2017 mdha soha - dallas...purpose of soha • to collectively review data, information and derive...

State of the Homeless Address 2017

SOHA

‹#›

Thank you to the MDHA staff

They demonstrate daily to me and the community that they are committed to…

The development of an effective homeless response system that will make the experience of homelessness in Dallas and Collin Counties homelessness rare, brief and non-recurring.

‹#›

Purpose of SOHA

• To collectively review data, information and derive knowledge about the nature and extent of homelessness

• To inform our decisions on how to move forward and build an effective homeless response system

• To be honest with one another about the challenges, barriers and obstacles our homeless residents face and as providers own up to what role we play in removing or creating them

• To welcome ideas and insights from all persons on how to make homelessness rare, brief and non recurring in our community

‹#›

2017 POINT IN TIME COUNT

SOHA

‹#›

Homeless Count Effort in 2017

• Dramatic improvement in coverage area 197 of 198 City of Dallas Routes

• Expanded to Desoto, Grand Prairie, Mesquite

• Over 1,300 volunteers in both counties

• Excellent participation by law enforcement

• Improvement of coverage area improves the quality of the count

‹#›

All Homeless – 2017 PIT

UnshelteredEmergency Sheltered

SafeHavenTransitional

HousingTotal

Change Year to Year

2017 1,087 1,861 19 822 3,789 .5% -

+47% -5.4% -17% -24%2016 739 1,968 23 1,080 3,810 21%+

2015 363 1,748 23 1,007 3,141

There were significant changes in TH housing due to conversion to RRH.

Measuring UN + ES + SH year to year: 2016 2,730; 2017 2,967 8.6%+

‹#›

Unsheltered Homeless by City/CountyCity Number Portion 2016 PIT Change

Dallas 883 81% 586 51% +

Garland 52 4.7% 70 25% -

Irving 33 3% 27 22% -

Grand Prairie 9 .8% -

DeSoto 2 .09% -

Mesquite 0 - -

Total Dallas County 979 90% 680 44% +

Plano 67 6.1% 35 91% +

Frisco 3 .27% 1 200% +

McKinney 26 2.3% 15 73% +

Wylie 11 1.0% 5 120% +

Anna 1 .09% -

Total Collin County 108 10% 56 100% +

Total Unsheltered: 1,087 739

‹#›

2016‹#›

2017‹#›

2016 2017

‹#›

Measuring Geographic Distributions

• Measuring the distribution of a set of features allows you to calculate a value that represents a characteristic of the distribution, such as the center, compactness, or orientation. You can use this value to track changes in the distribution over time or compare distributions of different features.

• The Measuring Geographic Distribution toolset addresses questions such as:– Where’s the center?

– What’s the shape and orientation of the data?

– How dispersed are the features?

• Tools used in the analysis of PIT count locations are:– Directional Distribution

– Mean Center

– Standard Distance

‹#›

Directional Distribution

• Creates standard deviational ellipses to summarize the spatial characteristics of geographic features: central tendency, dispersion, and directional trend.

‹#›

2016‹#›

2017‹#›

2016 2017

‹#›

Mean Center

• Identifies the geographic center (or the center of concentration) for a set of features.

‹#›

2016‹#›

2017‹#›

2016 2017

‹#›

Standard Distance

• Measures the degree to which features are concentrated or dispersed around the geometric mean center.

‹#›

2016‹#›

2017‹#›

2016 2017

‹#›

Unsheltered Survey Data Source

‹#›

Gender of Unsheltered

2017: of 901 Men: 691 76% Women 208 23% Transgendered 2 < 1%

2016: of 562 Men: 440 78% Women: 119 21% Transgendered: 3 < 1%

76%

23%

‹#›

Age of Unsheltered

53

‹#›

Race of Unsheltered

‹#›

Length of time homeless – Unsheltered “LOS”

Total Responses: 441

Homeless less than 30 days: 4%

Homeless over one year: 2016 - 47%; 2017 - 70%

First Time Homeless: 147 – 2016 ; 208 - 2017

UN Length of Homelessness N Average LOS

ALL 441 3 yrs 8 months

1 year or more 307 5 yrs 2 months

1 month to 1 year 115 4.5 months

1 week to 1 month 10 2 wks 1 day

1 day to 1 month 8 3 days

‹#›

Total Homeless Veterans

UN ES SH TH Total

Individuals 61 111 0 184 356

Households with Children

0 2 vets/3 in HHLDs

0 4 vets/14 in HHLD

6/17

TOTAL 362

Chronically Homeless Veterans

21 39 0 0 60

2016 307 18% +

• 9.5% of all homeless

‹#›

Chronic Homeless

Definition:

Homeless at least 1 year or homeless four or more times in the last 3 years where the cumulative time homeless is at least 1 year AND possess a documented disabling condition.

