The Safe Shelter Collaborative is a project dedicated to finding more shelter faster for a greater diversity of human trafficking and domestic violence survivors. This deck provides overview information, a hold for a live demo, and appendices that include results from the pilot, the research we've done on where to launch next, and what it takes to participate in the project in general.

1. SAFE SHELTER
COLLABORATIVE
Overview, with live demo

2. Table of Contents
• Problem
• Solution
• Pilot
• Findings
• National Roll Out
• Sustainability
• Additional Opportunities
• Appendices

3. THE PROBLEM

4. Source: Partnership for Freedom

5. Source: Partnership for Freedom
How can we reimagine our
resources to serve all groups
of survivors?

6. THE SOLUTION

7. The Safe Shelter Collaborative is
designed to improve access to
urgently needed shelter for a
greater number and diversity of
human trafficking survivors.

12. The Safe Shelter Collaborative
has three components:

13. 1. Increase the capacity of
organizations to offer survivor-
centered, trauma-informed care to
human trafficking survivors.

14. 2. Technology to maximize the
ability to find available and
appropriate shelter space.

15. 3. The ability to source funding for
a hotel room, when that is an
appropriate and safe option for
the survivor.

16. [1. Increase capacity.]
• Provide training to organizations offering
shelter so that they can better serve
human trafficking survivors.
• Provide technical training to keep skills
fresh and provide access to promising
new practices.

18. [2. Find available shelter space.]
• Provide access to a technology platform
that allows organizations to send and
receive requests to and for shelter.
• Provide data to organizations on their
response rate.
• Provide data to the field on unmet need
for shelter.

20. [3. Source funding for hotel beds.]
• Provide access to a technology platform
that allows organizations to request
funding.
• Manage the SafeNight Fund to help meet
needs.
• Actively engage individual donors to
respond to requests via a mobile app.

22. [demo]

23. NATIONAL ROLL OUT

24. The Safe Shelter Collaborative is
currently launched in New Jersey
and the San Francisco Bay Area.

25. We have identified an additional
15 metro areas that have the
necessary infrastructure to support
this work and an opportunity to
build more capacity.

26. 1. San Francisco Bay Area (in progress)
2. Dallas-Fort Worth Metro Area (in progress)
3. Los Angeles
4. New York
5. Seattle*
6. Columbus*
Chicago*
7. Denver-Boulder-Colorado Springs*
Detroit*
Nashville*
8. Philadelphia*
9. Houston
Atlanta
St. Louis
Phoenix*
* Requires additional funding.

27. In these fifteen areas, we have the
opportunity to reach 252 organizations,
22 community groups, and 73 task
forces around the country.

28. Category Item Cost
Launch
Marketing $10,000
Trainings $11,300
Technology Rollout $4,000
Community Event $10,000
Travel $5,000
Subtotal $40,300
Operation (2 years)
Technical Trainings $22,800
Account Support $50,000
Technology Operations $30,000
Technology Maintenance $30,000
Marketing $14,000
Subtotal $146,800
Total $187,100
[Estimated cost per metro area.]

29. The Individual Organization Model
is characterized by organizations
that exist in a less dense area, are a
sole provider of services, and are
most likely to receive requests and
source funding for hotels.

30. Category Item Cost
Launch
Marketing $5,000
Trainings $11,300
Technology Rollout $4,000
Community Event N/A
Travel $1,500
Subtotal $21,800
Operation (2 years)
Technical Trainings $11,400
Account Support $50,000
Technology Operations $15,000
Technology Maintenance $20,000
Marketing $8,000
Subtotal $104,400
Total $126,200
[Estimated cost per 20 individual organizations.]

