1. Coordinated assessment: The Basics
CENTER FOR CAPACITY BUILDING
NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS

2. Agenda REVIEW PLANNING AND DESIGN DATA & HMIS ASSESSMENT PROCESS
REFERRAL PROCESS
EVALUATION
WORKING TIME

3. Why Do We Care About Coordinated Entry?
SENDS HOUSEHOLDS TO INTERVENTION OF BEST FIT FROM THE START
PROVIDES SYSTEM-WIDE PREVENTION AND DIVERSION OPPORTUNITIES
IMPROVES SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
FOSTERS MORE COLLABORATION AMONG PROVIDERS
IMPROVES ABILITY TO PERFORM WELL ON HEARTH OUTCOMES
ESG MANDATE

4. SINGLE INTAKE CENTER/SHELTER
Centralized Intake
SINGLE INTAKE CENTER/SHELTER
(MAY BE ONE PLACE FOR EACH POPULATION)
PLACES: COLUMBUS, OH; GRAND RAPIDS, MI; HENNEPIN COUNTY/MINNEAPOLIS, MN
PROS: LESS TRAINING TIME NEEDED; MORE LIKELY TO BE CONSISTENT PROCESS; NEED LESS STAFF
CONS: ONE LOCATION MAY NOT BE EQUALLY ACCESSIBLE TO ALL; HIGH VOLUME

5. Decentralized Intake INTAKE POINT #1 INTAKE POINT #2 INTAKE POINT #3
PLACES: MONTGOMERY COUNTY/DAYTON, OH; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD
PROS: EASIER TO HANDLE LARGER NUMBERS OF CLIENTS; MORE ACCESSIBILITY; MAY INCREASE PROVIDER COMFORT LEVEL
CONS: LESS CONTROL AND CONSISTENCY; MAY BE MORE COSTLY DUE TO INCREASED SPACE/STAFF DEMANDS

6. 2-1-1 2-1-1 INTAKE SHELTER DIVERSION CENTER MAINSTREAM RESOURCES
PLACES: MEMPHIS/SHELBY COUNTY, TN; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MD; ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA
PROS: ACCESSIBILITY; EASY LINKAGES TO OTHER MAINSTREAM RESOURCES; REDUCES IN-PERSON CLIENTS
CONS: UNABLE TO DEAL WITH CRISIS SITUATIONS FACE-TO-FACE; INCREASED CHANCE OF INCONSISTENCY

7. ADDITIONAL PLANNING QUESTIONS
INDIVIDUAL SUBPOPULATION NEEDS
CO-LOCATION WITH OTHER CRUCIAL SERVICES
ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY
SIZE OF GEOGRAPHIC AREA
DISTANCE FROM OTHER PROVIDERS

8. Data Collection & HMIS

9. Necessary Tools CENTRALIZED DATA ENTRY AND/OR SINGLE PROCEDURE
DEVELOP AND TRAIN INTAKE STAFF.
AN OPEN HMIS
A DATA SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALL PROVIDERS
CREATE ONE.
REAL-TIME INFORMATION ON BED AVAILABILITY (PREFERABLY THROUGH HMIS)
PROVIDE TRAINING FOR PROVIDERS, UPGRADE HMIS SYSTEM.
SHORT TERM SOLUTION: HAVE PROGRAMS CALL IN AVAILABILITY, USE AN EXCEL OR GOOGLE SPREADSHEET

10. Promising practices - data
CINCINNATI, OH (SPEAKING AT THE CONFERENCE)
HAVE “HOMEGROWN” HMIS THAT SHOWS REAL-TIME BED AVAILABILITY
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA (SPEAKING AT THE CONFERENCE); PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MD
2-1-1 BEGINS INITIAL DATA ENTRY PROCESS, SHARES DATA WITH INTAKE CENTER
WHATCOM COUNTY, WA (SPEAKING AT THE CONFERENCE)
DEVELOPED DATA SHARING AGREEMENT AND CLIENT MOU QUICKLY; LOOPED IN YOUTH PROVIDERS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROVIDER

11. Assessment

12. Getting started
HAVE EACH PROGRAM REVIEW INTERNALLY, AND THEN REVIEW AS A SYSTEM, PROGRAM RULES AND POTENTIAL “SCREEN OUT” FACTORS:
ARE THEY NECESSARY FOR FUNDING REASONS?
ARE THEY RELATED TO THE MISSION OF THE PROGRAM?
OF THE SYSTEM? (WHAT IS THE MISSION OF THE SYSTEM?)
LOOK AT OTHER COMMUNITIES’ ASSESSMENT TOOLS
DECIDE WHAT INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE ACQUIRED WHEN (AT INTAKE VS. AFTER REFERRAL HAS BEEN MADE)

13. Getting started, cont’d
WHAT INFORMATION ARE YOU REQUIRED TO COLLECT BY HUD?
WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU NEED TO DETERMINE IF SOMEONE SHOULD RECEIVE PREVENTION ASSISTANCE OR BE DIVERTED FROM SHELTER?
WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU NEED ABOUT CLIENTS FROM PROGRAMS TO MAKE A SMART REFERRAL?

14. PREVENTION ASSESSMENT AND TARGETING: use shelter data
LOOK AT SHELTER DATA: USE THIS TO GUIDE WHO RECEIVES PREVENTION ASSISTANCE.

15. Shelter DIVERSION QUESTIONS
WHERE DID YOU SLEEP LAST NIGHT?
WHAT OTHER HOUSING OPTIONS DO YOU HAVE FOR THE NEXT FEW DAYS OR WEEKS?
(IF STAYING IN SOMEONE ELSE’S HOUSING) WHAT ISSUES EXIST WITH YOU REMAINING IN YOUR CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION? CAN THOSE ISSUES BE RESOLVED WITH FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, CASE MANAGEMENT, ETC.?
(IF COMING FROM THEIR OWN UNIT) IS IT POSSIBLE/SAFE TO STAY IN YOUR CURRENT HOUSING UNIT? WHAT RESOURCES WOULD YOU NEED TO DO THAT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, CASE MANAGEMENT, MEDIATION, TRANSPORTATION, ETC.)?

16. Referral Process

17. Referrals: the “Warm handoff”
1. MAKE CLIENT REFERRAL. 2. CALL PROGRAM TO ANNOUNCE THAT CLIENT IS BEING REFERRED TO THEM. 3. SHARE CLIENT DATA WITH REFERRAL PROGRAM. 4. OPTIONAL: IN-PERSON MEETINGS

18. REFERRAL VS. ADMISSION
WHICH PROGRAMS CAN ACCEPT/WILL ACCEPT DIRECT ADMISSIONS (E.G., EMERGENCY SHELTER)? HOW COULD YOU PHASE IN THIS CHANGE OVER TIME? WHICH PROGRAMS ARE ONLY ACCESSIBLE THROUGH REFERRAL?
SET PROCESS FOR REFERRALS THAT ALLOWS AGENCIES TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK IF SOMEONE ISN’T A GOOD MATCH (E.G., DAYTON MODEL)

19. evaluation

20. EVALUATION MEASURES
ARE MORE PEOPLE BEING PREVENTED OR DIVERTED FROM ENTERING HOMELESSNESS?
ARE PEOPLE MOVING THROUGH THE HOMELESS ASSISTANCE MORE QUICKLY?
ARE MORE PEOPLE EXITING THE SYSTEM FOR PERMANENT HOUSING?
ARE LENGTHS OF STAY IN HOMELESSNESS DECREASING? ARE LENGTHS OF STAY IN SHELTER DECREASING?
ARE THERE FEWER REPEAT ENTRIES INTO HOMELESSNESS?

21. Other evaluation methods
CONSUMER SURVEYS
REFERRAL: PRIMARY PLACEMENT VS. SECONDARY PLACEMENT

22. Tools on tables COORDINATED ENTRY CHECKLIST (ALLIANCE)
TRIAGE TOOL (COLUMBUS, OH)
DATA SHARING AGREEMENT (WHATCOM COUNTY, WA)
CLIENT RELEASE FORM (WHATCOM COUNTY, WA)
COORDINATED ENTRY POWERPOINT (DAYTON/MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OH)
RAPID RE-HOUSING TRIAGE TOOL (ALLIANCE)