2009 Ohio. Year Two: A snapshot of Ohio s homeless numbers during a 24-hour period in Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio COHHIO

Transcription

1 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report Year Two: A snapshot of Ohio s homeless numbers during a 24-hour period in 2009 Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio COHHIO

2 LEAD AUTHOR Erica Mulryan Erica Mulryan joined COHHIO in August 2006 as the Housing and Services Coordinator. Previously, Erica worked as a policy associate with the Mid-America Institute on Poverty of Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights, a service-based human rights organization in Chicago, where she coordinated their immigrant asset-building research project. Erica s professional and academic background has largely focused on anti-poverty research and policy analysis as well as issues involving violence against women. She earned her undergraduate degree in social work from Kansas State University and a Master s degree in Social Work (A.M.) from the School of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago. REPORT CONTRIBUTORS Jonda Clemings Jonda Clemings started as COHHIO s Rural Housing Program Coordinator in May Jonda came from Newark, Ohio where she previously worked as Housing Coordinator for Moundbuilders Guidance Center, a community mental health agency. Jonda participated and held leadership roles in Knox County s Emergency Needs Coalition and Licking County Housing Initiatives Continuum of Care groups where her passion for rural housing and homelessness issues developed. Jonda also represented these communities as part of the Mental Health Housing Leadership Institute and Rural Homeless Initiative of Southeastern and Central Ohio. Jonda received her Bachelor of Arts degree from Ashland University and Master of Science in Education in Social Agency Counseling II from Dayton University. Jonda is a licensed social worker. Paula Jenkins As COHHIO s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) coordinator, Paula Jenkins shares her knowledge of database technology with agencies gaining access to the Ohio-Balance-of-State HMIS. Through comprehensive trainings, she helps participating agencies enter data and establish standards for data quality. In addition, Paula assists with HMIS data analysis and development of its policies and procedures. Her extensive knowledge of computer science stems from her customer service experience with AmeriCorps*VISTA, handling software application questions. Paula also worked as a project manager with Compuserve and a customer support engineer for Lucent Technologies. Paula earned a BS degree in Computer Science from Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey Ohio Homelessness Report

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary...1 Introduction...2 Findings Total Homeless Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless Family Homelessness Individual Homelessness Homeless Subpopulations...9 Chronically Homeless...10 Unaccompanied Youth...12 Severely Mentally Ill...14 Chronic Substance Abusers...15 Veterans...17 Persons with HIV/AIDS...19 Domestic Violence Survivors...20 Data Sources...22 Methodology...23 Limitations and Discussion...23 Conclusion...26 Endnotes...27 Appendix A: Definitions...28 Appendix B Ohio Homelessness Report

4 Executive Summary This document presents the findings from the second annual statewide count of homeless persons in Ohio. Primarily utilizing 2009 Point-in-Time Count data, this report offers an analysis of changes in homeless numbers in Ohio, including a detailed look at subpopulations. The data represent the numbers of people experiencing homelessness during one 24-hour period in January Key findings: - 12,463 Ohioans were homeless during one day in January 2009, 358 less than 2008 (-3%) 1,743 Ohioans were unsheltered in 2009, 751 less than 2008 (-30%) 10,720 Ohioans were sheltered in 2009, 393 more than 2008 (4%) 4,649 persons in families were homeless in 2009, 354 less than 2008 (-7%) 2,187 individuals were chronically homeless, 244 less than 2008 (-10%) 2,969 individuals were chronic substance abusers, 198 less than 2008 (-6%) Overall, Ohio experienced a slight decline in homelessness from 2008 to 2009, including notable decreases in both unsheltered and chronically homeless. In contrast, however, Ohio saw a slight increase in the sheltered homeless population. Possible reasons for these changes are varied and include factors such as weather, greater community participation, improved counting methods, and increased permanent supportive housing development. This report on Ohio homelessness comes at a time of economic uncertainty in our state and nation continuing mortgage/credit crises, corporate bankruptcies in critical industries, and increased challenges related to unemployment. While all of these conditions have the potential to impact homelessness, it is generally considered a lagging indicator, meaning that conditions must continue to worsen for some period of time before people have exhausted all options and resources and find themselves homeless. On a national level recent homeless studies have started to point to a leveling out of homeless numbers, as opposed to the pattern of annual decreases seen over the past several years, perhaps reflecting the beginning of increases in homelessness connected to the economy. Although the impact of current economic conditions on Ohio homelessness remains to be seen, these annual homeless reports may offer providers and advocates with critical information necessary to continue the development of housing programs and homeless services that have proven impact on homelessness in our state Ohio Homelessness Report 1

5 INTRODUCTION This document represents the second annual report on homelessness in Ohio during one 24-hour period in January Data collected from statewide Point-in-Time Counts (PIT) are presented herein, including comparisons to 2008 homeless numbers. Although this report does not include a detailed discussion of causes of changes in homelessness from 2008 to 2009, some possible contributing factors have been identified and limited discussion of their potential impact has been included. FINDINGS Total Homeless On one night in 2009, 12,463 Ohioans were homeless. The Balance of State Continuum of Care (BOSCOC), which is comprised of Ohio s 80 most rural counties, accounted for 38% of the state s total homeless, followed by the Cleveland/Cuyahoga Continuum of Care with 18% of homeless. A more detailed breakdown of homeless numbers by CoC as well as any changes from 2008 is below. Please note that these numbers represent the total number of homeless on ONE night in Ohio, not the numbers of homeless over the course of a year. Total Homeless by Continuum of Care Total Homeless Percentage of Total Ohio Homeless Percent Change from 2008 Akron/Barberton/Summit County 800 6% 9% Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County 402 3% -56% Cincinnati/Hamilton County 883 7% -22% Cleveland/Cuyahoga County % -2% Columbus/Franklin County % 3% Dayton/Montgomery County 861 7% -3% Toledo/Lucas County 945 8% 21% Youngstown/Mahoning County 186 1% -21% Balance of State Continuum of Care % 5% TOTAL % -3% Table 1: Total Homeless by CoC 2009 TOTAL OHIO HOMELESS: 12, Ohio Homelessness Report 2

