Time Topic Notes - Boulder, Colorado Topic Notes 2:15- 2:20 Welcome & introductions Opening Remarks (Annie) ... Annual demand for ES is 71 Heavy users + 454 Moderates = 525 2

Boulder Homeless Workgroup Session February 15, 2017

2:15-4:30PM Annotated Agenda

Time Topic Notes

2:15- 2:20 Welcome &

introductions

Opening Remarks (Annie)

Introductions- Heather Muller, CSH team

Annie review agenda for the day

Updates/Housekeeping

2:20

–

2:45

Unit projections &

methodology

Large Group discussion (25 minutes)

Revisit methodology and data sources for determining unit projections

Data follow up since last meeting and adjustments (Annie/Jason)

Current & future data landscape

Updated unit projections

2:45

–

3:20

Emergency Shelter

projections &

recommendations

Presentation then facilitated discussion (35 min)

Review modeling for emergency shelter:

Demand, inventory, impact over time assuming system re-

design

How much shelter is it going to take to achieve the re-envisioned system?

Emergency Shelter recommendations

3:20

-

3:45

Critical gaps & role

of Emergency

Shelter

Facilitated discussion (possible small group breakout) (25 min)

Review critical/non-critical gaps

How does shelter function differently inside vs. at the front

door of the system?

Priority target populations

What we know from the data about the “who” (Jason) Critical questions, re: shelter:

Who shelter serving? What is it for? What is the bar? How much shelter do you have to have to satisfy system demand?

Health & Safety

Boulder Homeless Workgroup Session February 15, 2017

2:15-4:30PM Annotated Agenda

3:45

-

4:20

Coordinated Entry System (35 min)

Heather: Overview of CES re-design lab and goals

Presentation: Overview of what CES design can look like, implementation strategies

Assign “Homework” by group for next meeting on 3/1– key questions laying out the CES landscape

4:20

-

4:30

Closing remarks,

Next Steps, and re-

visit timeline

Annie (10 min)

Project half-way point

Timeline and next steps through April

Boulder Homelessness Work Group Meeting: Feb 15, 2017

•  Your Name and organization •  Introducing, Heather- CSH •  Thank you!

•  Agenda items •  Today’s goals •  Project timeline

Revisiting Unit Projections

Population Breakdown: PIT ratios

Sheltered (82%)

Chronic

Homeless

Un-sheltered

(18%)

Chronic

Homeless

Families

Families

Singles

Singles

Families

Families

Singles

Singles

33% 67% 33%

33% 67%

67%

67% 33%

Families

Families

Singles

Singles

Sheltered

Chronic

Homeless

Un-sheltered

Chronic

Homeless

Families

Families

Singles

Singles

Multiplier: Annual Demand

Multiplier: Annual Demand

Methodology for Estimating Annual Demand

Need for Permanent Housing

Housing Intervention Existing Stock Annual

Turnover Rate # Available

Annually

Annual Demand

(based on assumptions)

Annualized Over/(Under)

Demand Adjustment

based on local

analysis

Adjusted over/under

PSH - Fam. 185 1.10 204 154

50 200 4

PSH - Ind 229 0.94 252 332

(80) 432 (180)

RRH - Fam. 77 1.00 77 64

13 83 (6)

RRH - Ind. 156 1.00

156 148 8 193 (37)

DIV - Fam. 0 1.00

- 217 (217) 282 (282)

DIV - Ind. 0 1.00

- 518 (518) 673 (673)

PSH Ind

RRH families

RRH Ind

Div Families

Div Ind

Boulder Shelter Demand Scenarios

Challenge: ~20% of single individuals will need a housing intervention and/or temporary bed.

