Connecticut | District of Columbia | Idaho | Nebraska | Nevada | Oklahoma | Oregon | Virginia | Wyoming

CONNECTICUT SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Many individuals within state agencies who are interested in working with homelessness
• Good experience in using mainstream to fund supportive housing
• Good network of shelters and not-for-profits to assist homeless
• Wealth of talent of team
• Ending homelessness is becoming a mainstream idea among a wide range of entities
• Good data
• Size of state enables us to get right people to the table
• Have health needs assessment done at shelters for programming
• Have planning processes in place – e.g. plans
• Leadership at OPM w/support of governor to coordinate efforts
• Melville Charitable Trust and other leaders in philanthropic community (e.g. new resource center)
• Effective advocates
• Affordable housing appeals procedure
• Fundamental attitude that homelessness is not tolerable within state government (core of support)
• Understanding the complexity of the issue of homelessness – not just that they don’t have a house. There are other attending issues, e.g. mental health, substance abuse.

Weaknesses

• State/federal budget
• Economy
• Haven’t yet integrated employment in this process
• Competition for scarce resources
• Issues regarding capacity of not-for-profits’ housing development system itself to do what it takes to end chronic homelessness – also geographic spread, i.e. holes in parts of the state. Focus is primarily urban – production costs are cheaper in urban areas.
• State has large wealth disparity, which impacts housing, education which influences policy and how things get done
• Income growth can create dislocation in the housing market
• State supplement to SSI has not increased in 14 years
• No county/regional structure
• NIMBY
• Need more creative housing options, e.g. building renovation
• Concentration of services and lack of affordable sites for housing in some areas
• Need for targeted education about what it takes to build housing, specifically time
• Need for study other cultures’ approaches to housing
• High cost of housing – both to develop and vouchers that aren’t sufficient to find housing
• Reluctance by local PHAs to increase fair market rent payments
• Lack of affordable housing exacerbated by deteriorating and diminishing public housing stock
• High cost of renovations, especially environmental
• Not yet a public issue

Opportunities

• Melville Charitable Trust are leaders in the philanthropic community (e.g. new resource center) on behalf of solutions to homelessness
• We have a state supplement to SSI
• Required federal plan
• On-going group that is meeting
• Opportunity to capitalize on all the good work that has already been done
• Flexibility of some federal block grant process for states to shape funding priorities and policies
• Discussions on how Medicaid can be used
• New projects opening (e.g. PILOTS) can generate good public will
• Public health safety net programs
• Partner with other major federal initiatives and trends, e.g. faith-based, re-entry
• Key decision makers want to end homelessness
• Issue of affordable housing is becoming a middle-class issue as well
• Can capitalize on learnings from other states and federal initiatives
• Workforce players are more coordinated and involved
• State/federal budget issues forces us to “do it better”
• Time for partnerships and collaboration and “thinking outside the box”
• Opportunity to strengthen ties with Health Care for the Homeless Coalition

Threats

• Continuum of Care funds will be increasingly competitive due to past successes
• Potential for politicizing of federal block grant process, especially in times of limited funds
• Racism
• Stigma, e.g. the poor and those with mental illness

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Highly developed nonprofit service provider network
• Existing funded convening body in place which is the Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness
• Effective shelter and provider system
• District of Columbia government controls all the entitlements and authorities that normally would be divided between state, county and municipal authorities
• Commitment to increasing mental health and healthcare services rather than decreasing like other states
• Governmental commitment to ending chronic homelessness
• Manageable geographic size
• High level of expertise in homelessness
• Money – support of the executive and legislature for local funding
• Diverse group of stakeholders
• One of the highest charitable giving rate in the nation (individual)
• Hub of federal government (advocacy purposes)
• Good data and fairly sophisticated HMIS
• Convenient public transportation network
• Will to end homelessness, political support and availability of capital and land
• Significant experience with housing first models, success with scattered site housing, placing people out in the community successfully
• Fairly strong consensus on strategies (growing consensus?) compared to other states—common sense of where we want to get to
• Support from the deputy mayors office
• Long standing existing relationships among stakeholders
• Strong local advocacy
• Business and private funding sector involved – enlightened downtown business community
• Fannie Mae foundation and corporation in DC (e.g. sponsors annual Walk-a-Thon, largest in the county)
• Boards of non-profits have a lot of strength and knowledge
• Committed staff – dedicated, heart-felt
• Housing production trust fund – dedicated funding source

