Top Banner
Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATION: YOUTH & FAMILY HOUSING CONNECTION IN TRANSITION TIMEFRAME: MARCH 15, 2016 – JUNE 30, 2016 STEPHANIE ROE AMANDA THOMPKINS SEPTEMBER 12, 2016 DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
140

Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

May 23, 2020

Download

Documents

dariahiddleston
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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SEPTEMBER 12, 2016DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 2: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 3: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 4: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

EVALUATIONTIME PERIOD

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 5: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 6: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

EARLY RESULTS OF NEW TRIAGE TOOL

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 7: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

VI-SPDAT TRIAGE TOOLS COMPLETED

�797 Families

�436 Young Adults

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 8: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 9: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 10: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 11: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 12: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

DIFFERENCES IN VULNERABILITY

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 13: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 14: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 15: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 16: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 17: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

PRIORITIZATION AND PERSON- CENTERED REFERRAL PROCESS

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 18: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 19: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 20: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 21: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

PERSON-CENTERED VIEW OF PRIORITIZATION

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 22: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 23: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 24: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 25: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

REFERRAL-CENTERED VIEW OF PRIORITIZATION

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 26: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 27: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 28: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 29: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 30: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

REFERRAL OUTCOMES

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 31: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 32: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 33: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 34: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

HOUSING OUTCOMESHOW MANY FAMILIES AND YOUNG ADULTS WERE PERMANENTLY HOUSED?

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 35: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 36: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 37: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 38: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 39: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 40: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 41: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 42: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

VULNERABLE FAMILIES ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE LARGE

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 43: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

VULNERABLE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO IDENTIFY AS LGBTQ

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 44: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 45: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

VULNERABLE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE LESS LIKELY TO REPORT A TRIBAL DESIGNATION

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 46: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 47: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 48: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 49: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 50: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 51: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 52: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

LGBTQYOUNG ADULTS ARE LESS LIKELY TO ENROLL IN A HOUSING PROGRAM

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 53: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 54: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

31 FAMILIES WERE PLACED THROUGH CEA

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 55: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

43 FAMILY REFERRALS WERE DENIED BY AGENCIES

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 56: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

28 YOUNG ADULTS WERE PLACED THROUGH CEA

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 57: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

9 YOUNG ADULT REFERRALS WERE DENIED BY AGENCIES

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

TA18

Page 58: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

Slide 57

TA18 As aboveThompkins, Amanda, 8/29/2016

Page 59: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

YOUNG ADULTS REFUSED RESOURCES 22 TIMES

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Page 60: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 61: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

Page 62: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

Q3 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATION Timeframe: July 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016

Stephanie Roe Amanda Thompkins

October 21st, 2016

Page 63: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

FRAMEWORK

COORDINATED ENTRY FOR ALL: QUARTERLY EVALUATION PROCESS

⊡ King County Evaluation conducts analysis ⊡ Findings are shared with: □ Funders including City of Seattle, King County DCHS, 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

⊡ Synthesize responses and share with Coordinated Entry Policy Sub-Committee

⊡ Coordinated Entry Policy Sub-Committee recommends changes to All Home Governing Bodies

Page 64: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

OPERATIONAL CHANGES

TIMEFRAME OF THIS EVALUATION: JULY 1st – September 30th 2016

⊡ King County assumes family and youth referral function – June 27th, 2016

⊡ Assessments for single adults begin ⊡ Regional Access Points launch ⊡ Implementation of new tie-breakers ⊡ Addition of community-based assessors ⊡ Standardized screening criteria finalized

Page 65: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

DEMOGRAPHICS

1

Page 66: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

YOUNG ADULTS AWAITING HOUSING 601 Total 305 Unsheltered 58 in shelter 238 Unstably housed .

FAMILIES AWAITING HOUSING 1172 Total 1,052 Unsheltered 75 in shelter .

Page 67: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

TOTAL ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED 1,294 Families 1,230 Single Adults 638 Young Adults .

NEW ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED IN QUARTER 3 493 Families 1,092 Single Adults 201 Young Adults .

