Introduction

The 2021 Needs and Gaps Report for the TX-503 Austin/Travis County Continuum of Care (CoC) provides an overview of who the Homelessness Response System (HRS) serves, how they use the different services in the system, and what the system needs to end homelessness in Austin and Travis County. Our analyses show that our CoC serves a diverse population with different needs, from minimal housing assistance to permanent housing programs, such as Rapid Re-Housing and Permanent Supportive Housing. The numbers in the “Optimal System” section of this report describe what the HRS would need to have a system where homelessness in our community is a rare, brief, and non-recurring experience for everyone.

Data

Demographic data in Figures 1 through 10 of this report were collected about individuals and households who enrolled and/or received services dedicated to persons experiencing homelessness or who are at-risk of homelessness in 2019 and 2020. Agencies and the programs that make up the HRS enter data into the local Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) managed by ECHO, the HMIS Lead Agency. This is in contrast to the 2019 report, where ECHO used Coordinated Entry System data collected via assessments for people seeking entry to Permanent Housing programs such as Rapid Re-Housing and Permanent Supportive Housing. The data in this year’s report represents the broadest group of people experiencing homelessness that we have comprehensive data for.

About ECHO

The Ending Community Homelessness Coalition (ECHO) is the Austin/Travis County Continuum of Care lead agency tasked with planning and coordinating community-wide strategies to end homelessness in the Austin and Travis County geographic region. We work in collaboration with community nonprofits and government agencies to coordinate services and housing resources for people experiencing homelessness (PEH) in our community. ECHO manages the local Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) database and uses research and evidence-based practices to advocate for the resources to bring the local Homelessness Response System to scale and meet our community’s goal of making homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring.

Population Characteristics

Insight: From 2019 to 2020, the demographics of people enrolled in HRS projects did not change significantly.


Population Characteristics in 2020

Race and Ethnicity in 2020

Population Characteristics in 2019

Race and Ethnicity in 2019

System Characteristics in 2019 and 2020

Insight: Emergency and day shelters reduced capacity in 2020 in an effort to slow the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, there was an expansion in Rapid Re-Housing projects through CARES Act funding and LifeWorks’ Ending Youth Homelessness initiative. The number of households who had a Street Outreach enrollment increased by about 20 percent.

Table 1: Households Served in Each Program Type (Clients may enroll in multiple programs)

Project Type 2019 Households 2020 Households Difference
Street Outreach 3072 3679 607
Coordinated Entry 2740 2683 -57
Day Shelter 3776 1901 -1875
Emergency Shelter 3673 1854 -1819
Rapid Re-Housing 1278 1629 351
Permanent Supportive Housing 1111 1141 30
Safe Haven 57 167 110
Transitional Housing 214 138 -76
Housing with Services (no disability required for entry) 158 119 -39
Housing Only 15 15 0
Data in Tables 2 through 5 come from Coordinated Entry system assessments of people seeking permanent housing programs.

Table 2: Potentially Relevant Intervention(s) Based on Coordinated Entry Assessment Score

Program Needed 2019 Households 2020 Households Difference
Either PSH or RRH 758 1473 715
Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) 1968 1186 -782
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) 660 608 -52
Households Completing Assessments 3386 3267 -119
Starting in 2019, people taking the Coordinated Entry Assessment were allowed to place themselves on both the PSH and RRH prioritization lists, rather than just one or the other, reflecting that some would be good candidates for either intervention. This group is reflected as “Either PSH or RRH”.

Insight: Tables 3 through 5 highlight changes in the time between stages of the Coordinated Entry process. People assessed in 2020 have been experiencing homelessness longer than those assessed in 2019, connecting people to programs after their assessment has taken less time in 2020, and the time from program referral to moving into a unit has increased from 2019 to 2020.

Table 3: Days from Homelessness Start to Coordinated Entry Assessment

Measure 2019 2020
Median 117.0 192.0
Mean 513.8 582.8
n 2610.0 2281.0

Table 4: Days from Assessment to Program Referral

Measure 2019 PSH 2019 RRH 2020 PSH 2020 RRH
Median 71.0 66.0 60 42.0
Mean 119.4 94.1 155 87.5
n 119.0 380.0 176 524.0

Table 5: Days from Program Referral to Move-In

Measure 2019 PSH 2019 RRH 2020 PSH 2020 RRH
Median 73 65.0 100.0 74.0
Mean 96 79.4 128.8 101.9
n 119 380.0 176.0 524.0
Note: Tables 4 and 5 show results only for clients housed in PSH or RRH programs through the Coordinated Entry System. People still waiting for a program referral or waiting to move into housing have not been included.


