effectively allocating homeless assistance resources to end homelessness

Effectively Allocating Homeless Assistance Resources to End

Homelessness

NAEH Conference, Washington DCJuly 17, 2012

Katharine Gale ConsultingBerkeley, CA

(510) 710-9176kgaleconsulting@sbcglobal.net

www.focusstrategies.net

1

Overview

• How do we know what we're buying?• Thinking about the need• Allocating resources across program

types• Shifting resources within and between

programs

What are we buying now?• Outcomes by program type, household type, and

programs

• Exits to permanent housing

• Lengths of stay

• Returns to homelessness

•Source: HMIS• Cost for outcomes achieved

•Source: outcome data + grants and budgets

Average Rate of Exits to Permanent Housing - Families

Source: Data from 14 Continuums in seven states that prepared Evaluators for NAEH Performance Improvement Clinics in 2011-2012

Average Rate of Exits to Permanent Housing - Singles

Source: Data from 14 Continuums in seven states that prepared Evaluators for NAEH Performance Improvement Clinics in 2011- 2012

Average lengths of stay by outcome - system wide and by program type

Source: Montana HMIS, 2010 data, Chart prepared by Focus Strategies

Rates of Return within 12 months after gaining permanent housing

Source: Data averaged from seven Continuums in four states that prepared Homeless System Evaluators for NAEH Performance Improvement Clinics in 2011-2012

Averages are only part of the story -

Outcome vary across programs.

Where's the money going

now?

Sample- Investments by Program TypeSingles

Source: CA county, Data from provider budgets (only partial participation)

Sample - Investments by Program TypeFamilies

Source: CA county, Data from provider budgets (only partial participation)

Average Cost Per Exit and Per PH Exit

Source: Data from 14 Continuums in seven states that prepared Homeless System Evaluators for NAEH Performance Improvement Clinics in 2011-2012

Average Cost Per Exit and Per PH Exit

Source: Data from 14 Continuums in seven states that prepared Evaluators for NAEH Performance Improvement Clinics in 2011-2012

Caveat: costs, like outcomes,

vary across programs

Do the current programs and outcomes fit the need?

9

Information to think about need

• Population data

•Source: HMIS, Point in Time count

• Utilization data

•Source: HMIS, turn away data, other systems of care

Point in Time Count

10

Source: Sacramento PIT 2011

Point in Time Count

11Source: Sacramento PIT 2011

14

Single vs. Multiple Program users - families

Source: Sacramento HMIS, analyzed by Focus Strategies

15

Single vs. Multiple Program users - singles

Source: Sacramento HMIS, analyzed by Focus Strategies

Re-Allocator Demonstration

Reallocation practicalities

19

The Building(s) The Budget

•

The Staff

The Clients

•Facility(ies) –what is their layout? quality? What are they most suited for? What about cash?? (Should you sell? Can you?)

•Funding – will the current resources still be available if the program changes? Are there replacement sources?

•Who are current staff? What specialities do they have, and what will you need?

•Who are current clients? Will they continued to be served in this program/intervention? If not, where will they go?

• *(consider regular permanent affordable housing- especially if some service funds could go to rapid rehousing…)

22

Reallocation practicalities

The Memphis Decision

• 81 units family TH becoming permanent housing with Project-based Section 8 from PHA

• At least 25 units will be PSH, pay for the services from a small SHP grant

• Taking the $850,000 SHP + match that operated the 81 TH units and using that for rapid rehousing = 400 families every year

• 25 PSH units + 56 permanent affordable units + 400 rapid rehousing slots every year – 88 transitional housing slots = lots more housing!

20

The Oakland Process

• 53 unit SRO used as transitional housing for families. Annual SHP grant > $1M.

• Possible options: – Interim housing (shorter stays) for families plus

rapid rehousing support from same grant– Permanent supportive housing for singles with new

resources; spin off most of SHP grant for rapid rehousing for families

• Process to determine next steps includes City, PHA, Public Health, Behavioral Health and providers

21

How will we know if it’s worked?

•Are lengths of stay for households shorter?•Are housing outcomes the same or better?•Are we serving more households in need?•Do people we help become homeless

again at same or lower rate?• (all measured under HEARTH!)•Are clients (our customers) satisfied with

the change?

27

Summary • Need to know what we're buying = key outcomes

AND the cost to get them• Improving outcomes/shortening stays increases

system capacity with no new money!• Reallocating to meet unmet need may mean

moving dollars across programs and populations.• Evidence to date shows rapid rehousing is very

cost-effective. It may not work for everyone but so far it does very well at a fraction of the price.

• The proof is in the results; measure them!