Margot Ackermann, Ph.D.Melissa Sorrell, MSW

The Impact of Data: Local Homelessness Research on Ex-

Offenders and Permanent Supportive Housing

Local ClimateHomeward’s roleVSH’s long history of providing PSH to people who

are chronically homelessMultiple jurisdictionsInvolvement of business communityPrivate funding (67%) for homeless servicesLarge number of non-profits and other

stakeholdersHospitals are willing partnersInvolvement in Community Criminal Justice Board

and plans for new jailMajority of homeless population = single adult ex-

offenders

Philosophy of the systemEnd homelessness for individuals and families

as quickly as possible.Use resources efficiently – if someone can be

served quickly and effectively, this is better than keeping someone in a shelter or program for a long time.

People do better in all aspects of their lives if they have stable housing – provide housing first, and some of the other benefits will spring from that.

Connect people with mainstream resources, rather than creating new resources for people experiencing homelessness.

Timeline

• Collection of consistent PIT data begins• Introduction of summer PIT2007

• Frequent user HMIS data match with jail• Convened local FUSE group2011

Ex-Offenders in Richmond, VA

Homelessness and Unstable Housing Plans (5/09)Obtained list of 111 respondents; 50 were

surveyedAdministered the PIT survey used in

07/08, along with questions on housing barriers, job skills, and social support

Research question: Among jail inmates, what characteristics distinguish those who have been homeless from those who have not been homeless – and what characteristics predict housing instability at discharge?

Homelessness and Unstable Housing Plans (5/09)Main findings were that those with a

history of homelessness:Reported lower social support of friends, family,

and significant others;Were more likely to have a current substance

abuse problem; andWere less likely to have a checking account.

Individuals with stable housing plans were more likely to be from the City of Richmond. Those with unstable plans were more likely to have been evicted and received income from panhandling.

Homelessness and Unstable Housing PlansThe small sample size made it difficult to

find significant differences, but the fact that those with a history of homelessness reported lower social support on three subscales was intriguing.

Overlap Between Jail and Shelter Use: 5/09 – 4/10

In September 2010, one year’s worth of data on adults from the Homeward Community Information System (HCIS) and the Richmond City Jail (RCJ) was matched to examine the overlap between people who use area shelters and the RCJ.

7.4% (828/11,203) of RCJ inmates had been in an area shelter during the year.

31.5% (828/2627) of adults who had stayed in area shelters had been in jail during the year.

Highlights

Shelter Jail and shelter JailMore episodes

of homelessness Higher classification levels

Held longer prior to sentencing

No differences in gender or family status No differences in sentence length or

gender

Frequent Users of Jail and Shelter

In March 2011, we decided to match five year’s worth of data (2006-2010) on adults from the Homeward Community Information System (HCIS) and the Richmond City Jail (RCJ) and look at clients within the overlap who could be considered frequent users of both systems.

32.4% (2685/8289) of adults who had stayed in area shelters had been in jail during the five-year period.

7.4% (2685/36,377) of RCJ inmates had been in an area shelter during the five-year period.

Frequent Users of Jail and Shelter

Of the 2685 clients who had spent time in both jail and shelter, 1623 (60.4%) were frequent users (4+ stays) of jail or shelter.

40.8% (1095/2685) qualify as frequent users of shelter.

33.3% (893/2685) qualify as frequent users of jail.

Frequent User Highlights

Shelter Jail and shelter JailNo significant differences in gender, family status, disability status, and veteran status

MaleUnaccompanied by children in shelterDisabilityVeterans (marginally significant)

Mr. A’s Story Median total time in jail and shelter: 277 days (41 shelter, 236

jail) 36 year old, single adult Black male. Has been in shelter four times. Spent a few weeks in shelter in

early 2005 and then returned a few more times in 2005-2006. When he first sought shelter, he had been homeless and living

outdoors for at least a couple years. Beginning in May 2007 through August 2010, he went to jail six

times. Once, he was released in the same day, but a few times, he stayed at least a month. The past two times he was arrested, he’s only been in jail for a couple days.

Has been in and out of jail since 1992, with a break in 1994-2001 when he was in prison.

Usual charges: felony narcotics, felony forgery, larceny, and felonious assault.

Mr. B’s StoryMedian jail time: 146 days; 97 days in shelterMr. B. is a 47 year old, single White male who has

physical and alcohol-related disabilities.Has been incarcerated 13 times during this five year

period, mostly for just one or two days. The one exception is a stay of about three months.

During this same period, he has been in and out of shelter many times, with most stays being fairly short – a week or two. He has had eight shelter stays during this time.

History of incarceration in RCJ goes back to 1997, with multiple convictions for drunk in public, trespassing, and petty larceny.

Mr. C’s StoryMedian shelter time: 74 days; 1140 days in jailMr. C. is a 52 year old, single Black male. He has drug and alcohol-related disabilities and has

been incarcerated 12 times during this five year period. Although he has had some brief stays, he has also had several longer period of incarceration (e.g., 4-6 months).

