1 / 15

Coordinated Entry Assessment: Draft Report

Coordinated Entry Assessment: Draft Report . Greg Hessel ReGeneration Resources Greg@RegenerationResources.org. Agenda . The Context. A Cultural Artifact Why? Risk Aversion? Lack of Trust?. The Intent of Coordinated Entry. Improve Coordination

wsiniard
Télécharger la présentation

Coordinated Entry Assessment: Draft Report

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. Coordinated Entry Assessment: Draft Report Greg Hessel ReGeneration Resources Greg@RegenerationResources.org

  2. Agenda

  3. The Context • A Cultural Artifact • Why? • Risk Aversion? • Lack of Trust?

  4. The Intent of Coordinated Entry • Improve Coordination • Better data will lead to better decisions

  5. Improving Coordination

  6. Coordination Recommendations

  7. Better Data leads to Better Decisions • Find someone to mine the data • Develop and run new reports • Look at trends over time • Work to improve data quality • 50% of the reason for exit is blank • 63% of the Phase fields are blank • Determine how you measure success (BoS is having this conversation currently) and develop a dashboard to track success • Look at data element differences with BoS and when possible align them.

  8. Project Goals: Identify resource gaps in the system • Disclaimer: The better the data, the better the recommendations • Housing vouchers and subsidy gaps definitely exist in the system (i.e. 14 exited through the PSH pathway while 115 chronic are on the Master List) • Recommendation: Create more diverse off ramps—Experiment, try new ideas • Expanded landlord liaison (landlord guarantees) • Pilot a program for matching people with housemates and giving support • Incentives for homeowners to create apartments to increase overall stock • Increase data analysis to find out more specifically who is getting bottlenecked in the system

  9. Project Goals: Identify resource gaps in the system—Housing Navigators • Everyone seems to be getting into the system relatively quickly without wait • However, • More housing navigators would most likely decrease time to Phase III • More housing navigators would probably decrease the number of consumers who drop out of the system • If more people entered through screenings, more housing navigators would be needed • Greatest need seems to be at CVOEO where hours/client/navigator is about 65% of that at COTS and 50% of Safe Harbor.

  10. Project Goals: Identify resource gaps in the system—Retention Workers • Adding a question on exit (“Has retention services?”) would allow you to track the success of housing retention services. Better data could justify funding • Currently there is no agreed upon definition of “housing retention services”, so it is hard to compare the work of different agencies • Safe Harbor recently lost a 24/week position and their lone retention worker has a caseload of almost 40, which seems high • Some consumers who could benefit from housing retention services are currently not receiving them due to a lack of capacity

  11. Project Goal—Identify place to improve efficiency in the system • Only 27% of those who enter the system through a screening are entered on the Master List—find out why • There seem to be great opportunities for increased efficiency with greater participation from housing providers. Specifically, handoffs between navigators and BHA seem to involve a lot of back and forth and miscommunication and there is no transparent list of housing resources available, among other issues

  12. Project Goal-- Explore the potential lack of equity in the system • Reframe and normalize “inequity” • Explore how each organization balances their own internal needs (and the need for flexibility in serving consumers) with participating in the standardized CE system equitably • Recommendation: • Build Trust • Identify the real issues and barriers and partner with organizations to problem solve and move forward together

  13. Consumer Feedback • Overall satisfaction with the process of finding a home, 7.1 (1-10) • 47% process mostly fair, 35% process mostly unfair • Most knew their next step, but one consumer compared it to getting out of a corn maze • One desire—”One Stop Shopping” or more coordination • There was some frustration with the inability to find “affordable” housing and therefore a little bit of “so what” regarding CE • Regarding ways for consumers to have ongoing feedback into the process—hard to due to the power dynamic but if there is trust they will tell the housing navigator

  14. Consumer Recommendations • Work to continue to increase a client-centric focus • Consider asking all new clients, “Tell me about the best case management you ever had and why it was excellent.” • “What do you need from me to insure I am meeting your needs?” • And, “What could we do better?”

  15. Summary of Recommendations • Build trust to increase buy-in and the pace of decision making • Normalize different levels of buy-in • Problem solve to increase buy-in • Clarify the role of building (and sometimes rebuilding) relationships • Hold facilitated meetings with housing providers to try to get them to the table • Experiment with new off ramps, especially for PSH • Work to improve, and mine, your data

More Related