Consultant and Former HUD Official Urges Vermont to Link Coordinated Entry, Prevention and Housing Supply

Abby Miller, a consultant and former U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development official, told the Vermont Human Services committee that the federally required coordinated entry system has expanded access for people who lose housing but will not succeed unless the state increases prevention funding and the supply of permanent housing.

Miller, who worked in HUD’s Special Needs Assistance Programs office and was a lead author on HUD’s 2017 coordinated entry notice, said coordinated entry "is meant to standardize the experience" for people who have lost housing and to prioritize those with the highest needs. She described how the system was created from earlier federal efforts dating to the McKinney-Vento Act and the 2009 HEARTH Act and said HUD guidance in 2017 clarified how communities should run coordinated entry.

The distinction matters because coordinated entry can be implemented in different ways. Miller said some states operate coordinated entry through a public-facing phone line such as 2-1-1 so someone facing homelessness can call directly and be screened for diversion or referral. Other places begin assessment only after an individual enters shelter, a model Miller said is common where resources are constrained.

Miller described several elements communities must consider: marketing access so people know where to go; front-end diversion (for example, mediation or short-term financial help to avoid shelter); and ensuring a flow from temporary shelter or vouchers into permanent housing. "There are vouchers available," Miller said, "but there are no hard units to actually use those vouchers in." She added that the federal government provides vouchers and many programs but does not build most housing, so states must coordinate development and funding.

As examples, Miller said Connecticut routes initial screening through 2-1-1 and then refers callers to regional "hubs," while Oregon has created centralized prevention functions after the state dedicated substantial funding to homelessness. In Vermont, she said, coordinated entry has been used successfully to prioritize referrals for permanent supportive housing, and the state’s use of hotel–motel vouchers has provided flexible, non‑congregate shelter in lieu of brick‑and‑mortar shelters.

Miller said she is consulting with the Vermont Balance of State Continuum of Care and local housing coalitions on the CoC consolidated application, strategic planning, a governance charter template for local coalitions, and regional gaps analyses that draw on state data so local groups can identify needs. She told the committee that local coalitions often rely on part‑time and volunteer staff and that turnover makes ongoing education and consistent data use important.

Committee members asked about data systems (Vermont uses the Clarity HMIS), whether 2-1-1 performs data entry, and how state agencies could be more integrated into coordinated entry. Miller said 2-1-1 often performs a prescreen and can do some data entry, but deeper assessment and referrals typically go to coordinated entry hubs. She also urged more prevention dollars on the front end and enough housing units so vouchers can be used.

Miller cautioned that the system’s gaps in services and funding can look like chaos but said coordinated entry has, overall, reduced the burden on people experiencing homelessness by consolidating referrals and wait lists. She closed by urging legislators to focus on prevention funding and on creating housing so the intake-to-housing pipeline functions as intended.

The committee moved next to continued work on H218 and took a brief recess.