A Tale of Two Shelter Organizations in Approaches to Supporting People that Use Substances

In summary, there are two organizations that I have had recent engagements with that demonstrate the huge gulf in understanding of harm reduction and practice of harm reduction in homelessness support services and housing support services. 

Organization One does not allow any person that is suspected of using alcohol or other drugs on property. There is no access to harm reduction supplies or education in Organization One. There remains a perception amongst leadership of Organization One that people need to want to get clean and sober, and that people have to make that choice in their life if they want to get a job and retain housing. “Otherwise, there’s no point in housing ‘em,” remarked the shelter executive.

Organization Two, on the other hand, already distributes harm reduction supplies, provides harm reduction education and is actively involved in harm reduction programming for people that use substances or are involved in sex work. Organization Two is currently looking to integrate a supervised consumption site, begin a Managed Alcohol Program, and support access to safer drug supply, while also exploring alternate models to community-based safer sobering. 

True across Organization One and Organization Two is that they both claim to be low barrier, both claim to be ending homelessness, and both believe their approach to engaging with people that use substances is the best approach. 

Harm reduction is an evidence-based practice. It even has a journal! Harm reduction literature is clear: harm reduction interventions are demonstrably effective for assisting people that use alcohol or other drugs. The effectiveness has been demonstrated in many settings with different populations, including people experiencing homelessness. In other words, harm reduction is not just an opinion on how to assist people (and entire communities) that are negatively impacted by their use of alcohol or other drugs; it has been proven to work. To reject harm reduction as an idea or practice without reviewing the evidence means the objection to harm reduction is ideological, not based on fact. 

Harm reduction embraces core principles. While the articulation of the principles varies between harm reduction organizations and coalitions, and the populations they serve specifically (e.g., people that use substances; people involved with sex work) they generally can be summed up as follows when it comes to substance use:

           Pragmatism: we work to reduce the immediate and tangible harms of substance use, rather than embracing an abstract notion of a drug free society.

           Focus on harms: we focus on the reduction of harmful consequences of use, which can include a broad array of strategies from access to supplies to change in substance, mode of practice, frequency and/or location.

           Autonomy: the decision to use alcohol or drugs is a personal one, and the decision to use comes with the responsibilities associated with it.

           Flexibility: actions and possibilities are considered at the individual level, without expectation of a particular course of action in a certain order.

           Prioritization of Goals: goals are set at the individual level, with more immediate actions that can reduce the most immediate harms prioritized ahead of longer-term, more future oriented goals. 

In developing a harm reduction approach that will work best in any particular shelter environment, it is critical to ensure the voices of people with living experience of substance use are included. Intentionally, marginalized voices such as those that identify as BIPOC, 2SLGBTQ*, gender non-binary, gender non-conforming and differently abled must be included. Harm reduction does not succeed if it is not culturally safe. 

In practicing harm reduction within a shelter, workers should be expected to: 

·       respect the individual and see and support the whole person in achieving optimum wellness as defined by the individual;

·       be supportive and conscious of the autonomy of the person engaged in substance use;

·       empower shelter guests in making decisions related to their substance use;

·       exhibit compassion and express empathy; and,

·       collaborate with the shelter guest to develop approaches to reduce harm that are aligned to the needs of the person using substances. 

Harm reduction practices exist along a continuum in the delivery of shelter services. I put together this table to demonstrate some of those ideas. (As an aside, consider this table a work in progress that can be updated with more examples of harm reduction practices with people that use substances in a shelter environment.)

Harm reduction is predicated upon meeting people where they are at. For organizations that they are non-judgmental, the provision of harm reduction is relatively straightforward, but for organizations that claim to be non-judgmental but have practices related to drug testing or requiring sobriety, they likely are judgmental. Seeing the whole person and their potential to reduce harm in their lives requires a truly person-centered and hopeful approach to service delivery. Delivering harm reduction is also aligned to a trauma-informed approach to the work, especially if we lean into the connection in many people’s lives between past traumas and current substance use. We must create environments for service that are emotionally, psychologically and physically safe for people that use substances. We should be transparent in our quest for trust-building. We should empower trained peers in the journey to reducing harm and improving wellness. We should give people voice and choice in the services they want and goals they want to pursue. We should appreciate cultural, historical and gender use in substance use and harm reduction. 

