Coordinated assessment: The Basics

1. Coordinated assessment: The Basics CENTER FOR CAPACITY BUILDING NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS

2. Agenda • REVIEW • PLANNING AND DESIGN • DATA & HMIS • ASSESSMENT PROCESS • REFERRAL PROCESS • EVALUATION • WORKING TIME

3. Why Do We Care About Coordinated Entry? • SENDS HOUSEHOLDS TO INTERVENTION OF BEST FIT FROM THE START • PROVIDES SYSTEM-WIDE PREVENTION AND DIVERSION OPPORTUNITIES • IMPROVES SYSTEM EFFICIENCY • FOSTERS MORE COLLABORATION AMONG PROVIDERS • IMPROVES ABILITY TO PERFORM WELL ON HEARTH OUTCOMES • ESG MANDATE

4. Centralized Intake • PLACES: COLUMBUS, OH; GRAND RAPIDS, MI; HENNEPIN COUNTY/MINNEAPOLIS, MN • PROS: LESS TRAINING TIME NEEDED; MORE LIKELY TO BE CONSISTENT PROCESS; NEED LESS STAFF • CONS: ONE LOCATION MAY NOT BE EQUALLY ACCESSIBLE TO ALL; HIGH VOLUME SINGLE INTAKE CENTER/SHELTER (MAY BE ONE PLACE FOR EACH POPULATION)

5. Decentralized Intake • PLACES: MONTGOMERY COUNTY/DAYTON, OH; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD • PROS: EASIER TO HANDLE LARGER NUMBERS OF CLIENTS; MORE ACCESSIBILITY; MAY INCREASE PROVIDER COMFORT LEVEL • CONS: LESS CONTROL AND CONSISTENCY; MAY BE MORE COSTLY DUE TO INCREASED SPACE/STAFF DEMANDS INTAKE POINT #1 INTAKE POINT #2 INTAKE POINT #3

6. 2-1-1 2-1-1 • PLACES: MEMPHIS/SHELBY COUNTY, TN; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MD; ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA • PROS: ACCESSIBILITY; EASY LINKAGES TO OTHER MAINSTREAM RESOURCES; REDUCES IN-PERSON CLIENTS • CONS: UNABLE TO DEAL WITH CRISIS SITUATIONS FACE-TO-FACE; INCREASED CHANCE OF INCONSISTENCY INTAKE CENTER SHELTER DIVERSION MAINSTREAM RESOURCES

7. ADDITIONAL PLANNING QUESTIONS • INDIVIDUAL SUBPOPULATION NEEDS • CO-LOCATION WITH OTHER CRUCIAL SERVICES • ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY • SIZE OF GEOGRAPHIC AREA • DISTANCE FROM OTHER PROVIDERS

8. Data Collection & HMIS

9. Necessary Tools • CENTRALIZED DATA ENTRY AND/OR SINGLE PROCEDURE • DEVELOP AND TRAIN INTAKE STAFF. • AN OPEN HMIS • A DATA SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALL PROVIDERS • CREATE ONE. • REAL-TIME INFORMATION ON BED AVAILABILITY (PREFERABLY THROUGH HMIS) • PROVIDE TRAINING FOR PROVIDERS, UPGRADE HMIS SYSTEM. • SHORT TERM SOLUTION: HAVE PROGRAMS CALL IN AVAILABILITY, USE AN EXCEL OR GOOGLE SPREADSHEET

10. Promising practices - data • CINCINNATI, OH (SPEAKING AT THE CONFERENCE) • HAVE “HOMEGROWN” HMIS THAT SHOWS REAL-TIME BED AVAILABILITY • ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA (SPEAKING AT THE CONFERENCE); PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MD • 2-1-1 BEGINS INITIAL DATA ENTRY PROCESS, SHARES DATA WITH INTAKE CENTER • WHATCOM COUNTY, WA (SPEAKING AT THE CONFERENCE) • DEVELOPED DATA SHARING AGREEMENT AND CLIENT MOU QUICKLY; LOOPED IN YOUTH PROVIDERS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROVIDER

