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

Chapter 5: Measuring Big Change Prevention Exhibit 5-3: Sample Performance Measurement Framework (Note that all activities, outputs, outcomes, and percentages are hypothetical.) Goal Activity Program Output Targets Program Outcome Targets Assist people in maintaining their housing Universe: Number of clients who present with a housing crisis Outreach & Engagement Connect persons who are homeless to needed shelter, housing and support services Universe: Number of unsheltered homeless persons counted in annual or regular street counts. Referral & Information Access Hotline Prevention Resource Coordination & Advocacy Financial Prevention Assistance Legal Services Clinical outreach & engagement Drop-in Centers/ Engagement Centers 100% of clients will be assessed for housing options at intake Programs will advocate for and/or provide housing assistance to individuals and families with immediate housing options (expected to be 25% of all persons presenting with a housing crisis) Engage 75% persons living on the streets through repeated contacts and delivery of basic services Provide referrals to housing programs, including engagement shelters, Safe Havens and PSH programs, and supportive service programs 5% of individuals and 20% of families presenting with a housing crisis will have their homelessness prevented 25% are placed in shelter, engagement centers or Safe Havens within 30 days of 1st interaction 50% are placed in PH within 90 days of 1st interaction 25% who are not placed in housing will be engaged in services within 21 days of first interaction Outcomes Calculation # of clients who received prevention assistance and did not enter residential homeless programs within 12 months total # of clients who presented with a housing crisis # of clients placed in shelter/placed in PH/engaged in services total # of homeless clients encountered HMIS Data Elements (or other admin sources) 2.10 Program Entry Date 2.13 Program ID 3.9 Services Received 2.8 Residence Prior to Program Entry 2.10 Program Entry Date 2.11 Program Exit Date 2.13 Program ID 3.9 Services Received 3.10 Destination 1

Chapter 5: Measuring Big Change Exhibit 5-3: Sample Performance Measurement Framework (Note that all activities, outputs, outcomes, and percentages are hypothetical.) Goal Activity Program Output Targets Program Outcome Targets Stabilization & Assessment Focus on rehousing all persons, regardless of disability or background Universe: Number of individuals and families entering the shelter system each year Housing Stability Provide a range of permanent housing options with supportive services for people who have temporary or long-term barriers to self-sufficiency Universe: Number of clients placed in appropriate assisted housing annually Emergency Shelters DV Shelters Youth Shelters Safe Havens (SH) Housing Placement Services Transitional Housing Transition-in-place (TIP) Permanent Supportive Housing Permanent Housing Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) Provide crisis shelter (CS), if prevention not feasible Provide housing services to 100% in CS; place 25% w/no relocation $; offer onetime aid to persons exiting CS directly to PH (50%); refer 25% to assisted PH/TH Engage 75% homeless persons staying in SH and refer to PH/PSH Provide TIP to homeless individuals and families (~15% of universe) Provide TH to families who desire facility-based environment (~5% of universe) Provide PSH to seriously disabled homeless individuals and families (~5% of universe) Provide ACT services to all persons placed in PSH 50% of individuals and families in ES will be placed in PH within 30 days of program entry 75% of individuals and families ES will be placed in PH within 60 days of program entry 50% of persons in Safe Havens will be placed in PH/PSH within 9 months of entry Participants remain stably housed after placement: 95% for > 6 months 85% for > 12 months 80% for > 24 months from time of housing placement Participants remain stably housed after program exit: 90% for > 6 months 80% for > 12 months 75% for > 24 months Outcomes Calculation # of clients placed in PH within 30/60 days of program entry total # of clients entering ES each year # of clients placed in PH/PSH within 270 days of program entry total # of clients entering SH each year # of clients housed in PH for at least 6/12/24 months from housing placement total # of clients housed in assisted PH # of clients retained in PH after program exit for at least 6/12/24 months total # of clients in PH (Note: Tracking post-program outcomes is very challenging) HMIS Data Elements (or other admin sources) 2.8 Residence Prior to Program Entry 2.10 Program Entry Date 2.11 Program Exit Date 2.13 Program ID 3.10 Destination 2.10 Program Entry Date (as proxy for housing placement date, unless better date is ) 2.11 Program Exit Date 2.13 Program ID 3.9 Services Received 3.10 Destination 2

Program Performance Standards (in alpha order) Based on CSB Governance Ends Policies, HUD standards, CoC local standards and best practices program performance. Bolded measurements denote CSB Board established Ends Policies. Direct Housing/Rapid Re-housing/Rolling Stock Ends Measurement Annual Metrics Efficient number of households served Access to resources/services to move to and stabilize housing Households served (#) New households served (#) Average length of participation Usage of CSB Direct Client assistance ($) Usage of CSB Direct Client Assistance (%) Average length of shelter stay Set based on program capacity, prior year(s) attainment and funds. Set based on program capacity, prior year(s) attainment and funds. Based on program design Average DCA amount will be consistent with prior performance and /or program design. % of households that receive CSB DCA will be consistent with prior performance and /or program design. Average stay at Tier 1 Shelter not to exceed 13 days. Basic needs met in a non-congregate environment Not re-enter the emergency shelter system Efficient and effective use of a pool of community resources Housing Affordability at Exit (%) 1 If Applicable, Completed Vocational/Other Training (%) If Applicable, Employment Status at Exit (%) If Applicable. Employment Status at Exit (#) Successful housing outcome (%) Successful housing outcome (#) Recidivism (%) Cost per household Cost per successful housing outcome Pass program certification At least 50% of successful households have their housing affordability ratio, measured as cost of housing (rent and utilities) divided by the household s income at exit, lower than 50%. Monitored but not evaluated during FY2011. 70% of households complete vocational or other training by their exit from the program. 65% of households have employment at exit from the program. Calculated based on the Employment Status at Exit % measurement. At least 90% successful housing outcomes. Calculated based on the Successful housing outcomes % measurement. <5% of those who obtain housing will return to shelter. Cost per household will be consistent with budget. Cost per successful housing outcome will be consistent with budget. Provide access to resources and services to end homelessness. 1 New measurement for change in income from entry to exit was benchmarked during FY2010. Housing Affordability at Exit was chosen for this income measurement as a better representation of the household stability at exit from the program. S:\Research and Development\Evaluative Methodology\FY2011 Materials\Program_Performance_Standards_FY2011 Final.doc Revised 1.22.08

