Rapid Re-Housing
Research Evidence and Beyond
Jamie Taylor
Cloudburst Consulting Group
Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness Training Institute
May 8, 2014

1) RRH - Results from across the nation
2) RRH - The Philadelphia Story
3) RRH – Promising Practices
4) RRH – Local RRH Evaluation

4316
Homelessness in Connecticut
2010-2013
Total Homeless Population
Persons in Famly Households
Persons in Individual Households
4456 4448
4209
2993 3071
2905
3089
1385 1323 1303 1347
2010 2011
Source: HUD CoC Reports
2012 2013

Region/ Program # of RRH
Households
Support Services for
Veterans & Families
(SSVF)
State of Michigan
RRH program
(HH) served
13,766
( 2011 and 2012
SSVF RRH HHs )
4,251
1,286 Philadelphia HPRP
RRH program
Utah – The Road Home
HPRP RRH program
Connecticut HPRP
RRH program
D. C. Community of
Hope RRH program
1,100
3,100
117
Time- frame of analysis
12 mos. after exit RRH
2010 - 2012
Return to
Homeless Rate
(date assessed)
Singles-15.7%
Families-10.1%
(Feb.2014)
12%
(Dec. 2013)
10/09 – 5/12
2010-2012
2010 - 2012
2011 - 2013
13.6%
(Aug.2013)
13%
(2013)
8%(avg. over 3 yrs)
(Sept. 2013)
8%
(2013)

NAEH Evaluation of 7 CoC Programs,
Average RRH cost = $4,000/family

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Georgia Study of Reoccurrence Rates –
Rigorous method to control for differences, found factors most correlated with a return to homelessness
Research question: Which client, program, geographical characteristics exert greatest influence on the likelihood that someone returns to homelessness?
Results: 9000 enrollments, 28% return to homelessness. Return Risk Factors:
Was not in a Rapid Re-Housing program
Had a history of homelessness
Went to a “temporary” destination
Was Non-Hispanic / Non-Latino
Was Non-White
Had a disabling condition at program exit
Program was in a non-rural county
Was male
Was unaccompanied
Was not with a teenage male
Key Finding:
Exits from
Shelter 4.7 times;
Tran. Housing 4.0 times more likely to return to homelessness than exits from Rapid Re-Housing
Source : Jason Rodriguez, GA Dept of Community Affairs

Research Aims for Rapid Re-Housing
Can we answer the counterfactual?
RESEARCH AIM for RRH Policy:


Research for RRH policy goal is to estimate whether RRH is the specific element responsible for decreasing homelessness. Counterfactual:
What would have happened to RRH households if there was no RRH?
WHY RESEARCH DESIGN IS NECESSARY:

When households who participate in RRH are different from households who do not, need to control for differences using research design. Differences in RRH and non-RRH households show up as confounders: i.e. RRH enrollment strategies differences by case manager, by program; length of RRH assistance; Housing market variability
Gold Standard = Random Control Trial = assess causal effect of RRH
RESEARCH DESIGN WITHOUT RCT
With no RCT, matching methods can be used to create comparison groups that look alike, controlling for confounding differences. Propensity score matching now widely applied, probability of participation estimated using observable variables.,

Specific Research Questions for
Philadelphia Rapid Re-Housing Study

Does Rapid Re-Housing improve housing stability for formerly homeless households by decreasing the risk of a return to homelessness?

Does RRH help to improve household income?

Was the HPRP RRH policy effective in decreasing the risk of homelessness?

Dataset: All Households that entered
Philadelphia shelters 10/2009-5/2012
Propensity Score Match
7,177
Households
10/09 – 5/12
8 cases discarded
4716 cases discarded
1,286 Non-
RRH
Households
1,169 RRH
Households

PSM Result –households in each group similar, standard means balanced
RRH Treatment……….1169 households
Non-RRH Control…...1286 households
Each variable included in PSM represents HMIS data indicator correlated with risk of homelessness.
(Disabling condition excluded based on high correlation with SSI-SSDI)
Standard means comparison, t-tests performed on PSM matched groups, strong PSM model, households similar
Variables
Monthly 1.00 income @ sheltr entry
.00
MarriedBinary 1.00
.00
GenderBinary 1.00
.00
HSGradBinary 1.00
Family Size
.00
1.00
.00
HHAge18_25 1.00
.00
HHAge26_59 1.00
.00
HHAge60plus 1.00
SSI_SSDI
.00
1.00
# times in shelter (>30 days)
.00
1.00
.00
N
1169
1286
1169
1286
1169
1286
1169
1286
1169
1286
1169
1286
1169
1286
1169
1286
1169
1286
1169
1286
Mean
730.50
718.78
.0607
.0539
.5774
.5958
.5346
.5672
2.25
2.27
.2198
.2434
.7305
.7113
.0488
.0445
.2541
.2447
2.13
1.85

PSM Analysis:
Return to Homelessness Results
Comparison
Group
Rapid Re-
Housing
Group
Non- RRH
Group
Total
#
Households
1,169 households
1,286 households
2,455 cases
% Returned to
Homelessness
13.6%
39.4%
Odds ratio: The odds of returning to homelessness were 42% higher for households that did not receive RRH compared to households that did receive RRH

Washington State Evaluation – Robust matching model RRH and employment
Washington State 2010 Evaluation - Rapid Re-Housing Impacts on Employment*
*RRH clients were 1.25 times more likely to be employed, and, on average, earned $422 more annually than their counterparts who did not receive RRH.





