Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
5.1 Learning Labs: Using Workgroups to Improve Community Interventions
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

5.1 Learning Labs: Using Workgroups to Improve Community Interventions

351
views

Published on

Some communities regularly convene workgroups to monitor implementation of HPRP and other initiatives to end homelessness. The workgroups monitor progress and use preliminary data to refine program …

Some communities regularly convene workgroups to monitor implementation of HPRP and other initiatives to end homelessness. The workgroups monitor progress and use preliminary data to refine program interventions, inform local policies, and educate stakeholders. This workshop will examine the use of local workgroups to improve a community’s response to family homelessness.


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
351
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Learning Labs: Using Workgroups to Improve Community Interventions NAEH Conference on Ending Family Homelessness February 11, 2011 Elaine de Coligny, Executive Director 1
  • 2. Alameda County, CA Background• Welcome to Alameda County• Population 1.5 million• 2009 Homeless PTC=4,341,• Plan to end homelessness published in 2006• HPRP funds enabled us to develop our first ever countywide prevention and rapid rehousing programs. 2
  • 3. Alameda County, CA Background• Alameda County looks like many other mid- size jurisdictions across the country trying to to end homelessness Diffuse government Power Structure 14 different cities and unincorporated county. Our largest city, Oakland, is 450k No centralized mandate or champion A collection of providers not a system of care Who got served and how a result of evolution, each agency’s mission and funding requirements history of collaborating across jurisdictional boundaries for our HUD NOFA app, base closures, S + C, etc. 3
  • 4. Alameda County, CA Background• 2004 Three Systems of Care began working on a joint housing plan that became the EveryOne Plan Behavioral Health Care Services Office of AIDS Administration Homeless Continuum of Care Council Planners include Social Services Agency, Housing and Community Development, cities of Berkeley and Oakland• Published in 2006, the Plan is widely Adopted All 14 cities and the County adopt & commit to implementation Over 50 Housing and Service Providers endorse Plan• It called for systems change and working together in new ways EveryOne Home, the organization is established to coordinate implementation 4
  • 5. HPRP: 1st major EH Initiative • The announcement of HPRP funds brought the community of stakeholders together to plan our approach looking at: Data from our own county Best practices across the country HUD notice • Decided to create a single countywide program with one entry point & one set of rules 5
  • 6. HPRP • EveryOne Home facilitated program design work with jurisdictional grantees and other stakeholders including Social Services who contributed TANF ECF $ • Providers were selected in August to operate the 7 regional Housing Resource Centers • The Priority Home Partnership is born 6
  • 7. Implementation & LearningCommunity • Priority Home Partnership is governed by an Implementation and Learning Community • Coordinated by EveryOne Home it includes: Jurisdictional Grantees Non-profit Executive Directors Program Managers and Directors Direct Line staff 7
  • 8. Shared Commitments• To refining and improving program as we go• Collecting quality data and using it to drive changes• All members are partners in making the program its best 8
  • 9. ILC Structure • Very Informal • Full ILC meets bi-monthly in our 2nd year • Case Managers hold bi-monthly training and TA sessions. • Jurisdictional grantees meet as needed to address compliance and grant management issues • Regional HRC teams also meet regularly • Work groups get formed to solve problems or develop policy/procedures Changes in assessment tool to target more deeply Develop shelter in-reach strategies for rapid rehousing 9
  • 10. ILC Communication• Between meetings Communicate using a Google group 86 members 94 files including all policies procedures and forms used in program• Messages posted using following headings: Policy—for everybody including EDs and Grantees Resources—things that will help clients for Case Managers HMIS—directions for anyone doing data collection and entry Ask ILC—range from help with a client issue to a policy clarification Meeting—announcements of meetings and trainings 10
  • 11. ILC from a Provider’s Point of View Sabrina Thomas, Housing Manager for the Mid-County Housing Resource Center which is operated by Building Futures with Women and Children, one of the non-profit partners delivering our HPRP services in Alameda County. 11
  • 12. Keys to Success Operate as a partnership Commit to collecting and using data to shape and improve program Create peer to peer forums and cross sector forums: e.g. case manager trainings and the ILC Maintain a spirit of learning—things that don’t work can be just as valuable 12
  • 13. For More Information Visit www.everyonehome.org for more information, on the county-wide HPRP design, the assessment tool, our Plan Visit Building Futures’ website at www.bfwc.org for information on their services and the Mid-County Housing Resource Center 13