Insight: The most common types of disabilities in the HRS are mental health problems, physical disabilities, and chronic health conditions. People enrolled in PSH programs are more likely to live with these or any disability.

Table 6: Heads of Households Reporting Disabling Conditions by Program Type in 2019

Project Group Mental health problem Physical disability Chronic health condition Developmental disability Drug abuse Alcohol abuse HIV/AIDS Any disabling condition Total
Non-PH Program(s) 49% 35% 36% 17% 12% 7% 2% 70% 7705
PSH 65% 46% 48% 12% 10% 11% 7% 85% 1111
RRH 54% 38% 41% 18% 12% 8% 7% 74% 1122

Table 7: Heads of Households Reporting Disabling Conditions by Program Type in 2020

Project Group Mental health problem Physical disability Chronic health condition Developmental disability Drug abuse Alcohol abuse HIV/AIDS Any disabling condition Total
Non-PH Program(s) 50% 34% 37% 18% 12% 7% 2% 71% 6476
PSH 64% 50% 50% 13% 11% 11% 8% 87% 1141
RRH 52% 35% 37% 19% 10% 7% 5% 70% 1447
Note: For Tables 6 and 7, all heads of households enrolled in the listed program type at any point during the relevant year are included, and the “Total” column counts the total number of heads of households in that program type.

Insight: For many programs in our system, there are eligibility requirements based on subpopulations. Because of these requirements, Veterans made up 58% of PSH program participants in 2019 and 2020, but only 8% of non-PH program participants. Meanwhile, Youth clients represented 26% of Rapid Re-Housing participants in 2020, but only 1% of PSH participants and 9% of non-PH project participants.

Table 8: Heads of Households Subpopulations by Program Type in 2019

Project Group Youth Veteran Family Experiencing Chronic Homelessness Domestic Violence Survivor Any Subpopulation Total
Non-PH Program(s) 11% 8% 7% 42% 35% 70% 7656
PSH 1% 58% 6% 61% 26% 94% 1111
RRH 18% 19% 26% 48% 43% 84% 1120

Table 9: Heads of Households Subpopulations by Program Type in 2020

Project Group Youth Veteran Family Experiencing Chronic Homelessness Domestic Violence Survivor Any Subpopulation Total
Non-PH Program(s) 9% 7% 7% 45% 36% 72% 6440
PSH 1% 58% 6% 62% 27% 94% 1141
RRH 26% 16% 24% 53% 44% 85% 1447
Note: Totals in tables 8 and 9 will differ from those in tables 6 and 7 due to missing data related to subpopulations for programs that aren’t required to collect these data.

Table 10: Days Clients Spend in Emergency Shelter and Safe Haven

Measure 2019 2020
Median 43.0 57.0
Mean 88.2 101.9
n 4418.0 2672.0

Insight: Tables 11 and 12 show that the rate of people returning to homelessness after exiting to permanent housing are much lower for those exiting Permanent Housing programs (12.9% for those exiting in 2019) compared to those who only go through Emergency Shelter (20.8% for those exiting in 2019).

Table 11: The Extent to which Clients Exiting a Program to Permanent Housing in 2018 Return Before 2020

Project Type 2018 Exits 2018 & 2019 Returns 2018 & 2019 Return Rate
Street Outreach 151 29 19.2%
Emergency Shelter 852 153 18%
Safe Haven 80 14 17.5%
Permanent Housing (PSH or RRH) 625 91 14.6%
Transitional Housing 159 19 11.9%

Table 12: The Extent to which Clients Exiting a Program to Permanent Housing in 2019 Return Before 2021

Project Type 2019 Exits 2019 & 2020 Returns 2019 & 2020 Return Rate
Street Outreach 46 20 43.5%
Emergency Shelter 1017 212 20.8%
Permanent Housing (PSH or RRH) 819 106 12.9%
Safe Haven 76 7 9.2%
Transitional Housing 227 15 6.6%

Insight: Although the total number of people enrolling in this subset of programs for the first time went down in 2020, the proportion of people enrolling in these programs who were new to the HRS was stable at about 70%.

