1. Coordinated Entry: Getting Beyond the Requirements
July 2017

2. Rapid Fire Quiz
Read the question from the CE Assessment and tell us… is it...
REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, OR OPTIONAL?

3. REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, OR OPTIONAL?
Rapid Fire Quiz
Prioritization Section:
CoC identifies a prioritization entity, agency, or other decision-making entity empowered by the CoC to manage the process of determining and updating participant prioritization for available CoC housing and supportive services.
REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, OR OPTIONAL?
Recommended

4. REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, OR OPTIONAL?
Rapid Fire Quiz
Data Management Section:
CoC integrates data between multiple data systems to reduce duplicative efforts and increase case coordination across providers and funding streams.
REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, OR OPTIONAL?
Optional

5. REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, OR OPTIONAL?
Rapid Fire Quiz
Data Management Section:
When using an HMIS or any other data system to manage coordinated entry data, CoC ensures adequate privacy protections of all participant information per the HMIS Data and Technical Standards at (CoC Program interim rule) 24 CFR 578.7(a)(8).
REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, OR OPTIONAL?
Required

6. REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, OR OPTIONAL?
Rapid Fire Quiz
Access Section:
CoC’s CE process allows emergency services, including all domestic violence and emergency services hotlines, drop-in service programs, and emergency shelters, including domestic violence shelters and other short term crisis residential programs, to operate with as few barriers to entry as possible. People are able to access emergency services, such as emergency shelter, independent of the operating hours of the system’s intake and assessment processes.
REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, OR OPTIONAL?
Required

7. REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, OR OPTIONAL?
Rapid Fire Quiz
Access Section:
CoC’s access points, if physical locations, are sited in proximity to public transportation and other services to facilitate participant access. A CoC or recipient of Federal funds may be required to offer some variation to the process, e.g., a different access point, as a reasonable accommodation for a person with disabilities. For example, a person with a mobility impairment may request a reasonable accommodation in order to complete the coordinated entry process at a different location.
REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, OR OPTIONAL?
Recommended

8. How we got here: background and regulatory context
2012: CoC Program Interim Rule; ESG Program Interim Rule
2014: PSH Prioritization Notice
Updated in 2016, new CH definition
2015: Coordinated Entry Policy Brief
2017: Coordinated Entry Notice
Abby:
Thanks Chris. For those of you who have joined, this is Abby Miller from the SNAPS office, along with Matt White/Irene Peragallo from Abt/CSH and Chris Andrews from Cloudburst. So to understand coordinated entry, it’s worth going back to where we started. So the first thing to know is that HUD didn’t invent this concept of coordinated entry. It took a practice that communities were proving worked and began rolling out requirements and recommendations so that other communities could also rework themselves to be more effective. The first requirements took form in the 2012 CoC Program interim rule, where some very basic requirements were laid out.
The ESG Program interim rule also required that ESG recipients and sub-recipients participate in the CoC’s coordinate entry process.
As we learned more about how best to prioritize resources, we released a Prioritization Notice in 2014 that recommended guidelines for how CoCs prioritize PSH assistance. That guidance was updated in 2016 after the chronic homeless definition was revised.
Then came the Coordinated Entry Policy Brief, which we released in February 2015, and in that we identified qualities of an effective coordinated entry process, and defined the role for coordinated entry in the broader system of care.
In the two years between the brief and this Notice that we’re talking about today, HUD was working with TA providers and learning from communities to understand what was working, what wasn’t, and make decisions about what was absolutely necessary to have an effective Coordinated Entry. So you’ll find more information for a number of aspects, and often more nuanced approaches so that our requirements give you the right amount of flexibility.

