HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg 2015-03-02 Item 6C - Discussion - 2015-2018 Committee to End Homelessness Draft Strategic Plan (Sound Cities Association Public Issues Committee Item)COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
--------- - - - - -- Initial r
Meelin
,g Dale
Prepared by
Ma re iezv
Council review
03/02/15
LH
❑ Resolution
A1 g Dale
[:] Ordinance
Ai g Date
❑ Bid Axard
A/ g Dale
F-1 Pub&' Hearing
Alt
,g Dale
❑ Other
Aft
,g Date
SPONSOR Z Council ❑ Mayor ❑ HR ❑ DCD E]Finance ❑ .17ire E:1 17' ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PWI
SPONSOR'S Council President Kruller is seeking discussion and consensus on the following issue which
SUMMARY will be acted upon at a future SCA PIC meeting: 1) Committee to End Homelessness Draft
Strategic Plan. For more information, refer to the Public Issues Committee 2/11/15
packet, item 7: http://records.tukwilawa.gov/WebLink8/l/doc/255249/Electronic.aspx
Rj,"\, I I I) BY Z cow Mtg. F-1 CA&P Cmte ❑ F&S Cmte ❑ Transportation Cmte
F-1 Utilities Cmte F-1 Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: COMMITTEE CHAIR:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPON,soR/Ai)mIN. Council President
CoMMI'I'1']'1'I;.
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
ExPi,"NDITURE, Rl--"nUIRFID AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Comments.-
MTG.
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEM NO.
6-C.
I
37
STAFF SPONSOR: LAUREL HumPHREY
I ORIGINAL AGENDA D,\'I'I,,: 2/23/15
A(; FN DA Pn,"m Til,j,i,, Discussion on Sound Cities Association (SCA) Public Issues Committee (PIC) Item:
Committee to End Homelessness Draft Strategic Plan
CATi,"(;oRy Z Discussion
At g Date 03102115
❑ Motion
AV Dale
❑ Resolution
A1 g Dale
[:] Ordinance
Ai g Date
❑ Bid Axard
A/ g Dale
F-1 Pub&' Hearing
Alt
,g Dale
❑ Other
Aft
,g Date
SPONSOR Z Council ❑ Mayor ❑ HR ❑ DCD E]Finance ❑ .17ire E:1 17' ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PWI
SPONSOR'S Council President Kruller is seeking discussion and consensus on the following issue which
SUMMARY will be acted upon at a future SCA PIC meeting: 1) Committee to End Homelessness Draft
Strategic Plan. For more information, refer to the Public Issues Committee 2/11/15
packet, item 7: http://records.tukwilawa.gov/WebLink8/l/doc/255249/Electronic.aspx
Rj,"\, I I I) BY Z cow Mtg. F-1 CA&P Cmte ❑ F&S Cmte ❑ Transportation Cmte
F-1 Utilities Cmte F-1 Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: COMMITTEE CHAIR:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPON,soR/Ai)mIN. Council President
CoMMI'I'1']'1'I;.
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
ExPi,"NDITURE, Rl--"nUIRFID AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Comments.-
MTG.
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
MTG.
ATTACHMENTS
3/2/15
Committee to End Homelessness Draft Strategic Plan
37
w
c
Attachment A to
0
T.
Address the causes of homelessness by ensuring accountability of cities, county, state and federal
government to address community -level determinants of homelessness.
Making Homelessness Rare requires the rigorous use of data to understand, and make transparent, the
causes and remedies to homelessness.
Making Homelessness Rare requires clarity on the role of partner systems in reducing homelessness,
and changes needed in policy and investments to stem the flow of people who become homeless.
Making Homelessness Rare requires an unwavering commitment to work across system boundaries,
and to hold ourselves and partners accountable for making lasting changes.
lain de Jong with OrgCode published a blog in October 2014, The Homeless Service System Was Never
Intended to Solve All Housing Problems. De Jong makes the case that the causes of homelessness are
complex, and the solutions to homelessness (making it rare) must be shared. Rising poverty and
unemployment, reductions in state and federal funding and the fraying of the safety net, racism and the
effects of disproportionality, lack of affordable housing and criminalization of people who are homeless,
all contribute to increased rates of homelessness.
The Journal of Public Affairs published New Perspectives on Community -Level Determinants of
Homelessness, a 2012 study of predictive factors for community's rates of homelessness. (An overview
of the findings is available to non - subscribers here.) Addressing these determinants, by their nature,
requires commitment from cross - system partners. Findings include:
• Housing Market Factors: An increase in rent of $100 correlates with a 15% increase in metropolitan
homelessness. Local Trend: Seattle rents fastest rising in the nation, per Seattle Times, Sept 2014.
• Economic Conditions: Poverty and unemployment rates are positively associated (correlate) with rates
of homelessness. Local Trend: Poverty in King County on the rise per Seattle Times, May 2013.
• Safety Net: The extent to which social safety net programs (with specific reference to mental health
funding) provide adequate assistance can impact the chances that households will experience
homelessness. Local Trend: Washington State ranks 47 out of 50 in per capita access to psychiatric
beds per Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2009.
• Transience: While in- migration may be positively associated with strong labor markets, it may also
increase the vulnerability of homelessness of those less well- suited to compete in these arenas. Local
Trend: Seattle is a city of newcomers, per Seattle Times October, 2014.
All partners will be needed to these local determinants of homelessness.
February 11, 2015
1.1
the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Fewer people exit institutions
directly to homelessness
No cities have policies that
criminalize homelessness
Our community creates more
housing affordable to those making
30% of AMI
More people are prevented from
becoming homeless overall
Stop exiting people to
homelessness from other systems,
including foster care, mental
health, chemical dependency, and
criminal justice.
