DOCSLIB.ORG

Seattle/King County: Homeless System Performance Assessment and Recommendations with Particular Emphasis on Single Adults

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Seattle/King County: Homeless System Performance Assessment and Recommendations with Particular Emphasis on Single Adults Seattle/King County: Homeless System Performance Assessment and Recommendations with Particular Emphasis on Single Adults Commissioned by United Way of King County, the City of Seattle, and King County Prepared by Focus Strategies September 2016 Seattle/King County: Homeless System Performance Assessment and Recommendations with Particular Emphasis on Single Adults Commissioned by United Way of King County, the City of Seattle, and King County Seattle/King County Client Group Mark Putnam, All Home Kira Zylstra, All Home Sola Plumacher, City of Seattle Josh Hall, City of Seattle Hedda McLendon, King County Mark Ellerbrook, King County Wayne Wilson, United Way of King County Vince Matulionis, United Way of King County Prepared by Focus Strategies Megan Kurteff Schatz, Principal Tracy Bennett, Director of Analytics and Evaluation Kate Bristol, Director of Consulting Genevieve Heidenreich, Senior Analyst Katharine Gale, Principal Associate Visit Focus Strategies’ website focusstrategies.net to find this and other reports, research, news, and more information about who we are and what we do. Focus Strategies offers services to help communities tackle homelessness at project and systems levels. Our services include data-driven planning and performance measurement, coordinated entry design, point in time counts, system and program evaluations, and supportive housing system development. Acknowledgements Acknowledgements We would like to thank Mark Putnam and Kira Zylstra from All Home, Sola Plumacher, Dusty Olson and Josh Hall from the City of Seattle, Mark Ellerbrook, and Hedda McLendon from King County, as well as Vince Matulionis and Wayne Wilson from United Way of King County for their time, dedication, and collaboration on this project. Thanks also to all the individuals who participated in the stakeholder interviews, for their willingness to share their knowledge and expertise. A detailed list of those who provided input is included in Appendix 3 of this report. We would also like to acknowledge Tiffany Von Armin Photography for supplying photographs of Seattle and King County for this report. 2 Seattle/King County Homeless Performance Assessment and Recommendations Table of Contents Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................................................2 Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................5 I. Background ....................................................................................................................................9 II. Methodology ...............................................................................................................................10 A. Data Sources and Analytics ................................................................................................ 10 B. Projects Included in SWAP ................................................................................................. 11 III. Context ......................................................................................................................................12 A. National Policy Context: Shift to Homeless Crisis Response ............................................ 12 B. Promising Models in Serving Homeless Single Adults ...................................................... 13 C. Local Context – “Current State” in Seattle/King County .................................................. 15 IV. Analysis & Key Findings ..............................................................................................................23 A. System Performance .......................................................................................................... 23 B. Proposed Performance Targets for Seattle and King County..........................................29 C. Single Adult Analysis .......................................................................................................... 33 D. Modeling Results ................................................................................................................ 41 E. Assessment of Leadership and Governance Structure Effectiveness .............................. 47 V. Recommendations .................................................................................................................... .49 A. General Recommendations ............................................................................................... 49 B. Leadership, Funding, and Governance Recommendations ............................................. 51 C. System Performance Improvement Recommendations .................................................. 54 D. Investments Over Five Years ............................................................................................ 62 Seattle/King County Homeless Performance Assessment and Recommendations 3 Table of Contents Appendix 1: Glossary .............................................................................................................. A-1 Appendix 2: Document List .................................................................................................... A-6 Appendix 3: Interview Summary & Interviewees................................................................... A-8 A. Summary of Key Stakeholder Interviews ................................................................ A-8 B. Interviewees for Single Adult Strategic Planning .................................................. A-13 Appendix 4: Promising Models ............................................................................................. A-14 Appendix 5: Projects Included in the Seattle/King County Analysis ...................................... A-19 Appendix 6: Homeless Crisis Resolution System Component ............................................... A-27 Appendix 7: High, Moderate, & Low Performance Graphs ................................................... A-32 A. Bed and Unit Utilization Rate by Program Type by Performance Level .............. A-32 B. Entries from Homelessness ................................................................................... A-34 C. Lengths of Stay ...................................................................................................... A-37 D. Exits to Permanent Housing .................................................................................. A-38 E. Cost Per Exit to Permanent Housing...................................................................... A-41 Appendix 8: Disparity Analysis ............................................................................................. A-44 A. Age Group Disparities ............................................................................................ A-44 B. Gender Disparities ................................................................................................. .A-45 C. Racial Disparities ..................................................................................................... A-46 D. Ethnic Disparities .................................................................................................... A-47 E. Disability-Related Disparities ................................................................................. A-48 Appendix 9: Typology Data Quality ..........................................................................................A-51 Appendix 10: Number of Days Stayed By Quartile ..................................................................A-52 Appendix 11: Project Count by Project Type and Performance Level ....................................A-53 Appendix 12: Utilizing a “Moving On” Approach ....................................................................A-54 Appendix 13: Modeling Assumptions to Decrease Unsheltered Homelessness ................... A-59 Appendix 14: Programmatic Changes For 2015 and 2016 Incorporated in the Model...........A-62 4 Seattle/King County Homeless Performance Assessment and Recommendations Executive Summary Executive Summary INTRODUCTION United Way of King County alongside its partners, the City of Seattle, King County, and All Home (the “client group”), have engaged Focus Strategies to assess the performance of the existing homeless system and the community’s efforts to reduce homelessness, with a particular focus on the single adult homeless population. Between July 2015 and May 2016, we collected and analyzed data to assess the performance of individual programs, program types, and the system as a whole. We also conducted telephone interviews with key stakeholders to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the current system, and to assess what kinds of changes the community should consider to support its goals of making homelessness a rare, brief, and one-time occurrence. The results of our analysis will be used by the client group to inform next steps in its homeless system planning and implementation work. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Act with Urgency and Boldness Our overarching recommendation to Seattle/King County is to act urgently and with boldness to implement impactful solutions. Homelessness is on the rise in the community and leaders have implemented a number of initiatives that are helping to turn the curve towards an improved response to the problem. However, our analysis reveals that the pace of change is slow and resources continue to be invested in interventions that have limited results. We believe homelessness
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Role of the Philanthropic Sector in Addressing Homelessness: Australian and International Experiences
    The Role of the Philanthropic Sector in Addressing Homelessness: Australian and International Experiences Literature Review National Homelessness Research Partnership Program Dr Selina Tually, Miss Victoria Skinner and Associate Professor Michele Slatter Centre for Housing, Urban and Regional Planning The University of Adelaide Contact: Dr Selina Tually Centre for Housing, Urban and Regional Planning The University of Adelaide Phone: (08) 8313 3289 Email: [email protected] September 2012 Project No. FP8 This project is supported by the Australian Government through the Flinders Partners National Homelessness Research Partnership funded as part of the National Homelessness Research Agenda of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. 2 of 103 Acronyms ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics ACNC Australian Charity and Not-For-Profit Commission ACOSS Australian Council of Social Service ACTCOSS Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service AIHW Australian Institute of Health and Welfare ASIC Australian Securities and Investment Commission ATO Australian Taxation Office DGR Deductible Gift Recipient FaHCSIA Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs FBT Fringe Benefit Tax GFC Global Financial Crisis GST Goods and Services Tax ITEF Income Tax Exempt Fund J2SI Journey to Social Inclusion NAHA National Affordable Housing Agreement NCOSS Council of Social Service of New South Wales NFG Neighborhood Funders Group (US) NFP Not For Profit NP Non-Profit NTCOSS
    [Show full text]
  • FAQ: State of Emergency on Homelessness
    FAQ: State of Emergency on Homelessness The City of Seattle, like many other cities across the country, is facing a homelessness crisis. The region’s current needs outweigh shelter capacity, leaving too many seniors, families and individuals sleeping on the street. More than 45 individuals have died while homeless on Seattle streets in 2015 alone. The 2015 One Night Count found 3,772 individuals living outside and unsheltered in King County, a 21 percent increase over 2014. Youth homelessness is also growing rapidly, our Seattle classrooms have nearly 3,000 students without stable housing or shelter. Why are you declaring a state of emergency and what exactly does this entail? How will this one-time investment of $5 million be allocated? How many new shelter beds will this funding provide? How is the City paying for this new investment? How is the City working with state and federal governments to address this issue? How much money was allocated to homelessness support services prior to declaring a state of emergency and why do we need to spend more? What are we doing to help people exit homelessness? What kind of funding is available for families experiencing homelessness? What is being done about unauthorized encampments on public property? What is being done about car camping? How do I report a problem encampment site? What can community members do to help? Page 1 of 5 Why are you declaring a state of emergency and what exactly does this entail? By declaring a state of emergency on homelessness, the City will have more administrative authority and flexibility in contracting for services and allocating resources in response to the homelessness crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • King County and Seattle Homelessness - Some Facts