6 2009 TOTAL OHIO HOMELESS: 12,463 12,463 Total Homeless Figure 1: Total Homeless by CoC Cuyahoga -2% Hamilton -22% Mahoning -21% Montgomery -3% Stark -56% Franklin +3% Lucas +21% Summit +9% -2 BOS Percent Change over Ohio Homelessness Report 3

7 Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless On one night in 2009, there were 10,720 sheltered homeless persons and 1,743 unsheltered persons in Ohio, representing 86% and 14% of the state s total homeless population respectively. As a whole, the state saw a slight increase in the sheltered homeless population in 2009, about 4%, but a 30% decrease in the unsheltered homeless population. Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County CoC, Cincinnati/Hamilton County CoC, and Youngstown/ Mahoning County CoC all saw decreases in their total sheltered homeless population by at least 20% each. In contrast, Akron/Barberton/Summit County CoC, Toledo/Lucas County CoC, and BOSCOC each saw an increase in their sheltered homeless from a 9% increase in Akron to a 23% increase in Toledo. Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless Sheltered Percent Change from 2008 Unsheltered Percent Change from 2008 Entitlement CoCs % % BOSCOC % % TOTAL % % Table 2: Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless Sheltered Homeless Sheltered Homeless Percentage of Total Homeless by CoC Percent Change from 2008 Akron/Barberton/Summit County % 9% Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County % -20% Cincinnati/Hamilton County % -21% Cleveland/Cuyahoga County % -1% Columbus/Franklin County % 4% Dayton/Montgomery County % -1% Toledo/Lucas County % 23% Youngstown/Mahoning County % -20% Balance of State Continuum of Care % 17% TOTAL % 4% Table 3: Sheltered Homeless 58 % 42 % 86 % 14 % Unsheltered Unsheltered Sheltered Sheltered National Homeless Estimates Ohio 2009 Estimates 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 4

8 Most recent national estimates of homelessness have shown that almost 42% of the U.S. homeless population was unsheltered, while 58% were sheltered. Both proportions are strikingly different from Ohio 2009 estimates which show that 86% of the state s homeless population were sheltered and only 14% were unsheltered. Although Ohio s 2008 homeless numbers show slightly less skewed proportions, 81% sheltered and 19% unsheltered, they still are not close to national levels. The most recent Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (AHAR) 1 showed that, for the most part, states with the highest rates of unsheltered homelessness were located in the South and Southwest, indicating that warmer weather conditions may have an impact on the location of homeless within a state. Given this, it seems reasonable that Ohio would have a much smaller rate of unsheltered homeless than the nation as a whole. From the 2008 to 2009 PIT counts, Ohio experienced a 30% decrease in unsheltered homelessness. The greatest decreases occurred in Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County CoC, Dayton/Montgomery County CoC, and Youngstown/Mahoning County CoC, which had 85%, 53%, and 45% decreases respectively. Akron/Barberton/Summit County reported a 10% increase in their unsheltered homeless population, as did Toledo/Lucas County, which reported a 16% increase. Unsheltered Homeless Unsheltered Homeless Percentage of Total Homeless by CoC Percent Change from 2008 Akron/Barberton/Summit County % 10% Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County 77 19% -85% Cincinnati/Hamilton County 35 4% -36% Cleveland/Cuyahoga County 131 6% -13% Columbus/Franklin County 108 8% -8% Dayton/Montgomery County 14 2% -53% Toledo/Lucas County % 16% Youngstown/Mahoning County 6 3% -45% Balance of State Continuum of Care % -22% TOTAL % -30% Table 4: Unsheltered Homeless Figure 3: Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless by CoC 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 5

9 Family Homelessness 600, % of total homeless population 4, % of total homeless population It is estimated that 600,000 families experience homelessness in the U.S. annually, making up about 50% of the homeless population over the course of a year. 2 This estimate includes approximately 1.35 million children. Homeless families generally have lower incomes, are younger, more likely to be pregnant, and less likely to have a housing subsidy than their non-homeless, low-income counterparts. 3 4,649 persons in families (both sheltered and unsheltered) were homeless on one night in 2009 in Ohio, making up about 37% of the total homeless population. In the BOSCOC, persons in families accounted for 51% of the total homeless population, compared to urban CoCs in which families accounted for 29% of homeless. Although both Youngstown/Mahoning County and Canton/ Massillon/Alliance/Stark County reported that families accounted for a fairly significant proportion of their total homeless populations families made up 54% of Youngstown/Mahoning County s total homeless population and 44% of Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County s population. As a whole, Ohio experienced a 7% decrease in total family homelessness from 2008 to Three CoC s in particular saw significant decreases in their local family homelessness, ranging from a 13% decrease in Youngstown/Mahoning County to a 71% decrease in Cincinnati/Hamilton County. Conversely, Toledo/ Lucas County CoC reported a 33% increase in family homelessness, including a 115% increase in their unsheltered family numbers (33 unsheltered in families in 2008 and 71 unsheltered in families in 2009). A more detailed look at family homelessness reveals that families accounted for 40% of the state s sheltered homeless population and 23% of unsheltered. CoCs reported wide variety in the location of homeless families within their local systems. For example, in the BOSCOC, Youngstown/Mahoning County CoC, and Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County CoC persons in families made up at least half of their sheltered homeless populations (57%, 56%, and 51%, respectively). Individuals and Persons in Families Figure 4: Individuals and Persons in Families 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 6