1.2 Change policies that criminalize
living on the streets
1.3 Increase access to mainstream
supports
1.4 Create more affordable housing
1.5 Prevent people from becoming
homeless
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 24 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Strategy 1.1: Stop Exiting people to homelessness from other systems, including
foster care, mental health, chemical dependency, and criminal justice.
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
Housing problems, including homelessness, are common among individuals leaving
institutions such as jails, foster care, treatment programs and hospitals. One in five people
who leave prison become homeless soon thereafter, if not immediately (NAEH Re- Entry.)
More than one in five youth who arrive at a youth shelter come directly from foster care.
Participants tend to have limited or low incomes, and, often due to criminal or credit history,
lack the ability to obtain housing through the channels that are open to other low- income
people.
Addressing discharge policies that exit people into homelessness, particularly those that
affect single adults would drive down homelessness in King County. Non - chronically homeless
single adults comprise the great majority of people who are homeless in King County (9,200
annually.) Research by Dennis Culhane indicates that 24.4% of single adults become homeless
upon discharge from an institution, with nearly 70% of those exiting jails or treatment
facilities. Halving the number of single adults discharged into homelessness by jails or
treatment facilities could reduce the number of homeless single adults in King County by 800
each year. (9,200 x .25 x .70 x .50 = —800)
A proven discharge strategy is provision of subsidized housing with associated support
services. Washington State initiated the Earned Release Date (ERD), Housing Voucher
Program which pays $500 per month for up to three months in rent assistance for individuals
exiting corrections. A recent study conducted by Washington State University found that
offenders who receive housing vouchers commit fewer and less— violent crimes than
offenders who don't, and cost savings are more than double what was projected.
More examples of prisoner re -entry programs are described by the NAEH .
Refugees are also at risk of homelessness upon termination of supports. Refugees resettled in the United States under the Refugee Act of are eligible for
cash assistance (up to eight months through DSHS), case management (three months, provided by Voluntary Agencies, or VOLAGS) and English
language training. The original duration of benefits under the Refugee Act was 36 months, which more closely matches the time -frame necessary for a
majority of refugees to obtain economic self- sufficiency and social stability. As noted in a 2009 report on Refugee Resettlement in Washington,
significant numbers of refugees are passing the time period for assistance without obtaining self- sufficiency.
February 11, 2015
Back to Top of GOAL 1: MAKE HOMELESSNESS RARE
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 25 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
1.1.A
1.1.B
Stop exiting people into homelessness or otherwise extend progra
supports. Expand and enhance local programs, and advocate for
necessary funding. Examples of 2015 efforts:
Local:
• Enhance local re -entry programs, such as King County's Criminal
Justice Initiative (CJI) and Familiar Faces
• Enhance and expand evidence -based programs (Drug, Mental
Health, Veterans Courts). Explore options to recapture a portion
cost savings, to support participants' housing & re -entry supports
• Actively support City of Seattle Office of Immigrant and Refugee
Affairs five point action plan, particularly items One (Strengthen
Language Access) and Two (Expand Access to ESL Programs).
State:
• Expand state discharge programs such as the Earned Release Date
(ERD) Housing Voucher Program
• Fund Peer -to -Peer supports within Medicaid - funded substance
abuse programs, emphasizing a Recovery Model to supports
• Pass the Homeless Youth Act (2015)
• Expand Foster Care to 21 (youth with documented medical needs)
• End Midnight Release from jails and prisons.
Federal:
• Extend the length of time and resettlement resources for
refugees, particularly ESL learning and employment services
• Advocate with DOL for increased funding for employment among
young adults exiting from the foster care system.
Complete planning for Youth at Risk of Homelessness (YARH)
planning grant, apply for funding, and implement policy
recommendation.
2016 $ + * *
2015 $ +++ * *
2015 $ +++ *
2016 $ +++ * *
2015 $ ++ * *
2015 $ + * *
2015 $ +
2016 $ ++ * *
2017 $ +++ * *
2017 $ +++ * *
Funding status for this portion (RARE)
is based on CEH staff knowledge of
cross - system partners
Funding partially available through
Communities of Opportunity.
CJI and alternative courts reliant
on renewal of MIDD
Uncertain
Uncertain
On 2015 Legislative Priority
On 2015 Legislative Priority
Uncertain
On 2015 Legislative Priority
Uncertain
Uncertain
Uncertain
UWKC,
WACHYA
2015 $ $ +
* *
Partially available, cannot be
achieved without new funding
1.1.0
Establish a Secure Detox Facility. Support King County Mental Health
and Substance Abuse (MHCADSD) efforts to establish a Secure Detox
facility to engage individuals in recovery services.
KC
MHCADSD
2015 $ + + * *
Capital funds needed
1.1.D
Provide professional development / cross - training to partner
systems. Establish role and protocol for conducting housing
assessment as part of discharge policies.
CEH
2015
* *
Major resources needed
Time and Political Will
1.1.E
Influence the workplan(s) of the Interagency Council on
Homelessness (ICH) and Washington State Department of Commerce
Affordable Housing Advisory Board's (AHAB) on discharge planning,
criminalization and affordable housing development.
ICH
AHAB
2015 $ + + * *
Major resources needed
Time and Political Will
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 26 of 124
N Strategy 1.2: Change policies that criminalize living on the streets
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
Policies that criminalize homelessness are costly and rarely result in housing stability or decrease
in homelessness in the community. Penalizing people experiencing homelessness tends only to
exacerbate mental and physical health problems, create or increase criminal records, and result
in the loss of key personal documents that make it even harder for people to exit homelessness.
A 2013 report, Factors Associated with Adult Homelessness in Washington State delivered to the
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, reflects that Individuals with a history of incarceration were 7.6
times more likely to report experiencing adult homelessness. Significant research documents
that those with criminal history are also more likely to be unemployed, the second highest
predictor of homelessness. Reducing criminalization, and policies that unnecessarily create a
criminal history, is an important step in making homelessness rare.
