How Can We Human Services Educate The Public About Children Homeless And Poverty?

ASPE Enquiry BRIEF

Homo Services and Housing Supports to Accost Family Homelessness: Promising Practices in the Field

November 2011

This Research Brief is available on the Internet at:http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/11/FamilyHomelessness/rb.shtml

Printer Friendly version in PDF format (20 pages) [Free PDF reader Exit disclaimer ]

This ASPE Research Brief explores local programs for linking human services and housing supports to prevent and stop family unit homelessness. The Research Brief is based on interviews with stakeholders in fourteen communities nationwide, highlighting cardinal practices that facilitated the implementation and ongoing sustainability of the programs. The Research Brief was prepared by Abt Associates under contract with the Role of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

Background
Summary of Findings
Methods
Promising Practices
Promising Practices Among Programs with PHA Involvement
Conclusions

References

Background

Recent reports have brought national attending to the prevalence of family unit homelessness^[i] and the need to coordinate across all levels of regime to prevent and end family homelessness. In June 2011, the U.South. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released the 2010 Almanac Homeless Cess Written report (AHAR), the sixth in a series of annual reports on the extent and nature of homelessness nationwide. The report documents a 29 percent increase in sheltered family unit homelessness betwixt 2007 and 2010. Today, an estimated 168,000 families representing 567,000 persons in families utilise an emergency shelter or a transitional housing program at some point during the year. The toll of homelessness on children living with their families is troubling. Homelessness can adversely affect childrens mental wellness and beliefs, school attendance and educational accomplishment, cerebral and motor development, and general wellness.^[ii]

A year prior to the 2010 AHAR release, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) released the nations first comprehensive strategy to forestall and end homelessness, Opening Doors: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness.The plan sets an ambitious calendar for addressing homelessness, stresses governmental collaboration at all levels, and encourages using programs targeted to homeless families (too as other homeless subpopulations) and mainstream resource to assistance families reach housing stability.

The growing business about family homelessness has renewed the focus among policymakers, researchers, advocates, and practitioners on the use of mainstream programs to prevent and finish homelessness. The underlying belief is that programs explicitly for homeless people cannot be expected to practise the whole task of preventing and ending family homelessness. Indeed, ever since the start of specialized federal funding for homeless people,^[iii] it has been recognized that mainstream programs such as Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) and Temporary Assist for Needy Families (TANF) provide much greater resources than targeted programs for helping families leave homelessness.

It is within this context that the Office of the Assistant Secretarial assistant for Planning and Evaluation in the U.Southward. Department of Wellness and Human being Services (HHS) commissioned a study that focuses on local programs that link human being services with housing supports to prevent and stop family homelessness. (The Section is also engaged in a like study that focuses on homeless individuals.) The primary goal of the report is to place promising practices that facilitated the evolution, implementation, and sustainability of these programs.

[ Go to Contents ]

Summary of Findings

This enquiry brief presents an overview of promising practices that were features of these programs:

Creating a logical programme structure with services tied directly to goals. The programs in the study developed structures with: a) objectives that were within reach of the target population, b) service interventions that were tailored to the target population, and c) partners that were best suited to provide those services.
Developing lasting partnerships. Programs that laid a solid foundation for future collaborations were built on three pillars: a) programme missions that advanced the goals of each partner, b) deliberate coordination processes that fostered accountability, and c) capitalizing on established collaborative environments.
Utilizing nontraditional community resources. The constellation of partners went beyond the traditional network of social service providers and government agencies, demonstrating that thinking creatively when looking for partners tin can add value to the service interventions.
Forging relationships between program staff and local landlords to increment housing options. The relationships among case managers, housing specialists, and local landlords were designed to exist mutually beneficial: case managers and housing specialists were able to place homeless families into decent affordable housing, and landlords were reassured by the ongoing programme back up offered to tenants and by the promise of a stable source of rent.
Using case managers to link homo services and housing supports. Case managers served as the focal indicate for linking services and housing supports, and the strongest linkages were created intentionally by staff, informed by a thorough assessment of client needs, and intensive meeting purposefully and oftentimes.
Borer a latitude of funding sources. Communities used a various patchwork of funding streams to back up their programs, and nigh had a decentralized funding model in which each organisation used its own funding resources to participate in the programme.
Using standardized intake and assessment forms and data-sharing systems to ameliorate program operations. Many programs used standardized client intake and cess tools which streamlined program operations, eliminated duplicative assessments, improved service delivery, and provided common metrics for gauging progress.

The brief besides describes three practices that are specific to the participation of local public housing agencies (PHAs) that administer federal housing assistance:

Developing a continuum of housing that uses locally funded housing supports as a gateway to federal supports. Several programs in the study partnered with their local public housing agency to develop a continuum of housing that provided temporary or transitional housing assistance to homeless families with integrated example management services until the families transitioned to a permanent housing opportunity e.one thousand., HUDs HCV plan or public housing developments.
Streamlining the PHA lease-up process (i.due east., identifying, inspecting, and renting an advisable housing unit) through a review and retooling of PHA authoritative procedures and using programme partners for some housing functions. The most common strategy was to utilize plan partners, most often case managers, to assist with program applications, housing search, and unit inspection activities.
Creating supportive housing environments by integrating intensive case direction and services with mainstream housing supports, assuasive mainstream housing programs to be used by families with loftier barriers to housing. The housing subsidy was typically a tenant- or project-based voucher, public housing, or tax credit unit, and the services were supported by intensive, structured case management.

These practices appear to take facilitated the evolution, implementation and sustainability of the programs. However, the study did not include a inquiry design that allowed cess of the effects of these practices on client outcomes, and thus the study is unable to address whether these practices contribute to the goal of preventing and ending family homelessness.

