Supportive Housing
4.2 Bringing Housing and Child Welfare Agencies Together: We Know How! Thursday, June 9 CSH Summit 2016
csh.org
The Source for Housing Solutions
Supportive Housing Partnerships to Demonstrate the Effectiveness of Supportive Housing for Families with Child Welfare Involvement June 7, 2016
Overview
Introduction to Keeping Families Together Model Core components Families Served Results Evolution of Model 2007-2017
Supportive Housing
Housing Affordable Non-time-limited Independent
Support Services
Flexible Tenant-Centered Voluntary
Case Management Parenting Coaching/Life Skills Substance Abuse Treatment Mental Health Services Primary Health Services Employment Services
Pilot Core Components
5
Supportive Housing Targeting Multi-system Collaboration Capacity Building Evaluation
Felicia Ronald and Felicia move into family homeless shelter
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2005
Exit Shelter
2006
2007
Family Moves into Supportive Housing
2009
2011
2013
616 days Felicia born placed in Foster Care
Returned home
Felicia placed in Foster Care
Returned home
Family remains reunified, Stably housed!
Shelter Child Welfare case closed
495 Days in Foster Care
90 Days in Foster Care
Total Foster Care Days: 585 Total Shelter Days: 610
Snapshot of Keeping Families Together Parent Recurring homelessness Long child welfare history Less than high school education Substance abuse Little work history Diagnosed with mental illness Extensive trauma history 7
Keeping Families Together Results
90% remained housed 100% of children reunified
61% of cases closed within 10 months 87% decrease in indicated reports Steady increases in school attendance
Significant cost-offsets
KFT--National Demonstration 2012-2017
10
Housing + Services for Child Welfare Involved Families State of CT Department of Children and Families
King County
Hartford, CT Intensive Supportive Housing for Families Four Oaks Family and Children’s Services
Cedar Rapids, IA San Francisco Human Services Agency
Partners United for Supportive Housing
San Francisco, CA
New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Families Moving Forward
New Mexico
Community Alliance for the Homeless
Memphis, TN Memphis Strong Families Initiative
CSH Keeping Families Together New York NY
Mecklenburg County Department of Community Kids in Distress, Inc
Wilton Manors, FL HEART Alliance
Supportive Housing for Families in the Child Welfare System Findings from the national evaluation
Principal Investigators: Mike Pergamit: [email protected] Mary Cunningham: [email protected] CSH SUMMIT 2016 Chicago, IL
How will we learn? Multi-Methods RCT Study Study
Research Question
Data Sources
Targeting and Prediction Study
Who are the highest need families and would benefit most?
Child welfare and homeless system administrative data
Implementation and Process Study
What are the major housing and services Annual key informant components? What are the challenges? Does interviews the model lead to better coordination?
Impact Study
What impact does the model have on child welfare involvement, homelessness, and child well-being?
Random assignment to treatment and control. Child welfare, homeless system, and other systems’ administrative data; baseline and follow up family survey data
Cost Study
What are the costs and benefits?
Same as Impact
Family Interviews
How do housing and services act as mediators of child and family well-being?
In-depth family interviews
Program Model
All sites are implementing a set of common components with some variation Targeting Supportive Housing Case Management Evaluation
• developing or expanding triage for high-need child welfare families facing housing instability
• implementing a supportive housing service model using community resources that would be useful to the target population; • providing case management for children and parents using evidence-based practices and trauma-informed care • evaluating the effectiveness of their sitespecific service model.
Lead grantees and housing subsidies vary across sites Lead Grantee Child Welfare Agency • Connecticut • San Francisco
Non-profit Service Provider • Broward • Cedar Rapids
Continuum of Care • Memphis
Housing Subsidy Vouchers (Scattered-Site) • Broward • Connecticut • San Francisco
Project-Based • Memphis • Cedar Rapids
Different program models provide lessons on different opportunities and challenges Broward Connecticut Cedar Rapids Memphis San Francisco
• Strong relationship with 5 local PHAs
• Long-time supportive housing program, but now more intensive • Developed housing needs assessment tool • Affordable housing network—short time to housing
• Coordinated enrollment with shelter system • Enrollment built into existing process • Modified SDM tool to better capture housing status
Who are the families?