Harm reduction services to people experiencing homelessness should be coupled with a focus on housing. Results of research by Milaney et al. conclude: Results highlight the importance of concurrently addressing housing instability alongside the provision of harm reduction services. Secure housing with supports can further reduce harm of substance use.

If you are a shelter that is already practicing harm reduction, or a shelter interested in the practice of harm reduction, you may want to check out this resource prepared by Public Health in the City of Toronto. It is a guidance document on the practice of harm reduction in shelters. You may find it helpful to compare shelter practices in your community currently with the 10 Points of Harm Reduction for Shelter Programs. Then look at opportunities for improvement and change that will further lower barriers relative to the population you are serving and your local context.

There are some shelter providers that want to provide a space for people working on sobriety. If there is more than one shelter in the community or a floor/area within the shelter where that can be provided, it may be appropriate to have a small part of the system that requires sobriety. However, let’s explicitly name it as such, provide a policy rationale for doing so, and stop claiming that doing so is lower barrier. Moderate to higher barrier sober sheltering can be integrated into a broader system of care, so long as the most vulnerable people experiencing homelessness have at least one place they can go and be accepted in the community if they use substances. Furthermore, a person seeking a sober shelter should do so because that is what they desire, not because it is the only shelter space available. Our aim should always be to provide a social service, not to exercise social control. 

Now back to Organization One and Organization Two. With changes in sheltering practices and demands on shelter services resulting from COVID, I would argue we need to be as low barrier as is operationally possible. Now is not the time for further restrictions on access that will place even more people experiencing homelessness in peril. With homelessness likely to get worse before it gets better, I cringe at the thought of a divide in shelter access that, in essence, is determining a deserving and undeserving population based upon their substance use. Might this mean changes in policy and practice? Yes. Might this mean more training is needed? Yes. Might this mean working with funders and neighbours to help them understand what you are aiming to do? Yes. Might more people stay alive making it possible to house them, support them, and reduce harms associated with their substance use? Yes to that too.

Back to Blogging Again

Hey! How you been? Long time no blog.

I’m ready to get back to blogging. 

Where have I been?

I have been listening. Processing. Learning. Reflecting. Growing. Reading. Changing.

I have been working through depression made worse by the pandemic and life events.

I have been working on recovering from some historical trauma.

I have been working with my team to adapt what OrgCode does and how it does it given the new pandemic reality, seemingly ever-changing travel requirements, a homelessness response system that has gone through massive upheaval and change, and a world that loves video chats. 

The pandemic has been humbling. When your identity is, in part, linked to relentlessly being on the road and connecting with community after community, it can be jarring when your wings get clipped. This has been an extraordinary gift in other ways though. I have been able to engage in some projects that I never would have had time for previously. I have learned much by being present and more thoughtful. I have gotten to know my family (and it turns out they are pretty neat people when you spend day after day with them, though I am grateful the kids are back to in-class learning). I find myself being gentler, more focused on kindness, and living an attitude of gratitude. I am not inclined to go back to being a flame throwing, provocative, change agent. I am much more at peace with myself. 

Some other odds and ends that may be of interest:

·      If you haven’t seen it, we updated our website. We have a combination of prerecorded and live training for professionals in the field available through the website. More prerecorded training will be added in coming weeks.

·      The Book on Ending Homelessness, released just a few months before the pandemic, has been a frequent FriesenPress bestseller. That has been humbling. It also has had the intended impact of expanding dialogue on solutions to homelessness.

·      My hometown (Sault Ste. Marie) digital media did an article on my work trying to end homelessness. As uncomfortable as it made me feel, I am grateful that it too has sparked some helpful discussion about both homelessness and opioids.

·      Travel across borders is now an option for me again. I am one of several million Canadians that had mixed doses (AstraZeneca first shot; Moderna second shot) and it took a while for that to be officially acknowledged as fully vaccinated. I am booking into 2022 for a return to the road. 

·      The OrgCode team has changed and retracted a bit during the pandemic. Cindy, David, Tracy and I are going strong. 

I am committed to blogging at least twice per month going forward. After more than a year and half of thinking and reflecting there are some insights I want to share. This won’t be the last you hear from me in this space, and I promise not to take such a long hiatus again.

