USF

School of Social Work and the Department of Mental Health Law

and PolicyLocated in the

College of Behavioral and Community SciencesUniversity of South Florida

13301 Bruce B. Downs Blvd. Tampa, FL 33612-3807

Pinellas County Health and Human Services

2189 Cleveland Street, Suites 230 and 266Clearwater, FL 33765

For more information, call 727-464-8416 or visit the Website:

http://www.pinellascounty.org/humanservices/

© October 2008

Pinellas Hope is a temporary shelter that provides homeless men and women privacy and a safe place to leave their belongings during the day or while they are at work. The residents may sleep undisturbed, take a shower, and have a comforting evening meal. There is a strict code of conduct in Pinellas Hope. The clients will be required to agree to rules associated with the shelter facility. Security/background checks will be done on every prospective resident to assure that the clients of Pinellas Hope will be safe and secure. Individuals are not allowed in Pinellas Hope if the presence of that individual threatens the safety of other clients and personnel.

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................. 1

EXECUTIVE.SUMMARY.................... 2

INTRODUCTIONOrigin of the Pinellas Hope Pilot Project...............................................................4

Community Indicators ..........................................................................................5

DESCRIPTION.OF.THE.PINELLAS.HOPE.PILOT.PROJECTPinellas Hope Eligibility ........................................................................................8

Admission and Intake Process................................................................................9

Program Rules .....................................................................................................10

Program Services .................................................................................................10

Program Operations ............................................................................................11

METHODOLOGYDischarge Process ................................................................................................14

Data Sources .......................................................................................................14

Limitations ..........................................................................................................16

Resident Characteristics ......................................................................................17

FINDINGSProfile of Discharged Residents ...........................................................................19

Comparisons to Other Emergency Shelter Providers ...........................................23

Resident Interviews .............................................................................................26

Stakeholder Interviews ........................................................................................33

Summary of Key Findings ...................................................................................39

LESSONS.LEARNED.AND.RECOMMENDATIONSFuture Research Directions .................................................................................42

Conclusion ..........................................................................................................43

REFERENCES................................... 44

Appendices

APPENDIX A. Catholic Charities DOSP Central Intake/Assessment Form ............. 45

APPENDIX B. Homeless Support Project Assessment Form ................................... 48

APPENDIX C. Discharge Closing Summary .......................................................... 50

APPENDIX D. Catholic Charities Summary Report ............................................... 51

APPENDIX E. Data Review and Justice System Involvement of Pinellas Hope and Homeless Emergency Project Residents ................................... 52

List of Figures

Figure 1. Employment by Industry in Pinellas County, Florida in 2006 ................... 6

Figure 2. Reasons for Becoming Homeless ............................................................. 26

Figure 3. Services Used When Living on the Street ................................................. 27

Figure 4. Services Needed at Pinellas Hope ............................................................. 28

Figure 5. The Best Aspects of Pinellas Hope ............................................................ 29

Figure 6. The Hardest Part of Living in Pinellas Hope ............................................ 30

Figure 7. Most Helpful Aspect of Living at Pinellas Hope ....................................... 31

Figure 8. Things That Should be Improved if Pinellas Hope is Offered Next Year ... 32

Figure 9. Strengths of the Pinellas Hope Program ................................................... 34

Figure 10. Success of the Pinellas Hope Model ......................................................... 37

Figure 11. Recommended Improvements to Pinellas Hope ....................................... 38

List of Tables

Table 1. Demographics of the 2007 Pinellas Point-in-Time Homeless Count and JMS Data ................................................................................................... 7

Table 2. Pinellas Hope Operating Revenue and Expenditures ................................ 12

Table 3. Baseline Demographics of Pinellas Hope Residents .................................. 18

Table 4. Primary Reason for Discharge from Pinellas Hope ................................... 19

Table 5. Average Length of Stay in Pinellas Hope by Type of Discharge ................. 20

Table 6. Monthly Income at Exit for Successful Discharges ................................... 21

Table 7. Entry and Exit Income Status for Residents Housed with Income ............ 22

Table 8. Type of Housing Destination for Residents Successfully Housed with Income .................................................................................................... 22

Table 9. Source of Support for Residents Successfully Housed without Income .... 23

Table 10. Primary Reason for Discharge from Turning Point Outreach Shelter Beds from December 1, 2007 – April 30, 2008 ................................................ 24

Table 11. Primary Reason for Discharge from HEP Outreach Shelter Beds from December 1, 2007 – April 30, 2008 ........................................................ 25

�Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

The October 2008 Pinellas Hope Pilot Project process evaluation was prepared under the sponsorship of the Pinellas County Department of Health and Human Services with the participation of the University of South Florida (USF) School of Social Work and Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute.

This report was prepared by:Diana Carro, Program Analyst, Pinellas County Department of Health and Human ServicesJean Vleming, Program Analyst, Pinellas County Department of Health and Human Services in concert withSondra J. Fogel, Associate Professor, School of Social Work, University of South FloridaKathleen Moore, Research Assistant Professor, Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, University of South Florida.

In addition the following individuals made important contributions to this report and the authors would like to thank:

Kathy Bugbee, ITS Director of Catholic Charities, Inc. for data collection and analytic support Edward Perry, Resource Manager, and Jeff Gehring, TBIN System Administrator, of 211 Tampa Bay Cares, Inc. for their assistance in the data collection efforts and for subsequent information requests.Natalie Jackson, Social Work Supervisor, and the staff of the Pinellas County Department of Health and Human Services for assistance with conducting intake at Pinellas Hope, as well as completing data entry and auditing.Tim Burns, Director of Pinellas County Justice and Consumer Services, and Chuck Kearns, Bureau Director of EMS and Fire Administration, for the data analysis and supplemental reports they contributed to this project.Ezra Ochshorn for his invaluable assistance with editing the report and Carrie Wagner for her assistance in designing the report.

Finally, the authors thank:Maureen Freaney, Bureau Director, and Cliff Smith, Assistant Director, of the Pinellas County Department of Health and Human ServicesFrank Murphy, President, and Sheila Lopez, CEO and Director of Community Services, of Catholic Charities, Inc. for their outstanding support to this effort.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

2Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

On September 25, 2007, the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners approved funding for the Pinellas Hope Pilot Project, a five-month program managed by Catholic Charities, Inc. and designed to serve approximately 250 homeless adults in a contained campsite. The pilot project goals were to 1) reduce street homelessness, and 2) transition 40% of Pinellas Hope residents out of street homelessness. With the assistance of the University of South Florida, an evaluation was conducted by the Pinellas County Department of Health and Human Services to document and track progress throughout the duration of Pinellas Hope and to gather key data that might guide homeless solutions in the future.

This report is the first part of a two-part assessment. The purpose of this report is to present a history of Pinellas Hope, describe the program operations, and detail the data collection methods and findings associated with the five-month pilot project. Also included is a discussion of the lessons learned and recommendations for future research. (Note that this pilot project evaluation encompasses the time frame December 1, 2007 through April 30, 2008, though Pinellas Hope remained open during the summer of 2008 at a reduced tent count.)

Successful transition of program residents out of street homelessness is measured by whether they were able to maintain acceptable housing after being placed by Pinellas Hope. Catholic Charities agreed to track and report on all individuals for six months after placement. Those results will be compiled as a supplement to this initial report.

For this report, an assessment method called a process evaluation was employed. A process evaluation consists of quantitative and qualitative assessments that provide complementary data on the strengths and weaknesses of the program. This technique also can capture important information about the local social, legal, and political context, a vital consideration given the impact local environments have in shaping new public policies (US Department of Justice, 2007). Conducting a process evaluation is crucial in understanding which intervention outcomes are attributable to the program.

Themes and Observations:Pinellas Hope proved to be a viable, cost-effective option for providing emergency shelter to the street homeless in Pinellas County. With less than four months to establish the site and begin operations, this model provided a prompt response to a crisis-level situation. It also provided a cost-effective way to provide emergency shelter due to its low facility and capital costs.The program’s flexibility was mentioned as the greatest strength. The availability of private sleeping quarters gave Pinellas Hope the ability to serve changing ratios of male and female participants based upon demand. Not limiting residents to a typical 30-day length of stay provided a greater chance to achieve a successful housing discharge.

•

•

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

�Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

Financial assistance impacted the success rate among discharged Pinellas Hope residents. Of the 189 successfully housed residents, 51 (27%) received financial assistance at discharge. This does not include assistance provided during residents’ stay in Pinellas Hope that might have also contributed to their successful discharge, such as purchase of work supplies and bus passes. Without financial assistance for initial rent and/or utility costs, etc., the success rate might have been lower.The Homeless Street Outreach Program is critical to connecting homeless persons with needed services. Outreach is the initial step in connecting or reconnecting homeless individuals to needed services. Outreach is primarily directed toward finding homeless people who might not use services due to lack of awareness or active avoidance (ICH, 1991; McMurray–Avila, 1997), and who would otherwise be ignored or under served (Morse, 1987). Outreach alone is viewed as having limited success potential unless it is combined with housing placement (Burt et al., 2004). This pilot program demonstrated the effectiveness of the Homeless Street Outreach Program. By using the Outreach teams as referral sources, many street homeless connected with the system services.The project leveraged community dollars and community engagement/volunteerism. Diverse new players came to the table willing to provide financial contributions to Pinellas Hope, volunteer their time, and even provide new homeless services. This broad collaboration was cited as a major program strength.A sustainable source of funding needs to be identified. Catholic Charities is currently the only partner committed to on-going funding of Pinellas Hope if it continues as a permanent program. Additional funding sources are needed to provide long-term stability in combating the long-term problem of homelessness. Otherwise, Pinellas Hope will find itself competing with established social service providers for limited community resources.

In addition to the key points above, this report advocates for the development of a comparative evaluation process to assess other operating homeless shelter and service programs, with the goal of allowing policymakers to more effectively plan and fund services that best meet the needs of the homeless at the greatest saving to the taxpayers.

•

•

•

•

Private Sleeping Area

�Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

On any given day or night, an estimated 3.5 million children and adults in the United States are without a safe, decent, and affordable place to call home. Despite efforts from government agencies, the private sector, social service providers and faith-based groups, adequate housing for all citizens remains an elusive national goal. Homelessness is defined by The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a situation where a person is sleeping in “(1) a place not meant for human habitation, (2) an emergency shelter, or (3) transitional housing for homeless persons who originally came from the streets or emergency shelters.” (Persons who are cohabitating, living in motels, doubled–up or temporarily housed in institutions such as jails, hospitals or treatment programs are excluded.)

Using the HUD definition, Florida identified 60,168 individuals as homeless during the 2007 Annual Point-in-Time Survey count (DCF, 2007). In addition to tallying homeless persons, the survey provides valuable information on the characteristics of this population. The majority of the homeless persons in Florida are single white men between the ages of 18 to 60 years. Veterans comprised 17% of those counted as homeless. The top two reasons cited for homelessness were employment/financial problems and family issues. Nearly half of the homeless surveyed reported having a disabling condition. Drug or alcohol addictions were the most frequently cited conditions, followed by physical disabilities and mental health problems. The majority of individuals stated they were homeless for the first time and had been homeless for a year or more. Most interviewed also indicated they had lived in their present community for a year or more.

In Pinellas County, 5,195 individuals were documented as homeless during the 2007 Point-in-Time count (PCCH, 2007). This represents a 10.3% increase from the 2006 estimate of 4,710 and a 14.4% increase from the 2005 estimate of 4,540. The Pinellas County homeless population is very similar to the overall homeless population in Florida, with two exceptions: 1) a higher number (24%) indicated they were veterans, and 2) 55% cited the lack of affordable housing as their most important unmet need, higher than statewide averages.