1.2.A Repeal or mitigate local ordinances that criminalize people for being
homeless or impose harsh penalties. Examples include ordinances
against Camping / Loitering / Trespassing on public property; Body
odor or bathing in public places; Incurring excessive parking tickets.
1 1.2.B
1.2.0
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Back to Top of GOAL 1: MAKE HOMELESSNESS RARE
TBD 2015
Policy development. Investment
within local system requires
time and political will
Implement key strategies from the United States Interagency Council
report on criminalization, Searching Out Solutions: Constructive
Alternatives to the Criminalization of Homelessness particularly
expansion or establishment of alternative sentencing options.
Replicate or enhance models such as:
• King County and Seattle Mental Health Courts
• King County Drug Diversion and Family Treatment Court
• King County and Seattle Veterans Court
• King County Crisis Diversion Center,
King
County and
Seattle
Courts
Retention of existing programs
reliant on renewal of MIDD
Expansion cannot be achieved
without new funding.
Establish and advance local, state and federal agenda items to reduce
criminalization or the effects of criminalization:
Local:
• Actively support the renewal of the Mental Illness Drug Dependency
Sales Tax, the proceeds of which support interventions that divert
people from jails, hospitals and courts and other expensive systems.
State:
• Ban the Box — Adopt Fair Hiring Policies to Reduce Unfair Barriers to
Employment of People with Criminal Records
• Establish Certificate of Restoration.
Federal:
• Identify criminalization regulations that impede housing options.
Policy development. Investment
within local system requires
time and political will
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 27 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Strategy 1.3: Increase access to mainstream supports
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
Beginning in 2000, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) has targeted its McKinney -Vento Act funding more exclusively to
housing- focused activities (as opposed to supportive services.) This policy
decision presumed that mainstream programs such as Medicaid, TANF and
General Assistance could cover the gap resulting from the change. In 2010,
HUD Office of Policy Development and Research commissioned a study by
national experts on Strategies for Improving Homeless People's Access to
Mainstream Benefits and Services.
The study identified three groups of barriers to accessing mainstream services and three categories of mechanisms communities could use to
reduce these barriers.
. Structural barriers affect homeless individuals and families who face unique structural obstacles because, by definition or circumstance, they
do not have the ready means of communication, transportation, regular address, and documentation that most mainstream programs require.
Smoothing mechanisms such as street outreach, transportation, coordinated entry or co- location of services reduce structural barriers and
address problems at the street level.
. Capacity barriers result from the inadequacy of available resources; funding may be finite or capped. While harder to address, Expanding
mechanisms, typically through additional resources, can increase overall capacity, and many communities found that a heightened awareness
of capacity barriers, and joint messaging of the need for increased capacity, helped to expand resources at the local level.
. Eligibility barriers are program rules that establish criteria and time limits for who may receive the benefit. Many eligibility restrictions are
embedded in federal policy and cannot easily be influenced at the local level. Changing mechanisms alter eligibility but not overall capacity,
while prioritization can help to target services towards those most vulnerable.
It is not surprising that people who are homeless in King County experience each of these types of barriers. Examples:
Structural Barriers:
• King County is one of the largest counties in the nation, with 39 incorporated cities, 2,307 square miles (twice the size of Rhode Island),
making coordination and transportation across the region challenging.
Capacity Barriers
• Washington ranks 47th in the nation in psychiatric beds per capita. Source: (Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2009)
• Statewide, flexible non - Medicaid mental health funding from the state general fund has been reduced by $33.2 million (27 %) since 2009.
exacerbated by concurrent elimination of state hospital beds. Source: King County MHCADSD /Behavioral Health.
Eligibility Barriers:
• The US Department of Veterans Affairs and King County are to be commended for allocating millions of dollars in new resources through
its VASH and SSVF programs and Veterans and Human Service Levy respectively. However, receipt of these important resources can be
dependent on a veteran's discharge status, length of time spent on active duty, and VA- determined disability.
February 11, 2015
Back to Top of GOAL 1: MAKE HOMELESSNESS RARE
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 28 of 124
1.3.A
Reduce Structure Barriers
Establish Memorandum of Agreement with cross - system partners *, setting goals
to provide cross - training, reduce barriers, increase co- enrollment, and otherwise
increase access to services across systems. See example strategies below.
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
1.3.A
(example)
1.3.B
* those systems most needed / typically accessed by people who are homeless,
including employment, criminal justice, healthcare /behavioral health, education
Reduce Structure Barriers example: Implement Employment -Based Strategies
• Become a part of planning for the roll out of WIOA (Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act) at the state and local level
• Establish cross - system leadership (e.g., CEH Director on WIOA Board, WDC
Director on CEH Interagency Council)
• Provide training and professional development to cross - system staff
• Target enrollment within WIOA- funded programs cohort groups who are often
disproportionality homelessness. Examples:
o Single Adults: recently disabled
o Families: young parents with young children, immigrants & refugees
o YYA: recently exited foster care, couch surfing, non - engaged youth
o Vets: non -VA eligible veterans with disabilities.
Increase Capacity:
Assure availability of critical services frequently needed by a homeless cohort,
such as treatment on demand for individuals with acute mental health and
behavioral health needs. Actively support 2015 King County MHCADSD Behavioral
Health legislative priorities
Employment
Behavioral
Health
Criminal Justice
Education
DSHS, DVR,
Others
Seattle /KC WDC
KC Employment
Programs
All King County
WorkSource
programs
WA State DSHS
and DVR
Realignment
of existing
funds,
prioritization
for services
Realignment
of existing
funds,
prioritization
for services
• Support King County efforts to open two new evaluation and treatment (E &T)
facilities in 2015 for people with mental health disabilities
• Restore to fiscal year 2014 levels the major cuts to state flexible non - Medicaid
funding for mental health ($20.4 million statewide) and state non - Medicaid
substance abuse funds ($10.8 million statewide), to avoid further degradation
of the behavioral health system of care
• Revise the Institutions for Mental Disease (IMD) exclusion rule to exempt
acute -care stays of 30 days or less as it relates to facility -bed size.