Emergency Shelter Centralized Point of Access Ends Measurement Annual Metrics Efficient number of households served Access to resources to address immediate housing need Not re-enter the emergency shelter system Households served (#) Successful diversion outcome 2 (%) Pass program certification 2 Shelter Linkage (%) 2 Diversion Recidivism (%) Set based on, system demand and capacity. At least X% of those contacting the central point of access will be diverted to other community resources. Provide access to and coordination with community resources and services to prevent homelessness. At least 70% of those referred for intake into an emergency shelter will enter shelter. <X% of those diverted will enter shelter. Efficient and effective use of a pool of community resources Cost of overflow Pass program certification Cost of overflow is reduced compared to overflow cost in a non-centralized environment. Provide access to resources and services to end homelessness. Emergency Shelter Tier I Ends Measurement Annual Metrics Efficient number of households served Households served (#) Access to resources to address immediate housing need Successful outcomes (%) Successful outcomes (#) Successful housing outcomes (%) (YWCA Family Center Only) Successful housing outcomes (#) (YWCA Family Center Only) Usage of CSB Direct Client Assistance (%) Usage of CSB Direct Client Assistance (#) (YWCA Family Center Only) Pass program certification Set based on prior year(s) attainment, fair share of system demand, facility capacity, and funds to program. Obtain housing at standard below or greater if prior year(s) achievement was greater: At least 25% for adult shelters At least 70% for family shelter At least 15% for inebriate shelter. Calculated based on the Successful outcomes % measurement. Set based on prior year(s) attainment. Excludes exits to Tier II shelters. Calculated based on the Successful housing outcomes % measurement. % of households that receive CSB DCA will be consistent with prior performance and /or program design. # of households that receive CSB DCA will be consistent with prior performance and /or program design. Provide access to and coordination with community resources and services to prevent homelessness. 2 Metric will be benchmarked in FY2010 and measured in FY2011. 2 S:\Research and Development\Evaluative Methodology\FY2011 Materials\Program_Performance_Standards_FY2011 Final.doc

Basic needs met in secure, decent environment Successful diversion outcome 3 (%) (YWCA Family Center only) Pass program certification At least 39% will be diverted to other community resources. Provide secure, decent shelter. Temporary, short-term stay Average length of stay Not to exceed standard below or average for prior year(s) if less than standard below: Not re-enter the emergency shelter system Efficient and effective use of a pool of community resources Emergency Shelter Tier 2 Average FHC Transition Time (YWCA Family Center Only) Recidivism Movement 4 (%) (Single Adult Shelters only) Detox exits (Inebriate shelter only) Diversion Recidivism 3 (%) (YWCA Family Center only) Cost per household Cost per successful housing outcome Pass program certification 30 days for adult shelters 20 days for family shelter 12 days for inebriate shelter. Not to exceed standard based on the FHC policies and procedures (less or equal to 7 days) <5% of those who obtain housing will return to shelter. <15% of those who exit the emergency shelter will immediately re-enter another shelter. At least 10% of inebriate shelter exits will enter a detoxification program. <5% of those diverted will enter shelter. Cost per household will be consistent with budget. Cost per successful housing outcome will be consistent with budget. Provide access to resources and services to end homelessness. Ends Measurement Annual Metrics Efficient number of households served Access to resources to address immediate housing need Households served (#) New Households served (#) Successful housing outcomes (%) Successful housing outcomes (#) Usage of CSB Direct Client Assistance (%) Usage of CSB Direct Client Assistance (#) Set based on prior year(s) attainment, fair share of system demand, facility capacity, and funds to program. Set based on program capacity and prior year(s) attainment. At least 70% will obtain permanent or transitional housing. Calculated based on the Successful housing outcomes % measurement. % of households that receive CSB DCA will be consistent with prior performance and /or program design. # of households that receive CSB DCA will be consistent with prior performance and /or program design. 3 Family diversion tracking benchmarked in FY2010. 4 Board s End Goal is 15%; exception of 20% to be made during FY11. 3 S:\Research and Development\Evaluative Methodology\FY2011 Materials\Program_Performance_Standards_FY2011 Final.doc

