HEARTH ACT
1
REGIONAL CONFERENCE
NORFOLK, VA
MARCH 16, 2009
SUZANNE WAGNER
HOUSING INNOVATIONS
Agenda
2
 HEARTH Act Overview – Key Changes
 Eligible Populations
 Eligible Activities
ESG
 Continuum of Care




Performance Criteria
Other Program Changes
Applying for Funds
Collaborative Applicant
 Unified Funding Agency


Funding Selection Criteria for CoC’s
HEARTH Act Provides Stimulus
for System Change
3
New definitions and eligible activities allow CoCs to provide
more services to prevent homelessness and incentives to
rapidly move homeless people back to housing
Emphasis on outcomes enhanced under HEARTH with new,
additional measures that evaluate both systemic and
individual program results
•
•
•
•
Reductions in Length of time spent homeless,
Decreases in Recidivism to homelessness,
Thoroughness in reaching homeless people,
Reductions in numbers of homeless people and those becoming homeless
New Definitions = Expanded Eligibility for
Services
4
Chronically homeless now includes: individuals
or families provided the household is headed by
an individual with:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Diagnosable substance use disorder
Serious mental illness
Developmental disability
Post traumatic stress disorder – this is new
Chronic physical illness or disability
Co-occurrence of two or more disabilities
Expanded Definition of Homelessness in
addition to current definition:
5
Individuals or families who will lose housing within 14 days
and who: have no subsequent resource identified; and lacks
resources or support networks to obtain other permanent
housing;
Unaccompanied youth and families with children defined as
homeless under other Federal statutes who:
• Have experienced long period without living independently in permanent
housing
• Have experienced persistent instability as measured by frequent moves
• Can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time
DOE Homeless Definition
6
Subtitle B of Title VII of McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act. Homeless means children and youth
who lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime
residence. This includes:
• Children and youths who are sharing the housing of
other persons due to loss of housing, economic
hardship, or a similar reason, are living in motels,
hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to lack
of alternative adequate accommodations; are living in
emergency or transitional shelters; are abandoned in
hospitals, or are awaiting foster care placement.
At-risk of Homelessness Defined
7
 An individual or family is at risk of homelessness if:
 Income is below 30% of AMI
 Has insufficient resources to attain housing stability
 Has moved frequently for economic reasons
Is living in someone else’s home because of economic hardship
 Has been notified that their right to occupy their housing has been
terminated
 Lives in a hotel/motel
 Lives in severely overcrowded housing
 Is exiting an institution
 Lives in housing that has characteristics associated with instability
and increased risk of homelessness

Assistance to Families ‘Homeless’
under other definitions
8
Up to 10% of CoC funds can be used to assist
families with children and youth defined as
homeless under other Federal statutes
• ‘such families and children shall not otherwise be
considered as homeless for purposes of this subtitle’
Population may also be eligible to be served
under definition of ‘at risk of homelessness’
• Obtain services under ESG
New Eligible Activities – ESG
9
 Emergency Shelter Grant becomes Emergency Solutions
Grant


No more than 60% of ESG funding can be used to support shelter
activities
At least 40% of funds would be dedicated to prevention and
rehousing activities
 New activities:



Short/medium term rental assistance to homeless or at risk
Housing relocation/stabilization to homeless or at risk
Parallel HPRP activities
 Funding for ESG increases to 20% of amount available
for homeless assistance
 $ for $ match required (cash or in-kind) for ESG
 Admin costs rise from 5 to 7.5%
Eligible Activities - Continuum of Care Program
10
 SHP, S+C, SRO Mod become a single CoC program
 Acquisition, rehabilitation, and construction activities the same as under
SHP but matching requirements changed
 Leasing is the same – no match required
 Rental assistance for transitional (a version of RR) or permanent
housing