Origin of the Pinellas Hope Pilot ProjectNumerous events converged to heighten public concern about the rise in

homelessness in Pinellas County since 2003. During this period, downtown St. Petersburg became a congregation area for many homeless persons. In early 2006 the City of St. Petersburg responded by sanctioning the creation of a temporary “tent city” in a lot adjacent to the St. Vincent de Paul facility. This arrangement lasted for several months. In the months that followed, other tent cities sprung up without appropriate oversight and local government approval. In early 2007, the city began enforcing ordinances to dismantle the unauthorized tents, an action that attracted much community interest and national media attention.

INTRODUCTION

�Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

During this time, the City of St. Petersburg also began discussions with Pinellas County government, the Homeless Leadership Network, and the Pinellas County Coalition for the Homeless, Catholic Charities, Inc., Progress Energy, St. Petersburg College and other stakeholder groups about building public-private collaborations to reduce local homelessness. Coinciding with these conversations, economic conditions in Florida began to decline, creating fears that homelessness would significantly increase and the number of emergency shelter beds was insufficient to meet this swelling demand. This generated a plan for increasing shelter space around the county, including creating a 150-bed temporary Homeless Service Center at the old Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) site and expanding capacity at existing shelters. The proposal for the Homeless Service Center included a request to Pinellas County Government for $2,104,841 in annual operating funds. By the time that this proposal was presented, the city and county budgets were being significantly constricted due to State tax reform. In this economic climate, the new Homeless Service Center was cost prohibitive.

In August, 2007, Catholic Charities President Frank Murphy and the Roman Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg offered to provide land owned by the Diocese to house approximately 250 homeless adults in a contained campsite from December 2007 through April 2008 (believed to be the peak season of homelessness in Pinellas County). Following this offer, discussions ensued between diverse partners to locate program funding, coordinate on-site facilities and services, and prepare the land for the campsite. While operating costs for previous housing proposals were prohibitive, Pinellas Hope leveraged community dollars and community engagement/volunteerism, resulting in a comparatively low-cost solution with minimal time needed for implementation. On September 25, 2007 the Board of County Commissioners approved funding of $461,278 for the five-month pilot project, to begin December 1, 2007.

In addition to providing immediate homeless services, another key component in the agreement with the County Commission was the opportunity to obtain and measure pertinent data to assist with future homelessness initiatives. While many local programs serve this population, little evaluative research exists about what interventions work. Assisted by the University of South Florida, an evaluation was undertaken by the Pinellas County Department of Health and Human Services to document and track progress throughout the duration of the Pinellas Hope Pilot Project, providing a point of reference for future improvement, benchmarking, and a comparison to other local homeless provider programs.

Community IndicatorsBefore describing Pinellas Hope, it is important to examine the broader

environment in which it was operating. This section provides a brief overview of Pinellas County.

Economics. According to the 2006 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007), the mean annual income for households in Pinellas County was $59,263. Twelve percent of all households had income below the poverty level. Approximately 7% of the population made less than $10,000 annually, 7% made

�Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

between $10,000-$15,000, and almost 15% made between $15,000-$24,000. Among those receiving Social Security, average income was $13,973. Approximately 18,478 residents received food stamps in Pinellas County.

It was estimated that 95.3% of the county population was employed in 20061 The largest industries were educational services, health care, and social assistance. This was followed by professional, scientific, management and administrative and waste management services. Construction employed 9% of working adults and manufacturing employed 8% (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Employment by Industry in Pinellas County, Florida in 2006

�Source: www.flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu

Percent of employed people 16 years and over

Agriculture, forestry, fishing

and hunting, and mining

0%

Construction 9%

Manufacturing 8%

Wholesale trade 4%

Retail trade 13%

Transportation and warehousing, and

utilities3%

Information 3%

Finance and insurance, and real

estate and rental and leasing

10%

Professional, scientific, and

management, and administrative and

wastemanagement

services

13%

Educational services, health care, and social

assistance19%

Arts, entertainment, and

recreation, and accommodation,

and food services

10%

Other Services (except public

administration)5%

Public administration 4%

�Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

Housing. The Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan suggests one reason the number of street homeless and persons at-risk of homelessness is increasing is a lack of affordable housing (Pinellas County Planning Report, 2008). In Pinellas County and the surrounding metro area, the 2008 HUD Fair Market Rent is $658 per month for a modest studio apartment, $730 for a one-bedroom, $883 for a two-bedroom, $1119 for a three-bedroom, and $1351 for a four-bedroom unit (Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse)2. According to the 2006 American Community survey, the median rent in Pinellas County was $818 per month, with 55% of renters spending 30% or more of their income on housing.With HUD typically allowing 30 percent of income for a total housing payment, households with Very Low Income (under $13,325) and Low Income (between $13,326 and $21,320) cannot even afford a studio apartment in Pinellas County. The Amended 2006 Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan states that, “The affordability of rental units might be coming to an end within the next few years as the tight market supply conditions allow property owners to increase rent.” In addition, this report states there are not enough rental housing units to serve these income groups, including public housing units.

Crime statistics for transient populations. A recent study, Chronic Minor Offenders in Pinellas Jail, was conducted by Pinellas County Justice and Consumer Services. An analysis of jail data from 2005 through April 2008 showed that 3,789 unique individuals with an address listed as “transient” were arrested. (This does not count those that reported an address of a homeless shelter, a friend or relative, or who refused to provide an address.) The demographics of those listed as “transient” in the Pinellas County jail closely resembles the demographics of the homeless population in the 2007 Pinellas Point-in-Time Homeless Count (See Table 1).

Table 1. Demographics of the 2007 Pinellas Point-in-Time Homeless Count and JMS Data

Demographics Pinellas Point-in-Time Homeless Count (2007)

JMS “Transient” Data Analysis (2005-April 2008)

Gender 72% Male 86% Male

Race 67% White 67% White

Average Age 45 43

Almost all arrests among this population were for transient-related offenses such as open container, drinking within 500 feet, trespassing, panhandling, and disorderly intoxication. An analysis of the jail data for local ordinance violations revealed 3,844 unique arrests for 1,997 unique individuals3. The top five arresting law enforcement agencies for local ordinance violations were St. Petersburg City Police (55%), Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office (18%), Clearwater City Police (14%), Pinellas Park City Police (7%), and Largo City Police (1%). The cost of housing at the jail, using an estimate by the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, is $92 per day. However, this

� Source: www.flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu� Ordinance violations accompanied by other charges were excluded

8Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

does not include jail medical costs or expenses associated with retaining a public defender. The 3,844 local ordinance arrests accounted for 12,051 jail days and a total estimated cost of $1,108,692. According to this study, 152 people (8% of the total) accounted for approximately 7,198 of the ordinance jail days (60% of the total). This averages out to 7 arrests per person, with these 152 individuals accounting for $662,216 or 60% of the total cost. With an average jail stay of 3.15 days for local ordinance arrests, there is little opportunity to link up “transients” with social services and break the cycle of homelessness.

This section outlines the approaches used by Pinellas Hope to serve the homeless in Pinellas County. Catholic Charities, Inc. began operating Pinellas Hope on December 1, 2007 with the goal of providing street homeless adults with emergency shelter for five months. Pinellas Hope is located on ten acres of land owned by the Diocese of St. Petersburg in an industrial area on 126th Avenue North in Pinellas Park. With 250 tents on site, some with double occupancy, more than 250 people could be served at a time. As stated by Catholic Charities in their September 19, 2007 proposal to the Board of County Commissioners, the goals of the Pinellas Hope Pilot Project were to:

Reduce street homelessnessSuccessfully transition approximately 40% of Pinellas Hope residents into safe, stable housing

Before opening, Pinellas Hope engaged various stakeholders and community members in conversations on how to best admit and process homeless individuals who enter the program. During the initial weeks of operation, many modifications were made to better accommodate the demand for admission and facilitate implementation of Catholic Charities service policies. Presented below is the established procedure for entrance into Pinellas Hope, program rules, and service provision.

Pinellas Hope EligibilityThe primary source of referral for entrance into Pinellas Hope was the Homeless

Street Outreach Teams, although agency referrals were accepted in extreme cases. The Homeless Street Outreach teams are based in the cities of St. Petersburg, Pinellas Park, Lealman, and Clearwater. Each team consists of a law enforcement officer paired with a Social Worker, except the Clearwater unit, which consists of law enforcement only. The Homeless Street Outreach Teams have beds reserved for their use: 25 beds at Homeless Emergency Project (HEP), 24 at Turning Point, and 250 at Pinellas Hope. The funding for all of the reserved shelter beds, in addition to the Social Work staff is provided by Pinellas County Health and Human Services. If space is not available in one of the three reserved facilities, the Teams can make placements, as available, in other emergency shelters like the Salvation Army and

••

DESCRIPTION OF THE PINELLAS HOPE PILOT PROJECT

�Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

St. Vincent de Paul. When appropriate, the Teams also make direct placements into transitional housing facilities such as People that Love Mission and the Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitation Center. If an applicant has family or friends that they could live with outside of Pinellas County, each Team has access to $500 per month for transportation/ reunification costs, in addition to referrals they can make to Daystar’s Traveler’s Aid program.

Although Catholic Charities was responsible for determining admission eligibility for Pinellas Hope, the Outreach Teams triaged homeless applicants prior to their arrival at the campsite. The Outreach Teams considered several factors in determining who would be most appropriate for Pinellas Hope. The teams cited 1) joint sleeping arrangements and 2) the desire for private sleeping quarters as the most significant factors for placement into the program. In addition, Pinellas Hope is the only emergency shelter in all of Pinellas County that does not require participants to sleep in a dormitory setting with separate living quarters for males and females. Couples can often become separated when there is room to place only one of them in a facility. Other couples refuse placement because they do not want to live apart. Other factors for consideration in placement included the applicant’s need for treatment, the severity of their medical conditions, and their motivational level toward achieving self-sufficiency. If there was a need for mental health and/or substance abuse treatment, Turning Point and HEP were the Outreach Teams’ first choice for referral due to the intensive treatment services at these agencies. If space was unavailable at either shelter, Pinellas Hope was the third option. If an applicant suffered from a medical condition that could be exacerbated by living outdoors, such as asthma, the first choice for placement was at an indoor facility. Again, Pinellas Hope served as a backup option in such cases.

If an applicant was clean and sober, had income, and appeared highly motivated, the Teams would make placements directly into community transitional housing facilities. If no transitional units were available, HEP was the next choice for persons with income or who were employable and highly motivated. The preference for this arrangement was HEP’s ability to quickly move participants into their own transitional housing programs. Pinellas Hope, on the other hand, did not have the 30-day limitation on length-of-stay that HEP and Turning Point enforced, and was therefore better suited for the long-term homeless who had numerous personal obstacles to overcome before successfully transitioning into housing.

Admission and Intake ProcessOriginal efforts to institute daily admissions into Pinellas Hope proved

unfeasible due to the overwhelming requests for admission and limited staff, among other reasons. Therefore, admission intakes were restricted to Fridays, though the Director could add other days if needed. Upon arrival, each applicant completed the intake assessment (See Appendix A) and received copies of the

Dining Area

�0Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

clients’ rights and responsibilities, and notice of privacy practices. Catholic Charities utilized established policies, forms, and procedures accredited by the Council on Accreditation of New York. A Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) background check was conducted to screen for sexual predators or those with a history of violence. In the fourth month of operation, Catholic Charities began to include the Homeless Support Project Assessment form (See Appendix B) in the intake packet to aid the case managers with client service plans. A review of the program rules and responsibilities was discussed with each applicant deemed appropriate for admission into Pinellas Hope. Pinellas County Health and Human Services provided additional staff personnel (in-kind help) to assist with the intake process. By the final month of Pinellas Hope, when admission requests were slowed by its impending closure, Catholic Charities assumed sole intake responsibility.

