SAMHSA SSH Program

Outcomes Georgia Supportive Housing

Policy Day 2013Khurram “Ko” Hassan, Advantage

Consulting

SSH Projects

OCaringWorks, Inc.OConsumers: 637/1000 served

OCobb/Douglas Community Service BoardOConsumers: 78/100 served

OIn same SAMHSA SSH cohort, FY 09-14

Project GoalsCaringWorks CSB

O Increase housing opportunities

O 80% (468) stable 12 months or longer

O 70% (300) continue Tx 12 months or longer

O Promote collaborationO Community

awarenessO Expand CW capacity

for supportive housing

O Expand housingO Access to primary,

behavioral healthO Improve outreach/

care for veteransO Improve

stakeholder understanding

Project EBPsCaringWorks CSB

OHousing FirstOMotivational

InterviewingO Intensive Case

ManagementOTrauma

Informed Care

OHousing FirstOMotivational

InterviewingO Intensive Case

Management

Evaluation ActivitiesOTRAC database outcomes monitoring,

generating reports, analysisO Eventually, data collection monitoring

OEBP fidelity evaluationOClient satisfaction survey, focus groupOTraining and monitoring of supplemental

evaluation data collectionOPerformance Improvement Committee

(CW)

Key Outcomes: CaringWorks

O 80% or higher positive after baselineO No psych distress, Not binge drinking, Not

involved with criminal justice system

O 70-79% positiveO Daily function, Illegal substances, Socially

connected

O Less than 70% positiveO Healthy overall, Tobacco use, Retained in

community, In school or working, Had a stable place to live

Key Outcomes: CSBO80% or higher positive after baseline

O Daily function, No psych distress, Illegal substances, Not binge drinking, Retained in community, Not involved with criminal justice system, Housing stability

O Less than 80% positiveO Healthy overall, Tobacco use, In school

or workingO Project included a supported

employment strategy, but consumers difficult to engage

Fidelity to Housing 1st

O Consumer Choice: Both doing well in providing choice, self directed goals, immediate housing without prerequisites

O Psych Rehab: No ACT teams, but working towards intensive case mgmt model

O Harm Reduction: Interventions are tailored to consumer’s stage of change but has been a transition/challenge for both agencies; Tenancy not dependent on Tx but landlords have stricter guidelines

Fidelity to MIO Self-Efficacy: Staff attempt to

empower consumers, consumers accept responsibility for making the change

O Empathy: Staff do reflective listening, compliment consumers, ‘roll with resistence’, avoid argument, ask open ended questions, respect consumer feelings

O Tipped the Balance: Summarized concerns, explored pros/cons, normalized ambivalence

Client SatisfactionO Tool: CSQ-8 with minor changesO Services: Consistently positive

feedback regarding supportive services/case managers

O Property Management: Has varied from year to year and property to property. Both projects have moved quickly to engage property owners and even change apartment or property if necessary.

Lessons LearnedO Evaluators should have been involved

with data collection monitoring from the beginning

O Staff turnover impacts fidelity to EBPs. Need to have mini internal trainings till new staff can be fully trained.

O Introducing new data collection activities need to account for existing staff responsibilities (supplemental, MH assess)