goodwill education and training center 700 dearborn place s...

Coordinating Board Agenda July 5, 2017

Goodwill Education and Training Center

(301A&301B)

700 Dearborn Place S

Seattle, WA 98144

The All Home Strategic Plan commits to reducing racial disparities of those experiencing homelessness. Nearly two thirds of people experiencing

homelessness are people and families of color. Institutional and systematic racism contributes to the oppression of people of color, creating

inequity, poverty and in some cases, homelessness. Success in reducing racial disparities and creating effective systems both for a dignified

emergency response and housing, will require bold action and shared accountability. This commitment will include the proactive reinforcement of

policies, practices, attitudes and actions to produce equitable power, access, opportunities, treatment, impacts and outcomes for all.

11 – 1 Pre-Meeting with YAB

• Review of Youth Homelessness Demonstration Project plan, with focus on

projects that required further conversation from last meeting

• Coordinating Board will be joined by the Youth Advisory Board and DSHS

Children’s Administration

Result: Coordinating Board, Children’s Administration, and Youth Advisory Board

approves projects and plan to be submitted to HUD on July 13

Sara (with support in facilitation

by staff)

LUNCH provided

BREAK

1:30 Welcome & Introductions Sara

1:35 Public Comment Sara

1:40 Director’s Report

- Quarterly data and System Performance Committee discussions

- Coordinating Board Racial Equity retreat and Next Steps

Mark

2:00 Continuum of Care application

- Values/Priorities and Role of CB this year

- Background/Past Years Drivers for Ranking Decisions and Process

- Score from last year

- Reading the tea-leaves around Application (assuming it is not yet released)

Result: Coordinating Board approves values and priorities for 2017 competition and

understands the process for compiling the application

Mark

Kate Speltz, Eileen Denham

2:30 Adjourn

Next meeting: Wednesday, August 2, 2:00 to 4:00 pm (location: DESC – 515 3rd Ave)

Materials: http://allhomekc.org/committees/coordinating-board/#fndtn-materials

Board Member

Accountability for Strategic

Plan Goals and Action Steps

Goal

Strategy Board Member

1: Rare 1.1 Prevention of loss of housing and system exits to homelessness Giovengo

McHenry

Quinn

Malone

Lester

Abdulle

McDermott

1.2 Affordable Housing development and preservation (local, state

and federal)

Walker

Lofton

Quinn

Malone

Backus

1.3 Sentencing Alternatives McDermott Quinn

2: Brief/1-Time 2.1 Shelter Diversion/Encampments/Vehicles/Shelter Lester

Quinn

Levin

Malone

Giovengo

2.2 Laws and City coordination of outreach to people who are

experiencing homelessness

Chelminiak

Lester/Walker

Backus

2.3 Assess, prioritize, and connect people with housing Quinn

Levin

Lester

Deal

McHenry

Malone

Giovengo

2.4 Right-size housing and supports to meet needs Lester

Quinn

Levin

McHenry

Walker

Malone

Backus

Giovengo

Deal

McDermott

2.5 Access to existing permanent housing Lofton

Walker

Quinn

McDermott

2.6 Employment and education opportunities Sebron

Giovengo

Levin

McDermott

Quinn

3: Community 3.1 Public awareness and active engagement, including business

and faith

Backus

McDermott

Levin

3.2 Effective and accountable leadership McHenry/Levin

3.3 Engagement of people who have experienced homelessness Yafali Sebron

4: RESJ 4.1 Fair housing and screening criteria Malone

Walker

Giovengo

McHenry

4.2 Funding and programs addressing disparities Levin

Lester

Quinn

Giovengo

Abdulle

4.3 Awareness, training, racial impact policy reviews Abdulle

Lester

Quinn

JANUARY (1/4 @United Way)

� Orientation and 2017 Action Planning

� Count Us In (1/27)

JULY (7/12 @Solid Ground/Wallingford)

� Youth 100-Day challenge (end)

� Quarterly data and CEA review

� NAEH conference/DC (7/24-28)

FEBRUARY (2/2 @State Legislature)

� 2017 Action Planning

� State Advocacy Day events (2/2)

AUGUST (8/2 @DESC -515 3rd)

� Continuum of Care application (TBD)

MARCH (3/1 @City of Seattle)


� State Policy

� Local levies

SEPTEMBER (9/6@ @King Co./Chinook, Room 115)


� Point In Time Count planning

APRIL (4/5 @City of Bellevue)

� Develop federal agenda

� Youth 100-Day Challenge (begin)

OCTOBER (10/4 @ SYFC - 1229 W Smith St Kent)

� Local budget comment/letters

� Develop state agenda

MAY (5/3 @City of Auburn)

� Race/Equity retreat prep

� Youth HUD Grant – review initial strategies

� Prevention and Diversion

NOVEMBER (11/1 @ Chief Seattle Club, Gathering Circle

Room)

� 2018 Action Planning

JUNE (6/14 @ Youngstown Cultural Arts Center)

� Annual Conference

� Count Us In data review

� Youth HUD Grant – approve plan

DECEMBER (12/6 @ TBD)


Youth Homelessness Demonstration Project (YHDP) Meeting Agenda July 5, 2017, 11:00am-1:00pm Goodwill Education and Training Center (301A&301B) 700 Dearborn Place S Seattle, WA 98144 (Bus Routes: 7, 9, 106, 630)

Our YHDP Vision

Our vision is that youth and young adult (YYA) homelessness is rare in King County, disparities related to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity are eliminated, and if an individual becomes homeless, it is brief and only a one-time occurrence.

In addition, all YYA who do experience homelessness will receive developmentally appropriate services and achieve positive outcomes in the areas of stable housing, social and emotional well-being, permanent connections, and education and employment.

Meeting Result: The Youth Advisory Board, Children’s Administration, and All Home Coordinating Board approves projects and plan

to be submitted to HUD on July 13

11:00am Welcome & Introductions Michelle Valdez

11:10am YHDP Coordinated Community Plan

Purpose & goal of meeting

Review of Youth Homelessness Demonstration Project Proposals and Materials - with focus and discussion on projects that required further clarifications or updates from last meeting

Michelle Valdez

11:30am Review Required Elements of Coordinated Community Plan

Statement of Need

Shared vision, goals, objectives and action steps

List of YHDP projects

Governance Structure

Plan for Continuous Quality Improvement

Michelle Valdez

11:50am Discussion of Proposed Projects and Prioritization for use of the $5.4M YHDP funding Result: The Youth Advisory Board, Children’s Administration, and All Home Coordinating Board approves projects and plan to be submitted to HUD on July 13th

All

1:00pm Adjourn

June 28, 2017

Seattle-King CoC: Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Revised Project Proposals & Required Components

Of the YHDP Coordinated Community Plan

Important Information about the attached packet:

The following pages include information that needs to be approved by the joint decision-makers (Youth Advisory

Board, Coordinating Board, and Children’s Administration) as part of the required components of the YHDP

Coordinated Community Plan (the Plan). Below is an overview of what we are asking of you and a description of

what is included in the packet.

Required Components of the Plan include:

Statement of Need

Shared vision, list of goals & objectives, and action steps

List of YHDP projects, including those to be funded by HUD

Governance structure, including organizational chart

A Plan for Continuous Quality Improvement

What we are asking you:

At this meeting, we will bring all of the required signers/decision-making entities together to review and come to a

consensus for final decision and approval of the required core components of the Plan including the project list

and budget.

In preparation for the meeting, please review the attached materials and consider the following:

Based on the revisions, does this change your rank order of projects?

Based on your review of the updated proposals, does this change your thinking on which proposals MUST

be included in the $5.4m budget?

If the decision is made to fund all the proposals, how would you recommend we modify budgets to fit

within that budget?

Attached is a packet of information that includes:

Page 1-3: Highlighted changes to proposals, based on the questions and feedback we received from you.

Additional background information to help support the proposals

Page 4-5: Updated summary of the budget with all proposals included and most recent rankings (from all

decision-makers)

Page 6-11: Additional components of the Plan:

-The vision statement, goals/objectives, & action steps

-Governance Structure

-Continuous Learning/Evaluation plans developed through the workgroups and the Planning Team

Page 12-14: Statement of Need:

Youth and Young Adult Annual Flow

Under 18 Annual Flow

Example Scenario Planning Tool to help model possible system outcomes

In a separate attachment, for your reference, you will find descriptions for all 9 project proposals (same ones you

received last month), including the revised proposals.

YHDP Project Proposal Revisions

1) School House Partnership Pilot

Key Changes: The key change in content/positioning is the updated budget and a refined scope to focus

on unaccompanied youth only and explicit connections with the RRH, Diversion, and Youth Engagement

Team proposals. The two-year ask is now just under $400k (versus $306k for the original unaccompanied

minor portion) and is focused on unaccompanied students only.

2) Increase Behavioral Health/CCORS Expansion to Runaway Homeless Youth and Young Adult (RHYYA)

Housing Providers

Key changes: Changed the name of the proposal to Behavioral Health Respite Beds

Clarified that the funds would be used for operations and services at existing facilities and beds with a

shift in purpose to support the respite needs for youth in crisis. This would supplement and support the

mobile behavioral health team, not directly fund the mobile staff.

3) Revamped Drop-in/Mobile Team

Key Changes: Modified to clarify that this would be a mobile outreach team providing full and

comprehensive services to create many opportunities for youth to get connected to services more quickly

and more appropriately; services would include both basic needs and navigation to housing opportunities

based on youth choice.

Teams would be deployed to geographic areas that are service deserts

Mobile team would serve youth with an extremely low barrier approach (for example, those that are

actively using substances would be engaged in services, rather than screened out)

Teams would be staffed and available during hours that most service agencies are not (i.e. after 5pm)

Mobile team would have access to flexible funds to use prevention and diversion strategies when

possible; Funding would also contribute to basic need boxes around the city/county where youth can

access an array of basic survival supplies as needed

Staffing: hiring formerly homeless/unstably housed YYA

Added in a budget of Approximately $3,000-$5,000 per person served (assumes a case manager

salary/fringe of $60,000/25 youth served per year + $1,000 for flexible funds/box supplies- can play

around with this calculation based on caseload size and/or amount of estimated flexible funds per person)

4) Tiny Home Village

Key Changes: Revised the proposal to clarify that YHDP funding would be used to purchase lots of vacant

land to foster self-sustaining tiny home communities (lots would be about 50-75 yards) with

approximately 40 tiny houses per lot that would include:

Physical mailing addresses for residents (not PO Boxes)

Skills and vocational jobs training (construction of a tiny home, electrical wiring of a tiny home,

plumbing, property management, accounting, etc.)

Availability for young families

Community partnerships to provide robust wraparound services

Type of Project: TH or PSH to acquire land; could consider doing a blended Transitional housing

and RRH project together with a waiver; TH dollars could get you operating costs for the land, and

RRH dollars could get you move out costs for those transitioning from the tiny home to a new

permanent home.

o Waivers will depend on the project type decided above

Additional Context/Background information Note: The following information is intended to provide additional context and information about existing

services/programs related to proposed projects based on questions and feedback from the YAB and/or

Coordinating Board members.

Redesigned Landlord Liaison Project Underway (formerly operated by YWCA) About Landlord Liaison Project (LLP):

LLP is a collaborative partnership between property managers and service providers that helps people leave

homelessness and succeed in private market and nonprofit housing. LLP serves households who are able to pay

rent, but have barriers to accessing housing.

LLP has housed more than 7,000 women, men, and children in King County since the program launched in 2009.

LLP is funded by King County, the City of Seattle, and the United Way of King County.

As of July 1, 2017, King County is serving as the interim operator of the Landlord Liaison Project (LLP) and will

provide services to existing partners.

King County, the City of Seattle, and United Way of King County are continuing efforts to initiate a new program

that supports property owners/managers to help address homelessness by housing individuals and families. The

redesigned program will have a “business to business” model to increase access to housing through strengthened

landlord engagement.

Existing and projected budgets for the new LLP program includes:

Program Staffing (with an emphasis on developing and maintaining relationships with property owners)

Rent Guarantees and Risk Mitigation/Incentive funds to secure partnerships with property owners and

maintain access to rental units

Current YYA Rapid Rehousing Background context on current project:

Current spending level:

If agencies continue spending at their current average amounts through the end of the grant (July 31st) the consortium will have spent approx. 60% of the HUD/match funding in its first year of operation.

This spending is in line with other HUD RRH program first years. Next year we expect to spend all funding as we will enter the contract year at full capacity.

How many YYA enrolled? Active? Identified Housing?