9. Coordinated Entry System in Context
Rapid
Re-housing
Temporary Shelter
Market Rate Housing
Community-Based Housing, Services and Supports
Diversion
Street Outreach
Permanent Supportive Housing
Transitional Housing
Coordinated Entry
Households avoid homelessness
Targeted Prevention
Matt/Irene:
Thanks for that background Abby. Now I’m showing you roughly how people might move through coordinated entry. This graphic is aspirational; your system might not look like this today. But, you can see Coordinated Entry is not just the access point, or entry way, into the crisis response system; it’s also a process with an intentional “flow” of participants from initial triage through housing and service projects until people are back on their feet in permanent housing.
As you can see here, this is a well functioning coordinated entry, where many households are diverted from homelessness altogether, or receive targeted prevention, and never have to enter the crisis response system, which means that the crisis response system can operate more effectively for the households who really need it.
What else does this graphic tell us? [pause for a few seconds]
It gives you a sense of how your system’s components fit together to end homelessness as quickly as possible. I know you’re used to seeing these component types, but what might be new is seeing how they interact with each other (or how they SHOULD interact with each other). As you work in your CoC, you’ll have to figure out how your system currently works, find the parts that result in cycling between projects and not exiting to housing, and start planning more intentional pathways through the system so that people don’t get stuck.
The other thing this graphic tells us is that our focus on quickly housing people means that projects are there to play a role in that rehousing and not to operate in their own silo. That means no longer asking the question “should we accept this household into our program?” and instead asking “what is best for this household to quickly end their housing crisis?”
Changing the question you’re asking will help you focus on the households who have been in your system the longest, and the participants with the greatest need or the highest vulnerability, so that you can prioritize them for PSH or other programs that can meet their needs.

10. Countdown to Compliance
Abby:
Thank you so much for that video, Matt/Irene. As we go through the elements today, it’s so important to remember that all of this work is in the service of rehousing people quickly so that they can get on with their lives.
We have a finite amount of time to do this work. HUD expects CoCs to implement coordinated entry according to the requirements in the Notice by January 23, That is almost exactly 10 months away, but if you’ve had a chance to read the Notice, then you know that it represents potentially a lot of work, depending on where your CoC is in implementation.
With the rest of our time today, we’ll walk through the elements of coordinated entry but this does not replace the need to actually read the Notice—we have provided you with a Self-Assessment that outlines the requirements, recommendations and considerations in the Notice, so please draw on that resource as you plan for your work over the coming months. The Self-Assessment is posted to the HUD Exchange.
So what you’re getting today is a selection of critical aspects of the Notice, with more information about effective practices that will help you think through those aspects.
JANUARY 23, 2018

11. Terms & Concepts Coordinated entry process
Affirmative marketing/outreach and non-discrimination
Access points
Assessment
Prioritization
CE policies and procedures
CoC-level vs. project-level requirements
Matt/Irene:
To further understand coordinated entry, we have some of the most commonly used and important terms here. The first is “coordinated entry process.” Many people use different terms: coordinated entry, coordinated assessment, centralized intake, etc. For our purposes we’ll stick to “coordinated entry” but the terms are essentially interchangeable.
We also say Affirmative Marketing and Outreach, and this is an important concept that makes sure we’re taking proactive steps to tell the community that we serve all eligible persons. The requirement is found in CoC and ESG Program interim rules. As a brief recap, we have protected classes under the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights laws, which include race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, familial status, and disability, and then the Equal Access Rule also covers perceived or actual sexual orientation, gender identify, and marital status.
Access points are the places–either virtual or physical–where an individual or family in need of assistance accesses the coordinated entry process. These could be centralized, phone-based like 211, virtual, no wrong door, or hub models.
Assessment is often referred to as a specific tool but also as a process, and the short story is that it’s both. It can refer to one or more standardized tools that ask a range of questions about housing barriers. It’s also a process, in the sense that tools and questions don’t have to be asked all at once and instead can be phased to progressively engage a participant and not ask things that aren’t necessary for a particular phase.
Coordinated Entry policies and procedures indicate a requirement that CoCs have to document these elements in a set of written policies and procedures.
Prioritization refers to the process of ensuring persons with the greatest need or vulnerability are served first. Prioritization policies have to be established by the CoC with input from all community stakeholders.
And finally, you’ll notice from reviewing the Coordinated Entry notice that HUD has established these requirements at the CoC level. Although Coordinated Entry requirements are associated with the CoC and not individual projects, the CoC is made up of individual projects who are required to participate, so there are direct impacts on projects. It may be helpful for you to consider throughout this webinar the role projects will play in informing and carrying out coordinated entry.

