Transcript CoC Rebalancing Presentaion

INDIANA BALANCE OF STATE
Re-Balancing Indiana’s Homeless
Assistance System
August 11, 2015
THE PARTNERSHIP
• IN Balance of State Continuum of Care (CoC)
Board of Directors
– CoC Planning Grant
• IHCDA
• CSH
– Indiana Office
– National Consulting Team
THESHIFT
SHIFT
ROM M
MANAGING
ANAGING TT
OOENDING
THE
: :FFROM
ENDING
OMELESSNESS
HHOMELESSNESS
What do we mean when we say we are working
to end homelessness?
• Develop infrastructure so that there is an immediate and
appropriate response for people having a housing crisis
• Make homelessness rare, short in duration and
non-recurring
THESHIFT
SHIFT
ROM M
MANAGING
ANAGING TT
OOENDING
THE
: :FFROM
ENDING
OMELESSNESS
HHOMELESSNESS
• Many programs in the homeless assistance system have
been in place for 15 to 20 years and are a product of a
different era
• We have learned a lot in the past 20 years
• As we have shifted to a housing first/rapid re-housing
system, we have seen positive results since 2009
• Chronic homelessness reduced 28%
• Family homelessness reduced 58%
THE SHIFT: FROM MANAGING TO ENDING
HOMELESSNESS
We must look at our system with new eyes and
rebalance the system to reflect new practices
• Make data-driven decisions
• Don’t be afraid to reallocate resources to a housing
first/rapid rehousing
• Develop robust diversion interventions
THE HEARTH PARADIGM SHIFT
The old system
Program
Program
Program
Evaluation
Program
Program
Program
Program
TTHE
HE HEARTH
HEARTH PPARADIGM
ARADIGM SSHIFT
HIFT
The new system
Program
Program
Program
Evaluation
Program
Program
Program
Program
RE-BALANCING THE SYSTEM
The Goal: “re-balance” the system so that there is enough of each
intervention to move people out of homelessness and back into
permanent housing as quickly as possible
The Interventions:
Permanent Housing
– Diversion
– Permanent supportive housing
– Rapid re-housing
Temporary Stays
– Shelter/Transitional
RE-BALANCING QUESTIONS
1. How much is invested in the system?
2. What is the need?
3. How can investments best align with needs?
RE-BALANCING THE SYSTEM
• Annualized count
data
• Annual Performance
Report data
• Turnover rates
• Documented
Investments
Use data from
last year
Map how people
move through
the system
• Where they came
from
• Where they exited to
• By intervention
• Establish assumptions
• Project need for PH
• Re-balance based on
projections
Make
Projections
RE-BALANCING THE SYSTEM
Framework
•
Well informed with robust data and assumptions based on
population needs to create a system that is fully aligned
•
Fluid model that can adapt
• Annual model that will adjust every year
• Can change projections based on system changes
•
Models what infrastructure is needed to end homelessness
• What can be done through reallocation of existing
investments
Re-Balancing Indiana’s Homeless Assistance System
1.
HOW MUCH IS INVESTED
IN THE SYSTEM?
INVESTMENT INVENTORY
• CSH surveyed all providers to identify the fund sources
and amounts invested in each homeless assistance
program. 70% of them responded
• Established the total dollar amount invested in the
system by each intervention
•
Looked at operating and housing services—did not look at
capital investments
• Separated public and private investments
• First time we have data on total investments!
