1. Using Data to Rightsize Your System NAEH February 2017
Session :15 – 3:45
Suzanne Wagner

2. Why Rightsize? To end homelessness
Continue evolution from “collection of programs” to a system
Projects developed out of need
Update based on data
Serve all homeless populations
New research, new practices
System changes affect need
Maximize households served per dollar
Aligned to Opening doors
a)review all existing projects using CoC-approved scoring criteria and selection priorities, to determine the extent to which each project is still necessary and addresses the HUD policy priorities above. Funds for projects that are determined to be underperforming, obsolete, or ineffective should be reallocated to new projects that are based on proven or promising models;
Seek and provide info to stakeholders re mx resources, esp Afford Care Act, Coord with state and local employ, mh, SA agencies to ensure best practices and appropriate oversight
c) PHAs, philanthropy, etc
d) TH effective for specific subpopulations–such as homeless youth, domestic violence survivors, and the homeless with substance
abuse issues. Research shows that transitional housing is generally more expensive than other housing models serving similar populations, it is often
more service-intensive than most homeless households need, and that the criteria for entry into many transitional housing programs are rigorous (underutil and not serving HH with most intense needs); review the transitional housing models within the geographic area for costeffectiveness, performance, and elig criteria and determine if rapid re-housing may be a better model

3. How to Rightsize
Identify the specific needs of those experiencing homelessness within the community.
Define what and how much of each intervention is necessary to meet those needs.
Determine how resources can be allocated to meet those needs.
Set system performance targets and analyze performance data regularly.
Adjust as necessary to reach the goal of preventing and ending homelessness.
Aligned to Opening doors
a)review all existing projects using CoC-approved scoring criteria and selection priorities, to determine the extent to which each project is still necessary and addresses the HUD policy priorities above. Funds for projects that are determined to be underperforming, obsolete, or ineffective should be reallocated to new projects that are based on proven or promising models;
Seek and provide info to stakeholders re mx resources, esp Afford Care Act, Coord with state and local employ, mh, SA agencies to ensure best practices and appropriate oversight
c) PHAs, philanthropy, etc
d) TH effective for specific subpopulations–such as homeless youth, domestic violence survivors, and the homeless with substance
abuse issues. Research shows that transitional housing is generally more expensive than other housing models serving similar populations, it is often
more service-intensive than most homeless households need, and that the criteria for entry into many transitional housing programs are rigorous (underutil and not serving HH with most intense needs); review the transitional housing models within the geographic area for costeffectiveness, performance, and elig criteria and determine if rapid re-housing may be a better model

4. Example: Compare Inventory to Need

5. Example: Inventory Gaps Analysis
# of Homeless families in a year
% Needing RRH
% Needing PSH
% Self- Resolving
1000
40% = 400 Units
15% = 150 Units
45%
Inventory
60 Units
20% = 69
 N/A
Gap
= 340
150 – 69 = 81

6. Evaluating Cost Per Permanent Housing Exit
Total Project Budget including Match
Number of Exits to PH in last year
% of Exits to PH
Cost Per PH Exit
$296,680 11
79%
$ ,971
$250,031 23
77%
$ ,871
$111,599 24
89%
$ ,650
$64,495 15
100%
$ ,300
$244,979 45
94%
$ ,444
$262,509 14
93%
$ ,751
$318,749 19
50%
$ ,776
$355,360 50
65%
$ ,107

7. Presenters: Dawn Gilman, Jacksonville, Florida
Mandy Chapman Semple, Houston, Texas