Page 68: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

PROFILES OF NEWLY HOMELESS FAMILIES ARE SIMILAR YOUTH PROFILES CHANGED MODESTLY THIS QUARTER

ASSESSMENT PROFILES

More young adults identify as male – now slightly more than half

Over three-quarters of families have a female head of household

One-third of families have a child under 2

33 Average age of family heads of households

Average number of children per family

Fewer young adults reported a tribal designation (declined from ~ 1 in 3 to ~ 1 in 4)

Page 69: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

PROFILE OF SINGLE ADULTS

ASSESSMENT PROFILES

70%

1% transgender

31% are Veterans

average age

49 29%

53% are White

Page 70: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

SINGLE ADULTS ARE COMPLETING ASSESSMENTS AT MULTIPLE AGENCIES

ASSESSMENT PROFILES

Page 71: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

MOST FAMILIES ARE FROM SOUTH KING COUNTY

ASSESSMENT PROFILES

Page 72: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

MOST YOUNG ADULTS AND SINGLE ADULTS ARE FROM SEATTLE

ASSESSMENT PROFILES

Page 73: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

VI-SPDAT SCORES RANGED FROM 1 TO 18 FOR ALL POPULATIONS Possible scores range from 0-22 for families, and 0-17 for young adults and single adults

ASSESSMENT PROFILES

Page 74: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

FAMILY HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS ARE TYPICALLY YOUNGER THAN SINGLE ADULTS

ASSESSMENT PROFILES

Page 75: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

DURING Q3, THE MAJORITY OF CLIENTS ASSESSED IDENTIFIED AS WHITE - DUE TO THE INCREASE IN SINGLE ADULT ASSESSMENTS

ASSESSMENT PROFILES

Page 76: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

53% OF FAMILY HEADS OF HOUSHOLDS IDENTIFY AS BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN

40%YOUNG ADULTS IDENTIFY AS BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN

53% OF SINGLE ADULTS IDENTIFY AS WHITE

OVERALL

Page 77: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

MANY PEOPLE ARE HOMELESS FOR LONG PERIODS PRIOR TO RECEIVING A HOUSING ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT PROFILES

Page 78: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

DIFFERENCES IN VULNERABILITY FINDINGS FROM TRIAGE TOOL

2

Page 79: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

VULNERABILITY

VI-SPDAT VULNERABILITY MODEL

⊡VI-SPDAT assigns clients 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 single adults and young adults, 4 to 9 for families) □3 - High - Highest vulnerability (score 8+ for single adults and young adults, 9+ for families)

Page 80: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

252 families (51%) 106 young adults (53%) 531 single adults (43%)

scored at the highest level of vulnerability

.

Page 81: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

FAMILIES SCORES WERE SIMILAR TO LAST QUARTER 1% LOW, 48% MEDIUM, 51% HIGH

VULNERABILITY

Page 82: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

YOUNG ADULTS SCORES WERE SIMILAR TO LAST QUARTER 3% LOW, 44% MEDIUM, 53% HIGH

VULNERABILITY

Page 83: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

MORE SINGLE ADULTS SCORED AT LOWER LEVELS OF VULNERABILITY 11% LOW, 46% MEDIUM, 43% HIGH

VULNERABILITY

Page 84: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

DIFFERENCES IN VULNERABILITY WERE EXAMINED BY

VULNERABILITY

Race Ethnicity Consenting status Age Family size Pregnancy status Foster care experience Mental health measures Physical health measures Risky behaviors Preference for culturally tailored programs Length of time homeless

Page 85: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

NOTABLE FINDINGS FOR FAMILIES

VULNERABILITY

Vulnerable families are more likely to: To be large To have a pregnant family member

Families indicating preference for immigrant and/or refugee programs were similar in size to those who did not

Highly vulnerable families are less likely to consent to share their

information than any other group (nearly 20% do not consent).

