Policy Alternatives for Improving CAM Prioritization

1

Coordinated Entry Principles

• “Through coordinated entry, a CoC ensures that the highest need, most vulnerable households in the community are prioritized for services and that the housing and supportive services in the system are used as efficiently and effectively as possible.”

• “Coordinated entry aims to ‘orient the community to one or two central prioritizing principles by which the community can make decisions about how to utilize its resources most effectively’”

* HUD, “Coordinated Entry Core Elements” 2

Process Up to This PointFall 2018 CAM staff, street outreach, and other partners raise the issues of non-chronic households scoring for

PSH not receiving services

Fall 2018 Quarterly reports provided initial indication of gaps

11/21/18 CAM Governance Data Subcommittee reviewed quarterly report -> Requested additional data

Nov.-Dec. 2018 CAM Lead Agency created Scoring and Referral Report with a year’s worth of data

12/19/18 CGC Data Subcommittee reviewed referral report -> Discussed issues in prioritization process, requested presentation of policy options

Dec. 2018 – Jan. 2019

CAM Lead Agency conducted research on other community practices, guidance from HUD, and other expertise to create options

1/23/19 Preliminary policy options presented to CGC Data Subcommittee -> Requested more comprehensive policy brief presenting description of the problem, relevant data, detailed policy options and rationale

Jan.–Feb. 2019 CAM Lead Agency collects input from staff and CSH TA and develops detailed policy brief

Feb. 2019 CAM Lead Agency staff reviews policy alternatives and makes recommendation

2/20/19 CAM Governance Data Subcommittee reviews proposal and recommendation; supports bringing proposal to full CAM Governance Committee for consideration

3/13/19 CAM Governance considered initial recommendation, voted to move forward gathering community input 3

What the Data Tells Us: We’ve Got Some Gaps!

of non-chronic single adults who had a PSH

packet submitted were referred to PSH

of non-chronic families who had a PSH packet

submitted were referred to PSH

of single adults who scored for RRH ultimately

received a referral to a RRH provider

of families who scored for RRH ultimately

received a referral to a RRH provider

RRH

PSH

4

Single Adult Prioritization - Current

VI-SPDATHousing

ResourceFull SPDAT

Housing

Resource

0-3No Housing

Support0-19

No Housing

Support

4-7 RRH/HCV 20-34 RRH/HCV

8+ Full SPDAT 35-60 PSH

Single Adult Prioritization – Proposal

VI-SPDAT Housing Resource Full SPDAT Housing Resource

0-5 No Housing Support 0-19 No Housing Support

6-7 RRH/HCV 20-34 RRH/HCV

8+ Full SPDAT35-60

Non-chronicRRH/HCV or PSH

35-60

ChronicPSH

CAM Lead AgencyPolicy Recommendation

* It is recommended that Acuity Group 1 also include those who are “near chronic” based on length of time homeless. 5

CAM Lead AgencyPolicy Recommendation

Family Prioritization - Current

VI-SPDATHousing

ResourceFull SPDAT

Housing

Resource

0-3No Housing

Support0-26

No Housing

Support

4-8 RRH/HCV 27-53 RRH/HCV

9+ Full SPDAT 54-80 PSH

Family Prioritization - Proposal

VI-SPDATHousing

ResourceFull SPDAT

Housing

Resource

0-5No Housing

Support0-26

No Housing

Support

6-8 RRH/HCV 27-53 RRH/HCV

9+

Full SPDAT 54-80

Non-

Chronic

RRH/HCV or

PSH

54-80

ChronicPSH

6

Current Priority Orders Inconsistencies

• Discrepancies may appear small but significant that we do not have consistent principles for prioritization

• Can lead to very different outcomes for households in similar circumstances

RRH

VS

PSH

1. Shelter Status 1. Chronicity

2. Domestic Violence 2. Shelter Status

3. Score 3. Score

4. Family Status 4. Length of Time

5. Length of Time

7

Priority Order Recommendation

CAM Housing Resource Prioritization Order

Each of these prioritizing factors will be applied in sequential order. When there are insufficient resources

to serve all of the households within a given category, then the next factor in the list will be considered.

1. Chronic Households

2. Unsheltered Households

3. Households Fleeing Domestic Violence

4. SPDAT Score

5. Families then singles (*when the vacancy can be flexibly used for either population)

6. Length of time homeless

8

Case Review Recommendation

• Standardize process for requests to be made for different housing resource recommendation

• Set how requests can be made, when and under what conditions clients can be reassessed, what criteria are used in determining whether the transfer is approved, and who makes that decision

• Strict conditions recommended because it would likely be a lengthy period of time before a household would receive a referral even if moved to different intervention type

9

Process Moving Forward– Collecting Input

3/14/19 –4/18

Facilitated process of gathering input from Provider Workgroups and relevant committees and groups• PSH Workgroup, RRH Workgroup, CAM Internal Workgroup, Chronic

Leadership, Shelter Workgroup, Funder group, MSHDA, City of Detroit

5/1/19 CGC reviews community input; draft responses to input and changes to policy

5/6/19 Process shared with CoC Board; preview recommendation

5/17/19 CGC reviews final policy proposal; votes on recommendation to CoC Board

6/3/19 CGC presents recommendations to CoC Board

10