• Increase availability of medically- assisted opiate treatment services ($2M
annually).
King County
MHCADSD
Unfunded
(Mostly
Medicaid
funds)
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 29 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Strategy 1.4: Create More Affordable Housing
- Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
Rising Rents
Erosion in renter incomes over the past decade coupled with a surge in
demand for rental housing has pushed the number of households paying
excessive shares of income for housing to record levels. (Harvard Joint Center
for Housing Studies, Source: America's Rental Housing: Evolving Markets and
Needs, 2013. These trends are mirrored in the Puget Sound, as shown in the
chart to the right.
A 2012 review of multiple studies found that a median rent increase of $100
was associated with a 15% increase in homelessness among adults. Source:
Journal of Urban Affairs, New Perspectives on Community -Level
Determinants of Homelessness. An overview of the findings is available for
non - subscribers of the Journal here.
Availability of affordable housing
In January 2015, the State of Washington will release a report titled the State
of Washington Housing Needs Assessment, which will evaluate the changing
relationship between housing supply and demand across the State including King County. In particular the report will document the lack of affordable
housing for lower- income households and how lower- income renters are cost burdened. CEH will use this upcoming report to inform our affordable
housing strategies in the final strategic plan. Similarly, staff to the King County Growth Management Planning Council identified a countywide need for
affordable housing of:
• 30% and below (very low) 12% of total housing supply
• 30 -50 %AMI (low) 12% of total housing supply
• 50 -80% of AMI (moderate) 16% of total housing supply
Loss of existing affordable housing stock
- CEH will also use the upcoming State of Washington report to inform our strategies regarding the loss of existing affordable housing in King County.
Policy Changes Needed
The provision of housing affordable to very -low income households will only be fulfilled with inter - jurisdictional cooperation and public subsidies, as
noted by the multiple planning councils and initiatives identified in the strategies below.
It will be critically important to engage the federal government. As reported by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, federal housing spending is
poorly matched to need, and tilted toward well -off homeowners, leaving struggling low- income renters without help. In fact, renters received less than
one - fourth of federal housing supports, and only about one in four low- income families eligible for rental assistance receives it.
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 30 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 31 of 124
~
~�`0�
�� ~
� -
������-
~-'
~
��
w - ^ `
��� ~.�� �
m�
���
.� °'
—�r
-_�^��
�_
��`�-
==
1.4A
1.4.B
Close the gap ofXX,OOO housing unhsin King County available to households bdow
3O��A&4|. Advocate for aggressive a�ordab|ehousing goa|s,creativepo|icyand|and
use regulations. Identify liaisons to track, influence, suppo�and monitor regional
� �
plans and initiatives. Examples:
• King County Urban [onso�iumand the Conso�ium'sStrategic Plan
Kin�County
Consortium
City
KC DCHS
Seattle OH
ARCH, PSRC,
Others
City and County
Councils
WA State
Leg
Commerce
Federal Gov't:
HUD, VA, HHS
Others
2015
2015
and
beyond
- $ $
$
���
---
+
+++
������
������
New
Resources
needed to
expand rate
of
development
New
Res»«rces
Resources
needed to
expand rate
of
development
• Local cities' Comprehensive Plans (due summer 2015)
• Seattle Mayor's Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (due 2015)
• VISION 2040, Puget Sound Regional Council's Growth Management PIan
• Other as identified.
Each year, establish and advance a federal, state and Iocal agenda aimed at
increasing affordabte housing. Exampte of opportunities:
Local
• Seattle Linkage Feeds, Seattle Housing Levy
• lncentive Zoning in Suburban Cities
• Seattle and King County each have reports due in 2015 to their respective Council
on Housing A�ordabi|ity
�
State�
• Fund the VVashingtonState Housing Trust Fund
• Preserve and Strengthen the Housing and Essential Needs (HEN)Program
• Make Housing Bonds Effective Now
• lnfluence the state-level roll-out of the National Housing Trust
Federal:
• NAEH states that changes in federal policy and funding are needed to end
homelessness, including provision of 37,000 PSH vouchers to end homelessness
among chronically homeless single adults by 2016.
1.4.0
Sustain units of affordable housing, whose affordability is set to expire by 2017.
TBD
For profit and
non-profit
developers
2015
���
---
+++
������
New
Resources
Needed
(State Needs Assessment report to be complete Jan 2015, from which we can
determine King County numbersj
1.4.D
Increase acces among vutnerabte poputations to existing affordabte housing
projects. Secure agreements for access within publicly funded affordable housing and
market rate housing to households placed through Landlord Liaison Program (LLP), or
otherwise reduce screening criteria to remove all but regulatory -required screening
criteria.
TBD
For profit and
non-profit
developers
2015
$
+ + +
** *
New
Resources
needed to
expand
development
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 31 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Strategy 1.5: Prevent people from becoming homeless
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
Homelessness prevention strategies such as financial or legal assistance, housing stabilization or other interventions can help households resolve a
housing crisis that would otherwise lead to homelessness. The USICH reports that innovative practices are emerging that target and coordinate
stabilization and prevention supports towards those most likely to become homeless without assistance. Examples include:
Providing diversion assistance to households seeking shelter. Some communities have found they can help many households who would
otherwise enter shelter maintain their current housing situation or, when that is not possible, quickly relocate to an alternate housing option.