Enrollment is close to complete (as of 4/30/16)
Referrals
• Began Fall 2012 • 827 families referred
Enrollment
• 359 families offered supportive housing so far • Target: 428 families offered supportive housing (84% of target enrolled so far)
Take-Up
• 295 families housed so far • 82% take-up among families offered supportive housing
Across sites, half of families have preservation cases and half have reunification cases Cross-Site
100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
55%
50%
44%
40%
Cross-Site
30% 20% 10%
0% Preservation
Reunification Source: Referral Data Report
At time of program entry, families have high rates of homelessness and housing instability Cross-Site 42%
41%
41%
40% 39% 38% 37%
Cross-Site
36%
35%
35%
34% 33% 32% Homeless
Unstably housed Source: Referral Data Report
Across sites, there are high rates of child welfare history Cross-Site 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
73% 54% 42% 25%
Cross-Site
Prior report of History of child Primary Primary abuse or welfare caregiver abuse caregiver foster neglect services or neglect as a care as a child child Source: Referral Data Report
Across sites, primary caregivers and children have high needs Cross-Site 70% 60%
60% 50%
50%
46% 38%
40% 30%
24% Cross-Site
20% 10%
0% Caregiver mental health
Caregiver substance abuse
Caregiver Household Child with criminal domestic high needs justice violence involvement Source: Referral Data Report (Definitions vary across sites)
System Changes
Cross site findings from systems change framework Strong interagency teams
• Multi-agency team meetings for treatment families and co-location
Some challenges in teaming
• Challenges to clarify roles and capacity across systems and with service providers
Data sharing has been a major hurdle
• At the frontline, most information is shared informally; at the middle management level, some aggregate information is shared.
Some influence on child welfare practice
• Universal screening • Increase in housing search capacity • Co-location of child welfare and service providers
Early signs of systems change
• Voucher preference and housing priority
What are we learning?
Families are housed after one year 100% 90%
5% 9%
80%
10% 8%
70% 39%
60%
Shelter
50% 40%
Somewhere else
85%
30% 43%
20% 10%
House/apartment without own lease House/apartment w/ own lease
0% Treatment
Control Source: Family Survey
Treatment families have more stable housing after one year Homeless Spells
• Few treatment families (3%) have had a homeless spell in the past 6 months • Almost a fifth (19%) of control families have had a homeless spell in the past 6 months
Moving and Eviction
• Treatment families have moved fewer times • Treatment families have been evicted fewer times
Planning to Stay
• Majority of treatment families (66%) expect to live in their current housing in 6 months • Half of control families (47%) expect to live in their current housing in 6 months Source: Family Survey
Treatment families report better housing quality after one year Rent Burden
• Treatment families less likely to spend more than 30% of income on rent (6%) than Control families (40%)
Crowding
• Treatment families report 1.5 people per bedroom • Control families report 1.9 people per bedroom
Quality
• 63% of treatment families rate their housing as excellent or very good • 40% of control families rate their housing as excellent or very good Source: Family Survey
Neighborhood quality is somewhat better Across most sites, treatment families live in somewhat better neighborhoods than control families
Treatment families report less: People drinking in public Shootings and violence Groups of people hanging out People selling drugs People using drugs
And somewhat less: Trash and junk People being attacked or robbed Gangs Rapes or sexual attacks
Source: Family Survey
Treatment families reported little or no improvement in family wellbeing after one year Economic
• No reduction in material hardship • No improvement in employment
