1 / 45

MTW Conference February 4-5, 2014

MTW Conference February 4-5, 2014. Models for Addressing Homelessness at the Local Level Presented by: Portage Metropolitan Housing Authority Home Forward Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo. Models for Addressing Homelessness at the Local Level. Presenter: Fred Zawilinski

trish
Télécharger la présentation

MTW Conference February 4-5, 2014

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. MTW ConferenceFebruary 4-5, 2014 Models for Addressing Homelessness at the Local Level Presented by: • Portage Metropolitan Housing Authority • Home Forward • Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo

  2. Models for Addressing Homelessness at the Local Level Presenter: Fred Zawilinski Portage Metropolitan Housing Authority Portage County, Ohio Moving to Work Conference, February 4-5, 2014

  3. Attacking One Cause of Homelessness • Through Moving to Work, PMHA has enabled the creation of the first residential drug and alcohol recovery program in Portage County. • Prior to this program creation, men with addiction problems had to hope for the rare open slot in another county, attempt to address recovery as an out-patient, or hope for assistance through the criminal justice system Moving to Work Conference, February 4-5, 2014

  4. Background • For 25 years, PMHA owned and maintained a group home for persons with severe developmental disabilities as part of the conventional Public Housing Program. Named Washington Group Home and built with PH Development funds, it housed eight persons with individual bedrooms, but kitchen, bathroom and living areas were shared by all residents. 24/7 staffing provided assistance with daily living activities as needed. Moving to Work Conference, February 4-5, 2014

  5. Background • 2008: Discussion over 50058 submissions led to speculation at HUD that the group home was not an allowed use under Public Housing, and that PMHA would either convert the property into more conventional rental housing, or dispose of the property. • Approval for continued use as a group home requested for 2009 as insurance to PMHA. Moving to Work Conference, February 4-5, 2014

  6. Background • 2009: The supportive services agency purchased their own home, vacated the property. • Meanwhile, PMHA investigates permanent supportive housing as an option for housing young adults who age out of the foster care system • A partnership is formed, and fails. Moving to Work Conference, February 4-5, 2014

  7. A Different Approach • In 2012, discussions between PMHA and the leadership of a non-profit reveal that, while there is a long-running recovery program for women with addictions, there is no similar program for men. • With a history of successful collaborations between the non-profit and PMHA, discussions moved forward to explore MTW as a tool to help PMHA better utilize WGH and address community needs. Moving to Work Conference, February 4-5, 2014

  8. Addressing Addiction • Through the Annual Plan process and numerous discussions with HUD MTW and field office staff, PMHA gets permission to operate WGH as a home for men recovering from addictions. • PMHA retains ownership and maintenance responsibilities, leases the property as a whole to the non-profit partner for their program operation. The partner, as in the previous days of the group home, provides all 24/7 staffing and care of the residents. The property is leased to the non-profit on a short-term, renewable lease between the organizations. Moving to Work Conference, February 4-5, 2014

  9. Washington Group Home Moving to Work Conference, February 4-5, 2014

  10. Funding • Property related funding: PMHA receives rent from the non-profit based on a calculation assuming 8 residents with an SSI-only income, similar to what it received as a DD group home. PMHA also receives operating subsidy from HUD. • Program funding: The county Mental Health board provides for staffing and recovery program activities. A citizens group led by a mother whose son died from an overdose holds fundraising events on behalf of the program. Moving to Work Conference, February 4-5, 2014

  11. Early Results • Since June 2013, 29 admissions. • Expected population: Range of ages with addictions to a variety of substances, including alcohol, prescription drugs, various illegal drugs • Actual population: Primarily younger men, with almost exclusively a primary addiction to heroin. • Neighboring Cuyahoga County has seen heroin deaths increase 400% since 2007 and deaths from heroin now outnumber homicides and automobile accidents Moving to Work Conference, February 4-5, 2014

  12. Early Results • Nine of the 29 admissions have graduated from the program as “successful” • Twelve participants left the program as “unsuccessful,” for reasons ranging from violating house rules and voluntary premature departure to termination for smuggling in banned substances. • Grads are returning to volunteer with program activities • No neighborhood complaints from nearby condos, child day care, or churches. Moving to Work Conference, February 4-5, 2014

