1. Assessment & Targeting National Alliance to End Homelessness Annual Conference Beth Stokes Executive Director July 30th, 2009 Bstokes@hamiltonfamilycenter.org

2. 1 Assessment & Targeting Surveying the Local Landscape I. Provider Perspective: Assess client outputs & characteristics related to four housing types: Homeless Prevention/Short-term rental assistance, Rapid Re- housing/Medium-term rental assistance, Transitional Housing, and Permanent Supportive Housing in an effort to develop a local assessment tool II. Review general eligibility criteria and assessment indicators for four housing types: Homeless Prevention/Short-term rental assistance, Rapid Re- housing/Medium-term rental assistance, Transitional Housing, and Permanent Supportive Housing III.System-wide assessment of challenges and resources related to these four Housing Types IV. Review Hamilton Family Center’s Housing Assessment Matrix Tool and other local evaluation tools

3. 2 Assessment & Targeting Homeless Prevention: Provider Perspective Snapshot of Who is Being Served in Short-term Rental Assistance? Client Characteristics  Households who received STRA and still lost their stable housing did so in first six months of receiving short-term assistance  Households who lost housing report not able to return to stable housing 12 months after losing housing  Average income and avg household size place the families served by this homeless prevention program below 25% of SF AMI by household ($21,800)  On average households served by this program are extremely low-income with a low rent burden which underscores the essential value of a homeless prevention program-preventing homelessness, preserving affordable units, and maintaining housing stability for some of the most vulnerable families. Outputs 2008-2009  116 Families received short-term rental assistance At a Glance: Households who received STRA  Average household size was three Outcomes 2008-2009  98% of households remained stably housed at 12 months  2% are known to have lost their housing  32% of STRA households were reached at six mo follow-up  21% of STRA households were successfully reached at 12 month follow-up  R/I ratio for STRA was 37% MinimumMaximumAverage Back Rent$400$8,400$2,377 Grant$25$2,964$1,158 Rent$64$1,667$582 Income$176$4,434$1,554

4. 3 Assessment & Targeting Homeless Prevention: Provider Perspective Short-Term Rental Assistance Eligibility Criteria Income Limits: Household must be at 30% or below local 2009 SF AMI Must be a San Francisco resident Eviction Notice (14, 10, 3-Day Notice) or current ledger from landlord showing how much back rent is owed Need to have lease in name of applicant (HPRH allows for housing provided by friends & family) Need to receive income verification Need to receive W-9 from landlord Household agrees to a three and nine month follow-up  HPRH Funds: Be at risk of losing housing and meet both eligibility criteria: No appropriate subsequent housing options identified Household lacks financial resources and support networks needed to obtain immediate housing  HPRP Funds: Household will need to meet at least one criteria in a list of housing stability barriers Assessment Indicators Grant must be used to prevent an eviction, versus stall one for 30 days  HRRP Funds: If paying rental arrears, assess if household will be able to remain in unit, or move to another unit Short-term Rental Assistance: Assessment Indicators HFC has noted based on our local outcomes include:  First time homeless  No adults in household have an eviction  Has previously held a lease in their name  Temporary financial strain  One or more adults in the household are currently employed part time or participating in a paid internship and seeking full time employment

5. 4 Assessment & Targeting Homeless Prevention: System of Care Resources & Challenges System-Wide Resources  Have an established, recognized Homeless Prevention Collaboration of providers  Homeless Prevention collaboration has standardized intake forms  HPRP Funds to SF $8.7: The lions share, or 78%, going to Homeless Prevention activities: Direct Financial Assistance: 50.5% ($4.4) Housing Relo & Stab Services: 27% ($2.3)  HPRP funds will be distributed in counties surrounding SF county  HPRP will allow for “outreach and engagement” costs to publicize, educate and increase awareness of this type of homeless prevention program System-Wide Challenges  Currently a grant limit of up to $3,000 for city funds  Avg grant size for Homeless Prevention assistance this year close to the cities established grant limit  Capacity constraints: Significant staffing limitations along the continuum of providers for this activity-Impact for some providers is a lottery system for appointments. Impact on clients is a critical delay and possible eviction Cap on amount each organization can distribute per client. Result inefficient use of staff’s already limited time  No coordinated marketing and outreach  Limited success in tracking long-term impact of emergency assistance grants  Coordinated outreach and awareness “campaigns” regarding this important funding not prioritized or funded