10 Family Homelessness Persons in Families Total Persons in Families - Sheltered Persons in Families - Unsheltered Percent Change from 2008 (sheltered & unsheltered) Akron/Barberton/Summit County % Canton/Massillon/Alliance/ Stark County % Cincinnati/Hamilton County % Cleveland/Cuyahoga County % Columbus/Franklin County % Dayton/Montgomery County % Toledo/Lucas County % Youngstown/Mahoning County % BOSCOC % TOTAL % Table 5: Family Homelessness Proportion of Homeless in Families by Continuum of Care Figure 5: Proportion of Homeless in Families by CoC 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 7

11 Individual Homelessness Ohio s individual homeless numbers remained virtually unchanged from 2008 to On one night in January 2009, 7814 individuals were homeless, 17% of whom were unsheltered. Although the statewide numbers of homeless individuals changed little from 2008, some CoCs reported significant changes, both increases and decreases. Most notably, Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County CoC indicated a 56% decrease in homeless individuals from Similarly, Youngstown/ Mahoning County reported a 29% decrease. The greatest increases in individual homelessness were reported in Columbus/Franklin County CoC, with a 17% increase, and Toledo/Lucas County which had a 15% increase. Individual Homelessness Individuals Total Individuals Sheltered Individuals Unsheltered Percent Change from 2008 (sheltered & unsheltered) Akron/Barberton/Summit County % Canton/Massillon/Alliance/ Stark County % Cincinnati/Hamilton County % Cleveland/Cuyahoga County % Columbus/Franklin County % Dayton/Montgomery County % Toledo/Lucas County % Youngstown/Mahoning County % BOSCOC % TOTAL % Table 6: Individual Homelessness 56% Decrease 17% Increase Largest % Change from 2008 Canton/Massillon/Alliance/ Stark County Columbus/Franklin County 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 8

12 Homeless Subpopulations In addition to tracking total numbers of homeless in Ohio, CoCs collected subpopulation information for homeless including numbers of chronically homeless, unaccompanied youth, veterans, persons with HIV/AIDS, and victims of domestic violence, as well as numbers of persons with severe mental illness and substance abuse issues. Chronic homeless status was the only subpopulation data collected for both sheltered and unsheltered homeless. All other subpopulation information was collected ONLY on sheltered individuals and families. Following is a more detailed breakdown of Ohio s homeless subpopulations and changes from Homeless Subpopulations Total Percentage of Total Ohio Homeless Percentage of Sheltered Ohio Homeless Percent Change from 2008 (Total Homeless) Chronically Homeless (sheltered and unsheltered) % 17% -10% Unaccompanied Youth 84 1% 1% -66% Severely Mentally Ill % 19% -1% Chronic Substance Abusers % 28% -6% Veterans 988 8% 9% 4% Persons with HIV/AIDS 99 1% 1% 3% Domestic Violence Survivors % 12% 8% Table 7: Homeless Subpopulations Homeless Subpopulations 2969 Chronic Substance Abusers 2187 Chronically Homeless (sheltered and unsheltered) 2000 Severely Mentally Ill 1300 Domestic Violence 988 Veterans 99 Persons w/ HIV/AIDS 84 Unaccompanied Youth 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 9

13 Chronically Homeless Chronic Homeless in U.S % - 20 % of total homeless population Chronic Homeless in Ohio 18 % of total homeless population Nationally, between 10% and 20% of the overall homeless population is considered chronically homeless 4. For Ohio CoCs, the percentage of chronic homelessness ranged from 4% of the total homeless population in Youngstown/Mahoning County to 33% in Toledo/Lucas County. In 2009 there were 2187 chronically homeless individuals in Ohio, comprising 18% of Ohio s total homeless population. This represents a decline in chronically homeless individuals by 241 from 2008, or a 10% decrease statewide. Most Ohio CoCs reported significant decreases in chronic homelessness; a 76% decrease in Youngstown/Mahoning County (from 29 in 2008 to 7 in 2009 or 12% of total homeless in 2008 to 4% 2009) and 54% decrease in Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County (119 in 2008 to 55 in 2009) most notably. However, because Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County CoC had smaller homeless numbers overall, they actually reported a slight increase in the proportion of homeless persons who were chronically homeless, from 13% in 2008 to 14% of the total homeless population in Two CoC s saw large increases in their chronic homeless numbers. The Toledo/Lucas County CoC reported a 27% increase in chronic homelessness and the BOSCOC reported a 48% increase (364 chronically homeless persons in 2008 and 557 in 2009). Both CoC s also experienced an increase in the overall proportion of chronic homeless individuals from 2008 to 2009, a 2% increase in the proportion for Toledo/Lucas County and a 3% increase for the BOSCOC. Chronically Homeless by CoC Number of Chronically Homeless Percentage of Total Homeless by CoC Percent Change from 2008 Akron/Barberton/Summit County % -45% Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County 55 14% -54% Cincinnati/Hamilton County % 0% Cleveland/Cuyahoga County % -16% Columbus/Franklin County % -40% Dayton/Montgomery County 52 6% -30% Toledo/Lucas County % 27% Youngstown/Mahoning County 7 4% -76% BOSCOC % 48% TOTAL % -10% Table 8: Chronic Homelessness 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 10

