1 The vision of the City of Seattle is that all members of our community are able to benefit from the advantages of our thriving economy. We must always strive for our success to be equitable and are therefore measured by the how we care for our most vulnerable residents, including people who are experiencing homelessness. Homelessness should be rare, brief and a one-time occurrence. rev September 27 , 2016

2 Acknowledgements development the Homeless Policy Framework required of considerable vision, ingenuity and The The City commitment. of Seattle is grateful to have such dedicated staff working to address in our community and would like homelessness to thank the following individuals for their participation in this process: Team: Core Curtin Marci Denham Eileen Eas Adrienne ter Garrity Lindsey Josh Hall Joy Hunt Kim Tanya Dusty Olson Sola Plumacher Michael Taylor ‐ Judd Pat Wells Maureen Office of Housing Kostyack, Office of Housing Laurie Olson, Grover ‐ Roybal, Harvard Kennedy School Government Performance Lab Christina Planning Team: Catherine Lester Jason Johnson Buehring Audrey Krista Diaz Tara James e Bush Jolly Katherin Susan McCallister Abdiwali Mohamed Ali Peters Washington Tiffany Brinson Price, Mayor’s Office Leslie Maggie Thompson, Mayor’s Office Tina Mayor’s Office Walha, RSJI Analysis: Jess Chow Joy Hunt Kia Kahm ‐ Lee Dwight Mizoguchi Olson Dusty Homelessness

3 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness of Contents Table Summary Executive ... 1 ... 7 Community ... Vision ... 9 ... Introduction ... the Homeless Policy Context ... 12 for Framework Needs of the Unsheltered ... 12 Addressing the Growing Pressure Addressing Create More Permanent, Affordable Housing ... 12 to ‐ Term System Issues ... 13 Addressing Long Evaluate and Scale Investments in Best and Promising Practices  The Portfolio Pilot Project  Plan Develop a Homeless Framework and Investment Policy  Homeless Analysis ... ... 19 System Engagement ... 19 Community Communities Supporting Safe and Stable Housing  Home All Plan Strategic   2016 Housing Levy Renewal Homeless Policy Framework Stakeholder Engagement  Focus Analysis and Projections from Strategies ... 21 Wide System Recommendations Summary of Findings and  Recommendations from Barbara Poppe... 25 System Transformation Plan City Seattle Implementation of ... 28 Investment Principles and Strategies ... 28 Systemic Create a Person ‐ Centered Response to Homelessness  Models with in Demonstrated Success Invest   Address Disparities Racial Already Underway ... 37 Actions Actions to Create a Person ‐ Centered Systemic Response   to Invest in Models with Demonstrated Success Actions Racial Actions to Address Disparities  Actions ... ... 40 Priority Commitment to Families Living Unsheltered  24 ‐ Hour Expanding Shelter Options  Lists Actively Problem Solving Wait   People to Services Connecting Accessible Making Rental Units   Good Government and Performance Ensuring Timeline ... ... 49 ... 51 Closing ... A: Appendix Development Process ... 52 HPF Appendix B: HPF Community Engagement Efforts ... 54 Justice Appendix Racial and Social C: Analysis ... 55 Appendix D: Revised System Wide Performance Targets and New Minimum Standards Implementation Plan ... 57

4 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Summary Executive Introduction of Seattle invests over $50 million in services that provide prevention, intervention, and The City individuals and families experiencing homelessness. housing Despite these investments, permanent for were men, women, least and children in King County 4,505 without shelter during the One Night at over increase total 40% a and over increase 2015 19% a is which 2016, January in Count Approximately of those unsheltered individuals reside in the 75% City of Seattle. At the same 2014. our city is experiencing unprecedented economic prosperity time, resulting in two very different resident benefit from the The City of Seattle of envisions that every living in Seattle. experiences and growth of our city prosperity and its economy. Our success as a city must be defined by how we care for our most vulnerable residents. crisis is a result of complex social and economic factors at a federal, regional and local current level, The inefficiencies. also due to process and system is Rather than investing in a comprehensive but of services, investments have been made very haphazardly, without true strategic continuum direction. HSD has not routinely engaged in a competitive funding process for homeless investments in more than been made based upon legacy funding, During that time, homeless investments a have decade. are and designated budget adds. Pilot projects program not evaluated and often result in advocacy, lack funding ongoing regardless of their efficacy. While individual providers may be highly successful, the out efficiently to exit people a system that is not designed to work of cohesion has resulted in systemic of homelessness. the historically been a frontrunner Seattle has implementation of innovative homeless housing in including the adoption of Housing First principles, and still has many examples of nationally programs, in and providers. However, recognized recent years, other communities have experienced programs progress towards significantly greater addressing the crisis of homelessness. In comparing these more focus to effective Seattle, it is clear that the cities on the development of a comprehensive system, rather than exemplary individual programs, is critical to successfully reducing homelessness. Seattle is our system function and clear we have a comprehensive understanding of juncture, at a critical where guidance ways to dramatically increase its efficacy. Now is the time to demonstrate our commitment in homelessness serving those experiencing to and provide meaningful access to the necessary better ensure that homelessness is rare, to brief and one ‐ time. services Context Addressing homelessness has been a central tenant of Mayor Murray’s administration since taking office in Focusing simultaneously on the immediate needs 2014. of those experiencing homelessness and the long term strategy and resources necessary to create impactful change, Mayor Murray has outlined a ‐ community: our in homelessness for approaching the crisis of strategy pronged ‐ three 1 Page |