[ Go to Contents ]

Methods

The research brief is based on in-person interviews with programme staff in xiv communities, including representatives from the lead agency, key partners, and other local service providers involved in the program (meet Tabular array 1). To identify the 14 communities and corresponding programs, researchers conducted a nationwide canvass of programs through three avenues: one) discussions with attendees at HUDs 2010 National Conference for homeless service providers; 2) a general telephone call for nominations via several federal email listservs; and 3) consultations with leading researchers in the field of family homelessness and representatives from several public housing agency (PHA) organizations. Prospective candidates were screened via telephone based on five characteristics of a promising practice:

Collaborative: The programme brings a true integration of human services and housing supports to offer a coordinated package of services to homeless families.
Implementable: The program is relatively like shooting fish in a barrel to implement and can exist sustained over time.
Replicable: The program can be practical in communities of unlike sizes and geographies such as big urban cities, mid-sized cities or suburbs, and small towns in rural settings.
Measurable: The programme is show-based and measures the outcomes associated with participating family members.
Cost effective: The program results in the efficient employ of resources.

**Table 1: Communities in the Study, by PHA Involvement**
Customs	Program Proper name
Non-PHA Sites
1. Boise, ID	Charitable Aid to Communitys Homeless
2. Chicago, IL	Family unit Believing Customs Treatment Program
3. Decatur, GA	DeKalb KidsHome Collaborative
four. Lawrence, MA	Saunders Schoolhouse Apartments
5. Minneapolis, MN	Hearth Connectedness
6. Palm Beach, FL	Prefer-A-Family of the Palm Beaches, Inc.
7. Pittsburgh, PA	Customs Wellness Project
PHA Sites
i. Brattleboro, VT	Pathways to Housing
two. (Land of) Maine	Family unit Housing Stabilization Program
3. (State of ) New Mexico	Linkages Plan
iv. Salt Lake County, UT	Homeless Assistance Rental Plan
5. Portland, OR	Bridges to Housing
6. Washington, DC	Permanent Supportive Housing Program
seven. Yakima, WA	Serving Families and Individuals to Stop Serious Trouble through Agencies Support

Over 80 programs were considered for the written report, and 14 were approved in consultation with a Technical Working Group composed of representatives from HHS, HUD, USICH and the Department of Education. Among the 14 programs, seven had explicit partnerships with the local PHA to serve homeless families. These programs were selected to demonstrate how communities partner with PHAs to provide mainstream housing assistance such equally HCV and public housing to prevent and end homelessness amongst families.

The next two sections depict each of these promising practices in plow, offset with the seven practices that apply to all 14 programs followed by the three practices that are specific to PHA programs. For each promising practice, the sections provide: 1) an overview that describes how the practice facilitated the development, implementation and sustainability of the programs, and 2) 2 specific examples from the communities that participated in the study.

[ Go to Contents ]

Promising Practices

1. Programs closely tied their overall objectives to their target population, service interventions, and partnership arrangements, resulting in more than focused programs.

Programs in the report had program missions that reflected conscious and logical decisions about whom to serve, what services to provide, who would provide them, and what outcomes to target. As a result, these programs were well-defined, and collaborating organizations had a clear sense of purpose and conspicuously defined roles. They are structured such that:

The objective is advisable and within accomplish of the target population. The objective of some programs was to chop-chop re-house homeless families and transition them into market place-rate housing that they paid for themselves inside a curt period of fourth dimension. Recognizing that this objective would not be reasonable for chronically homeless families with multiple barriers to housing, these programs fittingly focused on families who suffered from a curt-term economic crisis and had some income (or potential for income) to support their housing expenses. Several programs opted to focus on a few fundamental objectives rather than a long list of goals, and this resulted in a more focused program with greater follow-through in linking programme participants to services.

The service interventions are tailored to the target population to brand it more likely to achieve the objectives of the program. Programs that targeted the hardest to serve for case, chronically homeless families that may be socially isolated and have fallen out of the broader social service network tended to use a Housing Commencement arroyo. This approach placed families into permanent housing before resolving the underlying bug that may take led to their homelessness. For example, the Housing First approach does non require clients to be clean and sober or seek handling in commutation for housing, recognizing that the hardest-to-serve population may be service-resistant and willing to remain homeless if compelled into treatment. The service intervention made it more likely to achieve the immediate goal of ending episodes of homelessness among families and allowed program partners to focus on the long-term goal of keeping families in their housing.

The program partners agree with the objectives of the plan and can provide the advisable service interventions. Programs in the study selected partners that shared a mutual vision for the program, and the programs objectives aligned with the missions of each individual organization. Programme partners were selected to provide the advisable constellation of service interventions, equally dictated by the target population and program objectives. For example, rapid re-housing programs that targeted families who suffered from a brusque-term economical crisis typically partnered with local emergency shelters every bit the primary referral source, with task readiness and employment training organizations to reconnect families to a source of stable incomes, and with landlords to offer affordable housing options.

Family unit Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) Program in Chicago, IL: The objective of the FACT plan is to assist young mothers and their children in stabilizing and improving their housing, employment, family unit well-beingness, and wellness condition. The FACT program targets homeless and at-take a chance families with severe mental health issues and uses a modified Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) model and medium- or long-term housing subsidies. Human activity models were first developed in the late 1960s and use a squad handling approach to provide comprehensive, community-based handling, rehabilitation, and support to persons with serious mental disease. The FACT program has a systems integration managing director, who periodically attends FACT team meetings and convenes a planning coalition comprised of organizations that can impact systems and community change. The FACT planning coalition members include consumers, members of the foundation customs, and representatives from kid development, housing, education, mental health, substance use, and vocational systems. The systems integration manager also coordinates the cross-preparation of staff in various social service fields. FACT team members believe that the systems integration work helps partners and service providers encounter the linkages between the objectives of the programme and the different types of services and supports used by young homeless families, which in turn improves the provision of individual services.
Prefer-A-Family (AAF) Rapid Re-Housing Program in Palm Embankment, FL. The AAF program is designed to run across a very specific goal: to limit the use of expensive hotel/cabin vouchers at a fourth dimension when emergency shelters are over chapters by re-housing families within 30 days of becoming homeless and helping them remain stably housed and out of the shelter organisation. To accomplish this objective, the program assembled a small number of partners who provide services directly related to this objective: emergency shelters to provide referrals to the plan; service providers to provide credit counseling, legal services, and chore readiness and employment services; a childcare voucher provider to enable the adults in families to focus on their cocky-sufficiency goals; and housing providers to provide and manage the rental assistance. The program uses common client intake and assessment tools to develop tailored family action plans that identify barriers to, and strategies for, attaining independent housing. Every bit such, the tools codify and advance the programs overall mission.

ii. Programs produced lasting partnerships through common missions, purposeful coordination, and by capitalizing on established relationships.