He has been staying in area shelters for the past seven years, usually just for a night, though he did try to get treatment for his substance abuse problems in 2008. It appears that he left the program and was arrested just a few days later. Overall, he has had five stays in shelter.

Has had charges of trespassing, felony narcotics, drunk in public, disorderly conduct, and an old DUI, as well as a couple assaults on law enforcement.

Local ImpactEngagement of high level stakeholders and elected

officialsPartnership with law enforcement and RPD

Homeless Outreach and Partnership for Enforcement (HOPE) unit

Ongoing data matching with Richmond City JailData will help guide programs and funding related to

alternatives to incarcerationEstablishment of Richmond City’s mental health

docket (4/11)Homeward’s FUSE coordinating council (6/11)Funding and development of a FUSE project (2013-

2014)

History of Permanent Supportive HousingHUD’s Supportive Housing Program is

authorized by Title IV, Subtitle C, of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987:The Supportive Housing Program was designed to

develop supportive housing and supportive services that will allow homeless persons to live as independently as possible.

Assistance in the Supportive Housing Program is provided to help homeless persons meet three overall goals:

1. achieve residential stability,2. increase their skill levels and/or incomes, and3. obtain greater self-determination (i.e., more influence

over decisions that affect their lives).

History of Permanent Supportive HousingHomeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid

Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act, 2009The McKinney-Vento Homelessness Assistance Act

was amended with substantial changes, including a focus on Rapid Re-housingPreventionPermanent Supportive Housing

A Place to StartVirginia Supportive Housing’s A

Place to Start Program (APTS) began in 2009Modeled after the Pathways to

Housing Program in NY which pioneered the “Housing First” Model“Housing First”: “Provide housing first, and

then combine that housing with supportive treatment services in the areas of mental and physical health, substance abuse, education, and employment.”

Using this model, APTS provides ICT services and housing to eligible clients.

A Place to Start- Clinical Services Interdisciplinary Team:

PsychiatristRNLPNTeam LeaderPeer SpecialistSubstance Abuse ClinicianHousing SpecialistClinicians

Intensive Community Treatment:Services are available 24-

hours a day, 365 days a year

Services provided in community

Assistance with applying for benefits and entitlements, medical care, referrals, etc.

A Place to Start- Supportive Housing ServicesHousing Specialist and The Team work closely

with private landlords to identify appropriate scattered site housing

Partnerships are key to housing:Collaborative effort with clinical services and

landlordCase management and availability of The Team

are major “selling points”If clients receive income, they are responsible

for a portion of their rent and utilitiesStaff assist clients with independent living skills

to maintain permanent housing

A Place to Start- Identifying ClientsOutreach Consortium:

Comprised of partner-agencies that make up Richmond Area Collaborative to End Chronic Homelessness (RACECH)VSH, Daily Planet, RBHA, VA, Commonwealth Catholic

CharitiesThrough outreach and surveys, vulnerable clients are

identified and prioritized for housing

Funding sources for the program:Housing: Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8,

HUD-VASH), rent subsidies (local/state funded)Supportive services: Medicaid, government

grants, private philanthropy

Data collected between February 2009-March 2010 on fifty A Place to Start clients Analyzed data from area hospital systems and criminal records Demographic information and criminal history collected 20 months

prior to program entry Client “Event Data” (hospitalizations, incarcerations, employment,

and housing changes) captured as events occurred 20 months post-entry

Findings of the Community Impact ReportCost savings:

The decline in average incarceration duration and decrease in number of incarcerations saved an estimated $98,072 for area corrections facilities and the criminal justice system as a whole

Finding of the Community Impact ReportClient hospitalizations:

ER visits decreased by 61.5% (157 fewer visits) in the 20 months following entry

Inpatient, psychiatric hospitalizations decreased 62% following entry into program

Hospital admissions increased during first 10 months, but decreased 79.5% following an “adjustment period”

Community Impact Report: Daily Average Costs

Findings of the Community Impact ReportTotal Cost Savings to the Community:

The community saved $320,000 in incarceration, inpatient hospital, and ED visit costs

Annual cost to community in incarcerations and hospital visits:Prior to entry: $6,062Post-entry: $3,227Almost a 50% decreaseHeavy users of hospitals and jails saw decreases in annual

costs from $18,000 prior to entry to $528 post-entry.

During the entire data collection period, 98% of the 50 clients

maintained permanent housing!

2013 APTS Outcomes

Jerome, A Place to Start Client

“I didn’t have nobody and I had given up hope until this program came along. I feel safe now.”

A Proven, Permanent Solution to

Homelessness

Christina, A Place to Start ClientPictured on the left

“The people here guided me to what I need to do to live a good life. I wouldn’t have made it another year on the streets.”

A Proven, Permanent Solution to

Homelessness

Additional ResourcesThe National Alliance to End Homelessness –

naeh.orgThe National Coalition for the Homeless –

nationalhomeless.orgThe Virginia Coalition to End Homelessness –

vceh.orgUnited States Interagency Council on

Homelessness – ich.govHomeward – homewardva.orgVirginia Supportive Housing –

virginiasupportivehousing.org