Health
• No apparent improvement in physical health for parents or children • No apparent improvement in mental health for parents or children
Parenting
• No apparent improvement in parenting practices or parent-child relationships • No reduction in parental stress Source: Family Survey
Next Steps for the National Evaluation
Interim outcomes will be released late summer Impacts
• Interim report examining cross-site child welfare and housing outcomes to be released late summer
Benefit-Cost Analysis
• Cost of a night in shelter (in process), cost of child welfare services (this fall), cost of program services (2017), costs to other systems (2017/2018), benefits such as increased employment (2017/2018)
Program observation
In-depth family interviews
• Examining evidence-based services and sustainability plan at each site this fall
• Second group of interviews begins this fall to dive deeper into themes identified in first group
National Evaluation Study Products Program Models Report: http://www.urban.org/research/publ ication/supportive-housing-highneed-families-child-welfare-system
Systems Change Report: http://www.urban.org/research/pu blication/evolution-programsoffering-supportive-housing-childwelfare-involved-families-servicesintegration-and-systems-changehalf-way-point
HEART Alliance for Sustainable Families ROLE OF SYSTEM COLLABORATION Stephen Ferrante, MSW - Group Victory LLC [email protected] - 954-249-2323
SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Project Planning Gathering Key Stakeholders
Facilitated Dialogue
Need & Priorities Ideal System of Care Resource & Service Leveraging Gaps & Capacity Building Program Model
Community Consensus
HEART TARGETED FAMILIES Extremely Low Income: 30% of area median income
Inadequate Housing / Housing Instability HUD Definition for Homelessness
Child Welfare Involvement
Verified Maltreatment Child Removal Risk / Child Removal History of Family Child Welfare Recidivism Legal Sufficiency for Judicial Involvement / Judicial Involvement Reunification Family: Housing one of Remaining Barriers
At-Risk & Multiple High Needs
Mental Health Substance Abuse Domestic Violence Development &/or Physical Disabilities Young Children Many Children Household Trauma
HEART INTENT ADDRESS Child Welfare & Child Protective Services Involvement
Family Homelessness Family Economic Instability Family Recidivism
HEART GOALS 50 High Risk / High Need Families Primary Goals
Reduce the number of child welfare contacts Reduce the incidents of child maltreatment Reduce the number of child removals Reduce the number of foster care placements Increase housing stability Decrease costs associated with child welfare involvement & homelessness
Secondary Goals
Increase healthy parenting skills Increase emotional coping strategies among family members Increase family employment Increase family financial management and stability Increase legal self-advocacy Increase attainment of permanent affordable housing
HEART PARTNERS & SYSTEM OF CARE KID, Inc. (Kids In Distress)
Lead Youth & Family Services Agency: Project Lead & Clinical Case Management
ChildNet
Lead Child Welfare Agency: Referral & Triage; Housing Coordinator
Broward Sheriff’s Office
Lead Child Protection Agency: Referral & Triage
5 Public Housing Authorities
Housing Choice Voucher Provider & Liaison (50 Vouchers Commitment)
HOPE South Florida
Emergency & Transition Housing
Urban League of Broward County
Economic Self-Sufficiency Provider
Legal Aid of Broward County
Legal Counsel & Guidance
Broward Health
Health Access, Education & Screening
Broward Addiction Recovery Center
Substance Abuse & Behavioral Health Support
Women in Distress
Domestic Violence Prevention
Broward County Homeless Initiative
CoC Lead Agency; CoC Access; Family Identification
Barry University
Local Evaluation
Group Victory, LLC
Planning, Implementation & Sustainability Support
HEART PRIMARY DIRECT SERVICE TEAM KID, Inc.
