Homelessness Prevention and Reduction Plan, 2011 update

Home Browse Search

Final 4.15.11 10 2010 PIT Executive Summary (2009 data) Homeless Population and Subpopulations The proportion of homeless individuals to households has remained relatively consistent over time, though the actual numbers have varied substantially. Although the Point-in-Time (PIT) count, completed in Kittitas County every January, may not be completely consistent from year to year, we use the PIT data to track trends. The number of homeless people in 2006, our starting year, was 198. That number dropped in 2007 (176) and 2008 (149), before climbing precipitously in 2009 (258) and then falling slightly in 2010 (227). We believe that the booming economy, combined with the fact that two new transitional housing buildings with a combined 34 units were added to the inventory, is a major reason why the homeless population numbers fell in 2007 and 2008. The recession was underway in Kittitas County by 2008, so people were likely losing their housing all that year, accounting for the high PIT count in January of 2009. I think we need a statement about the percentage of children 0-17 living in homeless situations in 2010 compared to other years. This percentage is the highest it has ever been. Affordable housing and homeless prevention grants were disbursed by Kittitas County in 2009 and 2010, used for new transitional housing, rent assistance, and supportive services - and this fact may explain the slight dip in the 2010 PIT count, at a time when the recession was still making itself felt in this county. This statement is very confusing to me. These numbers do not reflect the impact of the Senior Rent Assistance program since that population is not significantly represented in the PIT data. Gender There has been relatively little change in the proportion of the homeless population that is comprised by men or women since 2006, with the exception of 2009 when men comprised 62.8% of the homeless population. In 2010, 49.3% of the homeless population consisted of males. Single males accounted for 32.6% of the total homeless population in 2010; this is greater than the proportion of single females (19.4%). Although the relative proportions of males and females has changed little over the five years, the 2010 single male homeless population (n=74) accounts for almost 33% of the total homeless population, and is nearly twice the single female population. This is redundant. Clearly, we have yet to identify an effective solution that gets single males into transitional or permanent housing, and this should be a primary goal for the next four years.