Goal:

End chronic homelessness to December 2017.

‹#›

Chronically Homeless

2017 UN ES SafeHaven Total

Chronically Homeless Individuals

106 391 14 511

Chronically Homeless Families

0 31 persons11 households

0 31

TOTAL 542

2016 5979% -

‹#›

Households with Children2017 UN ES SH TH* Total

Total Households 5 145 0 117 267 HH

Total Adults 7 164 0 113 284

Total Children 8 302 0 207 517

Unaccompanied Youth/Parent Youth

0 38 0 14 52

Total Homeless Children 569 15% of all homeless

Total Persons in Households with Children 853

2016 1,511 total persons in Households with Children 851 children 22% of all homeless in 2016

*Significant reductions reflects moving from TH to Rapid Rehousing models‹#›

SYSTEM CHANGES

SOHA

‹#›

Documentation of Priority Status – DOPS and Coordinated Assessment System

• CoC Housing Prioritization Policy set July 2015

• DOPS Coordinator position added at MDHA March 2016

• Centralizing ONE system-wide Housing Priority List

‹#›

How we use these tools

1. Street Outreach and Emergency shelters enter clients in HMIS, record common assessments, builds and uploads homeless history, and disability documentation.

2. MDHA CAS staff reviews and affirms a priority level recorded in HMIS and places client on Housing Priority List

3. Housing entities pull people from the list and house them

4. MDHA weekly manages the HPL removing those housed, updating records, deactivating clients that leave the system

‹#›

‹#›

How well is it working?

• 596 persons have completed the Documentation of Priority Status (DOPS) process since March 2016.

• 333 have been permanently housed (56%)

– 236 were P1-P4 Chronic Homeless

– 25 were P5-P8 Non-Chronic with disabilities

– 56 were P9-P12 Non Chronic, may have disability, shorter terms of homelessness, primarily families

– 16 were Non Priority “NP” high risk of homelessness facing eviction

• What does the Housing Priority List look like ?

‹#›

HPL Sample.pdf

‹#›

Future DOPS and Prioritization

• Develop Super Utilizer (FUSE) prioritization standards for persons in jail, emergency departments

• Add as additional Prioritization to target specific housing to specific clients

• Integration into HMIS – NEW IRIS System utilized BOTH by community based organizations and community institutions to improve coordination of care

What would Super Utilizer Prioritization look like?

‹#›

FUSE MATRIX CONCEPTFrequent Users System Enhancement Matrix

Priority

Level

Jail Mental Health

Emergency

Hospital

Emergency

Department

APOWW

And EMS

1## Bookings

per quarter

## Admissions

per quarter

## Admissions

per quarter

## Transports

per quarter

2## Bookings

per year

## Admission

per year

## Admissions

per quarter

## Transports

per year

3# Bookings per

year

# Admission

per year

# Admissions

per quarter

# Transports per

Year

‹#›

Gender Household Type Inactive Income

CoC Priority Status

JAIL FUSE ED FUSE APOWW/EMS

Ethnicity Race

Male Individual $ 711 P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American

Female Individual $ - P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino White

Female Individual Yes $ 733 P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American

Male Individual No $ - P1 1 Hispanic or Latino White

Male Individual Yes $ 733 P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino White

Male Individual No $ 973 P1 2 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American

Female Individual No $ 659 P1 3 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American

Male Individual No $ 708 P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American

Male Individual No $ 768 P1 1 1 1 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American

Male Individual No $ - P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino White

Male Individual No $ - P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American





Female Individual No $ 1,625 P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American

Male Individual No $ 733 P1 2 1 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American

Female Individual No $ - P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American



Male Individual No $ - P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino White

Female Individual No $ 40 P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American

Female Individual No $ 733 P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American

Male Individual No $ - P1 1 1 2 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American


Female Individual No $ - P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American

