Coordinated Response for Young Adults Julie McFarland jmcfarlandconsulting@outlook.com

Resources & Tools Toward a System Response to Ending Youth Homelessness Chapin Hall, November 2018 Discussion Guide Look into Category 4 of the HUD Homeless Definition – it’s broader than domestic/intimate partner violence. The primary aim of this work was to understand how communities use a common risk assessment and prioritization tool for youth experiencing homelessness (the TAY-VI-SPDAT: Next Step Tool). Looked at how risk assessment scores related to services offered to young people and to their exits from homelessness. Examined how many youth receiving different types of services remained out of homelessness systems and which youth were most likely to return. We analyzed the largest national data set combining risk assessments with homelessness systems data on youth. Local homelessness systems across 16 communities from 10 states collected the data as part of routine intake and monitoring processes. The communities include urban, suburban, and rural areas. OrgCode compiled the data to understand uses of their risk assessment tool, the Transition Age Youth-Vulnerability Index-Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (TAY-VI-SPDAT): Next Step Tool for homeless youth (NST), which is the most widely used risk assessment tool for youth coming into homelessness systems in the U.S. This dataset contains 2 to 3 years of intake assessments and homelessness management information system (HMIS) data on nearly 11,000 young people. It includes information on dates and types of transitions between homelessness and housing stability. These data were collected between January 2015 and May 2017 on youth ages 15 to 24. RE: Cat 4 – may get to some of your concerns about youth who are in dangerous situations but not literally homeless. “People who are fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or other dangerous or life-threatening situations related to violence; have no other residence; and lack the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing.”

Summary of finding: Using risk assessment scores to inform prioritization of communities’ limited housing resources increases the odds that those resources are offered to youth who need them most. Data: 5% of youth in the low-score range who exited by self-resolving their own housing situations reentered the local homelessness system within 12 months. Yet, 55% of youth in the highest scoring range that “self-resolved” wound up experiencing homelessness again, and this percentage was even higher among youth with the highest risk scores within the top range.

Key actions SO – we need to be smart about what tools we’re using, how we’re using them, and how we use that information to prioritize young people for our very limited housing resources. Looking at CELC communities: Factors we’re seeing used to prioritize youth-specific resources: CH, LOTH, disability status, medical frailty, TAY VI score or other vulnerability score (in combination with other factors). Common in some CELC communities: Using case conferencing for 2 things: 1) maintain engagement with you and an updated list of young adults needing permanent housing, and 2) appropriate matching of resources to young adults most in need --Not seeing a lot of “separate youth systems” – they are integrated into single adult and family systems and CELC communities are focused on intentionality around a youth-specific approach to access, their assessment process, how they prioritize young adults, and their referral processes. --Always make sure young adults have access to resources that aren’t young adult specific. Every system needs to make sure there’s equitable access to all resources. However, it’s common to see few young adults offered general resources because prioritization policies often look at vulnerability/medical vulnerability and LOTH/CH; young adults just don’t make the prioritization cut at the rate we’d like to see. Most folks requesting housing resources through our CES will not receive a housing offer. This study: Among youth who were assessed by coordinated entry systems in our data set, only 35% were offered a housing program space. Along with smart prioritization, double down on supportive service approach at Access Points: prevention/diversion, connection to mainstream resources. It’s common to see no more than 20% of people – generally, not just youth – offered a PH resource through the homeless system, and all others self-resolve or receive light services and sometimes small financial subsidies to exit homelessness quickly. We can’t just build a huge list to no where. Messaging is really important so young people don’t rely on a housing resource that won’t be offered.

Key actions Phased Assessment Approach – what questions do you need to ask prior to matching a person with a housing resource (how you define vulnerability and/or prioritize), and what questions are more appropriate to ask after a young person moves in, to do high quality service planning? Language from study: Additional information beyond overall scores can sharpen assessment, prioritization, and service delivery models. Prioritization of housing resources is different from matching youth with specific housing arrangements, supports, and services. Prioritization can be informed by a risk assessment triage tool like the NST, but tailored service and support matching requires more detailed assessment tools and structured case management conversations regarding young people’s individual strengths, needs, aspirations, and preferences.

Key actions Seeing one CELC community offer RRH to people within their priority pool, and when RRH isn’t going to be intensive enough in terms of length of subsidy and intensity of services, they transfer from RRH to PSH resource. They are just starting this for young adults, so there’s much to be learned. They’ve identified a way for a small number of the most vulnerable young adults to go straight to PSH, but anticipating that will be rare and want to try RRH first the vast majority of the time. DIVERSION. PREVENTION when appropriate. Connection to mainstream resources likely employment support, child care resources, food assistance – all of the great services that will support a person in having more income for rental expenses. Engagement Strategies – remember, the majority of young adults won’t be offered a housing resource. Have realistic conversations. Talk about safe, creative alternatives. Are you in a community with “navigators?” You’re lucky. Utilize navigators to focus on people higher on the priority list – those about to be connected to housing resources to ensure they are engaged/located and have the documents and verifications needed, and have a housing search underway – BUT also, move down the list and engage those not likely to receive a resource. Apply diversion skills and find alternatives whenever possible. Utilize outreach, drop in center staff, shelter staff if you can. Find people and train them in diversion and resource connection. Best thing we know to do at this time, while we work on our long term housing strategies.

Key actions Under 18 mention. Relationship building can start now.

Key actions I would also add, specific to the YA work, collecting and using data on LBGTQ status to understand those disparities, knowing there’s a massive over-representation of youth identifying as LGBTQ entering the homeless system. Great transition to Alex (or reference Alex’s presentation).