challenges and rewards for shifting from transitional housing … · not housing first delay in...
TRANSCRIPT
TODAY
Making the decision
Our cultural and philosophical shift
Timing and logistics
Challenges
Solutions/advantages
What makes it work
Funding and match
2
3/3/2017
VALLEY YOUTH HOUSE
Operates in eleven eastern PA counties
Divisions: Prevention/Intervention, Behavioral Health,
Shelters/Residential, Independent Living
In 2015:
o 350 plus homeless youth served by Street Outreach
o 240 youth sheltered
o 541 TAY and 154 babies housed by Independent Living: multiple models
o Two current RRH programs (Philly and Montco) third to start in Wilkes-Barre, converting three SHP’s to RRH
o Work with 2,000 foster care youth ageing out of care (high risk for homelessness)
SOP Team
HUD SHP Models
HPRP
ESG and Other RRH Models
WHY WE DID IT
Success of SHP for TAY for over 12 years
Ran five small HPRP programs and observed it could work
for TAY
Understood the HUD and COC priority to move to RRH, we
wanted to continue to exist
Have seen initial outcomes that match SHP
Serve additional youth
Was not a significant change to our service model
WHY?
Historically:
Youth jump through hoops
Not housing first
Delay in obtaining housing
Program identifies barriers
Heavy touch = expensive
“Easier” youth
Today:
Primarily housing first (still moving)
Removed barriers – natural consequences
Quicker entry to housing
Lightest touch = less expensive
Most vulnerable youth
CULTURAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL SHIFT
Staff resistance (SHP works)!
Training and philosophical shift
We were working with “easier” youth
Review outcomes
See ability to reach more people
Understand the short comings of SHP (plateau)
Understand the reality of funding trends
Differentiate vision of RRH: reduce homelessness versus
eliminating poverty
More cost effective
Where is RRH on the continuum?
CULTURE
CONTINUUM OF HOUSING OPTIONS
Most Restrictive Least Restrictive
Lock up RTF Group Home Foster Care Transitional RRH Real world
Low Freedom/Responsibility High
Book Learning Experiential
Limited/Artificial Behavioral Opportunities Realistic
External Control Internal
Unacceptable Mistakes Opportunities
All costs covered Level of Assistance Minimum Needed
Program Imposed Consequences Natural
What is your COC’s position?
Are there exceptions for youth/other populations
Convert = mater leasing client leases All landlords would have to accept
Reallocate = close SHP to open RRH Risks funding
TIMING
25% match on entire grant Write for entire amount and document in-kind match (ex child care, BBB, street
medicine)
Cash match
Combo
30% client co-pay to landlords
Funding supportive services
Co-pays no longer support program
Low admin rate
Potential contract delay during reallocation
Many TAY are house hopping
Client leases less attractive to landlords
FMV auto calculated – consider when determining CM
CHALLENGES
ADVANTAGES
No more master leasing
Reduces likelihood of client plateaus
Increases client accountability and ownership
Focus on natural consequences versus program rules
Cost effective
Attractive to private funders
Serves most vulnerable
WHAT MAKES IT WORK: CLIENT ED
Apartment hunting
Credit and credit scores
Roommate relationships and searches
Security deposits
Leases and renters rights
Apartment maintenance and repair
Landlord relations
Being a good neighbor
Saying no when you need to
Financial management
Managing family relationships
Everything else!
WHAT MAKES IT WORK?
Philosophy
Relationship based
Understanding of adolescent development
Flexible thinking-shades of gray
Opportunities to practice IL skills
Other supportive services: food, transportation, start up furnishings, etc.
Who you hire and why
Access to quality clinical services
Connect youth with permanency resources
“Lightest touch”
Track and report outcomes
WHAT MAKES IT WORK?
Know they will mess up: make it difficult to get thrown out
Utilize incentives and external natural behavioral pressure/expectations
“Transition in place” approach with flexibility
Avoid “drift”
Provide alumni opportunities and support
With/watch/confirm approach
Listen to the youth!
FUNDING TIPS
Show up (again and again) to your Continuum of Care (COC) and know HUD time
frames
Encourage and support youth self-advocacy
Build community awareness of often low-visibility issue – youth count
Seek allies and partners
Demonstrate cost effectiveness and outcomes
Diversify funding – you will need it
Be aware of funding trends
Be opportunistic
Private $ to fill gaps are a necessity
Foundations, corporate donations, adopt an apartment
2015 RRH OUTCOMES
58 Housed, 20 discharged
Housing: 95% exited to stable housing
Education: 70% graduated/GED, 20% enrolled, 10%
dropped out
Employment: 85% were employed at exit
Cost per youth approximately $8,000
VISION
Include RRH as part of our continuum of services in each
county
Increase partnerships to create continuum
Obtain flexible funding sources
Provide youth with what they need not what funding source
dictates
Formalize permanency as part of RRH
Public messaging: heart and wallet!
Increase awareness and advocacy