Rapid Re-Housing for Homeless Families Demonstration Programs Evaluation Report - Part 1: How They Worked

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES

DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS

FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION

PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—

PROCESS EVALUATION

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Ofﬁce of Policy Development and ResearchU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Ofﬁce of Policy Development and Research

Visit PD&R’s website

huduser.gov

to ﬁnd this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Ofﬁce of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of

HUD USER, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best

practices, signiﬁcant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (800-245-2691) for help

accessing the information you need.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS

FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION

PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—

PROCESS EVALUATION

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Prepared by

Martha R. Burt

Carol Wilkins

Brooke Spellman

Tracy D’Alanno

Matt White

Meghan Henry

Natalie Matthews

Abt Associates Inc.

April 2016

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

Acknowledgments

Martha R. Burt led the design and implementation of the process evaluation, with signicant

support from the other site interviewers: Carol Wilkins, Brooke Spellman, Tracy D’Alanno, Matt

White, Meghan Henry, and Natalie Matthews. These seven individuals also collaborated on the

report, with key input from Dennis Culhane, the Principal Investigator for the study, and Jill

Khadduri, the Abt Project Quality Advisor. Reviewers at the U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development provided invaluable feedback on the rst draft of this report.

The authors especially thank the Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration

grantees, including staff members and community leaders who participated in the phone surveys

and onsite visits.

iii

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

Foreword

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) awarded funding

to 23 communities to implement a demonstra-

tion program to expand a promising new inter-

vention for addressing homelessness among

families. The Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Fam-

ilies Demonstration (RRHD) program awarded

the rst set of federal funds intended to support

the expansion of this new model of homeless

assistance nationwide. Rapid re-housing is

designed to enable households to exit shelter

quickly by assisting them in nding a housing

unit in the community and subsequently pro-

viding them with a short-term housing subsidy

(not to exceed 18 months) along with a modest

package of housing-related services designed

to stabilize the household in anticipation of the

conclusion of rental assistance.

HUD’s evaluation of the RRHD program

sought to understand the variations among

rapid re-housing programs established in

the demonstration communities and also the

outcomes of the families served through the

program. Key observations include—

• Grantees varied greatly in all aspects of pro-

gram implementation, including (1) structure

and length of the housing subsidy, (2) breadth

of the package of supportive services offered,

(3) intensity of case management, and

(4) target population.

• Families had a low likelihood of returning to

emergency shelter within the study period—

a review of Homelessness Management

Information System, or HMIS, data found

that only 10 percent of households served

experienced at least one episode of homeless-

ness within 12 months of program exit.

• Families were highly mobile following the

end of program participation—76 percent of

households moved at least once within the

12-month period following their exit from

the RRHD program.

From the perspective of the homeless assistance

system, which has the role of reducing the

number of households that experience home-

lessness, this outcome is excellent. That said,

the high rate of mobility raises some concerns,

as does the nding that family income showed

little or no increase, and very few families

exited the program with any type of subsidized

housing assistance. These ndings suggest that

the short-term assistance offered may be just

that, and that some families who continue to

struggle with severe poverty may nd them-

selves again in housing crisis before too long.

From a homelessness prevention perspective,

this nding is vexing.

Since the time that this demonstration was ini-

tiated in 2009, communities have moved swift-

ly to implement rapid re-housing programs

and to rene the model to meet the needs of the

homeless households presenting for assistance

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

and also the conditions of the local housing

market. Considerable attention has also been

paid to how communities measure the success

of their rapid re-housing programs: Should the

goal of the intervention be housing stability or

avoidance of a return to shelter? Should rapid

re-housing be considered an intervention with

long-term or short-term goals? The evidence

generated through this research effort does not

denitively answer these questions, but rather

it adds to the collection of ndings that is help-

ing to shape what we know about how rapid

re-housing programs are implemented and

to considerations for the proper role of rapid

re-housing programs in a communitywide

response to homelessness.

Katherine M. O’Regan

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development &

Research

Department of Housing and Urban Development

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

Contents

Executive Summary

...................................................................................................................................... ix

How Do RRHD Programs Fit Into Their Communities? ...................................................................... ix

How Do RRHD Programs Identify Appropriate Participants? .............................................................. x

What Housing and Services Do the RRHD Programs Deliver? .........................................................xiii

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction

................................................................................................................................. 1

Background ...........................................................................................................................................................1

The Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration .....................................................................2

RRHD Design Requirements .......................................................................................................................5

The RRHD Communities .............................................................................................................................5

This Study .............................................................................................................................................................7

Research Questions .......................................................................................................................................8

Process Evaluation Data Collection ............................................................................................................9

Organization of This Report ........................................................................................................................ 9

Chapter 2: Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration Programs in the

Community Context

...................................................................................................................................... 11

CoC Involvement in Agency Selection ............................................................................................................ 12

Community Planning Context and History Providing Rapid Re-housing ............................................... 14

Rapid Re-housing Before the RRHD Grant .............................................................................................15

RRHD, HPRP, and How They Relate in RRHD Communities .................................................................... 17

Philosophical Approach to the RRHD ............................................................................................................ 18

What Is Rapid? ............................................................................................................................................. 19

Chapter Summary .............................................................................................................................................19

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

Chapter 3: System Entry for Families

..................................................................................................... 21

How Do RRHD Communities Structure Family Intake? ............................................................................. 21

Centralized Intake—How Can We Tell? ..................................................................................................22

Primary Intake Models—Centralized or Decentralized .......................................................................22

RRHD Structures Answering the First Question—What Is Best for This Family? ...................................22

RRHD Programs Answering the Second Question—Should We Take This Family? ..............................24

Chapter Summary .............................................................................................................................................26

Chapter 4: Screening and Selection Criteria

........................................................................................ 27

The Assessment Process....................................................................................................................................27

Basic Threshold Eligibility Criteria ..........................................................................................................27

When Are Assessments Completed, and How Are Results Used? ...................................................... 28

What Characteristics Will Get Families Screened Out of Most RRHD Programs?...........................29

Additional Screening Criteria, Tools, and Procedures ..........................................................................30

How Standardized Are the Assessment Tools? ............................................................................................. 30

How Selective Are RRHD Programs When Screening Families for Eligibility? ...............................32

What Domains Do RRHD Programs Consider When Screening, and How Are They Scored? .....33

What Family Characteristics Lead To Being Accepted Into or Screened Out of RRHD? ................. 38

Rationale for More Selective Screening Criteria and Procedures ........................................................ 39

How Have RRHD Programs Changed Their Screening and Selection Criteria? ..............................40

Chapter Summary .............................................................................................................................................41

Chapter 5: Housing Assistance and Supportive Services Offered by Rapid Re-housing

for Homeless Families Demonstration Programs

............................................................................... 43

Housing ...............................................................................................................................................................43

Length of Rental Assistance ......................................................................................................................43

What Families Hear at Enrollment ...........................................................................................................45

Level of Rent Subsidy .................................................................................................................................47

Time to Housing Placement ....................................................................................................................... 48

Supportive Services ...........................................................................................................................................48

Housing Search Assistance ........................................................................................................................49

Case Management .......................................................................................................................................50

Employment .................................................................................................................................................52

Linking to Benets and Community Services ........................................................................................ 52

Chapter Summary .............................................................................................................................................53

vii

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

Chapter 6: Conclusion

.................................................................................................................................. 55

How Do RRHD Programs Fit Within Their Communities? .................................................................55

How Does the Intake and Assessment for Rapid Re-housing Work? .................................................. 55

Who Is Served, and Who Is Not? ..............................................................................................................56

What Housing and Services Do the RRHD Programs Deliver? ...........................................................56

Future Plans .................................................................................................................................................57

Implications for Future Rapid Re-housing Program Development ..................................................... 57

References ...............................................................................................................................59

Appendix A: Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration Program

Case Studies

.................................................................................................................................................... 61

Anchorage, Alaska: Beyond Shelter Services ................................................................................................. 61

Austin/Travis County, Texas: The Passages Rapid Re-housing Initiative .................................................63

Boston, Massachusetts: Home Advantage Collaborative .............................................................................65

Cincinnati/Hamilton County, Ohio: Family Shelter Partnership Rapid Re-housing ..............................67

Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio: Jobs to Housing ....................................................................................69

Contra Costa County, California: Contra Costa Rapid Re-housing ...........................................................71

Dayton/Kettering/Montgomery Counties, Ohio: Rapid Re-housing Program ........................................ 73

Denver Metro, Colorado: Project Home Again ..............................................................................................75

District of Columbia: Rapid Re-housing Initiative ........................................................................................77

Kalamazoo/Portage, Michigan: Housing Resources, Inc., Rapid Re-housing Pilot .................................79

Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Lancaster County Rapid Re-housing for Families ............................................81

Madison, Wisconsin: Second Chance RRHD Program ................................................................................83

Montgomery County, Maryland: Montgomery County Rapid Re-housing Program .............................85

New Orleans/Jefferson Parish, Louisiana: Rapid Re-housing for Families ..............................................87

Ohio Balance of State: Ohio Balance of State Rapid Re-housing Grant Program ..................................... 89

Orlando, Florida: Housing Now ......................................................................................................................91

Overland Park/Shawnee/Johnson County, Kansas: Housing for Homeless ............................................93

Phoenix/Mesa/Maricopa County, Arizona: Next Step Housing ................................................................95

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Community Human Services Rapid Re-housing for Families .....................97

Portland/Gresham/Multnomah County, Oregon: Opening Doors ...........................................................99

San Francisco, California: Housing Access Project .....................................................................................101

Trenton/Mercer County, New Jersey: Housing NOW ................................................................................103

Washington Balance of State: Northwest Rapid Re-housing Partnership ...............................................105

Appendix B: Arizona Family Self-Sufﬁciency Matrix

....................................................................... 107

Appendix C: Family Vignettes

.................................................................................................................. 111

viii

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

Executive

Summary

Rapid re-housing is a homeless assistance

strategy that provides homeless families with

immediate, temporary assistance to help them

return to permanent housing and to promote

their housing and economic stability. This ap-

proach has been growing in popularity for 10

years. In 2007, in response to the growing em-

phasis on rapid re-housing, the U.S. Congress

appropriated $23.75 million for the Rapid Re-

housing for Homeless Families Demonstration

(RRHD) program. As part of its 2008 competi-

tive application for McKinney-Vento Homeless

Assistance Act funding, the U.S. Department

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

awarded RRHD grants to 23 communities to

serve homeless families with moderate barriers

to housing.

Along with appropriating the RRHD funding,

Congress mandated an evaluation of RRHD

activities and their effect on families. This report

describes the ndings of that evaluation’s rst

phase, a process evaluation examining how

programs were designed and how they are being

implemented. The ndings were distilled from

information gained during site visits or intensive

phone interviews with all 23 RRHD grantees

conducted between February and May 2011.

Results are organized to answer the following

research questions established by HUD.

How Do RRHD Programs Fit Into Their

Communities?

HUD expected communities to design their

RRHD programs to complement other available

resources and reect community conditions.

RRHD programs fullled this expectation in

numerous ways.

• Each successful RRHD application evolved

through an analytic process within local Con -

tinuums of Care (CoCs), which were involved

either as RRHD grantees themselves or as

the entity that selected grantees from among

possible agencies.

• CoCs chose agencies to become RRHD grant-

ees that had signicant experience working

with homeless families, often through previous

rapid re-housing programs. Twelve RRHD

agencies and their communities had rapid re-

housing programs in place before applying

for RRHD grants, two others had programs

that closely resembled rapid re-housing, and

several had committed themselves to rapid

re-housing philosophically and were actively

seeking funding sources when the RRHD pro -

gram was announced. The existence of rapid

re-housing before RRHD informed each com -

munity’s program design.

• Community context strongly inuenced

RRHD program design and client selection.

1 This process evaluation report is accompanied by a report on the

results of an outcomes evaluation examining whether receipt of RRHD

services helped families increase their housing and income stability by

the end of formal assistance and by 12 months after assistance ends.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

• Communities that had alternative interven-

tions available for families tended to be highly

focused on the families they enrolled in RRHD,

because they had the resources to send fam -

ilies to other programs more appropriate

to their circumstances, needs, and barriers.

Communities with fewer or no other options

tended to accept families with a broader

need prole into their RRHD program if the

program had sufcient capacity.

• Communities that had both RRHD and a dif-

ferent rapid re-housing option that included

coverage for education and training sent

families to the latter if a member of the fam-

ily wanted to enroll or was already enrolled

in a course of study that would enhance the

family’s progress toward self-sufciency.

• Communities with very high housing costs

tended to target families with minimal rather

than moderate barriers, reasoning that only

families with strong skills and solid work

histories would be able to reach self-sufciency

in the period of time that the RRHD program

could help them with rental assistance. Grant -

ees in communities with a more mixed hous-

ing picture were more exible, with the most

inclusive programs accepting about 80 percent

of families coming through emergency shelter

into their RRHD programs.

Implication: Rapid re-housing programs should

be designed to reect the local context, including

the availability and focus of existing homeless

prevention and assistance programs, local hous -

ing costs, and other homeless system goals and

strategies.

How Do RRHD Programs Identify

Appropriate Participants?

This research question has two components:

(1) “How do families learn about and approach

an RRHD program, and (2) How are families

selected to receive services from the RRHD

program?”

System Entry for Families

Prospective RRHD families learn about the pro -

gram in numerous ways, including being referred

by emergency shelter providers, hearing about

it from friends, or calling 2-1-1 or another cen -

tralized information and referral service. How-

ever families hear about the program, RRHD

communities are generally divided into two

groups, depending on whether the communities

have a centralized system of intake and referral

among homeless programs or operate in decen-

tralized structure.

1. Centralized intake structures provide a single

point of entry into the homeless system that is

organized to answer, “Of the several services

available, what mix of housing and service

assistance is best for this family?” Approxi-

mately one-third of the RRHD sites have

tightly organized central intake structures,

and four others have a modied form of

central intake.

Communities with centralized intake gener-

ally place a range of resources at the disposal

of the intake agency. The agency’s job is to

learn enough about a family to determine

what it needs and to decide which of the

program and resource types available best

suits the family’s needs. If the answer is

rapid re-housing, the family is offered rapid

re-housing; otherwise, the family is referred

elsewhere.

In communities with centralized intake,

the screening and much of the assessment

process occur immediately upon entry to the

homeless system and tend to be intensive

and deliberately tied to making enrollment

determinations across multiple housing and

service options. The options usually include

diversion from shelter (that is, homelessness

prevention) and shelter or other homeless

assistance programs.

2. Noncentralized intake structures rely on in-

dividual programs to screen families and, at

intake, each answers, “Should we accept this

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

family into our rapid re-housing program?”

Eleven communities use a noncentralized

system where a family approaches the RRHD

provider agency directly and the agency

makes a decision about whether it thinks the

family is right for its program. In these com-

munities, screening generally occurs after a

family enters shelter (that is, diversion is not

an option for most families). Once a family

has entered shelter, shelter caseworkers make

decisions about where to refer families, often

without thorough knowledge of the program

availability and eligibility criteria and certainly

without control over the outcome of the

referral.

Implication: Based on information gathered

for this evaluation, a decentralized approach

seems to be less efcient and possibly less

effective than a centralized model, unless it is

strongly coordinated across intake points.

Screening, Assessment, and Family Selection

Into RRHD Programs

All RRHD programs had to work with the eligi -

bility criteria HUD set for the RRHD program,

which were that families must (1) include at

least one child; (2) be literally homeless; (3) have

at least one moderate barrier to housing; and

(4) be able to independently sustain themselves,

with or without a subsidy, after a short period

of time. The rst two criteria are relatively clear;

RRHD programs differ substantially, however,

in what they consider a moderate barrier and

what they perceive it will take to be able to sus-

tain one’s family independently.

• HUD dened moderate barriers, but RRHD

programs varied in how they interpreted and

applied the denitions. For example, some

programs rated “having a low-paying or part-

time job” as a moderate barrier, while for

others, only “long-term unemployment” would

have been considered a moderate barrier.

• In addition to differences in interpreting

different barriers, programs varied greatly

in how many barriers they considered in

making the decision to accept a family into

the program. Some focused only on informa-

tion related to the major areas in which they

expected to make a difference with housing

access or stability, of which housing, employ-

ment, and income were the top three. Other

programs included as many as 18 or 20 do -

mains in their consideration of a family’s

appropriateness for their services and gave

equal consideration to housing, employment,

mental health, public benet use, and involve -

ment in community activities such as the

Parent Teacher Association.

• Programs focused strictly on housing-related

domains tended to accept families with higher

barriers, in part because they did not penalize

families for barriers that would not directly

affect housing placement and in part because

they had developed targeted strategies to

mitigate signicant barriers to re-housing.

• The eligibility criterion that families must

have the ability to sustain themselves after

assistance was also interpreted differently.

Despite HUD’s explicit inclusion of the re-

ceipt of a rent subsidy as one way to be able

to sustain oneself in housing, several RRHD

programs thought of sustainability only in

the sense of what a family could do for itself.

In some communities, this interpretation

reected the scarcity of available subsidies,

but even in communities with available sub-

sidies, some programs screened out families

who they deemed unlikely to be able to pay

their full rent unassisted after program com-

pletion.

• Differences among RRHD programs often

reect different philosophies about rapid

re-housing and the characteristics of families

who should be served by these programs, the

range of other housing and service options

within the local community, the cost of hous -

ing relative to the length of assistance offered,

and the feasibility of families becoming eco -

nomically self-sufcient within that timeframe.

xii

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

• Some programs use highly selective criteria,

based on beliefs that only those families with

high levels of self-sufciency and few barriers

will be able to maintain permanent housing

with time-limited assistance and that other

families will benet from other types of as-

sistance in shelters, transitional housing

programs, or longer-term interventions—

whether or not the local housing and home-

less assistance system has the capacity to

offer enough assistance to respond to those

needs. In some cases, programs that use

highly selective criteria were unable to nd

enough homeless families who qualify to

participate in the program.

• Other programs have adapted their selection

criteria as they have gained experience with

the rapid re-housing model, using more se-

lective criteria when offering only short-term

rental assistance. These programs balance

their criteria for short-term assistance with

much less selective, more exible criteria

when they can offer more months of housing

assistance combined with services to address

more substantial housing barriers. In some

cases, they may be able to offer access to

permanent affordable housing or long-term

rental assistance from other sources as a

safety net for families who need more help.

• Three family vignettes were used to reect

selectivity among the 23 RRHD programs.

The families in these vignettes varied in the

number and types of barriers to housing they

had. Research staff judged that 10 programs

would accept all three families, 8 programs

would accept one or two of the vignette fam -

ilies, and 5 programs would reject at least

two and probably all three families.

• Many programs’ enrollment policies demon-

strated a belief in the interrelationship of family

barriers and the length of rapid re-housing

assistance. The longer the term of assistance

they offered, the more likely they were to

accept families with more barriers. Programs

that had elected to apply only for short-term

assistance felt they could not in good con-

science accept multiple-barrier families, because

they believed the families would fail unless

they had more time to resolve their issues.

Implication: No simple recommendations of

best practices are likely to emerge from the

array of assessment tools and procedures used

by RRHD programs. An important nding is

that the same tool can be used in many differ-

ent ways, with quite different consequences

for families requesting services. Selection of a

specic tool and decisions about how to use it

must be considered separately. Communities or

agencies will need to consider their resources,

housing and employment market conditions,

alternative interventions available, program size

and length of intervention, and intake structures

before selecting a tool and crafting a strategy

for use.

How Rapid Is Rapid Re-housing?

Some RRHD programs aimed to move people

from shelter into housing in fewer than 30

days. These programs tended to have been

created with the belief that shelters are bad for

families, that rapid should be rapid, and that

families could only begin to stabilize after they

moved back into housing. Other programs

did not even consider families for re-housing

resources until they had been in shelter for

4 months or more, operating from the belief

that families needed time in shelter to catch

their breath, recover from the immediate crisis

that precipitated their homelessness, and get

their act together. Further, rapidity and family

barrier levels did not vary in tandem in RRHD

programs. Some programs took families with

considerable barriers and moved them out of

shelter within 30 days, others only accepted

families with minimal barriers and considered

4 months in shelter reasonable, and still others

fell in between these extremes.

xiii

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

What Housing and Services Do the

RRHD Programs Deliver?

RRHD programs provide temporary rental sub -

sidies paired with case management, housing

search assistance, direct supportive services,

and linkages to community-based services. The

23 RRHD programs vary in the length of rent

assistance they provide to families, the amount

of the subsidies, and the types of support ser -

vices a family receives. The package of assistance

offered by programs directly reects their deci-

sions about whom to serve and vice versa.

Length and Level of Rental Assistance

The goal of the RRHD is to re-house families in

permanent housing (subsidized or unsubsidized)

that they can sustain on their own after they

cease to receive the program’s rental assistance.

Communities could apply for funding to provide

short-term housing assistance (3 to 6 months),

long-term housing assistance (12 to 15 months),

or both, based on expected family need. Five

CoCs offer short-term rental assistance, and

13 CoCs offer long-term rental assistance. The

remaining 5 CoCs offer both, determining the

length of assistance awarded to each family dur -

ing the assessment. Some programs offering

short-term assistance indicated that it has been

difcult to nd families with moderate barriers

that could successfully sustain housing within

6 months. Most communities (16) told partici-

pants the length of assistance they would receive

upon enrollment. Seven programs used an

“incremental approach,” where a family was

guaranteed a rst increment of rental assistance

(usually 3 months), followed by some regular

recertication or progress review. Most often,

the length of the rental assistance is based on

the progress made on self-sufciency plans and

compliance with program requirements.

RRHD programs had some exibility in how

they provided rental assistance to families. The

level of subsidy provided generally fell into

three categories: a at dollar amount, a pro-

portion of income monitored on a monthly or

quarterly basis, and a graduated rent subsidy

that decreases over the duration of the assistance

(and whereby the family is responsible for rent

contributions that increase over time and the

family is expected to pay the entire rent at the

end of the program). Most programs made ad -

justments or exceptions to requirements for the

tenant portion of rent if the family was working

to pay outstanding debts or had an unexpected

crisis.

Supportive Services

RRHD programs provide a variety of supportive

services. All programs provide some type of

housing search assistance or placement assist-

ance to link families with housing units that will

be affordable to them at the conclusion of the

program. Some programs were passive in the

provision of these services, pointing families to

newspaper or online advertisements or provid -

ing a list of postings or landlords that the families

could contact. Other programs offered more

direct assistance, driving clients to available

units or to meet with landlords. Many RRHD

programs operate out of agencies that have

established relationships with a large pool of

landlords in the community willing to rent to

program participants. Five programs have a

housing specialist on staff who works directly

with families to help them nd a unit and set

up the lease. Three programs offer housing in

master-leased units or on their own property,

simplifying the upfront housing placement pro -

cess for RRHD but often requiring the family to

move at the end of the program.

All RRHD programs provide case management

to families and require families to work with a

case manager at enrollment to set up housing

and self-sufciency plans, identify service needs,

and set a family budget. Progress toward these

plans generally is evaluated on a weekly or

monthly basis but sometimes may be reviewed

only quarterly at recertication. These meetings

may be conducted by phone, in the ofce, or

in the home, though most RRHD programs re-

quire at least monthly inperson visits. In most

xiv

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

cases, RRHD programs offer case management

after the conclusion of the program, and six

RRHD programs identied a formal followup

process to check on families 6 or 12 months

after program exit.

Most programs provide support services in

addition to housing search and case manage-

ment. Several RRHD programs provide some

employment assistance either through job and

career development, coordinating and linking

with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

and workforce development agencies, or the

direct provision of employment assistance of-

fered by the agency. Linkages with mainstream

benets were a requirement of the grant, and

all RRHD providers had arrangements with

mainstream agencies to some extent. Some com -

munities had formal arrangements, established

through memoranda of understanding, to help

streamline benet application procedures; a few

programs actually out-stationed staff in ofces

within the county human services department.

For others, case managers had established rela-

tionships to help facilitate benet application

procedures.

Conclusions

RRHD is, rst and foremost, a demonstration

program. Congress provided and HUD allocated

resources to learn what communities would do

if they had funding for rapid re-housing. The

process component of this evaluation provides

evidence of what communities did (the outcome

component of the evaluation, which looked at

whether the RRHD interventions made a diffe r-

ence for families). What conclusions can we

draw from our observations of how RRHD

programs were designed and how they have

been implemented?

First, it is clear that community context affects

each aspect of program design and implementa -

tion. The research team observed a great variety

of RRHD program designs, family selection

criteria, and services and supports across RRHD

communities and this report seeks to articulate

the ways that community context shaped each

RRHD program.

Second, the culture and past experiences of the

agencies administering RRHD affect program

design. Agencies accustomed to having families in

shelter for 4 to 6 months, while the caseworkers

assist families with various issues, continue to

do so for most families, even when they have

funding intended to help move families out of

shelter quickly. For these programs, rapid often

meant that families could leave shelter in a few

months instead of staying much longer. Agencies

expecting families to move out quickly design

their RRHD programs with those expectations

intact and often move families out of shelter in

less than a month. Further, agencies holding

the attitude that “we have not seen a family

we cannot work with” operate different RRHD

programs than those of agencies that look for

substantial demonstrations of family motivation

before they accept a household into their program.

Many different program designs are possible

within the rapid re-housing framework; we

have seen that the designs all “work,” to some

degree, in the sense that they can be implemented

and they serve homeless families. The varieties

of program offerings, coupled with the extreme

range of families and family barriers considered

acceptable by different RRHD programs, pro-

vide us some strong contrasts to work with when

we look at family outcomes during the next

phase of this evaluation. The critical questions

we will be addressing in the outcomes phase

include: “Do the RRHD families with greater bar -

riers do as well as those with fewer barriers?” And,

if the answer to this rst question is yes, then—

“What is it about their RRHD programs (and possibly

also their communities) that helps them work through

their barriers and reach a situation of housing

stability?”

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1

Introduction

Rapid re-housing for homeless families is both

a philosophy and a homeless assistance inter-

vention designed to quickly move homeless

families from literal homelessness back into

permanent housing. From a philosophical per-

spective, rapid re-housing tries to minimize the

time that families spend homeless, premised

on the belief that time in shelter harms families

and children and that most families do not

need a long period of preparation before they

can succeed in housing. Rapid re-housing inter-

ventions generally offer families a package of

temporary assistance that may include housing

placement search assistance, one-time nancial

assistance to offset move-in costs, case manage-

ment, housing stabilization services, ongoing

nancial assistance to bridge the gap between

family income and housing cost, and other

supportive services or linkages to community

resources to help families develop the capacity

to keep their housing in the future. The rapid

re-housing model is usually thought of as most

appropriate for families with moderate barriers

to getting and keeping housing, such as barri-

ers that are mostly economic in nature and of

relatively recent origin. This report examines

the 23 programs funded by the U.S. Depart-

ment of Urban Development (HUD) as part

of a national Rapid Re-housing for Homeless

Families Demonstration (RRHD) program. This

component of the research effort was intended

to identify essential dimensions of rapid re-

housing programs and the community contexts

that affect program design and operations.

Lessons learned are expected to guide develop-

ment of similar programs in the future.

This chapter briey describes the history of the

rapid re-housing program model, the RRHD

initiative, the programs funded by it, and the

RRHD evaluation and research questions.

Background

Rapid re-housing for homeless families has a

history going back more than a decade but has

only recently come into greater prominence as

a best practice. Two communities—Columbus/

Franklin County, Ohio, and Hennepin County,

Minnesota—are known as the pioneers of rapid

re-housing for families. Hennepin County be-

gan shifting to a rapid re-housing approach in

2000 and 2001; Columbus used the approach

even earlier but had a gap of some years be -

cause of funding changes. In both communities,

rapid re-housing is part of a larger, carefully

articulated strategy built on the premise that

extended shelter stays do not, by denition,

end homelessness (that is, the families are still

in shelter, homeless) and that shelter stays of

any length (but especially long ones) are not

good for children.

Also, for communities that

pay for shelter with public funds, long shelter

stays are costly and do not demonstrably

reduce homelessness.

Several aspects of these pioneering Continuum

of Care (CoC) homeless assistance networks

contribute to their ability to prevent families

from losing their housing and to move families

quickly out of shelter if homelessness cannot

be prevented, as seen in the following specic

aspects:

• Strategists in both communities considered

it essential that the same system coordinate

families’ access to prevention, emergency

2 The evidence that homelessness speciﬁcally harms children is weak;

homeless and poor housed children do not differ on most dimensions

that research has measured (chapter 5 in Dennis, Locke, and Khad-

durhi, 2007). The evidence that extreme poverty harms children is

strong, however, and homeless children are extremely poor, as are the

housed children with whom they are compared in most recent studies.

Children in families served by emergency shelters have been observed

showing signs of great stress; program staff work to help the children

they can—those in their care. Rapid re-housing is a way to reduce time

in shelter to a minimum, thus removing at least the stress of homeless-

ness from parents and children. Supportive services offered during the

transition to housing and for several months after families regain hous-

ing are designed to help families with budgeting and organizational

skills that could lead to improved employment and earnings opportuni-

ties, parenting, and other issues that could help stabilize their lives and

reduce some of the stresses associated with extreme poverty.

3 See Burt, Pearson, and Montgomery (2005) and appendix A for an

entire description of Hennepin County’s prevention–rapid exit system.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

shelter, and some transitional housing

services. This level of coordination ideally

would include all transitional housing and

other services, but neither community has

yet achieved this level of control.

• Families receive assistance in relation to their

level of need; a comprehensive assessment

process following initial screening determines

whether the family will receive help to remain

in housing or an offer of emergency shelter.

The latter in all cases leads to programs work -

ing with the family to help it move out of

shelter within a few weeks. Families assessed

as needing more long-term solutions to their

housing situation, such as permanent sup-

portive housing, are referred to relevant

programs if they are available.

• A collaborative network of nonprot agencies

provides the actual prevention and rapid exit

services. Emergency shelter and rapid re-

housing efforts are separated; shelter provid-

ers supply shelter, while contracts with other

agencies hand over the responsibility for and

provide the families resources to help them

leave the shelter.

The credibility of rapid re-housing for families

was rst demonstrated through local data.

An essential component of the two CoCs that

pioneered rapid re-housing has been custom-

designed data systems that link all prevention

and rapid exit agencies to grant providers access

to real-time family service histories dating back

10 to 15 years. Not only do these data systems

provide staff working with families the infor-

mation they need, they also provide system

administrators with data that can document the

effectiveness of prevention and rapid re-housing

interventions. At the local level, this documen-

tation has led to continued and sometimes

expanded funding for the approach.

Other evidence suggests that housing availability,

subsidies, and resources are the factors that best

predict how long families will stay in shelter.

Personal characteristics such as age, race, edu-

cation, employment, health, and mental health

do not have this predictive power. If housing

is relatively inexpensive or short or long term,

or permanent rent subsidies are available and

communities are organized to link families and

landlords, families leave shelter faster than if

housing is expensive, no landlord linkages exist,

and the subsidy waitlists are years long. These

ndings support the value of providing families

with upfront move-in costs and a few months

of rental assistance to keep their stay in shelter

short. Dissemination of evidence about rapid

re-housing has catapulted this approach into

the national spotlight.

The Rapid Re-housing for Homeless

Families Demonstration

In 2007, the U.S. Congress appropriated $23.75

million to fund the RRHD program to support

pilot rapid re-housing programs in communi-

ties throughout the country. Funds were also

included to evaluate the programs and deter-

mine their impact.

HUD sought proposals for demonstration pro -

grams through the 2008 application process for

McKinney-Vento Act funds. To be eligible for

funding, applicants had to demonstrate that

they had a central intake process in place within

the community to identify and screen all home -

less families and that a standardized tool would

be used to systematically assess families for

ap propriateness for the RRHD program as com -

pared with other community interventions.

RRHD programs were supposed to be designed

to serve families identied as having at least

one moderate barrier to housing, based on the

assumption that families with low barriers to

housing would not need the RRHD assistance

to regain housing and that those with signicant

barriers would need more assistance than could

be provided through the RRHD program.

RRHD program eligibility requirements are

described more fully in the following section.

4 See Weinreb, Rog, and Henderson (2010) for a recent analysis and

summary of past research, which is consistent with these ﬁndings.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Applicants could ask for support to provide

short-term rental assistance of 3 to 6 months,

medium-term rental assistance of 12 to 15 months,

or both levels if they planned to serve families

with different intensities of moderate barriers to

housing. Supportive services eligible under the

program were limited to housing placement, case

management, legal assistance, literacy training,

job training, mental-health services, childcare

services, and substance-abuse services. To aug-

ment these supports, agencies running RRHD

programs could partner with other agencies or

leverage other funding sources to supplement

and round out the services offered to families

through RRHD.

HUD received 212 applications, totaling $122

million in requests, from the more than 400

CoCs eligible to submit as part of the annual

competitive request for HUD funding for home -

less programs. Programs were removed from

the competition before scoring if the applicant

(1) submitted more than one RRHD application;

(2) failed the initial eligibility review through

failure to attach an appropriate assessment

tool, proposing to serve ineligible households

(for example, those without dependent children

or households not coming from streets or shelter),

or otherwise not meeting basic RRHD criteria;

(3) submitted a program without a leasing bud -

get; or (4) failed to pass the Supportive Housing

Program grant review threshold.

Agencies in 23 CoCs were awarded the 3-year

RRHD grants; however, well before HUD

nished executing the grant agreements, rapid

re-housing became part of newly elected Presi -

dent Obama’s American Recovery and Revital -

ization Act through its Homelessness Preven-

tion and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP)

(P.L. 111-5, February 2009). HPRP sent $1.5 bil -

lion to hundreds of state and local jurisdictions—

three to four times more funding than any of

these jurisdictions had ever had for either home -

lessness prevention or rapid re-housing. The

rapid re-housing idea might not have been

mature, but HPRP put it squarely on the nation’s

agenda. Each community that won an RRHD

grant also received HPRP funding, and most

devoted some of these new resources to rapid

re-housing. In this changed environment, RRHD

communities had not only the rapid re-housing

funds that came with their new grant but also

HPRP funds for a similar purpose. Each pro-

gram had its own regulations, however, and

the administrative challenges were signicant.

Key program features of the RRHD program

and the HPRP are summarized in exhibit 1.1.

Further complicating matters, HPRP, and the

infusion of resources it provided, would end by

September 2012 because of statutory expenditure

deadlines. By contrast, the RRHD program may

continue as part of a community’s homeless

assistance system if the grantee elects to renew

the funding.

Thus, although communities had

to ramp up quickly to design systems to deliver

both HPRP and RRHD, now RRHD sites must

determine how to continue to operate their

programs in a changing environment.

5 RRHD grants were not originally intended to be renewable because

they were appropriated as a demonstration program; however, in the

2009 appropriation, language was provided to clarify that they are

renewable under the annual CoC competition.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Exhibit 1.1: Key Program Features of the RRHD Program and the HPRP

Key Features RRHD Program HPRP

Eligible participants Homeless families with children who

have been living on the streets or in

shelter for at least 7 days and have

at least one moderate barrier to

housing.

Homeless individuals or families who

meet the homeless deﬁnition. (Preven-

tion assistance can also be funded from

HPRP.)

Eligible housing activities Financial assistance:

• Short-term rental assistance of

3 to 6 months.

• Medium-term rental assistance of

12 to 15 months.

• Both levels, to serve two levels of

families with moderate barriers to

housing.

Financial assistance:

• Rental assistance, up to 18 months,

including arrears.

• Security and utility deposits.

• Moving cost assistance.

• Motel and hotel vouchers.

Eligible service activities Supportive services:

• Housing placement.

• Case management.

• Legal assistance.

• Literacy training.

• Job training.

• Mental health services.

• Childcare services.

• Substance abuse services.

Housing relocation and stabilization

services:

• Housing search and placement.

• Outreach and engagement.

• Case management.

• Legal services.

• Credit repair.

Recertiﬁcation requirements Grantees can commit to providing as-

sistance for a 3- to 6-month period or

for 12 to 15 months. SHP regulations

require an annual rent calculation.

Participants must be recertiﬁed for as-

sistance every 3 months, and assistance

can only be guaranteed in these 3-month

increments.

System design requirements Community must have central

intake or coordinated intake system

whereby all homeless families in

the community can be systemati-

cally screened for assistance using a

standardized tool.

None speciﬁed by the HPRP Notice, al-

though grantees had to amend their con-

solidated plans to specify the estimated

amount that would be used for prevention

versus rapid re-housing.

Period available 3-year renewable grants, beginning

as early as August 2009.

Nonrenewable grants, beginning July

2009. 60% of funds had to be expended

by September 30, 2011, and all funds by

September 30, 2012.

HPRP = Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families

Demonstration.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

RRHD Design Requirements

In the announcement of RRHD funding avail-

ability, HUD identied specic criteria against

which the Department would judge proposals.

These criteria were based on the most cur-

rent evidence pertaining to specic program

elements that seemed to be important to the

functioning of the few examples of successful

rapid re-housing approaches that existed when

the announcement was written. These criteria

included specications detailing which families

could be served and certain structural charac-

teristics of CoCs in which the RRHD program

would be located.

Eligibility

To be eligible for RRHD programs, families had

to have been homeless for at least 7 days, using

HUD’s denition of homelessness. In practice,

this requirement means that they must be stay-

ing in an emergency shelter or be sleeping in

a place not meant for habitation, such as a car,

unconverted garage, abandoned building, or a

similar venue. Families were also supposed to

have at least one moderate barrier to housing

stability, which the grant announcement listed as

temporary nancial strain, inadequate employ -

ment, inadequate childcare, a head of household

with low-level education or low command of

English, legal problems, health diagnosis, history

of substance abuse (without active use), poor

rental history, and poor credit history.

Community Structures and Practices

HUD also described several structures and prac -

tices that characterized the pioneering rapid

re-housing communities and that it wanted to

see in communities that received RRHD grants.

One such structure was a central or uniform

intake process through which homeless and at-

risk families would be screened, assessed, and

offered participation in one or more programs

that t their needs. An important practice that

HUD wanted to see was communitywide use of

a common screening and assessment tool that

would provide the information needed to allo-

cate housing and supportive service resources

to families in the array and intensity needed to

help them. HUD permitted communities to

structure their RRHD program around different

lengths of housing provision and other assistance,

specifying that they had to choose short-term

(3 to 6 months) assistance, long-term (12 to 15

months) assistance, or both levels. Recognizing

that landlords are a vital part of the commun-

ity without whose active cooperation rapid

re-housing programs cannot work, HUD also

placed a high priority on the existence of strong

associations between the agencies proposed

as RRHD providers and local landlords, rang-

ing from long-term personal relationships to

formal websites maintaining up-to-date lists of

available apartments and landlords willing to

accept homeless families.

The RRHD Communities

The RRHD Notice of Funding Availability

specied core design features and basic require -

ments for the RRHD programs but also gave

applicants the latitude to design their RRHD

proposals to meet their local needs and the con -

text of their local system and partners. Some

grants embraced the principles in the Notice,

and others adapted them. As a result, the 23

RRHD programs vary considerably. These vari-

ations enable HUD to learn about how rapid

re-housing efforts function in different environ-

ments; however, the differences between pro-

grams and their communities will make it more

challenging to draw clear conclusions about

the impact of rapid re-housing in later phases

of this evaluation. Throughout this report, we

document the various ways in which RRHD

grantees implemented the demonstration, and

we attempt to categorize common features and

differences across the 23 sites.

Exhibit 1.2 presents some basic information

about the 23 RRHD communities. Grants ranged

from $78,300 to $2 million. The earliest date an

RRHD grant was executed was August 31, 2009,

and the earliest month in which a program

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Exhibit 1.2: RRHD Program Information

Demonstration

CoC Programs

CoC

Number

Grant

Amount

Grant

Execution

Date

Month

of First

Enrollment

Length of

Assistance

Planned

Point-

in-Time

Capacity

# Exited

by 4/11

Anchorage, AK AK-500 $193,485 11/4/2009 01/2010 Short 20 11

Austin, TX TX-503 $795,540 01/20/2010 02/2010 Long 25 2

Boston, MA MA-500 $1,896,587 11/9/2009 01/2010 Long 24 6

Cincinnati, OH OH-500 $1,678,310 12/22/2009 02/2010 Long 60 11

Columbus, OH OH-503 $844,634 01/22/2010 03/2010 Short 40 28

Contra Costa County,

CA-505 $510,971 07/2010 10/2010 Long 12 0

Dayton, OH OH-505 $784,700 01/15/2010 03/2010 Long 36 5

Denver, CO CO-503 $1,578,753 10/28/2009 02/2010 Short (6 mo.) 35 29

District of Columbia DC-500 $1,866,274 12/1/2009 03/2010 Long 17 0

Kalamazoo/Portage,

MI-507 $232,318 10/8/2009 10/2009 Both 20–21 12

Lancaster, PA PA-510 $528,341 02/5/2010 03/2010 Short 24 1

Madison, WI WI-503 $ 247, 280 12/4/2009 12/2009 Long 6 6

Montgomery County,

MD-601 $541,738 10/15/2009 04/2010 Long 7 2

New Orleans, LA LA-503 $2,000,000 06/2010 08/2010 Short 60 9

Ohio BOS OH-507 $1,999,881 12/10/2009 01/2010 Both 358 16

Orlando, FL F L- 5 0 7 $1,171,934 05/19/2010 05/2010 Long 64 4

Overland Park, KS KS-505 $78,300 09/1/2010 09/2010 Long 6 0

Phoenix, AZ AZ-502 $1,981,371 05/1/2010 05/2010 Both

(6–9 mo. target)

80 9

Pittsburgh, PA PA-600 $839,501 02/5/2010 03/2010 Both 20 6

Portland, OR OR-501 $1,085,075 08/31/2009 10/2009 Long 40 1

San Francisco, CA CA-501 $2,000,000 05/2010 07/2010 Both 33 0

Trenton, NJ NJ-514 $387,220 12/28/2009 02/2010 Long 9

Washington BOS WA-501 $656,639 10/6/2009 01/2010 Long 50 19

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

These 9 slots are combined with about 40 slots supported by other rapid re-housing resources, and all are treated

identically.

enrolled a family was October 2009.

The latest

date for execution was September 2010, and the

latest month a program enrolled its rst family

was October 2010. Five programs offer only

short-term rental assistance, 13 programs offer

only long-term rental assistance, and 5 programs

offer both. Programs range in the number of

families they can serve at one time from 6 to

358 and in the number of families they expect

to serve during the entire 3 years of their grant

from 18 to 1,000.

6 One program enrolled a few families directly after it learned it had been

awarded a grant in August 2009, but then it stopped enrollment until

the grant was actually executed.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

As of the end of March 2011, the RRHD program

had served a total of 815 families. Of these

fam ilies, 235 had been served with assistance

intended to be short term (3 to 6 months), and

580 families had been served with assistance

intended to be long term (12 to 15 months).

As of April 2011, 25 percent of families (207

families) had exited the program. Five RRHD

programs had not yet exited any families by

this date. More than one-half (54 percent) of the

families who exited had received short-term as-

sistance. In some cases, the exits were unplan-

ned or sooner than planned, because the RRHD

program was not a good t for families’ needs.

In other cases, families had participated in

RRHD programs for the entire period offered

and had formally exited as planned. Several

RRHD programs that offered both short- and

long-term assistance noted that families origin -

ally earmarked for short-term assistance required

help for longer than anticipated to achieve

housing stability, so fewer families had exited

by April 2011 than were expected. More statis-

tics on actual program usage will be provided

in the outcomes evaluation.

This Study

The RRHD grant programs are part of a nation-

wide evaluation to assess what types of impact

the programs have on the families they serve.

In October 2009, HUD awarded Abt Associates

Inc. (Abt) a contract to conduct a two-stage

evaluation. This report presents the results of

the rst stage, which has focused on learning

how each RRHD program operates, which fam -

ilies it serves, what housing and service options

it offers to families, how it ts into its community,

how it works with prevention and other rapid

re-housing programs in the community—if

they exist—and how the community is thinking

about the future. This stage of the evaluation

offers the rst opportunity to understand rapid

re-housing program design and functioning in

communities across the country that vary in

size and complexity, housing and employment

environment, and community organization and

generosity. The results of this implementation/

process part of the evaluation may help guide

communities, and HUD, as they decide how to

use the resources made available by the Home -

less Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition

to Housing Act (P.L. 111-22), passed in May 2009,

that identies rapid re-housing as an eligible

activity under both the new McKinney-Vento

Emergency Solutions Grant and the CoC Program.

The second phase of this study focuses on the

outcomes of RRHD participation for families.

To conduct the outcomes study, the research

team interviewed families by phone 12 months

after the rental assistance they received through

RRHD ended. Interviews gathered information

about family experiences during and after their

RRHD participation. Analysis of the data col -

lected was used to assess “the efcacy of the

assessment process and the housing/service

intervention related to how successfully house -

holds are able to independently sustain housing

after receiving short-term leasing assistance,”

as HUD stated in the notice of RRHD program

funding availability. The information collected

through these interviews will provide the rst

systematic view of what rapid re-housing pro-

grams do for families and what effects those

actions have on housing stability that goes

beyond a simple determination that they did

or did not return to shelter within 12 months.

This report does not attempt to discuss family

outcomes, as a relatively small number of fami-

lies had exited as of the time we conducted in-

terviews with RRHD programs. Also, the early

exits may disproportionately represent families

who had exited unsuccessfully, because those

who were successfully engaged in RRHD pro-

grams would still be enrolled in programs.

7 RRHD programs started serving families between October 2009 and

August 2010. Depending on the program and sometimes on the family,

programs offer from 3 to 15 months of rental assistance. Followup

interviews of study families began in late 2011, and ﬁndings of the

outcomes evaluation are available in the report: Rapid Re-housing for

Homeless Families Demonstration Programs: Outcomes Evaluation

Report.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Research Questions

The process component of this evaluation

provides an important opportunity to examine

how 23 communities structure and deliver their

RRHD programs. Research questions for the

process component cluster into the following

four groupings.

How Do RRHD Programs Fit Into Their

Communities?

1. How isolated or well integrated are the RRHD

programs within their community service

networks? Is the RRHD program limited to

one shelter, available to guests of all family

shelters, something in between, or something

entirely different? How is referral structured?

2. How did the community decide on the size,

structure, and characteristics of its RRHD

program and who would run the program?

What factors affected the decisions and the

ultimate shape of the program? What previ-

ous experience did the community have with

anything like RRHD?

How Do the RRHD Programs Identify

Appropriate Participants?

3. What does the intake process look like? Is

there a central intake process? Is assessment

for RRHD part of general shelter intake for

families, or is it a separate step? Who does it?

How do families get to it? Where and when

does it happen?

4. How is assessment done? Who does it? What

tool is used? How has it worked? Has the way

it is used, or the tool itself, been modied

since RRHD began? Why, and in what ways?

Who Is Served and Who Is Not?

5. What families do RRHD programs serve?

What families are rejected? What families

never get a chance to be assessed? Why?

6. How is a family’s eligibility determined? What

criteria are used? How exibly or rigidly are

criteria applied? What proportion of assessed

families is ultimately referred to the RRHD?

What proportion to less intensive services?

What proportion to more intensive services?

7. How much does the availability of other

rapid re-housing programs in the com-

munity inuence which families an RRHD

program will serve?

What Housing and Services Do the RRHD

Programs Deliver?

8. What do RRHD programs offer in terms of

housing and services to families who enter

the program?

9. How does the service process work? What

determines how long a family’s rental assist -

ance lasts or how much it is? What supportive

services are offered with the housing assis-

tance? How is the decision made that enough

services have been provided? How is the

decision made that the original term of hous-

ing subsidy is enough and that the family is

now on its own? What factors would result

in extension of benets?

Answers to these questions are vital to the

overall evaluation for several reasons:

• First, they will help us understand whether

different RRHD programs are serving different

types of families and offering different types

of interventions, indicating not only how

RRHD programs work but also showing how

they differ from place to place. If we are to

interpret program outcomes derived from

surveys of participating families, we need to

understand these differences and incorporate

them into analyses, including how families

are selected, what the families receive, and

how the programs are structured.

• Second, to develop meaningful recommenda-

tions about how and when RRHD programs

should be implemented, we need to know

about the variety of RRHD approaches, which

ones are most easily mounted, which ones

might be best suited for different community

circumstances, and the factors that can limit

the effectiveness of these approaches.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

• Finally, the information gleaned from early

phases of the process evaluation will help

shape the strategies to be used for gathering

outcome data from participating programs.

Process Evaluation Data Collection

To obtain the data needed to answer these re-

search questions, Abt’s research team gathered

information from all 23 RRHD communities be-

tween February 2011 and May 2011. Members

of the research team conducted in-person site

visits with 12 RRHD programs and telephone

surveys with the remaining 11 programs. Deci-

sions about which programs to visit and which

to call depended largely on the availability and

location of research team members but also

on the size of the programs. Key stakeholders

interviewed included representatives of the

agency that received the RRHD grant (the

grantee), representatives of any programs to

which the grant recipient allocated some grant

resources to serve program families (subgrant-

ees), and CoC member(s) involved in planning

for the program. Caseworkers in each program

who do the actual work with participating

families were always interviewed. Often the

telephone survey was conducted during the

course of more than one call with one or more

types of respondents just described; site visits

were regularly completed during the course of

1 entire day.

The research team members used a common dis -

cussion guide for all contacts with RRHD pro-

grams, writing a case report after completing

conversations with program representatives

that summarized what they learned in a struc-

tured format. These reports were organized

around the central issues of the process evalu-

ation and provide the information organized

and summarized in this report’s remaining

chapters. The evidence to answer the research

questions was discussed during a 2-day meeting

of all research team members, including the

Principal Investigator Dennis Culhane; Project

Quality Advisor, Jill Khadduri; and HUD

Government Technical Representative, Elizabeth

Rudd. These discussions helped to structure

the report and determine the main ndings.

Organization of This Report

The remaining chapters of this report present

our ndings, organized around key research

questions.

• Chapter 2 describes some structural factors

of RRHD communities and programs, includ -

ing how the community designed its program

and the role of CoC processes in developing

the design; the communities’ and RRHD ser-

vice delivery agencies’ previous experience

with rapid re-housing; partnership arrange-

ments to deliver the RRHD program; and

how the RRHD, HPRP, and any other rapid

re-housing and other programs interact.

• Chapter 3 describes how families learn about

the RRHD program and how they get from

their rst point of contact with the homeless

assistance network to the RRHD program’s

door. Varieties of intake structures are dis-

cussed, including how centralized the intake

process is and what other procedures are in

place.

• Chapter 4 examines screening and assess-

ment procedures, focusing on what tools are

used, who does the screenings, where they

happen, what programs in addition to RRHD

are included in the screening process, and

which families are accepted or rejected for

RRHD based on these assessments.

• Chapter 5 examines the housing interventions

offered and the variety of supportive services

that accompany them. The chapter describes

the ways that RRHD agencies, and sometimes

whole CoCs, have organized themselves to

work with landlords and briey discusses

the types of followup that RRHD programs

offer participant families after the families’

rental assistance has stopped.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

• Chapter 6 summarizes key aspects of

the results and documents what RRHD

commun ities are planning for the future.

• Appendix A presents two-page case studies

of the 23 RRHD programs. Each case study

provides a brief and accessible overview of

how rapid re-housing is being implemented

in each community.

• Appendix B presents the Arizona Self-

Sufciency Matrix, the basis of self-sufciency

tools that many RRHD grantees used to assess

families’ appropriateness for rapid re-housing.

• Appendix C presents three family vignettes

used for analyses in chapter 4 that assess the

inclusiveness of RRHD programs.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 2. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS IN THE COMMUNITY CONTEXT

Chapter 2

Rapid Re-housing

for Homeless

Families Demon-

stration Programs

in the Community

Context

This chapter examines how communities devel -

oped their Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Fam -

ilies Demonstration (RRHD) programs, asking

where they t within their community’s overall

network of services for homeless families and

how they interact with other parts of that net-

work. These issues are particularly important

for rapid re-housing efforts because, unlike some

components of a homeless assistance network,

rapid re-housing cannot and should not be a

standalone activity. As described in chapter 1,

the concept and model of rapid re-housing

rst developed in communities that were intent

on restructuring their entire approach to help-

ing homeless or at-risk families—in particular,

Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio, and Hen -

nepin County, Minnesota. These efforts sought

to structure the community’s response to family

homelessness as a coherent whole, having per -

ceived that the every-program-for-itself approach

did not move the entire community toward

reducing family homelessness. The pioneers of

rapid re-housing wanted rst, if at all possible,

to prevent families from becoming homeless. If

prevention failed, they wanted to keep shelter

stays to a minimum and move families back into

housing as quickly as possible. In these commun -

ities, only families with quite severe barriers

would be considered for the more intensive types

of assistance such as longer term transitional

housing or permanent supportive housing.

The pattern of supports envisioned by these

pioneering communities requires a fairly high

level of control over families’ entry into and

subsequent placement within the homeless

assistance network. This level of control can

only be accomplished if all families seeking

help come through the same door, are assessed

against the same criteria, and decisions about

the type of assistance to offer are based on the

results of assessment. Therefore central intake

and application of a single assessment tool

became key factors in the rapid re-housing

model, leading the U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) to make them

requirements for programs seeking funding

through RRHD. In addition, these models work

best when the agencies administering them

have long-standing and excellent relationships

with landlords who accept “difcult” tenants,

thanks to the supports available to both tenant

and landlord from the homeless service agencies.

Therefore, having well-established relationships

with landlords became another HUD eligibility

criterion for RRHD grant applications.

Another structural factor of local homeless as -

sistance networks, the relative availability of

temporary or permanent rent subsidies from

programs other than RRHD, affects the ways

that communities conceptualize and use their

RRHD program. Some communities have one

or more short-term rapid re-housing subsidy

programs in addition to RRHD, some have one

or more existing long-term rent subsidy fund-

ing streams that they use to help families move

out of shelter quickly, and some communities

have both.

Communities with short-term rapid re-housing

subsidies in addition to RRHD usually offered

families the subsidy alternative that best t

their needs, as the different alternatives pay for

different things. For example, RRHD cannot pay

for arrearages but programs with Homelessness

Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program

(HPRP), private foundation, and Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 2. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS IN THE COMMUNITY CONTEXT

can do so. Communities that have existing long-

term (2 to 5 years) subsidy programs often use

these for families with more extensive needs

and restrict use of RRHD dollars to families

with few and minimal barriers.

Communities with access to permanent rent sub -

sidies (for example, Section 8/Housing Choice

Vouchers, project-based subsidies, public

housing) are likely to design their programs to

accept more challenged families into RRHD,

because they can provide a permanent subsidy

to families who still cannot afford to pay rent

without assistance after they have completed

an RRHD program. Representatives of one

RRHD program that had control of post-RRHD

vouchers said they felt that all families other

than those clearly eligible for permanent sup-

portive housing were appropriate for RRHD.

Local rent levels also gure into these calcula -

tions. High-rent communities such as San

Francisco, California, and Montgomery County,

Maryland, restrict eligibility for rapid re-housing

to minimal-barrier families, guring that only

these families will be able to afford the local rents

on their own after subsidies end. Communities

in this study also consider the relationship

between barrier levels and length and intensity

of rent and service assistance when shaping

their rapid re-housing program. With longer

subsidies and more intensive services, rapid re-

housing programs felt they could succeed with

families presenting greater barriers; if only

a few months of rent and service assistance

are available, they tend to select low-barrier

families for these programs.

Finally, the design of RRHD programs is shaped

by the philosophy of the Continuum of Care

(CoC) leadership and homeless assistance pro -

viders. In communities such as Columbus and

Cincinnati, providers believe that rapid re-

housing is an appropriate approach for nearly

all families, so they seek various funding

sources to target each population, and RRHD

is part of a larger strategy. Other communities

such as Washington, D.C., believe that rapid

re-housing is only appropriate for families ex-

periencing certain types of barriers to housing

stability, so RRHD was sought to ll a gap

for families with mostly economic barriers to

housing and other program models are used

to target families with other challenges. Thus,

the local philosophy is also a part of the local

context that informs the design of each com-

munity’s RRHD program.

This chapter explores some of these factors,

including the nature of CoC involvement in

RRHD program design, selection of agencies

to conduct the RRHD program, experience

with rapid re-housing and other rent subsidy

programs, and the relationship to the local

philosophies underlying homeless assistance

within the RRHD communities. Some structur-

al factors are reserved for other chapters where

they can be discussed in more detail. These

include central intake structures (chapter 3), the

communitywide use of a single assessment tool

(chapter 4), and a structure for developing and

maintaining landlord relationships and track-

ing unit availability (chapter 5).

CoC Involvement in Agency Selection

Each community receiving an RRHD grant

beneted from its CoC’s active involvement in

program planning and implementation. In some

communities, the CoC lead agency is itself the

grantee, while in others the annual CoC decision -

making process led rst to the decision to bid

and then to inviting one agency or partnership

of agencies to apply as grantee. Communities

followed various approaches, including cen -

tralized control through the CoC lead agency,

discussions and decisionmaking within com-

munitywide CoC planning structures, formal

requests for proposals both before and after

RRHD grant acquisition, and informal assump-

tions that a particular agency within the CoC

was particularly suited to running a rapid

re-housing program.

Exhibit 2.1 lists the ways in which the CoC

lead agency managed the process of deciding

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 2. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS IN THE COMMUNITY CONTEXT

Exhibit 2.1: CoC Involvement in RRHD Design and Provider Selection

CoC Lead Agency

Was the Applicant/Grantee

Providers Solicited To Be Grantee Through

the Annual CoC Planning Process, but CoC

Lead Agency Is Not Itself the Grantee

CoC Not

Involved in

Planning;

Grantee

Applied

Without

Signiﬁcant

CoC Input or

Prioritizing

CoC lead agency

issued a formal

request for propos-

als to select RRHD

providers after

receipt of RRHD

grant.

CoC lead agency

used other process

of choosing RRHD

providers but not

formal request for

proposals.

CoC lead agency issued

formal request for pro-

posals, or CoC invited

two or more agen-

cies to make formal

presentations to select

a proposal writer who

would become grantee

and housing/service

provider(s).

Agreement as part

of the annual CoC

planning process as

to which agency was

the most appropriate

to write the proposal

and be grantee and

housing/service

provider.

District of Columbia

New Orleans, LA

Trenton, NJ

Boston, MA

Columbus, OH

Contra Costa County,

Orlando, FL

Pittsburgh, PA

San Francisco, CA

Dayton, OH

Montgomery County, MD

Washington BOS

Anchorage, AK

Austin, TX

Cincinnati, OH

Denver Metro, CO

Kalamazoo/Portage, MI

Lancaster, PA

Madison, WI

Ohio BOS

Overland Park, KS

Phoenix, AZ

Portland, OR

None

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

how to respond to the RRHD application and

which agency would be proposed to operate

the program. The chart includes two broad

categories: communities in which the CoC lead

agency is the RRHD grantee and communities

in which providers were solicited to be the

grantee through the annual CoC planning

process. Communities in which the CoC lead

agency is the RRHD grantee are separated

into those that used a formal proposal process

after receiving the RRHD grant to identify the

agencies that would provide the actual services

(three communities) and those that used some

other selection process (six communities). This

less formal process usually involved working

with the largest, most experienced, or only

relevant agency in the community to serve as

subgrantee and service provider for the RRHD

program. In several of these CoCs, decisions

about the lead agency were made in advance,

and the anticipated provider agency contributed

substantially to or wrote the proposal itself.

Communities in which a homeless assistance

agency wrote the application and received

the grant directly can also be divided into two

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 2. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS IN THE COMMUNITY CONTEXT

groups: those in which the CoC ran a formal

preapplication competition to determine

which agency would write the RRHD proposal

(3 communities) and those that agreed on

which agency should take the lead through

their annual CoC deliberations (11 communi-

ties). Exhibit 2.1 also explicitly shows (in the

nal column on the right) that no RRHD grant

went to a community in which the CoC played

no active role in obtaining the grant.

Holding discussions during the annual CoC

planning and prioritizing process for HUD’s

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act

funds was the most common approach used to

decide whether to apply for RRHD funds and

who would write the grant application. The

next most common approach, used in eight

communities, was for the CoC lead agency to

write the proposal and assume formal control

of the resulting grant. CoCs in this position

thereby acquire a formal monitoring role

with respect to RRHD program performance,

whereas grants that went directly to provider

agencies as grantees place those agencies in

the role of monitoring their own performance.

Two grantees in this situation have transferred

performance-monitoring activities into CoC

hands to take advantage of the CoC’s greater

access to data and analysis and to avoid any

question about the validity of outcomes for

families enrolled in RRHD.

Community Planning Context and History

Providing Rapid Re-housing

Many communities receiving RRHD grants

have 10-year plans for ending homelessness.

These communities are generally strategic in

thinking through what they need and when

they need it. Thus, they can actively search for

ways to fund the gaps they perceive within

their homeless assistance networks. Their plans

had either already generated funding for rapid

re-housing in response to perceived need and

interest in trying this new model or had identi-

ed rapid re-housing as a desirable approach

but did not yet have the resources to create a

program. For the communities in the former

situation, the RRHD announcement was a way

to get more rapid re-housing resources and some -

times rapid re-housing resources for particular

types of homeless families. For the communities

in the latter situation, the RRHD announcement

was a way to get started with rapid re-housing.

Other communities were less systematic in

their planning but were still interested in trying

rapid re-housing and seeing how it worked.

Exhibit 2.2 arrays the 23 RRHD communities in

columns representing a continuum of pre-RRHD

rapid re-housing experience and commitment.

Nearly one-half (10) of the communities that

received an RRHD grant already had one or

more rapid re-housing programs, were highly

organized, and were good at identifying gaps

and pursuing resources to ll them. Five others

were also highly organized but somewhat less

targeted than the rst group: they already had

some rapid re-housing and knew they needed

more.

Among the CoCs that did not have any rapid

re-housing resources before the RRHD grant,

three had already identied rapid re-housing

as part of a system transformation they were

already working to establish and saw the

RRHD announcement as an opportunity to

begin this system change. The ve CoCs in the

nal group were not previously as committed

to the rapid re-housing concept as many of the

other CoCs that received RRHD grants. Nev-

ertheless they wanted to try rapid re-housing,

the decision to bid emerged from a community

planning process, and experience with their

RRHD grant has sparked their interest in mov-

ing further in the rapid re-housing direction.

Note that, again, each CoC that received an

RRHD grant had done at least some collective

thinking about rapid re-housing and was

interested, intrigued, and poised to try it; none

was starting from scratch with an idea that was

completely new.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 2. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS IN THE COMMUNITY CONTEXT

Exhibit 2.2: CoCs’ Pre-RRHD Experience With Rapid Re-housing Programs/

Resources

Pre-RRHD Experience/Other

Existing Rapid Re-housing Programs

No Rapid Re-housing Resources/Programs

Before Receiving RRHD, but…..

Highly articulated

strategy of identi-

fying gaps in types

of families, length

of assistance,

services available,

new geography,

and applying to ﬁll

one or more gaps.

CoC also highly

organized, had at

least some rapid

re-housing resourc-

es, liked what they

could do with them,

needed/wanted

more capacity, no

special targeting.

Had already decided

to shift system to-

ward rapid re-housing

and early triage (and

prevention), away from

long shelter and transi-

tional housing—poised

to activate new system

when they received

RRHD/HPRP.

Not initially as com-

mitted to shift system

focus as previous

category, but decision

to bid was part of

community planning

process; RRHD expe-

rience will encourage

CoC to push more

in rapid re-housing

direction.

No rapid

re-housing

experience

or organized

thoughts about

trying.

Austin, TX

Boston, MA

Columbus, OH

Denver Metro, CO

Madison, WI

Montgomery

County, MD

Pittsburgh, PA

Portland, OR

San Francisco, CA

Washington BOS

Contra Costa County,

District of Columbia

Kalamazoo/Portage,

Lancaster, PA

New Orleans, LA

Cincinnati, OH

Dayton, OH

Trenton, NJ

Anchorage, AK

Ohio BOS

Orlando, FL

Overland Park, KS

Phoenix, AZ

None

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. HPRP = Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing

Program. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Only Denver/Colorado Coalition for the Homeless and Jefferson/Family Tree had previous experience, not other

two subgrantees.

Only two counties within the Washington BOS are involved in the RRHD program.

Rapid Re-Housing Before the RRHD

Grant

Roughly one-half of the communities with

RRHD grants had one or more rapid re-housing

programs in place before they applied for RRHD.

These existing rapid re-housing efforts all have

in common the goal of moving families out of

shelter or off the streets quickly—usually in a

maximum of 30 days from when they entered

shelter or became homeless.

Despite their common goal, program character-

istics vary along several dimensions:

• Funding sources could be tenant-based rental

assistance from HOME Investment Partner-

ships Act or Community Development Block

Grant funds, city or county general fund

dollars, TANF dollars, private (United Way)

funding, or Section 8/Housing Choice Vou-

chers. In one case, the community had no

actual housing resources programmed for

rapid re-housing but had case management

with a strong push to leave shelter quickly.

• Length of rental subsidy ranged from one-

time move-in assistance (deposits, rst and

last month’s rent, moving costs, but nothing

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 2. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS IN THE COMMUNITY CONTEXT

else) to short-term assistance (3 to 9 months),

long-term assistance (12 months up to 5 years),

and permanent subsidy (Section 8).

• Depth of rental subsidy could be the whole

rent for the whole time, all or most of the

rent to start with decreasing proportion over

time, the difference between the contract rent

and 30 percent of tenant income (the standard

for HUD subsidies), or a at amount, usually

in the range of $200 to $400, regardless of the

contract rent or family income.

• Other eligible expenses came from most to

pay for some level of case management/

supports, at least initially, but some (usually

the ones that provide one-time move-in costs)

do not offer even that much. They also vary

in whether they will pay for rent or utility

arrearages, rent or utility deposits, other

move-in costs such as furniture, ongoing case

management/coordination, housing and job

search assistance, education and training

expenses, behavioral health care, childcare,

legal expenses, health care for parent(s) and

child(ren), and other needs.

• Target populations could be low- or minimal-

barrier families; moderate- and multiple-

barrier families; or, in some communities,

families who have lost their own housing

and are in precarious doubled-up situations

(that is, not literally homeless by HUD’s

denition).

Exhibit 2.3 displays specic characteristics of

the contexts in which the 23 RRHD programs

were designed. The rst row shows that 12

of the 23 communities had one or more rapid

re-housing programs or funding streams in

place communitywide before they applied for

RRHD. In addition, another community had a

rapid re-housing program in two jurisdictions

within the CoC but not in others, and another

had been doing rapid re-housing for years but

without any designated nancing to pay for

moving and other housing-related costs. A third

community had just revised its 10-year plan

to shift a signicant portion of local public

resources into rapid re-housing but waited for

RRHD (and HPRP) to start before implement-

ing the new system.

The second row shows the gap in local service

delivery that the RRHD program was designed

to ll. Ten CoCs wanted to start a rapid re-housing

program for the rst time or extend it to new

locations. Of all the CoCs, 14 had some rapid re-

housing funds but wanted to expand their rapid

re-housing programs, either in terms of program

capacity or offering more extensive assistance,

and three had specic underserved target pop -

ulations of families in mind for the new pro-

gram. A few communities mentioned that they

designed RRHD to ll more than one gap.

RRHD providers had varied experience with

running rapid re-housing programs before

RRHD (exhibit 2.3, third row). Eight RRHD

provider agencies had no previous rapid re-

housing experience, and 10 either had previous

experience operating rapid re-housing programs

or had similar experience to draw upon. In ve

other communities, either the CoC lead or at

least one of the subgrantees had experience,

but not all provider partners had a past history

operating rapid re-housing. In a couple of these

CoCs, such as in Orlando, Florida, the RRHD

provider had some doubts about the wisdom

of the approach, which surfaced later in more

intensive and restrictive screening processes.

Another design decision was whether the hous -

ing and services would be delivered by a single

agency or a partnership (exhibit 2.3, fourth row).

In 13 communities, a single agency runs the

RRHD program without benet of formal

partnering arrangements. Another grant covers

several counties, each of which has a single

agency offering RRHD. Two more RRHD CoCs

have more than one RRHD provider, but the

two agencies operate their RRHD programs

separately. RRHD providers in the remaining

seven CoCs are involved in partnering arrange-

ments, most of which build on long-standing

partnerships for delivering a variety of other

programs (usually for other rapid re-housing

or transitional housing).

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 2. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS IN THE COMMUNITY CONTEXT

Exhibit 2.3: Speciﬁc Characteristics of RRHD Structure and History

Yes No Other

Community had one or more funding sources for rapid re-housing before RRHD 12 8 3

Gap that RRHD was designed to ﬁll:

Start rapid re-housing, or start in new locations.

Get additional rapid re-housing resources, funds for longer subsidies.

Target speciﬁc types of families (for example, larger, newly unemployed).

RRHD provider(s) had pre-RRHD experience with rapid re-housing:

No.

Yes for all RRHD providers.

Yes for some RRHD providers but not for others.

Yes for grantee (CoC) but no for actual RRHD providers.

Sort of—with a Supportive Housing Program grant or without actual re-housing resources

but with goal of rapid exit.

Partnership structure for RRHD program:

No, only one RRHD agency that does both housing and services.

No, several RRHD agencies, but only one per county that does all.

No, more than one RRHD agency, but operate separately.

Yes, housing and services done by different agencies in partnership.

Yes, two or more partners, all/most do both housing and services.

RRHD agency also administers a rapid re-housing program funded under HPRP (currently

homeless).

14 5 4

CoC = Continuum of Care. HPRP = Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program. RRHD = Rapid Re-

housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

One community had rapid re-housing in two counties but not the others; one had been doing rapid re-housing but

without re-housing resources; and one had committed itself to rapid re-housing and reorganized its local public

funding but did not start rapid re-housing efforts until RRHD and HPRP started.

Some communities mentioned their intent to ﬁll more than one gap.

Virtually all HPRP resources are allocated to prevention; an RRHD agency might have HPRP funding but not

enough to make HPRP a serious alternative to RRHD within the agency itself.

The use or nonuse of partnering arrangements

for RRHD program delivery is quite unrelated

to the strength of a CoC’s RRHD effort; rather,

it reects the heterogeneity of CoC structures

and arrangements. Some CoCs have strong

and comprehensive single agencies, and so

it made sense for that agency to serve as the

RRHD provider. Others have partnerships

with long histories of collaboration to deliver

rapid re-housing and other similar programs to

homeless families; again, it made sense in those

CoCs to pick that partnership to run RRHD. In

the few RRHD communities for which rapid

re-housing was new and service providers

rare, one all-purpose agency was selected to

administer RRHD.

RRHD, HPRP, and How They Relate in RRHD

Communities

In September 2008, when RRHD proposals were

submitted, the American Recovery and Reinvest -

ment Act, which contained the HPRP, was still

far in the future. No one expected communities

to be on the brink of receiving three to four times

more money for homelessness prevention and

rapid re-housing than they had ever handled

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 2. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS IN THE COMMUNITY CONTEXT

before, so applicants were not thinking about

large-scale RRHD. The RRHD grant announce-

ment came in July 2008, proposals were submit -

ted in September of that year, and grants were

expected to start in the fall of 2009. HPRP was

signed into law in February 2009, and commun -

ities began to serve households with HPRP as

early as October 2009. In a few RRHD commun -

ities, RRHD and HPRP began at the same time

(October 2009), but in most, HPRP actually be-

gan earlier than RRHD for a variety of reasons,

including the need for HUD regional ofces to

focus on processing HPRP grants as a priority,

because they were larger and more widespread.

The nal RRHD community began serving

families with its grant in August 2010.

HPRP funds can be used for prevention and

rapid re-housing. The advent of HPRP affected

some CoCs with RRHD programs considerably

and others less, depending on how much access

the homeless assistance network had to HPRP

for rapid re-housing (heretofore referred to as

HPRP-RR) and how much of that funding was

directed to the same agencies that do central

intake for homeless and at-risk families or that

run RRHD programs. HPRP funds went directly

to civil jurisdictions (states, counties, and cities)

rather than to the homeless assistance system

through CoC conveners or lead agencies. Most

but not all civil jurisdictions subgranted HPRP

resources to homeless assistance agencies, where

they could be integrated with other homeless-

ness prevention and assistance activities. But

when jurisdictions kept the HPRP funds them-

selves or sent them to antipoverty agencies

such as community action programs, such

integration rarely happened.

In 14 RRHD communities, one agency admin-

isters RRHD and HPRP-RR (exhibit 2.3, last

row). In four additional communities, HPRP

is used exclusively or nearly exclusively for

homelessness prevention, so the RRHD agen-

cies do not have the opportunity to administer

both RRHD and HPRP-RR and do not receive

HPRP-prevention funds. In the remaining ve

communities, HPRP for both prevention and

rapid re-housing is handled by agencies other

than those administering RRHD.

In some RRHD communities, HPRP-RR began

serving families before RRHD, in others the

reverse was true, and in a couple of communi-

ties the two programs began simultaneously.

RRHD communities also varied in the relative

generosity of the two programs and in the fam -

ily barrier levels each program would accept.

In some communities, RRHD offered more

months of rental assistance, and in others, HPRP

did so. Likewise, in some communities RRHD

took only low-barrier families and HPRP was

structured to serve families with more barriers,

while the reverse was true in other communities.

Most communities set up their programs to

have some differences, so families were offered

either RRHD or HPRP, depending on their

particular circumstances and needs.

People interviewed for this report in several

RRHD communities said that if they had known

HPRP was coming, they would have designed

their RRHD program differently. Representa-

tives of RRHD programs mentioned desirable

changes in the length or depth of rent subsidies,

including more exibility, the types of expenses

covered by the RRHD grant, and which families

they would serve.

Philosophical Approach to the RRHD

Each CoC’s philosophy for addressing home-

lessness was a major factor in RRHD program

design. Local philosophy affects the length of

time in which families are moved from shelter

to housing, the length of assistance that is of-

fered to them, and the types of families who are

targeted by RRHD programs. In chapter 4, we

discuss community attitudes toward “Which

families can benet from and therefore should

receive rapid re-housing—only those with

minimal barriers, those with moderate or even

multiple barriers, or both?”

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 2. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS IN THE COMMUNITY CONTEXT

What Is Rapid?

Providers in some communities believe it is

possible to move families from shelter to hous-

ing within 30 days. These RRHD providers are

rmly in the rapid camp, in large part because

they believe that each day a family spends home -

less is a day too long and that homelessness is

damaging to children, parent-child relations,

school continuity, and other aspects of family

life. They also believe that other issues families

face can be better addressed after a family is

stably housed, and they perceive that the home -

less assistance network will be able to help

more families if they can keep families moving

through shelter quickly. These providers set

the goal of getting homeless families back into

housing in 30 days or less and aim to do so

within 2 to 3 weeks.

In other communities, providers wait 4 months

or more before the housing placement process

starts. This schedule is intentional, based on

their belief that families need time to stabilize,

take care of issues that caused or were created

by their loss of housing, acquire job-related

skills, get a job, save money for move-in costs,

and so on. These providers think that several

months in shelter is a reasonable period of

time for at least a subgroup of families, even

when they have the resources through RRHD

to move families out sooner. Many of these

providers also believe that the time in shelter

is necessary to get to know families and the

types of assistance they will need to remain

stable after being housed and for families to

demonstrate their motivation to achieve and

maintain the skills and income needed to suc-

ceed in housing.

The range of RRHD provider attitudes and

beliefs before RRHD reects the same tensions

experienced in the drive to establish housing

rst principles for the support of chronically

homeless individuals with disabilities. Does a

person have to be housing ready before moving

into housing, or does moving into housing in

and of itself start the real process of learning

how to keep housing?

Rapid re-housing is housing rst for families.

Among the communities receiving RRHD grants

that were not yet convinced that rapid re-

housing could work, most say that the RRHD

experience has opened their eyes and that they

will be promoting more rapid re-housing in

the future. In some RRHD communities this

conviction has taken hold only at the CoC

level, with specic providers remaining un-

convinced, but in others both CoC and RRHD

providers believe rapid re-housing can work.

Chapter Summary

Each RRHD program was designed and devel -

oped within its own community context and was

clearly shaped by the availability or absence of

other local resources and the local philosophy

for addressing homelessness. All the communi-

ties had active CoC involvement and support

in developing RRHD programs. In many cases,

the CoC has continued to play a key part in

overseeing or delivering the RRHD assistance.

Participating in highly organized and thought-

ful CoCs gave these RRHD applicants important

advantages in the RRHD competition, such as an

understanding of clear and well-documented

gaps that RRHD intended to ll, knowledge of

and interest in rapid re-housing, and capacity

to coordinate intake and shelter resources with

the new RRHD resources.

Some RRHD providers had extensive history

providing rapid re-housing, while others were

exploring rapid re-housing for the rst time

through this grant. The availability of preexisting

rapid re-housing or rental assistance programs

informed the design of each CoC’s RRHD pro-

gram, as did each community’s decision about

how to use HPRP resources.

The process evaluation revealed that communi-

ties already committed to the concept of rapid

re-housing as part of their homeless assistance

system continued to support it as an interven-

tion for families. In addition, providers and

communities that were uncertain or skeptical of

rapid re-housing as an approach to addressing

family homelessness found new value in the

program as part of their community strategy to

end homelessness.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 2. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS IN THE COMMUNITY CONTEXT

Because the RRHD programs were designed to

ll gaps in community assistance for homeless

families with specic needs and to complement

existing homeless programs, RRHD providers

indicated frustration that the RRHD program

was designed without knowledge that the HPRP

program was coming. Many providers said that

they would have made different design decisions

had they known. Although communitywide

planning would not have prevented the overlap

between HPRP and RRHD, communities with

well-developed community planning processes

appeared better able to adjust to make effective

use of available homelessness resources.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 3. SYSTEM ENTRY FOR FAMILIES

Chapter 3

System Entry for

Families

In the two communities that pioneered rapid

re-housing—Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio,

and Hennepin County, Minnesota—centralized

intake has been a key component of the homeless

assistance system. All families in these commu-

nities facing a housing crisis must pass through

the central intake point as their rst contact

with the system. If they connect with any other

part of the system rst, they are referred to the

central intake point. The agency operating the

centralized intake function has at its disposal

resources for preventing homelessness, offering

temporary shelter, moving families out of shel-

ter and back into housing quickly, and often

some longer-term program options such as

transitional or permanent supportive housing.

The question these centralized intake structures

seek to answer is, “What housing and service as -

sistance is best for this family of the several that we

are able to offer?” These intake centers want rst

and foremost to prevent homelessness; if they

cannot do that, they want to keep a family’s

period of homelessness as short as possible.

Answering this central question means target-

ing specic resources to families with specic

circumstances, and targeting means one must

have a way of knowing what families need—

hence, systematic assessment for all families.

Centralized intake processes may appear more

burdensome for families at rst, because they

have to provide substantial information up front,

but they may be less time consuming over time

if families are referred directly to the programs

that suit them best and they do not have to

apply to multiple programs before nding one

that has availability and will accept them.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development’s interest in centralized intake

and standardized communitywide assessment

is based on the way these early model programs

worked and is the reason the Rapid Re-housing

for Homeless Families Demonstration (RRHD)

grant competition and subsequent guidance

gave them such priority in scoring applications.

Chapter 3 and chapter 4 examine the intake,

screening, and assessment processes in com-

munities that received RRHD grants. Chapter 3

documents how families arrive at the RRHD

program’s door, after they have sought help for

a housing crisis, describing the various entry

point models used by RRHD communities and

programs. Chapter 4 examines in detail the pro -

cesses used to determine whether the RRHD

program is appropriate for specic families.

How Do RRHD Communities Structure

Family Intake?

Communities with RRHD grants were

expected to use a centralized intake process to

select families most appropriate for the rapid

re-housing intervention and to refer and link

families who were not deemed appropriate for

the rapid re-housing program to other appro-

priate and available service options. Interviews

with Continuum of Care (CoC) representatives

in the 23 RRHD communities indicated signi-

cant differences in the structure and process

being used to identify homeless families and

to decide how to refer or link those families to

available programs within the CoC.

Some communities provide only information

and referral, such as a 2-1-1 hotline, as their

entry point strategy. Other communities have

centralized intake agencies with full authority

to admit clients to an array of programs through -

out the community. Communities in which one

comprehensive service agency is the RRHD

provider follow a centralized intake model, but

only for the broad array of programs offered

within their own agency. Finally, other commun -

ities combine intake processes in different ways.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 3. SYSTEM ENTRY FOR FAMILIES

Centralized Intake—How Can We Tell?

Families will reach out to the most accessible

agency when they are in a housing crisis, and

that may not be the community’s designated

central intake agency. For example, they may

call 2-1-1 or another hotline, contact an emergency

shelter, go to a community action agency, or

take some other initial action. Under a central

intake model, service providers will refer them

to the designated central intake agency for

assistance instead of working with the family

directly when learning about the housing or

homelessness crisis. Some communities may

have some “leakage” because a shelter may

occasionally permit a family to enter before

contacting central intake, but these instances

would be the exceptions.

Any structure in which families approach

RRHD programs directly or in which several

RRHD providers make their own arrangements

with shelters, and perhaps other outreach, is not

central intake. Although the agencies in the

community may operate a coordinated intake

process using a standardized protocol to con-

sistently direct referrals, we do not consider this

approach centralized intake for purposes of

this study. A few communities have a central-

ized sign-off function for accepting families into

RRHD that have been screened and assessed

by subgrantees that offer the actual RRHD pro-

gram. This approach means that no family may

be accepted into RRHD without the sign-off,

but that is the only centralized aspect of intake.

Primary Intake Models—Centralized or

Decentralized

For purposes of this evaluation, we have classi-

ed each community as having a centralized or

decentralized intake model based on which of

the following two questions the point of entry

attempts to answer:

• What housing and service assistance is best

for this family of the several that we are able

to offer?

• Should we accept this family into our RRHD

program?

Centralized intake systems focus on the rst

question. In communities where RRHD service

providers manage their own intakes in decen-

tralized systems, the primary focus is on the

second question.

Communities and programs create models

unique to their own circumstances, which in-

evitably means that exceptions may exist each

time we try to classify a specic program. Even

in the RRHD communities we identied as

having centralized intake, leakages exist. When

RRHD programs focus on the second question—

“Should we accept this family?”—they may

also be considering the rst question—“What

is best for this family?”—but may be unable to

offer families other types of housing and service

assistance if access is limited or controlled by

other agencies. The classication of programs

into two groups is the clearest way we could

reect systematic differences in how RRHD pro -

grams and communities operate, but as with

all classication schemes, this approach is not

perfect.

RRHD Structures Answering the First

Question—What Is Best for This Family?

Eight RRHD programs use a clear central intake

structure, and four other RRHD programs do so

with variations. All 12 programs are designed to

answer the question, “Of the range of housing

and service opportunities we control, which is

best for this family?” Most of these programs

operate in communitywide CoCs with many

programs; some programs are run by the only

or largest agency in their community addressing

homelessness and operate central intake functions

within their own agency only—which ends up

being communitywide, in effect.

The eight grantees that have well-dened central

intake systems are Cincinnati, Columbus, and

Dayton, Ohio; District of Columbia; Kalamazoo,

Michigan; Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Montgom-

ery County, Alabama; and San Francisco,

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 3. SYSTEM ENTRY FOR FAMILIES

California. Most agencies responsible for intake

in these communities are not the agencies ad-

ministering RRHD; rather, the RRHD program

is run by other agencies. In Kalamazoo and

Lancaster, the same agency is both the central

intake point for all housing and homeless-

related issues and also the community’s RRHD

housing and services provider. San Francisco

is also an exception; the nonprot agency that

operates centralized intake for homeless fami-

lies is one of two agencies operating the RRHD

program under a contractual arrangement with

the county’s Human Services Agency.

The central intake agencies receive referrals for

all families experiencing a housing crisis from

many sources, including direct contact by the

families. Their staff screen families for housing

and homeless status, refer those families still

housed to prevention services, and refer those

families without housing to receive assessment

to determine their needs and to refer them to

the most appropriate housing and service pro -

grams. In some cases, such as in Cincinnati and

Columbus, the choice to offer RRHD versus

another approach is bundled with the referral

to a shelter, and the RRHD assistance begins

immediately upon placement in shelter. In other

cases, such as in the District of Columbia and

San Francisco, the central intake agency refers

families to a shelter, and then the family shelter

takes responsibility for using a standardized

assessment instrument to determine what each

family needs and to make the appropriate re-

ferrals. After a family is referred to the RRHD

agency following a central or coordinated as-

sessment process, the RRHD agency sometimes

completes its own assessment to determine

whether it will assist the family. Sometimes the

agency is required to accept all families referred

through the central intake process, however,

depending on its role within the CoC.

We consider four RRHD grants to be “centralized

intake with variations”: Washington Balance of

State (BOS); Denver, Colorado; Contra Costa

County, California; and Trenton/Mercer County,

New Jersey. Two of these, Washington BOS and

Denver, cover geographically dispersed civil

jurisdictions but have some centralized intake

within the jurisdictions. The Washington BOS

RRHD grant went to two counties, one on each

side of Puget Sound, working as partners on

many aspects of their grant, including intake

forms, assessments, and criteria for accepting

a family into RRHD. Intake itself, however, is

not one of those aspects, for the obvious reason

that the families they serve come from and ex -

pect to remain in their own counties. The RRHD

agency in each county is the core housing and

homeless assistance agency in that county, and

each provides a centralized intake function

within its own county.

The Metro Denver area presents an especially

complicated intake (and service) structure. The

RRHD grant recipient is one of four RRHD ser -

vice agencies covering four of the CoC’s seven

counties and two of its cities (Denver counts as

both a city and a county). Three of the four RRHD

agencies offer broad housing and homeless-

related programs and services, including the

Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing

Program (HPRP), and serve as the centralized

intake point for their counties. The fourth agency

has a narrower scope and does not follow a

centralized intake model. Further, the RRHD

agency in Denver runs a large central intake

function for its own extremely broad and deep

array of family-related services. Denver added

an intake point in the welfare ofce after the

RRHD grant’s rst year, because the ow of

families requesting assistance was too low after

HPRP funding was fully expended. An RRHD

staff member is now stationed at the welfare

ofce, conducting screening and intake using the

same procedures used at the agency’s main ofces.

Contra Costa and Trenton/Mercer Counties

are anomalies but still belong in the centralized

intake for rapid re-housing category. Contra

8 Shortly after the site visit for this part of the evaluation, at the end of

the RRHD program’s ﬁrst year of implementation, the second agency

ended its participation; one agency currently operates both central

intake and the RRHD program in San Francisco.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 3. SYSTEM ENTRY FOR FAMILIES

Costa, a county with three distinct regions

separated by natural barriers, runs its RRHD

grant in its central region and to some extent in

its eastern region. In these locations, the RRHD

agencies are large and complex, have many

programs, and are the agencies people are most

likely to seek out for housing and homeless-

related assistance. Each agency runs its own

central intake function to determine which pro-

grams and services t a given family best. As

the primary agency serving homeless families

in the central and eastern parts of the county,

each agency is essentially a central intake point

for the portion of the county that is being served

by RRHD.

During the rst year of RRHD operations,

Trenton/Mercer County placed its centralized

intake function in the county welfare ofce. This

year was also the rst for the county’s completely

reorganized program structure, focusing on

prevention and rapid re-housing for families

facing a housing crisis. The 9 slots per year

for families in the county’s RRHD grant were

blended into the other resources the county had

committed to rapid re-housing, totaling about

50 slots in all. The welfare ofce screened and

assessed all families with a housing crisis, whe-

ther already receiving Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families (TANF) or potentially

eligible for it, as part of its larger assessment of

what services families receiving TANF might

need. All referrals to RRHD or to any of the

other components of the redesigned system

came after families completed this screening

and assessment process. During RRHD’s second

year, the central intake function for prevention

and rapid re-housing continued for TANF and

TANF-eligible families, but the county split

off RRHD’s nine slots and designated them for

serving non-TANF families. The RRHD service

agency subsequently had to develop ways to

recruit relevant families, which it did through

outreach and advertisement in many different

venues. Although the intake model shifted

after program inception, the partnership with

the welfare ofce reects the community’s

success in engaging and building connections

with the local mainstream welfare system, a

topic discussed further in chapter 5.

RRHD Programs Answering the Second

Question—Should We Take This Family?

Of the remaining 11 CoCs with RRHD grants,

10 are in communities without a centralized in-

take system: Anchorage, Alaska; Austin, Texas;

Boston, Massachusetts; Madison, Wisconsin;

New Orleans, Louisiana; Orlando, Florida; Over -

land Park, Kansas; Phoenix, Arizona; Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania; and Portland, Oregon. The RRHD

service agencies in these communities recruit

families in a variety of ways. If they themselves

run an emergency shelter, they recruit from

their own shelter. Most seek referrals from other

shelters as well, but those that operate the big -

gest or only family shelter in the community

keep the recruiting focus in-house. If RRHD

agencies do not run their own emergency shelter,

they recruit from other shelters. All also take

self-referrals and referrals from 2-1-1, antipov-

erty service agencies, domestic violence service

agencies, and similar programs that families in

crisis might contact rst. To increase the odds

that referrals from these venues will be appropri -

ate for RRHD, most RRHD providers have

created short screening tools or lists of criteria

for shelter caseworkers and 2-1-1 staff to use.

They have trained referring agency staff on

these criteria and, if it seems that staff are refer -

ring people inappropriately, renew that training

periodically. Some RRHD agencies conduct

periodic training for referring agency staff as a

matter of course and use that training to develop

strong relationships with referring agency staff

if they do not have them already.

The biggest difference between communities

with and without centralized intake and screen -

ing is that in the latter, staff in numerous shelters

and other agencies are making decisions about

where to send families. Even when referring

programs, usually emergency shelters, do a

thorough assessment, they often do not have

comprehensive knowledge of what the various

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 3. SYSTEM ENTRY FOR FAMILIES

programs in their community do or what they

do relative to other homeless programs, and

they frequently lack a shared community under -

standing of what to offer families with varying

needs. As a result, staff often provide each

family several options rather than a single de-

nitive referral. On the surface, this approach

does not seem problematic, but multiple options

require families to gure out by themselves

which programs have availability and which

will accept them. In addition, it was not uncom -

mon to hear that RRHD programs in communities

without central intake received many inappropri -

ate referrals (including single individuals), be -

cause shelter staff gave families rapid re-housing

as one of many places to try to get help. Further,

when a family is not accepted, the shelter case

manager is generally back to helping the family

try different programs in turn until one is found

that will serve them. Thus, a decentralized ap -

proach, unless strongly coordinated, is frequently

inefcient and ineffective.

The nal RRHD grant went to Ohio BOS, which

has one central supervising, training, and over -

seeing agency and many service providers that

cover the CoC’s 80 counties. Obviously no state -

wide or CoC-wide central intakes exist, nor is it

clear what the concept of “community” might

mean in this CoC. Each of the 22 local agencies

that provide housing and services through

RRHD operates in compliance with the super-

vising agency’s protocols and procedures for

RRHD but in its own milieu and according to

its own structure and program offerings for all

other services. Most agencies are the only pro-

vider of services for homeless people in their

catchment area, which often has no shelters.

Thus, these agencies are central for their own

area, but the activities are so dispersed that it

is difcult to consider this RRHD program as

providing centralized intake. In this aspect, the

approach is typical of most BOS CoCs.

Exhibit 3.1 summarizes the distinctions we have

made throughout this chapter, showing which

RRHD programs use each of the various intake

structures.

Exhibit 3.1: Intake Structures for RRHD Programs

Question

Being

Answered

What Is Best for This Family? Should Our RRHD Program Take This Family?

Structure Centralized Centralized

“with variations”

Network for outreach

and recruiting families

Geographic spread prohibits

CoC-wide central Intake

Number of

RRHD programs

8 4 10 1

CoC names Cincinnati, OH

Columbus, OH

Dayton, OH

District of Columbia

Kalamazoo/Portage, MI

Lancaster, PA

Montgomery County, MD

San Francisco, CA

Contra Costa

County, CA

Denver, CO

Trenton, NJ

Washington BOS

Anchorage, AK

Austin, TX

Boston, MA

Madison, WI

New Orleans, LA

Orlando, FL

Overland Park, KS

Phoenix, AZ

Pittsburgh, PA

Portland, OR

Ohio BOS

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 3. SYSTEM ENTRY FOR FAMILIES

Chapter Summary

In the communities that pioneered the rapid

re-housing approach—Columbus, Ohio, and

Hennepin County, Minnesota—the experience

of a decade or more indicates that family home -

lessness can be prevented or dramatically short -

ened when the community has a central intake

system designed to assess family need and im-

mediately route families to the most appropriate

program that will keep or move the families

back into permanent housing. About one-half

of the CoCs that received RRHD grants use a

central intake system to assess the housing and

service assistance that is best for presenting

families of the several that are available through

the intake agency. In communities with cen-

tralized intake, the screening and much of the

assessment process occur together and tend to

be intensive and deliberately tied to making

enrollment determinations across multiple

housing and service options. In communities

without centralized intake and screening, staff

in numerous programs make decisions about

where to refer families, often without thorough

knowledge of program availability or eligibility

criteria and certainly without control over the

outcome of the referral.

Thus, a decentralized approach, unless strongly

coordinated, is frequently less efcient and

effective than a centralized model. Further, a

decentralized approach is not able to respond

when the need is to prevent family homelessness,

as the various programs are most likely to offer

assistance only after a family becomes homeless.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Chapter 4

Screening and

Selection Criteria

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development’s (HUD’s) grant announcement

and related HUD guidance, provided as part

of the 2008 application process for McKinney-

Vento Homeless Assistance Act funds, specied

that Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families

Demonstration (RRHD) programs should serve

homeless families with at least one moderate

barrier to housing stability. The grant announce -

ment specied that households served by RRHD

“are expected to independently sustain housing,

either subsidized or unsubsidized, at the end of

the leasing subsidy; therefore it is crucial that

households are appropriately assessed.”

As a

condition of program eligibility, the agency us-

ing RRHD funds was required to have a single

assessment tool to use in assessing all families.

This chapter describes the assessment process

and tools used by RRHD programs, the specic

domains included in standardized tools when

programs used them, and the types of families

targeted by each program.

The Assessment Process

The HUD requirements for these programs es -

tablished basic threshold eligibility criteria for

families to receive assistance through RRHD. In

addition to these basic threshold criteria, most

programs established additional criteria for

selecting families they thought would be appro -

priate for their RRHD program. Some programs

are highly selective when choosing families for

RRHD and use screening criteria and procedures

that are intended to select families with relatively

high levels of self-sufciency and motivation

and few barriers to housing stability. Other

programs use screening criteria that are intended

to select families facing more substantial chal-

lenges and therefore use assessment tools to

identify a range of needs that can be addressed

through services provided after a family moves

into housing rather than as a way of determining

which families to serve.

Differences in screening criteria and procedures

reect important differences among RRHD pro -

grams, including the size and structure of the

RRHD program, availability of other housing

and service options for homeless families, local

rental housing market characteristics, and the

program philosophy of RRHD grantees and

subgrantees. As a result of the different criteria,

families with similar characteristics may be

accepted by one program and not by another.

Basic Threshold Eligibility Criteria

The HUD grant announcement and related

guidance specied that for families to be eligible

for RRHD they should meet four criteria.

1. Include at least one minor child.

2. Be literally homeless, meaning that they were

staying in emergency shelter or on the streets

for at least 7 consecutive days.

3. Be able to independently sustain subsidized

or unsubsidized housing at the end of short-

term housing assistance.

4. Have at least one moderate barrier to housing

stability.

The HUD grant announcement specied that

“The family most appropriate for this demon-

stration should have, or be willing to obtain,

employment that increases the income of the

household to such a degree that it can inde-

pendently sustain housing at the end of the

short-term housing assistance.”

9 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Continuum of Care

Homeless Assistance Program: 39843. July 10, 2008. http://www.hud.

gov/local/mn/working/cpd/mn-cochomeless071008.pdf.

10 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Continuum of Care

Homeless Assistance Program: 39846. July 10, 2008. http://www.hud.

gov/local/mn/working/cpd/mn-cochomeless071008.pdf.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

For the purposes of the NOFA, HUD identied

the following list of moderate barriers.

• A temporary nancial strain.

• Inadequate employment or loss of employ-

ment.

• Inadequate childcare resources.

• A low level of education or low command of

the English language, with a willingness to

obtain language skills or education.

• Legal problems.

• Mental health issues that do not greatly af-

fect the household’s ability to independently

sustain housing.

• A history of substance abuse without any

active use.

• Poor rental history, including up to three

evictions.

• Poor credit history.

All programs recognized and used the basic

threshold criteria to screen families for potential

eligibility for RRHD as they interpreted the

criteria. RRHD communities and programs

had different approaches to determining what

constituted a set of barriers that screened fami-

lies out of the RRHD program, particularly in

relation to whether they think families might

be able to sustain subsidized or unsubsidized

housing independently at the end of short-term

housing assistance. We discuss these issues

later in this chapter.

During site visits or telephone interviews with

some programs using more stringent screening

and selection criteria, staff expressed some fru s-

tration with the requirement of using RRHD to

serve families who are literally homeless, indi -

cating the difculty in nding families who are

living in a shelter, on the streets, or in cars who

have only moderate barriers, as the programs

have dened them. These programs are nding

that the population for whom they have designed

their services—more self-sufcient families with

current employment but a housing-income mis -

match or perhaps a temporary housing crisis—

New Orleans, Louisiana, uses

a “Barriers to Housing Assess-

ment” form to calculate scores

for each family on 11 domains.

Criteria focus on barriers that

limit employment or affect a

family’s ability to maintain

housing. The total score deter -

mines the best possible program

match for families. Family

scores in the mid-range (mod-

erate barriers) are eligible for

RRHD, with possible linkage

to a housing voucher if needed

for ongoing rental assistance.

are not in shelter for more than 7 days, because

they are frequently diverted from shel ter with

homelessness prevention assistance or leave

shelter quickly on their own. This sentiment

illustrated that some programs have an under-

lying hesitation to serve families with rapid

re-housing unless they were sure the family

could be self-sufcient without a subsidy at

the conclusion of their program participation.

Other programs and communities were much

more invested in using rapid re-housing for

families with a broad range of barriers.

When Are Assessments Completed, and

How Are Results Used?

The timing and location of screening and as-

sessment varies, as described in chapter 3. In

some Continuums of Care (CoCs), all families

are screened by the central intake agency for

eligibility for RRHD upon (or before) entry

into the homeless assistance system or quickly

after they enter shelter. In other communities,

screening and assessment happen after families

have already been in shelter for awhile or only

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

after a shelter case manager has referred a family

to the RRHD program.

In some communities,

the results of this assessment are used by the

RRHD agency for the purpose of determining

whether the family is appropriate for the RRHD

program. In other communities, assessment

tools and results are used by the central intake

or shelter agency to guide decisions about which,

of an array of housing and service interventions,

would be the best match for the family’s needs.

This type of assessment is most likely to happen

when the assessment is conducted as part of a

CoC’s centralized intake process and used to

track families into the most appropriate type of

intervention or level of assistance. This type of

assessment may also happen when an RRHD

agency itself offers an array of programs and

uses one assessment tool to assess all families

to determine which program option(s) it will

offer to each family.

What Characteristics Will Get Families

Screened Out of Most RRHD Programs?

Using the basic screening criteria articulated by

HUD in the RRHD program design, program

managers and staff from RRHD programs were

generally consistent in saying that RRHD is

not the appropriate intervention for families in

which the parent has untreated serious mental

illness or severe and active substance abuse

problems. RRHD staff generally indicated that

families with signicant levels of disability or

long-term barriers to employment would be

better served through permanent supportive

housing or transitional housing.

Program managers and staff also had general

consensus that families with many evictions

or recent serious criminal activity should not

be served through RRHD. Some program staff

believed that transitional housing programs

that provide more structure and support would

better serve these families. Other staff were

concerned that landlords would be unwilling

to accept these families, but some RRHD pro-

grams had long-standing relationships with

landlords who were willing to take families

who otherwise would have been screened out,

because they trust the program to provide

the support services that would help families

become successful tenants.

Dayton, Ohio, uses a “Housing

Barriers Screen” to score fami-

lies based on criteria in eight

domains. Within each domain,

multiple questions focus on

common housing stability bar-

riers. Barriers include incon-

sistent work history with gaps

in employment or frequent job

changes, eviction from sub-

sidized housing, being barred

from public housing, disabling

conditions that have negative-

ly affected housing stability,

and a history of being unable

or unwilling to seek help. Fam-

ily scores in the mid-range

(moderate barriers) are eligible

for RRHD, and case workers

also use the barriers screen to

develop housing plans for each

family. Assessment and case

management are separate func-

tions performed by different

staff members who communi-

cate frequently.

11 During the initial startup period, one or more programs may have used

RRHD to serve a small number of families who were coming from tran-

sitional housing and not in emergency shelter or living on the streets.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Staff of several RRHD programs also talked

about the challenges of serving homeless families

in which a parent is enrolled in postsecondary

education or a training program. Parents who

are within a few months of graduation or

completing a training program often are seen

as ideal for RRHD because they are likely to

be able to obtain more stable employment

with higher pay as soon as they nish school.

The type of time-limited rental assistance and

support services available through RRHD may

offer exactly the help these families need to

enable parents to complete their education or

training. By contrast, grantees generally were

reluctant to use RRHD to provide housing

assistance for parents enrolled in longer-term

education or training programs, because the

family’s income is unlikely to increase quickly

enough to maintain housing after the period of

time-limited rental assistance. Most programs

seemed to have limited capacity to help parents

obtain nancial aid or other forms of income

assistance that could help them pay rent while

completing education or training programs

that would lead to higher incomes.

Additional Screening Criteria, Tools,

and Procedures

All RRHD programs collect substantial infor -

mation about families during intake, screening,

and assessment. Most programs use a standard -

ized intake or assessment tool to gather infor-

mation about:

• Family composition.

• Employment history and current income.

• Education and training.

• Housing history, including number of evictions.

• Current and past episodes of homelessness.

• Medical and mental health conditions, health -

care and treatment history, and medical

insurance coverage for parents and children.

• Current and past substance abuse and treat-

ment history.

• Disabilities.

• Legal history, including incarceration and

probation or parole.

• Credit history and debts.

• Parenting skills and independent living skills.

• Domestic violence, child welfare system in -

volvement, abuse or neglect, and family conict.

• Childcare arrangements.

• Children’s school enrollment and attendance.

• Other domains of individual and family

functioning.

Important differences exist among programs in

how (and how much) they use this information

for screening and selection of families who will

be offered RRHD. Some programs use consider-

able information about families to make selection

decisions, while other programs base the selec-

tion decision on a narrower set of criteria and the

additional information gathered during intake

and assessment is used primarily to identify

needs and priorities for supportive services to

which the program will provide or link families.

How Standardized Are the Assessment

Tools?

Signicant differences exist among RRHD pro -

grams regarding the extent to which they rely

on scores produced by standardized assessment

tools to guide decisions about which families are

selected for RRHD, as summarized in exhibit 4.1.

Some programs use standardized tools, such

as a variant of the Arizona Self-Sufciency Ma-

trix,

or a locally developed screening tool with

explicit criteria that produce a score used to

determine whether a family is appropriate for

RRHD. At other programs, the screening and

selection process uses implicit criteria, meaning

less formally articulated criteria or scores,

which leave more room for interpretation by

the staff conducting the intake interview or

reviewing intake documentation.

12 Many RRHD programs use a variation of the Arizona Self-Sufﬁciency

Matrix to measure family self-sufﬁciency. The original Arizona Self-

Sufﬁciency Matrix, included as appendix B, was developed and

validated through local research in Arizona, and it has been adopted

across the country by homeless programs eager for a more standard-

ized approach to measuring participant change in self-sufﬁciency.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Exhibit 4.1: Type of Assessment Tools Used in RRHD Screening and Selection

Selection Criteria

and Tools

Self-Sufﬁciency Matrix

Another Standardized Tool

With Explicit Criteria

Implicit Assessment Process

(Without Scores)

RRHD programs Anchorage, AK

Denver, CO

Kalamazoo/Portage, MI

Montgomery County, MD

Ohio BOS

Overland Park, KS

Cincinnati, OH

Dayton, OH

District of Columbia

Madison, WI

New Orleans, LA

Phoenix, AZ

Portland, OR

Trenton, NJ

Washington BOS

Austin, TX

Boston, MA

Columbus, OH

Contra Costa County, CA

Lancaster, PA

Orlando, FL

Pittsburgh, PA

San Francisco, CA

General

characteristics

Many programs have modiﬁed

the tool originally developed

as the Arizona Self-Sufﬁciency

Matrix, including modifying the

number of domains or criteria

associated with each level or

score.

Some programs use scores

combining all the domains

included in the original Arizona

Self-Sufﬁciency Matrix, and

some use scores based on a

smaller number of domains

that are more directly related

to a family’s potential for

maintaining housing.

Some programs have added

domains that are included in

the score or use additional

criteria to determine eligibility

for RRHD.

Some programs are ﬂexible

in considering families on

a case-by-case basis if the

score is outside the range or

level considered appropriate

for RRHD, and some are not.

Most locally developed tools

for screening and selection

use some domains or criteria

similar to those contained in

the Arizona Self-Sufﬁciency

Matrix.

In addition to the score on

the screening tool, some

programs use other criteria

or information to determine

eligibility for RRHD.

Some programs are ﬂexible

in considering families on a

case by case basis if the score

is outside the range or cutoff

level considered appropriate

for RRHD.

Holistic assessment of family

needs and barriers may be

used to match each family to

the type of program and level

of assistance within a range of

options available.

Sometimes, a variant of the

Arizona Self-Sufﬁciency Matrix

is used for assessment or

service planning, but these

communities do not use a

score to select families.

Selection criteria may place

emphasis on motivation, a

clear plan for self-sufﬁciency,

compliance with shelter rules,

and capacity to follow through

on screening procedures.

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Both the District of Columbia and Washington BOS might arguably be included with grantees that use more

implicit criteria, because the screening and selection process includes a signiﬁcant level of caseworker judgment

in addition to the results of screening tools. The Washington BOS forms and criteria do not produce a score and do

not clearly differentiate among families or the types of interventions that will be provided to families at each level.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Several of the programs that use interview-

oriented assessment tools also use the Arizona

Self-Sufciency Matrix as part of the assessment

process but use information gathered with the

Matrix only for case planning purposes, not as

scores forming the basis for deciding whether

families are appropriate for RRHD. One program

requires an essay from applicants for RRHD,

stating what they will do while in the program

to achieve their goals. Another program requires

a detailed and well-documented plan for being

able to maintain housing stability after time-

limited rental assistance ends. Having an explicit,

versus implicit, assessment process is a different

issue than whether the program is restrictive in

The Overland Park, Kansas pro -

gram uses the Self-Sufciency

Matrix with local modica-

tions. The screening tool has

two parts; families must reach

a minimum score on the rst

part, which focuses on hous-

ing, income, employment

and education domains, and

a minimum total score. The

same tool is used to assess

families for eligibility for the

Homelessness Prevention and

Rapid Re-Housing Program

(HPRP), but the RRHD pro-

gram uses it more exibly. If a

family misses the cutoff score

for program eligibility, staff

can present a more holistic

assessment and make a recom -

mendation that a family is a

good t for the RRHD program.

terms of who is targeted or served by the pro -

gram. In practice, either approach can be targeted

narrowly or broadly. Program selectivity or

restrictiveness is discussed in the next section.

How Selective Are RRHD Programs

When Screening Families for Eligibility?

The 23 RRHD programs vary widely with

respect to selectivity. Some programs are clear

about using RRHD to serve a small subset of

“high-functioning” homeless families who have

high levels of self-sufciency and few barriers.

These programs may screen out families who

are not experiencing rst-time homelessness

or parents without full-time work or current

enrollment in a training program that is likely

to lead to employment at a good wage.

The RRHD programs take different approaches

to the expectation that families will be able to

independently sustain housing after being re-

housed in subsidized or unsubsidized housing.

A few programs offer RRHD to families who

are likely to face ongoing nancial challenges

and get families into housing quickly while

linking them to other sources of ongoing rent

subsidies to enable them to keep their hous-

ing after the time-limited assistance from the

RRHD program ends. Other programs select

only families who are likely to be able to sustain

unsubsidized housing after receiving support

from RRHD. More selective programs often

assume that families with household incomes

below 30 percent of Area Median Income (AMI)

will not be able to secure and sustain affordable

housing. These programs consider households

with incomes below 30 percent of AMI to have

a barrier and may use that barrier to screen them

out of eligibility for RRHD, especially when

other barriers exist such as poor credit, unpaid

medical or phone bills, or money owed to

a utility company or landlord as a result of

breaking a lease.

The assessment tools are crafted to enable case-

workers to identify the types of families they

deem appropriate for their program. Of all the

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

programs, 15 use the Arizona Self-Sufciency

Matrix or a locally developed screening tool

to assess family self-sufciency and determine

whether a family is appropriate for RRHD. The

tools prompt program staff to rate each family,

sometimes with family input, on each domain

based on standardized rating denitions. For

example, the least self-sufcient score in the

mental health domain is dened as being a

danger to self or others, having recurring suicidal

ideation, or experiencing severe difculty in

day-to-day life due to psychological functioning.

The lowest score in the community involve-

ment domain (which considers involvement in

advisory groups, support groups, or other com-

munity activities) is not applicable due to crisis

situation; in ‘survival’ mode. After completing

the assessment, the domain-level ratings are

summed to calculate a family’s overall self-

sufciency score.

The RRHD program, or a central intake agency

charged with referring families to RRHD pro -

grams, then uses the score to determine whether

to admit a family to the RRHD program. Five

programs specify a “cutoff score,” indicating

a level of self-sufciency that families must at

least meet before the program will accept them.

Seven RRHD programs specify a range of accept -

able scores. This approach means that instead

of establishing a cutoff score above which

families are eligible, these programs establish

both a lower and an upper range of scores, so

they screen out both families with extensive

serious barriers and families who are more

self-sufcient—those with fewer barriers. The

latter would be included rather than excluded

if the program specied only a minimum

score the family needed to meet. Communities

establishing both upper and lower bounds on

acceptable scores generally have identied dif-

ferent forms of assistance for those with scores

outside of the range, such as lower-intensity

assistance for those with higher scores and

transitional or permanent supportive housing

for those with lower scores.

What Domains Do RRHD Programs

Consider When Screening, and How Are

They Scored?

Several screening domains or assessment areas

gure strongly in selection decisions for all

RRHD programs that use standardized assess-

ment tools. Income is a screening factor in all

15 tools; employment, rental history, criminal

background, and mental health domains are in -

cluded in 13 tools; and substance use is screened

in 12. A lot of variability exists in the number

and focus of the other domains, however. Exhi -

bit 4.2 summarizes the domains used by RRHD

programs that rely on the Arizona Self-Sufciency

Matrix or another standardized screening tool

to determine family appropriateness.

Despite similarities among domains in the tools,

RRHD programs dene the domains differently,

so for example, screening for criminal history

does not mean the same thing from one RRHD

program to another. Exhibit 4.3 provides ex-

amples to illustrate that some programs dene

domains in more restrictive ways than others.

Programs using more restrictive denitions of

domains also tend to use scoring methods that

are more selective and screen out families with

higher barriers. Programs using less restrictive

denitions tend to focus on recent experiences

that may directly affect a family’s ability to get

into housing.

Further complicating comparison of assessment

processes, the way RRHD programs score the

results can make a signicant difference in

the types of families accepted into a program.

When a program uses and gives equal weight

to all the domains contained in the Arizona

Self-Sufciency Matrix, the tool will screen out

low-income homeless families with relatively

minor barriers. For example, a family who is

literally homeless (staying on the streets or in

emergency shelter) and receiving Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly

food stamps) and subsidized childcare and who

is also enrolled in Medicaid will not have scores

that reect the highest levels of self-sufciency

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Exhibit 4.2: Criteria Used To Score Families Selected for RRHD Programs (1 of 3)

Domains or Topics Scored To

Screen Families for RRHD

Minimum Score

Anchorage Madison

Montgomery

County

Overland

Park Phoenix

Income

v x vx v x

Employment

v vx v x

Rental history (may include back rent or

utilities owed)

v x vx x

Homeless/housing status

v v v

Food

v v

Childcare

v v v

Children’s education and/or special needs

v v v

Adult education

v v v x

English language skills/literacy

Legal/criminal background

v x vx v x

Health care/disabilities

v vx v

Life skills

v v v

Mental health

v vx v x

Substance abuse

v vx v x

Family relations

v v v

Mobility/transportation

v v v

Community involvement

v v

Safety/domestic violence

v vx v

Parenting skills

v v

Child welfare

Credit history

v x vx

Household composition (age, family size)

x x

v Domain scored using a version of the self-sufﬁciency matrix (often adapted from the Arizona Self-Sufﬁciency

Matrix; some criteria may be modiﬁed and some domains may be added).

x Domain scored using a locally developed screening and assessment tool.

vx Domain scored using a version of the self-sufﬁciency matrix and also scored on a locally developed screen-

ing and assessment tool.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Exhibit 4.2: Criteria Used To Score Families Selected for RRHD Programs (2 of 3)

Domains or Topics Scored To

Screen Families for RRHD

Range of Scores

Cincinnati Dayton

Denver

Metro

New

Orleans

Ohio

Balance

of State

Kalamazoo/

Portage Portland

Income

x x v x v v x

Employment

x x v v v x

Rental history (may include back rent

or utilities owed)

x x v x v x

Homeless/housing status

x x x v v x

Food

v v

Childcare

x v x v v x

Children’s education and/or special

needs

x x v

Adult education

x v v

English language skills/literacy

x x x

Legal/criminal background

x v x v v x

Health care/disabilities

x x v x

Life skills

x v x

Mental health

x x v x v x

Substance abuse

x v x v x

Family relations

Mobility/transportation

Community involvement

Safety/domestic violence

Parenting skills

Child welfare

x x x x

Credit history

x v

Household composition (age, family

size)

v Domain scored using a version of the self-sufﬁciency matrix (often adapted from the Arizona Self-Sufﬁciency

Matrix; some criteria may be modiﬁed and some domains may be added).

x Domain scored using a locally developed screening and assessment tool.

vx Domain scored using a version of the self-sufﬁciency matrix and also scored on a locally developed screen-

ing and assessment tool.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Exhibit 4.2: Criteria Used To Score Families Selected for RRHD Programs (3 of 3)

Domains or Topics Scored To

Screen Families for RRHD

Flexibility in Using Scores To Determine Eligibility

Trenton Washington Balance of State District of Columbia

Income

x x x

Employment

x x x

Rental history (may include back rent or

utilities owed)

x x x

Homeless/housing status

Food

Childcare

Children’s education and/or special needs

x x x

Adult education

x x x

English language skills/literacy

x x

Legal/criminal background

x x

Health care/disabilities

x x

Life skills

Mental health

x x x

Substance abuse

x x x

Family relations

Mobility/transportation

Community involvement

Safety/domestic violence

x x x

Parenting skills

Child welfare

x x

Credit history

Household composition (age, family size)

x x x

v Domain scored using a version of the self-sufﬁciency matrix (often adapted from the Arizona Self-Sufﬁciency

Matrix; some criteria may be modiﬁed and some domains may be added).

x Domain scored using a locally developed screening and assessment tool.

vx Domain scored using a version of the self-sufﬁciency matrix and also scored on a locally developed screen-

ing and assessment tool.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Exhibit 4.3: Stringency of Criteria Used To Determine RRHD Eligibility

Domain More Selective Deﬁnitions for Domains Less Selective Deﬁnitions for Domains

Legal/or

criminal history

Deduct points if people have any history of

arrest or conviction, including:

• Felonies or misdemeanors within the past

10 years (some also including felonies or

misdemeanors from more than 10 years

ago).

• Current outstanding tickets or warrants.

Deduct points if people have recent or serious

criminal history, including:

• Focus on convictions within past 12 months.

• Recent or frequent history of incarceration.

• Current or recently completed parole or

probation.

• Felony convictions involving drugs or violence.

• Criminal history related to restrictions on

housing (for example, barred from public

housing, registered sex offender).

Mental health

or substance

abuse

Deduct points if people have any:

• Mental health problems or diagnoses.

• Substance use or abuse.

• History of treatment or hospitalization for

mental health or substance abuse problems.

Deduct points if people have:

• Mental health symptoms or substance

abuse problems that currently interfere with

functioning or ability to work.

• Recent substance abuse problems.

Employment Points earned based on current employment:

• Full time.

• Part time or temporary (sometimes

considered).

Points earned for:

• Current employment or history of

employment.

• Willingness to work.

• Opportunities for employment with training

and skill building.

Evictions Deduct points for any evictions. Deduct points based on the number of

evictions (for example, lowest score for three

or more evictions).

Children’s

education

For full points:

• All children must be enrolled in and

attending school regularly.

• Children must have good grades and show

academic progress.

Lose points for:

• Children’s behavior problems or juvenile

justice system involvement.

Household

composition

Deduct points if:

• Head of household is under 25 years of age.

• Family has more than three children.

Deduct points if:

• Head of household is under 21 years of age.

• Family has male teenager.

RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

in several domains, and this score will lead

some RRHD programs to turn that family down.

Similarly, a parent with a high school diploma

who has not completed postsecondary educa-

tion, is fully compliant with the terms of

probation or parole, has poor credit with one

eviction, has limited community involvement,

and has little support available from family

or friends would also receive a total score on

the Arizona Self-Sufciency Matrix too low to

qualify for RRHD in the more selective pro-

grams. A family with a low score in the mental

health domain but high ratings in the other

domains, however, may receive a high total

score. Using and equally weighting all domains

in the Arizona Self-Sufciency Matrix has the

effect of giving equal consideration to domains

that relate only tangentially if at all to housing

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

sustainability and domains that pertain directly

to a family’s capacity to sustain housing with

the assistance available from RRHD.

Other RRHD programs use a narrower subset

of the domains or topic areas in the Arizona

Self-Sufciency Matrix or locally developed

screening tools as the primary criteria for selec -

tion. They focus on those domains that are

most directly relevant to a family’s potential for

being able to maintain housing by increasing

household income, managing expenses and

debts, or obtaining other ongoing sources of

rental assistance, if needed. These programs

are less likely to consider a family’s use of

SNAP, Medicaid, or subsidized childcare a

barrier or an indicator that the family is less

self-sufcient. The criteria may focus instead

on whether a lack of reliable childcare is an

obstacle to a parent’s employment.

A few RRHD programs are willing to enroll

families with multiple previous evictions,

previous felony convictions, or negative credit

reports, despite the extra effort it takes to nd

housing for families with these “red ags.”

These programs have identied and built rela -

tionships with landlords who are willing to

accept these families as tenants if the parent

has completed a ready to rent class or similar

training that covers the responsibilities of

tenancy and the RRHD program commits to

ongoing support services, close monitoring of

rental payments, and regular communication

with landlords to troubleshoot any problems

that arise. The RRHD program may use a mas-

ter lease arrangement in which the program

establishes a lease with the landlord so that

families who would not otherwise pass the

landlord’s screening criteria are able to enter

into a sublease agreement with the program.

Thus, programs that have adapted the Arizona

Self-Sufciency Matrix to focus on fewer domains

and those that have the most direct relevance to

housing retention tend to accept families with

higher barriers, because they do not penalize

families for barriers that will not directly affect

housing placement and they have developed

targeted strategies to mitigate the others. These

communities are also those that have established

a range of scores to indicate that a family is ap -

propriate for RRHD rather than a at cutoff

score. Families who score above the identied

range are referred for less intensive assistance

than the package offered by the RRHD program,

and those who score below are referred for

more intensive assistance.

What Family Characteristics Lead To

Being Accepted Into or Screened Out of

RRHD?

The signicant differences in screening and

referral processes, assessment tools, and selec -

tion criteria used by RRHD programs mean

that the 23 programs serve families with differ-

ent characteristics. To demonstrate the effect of

differences among the tools and criteria used

by programs, the research team developed

vignettes that described three families with

different characteristics. The families are described

briey in the following list. The complete vig -

nettes, which include additional details needed

to calculate a score using assessment tools used

by RRHD programs, are included in appendix C.

• A 27-year-old mother with two school-age

children works at a part-time job and has

poor credit and unpaid debts to a landlord,

utility company, and credit cards. The family

relies on SNAP, and the children are enrolled

in Medicaid and subsidized childcare. The

mother has a high school diploma, is on pro -

bation for a minor criminal offense, and is

feeling stressed but has not been diagnosed

with a mental health problem, and does not

have a history of substance abuse.

• A 21-year-old mother with an 11-month-old

baby has been living in a car since eeing

domestic violence, because the local domestic

violence shelter is full. The mother is complet -

ing a community college training program

that is likely to lead to a good job, but she has

a limited employment history. She has poor

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

credit and was not the primary tenant in

her last apartment. The family is covered by

Medicaid, applying for SNAP, and on a wait-

ing list for subsidized childcare. The mother

was in foster care herself as a child, and she

does not have substantial social support.

• A 29-year-old mother with four children has

a solid history of employment before a recent

layoff. The mother is now working two part-

time jobs with no benets and hoping to in -

crease her hours and income. The mother has

been clean and sober for 3 years and is taking

prescribed medication for depression. She has

a history that includes past substance abuse

and drug treatment and completed parole

after a felony drug conviction several years

ago. A few years ago, she was evicted once,

and she has unpaid medical bills and bad

credit. The family relies on SNAP and con-

si derable strong support from extended

family members and the church where they

are actively involved.

For these three families, researchers used the

assessment tools and criteria from each RRHD

program to determine whether the family

would likely be accepted or screened out of the

program. This approach was relatively straight-

forward for programs that use a cutoff score or

range of scores on a standardized assessment

tool as the primary criterion for selecting fami-

lies for RRHD. For programs that use implicit

criteria rather than scores, it was more difcult

to predict whether any or all these families

would likely be accepted or screened out. The

results are summarized in exhibit 4.4 and clearly

indicate that some programs are likely to be ser -

ving families with signicantly greater barriers

to self-sufciency, while families with similar

needs are likely to be screened out of the RRHD

programs in other communities.

Rationale for More Selective Screening

Criteria and Procedures

During interviews, RRHD program represen-

tatives gave several reasons why they have

adopted more selective screening criteria and

procedures:

• Size of RRHD program. Some RRHD pro-

grams only have the capacity to serve a small

number of homeless families relative to the

total number of families who are staying in

homeless shelters and are potentially eligible

Exhibit 4.4: Chances That RRHD Programs Will Accept Speciﬁc Families

Likely To Accept All

Three Families

Likely To Accept

One or Two of These Families

Likely To Screen Out All Three Families

(or Screen Out at Least Two and Maybe Consider

One of These Families on a Case-by-Case Basis)

RRHD programs using scores or standardized screening tools and criteria

Madison, WI

New Orleans, LA

Ohio BOS

Overland Park, KS

Portland, OR

Trenton, NJ

Cincinnati, OH (two)

Dayton, OH (two, possibly all three)

Denver, CO

District of Columbia

Kalamazoo/Portage, MI (two)

Washington BOS (two)

Anchorage, AK

Montgomery County, MD

Phoenix, AZ

Programs using more implicit criteria (screening and selection decisions are much more difﬁcult to predict)

Austin, TX

Columbus, OH

Lancaster, PA (maybe)

Pittsburgh, PA (maybe)

Boston, MA

Orlando, FL

Contra Costa County, CA

San Francisco, CA

BOS = Balance of State. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

for RRHD. When several eligible families are

referred for each available slot in the RRHD

program, criteria may be designed to select

the family most likely to succeed with the

program.

• Structure of RRHD program. Some RRHD

programs offer only short-term rental assist-

ance and use more stringent selection criteria

that reect the expectation that families must

have fewer barriers or higher levels of self-

sufciency if they are going to be able to pay

rent without assistance after 3 to 6 months.

• Availability of other housing and service

options. In some communities, RRHD is only

one of several options available to homeless

families, and other options may also include

rapid re-housing rental assistance and sup-

portive services that are available for more

(or fewer) months or an array of affordable

and permanent supportive housing options.

In these communities, families with more

barriers to housing stability or a greater need

for longer term rental assistance may be offered

a different program that is more responsive

to their needs, while RRHD is used to serve

families who are more likely to be self-sufcient

with only a few months of assistance. It is im -

portant to note, however, that other housing

and service options are not always available

in some communities in which programs have

implemented relatively stringent screening

and selection criteria, and families in those

communities who are not offered RRHD may

have to stay longer in shelter before they

obtain housing.

• Local rental housing market characteristics,

including the availability of affordable

rental housing or ongoing rental assistance.

In communities where rental housing is in

short supply or rents are high, RRHD pro-

grams may use more stringent screening and

selection criteria because of a concern that

families will need to signicantly increase

their incomes to pay rent without assistance

after a maximum of 12 to 15 months in the

RRHD program. In these communities, selec -

tion criteria were designed to target assistance

to families with current full-time employment

or strong work histories, good employment

prospects, and few (if any) barriers to self-

sufciency. In some other programs, families

with more barriers are accepted into RRHD

programs with the expectation that they will

be able to access affordable rental housing or

ongoing rent subsidies if they still need addi -

tional nancial assistance after they exhaust

the time-limited assistance provided by RRHD.

• Program philosophy. Although some pro -

gram philosophies clearly articulate the goal

of reducing the amount of time families spend

in shelters, others are more ambivalent and

demonstrate concern that many homeless

families need the services and supports that

they can get in a family shelter or project-

based transitional housing program. Further,

some programs believe a key indicator of a

family’s future success is its motivation to

succeed. Thus, more stringent criteria are

sometimes designed to discover a family’s

motivation level. When program staff mem-

bers and agency leadership believe that vul-

nerable families benet from participating in

other programs that are part of the homeless

assistance system, they are more likely to be

relatively selective about which families can

be successful with the assistance available

through RRHD. When program staff have a

strong belief that longer shelter stays can be

harmful for many families, the staff are more

open to offering RRHD to families with more

substantial barriers and to providing services

and supports to address family needs after

they are in housing.

How Have RRHD Programs Changed

Their Screening and Selection Criteria?

In several communities, program managers

indicated that they are making or considering

changes to the screening and selection criteria

they have been using for their RRHD programs.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

At least four programs indicated that they were

considering moving in the direction of serving

families with more substantial barriers, in part

because they had found too few homeless fam -

ilies who qualied for RRHD based on their

initial criteria. They were unable to serve the

number of families projected in their grant

application without becoming more exible in

the selection process. One program has relaxed

criteria that limited eligibility to families expe -

riencing rst-time homelessness, while another

program has modied screening tools to distin-

guish between serious felonies and less serious

criminal histories and between serious and less

serious problems related to medical, mental

health, or substance abuse.

A few other programs reported that they have

moved toward more stringent screening criteria

or procedures. Often these were programs that

had established relatively restrictive selection

criteria and found that some families entered

the program with signicant barriers related to

mental health or substance abuse problems or

criminal backgrounds that had not been disclosed

during the screening and assessment process.

Some programs had expected to use a mix of

short-term (3 to 6 months) and medium-term

(12 to 15 months) rental assistance but have

found that few families enrolled in the program

could maintain housing with only short-term

assistance. In some cases, these programs are

seeking to identify homeless families who can

meet more stringent screening criteria and will

be more likely to succeed with only a few months

of assistance.

Chapter Summary

Communities have taken different approaches

to RRHD screening and assessment. Because

many RRHD communities do not have much

affordable rental housing or ongoing rent sub -

sidies available for homeless families, many

RRHD programs are selecting only families

likely to be able to maintain unsubsidized hous -

ing and are likely to screen out families who

could succeed in maintaining their housing only

if subsidies were available. In some cases, selec-

tion criteria reect local philosophies toward

addressing family homelessness and the relative

availability of other resources.

RRHD programs use a wide range of assessment

tools, scoring methods, and target scores for

program eligibility, but most programs assess

families on a similar range of topics. When pro -

grams consider a broad range of domains as part

of the assessment process, the tools generally

weight all criteria equally and do not grant spe-

cial consideration to the relatively few domains

most likely to affect housing stability.

Some RRHD programs have rened their assess -

ment scoring systems to focus on the domains

most relevant to housing retention. These pro -

grams tend to accept families with higher barriers,

in part because they do not penalize families

for barriers that will not directly affect housing

placement and because they have developed

targeted strategies to mitigate the others.

Overall, the assessment tools currently in use

by RRHD programs favor families with fewer

barriers and needs, although nearly one-half of

the RRHD programs would be likely to enroll

families with multiple barriers. RRHD programs

also vary in the latitude given to staff to take

risks on families with scores close to cutoff or

range limits. As RRHD programs gain experi-

ence in selecting and serving families, some are

revisiting their selection criteria to focus on

recent and serious barriers and problems that

are likely to interfere with work or housing

stability. Others are strengthening their eligibil-

ity criteria to further target the types of families

they will accept.

One hope for the process component of this

evaluation was that researchers could identify

one or two screening and assessment tools that

HUD could recommend to anyone desiring to

mount a rapid re-housing effort in the future.

Because of the great variability of assessment

tools and procedures, however, the research

team feels that the RRHD experience is not

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

likely to lead to simple recommendations of

best practices. What seems clear is that the same

tool, such as the Arizona Self-Sufciency Matrix

in its original or modied forms, can be used

in many different ways, with quite different

consequences for which families will ultimately

receive services. Selection of a specic tool and

decisions about how to use it must be consid-

ered separately. Communities or agencies will

need to consider their resources, housing and

employment market conditions, alternative

interventions available, program size and length

of intervention, and intake structures before

selecting a tool or crafting a strategy for using it.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 5. HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORTIvE SERvICES OFFERED bY RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMIL

Chapter 5

Housing Assistance

and Supportive

Services Offered by

Rapid Re-housing for

Homeless Families

Demonstration

Programs

Housing assistance in the form of rent subsi-

dies and supports in the form of case manage-

ment, housing locator activities, and linkages

to community-based services make up the core

of Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families

Demonstration (RRHD) programs. This chapter

describes the 23 RRHD programs and the

program elements they offer: the duration and

amount of housing assistance, the length of

time between program acceptance and housing

placement, and the connection to and types of

supportive services.

In the RRHD grant announcement, the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

ment (HUD) set clear guidelines for the length

of housing assistance participating providers

may offer and the types of services that can be

funded under this program. On the housing

side, participating programs can use RRHD

funds only to help families pay their rent. They

cannot pay for arrearages of either rent or utili-

ties, for move-in costs, or for utility deposits

or costs. Applicants had to specify the length

of time they would provide rental assistance,

choosing between 3 to 6 months, 12 to 15 months,

or both. RRHD funds for supportive services

could pay for housing placement, case manage-

ment, legal assistance, literacy training, job

training, mental health services, childcare

services, and substance abuse services, but not

all grantees proposed to use their funds for all

these services.

Housing

Grantees vary in the length of time they offer

families rental assistance, the amount and pat -

tern of subsidies, the time between a family’s

enrollment in the program and actually moving

into housing, and the types of housing assistance

families receive.

Length of Rental Assistance

According to RRHD program rules, families can

receive rental assistance up to a maximum of

18 months, although programs were directed to

offer rental assistance packages of 3 to 6 months

or 12 to 15 months. As assistance can only be

used for rent, to cover the other one-time costs

of entering new housing, such as security deposits

moving assistance, furniture, and utility assist-

ance, many RRHD programs use resources they

have from other funders or connect participants

to other community-based agencies that can help

cover these costs or supply what is needed.

Exhibit 5.1 shows the length of rental assistance

offered by each of the 23 RRHD programs. Five

programs offer only short-term rental assistance,

from 3 to 6 months. Of the RRHD programs, 14

offer only longer term rental assistance, origi-

nally intended by HUD to be 12 to 15 months

but in practice vary between 6 and 18 months.

Four RRHD programs offer both long-term and

short-term rental assistance based on the family

housing plan and types of barriers identied

during assessment.

Many RRHD programs offering short-term

assistance indicate that they have difculty

nding families who can successfully transition

to independent housing within 6 months; thus,

they are providing assistance for longer periods

than expected. Similarly, many of RRHD pro -

grams that assumed they would provide a mix

of short- and long-term assistance have consis-

tently provided the maximum length of rental

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 5. HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORTIvE SERvICES OFFERED bY RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMIL

Exhibit 5.1: Length of Rental Subsidy and Notiﬁcation Practice

Planned Length of Rental Assistance

(Number of Months in Parentheses)

Family Notiﬁcation Practice

(Are Families Told the Planned Length of

Assistance at Program Acceptance?)

Short term

(3 to 6 months)

Long term

(originally intended

to be 12 to 15

months)

Both short and long

term

Yes

Families notiﬁed up

front of the number

of months they will

get if compliant with

housing plan

Length based

on family need,

recertiﬁcation; not

guaranteed up front

Anchorage, AK (6)

Columbus, OH (3–6)

Denver, CO (6)

Lancaster, PA (3–6)

New Orleans, LA (3–6)

Austin, TX (12)

Boston, MA (12)

Cincinnati, OH (12)

Contra Costa County,

CA (12)

Dayton, OH (9–12)

District of Columbia

(12–15)

Kalamazoo/Portage,

MI (12–18)

Madison, WI (12)

Orlando, FL (6–12)

Overland Park, KS

(6–12)

Phoenix, AZ (6–12)

Portland, OR (12)

Washington BOS

(6–12)

Montgomery County,

MD (3–6 and

12–15)

Ohio BOS (4–6 and

9–12)

Pittsburgh, PA (3–6

and 12–15)

San Francisco, CA

(3–6 and 12–18)

Trenton, NJ (6–9 and

12–18)

Anchorage, AK

Austin, TX

Boston, MA

Contra Costa County,

Dayton, OH

Denver, CO

District of Columbia

Madison, WI

New Orleans, LA

Orlando, FL

Overland Park, KS

Phoenix, AZ

Pittsburgh, PA

Portland, OR

San Francisco, CA

Washington BOS

Cincinnati, OH

Columbus, OH

Kalamazoo/Portage,

Lancaster, PA

Montgomery County,

Ohio BOS

Trenton, NJ

BOS = Balance of State.

assistance to all families. For example, when

designing its program, one RRHD program

initially thought that one-third of the families

served would be able to stabilize with 3 months

of assistance, one-third would need 6 months,

and one-third would need 12 months. Instead,

one-sixth of families participating in the program

have succeeded with only 3 months of assistance,

with the rest splitting about evenly between

needing 6 and 12 months of assistance. Another

RRHD program offers 9 to 12 months of assis-

tance, but so far all participants have used the

entire 12 months.

HUD’s goal is to help families stabilize and

afford housing, whether subsidized by another

program or unsubsidized, on their own at the

end of the RRHD program’s rent subsidy.

Despite families’ ability to secure subsidized

housing according to the program rules, some

RRHD programs accept only extremely low-

barrier homeless families who they think will be

able to pay the rent without a subsidy. Program

staff reported that their decision to be so restric -

tive reects their knowledge that the waitlist

for subsidies is years long or closed. The deci-

sion also sometimes reects high housing costs

in the community compared with the earning

power of most poor families. Some programs

calculate the odds that families would earn

enough income by the end of rent subsidies to

afford housing (for example, if a family had a

good work history but recent unemployment

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 5. HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORTIvE SERvICES OFFERED bY RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMIL

and had immediate prospects for returning to

work) or would receive a rent subsidy within

the same timeframe (for example, if it were

near the front of the waiting list). If the odds

seem good, the program accepts the family. If

they seem too low, they send the family to a

different program.

Many of the short-term RRHD program staff

expressed difculty in nding families who

they felt could move toward to independence

in less than 6 months. Differences in the RRHD

programs’ anticipation of families’ abilities to

become independent after only a few months

In Columbus, Ohio, house-

holds pay 30 percent of income

toward rent. Participants with

no income must pay $50 dol-

lars a month.

Incentive Month: At the end

of the 6-month period, fami-

lies who met their goals get

a seventh month for free. The

program uses the participant’s

portion of rent contributions

to pay the seventh month.

of rental assistance seem to be related to two

factors: the availability of affordable housing

in the community and whether the community

has embraced rapid re-housing as a model and

philosophy.

In one of the participating RRHD communities,

the Continuum of Care (CoC) has adopted

rapid re-housing as the primary vehicle for

helping homeless families get back into housing.

The CoC offers four distinct rapid re-housing

programs, each with a different level of nancial

assistance and housing support services. Finan-

cial assistance can include some combination

of help with utility payments, apartment and

utility deposits, rent subsidy, and help with

moving. To illustrate this CoC’s array of housing

assistance to homeless families, Exhibit 5.2 shows

the four rapid re-housing options, with the

RRHD program providing the longest period

of rental assistance, up to 6 months, to families

with multiple issues and barriers. Of partici-

pants in this community’s RRHD, 86 percent

are able to pay for housing on their own by the

end of the short-term RRHD assistance.

What Families Hear at Enrollment

RRHD programs vary in what they initially tell

families about the length of rental assistance

they will receive after they start the program.

The last two columns of exhibit 5.1 show the

information that RRHD programs provide

participants at enrollment about how many

Exhibit 5.2: Rapid Re-Housing Option in One CoC

Rapid Re-housing

Program Options

Typical Services Provided

Service Intensity

Needs of Referred

Families

Enrolled in

Option

Transition assistance Minimal ﬁnancial services to move out of shelter Low 5%

Direct housing 1 month of rent assistance Low 30%

Rolling stock 3 months of rent assistance Moderate 20%

RRHD 6 months of rent assistance High 15%

All other options Varying Varying 30%

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 5. HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORTIvE SERvICES OFFERED bY RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMIL

months of assistance they will receive. The

fourth column lists the 16 RRHD programs

that tell participants up front what they will

get; these programs nearly always fulll the

months of commitment they tell participants

at the beginning, as long as the participants

are fullling program expectations. The fth

column lists the seven programs that tell

participants the rst increment of rent assis-

tance they will receive (usually 3 months) and

explain how they will decide if this help will be

extended—usually in quarterly increments.

All seven of the programs that use the incremen-

tal approach—and even some of those that give

participants a specic commitment—require

some sort of recertication or process for

reviewing family progress on their plans to be-

come self-sufcient at the end of RRHD rental

assistance. These programs may adjust the

number of months of rental assistance based on

the review process. Staff of several programs

indicated that the amount or duration of rental

assistance is adjusted based on ongoing assess-

ment of family needs and progress, including

consideration of setbacks caused by job loss

or changes in household composition. Some

of these programs do not give the family a

specic commitment about how many months

of rental assistance they will provide. Most of

these RRHD programs tell participants that the

length of rental assistance is based on the fam-

ily’s housing and self-sufciency plan, progress

toward meeting goals, compliance with

program requirements, and type and number

of barriers being addressed.

Two RRHD programs offering 12 months of

assistance initially notied families of this

commitment up front, but they found that fam-

ilies were less motivated to nd employment

immediately and to work on achieving their

case plan goals. As a result, both programs

now provide families an initial 3-month com-

mitment and reevaluate quarterly. Participants

must be compliant with program rules (for

example, work on case plans, meet regularly

with case managers by phone or in person, pay

their portion of the rent) to qualify for contin-

ued rental assistance. Three programs conduct

eligibility recertication monthly, three others

do so quarterly, and two conduct recertication

as needed. Many RRHD programs that tell

participants up front how many months of

assistance they may receive use the length of

time to set expectations and to assist families

with planning. Most RRHD programs will

extend the length of rental assistance based on

progress and ability to achieve self-sufciency

as long as the extension is within the length of

time permitted in their RRHD grant agreement

with HUD.

In Ohio Balance of State, the

rst month’s rent and security

deposit is guaranteed. Each

month of rent assistance is

managed as a separate request

and used as an opportunity to

monitor and assess progress

toward goals.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 5. HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORTIvE SERvICES OFFERED bY RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMIL

Level of Rent Subsidy

RRHD programs have exibility in the way they

offer rent subsidies. Most RRHD programs will

make exceptions or adjustments to the tenant

portion of rent payments if a family is working

to pay outstanding debts or has had an unex-

pected crisis (for example, job loss). The level of

rent subsidy provided generally falls into one

of the following three categories:

1. A at dollar amount each month.

2. Families pay a proportion of their income (up

to 30 percent), monitored on a monthly or

quarterly basis, and the program pays the rest.

3. Graduated (declining) rent subsidies, de-

creasing assistance over time until the family

pays the entire rent by program completion.

Programs in the third category use a variety of

creative approaches (see exhibit 5.3) to gradu-

ally adjust the level of rent subsidies provided

to families. One goal of these approaches is

to prepare families to assume responsibility

for paying rent on their own before the end of

time-limited rental assistance. The graduated

rent subsidy approach is also intended to pro-

vide incentives and reinforce expectations that

families will increase their incomes from work

or benets and begin to pay a larger portion

of the rent. For some participants, however,

the graduated or declining rent subsidy ap-

proach could require that families contribute

more than 30 percent of their income for rent,

particularly if their incomes do not increase.

Some RRHD programs made changes to their

approach to providing graduated rent subsi-

dies during the rst year or two of program

implementation, because that approach was

determined to be inconsistent with HUD rules

regarding maximum tenant rent contributions

for families receiving assistance through any

Supportive Housing Program grant. Although

the examples in exhibit 5.3 may not be permit-

ted under the RRHD program and may no

longer be in practice, they are included because

grantees were eager to implement alternative

rent calculation approaches and these examples

could inform subsequent rapid re-housing

regulation development.

Exhibit 5.3: Examples of Graduated (Declining) Rent Subsidies

Program helps with security deposit and the subsidy pays the entire ﬁrst month’s rent; assistance declines by 20%

each month thereafter.

Participants can choose a subsidy equal to 50% of rent for 12 months or 100% of rent for 6 months; the program

also provides a third group of participants who are actively engaged in education or training to increase their

earning power 100% of rent for 12 months to see how much they can increase their skills and income in 1 year if

entirely relieved of rent burden.

Program pays 75% of rent in the ﬁrst month, decreasing over time based on income. The program does not pay

the landlord until the tenant does.

Monthly assistance level is ﬂexible and individualized based on the family plan, up to a maximum total amount of

assistance provided for each family.

Program pays 100% of the rent for one quarter, 67% for the next, and 33% for the ﬁnal quarter (9 months total).

Program requires families to start paying some of the rent (25%) between 6 and 9 months, depending on family

ability.

Tenants pay 30% of their income initially, increasing over 12 months to the entire rent amount.

Tenants pay 30% of income for the ﬁrst 6 months, increasing to 40 or 50% if assistance continues.

Assistance level is ﬂexible and individualized based on the family plan; all tenants pay 30% of income for the ﬁrst

month or for a few months, and then the tenant rent contribution increases to a maximum of 50% of income.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 5. HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORTIvE SERvICES OFFERED bY RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMIL

Time to Housing Placement

After an RRHD program accepts a family,

it begins the process of moving that family

toward reentering housing. The time between

program entry and housing placement varies

signicantly among RRHD programs. Some

RRHD programs are not able to report how

long it takes between each step: referral, initial

assessment, program acceptance, and housing

placement. Most RRHD programs require that

eligible participants be either unsheltered or in

emergency shelter for at least 7 days before ini-

tial intake. Moving into housing occurs within

1 week in a few programs and in less than a

month in most programs. In several RRHD

programs, however, potential participants may

stay in emergency shelter for several months

before they are referred and offered housing

assistance. Families in some of these programs

have access to a service-rich shelter environ-

ment and will typically begin the process

of budgeting, job search, and case planning

while still in the shelter. In these instances, as

a matter of shelter and RRHD policy, shelter

case managers may not refer families to the

RRHD program until after they decide that the

family is ready. In some cases, families may be

required to have a job or a plan that will meet

screening criteria. One program also accepts

participants who have been in transitional

housing for fewer than 90 days.

Rapidity of housing placement and family bar-

rier levels occur in each possible combination

in the 23 RRHD programs. Some programs take

families with considerable barriers and move

them out of shelter within 30 days, while others

take only families with minimal barriers and

consider 4 months in shelter reasonable. Still

other programs fall in between these extremes,

either moving families with few barriers quickly

or keeping families with many barriers in shelter

for a long time. The outcome component of this

evaluation will reveal whether these strategies

are equally effective. If families served by pro-

grams using the rst strategy (rapid movement

for multibarrier families) are found to be about

as likely to remain stably housed as those fol -

lowing more restrictive strategies, the nding

should lend support to the utility of rapid re-

housing as a desirable strategy.

Supportive Services

RRHD programs provide a variety of services

to support families as they work to reestablish

themselves in housing and achieve stability

in the community. Up to 30 percent of RRHD

funding can be used for services such as housing

search assistance and case management. Most

RRHD programs augment the services covered

by RRHD with referrals or onsite program ben-

ets funded from other sources, including legal

assistance, literacy training, job training, mental

health services, childcare, and substance abuse

services. Indeed, RRHD proposals indicating

that the proposed program, if funded, would be

housed in an agency with many other resources

to help program families received credit for that

in the review process. Exhibit 5.4 shows the

types of services offered.

Many RRHD programs noted that they try to

help families nd childcare, but that subsidized

childcare is not readily available because of

state and local budget cuts.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 5. HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORTIvE SERvICES OFFERED bY RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMIL

Exhibit 5.4: Supportive Services Provided by RRHD Programs

Services Commonly Provided in RRHD Programs

Services Occasionally Provided

in RRHD Programs

• Housing search and placement.

• Linkage to mainstream and community-based services.

• Employment and job search assistance provided either by the RRHD

program, the agency in which it resides, or through referrals to work

force centers or other career development programs.

• Budget counseling either directly through the RRHD program or

through referral.

• Credit counseling that can help with debt reduction and credit repair.

• Training to earn skills certiﬁcations or licenses, general equivalency

diploma (GED) assistance, and education programs.

• Case management assistance in accessing mainstream beneﬁts—

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, and Supplemental

Security Income (SSI).

• Help obtain furniture, household items, clothing, groceries, and

toiletries needed at move-in.

• Mental health and substance abuse

treatment and services.

• Youth and adult mentoring programs.

• Parenting programs.

• Life skills training.

• Legal assistance to address back

rent and bills.

• Assistance in applying for subsidized

housing.

• Transportation to appointments.

• Client advocacy with various depart-

ments and services.

• Domestic violence assistance and

counseling.

• Prenatal care.

RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Housing Search Assistance

Finding housing is virtually always the rst step

in a family’s case plan. All RRHD programs

provide some type of housing search or place-

ment assistance to link families with units that

will be affordable to the family after program

completion. In most RRHD programs, the case

manager works with each family to develop a

housing plan and then helps with housing search.

The type and intensity of assistance varies from

pointing families toward newspaper ads, Craig’s

List postings, and similar resources, to provid -

ing families with lists of landlords and potential

units, to more directed assistance. Three RRHD

programs maintain an affordable housing data-

base that case managers or housing specialists

use to match clients to appropriate housing in

their price range, including matching family

needs, resources, and location preferences.

Directed assistance can be substantial and

is usually effective. Directed assistance may

include the following elements:

• Case managers who drive clients to available

units and provide direct communication

and paperwork to landlords (many RRHD

programs).

• Employing a housing specialist who works

directly with families to help them nd an

apartment, set up the lease, and ensure that

all inspections are completed (ve RRHD

programs).

• Helping tenants locate community-based,

scattered-site housing in market rate or tax-

credit subsidized units (most programs).

• Offering housing in master-leased apartments

or their own properties, simplifying the hous -

ing search process but usually requiring fam-

ilies to move when they complete their time

in the program (three RRHD programs).

One RRHD program has a master lease arrange -

ment that it uses to house families who would

not normally pass the screening/tenant selec-

tion criteria used by most landlords because of

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 5. HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORTIvE SERvICES OFFERED bY RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMIL

bad credit or criminal backgrounds. Families

in this RRHD program may take over the lease

and keep the apartment after RRHD assistance

ends or get a landlord reference that will enable

them to rent another apartment independently.

Many agencies with RRHD programs have

staff members who work extensively with

landlords in their community and have a large

pool of landlords willing to take agency clients.

In cases where a household nds its own

apartment, these agencies usually are able to

add that landlord to the group they work with

regularly. Some of these RRHD agencies have

landlord appreciation days and events, provide

landlords specic information about what the

agency will do under various circumstances

(for example, nonpayment of rent, trouble with

other tenants, property destruction), and check

with landlords regularly to see if agency clients

are doing well and if any issues exist that

need to be addressed. In addition to knowing

that the rent will be paid regularly, landlords

appreciate this kind of support and are usually

willing to be exible in the types of tenants

they take from the agencies.

In New Orleans, Louisiana,

UNITY’s Housing Link main-

tains a website listing afford-

able rental units in Orleans

and Jefferson Parishes, with

approximately 1,600 vacant

and affordable units listed and

available at any given time.

Affordable means offered at 80

percent of Fair Market Rent or

less. Two staff people recruit

landlords and keep the listings

up to date. The website received

2,300 hits in February 2011.

Case Management

Each RRHD program requires families to work

with their case manager to develop a housing

and self-sufciency plan. Case managers focus

on identifying service needs, providing referrals,

and connecting families to community-based

services and benets. Case managers also help

families focus on their self-sufciency plan. The

family plan and budget are often reviewed with

the case manager on a monthly basis, although

some RRHD programs review them quarterly

or at the 6-month mark. Some RRHD programs

require participants to sign a participation agree -

ment outlining family expectations and goals.

HUD explicitly stated in its RRHD grant an-

nouncement that “the family most appropriate

for this demonstration should have, or be willing

to obtain, employment that increases the income

of the household to such a degree that it can

independently sustain housing at the end of the

short-term housing assistance.”

As a result,

In Madison, Wisconsin, Fam-

ilies pay 30 percent of their

monthly income for rent, of

which 80 percent (24 percent

of tenant income) is deposited

into an Individual Develop-

ment Account (IDA).

IDA funds may be used while

the family is in the program for

credit repair or large expenses

related to goals in the family’s

case plan. Funds may also be

used for housing entry expenses

after the family leaves the pro-

gram, if it is not able to remain

in the RRHD apartment.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 5. HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORTIvE SERvICES OFFERED bY RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMIL

most RRHD programs also focus strongly on

employment, training, job search, increasing

work hours, budgeting, and credit counseling.

RRHD program case management varies in in-

tensity. All RRHD programs indicated that case

management services are relatively intensive

when a family rst enrolls. Beyond the initial

time period, frequency of case management

varied greatly.

• Seven programs meet with families weekly

throughout most of their time in RRHD.

• Two programs meet with families weekly dur -

ing the rst quarter of program enrollment

and every 2 weeks or monthly thereafter.

• Thirteen programs meet with families twice

monthly or monthly throughout their time in

RRHD.

• Three programs meet with families with vary -

ing frequency depending on family need.

The case manager works with families to gure

out where they want to live and how much rent

they can afford based on family income and to

identify service needs and facilitate referrals.

Families typically work with their case man-

ager to develop a plan for self-sufciency that

focuses on the steps needed to be able to main-

tain housing after the rental assistance period

ends. Each RRHD program has its own unique

structure and timing for case management. In

most programs, case managers meet with the

family at least weekly directly after enrollment

and during the rst month of rental assistance.

After that, some RRHD programs maintain

intensive contact throughout the rental as-

sistance period while others reduce the level

of interaction as time goes on. Several RRHD

programs require weekly case manager contact

either through home visits, ofce visits, or

phone calls. Most RRHD programs require an

in-person visit at least monthly, during which

families are required to update self-sufciency

plans and budgets; telephone contacts often

occur between monthly in-person visits.

Six RRHD programs described formal followup

policies that they use with RRHD families and

often with other clients as well. Three of these

programs remain in touch with families for

6 months after rent subsidies end, calling every

month or two to assess any housing retention

challenges. If these calls reveal ongoing issues,

the case managers help families deal with them.

Two other programs extend their follow up to

12 months, checking in with families either each

quarter or twice during the post-subsidy year.

A sixth program works out a maintenance plan

with each family as it leaves the program in lieu

of formal follow up. The remaining 17 RRHD

programs do not have any formal follow up

plans or procedures. All RRHD programs per -

mit former participants to return for specic

case management needs, including resource

referrals and donated items. Some agencies

indicated that case managers make periodic

The Dayton, Ohio, RRHD

program conducts case confer-

encing that includes the fam-

ily plus all the organizations

involved in a family’s support

(nancial or otherwise), to

discuss case planning and prog-

ress. School representatives, the

family’s landlord, mainstream

benet caseworkers, and

RRHD case managers partici-

pate. Case conferencing meet-

ings are held as needed, occur-

ring more often with families

facing multiple barriers.

13 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Continuum of Care

Homeless Assistance Program: 39846. July 10, 2008. http://www.

hud.gov/local/mn/working/cpd/mn-cochomeless071008.pdf.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 5. HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORTIvE SERvICES OFFERED bY RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMIL

followup phone calls to see how families are

doing, although this step is not a formal part of

their program.

Employment

Many RRHD programs are in agencies that offer

employment assistance programs with a range

of job training opportunities, transportation ser -

vices to assure that participants can get to work,

programs for displaced homemakers, and similar

work-oriented activities and resources. Some

RRHD programs have an employment specialist

who works with families to write resumes struc -

tured around skills and abilities rather than

chronological resumes that might reveal gaps

in employment history. Employment specialists

will often coach families on how to talk about

criminal histories, and they conduct mock in-

terviews to help participants practice what they

will say. Assistance includes faxing resumes,

writing cover letters to potential employers, and

providing linkages to programs such as “Dress

for Success” that supply work-appropriate cloth -

ing. In addition, case managers often connect

families to literacy programs, computer and

software training, and general equivalency

diploma, or GED, assistance if their agencies

do not offer these themselves. At least one

RRHD program has access to a full-time job

developer with extensive connections to em-

ployers; this approach has greatly increased the

number of RRHD parents who obtain jobs.

A number of RRHD programs have a special

emphasis on employment. Several examples

of employment strategies used by RRHD pro-

grams are highlighted in the following list.

• Job/career development. Boston’s RRHD

career development specialist helps families

nd resources for schooling, job placement,

and supports to maintain a job after one has

been found. Phoenix, Arizona, and Trenton,

New Jersey, RRHD programs have job devel -

opers with strong links to employers who are

able to nd jobs even for people with many

barriers. The Contra Costa County, California,

employment specialist helps homeless parents

navigate the public workforce system and

helps them remove barriers to getting jobs

by reviewing criminal and credit histories,

trying to clear tickets to get a driver’s license

restored, guring out transportation, and

nding services to improve literacy.

• Coordinating with Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families (TANF) and workforce

development agency programs. Clallam

County, Washington, RRHD (Washington

BOS) case managers link unemployed parents

to Work First (TANF) or Workforce Investment

Act programs for assistance with job readiness

services, employment listings and job place -

ment services, and coaching for job search

and skills training. They also link parents to

a community jobs program that can be a gate -

way to jobs in the private sector and to training

opportunities at the local community college.

San Francisco’s RRHD case managers try

to coordinate their program’s case plans

with welfare-to-work requirements under

CalWORKS (TANF) for the same family.

Kalamazoo, Michigan, and Denver, Colorado,

station RRHD staff in the local TANF ofce

coordinate services for shared clients and

also identify families with housing crises

that may become new RRHD clients.

• Employment centers within RRHD agen-

cies. One of the partners in the Madison,

Wisconsin, RRHD program runs an employ-

ment center for RRHD clients and clients of

its other programs.

Linking to Benets and Community

Services

One criterion that HUD used to select grantees

was the applicant’s relationships with mainstream

welfare and service agencies, as demonstrated

by memoranda of understanding (MOA), formal

agreements, or other stable relationships. Case

managers in many RRHD programs spend a

considerable amount of time building and main -

taining relationships with mainstream agencies

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 5. HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORTIvE SERvICES OFFERED bY RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMIL

to facilitate access to services and benets for

RRHD families. Some RRHD programs have

MOAs with their county human services (wel-

fare) department to help streamline benet

application procedures, and a couple of RRHD

programs out-station staff in ofces within the

county human services department.

Arrangements with mainstream agencies may

cover recruiting families for RRHD, helping

RRHD families qualify for benets, or both.

Some RRHD programs have formal arrange-

ments to recruit and screen families for RRHD,

including the following:

• Trenton, where the TANF ofce is the central

intake agency.

• Montgomery County, Maryland, where the

central intake function and the welfare ofce

are in the same county department and link

with each other.

• Denver Metro, where four agencies represent -

ing three counties and one city have strong

relationships with county welfare departments

for intake and referral of families to RRHD.

• RRHD relationships with mainstream agencies

may also involve connections through case

management with welfare agencies (for TANF,

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,

and Medicaid) and county employment pro -

grams. These include—

 Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio, which

has a benet bank for all homeless house-

holds to streamline the application and

linkage process for public assistance.

 Overland Park/Shawnee County, Kansas,

where case managers assess family needs

and strengths and make sure families are

aware of and have made applications for

benets such as cash assistance; food stamps;

childcare; Women, Infants, and Children;

and Medicaid. Participating families can

complete and submit applications for some

of these benets at the Catholic Charities

RRHD program ofce, which is an access

point for benets applications. The agency

can provide short-term childcare subsidies

while families wait to qualify for state-

funded subsidized childcare, and the case

manager for homeless families is specially

trained to assist with Supplemental Security

Income/Social Security Disability Insurance

applications for family members, as needed.

Other RRHD programs have less formal arrange -

ments and less emphasis on linking participants

to welfare benets. Some RRHD programs in-

dicated that their local government agencies do

not grant RRHD families any priority or special

access to their programs. Many also thought that

welfare benets do not offer enough income to

pay rent so they do not encourage families to

apply for them or they do not consider families

who rely on welfare benets to be appropriate

for RRHD. Exhibit 5.5 arrays RRHD programs

by the degree to which they work with local

mainstream welfare agencies (RRHD programs

may appear in more than one column).

Chapter Summary

RRHD programs all offered rental assistance,

housing placement, and case management

assistance, but that is where the commonality

ends. Each program was designed within the

context of the community and homeless as-

sistance system in which it operated.

The type, duration, and intensity of RRHD as-

sistance depended on the programs’ decisions

about who will be served. Housing assistance

was originally intended to be offered in two

lengths—short-term rental assistance of 3 to

6 months and long-term rental assistance

of 12 to 15 months. Programs that designed

their programs around the shorter length of

assistance reported difculty moving families

toward paying for housing on their own within

these timeframes. Many programs extended

the length of assistance they offered, if their

program design allowed this exibility, or they

chose to focus on families with fewer barriers

and greater likelihood of quickly achieving

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 5. HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORTIvE SERvICES OFFERED bY RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMIL

Exhibit 5.5: The RRHD-Mainstream Beneﬁts Connection

Welfare Organizations Integrated

Within the RRHD Referral,

Outreach, or Recruitment Process

RRHD Programs Focused on

Connecting Families to Welfare

Beneﬁts (TANF, SNAP)

RRHD Programs With Less

Emphasis on Linking Families

to Welfare Beneﬁts

Columbus, OH

Denver, CO

Kalamazoo/Portage, MI

Montgomery County, MD

Trenton, NJ

Austin, TX

Columbus, OH

Dayton, OH

Denver, CO

Kalamazoo/Portage, MI

Madison, WI

Montgomery County, MD

New Orleans, LA

Overland Park, KS

Pittsburgh, PA

Portland, OR

Trenton, NJ

Washington BOS (Clallam County)

Anchorage, AK

Boston, MA

Cincinnati, OH

Contra Costa County, CA

District of Columbia

Lancaster, PA

Ohio BOS

Orlando, FL

Phoenix, AZ

San Francisco, CA

Washington BOS (Whatcom County)

BOS = Balance of State. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration. SNAP = Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

incomes sufcient to afford rents on their

own. Some programs were cautious not to tell

families up front how long the length of rental

assistance will last, because they have found

that families are slower to pursue increased

income and work toward self-sufciency goals

when they know they have 12 to 15 months of

rental assistance.

All RRHD programs provided housing search

and placement assistance and case manage-

ment to support families in the process of

stabilizing in and maintaining permanent

housing. Most RRHD programs also focused

on employment, budgeting, benets linkage,

and other income growth strategies, either

by providing these types of services directly

or by partnering with or referring to other

agencies. Some RRHD programs also provided

supportive services or referrals that would help

families address other needs identied through

the assessment process.

Finally, it is important to note that the rapidity

with which families moved out of shelter and

the barrier levels of families who programs

accepted do not vary together in RRHD pro-

grams. Some programs accepted families with

considerable barriers and moved them out of

shelter within 30 days, while others accepted

only families with minimal barriers and still

considered 4 months in shelter reasonable. Still

others fell in between these extremes or moved

relatively self-sufcient families out quickly

and granted higher-barrier families more time.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION

Chapter 6

Conclusion

What have we learned about the design and

operation of rapid re-housing? The Rapid Re-

housing for Homeless Families Demonstration

(RRHD) notice of funding availability (NOFA)

specied core design features and basic require -

ments for the RRHD programs but also gave

applicants the latitude to design their RRHD

proposals to meet their local needs within the

context of their local system and partners. Some

grants embraced the principles in the NOFA, and

others adapted them. As a result, the 23 RRHD

programs offer wide-ranging rapid re-housing

designs and examples that other homeless pro -

viders can consider in exploring rapid re-housing.

In this chapter, we summarize the main ndings

of this process evaluation relative to the research

questions posed in the introduction of this

report. We end with a brief summary of con-

siderations for future rapid re-housing efforts.

How Do RRHD Programs Fit Within

Their Communities?

RRHD programs were developed, on the whole,

with incredible consideration for the local land -

scape of community-level assistance for home -

less families. All RRHD programs had active

Continuum of Care (CoC) involvement and

support in developing RRHD programs; no

successful RRHD application came from one

agency, acting on its own. Most RRHD programs

were designed by the community as a whole

to ll gaps in assistance for homeless families

with specic needs and to complement existing

homeless programs. The experience of RRHD

programs, taken as a group, reinforces the value

of community-wide planning to ensure that

all homeless-related resources are used most

effectively. Indicative of the community-wide

thinking that contributed to RRHD program

design is the fact that quite a few RRHD pro-

viders felt their program design was the right

one for their community before the Homeless-

ness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program

(HPRP) became available, but that had they

known HPRP was coming, they would have

made different design decisions. They would

have structured the two programs to ll differ-

ent but complementary niches in their CoCs’

offerings for homeless families.

RRHD community structures varied consider-

ably. Decisions about how RRHD communities

designed their program were largely informed

by the community’s previous experience with

rapid re-housing, local conditions, and existing

programs. More than one-half of the 23 com-

munities had some experience with rapid re-

housing before RRHD. In these communities,

this history informed their program design.

About one-half of the agencies or communities

receiving RRHD had experience with pre-RRHD

rapid re-housing programs; the remainder had

experience only with regular transitional hous-

ing. The availability of temporary or permanent

rent subsidies from programs other than RRHD

also affected the way that communities concep-

tualized their RRHD program. These factors

affected the types of assistance provided and to

whom the assistance was provided. Local rent

levels also played a role in RRHD communities’

decision-making. Communities with high rents

would often target families who were more

likely to be able to sustain those rents after the

assistance ended.

How Does the Intake and Assessment

for Rapid Re-housing Work?

Access to RRHD is often coordinated but not

always centralized, despite the fact that central

intake was a core community feature envisioned

in HUD’s original NOFA. All programs used

some sort of centralized referral, such as a 2-1-1

community hotline, but only about one-third

had a highly structured community-wide intake

procedure that controlled access to most or all

housing-related services for homeless or at-risk

families. Another one-third of the programs

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION

had this sort of structure at the RRHD provider

level, and the remainder had only an informa-

tion and referral structure through a 2-1-1 crisis

line or its equivalent.

Communities that have implemented a sys-

t ematic, centralized process to assess family

needs and make appropriate referrals tend to

make enrollment determinations simultaneously

across multiple housing and service options.

They tend to have a clear sense of the popula-

tion they are targeting with RRHD assistance

and have options that can be offered to respond

to the needs of families who are not deemed

appropriate for RRHD. In communities without

centralized intake and screening, staff in numer -

ous programs make decisions about where to

refer families, often without thorough knowl-

edge of program availability or eligibility criteria

and certainly without control over the outcome

of the referral. Thus, communities with central

intake appear to have more condence that their

RRHD program serves the families in the system

best able to benet from the RRHD assistance.

Who Is Served, and Who Is Not?

Communities varied considerably in the char-

acteristics of families they would accept into

their RRHD program. These differences reect

a number of factors, including the availability of

other rapid re-housing and permanent subsidy

options within the homeless system’s control,

the tightness and affordability of the local hous -

ing market, previous community and RRHD

agency experience with rapid re-housing, and

program philosophy with respect to “housing

readiness.” Screening and assessment tools in

RRHD communities with highly centralized

intake and triage structures tend to be lengthy

and detailed because they serve the purpose of

determining which of many housing support

options, including RRHD, would best meet a

family’s needs. Centralized intake processes

may appear to be more burdensome for families

at rst, because they have to provide substantial

information up front. But in the long run, they

may be less time-consuming and more effective

if they are able to refer families to the programs

that suit them best and relieve families of the

burden of shopping around for a program that

will assist them.

No process evaluation can draw denitive

conclusions about the relative effectiveness of

assessment tools in targeting the “right families”

for a program. We will examine aspects of assess -

ment tools in the outcomes analysis, including

their breadth or specicity and whether some

domains matter more than others in predicting

housing stability after RRHD subsidies end. In-

teracting factors will be what types of support

RRHD programs provide their participants and

how much that support varies with a family’s

range of barriers.

Some RRHD programs focus their selection

decisions on domains relevant to housing stabil-

ity and use the information gathered in other

domains more for case management purposes.

These programs seem better able, or more willing,

to screen families with housing barriers into

their programs than those communities that

use a broader self-sufciency scoring approach.

Communities that equally weight all assessment

domains are most restrictive and more likely

to accept only families with minor barriers. In

several communities, restrictive screening is

intentional, because housing is extremely un-

affordable for families with low incomes, the

communities have other resources for families

with higher needs, or the programs have philo-

sophical beliefs about the limited role of rapid

re-housing assistance. As RRHD programs gain

experience in selecting and in serving families,

some are revisiting their selection criteria, some -

times to expand eligibility and other times to

narrow eligibility for RRHD assistance.

What Housing and Services Do the

RRHD Programs Deliver?

All RRHD programs provide housing search

and placement assistance. RRHD housing

assistance was originally intended to be offered

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION

in two packages: short-term rental assistance of

3 to 6 months and long-term rental assistance

of 12 to 15 months. Many of the programs that

originally intended to offer only short-term

assistance or a mix of short-term and longer-

term assistance found that families were unable

to pay for housing on their own within the

original timeframes, so they are extending the

length of assistance offered. Others are focus-

ing on families with fewer barriers and greater

likelihood of achieving incomes sufcient to

afford rents on their own within the available

months of rental assistance.

Although the type and duration of RRHD

assistance provided was a determinant in how

rapidly RRHD programs attempted to re-house

families, a clear correlation did not seem to exist

between the design of the program and the

placement goals. Some programs aimed to

re-house families within a couple of weeks,

whereas others dened rapid in terms of months.

All RRHD programs also offer some level of

case management to support families in the

process of stabilizing in and maintaining per -

manent housing. Most RRHD programs focus

these efforts on employment, budgeting, benet

linkage, and other income growth strategies,

either by providing these types of services

directly or by partnering or referring to other

agencies. Some RRHD programs also provide

supportive services or referrals that will help

families address other needs identied through

the assessment process.

Future Plans

RRHD program staff in most communities

strongly support the rapid re-housing model

and most communities have identied or are

looking for funding to continue these efforts.

At most sites, program staff indicated that

the RRHD effort solidied their support for

rapid re-housing or instilled faith in the model

among previous skeptics. Some noted that they

had always wanted to pilot rapid re-housing

but did not have resources to do it until the

RRHD program; they were pleased with the

opportunity to explore and leverage system

design changes offered by the RRHD program.

In a few instances, the RRHD program has

been transformative in combatting previous

assumptions that all families need shelter for

extended periods before moving back into

permanent housing or in building momentum

to shift the homeless system to a central intake

model. Staff remain skeptical in a few RRHD

programs, however, about the ability of rapid

re-housing to end homelessness for families

with numerous barriers.

The RRHD programs and the availability of

HPRP funding for prevention and rapid re-

housing have had a real effect on the options

for serving families with few barriers. RRHD

program staff report that during the time these

resources have been available, only the most

challenging families have remained in shelter

for an extended period. In some communities,

program staff expressed fear that shelters will

again be lled with families with few barriers

when these resources are no longer available.

The ndings from the outcomes evaluation,

documented in the second part of this nal re-

port, provide opportunity to understand initial

participant outcomes and, to the extent possible,

how various program design decisions and

community variables affected outcomes.

Implications for Future Rapid

Re-housing Program Development

The careful examination of the 23 RRHD sites

yields several considerations for others as they

explore rapid re-housing for their community.

The data from the 23 sites clearly illustrate that

one size does not t all. RRHD programs were

designed to reect the context of their commu-

nities, and decisions about what the program

offers and who they serve were completely

interrelated. For example, communities with

other rental assistance programs frequently

target their rapid re-housing programs to ll

a distinct niche that is not met by the other

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION

programs, and RRHD programs located in

high-cost housing markets often provide long-

term assistance, serve families with fewer barriers,

or both. By using central intake and coordinating

access to multiple funding sources and programs,

programs appear to be better able to match

families with viable program options regard-

less of their needs.

RRHD programs instituted fairly complex

screening and assessment procedures to iden-

tify families they deemed “appropriate” for the

program. Whether intentional or not, RRHD

programs that use broad-based self-sufciency

assessment tools seem to screen more families

out than procedures that focus on the domains

most relevant to housing acquisition and reten -

tion, because these more narrowly dened

tools do not penalize families for barriers that

will not directly affect housing placement. Or

in some cases, because programs are focused

on a smaller number of specic barriers, they

have developed strategies to mitigate them and

therefore can enroll families with more signi-

cant barriers in the identied domains.

The various screening RRHD processes proved

fascinating, with some communities screening

families so rigorously as to essentially eliminate

most homeless families from consideration. For

example, staff in several different sites expressed

frustration with the requirement to use RRHD

to serve families who were literally homeless,

indicating that it is difcult to nd families who

live in a shelter, on the streets, or in cars who

have “only moderate barriers,” as they have

dened them. They are nding that the families

who they believe are best served by rapid

re-housing—more self-sufcient families with

current employment but a housing—income

mismatch or perhaps a temporary housing

crisis—are not in shelter for more than 7 days,

because they are frequently diverted from shel-

ter with homelessness prevention assistance or

leave shelter quickly on their own. This senti-

ment illustrates the underlying hesitation of

some programs to serve families with rapid

re-housing unless they are sure the family can

be self-sufcient, whereas other programs are

much more invested in using rapid re-housing

for families with a broad range of barriers. To

avoid creating a mismatch between program

design and community need, program design-

ers may want to start by understanding the

barriers experienced by families who remain in

shelter for more than 7 days, and then designing

a rapid re-housing package (or other program

intervention) that they believe will successfully

return them to housing.

This study’s outcome evaluation sought to

understand which types of families (and level

of barriers) a rapid re-housing model can serve

successfully—meaning the family is able to

maintain housing after the rental assistance stops.

The outcomes evaluation explores whether fam -

ilies with lower levels of self-sufciency and

higher initial barriers that some RRHD programs

accepted were nevertheless successful in main -

taining housing stability and avoiding returns

to homelessness, even if they still faced sig -

nicant affordability challenges because their

incomes remain low. Findings from the outcomes

evaluation are documented in Part II of this

nal report.

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

REFERENCES

References

Burt, Martha R., Carol Pearson, and Ann Eliza-

beth Montgomery. 2005. Strategies for Preventing

Homelessness. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Housing and Urban Development.

Dennis, Deborah, Gretchen Locke, and Jill

Khadduri, eds. 2007. Toward Understanding

Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on

Homelessness Research. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services

and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development.

Weinreb, Linda, Debra Rog, and Kathryn Hen-

derson. 2010. “Exiting Shelter: An Epidemio-

logical Analysis of Barriers and Facilitators for

Families,” Social Service Review 84 (4): 597–614.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

REFERENCES

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Appendix A

Rapid Re-housing

for Homeless Families

Demonstration

Program Case Studies

Anchorage, Alaska: Beyond Shelter Services

Introduction

At the time of application for the Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration (RRHD),

the rapid re-housing model was not part of the approach being used by the Anchorage, Alaska, Con-

tinuum of Care (CoC). Instead, homeless families were expected to go to emer gency shelter, often

for 3 to 6 months, and then try to get a voucher or save enough money to be able to get into private-

market housing. The RRHD grant was seen as a great opportunity for community collaboration to test

a new model.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

174 60 Short term (3–6 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

Catholic Social Services (CSS), an Anchorage-

based nonprot organization that operates

two shelters, including the largest emergency

shelter for women and men in Anchorage, was

selected as the grantee and service provider for

the RRHD. At the time of application, CSS was

participating in the CoC but was not receiving

any funding through the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s)

Homeless Assistance Grants Program. To maxi-

mize funding available for housing assistance

and serve the greatest number of families, the

budget allocated the entire RRHD grant to

housing costs. Funding from the Alaska Housing

Finance Agency is used to pay for a part-time

(0.25 full-time equivalent [FTE]) case manager.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Decentralized

With the implementation of HPRP, a system for

screening and referrals from 2-1-1 for families

with housing crises was already in place before

RRHD started up. When families call 2-1-1, they

are asked if they are literally homeless (on the

streets or in shelter) and if they have an income.

If both answers are yes, they are referred to CSS

for an eligibility assessment for RRHD or HPRP.

In addition, all the shelters serving families in

the community could make referrals to CCS

for rapid re-housing; CSS usually received one

referral a month from each of the two family

shelters. Shelters only referred families that

were likely to be successfully stabilized with

6 months of rental subsidy.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Assessment Instrument: Arizona Self-

Sufciency Matrix Using Explicit Scoring

Criteria

All families were assessed using Anchorage’s

modied version of the Arizona Self-Sufciency

Matrix. The Anchorage program was highly

selective when deciding to enroll families in

RRHD. Eighteen domains were scored from

1 (little self-sufciency) to 5 (high self-sufciency),

and RRHD eligibility called for an average

score of 3 on each domain. A score of at least

60 or greater was required for eligibility for

RRHD, although a family with a score of 59

might be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Most families who were in shelter were con-

sidered to have more substantial barriers and

are not eligible for RRHD. Families with scores

indicating moderate to high self-sufciency

may have been served with HPRP instead,

because that program provided more exibility

in the number of months of rental assistance.

Service Delivery and Followup

Each family was required to develop a self-

sufciency plan that focused on the steps

needed to be able to maintain housing after the

6 months of rental assistance ended. All fami-

lies were strongly encouraged to participate in

case management and RRHD staff members

viewed it as integral to ensuring that families

are making progress on their plan goals.

The case manager commonly referred families

to a credit counseling agency that could help

with debt reduction and credit repair, although

some of these services have a fee, and the pro-

gram could not cover the fees for families. Each

month families were required to provide an

updated plan for self-sufciency and a report

about their activities related to their plan.

For the move-in/rst month, the RRHD pro-

gram paid for rent and deposit. After the rst

month, the rental assistance amount declined

by 20 percent each month, so that by the sixth

month the family was paying about 90 percent

of the rent. If an unexpected crisis occurred

(for example, job loss), some adjustment could

be made to the amount of subsidy provided

in a month, but all families had a 6-month

limit. Families could continue to call the case

manager for support after the rental assistance

ended and some did call for information, refer-

rals, or advice and encouragement.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

This RRHD site implemented restrictive

eligibility criteria. The use of the Arizona

Self-Sufciency Matrix total score seems to

have had the effect of giving equal weight to

domains that have more or less relevance to the

family’s potential for maintaining housing after

the RRHD rent subsidy ended. For example,

a score of 1 in the community involvement

domain probably is not as relevant as a score of

1 in mental health (danger to self or others) when

predicting potential for success in housing. A

homeless family experiencing a signicant nan -

cial crisis (working part time and receiving Sup -

plemental Nutrition Assistance Program and

Medicaid, with bad credit) would probably nd

it difcult to reach the cutoff score.

Future Planning

The community would like to continue with

rapid re-housing efforts if funding can be iden-

tied to continue the RRHD grant or similar

efforts. The experience with HPRP and RRHD

has changed the CoC perspective. Providers

now more clearly understand that some people

do not need shelter, and if it is possible to get

families out of shelter faster, then the shelter

capacity can be used to serve other families

who are on the waiting list and seeking help.

For More Information

Susan Bomalaski, Executive Director, Catholic

Social Services

http://www.cssalaska.org/html/about-us.php

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Austin/Travis County, Texas: The Passages Rapid Re-housing Initiative

Introduction

Passages, a six-agency partnership, has been providing transitional housing with HOME Investment

Partnerships Act (HOME) tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) funds for more than 12 years. One

partner agency, Caritas, offered a rapid re-housing program before RRHD, using a City of Austin

grant to pay for direct client assistance. Passages partners believe that “rapid should be rapid,” and

the organizations work to place families in housing within 2 to 3 weeks of shelter entry and at the

most, within 1 month.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

247 25 Long term (12–15 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

The RRHD grantee was The Salvation Army,

which also provided screening, assessment,

and case management for the program. The

Salvation Army was the largest provider

of services for homeless families in central

Texas, and homeless service provision is its

primary role in the community. Caritas served

as housing locator for RRHD and for other

CoC programs. Three other small, special-

ized emergency shelter programs (Interfaith,

SafePlace, and LifeWorks-youth) are Passages

partners and participated in RRHD. Agency

case managers were trained to screen families

for RRHD, but the RRHD program itself

employed only one case manager. In addition

to the RRHD case manager, an RRHD program

manager oversaw the program and granted

nal approval to all referrals.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Decentralized

Case managers at emergency shelters run by

Passages partner agencies referred families

who met criteria to RRHD using a standard

referral form. About 20 to 25 percent of families

entering shelter got referred. Most of those

not referred had too many barriers for RRHD,

and the partner agencies did not think that the

families could achieve housing stability with

only 12 months of rental assistance.

Assessment Instrument: Case Management-

Oriented Tool Using Implicit Scoring Criteria

When the RRHD program manager received

the referral, the rst step was to verify that

basic eligibility criteria are met. Because the

RRHD program was fairly broadly targeted

and shelter case managers became good at

referring the “right” families to RRHD, it was

rare for the RRHD program manager to reject a

family (only about 2 percent of families). After

the program manager approved, the RRHD

case manager explained the program’s offer-

ings and expectations with the family, includ-

ing the program’s goal of helping the family

to obtain and sustain permanent housing and

employment.

Service Delivery and Followup

All families were offered 12 months of housing

assistance. Housing was all scattered-site, with

15 units per year in mixed-use buildings oper-

ated by a local nonprot and the remaining 10

units in other housing in the community. The

assumption and goal was that families would

transition in place and remain in the housing

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

after the rental assistance ended. The Austin

RRHD program offered three different levels of

rent subsidy: 12 months at 50 percent, 6 months

at 100 percent, and 12 months at 100 percent,

the nal using both RRHD and other funds.

After the family agreed to participate in RRHD,

it worked with the RRHD case manager to

determine housing preferences in conjunction

with housing availability. After the family

chose a rental unit, the RRHD case manager

let the property manager know that the family

would be coming to look at the unit and sent

the client to the property manager and unit.

The case manager also provided both parties

with “the rules,” which specify who will pay

for what, and the responsibilities of both the

landlord and the family.

The RRHD case manager and the family

then reviewed the family’s service plan, their

goals for the 12 months, and the frequency

of meetings. The rst 90 days in the program

were devoted to employment and training,

employment search, increasing work hours,

and nding childcare. RRHD funds were often

used to pay for various training and education

programs and for childcare. The RRHD case

manager also helped the family link to cash

benets as appropriate (Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families [TANF], Supplemental Se-

curity Income [SSI]), other benets if the family

was eligible (SNAP, Medicaid), and supportive

services such as behavioral and physical health

care, domestic violence support groups, legal

services, and childcare.

Families received case management in the form

of monthly check-ins for 6 months after rent

subsidies ended. Families who missed or failed

to schedule meetings with the case manager

for more than a month may have been sent a

noncompliance letter if the RRHD case man-

ager could not contact them. The letter aimed

to bring to the family’s attention whatever the

issue was and asked the family to comply with

their obligations. Families who did not comply

could have been be removed from the program.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

Resources were available to meet the needs of

families experiencing homelessness in Austin

mostly because of a good continuum of city and

foundation funding. This continuum allowed

for the successful triage of families to be con -

nected with appropriate programs within dif-

ferent agencies.

Program managers in Austin realized that they

did not have a good handle on prevention

techniques, however, or predicting returns to

homelessness. As a result, Austin set up RRHD

to provide 6 months of followup, tracking, and

services as needed after the 12 months of rental

assistance ends to both ensure that the family

could stabilize their housing situation and

stay informed about where families went after

receiving RRHD services.

Future Planning

When the RRHD program ends, the community

will still have the basic Passages Supportive

Services Only program and TBRA. Shelter

providers also anticipate a return to a shelter

population mix of one-third of families having

signicant barriers to housing stability; one-

third having moderate barriers; and the nal

one-third having low barriers. Currently, the

array of resources available to get families out

of shelter, including RRHD and HPRP, means

that only the more difcult-to-house families

remain in shelter.

For More Information

Kathleen Ridings and Kimberly Kitchell Wein -

berg, The Salvation Army Austin Area Command

http://www.uss.salvationarmy.org/uss/

www_uss_austinma.nsf

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Boston, Massachusetts: Home Advantage Collaborative

Introduction

Boston, New England’s largest CoC, sought funding for RRHD to enhance existing efforts to rapidly

remove homeless families from the city’s emergency shelter system. Given the Massachusetts right to

shelter law (also called the Emergency Assistance, or EA, program), a clear need existed for additional

resources to quickly get families out of the overburdened shelter system. This system includes more

than 1,000 families that reside in hotels or motels because of a lack of available shelter beds.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

2,138 24 Long term (12 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

Boston’s Department of Neighborhood Devel-

opment (DND) was awarded an RRHD grant

for long-term assistance to rapidly re-house

families. Traveler’s Aid Family Services (TAFS)

was selected as the subgrantee and service pro-

vider for the RRHD program, named the Home

Advantage Collaborative. TAFS served its rst

family on January 1, 2010, and has the capacity

to serve approximately 25 families at a time.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Decentralized

Families were nearly exclusively referred to the

RRHD program via Boston’s emergency shel-

ters. These referrals came primarily from the

Family Emergency Solutions program at TAFS,

but the Department of Housing and Commu-

nity Development also placed yers at the local

Boston ofce to provide additional outreach

to families who may have been eligible to

receive services from the RRHD program. The

rst step in the enrollment process occurred at

the emergency shelter, where the shelter case

manager completed the RRHD Referral form

with the family.

Assessment Instrument: Case Management-

Oriented Tool Using Implicit Scoring Criteria

The Boston RRHD program was fairly selective

and used information from the referral form

and through interviews with families to decide

whether to enroll a family in the RRHD. The

referral form was several pages long and enabled

the shelter case manager to review the RRHD

eligibility criteria with the family and conrm

the family’s eligibility. The referral form requested

employment, education, housing history, and

a self-rating from the head of household of his

or her perceived ability to be motivated (ability

to keep appointments, save money, and follow

up on resources and referrals). In addition,

after the start of the RRHD program, TAFS

added a narrative section to the referral form

that asked families to write a brief essay about

how the RRHD program would “assist with

the self-sufciency and stabilization” of their

family. TAFS was then sent a package that

included the referral form, income verication,

homeless verication from the family’s current

shelter provider, current resume or work history,

and additional supporting documents that they

believed would be helpful to the TAFS team.

TAFS then organized a meeting of its RRHD

staff—program manager, housing search

special ist, case manager, career development

specialist, and the social work intern—to

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

discuss the referral form submitted by the fam-

ily, create a list of questions for clarication,

and invite the family in for an interview. After

the interview was conducted, the team made a

decision on whether the family should continue

on with the RRHD program.

Service Delivery and Followup

All families were eligible to receive up to 12

months of rental assistance, and the initial com-

mitment to each family was for the entire 12

months. The family held the lease in its name,

and it is clear from the onset that the RRHD

program would help the family for the entire

year, but at the end of the year the family must

be able to maintain fair market housing on their

own without any nancial support from the

program. In addition, if the family did not meet

the commitments it made in its signed Participa -

tion Agreement with TAFS, then TAFS could

terminate the family’s participation and cease

the nancial assistance and services to the family.

Among the key principles of the Participation

Agreement were that the family must attend

case management meetings, ensure that rent

is paid on time each month, and communicate

with RRHD staff.

Case management services offered by TAFS

included help nding furnishings for the apart -

ment, budgeting and nancial help, utility setup,

access to benets, and help getting the children

set up and stable in school. A service plan was

developed for each family, and every 6 months,

they reviewed and revised it as needed. The

service plan focused on employment and in-

come, tenancy, household management, and

the health and well-being of the family. The

service plan did not go in-depth for specic

mental health goals but did include language

that encourages client goals to improve inter-

personal relationships.

No followup was initially required of RRHD

participants who exit the program, but half-way

through implementation, the RRHD program

team considered exploring how it might follow

up with families.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

The availability of this RRHD program and the

other state efforts to provide rapid re-housing

enabled Massachusetts to dedicate the majority

of their HPRP funding to prevention. In addi-

tion, the RRHD program was been proactive in

its use of Homeless Management Information

Systems (HMIS) for data collection. Although

only required by HUD to collect the Universal

Data Elements, the site entered data into HMIS

from the referral form, intake assessment, and

services provided to the families.

Future Planning

Existing state efforts through the EA Flex Fund

to continue these efforts are not dependent on

any federal funding, but given the number of

families who do not qualify for EA, it is likely

that a need exists to fund efforts similar to this

RRHD program that will ll that gap.

For More Information

Elizabeth Doyle, Assistant Director for Suppor-

tive Housing, DND

http://www.cityofboston.gov/DND

Alison Bromley, RRHD Program Director, TAFS

http://www.familyaidboston.org/

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Cincinnati/Hamilton County, Ohio: Family Shelter Partnership Rapid Re-housing

Introduction

Bethany House Services (BHS) has been providing assistance to homeless families and single women

for 26 years. BHS was the lead for the Family Shelter Partnership (FSP), a multiagency collaboration

that coordinates and provides shelter and services for homeless families in Cincinnati/Hamilton

County. The RRHD program provided rental assistance and services to up to 60 families at a given

time. The program was designed to place families from shelter into community-based rental housing

within 14 days of entering shelter.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

230 60 Long term (12 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

The RRHD program anticipated serving 180

families during the grant period. RRHD program

staff included a part-time housing specialist

and two primary case managers, each of whom

carried case loads of approximately 30 families.

RRHD staff also coordinated with a mental

health case manager on staff.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Centralized

In Cincinnati/Hamilton County, all people

who were homeless or at risk of homelessness

called the Central Access Point (CAP) to access

prevention assistance, emergency shelter, or

other help.

Assessment Instrument: Standardized

Assessment Using Explicit Scoring Criteria

The CAP specialist conducted an initial phone

screening using a standardized assessment tool

within VESTA (the local HMIS). The screening

resulted in a numerically based mild, moderate,

or hard to house “level” determination. The

RRHD program was somewhat selective, as it

was designed to assist families that received

a Level 2, or moderate rating, and all Level

2 families were considered for RRHD. Staff

indicated that because the RRHD program had

a goal of getting families out of shelter within

14 days, they believed that the accuracy of the

upfront screening was important. Level 1 families,

those with mild barriers to housing, received a

lower intensity form of rapid re-housing.

Service Delivery and Followup

Immediately after acceptance into RRHD, case

managers conducted a more comprehensive

assessment of RRHD families and, from this

assessment, developed a case plan to move

the family out of shelter and achieve economic

and housing stability. The amount of rental

assistance provided depended on the rent cer-

tication process and was based on the family’s

size, income capability, and contract rents. The

goal was for families to choose apartments that

they would be able to afford after program

completion. Families received 3 months of rental

assistance, and then were reevaluated to deter-

mine whether they need additional assistance.

Beyond meeting the income and need test, fam -

ilies had to be compliant with program rules

(for example, work on case plans, answer phone

calls from and meet regularly with their case

manager, and pay their portion of the rent) to

qualify for continued rental assistance. Case

management was generally based on family

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

need, but check-ins occurred at least monthly,

and case managers provided referrals to

other programs and helped link families to

mainstream benet programs. Housing special-

ists provided housing placement support,

landlord-tenant support, and specic assistance

to families to help them learn how to address

issues with landlords or neighbors.

The program did not explicitly provide follow-

up to families who left but they did indicate to

families that they were welcome to call if they

run into issues.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

The RRHD staff in Cincinnati/Hamilton County

believed that motivation affects program results

and leads to self-sufciency, so they targeted

families that wanted to take advantage of the

program. Bethany House considered making

mental health consultation and followup man-

datory, as the existence of such issues greatly

affects a family’s success.

Future Planning

The CoC was always interested in rapid re-

housing for families, but did not have a fund-

ing vehicle to pilot the strategy. HPRP enabled

the community to offer rapid re-housing to

both families and singles, and the RRHD has

provided an opportunity to further rene the

model for families in the community.

For More Information

Darlene Guess, FSP Director, Bethany House

Services

http://www.bethanyhouseservices.org

Kevin Finn, CoC Executive Director

http://www.cincinnaticoc.org

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio: Jobs to Housing

Introduction

Columbus and Franklin County’s RRHD program, Jobs to Housing (J2H), provided eligible families

with up to 6 months of rental assistance in a scattered-site housing model that used private-market

landlords. Each family was responsible for choosing its own housing and signs the lease with the

landlord upon moving in. Families often opted to rent units in neighborhoods that are familiar to

them, selecting housing locations where they can access familiar support networks.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

254 40 Short term (3–6 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

The Community Shelter Board was the RRHD

grantee and subcontracted with The Salvation

Army of Central Ohio to provide short-term

rapid re-housing services, including housing

support case management. J2H had two case

managers that can each serve 15 households at

a time. The program’s point-in-time capacity is

30 households.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Centralized

All families enrolled in the J2H program were

referred from the YWCA Family Center, a

34-unit emergency shelter that serves as the

single point of entry for families entering the

Columbus/Franklin County homeless system.

Assessment Instrument: Case Management-

Oriented Tool Using Implicit Scoring Criteria

YWCA staff administered a screening protocol,

Family System Intake Assessment, to identify

the immediate needs of families requesting

shelter. The Family System Intake Assessment

captures data on family income, credit problems,

previous evictions, disability status, felony con-

victions, employment status and employability,

and treatment needs, among other housing

barriers. The program has fairly broad selection

criteria, but used J2H to serve families with

more signicant housing barriers.

After J2H received a Family System Intake

Assessment from YWCA shelter staff, the case

manager immediately began working with the

family at the YWCA Family Center to develop

a goal plan. The goal plan always identied

housing search goals; employment, training, or

education goals; and family-determined self-

sufciency goals. The family also completed an

Individualized Financial Plan that identied

the projected amount of direct client nancial

assistance necessary to achieve goals. The nan -

cial needs were projected out over a 6-month

period so the family understood the total

amount potentially available to it during the

course of program enrollment.

The Individualized Financial Plan was reviewed

monthly to ensure the family continued to make

progress toward case plan goals. Ongoing nan -

cial assistance was not guaranteed and was

recertied each month. If families did not show

progress toward goals, they ran the risk of

losing the nancial assistance, although case

management did not necessarily end if nan-

cial assistance was withheld.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

In addition to completing the Family System

Intake Assessment and the Individualized

Financial Plan, the J2H program staff also

completed a Housing Search Flow Chart with

each RRHD household while still residing at

the YWCA Family Center. The Housing Search

Flow Chart identied the necessary housing

search tasks that must be completed by the

household and the housing support services

that were offered by the J2H staff.

Service Delivery and Followup

Supportive services began while the family

is still in shelter. A Housing Search Plan was

developed for each family and outlined the

3-week process for nding and securing hous-

ing. During the rst week, the RRHD case man -

ager provided a general housing search list with

leads for landlords in the region the client wants

to live. By week 2, the family was expected to

sign a lease, make an appointment with the

Material Assistance Program for any necessary

household goods, and arrange utility service.

Week three of the Housing Search Plan focused

on the transition from shelter to housing; arrang -

ing transportation and transition of personal

items; move-in assistance; and referrals to

community-based supports such as school,

church, employment, and social networks.

After the family moved into housing, case

managers arranged for weekly home visits to

review progress on home maintenance goals,

savings for housing costs, and employment or

training programs. Each week, case managers

also tried to make ve phone contacts with

each family to ensure families were remaining

stable and making progress on their goals.

Families were able to schedule additional

meetings or call case managers for assistance

outside the formal contacts.

Case managers focused more intensive support

on families who were not engaged in employ-

ment or job training and housing maintenance

(savings for rent). Columbus/Franklin County’s

RRHD program supported the idea of the natu-

ral consequences of choices and would work

with a family up to and through the eviction

process if the family was not making progress

toward housing goals.

About 25 percent of families were referred or

linked to substance-abuse or mental health

treatment. The goal of the RRHD program

was to remove families after 6 months. At exit,

families were provided with a maintenance

plan that incorporates budget templates, refer-

ral information, steps for requesting followup

assistance, and contact information for further

employment and job training support.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

Columbus/Franklin County conducted a weekly

referral and case planning meeting called a

Program Administration Meeting. Staff from

the YWCA Family Center and representatives

from all other next-step housing and rapid re-

housing programs attended this weekly meet-

ing. During the meeting, YWCA staff presented

new cases and made recommendations about

where the families should be referred, and the

group made placement decisions based on

availability (occupancy) of programs, capacity

(case load of existing staff), and client choice.

Future Planning

Rapid re-housing is integral to Columbus/

Franklin County’s overall approach to ending

homelessness and will continue when the dem -

onstration is complete. Columbus/Franklin

County’s rapid re-housing partner, The Salva -

tion Army, rst started using a rapid re-housing

approach with its Direct Housing program,

initiated in 2000.

For More Information

Lianna Barbu, Community Shelter Board

http://www.csb.org

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Contra Costa County, California: Contra Costa Rapid Re-housing

Introduction

Contra Costa County encompasses three regions that are distinct in geography, demographics,

and levels of poverty. The county’s Homeless Programs unit provides leadership for the Contra

Costa CoC; operates an outreach and mental-health services program for chronically homeless and

mentally ill people living in encampments; and administers Shelter Plus Care and other interim and

permanent supportive housing and supportive services programs for adults with disabilities, youth,

and families. The county also partners with an organization that has run a transitional housing

program similar to RRHD for the past 15 years.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

290 12 Long term (12–15 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

The RRHD grantee was the Homeless Programs

unit within the Public Health Division of the

County Health Services agency. Shelter, Inc.,

the largest nonprot grantee in the county’s

CoC, served as the subgrantee and service

provider for the RRHD grant.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Centralized, With Some

Variations

Shelter, Inc., recently switched to a centralized

intake process that replaced separate application

and intake procedures for the range of shelter,

transitional, and permanent housing programs

operated by the agency.

Assessment Instrument: Case Management-

Oriented Tool Using Implicit Scoring Criteria

The Shelter, Inc., case manager began the assess -

ment process at the initial meeting with a family

who had entered the shelter but may not have

identied the appropriate next step for the fam-

ily for several weeks. During a referral review

meeting with the program director, the case

manager recommended a service or housing

option based on the parents’ skills, income

level, personality, needs, and whether the fam-

ily is in crisis. Shelter, Inc., case managers often

“go by gut” when making recommendations

and sometimes that could take time, especially

if staff have concerns that a parent may have

undiagnosed (or undisclosed) mental health

problems. Although the program was generally

highly selective, case managers had the latitude

to override the program’s general guidelines

if they thought an applicant was a good t for

the program. Similarly, when the client was in-

formed of the decision, the client could appeal

and ask for a different recommendation.

Service Delivery and Followup

After RRHD recommendation, the case manag-

er worked with the family to develop a service

plan that identied its strengths, challenges,

goals, and hopes along with action steps to be

taken by the family and by the case manager.

Case managers also used the Self-Sufciency

Matrix (a locally adapted version of the Arizona

Self-Sufciency Matrix) as a tool, but no specic

score determines RRHD eligibility.

Based on the service plan, a participation con-

tract was developed that species conditions

of program participation, including locating

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

housing within 45 days, paying rent and main -

taining tenancy in good status, keeping scheduled

appointments and maintaining regular contact

with the case manager, and participating in the

services and activities outlined in the service plan.

The participation contract also stipulated that

parents be employed full time and that they

would obtain a new full-time job within 45 days

if their original employment was terminated. If

the case manager identied circumstances that

warranted a temporary or permanent exception

to this requirement, it was reviewed with the

program director as part of the referral review.

Families paid 30 percent of their income toward

rent and received a subsidy for 12 months (or

less if the family income increased enough so

that 30 percent of its income is enough to pay

the entire rent). Ideally, the family had been

able to save some money to pay for move-in

costs because a signicant pool of funds was

not available in RRHD budget for these costs.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

Staff said they “do not believe in a cookie cutter

approach or mandates” but worked to engage

the client, earn their trust, and identify their

goals and hopes. In line with this approach,

Shelter, Inc., adopted a harm-reduction approach

to substance use. Families were asked at intake

about any family member’s recent use of alco-

hol or drugs and whether they were interested

in obtaining treatment. Some families recog-

nized that substance abuse had contributed to

their housing stability problems and included

the goal of achieving and maintaining recovery

from substance abuse in their service plan.

Future Planning

Rapid re-housing efforts will continue in Con-

tra Costa County after RRHD is complete. For

about 15 years, Shelter, Inc. has operated Reach

Plus, a transition-in-place program (funded

through the HUD Supportive Housing Program

as Transitional Housing) that is similar to the

RRHD model in many ways. That program

operates in scattered sites and provides 12

months of rental assistance coupled with case

management services.

For More Information

Jennifer Baha, Shelter, Inc.

http://shelterincofcccorg.presencehost.net

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Dayton/Kettering/Montgomery Counties, Ohio: Rapid Re-housing Program

Introduction

Homefull (previously The Other Place) has been working on homelessness prevention for 16 years

in the counties of Dayton, Kettering, and Montgomery and is a service provider offering the entire

continuum of homeless services for families, singles, and youth. Homefull administered the RRHD

program, delivered services, and conducted nal approvals on eligible clients and services. In addi-

tion to RRHD, Homefull focused on prevention assistance for at-risk families and individuals.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

186 36 Long term (9–12 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

Homefull was the grantee for RRHD and did

not use subgrantees for service delivery. Home-

full partnered with a local domestic violence

provider and reserved ve RRHD slots for victims

of domestic violence. The grantee expected to

serve more than 100 families over the course of

the grant period, with an expected point-in-time

capacity of 36 families.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Centralized Intake

In Dayton, Kettering, and Montgomery Coun-

ties, all homeless families were triaged through

the St. Vincent’s Family Gateway Shelter.

Assessment Instrument: Standardized Tool

Using Explicit Scoring Criteria

Literally homeless families were assessed using

the Front Door Comprehensive Assessment Tool,

and their numeric score determined whether

they qualied for RRHD; scores signied the

level of housing barriers that a family had, and

families with “moderate barriers” qualied

for RRHD. Homefull had moderately selective

scoring criteria.

After a family was determined eligible for RRHD,

the case manager immediately informed Home -

full, and the family began to work with the

Homefull case manager. That case manager

scheduled a meeting with the family and with

the Gateway case manager who had been

working with the family in the shelter. During

the meeting, the case managers explained the

program, made sure the family wanted to

participate, gathered information on families,

and developed a housing plan. The housing

plans addressed housing barriers (such as bills

in arrears and money for utilities) and housing

selection (that is, identifying housing based on

affordability and other family needs).

Service Delivery and Followup

After the family moved into housing, the case-

worker worked with the family to develop a

housing stability plan that included strategies

to increase the family’s income and agreement

about the size of the rental assistance based

on those incomes. The RRHD program helped

families apply for subsidized housing, if needed.

Families received between 9 and 12 months of

rental assistance on a graduated scale. Families

must pay at least a portion of the rent, and their

portion increased monthly or quarterly. The

family share of rent generally started at about

25 percent and increased to 50 percent within

a few months. Homefull did not pay its portion

of the rent until it veried with the landlord

that the family had paid its portion. The

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

program placed a strong focus on developing

strategies for families to increase their income,

which the counties involved in RRHD believed

results in families placing a high premium on

nding the ability to pay rent. Participation

in the program depended entirely on families

meeting the basic criteria of paying their rent

and working toward increasing their income.

The families set quarterly goals and were recer-

tied for the RRHD program every 3 months.

The services offered to families were based on

needs identied during the assessment and

initial meetings and were generally similar in

intensity and type to those of families living

in permanent supportive housing. All families

were linked to mainstream and community based

services, budgeting help, education, family cri-

sis information, job search assistance, training

referrals, youth and adult mentoring programs,

parenting programs, life skills training, and

legal help to address unpaid rent and bills.

Case management was not xed in either dura-

tion or intensity; it was increased or decreased

based on the family’s needs. After moving in,

families and case managers met approximately

two to three times per week for a period of time.

No followup services were provided after

program exit.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

During case conferencing, all organizations

providing a family with RRHD support (schools,

landlords, mainstream benet caseworkers,

Homefull case managers, and so on) met jointly

to discuss the case with the family. These meet-

ings were held as needed and were intended to

align efforts to support the family and to help

families learn of other resources that they

might be qualied to receive. Because RRHD

targeted families, the participating counties set

up their HPRP to serve mostly individuals and

also dedicated about 60 percent of HPRP funds

to prevention.

Future Planning

All counties engaged in the RRHD were inter-

ested in continuing to provide rapid re-housing

after the demonstration was complete. Mont-

gomery County recently created a tenant-based

rapid re-housing program with HOME funds.

In addition, Dayton was already in the early

stages of developing a front-door assessment

before the announcement of RRHD.

For More Information

Tina Patterson, Executive Director, Homefull

http://www.homefull.org

Kathleen Shanahan, CoC Lead, Homeless

Solutions Program Coordinator, Montgomery

County

http://www.mcohio.org

Joyce Probst MacAlpine, Manager of Housing

and Homeless Solutions, Montgomery County

http://www.mcohio.org

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Denver Metro, Colorado: Project Home Again

Introduction

The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless (CCH) operates a wide array of programs serving more

than 12,000 homeless people each year. CCH currently manages 35 HUD CoC grants and 25 grants

from other federal agencies, providing housing and services to homeless families and single individ -

uals. CCH convenes providers from different CoC geographic areas to coordinate homeless assistance

applications and to broaden access to funding for necessary housing and services. The RRHD was

seen as a unique opportunity to test the concept of diverting lower-barrier families to a short-term

program, enabling families with higher barriers to access the limited amount of other types of housing

assistance available.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

526 70 Short term (3–6 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

CCH served as the RRHD grantee and provided

both direct client assistance to RRHD partici-

pants in the City and County of Denver and

overall grant administration for three other

subgrantees representing Jefferson and Arapa-

hoe Counties (Family Tree), the City of Aurora

(Aurora Housing Corp.) and Adams County

(ACCESS Housing). Two of the subgrantees

relied on CCH for approval on nal client eligi -

bility and for the administration of housing

assistance. CCH anticipated serving more than

200 families over the grant period, with a point-

in-time capacity of 35 families.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Centralized, With Some

Variations

Client ow and assessment were conducted

separately within the four counties and one city

served by the Denver RRHD program. Each

of the four RRHD agencies served as a central

intake point for its jurisdiction. Three of the

RRHD agencies offered a broad continuum of

housing and homeless-related programs and

services that enabled caseworkers to place

families in the most appropriate housing pro -

gram administered directly by the RRHD agency.

Referrals to all the RRHD agencies came from the

County Human Services agency, day shelters,

overnight emergency shelters, street outreach

workers and the Denver metro 2-1-1 system.

Further, the RRHD agency in Denver, which

runs a large central intake function for families

for its own extremely broad and deep array of

family-related services, added an intake point

in the welfare ofce after the RRHD grant’s

rst year because of the reduced ow of fami-

lies after HPRP funding was fully expended.

Assessment Instrument: Arizona Self-

Sufciency Matrix Using Explicit Criteria

An RRHD staff member stationed at the welfare

ofce did screening and intake on site, using the

same procedures as the agency’s main ofces.

All clients were prescreened using a Barriers to

Housing Assessment tool based on the Arizona

Self-Sufciency Matrix. Prescreening was pri-

marily conducted over the phone or in person.

Assessment and intake were conducted in an

interview format with the RRHD case manager,

and the program has moderately selective scor-

ing criteria. Two of the RRHD agencies referred

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

families deemed appropriate to CCH for nal

approval, housing processing, and orientation.

Family Tree approved and administered the

housing assistance independently. When ap -

proved, RRHD case managers from the sub-

grantee organizations provided direct case

management and services to clients.

RRHD agencies did not initially track the num-

ber of families screened out of RRHD, but all

partner organizations offered a continuum of

housing, and if prescreening deemed a family

ineligible for RRHD, it was instead screened

into other, more intensive, longer-term suppor-

tive housing programs.

Service Delivery and Followup

A case plan was created during a prelease-up

phase during which the frequency of case man-

agement meetings depended upon the client’s

wants and needs. In the rst 3 months after the

lease-up phase, weekly or bimonthly 1-hour case

management meetings were required, although

some partner agencies provided weekly inhouse

site visits. In addition, inperson or phone contact

was also available as needed. During months

4 through 6, the agencies generally required

a bimonthly, 1-hour meeting with occasional

inperson or home visits.

Services were generally provided beginning

with prelease-up period through the 6 months.

All four agencies permitted exited participants

to return for specic case management needs,

however, including resource referrals, and do-

nated items. A comprehensive array of services

was provided by all partner agencies, with all

agencies focusing on increasing income. Thus,

employment assistance and benet acquisition

were central and key services provided to

participating families. Direct assistance was

provided to assist families with acquiring

mainstream benets, and all partner agencies

developed expedited processing procedures

with local county departments of human

services. In addition, all partner organizations

offered direct assistance with job training,

resume building, active job search assistance,

and referrals to area workforce centers. Case

managers indicated that their task was not only

about helping families nd a job but on develop -

ing skills and nding employment that would

help sustain their housing stability. Other key

services provided that were common across all

families include budget counseling, nancial

services and credit repair, life skills training,

health insurance resources, family planning,

nutrition, and access to donated items and food.

Rental assistance for each client was capped at

6 months, although all partner agencies felt that

the 6-month limit was restrictive and preferred

to have the exibility to increase the period of

assistance for up to 12 months. Exit interviews

were completed by partner agencies, and

agencies were expected to conduct a 6- and

12-month followup with clients.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

RRHD was sometimes being used to provide an

additional 6 months of case management and

rental assistance to families exiting transitional

housing. Also, the RRHD program was closely

aligned with HPRP for prescreening and assess -

ment activities. After Denver expended its

HPRP funds and CCH closed its HPRP program,

referrals to RRHD increased, with no slowdown

in the referral or assessment process.

Future Planning

If RRHD funding is not renewed, CCH will not

be likely to be able continue rapid re-housing

efforts.

For More Information

Susie Street, Colorado Coalition for the

Homeless

http://www.coloradocoalition.org

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

District of Columbia: Rapid Re-housing Initiative

Introduction

The Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness (TCP) manages CoC planning

and public grant allocation for the complete homeless system in the District of Columbia. TCP also

directly operates two family shelters and inventories systemwide availability for transitional housing,

rapid re-housing, and permanent supportive housing.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

403 17 Long term (12–15 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

TCP was the RRHD grantee and reviewed

program referrals from shelters, made assign-

ments, and administered the rental assistance

for participating families. RRHD was funded to

assist 16 to 17 families at a time for a total of 50

families during the 3-year grant period. In the

rst year of operation, 13 families were housed,

and another was pending housing placement.

TCP chose Transitional Housing Corporation

(THC) as its subgrantee and primary service

provider. THC had one FTE case manager and

one FTE housing coordinator for RRHD.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Centralized

Families in the District must go to Virginia

Williams Central Intake to access shelter. The

Central Intake could refer families to RRHD.

In addition, all family shelters conducted an

initial assessment with clients, using an adapta-

tion of the Arizona Family Self-Sufciency matrix.

Shelters made referrals based in large part on

the Arizona Family Self-Sufciency scores.

Assessment Instrument: Standardized Tool

Using Explicit Scoring Criteria

TCP staff received the referrals and looked

within domains to determine RRHD eligibility.

To determine eligibility, TCP staff looked for

families with fewer barriers, meaning no mental

health, substance abuse, or child abuse issues

that would impede their ability to gain employ -

ment or self-sufciency. When space was avail-

able in the RRHD program and TCP identied

a family meeting the “few barriers” threshold,

TCP referred to the family to THC. THC accepted

all families referred by TCP.

Service Delivery and Followup

The THC housing coordinator immediately

contacted the original referring shelter and the

family to begin work toward placing the family

in housing. The shelter continued to provide

case management to the family throughout this

time period. THC did not begin case manage-

ment until the family was placed in housing,

which could be found either through a landlord

on TCP’s affordable housing list or by the family.

At the start of case management with THC,

the family and case manager used the family’s

housing history to develop a case plan with

goals for the family to pursue. Case managers

provided weekly in-home visits to review pro g-

ress on the case plan and realign target dates,

as needed. Services were provided for the

duration of program enrollment and included

employment training, housing retention sup-

port, life skills, family services, and wellness.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

RRHD provided a rental subsidy for at least

12 months, with a maximum stated period of

15 months. Families paid 30 percent of their

income on rent plus utilities (unless included

in rent) and any amount over the Fair Market

Rent (FMR). Income and rent contributions

were reassessed monthly.

After the family was housed, the housing coor -

dinator conducted monthly home inspections,

followed up with landlords to prevent escala-

tion of issues, and educated tenants on utilities,

landlord relations, and neighbor relations. The

housing coordinator often worked hand in

hand with the case manager to address issues

that emerged from the weekly case management

visits or monthly home inspection. When rental

assistance ended, the housing coordinator en -

sured a smooth transition for the RRHD program

and tenant. With RRHD assistance, families

were likely to be able to stay in the same unit,

because most landlords in the District would

not have been willing to qualify the family for

the unit or would have required an unreasonable

security deposit.

THC did not explicitly plan to provide followup

assistance but planned to organize a group for

families who have graduated.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

TCP recognized that family size was a signicant

barrier to achieving economic self-sufciency,

so TCP populated its housing list with as many

three-bedroom units as possible to ensure that

it could house larger families.

Future Planning

RRHD staff believed the key to economic

self-sufciency for families exiting shelter is

to subsidize their housing so they can pursue

career-based employment, something that will

require years to achieve, not months. TCP is

considering targeting future rapid re-housing

funds to families who have yet to enter shelter,

who are reaching the end of project-based

transitional housing stays, or who have been in

shelter for awhile and have made substantial

progress toward employment.

For More Information

Michele Salters, Chief of Programs, TCP

http://www.community-partnership.org

Polly Donaldson, Executive Director, THC

http://www.thcdc.org

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Kalamazoo/Portage, Michigan: Housing Resources, Inc., Rapid Re-housing Pilot

Introduction

Housing Resources, Inc. (HRI) has provided housing services to the Kalamazoo area for more than

30 years, serving as the single point of contact within the CoC for all housing emergencies. HRI is

the lead agency administering state Section 8 vouchers reserved for homeless people with incomes at

or below 30 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) and serves as lead for city and state HPRP funds

and administers all prevention, rapid re-housing, and similar funding sources in the CoC that are

intended to address housing emergencies. Kalamazoo saw RRHD as an opportunity to allocate more

resources to homeless families, a population that the community recognized as underserved in its CoC.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

161 20 Long term (up to 18 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

HRI used RRHD funds to help families rent

apartments in private-market or tax-credit prop -

erties throughout the community and provide

supportive services and linkages to help the

families stay there. HRI planned to serve 20 to

21 families at a time for a total of 60 families

during the 3 grant years. In the rst 16 months

of operation, HRI served 21 families under

RRHD. About one-half of the families were

homeless for the rst time, and one-half had

been homeless once or twice before. At intake,

57 percent of the families were unemployed; 67

percent were homeless because of household

conict (usually domestic violence).

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Centralized

HRI runs the Housing Resource Center (HRC),

which provides a single point of entry for all

the county’s housing programs; 2-1-1 serves as

its 24/7 intake and referral source for emergency

housing. All clients applying for housing assist-

ance at the HRC complete the same application

form (which gathers the data needed for all

the programs that the HRC can offer [RRHD,

HPRP, and others]) and go through the same

screening and assessment process before HRI

staff analyze each assessment and determine

what type of assistance to offer.

Families who seek emergency shelter, particu-

larly those seeking help at HRI’s Eleanor House

shelter or the YWCA’s domestic violence program,

were prescreened for RRHD. Those families

could not have more than three episodes of

homelessness, and families with incomes between

30 and 50 percent of AMI were granted priority.

Assessment Instrument: Arizona Self-

Sufciency Matrix Using Explicit Scoring

Criteria

Shelter staff completed a Decision Matrix and

alerted RRHD’s landlord liaison ofcer (LLO)

to schedule an interview with the family. The

LLO met the family and veried income and

rental histories as the RRHD case managers

completed a modied Arizona Self-Sufciency

Matrix, which scores for primary domain areas

of income, employment, and credit. The RRHD

program had moderately selective admittance

criteria.

HRI/HRC is the coordinator of virtually all

housing-related programs in the community

for low-income people, families, and single

adults other than those administered by the

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

PHA. All intake information is presented to

the Housing Allocation Committee, which is a

part of the HRC. The Housing Allocation Com-

mittee, which oversees all offers of housing to

households using the HRC, makes the nal de-

cisions regarding which families will be offered

RRHD and approves all recertications that

extend rental assistance for 1 or more months.

Service Delivery and Followup

The LLO helped families nd housing after

they were accepted into RRHD, and case

management began after families were housed.

RRHD provided up to 18 months of rental as-

sistance and supportive case management.

Case management focused on maintaining em-

ployment, and families were required to meet

with case managers at least every 2 months.

Case managers tried to connect families with

employment training; general equivalency di-

ploma, or GED, classes; disability services; and

state aid programs. Families entering RRHD

from the YWCA’s domestic violence shelter

also received 12 months of continued YWCA

support, concurrent with their rst 12 months

in RRHD. Case managers conduct quarterly,

inperson recertication, all of which must be

approved by Housing Allocation Committee.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

A Housing Allocation Committee made nal

decisions about payments and recertication,

intentionally removing decisions to extend

or reduce assistance from the case manager’s

hands. HRI felt that this approach provided

the case manager leverage when encouraging

the family to work actively on increasing their

income, as the case manager must justify any

recommendation to extend rental assistance on

the basis that the family is making signicant

progress toward its employment and other goals.

Future Planning

Communitywide support exists for rapid re-

housing, but the future shows no sign that the

dwindling funds will be replaced.

For More Information

Housing Resources Inc.

http://www.housingresourcesinc.org

Ellen Kisinger-Rothi, Executive Director

Molly Petersen, Associate Director

Cindy Graham, Grants/Community Planning

Ofcer

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Lancaster County Rapid Re-housing for Families

Introduction

Tabor Community Services (Tabor), both the grantee and the primary service provider for the

RRHD, has provided rapid re-housing services in the community since 1992, without any funding

set aside for that activity. The RRHD provided Tabor with an opportunity to build on its existing

program model and provide enhanced levels of assistance and services to families lacking housing

stability. In addition to existing rapid re-housing programming, Tabor provides emergency shelter,

transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing to both families and individuals.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

76 24 Short term (3–6 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

As noted previously, Tabor has taken on the

role of both grant administrator and primary

service delivery provider for the RRHD. The

United Way of Lancaster County was an RRHD

subgrantee and served as the central intake for

this program and for HPRP. The staff at Tabor

decided which families would receive RRHD

services, and Tabor worked closely with other

emergency shelters in the area to establish a

referral system for the program. Tabor sought

to serve 24 families per year, aiming to serve

between 15 and 17 families at a time. If the

program was at capacity, clients were screened,

assessed, and referred to HPRP, if they were

eligible.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Centralized

After a family had been in any one of the eight

local emergency shelters for 7 days, their case

manager discussed the RRHD program with

them. If both the client and case manager be-

lieved it was a good t, then the case manager

and the client would contact the United Way

together to begin the initial screening process.

The case manager normally spoke rst with

the United Way staff to make the initial contact

and to formally refer the client to the program.

During that same United Way phone call, the

client spoke directly to the central intake staff

person to conrm that she or he met the ad-

ditional eligibility criteria.

Assessment Instrument: Case Management-

Oriented Tool Using Implicit Scoring Criteria

Families deemed eligible for RRHD completed

a Needs Assessment (initial intake) with

United Way during the call. United Way staff

conrmed that the family met basic RRHD eli-

gibility criteria, and then e-mailed conrmation

to Tabor, which mailed the family an introduc-

tion letter and packet (including a list of items

for the client to bring to intake) requesting

that the family call Tabor if interested in the

RRHD. After clients called, the Tabor intake

specialist reviewed the assessment questions

with the family again to determine whether the

family was eligible for RRHD or needed ad-

ditional housing diversion counsel. Tabor then

conducted a nal assessment and collected the

required income and homeless documentation

to determine whether the family could be

enrolled in RRHD. Although families may

need to be somewhat motivated to complete

the multistage process, the program had fairly

broad selection criteria.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Service Delivery and Followup

At program entry, a household service plan

was developed with goals and action steps to

get the family housed. Several case managers

at Tabor worked to nd housing by using a

housing search e-mail group that shared hous-

ing options that may be a good t for RRHD

and HPRP. Other housing search resources

included a list of more than 300 partnering

landlords and a link on the Tabor website that

landlords used to notify Tabor staff of an open

unit. After a family was housed, the amount

of rental assistance was based on its monthly

budget. Service plans and progress were re-

viewed on a monthly basis, and normally both

the service plan and the budget were adjusted

quarterly.

Tabor found that after a family was housed,

additional needs often came up, such as mental

health issues, legal assistance, utility help, and

child care. Tabor also provided assistance with

several items related to employment (resume

building, job search, and so on). Ongoing case

management services were offered to clients

for 6 months after housing placement, which

is distinctly different from the 18 months of

followup for HPRP clients and 13 months of

followup for some other programs that Tabor

operates.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

The community chose to closely align imple-

mentation of HPRP and the RRHD. In fact,

the RRHD assessment tools were adjusted to

become identical to the HPRP tool. In addition,

when no space existed for new clients in the

RRHD, they were often referred to HPRP.

One key difference was that with the housing

search and assistance available through RRHD,

Tabor housed families within an average of

1 month, compared with previous rapid re-

housing efforts that took 3 months.

Future Planning

The Lancaster community is committed to con-

tinuing rapid re-housing efforts when the dem-

onstration is complete. Given Tabor’s previous

history with this intervention, the community

knows that it can successfully house homeless

families without much of the additional fund-

ing that comes with the demonstration. Both

the CoC and the Lancaster Coalition to End

Homelessness were involved in the decision to

encourage Tabor to apply, and a strong desire

to continue those efforts remains.

For More Information

Tamara Martin, Tabor Community Services

http://www.tabornet.org

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Madison, Wisconsin: Second Chance RRHD Program

Introduction

The Road Home and the YWCA are members of Madison and Dane County’s active and collabora-

tive CoC and have a history of working together to house and support homeless families. The Road

Home activities all focus on family homelessness, while the YWCA serves women with and without

children and has both homeless and community-oriented programs.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

124 6 Long term (12 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

The Road Home was the RRHD grantee and

subgranted funding to the YWCA to screen

and select participants for RRHD. The RRHD

program served six families at a time in six

scattered-site apartments. The rst wave of

six families graduated after 12 months of par-

ticipation and the program housed its next six

families on December 1, 2010; a third wave was

anticipated to start on December 1, 2011.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Decentralized

Families were referred to the YWCA from three

shelters (the YWCA, The Salvation Army, and

The Road Home’s Interfaith shelter network).

The referral process began when shelters were

alerted that an RRHD slot was open for a new

family. Shelter caseworkers then reviewed

current families and used the Second Chance

Apartment Project Checklist to determine

eligibility.

Assessment Instrument: Standardized Tool

With Explicit Scoring Criteria

The RRHD director at the YWCA received

and reviewed these referrals, met with the

families to ask for more information, and used

the Second Chance Apartment Leasing Project

Screening Tool to summarize and score the

results of the review. The scoring process was

fairly broad and generally screened in families;

however, the director usually ended up with two

possible applicants for each slot, and assigned

priority to the families based on (1) income,

(2) not having the worst credit and being open to

budgeting, and (3) not having horrible recom-

mendations from landlords (that is, family lost

housing through no fault of their own). After a

family was approved for RRHD, the case was

transferred to the RRHD case manager.

Service Delivery and Followup

Each family received up to 12 months of rent

subsidy plus intensive case management. The

YWCA found apartments for RRHD families

within its wide network of landlords partici-

pating in its transitional housing, permanent

supportive housing, or other affordable hous-

ing programs. The Road Home signed and held

the lease on these apartments for the length of

time a family was in the program. If the family

could afford to take over the apartment after

program exit, The Road Home transferred the

lease to the family.

Each family paid 30 percent of its monthly

income for rent; 80 percent of that payment

(24 percent of tenant income) was deposited

into an individual development account (IDA).

IDA funds may be used while the family is in

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

the program for credit repair or large expenses

related to goals in the family’s case plan. They

may also be used for housing entry expenses

after the family leaves the program, if the

family is not able to remain in the RRHD apart-

ment.

The RRHD grant paid only for case manage-

ment and linkages to other services. All actual

services came from local agencies and services.

Linkages most commonly completed include

(1) local public benets, (2) employment and

training opportunities, or (3) enrollment in

school or a certication program if possible

within the RRHD timeframe. The rst six

families needed help to nd a less expensive

apartment when the year ended. Although all

did stay in permanent housing, only one could

afford to stay in the apartment the program

found for her family.

After a family moved into housing, the RRHD

case manager met with the family to create an

action plan and a budget; both of which were

revised at future monthly meetings.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

The Road Home and the YWCA were able to

capitalize on an existing partnership: an exist-

ing United Way—funded a rapid re-housing

program and a regular transitional housing

program (Second Chance Apartments). Given

this team structure, The Road Home and the

YWCA took what worked well in their joint

programs and combined these elements in the

RRHD program.

Another unique aspect of the program is the

IDA, a set-aside of 24 percent of the tenant’s

rent payments each month. These funds may

be used for expenses related to the family’s

case plan or for housing entry expenses when

the family leaves RRHD.

Future Planning

The community will continue to provide rapid

re-housing programming as part of its CoC, as

long as it has the resources available to do it.

The United Way’s rapid re-housing program

capacity recently expanded from 45 to 55

families. Experience revealed that each family

needed fewer resources than anticipated, al-

lowing for the program to serve more families.

The program is likely to expand again, prob-

ably by eight families (bringing the total capac-

ity to 63 at a time), because of a state decision

to add a rapid re-housing segment to the state

Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG)/transitional

housing (TH) HUD grant in the coming scal

year.

For More Information

Rachel Krinsky, Executive Director, The Road

Home

http://www.trhome.org

Heather Amundson, RRHD Manager, YWCA

http://www.ywcamadison.org

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Montgomery County, Maryland: Montgomery County Rapid Re-housing Program

Introduction

The National Center for Children and Families (NCCF) has served the children, youth, and families

of Washington, D.C., and Montgomery County, Maryland, for more than 100 years. NCCF is an

active member of the Montgomery County CoC, working in cooperation with the county and other

local providers. The Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services referred

potential RRHD families to the NCCF, and NCCF housed them in one of seven apartments that it

master-leases in Gaithersburg and Silver Spring. The NCCF provided intensive casework services for

the entire 12 to 15 months that families received rental assistance through RRHD.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

272 7 Short term or long term (3–15 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

NCCF was the RRHD grantee and sole service

provider for this program. NCCF served seven

families at a time, with an expectation of serv-

ing 21 families during the 3-year grant period.

In April 2011, NCCF was just beginning to see

turnover in the rst wave of families and had

accepted two new families into the program.

Of the rst seven families who enrolled in the

program in May 2010 and received 12 to 15

months of rental assistance, two exited: One

family received a Veterans Affairs Supportive

Housing voucher and U.S. Department of

Veterans Affairs supportive services, and one

went on to market-rate housing.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Centralized

All families and single adults in need of assis-

tance in Montgomery County went rst to one

of three county service centers, which share a

common client database. County social work-

ers at the service centers assessed the family

using a standardized assessment tool, which

includes housing barriers. The assessment

produces a housing score based on a modied

version of the Arizona Self-Sufciency Matrix,

with higher scores indicating more barriers. All

literally homeless families were put on a cen-

tralized housing provider list. Families deemed

to need longer term but not permanent help are

placed on a transitional housing sublist. NCCF

selected families from this list for its RRHD

program and did so at a monthly meeting with

other transitional housing providers in the

county.

Assessment Instrument: Self-Sufciency

Matrix Using Explicit Scoring Criteria

After a family had been identied as a potential

t for RRHD, NCCF set up an interview to

further review eligibility criteria and barriers

to housing with the family. During these inter-

views, the NCCF used its own Self-Sufciency

Assessment to assess current and potential bar-

riers to housing and possible difculties with

the RRHD landlords. NCCF targeted families

with few barriers and was highly selective.

NCCF or the landlord then checked the family

through the Maryland Case Search, a database

with records of any judgments against or in-

volving the family, including criminal, housing

court, divorce, domestic violence, trafc court,

and outstanding warrants.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Based on the number of barriers identied in

the assessment and a judgment on the part

of NCCF as to how long it would likely take

families to overcome their barriers and pay for

their own housing, the NCCF offered families

either 3 to 6 or 12 to 15 months of rental as-

sistance. Most families were offered 3 months

to begin with and the case manager conducted

monthly reassessments to determine future

rental assistance.

Service Delivery and Followup

As part of the process of moving into apart-

ments, RRHD provided families with appropri-

ate resources for furniture, clothes, and food

needed. The RRHD case manager met with

families at least weekly to review case plan

progress and encourage continuing action.

Routine linkages were made as needed to TANF,

medical assistance, employment services, child

care, mental health assessment and counseling

for children and adults, and domestic violence

services. The major focus of RRHD case manage -

ment was to help the families obtain sufcient

income to afford housing without the RRHD

assistance, but the case manager also worked

with the families on issues such as improved

access to benets and other sources of assistance,

safety planning if domestic violence was a fac-

tor in homelessness, and ensuring that children

are in school and getting appropriate health

care. After rental assistance through RRHD

ended, NCCF continued to follow the family

for 6 months and offered assistance as needed.

If, at the end of RRHD, a family had received

county-administered state rental assistance

(RAP), then the followup was 12 months, as

required by RAP.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

This program targeted families with low bar-

riers to housing whose economic situation had

suddenly become marginal because of the eco-

nomic downturn but who have strong histories

of work and housing stability and relatively

few additional problems.

Future Planning

When RRHD was rst proposed, the commu-

nity worked as it does now to receive homeless

families and assign them to an appropriate

level of care. The community did not have rap-

id re-housing at the time, and at the time of the

site visit, only had rapid re-housing through

RRHD and HPRP. When those programs end,

the outcome is not clear.

For More Information

Dr. Sheryl Brisset Chapman, Executive Direc-

tor, NCCF

http://www.nccf-cares.org

Kim Ball, Director of Special Needs Housing,

Montgomery County Department of Health

and Human Services

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

New Orleans/Jefferson Parish, Louisiana: Rapid Re-housing for Families

Introduction

At the time the Greater New Orleans CoC wrote its RRHD application, it was already using a rapid

re-housing model with resources from the Community Development Block Grant and post-Hurricane

Katrina disaster relief. The city recognized the success of this model, and when the opportunity to

apply for RRHD arose, UNITY, the CoC convener, quickly grasped the chance to serve many of the

CoC’s families returning after Hurricane Katrina that were facing the highest rate of extreme rent

burden of any major American city with extremely low skills and work experience.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

55 122 Short term (3–6 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

UNITY of Greater New Orleans leads a CoC

of 62 housing and homeless service providers

in New Orleans and Jefferson Parishes; it was

notied of the RRHD grant award in 2009

and began serving families in August 2010.

UNITY subgranted to The Salvation Army

and Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New

Orleans (CCANO) for actual service delivery;

and each agency ran its own RRHD program.

Subgrantees each had one RRHD case manager

and provided housing, services, and some

screening, while staff of UNITY’s Central

Coordinating Ofce (CCO) conducted the rest

of the screening and made the nal decisions

on RRHD program acceptance.

All families were being served in scattered-

site apartments, and the program design

anticipated that families would remain in those

apartments after the RRHD rent subsidy ex-

pired. In the past, UNITY had used its Housing

Choice Vouchers to back up rapid re-housing

assistance, and it expected that many RRHD

families would be able to transition to vouch-

ers, although RRHD provided only short-term

(3 to 6 months) assistance and many families

had moderate barriers to housing.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Decentralized

The Salvation Army’s RRHD program re-

cruited from its own family emergency shelter,

conducted the initial screening and assessment,

and then received nal approval from the CCO.

Since CCANO did not operate its own emer-

gency shelter; the agency received referrals

from CCO, other agencies, and self-referrals.

Assessment Instrument: Standardized Tool

Using Explicit Scoring Criteria

CCO required a completed Screening Checklist

to verify homelessness and the prospect of

income and a completed Barriers to Housing

Assessment form that demonstrated moderate

housing barriers before it would sign off on

program acceptance. The RRHD had fairly

broad selection criteria and would accept

families with a wide range of barriers. The

CCO reviewed referrals and the requisite

eligibility documentation within 24 hours and

the enrolled families into RRHD.

Service Delivery and Followup

Families who entered RRHD at The Salvation

Army meet with The Salvation Army RRHD

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

case manager to discuss housing history

and goals. They developed a case plan that

began with securing housing and nding

employment or better employment, and then

had weekly phone contact to maintain focus

on the case plan. In-person meetings were

required monthly. The case manager arranged

for supplementary resources using the many

linkages and partnerships that The Salvation

Army developed over the years, from furniture

and job skills acquisition to child care and legal

assistance.

At CCANO, a case manager met families to de-

velop and sign a service plan that specied the

obligations of both the families and CCANO.

They focused on determining the level of salary

needed to maintain stable housing and the

skills or credentials necessary to obtain that

salary.

The case manager acted as the central point for

all public or private assistance and brought the

applications for TANF and SSI, for example,

straight to the families instead of making them

travel to various ofces.

Both The Salvation Army and CCANO use

UNITY’s comprehensive web-based inventory

of affordable housing (UNITY devotes two

non-RRHD staff to recruit landlords and main-

tain the list) as one resource to help families

secure housing. When the 6 months of rental

subsidy end, families are expected to take over

entire rent payments. Neither The Salvation

Army nor CCANO had a formal followup

policy after rental assistance ends, but both

reported that case managers were always avail-

able to former clients, and both had an array

of services such as food pantries and clothes

closets that may have brought client families

back into contact.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

Because UNITY has a designated number of

Housing Choice Vouchers from the Housing

Authority of New Orleans, it was been able

to provide extended temporary or permanent

rental assistance to many families who still

need it but have graduated from RRHD.

Future Planning

Although pleased with the success of RRHD,

UNITY is not sure how to continue the rapid

re-housing model after both HPRP and RRHD

funding disappear. The City of New Orleans

has never funded homeless services from its

general fund; whether it can be convinced to do

so in the future is not clear.

For More Information

Vicki Judice or Valerie Reinhard, UNITY of

Greater New Orleans

http://www.unitygno.org

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Ohio Balance of State: Ohio Balance of State Rapid Re-housing Grant Program

Introduction

The Salvation Army of Central Ohio is a leading rapid re-housing provider throughout Ohio.

Working closely with the Coalition on Housing and Homelessness in Ohio to identify targeted com-

munities in need of homeless assistance, The Salvation Army trains partner agencies throughout the

80-county coverage areas to deliver its structured rapid re-housing model.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

742 358 Short term and long term (4–18 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

The Salvation Army was the grantee for the

BOS’s RRHD and served as the programmatic

and scal administrator. RRHD had two FTE

program managers, a 0.25 FTE program su-

pervisor, and 0.10 senior/nancial staff for the

program. The RRHD program provided both

short-term (4 to 6 months) and long-term (9 to

12 months) nancial assistance. All families

were eligible for up to 18 months of case man-

agement assistance regardless of the short-term

versus long-term rent assistance pathway.

Partner agencies provided all direct service

and case management and were able to enroll

and serve as many families as were eligible.

This program had no capacity issues because it

expanded based on demand.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Decentralized, Given Its Wide

Geographic Spread

The Salvation Army identied points of entry

at agencies located in communities throughout

the Ohio BOS geography. The RRHD points of

entry were well known to staff at other human

service agencies within these communities,

and all agencies attempted to seamlessly refer

families to the RRHD subgrantees.

Assessment Instrument: Arizona Self-

Sufciency Matrix Using Explicit Scoring

Criteria

RRHD staff designed a Housing Barriers

Assessment Tool that scored family self-

sufciency in 12 housing domains. The RRHD

program had fairly broad selection criteria, so

families without rental histories, without high

school diplomas, with behavioral or mental

problems, with minor criminal histories or legal

problems, with domestic violence experience,

and with credit problems were still considered

appropriate for RRHD. Active addictions, cur-

rent sexual abuse or domestic violence within

the family, or four or more evictions were some

of the barriers that screened out families for

RRHD. Referring agencies sent scoring and eli-

gibility documentation to The Salvation Army,

which then made a nal determination about

enrollment. After the family was approved

for program enrollment, partner agencies

completed an Intake Assessment. The Intake

Assessment captured all necessary household

member demographic information, household

income, and disability status.

Service Delivery and Followup

RRHD partner agencies completed a Housing

Search Flow Chart with each household during

the rst 3 weeks of enrollment. The ow chart

identied the necessary housing search tasks

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

that the household must complete and the

housing support services that The Salvation

Army support staff offered.

After families secured their own housing (rst

month’s rent and security deposit were guaran-

teed), they completed three plans or contracts

with their case manager: the Participation

Contract, a Goal Plan, and an Individualized

Financial Plan. The Participant Contract out-

lined expectations for family involvement, level

of expected nancial assistance, the case plan-

ning process, and budget monitoring process.

A Goal Plan documented weekly expectations

for the family’s tasks and action steps. An

Individualized Financial Plan identied the

projected amount of direct client nancial assis-

tance necessary to achieve goals. The nancial

needs were projected over the enrollment pe-

riod so the family understood the total amount

potentially available to them during the course

of program enrollment.

Families were reassessed monthly for ongoing

monthly nancial assistance and only received

continued assistance if progress toward goals

was demonstrated and documented. Case man-

agement did not necessarily end if nancial

assistance was withheld, however.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

Ohio BOS nearly exclusively served families

from rural communities without shelter systems.

Permitting families to nd their own housing

enabled them to access familiar support networks

such as schools, churches, employers, community

centers, and family and friends.

Future Planning

After RRHD, rapid re-housing will continue in

this region. For much more than 10 years, The

Salvation Army of Columbus has successfully

delivered rapid re-housing programs to home-

less families. In 1998, The Salvation Army, Colum -

bus Area Services made an organizational shift

to housing-rst programming and began its

rst RRHD program. During the past 10 years,

The Salvation Army of the Greater Columbus

Area has continued to embrace a housing-rst

model of programming. Using this model, it

has successfully expanded housing programs

in both urban and rural locations and is recog-

nized throughout the state and by HUD as a

best-practice rapid re-housing program.

For More Information

Beth Fetzer-Rice, Social Services Director, The

Salvation Army of Central Ohio

http://www.salvationarmycolumbus.org

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Orlando, Florida: Housing Now

Introduction

Homeless Services Network of Central Florida (HSN) is the lead agency for the CoC for Osceola,

Seminole, and Orange Counties, Florida, including the City of Orlando. HSN is an established grant

administrator in central Florida and has brought more than $45 million in HUD Supportive Housing

Program (SHP) funds to the area. Before RRHD, the CoC had little capacity to offer rental or utility

assistance, so HSN saw RRHD as an opportunity to quickly assess families seeking emergency shel-

ter and move them out to community housing.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

590 64 Long term (6–12 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

HSN is the RRHD grantee and subgranted

funds to the Coalition for the Homeless Central

Florida (CFTH), the region’s largest emergency

shelter services provider. CFTH ran the RRHD

program with a program director, outreach

and marketing specialist (OMS), and two case

managers. Families receive 6 to 12 months

of rental assistance, which is provided on a

declining basis.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Decentralized

RRHD received referrals from CFTH’s emer-

gency shelter and other central Florida shelters,

agencies serving homeless or low-income fami-

lies, homeless liaison staff at schools, and fami-

lies themselves. All families entering CFTH’s

shelter were prescreened for RRHD with the

Florida version of the Arizona Self-Sufciency

Matrix for consistency of focus on family needs

across all domains. Later, the matrix was used

to identify areas in which families were making

progress or have signicant needs. This assess-

ment was updated after 6 months.

Eligible families had to have one or more of

the following housing barriers: nancial strain,

inadequate employment, inadequate child

care resources, low education or command of

English, legal problems, mild health diagnosis,

mild substance abuse, poor rental history, or

poor credit history. Families who were in crisis

or vulnerable in some domains (such as credit)

may have been eligible, but not if the crisis

fell into the substance abuse or mental health

domain.

Assessment Instrument: Case Management-

Oriented Tools Using Implicit Scoring

Criteria

The CFTH’s RRHD case manager reviewed the

matrix results of prescreened families, and then

formally referred selected families based on the

parents’ education, job history, and employ-

ment potential. Other shelters that could make

referrals to RRHD use a Housing Now Eligibil-

ity Packet that described eligibility guidelines

and expectations of enrolled participants and

a Housing Now Program Referral form that

indicated that the family had at least one of the

nine moderate barriers described previously.

The RRHD program director reviewed the

Arizona Self-Sufciency Matrix results or the

Housing Now Program Referral forms, and

then the OMS interviewed the family about its

housing history, needs, and preferences and

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

conducts a background check to make sure

the family has had no more than two previous

evictions and two episodes of homelessness in

the past 5 years. During this interview, the fam-

ily lled out an RRHD application and answers

were checked against HMIS data. Overall, the

program had moderately selective criteria,

and motivated participants were frequently

deemed appropriate candidates.

Service Delivery and Followup

The OMS reached out to landlords, presented

ideas to families of where to look for housing,

and advocated for families who did not meet

the landlord’s current tenant screening criteria,

because of deciencies such as poor credit.

Families were also required to attend a 4-hour

credit workshop while searching for housing.

When the family found a housing unit, the

OMS inspected it and may have requested

HPRP utility assistance for the family, if

eligible. The case manager then met with the

family to gure out what they needed to move

in, including furniture.

The program paid the entire security deposit

and rst month’s rent. Rental assistance was

provided for 6 to 12 months, normally declin-

ing by 20 percent monthly after the rst month

but determined by a family budget (created

with the case manager after a review of the

family’s income, expenses, debt repayments,

and barriers) and the amount of time projected

to become self-sufcient.

Case managers met with families weekly

during the rst month or two after move-in,

then monthly, making calls in between to

develop debt management plans, address life

skills, and connect to necessary services. The

case manager also provided individuals with

referrals to health or substance abuse services,

health care, life skills training, and counseling.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

CFTS used the Arizona Self-Sufciency Matrix

to identify families with moderate barriers

instead of certain high barriers. This tool did

not require that families achieve a threshold

score and did not calculate total scores.

Future Planning

Before RRHD, the CoC had little capacity to

offer assistance with rent and utility costs, and

the CoC leadership at HSN saw RRHD as an

opportunity for shelters to quickly assess fami-

lies seeking emergency shelter and move them

out to community housing. Families who could

have beneted from rapid re-housing and did

not need intensive services may have stayed

in shelter longer than needed before funds

became available for rapid re-housing.

HSN supports the rapid-re-housing model, but

it is not clear whether there is enough commu-

nity support to fund ongoing efforts to provide

rapid re-housing beyond the demonstration

program.

For More Information

Cathy Jackson, Executive Director, Housing

Services Network of Central Florida

http://www.hsnc.org

Stacy McKenna, Director of Housing Now,

Coalition for the Homeless Central Florida

http://www.centraloridahomeless.org

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Overland Park/Shawnee/Johnson County, Kansas: Housing for Homeless

Introduction

Catholic Charities of Northeast Kansas (CCNEK) was the RRHD grantee and service provider for

Overland Park, Shawnee, and Johnson County. CCNEK is a medium-sized organization that serves

21 counties and operates a shelter for homeless men in one of them. In Johnson County, a relatively

afuent suburb of Kansas City, agencies are accustomed to working together, as no one agency has

the resources to do it all.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

88 6 Long term (12 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

CCNEK planned to serve 18 families during a

3-year period.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Decentralized

The RRHD program accepted referrals from

Johnson County’s emergency shelter and do-

mestic violence shelter, which screened families

based on minimal criteria: that they had been

homeless for the past 7 days and that children

were part of the household. CCNEK also ac-

cepted referrals from The Salvation Army and

self-referrals.

Assessment Instrument: Arizona Self-

Sufciency Matrix Using Explicit Scoring

Criteria

CCNEK screened all referrals to determine

eligibility for RRHD using the Arizona Self-

Sufciency Matrix: Families were required

to have at least one adult who was able to

work, had a history of employment, and was

either working or searching for a job. The

program had relatively broad selection criteria

that aimed to identify families who needed

short-term rental assistance and were likely to

stabilize their situation within 6 to 12 months.

Service Delivery and Followup

The amount of rental assistance provided was

intended by the program to be exible and

individualized based on the family plan, up

to a maximum of $4,350 for each family. As

designed, the program might pay the entire rent

with a subsidy for 3 to 6 months or might cover

100 percent of the rent for the rst 3 months,

and then 50 percent of the rent for the next

3 months. As implemented, however, the rst

families served by the program were provided

a subsidy covering the entire rent until the

family had received the maximum of $4,350.

The local HUD eld ofce then directed the

program to provide the same level of assistance

for all other families participating in the pro-

gram instead of taking a graduated approach

that would have required some families to

contribute increasing amounts toward rent as

the subsidy amounts declined.

Each family was required to set up a plan with

a budget, savings account, and a schedule

(the schedule included employment sup-

ports, building support networks, education

supports, transportation supports and other

identied barrier supports). The plan and

budget were reviewed every month, and the

rent subsidy, plan, and budget were adjusted

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

as needed. Families were required to meet with

the case manager at least once a week at rst

and less frequently (every 2 weeks or once a

month) after they become employed and stable

in housing. In-home visits provided the op-

portunity for case managers to notice problems

with housekeeping skills and to work with

families to make a plan to prevent problems

that might otherwise lead to housing loss.

Parents were required to participate in nancial

education classes, establish a monthly budget

(which was reviewed with the case manager),

and set up a savings account.

Rental assistance was capped, but case man-

agement services were available to families as

long as needed. The agency generally followed

families until they were stabilized, employed,

and paying rent on their own. Case managers

made periodic followup phone calls to check in.

The program provided case management and

housing subsidies and encouragement and

support for families who were seeking employ-

ment. The program provided a job board,

transportation assistance to search for jobs, and

a referral system for services available through

the workforce system.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

Because CCNEK found it difcult to help

clients quickly receive public services such as

SNAP or subsidized housing, the organization

instead tried to create wraparound services by

utilizing interagency relationships. Case man-

agers had steady contact with schools, other

organizations, and other service providers that

Catholic Charities had worked with in the past.

Future Planning

CCNEK planned to work with the CoC to seek

other federal funding to sustain the program,

if funding were available for new programs

through the annual competition for Homeless

Assistance Grants. CCNEK would like to

replicate the infrastructure created for RRHD,

use it to assist other vulnerable families, and

publicize the model for programs supported

with private funding.

For More Information

Valerie Carson, CoC Lead, United Community

Services

http://www.ucsjoco.org

James Cianciaruso, Director of Family Stabiliza-

tion, CCNEK

http://www.catholiccharitiesks.org

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Phoenix/Mesa/Maricopa County, Arizona: Next Step Housing

Introduction

RRHD in Phoenix/Mesa/Maricopa County was facilitated by two of the biggest providers of as-

sistance to homeless families in the area, UMOM New Day Centers (UMOM) and Save the Family.

Together, these agencies operated all aspects of the RRHD program, including screening, intake and

selecting families for participation, and providing rental assistance and supportive services, but in

different geographic areas.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

1,223 80 Long term (12 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

UMOM was the grantee, and Save the Family

was the subgrantee. Each agency was expected

to serve a total of 120 families during the 3-year

grant term, or 40 families per year.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Decentralized

The Phoenix CoC had no centralized intake

system: UMOM and Save the Family con-

ducted outreach and accepted referrals to

RRHD separately. UMOM drew most of its

potential RRHD clients from its own shelter but

also encouraged other Phoenix shelters to send

RRHD referrals. Because the grant proposal

set a goal that 25 percent of families served by

RRHD should come off the streets, the UMOM

housing case manager also conducted outreach

to seek out families who were living outdoors

or in their cars.

All families interested in any housing services

from UMOM lled out a comprehensive hous-

ing needs assessment and underwent credit

and background checks. If the family had

already been at another shelter or had been liv-

ing on the streets for 7 days, a rapid re-housing

application was completed and nancial and

employment information was collected. A staff

person then completed the Housing Vulner-

ability Worksheet, which lists 14 vulnerability

factors. Families scored with “moderate vulner-

ability” were deemed appropriate for referral

to RRHD. Save the Family accepted referrals

from other organizations and programs, such

as a 24-hour shelter hotline.

Assessment Instrument: Standardized Tools

Using Explicit Scoring Criteria

Families that received a referral were required

to go to the Save the Family business ofce

to apply in person for housing services. This

visit entailed completing a housing application

and an hour-long intake appointment, after

which staff completed the same Housing

Vulnerability Worksheet as UMOM staff. The

director of clinical services then reviewed the

les and intake information, in addition to the

Housing Vulnerability Worksheet, Housing

Barriers Form, Arizona Self-Sufciency Matrix,

and background check information to make a

determination of basic eligibility and t. The

program had highly selective scoring criteria.

The director contacted eligible families and

scheduled a meeting between them and the

case coordinator to discuss the program in fur-

ther detail and start the housing search process.

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Service Delivery and Followup

UMOM provided each family with a list of

landlords who were willing to work with

RRHD; information about which landlords

were exible about accepting tenants with

poor credit, eviction histories, or criminal back-

grounds; and a van service that took families

on tours of affordable housing developments.

Clients were required to gather the information

needed for documentation of rent reasonable-

ness. At UMOM, the program provided rent

subsidies in three tiers. For the rst 3 months,

the program covered the full rent payment;

for the next 3 months the subsidy was two-

thirds of the total rent; and during the nal

3 months, the rent subsidy is one-third of

the rent. If needed, the program was able to

make exceptions to the rent schedule, and the

level of subsidy was permitted to be extended

before it is reduced at the next tier. The UMOM

case manager met with families at their home

at least once per month and usually more

frequently during the rst few months. Before

UMOM provides the next month’s rental assis-

tance, the case manager conrmed that families

had created and were following their case plan,

which included developing a budget, increas-

ing their savings, maintaining a work search

log if they were unemployed, and submitting

pay stubs if they were employed.

Save the Family initially had proposed provid-

ing a xed amount of rent subsidy for families

for 12 months ($500 per month for a three-

bedroom apartment or $439 per month for a

two-bedroom apartment) but was rening this

model to provide larger amounts of rental as-

sistance during the rst 3 to 6 months, with the

amount of assistance declining in later months.

Case managers met monthly during home

visits or in the ofce to help the family develop

an action plan. Families were dropped if they

did not make progress toward the goals in their

action plan in two quarters.

In both programs, families were recertied

every 3 months. The recertication process

documented progress in three areas: decreasing

debt, increasing savings, and increasing the

amount (portion) of rent the family was pay-

ing. Save the Family terminated families if case

management meetings were not kept, rent was

not paid, or two quarters had passed without

progress on the action plan.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

UMOM provided rental assistance in three

tiers, with the amount decreasing from 100

to 33 percent over time. This approach was

used to create a sense of urgency for families

to increase their income and make additional

progress on their action plan.

Future Planning

Although the two main partners have

implemented the program, a communitywide

strategy has not been developed for rapidly

identifying and referring families who could

potentially benet from RRHD (particularly if

they are in other shelters). The CoC is consider-

ing moving toward a centralized intake process

that could potentially address this challenge.

The CoC is interesting in sustaining the rapid

re-housing program that has been launched

with HPRP and RRHD funding.

For More Information

Chela Sullivan, Housing Director, UMOM New

Day Centers

http://www.umom.org

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Community Human Services Rapid Re-housing for Families

Introduction

Allegheny County’s Ofce of Community Services in the Department of Human Services was the

RRHD grantee. The Ofce of Community Services is the CoC convener and administrator of all

McKinney-Vento funding coming into the CoC, which includes 75 housing programs operated by

about 40 different agencies. RRHD in Pittsburgh served 20 families at a time, for a total of 60 families

during the length of the program. The program took families with moderate barriers who were re-

cently homeless and using emergency shelter, placing them in scattered-site apartments throughout

the community that they had the option of keeping after rental assistance ended.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

184 20 Short term and long term (3–15 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

The RRHD subgrantee was the Community Hu-

man Services Corporation (CHS), a community-

based organization that offered outreach, TH,

permanent supportive housing, case manage-

ment to homeless families and single adults,

and some HPRP funds in addition to RRHD.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Decentralized

Area family shelter case managers referred

families to CHS if they thought the families

would be eligible for RRHD. Families had to

have been homeless and in a shelter for at least

7 days, have a limited number of evictions,

little income, and not so much arrearage debt

that it could not be paid within the time avail-

able in the program. Families must also have

been able and willing to work.

Assessment Instrument: Case Management-

Oriented Tool Using Implicit Scoring Criteria

After a CHS case manager screened the refer-

rals deemed likely to be right for RRHD, he or

she interviewed the families at the shelter using

CHS’s Client Application Form for homeless

programs and the Consumer and Family

Member Intake Forms. The case manager col-

lected homeless status and income verication,

and then CHS decided internally whether to

accept the family into RRHD and the amount

and duration of rental assistance that would be

provided. The program appeared to have fairly

broad selection criteria, although the implicit

nature of the criteria makes it somewhat dif-

cult to determine the selectivity of the program.

RRHD offered families 3 to 6 months of

rental assistance with appropriate supportive

services if they were already working and if

they had household goods stored or available.

RRHD offered them 12 to 15 months of rental

assistance if families needed more time to set

up, had education or training goals to meet

that would improve their nancial status, were

coming from a domestic violence situation (and

therefore have nothing), or were not currently

working.

Service Delivery and Followup

After a family was enrolled in RRHD, services

would be delivered in three steps. The rst step

was to nd an affordable unit. The RRHD case

manager worked with the family to create a

budget and decided how much a family could

contribute to the rent. Families could then nd

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

a unit from on or off of CHS’s list of landlords.

CHS inspected each apartment before the

family moved in to make sure it conforms to

housing authority standards, so if the family

ultimately was able to get a Section 8 voucher,

it would be able to use the voucher in their

existing apartment.

Next, the focus was on further nancial plan-

ning and budgeting; the case manager and

family revisited the budget once monthly

during in-home visits and revised as necessary.

Case managers worked to link the family to as

many subsidized utility or healthcare programs

as necessary. Finally, the family was offered

employment coaching. The RRHD case man-

ager worked intensively with families to write

resumes, practice interviews and apply for

jobs, and link families to employment training

programs.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

RRHD capitalized on CHS’s decades of

experience and strong relationships with local

landlords. When landlords had the available

space and emergency shelters did not have

the capacity to serve families, CHS was able

to work with those landlords to place families

in local apartments. RRHD used this existing

CHS landlord network to help streamline the

participants’ housing search process. Landlords

also liked working with CHS because of the

timeliness of CHS’s rental payments.

CHS attempted to place families in units where

they could remain after rental assistance ended,

rst by working with landlords whom CHS

knew who are less likely to evict a family at the

end of RRHD and second by conducting inspec -

tions to ensure the unit was useable if the family

was able to receive further assistance from a

HUD program, such as a Section 8 voucher.

Future Planning

CHS expects to apply for funds to continue

rapid re-housing under new ESG priorities.

CHS collected a large amount of data from

RRHD to inform future grant proposals and

worked with a local evaluator to assess the

efcacy of various housing options for families

in different circumstances.

For More Information

Adrienne Walnoha, Executive Director, and

Mac McMahon, Director of Homeless Assis-

tance Programs, Community Human Services

Corporation

http://www.chscorp.org

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Portland/Gresham/Multnomah County, Oregon: Opening Doors

Introduction

Portland’s RRHD program, Opening Doors, was a partnership among four agencies that had been

collaborating through another rapid re-housing program, Homes Not Beds. Homes Not Beds has

re-housed approximately 450 homeless families, of whom 71 to 80 percent retained their housing for

at least 1 year after their rent subsidy ended. The RRHD program also worked with an organization

that conducts street outreach. The partner agencies’ combined experiences include antipoverty work,

domestic violence victim services, emergency shelters, and many years working with homeless families.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

589 40 Long term (12 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

Human Solutions, Inc. (HSI) was awarded an

RRHD grant to continue its 10-year use of a

rapid re-housing model as part of the Portland

CoC’s integrated continuum of program op-

tions for families. HSI’s role in RRHD was as

program sponsor, grant administrator, and

housing and service provider. HSI was also

the agency to which all subgrantees submitted

completed assessments for nal approval to

enroll families in RRHD. HSI’s three subgrant-

ees were Volunteers of America’s Home Free

domestic violence program, Neighborhood

House, 2-1-1info, and Portland Impact. A

fth agency, JOIN, was not a subgrantee, but

provided vital street outreach and connected

families to RRHD.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Decentralized

Families were screened for eligibility into

Opening Doors in two ways: through a call to

2-1-1info or through case managers at one of

Portland’s four shelters. Families must have

met the following RRHD criteria to be eligible:

The family must be literally homeless by

HUD’s denition, it must have been so at least

7 days, and at least one child must be present.

Assessment Instrument: Standardized Tool

Using Explicit Scoring Criteria

After receiving a referral, an RRHD case man-

ager called the family and set up an appointment

to do a full assessment. The assessment explored

15 areas of the family’s history and current

situation. The case manager used information

gained from this assessment to “score” the family

on the Housing Barrier Assessment Summary,

which combines the 15 assessment areas into

11 summary items. Each item was assessed for

whether it posed a minimum, moderate, seri-

ous, or severe barrier to the family’s housing

stability. One RRHD-specic criterion on the

assessment was that the family had some form

of income or the reasonable prospect thereof

so that 30 percent of the family income could

be contributed toward rent. Alternatively, the

family must have some kind of reasonable plan

for how it will pay the entire share of the rent

within 1 year. Overall, the program had fairly

broad selection criteria. The HSI executive

director then approved case records of families

with moderate barriers, usually within 1 day.

100

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Service Delivery and Followup

All families received 12 months of rental as-

sistance. Each partner agency served roughly

one-fourth of RRHD clients, and each had a

well-developed list of landlords who tended

to be specic to a particular area of town. After

families were accepted into the program, their

RRHD case manager worked with them to

develop a case plan with clear objectives. The

rst priority was getting them into housing,

second was working on increasing income, and

the third depended on each specic family.

In the rst month after move-in, the frequency

of contact between case managers and families

varied but was usually more frequent for fami -

lies with zero income or for families eeing

domestic violence. Case managers prioritized

linkages with public benet and employment

programs. In addition to rental assistance,

RRHD offered (1) help nding housing and

negotiating with landlords; (2) donated furni-

ture; (3) help with income, including linkage to

benets and job search; (4) employment support

such as education, English as a Second Lan-

guage, computer skills, training and certicate

courses; (5) Low-Income Home Energy Assist-

ance Program; (6) a mobile medical van for

free care and linkage to Oregon Health Plan/

Medicaid; (7) support groups and classes for

domestic violence, parenting, and after-school

activities for kids; and (8) mental health services

and substance abuse treatment, if needed.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

Opening Doors funds could not be used to re-

solve signicant arrearage burdens for families

in the program, so if these debts were an issue,

the family was referred to HPRP rather than

RRHD.

