The Dragas Homeless Children’s Initiative in South Hampton Roads

1. The Dragas Homeless Children’s Initiative in South Hampton Roads A Public-Private Partnership Lessons Learned

2. Presenters • Carolyn McPherson, Dragas Foundation Homeless Children’s Initiative Program Administrator • Andrew M. Friedman, Director Virginia Beach Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, City of Virginia Beach, • Thaler McCormick, Executive Director, ForKids, Inc., Norfolk • Sarah Paige Fuller, Director, Office to End Homelessness, City of Norfolk • Alisa S. Winston, Housing Program Coordinator, Office of Housing, City of Chesapeake

3. Dragas Program Objectives: • to ensure a better future for children who experience homelessness; • to provide funding to the cities to enhance programs and services - including rapid re-housing, case management, and children’s services - in order to positively impact the self-sustainability/stability of families experiencing homelessness;  • to improve children’s educational achievement; • to provide assistance so that children will have higher potential for economic improvement and well being as they enter adulthood; • to provide focus and funding for a regional approach to programs for families experiencing homelessness; and • to provide an impetus for sustainability of innovative, private funding.

4. Project Timeline • Late 2007 Dragas Foundation decision to develop program • Spring 2008 RFP issued to the 3 cities • August 2008 Norfolk contract • November 2008 Virginia Beach contract • March 2009 Chesapeake contract

5. Regional Homelessness Snapshot, 2009

6. 2009 Point in Time Count of Persons in Homeless Families, South Hampton Roads

7. Norfolk Dragas Project Goal – To break the cycle of homelessness for the most vulnerable families with children in Norfolk Dragas provided an opportunity to fill a gap in services in the existing system – Intensive in-home case management for households that are the most high risk of returning to homelessness.

8. Norfolk Demographics

9. Norfolk - Outcomes In-Home Intensive Case Management (n=71) 47% had multiple episodes of financial assistance prior to Dragas CM 14% required financial assistance during Dragas CM Note: Limited data sources – early data analysis

13. Lessons Learned - Norfolk High risk families can and do end homelessness. Effective case management can and does reduce dependence on financial assistance. Close the time gap between $ assistance and in-home case management Support staff with reasonable caseloads Provide access to emergency funds – for unexpected gaps in resources to prevent destabilization. Allow for slips, immediately re-engage and re-house.

14. Norfolk – Hot Meals and Homework 70% of children increased their GPA or maintained a GPA of 2.0 or higher. 98% advancing to the next grade. Failed and repeated grades – prevented Children provided emotional support as well as instructional assistance. Stressors at home impacting educational progress identified and addressed.

15. Norfolk Dragas Project Goal – To end homelessness for the most vulnerable families with children in Norfolk Dragas provided an opportunity to fill a gap in services in the existing system – Intensive in-home case management for households that are the most high risk of returning to homelessness.

16. Chesapeake Resources for Homeless/Pre-Dragas • No Coordinated/Central Intake • Shelter Capacity • OHF Emergency Shelter 10 beds • OHF Transitional Shelter 25 beds • Salvation Army- Hope Village 4 beds • CSB-Shelter Plus Care 4 units • The City has 1 emergency shelter (Our House Families) • 1,315 persons were turned away in 2009 • 753 adults • 562 children • Small Amount of Human Services Grant Funds • Federal CDBG and PSSF Funds

17. Chesapeake Opportunities with Dragas Funds • Dragas funds have afforded the City the opportunity to reduce homelessness by providing: • Coordinated Homeless Intake/Assessment • In Home Intensive Case Management • Housing Broker • Children’s Initiatives/Preventing Intergenerational Homelessness • Hot Meals and Homework • Leveraged Funds • HOME (TBRA) • City • Flexibility with non-federal/state funding

