Introduction
Why homelessness prevention?
What makes a good prevention strategy?
The challenge of creating effective prevention strategies
Method
Common prevention activities
Selecting communities to study
Results
Promising (or potentially effective) homelessness prevention strategies
Tenancy preserved | Moved to alternative housing | Became homeless | |
---|---|---|---|
All cases served and closed by TPP (n = 366) | 51% | 34% | 15% |
By diagnosis | |||
Mental health (n = 202) | 55% | 32% | 13% |
Substance abuse (n = 43) | 51% | 37% | 12% |
Dual diagnosis (n = 83) | 37% | 35% | 28% |
Elder or cognitive (n = 24) | 71% | 21% | 8% |
Other (n = 13) | 38% | 62% | 0% |
Key elements of prevention strategies
Element | Community-wide strategies with families | Community-wide strategies for people with serious mental illness | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hennepin County, MN | Montgomery County, MD | MAAC (Kansas City, KS & MO) | Massachusetts | Philadelphia, PA | ||
Targeting aids | Information sharing across agencies and systems | All prevention and rapid exit agencies share a data system | Prevention and shelter services through one agency, with common database | All private agencies handling prevention funds share common database, which also tracks shelter referral and use | Acute inpatient, shelter, DMH transitional programs share information through outreach; courts and DMH contract agencies share information through Tenancy Preservation Projects; working with Medicaid and TANF agencies | OBH shares data with child welfare, homeless system, jail/prison, and internally among its mental health and substance abuse service arms |
Housing barrier screening and triage | Yes, measure via scale | Yes, though no formal measurement | No | Formally, to become DMH client (must meet diagnostic and disability criteria);informally for housing (related to level of need, absence of alternatives) | Formally, to become OBH client (must meet diagnostic and disability criteria); informally for housing (related to level of need, absence of alternatives) | |
Motivators | Public jurisdiction recognizes a legal or moral obligation to shelter | Yes, moral, from County Council | Yes, moral, from County Council | No | Yes, part of legislative and DMH commitments | Some, from city |
Significant mainstream resources are invested (other than Federal) | Yes, state and local | Yes, mostly local | No | Yes, mostly state | Yes, mostly local | |
Maximizing resources | Collaboration among public and private agencies | Public and private, extensive | Public and private, extensive | Private only | Public and private, extensive | Public and private |
Nonhousing mainstream agencies accepting housing their clients as one of their responsibilities | Yes, child welfare, TANF, mental health caseworkers included in rapid exit case planning for families | Yes, child welfare, behavioral health, and domestic violence case workers coordinate housing services | No | Yes, DMH itself and to some extent corrections, for people with serious mental illness | Yes, OBH for people with serious mental illness | |
Direction, sustainability, control, and feedback | Leadership | Yes, strong, sustained, for both prevention and rapid exit | More coordinating than leadership | Coordinating function, but not for new or developing prevention strategies | Yes, strong, sustained, for prevention, rapid exit, and community-based housing for people with serious mental illness | Just beginning for prevention, long been present for community-based housing for people with serious mental illness |
Clear goal of preventing homelessness among target population(s) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Just beginning | |
Clear strategy with ways to track success and progress | Have strategy, track progress, use feedback to adjust system; prevention success tested against shelter database | Only beginning to develop a strategy; prevention success tested internally and against sheriff’s eviction database; have data to do more | Do not have a strategy for system development; have data to track progress but have not to date | Have strategy, track some kinds of progress, but not yet specifically for prevention | Just beginning to develop strategy and tracking | |
Lead agency has control of funding and contracting for all or most of system | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | |
Uses outcomes-based contracting with adjustments based on performance | Contracts specify outcomes, not process or services; contractors have been terminated or not renewed for not meeting outcome commitments | No | No | No | No |