Using shelter data to match prevention targeting to the profiles of people who are actually experiencing homelessness. Communities have
analyzed HMIS data and adjusted prevention program targeting criteria to mirror the profile of shelter residents.
o Philadelphia - Researchers learned that families living in certain neighborhoods were at much higher risk of entering homeless shelters, and
used this data to target outreach and assistance strategies to reach households living in these neighborhoods.
o Alameda County (CA) targeted resources to those who 'look like' a typical shelter resident — those staying with friends and family, staying in
hotels and motels, receiving TANF, or losing their housing subsidies, or people with other risk factors in addition to rent arrears.
Discharge planning: Many communities work with hospitals, treatment facilities, foster care, VA Medical Centers, jails, and prisons to connect
people exiting institutions are at high risk of homelessness with housing stabilization services. (See CEH Strategic Plan 2.0, Strategy 1.1)
Based on a critical review of local combined with national research, King County should target prevention resources based on the following:
Assure an active focus on disproportionality
• People of color make up 31% of King County general population, while comprising 64% of people who are homeless. (Source: 2010 US Census, and
Seattle /King County One Night Count)
Target Young Adult services to LGBTQ and Youth of Color acknowledging that ^'40% homeless youth in identify as LGBTQ. Source: YYA
Comprehensive Plan, 2013)
Strategically time and /or locate interventions
• Most youth who run away from home return home relatively quickly. Prevention supports that connect a young adult to friends, family or other
stable situation can make that return safe and sustainable. (Source: YYA Comprehensive Plan, 2013)
The Health and Human Services Transformation Initiative includes place -based strategies, located in Communities of Opportunity, neighborhoods
in King County that rank lowest on an index of the social determinants of health (including housing), where targeted investments will have the
greatest impact.
Target services towards those that mirror a shelter population
• Risk factors for homelessness among veterans is associated with vets who are younger, enlisted with lower pay grades, diagnosed with mental
illness, TBI, MST or other disability. Source: Homeless Incidence and Risk Factors for Becoming Homeless in Veterans, May 2012
February 11, 2015
Back to Top of GOAL 1: MAKE HOMELESSNESS RARE
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 32 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
1.5.A
Support investment of local resources in communities where the need and
opportunity for gain is greatest, working with the Health and Human Services
Transformation Initiative, Communities of Opportunity.
King County
Communities of
Opportunity
Best Starts
for Kids Levy
on the ballot
2015
1.5.B
11.5.0
Direct each CEH initiative to research (as necessary) and integrate prevention
strategies, recognizing that strategies can be highly dependent on client typology.
Strategies must:
• Have an explicit focus on addressing disproportionality.
• Be based on data and emerging research specific to the variances of each
population and initiative
• Incorporate rigorous data and analysis as part of implementation to test and
refine targeting efforts.
• YYA Initiative
• FHI Initiative
• SA AG
• KC RVI
I Realignment
of existing
** I funds,
prioritization
for services
Actively share identified prevention strategies with regional partners to influence and
target prevention and stabilization efforts towards those most likely to become
homeless.
CEH Data &
Evaluation
Advisory Group
Suburban Cities
Realignment
of existing
funds,
prioritization
for services
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 33 of 124
c
asses
e
To make homelessness Brief and One -time, we must align funding and programs to support
the strengths and address the needs of people experiencing homelessness.
VEf
Making Homelessness Brief requires ensuring that for those who do become homeless it is a
brief episode. Shortening the length of time families and individuals are homeless reduces
trauma and also creates capacity in our crisis response system for others in need. In 2013,
households spent an average of 141 days in our crisis response system, far above CEH's goal of
20 days. For this reason we must realign housing and services to prioritize connecting people
with housing as rapidly as possible.
Making Homelessness One -Time requires ensuring that homelessness is a one -time
occurrence, and those we support to move to permanent housing do not become homeless
again and return to our crisis response system. Currently 85 percent do not return to
homelessness within two years, while 15 percent return to homeless. CEH's goal is that only 5
percent return to homelessness.
A well- functioning 'system' is essential to making homelessness a brief and one -time
occurrence. King County needs a clear, consistent, and targeted approach that quickly and
compassionately assesses household's needs and provides tailored resources to people
experiencing a housing crisis.
Through research and experience we now know which intervention types are needed in our
continuum to address homelessness. Our understanding of the needs and strengths of people
experiencing homelessness, combined with our understanding of the housing and services that
work, must now be applied to realign our housing and services into an effective system. This
requires the entire funder and provider community to embrace an approach that focuses on
safety, matching, immediate placement into permanent housing, and supporting stability.
February 11, 2015
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Is People experiencing homelessness get the right
service strategy with the right intensity of services
s
More people are served by existing programs
People are homeless for shorter periods of time
Housing measures are improved (obtain /maintain
permanent housing)
s
Work with all CEH partners (funders and providers) to:
2.1 Address crisis as quickly as possible.
2.2 Assess, prioritize and match with housing and
supports
2.3 Realign housing and supports to meet needs of
people experiencing homelessness in our
community
2.4 Create employment and education opportunities
to support stability
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 34 of 124
01
Strategy 2.1: Address crisis as quickly as possible
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
In a well- functioning crisis response system, we would not expect to be able to prevent all crises
that lead to homelessness - there will always be a need to provide short -term support to people
experiencing crisis and living unsheltered in our community. People need a safe and secure place to
stay during their crisis so they can focus on the pressing need at hand: locating permanent housing.
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Long-Term h i
Traditionally emergency shelter, as well as non - traditional interim survival mechanisms such as car
camping and tent encampments, has played an important role in our community. However despite
our current capacity of over 2,000 shelter beds and the high level of funding towards these
interventions, it's not enough.
We expect to see increased performance through the realignment of our homelessness response
system through efficiencies that move people out of homelessness as quickly as possible. In the
short -term, however, we simply need more options for those who are living on the streets. Interim
survival mechanisms (such as legal encampments and car camping) provide an option for some, and should be linked to service provision focused on
moving people quickly into shelter or long -term housing.