Programs that laid a solid foundation for future collaborations were built on three pillars: i) program missions that advance the goals of each partner; ii) deliberate coordination processes that fostered accountability, and 3) capitalizing on established collaborative environments.

In several communities, partner organizations were able to accelerate their own organizational missions, those of their partners, and the overall objective of the programme simultaneously. While the varied goals of private partners may have exceeded those of the program for example, private partners may work with other vulnerable populations and have a different gear up of objectives for these populations the goals of the programme advanced the overall mission of each partner agency, so that each had a stake in the program's success. For example, several programs in the study were designed to rapidly place homeless families into housing and assist them become self-sufficient through temporary rental assistance, case direction, and the provision of supportive services. Emergency shelters that served as referral sources for these programs were able to attain their organizational missions by moving clients into housing, freeing up resources for other needy clients. Providers of employment and job training services promoted families long-term capacity to become self-sufficient and sustain their housing by improving their chore search skills and placing them in jobs, thus achieving their organizational mission. In short, lasting partnerships were based on win-win arrangements.

Partnerships were also built on deliberate efforts to coordinate across partners, which fostered a strong sense of accountability among partners and responsibility to clients. These efforts appeared in many forms: 1) regularly scheduled meetings between partner agencies to discuss specific customer concerns and program operational issues; 2) memoranda of understanding that formalized the roles and responsibilities of each partner agency; iii) steering committees, oversight boards, and planning coalitions to oversee and monitor the programs progress and integrate systems; and 4) regional housing groups equanimous of elected officials and representatives from housing departments, public housing agencies, planning commissions, and customs groups. These deliberate coordination efforts resulted in distinct roles and articulate lines of responsibility amidst plan partners and introduced transparency to the planning process, which in plough created a greater sense of trust among partner organizations.

Lastly, while some programs created new partnerships, others capitalized on established relationships and used the program collaboration to further cement these relationships. Prior relationships often existed between public housing agencies and landlords; social service agencies and local departments of homo services; and homelessness service providers and the local Continuum of Intendance. Several programs built on partnership arrangements that were starting time created past the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP).

Pathways to Housing Program in Brattleboro, VT. The goal of the Pathways to Housing program is to aid homeless households and households at hazard of homelessness find and maintain stable housing by linking temporary housing aid (up to two years) with case direction services. The program is based on formal agreements that foster mutual accountability: between service providers and the local PHA, betwixt the housing authority and landlords, and betwixt families and example managers. An Oversight Committee was created specifically for the Pathways to Housing programme, comprised of individuals from the Agency of Human being Services, the Section of Economic Security (TANF), the Brattleboro Housing Say-so, the Section of Corrections, a large shelter, and a day shelter drop-in center. The committee reviews the applications, interviews applicants, decides who is accustomed into the plan, and monitors overall program policy. The committee meets monthly, and staff from individual partners (eastward.1000., case managers) also run across regularly.
The Linkages Program in the State of New Mexico. The Linkages Program emerged from the New Mexico Behavioral Health Purchasing Collaborative, a group of xiii partner organizations that pooled their wellness services resource from the state. The Collaborative contracts with a lead bureau to act every bit the unmarried statewide entity to provide mental and behavioral wellness services through local organizations. The New Mexico Mortgage Finance Bureau oversees the housing component of the Linkages program. At each of its three locations in the state, the programme relies on local organizations to function every bit supportive service agencies and housing administrator organizations. The supportive service bureau is responsible for using u.s. existing Medicaid platform to provide case direction, while the housing administrator assists families in locating and securing housing and transitions clients from the state-funded housing supports to the HCV program. A alphabetic character of agreement between the New United mexican states Mortgage Finance Bureau, the supportive service providers, and housing administrators delineates the responsibilities of each organization in the program.

3. Nontraditional organizations outside the usual social service network were valuable partners in helping to prevent and terminate family homelessness.

The constellation of program partners went across the traditional network of social service providers and government agencies to include mortgage finance agencies, school commune homeless liaisons, private housing developers, individual businesses, organized religion-based institutions, and university personnel. Each non-traditional partner fabricated important contributions. Some functioned as sources for referring clients to the program, while others were direct service providers, funders, or housing developers and managers. In a few communities Decatur (GA), Portland (OR), and Washington (DC) the school district liaison played an important function in monitoring the educational outcomes of children served by the plan, including their attendance, behavior, and grades. The school liaisons worked on a regular ground with the case managers assigned to the families by the program. Another nontraditional partner in the provision of homeless services, a private housing developer in Lawrence, MA, played the central role in a housing program for homeless families, linking the residents of a housing development with education and employment services that help them piece of work towards cocky-sufficiency. These communities demonstrated that thinking creatively when looking for partners can add value to their service interventions.

The Charitable Aid to Communitys Homeless (CATCH) Program in Boise, ID: The CATCH programme is a public-private partnership that re-houses homeless families and supports them with six months of rental assist and intensive case management, focusing on linking families to employment, income supports and other services. The plan is operated by the City of Boises Section of Community Planning and involves a group of local faith-based organizations and private businesses that provide rental assistance funding, program volunteers, and material resources. The city funds the authoritative and operating costs of the program, and the United Way funds the social workers who provide instance management to families. Rental assistance, volunteers to help families motion into housing, donated goods and furnishings, and customs awareness campaigns are provided past faith-based organizations and businesses that commit to sponsoring a family for half dozen months.
The DeKalb KidsHome Collaborative in Decatur, GA. The Dekalb KidsHome Collaborative addresses the rise needs of families that are homeless and accept children enrolled in the DeKalb County Schoolhouse District. The Collaborative offers education, housing, and employment services to homeless families, with the goals of helping families secure housing and income stability and helping children achieve stable school omnipresence and performance. The DeKalb County Schools homeless liaison provides services that help maintain student attendance such every bit enrollment assistance, passenger vehicle tokens and transportation, likewise as services that support school operation such as dental, hearing, and vision care and tutoring. The liaison besides offers financial assist for school supplies and extracurricular activities, such as uniforms, instrument rental fees, and summer enrichment camp. In addition, the homeless liaison helps connect students families to resource that will assistance them find housing assistance or other services they might need to stabilize their lives.