Weaknesses

• Lack of financial and political control because Congress has the final authority over the District (taxation without representation)
• Government that has just emerged from being broke and broken (receiverships)
• Perception from the past government that nothing works
• Lack of integration of the needs of poor people in the city’s economic development agenda
• Lack of affordable homeownership opportunities
• Lack of coordination of services and resources
• Allowing categorical resources to continue to be a barrier to collaboration
• Geography leads to community saturation of low barrier services in low income areas
• Segregated city both economically and racially
• General economy limiting the ability to earn a living wage and to afford housing even with two incomes
• Not having a truly local media that is supportive of local advocacy efforts
• Wide variation in the quality of services
• Limited staffing capacity and insufficient knowledge of best practices in the delivery system
• Consensus around vision but divergent views on strategies
• Burgeoning NIMBY-ism (Not-in-my-backyard) – community opposition to siting facilities
• Municipal government misinterpreting Fair Housing Law (city was successfully sued for violating the fair housing act)
• Some of the mainstream services in DC are poorly managed and hard to access
• Not all stakeholders of key agencies at the table (e.g. dept. of health -- HIV, Substance Abuse)
• Small part of advocacy community in DC is unable and unwilling to collaborate (can get nasty -- destructive advocacy). Reluctance to use the word housing or to get the word out about successful initiatives – it’s always ‘not enough’. Defending the status quo
• System is relying too heavily on the homeless Continuum of Care to provide housing for very low income residents
• Corrections is federally controlled making discharge planning difficult
• Prosecutorial authority is federally controlled and often out of sync with Department of Mental Health and other systems

Opportunities

• Housing production trust fund – dedicated funding source
• System reforms are taking place as agencies emerge from receiverships
• Good prevention strategies exist which could be brought to scale
• Disseminating information about successes
• Responding to federal NOFAs and involvement in the Policy Academy has led to increased collaboration and can lead to more
• Well positioned to launch of NIMBY education campaign through local neighborhood advisory groups
• Tap new funding streams
• Reorient CoC to a housing first model based on evidence-based best practices
• Create models that would attract additional federal funding opportunities
• Partner with the universities both on the data and public support
• Interest from funders by cross-fertilizing expertise – federal and private resources
• Work with other systems such as criminal justice
• Change the public perception of how to solve homelessness
• Take on some difficult issues such as going to a housing first model, new funding stream for people of low wealth, accessing mainstream resources
• Public consciousness of homelessness up, good time to educate the public about successful programs
• Improve the coordination and delivery of services
• High visibility city – capitalize on this
• Linking housing for homeless to general city strategies for target neighborhood revitalization – putting it within the context of strategic neighborhood revitalization (Partnering with community development initiatives like those focused on abandoned properties)
• Fresh new leadership
• Ability to learn from other states and federal resources
• Already have a committed team assembled to address chronic homelessness
• Leveraging court mandates to make housing available

Threats

• General economy limiting the ability to earn a living wage and to afford housing even with two incomes
• Expanded drug use in a time of continued criminal justice system vigilance
• Increased security (e.g. 9/11) has created additional barriers to getting and maintaining employment
• Low wage jobs more susceptible to loss due to an era of heightened security
• Expansion of shorter term homelessness due to economy
• Anxiety that no champion will emerge to maintain focus on systems reform and implementation of action plan
• Public frustration with homelessness
• Economic hardship for the general population decreases public sympathy to the homeless
• Expected to do more with less – diminished targeted programs while mainstream programs not expanded (unfunded mandates)
• Insufficient funding and staff to maintain what is already in place while attempting to build capacity
• Change of leadership within the District
• Priority on economic development rather than people and services
• Multiple expectations on single systems
• Competing agendas for limited resources
• Health care costs are going up – takes away from level of service delivery
• High cost housing market – economic development taking away from available low income housing, revenue collections of the city down