    King County and Seattle Homelessness - Some Facts Final report | December 15, 2017 CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY Any use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company is strictly prohibited. Media inquiries can be directed to [email protected] Dec 15, 2017. CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY: Any use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company is strictly prohibited. Executive summary ▪ Homelessness continues to be a growing problem in King County and Seattle – ~12K people experiencing homelessness at a point in time growing at 9% annually – ~18-22K1 households access the CRS each year growing at 11% annually ▪ The CRS has improved, but cannot meet inflow demand owing to a shortage of affordable housing options – There is a current gap of 10-14K2 housing options in Seattle and King County ▪ While funding has grown at 2.4% per annum, it has not kept up with growth in aggregate homelessness. To house all households entered in HMIS would take $360-410M3 per annum or about double today’s funding ▪ The housing options, driven primarily by rental subsidies, and associated estimated costs presented in this analysis represents one possible solution. Alternative solutions should be explored including improved governance and accountability for reducing inflows, ensuring stakeholder buy-in and ensuring efficiency and effectiveness of the CRS 1 HMIS data of 21.7K households experiencing homelessness is best available data as suggested by King County. We have used a range of 18.5-21.7K given potential for duplication in the HMIS and CEA systems and those households not meeting the King County definition of homelessness (e.g., doubled-up households) 2 Using the range of 18.5-21.7k homeless households produces a range of 10-14k gap in housing options 3 Using the range of 18.5-21.7k homeless households produces a range of $360-410M in housing costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategies to Combat Homelessness
    Strategies to combat homelessness United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) Nairobi, 2000 This publication has been reproduced without formal editing by the United Nations. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers of boundaries. Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the United Nations, and a failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval. Excerpts from the text may be reproduced without authorisation, on condition that the source is indicated. Cover design: Amrik Kalsi, UNCHS (Habitat), Nairobi Cover photos credits: UNCHS (Habitat), UNICEF and Mark Edwards Printing: UNON Printshop, Nairobi United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) Nairobi, 2000 HS / 599 / 00 E ISBN 92-1-131458-5 An electronic version of this publication is available for download from the UNCHS (Habitat) web-site by August 2000. The electronic version — in compiled HTML format, allowing complex text searches — requires Microsoft Windows 98 or Microsoft Windows 95 plus Microsoft Internet Explorer (version 4 or later). United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) publications can be obtained from UNCHS (Habitat)’s Regional Offices or directly from: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), Publications Unit, P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya Fax: 254-2-604060 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.unchs.org Preface Within the next few years, and for the first time in human history, more people will live in cities and towns than in rural areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Young Homeless of Vienna Characteristics, Challenges, Prospects
    Junge Wohnungslose Wiens Merkmale, Herausforderungen, Perspektiven Young Homeless of Vienna characteristics, challenges, prospects Masterarbeit Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Master of Arts in Social Sciences der Fachhochschule FH Campus Wien Masterstudiengang Sozialraumorientierte und Klinische Soziale Arbeit Vorgelegt von: Florian Baumgarten, BA Personenkennzeichen: c1510534007 Erstbegutachter: FH-Prof. Mag. Andreas Bengesser, DSA Zweitbegutachterin: FH-Prof.in Mag.a Dr.in Elisabeth Steiner Eingereicht am: 20.09.2017 Erklärung: Ich erkläre, dass die vorliegende Masterarbeit von mir selbst verfasst wurde und ich keine anderen als die angeführten Behelfe verwendet bzw. mich auch sonst keiner unerlaubter Hilfe bedient habe. Ich versichere, dass ich diese Masterarbeit bisher weder im In- noch im Ausland (einer Beurteilerin/einem Beurteiler zur Begutachtung) in irgendeiner Form als Prüfungsarbeit vorgelegt habe. Weiters versichere ich, dass die von mir eingereichten Exemplare (ausgedruckt und elekt- ronisch) identisch sind. Datum: ................................ Unterschrift Kurzfassung Ziel: Diese Arbeit untersucht Charakteristika und Herausforderungen wohnungsloser Emerging Adults Wiens. Ergebnisse werden in Verbindung zu Perspektiven innerhalb der Wiener Wohnungslosenhilfe gebracht. Aufgrund der Multikomplexität und den Gesund- heitseinflüssen von Wohnungslosigkeit im Allgemeinen sowie der untersuchten Passung zwischen Klient_innensystem und Umwelt im Speziellen, trägt diese Untersuchung in ho- hem Ausmaß zum Theoriebestand Klinischer
    [Show full text]
  • Governing the Homeless in an Age of Compassion 3 2 3 These Feelings of Marginalization Were Deeply Felt by Tent City Residents
