Homeless System Governance through an Organizational-Change Lens: A Case Study of Washtenaw County Continuums of Care

Background and Purpose. Continuums of Care (CoC) is a primary governance entity, mandated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), responsible for coordinating regional homelessness service systems and applying for and distributing HUD funding. Prior housing and homelessness scholarship on CoC examined how evidence-informed models (e.g., Housing First), coordinated entry, and performance management were implemented and their impacts. Yet less is known about how CoCs function as regional governance infrastructures, representing diverse stakeholder perspectives and needs, deliberating local priorities and policies, and allocating public resources.

We aim to examine how a CoC as a governance body navigates system coordination, power, and resource dependence amid shifting federal priorities and local contexts, using Washtenaw County CoC in Michigan as a case. We drew key concepts and constructs from organizational change literature (e.g., collaboration, leadership, interaction with external environment) and CoC governance research (e.g., lead agency, provider and people with lived experience influence, local support) relevant to understanding CoC governance. We ask: (1) How do these key concepts and constructs inform the CoC’s governance activities, and (2) what do they imply for equitable, sustainable homelessness system governance?

Methods. We conducted a multi-method qualitative case study incorporating semi-structured interviews (n=11) with key stakeholders from Washtenaw County, the City of Ann Arbor, and local housing and service providers (including HUD-funded and non-HUD-funded organizations), complemented by archival research and observations. Interviews were conducted in November and December 2025, recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a hybrid inductive–deductive coding approach informed by organizational change and CoC governance literature.

Results. Multiple policy, community, and organizational considerations and constraints influenced the CoC’s governance. The CoC’s main focus was on maintaining and expanding permanent supportive housing. In contrast, issues related to prevention, emergency shelter, and transitional housing were deprioritized in the CoC’s process because alternative funding sources supported those programs. The CoC allocated most of the federal funding received toward permanent supportive housing programs (e.g., 93% of $7.7M in 2024), with underperforming projects rarely reevaluated. Interviewees noted improvements in the CoC’s representation function, such as including more people with lived experience, but barriers (e.g., inconsistent onboarding and technical jargon) limited true participation. The CoC was vulnerable to uncertainty around HUD funding and shifting federal policy, which could prompt rapid system changes. Finally, multiple interviewees mentioned that the CoC’s technical capacity has improved after the county government became the CoC’s lead agency in 2013, but this has also increased bureaucracy and ambiguity in authority.

Conclusions and Implications. We conceptualize CoCs as regional entities for homelessness service governance and incorporate constructs from the organizational change literature to clarify the importance of local governance capacity, inclusive participation, transparent decision-making, and diversified resources in coordinating and managing a regional housing and homelessness service field. For practitioners and policymakers, strengthening strategic planning and system assessment for coordinated entry, formalizing performance-review and communication routines, supporting and compensating for lived-experience participation, and diversifying funding through state/local advocacy and renewed public–private coordination may increase resilience and reduce inequities in local homelessness systems.