Be excellent to each other.

A Message from OrgCode on the VI-SPDAT Moving Forward

A message from OrgCode:

In December, we announced the beginning of the end of the VI-SPDAT. Questions have emerged throughout the past couple of years that we would like to respond to now, with the goal of transitioning towards a future with a homelessness response tool and approach that also addresses racial and gender inequities – which the VI-SPDAT was never intended to do. We remain committed to ending homelessness. We remain committed to helping transform systems of care. We are thankful for all communities that have provided input along the way to help improve the VI-SPDAT.

We also want to say thanks again to every person – especially people with lived experience – service provider, community leader, and subject matter expert that has helped us along the way. And we want to say thank you to the critics that have challenged us to get better, be better and respond better to the needs of all people experiencing homelessness. In a quest to accelerate activities to improve approaches that further promote racial and gender equity, as well as acknowledge vulnerabilities, OrgCode will no longer be investing time or resources in updating and supporting the VI-SPDAT, although the full SPDAT as a service planning and case management tool will continue.

For many communities, the VI-SPDAT helped systems of care further evolve from managing homelessness with a "housing readiness" service orientation to a movement to prevent and end homelessness. Time for innovation and evolution is primed once more. Here's hoping for an even more community, equity and evidence-driven tool to help us address inequities within Coordinated Entry and other systems of care. Here's hoping we see an end to homelessness in our lifetime.

In December 2020, OrgCode announced that we should phase out the VI-SPDAT and that it should be replaced by something better. Why?

Reason #1 – In 2013, the VI-SPDAT was created to support communities in engaging people experiencing homelessness, identifying what the next steps might be for each household based on their unique situation, and to assist with identifying the 'most vulnerable' to be served first. We worked with partners to create something that moved us past approaches dedicated to first come - first served, good (or bad) luck, or worse, services and housing as a reward for good behavior. In its origin, the VI-SPDAT was meant to assist communities in a more equitable distribution and allocation of deeply limited resources.

Reason #2 – Despite our best efforts to communicate and train on recommended practices for who should be administering the survey, when it should be administered, and how the survey should be used, communities were going to use the VI-SPDAT in whatever way that they wanted. After efforts to move communities to the improved version 3 of the tool proved less successful than hoped, the decision to discontinue the VI-SPDAT work was finalized.

Reason #3 – Debates over the VI-SPDAT – as a tool and how it was being used in communities – continued to be a distraction to the mission of ending homelessness. We need less debate about tools and more focus on getting people housed and helping them stay housed.

I've read articles, reports and blogs critiquing the VI-SPDAT. What do the critiques get right and what do they get wrong?

Authorship of the VI-SPDAT and SPDAT: VI-SPDAT versions 1 and 2 were co-created by Community Solutions and OrgCode Consulting, Inc. Version 1 of the VI-SPDAT was launched in 2013 and version 2 was launched in 2015. Version 3, launched in spring 2020, is technically the current version of the tool, and was not co-created with Community Solutions. The full SPDAT assessment was created exclusively by OrgCode starting in 2009.

Fair Housing: as we understand it and have been advised, some of what has been recommended in recent reports as changes to the VI-SPDAT or approaches to Coordinated Entry would not align to U.S. Fair Housing legislation. Many critics tend to omit or over-simplify Fair Housing in their considerations. Every attempt we made to incorporate race or gender as factors for consideration as triage criteria was met with advice that doing so would violate Fair Housing.

Genesis of the VI-SPDAT: some articles get part of the story right, that the Vulnerability Index (VI) was a precursor, but no article has mentioned the SPDAT Prescreen that also was used to generate the initial tool.

Not an Assessment Tool: the VI-SPDAT was never designed to be an assessment tool. It was designed as a triage tool where it explicitly states that assessment should follow whatever results come from the VI-SPDAT. That assessment should be comprehensive, empowering, strengths-based, trauma-informed, factor in equity considerations, placed in the context of the local community and composition of the population served, and the intentions of Coordinated Entry. Unlike the self-reported triage tool, we also believe assessment should capture information using multiple methods: self-report; what is factually observed; with consent, what other professionals have to contribute to understanding the specific needs of the household; and, documentation and service data. Most (all?) communities included in these studies treated the VI-SPDAT as an assessment tool; then the studies fault the VI-SPDAT for various reasons that the tool was never designed to do.

