improving your prevention targeting efforts
TRANSCRIPT
Improving Your Prevention Targeting
Efforts
Cathy ten Broeke & the Center for Capacity Building
April 20, 2011
LEARN ABOUT HEARTH ACT
• Three pre-Clinic webinars (HEARTH Act Overview, Performance Measurement, System Design & Assessment – all available on website)
SET COMMUNITY-SPECIFIC GOALS
• 1.5 day Implementation Clinic
• Contact [email protected] if interested
THREE MONTHS OF FOLLOW-UP SUPPORT
• Technical assistance, resources, affinity groups
IMPROVE ABILITY TO
3. Prevent & End
Homelessness
5. Meet HEARTH Act
Goals
HEARTH Academy
• All participants will be muted during the webinar. To ask a question, please submit one using the ‘Questions’ box toward the bottom of the GoToWebinar panel. If we can’t answer your question during the webinar, we will make sure to follow up with you afterwards.
• If you are having audio issues, please make sure you have the correct dial-in number and access code (these should be in your registration e-mail). Please also check that you have clicked on the correct audio method under the ‘Audio’ tab (either “microphone and speakers” or “telephone”).
• A copy of the webinar will be available on the Alliance website at http://www.endhomelessness.org
Before We Get Started…
Targeting PreventionHennepin County, MN
Cathy ten BroekeDirector, Minneapolis/Hennepin County Office to End Homelessness
History of Prevention and Rapid –Exit in Hennepin Co.
Population: 1,141,000Largest City: Minneapolis: 385,000
In 1986 Hennepin County passed a “Right to Shelter Policy,” giving shelter to all eligible families.
History cont. In 1992 we had a family homelessness
crisis. All shelter beds full, plus 100 overflow motel rooms for families
Projected having to turn away 150 families each night in the coming year
Hennepin County’s voluntary policy of sheltering all families was at stake.
History, Cont. With grant from state’s Housing Finance
Agency (MN Housing) in 1993, a program was created that focused on cash and in-kind prevention assistance, not services Conducted focus groups with homeless
families – designed program based on their input
Delivered through geographically diverse agencies
Emphasis on early intervention in financial assistance
History, Cont. Eligibility:
Non-preventable, verifiable financial crisis
No other resources available Prevention assistance will preserve
housing Goals for new prevention program:
10% reduction in admissions to Family shelter
10% reduction in length of stay
History, Cont.
Results of Prevention 96% of families did not enter shelter
within 1 year following assistance 43% reduction in family shelter
admissions Right to Shelter Policy maintained
2010 Evaluation of Targeting
After 17 years of providing prevention and rapid re-housing programs, we decided it was time to evaluate our success on another level. Were we providing prevention funding to families who would have become homeless?
2010 Evaluation of Targeting
Used HMIS data and barrier assessments to compare characteristics of families who received prevention to families who did not receive prevention and who ended up in shelter.
If targeting well, families should be very similar in characteristics
Findings
In some categories these families were similar (felony histories, limited English proficiency)
Mostly, these families were quite different
Income
Families receiving prevention: 40% had incomes below $1000/mo 45% were paying more than 65% of
their income toward housing Families in shelter:
94% had incomes below $1000/mo (70% below $500/mo)
94% were paying more than 65% of their income toward housing
History of Homelessness
36% of families receiving prevention assistance had been homeless before
63% of families in shelter with no prevention assistance had been homeless before
Young Families
Only 1% of families receiving prevention had a head of household under age 22
Nearly 33% of shelter families had a head of household under 22
Suburban vs. Urban Areas
Urban providers were more likely to serve families with lower average monthly incomes ($831 compared to $1543 in suburban areas)
Both of these incomes, however, were significantly higher than the $377 average monthly income of families in shelter
Analysis and Impact
Good probability that some of the households receiving prevention may never have become homeless
With limited resources we decided to adjust the way prevention assistance was targeted
Met with policy makers and providers to discuss
Analysis and Impact
Based on these conversations, the evaluation, and literature review, Hennepin County changed its prevention screening tool
New Criteria INCOME:
Only families with incomes at or below 30% of Area Median Income will receive Prevention, AND
TRIGGER CRISIS: An event has occurred which is expected to result in housing loss within 30 days or less, AND
NO RESOURCES OR VIABLE PLAN TO RESOLVE CRISIS: “But for this assistance” this family would become literally homeless—staying in a shelter, car, or place not meant for human habitation, AND
REASONABLE EXPECTATION FOR SUSTAINABLE RESOLUTION: At the initial assessment for assistance, there is a reasonable expectation that the crisis can be resolved and existing housing (or relocation to alternative housing) can be sustained by the family after services and assistance are ended, AND
SCORE OF AT LEAST 20 POINTS--or 15-19 points with over-ride SIGN-OFF.
Questions/Concerns
Could these lower income, higher barrier families sustain housing after receiving prevention support?
Would we have to change our definition of “success?”
New Targeting 6-Month Evaluation Data gathered from households served
between May 1, 2010-Dec 31, 2010 436 households served Only 32 (7.4%) returned to county shelter
within 6 months (same success rate as before)
VERY early in evaluation, but if return rates stay the same, we could argue this is a more effective use of prevention dollars
Even if the rates of return increase we may still feel more confident we are preventing more homelessness