Male Individual No $ 928 P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino White

Male Individual $ 733 P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American

Male Individual $ - P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino White

Female Individual $ 684 P1 Non-Hispanic or Latino Black or African American

‹#›

Coordinated Assessment System – The Housing

• MDHA hired a CoC Housing Resources Director

• Manage and monitor the supply of housing –“NO EMPTY BED” policy

• Find more housing

• Solve the limitation of Leasing CoC dollars

• Develop and implement Landlord Engagement Strategies

‹#›

Marketing and Informational Package Materials

✓ Landlord Revenue Stream✓ “Ready to Rent” Tenant Training Info✓ Trouble shooting Contact Info✓ Flex Fund Assistance✓Pre-Application Advance Tenant Screening✓Household Income Planning

‹#›

MORE SYSTEM CHANGE

SOHA

‹#›

Homeless Response System Community Dashboard

• Quarterly reporting of 10 key measures related to the demand for housing and the supply and utilization of housing.

• First report came out February 15 establish benchmark

• Built off of HPL, DOPS, and HMIS data

• Next report April 15

• All posted on MDHA website quick look

‹#›

../../Community Dashboard/HRS Community Dashboard - FINAL CJC Rev 2152017.pdf

New Homeless Management Information SystemImplementation Schedule

Projected System Wide GO LIVE May 1‹#›

BEST PRACTICE

SOHA

‹#›

What is Housing First?

It is NOT a program

It is NOT an apartment

It is NOT an agency

It is an approach to making housing accessible

and HOW you keep them housed

‹#›

How do housing programs implement a Housing First approach?

The programmatic test of a Housing First approach asks the question: Do we screen clients based on…

• Having too little or limited income?

• Active or history of substance use?

• Having a criminal record with exceptions for state-mandated restrictions?

• A history of domestic violence (e.g. lack of a protective order, period of separation from abuser, or law enforcement involvement)?

‹#›

How do housing programs implement a Housing First approach?

It also asks how programs assist clients retain housing.

Do we ensure that our clients are not terminated for the program because of…

• Failure to participate in supportive services?

• Failure to make progress on a service plan?

• Loss of income or failure to improve income?

• Being a victim of domestic violence?

• Any other activity not covered in a lease agreement?

‹#›

Housing First Approach in Dallas –Who practices this model?

• CitySquare

• Metrocare Services

• ABC Behavioral Health

• City of Dallas

• Housing Crisis Center

• Family Gateway

• AIDS Services of Dallas

‹#›

Housing First Clients in DallasData Analysis: Housing First programs in Dallas

March 1, 2016 – February 28, 2017

How many formerly homeless served in the last year?

Total Served 1,840

Adults 1,416

Children 424

‹#›

Housing First Clients in Dallas

Where did clients come from?

Unsheltered 8%

Emergency Shelter 79%

Transitional Housing/Safehaven 7%

Other 6%

‹#›


Did they have any disabling conditions?

Mental Health 1,047 57%

Alcohol Abuse 414 23%

Drug Abuse 524 28%

Chronic Health Condition 373 20%

HIV/AIDS 118 6%

Developmental Disability 60 3%

Physical Disability 222 12%

2 Conditions 332 18%

3 or more Conditions 542 30%‹#›


Did they Retain their housing?

445 24% Left Program in the year

346 78%Of the 445 leavers number that exited to a Permanent Housing Destination.

12

Dallas has a 95% success rate in housing programs that utilize a housing first

approach in the last year.

The Dallas experience continues to confirm the well-documented evidence based practice of housing first as the most effective response to homelessness with persons presenting with disabling conditions including mental health, addictions, and other disabilities.

‹#›

Moving from Transitional to Rapid Rehousing

• Over the course of 2016, 260 beds of Transitional Housing were eliminated from the CoC inventory.

• In there place, 327 beds of Rapid Rehousing have been added from CoC, ESG and HCC sources.

• RRH beds are classified as permanent housing, clients are not counted as homeless.

