1. HUD Homelessness Assistance Programs: Where are we today?
IHFA Conference on Housing and Economic Development
March 2018
Mike Lindsay
Senior Technical Specialist

2. HEARTH Act and Opening Doors Background
The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009
Consolidated homeless assistance programs
Codified the Continuum of Care planning process
Established a goal of ensuring that families who become homeless return to permanent housing within 30 days
Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness. Four key goals:
(1) Prevent and end homelessness among Veterans in 2015;
(2) Finish the job of ending chronic homelessness in 2017;
(3) Prevent and end homelessness for families, youth, and children in 2020; and
(4) Set a path to end all types of homelessness.
Goal: Develop a systemic response to ending homelessness is to plan as an entire community, not just with homeless service providers. 
The call to action of the HEARTH Act:
“Transform homeless services into crisis response systems that prevent and end homelessness and rapidly return people who experience homelessness to stable housing.”
HEARTH Act:
The 2009 Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act consolidated the three homeless assistance grant programs—Supportive Housing, Shelter Plus Care, and Single Room Occupancy—into a single grant known as the Continuum of Care (CoC Program).
It is important to note that the HEARTH Act also enhanced and codified into law and the CoC planning process and really emphasized the need for a coordinated response to addressing the needs of the homeless. Its goal was to “Transform homeless services into a crisis response system that prevents and ends homelessness and rapidly returns people who experience homelessness to stable housing.”
Opening Doors
Opening Doors was the first comprehensive federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. It was presented to Congress on June 22, USICH updated and amended the plan in 2012 and again in 2015 to reflect what they’ve learned and new priorities. It clarified a strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness nationwide. Opening Doors called for more affordable housing overall, more supportive housing for families with the greatest needs, and an increase in rapid re housing.
It established that an end to homelessness means that every community will have a comprehensive response in place that ensures homelessness is prevented whenever possible, or if it can’t be prevented, it is a rare, brief, and non-recurring experience.
Specifically, every community will have the capacity to:
Quickly identify and engage people at risk of and experiencing homelessness.
Intervene to prevent people from losing their housing and divert people from entering the homelessness services system.
Provide people with immediate access to shelter and crisis services without barriers to entry if homelessness does occur, and quickly connect them to housing assistance and services tailored to their unique needs and strengths to help them achieve and maintain stable housing.

