Week 2 Journal Reflection Paper (for Dr. NoorFatima)

Homelessness in Seattle and King County by Jason J. Yergler

On January 25th 2019 in the early and frigid hours of the morning, nearly 1,000

volunteers from Seattle, WA and the surrounding area ventured into the city’s nearly 400 census

tracts for a specific count of individuals and families who are homeless. During this annual

endeavor, the volunteers attempted to count “tents, individuals, and vehicles that look like they

are being lived in,” (Walters, 2019). The most recent data available at the time of this paper, the

2018 Point-in-Time (PIT) Count, indicated that over 12,000 people were experiencing homeless

in the City of Seattle. According to the All Home, the Seattle Continuum of Care (CoC)

organization, this number represents a total count increase from 2017 of 4% and a 5% increase in

the number of unsheltered individuals included in the 2018 PIT Count (All Home, 2018). Data

from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) indicates that

Seattle is ranked 3rd in terms of total homelessness with 12,112 individuals, behind Los Angeles

City & County, CA (49,955 individuals) and New York City, NY (78,676 individuals) ("The

2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress", 2018).

These data points alone are quite alarming and indicate that homelessness is growing in

Seattle and remains a huge problem for other major cities across the United States. The issues

surrounding and contributing to homeless are numerous, highly nuanced, and stem from a variety

of causes. The multi-faceted problem that homelessness represents affects everyone in the

communities where it exists and due to that level of impact, it is not surprising that massive sums

of resources are allocated to combating the causes of homelessness and supporting individuals

currently homeless or at-risk of homelessness.

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkhan summed the situation in Seattle well earlier this year when

she stated that, “[e]very night, thousands of our neighbors sleep outside without shelter, in some

of the most inhumane and dangerous conditions you can imagine. While every single person

experiencing homelessness in Seattle has their own story, what is true across Seattle is the need

to help our neighbors move to safer places as we work together to build a better future for all

who call Seattle home,” (Homelessness Response, 2019).

Background

The city of Seattle and King County began to seriously prioritize homelessness as a

policy area around 2005 with the creation of a 10-year plan focused on ending homelessness in

King County (“Timeline: Understanding Seattle's homeless issues, 2018). The Committee to End

Homelessness (CEH) was established by King County to oversee the implementation of the 10-

year plan. The CEH included members from government organizations, private business, and

non-profit organizations. The CEH was renamed to All Home and issued the 10-year report

findings in 2015. All Home cited that the organization was able to end homelessness for almost

40,000 people and also acknowledged that the homelessness crises was still a growing threat.

Authors of the report provided a picture of the situation despite the successes of the plan by

stating, “[y]et, in 2015, on a given day, nearly 10,000 people are experiencing homelessness in

King County, and almost 40 percent are unsheltered…[p]eople are homeless on average for more

than 100 days, and nearly 20% of previously homeless individuals return to homelessness,” ("All

Home Strategic Plan", 2018).

The timeframe from the issuance of All Home’s 2015 report forward was marked with

some action from city and county officials but not to the degree needed to adequately address the

situation. One of the biggest developments concerning this time frame was the discussion

between the citizens and government officials over illegal encampments and tent cities that had

been popping up almost as soon as the city acted to remove them.

Several reports were published starting in 2016 that spoke to homelessness in Seattle

such as the Puget Sound Business Journal’s “The Price of Homelessness”, the Barbara Poppe

and Associates’ “Recommendations for the City of Seattle’s Homeless Investment Policy”, and

the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce in partnership with McKinsey & Company’s

“King County and Seattle Homelessness – Some Facts”. The reports added to the collective

information that citizens and government employees were using the frame the discussion on

homelessness. All the reports recognized that the situation of homelessness was complex and

required a comprehensive approach that the city had yet to take any steps to develop. In response

to the reports and the resultant pressure city administrators were under, the city and county began

to take steps that reflected a more proactive approach to addressing homelessness and an

understanding that creating a long-term solution would require additional study and partnership

with other non-governmental actors.

The most recent action taken by the City of Seattle in terms of the homeless problem

includes the approval and subsequent repeal in June 2018 of a head tax targeting businesses with

earnings of more than $20 million per year in order to fund a variety of programs geared toward

housing and support services for the homeless population. A major part of the city council’s

decision to repeal the tax was the reaction from local companies, such as Amazon and Zillow,

who advised that future investment in the city from the respective parties would be unlikely in

the tax was approved.