18. Chesapeake Outcomes • 26 Households (44 Adults & 46 Children) were served by Dragas • 67% (4 of 6 )of Household at 3 months were stably housed • 100% (5 of 5) of Households at 6 months were stably housed • 100% (1of 1) of Households at 9 months were stably housed • 64% (7 of 11) of Households at exit were stably housed (4 households were unknown) **3 households have not reached 3 months**

19. Chesapeake Additional Outcomes • 7 of kids were enrolled in the Hot Meals and Homework Program • 83% of children have been promoted to the next grade • One child maintained a 4.0 GPA during the fourth marking period

20. Chesapeake Challenges • Need is far greater than the resources-prioritization • Income of the households/ability to sustain • Lack of male volunteers for the Hot Meals and Homework Program • School Involvement • Parental Involvement • Implementation of HPRP and Dragas

21. Virginia Beach’s Perspective • Family homelessness had/has been a priority for us-and we were funding programs to address it • The Dragas program added several completely new elements to the community’s ability to assist- especially the idea of focusing on children • Focused us on collecting meaningful data on outcomes • Flexibility of funding expanded our capability to do things to help people that are needed, rather than only what is allowed by Federal funding

22. Virginia Beach’s Perspective • Family homelessness had/has been a priority for us-and we were funding programs to address it • The Dragas program added several completely new elements to the community’s ability to assist- especially the idea of focusing on children • Focused us on collecting meaningful data on outcomes • Flexibility of funding expanded our capability to do things to help people that are needed, rather than only what is allowed by Federal funding

23. Goals of Virginia Beach’s Program • To prevent family homelessness • To rapidly re-house homeless families • To achieve housing stability for assisted families • To achieve improved school performance for children of assisted families

24. Elements of Virginia Beach’s Dragas Program • Assessment and Referral • Case Management • Direct Housing Assistance • Housing broker services • Resource development (regional project) • Needs Assessment (regional project) • Children’s services • Combined with HPRP funds for most activities • City matching funds for administration

25. Outcomes – Virginia Beach - % of Households Stable by Months Since Assistance

26. Lessons Learned • The onset of the recession occurred just as the grant program began, resulting in significantly increased demand for housing assistance • We underestimated the amount of case management needed • People in the worst situations most likely need longer term or permanent assistance – these were not the best candidates for Dragas assistance • People came to us very late and in situations that were dire • Managing an intake system where demand overwhelms supply is very challenging

27. Different Cities Different Approaches ForKids In Norfolk & Chesapeake • Playing different roles in very different systems Some General Observations Chesapeake Vs: Norfolk (Suburban Vs. Urban) • Higher incomes • Less criminal backgrounds • More intact families & men • Less families coming from shelters Big Picture • Dragas was a big incentive to coordinate services

28. Case Management Lessons Learned In-Home Case Management Important new tool in the toolbox • Larger families • High barrier families • Nontraditional families • Used for prevention and aftercare (improving outcomes) Must connect immediately w/ CM when financial assistance is given Don’t end CM program at lease renewal time

29. Case Management Lessons Learned In-Home Case Management • Incentives and flexible funding are important for good CM • Not a Magic Bullet: It can’t get high barrier families into public housing and Section 8 “6-8 mos. out, we’re running out of $$, but there is no subsidized housing in sight for families that need it”

30. Applying Precious Resources Shelter Cost/Person/Day $57 Shelter Cost/Family/90-day stay $15K Prevention CM Cost/Year/Family $2-3K Hot Meals & Homework/Child/Yr $3.5K Tutoring $6.5K

31. Regional Opportunities • Because three cities each received a grant, the opportunity for regional cooperation presented itself • Each city agreed to take 5% of their grant ($25,000) to put into a combined fund for the purpose of fund raising/sustainability • Using this funding, we applied for additional funding and obtained a grant of $100,000 from the Hampton Roads Community Foundation for sustainability funding • We are in the process of hiring a staff person to conduct fund raising/sustainability and other regional activities – to benefit all the cities in the region • Cities are also sharing information and expertise and moving toward unified processes, but this is slow