Project based, sponsor based or tenant based
Can provide rental assistance to preserve existing PSH
Operating costs same as SHP
Supportive services same as SHP
Rehousing services to include: housing search, mediation, outreach to
property owners, credit repair, providing security or utility deposits,
rental assistance for a final month at a location, assistance with moving
costs or other activities that: are effective in moving people immediately
into housing or who have moved into permanent housing in prior 6
months
Admin costs to project sponsors of not more than 10%
Performance Criteria
11
Required Performance Criteria
High Performing Communities*
Length of time individuals and families
remain homeless
Under 20 days or at least 10% below prior
year
Rate of households returning to
homelessness
Fewer than 5% will become homeless again
within next 2 years or at least 20% below
prior year
Thoroughness in reaching homeless people
Actively encouraged homeless people to
participate in services; included all homeless
people in HMIS
Overall reduction in numbers of homeless
individuals and families
Activities have been effective in reducing
homelessness
Jobs and income growth for homeless
individuals and families
No family is homeless for more than 30 days
– benchmarking TBD
Reducing number of individuals and families
who become homeless
*Can use as much money as they want for
prevention and rehousing assistance
Other Program Information
12
Project based assistance can have a 15 year agreement, with 5 years funded out of
initial grant
Leasing, operating costs, and rental assistance for permanent housing amounts
increased annually in accord with changes in FMRs. PH rental assistance, leasing and
operating costs would be renewed non-competitively for a year at a time.
Permanent rental assistance must be administered by PHA. Operating Costs would
include service coordination.
CoC match is “contributions from any other source than a grant awarded under
HEARTH” = 25% of funds provided through CoC
• In kind permitted only when documented by memo of understanding
• Cash and in kind permitted
• CoC-wide not project specific
Collaborative Applicant
13
 Covers geographic area – CoC
 Submits a collaborative application to HUD for CoC $’s
 Duties

Design collaborative process for development of application and
evaluating the outcomes of projects for which funds are awarded
Develop process for selecting projects for funding
 Establish priorities for funding



Participate in CON Plan
Ensure operation of HMIS
 Need not be a legal entity
 Can receive 3% of total funds available to CoC as admin
fee
Unified Funding Agency
14
 All duties of collaborative applicant plus
 Receive funds from HUD and distribute to project sponsors
 Must require project sponsors to have appropriate
financial/grant management and conduct annual audit
 Responsible for HMIS compliance
 Can receive 6% of total funds available to CoC as
admin fee
Scoring/Selection Criteria for Funding
15
 Performance – as described above
 Community Plans – quality and comprehensiveness of a
community’s plans that focus on reducing homelessness,
the educational needs of children and the needs of all
homeless sub-populations.

Measureable targets, timelines, funding, leadership and staff.
 Process for Prioritizing Funding – methodology is based
on objective publicly announced criteria that considers
the full range of opinions and uses data for analysis
 If serving those homeless under other federal statutes,
must have a very good prevention plan
Incentives ($$$$)
16
 HUD Required to Provide Incentives for Strategies that
are Evidence-Based and Proven to reduce homelessness


Rapid Rehousing for Families
PSH for Chronically Homeless Individuals and Families
 HUD can add strategies if there is research to support
their efficacy.
 Communities apply for the Incentives and use the $
however they want (within HEARTTH eligible activities)
 Amount and nature of incentives TBD
 Up to $6 million to study effectiveness of different
interventions for homeless families at 3 different sites
Key Tasks/Issues/Decisions for the Community
17
 The following are issues communities may want to consider:
 Collaborative Applicant or Unified Funding Agency?
 Does the CoC aspire to be a High Performing community?
 What systems and program changes are needed to ensure
achievement of performance standards? Now that there are new
tools and evidence, what is the right mix of programs in the system?
 How to continue Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Efforts (albeit in a
more limited fashion)
 How can the Renewal Evaluation Process better support
achievement of outcomes and meets HUD’s guidelines for
prioritizing funding?
 Discussions and decisions regarding changing program eligibility –
pending issue of draft regs.
 CoC’s response to draft regs.
18
Discussion
Thank You!
Housing Innovations
Suzanne Wagner
suzanne.wagner@earthlink.net
Tel: (917)612-5469
Innovations and Trends in CoCs
and Homeless Systems
Background
20
 Ten Year Plans, HPRP and now HEARTH have made
communities analyze and rethink their systems
 Evidence that with all the investment (think $$), services
and programs we have developed, homelessness was
increasing, interventions not working
 Realization that our systems weren’t systemic and limited
resources must be targeted to achieve outcome of ending
homelessness, rather than managing it
 More data on what is happening in our systems but still
much less research base on the family side.
Background
21
 Housing subsidy most likely resource to end homelessness but
the vast majority of people leave w/o one and don’t return.
 Our homeless systems were not designed as such – grew up ad
hoc
 Recent analysis of 3 cities found that people with most barriers
were ones to fail most in the family system. Most intensive
programs served lowest need people.
 If we leave the market to decide, community priorities may not
be addressed.
 Expansion of Evidence Based Practices especially on strategies
that end peoples’ homelessness permanently: Rapid Rehousing,
Permanent Supportive Housing, CTI (Critical Time Intervention)
and Housing First
Elements of Successful Systems Changes
22
 Bring Mainstream partners to the table and get their
$$$$
 Structured and supported to work in the local
political context and service system
 Consider how prevention, diversion, shelter,
transitional housing, permanent supportive and
affordable housing fit together (or don’t)

