King County Base Year Calculator Results Emergency Shelter for Family Projects Performance Summary March 11, 2016

Similar documents
Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM)

FY Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM)

2018 Performance Management Plan. Ohio Balance of State Continuum of Care Updated January 2018

Santa Clara County Performance Measures - Updated July 1, June 30, 2019

FY Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM)

HUD 2016 System Performance Measures Submission Recap. NYC Coalition on the Continuum of Care October 20, 2017

Santa Clara County Performance Measures - finalized July 1, June 30, 2017

National Population Demographics

Summary of 3 County CoC SPM Report Data

Attachment C. Updated March 23 rd, 2018 by EveryOne Home

Using Data to Make Funding and Reallocation Decisions

FY16 HUD CoC Program Consolidated Application Scoring Criteria Summary June 2016

COC RANKING For Grant Year 2017

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM: DATA QUALITY PLAN

APR Data: # of Clients: # of Households # of Adults # of Leavers: # of Adult Leavers:

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the BYC and SPP

Toledo Lucas County Continuum of Care: 2016 Key Performance Indicators

Office of Community Planning and Development

2019 Housing Inventory Count (HIC) Guidance Document

HMIS 320 APR Training

2018 Kentucky Balance of State CoC Expansion Project Scoresheet for RRH and PSH Projects (Approved by KY BoS CoC Advisory Board August 3, 2018)

[HUDX-225] HMIS Data Quality Report Reference Tool

Continuum of Care Written Standards for NY- 508 Buffalo, Niagara Falls/Erie, Niagara, Orleans, Genesee, Wyoming Counties CoC

Toledo Lucas County Continuum of Care: 2014 Key Performance Indicators

ASX Schools Sharemarket Game

Measure 1: Length of Time Persons Remain Homeless

SUPPLEMENTARY LESSON 1 DISCOVER HOW THE WORLD REALLY WORKS ASX Schools Sharemarket Game THE ASX CHARTS

HUD-ESG CAPER User Guide

2017 Point in Time Count

Continuum of Care (CoC) and Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG) 2015 Policy Manual

Sheltered Homeless Persons. Idaho Balance of State 10/1/2009-9/30/2010

Sheltered Homeless Persons. Tarrant County/Ft. Worth 10/1/2012-9/30/2013

SHELTER DIVERSION ServicePoint Handbook

NY-606/Rockland County CoC Rank & Review - Attachments Checklist

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HOMELESS ACTION PARTNERSHIP

HUD CoC Reviewing, Scoring and Ranking Procedure

PSH Renewal Review & Scoring Document

GLOSSARY HMIS STANDARD REPORTING TERMINOLOGY. A reference guide for methods of selecting clients and data used commonly in HMIS-generated reports

CITY OF OAKLAND EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT DRAFT PY 2011 SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT

HMIS PROGRAMMING SPECIFICATIONS

Before Starting the Exhibit 1 Continuum of Care (CoC) Application

GLOSSARY HMIS STANDARD REPORTING TERMINOLOGY. A reference guide for methods of selecting clients and data used commonly in HMIS-generated reports

T P A D E USER MANUAL

FY 2017 TX BoS CoC Review, Score, and Ranking Procedures and Reallocation Process for HUD Continuum of Care Program Funds

EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT (ESG) FUNDING

FY2017 CoC Program Competition Application Score Cards

2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR)

ESG CAPER Helper Guide

Gloucester County s 2017 Point-In-Time Count of the Homeless

DESTINATION Which of the following most closely matches where the client will be staying right after leaving this project?

AGENDA. 1. Welcome and Introductions. 2. Review IRP Meeting Summary from Feb. 7, HUD CoC Program NOFA

Counts! Bergen County s 2017 Point-In-Time Count of the Homeless

Project Homeless Connect 2018

Exhibit 5-3: Sample Performance Measurement Framework (Note that all activities, outputs, outcomes, and percentages are hypothetical.

Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Continuum of Care 2017 Renewal Project Performance Scorecard

Universal Intake Form

Name Data Quality (DQ) D.O.B. Type (DQ) Gender (from list)

Implementing the HEARTH Act: The Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) program

Wilder Foundation Family Supportive Housing Services: ROOF Project

Talladega County BOE (AL)

HMIS REQUIRED UNIVERSAL DATA ELEMENTS

How to Pull Your APR (Annual Performance Report) to Upload into Sage

2017 Saratoga-North Country CoC Project Rank & Review Application

Sheltered Homeless Persons. Washington County, OR 10/1/2012-9/30/2013

2014 RELEASE WEBINAR TIPS AGENDA. Westchester County HMIS a project of the Continuum of Care Partnership

Sheltered Homeless Persons. Louisville/Jefferson County 10/1/2009-9/30/2010

HMIS Programming Specifications PATH Annual Report. January 2018

Ending Homelessness in Alameda County Strategic Plan Update

Blue Ridge Interagency Council on Homelessness

THE ASX CHARTS. Supplementary lesson 1. Includes: Student lessons. Teacher notes & answers

