Transcript The Dragas Homeless Children`s Initiative in South Hampton Roads

The Dragas Homeless Children’s
Initiative in South Hampton Roads
A Public-Private Partnership
Lessons Learned
Presenters
• Carolyn McPherson, Dragas Foundation Homeless Children’s
Initiative Program Administrator
• Andrew M. Friedman, Director Virginia Beach Department of
Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, City of Virginia Beach,
• Thaler McCormick, Executive Director, ForKids, Inc., Norfolk
• Sarah Paige Fuller, Director, Office to End Homelessness, City
of Norfolk
• Alisa S. Winston, Housing Program Coordinator, Office of
Housing, City of Chesapeake
Dragas Program Objectives:
• to ensure a better future for children who experience
homelessness;
• to provide funding to the cities to enhance programs and
services - including rapid re-housing, case management, and
children’s services - in order to positively impact the selfsustainability/stability of families experiencing homelessness;
• to improve children’s educational achievement;
• to provide assistance so that children will have higher potential
for economic improvement and well being as they enter
adulthood;
• to provide focus and funding for a regional approach to
programs for families experiencing homelessness; and
• to provide an impetus for sustainability of innovative, private
funding.
Project Timeline
• Late 2007 Dragas Foundation decision to develop
program
• Spring 2008 RFP issued to the 3 cities
• August 2008 Norfolk contract
• November 2008 Virginia Beach contract
• March 2009 Chesapeake contract
Regional Homelessness Snapshot, 2009
Homeless Singles vs People in Families
100%
80%
249,212
38%
542
38%
149
26%
42
65%
60%
40%
20%
415,202
62%
873
62%
24
65%
428
74%
0%
Source: 2009 PIT data and 2009 AHAR data
23
35%
13
35%
109
36%
194
64%
218
50%
215
50%
People in
families
Singles
2009 Point in Time Count of Persons in
Homeless Families, South Hampton Roads
Portsmouth, 109
Norfolk, 149
Norfolk
Chesapeake
Suffolk, 42
Virginia Beach
Suffolk
Chesapeake, 24
Virginia Beach, 218
Portsmouth
Norfolk Dragas Project
• Goal – To break the cycle of
homelessness for the most vulnerable
families with children in Norfolk
• Dragas provided an opportunity to fill a gap
in services in the existing system –
Intensive in-home case management for
households that are the most high risk of
returning to homelessness.
Norfolk Demographics
Rates of Disability in Households (n=65)
Adult HoH with Disability
29%
"Children" in Home >18 with Disability
38%
Children in Home <18 with Disability
27%
Number of Children in Household (n=65)
Four or More Children
17 Families
Including one family each with 7 & 9 children
Norfolk - Outcomes
In-Home Intensive Case Management (n=71)
47% had multiple episodes of financial
assistance prior to Dragas CM
14% required financial assistance during
Dragas CM
Note: Limited data sources – early data analysis
Norfolk Dragas
Number of Households
Outcomes at Exit
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
st
Lo
t
ac
nt
Co
il
r
Ja
te
el
l
Sh
te
y
Ho
nc
ge
er
y
id
d
Em
e
bs
as
su
ce
h
t
i
y
De
id
-w
bs
al
Su
nt
o
Re
-N
al
nt
Re
Norfolk Dragas
Number of Households
Housing Stabilization Over Time
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
n
tio
ic
Ev
n
tio
ic
Ev
n
at
at
at
at
u
Ho
n
tio
ic
Ev
y
tio
ic
Ev
l
ab
St
s
th
s
th
s
th
m
s
th
12
at
on
on
on
on
m
m
m
m
12
9
6
3
d
se
on
s
th
Norfolk Dragas
Number of Households
Overcoming Negative Service Discharges
25
20
15
10
5
0
to
n
e
m
Ti
t
en
um
fr
im
to
ax
M
en
ym
pa
ce
nn
et
No
lia
p
m
e
m
tb
co
nno
n
d
No
l
io
u
et
co
pl
m
co
s
ed
Ne
io
at
ol
Vi
r
io
pr
s
le
ft
Le
Ru
h
at
ly
De
ul
sf
al
es
in
cc
im
Su
Cr
ed
et
pl
m
Co
Lessons Learned - Norfolk
• High risk families can and do end
homelessness.
• Effective case management can and does
reduce dependence on financial assistance.
• Close the time gap between $ assistance
and in-home case management
• Support staff with reasonable caseloads
• Provide access to emergency funds – for
unexpected gaps in resources to prevent
destabilization.
• Allow for slips, immediately re-engage and
re-house.
Norfolk – Hot Meals and Homework
70% of children increased their GPA or
maintained a GPA of 2.0 or higher.
98% advancing to the next grade.
• Failed and repeated grades – prevented
• Children provided emotional support as
well as instructional assistance.
• Stressors at home impacting
educational progress identified and
addressed.
Norfolk Dragas Project
• Goal – To end homelessness for the
most vulnerable families with children in
Norfolk
• Dragas provided an opportunity to fill a gap
in services in the existing system –
Intensive in-home case management for
households that are the most high risk of
returning to homelessness.