Program RulesAt intake, residents learned the rules for remaining at the shelter. Upon

admission at the campsite, residents became aware of the formal and informal daily community expectations. This included volunteering for a specified number of hours at the camp, engaging in activities such as helping in the kitchen, caring for other residents, or cleaning the facilities and the camp grounds. All residents had to indicate their location—on or off campsite grounds—via a public monitoring board. Everyone was checked for illegal or unapproved substances each time they entered the camp. Residents were required to meet with a case worker and take appropriate actions to resolve issues related to their homelessness.

Disturbances on the grounds were not tolerated. On-site evening security contributed to the safety of staff and residents. During daylight and early evening hours, the Chief Operating Officer/Director, Ms. Shelia Lopez, oversaw the camp facilities and intervened in any disturbances. In addition, Ms. Lopez utilized resident group discussions to keep abreast of potential problem issues and to provide guidance for the smooth functioning of the camp. The attitude and availability of the staff, particularly Ms. Lopez, cannot be overlooked. Her consistent attention to resident issues and facility management demonstrated the high level of dedication to Pinellas Hope expected of all involved. The net result was to “normalize” the camp setting as a functioning, interdependent community, preparing residents to re-enter a typical neighborhood setting. This issue is highlighted in the resident interviews, excerpts of which appear later in this report.

Program ServicesFollowing are the basics received by each resident.

Room and Board. Room and board was provided at no cost and included access to:An 8 x 10 or 9 x 10 tent A sleeping bag, blanket, mat, and lock boxWashing machines, dryers, and laundry detergent Personal hygiene items, including towels

••••

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

Modular toilet and sink units (disabled accessible)Modular shower units (disabled accessible)Meals: Dinner was served each day. Breakfast and lunch were served when food was available. Coffee and water were available throughout the day.Transportation: Bus passes were available to residents. A van was available when needed for door-to-door transportation.Communication: Computers and phones were available for use by residents.Recreational activities: A television was available in the main gathering tent, along with books and board games. Special events such as a weekly movie night and holiday parties also took place.Clothing Closet: Provided clothes to male and female residents in need.Security: Monitoring of persons entering and exiting the campsite during daylight hours was provided by on-site staff. An off-duty sheriff’s officer provided security from 8:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m.

Program OperationsInformation about how Catholic Charities operated and made programmatic

adjustments to Pinellas Hope is included in this section.

Professional Services. Due to the temporary nature of the case management jobs, Catholic Charities had difficulty filling open positions and experienced high turnover throughout the pilot project. At the program onset, Catholic Charities requested funding for three full-time case managers. When Pinellas Hope was fully occupied and fully staffed, each case manager had a case load of 83 clients. Catholic Charities soon realized this client/staff ratio was too high and added two additional case manager positions to bring the case load down to 50 clients.

Operating Revenue and Expenditure Summary. With a capacity of 250 beds, the average cost per bed per night was $24.74. Table 2 summarizes the operating revenue and expenditures for Pinellas Hope from December 1, 2007 to April 30, 2008.

•••

•

••

••

Available for a resident

�2Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

Table 2. Pinellas Hope Operating Revenue and Expenditures

Revenue:

12/07 – 4/08

Pinellas County Health and Human Services

$461,278

United Way $25,000

Financial Donationsa $63,882

*In-Kind $451,897

Total Revenue: $1,002,057

Expenditures:

Salaries & Benefits $190,541

Operating Expense $229,376

Client Financial Assistanceb $130,242

*In-Kind Costs $451,897

Total Expenditures: $1,002,057

In-Kind:

Leased Vehicles $6,070

Leased Land $40,000

Volunteers at Front Deskc

$41,000

Dinner Meal Volunteersd $87,795

Foode $85,866

Administrationf $163,536

Material Donationsg $27,630

a. Individuals and businesses provided financial donations for Pinellas Hope

beginning in October 2007 and continuing for the duration of the pilot project.

b. Case managers administered financial assistance to Pinellas Hope residents. While in the program, this money provided bus passes and work related items, such as personal identification. Upon discharge, this money helped pay rent, utilities, food, and travel assistance.

c. Estimated on the basis of 2,102 volunteer hours provided at the 2007 federal rate of $19.51 per hour.

d. Estimated on the basis of 4,500 volunteer hours provided at the 2007 federal rate of $19.51 per hour.

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

e. Includes the cost of providing breakfast, lunch and dinner. Dinner meals were donated by a church, non-profit or government agency, business organization, corporate entity, or individuals (usually prepared and served by 7-12 volunteers from the donor party). Excludes $28,925 in food purchased by Pinellas Hope, which was included as an operating expense.

f. Estimated using the federal rate of 16.7%.g. A listing of needed food and material donations was posted on the Pinellas

Hope website, http://www.pinellashope.org/.

On-Site Ancillary Services. Following is a list of agencies and services that were regularly available on-site to Pinellas Hope residents:

Case Management Services. Case managers assessed the client’s needs and advocated or arranged for needed services from various providers. Case managers were able to access financial assistance resources to help residents during their stay in Pinellas Hope and/or upon discharge. While residing in Pinellas Hope this money could be used to purchase bus passes, work-related items such as tools, uniforms, etc., and required personal identification. Upon discharge, this money could partially pay apartment move-in costs or provide relocation assistance. A case load system was utilized initially, but Catholic Charities quickly altered this structure in response to the high volume of work. Instead, case managers were available to all participants from 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. on weekdays and 10:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays.Alcohol/Substance Abuse Services. Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings were conducted bi-weekly throughout the pilot project.Mental Health Services. Boley Centers, Inc. screened residents for eligibility to enter their housing programs once a week throughout the pilot project. A case manager from Bay Care–The Harbor served as a mental health referral source on a weekly basis throughout the project. Personal Enrichment through Mental Health Services, Inc. (PEMHS) Family Emergency Treatment Center staff were available upon request for crisis intervention. An advanced registered nurse practitioner (ARNP) from Directions for Mental Health traveled with the Pinellas County Mobile Medical Van to provide mental health screening and referral services twice per month.Employment Services. The Success Training and Retention Services (S.T.A.R.S.) program of Pinellas County Health and Human Services, enrolled interested persons in job readiness training on a bi-weekly basis. S.T.A.R.S. discontinued their on-site services in February due to a lack of participation from Pinellas Hope residents. Vocational Rehabilitation enrolled eligible disabled persons into their employment program on a weekly basis throughout the pilot project.Medical Services. A volunteer nurse provided on-site health screenings once a week for the duration of the project. Twice per month, the Pinellas County Mobile Medical Van provided primary and preventative medical care to residents.Veteran’s Benefits. Once a week on-site Veteran’s Administration staff screened and enrolled eligible veterans in V.A. programs.Legal Services. The Public Defender’s Office provided criminal legal assistance once a week for the duration of the pilot project. Gulf Coast Legal Services provided civil legal assistance once a month.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

��Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

Finally, there were numerous undocumented community and individual volunteer efforts to support Pinellas Hope. Among these were book donations, social support activities, and local performance groups providing music.

Discharge ProcessUpon discharge from the program, case managers completed the Discharge/

Closing Summary form (see Appendix C).

A process evaluation focuses on how a program was implemented and operated. Multiple quantitative and qualitative data sources are typically used to better understand program operation and service provision, including the opinions of program participants and community stakeholders. This information allows for an assessment of reasons for a successful or unsuccessful program, and provides guidance for potential replication. The Pinellas Hope evaluation was a collaboration between Pinellas County Health and Human Services (PCHHS), the University of South Florida’s Department of Mental Health Law and Policy (MHLP) and School of Social Work.

Data SourcesQuantitative Data. Data collection occurred at two intervals: 1) resident entry

into the program and 2) discharge from the program. After data was collected, data entry was performed by Catholic Charities’ data specialist. Catholic Charities and PCHHS agreed that data would be entered into the Homeless Management Information System, known as the Tampa Bay Information Network (TBIN) through 211 Tampa Bay Cares, Inc. (211). The data would be reported by 211 to Health and Human Services utilizing HUD’s Entry / Exit report format. When Catholic Charities entered the minimum required data elements into TBIN, they did not fully utilize TBIN by entering all of the optional program specific data elements. Instead, Catholic Charities chose to maintain a separate client data spreadsheet to capture the additional program specific data, thus establishing two distinct data systems.

The TBIN reports were provided monthly to the evaluation team by 211 throughout the pilot project. It quickly became apparent many data fields were being reported as unknown. Realizing that critical information was missing, Health and Human Services staff worked with Catholic Charities to identify incomplete forms and when possible, re-contacted residents to collect the missing data. Catholic Charities’ staff used the updated forms to enter the missing information into their client data spreadsheet. Health and Human Services staff assisted Catholic Charities by entering the missing information into TBIN.

Data analysis methods were adjusted based on participant and staff response and constraints that arose as the project unfolded. When Health and Human Services initially selected the TBIN report format, this type of evaluation of a local homeless shelter had never been attempted. The TBIN report provided useful information

METHODOLOGY

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

about resident characteristics, including age, gender, veterans status, race, and length of stay. However, the aggregate reporting of data elements such as annual income, source of income, and exit destination left some questions unanswered. For example, “What was the average amount and source of income for persons who were successfully discharged?” and “How many were housed without income?” As the evaluation team learned more about what types of questions to ask, Catholic Charities agreed to provide a summary report of their findings (see Appendix D) as a supplement to the TBIN report, along with their client data spreadsheet as a backup. The additional information collected by Catholic Charities—such as service usage and employment information resulted in improved data analysis and understanding of the homeless population served by Pinellas Hope.

After the Catholic Charities summary report was received, questions still remained about how “successful discharge” was defined. For example, “What was the source of support for those housed without income?” Health and Human Services staff utilized the back-up client data spreadsheet to perform a site visit at Pinellas Hope to review files of participants coded as successful discharges to assess the links between residents’ housing status at discharge and their financial resources to maintain housing. After the analysis was performed at a detailed client level, the evaluation team modified Catholic Charities summary report format to provide a distinction between those successfully discharged with income versus those who were not successfully discharged, along with the source of the resident’s income or support when successfully discharged into housing.

While both TBIN and Pinellas Hope reported on duplicated residents served, Catholic Charities contained information on an unduplicated number. (Note: Duplicated data includes separate information on residents each time they resided at Pinellas Hope. Unduplicated data includes information only on each person’s most recent stay at Pinellas Hope.) Since some of the features of the summary report format were redesigned and completed using the unduplicated count from Catholic Charities client data spreadsheet, the evaluation team chose, for the sake of consistency, to use an unduplicated resident count for all of the tables in the Findings section of this document.

Qualitative Data. A clear description of the implementation process was required to understand the tasks performed, the scope of effort, and aid in replicating the effort in other environments. Members of the evaluation team documented the implementation process and participation in activities by conducting interviews with Pinellas Hope residents and staff, members of the Homeless Street Outreach teams, and providers of the on-site ancillary services over the course of the pilot project. These face-to-face interviews allowed those most familiar with the everyday realities and challenges of the program to define what issues need to be explored to best understand the needs and concerns of the population under study, and whether the program is fulfilling its stated mission. This process was approved by the University of South Florida Institutional Review Board.

��Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

The resident interview questions were approved beforehand by research team members and Catholic Charities personnel. A diverse cross-section of interview participants were recruited by Catholic Charities based upon selection criteria developed by the research team. The interviews were conducted by project researchers, including the two principal evaluators (Dr. Fogel and Dr. Moore), a criminology doctoral student who is an experienced qualitative interviewer, and a staff member from Health and Human Services. A total of 40 residents were interviewed between March 1 and April 24, 2008. Interviews lasted 45 to 60 minutes and were conducted on-site at Pinellas Hope during various times of the day, night, and week to obtain a diverse sample of resident experiences.

In addition, a list of stakeholders to interview was generated by the research team. Included were many local politicians, diverse social service providers, program staff and volunteers, and people who influenced the establishment of Pinellas Hope. Due to time and other constraints, some targeted individuals and agencies were not contacted or did not participate in these interviews. Notably absent are those perspectives from areas outside St. Petersburg. Twenty-seven individuals participated in the interviews conducted between March and June 2008. A majority of the stakeholder interviews were conducted after the announcement that Pinellas Hope would remain open during the summer at a reduced tent count.

In addition to standardizing the interviews, the semi-structured questionnaires allowed for follow-up questions based on participant responses. Each response was recorded by hand by the interviewer. The interviewer had to gauge which words to record verbatim and which to succinctly summarize. Though not audio-taped, the main ideas in each response were carefully captured by the interviewer. Written responses were transcribed and inserted into an Excel spreadsheet, then categorized by major themes. Researchers collaborated to synthesize these themes into the final categories.

LimitationsProcess evaluations typically capture the fluidity of program services. Pinellas

Hope’s initial operating plan quickly evolved due to the overwhelming number of residents, the uniqueness of the population being served, and system-wide operational challenges and changes among homeless service providers as they collaborated on this project. As noted below, changing government policies also had an impact. While quantitative data provided from various sources may not be precise, the researchers are confident it is accurate enough to make informed judgments in some areas. As far as the program’s overarching goal of reducing street homelessness, the 2008 Pinellas County Annual Point-in-Time Homeless Count has not been completed so it is impossible to know if the numbers have changed since 2007.

During the operation of the Pinellas Hope Pilot Project, the City of St. Petersburg instituted ordinances aimed at reducing overnight public sleeping and other transient behaviors. Thus, any reductions in street homeless during this period might be attributable to ordinance enforcement.

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

The data reveals how many Pinellas Hope residents were successfully placed according to criteria established by Catholic Charities. However, not enough time has passed to be able to report on housing retention. Without knowing if those successfully discharged were able to maintain housing, we cannot determine if they were “successfully transitioned out of street homelessness”—the ultimate goal of Pinellas Hope. Catholic Charities has agreed to provide follow-up reports on residents at 180 days post-discharge. This will allow a clearer picture of the long-term impact of Pinellas Hope.

Finally, qualitative data represents open-ended responses to questions. A single interview participant may have provided multiple comments on a particular topic. Thus, there is no way to determine whether a long list of comments came from two people or ten. Also, because the interviews were not audio-taped, some responses may not have been properly recorded and categorized (though the researchers believe this is a minor concern given the expertise of those conducting the interviews). It also should be noted that stakeholders were interviewed after the residents.

This section presents findings compiled from the various data sources. Included is information about service users, program operations, discharge outcomes, and stakeholder impressions of the program. Comparisons to other shelters utilized by the Homeless Street Outreach Teams also are included.

Resident CharacteristicsDuring the five months of the pilot program’s existence, 474 unduplicated

persons received assistance from Pinellas Hope. Average occupancy was approximately 238 residents at a time. Baseline demographic information is presented in Table 3. The majority of residents were male (78.9%). The average age was 43.9 years old, with most in the 41-50 (44.9%) or 51-61 (29.1%) age groups. The youngest resident was 19 years old at intake, whereas the eldest was 78 years old. Almost 80% were Caucasian, while 15.6% were African-Americans, and 5.1% were Hispanic/Latino. Sixty-five residents (13.6%) reported veteran status.

The majority of residents (55.3%) were referred to Pinellas Hope by the St. Petersburg Homeless Outreach Team. The remaining referrals were from Homeless Outreach Teams in Pinellas Park (16.7%), unincorporated Pinellas County (15.2%), and Clearwater (8.2%). Twenty-two (4.6%) residents entered Pinellas Hope without a referral from the outreach teams.

Information also was gathered on income status. As seen in Table 3, 77.9% reported no income at all at admission. Of those who did report receiving some form of income at intake, approximately 9.9% were employed with an average monthly salary of $507.28. Other sources of income were disability, veteran’s benefits, retirement, unemployment, and pension.

FINDINGS

�8Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

Table 3. Baseline Demographics of Pinellas Hope Residents

Unduplicated Residents (N = 474)*

N %Gender Male 374 78.9%

Female 100 21.1%

Age 18-30 33 7.0%

31–40 78 16.5%

41-50 213 44.9%

51–60 138 29.1%

61 and older 12 2.5%

Race Caucasian 378 79.7%

African American 74 15.6%

American Indian or Alaskan Native

13 2.7%

Other multiracial 6 1.3%

Other 3 .7%

Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino 24 5.1%

Veteran Status Yes 65 13.7%

No 409 86.3%

Referral Source St. Petersburg Outreach 262 55.3%

Pinellas Park Outreach 79 16.7%

Unincorporated 72 15.2%

Clearwater Outreach 39 8.2%

No referral 22 4.6%

Income Status No Income 369 77.9%

Wages or Salary 47 9.9%

Disability 35 7.4%

Veterans 11 2.3%

Retirement 7 1.5%

Unemployment 4 .8%

Pension 1 .2%

* Information presented used Catholic Charities database

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

Profile of Discharged ResidentsInformation on persons discharged from Pinellas Hope between December

1, 2007 and April 30, 2008 is summarized in Table 4. A total of 371 adults (unduplicated count) were discharged during this five-month period4. The average length of stay was 58 days, ranging from 7 days or less (6.3%) to 3 months or more (37.9%). Based on data from the Catholic Charities database, approximately 51% (N = 189) of Pinellas Hope residents were discharged to some form of successful housing, exceeding the project goal by 11%.

The primary reasons cited for unsuccessful discharge were residents whose status was unknown or disappeared (19.7%), noncompliance (15.0%), or voluntary withdrawal (10.5%). A small percentage (2.2%) were jailed for possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia, dealing in stolen property, felony battery, or criminal mischief. Five residents were hospitalized because of psychiatric or medical issues during their stay at Pinellas Hope and one other resident died of unknown causes.

Table 4. Primary Reason for Discharge from Pinellas Hope

Unduplicated Residents (N = 371)

N %Successful Discharges Housed with Income – Source of Income:Obtained or Increased Income After Entry 51 13.7%Same Income at Entry and Exit 35 9.4%Subtotal 86 23.1% Housed without Income - Supported by:HHS Rent Vouchers 29 7.8%Family/Friends within Tampa Bay 23 6.2%Family/Friends Out of Area 21 5.7%Substance Abuse Residential Program 12 3.2%Mental Health Residential Program 6 1.6%Emergency Shelter 6 1.6%Pinellas Hope Client Financial Assistance 6 1.6%Subtotal 103 27.7%Total Successful Discharges 189 51%Unsuccessful Discharges Unknown 73 19.7% Non-compliance 56 15.0% Voluntary Withdrawal 39 10.5% Jail 8 2.2% Hospital 5 1.3% Death 1 .3%Total Unsuccessful Discharges 182 49%

4 Six residents left and returned to Pinellas Hope and were still residing at Pinellas Hope as of April 30, 2008. These residents were included in the count of number served, but not included in the count of discharged residents.

20Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

Average Length of Stay by Type of Discharge. As seen in Table 5, successfully discharged residents remained in Pinellas Hope almost twice as long as those who were unsuccessfully discharged. The group who stayed longest on average were those later housed with rent vouchers from Health and Human Services, followed by persons without income placed in substance abuse or mental health residential programs.

Table 5. Average Length of Stay in Pinellas Hope by Type of Discharge

Avg. Length of Stay (Days)

Successful Discharges

Housed With Income – Source of Income:

Obtained or Increased Income after Entry 69

Same Income at Entry and Exit 62

Subtotal Average 66

Housed Without Income – Supported by:

HHS Rent Vouchers 82

Substance Abuse Residential Program 78

Mental Health Residential Program 70

Family/Friends within Tampa Bay 64

Family/Friends Out of Area 61

Pinellas Hope Client Financial Assistance 39

Emergency Shelter 34

Subtotal Average 61

Average Number of Days In Pinellas Hope for all Successful Discharges

64

Unsuccessful Discharges

Unknown 55

Non-Compliance 46

Jail 44

Voluntary Withdrawal 28

Hospital 18

Death 18

Average Number of Days in Pinellas Hope for all Unsuccessful Discharges

35

2�Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

Monthly Income at Exit for Successful Discharges. Of the 189 residents successfully discharged from Pinellas Hope, 46% had an income at exit. As shown in Table 6, for those housed with income, the average at program discharge was $1,020.88 per month. The majority of residents with income, however, received between $501 - $1,000 monthly. (Note: These averages exclude six outliers--three residents with income exceeding $3,600/month and three residents with income below $240/month.)

Table 6. Monthly Income at Exit for Successful Discharges

Monthly Income at Exit Successfully Discharged Residents (N=189)

No income 103

Income verified, but amount unknown

7

$1 - $500 3

$501 - $1,000 43

$1,001 - $1,500 21

$1,501 - $2,000 7

$2,001 - $2,500 2

Greater than $2,501 3

Entry and Exit Income Status for Residents Housed with Income. As seen in Table 7, almost 60% of residents housed with income obtained it or increased it after entry into Pinellas Hope. The remainder obtained housing with the same level of income as when previously homeless. Employment was the most common income source among residents successfully discharged from Pinellas Hope. Of the 189 people successfully discharged, 50 (26%) were employed. Hourly wages for this group ranged from $6.50 to $16, with an average of $9.59. (Note: This excludes the same outliers referenced above.) Twenty-five residents obtained full-time employment, eight obtained part-time employment and seventeen were variable. Among those successfully discharged with a fixed income (N=25), Social Security Disability was the main source of funds. The average amount received per month for Social Security Disability was $671.

22Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

Table 7. Entry and Exit Income Status for Residents Housed with Income

Successfully Housed with Income (N=86)Same Income at Entry and

ExitObtained or Increased Income

After EntryIncome Source N % N %

Employment 4 4.7% 46 53.5%

Social Security Disability

21 24.4% 4 4.7%

Veterans Compensation

7 8.1%

Social Security Retirement

2 2.3% 1 1.2%

Retirement Pension

1 1.2%

Subtotal’s 35 40.7% 51 59.3%

Type of Housing Destination for Residents Successfully Housed with Income. As seen in Table 8, unsubsidized housing was the most common destination for people with income who were successfully housed. Information was not collected on the type of unsubsidized housing—hotel, mobile home, apartment, room rental, etc. nor on the cost and the number of people in the home.

Table 8. Type of Housing Destination for Residents Successfully Housed with Income

Successfully Housed with Income (N = 86)

Type of Housing N %Unsubsidized Housing (i.e. hotel, mobile home, apartment, room rental)

58 67%

Subsidized (i.e. John Knox, Bethany Towers & Suncoast Haven of Rest Rescue Mission)

8 9%

Substance Abuse Program (i.e. Still Standing, Peachford House, Windmoor)

3 4%

Emergency Shelter (i.e. Homeless Emergency Project)

3 4%

Mental Health Residential Program (i.e. Boley) 2 2%

Unknown 12 14%

2�Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

Source of Support for Residents Successfully Housed without Income. As seen in Table 9, the most common source of support for residents housed without income was Health and Human Services (HHS) rent vouchers. These residents were eligible to receive vouchers because they were medically unable to work. The amount provided for rent varied. A single adult received $450 per month, a married couple $500 per month, and someone in a congregate living situation $300 per month. Of the 23 individuals who resided with family or friends in the greater Tampa Bay area, 14 moved in with a fellow Pinellas Hope resident.

