost to
get an apartment. I want to be productive and I know how to be productive. But with my business I need to create a viable income.”
A gentleman talked about getting to work without a car, “My car stopped working, I could not get it to start one day. Then, I was just getting around in a bike to get to work. This takes a lot of time and it is stressful. I could not keep doing it. I need a car to get to work on time or when the weather really sucks.”
Another person reported losing their license, “I lost my license for drinking and driving. Got a misdemeanor because I did not stop. I did not stop because I did not even notice he was telling me to stop. I got my driver’s license suspended. I lost my job because I went to jail for a few months.”
For others childcare was an issue, “I do not have reliable childcare for my 2-year-old. I have a lady that watches him while I am at work in my house. But sometimes she calls saying ‘hey my car broke down and I cannot make it today.’ That means that I cannot work that day. Employers get tired.”
Another tenant agree that childcare is a main issue, “I had a job and my whole life already made. I have kids that are teenagers and then a few years back I got pregnant. That is when things got complicated. While giving birth I lost my job and then I had to provide for the other kids too. And, not the issue is
34 | Page
that I have a small kid ad I need childcare. I thought I was done with changing diapers.”
Participants spoke about their future plans related to work, “I want to be an employer, not an employee the whole time. Temp agencies are difficult to comprehend when it comes to paperwork for other people. I’ve always been working. I just got a job. And what’s my plan for the future? Do I want to go for a rental subsidy? Stop. I actually do want to build a shopping center.”
A woman expressed her interest in higher education, “I am only 22. I had a kid very young. I actually did not know I was pregnant. I thought I was just gaining weight [laughs]. I did not want kids at least not that young. But I still have my whole life in front of me. My dream is to go to school. I would like to go to college and get a good job.”
A woman spoke about getting her GED and go to community college,
“I ran away from an abusive husband. I got up and did something about it. I have three kids. I slept with them in my vehicle. I mean my daughter will soon be in high school. I need to show her that I can achieve my goals. I want to get my GED so I can go to community college. If I had an education I could probably get a better job and pay rent.”
A woman is currently receiving training, “I have been training to be a bus driver. I will be taking the CDL exam soon. I am training to become
a certified commercial driver. Is not that easy because there is a lot of things to remember and do. But, I have everything in place to be a bus driver. I am just doing my hours of training.”
Families have dreams of achieving higher education and obtaining skills that would help them to gain more reliable employment. Others talked about their inability to work. A woman explained her situation,
“I cannot walk or stand up. I have chronic fatigue syndrome. If I walk from here to there I am in pain. If I go to work, I need to sit. Most jobs that do not need an education are physical, you need to move around. I am looking for a job where I can sit. I can’t be a secretary or really find a job answering phones. I am trying to apply for disability.”
Another woman said, “I am disable, I have fibromyalgia, and I get disability. With the Rapid Rehousing I was fine, but once that ended I could not use my social security check to pay for my housing. Almost my whole check would go to pay the rent.”
Others struggle with substance abuse relapse, “I have a disease. I use. I worked and faked it, you know I try not to make people suspicious. I lied, right...not having a problem. I went to work every day. I have used for many years, shooting heroin, going to jail. It is not easy to take it away. I wanted to take care of myself and I went to treatment to address it with the housing program. Had a recovery coach, but I hang out with the same people, I should
35 | Page
not get associated with. I spent my money on getting high. Then one day I overdose and went to the hospital. When I came out I had lost my housing. I am coming off out of it. I almost die. I do what it takes and I do not want to be that person. I want to stay sober.”
Relation with Landlord or Property Manager Some of interviewees reported complaints with private landlords. Although this pathway to returning to shelter was not that clear from our conversations, some seem to argued that it was in part the reason they return to the Road Home after they had left the shelter for certain period. Some of the reasons the reported were: maintenance grievances, additional fees, personal disputes with property managers or landlords, issues related to not including extended visitors in the lease, complaints from neighborhood regarding visitors or noise, stereotypes or discrimination for them being homeless before, evictions, among others. Regarding maintenance issues a participant further explained,
“We call the manager many times for roaches and repairs. There were other apartment units having similar issues and he was unresponsive. It seemed like a waste to keep paying my money in a unit that was not good. He should not get paid for that. We could not keep doing that, so I moved out […] with a friend first and then I ended up in the shelter again.”
In addition, some respondents had bad experiences with landlords because of some conflicts such as ill-founded charges related to repairs. Sometimes, the landlords might request
tenants to assume some payments which are unreasonable. A respondent told the following story:
“We have the person that by the mall call from the manager from the mobile home park. He is kind of weird. Like, he come around. I kept asking about my toilet, and he said everything’s fine, the toilet is okay. And then next, you know, like the pipe buzzes under the toilet. I don’t know how that happened. It was so weird. But then, like, you would come look at it, just like, oh, I broke it or something. So, he would offer to help me like yeah, I can come look at it. And then I would end up with a $75 bill from him was coming over and looking at it like he didn’t touch into anything to it. Nothing. He just came off of that and charged me $75. I was like, are you serious? I will not pay that. He’s like, well, you know, any maintenance that comes over here or anything, like it’s a charge.”
Others expressed that they seem to annoyed the property manager over maintenance issues,
“The management people, a couple, live in the building. And we were friendly. There was some weird odor coming from one of the walls in the other apartment and I told them and they ignore me. I text them and I did not get a nice response. That and other fallouts, affected our relationship, which was really bad because they controlled my lease. They wanted me out. I left before they would kick me out.”
One tenant explained issues related to people not being in the lease,
36 | Page
“I got into trouble because I had a boyfriend staying in with me for a while. He doesn’t live here. In the office they said, he needs to sign a new lease. They keep asking me. That was my apartment, he did not have his stuff there. He was not there all of the time. That was my apartment not his. If he signed the lease my rent could go up. I was not in that next level of the relationship and basically they were forcing me to move in together.”
A participant experienced having issues with the landlord over visitors to a birthday party, “I had a small birthday party for my kids, I invited a group of 15, 20 people? People complain about the noise. I said I am sorry I would not do it again. That got me into trouble.”
In general, some participants felt that landlords did not really care, as expressed by this parent,
“Some people just try to sell you the apartment, because they get paid by the Road Home, but they do not care. They do not know the program and they do not solve problems with you or the housing case manager. They do not pay attention to you at all or your kid’s needs.”
Sometimes returning to shelter could happen due to experiencing high crime rates and safety issues around the previous housing. In addition, the building quality of assisted housing programs may vary a lot depending on their historical situation (for example if they had a criminal or eviction record). A tenant said: “I can’t stand another story about the sheriff going back to that building. Many of us have been previously evicted. I have like a double. My second. Yeah.”
Despite the various complains, some participants had good relationships with landlords. A respondent said:
“My landlord she worked with us by paying this much every two weeks so we could pay the higher remaining balance that we owed. She was on top of everything, and you know, she got stopped on that needed to be done. She handled the neighbors that were being noisy, bringing random people in. She was basically on top of her to make sure that everything was working.”
Another young woman commented, “My landlord was great. I made friends with her and complement her, because I know that it is important to have good relationships with landlords. I am always very respectful. But I am young, I do not have a lot of experience renting and of course I made mistakes. But my landlord gave me and my kids several breaks.”
Breaks were described in different ways like not collecting the tenant’s portion of the rent, non-evicting them for non-payment or failing to follow rules as well as dismissing complains from other tenants. A man reported paying his part of the rent not with income but by working for the landlord,
My landlord allowed me to pay rent not with cash but partially with work. I am glad that my landlord accepted this as rent. I enjoyed this and this has been part of my lifestyle in many other places. I always look for an alternative to paying cash instead.
37 | Page
Relation with Service Providers Importance should be placed on case managers and social service providers who can play leading role in serving families experiencing homelessness. According to records provided by interviewees, they said that they kept good relationship with case managers and service providers and could get along well with staff and directors of the Road Home and other organizations. One of our attendees spoke case managers at the Road Home:
“Ok. I think there is a range of service providers. There are also people that help you with housing. There are case managers that goes down the down. This may be different case to case. Me for sure. All right. I mean, they would go just so far.”
One of our respondents said: “I just had a little help. It has been pretty good. You might say you are the same Rambo. I think that the idea was to make money and fight. I was thinking the Road Home brought me a pretty good advocate. They did very well in that.”
Another participant expressed, “She listens, makes time for you. She calls on the phone and she is really one-on-one. I got clothes, food, everything I needed. She is an amazing human being. I know everything is going to be ok.”
All participants reported receiving assistance to find a place:
“My case manager is great. They help me with signing up for housing with the county, because that takes time. She really helped me to find a place for the Rapid Rehousing. I made a lot of progress while I was in the apartment. She was available, came to visit. I appreciate her personality and help, words of encouragement.”
Another woman said, “They’ll let you use phones back then. Yeah. You know, call anybody or sometimes I’ll call the apartments themselves. You know, I explained about how there was how the Rapid Rehousing worked things down, so.”
A participant spoke about the housing case manager once they received the Rapid Rehousing assistance:
“They work with you on a plan. They support you, they follow up with you on the plan. When you do not have your own family is good to find people that stick with you and help you to achieve your goals. They revisit the goals too. They keep you on track.”
Improving the Rapid Rehousing Program Respondents had many ideas about how to improve the program for participants, and there were a few common themes that came up: finding steady employment while at the Road Home, help families with childcare to be able to find employment, reduce the amount that tenants have to pay from 30% to 20%, keeping their rent at 30% after the subsidy is over, help them pay for the application fees, having more time to find a place, always getting rides to see an apartment, receiving assistance to get furniture and they things they need
38 | Page
for their new apartment, offering furnished apartments, having a centralized application, units in better locations, knowing for how long they would have the subsidy, assistance findings jobs or better jobs, and communicating with landlords.
One of the main themes were having steady employment before being placed in the Rapid Rehousing Program so that they could afford their portion of the rent once the subsidy was reduced or eliminated. One participant said the following:
“I wasn’t working when I left. So, I mean, I was happy I was leaving, but I was scared at the same time because I’m like, I’m going to go out and get this apartment, and then what happens if they (the Road Home) don’t pay? And I can’t? Because I didn’t know what I was doing yet.”
Another common topic was the need for childcare, especially while participants were still in The Road Home shelter but trying to find work. This was especially important for mothers with young children who could not participate in the activities that were held for children in the shelter. One participant said:
“That would really help... having different age groups. Like I said, he (her son) was too young for anything. So, if anybody has a baby or a kid under three, they’re really not getting the help they can get. And then the other ones are able to just put their kids in a room and walk off... I feel like childcare is still my issue. Another reason why I had a hard time getting a job is childcare is so expensive.”
Similarly, the subsidy itself was the focus of some suggested changes, including having a gradual rise in the portion paid by
participants as they improved their employment situation. One said:
“I wouldn’t make it the 30%, I think they should lower it, like maybe 20% because...It’s like starting off with the lower percent, and then as you gradually make it, see where you can get a better job and stuff like that, then gradually raising the rent, raising your percentage to where it’s 100% instead of 30% across the line, and then all of a sudden, boom, you’ve got 100%.”
Another person said, “I think paying 30% is fine. In fact, what we need is an apartment in where we pay just 30%. The problem is that after the Rapid Rehousing voucher is gone, then we have to pay a lot more. What I want is getting into Section 8, which my case manager helped me to apply for, but there is a long list to get it. When I get it then I only have to pay 30%? I think 30% is ok.”
As demonstrated by the previous quote, it seems that the Road Home is already helping families to get more permanent assistance. Many said that the Road Home should help them pay for the application fees,
“The landlords ask for $25 or $50 applications fee. You have to pay every time you want to apply. My situation doesn’t allow me to pay for this, but I just needed to cover it. They pay for deposits, upfront rent, and other things. I do not know if there are exceptions depending on the person. It might vary totally depending on the case manager. I just wished they pay for the application fee.”