5 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Emergency Task Force on Unsheltered Homelessness & Declaration of a State of Emergency 1. Address (SOE) immediate needs of the unsheltered through quickly implementable ‐ the ‐ budgetary policy changes or one ‐ time requiring budget ‐ impact strategies. solutions non the and Livability Agenda (HALA) ‐ Address Housing growing pressure to create 2. Affordability more affordable housing options across the income spectrum in Seattle, including permanent, for housing homeless or formerly homeless people. services Assessment City’s existing investments in homeless of ‐ Address long ‐ term system 3. through evaluating Human Services Department (HSD) investments issues in homeless services national and local with efforts recommendations aligning our interventions better on with and practices. best Homeless Policy Framework (HPF) is the City’s response and The plan to the assessment implementation of existing investments in homelessness. In September 2014, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray tasked HSD to with of the City’s investments in homeless services, compare those investments an evaluation conduct recognized best practices, and identify ways to better meet the needs of people experiencing nationally in our communities. HSD released the Homelessness Investment Analysis in March 2015, homelessness showed that our current investments are which disjointed, with a heavy focus on basic clearly immediate centers focused on crisis, rather than a shelters and hygiene such intervention as services, designed comprehensive continuum of strategies cohesive to end people's homelessness. The and Homeless Analysis identified the necessity to develop Investment a Homeless Policy Framework in order the to ensure future investments align with and supports the regional All Home Strategic Plan, provisions evidence the federal HEARTH Act, and ‐ based best practices. of City of Seattle engaged with two nationally recognized consultant firms – Focus Strategies and The the and Associates – to support the development of Poppe Homeless Policy Framework. Barbara Way, United the engaged Focus the City, King County DCHS, and Through a partnership with All Home, Strategies conduct an assessment of the current to performance and efficiency of the Seattle/King County Continuum of Care, utilizing the System Wide Analytics and Projections (SWAP) suite of tools. at The SWAP analyzed the Seattle/King County system performance a project ‐ by ‐ project level utilizing client data, point ‐ in ‐ time count, models and program budgets. The analysis also the potential effects of the programmatic and investment changes on the size of the community’s homeless recommended a five ‐ year period. In addition to the population analysis, the City of Seattle also over engaged SWAP City to ways to provide the on with specific recommendations Associates and Poppe Barbara operationalize system improvement efforts. Barbara Poppe and Focus Strategies worked closely between together the process to ensure alignment through their recommendations. Homeless System Analysis The Seattle Human Services Department developed the Pathways Home Initiative in response to the findings and recommendations from Focus Strategies and Barbara Poppe and Associates . The analyses a and recommendations provide a comprehensive understanding of our homelessness system. They lay 2 Page |

6 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness that the City must implement in order to reduce unsheltered homelessness and increase the framework and in which people move from homelessness to permanent housing. These goals can speed efficiency accomplished be by: most funding for program approaches that are effective at exiting people from 1. Expanding housing. supportive rapid re ‐ housing and permanent diversion, homelessness as such shelter and housing access for people living unsheltered and people who have the 2. Prioritizing histories of longest homelessness. Orienting all aspects of the homeless response system towards exits to permanent housing. 3. Working together urgently and boldly 4. implement meaningful solutions. to of these recommendations includes many actions, which represent a critical element of Seattle’s Each as to implement system improvements and move closer to the goal of housing many people ability us as quickly as is homelessness possible. experiencing Investment Principles vision of the City of Seattle The is that all persons, regardless of their housing status, are members of this community and deserve access to the best possible intervention to help them exit homelessness. In ensure that the City of Seattle is investing order in programs that have the best to possible outcomes, the Human Services Department (HSD) principles: has adopted the following investment priorities and Create Person ‐ Centered Response to Homelessness a City integrated of Seattle must develop and invest in a comprehensive and system of interventions The A form a person ‐ centered crisis response system. systemic response to homelessness involves that than having must quality individual programs available. Those programs more be accessible, to the unique needs of each approach responds coordinated, and achieving results. A person ‐ centered of individual based on a brief assessment and their needs, strengths and vulnerabilities. Once family assessed, people are matched to the appropriate housing resource. Customized services must fit an following individual’s needs rather than strict programmatic guidelines. As a funder, HSD intends to with latitude and flexibility in funding to ensure customized services are not in conflict increased provide compliance requirements. Individualized services must be altered to fit the participant’s needs rather than being refused for not being an appropriate referral. Services should also consider a participant’s diverse cultures. looks very as different in culture, homelessness often Invest in Models with Demonstrated Success Moving forward, all funding for homeless investments will be awarded on a competitive basis for reducing programs which meet critical needs and can demonstrate that the program contributes to 3 Page |

7 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness by assisting program participants in obtaining or maintaining stable permanent housing. homelessness by investments on programs with a relentless focus on permanent housing can our Only concentrating throughput to adequately begin to address enough our large unsheltered population. All system obtain on focused Programs housing. permanent program exits to focus must programs family and adult on and adults must demonstrate housing stability outcomes, young as youth many not be youth prepared for permanent housing options. developmentally must reallocate funds to new projects HSD would improve outcomes and reduce reallocation homelessness. whenever Address Racial Disparities of color continue to be overrepresented in the homeless service People and the City and HSD system, must continue to work to eliminate institutional policies and practices that perpetuate these numbers. As a City dedicated to racial equity and social justice, we cannot ignore the disproportional the of make up only about a third U.S. population yet they comprise just over color that people fact of of all sheltered people experiencing homelessness. In half 2015, 80 ‐ 90% of the people served in our family homeless programs were persons of color, in a city where less than 34% of our population are people of color. Because homelessness so disproportionately impacts persons of color, it is essential to area. examining use a racial equity lens when any programming and investments in this Priority Actions Living Commitment to Unsheltered Families there are over 500 families on the Coordinated Entry waitlist who are living unsheltered. The Currently Coordinated Entry is to provide families with of quick centralized access to shelter and housing. vision barriers to program system entry and However, inefficiencies cause families to experience very long wait times. unsheltered with Living young children creates a health and safety risk with potentially serious lifelong negative consequences. The City of Seattle is making a commitment that no family should be unsheltered. Expanding 24 ‐ Hour Shelter Options unsheltered During the 2016 One Night Count in January, 2,942 people were counted living of in the City Seattle. the same time, the SWAP analysis indicates At that we have unutilized shelter capacity. People who are choosing to live outdoors rather than in shelter very clearly state that there are significant barriers to coming indoors for some people. In order to bring people inside and connect them with appropriate interventions, shelter must be perceived as housing a preferable option to living outdoors. By embracing a housing first, low barrier, service ‐ oriented shelter model, the City is committed to survival shelters comprehensive and moving away from to only shelter models accessible shelter making that focused on ending a person’s homelessness. 4 Page |

