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

Similar documents
FY Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM)

Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM)

FY Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM)

Summary of 3 County CoC SPM Report Data

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

Office of Community Planning and Development

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

Using Data to Make Funding and Reallocation Decisions

[HUDX-225] HMIS Data Quality Report Reference Tool

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

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

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM: DATA QUALITY PLAN

FY16 HUD CoC Program Consolidated Application Scoring Criteria Summary June 2016

HUD-ESG CAPER User Guide

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

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

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

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

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

FY2017 CoC Program Competition Application Score Cards

Measure 1: Length of Time Persons Remain Homeless

2017 Saratoga-North Country CoC Project Rank & Review Application

HMIS PROGRAMMING SPECIFICATIONS

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the BYC and SPP

FY2019 HCCSC SCORING CRITERIA AND SCORE SHEET

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

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

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

Blue Ridge Interagency Council on Homelessness

COC RANKING For Grant Year 2017

HMIS 320 APR Training

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

Toledo Lucas County Continuum of Care: 2016 Key Performance Indicators

HMIS Programming Specifications PATH Annual Report. January 2018

1A. Continuum of Care (CoC) Identification

HMIS REQUIRED UNIVERSAL DATA ELEMENTS

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

2017 Point in Time Count

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

Toledo Lucas County Continuum of Care: 2014 Key Performance Indicators

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

a. Standard policies and procedures for evaluating individuals and families eligibility for assistance under Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG).

Summary and Analysis of the Interim ESG Rule December 2011

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

Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)

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

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

EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT (ESG) FUNDING

2019 Housing Inventory Count (HIC) Guidance Document

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

SuperNOFA FY2012 Performance Measures Cheat Sheet

CoC Annual Performance Report (APR) Guide

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

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

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

FY 2013 NOFA Planning and Advocacy December 17, 2013

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

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

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

PSH Renewal Review & Scoring Document

ESG CAPER Helper Guide

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HOMELESS ACTION PARTNERSHIP

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

Santa Barbara County HMIS Data Quality Plan

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

TOOL OVERVIEW. FY2019 CoC Program Competition Renewal Project Scoring Tool

2017 HUD CoC Program Rating and Review Procedure

HMIS Data Standards DATA DICTIONARY

Full DOB reported Approximate or Partial DOB reported

Exit Form: Print on Light-Blue Paper

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

HMIS Data Standards DATA DICTIONARY

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

NAEH Conference. Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Program. February 2014

2017 Emergency Solutions Grant Training Workshop

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

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

Health Care and Homelessness 2014 Data Linkage Study

The National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans. Tom Byrne National Alliance to End Homelessness Annual Conference July 22, 2013 Washington, DC

APR Requirements and Data Entry Workflow Review

CITY OF OAKLAND EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT DRAFT PY 2011 SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT

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

Universal Intake Form

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

CLARITY HMIS: HUD-CoC PROJECT INTAKE FORM

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

SHELTER DIVERSION ServicePoint Handbook

Health Care and Homelessness 2014 Data Linkage Study

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

Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Street Outreach & Emergency Shelters. April 4, 2017

Before Starting the CoC Application

2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR)

Administering CoC and ESG Rapid Re-housing Assistance

Data Quality Plan Tampa / Hillsborough County Continuum of Care

Wilder Foundation Family Supportive Housing Services: ROOF Project

Transcription:

HUD 2016 System Performance Measures Submission Recap NYC Coalition on the Continuum of Care October 20, 2017 1

HUD System Performance Measures Overview HUD SPM consist of 7 specific indicators measuring the performance of the NYC homeless assistance system. Local CoC s are required to report system-level performance as a part of the annual CoC funding competition. Last year was the first baseline year of the SPM. FFY16 is the second year. Each measure is defined by HUD. The SPM is required to be reported from the local CoC s HMIS. HMIS data for this report is a combination of data sourced from CARES, and HUD-funded COC programs. FFY16 Submission Deadline was May 31, 2016. 2

Measure 1: Length of Time Persons Remain Homeless Universe is active clients in FFY16. Length of Time (LOT) Homeless counts all nights in shelter in FFY16 and any earlier contiguous stay. Metric 1.1: Change in the average and median length of time persons are homeless in ES and SH projects. Metric 1.2: Change in the average and median length of time persons are homeless in ES, SH, and TH projects. 3

Measure 1: Length of Time Persons Remain Homeless Universe (Persons) Average LOT Homeless (bed nights) Median LOT Homeless (bed nights) FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2015 FY 2016 2015 vs. 2016 FY 2015 FY 2016 2015 vs. 2016 1.1 Persons in ES and SH 129047 131,947 256 260 4 177 179 2 1.2 Persons in ES, SH, & TH 132118 134,887 262 268 7 183 185 2 4