IDAHO SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Lower numbers compared to other states
• Most of services available on regional or district level
• Statewide Homeless Coordination Network
• Smaller state
• Strong targeted service delivery networks (IDVS, DOC, etc.)
• Interest of Policy Academy team members
• Dedication of people working in area
• Medicaid rehab option
• HMIS system and process
• Commitment to follow-through
• Involvement of churches, community action agencies and senior centers
• Wide variety of resources
• Good access to hospitals and outpatient services for veterans
• Four homeless standowns in place each year

Weaknesses

• Lack of funding (federal and state)
• Lack of widely accepted vision
• Lack of public awareness and support
• Lack of adequate mental health and substance abuse services
• Extreme regional diversity
• Stigma associated with homelessness, mental illness and disabilities
• Lack of services in rural areas
• Lack of appropriate and accessible housing
• Limited collaboration
• Lack of a visible single homeless authority
• Statewide inconsistency in services
• Lack of transportation
• Lack of planning; reactive rather than proactive
• Denial and apathy

Opportunities

• Lack of appropriate and accessible housing
• Limited collaboration
• Lack of a visible single homeless authority
• Statewide inconsistency in services
• Lack of transportation
• Lack of planning; reactive rather than proactive
• Denial and apathy
• Homeless Coordination Network
• Consolidated Planning process for HUD mainstream programs
• Forming effective partnerships
• Governor is chair of National Governor’s Association (NGA) and Senator Craig is chair of committee on aging
• Federal support
• Coordination between the City of Boise and the balance of state Continuum of Care

Threats

• Economy
• Public and legislative lack of awareness
• Weather and roads
• Change in state government administration
• People slipping through the cracks due to rural/urban diversity
• What it takes to affect legislative change
• Significant population increase and greater projections for the future
• NIMBY
• Transportation
• Grant insecurity/instability
• Threat of loss of state funding
• Increasing substance abuse (esp. methamphetamine)
• Lack of community ownership (both responsibility and facilities)
• Negative perception and stigma
• Lack of bilingual capacity in service provision
• Applying for services (by individuals) is too complicated
• Structure of federal funding mechanisms

NEBRASKA SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• NE Homeless trust fund – state-based funding for homeless programs
• Agency collaboration across the state (e.g. 7 Continuum of Care Consortiums)
• Existing programs
• Willingness to do more among the providers and public sector
• Strong work ethic
• One of the lowest unemployment rates in the country
• Strong family-oriented culture
• Multi-culturalism
• State Government structure more informal and accessible (unicameral legislature)
• NE Workforce Access System (shared database )
• NE Youth web-site developed by the Department of Labor (coordinated information sharing)
• Multiple advocates
• Influential and active consumer advocates – NHCPC (NE CARE and Prevention Consortium)
• Agencies do a good a job of accessing mainstream resources – advocates for their clients
• Model workforce investment for Veterans
• Dedicated front line providers
• CHAFEE Independent Living Funds

Weaknesses

• Lack of public knowledge about resources for homeless people
• Undocumented population (e.g. migrant workers)
• Lack of comprehensive and ongoing data collection and sharing (need a better grasp concerning the characteristics of the chronically homeless people in the state)
• Insufficient services in some regions
• Language barrier in services for Hispanic and other non-English speaking populations (i.e. providers do not routinely speak languages other than English)
• Insufficient services for Native Americans regionally
• Imbalance between rural and urban services
• Still legal in Nebraska to legally remove people from their housing due to sexual orientation
• Total denial of pervasive sexual abuse
• Lack of financial support of informal supports
• Lack of coordination between services and housing providers
• Multiple families living in crowded situations (i.e. doubling up)
• Personnel and resource shortages prevents proactive programming (i.e. existing staff stretched too thin)
• Lack of money (e.g. State cut backs across agencies and facilities going bankrupt)
• Reaching consensus on what other agencies should do – not their own agency (i.e. agencies feeling like they are doing a lot and others are not)
• Wrong people in key ground-level service management positions (i.e. need for putting the right people in the right spots concerning specific subpopulations like veterans)
• Agency personnel providing services for homeless people not necessarily connected to the Continuum of Care
• Immense magnitude of the issues
• Stigma (general misunderstanding of mental illness and substance abuse)
• HIV and infectious diseases not recognized by key agencies and lack of public education and awareness
• Lack of prevention and early intervention programs
• General lack of recognition that homelessness exists in NE (homeless not that visible)
• Do not routinely share success stories
• State Government structure (unicameral legislature)

