1. REGIONAL CONFERENCE NORFOLK, VA MARCH 16, 2009 SUZANNE WAGNER HOUSING INNOVATIONS HEARTH ACT 1

2. Agenda 2 HEARTH Act Overview – Key Changes  Eligible Populations  Eligible Activities  ESG  Continuum of Care  Performance Criteria  Other Program Changes  Applying for Funds  Collaborative Applicant  Unified Funding Agency  Funding Selection Criteria for CoC’s

3. HEARTH Act Provides Stimulus for System Change New definitions and eligible activities allow CoCs to provide more services to prevent homelessness and incentives to rapidly move homeless people back to housing Emphasis on outcomes enhanced under HEARTH with new, additional measures that evaluate both systemic and individual program results Reductions in Length of time spent homeless, Decreases in Recidivism to homelessness, Thoroughness in reaching homeless people, Reductions in numbers of homeless people and those becoming homeless 3

4. New Definitions = Expanded Eligibility for Services Chronically homeless now includes: individuals or families provided the household is headed by an individual with: Diagnosable substance use disorder Serious mental illness Developmental disability Post traumatic stress disorder – this is new Chronic physical illness or disability Co-occurrence of two or more disabilities 4

5. Expanded Definition of Homelessness in addition to current definition: Individuals or families who will lose housing within 14 days and who: have no subsequent resource identified; and lacks resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing; Unaccompanied youth and families with children defined as homeless under other Federal statutes who: Have experienced long period without living independently in permanent housing Have experienced persistent instability as measured by frequent moves Can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time 5

6. DOE Homeless Definition Subtitle B of Title VII of McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Homeless means children and youth who lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence. This includes: Children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason, are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional shelters; are abandoned in hospitals, or are awaiting foster care placement. 6

7. At-risk of Homelessness Defined An individual or family is at risk of homelessness if:  Income is below 30% of AMI  Has insufficient resources to attain housing stability  Has moved frequently for economic reasons  Is living in someone else’s home because of economic hardship  Has been notified that their right to occupy their housing has been terminated  Lives in a hotel/motel  Lives in severely overcrowded housing  Is exiting an institution  Lives in housing that has characteristics associated with instability and increased risk of homelessness 7

8. Assistance to Families ‘Homeless’ under other definitions 8 Up to 10% of CoC funds can be used to assist families with children and youth defined as homeless under other Federal statutes ‘such families and children shall not otherwise be considered as homeless for purposes of this subtitle’ Population may also be eligible to be served under definition of ‘at risk of homelessness’ Obtain services under ESG

9. New Eligible Activities – ESG 9 Emergency Shelter Grant becomes Emergency Solutions Grant  No more than 60% of ESG funding can be used to support shelter activities  At least 40% of funds would be dedicated to prevention and rehousing activities New activities:  Short/medium term rental assistance to homeless or at risk  Housing relocation/stabilization to homeless or at risk  Parallel HPRP activities Funding for ESG increases to 20% of amount available for homeless assistance $ for $ match required (cash or in-kind) for ESG Admin costs rise from 5 to 7.5%

10. Eligible Activities - Continuum of Care Program 10 SHP, S+C, SRO Mod become a single CoC program  Acquisition, rehabilitation, and construction activities the same as under SHP but matching requirements changed  Leasing is the same – no match required  Rental assistance for transitional (a version of RR) or permanent housing  Project based, sponsor based or tenant based  Can provide rental assistance to preserve existing PSH  Operating costs same as SHP  Supportive services same as SHP  Rehousing services to include: housing search, mediation, outreach to property owners, credit repair, providing security or utility deposits, rental assistance for a final month at a location, assistance with moving costs or other activities that: are effective in moving people immediately into housing or who have moved into permanent housing in prior 6 months  Admin costs to project sponsors of not more than 10%

11. Performance Criteria 11 Required Performance CriteriaHigh Performing Communities* Length of time individuals and families remain homeless Under 20 days or at least 10% below prior year Rate of households returning to homelessness Fewer than 5% will become homeless again within next 2 years or at least 20% below prior year Thoroughness in reaching homeless peopleActively encouraged homeless people to participate in services; included all homeless people in HMIS Overall reduction in numbers of homeless individuals and families Activities have been effective in reducing homelessness Jobs and income growth for homeless individuals and families No family is homeless for more than 30 days – benchmarking TBD Reducing number of individuals and families who become homeless *Can use as much money as they want for prevention and rehousing assistance

