Prevention: Targeting the Imminently Homeless

National Conference on Ending HomelessnessJuly 14, 2011

Washington, D.C.

Elaine de Coligny, Executive DirectorEveryOne Home, Alameda County, CA

1

Alameda County’s Homelessness Prevention Study

The first strategy in our Plan to end homelessness is to prevent it

In 2008 EveryOne Home commissioned a study of our prevention efforts in Alameda County

The study was conducted by Katharine Gale Consulting, and here is what we found and what we did about it with HPRP funds

2

The Typical Homeless Prevention ProgramTargets households

with own lease for an apartment/housewho experience a “crisis” that leads to a rent

arrears situation/an eviction noticewho demonstrate they can sustain the housing

after the one-time or short-term assistanceIs restricted to one-time only (often once in a

life time) in many casesBefore HPRP Alameda County’s programs

worked this way.

3

Historical assumptions about Homelessness Prevention1. Households being evicted will become

homeless if we don’t help them (so when we do help them we have successfully prevented homelessness.)

2. Households who can’t prove they can stabilize very quickly without assistance are “bad risks.”

4

National research contradicts assumption #1 Evictions don’t necessarily lead to

homelessnessShinn et. al found that only 20% of families

that received eviction notices went on to be homeless: 80% did not

Shinn also found that only 22% of families entering homeless shelters had ever had an eviction

44% of families entering shelter had never had their own apartment

5

So, where do we find the people who will become homeless?

6

Alameda County HMIS data (2008)

Family or Friends; 28%

Own Apartment; 5%

Hotel/Motel Unsub-sidized; 7%

Institutional Setting; 11%

Place Not Meant for Human Habitation; 23%

Shelter/TH/PSH for home-less; 23%

Unknown/Refused/other; 4%

Where Spent Last 7 Days before entry (excludes Chronic)

7

Going Deeper: Interviews with families in shelter in Alameda County• Most reported having stayed with family or

friends prior to recognizing a need to seek help• All had some past or current relationship to TANF

but only two had been assisted by TANF program• Few knew of prevention assistance or the 211 hot

line• None would have qualified for our one-time rental

assistance because they could not show they had enough income to sustain housing

8

Implications of the Alameda County Study• Typical Homelessness Prevention Programs don’t

prevention homelessness and don’t reach the people most likely to become homeless.

• We concluded that our programs should target limited prevention & rehousing resources to those:• staying with friends and family• staying in hotels and motels using their own resources• Receiving TANF• exiting institutional care, especially substance abuse

treatment programs • Losing housing subsidies

9

HPRP! A big opportunity to make our system betterWe wanted to build a program that reached

people at greater risk of homelessness so we were actually preventing it.

We wanted to test the assumption that Households who can’t prove they can stabilize very quickly without assistance are “bad risks.”

10

Who we targeted for prevention assistancePeople living doubled up with family and friends

People being evicted from subsidized housing

Households with incomes at 30% AMI or lower

11

How program worksInitial potential eligibility and match with targeting

determined at 211 then referred to a Housing Resource Center (HRC) nearby

At HRC the head of household is given a financial assessment that scores them based on current and past income, housing costs, debt, and barriers such as past housing and legal history 50-65 generally provided one time referrals< 25 generally referred to longer-term programs or

shelterPeople who score in the mid range (25-50) and are

eligible are recommended for HPRP or assistanceAssessment scores are included in the HMIS record

12

Preliminary data from year 1

1,242 households enrolled in prevention services

73% have exited

78% of exiters have received financial assistance

The average score on the assessment = 39

13

Preliminary data from year 1

Those served had both high scores (above 35) and low scores (35 and below)

About 1/3 were low scorers (i.e. higher risk, higher barrier).

Low scorers look different at intake, but not in terms of outcomes

14

How do high scorers and low scorers differ?

15

How do high scorers and low scorers differ?

16

How their outcomes compareCosts and Outcomes for those Exiters Receiving Financial Assistance

High Scoring Exiter Low Scoring Exiter

Days In Program 46 56

Average Assistance $1,670 $1,637

Exits to Permanent Housing 98% 98%

Exits to Subsidized Housing 31% 36%

17

Year 1 data continuedOne significant difference is that low scorers

exit the program without having received financial assistance at a higher rate thank high scorers—33% versus 18%

May imply that low scorers have a harder time completing all documentation/verification requirements in HPRP

Need to check on housing stability of both groups a year after exit from program to see if outcomes remain similar

18

Has Prevention Program Impacted 2011 Homeless Count?2009 Homeless Count identified just over

3,000 hidden homelessthose living temporarily with family and

friends, staying in hotels or about to be evicted within 7 days

Triple the number since 20032011 Homeless Count showed a 3.8%

reduction in our literally homeless censusThe hidden homeless of 2009 did not join

the ranks of the literally homeless in 2011.

19

ConclusionsHouseholds who are “riskier” on paper may

do just as well remaining housed as those we have historically assisted.

If we are going to use rental assistance to prevent homelessness we need to look beyond households that currently have rental agreements especially to serve those who are doubled up and exiting institutions

Use HMIS data to develop and evaluate your targeting strategies

20

For more informationVisit www.everyonehome.org:

download 2008 Prevention study, our HPRP program design, the assessment tool, and our Plan

21