Glancing Back, Looking Forward: Sound Families and Beyond

1. Glancing Back, Looking Forward:Sound Families and Beyond “Foundations: Agents of Systems Change” National Conference on Ending Family Homelessness Seattle, Washington February 7, 2008 David Takeuchi University of Washington School of Social Work David Wertheimer Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

2. Framing Results from the Sound Families Evaluation • Ambiguous loss • Theory of limited difference • Seeking housing, finding place

3. Brief Background of Sound Families • Began in 2000 with $40M investment by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation • Initiative leveraged more than $200M of public sector support • Goal of tripling the number of service-enriched housing units for homeless families in Washington state • 1,445 units funded, with the majority using a transitional housing model • Large majority of families made strides toward housing stability, economic independence, and improved quality of life • For more information, visit www.soundfamilies.org

4. Data Source for this Presentation Evaluation of the Sound Families Initiative, Final Findings: A Closer Look at Families’ Lives During and After Supportive Transitional Housing. (December, 2007). Seattle, Washington: Northwest Center for Children and Families, School of Social Work, University of Washington

5. Some Characteristics of Families • 85% of families were headed by a single caregiver, typically a single mother • Domestic violence is one of the major precipitating causes of homelessness • Homelessness associated with different stressors that have no immediate conclusion (debt, separation from family members, substance abuse, mental health, issues, limited earning power, etc.)

6. What is Ambiguous Loss? • Pauline Boss: Unclear loss or stress lacking closure that creates conditions that are stressful and confusing • Lack of clarity generates anxiety, depression, and immobilizes individuals and relational systems • Long term consequences are manifested as being unable to move on with one’s life

7. Examples of Ambiguous Loss: • Physically present, but psychologically absent (family member with chronic mental illness or substance abuse problem) • Physically absent, but psychologically present (family member separated from a family) • Some researchers are focusing on ambiguity in separation from places such as immigration and homelessness

8. A Focus on Ambiguous Loss Helps to: • Frame problems beyond individuals and focuses on relationships • Identify whether it is operating within an individual’s family • Seek closure for the uncertainties

9. As One Family Member Stated: “(Our life) is pretty consistent...I’ve gotten a routine down, we’re not struggling to make things happen or worrying about how to survive. We know we’re going to have dinner and we’re all going to have a bath.”

10. Some General Conclusions from the Sound Families Initiative • Individuals and families are quite diverse. While averages can aptly characterize individuals and families, there was no single distinctive feature. • A number of facets are associated with maintaining permanent housing, finding employment, and educational outcomes for children. No single set of predictors explained a substantial proportion of the variance in various outcomes.

11. Theory of Limited Difference(Cole & Singer) • Refocuses from a search for variables that explain large effects • To a focus on how small effects over time create large differences at a single point in time • The theory centers on “kicks” and “responses” • Example of gender differences in scientific publications

12. Application of Limited Difference to Homelessness • Focuses on cumulative advantages and disadvantages • Non-linear, dynamic analyses • Examines trajectories of families • Highlights importance of reactions of negative things

13. Housing Outcomes for Families Successfully Completing Transitional Programs Exit to non-permanent housing Secured permanent housing without any subsidy Secured permanent housing without Sec 8 or public housing but with other subsidy Secured permanent housing without Sec 8 but in public housing Secured permanent housing with Section 8 N = 651, excludes unknowns

14. Success in the Program is More than Finding a House As one respondent states: “I (enjoyed) being part of the community ....I had built my own social life and all of our activities. I felt like I was a little safer there.”

15. Place • Empirical research on place typically focuses on built environments or physical spaces • Tends to have small effects on various outcomes • Need to expand definitions to include social and psychological facets of place

16. Place involves … A geographic location that has boundaries and reference points A nexus where social life is initiated and engaged A holder of symbols, values, tradition, history; and a frame for organizing our experiences Gieryn, 2000

17. Incorporating the Concept of Place Helps to: • Focus on more than the built environment • Establish connections that make people feel established or in place • Focus on conditions that make people feel disconnected within communities and change these conditions

