Overview of Program ABC PROGRAM 123 Agency 111 First Street Short description of the XYZ Neighborhood program.
I. PROGRAM AT A GLANCE
Funding Designates the project according to the Supportive Housing Program category: Category “Supportive Services Only,” “Transitional Housing,” “Safe Haven” and “Permanent Supportive Housing”. Agency Budget The budget for the agency sponsoring the program. Program Budget The budget for the program. Amount of Grant The total amount The amount of the grant The grant term of the grant expended if it all has not been The grant year being spent; nothing will appear here reviewed if it all has been spent SHP Funds The percentage of Supportive Housing Funds to the Program Budget. Number Served Total number of people served during the year, including those who entered and those in Last Year who left.
If the program serves chronically homeless people, and people with special needs, that information will appear here. Capacity (per This information indicates if the program served the number of people it anticipated APR – HUD serving at a point in time. Technically, this number is derived from a HUD formula: Annual Progress 1) number of people in the program on the first day of the operating year, plus the Report) number of persons who entered the program during the year, minus the number of people who left the program during the year; 2) divided by the number of people proposed to be served in the grant application. Population A description of who the program serves; ALL programs serve homeless people, Served using the HUD interpreted McKinney-Vento definition of homeless. Services A summary listing of all services provided. Provided Housing A description of housing provided, if any. Provided Venues for A description of the place(s) where services and housing are provided, including any Service/Housing comments made by Clients, if any, in clients responses about the venue, e.g. neighborhood, transportation.
Clients’ Voices: Any client comments abou the program’s venue are included here.
ABC Program 123 Agency 1 II. PROGRAM AND CLIENT OUTCOMES
A. Inputs/Outputs/Ultimate Outcomes
Financial and Human Service Completions Resources (Final Outputs) (Inputs) The total annual program The program’s service “completions” (which vary depending upon the type of budget program) are listed here. For a transitional housing program it could be the number of people who completed the service program and moved out of the Full time employees house. For an employment program, it could be finishing a training course. working on the program The evaluators selected certain service completions to report on in like- programs, e.g. all transitional housing programs. The outputs recorded here may or may not also be reported by the program in the APR as an “Overall Program Goal.” Results Achieved (Ultimate Outcomes) For almost all programs, this is defined in terms of HUD’s outcomes factors: Residential Stability, Increased Skills or Income, and Greater Self-Determination. The evaluators selected certain results achieved to report on in like-programs, e.g. all transitional housing programs. The outputs recorded here may or may not also be reported by the program in the APR as an “Overall Program Goal.”
Average monthly income at entrance (assuming highest end of APR range): This figure is derived from the APR chart 11A, Monthly Income at Entry. Programs indicate how many people earned income within a certain range at entry. The figure in the assessment report was determined by assuming that the client’s income was at the highest end of the APR range, and for the last category, $2001+, that the client’s income was $2,500. Accordingly, the figure in the report does not represent the actual average amount of income of each client at entry.
Average monthly income at exit (assuming highest end of APR range): This figure is derived from the APR chart 11B, Monthly Income at Exit. Programs indicate how many people earned income within a certain range at exit. The figure in the assessment report was determined by assuming that the client’s income was at the highest end of the APR range, and for the last category, $2001+, that the client’s income was $2,500. Accordingly, the figure in the report does not represent the actual average amount of income of each client at exit.
The average monthly income at entrance and exit are only reported for clients who have exited the program.
Source of income At entrance At exit
This chart is derived from the APR, charts 11C and D. It shows the source and amount of income at entrance and exit for exiting participants only.
Program’s Voice on Linking Clients to Permanent Housing:
Here are the answers from Transitional Housing and Supportive Services Only projects to this question: If your HUD Annual Progress Report does not fully capture your program’s success in linking clients to permanent housing, please provide any supplementary information you wish to be considered.
2 ABC Program 123 Agency B. Analysis of Effectiveness: Outcome Objectives Met Rating on Meeting APR Outcome Objectives: Tier 1C
This portion of the report considers how many of the Goals the program set for itself, it met. Programs are given a “Tier” rating which indicates their success in meeting outcomes versus all other programs assessed. In assigning the Tiers, the evaluators did not take into consideration the difficulty of the Goal set, since each program can set its own goals, and presumably attempts to set realistically challenging outcomes given the population it serves.
The Tiers have the following meanings: Tier 1A: Met all outcomes Tier 1B: Came within 5% of meeting each outcome. (For example, if the program had 3 goals and met the first 100%, came within 2% of meeting the second and 5% of meeting the third, it was assigned Tier 1B.) Tier 1C: Came within 10% of meeting each outcome. Tier 2A: Met all outcomes but one, and missed that outcome by 15% or less. Tier 2B: Met all outcomes but one, and missed that outcome by more than 15%. Tier 2C: Missed multiple outcomes but came within 20% of meeting each outcome, or missed multiple outcomes and came within 15% of meeting each outcome except for one. Tier 3: Missed multiple outcomes by at least 20%.