8 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Problem Solving Wait Lists Actively Entry All is an essential element to a fully functioning integrated response to Coordinated for prioritized Coordinated Entry waitlists However, is not sufficient to move homelessness. developing thousands housing. Currently, our system has quickly of people experiencing homelessness people into needs process The intervention. appropriate access an waiting housing shelter in or outdoors living to to transition one focused on matching people to programs from one that adapts programs to match to Learning from communities that have made people. progress in reducing their waitlists, as substantial our community’s work on Veteran’s Homelessness, as development of “By Name List” (BNL) well the has been shown to be an essential tool procedures to help with managing the lists and reducing wait times. By Name Lists allow providers and funders to work together to actively problem solve the lists by Coordinated Entry. They do not circumvent Coordinated Entry; but rather use the developed case and enhance it by overlaying process staffing. It creates accountability between coordinated entry and to the funder, but most importantly to the people experiencing homelessness. HSD is providers, to developing By Name List processes for the Family Impact Team, Youth and Young Adults, committed Unsheltered. ‐ Shelter Stayers and People Living Long term Connecting People to Services is a critical component to Outreach people who are living outdoors to services and housing connecting no interventions. While HSD funds multiple outreach providers who individually do good work, there is and coordinated of outreach to ensure adequate placement coverage. Some areas may receive system housing to gateway a become others none. Outreach must also in and a week contacts multiple Outreach will always include other components such as survival supports, medical interventions. mental health and substance abuse, our but outreach must be the entrance to interventions, homeless permanent housing working to get people indoors either system, into shelter or into response actively placements. Making Rental Units Accessible midst There is no doubt that Seattle is in the of an affordable housing crisis. Nothing in the recommendations or this plan denies that. Rather, Focus Strategies and Barbara Poppe both focus on available the need to increase access to any and all to affordable and private market housing stock and identify creative housing solutions so that homelessness can reduced in spite of our housing market. be Rapid re ‐ housing and rental voucher programs can only place people into housing if the housing stock is available to rent. Currently, people with these supports are often faced with challenging and difficult background searches, complicated by rental restrictions and barriers to entry such as credit and housing can take months for people on checks. It verge of permanent housing placement to successfully the locate rental unit to make use of their subsidy. The City of Seattle is committed to supporting the a rental to a Housing Resource Center to increase access units. of development 5 Page |

9 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Good Government and Performance Ensuring to City Seattle and HSD also has had a significant role of play in the current state of our homeless The system. The lack of response clarity, strategy and formal investment process is a contributing factor to patchwork collection of programs. Routine disjointed competitive funding processes have not the new over a decade, resulting in legacy funding with little change to accommodate in happened encourage models. That type of environment does not innovation. In order to develop a directions or ‐ centered homeless response system, investments must be made person based on data and strategically, funding and processes competitive routine conducting grounded commits HSD practices. best in to performance based in contracting. engage Timeline multifaceted Reforming a system as complex and fractured as the current homeless response system is a way. must be undertaken in a thoughtful and meaningful and Now it is time to begin taking action task to plan and implement change. Not everything will be accomplished at once, so decisions have been made regarding the elements to prioritize. Over the next two years, continued planning and priorities engagement will occur regarding the best way to operationalize the commitments and contained within this framework. Some priorities and actions the City of Seattle intends to undertake two actions these of All years. lie next remainder over implemented being the with immediately the within a larger implementation plan the City has agreed to with King County, All Home, and the that reform. United Way for those areas where there is joint responsibility for system 6 Page |

10 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Community Vision Seattle is one of the most prosperous The City of the country. However, in in cities innovative and “The Interagency Council on U.S. the of a in spite of that prosperity, midst Seattle is Seattle Homelessness how at looked has has been a lot of crisis of homelessness. There years, spends its money. For they have recent months to those living on our attention in us to adopt an approach that is urged in and freeway, living under camping streets, the ‐ person uses data to centered, invest in RVs. their automobiles or have Those discussions works, our with aligned is and what living people that acknowledge to neglected often City federal But our partners. has been are our neighbors in residents those conditions and gather the political for decades to unable of the City of Seattle. people residents, all Like to courage shift.” this make homelessness honored be to deserve experiencing Murray Ed Mayor ‐‐ in served and humanity their for the best and most prosperity the from resident every that envisions Seattle of City The possible. means efficient benefit and defined be must by city a as success Our economy. its and city our of growth how we care for our most vulnerable residents. some difficult we make must In experiencing people support and homelessness, serve best to order can and adjustments. decisions Seattle’s done. always have we what do to continue longer no We homelessness to response of collection extensive an is result The time. over organically grown has focused programs without the coordination and integration individual necessary to function as a system we must embrace on ending someone’s experience of homelessness. Seattle is a city of innovation, and of greater create change, spirit the efficiencies, strengthen programs that are working, and discontinue for ineffective our support have We homelessness. ending at programs be to proven have that is system our how of leading experts, have the best understanding some consulted our nation's with of working in a made successfully have that cities from learned had, their ever have we that difference and now we know what we must do. communities, is time to stop studying and begin acting. We It those of interest best the keeping choices, difficult those make to courage political we must the have serve at the heart of all decisions. Our neighbors experiencing homelessness deserve for our community to do better. is that homelessness is rare, racial disparities are eliminated, and if The vision of All Home King County 1 one becomes homeless, it is brief and only a ‐ time occurrence. Seattle The City of in joins one supporting that vision. Every investment must be working towards that end. To make homelessness as gain housing stability brief and one ‐ time, we must provide each person with what is needed to “housing recognize We ready.” housing not must being to Access possible. as upon contingent be quickly the lack of housing can be a barrier that prevents people from their address to services accessing that 1 Homelessness) End to Committee the (formerly Home All make to partnership wide ‐ community a is and plan/ in King County rare, brief homelessness one ‐ time – ‐ 7 Page |