Basic needs met in a non-congregate environment Housing Affordability at Exit 5 (%) At least 50% of successful households have their housing affordability ratio, measured as cost of housing (rent and utilities) divided by the household s income at exit, lower than 50%. Monitored but not evaluated during FY2011.. Pass program certification Provide secure, decent shelter. Temporary, short-term stay Average Length of Stay Average stay not to exceed 80 days. Not re-enter the emergency shelter system Efficient and effective use of a pool of community resources Recidivism (%) Program Occupancy Rate (%) Cost per household Cost per successful housing outcome Pass program certification <5% of those who obtain housing will return to shelter. At least 95% occupancy rate. Cost per household will be consistent with budget. Cost per successful housing outcome will be consistent with budget. Provide access to resources and services to end homelessness. Homelessness Prevention Ends Measurement Annual Metrics Efficient number of households served Households served (#) Access to resources and services to maintain and stabilize housing New households served (#) Successful housing outcomes (%) Successful housing outcomes (#) Housing Affordability at Exit (%) If applicable, usage of CSB Direct Client Assistance ($) Set based on program capacity, prior year(s) attainment and funds. Set based on program capacity, prior year(s) attainment and funds. At least 90% will maintain or obtain housing. Calculated based on the Successful housing outcomes % measurement. At least 50% of successful households have their housing affordability ratio, measured as cost of housing (rent and utilities) divided by the household s income at exit, lower than 50%. Monitored but not evaluated during FY2011. Average DCA will be consistent with program design. Not enter the emergency shelter system Efficient and effective use of a pool of community resources If applicable, usage of CSB Direct Client Assistance (%) If applicable, usage of other community resources (%) Recidivism (%) Cost per household Cost per successful housing outcome % of households that receive CSB DCA will be consistent with prior performance and /or program design. % of households that receive other community resources will be consistent with prior performance. <5% of those who have successful housing outcomes will enter shelter. Cost per household will be consistent with budget. Cost per successful housing outcome will be consistent with budget. 5 New measurement for change in income from entry to exit to be benchmarked during FY2010. Housing Affordability at Exit was chosen for this income measurement as a better representation of the household stability at exit from the program. 4 S:\Research and Development\Evaluative Methodology\FY2011 Materials\Program_Performance_Standards_FY2011 Final.doc

Pass program certification Average length of participation Provide access to and coordination with community resources and services to prevent homelessness. Based on program design. Increase Access to Benefits and Income Efficient number of households served Ends Measurement Annual Metrics Access to resources and services to move to and stabilize housing Households served (#) Set based on prior year(s) attainment and funds.. Count of all households with an application end date that occurs either within the report period or is New households served (#) Set based on prior year attainment and funds. Count of all households with an application start date that occurs within the report period. Submitted SSI/SSDI Applications (#) The number of SSI/SSDI applications submitted will be consistent with program design. At least 58% of the households served will have their SSI/SSDI applications submitted 6. Not re-enter the emergency shelter system Submitted Other Applications (#) Successful SSI/SSDI Applications (%) Recidivism (%) The number of other benefits applications submitted will be consistent with program design. At least 58% of the households served will have their other benefits 6 applications submitted. At least 70% of the submitted SSI/SSDI applications have a favorable resolution 7. <5% of those who have successful applications will return to shelter. Efficient and effective use of a pool of community resources Cost per household Cost per successful applicant Pass program certification Cost per household will be consistent with budget. Cost per successful applicant will be consistent with budget. Provide resources and services to end homelessness. 6 % metric benchmarked during FY2010 and measured in FY2011. 7 Metric based on national best practices. % will be benchmarked locally. 5 S:\Research and Development\Evaluative Methodology\FY2011 Materials\Program_Performance_Standards_FY2011 Final.doc

Outreach Specialist Ends Measurement Annual Metrics Efficient number of households served Households served (#) Access to resources to address immediate housing need Basic human needs met in secure, decent environment New households served (#) Usage of CSB Direct Client Assistance (%) Successful outcomes (%) Successful outcomes (#) Successful housing outcomes (%) Successful housing outcomes (#) Exited Households to PSH (#) Set based on prior year(s) attainment and funds. Set based on prior year attainment and funds. At least 25% will receive CSB DCA. At least 70% successful housing/shelter outcomes. Calculated based on the Successful outcomes % measurement. At least 75% of successful outcomes obtain housing. Calculated based on the Successful housing outcomes % Set measurement. based on anticipated vacancies for the critical access to housing initiative. Do not re-enter the emergency shelter system Efficient and effective use of a pool of community resources Recidivism (%) Cost per household Cost per successful housing outcome Pass program certification <5% of those who obtain housing will return to shelter. Cost per household will be consistent with budget. Cost per successful housing outcome will be consistent with budget. Provide access to resources and services to address immediate housing need. Supportive Housing 8 PSH Permanent Supportive Housing; TH = Transitional Housing; SPC = Shelter Plus Care Ends Measurement Annual Metrics Efficient number of households served Households served (#) Access to resources/services to move to and stabilize housing If applicable, CAH Households served (#) Housing Stability 11 Housing Affordability at Exit (%) 9 Set based on prior year(s) attainment and program capacity. Set based on prior year(s) attainment and program capacity. At least standard below or greater if prior year(s) achievement was greater At least 12 months for PSH (goal to be set not to exceed 24 months, actual attainment may be greater than goal) Up to 4 months for TH At least 12 months for SPC At least 50% of successful households have their housing affordability ratio, measured as cost of housing (rent and utilities) divided by the household s income at exit, lower than 50%. Monitored but not evaluated during FY2011. 8 HUD and local CoC required outcomes must be met by all programs that receive HUD funding. 9 New measurement for change in income from entry to exit to be benchmarked during FY2010. Housing Affordability at Exit was chosen for this income measurement as a better representation of the household stability at exit from the program. 6 S:\Research and Development\Evaluative Methodology\FY2011 Materials\Program_Performance_Standards_FY2011 Final.doc