Rating on Performance Compared to Other Transitional Programs: o Percentage of participants who leave who access permanent housing: E o Percentage of participants employed at exit: B o Percentage of participants unemployed at entry who were employed at exit: B o Increase in income of leaving participants between entry and exit: A
Programs were given letter marks to indicate where they were ranked versus other like programs (e.g. transitional versus transitional, permanent supportive housing versus permanent supportive housing) on performance in certain areas stated, e.g. number of participants who access permanent housing. Performance figures fell into “groups.” The most effective group was assigned letter “A.” This mark does not seek to resolve variations in programs, service packages, or other resources that may be suitably different to meet the varying needs of different populations.
This section also shows the program’s performance compared to HUD’s strategic goals: percentage of participants in permanent housing projects who maintain their housing for over 6 months; percentage of participants who leave transitional housing projects who access permanent housing; and for supportive services only projects, the percentage increase in employment of those who exit the program (as compared to when they entered the program) and the percentage of participants employed at exit. This year, the comparison groups were: Transitional housing programs and the one Safe Haven program Permanent supportive housing programs Supportive Services Only programs which serve people in permanent housing (including SHEC, an employment program) Supportive Services Only programs which are employment programs (except for SHEC)
Behind the “program type” dividers (e.g. Supportive Services) in this report is an index of each program inABC the Program section, 123 as Agencywell as a listing of letter mark ranges for each group cross-compared. 3 APR Outcome Met Factor Effectiveness Y= Yes N = No s
t % people who met final output/total number u
p served t u O
l Participants who left the program who 85% a Y n
i increased their skill level. (41 of 48) F
% people who met ultimate outcome/peopleThis section of the indicated chart indicates the Those who graduated who secured program’s success in permanent housing or other long term 100% Y terms of “final supportive housing. (23 of 23) outputs,” or service s e outcomes included m Participants who left the program who 73% o Y c by the program in its t increased their income. (35 of 48) u Annual Progress O
e ParticipantsThis section who completed of the chartthe program records the t 100% Report. The a Y who program’smaintained their successes recovery in meeting the m program’s goal,
i (23 of 23)
t throughout the program. l “ultimate outcomes,” included by the (Factor) its U Participantsprogram who in completed its Annual the Progressprogram Report. 100% performance Y who experienced major improvement in The program’s goal, its performance and (23 of 23) (Effectiveness) and their whethermental health or not status. the outcome was reached N whether or not the Participants who completed the program 39% (45%) are indicated. The program’s goal, output was reached who (Factor)were employed its performance at completion. (Effectiveness) (9 of 23) (APR Outcome Met) and whether or not the outcome was are indicated. If the reached (APR Outcome Met) are outcome was not indicated. If the outcome was not met, the met, the outcome outcome desired is noted under the letter desired is noted “N.” under the letter “N.”
Program’s Voice on Tracking Outcomes:
The Program’s response to these questions: Do you track clients/client outcomes once they have left the program? If so, for how long? How do you track these clients? The purpose of this information is to give the reader an idea of the reliability of data the program reports on participants who have left the program.
4 ABC Program 123 Agency This is the program’s rating on “Reliability and Responsiveness,” on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most reliable and responsive. Ratings were assigned solely on the basis of This indicates the total clients’ comments and scores regarding the number of clients who program’s “reliability” and “responsiveness.” participated in the focus group and the total number written surveys received from clients.
C. Program’s Reliability and Responsiveness to Clients’ Needs Rating on Responsiveness and Reliability: 9.5 of 10 (7 clients attended the focus group and 5 submitted surveys) Clients’ Voices on Reliability and Responsiveness These are the clients responses to questions My personal needs are met 100% Because it’s associated with the VA – it’s pretty easyabout for usreliability and responsiveness.. They provide you with 3 meals I like the free laundry in my own unit Encourage and support you in trying to get through benefits paperwork. Get you to ask fellow participants. Teach you to network to figure out how to get through the bureaucracy
No, Yes, Not Not Most All Does at Very Sometime of the the I don't Not Answer OptionsThese are the scoresall (onMuch a 1-5 scale,s with 1 meaningTime time “no, notknow. at Apply The program and staff all” and 5 meaning0 “yes, all0 the time”)2 which clients1 gave4 in 0 0 respond to my needs. Staff does whatanswer they say to theythe questions stated in the client survey or the focus 0 2 1 1 3 1 0 will do. group in-group form, as relevant. This table also captures The hours thatresponses staff are from client’s who don’t know or feel that the question available workdoes for me.not apply. These0 scores0 were considered2 5 by the 6 0 0 evaluators, along with the clients’ comments, in determining the Reliability and Responsiveness score.