18. Implications for Moving Forward NAEH Conference, February 2008

19. Where we have been: The Sound Families Initiative -- a significant set of partnerships Gates Foundation Service Providers County/State leaders Housing Authorities City leaders Triple the number of new supportive housing units in Pierce, Snohomish, and King counties 1,445 units 2,700 children and 1,500 families served to date 2/3 found permanent housing School absenteeism dropped by 24% 60% of families increased their incomes Employment increased by 22%

20. Acknowledging the successes of our collaborative efforts to date Sound Families was highly successful in achieving initially articulated goals: • Unit production • Linking services to housing • Helping families recover from the trauma of homelessness • Ensure graduating families were able to access permanent housing resources

21. Key Lessons Learned From Sound Families:Individualized housing and services, links to opportunity Housing + services works All families’ needs are not the same Rapid re-housing and short-term supports v. permanent supportive housing and ongoing, intensive services Jobs + education is a critical lever Not enough is being done to bring employment opportunities to wage earners in recovering families

22. Housing crisis Emergency shelter Transitional housing Permanent housing 30 days Up to 2 years Key Lessons Learned From Sound Families:The need for improved response at the systems level Our family homelessness system is not functioning as effectively as it could Families don’t know where to turn to for help Families aren’t always getting the right type of help Emergency services are necessary at times of crisis, but insufficient to solve the larger problems Current system assumes “one size fits all” model

23. Recognizing the need to move forward, mindful of the lessons learned Sound Families evaluation data point towards what we could do differently or better: • Increase efforts to prevent families from becoming homeless in the first place • Match housing and service needs more precisely to each family’s individual experience and circumstances • Minimize the disruption of multiple family moves • Ensure the right intensity and mix of services as we support each family in efforts to move towards both stability and self-sufficiency over time

24. Implications of looking through a different research lens… • We know homelessness is a complex phenomenon • The symptom or result of a constellation of complex causal factors • Each family’s story, or the way these factors combine, is unique • Different factors may have different significance or impact, depending on the nature, sequence, geography and results of a chain of related or unrelated events • Recovery from homelessness requires addressing each and all of these complexities • Individually tailored services: The right mix at the right time at the right level of intensity • No one system or agency has the resources, capacity or skill set to do it all

25. From Conversation to Action Plan • Joseph, a homeless man in Seattle: “I am not incompetent. I just need help moving the obstacles out of the way.” • Reframing the solutions: It’s not just about what families have to do, but what systems must do to better support families • We may be part of the problem: Many of the issues have more to do with how housing and service systems are organized and accessed than the individual problems families face

26. Systems integration: Complex work for auto mechanics, a mystery to the rest of us

27. When it works well: Integration is invisible to the end user -- we get where we need to go

28. Looking under the hood of the family homelessness engine: A coordinated and tailored approach Families stably housed • Families in crisis • 20,000+ children and their parents in WA experience homelessness • High (>50%) rates of recidivism Coordinated Intake • Prevention Services • Opportunity + + Rapid housing + • High quality organizational capacity aligned to meet the needs of homeless families and those on the brink Organizations • Local provider networks collaborate to integrate and match the most effective resources to the needs of each family • Data systems support real time decisions for homeless families, improve provider practices, and support broader advocacy efforts State / LocalSystems • Advocacy builds collaboration and sense of shared accountability; enables use of existing money in new ways; promotes new money into sector

29. Moving Towards a Coordinated and Tailored System Requires that we think about how we do business in a different way: • Asks much of all current stakeholders • Challenges how existing resources across multiple systems are currently allocated and spent • Identifies the need for new resources in capital projects, operations and supportive services arenas Must leverage buy-in to both a willingness to change current practices anda new way of doing business

30. Supporting and/or questioning the status quo when and where needed • Extensive dialogue before anything changes • Convene the right stakeholders, prepared to do business together and differently • Identify leaders and “mechanics” who can serve as agents of change. Find change agents among both the familiar and the unexpected constituencies • Provide infrastructure resources required to support change. (Lead agencies, boundary spanners, advocacy, etc.) • Create incentives to realign existing funds and add new resources in pursuit of new ways of doing business • Evaluate results

31. Systems change: Four key roles that can be played by philanthropy in partnership with others Convener: Getting right people into right places and dialogues Knowledge Generator: Investing in research to inform policy & practice Strategic Investor: Funding innovations that drive systems change Advocate: Providing credible voice to advance systems change