community survey s: region 9 - three rivers cap

2021 River Valleys CoC Needs Assessment Region 9 FHPAP supplement: Client and community surveys

2021 River Valleys CoC Needs Assessment R9 FHPAP supplement – p.1

Community Surveys: Region 9 The Family Homelessness and Prevention Assistance Program (FHPAP) is administered across the region by two primary grantees. In region 9, it is administered by Minnesota Valley Action Council. The program provides a range of assistance to families with children, single adults and youth who are homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness, with the goal of preventing or ending homelessness. Currently, the program targets households experiencing moderate vulnerability and barriers to accessing/maintaining housing.

In preparation for a new funding round for FHPAP, clients and community partners were surveyed about community needs and services to prevent and end homelessness.

Client survey Clients of the FHPAP program in the region were surveyed between April 5-23, 2021, with FHPAP grantees and subgrantees contacting current and former clients to complete a short online form. The form could be completed directly by the client or in office with program staff. The goal of the survey was to gather client input on effectiveness of services received or needed to prevent or end homelessness. Surveys were received from 28 respondents. This is roughly the same number of responses than were received during the previous client surveys (2016 and 2018).

Respondents to client survey Clients were asked about general household composition. Nearly all respondents to the client survey (93%) were in adult households, while 7% were in households headed by unaccompanied youth. Between 54% and 61% of households included children. Just over half (52%) of respondents were in households with one or two people, while the remaining respondents were in households of three or more.



In terms of geographic representation, parts of the region were underrepresented in the client survey. These areas include LeSueur, Waseca, and Nicollet Counties.

Regarding household composition and size, respondents in 2021 were disproportionately larger households that include children. This does not represent the overall population of households experiencing or at imminent risk of homelessness in the region, so results should be considered limited or incomplete in representing the needs of single adult and adult only households, as well as youth households.

Experience of homelessness Clients were asked about their general experience of homelessness. About one in 4 respondents reported experiences of literal homelessness (as defined by HUD) within the past three years. An additional 35% had doubled up or stayed temporarily with family or friends, while the remaining 40% reported being concerned about losing housing. Those concerned household may or may not have been at imminent risk, and caution should be used in identifying these households as “at-risk” for funding or program design purposes.

Barriers to accessing and maintaining housing Clients were asked about both personal barriers and system/community barriers to accessing or maintaining their housing.

• For personal barriers, clients were asked, “For me personally, the three hardest things about keeping/getting housing are:”, and then provided a list of 15 potential barriers to housing.



• For system/community barriers, clients were asked, “In my community, the three things that make it harder for most people to get or keep housing are:”, and then provided a list of 12 potential barriers to housing.

• An “Other” category was provided for barriers not named in the picklists.

Overall, two thirds of clients identified low household income as a primary personal barrier, and 7 in 10 identified lack of housing that was affordable to them as a primary system/community barrier. In this way, clients highlighted the mismatch between their household income and housing costs in the community as the largest barrier to accessing and maintaining housing.

The top five primary barriers in each category also highlighted the issues of poor credit and criminal history as a significant issue. Other common personal barriers include lost job/financial emergency. For community/system barriers, respondents also highlighted the overall lack of housing options for them to rent in their community.

Comparing barriers identified by clients in this survey to those identified by respondents in 2016 and 2018, there are many similarities and some differences to monitor. Key trends were:



• The most common personal and system/community barriers noted above (income vs. housing cost, and credit issues) were also the most common barriers in 2016 and 2018.

• Fewer respondents in 2018 and 2021 identified mental health, bad rental history/issues with landlord, and having no household income as primary personal barriers. Instead lost job/expensive emergency and medical issues were identified as more common in 2018, and job loss was an even more prevalent response in 2021.

• For system barriers, more respondents in 2021 stated that there was simply no housing available to rent. Also increasing between 2016, 2018, and 2021, households identified issues with landlord screening for criminal records as a primary system barrier.

Assistance received to resolve housing crisis The survey also addressed the services clients received through FHPAP and associated programs when they were homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Clients were asked about both the services they received and the services they thought were most helpful (top three) to resolve their housing crisis.

Assistance received by respondents reflected eligible activities under FHPAP programs as well as assistance through referral to other community programs. The most common services delivered were back rent, case management, budgeting assistance, landlord tenant information, deposit on a new housing opportunity and first month’s rent assistance.

The types of services judged to be the most helpful by respondents were primarily direct financial assistance: back rent, long-term rent assistance, and short-term rent assistance. Resource referrals and mental health supports also ranked high among the most helpful types of assistance received.



