Upload
ceri
View
30
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
2012 Annual Report Data. Housing…Help…Hope. Clients Served Per Year. *2009 PSH count includes Hope House **ESG didn’t start until December 2012. Program Demographics. Clients Served By Gender. Gender by Year. Gender By Program. Race and Ethnicity by Program. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
2012 Annual Report Data
Housing…Help…Hope
Clients Served Per YearHousing Category
Clients Served In 2012
Permanent Housing
367
Hope House Transitional
170
ESG 2
2012 Total 539
2011 Total 625
2010 Total 503
2009 Total 515
PSH Hope H...HPRP/ESG
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
369
170
2
405
187
33
305
181
17
515
2012201120102009
*2009 PSH count includes Hope House**ESG didn’t start until December 2012
Program Demographics
Clients Served By GenderGende
r2012 2011 2010 2009
Males 393 73% 434 70% 375 75% 395 77%
Females
144 27% 190 30% 128 25% 120 23%
TG 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 537 100% 625 100% 503 100% 515 100%
Gender by Year
2012 2011 2010 20090
50100150200250300350400450500
393434
375 395
144190
128 120
MalesFemalesTransgender
Gender By Program
Property Males Females Transgender
Total
Adamsville 16 31 0 47Donnelly 23 24 0 47
Hope House 170 0 0 170RISE-DBHDD 24 17 0 41
RISE-S+C 45 30 0 75 Shamrock 0 15 0 15Welcome
House115 27 0 142
Total 393 144 0 537
Race and Ethnicity by Program
Property African Americ
an
Caucasian
Hispanics
Bi-Racial/Other
Total
Adamsville 43 2 2 0 47Donnelly 45 2 0 0 47
Hope House 147 18 0 0 165RISE-
DBHDD27 11 0 1 39
RISE-S+C 66 8 1 0 75Shamrock 13 1 0 0 14Welcome 116 24 1 1 142
Total 457 66 4 2 529Percentage 86% 12% <1% <1%*There were responses for 529 of 537 served in 2012
Client Age RangeAge 2012 2011
18-20
0 0% 10 1%
21-35
40 7% 103 16%
36-45
100
19% 149 24%
46-55
204
39% 210 34%
56-60
92 18% 80 13%
61+ 87 17% 73 12%
Total 523
100%
625 100% 18-20
21-35
36-45
46-55
56-60
61+0
50
100
150
200
250
20122011
*There were responses for 523 of 537 served
Living Situation Prior to Admission
34
1
117
67
34
89 15
2012Places Not Meant for Human HabitationOn the StreetJail/PrisonShelterTransitional HousingApt-Own/RentApt-Friend/RelativeHome-Friend RelativeHome-Rent/Own
In Permanent Supportive Housing Programs
*There were responses for 258 of 367 served
Living Situation Prior to Admission
4 10
17
57
39
4 1013
2012Places Not Meant for Human HabitationOn the StreetJail/PrisonShelterTransitional HousingApt-Own/RentApt-Friend/RelativeHome-Friend RelativeHome-Rent/Own
In Hope House Transitional Housing Program
*There were responses for 154 of 170 served
Source of Income Prior to Admission
78
8
119
33
1113
20
2012None
General Assistance
SSI
SSDI
VA
Other
Employed
In Permanent Supportive Housing Programs
*There were responses for 282 of 367 served
Source of Income Prior to Admission
51
1
29
22
16
6
37
2012None
General Assistance
SSI
SSDI
VA
Other
Employed
*There were responses for 162 of 170 served
In Hope House Transitional Housing Program
Characteristics of ClientsHistory 2012 2011 2010Chronically Homeless
252/367
69% 285/405
70% 203/290
70%
Substance Abuse 249/367
68% 261/405
64% 203/290
70%
Mental Health Dx 260/367
71% 289/405
71% 226/290
78%
Criminal Background
222/367
60% 269/405
66% 214/290
74%
in Permanent Supportive Housing Programs
History of 2012 2011 2010Chronically Homeless
250/320
78% 285/405
70% 203/290
70%
Substance Abuse 248/320
78% 261/405
64% 203/290
70%
Mental Health Dx 254/320
79% 289/405
71% 226/290
78%
Criminal Background
218/320
68% 269/405
66% 214/290
74%
Permanent Supportive Housing w/o Adamsville Green
Characteristics of ClientsHistory of 2012 2011
Chronically Homeless 75/170 44% 138/187 74%
Substance Abuse 170/170 100% 187/187 100%
Mental Health Dx 85/170 50% 97/187 52%
Criminal Background 106/170 64% 151/187 52%
In Hope House Transitional Housing Program
Favorable Drug Screens Year Favorable
Drug Screen Percentage
2012 91%
2011 85%
2010 97%
2009 97% 201220112010200978%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%
91%
85%
97% 97%Results
Results
*Of 1809 screens completed in 2012,1642 were negative
Favorable Drug Screens Per ProgramProgram 2012 2011 2010 2009
Donnelly 517/533
97% 97% 99% 99%
Hope 612/678
90% 87% 99% 99%
RISE-DBHDD 9/16 56% 89% 96% 96%
RISE-S+C 156/182
86% 85% 95% 97%
Shamrock 47/53 87% n/a n/a n/a
Welcome 301/347
91% 89% 98% 98%
Client Exits Per ProgramProgram 2012 2011 2010
Adamsville 4/47 1/46 n/aDonnelly 7/47 10/48 6/47
RISE-DBHDD 9/41 15/44 8/41RISE-S+C 13/75 17/61 9/51Shamrock 7/15 1/9 n/aWelcome
