Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATION - All Home King Countyallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/...q2...
Transcript of Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATION - All Home King Countyallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/...q2...
Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATION:YOUTH & FAMILY HOUSING CONNECTION
IN TRANSITION TIMEFRAME: MARCH 15, 2016 – JUNE 30, 2016
STEPHANIE ROE
AMANDA THOMPKINS
SEPTEMBER 12, 2016DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
COORDINATED ENTRY QUARTERLY EVALUATION
� Purpose: Daylight successes and areas of concern for overall system functioning
� Framework developed with All Home Data and Evaluation Sub-Committee
� Framework:
� Inflow
� Prioritization and referral process
� Housing outcomes
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
COORDINATED ENTRY FOR ALLQUARTERLY EVALUATION PROCESS
� King County Evaluation conducts analysis
� Findings are shared with:
� Funders including the City of Seattle, King County, All Home, and United Way of King County
� All Home Data and Evaluation Sub-Committee
� All Home Stakeholder Forum
� All groups participate in meaning-making about findings and raise potential policy implications
� King County Evaluation synthesizes responses and shares with Coordinated Entry Coordinating Team
� Coordinating Team develops recommendations to the All Home Executive Committee
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
EVALUATIONTIME PERIOD
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
Q2 OPERATIONAL CHANGES
� Timeframe: Launch of new HMIS (mid-March) to June 30th, 2016
� Changes include:
� Transition to VI-SPDAT (March)
� Implementation of new prioritization practices (April)
� Integration of coordinated entry into Bitfocus HMIS (April – ongoing)
� Standardization of screening criteria (April)
� Transition of coordinated entry operations to King County (June 27th)
� Family Housing Connection previously with Catholic Community Services
� Youth Housing Connection previously with All Home
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
EARLY RESULTS OF NEW TRIAGE TOOL
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
VI-SPDAT TRIAGE TOOLS COMPLETED
�797 Families
�436 Young Adults
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
FAMILY AND YOUNG ADULT PROFILES ARE SIMILAR TO PRIOR ASSESSMENTS
� Nearly three-quarters of families have a female head of household
� Family heads of households are 33 years old, on average
� Families have 2 children, on average
� One-third of families have a child under 2
� Slightly more than half of youth and young adults identify as female
� Nearly one-third of young adults have a tribal designation
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
THE MAJORITY OF FAMILIES AND YOUNG ADULTS IDENTIFY AS AFRICAN AMERICAN OR BLACK
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
MOST FAMILIES AND YOUNG ADULTS ARE FROM SEATTLEOR SOUTH KING COUNTY
* Numbers do not total due to missing zip code data
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
VI-SPDAT SCORES RANGED FROM 2 TO 21 FOR FAMILIES AND 2 TO 17 FOR YOUNG ADULTSPOSSIBLE SCORES RANGE FROM 0-22 F0R FAMILIES AND 0-17 FOR YOUNG ADULTS
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
DIFFERENCES IN VULNERABILITY
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
VI-SPDAT VULNERABILITY MODEL
� VI-SPDAT assigns families and young adults a level of vulnerability based on their total score
� 1 - Low- Lowest vulnerability (score 0 to 3)
� 2 - Medium - Moderate vulnerability (score 4 to 8 for young adults, 4 to 9 for families)
� 3 - High - Highest vulnerability (score 8+ for young adults, 9+ for families)
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
PROJECTED VI-SPDAT SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR FAMILIES AND YOUNG ADULTS(BASED ON LOCAL VI-SPDATS FOR VETERANS)
25%
50%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1 - Low 2 - Medium 3 - High
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
SCORE DISTRIBUTION OF COMPLETED VI-SPDATS IS HIGHER: 3% LOW, 51% MEDIUM, AND 46% HIGH
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
DIFFERENCES IN VULNERABILITY
� Examined differences in vulnerability by:
� Race
� Ethnicity,
� Consenting status,
� Family size,
� Foster care experience, and
� A variety of mental health measures
� While most findings were not significant, several differences of note emerged: (graphs in appendix)
� Vulnerable families are more likely to be large
� Vulnerable families were less likely to consent to share their information
� Vulnerable young people are more likely to be LGBTQ
� Vulnerable young people are more likely to identify as being of multiple racial backgrounds and less likely to identify as Blackor African American
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
PRIORITIZATION AND PERSON- CENTERED REFERRAL PROCESS
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
PRIORITIZATION AND PERSON-CENTERED REFERRAL
� Families and young adults are prioritized based on VI-SPDAT score
� Additional tie-breakers are used to distinguish between those with the same score
� Prioritized person is offered choice of available housing
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
BANDING APPROACH TO REFERRALS
1 - Low
Resources:• Diversion and similar flexible resources
2 - Medium
Resources:• Transitional Housing with limited staffing and no on site case management or behavior health supports. May include scattered site programs.