Opportunities

• Statewide continuum for HMIS has made a recommendation to implement statewide HMIS system
• Willingness to develop a plan
• Closing of regional hospitals
• Policy Academy enables stakeholders to utilize existing resources more efficiently and effectively
• Create greater awareness leading to greater coordination between agencies
• Leadership development
• Tap and coordinate tapped and untapped resources
• NE Ticket to Work Program
• Expanded potential to financially support informal support networks
• HOPWA grant
• Statewide plan for housing people with HIV
• Evidence from successful programs
• Federal momentum concerning chronic homelessness
• Long-term housing plan
• Olmstead Decision
• Tap senior citizen centers
• Department of Labor and Department of Education receiving federal Incentive grants for exceeding performance measures could be tapped
• Work Incentive grants for developing one-stop career centers
• Internet: online catalogue of affordable housing units
• Development of a housing-related database accessible for providers
• Public comment period for the Consolidated Plan and update of the five-year consolidated plan
• Five of the seven regional Continuum of Care’s have received SHP funding – strengthening inter-agency collaboration
• Reauthorization Work Force Investment Act
• Public Awareness

Threats

• Closing of regional hospitals
• Increasing income gap
• Economy
• Overwhelming number of programs with different funding and service requirements – hard to keep track from the service provider perspective
• Unfunded mandates
• Turfism
• Overloaded staff given even more to do in terms of a strategic plan (apprehensiveness about how much work a strategic plan will involve for an already overtaxed staff)
• Increased program duplication
• Competition and liability
• State and federal budget cuts which may impact mainstream as well as targeted programs
• Homeless budget is just one of many human services
• Zoning and NIMBYism
• Confidentiality and HIPA

NEVADA SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Recommitment from Policy Academy (PA) team members
• PA team has expanded and meets monthly
• Homeless day at legislature with senate and house resolutions passed
• Increased communication and coordination
• Statewide housing inventory
• PA process has driven increased dialog and strategic planning among some coalition members
• Inventory of Acronyms
• Inventory of Assets
• Increased accessibility at the grassroots level to mainstream services
• NV still operates on a small scale which fosters communication and collaboration among agencies
• State willingness to think outside the box and learn about other state’s practices
• Governor supportive of human services
• Public-private partnerships
• The work of PA assisted the division in securing funding for mental health services
• Key decision-makers on PA team
• Southern Nevada Community Foundation Community Assessment
• Employment programs (e.g. Job Connect)

Weaknesses

• Homeless services still fragmented
• Lack of capacity at the local level both in terms of waiting lists and pieces of the system that are missing
• Inadequate funding and resources
• Reduction of funding availability in some areas
• Fastest growing state in the country, Southern NV fastest growing region – services not keeping pace
• Poor coordination, collaboration and duplication among existing community programs
• Lack of consensus around the need, definition and operationalization of integrated systems
• No current statewide needs assessment
• Gaps in human services workforce
• Difficulty reaching consensus on evidence-based practices
• Inadequate and unreliable data collection systems
• Continually changing political trends at local levels
• Stigma attached to homeless people
• Lack of statewide education
• Hostile policy environment
• Measuring effectiveness of programs for chronically homeless population
• Not enough subsidized and affordable housing or shelters
• No provision for those who relapse in terms of keeping their housing
• Discharge planning hindered by lack of services (i.e. no place to discharge people to)
• Workforce does not related culturally to the clients (NV has the one of the fastest growing Latino population in the Nation, also Native Americans and growing Asian population)