39 | Page
Some participants wished there was more time to find the apartment they wanted, “I think we should have more time to find a place, because the time is too short. The timing to find a place is hard because there are some properties you are looking at and they are a waste of time.” Other people said that the case managers did not offered them rides to the apartments and they felt this was unequal,
“I needed to go out, but the place was far away and I just did not have the time to go so far, is not that I could go whenever. I have to find a place by this time, but I did not have the motivation to go by bus and seeing a place. I wished my case manager said, hey, you need a ride. Other people got rides. I want to make the best use of them and I.”
A few people felt that there was an unequal treatment regarding help with furniture and the things they needed for the new apartment. Some suggested offering furnished apartments,
“I do not have a lot of money to furnish and getting things from my apartment. I spent a lot of money in just a couple of things. I wished the apartments were already furnished. I have lived in places that are cheap and furnished and they are great, because they save you money. I got help for some necessities. People gave me things. Even from getting things I spend money I could have use for food or rent.”
A number of households said that they would like to see a centralized application,
“The landlords ask for a lot of things, social security number, an application, background check. You gather your materials, but I do not understand why
they (the Road Home) do not have a centralized application. You’ll do it once and then they share that info with landlords. In Seattle they have a system like this.”
Many spoke about how those with a criminal background ended up concentrated in buildings that we undesirable. These tenants expressed wanting housing that made them feel safer and provided opportunities for them:
“I live near State St. in a crime-ridden building. There are some men that are in drugs. They harassed ladies. I have told the landlord. The thing is that I think they know. I think this is a step up from the streets […] Given that I have a criminal background it was just hard to find a place. I am not sure what ca be done really. I just wished I lived in a better neighborhood.”
Tenants feel anxiety because they did not know for how long they would have the subsidy. A recommendation would be to tell tenants, so they can manage their expectations,
“I have been receiving the subsidy for about a year now. I do not know what is going to happen, because I need to sign a new lease and I do not know if I am going to have help. I have asked about it, but they have not told me. I have a lot of anxiety over this. They should tell you for how long so people do not have all this worry.”
For most the number one recommendation was to extend the length of the subsidy,
“A few months is not enough to put your life back together. What people need is more housing
40 | Page
assistance. This program is great. You cannot make the most of it in a short period of time. More time should be covered if you still need to help to find better work, find childcare or whatever you need to not make housing so expensive. A was better off with the one subsidy. It helped a lot and I had money aside for the things my family needed.”
Most talked about wanted more help finding a job or a better job where the family could afford their own rent,
“Is different to find a job quickly and to try to find a better job. I felt so depressed trying to find a good job while also working. I have not been the best holding jobs for a long time. I need help finding a job that are more than the Temp agencies. I need one-on-one help moving forward, preparing for better skills, and where the good jobs are locally.”
Finally helping tenants to communicate with landlords is crucial. As a tenant put it,
“The landlords do not know our story, they do not know what is going on and I wish sometimes property managers were more personal or nice, you know. Maybe the case manager can tell them about us, that this is for a good cause. You wanna mediate as much as you can, because sometimes they do not know. You have to mind that.”
Another tenant expressed, “I call the manager and they do not answer the calls about maintenance. Then they say we give you the property without pest and now there are pest. They say you are living poorly in there. They want us to
take care of it. It’s got to the point that the case manager could have helped us to address this through their relationships.”
Landlords As is detailed in the introduction section of this report, two one-on-one landlord interviews were conducted, one over the phone and one in-person. Landlords got involved because they were approached by the Road Home. Landlords reported that participating in the program not necessarily helped them to fill vacant units in where they would lose rent. The current market has created a demand for housing to the point that being part of the RRHP doesn’t necessarily help them financially. Instead, they are choosing to participate to help families. Landlords reported their units as basic but providing opportunities for tenants like access to transit, schools, employment, etc. Property owners had diverging experience with tenants paying the rent. One property owner reported evicting their tenant for not payment. Landlords with bad experiences were less likely to continue with the program. Property owners reported experiencing both good and not so good communication with tenants and TRH staff. Suggestions included for the tenants to put together some initial payment to obtain the apartment as a form of buying into the program. This payment could be given back to them to pay rent if they needed it in the future. There were suggestions about offering financial management courses to tenants.
Each of the landlord participants have experienced or continue to experience the RRHP in a number of diverging ways. For clarity, the landlord that is new to the program will
41 | Page
be referenced as “Landlord A,” while the landlord with a longer history with RRH will be referenced as “Landlord B.”
Getting Involved Landlord A had only been renting to a Rapid Rehousing tenant for three months prior to being interviewed and had not run into any major issues with the program or the tenant during that time. This landlord indicated that he got involved in the Rapid Rehousing Program unintentionally, saying “I put an ad up on KSL or Craigslist or something, and then the person who came to look at my place happened to be part of the [Rapid Rehousing] program.” The landlord did not seek out Rapid Rehousing subsidy recipients in this case but chose to rent to the Rapid Rehousing tenant after the tenant’s background check cleared and an ability to pay rent in full was determined.
Landlord B also happened to fall into providing a unit to a RRHP recipient by chance. TRH found the unit and suggested the RRHP recipient apply. The owner of the building met with the recipient and determined that it would be a good fit for the unit. Ultimately, the property owner made this decision based on the fact that the RRHP recipient did not have a criminal background and had a good job at the time. The owner felt that someone who was a single parent, with a job, who was getting back on their feet, stood out from some of the other applicants they had at the time.
Economic Security of the Property Owner When asked about how the Rapid Rehousing funds affect the financial stability of the unit compared to a non-rapid rehousing tenant, the Landlord A stated that the financial impact has been “the same as if I had rented it out to somebody
else.” Notably, this landlord is not renting this unit as part of a large property management company. Instead, Landlord A is directly renting his property to tenants on his own. The unit being rented to the Rapid Rehousing recipient at the time of the interview was one of three total units owned by Landlord A.
Landlord B stressed the fact that within the current housing market, there is no economic need for them to seek out RRH program recipients. The landlord stated, “The demand for housing in this in this valley right now is I mean, I have people begging me. I have waiting lists for places.” This reinforces the fact that many landlords may not need the program to help them financially, they may only be choosing to participate just to help someone. This is not surprising considering that a landlord may feel this could be a risk when there are already people waiting for units that would be less likely to default on their leasing agreement.
Location of Units The housing unit that Landlord A rents to an RRHP recipient is a room in the landlord’s house located in the Rose Park neighborhood of Salt Lake City and is one of three total rental units owned by the landlord. The unit is located “right next to an elementary school and [about] three blocks from the grocery store.” The landlord also described the public transportation access in the area of the house as “adequate,” although the landlord did not have much experience using transit themselves. Landlord A did suggest during the interview that access to employment for residents in the neighborhood is easier with access to a vehicle.
The unit that was rented by Landlord B was located in South Salt Lake. It was a basement unit that was not the most
42 | Page
desirable unit they had to offer. However, it did have two bedrooms, one bathroom, kitchen appliances, and a fireplace. The landlord described this unit as being “centrally located” since it was within walking distance to the grocery store, bus stops, schools, employment centers, a rec center, and the library. In the eyes of this landlord, the unit set up the tenant well to meet their needs. Access to transit, employment options, and schools for their children is critical for many RRHP recipients.
Relationships with Tenants The two landlords interviewed had opposing experiences with their Rapid Rehousing tenants. Landlord A has a cordial, if not completely “friendly” relationship with his tenant. When asked about his relationship with his tenant, Landlord A stated, “It’s good. I mean, he’s a good guy. I mean, we don’t really hang out that much, but we chat once in a while.” Landlord B, who had participated in the RRHP three times over the past thirty years and recently evicted her third Rapid Rehousing tenant, has not had a similarly positive experience. According to Landlord B, the first few months of a lease with an RRHP tenant are consistently eventless, but as soon as the housing subsidy ceases, problems with paying rent on time would begin. Landlord B stated, “as soon as they had to start paying, they never paid.” Landlord B’s most recent tenant would not communicate with her, and instead chose to communicate with the landlord’s office manager: “He texted my assistant. He would not communicate with me, but he texts my secretary. Good cop, bad cop, I guess.”
Landlord B maintains a positive relationship with The Road Home and its staff. These experiences, however, have made her
resistant to the prospect of accepting tenants through the Rapid Rehousing Program in the future. Landlord B stated, “I’m pretty sure that if [The Road Home] called me today and asked me to take somebody again, I would say no. I’ll be honest.”
Though response to the tenant experience has been disparate between interviewed landlord participants, the communication style between landlord and tenant is similar. Both Landlord A and B had limited communications with the respective RRHP tenants, instead relying on TRH case managers and staff for exchange of information.
Relationships with Road Home Staff Landlord participants have also had divergent experiences from each other with respect to relationships with The Road Home staff. Landlord A has not developed a strong relationship with TRH staff or case managers, while Landlord B described a positive, productive relationship. Landlord A has effectively only communicated with TRH at the beginning of the rental and leasing process. When asked about the quality of his communication with them, he said, “I mean, it’s fine. I really… I haven’t spoken to them. Almost never. Other than just getting the paperwork signed.” Payments from TRH were scheduled using an automatic payment system that required minimal exchange between participants. Due to the leasing process initially running as expected, Landlord A has not had reason to file complaints or inquiries with the TRH.
Landlord B, however, experienced a higher frequency of communication exchanges with The Road Home staff, as payment issues arose with her tenant. Landlord B and TRH discussed the tenant’s non-payment, the procedure for moving forward, and details of the eviction process. Though Landlord
43 | Page
B was clear about her negative experiences with three former RRH tenants, she expressed only respect for The Road Home: “I think The Road Home was excellent. I don’t know what they could have done more to help us. Or to help [the tenant].”
This sentiment was also true in her other two experiences with Rapid Rehousing tenants. According to her, “The Road Home does everything right.” It was only the tenants that Landlord B took issue with.
Program Improvement Landlord A had only been involved with the Rapid Rehousing Program for about three months at the time of his interview and therefore did not have much input regarding potential program improvements.
Landlord B did have some insightful thoughts based upon her experience. She had two main recommendations. First, she suggested that tenants in the Rapid Rehousing Program should be required to contribute financially to the initial funding that secures their housing. As she put it, “Most of these guys don’t have to do a thing to get into housing. They don’t have to pay anything to get into housing.” This contributes to a sense of entitlement, in her opinion, as “People don’t appreciate the stuff that’s handed to them.” From her perspective, financial entitlement was a strong contributing factor to the issues she had with her former tenants’ inability to contribute to rent payments once their initial housing vouchers had ended.
Landlord B’s second suggestion was for The Road Home to provide financial literacy training and support for the RRHP tenants. With a background in consumer credit counseling, Landlord B has experienced many people struggling with financial decision-making. The need for financial literacy was
underscored when the most recent RRHP tenant decided to purchase a big screen T.V. with his first paycheck before failing to pay his rent three weeks later. Landlord B expressed, “People do not know how to live within a budget. They honestly don’t. People do not know how to distinguish between wants and needs. That’s 90% of the population.”
If these two recommendations could be implemented, they would have complementary effects. Tenants would be more invested in keeping their housing from the start and they would have the money management skills to enable them to do so. This two-fold approach may result in fewer evictions and abandonments, allowing landlords to feel more confident and willing to rent to tenants in the Rapid Rehousing Program.