  13. Other Homelessness Activities • Homeless Shelter—Public Housing • Freedom House for homeless veterans • Transitional Housing • Renaissance Place: 2-year term limited Public Housing • Voucher-based Transitional Housing Moving to Work Conference, February 4-5, 2014

  14. Lessons Learned • Having PMHA involved in the homelessness programs in the county provides: • Needed Services • Credibility with non-profits, poverty advocates • Improved efficiency and effectiveness of the Continuum of Care • Improved knowledge of housing needs Moving to Work Conference, February 4-5, 2014

  15. Program Based Rent Assistance

  16. What is Program Based Assistance? Flexible MTW funds that serve targeted populations in partnership with one or more local service providers • Partner agencies identify participating families and determine amount and duration of assistance • Partner agencies provide services • Funds are contracted to partners or administered by Home Forward on behalf of partners

  17. Target Populations Program Based Assistance targets families for whom: 1) success on the Housing Choice Voucher program would be unlikely (ineligible or unlikely to find and retain housing on their own) 2) the delay in accessing rent assistance due to the Section 8 waitlist would most likely have devastating results (recidivism, relapse, death, homelessness, etc); or 3) the need for rental subsidy is short term while the client is receiving the support needed to achieve self-sufficiency or other permanent housing.

  18. Program Model Basic common guidelines across all contracted programs, with customization by partnering agency • Selection • Eligibility • Habitability Inspections • Subsidy Determination • Use of Funds • Service Requirements • Outcomes

  19. MTW Goals Program Based Assistance meets MTW goals by: • Achieving greater cost-effectiveness by reducing administrative burden of administering rent assistance • Supporting families with children where the head of household is engaged in a program to help the family become economically self-sufficient • Increasing housing choice for low-income families via a non-traditional model which supports families who might otherwise not be eligible for Public Housing or Section 8 • Increasing the number of households a PHA can serve via a local non-traditional model that may cost less per family than a traditional Section 8 voucher

  20. Examples of Program Based Assistance Partnerships

  21. Short Term Rent Assistance (STRA) Local jurisdictions, through a community process, developed a model for a comprehensive system of administering, accessing, and delivering short-term housing assistance. • Jointly funded by Multnomah County, Cities of Portland and Gresham, and Home Forward • System administered by Home Forward • Assistance delivered by 19 contracted agencies that provide services to families • Serves households that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness • Outcome goal: long term housing stability, measured by housing retention after end of assistance

  22. Benefits of a Shared System • Prior to creation of STRA • Staffing at all four jurisdictions • Different eligibility requirements and funded activities • Varied data collection and reporting requirements • Different outcome measures • Strengths of the unified system • Focus on shared outcomes • Improved system support and accountability • Increased flexibility for providers • Administrative efficiency for funders and ease for providers • Ability to use STRA infrastructure to deploy new resources for housing assistance rapidly

  23. Funding • General Funds • Emergency Housing Account • Emergency Solutions Grant • Housing Stabilization Program (TANF Block Grant) • State Low Income Rental Housing Fund • General Funds • Emergency Solutions Grant • HOME TBRA Funds • Flexible MTW Funds • Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) • Emergency Food & Shelter Program funds(via Department of Homeland Security)

  24. Outputs People and Households Served

  25. Average Assistance Provided

  26. Housing Retention

  27. Action for Prosperity Partnership between Home Forward, Workforce Investment Board, County network of non-profits, and Department of Human Services • County’s network of non-profits provide intensive, employment-focused case management • Workforce Investment Board provides set-aside of training and employment resources • DHS provides some coordinated case-planning for TANF families, including access to childcare • Home Forward provides rent assistance (contracted to non-profits)