11 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp issues. other a community, we must embrace the Housing First philosophy and commit fully to using As approaches to support people experiencing homelessness effective in quickly gaining and proven stability. housing a City dedicated As racial equity and social justice, we cannot ignore the fact that this to likely Native of color, with African Americans five times more and impacts disproportionately people Natives seven more likely to American/Alaska times disproportionately Homelessness homelessness. out of five children who experience Four impacts people of color As a are children homelessness of color. experience institutional community, we must address the underlying Islanders: Hawaiian/Pacific Native that and this to contributes that racism disparity ensure    3x more likely to opportunities people color of have homelessness exit same rates as permanent their housing obtain and at the African Americans: counterparts. white more 5x likely      develop a culture of As a community, we must American/Alaska Native Native: expect We must fund accountability. that the we programs likely        7x more will provide quality data that demonstrates their program Source: All Home data to make strategic We must use that performance. decisions both at a programmatic and system level. Data ‐ informed decisions increase the accountability stewards of public money. the public, as good of programs to us as funders, and of the funders to difficult Although we already know ending homelessness is as as any challenge we face as a city, Seattle this. It requires being willing strides do significant make can partners its and to towards accomplishing service seamless and comprehensive a developing delivery work, to demonstrated been has which that system, and working require center the that remembering of will it importantly, Most collaboratively. vision our streets. our on suffering who people for result better a is are 8 Page |

12 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Introduction City of Seattle Human Services Department (HSD) funds programs to assist single adults, youth, The adults, families with children who are at imminent risk of or are experiencing homelessness. young and services has invested over $50 million for HSD that provide homeless prevention, homeless In 2016, and women, men, these investments, at least 4,505 Despite housing. permanent and intervention, in King County were without shelter during the One Night Count in January 2016 , representing children 19% increase increase over 2015 and a 40% total over 2014. Approximately 75% of those unsheltered a 2 reside in the City of Seattle. individuals circumstances While the primary reason people experience homelessness is because individual vary, are unable to maintain or they housing they can afford. Additional factors contribute to the secure problem including poverty, a decline in federal support for affordable housing, a decline in public care to address health mental illness and addictive lack of affordable safety nets, and assistance and Due to economic recession and erosion of federal state support, the safety nets that disorders. have historically relied upon to support them in times of crisis have been diminished. The United people income tax deduction, with 77% of on the mortgage States contributes more than $70 billion annually going to predominantly white households its incomes over $100,000 per year, while at the benefit with same time only appropriating $44.8 billion to entire Department of Housing and Urban the disproportionate result Development(HUD) budget directed at low ‐ income populations. The of this for only 25% of the households eligible that HUD aid actually receive assistance. In addition, allocation is the late 1970s the significant budget cuts to HUD have resulted in reductions of approximately since 3 per year in the stock units of publicly assisted housing. 10,000 City the of Seattle, economic factors currently play a significant role In in our community’s emerging crisis homelessness. Rent cost burdens in Washington have of risen at an unprecedented rate and this trend is predicted to continue. Even with the local hourly minimum wage currently at $13.00, a worker 4 need to make an estimated $23.56 in order to afford a one ‐ bedroom home at fair market rent. would homelessness High rent levels are a primary determinant of progressive in a community. In spite of efforts address income inequality by raising the minimum to wage, Seattle continues to see considerable 5 disparity with the top 20% of household incomes being 19 times those of the lowest 20%. economic This income inequality also closely ties with racial and ethnic breakdowns of the City's populations, with 2 Homelessness Seattle ‐ King County Coalition on – hat_we_do/one_night_count/ 3 Regional Advocacy Project, Without Housing: Decades of Federal Western Cutbacks, Massive Housing Homelessness, and Policy Failures 20 (2010) 4 Yentel, Diane, Andrew Aurand, Dan Emmanuel, Ellen Errico, Gar Meng Leong, and Kate Rodrigues. Out of Reach Low 2016: No Refuge for Low Income Renters. National Income Housing Coalition. 2016. < lt/files/oor/OOR_2016.pdf > 5 2013 U.S. Census Bureau, 9 Page |

13 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness of color being disproportionately represented in the lowest income levels and over ‐ represented persons 6 housing instability. experiencing persons among th ranks 47 Washington State the nation in funding for mental health and substance abuse treatment in 7 Untreated mental health and addictions are a leading of homelessness. Outreach cause services. reported that as many as 90% of unsheltered people are struggling with these issues. The workers have impact is that increased resulting numbers of people are living in marginalized situations, unstably and substance abuse conditions. mental housed and coping with untreated health the are In addition to these larger economic and social factors, City's process and system inefficiencies contributing the current crisis. HSD has not regularly to engaged in a competitive funding process in more than a decade. During that time, homeless investments have been made based upon legacy funding, program advocacy, and designated budget adds special pilot projects that are not evaluated or in a system context and often result in ongoing funding. This has resulted in a patchwork of investments strategic concentrated specific providers without any precise with direction. While individual providers 6 United Way of King County Key Racial Disparity Report, October 2015. < ‐ content/uploads/ftp/RacialDisparityDataReport_Nov2015.pdf > 7 ‐ states Mental Health America – http://www.mentalhealtham 10 Page |

14 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness be highly successful with their niche programs, the lack of systemic cohesion has resulted in a may that not designed to work efficiently to exit is people out of homelessness. This system system combined with the economic factors discussed above has resulted in the inefficiency in increases homelessness and living on our streets. unsheltered people experiencing numbers of implementation Seattle been a frontrunner in the has of innovative homeless housing programs, the adoption including Housing First principles and still has many examples of nationally recognized of programs and providers. However, in recent years, other communities have experienced significantly homelessness. addressing the crisis of In comparing these more effective towards greater progress to Seattle, it is clear that the focus on the development of cities a comprehensive system, rather than exemplary individual programs, is the key to success. In the past five years, the City of Houston has seen standards service to approach in overall homelessness by implementing a system ‐ wide reduction 57% a 8 Communities who achieve success are also committed to the other system improvements. and evaluation. of in their system planning, implementation and Las Vegas has been able to utilization data significant reductions in their populations of accomplish chronically homeless persons and has 9 While recognize that we data ‐ driven approach. effectively ended Veterans homelessness utilizing a other are not interchangeable with Seattle, in order cities to experience similar success, we must adopt that practices a have been demonstrated to be effective at reducing homelessness in multiple cities with with range circumstances. Seattle must not be content of having a few individual programs achieving positive results and national attention, as a community we must embrace a systems approach and develop a data ‐ driven culture. 8 Coalition for the Homeless: Leading Houston Home ‐ < ‐ ‐ content/uploads/2016/06/2016 PIT ‐ Executive ‐ Summary ‐ v4.pdf> 9 ‐ homelessness USICH ‐ ‐ southern ‐ nevada ‐ achieved ‐ an ‐ end ‐ to ‐ veteran 11 Page |

