1 / 29

2012 Annual Report Data

2012 Annual Report Data. Housing…Help…Hope. Clients Served Per Year. *2009 PSH count includes Hope House **ESG didn’t start until December 2012. Program Demographics. Clients Served By Gender. Gender by Year. Gender By Program. Race and Ethnicity by Program.

gwidon
Download Presentation

2012 Annual Report Data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2012 Annual Report Data Housing…Help…Hope

  2. Clients Served Per Year *2009 PSH count includes Hope House **ESG didn’t start until December 2012

  3. Program Demographics

  4. Clients Served By Gender

  5. Gender by Year

  6. Gender By Program

  7. Race and Ethnicity by Program *There were responses for 529 of 537 served in 2012

  8. Client Age Range *There were responses for 523 of 537 served

  9. Living Situation Prior to Admission In Permanent Supportive Housing Programs *There were responses for 258 of 367 served

  10. Living Situation Prior to Admission In Hope House Transitional Housing Program *There were responses for 154 of 170 served

  11. Source of Income Prior to Admission In Permanent Supportive Housing Programs *There were responses for 282 of 367 served

  12. Source of Income Prior to Admission In Hope House Transitional Housing Program

  13. Characteristics of Clients in Permanent Supportive Housing Programs Permanent Supportive Housing w/o Adamsville Green

  14. Characteristics of Clients In Hope House Transitional Housing Program

  15. Favorable Drug Screens *Of 1809 screens completed in 2012,1642 were negative

  16. Favorable Drug Screens Per Program

  17. Client Exits Per Program Supportive Housing Programs

  18. Supportive Housing Program Client Exit Data

  19. Transitional Housing Program Client Exit Data

  20. Agency/Program Data on Client Tenure

  21. Successfully Housed in 2012

  22. Client Tenure 365 days or longer in residency *Adamsville Green is not included

  23. Agency Key Outcomes

  24. Time Spent Per Program Per Topic

  25. What Did Our Clients Say? 2012 Client Satisfaction Survey • Purpose-The client satisfaction survey and focus groups are part of ongoing assessment to understand the client experience at CaringWorks, Inc. • Method-Administered by Advantage Consulting LLC, the survey was conducted in September and the focus groups were conducted in late September. • 128 participants completed the client satisfaction questionnaires and each site(6) had between 6-9 residents participate in the focus groups. • 320 residents were eligible to complete the questionnaire and participate in the focus groups which resulted in a response rate of 40% for the survey.

  26. What Did Our Clients Say? 2012 Client Satisfaction Survey

  27. What Did Our Clients Say? Client Satisfaction CaringWorks annually seeks feedback on satisfaction with services from it’s clients/residents. The results are shared with client focus groups and each site’s lead staff person. CaringWorks uses the results to create action plans to address issues identified Comments from focus groups: • As in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 survey and focus groups, clients were very satisfied with CaringWorks services and staff. • Clients found the staff to be helpful, supportive and non-judgmental. They felt they were treated with courtesy and respect. • In the survey and focus groups, clients were satisfied with the amount and type of services they received.

  28. Discussion • As in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 survey, some property management staff received very negative feedback while others were seen as satisfactory. The focus groups reinforced the results from the survey and in some cases indicated that the surveys were not strong enough when indicating problems with management. • Welcome house continues to have serious concerns expressed about property management. • Donnelly Courts’ new management also received significant negative feedback.

  29. Outcomes Goals for 2013 • ETO Build Out • Will create a cleaner central method of capturing data • Staff training so there is knowledge and consistentcy • Better reflection of true time spent with clients • Capture additional populations • Consistent identification of Physically Disabled (Hearing Impaired, Visually Impaired, and HIV+), Veterans, Criminal Justice • Ability to draw correlations • Capture income at discharge and whether it has improved

More Related