  28. Programs for Former Foster Youth Extensions for FUP Vouchers • For youth with expiring FUP vouchers • Case managers at DHS or partnering agency can recommend youth for one year of rent assistance • Can be renewed for up to three years New Doors • Oxford House-style housing for homeless former foster youth who are working or in school • Rent assistance contracted to service provider • Local community college can refer in and also offers scholarships to interested residents

  29. Alder School Alder Elementary School is the first school to be adopted by I Have a Dream Foundation • Many providers offering services on site, but mobility was high • Rent assistance to families at risk of moving out of catchment area • Case management offered by local non-profit who can connect families to employment programs

  30. Lessons Learned • Short term assistance isn’t for everyone, but can work for many if paired with case management • This model allows PHAs to serve more individual families over the long-term • Housing stability vs. housing affordability • Offering partners a toolbox of flexible funds (such as PILOT dollars) helps them tailor assistance to clients’ needs • Contracting funds requires significant streamlining of paperwork/rules • Balancing front-end verification by PHA with program auditing • Partnerships like this can create strong relationships that can be built upon and leveraged

  31. Rachel Devlin Strategic Initiatives Program Director (503) 802-8597 Rachel.Devlin@homeforward.org For additional information, contact:

  32. Models for Addressing Homelessness at the Local Level Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo Housing Readiness Program (HRP) MTW Conference, February 4-5, 2014

  33. Housing Readiness Program (HRP) • Developed in response to the needs of the homeless in San Mateo County (SMC) • Originally designed in partnership with the SMC Center on Homelessness and other homeless service providers • Strategically positioned to be a part of the SMC HOPE Plan, the Counties 10-year plan to end homelessness

  34. HRP and the MTW Goals • HRP responds to the MTW goal of increased self-sufficiency by providing housing assistance in concert with supportive services • HRP increases the housing choice for individuals and families who would otherwise have little ability to receive housing assistance and for whom stable housing is often far out of reach • HRP leverages supportive services that ultimately result in overall cost savings for the community

  35. HRP – Program Design • Follows the “Housing First” strategy • HACSM allocates up to 100 vouchers • Establishes contracts with homeless services providers • Direct referrals to a committee for review • Case management required

  36. HRP – Program Design • HRP is voucher based • Referrals follow all eligibility and MTW program rules • HRP has a three-year voucher term • Housing subsidy is based on family income and HACSM rent reform program – the Tiered Subsidy Table • Case management services are provided by the referral agency

  37. HRP – Success Story Delaware Pacific New Construction Housing

  38. HRP – The Results • To date, HACSM has assisted 111 families, consisting of 186 family members • 29 individuals were elderly and/or disabled • 75 individuals were under 21 years of age

  39. HRP – The Results • Over 50% of the current families have increased their income while on the program • On average in CY13, HRP families have increased their savings by over $1,700 • On average, program participants have maintained stable housing for 669 days (or approx. two years)

  40. HRP – The Results • To date, 52 families have exited the program • 16 hardship extensions have been granted • No informal hearings have been requested • No terminations have been processed due to non-compliance with case management

  41. HRP – Lessons Learned • Establish and maintain clear roles and responsibilities between the Housing Authority and the contract partners • Intensive case management non-negotiable, as it is vital to the success of the families • Clear and easy to use reporting system for partners • Exit plan for each participant at program entry

  42. HRP – Lessons Learned • Variety of supportive services • Short Term, Transitional, and Permanent Housing – ensuring that partner organizations have the same definitions and are focused in the same direction • Strong Continuum of Care

  43. HRP – Lessons Learned • Ability to meet housing need in a timely manner • Leverage support and services across agencies • Motivated families • Ability to reach more families in need • Partners who are not able to provide long-term case management services • Conflicting priorities, at times, across agencies • Greater needs than assistance available The Pros The Cons

  44. The Housing Readiness Program Time-limited vouchers to stabilize housing Avenues for increased self-sufficiency Freedom from the need for long- term government assistance Strong and Engaged Community

  45. For additional information, contact: Jennifer Rainwater, Planning and Program Innovation Manager (650) 802-5045 jrainwater@smchousing.org Cindy Chan, Rental Program Manager (650) 802-3322 cchan@smchousing.org

More Related