Communities are often trying to figure out what to expect when implementing a sheltered version or rapid resolution component into how people access housing services.
Put simply, I am often asked, “How many clients will we be able to divert?”
If I see 100 people who are experiencing homelessness or housing instability, how many can I expect this approach to connect with housing? Generally, I encourage communities to set an initial goal 25% for individuals and 30% for families for the first three years of phasing in Diversion and Rapid Resolution.
That last part tends to lead people to pause. Why would the number of people we are able to divert change over time?
The first question about how many clients a community will be able to divert has two potential ingredients: something about the person experiencing housing instability that makes them “divertable” or our community’s ability to help them find an alternative to experiencing homelessness.
If the focus is on whether clients are “divertable,” that diversion is more about characteristics of the client and less about skills, systems, and how we set expectations in the community. There are some groups that evidence shows are more likely to be diverted – such as families and youth – but within those broad categories, what are some traits we assume when thinking about if someone with a housing crisis might be able to find another option for a place to stay?
The evidence seems to show that communities can, in fact, improve at diversion over time. Our systems, training, culture and skills influence how many of our clients we are able to divert.
I have always said that 100% of our clients will not be “divertible” we will always need shelters in case of emergencies and higher levels of service, but the improvement over time shows that changes inside our service system make a difference!
When we focus on whether someone seems “divertable” we may make assumptions, we might judge. Or influence the result of the conversation with our expectations. For example, if someone seems “too vulnerable” to be diverted, it could be that vulnerability that is why someone in their family cares so much about making sure they have a safe place to stay tonight.
The results from Connecticut show that when we focus on developing our community response, through training, funding, and connecting with partners, we change the number of people who might be considered “divertible.”