Summary of 3 County CoC SPM Report Data

Similar documents
FY Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM)

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

Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM)

FY Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM)

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

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

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

Using Data to Make Funding and Reallocation Decisions

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

FY16 HUD CoC Program Consolidated Application Scoring Criteria Summary June 2016

Office of Community Planning and Development

FY2019 HCCSC SCORING CRITERIA AND SCORE SHEET

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

COC RANKING For Grant Year 2017

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

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

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM: DATA QUALITY PLAN

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

Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative 2016 CoC NOFA Evaluation Tool for Renewal Project Applications

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

HUD CoC Reviewing, Scoring and Ranking Procedure

2017 Saratoga-North Country CoC Project Rank & Review Application

FY2017 CoC Program Competition Application Score Cards

[HUDX-225] HMIS Data Quality Report Reference Tool

Measure 1: Length of Time Persons Remain Homeless

HMIS 320 APR Training

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

HUD-ESG CAPER User Guide

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

Blue Ridge Interagency Council on Homelessness

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the BYC and SPP

HMIS PROGRAMMING SPECIFICATIONS

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

2019 Housing Inventory Count (HIC) Guidance Document

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

PSH Renewal Review & Scoring Document

TOOL OVERVIEW. FY2019 CoC Program Competition Renewal Project Scoring Tool

The Role of HUD s Homeless and Mainstream Housing Programs in Ending Homelessness. Jennifer Ho Ann Marie Oliva Marcy Thompson

Toledo Lucas County Continuum of Care: 2014 Key Performance Indicators

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HOMELESS ACTION PARTNERSHIP

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

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

Summary and Analysis of the Interim ESG Rule December 2011

2017 Point in Time Count

Ending Homelessness in Alameda County Strategic Plan Update

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

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

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

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

Joint Office of Homeless Services FY 2018 Proposed Budget

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

Toledo Lucas County Continuum of Care: 2016 Key Performance Indicators

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

New Hampshire Continua of Care APR Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) Exit Form for HMIS

Before Starting the CoC Application

1A. Continuum of Care (CoC) Identification

FY2016 Detroit Continuum of Care (CoC) Funding Announcements Report to Detroit CoC Board January 9, 2017

HMIS REQUIRED UNIVERSAL DATA ELEMENTS

Demographics. Housing Security in the Washington Region. Fairfax County, Fairfax City and Falls Church Cities

Demographics. Housing Security in the Washington Region. District of Columbia

Demographics. Housing Security in the Washington Region. Arlington County

2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR)

2017 HUD CoC Program Rating and Review Procedure

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

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

Written Standards for Permanent Supportive Housing

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

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

NOTES. Step 2: choose the correct city if 2 or more cities share the same ZIP Code.

HMIS Programming Specifications PATH Annual Report. January 2018

Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)

SuperNOFA FY2012 Performance Measures Cheat Sheet

HMIS Data Standards: HMIS Data. Dictionary. Released May, 2014 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Volume 2

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

Final Report and Recommendations on Homelessness in Alameda County, California R E S E A RCH REPORT

Health Care and Homelessness 2014 Data Linkage Study

EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT (ESG) FUNDING

FY 2013 NOFA Planning and Advocacy December 17, 2013

Santa Barbara County HMIS Data Quality Plan

Health Care and Homelessness 2014 Data Linkage Study

Data Quality Plan Tampa / Hillsborough County Continuum of Care

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

City of Tucson Housing and Community Development Department Planning and Development Division

SHELTER DIVERSION ServicePoint Handbook

Full DOB reported Approximate or Partial DOB reported

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

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

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

National Population Demographics

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

Wilder Foundation Family Supportive Housing Services: ROOF Project

Administering CoC and ESG Rapid Re-housing Assistance

Exit Form: Print on Light-Blue Paper

HMIS Data Standards DATA DICTIONARY

Valley of the Sun United Way Final Evaluation of the Rapid Rehousing 250 Program

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

The Community Partnership HMIS Data Collection Guide Version 3 - Last Updated October 10, 2018

CoC Annual Performance Report (APR) Guide

October 24, 2017 CIS Training P R E SENT ED B Y G A I T HER STEPHENS

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

Transcription:

Summary of 3 County CoC SPM Report Data System performance measure Submission Submission Δ Number of persons who are homeless Point in Time Count 653 persons 781 persons Annual Count 1706 persons 1751 persons Length of time homeless Average (days) Emergency shelter only 77 days 75 days All shelter settings (, TH) 135 days 133 days Median (days) Emergency shelter only 44 days 42 days All shelter settings (, TH) 66 days 72 days Successful exits to/retention of PH Shelter and RRH (exits only) PSH 88% Returns to homelessness Exited originally from shelter (, TH) 17% Exited originally from PH 7% 31% 88% 13% 3% New entries to the CoC system Entries to shelter (, TH) Entries to shelter or housing (, TH, RRH, PH) 1090 persons 1199 persons 1164 persons 1344 persons Growth in work/income (CoC-funded TH, PSH) 38% 42% Moving in the right direction Moving the the wrong direction

Measure 1: Length of Time Homeless What: Measures the cumulative length of time (LOT) spent homeless in emergency shelter, safe havens, and transitional housing. Who: All, SH, and TH guests who occupied a bed during the reporting year. Why? Reduced LOT Homeless may indicate that the CoC is 1) more rapidly placing people into housing and 2) reducing/ preventing chronic homelessness. CoC System Goal: Decreased average LOT homeless and decreased median LOT homeless among all sheltered persons, from year to year. Mixed bag Average Length of Stay 77 days 3% increase +TH 77 135 76 133 +TH 135 days 2% increase +TH Median Length of Stay 44 days 5% increase +TH 66 days 8% decrease +TH 44 66 42 72 +TH Considerations Single adults, families, and unaccompanied youth may have different LOS patterns but the SPM report aggregates all household types. The report only goes back to 2012. Households with a length of stay that began before this date have a truncated LOS. This would underestimate the average and median LOS.