In December 2018, King County Executive Dow Constantine and Seattle Mayor Jenny

Durkhan announced a plan to create a unified approach towards combating homelessness in the

city with the cooperation of government leaders from Seattle and King County and leaders from

the local business and non-profit community. This plan was the culmination of a report

coauthored by the City of Seattle, King County, All Home, and a consulting firm called Future

Laboratories. Speaking to citizen concerns stemming from the oversaturation of piecemeal

homelessness plans previously espoused by local government leaders, King County Executive

Constantine was quoted by the Seattle Times as saying that, “[t]he criticism is always going to be

around whether we’re just rearranging the deck chairs…[w]e’re rebuilding the ship, we’re

creating a vessel that can better accomplish what we want,” (Constantine, 2018 as cited in

Coleman 2018). The decision to create this new agency arrived at an opportune time as the

Seattle community is growing increasingly weary towards the ability of the municipal

governments to adequately address homelessness.

In January 2019 The Seattle Times released the results of a poll conducted in partnership

with a Seattle based research company, Elway Research, that spoke to feelings amongst

Seattleites regarding how the homelessness problem can best be tackled. The report highlighted

stark attitudes of the public in terms of doubts expressed toward the ability of government

leaders to handle the problem with 57 percent of respondents citing “a problem with strategy or

government as the reason why homelessness remains so entrenched” (Coleman and Davila,

2019). and 68% of respondents cited a lack of trust in Mayor Durkan and the Seattle City

Council to find solutions (Coleman and Davila, 2019). Despite this ill regard toward municipal

leaders, a small number of respondents, roughly 14 percent, thought that the issue was

completely unsolvable, and some measures of the polling indicate that despite the frustration

among citizens there is still wide spread and robust support from the general public towards

prioritizing attacking the root causes of homelessness with 65% of respondents prioritizing this

solution vector. Finally, and most pertinent to the scope of this paper, the poll highlighted that

54% of respondents thought all levels of government and 35% thought the business community

should both be doing “much more to address homelessness,” (Coleman and Davila, 2019).

The agencies that represent the municipal structure providing the government response

towards combating homelessness in Seattle and King County are located in the respective

jurisdictions and include the local HUD Continuum of Care (CoC) provider mentioned earlier,

All Home. The main agencies housed under the jurisdiction of the City of Seattle include the

Seattle Office of Housing and the Seattle Human Services Department. The main agencies

housed the jurisdiction of King County include the King County Department of Community and

Human Services and the institutions that share jurisdiction include the Seattle and King County

Department of Public Health and the King County and Seattle Public Housing Authorities.

Lastly, All Home, is the Seattle/King County iteration of the HUD’s CoC program. The CoCs

“are geographically based groups of organizations that establish, plan, and coordinate local

homeless assistance,” (Continuum of Care, 2012). They are mandated by HUD in order for that

geographic area to receive federal funding to address homelessness.

The relationships between these agencies are characterized by a high degree of overlap as

city, county, and All Home all share responsibility to outline policy goals and establish the

strategic vision. Most of the operations concerning management of supportive function are the

responsibility of King County agencies, although the City of Seattle and All Home share some

administrative responsibilities. In terms of funding allocation, the City of Seattle and King

County agencies both share responsibility to manage contracts as well as track outcomes of

contracts, while All Home is mainly a coordinating body that exists due to the federal mandate

requirement. The government structures involved in the Seattle and King County effort to

address homelessness are numerous and overlap on several key responsibility areas. This

relationship between the existing governmental structures was also cited in the Future

Laboratories report as contributing to “minimized efficacy across systems and stunted progress

toward ending homelessness in the region” (HRS, 2018).

The potential to realize financial and effectiveness benefits when addressing social issues

through collaboration between public and private sector entities is well documented in the

academic literature. A helpful definition of this arrangement of actors is offered by Sandra A.

Waddock, “[s]ocial partnerships (PPPs) can be defined as the voluntary collaborative efforts of

actors from organizations in two or more economic sectors in a forum in which they

cooperatively attempt to solve a problem or issue of mutual concern that is in some way

identified with a public policy agenda item” (Waddock, 1991, pg. 481-482). Waddock goes on to

identify a metric that is used to determine what type of collaboration is best for a given issue

based on the degree of interdependence between the organizations involved and the level of

impact attributed to the issue (Waddock, 1991). According to this metric, homelessness would be

classified with a high degree of interdependence between organizational interests as well as

impacting mostly the institutional level of society. This nexus of a high degree of societal impact

and a high degree of interdependence of actors, according to Waddock, necessitates a “systemic

partnership” (Waddock, 1991, pg. 492). A systemic partnership is required when the issue at

hand is severely implanted in society. Speaking to the ability of systemic partnerships to

effectively confront prevalent social issues, Waddock adds, “systemic partnerships will have

greater long-term impact on social, physical, and administrative infrastructural support systems

that exist among organizations in society (and) greater long-term potential for solving difficult

societal problems” (Waddock, 1991, pg. 511).

