1 / 22

Client-level Analysis of Emergency Shelters: 1996-2006 Columbus and Franklin County, Ohio

Client-level Analysis of Emergency Shelters: 1996-2006 Columbus and Franklin County, Ohio. RLUS Steering Committee Presentation December 5, 2006. Prepared for the Rebuilding Lives Updated Strategy Steering Committee Prepared by

andren
Download Presentation

Client-level Analysis of Emergency Shelters: 1996-2006 Columbus and Franklin County, Ohio

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Client-level Analysis of Emergency Shelters: 1996-2006Columbus and Franklin County, Ohio RLUS Steering Committee Presentation December 5, 2006

  2. Prepared for the Rebuilding Lives Updated Strategy Steering Committee Prepared by Stephen Metraux, Ph.D. – University of the Sciences in Philadelphia Dennis P. Culhane, Ph.D. – University of Pennsylvania

  3. Goals Understand shelter utilization (families and singles) dynamics from 1996 to 2005, including: • Trends over time in shelter use (average daily census, prevalence, length of shelter stays) • Relationships between shelter exits & housing placements • Population Demographics • “Churning” analyses - family shelters today (& single adults in February)

  4. Data Sources • Two administrative data sets: • “legacy” data – 1990-2001 • HMIS data – 2003-present

  5. Average Daily Census – Single Adults • Males • substantial seasonal fluctuation • overall increasing trend in Legacy period (1996-2001) • marked decrease 1999-2001 co-occurring with increases in supportive housing placements • overall “flat” trend for HMIS period (2003-2006) • Females • less seasonal fluctuation • smaller bed capacity • steady increase in Average Daily Census in both Legacy & HMIS periods

  6. ADC for Single Adult Households

  7. Average Daily Census - Families • substantial seasonal fluctuation • overall declining trend in Legacy period (1996-2001) • diversion policies in family shelters adopted in 1999 co-occur with decreased Average Daily Census • overall “flat” trend for HMIS period (2003-2006) • size of families households appear to increase over time during HMIS period

  8. Average Daily Census for Family Households

  9. “Front Door” & “Back Door” Dynamics • “Front Door” (i.e., changes in entries to shelter) • “Back Door” (i.e., changes in exits from shelter)

  10. Shelter Exits, Housing, & Shelter Return • Exits from shelter to housing following successful program completion: • Families – 57% • Single Adults – Males 15%; Females 31% • Repeat shelter stay subsequent to shelter exit: • Families – 10% • Single Adults – Males 37%; Females 26%

  11. Shelter Exits, Housing, & Shelter Return – Regression Findings • The longer the shelter episode, the higher the odds for a household (single adult or family) to exit to a housing placement; • Income increases the odds of receiving a housing placement upon exit, wages increased odds 5-fold. • Housing placement was strongest factor in reducing the hazards of repeat shelter stay • Among families, repeat shelter stays are a relatively rare event.

  12. Single Adult Demographics – Annual Prevalence and % Male

  13. Single Adult Demographics – Median Age

  14. Single Adult Demographics – Race & Ethnicity

  15. Family Demographics – Annual Prevalence & Percent Male

  16. Family Demographics – Median Age

  17. Demographics of Sheltered Population – Family Households #3

  18. Other Characteristics of Sheltered Family Households

  19. Movement Across Shelters Within Episodes - Families Out of 2,175 different shelter episodes, 589 (27.1%) episodes involved two shelters; and 13 (0.6%) involved 3 shelters. 97.1% of the shelter episodes – all but 63 of all the episodes – originated at the YIHN program; all but four multiple shelter episodes originated at YIHN.

  20. Next Steps • Cluster analysis • Income patterns • Integrate inventory findings with utilization findings • Intra-episode movement analysis for single adults

  21. Questions or Comments? Contact: Stephen Metraux, Ph.D. Department of Health Policy and Public Health University of the Sciences in Philadelphia 600 South 43rd Street Philadelphia PA 19104-4495 Tel: (215) 596-7612 Fax: (215) 596-7614 Email: s.metraux@usip.edu

More Related