44 | Page
Case Managers and Social Service Role and Getting Involved The roles of the participants at the social service provider and case manager focus group ranged in scale. There was a participant who was not involved with the Road Home or the Rapid Rehousing Program, specifically as well as another participant who was involved with a women’s domestic violence shelter in Salt Lake City who interacted with the RRHP on a baseline level. Additionally, there were two participants who were case managers for the RRHP specifically, and worked together for the Road Home, under another participant who was a Director of case managers. The final and sixth member of the focus group worked for the Road Home in a higher capacity and worked as a case manager for families in the shelter, before they get placed into the RRHP and with a new case manager. These attendees all got placed into the roles they were currently in either by chance or by working their way along a trajectory while at the Road Home. The shortest span of involvement presented in the focus group was by a participant who had been involved with the RRHP for one month, and the participant with the longest running involvement with the program had been working for the Road Home for over six years. A Road Home case manager explain their role,
“Basically, in shelter, we’re preparing them to move out into housing, helping them get all their personal documents, Social Security cards, birth certificates and all the things they will need to be eligible and
complete the assessment. And then once they’re approved, we have a housing location team in the shelter that helps people actually look for the physical place. So as a case manager, I’m kind of helping along that whole spectrum, transporting working with connecting them with other resources besides housing, because, you know, that’s often the problem with not finding resources you need while they’re in shelters.”
The job of the Road Home case manager is to help families to find housing while the job of the housing case manager is to help them stabilize once they are participating in the RRHP. The housing case manager explain her role,
“We’re housing case managers so we go after the client into the community into their apartment or their house. We will follow up with them to make sure they have all the skills necessary to succeed if they need connections to community resources, we can connect them with local food pantries or get them connected with DWS to get them child care or food stamps. So, we kind of refer to community resources a lot and then we just check in and kind of assist slightly a mediation between landlords and clients to make sure that they feel comfortable communicating with their property manager or their landlord.”
Another case manager added their role helping families that failed to maintain their housing after receiving the subsidy,
“My position falls into what they do with their programs to get considered for the COC (Continuum Of Care) voucher you usually have to fail or not
45 | Page
fail... rapid rehousing has to be proven not to work. So, I’m kind of the next step if the housing doesn’t work. This depends on a lot of landlord mediation and connecting resources to clients.”
Case managers explain that families try the RRHP first and then if that doesn’t work for them they are prioritized for the COC voucher. However, to qualify for a COC or Permanent Supportive Housing (PHS) the family gas to be chronically homeless—that is for one year or three times in the last three years along with a disabling condition. Families move from lightest touch to more services. Case manager in both COC and PHS generally see their clients more than rapid rehousing.
About the Rapid Rehousing Program The housing case managers meet with families, both parents if possible or the head of household, when they first move in. The housing case managers would meet with them at their new apartments we go and we meet with them. The case managers help families to sign a release of information and permission so that other agencies within the community can contact them in case something comes up. Case managers review the case at least once a month and they create self-sufficiency plans with the families.
Participants reported that the RRHP is intended to be a “boost” for families which are looking to move into a stable housing situation, but are unable to get there with their current employment, health care needs, or income and need some short-term assistance. A case manager expressed,
“I call it like a boost. Rapid Rehousing is just a boost to get into housing because we provide the application fees, usually the deposit, which can be
the deposit, can be a huge burden right there. And then the first month’s rent usually pro-rate if it’s middle of the month and first month’s rent. So, it gives people some room to breathe so they can find work, can find childcare. Can you just take them in? It’s the barrier to get into housing, especially if you have an eviction on your record is just overwhelming for even a regular person with a good job because sometimes your deposit will be double deposits or a thousand eight hundred two thousand dollars. So double deposit, it’s just too much money for a homeless family to come up with just on their own. So, it’s just like a nice boost to get up into a house and then they’ve got to, you know, run with it from there.”
A case manager usually explains the RRHP to clients as, “A month to month program. So, it’s kind of need based and also depending on our budget capacity or we can keep. So, for some of our programs and since there’s different funding source, they would have to be compliant with DWS. And so, we’ll go over that if that’s their certain type of funding source and who they would they would need to go with. If not, then we kind of start prioritizing things like employment or sustainable sources of income, Social Security or something like that. But we do let people know right away that it’s a month to month program, so we can’t guarantee that they’ll be on for eight months.”
Another case manager described the RRHP, “We give them a big resource packet as well and that kind of touches every area like employment, childcare, health resources, transportation, stuff like
46 | Page
that so that they can try to move in. There’s nothing set up for them, basically other than their housing so they may have to piece stuff together. So, it’s supposed to be a program that helps them get back on their feet. Just give them a few months to not have to worry about rent for a little bit. And then try to piece everything else together. So, we talk about that and we talk about goals that they might set for each month so every time we meet with them, we’re talking about goals that they can focus on for that month so they can stabilize. But we do every time I meet with them I talk to each of my clients about how it’s a very temporary program and to try to keep that in mind so it’s a step.”
Case managers really try to stress that the RRHP was temporary assistance,
“Yeah, and I really try to stress to families when I’m discussing the concept of rapid rehousing that it is short term. There’s no guarantee how long they will be assisted by us. And they need to hurry up and, you know, get some income going if you know, so they can pay their rent. When our assistance runs up.”
Another case manager further explains, “I specifically tell them I can’t guarantee a certain amount, but I can’t be like, oh, you’re going to get three months. Every time I meet with them I tell them it’s month to month. This month I told my clients if they’re getting assistance with November rent in December II don’t know, I don’t know about the December’s numbers until... and I always tell
them to try and prep as best as you can. You know, because it’s just you’re not going to have a whole lot of notice which I think is a little bit of a downside to rapid and they don’t have a ton of notice when they won’t be receiving assistance. And so that’s why every time I try to meet with them each month. Not I don’t want to trade scare them at all, but I just want to make it very clear that there’s a good chance you may not receive assistance so try and do what you can to set yourself up for next month.”
Case managers discussed for whom this program is not (1) people who have gained self-sustaining employment, (2) the chronically homeless or, (3) people that have multiple barriers. One expressed,
“It's hard and it’s kind of varies a little bit as well. Sometimes clients will get a job and gain great income. And then actually, they are cut from the program because they’re over income. That happens occasionally too. It will happen where a client just doesn't seem like Rapid Rehousing is the right program for them. Maybe they need a higher intensity case management or something like a longer-term incentive month to month where they would get maybe longer-term voucher if available.”
Another case manager expressed, “If a client needs like one more month to look for a job or something or this person actually doesn't matter how many months we're gonna get them on this this is never going to be permanent and I don't see them ever going to be able to like sustain themselves with like a more permanent voucher than
47 | Page
maybe sometimes I think it’s better to cut them sooner rather than keep them on to just prolong the inevitable? I don't know. It's kind of hard, but we do take into account if they have mental health and substance use and treatment, if they're in mental health, if they're working on gaining employment or if they have no interest towards it. If they have a current non-payment of rent or some sort of notice from their property management to comply or vacate. It's like a hundred different things that we have to take into account to see if they should continue.”
Case managers would discuss with each other their cases weekly because other case managers might have information about a particular family or they might have seen similar cases. Based on this feedback they would decide if the keep the family or not in the Rapid Rehousing Program. better to keep them on or. A case manager further explains,
“That's why I like to do it as a team. We’ll meet weekly, we also have like case staff will bring up concerns about specific individuals, will kind of bring all of that stuff up and then I'm aware of it as well. And once we go through the rents list that way, there's multiple people thinking like, oh, they're in treatment. Like, what if we give them another month since their treatment?”
Drug addiction and failing treatment is a common reason to return to the shelters this would often follow with an eviction,
“If they get a lease termination they usually have to go back to shelter and reprioritize for another voucher. It depends, too. I mean, sometimes we've
done it before we have the funding and we'll have a couple extra vouchers and so we say, OK, if you find a new place, you can move you don't have to go back to the shelter. You can move right away. But that's not the case right now. People are having to return to shelter.”
Program Changes There are three changes that case managers have observed since the program started (1) At first it was expected to help a family for 3-months and that number has been increasing closer to the 5-month mark, (2) At the same time they are able to help less families than at the beginning, (3) Families that are more vulnerable and score higher in the Vulnerability Index—Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Prescreen Tool (VI-SPDAT) get priority. A case manager said, “I would say the amount of time it’s really the only thing that’s been a big change.” Another one observed,
“The only change that’s happened at the shelter level is that rather than, like I said, rather than prioritizing all the families as being able to at one time. Now only a smaller subset ever get access or an opportunity to use rapid rehousing. So that’s the change we’ve seen in the shelters.”
Case managers spoke about hot they had to turn down families, “We just have, you know, helped before every single family. And the expectation in the community has been hard to change their expectations because the expectation used to be anyone that shows up at the Road Home will get Rapid Rehousing and they’ll help you pay your rent and move out with a deposit.
48 | Page
And so, people are still coming in with that expectation from all over the valley, all over the state. Here I am. Where do I get my Rapid Rehousing? I’m here for my Rapid Rehousing. And we know the language is changed. Everything’s changed because now not everybody gets it. It’s just a small subset that have the opportunity.”
Another case manager agreed, “But any family that stayed in the shelter was eligible to do the paperwork, provide the documentation. As long as they’re in the income, you know, thresholds, they could use Rapid Rehousing. And that’s just a 100 percent 180 from the way used to be now.”
The families that are being helped are the most vulnerable according to the (VI-SPDAT). A social service provider who worked with the Road Home further explains,
“That has actually impacted our agency. Now I understand why. Because we are domestic violence shelter. So, we are playing on the VI-SPDAT score. I always feel like every other Wednesday I’m coming into a boxing match. Yeah. Boxing match. For example, two weeks ago. They had five slots and two of our residents were able to get in on Rapid Rehousing. So, we’re a temporary domestic violence shelter. Our typical client we see what stays with us from 30 to 60 days. That really isn’t long enough unless we have more resources available to get someone out into the community in their own place, we have a lot of barriers, evictions, felonies and then, for example, we have had a client this week
who she was on Rapid Rehousing. She had a background that was just too difficult for anyone to take her on as a tenant. So, I sat down with her I said, is there anybody in your family that will let you come live with them? And so now tomorrow she’s taken off to move to Nebraska because she had so many barriers.”
The same case manager added details about her client. She thought she would not be accepted for the RRHP because even thought she was vulnerable, she was not as vulnerable as others,
“The score starts at 14 and then take an assessment of the VI-SPDAT assessment. It's just a series of questions to check on their vulnerability, pretty personal questions about what they've experienced as far as domestic violence goes. So, in this person's case, her score was 10, so there’s only 5 slots and you're starting at 14. She's not that high, the chances are she's not going to get slighted at all. And we have some residents that are immigrants, their scores might be an eight or nine, I don't think she'll ever get selected. And they're super vulnerable still. Yeah, she's very vulnerable. She doesn't speak English. It's just she's almost more vulnerable. Maybe she hasn't experienced as much domestic violence. That's a way to say that. That sounds awful. But she has so many other barriers. That's been challenging. And so that I appreciate you confirming that (there has been changes in the program such as extending the assistance but for less and more vulnerable families). Now I know why some things have changed.”
49 | Page
There are plans to revise the case every four months. This plan has not been implemented yet. There is a Family Progressive Engagement Meeting in where every family has to come with their VI-SPDAT. He idea is that all the families ta the program, at once, come to be prioritized using the scores. But a case manager felt that using the VI-SPDAT is problematic because it is self-reported,
“The problem I feel with the VI-SPDAT is that it's self-reported. So, a lot of clients, they don't want to report what's going on with them. So, they might have a super high vulnerability, but they will never report it. And so, therefore, I think there's a lot of reasons people don't report what's going on in my life. Yeah, it’s self-report and some people don't want to talk about what's going on in their lives. Understandably so. And so they don't receive that opportunity because their score will not make them eligible. I tell people, don't lie, but be really honest. It's uncomfortable. It's not I can't say if it's the best way to do it. I don't have enough experience to know that. But I really encourage them to be as honest as possible […] You know, you've got to reveal this personal information. And in this case, managers were celebrating with someone gets a high score, which really suck. You know, someone has a high score. That means there having a lot of trauma. A lot of trouble.”