Opportunities

• Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning accessing mainstream resources
• Public relations committee to increase public awareness
• Pilot programs to reach consensus on evidence-based practices
• Homeless individuals fear of exiting homelessness
• State of Nevada designated by the Federal government as a test site for the statewide HMIS
• Educated mainstream providers about the homeless population
• Incentives for employers, life coaches to assist transition into mainstream
• Outreach to minority (Latino, Native American, Asian etc.) groups to join human service workforce
• Culturally competent training for current workforce
• Have not been able to connect policy discussion to program implementation and coordination on a macro level
• Redesigning treatment and service delivery and timing for this population
• Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse needs assessment just published
• If team had a dollar what would we do with it
• Employment services to assist people obtain and maintain a job
• Develop better discharge planning processes (e.g. Going Home Prepared)
• Coming up with strategies to reach culturally specific populations
• Reach consensus on culturally appropriate treatment approaches
• Unity of Nevada (north and south regions opening dialog)
• Greater coordination between rural and urban systems

Threats

• Homeless individuals fear of exiting homelessness
• Hostile political environment toward homelessness
• NIMBY-ism
• Many other issues to compete with
• Small governor staff
• Continued resistance among service providers to collaborate (turfism)
• Shifting political priorities (e.g. population growth)
• Increased demand for multi-cultural services
• Sustained belief that homelessness is self-inflicted
• Competing priorities for PA team members
• Zero resources to support the PA team (e.g. state legislative bill to formalize this team did not get passed, no staff support, etc.)
• Census 2000 resulted in shifting of dollars from North (rural) to South (urban)

OKLAHOMA SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Coalitions
• Diversity of programs
  • Health
  • Veterans educational
• Several agencies with common goal
• Federal money
• HCH, PATH, CoC, Empowerment Zone
• This meeting (site visit)
• Compassionate people
• Array of family self-sufficient programs
• Quality services
• Good legislative support (governor, state representatives)
• Good at dealing with temporary homeless, but not chronic
• Strong faith-based organizations, potential resource for rural
• Drug courts
• Mental health courts

Weaknesses

• Competing priorities for legislative support
• Staff shortages, being stretched
• Stretched resources
• Unemployment
• Cuts in prison beds
• No champions for the homeless
• No discharge plans
• Public Housing Authorities’ exclusion criteria
• Different eligibility criteria across systems
• Lack of affordable housing stock
• Accesses different populations
• Lack of outcome measures and/or data (across systems)
• Lack of incentive to build affordable housing
• Lack of public will unless there’s money involved
• Lack of public awareness
• NIMBY
• Lack of substance abuse services
• State budget shortfall
• Conflicting priorities across state
• Rules about sharing money across departments – can’t pool money
• Lack of collaboration state-wide
• Eligibility criteria for SSI
• Staff training for SSI applications
• High number of uninsured under Medicaid
• Silo mentality

Opportunities

• New governor
• Budget cuts increasing collaboration
• Strategy to create more positive public will
• Better data collection
• President’s initiative to double community health centers (primary and dental)
• New centers opening
• Drug and mental health courts
• Homeless court
• Faith-based organizations
• More transportation dollars
• Formation of local CoCs
• Criminal justice participation
• More federal support (money and programs)
• Ability for this team to look at the big picture

Threats

• Budget cuts
• Numbers of battered women
• Numbers of homeless youth
• Decreased funding and increased demand
• Poor discharge planning
• Job loss
• Numbers of people (elderly) dropped off
• Assuming that they will get benefits that they are “entitled” to
• Resistance to criminal justice reform and funding
• Resistance to expansion or creation of social programs
• Media