Ends Measurement Annual Metrics Basic needs met in a non-congregate environment* Not re-enter the emergency shelter system Efficient and effective use of a pool of community resources Employment status at exit 10,12 (%) Successful housing outcomes (%) Successful housing outcomes (#) Successful housing exits (%) At least 20% of households exiting will have employment. At least 90% successful housing outcomes. Calculated based on the Successful housing outcomes % measurement. At least X% of exits are successful housing outcomes. To be benchmarked in FY2011, measured in FY2012. Housing Retention 11 (%) <5% of those who obtain housing will return to shelter. Cost per household Cost per successful housing outcome Cost per unit Cost per household will be consistent with budget. Cost per successful housing outcome will be consistent with budget. Cost per unit will be consistent with budget. Program Occupancy Rate 11 (%) Full occupancy (>95%). Turnover Rate (%) Pass program certification Set based on prior year(s) attainment, an annual 20% turnover rate is desirable. Provide access to resources and services to end homelessness. Standards 6, 7 Negative Reason for leaving 11 (%) Less than 20% leave for noncompliance or disagreement with rules 10, 12 Successful housing outcome (%) At least standard below or greater if prior year(s) achievement was greater At least 80% for PSH and SPC At least 77% for TH Interim housing stability 10, 12 (%) At least 81% of persons remain in permanent supportive housing for at least 6 months Increase in income from entry to exit 11 (%) At least 45% of tenants in PSH and SPC At least 50% of clients in TH Transition Program Direct Client Assistance Ends Measurement Annual Metrics Efficient number of households served Households served (#) Access to resources/services to move to and stabilize housing Usage of other community resources related to housing stability (%) Usage of CSB Direct Client Assistance (%) Usage of CSB Direct Client assistance ($) Set based on prior year(s) attainment and funds to program. % of households that receive other community resources will be consistent with prior performance. At least 95% will receive financial assistance Average DCA amount will be consistent with prior performance, funds and /or program design. 10 Goal approved for the 2009 HUD Application, Exhibit 1, by the CoC Steering Committee. Applicable to all HUD funded programs. 11 Local goal approved by the CoC Steering Committee. Applicable to all HUD funded programs. 12 Fixed minimum threshold no allowable variance as HUD benchmark is fixed. 7 S:\Research and Development\Evaluative Methodology\FY2011 Materials\Program_Performance_Standards_FY2011 Final.doc

Basic needs met in a non-congregate environment Not re-enter the emergency shelter system Efficient and effective use of a pool of community resources Successful housing outcomes (%) Successful housing outcomes (#) Recidivism (%) Cost per household Cost per successful housing outcome Pass program certification At least 98% successful housing outcomes. Calculated based on the Successful housing outcomes % measurement. <5% of those who obtain housing will return to shelter. Cost per household will be consistent with budget. Cost per successful housing outcome will be consistent with budget. Provide access to resources and services to end homelessness. 8 S:\Research and Development\Evaluative Methodology\FY2011 Materials\Program_Performance_Standards_FY2011 Final.doc

FY2010 FY2011 System Evaluation Methodology Overview A. Purpose Each year CSB establishes a performance plan for the men s emergency shelter system, women s emergency shelter system, family emergency shelter system and permanent supportive housing system for the purpose of program planning and monitoring system performance measured against CSB Ends Policies and anticipated performance. B. Monitoring System performance measures are monitored on a quarterly, semi-annual and annual basis. System and Program Indicators Reports are published quarterly and furnished to CSB trustees, the Rebuilding Lives Funder Collaborative, and the Continuum of Care Steering Committee. Annual program evaluations are published based on the first semi-annual partnership period performance and shared with the aforementioned entities. All reports are posted to www.csb.org. Results are also shared with CSB funders consistent with funding contracts and agreements. Purpose, Definition, Goal-setting & Reporting Methodologies (in alpha order) 1) Average Length of Stay (LOS): a) Purpose: A short LOS indicates the system s success in rapid re-housing. It can also indicate efficiency related to turnover of beds which is essential to meet system demand for emergency shelter. b) Systems: Emergency Shelter c) Definition: The average cumulative number of days households receive shelter as measured from shelter entry to exit or last day of report period. d) Goal-setting methodology: Based on CSB Board Ends Policy, prior performance or anticipated performance. An average LOS less than Ends goal is considered to be the desired direction. e) Reporting methodology: i) Σ(Exit date or report end date Entry date) / the number of total distinct households served within the report period. 2) Cost per household 1 a) Purpose: Indicates that the system is cost-efficient. b) Systems: All c) Definition: A percentage based on the semi-annual CSB actual cost per household served relative to the annual budgeted CSB cost per household served. A system is considered efficient if its actual cost per household served is either less than or within 110% of the budgeted cost per household served. d) Goal-setting methodology: N/A e) Reporting methodology: (The semi-annual actual CSB cost per household served / the annual budgeted CSB cost per household served) X 100. 3) Cost per successful housing outcome 1 1 New measure 1 S:\Research and Development\Evaluative Methodology\FY2011 Materials\FY2011 System Methodology.docx