2015FYNightShelterDataTrendsMarket Segments (% of total pop’n)

Unique Persons (2,337 total)

Cumulative Nights at Boulder Shelter + BOHO

Definitions: (# of nights)

Average # of Shelter Nights

Assumptions Used for Analysis

Chronic (3%)

71 18,360 (26%)

193 to 348 per person

261 night average

All these individuals will need PSH and will remain in shelter until they get it

Normative (20 %)

454 37,839 (53%)

35 to 192 per person

80 night average; If you house the longest stayers in TH, average drops to 70 nights

The longest stayers will get TH and the others will continue to reside at the shelter at average of 70 days and then self-resolve

Light Users (77%)

1,811 14,878 (21%)

1 to 34 per person 8 night average These individuals can be diverted and/or will find other options if shelter is not available

Data & Assumptions Used in Projections

Key Points for the Analysis: 1.  Annual demand for ES is 71 Heavy users + 454 Moderates = 525 2.  Assumptions about use as stated in the chart.

Solution #1:

Prioritize all 100 year

round beds for the 20% who can’t

self-resolve quickly

Assumptions: •  100 year round shelter beds and all placements target longest stayers

•  Uses existing PSH and TH annual vacancies to produce placements •  All 190 TH beds for singles are used to support long term placements and only

produce a 5% rate of return to homelessness (big shift in operations) •  Inflow of 20 individuals per year (rough estimate) become part of the 20% who

can’t self-resolve •  Formal diversion program implemented or self-resolvers will self-divert when no

shelter is available

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022ModerateUsersRemaininginShelter 90 89 87 85 83 81

ModerateUsersPlacedinTH/RRH 6 6 6 6 6 6

HeavyUsersRemaininginShelter 62 61 59 58 56 55

HeavyUsersPlacedinPSH 11 11 11 11 11 11

AnnualShelterCapacity 100 100 100 100 100 100

TotalShelterDemand 170 167 164 161 158 154

170 167 164 161 158 154

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Num

bero

fShe

lterB

edsU

sed

Solution #1 +

30 New Permanent

Housing Options

(PSH/RRH) each year


•  Uses existing PSH and TH annual vacancies + 10 new PSH units and 20 new RRH slots each year for three years to produce placements.

•  All 190 TH beds for singles are used to support long term placements and only










173161

148

132 126 120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Num

bero

fShe

lterB

edsU

sed

Solution #1 +

60 New Permanent

Housing Options

(PSH/RRH) each year


•  Uses existing PSH and TH annual vacancies + 10 new PSH units and 50 new RRH slots each year for three years to produce placements.

•  All 190 TH beds for singles are used to support long term placements and only










177

156

133

10294

86

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Num

bero

fShe

lterB

edsU

sed

Solution #2: Add Shelter Capacity

Things to Consider:

�  If additional capacity is achieved through the expansion of PSH and RRH, is adding shelter capacity beyond 100 year round beds a good investment? If so, how many shelter beds versus RRH/PSH?

�  Do you think those light users will sleep outside if shelter is not available? How many?

�  If yes, is a formal diversion program a better investment and better for individuals than more shelter beds? Will diversion be enough to keep them from needing shelter or sleeping outside?

�  What could diversion look like?

(2)EmergencyShelter/BridgeBeds/TransiPonalHousing

Design Question:

How does the system want to use emergency shelter?

CoordinatedEntrySystem

Triage Assess Assign Account

Diversion

SupporPveHousing

RapidRehousing

Income&SelfResoluPon

HomelessOutreachTeams

HomelessServiceProviders

HomelessCall

Center

MainstreamSystems

(Jail,Hospitals)

(1)EmergencyShelter

Non-connected

CRITICAL GAPS

Front Door

• Short term stabilization/crisis services � Lack of formal diversion program � Shelter capacity (year round)

CRITICAL GAPS

CES

� Gaps in data quality/combined reporting � Coordinated entry point & approach to services � Common triage/assessment tool � Bridge housing & stabilization services � Lack of physical space for key programs

CRITICAL GAPS

Back Door

� Lack of extended temporary housing options � Transitional/Permanent housing for people not meeting current criteria � Connections to income/employment � Lack permanent, affordable housing units