    anti_957 antixml-alsv1.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 10-11-2011 :881 ANTI anti_957 Dispatch: 10-11-2011 CE: N/A 1 Journal MSP No. No. of pages: 21 PE: Kirsten 2 3 4 Governing the Homeless in an Age 5 of Compassion: Homelessness, 6 7 Citizenship, and the 10-Year Plan 8 9 to End Homelessness in King 10 County Washington 11 12 13 Tony Sparks 14 15 Department of Geography, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA, USA; 16 [email protected] 17 18 Abstract: In 2001, President Bush announced his intention to “end chronic homeless 19 by the year 2012” as part of his broad “Compassion Agenda”. Since then, departmental 20 consolidation, changes in funding allocation, and continued decentralization of services 21 provision have dramatically reshaped the landscape of homeless service provision in the US. In this paper I examine how these roll-out policies reify and re-entrench liberal equations of 22 property with rational self-governance at the local scale. Particularly, I illustrate how tropes 23 of homeless otherness work alongside and through federal neoliberal roll-out policies to 24 exclude homeless voices from the formation of local social policy. In doing so, I attempt to 25 call attention to the mutually constitutive relationship between the spatial management of homeless bodies, tropes of homeless deviance and dependence, and limits to citizenship 26 in the context of neoliberal urban governance. 27 28 Keywords: homelessness, social policy, citizenship, urban governance 29 30 31 32 Introduction 33 The consumer advisory counsel meeting of the Committee to End Homelessness in 34 King County (CEHKC) was proceeding as usual.
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle/King County- Count of Persons Experiencing Homelessness
    SEATTLE/KING COUNTY POINT-IN-TIME COUNT OF PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS 2019 COMPREHENSIVE REPORT PRODUCED BY ASR ABOUT ALL HOME All Home is the lead agency for the Seattle/King County Continuum of Care. All Home’s vision is that homelessness should be rare in King County, racial disparities eliminated, and that homelessness should be a brief and one-time experience. Donna Andrews Felicia Salcedo Special Thanks To: Zachary DeWolf Triina Van Marci Curtin & Lianna Kressin, Human Services Dept. Latrice Donahue Mandy Urwiler Matt Simmonds & Edward Barber, Simtech Solutions Melissa Espinoza Danielle Winslow Nicole Novak and Laura Cindric, Slalom Thalia Garcia Jean-Paul Yafali LaMont Green Kira Zylstra 201 S Jackson Street, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 www.allhomekc.org ABOUT THE RESEARCHER Applied Survey Research (ASR) is a social research firm dedicated to helping people build better communities by collecting meaningful data, facilitating information-based planning, and developing custom strategies. The firm was founded on the principle that community improvement, initiative sustainability, and program success are closely tied to assessment needs, evaluation of community goals, and development of appropriate responses. ASR has over 18 years of experience conducting Point-in-Time Counts throughout California and across the nation. Their methodology is featured as a best practice in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publication: A Guide to Counting Unsheltered Homeless People. Project Manager: James Connery Senior
    [Show full text]
  • Homeless Service Outcomes and Reasons for Re-Entry
    HOMELESS SERVICE OUTCOMES AND REASONS FOR RE-ENTRY Background In addressing the issue of homelessness, much attention is given to the rate at which individuals are placed into housing. Less consideration has been given to tracking the long-term outcomes of those who exit homelessness and the rates of re-entry into the homeless system. According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, 16,519 people were placed into housing in 2017. However, there is a shortage of research that examines the outcomes of individuals as they engage with the different homeless interventions and the ability of these interventions to help individuals avoid returning to homelessness. Homeless Intervention Outcomes A majority of homeless service programs fall within three main intervention categories: rapid re-housing (RRH), transitional housing (TH), and permanent supportive housing (PSH). Rapid Re-Housing Transitional Housing Source: Byrne et al., 2015 Source: Wilder Research Foundation, 2015 Permanent Supportive Housing Research shows that those who experienced new episodes of homelessness after exiting PSH spent an average of 7.6 fewer months in the PSH program than those who remained stably housed after exit. Source: Family Options Study, 2015 Key Takeaways: Research suggests rapid re-housing and permanent supportive housing are more likely than other interventions to reduce the rate at which individuals return to homelessness after previously exiting. Existing data shows that Black homeless individuals are at higher risk of returning to homelessness than most other racial/ethnic groups. Reasons for returns to homelessness can include: a lack of social support to navigate the process of receiving services, exiting homelessness into tenuous circumstances rather than stable housing, and age of the head of household, which research shows can determine the ability of securing housing options other than emergency shelter.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Housing Resource Guide