4. Programs forged strong relationships between case managers, housing specialists, and landlords as a strategy for increasing housing options and promoting housing stability.

Among the well-nigh difficult challenges confronted by programs in the study were the paucity of decent affordable housing for homeless families and the ability of service interventions to promote housing stability amongst high-needs clients. The most mutual strategy used by programs to overcome these challenges was to forge mutually beneficial relationships among case managers, housing specialists, and local landlords. Many communities already had well-established relationships betwixt homelessness service providers and landlords prior to the development and implementation of the programs in the study. Programme partners in these communities focused on maintaining and expanding the pool of landlords willing to have homeless families by leveraging these relationships to encourage landlords to participate in new programs and to spread the word to other landlords. In other communities, the network of landlords was less established, and programme partners focused on creating outreach strategies to local landlords and developing their lists of bachelor housing options. In both cases, the local public housing agency oft played an important role by supplying programs with its HCV landlord lists and offer its housing expertise.

The relationships among example managers, housing specialists, and local landlords were designed to be mutually beneficial: example managers and housing specialists representing programs were able to identify homeless families into decent affordable housing; and landlords were reassured by the ongoing programme support offered to tenants and by the promise of a stable source of rent (i.e., the housing subsidy). From the perspective of case managers and housing specialists, a common activeness was to teach tenants how to interact positively with landlords, maintain the units, and develop their rental histories. Housing specialists also taught families virtually their tenant rights. These efforts were designed to promote families housing stability, although disputes between landlords and tenants were non uncommon. Case managers and housing specialists encouraged regular communication betwixt tenants and landlords to resolve tenancy issues, only they also intervened as needed to mediate disputes. Indeed, in some communities, landlords preferred to contact instance managers who had an established rapport with tenants, understood their housing barriers, and could arbitrate more effectively than the landlord. The responsiveness of case managers and housing specialists to the concerns of both tenants and landlords appeared to be a critical component of communities housing placement and stability strategy.

Adopt-A-Family (AAF) Rapid Re-Housing Program in Palm Beach, FL. The AAF program is designed to address the burgeoning use of hotel/cabin vouchers as overflow units for emergency shelters, and the programme prepare the aggressive goal of rehousing families within 30 days of condign homeless. To meet this goal, case managers, housing specialists, and landlords work collaboratively to quickly screen, enroll, appraise, and identify families into housing. Afterwards program participants complete an awarding packet with the support of program staff, example managers utilise the information to help families identify where they desire to alive, what kind of housing is appropriate, and how much they can exist expected to pay for rent in one case they leave the program. A housing specialist coordinates with the case managing director and helps families identify housing that meets their needs and lifestyle. The specialist provides a list of landlords who are willing to accept programme participants (including those with poor credit, eviction, and/or criminal histories) and to sign a rental agreement with AAF. The specialist likewise conducts an inspection to verify the habitability of the flat, looking specifically for bug with burn down rubber, security, electricity, sanitation and whether the space is adequate for the family. While clients sign their own leases with landlords, AAF pays the security deposit and commencement months rent. Landlords also sign an agreement with AAF that outlines the landlords responsibilities too as the corporeality and duration of rental assistance.
The Saunders School Apartments in Lawrence, MA. The goal of this program is to provide stable, affordable housing for families through the adaptive re-apply and celebrated restoration of the Saunders School (a public elementary school), while assisting them in achieving self-sufficiency through education and employment services. Peabody Properties Inc., a private housing programmer, is the developer and property director for the project. As the key partner and housing developer, Peabody Backdrop has taken a lead role in developing partnerships with case managers from COMPASS for Kids, a social service and education collaborative that provides educational and employment training and assistance for homeless parents and children. COMPASS helps parents in Saunders Schoolhouse Apartments admission affordable child care, work readiness, employment training, job-search back up, educational program, English for Speakers of Other Languages training, and other services designed to support families in this program. The plan integrates the roles of example managers and landlords within a single setting.

v. Case managers played a fundamental part in linking human services with housing supports, and the strongest linkages were based on deliberate planning, thorough client assessments, and intensive example management.

Programs were intentionally designed to link human being services with housing supports, and this link was often established by case managers who served every bit the focal point for assessing client needs, developing appropriate private service plans, providing referrals and accompanying clients to service providers, facilitating the placement of clients into housing, conducting routine follow-ups and home visits, and gauging progress on individual service plans. The strongest linkages appeared to be forged when: ane) instance managers were intentional almost creating them; two) the linkages were informed by a thorough assessment of client needs; and iii) the involvement of case managers was intensive, meeting purposefully and ofttimes.

While some case managers viewed their part as passive conduits to services, providing service referrals equally needed, others saw themselves as active enablers who practise what it takes to ensure that clients are applying for and receiving eligible services and housing supports. Some case managers physically accompanied clients to service providers and followed up after to ensure that clients were receiving the services. Other case managers helped clients identify appropriate housing and drove clients to view the units. In every example, the efforts of case managers to link services and housing were informed by a detailed assessment of the households needs, typically focusing on their housing, employment and income, contained living skills, legal and criminal background, concrete and mental health histories, substance abuse issues, and anticipated barriers to housing. The results of the cess were oftentimes formalized in individual service plans that described a clients goals related to these services, how to achieve them, and past when. For some case managers, identifying and tracking the receipt of services was an intensive procedure, reinforced by regular meetings to review the service plans, dwelling house visits, ongoing communication with service providers, mediation with landlords, and in some cases, monitoring the attendance, beliefs, and performance of children through the schoolhouse district liaison.