70 young adults enrolled total - o 61 active young adults = 56 young people currently housed with 5 young people in the housing

search phase of the program o 9 exits from the program

Currently we are housing young adults within 41 days of enrollment in to the program.

Other Notes:

The Seattle/King County RRH YA program has housed 24 young people in roommate situations for a total of 12 units

Program landlord incentive info: o 12 month lease –can include a mutual termination clause o Grant can provide application fees, first and last months’ rent, security deposit, utility deposit, unit

damages, & vacancy payment

YHDP Budget - Based on all current Project ProposalsBelow is a summary of budgets for each proposal as written into the proposal as well as the summary of rankings from each decision-making body and estimated impacts based on best available data

Project

Two-Year BudgetYouth Advisory

Board Rankings

Children's

Administration

Rankings

Coordinating

Board Rankings

Average Ranking from

ALL decision-makers

(6.23.17)

Number of YYA Served

(two years)

Impact on Inflow, Outflow, and number of Actively

Homeless

(assuming system performance improvements also

take place)

Pilot Bridge Housing Model 1,088,000 2 3 2 2.3 146

Reduces the number of actively homeless YYA by

170 within the 2 years through increased PH exits

Increase Capacity of YYA Navigation and

Diversion 1,480,000 4 6 1 3.7

Navigation - 800

Diversion - 1,200

Reduce inflow by 480 annually, reaching functional

zero more than a year ahead of base (Based on

recent data that 80% of YYA enrolled in Diversion

successfully exit to PH)

Revamped Drop-In Centers $150,000 4 2 9 5 50

Likely reduction of inflow/increase of PH exits due

to increase support and connections.

Expand RRH for YYA 1,200,000 8 1 6 5 64

Reduces the number of actively homeless YYA by 74

within the 2 years through increased PH exits

Landlord Liaising Incentivizing $1,024,000 1 8 7 5.3 300

Increases access to housing opportunities to

support shorter lengths of stay in programs like TH

and RRH. Decreasing the length of stay in TH and

RRH by 10% would reduce the number of actively

homeless YYA in 2019 by 42%

School-Based Intervention $441,271 7 4 7 6 300

Likely reduction of inflow due/increase of PH exits


Youth Engagement Team $924,000 6 9 4 6.3 336

Likely reduction of inflow due/increase of PH exits


Behavioral Health Respite Beds $255,312 9 5 5 6.3 6

Prevents returns to homelessness for YYA needing

respite support while in crisis.

Multi-Use Site/Tiny Home Village $290,000 3 10 10 7.7 100-150

Provides increased stability and likely stronger

connections to services to support increased PH

exits.

YHDP Planning Project (YAB funding) $60,000

Running Total: $6,912,583

Availlable Budget: $5,422,244

Balance: ($1,490,339)

YHDP Budget Scenarios - Based on all current Project ProposalsBelow is a summary of budgets for each proposal, two possible scenarios to fund proposals within the $5.4M budget, as well as estimated impacts based on best available data

Project

Two-Year Budget

Average Ranking

from ALL decision-

makers (6.23.17)

Scenario 1:

Eliminate Bottom 3

Proposals

Scenario 1: Number

of YYA Served (two

years)

Scenario 2:

Across the Board

Reduction by 21%

Scenario 2: Number

of YYA Served (two

years)

Scenario 2:

Impact on Inflow, Outflow, and number of Actively

Homeless

(assuming system performance improvements also

take place)

Pilot Bridge Housing Model 1,088,000 2.3 1,088,000 146 853,503 115



Increase Capacity of YYA Navigation and

Diversion 1,480,000 3.7 1,480,000

Navigation - 800

Diversion - 1,200 1,160,217

Navigation - 632

Diversion - 948

Reduce inflow by 379 annually, reaching functional

zero more than a year ahead of base (Based on

recent data that 80% of YYA enrolled in Diversion

successfully exit to PH)

Revamped Drop-In Centers $150,000 5 $150,000 50 117,670 39

Likely reduction of inflow/increase of PH exits due to

increase support and connections.

Expand RRH for YYA 1,200,000 5 1,200,000 64 941,364 50



Landlord Liaising Incentivizing $1,024,000 5.3 $1,024,000 300 803,297 237

Increases access to housing opportunities to support

shorter lengths of stay in programs like TH and RRH.

Decreasing the length of stay in TH and RRH by 10%

would reduce the number of actively homeless YYA in

2019 by 42%

School-Based Intervention $441,271 6 $441,271 300 346,163 237

Likely reduction of inflow due/increase of PH exits to


Youth Engagement Team $924,000 6.3 $0 0 724,850 265

Likely reduction of inflow due/increase of PH exits to


Behavioral Health Respite Beds $255,312 6.3 $0 0 200,284 5

Prevents returns to homelessness for YYA needing

respite support while in crisis.

Multi-Use Site/Tiny Home Village $290,000 7.7 $0 0 227,496 79-118

Provides increased stability and likely stronger

connections to services to support increased PH

exits.

YHDP Planning Project (YAB funding) $60,000 $38,973 $47,400

Running Total: $6,912,583 $5,422,244 $5,422,244

Availlable Budget: $5,422,244 $5,422,244 $5,422,244

Balance: ($1,490,339) $0 $0

Additional Components of HUD Coordinated Community Plan

Vision Our vision is that youth and young adult (YYA) homelessness is rare in King County, disparities related to

race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity are eliminated, and if an individual becomes

homeless, it is brief and only a one-time occurrence.

In addition, all YYA who do experience homelessness will receive developmentally appropriate services

and achieve positive outcomes in the areas of stable housing, social and emotional well-being,

permanent connections, and education and employment.

Goals, Objectives and Action Steps System Goal: EQUITY-ELIMINATING DISPARITIES- Youth of color and LGBTQ youth have parity

in access and outcomes when compared with their peers.

Equity Objective 1: All outcomes will be examined based on race, ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual

orientation; success is defined as parity for all populations.

Action steps to achieve objectives/goals

1. Incorporate racial equity measures into by name list data elements and case conferencing

2. Include specific targets in all RFPs and in projects funded

3. Develop strategy/system to measure, collect, analyze, and utilize customer service data

Equity Objective 2: All populations, in particular youth of color, have geographic access to homeless

services (drop-in, emergency shelter, employment/education, and housing)


1. Map YYA homeless services by neighborhood/school area to identify gaps in service, particularly

in low-income communities and communities of color.

2. Engage community to determine need in underserved areas

3. Develop RFP’s for projects in needed areas, once identified

Equity Objective 3: Ensure staff reflect the race, culture, and/or lived experience of the populations they

serve and ensure governance and oversight bodies include youth of color and LGBTQ youth.


1. Establish metrics to track cultural, racial, ethnic, representation of staff

2. Establish strategy to diversify staff and leadership/oversight bodies

3. Measure impact on youth experience of the system by including youth voice in decision-making

and policy review.

Equity Objective 4: Review shelter and housing rules/eligibility standards that could allow for

differential treatment


1. Establish work groups by service types and collectively review the rules/eligibility; ensure these

groups include youth of color with lived experience

2. Issue recommendations to improve rules and actively eliminate those rules that

disproportionately impact youth of color; utilize the learnings and recommendations from the

Youth of Color Needs Assessment

3. Measure customer service and impact on YYA’s experience of the system across all YYA providers

4. Develop a capacity building strategy and provide flexible funding for staff to improve customer

service

System Goals: RARE- The system uses prevention and diversion strategies whenever possible, and

otherwise provides immediate access to low-barrier crisis housing and services to any youth

experiencing homelessness who needs and wants it.

The community coordinates a comprehensive set of strategies, spanning schools, the child welfare

system, the justice system, drop-in centers, crisis lines/2-1-1, and other youth-serving agencies and

programs to identify and provide early intervention services to unaccompanied youth who are doubled

up or couch-surfing and considered homeless under any federal definition.

Rare Objective 1: No unaccompanied young adult are experiencing unsheltered homelessness, with the

rare exception of someone who has been identified and offered low-barrier crisis housing and services,

but who has not yet accepted assistance. The community outreaches to young adults experiencing

unsheltered homelessness that have not yet accepted crisis housing and services, and continues to offer

assistance at least once per week.

Action Steps to Achieve Objective

1. The Youth Engagement Team, School Housing Partnership, and Mobile Teams interventions will

identify unaccompanied homeless minors and ensure they receive appropriate services to

quickly end their housing crisis

2. Increase services for family support including family reunification and kinship care

Rare Objective 2: Unaccompanied youth and young adults are prevented from becoming homeless or

are diverted from entering the homeless housing system whenever possible


1. Increase diversion and prevention resources for YYA through expanded diversion and navigation

2. Develop a YYA system-wide target for percentage of YYA who can be successfully diverted from

crisis response system and more quickly exit to permanent housing

3. Increase respite and family reunification supports

Rare Objective 3: No unaccompanied youth or young adult exit from systems into unsheltered

homelessness.


1. Establish a multi-systems team to ensure tight connections and warm handoffs between the

systems when necessary (YET)

2. Increase identification of homeless students and strengthen prevention and early intervention

efforts in K-12 and post-secondary institutions to more quickly end the crisis of homelessness

for unaccompanied students (SHP pilot)

3. Increase prevention and early intervention services for at-risk or homeless youth interacting

with juvenile justice, child welfare, behavioral or mental health systems.

System Goal: BRIEF- The system acts with urgency to swiftly identify and assist all unaccompanied

homeless youth to move into permanent or non-time-limited housing options with appropriate services

and supports.

Brief Objective 1: Establish a comprehensive By Name List, including processes to update and manage

the list


1. Establish a system-wide policy on the AVG length of time a young person stays on the BNL

before exiting to safe and stable housing (for example, less than 30 days)

2. Establish system wide case conferencing process as part of the BNL to quickly end

homelessness for those on the BNL

Brief Objective 2: Average stay in emergency shelter is less than 30 days


1. Increase acceptance rates and decrease wait times into housing programs from CEA

2. Increase dedicated non-time limited units for youth and young adults experiencing

homelessness

3. Effectively link housing navigation and diversion services to shelters

4. Implement standard service plan and expectations for permanent housing discussions to start at

entry for all services, shelter or transitional housing participants

Brief Objective 3: No unaccompanied youth or young adult seeking basic center services, emergency

shelter, or other homeless housing intervention are turned away unless they can be successfully

diverted to another safe, temporary living environment of their choosing


1. Increase crisis response beds (host homes, kinship care, respite beds)

2. Ensure shelter has standard, low barrier access across the population, with case management

and CEA housing assessments on-site

3. Ensure homeless housing interventions adopt a housing first, low barrier approach and do not

require preconditions to enrollment

Brief Objective 4: All YYA housing programs will meet Seattle/King county system wide performance

standards for length of stay and percentage of exits to permanent housing.

Action Steps from the System to Achieve Objective

1. Establish, track and evaluate continuous improvement and individualized technical assistance

for providers who fail to meet targets for successful exits

2. Provide standardized training for all pre-permanent housing staff, including outreach, housing

navigators, shelter, and transitional housing staff. Include training component on family

mediation to focus on more quickly ending the crisis of homelessness and increasing exits to PH

for unaccompanied youth

3. Provide monthly learning circles for all pre-permanent housing staff, including outreach, housing

navigators, shelter, and transitional housing staff on how to decrease LOS in temporary housing

and increase exits to PH

System Goal: ONE TIME- The system ensures that young people maintain their independence, are

connected to their communities, and do not return to homelessness.

One Time Objective 1: Less than 5% of previously homeless YYA who successfully exit to permanent

housing return to homelessness within 2 years.


1. Assess for improvements in the key youth level outcomes (safe and stable housing, permanent

connections, education/employment, emotional well-being)

2. Establish ongoing supports for formerly homeless youth and young adults focused on linkages to

mainstream resources, emergency assistance, and connections with peer support and

mentorship

One Time Objective 2: Strengthen connections to employment and mainstream youth development

programming


1. Every young person in TH, RRH, PSH or those who successfully exit to PH, should be referred to

employment programs or employment navigators whenever interested

2. Increase number of partnerships with youth development providers

3. Connect youth and young adults to (adult and peer) mentors, schools, and employment

programs

Continuous Improvement Seattle-King County will learn from the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program through ongoing

evaluation and commits to:

Adjusting local funding and programs based on the learnings

Share the findings with other communities and use a quality improvement process (Plan, Do,

Study, Act) to make refinements to local strategies to end youth and young adult homelessness.