Table 13: Clients Enrolling in Emergency Shelter, Safe Haven, Transitional Housing, and Permanent Housing Programs for the First Time

Project Type 2019 2020 Difference
Emergency Shelter 2838 1523 -1315
Rapid Re-Housing 373 593 220
Safe Haven 89 87 -2
Permanent Supportive Housing 83 68 -15
Transitional Housing 56 64 8
Permanent Housing with Services 51 49 -2

Insight: 18.6% of Emergency Shelter exits in 2019 were captured as a permanent housing destination, and that number rose to 30% in 2020. Meanwhile, no exit interview was completed for 31.6% of ES exits in 2020, down from 54.9% in 2019.

Table 14: Project Exits to a Permanent Housing Destination from Emergency Shelter, Safe Haven, Transitional Housing, or Rapid Re-Housing in 2019

Project Type 2019 Permanent Housing Exits 2019 Exits 2019 Permanent Housing Exit Rate
Rapid Re-Housing 534 674 79.2%
Transitional Housing 48 65 73.8%
Safe Haven 19 50 38%
Emergency Shelter 536 2877 18.6%

Table 15: Project Exits to a Permanent Housing Destination from Emergency Shelter, Safe Haven, Transitional Housing, or Rapid Re-Housing in 2020

Project Type 2020 Permanent Housing Exits 2020 Exits 2020 Permanent Housing Exit Rate
Rapid Re-Housing 467 590 79.2%
Transitional Housing 31 41 75.6%
Safe Haven 16 43 37.2%
Emergency Shelter 451 1501 30%

Project Needs for an Optimal System

In an optimal Homelessness Response System, homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. In the spring and summer of 2020, we modeled an optimal HRS with Barbara Poppe and Associates based on Point-in-Time Count, Housing Inventory Count, and HMIS data collected in 2019 and 20201. Figures 11 and 12 show what our system looked like at the time of modeling and what our total capacity will need to look like to end homelessness in Austin and Travis County. As discussed before Table 11, a large increase in Permanent Housing programs such as Permanent Supportive Housing and Rapid Re-Housing is needed in order to make homelessness non-recurring.

Note: Figures 11 and 12 have different x axes.

Appendix A: Specifications of HMIS Data

Figures 1 through 10 come from Austin/Travis County’s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). Each of these figures uses people who were enrolled in a program during 2019 or 2020, excluding program types “Services Only”, “Other”, and “Homelessness Prevention”. Below are detailed descriptions of the unique data that make up each figure.

Figures 1 and 6: Gender

Parameter Specification
Units Individuals and all household members
Unique or Duplicates Unique clients

Figures 2 and 7: Household Size

Parameter Specification
Units Households
Unique or Duplicates Unique clients

Figures 3 and 8: Age Distribution

Parameter Specification
Units Individuals and all household members
Unique or Duplicates Unique clients

Figures 4 and 9: Subpopulations

Parameter Specification
Units Households (Youth and Families) & Individuals (Veterans and Chronically Homeless)
Unique or Duplicates Unique clients
Note: Data collected around Domestic Violence is collected from the local HMIS as a Universal Data Element (UDE). This data does not include information entered in the comparable databases used by local Victim Services Provider (VSP) agencies. This is under-reporting the total population as it does not include persons who seek services directly through the VSP agencies (e.g. SAFE). Due to Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) regulations and protections, VSP agency data cannot be identifiable and is not included due to inability to remove duplicates.

Figures 5 and 10: Race and Ethnicity

Parameter Specification
Units Individuals and all household members
Unique or Duplicates Unique clients

Appendix B: Total Households Served by Program for ES, PSH, and RRH

ES Programs

Program Name 2019 Households 2020 Households Difference
Front Steps - Emergency Night Shelter 1141 367 -774
Salvation Army Downtown Men Shelter 616 282 -334
Salvation Army Downtown Women Shelter 366 264 -102
Casa Marianella - Emergency Shelter 245 200 -45
Salvation Army Safe Sleep 501 155 -346
Salvation Army ASWC 125 126 1
A New Entry - McCabe non-Veterans 105 120 15
Salvation Army Downtown Women’s Dorm 2 206 109 -97
Salvation Army - Rathgeber Center 0 78 78
Austin Recovery - Residential Programs 195 69 -126
First Floor Dorm 77 69 -8
Salvation Army Downtown Worker Men 93 66 -27
Casa Marianella - Posada Esperanza 78 53 -25
Salvation Army Downtown Worker Women 76 45 -31
Front Steps - Recuperative Care 45 43 -2
Foundation for the Homeless - FRI Shelter 41 29 -12
A New Entry - Re-entry Program (non-veterans) 36 26 -10
LifeWorks Cold Weather Shelter 32 25 -7
LifeWorks Emergency Shelter for Youth (18+ Only) 17 17 0
LifeWorks Emergency Shelter (RHY) 66 12 -54
LifeWorks Emergency Shelter (TDHCA ESG) 9 12 3
Austin Recovery - Family House 5 4 -1
Austin Recovery - Detox 34 1 -33
A New Entry - McCabe Veterans Program (HCHV/CERS) 72 0 -72
A New Entry - Veterans Program (HCHV/CERS) 67 0 -67
Front Steps - Men’s CWS 429 0 -429
Front Steps - Women’s CWS 78 0 -78
TOOFound - Cold Weather Shelter 167 0 -167
Total 4922 2172 -2750