A strategy we have employed to make the experience of homelessness brief in King County is prioritizing those that had been "stuck" in shelter the
longest for permanent housing placement. Mostly men with a median age of 56, "Long -Term Shelter Stayers" used a majority of our emergency system's
capacity while only making up about a quarter of the total shelter population. Now we are moving these "Long -Term Shelter Stayers" to permanent
housing, while freeing up capacity in our shelters for others. In 2013, 85 people who were staying 180 days or more in shelter the year before moved to
permanent housing. This frees up at least 15,300 "bed nights" for new shelter users.
Ter s
but consume
Back to Top of GOAL 2: MAKE HOMELESSNESS BRIEF and ONE -TIME
2.1.A
Ensure shelter capacity to meet the needs of the community,
including the preservation of existing shelter and increasing capacity
to meet specific needs by population and region.
2015
$$
+ *
Partially available, cannot be
achieved without new revenue
Support non - traditional shelter models that create pathways to
housing, including interim survival mechanisms and community -based
strategies such as host homes.
Ongoing
$ +
Available /Existing funding &
partnerships with faith community
Create a flexible financial assistance fund for outreach and shelter
staff that can be used to emphasize a creative "what will it take" 2016 $
approach to get people on a pathway into housing.
+ **
Sources of revenue not identified
Support long -term shelter stayers to move to more stable housing
through access to permanent housing with supports to transition into
housing and onto mainstream services.
Ongoing
+ **
Utilize existing stock as possible.
Resources may be needed for
private market subsidies and
transition services
2.1.E
Increase support and public education for crisis response needs,
including interim survival mechanisms to create pathways to housing
that bring people out of the elements.
2016 $
+ **
Could be accomplished with little
new cost
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 35 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Strategy 2.2: Assess, prioritize and match with housing and supports
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
If a person does become homeless, we must work to make their experience brief. Entering the crisis
response system is traumatic for families, and costly for the overall system. For this reason, we are
adapting services to prioritize connecting people with housing quickly.
Realigning our homeless assistance services into an effective crisis response system requires a network of
providers who have embraced the approach that focuses on immediate placement into permanent
housing. USICH provides the following framework to shift from a program- centered to a client- centered
system. The three "A's ": 1) Access; 2) Assessment; and 3) Assignment of Intervention.
• Accesses to a Community -Wide Response System When a housing crisis occurs, how do people access
help? Can assistance be provided to avert (or minimize) trauma associated with housing loss? Locally we have developed coordinated
entry /engagement systems for families and youth /young adults, we are continuing to refine those models and implement new ones for single adults.
• Assessment Exactly how much help each household actually requires can be difficult to determine. While the process may be a bit different for highly
vulnerable unsheltered individuals than it is for families and unaccompanied youth experiencing homelessness, effective communities still use a
common tool to assess needs and prioritize placement into housing often in the form of a vulnerability index or other prioritization tool.
• Assignment of Intervention While much of the new approach is focused on permanent housing, interventions may vary, and the goal remains to
provide the least expensive intervention that solves homelessness for each household. Some households may need only a short -term intervention
(using the rapid re- housing model, or a lighter -touch diversion intervention), while others may require an ongoing subsidy to remain stably housed
(coordinated through local housing authorities or affordable housing partners). Still others will need an ongoing subsidy with wraparound services in
permanent supportive housing. Services are associated with each type of intervention, but the level and duration will vary for each household.
One way we have begun testing this new "least expensive" approach is through a shelter diversion project for families. By diverting entry to shelter, we
increase the availability of shelter and housing for those who are most vulnerable. This model works for those who can find an alternative option with
minimal support, short -term assistance is offered, such as conflict resolution with landlords, shared housing options, and financial assistance. In the first
nine months of the Family Shelter Diversion Protect 33% of families were successfully diverting
from shelter or were still in progress of exploring options outside of shelter.
This approach is also being adapted locally to serve specialized populations. LifeWire's Housing
Stability Program tested the approach that some survivors of domestic violence could avoid
homelessness and shelter stays with assistance to stay in their existing housing or find new
housing. During the first year, their shelter turn -away rate dropped from 1:30 to 1:8, 50% were
able to stay in their own housing and 31% successfully moved into long -term housing without
having to go to shelter. Youth and young adults often return home to parents or relatives
quickly. New and ongoing programs are providing in -home support to families and youths to
prevent or quickly end their episode of homelessness.
Back to Top of GOAL 2: MAKE HOMELESSNESS BRIEF and ONE -TIME
Re-unificat on
r
February 11, 2015
MOnthS
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 36 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
2.2.A
2.2.B
2.2.0
Ensure there is a coordinated assessment system which can assist in
appropriately identifying and prioritizing candidates for the right
housing intervention. Access to housing should be consolidated, while
access points and approaches may vary by subpopulation. The system
shall by client focused and shall: (i) be easily accessible, (ii) utilize a
standardized assessment tool, (iii) include community supported
prioritization of the most vulnerable, and (iv) allow for re- assessment
and movement within the system to accommodate changing needs.
Determine best practices in providing housing focused case
management services during the interim period between assessment
and housing placement, including the opportunity to provide diversion
type services and connections for homeless youth and young adults
with family where safe and appropriate.
Adopt Housing First practices (admission criteria doesn't exclude
based on income, disability, treatment compliance, criminal histories,
etc.) while ensuring capacity to provide adequate level and type of
services to the target population.