12. Access Requirement: Full Coverage
Matt/Irene:
OK, let’s talk about our first Core Element of Coordinated Entry – Access
Access points must cover, and be accessible throughout the entire geographic area of the CoC. What does that mean?
Click
We’ll use Wisconsin as an example. I literally used Wisconsin because I could find an empty map and it fit well on the slide, so don’t feel jealous!
So let’s say you’re the Racine CoC (CLICK). If you’re a single CoC, you have to have one coordinated entry process covering your whole geographic area; however, for CoCs, such as Balance of State CoCs, (CLICK) whose geographic areas are very large, the process may establish referral zones (CLICK 4 TIMES to get four big stars) within the geographic area designed to avoid forcing persons to travel or move long distances to be assessed or served.
Regulations do not prohibit multiple CoCs from joining together and using the same coordinated entry process, so in this example, maybe BOS and Milwaukee CoC (CLICK) decide they want to work together. That’s ok. The Notice gives more detail about what you need to document in policies and procedures, so be sure to read that.

13. Access Consideration: Different Access Points
Required: Same assessment approach at all access points.
May include separate access points for:
adults without children
adults accompanied by children
fleeing DV, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, other dangerous or life-threatening conditions
unaccomp-anied youth
persons at risk of homelessness
Matt/Irene:
Coordinated entry must offer the same assessment approach, including applying the same decision making standards, at all access points. All access points must be usable by all people who may be experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, meaning that a household shouldn’t be steered toward a certain project just because they presented at a particular access point.
The coordinated entry process may, but is not required to, include separate access points and variations in assessment processes if the CoC determines that it’s necessary to meet the needs of a population. (CLICK)
These are the five populations that a separate access point can be set up for:
adults without children;
adults accompanied by children;
unaccompanied youth;
(4) households fleeing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or other dangerous or life-threatening conditions (including human trafficking);
(5) persons at risk of homelessness.
For example, (CLICK) you might want a dedicated access point for unaccompanied youth that feels safe and accessible, so that youth are more likely to access the coordinated entry.
I also want to highlight that ESG funded prevention (CLICK) must be a part of coordinated entry, but given how different the needs and process may be for these households, it may make sense to have a separate access point for them as well.
Keep in mind though that all access points must be usable by all people, even if you choose to set up more specialized access points.
Abby, do you want to talk about veterans?
Abby: Yes, thanks, Matt/Irene. We’ve received lots of questions from communities about access for Veterans. Veterans are not one of the defined subpopulations for which a specialized access point is allowed, BUT we know that lots of communities have strong partnerships with their VA and VA outreach teams or medical center staff may already be conducting assessments or even be making direct referrals to CoC providers. This approach is okay, as long as the Coordinated Entry policies and procedures allow it. What we don’t want to happen is for a homeless Veteran to show up at a specialized access point, like one just for families, and staff at that access point then turn the Veteran away, or send them to the VA to have an assessment done. I’ll just reiterate what Matt/Irene has said a couple times now—that all access points must be able to initiate an assessment for all populations, even if in this example, a VA partner might complete the assessment.
Matt/Irene: Thanks Abby. I want to pause here and see if folks have questions. Please make sure to submit those questions in the dialogue box so we can try to respond to anything that’s confusing or needs clarification so far.

14. Additional Access Requirements
Ensuring Access:
Emergency Services
Homeless Prevention
Marketing and Accessibility
Safety Planning
Street Outreach
Matt/Irene:
WHAT IT MEANS TO ENSURE ACCESS…
EMERGENCY SERVICES – The coordinated entry process must allow emergency services, including all domestic violence and emergency services hotlines, drop-in service programs, and emergency shelters, to operate with as few barriers (CLICK) to entry as possible. Also, households must be able to access emergency services independent of the operating hours of the coordinated entry’s intake and assessment processes (CLICK). That doesn’t mean a CoC can’t use the coordinated entry to prioritize emergency shelter beds, but if that process is creating a bottleneck or resulting in empty crisis beds then it isn’t operating in the true intent of coordinated entry.
HOMELESS PREVENTION:
CoC’s access point(s) must be easily accessed by individual and families seeking both homeless or homelessness prevention services. Prevention must be a part of coordinated entry and coordinated entry must be designed to support persons at risk of homelessness!
Marketing/Accessibility
CoCs’ written policies and procedures for the coordinated entry process must:
Include a strategy to ensure the coordinated entry process is (CLICK) available to all eligible persons regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, familial status, disability, actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status.
Document steps taken to ensure access points, if physical locations, are accessible to individuals with disabilities and document steps taken to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities, (CLICK), and
Take reasonable steps to offer CE process materials and participant instruction in multiple languages to meet the needs of minority, ethnic, and groups with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).
Safety Planning
CoC has a specific written CE policy and procedure to address the needs of individuals and families who are fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, but who are seeking shelter or services from non-victim service providers (CLICK).
Street Outreach
Written policies and procedures describe how street outreach efforts funded under ESG or the CoC program are linked to the coordinated entry process (CLICK)
The Notice specifies several CE requirements must be documented in your Continuum’s coordinated entry policies and procedures. During today’s presentation we are going to call out a few of those instances.
The symbol in the top right corner of this slide is our way of drawing your attention to aspects of coordinated entry that HUD requires be documented in written policies and procedures. We’ve “dropped a pin” next to those required elements wherever they appear in the presentation.
Few barriers
Non-discriminatory
Fleeing and seeking services from non-victim service providers
Linked to CE
Access isn’t tied to CE open hours
Disabilities and Language

