Publication - The CT Coalition to End Homelessness

Report
Rapid Re-Housing
Research Evidence and Beyond
Jamie Taylor
Cloudburst Consulting Group
Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness Training Institute
May 8, 2014
Objectives – Rapid Re-Housing
Overview
1) RRH - Results from across the nation
2) RRH - The Philadelphia Story
3) RRH – Promising Practices
4) RRH – Local RRH Evaluation
Did RRH help decrease risk of
homelessness in CT 2010–2013?
Homelessness in Connecticut
2010-2013
Total Homeless Population
Persons in Famly Households
Persons in Individual Households
4316
4456
2993
3071
2905
1323
1385
1303
1347
2010
2011
2012
2013
Source: HUD CoC Reports
4209
4448
3089
RRH Success Across the Country
Region/ Program
# of RRH
Households
(HH) served
Time- frame Return to
of analysis
Homeless Rate
(date assessed)
Support Services for
Veterans & Families
(SSVF)
State of Michigan
RRH program
13,766
(2011 and 2012
SSVF RRH HHs )
4,251
12 mos. after
exit RRH
Philadelphia HPRP
RRH program
1,286
10/09 – 5/12
13.6%
(Aug.2013)
Utah – The Road Home 1,100
HPRP RRH program
2010-2012
13%
(2013)
Connecticut HPRP
RRH program
D. C. Community of
Hope RRH program
3,100
2010 - 2012
117
2011 - 2013
8%(avg. over 3 yrs)
(Sept. 2013)
8%
(2013)
2010 - 2012
Singles-15.7%
Families-10.1%
(Feb.2014)
12%
(Dec. 2013)
NAEH Evaluation of 7 CoC Programs,
Average RRH cost = $4,000/family
Georgia Study of Reoccurrence Rates –
Rigorous method to control for differences, found factors
most correlated with a return to homelessness
Research question: Which client, program, geographical characteristics exert
greatest influence on the likelihood that someone returns to homelessness?
Results: 9000 enrollments, 28% return to homelessness. Return Risk Factors:
1.
Was not in a Rapid Re-Housing program
2.
Had a history of homelessness
3.
Went to a “temporary” destination
4.
Was Non-Hispanic / Non-Latino
5.
Was Non-White
6.
Had a disabling condition at program exit
7.
Program was in a non-rural county
8.
Was male
9.
Was unaccompanied
10.
Was not with a teenage male
Source: Jason Rodriguez, GA Dept of Community Affairs
Key Finding:
Exits from
Shelter 4.7 times;
Tran. Housing 4.0 times
more likely to return to
homelessness than exits
from Rapid Re-Housing
Research Aims for Rapid Re-Housing
Can we answer the counterfactual?
RESEARCH AIM for RRH Policy:

Research for RRH policy goal is to estimate whether RRH is the specific element
responsible for decreasing homelessness. Counterfactual:
What would have happened to RRH households if there was no RRH?
WHY RESEARCH DESIGN IS NECESSARY:

When households who participate in RRH are different from households who do not,
need to control for differences using research design. Differences in RRH and non-RRH
households show up as confounders: i.e. RRH enrollment strategies differences by case
manager, by program; length of RRH assistance; Housing market variability
Gold Standard = Random Control Trial = assess causal effect of RRH
RESEARCH DESIGN WITHOUT RCT

With no RCT, matching methods can be used to create comparison groups that look
alike, controlling for confounding differences. Propensity score matching now widely
applied, probability of participation estimated using observable variables.,
Specific Research Questions for
Philadelphia Rapid Re-Housing Study



Does Rapid Re-Housing improve housing stability for
formerly homeless households by decreasing the risk of a
return to homelessness?
Does RRH help to improve household income?
Was the HPRP RRH policy effective in decreasing the risk
of homelessness?
Dataset: All Households that entered
Philadelphia shelters 10/2009-5/2012
Propensity Score Match
7,177
Households
10/09 – 5/12
4716 cases
discarded
8 cases
discarded
1,286 NonRRH
Households
1,169 RRH
Households
PSM Result–households in each group
similar, standard means balanced
RRH Treatment……….1169 households
Non-RRH Control…...1286 households
Each variable included in PSM
represents HMIS data indicator
correlated with risk of homelessness.
(Disabling condition excluded based
on high correlation with SSI-SSDI)
Standard means comparison, t-tests
performed on PSM matched groups,
strong PSM model, households similar
Variables
Monthly
income @
sheltr entry
MarriedBinary
N
Mean
1.00
1169
730.50
.00
1286
718.78
1.00
1169
.0607
.00
1286
.0539
GenderBinary
1.00
1169
.5774
.00
1286
.5958
HSGradBinary
1.00
1169
.5346
.00
1286
.5672
Family Size
1.00
1169
2.25
.00
1286
2.27
HHAge18_25
1.00
1169
.2198
.00
1286
.2434
HHAge26_59
1.00
1169
.7305
.00
1286
.7113
HHAge60plus
1.00
1169
.0488
.00
1286
.0445
SSI_SSDI
1.00
1169
.2541
.00
1286
.2447
# times in
shelter (>30
days)
1.00
1169
2.13
.00
1286
1.85
PSM Analysis:
Return to Homelessness Results
Comparison
Group
#
Households
% Returned to
Homelessness
Rapid ReHousing
Group
1,169
households
13.6%
Non- RRH
Group
1,286
households
39.4%
Total
2,455 cases
Odds ratio: The odds of returning to
homelessness were 42% higher for households
that did not receive RRH compared to
households that did receive RRH
Washington State Evaluation – Robust
matching model RRH and employment
Washington State 2010 Evaluation - Rapid Re-Housing Impacts
on Employment*
*RRH clients were 1.25 times more likely to be employed, and, on
average, earned $422 more annually than their counterparts who did not
receive RRH.
RRH Promising Practice:
King County RRH Pilot




