Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
King County Base Year Calculator Results Emergency Shelter for Single Adult Projects Performance Summary
March 11, 2016
This document includes de-identified performance results for ES projects for single adults. Included projects are those that had open records in the selected time period and had at least two years of available data. 2014 was used because data is not available system-wide for 2015. To review definitions of the measures, please see the Overview of SWAP Performance Measures document.
There are three graphs per measure, the first depicting projects with no City of Seattle funds and the second and third depicting projects with City of Seattle funds (identified with a letter then “CS” to indicate City of Seattle). All but the first 3 graphs identify projects by a randomly selected letter and the letters are the same from graph to graph. The intent is to provide a picture of performance that is complete, though de-identified, for each project. For most measures, we provide a very brief assessment of the results. Our goal is to provide some context and framing, the Client Group will discuss how results will be used.
The first set of 3 bar charts show the number of households served by project. These projects are not identified by a randomly selected letter, as the results on all other graphs are, because to do so here would identify the projects for those knowledgeable about project capacity. The purpose of the graphs immediately below are to show the range of project size. It is evident that there are a number of relatively small projects.
44 80 137 171 250 269 325458
603 639
903
1725
2187
0
500
1000
1500
2000
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: HMIS Households Served in Analysis Year (2014)
26 32176 196 267
375553 565
1398
1814
2013
0
500
1000
1500
2000
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: HMIS Households Served in Analysis Year (2014) - CS
158
1355 1364
3313 3494
42194863 5024 5254
5536
7282
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: HMIS Households Served in Analysis Year (2014) - CS
SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Single Adults Performance Summary | Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 2 of 13
Utilization Rate
Utilization rate varies from 14% to 141%. A 90% utilization rate is the recommended target for ES projects, the average on this measure is about 85%. Most projects are performing fair or well on this measure.
109% 103%
90% 89%84% 83% 83% 81%
40% 36% 36%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
O B T D E Q K P J C F G H
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Utilization Rate in Analysis Year (2014)
Utilization Rate Average
117% 111%
104% 103% 102%96% 95% 93%
81% 81%76%
40%
14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
M - CS W - CS B - CS F - CS AE - CS U - CS E - CS L - CS AA - CS G - CS H - CS
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Utilization Rate in Analysis Year (2014) - CS
Utilization Rate Average
SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Single Adults Performance Summary | Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 3 of 13
Length of Stay
Average lengths of stay range from 3 days to almost 2 months with the average length of stay less than 1 month.
105% 102% 101%95% 95% 92%
87%80%
28%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
K - CS Z - CS D - CS O - CS X - CS N - CS S - CS T - CS I - CS R - CS P - CS
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Utilization Rate in Analysis Year (2014) - CS
Utilization Rate Average
141% 116%
3 3 4 49 10 11
1619 19
45
5356
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
K T G B J E H D C Q P F O
Num
ber o
f Day
s
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Average Length of Stay in Analysis Year(2014)
Length of Stay Average
SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Single Adults Performance Summary | Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 4 of 13
48
12 1315
1719
22 22
28 29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
AE - CS W - CS F - CS E - CS L - CS B - CS M - CS U - CS G - CS AA - CS H - CS
Num
ber o
f Day
s
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Average Length of Stay in Analysis Year(2014) - CS
Length of Stay Average
3 3 4 6 6
14 17
25 2835
58
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
S - CS K - CS O - CS N - CS I - CS D - CS T - CS X - CS R - CS Z - CS P - CS
Num
ber o
f Day
s
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Average Length of Stay in Analysis Year(2014) - CS
Length of Stay Average
SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Single Adults Performance Summary | Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 5 of 13
Living Situation Prior to Project Entry
Entries from homeless prior living situations are of concern; total average is about 60%. The graphs on the next page show a substantial proportion of entries from housed locations. The table on pages 9 and 10 show entries from all locations including other and unknown prior living.
Literally Homeless
100%
69% 68% 68% 65% 64% 61%
48%42% 40% 39% 37%
30%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
C H O T B J G F D E K Q P
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Household Entries from Homeless Prior Living in Analysis Year (2014)
% Entries from Unshelt/ES Prior Living Average
100% 95% 92%84% 83%
59%51% 46%
17% 14%3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
M - CS W - CS E - CS F - CS AA - CS L - CS AE - CS H - CS B - CS U - CS G - CS
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Household Entries from Homeless Prior Living in Analysis Year (2014) - CS
% Entries from Unsheltered/ES Prior Living Average
SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Single Adults Performance Summary | Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 6 of 13
Living Situation Prior to Project Entry
Enter From a Housed Location
99%90% 86%
77% 73% 70%
59%53% 49% 47%
41%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
D - CS T - CS N - CS K - CS O - CS I - CS X - CS P - CS R - CS Z - CS S - CS
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Household Entries from Homeless Prior Living in Analysis Year (2014) - CS
% Entries from Unsheltered/ES Prior Living Average
0%
20% 23% 23% 28% 29% 33%39% 43% 45% 45% 46%