Relationships with Owners and Managers An interesting finding from the focus group held with social service providers and case managers was that there isn’t a shortage of property owners or units available with established
landlords in Salt Lake County. As stated, landlords (private) will often call the Road Home and reach out if they have available units or if something will open up for rent in the near-future. Most relationships with property owners through the Road Home and RRHP are positive and ongoing; although, naturally some relationships evolve over time and sometimes ties are cut either from the landlord’s end with the RRHP or from the Road Home’s end with landlords. Property owners and case managers at the Road Home often have business-like relationships because essentially, housing is a money-driven market no matter what relationships exist between two partners. A case manager explain how they find housing for tenants,
“We have a housing location team and that's their job to basically search KSL and Renter.com and then they get to know landlords so create and maintain good relationships with landlords in the community. And so, we have some really great landlords that we can use again and again and again. And they, you know, they enjoy helping our clients. And we're just looking for brand new landlords and we're just scouring just like anybody else would that would be looking for a house. We're just going online and seeing what's for rent and calling them up and introducing ourselves.”
Any type of independent housing could be renter for families—including single family homes, apartments, condos, duplexes, trailers, anything that it can be a basement apartment as long as it has its own separate entrance and door. People cannot share a room in a house. It has to be a separate, distinct unit in Salt Lake County. There are also small landlords and large property
50 | Page
companies. A manager explain that some people would be successful at a time of unit and that others might be successful at another type,
“I think there are a lot of advantages with different types of landlords. Private landlords a lot of the time will be on site. Or if you have a family that lives on the complex then property management is always there. It’s an opportunity to get write ups for lease violations. And so, I’ve spent a lot of time with clients trying to find, what if they come to me and have a voucher but I found a different type of housing then each client can be successful. Some are really successful in the bigger complexes because some don’t like management being there.”
Housing locator specialist would try very hard to keep a good relationship with a landlord since this means making bridges for other families,
“Once they find a landlord in the community that's rented to them before, they will hold on to that with a death grip and do all they can to basically please that landlord, you know, give them clients they think will work there. They really try to like nourish those relationships with landlords that are willing to work with us. And we'll have landlords call back and be like, hey, I have a place open. And I rented to you guys a few years ago. I'd love to rent to another one of your families. So, they really spend a lot of time growing relationships with landlords. And, you know, sometimes relationships with landlords go bust because sometimes they have a bad experience with one of our families and it's going to happen.”
Usually, case managers prefer to deal with landlords that have more experience with the program. These landlords already had the experience of having good and bad interactions with tenants as a case manager explain,
“I think too when we build those relationships, they interact with more clients. So, it's not just like more bad interaction. Maybe they have one bad interaction with nine other good interactions. And so they're saying they realize that's not a majority of what’s happening I'm willing to rent to you again because it was just one family that was challenging.”
A case manager added, “We have some terrific landlords that love renting to us. I’ve never had an experience where a tenant ruined a relationship with a landlord. They’re always pretty understanding. Like Utah Nonprofit works a lot [with us] and so it just there are a lot known. Creating new relationships is kind of 50-50 so half of them are interested in the voucher [participating in the Rapid Rehousing Program] and half are not but some welcome the assistance. So, I’ve found when they’re engaged and interested I’ve found a lot of people want to. But when it starts off bad it’s always bad. I’ve had landlords just try to take advantage of our clients.”
Small vs. Large Landlords Case manages spoke of differences between large and small landlords as it pertains with the background checks. Small landlords were more lenient in this regard while large companies were not—although it also depends on the quality
51 | Page
and desirability of the units. Both small and large landlords were likely to evict a tenant for non-payment.
Case managers discussed the practices of landlords requesting background, credit checks and so on. Most landlords, even if they are small or large they would require an application fee which their use for the background check. But a case manager noted that,
“They usually say with they do that they're going to do a background check, so they'll check their credit. Sometimes they'll check their criminal. And that's what they say they're going to do with the application, with the application fee. Some private landlords will take the money and say they're gonna do it and probably don't do a background check or any kind of credit check. A lot of them will. Most responsible landlords do because they want to know who's living in their property. But some landlords will just be like, I don't care about your background. That's when we use a lot of private landlords because we have a lot of clients with felonies, a lot of serious charges in their background, multiple evictions.”
Some mention that complexes tended to be more extract that that they would try to find private landlords who have more freedom to decide accepting someone even if they have a criminal background. A case manager further explains this common situation,
“They're not part of a big compliance network. So, they have a guy with three units. He has the freedom to rent to whoever he wants. So sometimes some of those landlords will not check background or they
really don't care about background or they're very forgiving about background. And so, they don't check background or credit. And those are some landlords we have to go to get some of the really, really tough people like your client housed.”
Another case manager explained that it ready depends because small landlords do not have to aby by the fair housing act, “In my experience they’ve abided less by fair housing. If they’re small and only have three units they don’t have to abide by fair housing. They’re kind of just not by the book so that comes to advantages and disadvantages I think.”
Case managers seem to agree that large landlords with big complexes even if the property manager was willing to be lenient they could not because they had a specific procedure. Often times people would be more likely to be evicted. As a case manager put it,
“With big complexes even if the property manager there is willing to be lenient their compliance like she said won’t budge. And, an eviction is a no, no matter what. In some larger complexes, no matter how the person has, you know, kind of changed their ability to pay. It's just a straight no.”
Some case managers thought that the likelihood of eviction was the same. The difference was in getting into the property. Some small landlords were more likely to accept tenants,
But they're, they're usually less likely to run a background check or they don't care about it so much. They'll say, I don't care if you put misdemeanors or whatever as long as you pay your rent on time and you don't bring traffic into their
52 | Page
unit. It can be a little bit more like areas of gray than like a huge property management company saying, no, no, no, no, no, on 10 different things.
Helping the Landlord’s Bottom-Line The research team asked about how the program affected the financial sustainability of property. Case managers seem to agree that the program was good for the bottom line of landlords who usually rented to low-income tenants and struggle with vacancies or non-payments anyway. This could be also associated with the location and quality of the units themselves and how desirable they were to begin with. A case manager expressed,
“I know some landlords like a guaranteed rent check. I mean, rapid isn't forever, but they have a lot of high turnover rate in some of their units so it’s like. At least I know I’m going to be getting something. I'm going to do something about it not just sitting empty.”
Another case manager commented, “That's why we have landlords calling us, saying, hey, I have empty units. They call us. And sometimes it could just be like based on a neighborhood where it's like not a ton of people are wanting to move to or maybe criminal background that it's more common for this apartment complex to have a ton of felons in it. So then like your average student or whatever isn't likely to move there or it's too far from their place of work. Whatever. Or Utah nonprofit where they have to have their tax credit.
Low income tenants, lower income. So it's good for their bottom line.”
Lenient Landlords Some case managers did not agree with the lenient or generous landlords because they put themselves in vulnerable or bad situations. Examples included letting the tenants borrow the landlords’ card, having tenants cleaning their personal home and not collecting rent for months, resulting in an eviction. A case manager further expressed this opinion on the matter,
“I think it can be tricky though because property managers and especially private landlords we’ve gotten into situations before where the clients, like the landlord, let them borrow their car and then it almost turns into this thing. I'm like, you owe me. yeah, they had guest over that wasn't allowed. Then the landlords are like I lent you my car. Why are you doing this to me personally? It’s not a personal thing but it gets too tricky sometimes. And that's a lot like the ones you like to live on site. Like how she was saying if you rent like a basement apartment, and the owner lives upstairs and they're monitoring everything but the person's doing. Sometimes it's innocent stuff sometimes it’s not. It does become their relationship becomes a lot more integrated and messier”
Another case manager elaborated, “We have landlords that have boundary issues. They don't know where their charity should end and where just them leaving the client alone should begin. And sometimes we actually have ended relationships with landlords who love renting to us because some really
53 | Page
messy situations where the landlords, like we had one landlord that was like asking clients to work in their kitchen when they were late on rent. And we're like, okay, no, we cannot rent to a landlord that is going to compromise our clients in any way. So, we've had to cut ties with landlords.”
A housing case manager shared a similar story, “So, we have years ago there was a landlord that rented to a lot of our families and we caught wind that maybe she was doing some unethical things like, you know, asking the clients to work for her. And so, we thought that this is not safe for our clients. We need landlords to have good boundaries. So, we sometimes have to end a relationship with the landlord.”
Some case managers said that it would depend on the kind of work, doing landscaping was probably ok while being inside of the landlord’s home was different, as denoted by this case manager,
“Just like it depends on your experience. The landlord is coming from like a good place. But it’s different when the landlords like inviting you into their home and things are happening behind closed doors. It's different.”
Another case manager agrees, “Yeah because I have landlords that like took off like rent off of mine for mowing our lawn instead of him coming over and mowing. But I mean, you know, when it comes to like, you're coming in my
home and cleaning my kitchen so I can take off money up your rent, that can get a little fuzzy.”
A case manager gave an example of a particular landlord that receives all of the tenants they sent. He would not collect rent, not wanting to evict them, but letting tenants to accrue a massive debt. At the end they still get evicted and are hurt by the eviction,
“He's a good guy, takes in like all of our clients live there. And a lot of, you know, they have portions that they're supposed to pay for their rent and they don't pay and he will not give them a notice and wait like six months. And then all of a sudden, they're behind two thousand dollars rent. Then all of a sudden, he's like, I've been trying to do you a favor. Not evict you, I need my money now though. It's like, well, I can't come up with two thousand bucks. Maybe like three hundred in the first month. Maybe we got to help them reach out to a resource to get caught up on rent. When you wait and he's just did not want to evict people you it’s like oh they have kids I don’t want to evict them, but he is trying to be nice but in a way this hurt them in the end. You know, I think it's hard because you get some notice and wait like two weeks to pay it or something that is manageable. But then it's like such a large lump sum and suddenly the option is get that by the end of the week or be out? It’s worse. But the landlord said, they would promise every month. Like we promised me this month's rent and then next month comes finds like, oh, they said they're gonna come with it next month. So it's like he's like, oh, I gave you six months. Now you go all this money and I can’t keep
54 | Page
letting you live here like without paying rent. Which is best of intentions. Yeah it’s he’s just trying to be nice.”
Location of Units As indicated in the focus group held with case managers, the Road Home and Rapid Rehousing Program seeks units throughout the entire Salt Lake County. The types of units which are provided are all private—either private room(s) in a house with more people, a private apartment, house, or condo within a larger complex. Case managers and the housing locator team try for each unit to be proximate for families depending on their needs (e.g. childcare, services, groceries, public transportation, health care provider, employment, etc.). Families are encouraged from choosing homes or units that are further away from these services even if they have personal transportation, because if something were to happen to their car, they might be in an unexpectedly difficult position. Families are not paired with a specific home but rather they are presented a variety of options available, and they get to choose where they’d like to live and what is feasible for them.
Case managers were asked if the properties where tenants rented provide them with opportunities such as access to employment, supermarkets, parks, schools and other services. A case manager explain that it could depend on the location. Smaller and more suburban cities like Magna, Sandy, Holladay and Copperton would provide less opportunities. A case manager elaborated,
“Copperton is one specifically that I think is very difficult. I have a few clients in this one specific apartment building there and there’s not a ton of
options that you are near, if you don’t have a vehicle. But sometimes they move, they do have a vehicle or their mom comes and watches the children, mom has a vehicle.”
