150 likes | 167 Views
The draft report by Greg Hessel at ReGeneration Resources discusses data-driven coordination recommendations to improve housing system efficiency. Recommendations include innovative off-ramps, data analysis for resource gaps, and enhancing trust for better decision-making.
E N D
Coordinated Entry Assessment: Draft Report Greg Hessel ReGeneration Resources Greg@RegenerationResources.org
The Context • A Cultural Artifact • Why? • Risk Aversion? • Lack of Trust?
The Intent of Coordinated Entry • Improve Coordination • Better data will lead to better decisions
Better Data leads to Better Decisions • Find someone to mine the data • Develop and run new reports • Look at trends over time • Work to improve data quality • 50% of the reason for exit is blank • 63% of the Phase fields are blank • Determine how you measure success (BoS is having this conversation currently) and develop a dashboard to track success • Look at data element differences with BoS and when possible align them.
Project Goals: Identify resource gaps in the system • Disclaimer: The better the data, the better the recommendations • Housing vouchers and subsidy gaps definitely exist in the system (i.e. 14 exited through the PSH pathway while 115 chronic are on the Master List) • Recommendation: Create more diverse off ramps—Experiment, try new ideas • Expanded landlord liaison (landlord guarantees) • Pilot a program for matching people with housemates and giving support • Incentives for homeowners to create apartments to increase overall stock • Increase data analysis to find out more specifically who is getting bottlenecked in the system
Project Goals: Identify resource gaps in the system—Housing Navigators • Everyone seems to be getting into the system relatively quickly without wait • However, • More housing navigators would most likely decrease time to Phase III • More housing navigators would probably decrease the number of consumers who drop out of the system • If more people entered through screenings, more housing navigators would be needed • Greatest need seems to be at CVOEO where hours/client/navigator is about 65% of that at COTS and 50% of Safe Harbor.
Project Goals: Identify resource gaps in the system—Retention Workers • Adding a question on exit (“Has retention services?”) would allow you to track the success of housing retention services. Better data could justify funding • Currently there is no agreed upon definition of “housing retention services”, so it is hard to compare the work of different agencies • Safe Harbor recently lost a 24/week position and their lone retention worker has a caseload of almost 40, which seems high • Some consumers who could benefit from housing retention services are currently not receiving them due to a lack of capacity
Project Goal—Identify place to improve efficiency in the system • Only 27% of those who enter the system through a screening are entered on the Master List—find out why • There seem to be great opportunities for increased efficiency with greater participation from housing providers. Specifically, handoffs between navigators and BHA seem to involve a lot of back and forth and miscommunication and there is no transparent list of housing resources available, among other issues
Project Goal-- Explore the potential lack of equity in the system • Reframe and normalize “inequity” • Explore how each organization balances their own internal needs (and the need for flexibility in serving consumers) with participating in the standardized CE system equitably • Recommendation: • Build Trust • Identify the real issues and barriers and partner with organizations to problem solve and move forward together
Consumer Feedback • Overall satisfaction with the process of finding a home, 7.1 (1-10) • 47% process mostly fair, 35% process mostly unfair • Most knew their next step, but one consumer compared it to getting out of a corn maze • One desire—”One Stop Shopping” or more coordination • There was some frustration with the inability to find “affordable” housing and therefore a little bit of “so what” regarding CE • Regarding ways for consumers to have ongoing feedback into the process—hard to due to the power dynamic but if there is trust they will tell the housing navigator
Consumer Recommendations • Work to continue to increase a client-centric focus • Consider asking all new clients, “Tell me about the best case management you ever had and why it was excellent.” • “What do you need from me to insure I am meeting your needs?” • And, “What could we do better?”
Summary of Recommendations • Build trust to increase buy-in and the pace of decision making • Normalize different levels of buy-in • Problem solve to increase buy-in • Clarify the role of building (and sometimes rebuilding) relationships • Hold facilitated meetings with housing providers to try to get them to the table • Experiment with new off ramps, especially for PSH • Work to improve, and mine, your data