All graphs are included in the Appendix

Page 86: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

NOTABLE FINDINGS FOR YOUNG ADULTS

VULNERABILITY

Vulnerable young people were more likely to identify as LGBTQ

Vulnerable young people were more likely to identify multiple racial backgrounds

All graphs are included in the Appendix

Page 87: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

NOTABLE FINDINGS FOR SINGLE ADULTS

VULNERABILITY

Veterans score at similar levels of vulnerability to the overall single adult population Single adults under 50 report higher levels of vulnerability

Highly vulnerable single adults are more likely to report that a mental health concern has created challenges in staying housed – 40% do.

All graphs are included in the Appendix

Page 88: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

VULNERABILITY

LENGTH OF TIME HOMELESS Understanding the relationship to vulnerability

Page 89: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN HOMELESS FOR LONGER ARE ALSO MORE VULERNABLE

VULNERABILITY

Page 90: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

FAMILIES HOMELESS FOR 2+ YEARS ARE MORE LIKELY TO IDENTIFY AS AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKA NATIVE OR NATIVE HAWAIIAN/PACIFIC

ISLANDER

VULNERABILITY

Page 91: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

VULNERABILITY

YOUNG PEOPLE UNSTABLY HOUSED FOR 2+ YEARS ARE MORE LIKELY TO IDENTIFY AS BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN OR NATIVE HAWAIIAN/PACIFIC

ISLANDER

Page 92: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

SINGLE ADULTS HOMELESS FOR 2+ YEARS DO NOT APPEAR TO BE RACIALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE OVERALL SINGLE ADULT POPULATION

VULNERABILITY

Page 93: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

PRIORITIZATION & REFERRALS PERSON-CENTERED PERSPECTIVE

3

Page 94: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

1, 172 families 601 young adults

awaiting housing between July 1st – September 30th

.

PRIORITIZATION

Page 95: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

Process: Clients prioritized based on VI-SPDAT score. Prioritized person is offered a choice of available housing Challenges to prioritization process: - Need to fill existing openings - mismatch of housing resources to clients within a ‘banded’ prioritization model - Program eligibility requirements, tailored program models, screening criteria - Client choice - Referral outcomes - denials

PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

PRIORITIZATION

Page 96: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

HOW OFTEN ARE PEOPLE SKIPPED FOR REFERRALS?

PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

PRIORITIZATION

Page 97: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

HIGHLY VULNERABLE FAMILIES ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE SKIPPED, PARTICULARLY TOWARD THE BOTTOM OF THE BAND

40% of families in Tier 2 are skipped at least once in Q3, compared to 65% in Q2 76% of families in Tier 3 are skipped at least once in Q3 – this remains unchanged since Q2

PRIORITIZATION

Page 98: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

PRIORITIZATION

THE MOST HIGHLY VULNERABLE YOUNG ADULTS ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE SKIPPED

72% of young adults in Tier 2 are skipped at least once in Q3, compared to 15% in Q2 77% of young adults in Tier 3 are skipped at least once in Q3, compared to 12% in Q2

Page 99: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

WHO RECEIVED A HOUSING REFERRAL?

PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

PRIORITIZATION

Page 100: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

113 families were

referred to housing

1172 were awaiting

housing

97 young adults were referred to housing

601 were awaiting

housing

Page 101: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

MOST FAMILY REFERRALS ARE FOR THOSE WITH MEDIUM VULNERABILITY

51% 49% YOUNG ADULTS

Medium High

71%

29%

FAMILIES

Medium High

PRIORITIZATION

Page 102: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

HIGHLY VULNERABLE FAMILIES WHO SCORED TOWARD THE BOTTOM OF THE HIGH BAND WERE UNLIKELY TO RECEIVE HOUSING REFERRALS

PRIORITIZATION

Page 103: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

WHAT HAPPENS TO PEOPLE AFTER THEY ARE REFERRED TO HOUSING?