31. IN CLOSING

32. Thank You!

33. A leader in the global fight to eradicate
modern slavery and restore freedom
to survivors.
Polaris is a 501(c)(3) organization.
@Polaris_Project
http://www.polarisproject.org/

34. We build technology for social change.
Caravan Studios is a division of
TechSoup Global, a 501(c)3 nonprofit
organization.
@caravanstudios
http://www.caravanstudios.org

35. Appendices
1. Common Eligibility Assessment Tool
2. Pilot Results
3. Landscape Analysis to Support National Roll Out
4. Credentialing Process
5. Sustainability
6. Additional Opportunities

36. COMMON ELIGIBILITY
ASSESSMENT TOOL
Appendix 1

37. Safe Shelter Collaborative
Common Eligibility Assessment Form
CASE REFERENCE #_________________
1) Age
Under 18, legally emancipated
Under 18, not emancipated
18-24
25 and older
2) Gender identity
Male
Female
Trans-male
Trans-female
Other
3) Accompanying children/derivatives
None
Pregnant past first trimester
Accompanying children/derivatives
Number of children
Age/Gender of children

38. 4) History of violence, aggression or self-harming behaviors
None
History of violent behavior
History of aggression
Current state of inflicting self-injury
Current suicidal ideation
Previous suicide attempt(s)
Perpetrator of sexual abuse/violence
5) Current mental health
None Disclosed
Did not ask
Yes, mental health diagnosis with no prescribed medication
Yes, compliant with medication for mental health diagnosis
Yes, noncompliant with medication for mental health diagnosis
6) Current substance use
None
Unsure
Yes, while in trafficking situation
Yes, recreationally
Yes, substance use disorder as defined by the DSM-5 (use, intoxication or
withdrawal)

39. 7) Language(s) Spoken
Primary Language:
Secondary Language:
8) English proficiency
Limited
Basic
Proficient
9) Type of trafficking situation or violence experienced
Labor trafficking
Sex trafficking
Domestic violence
Sexual assault
Other
10) Physical Disability or mobility concerns requiring special
consideration for the client
None
Needs elevator and ramp access
Has visual disabilities
Has hearing disabilities
Accompanied by a service animal
Other

40. The information below is not shared with other agencies. We collect this data for statistical
purposes to learn more about the populations being served.
11) Government-issued identification
None
State ID
Birth certificate
Social security card
Passport
Passport ID
Other
Did not ask
Unsure
12) Immigration status
US Citizen/ Naturalized Citizen
Foreign National
Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR)
Conditional Permanent Resident
Family-sponsored Visa
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS)
VAWA Self-Petitioner
Refugee/Asylee
Victim of Human Trafficking (T-Visa)
Crime Victim or Witness (U-Visa)
Non-Immigrant Temporary Visa
Did not ask
Unsure; not clear from intake

41. PILOT RESULTS
Appendix 2

42. [The participants.]
Location New Jersey
How many 16 agencies representing 21 sites
Population Served Domestic Violence Survivors; Youth
Number of Beds 317

43. [Their training participation.]
In-Person Human Trafficking Training 14 hours
In-Person Technology Training 6 hours
Total In-Person Training 20 hours
Online Human Trafficking Training 10.5 hours
Online Technology Training 3 hours
Total Online Training 13.5 hours
Total Training 33.5 hours

44. [Their technology use.]
Total Number of
Requests Made
21
Total Number of Responses 342
Total Number of
Positive Responses
93
Average Time to First
Positive Response
16.4 minutes*
* Includes an outlier request that took 4.5 hours to get the first positive response;
without that outlier the average time to the first response is 3.7 minutes.

45. Survivors are getting shelter faster.
• Placements are being made on the first
phone call.
• Participants are emerging to help a
broader diversity of survivors than
expected.
• Response time has decreased over the
duration of the pilot.
• “Maybe” and “No” responses continue to
be registered.

46. Participants streamlined the process and
expanded services.
• Common Eligibility Assessment Tool
allowed participants to better collect and
organize survivor information.
• Participants are eager for more technical
training.
• Participants began to apply for new
funding sources.
• Participants used trauma-informed care
approach for all clients.

47. The technology does need to be simple.
• Ease of technology sped adoption.
• Minimal data entry requirements support
ease of use.
• Participants eager to use introduced
technology for other types of clients.

48. We also learned a few things.
• The time to the first “maybe” is the only
time that matters.
• Technology adoption will be quicker if we
keep the technology as simple as
possible.
• The introduced process seems to be
changing procedures in the
organizations.
• We initially provided too much technology
training.