a) Purpose: Indicates that the system is cost-efficient. b) Systems: All c) Definition: A percentage based on the semi-annual CSB actual cost per successful housing outcome relative to the annual budgeted CSB cost per successful housing outcome. A system is considered efficient if its actual cost per successful housing outcome is either less than or within 110% of the budgeted cost per successful housing outcome. d) Goal-setting methodology: N/A e) Reporting methodology: (The semi-annual actual CSB cost per successful housing outcome / the annual budgeted CSB cost per successful housing outcome) X 100. 4) Employment Status at Exit: a) Purpose: Indicates that system is assisting households to stabilize housing by becoming employed. A higher rate is considered positive. b) Systems: Permanent Supportive Housing c) Definition: The percentage of households that have employment at exit as measured by their earned income at exit from the system. d) Goal-setting methodology: Meet or exceed CSB Board Ends or HUD Standards. e) Reporting methodology: The percentage employment is calculated by determining the number of exited households who have earned income from employment as their source of income and dividing by the total number of households that exited during the report period. 5) Households Served: a) Purpose: Indicates volume of households served by the system. For emergency shelter, the number measures system s efficiency. For supportive housing, the number correlates to capacity and unit turnover rates. b) Systems: All c) Definition: The number of distinct households served by the system (including new and carry-over) during the evaluation period. For Permanent Supportive Housing, households served must meet Rebuilding Lives eligibility criteria. d) Goal-setting methodology: i) Emergency Shelter: (1) Annual projections: (a) Use prior year trend data to determine average annual demand. (b) If demand is relatively stable, predict same annual demand # for FY10-FY12. (c) If demand trend shows steady increase or steady decrease, predict FY10-FY12 demand based on average annual rate of change. (2) Semi-Annual/Quarterly projections: (a) Adjust for seasonal variation based on FY08 actual variation. ii) Permanent Supportive Housing: (1) Annual projection: (a) System capacity based on predicted number of units at the start of each fiscal year. 2 S:\Research and Development\Evaluative Methodology\FY2011 Materials\FY2011 System Methodology.docx

(b) Multiply the system capacity by the projected annual turnover rate of 20%. For example, if system capacity is 800 then annual projected households served would be 24 (800 x 1.2 = 960). (2) Semi-annual projection: Multiply the system capacity by the projected semi-annual turnover rate of 10%. For example, if system capacity is 800 then semi-annual projected households served would be 22 (800 x 1.1 = 880). (3) Quarterly projection: Multiply the system capacity by the projected quarterly turnover rate of 5%. For example, if system capacity is 800 then quarterly projected households served would be 21 (800 x 1.05 = 840). e) Reporting methodology: The number of distinct households served by the system during the evaluation period. Distinct households served are identified by their last service record entered into CSP as of the end of the evaluation period. 6) Housing Retention: a) Purpose: Indicates system s success in ending homelessness as measured by those who return to emergency shelter. A lower rate is considered positive. b) Systems: Permanent Supportive Housing c) Definition: The percent of households who do not maintain their housing, whether or not as part of the Permanent Supportive Housing, and return to emergency shelter within two weeks to three months of exit from the program. d) Goal-setting methodology: At or below CSB Board Ends Policy or local CoC standards. Based on historical trends or anticipated performance. e) Reporting methodology: Those households who did not exit plus those who exit the system and enter shelter within two weeks to three months after exit or as of date of report, divided by the total number of distinct households served during the evaluation period. Σ(Households that exited system and entered shelter within 14 to 90 days) / total distinct households served. 7) Housing Stability: a) Purpose: Indicates system s success in ending homelessness as measured by length of time that system participants retain permanent supportive housing. A longer rate is generally considered positive. b) System: Permanent Supportive Housing c) Definition: The average length of time, measured in months, for which distinct clients reside in the Permanent Supportive Housing system. d) Goal-setting methodology: Meet or exceed CSB Board Ends Policy or prior performance; based on historical trends or anticipated performance. Meet or exceed most recently reported achievements. e) Reporting methodology: Measured using the total average client length of stay (from intake to exit date or end of period, if still a resident) divided by the total average days per month (30.5 days). 8) Interim Housing Stability: a) Purpose: Indicates system s success in rapidly stabilizing a household in housing. b) Systems: Permanent Supportive Housing 3 S:\Research and Development\Evaluative Methodology\FY2011 Materials\FY2011 System Methodology.docx

c) Definition: The percentage of households that remain in permanent housing for at least six months. d) Goal-setting methodology: Meet or exceed HUD Standard. e) Reporting methodology: Measured using the number of households that stayed in housing for more than six months divided by the total households served. Step 1: Calculate the total days that each household served was housed by subtracting the Entry Date from the Exit Date or end of report period. Step 2: Count the number of households that stayed in housing for more than 180 days. Step 3: Determine the interim housing stability rate by dividing the number of households that stayed in housing for more than 180 days by the number of households served. 9) Movement (%) 2 a) Purpose: Indicates the extent to which emergency shelter clients are migrating from one shelter program to another. b) Systems: Single Adult Emergency Shelter c) Definition: All distinct households that exit an emergency shelter program during the evaluation period and then have contact with another shelter within seven (7) days of exit. The movement rate is measured by dividing the total distinct households that experience movement by the total distinct household exits during the evaluation period (relative to the program that served them). d) Goal-setting methodology: Benchmarked during FY2010 and evaluated during FY2011. e) Reporting methodology: The number of total distinct households that experience movement within 7 days / the number of total distinct household exits for the respective program. 10) Negative Reason for Leaving: a) Purpose: Low rate of negative reasons indicates system s success in stabilizing a household in housing. b) Systems: Permanent Supportive Housing c) Definition: The percentage of households that leave housing due to non-compliance or disagreement with the housing rules. d) Goal-setting methodology: Meet or below local CoC standards. e) Reporting methodology: The percentage is calculated by determining the number of exited households who have non-compliance with project or disagreement with rules/person as their Reason for Leaving the system and dividing by the total number of households that exited during the report period. 11) Pass Program Certification 2 a) Purpose: Indicates system s success in ending homelessness, ability to provide resources and services to homeless persons and access and coordination to community resources and services, as needed. b) Systems: All 2 Measure included in past evaluations. Re-introduced for FY2010-2011. 2 New Measure, to replace all prior program certification related measurements. 4 S:\Research and Development\Evaluative Methodology\FY2011 Materials\FY2011 System Methodology.docx

