Using HMIS to Track and Evaluate Successes and Trends of Project Homeless Connect Events Matthew Ayres, Hennepin County/City of Minneapolis Emily Warren, Wilder Research

Agenda  Homelessness in Minnesota  Introduction to State-wide PHC/OCC events  Evolution of PHC events in Minneapolis  Data limitations  HMIS matching and longitudinal data  Using HMIS data for PHC planning and 10- year planning  Conclusions and questions

Homelessness in Minnesota  Geography: 13 Continuum of Care regions, including metro and rural areas  Point in Time Count: Statewide from October 26, 2006 Count- 7,713 Estimate- 9,200 to 9,300  Total Population: 5,167,101 (U.S. Census 2006)

Homelessness in Minneapolis  Geography: 1 Continuum of Care region, Hennepin County.  Point in Time Count: Statewide from October 26, 2006 Count- 3,998  Total Population: 1,122,093 (U.S. Census 2006)

Operation Community Connect in MN  Operation Community Connect – Rural Aitkin Kanabec Isanti Mille Lacs Pine Chisago Rice Clay Moorhead (Project Homeless Connect)  Total Served: 635 households

Project Homeless Connect in MN  Project Homeless Connect – Urban Minneapolis (Hennepin County)- April 28, 2008 Total Served: 2,570 Households St Paul (Ramsey County) – June 10, 2008 Total Served: 1,033 Households Duluth (St. Louis County) – October 24, 2007 Total Served: 344 Households

Evolution of Minneapolis PHC  First event: December guests, 50 Volunteers, 40 service providers  Recent event: April, Guests, 1300 Volunteers, 140 agencies with over 350 service providers

Evolution of Minneapolis PHC

Services at Minneapolis PHC  Mental Health assessments  Chemical Dependency assessments  Housing programs  Employment programs and Employers  GED and Community college  IDs and Birth Certificates  Early Childhood Family Education  Daycare  Veterans Services

Services at Minneapolis PHC cont…  Youth-specific services  Haircuts  Footwear  Medical  Dental  Eye care  Chiropractic  Transportation Assistance  Lunch

Common Intake Form  Multiple counties worked to develop and utilize a common intake form used at all PHC/OCC events statewide.  This allows for statewide demographic data regarding who is accessing services.  Informs local plans and allows for longitudinal tracking of guests.

Data Limitations  Use of unique IDs - The Bob/Robert conundrum  Lack of bed coverage in some CoCs Example: Hennepin County 35% of emergency shelter beds, 83% of transitional housing beds, 55% of permanent housing beds  Intake forms completed by volunteers  Reliance on self-report from guests

Demographics at Minneapolis PHC – April 2008 event 2,570 households 2,888 individuals 1,690 single adults 164 couples or adults with “other” family status 663 parents or guardians 318 children 53 unaccompanied youth

Demographics at Minneapolis PHC – April 2008 event 22% not currently homeless 25% 1 st time homeless 14% multiple times homeless 21% long-term homeless 18% homelessness status unknown/missing 16% American-Indian 52% Black/African-American 21% White 5% Other/Multi-racial 6% Missing

Why use HMIS to evaluate PHC events?  Provides more information about who is attending the events – are they already accessing services?  An indicator of effectiveness of events by tracking later use of services by PHC guests  Plan for future events, especially programmatic changes based on guests’ needs  Informs 10-year plans

Example of matching: Hennepin Co.  3,427 guests attended either the October 2007 or April 2008 PHC events in Hennepin  Of those, 169 guests were not in HMIS prior to the event AND received services within 30 days after the event from a provider participating in HMIS: 42 received FHPAP services 49 received emergency shelter 27 received transitional housing 31 received permanent housing 60 received other support services

Example of matching: Hennepin Co  729 guests identifying as long-term homeless attended the October 2007 or April 2008 PHC Event in Hennepin Co.  Of those, 521 guests were not in HMIS prior to the event.  Of those, 35 guests received a service in HMIS within 30 days after the event, and 19 of those received a service of permanent housing.  Three months after receiving permanent housing, 18 of those 19 guests are still in the same housing program. The other guest left their housing program for a Section 8 voucher.

HMIS Matching and Analysis

What does this data mean?  Evaluates the outcomes of PHC events  Provides anecdotal evidence for “successes” of the events  Provides data on the number of follow-up services provided after the event  Informs 10-year planning by providing additional information to communities about their homeless population’s needs, demographics, and use of services

Questions?