• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
4.1 HEARTH: Data and Performance Measures (PPT)
 

4.1 HEARTH: Data and Performance Measures (PPT)

on

  • 1,614 views

The HEARTH Act puts increased emphasis on data collection, outcomes and performance measures. Communities are now required to track elements around reducing length of stay, reducing recidivism, and ...

The HEARTH Act puts increased emphasis on data collection, outcomes and performance measures. Communities are now required to track elements around reducing length of stay, reducing recidivism, and reducing first time homelessness. This workshop will discuss these new data elements, potential data collection methods, and how communities can manage for better performance around these measures.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,614
Views on SlideShare
1,593
Embed Views
21

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
29
Comments
0

1 Embed 21

http://www.endhomelessness.org 21

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Accountability – Providers should be accountable for efficient use of contract resources to deliver the highest quality services possible.  Outcomes ‐ The performance‐based contracting initiative should be weighted towards measurable client outcomes (e.g. housing targets) rather than process indicators (e.g. number of service contacts or bed utilization).  Fairness – Targets should be reasonable given resources available. The process should afford adequate time for providers to understand and communicate to staff the areas in which they will be evaluated prior to the start of the evaluation period. Performance data should be compiled monthly and available to staff promptly so that they understand how actual performance compares to desired performance and can make programmatic adjustments as necessary. Indicators and scoring mechanisms should be periodically re‐evaluated to ensure fairness and effectiveness at achieving desired system outcomes.  Partnership ‐ To ensure the broadest possible ownership of goals and ultimate success, the initiative should be developed through a collaborative process that includes a pilot of adequate length to resolve design issues and implement programmatic changes prior to impact on program budgets.  Simplicity ‐ To ensure that performance‐based contracting is an effective tool to motivate and manage program staff, the design should be simple enough to be readily understood.  Efficiency – The system for tracking and reporting data should be automated and streamlined to avoid diverting program resources from service delivery.  Transparency ‐ The methodology for measuring performance should be clear and transparent to all program staff.  Accuracy ‐ To ensure confidence in the accuracy of data upon which performance will be judged, there should be a process through which providers can periodically review and reconcile data.  Prompt Payment ‐ To maximize the utility of performance‐based contracting as a management tool, the associated rewards should closely follow performance.

4.1 HEARTH: Data and Performance Measures (PPT) 4.1 HEARTH: Data and Performance Measures (PPT) Presentation Transcript

  • NAEH CONFERENCE SUZANNE WAGNER HOUSING INNOVATIONS Data and Performance Measures
  • Principles of Performance-Based Contracting
    • Accountability
    • Outcomes vs. outputs
    • Fairness
    • Simplicity
    • Indicators and scoring periodically re-evaluated
    • Transparency of method
    • Efficient systems for tracking and reporting data
    • Accuracy
    • Prompt Payment if funding is tied to performance
  • CT Balance of State CoC Renewal Evaluations
    • Renewal Evaluation Process:
    • Year-round process, TA provided, focus on improving performance
    • Steering Committee decides on evaluation criteria
    • Criteria shared with providers
    • Agencies submit:
      • HUD Annual Performance Reports (APRs)
      • Consumer Surveys
      • Info on compliance with HMIS standards
    • CT Coalition to End Homelessness (CCEH) provides HMIS data quality report
    • Debrief meeting held and final scores shared with providers
    • If score below threshold, corrective action plan is required
    • Performance/outcomes improve each year
  • CT Balance of State CoC Renewal Evaluations
    • Renewal Projects evaluation criteria:
      • APR data – 50 points
        • Eligibility of participants
        • 90% Occupancy Rate
        • 85% Retention > 6 months in PSH
        • 75% of exits to permanent housing – TH
        • 30% of people leave with Health Insurance
        • 50% leave with Food Stamps
        • 25% Employed at exit
        • Income Amounts Increased for Participants who Exited
        • 75% of participants had positive exit
      • Consumer Satisfaction surveys – 15 points
        • Results and at least 35% response rate
      • Accuracy of charts/budgets from Exhibit II – 15 points
      • HMIS – 20 points
        • Data Quality and Compliance with HMIS Data and Technical Standards
  • CT Balance of State CoC Renewal Evaluations
    • Corrective Action
    • If a project scores below threshold (70%), corrective action plan must be submitted
    • Corrective Action Plan includes actions to be taken to improve weak area/s, staff involved, and timeframe for completion
    • Steering Committee meets with agency, reviews plan, additional support/TA is provided
    • Agency may not apply for new HUD project until out of corrective action status
  • NYC Department of Homeless Services Performance-based contracting
    • Outreach and Housing Placement Program
    • Objectives: Place clients into permanent housing and/or long term transitional setting. Meet street homeless census target.
    • Services: Canvassing for, engaging, assessing clients, emergency and crisis intervention, counseling, case management - entitlements, linkages, transportation
    • Data driven management – emphasis on data and statistical reporting
    • Expectations and requirements are explicit
  • NYC Department of Homeless Services Performance-based contracting
    • Payment
      • Year 1 – 10% of budget paid based on milestones:
        • $850 - CH person placed in SA treatment, Safe haven, or DHS program (Level I) for at least 30 of 45 days
        • $1900 - permanent placement from Level I for at least 90 days
        • $2,740 - directly into permanent housing for at least 90 consecutive days
      • Year 2 – 25% of budget paid based on milestones:
        • $2000 - CH person placed in SA treatment, Safe haven, or DHS program (Level I) for at least 30 of 45 days
        • $5000 for permanent placement from Level I for at least 90 days
        • $7000 - directly into permanent housing for at least 90 consecutive days
      • If CH clients go down in area, DHS will negotiate targets and payment amounts
  • Improving Performance
    • Collect baseline data
    • Establish program outcomes and system outcomes
    • To reduce length of stay, focus on immediate barriers to housing access
    • Start talking about leaving as soon as people come in
    • Ask people what their plan is
    • Provide services once housed that focus on Housing Stabilization
    • Apply Critical Time Intervention techniques
    • Questions?
    • Housing Innovations
    • Suzanne Wagner
    • [email_address]
    • Tel: (917)612-5469