c) Definition: System adheres to all applicable standards, described in the CSB Administrative and Program Standards. d) Goal-setting methodology: N/A e) Reporting methodology: Current Program Review and Certification Report. 12) Recidivism: a) Purpose: Indicates system s success in ending homelessness as measured by number of households who attain housing and do not return or enter shelter subsequent to a successful housing outcome. A lower rate is considered positive. b) System: Emergency Shelter c) Definition: The number of exited clients with a successful housing outcome (as defined for that system) who have any shelter contact within two weeks to three months of a successful housing outcome, expressed as a percentage of total distinct clients with an exit to housing (as defined for that system). For Tier I Family Shelter, households with exits to emergency shelter are excluded from the calculation. d) Goal-setting methodology: Meet or exceed Board Ends Policy. e) Reporting methodology: A percentage rate reflecting the number of recidivist households in a system relative to the number of households that exited the system with a successful housing outcome (specific to that system). Recidivism rate is measured only for semiannual and annual periods. For Tier I Family Shelter, households with exits to emergency shelter are excluded from the calculation. i) Rate = (numerator/denominator) x 100 ii) Denominator: Cohort of households which attained successful housing outcome prior to 90-days before the end of the evaluation period. (1) Semi-annual cohort: Calculate the number of distinct households with successful housing outcome within the first 90 days of the semi-annual period. (2) Annual cohort: Calculate the number of distinct households with successful housing outcome within the first 270 days of the annual period. iii) Numerator: Number of recidivists from the cohort (1) A recidivist household is defined as a household that exits a system with a successful outcome (specific to that system) and enters the emergency shelter system within two weeks to three months after exit from the system. (2) Semi-annual: Calculate the number of cohort that enters shelter system within 14 to 90 days subsequent to successful housing outcome. (3) Annual: Calculate the number cohort that enters shelter system within 14 to 90 days subsequent to successful housing outcome. 13) System Occupancy Rate: a) Purpose: Indicates efficient use of community resources. High occupancy indicates system efficiency at turning over units and providing a system that is in demand. b) System: Permanent Supportive Housing c) Definition: A percentage that reflects the average number of clients residing in supportive housing per night relative to the overall system capacity. d) Goal-setting methodology: Meet or exceed Board Ends Policy. e) Reporting methodology: Total household units of service provided during the period divided by the total days within the period divided by the total system capacity. Note: 5 S:\Research and Development\Evaluative Methodology\FY2011 Materials\FY2011 System Methodology.docx

cumulative total for households with multiple instances of service during the period. [Σ(exit date or last day of report period entry date or first day of period) / total days during the period]/system capacity. 14) Successful Housing Outcomes: Refer to Table 1 at the end of the appendix for a complete list of housing outcomes. a) Purpose: Indicates system s success in ending homelessness. A higher number and rate are considered positive. i) Emergency Shelter: Indicates system s success in ending homelessness as measured by those who attain transitional or permanent housing. ii) Permanent Supportive Housing: Indicates system success in ending homelessness as measured by those who retain permanent supportive housing or attain other permanent housing. b) Systems: All c) Definition: i) Emergency Shelter: the number of distinct households that exit (i.e., latest exit for clients with multiple stays during period) to successful housing as defined in Table 1 and the percentage this represents of total distinct households exited. ii) Permanent Supportive Housing: the number of distinct households that remain in Permanent Supportive Housing or that exit permanent supportive housing for other permanent housing (as defined in Table 1) and the percentage this represents of total distinct households served. d) Goal-setting methodology: Meet or exceed Board Ends Policy. i) Emergency Shelter: Number of outcomes equals rate times number of exits. ii) Permanent Supportive Housing: Multiply the percentage goal by the projected number of households served. e) Reporting methodology: i) Emergency Shelter: Calculate the total number of exits and the total number of destinations that are considered successful housing outcomes. Divide the number of successful housing outcomes by the number of total exits. ii) Permanent Supportive Housing: Sum the total number of destinations that are considered successful housing outcomes and the number residing in PSH at the end of the period. Divide the number of successful housing outcomes by the total number of households served during the period. Deceased clients are not included in the count of exited clients. 15) Turnover Rate: a) Purpose: Low turnover rate may indicate the system is not effectively helping tenants to move to independent housing. High turnover rate may indicate system is not effectively providing stable housing. Rate is monitored but not evaluated. b) Systems: Permanent Supportive Housing c) Definition: The rate at which units become vacant relative to the number of units occupied. d) Goal-setting methodology: Based on predicted annual rate of 20%; semi-annual rate of 10%; and quarterly rate of 5%. 6 S:\Research and Development\Evaluative Methodology\FY2011 Materials\FY2011 System Methodology.docx

e) Reporting methodology: Turnover rate is calculated by dividing the total units becoming vacant during a period by the number of units occupied during the same period. 7 S:\Research and Development\Evaluative Methodology\FY2011 Materials\FY2011 System Methodology.docx

PRIORITY COMMUNITY: LAS VEGAS/CLARK COUNTY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT WORKING GROUP MAY 2, 2013 Alameda County Housing Examples of Performance Reports from Other Communities Obtain Permanent Housing (Figure 1) Overall the system has improved the rate of exits to permanent housing (PH) from 28% in 2009, to 33% in 2010, to 43% in 2011. The Emergency Shelter, Rapid Re Housing, Drop In Center, and Outreach sectors met their performance benchmarks in 2011, with all four sectors demonstrating improvement since 2010. The Employment Program sector held steady at 23% for the third year in a row; the Transitional Housing and Services Only Case Management sectors both had slight declines from 2010. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Rates People Obtain Permanent Housing by Sector 91% 2010 Actual 2011 Actual Benchmark 59% 50% 43% 47% 40% 30% 33% 30% 23% 27% 20% 10% 0% Figure 1 Percentage labels indicate 2011 actuals. Source for Systemwide data: 2011 APR run systemwide without HPRP. Sources for Sector data: InHOUSE Outcomes Report 2/3/12, run for each sector, 2011 Alameda County. 1