Table 9. Source of Support for Residents Successfully Housed without Income

Successfully Housed without Income (N = 103)

Supported by N %Health and Human Services Rental Vouchers 29 28.2%

Family/Friends within Tampa Bay 23 22.3%

Family/Friends Out of Area 21 20.3%

Substance Abuse Residential Program (i.e. Turning Point, Operation PAR, A Better Choice, Peachford House, Center of Hope, Still Standing and Salvation Army ARC)

12 11.7%

Mental Health Residential Program (i.e. Boley) 6 5.8%

Emergency Shelter (i.e. Homeless Emergency Project)

6 5.8%

Pinellas Hope Client Financial Assistance 6 5.8%

Characteristics of Those who Received Pinellas Hope’s Supplemental Client Financial Assistance upon Discharge. Of the 189 residents successfully housed, 27% (N=51) received financial assistance from Pinellas Hope to help pay initial rent and/or utility costs. The average monthly income of employed persons receiving financial assistance was $1,260. The average monthly income for those with a fixed income was $934. Of the 103 residents successfully housed with no income, 24% received financial assistance from Pinellas Hope. For this group, this assistance was most often in addition to HHS rent vouchers. Financial assistance was also provided for two people discharged into a substance abuse program with no income, two people who moved in with family or friends within the greater Tampa Bay area, and six people with no other known source of income or support.

Comparisons to Other Emergency Shelter ProvidersAs the evaluation process continued, data from other emergency shelters was

collected to compare against Pinellas Hope. The 25-bed shelter at Homeless Emergency Program (HEP) and the 24-bed shelter at Turning Point were selected as comparison sites because all three programs require admission referrals from the Homeless Street Outreach Teams. (Note: Given the differences in scope of services, the length of existence, staffing levels, and other important factors, these should be regarded as very broad comparisons.)

2�Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

Comparison of Primary Reason for Discharge: Pinellas Hope, HEP and Turning Point. As the funder of all Homeless Street Outreach Beds, Health and Human Services (HHS) staff requested and received reports on July 10, 2008 from HEP and Turning Point regarding the destination of their discharged residents. The timeframe for these reports was the same as the Pinellas Hope pilot project (December 1, 2007 through April 30, 2008). The type of housing placement for successfully discharged residents was reported; however, the income status at discharge was not captured in these reports. HHS worked with the shelter staff to clarify any vaguely worded housing descriptions. However, no site visits were performed to audit the data quality provided by HEP and Turning Point, making a direct comparison difficult. The information was nonetheless included in this report for review and a possible source for future research.

As seen in Table 10, Turning Point discharged 144 unduplicated residents from their 24-bed shelter during the pilot project timeframe. Approximately 40% were discharged to a successful housing situation, less than Pinellas Hope’s 51% success rate. The majority of successfully discharged Turning Point residents went into a substance abuse residential program, not surprising as Turning Point is an inebriate facility.

Table 10. Primary Reason for Discharge from Turning Point Outreach Shelter Beds from December 1, 2007 – April 30, 2008

Unduplicated Residents (N = 144)

N %Successful Discharges (Housed)

Substance Abuse Residential Program (i.e. Salvation Army ARC, PAR, Center of Hope, Peachford House, Mustard Seed, Still Standing, People that Love Ministries, Tampa Crossroads, Serenity Village)

23 16.0%

Family / Friends 13 9.0%

Emergency Shelter (HEP, St. Vincent de Paul, Pinellas Hope)

13 9.0%

Rental 4 2.8%

Relocation Assistance Out of State 2 1.4%

Hotel / Motel 1 0.7%

Mental Health Residential Program (i.e. Boley) 1 0.7%

Total Successful Discharges 57 39.6%

Unsuccessful Discharges

Unknown 62 43.1%

Voluntary Withdrawal 25 17.4%

Total Unsuccessful Discharges 87 60.5%

2�Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

As seen in Table 11, HEP discharged 237 residents from their 25-bed shelter during the pilot project timeframe. (Note: Unlike Turning Point and Pinellas Hope, which provided unduplicated counts, HEP counted each separate discharge of the same person.) Approximately 50.6% (N = 120) were discharged to a successful housing situation, a rate almost identical to Pinellas Hope. The majority of people successfully discharged went into HEP’s longer term emergency housing, in preparation for moving into one of HEP’s transitional or permanent housing programs.

Table 11. Primary Reason for Discharge from HEP Outreach Shelter Beds from December 1, 2007 – April 30, 2008

Duplicated Residents (N =237)N %

Successful Discharges (Housed)

HEP Emergency Housing 56 23.6%

Family / Friends 27 11.4%

Rental 18 7.6%

Transitional Work Program (i.e. CHIPS) 7 3.0%

Substance Abuse Residential Program (i.e. PAR)

6 2.5%

Emergency Shelter (Pinellas Hope) 4 1.7%

VA Domiciliary 2 0.8%

Total Successful Discharges 120 50.6%

Unsuccessful Discharges

Unknown 111 46.8%

Hospital 4 1.7%

Voluntary Withdrawal 2 0.8%

Total Unsuccessful Discharges 117 49.3%

Comparison of Involvement with the Justice System: Pinellas Hope and Homeless Emergency Project. A recent study was conducted by Pinellas County Justice and Consumer Services entitled Data Review and Justice System Involvement of Pinellas Hope and Homeless Emergency Project Residents� (See Appendix E). The findings support those of the Justice and Consumer Services Chronic Minor Offenders in Pinellas Jail study that cycling in and out of jail is common among people experiencing homelessness. In this regard, there was virtually no difference between Pinellas Hope and HEP residents. Between November 2005 and April 2008, 55.6% of Pinellas Hope residents had at least one arrest; among HEP residents it was 54.3%. Among those from Pinellas Hope, 107 individuals had 3 or more arrests in

5 Only users of Homeless Emergency Project’s (HEPs) Homeless Street Outreach beds were included.

2�Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

this period and 12 individuals had 10 or more arrests. This study also reported that 74 individuals (16%) were arrested following their admission to Pinellas Hope and 132 individuals (28%) following their admission to HEP.

Comparison of Impact on Emergency Medical Services (EMS): Pinellas Hope and Homeless Emergency Project. Reports of EMS transports from Pinellas Hope and HEP were provided by Sunstar for December 10, 2007 through March 9, 2008. (While all other comparisons with HEP focused only on their 25 shelter beds, this comparison included residents from all HEP programs.) The 22 EMS transports from Pinellas Hope was nearly double the number from HEP. Sunstar estimated the average cost of an EMS transport was $474. Thus, the average monthly cost for EMS transports from Pinellas Hope was $3,400 and $1,943 from HEP. Among the reasons for transports from both facilities were hemorrhage/lacerations, unconsciousness/fainting, breathing problems, chest pain, alcohol abuse–unspecified, abdominal pain/problems, and psychiatric problems.

Resident InterviewsHow did you become homeless? The interviews began with a question asking

residents to recount how they ultimately became homeless. In this sample, 56% indicated this was their first time experiencing homelessness. Unemployment and a prior criminal record were the circumstances most often cited as having led to homelessness. Figure 2 categorizes the resident responses. (Note that some individuals cited multiple reasons for their homelessness.) A common theme emerged from these diverse personal stories, that of disintegrating social networks or support systems that led to living on the streets. Many residents mentioned health issues that made it difficult to obtain available employment. Others spoke of becoming depressed and isolated following a divorce or death of a spouse. Domestic problems, such as dealing with a difficult roommate, often contributed to housing instability.

Figure 2. Reasons for Becoming Homeless

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

# of

Res

pons

es

0

2�Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

What was the single most significant issue that led to your homelessness? Financial problems and prior housing instability were the most frequently cited causes. A variety of other triggers, both recent and chronic, were also mentioned (see Figure 3).

What did you learn about living on the streets? Many respondents (45%) indicated it was very difficult and stressful to be homeless. Maintaining personal hygiene and avoiding dangerous individuals were key problems. Disrespect from the general population emerged as a constant in their existence. In response, interview participants emphasized homelessness can happen to anyone.

What services did you use while living on the street? Overwhelmingly, participants stated they had used shelters, food support services, and day labor agencies to obtain some money (See Figure 3). When asked if they had ever utilized services to help regain housing or employment, 60% said yes.

Figure 3. Services Used When Living on the Street

How did you hear about Pinellas Hope? The majority of residents entered Pinellas Hope through the established referral system operated by the Homeless Street Outreach Teams. No respondent indicated they were from outside the target service area.

What services did you need at Pinellas Hope? This question was asked to determine if the services offered at Pinellas Hope were consistent with what residents felt they needed. Multiple responses were allowed. Most residents indicated they needed housing, employment, and medical care (see Figure 4). Legal aid, vocational training, help with disability payments, and drug counseling were all just mentioned once.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

# of

Res

pons

es

Homelessshelters

Odd jobs Soup kitchens Food stamps SalvationArmy for

food/shelter

Never had tosurvive on

steeets

Slept in woods Used illegaldrugs/alcohol

28Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

Figure 4. Services Needed at Pinellas Hope

What was the best part of the Pinellas Hope facility and/or services? As seen in Figure 5, being in a safe environment and a sense of belonging to a community were most frequently mentioned. Residents often pointed to the support and kindness offered by the Chief Operating Officer/Director, Ms. Sheila Lopez who oversaw daily operations. A selection of resident responses appear below:

“Pinellas Hope has given me a feeling of friendliness, a sense of hope. Helps you to help yourself.”“This was a blessing—a place to live, bathe, eat, and have a purpose.”“The whole program has turned my life around. I received work boots, a hard hat, and a bike.”“This has given me a clear head, a chance to think things through.”“When you are homeless you are very alone, people don't talk to you. Here you are not alone, staff are always around to help.”“It's an opportunity for me to get in a better place in my life. I don't think I could do it out there on my own.”

•

••

••

•

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

# of

Res

pons

es

Housing Employment Medical care Case management Bus passes Food stamps

2�Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

Figure 5. The Best Aspects of Pinellas Hope

What was the hardest part of living in Pinellas Hope? The most common complaint was not, as might be expected, sleeping in a tent or inadequate food, or lack of living comfort. Instead, respondents most frequently cited the attitude of fellow residents not taking advantage of services or opportunities available at Pinellas Hope as one of the most troublesome elements of daily life. Only the often inclement weather garnered as many complaints (see Figure 6). Selected residents responses include:

“Dealing with some people who don’t want to abide, who don’t want to do right. You try to explain things to them, but they don’t want to listen. They want to do things their own way and that's not right because it effects everyone else badly.”“Putting up with people who aren't here for the reason the place was set up for.”“The negative attitude of so many people - they complain about the service. This place is a gift no matter what. I have to bite my tongue a lot.”

•

••

2

4

6

8

10

# of

Res

pons

es

�0Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

Figure 6. The Hardest Part of Living in Pinellas Hope

Were you comfortable living at Pinellas Hope? Despite the above cited problems, 55% of the residents said they became comfortable with the living environment in a week. Eighteen percent of the residents said they have never become comfortable living at Pinellas Hope. Their reasons did not relate directly to the facility or the services; rather, being in a “homeless” tent cities in general did not meet their definition of comfortable. A sample of their comments:

“I have never really became comfortable. It’s embarrassing being here—just like it is embarrassing being homeless.”“This is not a place to be comfortable. This is not a place to relax at. It’s supposed to put structure back in your life.”“I don’t want to be here, but it is helping.”“I don’t want to get comfortable here. Get in that comfort zone and it's hard to get out of it.”“I try to be calm when everything is going OK. But being here is only temporary so I can't get complacent, can't get comfortable.”