11. Assessment

12. Getting started • HAVE EACH PROGRAM REVIEW INTERNALLY, AND THEN REVIEW AS A SYSTEM, PROGRAM RULES AND POTENTIAL “SCREEN OUT” FACTORS: • ARE THEY NECESSARY FOR FUNDING REASONS? • ARE THEY RELATED TO THE MISSION OF THE PROGRAM? • OF THE SYSTEM? (WHAT IS THE MISSION OF THE SYSTEM?) • LOOK AT OTHER COMMUNITIES’ ASSESSMENT TOOLS • DECIDE WHAT INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE ACQUIRED WHEN (AT INTAKE VS. AFTER REFERRAL HAS BEEN MADE)

13. Getting started, cont’d • WHAT INFORMATION ARE YOU REQUIRED TO COLLECT BY HUD? • WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU NEED TO DETERMINE IF SOMEONE SHOULD RECEIVE PREVENTION ASSISTANCE OR BE DIVERTED FROM SHELTER? • WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU NEED ABOUT CLIENTS FROM PROGRAMS TO MAKE A SMART REFERRAL?

14. PREVENTION ASSESSMENT AND TARGETING: use shelter data LOOK AT SHELTER DATA: USE THIS TO GUIDE WHO RECEIVES PREVENTION ASSISTANCE.

15. Shelter DIVERSION QUESTIONS • WHERE DID YOU SLEEP LAST NIGHT? • WHAT OTHER HOUSING OPTIONS DO YOU HAVE FOR THE NEXT FEW DAYS OR WEEKS? • (IF STAYING IN SOMEONE ELSE’S HOUSING) WHAT ISSUES EXIST WITH YOU REMAINING IN YOUR CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION? CAN THOSE ISSUES BE RESOLVED WITH FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, CASE MANAGEMENT, ETC.? • (IF COMING FROM THEIR OWN UNIT) IS IT POSSIBLE/SAFE TO STAY IN YOUR CURRENT HOUSING UNIT? WHAT RESOURCES WOULD YOU NEED TO DO THAT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, CASE MANAGEMENT, MEDIATION, TRANSPORTATION, ETC.)?

16. Referral Process

17. Referrals: the “Warm handoff” 1. MAKE CLIENT REFERRAL. 2. CALL PROGRAM TO ANNOUNCE THAT CLIENT IS BEING REFERRED TO THEM. 3. SHARE CLIENT DATA WITH REFERRAL PROGRAM. 4. OPTIONAL: IN-PERSON MEETINGS

18. REFERRAL VS. ADMISSION • WHICH PROGRAMS CAN ACCEPT/WILL ACCEPT DIRECT ADMISSIONS (E.G., EMERGENCY SHELTER)? HOW COULD YOU PHASE IN THIS CHANGE OVER TIME? WHICH PROGRAMS ARE ONLY ACCESSIBLE THROUGH REFERRAL? • SET PROCESS FOR REFERRALS THAT ALLOWS AGENCIES TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK IF SOMEONE ISN’T A GOOD MATCH (E.G., DAYTON MODEL)

19. evaluation

20. EVALUATION MEASURES • ARE MORE PEOPLE BEING PREVENTED OR DIVERTED FROM ENTERING HOMELESSNESS? • ARE PEOPLE MOVING THROUGH THE HOMELESS ASSISTANCE MORE QUICKLY? • ARE MORE PEOPLE EXITING THE SYSTEM FOR PERMANENT HOUSING? • ARE LENGTHS OF STAY IN HOMELESSNESS DECREASING? ARE LENGTHS OF STAY IN SHELTER DECREASING? • ARE THERE FEWER REPEAT ENTRIES INTO HOMELESSNESS?

21. Other evaluation methods • CONSUMER SURVEYS • REFERRAL: PRIMARY PLACEMENT VS. SECONDARY PLACEMENT

22. Tools on tables • COORDINATED ENTRY CHECKLIST (ALLIANCE) • TRIAGE TOOL (COLUMBUS, OH) • DATA SHARING AGREEMENT (WHATCOM COUNTY, WA) • CLIENT RELEASE FORM (WHATCOM COUNTY, WA) • COORDINATED ENTRY POWERPOINT (DAYTON/MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OH) • RAPID RE-HOUSING TRIAGE TOOL (ALLIANCE)