    HOUSING Resource guide ORANGE COUNTY 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS About This Guide .....................................................................................4 Feedback/Update Form ............................................................................... 5 Affordable Housing.......................................................................................... 7 Housing Resources ....................................................................................... 11 Long-term/Independent Living ............................................................ 12 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Facilities ......................................... 14 Roommate Referral .............................................................................. 14 Rental Assistance Programs ................................................................. 14 Shelters and Transitional Living ........................................................... 17 Residential Recovery/Detox Programs ................................................ 28 Hospice, Skilled Nursing Facilities and Assisted Living .................... 34 Adult Day Centers ................................................................................ 39 Residential Services for the Mentally Ill .............................................. 41 Homeless Resources Quick Reference Guide .......................................... 45 Supportive Resources .................................................................................. 49 Utility Assistance ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Coalition on Housing and Homelessness Coordinated Entry
    ALASKA COALITION ON HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ALASKA BALANCE OF STATE COORDINATED ENTRY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Adopted: January 22, 2018 1 Table of Contents OVERVIEW OF COORDINATED ENTRY............................................................................................. 4 GOALS OF COORDINATED ENTRY ............................................................................................... 4 GUIDING PRINCIPLES .................................................................................................................. 5 ROLES .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Alaska Coalition on Housing and Homelessness (AKCH2) ...................................................... 6 Coordinated Entry Committee ................................................................................................ 6 Designated Lead Agency or Organization (DLA/O) ................................................................. 6 The Institute for Community Alliances ................................................................................... 7 Participating Agencies ............................................................................................................. 7 GOVERNING DOCUMENTS .......................................................................................................... 8 GEOGRAPHIC AREA ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Homelessness Services
    Project Feature Seattle Homelessness Services As part of Bloomberg Philanthropies’ What Works Cities initiative, the GPL provided pro bono technical assistance to help Seattle 1) consolidate its contracts with homeless services agencies and 2) re-orient these contracts to focus on performance. The Challenge: Despite an increase in spending on homeless services over the past five years, the number of people experiencing homelessness in Seattle has risen at an average rate of 13% per year between 2011 and 2016. Structural factors, including housing affordability, poverty, and inadequate mental health care, have contributed to this challenge, resulting in the Mayor’s declaration of a state of emergency on homelessness in 2015. Moreover, the City’s system of funding homeless services was not focused on achieving desired outcomes— specifically, permanent housing placements and retention. Historically, services have not been coordinated across providers, and for the last decade there has not been a competitive, strategic procurement for homeless services. Instead, the City relied on the renewal of legacy contracts and creation of new contracts to disburse additional funding. As a result, the City held roughly 200 contracts with 60 providers, with one provider having as many as 18 contracts for its different programs. Due to the high volume of contracts, contract managers on the City and provider side spent most of their time on administrative tasks, such as invoice and audit preparation. This left little time for monitoring performance to learn if spending was producing results, to flag operational challenges, and to develop and implement course corrections during the course of the contract.
    [Show full text]
  • HOMELESSNESS: Myths and Facts
    This update is further adapted from the 2005 adaptation by Sally Kinney for the Interfaith Task Force on Homelessness, from the original work, "The Myths and Facts of Homelessness," by the Rev. Jean Kim Statistics quoted in this report derive from sources including: "A Roof Over Every Bed in King County: Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness"; The National Coalition for the Homeless; Washington State Coalition for the Homeless; Seattle King County Coalition for the Homeless; The City of Seattle; Real Change/First Things First; The National Student Campaign Against Hunger and Home-lessness; The Institute for Research on Poverty; Statewide Poverty Action Network; The Seattle Post-Intelligencer; The Seattle Times ************************************************************************************** Donations to “ITFH” are 100% tax deductible Bill Kirlin-Hackett, Director Phone: 425.442.5418 E-mail: [email protected] Webpage: www.itfhomeless.org HOMELESSNESS: Myths and Facts —2013— 3030 980043030 Bellevue Way NE, Bellevue WA 98004 425.442.5418 org425.442.5418 www.itfhomeless,org 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 InterInterfaithfaith Task forceforce on Homelessnesson Homelessness creating the political will to end homelessness in king county in ten years Myth #1: It is impossible to end homelessness. Fact: There is a growing national consensus that homelessness CAN be solved with the right plan, the right approach, and enough funding. As encouraged by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, many communities--including King County in our state--have enacted 10-year plans to end homelessness, which spell out what is needed to end homelessness instead of "managing" it. King County's plan, entitled "A Roof Over Every Bed in King County: Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness,” is the result of a collaboration between governmental entities, community service alliances, and religious organizations, and the 10-year countdown began locally in 2005.
    [Show full text]