2012 Annual Report Data

Housing…Help…Hope

Clients Served Per YearHousing Category

Clients Served In 2012

Permanent Housing

367

Hope House Transitional

170

ESG 2

2012 Total 539

2011 Total 625

2010 Total 503

2009 Total 515

PSH Hope H...HPRP/ESG

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

369

170

2

405

187

33

305

181

17

515

2012201120102009

*2009 PSH count includes Hope House**ESG didn’t start until December 2012

Program Demographics

Clients Served By GenderGende

r2012 2011 2010 2009

Males 393 73% 434 70% 375 75% 395 77%

Females

144 27% 190 30% 128 25% 120 23%

TG 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 537 100% 625 100% 503 100% 515 100%

Gender by Year

2012 2011 2010 20090

50100150200250300350400450500

393434

375 395

144190

128 120

MalesFemalesTransgender

Gender By Program

Property Males Females Transgender

Total

Adamsville 16 31 0 47Donnelly 23 24 0 47

Hope House 170 0 0 170RISE-DBHDD 24 17 0 41

RISE-S+C 45 30 0 75 Shamrock 0 15 0 15Welcome

House115 27 0 142

Total 393 144 0 537

Race and Ethnicity by Program

Property African Americ

an

Caucasian

Hispanics

Bi-Racial/Other

Total

Adamsville 43 2 2 0 47Donnelly 45 2 0 0 47

Hope House 147 18 0 0 165RISE-

DBHDD27 11 0 1 39

RISE-S+C 66 8 1 0 75Shamrock 13 1 0 0 14Welcome 116 24 1 1 142

Total 457 66 4 2 529Percentage 86% 12% <1% <1%*There were responses for 529 of 537 served in 2012

Client Age RangeAge 2012 2011

18-20

0 0% 10 1%

21-35

40 7% 103 16%

36-45

100

19% 149 24%

46-55

204

39% 210 34%

56-60

92 18% 80 13%

61+ 87 17% 73 12%

Total 523

100%

625 100% 18-20

21-35

36-45

46-55

56-60

61+0

50

100

150

200

250

20122011

*There were responses for 523 of 537 served

Living Situation Prior to Admission

34

1

117

67

34

89 15

2012Places Not Meant for Human HabitationOn the StreetJail/PrisonShelterTransitional HousingApt-Own/RentApt-Friend/RelativeHome-Friend RelativeHome-Rent/Own

In Permanent Supportive Housing Programs

*There were responses for 258 of 367 served

Living Situation Prior to Admission

4 10

17

57

39

4 1013

2012Places Not Meant for Human HabitationOn the StreetJail/PrisonShelterTransitional HousingApt-Own/RentApt-Friend/RelativeHome-Friend RelativeHome-Rent/Own

In Hope House Transitional Housing Program

*There were responses for 154 of 170 served

Source of Income Prior to Admission

78

8

119

33

1113

20

2012None

General Assistance

SSI

SSDI

VA

Other

Employed

In Permanent Supportive Housing Programs

*There were responses for 282 of 367 served

Source of Income Prior to Admission

51

1

29

22

16

6

37

2012None

General Assistance

SSI

SSDI

VA

Other

Employed

*There were responses for 162 of 170 served

In Hope House Transitional Housing Program

Characteristics of ClientsHistory 2012 2011 2010Chronically Homeless

252/367

69% 285/405

70% 203/290

70%

Substance Abuse 249/367

68% 261/405

64% 203/290

70%

Mental Health Dx 260/367

71% 289/405

71% 226/290

78%

Criminal Background

222/367

60% 269/405

66% 214/290

74%

in Permanent Supportive Housing Programs

History of 2012 2011 2010Chronically Homeless

250/320

78% 285/405

70% 203/290

70%

Substance Abuse 248/320

78% 261/405

64% 203/290

70%

Mental Health Dx 254/320

79% 289/405

71% 226/290

78%

Criminal Background

218/320

68% 269/405

66% 214/290

74%

Permanent Supportive Housing w/o Adamsville Green

Characteristics of ClientsHistory of 2012 2011

Chronically Homeless 75/170 44% 138/187 74%

Substance Abuse 170/170 100% 187/187 100%

Mental Health Dx 85/170 50% 97/187 52%

Criminal Background 106/170 64% 151/187 52%

In Hope House Transitional Housing Program

Favorable Drug Screens Year Favorable

Drug Screen Percentage

2012 91%

2011 85%

2010 97%

2009 97% 201220112010200978%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