Emergency Shelter (ES) Sector (Figures 2 4): Fourteen emergency shelters in Alameda County exited 2,561 people from their programs in 2011. The tables below display the rates of exits to permanent housing for each shelter in the sector labeled by an abbreviated shelter name (see Attachment C for a index of program names). 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 2 Highlights Eleven of 14 shelters improved their performance rate, one stayed the same, and only two saw slight decreases of 2% and 4% respectively. Four programs improved their rates by double digits, FELM from 30% to 80%. For EOES an increase from 25% to 41% meant they met the benchmark for the first time. Last year BFMW and BFSL had more than 50% of their exits to permanent housing occur within 60 days. This year they are joined by YEES, SMWS, and FELM. Program Abbreviation Source: InHOUSE Report Outcomes 2/3/2012 (run for Shelter sector and combined programs), 2011 Alameda County. For the second year, results indicate that the bed capacity of a program may not correlate to outcomes in emergency shelters. The figures below examine the permanent housing exit rates in shelters by bed capacity of each program, Figure 3 for smaller facilities and Figure 4 for larger facilities. In Figure 3, nine shelters have 18 39 bed capacity with a wide range of permanent housing exit rates from 8% to 80%. The larger facilities range from 40 to 125 beds and demonstrated a similarly wide range of exit rates to permanent housing (13% to 41%). This analysis by shelter size is unlikely to be included in subsequent reports, but future reports will instead examine if exit rates to permanent housing are influenced by program design or target population. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Permanent Housing Exit Rates for Shelters ANES 7 programs met performance benchmark Sector Average: 33% Benchmark: 30% ANES CHES ANWS YEES BHMO BHDW BOHH ABSV BOSC EOES BFMW Permanent Housing Exit Rates for 18 39 Bed Shelters CHES YEES BHDW BOSC BFMW SMWS BFSL SMWS FELM BFSL Figure 3 Figure 4 Source: InHOUSE Report Outcomes 2/3/2012 (run for Shelter sector and combined programs), sorted by capacity, 2011 Alameda County. FELM 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Permanent Housing Exit Rates for 40 125 Bed Shelters ANWS BHMO BOHH ABSV EOES Types of Permanent Housing Obtained (Figure 8): As in 2010, two thirds of persons who exit the system to permanent housing do so to unsubsidized permanent housing, which includes rental housing with no subsidy (43%), family or friends on a permanent basis (21%), and ownership (2%). From 2010 to 2011 the percentage of people exiting to permanent rental housing with a subsidy increased by 4 points, while the number exiting to permanent supportive housing fell by 4 points. 25% Types of Exits to Permanent Housing Systemwide Rental, no subsidy 43% 43% Family or friend, permanent 21% 9% 2% 21% Ownership 2% Permanent Supportive Housing (including VASH and S+C) 9% Rental, with subsidy 25% Figure 8 Source: InHOUSE Report APR v4.06.087 2/6/12 (run system wide without HPRP), 2011 Alameda County. ACHIEVING OUTCOMES 2011 PROGRESS REPORT 6 2

Return to Homelessness (Figure 9) In 2011 the systemwide rate of return to homelessness was once again 7%. This rate is the percentage of people exiting to permanent housing that subsequently reenter HMIS as homeless within the following twelve months, for the average of the months April 2010, July 2010, October 2010, and January 2011. Homeless is defined as entering a shelter or transitional housing program or entering any other program with a housing status of literally homeless. Rates vary from a high of 27% for emergency shelters to a low of 3% for Rapid Re Housing (RRH) programs. The federal and local goal is that less than 10% of those who exit to permanent housing subsequently return to homelessness. Despite a slight increase within three sectors, the systemwide rate remains level because it includes prevention program. Future reports may calculate this outcome measure differently based on guidelines expected to be issued by HUD later this year. EveryOne Home is also interested in examining return to homelessness from various exit destinations (rental with subsidy, rental without subsidy, family and friends, and home ownership) to assess whether some destinations are more likely to result in a return to homelessness than others. 30% Return to Homelessness 27% 25% 20% 2010 Actual 2011 Actual 15% 10% 7% 8% 11% 5% 3% 0% Systemwide ES TH RRH SO Figure 9 Source: InHOUSE Report Returns to Homelessness v 12.02.03, run by systemwide with HPRP and by sector for each quarterly increment, 2011 Alameda County. 3

Priority Community: Las Vegas Performance Measurement Working Group Proposed Las Vegas CoC Performance Measures COLOR KEY System- level measures Program- level measures Client- level measures Performance Measure Indicators Timing Notes Reduce number of people Compare PIT (PIT) Annually Also break out ES, TH, and street experiencing outreach data homelessness Reduce length of time Measure number of days until housed from entry Annually While program- level data will homeless date at ES, TH, or other point of entry to system to entry date at PH (HMIS) Measure number of days until housed from date of first outreach encounter to entry date to PH (HMIS) impact this measure, WG will need to assess how to effectively measure across programs in HMIS Episodic vs. over life? First contact with outreach worker? Add self- reporting question at intake: when first homeless in Southern Nevada (to measure local responsiveness)? Distinguish between outreach and intake? Measure both from o Contact: system responsiveness o Self- report: client profile Need to collect more data over time Reduce cost per client Average amount spent per client Annually Organize by program models 1

