Coordinated Entry
Download
Report
Transcript Coordinated Entry
COORDINATED
ASSESSMENT:
THE BASICS
C E N TE R FO R
CA PAC IT Y
B U ILD IN G
N ATIO N A L
A LLIA N C E TO E N D
H O M E LE SSN E SS
AGENDA
REVIEW
PLANNING AND DESIGN
DATA & HMIS
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
REFERRAL PROCESS
EVALUATION
WORKING TIME
WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT COORDINATED
ENTRY?
SENDS HOUSEHOLDS TO INTERVENTION OF BEST FIT FROM THE
START
PROVIDES SYSTEM-WIDE PREVENTION AND DIVERSION
OPPORTUNITIES
IMPROVES SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
FOSTERS MORE COLLABORATION AMONG PROVIDERS
IMPROVES ABILIT Y TO PERFORM WELL ON HEARTH OUTCOMES
ESG MANDATE
CENTRALIZED INTAKE
SINGLE INTAKE
CENTER/SHELTER
(MAY BE ONE PLACE FOR
EACH POPULATION)
PLACES: COLUMBUS, OH; GRAND RAPIDS, MI; HENNEPIN
COUNT Y/MINNEAPOLIS, MN
PROS: LESS TRAINING TIME NEEDED; MORE LIKELY TO BE
CONSISTENT PROCESS; NEED LESS STAFF
CONS: ONE LOCATION MAY NOT BE EQUALLY ACCESSIBLE TO
ALL; HIGH VOLUME
DECENTRALIZED INTAKE
INTAKE POINT #1
INTAKE POINT #2
INTAKE POINT #3
PLACES: MONTGOMERY COUNT Y/DAY TON, OH; MONTGOMERY
COUNT Y, MD
PROS: EASIER TO HANDLE LARGER NUMBERS OF CLIENTS;
MORE ACCESSIBILIT Y; MAY INCREASE PROVIDER COMFORT
LEVEL
CONS: LESS CONTROL AND CONSISTENCY; MAY BE MORE
COSTLY DUE TO INCREASED SPACE/STAFF DEMANDS
2-1-1
2-1-1
SHELTER
DIVERSION
MAINSTREAM
RESOURCES
INTAKE
CENTER
PLACES: MEMPHIS/SHELBY COUNT Y, TN; PRINCE GEORGE’S
COUNT Y, MD; ALAMEDA COUNT Y, CA
PROS: ACCESSIBILIT Y; EASY LINKAGES TO OTHER
MAINSTREAM RESOURCES; REDUCES IN -PERSON CLIENTS
CONS: UNABLE TO DEAL WITH CRISIS SITUATIONS FACE -TOFACE; INCREASED CHANCE OF INCONSISTENCY
ADDITIONAL PLANNING QUESTIONS
INDIVIDUAL SUBPOPULATION NEEDS
CO-LOCATION WITH OTHER CRUCIAL SERVICES
ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACIT Y
SIZE OF GEOGRAPHIC AREA
DISTANCE FROM OTHER PROVIDERS
DATA COLLECTION &
HMIS
NECESSARY TOOLS
CENTRALIZED DATA ENTRY AND/OR SINGLE PROCEDURE
DEVELOP AND TRAIN INTAKE STAFF.
AN OPEN HMIS
A DATA SHARING AGREEMENT BET WEEN ALL PROVIDERS
CREATE ONE.
REAL-TIME INFORMATION ON BED AVAILABILIT Y (PREFERABLY
THROUGH HMIS)
PROVIDE TRAINING FOR PROVIDERS, UPGRADE HMIS SYSTEM.
SHORT TERM SOLUTION: HAVE PROGRAMS CALL IN
AVAILABILITY, USE AN EXCEL OR GOOGLE SPREADSHEET
PROMISING PRACTICES - DATA
CINCINNATI, OH (SPEAKING AT THE CONFERENCE)
HAVE “HOMEGROWN” HMIS THAT SHOWS REAL-TIME BED
AVAILABILITY
ALAMEDA COUNT Y, CA (SPEAKING AT THE CONFERENCE);
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNT Y, MD
2-1-1 BEGINS INITIAL DATA ENTRY PROCESS, SHARES DATA
WITH INTAKE CENTER
WHATCOM COUNT Y, WA (SPEAKING AT THE CONFERENCE)
DEVELOPED DATA SHARING AGREEMENT AND CLIENT MOU
QUICKLY; LOOPED IN YOUTH PROVIDERS AND DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE PROVIDER
ASSESSMENT
GETTING STARTED
HAVE EACH PROGRAM REVIEW INTERNALLY, AND THEN
REVIEW AS A SYSTEM, PROGRAM RULES AND POTENTIAL
“SCREEN OUT” FACTORS:
ARE THEY NECESSARY FOR FUNDING REASONS?