The Continuous Learning and Improvement process will: □ Use current data and projections to set baseline outcomes to measure on a quarterly basis

(beginning in Q1 2018)

□ Collect and analyze qualitative data (from YYA, providers, and funders) to evaluate progress or need for refinement/changes (incorporate this as part of the quarterly evaluation) – This will be created with timeline and plan by YAB and Planning Team

□ Review quarterly data and make recommendations to the YHDP decision-makers and/or the

Coordinating Board refinements and future to funding

□ Work with the Youth Advisory Board (YAB) to obtain and incorporate feedback and input from

youth and young adults utilizing the system and receiving services through projects for ongoing

refinement and future program/project design

□ Utilize HUD technical assistance to assess progress in implementing the projects, including

successes, challenges, and progress toward our goals

□ Incorporate the ongoing work of the CoC System Performance Committee to include

quantitative data analysis in their ongoing evaluation efforts and dashboards (we will invite a

YAB to sit on committee) and share findings with local stakeholders through email updates and

YYA stakeholder meetings at least quarterly

□ Establish a learning community environment (through learning circles and/or technology

platforms) amongst providers who are implementing YHDP projects

□ Participate in learning through remote/web-based and in-person forums with other YHDP

communities

□ Work with local and national Technical Assistance firms to provide ongoing support, training

and assistance to organizations implementing YHDP projects

Oversight: □ The YHDP Planning Team (which includes representatives of all the decision-making

bodies - YAB, CA, City of Seattle and King County) will review the data to determine when adjustments are needed based on the regular review of quantitative and qualitative data.

Evaluation will occur on a quarterly basis, however we will wait until 6 months after implementation to make any course-corrections (to allow time for programs to implement and test)

□ Recommendations for project refinements will be proposed by the YHDP Planning Team to the joint decision-making bodies, as needed

Governance Structure

Decision-Making

All Home Coordinating Board -- Who: CoC Board (includes local government)

Role: Approves the Coordinated Community Plan and all project funding.

Youth Advisory Board – Who: Nine Advisory Board members recruited through the Northwest Network

Role: Provide insight and expertise in the YHDP planning process; Generate ideas for system innovation;

Provide input and feedback on strategies to reach our goals/objectives and approves the Coordinated

Community Plan and all project funding applications

Children’s Administration – Who: Representatives participate on the Workgroups and the YHDP Planning Group

Role: Provide input and expertise on strategies and interventions. Approves Coordinated Community

Plan and all project funding.

Planning & Coordination

YHDP Planning Group – Who: All Home, City, County, Children’s Administration, United Way, Raikes, Technical Assistance Team

(TAC)

Role: Ensure YHDP plan includes all required elements and aligns with system need and agreed vision;

provide input on YHDP workgroup agendas, coordinate and synthesize recommendations, ensure

alignment with the 100 Day Challenge and other initiatives.

Workgroups Who: Rare workgroup, Brief workgroup, Youth Funders Group, other existing or ad hoc task groups, as

needed (to ensure a wide and diverse group of stakeholders are included)

Role: Provide input and expertise to help develop recommended strategies and interventions.

INFLOW2,800 ANNUAL NEW ENTRIESApril 2016–March 2017

DIVERTED100 YYA

~2,000

~300

~500 ~580~85~35

~10~55 ~25

~140 ~165

~955

Minors YoungFamilies

YoungAdults

Data NotAvailable

AGE GROUP:

~50 YYA

Numbers shown combine homeless young adults (including those who have appeared only in the singleadult system and those who took single adult assessments), unaccompanied minors, and young families.

40–50% of young adults in King County are served in single adult programs (not in YYA programs).Estimated single adult and family units available to YYA are based on proportional use of the systemsusing 2016 HIC counts. Percent YYA head of households—Emergency Shelter, 6%; Transitional Housing, 3%;Rapid Re-Housing, 4%; Permanent Supportive Housing, 3%.

NOTES:

Sum of placements through “Methods of Intervention” do to equal total “Outflow” because youth can havemultiple placements and due to rounding.

Age group information for homeless youth and young adults in emergency shelters and transitional housingis proportional to the totals for all currently homeless youth as of March 31, 2017.

King County Rapid-Re HousingDashboard: Q1–Q4 2016

King County DiversionDashboard: Q1–Q4 2016

King County Performance Measurementand Evaluation Analysis (5-30-2017)

2016 Housing Inventory Count

King County 2016 SystemPerformance Dashboard

SOURCES:

YOUTH & YOUNG ADULT ANNUAL FLOW DRAFT JUNE 15, 2017 | TIMEFRAME: APRIL 2016–MARCH 2017 | DATA INCLUDES ALL YYA ≤24, INCLUDING MINORS AND YOUNG FAMILIES

700

200

CURRENTLYHOMELESS2,050 SHELTERED & UNSHELTERED As of March 31, 2017 100 Minors 250 Young Families 1,700 YA METHODS OF INTERVENTION

EMERGENCY SHELTER193 existing YYA unitsAverage length of stay: 31.5 daysExit rate to permanent housing: 20.3%

168 est. single adult and family units

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING340 existing YYA unitsAverage length of stay: 236.1 daysExit rate to permanent housing: 37.7%


RAPID RE-HOUSING146 existing YYA unitsAverage length of stay: 203.7 daysExit rate to permanent housing: 46.0%


OUTFLOW2,300 LEAVING THE SYSTEM ANNUALYApril 2016–March 2017 400 Minors 250 Young Families 1,650 YA

YYA rate of return to homelessness: 1.7%

YYA rate of return to homelessness: 20.2%

300 placed in permanent housing




YYA rate of returnto homelessness: 20.2%

~20% RETURN TO HOMELESSNESS

PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING108 existing YYA unitsAverage length of stay: N/AExit rate to permanent housing: 91.7%


SELF RESOLVED250 YYA

INACTIVE1,300 YYA

UNDER 18 ANNUAL FLOW DRAFT JUNE 15, 2017 | TIMEFRAME: APRIL 2016–MARCH 2017

INFLOW510 ANNUAL NEW ENTRIESApril 2016–March 2017

CURRENTLYHOMELESS100 SHELTERED & UNSHELTERED As of March 31, 2017

OUTFLOW400 LEAVING THE SYSTEM ANNUALYApril 2016–March 2017

SCHOOLS384–2,157

unaccompaniedminor students

(’15–’16 estimate)

Note: not allunaccompanied minor

students will go throughthe custodial system.

Why didthey leave?

Why didthey leave?

FAMILY CONFLICTHOUSING POLICY

MENTALHEALTH/CHEMICAL

DEPENDENCY

RUNNING FROM FOSTER CARE86 minors

JUVENILE JUSTICE (COUNTY)417 minors

SECURE CRISIS CENTERS392 minors

HOUSING UNSTABLE/HOMELESS MINORS IN CUSTODIAL SYSTEMS

DIRECTLY FROM ACUSTODIAL SYSTEM

70 minors

~10 minors

LAST KNOWN RESIDENCE:

Staying orLiving with

Family

Staying orLiving with

Friends

UnknownEmergencyShelter

Place notMeant forHabitation

TransitionalHousing, SafeHaven, Rental

Directly froma Custodial

System

Behavioral Health is an estimate based on a state figurescaled to King County and may include young adults.

Status Offense intakes/admissions include SecureResidential Crisis Centers, may be duplicated.

NOTES:

Juvenile Justice bookings include minors in King Countydetention, may be duplicated.

Running from Foster Care is a Youth at Risk of Homelessnessestimate from aging out of the under 18 age group.

King County Rapid-Re Housing Dashboard: Q1–Q4 2016

King County Diversion Dashboard: Q1–Q4 2016

King County Performance Measurement and EvaluationAnalysis (5-30-2017)

2016 Housing Inventory Count

Children's Administration Data for 2016

King County 2016 System Performance Dashboard

SOURCES:

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH820 minors

Seattle-King County Continuum of Care

Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Scenario Planning Tool

Youth Homelessness Demonstration Project (YHDP) proposals developed by community and system partners, Youth Advisory Board members, and Continuum of Care staff are currently being reviewed by YHDP decision-makers to finalize the Coordinated Community Plan to be submitted to HUD by July 13th, 2017. To inform decision-makers about the potential impact of the various proposals on making homelessness rare, brief, and one-time, the BERK Consulting Team has developed a Scenario Planning Tool to model possible system outcomes based on the best available data about current needs and system performance. This tool should help to better understand where there are gaps, alternative pathways to improving system performance, and guide new and existing investments. The portions of the Scenario Planning Tool copied below reflect the assumptions used for modeling, including best available information about the number of young people newly accessing the system, the number currently experiencing homelessness, and current performance of diversion. All Home staff will have the modeling tool available for in-the-moment modeling during the YHDP Meeting on July 5th.

The projections estimate:

1) Our ability to reach functional zero (have the capacity to address the needs of people experiencing a crisis within 30 days) for youth and young adults in different scenarios based upon changes to system performance in core interventions (Diversion, Shelter, Transitional Housing, Rapid Re-Housing, and Permanent Housing), and

2) How increased investments in these or other resources would increase housing options and/or reduce the number of people newly becoming homeless.

Current System Inputs/Assumptions

Annual New Entries to

Homelessness (Inflow)2,800

Annual YA Diverted

to Permanent Housing100

Move to Inactive (Outflow) 1,300

Self-resolved from queue 250

Scenario 3b: New units – minimum performance standards of existing units

2016 Baseline: Average utilization and performance of existing units

Scenario 2b: No new units – performance targets of existing units

Scenario 3a: New units – no change in utilization or performance of existing units

Scenario 2a: No new units – minimum performance standards of existing units

Scenario 3c: New units – performance targets of existing units

Some initial takeaways from the Scenario Planning Tool include:

We will never make progress if we continue doing things “as is” (continuation of current system performance) even if new units are added to the system (both 2016 Baseline and Scenario 3a above)

Diversion has a significant impact on the reduction of homelessness, immediately addressing the housing crisis for YYA newly becoming homeless (i.e. reducing inflow). For example, improving system wide performance and increasing the number of YYA successfully diverted to permanent housing would get us to functional zero in 2019 (instead of 2020) regardless of whether new units are added or not

Other project proposals are able to support a reduction of inflow or improved system performance through improved service connections, greater stability and behavioral health resources, stronger connections with housing resources, etc. This includes Drop-In Centers, Youth Engagement Teams, School-Based Interventions, Tiny Home Village, Landlord Liaising/Incentivizing, and Behavioral Health Respite Beds

Increasing Rapid Re-Housing through the RRH Expansion or through the Bridge Housing Model significantly reduces the number of YYA experiencing homelessness. For example, improving system performance and increasing RRH to serve an additional 100 young people leads to an estimate of 77 YYA experiencing homelessness in 2019 as opposed to 422 if system performance was improved, but no new housing resources were added.

Existing 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Years to

functional zero

2,050 2,392 2,734 3,076 3,418 3,760 ∞

2,050 1,236 422 0 0 0 2

2,050 0 0 0 0 0 1

2,050 2,363 2,677 2,990 3,304 3,617 ∞

2,050 1,151 252 0 0 0 2

2,050 0 0 0 0 0 1

Number of Currently Homeless YYA

REVISED: Seattle/King County CoC - Summary of Proposed Youth Homeless Demonstration Projects List

Project Name Project Summary & Type Target Population(s) & projected # Served per year

Goals/Objectives it Meets Estimated amount of funding (two year)

Would this require a waiver? Be refundable?

1. Increase capacity of YYA Navigators & Diversion

Ensure system-wide capacity for housing navigation and diversion services; and provide flexible funding to support diversion opportunities.

Project Type: Supportive Services Only (SSO) Category 1 and 2 of the homeless definition (literal and imminent risk)

Rare: The System uses prevention and diversion strategies whenever possible, and otherwise provides access to low barrier crisis housing & services to any youth who needs and wants it. Eliminating Disparities: Youth of color and LGTBQ youth have parity in access and outcomes when compared with their peers

$1,480,000 Waiver: No Renewable: Yes

2. Expand YYA RRH

Increase the capacity of current YA RRH programs created in 2016 through a new CoC grant serving 64 young adults. The RRH project would adopt best practices as learned through early iterations of rental assistance programs for YA and RRH programs serving other populations.

Population Served: Young adults age 18-24 Category: Project Type: Rapid Re-housing (RRH)

Brief: The system acts with urgency to swiftly assist youth to move into permanent or non-time-limited housing options with appropriate services and supports. One-Time: The system ensures that young people maintain their independence, are connected to their communities, and do not return to homelessness.

$1,200,000 Waiver: Design aspects may require a waiver. For instance, length of assistance or lease structure Renewable: Yes

3. New Bridge Housing Model

It would include what are currently YYA TH units, which would be

Project Type: TH to RRH (new FY17 component)

Brief: The system acts with urgency to swiftly assist

$1,088, 000 Waiver: Design aspects may

transitioned to bridge housing units [i.e., shorter length of stay]. These bridge housing units would be the platform from which YA would be rapidly rehoused.