49. We still have a lot of questions.
• How will the saved time support the
survivor?
• How will this work with organizations that
are already offering trafficking-specific
programs?
• What data can the organizations use to
support further funding requests?

50. With OVC support, we have a more
rigorous evaluation under way.
• Improve the collection of baseline data so
that we can improve our understanding of
the change in specific geographic areas.
• Compare areas in which the project is
active to areas where the project has not
yet launched.
• Improve the ability to identify and share
unmet needs.

51. LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS TO
SUPPORT NATIONAL ROLL
OUT
Appendix 3

52. We completed a landscape
analysis to find areas with both
opportunity and momentum.

53. We analyzed existing data to find and
map organizations nationwide.
• We started with a spreadsheet of
organization in the
Global Modern Slavery Directory.
• We then found more information about
those organizations via the TechSoup
databases.
• We analyzed the results to determine
the dominate NTEE codes of the
organizations.
• We then searched the IRS database for
organizations with those NTEE codes.
• We loaded the resulting data into SILK,
a GIS web platform.
Here is the process we followed:

54. We mapped 976 organizations
across the US and Puerto Rico.

55. Based on our analysis, we identified
20 metro areas that have a base of
organizations with verified anti-
trafficking programs and also have a
group of organizations that are in a
position to offer anti-trafficking
services.

56. In total, we are potentially reaching 252
organizations, 22 community
groups, and 73 task forces around
the country.
There are 85 organizations
representing our first cohort,
and 167 in our second.

58. Matrix Structure
Community Long Term Infrastructure Long Term
Community Short Term Infrastructure Short Term

59. We used the matrix structure to help
focused continued research.
We did this by asking specific questions about each of our
top 20 regions, to determine which possessed the best
momentum for the Safe Shelter Collaborative.
The leaderboard illustrated each regions’ momentum and
opportunity by putting information into a matrix structure.
Resulting data was scored and tallied on the leaderboard,
allowing our team to rank the regions visually.

60. Leaderboard

61. Region Data Sheets (sample)

62. CREDENTIALING
PROCESS
Appendix 4

63. Before organizations can use our
systems, we have to know that
are providing specific services,
often to specific populations, in a
trusted way.

64. Safe Shelter Collaborative:
Organizations must be
offering shelter and support to
human trafficking survivors.

65. In addition, we might want to
filter or prioritize organizations
that are trained to provide
services to a specific
underserved population.

66. Such as…
• Transsexual human
trafficking survivors
• GLBTQ youth
• Sexual assault victims

67. So, how do we create a
sustainable process to identify
the programs and capacities
of a particular organization?

68. Our answer must be…
• Transparent.
• Repeatable.
• Accessible.
• Auditable.
• Very lightweight for the
participating organizations.

69. 501(c)(3)
Tribal Organization
Eligibility
Shelter services
funding, ending not
more than 18
months prior
Case Management
funding, ending not
more than 18
months prior.
Organization
Budget, for current
and last fiscal year
Qualification
Polaris administered
human trafficking
101
Inclusion in NHTRC
(hotline) referral
system
Certification

70. SUSTAINABILITY
Appendix 5

71. We envision sustainability coming from
three sources.
• Institutional supporters ensure national
coverage, ongoing cost recovery, and prove
value to the field.
• Participant fees prove value to the individual
organizations, as well as ensure that users stay
active and engaged.
• Public contributions provide an opportunity to
educate public on need, as well as provide
extra capital for larger scale system
improvements.

72. Diverse funding streams provide more
security and long-term sustainability.
64%
18%
18%
Sources
Institutional Participant Fees Public Contributions

73. ADDITIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES
Appendix 6

74. We see other opportunities to build on this
solution.
• Additional investments in the Safe Shelter Collaborative.
• Data dashboard.
• Community engagement.
• Data analytics projects.
• Additional evaluations.
• Other applications for the same type of solution.
• Runaway and Homeless Youth.
• Foster Youth.
• Urban Refugee Communities.
• Veterans.