FY2011 ESG – A UNIQUE YEAR!

Emergency Solutions GrantRapid Re-housing ProgramIndiana Balance of State Continuum of CareApplication Overview FY2011 and FY2012April 24, 2012

FY2011 ESG – A UNIQUE YEAR! ESG FY12 awarded July 2011 July/Aug 2012 April 2012 June 2012 December 2011

ESG - FY2011: A UNIQUE SITUATION Round 1: Emergency Shelter Grant Allocation: FY2011 (Round 1): $2.017 million Awarded 55 emergency shelters & transitional housing in August 2011 Avg. Award: $36,156 (max.: $50,000/ $25,000 new applicants) Activities Funded for 7/1/11-6/30/12: • Operations (74%) • Essential Services (18%) • Homeless Prevention (very short-term, limited use) (3%) • Administration (IHCDA only- 5%)

HEARTH ACT OVERVIEW HOMELESS EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE AND RAPID TRANSITION TO HOUSING ACT President Obama signed into law May 20, 2009. Consolidates and amends 3 separate homeless assistance programs under title IV of McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act into a single grant program designed to: • Revise Emergency Shelter Grant and rename to Emergency Solutions Grant • Improve administrative efficiency and enhance response coordination and effectiveness in addressing the needs of homeless persons • Codifies into law and enhances the Continuum of Care planning process • Revise definitions of “homeless” and “homeless person with a disability” HUD released Rules and Regulations 11/15/11, along with amended homeless definition regulations

ROUND 2 ESG FY2011: RAPID RE-HOUSING • Allocation Amount FY2011 (Round 2): $1,244,892.55 • Allocation Amount FY 2012: Amount not known • Avg. Award: $325,000-$400,000 • Awards: 3 with FY2011 funds, 3 with FY2012 funds • Award Term: 18 months from start date (July 2012, and est. August 2012) • Activities funded: • Rapid Re-housing • Housing Relocation & Stabilization Services • Rental Assistance • HMIS • Administration

FY2011 ALLOCATIONS AND ACTIVITIES Rapid Re-housing • Housing Relocation & Stabilization Services • Rental Assistance HMIS Administration Operations Essential Services Homeless Prevention Administration Total FY Allocation=$3,151,608.00

HPRP VS. ESG

KEY DIFFERENCES OF ESG I-HOPE not used as eligibility tool, but referral tool. Use to screen in, not screen out Housing locators as central component to program design MOU's with all shelters & TH in service area You define the service area Arizona Self Sufficiency Matrix used in HMIS Outreach plan for reaching unsheltered homeless Concerns about tenants being able to sustain housing should be addressed through program design rather than by screening people out of assistance.

WHY IS STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENT & COORDINATED ENTRY IMPORTANT? Sends households to intervention of best fit from the start Provides system-wide prevention, diversion and rapid re-housing opportunities Client-centric not program-centric Improves system efficiency Fosters more collaboration among providers Improves ability to perform well on HEARTH outcomes ESG mandate Source: "Coordinated Assessment: The Basics, Center for Capacity Building, National Alliance to End Homelessness - http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4529

QUALITIES OF A GOOD REFERRAL SYSTEM Accurate: Matches client needs Informed: Matches facility availability Effective: Provider accepts and enrolls Standard: One process, all clients and services Comprehensive: all funder and provider fields Digital: Uses HMIS, two-way communication Mandatory: Every provider, all the time Source: "Coordinated Assessment: The Basics, Center for Capacity Building, National Alliance to End Homelessness, http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4529

VARIOUS MODELS, STANDARDIZED PROCESS Single Point of Access Multi-Site Coordinated No Wrong Door 2-1-1 Assessment Hotline

Flowchart Standardized Access and Assessment Coordinated Referral Access Assessment Assign Mainstream Services Source: Matt White, Apt Associates US Interagency Council on Homeless Webinar: Coordinated Assessment Webinar. 3/20/12 http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4529

Source: "Coordinated Assessment: The Basics, Center for Capacity Building, National Alliance to End Homelessness http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4529