How Scoring Information is Supposed to be Used: right in the name of the tool are the words "Decision Assistance Tool" not "Decision Making Tool." Nonetheless, in the communities examined as parts of independent reviews, they seem to be treating the VI-SPDAT as a decision-making tool, then fault the tool for making poor or inequitable decisions. Again, the tool was not designed to make decisions; it was designed to collect information to assist with decision-making.

Matching: the VI-SPDAT was supposed to be one piece of information considered in the matching process, not THE information used in the matching process. Nonetheless, it is clear from some of the critiques that communities were relying solely on VI-SPDAT information to make the match, which is problematic and influences the findings of these critiques.

Absence of Engagement with the Creators of the Tool: most of the critics of the tool never contacted us, consulted with us or otherwise engaged with us. It would have been easy to correct some of the assumptions and information in some of these critiques.

Factors that Influence Results of any Engagement Tool: environmental and engagement factors can influence results of the survey. Such factors as safety, rapport, as well as when, where and by whom the engagement is completed are important considerations. In addition, engagement with other systems, and acknowledgement of the systemic inequities within those systems play an important role in understanding results.

Equity Lens: critiques are right; the tool was never designed using a racial or gender equity lens. That is a powerful insight; one we totally agree with and believe should be a central focus for the pathway forward. However, the VI-SPDAT was created to highlight the housing and support needs that would benefit adults, youth and families to capitalize on their resilience while overcoming needs and vulnerabilities impacting their ability to resolve their homelessness. For many communities, the VI-SPDAT amplified opportunities to ensure that highly vulnerable households were finally prioritized for re-housing and supports.

Voices of Lived Experience: one of the reasons many of the VI-SPDAT questions are what they are and asked the way they are asked is because of the input of people with lived experience. That tends to be overlooked in the analysis done by others.

There are Different Versions of the Tools: the tools used in various countries (e.g., United States, Canada, Australia) have differences, and there are tools for different population groups, and there are the 2013, 2015 and 2020 versions of the tools. It has been common in some of the critiques to fail to mention which country, version of the tool, and population served by the tool was actually examined, but then state universal findings.

Why didn't you begin the end of the VI-SPDAT sooner?

In 2019 and early 2020, as we were working on updating to version 3 of the tool, we considered beginning the end then. We ultimately decided to go with a release of version 3 which addressed concerns from version 2 and where we had considerably more input and diverse representation in its update. We also were urged strongly by key advisors not to begin the end yet as it would potentially destabilize systems of care given how integrated the VI-SPDAT had become in so many communities. There was also the matter of the pandemic, and knowing that communities were very busy and at times overwhelmed with providing service in the new reality. By the fall of 2020 it was clear that version 3 had little uptake, but many communities were responding to the second wave of the pandemic and HMIS staff, who have been integral to all of this, were busy with Longitudinal Systems Analysis (LSA) reports.

Where are things at with creating a new tool or approach?

After indicating in December that we should begin the end of the VI-SPDAT, we have come to learn that more work is already underway to develop tools or approaches that consider gender and racial equity than we were previously aware. We think it is great that such work is already occurring, and we have no desire or intention of getting in the way. We are open to providing insights or lessons learned from our work to organizations or initiatives going down the path of creating a tool or approach, if invited to do so. But we don't want in any way to negatively influence any aspect of a new tool or approach unfolding. OrgCode has no plans at this time to develop a new tool related to Coordinated Entry, and relinquishes that responsibility to experts in racial and gender equity as it relates to homelessness.

The training video for Version 2 of the VI-SPDAT is gone. Why?

OrgCode is no longer supporting communities to use version 2. If a community is using version 3, they will be supported until 2022.

Can we keep using the VI-SPDAT?

Communities can use any tool they want, and that has always been our position. If you are using version 3, which was launched in the spring 2020, we will provide support up until 2022. If you are using versions 1 or 2, OrgCode is no longer providing support to those versions of the tools.

Why did OrgCode not insist on training and consistency in rollout of the tools?

