1.9 HPRP: Youth Strategies and Family Reunification (Strohminger)


Published on

Communities are currently using HPRP funding to support solutions to homelessness locally. This workshop will focus on how this federal funding can also be used to prevent youth homelessness and strengthen family reunification efforts so that youth may safely return home.

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Served 58 youth the first year.
  • Parallel Count 2009 –400 unaccompanied youth
  • Able to get city housing vouchers—open to all HPRP participantsZip Code at Intake, Gender, Employment, Education profile, Services requestedDEVELOPED A BASIC SERVICES MANUAL specific to age
  • Mimic a consumer information centerTreat this as a mastery exercise.BGE, rent, but also underwear, socks, backpacks. Etc.
  • When we hear providers now say, “you know, we’re seeing a whole lot more youth………”
  • Top 3—Account for 33.3%Next 7—sit at 35% (21213, 21229, 21205, 21216, 21202, 21212, 21223All Others—31.2%--extend into surrounding counties
  • Very difficult to get TDAP if single unless potentially eligible for SSI.Women with children different storySmall sample of 140 shows 7 out of 10 are receiving food stamps.
  • > HS includes college and job training
  • Running 311 annual 272 intakes since Nov. 1, 2009
  • This was corrected with our intervention. Youth now gets 1 extra point.
  • Tune in to ageyet how poorly they integrated their services.
  • 1.9 HPRP: Youth Strategies and Family Reunification (Strohminger)

    1. 1. NAEH Conference<br />Tuesday July 13, 2010<br />Nancy Strohminger<br />AIRS/ City Steps/Empire Homes of Maryland<br />
    2. 2. Baltimore—A Poor City in a Very Rich State <br />Population: 637,000<br />Median Income: $40,087<br />Persons Below Poverty Level: 19.2%<br />STATEWIDE--<br />Population: 5,699,000<br />Median Income: $70,482<br />Persons Below Poverty Level: 8.2%<br />
    3. 3. Emphasis on Adult and Chronic Homeless<br /><ul><li>Shelter capacity (adults)
    4. 4. Emergency shelter-- ~1000 beds
    5. 5. Transitional shelter-- ~1400 beds
    6. 6. Youth-specific shelter services
    7. 7. 4 beds for runaway for youth under age 18
    8. 8. 7 transitional housing beds for youth age 18-21
    9. 9. AIRS City Steps Youth Resource Center—Opened in mid-2008—the first to focus on homeless youth ages 16-24.</li></li></ul><li>Baltimore Profile of Need <br /><ul><li>Extremely limited services (housing options or support services).
    10. 10. Little sense of need other than anecdotal. Without services, it is hard to count the need.
    11. 11. Youth are not accessing traditional adult services—see themselves as vulnerable in these locations.
    12. 12. Cities of comparable size estimate range of 1500—2000 homeless youth annually.</li></li></ul><li>HPRP Project<br /><ul><li>OUR IDEA– Become the go-to place for service knowledge
    13. 13. Money for Service Navigators (3) to fan out as a Mobile Team connecting youth to known resources
    14. 14. Additional dollars for rental down payments, utility supports, emergency shelter, support of family units with 16 and 17 yr. olds.
    15. 15. Collect basic profile data to better illuminate their needs
    16. 16. Use the new counts to justify the needs for services (including housing)</li></li></ul><li>Twin Goals<br /><ul><li>Support need for resources and policy change
    17. 17. Exposing the need and strengthening knowledge
    18. 18. Defining current resources and possible gaps
    19. 19. Provide services
    20. 20. Developed basic services manual specific to age
    21. 21. Use the housing and utility dollars as honey to draw out, identify and serve the need.
    22. 22. Understand the target population and their needs
    23. 23. Educate, assist and connect consumers to services</li></li></ul><li>Intake and Documentation Process<br /><ul><li>Simple Intake with emphasis on basic demographics, and client signature.
    24. 24. Track zip code at point of contact.
    25. 25. More in-depth intake for those wanting housing, HPRP Prevention dollars, including Verification of homelessness, Income Verification for household.
    26. 26. Records are kept, but little traditional service planning</li></li></ul><li>Approach<br /><ul><li>Be creative and flexible
    27. 27. Use our mobility to perform intakes anywhere
    28. 28. Use their tools of communication
    29. 29. All had personal cell phones with texting capabilities
    30. 30. Treat youth like non-clients
    31. 31. Have something tangible to offer.
    32. 32. Use traditional outlets to speak to providers.</li></li></ul><li>What We Found<br /><ul><li>Hidden population of unstably housed couch surfer.
    33. 33. Extremely underserved—and unaware of available help
    34. 34. Transportation challenges enforce their isolation.
    35. 35. They call you when they need you, but not before or after.
    36. 36. They do not identify as “clients” or “homeless”
    37. 37. Distrust of programs, prefer to work outside the system, high failure rate in programs, education attempts.</li></li></ul><li>Intakes by Zip Code<br />21217<br />21215<br />21218<br />-----------<br />Next 7<br />--------<br />All Others<br />
    38. 38. Income Profile<br />
    39. 39. Education/ Training Profile<br />
    40. 40. Some Observations<br /><ul><li>Not everyone wants independent housing, but they do want and need assistance.
    41. 41. Most respond well to the “Call Charlie” approach
    42. 42. High percentage of women with young children
    43. 43. Highly mobile group—the folks who call this month fall off, and are replaced with a completely new set of callers.
    44. 44. About half are self referred or referred by a friend.</li></li></ul><li>Their Challenges<br /><ul><li>Traditional cash assistance very difficult to get except if you have a child.
    45. 45. Most subsisting on the cash economy. 7 out of 10 using food stamps.
    46. 46. High percentages of debt from failed attempt at education, child support, providing barriers to workforce enhancement.
    47. 47. Their top 3 identified needs—housing, transportation, employment.</li></li></ul><li>Did it Work?<br /><ul><li>272 unduplicated Intakes since Nov. 1, 2009 (Service Navigators point of hire).
    48. 48. Anticipate over 400 intakes/ year
    49. 49. Have hired youth to start taking the phone calls, with eventual goals of releasing some service navigator time to follow up on service connection verification.</li></li></ul><li>The Effect of Service Navigators<br />
    50. 50. Service Profile<br />
    51. 51. Program Challenges<br /><ul><li>Cold weather exposed our problem with no emergency shelter.
    52. 52. The city’s voucher program used a vulnerability index that focused on cold weather exposure and did not identify “age” on the vulnerability spectrum.
    53. 53. Giving and getting the voucher to a young adult with no lease or apartment experience really exposed their lack of independent life skills.
    54. 54. No extra money for life skills or case management</li></li></ul><li>Surprises<br /><ul><li>How well they responded to structure—as long as one found the half-step up from child expectation.
    55. 55. Intervention does not have to be long-term to be valuable
    56. 56. How readily we found suitable adult services in all areas of basic services in the city—often willing to serve this group when invited by the Service Navigators.
    57. 57. Some traditional clinical service providers enabled and forgave a lot of poor entry level behavior, rather than provide instruction.</li></li></ul><li>For More Information<br /><ul><li>Nancy Strohminger</li></ul> Executive Vice President, Programs<br /> AIRS/City Steps/ Empire Homes of Maryland<br /> 410-576-5070 x12<br /> nancy@airshome.org<br />