Category: Category 1, Literally

youth to move into permanent or non-time-limited housing options with appropriate services and supports. One-Time: The system ensures that young people maintain their independence, are connected to their communities, and do not return to homelessness.

require a waiver. For instance, length of assistance or lease structure Renewable: Yes

4. Youth Engagement Team

Systems (schools, child welfare, juvenile justice, etc.) would have a single entity to refer YYA and their families who are imminently at risk of homelessness, or very recently homeless, to a multi-disciplinary team (housing, legal, case mgmt/mediation) to resolve the housing crisis

Under 18 focus # Served: Category (1.) literally homeless and (2.) imminent risk Project Type: Supportive Services Only (SSO) or Rapid Re-housing (RRH) depending on structure and function

Rare: The System uses prevention and diversion strategies whenever possible, and otherwise provides access to low barrier crisis housing & services to any youth who needs and wants it. Eliminating Disparities: Youth of color and LGTBQ youth have parity in access and outcomes when compared with their peers

$924,000 Waiver: No Renewable: Yes

5. School Housing Partner (model with SPS) UPDATED

The School House Partnership creates a single-point of contact for school liaisons with the homeless system, enabling school staff to focus on students’ academic success and providing students with immediate access to the full range of housing supports and services.

Project Type: Supportive Services Only (SSO) Category: Literal homeless

Rare: The system uses diversion strategies whenever possible for those students (and their families, where applicable) that are at imminent risk of homelessness.

Brief: Periods of homelessness for students (and their families, where applicable) are shorter for

$441, 271 Waiver: Design aspects may need a waiver. For instance, adding eligible costs. Renewable: Yes

those served by this intervention.

One-Time: Students and their families served by the intervention are placed into permanent housing, decreasing likelihood of returns to homelessness.

6. Behavioral Health Respite Beds

The Children's Crisis Outreach Response System (CCORS) will be expanded to respond to the behavioral health needs of youth living in YYA housing throughout Seattle, East King County, and/or South King County including transitional housing, rapid rehousing, and permanent housing.

The CCORS Team will provide on-site mobile crisis outreach and short term intensive community based support to any youth living in YYA housing and support the contracted housing providers to ensure the safety of all staff and clients. This includes access to short-term crisis respite/crisis stabilization beds as needed.

Project Type: Supportive Services Only (SSO)

One-Time: The system ensures that young people maintain their independence, are connected to their communities, and do not return to homelessness.

$255, 312 Waiver: Possibly, if asking to use more than 10% of YHDP for category 3 Renewable: Likely yes. If you decide to waive the requirement of using more than 10% of your funding for Category 3, you may run into an issue, but it’s unlikely.

7. Revamped Drop-in Centers: Mobile Team UPDATED

Full and comprehensive services would create many opportunities for youth to get connected to services more quickly and more appropriately. This a wide-scale harm reduction strategy attempting to alleviate the many of the day-to-day stressors facing homeless and unstably housed homeless youth. This space will also serve as an opportunity to build community and skills in job-searches, etc.

Who would be served: youth ages 13 through 24, focusing efforts on better supporting youth under 18, LGBTQ youth, youth of color, and youth with families. Project Type: Supportive Services Only (SSO) Category:

Rare: The System uses prevention and diversion strategies whenever possible, and otherwise provides access to low barrier crisis housing & services to any youth who needs and wants it. Eliminating Disparities: Youth of color and LGTBQ youth have parity in access

$150,000 Waiver: Design aspects may need a waiver. For instance, adding eligible costs. Renewable: Yes

and outcomes when compared with their peers

8. Multi-use Site/Tiny Home Village UPDATE

We propose the idea of a multi-use camp site or village on a CoC owned plot of land.

Who would it serve: Youth under 25 Project Type: Rapid Re-housing (RRH) If new construction/acquisition/rehab is involved, you would have to apply for TH or PSH because those costs are not eligible under RRH.

ESTIMATE: $290,000

Waiver: Design aspects may require a waiver. For instance, length of assistance or lease structure Renewable: Yes

9. Landlord Liaising/Incentivizing

Goal: More beds/affordable housing available Path: Landlord Liaising/Incentivizing There are many vacant properties around the region – many of which are owned by landlords. We believe an excellent use of funds is a kind incentivized contract with landlords to keep rent costs low – at operating costs

Who would it serve: Youth under 25

Brief: The system acts with urgency to swiftly assist youth to move into permanent or non-time-limited housing options with appropriate services and supports.

ESTIMATE [BASED ON CURRENT LLP BUDGET]: $1, 024,000

Waiver: Checking with HUD

Project Planning Project

Funds to support the YAB through a contract with NWN

$60,000

TOTAL: $6,912,583.00

#1) Proposed Project: YYA Housing Navigation and Diversion

What: What is the project?

Embedding Diversion and Navigation system-wide using key access points for YYA.

Describe the project: What would it include?

This project would ensure system-wide capacity for housing navigation and diversion

services and provide flexible funding to support diversion opportunities. The project

would utilize best practices and adopt shared principles and practices for navigation and

diversion supported by system-wide training for all participating agencies.

Capacity for housing navigation and diversion services will include:

o Shifting existing services within emergency shelters, outreach teams, and day

centers serving YYA to include a focus on housing navigation and diversion,

increasing staff capacity where needed,

o A YYA Housing Navigation Team operating as a decentralized extension of the

Coordinated Entry for All (CEA) Regional Access Points (RAPs), and

o Diversion-specific staff within the YYA Housing Navigation Team to offer

targeted diversion services to YYA who are not connected with shelter or

outreach and who are not prioritized for housing resources based on CEA

prioritization policies (All Navigation Team members will be providing diversion

services, the Diversion staff will focus on this target population).

Housing Navigators will provide assessment, diversion, and navigation assistance using

progressive engagement techniques.

Core Components:

Divert YA from shelter/ homelessness whenever possible and connect to permanent housing using progressive engagement techniques

Connect YA to emergency shelter and to housing through CEA housing assessments; assistance to locate and apply for identification and other documentation needed for housing placement; and transportation or accompaniment to potential housing options and necessary appointments

Provide case management to maintain engagement, support independence and connect to needed services such as employment, education, non-cash benefits, mental health, and chemical dependency services

Coordinate with system partners including the CEA Team on the YA By Name List and the Youth Engagement Team supporting YYA in schools, juvenile justice, and other systems of care

Employ peer leaders within housing navigation and outreach teams

Continue support, as needed, for up to 6 months after achievement of permanent housing

Diversion model is a flexible, developmentally appropriate, relationship-based model embracing problem-solving techniques in combination with financial assistance to identify stable housing options. A diversion approach would be utilized when a YYA encounters services, or earlier if possible, and on-going, as needed, until housing is located, using flexible financial assistance as needed. One entity would hold the pool of diversion funds to be readily accessed by any of the key partners listed above (shelter, outreach teams, day centers, and navigation teams). Training for Housing Navigation and Diversion would be universal and centralized, ensuring shared policies and practices.

Who would it serve? Homeless Young Adult Housing Navigators serve:

Homeless young adults, including young parents, who are seeking emergency housing and/or request a CEA housing assessment;

Ages 13 to 24;

Literally homeless, in shelter, or within 14 days to eviction;

Navigation Team focused on YA prioritized for housing according to CEA Prioritization policy

Diversion staff focused on YA not prioritized for housing according to CEA policy,

Type: What type of project?

o Supportive Services Only (SSO)

Is this new? Or expansion of a current model/project?

o Expansion and coordination of current navigator and diversion models

What is the Impact? What is the projected impact? How does it help us meet our goals and objectives?

o Currently there are approx. 594 CEA housing units for homeless young adults

with 1,700 young adults homeless tonight and on average 250 young adults

entering homelessness each month. The expansion would add capacity to young

adult shelter staff and would transition all case management that is not

connected to housing, to the Homeless Young Adult Housing Navigation model.

Adding approximately ten (10) new Homeless YA Housing Navigators (add’l staff

to the Navigation Team and added capacity within shelters and day centers

where there are gaps) to serve an additional 400 homeless young adults for a

total program capacity to serve 1,000 young adults.

Homeless Young Adult Housing Navigator Performance Commitments/Milestone Commitments

1,000 new, unduplicated individuals or families receive navigation*/diversion services focused on housing placement. With a caseload of 25 per Housing Navigator 100% of individuals or families that have completed Coordinated Entry assessments 30% of individuals or families that enter transitional or other temporary housing 50% of individuals or families that enter permanent housing**

80% of individuals or families that exit to permanent housing and do not return to homelessness within 6 months 90% of individuals or families that consent to participate in HMIS

*Navigation-assist homeless YA to complete CEA housing assessment and prepare for housing referral. While on the CEA community queue Navigators will work on permanent housing outside of CEA. **Permanent housing-subsidized/unsubsidized rental units, permanent supportive housing, or living with family/friends

How much: How many additional YYA would this serve and how much money would need to be

allocated to this?

o Additional 400 homeless young adults served -- potential to add even more

Housing Navigators as temporary two-year staff to help address current high

need, 1,700 currently sheltered/unsheltered.

o $600,000 (10 Housing Navigators), $180,000 (6 peer leads in outreach teams),

and $240,000 (four Diversion staff)

o $100,000 training costs for the continuum.

o An investment of $900,000 would provide an average of $1,500 for diversion

assistance to serve 600 YYA annually.

Total Program Cost: $2,020,000 ($540,000 available through local funds)

Total 2-year YHDP Request: $1,480,000

Who & How: Who would hold the contract (city, county, UW, other)?

o TBD by funders (likely City of Seattle)

Will this be an RFP process?

o Yes, RFQ

What would it take to implement?

o What is the anticipated process/timeline?

Run RFQ in 2017, for new Housing Navigators only, for January 1, 2018

contract start dates. Maintain six HSD general fund Housing Navigator

staff in current HSD 2017 RFP, map out HSD general fund vs. YHDP

funding. Work with current Housing Navigator program to finalize model.

o Next steps?

Begin RFQ preparation.

Required Principles: Which of the required principles does this project address?

o USICH Framework/core outcomes (Stable housing, permanent connections,

education/employment, social-emotional wellbeing)

o Special populations (LGBTQ, minors under 18, pregnant and parenting youth,

youth involved in JJ and foster care systems, victims of trafficking and

exploitation, youth of color

o PYD and TIC

o Family engagement

o Immediate access to housing with no preconditions

o Youth choice

o Individualized and client-driven supports

o Social and community integration

o Coordinated entry

#2) Proposed Project: Young Adult Rapid Rehousing


Expand current Young Adult Rapid Re-Housing (RRH)

Describe the project What would it include?

This project would increase the capacity of current YA RRH programs created in 2016 through a

new Continuum of Care (CoC) grant serving 64 young adults. The RRH project would adopt best

practices as learned through early iterations of rental assistance programs for young adults and

Rapid Rehousing programs serving other subpopulations.

YA RRH includes the three core components of RRH - housing identification, rent and move-in

assistance, and case management and supports. Programs maintain average caseloads of

approximately 16:1. RRH is a low barrier, housing first intervention offering tailored support

and providing assistance using a progressive engagement approach. The length of assistance

and depth of services is individually determined based on the need of the young person,

providing the level of assistance needed to sustain housing without providing more than is

needed. There are no preconditions to enrollment or eligibility criteria other than the

requirement to serve young people who are literally homeless at the time of enrollment.

RRH case management services connect young people with community-based resources and

supports such as education and employment, transportation, physical and behavioral health,

and legal supports.

Additional RRH for young adults would ensure adequate capacity throughout all regions of King

County, particularly addressing gaps in South King County.

Who would it serve? Young Adults ages 18-24 who are currently experiencing homelessness.

Type of project: What type of project?

o Permanent Housing – Rapid Rehousing


o Expansion of current model

What is the impact? What is the projected impact? How does it help us meet our goals and objectives?

The project would reduce the number of homeless YA and reduce the length of time

they are in the homeless system / not in “their own” housing. It would support YA in

moving into community based units – though financial and community support

How much: How many additional YA would this serve and how much money would need to be

allocated to this?

The project can be scaled based on the need and priority of RRH relative to other

priorities of the YHDP funding. Based on the costs of the existing RRH program, the

average cost per young person (including staff and administrative costs) is $18,750. For

a total cost of $600,000 (per year); the current RRH program could increase its capacity

by 50%, serving an additional 32 households.