15. Write it down: Access Requirements
CoC’s written CE policies and procedures must:
Document a process ensuring access to emergency services during off hours
Document steps taken to ensure 1) access points are accessible to individuals with disabilities and 2) effective communication with individuals with disabilities
Address the needs of individuals and families who are fleeing violence
Describe how street outreach efforts funded under ESG or CoC are linked to the CE process
Abby:
The Notice specifies a number of requirements that must be documented in writing in a CoC’s coordinated entry policies and procedures. CLICK
We’ll call out many those written CE P&P requirements throughout the presentation in our “notebook”.
This isn’t just about having it written down—having it written down is a reflection of the work that you’ve done to make decisions as a planning body and codify it in something that everyone is held to.
To review, CLICK, you have to document a process ensuring access to emergency services when Coordinated Entry is not open or available
CLICK Document how the CoC is ensuring accessibility to households with disabilities
CLICK Document how you’re addressing the needs of households fleeing violence, and
CLICK Document how ESG or CoC funded outreach efforts are linked.

16. Assessment: Requirements and Considerations
Standardized process to document needs and preferences
Could be completed in phases
CoC provides assessor training at least once annually
Participant presents at any access point
Standardized Assessment process
Abby:
After a household accesses coordinated entry, they are assessed. We have gotten a lot of questions and general confusion about assessment, and are hoping to clear up that confusion. Matt/Irene, do you want to walk us through assessment?
Matt/Irene:
Thanks Abby. As we highlighted earlier, coordinated entry locations and models (whether via phone, in-person, online, etc.) must offer the same assessment approach and standard decision making processes. So no matter which access points at which a participant presents, they are going to encounter the same next step.
CLICK
When we talk about assessment, we are referring to one or more standardized assessment tool(s) used to determine a household’s current housing situation, housing and service needs, risk of harm, risk of future or continued homelessness, and other adverse outcomes. While not required, assessment may occur in phases which step by step collect only enough participant information needed to prioritize and refer participants to available housing and support services.
To help ensure a standard and consistent assessment process and decision-making, the Notice requires CoCs to train assessors at least once annually. This is to make sure all staff administering assessments have access to materials that clearly describe the methods by which assessments are conducted. The training curricula should include the review of CE policies and procedures, prioritization process, and criteria for uniform decision-making. CoCs must distribute training protocols and offer at least one training to all participating staff within 12 months of the publication of the Notice.

17. Write it down: Assessment Requirements
Establish criteria used for uniform decision-making
Prohibit “screening out” from assistance
Protect all data collected through the CE assessment process
Establish that the assessment process cannot require disclosure of specific disabilities or diagnosis
Provide training to staff administering CE processes
Abby:
To go back to our notebook, there are a number of things that need documented.
CLICK
CoCs have to document criteria for uniform decision-making in the assessment process and
make sure people aren’t screened out of assistance based on perceived barriers. These perceived barriers include some usual suspects, like too little or no income, active or a history of substance abuse, domestic violence history, resistance to receiving services, the type or extent of a disability-related services or supports that are needed, history of evictions or poor credit, lease violations or history of not being a leaseholder, or criminal record. There could be others, but these are the usual barriers that are unnecessarily placed on households.
The policies and procedures also have to document how the coordinated entry information is protected using the same privacy and security protections extended to all HMIS data.
Written policies and procedures must specify the conditions for participants to maintain their place in coordinated entry prioritization lists when the participant rejects options. Programs may require participants to provide certain pieces of information to determine program eligibility only when the applicable program regulation requires the information to establish or document eligibility.
CoC must establish written policies and procedures establishing the process, frequency and curricula for training of all assessors. We want to make sure anyone conducting an assessment has been trained to do so.

