The word interim should shape how we run our programs.

We provide a safe place to stay while helping participants move toward permanent housing. Meals, showers, a bed, case management and a welcoming environment all matter. They create the stability people need to take their next steps. But the program’s purpose has to remain visible in the work we do every day.

Permanent housing should be part of the conversation from the beginning, carried through the participant’s housing plan and revisited throughout their stay.

When the daily routine continues but the housing work stops moving, we need to pay attention.

Providers should take complacency seriously, including our own.

A participant can attend groups, follow site rules and get along with staff while their housing plan sits untouched. A program can keep beds occupied, complete case notes and run activities while applications, document replacement and housing referrals remain unresolved.

We should be asking: What housing action happened this week? What is the next step? Who owns it? What is holding it up?

A comfortable, respectful shelter environment supports this work. We do not need to make someone’s stay unpleasant to communicate that interim housing is temporary. We need a clear purpose, active engagement and consistent follow-through.

Whether your program calls it a Housing Stability Plan or a Housing Services Plan, the HSP should guide the actual work with the participant.

“Obtain permanent housing” states the destination. A useful plan identifies the steps needed to get there:

  • The housing options the participant wants to explore.
  • The documents, applications and approvals required for those options.
  • The barriers that need to be addressed.
  • The participant’s agreed actions and the provider’s responsibilities.
  • Target dates, support needed and the next review.

Review the plan regularly and update it when circumstances change. A denied application, an expired document, a health issue or a housing option that falls through should lead to a revised action plan.

If we carry the same unresolved goal from one review to the next, we should be able to explain why and what we are doing differently.

Motivational interviewing can help us understand what permanent housing means to the participant and explore uncertainty about taking the next step. It requires listening, collaboration and respect for the person’s choices. It takes practice; a few open-ended questions do not establish that we are using it well. The Motivational Interviewing Network of Trainers explains these principles here.

Useful questions might include:

“What would having your own place make possible for you?”

“What concerns you about this housing option?”

“Which step feels manageable this week, and what help would make it possible?”

The answers should affect the plan. If someone fears losing their support network, discuss location, transportation and receiving services. If the application feels overwhelming, work through it together. If they are unsure about a particular unit, explore the concern before treating their hesitation as refusal to pursue housing altogether.

I see value in using both structure and motivation to maintain housing momentum.

The push comes from clear expectations, scheduled contacts, agreed deadlines, regular HSP reviews and timely escalation when an action remains stuck. Staff should communicate what needs to happen and follow through on their own commitments.

The pull comes from the participant’s reasons for wanting permanent housing: privacy, independence, family connection, a stable address or control over their daily routine. Those reasons give the work personal meaning.

Intrinsic motivation grows from what matters to the person. External encouragement can include recognition of progress and, where authorized and appropriate, optional incentives the participant values. Transportation, application assistance and document replacement also make participation more achievable; they are practical supports, not evidence that someone lacks motivation.

Essential services, safety, accommodation access and grievance rights should not become rewards that participants must earn by meeting housing goals.

Life-skills work can add real value during an interim-housing stay. Budgeting, understanding a lease, communicating with a landlord, managing appointments and maintaining a home can support the transition.

Keep those activities connected to the participant’s actual housing pathway. A budgeting conversation can help someone understand a proposed rent contribution. A lease discussion can prepare them to ask questions before signing.

Life-skills programming should support housing movement without becoming an unnecessary readiness test that delays an available placement.

Accountability includes an honest review of why progress has stalled.

Did the participant decline an agreed action? Was transportation available? Was the referral accepted? Did staff complete their part? Does the person need communication support or an accommodation? Is there a viable housing option to pursue?

Those questions help us distinguish a barrier, a service failure and a participation concern. The response should reflect the actual issue.

Thirty-, sixty- and ninety-day reviews can provide useful structure. Formal exit notices require a separate, authorized decision process.

The supplied LAHSA Interim Housing Exit and Termination Standards, revised December 31, 2024, identify consistent refusal or failure to cooperate in identifying housing options as a possible basis for a proposed termination with LAHSA approval and at least thirty days’ written notice. That provision does not make every missed HSP goal grounds for exit. The same standards prohibit exits based on conditions including lack of income, active health issues, mental health conditions and medication noncompliance. See the standards, particularly pages 2–5.

Before considering a formal notice, verify the current applicable rules, document the facts and problem-solving efforts, address accommodation needs and obtain the required review or approval. Preserve accessible notice, grievance rights and an appropriate exit plan. California’s current shelter-program provisions also establish termination-process protections. See Civil Code section 1954.09.

A blanket 30/60/90-day exit-notice ladder should not replace individualized review or become the program’s default motivation tool.

Supervisors should review completed housing actions, unresolved barriers, application status, pending approvals and accepted receiving-provider connections. Check whether staff commitments are being completed alongside participant commitments.

A vacant bed does not, by itself, demonstrate a successful housing outcome. We need to know where the participant went and whether the transition was supported.

Interim housing should provide safety, dignity and useful support while maintaining a clear path toward permanent housing. That purpose needs to be present in our conversations, plans, supervision and follow-through throughout the participant’s stay.