Total 2-year YHDP budget: $1,200,000


o TBD by funders

Will this be an RFP process? o Yes


What is the anticipated process/timeline?

o Once funding is available and agencies are selected, programs are immediately

able to enroll new YA and increase staffing, as needed.






exploitation

o PYD and TIC

o Family engagement


o Youth choice



o Coordinated entry

#3) Proposed Project: New Bridge/Rapid Re-Housing Model


Bridge Housing to Rapid Re-Housing


Piloting a new housing model supported by HUD (Joint TH/RRH project), we would

identify existing Young Adult Transitional Housing units to transition to this new “bridge

housing” model. These bridge housing units would be the platform from which YA

would be rapidly rehoused. There would be less program / staff focus on stabilizing in

the “house” and more emphasis on finding and moving to units that the young person(s)

could stay in longer term / rent for themselves, and focus on connecting them to the

community they are to be living in.

Timeframe: Short-term placement (target is up to 90 days) in bridge housing (formerly

TH) while finding RRH units. The length of RRH services will vary utilizing a progressive

engagement model (up to 24 months).

Staffing: The staff in the program would focus on housing search and general RRH

supports (adopting the core components of RRH) once the YYA is housed.

Who would it serve? This would serve a broad range of YA (potentially targeting a TH program that works

with special sub-populations)


o Permanent Housing – Rapid Re-Housing


o New project model


The project would reduce the number of homeless YA and reduce the length of time

they are in the homeless system (more rapid exit to permanent housing). It would

support YA in moving into community based units with support (financial and case

management).


allocated to this?

The Bridge model would serve six times the number of young people in a given year. A

12-unit TH program (typically serving a total of 18 young people each year) would serve

approximately 73 young people, or 55 additional young people each year.

Cost (Assumptions to estimate cost, actual cost/rental assistance per person would

vary):

TH (Bridge) with 12 units (existing cost)

60 days average to locate housing

$1093/mo rent (FMR for studio)

Move-in cost of 2x rent

12 months of full rent subsidy per person

Total two-year YHDP budget: $1,088,628


o TBD by funders


Identify a TH program to pilot this with (in conversation with the agencies)



Transition could occur in the nearer term – not applying for CoC renewal, and making

the transition when the YDHP funds become available - this coming fall / winter. This

would require making a decision re: which current YYA project to include in the context

of the CoC application - date unknown, but likely due early fall.

o Next steps?

The funding agency will take the lead on drafting up an implementation plan which would include - how we are targeting an agency (and which organization(s) would be offering the RRH component) what the staffing level and expectations would be, and timeline for transition.






exploitation)


o Youth choice



o Coordinated entry

#4) Proposed Project: Under 18 - Youth Engagement Team


Multi-disciplinary team working with youth under 18 (Youth Engagement Team)


The goal of the Youth Engagement Team (YET) is to house and support youth and

families either immediately prior to an impending experience of homelessness or within

the first few days of the experience. This strength-based approach would use a multi-

systems team to help the youth and family either reunify immediately or access short

term housing while services are being delivered. The approach would use mediated

plans as much as appropriate. When achieving reunification is possible, the goal is to do

so with the support of both the youth and the parents/guardians. Knowing that this is a

voluntary engagement, ideally helping youth want to opt-in to and fully engage in the

process.

Referrals of youth experiencing homelessness, or on the verge of ending up homeless,

would be made to a single entity (the YET) by juvenile justice staff (including law

enforcement, probation, judges, detention staff, attorneys and others), school staff

(including counselors, liaisons and others), and provider staff (outreach, drop-in, shelter,

HOPE staff, CRC staff). Youth would voluntarily opt-in with the benefit of securing

housing and services.

The central entity would regularly convene a team of professionals, including a

mediator/family reconciliation expert, legal counsel for youth, housing provider, the

youth, and their parents/natural support system (including the referring party). They

would, in the style of a family team decision making meeting, work towards a short term

and long term plan, including authorizing services and short-term shelter, HOPE bed,

home of a relative or neighbor or other responsible adult, host home, etc. The team

would have access to flexible funds (utilizing a diversion approach) to address needs,

such as short term housing supports.

Where parents are unable or unwilling to parent and/or where there is a serious risk of

abuse, the team would refer to Children’s Administration who would, when appropriate,

join the team.

Where reunification is ultimately not possible, the team would look for other housing

options through existing homeless housing programs.

Who would it serve? Homeless (literally homeless) youth Under 18 (who are willing to access services)


o Supportive Services Only (SSO)

Is this new? Or expansion of a current model/project? If expansion of a current project,

outline how we would be adapting or modifying? What is making it different or

innovative?

o New project


Increased stability and family reunification

Decrease time unsheltered

Decrease time to permanent housing (quicker reconnection back to their natural

support systems)

Connection with other systems (Juvenile Justice, schools)


allocated to this?

In order to pilot this intervention, it is proposed that we establish one Team to design

and implement this model; learn and scale up as appropriate to meet the demand.

Costs and numbers served -

Staff: (Legal representative, Mediation/triage support, coordination = 3 FTE) $210k/year

Flexible funding to support approximately 168 YYA = $252k/year

Total two year YHDP budget: $924,000


o TBD by funders


o Yes

Release an RFP to fund an agency (or agencies):

(Legal partner, Mediation/assessment triage coordinator, housing navigator)



Get buy-in from system partners, develop screening and referral process

Run RFP process


o All

#5) Proposed Project: School Housing Partnership

Project Summary The School Housing Partnership creates a single point of contact for McKinney-Vento liaisons with the homeless response system, enabling school staff to focus on students’ academic success and providing students (and their families, where applicable) with immediate access to the full range of housing supports and services.

Target Population(s) and projected # served per year

Target Population(s): Students experiencing homelessness in Seattle Public Schools, both unaccompanied students as well as those students with their families [note: request for YHDP funding is focused on unaccompanied students].

Projected # served per year: 172.5 (based on our estimates)

Unaccompanied Youth and Young Adults: 45 in Year 1, 90 in Year 2

Project Type: Supportive Services Only (SSO)

Category*: 1 and 2 of the homeless definition (literal and imminent risk)

YHDP Goals/Objectives it meets Rare: The system uses diversion strategies whenever possible for those students (and their families, where applicable) that are at imminent risk of homelessness.

Brief: Periods of homelessness for students (and their families, where applicable) are shorter for those served by this intervention.

One-Time: Students and their families served by the intervention are placed into permanent housing, decreasing likelihood of returns to homelessness.

Estimated amount of funding (two-year)

Year 1: $147,090

Two-year cost: $441,271

Note: Our estimates include higher than standard FTE costs to account for an emphasis on talent recruitment, development, and retention.

Would this require a waiver? Be refundable?

Waiver: Design aspects may need a waiver. For instance, adding eligible costs.

Renewable: Yes

I. Describe the project a. Overview: The School Housing Partnership (SHP) creates a direct connection between schools and the

homeless response system, enabling school staff to focus on students’ academic success and providing students (and their families) with immediate access to the full range of housing supports and services. Please note that this proposal is requesting that YHDP funding cover the portion of this initiative that is focused on unaccompanied youth only; we are actively identifying funding sources to cover the portion of this initiative that serves students with their families.

b. Detailed Description The Need From a student’s perspective: For many students and their families, school is a safe and trusted place where they can ask for and receive supports. Students and their families need to be engaged and served by those they trust, and through this proposal the SHP will leverage schools’ relationships to best serve students and their families in a known environment with warm hand-offs from trusted people in their lives. From a school’s perspective: SPS’ McKinney-Vento staff are overwhelmed by family requests for help finding or keeping housing. They are not adequately positioned or skilled to meet these needs entirely, and the workload associated with accommodating these requests strains their ability to meet their core responsibility: ensuring the academic success of students experiencing homelessness/instability. From the funder/system perspective: A partnership with schools presents the opportunity for early and improved identification of youth and families before they reach the point of crisis. Additionally, it facilitates faster connections to the homeless response system so an episode is shorter. This advances the system goals of making homelessness rare and brief. What is the core of this proposal? A community-based housing service provider is designated as a point of contact for school staff that need to connect students and their families OR unaccompanied youth with diversion and/or housing services. For a visual, please see Appendix A.

Step 1. Identification: Currently, school staff assess and identify homeless students through an annual survey, self-referrals by students and/or their families, and by school staff referrals. With SHP, schools would receive technical assistance for better and more frequent assessments, and new assessment channels (e.g., SMS texting vs. paper forms). This partnership would enable schools to more accurately identify students throughout the year that are not only unsheltered and unstably housed, but those at risk of becoming so. Step 2. Notification: School staff currently notify district staff in the McKinney-Vento office when students are identified as homeless or unstably housed. With SHP, school staff would also call the School Housing Partnership, a community-based housing service provider with expertise in diversion and navigating the homeless crisis response system. Additionally, when families call the McKinney-Vento office for assistance, district staff would connect families to the School Housing Partnership, instead of trying to identify and refer them to the most appropriate agency or resource. Step 3. Planning & Intervention: Currently, McKinney-Vento staff work with youth and families to develop a plan to keep youth connected to school. This plan includes additional school supports such as

transportation to/from school, automatic enrollment in free and reduced lunch, and support for extracurricular activities. Housing supports are not included, but at times may be provided by industrious McKinney-Vento staff. With SHP, the housing service provider sends a housing advocate to the school to meet with the student/family within 48 hours. The advocate conducts a Coordinated Entry Assessment and determines whether diversion is an appropriate response to maintain and achieve stability. If not, the advocate will identify possible services and supports to meet the student/family’s immediate needs. This person also serves as the student/family's single point of contact moving forward. Step 4. Advocacy and Ongoing Coordination: With SHP, the housing advocate connects the student/family with diversion, host homes, rapid-rehousing, and/or other housing services as appropriate. They may also identify non-housing supports that may help to stabilize the family and meet physical health, mental health, and employment needs. Throughout a student/family’s engagement, the McKinney-Vento district contact and the housing advocate maintain communication to inform one another of changes in the family’s housing status to minimize adverse impacts on the student’s academic performance.

Roles and Responsibilities

McKinney-Vento building point of contact

Lead Identification activities at the school-level Sync up regularly with District staff and SHP Housing

Case Manager regarding active cases Lead activities related to supporting student academic

success

SPS District McKinney-Vento team

Coordinate district-wide activities and caseload with SHP team

Partner with SHP team to deliver technical assistance at individual schools

SHP Housing Advocate Bring creative problem-solving mindset to assess opportunities to meet student needs

Lead Needs Assessment activities for each student/family

Lead Case Management activities for each student/family

Sync up regularly with District and school staff regarding active cases

Students and Families Play an active role in all steps to ensure that client voice is present and guides assessment of options

Provide feedback on a regular basis regarding to quality of support and service provided by SHP and school staff

Funder Fund the program and provide partner management support

Support data collection and evaluation activities to evaluate impact of investment

How does this proposal connect to existing efforts/processes in our community? This proposal aligns with the City’s Pathways Home strategy, taking a person-centered approach to meeting our constituents’ needs. We also hope to leverage and integrate learnings from our community’s 100-Day Challenge to End Youth Homelessness, particularly as it relates to the SHP’s work meeting the needs of unaccompanied students. How does this proposal connect to other YHDP proposals under consideration?

The School Housing Partnership proposal can be strengthened with the following YHDP proposals to enhance coordination and increase impact.

YYA Navigators and Diversion: Locating YYA Navigators at schools with high concentrations of unaccompanied students experiencing homeless would enable our system to meet our goals of Rare and Brief for those students without families. The flexible funding to support diversion

opportunities would directly benefit unaccompanied students who are not connected with shelter or outreach and who are not prioritized for housing resources based on CEA prioritization policies.

Young Adult Rapid Rehousing: Increasing the capacity of current Rapid Rehousing programs can benefit unaccompanied students to provide stability while they make strides towards their academic goals

Youth Engagement Team: A representative from the School Housing Partnership (SHP) would sit on the Youth Engagement Team to provide responsive housing support for students being served.

II. Who would it serve? a. This proposal intends to serve students experiencing homelessness in Seattle Public Schools. This includes

unaccompanied students as well as students with their families. b. School staff at the district and individual school level.

III. Is this new or an expansion of a current model/project? a. This is new to our community, but leverages lessons learned from Hamilton Families in San Francisco.

