COORDINATED
ASSESSMENT:
THE BASICS
C E N TE R FO R
CA PAC IT Y
B U ILD IN G
N ATIO N A L
A LLIA N C E TO E N D
H O M E LE SSN E SS
AGENDA
REVIEW
PLANNING AND DESIGN
DATA & HMIS
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
REFERRAL PROCESS
EVALUATION
WORKING TIME
WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT COORDINATED
ENTRY?
 SENDS HOUSEHOLDS TO INTERVENTION OF BEST FIT FROM THE
START
 PROVIDES SYSTEM-WIDE PREVENTION AND DIVERSION
OPPORTUNITIES
 IMPROVES SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
 FOSTERS MORE COLLABORATION AMONG PROVIDERS
 IMPROVES ABILIT Y TO PERFORM WELL ON HEARTH OUTCOMES
 ESG MANDATE
CENTRALIZED INTAKE
SINGLE INTAKE
CENTER/SHELTER
(MAY BE ONE PLACE FOR
EACH POPULATION)
 PLACES: COLUMBUS, OH; GRAND RAPIDS, MI; HENNEPIN
COUNT Y/MINNEAPOLIS, MN
 PROS: LESS TRAINING TIME NEEDED; MORE LIKELY TO BE
CONSISTENT PROCESS; NEED LESS STAFF
 CONS: ONE LOCATION MAY NOT BE EQUALLY ACCESSIBLE TO
ALL; HIGH VOLUME
DECENTRALIZED INTAKE
INTAKE POINT #1
INTAKE POINT #2
INTAKE POINT #3
 PLACES: MONTGOMERY COUNT Y/DAY TON, OH; MONTGOMERY
COUNT Y, MD
 PROS: EASIER TO HANDLE LARGER NUMBERS OF CLIENTS;
MORE ACCESSIBILIT Y; MAY INCREASE PROVIDER COMFORT
LEVEL
 CONS: LESS CONTROL AND CONSISTENCY; MAY BE MORE
COSTLY DUE TO INCREASED SPACE/STAFF DEMANDS
2-1-1
2-1-1
SHELTER
DIVERSION
MAINSTREAM
RESOURCES
INTAKE
CENTER
 PLACES: MEMPHIS/SHELBY COUNT Y, TN; PRINCE GEORGE’S
COUNT Y, MD; ALAMEDA COUNT Y, CA
 PROS: ACCESSIBILIT Y; EASY LINKAGES TO OTHER
MAINSTREAM RESOURCES; REDUCES IN -PERSON CLIENTS
 CONS: UNABLE TO DEAL WITH CRISIS SITUATIONS FACE -TOFACE; INCREASED CHANCE OF INCONSISTENCY
ADDITIONAL PLANNING QUESTIONS
 INDIVIDUAL SUBPOPULATION NEEDS
 CO-LOCATION WITH OTHER CRUCIAL SERVICES
 ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACIT Y
 SIZE OF GEOGRAPHIC AREA
 DISTANCE FROM OTHER PROVIDERS
DATA COLLECTION &
HMIS
NECESSARY TOOLS
 CENTRALIZED DATA ENTRY AND/OR SINGLE PROCEDURE
 DEVELOP AND TRAIN INTAKE STAFF.
 AN OPEN HMIS
 A DATA SHARING AGREEMENT BET WEEN ALL PROVIDERS
 CREATE ONE.
 REAL-TIME INFORMATION ON BED AVAILABILIT Y (PREFERABLY
THROUGH HMIS)
 PROVIDE TRAINING FOR PROVIDERS, UPGRADE HMIS SYSTEM.
 SHORT TERM SOLUTION: HAVE PROGRAMS CALL IN
AVAILABILITY, USE AN EXCEL OR GOOGLE SPREADSHEET
PROMISING PRACTICES - DATA
 CINCINNATI, OH (SPEAKING AT THE CONFERENCE)
 HAVE “HOMEGROWN” HMIS THAT SHOWS REAL-TIME BED
AVAILABILITY
 ALAMEDA COUNT Y, CA (SPEAKING AT THE CONFERENCE);
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNT Y, MD
 2-1-1 BEGINS INITIAL DATA ENTRY PROCESS, SHARES DATA
WITH INTAKE CENTER
 WHATCOM COUNT Y, WA (SPEAKING AT THE CONFERENCE)
 DEVELOPED DATA SHARING AGREEMENT AND CLIENT MOU
QUICKLY; LOOPED IN YOUTH PROVIDERS AND DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE PROVIDER
ASSESSMENT
GETTING STARTED
 HAVE EACH PROGRAM REVIEW INTERNALLY, AND THEN
REVIEW AS A SYSTEM, PROGRAM RULES AND POTENTIAL
“SCREEN OUT” FACTORS:
 ARE THEY NECESSARY FOR FUNDING REASONS?