Critical points of intervention are at the interfaces between
programs and systems
 Take advantage of opportunities – HPRP, HEARTH
Elements of Successful Systems Changes
23
 Have systemic outcomes, not just program
 Focus on permanent solutions
 Use data
 Who is homeless, dynamics
 Outcomes for all programs in the system
 Target resources based on need
 Use proven and effective strategies – CTI, RR,
Housing First, etc.
 Flexible and adjust their programs as they learn and
create ways to share learning and wisdom
 Have champions and staff to implement them
Strategies for System Change
24
 Front Door Strategies
 Primary Prevention/Diversion
 Targeting
 SPOA
 Back Door Strategies
 Rapid Rehousing and Retooling Transitional Housing
 Housing Stabilization Services and CTI
 Permanent Housing Development/Access
 Moving On from PSH
Strategies for Systems Change
25
 Planning Strategies
 Invite key players – Social Services, MH, Addictions, VA, HA’s,
CPD, Workforce Investment Boards
 Do your homework – know where mainstream resources are
going in your community
 Make plans when there is no money available
 Create Funding Collaboratives
 Use outcome/performance based contracts


Can tie reimbursement to outcomes
Ensure that you have the right mix of programs for the
homeless population in your community. If programs are
empty, needs may have changed.
Data Driven/Outcome Oriented Programming
26
 HUD McKinney Performance Outcomes

HUD has increasingly been focused on the achievement of specific outcomes
as a factor in McKinney-Vento Funding Awards.
 Outcomes Measured
 80% of people in Permanent Supportive Housing will stay 6 months or > APR
 70% of people in Transitional Housing will move to permanent housing - APR





20% of people who leave the program will have employment - APR
Extent to which people have access to public benefits/mainstream resources
upon exit as compared to national averages (e.g., SSI, PA, Medicaid) - APR
Decrease in the number of Chronically Homeless (CH) persons
Decrease in the number of homeless families
Increase in the number of PSH beds for CH – Housing Inventory Chart
 Hearth will add  LOS, census, recidivism, new h’less
 Factor these outcomes into renewal evaluation processes since they
count toward the CoC score
Data Driven/Outcome Oriented Programming
27
 Performance Based Contracting with NYC Shelters
and Outreach Teams



Agencies targets for housing placements are established.
Census and length of stay are also tracked but payment is not
connected to them.
Agencies receive a certain guaranteed part of their budget.
The balance is based on achieving the established targets.
Bonuses above 100% of budgets are paid for exceeding these
targets.
For street outreach, reorganized contracts to eliminate
duplication, create better accountability and ensure coverage
of the whole city.
Retooling Programs
28
 Rethinking Shelter – provide safe place AND housing
placement
 Repurposing Transitional Housing to Rapid Rehousing,
Rolling Stock and PSH





Communities reevaluating purpose and goals of TH in the system
For congregate facilities, have converted entire building
For scatter site TH, the housing subsidy and services transition out,
not the person/family. Household remains in the unit which is
turned over to the client. Services are provided thru a housing-based
case management approach – Columbus
Chicago CoC converted almost all TH to PH
Conversions have freed up resources to serve more people
Retooling Programs
29
 Transitional Programs seem beneficial for people in
transition: young adults, families with young mothers,
persons leaving the criminal justice system, persons in
early recovery, people with long institutional histories
 Look at function in your community



Queuing mechanism
Place to perfect homeless families
Bridge to housing subsidy
 HEARTH provides an OPPORTUNITY – offers RR in
CoC
 Beware of just converting all TH to PSH. The number of
families in need of PSH is a small % of total.
Considerations in Re-engineering Your System
30
 Solutions to homelessness must be viewed in the larger
context of the supply of affordable housing, the
existing social services system and the economy in a
community.
 The demographics and needs of homeless families and
homeless single adults require different responses.
 Assistance to increase income or access rent subsidies
is usually necessary, especially in high cost markets.
 Ensuring that the system gets people housed requires
coordinated responses that focus on ending peoples’
homelessness as quickly as possible, rather than
managing it
Considerations in Re-engineering Your System
31
 Coordination between the Homeless System and
Mainstream Affordable Housing, Hospitals,
Behavioral Health, Foster Care, and Parole and
Corrections is necessary but easier said than done.
 Must have data and use it to understand system
outcomes. Track shelter requests and census,
average length of shelter stays, housing stability
and recidivism. Understand who is entering or
returning and why.
 Evaluate costs and outcomes and continually
update your local strategy.
32
Discussion
Thank You!
Housing Innovations
Suzanne Wagner
suzanne.wagner@earthlink.net
Tel: (917)612-5469