Chesapeake Resources for Homeless/Pre-Dragas
• No Coordinated/Central Intake
• Shelter Capacity
• OHF Emergency Shelter
10 beds
• OHF Transitional Shelter
25 beds
• Salvation Army- Hope Village
4 beds
• CSB-Shelter Plus Care
4 units
• The City has 1 emergency shelter (Our House Families)
• 1,315 persons were turned away in 2009
• 753 adults
• 562 children
• Small Amount of Human Services Grant Funds
• Federal CDBG and PSSF Funds
Chesapeake Opportunities with Dragas
Funds
• Dragas funds have afforded the City the
opportunity to reduce homelessness by providing:
• Coordinated Homeless Intake/Assessment
• In Home Intensive Case Management
• Housing Broker
• Children’s Initiatives/Preventing
Intergenerational Homelessness
• Hot Meals and Homework
• Leveraged Funds
• HOME (TBRA)
• City
• Flexibility with non-federal/state funding
Chesapeake Outcomes
• 26 Households (44 Adults & 46 Children) were
served by Dragas
• 67% (4 of 6 )of Household at 3 months were
stably housed
• 100% (5 of 5) of Households at 6 months were
stably housed
• 100% (1of 1) of Households at 9 months were
stably housed
• 64% (7 of 11) of Households at exit were stably
housed (4 households were unknown)
**3 households have not reached 3 months**
Chesapeake Additional Outcomes
• 7 of kids were enrolled in the Hot Meals and
Homework Program
• 83% of children have been promoted to the next
grade
• One child maintained a 4.0 GPA during the fourth
marking period
Chesapeake Challenges
• Need is far greater than the resourcesprioritization
• Income of the households/ability to sustain
• Lack of male volunteers for the Hot Meals
and Homework Program
• School Involvement
• Parental Involvement
• Implementation of HPRP and Dragas
Virginia Beach’s Perspective
• Family homelessness had/has been a priority for usand we were funding programs to address it
• The Dragas program added several completely new
elements to the community’s ability to assistespecially the idea of focusing on children
• Focused us on collecting meaningful data on
outcomes
• Flexibility of funding expanded our capability to do
things to help people that are needed, rather than
only what is allowed by Federal funding
Virginia Beach’s Perspective
• Family homelessness had/has been a priority for usand we were funding programs to address it
• The Dragas program added several completely new
elements to the community’s ability to assistespecially the idea of focusing on children
• Focused us on collecting meaningful data on
outcomes
• Flexibility of funding expanded our capability to do
things to help people that are needed, rather than
only what is allowed by Federal funding
Goals of Virginia Beach’s Program
•
•
•
•
To prevent family homelessness
To rapidly re-house homeless families
To achieve housing stability for assisted families
To achieve improved school performance for children
of assisted families
Elements of Virginia Beach’s Dragas
Program
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assessment and Referral
Case Management
Direct Housing Assistance
Housing broker services
Resource development (regional project)
Needs Assessment (regional project)
Children’s services
Combined with HPRP funds for most activities
City matching funds for administration
Outcomes – Virginia Beach - % of
Households Stable by Months Since
Assistance
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
housed as % of status known
50%
housed as % of all participants
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3 months
6 months
9 months
12 months
Lessons Learned
• The onset of the recession occurred just as the grant
program began, resulting in significantly increased
demand for housing assistance
• We underestimated the amount of case management
needed
• People in the worst situations most likely need longer
term or permanent assistance – these were not the
best candidates for Dragas assistance
• People came to us very late and in situations that
were dire
• Managing an intake system where demand
overwhelms supply is very challenging
Different Cities Different Approaches
ForKids In Norfolk & Chesapeake
• Playing different roles in very different systems
Some General Observations
Chesapeake Vs: Norfolk (Suburban Vs. Urban)
• Higher incomes
• Less criminal backgrounds
• More intact families & men
• Less families coming from shelters
Big Picture
• Dragas was a big incentive to coordinate services
Case Management Lessons Learned
In-Home Case Management
Important new tool in the toolbox
•
•
•
•
Larger families
High barrier families
Nontraditional families
Used for prevention and aftercare (improving outcomes)
Must connect immediately w/ CM when financial
assistance is given
Don’t end CM program at lease renewal time
Case Management Lessons Learned
In-Home Case Management
• Incentives and flexible funding are important for
good CM
• Not a Magic Bullet: It can’t get high barrier families
into public housing and Section 8
“6-8 mos. out, we’re running out of $$, but there is no
subsidized housing in sight for families that need it”
Applying Precious Resources
Shelter Cost/Person/Day
$57
Shelter Cost/Family/90-day stay
$15K
Prevention CM Cost/Year/Family
$2-3K
Hot Meals & Homework/Child/Yr
Tutoring
$3.5K
$6.5K
Regional Opportunities
• Because three cities each received a grant, the opportunity for
regional cooperation presented itself
• Each city agreed to take 5% of their grant ($25,000) to put into a
combined fund for the purpose of fund raising/sustainability
• Using this funding, we applied for additional funding and
obtained a grant of $100,000 from the Hampton Roads
Community Foundation for sustainability funding
• We are in the process of hiring a staff person to conduct fund
raising/sustainability and other regional activities – to benefit all
the cities in the region
• Cities are also sharing information and expertise and moving
toward unified processes, but this is slow