Next Steps

Annie Bacci, Senior Program Manager [email protected]

Thank You

Boulder Workgroup 2/15/17 Present: Wendy, Robin, Jason, Daphne, Ron, Greg, Mike, Isabel, Bill, Kurt, Barb, Karen, Elizabeth, Claire, Jim Annie – introductions and thank you to those who have been working between meetings Annie – Agenda review, today’s goal & project timeline Big items that we will be working on: 1.) Where does emergency shelter sit 2.) Where do day services sit 3.) Operations Level – Coordinated Entry System (CES) – how do people get assessed Sub-groups will include: 1.) Shelter Sub Group 2.) Data integration subgroup; These will meet after CES design lab By March 13th we will have a draft proposal to review the group. Revisiting Unit Projections:

Jason met with Annie – review projections, square local data, gap the community feels exists with using PIT data. Previous local data shows 2300, when PIT data shows 1600. Feel like we have got stuck on the gap between these two numbers. CSH brings national level perspective and tools to adjust our community to manage a series of solutions moving forward with local tools.

o Why couldn’t we use our numbers? Slide one – pop break down Boulder only has data set with individuals not data on families

or who is homeless/chronic. It is much less about the actual #s, it is more about the

percentage. These figures are less critical on the front end, but how we

model things down stream. By starting with the PIT two things emerge:

Start with a model that is a degree of confidence Then we will readjust the model periodically with

cleaner and cleaner data Looking at things this way – chronic vs. homeless it gives us a

good starting point. Community has concerns about the PIT, but we only use this as

a starting point and add local data as we go on. We have already started combining the local data with PIT

data. o Question: how can we use local data with PIT data

We are already doing that and it will continue to be updated. The analysis never is completed.

o Then multiplier is used to annualize, which also includes local data. o Using percentages will help us to apply local data because providers

have many data points available in % for the numbers they serve. Mental health, vets, etc.

o Having a framework does not preclude us from adapting Break down is important

o Unit projections revisited: There is a lot of rapid rehousing in the community Use a 30% factor here to adjust Follow up with County on RRH and PSH numbers that need to

adjusted in new projections. o Pie chart review

Largest piece to the pie is diversion individuals This is what gets you to your redesigned system – where we

want to go by percentage This looks different than resources that we have now

Where would we put a bucket for things yet to be created? Congregate living, etc.?

We need to do some digging in the 80 % - there will be a top end of that – people that will not even use the shelter. The community mapping data that you have will show you how to address the people who are not fitting into the box of interventions that we have.

We use this as a starting point and collect the data we need to moving forward.

We have a diversion strategy for people now “we have nothing for you” but more often than not we have a group of 300 that keep showing up.

Let’s define diversion – from a housing standpoint – this is a specific and lengthy intake, following best practices, that we use to intentionally divert people out f the system.

We need to be more intentional. o Boulder – Shelter Scenarios –

Challenge – 20% of single individuals will need a housing intervention and/or a temporary bed

Heard a lot around the table that we want to calibrate the system to serve those that are the highest need and the desire to hold them in the system until they get to the intervention that they need.

525 people are moderate or heavy users of homeless emergency services of adult providers – build a shelter

system that gets that serving the highest need individuals.

20% are consuming 80% of the resources. A needs based assessment would be creating 2400 beds

for people, rather than thinking about a system that prioritizes serving the 525 highest users.

Key points: annual demand for heavy and moderate users. Assumption is that these all need to be navigated towards PSH. Moderate users should be directed to a short-term housing option like transitional, rather than staying in the shelter the whole time.

o We need to do some work to better understand the 80%. We have some data because 70% have done welcome meetings.