Housing locations are chosen based on the goals of the family, “When they meet with the housing location team, they’re urged to discuss the things that are important to them and where they live. So, they, we want people to take into consideration, okay you're looking at this nice apartment, but your work is downtown. How are you going to get there? So, we like people to think about this. Ultimately, though, the family gets to choose where they go. So sometimes they don't always do stuff that makes sense. But we do say, OK, you work here, where do your kids go to school? Do you want your kids to stay in the same school? Do you have transportation? Or this apartment is close to transportation. We try to make them think of all the things and work together to find a place that is. And I think I don't know, hopefully we get it right a lot. They get it right a lot, but sometimes it's, you know, they're zigzagging the valley probably.”
A case manager added, “Sometimes there's no changing their mind either. This apartment's way nicer than anything I’ve ever been in. I’m willing to drive 20 minutes every day. Oh, yeah. No matter what. And sometimes they get in units and they have a vehicle and it might be like six months later, the vehicle breaks down and they don’t have it. And so, it was going to work out in the beginning. And all of a sudden then, I don’t have a
55 | Page
car anymore and I didn't have a unit that’s like next to any transportation.”
Sometimes families really care about moving into a nice building or area and sometimes they would accept anything, because they just want to be housed. Because they go off fair market rent prices families cannot get into like an exceptionally expensive unit. Families have a cap on what they can spend based on their family size. For example, a two-bedroom unit would be $1,035 in Salt Lake County. People can find nice (often older) and more affordable units in 33rd South, Millcreek Canyon and the Avenues in Salt Lake City—which are areas that are stereotypically nicer. Case managers agree that these places provide opportunity. An advantage that the McKinney-Vento provides is that it can children go to the school that they were last in, even if it’s further away they’ll still have transportation to the school.
Since we heard from tenants that there might be a concentration of people with criminal or eviction records in particular cities, authors inquire about this trend, which could
be seen as not providing opportunity for tenants. A case manager explained,
“Sometimes we get people with really, really challenging backgrounds, that have multiple felonies and warrants and terrible credit and an eviction notice. And when is kind of like the hardest to house, we do have some apartment complexes where it's easier to get them into and sometimes they end up kind of in the same spot and then...You're taking someone with that background into a place that has you know, there are literally some places, some people that you think I will never be able to house looking at their background, multiple felonies and evictions and we'll have landlords that will take them. And then so sometimes they do get concentrated in one building. If you're in there, it's inevitable.”
56 | Page
57 | Page
Recommendations The following table summarizes all of our recommendations:
Recommendation Description Case Study Executing Agents Pros Cons
TENANTS
Revise eligibility criteria
Screen out families unlikely to pay rent after a few months
Arizona Self-Sufficiency Matrix
Case managers ● Increase the chance of a family succeeding
● There might not be at the shelter enough families that meet the criteria and housing could be simply given to families in need regardless of likelihood of success
Prepare families for the RRHP
Work to prepare families financially before they enter the RRH program, through programs such as better employment training and credit repair
New Orleans RRHP Criteria
TRH, employment specialists, financial specialists
● More preparation in the shelter would lead to a decrease in the likelihood of eviction, and an increase in the likelihood of families keeping long-term housing
● This extra preparation would require more funds on the part of the Road Home or partners, and would likely require families to stay in the shelter for a longer period before entering the RRH program
Define subsidy length
Identifying the length of the subsidy (3, 6, 9, 12-months
Targeted homeless assistance programs
TRH, case managers, landlords, housing specialist
● Families can have better expectations and plan ahead
● Funds would be less flexible and responsive
Incrementally increase the rent of tenant
Increasing rent bimonthly or quarterly until paying the whole amount or reaching a 12-minth period
Contra Costa, CA and King County, Seattle
TRH, case managers, landlords, housing specialist
● Families will become more independent over time
● Some families might not be able to pay incremental payments
58 | Page
Case management related to employment
Consistency in case managers offering employment-related assistance
Shaheen, G. & Rio, J. J. 2007. “Recognizing Work as a Priority in Preventing or Ending Homelessness.” Journal of Primary Prevention. 28: 341
TRH case managers and employers that can collaboratively act in concert with TRH
● Increased employment-related support and assistance for the individuals at TRH and in the RRHP can help in acquiring job skills and employability, which can aid in greater long-term independence
● The monetary feasibility of hiring and employing of a greater number of case managers with the specific responsibilities of employment-related support and assistance
Childcare subsidies
Providing short-term childcare subsidies by Road Home can help families
American’s Youngest Outcasts
TRH, child assistance organizations
● Better child care assistance
● Mitigating the pressure on homeless families
● Providing trauma-informed care
● Prolong the time of exciting the shelter
● Add more cost to the program
Assistance with furniture and other necessities
TRH should help every tenant with moving expenses (e.g., furniture and other associated cost) or connect them with those who can help
Federally the RRHP helps cover move-in costs
TRH and partners such as Goodwill, The Other Side Thrift Boutique, among others
● Tenants would not have to spend funds in furniture and other material good when they could use them towards other necessities
● This will cost possibly additional funds to The Road Home
Always offer rides to see apartments
Help tenants so they can tour housing developments
Federally the RRHP helps families to get ride
Case managers ● Tenants who do not have transportation are able to see possible apartments
● If case manager are busy they might not be able to take tenants in a time sensitive manner
Access to transportation
Establish more bus stops or Trax line stops within the proximity of their residential place
Christine, Jocoy, 2010, “Homelessness, Travel Behavior, and the Politics of
TRH, Utah Department of Transportation, Utah Department if
● Provide them with more potential opportunities to receive educational and
● Exert pressure on budgeting capacity of the program can afford and
59 | Page
Provide low prices purchases for unlimited discounted pass for these people in order to allow them full access to almost everywhere else
Transportation Mobilities in Long Beach, California”
Finances, Utah, UTA, Salt Lake City Council
employment assistance in a city-wide scale
● Avoid the saturation of homeless population in the shelters
require all parties to achieve mutual coordination to initiate this plan, but it is hard to assign transportation routes to shelters to allow people to go wherever
Assistance finding housing
Providing consistent assistance to help families equally and help them find housing regardless of their assigned case managers
Norfolk, Virginia TRH in alliance with social service providers, funders, and supportive non-profits
● Building trust among homeless families and the service providers
● Mitigating disparities ● Stronger community and
reducing barriers of ending homelessness
● Requires more staff and time to help the families
● Needs more collaboration and research to find various services
Pay application fee
TRH could pay for the rental application fee of tenants
Federally the RRHP helps families to pay for rent and move-in assistance
TRH, landlords, and tenants
● Helping tenants with their application fee as this is might be a barrier to permanent housing
● It is good to have tenants contribute to their housing as a way to buy-in and value more the program
More time to find a place
Although the RRHP goal is to find housing as quickly as possible for families the length of time should be extended if families need more time
There are not examples of this the authors could find
Case managers and tenants
● Families that want to find the right place could take a little longer
● Families who wish to find a job before signing a new lease would be more prepared
● Reducing the amount of time, they experience homelessness is a goal of the program
Rent at 30% after the subsidy is over
Families express the need to finding an apartment where they would pay 30% of their income
Referrals to Section 8 or similar subsidized housing
Case managers, landlords, and tenants
● Affordable housing is an effective way to ensure long-term housing stability among
● Affordable housing resources currently fall far short of the need; it is hard for case managers to find these opportunities
60 | Page
households experiencing homelessness
for tenants right after the RRHP
Recommendation Description Case Study Executing Agents ● Pros ● Cons
● LANDLORDS
Protecting landlords from income interruption
Cover the expenses landlords face when tenants fail to pay rent, abandon their rental units, and leave property behind that must be disposed of
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
● TRH, RRHP, landlords
● Attract more landlords to rent to RRH participants
● Maintain positive relationships with landlords even when they have bad tenant experiences
● Would require additional funds
Centralizing rental applications
Centralizes access to all forms of housing for homeless individuals
Housing Alliance Delaware
TRH, landlords, and tenants
● A single source (likely online) through which all units available to Rapid Rehousing tenants could be posted and rented as needed
● More management and resources would be needed
Master-leasing The Road Home would “master lease” the apartments themselves and then sublease to Rapid Rehousing tenants
Several counties in Pennsylvania and in NYC
TRH, landlords, and tenants
● This will allow for tenants with criminal backgrounds or evictions find units in an easier way
● TRH would have to be responsible for the subleasing to the tenant
Shorter leasing agreements
Offer shorter leasing agreements that can be extended to instill security and performance among tenants and landlords
Not RRHP examples were found
Primarily landlords, facilitated by TRH
● Protects landlords from unexpected vacancies
● Incentives tenant performance
● Landlords typically do not lease in the short-term
● Could enable higher turnover rates
61 | Page
● Allows TRH to evaluate on a more regular basis
Improve communication with landlords
Increase communication and understanding by facilitating structured dialogue between landlords and tenants, facilitated by social service provider or third-party agency
Virginia Coalition to End Homelessness
TRH staff and case managers, with necessary cooperation from landlords and RRHP tenants
● Increased understanding of subsidy process leads to lower eviction rates
● Creates understanding of subsidy program for both landlords and tenants
● Increased facilitation and time spent developing communication strategies is costly
● May increase financial burden already present for TRH (possibility to receive grant funding for pilot program)
Find units in better, safer, and more integrated neighborhoods
Provide rapid rehousing units in neighborhoods with less poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, and a more stability. This will allow tenants a better chance at successfully maintaining their housing and not returning to the Road Home.
More racially, ethnically, and income diverse neighborhoods are better for economic opportunities
TRH, RRHP, landlords
● More stable living situations for RRH tenants
● Less tenants returning to the shelter after being housed
● Safer for families that receive RRH
● Stronger communities
● Requires more time invested in developing relationships with landlords in better neighborhoods
● Increased rent costs ● Potential neighborhood
backlash
Recommendation Description Case Study Executing Agents ● Pros ● Cons
● CASE MANAGERS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
Incentivize families for achieving goals
Monthly rent collected from the tenants, which is 30% of their income would be set aside and deposited in an Individual Development Account (IDA)
Madison, Wisconsin TRH, landlords and social service providers
● These monies could be used for other purposes like education, job search, paying credit cards or other goals towards the family
● This would be slightly more expensive for the Road Home as they would have to cover the tenant’s portion of the rent (30%).
62 | Page
achieving their self-sufficiency plan
Case managers should keep in touch
The Road Home should keep in touch with tenants after their official time in the program so that they can resolve issues that the family might be experiencing while paying rent on their own.
Various examples; HUD recommends for RRHP providers to stay in contact by phone families for at least 6-moths after the subsidy ends
TRH case managers and tenants
● Allows tenants after the program ends to come back to their case managers with any questions or concerns they might have
● It would take more time from case managers, which translated into additional cost
Streamlining the process of obtaining personal documents necessary for the RRHP
Often, background checks, social security cards, etc.—all necessary for participating from the RRHP are difficult to obtain resources. If the Road Home followed up ore quickly or if the process was more flexible this would help families
San Diego, California is implementing a housing-first initiative with incredible financial backing
The housing locator team at TRH, case managers (different types) at TRH, landlords (private and public), other offices at the national-level and local-level such as such as social security
● Expedited process ● Help/provide services
and resources to more families
● Partner with more landlords which allow for less document-strict standards
● Partner with more sheltering teams and resources.
● Allow for less strict-policies coming from a national-level.
● Unlikely to get widespread acceptance/approval
● Might allow for too flexible of a process
● Might overwhelm the Road Home and other shelters when more people see approval (from no documents) and funding/services don’t extend at a correlative rate.
