4.4 Creating a Homelessness Prevention System (Homeless Solutions Policy Board)

Homeless Solutions Policy Board
Dayton-Montgomery County, OHJuly 2010
Homelessness Prevention System Evolution

Homeless Solutions Community 10-Year Plan
Adopted June 2006
Prevention one of four key principles in Plan. Two types of Prevention recommendations:
Affordable Housing Assistance
Development of 1,800 units of affordable housing
Preserve existing affordable housing
Create county-wide rental rehab program
Create rental subsidy program for LIHTC projects
Explore affordable housing set-aside program

Homeless Solutions Community 10-Year Plan (cont.)
Emergency Assistance
Implement eviction prevention program modeled on Louisville, KY program for public housing and Section 8 tenants
Consolidate existing emergency financial assistance into shared system of fund-raising, management and dispersal, with appropriate case management follow-up
Develop eviction early warning system
Identify and resolve discharge planning policies and practices that lead to homelessness

Definition of Prevention
To keep something that would have happened from happening.
Who will it happen to? How do you reach them?
How likely is it to happen?
What intervention will prevent it from happening?
Not enough to show that most people who get the intervention do not become homeless – they might not have become homeless without the intervention or their homelessness may have only been delayed.

Prevention Committee Framing Questions
How can emergency assistance be more efficient (targeted at those who are most at risk of homelessness)?
How can emergency assistance be more effective (prevent homelessness for those most at risk)?
Difference between preventing homelessness and creating self-sufficiency – need to be clear about goal.

Emergency Assistance
Existing emergency assistance programs help low-income people with a financial emergency but often are not able to prevent homelessness:
Limited assistance - $500 maximum or less
Once a year
Help recover from a one-time event
Households must show that they will be able to pay the rent after the assistance ends
Households have to have the lease or utility bill in their name
Require eviction or utility shut-off notice

Emergency Assistance Client Analysis
Sunrise Center – county agency that screens for several emergency assistance programs
Compared Sunrise Center client list to HMIS
Over two years Sunrise Center provided 2,559 households with emergency assistance
6% entered homeless system after receiving the financial assistance
Either fairly effective or clients were not at risk of homelessness

Other Prevention Issues
Do not want to replace the safety net of church, family and friends with public programs
Some emergency assistance providers can not or will not exclusively focus on homelessness prevention
Concern about low income households who rely on financial assistance programs but who will never become homeless

Ohio Family Homelessness Prevention Pilot Project
Case management and up to $1,000 in financial assistance
Focused on preventing eviction of families from subsidized housing
Intensive home-based case management for 3-6 months
All households who are referred for services are entered into HMIS

Family Homelessness PreventionScreening Matrix
Based on existing research on family homelessness developed risk factor screening matrix:
Prior stay in emergency shelter
Young parent (under 24 years old)
Young children (under 6)
Infant or pregnant
Extremely low-income (less than 67% of poverty)
Loss of benefits or employment
Paying over 40% of income for rent
Unable to secure other housing due to financial issues
Prior eviction, pattern to housing instability
No temporary housing options with family or friends
Significant personal barriers

Family Homelessness PreventionEvaluation
Conducted analysis of families who were referred for the program but not enrolled to help with HPRP planning and development of front door assessment process
Analysis of families who were not enrolled in the program to see who become homeless:
365 families referred to program
109 families assessed
92 families enrolled
Through May 2009

Family Homelessness Prevention Referred But Not Enrolled
HMIS information was not available on all 273 families who were referred but not enrolled.
HMIS information was not available for all 273 families who were referred but not enrolled.
*Information on young children was not available for all households in this category

Homelessness Prevention & Rapid Rehousing Program
City & County HPRP allocation $4 million
Coordinated planning and implementation
Local Outcomes
Reduce entry to homelessness through effective targeting and services
Reduce length of time in shelter
Spending financial assistance at double the original estimate – project 2 year program, have restructured contracts

HPRP Targeting
Restricted program to households under 30% of area median income
Clients who have been homeless before in HMIS automatically determined to be at-risk if meet all other requirements
Clients must have 2 or more of the following risk factors to qualify:
Monthly income below 15%
Severely overcrowded housing
Severe rent cost burden (more than 50% for rent)
Homeless in last 12 months (in HMIS)
Pending foreclosure
Numerous previous evictions (3 or more)
Criminal record
Discharged from mental institution
Young adult (18-24) with past or present involvement with foster care system
Young adult (18-24) that have dropped out of high school or lack credits
Young adult (18-24) with numerous previous moves

HPRP Households Served
1,064 households received full HPRP assessment
876 (82%) determined to be eligible and received HPRP assistance
188 (18%) determined to be ineligible (mostly because not at risk of homelessness)
5 had shelter stays after being denied HPRP assistance
Of the 876 households that received assistance
776 (89%) prevention – 41% singles, 59% families
Highest risk factors severe rent burden and income under 15% AMI
223 households (29%) had entry in HMIS before HPRP assessment
5 households had shelter stay after HPRP assistance
100 (11%) rapid rehousing – 59% singles, 41% families
3 households had shelter stay after HPRP assistance
Through June 30, 2010

HPRP Outcomes
Number of people in shelter very high
Ohio has been in recession for 3 to 4 years
May 2010 unemployment rate – 11.1%
Families in shelter or transitional housing declined from 2008 to 2009
In winter 2010 families entering shelter had higher needs than HPRP could serve
Will do January-June analysis for 2009 and 2010

ESG Prevention Funding
Current Emergency Shelter Grant funding for City & County $358,000 – presently all committed to shelter
Emergency Solutions Grant requirement of 40% for prevention and rehousing - $143,200 under current ESG funding (21 households/month at 1 bedroom FMR) could double with HEARTH

Possible ESG Prevention Program
Narrow targeting for prevention
Previously homeless
Young mothers with young children
Strong emphasis on rapid rehousing particularly for single adults
Completely different structure than HPRP

What do we need?
Research on preventing homelessness
Screening tools with predictive value
Technical assistance on effective outreach programs
Permanent housing subsidies for low income people
Increased benefits for people with disabilities

Joyce Probst MacAlpine
Manager Housing & Homeless Solutions
Montgomery County
937-225-4218
macalpinej@mcohio.org

4.4 Creating a Homelessness Prevention System (Homeless Solutions Policy Board)

by National Alliance to End Homelessness on Jul 28, 2010

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 2

Statistics

4.4 Creating a Homelessness Prevention System (Homeless Solutions Policy Board) Presentation Transcript