Assessment & Targeting National Alliance to End Homelessness

Annual Conference

Beth Stokes

Executive Director

July 30th, 2009

Bstokes@hamiltonfamilycenter.org

2

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

Assessment & TargetingHomeless Prevention: Provider PerspectiveSnapshot 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%

Minimum Maximum Average

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

Assessment & TargetingHomeless Prevention: Provider PerspectiveShort-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

Assessment & TargetingHomeless Prevention: System of CareResources & 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

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

Assessment & TargetingTransitional 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

Assessment & TargetingTransitional 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

Assessment & TargetingRapid Re-housing: Provider PerspectiveSnapshot 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

Assessment & TargetingRapid 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

Assessment & TargetingRapid Re-housing: System of CareAssessing 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

Assessment & TargetingPermanent 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

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

Assessment & TargetingEvaluating Families for Housing Opportunities Hamilton Family Center: Housing Assessment Matrix

Housing Assessment Matrix

15

Assessment & Targeting Hamilton Family Center