2-1-1 2-1-1 PLACES: MEMPHIS/SHELBY COUNTY, TN; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MD; ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA PROS: ACCESSIBILITY; EASY LINKAGES TO OTHER MAINSTREAM RESOURCES; REDUCES IN-PERSON CLIENTS CONS: UNABLE TO DEAL WITH CRISIS SITUATIONS FACE-TO-FACE; INCREASED CHANCE OF INCONSISTENCY INTAKE CENTER SHELTER DIVERSION MAINSTREAM RESOURCES Source: "Coordinated Assessment: The Basics, Center for Capacity Building, National Alliance to End Homelessness http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4529

DECENTRALIZED INTAKE PLACES: MONTGOMERY COUNTY/DAYTON, OH; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD PROS: EASIER TO HANDLE LARGER NUMBERS OF CLIENTS; MORE ACCESSIBILITY; MAY INCREASE PROVIDER COMFORT LEVEL CONS: LESS CONTROL AND CONSISTENCY; MAY BE MORE COSTLY DUE TO INCREASED SPACE/STAFF DEMANDS INTAKE POINT #1 INTAKE POINT #2 INTAKE POINT #3 Source: "Coordinated Assessment: The Basics, Center for Capacity Building, National Alliance to End Homelessness http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4529

CENTRALIZED INTAKE PLACES: COLUMBUS, OH; GRAND RAPIDS, MI; HENNEPIN COUNTY/MINNEAPOLIS, MN PROS: LESS TRAINING TIME NEEDED; MORE LIKELY TO BE CONSISTENT PROCESS; NEED LESS STAFF CONS: ONE LOCATION MAY NOT BE EQUALLY ACCESSIBLE TO ALL; HIGH VOLUME SINGLE INTAKE CENTER/SHELTER (MAY BE ONE PLACE FOR EACH POPULATION) Source: "Coordinated Assessment: The Basics, Center for Capacity Building, National Alliance to End Homelessness http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4529

Heather Presley-Cowen, City of Fort Wayne Deputy Director, Community Development

CITY OF FT. WAYNE- FOR RENT PROGRAM

ADDITIONAL PLANNING QUESTIONS INDIVIDUAL SUBPOPULATION NEEDS CO-LOCATION WITH OTHER CRUCIAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY SIZE OF GEOGRAPHIC AREA DISTANCE FROM OTHER PROVIDERS Source: "Coordinated Assessment: The Basics, Center for Capacity Building, National Alliance to End Homelessness, http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4529

RAPID RE-HOUSING TIMELINE & IMPLEMENTATION

ESG RAPID RE-HOUSING RFP & APPLICATION FORMS Threshold Criteria (6) Other Requirements: • Entitlement City Collaboration, if applicable • Match • I-HOPE & Centralized access plan • HMIS • Defined Outreach plan – to unsheltered homeless • Defined Shelter coordination / MOU’s Homeless Definition Activities Claims-monthly Performance Objectives – 3 program, 2 system-wide Section 811

Additional Resources HUD Homeless Resource Exchange 1) HEARTH Act: http://www.hudhre.info/documents/HEARTH_ESGInterimRule&ConPlanConformingAmendments.pdf ; ESG regulations begin on pg. 75974 HUD ESG: http://www.hudhre.info/esg/ United States Interagency Council on Homelessness 1) Retooling Crisis Response Systems http://www.usich.gov/usich_resources/toolkits_for_local_action/retooling_crisis_response/ 2) Retooling the Homeless Response System http://www.usich.gov/usich_resources/videos_and_webinars/retooling_the_homeless_crisis_response_system/ National Alliance to End Homelessness: 1) ESG Resources: Understanding and Implementing the Interim Rule http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4318 2) Coordinated Assessment Toolkit: http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4514 Rapid Re-housing Triage Tool http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4515 4) Coordinated Entry: The Basics http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4511

SUBMITTING THE PROPOSAL Due by Friday, May 18th, 5pm EDT @ IHCDA office Submit one hard copy and one electronic to Kelli Barker (kbarker@ihcda.in.gov) Exhibits, Attachments, Signature Page Questions- Send to Kelli Barker by e-mail. Limited responses will be provide.

FY2011 ESG – A UNIQUE YEAR!