If we could have a do-over there are several things we would change. Certainly, one would be consistency in application, achieved through training. One of the biggest concerns we have had is how communities have used the tools or adapted the tools in ways never designed or considered in its development, which has definitely influenced some of the research findings. We made the tool available for free and it could be downloaded by anyone, with the end user assuming all risk. That was potentially a mistake, as it created diverse approaches to implementation and use that were never foreseen in its creation. There are also two other factors that influenced how the VI-SPDAT came to be and how it grew so quickly that impeded a better rollout. The first is the fact that the tool was developed initially to be used in Registry Weeks as part of the 100,000 Homes Campaign run by Community Solutions. The tool was never initially thought of as being instrumental to a community-wide Coordinated Entry process as Coordinated Entry is now understood and practiced. The second is the fact that around the time version 2 was released, the writing was on the wall that communities needed a tool as part of Coordinated Entry. Communities that were part of 100,000 Homes Campaign seemed to naturally gravitate towards the VI-SPDAT. Other communities gravitated towards the tool because it was free, readily available, integrated into many existing HMIS, and was already in use in other communities. The tipping point occurred, after which trying to put the genie back in the bottle has been next to impossible no matter how many materials we put out on how to better use the tool.

Who funded the VI-SPDAT?

The VI-SPDAT has never had a funder. For the majority of the VI-SPDAT's (and SPDAT's) existence, a five person team has tried to develop, maintain, support, test, research, refine and provide clarification about the tool across the majority of the United States, Canada, and Australia within the existing resources of OrgCode. We have not worked in a vacuum and have included the voice of people with lived experience, subject matter experts, community and agency leaders, as well as frontline staff. We acknowledge that many of the critiques of the tool have been better funded and had more staff than we have ever had as a small team hell-bent on ending homelessness and responding to the needs of community partners in their quest to improve services and supports. We can only imagine how things would have been different if a fraction of the funds used to critique the tool had been allocated to improving or replacing the tool.

What tool or approach should we use instead?

As OrgCode has always indicated, communities should pick the tool (or the approach) that works best for them. As previously stated, the OrgCode team is open to supporting others committed to the development of an improved tool or approach, if invited to do so, and we look forward to new innovations in the field. Those that have critiqued the VI-SPDAT will likely have important insights from their research on which approaches or tools should be used instead.

How has OrgCode updated/changed/improved the VI-SPDAT over the years?

Here's a glimpse of what we did just for developing version 3 of the tool: 176 survey responses; one-on-one interviews and focus groups with people with lived experience, and staff delivering direct services; and, interviews with policy makers, subject matter experts, and community leaders. Several communities agreed to help test and pilot version 3 and shared parts of their data with us (anonymized). Experts in Indigenous homelessness, as well as organizations that serve survivors of domestic and intimate partner violence were also consulted, and those entities helped prepare guidance on the administration of version 3 with those population groups.

Back when we updated version 2 along with Community Solutions we also got considerable feedback. Interestingly, one of the pieces of feedback was to ensure a question about trauma and abuse was included. After careful consideration and consultation with experts in trauma, those experts helped craft the question that became the final question of VI-SPDAT version 2. Based upon research and critiques, that may have not been the best question to ask or the best way to ask it. We thought we were being responsive to the community's input back then and listened to expert advice at the time.

Where are things at with the SPDAT?

We are continuing to support the SPDAT as a service planning and case management tool. That said, we are working on revamping it. An announcement with details can be expected mid to late 2021. Stay tuned!

The Time Seems Right: Let's Begin the End of the VI-SPDAT

Let's put the VI-SPDAT to rest…turn off the lights…bring it to an end.

Just not right away. Hear me out.

A pandemic can get a person to spend a lot of time in their own head when working from home. It has been a long time since I could think about the VI-SPDAT critically. And the more I think about it, the more I realize we can do better. I don't just mean OrgCode does better (we can). I mean we as a sector of passionate champions for ending homelessness can do better. And people experiencing homelessness deserve better.