3. HUD Policy Priorities Shift to permanent housing – RRH and PSH
Housing the most vulnerable and lowering barriers
Data driven planning
Using HMIS data to help inform reallocation strategies
Measuring system performance
Population-specific initiatives:
USICH criteria and benchmarks for preventing and ending homelessness for the chronically homeless; veterans; youth; and families
Meeting the needs of survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.
Shift to permanent housing – RRH and PSH:
For many years, using HUD funds for transitional housing was the only funding alternative for serving families and individuals that did not need permanent supportive housing. With rapid re-housing now eligible under both the CoC Program and the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) program, there is an alternative and promising option for families with low-barriers that need shorter interventions.
Rapid re-housing can be done with a lower cost per household – increasing the total number of households that can be served with the same amount of funding. If the majority of households served in your CoC's transitional housing are families with lower barriers, you should consider reallocating those projects into new rapid re-housing projects for families.
Housing First:
Housing First is a model of housing assistance that prioritizes rapid placement and stabilization in permanent housing that does not have service participation requirements or preconditions (such as sobriety or a minimum income threshold).
Supportive services are offered to maximize housing stability and prevent returns to homelessness as opposed to addressing predetermined treatment goals prior to permanent housing entry.  This approach removes unnecessary barriers and assumes that supportive services are more effective in addressing needs when the individual or family is housed – when the daily stress of being homeless is taken out of the equation. Key components of this model include a simple application process, a harm reduction approach, and no conditions of tenancy beyond those included in the lease. This approach is highlighted in Opening Doors as a core strategy for ending homelessness. 
There is a large and growing evidence base demonstrating that Housing First is an effective solution to homelessness. Consumers in a Housing First model access housing faster and are more likely to remain stably housed.
Data Driven Planning:
Central to HUD and federal partners’ work to end homelessness, is the ability to demonstrate progress towards the key indicators in the federal strategic plan to end homelessness (Opening Doors)
Quality data allows HUD and communities to identify what strategies to end homelessness are working effectively, and to anticipate and identify trends in the effort to end homelessness
Goals for ending homelessness for other target populations (in addition to chronically homeless persons):
In Opening Doors, the nation’s comprehensive federal strategy to prevent and end homelessness, a goal was set to prevent and end homelessness by USICH provided specific criteria and benchmarks to help communities achieve this goal of ending chronic, youth, veteran and family homelessness. The Plan sets, and remains focused on, four key goals: (1) Prevent and end homelessness among Veterans in 2015; (2) Finish the job of ending chronic homelessness in 2017; (3) Prevent and end homelessness for families, youth, and children in 2020; and (4) Set a path to end all types of homelessness.
Families: Most families can be housed quickly and stably using rapid rehousing. Some will need the long- term support provided by a permanent housing subsidy or permanent supportive housing. CoCs should ensure that families can easily  access housing assistance tailored to their strengths and needs and, through partnerships, increase a ccess to mainstream affordable housing. Reevaluating RRH units to meet the needs of families experiencing homelessness
Youth: understand the varied and unique needs of youth experiencing homelessness, and reach out to youth- serving systems and providers to encourage their active participation in the CoC. CoCs and youth serving organizations should work together t o develop resources and programs that better end youth homelessness and meet the needs of  homeless youth, including LGBTQ youth.
Category 4: Fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence: reducing barriers faced by survivors of domestic violence and ensuring they are engaged in coordinated entry appropriately. They are served in programs that meet the safety needs of survivors and their families and use trauma-informed practices.
Veterans: Reduce number of homeless veterans and move veterans quickly into PH. Prioritize veterans and their families for assistance when they cannot be effectively assisted with VA services,

4. Why the Shift to Permanent Housing and Housing First?
Rapid Re-housing and PSH are more cost-effective:
The 18-month outcomes from the Family Options Study show that Housing subsidies have the greatest impact on reducing homelessness, improving family wellbeing, and most cost effective.
Total cost of assistance for families offered rapid re-housing was approximately $3,000 lower than for families assigned to usual care over the 18 month period. (1)
Families offered transitional housing did not receive significant benefit despite the fact that transitional housing was the most costly intervention. 
Housing First model works:
People are less likely to use emergency services, including hospitals, jails, and emergency shelter, than those who are homeless
One study found an average cost savings on emergency services of $31,545 per person housed in a Housing First program over the course of two years. (2)
Clients report an increase in perceived levels of autonomy, choice, and control in Housing First programs
Supportive Services offered but participation not required: studies have found services are more effective when a person chooses to engage. (3)
Family Options study key points: (from the 18- month outcomes from the Family Options Study report).
Housing subsidies (PSH) have the greatest impact on homelessness and other measures of family wellbeing and are very cost effective. Rapid re-housing was the least costly intervention and reduced overall homelessness stays in emergency shelter and transitional housing, although by less than subsidies.
Families offered subsidies experienced shorter stays in emergency shelter and transitional housing, increased housing stability, and better outcomes related to family preservation, adult well-being, and child well-being. Families offered a voucher:
Experienced significantly shorter stays in emergency shelter or transitional housing: 3.1 months compared to 5.2 months for usual care; and
Experienced positive human benefits, including decreased instances of housing and school mobility; fewer child separations from parents; less adult psychological distress; decreased intimate partner violence; and greater food security.
Receiving a voucher also had substantial positive effects on other measures of housing stability when compared to families assigned to usual care, families assisted with vouchers experienced significant reductions in subsequent stays in shelters, being doubled up, and in the number of places lived since random assignment.
What this means:
The Family Options study demonstrates that the timely provision of a housing subsidy is the most effective way to end a family’s homelessness. PHAs and CoCs should work together to expand the supply of housing subsidies and to use the coordinated entry process to quickly provide those subsidies to families experiencing homelessness
Rapid re-housing costs less than other interventions studied and less than usual care. It reduced homelessness in emergency shelter and transitional housing programs, but by a smaller amount than housing subsidies and generally offered fewer benefits than housing subsidies. However, given the scarcity of available housing subsidies, communities should increase resources for rapid re-housing assistance.
Transitional housing costs more than other types of assistance and more than usual care and appears to offer few if any benefits relative to other interventions. Communities should consider converting transitional housing resources into other forms of assistance, particularly housing subsidies and rapid re-housing.
For more information:
Housing First:
Housing First does not require people experiencing homelessness to address the all of their problems including behavioral health problems, or to graduate through a series of services programs before they can access housing. Housing First does not mandate participation in services either before obtaining housing or in order to retain housing. The Housing First approach views housing as the foundation for life improvement and enables access to permanent housing without prerequisites or conditions beyond those of a typical renter. Supportive services are offered to support people with housing stability and individual well-being, but participation is not required as services have been found to be more effective when a person chooses to engage.
Strong evidence, such as the recently published Housing First Fact Sheet from the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH), and the Corporation for Supportive Housing’s (CSH) NYC FUSE Evaluation: Decreasing Costs and Ending Homelessness, shows that people with long histories of homelessness and chronic disabilities who were served in permanent supportive housing using a Housing First approach has shown a number of positive outcomes, including significant declines in homelessness, arrests, hospitalization, and emergency room visits as well as declines in the public costs of shelter, corrections, and health care.
(1) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts
(2) Perlman, J. & Parvensky, J. Denver Housing First Collaborative: Cost Benefit Analysis and Program Outcomes Report. 2006
(3) Einbinder, S. & Tull, T. The Housing First Program for Homeless Families: Empirical Evidence of Long-term Efficacy to End and Prevent Family Homelessness