15 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness for the Homeless Policy Framework Context homelessness Addressing been a central tenant of Mayor Murray’s administration since taking office has 2014. simultaneously on the immediate needs of Focusing those experiencing homelessness and the in term strategy and resources necessary to create impactful change, Mayor Murray has outlined long a ‐ homelessness in our community: crisis of ‐ strategy for approaching the three pronged (SOE) Emergency Task Force on Unsheltered Homelessness & Declaration of a State of Emergency 1. the immediate needs of Address unsheltered through quickly implementable  the requiring non ‐ budgetary policy changes or one ‐ time budget ‐ impact solutions strategies. Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) 2. Address growing pressure to create more the permanent, affordable housing options  the income spectrum in Seattle, including across housing for homeless or formerly homeless people. investments of City’s 3. Assessment in homeless services existing Address long ‐ term system issues  through evaluating Human Services Department (HSD) investments in homeless services and interventions with recommendations on better efforts with local and national best practices. aligning our Needs of the Unsheltered Addressing 10 Mayor declared a civil state of emergency on Murray homelessness on November 2, 2015. The SOE resulted immediate in $7.3 million in one ‐ time funding to support services designed to address the needs unsheltered individuals in our community. Mayor Murray has been clear that, while this of declaration address and funding was necessary to be able to act quickly to attempt to emergency the crisis of homelessness, system improvements must be made in order to more adequately respond to homelessness long ‐ term. These primarily short ‐ term measures, while providing immediate relief for many unsheltered individuals, will not lead to a reduction in homelessness. The City must change the dedicated to funding ongoing of dollars million additional $40 the currently it which in way invests These changes are the goal of the Homeless Policy Framework (HPF). homeless services. the Growing Pressure to Create More Addressing Affordable Housing Permanent, In addition to emergency response, we must address the limited supply of affordable housing in order to ensure Council long ‐ term impact on the rates of homelessness. In 2014, Mayor Murray and the City convened the HALA Advisory Committee, which was tasked with developing a plan that would generate 10 of of the Mayor, “Mayor Declares State Office Emergency in Response to Homeless Crisis” – http://murray.seattl 12 Page |

16 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp 11 of 50,000 housing units, including 20,000 new or preserved affordable units. The HALA an increase work resulted in a comprehensive package committee of 65 recommendations to increase housing affordability across the income spectrum that the City is now working to implement. A key recommendation was to increase the Seattle Housing Levy in 2016 ‐ which was renewed and expanded thanks the generosity of Seattle voters. Through the to previous housing levies, the City has constructed are units these of units designated as affordable housing. Many rental 12,500 over preserved or required to serve extremely low ‐ households, and many units are paired with project ‐ based income pay rental assistance funded by the Seattle Housing Authority so that formerly homeless households can housing levy, the HALA recommendations to recommending a larger what can afford. In addition they of strategies for increasing the availability include affordable housing such as developer also affordable to include future units (either on ‐ site or through a payment option) in all requirements preservation, multifamily housing developments, newfound sources for housing production and and HALA to housing. access recommendations consistently indicate for tenants to increase new protections that innovation is essential to addressing the shortage of affordable housing in our community. Long ‐ Addressing System Issues Term “Seattle’s $40 million annual investment Mayor In Murray tasked September 2014, Seattle Ed in homeless services is highest the of one an of evaluation City’s the conduct to HSD the in commitments However, nation. the investments in homeless services, compare those of to access lacking neighbors our number with investments nationally practices, best recognized decent and safe, affordable housing is meet the of and identify people ways to better needs unacceptably high... The findings in the experiencing in our communities. homelessness Analysis set will Investment Homelessness shift to investments the roadmap and City 183 across 2014, HSD invested nearly $40.8 million In models to ensure that service contracts and provide that services for agencies 60 brief one time.” ‐ and rare, is homelessness intervention, and homeless prevention, homeless Murra Ed or y y Ma ‐‐ housing. permanent Analysis HSD released the Homelessness Investment in March 2015, which clearly showed that our current investments are disjointed, with a heavy focus on basic intervention services, such as shelters crisis, and rather than a cohesive on immediate and hygiene comprehensive continuum focused centers of volume homelessness. people's end to designed strategies homeless contracts of presents a This provider the at HSD within both and efficiency to challenge particular delivery seamless service and level. The 2015 Homelessness Investment Analysis three strategies identified addressing in forward path a as homelessness: 11 Office ‐ – Values” and Goals Agenda Affordability “Housing Mayor, the of ‐ ‐ agenda ‐ goals affordability and ‐ values/ 13 Page |