The Permanent Supportive Housing Program (PSHP) in Washington, DC. The PSHP uses a Housing First model to help high-needs clients become self-sufficient and maintain stable housing through the provision of a housing subsidy, moving assistance, and intensive case direction. The program links housing subsidies with supportive services through a partnership between the citys department of human services, the citys housing say-so, the Continuum of Care lead agency, and case managers at several social service agencies. Although all partners play important roles in establishing the service-housing linkages, case managers are at the centre of the program. Instance managers are responsible for: i) gauging client needs and developing service plans through intensive assessments; two) enrolling clients in appropriate services, which may occur through either a referral or case managers physically escorting families to appointments; iii) profitable families with finding and moving into their housing past helping them complete a voucher application and taking them to view the bachelor units; iv) completing monthly housing visits with each family to monitor their housing condition; and 5) interim as an intermediary betwixt the families and landlords. By playing these roles, example managers are all-time positioned to integrate services and housing supports that are appropriate for each family.
Family Believing Customs Treatment (FACT) Programme in Chicago, IL: The FACT program emphasizes housing as the master goal, assertive that mothers need to be in stable housing situations to stabilize their children and to address their ain needs. A critical component of the FACT programme is the squad approach to analogous services and housing supports. The FACT team is comprised of six members: a project director, a senior case director/employment specialist, 2 youth therapists, a chemical dependency specialist, and a housing resource developer. Each FACT team member (except for the housing resource developer) also serves equally a caseworker, serving as the master squad contact for families enrolled in the program. The FACT squad is supported past a therapeutic psychiatrist. As an integrated unit, the FACT team is involved in all disquisitional stages of the program: 1) reviewing the applications and admitting families into the program; ii) discussing how to properly assist families, including the appropriate level of support and interaction with families; 3) creating treatment plans, including the needs of children in families; 4) compiling the needed documentation to access benefits and housing supports; and five) providing mental health therapy. The teams housing resource developer coordinates with the team and is responsible for conducting a housing cess that documents what type of housing families tin can afford, where they desire alive, and the general cost of living.

6. The long-term stability of programme funds was often uncertain, and programs pursued many different funding models that tapped into a breadth of funding streams.

Securing long-term funding was a critical issue among all communities that participated in the study. The uncertainty was particularly acute among homelessness prevention programs that were funded mostly through HUDs Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Plan (HPRP)^[iv] and amongst programs that relied heavily on foundation support. Funding doubtfulness was reflected in the diverse patchwork of funding streams that communities cobbled together to support their programs. Communities tapped multiple federal programs, including Community Development Block Grants, Emergency Shelter Grants, Federal Emergency Management Agency Food and Shelter Grants, Historic Tax Credits, Dwelling house Investment Partnerships Program, HPRP, HCV, HUD-Veteran Affairs Supportive Housing, Depression Income Housing Tax Credits, Medicaid, Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Shelter Plus Care, Supportive Housing Program, TANF, and TANF Emergency Funds. Communities supplemented the federal support with many other funding streams, including: urban center funds, county holding taxes, faith-based organizations, foundations (Neb and Melinda Gates Foundation, Hilton Foundation, Meyer Memorial Trust, McCormick Foundation, Paul 1000. Allen Family Foundation, and Polk Brothers Foundation), individual donations, private businesses, state general and housing trust funds, United Fashion, Washington Families Fund, and the YMCA.

Most communities had a decentralized funding model in which each organization used its ain funding resources to support its participation in the program. Some communities Chicago (IL), Portland (OR) and Yakima (WA) obtained funding from foundations that supported activities across the participating partners. In Minneapolis/St. Paul, a centralized funding appliance was adult to streamline the funding procedure and salve participating organizations from the responsibleness of renewing funding. Regardless of the approach, communities were concerned well-nigh the long-term sustainability of their funding sources, and several expected to lose their master source of funding by 2011. In these communities, the most pressing question is: what will happen when the primary funding ends will the program have demonstrated its value to other potential funders?

Hearth Connectedness in Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN. The Hearth Connection program provides permanent supportive housing paired with intensive example direction. The program combines funding from federal, state and county sources to provide housing, health services, and case management. The majority of the programs funds come from the state, which established the Long-Term Supportive Services Fund (LTSSF) and sets aside nigh $10 million every ii years to support the LTSSF. The program also uses Medicaid funding to provide case management, fabricated possible by Minnesotas Medicaid waiver that allows for reimbursement of targeted, medically necessary example management. Hearth Connection meets the Medicaid match requirement with funds from the country LTSSF allocation. The program also uses funding from HHS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for case management. To pay for rental aid, the program uses funds from the state housing trust fund and from HUDs Shelter Plus Care and Supportive Housing programs. An innovative feature of the funding model is the centralization of responsibilities inside a single entity. Hearth Connexion alleviates the brunt on partner agencies by assembling and managing these multiple funding streams and then issuing each partner a unmarried allotment of funds to support all program activities.
Family Housing Stabilization Program (FHSP) in the State of Maine: The FHSP plan is a joint attempt between Maines Department of Health and Human Services and the Maine State Housing Authority to stabilize TANF-eligible families at imminent run a risk of homelessness. FHSP combines two funding sources made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: TANF Emergency Funds and HUDs Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Plan (HPRP). HPRP funds serve as the 20 percent match needed by states to admission the TANF Emergency Funds. With the addition of TANF funds, FHSP is able to augment the services eligible under HPRP (rental aid, other housing-related services, case management, and prevention services) with other services that are not allowed under HPRP but deemed disquisitional to homeowners at imminent take a chance of losing their homes (mortgage assist, help in paying back taxes and liens, and home improvements necessary to brand the housing habitable). Each of the 13 community-based agencies that receive HPRP funds in Maine receives an boosted allotment of TANF Emergency Funds to support the FHSP program.

vii. The development of standardized intake and assessment tools and data-sharing systems across partners streamlined programme operations, eliminated duplicative assessments, improved service commitment, and provided common metrics for gauging progress.

Many programs used standardized client intake and cess tools to decide program eligibility and appraise the needs of homeless families. Several programs mandated their use in an effort to reduce the duplicative work conducted by referring agencies and case managers. The utilize of these intake forms resulted in several operational efficiencies. The forms ensured that families referred to the program from multiple agencies met all of the programs eligibility criteria before the family was contacted for possible enrollment. This pre-screening allowed plan staff to more easily serve their target population and maximize available resource to aid eligible families. Once contacted, families were enrolled more quickly into the plan, because the standardized forms required referral agencies to append all necessary documentation. In some programs, the standardized intake process included many of the eligibility criteria used by other mainstream assistance programs such as the HCV program, TANF, and the Supplemental Diet Help Program (SNAP). The incorporation of these eligibility criteria into the standardized intake forms immune plan staff to link clients to these resources as appropriate.

