Section V – Implementation

Sheltered Count

Information was collected on all people staying in emergency shelters, transitional housing programs or other short term housing for people who are homeless on the night of January 25th including homeless people who received church or agency sponsored vouchers to stay in motels. All emergency or transitional shelter providers were asked to provide information. Data was collected through either the Homeless Management Information Systems (client management data system operated by the local continua - HMIS) or through surveys at agencies that do not participate in HMIS. (Four of the five local continua of care who operate the HMIS systems in South Carolina signed a Memorandum of Agreement and provided extracts from their systems for this effort.) Domestic violence shelters had the option of completing an alternate form reporting the total number of individuals sheltered in order to protect the confidentiality of their clients.

Unsheltered Survey

In order to capture information on the unsheltered homeless, volunteers or service providers implemented surveys at agencies where people who are homeless are likely to seek services. This included public agencies and private organizations. The two-page survey was administered to people seeking services in participating agencies between January 25th and February 14th. People seeking services were initially asked if they had any housing difficulties. If they answered yes, they were asked if they would complete the survey. The survey asked several questions about where the individual was currently staying as well as where they spent the night of January 25th (the night of the point in time count). Individuals were asked to provide a minimal amount of identifying information to allow the South Carolina Budget and Control Board's Office of Research and Statistics (ORS) to ensure that each individual was counted only once (The ORS provided services for data entry, analysis, and assisted in the development of a web site for this effort.). In addition to local homeless service providers such as soup kitchens and emergency service providers, a number of state and regional agencies participated in collecting surveys in certain counties including but not limited to Community Action Agencies, Department of Social Services, Department of Mental Health, Department of Health and Environmental Control and Probation Pardon and Parole.

Although everyone received the standard count training, the implementation in each community varied widely based on local conditions and services. Some communities chose to collect surveys on the street and areas in the community where individuals that are homeless may be found. For example, Richland County sent trained volunteers out to survey individuals in locations such as the library, in the park, in parking garages and under bridges. Other communities provided a special meal or incentives for individuals to come into an agency to complete a survey. Some statewide agencies requested that all local offices participate in the count whereas participation from other statewide agencies depended on the leadership of the local offices. Therefore, even within the same State agency, local office participation varied widely between counties. Inevitably, the methods in some counties strayed considerably from the methodology described above, however, it was not possible to control for the variations in methodology across counties.

Observation Count

Four counties chose to use the observation methodology. In those counties, service providers and volunteers canvassed certain areas on the evening of January 25th and counted anyone who appeared to be homeless and unsheltered. Because these individuals were not interviewed during the night of the count and therefore identifying information was not collected, observations were conducted during times and in ways that minimized duplication. For example, the observation count in Greenville was conducted after local shelters had completed their intake for night so that people who were counted on the street and were not included in the sheltered count. The four counties that utilized the observation method were Clarendon, Greenville, Georgetown, and Horry.

Level of Effort

The level of effort put into conducting the count varied tremendously from one county to the next. In order to understand the level of effort in each county, a series of variables was considered including county coordinator feedback, continuum coordinator feedback, the number of surveys completed, the number of agencies that participated, and the extent to which there was a street count component. Counties were placed in one of three categories of effort: a) none/very low; b) low/moderate; and c) moderate/high. Fifteen counties fell in the none/very low category. The majority of these counties were relatively rural with no major city, with one exception. Twelve counties fell in the low/moderate categories and eighteen counties fell in the moderate/high category. Three of the four observation count counties were in the moderate/high category. No adjustments to the count numbers was made based on their level of effort, however, when interpreting the data for any individual county it is important to consider the level of effort. In addition, when considering the state data as a whole it is important to remember that due to limited effort in many counties as well as problems with the general point-in-time count methodology, the numbers represent an undercount of people who are homeless.

<  >