5. Why the Shift to Data Driven Planning?
Collecting & Analyzing Data leads to more informed planning response:
HUD evaluating improvements in CoC performance
Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR): A report to the U.S. Congress on the extent and nature of homelessness in the United States.
Provides counts of people experiencing homelessness and describes their demographic characteristics and service use patterns.
Provides federal and local policymakers with a deeper understanding of who is homeless and how homelessness changes over time
Strategic Reallocation:
Data helps assess a housing project’s performance and effectiveness.
HUD encourages CoCs to closely look at their data and reallocate projects that are not efficiently using their resources or are not performing well. 
Collecting & Analyzing Data leads to more informed planning response:
A systemic response to addressing homelessness requires that your CoC understands how your system is functioning as a whole – where the system is strong, and where improvements need to be made.
HUD System Performance Measures:
The purpose of these system performance measures is to provide a more complete picture of how well a community is preventing and ending homelessness. The performance measures are interrelated and, when analyzed relative to each other, provide a more complete picture of system performance. HUD began collecting the system performance measures data for the first time in summer 2016.
Example of data collected and what it tells us-- the length of time homeless measure (#1) encourages communities to quickly re-house people, while measures on returns to homelessness (#2) and successful housing placements (#7) encourage communities to ensure that those placements are also stable. Taken together, these measures allow communities to more comprehensively evaluate the factors that contribute to ending homelessness.
As described in the HEARTH Act, HUD will use the data as part of the selection criteria to award projects under future NOFAs. HUD will carefully consider which performance measure data is most appropriate and constructive as selection criteria for awarding grants under the CoC program. We’ll also evaluate how CoCs are IMPROVING their performance from year to year and take into account their unique circumstances and conditions.
AHAR: The AHAR is the only source of data that is available annually on the extent and nature of homelessness nationwide. As such, the AHAR provides federal and local policymakers with a deeper understanding of who is homeless and how homelessness changes over time. This information can be used to inform the public and help policymakers craft appropriate intervention strategies to prevent and end homelessness in the United States. Indeed, AHAR data are being used to track progress against the federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. The AHAR is also used by local communities who want to better understand the number, characteristics, and service needs of people using homeless services. This provides a data-driven understanding of the community’s homeless population to inform local homeless assistance planning efforts. Communities can also use AHAR data for the CoC application, community planning activities, coordinated assessment system planning, strategic plans to end homelessness, consolidated plans, and funding applications.
Strategic reallocation: CoCs may reallocate from all types of projects: supportive services only, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing (including rental assistance formerly awarded under the Shelter plus Care (S+C) Program), rapid re-housing, safe haven, and Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). CoCs should review all projects eligible for renewal funds under the upcoming CoC Program Competitions and reallocate funds from those projects that are determined to be underperforming, obsolete, or ineffective.