Many programs also implemented standardized client assessment tools. Typically, the assessment tools were get-go administered presently afterwards the intake process then were re-administered past case managers at regular intervals during a familys time in the program. Information from these tools was used to gauge families needs, place issues that might foreclose families from obtaining housing, inform the evolution of service plans, and properly friction match services to those needs. When administered throughout a familys stay in the program, the assessment tools provided case managers with information on the familys progress in achieving self-sufficiency. The most commonly used tool was the Arizona Self-Sufficiency Matrix, which measures a familys level of distress along xviii domains based on a 5-point scale.

Some programs also developed information-sharing systems across bureau partners. Data-sharing systems exposed staff across program partners to information that was previously unavailable, giving program staff a more comprehensive picture show of a family unit'due south issues, needs, and housing options, which in turn resulted in amend programme decisions. Data-sharing systems, when combined with mutual cess tools, allowed program partners to develop common metrics for gauging a family's progress and measuring program outcomes. Several programs entered information on families into their local Homeless Management Information Organization (HMIS), while others designed homegrown databases that were tailored to the program. For example, the Department of Human Services in Washington, DC developed a homegrown system that contains detailed information near each client and about available housing units in the District. The database allows partners to quickly identify qualified participants, assess their needs, help them search for available housing units, and match families to appropriate units.

The Homeless Assist Rental Programme (HARP) in Salt Lake County, UT. The HARP program provides scattered-site affordable housing and case management to individuals and families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness in Table salt Lake County. To assess families in the program, case managers are required to consummate and update ii standardized matrices: 1) a matrix that assesses the familys level of self-sufficiency along 20 domains (income, employment, housing, food, childcare, childrens issues, adult education, legal, health intendance, life skills, mental health, substance corruption, family relations, mobility, community involvement, safety, parenting skills, contact with children, physical health and support network); and 2) a matrix that focuses more narrowly on housing-related domains such as hire and utility expenses, income, housekeeping problems, landlord and housing authority issues. These instruments must exist completed before participants motion into housing, weekly for the start calendar month and monthly thereafter. The tools provide a consistent approach to assessing clients and gauging their progress toward self-sufficiency.
The Community Wellness Projection in Alleghany County, PA. The Customs Wellness Project links homeless and formerly homeless families and individuals residing in HUD-funded transitional housing or permanent supportive housing programs with employment, grooming and social service benefits. The program uses a professional person occupational therapist from Duquesne Universitys Occupational Therapy Department, who helps administer the O*Net Interest Profiler, a cocky-cess tool developed by the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Grooming Administration that helps clients match their interests and skills with particular types of piece of work activities and occupations. The program also has a comprehensive data-capture tool that improves the client application process and allows for data analysis. The information are stored in a secure data warehouse that links customer and program-level data from homeless help programs, HUD McKinney-Vento housing programs, u.s.a. TANF program (EARN), a local Workforce Investment Deed One-End programme, and participating behavioral healthcare programs. The integrated data warehouse has resulted in several important benefits to the program: streamlined application processes for homeless families and individuals, and improved capacity of stakeholders to clarify client-, programme-, and system-level outcomes.

[ Become to Contents ]

Promising Practices Among Programs with PHA Involvement

1. Programs developed a continuum of housing by using locally-funded housing supports every bit a gateway to federal supports provided through the PHA.

Several programs in the study partnered with their local public housing agency to develop a continuum of housing that provides temporary or transitional housing aid to homeless families with integrated instance direction services until the families transitioned to a permanent housing opportunity eastward.thousand., HUDs HCV program or public housing developments. The objective of these programs was to stabilize families, link them to supportive services, and address both their short- and long-term housing needs. The programs targeted homeless families or families at high risk of homelessness.

Families participating in these programs were referred primarily by not-housing supportive service agencies, although some families likewise came from local emergency shelter programs. The families were receiving services for issues that may take contributed to their homelessness (or precarious housing state of affairs), including mental wellness care, addiction services, domestic violence prevention, poor credit, and lack of rental histories. After completing intake and cess forms, case managers within these agencies identified eligible program participants and connected them with a temporary housing subsidy. The temporary housing assistance was oftentimes for ii years and structured similar to HUDs HCV program, using the same eligibility criteria, payment agreement, housing quality, rent reasonableness, and fair market rent standards. The temporary housing was funded through country and local sources, often involving the states section of homo services. Upon enrollment into the program, families were simultaneously added to the HCV waiting list in their areas. The goal was to aqueduct families into permanent, securely subsidized housing.

These programs appeared to have well-defined processes for accessing housing help and supportive services. The procedures for each footstep in the housing continuum were clearly defined and the roles of partner organizations were transparent. In most cases, it appeared that programs that provide these bridge housing supports that were locally funded had a history of collaborative relationships with the local housing agency and other homeless service providers in the area. Housing authorities were often administering the rental aid or providing their landlord lists and expertise to the plan.

The Linkages Program in the State of New United mexican states. New Mexicos Linkages Programme assists homeless individuals and families with severe mental disease in transitioning into permanent housing by providing individualized case management coupled with a temporary housing subsidy. The housing subsidy functions as a bridge until a permanent subsidy through the HCV program is available and secured. The Linkages Programme was able to secure $350,000 in state funding to support the plan, with $300,000 designated for rental subsidies and $l,000 for move-in assistance and furnishings. The rental subsidies are passed through a statewide mental health services system to provide the funding necessary for housing subsidies through iii regional housing administrators. The Linkages program is based on a Housing Get-go approach seeking to stabilize plan participants in housing quickly, thus allowing them to focus on behavioral wellness issues that may take contributed to their homelessness. The regional housing administrators and supportive service agencies work with clients to help transition them from country-funded housing supports to the HCV programme. All clients in the program are immediately placed on the HCV waiting list, which does not offer special preferences for homeless families. The bridge subsidy is structured similar the HCV programme and, when the HCV subsidy finally becomes bachelor, the family maintains their same unit while the subsidy source transitions. Having met all the HCV program eligibility and housing standards, this transition is seamless for families.
Pathways to Housing Programme in Brattleboro, VT. The goal of the Pathways to Housing program is to assist homeless households and households at risk of homelessness detect and maintain housing past linking up to two years of temporary housing assist with example direction services. Program participants must be sponsored by a social service bureau provider that provides intensive example direction for the duration of the temporary rental assistance. The Pathways to Housing program is designed to exist a program of last resort for specific population groups that have had problems accessing the private housing market due to poor credit, poor or no rental histories, and unstable sources of income. The rental assistance, administered past the Brattleboro Housing Authority, is funded by the Vermont Bureau of Human Services Full general Fund. This temporary housing assistance is structured like to HUDs HCV Program. Families enrolled in the program are required to participate in case management equally a status of their rental assistance. Funding for the instance management assistance is provided past private service providers participating in the program. Although the duration of the Pathways to Housing program is two years, the average length of stay is 18 months. To increase the chances of a successful transition to permanent housing, participants in the Pathways to Housing program are required to immediately begin searching and applying for subsidized permanent housing programs every bit soon as they enter the program. Currently, the housing agency does not offering preferences to homeless families, although the HCV waiting list is shorter than those in other communities. Some families exit the programme to public housing, others to housing supported by HCV subsidies.