14 Figure 6: Chronically Homeless 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 11

15 Unaccompanied Youth Youth Nationally: 2% of total homeless population Youth in Ohio: 1 % of total homeless population National PIT estimates indicate that about 2% of homeless on a given night are unaccompanied youth. 5 On one night in 2009, 84 unaccompanied youth were homeless in Ohio, representing about 1% of the state s total homeless population and about 1% of the total sheltered homeless population. Although youth become homeless for many of the same reasons that adults do, including poverty and lack of affordable housing, difficulties within family systems are a significant contributing factor to youth homelessness. For example, youth consistently identify conflict with parents as the primary reason for their homelessness. 6 Physical and/or sexual abuse are also common reasons for youth homelessness; research shows that between 17% and 35% of homeless youth experience sexual abuse. 7 Unaccompanied Youth Number of Unaccompanied Youth Percentage of Total Homeless by CoC Percent Change from 2008 Akron/Barberton/Summit County 44 6% -74% Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County 0 0% 0% Cincinnati/Hamilton County 6 1% -73% Cleveland/Cuyahoga County 0 0% 0% Columbus/Franklin County 19 1% -14% Dayton/Montgomery County 7 1% 250% Toledo/Lucas County 0 0% -100% Youngstown/Mahoning County 5 3% -44% BOSCOC 3 0% -86% TOTAL 84 1% -66% Table 9: Unaccompanied Youth 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 12

16 Figure 7: Unaccompanied Youth by CoC 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 13

17 Severely Mentally Ill 26% of U.S. homeless population is severely mentally ill About 16% of total Ohio homeless population is severely mentally ill Nationally, homeless individuals with severe mental illness comprised about 26% of the total sheltered homeless population, according to most recent national PIT estimates. 8 At any point in time, approximately 45% of homeless individuals report indicators of mental health problems, while 57% report having a mental health problem at some point in their life. 9 On one night in 2009, about 16% of the total homeless population in Ohio, or 2,000 persons, were identified as severely mentally ill (SMI). This represents a minimal 1% decline from With the exception of the BOSCOC and Cincinnati/Hamilton County CoC, all other Ohio communities reported decreases in SMI homeless ranging from an 11% decline in Cleveland/Cuyahoga County CoC to a 43% decline in Akron/Barberton/Summit County. Both the BOSCOC and Cincinnati/Hamilton County CoC experienced increases in the number of homeless persons with SMI as well as the proportion of the homeless population with SMI, from 19% to 27% for Cincinnati/Hamilton County CoC and 7% to 12% for BOSCOC. Severely Mentally Ill Number of Severely Mentally Ill Percentage of Total Homeless by CoC Percent Change from 2008 Akron/Barberton/Summit County % -43% Canton/Massillon/Alliance/ Stark County 98 24% -30% Cincinnati/Hamilton County % 9% Cleveland/Cuyahoga County % -11% Columbus/Franklin County % -15% Dayton/Montgomery County % -19% Toledo/Lucas County % -11% Youngstown/Mahoning County 23 12% -23% BOSCOC % 84% TOTAL % -1% Table 10: Severely Mentally Ill 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 14

18 Chronic Substance Abusers Figure 8: Severely Mentally Ill 26% of U.S. homeless population are chronic substance abusers 24% of Ohio homeless are chronic substance abusers National estimates of homeless persons show that approximately 26% of sheltered homeless are chronic substance abusers. 10 Substance abuse is both a precipitating factor and consequence of homelessness, and it contributes to numerous negative outcomes. 11 Furthermore, substance abuse and mental disorders often co-occur in a homeless individual. In fact, it has been estimated that about 50% of homeless with severe mental illness have a co-occurring substance use disorder. 12 Homeless individuals with mental illness and/or substance use disorders tend to be in poorer physical health generally, with alcoholics having particularly poor health outcomes. 13 In Ohio in 2009, 2,969 homeless individuals, or 24% of total homeless, were chronic substance abusers. The proportion of chronic substance abusers in the 2009 homeless population is nearly identical to that of 2008, where 25% of the total homeless population was reported to be substance abusers. With the exception of the BOSCOC, all Ohio CoC s reported decreases in homeless persons identified as chronic substance abusers; Youngstown/Mahoning County CoC, Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County CoC, and Columbus/Franklin County CoC reported the most significant changes with 43%, 36%, and 36% decreases respectively. However, given their large drop in total homeless numbers, Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County still reported an increase in the proportion of chronic substance abusers, from 11% to 16% of the total homeless population. Similarly, Cincinnati/Hamilton County reported a drop in total numbers of chronic substance abusers but a slight increase in their proportion of the total homeless population, from 38% in 2008 to 46% in In direct contrast to the notable declines reported, the BOSCOC data reflected a dramatic increase in both the numbers of homeless chronic substance abusers from 2008 (61% increase) and in their proportion of the total homeless population; from 8% in 2008 to 12% in Ohio Homelessness Report 15