‹#›

Transitional Housing and Rapid Rehousing

Rapid Rehousing Occupancy:

Number of Persons in RRH rapid rehousing: 602

Positive exits from rapid housing to a permanent housing destination: 182 of 241 = 76%

Negative exits from rapid housing to unknown destination or return to homelessness: 59 of 241 = 24%

- Don’t Know/Refused of Missing Information within negative exits: 12 of 241 = 5%

Average length of stay of persons leaving RRH: 168 days

Transitional and Safe Haven Housing Occupancy (HMIS only, no domestic violence)

Average occupancy rate of transitional and safe haven housing: 232 persons/284 beds = 82%

Positive exits from transitional and safe haven housing to a permanent housing destination:72 of 100 = 72%

Negative exits from TH housing to unknown destination or return to homelessness: 28 of 100 = 28%

- Don’t Know/Refused or Missing Information within negative exits: 7 of 100 = 7%

Average length of stay of persons leaving transitional and safe haven housing: 216 days

‹#›

PERFORMANCE

SOHA

‹#›

Continuum of Care System ImprovementsData Analysis: ALL Housing programs performance

Oct 1 2014-Sept 30 2015 vs. October 1 2015 – Sept 30 2016

Are we better off now than 24 months ago?

14-15 15-16 Change

Total Persons Served 4,550 5,668 25% +

Exited to Permanent Housing 882/1181 (74%)

1530 /2094(73%)

73% +

Total Veterans Served 471 667 42% +

Persons Served with Disabling Conditions

2045 2335 14% +

Housed Unsheltered Persons 213 377 76% +

Exited with no Income Sources Adults 199 (17%) 338 (16%) 70% +

Exited with 1 or more sources income Adults

529 (72%) 957 (74%) 80% +

‹#›

Data Gaps

SOHA

‹#›

HMIS Coverage

• As measured from October 1, 2015 – September 30, 2016, our CoC total coverage rate is 378th of 402 total CoCs (National average is 82.8%)

– Emergency Shelters 18.5% (395 of 2,124)

– Transitional Housing 51% (514 of 1,009)

– Safehaven 100% (25 of 25)

– Permanent Housing 72% (2,618 of 3,656)

• ES, TH, SH are ‘homeless’ (only 29% of ES and TH are in the HMIS)

‹#›

6 System Performance Measures

1. Length of time persons remain homeless

2. Persons who exit homelessness to permanent housing and return to homelessness in 6, 12, 24 months

3. Number of homeless persons

4. Employment and income growth for homeless persons in CoC funded projects

5. Number of persons who become homeless for the first time

6. Successful placements into housing from SO, ES, SH, and RRH and housing retention

‹#›

Data we do

have

Data we do not have

‹#›

Measure 1 Measure 2 Measure 3

Measure 4 Measure 5 Measure 6

‹#›

CoC Funding Impact

• HUD CoC funds grow through increases in Fair Market Rate changes for Rental Assistance budget line items “FMRs” ($5 mill in RA budgets)

• HUD CoC funds grow when the local CoC scores well on the annual Collaborative Application and HUD awards bonus housing projects. (last bonus received in 2011)

• HUD CoC funds are lost when scoring is low and funds are cut and reallocated to other communities

• All new CoC projects since 2011 are from internal performance based reallocation

‹#›

‹#›

ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FUNDS

SOHA

‹#›

Continuum of Care FundingData Analysis: Report Performance Report March 1, 2016 – February 28 2017

What did we get for $16.1 million?

• New expanded HMIS System and reduce costs to local agencies $409,588

• Coordinated Assessment System $332,256

• 2,164 persons housed in SH, TH, RRH or PSH $15,405,778 Approx. $7,119 per person/year

Primary Performance Measures# of persons who

accomplished outcome

accomplished outcome

# of persons for whom

measure is appropriate

the measure is

appropriate

Actual outcome

result

Housing Stability 1991 2104 94.62%Total Income Measure (18+) 955 1560 61.21%Earned Income Measure (18-61) 357 1418 25.17%

‹#›

CoC Strategic Work Plan

SOHA

‹#›

2017-2018 CoCSWP

1. Increase Permanent Housing

– HUD TA to explore reconfigure of CoC Leasing Projects

– PSH “Moving Up” to DHA HCV Homeless preference or private pay Independent Housing Readiness Assessment tools

– Affordable Housing Access contracts/Rent Gaps

– No Empty Bed no less than 96.8% occupancy all resources

– Advocate for City of Dallas Afford Housing Bond

‹#›

2017-2018 CoCSWP

2. End Chronic Homelessness

– Implement FUSE prioritization

– DOPS all unsheltered

– Case Staff CH by-name list

– Contract with benefits applications services

– Improve HMIS mobility/technology for documentation of homelessness

– Housing guide for new tenants

– Connect newly housed with faith communities to establish positive social networks