63 | Page
Tenants Revise Eligibility Criteria HUD explicitly stated in its RRHP grant announcement that the most appropriate family for the program, “should have, or be willing to obtain, employment that increases the income of the household to such a degree that it can independently sustain housing at the end of the short-term housing assistance”(Burt et al., 2016). Since it is important for families to be able to pay rent own their own after the end of the subsidy it might be important to reconsidered who is given the assistance. For example, some families already have a low-paying or part time job while others have been experiencing long-term unemployment. The Road Home should consider the possibility of screening out families are unlikely to be able to pay their full rent unassisted after program completion. Arizona developed locally a self-sufficiency matrix to identify the families best suited for the RRHP. The assumption here is that families that are most self-sufficient are more likely to succeed. If families were less likely to be self-sufficient because of a disability, long-term employment or criminal backgrounds staff would sign them up for permanent housing instead as they need more support. (Cunningham, Gillespie, & Anderson, 2015).
Prepare Families for the RRHP Subsidy One recommendation for the RRHP is to prepare families for the program before they enter it, while they are still living in the shelter. This recommendation came from one theme that came up during the focus groups: that families were placed in housing with the expectation of providing at least part of their monthly rental payment, often without any way of reaching that goal because of a lack of employment. When families are
either unable to pay their portion or have their stipend suddenly cut off, they are often unable to fulfill their contract and are evicted, which makes attaining future housing more difficult.
In New Orleans, the RRPH relies on a “Barriers to Housing Assessment Form,” which looks at 11 different factors for each family that would impede their ability to gain long-term employment or maintain housing. These factors include issues such as loss of employment, inadequate childcare, and poor credit history. Based on these scores, they determine which families are facing moderate difficulties obtaining housing and are therefore best prepared to enter the program. While identifying these factors is a great first step, it is also important to help address the barriers themselves. For instance, a credit repair program or more emphasis being placed on helping families gain employment before placement would help them feel more prepared to pay the rent subsidy and eventually maintain independent long-term housing.
Landlords suggested preparing tenants by giving them a class in financial management. In addition, it might be important to give tenants a training in tenant and landlord relationships. Some tenants did not pay rent on time or their portion of the rent, when they stopped paying they stopped all communication. Tenants could benefit from knowing their rights and responsibilities. Tenants reported problems with landlords regarding maintenance issues and they also seems to have questions about visitors, singing leases, among other issues.
Define Subsidy Length Many respondents mentioned that the length of the subsidy was not clear. Many respondents had some experience about evicting by landlords even the respondents did not know when funding was over. In addition, many homelessness received different and short-term subsidies. Some of them only got a 45-
64 | Page
day subsidy, but the other had a 60-day one. And the respondents said that the subsidy length was too short whether it was a 45-day or 60-day. Defining a pre-determined length of subsidy is very necessary for creating expectations among recipients as well as helping them to achieve success.
Incrementally Increase the Rent of Tenant In order to help ensure that recipients of the Rapid Rehousing Subsidy will likely not return to the shelter, it is recommended that they have the recipient of the Rapid Rehousing voucher pay a portion of the required rent. The rent contributions that the recipient pays will gradually be increased over time so that by the end of the subsidy period, they will be paying the entire rent. By allowing participants to pay a portion of the rent they become accustomed to being responsible for paying for their own housing and by the end of the voucher period they are self-sufficient. This same format for the Rapid Rehousing voucher has been used in Contra Costa County in California and in King County, Seattle and has been successful in helping people become more self-sufficient and ultimately be more successful in staying in their housing long term. In the focus group that was conducted, too often they had found that they weren’t able to pay for their rent after the Rapid Rehousing subsidy had ended, or that they were asked to pay too high of a portion of rent at the beginning. This idea of rent gradually increasing and with that the tenants’ responsibility for their housing as well, was positively received. Focus group participants seemed to think that this was a realistic way of helping to pay for their housing but also helping them to get on their feet at the beginning before they needed to take care of everything on their own.
Case Management Related to Employment The participants in the Road Home focus groups discussed at great length their case managers in relation to employment; both what they would like to see change and to stay the same as tenants in the Rapid Rehousing Program. Most participants expressed that they would like to see greater consistency in the employment-related support they receive from their case managers. The participants suggested that this support comes in the form of case managers providing increased access to employment paying greater than minimum wage, as well as providing skills training and income-budgeting workshops. Many felt that the employment opportunities emerged based on the case manager and they more ad-hoc that most would prefer.
Childcare Subsidies There are several child care organizations in Utah, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Children’s Service Society Program, and Child Care Assistance program, etc. These organizations provide families with child assistance to ensure healthy development for children. Road Home can obtain support from these organizations. According to the focus group interview with tenants, the childcare program of Road Home is limited to the age group above three years old that means families with a child under this age have to take their children themselves. This situation puts the homeless family under pressure for finding jobs, houses, etc.
Additionally, the subsidies that families receive for childcare barely response to the needs and necessities. So, the participation of Road Home with the child care assistance organizations in Utah can benefit the homeless family in two different ways. First, providing more financial assistance to enable families to pay childcare centers cost outside the shelter. Secondly, the improvement of childcare activities in the
65 | Page
shelter. Take, for example, covering all age groups’ child assistance, providing more spaces for childcare, and providing training and technical support to childcare providers.
Bassuk et al. (2014) have researched preventing and ending child homelessness and mentioned in addition to providing safe, affordable housing and child assistance, trauma-informed care should be considered as well. Bassuk et al. (2014) wrote that families who experience homelessness are associated with mental diseases such as depression that affect both parents and children. All agencies need to provide trauma-informed care that is an organizational approach to provide services through the lens of trauma (Ellen L. Bassuk, DeCandia, Beach, & Berman, 2014). This viewpoint can be considered for the improvement of childcare in the Road Home program that can mitigate the side effects of homelessness on children or even hinder the next generation of homelessness.
Assistance with Furniture and Other Necessities TRH should help every tenant with moving expenses (e.g., furniture and other associated cost) or connect them with those who can help on this regard. This strategy could be implemented by TRH and partners such as Goodwill, The Other Side Thrift Boutique, among others. The por of this strategy is that tenants would not have to spend funds in furniture and other material good when they could use them towards other necessities. The con is that this will cost possibly additional funds to The Road Home. Federally the RRHP helps to these move-in costs. Road Home case managers offer this type of assistance to tenant, but as of right now it doesn’t seem to be systematic.
Always Offer Rides to See Apartments Case managers should always offer tenants a ride so they can tour housing developments. Federally the RRHP established that case managers should offer rides to families. Road Home case managers offer this type of assistance to tenant, but not all of the time. Some tenants who do not have transportation reported not being able to see possible apartments while others aid that they received ride. The issue seems to be that case managers are busy and they might not be able to take tenants in a time sensitive manner.
Access to Transportation There exists multiple departments and governmental agencies which can cooperate together to initiate the program or plan which will encourage more people to be aware of the feasibility of transportation programs available around the shelters. Families experiencing homelessness face difficulties paying for their travel expenses—it is hard for them to buy a car and taking the bus with several family members can quickly become costlier than owning a car. If there are no measures taken to improve the transportation programs for homeless families they will be missing out in educational and employment opportunities.
The Road Home already partners with organizations that can help families to get a car (e.g. Wheels For Wishes Car Donation) and this is a great resource for families. The Utah Transportation Authority could be a partner of the Road Home and offer tokens to families that need them to get to work, go to a job interview or to community college. The Road Home could also help families with emergency gas money or a bus pass, if for example their car breaks down. It’s important for case managers to educate families about housing and transportation cost when making employment choices and
66 | Page
commuting decisions. Finally, it’s necessary to optimizing housing and social service locations in areas that transportation service is reliable.
Assistance Finding Housing Rapid Rehousing is a short to medium-term program. While this program is designed to move families out of shelters quickly, it should provide some special services to help families stabilize their permanent housing. The short length of the assistance program causes extra anxiety for the families since they are uninsured about the period of lasting their assistance and how those decisions are made (Cunningham et al., 2015). Some tenants reported that they were offered more direct aid, driving clients to available units or to meet with landlords. Whereas, others felt unsupported or did not know this was an option. Road Home requires some strategies to focus on disparities in how homeless and housing services and programs impact diverse populations. A consistent and equitable service will help both the program to fight with the barriers of ending homelessness and families to find their permanent houses.
Road Home can expand its links and collaborations with other social service providers and various funders in addition to government programs to get more services and assistance for the families. These expanded services are able to help families consistently for a more extended period. Consistent services can help families to improve their skills, employment opportunities, self-sufficiency, and being more independent. In these services, equality should be considered as one of the crucial factors in which vulnerable populations are guaranteed to get benefitted from the assistance equally. This equality may increase trust between the Road Home and families in addition to encouraged the homeless applicants to be more involved in overcoming homelessness barriers.
Pay Application Fee Federally the RRHP helps families to pay for rent and move-in assistance. In that line, TRH could pay for the rental application fee of tenants. The pro is that helping tenants with their application fee as this is might be a barrier to permanent housing. The con of this strategy is it is good to have tenants contribute to their housing as a way to buy-in and value more the program.
More Time to Find a Place Although the RRHP goal is to find housing as quickly as possible for families, the length of time should be extended if families need more time. There are not examples of this in other RRHP that the authors could find. Some of the pros is that families that want to find the right place could take a little longer. Moreover, families who wish to find a job before signing a new lease would be more prepared to pay their own rent once the program’s subsidy ends. As mentioned before this strategy goes against one of the goals of the RRHP which is reducing the amount of time, they experience homelessness is a goal of the program. This extension could be an exception to the rule.
Rent at 30% After the Subsidy is Over Affordable housing is an effective way to ensure long-term housing stability among households experiencing homelessness. Families express the need to finding an apartment where they would pay 30% of their income. Currently case managers are referring families to sign up for Section 8 or similar subsidized housing. However, affordable housing resources currently fall far short of the need; it is hard for case managers to find these opportunities for tenants right after the RRHP.
67 | Page
Property Owners and Managers Protecting Landlords of Income Interruption Landlords who rent to Rapid Rehousing Program tenants take a greater financial risk than they otherwise would. They are renting to people with limited financial resources and who may have poorer financial literacy and person budgeting skills than the average renter. Landlord B from this project had to evict all three of her former RRHP tenants. When this happens, or when tenants abandon their rental units with property still inside, landlords have to foot the cost. The costs of unpaid rent, performing lockouts, cleaning the units, and hauling away leftover property of former tenants are significant deterrents to landlords to continue being involved with the program. It is the recommendation of this study that The Road Home implement a landlord risk mitigation program. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency did a review of nine of these programs across the country and developed its own guidelines for program design. This information can be found in Landlord Risk Mitigation Funds: A Literature and Design Review.
This program would be implemented by The Road Home housing staff in partnership with all landlords renting to tenants in the Rapid Rehousing Program. There are two main pros for this recommendation. First, the lower financial risks would attract more new landlords to participate in the program. Second, the lower financial risks would also help maintain positive relationships with existing landlords, even when they have poor experiences with RRHP tenants. The main con of this recommendation is that it would require additional funding. Such funding is always scarce and difficult to obtain. However, if this recommendation could be implemented, it
would increase the rental options of RRHP tenants, which complements other recommendations noted in this report.
Centralizing Rental Applications One recommendation that could help property owners and property managers who would like to participate in the Rapid Rehousing program is a centralized rental application. This would essentially be a single source (likely online) through which all units available to Rapid Rehousing tenants could be posted and rented as needed.
As far as the authors are aware, no example of a centralized rapid rehousing rental application and leasing site exists in the United States currently. Housing Alliance Delaware (a statewide homeless services organization in Delaware) takes a somewhat similar approach that they refer to as Centralized Intake. Centralized Intake is centralized system in Delaware that clients can contact either directly (by dialing 211) or through a service provider when needed. The Centralized Intake system provides statewide coordinated access to emergency shelter, rapid rehousing, and permanent supportive housing for homeless households (Housing Alliance Delaware, 2019). This service is different from what we propose in that it centralizes access to all forms of housing for homeless individuals, but it can be adjusted and improved for application in the Salt Lake County CoC.
