Improving Your Prevention Targeting

Efforts

Cathy ten Broeke & the Center for Capacity Building

April 20, 2011

LEARN ABOUT HEARTH ACT

• Three pre-Clinic webinars (HEARTH Act Overview, Performance Measurement, System Design & Assessment – all available on website)

SET COMMUNITY-SPECIFIC GOALS

• 1.5 day Implementation Clinic

• Contact thecenter@naeh.org if interested

THREE MONTHS OF FOLLOW-UP SUPPORT

• Technical assistance, resources, affinity groups

IMPROVE ABILITY TO

3. Prevent & End

Homelessness

5. Meet HEARTH Act

Goals

HEARTH Academy

• All participants will be muted during the webinar. To ask a question, please submit one using the ‘Questions’ box toward the bottom of the GoToWebinar panel. If we can’t answer your question during the webinar, we will make sure to follow up with you afterwards.

• If you are having audio issues, please make sure you have the correct dial-in number and access code (these should be in your registration e-mail). Please also check that you have clicked on the correct audio method under the ‘Audio’ tab (either “microphone and speakers” or “telephone”).

• A copy of the webinar will be available on the Alliance website at http://www.endhomelessness.org

Before We Get Started…

Targeting PreventionHennepin County, MN

Cathy ten BroekeDirector, Minneapolis/Hennepin County Office to End Homelessness

History of Prevention and Rapid –Exit in Hennepin Co.

Population: 1,141,000Largest City: Minneapolis: 385,000

In 1986 Hennepin County passed a “Right to Shelter Policy,” giving shelter to all eligible families.

History cont. In 1992 we had a family homelessness

crisis. All shelter beds full, plus 100 overflow motel rooms for families

Projected having to turn away 150 families each night in the coming year

Hennepin County’s voluntary policy of sheltering all families was at stake.

History, Cont. With grant from state’s Housing Finance

Agency (MN Housing) in 1993, a program was created that focused on cash and in-kind prevention assistance, not services Conducted focus groups with homeless

families – designed program based on their input

Delivered through geographically diverse agencies

Emphasis on early intervention in financial assistance

History, Cont. Eligibility:

Non-preventable, verifiable financial crisis

No other resources available Prevention assistance will preserve

housing Goals for new prevention program:

10% reduction in admissions to Family shelter

10% reduction in length of stay

History, Cont.

Results of Prevention 96% of families did not enter shelter

within 1 year following assistance 43% reduction in family shelter

admissions Right to Shelter Policy maintained

2010 Evaluation of Targeting

After 17 years of providing prevention and rapid re-housing programs, we decided it was time to evaluate our success on another level. Were we providing prevention funding to families who would have become homeless?

2010 Evaluation of Targeting

Used HMIS data and barrier assessments to compare characteristics of families who received prevention to families who did not receive prevention and who ended up in shelter.

If targeting well, families should be very similar in characteristics

Findings

In some categories these families were similar (felony histories, limited English proficiency)

Mostly, these families were quite different

Income

Families receiving prevention: 40% had incomes below $1000/mo 45% were paying more than 65% of

their income toward housing Families in shelter:

94% had incomes below $1000/mo (70% below $500/mo)

94% were paying more than 65% of their income toward housing

History of Homelessness

36% of families receiving prevention assistance had been homeless before

63% of families in shelter with no prevention assistance had been homeless before

Young Families

Only 1% of families receiving prevention had a head of household under age 22

Nearly 33% of shelter families had a head of household under 22

Suburban vs. Urban Areas

Urban providers were more likely to serve families with lower average monthly incomes ($831 compared to $1543 in suburban areas)

Both of these incomes, however, were significantly higher than the $377 average monthly income of families in shelter

Analysis and Impact

Good probability that some of the households receiving prevention may never have become homeless

With limited resources we decided to adjust the way prevention assistance was targeted

Met with policy makers and providers to discuss

Analysis and Impact

Based on these conversations, the evaluation, and literature review, Hennepin County changed its prevention screening tool

New Criteria INCOME:

Only families with incomes at or below 30% of Area Median Income will receive Prevention, AND

TRIGGER CRISIS: An event has occurred which is expected to result in housing loss within 30 days or less, AND

NO RESOURCES OR VIABLE PLAN TO RESOLVE CRISIS: “But for this assistance” this family would become literally homeless—staying in a shelter, car, or place not meant for human habitation, AND

REASONABLE EXPECTATION FOR SUSTAINABLE RESOLUTION: At the initial assessment for assistance, there is a reasonable expectation that the crisis can be resolved and existing housing (or relocation to alternative housing) can be sustained by the family after services and assistance are ended, AND

SCORE OF AT LEAST 20 POINTS--or 15-19 points with over-ride SIGN-OFF.

Questions/Concerns

Could these lower income, higher barrier families sustain housing after receiving prevention support?

Would we have to change our definition of “success?”

New Targeting 6-Month Evaluation Data gathered from households served

between May 1, 2010-Dec 31, 2010 436 households served Only 32 (7.4%) returned to county shelter

within 6 months (same success rate as before)

VERY early in evaluation, but if return rates stay the same, we could argue this is a more effective use of prevention dollars

Even if the rates of return increase we may still feel more confident we are preventing more homelessness