This document discusses coordinated entry, which is a uniform method for assessing clients' housing and service needs. It provides examples of coordinated entry systems from various counties in Washington state. These include physically centralized, centralized telephone, and decentralized models. The document outlines advantages and disadvantages of each model and discusses challenges counties faced in implementing coordinated entry, such as ensuring involvement from all relevant stakeholders and gaining provider buy-in.

1. Beginning the Coordinated Entry Process
Seth Howard - Building Changes
Tedd Kelleher - Department of Commerce
Troy Christensen - Pierce County
February 14, 2012

2. Learning Objectives
• Learn more about what is going on in different counties
around the state
• How to begin the coordinated entry plan in your county
• Who should be involved in the planning process
• What have been some common stumbling blocks in
counties that have coordinated entry systems
2

3. Coordinated Entry
A uniform method of client intake which may be customized for families or
single adults, etc. There must at the very least be a common tool at intake
that consistently screens for eligibility and need for housing and services
(including type and intensity).
-Department of Commerce Administrative Requirements for Consolidated Homeless Grant
All Lead and Sub Grantees must have a system in place by 12/31/14
3

4. Different Types of Coordinated Entry
Physically/Geographically Centralized- a single location,
building, room or space
Centralized Telephone- one call access to services (i.e. 211,
Clark County Emergency Shelter Clearinghouse)
Decentralized- Multiple coordinated locations throughout the
community or county
4

5. Advantages and Disadvantages
Physically Centralized Decentralized
Centralized Telephone
Physical Single, centralized Space for Multiple
Requirements location Phones/staff coordinated
locations
Advantages Fewer sites needed, Easier to handle More locations=
Control over large # of clients, easier access for
consistency Cost clients
Drawbacks Accessibility for Need for additional Less control over
clients referrals /in person consistency of
meeting can slow services, Cost
down process
5

6. House Bill 1811 and Informed Consent
HB 1811 allows social service providers to screen clients over
the phone and enter their information into HMIS, provided
they attain informed oral consent from the client over the
phone, and informed written consent the first time a client
meets in person with the agency.
6

7. “Planning across disciplines takes time. There needs to be a
clear and transparent communication structure and process
with lots of opportunity for dialogue. And there needs to be
a point at which decisions are clearly made and not
constantly revisited.”
7

8. Making the Transition to Coordinated Intake
• Involve all stakeholders (not just those in the homelessness
system)
• Use the Stakeholder Analysis to look at the entire system
for strengths and weaknesses
• Get buy-in from providers
• Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate
8

9. Pierce County
• Telephone Based, multiple offices around the county where
assessment is available. If transportation is an issue, outreach is
possible
• Funded by Document Recording Fees
• Steering Committee made up of funders and consultants that were
informed by a group of providers and people who were currently or
formerly experiencing homelessness.
• Biggest Challenge: Demand
9

10. Snohomish County
• Telephone or in person at multiple coordinated locations
• Pilot phase: families only
• Design Process: Strategic Advisory Coordinating Committee made
up of key stakeholders and consultants, that was informed by a
large number of frontline and management staff who worked on
specific committees.
• Hindsight learning: more involvement from domestic violence
providers and churches.
10

11. Kitsap County
• Multiple coordinated sites, appointments can be made by phone
• Funded by Document Recording Fees
• Open transparent decision making process that included critical
constituencies
• Challenge providers to do business differently
11

12. Clark County
• Telephone based
• Serves all populations, except for those in immediate domestic
violence crisis: transferred to DV shelter and advocacy line
• Expanding to prevention efforts in 2012, with system-wide common
assessment form
• Funded through Document Recording Fees, local and private
donations
• Staffed by 1.8 FTE and telephones answered by volunteers
12

13. Whatcom County
• Multiple coordinated sites
• Serves all populations (including prevention)
• Funded by Document Recording Fees, CHGs, and other local grants
• The need for Multi-Agency HMIS data sharing agreements
• Never underestimate the willingness of independent agencies to
collaborate if you offer the right mix of incentives
13

14. Additional Resources
Case Studies from today:
http://www.buildingchanges.org/our-work/advocacy/358-
coordinated-entry-resources
NAEH One Way In: The Advantages of Introducing System-
Wide Coordinated Entry for Homeless Families
http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/3974
14