Comments on experience of homelessness Clients were asked, “Is there anything else you would like us to know about experiencing homelessness or preventing homelessness in southern Minnesota?” Comments received emphasized the ongoing affordability needs of households (beyond the impact of the current pandemic), the lack of affordable daycare options for households with children, and the tremendous effort and stress involved with finding resources that help.

• I wouldn't be where I am at today of it wasn't for the program • I don't want to be homeless • Struggling • There needs to be affordable daycare options. Single mothers have to either find a friend or

family member to watch their kids or live off county assistance. Even with daycare assistance there are not enough open spots in the daycares. Being unable to work leads to not enough money for housing costs.

• We need more low income housing 0ptions & programs not just because of covid but because the wages are not enough to afford housing in the area. People need help even when there is not a crisis in the world!

• The housing lists are long. I’ve been trying to find housing for over a year through Section 8. • There are too many slumlords • yes the resources that are funded should be available to the community and communication

should be the most important thing. Just ignoring someone that needs assistance is not okay it leads to more serious situations. This pandemic has been hard on everyone and when the government announced the relief packages on the news it brought hope to many but in the long run was never available to them to access.

• Its stressful not having a place to stay and being homeless for 14 months plus. U tend to lose hope

• I have been in a very ugly predicament, as I have been on GA because of a long term illness so I have not been able to work for more than 10 years and during that time I have been denied every appeal for SSI. That has made it hard for me to apply for or maintain an apartment. I am now on a wait list for section-8, but I don't know how much longer I can live where I am currently staying.

• Finding resources is very hard and when you do find programs they are very confusing. Section 8 and subsidized programs are very long.



Community partner survey As a companion to the client survey, the FHPAP grantees and CoC surveyed community partners about the needs and trends for people experiencing or at-risk of homelessness in their communities. The community partner survey was distributed by CoC listserv as well as by FHPAP grantees and subgrantees to local homeless response team members and any other community members/leaders with insight to provide. The survey was open online between April 5 and 23, 2021. In all, 41 unique individuals completed the survey. This total represents about half the number of responses received in previous partner surveys.

Respondents to survey Community partners were asked basic information about their geographic location, agency/affiliation, role in their agency, subpopulation knowledge/experience, involvement in a local homeless response team, and familiarity with Coordinated Entry. Personal demographic information was not requested.

Overall, the 41 respondents represented 25 separate organizations, companies, and community groups. About 65% were from private entities and groups, while 35% were from public entities. All counties in the region were represented by the respondents.

Types of organizations and groups represented • Chemical health • Child/family • Community group • Disability services • Emergency shelter • Employment • Food/nutrition • Medical service • Homeless program • Housing Authority • Housing developer • Local government • Mental health • School • Social services • Victim services • Youth program

Along with the wide variety of program types, respondents also represent different roles in their agency. About 75% were direct service staff (case worker, financial worker, client advocate, educator, etc.), 15% were program managers or directors, and 10% were agency directors. In the “Other” category are those who identified as volunteer coordinators, school homeless liaisons, and individual community members.

Respondents were also asked to identify if their insight on community needs “is based on serving a subpopulation of persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness” and then select any of six options or other. About 4 in 5 respondents indicated insight based on serving families with children;



Youth under age 25 and persons with serious mental illness were also common responses. Respondents in the “other” category named single adults and persons with disabilities as well.

Involvement with broader homeless response system partners Community Partners were asked about their familiarity and involvement with two elements of the broader homeless respond system: Homeless Response Teams and Coordinated Entry. Homeless Response teams are county-level groups that share service information to improve referrals, coordinate the unsheltered part of the annual Point in Time Count, develop local initiatives to meet needs, and provide direct guidance to the CoC on local trends and new projects.

When asked about involvement in a local Homeless Response Team or other local coalition related to homelessness, 9 in 10 respondents indicated involvement. This level of involvement is expected given the distribution methods for the survey (via FHPAP grantees, which facilitate HRTs in the counties they serve. However, the survey responses also present opportunities for further engagement with the 10% of community partners who are not currently involved in a local HRT.

Respondents also indicated their self- assessed level of familiarity with the Coordinated Entry system. Coordinated Entry is a regional shared assessment and referral system to improve housing referrals and ensure that our limited homeless-designated resources are directed to those who most need the available housing and services. Overall, 55% said they were very familiar or extremely familiar with Coordinated Entry (a 10-point increase from 2018). In the examples provided with the response options, persons who are very or extremely familiar with Coordinated Entry can explain it to their colleagues, community partners, clients, and supervisees. Those who are somewhat familiar (31%) know enough about it to complete their tasks related to Coordinated Entry.