6. How is this implemented?
Role of the Continuum of Care:
CoC planning and systems operations
Over 400 CoCs – emphasis on merging CoC geographies to increase capacity and leverage resources
CoCs funded competitively through annual Notice of Funding Availability:
HUD sets policy priorities which allows projects funded under that grant specific parameters for who they may serve
Award allocation dependent on CoC performance and HUD policy priorities (e.g., more points for implementing housing first practices)
Upon its establishment, CoCs were intended to promote community-wide planning and strategic use of resources to address homelessness; improve coordination and integration with mainstream resources and other programs targeted to people experiencing homelessness; improve data collection and performance measurement; and allow each community to tailor its program to the particular strengths and challenges within that community. Each year, HUD awards CoC Program funding competitively to nonprofit organizations, States, and/or units of general purpose local governments.
Focus on mergers:
The CoC Program requires a lot of communities, and it is becoming more difficult for many smaller CoCs to meet all the requirements on their own. They often lack the staff to do so, which may reduce their ability to perform well in the competition, thus preventing new resources from coming into their geographic area. This is why we strongly encourage CoCs to consider merging. There are many great examples of CoCs that have merged where the administrative burden of meeting these requirements is shared while local autonomy remains strong.
Funding Allocation process:
FY CoC Program Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA): Sets eligibility and threshold requirements for the Fiscal Year COC Program NOFA. Requirements may change each year depending on the requirements HUD releases. Project must abide by the requirements through which they were awarded funding and the terms documented in their grant agreement.
Example of NOFA Requirement:
In order to be eligible for PSH, the CoC Program interim rule states that the household must be homeless and that one adult or child member of the household has a disability (see section (a)(1)(i) for more information). 
Further, to be eligible for PSH under the CoC Program, the individual must meet any additional eligibility criteria set forth in the Fiscal Year NOFA under which the project was funded. New PSH projects funded through the FY 2016 CoC Program NOFA  are required serve chronically homeless individuals and families. These beds must be dedicated to persons experiencing chronic homelessness and this was made a requirement through the NOFA (this is not required through the CoC interim rule).
Continuums are responsible for preparing and overseeing an application for funds. Continuums will have to establish the funding priorities for its geographic area when submitting an application

7. CoC Program NOFA Scoring Criteria Examples
HMIS Data quality and bed coverage
Coordinating with VA Services
Reallocation of projects
Increasing Rapid Re-Housing
Strategies to reduce overall homelessness
Implementing Coordinated Entry
Housing Placement and Retention
Reducing Chronic Homelessness
Here are examples of what HUD has included on their recent NOFA scoring criteria. This is important to highlight to show what HUD is prioritizing and giving points for. The Continuum of Care, being the planning body responsible for meeting the goals of ending and preventing homelessness, is expected to work across different stakeholders, providers, and planners across the CoC to achieve these goals.
Rapid Re-Housing: CoC increased rapid re-housing, if needed. CoC can also demonstrate they have sufficient rapid re-housing to meet the need.
Reallocation: CoC demonstrates ability to reallocate low performing projects by either (i) actively encouraging providers to apply for new projects through reallocation or (ii) have reallocated at least 20% of ARD in the past 3 fiscal years.
HMIS Bed Coverage - HMIS bed coverage of at least 86% for all program types (except domestic violence programs). If coverage rate is below 64%, must provide steps to increase for partial credit.
HMIS Data Quality - Report the number of null or missing values on one day during last 10 days of January 2016.
Strategies to Reduce Overall Homelessness - Decrease in the number of sheltered and unsheltered households in recent PIT Counts.
Reducing Chronic Homelessness - Reduction in the number of chronically homeless households reported in the PIT count. Coordinating with VA Services - CoC identifies, assesses, and refers eligible homeless veterans to HUDVASH and SSVF. Coordinated Entry - CoC has a coordinated assessment system that covers entire area, is accessible to those least likely to access it, and assistance is prioritized in a standard manner.