19 Chronic Substance Abusers Number of Chronic Substance Abusers Percentage of Total Homeless by CoC Percent Change from 2008 Akron/Barberton/Summit County % -14% Canton/Massillon/Alliance/ Stark County 65 16% -36% Cincinnati/Hamilton County % -5% Cleveland/Cuyahoga County % -6% Columbus/Franklin County % -36% Dayton/Montgomery County % -23% Toledo/Lucas County % -15% Youngstown/Mahoning County 45 24% -43% BOSCOC % 61% TOTAL % -6% Table 11: Chronic Substance Abusers Figure 9: Chronic Substance Abusers 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 16

20 Veterans Veterans Nationally: 15% of total homeless population Veterans in Ohio: 8% of total homeless population The most recent Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) reported that 15% of sheltered homeless nationally were identified as veterans. 14 Homeless veterans report particularly high rates of co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders, ranging from 30% to 50% of the homeless veteran population. 15 In Ohio, 988 homeless persons reported being veterans in 2009, accounting for 8% of the state s total homeless population. These numbers represent an insignificant decline from 2008 where 9% of the state s homeless were identified as veterans. Youngstown/Mahoning County CoC reported the greatest decrease in numbers of homeless veterans with a 52% decline, but their proportion of homeless veterans only decreased from 10% to 6% of the total homeless population. For those CoC s reporting increases in numbers of homeless veterans, their proportions of homeless veterans to their total homeless populations were virtually unchanged from 2008 to Veterans Number of Veterans Percentage of Total Homeless by CoC Percent Change from 2008 Akron/Barberton/Summit County 25 3% 92% Canton/Massillon/Alliance/ Stark County 14 3% -7% Cincinnati/Hamilton County % -1% Cleveland/Cuyahoga County % -6% Columbus/Franklin County % 5% Dayton/Montgomery County 75 9% -26% Toledo/Lucas County 67 7% 40% Youngstown/Mahoning County 11 6% -52% BOSCOC 153 3% 66% TOTAL 988 8% 4% Table 12: Veterans 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 17

21 Figure 10: Veterans 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 18

22 Persons with HIV/AIDS 4% of total U.S. homeless population is HIV positive 1 % of Ohio s homeless population is HIV positive It is estimated that as much as 4% of the national homeless population is HIV positive, three times the overall national infection rate. 16 For persons living with HIV/AIDS, homelessness makes them even more vulnerable to contracting infections, and makes obtaining and using critical HIV/AIDS medications, which often involve complicated regimens, extremely difficult. In 2009 in Ohio, 1% of homeless identified as being HIV positive, which is the same rate of positive HIV status as Persons with HIV/AIDS Number with HIV/AIDS Percentage of Total Homeless by CoC Percent Change from 2008 Akron/Barberton/Summit County 16 2% 220% Canton/Massillon/Alliance/ Stark County 1 0% 0% Cincinnati/Hamilton County 19 2% -17% Cleveland/Cuyahoga County 25 1% 25% Columbus/Franklin County 33 2% 10% Dayton/Montgomery County 0 0% -100% Toledo/Lucas County 3 0% -63% Youngstown/Mahoning County 0 0% 0% BOSCOC 2 0% -33% TOTAL 99 1% 3% Table 13: Persons with HIV/AIDS 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 19

23 Figure 11: Persons with HIV/AIDS Domestic Violence Survivors Nationally, 13% of homeless left because of abuse or violence in the household In Ohio 10% of total homeless population reported domestic violence Nationally, domestic violence (DV) is the second most frequently stated cause of homelessness for families, with 13% indicating they left their last place of residence because of abuse or violence in the household. 17 Homeless women in particular are often victims of domestic violence and/or assault at some point in their lives. A Massachusetts study showed that 92% of homeless women had experienced severe physical or sexual violence in their lifetimes, 63% had been victims of domestic violence, and in particular 32% reported being assaulted by their most recent partner. 18 Most recent national PIT data indicated that recent victims of DV accounted for 13% of the national sheltered homeless population. 19 1,300 homeless individuals, or 10% of the total homeless population, reported experiencing domestic violence in Ohio in This represents an increase of 91 persons, or 8%, from 2008, when 9% of the total homeless population were victims of domestic violence. There was significant variance in decreases and increases in domestic violence numbers and rates by CoC from 2008 to For example, Youngstown/Mahoning County CoC reported a 52% decrease in domestic violence numbers and a reduction in domestic violence rates among the homeless population from 20% in 2008 to 12% in Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County CoC experienced similar reductions in 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 20

24 DV with a decline of 29% in reported DV and decrease in the proportion that were DV survivors from 27% in 2008 to 9% in In contrast, the BOSCOC experienced a 52% increase in numbers of DV survivors, and a change in the rate of reported DV from 7% to 10% from 2008 to Cincinnati/ Hamilton County CoC also reported an increase in numbers and rates of DV with a 16% increase in DV survivors overall and a change in DV rates from 15% in 2008 to 23% in Domestic Violence Survivors Number of DV Survivors Percentage of Total Homeless by CoC Percent Change from 2008 Akron/Barberton/Summit County % -50% Canton/Massillon/Alliance/ Stark County 36 9% -29% Cincinnati/Hamilton County % 16% Cleveland/Cuyahoga County 161 7% 27% Columbus/Franklin County % 14% Dayton/Montgomery County 77 9% -11% Toledo/Lucas County % 33% Youngstown/Mahoning County 23 12% -52% BOSCOC % 52% TOTAL % 8% Table 14: Domestic Violence Survivors Figure 12: Domestic Violence Survivors 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 21