Goal – To move 350 homeless families in King County into rental housing by December 31, 2014
Assessment: Short-term financial assistance and temporary housing-focused supports, including employment and training services,
RRH funding: $3.1 million over 2014. Funders and planning partners include King County DCHS, City of Seattle Human Services
Department, United Way of King County, Building Changes and the
Seattle and King County Housing Authorities.
RRH partnerships: Employment Navigator program. The navigators will provide critical supports to assist in gaining employment. Families may continue working with the employment navigator after rapid re-housing assistance





Goal – Offer employment assistance to families transitioning from shelter into housing with Rapid Re-housing
Assessment: Participating agencies enrolled 506 formerly homeless parents in the Secure Jobs program from a pool of 5,400
Massachusetts families receiving rental subsidies
RRH funding: Fireman Foundation awarded $1.5 million in grants to encourage housing, employment, and other agencies to work together provide comprehensive services to help low-income families regain financial independence and stay out of the shelter system.
RRH partnerships: Collaboration with workforce-training organizations with employer partners. Secure Jobs participants employed by large retailers, hospitals and nursing facilities, hotels and hospitality industries, social service agencies, and manufacturing,





Goal – Serve Homeless households with children. Housing Authority launching pad for family success
Assessment: Tailor the availability, type, amount, and duration of assistance to the need for family housing
RRH funding: Use Tacoma Housing Authority Moving to Work flexible demonstration status (HUD) for RRH assistance


2013 - $80.00 for 19 families
2015 - $650,000
 2017 - $1million
RRH partnerships: Schools and the child welfare system


Goal – Exit family households out of shelter to stable housing as soon as possible




Assessment: Of 659 families entered Salt Lake County shelter 2013
572 families moved out:
62% of all families move out with RRH
5% families moved into supportive housing,
33 % of families moved out of shelter with no financial assistance
Reassessment: Progressive Engagement
RRH funding: Utah uses state TANF $$ for first four months of
RRH, then ESG and other RRH funding if household still needs RRH
RRH partnerships: TANF, State Department of Workforce
Services to increase employment income

Summary of Recommended Practices
1.
Collaboration and communication are key to providing not only a positive environment for families experiencing homelessness, but also provide better outcomes for families.
2.
3.
Streamlining the movement for a family from the point in time in which they seek out shelter to the point that they are stably housed reduces inefficiency and better serves our community.
Using existing resources provides the largest area of
opportunity to make immediate changes and see an immediate reduction in family shelter use.
4.
Targeting services based on individualized needs of the
family is a more efficient use of resources, and provides the best outcomes for families.




Maybe….RRH housing case management services access landlord partnerships, find new viable housing opportunities not previously on the radar for very poor households with housing barriers
Maybe….time-limited housing stabilization assistance provides a self-determination boost, motivating efforts to do “whatever it takes” to stay out of homelessness
Maybe… RRH works on the same fundamental principle as Housing First - -CLIENT CHOICE. By putting housing first in the service equation, clients access all three critical aspects of self-determination: autonomy, competence, and connectedness

Multiple factors in every region impact
RRH outcomes
Variable influencing factors in every RRH region:







Housing market – % affordable rents
Network of Landlord partnerships
Capacity to leverage TANF / HOME/ other Rental Assistance
Funds
ESG funding levels
Belief in RRH approach
Coordinated Assessment Tools
Mass movement out of state or HMIS region
Growing need for additional RRH research evidence
AND additional investment in affordable housing.
RRH does not end poverty.

Local HMIS RRH Evaluation – Five Steps
1. Define Rapid Re-Housing Success in own community
2. Use HMIS data indicators





Return to Homelessness by cohort/group
Length of stay/time homeless
Reduction in shelter households over time
Average Shelter costs per day
Average RRH assistance costs per day
3. Establish comparison group using matching method
4. Analyze Data – Courageously accept data shortcomings
5. Add results to emerging RRH evidence

Mapping out a theory of change is key to monitoring RRH performance and continuous quality improvement.
Three questions:
1) What is the aim of your RRH intervention?
 What are you seeking to improve?
2) What are the necessary conditions for achieving RRH aim


What strategies will be necessary to achieve your RRH aim?
How will you know you are successful with each strategy?
3) What will it take to implement each primary strategy?

Educate community and stakeholders on
RRH success by 6/14
Expand RRH subsidies to 1000 households/year by 12/2014
Increase RRH funding sources beyond ESG
$$ by 9/14
Educate and recruit
RRH providers -
Increase RRH providers 25% by
10/14

Housing Tenancy
Improvement
Fund
Support RRH households long-term housing stability goals
-
500 households/year by 12/2015 decrease mobility
Landlord /
Tenancy Support
Network
Expand use of long-term housing subsidies and RRH bridge

Jamie Taylor
Cloudburst Consulting Group jamie.taylor@cloudburstgroup.com
Phone # 860-716-7392