Alameda County Coordinated Entry System Committee Meeting 2 March 3, 2016

1

Agenda �  Welcome

�  Meeting Objectives

�  Progress toward Coordinated Entry

�  What is Prioritization

�  Small Groups

�  Options for Matching Using Prioritization

�  Small Groups

�  Wrap-up and Next Steps

2

Meeting Objectives

1.  Review system goals and progress 2.  Look at prioritization factors 3.  Consider how a system uses prioritization 4.  Identify necessary considerations in tool development

3

CES Background

� Project is a major component of our system redesign which launched in February of 2014

� Community Planning Charette in July 2015 had over 200 stakeholders providing input into what would help our CoC respond to people without homes more effectively

� Consumers and providers strongly advocated for more streamlined access to services that were prioritized for the most vulnerable and better matched to people’s needs—that’s Coordinated Entry.

� The 2012 HEARTH Act Interim Final Rule also requires that all CoCs operate a CES.

4

What should CES accomplish?

�  Simplify access for clients

� Ensure fairness, consistency and transparency

�  Speed movement from homelessness to housing

� Prioritize must vulnerable for assistance

� Match households to most appropriate available intervention

� Target limited resources more efficiently

5

Permanent Supportive Housing RRH/Market Rental

Triage

Literally Homeless

Non-Homeless

Emergency Shelter

Housing Centered Case Management

Transitional Housing

Housing Prioritization &

Matching

Subsidized Rental Friends/Family

Diversion and prevention

Coordinated Entry System

Outreach – Access - Referral

Connected Services: Health, benefits, Behavioral Health, Substance Abuse,

legal, Childcare, Education, Employment Services

HRC/HUB Diversion

6

Progress toward CES in Alameda County

� EveryOne Home CES

� Home Stretch: Re-launching in March. Meeting with housing providers. Developing standard tools.

�  Shelters: Survey completed. Subcommittee looking at results, standards.

� Berkeley HCRS launched

� Oakland Call Center launched

� Website launch

7

Progress toward CES: Committee Work � CES Committee Input on Access ◦ Need easy phone access ◦  Front door needs to be linguistically and culturally

competent ◦ Need access in all regions of AC, near transportation ◦ Virtual access should be an option for outreach/mobile

services ◦ Outreach should target hard to reach homeless ◦  Include local businesses, churches, libraries and mainstream

services providers in network

� Guiding Principles ◦  Subcommittee met, clarified language and format, presented

back to funders

8

Progress toward CES: Referral Sub-Committee Recommendations �  Referrals ◦  Central call center ◦  Parallel DV system with screen in CES ◦  Assessments done at HRC/Hub ◦  Diversion at HRC/Hub

�  Shelter ◦  Real-time availability ◦  Beds mostly regional

�  Transitional ◦  Short-stay/crisis model programs treated like shelter (regional) ◦  Service-intensive population-specific models treated like PSH

�  Permanent Housing ◦  Countywide, but with client choice/geographic preference

�  Rapid Rehousing ◦  Undecided: Currently mostly regionally distributed resources and Countywide utilization

9

Process and Timeline

� EveryOne Home Charter Adopted October 2015 �  Funders Collaborative established October � CES Committee established January � CES Committee Phase One Design process Jan-May � Community Meeting April � Leadership Committee June �  Implementation planning July – October, including written

standards, protocols, and performance measures �  Staged launch county-wide

10

PRIORITIZATION Alameda County CES

11

Prioritization Context: Homelessness in Alameda County

12

What is Prioritization?

� Assessing and determining who is ◦ greatest need ◦ highest need ◦ most severe service needs

� giving those with the greatest needs priority for the housing and homeless assistance available in the CoC.

Why is Prioritization needed and helpful?

� Clients have a more equitable access to services than the first-come first-served model

� Programs know their role and population to be served and save time by not screening clients for entry

�  System can make sure highest needs people are offered services

�  System can see where augmentation of services is needed and leverage them

�  System can effectively work toward functional zero

14

Remember…

� Prioritization ≠ Matching � Prioritization ≠ Eligibility

15

A few examples of prioritization factors

�  length of time homeless only �  vulnerability and high need criteria � high-cost service user predictor

Hybrids � high need and high service utilization history �  current housing situation and time in system/barriers

acuity � high-risk age group, families, episodes of homelessness,

extremely low/no income, disabilities – validated by vulnerability and high need criteria tool

16

Group Activity 1: Prioritization Factors

� Alameda County’s system of care will be identifying the “highest need” people and working to end unsheltered homelessness by using the following prioritization factors: _______.

� 25 min to provide rank order of factors with table

�  for singles and families with children

17

Matching Methods Using Prioritization

�  First, assume diversion, prevention are in place �  Second, identify what we would need in our system to

make one method or another work

18

Sample Distribution of Scores

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Score “Buckets” for Matching

Mainstream RRH PSH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Continuous Matching

Mainstream RRH PSH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Group Activity 2: Matching Methods

�  Small group conversations about how we use prioritization to match people to available housing and services

22

Next Steps and Timing

� CES Committee and Sub-Committees ◦ Next full meeting 4/7 at 9:30 AM ◦  Subcommittee on Tools – See us after meeting

23