IV. What is the projected impact? a. Housing Outcomes

a. For Families 1. Increase in families re-housed via RRH 2. Decrease in length of time homeless 3. Increase in families re-housed near their home school 4. Decrease in number of families unsheltered during school year 5. Increase in evictions prevented

b. For Unaccompanied YYA w/o children 1. YYA re-housed via RRH 2. Increase in YYA re-housed near their home school (e.g., host homes) 3. Decrease in length of time homeless 4. Decrease in number of YYA unsheltered during school year

b. Academic / Student Behavior Outcomes a. For Students with families AND Unaccompanied YYA

1. Increase in graduation rate 2. Decrease in students absent ten or more days in the year 3. Decrease in mid-year transfers 4. Increase in SBAC Reading/Math proficiency

c. System Outcomes a. Increased utilization of prevention/diversion resulting from improved early detection b. Increased accountability for meeting the needs of homeless students and their families c. Improved efficiency and efficacy of processes that result in more current information for school

staff, SHP, and students/families d. Increased customer satisfaction with the homeless response system

As mentioned earlier, this proposal leverages the design and lessons learned from Hamilton Families in San Francisco (hamiltonfamilies.org). Below are some of the outcomes achieved in Year 1 (November 2014 – October 2015) of the partnership between Hamilton Family Center (HFC) and the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD); we are working to understand what outcomes the partnership has seen since Year 1 (Source: Initial report on the partnership between Hamilton Family Center and San Francisco Unified School District, Feb. 2016).

Of the 151 calls/emails HFC received on the SFUSD hotline from staff at 52 different schools, o 62 of the contacts led to families receiving advice and/or referrals to other programs o 89 of the contacts led to families meeting directly with HFC staff for intake and assessment

51 families received direct services through this partnership

22 homeless families were placed into permanent housing

29 at-risk families were able to avoid eviction and probable homelessness 14 families were still searching for housing at the end of Year 1 24 families were referred to other programs

The partnership led to a significant reduction in the length of time families were homeless prior to being served. Our intention is to replicate and tailor parts of this intervention to serve unaccompanied YYA specifically in addition to families, but still feel that it’s important to share these results:

o The average length of time a family was homeless before being served in HFC’s rapid rehousing program is 14.7 months

o The average length of time families are homeless before being served in rapid rehousing through the HFC-SFUSD partnership is 6.5 months

o This represents a reduction of 8.2 months in the length of homelessness for families in this pilot project

In addition to the housing outcomes described above, we also want to highlight that HFC provided five trainings for SFUSD staff attended by over 200 people and developed resources for SFUSD staff.

V. How many additional YYA would this serve and how much money would need to be allocated for this?

Note: We are awaiting concrete figures on the number of unaccompanied YYA who are newly identified each year. The budget estimate illustrates that we are only requesting YHDP funding for the portion of this intervention that will serve unaccompanied youth and young adults (and not for the portion that serves families).

Pilot Budget Estimate

Proposal for Funding

through YHDP

Support for Unaccompanied Students Pilot Year 1 Pilot Year 2 Total

Estimated Students Served 45 90 135

Case Management FTE Costs $80,000 $160,000 $240,000

Flexible Diversion Funds (In addition to YHDP Diversion Proposal) $22,950 $45,900 $68,850

New RRH Slot Costs (Possible connection to YHDP RRH Proposal) $- $- $-

Other Personnel & Operating Costs $44,140 $88,281 $132,421

Total Cost for Unaccompanied Students $147,090 $294,181 $441,271

Funding to be Leveraged from Other Sources

Other Core Costs Pilot Year 1 Pilot Year 2 Total

Total Cost for Family Cases (105 families per year) $133,655 $133,655 $267,310

Total Other Personnel & Operating Costs $57,282 $57,281 $114,563

Grand Total (YHDP and Other Funding) $338,027 $485,117 $823,144

VI. Who would hold the contract? a. The contract would be between SPS, and selected community-based housing partner(s), with the City

playing a strong supporting role (that is codified through a contract or MOU).

VII. Will this be a RFP process? a. Possibly, though for initial pilot we could do a RFI and award pilot contract to selected partners and do a

fuller RFP process for Round 2 implementation

VIII. What would it take to implement? a. See draft estimates in Section V.

IX. Which of the required principles does this project address? a. USICH Framework/core outcomes (stable housing, education/employment) b. Special populations (U18 youth) c. Family Engagement d. Coordinated entry e. Individualized and client-driven supports f. Immediate access to housing with no preconditions

#6) Proposed Project: Behavioral Health Respite Beds


This program is a coordinated approach to supporting youth and young adults experiencing homelessness. It provides mobile behavioral health team(s) to young adult housing programs as featured in the All Home Comprehensive Plan to Prevent and End Youth and Young Adult (YYA) Homelessness.

Describe the project What would it include?

The Children's Crisis Outreach Response System (CCORS) will be expanded to respond to

the behavioral health needs of youth living in YYA housing throughout Seattle, East King

County, and/or South King County including transitional housing, rapid rehousing, and

permanent housing.

The CCORS Team will provide on-site mobile crisis outreach and short term intensive

community based support to any youth living in YYA housing and support the contracted

housing providers to ensure the safety of all staff and clients. This includes access to

short-term crisis respite/crisis stabilization beds as needed.

On-Site Mobile Crisis Outreach - Urgent response (within 2 hours) during the moment of crisis to:

o work with youth, professionals, family members (if available) and other natural supports to provide safety and risk assessments and to deescalate and debrief the crisis event;

o provide collaborative crisis prevention planning with the youth and housing staff;

o identify priority needs to stabilize the youth o provide hospitalization diversion options including use of short-term crisis

stabilization beds/respite; o or (if needed) facilitate hospital authorization (voluntary or involuntary) for

eligible youth; and o link to long-term behavioral health services, connection to natural supports

and referrals to other community resources.

Short-term (up to 8 weeks) Intensive Community-based support, including: o brief, evidence-based therapeutic interventions o peer support and mentoring through the use of peer support specialists; o family mediation and reunification that includes parent skill building to

manage the youth safely within the home environment when appropriate; o teaming with other professionals and advocating for the youth and his/her

needs; o providing informal wraparound services; and

o Access to Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner for evaluation and short term medication management

Short-term crisis stabilization/crisis respite beds o CCORS staff will have access to short-term crisis stabilization beds available

for placement 24 hours a day 7 days a week; o Youth can stay in a stabilization bed for up to 14 days o CCORS staff will work with the youth and housing provider for a timely and

safe transition back to longer term housing;

Because the CCORS Team will be providing services at existing housing programs,

training to housing program staff, and linkages to behavioral health resources, the

“home base” programs will have stronger capacity to provide intensive on-site

behavioral health supports. This will create more appropriate supports within existing

housing programs for young adults with ongoing mental health or substance abuse

needs. It is anticipated that these programs will be able to stabilize more young people,

and support them moving to other programs in the continuum as their service needs

change.

Who would it serve? Currently there are approximately 437 (Band 3 referrals) beds located throughout King County to provide housing options for homeless youth and young adults. Youth living in these beds will be the primary target for this intervention along with the housing providers who serve them. It is unclear exactly what the volume of crisis response need will be to the housing continuum. However, since CCORS is a crisis response system, they will staff for 24/7 coverage to respond within 2 hours. CCORS will track the number of referrals from YYA housing providers as well as the number of outreaches, location, client demographics and other key service measures to ensure that the capacity of the CCORS teams meets the volume of need.

1. How Well? Service Quality Measures

increased housing stability

increased use of preventive (outpatient) services

2. Is anyone better off? Individual Outcome Measures

reduced behavioral health risk factors

reduction of crisis events

reduced unnecessary hospital and emergency department use


o


o CCORS is an existing program, but the initiative to expand programing to the

RHYYA Housing Providers is new. o The proposal is support the repurposing of current TH beds to specifically be respite to

accommodate crisis needs as they arise with BH, both from the mobile BH team funded

by MIDD and from Housing Providers as behavioral health crises occur in their housing

programs.


This initiative focuses on mobile behavioral health team(s) based in young adult housing programs, as a priority element of a coordinated approach that will support youth and young adults experiencing homelessness with acute behavioral health needs and/or a history of trauma in achieving and succeeding in safe and stable housing.i Improving behavioral health services to this population will help ensure that their homelessness is a brief and one-time experience by supporting housing programs when YYA experiences crisis. The project supports the full spectrum of Youth Housing Programs/RHY programs and can also exit to respite beds from institutions.


allocated to this?

The budget includes the increase in staffing at the facility itself (not the mobile BH teams).

Year Activity Amount

2017 Jul - Dec Mobile behavioral health team(s)

responding to young adult housing

programs

(Supported through MIDD II)

$353,878

2017 Jul - Dec Crisis Stabilization Beds

(Supported through YHDP)

$85, 104

2017 Annual Expenditure $438,983

2018 Mobile behavioral health team(s)

responding to young adult housing

programs

(Supported through MIDD II)

$707,757

2018 Crisis Stabilization beds

(Supported through YHDP)

$170,208

2018 Annual Expenditure $877,965

Biennial Expenditure

Total request for YHDP

$1,316,947

$255,312


o All services offered under this initiative will be contracted for with the YMCA and

managed by existing staff within King County DCHS’ BHRD in coordination with King

Housing and Community Development.

Will this be an RFP process? o King County DCHS BHRD will expand its existing contract with the YMCA for the CCORS

program to serve homeless youth and young adults age 18 - 24. .


o What is the anticipated process/timeline? Service planning for this initiative will occur in 2017, to align plans with final funding levels.

o Who would be the lead? BHRD / HCD

o Next steps? Complete contracting process and begin hiring.


USICH Framework/core outcomes (Stable housing, permanent connections,


Special populations (LGBTQ, minors under 18, pregnant and parenting youth,


exploitation

o PYD and TIC

Family engagement


o Youth choice

Individualized and client-driven supports


o Coordinated entry

i In addition to the mobile behavioral health team(s) described in this document, this coordinated approach could

include wraparound services for homeless youth & young adults (YYA), enhanced crisis response for young adults (YA) in housing programs as well as trauma-specific therapy and supports for homeless youth and young adults, or other programming, if future funding permits.

# 7) Proposed Project: [Revamped Drop-In] Mobile Team

What:

● What is the project?

○ A mobile outreach team providing full and comprehensive services to create

many opportunities for youth to get connected to services more quickly and

more appropriately; services would include both basic needs and navigation to

housing opportunities based on youth choice.

● What would the project include?

○ Teams would be deployed to geographic areas that are service deserts

○ Mobile team would serve youth with an extremely low barrier approach (for

example, those that are actively using substances would be engaged in services,

rather than screened out)

○ Teams would be staffed and available during hours that most service agencies

are not (i.e. after 5pm)

○ Mobile team would have access to flexible funds to use prevention and diversion

strategies when possible

○ Funding would also contribute to basic need boxes around the city/county where

youth can access an array of basic survival supplies as needed

○ Staffing: hiring formerly homeless/unstably housed YYA

Who would it serve?

● All categories, recognizing disproportionate representation of YYA of color, LGBTQ+

folks, youth with families, minors

Type:

● What type of Project?

○ SSO. May need a waiver to expand SSO eligible costs to create the flexible funds

for prevention/diversion strategies

○ Renewable: Most likely yes, even with waiver for eligible costs

● Is this new or an expansion of a current model/project?

○ Expansion and enrichment of current models. Services could be made more

robust and more effectively advertised.

What is the impact?

● What is the projected impact? How does it help us meet our goals and objectives?

○ Full comprehensive services: would connect youth to services more quickly and

appropriately.

○ Wide scale harm-reduction: alleviates day-to-day stressors impacting

homeless/unstably housed YYA.

○ Intervention: serves as opportunity to build community and skills such as, job

training, housing navigation skills, legal and logistic skills for independent living

How much?

● How many additional YYA would this serve and how much money would need to be

allocated to this?

○ Approximately $3,000-$5,000 per person served (assumes a case manager

salary/fringe of $60,000/25 youth served per year + $1,000 for flexible funds/box

supplies- can play around with this calculation based on caseload size and/or

amount of estimated flexible funds per person)

Who & How:

● Who would hold the contract (city, county, UW, other)?

○ TBD

● Will this be an RFP process?

○ TBD – youth involvement would be required in selection process

● What would it take to implement?

○ Partner programs to supplement and implement connections to housing that is

affordable

○ Partner programs to implement coordinated support systems

○ Frequent, proactive and needs based staff trainings

○ Youth and community advisory committees to review performance, outcomes,

and interactions

Which of the required principles does this project address?

● Special populations

● Youth Choice

● Individualized and client-driven supports

● Social and community integration

● Coordinated entry

Notes:

● The YAB commits to making funding available only to organizations who commit to

having paid youth board members in their decision making processes and lobbying

efforts.