17 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Evaluate and scale investments in best and promising practices expected to have a positive 1. on impact placement and shelter throughput, such as Rapid Re ‐ housing, Housing Long ‐ housing and Shelter Diversion. term Stayers, Portfolio Contracts, a engagement model combining a portfolio of services 2. Pilot progressive at making homelessness rare, brief, and one aimed time. Develop a policy framework and investment plan for the City’s homeless investments that aligns 3. and supports the regional All Home Strategic Plan, the provisions of the federal HEARTH with evidence ‐ based and practices. Act, best and Scale Investments in Best and Promising Practices Evaluate In 2012, the Human Services Department released the Communities Supporting Safe and Stable Housing Plan a document that outlined HSD’s investment plan from 2012 ‐ 2018. It identified an intention (CSSSH), systems. the way HSD funded programs and service The plan provided a framework for to alter in priority areas: investment three Homeless Prevention  Homeless Intervention Services  Housing Placement, Stabilization and Support  over plan set a framework for system ‐ wide change The six years to more effectively serve investment households Two major funding cycles were planned for the experiencing investments, homelessness. one in 2012 and in 2014. In one addition, homelessness the plan proposed modest increases to prevention, rapid re ‐ housing and housing stabilization services by 2015, accomplished by making funding shifts. incremental key elements of the 2012 Investment Many Plan for homeless services were not implemented, including from funding” ‐ “base of goal 2% even a modest to failure a and processes funding competitive shift services to other strategies and best practices. In an attempt to implement intentions of intervention the the on a much smaller scale, HSD designed several pilot projects to demonstrate CSSSH plan potential effectiveness of the proposed models. These pilots, along with others, were implemented provide the past several years and valuable insight into the most effective way to scale best over practices our community. The Homeless Investment Analysis recommended the evaluation of all in scale. order to analyze pilots the possibility of bringing them to in Diversion Pilot is a Diversion one ‐ time, light touch intervention, designed to keep people from entering the homeless system at the time when they are most at risk of becoming unsheltered. The City of Seattle has been Building funding a diversion program in collaboration with Changes and King County since 2013. moving assistance, legal reduction, debt provide services, such as diversion agencies four Currently 14 Page |

18 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness background checks and documentation procurement. Diversion is an efficient and cost effective costs, to individuals from becoming homeless. In the first six months of 2016, 58 families strategy prevent an diverted from the homeless system using successfully average of $1,533 per family have been successful its to due however, focused on families; primarily program this has date, To assistance. investments will expand diversion to all populations. outcomes, ‐ Shelter Stayers Pilot Long Term there is an effort to address those individuals who have become nearly permanent Nationwide, shelter and have been very difficult to in in housing solutions. The Closer residents engage to Home was Initiative in 2004 by the Corporation for Supportive Housing to attempt to evaluate developed creative solutions to engage and house people whose combinations of circumstances and long histories homelessness have left them stuck in the shelter system. This evaluation concluded that long ‐ term of successfully with significant barriers, could be those engaged in housing with the stayers, even shelter 12 level of engagement and supportive services. proper It is clear that addressing long ‐ term shelter large essential to increasing shelter bed availability. A small number of stayers individuals are using a is percentage of our community’s shelter resources. Providing with housing will free up significant them resources. additional shelter the impact long ‐ term shelter stayers were having Murray budgeted $410,000 to address In Mayor 2015, the throughput of emergency shelters in Seattle. This project was matched with $410,000 from on Way King County (UWKC) and was used to secure approximately $3 million from a Federal United regional effort to move McKinney Site Permanent Supportive grant Project, a for the Scattered Housing 235 long ‐ term shelter stayers into permanent housing with long ‐ term rent subsidies and case expansion management. project, awarded in June 2015, is an This of an effort conducted in 2013 that homeless new ‐ term shelter stayers into housing. Many long of them were placed in 80 over moved housing units that came online during that time. The success of the long ‐ term shelter stayers project has placements been impacted by the design of the project and the available housing The attached to it. service intensity of defining all long ‐ term stayers would require the level of was that assumption to Housing and that has not been shown Permanent be true. The project must be retooled Supportive to ensure a variety of housing options are available to this population in order to move them into system. and free up a large amount of capacity in our shelter permanent housing Re Family Rapid Housing ‐ Pilot In the City of Seattle, King County, Building 2014, Changes and UWKC invested approximately $3 million to house as many as 350 homeless families in King County through Rapid Re ‐ housing (RRH). RRH is a exit homelessness with a homeless families First quickly Housing approach designed to help 12 Final Report on the Evaluation of the Closer to Home Initiative, Corporation for Supportive Housing, February content/uploads/2011/12/Report_cth_final1.pdf 2004, ‐ 15 Page |

19 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp of housing search assistance and a short ‐ term rental subsidy. RRH programs have a 90% combination 13 the In 2015, City of Seattle housing. at moving families into and retaining permanent success rate the RRH pilot programs and rent assistance into the current RRH incorporated Portfolio. Through these pilot programs, there are 498 people enrolled and 241 families have been successfully placed in housing. Single Adult Rapid Re ‐ housing Pilot Rapid the Family Re ‐ Housing pilot, in 2015, Mayor Murray successes Building in the learnings on and budgeted $600,000 to implement a RRH program for Single Adults. HSD conducted a competitive process selected Catholic Community Services and YMCA to house 100 people experiencing and be served identified people of color and Veterans as priority homelessness. populations to program This by In the first six months of 2016, these the Single Adult RRH programs have enrolled 165 resources. individuals and successfully housed 98. Veteran Homelessness 14 Through a joined the Mayors In Challenge 2015, to End Veteran Homelessness. Mayor Murray collaborative effort with King County, the Veterans Administration, and All Home, the team has made into significant progress in identifying and moving Veterans housing. The initiatives to house veterans to initially began with estimates and projections based on Point in Time counts and then transitioned management a of Name List to actively move veterans housing. Over the past 18 months, 1,137 By into from King County have been housed. The Mayors Challenge work has been successful at Veterans First and meets the benchmark number of Veterans moving into Housing permanent housing enacting Veterans Challenge is the to house the remaining housing. The current focus for versus transitional length Veterans chronic homelessness and to reduce the experiencing of time homeless for all Veterans. The Portfolio Pilot Project In July 2016, HSD launched the first Portfolio Pilot contracts, an innovative partnership with service contracts providers to align services for people experiencing homelessness, streamline to increase flexibility, standardized outcome metrics, and more actively manage contracts through a implement Homeless framework. The Portfolio Pilot was a recommendation from the ‐ contracting results driven Analysis as a way to Investment with community agencies to: collaborate 1. Explore a person ‐ centered progressive engagement model that utilizes best practices to provide housing ‐ focused, strength ‐ based interventions at the front door of service access at key in the system. points 13 Rapid Re ‐ Housing for Homeless Families Programs Evaluation Report Part II: Demonstration Demonstration Findings – Outcomes Evaluation, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, April 2016 14 Mayors Challenge to Veteran Homelessness – End =/program_offices/comm_planning/vet eran_information/mayors_challenge/ 16 Page |