• Permanent Housing• Case management• Rapid Re-Housing
3 - High
Resources:• Permanent Supportive Housing• Other Permanent Housing with case management and access to behavioral health support
• Transitional Housing with case management and access to behavioral health support (for youth this includes programs with 24/7 staffing)
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTING PRIORITIZATION EFFECTIVELY
� Prioritized persons may not receive a referral
� No available opportunities for that person
� Eligibility requirements, screening criteria, tailored program models
� Client choice
� Need to fill available opportunities
� Mismatch of available housing opportunities to people within a ‘banded’ prioritization model
� Referrals are not successful
� Program denials
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
PERSON-CENTERED VIEW OF PRIORITIZATION
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
65%
35%
Skipped Not skipped
76%
24%
3 - HIGH2 - MEDIUM
70% OF FAMILIES ARE SKIPPED* AT LEAST ONCE THE LOWER END OF THE HIGH BAND IS MOST LIKELY TO BE SKIPPED.
*Skips can be due to screening criteria, eligibility requirements, tailored programming, or unit-specific requirements (such as ADA units)
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
15%
88%
Skipped Not skipped
2 – Medium
14% OF YOUNG ADULTS WERE SKIPPED* AT LEAST ONCE
12%
85%
3 - High
*Skips can be due to screening criteria, eligibility requirements, tailored programming, unit-specific options (such as ADA) units
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
DISPROPORTIONALITY IN PRIORITIZATION
� Preliminary findings suggest American Indians/Alaskan Natives may be more likely to be skipped in the referral process
� LGBTQ young adults are no more likely to be skipped than other young adults
� Graphs may be found in the appendix
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
REFERRAL-CENTERED VIEW OF PRIORITIZATION
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
162 143
781
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Number of Openings Number of Referrals Number of Families
781 FAMILIES RECEIVED 143 REFERRALS FOR
162 OPENINGS
436 YOUTH RECEIVED 216 REFERRALS FOR
143 OPENINGS
143
216
436
Number of Openings Number of Referrals Number of Young Adults
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
MOST REFERRALS ARE FOR THOSE WITH MODERATE VULNERABILITY
73% of family referrals were for families with moderate levels of vulnerability
53% of young adult referrals were for young adults with moderate levels of vulnerability
73%
27%
2- Medium
3 - High 53%47%
2 -Medium
3 - High
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
FAMILIES AND YOUTH SCORING AT THE TOP OF THE MEDIUM BAND ARE MORE LIKELY TO RECEIVE A REFERRAL THAN THOSE SCORING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HIGH BAND
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
DISPROPORTIONALITY IN REFERRALS
� Preliminary findings suggest American Indians/Alaskan Natives may be less likely to be referred than other groups
� LGBTQ young adults are more likely to be referred than other young adults
� Graphs may be found in the appendix
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
REFERRAL OUTCOMES
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
20% (31 of 143) of family referrals resulted in an
enrollment. 30% were denied. A majority are pending
31
67
43
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Accepted Pending Denied
13% (28 of 216) youth referrals resulted in an
enrollment. 4% were denied. A majority are pending.