25 DATA SOURCES For this Ohio Homelessness Report, 2009 Point-in-Time (PIT) counts served as the primary data source. Homeless service providers data systems and Housing Inventory Charts were used largely to check the quality of PIT count data. For a limited number of rural communities that did not conduct a PIT, provider data systems provided estimates of sheltered homeless on the night of the statewide PIT. Point-in-Time Counts of Homeless In 2003, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began requiring regularly occurring counts of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons for those Continua of Care (CoCs) applying for McKinney-Vento funding through the Continuum of Care (CoC) application process 19. Specifically, HUD mandated that CoCs produce statistically reliable, unduplicated counts or estimates of homeless persons in sheltered and unsheltered locations at a one-day point in time 20. These counts must be conducted at least every two years during the last seven days of January. Generally, this process of counting homeless persons for a one-day period is called a Point-in-Time (PIT) count. Ohio CoC s conducted the first aligned statewide PIT count in January Statewide counts were conducted again in 2009, with even greater participation from rural communities. There are several data collection methods communities may choose for their PIT counts. The methods chosen often vary by community size, available resources, previously identified local homeless population characteristics, and volunteer capacity. Following are the most commonly utilized methods in the Ohio PIT Count For unsheltered homeless - Street Count/Public Places Count - Service-Based Screening/Interview - Some combination of both methods For sheltered homeless - HMIS data - Homeless Service Provider Surveys - Some combination of both methods Ohio Point-In-Time Count 2009 participants collected basic data on unsheltered and sheltered homeless persons, as mandated by HUD, including 21 : For unsheltered homeless - Number of adults, children, and unaccompanied youth who are unsheltered - Number of adults and unaccompanied youth who meet the definition of chronic homelessness (see Appendix A for definition) For sheltered homeless - Number of adults, children, and unaccompanied youth in emergency shelters and transitional housing - Number of adults or children considered to be: chronically homeless, seriously mentally ill, chronic substance abusers, veterans, persons with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence, and unaccompanied youth It should be noted that individuals/families living in doubled-up situations (with other households) or who are precariously housed, meaning they are at risk of losing housing soon, are not counted as homeless in PIT counts. Households in these situations are not currently considered homeless by HUD for purposes of these counts. Although some communities may collect this data and report it locally, it is not included in this report Ohio Homelessness Report 22

26 HMIS Data CoCs and providers that receive homeless assistance funding through HUD or the Ohio Department of Development are mandated to enter individual-level information on persons who utilize their services into a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) 22. COHHIO looked at HMIS data for all BOSCOC communities reporting PIT count numbers to ensure accuracy of their reported data. In addition, COHHIO pulled HMIS data for 1/27/09 for emergency shelters and transitional housing providers in counties that did not conduct PIT counts in This provided numbers of persons and households in shelters and transitional housing programs in those counties, but did not provide any unsheltered data or subpopulations information (chronic homeless, unaccompanied youth, SMI, chronic substance abuser, veterans, HIV/AIDS, DV). Housing Inventory Charts As part of the Continuum of Care application for federal funding, HUD also requires that communities conduct annual inventories of emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent housing units/ beds targeted to homeless persons. COHHIO compared PIT count data against Housing Inventory Chart information for BOSCOC communities to ensure consistency in reported numbers. A summary of the data sources used for each Ohio CoC is included in Appendix B. METHODOLOGY All urban CoCs and BOSCOC communities submitted 2009 PIT count data to COHHIO via an online survey tool. The data was then compiled into one spreadsheet and COHHIO conducted data quality checks on all CoCs reported numbers. This included comparing 2009 PIT numbers to 2008 numbers, reviewing the types of organizations for which data was submitted, comparing sheltered numbers to HMIS data for the same date, and comparing sheltered numbers to numbers of beds and utilization rates listed in current Housing Inventory Charts. Once data was corrected and any irregularities explained COHHIO began simple analysis of the numbers calculating state totals, proportions, and changes from LIMITATIONS AND DISCUSSION General Limitations Given that PIT counts were the primary data source for this report, it should be noted that there are significant flaws and limitations inherent in these counts. The most noted and significant general limitations of PIT counts are: Difficulty finding unsheltered homeless people Potential for duplication Numerous, uncontrollable factors (e.g. weather, number of volunteers) Definitional issues Variance in type and sophistication of data collection methods There are challenges in using HMIS and Housing Inventory Charts as well, even when used in a data quality check capacity. These limitations are largely related to errors that accompany data entry at the program and community levels Ohio Homelessness Report 23