91%

85%

97% 97%Results

Results

*Of 1809 screens completed in 2012,1642 were negative

Favorable Drug Screens Per ProgramProgram 2012 2011 2010 2009

Donnelly 517/533

97% 97% 99% 99%

Hope 612/678

90% 87% 99% 99%

RISE-DBHDD 9/16 56% 89% 96% 96%

RISE-S+C 156/182

86% 85% 95% 97%

Shamrock 47/53 87% n/a n/a n/a

Welcome 301/347

91% 89% 98% 98%

Client Exits Per ProgramProgram 2012 2011 2010

Adamsville 4/47 1/46 n/aDonnelly 7/47 10/48 6/47

RISE-DBHDD 9/41 15/44 8/41RISE-S+C 13/75 17/61 9/51Shamrock 7/15 1/9 n/aWelcome

House39/142 45/147 22/117

Total 79 89 53

Supportive Housing Programs

Supportive Housing Program Client Exit Data

Reason 2012 2011Better Housing Situation(Includes Accepting Other

Services, and Reuniting with Family)

44 56% 55%

Higher Level of Care 11 14% 23%Deceased 4 5% 10%

Incarcerated 4 5% 0%Evictions

*All Evictions occurred at Welcome House

9 11% 12%

Self Discharge(Includes AWOL and Declined

Services)

7 9% n/a

Total 79 100%

100%

Transitional Housing Program Client Exit Data

Reason 2012 2011 2010

Better Housing Situation(Includes Accepting Other

Services, and Reuniting with Family)

63 53% 50% 47%

AWOL 19 16% 12% 31%Higher Level of Care 24 20% 25% 12%

Non-Compliance (Includes Evictions and

Incarceration)

9 8% 0% 10%

Self Discharge 3 3% 13% 0%Deceased 0 0% 0% 0%

Total 118 100%

100%

100%

Agency/Program Data on Client Tenure

Successfully Housed in 2012Program 2012

Adamsville 43/47 91%

Donnelly 44/47 93%

RISE-DBHDD 37/41 90%

RISE-S+C 73/75 94%

Shamrock 13/15 86%

Welcome 128/142 90%

Total 338/367 92%

Client TenureProgram 2012 2011 2010Donnelly 38/47 80% 43/48 90% 41/47 87%

RISE-DBHDD

30/41 73% 33/44 75% 39/41 95%

RISE-S+C 41/75 55% 39/61 64% 21/51 41%Shamrock 5/15 33% n/a n/a n/a n/aWelcome 100/14

270% 90/147 61% 75/117 64%

Total 214/320

67% 240/350

70% 216/305

71%

365 days or longer in residency

*Adamsville Green is not included

Agency Key Outcomes

2012 2011 Outcomes

92% 90% Remained successfully housed in 2012 67% 70% Remained housed 12 months or longer

(with CaringWorks)55% 55% Moved onto a better situation

Time Spent Per Program Per Topic

131

357

71882167

430

43344

1907

4387

Hours Spent with ClientsPhysical Health

Mental Health

Rapport/CM

SSI

Employ

Sobriety

Coping

Perm Housing

Family/Social

Legal

Group

What Did Our Clients Say?• Purpose-The client satisfaction survey and focus

groups are part of ongoing assessment to understand the client experience at CaringWorks, Inc.

• Method-Administered by Advantage Consulting LLC, the survey was conducted in September and the focus groups were conducted in late September.– 128 participants completed the client satisfaction

questionnaires and each site(6) had between 6-9 residents participate in the focus groups.

– 320 residents were eligible to complete the questionnaire and participate in the focus groups which resulted in a response rate of 40% for the survey.

2012 Client Satisfaction Survey

What Did Our Clients Say?

85% Rated the quality of the services that they received as either “good” or “excellent”

91% Indicated that they had received the kind of service they wanted

88% Felt the program met “most” of “almost all” of their needs.

88% Said that their CaringWorks Case Manager was helpful in addressing their needs.

90% Reported the services they had received had helped them deal more effectively with their problems

2012 Client Satisfaction Survey

What Did Our Clients Say?CaringWorks annually seeks feedback on satisfaction

with services from it’s clients/residents. The results are shared with client focus groups and each site’s lead staff person. CaringWorks uses the results to

create action plans to address issues identified

Comments from focus groups: • As in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 survey and focus

groups, clients were very satisfied with CaringWorks services and staff.

• Clients found the staff to be helpful, supportive and non-judgmental. They felt they were treated with courtesy and respect.

• In the survey and focus groups, clients were satisfied with the amount and type of services they received.

Client Satisfaction

Discussion• As in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 survey, some

property management staff received very negative feedback while others were seen as satisfactory. The focus groups reinforced the results from the survey and in some cases indicated that the surveys were not strong enough when indicating problems with management.

• Welcome house continues to have serious concerns expressed about property management.

• Donnelly Courts’ new management also received significant negative feedback.

Outcomes Goals for 2013• ETO Build Out

– Will create a cleaner central method of capturing data

– Staff training so there is knowledge and consistentcy

– Better reflection of true time spent with clients• Capture additional populations

– Consistent identification of Physically Disabled (Hearing Impaired, Visually Impaired, and HIV+), Veterans, Criminal Justice

– Ability to draw correlations• Capture income at discharge and

whether it has improved