Systems Performance Measures Recap Measure 2: Returns to Homelessness What: Measures the number and rate of persons who returned to homelessness within a 2 year period of time. Who: Persons who left a CoC shelter or housing program for permanent housing during FY2014, but then re-entered a CoC shelter at some point during the subsequent 2 years. Why? Reducing returns to homelessness suggests that the CoC is 1) making more effective placements to housing; and 2) providing effective stabilization supports. CoC System Goal: Decreased rate of return to homelessness, from all project types. Increase in Overall Return Rate Returns to homelessness after exit to permanent housing 19% returned 6% increase TH 15% returned 1% increase PH 7% returned 4% increase ALL 16% returned 4% increase TH PH Overal Considerations Exclusions include: 1) Persons who exited to PH prior to FY2013 but then returned; 2) persons who exited to PH in a different CoC, but then entered our CoC; and 3) persons who had no exit interview. Because of these exclusions, the rate of return may be an underestimate.

Measure 3: Number of Persons Homeless What: Measures the year-to-year change in the number of persons who are homeless within our CoC, annually and at a single point in time. Who: Sheltered persons in the HMIS are included in the annual count. All homeless persons, including those in DV shelters or unsheltered, are included in the PIT count. Why? The annual count provides a measure of the prevalence of homelessness in the region, once adjusted for the proportion of folks who are not in HMIS. The point in time count provides the proportion factor needed to calculate prevalence. CoC System Goal: Decreased annual count and decreased point in time count among all groups (sheltered/unsheltered, families/individuals, chronic/veterans/youth). Annual and PIT Count Decreased Annual Count TH 1101 ppl 11% decrease 624 ppl 6% decrease 2000 1500 1000 500 +TH 77 135 76 133 TH TOTAL 1706 ppl 3% decrease 0 Point in Time Count 346 ppl 3 decrease TH 279 ppl 5% increase US 28 ppl 47% increase TOTAL 653 ppl 16% decrease 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2015 +TH 44 66 42 72 2015 2015 TH Unsheltered Considerations: The annual count excludes households that are not in the HMIS; thus it underestimates overall persons and some subpopulations such as DV survivors.

Measure 4: Job and Growth What: This measures the change in earned income, non-employment cash income, and total income for adults who participated in CoC-funded projects. Who: Adults in CoC-funded TH or PSH projects who exited from the project during the year ("leavers") or who stayed more than 365 days ("stayers"). Why? Improved income leads to improved housing stability. The CoCs capacity to help project participants improve their income indicates its capacity to achieve (+) housing outcomes. CoC System Goal: Increased earned income, non-employment income, and total income - either from project entry to annual follow up, or from project entry to exit. Improved Among Project Stayers Most Goals Went Unmet Work Total 3% improved 4% 27% improved 17% 5 3 1 +TH 77 135 76 133 Work Total Improved Among Project Leavers Work Total 22% improved 1% 45% improved 4% 5 3 1 +TH 44 66 42 72 Work Total Considerations: Excludes households who did not exit but did not yet have 1 year of tenancy; and households residing in CoC projects not funded by HUD, which comprise the majority of CoC TH and PSH projects.

Measure 5: First Time Homelessness What: This measures the change in the number of persons who 1) entered CoC projects during FY2015 and who 2) had with no prior HMIS enrollments in the two years prior. Who: Persons who entered CoC projects during FY2015, if those projects participate in HMIS. Why? A reduction in new entries (a proxy measure for the incidence of homelessness), may indicate that the CoC is more effectively preventing homelessness within the region. CoC System Goal: A reduction in new entries to the CoC System. First Time CoC Entries to Shelter Reduced Number of First Timers 1st Time,TH Entries 1090 ppl 6% decrease 1200 1150 1100 1050 1000 950 900 850 800 +TH 77 135 76 133 First Time Shelter Entries First Time CoC Entries to Shelter or Housing 1st Time, TH, PH Entries 1090 ppl 11% decrease 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 +TH 44 66 42 72 First Time Shelter or Housing Entries Considerations: Excludes 1) Persons not in HMIS; 2) persons who had a CoC stay prior to FY2013 and then re-entered the CoC; and 3) persons whose prior stays were in some other CoC. Thus persons who have previous shelter stays are undercounted.

Measure 7: Successful PH Outcome What: This measures the change in successful placements to permanent housing destinations and, for persons already in permanent housing, housing retention. Who: All persons who exited,th, or RRH during FY2015; and all persons who participated in PSH or Other Permanent Housing ("OPH"). Why? Exits to, and retention of, PH indicate successful housing outcomes. CoC System Goal: Increase the rate of placement to, or retention of, PH. Mixed bag Exits from Shelter or RRH to Permanent Housing From, TH, to PH 9% 5 3 +TH 77 135 76 133 RRH 1 Exits to PH PH Stability: Exits from Permanent Housing to PH, or retention of PH In or From PH 88% maintained PH change 10 8 6 +TH 44 66 42 72 Maintained PH Considerations: Persons who lacked exit interviews were excluded; thus improved data quality can impact outcome rates. Also note: This measure includes a metric for SO exit outcomes. We will have baseline data for this measure for next year's HUD report submission.