27 Challenges and Changes in 2009 In addition to the items noted above, many Ohio CoC s experienced challenges with their 2009 PIT counts related to the severe snowstorms that moved through many regions of the state on the date of the counts. Several communities, such as Cincinnati/Hamilton County CoC and some rural communities, were forced to postpone their PIT count by a few days because of the extreme weather. In turn, volunteer turnout was reduced, thus limiting the extent to which homeless persons were reached and counted. While it seems clear that these changes likely contributed to reductions in unsheltered persons counted, it is also possible that these changes reduced some sheltered counts as well, particularly for communities that relied on volunteers to count residents in shelters. Weather conditions aside, 2009 saw significantly greater participation in the statewide PIT count compared to While all urban (entitlement) CoCs participated in both 2008 and 2009 counts, only about half of BOSCOC communities/counties conducted local PIT counts in In 2009, virtually all BOSCOC counties participated. Greater participation contributes to the likelihood of a more accurate count overall, in contrast to 2008 when COHHIO was forced to pull HMIS data for half of the BOSCOC counties that didn t conduct counts. Using HMIS instead of PIT count data meant leaving out unsheltered homeless counts for every county missing PIT count data as well as sheltered homeless information for those shelters and transitional housing programs not entering data into HMIS. Furthermore, BOSCOC HMIS data generally does not provide reliable subpopulation information for sheltered homeless persons. In addition to greater participation overall, several CoCs, including Toledo/Lucas County, Akron/ Barberton/Summit County, and Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County, indicated that their PIT count methods were greatly improved over One CoC in particular indicated that in 2008 they continued to count persons who were in doubled-up situations (meaning they were temporarily staying with friends/ family), in direct contradiction to HUD s definition of homeless. However, representatives for this CoC stated that they strictly followed HUD s definitions for homeless in 2009 and did not include doubled-up households in their homeless counts. This change in methods greatly reduced homeless numbers for this CoC in all areas. Changes in Numbers from 2009 The data herein only represent the state s second effort at aligning local PIT counts, and this is only the second report on Ohio homelessness to be released. Given this, it would be premature to make sweeping statements about trends/patterns in Ohio homelessness from 2008 to However, there were some differences between the 2009 and 2008 counts that may explain, in part, some of the changes. Most significantly, severe weather conditions may have contributed to the large reductions in unsheltered homeless, the slight increase in sheltered homeless, and the overall decrease in homelessness. Improved and more accurate counting methods may have resulted in changes in homeless numbers for some CoCs; the impact of these improvements will be more clearly seen in the coming years. Lastly, much greater participation among BOSCOC communities likely had an impact on unsheltered homeless numbers for this CoC, given that unsheltered data was only reported for half as many rural counties in In addition, this increased PIT count participation likely also accounted for much of the reported increases in subpopulations data the BOSCOC reported large increases in numbers of chronic substance abusers, SMI, chronically homeless, DV, and veterans. While adjustments in methods and participation between the two years counts may explain some of the differences between 2008 and 2009 homeless numbers, they cannot account for everything. This becomes more evident when one looks more closely at the data and sees that for no specific area of analysis or subpopulation did all Ohio CoCs report similar decreases or increases. For example, although the state as a whole reported a 30% decline in unsheltered homelessness from 2008 to 2009, not every CoC experienced the decrease - Toledo/Lucas County CoC and Akron/Barberton/Summit County CoC both reported increases in their unsheltered homeless from Similarly, numbers of chronically homeless declined in the state overall, but the BOSCOC and Toledo/Lucas County CoC 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 24

28 experienced increases. It is hoped that future counts and reports will help clarify the extent to which changes in homeless numbers reflect the changing reality for homeless in the state, rather than simply improved methods and participation. With that said, following are some key findings from the 2009 Ohio PIT Count Statewide, the total number of homeless decreased by 3% However, Akron/Barberton/Summit County, Columbus/Franklin County, Toledo/ Lucas County, and BOSCOC all reported increases in total homelessness from 3% in Columbus/Franklin County to 21% in Toledo/Lucas County Numbers of unsheltered homeless decreased statewide by 30% Akron/Barberton/Summit County and Toledo/Lucas County both reported increases in their unsheltered homeless Numbers of sheltered homeless increased statewide by 4% Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County, Cincinnati/Hamilton County, Cleveland/ Cuyahoga County, Dayton/Montgomery County, and Youngstown/Mahoning County all reported decreases in sheltered homeless Family homelessness decreased statewide by 7% Akron/Barberton/Summit County, Cleveland/Cuyahoga County, Toledo/Lucas County, and the BOSCOC reported increases in family homelessness from 2% in Akron to 33% in Toledo Chronic homelessness decreased statewide by 10% Toledo/Lucas County and the BOSCOC reported increases in chronic homelessness of 27% and 48%, respectively Numbers of chronic substance abusers decreased statewide by 6% The BOSCOC reported a 61% increase in chronic substance abusers 2009 Ohio Homelessness Report 25

29 CONCLUSION Overall, the total number of homeless in Ohio decreased slightly in 2009 from 12,821 to 12,463 homeless persons. More significant decreases in unsheltered homeless, chronic homeless, and chronic substance abusers accompanied the overall statewide decline. However, CoCs reported a slight increase in sheltered homelessness statewide. This report on Ohio homelessness comes at a time of economic uncertainty in our state and nation continuing mortgage/credit crises, corporate bankruptcies in critical industries, and ongoing challenges related to unemployment. While all of these conditions have the potential to impact homelessness, it is generally considered a lagging indicator, meaning some time may pass before we observe a rise in homelessness that mirrors worsening economic conditions. National homeless studies have already started to show a leveling out of homeless numbers, as opposed to the regular decreases seen over the past several years, perhaps reflecting the beginning of an increase in homelessness. However, the impact of current economic conditions on Ohio homelessness remains to be seen. As this report represents only the second such endeavor to analyze and report on Ohio homelessness, it is too early to attempt to identify trends related to changes in homelessness. COHHIO will continue to lead work around aligning homeless counts statewide and will continue to collect, analyze, and report on homeless numbers for the state. Thus, it is anticipated that future years will provide greater opportunity to identify statewide patterns and trends in homelessness, to monitor the extent to which Ohio s most vulnerable citizens are experiencing negative consequences of current economic conditions, and to begin to apply those findings to the development and refinement of statewide responses Ohio Homelessness Report 26