OREGON SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Have some “threads”/ linkages – need the loom
• Hunger and mental health are priorities of the governor
• Portland/Mayor and leadership
• A lot of systems work done under previous admin/ready to move beyond silos
• Successful Continuums of Care (7 total)
• Pro-social state/political awareness
• Ahead of others in community-based care
• Increase in linkages with faith community
• Advocacy coalitions, cross-over w/public systems
• Data collection system on homeless assistance, mainstream services, etc.
• Mental health/substance abuse system tracks housing status
• Oregon Housing and Community Services helps with applications regionally, coordinated application process
• Self-reliance
• Creative solutions
• Strong networks
• Collaboration between Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) and mental health
• Strong Community Action Programs
• Targeted homeless resources combined with mainstream
• Mainstream providers (behavioral health) that have taken on homelessness
• Increased networking/ collaboration as a result of grant opportunities
• Good data on homelessness – characteristics, causes, etc.
• Housing and emergency assistance programs under one agency
• Strong community development organizational structure

Weaknesses

• Governor focused on other priorities
• Sensitive climate – “bottom line” $/turning away Fed opportunities
• Survival mentality vs. planning
• Chronic homelessness symptom of greater issues/increased cuts
• Polarized state – rural/urban, tri-county, liberal, etc.
• Lack of ownership of issue
• Lack of transportation in rural areas limits access to services, jobs
• Lack of service capacity in rural areas
• Progressiveness “slipping”? Stalled?
• Self-reliance/frontier culture
• Mental health and recovery housing initiatives to build upon
• Some PHAs flexible, some are not
• Budget
• Lack of stability in mental health system in Portland
• Advocacy community ‘tired’
• Lack of knowledge among decision makers, legislators
• No formal structure to address issue statewide
• Collaboration ‘tired’
• Too many efforts to coordinate, some are parallel
• Lack of consolidated data
• Disconnect between young adult and adult service systems

Opportunities

• Chance to tie this plan with others
• Linkage of multiple tracking systems
• Crisis has created new alliances
• Strategic coordination of the various initiatives/efforts
• Technical assistance resources to implement best practices on homelessness
• Technical Assistance Collaborative (TAC) workshop on mainstream resources in February
• Support from advocacy groups
• Corporation for Supportive Housing/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant in Portland to produce/sustain permanent supportive housing
• Increase in homeless population creates crisis among voting public
• Public education on who is homeless, causes, costs, solutions, etc.
• Conferences – opportunity to showcase effort
• Homelessness curriculum
• Look at successes
• Prioritize cultural competency
• Relationship building
• Provide leadership across silos to address issue, systems change
• Real choice systems change grant

Threats

• Not leaving out key stakeholders
• Legislature
• Resource constraints
• Lack of public will/ awareness
• Stigma associated with homelessness/society and public attitudes/criminalization
• Federal policy change
• Conflicting regulations
• Not sharing this conversation/work statewide - sustain and inclusive of entire state
• Economy
• Complicated networks

VIRGINIA SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• New blood
• Willing participants
• Advocates
• Committed Governor
• Access to differing resources
• Collective expertise
• Non-profit providers
• Strong housing finance agency
• Virginia Tech Research Center
• Legislative champions
• Vision for eliminating homelessness
• Virginia Interagency Council on Homelessness (VIACH)
• Having VHDA at the table
• Commitment to the issue
• State-wide access to Medicaid services for people with mental illness
• Promising practice programs in the state
• Federal support
• Strong local collaboration examples

Weaknesses

• No comprehensive discharge policy
• Inappropriate discharges
• Fiscal instability
• Lack of integration of state, provider and community resources
• Lack of affordable housing
• Difficulty accessing ID numbers (to access services)
• Lack of comprehensive data
• Lack of resources and cooperation in the best interest of the client
• Different regional needs
• Too many needs, too few resources
• Lack of legislation and public policy
• Lack of representation on the team by legislators
• “Kinks” in the federal collaboration
• High incarceration rate – high lock-up state
• Dillon rule – local jurisdictions limited in what they can do
• One-term governor
• Local zoning laws/NIMBY
• Lack of public transportation
• Federal regulations

