Effectively Allocating Homeless Assistance Resources to End Homelessness NAEH Conference, Washington DC July 17, 2012 Katharine Gale Consulting Berkeley,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Retooling Transitional Housing
Advertisements

Impact of the HEARTH Act on Metro Denver Homeless Planning John Parvensky President Colorado Coalition for the Homeless.
Update on Continuum of Care and HMIS Presented by: Ann Oliva Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs U.S. Department of Housing and Urban.
HEARTH Act: Planning for Impact Julie Dixon The Planning Council.
The HEARTH Act Changes to HUD’s Homeless Assistance Programs Norm Suchar October 2009.
A SYSTEM IN TRANSITION: Shifting our priorities and programs to end homelessness Denise Neunaber North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness securing.
Jack Peters, Director Office of Community Planning and Development Seattle Regional Office U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development WSCH Annual.
Homeless Assistance in Ohio Changes in the 2012 Consolidated Plan.
Annual Update on the Homeless Continuum of Care
 Serenity House › Coordinated Intake › Case Manager’s Tool › Funder Reports › HPRP Requirement › Tracking Performance › Living up to a guiding principle.
Homelessness Outcomes Update April 3,  Transition to Rapid Re-housing  Permanent Supportive Housing  System Coordination  Capacity Building.
1 Help! I Don’t Speak Housing! Mattie Lord, UMOM New Day Centers Jeremy Rosen, National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.
Rapid Re-housing with TANF Families: What We Learned in California Katharine Gale August 6,
VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WORKGROUP Reallocate $ for more community based housing Need rapid rehousing dollars Adjust current grant to allow for more.
Continuum of Care (CoC)  Promotes community-wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness.  Provides funding for efforts by nonprofit providers.
Shelters in the HEARTH era The Lyceum, Hartford, CT April 7, 2014 Katharine Gale
MaineHousing ~ Homeless Initiatives Department NCSHA Conference ~ October 2014.
WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS Indiana HPRP Training 1. TRAINERS: ANDREA WHITE & HOWARD BURCHMAN IHCDA STAFF: RODNEY STOCKMENT, KIRK WHEELER, KELLI BARKER &
OCTOBER 24, 2012 PRESENTED BY RENEE LAMBERJACK, RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSISTANT Annual Homeless Assessment Report Presentation to Safe Harbors Partners.
Countywide Homeless System Performance Winston-Salem/Forsyth County CoC prepared for North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness Megan Kurteff Schatz.
Coordinated Assessment: Understanding Assessment Tools 1 Kim Walker & Norm Suchar November 2013.
Transforming Transitional Housing Hampton Roads Regional Conference on Ending Homelessness March 11, 2014.
The Norfolk Hotline and the Homeless Action Response Team (HART) Presentation by Jill Baker Norfolk Department of Human Services.
Where the Two Can Meet: Merging Transitional Housing with Rapid Re-Housing Virginia Coalition to End Homelessness October 21, 2010.
Chicago’s Community-Wide Housing First Approach Betsy Benito Chicago Department of Housing NAEH Conference 2007.
Setting a Path to Ending Family Homelessness Presentation to the Early Childhood Cabinet July 30, 2015 Lisa Tepper Bates, CCEH Executive Director Think.
Measuring Impact: Reducing Homelessness in North Carolina Megan Kurteff Schatz & Emily Halcon August 26, prepared for North.
Nashville Homeless System Assessment and Right-Sizing Recommendations Project Launch Presentation and Discussion May 7, 2015 Hosted by MHC and MDHA Presentation.
Strategic Action Plan to End Homelessness Presentation to Interagency Council on Homelessness March 2010.
Reversing the Trend Repurposing Sonoma County’s Homeless Housing to Reduce Homelessness August 30, 2011.
HUD’s Homeless Assistance Ann Marie Oliva. Overview of Presentation Update on Status of Regulations FY 2013 and FY 2014 Budgets and Implications Policy.