6. 5 Assessment & Targeting Transitional Housing: Provider Perspective Snapshot of Who is Being Served in Transitional Housing? Characteristics  10 units identified for Drug Dependency Court population in SF  53% of households were involved in child welfare  58% of households experienced issues related to domestic/intimate partner violence  Referral sources: 38% from Family Emergency Shelter 22% from Dependency Drug Court 17% Domestic violence shelters  Wait list averaging nine months Outputs 2008-2009  36 Families served  8 Families referred from Dependency Drug Court/Superior Court  Average length of stay for households who exited into permanent housing: 12 months  Average length of staff for households who did not exit into permanent housing: 15 months Outcomes 2008-2009  No. 1 Housing exit: 47% Housing Authority  No. 2 Housing exit: 26% Permanent Supportive Housing  No. 3 Housing exit: 20% Affordable Housing  Income Entry all households: $726 vs. Exit $1,333  Income Entry DDC households: $612 vs. $1,562

7. 6 Assessment & Targeting Transitional Housing: Provider Perspective Assessment Indicators  Household must meet HUD’s definition of homelessness  Program targets moderate and high-need families  History of homelessness: Episodic homeless families  Lease History: Primary caregiver has never held a lease in his/her name  Age of primary caregiver: Young head of household, 18-24 w/children or pregnant  Household member has experienced issues related to domestic/intimate partner violence in past 12 months  Child Welfare: Household has involvement w/child welfare in past 12 months Household has children currently separated from family by CPS, reunification is planned; or family has reunified in last six months  Education Level: No adults in household have a high school diploma or equivalent  Criminal Justice: One or more adults in household have been convicted of a felony  Family Composition: One or more members of the household are pregnant  Other considerations: Ineligible for childcare and one or more adults in the household cannot work 30 or more hours /week because of childcare needs; Need for outpatient mental health services in past 12 months;

8. 7 Assessment & Targeting Transitional Housing: System Perspective Resources & Challenges System-Wide Resources  Established collaborations with DDC and Behavioral Health Court. Potential for new funding opportunities  “Jobs Now” Cal Work's Program will be available to families residing in our transitional housing program System-Wide Challenges  Transitional models continue to be scrutinized for cost effectiveness  Local pressure to identify and secure funding from sources other then HUD McKinney and now, local dollars (San Francisco cut all family Transitional programs by 10% in this years budget)  Funds being cut while service needs of targeted population are increasing

9. 8 Assessment & Targeting Rapid Re-housing: Provider Perspective Snapshot of Who is Being Served in Medium-Term Rental Assistance Client Characteristics  59% of completed households consisted of two adults  31% of completed households consisted of one adult  95% of single heads of household were female  No extended families were served this year  66.6% of households who failed to complete the program were self-referred  13 months avg length of time for households currently enrolled (families staying in the program longer)  9 months avg program time for discontinued households  Families who decreased an adult member of their household failed to complete the program  21% of completed households accessed homeless prevention assistance while in the MTRA program (66% of this group found more deeply affordable housing)  Wide range of income at intake. Income alone not a significant predictor of household success in 2008-2009 Outputs 2008-2009  67 Families were served in Medium-Term Rental Assist. Program (MTRA)  32 Families completed the MTRA Program in 08- 09  79% was the Avg Rent to Income ratio at entry  $425 Avg subsidy amount  $955 Avg monthly rent in 2008-2009  $1,286 Avg household monthly income (Range of $591 to $2,484)  15 months Avg length of time in the program for completed households  Avg age of female head of household: 34  Avg household size: three Outcomes 2008-2009  92% of families who ended their MTRA in 08-09 successfully completed the program  8% were discontinued  49% Avg R/I ratio for families who completed the MTRA program (decrease of 30%)  Income at exit $1,728 or a 34% increase