What aspects of Pinellas Hope helped you the most? Concern and compassion from the staff and community members was the most frequently mentioned response. Also frequently noted were the availability of diverse support services to address their problems and the home-like accommodations (see Figure 7).

•

•

••

•

0

2

4

6

# of

Res

pons

es

Negativeattitude ofresidents

Weather Lack ofinformation

about services

Need to meetwith casemanager

Not gettingjob

Health issues Getting bus Beinghomeless

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

# of

Res

pon

ses

Feeling caredabout

Continuum ofservices

Individual needsfrom system

Householdservices

Employmentresources

Case managers Healthcareservices

Figure 7. Most Helpful Aspect of Living at Pinellas Hope

What do you think the residents need at Pinellas Hope? Most residents thought that services provided at Pinellas Hope were meeting the population’s needs. More case managers was cited as a need.

If Pinellas Hope is offered next year, what changes would you suggest? As seen in Figure 8, 16 residents (40%) suggest keeping the services the same. Among other residents, suggestions included:

Institute drug screen or testing for new admissionsAdd more case managersOffer housing alternatives to tentsMove to another location

Residents also indicated a desire for more bikes and locks, more employment opportunities, increased participation in the daily operations of Pinellas Hope, instituting a reward system for working within the facility, greater monitoring of the facility and computer usage, increased staff cooperation, and improving the mail system.

••••

0

2

4

6

# of

Res

pons

es

Negativeattitude ofresidents

Weather Lack ofinformation

about services

Need to meetwith casemanager

Not gettingjob

Health issues Getting bus Beinghomeless

�2Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

Figure 8. Things That Should be Improved if Pinellas Hope is Offered Next Year

What should the public know about Pinellas Hope? Overwhelmingly, residents thought the general population should know that Pinellas Hope was a good place that provided needed services. In addition, residents wanted others to know that being homeless did not make them bad people and that they were trying to improve their circumstances. Residents repeatedly expressed a desire for a sense of belonging, understanding from others, and a means to communicate how difficult it is to be homeless to those who have never experienced it themselves. Resident responses included:

“It doesn’t matter where you go, everybody has problems and there is a need for places like Pinellas Hope everywhere.”“People out there need to know that folks here at Pinellas Hope are human beings. We hurt and need opportunities too.”“We are not bad people. People in here are trying to better their lives, make changes for the better.”“This is an excellent program that helps impoverished people get on their feet. It is a community here, not just a homeless safe haven.”“We get so much negative feedback on the streets—people look at you harshly and you feel scrutinized a lot.”“We are normal human beings and need a chance to get our lives straight. Anyone can become homeless.”“Not everyone in here is a degenerate. Everyone’s here for a reason but not all for a bad reason.”“Without this place, some would be without food. Here they can shower and get treated with dignity.”

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

# of

Res

pons

es

Keep the services thesame

Drug testing More case managers Offer something otherthan tents

Change location

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

“Homelessness is not going away. This is a good option rather than having people sleeping under bridges and getting murdered.”“This place was meant for people who really want to help themselves. Here you have people filled with growth and hope.”

Is there anything else you want to say about your experience or Pinellas Hope? The majority of the respondents said that Pinellas Hope was a good place. As one respondent offered, “Pinellas Hope is about helping. I know it sounds corny - doesn’t matter that it is a religious organization - they are really helping. It’s good to give a man a hand up as opposed to a handout.”

Stakeholder InterviewsHow would you describe the collaboration between agencies who worked on

the Pinellas Hope project? Most interview responses indicated that Pinellas Hope collaborations functioned well. Responses included:

“There is no doubt that Pinellas Hope has helped get agencies to work together.”“The community came together and collaborated very well”.“I’m impressed at the regularity of contact through meetings and participation is great.”“Everyone cooperates to get things done. The focus is on the best interest of the residents—which incidentally is also the best interest of the public.”

Stakeholders also indicated that agencies seemed to be collaborating in new or improved ways while involved with Pinellas Hope. These relationships developed, even amidst increased concern about competition for declining funding resources.

“The thought of collaboration means that I might have to do more with less.”“The whole climate has changed because of the decrease in funding. Right now, you have lots of agencies trying to do mergers when the missions don’t fit.”“With limited resources, there is competition among the service organizations.”

What were the strengths of the Pinellas Hope program? As seen in Figure 9, the program’s flexibility was mentioned as the greatest strength, followed by Pinellas Hope’s ability to obtain both public and private funding for operations. Other program strengths cited were increased security for residents, services coordination, the ability to meet basic needs on a broad scale, and treatment of residents with dignity and respect.

•

•

•••

•

••

•

��Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

Figure 9. Strengths of the Pinellas Hope Program

Stakeholder descriptions of the program’s flexibility include:“The rules are a strength—but the guidelines are flexible enough not to stifle the program when change is needed. This program ‘breathes’--it is flexible.”“Residents were given realistic timeframes to get things done towards self-improvement.”“People who needed greater assistance, more intense hand-holding, were given that opportunity. There was someone there to work with them closely and help guide them through the process.”“Commitment from the staff, primarily Shelia, to help the residents anyway they can.”“Catholic Charities has the ability to cut through red tape so folks don’t have to wait a long time to obtain services they need.”

Statements about the program’s utilization of both public and private funds included:

“A major strength was bringing private dollars into the system--the contributions of the Catholic Diocese.”“A lot of stakeholders not previously involved with homeless issues became involved.”“It allowed community volunteers to participate through providing meals.”

Stakeholder responses regarding the campsite shelter option provided to residents included:

“The greatest strength was not getting people homes or finding them jobs. Just providing shelter was most important.”

•

•

•

••

•

••

•

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

# of

Res

pons

es

Programflexibility

Public andprivate funding

Ability to househomelesspersons

Security forresidents

Coordinatedservices for

residents

Addressedresidents' basic

needs

Treatedresidents with

dignity andrespect

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

“The big issue is that we did something today. It was someone saying you are in a vulnerable situation and at least this is something positive.”“Housing these individuals is important. For the longer, the better.”“They helped some people to get off the streets and hopefully they will remain off the street. I think that piece is great.”

Overall, stakeholders recognized that Pinellas Hope operated differently than traditional non-profit agencies. Part of this was due to the flexible program structure; services and policies changed as resident needs became apparent.

What were the challenges to service delivery at Pinellas Hope? The majority of responses identified programmatic or operational challenges. While the program’s flexibility was generally regarded as a strength, the lack of permanent programmatic structure also generated concerns. Respondents felt more on-site caseworkers, staff and volunteers were needed. Concerns also were voiced about case management services that were offered residents during the program and post-discharge follow-up. Stakeholder responses included:

“There is a need to include planning for the future of Pinellas Hope.”“If budgets continue getting cut, it will become difficult to refer residents to needed aftercare because there will be fewer places to take referrals.”“This new, somewhat controversial project caused some heartburn for agencies and the self-appointed homeless advocates.”“There is a lack of structured case management. Some residents seem to fall through the cracks.”“Poor communication with residents. They were not told about program expectations—where they needed to be or what they needed to do.”“The true cost of the program was not clearly presented—and what funds paid for what.”“Large number of homeless people were moved into an area where they weren’t before. This will spark a public backlash, particularly if other homeless also congregate in this area. No one wants this problem in their backyard.”“They also didn’t make provisions for the large population of residents who did not qualify—in other words, if you didn’t qualify, they didn’t provide for these folks.”“Services are provided under strained, artificial conditions (it is a transitional not permanent facility). Staff didn’t anticipate everything involved in provision of services for such a high number of residents at one time.”

Dealing with the weather, bugs, inadequate office space, inconsistent food supply, and a less-than-ideal tracking system also were mentioned as challenges for Pinellas Hope. Local economic problems and governmental support shortcomings, issues common to all homeless service providers, also drew attention:

“When you have a lot of part-time workers and don’t have housing affordability, you will find large street homeless.”“It’s not just mental illness or substance abuse affecting these people—it’s problems with housing, jobs, transportation, and medical care.”

•

••

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

��Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

“People with disabilities face the biggest challenge. They get $4�0 vouchers toward rent, but you can’t find a place for $4�0 and these individuals can’t work.”

Finally, stakeholders also recognized that a challenge to service delivery in this setting can be the residents themselves. Responses included:

“Clients themselves are also a challenge. They are all depressed based on outside circumstances and sometimes because of their own personal issues. Clients have to be willing to take advantage of the help provided. Not everyone wants help.”“A big challenge is trying to help people who really didn’t want help. They just wanted a place to stay for � months. They wanted food and shelter, but not assistance.”“Those that want the help will make themselves available. Others you have to really talk with them and try to encourage them to use the services that could be a benefit.”

What are the challenges to maintaining Pinellas Hope for the remaining months? Although some stakeholders were interviewed after the announcement that the program would be extended, they responded that securing funding and continuing to provide services and meals to the residents would be difficult to sustain.

What would be the implementation challenges if this program were to open again in the following year? Operational issues, funding challenges, and maintaining outside interest in Pinellas Hope were the main concerns. Responses included:

“I am concerned about the cost.”“Obtaining enough funding to maintain and improve Pinellas Hope. Next time around there won’t be the same interest—it’s going to be hard in the face of budget cuts.”“This County and its constituents must come to realize that Pinellas Hope needs a continuing source of revenue.”“A big future issue will be figuring out who is appropriate for being at Pinellas Hope and how long they can be there.”

What have you learned about the population served at Pinellas Hope? Most comments focused on resident characteristics and how these individuals were treated in the program. Responses included:

“There aren’t enough services for men beyond shelter. Most homeless are men.”“We need about three times as many tent cities.”“The public may not realize that not all folks were chronic homeless. Some were in temporary crisis—waiting for SSI, out of work, dealing with medical issues, and so forth.”“For me, Pinellas Hope clarified the interaction between housing availability and the homeless.”“I learned the residents were willing to try the program even if some people warned against it.”“I was struck by the diversity of individuals. No one face of homelessness. Learned they are not different than a lot of us. We are all vulnerable.”

•

•

•

•

••

•

•

•••

•

•

•

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

Do you think the Pinellas Hope model has been successful so far? As seen in Figure 10, a clear majority of respondents answered yes. Among key elements: services are provided in a respectful and humane way, a safe environment is offered for residents, and many agencies provide on-site services.

Figure 10. Success of the Pinellas Hope Model

Responses by stakeholders who thought Pinellas Hope was a success include:“It fulfills basic, human needs. It allows people the opportunity to do for themselves again.”“Pinellas Hope gives them a safe place to work on themselves and better their lives.”“Residents had a place to come to day after day, instead of looking each day where to sleep. They could then look for a job.”“I’ve met residents who have learned that it is OK to ask for help and it does not have to cost them their dignity.”“Pinellas Hope has become a wonderful example to other communities—it maintains a compassionate, loving rehabilitation nature rather than a punishing nature.”

Stakeholders unsure if this model had been successful voiced concerns about this type of housing structure, the influence of general population attitudes regarding care for the homeless, and a belief that a tent city model would stall or interfere with efforts to build permanent housing for this population.