2015
$$
++
**
2016
2015
$ ++
**
Partially available, cannot be
achieved without new funding
Partially available, cannot be
achieved without new funding
Changes in policy could be
accomplished with little new
cost; reallocating existing
resources
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 37 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
Strategy 2.3: Realign housing and supports to meet needs of people experiencing homelessness in our community
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
We have learned a great deal about what programs work best for each of the
homeless populations (typology). We now need to take a system level approach to
realign our resources to create the right mix to meet the needs of families and
individuals, move them into permanent housing faster, and connect them to
community supports to maintain housing stability. Perhaps the most significant
systems shift will be retooling the existing homeless system to one that provides an
array of homeless interventions that best match the needs of people experiencing
homelessness. This will result in freeing up more intensive (and expensive)
interventions for individuals that need them, while also allowing us to serve many
times more people, more quickly.
The potential is great. Based on national data and typical costs, there is the
potential to successfully rehouse up to five times as many people with a rapid re-
housing type approach compared to transitional housing, with equal or better
housing retention outcomes. For example, one study in Georgia (Georgia State
Housing Trust Fund, 2013) indicates families are less likely to return to
homelessness if they receive rapid re- housing assistance than if they stay in
transitional housing.
10000
9500
4000
3500
3000
2500
20,00
1500
1000
500
EveiEeni
Response
sing
Trent - Base- on research
Long-term Reit-resolved
housing
family initiative has already begun a system realignment process and the
youth / young adult system is developing the framework to scope the ideal housing continuum for young people.
Having the right mix of housing and services is the first step, a well- functioning system also requires:
• A housing pathway is offered as quickly as possible for individuals and families experiencing homelessness
o Rapid re- housing resources
o Permanent Support Housing available for those that need it
• Supportive services and connections to the community -based supports people need to keep their housing and avoid returning to homelessness
o Services should be client- centered and focus on promoting housing stability (intensity and duration of services are tailored to the individual)
o Ensuring equitable access and outcomes for those vulnerable individuals and families that are disproportionately impacted by homelessness by
offering services which are culturally appropriate, tailored and responsive to their needs. For example, the Youth and Young Adult system is
currently building a framework to address the needs of disproportionality of youth of color and youth that identify as LGBTQ
• Increased affordable housing opportunities
o Landlord engagement in the private market
o Access to subsidized public housing and nonprofit housing that is not set -aside for homeless
o Creative alternative (less expensive) housing options such as shared housing, boarding houses, host homes, traditional SROs, etc.
Back to Top of GOAL 2: MAKE HOMELESSNESS BRIEF and ONE -TIME
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 38 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
2.3.A
2.3.B
2.3.0
2.3.D
2.3.E
2.3.F
2.3.G
2.3.H
2.3.1
Realign homeless housing stock and services based on typology and
needs throughout the system; funders in partnership with providers
to determine (i) jf we have the right mix of housing and services and
identify need for new/expanded efforts.
Increase rapid re-housing opportunities to enable households to
Iocate housing and exit homelessness quickly. Utilize data and best
practices to refine existing models and define the model for young
adults.
Continue One Home campaign a coordinated countywide, landlord
outreach strategy to recruit new rental partners.
2016
2016
�
+
Ongoing
�
*** Reallocate existing resources
**
Available via reallocation of
existing resources or by
obtaining new funding
Little or no ongoing funding
+ � ** needed besides support from
partners
Provide/secure training and technical assist nce to build the capacity
of providers to implement tailored services and Housing First
practices that are flexible and responsive to the needs and priorities
of the families and individuals. Develop mobile services models not
attached to specific housing units/projects to ensure housing stability
(e.g. aftercare models, peer support, etc.)
Expand capacity building efforts to ensure culturally appropriate and
responsive services.
Create a Move-Up strategy that assists people who have achieved
stability in PSH -who no longer need or desire to live there- to move
into affordable housing to free up units for other highly vulnerable
individuals that need it.
Retain existing Permanent Supportive Housing and prioritize
admission to chronically homeless persons ahead of other
populations. Identify appropriate and sufficient services resources to
ensure housing stability iri PSH (e.g. Medicaid).
Expand access to Iow income multi-family housing by decreasing
tenant screening barriers and implementing homeless preferences in
low income multi-family housing.
Explore alternative housing models that are less expensive
permanent housing options, such as shared housing, host homes,
boarding houses, and SROs.
2016
2015
2015
Ongoing $$
2015
Leverage existing funding for
** training; reallocate existing
resources for services
**
Sources of revenue not
identified
**
Partially available, cannot be
achieved without newfunding;
leverage unit/vouchers through
turnover
Partially available, cannot be
** achieved without new funding
(Medicaid, etc.)
Changes in policy could be
** accomplished with little new
cost incurred
2016 $$ **
Partially available, cannot be
achieved without new funding
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 39 of 124
Strategy 2.4: Create employment and education opportunities to support stability
Basis: Need, Data and Effectiveness
Creating employment and education opportunities is an obvious approach to stabilizing people in
housing and ensures that they do not return to our homeless system. Unemployment,
underemployment, and low wages relative to rent burden put millions of families at risk of
homelessness nationally and are frequent causes of homelessness. For many individuals
experiencing homelessness, finding living wage employment is an essential part of moving on
from homelessness —and usually is one of the biggest challenges.
Many individuals experiencing homelessness face obstacles to finding and maintaining
employment. As a result, connecting people with job training and placement programs is critical
to ensuring they have the tools they need for long -term stability and success. Further, added
coordination and access to work supports like childcare subsidies and transportation assistance
can help increase the likelihood that individuals will be able to retain employment.
Through employment programs, people who are or have been homeless can access job- training
programs that increase their individual skill set and enhance their ability to find gainful
employment. For example eighty -seven percent of the homeless individuals served by King
County Community Employment Services found employment, with 70% earning enough to be self- sufficient.
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
of those who
were homeless
became
employed
increase n median
annual income of
the homeless
participants
Back to Top of GOAL 2: MAKE HOMELESSNESS BRIEF and ONE -TIME
2.4.A Expand the Employment Navigator role to scale and increase capacity
to build stronger employer relationships.
