Q3 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATION Timeframe: July 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016 Stephanie Roe Amanda Thompkins October 21st, 2016
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
Q3 COORDINATED ENTRY EVALUATION Timeframe: July 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016
Stephanie Roe Amanda Thompkins
October 21st, 2016
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
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
DEMOGRAPHICS
1
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 .
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 .
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)
PROFILE OF SINGLE ADULTS
ASSESSMENT PROFILES
70%
1% transgender
31% are Veterans
average age
49 29%
53% are White
SINGLE ADULTS ARE COMPLETING ASSESSMENTS AT MULTIPLE AGENCIES
ASSESSMENT PROFILES
MOST FAMILIES ARE FROM SOUTH KING COUNTY
ASSESSMENT PROFILES
MOST YOUNG ADULTS AND SINGLE ADULTS ARE FROM SEATTLE
ASSESSMENT PROFILES
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
FAMILY HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS ARE TYPICALLY YOUNGER THAN SINGLE ADULTS
ASSESSMENT PROFILES
DURING Q3, THE MAJORITY OF CLIENTS ASSESSED IDENTIFIED AS WHITE - DUE TO THE INCREASE IN SINGLE ADULT ASSESSMENTS
ASSESSMENT PROFILES
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
MANY PEOPLE ARE HOMELESS FOR LONG PERIODS PRIOR TO RECEIVING A HOUSING ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT PROFILES
DIFFERENCES IN VULNERABILITY FINDINGS FROM TRIAGE TOOL
2
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)
252 families (51%) 106 young adults (53%) 531 single adults (43%)
scored at the highest level of vulnerability
.
FAMILIES SCORES WERE SIMILAR TO LAST QUARTER 1% LOW, 48% MEDIUM, 51% HIGH
VULNERABILITY
YOUNG ADULTS SCORES WERE SIMILAR TO LAST QUARTER 3% LOW, 44% MEDIUM, 53% HIGH
VULNERABILITY
MORE SINGLE ADULTS SCORED AT LOWER LEVELS OF VULNERABILITY 11% LOW, 46% MEDIUM, 43% HIGH
VULNERABILITY
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
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
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
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
VULNERABILITY
LENGTH OF TIME HOMELESS Understanding the relationship to vulnerability
THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN HOMELESS FOR LONGER ARE ALSO MORE VULERNABLE
VULNERABILITY
FAMILIES HOMELESS FOR 2+ YEARS ARE MORE LIKELY TO IDENTIFY AS AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKA NATIVE OR NATIVE HAWAIIAN/PACIFIC
ISLANDER
VULNERABILITY
VULNERABILITY
YOUNG PEOPLE UNSTABLY HOUSED FOR 2+ YEARS ARE MORE LIKELY TO IDENTIFY AS BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN OR NATIVE HAWAIIAN/PACIFIC
ISLANDER
SINGLE ADULTS HOMELESS FOR 2+ YEARS DO NOT APPEAR TO BE RACIALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE OVERALL SINGLE ADULT POPULATION
VULNERABILITY
PRIORITIZATION & REFERRALS PERSON-CENTERED PERSPECTIVE
3
1, 172 families 601 young adults
awaiting housing between July 1st – September 30th
.
PRIORITIZATION
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
HOW OFTEN ARE PEOPLE SKIPPED FOR REFERRALS?
PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
PRIORITIZATION
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
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
WHO RECEIVED A HOUSING REFERRAL?
PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
PRIORITIZATION
113 families were
referred to housing
1172 were awaiting
housing
97 young adults were referred to housing
601 were awaiting
housing
MOST FAMILY REFERRALS ARE FOR THOSE WITH MEDIUM VULNERABILITY
51% 49% YOUNG ADULTS
Medium High
71%
29%
FAMILIES
Medium High
PRIORITIZATION
HIGHLY VULNERABLE FAMILIES WHO SCORED TOWARD THE BOTTOM OF THE HIGH BAND WERE UNLIKELY TO RECEIVE HOUSING REFERRALS
PRIORITIZATION
WHAT HAPPENS TO PEOPLE AFTER THEY ARE REFERRED TO HOUSING?
REFERRAL OUTCOMES
PRIORITIZATION
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
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
FAMILIES AND YOUNG ADULTS WITH MODERATE VULNERABILITY ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE ACCEPTED INTO A HOUSING PROGRAM
REFERRAL OUTCOMES
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
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
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
HOUSING OUTCOMES PERSPECTIVE: HMIS
4
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
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
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
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
CONCLUSIONS TAKEAWAYS FROM Q3
5
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
APPENDIX ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT:
DEMOGRAPHICS OF FAMILIES, YOUNG ADULTS, & SINGLE ADULTS
DIFFERENCES IN VULNERABILITY RACIAL DISPROPORTIONALITY
DENIALS
6
VISUALIZATIONS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PRIORITIZATION
IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE FAMILIES ARE SIMILAR IN SIZE TO NON-IMMIGRANT/REFUGEE FAMILIES
APPENDIX
MEDIUM VULNERABILITY FAMILIES WERE MOST LIKELY TO HAVE A PREGNANT FAMILY MEMBER
APPENDIX
VULNERABLE YOUNG ADULTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO IDENTIFY AS LGBTQ
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
MOST YOUNG ADULTS ATTRIBUTE THEIR CURRENT LACK OF STABLE HOUSING TO FAMILY OR FRIENDS
VISUALIZATIONS
VULNERABILITY
PRIORITIZATION
APPENDIX
VETERANS HAVE SIMILAR LEVELS OF VULERNABILITY TO THE OVERALL SINGLE ADULT POPULATION
SINGLE ADULTS UNDER 50 REPORT HIGHER LEVELS OF VULNERABILITY
HIGHLY VULNERABLE SINGLE ADULTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE
VULNERABLE FAMILIES ARE LESS LIKELY TO CONSENT TO SHARE THEIR INFORMATION THAN ANY OTHER GROUP
APPENDIX
VISUALIZATIONS
DISPROPORTIONALITY
PRIORITIZATION
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
YOUNG ADULTS WHO IDENTIFY AS NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER OR ASIAN ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE SKIPPED
APPENDIX
BOTH MEDIUM AND HIGH-VULNERABILITY LGBTQ YOUNG ADULTS ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE SKIPPED IN THE REFERRAL PROCESS
APPENDIX
NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER FAMILIES AND YOUNG ADULTS MAY BE LESS LIKELY TO BE REFERRED THAN OTHER GROUPS
APPENDIX
FAMILIES INTERESTED IN PROGRAMS SERVING IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES AND LESS LIKELY TO RECEIVE A REFERRAL
APPENDIX
YOUNG ADULTS IDENTIFYING AS LGBTQ ARE MORE LIKELY TO RECEIVE A REFERRAL THAN OTHER YOUNG ADULTS
APPENDIX
AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKAN NATIVE FAMILIES AND YOUNG ADULTS MAY BE LESS LIKELY TO BE ACCEPTED INTO A HOUSING PROGRAM AFTER REFERRAL
APPENDIX
REASONS AND PROGRAMS
DENIALS
PRIORITIZATION
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.
APPENDIX
FAMILY REASON FOR DENIALS BY HOUSING TYPE
APPENDIX
YOUNG ADULT DENIALS BY PROGRAM NAME
APPENDIX
YOUNG ADULT PROGRAM REFUSALS BY PROGRAM NAME
Related Documents