“I think it is counter effective, demeaning, and undermined the work of others to establish a permanent facility. I am diametrically opposed to placing people in tents.”“Officials were grasping for something and following the tent slashing incident, the city had to do something public.”“I have questions about its viability as a long-term solution.”“If you consider the amount of money and resources used for Pinellas Hope with only modest results, that money could have been used for more beneficial things for the homeless.”

•

••

•

•

•

•

••

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

# of

Res

pons

es

oNerusnUseY

�8Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

“It is a temporary solution. I don’t think there was enough done to truly utilize other service providers and build partnerships with other homeless programs.”

What improvements could be made to Pinellas Hope to better facilitate its intended purpose? As seen in Figure 11, the major suggestions were to improve the facility, increase on-site program services, and investigate what really happened at Pinellas Hope.

Figure 11. Recommended Improvements to Pinellas Hope

Regarding suggested improvement, stakeholder responses included:“The main tents need to be heated and cooled.”“The staff area (welcome area) is exposed to mosquitoes 8-10 hours a day.”“Lack of stability of tents in the rainy environment. Is there a better facility for privacy?”“Don’t know how you would improve unless you replace tents with a solid structure, replace modular kitchens with a solid cafeteria, changed modular offices to real offices for case managers to meet with clients.”“Need to develop standardized assistance models for helping with employability, disability, and recuperation. Need to target mental health, medical, and substance abuse issues.”“There should be a brick/mortar facility on the property.”“Employer support has to be more extensive—something other than partnering with day labor groups that provide temporary employment.”“Some people need more time and attention to turn things around. In some cases, there are waiting lists to get into a housing program—some people need more time and persuasion to stay interested and become engaged.”“We need to learn from the mistakes of Pinellas Hope and find what works better.”“Everybody needs to decide—is the program a temporary solution or a permanent player.”“Every step of the program needs to be documented to ensure quality and set standards.”

Do you have any additional comments about Pinellas Hope? These responses covered a wide variety of perspectives and topics:

•

•••

•

•

••

•

••

•

02468

1012141618

Improve the facility Increase programservices

Review what happenedat Pinellas Hope

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

“It has been a very open and transparent service.”“The Outreach Teams deserve a lot of credit.”“There is a moral duty to help those that have fallen off the edge—and also to protect the community from dangerous behaviors.”“This program could be replicated by using available property in an industrial area. This does not happen, however, because of both the politics on the left and the right.”“While not perfect, I would not dissolve or do away with Pinellas Hope. Where else will those people go?”“I was surprised by the extent outside organizations invested in Pinellas Hope, by their contributions of resources. This must have meant they were not devoting all their resources to their own homeless clients.”“Pinellas Hope has become the beacon of hope for homelessness. Nothing like it existed before so geared toward the homeless and their issues.”“If you change one life, I think you’ve made a difference.”“Now I am a ‘true believer’.”

Summary of Key FindingsThe quantitative findings documented that the majority of Pinellas Hope

residents were Caucasian males between 41 and 50 years old with little income. Most residents were referred to the program by the Homeless Outreach Team in St. Petersburg. A total of 371 adults (unduplicated count) were discharged from Pinellas Hope after an average length of stay of about 2 months. Approximately 51% were discharged to some form of successful housing, exceeding the project goal by 11%. Of those residents successfully discharged, 46% had an income at exit. The majority received between $501 - $1,000 monthly. Almost 60% of residents housed with income obtained it or increased it after entry into Pinellas Hope. These findings suggest that previously homeless residents are capable of re-entering the broader community to pursue a modest level of self-sufficiency through low-wage employment and/or supportive housing arrangements.

The resident interviews revealed that Pinellas Hope provided a valuable opportunity for many homeless individuals whose primary life problems did not revolve around debilitating mental illness or substance abuse. Increased self-respect and self-sufficiency were common desires addressed to varying degrees for different individuals by the services and community atmosphere offered at the campsite. However, there is a concern among residents that even the most modest local housing options are currently unaffordable. This, in addition to their fragile and often nonexistent social support networks, makes basic survival a continual struggle even when temporarily off the streets.

The stakeholder interviews demonstrated that most in this group thought the Pinellas Hope model was successful, although there was no universal definition of “success.” For the majority, it meant providing a safe place for the homeless to reside while receiving needed services. Many stakeholders suggest that operational,

•••

•

•

•

•

••

�0Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

programmatic, and facility shortcomings needed to be addressed and sustained funding secured for Pinellas Hope to continue on a longer-term basis. There was widespread agreement on the need for more caseworkers, both for residents in the program and at discharge. Despite a less-than-perfect environment and operation, stakeholders were generally very impressed with the flexibility at Pinellas Hope—the ability to alter program rules and procedures to meet the evolving needs of the campsite population.

The Pinellas Hope Pilot Project provided Pinellas County Health and Human Services and its partners an opportunity to focus on the requirements, challenges, and impact of infusing an innovative program into established service delivery systems created to address homelessness. A discussion of these “lessons learned” and researchers’ recommendations follow.

Pinellas Hope proved to be a viable, cost-effective option for providing emergency shelter to the street homeless in Pinellas County. With less than four months to establish and begin operating the campsite shelter, this model provided a prompt response to a crisis-level situation. Despite various hardships experienced or witnessed during the pilot program, the majority of both residents and stakeholders interviewed stated they would like to see Pinellas Hope continue. Due largely to the partnership with the Homeless Street Outreach Teams, Pinellas Hope was filled to capacity shortly after opening and vacancy remained low for the duration of the pilot project. The availability of private sleeping quarters and the ability to adjust to shifting ratios of male and female residents were key in meeting this demand. Shelter costs were kept comparatively modest due to low facility and capital costs.

Successful duplication of Pinellas Hope likely depends on maintaining proper focus. Based upon interview responses and evaluation team observations, certain features appear key to duplicating the results at Pinellas Hope:

Focus on homeless persons not experiencing debilitating mental health or substance abuse issues and who are capable of community re-entry and at least partial self-sufficiency.Provide a caring, supportive environment for campsite residents.Allow program flexibility to meet new demands and recruit staff dedicated to excellence in service provision.Provide financial assistance to needy residents upon discharge. (Determining whether the same results could have been achieved without financial assistance would require future study.)Provide campsite shelter during times or locations with favorable weather conditions. (Since the Pinellas Hope Pilot Project was operated during a time when the temperature ranged from 50 to 81 degrees, further study is required to determine what results would be achieved in less favorable temperatures.)Connect with as many community partners as possible,Seek multiple, innovative revenue streams to fund operating costs.

•

••

•

•

••

LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

The Homeless Street Outreach Teams are critical to connecting homeless persons with needed services. Prior to the establishment of Pinellas Hope, the Outreach Teams had a total of 49 beds reserved for referrals at two shelters. Provided with the additional 250 beds at Pinellas Hope, the teams were able to quickly fill these slots in addition to the original 49 beds. By triaging homeless applicants and linking them to appropriate services, Outreach Teams provide an invaluable service in getting people off the street and into a safe shelter.

The operations of Pinellas Hope struggled at times to meet the multiple challenges of implementing a new pilot program on short notice. Lack of a stable case management staff impacted service delivery, resident satisfaction, and program development. (Partially offsetting this, outside ancillary services came to Pinellas Hope to offer various programs and services for residents.) Although Catholic Charities increased the number of case managers from three to five by the end of the pilot project, the new arrangement was not in place long enough to determine its effectiveness. If the program continues, partnering with educational institutions to provide case management interns might be explored.

Technical and computer-related issues need to be addressed for better program functioning and evaluation. Problems and potential remedies:

Pinellas Hope residents completed client intake forms themselves and often initially left many required fields blank. Pinellas Hope is now utilizing intake personnel to collect this information.During the pilot timeframe, the majority of data entry became an additional job responsibility for a full time Catholic Charities employee. More staff is needed to share this workload.There needs to be a data collection tool to capture the service use and outcome goals for both individual residents and the organization as a whole.Technical assistance is required to construct a data management system to facilitate data entry and increased reporting requirements.

Obtaining sustainable funding is a priority. Many stakeholders stated the greatest challenge facing the continued existence of Pinellas Hope is the need to secure long-term funding. Catholic Charities is the only partner committed to on-going funding if the program continues on a year-round basis. Without new funding sources, Pinellas Hope will compete with other local homeless organizations for limited community resources. Continued research on national homeless program financing is recommended. One model program is Community Partnership for Homeless, Inc., established in Miami-Dade County under similar circumstances in 1995. To date, this public-private partnership has raised $36 million in cash donations and $8.8 million in in-kind gifts to fund the county’s Community Homeless Plan.

A system-wide data quality plan must be developed. Several data quality problems—including the accuracy of data collection, data entry and reporting—arose during the pilot project. These issues must be addressed in order to accurately measure the extent of homelessness in Pinellas County and the impact of community services. A standardized data quality assurance plan must be established

•

•

•

•

�2Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

across the continuum—from when the data is collected to when it is entered to when it is extracted for reports. Data quality monitoring protocols and tools could be provided for all homeless services agencies to self-monitor and adjust their performance accordingly. Data quality requirements should be included in contractual funding agreements and enforced by the local funding agency.

There needs to be universal definitions regarding resident status and services among different shelters. When the evaluation team attempted to compare Pinellas Hope data with other shelters the lack of standard data definitions confused data collection and evaluation efforts. For example, several efforts had to be made to “clean” the data provided by HEP and Turning Point because the definition of a “discharged” resident differs among all three of the shelters. Additionally, HEP provided a duplicated count of discharged persons while Pinellas Hope and Turning Point provided an unduplicated count. This made it impossible to fairly compare the number of homeless served at the shelters. System-wide categories and service definitions need to be established for future analysis.

The methodology used for the 2008 Pinellas County Annual Homeless Point-in-Time Count was not reliable. The 2008 Count was the first time Pinellas County attempted to incorporate TBIN data in its count of the sheltered homeless. Data integration problems resulted in an unreliable count. Fewer volunteers utilized for the street homeless count also contributed to this problem. The net result was the inability to reliably compare homelessness levels in 2007 and 2008.

Improve system-wide report formats to allow for more detailed analysis of the homeless population. The existing TBIN report format provides useful demographic and service information about residents. However, the aggregate reporting of data elements such as annual income, source of income, and exit destination does not answer what happens to particular segments of this population. There needs to be a community-wide consensus about what and how information needs to be gathered and reported to better understand the extent, nature, and challenges of homelessness in Pinellas County. The TBIN report could be redesigned to answer particular research questions, as was done for this pilot project. Through the use of anonymous identifiers, detailed resident data could be generated for policymaking decisions without violating individual privacy.

Future Research DirectionsLimited research exists about which program models work most effectively for

homeless persons with varying needs and challenges. As a result, decisions about which housing strategies and program options are most appropriate are often guided by assumptions and values instead of compelling evidence. We therefore recommend the following priorities for further research regarding Pinellas Hope’s past and potential future:

Additional information that the evaluation team thought would be beneficial but was not tracked during this pilot project included: 1) more detail on the type of housing persons are discharged to, i.e. subsidized vs. unsubsidized, etc., 2) the number of people in the household of the residence the person is discharged to, 3) the amount and percent of total living expenses discharged persons will

•

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

be responsible for, 4) last city of residence, and 5) length of current episode of homelessness. Comparing housing payments to income for those who were successfully discharged would have given an indication of whether or not they would be able to maintain their housing. Monthly occupancy rates would also have been helpful in assessing the saturation of the service system.Assess why the average length of stay was longest for residents successfully discharged 1) with the support of Health and Human Services rent vouchers, 2) into substance abuse residential programs, or 3) into mental health residential programs. Researchers should identify possible means to expedite successful discharges into these programs.Despite operating with only a tenth of the beds as Pinellas Hope, the Homeless Emergency Project (HEP) reported a similar number of successful discharges during the pilot period timeframe. Currently data from the two shelters cannot be directly compared due to reporting discrepancies. Future research should standardize cross-shelter reporting to allow for exploration and replication of the most effective discharge strategies.Conduct an extended and extensive longitudinal study of residents discharged from various housing situations and treatment interventions (e.g., why they left, where they went, whether they become homeless again) to better understand what factors foster long-term housing stability.The Pinellas County Data Collaborative should conduct further cost analysis of the homeless population’s impact on jail and emergency medical care systems in Pinellas County. For example, the EMS transport reports showed an average of 7.3 transports from Pinellas Hope per month. Further study is needed to identify what circumstances trigger use of emergency medical services and what steps could be taken to reduce the frequency. Another area worthy of examination is the impact of transient-related offenses on the shelters’ ability to make successful housing placements.