Updated 01/22/2019 ID 24, Page 1 of 5

E CONOMIC IMPACT REPORT

The Community Partnership How to Run the CoC-APR 2018 Report Version 1 Last Updated December 17, 2018

CLARITY HMIS: HUD-CoC PROJECT INTAKE FORM

FY 2013 NOFA Planning and Advocacy December 17, 2013

The 2017 HUD CoC Annual Performance Report (CoC-APR) Training for the Ohio Balance of State and Mahoning CoCs

County of Chester 2019 Strategic Business Plan for Community Development

Sheltered Homeless Persons. Orange County, NY 10/1/2013-9/30/2014

New Hampshire Continua of Care SGIA Homelessness Prevention (HP) Project Record Creation Intake Entry Services Exit Packet

Sheltered Homeless Persons. Auburn/Cayuga County 10/1/2013-9/30/2014

NC ESG Application Form: Regional Application (January 1, 2017 December 31, 2017)

Standards for CoC- and ESG-Funded Rapid Re-Housing Programs in the Metropolitan Denver Continuum of Care

Sheltered Homeless Persons. Nebraska Balance of State 10/1/2016-9/30/2017

QUALITY OF SOCIAL SECURITY Client doesn t know Full SSN reported Client refused Approximate or partial SSN reported Data not collected

Administering CoC and ESG Rapid Re-housing Assistance

ESCAMBIA COUNTY EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT PROGRAM REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RAPID REHOUSING AND HOMELESS PREVENTION ACTIVITIES REVISED 7/17/18

FY15 REVENUES. FY 14 Adopted Taxes. General Fund $ $ $753.50

EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT COMPLIANCE WEBINAR

Sheltered Homeless Persons

Full DOB reported Approximate or Partial DOB reported

RBI PHASE 1 RECAP. 24 th JULY 18 QUANT- DATA INTERPRETATION (TABLE CHART)

FY2019 HCCSC SCORING CRITERIA AND SCORE SHEET

HMIS Data Collection Form for Project EXIT/Annual Review All Projects (Excluding RHY)

Full DOB reported Approximate or Partial DOB reported. Non Hispanic/Non Latino Hispanic/Latino

TABLE OF CONTENTS Applied Survey Research (ASR) All Rights Reserved

Santa Barbara County HMIS Data Quality Plan

Sensitivity Analysis

APR Requirements and Data Entry Workflow Review

Covert Code. (previously known as Currency Messenger System 1)

2018 Program Review and Certification Standards K. DCA Standards

Transcription:

King County Base Year Calculator Results Emergency Shelter for Family Projects Performance Summary March 11, 2016 This document includes de-identified performance results for ES projects for families. Included projects are those that had open records in the selected time period and had at least two years of available data. 2014 was used because data is not available system-wide for 2015. To review definitions of the measures, please see the Overview of SWAP Performance Measures document. There are two graphs per measure, the first depicting projects with no City of Seattle funds and the second depicting projects with City of Seattle funds (identified with a letter then CS to indicate City of Seattle). All but the first 2 graphs identify projects by a randomly selected letter and the letters are the same from graph to graph. The intent is to provide a picture of performance that is complete, though de-identified, for each project. For most measures, we provide a very brief assessment of the results. Our goal is to provide some context and framing, the Client Group will discuss how results will be used. The first set of 2 bar charts show the number of households served by project. These projects are not identified by a randomly selected letter, as the results on all other graphs are, because to do so here would identify the projects for those knowledgeable about project capacity. The purpose of the graphs immediately below are to show the range of project size. It is evident that there are a number of relatively small projects.

King Co Emergency Shelters - Family: HMIS Households Served in Analysis Year (2014) 90 80 80 70 60 50 40 34 47 57 30 20 10 7 0 King Co Emergency Shelters - Family: HMIS Households Served in Analysis Year (2014) - CS 300 267 250 200 150 100 69 104 130 162 176 190 196 50 32 0 SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Family Performance Summary Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies March 2016 Page 2 of 9

Utilization Rate Utilization rate varies from 12% to 102%.A 9 utilization rate is the recommended target for ES projects; most projects are performing poorly on this measure with an average around 7. King Co Emergency Shelters - Family: Utilization Rate in Analysis Year (2014) 10 88% 87% 83% 73% M A P R N 12% Utilization Rate King Co Emergency Shelters - Family: Utilization Rate in Analysis Year (2014) - CS 10 102% 95% 93% 81% 78% 77% 53% 34% B - CS Q - CS U - CS L - CS A - CS AB - CS V - CS G - CS C - CS Utilization Rate SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Family Performance Summary Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies March 2016 Page 3 of 9