We envision a centralized system in Salt Lake County where service providers such as The Road Home can easily and actively search with RRH recipients for suitable housing. The system could be used to standardize the information and photos available about each available apartment so that searching for housing becomes easier.
68 | Page
Master-leasing The system could also be set up to allow for The Road Home to “master lease” the apartments themselves and then sublease to Rapid Rehousing tenants. This could be beneficial for tenants that face the most difficulties finding housing such as those with a criminal background record or an eviction. In this way, The Road Home would be the responsible party in the event that a tenant fails to pay rent after subsidies are ended. This would insulate property owners from some of the problems they have experienced with tenants failing to pay after their tenants’ subsidies have ended, and it would prevent tenants from the consequences of rent delinquency. The Road Home would potentially face financial losses with some tenants in this case, as they would likely end up spending extra money to either break the lease or fulfill the contract in the event that a tenant cannot pay on their own. However, this system could improve the relationships between property owners and TRH as well as between property owners and tenants in addition to making eligible housing easier to find. Alternatively, if a former RRHP recipient fails to pay their rent and must be evicted, TRH would have the ability to quickly place a family in the unit since it would already be under contract. This would eliminate the need to break existing leases and reduce the possibility of financial losses related to master-leasing. Examples of master leasing could be found in in Pennsylvania and in NYC (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2015a).
Improve Communication with Landlords It can often be challenging for landlords, tenants, and case managers to be similarly informed of the Rapid Rehousing Program process, including details concerning subsidy length
and amount, as well as how the leasing and potential eviction process works. By laying out clear guidelines and expectations, knowledge can be better disseminated between parties and communication enhanced for all involved. As was captured in the focus groups conducted with tenants currently using RRHP services, subsidy information and notices from TRH is not always received; landlords are often left out of the subsidy process entirely. Because of the lack of information and partnership support, landlords may ahead with the eviction process without understanding that the tenant has also been underinformed.
Some Rapid Rehousing programs rely on third party service agencies to provide assistance to landlords (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2015a). These third-party agencies act as a buffer between the program case managers, tenants, and landlords, and help to facilitate a respectful and information-based dialogue about program expectations. The agencies may also assist landlords in identifying potential RRHP tenants that will work well in the units available for lease (reducing vacancy rates), as well making sure that rents are paid on time and avoiding evictions if at all possible. If third party costs exceed budgeted program allowance, social services providers such as The Road Home can pilot an internal program with similar functions.
Shorter Leasing Agreements A daunting challenge facing a person overcoming homelessness can be signing a lease. Typically, landlords only will provide a one-year leasing option. This can cause a lot of stress for both the landlord and the tenant in terms of the feasibility of completing the lease. It would be beneficial to offer shorter leasing agreements, such as three- or six-month leases. This would protect the property owner in the event of an unexpected vacancy of the unit. If this happened in a short-
69 | Page
term lease, they would not feel like they are missing out on a much greater portion of money. It also may allow the unit to be rented much quicker.
If the RRHP recipient proves themselves to be a successful tenant, then the lease should easily be extendable. This type of commitment to the tenant ensures them that they will be able to make a home there as long as they are meeting the financial terms of the lease. Having a sense of security can incentivize good performance and foster positive relationships. Under a shorter lease system, it is recommended that TRH keep open communication lines with the property owners and the RRHP recipients. This will ensure each party is adhering to their appropriate role and meeting their expectations. Shorter leases may also give the tenant greater flexibility should their employment or other needs change as they transition back into a successful lifestyle. An RRHP recipient may find a need to relocate, whether that be for a better job or better education access, for them in another part of town A short lease would allow them to be able to make changes that best fit their needs.
Location of Units A commonly mentioned issue that rapid rehousing tenants discussed was the need for available housing units in better, safer, and more integrated neighborhoods. They explained that units available through the rapid rehousing program are frequently located in very low-income and unsafe neighborhoods where drug use and alcohol abuse are rampant. This is especially an issue for recovering addicts who are unlikely to remain in recovery living in these environments. One tenant said: “And it’s just been chaos trying to find a place. And the ones that we have found are slums... we’re in recovery. And the ones that they want us to go to is full of nothing but drugs. And it’s like setting somebody up to fail.”
While implementing this recommendation is likely to result in positive outcomes for tenants of the rapid rehousing program who would be able to find housing in better neighborhoods, it may prove hard to implement. Providing housing units in better neighborhoods would require the Road home to build relationships with landlords in higher income neighborhoods and to provide an even greater subsidy to pay for more expensive housing in better neighborhoods. The increased cost and time that it would require to secure housing in better neighborhoods could make the initial transition to better housing units difficult, but in the long run it could lead to higher levels of self-sufficiency for tenants that would reduce long term costs. Additionally, findings from a City Observatory Study conducted to determine some of America’s most racially and income diverse cities further confirmed the already strongly supported hypothesis that more diverse cities contribute to economic success (Cortright 2018).
Case Managers and Service Providers Incentivize Families for Achieving Goals In Madison, Wisconsin the RRHP uses a pretty interesting approach to incentivize tenants to pay the rent. The monthly rent collected from the tenants, which is 30% of their income would be set aside and deposited in an Individual Development Account (IDA). These monies could be used for other purposes like education, job search, paying credit cards or other goals towards the family achieving their self-sufficiency plan. This would be slightly more expensive for the Road Home as they would have to cover the tenant’s portion of the rent (30%).
70 | Page
Case managers Should Keep in Touch The Road Home should keep in touch with tenants after their official time in the program so that they can resolve issues that the family might be experiencing while paying rent on their own. HUD recommends for RRHP providers to stay in contact by phone families for at least 6-months after the subsidy ends (Burt et al., 2016). If this is successful the program can extend these calls up to 12 months. The program should also allow tenants after the program ends to come back to their case managers with any questions or concerns they might have. This strategy, however, would take more time from case managers, which translates into additional cost.
Streamlining Documentation Often, background, social security, criminal etc. documents necessary for obtaining Rapid Rehousing Program resources through the Road Home and other shelters are difficult and rely on external factors which in turn negatively affect a family’s ability to obtain resources. If the dependence on or use of personal documents was a more flexible process, the longevity of a family’s dependence on RRH and coordination with outside entities would decrease and potentially be a more successful, expedited process of gaining independence. Often the time in which RRH and other teams spend waiting on background and other personal documentation to be received stops families from receiving needed services and resources and from participating with the program at all.
San Diego, California is implementing a housing-first initiative with incredible financial backing. The homelessness action plan for San Diego Housing Commission’s (SDHC) “directs $79.7 million in federal, City of San Diego, and SDHC resources over three fiscal years into six programs that will create permanent housing opportunities for 3,000 individuals
and families experiencing homelessness in the city” (Housing First, n.d.). This will be an interesting case study, which serves a larger-scale population of people and families facing homelessness and allocated resources to address this issue. If this is a successful program for San Diego, many other cities combatting this issue could follow suit and attempt to allocate federal and local funds to services able to direct resources to these families and individuals. If this is an unsuccessful case study, other cities can still learn from this initiative. Most importantly, this study does not create barriers for families by demanding specific documentation and background information before receiving services.
71 | Page
72 | Page
Conclusion According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, one-fourth of homeless people are at the risk of being homeless again (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2016). One of the main challenges of the RRHP would be how homeless people can be qualified for a permanent and stable situation after exiting the shelter. If the program could not enable the homeless family to reach a stable condition, the shelter would become places for the homeless people that can come over and over, and it will become only a temporary residential place. For this reason, the main goal of the project is finding out why families, who are experiencing homelessness, return to the shelter to repeat their homelessness. The various factors such as subsidy, finding a job, landlords or case manager role, etc. are investigated to find out how these side issues affect homeless people to return to the shelter again. The importance of studying the side issues is that if homeless people could not find a job will lose her or his house consequently and back to shelter again. Moreover, through the focus group, the effects of other factors were asked and analyzed to provide recommendations that can be effective in increasing household capacity to stay out of homelessness. The prospect of this research project is by providing useful recommendations and improving the program can decrease the number of homelessness who backs to the shelter again.
This report outlines many important findings to consider when making changes to the Rapid Rehousing Program. Some were common across multiple groups, such as the need for consistency and improved communication. Tenants asked for consistency in their treatment by case managers and the resources they had access to, and the landlord interviews revealed a need for a centralized application system that would be the same for all tenants and landlords. Improved
communication was also suggested by all three groups; tenants expressed a desire for more communication with case managers, a sentiment echoed during the social service providers focus group. Landlords wanted to be in more communication with both the Road Home and with tenants. In all cases, this improvement is meant to include both keeping in better communication throughout the program, as well as establishing clear expectations from the outset.
Each group also had findings that were more individualized to their specific experience. Tenants talked about how the rapid rehousing program did increase their sense of physical security, but not necessarily their sense of financial security, since they did not know what length of subsidy they could expect. Landlords mentioned that they had differing experiences working with The Road Home staff, which might be an important consideration when looking at making the program more consistent. Social service providers discussed the program itself, including the important note that families are able to choose for themselves where to live, but discouraged from living too far from important services such as public transportation and health care providers. The findings of these groups are important because they reflect the experience of the people who are actually involved with the Rapid Rehousing Program, and it might be a good idea to continue to get feedback like this through surveys.
There were a number of different recommendations that were proposed after the results and findings of the focus groups and interviews. While some were the same across the board, others were specific depending on if the recommended improvement came from a tenant, landlord, or case manager.
There were a number of requested recommendations from the tenants, the first was for them to be given a more clearly definable length of the subsidy. Often participants felt like they
73 | Page
had no idea what exactly their subsidy would cover and how long they would have it. Defining these terms more clearly would help tenants to more fully utilize what they have been given. Other recommendations included incremental rent increase, housing units in better neighborhoods and childcare subsidies.
Having some kind of financial security for landlords was one of the main recommendations along with shorter lease terms. These were two improvements that could be made that would not only benefit the landlords, but also the tenants as well. If shorter lease options were available, it would empower the tenants and help them realize that they can stay in their housing. This improvement would benefit the landlords as they would have tenants that would actually stay their full lease term and ideally there wouldn’t be as many problems with eviction and financially it would be better for everyone.
For case managers, some of the recommendations that were requested was just to have more of them. There simply aren’t enough to help everyone that needs it and adequately meet their needs. The recommendation does come at a cost and that may be difficult, but focus group participants consistently said that having a greater relationship with their case manager would be welcomed.
Even though we tried our best to figure out the research questions which were mentioned above, there were some limitations in this research. First, the genders and characters of respondents is an essential limitation. We made a couple of focus groups to gather data and information which use to research, however, most of the respondents were females and single mothers. The responses of focus groups may have some tendencies to females. In addition, even though we prepared some questions for asking employed status, most of the respondents were workless. This made some difficulties in
gathering information about homelessness’s working experiences and status. Also, we made tenants, landlords, and social service providers as the primary research targets. However, we received few responses from social service providers because there were few available respondents to attend our focus groups. This caused lacking of data about social service providers in this research.
While we gathered substantial necessary data and responses from respondents to support this research, this research has some potential spaces for extension in the future research. As we mentioned above, lacking responses from social service providers was a limitation in this research. However, this could be a potential research topic. According to the responses from tenants, many respondents had different experiences with their social service providers; the experiences could be trust or suspicion. The relationships between tenants and social service providers could be a key of achieving success in the Rapid Rehousing Program. Therefore, focusing on social service providers as the main targets in further research is the desired topic to explore in the future.