● We also hope to embed a kind of advertising/messaging campaign to help dispel myths

and stereotypes impacting homeless YYA and their outcomes.

#8) Proposed Project: Tiny Home Village on Multi-Use Site

What:

● What is the project?

○ YHDP funding would be used to purchase lots of vacant land to foster self-

sustaining tiny home communities (lots would be about 50-75 yards) with

approximately 40 tiny houses per lot

● What would the project include?

○ Physical mailing addresses for residents (not PO Boxes)

○ Skills and vocational jobs training (construction of a tiny home, electrical wiring of

a tiny home, plumbing, property management, accounting, etc)

○ Availability for young families

○ Community partnerships to provide robust wraparound services

Who would it serve?

● All categories, recognizing disproportionate representation of YYA of color, LGBTQ+ folks,

youth with families, minors

Type:

● What type of project?

○ TH or PSH to acquire land; could consider doing a blended Transitional housing

and RRH project together with a waiver; TH dollars could get you operating costs

for the land, and RRH dollars could get you move out costs for those transitioning

from the tiny home to a new permanent home.

○ Waivers will depend on the project type decided above

● Is this new or an expansion of a current model/project?

○ Expansion. See Othello Tiny Home Villages or Kitsap County Tiny Home Villages

for model reference.

What is the impact?

● What is the projected impact? How does it help us meet our goals and objectives?

○ Provides immediate safety, shelter, and stability for youth under 25.

○ Would provide comprehensive services through community partners to connect

youth to community resources

○ Provides initial foothold for security to successfully transition YYA to permanent,

stable housing

How much?

● How many additional YYA would this serve and how much money would need to be

allocated to this?

○ Staffing would consist of 2-3 young people who live on-site as rotating property

managers

○ Cost per 40 served youth/year = Annual salaries + cost of land plot + any

operating costs to maintain the land

○ Houses/building/materials for tiny homes would be donated by the community

○ ½ acre lots in Seattle range from may be as low as $150,000-$250,000

Who & How:

● Who would hold the contract (city, county, UW, other)?

○ County

● Will this be an RFP process?

○ TBD – youth involvement would be required in selection process

● What would it take to implement?

○ Partner programs to supplement and implement connections to permanent

housing that is affordable

○ Partner programs to implement coordinated support systems

○ Youth and community advisory committees to review performance, outcomes,

and interactions

Which of the required principles does this project address?

● Special populations

● Youth Choice

● Family engagement

● Individualized and client-driven supports

● Social and community integration

Notes:

● The YAB commits to making funding available only to organizations who commit to

having paid youth board members in their decision making processes and lobbying

efforts.

● We also hope to embed a kind of advertising/messaging campaign to help dispel myths

and stereotypes impacting homeless YYA and their outcomes.

#9) Recommended Project: Landlord Liaising/Incentivizing


Incentivize landlords to keep costs low for youth in our programs so we can get youth

into housing quickly and effectively and provide them with stable/permanent housing.


There are many vacant properties around the region – many of which are owned by

landlords. We believe an excellent use of funds is a kind incentivized contract with

landlords to keep rent costs low – at operating costs. We know that the cost of living in

King County is not reflective of operating costs. It is the direct result of inflation. If we can

incentivize landlords to keep costs low for youth in our programs, we can get youth into

housing quickly and effectively and provide them with stable/permanent housing.

We also believe we should be able to help youth bypass background checks, etc. We’ve

seen this done effectively through the Landlord Liaison Project; as long as youth are

receiving consistent support from case management, the organization could back the youth

who is applying for housing to ensure payment to the landlord.

Through on-going case management, we would ensure access to things like: Access to basic need items (clothes, toothbrush, toothpaste, etc.) Connection to resources and job/community opportunities Career coach or Mentorship program Education, employment, networking, and skill development opportunities Health services, which includes medical, dental, vision, therapy, and other services Access to flexible funding Legal Services Documentation Services Addiction-focused counseling Outreach team

Under 18

Though we are unsure of how to do this legally, we would want to prioritize spaces for youth under 18. Increasing the number of under 18 beds and under 25 beds in general through incentivizing scattered shelter site models, such as LifeWire’s DV shelter model

Focus more money on prevention and intervention than shelter Tie housing options into schools so that case managers can wrap around and meet

families +/ unaccompanied minors where they are at Institutional Leverage

The institution would provide backing for youth with criminal backgrounds (as long as they were regularly receiving case management)

Would provide backing to folks without rental history, folks with poor rental history (like evictions), and folks with bad credit scores

This would help people have both stable housing and improved rental histories

Who would it serve? Youth under 25; ideally youth under 18 would be prioritized


o Checking with HUD


o This is an old model – an expansion of the Landlord Liaison Project. Also, the MFTE (Multi-Family Tax Exemption) Model accounts for possible applications of subsidized units/landlord incentivizing.


Provide fast, secure, and affordable housing for anyone under 25 in need of support.

Would provide comprehensive services to ensure stable housing. This would be a place

to build autonomy and agency through housing stability. Living next to folks who have

stable housing histories will also help to undo bias in King County toward/impacting

homeless/unstably housed young people.


allocated to this?

We’re not sure; too many variables. We believe that implementing these strategies will

result in meaningful increase in quality and quantity of services. We are trying to target

people who aren’t receiving services and who aren’t accounted for in data collection.


o TBD


o Unclear at this time. We believe that if it were an RFP, youth would need to be

involved in the selection process. We believe in the expertise of the CoC.



We don’t have this information, but we should have youth involved.

-What is the anticipated process/timeline?

-Unclear at this time, but it would likely be a multi-year process.

-We would want something that is sustainable in the long-term.

-Who would be the lead?

-Youth Led

-YAB reviewing what’s happening

-Unclear of who would hold the clinical services and supports.

Next steps?

We don’t currently know what is needed at this time. We would trust in the CoC

to help us come up with next steps.

This could be implemented fairly quickly given the lessons learned and the

foundational work that has already happened with the YMCA, Bellevue

Presbyterian and Friends of Youth (in terms of development of training and

recruitment materials)





youth involved in JJ and foster care systems, victims of trafficking and exploitation


o Youth choice



o Coordinated entry

FY 2017 NOFA Background

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) McKinney Continuum of Care Program funds are competitive funds targeted towards ending homelessness with an emphasis on housing. The competition is annual and begins with release of a formal Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). The FY 2017 NOFA has not yet been released.

The NOFA changes each year as HUD considers new data, research and best practices, and looks to meet its priorities for the funds. Here is what is known so far for FY 2017:

The Tier 1 / Tier 2 ranking approach will continue. HUD first implemented Tiering in 2012 to address a national renewal demand that exceeded available funding. Tiering requires a CoC to rate and rank all projects according to local criteria and then to place them into one of two HUD “Tiers”. Tiers are financial thresholds based on the value of the CoC annual renewal demand with set proportions for Tier1 and Tier 2 (the latter 15% in 2015 and 7% in 2016). Tier 1 is more certain to receive funding, and Tier 2 at a bit more risk.

Each CoC is required to rate and rank each of its projects according to locally developed criteria. HUD will continue to apply its own selection which in 2016 included prioritizing permanent housing, as well as low barrier housing serving literally homeless households, performance, and strategic use of resources.

Reallocation remains an option. New Permanent Housing projects can be created through defunding or reduction of existing projects. Projects can be either (1) Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) projects for chronically homeless, (2) Rapid Re-Housing serving homeless individuals and families who come directly from streets or shelter, or (3) a new Rapid Rehousing / Transitional Housing Program (details of this component are not yet known).

There will be bonus funding but a specific amount is not known at this time. This funding will be targeted to projects that further HUD strategic goals. Likely this means NEW Permanent Supportive Housing projects that will serve 100% chronically homeless individuals/families or new Rapid Re-Housing serving homeless individuals and families who come directly from streets/shelter or fleeing DV.

Financial Implications coming with FY 2017 NOFA Release

Key Category Amount Definition

The “annual renewal demand” (ARD) for Seattle King County CoC

$ 35,182,572 (+ / -) Base amount for which we are eligible to apply

The $ proportion of the ARD that we are required to place in Tier 2

$ TBD Requires reallocation and/or strategic placement of existing projects in tier 2

The amount of bonus funds for which we are eligible to apply

$ TBD Requires local process to identify eligible projects

Total amount for which we are eligible $TBD Total Priority Listing

Key NOFA Deadlines

Date Element Notes

30 days prior to NOFA due date

Deadline for all local project applications to be submitted for CoC review

CoC must establish a deadline for receipt of local project applications no later than 30 days prior to NOFA deadline


Final decisions on projects to be renewed, reduced, eliminated or added to the application

All potential applicants must be notified in writing of all funding decisions.


Consolidated Application including CoC Priority Listing posted on All Home Website

Bonus points for posting CoC Application 2 days prior to NOFA due date.

NOFA DUE DATE

Submit final CoC Consolidated Application to HUD via esnaps.

DUE DATE announced in the FY 2017 NOFA when released.

Note: points, specific dollar amounts or percentages may change with the FY 2017 NOFA

Continuum of Care Program Tiering Overview from FY 2016

Projects must be placed strategically in Tier 2 to maximize the likelihood of securing funding and in the context of the funding values for CoC Program as re-affirmed by the All Home Coordinating Board.

In FY 2016, the Coc Program NOFA specified the following scoring schema for projects placed in Tier 2:

Scoring Category Score Comments

CoC Score 50 Score proportionate to overall CoC score out of 200 (determined by HUD). This score will be the same for each of our applications, and unknown until HUD awards are announced.

Project Type 5 5 – PSH, RRH, Safe Haven, HMIS, Coordinated Entry; TH for YYA 3 – Transitional Housing for Families or Single Adults 1 – Supportive Services Only (SSO) renewal

Commitment to Policy Priorities

10

PH – housing first TH – low barrier, rapid placement, no service participation

requirements or preconditions CEA / HMIS – automatic 10 points

Project Ranking 35 Score based on application amount and amount of Tier 2 funding already allocated (i.e. projects placed higher in the priority order).

TOTAL 100

NOTE: In FY 2016 HUD increased the emphasis and impact of project rating over the 2015 competition where CoC score and Project were of greater significance.

The Seattle/ King County CoC considered three key factors in FY 2016 for the priority placement of projects as described below: 1) project category; 2) project type; and 3) project cost:

1. PROJECT CATEGORIES

a. Realignment Projects

Realignment projects are projects changing their project model from Transitional Housing for families with children to Rapid Rehousing or Permanent Supportive Housing serving chronically homeless. Any change would support the All Home Family Initiatives and the System Realignment Targets and/or the Domestic Violence system best practice approach of Rapid Rehousing. Under realignment, sponsoring agencies voluntarily close their programs, and funds are re-directed into permanent housing or permanent supportive housing by the same set of agencies.

b. Reallocation projects

Reallocation projects are new projects made possible by funding that is redirected from current renewal; projects. The only project types are eligible for reallocation funding were: (1) Permanent Supportive Housing, (2) Rapid Re-housing, (3) HMIS (Homeless Management Information System), (3) Coordinated Entry.

c. Renewal Projects

Renewal Projects are projects currently funded by the HUD Continuum of Care (CoC) Program. The Seattle/ King County CoC is required to place a designated dollar amount in Tier 2. A number of renewal projects may be placed in tier 2 in order to cover any portion of the Tier 2 amount (still to be determined for FY2017) that is not otherwise reallocated from existing projects.

d. Bonus Projects

The Seattle/ King County CoC is eligible to apply for bonus funding in an amount determined by HUD. In FY 2016, only two (2) project types were eligible for bonus funds: (1) Permanent Supportive Housing for chronically homeless households (singles or families) and (2) Rapid Re-housing (for any/all populations including youth and young adults).

Note: points, specific dollar amounts or percentages may change with the FY 2017 NOFA

2. PROJECT TYPE

Project Type is the second priority consideration. Using HUD’s scoring schema different project types will score differently and how these projects are or not placed will affect the CoC’s ability to fully secure Tier 2 funds. The project types and score range are noted below:


Project Type 5

5pts – PSH, RRH, Safe Haven, HMIS, Coordinated Entry; TH for YYA

3pts – Transitional Housing for Families or Single Adults

1pt – Supportive Services Only (SSO) renewal

3. PROJECT RANKING

With a maximum of 35 Project Ranking points for each project, cost becomes a strategic element in the placement of projects. Each project ranking score is affected by the amount of Tier 2 funding allocated to the project above it in the project ranking.


Project Ranking 35 A calculation based on project application amount and amount of Tier 2 funding already allocated

Preliminary Rank Order / Project Priority Listing

To remain competitive the Seattle King County CoC Program process must be strategic in the use of CoC Program funding within the community.