REFERRAL OUTCOMES

PRIORITIZATION

Page 104: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

11 families were

accepted

39 families were denied

63 are still awaiting an

outcome

14 young adults were

accepted

19 young adults were

denied

64 are still awaiting an

outcome

PRIORITIZATION

Page 105: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

113 families received at least one referral

39 denied 63 pending 11 accepted

97 young adults received at least one

referral

19 denied 64 pending 14 accepted

REFERRAL OUTCOMES

Detailed information on denials is included in the Appendix

Page 106: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

FAMILIES AND YOUNG ADULTS WITH MODERATE VULNERABILITY ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE ACCEPTED INTO A HOUSING PROGRAM

REFERRAL OUTCOMES

Page 107: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

American Indian/Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander families may be more likely to be skipped in the referral process Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, or Asian young adults are more likely to be skipped than other young adults LGBTQ young adults are more likely to be skipped than other medium or highly vulnerable young adults

DISPROPORTIONALITY IN PRIORITIZATION

Page 108: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander families and young adults may be less likely to receive a referral to housing Families expressing interest in services for immigrants and refugees may be less likely to receive a referral to housing LGBTQ young adults are equally likely to be referred to housing

DISPROPORTIONALITY IN HOUSING REFERRALS

Page 109: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

American Indian/Alaska Native families may be less likely to be accepted into housing after being referred American Indian/Alaska Native young adults may be less likely to be accepted into housing after being referred LGBTQ young adults are equally likely to be accepted into a housing program after being referred

DISPROPORTIONALITY IN REFERRAL OUTCOMES

Page 110: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

HOUSING OUTCOMES PERSPECTIVE: HMIS

4

Page 111: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

AMONG FAMILIES AWAITING HOUSING PLACEMENT DURING Q3

28 families were permanently housed through our system 2 enrolled and moved into rapid re-housing 10 enrolled in a permanent housing program 16 moved from temporary to permanent housing

30 families self-resolved their housing crisis

129 families were temporarily housed through our system 28 enrolled in transitional housing 26 enrolled in rapid re-housing and have not yet moved in 75 enrolled in emergency housing

HOUSING OUTCOMES

Page 112: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

AMONG YOUNG ADULTS AWAITING HOUSING PLACEMENT IN Q3

20 young adults were permanently housed through our system 19 enrolled in a permanent housing program 1 moved from temporary to permanent housing

11 young adults self-resolved their housing crisis

94 were temporary housed through our system 25 enrolled in transitional housing 11 enrolled in rapid re-housing and have not yet moved in 58 enrolled in emergency housing

HOUSING OUTCOMES

Page 113: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

IN THE OVERALL HMIS SYSTEM HOUSING OUTCOMES

45 families were permanently housed 20 moved into Permanent Housing 9 moved into rapid re-housing 16 moved from temporary to permanent housing

250 families were temporarily housed 67 enrolled into rapid-rehousing 45 enrolled in transitional housing 138 enrolled in emergency housing

337 young adults were temporarily housed 18 enrolled into rapid-rehousing 26 enrolled in transitional housing 293 enrolled in emergency housing

48 young adults were permanently housed 20 moved into Permanent Housing 28 moved from temporary to permanent housing

Page 114: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

HOUSING OUTCOMES

Permanent HousingProgram

Transitional HousingRRH enrollment - not

moved inEmergency Shelter

Through CEA 12 28 26 75

Captured in HMIS 29 45 67 138

12 28 26 75

29 45 67 138

FAMILY HOUSING PLACEMENTS

Permanent Housing Program Transitional Housing RRH enrollment - not moved in

Through CEA 19 25 11

Captured in HMIS 20 26 18

19 25

11 20

26 18

YOUNG ADULT HOUSING PLACEMENTS

NEARLY HALF OF ALL HOUSING ENROLLMENTS WERE FOR CLIENTS WITH ASSESSMENTS IN COORDINATED ENTRY

Page 115: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

CONCLUSIONS TAKEAWAYS FROM Q3

5

Page 116: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

HIGHLY VULNERABLE POPULATION

RACIAL DISPARITIES PRIORITIZATION CHALLENGES

CONCLUSIONS

COMPLIANCE IS MIXED

RISING HOMELESSNESS LATE IDENTIFICATION

Over 50% of families and young adults, and nearly half of single adults score at the highest levels of vulnerability

The number of homeless families increased by nearly 50% this quarter. The number of homeless young adults increased by nearly 40%.