12. Other Program Information 12 Project based assistance can have a 15 year agreement, with 5 years funded out of initial grant Leasing, operating costs, and rental assistance for permanent housing amounts increased annually in accord with changes in FMRs. PH rental assistance, leasing and operating costs would be renewed non-competitively for a year at a time. Permanent rental assistance must be administered by PHA. Operating Costs would include service coordination. CoC match is “contributions from any other source than a grant awarded under HEARTH” = 25% of funds provided through CoC In kind permitted only when documented by memo of understanding Cash and in kind permitted CoC-wide not project specific

13. Collaborative Applicant 13 Covers geographic area – CoC Submits a collaborative application to HUD for CoC $’s Duties  Design collaborative process for development of application and evaluating the outcomes of projects for which funds are awarded  Develop process for selecting projects for funding  Establish priorities for funding  Participate in CON Plan  Ensure operation of HMIS Need not be a legal entity Can receive 3% of total funds available to CoC as admin fee

14. Unified Funding Agency 14 All duties of collaborative applicant plus  Receive funds from HUD and distribute to project sponsors  Must require project sponsors to have appropriate financial/grant management and conduct annual audit  Responsible for HMIS compliance Can receive 6% of total funds available to CoC as admin fee

15. Scoring/Selection Criteria for Funding 15 Performance – as described above Community Plans – quality and comprehensiveness of a community’s plans that focus on reducing homelessness, the educational needs of children and the needs of all homeless sub-populations.  Measureable targets, timelines, funding, leadership and staff. Process for Prioritizing Funding – methodology is based on objective publicly announced criteria that considers the full range of opinions and uses data for analysis If serving those homeless under other federal statutes, must have a very good prevention plan

16. Incentives ($$$$) 16 HUD Required to Provide Incentives for Strategies that are Evidence-Based and Proven to reduce homelessness  Rapid Rehousing for Families  PSH for Chronically Homeless Individuals and Families HUD can add strategies if there is research to support their efficacy. Communities apply for the Incentives and use the $ however they want (within HEARTTH eligible activities) Amount and nature of incentives TBD Up to $6 million to study effectiveness of different interventions for homeless families at 3 different sites

17. Key Tasks/Issues/Decisions for the Community 17 The following are issues communities may want to consider: Collaborative Applicant or Unified Funding Agency? Does the CoC aspire to be a High Performing community? What systems and program changes are needed to ensure achievement of performance standards? Now that there are new tools and evidence, what is the right mix of programs in the system? How to continue Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Efforts (albeit in a more limited fashion) How can the Renewal Evaluation Process better support achievement of outcomes and meets HUD’s guidelines for prioritizing funding? Discussions and decisions regarding changing program eligibility – pending issue of draft regs. CoC’s response to draft regs.

18. Discussion Thank You! Housing Innovations Suzanne Wagner suzanne.wagner@earthlink.net Tel: (917)612-5469 18

19. Innovations and Trends in CoCs and Homeless Systems

20. Ten Year Plans, HPRP and now HEARTH have made communities analyze and rethink their systems Evidence that with all the investment (think $$), services and programs we have developed, homelessness was increasing, interventions not working Realization that our systems weren’t systemic and limited resources must be targeted to achieve outcome of ending homelessness, rather than managing it More data on what is happening in our systems but still much less research base on the family side. 20 Background

21. Housing subsidy most likely resource to end homelessness but the vast majority of people leave w/o one and don’t return. Our homeless systems were not designed as such – grew up ad hoc Recent analysis of 3 cities found that people with most barriers were ones to fail most in the family system. Most intensive programs served lowest need people. If we leave the market to decide, community priorities may not be addressed. Expansion of Evidence Based Practices especially on strategies that end peoples’ homelessness permanently: Rapid Rehousing, Permanent Supportive Housing, CTI (Critical Time Intervention) and Housing First 21 Background

22. Bring Mainstream partners to the table and get their $$$$ Structured and supported to work in the local political context and service system Consider how prevention, diversion, shelter, transitional housing, permanent supportive and affordable housing fit together (or don’t)  Critical points of intervention are at the interfaces between programs and systems Take advantage of opportunities – HPRP, HEARTH 22 Elements of Successful Systems Changes