two. Streamlining the PHAs procedure for leasing private-market housing occurred through the re-tooling of PHA authoritative procedures and the use of programme partners to conduct activities on behalf of PHAs.

Streamlining the PHA lease-up process was a challenging consequence confronted by programs that partnered with PHAs. It was also a particularly important footstep among rapid re-housing and Housing First models that prioritized the quick placement of homeless families into housing. Staff from these programs feared losing their clients in terms of developing a rapport and sometimes physically from a protracted lease-upwards process that may discourage or disaffect families.

Programs approached the challenge of shortening the time between plan enrollment and lease-up by using two strategies: 1) reviewing and re-tooling the PHAs administrative procedures; and 2) utilizing program partners to acquit activities that encumber the lease-up procedure. Amid the seven communities in the study with PHA involvement, merely one the Permanent Supportive Housing Programme in Washington, DC altered HCV program requirements to accelerate the lease-upwards timeframe. Staff from the citys housing authority reviewed the charter-up process and identified specific steps that could occur simultaneously, rather than sequentially. The streamlined process reduced the number of PHA visits required past applicants. (The programme is described in more than detail below.)

A more mutual strategy was to utilize programme partners to conduct activities on behalf of PHAs and thus ease the administrative burden on PHAs. Partner staff, near ofttimes case managers, assisted with program application, housing search, and unit of measurement inspection activities. Example managers frequently assisted clients through the plan application procedure by helping them complete HCV or public housing applications ahead of the application appointment with the PHA. 1 program allowed case managers to provide documentation that applicants had been rehabilitated following criminal convictions instead of requiring this information to originate from a 3rd party (e.g., employer, parole officer). Plan staff besides helped clients search for and select appropriate housing units that would probable pass inspection quickly. Some other program had case managers complete housing inspections at regular intervals after lease up. The ongoing housing inspections by case managers provided assurances to the housing agency that units were existence maintained past clients, especially those with intensive needs. Using plan partners throughout the lease-upwards process appeared to create efficiencies that significantly shorten the process.

The Permanent Supportive Housing Plan (PSHP) in Washington, DC. With the back up of The Customs Partnership (TCP, the Continuum of Care lead agency) and the case managers, the citys housing dominance modified the typical, linear lease-up process. In a typical lease-up procedure, clients flow sequentially through various steps completing the housing application and eligibility determination, conducting the housing search and identifying a suitable unit, conducting the housing inspection and determining rent reasonableness, and signing the lease with several scheduled meetings with the PHA throughout the process. The program in Washington, DC sequences the voucher application process at the same fourth dimension as the housing inspection. Program participants work with their case manager to select a unit of measurement from the list of available units (provided by TCP through a shared database); visit the unit (with the case managing director); complete an awarding while the inspection is conducted; and schedule an appointment with the housing authority. Equally a issue, clients complete the lease-up on the offset visit to the PHA rather than during multiple, time-consuming visits. In addition, the housing authority provides greater flexibility in meeting the voucher eligibility requirements, waiving repayment of arrears or fines incurred by applicants who are former public housing or HCV residents (more 5 years prior). The housing authority likewise accepts documentation from case managers that a customer with a criminal history has rehabilitated him- or herself, a task typically required of an employer or a probation/parole officer. Birthday, programme staff point that the revised process reduced lease-up timeframes from several months to several weeks.
Bridges to Housing Plan in the Metropolitan Portland, Oregon Region. Bridges to Housing is a regional initiative facilitated by Neighborhood Partnerships, a regional nonprofit based in Portland that addresses the housing and economic evolution needs of depression-income people. Bridges to Housing serves loftier-need homeless families in Multnomah (includes the city of Portland), Washington, and Clackamas Counties in Oregon, and Clark County (includes the city of Vancouver) in Washington. The programs goal is to provide permanent housing and intensive case management services to stabilize families, motility them towards greater safe, and better the well-being of children. Program partners play various roles in coordinating with the local housing dominance and in providing housing. In Multnomah Canton, families are enrolled through four not-turn a profit agencies that are responsible for administering a total of 140 housing units for homeless families: 110 project-based vouchers, 25 public housing units and five tax credit housing units. The vouchers and the housing units are from the Housing Authority of Portland (HAP). The 110 project-based units administered by the agencies are located throughout Multnomah County. Twenty public housing units and v tax-credit housing units are located in one of HAPs HOPE Half-dozen mixed-income communities in the city of Portland. The other 5 public housing units are located in scattered site housing in Portland. Case managers from the non-profit agencies assistance clients with the housing potency applications and set appeals if necessary.

three. Programs created PSH-similar environments by integrating intensive case direction and services with the Housing Pick Voucher plan, allowing mainstream permanent housing subsidies to exist used by families with high barriers to housing.

A few programs in the study integrated intensive instance direction services with the HCV programme or other grade of housing subsidy in a way that fake Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH). These PSH-like programs immune communities to target scarce housing resource to families with the greatest needs. These approaches demonstrated that communities can coordinate housing and social services resource to target deeply without tapping into traditional sources of permanent supportive housing such as HUDs Shelter Plus Intendance program.

