✅ What Works
1. Comprehensive PIT Counts with Technology Integration
-
Cities like Seattle, WA and Austin, TX have successfully incorporated mobile apps and GIS mapping into their PIT counts. This has improved accuracy and helped identify hidden encampments.
-
Result: More reliable data enables better resource allocation and policy planning.
2. Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) with Coordinated Entry
-
Cities such as Houston, TX and Los Angeles, CA use HMIS combined with coordinated entry systems to prioritize people with the greatest needs for housing and services.
-
Result: Houston’s use of Housing First and HMIS contributed to a 33% drop in unsheltered homelessness over 4 years.
3. Targeted Outreach and Specialized Surveys
-
Programs focusing on subpopulations, like veteran-specific surveys run by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, have enabled tailored interventions, reducing veteran homelessness by roughly 50% since 2010.
-
Youth-focused outreach in Minneapolis, MN has helped identify and connect vulnerable young people with shelter and services.
4. Cross-sector Partnerships
-
Successful cities like San Diego, CA leverage partnerships among local government, nonprofits, universities, and healthcare providers to collect data and deliver services more effectively.
-
Result: Coordinated efforts reduce duplication and ensure vulnerable populations are not overlooked.
5. Regular Data Transparency and Public Reporting
-
Cities that regularly publish detailed homelessness data (e.g., Denver, CO) increase public awareness and accountability, which can attract funding and community support.
❌ What Doesn’t Work
1. Infrequent or Incomplete PIT Counts
-
Some smaller cities conduct PIT counts only every two years or less often, leading to outdated or incomplete data that hampers timely response.
-
Poorly trained volunteers or insufficient coverage can lead to undercounting, as seen in some rural areas.
2. Relying Solely on Shelter Data
-
Cities that depend mainly on shelter occupancy numbers without street outreach miss large segments of the unsheltered population.
-
This often leads to underestimation of homelessness and inadequate service planning.
3. Lack of Standardization and Coordination
-
Inconsistent data collection methods across agencies and regions create confusion and data that cannot be aggregated effectively.
-
For example, cities without coordinated HMIS systems struggle to track individuals moving between services.
4. Ignoring Privacy and Trust Issues
-
Aggressive data collection without ensuring privacy and building trust can deter homeless individuals from participating, especially unsheltered or undocumented populations.
-
This leads to skewed data and fewer people accessing needed services.
5. Underfunding and Staff Shortages
-
Cities lacking dedicated funding or trained personnel for homelessness data collection and analysis face low data quality and infrequent reporting.
-
This undercuts policy efforts and may worsen homelessness outcomes.
Real-World Examples
| City | What Works | What Doesn’t Work | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Houston, TX | HMIS + Coordinated Entry + Housing First | None reported | 33% decrease in unsheltered homelessness |
| San Diego, CA | Cross-sector Partnerships | Initial data fragmentation | Improved data sharing and service delivery |
| Rural Wyoming | Volunteer-based PIT count | Infrequent counts, low coverage | Underreported homelessness |
| Los Angeles, CA | Large-scale HMIS implementation | Shelter-only focus in some areas | Better data but challenges with unsheltered |
| Minneapolis, MN | Targeted youth outreach | Trust barriers with some populations | Significant youth engagement improvements |
Conclusion
Effective homelessness data collection combines technology, coordination, transparency, and trust-building. Cities that embrace these principles tend to see more accurate data and better outcomes, while those that cut corners or neglect outreach struggle with incomplete information and ineffective policies.