18. Prioritization: What does it mean?
Requirement: Prioritize most severe service needs / highest vulnerability
But how do we know?
Defined by community-established principles
Ask: What does it mean in your community to have the most severe needs or be most vulnerable?
Ask: How do you account for differences in populations?
Matt/Irene: The third element of coordinated entry is prioritization.
Lets cover what we mean by prioritization, clarify requirements and talk about some additional considerations beyond requirements.
Data collected via the assessment process is used to prioritize households for assistance. You’ll see in the notice that coordinated entry must, to the maximum extent feasible, ensure that people with more severe service needs and levels of vulnerability are prioritized for housing and homeless assistance, before those with less severe service needs and lower levels of vulnerability. CLICK
So how do you know? HUD has provided clear guidance for PSH through the Notice on Prioritizing Persons Experiencing Chronic Homelessness and Other Vulnerable Homeless Persons in Permanent Supportive Housing. But beyond that, (CLICK) CoCs have to establish prioritization policies with input from community stakeholders.
The notice indicates a set of factors that could define prioritization, including:
significant challenges or functional impairments that require a lot of support to maintain permanent housing;
high use of crisis or emergency services;
Unsheltered status, especially youth and children;
vulnerability to illness or death;
risk of continued homelessness;
vulnerability to victimization, like physical assault, trafficking or sex work; or
other factors determined by the community that are based on severity of needs.
What does it mean in your community to have the most severe needs or be most vulnerable?
This can be tricky to set up—for instance, what highly vulnerable youth look like could be very different than highly vulnerable families or highly vulnerable adults. For adults, the CoC might determine that length of time homeless is the most important factor in determining vulnerability, but for youth, it’s totally different. The take-home point here is that CoCs cannot set up prioritization principles that end up prioritizing one population over another when protected classes end up being deprioritized. For instance, if a CoC established prioritization principles that resulted in single adults being consistently prioritized over families (discrimination against familial status), or people with a single disability prioritized over people with any other disability, or people of a certain race or color over those of other races or colors—these are all forms of discrimination, whether they were intended or not. The same goes for national origin, sex, and age. CoCs are also prohibited from discriminating based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. So a lot of thought has to go into these prioritization principles, to make sure that the CoC is actually basing the principles on severity of needs and not just prioritizing a whole population over another population.
Let’s pause here for some questions—use the raise the hand function and we’ll be able to field a couple questions from you. Also, don’t forget that the AAQ is your friend, so if you don’t get your question answered here, please write in!

19. Prioritization: Requirements and Considerations
Participant presents at access point
Assessment
Process
Prioritization
Case conferencing
Matt/Irene:
OK, so with prioritization hopefully a little clearer, I want to go over a few requirements associated with it. Let’s go back to the assessment process, where you’re collecting information through assessment tools. That assessment is one source of information about a households’ needs, but it might not produce all the information necessary to determine prioritization, either because of the nature of self reporting, withheld information, or circumstances outside the scope of questions.
CLICK
For these reasons, it’s important that case workers and others working with households have the opportunity to provide additional information through case conferencing or another method of case worker input.
It is important to remember, however, that only information relevant to factors listed in the coordinated entry written policies and procedures may be used to make prioritization decisions, and (CLICK) must be consistent with written standards governing CoC and ESG funded projects. You may find that in establishing prioritization principles that your written standards need to be updated to ensure consistency.
A community-wide list generated during the prioritization process, referred to variously as a “By Name List,” “Active List,” or “Master List,” is not required, but it can help communities effectively manage an accountable and transparent referral process. If a community-wide list is used, CoCs must extend the same HMIS data privacy and security protections prescribed by HUD in the HMIS Data and Technical Standards to “By Name List,” “Active List,” and “Master List” data.
Principles and written standards consistent
Master/By-Name Lists

