HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT:IMPROVING YOUTH INCLUSION

IN POINT-IN-TIME COUNTSCCY Webinar – March 21, 2014

Colette (Coco) Auerswald, MD, MS – UCB School of Public Healthcoco.auerswald@berkeley.edu

Collaboration between the California Homeless Youth Project and the UC, Berkeley School of Public Health

Hidden in Plain Sight Assessment Goals:

Describe current approaches to counting unaccompanied minors and TAY in the PIT count

Describe best practices and innovations in California Describe barriers Recommendations

Methods: Review of data from CoC reports in 2011 and 2013 Interviews with 31 CoCs and 5 consulting groups

conducted in early 2013.

The Numbers: Unsheltered Minorsand TAY, 2011 vs. 2013

Minors

YEAR 0 1-10 11-20 21-100 101-500 500+

2011 16 15 3 3 5 1

2013 17 13 5 2 4 1

TAY

YEAR No count 0 1-20 21-

100101-500

501-1,000

1,001+

2011 33 0 0 2 6 1 1

2013 1 3 7 16 11 2 2

The Numbers: Unsheltered Minorsand TAY, 2011 vs. 2013

Minors

YEAR 0 1-10 11-20 21-100 101-500 500+

2011 16 15 3 3 5 1

2013 17 13 5 2 4 1

TAY

YEAR No count 0 1-20 21-

100101-500

501-1,000

1,001+

2011 33 0 0 2 6 1 1

2013 1 3 7 16 11 2 2

PIT Count Numbers: 2011 vs. 2013

Homelessness Reports - http://www.hudhre.info/index.cfm?do=viewHomelessRpts

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

Bay Area

. Central Coast

. Far North

. Inland Empire

. Sacramento

. San Diego

. San Joaquin

. Sierras . South Coast

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

Youth Numbers: 2011 vs. 201320

11

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

Bay Area

. Central Coast

. Far North

. Inland Empire

. Sacramento

. San Diego

. San Joaquin

. Sierras . South Coast

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1033

3681

183922

201 387 281 189 0 117 0379

0462

0 23

3094

4418

433

302

170

456

26 177 112 137 21 29 14895

5332

3 8

298

1339

TAY MinorsHomelessness Reports - http://www.hudhre.info/index.cfm?do=viewHomelessRpts

Findings: Methods for youth inclusion

Minimal changes

Changes to planning processes

Changes to count

methods

Youth-specific counts

Findings: Methods for youth inclusion

Minimal changes

Include unaccompanied minor and TAY categories in PIT count.

Findings: Methods for youth inclusion

Include youth providers in PIT count planning:

Minimal changes Changes to planning processes

Findings: Methods for youth inclusion

Collaborate with McKinney-Vento school liaisons:

Minimal changes Changes to planning processes

Findings: Methods for youth inclusion

Include youth in PIT count planning

Minimal changes Changes to planning processes

Findings: Methods for youth inclusion

Minimal changes

Changes to

planning processes

Changes to count methods

Include youth service providers and youth themselves as enumerators.Incentivize youth participants.

Findings: Methods for youth inclusion

Minimal changes

Changes to

planning processes

Changes to count methods

Include youth-inclusive or youth-specific, flexible enumeration routes, times of day, or survey sites:

“We targeted areas that youth knew specifically were more likely to find homeless youth.”

Findings: Methods for youth inclusion

Minimal changes

Changes to

planning processes

Changes to count methods

Include youth-related survey questions in PIT count interviews

Findings: Methods for youth inclusion

Minimal changes

Changes to planning processes

Changes to count

methods

Youth-specific counts

Implement many of the changes described, and

Conduct a dedicated, youth-specific count

Findings: Youth-Specific Barriers Hard to identify Sub-groups of youth

Findings: CoC-related barriers Limited integration of youth

service providers Geographical factors Winter weather conditions

Findings: Methodological Barriers Wariness of statistical methods Concerns about ability to

compare results over time Inexperience with counting TAY

Findings: Structural Barriers Lack of funding Limited provider capacity Concerns regarding reporting

obligations Concerns regarding implications of

increasing numbers Conflicting definitions of

homelessness

Recommendations: Policy Clarification of the goals and outcomes of

the PIT count on a federal and local level. Assurance that increases in PIT count

numbers related to efforts to conduct more youth-inclusive counts will be praised, not penalized.

Recognition that standardized PIT count methods may lead to systematic undercounting.

Recommendations: Policy Expansion of the PIT count

definition of youth homelessness. Coordination of definitions and

data systems for the homeless across federal level programs.

Funding PIT count efforts overall and youth-specific efforts in particular.

Next Steps: Technical Assistance and Structural Change

Technical Assistance Project: Three phases

Phase 1: Technical Assistance for all CoCs.

Phase 2: One-on-one technical assistance for two

CoCs. Phase 3:

Structural interventions informed by study findings.

Convenings: Spring 2014 8 day-long

regional convenings

CoC’s, partnering youth agency(ies), and school liaisons.

Travel costs reimbursed.

Stipends as needed to support attendance.

Convenings: Spring 2014 Logistics and Materials for training,

promotion, and enumeration. Moving one step along the continuum

Engaging youth Engaging local partners

RHY providers and other youth providers. McKinney-Vento liaisons. Other youth serving agencies

Leveraging resources Support for enumeration using multiple

definitions of youth homelessness

Seed Grants Seed grants for youth-specific counting

initiatives Examples of potential initiatives:

Youth advisory boards Stipends for youth enumerators Reimbursing youth for participating in youth

surveys Advertising counts to youth Hosting events to draw youth to be counted Sharing information back with the community Other practices as determined by communities

Standardized survey For CoC’s conducting a survey,

development of an instrument that will be: Brief Inclusive of HUD and McKinney-Vento

definitions Compatible with HMIS Standardized across CoC’s (for data

aggregation)

One-on-One Technical Assistance Provision of intensive technical assistance

to two mid- to-low-resource communities for the 2015 PIT count.

Goals: To serve one rural and one mixed site. Support local capacity for improving

count practices. Share ongoing work with larger

community.

Structural Change Working federally to:

Clarify HUD policies about the count Broaden the data that can be reported to

federal partners Working with legislators to:

Prioritize youth counts Increase awareness of the scope of the

problem Working with local CoCs and advocates to:

Employ numbers for advocacy and funding

We need you!!Youth cannot be counted without the collaboration of those who work with them!

Jess Lin, MPHUCB School of Public Health

Laura Petry, MSW ’14UCB School of Social

Welfare

Coco Auerswald, MD, MSUCB School of Public Health

Shahera Hyatt, MSWCalifornia Homeless

Youth Project

Thank you! To access the full report, visit

http://cahomelessyouth.library.ca.gov/publications.html

Coco Auerswald, MD, MS: coco.auerswaldc@berkeley.edu

Shahera Hyatt, MSW: Shahera.Hyatt@library.ca.gov

Jess Lin, MPH: jess.lin@berkeley.edu Laura Petry: lkpetry@berkeley.edu