8. Role of the CoC
Planning
Systems Operations
Coordinate implementation of housing and service system
Preparing and submitting a CoC application
Plan and conduct PIT count
Participate in Consolidated Plans
Consult with ESG recipients
Establish performance targets, monitor performance, evaluate outcomes and take action against poor performers
Evaluate ESG and CoC project outcomes
Establish a coordinated entry system
Develop written standards for providing assistance
How to allocate funds
Development of project performance standards
Funding, policies and procedures for HMIS administration and operation
It is important to first identify all the planning and system operations responsibilities that the CoC is required to take on to establish what the CoC will be governing. The planning responsibilities are on the left side of the slide, and the systems operations responsibilities are on the right.
CoC planning activities include:
Developing a community-wide CoC process
Determining CoC geographic area
Developing a CoC system
Evaluating ESG and CoC Program project outcomes
CoC Plan participation
Preparing and submitting a CoC application
Point-in-time count and other HUD-required data
Monitoring recipients and subrecipients
Consulting with ESG recipients:
Part of the reason we have CoCs is to help make sure that services to prevent and reduce homelessness are coordinated. CoC must consult with ESG recipients that serves the same geographic area. CoCs can only play this role effectively if everyone involved in serving those who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness, actively consults with the CoC.
There are three types of programmatic things CoCs and ESG recipients need to consult about.
The first is how to allocate ESG funds . Recipient decisions about resource allocation can be most strategic when they are established with good information about what other service providers are doing. Recipients can make sure they put their funds to the most vital areas by consulting about which components and which activities they in the best position to serve, given what others within the COC are doing.
The second is how to develop performance standards, including outcome measures, for projects and activities. Multiple service providers work within any given CoC’s geographic area. It often doesn’t make sense to think about outcomes from the perspective of a single service provider, since multiple providers may affect outcomes for any given program participant, and for the community as a whole. Since outcome measures can’t be thought about in isolation, it only makes sense to coordinate about them, and the CoC is the place to do that.
ESG recipients must have performance standards for evaluating ESG activities
These must be developed in consultation with the CoC
Standards should take into account differences between target populations of subrecipients
Finally, the third type of consultation involves developing funding, policies and procedures for HMIS administration and operation. As a data collection system, an HMIS is going to be most effective when everyone contributing to it provides information in a consistent way. Inconsistent data submission will lead to unreliable data – and clear, accurate data is essential for looking at the impact that we are having, and the remaining needs in our communities. The best way to ensure that we have really good data is to make sure that all providers involved fully understand the HMIS policies and procedures, and have systems in place to provide that high-quality data. That’s why this third consultation point is so important.

9. CoC Membership Defined
A CoC is established by representatives of relevant organizations within a geographic area to carry out the responsibilities set forth in the CoC program rule.
A CoC is intended to be a large, representative group (membership) ranging from:
Non profit homeless providers
Victim services providers
Faith based organizations
School districts
PHAs
Advocates
Governments
The CoC Program interim rule formalizes the role of the Continuum of Care as the planning body responsible for meeting the goals of ending and preventing homelessness.
Each CoC is expected to be tailored to its unique community circumstances, to the extent possible involving all of the players required to further local efforts to end homelessness. The purpose for including stakeholder representation from a wide range of organizations within the CoC’s geographic area is to ensure that all community stakeholders participate in developing and implementing a range of housing and services.
A vital step to developing a systemic response to ending homelessness is to plan as an entire community, not just with homeless service providers. Planning with as many different types of stakeholders as possible will bring more resources and knowledge to the table and ensure that your entire system meets the needs of all persons experiencing homelessness. For example, involving youth and youth providers in your CoC’s planning process can help ensure that you are effectively identifying youth experiencing homelessness, that the coordinated entry process is appropriately assessing their needs, and that there are resources available within the CoC that are desired by the youth. 

10. Questions?
Contact Information: Michael Lindsay