30 Endnotes 1 Office of Community Planning and Development. (2009, July). The 2008 annual homeless assessment report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2 Culhane, D. (2004, October 14). Family homelessness: Where to from here? Presented at the National Alliance to End Homelessness Conference on Ending Family Homelessness. 3 National Alliance to End Homelessness. Fact checker: Family homelessness. Washington, DC: Author. 4 National Alliance to End Homelessness, (2007). Fact checker: Chronic homelessness. Washington, DC: Author. 5 Office of Community Planning and Development. (2009, July). The 2008 annual homeless assessment report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 6 Whitbeck, L.B., Hoyt, D.R., Johnson, K.D., Berdahl, T.A., & Whiteford, S.W. (2002). Midwest longitudinal study of homeless adolescents. Baseline report for all participating agencies. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Department of Sociology. 7 Fosburg, L.B. & Dennis, D.L. (1999, August). Practical lessons: The 1998 national symposium on homelessness research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 8 Office of Community Planning and Development. (2009, July). The 2008 annual homeless assessment report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 9 National Alliance to End Homelessness. Mental health and physical health policy brief. Retrieved from: 10 Office of Community Planning and Development. (2009, July). The 2008 annual homeless assessment report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 11 Zerger, S. (2002). Substance abuse treatment: What works for homeless people? A review of the literature. Nashville, TN: National Health Care for the Homeless Council. 12 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2003). Blueprint for change: Ending chronic homelessness for persons with serious mental illnesses and co-occurring substance use disorders. (DHHS Publication No. SMA ). Rockville, MD: Author. 13 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2003). Blueprint for change: Ending chronic homelessness for persons with serious mental illnesses and co-occurring substance use disorders. (DHHS Publication No. SMA ). Rockville, MD: Author. 14 Office of Community Planning and Development. (2009, July). The 2008 annual homeless assessment report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 15 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2003). Blueprint for change: Ending chronic homelessness for persons with serious mental illnesses and co-occurring substance use disorders. (DHHS Publication No. SMA ). Rockville, MD: Author. 16 Office of Community Planning and Development. (2009, July). The 2008 annual homeless assessment report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 17 Burt, M.R., Aron, L.Y., Douglas, T., Valente, J., Lee, E., & Iwen, B. (1999). Homelessness: programs and the people they serve. Findings of the national survey of homeless assistance providers and clients. Prepared for the Interagency Council on the Homeless. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 18 Office of Community Planning and Development. (2009, July). The 2008 annual homeless assessment report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 19 Bassuk, E.L., Melnick, S. & Brone, A. (1998). Responding to the needs of low-income and homeless women who are survivors of family violence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 53(2): National Alliance to End Homelessness (2007, January). Homelessness counts. Retrieved from: Washington, DC: Author. 21 Office of Community Planning and Development. (2006, September 26). A guide to counting unsheltered homeless people, revised. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. 22 Office of Community Planning and Development. (2006, September 26). A guide to counting unsheltered homeless people, revised. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development Ohio Homelessness Report 27

31 Appendix A Definitions Following are some key terms and definitions used throughout this report. Every effort was made to ensure that common definitions were used in all data collection work. Chronically Homeless: An unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for a year or more, or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years. 1 Continuum of Care: A community plan to organize and deliver housing and services to meet the specific needs of people who are homeless as they move to stable housing and maximum self-sufficiency. It includes action steps to end homelessness and prevent return to homelessness. a return to homelessness. In Ohio there are eight HUD-recognized Continuua of Care (CoC), as follows: - Akron/Barberton/Summit County CoC - Canton/Massillon/Alliance Stark County CoC - Cincinnati/Hamilton County CoC - Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Coc - Columbus/Franklin County CoC - Dayton/Montgomery County CoC - Toledo/Lucas County CoC - Youngstown/Mahoning County CoC - Balance of State CoC This CoC is comprised of the remaining 80 counties that are not a part of any other recognized CoC. Generally, these are the most rural areas of the state. Emergency shelter: Any facility the primary purpose of which is to provide temporary or transitional shelter for the homeless in general or for specific populations of the homeless. 2 Family/Persons in Families: A household with at least one adult and one child, or a person in a household with at least one adult and one child. 3 Homeless: A person sleeping in a place not meant for human habitation (e.g., living on the streets, in a car, or abandoned building) OR living in a shelter for homeless persons including an emergency shelter, transitional housing, domestic violence shelter, residential programs for runaway/homeless youth, or any hotel/motel voucher arrangement paid for by a public/private agency because the person is homeless. 4 1 HUD s Homeless Assistance Programs Defining Chronic Homelessness: A Technical Guide for HUD Programs Washington, D.C. 2 Office of Community Planning and Development. (2007, September). Defining chronic homelessness: A technical guide for HUD programs. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. 3 Office of Community Planning and Development. (2009, July). The 2008 Annual Homeless Assessment Report. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. 4 Office of Community Planning and Development. (2008, January). A guide to counting shelter homeless people: Revised. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development Ohio Homelessness Report 28