20. Write it down: Prioritization Requirements
Document specific, definable prioritization criteria
Include the factors and assessment information used for prioritization decisions
Clearly distinguish between the interventions that will and will not be prioritized
Document process for participants to file a discrimination complaint
Specify the conditions for participants to maintain their place in CE prioritization lists when the participant rejects options
Abby:
Back to our notebook,
CLICK
First, you document the specific and definable set of criteria, and you make those criteria publicly available and applied consistently across populations.
You also document the factors and assessment information with which prioritization decisions are made
Next, identify your CoCs emergency services, including domestic violence shelters, drop in centers, emergency shelters and other crisis residential programs where people will need emergency access during off hours. These services might not be prioritized.
You’ll need to ensure clients understand how to file a discrimination complaint.
And, finally, make sure to document your CoC’s plan for managing priority when clients reject referral options.

21. Referral Requirements and Considerations
Participant presents at access point
Assessment
Process
Prioritization
Referral
Uniform across projects
Matt/Irene:
Thanks Abby. So after a household has accessed the coordinated entry, been assessed, and prioritized, they are referred to a project.
So what’s required of referrals?
CLICK
First, it has to be uniform for all beds, units, and services available at participating projects, which just to remind you, must be all CoC and ESG funded projects, but hopefully extends well beyond that to pull in other mainstream housing and services.
Second, the coordinated entry is not screening out potential project participants based on perceived barriers, but if projects haven’t lowered their barriers, there’s a break in the chain. What happens when an agency rejects a referral?
CoC- and ESG-program recipients and sub-recipients use the coordinated entry process as the only referral source from which to consider filling vacancies. We also refer to this as closing the side doors. Basically, if your project gets referrals from a bunch of different sources, you have no way of knowing whether the people being referred to you have the most severe needs. So closing the side doors means that you as a provider participate in establishing prioritization principles as part of the broader system of care, and then you rely on the coordinated entry process to reliably follow those principles, so that you know you’re getting referrals of people who most need what you have to offer.
Abby: Matt/Irene, the other thing I might add here is that the Referral component provides another opportunity for the CoC to support participant autonomy and a client-centered approach. Make sure to consider the participant’s preferences and goals while identifying referral options. It might be that the participant has a particular neighborhood or service provider that they feel is well positioned to support their housing placement and ultimate success.
No screening out
For CoC and ESG projects, CE is only referral source

22. Write it down: Referral Requirements
Document assessment, vulnerability and need-based factors used to make prioritization decisions, including homelessness prevention services
Include a process by which individuals and families may appeal coordinated entry decisions
Document protocol for participant rejection of a referral
Abby:
Back to our notebook, you need to document:
CLICK
the process your CoCs uses to make prioritization decisions
CLICK Make sure you include provisions that allow participants to file a grievance or appeal coordinated entry referral determinations
Document how participants can reject referral options

23. Questions on core elements?

24. Infrastructure Element: Planning
Shelter Providers
Housing Providers
Service Programs
Outreach
Teams
Mainstream Systems
Crisis Response System that results in homelessness as rare, brief, non recurring
Matt/Irene:
OK. Let’s turn our attention to the first infrastructure element – Planning. There are many questions to think through when starting to plan, and we’ll highlight just a handful of considerations here.
Planning a coordinated entry process can be challenging as you begin collaborating with partners to organize the crisis response system. We recommend you (CLICK) start by convening all the important stakeholders in your CoC and agree on a guiding vision for your community.
You’ll need active participation from the full range of CoC partners to achieve that goal, and while those listed here are by no means the only key partners, but they are all essential.
That means doing things like:
coordinating your outreach teams with existing access points;
making sure service providers and shelter operators are making services equally accessible to all participants;
engaging housing providers to prioritize homelessness, reduce barriers and prioritize serving the most vulnerable participants; and,
connecting people to mainstream benefits to ensure they have access to all the resources, services and income supports to promote long-term housing stability.
After you have all the necessary partners engaged you’ll want to agree on a set of guiding principles (CLICK) for your coordinated entry. Systems change work is difficult. Your CoC is very likely to experience conflict and disagreement about exactly how to implement and manage your system. Guiding principles can play an important role in help communities navigate these complexities and resolve differences.
You’ll also want to define system gaps (CLICK) – you do that by assessing projected inflow into the crisis response system compared against the array of housing and services available to serve that projected demand.
When you identify gaps, (CLICK) define a set of goals to address them. These goals can be about serving a priority population, achieving greater system efficiency, or improving system performance.
Finally, (CLICK) define a set of operational standards that will guide the processes of your coordinated entry approach, and make sure those standards are shared and transparent.
You’ve already been noting required policies and procedures. Let’s continue to add to that list…
Principles
Standards
Gaps
Goals