INVESTMENT INVENTORY
BOS CoC System Total*
•
7,688 annualized units/beds/slots
(accounting for turnover)
•
$57.7 million in total investments – private,
philanthropic, federal, state and local
*excluding DV shelters and TH
INVESTMENT BY INTERVENTION
Total Estimated System Investment
60%
Temporary
Permanent
40%
INVESTMENT BY INTERVENTION
System Investments by Intervention
2%
22%
Prevention/Diversion
28%
Perm. Supportive Housing beds
3%
45%
Rapid Re-Housing slots
Emergency Shelter beds
Transitional Housing beds
IINVESTMENT
NVESTMENT BY
BY IINTERVENTION
NTERVENTION
Estimated Total System Investments by Type
$19,580,045
$18,016,423
$16,379,651
$2,567,269
$1,194,852
PREV/DIV
PSH
RRH
ES
TH
INVESTMENT PROFILE BY INTERVENTION
Temporary Stay Reported Investments by Source
Other
17%
CoC
30%
38% Private
Philanthropy
21%
62% Public
Local
3% State
3%
Other Fed
26%
INVESTMENT PROFILE BY INTERVENTION
Permanent Housing Reported Investments by
Source
Philanthropy
4%
Other
11%
Local
1% State
0%
Other Fed
24%
15% Private
CoC
60%
85% Public
ESG
0%
Re-Balancing Indiana’s Homeless Assistance System
2. WHAT IS THE NEED?
DETERMINING NEED
We answer the question of need in two ways:
1. Number of people who experience homelessness over the
course of a year (Annualized PIT using a multiplier)
2. Experiences of people who entered and exited the system
last year (APRs)
The system map illustrates this flow through the system
Indiana Balance of State Homeless System Map
11% (573) Jail/Hospital/Psych/Detox/Foster
Care
11% (554) ES
E
7% (367) Rental Housing, no subsidy
L
6% (300) Hotel/Motel
E
2% (94) Other
S
2% (77) Rental Housing, with subsidy
S
1% (71) TH
1% (48) Information missing
3% (185) Information missing
1% (47) Don’t know/refused
N
<1% (34) Owned by client
2044 Year-round Beds
157 Overflow Beds
142 Seasonal Beds
57% on HMIS
Avg Utilization: 75%
2014 PIT: 1700 persons
M
3% (37) TH
3% (30) Rental Housing, no subsidy
E
2% (21) Hotel/Motel
L
1% (15) Other
E
1% (7) Don’t know/refused/info missing
S
S
<1% (5) PSH
<1% (2) Rental Housing, with subsidy
6% (63) Don’t know/refused
4% (38) Jail(30)/Psych(5)/Detox
2% (22) Other
2% (17) exit to ES
1% (14) Hotel/Motel
<1% (2) Place not meant for Habitation
6% (312) Rental by client, with subsidy
TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING
1081 exited in 2014
1430 Year-round Beds
60% on HMIS
Avg Utilization: 69%
2014 PIT: 975 persons
Among Leavers:
LOS < 6 months: 67%
LOS 6-24 months: 29%
LOS > 24 MONTHS: 3%
<1% (24) Owned by client
16% (181) Rental by client, with subsidy
16% (168) Permanently with family/friends
4% (38) exit to PSH
2% (19) Owned by client
M
A
N
E
T
28% (303) Rental by client, no subsidy
2014 PIT:
320 persons
Unknown/Temporary
Destinations
G
N
4% (42)
exit to TH
M
S
R
9% (482) Permanently with family/friends
UNSHELTERED
H
E
16% (865) Rental by client, no subsidy
E
P
P
1% (38) exit to PSH
11% (116) Jail(90)/Psych/Detox/Hospital/Foster Care
5% (49) Place not meant for Habitation
2% (124) Hospital/Jail
4% (42) exit to TH
45% (478) ES
50% Literally Homeless
50% Other
O
6%
(303)
exit to ES
2% (17) exit to ES
28% (299) Staying with family/friends
H
16% (174) Temp with family/friends
6% (336) exit to TH
A
4% (222) Place not meant for Habitation
2% (118) Hotel/Motel
Among Leavers:
LOS < 30 days: 63%
LOS 1-2 months: 19%
LOS > 2 MONTHS: 18%
E
R
5% (295) Other
T
68% unknown
or exit into
Homelessness
M
6% (303) ES
32% exit to PH
13% (673) Place not meant for Habitation
20% (1094) Temp family/friends 18% (968) Don’t know/refused 6% (336) TH
34% unknown
or exit into
Homelessness
O
EMERGENCY
SHELTER
5382 exited in 2014
H
66% exit to PH
44% (2209) Staying with family/friends
24% Literally Homeless
76% Other
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
RAPID RE-HOUSING
Entering from:
 60% (265) ES
 28% (124) Place not
meant for Habitation