Strategic Plan DRAFT January Homelessness is: A crisis in King County. Cost-effective to solve Transforming lives 10,000 households per year  50%
Laura Skotnicki, Director of Administrative Services January 20, 2012 Housing First: Where it Works Institute for Children, Poverty & Homelessness.
Orientation to the Continuum of Care (CoC) July 29, 2014.
2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY COC EVALUATION INSTRUMENT Abt Associates and CSH.
Beth Stokes Acting Executive Director Hamilton Family Center San Francisco (415) Paying for Housing: Innovative.
1 Rapid Re-Housing: An Overview Welcome Home: Addressing Today's Challenges in Homeless Services June 2,
Changes to the Federal Approach to Homelessness Kentucky Balance of State Frankfort, KY June 21, 2011 ( Slides adapted from presentations at the September.
Housing cures homelessness A summary of lessons learned from the National Conference on Ending Homelessness July 29-31, 2014.
REGIONAL CONFERENCE NORFOLK, VA MARCH 16, 2009 CONDUCTED BY THE CENTER FOR URBAN COMMUNITY SERVICES 1 South Hampton Roads Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
System Performance Measures WIBOSCOC Data Committee: CoC Workgroup August 2015.
Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) 2004 Renewal Competition.
Data and Evaluation Workgroup 9/10/2015 | 8:30-10:30am| Chinook 115.
The National Alliance to End Homelessness presents The HEARTH Academy Training and tools to help your community achieve the goals of the HEARTH Act.
FY 2015 Continuum of Care Application Priorities and Process Presentation to the Lake County Coalition for the Homeless April 7, 2015.
Learnings from the Maricopa County Human Services Campus, DAVID BRIDGE MANAGING DIRECTOR HUMAN SERVICES CAMPUS LODESTAR DAY RESOURCE CENTER.
2015 NOFA Committee Orientation. A Continuum of Care (CoC) is a regional or local planning body that coordinates housing and services funding for homeless.
The HEARTH Academy System Assessment and Design October 2010.
Data Collection, Overview and Best Practices CalWORKs Housing Support Program (HSP) Seminar Sacramento, CA Katharine Gale September 24, 2014
September 18-19, 2006 – Denver, Colorado Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD’s Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures.
Ann Oliva, Director Brett Gagnon, Program Specialist Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs HEARTH Act: Continuum of Care Program.
Challenge Grant Funding And SB  The Challenge Grant program is authorized by section (4), Florida Statutes, to provide grant funding to.
Minneapolis/Hennepin County Continuum of Care for the Homeless 2016 Request for Proposals Pre-applications for potential new projects are being solicited.
POTENTIAL FUNDING RESOURCES CHRONIC HOMELESS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING & SERVICES.
Systems Change Modeling Scenarios for System-Wide Change For Consideration in HEARTH Performance Measure Goal-Setting Jenny Helbraun Abramson Sonoma County.
Data and Evaluation Workgroup 9/10/2015 | 8:30-10:30am| Chinook 115 Family Options Study: Key Questions.
September 18-19, 2006 – Denver, Colorado Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Top Ten Reports: Presenting Data in Useful Formats.
Megan Kurteff Schatz February 23, 2017
National Conference on Ending Homelessness July 27, 2016
Emergency Shelter & Housing Assistance Program (ESHAP)
Emergency Solutions Grant Consolidated Plan
Systems Transformation In focus: Rapid Rehousing
Using Data to Rightsize Your System NAEH February 2017
Robin Meyer, BA NAEH Conference July 18th 2017
Emergency Shelter & Housing Assistance Program (ESHAP)
CITY COUNCIL HUD Continuum of Care 2018 Funding Application
System Performance Measures: Goal
Introduction This report provides an overview of homelessness in Monroe County for the time period: 10/1/2107 – 09/30/2018. The time period selected is.
3.02 Assessing Shelter Capacity
TPCH Sheltered & Unsheltered PIT 5 Year Review
Presentation transcript:

Effectively Allocating Homeless Assistance Resources to End Homelessness NAEH Conference, Washington DC July 17, 2012 Katharine Gale Consulting Berkeley, CA (510)