28
9
22
157
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Accepted Denied Refused Pending
*A list of refusals and denials by agency is included in the Appendix
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
HIGH VULNERABILITY FAMILIES WERE LESS LIKELY TO BE ACCEPTED INTO A HOUSING PROGRAM THAN ANY OTHER GROUP
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
DISPROPORTIONALITY IN REFERRAL OUTCOMES
� Although total number are small, preliminary findings suggest American Indians/Alaskan Natives may be less likely to be accepted into a housing program than other groups
� LGBTQ young adults are no less likely to be accepted into a housing program than other young adults
� Graphs may be found in the appendix; we will continue to track as more data comes in
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
HOUSING OUTCOMESHOW MANY FAMILIES AND YOUNG ADULTS WERE PERMANENTLY HOUSED?
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
AMONG FAMILIES WHO COMPLETED A HOUSING TRIAGE TOOL
10 were permanently housed through our system� 2 enrolled in RRH and moved in to housing
� 4 enrolled in a permanent housing program
� 4 moved from temporary housing to permanent housing
63 self-resolved their housing crisis
22 moved to temporary housing through our system� 6 moved to transitional housing
� 13 enrolled in rapid rehousing but are not yet housed
� 3 moved to emergency shelter
1% 8%0%3%
88%
FAMILIES HOUSED
Permanent Housing
Self Resolved
Moved from temporary to permanenthousingTemporary Housing
Not HousedDRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
AMONG YOUNG ADULTS WHO COMPLETED A HOUSING TRIAGE TOOL
15 were permanently housed through our system
� 14 enrolled in a permanent housing program
� 1 moved from temporary to permanent housing
90 moved to temporary housing through our system
� 27 moved to transitional housing
� 60 moved to emergency shelter
� 3 enrolled in rapid rehousing but are not yet housed
3%0%
76%
21%
YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS
HOUSED
Permanent Housing
Moved from temporary to permanenthousing
Not housed
Temporary HousingDRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
IN THE OVERALL HMIS SYSTEM
166 unique families moved intopermanent housing and did not return to our system
70 unique families moved into transitional housing
40 unique YYAs moved intopermanent housing and did not return to our system
52 unique YYAs moved into transitional housing
*Restricted to YYAs who enrolled in or exiting from a YYA program
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
MOST FAMILY AND YOUTH HOUSING PLACEMENTS OCCURRED OUTSIDE OF COORDINATED ENTRY
Permanent Housing Program Transitional Housing RRH enrollment - not moved in Emergency Shelter
Through CEA 6 6 13 3
Captured in HMIS 33 70 79 238
6 6 13333
70 79
238FAMILY HOUSING PLACEMENTS
Permanent Housing Program Transitional Housing RRH enrollment - not moved in
Through CEA 14 27 3
Captured in HMIS 21 52 11
14 27 321
52
11
YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULT HOUSING PLACEMENTS
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
CONCLUSIONS
� There are more highly vulnerable young adults and families than initially projected
� Prioritization was not implemented effectively for families during the transition period
� Referral process skips many families
� Reductions in screening criteria were not fully implemented and may partially address skips in the referral process
� Mismatch between family need and banded availability of housing opportunities is more acute for families
� Highly vulnerable families scoring toward the bottom of tier 3 are unlikely to be housed through our current system
� The referral process requires many referrals for each successful enrollment
� A majority of referrals from Q2 were still pending at the end of the quarter
� Pending referrals reduce efficiency and increase the likelihood of families and young adults falling through the cracks
� There are some early indications that American Indians and Alaskan Native may be disproportionately disadvantaged in the current process
� Most housing opportunities for families and young adults were filled outside coordinated entryDRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
FUTURE WORK
� Inflow by month
� Client-centered timeframes from assessment to housing
� Disaggregated by VI-SPDAT score, racial background, and consent to share information