PSH Programs

Program Name 2019 Households 2020 Households Difference
HACA - HUD-VASH Voucher Program 557 559 2
Caritas MY HOME* 129 142 13
HATC Upward 104 110 6
HACA Onward 80 77 -3
HOPWA TBRA 41 47 6
Integral Care - Fresh Start 38 39 1
Front Steps - Front Steps Housing (10)* 21 37 16
Integral Care - TAOS PSH 26 29 3
PSH Pilot (Caritas) 27 26 -1
HACA - TAOS VASH 27 25 -2
Front Steps - City of Austin PSH 23 22 -1
HATC - HUD VASH 17 17 0
Foundation Communities - DACC 0 6 6
HACA - Elysium VASH 0 6 6
Integral Care - Open Doors Homeless Dedicated 13 5 -8
Foundation Communities - Garden Terrace PSH 5 4 -1
Caritas - Terraza PSH* 62 0 -62
Caritas MyHomeToo* 20 0 -20
Caritas Permanent Supportive Housing (Spring Terra* 20 0 -20
Front Steps - Samaritan (20)* 19 0 -19
Total 1229 1151 -78
Note: * indicates projects that were consolidated during FY 2018. Because of this, many people were counted in both their previous and consolidated projects during 2019 due to the reorganizing of enrollment data in HMIS. Caritas projects were consolidated into “Caritas MY HOME”, while the Front Steps projects were consolidated into “Front Steps - Front Steps Housing (10)”.


RRH Programs

Program Name 2019 Households 2020 Households Difference
Front Steps - SSVF Rapid Re-housing 213 274 61
LifeWorks RRH (EYH) 0 170 170
Casa Marianella - City RRH 110 166 56
BSS+ (RRH) - Caritas of Austin 124 123 -1
BSS+ (RRH) - The Salvation Army 101 103 2
Caritas - SSVF Rapid Re-housing 99 91 -8
BSS+ (RRH) - Family Eldercare 79 86 7
Family Eldercare RRH (TDHCA ESG) 0 65 65
BSS+ (RRH) - Foundation For The Homeless 56 51 -5
Integral Care - City of Austin RRH 9 47 38
BSS+ (RRH) - Front Steps 55 46 -9
Salvation Army Passages TBRA (RRH) 50 45 -5
DACC ESG RRH 41 43 2
Integral Care - State RRH 48 43 -5
LifeWorks RRH Plus (YHDP) 38 42 4
Salvation Army - Passages II RRH Collaborative 38 41 3
Lifeworks Rapid Re-Housing (HUD CoC) 39 38 -1
Front Steps - RRH 46 36 -10
Caritas RRH Plus (YHDP) 36 35 -1
LifeWorks PORT RRH (YHDP) 60 35 -25
BSS+ (RRH) - RAHA 40 32 -8
HHSC - ESG RRH 28 26 -2
LifeWorks RRH (ESG CARES) 0 26 26
FFH - FRI RRH Case Management 7 19 12
BSS+ (RRH) - Lifeworks 23 18 -5
LifeWorks Rapid Re-Housing (TDHCA ESG) 8 18 10
BSS+ (RRH) - Goodwill 28 14 -14
DACC ESG-CV RRH 0 13 13
HHSC - ESG-CV Rapid Re-Housing 0 5 5
Family Eldercare - RRH 6 4 -2
ZZZ - FS/Salvation Army - SSVF Rapid Re-housing 0 4 4
Caritas - HCC RRH 3 3 0
Integral Care - Bridge to PSH 7 2 -5
BSS+ (RRH) - Any Baby Can 2 1 -1
BSS+ (RRH) - Meals on Wheels Central Texas 1 1 0
FS/Salvation Army - SSVF Rapid Re-housing 14 0 -14
Total 1409 1766 357

  1. Investing for Results: Priorities and Recommendations for a Systems Approach to End Homelessness↩︎