Comparing familiarity with Coordinated Entry between respondents involved with an HRT and those who were not, however, showed that HRT involvement and knowledge of Coordinated Entry are positively correlated. All respondents who were extremely familiar with Coordinated Entry and 80% of those who were very familiar were HRT members; in contrast, 70% of those who were not at all familiar with Coordinated Entry were also not involved in their local HRT. At the same time, nearly half of respondents who rated themselves in other categories were also HRT members, presenting an opportunity to better educate and engage HRT members in Coordinated Entry.



Perceptions of trends and overall needs for homeless response services Respondents were asked to indicate what changes have occurred within their communities over the past year. The types of potential changes were grouped into housing-specific elements and non-housing elements.

Community partners were asked, “Thinking back over the last year, describe the trends you've seen that affect people experiencing or at-risk of homelessness in the county/counties you identified above.” Respondents could select Increase, Decrease, No Change, or Don’t know. “Don’t know” responses were excluded for the analysis. (The “Don’t know” response was used most often regarding youth housing and senior housing.)

Housing trends Overall, respondents identified that housing availability and housing affordability had decreased in the past year, while access to emergency housing and short-term rent assistance had increased.



Non-housing trends Overall, respondents identified that job opportunities and transportation access had decreased in the past year, while access to food resources and income supports had increased.

Perceptions of clients’ barriers to housing Respondents were asked to indicate what they believe are the two most significant barriers experienced by clients when they are trying to access and maintain stable housing in the county/counties on which they were providing input. Overall, the availability of affordable housing was rated a significant barrier by the most people, followed by employment/living wage jobs, access to other income, criminal history, and life skills/financial management. Compared to previous assessments, access to other income and life skills/financial management were new to the top five. In previous years, poor/limited rental history, and criminal history ranked higher as significant barriers.

When evaluating the top five responses by household type, availability of affordable housing was the most common barrier identified. Employment/living wage job also appeared in the top five list for all household types except for older adults, but variations in the other barriers perceived as most significant emerged. For adult families with children, child care expenses were a top 5 barrier, but the list for adults without children includes mental health instead and ranks criminal history as slightly more common. For youth households, limited/no rental history and life skills/financial management were identified as primary barriers. For households with seniors in them, access to unearned income (e.g. food support/SNAP) and health care access appeared in the top five.

(Charts on following page.)



Perceptions of most effective resources to resolve housing crises Community partner survey respondents were asked, “What two types of resources have been most effective in resolving your clients' housing crises or homelessness episodes?” In alignment with the question about barriers where availability of affordable housing was the most identified barrier, respondents indicated that first month rent/damage deposit, long-term housing assistance, and housing search and placement were effective resources. Other resources that made the top five effective resources were case management and employment services.



Additional comments Respondents were asked, “What else do we need to know about the needs and priorities in the county or counties you selected?” Overall, respondents identified the lack of housing that is affordable to clients, especially when considering costs of other household expenses like transportation and child care. Other key themes that emerged are the increasing need for longer-term assistance, the lack of emergency shelter (especially for males), and the level of advocacy and effort needed to find housing options.

• Rental assistance usually have too many guidelines. • Transportation in greater MN continues to be a challenge, especially for medical care.



• Lack of affordable and income based housing is a huge issue in Blue Earth County. The amount of competition for affordable rental space with people that can afford it versus those that can't is intense.

• There are so many mental health barriers along with the lack of financial management skills with not only securing employment but consistently working after it is secured. People have a hard time saving and justify this with using their funds to pay for items for their family or unexpected car issues/debt. People come in with barriers of credit (bad or none) as well as with backgrounds, and lack of income. Some are receiving only social security benefits and it is not enough to pay rent and live.

• It takes a long time to get help for someone in crisis. • Right now it seems like Emergency Assistance is turning a lot of people away, I am not aware of

their current funding. Right now they are focusing more on keeping people housed and not on actually housing those that are homeless so there is less resources for those.

• Until COVID is settled a bit there will remain issues with employment and housing. The price of housing for purchase has gone off the high end.

• The best way for people to access services? Is there a one-call point of entry? • Housing and child care openings seem to be a big issues followed by help with damage deposit

and or first months rent. • All homeless persons need services, shelters, assistance on case by case basis. • Not enough low income housing here in our county. Long wait lists to get in. (Faribault County) • No shelter available for males at this time (Nicollet County) • The biggest need I've come across in Martin County is people not being able to find housing and

no emergency housing. • In adults with kids, units for larger families and in adults without kids, 1 or 2 br units. • I'm seeing households right now needing longer rental assistance programs in order to get back

on their feet. One time assistance or short term assistance is not helping as much as it did in the past.

• Transportation is a challenge for the people we serve in Dodge and Waseca counties

community survey s: region 9 - three rivers cap

Documents