Project Director Clinical Case Managers (10:1 Ratio)
ChildNet
Housing Coordinator
Urban League of Broward County
2 Family Life Coaches
Legal Aid of Broward County
1 Family Attorney
HEART SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Supportive Housing Model
INTENSIVE SUPPORT SERVICES Community Targeting Multi-Partner Triage Regular Multi-Partner Staffing Single Family Strengthening Plan Seamless Service Coordination Evidence-based Modalities In-home & Community Service Delivery
HEART SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Supportive Housing Model HOUSING FIRST APPROACH – SCATTERED SITE Rapid Rehousing Seamless Access to Emergency Sheltering Consolidated Housing Voucher Commitment Prompt Housing Voucher Appointments Combined Housing Voucher Certification & Orientation Follow-up Legal Aid Housing Briefing Landlord Engagement & Inventory Building Leasing & Inspection Process Communication & Efficiency
HEART SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Successes Increase in Housing Stability (94% FAMILIES) Decrease in Evictions Maintenance of Housing Vouchers Sense of Home Decrease in Child Maltreatment (PRE: 282 / CURRENT: 35) Decrease Child Removals (96% FAMILIES) Increase in Family Reunification (47 CHILDREN / 21 FAMILIES) Increase in Family Employment (50% FAMILIES) Project Fit in Child Welfare, Homeless & Public Housing Systems Sustainability Commitment & Activities
HEART SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Successes LEGAL ISSUES COMPARISON
Issue
HEART
Program 1
Program 2
Evictions
1%
29%
30%
3 Day Notices
2%
11%
20%
Lease Review
45%
7%
7%
Notice of Termination
2%
4%
6%
Security Deposit
3%
4%
6%
Prohibited Practice
0%
2%
1%
Writ
0%
4%
4%
Tenant in Foreclosure
0%
2%
1%
HEART SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Success Factors Single Project Identification Advisory Council & Partner Meeting Structure Unified Interagency Staff Shared Mission, Priorities & Values Role Clarification & Compliment Shared Tasks & Responsibility Strong Interagency Communication Effective Interagency Collaboration Consistent Family Communication Resource Sharing & Mutual Support Celebrations of Success & Each Other
New Resources for Effectively Serve Vulnerable Families Alison Harte, CSH
48
Overview • Review New Resources – Tenant Guide and Welcome Packet – Practice Guidebook – Practice Profile
• How to Access
Tenant Guide and Welcome Packet • Support around common problems families face • Support for parent’s role in managing child behavior • Clarity around lease & violations • Clear processes and protocols for dealing with conflicts and issues
Home is Where Children Grow • Key considerations for serving families and youth • Addresses stress and trauma • Supports optimal child and youth development • Builds Resiliency • Strengths-based and trauma-informed • Self Assessment
Delivering Services to Families in Supportive Housing: A Practice Profile • Framework for practice • Guides and supports the work of front line staff • Defines core components of case management practice and requisite skills and knowledge • Direction for assessing how well practice components are being implemented • Organizational support for staff
Resources • http://www.csh.org • Child Welfare & Supportive Housing Newsletter • Learning Community
Contact Information Alison Harte, Associate Director Government Affairs & Innovations alison.harte@csh,org (917) 532-2642 Leah Rhea, Senior Program Manager Government Affairs & Innovation Leah.rhea@csh,org (612) 721-3700 x 114
csh.org
The Source for Housing Solutions
Supportive Housing Partnerships to Demonstrate the Effectiveness of Supportive Housing for Families with Child Welfare Involvement June 7, 2016
Overview
Introduction to Keeping Families Together Model Core components Families Served Results Evolution of Model 2007-2017
Supportive Housing
Housing Affordable Non-time-limited Independent
Support Services
Flexible Tenant-Centered Voluntary
Case Management Parenting Coaching/Life Skills Substance Abuse Treatment Mental Health Services Primary Health Services Employment Services
Pilot Core Components
5
Supportive Housing Targeting Multi-system Collaboration Capacity Building Evaluation
Felicia Ronald and Felicia move into family homeless shelter
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2005
Exit Shelter
2006
2007
Family Moves into Supportive Housing
2009
2011
2013
616 days Felicia born placed in Foster Care
Returned home
Felicia placed in Foster Care
Returned home
Family remains reunified, Stably housed!
Shelter Child Welfare case closed
495 Days in Foster Care
90 Days in Foster Care
Total Foster Care Days: 585 Total Shelter Days: 610
Snapshot of Keeping Families Together Parent Recurring homelessness Long child welfare history Less than high school education Substance abuse Little work history Diagnosed with mental illness Extensive trauma history 7
Keeping Families Together Results
90% remained housed 100% of children reunified
61% of cases closed within 10 months 87% decrease in indicated reports Steady increases in school attendance
Significant cost-offsets
KFT--National Demonstration 2012-2017
10
Housing + Services for Child Welfare Involved Families State of CT Department of Children and Families
King County
Hartford, CT Intensive Supportive Housing for Families Four Oaks Family and Children’s Services
Cedar Rapids, IA San Francisco Human Services Agency
Partners United for Supportive Housing
San Francisco, CA
New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Families Moving Forward
New Mexico
Community Alliance for the Homeless
Memphis, TN Memphis Strong Families Initiative
CSH Keeping Families Together New York NY
Mecklenburg County Department of Community Kids in Distress, Inc
Wilton Manors, FL HEART Alliance
Supportive Housing for Families in the Child Welfare System Findings from the national evaluation
Principal Investigators: Mike Pergamit: [email protected] Mary Cunningham: [email protected] CSH SUMMIT 2016 Chicago, IL
How will we learn? Multi-Methods RCT Study Study
Research Question
Data Sources
Targeting and Prediction Study
Who are the highest need families and would benefit most?