56%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
C T O H G B J D F Q K E P
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Household Entries from Non-Homeless Prior Living in Analysis Year (2014)
% Entries from Housed Prior Living Average
SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Single Adults Performance Summary | Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 7 of 13
0% 2% 2% 3%10%
27%33% 37%
63%
82%
97%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
M - CS W - CS AA - CS E - CS F - CS H - CS AE - CS L - CS B - CS U - CS G - CS
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Household Entries from Non-Homeless Prior Living in Analysis Year (2014) - CS
% Entries from Housed Prior Living Average
0% 5% 8% 9% 9% 11%17% 22% 26%
34%41%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
D - CS T - CS O - CS N - CS K - CS R - CS Z - CS I - CS S - CS X - CS P - CS
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Household Entries from Non-Homeless Prior Living in Analysis Year (2014) - CS
% Entries from Housed Prior Living Average
SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Single Adults Performance Summary | Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 8 of 13
Living Situation Prior to Project Entry
All Household Entries
Project % Unsheltered
% ES
% TH
% Housing
% Institutional
% Other
% Unknown Total
B 22% 43% 1% 29% 3% 1% 1% 100% E 26% 14% 1% 46% 6% 5% 2% 100% H 43% 27% 0% 23% 2% 2% 4% 101% D 27% 15% 2% 39% 10% 4% 4% 101% J 56% 8% 1% 33% 1% 1% 0% 100% O 17% 51% 3% 23% 5% 0% 1% 100% T 52% 16% 1% 20% 3% 6% 2% 100% P 5% 25% 3% 56% 0% 8% 3% 100% C 95% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% K 14% 25% 5% 45% 8% 4% 0% 101% Q 21% 15% 5% 45% 1% 12% 0% 99% G 17% 44% 0% 28% 2% 6% 3% 100% F 18% 30% 0% 43% 2% 7% 0% 100%
Average 32% 24% 2% 33% 3% 4% 2% 100%
All Household Entries – City of Seattle
Project % Unsheltered
% ES
% TH
% Housing
% Institutional
% Other
% Unknown Total
G - CS 0% 3% 0% 97% 0% 0% 0% 100% L - CS 57% 2% 0% 37% 0% 5% 0% 101% F - CS 9% 75% 2% 10% 1% 2% 1% 100% W - CS 6% 89% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 100% M - CS 95% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% H - CS 19% 27% 0% 27% 19% 0% 8% 100% B - CS 3% 14% 1% 63% 4% 14% 2% 101% E - CS 0% 92% 0% 3% 1% 1% 4% 101% U - CS 3% 10% 2% 82% 0% 3% 0% 100% AE - CS 29% 23% 8% 33% 3% 4% 1% 101% AA - CS 80% 4% 1% 2% 0% 3% 11% 101%
Average 27% 31% 1% 32% 3% 3% 2% 100%
SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Single Adults Performance Summary | Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 9 of 13
All Household E
All Household Entries – City of Seattle
Project % Unsheltered
% ES
% TH
% Housing
% Institutional
% Other
% Unknown Total
I - CS 8% 63% 2% 22% 2% 3% 0% 100% N - CS 11% 76% 1% 9% 1% 2% 0% 100% T - CS 19% 71% 2% 5% 1% 1% 0% 99% X - CS 18% 41% 1% 34% 2% 3% 2% 101% D - CS 97% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% O - CS 25% 47% 1% 8% 3% 6% 10% 100% K - CS 28% 50% 1% 9% 3% 5% 6% 102% Z - CS 13% 35% 3% 17% 16% 15% 0% 99% S - CS 28% 13% 1% 26% 2% 6% 25% 101% R - CS 8% 40% 1% 11% 3% 8% 29% 100% P - CS 3% 50% 1% 41% 1% 2% 1% 99%
Average 23% 44% 1% 17% 3% 5% 7% 100%
Exits to Permanent Housing
Average exits to permanent housing almost meet the 20% goal King County identifies for single adult case managed projects and exceeds the 5% goal for single adult overnight shelters.
46%32% 30% 28% 23% 21% 19% 16%
7% 7%.3% 0% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
O P F H Q D K E B J T G C
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Rate of Exit to Permanent Housing in Analysis Year
(2014)
% Exits to PH Average King Co Goal (case managed)
SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Single Adults Performance Summary | Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 10 of 13
54% 50%
33%23% 18% 15% 15% 14%
2% 0% 0%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
L - CS G - CS U - CS AA - CS AE - CS F - CS B - CS W - CS E - CS H - CS M - CS
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Rate of Exit to Permanent Housing in Analysis Year
(2014) - CS
% Exits to PH Average King Co Goal (case managed)
36%
21% 18%8% 4% 4% 3% 1% 1% .3% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
P - CS Z - CS T - CS X - CS S - CS N - CS I - CS O - CS K - CS R - CS D - CS
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Rate of Exit to Permanent Housing in Analysis Year
(2014) - CS
% Exits to PH Average King Co Goal (case managed)
SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Single Adults Performance Summary | Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 11 of 13
Costs Per Permanent Housing Exit
The distribution is fairly wide; results should be considered in light of results on other measures. Such a review helps isolate performance concerns. A number of projects had no permanent housing exits in 2014. With the exception of project P, the cost per permanent housing exit figures are markedly lower than we typically see for ES for singles.
$180 $253 $434 $442 $445 $446 $1,314 $1,692
$5,690
$15,725
---- No PH Exits ----$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
K E J B D H O Q F P T C G
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Average Cost per Household Exit to Permanent Housing in Analysis Year (2014)
Cost per PH Exit Average
$237 $629 $825
$1,383 $2,142
$2,665 $2,962
$4,589
$5,855
-- No PH Exits --$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
AE - CS W - CS F - CS E - CS L - CS G - CS AA - CS B - CS U - CS H - CS M - CS
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Average Cost per Household Exit to Permanent Housing in Analysis Year (2014) - CS
Cost per PH Exit Average
SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Single Adults Performance Summary | Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 12 of 13
$15 $31 $129 $136 $191
$923 $1,165 $1,242 $1,368
$4,360
No PH Exits$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
K - CS O - CS R - CS N - CS S - CS I - CS T - CS X - CS Z - CS P - CS D - CS
King Co Emergency Shelters - Singles: Average Cost per Household Exit to Permanent Housing in Analysis Year (2014) - CS
Cost per PH Exit Average
SWAP: Emergency Shelter - Single Adults Performance Summary | Prepared for United Way of King County, King County, & City of Seattle by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 13 of 13