20 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Identify opportunities to streamline services by giving agencies the flexibility to shift 2. service and staff time to best meet the needs of people experiencing resources, provision, homelessness. the administrative burden of agencies multiple service contracts by creating 3. Decrease with efficiencies that support service delivery, including combining contracts. contract contracts to be performance ‐ focused and improve contracted results by using data 4. Reorient inform funding programmatic, policy, and changes. to eight Pilot has transitioned The 24 contracts into Portfolio contracts across five agencies, and Portfolio new added for staffing and flexible client assistance for activities such as diversion. Regular funding review and analysis of data will increase program and funder accountability, and support consistent 15 Government Performance School Lab (GPL) evaluation. The Harvard Kennedy program performance pro ‐ bono technical assistance to the Seattle pilot project through Bloomberg Philanthropies’ provided 16 Cities initiative What Works to help HSD develop a results ‐ driven contracting framework, that will help HSD agencies understand the impact of their work and our and investment and encourage collaboration to implement changes necessary. when to The foundation of a results ‐ driven contracting framework is the regular review of performance data time happening on the ground in real ‐ is and use that information to inform policy understand what With standardized outcomes and indicators, HSD will be able to better understand and decisions. households Seattle’s homeless investments are helping how experiencing homelessness move articulate performance for environments and compare performance across programs and monitor to more stable specific program models and progress of specific target populations. This information will give HSD the at tools necessary to collaborate on creative solutions the individual program level, understand system ‐ wide performance, and right size funding to service providers and service delivery models. Develop a Homeless Policy Framework and Investment Plan of recommendation of the Homeless Investment Analysis was the development The this Homeless final Policy This document provides the City with a Framework. road map to correct internal and system issues that are barriers to the homeless response system working with the greatest efficiency. The adoption this framework marks a of planning pivot point in the City’s and investments designed to support people experiencing homelessness. 15 Harvard Kennedy School Government Performance Lab – 16 ‐ Bloomberg Philanthropies’ What Works Cities initiative – ‐ cities/ innovation/what ‐ works 17 Page |

21 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Update to the Homeless Investment Analysis 2016 to Declaration of the State of Emergency and the other on ‐ going support for homeless Due funding has increased in the two years since the initial investment analysis occurred. To interventions, updated the earlier the policy framework and investment plan (this HPF) HSD development of a inform is Investment Analysis to reflect current investments. It important to note that this Homelessness reflects a point ‐ in ‐ time description of homeless investments, which frequently shift in response analysis to external factors and evolving policy priorities. Table HSD Investments by Program Type as of May 2016 1. Percent Contracted of Program Type Amount as Total of & Safe Shelters $11,727,525 23% Emergency Havens Supportive Housing & Transition in Place $10,805,977 21% Permanent Day Hygiene Centers & Other Services for People Centers, $8,065,885 16% Experiencing Homelessness Prevention & Services for Tenants, and Prevention Eviction $5,237369 10% Risk Youth ‐ At Services for Transitional $4,609,388 9% Housing Rapid ‐ housing $3,837,347 8% Re 6% Authorized Encampments, Outreach & Safe Parking $2,823,933 Housing for Survivors of Domestic Violence $1,427,735 3% Programs Management & Employment Programs for Homeless Youth $763,550 2% Case for People Experiencing Homelessness $500,903 Programs 1% Meal Diversion Homelessness $423,500 1% CDBG Capital/Repair Projects for Homeless Services $236,742 0.5% Total $50,459,854 As Table 1 shows, two of the primary investments are in emergency shelters/safe havens and day centers/hygiene centers. Together those two interventions models receive $19,793,410 in funding for contrast, survival services – nearly 40% of the total investment. In permanent HSD’s investment in ‐ Re housing and Diversion Rapid – program intervention types of total investment, and housing 21% is associated with cost effective permanent housing outcomes – receive just over 8% of total funding. The of intention the HPF is to begin to right size our system so that we have a more balanced approach to services the on focus increased necessary survival and an of availability continued both ensure homelessness. permanent housing placements necessary to end a person’s 18 Page |

22 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Homeless System Analysis Engagement Community of “The individuals continuous increase Homelessness is a community problem to solve, on living streets tells us that we our impacting the of segments all City of Seattle. The our way out of homelessness. cannot build individuals are homelessness experiencing our investments with regional Coordinated our neighbors, they children, and our elders and government partners, service providers broader reflect our Successfully community. that and faith community the are focused concern complex a community such addressing will prevention on a system of and early the entire community, including the people take intervention services are to end critical to together coming experiencing homelessness, homelessness. solution. identify a Catherine ‐‐ Lester, Director, HSD The Homeless Policy Framework (HPF) builds upon the significant previously all conducted systems reform work and engagement community the of Community 2012 the includes This occurred. have that processes Housing Stable and Safe Supporting Levy renewal process. The Home Strategic Plan, Investment the 2016 Housing and Plan, the All HPF recommendations the recommendations and the vision of the community throughout the of reflect these processes. previous and Supporting Communities Safe Stable Housing In 2011, Human Services Department (HSD) Stable and Safe Supporting Communities the launched the a establishing of goal the with initiative (CSSSH) Housing more to change wide ‐ system for framework serve households facing or experiencing homelessness. HSD effectively carried out an extensive housing and shelter process clients of community services, community members, engagement where and elected providers, businesses, faith communities, charitable foundations, schools, local government, officials all contributed to the proposed strategies and priorities for Seattle’s homeless service investments. Community stakeholders identified affordable housing, provide rapid re ‐ housing and programs that services, as high with an appropriate intensity of supportive flexible financial/rental assistance, along re priorities. Stakeholders also supported the reallocation of funding to increase investments in rapid ‐ Participants indicated that eligibility restrictions often put housing and homeless prevention programs. priorities by funding requirements, including population place created for housing units, create in barriers and bottlenecks within the system that further Stakeholders restrict access to housing. also with help would that changes policy and adults options housing assistance, housing wanted criminal poor with households and convictions, felony including histories, housing. access histories rental assist Stakeholders identified additional strategies that would in developing a seamless service centers multiple access could clients where resource based ‐ community including Seattle, continuum in 19 Page |

