CURRAN: Chronicles of gathering homeless data

By KELLEY CURRAN
Local Columnist

May 13, 2008 08:37 am

— While trying to find beds for the area’s homeless and providing for shelter residents, staff of Southern Indiana’s Haven House in Jeffersonville must also comply with a federal mandate to collect data on the homeless they serve.
The mandate was part of a 2002 Congressional mandate which applies to emergency shelters that receive federal funding and requires the entering of primarily demographic information. The data system is called the Homeless Management Information System and Haven House’s Barbara Anderson calls it an unfunded mandate that has many drawbacks.
The theory behind the requirement is that the chronically homeless, defined by the federal government as single, disabled adults, use about 90 percent of the resources devoted to the homeless while making up on about 10 percent of the homeless population. Therefore, the government wants an unduplicated count and other information to better target resources to help this group.
This focus on a small portion of the population is part of what concerns Anderson as much of the funding is also focused on this group as opposed to the larger population which includes homeless families with children. It may also be of concern to taxpayers as many may feel less sympathy to the group labeled as chronically homeless than for homeless parents with children.
Patrick Taylor, senior project director for the Indiana Coalition on Housing and Homeless Issues sees the mandate differently. According to Taylor, the information collected not only gives agencies and communities better information for creating policies, but better assists individual shelters and social workers in finding assistance for individual clients.
“Everybody who is participating is, at a minimum, asking a uniform set of questions such as the zip code of their last residence and veteran status,” Taylor said. He contrasts this to the time he spent working at a shelter in the 1990s and notes the improvement in service.
Taylor said information such as veteran status is key because many of the chronically homeless qualify for benefits that could provide stability but don’t know they’re eligible, haven’t had a sufficient address or don’t know how to apply. He said access to other benefits is a key indicator for ending one’s status as homeless.
Anderson’s concerns include the privacy of clients. Identifying information is required to produce an unduplicated count, and while demographic information is the primary concern, the government requests that shelters also enter case notes. These notes are similar to notes made by a counselor and are generally considered to be private.
Further, those using the system must pay a fee of $1200 for each user authorized to enter data into the system. This is where the unfunded mandate comes in. No new federal money was provided directly to shelters, so in some cases money must be directed away from other services in order to comply.
In Indiana, however, the state coalition has access to and provides funds that can offset the cost of users’ fees, Internet access and other expenses associated with compliance. Anderson points to the funds given to the coalition to assist as one of the reason some homeless activists like the mandate. She said the coalition receives $800,000 to implement compliance.
Domestic violence shelters and groups representing them have objected to HMIS requirements because, in addition to the concerns about privacy and use of resources, residents’ safety could be compromised if the system’s security is violated or if they avoid services in order to avoid providing information. Following a lawsuit, many of these organizations have received an exemption from compliance.
It could be argued whether this is really an unfunded mandate if umbrella or state organizations do receive funding to assist with the costs. Further, it couldn’t be entirely unfunded as only those shelters receiving federal funds must participate. The requirement just dictates how some of those funds are used.
The collection of strictly demographic information is unlikely to cause much harm, and some identifying information must be collected in order to avoid duplication. The concern with safety in domestic violence situations has been largely eliminated. Concerns remaining are if compliance with HMIS is the best use of taxpayer’s money.
Shelters and other groups with the mission of helping the homeless that do not seek out federal funding avoid any compliance with this extra red tape. Those receiving taxpayer money should only use the money in a way approved by taxpayers.
Assuming our representative government is operating correctly, the fact money is appropriated to the homeless means that American voters and taxpayers have decided this is a service worthy of their financial support. However, it should also be assumed we want this money used as efficiently as possible to accomplish the most with the least. It is hard to see how to accomplish efficiency without clear and valuable information. Perhaps more importantly, clear evaluative information is necessary for taxpayers and voters to hold those receiving public funds accountable for how that money is spent.
Few investors are going to hand over large sums of money with no strings attached. When many of those investors were somewhat unwilling to contribute in the first place and have other things they really need or want to spend that money on, they’re likely to be very opinionated about how that money should be spent. It is unrealistic to expect otherwise.
Jeffersonville resident Kelley Curran believes that if we're going to spend more federal funds, we should spend it on the chronically opinionated. Share your view by writing her at kelinawriterhat@aol.com.

Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.