2015
$$
**
Partially available, cannot be
achieved without new
revenue /leveraging resources
2.4.B
Integrate financial empowerment strategies into housing services to
improve financial stability (e.g. money- management advice and
coaching).
2016
Available
2.4.0
2.4.D
Develop internship /employment programs that are specifically
designed to connect YYA to identified living -wage employment.
2016
$$
**
Sources of revenue not identified'
leverage mainstream services
Convene employment and educational organizations with the intent
to (i) create a more coordinated system across the region for all
populations and (ii) structure programs to meet the needs of
individuals experiencing homelessness.
2015
++
**
Can be accomplished with little
new cost incurred
2.4.E
Collaborate with homeless liaisons in Public Schools to provide
resource's needed for homeless youth to access schools and other
educational facilities in an immediate and uncomplicated manner.
2015
Can be accomplished with little
new cost incurred
2.4.F
Improve data collection on the employment needs and outcomes of
people experiencing homelessness.
2015
**
Can be accomplished with little
new cost incurred
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 40 of 124
01
Cn - g g
C 3 A Co ��- ass es
Solving homelessness will take more than a Committee, it will take the entire Community to End
Homelessness and provide a home for all.
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
The 2005 -2015 Ten -Year Plan brought together key leaders from multiple sectors to build political and
public will to end homelessness in King County. This strong level of public and private engagement led
to successes such as the Campaign to End Chronic Homelessness, through which partners developed
nearly 2,400 new units of housing for chronically homeless individuals, by funding in a coordinated
way to maximize our results. We have also successfully aligned funding to support strategies for
addressing youth and family homelessness.
The governance and decision - making of the Committee to End Homelessness has become overly
complicated and diffuse. For example, the Governing Board has authority to set strategic direction,
yet does not as a body have the authority to increase revenue, change policy, or make funding
decisions. The Interagency Council has the authority to recommend policy and investment priorities.
The Funders Group are not aligning funding as seamlessly as envisioned, as they must balance the
recommendations of the Interagency Council with their trustees or elected officials. The Consumer
Advisory Council plays an important role in providing input, and is represented on the Governing
Board and Interagency Council, and is a strength of the current governance structure.
All partners must be aligned if we are to meet the goals of this plan, and a new level of engagement
and accountability among all sectors is needed. Formal agreements must be established among
funders and providers to clarify roles and accountability for community - level, not funding stream or
program - level, results. Elected officials must be presented with clear policy recommendations and
investment opportunities that lead to regional, community -level results. Business and faith leaders
should be presented with concrete opportunities to provide resources, financial and in -kind, to
support the plan's goals. Awareness and engagement of residents of King County, including those
housed and those experiencing homelessness, is a huge potential resource that efforts such as Facing
Homelessness are only beginning to explore.
Staffing for CEH is necessary to provide support the success of the plan. Clear roles for CEH staff and
partners must be developed and formalized.
February 11, 2015
Goals 1 and 2 are achieved
Z) Accountability across sectors
Work with all CEH partners (funders and
providers) to:
3.1 Establish effective decision - making body
and formal agreements to guide
collective action among all partners
3.2 Formalize roles for business leaders and
faith community leaders
3.3 Strengthen engagement of King County
residents, including those housed and
those experiencing homelessness
3.4 Solidify and sustain infrastructure to
operate system, including advocacy,
data analysis, capacity building, planning
and coordination
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction Page 41 of 124
Attachment A to the February 11, 2015 PIC Agenda Item 7
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 42 of 124
Establish a single, consolidated, inclusive leadership committee, with strong
working Executive Committee, to replace existing diffuse decision-making
structure (consolidation of existing Governing Board, Interagency Council, and
Funders Group).
Establish &4OUs among local govemment� philanthropy and funderstoalign
3.1.B �
funding and commit to community-tevet outcomes.
2015
Create a business leaders task force, such as the Home for Good model in Los
3.2.A Angeles, to support the State and Federal advocacy activities and to support
imptantation of the ptan with resources.
2015
+ + +
***
Expand existing successful initiatives that engage faith institutions and
32B individual congregantspa�icu|ar|yaroundadvocacyrecruitmentof
� � ' advocacy,
� | tandtords, and provision of day centers, meats and shelter space.
»»e»rm»re
faith coalitions
2015
$ $
+ + +
*�*�*�
3.3.A
Launch a community-wide public awareness and engagement campaign to
support goals of plan, focusing on humanizing people experiencing
homelessness and finding ways for al residents to engage in the solution.
2015
S S
+ +
**
--��-~,-
m
3.4.A
Release an annual consolidated funding round for homeless services and
housing, aligned towards outcomes of this plan, including local, state, and
Federal funding.
[at a minimum]
King County, City
of Seattle, and
United Way
2016
+ + +
* **
.
3.4.B
Unify —--'`"---'----------`'---''`-,,''—'------
^unhiedfundingagenqy �
King County City
ofSeatdc�orCEH
itself f
2016
$
+ +
v+�*
3.4.0
|ncreasemnd consolidate infrastructure for staffing of key functions,
including HMIS, data analysis, funding applications, advocacy, capacity
bui|ding�and planning and coordination
coordination;
Create matrixed management system for staffing of key functions, including
HMIS, data analysis, funding applications, advocacy, capacity building, and
planning and coordination.
One
partners
2015
$ $
++
**
34D
' '
Increase fundin&for or|exero&eexistin&odxococy�oHDn& functions (this
must occur outside of local government) �
philanthropic,
business, faith
'
nonprofit partners
2015
$ $
+ +
+�+�
3.4.E
Consotidate coordinate entry oversight.
One of the funding
partners
2015
$
+ +
** � �
February 11, 2015
Item 7: CEH Draft Strategic Plan Introduction
Page 42 of 124