ConclusionThis report is intended to provide a detailed accounting of how Pinellas Hope

operated, the services provided, and the reaction of participants and stakeholders to the program concept and execution. It is also intended to point out strengths as well as shortcomings that need to be addressed if the program continues or is replicated. As previously noted, a complete assessment of the program’s success will not be possible until the follow-up study is finished. A clearer picture should emerge to what extent former Pinellas Hope residents have been able to maintain stable housing and transition out of street homelessness.

Every day across this nation, cities and counties struggle to generate innovative, cost-effective solutions to the multiple social, human, and economic ills associated with homelessness. Despite the best efforts of governing agencies and social service providers coast-to-coast, the problem shows no long-term signs of abating. While not exhaustive, this report is intended to bring some clarity to this complex local and national dilemma and spur continued research. All effort was geared toward providing the community with a fair-minded, nondogmatic tool to better understand the needs of homeless individuals, examine what works and what does

•

•

•

•

��Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

not, and develop more effective planning and implementation of interventions in Pinellas County. Hopefully, this and other research will provide policymakers and other decision-makers with the information and inspiration to move beyond managing and accommodating homelessness, and toward solving this human and societal tragedy once and for all.

Burt, M., Hedderson, J., Zweig, J., Ortiz, M. J., Aron-Turnham, L., & Johnson, S. M. (2004). Strategies for reducing chronic street homelessness. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Department of Children and Families (DCF), Office on Homelessness. (2007). Annual Report on Homelessness Conditions in Florida.

Interagency Council on the Homeless (ICH). (1991). Reaching Out: A Guide for Service Providers. Washington, DC: Interagency Council on the Homeless.

McMurray-Avila, M. (1997). Organizing Health Services for Homeless People: A Practical Guide. Nashville, TN: National Health Care for the Homeless Council, Inc.

Morse, G. (1987). Conceptual Overview of Mobile Outreach for Persons who are Homeless and Mentally Ill. St. Louis, MO: Malcolm Bliss Mental Health Center.

Pinellas County Coalition for the Homeless. (2007). 2007 Annual Homeless Count and Survey Results.

Pinellas County Planning Department (PCPD). (2008). Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Communication and Research Utilization. (2007). Learning from Demonstration Programs.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). 2006 American Community Survey. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=Pinellas+County&_cityTown=Pinellas+County&_state=04000US12&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010.

REFERENCES

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

APPENDIX A. Catholic Charities DOSP Central Intake/Assessment Form

66

��Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

67

APPENDIX A. Catholic Charities DOSP Central Intake/Assessment Form

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

68

APPENDIX A. Catholic Charities DOSP Central Intake/Assessment Form

�8Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

63

APPENDIX B. Homeless Support Project Assessment Form

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

64

APPENDIX B. Homeless Support Project Assessment Form

�0Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

APPENDIX C. Discharge Closing Summary

70

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

APPENDIX D. Catholic Charities Summary Report

7�

Pinellas Hope 12/1/2007 TO 4/30/2008 Male 84 82% Female 17 17%

Active Clients 5/1/2008 102 99%

Discharged with duplication 390

Housed w/Assistance Rental, Deposits and/or

Utilities) 67 Housed w/ No Assistance 65

Move w/Friends or Family 22 Military Service 1 Sent to Programs 52

Total SUCCESSES 207 53% Non Compliance 57 Voluntary Withdrew 39 Disappeared 72 Jail 10 Death 1 Hospitalized 4

Total 183 47% Male 374 79% Female 100 21%

TOTAL 474 100%

Unduplicated Client Served 474Total Client Served with Duplication 492

P:\Program & Grant Reports & Budgets\Pinellas Hope 2007\Reports\Frank Murphy Reports

�2Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

APPENDIX E. Data Review and Justice System Involvement of Pinellas Hope and Homeless Emergency Project Residents

5�

Pinellas Hope and Homeless Emergency Project

Data Review and Justice System Involvement

Data Used in Review:This review is intended to compare basic data trends across both data sets and individual justice system involvement over the timeframe from November 2005 through April 2008. This is a preliminary review only and a follow-up, extensive review is underway by the Data Collaborative to cross the data against local ordinance arrests, transient arrests, and 8 years each of EMS, Health and Human Services, adult jail, state substance abuse, mental health, and baker act, Medicaid, and other information. For each of the programs, 470 records were used for the review.

The first data set includes 470 clients from Pinellas Hope starting in December 2007 through mid-April 2008. The hope data was provided in two files, one file contained more demographic information while the other more program specific including date of admission to Pinellas Hope.The combined data contained approximately 470 unique clients in the analysis. Also, public criminal justice data was used to match against the name, DOB, and sex of the individual to determine criminal justice involvement. The arrest history for each individual in data set was reviewed starting with November 2005. This accounts for 2 years, 6 months of data. From the lookup, columns were added for number of arrests in timeframe, date of last arrest, and charges from last arrest. Additionally, due to the nature of the data, two separate data sets were provided with separate fields, the admission date was copied over to the analysis file for each individual record. Pivot tables were used to analyze data frequencies and trends.

The second data set contained 1083 client records from the Homeless Emergency Project (HEP) starting in early 2007 through mid-May 2008 with repeat admissions. This file was manually reviewed and repeat admissions were eliminated keeping the most recent admission for a total of 697 unique individuals. For the analysis, 470 of the newest records (July 2007 through mid-May 2008) were copied into a new file for review. The arrest history was reviewed for each of the 470 individuals starting in November 2005. Columns were added to the data for arrest information.

Review of 12 high arrest clients from Pinellas Hope dataDuring a previous review of Pinellas Hope clients which crossed 470 individuals with the adult jail, 12 individuals were identified with 10 or greater arrests over a 2 ½ year period from November 2005 through April 2008. When reviewing those individuals against the HEP data, 3 were present in both Pinellas Hope and HEP. In each case, the individual came to Pinellas Hope within 4 months of admission into HEP.

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

53

DOB SEXHope

AdmissionDate

HEPAdmission

Date

Number Arrests SinceNov 2005

Last Arrest Last Charge

4/14/1956 M 12/1/2007 10/4/07 14 12/30/2007 disorderly intox 8/10/1965 M 12/7/2007 9/12/07 14 4/1/2008 trespass

12/3/1958 M 12/15/2007 8/21/07 17 1/19/2008 open container, trespass after warning

Age Review of Pinellas Hope and Homeless Emergency Project:

Age breakdown of Pinellas Hope Clients (467 in sample out of 470)

Age Number Percentage under 20 1 0.2%20-29 25 5.4%30-39 69 14.8%40-49 203 43.5%50-59 152 32.5%60 and older 17 3.6%Total 467 100.0%

Min Age 19 Max Age 78 Average Age 45.8

Age breakdown of Homeless Emergency Project Clients (463 in sample out of 470)

Age Number Percentage under 20 5 1.1%20 to 29 59 12.7%30-39 101 21.8%40-49 169 36.5%50-59 106 22.9%60-69 21 4.5%70 and above 2 0.4%Total 463 100.0%

Min Age 18 Max Age 77 Average Age 42.7

APPENDIX E. Data Review and Justice System Involvement of Pinellas Hope and Homeless Emergency Project Residents

��Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

54

Gender Review of Pinellas Hope and Homeless Emergency Project:

Gender Breakdown Pinellas Hope Clients

100

370

Female Male

Records Reporting Gender: 470

Gender Breakdown HEP Clients

400

70

Male Female

Records Reporting Gender: 470

APPENDIX E. Data Review and Justice System Involvement of Pinellas Hope and Homeless Emergency Project Residents

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope

55

HEP Racial Breakdown (not included in Pin Hope data):The following breakdown uses the codes specifically provided within the HEP data. Highest representation is white males at approximately 66% followed by black males at 15.7%. White females came in third at 11.9%.

Race # Female # Male TotalAmerican Indian 2 2 4 Asian 2 2 Black 8 74 82 Black-White mx 1 1 Hispanic 6 6 Indian-White mx 2 2 4 Native Hawaiian or Islander 1 1 Other Mix 1 3 4 White 56 310 366 Grand Total 70 400 470

Jail Review of Pinellas Hope Clients vs. Homeless Emergency Project:The following reviews help to indicate levels of criminal justice involvement prior to and following assistance from Pinellas Hope and the Homeless Emergency Project. These numbers however are merely an indication of involvement and should not be used as a true comparison at this time. While informative, data from both programs is very recent5 and greater post admission time is needed to assess true system interactions. For HEP data, some records cover a longer time period than the Pinellas Hope data based on intake rates(i.e.: 470 over 11 months vs. 470 over 5 months) Additionally, the Pinellas Hope cross analysis was conducted in May and the Homeless Emergency Project cross analysis was completed in June. This difference in timing could likely result in slightly greater chances of system involvement for the HEP clients (i.e.: 3 to 4 additional weeks for potential arrests). Therefore the arrests following admission stats may not be truly reflective for apples to apples comparison.

Pinellas Hope Client Arrests Since November 2005 (Records included: 464)206 individuals or 44.4% had no arrest since November 2005 258 individuals or 55.6% had one or more arrests since November 2005

o Of the 258 with arrests, 151 individuals or 58.5% had only 1 or 2 arrests since November 2005

o Of the 258 with arrests, 107 individuals or 41.5% had 3 or more arrests since November 2005

o Of the 258 with arrests, 12 individuals or 4.6% had 10 or more arrest since November 2005

Pinellas Hope Client Arrest Following Admission into Pinellas Hope (Records included: 470)

5 December 2007 through mid-April 2008 for Pinellas Hope and mid-July 2007 through mid-May 2008 for the Emergency Homeless Project.

APPENDIX E. Data Review and Justice System Involvement of Pinellas Hope and Homeless Emergency Project Residents

��Fi

nal

Rep

ort

Oct

ob

er 2

008

Pinellas Hope

56

Approximately 74 individuals or 15.75% were arrested following their admission to Pinellas Hope (as of May 2008) Approximately 15 individuals or 3.2% were arrested within 30 days following admission to Pinellas Hope

HEP Client Arrests Since November 2005 (Records included: 470)215 individuals or 45.7% had no arrest since November 2005 255 individuals or 54.3% had one or more arrests since November 2005

HEP Client Arrest Following Admission into the Homeless Emergency Project (Records included: 470)

Approximately 132 individuals or 28.1% were arrested following their admission to the Homeless Emergency Project (as of June 2008) Approximately 21 individuals or 4.5% were arrested within 30 days following admission to the Homeless Emergency Project

APPENDIX E. Data Review and Justice System Involvement of Pinellas Hope and Homeless Emergency Project Residents

��Fin

al Rep

ort

Octo

ber 2008

Pinellas Hope