The Impact of Data: Local Homelessness Research on Ex-Offenders and Permanent Supportive Housing

1. The Impact of Data: Local Homelessness Research on Ex-Offenders and Permanent Supportive Housing Margot Ackermann, Ph.D. Melissa Sorrell, MSW

2. Local Climate • Homeward’s role • VSH’s long history of providing PSH to people who are chronically homeless • Multiple jurisdictions • Involvement of business community • Private funding (67%) for homeless services • Large number of non-profits and other stakeholders • Hospitals are willing partners • Involvement in Community Criminal Justice Board and plans for new jail • Majority of homeless population = single adult ex-offenders

3. Philosophy of the system • End homelessness for individuals and families as quickly as possible. • Use resources efficiently – if someone can be served quickly and effectively, this is better than keeping someone in a shelter or program for a long time. • People do better in all aspects of their lives if they have stable housing – provide housing first, and some of the other benefits will spring from that. • Connect people with mainstream resources, rather than creating new resources for people experiencing homelessness.

4. Timeline • Collection of consistent PIT data begins • Introduction of summer PIT 2007 • Frequent user HMIS data match with jail • Convened local FUSE group 2011

5. Ex-Offenders in Richmond, VA

6. Homelessness and Unstable Housing Plans (5/09) • Obtained list of 111 respondents; 50 were surveyed • Administered the PIT survey used in 07/08, along with questions on housing barriers, job skills, and social support • Research question: Among jail inmates, what characteristics distinguish those who have been homeless from those who have not been homeless – and what characteristics predict housing instability at discharge?

7. Homelessness and Unstable Housing Plans (5/09) • Main findings were that those with a history of homelessness: • Reported lower social support of friends, family, and significant others; • Were more likely to have a current substance abuse problem; and • Were less likely to have a checking account. • Individuals with stable housing plans were more likely to be from the City of Richmond. Those with unstable plans were more likely to have been evicted and received income from panhandling.

8. Homelessness and Unstable Housing Plans • The small sample size made it difficult to find significant differences, but the fact that those with a history of homelessness reported lower social support on three subscales was intriguing.

9. Overlap Between Jail and Shelter Use: 5/09 – 4/10 • In September 2010, one year’s worth of data on adults from the Homeward Community Information System (HCIS) and the Richmond City Jail (RCJ) was matched to examine the overlap between people who use area shelters and the RCJ. 31.5% (828/2627) of adults who had stayed in area shelters had been in jail during the year. 7.4% (828/11,203) of RCJ inmates had been in an area shelter during the year.

10. Highlights Shelter Jail and shelter Jail More episodes of homelessness Higher classification levels Held longer prior to sentencing No differences in gender or family status No differences in sentence length or gender

11. Frequent Users of Jail and Shelter • In March 2011, we decided to match five year’s worth of data (2006-2010) on adults from the Homeward Community Information System (HCIS) and the Richmond City Jail (RCJ) and look at clients within the overlap who could be considered frequent users of both systems. 32.4% (2685/8289) of adults who had stayed in area shelters had been in jail during the five-year period. 7.4% (2685/36,377) of RCJ inmates had been in an area shelter during the five-year period.

12. Frequent Users of Jail and Shelter • Of the 2685 clients who had spent time in both jail and shelter, 1623 (60.4%) were frequent users (4+ stays) of jail or shelter. 40.8% (1095/2685) qualify as frequent users of shelter. 33.3% (893/2685) qualify as frequent users of jail.

13. Frequent User Highlights Shelter Jail and shelter Jail No significant differences in gender, family status, disability status, and veteran status Male Unaccompanied by children in shelter Disability Veterans (marginally significant)

14. Mr. A’s Story • Median total time in jail and shelter: 277 days (41 shelter, 236 jail) • 36 year old, single adult Black male. • Has been in shelter four times. Spent a few weeks in shelter in early 2005 and then returned a few more times in 2005-2006. • When he first sought shelter, he had been homeless and living outdoors for at least a couple years. • Beginning in May 2007 through August 2010, he went to jail six times. Once, he was released in the same day, but a few times, he stayed at least a month. The past two times he was arrested, he’s only been in jail for a couple days. • Has been in and out of jail since 1992, with a break in 1994-2001 when he was in prison. • Usual charges: felony narcotics, felony forgery, larceny, and felonious assault.

15. Mr. B’s Story • Median jail time: 146 days; 97 days in shelter • Mr. B. is a 47 year old, single White male who has physical and alcohol-related disabilities. • Has been incarcerated 13 times during this five year period, mostly for just one or two days. The one exception is a stay of about three months. • During this same period, he has been in and out of shelter many times, with most stays being fairly short – a week or two. He has had eight shelter stays during this time. • History of incarceration in RCJ goes back to 1997, with multiple convictions for drunk in public, trespassing, and petty larceny.