Opportunities

• National initiative
• Interagency accountability within state
• More outreach
• Policy Academy
• Opportunity to use cost savings as rallying point
• Opportunity to learn from other states
• To build on a committed provider base
• Recent state leg. requiring localities to address affordable housing
• Other state interagency efforts underway
• Ending chronic homelessness is an achievable goal
• Legislative mandates
• Speaking with a unified voice
• Opportunity to get more players involved
• “Keeping it alive”
• Legislative incentives (e.g., zoning laws, housing trust funds, etc.)
• Pooling resources
• Bringing Secretaries together to ensure buy-in
• Community reinvestment of mental health dollars
• Olmstead Task Force recommendations
• Opportunities to get a common, consistent message out across the state system

Threats

• Budget deficit
• Losing momentum and focus
• NIMBYism
• Federal budget deficit
• TANF shortfall
• Local zoning issues
• Other competing gubernatorial initiatives
• Economy
• Growing negative image of homelessness held by the general public
• Lack of community knowledge about the issue
• Competitive funding – pitting people and localities against one another; works against collaboration
• Parochialism or insular nature of agencies
• Old attitudes, not open to new solutions – protectionism
• Tradition
• Getting agency buy-in: up, down and lateral
• Lack of communication
• Lack of consistent and accurate information given out by front-line providers
• Attitude of not my fault or responsibility; blaming the victim
• Pitting one jurisdiction against the other
• Fragmented information about available resources and technical assistance

WYOMING SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Policy Academy participation
• Statewide collaborative Continuum of Care and advisory council
• Large population centers have good access to mainstream services
• Some shelters and services available to serve homeless
• Acknowledgement of existence of chronic homelessness
• Most know each other because small State
• Systems driven by people
• Pre-existing coalitions in some communities
• Two Health Care for the Homeless programs
• Some ties to national resources
• Population is well-intended
• Can support relatively high homeless population per capita
• Existing collaboration between mainstream services
• Federal resources to address homelessness available

Weaknesses

• Lack of knowledge about available funding opportunities
• Conflicts in bureaucratic requirements
• Geographic distance
• Lack of affordable/supportive housing
• Lack of acknowledgement of homeless population
• Bias against State because of small population
• No best practices/models in place
• Lack of solid data on homelessness
• Changes in personnel may result in systems falling apart
• Small private grant base
• Good Old Boy Network, why change? attitude
• Policies not always well thought through
• Lack of single point of contact for services
• Lack of funding sources available to address specific subpopulations
• Small tax base
• Not enough programs and services
• Red tape in navigating services
• Small communities lack access to services
• Don’t utilize business/other community organizations for support
• Lag in development or capacity to expand certain types of programs (CSBG, Health Centers)
• Expansion limited by agency capacity

Oppotunities

• Using what is available to build upon
• Understand who homeless population is, cultural/geographic differences
• Access to Federal decision makers
• Unused facilities
• Increase awareness throughout State
• Tap willingness of major players to work together
• Tap into CDBG & HOME
• Share what’s working well & learn
• Shift to housing first approach & offering in-reach services
• Take advantage of available funding
• Identify existing resources to fix what’s not working
• Hopeful outlook/bring about more positive attitude toward homelessness
• Use this as springboard to fix weaknesses & build on strengths
• Set up system for easy access to address issue
• Access talent of frontline providers
• Drive and influence policy development

Threats

• Communication gap between providers and funders
• Lack of general awareness of issue
• Lack of funding available
• Risk criminalizing homelessness
• Legislation and government bureaucracy limits usage of program resources
• Risk of losing project momentum
• Turf issues
• Increase in number with serious mental illnesses coupled with lack of treatment availability
• Not being able to reach/meet the needs of some homeless
• All talk no action
• Competition for Federal $ for homeless/housing resources
• Real potential lack of funding
• Perception that government will get too large
• Risk stereotypes developing with increased awareness
• Fear of homeless
• People may not be willing to address the issue due to resistance or lack of services in small communities
• Paradigm shift of moving to housing first type programs
• Federal deficit
• Block granting
• Re-entry of ex-offenders and their families