Laserfiche WebLink
FIVE YEAR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PLAN <br /> FINAL REPORT <br /> identified as the "preferred" model for 80-90% of the individuals. Because people tend to <br /> move through Safe Havens into SROs or SLAs in a matter of 12-24 months, the <br /> planning team felt another method was needed to identify the long-term need for SROs <br /> and SLAs. <br /> Next the team adopted a more straightforward approach. Heritage staff was asked to <br /> review each individual who is chronically homeless and to assign him or her to one of <br /> the three housing models based on the staff's general knowledge of the individual's <br /> needs and capabilities. The Oasis staff reviewed the 110 persons on whom they had <br /> gathered the initial data, and the MISA team did likewise for the 63 clients served by the <br /> MISA project. This process resulted in a betber mix of housing, with 53 individuals <br /> assigned to Safe Havens, 59 individuals assigned to SROs, and 33 individuals <br /> assigned to SLAs. No assignment was made for the remaining 28 individuals as <br /> Heritage felt that they would not accept or be able to remain in housing at this time. <br /> Dr. Troy of Millikin University ran correlations using SPSS software to determine if there <br /> were signifrcant relationships between the assigned housing models and any of the data <br /> gathered earlier. He found no significant correlations. The assigned models did not <br /> correlate with disability categories, services phases, current housing status, sources of <br /> income, or any other factor. <br /> To complete the process, the planning team simply calculated the number of units <br /> needed in each phase for each housing model. Table 1 displays the results: types of <br /> housing needed by acuity of need, as determined by current sleeping ptaces for all 173 <br /> chronically homeless persons. Those with unknown sleeping places or unassigned <br /> housing models were allocated proportionately among all three housing types. <br /> '4 The Corporation for Supportive Housing strongly recommends that SRO units include private bathing <br /> and cooking facilities in each unit, in essence being studio apartments. CSH's experience is that SROs <br /> Pa�e 18 <br />