The programs frequently originated from a community or regional program to end homelessness, bringing together nonprofit, government, housing agency, and private resources to provide the housing subsidy and services. The housing subsidy was typically a tenant- or project-based voucher, public housing, or tax credit unit. The supportive services component often had two common characteristics: i) detailed assessments to target the neediest families; and two) intensive, structured case management. Most programs used standard assessments among all service partners to systematically screen high-needs families for eligibility. The screening tools typically examined indicators such as length and number of times a family has been homeless, employment history, household income, interactions with country mental health systems, domestic violence history, and interactions with child welfare agencies. These details allowed service providers to quantify family unit need consistently and thereby identify the highest-needs families.

The cornerstone of these PSH-like programs was intensive example direction that was characterized past a depression case manager-to-family unit ratio and frequent contacts with families. The case manager-to-family ratio was typically very depression for example, one instance managing director to every 10 or 15 families to allow case managers to build relationships with participating families and comprehensively assess their needs. Example managers contacted families at least weekly, and typically more often during a familys start few weeks in the plan. Most programs required families to participate in case management and provide it for at least two years, with some extending to three years. The case management typically included several components: ane) a family unit assessment following intake that addressed the needs of all family unit members, especially children; 2) a family activity plan with specific goals and deadlines; three) frequent and deliberately scheduled contact with a case managing director; 4) determining and maintaining eligibility for boosted housing assistance programs; 5) service referrals and linkages to community providers such as mental health services, job training programs, employment opportunities, substance abuse counseling, domestic violence counseling, primary health care, child intendance help, and financial literacy; vi) support and advocacy in working with the judicial system, including child protection services, family unit courts, drug courts, juvenile detention, and gang courts; and vii) tracking a familys progress through standardized assessment tools.

Serving Families and Individuals to End Serious Trouble through Agencies Support (FIESTAS) Plan in Yakima County, Washington. The FIESTAS plan places high-needs homeless families into two-year, temporary, project-based housing units managed by the Yakima Housing Dominance (YHA). Later on this time, income-eligible families may receive a permanent projection-based voucher from YHA that is not time-limited. YHA maintains a split up waiting list for homeless families and has 75 project-based vouchers set up aside for these families. The housing assist is paired with intensive case direction provided by 3 specialized nonprofit, community-based organizations: Yakima Neighborhood Health Services focuses on wellness care and is a Federally Qualified Health Center; Triumph Handling Services focuses on booze and drug habit; and the YWCA focuses on domestic violence. Staff use common intake and assessment forms, based on the Arizona Self-Sufficiency Matrix, to assistance families identify barriers to cocky-sufficiency and develop action plans. Then, throughout the form of the two years, instance managers utilize the action plans to aid families identify strategies to overcome the barriers. Building Changes, the bureau that provides funding for case management services, works with the case managers to implement an approach to assisting families based on specific strategies, interventions, and supports that accept been tested in other communities. Initially, families are visited every bit frequently as three times a week. As families become more than stable, the frequency of contact declines to in one case per month. All housing units are inspected weekly by case managers, who are certified to conduct housing inspections. This approach ensures participants are taking care of the unit.
Bridges to Housing Program in the Metropolitan Portland, Oregon Region. The program offers permanent housing and intensive example management to families that are chronically homeless. The housing resources vary past canton simply include project-based and tenant-based vouchers, also as public housing. Case management is funded through philanthropic organizations. Services are provided to each family unit for 3 years to help establish and maintain stability, with a case director to family ratio of 1:15. A mutual screening tool, the Bridges to Housing Family Needs Assessment, is used by all example managers to identify whether families are loftier resources users and eligible for the programme. The maximum score on the assessment tool is 25 points, and Bridges to Housing requires at least a full of x points for families to exist eligible to participate in the program. Bridges to Housing believes that its combination of housing supports and back up services provides a less expensive and more effective long-term solution to address chronic homelessness compared to other alternatives such equally shelters, cabin vouchers, and other temporary, very short-term housing assistance.

[ Go to Contents ]

Conclusions

This research brief highlights 10 promising practices used by local programs to link human services with housing supports for the purposes of addressing family homelessness. The practices shaped how these programs were designed, structured, implemented and sustained. They highlight the need to forge intentional, well-defined partnerships with entities (due east.g., social service agencies, government departments, public housing agencies, and landlords) that tin can offer appropriate services to target populations and expand housing opportunities for homeless families, while also looking outside of the traditional social service network for valuable partners (due east.g., school district homeless liaisons, housing developers, and private businesses). Indeed, these practices suggest that linking homeless families to services and housing supports requires the active participation of many different community resources, as well equally the interest of a committed group of well-trained instance managers. They also reinforce the advantages of standardized processes across participating partners to screen, enroll, and appraise clients, which seemed to produce program efficiencies and may take helped to transition clients to permanent sources of housing supports. Lastly, although many communities used one-time funding streams created past the American Recovery and Reinvestment Deed of 2009 that will soon elapse such as HPRP and TANF Emergency Funds these programs also show considerable diversity in funding sources that can be tapped to sustain them, including the utilise of mainstream housing programs administered by local public housing agencies.

[ Go to Contents ]

References

[i] Homeless families are typically defined equally households composed of one or more than adults with at least 1 small-scale child (age 17 or younger) that are staying in shelter or living in places not meant for homo domicile (eastward.thou., abandoned buildings, vehicles, or encampments).

[ii] For a summary, come across Rog, Debra and John Buckner. 2007. Homeless Families and Children. In Toward Understanding Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research. The U.Southward. Department of Health and Homo Services and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Washington DC.

[iii] Federal funding for homeless families includes programs at HUD, HHS, and the Department of Education explicitly targeted to homeless people in item, the Homeless Assistance Programs at HUD, the ARRA Homeless Prevention and Rapid-Re-housing (HPRP) program at HUD, the Healthcare for the Homeless program at HHS, and the Education for Homeless Children and Youth plan at the Department of Education (DEd).

[iv] HUDs HPRP plan is a 3-year, $1.5 billion initiative that was passed as office of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The programme is set to expire in 2011.

[ Go to Contents ]