Solution #1 – not included BOHO because these are not a stable part of the system moving forward.

o 100 year-round program-based shelter beds in order to hang on to people who are already using services and need intentional help for resolution/placement.

o Use existing PSH and TH annual vacancies to produce placement. Being intentional about the use of each intervention.

o Inflow of about 20 individuals o This is adding no new permanent housing into

the system Shifting the use of shelter beds to be more

intentional Over time the demand for shelter beds

goes down. 70 bed gap that shrinks over time to 54

beds The assumption is that the TH beds will

now go to shelter pop Has this been divided by family vs

individuals We may nee do look at turn over

rate Solution #1 + adding 30 new PH options. Same gap

through 2017 Solution #1+ 60 new PH We will have to continue to test the data with local data BOHO capacity – is there a ramp-down and how does

that look? Would 20% of BOHO capacity be the goal? This is hard to think about given our current system

o Did you run this with more transitional housing beds?

o Yes, the demand for shelter decreases significantly

o Program-based beds, rather than shelter beds o This will drive the day service conversation o Will this get us to the redesigned system that we

intended? o Is expansion of PSH and PH housing a better

investment? Yes o One important reason we are here – figure out

how to address the 80% of people that will end up on the street. Hard to answer questions about capacity needed beyond 100 beds, and who would still be on the street, if we don’t understand that.

How do we redesign a system that responds most appropriately to the 80% of people

Overtime, we can create capacity to serve some of the lighter touch users if that is plan

CES design lab will help us look at that

This is assuming a fixed rate of homelessness?

There is a 5% return to homelessness

We may see decrease in resources over the next few years due to federal policy

We need to discuss year-round program-based shelter because this model assumes more year-round beds and that’s new to us.

What health and safety responses need to be targeted differently?

It is hard when we do not have exit data

o To really dig into the 80% can we see who is light users in 2015 to heavy users

o We have looked at data for people in terms of touches

Vets, women, etc. We can look at all.

o Can we convene a sub – group to look at data for 80% between now and next meeting? ** Annie to follow up with Jason, Isabel, Greg.

o This information is overly complex, simple system description without exact numbers was helpful.

o Program-based system makes sense. Shelter makes sense as an immediate

solution, self resolution can happen if people are able to stay. Some elements of our system keep people from self resolving - lack of stability

People need to have a card that they can use at every service – like swipe card

How does the system want to use emergency shelter? Revisit the map we developed together Rapid gaps exercise

o Front, inside and back door Front:

Short term stabilization/crisis services

Lack of formal diversion program Shelter capacity (year round)

o *** UPDATE SLIDE TO BE CALLED EMERGENCY SHELTER Capacity

Inside Gaps in data quality/combined

reporting Coordinated entry point &

approach to services Common triage/assessment tool Bridge housing & stabilization

services Lack of physical space for key

programs Back Door

Lack of extended temporary housing options

Transitional/Permanent housing for people not meeting current criteria

Connections to income/employment

Lack permanent, affordable housing units

o *****ADD PSH to back door slide

Challenges of where off-ramps are for RRH and TH

o Heather (CSH) – Coordinated entry is the glue that keeps it all together.

Process for Lab Map Current Systems

o What are challenges? What works? What doesn’t work?

o Then redesign system o End of work session = work plan for Boulder to

walk through afterwards. o For homework – complete questionnaire from

Heather about current system. Orienting our system toward housing and housing stability

Match resources with need Remove barriers Coordinating and simplify access

o Will look at VI-SPDAT and Housing panel o MHDI – we need a prep call with MHDI to converge all conversations o Diversion where is this in Houston CES model?

Diversion is not listed here because people self resolve Waitlist if someone has not received a service in 90 days within

the system, then they are dropped from the list. Repeat participants in the system

Homework – Annie will update the google drive in red for who should complete what and will send an email to group on who should

Documents

Time Topic Notes - Boulder, Colorado Topic Notes 2:15- 2:20 Welcome & introductions Opening Remarks (Annie) ... Annual demand for ES is 71 Heavy users + 454 Moderates = 525 2