10. 9 Assessment & Targeting Rapid Re-housing: Provider Perspective Eligibility Criteria  Household income cannot exceed 30% of SF AMI  HPRP funds will need to meet HUD’s Homeless Definition for Rapid Re- housing  Household must be able to obtain a lease in their name  Household must be willing to identify a three-tiered plan to increase income over the next 12-24 months (will be months for HPRH funds)  Household agrees to monthly contact  Household agrees to quarterly review of income plan and progress toward meeting goals  HPRP Funds: Household has not identified an appropriate housing option  HPRP Funds: Household lacks financial resources and support networks to identify immediate housing Assessment Indicators  Analyze your local data to inform your programs assessment model  Make use of established, evidence based indicators that demonstrate a casual link  Modify your tool as you gain more empirical knowledge Rapid Re-housing indicators we’ve noted based on our local outcomes include:  First time homeless  Household has no evictions  One or more adults in the household are currently employed part time or participating in a paid internship and seeking full time employment  Age of primary caregiver  Family composition (addition or departure of a household member)  Referral source

11. 10 Assessment & Targeting Rapid Re-housing: System of Care Assessing Resources & Challenges System-Wide Resources  SF received HUD Rapid Re-housing funding for 2009  SF received $8.7 million in HPRP funding 14% ($1.2) targeting Rapid Re- housing Activities  System-wide coordination of medium- term subsidy providers  Launch of “Jobs Now” program for CalWorks recipients/eligible households  Surrounding counties will be HPRH funds System-Wide Challenges  High cost of rent in SF  Unemployment in CA: 11.6% (7.1% year ago)  Unemployment in SF: 8.6%  Doubling of family shelter waitlist  First Avenues distributed 11 new Medium-term Rental Subsidies to distribute in 08-09  Length of emergency shelter stays has increased in 08-09 to 4.7 months  The highest percentage of emergency shelter exits (36%) was to permanent supportive housing-a very limited housing opportunity  70% of families entering shelter are on CalWorks (TANF)  The same no. of families who entered shelter with employment, exited shelter with employment. No change. No increase  20% decrease in household income for families entering shelter in 08-09 vs. 07-08  Families exiting shelter with a subsidy are residing in the shelter two months longer in 08-09 vs 07-08

12. 11 Assessment & Targeting Permanent Supportive Housing: Provider Perspective Eligibility Criteria  Household has to have one adult and one minor child; or homeless pregnant woman  Household income does not exceed 50% of SF 2009 AMI  Household meets SF’s definition of homelessness. SF acknowledges those residing in SRO’s (single residence occupancies)  Households must meet all three criteria to be eligible for LOS Permanent Supportive Housing  Households must also meet the criteria of the individual housing developer Assessment Indicators Possible indicators for PSH can include: History of homelessness, meets definition of chronic homelessness History of evictions: two or more evictions on their record or an eviction from a previous permanent supportive housing placement Mental health services: Inpatient treatment within past 12 months Substance abuse services: Inpatient, intensive outpatient, or detox treatment within last 12 months Work experience: No adults have worked 30 or more hours a week in the past three years Work inhibiting disabilities: Inhibits client from working 20+ hours per week Criminal Background: An adult in the household has been convicted of a felony Other possible considerations can include recent DV, recent involvement w/CPS Network of support

13. 12 Assessment & Targeting Permanent Supportive Housing: System Perspective Assessing Resources and Challenges System-Wide Challenges  PSH is a limited, affordable housing resource for “high need” families  It is not a resource needed by the majority of very low-income homeless families  Systems of care with PSH units coming on-line would benefit from a centralized process with a uniformed assessment tool  Even if assessed and identified as a “high need” family for this type of housing resource, you still need to go through the process and criteria of the individual developer. These requirements may, and often do, vary.  Current economy has impacted resources for new housing developments System-Wide Resources  Since 2008 San Francisco has a LOS (Local Operating Subsidy) for families moving into PSH  SF has a tiered prioritization for referral sources and a centralized, system-wide referral process. Process establishes prioritization in the following order: Family Shelter Child Welfare Transitional Housing Resource Centers  SF has developed a PSH Evaluation tool that must be submitted by referring agencies. Based on a Low-Moderate-High service intensity model (developed by Harder & Co.)

14. 13 Assessment & Targeting Evaluating Families for Housing Opportunities Hamilton Family Center: Housing Assessment Matrix Housing Assessment Matrix

15. 14 Assessment & Targeting Hamilton Family Center