1.2 Implementing the HEARTH Act: Preparing for Changes to the Continuum of Care

1,100 views

Published on

1.2 Implementing the HEARTH Act: Preparing for Changes to the Continuum of Care

Speaker: Elaine deColigny

The 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.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,100
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
339
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
31
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • These are the HEARTH Act Goals, and systems of care will be evaluated and funded based on how well they do at achieving these. As you look at them you will see they line up well with our systemwide goals on page 1 of the report and the sector specific goals we approved last May, included in appendix B.
  • Public Comments for Everyone Initiative creates local funding stream for housing and servicesLocal housing ordinances and plans include goals for permanent supportive housingAll cities agree to use federal stimulus funding for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing for a single countywide program rather than 7 separate programs
  • Public Commens for Everyone Initiative creates local funding stream for housing and servicesLocal housing ordinances and plans include goals for permanent supportive housingAll cities agree to use federal stimulus funding for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing for a single countywide program rather than 7 separate programs
  • Public Commens for Everyone Initiative creates local funding stream for housing and servicesLocal housing ordinances and plans include goals for permanent supportive housingAll cities agree to use federal stimulus funding for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing for a single countywide program rather than 7 separate programs
  • Public Commens for Everyone Initiative creates local funding stream for housing and servicesLocal housing ordinances and plans include goals for permanent supportive housingAll cities agree to use federal stimulus funding for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing for a single countywide program rather than 7 separate programs
  • 1.2 Implementing the HEARTH Act: Preparing for Changes to the Continuum of Care

    1. 1. NAEH Conference, February 9, 2012 Elaine de Coligny, EveryOne Home Alameda County, CA 1
    2. 2. Process for Developing OutcomesWhat We TrackOur Outcomes ReportSupporting and Monitoring Change 2
    3. 3.  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
    4. 4.  2009HEARTH Act Defines the outcomes systems need to be achievingHEARTH 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 homeless 4
    5. 5.  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
    6. 6. Seven Outcome Measures1. Exits to permanent housing2. Retention of permanent housing3. Exits from streets to interim or permanent housing4. Reduced exits back to streets or other shelters5. Earned income6. Moving from no income to some income7. Returns to homelessness (tracked for system as a whole) 6
    7. 7. Four Efficiency Measures1. Program occupancy rates2. Exits to known destinations3. Length of time from entry to exit with PH4. Length of time from entry to obtaining earned income. 7
    8. 8.  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
    9. 9. 9
    10. 10. o July 2011 release first ever system-wide outcomes reporto Data generated by HMIS and APRso Allows us to look at system and individual agency performance 10
    11. 11. Rates People Obtain Permanent Housing by Sector 100% 90% 80% 80% 70% 63% 60% 50% 43% 33% 2010 Actual 40% 25% 24% 23% 31% 30% Benchmark 20% 10% 2009 Actual 0%Figure 1 Percentage labels indicate 2010 Actuals Source: InHOUSE Report “Outcomes v11.06.29” (run systemwide w/o HPRP and by sectorfor RRH, Emp and SO-CM), 2010 Alameda County. 11
    12. 12. Permanent Housing Exit Rates for Shelters50% 6 programs meet/exceed benchmark45%40%35%30% Benchmark: 30%25%20% Sector Average: 25%15%10%5%0% 7 51 38 10 63 66 69 90 98 64 71 223 325 165 106 Program ID Number 12
    13. 13.  Performance Benchmarks built into local funding contracts including: o ESG, o FEMA and o General Fund. Three-year phase-in o 2010 collecting base line data o 2011 agencies hit benchmarks or make 10% improvement o 2012 performance may result in funding loss 13
    14. 14.  Provide extensive training and TA: o How to use outcomes report as a management tool o Program changes to improve outcomes o Both peer-to-peer and “experts” Recognition and Awards program for achievers, improvers and innovators 14
    15. 15.  Exits from Emergency Shelter to Permanent Housing o 2009 = 19% o 2010 = 25% o 2011 = 32.5% (preliminary) Lengths of stay from program entry to exit with permanent housing dropping 15
    16. 16.  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
    17. 17. For more information or copies of the 2011 HomelessCount or Achieving Outcomes Report go our website: www. Everyonehome.org

    ×