Families and young adults are homeless for long periods prior to being assessed for housing

American Indians, Alaska Native, Hawaiian Native, and Pacific Islander young adults and families may be disadvantaged in our current system.

Highly vulnerable families and young adults at low end of the high band are unlikely to be housed Referral process skips many families and young adults

More housing units are being filled by families and young adults from coordinated entry Denials and pending referrals remain issues

Page 117: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

APPENDIX ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT:

DEMOGRAPHICS OF FAMILIES, YOUNG ADULTS, & SINGLE ADULTS

DIFFERENCES IN VULNERABILITY RACIAL DISPROPORTIONALITY

DENIALS

6

Page 118: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

VISUALIZATIONS

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

PRIORITIZATION

Page 119: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE FAMILIES ARE SIMILAR IN SIZE TO NON-IMMIGRANT/REFUGEE FAMILIES

APPENDIX

Page 120: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

MEDIUM VULNERABILITY FAMILIES WERE MOST LIKELY TO HAVE A PREGNANT FAMILY MEMBER

APPENDIX

Page 121: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

VULNERABLE YOUNG ADULTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO IDENTIFY AS LGBTQ

APPENDIX

Page 122: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

APPENDIX

MOST YOUNG ADULTS ATTRIBUTE THEIR CURRENT LACK OF STABLE HOUSING TO FAMILY OR FRIENDS

Page 123: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

VISUALIZATIONS

VULNERABILITY

PRIORITIZATION

Page 124: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

APPENDIX

VETERANS HAVE SIMILAR LEVELS OF VULERNABILITY TO THE OVERALL SINGLE ADULT POPULATION

Page 125: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

SINGLE ADULTS UNDER 50 REPORT HIGHER LEVELS OF VULNERABILITY

Page 126: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

HIGHLY VULNERABLE SINGLE ADULTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE

Page 127: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

VULNERABLE FAMILIES ARE LESS LIKELY TO CONSENT TO SHARE THEIR INFORMATION THAN ANY OTHER GROUP

APPENDIX

Page 128: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

VISUALIZATIONS

DISPROPORTIONALITY

PRIORITIZATION

Page 129: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

AMONG MEDIUM VULNERABILITY FAMILIES, AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVES MAY BE MORE LIKELY TO BE SKIPPED IN THE REFERRAL PROCESS;

AMONG HIGH VULNERABILITY FAMILIES, NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER FAMILIES MAY BE MORE LIKELY TO BE SKIPPED

APPENDIX

Page 130: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

YOUNG ADULTS WHO IDENTIFY AS NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER OR ASIAN ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE SKIPPED

APPENDIX

Page 131: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

BOTH MEDIUM AND HIGH-VULNERABILITY LGBTQ YOUNG ADULTS ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE SKIPPED IN THE REFERRAL PROCESS

APPENDIX

Page 132: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER FAMILIES AND YOUNG ADULTS MAY BE LESS LIKELY TO BE REFERRED THAN OTHER GROUPS

APPENDIX

Page 133: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

FAMILIES INTERESTED IN PROGRAMS SERVING IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES AND LESS LIKELY TO RECEIVE A REFERRAL

APPENDIX

Page 134: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

YOUNG ADULTS IDENTIFYING AS LGBTQ ARE MORE LIKELY TO RECEIVE A REFERRAL THAN OTHER YOUNG ADULTS

APPENDIX

Page 135: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

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

APPENDIX

Page 136: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

REASONS AND PROGRAMS

DENIALS

PRIORITIZATION

Page 137: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

APPENDIX

FAMILY DENIALS BY PROGRAM NAME

NOTE: Denials are listed here for all program types, including shelter and prevention. Analysis elsewhere is limited to housing programs.

Page 138: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

APPENDIX

FAMILY REASON FOR DENIALS BY HOUSING TYPE

Page 139: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

APPENDIX

YOUNG ADULT DENIALS BY PROGRAM NAME

Page 140: Q2 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATIONallhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2017-Evaluation-Data.pdf · q2 coordinated entry evaluation: youth & family housing connection in transition

APPENDIX

YOUNG ADULT PROGRAM REFUSALS BY PROGRAM NAME