Overview How do we know what we're buying? Thinking about the need Allocating resources across program types Shifting resources within and between programs

What are we buying now? Outcomes by program type, household type, and programs Exits to permanent housing Lengths of stay Returns to homelessness Source: HMIS Cost for outcomes achieved Source: outcome data + grants and budgets

Average Rate of Exits to Permanent Housing - Families Source: Data from 14 Continuums in seven states that prepared Evaluators for NAEH Performance Improvement Clinics in

Average Rate of Exits to Permanent Housing - Singles Source: Data from 14 Continuums in seven states that prepared Evaluators for NAEH Performance Improvement Clinics in

Average lengths of stay by outcome - system wide and by program type Source: Montana HMIS, 2010 data, Chart prepared by Focus Strategies

Rates of Return within 12 months after gaining permanent housing Source: Data averaged from seven Continuums in four states that prepared Homeless System Evaluators for NAEH Performance Improvement Clinics in

Averages are only part of the story - Outcome vary across programs.

Where's the money going now?

Sample- Investments by Program Type Singles Source: CA county, Data from provider budgets (only partial participation)

Sample - Investments by Program Type Families Source: CA county, Data from provider budgets (only partial participation)

Average Cost Per Exit and Per PH Exit Source: Data from 14 Continuums in seven states that prepared Homeless System Evaluators for NAEH Performance Improvement Clinics in

Average Cost Per Exit and Per PH Exit Source: Data from 14 Continuums in seven states that prepared Evaluators for NAEH Performance Improvement Clinics in

Caveat: costs, like outcomes, vary across programs

Do the current programs and outcomes fit the need? 9

Information to think about need Population data Source: HMIS, Point in Time count Utilization data Source: HMIS, turn away data, other systems of care

Point in Time Count 10 Source: Sacramento PIT 2011

Point in Time Count 11 Source: Sacramento PIT 2011

14 Single vs. Multiple Program users - families Source: Sacramento HMIS, analyzed by Focus Strategies

15 Single vs. Multiple Program users - singles Source: Sacramento HMIS, analyzed by Focus Strategies

Re-Allocator Demonstration

Reallocation practicalities 19 The Building(s)The Budget The Staff The Clients

Facility(ies) –what is their layout? quality? What are they most suited for? What about cash?? (Should you sell? Can you?) Funding – will the current resources still be available if the program changes? Are there replacement sources? Who are current staff? What specialities do they have, and what will you need? Who are current clients? Will they continued to be served in this program/intervention? If not, where will they go? *(consider regular permanent affordable housing- especially if some service funds could go to rapid rehousing…) 22 Reallocation practicalities

The Memphis Decision 81 units family TH becoming permanent housing with Project-based Section 8 from PHA At least 25 units will be PSH, pay for the services from a small SHP grant Taking the $850,000 SHP + match that operated the 81 TH units and using that for rapid rehousing = 400 families every year 25 PSH units + 56 permanent affordable units rapid rehousing slots every year – 88 transitional housing slots = lots more housing! 20

The Oakland Process 53 unit SRO used as transitional housing for families. Annual SHP grant > $1M. Possible options: –Interim housing (shorter stays) for families plus rapid rehousing support from same grant –Permanent supportive housing for singles with new resources; spin off most of SHP grant for rapid rehousing for families Process to determine next steps includes City, PHA, Public Health, Behavioral Health and providers 21

How will we know if it’s worked? Are lengths of stay for households shorter? Are housing outcomes the same or better? Are we serving more households in need? Do people we help become homeless again at same or lower rate? (all measured under HEARTH!) Are clients (our customers) satisfied with the change? 27

Summary Need to know what we're buying = key outcomes AND the cost to get them Improving outcomes/shortening stays increases system capacity with no new money! Reallocating to meet unmet need may mean moving dollars across programs and populations. Evidence to date shows rapid rehousing is very cost-effective. It may not work for everyone but so far it does very well at a fraction of the price. The proof is in the results; measure them!