Elaborating on the concept of exploring collaboration and PPP relationships amongst

organizations operating to address large-scale societal issues is Rae Bridgman’s take on the

application of PPP arrangements specific to the realm of homelessness. She finds that, “PPPs

amongst different privately and publicly funded organizations, and different levels of

government are recognized as a common strategy in efforts to alleviate homelessness”

(Bridgman, 2003, pg. 206) and that “public-private partnerships have featured prominently in

public policy and service delivery in Canada and the United States for more than a decade”

(Bridgman, 2003, pg. 209). When addressing a large issue such as homelessness Bridgman also

advises stakeholders to exercise sensitivity to important aspects of successful collaborative

relationships such as clarifying and aligning organizational goals, specifically outlining

responsibilities of partners, and sustained concerted approaches to ensure cooperation of a

multitude of agencies and organizations (Bridgman, 2003).

A 2014 report published in the journal Public Manager by senior administrators from the

United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) cited key characteristics of successful

interagency collaboration efforts. The authors find that “ineffective collaboration is at the root of

many of the issues…identified as high risk…additionally, collaboration is central to addressing

many of the areas…designated as being at risk for fragmentation, overlap, and duplication”

(Veale, Bulman, Beck, and Kiggins, 2014, pg. 47). Some of the identified facets of successful

collaboration efforts are ensuring accountability between partners and developing a process for

resource management. Veale and colleagues offer insight on the first characteristic by stating

that, “ensuring accountability across agency lines can be difficult because interagency groups

often operate without formal authority over participants, and agencies’ performance tracking

systems, processes, and procedure are often incompatible…one (effective) approach was

identifying and sharing relevant agency performance data” (Veale et. al., 2014, pg. 49).

Patrick J. Fowler and colleagues co-authored two journal articles that were especially

helpful in determining how to best design CoC governance structures as well as homelessness

solutions that are based on coordination between systems. Fowler and colleagues argued that due

to both the lack of a body of research evidence indicating best practices and the complexities of

coordinating/delivering homeless services across public, private, and non-profit organizations,

CoC’s may inadvertently contribute to overextending the ability to provide service and therefore

result in low quality service to homeless populations seeking assistance. As cited in the article

Capability Traps Impeding Homeless Services: A Community-Based System Dynamics

Evaluation, Fowler and co-authors add to the research of Repenning and Sterman (2002) on this

topic by recognizing “[t]he lack of an evidence base for CoC governance and planning may, in

some instances, lead CoCs to fall into a “capability trap” in which unreliable and ineffective

procedures and processes cause organizations to manage problems as they occur rather than

planning strategically and investing in procedures needed to improve” (Fowler, Wright, Marcal,

Ballard, and Hovmand, 2019, pg. 349).

Fowler and colleagues furthered their contribution to this area of academic literature in

the article titled Solving Homelessness from a Complex Systems Perspective: Insights for

Prevention Responses published in 2019 by publisher Annual Reviews. In observing the

potential for complex systems to inform a better approach to preventing homelessness Fowler

and colleagues offer “[c]omplex systems provide a critical perspective on the delivery of

coordinated responses to homelessness…[c]omplex systems are composed of multiple

interacting agents that produce nonlinear patterns of behaviors, and they continually adapt and

evolve in response to conditions within the system” (Fowler, Hovmand, Marcal, Das, 2019, pg.

475). Complex system principles of operational flexibility, responsiveness to data trends, and the

ability to provide tailored solutions to multiple stakeholders all contribute to help design an

effective collaborative relationship between service provides that operate to prevent and address

homelessness.

The 2017 Puget Sound Business Journal (PSBJ) publication titled The Price of

Homelessness is a compilation of research conducted by PSBJ staffers in 2016 and is focused on

the financial impact of the homelessness issue in the greater Puget Sound area. The most

significant findings from the report included an estimation of the total annual spending of the

greater Puget Sound region towards the homelessness problem of around $1 billion annually and

the widespread lack of communication between all types of organizations operating on this issue,

specifically cited was the lack of data both shared and available associated to the homelessness

problem. Emily Parkhurst, Editor in Chief of the PSBJ, found that there appeared to be space on

this specific front for the numerous local technology companies to partner with homelessness

organizations. Parkhurst offers that, “[w]e are paying far too high a price for homelessness…and

we have the ability to fix this…it will take a coordinated effort by government, nonprofit, and

business leaders to make any headway,” ("The Price of Homelessness ", 2017).

Conclusion

Citing Marsh (2013), Denhardt and Denhardt find that “public servants must join with

their counterparts in nonprofit and private business in order to solve problems that are simply too

large in scope and cross too many boundaries to be tackled by any single organization,”

(Denhardt and Denhardt, 2015, pg. 85). This understanding that collaboration between all sectors

and areas of society in necessary in order to effectively address entrenched issues that permeate

all sectors and areas of society is accurate. Further, the current status of the efforts to address

homelessness in Seattle / King County must be modeled after this idea as well the ideas from the

literature concerning the best orientation of partners configured to specifically address societal

issues such as homelessness.