House39/142 45/147 22/117
Total 79 89 53
Supportive Housing Programs
Supportive Housing Program Client Exit Data
Reason 2012 2011Better Housing Situation(Includes Accepting Other
Services, and Reuniting with Family)
44 56% 55%
Higher Level of Care 11 14% 23%Deceased 4 5% 10%
Incarcerated 4 5% 0%Evictions
*All Evictions occurred at Welcome House
9 11% 12%
Self Discharge(Includes AWOL and Declined
Services)
7 9% n/a
Total 79 100%
100%
Transitional Housing Program Client Exit Data
Reason 2012 2011 2010
Better Housing Situation(Includes Accepting Other
Services, and Reuniting with Family)
63 53% 50% 47%
AWOL 19 16% 12% 31%Higher Level of Care 24 20% 25% 12%
Non-Compliance (Includes Evictions and
Incarceration)
9 8% 0% 10%
Self Discharge 3 3% 13% 0%Deceased 0 0% 0% 0%
Total 118 100%
100%
100%
Agency/Program Data on Client Tenure
Successfully Housed in 2012Program 2012
Adamsville 43/47 91%
Donnelly 44/47 93%
RISE-DBHDD 37/41 90%
RISE-S+C 73/75 94%
Shamrock 13/15 86%
Welcome 128/142 90%
Total 338/367 92%
Client TenureProgram 2012 2011 2010Donnelly 38/47 80% 43/48 90% 41/47 87%
RISE-DBHDD
30/41 73% 33/44 75% 39/41 95%
RISE-S+C 41/75 55% 39/61 64% 21/51 41%Shamrock 5/15 33% n/a n/a n/a n/aWelcome 100/14
270% 90/147 61% 75/117 64%
Total 214/320
67% 240/350
70% 216/305
71%
365 days or longer in residency
*Adamsville Green is not included
Agency Key Outcomes
2012 2011 Outcomes
92% 90% Remained successfully housed in 2012 67% 70% Remained housed 12 months or longer
(with CaringWorks)55% 55% Moved onto a better situation
Time Spent Per Program Per Topic
131
357
71882167
430
43344
1907
4387
Hours Spent with ClientsPhysical Health
Mental Health
Rapport/CM
SSI
Employ
Sobriety
Coping
Perm Housing
Family/Social
Legal
Group
What Did Our Clients Say?• Purpose-The client satisfaction survey and focus
groups are part of ongoing assessment to understand the client experience at CaringWorks, Inc.
• Method-Administered by Advantage Consulting LLC, the survey was conducted in September and the focus groups were conducted in late September.– 128 participants completed the client satisfaction
questionnaires and each site(6) had between 6-9 residents participate in the focus groups.
– 320 residents were eligible to complete the questionnaire and participate in the focus groups which resulted in a response rate of 40% for the survey.
2012 Client Satisfaction Survey
What Did Our Clients Say?
85% Rated the quality of the services that they received as either “good” or “excellent”
91% Indicated that they had received the kind of service they wanted
88% Felt the program met “most” of “almost all” of their needs.
88% Said that their CaringWorks Case Manager was helpful in addressing their needs.
90% Reported the services they had received had helped them deal more effectively with their problems
2012 Client Satisfaction Survey
What Did Our Clients Say?CaringWorks annually seeks feedback on satisfaction
with services from it’s clients/residents. The results are shared with client focus groups and each site’s lead staff person. CaringWorks uses the results to
create action plans to address issues identified
Comments from focus groups: • As in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 survey and focus
groups, clients were very satisfied with CaringWorks services and staff.
• Clients found the staff to be helpful, supportive and non-judgmental. They felt they were treated with courtesy and respect.
• In the survey and focus groups, clients were satisfied with the amount and type of services they received.
Client Satisfaction
Discussion• As in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 survey, some
property management staff received very negative feedback while others were seen as satisfactory. The focus groups reinforced the results from the survey and in some cases indicated that the surveys were not strong enough when indicating problems with management.
• Welcome house continues to have serious concerns expressed about property management.
• Donnelly Courts’ new management also received significant negative feedback.
Outcomes Goals for 2013• ETO Build Out
– Will create a cleaner central method of capturing data
– Staff training so there is knowledge and consistentcy
– Better reflection of true time spent with clients• Capture additional populations
– Consistent identification of Physically Disabled (Hearing Impaired, Visually Impaired, and HIV+), Veterans, Criminal Justice
– Ability to draw correlations• Capture income at discharge and
whether it has improved