� First look at single adult VI-SPDATs
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
APPENDIX - CHARTS
� Family – Number of children by vulnerability
� YYA – LGBTQ status by vulnerability
� YYA – Racial identity by vulnerability
� YYA –Tribal designation by vulnerability
� Family & YYA – Consenting status by vulnerability
� Family & YYA – Skips by racial identity
� YYA – Skips by LGBTQ status
� Family & YYA – Referrals by racial identity
� YYA – Referrals by LGBTQ status
� Family – Housing Placements by agency
� Family – Housing Denials by agency
� YYA – Housing Placements by agency
� YYA – Housing Denials by agency
� YYA – Housing Refusals by agency
� Family – Racial differences between those housed through CEA and directly referred
� YYA – Racial differences between those housed through CEA and directly referred
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
VULNERABLE FAMILIES ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE LARGE
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
VULNERABLE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO IDENTIFY AS LGBTQ
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
VULNERABLE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO IDENTIFY MULTIPLE RACIAL BACKGROUNDS AND LESS LIKELY TO IDENTIFY AS BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
VULNERABLE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE LESS LIKELY TO REPORT A TRIBAL DESIGNATION
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
VULNERABLE FAMILIES WERE LESS LIKELY TO RELEASE PERSONAL INFORMATION. YOUNG ADULTS WERE MORE LIKELY THAN FAMILIES TO RELEASE INFORMATION REGARDLESS OF VULNERABILITY
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS SUGGEST AMERICAN INDIANS/ALASKAN NATIVES MAY BE MORE LIKELY TO BE SKIPPED IN THE REFERRAL PROCESS
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
LGBTQYOUNG ADULTS ARE NO MORE LIKELY TO BE SKIPPED THAN OTHER YOUNG ADULTS
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS SUGGEST AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKANNATIVES MAY BE LESS LIKELY TO RECEIVE A REFERRAL
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
LGBTQ YOUNG ADULTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO RECEIVE REFERRALS THAN OTHER YOUNG ADULTS
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKAN NATIVE FAMILIES AND YOUNG ADULTS MAY BE LESS LIKELY TO BE ACCEPTED INTO A HOUSING PROGRAM
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
LGBTQYOUNG ADULTS ARE LESS LIKELY TO ENROLL IN A HOUSING PROGRAM
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
BOTH MEDIUM AND HIGH-VULNERABILITY FAMILIES ARE ABLE TO SELF-RESOLVE THEIR HOUSING ISSUES
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
31 FAMILIES WERE PLACED THROUGH CEA
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
43 FAMILY REFERRALS WERE DENIED BY AGENCIES
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
28 YOUNG ADULTS WERE PLACED THROUGH CEA
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
9 YOUNG ADULT REFERRALS WERE DENIED BY AGENCIES
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
TA18
Slide 57
TA18 As aboveThompkins, Amanda, 8/29/2016
YOUNG ADULTS REFUSED RESOURCES 22 TIMES
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
THERE ARE NO CLEAR RACIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FAMILIES AS A FUNCTION OF HOW THEY ARE HOUSED
Permanently HousedCaptured in HMIS
Permanently HousedThrough CEA
Enrolled in TransitionalHousing
Captured in HMIS
Enrolled in TransitionalHousing
Through CEA
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0 2 1
Multi-Racial 0 1 4 0
AIAN 0 0 1 0
White 12 2 13 1
Black or African American 19 2 24 2
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Families enrolled in Permanent and Transitional Housing
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
NO CLEAR RACIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YYAS AS A FUNCTION OF HOW THEY ARE HOUSED
Permanently HousedCaptured in HMIS
Permanently HousedThrough CEA
Enrolled in TransitionalHousing
Captured in HMIS
Enrolled in TransitionalHousing
Through CEA
Multi-Racial 6 4 5 4
AIAN 0 0 5 1
White 8 5 17 8
Black or African American 7 5 20 13
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Families enrolled in Permanent and Transitional Housing
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION