2013 Annual Gathering: Workshop#7A: Bridging the Gap Silos to Systems

7/27/2019 2013 Annual Gathering: Workshop#7A: Bridging the Gap Silos to Systems

1/38

BRIDGING THE GAP:SILOS TO SYSTEMS

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa


2/38

San Francisco, CA

C.C.U.S.A. Annual Gathering 2013


3/38

Introductions & Icebreaker

JennielynnHolmes:ProgramDirector of

Shelter andHousingPrograms

BrendanWard, MSW:

OperationsManager

ICEBREAKER

Look at the pictures of various bridges atyour table. Pick the picture that you feelexemplifies your agencys current service

structure.

Introduce yourself in small groupsincluding the following information:

Name Agency Position Why you chose this Bridge


4/38

Learning Objectives

Share practical ways and replicable techniques to beinnovative and creative while being held back bybudgetary and grant restraints

Breaking down silos and creating systems

Low-cost and effective ways to engage the community

Strategies for embracing outcomes, social return oninvestment, using evidence based practices, etc.


5/38

Presentation Outline

Background: Overview of CCDSR & Homelessnessin Sonoma County

Where We Were: Silos of Care

Where We Are: Systems of Care

How We Got Here: Transformation through

Transparency & Creative Programming

Discussion/Q&A


6/38

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of SantaRosa & Homelessness in Sonoma County

Background/Overview


7/38

Background/Overview

Catholic Charities Diocese of Santa Rosa(C.C.D.S.R.)

Budget ($7.6M)

Mission: Reach out to those most in need, offer hopethrough service, and build better communities

Counties of Service: Sonoma, Napa, Lake, Humboldt,Mendocino, and Del Norte

3 areas of impact: Care for Seniors, Counsel Immigrants,and Challenge Poverty


8/38

Background/Overview:Homelessness in Sonoma County

Point in Time (PIT) Count 4,280 persons experiencing homelessness 77% were unsheltered, 23% were sheltered 67% reported at least one medical condition Estimate 9,749 persons experiencing homelessness

annually 1,148 chronically homeless individuals (27% of total

PIT population; only 10% were sheltered) 1,128 unaccompanied homeless children and

transition age youth and 282 accompanied homelesschildren and transition age youth in families (33% oftotal PIT population)

400 Homeless Veterans (only 14% sheltered)


9/38

Background/Overview

Overall therewas a 6%decrease inhomelessnessbetween 2011

and 2013 inSonomaCounty

2009 2011 2013

3247

4539

4280

Point in Time (PIT) Population

PIT Population


10/38

Background/Overview

Overall therewas a 22%decrease inhomelessness

ANNUALLY

between 2011and 2013 inSonomaCounty

2009 2011 2013

7883

12565

9749

Annual Estimation of HomelessPopulation

PIT Population


11/38

Shelter & Housing Programs

Front Door ofSystem

Street Outreach

Day Drop-in Center

Services include showers, communityreferrals, mail, laundry, phone use,and case management

Serves 2,000 unduplicated people

every yearCoordinated Intake and Assessment


12/38


ShelterPrograms

Family Support Center: 138 bedshelter for homeless families

Sam Jones Hall: 120 bed shelterfor single adults

Nightingale Shelter: 13 bedmedical respite shelter

Community Turning Point: 3residential treatment beds


13/38


CaseManagement

Bridging the Gap: StandardizedCase Management Philosophy ofCare

Individual Opportunity Plans

Successful Exit Planning

Relapse Prevention

Health and Wellness Assessments/Plans

Savings Programs


14/38


HousingPrograms

Rapid Re-Housing Pilot Project

Transitional Housing

Permanent Supportive Housing Burbank Housing Partnership

Master-Lease


15/38


StabilizationServices

Coach 2 Career Multi-faceted Employment Readiness Program

Placed 584 homeless people into work within last 3.5years

76% of participants who graduate class find

employment with in 6 months Housing Counseling

Rent4Home

Credit Counseling

First Time Homebuyer Counseling

Other Services Triple P (Positive Parenting Program)

BRIDGES After-School & Summer Program

Stabilization Workshops


16/38

Silos of Care

Where We Were


17/38

Silos of Care

Single Adults

Nightingale

Sam Jones

HomelessServicesCenter

Families

Housing

FamilySupportCenter

Case

Mgt. &SupportServices

Silo #1 Silo #2


18/38

Silos of Care: Opposing Ideas

1. Different

Managers2. DifferentPhilosophies

3. Different

Training

4. Different

Systems5. DifferentProtocols

6. Different

Points of Entry

SingleAdults:2HotsandaCot

Families:Support

iveLongTerm

Solutions


19/38

The Ultimate Result


20/38

Silos of Care: Negative Effects

Lack of CommunityPartners

Negative brand

Multiple Points of Entry

Clients had to startover when enteringone of the silos of care

Inconsistency with staff

Varying degrees ofprotocols and systems

Lack of Transparency

Two extremely differentphilosophies of care forclients

Referral Partners and

Clients found it difficultto navigate system

Inefficiencies ofworkflow

Lack of economies ofscale

Internal & ExternalCommunication Issues


21/38

Systems of Care

Where We Are


22/38

Where We Are

New AgencyCulture

New Agency Culture:

The business and social environment

we operate in has changed. Whatworked yesterday may not work today,and will likely not work tomorrow. Tothrive we must incorporate new ways

of thinking and embrace newpractices.


23/38

Where We Are

In March 2012 we created one consolidatedsystem of care which included the followingchanges:

One Management StructureA Standardized Philosophy of Care

Standardized Policies and Procedures

Transparency for Community Stakeholders

Strategic Vision

Feedback Loops


24/38

From Silo to System

Single Adults

Nightingale

Sam Jones


Families

Housing

FamilySupportCenter

Case Mgt.& SupportServices

Silo #1 Silo #2

Silo: Cylindrical Structure

System: Coordinated Body

ParticipantCentered

Care

StreetOutreach


FamilySupportCenter

NightingaleSam Jones

Hall

Case Mgt.& SupportServices

Housing


25/38

System of Care

Outreach &Engagement

CentralizedIntake & Triage

Shelter/HousingPlacement

CaseManagement &

Support Services

After-Care


26/38

Transformation through Transparency &Creative Programming

How Did We Get There?


27/38

How Did We Get There?

Asked ourselves tough questions:

How do we move from managing homelessness to

solving it?

How do we strengthen credibility within ourcommunity and achieve our mission?

How do we remain competitive for funding?

How do we know we are making an impact

(outcomes, social return on investment)?


28/38

The Transition

Where we were The Transition

Process

Where we are

now

Case Studies

Lack of Systems &

minimal services

with silos of care

Poor Perception

among partners

Lack of measuring

impact (losing

funding)

Performance and

Quality

Improvement

Strategic Plan

Consolidation of

Programs (re-

organization)

Vision Board

Transition Plans

Power of theCouch

Transparency with

Community

Stakeholders

Standardized Care

for Shelter &

Housing

Department

Feedback Loops

Engagement

Opportunities for

participants &

staff

Operations Plans Evidence Based

Practices (Triple P,

Seeking Safety)

Nightingale

Avoidable Days

Report

Street Outreach

Program

C S


29/38

Case Study: Nightingale MedicalRespite Shelter

Before Transition After Transition

5 bed shelter Non-funded program Hospitals unsure what

the referral processwas and found itdifficult to navigate

Shelter of last resort No Social Return on

Investment

13 bed shelter co-locatedwith local free health

center Fully-funded program

through Social Return onInvestment

Standardized Processes

Centralized Intake Transparency and

Outcomes available tofunders

C S d Ni h i l M di l


30/38

Case Study: Nightingale MedicalRespite Shelter

SocialReturn onInvestment:By being ableto show howmuch money

we weresaving thelocalhospitals andcommunitywe were ableto truly showthe impact ofthe programand fully fundtheoperations.

Hospital Total AvoidableHospital Days

Total CostSavings

Kaiser 235 $940,000

Sutter 797 $3,188,000

Memorial 1,947 $7,788,000

SRCHC 445 $1,780,000

Palm Drive 196 $784,000Other 432 $1,728,000

TOTAL 4052 $16,208,000

C S S O


31/38

Case Study: Street OutreachProgram

Saw a gap in service within the community aswell as within our own system of care

Had limited financial resources

Had strategic discussions on how we could fillthis gap while continuing to be fiscally andsystematically appropriate

C St d St t O t h


32/38

Case Study: Street OutreachProgram

CreativeProgrammingallowed us toimplementthis programto fill a gap in

service withlittle costsandmaximizedthe use ofvolunteersallowing us tocontinue to

re-build ourperception inthecommunity

Formed a Homeless Outreach Committee ofstaff, board members, and volunteers

Researched national best practices andcreated training manual

Began in November 2012 and have helpedserve over 1,000 people living on the street

Has also become a big donor cultivation andcommunity involvement opportunity

Embraced new philosophy of care:

eye contact, saying a few words, or smiling canreaffirm the humanity of a person at a time whenhomelessness seems to have stripped it away.


33/38

Lessons Learned

Transparency is paramount Follow-through with promises Create tools that help explain programs, plans,

and progress to the public Data will set you free! Create feedback opportunities and involve your

staff, community, and most importantly yourclients

Dont try to re-invent the wheel: Researchprograms and see what your neighbors are doing Collective Impact


34/38

Discussion Questions


35/38

Housing First

Where We Are Going


36/38

Why Housing First

Evidence-Based Housing is a Fundamental Right: Alternative to

Housing Ready Remove Barriers to housing to stabilize and help

participants truly address the root cause of theirhousing crisis

Cost Efficient In Alameda County (CA), the cost of a successful exit

from Rapid Rehousing was $2800 in comparison to$25,000 for a successful exit from TransitionalHousing and $10,714 for a successful exit fromEmergency Shelter


37/38

New Projects: FY 2013-2014

$690,000 ESG grant for implementation ofHomelessness Prevention, Diversion and RapidRe-Housing

$90,000 Continuum of Care grant forimplementation of pilot Permanent SupportiveHousing project for the most chronically homelessin Sonoma County

$150,000 Community Connector project in

partnership with local hospital to target servicesfor the 150 frequent users of the emergency room

$150,000 Health and Wellness ProgramImplementation


38/38

Jennielynn Holmes: Program Director

707-542-5426;[email protected]

Brendan Ward, MSW: Operations Manager

707-542-5426; [email protected]

Questions
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Documents

2013 Annual Gathering: Workshop#7A: Bridging the Gap Silos to Systems