Vulnerability Index 2011
Quick Links For Journey Home
and Vulnerability Index:
Journey Home CT
Journey home on Facebook
100k Homes Campaign
100k homes on Facebook
Common Ground
First things first, a huge Thank You! goes out to all the volunteers that participated in Journey Home’s Vulnerability Index this year – volunteer turn-out was double that of last year’s efforts.
Be sure to check out Journey Home’s website and their Facebook page to see photos and videos from the Vulnerability Index and to help spread their word.
Vulnerability Index 2011
Introduction
The week of May 9th-12th saw over 50 volunteers serving between the hours of 4:45am-11:00pm, canvassing streets and shelters in targeted areas of Hartford, East Hartford, Manchester, and Vernon. Because of these volunteers, Journey Home has been able to compile the report known as the Vulnerability Index which provides a by-name list of individuals experiencing homelessness who are most at risk of premature death should they remain in a state of homelessness.
The data collected provides insight on the health status, institutional history (jail, prison, hospital, and military), length of homelessness, patters of shelter use, and previous housing situations for the homeless population in the greater Hartford area. This list will be used to provide the most vulnerable the most appropriate services (e.g. targeting new and available housing service resources) and play an important role in Hartford’s efforts to eradicate chronic homelessness by the year 2015, as outlined in Hartford’s Plan to End Chronic Homelessness by 2015.
Read the fact sheet here, with the details of the Vulnerability Index for May 9-12th, 2011 beginning on page 45. What follows are some of our highlights and distillations of the data contained within.
Population
First to look at is who the Vulnerability Index represents. There were 330 individuals surveyed in the Greater Hartford region with 139 individuals identified as vulnerable. Individuals participated in the Vulnerability Index either during the morning street canvassing effort (in targeted areas of Hartford, East Hartford, and Manchester) or as a part of the evening shelter outreach which included shelters in Hartford, East Hartford, Manchester, and Vernon. Comparing the Vulnerability Index of 2010 and 2011: there was a slight decrease in the total number of individuals surveyed (367 in 2010 and 330 in 2011) as well as the total number of individuals identified as vulnerable (48% versus 42%), however neither of these changes should be considered statistically significant (table 37 p. 45). Of the 330 individual participants, 39 individuals (12%) had participated in the 2010 survey – one-third of these individuals were identified as vulnerable in the 2011 survey. Of the individuals surveyed, 18 (5%) are over 62 years old, with the oldest respondent being seventy-four; 45 of the 330 are veterans, 32 of which were honorably discharged, 42% of all veterans surveyed met criteria for being “vulnerable”.
Comparing the Vulnerability Index of 2010 and 2011: there was a slight decrease in the total number of individuals surveyed (367 in 2010 and 330 in 2011) as well as the total number of individuals identified as vulnerable (48% versus 42%), however neither of these changes should be considered statistically significant (table 37 p. 45). Of the 330 individual participants, 39 individuals (12%) had participated in the 2010 survey – one-third of these individuals were identified as vulnerable in the 2011 survey. Of the individuals surveyed, 18 (5%) are over 62 years old, with the oldest respondent being seventy-four; 45 of the 330 are veterans, 32 of which were honorably discharged, 42% of all veterans surveyed met criteria for being “vulnerable”.
Health Issues
A further look at the challenges related to individual’s health, 310 of the 330 (93%) of those interviewed reported or were observed to be suffering from mental illness or substance abuse problems (p. 46). Approximately 46% (n=151) reported co-morbidity of substance abuse and mental illness while approximately 37% (n=123) reported a substance abuse problem alone, and the remaining 10% (n=36) reported suffering from some form of mental illness alone. When compared to Table 34, Reasons stated by households in the Capital Region for why they are homeless, substance abuse and mental health come in 3rd(31%,) and 4th(16%) respectively (to note: this data is separate from Vulnerability Index, it comes from the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness’ Homeless Management Information Systems, n=2587 with average 2.3 reasons stated per individual) (p. 42). The top two cited reasons for homelessness in the Capital Region for 2010 are cost of housing/expense exceed income (65%) and underemployment/unemployment (42.5%) respectively.
With these numbers in mind, table 34 provides an interesting perspective on the shifts in the top cited reasons for homelessness in the Capital Region. In 2009, underemployment/ unemployment ranked 3rd with approximately 31% of the 2581 households citing it as a reason they became homeless, while substance abuse ranked 2nd with approximately 34%. There was a significant decrease between 2009 and 2010 for the claims of substance abuse while there was a significant increase in both claims for cost of housing/ expense exceed income and underemployment and unemployment, resulting in their swapping of rankings between 2009 and 2010. A final note on this, the cited reason Mental Health had no significant change between 2009 and 2010 and remained in the 4th ranked position.
Sources of Income
Finally, another important bit of information to look at is the individual’s reported Source of Income (p.47). While 10% of the 330 individuals reported having no income source at all, the other 297 individuals reported, on average, 1.6 sources of income. Taken individually, the most common source of income is food stamps at 44%, followed by social security benefits of some sort at 13%, work off the books at 12%, and work on the books and public assistance tied at 11%. If you combine both working on the book and off the book, it is the second most common form of income at 23%.
Conclusion
The obvious goal for the Vulnerability Index is to identify those most at risk of premature death on the streets and prioritize these individuals for housing. However, another goal of the Vulnerability Index is to challenge the public’s conception of the crisis that is Homelessness – to make it a public health issue, and to help address commonly misinformed stereotypes. Please consider the information provided here and use it to inform your understanding of homelessness, and share it with others! Judging by the efforts made here, and looking at the overall trend of chronic homelessness going back to 2004, with a 57% decrease in those identified as chronically homeless, we are on target for the 2015 goal.
Thank you again to all the volunteers who helped make this year’s Vulnerability Index a success, and please continue to spread and advocate for awareness on the subject of homelessness.
All figures determined for statistical significant with PRC Online Significance Calculator