Child welfare and homeless system administrative data
Implementation and Process Study
What are the major housing and services Annual key informant components? What are the challenges? Does interviews the model lead to better coordination?
Impact Study
What impact does the model have on child welfare involvement, homelessness, and child well-being?
Random assignment to treatment and control. Child welfare, homeless system, and other systems’ administrative data; baseline and follow up family survey data
Cost Study
What are the costs and benefits?
Same as Impact
Family Interviews
How do housing and services act as mediators of child and family well-being?
In-depth family interviews
Program Model
All sites are implementing a set of common components with some variation Targeting Supportive Housing Case Management Evaluation
• developing or expanding triage for high-need child welfare families facing housing instability
• implementing a supportive housing service model using community resources that would be useful to the target population; • providing case management for children and parents using evidence-based practices and trauma-informed care • evaluating the effectiveness of their sitespecific service model.
Lead grantees and housing subsidies vary across sites Lead Grantee Child Welfare Agency • Connecticut • San Francisco
Non-profit Service Provider • Broward • Cedar Rapids
Continuum of Care • Memphis
Housing Subsidy Vouchers (Scattered-Site) • Broward • Connecticut • San Francisco
Project-Based • Memphis • Cedar Rapids
Different program models provide lessons on different opportunities and challenges Broward Connecticut Cedar Rapids Memphis San Francisco
• Strong relationship with 5 local PHAs
• Long-time supportive housing program, but now more intensive • Developed housing needs assessment tool • Affordable housing network—short time to housing
• Coordinated enrollment with shelter system • Enrollment built into existing process • Modified SDM tool to better capture housing status
Who are the families?
Enrollment is close to complete (as of 4/30/16)
Referrals
• Began Fall 2012 • 827 families referred
Enrollment
• 359 families offered supportive housing so far • Target: 428 families offered supportive housing (84% of target enrolled so far)
Take-Up
• 295 families housed so far • 82% take-up among families offered supportive housing
Across sites, half of families have preservation cases and half have reunification cases Cross-Site
100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
55%
50%
44%
40%
Cross-Site
30% 20% 10%
0% Preservation
Reunification Source: Referral Data Report
At time of program entry, families have high rates of homelessness and housing instability Cross-Site 42%
41%
41%
40% 39% 38% 37%
Cross-Site
36%
35%
35%
34% 33% 32% Homeless
Unstably housed Source: Referral Data Report
Across sites, there are high rates of child welfare history Cross-Site 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
73% 54% 42% 25%
Cross-Site
Prior report of History of child Primary Primary abuse or welfare caregiver abuse caregiver foster neglect services or neglect as a care as a child child Source: Referral Data Report
Across sites, primary caregivers and children have high needs Cross-Site 70% 60%
60% 50%
50%
46% 38%
40% 30%
24% Cross-Site
20% 10%
0% Caregiver mental health
Caregiver substance abuse
Caregiver Household Child with criminal domestic high needs justice violence involvement Source: Referral Data Report (Definitions vary across sites)
System Changes
Cross site findings from systems change framework Strong interagency teams
• Multi-agency team meetings for treatment families and co-location
Some challenges in teaming
• Challenges to clarify roles and capacity across systems and with service providers
Data sharing has been a major hurdle
• At the frontline, most information is shared informally; at the middle management level, some aggregate information is shared.
Some influence on child welfare practice
• Universal screening • Increase in housing search capacity • Co-location of child welfare and service providers
Early signs of systems change
• Voucher preference and housing priority
What are we learning?
