Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATION - All Home King Countyallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Coordinated... · 2016-10-03 · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing

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SEPTEMBER 12, 2016DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION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DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION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


EVALUATIONTIME PERIOD


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


EARLY RESULTS OF NEW TRIAGE TOOL


VI-SPDAT TRIAGE TOOLS COMPLETED

�797 Families

�436 Young Adults


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


THE MAJORITY OF FAMILIES AND YOUNG ADULTS IDENTIFY AS AFRICAN AMERICAN OR BLACK


MOST FAMILIES AND YOUNG ADULTS ARE FROM SEATTLEOR SOUTH KING COUNTY

* Numbers do not total due to missing zip code data


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


DIFFERENCES IN VULNERABILITY


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)


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


SCORE DISTRIBUTION OF COMPLETED VI-SPDATS IS HIGHER: 3% LOW, 51% MEDIUM, AND 46% HIGH


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


PRIORITIZATION AND PERSON- CENTERED REFERRAL PROCESS


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


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)


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


PERSON-CENTERED VIEW OF PRIORITIZATION


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)


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


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


REFERRAL-CENTERED VIEW OF PRIORITIZATION


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


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


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


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


REFERRAL OUTCOMES


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


HIGH VULNERABILITY FAMILIES WERE LESS LIKELY TO BE ACCEPTED INTO A HOUSING PROGRAM THAN ANY OTHER GROUP


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


HOUSING OUTCOMESHOW MANY FAMILIES AND YOUNG ADULTS WERE PERMANENTLY HOUSED?


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


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


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


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


VULNERABLE FAMILIES ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE LARGE


VULNERABLE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO IDENTIFY AS LGBTQ


VULNERABLE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO IDENTIFY MULTIPLE RACIAL BACKGROUNDS AND LESS LIKELY TO IDENTIFY AS BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN


VULNERABLE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE LESS LIKELY TO REPORT A TRIBAL DESIGNATION


VULNERABLE FAMILIES WERE LESS LIKELY TO RELEASE PERSONAL INFORMATION. YOUNG ADULTS WERE MORE LIKELY THAN FAMILIES TO RELEASE INFORMATION REGARDLESS OF VULNERABILITY


PRELIMINARY FINDINGS SUGGEST AMERICAN INDIANS/ALASKAN NATIVES MAY BE MORE LIKELY TO BE SKIPPED IN THE REFERRAL PROCESS


LGBTQYOUNG ADULTS ARE NO MORE LIKELY TO BE SKIPPED THAN OTHER YOUNG ADULTS


PRELIMINARY FINDINGS SUGGEST AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKANNATIVES MAY BE LESS LIKELY TO RECEIVE A REFERRAL


LGBTQ YOUNG ADULTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO RECEIVE REFERRALS THAN OTHER YOUNG ADULTS


AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKAN NATIVE FAMILIES AND YOUNG ADULTS MAY BE LESS LIKELY TO BE ACCEPTED INTO A HOUSING PROGRAM


LGBTQYOUNG ADULTS ARE LESS LIKELY TO ENROLL IN A HOUSING PROGRAM


BOTH MEDIUM AND HIGH-VULNERABILITY FAMILIES ARE ABLE TO SELF-RESOLVE THEIR HOUSING ISSUES


31 FAMILIES WERE PLACED THROUGH CEA


43 FAMILY REFERRALS WERE DENIED BY AGENCIES


28 YOUNG ADULTS WERE PLACED THROUGH CEA


9 YOUNG ADULT REFERRALS WERE DENIED BY AGENCIES


TA18

Slide 57

TA18 As aboveThompkins, Amanda, 8/29/2016

YOUNG ADULTS REFUSED RESOURCES 22 TIMES


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


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


NO CLEAR RACIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YYAS AS A FUNCTION OF HOW THEY ARE HOUSED

Permanently HousedCaptured in HMIS

Permanently HousedThrough CEA


Captured in HMIS


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


Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATION - All Home King Countyallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Coordinated... · 2016-10-03 · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing

Documents