In summary, the research on whether some of homeless people return to shelters or not can be great importance to the entire society because that help us to analyze what is the main motivation behind this happening. According to the findings, methods, research questions and limitations summarized previously, majority of homeless people actually have strong intention to leave shelters permanently even if they have had some difficulties in starting their own new life. Moreover, even though the shelters can provide homeless people with enough resources as much as they want, majority of homeless people still have had somewhat dissatisfaction with the overall quality of rapid housing program. In order to help narrow the gap between homeless and local authorities in term of
74 | Page
communication, some recommendations (e.g.: changes to the eligibility requirements, educational programs and exploration into re-employment) have been given and presented in this report.
Furthermore, after reviewing our communication history with shelters and other parties, it can be observed that most of homeless people from shelters or housing programs actually are looking for new opportunities regarding seeking re-employment, social connection’s establishment or childcare assistance. That is because many of them have had some employment and rental histories before and thus they can turn over the old page in their life. After that, they can start to make complete changes to existing life landscape. If recommendations can be referred to relevant authorities to execute these policies, more assistance programs can come into being and help these homeless people to leave shelters and they would never come back. It is extremely significant if we can apply these recommendations into reality and get better understanding of the main motives why these homeless people have no choices but to return to shelters although they are employed before.
75 | Page
76 | Page
References Bassuk, E L, & Rosenberg, L. (1988). Why does family
homelessness occur? A case-control study. American Journal of Public Health, 78(7), 783–788. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.78.7.783
Bassuk, Ellen L. (1993). Social and Economic Hardships of Homeless and Other Poor Women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(3), 340–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079443
Bassuk, Ellen L., DeCandia, C. J., Beach, C. A., & Berman, F. (2014). America’s youngest outcasts: A report card on child homelessness. Retrieved from https://apo.org.au/node/52181
Beer, A., Baker, E., Mallett, S., Batterham, D., Pate, A., & Lester, L. (2012). Addressing Homelessness amongst Persons with a Disability: Identifying and Enacting Best Practice (National Homelessness Research Projects No. 1-EFBLTW). Retrieved from A FaHCSIA National Homelessness Research Project website: https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/assets/documents/hilda-bibliography/other-publications/2012/Beer_etal_Homelessness-and-Disability-FINAL-REPORT-2-2.pdf
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (n.d.). Focus Groups in Social Research (Introducing Qualitative Methods series). In Trends and uses of focus groups. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Groups-Research-Introducing-Qualitative-Methods-dp-0761957421/dp/0761957421/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=
Boushey, H. (2002). Staying Employed After Welfare (No. 128). Retrieved from Economic Policy Institute website: https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp128/
Brinkmann, S. (2013). Qualitative Interviewing (1 edition). Oxford University Press.
Burt, M., Wilkins, C., Spellman, B., D’Alanno, T., White, M., White, M., & Mathews, N. (2016). Evaluation of the Rapid Re-
housing for Homeless Families Demonstration (RRHD) Program. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development website: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/rapid-rehousing-program.html
Calvo, F., Carbonell, X., & Badia, M. (2018). Homelessness and Unemployment During the Economic Recession: The Case of the City of Girona. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 14(13), 59.
Collins, S. E., Malone, D. K., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2013). Housing Retention in Single-Site Housing First for Chronically Homeless Individuals With Severe Alcohol Problems. American Journal of Public Health, 103(Suppl 2), S269–S274. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301312
Conrad, K. J., PhD, M. D. M., PhD, P. H., MD, D. J. L., MA, C. S., RN, B. D., & MD, M. S. (1999). Representative Payee for Individuals with Severe Mental Illness at Community Counseling Centers of Chicago. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 17(1–2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1300/J020v17n01_10
Council of Economic Advisors. (2019). The State of Homelessness in America. Retrieved from Council of Economic Advisors website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/The-State-of-Homelessness-in-America.pdf.
Crane, M., & Warnes, A. M. (2000). Evictions and Prolonged Homelessness: Housing Studies. Housing Studies, 15(5), 757–773.
Culhane, D., & Metraux, S. (1999). One-year rates of public shelter utilization by race/ethnicity, age, sex and poverty status for New York City (1990 and 1995) and Philadelphia (1995). Popul. Res. Policy Rev, 18, 219–236.
Cunningham, M., Gillespie, S., & Anderson, J. (2015). Rapid Rehousing. Retrieved from Urban Institute website: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/54201/2000265-Rapid-Rehousing-What-the-Research-Says.pdf
77 | Page
Cusack, M., & Montgomery, A. E. (2017). The role of eviction in veterans’ homelessness recidivism. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 26(1), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10530789.2017.1314093
de Vet, R., van Luijtelaar, M. J. A., Brilleslijper-Kater, S. N., Vanderplasschen, W., Beijersbergen, M. D., & Wolf, J. R. L. M. (2013). Effectiveness of case management for homeless persons: A systematic review. American Journal of Public Health, 103(10), e13-26. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301491
Desmond, M. (2012). Eviction and the Reproduction of Urban Poverty. American Journal of Sociology, 118(1), 88–133. https://doi.org/10.1086/666082
Desmond, M. (2015). Unaffordable America: Poverty, Housing, and Eviction. Fast Focus: Institute for Research on Poverty, 22, 1–6.
Fleming, T., Damon, W., Collins, A. B., Czechaczek, S., Boyd, J., & McNeil, R. (2019). Housing in crisis: A qualitative study of the socio-legal contexts of residential evictions in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. International Journal of Drug Policy, 71, 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.12.012
Foster, D. (2016, February 18). Eviction is the last refuge for poor tenants. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/18/eviction-poor-tenants-social-landlords-homelessness-welfare-cuts
Gold, A. E. (2016). No Home for Justice: How Eviction Perpetuates Health Inequity among Low-Income and Minority Tenants. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 24(1), 59–88.
Gould, T. E., & Williams, A. (2010). Family Homelessness: An Investigation of Structural Effects. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 20(2). Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10911350903269765
Hahn, H., Rohacek, M. R., & Isaacs, J. (2018). Improving Child Care Subsidy Programs: Findings from the Work Support Strategies Evaluation. Retrieved from Urban Institute website:
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/96376/improving_child_care_subsidy_programs.pdf
Hardman, S. (2019). Affordable TTC: A Ticket to the City. Retrieved from Fair Fare Coalition website: https://www.ttcriders.ca/2954-2/
Hubley, A. M., Russell, L. B., Palepu, A., & Hwang, S. W. (2014). Subjective Quality of Life Among Individuals who are Homeless: A Review of Current Knowledge. Social Indicators Research, 115(1), 509–524. Retrieved from JSTOR.
HUD. (2012). Homeless Definition. Retrieved from https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/HomelessDefinition_RecordkeepingRequirementsandCriteria.pdf.
HUD. (2018). Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations. Retrieved from https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_NatlTerrDC_2018.pdf.
Hui, V., & Habib, K. N. (2017). Homelessness vis-à-vis Transportation-Induced Social Exclusion: An Econometric Investigation of Travel Behavior of Homeless Individuals in Toronto, Canada. Transportation Research Record, 2665(1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.3141/2665-07
Human Rights Watch. (2019). No Second Chance: People with Criminal Records Denied Access to Public Housing: III. Background. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/usa1104/3.htm
Kim, K., & Garcia, I. (2019). Why Do Homeless Families Exit and Return the Homeless Shelter? Factors Affecting the Risk of Family Homelessness in Salt Lake County (Utah, United States) as a Case Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(22), 4328. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224328
Leonard, W. (2018). Utah has a ‘housing crisis’ in a lack of affordable homes. Retrieved from https://www.ksl.com/article/46381233/utah-has-a-housing-crisis-in-a-lack-of-affordable-homes.
78 | Page
Letiecq, B. L., Anderson, E. A., & Koblinsky, S. A. (1996). Social Support of Homeless and Permanently Housed Low-Income Mothers with Young Children. Family Relations, 45(3), 265–272. https://doi.org/10.2307/585498
Melbourne, N. S., University of. (2018, February 28). The grim cycle of homelessness and unemployment. Retrieved December 11, 2019, from Pursuit website: https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-grim-cycle-of-homelessness-and-unemployment
Munthe‐Kaas, H. M., Berg, R. C., & Blaasvær, N. (2018). Effectiveness of interventions to reduce homelessness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14(1), 1–281. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2018.3
Murphy, E. R. (2019). Transportation and homelessness: A systematic review. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 28(2). Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10530789.2019.1582202?journalCode=ysdh20
National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2016, May 20). How good case management can lead to successful rapid re-housing. Retrieved December 12, 2019, from National Alliance to End Homelessness website: https://endhomelessness.org/why-good-case-management-success-for-rapid-re-housing-participants/
National Coalition for the Homeless. (2009). Substance Abuse and Homelessness Bringing America Home. Retrieved from National Coalition for the Homeless website: https://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf
Oakes, P. M., & Davies, R. C. (2008). Intellectual disability in homeless adults: A prevalence study. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 12(4), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629508100496
Park, S. (2009). Domestic Violence Survivor Achieves Policy Changes at Michigan Management Company. Clearinghouse Review, 43(1), 74–87.
Polcin, D. L. (2016). Co-occurring substance abuse and mental health problems among homeless persons: Suggestions for
research and practice. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 25(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1179/1573658X15Y.0000000004
Poremski, D., Woodhall-Melnik, J., Lemieux, A. J., & Stergiopoulos, V. (2016). Persisting Barriers to Employment for Recently Housed Adults with Mental Illness Who Were Homeless. Journal of Urban Health : Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 93(1), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-015-0012-y
Ruhm, C. J. (2011). Policies to Assist Parents With Young Children. The Future of Children / Center for the Future of Children, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 21(2), 37–68.
Saldana, J. (2015). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers Third Edition (3rd edition). Los Angeles ; London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Salvation Army. (2016). Coventry open day for private landlords to help highlight opportunities with tenants who have experienced homelessness. States News Service.
Schneider, V. (2018). The Prison to Homelessness Pipeline: Criminal Record Checks, Race, and Disparate Impact. 93 Indiana Law Journal 421 (2018), 93(2). Retrieved from https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol93/iss2/4
Scruggs, G. (2010). Once a national model, Utah struggles with homelessness. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-homelessness-housing/once-a-national-model-utah-struggles-with-homelessness-idUSKCN1P41EQ
Sidel, R. (1998). Keeping Women and Children Last: America’s War on the Poor, Revised Edition (Revised edition). New York: Penguin Books.
Sussman, A., & Sullivan, J. (2018). Preventing Homelessness through Representation of Tenants Faced with Eviction,. Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, 44(3), 234–253.
79 | Page
Swick, K. J. (2005). Helping Homeless Families Overcome Barriers to Successful Functioning. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(3), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-005-0044-0
The Road Home. (2019). The Road Home. Retrieved from https://www.theroadhome.org/services/housing/rapid-rehousing/
The State of Homelessness in America. (2018). The State of Homelessness in America. Retrieved from https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report-legacy
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2015a). Landlord Outreach and Recruitment Housing Search Assistance Toolkit. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development website: www.hudexchange.info/resources/housingsearchtool
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2015b). The 2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development website: https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2015-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
US Interagency Council on Homelessness. (2018). Homeless in Utah Statistics 2018. Homeless Estimation by State. Retrieved December 11, 2019, from https://www.usich.gov/homelessness-statistics/ut/
Utah Administrative Code 57-22-5. , (2018). Wood, J. (2018). The Year in Charts Utah’s Housing Market.
Retrieved from Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute website: https://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/YearInCharts-Housing.p
Zlotnick, C., Zerger, S., & Wolfe, P. B. (2013). Health Care for the Homeless: What We Have Learned in the Past 30 Years and What’s Next. American Journal of Public Health, 103(Suppl 2), S199–S205. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301586
80 | Page