Seattle and King County are home to many successful tech and other business sector

companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Zillow, Expedia, Starbucks, and T-Mobile. These private

companies offer operational capacities that must be leveraged for the scope of homelessness to

meaningfully decrease.

It is not surprising that previous efforts towards addressing homelessness in Seattle from

city leaders have not been effective as the governmental structures that share responsibility in

this area are disorganized. Furthermore, the literature review indicates that effective

collaboration is practical must-have when agencies partner together so that the negative aspects

of partnership such as redundancy and overlap can be avoided.

Recommendation

The following recommendations are provided for the key stakeholders associated to the

homelessness response in Seattle and King County. First, city and county administrators should

design a governance structure that coordinates all agencies conducting a major type of

homelessness response, such as the agencies mentioned earlier. Due to the HUD mandate

requiring the existence and operation of a CoC so that federal funding can be received, All Home

is well positioned to serve in this capacity either through legislative action to change the existing

mandate or other means. All Home can then serve as coordinating body for Seattle and King

County’s homelessness response. Secondly, the communication gap concerning sharing

operation and performance data is well recognized by the agencies and organizations mentioned

in this paper. Local tech companies must be engaged to leverage the technical knowledge that

they have at their disposal. An Atlanta based non-profit homelessness support organization,

Open Doors, partnered with Salesforce to create an app that allows for social workers to quickly

find available units that accept subsidy programs. City and county leaders should pursue similar

collaborations with the abundance of local tech knowledge. Thirdly, the patience of the citizens

of Seattle needs to be honored in a meaningful way. As the Seattle Times Elway Research poll

indicated, the public is still very much engaged in this issue in constructive ways. Therefore, City

and County administrators should electronically publish progress on major homelessness projects

currently underway and planned so that the public can remain engaged in a healthy and

supportive way.

Homeless is a complex issue that Seattle and King County leaders can attest to. Despite

the difficulties in permanently addressing the issue, recent research and technological

advancements are providing new ways to conceptualize the best approach to homelessness which

seems to be a collaboration between public, private, and non-profit partners.

Works Cited

All Home Strategic Plan (pp. 1-33, Rep.). (2018). Seattle, WA: All Home.

Bridgman, R. (2003). Bridging Public-Private Partnerships in a Case Study of Housing and

Employment Training for Homeless Youth. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 12(2),

205–230. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=a9h&AN=1280

1380&site=ehost-live&scope=

Coleman, V. (2018, December 20). Durkan and Constantine endorse consolidating 'fragmented'

homelessness response. Retrieved April 22, 2019, from

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/durkan-and-constantine-endorse-

recommendations-to-consolidate-fragmented-homelessness-system/

Count Us In 2018 Point-In-Time Report. (2018). Seattle, WA: All Home.

Continuum of Care Program, 24 C.F.R. Part 578 (2012).

Davila, V., & Coleman, V. (2019, January 12). In new poll on homelessness, Seattle area favors

compassion but distrusts politicians. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/homeless-poll-results/

Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The new public service: Serving, not steering (4th

ed.). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Fowler, P. J., Wright, K., Marcal, K. E., Ballard, E., & Hovmand, P. S. (2019). Capability Traps

Impeding Homeless Services: A Community-Based System Dynamics

Evaluation. Journal of Social Service Research, 45(3), 348–359.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2018.

Fowler, P. J., Hovmand, P. S., Marcal, K. E., & Das, S. (2019). Solving Homelessness from a

Complex Systems Perspective: Insights for Prevention Responses. Annual Review of

Public Health, 40, 465–486. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013553

Homelessness Response. (2019). Retrieved April 23, 2019, from

http://www.seattle.gov/homelessness

HRS. (2018). Retrieved April 22, 2019, from https://hrs.kc.future.com/

United States, The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community

Planning and Development. (2018). The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report

(AHAR) to Congress (pp. 1-100). Washington, DC. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from

https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2018-AHAR-Part-1.pdf

The Price of Homelessness. (2017, December 17). Retrieved April 22, 2019, from

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/digital-edition?issue_id=7436

Timeline: Understanding Seattle's homeless issues. (2018, December 19). Retrieved April 21,

2019, from https://mynorthwest.com/1030524/timeline-seattle-homeless/

Veale, S. E., Bulman, M. B., Beck, P., & Kiggins, D. (2014). Practical Approaches for

Implementing Successful Collaborative Groups. Public Manager, 43(3), 47–50.

Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=a9h&AN=9793

8764&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Waddock, S. A. (1991) A Typology of Social Partnership Organizations. Administration &

Society, 22(4) pp. 480-515.

Walters, K. (2019, January 25). One night a year, Seattle tries to count all of its homeless

residents. This is how volunteers do it. Retrieved April 23, 2019, from

https://www.kuow.org/stories/point-in-time-count-5026