Short Term Rent Assistance Redesigning Short Term Rent Assistance to Create a Unified System Portland, Oregon/Multnomah County

The Decision to Redesign Challenges  Six different funding sources, different requirements  Four jurisdictions managing funding sources with different models and requirements

The Decision to Redesign Inefficiencies  Staffing at all four jurisdictions  Outcomes tracked differently by all jurisdictions  Varied data collection methods  Differing program requirements  Eligibility  Dollar caps per household  Allowable length of service  Reporting dates

The Decision to Redesign 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness & Expiring Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA)  Made improving short term rental assistance a goal of the 10 Year Plan  Made IGA contingent upon community redesign process

The Redesign Process Short Term Rent Assistance Workgroup  Led jointly by the County and City  Made up of stakeholders, elected officials, and agencies  Challenges: jurisdictional agendas, providers’ fears of losing funds, trouble thinking outside the box, fear of change

The Redesign Process Short Term Rent Assistance Workgroup  New program model  Outcomes, evaluation, and data collection  System support  Allocation formula  Unified system

The Redesign Process Short Term Rent Assistance Workgroup – The Approval Process  Community hearings  Housing & Community Development Commission  Inter Jurisdictional Working Group (engaging management)  Housing & Community Development Commission/ Board of County Commissioners

Managing the Change The Transition  Selection of administrative entity done by a group of staff working for elected officials  Adjusting to the transition (staffing changes, model changes, changes in how funds could be used, etc.)

Managing the Change Implementation Process  Relationship building with providers  In the first month:  Removed fund restrictions not mandated by funder  Streamlined paperwork/went electronic  In the first six months:  Met monthly with providers for feedback  Introduced new policies as needed SIMPLE CHANGES = BIG IMPACT

Managing the Change Implementation Process (cont.)  In the first year:  Implemented consequences for non-compliance with data entry and reporting requirements, which improved reporting  Re-focused providers to concentrate on outcomes  Provided administrative funds for all providers and convinced funders to increase those funds in future  Reached cross-jurisdictional agreement on funding formula for

Managing the Change Oversight and Policy Decisions  Inter Agency Housing Meeting  Monthly meeting of all providers  Making connections across homeless systems (families, singles, youth, domestic violence)  Announcements, training, best practices  Forum for feedback that directs and/or impacts policy discussions at higher levels  Opportunities for providers to come together to advocate on systems issues

Managing the Change Oversight and Policy Decisions  Oversight Committee  2 reps each from City, County, HAP and 5 providers  Oversee transition of program administration  Overarching policy discussions: data collection, outcome expectations, use of funds, administrative funds for providers, information sharing across system, etc.  Inter Jurisdictional Discussions

How the System Looks Today  Income eligibility aligned  Dollar caps removed  Outcome requirements aligned  Data collection all into same system  All providers attending same meetings, regardless of funding source (see handouts for before/after comparison)

How the System Looks Today  Successes and what is working  Collaboration across 4 homeless systems  Providers engaged in more consistent dialogue  Shared outcomes and reporting tools for better comparisons  Jurisdictions working together  Continued challenges and what isn’t working  Some funding sources are cumbersome  Still boutique programs not part of unification  Refining shared goals across jurisdictions

Looking Forward  RFP for Funds  Access and efficiency - may impact # of agencies served  Outcomes focused  Matching of services with funding sources  HMIS Implementation  Program Evaluation  More coordinated referral system

Looking Forward Long Term Goals  Less compartmentalized system  Increase amount of funds in unified system  Connect short term rent assistance to longer term subsidies at HAP  Build linkages with other related programs

Contact Information  Rachel Devlin, Rent Assistance Program Manager, Housing Authority of Portland  Tiffany Kingery, Program Development Specialist, Multnomah County Human Services (formerly Department of School & Community Partnerships)