 7% (29) TH
 2% (11) Staying with
family/friends
 1% (5) Other
 1% (3) Info missing
 1% (3) Rental no subsidy
PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
272 exited in 2014
LOS>180 days:74%(200)
Entering from:
 48% (601) ES
 25% (321) Place not
meant for Habitation
 14% (172) TH
 5% (68) Staying with
family/friends
 3% (34) Rental by client
 2% (31) PSH
 2%(20)Psych(12)/Jail/
Detox/Hospital/Foster
RESIDENCE PRIOR TO ENTRANCE INTO ALL
SYSTEM INTERVENTIONS
Owned by Client
1%
PSH
1%
Hotel/Motel
4%
TH
4%
Rented by Client
Institution
Not Meant for
Habitation
ES
Living With Family
7%
9%
15%
25%
34%
RESIDENCE UPON EXITING SYSTEM
Destinations After Exiting
Other
20%
Permanent
32%
Temporary
48%
Re-Balancing Indiana’s Homeless Assistance System
3. HOW CAN INVESTMENTS BEST
ALIGN WITH NEEDS?
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT NEED
To determine the number of units, slots or beds a
system should invest in, we first made assumptions
about how the system could have best served the
households who became homeless last year
Assumptions are aligned with national research and
informed by local data
DIVERSION ASSUMPTIONS
Households that may be able to secure permanent
housing with minimal financial assistance could
bypass the homeless system through diversion
or prevention efforts
• Households who exited ES or TH to rentals without subsidy
could have been diverted from entering the homeless system
• Households who exited ES or TH to permanent housing with
family and friends could have been diverted from the system
Provides a framework to measure diversion/prevention!!!!!
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
ASSUMPTIONS
Households that need affordable housing with
intensive services can succeed in permanent
supportive housing
• Households that exited ES and TH to PSH, institutions, or
places not meant for human habitation likely needed PSH
• This factor may be adjusted based on the percentage of
people who are chronically homeless
RAPID RE-HOUSING ASSUMPTIONS
The majority of households experiencing homelessness that
could not have been diverted and did not need permanent
supportive housing could have been rapidly re-housed into
independent housing (dependent upon the local market)
• Households who exited ES and TH to other ES or TH, hotels,
temporary stays with family or friends, or rental housing with subsidies
could have instead been moved more quickly back into permanent
housing with RRH assistance
• If a housing market analysis indicates an insufficient supply of housing is
available for households to be rapidly re-housed, additional subsidies
and/or new construction of affordable housing is required
TEMPORARY STAY ASSUMPTIONS
Everyone needs permanent housing. If the system cannot
divert someone from homelessness or move them directly
into permanent housing, they will need a temporary place
to stay before permanent housing
•
People who entered permanent housing directly from literal
homelessness did not need a temporary place to stay
•
People who could have been diverted did not need a temporary
place to stay before returning to permanent housing
CALCULATING THE NEED FOR
PERMANENT HOUSING
# of people exiting
system who needed
DIV (assumptions)
# of people exiting
system who needed
PSH (assumptions)
# of people exiting
system who needed
RRH (assumptions)
÷
# of total
system exits
(APR)
÷
# of total
system exits
(APR)
÷
# of total
system exits
(APR)
=
=
=
% of total system
exits needing DIV
% of total system
exits needing PSH
% of total system
exits needing RRH
X
X
X
# of total annual
people (AHAR)
# of total annual
people (AHAR)
# of total annual
people (AHAR)
=
=
=
Total # of
annualized
people
needing
DIV
Total # of
annualized
people
needing
PSH
Total # of
annualized
people
needing
RRH
CALCULATING THE NEED FOR
TEMPORARY PLACES TO STAY
1.