16. Mr. C’s Story • Median shelter time: 74 days; 1140 days in jail • Mr. C. is a 52 year old, single Black male. • He has drug and alcohol-related disabilities and has been incarcerated 12 times during this five year period. Although he has had some brief stays, he has also had several longer period of incarceration (e.g., 4-6 months). • He has been staying in area shelters for the past seven years, usually just for a night, though he did try to get treatment for his substance abuse problems in 2008. It appears that he left the program and was arrested just a few days later. Overall, he has had five stays in shelter. • Has had charges of trespassing, felony narcotics, drunk in public, disorderly conduct, and an old DUI, as well as a couple assaults on law enforcement.

17. Local Impact • Engagement of high level stakeholders and elected officials • Partnership with law enforcement and RPD Homeless Outreach and Partnership for Enforcement (HOPE) unit • Ongoing data matching with Richmond City Jail • Data will help guide programs and funding related to alternatives to incarceration • Establishment of Richmond City’s mental health docket (4/11) • Homeward’s FUSE coordinating council (6/11) • Funding and development of a FUSE project (2013-2014)

18. History of Permanent Supportive Housing • HUD’s Supportive Housing Program is authorized by Title IV, Subtitle C, of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987: • The Supportive Housing Program was designed to develop supportive housing and supportive services that will allow homeless persons to live as independently as possible. • Assistance in the Supportive Housing Program is provided to help homeless persons meet three overall goals: • achieve residential stability, • increase their skill levels and/or incomes, and • obtain greater self-determination (i.e., more influence over decisions that affect their lives).

19. History of Permanent Supportive Housing • Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act, 2009 • The McKinney-Vento Homelessness Assistance Act was amended with substantial changes, including a focus on • Rapid Re-housing • Prevention • Permanent Supportive Housing

20. A Place to Start • Virginia Supportive Housing’s A Place to Start Program (APTS) began in 2009 • Modeled after the Pathways to Housing Program in NY which pioneered the “Housing First” Model • “Housing First”: “Provide housing first, and then combine that housing with supportive treatment services in the areas of mental and physical health, substance abuse, education, and employment.” • Using this model, APTS provides ICT services and housing to eligible clients.

21. A Place to Start- Clinical Services • Interdisciplinary Team: • Psychiatrist • RN • LPN • Team Leader • Peer Specialist • Substance Abuse Clinician • Housing Specialist • Clinicians • Intensive Community Treatment: • Services are available 24-hours a day, 365 days a year • Services provided in community • Assistance with applying for benefits and entitlements, medical care, referrals, etc.

22. A Place to Start- Supportive Housing Services • Housing Specialist and The Team work closely with private landlords to identify appropriate scattered site housing • Partnerships are key to housing: • Collaborative effort with clinical services and landlord • Case management and availability of The Team are major “selling points” • If clients receive income, they are responsible for a portion of their rent and utilities • Staff assist clients with independent living skills to maintain permanent housing

23. A Place to Start- Identifying Clients • Outreach Consortium: • Comprised of partner-agencies that make up Richmond Area Collaborative to End Chronic Homelessness (RACECH) • VSH, Daily Planet, RBHA, VA, Commonwealth Catholic Charities • Through outreach and surveys, vulnerable clients are identified and prioritized for housing • Funding sources for the program: • Housing: Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8, HUD-VASH), rent subsidies (local/state funded) • Supportive services: Medicaid, government grants, private philanthropy

24. Data collected between February 2009-March 2010 on fifty A Place to Start clients Analyzed data from area hospital systems and criminal records Demographic information and criminal history collected 20 months prior to program entry Client “Event Data” (hospitalizations, incarcerations, employment, and housing changes) captured as events occurred 20 months post-entry

25. Findings of the Community Impact Report Cost savings: The decline in average incarceration duration and decrease in number of incarcerations saved an estimated $98,072 for area corrections facilities and the criminal justice system as a whole

26. Finding of the Community Impact Report • Client hospitalizations: • ER visits decreased by 61.5% (157 fewer visits) in the 20 months following entry • Inpatient, psychiatric hospitalizations decreased 62% following entry into program • Hospital admissions increased during first 10 months, but decreased 79.5% following an “adjustment period”

27. Community Impact Report: Daily Average Costs

28. Findings of the Community Impact Report • Total Cost Savings to the Community: • The community saved $320,000 in incarceration, inpatient hospital, and ED visit costs • Annual cost to community in incarcerations and hospital visits: • Prior to entry: $6,062 • Post-entry: $3,227 • Almost a 50% decrease • Heavy users of hospitals and jails saw decreases in annual costs from $18,000 prior to entry to $528 post-entry. During the entire data collection period, 98% of the 50 clients maintained permanent housing!

29. 2013 APTS Outcomes

30. A Proven, Permanent Solution to Homelessness “I didn’t have nobody and I had given up hope until this program came along. I feel safe now.” hope Stories of Jerome, A Place to Start Client

31. A Proven, Permanent Solution to Homelessness “The people here guided me to what I need to do to live a good life. I wouldn’t have made it another year on the streets.” hope Stories of Christina, A Place to Start Client Pictured on the left

32. Additional Resources • The National Alliance to End Homelessness – naeh.org • The National Coalition for the Homeless – nationalhomeless.org • The Virginia Coalition to End Homelessness – vceh.org • United States Interagency Council on Homelessness – ich.gov • Homeward – homewardva.org • Virginia Supportive Housing – virginiasupportivehousing.org