Measure 2: Return to Homelessness Measures clients who exited Street Outreach, ES, TH, HUD Safe Haven or PH to a permanent housing destination in the date range two years (2) prior to the report date range (FFY16). Of those clients, the measure reports on the number returned to homelessness as indicated in the HMIS for up to two years (2) after their initial exit. 5

Total # of Persons who Exited to a Returns to Permanent Homelessness in Housing Less than 6 Destination Months (2 Years Prior) Returns to Homelessness from 6 to 12 Months Returns to Homelessness from 13 to 24 Months Number of Returns in 2 Years FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2015 FY 2016 Exit was from SO Exit was from ES Exit was from TH Exit was from SH Exit was from PH TOTAL Returns to Homelessness 25 6 4 2 2 1 1 0 7 3 23178 23556 3791 3595 1464 1386 1969 1635 7224 6616 1892 2001 333 421 158 150 181 154 672 725 45 49 2 1 1 1 5 3 8 5 608 704 24 30 23 18 24 23 71 71 25,748 26,316 4154 4049 1648 1556 2180 1815 7982 7420 6

Measure 2: Return to Homelessness Total # of Persons who Exited to a Permanent Housing Destination (2 Years Prior) Returns to Homelessness in Less than 6 Months Returns to Homelessness from 6 to 12 Months Returns to Homelessness from 13 to 24 Months Number of Returns in 2 Years % of Returns FY15 % of Returns FY16 % of Returns FY15 % of Returns FY16 % of Returns FY15 % of Returns FY16 % of Returns FY15 % of Returns FY16 Exit was from SO & % Return to Homelessness Exit was from ES & % Return to Homelessness Exit was from TH & % Return to Homelessness Exit was from SH & % Return to Homelessness Exit was from PH & % Return to Homelessness TOTAL Returns to Homelessness 16% 33% 8% 17% 4% 0% 28% 50% 16% 15% 6% 6% 8% 7% 31% 28% 18% 21% 8% 8% 10% 8% 36% 36% 4% 2% 2% 2% 11% 6% 18% 10% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 12% 10% 16% 15% 6% 6% 8% 7% 31% 28% 7

Measure 3: Number of Homeless Persons Metric 3.1 Change in Point in Time (PIT) counts This measures the change in PIT counts of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons as reported to HUD in the annual HIC/PIT. Metric 3.1 2014 PIT Count 2015 PIT Count 2016 PIT Count Difference Between 2014 and 2015 Difference Between 2015 and 2016 Universe: Total PIT Count of sheltered and unsheltered persons 67810 75323 73,523 7513-1800 Emergency Shelter Total 59127 67378 66,800 8251-578 Safe Haven Total 141 138 136-3 -2 Transitional Housing Total 5185 4624 3,749-561 -875 Total Sheltered Count 64453 72140 70,685 7687-1455 Unsheltered Count 3357 3183 2,838-174 -345 8

Measure 3: Number of Homeless Persons Metric 3.2 Change in Annual Counts This measures the change in annual counts of unduplicated sheltered homeless persons in HMIS. FY 2015 FY 2016 Difference Universe: Unduplicated Total sheltered homeless persons 132,462 135,272 2,810 Emergency Shelter Total 129,240 132,151 2,911 Safe Haven Total 176 202 26 Transitional Housing Total 5,824 5726-98 Measure 3.2 was not in place last year. So the SPM only includes 2015 vs. 2016. 9

Measure 4: Employment and Income Growth for Homeless Persons in CoC Program-funded Projects This measure includes six metrics that report earned, non-earned, and total income for persons living in HUD funded CoC Transitional & Permanent Housing Projects. Reflects program participants with stays for at least one year Those who remained through FFY16, and Those who exited in FFY16 Income data gathered at entrance and compared to annual assessments and exit reports. Metric 4 Stayers Metric 4.1 Change in earned income for adult system stayers Metric 4.2 Change in non-employment cash income for adult system stayers Metric 4.3 Change in total income for adult system stayers Metric 4 Leavers Metric 4.4 Change in earned income for adult system leavers Metric 4.5 Change in non-employment cash income for adult system leavers Metric 4.6 Change in total income for adult system leavers 10

Measure 4: Employment and Income Growth for Stayers in CoC Program-funded Projects Metric 4.1 FY 2015 FY 2016 Difference Universe: Number of adults (system stayers) Number of adults with increased earned income Percentage of adults who increased earned income 4887 4925 38 194 220 26 4% 4% 0% Metric 4.2 FY 2015 FY 2016 Difference Universe: Number of adults (system stayers) 4887 4925 38 Number of adults with increased non-employment 1183 1168-15 cash income Percentage of adults who increased non-employment cash income 24% 24% 0% Metric 4.3 FY 2015 FY 2016 Difference Universe: Number of adults (system stayers) 4887 4925 38 Number of adults with increased total income 1301 1319 18 Percentage of adults who increased total income 27% 27% 0% 11