Families are housed after one year 100% 90%
5% 9%
80%
10% 8%
70% 39%
60%
Shelter
50% 40%
Somewhere else
85%
30% 43%
20% 10%
House/apartment without own lease House/apartment w/ own lease
0% Treatment
Control Source: Family Survey
Treatment families have more stable housing after one year Homeless Spells
• Few treatment families (3%) have had a homeless spell in the past 6 months • Almost a fifth (19%) of control families have had a homeless spell in the past 6 months
Moving and Eviction
• Treatment families have moved fewer times • Treatment families have been evicted fewer times
Planning to Stay
• Majority of treatment families (66%) expect to live in their current housing in 6 months • Half of control families (47%) expect to live in their current housing in 6 months Source: Family Survey
Treatment families report better housing quality after one year Rent Burden
• Treatment families less likely to spend more than 30% of income on rent (6%) than Control families (40%)
Crowding
• Treatment families report 1.5 people per bedroom • Control families report 1.9 people per bedroom
Quality
• 63% of treatment families rate their housing as excellent or very good • 40% of control families rate their housing as excellent or very good Source: Family Survey
Neighborhood quality is somewhat better Across most sites, treatment families live in somewhat better neighborhoods than control families
Treatment families report less: People drinking in public Shootings and violence Groups of people hanging out People selling drugs People using drugs
And somewhat less: Trash and junk People being attacked or robbed Gangs Rapes or sexual attacks
Source: Family Survey
Treatment families reported little or no improvement in family wellbeing after one year Economic
• No reduction in material hardship • No improvement in employment
Health
• No apparent improvement in physical health for parents or children • No apparent improvement in mental health for parents or children
Parenting
• No apparent improvement in parenting practices or parent-child relationships • No reduction in parental stress Source: Family Survey
Next Steps for the National Evaluation
Interim outcomes will be released late summer Impacts
• Interim report examining cross-site child welfare and housing outcomes to be released late summer
Benefit-Cost Analysis
• Cost of a night in shelter (in process), cost of child welfare services (this fall), cost of program services (2017), costs to other systems (2017/2018), benefits such as increased employment (2017/2018)
Program observation
In-depth family interviews
• Examining evidence-based services and sustainability plan at each site this fall
• Second group of interviews begins this fall to dive deeper into themes identified in first group
National Evaluation Study Products Program Models Report: http://www.urban.org/research/publ ication/supportive-housing-highneed-families-child-welfare-system
Systems Change Report: http://www.urban.org/research/pu blication/evolution-programsoffering-supportive-housing-childwelfare-involved-families-servicesintegration-and-systems-changehalf-way-point
HEART Alliance for Sustainable Families ROLE OF SYSTEM COLLABORATION Stephen Ferrante, MSW - Group Victory LLC [email protected] - 954-249-2323
SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Project Planning Gathering Key Stakeholders
Facilitated Dialogue
Need & Priorities Ideal System of Care Resource & Service Leveraging Gaps & Capacity Building Program Model
Community Consensus
HEART TARGETED FAMILIES Extremely Low Income: 30% of area median income
Inadequate Housing / Housing Instability HUD Definition for Homelessness
Child Welfare Involvement
Verified Maltreatment Child Removal Risk / Child Removal History of Family Child Welfare Recidivism Legal Sufficiency for Judicial Involvement / Judicial Involvement Reunification Family: Housing one of Remaining Barriers
At-Risk & Multiple High Needs
Mental Health Substance Abuse Domestic Violence Development &/or Physical Disabilities Young Children Many Children Household Trauma
HEART INTENT ADDRESS Child Welfare & Child Protective Services Involvement
Family Homelessness Family Economic Instability Family Recidivism
HEART GOALS 50 High Risk / High Need Families Primary Goals
Reduce the number of child welfare contacts Reduce the incidents of child maltreatment Reduce the number of child removals Reduce the number of foster care placements Increase housing stability Decrease costs associated with child welfare involvement & homelessness
Secondary Goals
Increase healthy parenting skills Increase emotional coping strategies among family members Increase family employment Increase family financial management and stability Increase legal self-advocacy Increase attainment of permanent affordable housing
HEART PARTNERS & SYSTEM OF CARE KID, Inc. (Kids In Distress)
Lead Youth & Family Services Agency: Project Lead & Clinical Case Management
ChildNet
Lead Child Welfare Agency: Referral & Triage; Housing Coordinator
Broward Sheriff’s Office
Lead Child Protection Agency: Referral & Triage
5 Public Housing Authorities
Housing Choice Voucher Provider & Liaison (50 Vouchers Commitment)
HOPE South Florida
Emergency & Transition Housing
Urban League of Broward County
Economic Self-Sufficiency Provider
Legal Aid of Broward County
Legal Counsel & Guidance
Broward Health
Health Access, Education & Screening
Broward Addiction Recovery Center
Substance Abuse & Behavioral Health Support
Women in Distress
Domestic Violence Prevention
Broward County Homeless Initiative
CoC Lead Agency; CoC Access; Family Identification
Barry University
Local Evaluation
Group Victory, LLC
Planning, Implementation & Sustainability Support
HEART PRIMARY DIRECT SERVICE TEAM KID, Inc.