Goal – To move 350 homeless families in King County into rental
housing by December 31, 2014
Assessment: Short-term financial assistance and temporary
housing-focused supports, including employment and training
services,
RRH funding: $3.1 million over 2014. Funders and planning
partners include King County DCHS, City of Seattle Human Services
Department, United Way of King County, Building Changes and the
Seattle and King County Housing Authorities.
RRH partnerships: Employment Navigator program. The
navigators will provide critical supports to assist in gaining
employment. Families may continue working with the employment
navigator after rapid re-housing assistance
RRH Promising Practice:
Massachusetts Fireman Foundation
Secure Jobs Pilot




Goal – Offer employment assistance to families transitioning from
shelter into housing with Rapid Re-housing
Assessment: Participating agencies enrolled 506 formerly homeless
parents in the Secure Jobs program from a pool of 5,400
Massachusetts families receiving rental subsidies
RRH funding: Fireman Foundation awarded $1.5 million in grants
to encourage housing, employment, and other agencies to work
together provide comprehensive services to help low-income families
regain financial independence and stay out of the shelter system.
RRH partnerships: Collaboration with workforce-training
organizations with employer partners. Secure Jobs participants
employed by large retailers, hospitals and nursing facilities, hotels
and hospitality industries, social service agencies, and manufacturing,
RRH Promising Practice:
Tacoma Housing Authority




Goal – Serve Homeless households with children. Housing Authority
launching pad for family success
Assessment: Tailor the availability, type, amount, and duration of
assistance to the need for family housing
RRH funding: Use Tacoma Housing Authority Moving to Work
flexible demonstration status (HUD) for RRH assistance

2013 - $80.00 for 19 families

2015 - $650,000

2017 - $1million
RRH partnerships: Schools and the child welfare system
RRH Promising Practice:
Utah - The Road Home

Goal – Exit family households out of shelter to stable housing as soon
as possible
Assessment: Of 659 families entered Salt Lake County shelter 2013
572 families moved out:
62% of all families move out with RRH
5% families moved into supportive housing,
33 % of families moved out of shelter with no financial assistance




Reassessment: Progressive Engagement
RRH funding: Utah uses state TANF $$ for first four months of
RRH, then ESG and other RRH funding if household still needs RRH
RRH partnerships: TANF, State Department of Workforce
Services to increase employment income
Recommendations for the Hennepin
County Family Shelter System 2013
Summary of Recommended Practices
1.
Collaboration and communication are key to providing not
only a positive environment for families experiencing homelessness,
but also provide better outcomes for families.
2.
Streamlining the movement for a family from the point in
time in which they seek out shelter to the point that they are stably
housed reduces inefficiency and better serves our community.
3.
Using existing resources provides the largest area of
opportunity to make immediate changes and see an
immediate reduction in family shelter use.
4. Targeting services based on individualized needs of the
family is a more efficient use of resources, and provides the best
outcomes for families.
RRH appears to effectively decrease
risk of a return to homelessness. Why?



Maybe….RRH housing case management services
access landlord partnerships, find new viable housing
opportunities not previously on the radar for very poor
households with housing barriers
Maybe….time-limited housing stabilization assistance
provides a self-determination boost, motivating efforts
to do “whatever it takes” to stay out of homelessness
Maybe… RRH works on the same fundamental
principle as Housing First - -CLIENT CHOICE. By
putting housing first in the service equation, clients
access all three critical aspects of self-determination:
autonomy, competence, and connectedness
Multiple factors in every region impact
RRH outcomes
Variable influencing factors in every RRH region:







Housing market – % affordable rents
Network of Landlord partnerships
Capacity to leverage TANF / HOME/ other Rental Assistance
Funds
ESG funding levels
Belief in RRH approach
Coordinated Assessment Tools
Mass movement out of state or HMIS region
Growing need for additional RRH research evidence
AND additional investment in affordable housing.
RRH does not end poverty.
Local HMIS RRH Evaluation – Five Steps
1. Define Rapid Re-Housing Success in own community
2. Use HMIS data indicators





Return to Homelessness by cohort/group
Length of stay/time homeless
Reduction in shelter households over time
Average Shelter costs per day
Average RRH assistance costs per day
3. Establish comparison group using matching method
4. Analyze Data – Courageously accept data shortcomings
5. Add results to emerging RRH evidence
Strong Performance Measurement
Driver Diagram
Mapping out a theory of change is key to monitoring RRH
performance and continuous quality improvement.
Three questions:
1) What is the aim of your RRH intervention?

What are you seeking to improve?
2) What are the necessary conditions for achieving RRH aim

What strategies will be necessary to achieve your RRH aim?

How will you know you are successful with each strategy?
3) What will it take to implement each primary strategy?
Driver Diagram for Expanded RRH
Theory of Change - Change Metrics
Educate community
and stakeholders on
RRH success by 6/14
Expand RRH
subsidies to 1000
households/year
by 12/2014
Increase RRH funding
sources beyond ESG
$$ by 9/14
Educate and recruit
RRH providers Increase RRH
providers 25% by
10/14
Driver Diagram – Housing Stability
Theory of Change
Housing Tenancy
Improvement
Fund
Support RRH
households long-term
housing stability goals
500 households/year
by 12/2015 decrease
mobility
Landlord /
Tenancy Support
Network
Expand use of
long-term housing
subsidies and RRH
bridge
Thank you!
Jamie Taylor
Cloudburst Consulting Group
[email protected]
Phone # 860-716-7392

similar documents