Measure 4: Employment and Income Growth for Leavers in CoC Program-funded Projects Metric 4.4 FY 2015 FY 2016 Difference Universe: Number of adults who exited (system leavers) Number of adults who exited with increased earned income Percentage of adults who increased earned income 2155 1385-770 346 232-114 16% 17% 1% Metric 4.5 FY 2015 FY 2016 Difference Universe: Number of adults who exited (system leavers) Number of adults who exited with increased non-employment cash income Percentage of adults who increased non-employment cash income 2155 1385-770 782 458-324 36% 33% -3% Metric 4.6 FY 2015 FY 2016 Difference Universe: Number of adults who exited (system leavers) Number of adults who exited with increased total income Percentage of adults who increased total income 2155 1385-770 1042 646-396 48% 47% -2% 12

Measure 5: Persons who become Homeless for the First Time This measures first-time homelessness base d on whether clients had any prior enrollments during the previous 24 months. This measure is limited to person with stays that began in the FFY. Metric 5.1: Change in the number of persons entering Emergency Shelters (ES), Safe Havens (SH), and Transitional Housing (TH) projects with no prior enrollments to HMIS in the prior 24 months. Metric 5.1 FY 2015 FY 2016 Difference Universe: Person with entries into ES, SH or TH during the reporting period. 101779 101,619-160 Of persons above, count those who were in ES, SH, or TH within 24 months prior to their entry during the reporting year. 41009 39,899-1110 Of persons above, count those who did not have entries in ES, SH, or TH in the previous 24 months. (i.e. Number of persons experiencing homelessness for the first time) 60770 61,720 950 13

Measure 5: Persons who become Homeless for the First Time This measures first-time homelessness base d on whether clients had any prior enrollments during the previous 24 months. This measure is limited to person with stays that began in the FFY. Metric 5.2 uses the same calculation as 5.1 but also includes entrants into Permanent Housing (PH) programs. Metric 5.2 FY 2015 FY 2016 Difference Universe: Person with entries into ES, SH, TH or PH during the reporting period. 103839 103,843 4 Of persons above, count those who were in ES, SH, TH or any PH within 24 months prior to their entry during the reporting year. 41694 40,957-737 Of persons above, count those who did not have entries in ES, SH, TH or PH in the previous 24 months. (i.e. Number of persons experiencing homelessness for the first time) 62145 62,886 741 14

Measure 7: Successful Placement from Street Outreach and Successful Placement in/retention of Permanent Housing Measure 7 reports shelter and housing placements during the reporting period. Metric 7a.1 Measures the proportion of all individuals exiting from Street Outreach programs that exit to temporary or permanent housing (% successful exits). Metric 7a.1 FY 2015 FY 2016 Difference Universe: Persons who exit Street Outreach 2576 1935-641 Of persons above, those who exited to temporary & some institutional destinations 631 560-71 Of the persons above, those who exited to permanent housing destinations 645 402-243 % Successful exits 50% 50% 0% The SPM count is expected by DSS to be lower because HUD SPM includes only placements where the case closes and the client doesn t return for additional outreach services. In the HOMESTAT program model, clients receive additional services following placement and remain on caseload. 15

Measure 7: Successful Placement in or Retention of Permanent Housing Measure 7 reports shelter and housing placements during the reporting period. Metric 7b.1 Measures the proportion of all individuals exiting from in emergency shelters (ES), HUD safe havens (SH), transitional housing (TH), and rapid-rehousing programs (PH-RRH) who exit to permanent housing (% successful exits). Metric 7b.1 FY 2015 FY 2016 Difference Universe: Persons in ES, SH, TH and PH-RRH who exited 111632 103,128-8504 Of the persons above, those who exited to permanent housing destinations 48650 44,183-4467 % Successful exits 44% 43% -1% 16

Measure 7: Successful Placement in or Retention of Permanent Housing Measure 7 reports shelter and housing placements during the reporting period. Metric 7b.2 Measures the proportion of all individuals active in permanent housing (PH) projects who exited to permanent housing (successful exit) or remained in the PH project (retention). Metric 7b.2 FY 2015 FY 2016 Difference Universe: Persons in all PH projects except PH- RRH 11510 11,931 421 Of persons above, those who remained in applicable PH projects and those who exited to permanent housing destinations 10678 11,397 719 % Successful exits/retention 93% 96% 3% 17