Length of Stay lengths of stay range from 15 days to almost 5 months. The average for the projects with City of Seattle funding is much lower than those without. King Co Emergency Shelters - Family: Length of Stay in Analysis Year (2014) Number of Days 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 141 113 59 45 45 P M A N R Length of Stay King Co Emergency Shelters - Family: Length of Stay in Analysis Year (2014) - CS 70 60 54 58 Number of Days 50 40 30 20 15 17 18 22 22 28 34 10 0 L - CS B - CS V - CS U - CS G - CS Q - CS C - CS AB - CS A - CS Length of Stay SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Family Performance Summary Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies March 2016 Page 4 of 9

Living Situation Prior to Project Entry Entries from homeless prior living situations are of concern; total average is less than 5.The graphs on the next page show a substantial proportion of entries from housed locations with an average around. The tables on page 6 show entries from all locations including missing and unknown prior living. Literally Homeless King Co Emergency Shelters - Family: Household Entries from Homeless Prior Living in Analysis Year (2014) 10 69% 59% 3 27% N M A P R % Entries from Unshelt/ES Prior Living 10 King Co Emergency Shelters - Family: Household Entries from Homeless Prior Living in Analysis Year (2014) - CS 92% 66% 61% 59% 49% 35% 17% 14% AB - CS A - CS V - CS L - CS Q - CS C - CS B - CS U - CS G - CS 3% % Entries from Unsheltered/ES Prior Living SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Family Performance Summary Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies March 2016 Page 5 of 9

Living Situation Prior to Project Entry Enter From a Housed Location 10 King Co Emergency Shelters - Family: Household Entries from Non-Homeless Prior Living in Analysis Year (2014) 56% 68% 11% 27% A N M P R % Entries from Housed Prior Living 10 King Co Emergency Shelters - Family: Household Entries from Non-Homeless Prior Living in Analysis Year (2014) - CS 7% 8% 16% 37% 38% AB - CS A - CS V - CS L - CS Q - CS C - CS B - CS U - CS G - CS 53% 63% 82% 97% % Entries from Housed Prior Living SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Family Performance Summary Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies March 2016 Page 6 of 9

Living Situation Prior to Project Entry All Household Entries Project % % % % % % % Unsheltered ES TH Housing Institutional Other Unknown Total P 5% 25% 3% 56% 8% 3% 10 M 61% 8% 27% 4% 10 R 27% 68% 5% 10 N 10 A 22% 38% 11% 3 101% 39% 14% 1% 36% 9% 1% 10 All Household Entries City of Seattle Project % % % % % % % Unsheltered ES TH Housing Institutional Other Unknown Total G - CS 3% 97% 10 L - CS 57% 2% 37% 5% 101% V - CS 21% 16% 12% 12% 101% B - CS 3% 14% 1% 63% 4% 14% 2% 101% U - CS 3% 1 2% 82% 3% 10 AB - CS 86% 5% 7% 2% 10 Q - CS 18% 31% 38% 3% 11% 101% C - CS 12% 23% 1% 53% 1 1% 10 A - CS 6% 8% 26% 10 25% 19% 45% 1% 9% 2% 10 SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Family Performance Summary Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies March 2016 Page 7 of 9

Exits to Permanent Housing Half of the projects do not meet the King County 33% exit to permanent housing goal. 10 King Co Emergency Shelters - Family: Rate of Exit to Permanent Housing in Analysis Year (2014) 57% 35% 32% 23% 22% N R P A M % Exits to PH King Co Goal King Co Emergency Shelters - Family: Rate of Exit to Permanent Housing in Analysis Year (2014) - CS 10 54% 5 42% 33% 33% 32% 23% 15% L - CS G - CS A - CS U - CS AB - CS Q - CS V - CS C - CS B - CS % Exits to PH King Co Goal SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Family Performance Summary Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies March 2016 Page 8 of 9

Costs Per Permanent Housing Exit The distribution is fairly wide; results should be considered in light of results on other measures. Shelter must be understood as both an emergency response and a program from which households can exit to permanent housing. Exit rate expectations are lower for this program type, which may be appropriate, but should not exempt programs from efficiency requirements. Consideration of partnerships with RRH programs is important to interpreting results as well as program size and geography. s for Countywide compared with City of Seattle-funded programs differ significantly. King Co Emergency Shelters - Family: Cost per Household Exit to Permanent Housing in Analysis Year (2014) $18,000 $16,000 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 $15,725 $14,470 $9,427 $7,194 $2,374 M A R N P Cost per PH Exit $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 $2,142 King Co Emergency Shelters - Family: Cost per Household Exit to Permanent Housing in Analysis Year (2014) - CS $2,665 $3,001 $3,703 $4,589 $4,770 $5,855 $6,730 $7,591 L - CS G - CS V - CS A - CS B - CS Q - CS U - CS AB - CS C - CS Cost per PH Exit SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Family Performance Summary Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies March 2016 Page 9 of 9