 ARE THEY RELATED TO THE MISSION OF THE PROGRAM?
 OF THE SYSTEM? (WHAT IS THE MISSION OF THE SYSTEM?)
 LOOK AT OTHER COMMUNITIES’ ASSESSMENT TOOLS
 DECIDE WHAT INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE ACQUIRED WHEN
(AT INTAKE VS. AFTER REFERRAL HAS BEEN MADE)
GETTING STARTED, CONT’D
 WHAT INFORMATION ARE YOU REQUIRED TO COLLECT BY HUD?
 WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU NEED TO DETERMINE IF
SOMEONE SHOULD RECEIVE PREVENTION ASSISTANCE OR BE
DIVERTED FROM SHELTER?
 WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU NEED ABOUT CLIENTS FROM
PROGRAMS TO MAKE A SMART REFERRAL?
Percentage of Singles entering from:
PREVENTION ASSESSMENT AND
TARGETING: USE SHELTER DATA
LOOK AT SHELTER DATA: USE THIS TO GUIDE WHO RECEIVES
PREVENTION ASSISTANCE.
80%
71%
70%
65%
Singles in Shelters
60%
Singles in HPRP
50%
40%
35%
30%
20%
14%
11%
10%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
SHELTER DIVERSION QUESTIONS
 WHERE DID YOU SLEEP LAST NIGHT?
 WHAT OTHER HOUSING OPTIONS DO YOU HAVE FOR THE NEXT
FEW DAYS OR WEEKS?
 (IF STAYING IN SOMEONE ELSE’S HOUSING) WHAT ISSUES
EXIST WITH YOU REMAINING IN YOUR CURRENT HOUSING
SITUATION? CAN THOSE ISSUES BE RESOLVED WITH FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE, CASE MANAGEMENT, ETC.?
 (IF COMING FROM THEIR OWN UNIT) IS IT POSSIBLE/SAFE TO
STAY IN YOUR CURRENT HOUSING UNIT? WHAT RESOURCES
WOULD YOU NEED TO DO THAT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, CASE
MANAGEMENT, MEDIATION, TRANSPORTATION, ETC.)?
REFERRAL PROCESS
REFERRALS: THE “WARM HANDOFF”
1. MAKE CLIENT REFERRAL.
2. CALL PROGRAM TO ANNOUNCE THAT
CLIENT IS BEING REFERRED TO THEM.
3. SHARE CLIENT DATA WITH REFERRAL
PROGRAM.
4. OPTIONAL: IN-PERSON MEETINGS
REFERRAL VS. ADMISSION
 WHICH PROGRAMS CAN ACCEPT/WILL ACCEPT DIRECT
ADMISSIONS (E.G., EMERGENCY SHELTER)? HOW COULD YOU
PHASE IN THIS CHANGE OVER TIME? WHICH PROGRAMS ARE
ONLY ACCESSIBLE THROUGH REFERRAL?
 SET PROCESS FOR REFERRALS THAT ALLOWS AGENCIES TO
PROVIDE FEEDBACK IF SOMEONE ISN’T A GOOD MATCH (E.G.,
DAY TON MODEL)
EVALUATION
EVALUATION MEASURES
 ARE MORE PEOPLE BEING PREVENTED OR DIVERTED FROM
ENTERING HOMELESSNESS?
 ARE PEOPLE MOVING THROUGH THE HOMELESS ASSISTANCE
MORE QUICKLY?
 ARE MORE PEOPLE EXITING THE SYSTEM FOR PERMANENT
HOUSING?
 ARE LENGTHS OF STAY IN HOMELESSNESS DECREASING? ARE
LENGTHS OF STAY IN SHELTER DECREASING?
 ARE THERE FEWER REPEAT ENTRIES INTO HOMELESSNESS?
OTHER EVALUATION METHODS
 CONSUMER SURVEYS
 REFERRAL: PRIMARY PLACEMENT VS. SECONDARY
PLACEMENT
TOOLS ON TABLES
 COORDINATED ENTRY CHECKLIST (ALLIANCE)
 TRIAGE TOOL (COLUMBUS, OH)
 DATA SHARING AGREEMENT (WHATCOM COUNT Y, WA)
 CLIENT RELEASE FORM (WHATCOM COUNT Y, WA)
 COORDINATED ENTRY POWERPOINT (DAY TON/MONTGOMERY
COUNT Y, OH)
 RAPID RE-HOUSING TRIAGE TOOL (ALLIANCE)