ARE THEY RELATED TO THE MISSION OF THE PROGRAM?
OF THE SYSTEM? (WHAT IS THE MISSION OF THE SYSTEM?)
LOOK AT OTHER COMMUNITIES’ ASSESSMENT TOOLS
DECIDE WHAT INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE ACQUIRED WHEN
(AT INTAKE VS. AFTER REFERRAL HAS BEEN MADE)
GETTING STARTED, CONT’D
WHAT INFORMATION ARE YOU REQUIRED TO COLLECT BY HUD?
WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU NEED TO DETERMINE IF
SOMEONE SHOULD RECEIVE PREVENTION ASSISTANCE OR BE
DIVERTED FROM SHELTER?
WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU NEED ABOUT CLIENTS FROM
PROGRAMS TO MAKE A SMART REFERRAL?
Percentage of Singles entering from:
PREVENTION ASSESSMENT AND
TARGETING: USE SHELTER DATA
LOOK AT SHELTER DATA: USE THIS TO GUIDE WHO RECEIVES
PREVENTION ASSISTANCE.
80%
71%
70%
65%
Singles in Shelters
60%
Singles in HPRP
50%
40%
35%
30%
20%
14%
11%
10%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
SHELTER DIVERSION QUESTIONS
WHERE DID YOU SLEEP LAST NIGHT?
WHAT OTHER HOUSING OPTIONS DO YOU HAVE FOR THE NEXT
FEW DAYS OR WEEKS?
(IF STAYING IN SOMEONE ELSE’S HOUSING) WHAT ISSUES
EXIST WITH YOU REMAINING IN YOUR CURRENT HOUSING
SITUATION? CAN THOSE ISSUES BE RESOLVED WITH FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE, CASE MANAGEMENT, ETC.?
(IF COMING FROM THEIR OWN UNIT) IS IT POSSIBLE/SAFE TO
STAY IN YOUR CURRENT HOUSING UNIT? WHAT RESOURCES
WOULD YOU NEED TO DO THAT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, CASE
MANAGEMENT, MEDIATION, TRANSPORTATION, ETC.)?
REFERRAL PROCESS
REFERRALS: THE “WARM HANDOFF”
1. MAKE CLIENT REFERRAL.
2. CALL PROGRAM TO ANNOUNCE THAT
CLIENT IS BEING REFERRED TO THEM.
3. SHARE CLIENT DATA WITH REFERRAL
PROGRAM.
4. OPTIONAL: IN-PERSON MEETINGS
REFERRAL VS. ADMISSION
WHICH PROGRAMS CAN ACCEPT/WILL ACCEPT DIRECT
ADMISSIONS (E.G., EMERGENCY SHELTER)? HOW COULD YOU
PHASE IN THIS CHANGE OVER TIME? WHICH PROGRAMS ARE
ONLY ACCESSIBLE THROUGH REFERRAL?
SET PROCESS FOR REFERRALS THAT ALLOWS AGENCIES TO
PROVIDE FEEDBACK IF SOMEONE ISN’T A GOOD MATCH (E.G.,
DAY TON MODEL)
EVALUATION
EVALUATION MEASURES
ARE MORE PEOPLE BEING PREVENTED OR DIVERTED FROM
ENTERING HOMELESSNESS?
ARE PEOPLE MOVING THROUGH THE HOMELESS ASSISTANCE
MORE QUICKLY?
ARE MORE PEOPLE EXITING THE SYSTEM FOR PERMANENT
HOUSING?
ARE LENGTHS OF STAY IN HOMELESSNESS DECREASING? ARE
LENGTHS OF STAY IN SHELTER DECREASING?
ARE THERE FEWER REPEAT ENTRIES INTO HOMELESSNESS?
OTHER EVALUATION METHODS
CONSUMER SURVEYS
REFERRAL: PRIMARY PLACEMENT VS. SECONDARY
PLACEMENT
TOOLS ON TABLES
COORDINATED ENTRY CHECKLIST (ALLIANCE)
TRIAGE TOOL (COLUMBUS, OH)
DATA SHARING AGREEMENT (WHATCOM COUNT Y, WA)
CLIENT RELEASE FORM (WHATCOM COUNT Y, WA)
COORDINATED ENTRY POWERPOINT (DAY TON/MONTGOMERY
COUNT Y, OH)
RAPID RE-HOUSING TRIAGE TOOL (ALLIANCE)