Project Director Clinical Case Managers (10:1 Ratio)
ChildNet
Housing Coordinator
Urban League of Broward County
2 Family Life Coaches
Legal Aid of Broward County
1 Family Attorney
HEART SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Supportive Housing Model
INTENSIVE SUPPORT SERVICES Community Targeting Multi-Partner Triage Regular Multi-Partner Staffing Single Family Strengthening Plan Seamless Service Coordination Evidence-based Modalities In-home & Community Service Delivery
HEART SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Supportive Housing Model HOUSING FIRST APPROACH – SCATTERED SITE Rapid Rehousing Seamless Access to Emergency Sheltering Consolidated Housing Voucher Commitment Prompt Housing Voucher Appointments Combined Housing Voucher Certification & Orientation Follow-up Legal Aid Housing Briefing Landlord Engagement & Inventory Building Leasing & Inspection Process Communication & Efficiency
HEART SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Successes Increase in Housing Stability (94% FAMILIES) Decrease in Evictions Maintenance of Housing Vouchers Sense of Home Decrease in Child Maltreatment (PRE: 282 / CURRENT: 35) Decrease Child Removals (96% FAMILIES) Increase in Family Reunification (47 CHILDREN / 21 FAMILIES) Increase in Family Employment (50% FAMILIES) Project Fit in Child Welfare, Homeless & Public Housing Systems Sustainability Commitment & Activities
HEART SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Successes LEGAL ISSUES COMPARISON
Issue
HEART
Program 1
Program 2
Evictions
1%
29%
30%
3 Day Notices
2%
11%
20%
Lease Review
45%
7%
7%
Notice of Termination
2%
4%
6%
Security Deposit
3%
4%
6%
Prohibited Practice
0%
2%
1%
Writ
0%
4%
4%
Tenant in Foreclosure
0%
2%
1%
HEART SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Success Factors Single Project Identification Advisory Council & Partner Meeting Structure Unified Interagency Staff Shared Mission, Priorities & Values Role Clarification & Compliment Shared Tasks & Responsibility Strong Interagency Communication Effective Interagency Collaboration Consistent Family Communication Resource Sharing & Mutual Support Celebrations of Success & Each Other
New Resources for Effectively Serve Vulnerable Families Alison Harte, CSH
48
Overview • Review New Resources – Tenant Guide and Welcome Packet – Practice Guidebook – Practice Profile
• How to Access
Tenant Guide and Welcome Packet • Support around common problems families face • Support for parent’s role in managing child behavior • Clarity around lease & violations • Clear processes and protocols for dealing with conflicts and issues
Home is Where Children Grow • Key considerations for serving families and youth • Addresses stress and trauma • Supports optimal child and youth development • Builds Resiliency • Strengths-based and trauma-informed • Self Assessment
Delivering Services to Families in Supportive Housing: A Practice Profile • Framework for practice • Guides and supports the work of front line staff • Defines core components of case management practice and requisite skills and knowledge • Direction for assessing how well practice components are being implemented • Organizational support for staff
Resources • http://www.csh.org • Child Welfare & Supportive Housing Newsletter • Learning Community
Contact Information Alison Harte, Associate Director Government Affairs & Innovations alison.harte@csh,org (917) 532-2642 Leah Rhea, Senior Program Manager Government Affairs & Innovation Leah.rhea@csh,org (612) 721-3700 x 114