The CoC holds a local funding process that rates and ranks all projects according to locally developed criteria. This local review determines which project applications will be included in the consolidated application, along with their relative priority and results in the CoC Priority Listing.

Like FY 2016, this means a rigorous review of current CoC Program investments, how well each project aligns

with and supports CoC priorities and contributes to the collective impact on ending homelessness in Seattle King County. HUD’s approach to the competition can again be expected to emphasize the following at both the individual program and overall system level:

Quality data and demonstrated performance at all levels –both program and at the system level;

Use of Coordinated Entry for All to prioritize and refer people who most need assistance and ensure all programs are engaged and participating;

Effective management of resources and reallocation where necessary from lower performing projects to the types of projects/practices most likely to reduce homelessness in the CoC; and

Reducing barriers to program entry and utilizing a housing first approach to quickly move persons coming from streets or shelter to permanent housing.

The CoC preliminary rank order is based on individual project scores which are tightly linked to HUD and Seattle King County CoC priorities.

The CoC reserves the right to consider additional factors that may adjust the final rank. This would be done to achieve a strong and balanced HUD application that achieves local priorities, maximizes points and thus funding for the entire Continuum.

Additional factors that may be considered include:

the geographic and population diversity of the projects;

the potential impact of the loss of housing units on the CoC homeless system

the opportunity to respond to local CoC priorities and HUD strategic goals for this fund source, including:

No or low barrier to housing

Serving literally homeless

Rapid exits to permanent housing or long/term housing stability in permanent housing

All Home King County - Priority Listing Decision Factors

All Home King County frames the CoC policies and priorities, including those for the HUD CoC Program. All Home Coordinating Board reviews the CoC Program policies regarding Tier 2 project placement. The following

assumptions were used in FY 2016 to guide decisions regarding priority placement in Tier 2:

1. Include only those projects that can receive full points for both project type and commitment to policy priorities.

Rationale: Maximizing points for each of HUD’s scoring factors ensures the greatest likelihood of maintaining current funding and securing additional funding for the CoC. NOTE: based on HUD’s schema this excludes from Tier 2 any transitional housing for families with children or for single adults, as well as Services Only (SSO) projects.

2. Order applications from smallest to largest funding requests within the four Categories of projects, except where local values and HUD priorities may dictate otherwise.

Rationale: Placing smaller requests before higher requests will result in marginally higher HUD project ranking scores for projects within that classification, which may result in additional funding for the continuum.

3. Value Realignment Projects as the first priority in Tier 2.

Rationale: These projects are voluntarily reallocating funds and realigning their projects in collaboration in support of family system realignment efforts. This effort is designed to rebalance our system and better match homeless housing program types in the community with the needs of the homeless families being seen in the system. Permanent Supportive Housing for Chronically Homeless households is a HUD priority, and supports HUD’s goal to end chronic homelessness by 2017, as well as the goal to end family homelessness, Rapid Rehousing is nationally recognized as a best practice for rehousing homeless families and in the case of certain projects expands the local DV Rapid-rehousing pilot. These projects will get HUD’s maximum score for program type and commitment to policy priorities

4. Use the CoC preliminary score based rank order, with a special emphasis on a low barrier approach and movement to permanent housing, to identify current projects not to be renewed by identifying projects from the bottom and moving up the rank order to select lower performing projects as subjects for reallocation, taking into consideration geographic and population impacts.

Rationale: A certain number of renewal projects will need to be defunded or reduced to complete the dollar amount that we are required to place in Tier 2.

5. Use the CoC preliminary score based rank order to identify renewal projects for placement in Tier 2 by identifying projects from the bottom and moving up the rank order to select projects that maximize HUD’s Project Type/Project Priority points and face the least risk in Tier 2.

Rationale: A certain number of renewal projects are being placed in Tier 2 to complete the dollar amount that we are required to place in Tier 2.

6. Value renewal projects that are strategically placed in Tier 2 to meet the dollar amount we are required to place in Tier 2.

Rationale: These projects are existing projects receiving HUD CoC funding that are being placed in Tier 2 to meet the dollar threshold the Seattle King County CoC is required to place in Tier 2. The projects meet HUD project type and commitment to policy priorities.

All Home King County – CoC Program Values

McKinney CoC Application Values

1. Maintain as much HUD Continuum of Care Program funding in our CoC as possible.

2. Promote our goal to make homelessness rare, brief, and one time in King County and address issues of disproportionality

3. Prioritize projects that:

a. Actively participate in the Continuum of Care and help advance collective goals

b. Have movement to permanent housing and subsequent stability as the primary focus

c. Leverage and do not replace mainstream / other resources

d. Focus on those who are literally homeless (streets, shelter, transitional housing for homeless)

e. Participate in the HMIS with complete, high quality data;

f. Demonstrate low barriers to program entry

g. Perform well against HUD McKinney Continuum of Care goals and positively impact system performance

h. Consistently meet and exceed operational standards for spending, match, occupancy and reporting.

Rank Sponsor Project Target Pop. Area Program Score Cost Aggregate $

1 DESC Rainier Chronic Sea PSH 63 536,610

2 AHA Ozanam Place Chronic Sea PSH 62 316,414 853,024

3 Archdiocesan Housing Authority St.Martins on Westlake Disabled Adults Sea PSH 62 197,739 1,050,763

4 Catholic Housing Services Patrick Place Disabled Adults Sea PSH 62 143,888 1,194,651

5 DESC Canaday House Chronic Sea Perm 61 371,812 1,566,463

6 VCCC Valley Landing Disabled Adults BOC PSH 61 162,531 1,728,994

7 AHA Ozanam Place Chronic Sea PSH 60 27,395 1,756,389

8 Transitional Resources Avalon Place Chronic Sea Perm 60 34,808 1,791,197

9 Archdiocesan Housing Authority Rose of Lima House Disabled Adults Sea PSH 60 108,288 1,899,485

10 YWCA Opportunity Place Disabled Adults Sea PSH 59 114,450 2,013,935

11 AHA Noel at Bakhita Chronic Sea PSH 58 162,027 2,175,962

12 DESC Cottage Grove Commons Chronic Sea PSH 57 665,334 2,841,296

13 DESC Evans House Chronic Sea PSH 57 212,950 3,054,246

14 DESC Aurora Supportive Housing Chronic Sea PSH 56 531,419 3,585,665

15 DESC Scattered Site Leasing Chronic Sea PSH 56 600,270 4,185,935

16 Compass Housing Nyer Urness Chronic Sea PSH 55 515,927 4,701,862

17 AHA Dorothy Day House Disabled Adults Sea PSH 54 25,422 4,727,284

18 DESC Lyon Building Disabled Adults Sea PSH 52 418,991 5,146,275

19 Plymouth Housing Group Williams Apartments Disabled Adults Sea PSH 52 529,608 5,675,883

20 King County / PHG Shelter Plus Care TRA Disabled - All Reg PSH 51 7,609,951 13,285,834

21 Catholic Community Services Aloha Inn Single Adults Sea Trans 50 201,576 13,487,410

22 DESC 1811 Eastlake Chronic Sea PSH 50 642,114 14,129,524

23 King County / PHG Shelter Plus Care SRA Disabled - All Reg PSH 50 1,170,694 15,300,218

24 DESC Interbay Chronic Sea PSH --- 1,201,980 16,502,198

25 DESC; CCS; REACH; PHG PSH Rent Assistance Chronic Reg PSH --- 4,356,835 20,859,033

26 Evergreen Treatment Services REACH Scattered Sites #1 Chronic Reg PSH --- 624,742 21,483,775

27 YWCA Family Village PSH CH - families BOC PSH --- 104,294 21,588,069

28 Compass Housing Alliance Ronald Commons CH - families BOC PSH --- 147,272 21,735,341

29 Solid Ground Sand Point Families PSH CH - families Sea PSH --- 393,823 22,129,164

30 YWCA Opportunity Place / Seneca Chronic Sea PSH --- 116,630 22,245,794

31 DESC Rapid Re-Housing Single Adults Reg RRH --- 483,231 22,729,025

32 Solid Ground Journey Home Families Reg RRH --- 526,550 23,255,575

2016 Final HUD McKinney Continuum of Care Priority Order

page 1 of 3 Final 2016 Priority Order as approved by All Home Funder Alignment Committee 8-23-2016



33 Seattle-King County CoC Rapid Re-Housing Families Reg RRH --- 571,151 23,826,726

34 Neighborhood House Rapid Re-housing All Reg RRH --- 570,884 24,397,610

35 FOY / THS / YMCA / Ycare RRH - YYA #1 Youth >18 only Reg RRH --- 756,724 25,154,334

36 Consejo Mi Casa Families BOC Trans 49 64,613 25,218,947

37 DESC Kerner Scott Disabled Adults Sea Safe Haven 46 443,471 25,662,418

38 PHG Coming Home Single Adults Sea Trans 44 488,420 26,150,838

39 The Salvation Army William Booth Center Single Adults Sea Trans 44 253,988 26,404,826

40 The Salvation Army Hickman House Families Sea Trans 42 77,838 26,482,664

41 Solid Ground Broadview Families Sea Trans 41 158,620 26,641,284

42 Friends of Youth New Ground Bothell Youth >18 only BOC Trans 38 123,062 26,764,346

43 KFYS Watson Manor Youth / YA BOC Trans 38 38,134 26,802,480

44 Multi-Service Center Transitional Family Hsg Families BOC Trans 38 26,724 26,829,204

45 LIHI Martin Court SA & Families Sea Trans 35 105,000 26,934,204

46 El Centro de la Raza Ferdinand / Shelton Families Sea Trans 33 17,603 26,951,807

47 YouthCare Straley House Youth >18 only Sea Trans 33 105,602 27,057,409

48 YWCA Anita Vista Families BOC Trans 33 57,319 27,114,728

49 Lifewire My Friend's Place Families BOC Trans 32 251,744 27,366,472

50 YouthCare / Friends of Youth Sand Point Youth Youth / YA Sea Trans 31 324,869 27,691,341

51 United Indians of all Tribes United Indians Youth Home Youth >18 only Sea Trans 31 343,565 28,034,906

52 YWCA Auburn TH Program Families BOC Trans 30 42,540 28,077,446

53 Youthcare Home of Hope Youth >18 only Sea Trans 29 181,306 28,258,752

54 Auburn Youth Resources Severson House Youth >18 only BOC Trans 24 123,286 28,382,038

55 Sea/King CoC Coordinated Entry All Reg SSO-CEA --- 1,872,500 30,254,538

56 King County HMIS All Reg HMIS --- 403,714 30,658,252

57 FOY / THS / YMCA / Ycare RRH - YYA #2 Youth >18 only Reg RRH --- 453,483 31,111,735

31,111,735 93% Annual Renewal Demand (ARD)




FOY / THS / YMCA / Ycare RRH - YYA #2 Youth >18 only Reg RRH --- 77,648 31,189,383

Compass Housing Cascade Women's Chronic Sea PSH --- 116,182 31,305,565

New Beginnings New Beginnings Transitional Families Sea RRH --- 350,000 31,655,565

Youthcare Ravenna House Youth >18 only Sea Trans 26.00 151,856 31,807,421

Community Psychiatric Clinic Cedar House Youth >18 only Sea Trans 34.00 168,153 31,975,574

Community Psychiatric Clinic Harbor House Disabled Adults Sea Safe Haven 34.00 348,156 32,323,730

DESC RRH expansion Single Adults Reg RRH --- 560,023 32,883,753

Evergreen Treatment Services REACH Scattered Sites #2 Chronic BOC PSH --- 569,726 33,453,479

33,453,479

DESC North 96th Chronic PSH --- 578,869 34,032,348

DESC North 96th Chronic PSH --- 578,569 34,610,917

King County Scattered Sites PSH expansion Chronic PSH --- 515,236 35,126,153

35,126,153

CoC Planning CoC Planning (non-competitive / not part of tiering) 1,003,604 36,129,757 v.9.2.16: reflects final grant amounts

31,111,735

2,341,744

33,453,479

1,672,674

1,003,604

Application TOTAL 36,129,757

Amount for Tier 2 Projects (7% of ARD)

WA-500 ARD (the total amount of all CoC renewal projects)

BONUS Project – PSH for Chronically Homeless and/or RRH

CoC Planning Grant (considered new by HUD each year)

Tie

r 2

- 7

% A

RA

100% Annual Renewal Demand (ARD)

Tie

r 2

Bo

nu

s

Amount for Tier One Projects (93% of Annual Renewal Demand (ARD)


goodwill education and training center 700 dearborn place s...

Documents