23. Have systemic outcomes, not just program Focus on permanent solutions Use data  Who is homeless, dynamics  Outcomes for all programs in the system  Target resources based on need Use proven and effective strategies – CTI, RR, Housing First, etc. Flexible and adjust their programs as they learn and create ways to share learning and wisdom Have champions and staff to implement them 23 Elements of Successful Systems Changes

24. Front Door Strategies  Primary Prevention/Diversion  Targeting  SPOA Back Door Strategies  Rapid Rehousing and Retooling Transitional Housing  Housing Stabilization Services and CTI  Permanent Housing Development/Access  Moving On from PSH 24 Strategies for System Change

25. Planning Strategies  Invite key players – Social Services, MH, Addictions, VA, HA’s, CPD, Workforce Investment Boards  Do your homework – know where mainstream resources are going in your community  Make plans when there is no money available  Create Funding Collaboratives  Use outcome/performance based contracts  Can tie reimbursement to outcomes  Ensure that you have the right mix of programs for the homeless population in your community. If programs are empty, needs may have changed. 25 Strategies for Systems Change

26. HUD McKinney Performance Outcomes HUD has increasingly been focused on the achievement of specific outcomes as a factor in McKinney-Vento Funding Awards. Outcomes Measured 80% of people in Permanent Supportive Housing will stay 6 months or > APR 70% of people in Transitional Housing will move to permanent housing - APR 20% of people who leave the program will have employment - APR Extent to which people have access to public benefits/mainstream resources upon exit as compared to national averages (e.g., SSI, PA, Medicaid) - APR Decrease in the number of Chronically Homeless (CH) persons Decrease in the number of homeless families Increase in the number of PSH beds for CH – Housing Inventory Chart Hearth will add  LOS,  census,  recidivism,  new h’less Factor these outcomes into renewal evaluation processes since they count toward the CoC score 26 Data Driven/Outcome Oriented Programming

27. Performance Based Contracting with NYC Shelters and Outreach Teams Agencies targets for housing placements are established. Census and length of stay are also tracked but payment is not connected to them. Agencies receive a certain guaranteed part of their budget. The balance is based on achieving the established targets. Bonuses above 100% of budgets are paid for exceeding these targets. For street outreach, reorganized contracts to eliminate duplication, create better accountability and ensure coverage of the whole city. 27 Data Driven/Outcome Oriented Programming

28. Rethinking Shelter – provide safe place AND housing placement Repurposing Transitional Housing to Rapid Rehousing, Rolling Stock and PSH  Communities reevaluating purpose and goals of TH in the system  For congregate facilities, have converted entire building  For scatter site TH, the housing subsidy and services transition out, not the person/family. Household remains in the unit which is turned over to the client. Services are provided thru a housing-based case management approach – Columbus  Chicago CoC converted almost all TH to PH  Conversions have freed up resources to serve more people 28 Retooling Programs

29. Transitional Programs seem beneficial for people in transition: young adults, families with young mothers, persons leaving the criminal justice system, persons in early recovery, people with long institutional histories Look at function in your community Queuing mechanism Place to perfect homeless families Bridge to housing subsidy HEARTH provides an OPPORTUNITY – offers RR in CoC Beware of just converting all TH to PSH. The number of families in need of PSH is a small % of total. 29 Retooling Programs

30. Solutions to homelessness must be viewed in the larger context of the supply of affordable housing, the existing social services system and the economy in a community. The demographics and needs of homeless families and homeless single adults require different responses. Assistance to increase income or access rent subsidies is usually necessary, especially in high cost markets. Ensuring that the system gets people housed requires coordinated responses that focus on ending peoples’ homelessness as quickly as possible, rather than managing it 30 Considerations in Re-engineering Your System

31. Coordination between the Homeless System and Mainstream Affordable Housing, Hospitals, Behavioral Health, Foster Care, and Parole and Corrections is necessary but easier said than done. Must have data and use it to understand system outcomes. Track shelter requests and census, average length of shelter stays, housing stability and recidivism. Understand who is entering or returning and why. Evaluate costs and outcomes and continually update your local strategy. 31 Considerations in Re-engineering Your System

32. Discussion Thank You! Housing Innovations Suzanne Wagner suzanne.wagner@earthlink.net Tel: (917)612-5469 32