25. Write it down: Planning Requirements
Establish policies guiding CE operations
Define CE geography, participation expectations and roles, training, oversight and management
Align written standards for providing CoC assistance with written policies and procedures for CE
Ensure equal access to CE for all persons
Matt/Irene:
I’ll spare Abby this time and go through what you need to document:
General operating guidelines.
These should include the geography covered by the CE, participation expectations for CoC partners, the training and support offered to assessors and CE participants, and how the CoC will manage the day-to-day decision making processes required to operate CE.
We’ve already mentioned the expectations that existing CoC Program written standards will inform the development of your CE policies and procedures.
You also need to consider how the CE will ensure equal access to CoC housing and services for all persons.

26. Infrastructure Element: Management & Oversight
Questions:
Who develops/adopts/revises policies?
Who sets performance expectations?
Who monitors performance?
Who resolves conflicts?
Matt/Irene:
Our next infrastructure element is management and oversight. Designing a system approach and keeping it running smoothly and efficiently will require the CoC to define a process for decision making, management and oversight.
Even if you had all the required elements and best practice approaches identified you would still need a way to keep all those elements working smoothly.
Each CoC will need to define a CE governance and operational management approach that addresses the local needs and preferences of the CoC. HUD doesn’t dictate who should do this or how a CoC’s management and oversight of CE should be structured. It’s critically important that the CoC clearly establish how CE management decisions will be made, and how or who will provide oversight of the CE process.
There are some questions you should be asking (CLICK):
For example, you’ll need a process, including a designated entity, for developing, adopting, and revising major CE design elements and CE policies.
Who sets performance expectations for CE operators and partners? Who monitors performance and ensures compliance? Who resolves conflicts and how?
Most CoCs will find it useful to explicitly identify an entity, person or committee to address these management considerations.

27. Infrastructure Element: Data Management
Data considerations:
Documenting participant needs and preferences and coordinating service delivery
Maintaining Master/By Name List
Protecting participant privacy
Maintaining data security
Evaluating Coordinated Entry
Evaluating System Resources
Abby:
Since I’m a bit of a data geek, I’ll take this next infrastructure element: Data.
A lot of information gets collected and managed throughout the CE process. HUD doesn’t require that CoCs use their HMIS to manage CE data but many, if not most, CoCs will find great utility and benefit by using their existing HMIS infrastructure to support CE processes. Let’s look at some of those CE functions that involve data.
CLICK
At nearly every step of coordinated entry, data is collected, managed, shared, or used to evaluate results.
From the initial contact with a participant, CE access and assessment staff will begin to document client characteristics, attributes, needs and preferences. This information will likely be captured in HMIS for most CoCs, although, again, its not required that CoCs do that.
Some CoCs will create and manage a By Name List or Master List of people in the CoC experiencing homelessness. Often times these Master Lists are managed outside the HMIS environment. Some communities use a spread sheet, others might use a virtually stored document. Still others might incorporate their Master List into HMIS.
Regardless of which approach the CoC adopts – whether in HMIS or with some other comparable or alternative system – all client-level information collected throughout the CE process must be treated like HMIS data. That means the HMIS Data and Technical Standards that govern client privacy, system security and data management protocols must be extended to other non-HMIS systems created for CE.
CoCs will be required to assess their CE approaches. Data collected, managed and used for evaluation purposes such as client focus group results, client surveys, questionnaires… all of those data containing client-level information must also be protected and secured.

