1.2 Implementing the HEARTH Act: Preparing for Changes to the Continuum of Care
17
1.2 Implementing the HEARTH Act: Preparing for Changes in the C of C NAEH Conference, February 9, 2012 Elaine de Coligny, EveryOne Home Alameda County, CA 1
-
Upload
national-alliance-to-end-homelessness -
Category
Technology
-
view
948 -
download
0
description
1.2 Implementing the HEARTH Act: Preparing for Changes to the Continuum of CareSpeaker: Elaine deColignyThe HEARTH Act makes many changes to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Continuum of Care programs, including to the incentives and expected performance outcomes. In this workshop national and local experts will share strategies for positioning your program and your community for these changes.
Transcript of 1.2 Implementing the HEARTH Act: Preparing for Changes to the Continuum of Care
1.2 Implementing the HEARTH Act: Preparing
for Changes in the C of CNAEH Conference, February 9, 2012Elaine de Coligny, EveryOne Home
Alameda County, CA
1
Process for Developing Outcomes
What We Track
Our Outcomes Report
Supporting and Monitoring Change
2
Using Outcomes and Data to Drive Change
Process for Designing Outcomes 2006 EveryOne Home Plan published
◦ Calls for measuring success and reporting outcomes
2008 A committee of stakeholders develops system-wide outcomes◦ Permanently house 15,000 homeless households
◦ Shorten time homeless from months to weeks
◦ 85% permanent housing retention rate
3
Process for Designing Outcomes 2009 HEARTH Act Defines the outcomes systems
need to be achieving
HEARTH Act Outcomes◦ Reduce length of homelessness (<30 days)
◦ Reduce rates of return to homelessness
◦ Ensure all homeless served
◦ Grow jobs and income for homeless
◦ Reduce the number who become homeless, and
◦ Reduce the overall number of homeless4
Allison Millar
changed homeless to homelessness
Process for Designing Outcomes
To achieve outcomes you need to define: ◦ The measurement metrics
◦ Performance benchmarks
◦ Roles of system components; Include Shelters and drop-in centers even though not C of C funded
2010 Outcomes Drafting Committee Developed outcomes for each sector and initial performance benchmarks adopted by the full community in May
Seven Outcome Measures1. Exits to permanent housing
2. Retention of permanent housing
3. Exits from streets to interim or permanent housing
4. Reduced exits back to streets or other shelters
5. Earned income
6. Moving from no income to some income
7. Returns to homelessness (tracked for system as a whole)
6
What We Track
Four Efficiency Measures1. Program occupancy rates
2. Exits to known destinations
3. Length of time from entry to exit with PH
4. Length of time from entry to obtaining earned income.
7
What We Track
Allison Millar
changed know to known destinations
Different outcomes apply to different sectors of our C of C
Different sectors have different benchmarks to meet for same outcome
o For example, emergency shelters are expected to exit 30% of their residents to permanent housing. For transitional housing the benchmark is 80%.
8
What We Track
9
What we track
o July 2011 release first ever system-wide outcomes report
o Data generated by HMIS and APRs
o Allows us to look at system and individual agency performance
10
EveryOne Home Outcomes Report
11
EveryOne Home Outcomes Report
Figure 1 Percentage labels indicate 2010 Actuals Source: InHOUSE Report “Outcomes v11.06.29” (run systemwide w/o HPRP and by sector for RRH, Emp and SO-CM), 2010 Alameda County.
33%25%
63%
80%
43%
24% 23% 31%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Rates People Obtain Permanent Housing by Sector
2010 Actual
Benchmark
2009 Actual
12
EveryOne Home Outcomes Report
51
223
7 325
38
10
63
165
66
106
69
90
98
64
71
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Permanent Housing Exit Ratesfor Shelters
Program ID Number
6 programs meet/exceed benchmark
Benchmark: 30%
Sector Average: 25%
Performance Benchmarks built into local funding contracts including: oESG, oFEMA and oGeneral Fund.
Three-year phase-ino2010 collecting base line datao2011 agencies hit benchmarks or make 10%
improvement o2012 performance may result in funding loss
13
Supporting and Monitoring Change
Allison Millar
hyphenated three-yearhyphenated phase-in to make it a noun
Provide extensive training and TA: oHow to use outcomes report as a management
tooloProgram changes to improve outcomes oBoth peer-to-peer and “experts”
Recognition and Awards program for achievers, improvers and innovators
14
Supporting and Monitoring Change
Allison Millar
I hyphenated peer-to-peer
Exits from Emergency Shelter to Permanent Housingo2009 = 19%o2010 = 25% o2011 = 32.5% (preliminary)
Lengths of stay from program entry to exit with permanent housing dropping
15
Focus on Outcomes Producing Results
Homeless Count showed increase in unsheltered homeless men—that sub-population is the focus of our 2011 Bonus Project App
2003 Homeless Count in City of Berkeley led to focus on chronically homeless. By 2009 the number was down 48%.
Cost-per-exit comparisons between shelter, TH and RRH has lead to system-wide efforts to expand RRH and reform TH
16
Other Examples of Data Driving Change
Allison Millar
added periods at the end of these sentences and capitalized the B in By
Allison Millar
hyphenated cost-per-exit
For more information or copies of the 2011 Homeless Count or Achieving Outcomes Report go
our website: www. Everyonehome.org