Here are my ideas:

Let's create a tool or an approach framed through an equity lens. (Or if someone has already figured this out and it is working well, let's promote it!) I think we can open the creation of a tool/approach up to one large collaborative process that will take a couple of years. I don't have all the ideas of how to do this, and that's a good thing. We should see a new tool/approach as co-created with different expertise and opinions. So, let me throw this out there: to all the VI-SPDAT supporters and to all the VI-SPDAT haters: who wants to work together on something new and better? Who at least wants to meet to discuss what this could look like? Even if OrgCode gets it kicked off and then turns it over to others, that is fine. We can co-lead or take a back seat or sit back and just watch it happen from afar. We have learned a lot (and have a lot of scars) that may be helpful, but I don't want to taint or interfere with a process either. If anyone is on board with at least figuring out what this might look like, send me an email to express your interest. I will take responsibility for convening a structured online gathering (or several) to get the ball rolling.

Or maybe there is already a group doing everything outlined above, and I am just out of the loop. If you are, I think it's a great thing. And I want you to succeed.

In the meantime, we probably need to keep using the VI-SPDAT (hopefully the most recent version) as we transition.  This will likely last a year or two as something new is created. There are simply too many communities using the VI-SPDAT, and it is included in so many HMIS and is woven into so many Coordinated Entry processes, that the system may come to a grinding halt if we flipped the "off switch" too fast. I am not suggesting we paralyze the system at the expense of creating and transitioning to a new tool/approach.

I don't have a funder for this idea. But we haven't had funders for the development of any of the SPDAT products, including the VI-SPDAT. What other firms call profit, we have generally reinvested in products and pro bono work. I am willing to pony up some OrgCode funding to help get this started. I am also volunteering OrgCode team time. Collectively, once all of us figure out governance and leadership and an approach, we can work together to find the necessary funding.

The SPDAT (not the VI-SPDAT) will remain. It is the baby and I continue to believe in it. So, for any community that has invested time and energy into using the full SPDAT, our support and work on it will continue. It is an imperfect work in progress, but it is far more aligned to OrgCode's values than the VI-SPDAT ever was.

My sincere thanks to every person and organization that helped make the VI-SPDAT what it is.

My apologies to any person or organization that I have offended along the way.

I think the VI-SPDAT has had a good ride. It, too, has always been an imperfect work in progress. Some of the critiques of it are bang-on. Others not so much. But I am not going to promote it anymore, nor am I going to defend it anymore. Our first obligation has to be to people experiencing homelessness, not to maintaining a tool. We have more important things to do than debate or celebrate a tool. We have people to house. We have homelessness to end.

Adapting to Better Serve: How OrgCode has Adjusted in the Pandemic

For over three months we have all experienced upheaval. OrgCode is no different. We used to travel all the time and be present in community after community. Obviously, a pandemic can quickly change that approach to supporting communities. I wanted to take a few minutes to outline how we are adapting our approach to assisting communities in light of COVID-19 and share what is new and exciting with us.

Because of demand for training, even amidst of a pandemic, we have been retooling our most popular trainings. This isn’t just delivering the same content as before but in a webinar. No, we have been researching the most effective way to deliver online training and amending presentation materials. Take a look at the offerings planned from July through to the end of December. Register before July 1 and take 20% off the training cost with the discount code ORGCODE

Beyond the webinars, we are offering two online learning collaboratives that kick off in July and are focused on assisting communities in enhancing their service delivery. One collaborative assists agencies with the transformation of shelter operations to amplify housing focused and trauma informed service delivery. The other provides coaching and supports for the transformation of street outreach as a primary connect to permanent housing led solutions.  Over a six month period OrgCode team members will assist with the following: analyze and recommend improvements to policies: collect and analyze performance data; provide considerable and customized coaching in between group sessions; and, offer four dynamic and comprehensive instructional sessions. We are confident that both of these learning collaboratives will be a game changer for organizations that wish to be truly focused on ending homelessness through shelter or outreach services. You can read more about them in the Online Training section of our website. Space is limited for the collaboratives because of how intensive the supports will be. Register before July 1 and take 10% off with discount code ORGCODE

If you have any questions about the Online Training or Learning Collaboratives, contact our team.

OrgCode continues to engage with communities for specialized consulting assignments across North America. Currently we are helping communities shift shelters and street outreach to becoming truly housing focused, reviewing and recommending refinements to coordinated entry systems, reorganizing larger non-profits that deliver homelessness and housing programs, completing program evaluations, and developing standards for practice. Big chunks of this work are happening remotely in the new pandemic reality.

