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 self-sustainability/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

415,20262%

87362%

42874%

2335%

1335%

19464% 215

50%

249,21238%

54238%

14926%

4265%

2465%

10936% 218

50%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Homeless Singles vs People in Families

People in families

Singles

Source: 2009 PIT data and 2009 AHAR data

2009 Point in Time Count of Persons in Homeless Families, South Hampton Roads

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

02468

1012141618

Norfolk Dragas Number of Households

Outcomes at Exit

05

101520253035

Norfolk DragasNumber of Households

Housing Stabilization Over Time

0

5

10

15

20

25

Norfolk DragasNumber of Households

Overcoming Negative Service Discharges

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 Homework70% 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 resources-prioritization

• 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 us-and we were funding programs to address it

• The Dragas program added several completely new elements to the community’s ability to assist- especially 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 us-and we were funding programs to address it

• The Dragas program added several completely new elements to the community’s ability to assist- especially 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

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 $3.5K Tutoring

$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