ABC Program 123 Agency 5 III. BUDGET AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS Cost-Effectiveness as Compared to Comparable Programs
Factor Cost-Effectiveness
Range as Compared to Other Transitional Housing Programs Evaluated Outcomes Versus Program Outcomes Versus Amount of Budget Grant s e
m Program completion (budget divided by
o A A c
t number of people who completed the
u (A-F is scale) (A-I is scale) program) O
d Number served (budget divided by number A B n a
s of people served) (A-H is scale) (A-F is scale) t u
p Income (the percentage increase in income t C B u of exiting participants between entry and
O (A-I is scale) (A-G is scale) exit) Programs were given letter marks to indicate where they were ranked Housing outcome (program budgetversus divided other like programs (e.g. transitional versus transitional, A A by number of people who hadpermanent permanent supportive housing versus permanent supportive housing) (A-J is scale) (A-G is scale) housing at exit) on cost effectiveness in certain areas, which are stated in the first column. How cost effectiveness was calculated is also defined in the first column; the second column shows cost-effectiveness in terms of the entire program budget; the third column shows cost-effectiveness in terms of the amount of the grant. Figures fell into “groups.” The most effective group was assigned letter “A.” This mark does not seek to resolve variations in programs, service packages, or other resources that may be suitably different to meet the varying needs of different populations.
In calculating the cost effectiveness of the number of people served: in transitional housing, programs serving families were compared to each other, and programs serving individuals were compared to each other. in SSO projects serving people in permanent housing, the numbers served include adults and children. in permanent housing projects, there are separate calculations for number of people and family units (e.g. an unaccompanied individual is a family unit, an adult with children is a family unit) served.
6 ABC Program 123 Agency IV. ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY
Program’s Quality Assessment
Program’s Voice: Reported here are the efforts the program says that Formal anonymous satisfaction surveys are itconducted makes to twice assess a year the asking quality participants of its program, specific questions about their satisfaction with individual counseling, groupincluding activities, through program clientadministration feedback and assupport well servicesas the as well as about their “personal wish” list; at exit, the participant is asked to rate his/her experiences with individual counseling, group activities, rules, policies andprogram’s responsibilities response and to makefeedback. any comments about each issue and the program as a whole. The daily community meetings are a less formal, more frequent way that clients are able to express concerns or suggest changes to the program. A formal questionnaire upon exit from the program also serves to give the program feedback on the quality of the client’s experience. An additional opportunity for client voice in the direction of the program are the weekly case management sessions in which the individualized treatment plans and short-term goals of clients are reviewed, and every 2 months when clients review their long-term goals. Former clients also participate in the program as volunteers or employees and provide a valuable perspective into service delivery.
Clients’ Voices: In response to whether clients participate in decisions affecting the design of the program: Yes, we participate in the design of the program Board came awhile ago, group of community met with them. Now changes being made To a point I feel like have a voice in way things run Reported here are the efforts the clients said the An example of changes made through our suggestion: staff handled things badly. program makes to assess Theythe quality got rid ofof staff the program, including through client feedback.If have something to say, they’ll listen. But won’t change policy – not that it needs to be changed. I feel 100% welcome to suggest changes Have community meetings where can bring up any issues including what we want from staff Can receive changes one on one or in group meetings
No, Yes, Not Not Most All Does at Very Sometime of the the I don't Not Answer Options all Much s Time time know. Apply Clients participate in decisions about this 0 1 3 2 4 0 0 program. The program and staff think about changes I 0 2 3 1 2 0 2 suggest, even if the changes are not made.
ABC Program 123 Agency 7 Outstanding HUD/Agency Audit Findings
None. This section reports if there are any issues raised in a financial or HUD audit that the agency and/or program has not already addressed.
V. CLIENTS’ VOICES ON ISSUES AFFECTING EFFECTIVENESS
Participating: Accessible Services Client comments on questions concerning accessibility, and their scores in response to Clients’ In response to accessibility: specified questions are recorded here. Voices Anybody is welcome here From first day, someone volunteers to be our Big Bro. They guide you, introduce you to people, tell you where you need to be Very compassionate staff Always try to make sure needs met, even if not here
No, Yes, Not Not Most All I Does at Very Sometime of the the don't Not Answer Options all Much s Time time know. Apply Staff work well with people with different abilities who need extra 0 0 2 1 7 0 1 help, extra time, or some change in the rules. Staff are sensitive to different cultures and 0 0 1 2 5 1 0 backgrounds. I am respected here. 0 0 2 1 6 1 0 I feel physically safe at 0 0 0 2 7 0 1 this program.
8 ABC Program 123 Agency Client’s Statement of How the Program has Improved the Quality of His/Her Life
Goals have changed. Willing to accept help 180 degree change Given me hope to have meaningful and purposeful life Getting independence back Know how to help self The clients were asked what difference the Self-reliance program made in improving the overall quality How to ask for help of their lives. Responses are recorded here.
VI. OTHER CLIENT COMMENTS REGARDING QUALITY OF THE PROGRAM Client comments about the quality of the program. VII. OTHER CLIENT COMMENTS
Client comments which were not specific to topics above are included here.
ABC Program 123 Agency 9