5.1 Retooling Transitional Housing II: Implementing Changes to Your Program
Speaker: Heather Lyons
If you are planning to make significant changes to your transitional housing program, this workshop will help you identify the steps you can consider and provide examples and tools for taking those steps. Providers who have retooled their transitional housing will share their experiences about making the shift, and cover topics such as staffing, contracts, and working with board members.
5. Project Level – Kalamazoo, MI
• Housing Resources, Inc.
• First in Michigan (2007)
• 35 units scattered site for families
• Internal HMIS data review on found that
there more than 1/3 individuals and families
in organization’s TH inventory were disabled
• Made commitment with resources (staff time
and money)
• 18 months transition
6. Project Level – Batesville, IN
• Community Mental Health Center
• 20 units of TH in apartment building
• Lower than desired housing retention
outcomes
• No housing in community to transition to
• New permanent supportive housing project
in the pipeline
• Budget shortfalls
7. Continuum Level – Portland, OR
Scattered Site (475 Facility Based (82
families) families)
Exit Reasons Exit Reasons
• 73% completed program • 68% completed program
• 7% non-compliance • 19% non-compliance
Placement/Retention Placement/Retention
• 89% moved to PH • 86% moved to PH
Cost Cost
• $5,052 per family • $9,482 per family
Facility based is 189% more expensive than scattered site.
8. Continuum Level – Portland, OR
• Projects not interested in conversion
• Used data to encourage change – focusing on
program results
• Based on analysis, agencies were asked to consider a
harder to serve population based on program support
and capacity (conversion to PSH); others were
persuaded to improve their outcomes based on data
(better transitional housing/interim housing)
• Following year, programs showed significant changes
in population change (effective targeting) and
improved outcomes (higher placement rates and
retention) – particularly for families
10. Project Level – First Steps
• Inform yourself about research and best practices
• Do an internal analysis of your program’s stated goals,
outcomes and long-term impact on the people you
serve
• Would the people you’re serving be well served in a
different model?
• Ask residents what they like and don’t like. Talk to
former residents as well.
• Ask staff and board what would be needed to make
shift
• Visit and learn from other models to help you envision
what your project might look like
11. Project Level – Questions to Ask
• What is our goal?
• Better outcomes? Targeting? Change under
external pressure? All of the above…
• Who do we serve?
• Which model is most suited?
• What is our internal capacity to change?
• Who else do I need to talk to, to make the
change?
• What are the financial impacts and how do
we secure the appropriate resources?
13. Key Categories
Organizational Commitment
• Commitment from line staff to Board and
across multiple functions
• Staff capacity to implement change
• Internal resources
• Communication
• Everyone understands any new legal
responsibilities
14. Key Categories
Mission Orientation
• A close second to organizational commitment
• Historical approach to homelessness in
organization
• Determining self-sufficiency
• Review application and program rules
• Do they screen people out?
• Are they unnecessarily prohibitive?
15. Key Categories
Outcomes
• Is there an effective transition to PH or not?
• What is average length of stay?
A long length of stay and small percentage
of PH placements could indicate a need for
conversion to PSH
OR
A need to reevaluate the program design for
more rapid and stable placements
• Dependent on Population
16. Key Categories
Population
• Special needs or not?
If not special needs, are you ready to house
and serve a PSH eligible population?
OR
Can you decrease overall length of stay and
increase housing placement and retention?
OR
Is transition in place an option?
17. Key Categories
Financials
• Are matching funds prohibitive to change? What
steps need to be taken with funders?
• Are resources adequate for change?
• If converting to PSH – consider the following:
• Change in operating costs based on legal and eviction costs
• Reduction in turnover rates in units, resulting in reduced unit
preparation costs
• Changes in rent paid by tenants and rent collection rates
• Opportunities to secure rental subsidies
• Increased or shifted costs due to creating or reorganizing a
housing administration function
• Increased costs tied to building security or replacement
reserve needed
• Changes in staffing patterns
• Allocation of costs between services and operating budgets
• Adequate service dollars and support for special needs
populations
18. Key Categories
Structure
• If considering PSH, is there capacity to create
independent units?
• For families with children
• Community space
• Service space
• Unit kitchens and baths or shared
• Consider change an opportunity for updating
structure
19. Details on converting to PSH
• Create a document/proposal that includes:
• Reason for change
• Difference between current and future participants
(if applicable)
• Proposed outcomes
• Analysis of resources to project
• Rehab Plan (if applicable)
• Timeline – Transition Plan (if applicable)
• Grant or covenant amendments
• Zoning and Neighborhood
• Local CoC
• HUD
20. Converting a HUD-SHP Grant
• Requires a grant amendment with HUD
• Outline request in a letter
• Find your original HUD grant application
• Submit supporting documentation and
support letters from Continuum of Care
• Continue conversation/advocacy with HUD
to ensure amendment is completed
• There are new opportunities under HEARTH
Scattered internal time dealing with leases – that goes to someone else so you save some money there, if you are operating a leasing program.(transition from master leasing to individual leases)More time to work with families, figure out what’s really going on once stabilized – instead of worrying about time limits right away. Strategic priority in 10 YP. Doing well now and added 5 more units in one competition and planning to add 10 in this competition.
One facility based project decided to focus on Child Welfare involved families. Another embraced the Housing First/Harm Reduction approach in several of their projects and were able to serve families that they hadn’t previously been able to serve due to programmatic restrictions.