# of total system exits
# of exits who exited
to permanent housing
-
-
# of exits needing
diversion
=
# of total system exits
2.
% of system exits
needing temporary
stay
X
# of total annual
people (AHAR)
=
# of total
people
needing
temporary
stay
% of system exits
needing temporary
stay
MATCHING NEEDS WITH EXISTING
INTERVENTIONS
GOAL: Re-align the system to meet the projected needs
IN BOS ANNUAL HOMELESS INTERVENTION
NEED PROJECTIONS
• The next charts show the amount of each intervention that would have
been needed to address the needs of households who experienced
homelessness during 2014
• The projections will be made annually as the system changes and
rebalances itself towards permanent housing solutions
Number of people who became homeless in
BOS catchment area
9,450
Need Diversion
2,948
Need PSH
879
Need RRH
5,623
Needed Temporary Stay
4,820
BOS PROJECTIONS
Need for Permanent Housing
Housing
Annual
Existing Stock
Intervention
Turnover Rate
# Available
(Annually)
% of People
who Needed
Intervention
1225
1714
889
1225
31%
514
889
9%
60%
DIV Slots
PSH Beds
RRH Slots
1
0.3
1
Estimated
Annual Need
Over/Under
2948
879
5623
-1723
-365
-4734
% of People
who Needed
Intervention
Estimated
Annual Need
Over/under
beds annually
51%
4820
11,145
Need for Temporary Stay
Annual
Intervention Existing Stock
Turnover Rate
# Available
Annually
All
4052
n/a
15,965
ES Beds
2263
5.20
11,768
Motel Vouchers
69
1
69
TH Beds
1720
2.4
4,128
PERMANENT HOUSING ANNUALIZED DEMAND
DIV
28%
PSH
Demand Met
2628 slots/beds
72%
RRH
RRH
Demand Not Met
6822 slots/beds
DIV
PSH
TEMPORARY STAY ANNUALIZED BEDS
Needed
30%
Excess
70%
REGIONAL PROJECTIONS
Projected Over/Under Need by Region*
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
1a
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
Permanent Housing
Temporary Stay
*Region 9 not included due to
insufficient data
SYSTEM CHANGE:
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT
On a parallel track, the CoC can incentivize improvements
in project-level performance to better utilize existing interventions
• Set system-wide performance goals for each intervention
• Require minimum annual performance standards for projects reapplying
• Open competitions to new applicants
• Have new projects establish performance goals, and require that they
meet them when up for renewal
Tools: Investments Inventory, Performance Improvement Calculator,
CoC NOFA Guidance
NEXT STEPS
• Finalize ”Right-Sizing Report” and present to all 15 BOS regions and other
stakeholders (e.g. HUD FO, IHCDA Executives, Lt. Gov., FSSA, Trustees and IPA,
PHAs, and Supportive Housing Pipeline Committee)
• Organize databases and develop base-line (include data collection and analysis
protocols)
• Develop annual data collection tools
• Develop a three year reallocation plan with the BOS Board
– Strategically rethink investments
– Develop financial model for needed Diversion and PH (capital, operating &
services)
– Reallocate CoC resources to PH rental assistance
– Rethink the CoC Internal Competition using this model
• Test assumptions by triangulating assumptions with other data sources
• Map DV system and incorporate into the model
• Incorporate PHA resources into map
THANK YOU
Contacts for Re-Balancing and System Analysis for
IN-BOS
CSH
• Debbie Thiele, [email protected]
• Lori Phillips-Steele, [email protected]
IHCDA
• Rodney Stockment, [email protected]