The other area of practice we continue to be available to assist communities is in HMIS. Did you know that OrgCode is the HMIS system administrator for some communities? For smaller and mid-sized communities, this is a very cost-effective way of ensuring HMIS compliance and reporting is taken care of by HMIS experts. If this is of interest to you, reach out to David.

Let’s end with a bit of good news, shall we? If you missed it a couple weeks back, we released the next versions of the VI-SPDAT for Single Adults for USA and Canada. The Family VI-SPDAT has also updated and released. Training videos, background materials, and how we went about updating the tools over the past two years are available for anyone to take a look at. You will also find guidance documents for completing the tool with two population groups thus far. We are grateful to partners in the Indigenous community that helped create guidance for completing the tool with people who are Indigenous. We are equally grateful to partners in Domestic Violence related services who helped create guidance for completing the tool with people impacted by household violence. Tools for youth will be available on Friday, June 26 and the next versions of the full SPDAT assessment products will be available in the coming weeks.

Pandemic Response Next Steps: Using A Framework for COVID-19 Homelessness Response

This blog was written by Ann Oliva, Visiting Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Leader in Residence with OrgCode, and Iain De Jong, the President and CEO of OrgCode.

We hope you all have read A Framework for COVID-19 Homelessness Response put out by the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. If not, you can read it here. Regardless of whether you still feel like you are fumbling in beginning steps or are ready for longer-term planning, the Framework is a comprehensive resource that will be updated regularly.

The Framework is critical for our response as a sector – but it has to be used in concert with strong leadership at all levels in order to be maximized. It examines different timeframes for different activities in our response and outlines which area of the service system we need to work on (e.g., unsheltered homelessness, housing, shelter, prevention and diversion, and strengthening). Another interpretation of the Framework is a list of everything we need to prioritize for funding and implementation in our communities, along with where we need to advocate for change or resources to be effective.

The decisions we will need to make, the partnerships we will need to create and the speed at which this is all happening is daunting for any leader. But even though reviewing the document can feel a bit like drinking from a fire hose, it can provide the structure needed to help you and your partners navigate through difficult decisions. Step number one for your community is figuring out which aspects of the Framework are relevant, which ones are not relevant (at least not now), and prioritizing implementation from there. This will be based upon where you are at generally in your community response: items that need to be addressed immediately; items to be addresses in the short-term; items for the medium-term; and, items that are longer-term in nature.

You will have work to do in figuring out the “how” for items in the Framework. It does a lot with the “what” and “when”, touches a little on the “why”, and not (yet) on the “how”.

A pathway to recovery in homelessness and housing in your community is going to require leadership. Those leaders need to come from non-profits, as well as government. It needs to include public health officials as well as homelessness and housing experts. This should not be an exercise in one side being the funder and the other being a recipient without dialogue of how to recover, following the steps and ideas of the Framework. There should be collective decision making about which resources to invest in which manner moving forward.

The journey ahead is going to come with even more decisions being necessary than have already been made. One of the toughest decisions will always be “What is right?” This is especially true when there is pressure to do what is politically palatable or easier, when that may not hold the right answer. For example, doing prevention for higher income folks without taking into account the needs of people experiencing homelessness or the most at risk/marginalized populations first may be the easiest thing to do with the money coming down, but it is not going to impact the most hard-hit or marginalized.

Our recovery must compel us to lead with equity. The reason that we need to make the hard decisions is because people of color and other marginalized populations (people who are disabled, those who identify at LGBTQ2S+ or are extremely low income) often get left out of these conversations and resources. That is a mistake. Who is making the decisions and who is at the table matters. Communities and organizations should deliberately involve people who are impacted so that good decisions that reflect real experiences and lived expertise can be made.

The Framework is not the answer to all of our struggles or resource shortcomings. In fact, the Framework even notes:

“Communities should use funding as strategically as possible. National estimates for need on homeless response to COVID exceeded the amount allocated for ESG-CV, therefore it is important to ensure that planning includes ways to maximize ESG while using other non-dedicated resources for eligible activities.”

Better that we use any and all available resources to their maximum potential rather than just relying upon new resources to meet all of the homelessness response needs.

As the journey to recovery continues, the Framework will be updated on a regular basis by the National Alliance and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. As such, this needs to be seen as a living document for leaders to reference back to on a regular basis.