‹#›

2017-2018 CoCSWP

3. Develop Reentry/Criminal Background Programming/Services

– Implement FUSE with county jail

– Summit with Unlocking Doors

– Educate on how to read criminal histories

– Develop legal triage tools/integrate into IRIS

– Provide homeless training for first responders/jail staff

– Educate landlords on HB1510

‹#›

2017-2018 CoCSWP

4. Quality Improvement of Case Management

– Acknowledge good work “Case Manager of the Year” Sept 21

– Bring more training TO Dallas

– Develop Peer Learning

– Use technology to provide clinical supervision

– 211 for Case Managers – IRIS

– Expand Boot Camps

‹#›

2017-2018 CoCSWP

5. Build on the work of the Faith Community to End Homelessness

– Asset map the resources within the Faith Community

– Expand IRIS/HMIS to the Faith Community – Faith Flex

– Build support networks between homeless, formerly homeless “Be My ICE!”

‹#›

RACE AND HOMELESSNESS

SOHA

‹#›

White, 212, 30%

Black, 446, 64%

Asian, 3, 1%

Alaskan, 9, 1%

Hawaiian, 1, 0%

Other, 27, 4%Dallas Unsheltered Race

78

Homeless Race Stats – Black / African American

• PIT Dallas Sheltered Homeless

– Families with Children 71% Black

– Individuals 61% Black

• AHAR Data Oct 1 2015 – Sept 30 2016

79

SPARC DALLAS Initiative

• Supporting Partnerships for Anti-Racist Communities

• Dallas is one of 10 cities that will participate (Tacoma, San Francisco, Columbia, Atlanta, Syracuse)

1. Research – Began February 27, compare

2. Awareness – 3x More Likely, Acknowledge it

3. Action – Countering the systemic influences that created such extraordinary disparity with systemic changes

80

Gender and Race of the top 32 CEOs of Homeless Service Provider Agencies in our Continuum of CareWhite Male 50% White Female 50%Black Male 6% Black Female 6%

81

OTHER IDEAS

SOHA

‹#›

Expand Flexible Assistance Fund “Flex Fund”

• Critical small grants

• $111,000 in last year

• Create a denture program – funds for extractions, but not the $350-1200 for dentures

‹#›

Envisioning a Dallas homeless services circulator

Learning from Healthcare for the Homeless Houston’s

“PROJECT ACCESS”

• $133,000 per year

• Funded by CDGB City of Houston

• Contracts with private provider

‹#›

What is Project Access

• Project Access is Houston’s only, regularly scheduled, no charge transportation service for homeless individuals. It’s designed to help homeless Houstonians travel to and from organizations that provide essential services such as health care, meals, shelter, and social services.

• A 40 passenger bus travels the 21 agency route Monday through Friday, 52 weeks a year.

‹#›

7am-5pm Monday Thru Friday

‹#›

Mon-Wed-Frid Schedule andTue-Thur Schedule

‹#›

Where would a Project Access-Dallas go?

• Shelters / Day Shelters

• TDPS / TDHS

• Library

• Social Security

• Clinics - Metrocare Services, Out Patient

• Pharmacy

• VA

• Workforce/Opportunity Center

• Main Dart Transfer Station

• Grocery Store‹#›

‹#›

Proposed Mobile App for Youth

• Youth Have Phones/Friends with Phones

• Youth need access and information for youth-oriented services

• Ability to view resources based on selecting from a listing of service categories (e.g. shelter, food, education, legal)

• Ability to select a resource in order to get full details, including things like website, phone number, address, # of beds available, etc.

• Zip Code search in order to find services closest to the individual

• Possible link for transportation services or directions by car, bus, walking, etc.

‹#›

Los Angeles Example

WIN – What I Need is a free mobile and

web app designed to connect homeless or

resource insecure youth ages 12 – 25 to

essential services all accessible without a

referral. More than just a guide of resources

but cooperative resource agency.

‹#›

Final Thoughts

SOHA

‹#›

PUBLIC FORUM

SOHA

‹#›

2017 mdha soha - dallas...purpose of soha • to collectively review data, information and derive...

Documents