Future Planning

The Portland community was taking steps

to replace at least some of RRHD and HPRP

resources. The Housing Authority of Portland

dedicated $500,000 and challenged the city and

county to match it to create a $1.5 million fund

to support rapid re-housing services.

For More Information

Erika Silver, Executive Director, Human Solu-

tions, Inc.

http://www.humansolutions.org

101

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

San Francisco, California: Housing Access Project

Introduction

In 2005 and 2006, in response to the mayor’s leadership, the San Francisco Human Services Agency

(SFHSA) engaged more than 100 stakeholders in a 6-month process that resulted in a major redesign

of the system for serving homeless families in San Francisco. One of the major recommendations was

a temporary rent subsidy program to get families out of shelters. When an organization (Hamilton)

merged two shelters, SFHSA supported a request to use the savings to shift funding in 2006 to cre-

ate a temporary (12 to 24 months) rent subsidy program. One key distinction between this locally

funded program and RRHD is that the local rent subsidies can be extended for up to 5 years if clients

continue to be in need of the subsidy and in compliance with their written plan.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

405 33 Short term (3–6 months) and

long term (12–15 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

SFHSA served as the RRHD grantee. Two local

agencies, Compass Family Services (Compass)

and Catholic Charities CYO (CCCYO), were

subgrantees that provided services. Both

of these organizations operate a number of

programs that serve homeless families in

San Francisco, including emergency shelter,

permanent housing, and a family resource

center. Connecting Point, a Compass program,

is the centralized intake and assessment center

for all homeless families seeking shelter in

San Francisco. (After the rst year of program

implementation, CCCYO discontinued its

participation, and Compass became the only

subgrantee responsible for implementing the

RRHD program.) The RRHD program planned

to serve 33 families each year, for a total of 100

families during a 3-year grant period.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Centralized

The RRHD program referrals come from Con-

necting Point and all the city’s family shelters

(including three city-funded family shelters,

one private family shelter, a congregate shelter

for homeless families, and several domestic

violence shelters). Homeless families who

call 2-1-1 are referred to Connecting Point for

assistance.

Assessment Instrument: Case Management-

Oriented Tool Using Implicit Scoring Criteria

Staff at the shelters and Connecting Point made

RRHD referrals based on their understanding

of basic RRHD eligibility criteria instead of

using a standardized “screening tool” that

species a score or specic criteria. Compass

or CCCYO staff members talked to the refer-

ring case manager and the client and decided

whether the family seemed like an appropriate

t for the program. If the RRHD case manager

agreed, the family was asked to come in for

an in-person intake. Both organizations used

a standard intake form that was brought to

a weekly interorganizational RRHD review

meeting. During that weekly meeting a

decision was made about whether the family

would be accepted into the RRHD program.

The program had highly selective scoring

criteria. The ideal candidate for RRHD had a

102

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

specic plan with documentation of current

income and benets, enrollment in training, job

goals or opportunities, childcare arrangements,

or a position on a waiting list for affordable

housing.

Service Delivery and Followup

The length of initial rental assistance was based

on the family’s plan to increase income. That plan

was reviewed and recertied every 3 months,

with a look at the family’s income and plan

to increase income, progress toward goals,

and review of rent and subsidy amount. If the

family was initially provided with short-term

assistance and something changes, the program

would provide assistance for a longer period

if justied by the revised plan. All the rent

subsidies were used to obtain scattered-site

rental housing. Finding rental housing for

families in San Francisco can be challenging,

even with the subsidy. Families often had to

compete with other applicants for vacant rental

units. Through the local rent subsidy program

and RRHD, relationships were established

with some landlords who are willing to rent to

program participants with bad credit. Families

had a 60-day housing search period, and most

families found housing in that timeframe; addi-

tional time was granted to families that needed

more time.

Roughly one-half or more of RRHD families

had to locate housing outside of San Francisco

to afford the rent after the subsidy ended.

RRHD case managers completed home visits

at least once a month, even if the home was

outside the city, and tried to be exible about

where to meet participants for other case man-

agement visits.

Families were also expected to meet with their

case manager at least once per week while

searching for housing and at least twice per

month after they moved into housing. Some-

times, they met with or talked to case managers

more frequently. All families were required

to work with the vocational or employment

services program at Compass during the course

of their program participation.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

At the time of program implementation, the

city’s emergency shelter system had a waiting

list of approximately 150 families, and priority

was granted to families with moderate to high

housing barriers (for example, parent or child

with serious mental illness or physical health

condition, high-risk pregnancy, and families

who have been on the waiting list for more

than 5 months). As a result, it was difcult for

the RRHD program to nd families within the

shelter system that meet the criteria of having

moderate barriers to housing stability.

Future Planning

The City of San Francisco remains committed

to continuing the local rent subsidy. Barring

worsening scal conditions, it intends to con-

tinue to support the three existing temporary

rental subsidy programs created with local

funds.

For More Information

Aram Hauslaib, Compass Family Services

http://www.compass-sf.org

103

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Trenton/Mercer County, New Jersey: Housing NOW

Introduction

Trenton/Mercer County’s RRHD was embedded in a larger Mercer County rapid re-housing effort,

called Housing NOW, which blended RRHD funds with dollars from HPRP, state and county Sup-

portive Services for Homeless funds, the state department of family development (TANF) funds,

and city and county contracts. RRHD funds were reserved for families who were not eligible for

TANF and those who had lost TANF eligibility because of employment and could no longer receive

a TANF Temporary Rental Assistance voucher. Housing NOW served at least 50 families at a time,

about 20 percent of them through RRHD.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

80 9 Long term (6–18 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

The grantee was the City of Trenton, which

is not a direct service provider but managed

the RRHD grant and represents the city in the

10-year plan process for realigning the CoC for

homeless families. Trenton subgranted funds to

HomeFront for RRHD for non-TANF families.

RRHD served TANF families at the onset of the

program (from October 2010 through February

2011) but the program continued from 2011

with different funding sources and with Catho-

lic Charities as the rapid re-housing service

provider for TANF families.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Centralized, With Variations

HomeFront does outreach to many different

agencies and locations to locate non-TANF

families, and Mercer County Board of Social

Services does the screening for TANF families.

Both use a Universal Screening Tool to select

clients who are homeless and have an income

less than 30 percent of AMI.

Assessment Instrument: Standardized Tool

Using Explicit Scoring Criteria

The HomeFront caseworker used the Assessing

Housing Barrier Levels instrument to give the

family a score to indicate which intervention

was likely to be appropriate for the family.

The RRHD program had fairly broad selection

criteria and targeted families with low or

moderate barriers to housing placement. When

HomeFront received an RRHD referral, a case

manager made an appointment with the family

and met to develop a Housing Stabilization

Action Plan, which served as the basis for case

manager-family interactions while the family

was in RRHD. The action plan identied barri-

ers that could keep the family from getting into

or keeping housing.

Service Delivery and Followup

Most families were assessed to need 12 to 15

months of assistance, but that determination

was reassessed every 3 months and the Hous-

ing Stabilization Action Plan was updated

and revised. Rental assistance is available for

104

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

scattered-site, lease-based housing based to

the extent possible on the family’s Housing

Preference Form. Families are also linked to

other services provided by HomeFront or other

organizations.

During the rst month, case managers met

with families anywhere from every day to

3 days a week, and after that continued with

meetings three times per month. Families that

were not taking action on their Housing Stabil-

ity Action Plan were provided a 30-day notice

to start taking action, before program termina-

tion procedures began.

No formal followup period or schedule was

in place. After exiting the program, families

tended to stay in contact with HomeFront

because it offered many services that families

liked or needed, such as a food pantry, summer

camps, and furniture.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

RRHD was able to serve a population of home-

less families (those not eligible for TANF) that

were not being served by the other partners or

funding streams in the CoC’s Housing NOW

program. The collaborative Housing NOW

funding and services partnership enabled the

community to serve a wider range of homeless

families with a greater variety of services.

Future Planning

Trenton organizations have started to replicate

the rapid re-housing model, with Catholic

Charities creating a Family Housing Initiative

and the entire CoC implementing a Housing

NOW II rapid re-housing program using non-

RRHD funds. The 10-year plan group (now

with an executive director and three staff mem-

bers) is focusing on housing homeless families

and has evaluated HPRP-funded programs to

determine if they are worth continuing. The

community may try to move funding that the

state uses to pay for transitional housing into

rapid re-housing consistent with the Homeless

Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to

Housing Act.

Families continue to be referred to shelters and

transitional housing but at a lower rate, and

the county has used approximately one-third

fewer emergency assistance funds in the past

year. The county believes it can maintain its

realigned system, and Mercer County and the

City of Trenton are committed to continuing

funding for rapid re-housing.

For More Information

Cleophis Roper, CoC Lead, Director of Com-

munity Development, City of Trenton

http://www.trentonnj.org

Rebecca Rhoads, Systems Monitor and Analyst,

Mercer Alliance

http://www.merceralliance.org

105

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

Washington Balance of State: Northwest Rapid Re-housing Partnership

Introduction

Washington BOS’s RRHD was implemented in two counties by different organizations. Whatcom

County is large and contains a university, while Clallam County is rural and poorer, yet these coun-

ties’ homelessness leaders have found that they are doing similar things in conjunction with their

10-year plans, including integrated resource centers for housing and homeless assistance and focus-

ing on homelessness prevention for those exiting the prison system.

CoC’s Homeless Family

Emergency Shelter Beds

Number of Families Expected To

Be Served Annually With RRHD

RRHD Level of

Assistance Offered

999 50 Long term and short term (3–12 months)

CoC = Continuum of Care. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

Program Startup and Capacity

Washington BOS’s RRHD programs were each

administered independently in different coun-

ties. The grantee for both RRHD programs was

the Opportunity Council (OC). In Whatcom

County, the OC shared RRHD responsibilities

with its subgrantee and domestic violence ser-

vice provider, WomenCare, chosen because the

county recognized that many homeless families

with moderate barriers were experiencing

domestic violence. In Clallam County, the sub-

grantee, Serenity House, solely administered

Clallam County’s portion of the CoC’s RRHD

program.

Client Flow and Assessment Process

Intake System: Centralized, With Variations

Families were referred to Whatcom County’s

RRHD program by going through a Commu-

nity Resource Center operated by OC, Women-

Care’s emergency shelter, or other services.

Referrals reached Whatcom County’s Homeless

Service Center, where case managers used a

single intake form (the Enrollment Assessment)

to determine initial eligibility for RRHD.

Assessment Instrument: Standardized Tool

Using Explicit Scoring Criteria

The program used a Client Barrier Levels

and Available Services assessment and a

Self-Sufciency Index to predict how self-

sufcient and stable a family might be after

rental assistance ended; RRHD had moderately

selective scoring criteria. WomenCare referred

families to Whatcom County’s RRHD if the

housing advocate decided RRHD was a good

t. After a family was determined to be eligible

for RRHD, they were placed on the Homeless

Service Center’s master waiting list for housing

programs. A family who was eligible for RRHD

might be placed in a different program if a spot

opened up there sooner.

Families were referred to Clallam County’s

RRHD program through two walk-in Housing

Resource Centers; families found the Hous-

ing Resource Centers through 2-1-1, schools,

treatment programs, and public human ser-

vices agencies. Case managers at the Housing

Resource Centers independently determined

whether RRHD was the best t for a family

and, if so, referred them to the Serenity House

RRHD case manager. Families could also access

106

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX A. RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

RRHD by living in Serenity House’s shelters.

RRHD case managers assessed families using

a slightly different Client Barrier Levels and

Available Services assessment and looked for

evidence of employability, such as a history of

employment or job skills.

Service Delivery and Followup

In Whatcom County, case managers at

WomenCare worked with clients to increase

income, improve budgeting, and access other

community resources so families could gradu-

ally increase their contribution toward rent.

When the program was rst implemented, the

OC opted to determine the family’s rental as-

sistance on a case-by-case basis. At the outset,

tenants were required to pay 30 percent of their

income and had a maximum monthly subsidy

of $450. For the remainder of the term, the case

manager and family negotiated a payment

plan that would taper the rental assistance

down over 6 to 12 months until the client was

paying the entire rent. The OC approved this

plan and any other subsequent requests by the

case manager to change the family’s rent pay-

ments, but in response to HUD monitoring, the

program modied this approach to ensure that

families would not pay more than 30 percent

of their income for rent as long as they were in

the program. WomenCare offered all families

access to other support services available at

its ofce, such as yoga, support groups, a food

bank, other hygiene and personal-care items,

legal advocacy (for example, restraining orders,

family law, and divorce), and safety planning.

Case manager visits were mandatory and oc-

curred at least once per month.

In Clallam County, families entered the RRHD

program after identifying housing, and those

coming from Serenity House’s shelters often

continued to receive case management from

their shelter case manager throughout their

participation in the program. The RRHD case

manager used the Self-Sufciency Index to de-

velop a housing stability plan for other clients.

The RRHD case manager conferred informally

with other case managers in job-readiness and

training programs to link the family with as

many programs as possible to increase income.

The case manager met with families in their

homes each month, and after 6 months, the

family completed the Self-Sufciency Index

again, updating its housing stability plan, and

formulating a plan so the family would be

ready to exit the program within 6 months.

Clallam County’s RRHD program provided

an average of 7 months of rental assistance,

the amount and duration of which depended

on the family’s plan. Clallam County’s RRHD

program used the same graduated model of

assistance as Whatcom.

Innovative or Unique Aspects of the

Program

Implementation of RRHD provided an op-

portunity to bring a new partner—the domestic

violence agency WomenCare—into the system

for assisting homeless families (with or without

domestic violence issues) and to stretch the

DV agency’s approach to meeting the housing

needs of the families it serves.

Future Planning

The community had a strong commitment to

sustaining a rapid re-housing program after

RRHD and HPRP funding ended. Serenity

House was seeking new sources of funding and

had already received an initial commitment

from local Rotary Clubs. The availability of

federal and local funding will determine the

scale of the program in the future, but the com-

mitment to sustain it remains.

For More Information

Greg Winter, Opportunity Council

http://www.oppco.org

107

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX b. ARIzONA FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY MATRIX

Appendix B

Arizona Family Self-Sufﬁciency Matrix

DOMAIN

1 2 3 4 5

Income

No income. Inadequate

income and/

or spontaneous

or inappropriate

spending.

Can meet basic

needs with sub-

sidy; appropriate

spending.

Can meet basic needs

and manage debt

without assistance.

Income is suf-

ﬁcient, well

managed; has

discretionary

income and is

able to save.

Employment

No job. Temporary, part-

time or seasonal;

inadequate pay,

no beneﬁts.

Employed full

time; inadequate

pay; few or no

beneﬁts.

Employed full time

with adequate pay

and beneﬁts.

Maintains

permanent

employment with

adequate income

and beneﬁts.

Childcare

Needs child-

care, but none

is available/

accessible and/

or child is not

eligible.

Childcare is unre-

liable or unafford-

able, inadequate

supervision is

a problem for

childcare that is

available.

Affordable sub-

sidized childcare

is available, but

limited.

Reliable, affordable

childcare is available,

no need for subsidies.

Able to select

quality childcare

of choice.

Adult

Education

Literacy prob-

lems and/or

no high school

diploma/GED are

serious barriers

to employment.

Enrolled in

literacy and/or

GED program and/

or has sufﬁcient

command of

English to where

language is not a

barrier to employ-

ment.

Has high school

diploma/GED.

Needs additional

education/training to

improve employment

situation and/or to

resolve literacy prob-

lems to where they

are able to function

effectively in society.

Has completed

education/train-

ing needed to

become employ-

able. No literacy

problems.

Legal

Current out-

standing tickets

or warrants.

Current charges/

trial pending, non-

compliance with

probation/parole.

Fully compliant

with probation/

parole terms.

Has successfully

completed probation/

parole within past

12 months, no new

charges ﬁled.

No active

criminal justice

involvement in

more that 12

months and/or

no felony crimi-

nal history.

108

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX b. ARIzONA FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY MATRIX

DOMAIN

1 2 3 4 5

Mental

Health

Danger to self or

others; recurring

suicidal ide-

ation; experi-

encing severe

difﬁculty in day-

to-day life due

to psychological

problems.

Recurrent mental

health symptoms

that may affect

behavior, but not

a danger to self/

others; persistent

problems with

functioning due

to mental health

symptoms.

Mild symptoms

may be present

but are transient;

only moder-

ate difﬁculty in

functioning due

to mental health

problems.

Minimal symptoms

that are expectable

responses to life

stressors; only slight

impairment in func-

tioning.

Symptoms are

absent or rare;

good or superior

functioning in

wide range of

activities; no

more than every

day problems or

concerns.

Substance

Abuse

Meets crite-

ria for severe

abuse/depen-

dence; result-

ing problems

so severe that

institutional

living or hospi-

talization may

be necessary

Meets criteria for

dependence; pre-

occupation with

use and/or obtain-

ing drugs/alcohol;

withdrawal or

withdrawal avoid-

ance behaviors

evident; use

results in avoid-

ance or neglect

of essential life

activities.

Use within last 6

months; evi-

dence of persis-

tent or recurrent

social, occu-

pational, emo-

tional or physical

problems related

to use (such as

disruptive be-

havior or housing

problems);

problems have

persisted for at

least one month

Client has used dur-

ing last 6 months, but

no evidence of per-

sistent or recurrent

social, occupational,

emotional, or physical

problems related to

use; no evidence of

recurrent dangerous

use.

No drug use/

alcohol abuse in

the last 6 months

Rental

History

Has one or

several evic-

tions; landlord

references are

negative.

Landlord refer-

ences indicate

non-payment of

rent over a period

of months without

eviction; Left

owing.

Landlord refer-

ences indicate

one or two

months late

– with rents

otherwise paid

in full.

Landlord references

indicate good tenant

history but one or mi-

nor non-compliance

issues (noise, etc…)

Landlord refer-

ences indicate

good tenant his-

tory, rents paid

within timeframe

with one or two

instances of

being late. No

known non-com-

pliance issue.

Credit

History

Low credit

score; bank-

ruptcy. Several

unpaid debts.

Credit score

indicates late

payments con-

sistently and low

credit score.

Credit score

is mid-range;

several late

payments but no

bankruptcy.

Credit score is mod-

erately high, several

late payments but not

currently in arrears.

Credit score is

moderate to

high, one or two

late payments,

no accounts in

arrears.

109

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX b. ARIzONA FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY MATRIX

DOMAIN

1 2 3 4 5

Children’s

Education

One or more

school-aged

children not en-

rolled in school.

One or more

school-aged

children enrolled

in school, but not

attending classes.

Enrolled in

school, but one

or more children

only occasion-

ally attending

classes.

Enrolled in school

and attending classes

most of the time.

All school-aged

children enrolled

and attending on

a regular basis.

Housing

Homeless or

threatened with

eviction.

In transitional,

temporary or

substandard

housing; and/or

current rent/mort-

gage payment is

unaffordable (over

30% of income).

In stable housing

that is safe but

only marginally

adequate.

Household is in safe,

adequate subsidized

housing.

Household is

safe, adequate,

unsubsidized

housing.

Food

No food or

means to pre-

pare it. Relies

to a signiﬁcant

degree on other

sources of free

or low-cost

food.

Household is on

food stamps.

Can meet basic

food needs, but

requires oc-

casional assis-

tance.

Can meet basic food

needs without as-

sistance.

Can choose to

purchase any

food household

desires.

Health Care

No medical

coverage with

immediate need.

No medical cover-

age and great

difﬁculty access-

ing medical care

when needed.

Some household

members may be

in poor health.

Some members

(e.g. Children) on

AHCCCS.

All members can get

medical care when

needed, but may

strain budget.

All members

are covered

by affordable,

adequate health

insurance.

Family

Relations

Lack of neces-

sary support

form family or

friends; abuse

(DV, child) is

present or there

is child neglect

Family/friends

may be support-

ive, but lack abil-

ity or resources

to help; family

members do not

relate well with

one another; po-

tential for abuse

or neglect.

Some support

from family/

friends; family

members ac-

knowledge and

seek to change

negative behav-

iors; are learning

to communicate

and support.

Strong support from

family or friends.

Household members

support each other’s

efforts.

Has healthy/ex-

panding support

network; house-

hold is stable

and communica-

tion is consis-

tently open.

110

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX b. ARIzONA FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY MATRIX

DOMAIN

1 2 3 4 5

Mobility

No access to

transportation,

public or private;

may have car

that is inoper-

able.

Transportation

is available,

but unreliable,

unpredictable,

unaffordable;

may have care

but no insurance,

license, etc.

Transportation is

available and re-

liable, but limited

and/or incon-

venient; drivers

are licensed

and minimally

insured.

Transportation is

generally accessible

to meet basic travel

needs.

Transportation is

readily available

and affordable;

car is adequately

insured.

Community

Involvement

Not applicable

due to crisis

situation; in

‘survival’ mode.

Socially isolated

and/or no social

skills and/or lacks

motivation to

become involved.

Lacks knowledge

of ways to be-

come involved.

Some community

involvement (advisory

group, support group),

but has barriers such

as transportation,

childcare issues.

Actively involved

in community.

Safety

Home or

residence is not

safe; immediate

level of lethal-

ity is extremely

high; possible

CPS involvement

Safety is threat-

ened/temporary

protection is

available; level of

lethality his high

Current level of

safety is mini-

mally adequate;

ongoing safety

planning is es-

sential

Environment is safe,

however, future of

such is uncertain;

safety planning is

important

Environment is

apparently safe

and stable

Parenting

Skills

There are safety

concerns re-

garding parent-

ing skills

Parenting skills

are minimal

Parenting skills

are apparent but

not adequate

Parenting skills are

adequate

Parenting skills

are well devel-

oped

111

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX b. ARIzONA FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY MATRIX

Appendix C

Family Vignettes

The following three hypothetical families were

created to better understand Rapid Re-housing

for Homeless Families Demonstration (RRHD)

program eligibility criteria. The vignettes highlight

characteristics relevant to scoring criteria used

by some RRHD programs to screen for eligibility.

The research team applied each program’s scoring

criteria to the vignettes to infer whether they would

be accepted into each RRHD program. All three of

these families have incomes below 30 percent of Area

Median Income.

Sylvia (27 years of age) is currently homeless

and has been staying in a family shelter for

a couple of weeks. She is working at a part-

time job and can sometimes work additional

hours or shifts to increase her income. With

a rent subsidy, she can meet basic needs; she

is careful about spending money. She is a

single mother and has two school-age children

who are enrolled in subsidized after-school

childcare, but sometimes she has to scramble

to make arrangements for someone to care for

her children when she has the opportunity to

work nights or weekend shifts. At the shelter,

she can make arrangements for other parents to

watch her kids, as the parents often help each

other out. She hopes to be able to work out

similar informal childcare arrangements after

she secures her own housing. She has a high

school diploma. She is on probation for a minor

criminal offense and is fully compliant with the

conditions of her probation. She has never been

diagnosed with a mental-health problem. She is

feeling considerable stress because of her fam-

ily’s current circumstances, and she is also sad,

because her mother passed away a few months

ago. Sometimes, she cannot sleep, and she

sometimes nds herself in tears or losing her

temper with her children at the slightest provo-

cation. She drinks a beer or two after work or

on the weekends, but says she does not have

a drinking problem and does not use illegal

drugs. When the family was living in their last

apartment, her hours were cut at work and she

fell behind on rent. While her mother was sick,

she took time off from work to be with her and

did not pay rent at all for a few months. She

also stopped paying for cable TV, and cable

service was cut off. The family moved out

owing the landlord several thousand dollars in

back rent and owing hundreds of dollars to the

utility company. The landlord had told them

they would be evicted, so they left to stay with

friends and relatives for a few days or weeks at

a time, until they ran out of options and moved

to the shelter. Sylvia’s credit score is low and

indicates that she has consistently made late

payments on credit cards. She currently owes

about $4,000 in credit card debt. The children

are enrolled in school and attending most of the

time, but since the family has been homeless,

one daughter has resisted leaving her mother,

and sometimes Sylvia lets her stay home from

school. The family relies on Supplemental Nu-

trition Assistance Program (SNAP) to buy gro-

ceries. Medicaid covers the children, but Sylvia

does not have health insurance. One of the

children has asthma, and sometimes they go to

the emergency room for care, because clients

often have long waits for appointments at the

clinic where they normally go. Sylvia has a few

friends and family members who live nearby,

but they cannot offer much help, because many

are unemployed and live in overcrowded

apartments where residents drink and argue a

lot. Sylvia has a car, but it barely runs and can

safely travel only short distances. The car needs

new brakes and tires, and it overheats on hot

days. She often takes the bus to work. She has

never really become involved at her children’s

school or in other community groups. She says

she has pretty much learned to keep to herself

and tries to stay out of other people’s business.

Her children’s father was sometimes violent,

but he has been living out of state for a couple

of years. She has heard that he might be mov-

ing back to the area, and she does not want to

see him. She is a pretty good mom when she is

not feeling completely overwhelmed.

112

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX b. ARIzONA FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY MATRIX

Maria (21 years of age) and her 11-month-old

son have been living in her car for a couple

of weeks, since eeing the apartment she had

shared with her boyfriend. The boyfriend was

physically and emotionally abusive. Maria has

a graduate equivalency diploma (GED) and

has been attending community college, where

she is trying to complete a training program

she began before her son was born. She could

nish in one more semester and get a credential

that is likely to lead to a good job if she can

concentrate on her school work, but it has been

difcult for Maria to attend classes and focus

on her studies during the past few weeks. She

does not have a job; before the baby was born,

she had worked a few jobs—mostly part-time

or seasonal work—but had not worked a

full-time job for more than a few months at a

time, because she was going to school. Since

the baby was born, her boyfriend had been

supporting the household, but he recently lost

his job because of his drinking and temper.

His abuse had escalated signicantly during

the past few months before the incident that

led Maria to take the baby and leave. She

plans to apply for welfare benets but has not

yet gured out how much income she will be

getting or whether she will be able to receive

benets and stay in school. A friend is caring

for her son while she attends classes, and they

are on a waiting list for a spot in a subsidized

childcare program. She does not have any

felony criminal history, and her only criminal

justice involvement was a couple of years

ago, when she and her boyfriend were caught

shoplifting. She has never been diagnosed with

a mental-health problem, but she is fearful

of her boyfriend (now her ex-boyfriend) and

says she often feels jumpy and nds it difcult

to trust people. Her boyfriend was a heavy

drinker, and she drinks, too, sometimes when

socializing with friends, but not a lot, and she

does not think she has a drinking problem. She

did not drink at all while she was pregnant,

and she does not use other drugs. Before the

past few months, her boyfriend had been

paying the rent on their apartment, and the

lease was in his name, but he stopped paying

rent 3 months ago, and they had been warned

that several neighbors had made complaints

to the landlord and had called the police

about the noise coming from their apartment

during loud arguments. The cable TV bill was

in Maria’s name, and service was cut off after

the bill did not get paid for several months,

but the other utilities were included in the

rent, to ensure that no other utility balances

go unpaid. Maria’s credit score is low; she has

missed payments recently on the credit card

she had used to get things for the apartment

and the baby and had not established much

of a credit history. She currently owes about

$2,000 on the credit card. Maria plans to apply

for SNAP. Since leaving the apartment, Maria

and her son have been able to eat a few meals

with friends and other meals at a soup kitchen,

and they have picked up some food at a local

food pantry. Maria and her son are covered by

Medicaid and receive care at a local community

clinic. Maria has a few good friends, but her

relatives live far away. Maria spent some time

in foster care as a teen after being abused by

her stepfather. Her ex-boyfriend was jealous

and controlling and has told her that none of

his friends and relatives will have anything to

do with her or their son now that she has left

him, so Maria does not have a big support net-

work. Maria’s car is fairly reliable, but she does

not have enough money to ll the gas tank, so

she tries not to drive it far. She has been fairly

isolated with her baby and boyfriend and busy

with school, so she has never become involved

with community groups. She went to the local

domestic violence program for help to get a

restraining order to keep her ex-boyfriend

away from her. The domestic violence shelter

is full so she cannot stay there, so she is staying

in her car somewhere she does not think he

will nd her. She feels that is safer than staying

with friends, where her boyfriend has looked

for her in the past when she left the apartment

after a big ght. Maria feels a bit overwhelmed

with the responsibility of a baby. She does not

know a lot about child development, and she

113

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX b. ARIzONA FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY MATRIX

was in foster care herself as a child, because her

own mother was unable to care for her, but she

tries to be a good mother.

Janet (29 years of age) is currently homeless

and staying in shelter with her four kids

(including her own three children plus a niece

who has been living with her since Janet’s

sister went to prison on drug charges). Janet’s

employment history is pretty solid but she was

laid off about a year ago from her full-time

retail sales job when the store closed during the

recession. She was receiving unemployment

benets for awhile, but that was not enough

money to pay rent, so she and the kids moved

out of their apartment after missing their rent

payments for 2 months. She left owing the

landlord for the unpaid rent but she was not

legally evicted. The family spent a few months

moving around frequently; at rst they stayed

with friends, but that was crowded and only

temporary, because her friends were worried

they would be evicted if the landlord found

out that Janet and her kids were all staying

there. Sometimes, the kids stayed with differ-

ent relatives while Janet slept in her car. After

weeks of waiting, they were nally admitted

to a shelter for homeless families. Within the

past 3 months, Janet has two part-time jobs,

but neither of the jobs provide benets. With a

rent subsidy and SNAP, the jobs will provide

enough income to cover utilities and other ba-

sic household expenses, and Janet is hoping to

be able to increase her hours at one of the jobs

if she receives a good performance rating dur-

ing the next 6 months. Three kids are enrolled

in subsidized childcare, and the oldest child

(13 years of age) does not qualify for childcare

anymore. Janet has a GED. About 6 years ago,

she was convicted on felony drug charges; she

completed parole more than a year ago and has

had no recent arrests. She has struggled with

depression but does okay when she takes anti-

depressant medications. She has been clean and

sober for 3 years, but before that she had a drug

problem, and for a short time her kids were

placed in foster care. That motivated her to get

into drug treatment, and the family was reuni-

ed after Janet completed a treatment program

that provided substantial parent education and

support. When Janet was still using drugs a

few years ago, she was not always a good ten-

ant: She had some noisy parties and disruptive

guests when she was using drugs, too (before

she went to treatment and got clean), so she

received some negative landlord references.

A few years ago, the family was evicted once,

for nonpayment of rent, and left owing the

landlord more than $1,000. The family stayed

in an emergency shelter for a few days before

leaving the shelter (without additional housing

assistance) to move in with Janet’s sister, who

was involved in drug dealing before she was

arrested and went to prison. Janet’s credit

score is not good. A few years ago, she ran

up substantial credit card debt and had many

late payments. She also owes money for some

medical bills. She has been trying to pay down

some of the debt and avoid bankruptcy, but it

has been difcult to make much progress since

she lost her full-time job last year, and she still

owes nearly $5,000 on past-due bills. All the

kids are enrolled in school and attending most

of the time, but the teenager has been skipping

some classes and seems not very interested in

school. The family relies on SNAP to help pay

for groceries. The kids have Medicaid coverage,

but Janet is uninsured. Janet receives substan-

tial support from members of her extended

family. They encouraged her when she entered

treatment and stopped using drugs, and they

help out with the kids as much as they can.

Janet does not have a car, but her uncle is will-

ing to loan her a car sometimes when she needs

it. She usually takes the bus, but it can take

awhile to get from her job to pick up the kids

at childcare. Janet is actively involved with her

church and participates in an advisory group

at the shelter. The father of her kids moved to

another state several years ago, and the family

has no history or threat of violence. Janet is a

now a good parent, and other mothers at the

shelter often turn to her for help or advice

about their kids.

114

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX b. ARIzONA FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY MATRIX

RRHD Eligibility Results, by Program (1 of 2)

Eligible for RRHD

(or Maybe) Based

on Tools and

Written Criteria

Sylvia Maria Janet

Anchorage, AK No (Self-Sufﬁciency Score = 51)

but might qualify for Homeless-

ness Prevention and Rapid

Re-Housing Program (HPRP)

No (Self-Sufﬁciency Score = 51)

but might qualify for HPRP

Maybe (Self-Sufﬁciency

Score = 59)

Austin, TX Probably yes Probably yes Probably yes

Boston, MA Difﬁcult to tell: depends on plan

to increase income and demon-

strated motivation

Difﬁcult to tell: depends on plan

to increase income and demon-

strated motivation

Difﬁcult to tell: depends

on plan to increase

income and demon-

strated motivation

Cincinnati, OH Yes Yes Probably not, because

too many barriers

Columbus, OH Yes Yes Yes

Contra Costa County,

Probably not: families generally

must have full-time employ-

ment—but possibly yes

No: families generally must

have full-time employment or

strong employment history and

not be in crisis

Probably not: families

generally must have full-

time employment—but

possibly yes based on

employment history

Dayton, OH Probably not: may have too few

barriers for this program but

would qualify for another rent-

reduction program with fewer

months of rental assistance

Yes: medium level of need Yes: medium level of

need

Denver, CO Yes Difﬁcult to tell, but probably not Difﬁcult to tell, but

probably not

District of Columbia Probably yes Difﬁcult to tell, but maybe Difﬁcult to tell, but

maybe

Kalamazoo/Portage,

Yes Probably not: Families gener-

ally must have employment,

but would provide other, more

appropriate assist ance

Yes

Lancaster, PA Difﬁcult to tell, but maybe Difﬁcult to tell, but maybe Difﬁcult to tell, but

maybe

Madison, WI Yes Yes Yes

115

PART I: HOW THEY WORKED—PROCESS EVALUATION

APPENDIX b. ARIzONA FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY MATRIX

RRHD Eligibility Results, by Program (2 of 2)

Eligible for RRHD

(or Maybe) Based

on Tools and

Written Criteria

Sylvia Maria Janet

Montgomery County,

Maybe yes but likely no: score

is within range for longer term

assistance, but family may not

meet other implicit criteria

No No: score is within

range for longer term

assistance, but family

is not ﬁrst-time home-

less and may not meet

other implicit criteria

New Orleans, LA Yes Yes Yes

Ohio BOS Yes: short-term rent reduction Yes: long-term rent reduction Yes: short-term rent

reduction

Orlando, FL Possibly: cutoff scores are not

used, and family might meet

implicit criteria

Maybe, but unable to predict

whether this family would meet

implicit criteria

Possibly: cutoff scores

are not used, and fam-

ily might meet implicit

criteria

Overland Park, KS Yes: part 1 score 13

(total score is more than 30)

Yes: part 1 score 12 (total score

is more than 30)

Yes: part 1 score 12

(total score is more

than 30)

Phoenix, AZ Maybe: (score = 5 on Housing

Vulnerability)

Maybe: (score = 6 on Housing

Vulnerability)

No: (score = 10 on

Housing Vulnerability)

Pittsburgh, PA Probably yes Maybe: Might be too little (no)

income, but might be willing to

serve with RR anyway based on

potential for increased income

Probably yes

Portland, OR Yes Yes Yes

San Francisco, CA Difﬁcult to tell: depends on plan

to increase income

Possibly, but only after time

in shelter to develop plan to

increase income after ﬁnishing

school, make childcare ar-

rangements

Difﬁcult to tell: depends

on plan to increase

income

Trenton, NJ Yes Yes Yes

Washington BOS Yes: level 3 barriers on four-

level form

Probably not: level 3 barriers on

four-level form but would prob-

ably be referred to transitional

housing for more intensive

services

Yes: level 3 barriers on

four-level form

BOS = Balance of State. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.

116

RAPID RE-HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORT

APPENDIX b. ARIzONA FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY MATRIX

Summary of RRHD Sites—Selectivity

Sites Using Scores or Standardized Screening Tools With Explicit Selection Criteria

Likely to accept all

three families

Likely to accept one or two of these

families

Likely to screen out all three families

(or screen out at least two and maybe

consider one family on a case-by-case

basis)

Madison, WI

New Orleans, LA

Ohio BOS

Overland Park, KS

Portland, OR

Trenton, NJ

Cincinnati, OH (two)

Dayton, OH (two, possibly all three)

Denver, CO

Kalamazoo/Portage, MI (two)

Washington BOS (two)

Anchorage, AK

Montgomery County, MD

Phoenix, AZ

Sites Using More Implicit Selection Criteria

Likely to accept all three

families

Likely to accept one or two of these fami-

lies

Likely to screen out all three families (or

screen out two and maybe the third)

Austin, TX

Columbus, OH

Lancaster, PA

Pittsburgh, PA

Boston, MA

District of Columbia

Orlando, FL

Contra Costa County, CA

San Francisco, CA

BOS = Balance of State. RRHD = Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Families Demonstration.