Priority Community: Las Vegas Performance Measurement Working Group Performance Measure Indicators Timing Notes Goal is to cross- compare service models Reduce returns to homelessness Improve program coverage Improve income for homeless households Reduce first time homelessness Prevent homelessness for families and TAY Compare first time homeless question (via HMIS) Compare recidivism rate (via HMIS housing status) Increase outreach encounters, as a percentage of total number of unsheltered persons in PIT (HMIS and PIT) Compare average income from entry to exit (HMIS) Compare average non- employment income from entry to exit (HMIS) Compare first time homeless in past year question (via HMIS) Compare recidivism rate (via HMIS) Annually Intake question likely needs to be added Phase 2 measure Measure length of time? What happened between exit to PH and reentry? Quarterly Annually What are other ways of measuring coverage? Break down by subpopulation using PIT? Look at ES and TH usage Annually Potentially break out by program types; are some programs (like ES) exempt? Annually Intake question likely needs to be added Add self- reporting question at intake: when first homeless in Southern Nevada (to measure local responsiveness)? Reduce by year (via PIT) Annually Look at homelessness subpopulation trends over time ESG data? Family Connect Reduce average number of days to house homeless households Measure days from program entry to accessing permanent housing (HMIS) Quarterly data and annual data Will this measure apply to all types of programs? 2

Priority Community: Las Vegas Performance Measurement Working Group Performance Measure Indicators Timing Notes Increase in client income Compare average income from entry to exit (HMIS) Annually Compare average non- employment income from entry to exit (HMIS) Clients remain housed for at least XX months Percentage of households who remain housed XX months after program exit (for TH and PSH) Percentage of households who remain in housing for at least 6 months (for PSH) Reduce cost per client Average amount spent per client Annually Increase in client income Compare income from entry to exit (HMIS) Compare non- employment income from entry to exit (HMIS) Client accesses permanent housing Compare housing status (unstably housed vs stably housed) Track exits to permanent housing Annually Need to require follow- up in contracts Just measure for certain programs? Fund Outreach to do follow up? Entry/exit of client (for all indicators) Entry/exit of client Client exit Client remains housed Housing status at XX months TBD Fund Outreach to do follow up? 3

!"#$%&'()*+,*-."-/0$1*+2*03#-*3+."-+454544+%"+454546 7#%1"/*3 89*:%*-!"#$%&$'" (")*+,'-+'./ $*&'01 ;-0$3(%("$0: <"#3($=!")&$23."$45 "6.&&$'$42")&$52.*4 "(3")4073."$4,'-+'./"52$8+85 9)*:.+$"2;2<'-=$6& >*4$,$*4$*6$1,*-/0$*$% 8#>>"-%(?*+<"#3($=!")&$2723."$42.*4 "(3")402723."$4,'-+'./"2?$8+8 @#$%&$'2A2B.'$2.*4 CD@E1 @0>() @*9"#3($=,-*?*$%("$ #,', #,', 8%-**% 7#%-*019 8*-?(1*+7$:& A$%(-*+!"! -*%02F 6%)$*&" G)&#,'-+'./ $*&')$" $/,%-0/$*&526."$ /.*.+$/$*&2-'2.*02*-* #-(")*+2#-/$%$"",'-+'./2(&)%)H)*+2,'-+'./ $*&')$" )*6%(4$"2.%%2,'-+'./ &0,$" D3&.)*2,$'/.*$*& #-(")*+ IJ8JKL MN8KOL MM8PKL QK8NJL FP8JQL FF8PJL R.)*&.)*S'$&.)*,$'/.*$*&2#-(")*+2!K /-*&#"1 NP8KML Q8NML IT8KNL NP8KML R.)*&.)*S'$&.)*,$'/.*$*&2#-(")*+2!TI /-*&#"1 JO8JTL JO8JTL UV)&)*+2&-2<$'/.*$*& DW2>*&$')/2C-(")*+ FT8QOL JP8KFL FK8TTL UV)&2G)&#2$.'*$42)*6-/$ S2$/,%-0/$*& TF8INL OF8KFL TQ8QFL IN8QQL ON8PIL TN8NKL IP8TFL UV)&2G)&#2/.)*"&'$./ 3$*$X)&" ON8IPL FK8JNL MP8MJL FO8MOL IO8MTL FN8PNL OQ8KFL DX2&#-"$2.4(%&"2$*&$')*+ G)&#2*-2)*6-/$52.* )*6'$."$2)*2&#-"$2G#- $V)&2G)&#2.*2)*6-/$ Q8NKL TJ8KPL OM8INL M8TOL TT8MKL IO8INL TO8OPL W$&('*2&- #-/$%$""*$""2.X&$' 3$X-'$2'$,-'&2$*4 IF8QTL TM8NTL TT8KFL O8QOL W$&('*2&- #-/$%$""*$""2")*6$ IPPN IT8TIL TI8TOL TF8OKL O8QJL YZ$'.+$2[)+#&%0 D66(,.*602!)*6%(4$"2.%% "#$%&$'"1 NI8NQL JQ8OML OMN5IIT TOK8NFL OPP5ONP UV)&2&-2\]*-G* ^$"&)*.&)-* JF8TOL JN8KKL KI8PJL QM8FTL NT8IOL JI8IQL JJ8IKL E)/$2!)*24.0"12X'-/,'-+'./2$*&'02&-,$'/.*$*&2#-(")*+2X-' &#-"$2-3&.)*)*+,$'/.*$*&2#-(")*+ KO8TM MFM8MT ITN8MT IOO8JT TPJ8IF TNF8NN <.+$"2T2-X2T W$X'$"#24.&$2QSTJSTI