28. Write it down: Data Management Requirements
Ensure adequate privacy protections of all participant information
Define protocol for participant consent to share data
If using HMIS, ensure all users are trained and understand CoC privacy and security expectations
Prohibit the denial of services if participants don’t share
Abby:
In your notebook, you’ll need to document…
Your policies and procedures for ensuring client privacy and protecting client data in secure systems.
Many CoCs identify value and efficiency for clients by sharing participant information among access points, assessors, CE managers and provider referrals. If client data is shared your CoC must define the specific protocol for obtaining client consent to share their information. And, the CoC must provide sufficient training and support to those with access to client data to ensure everyone understands and abides by CoC’s privacy and security expectations.
While data sharing is often very helpful to program staff and clients in resolving a person’s housing crisis, some people will choose not to share their information. We have to ensure clients aren’t penalized by denying services when clients don’t participate in data sharing.

29. Infrastructure Element: Evaluation
Annual CE evaluation answers the following questions:
Does CE work for persons experiencing a housing crisis?
Does CE work for providers of homeless assistance?
Is CE functioning according to CoC’s design principles?
Is CoC system more efficient and effective as a result of CE?
Abby:
Let’s talk about our final infrastructure element – Evaluation.
CoCs are required to complete an evaluation of CE processes at least annually. This required element could address a number of different evaluation questions:
Is CE working for clients? Are people with the greatest needs and vulnerability able to resolve their housing crisis more efficiently or effectively?
Is CE working for homeless assistance providers? Do agency staff experience a more streamlined referral process and are they getting the types of referrals best aligned with the services and housing available through their projects?
Is the CoC achieving the original design principles they identified during planning?
And, what system level changes have occurred as a result of CE? How are the CoC’s system performance measures being impacted? Are fewer people becoming homeless? IS the length of stay being reduced? Are permanent housing placement rates improving? Are participants maintaining permanent housing placements and not returning to homelessness?
These are some of the questions an annual CE evaluation process might consider.

30. Write it down: Evaluation Requirements
Define frequency and methods by which CE evaluation will be conducted
Abby: For our P&P notebook lets make a note that the CoC must define the frequency and methods for conducting an evaluation of CE, which has to occur at least annually.

31. Questions on infrastructure elements?

32. CES Improvement Opportunities
Clarify CES leadership roles and structure
Clarify CES design partnerships
Strengthen CES management infrastructure
Address needs of subpopulations
Expand CoC staff training
Explore use of Housing Navigators
Document Participant Experience
Accelerate development of HMIS support and documentation
Common Implementation Challenges

33. Future TA Tools and Products
Coordinated Entry Process Self-Assessment
CE Toolkit of Community Samples – via NAEH Center for Capacity Building website
Coordinated Entry Guidebook: Core Elements
Coordinated Entry Guidebook: Infrastructure Elements
Coordinated Entry Implementation Guide
Coordinated Entry Policies and Procedures Template
Designing a Community-Specific Assessment Tool
Fair Housing Considerations for Coordinated Entry
Dynamic Prioritization and CES Management
Presenter 1:
And with that we are drawing to a close, but before you go, I want to make sure you’re aware of what’s already out there to help you, and what’s coming.
HUD wants to make sure you have access to additional tools and resources to support your work. The Self-Assessment is a great place to start. That was posted to the HUD Exchange when the Notice was published. We also anticipate the release of additional tools very soon, and one of those is something we can preview today. We’re excited to be partnering with the National Alliance to End Homelessness and their Center for Capacity Building so that in the next month NAEH will host on HUD’s behalf a toolkit of community samples and documents related to Coordinated Entry. If you’ve been wishing throughout this webinar that you could see actual examples of different community’s Policies and Procedures, or assessment tools, or prioritization protocols, you are in luck! We’ve gathered nearly 200 examples from your peers and those will be posted for you to use as you work within your continuum to craft your own. While not assessed and approved as compliant approaches, we think access to existing community documentation is a pretty good place to start with developing your own compliant approach.
In addition to the samples toolkit, look for a Guidebook that goes into much more detail about each of the Core Elements and Infrastructure elements we’ve covered today—basically a short chapter for each one. We will also have an Implementation Guide, policies and procedures template, Guide to CE Data Management, and other resources that we will publish as the year progresses.
Abby:
And finally, let me thank you for your great participation today. Some of you are just embarking on this journey and others are the forerunners that we’ve been fortunate to learn from along the way. Regardless of where you are, we know this systems change work is really challenging but ultimately what is needed to make sure we can end homelessness for everyone in our communities.
Thank you.