23 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp services a single location. Shelter that is more comprehensive was also identified as a community at including hours increased or flexible shelter that would accommodate work and school schedules need, couples well as shelters that can accommodate and households with pets. as quality high services, relevant a to culturally including commitment principles guiding established CSSSH coordinated services and data quality. Stakeholders emphasized the need for services to standards, unique needs and strengths of every individual and each recognize family member and provide the Feedback upon those characteristics rather than services utilizing a one ‐ size ‐ fits ‐ all approach. based indicated that investments cultural services should demonstrate support and linguistic competence that with an increased capacity to address our City’s diversity and to reduce persistent disparities experienced by of color, immigrants, and refugees. Investments should also build upon successful models communities reduce will but create and pilot innovative strategies that balance prevent and opportunities to homelessness. All Home Strategic Plan During 2014, All Home King County began the process of establishing a new vision and plan for making that homelessness brief and one ‐ time in King County rare, ultimately resulted in the All Home Strategic Plan , which was released in 2015. Recognizing that the entire community is necessary to successfully problem, implement a strategic plan regarding such a pervasive All Home engaged over 500 residents of planning King County through a yearlong process. The primary feedback expressed by participants in the process that experiencing homelessness should not be criminalized in our community. Addressing was a for calls Plan Strategic Home the final plan. The All in strategy a identified became concern this and improvement of efforts to measure our progress and adapt practices based on data, continuation the is consistent with the HPF. All Home is currently in which process of developing or updating a plan (Single Adults/Veterans, Youth and Young populations Adults, and Families). At the the sub each ‐ for of core of these strategies is the implementation of coordinated entry to ensure increased access to the housing resources for all populations. The HPF aligns with vision and goals of the All Home Strategic relevant. sub ‐ population plans where appropriate and and 2016 Housing Levy Renewal Affordability the key elements of One the Housing of and Livability Agenda (HALA) recommendations was to increase the Seattle Housing Levy, one of the primary means of developing affordable housing in the housing City of Seattle. Mayor Murray proposed the largest levy in Seattle’s history, which was successfully the extensive conducted voters in August 2016 primary. The Office of Housing (OH) the passed by levy in the development of the community housing outreach renewal proposal. One of the things consistently heard at community meetings was the need to do even more to address homelessness than effective increased for demand community’s HPF will assist the in meeting able The to. is Levy the homeless intervention. 20 Page |

24 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Policy Framework Stakeholder Engagement Homeless the Policy Framework (HPF) builds upon the strategies and priorities identified by Although Homeless essential described above, ongoing community engagement is engagement to the success of the process met work. HSD staff and Barbara Poppe systems with providers from each segment this transformation Seattle. in system services homeless the insights into valuable to system delivery service the of gain all that the current system is not adequately agreed meeting the needs of our neighbors Providers homelessness. An overview of HPF Community experiencing Efforts is included in Appendix B. Engagement express desire meet regularly with the broader community where residents consistently HSD staff also for City to use homeless investments in the most effective means possible and support increasing the accountability and ensuring that City tax dollars are invested only in programs that demonstrate success homelessness. Many of the strategies within the HPF were identified as early as 2011 as in reducing being priorities and remain sound means to community our growing crisis of homelessness. address Wide Analysis and Projections from Focus Strategies System The of Seattle partnered with King County, UWKC and All Home to contract with Focus Strategies to City County conduct evaluation of the current homeless continuum in Seattle/King a using their performance 17 Wide Analytics and Projection (SWAP) tools System population that model homeless program and changes to inform funding decisions and allocation of resources. Between July of 2015 and May of Focus Strategies analyzed local data to assess the performance of individual programs, types of 2016, by process the began homeless system as a whole. All Home of performance the and interventions, the the homeless service providers and clarifying the role of service providers in helping provide engaging the necessary to complete the SWAP. Focus Strategies also completed a series of provider and data community interviews as part of their analysis. data analyzed included 1) Seattle/King County’s The supportive permanent emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re ‐ housing and of inventory Housing housing units from the 2015 Inventory Count, 2) program client data from the Homeless Management System (HMIS), and 3) program budget data collected directly from funded Information analyze the performance of Focus Strategies then used Using this data to providers. SWAP tool, the each program and the entire system across multiple measures. The SWAP tool was also used to predict the of shifting investments impact on homeless outcomes. Based on the data analysis and interviews with stakeholders Focus Strategies provided a series of recommendations for systems improvements to support the community goal of making homelessness ‐ rare, brief and one time: 17 Focus Strategies’ System Wide Analytics and Projection (SWAP) Suite of Tools – 21 Page |

25 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp 18 Recommendations Findings and Summary of Act with Urgency and Boldness Seattle/King County is to act urgently and with boldness to Our overarching recommendation to implement impactful solutions. Ho melessness is on the rise in t he community and leaders have ives that are helping to turn th implemented a number of initiat e curve towards an improved response to the problem. Howev er, our analysis reveals that the pace of change is slow and mited results. We believe resources continue to be invested in interventions that have li be dramatically reduced using e xisting resources and even homelessness in King County can given the significant unaffordab ility of the current housing ma rket. Urgent and bold action are required. Create a Funder‐Driven, Person‐Centered System ople living outdoors in Seattle There are an estimated 4,000 pe and King County at any given time – some of them families with children. Even more people ar e cycling in and out of y, All Home, the City of Seattl e, and King County emergency shelter. The United Wa work with the intention of de termining a path forward to collaboratively commissioned this dramatically reduce, and potent ially functionally end homelessn ess. To achieve that goal, the work of creating a system out of an array of homeless pr ograms must be completed. All initiatives and programs have relation to what they to be understood and measured in contribute to the overall goal of reducing the number of homele ss households. It is critical that Seattle/King County’s homeless crisis respo nse system shift to become more funder‐driven and person‐centered: all decision‐making needs to be based on what will yield the nd out of emergency shelter. greatest results for people who are unsheltered or cycling in a ave to be shaped by this person‐ Policies, programmatic initiatives, and investment strategies h centered approach. In a system ce ntered on homeless people, all interventions are designed to re unsheltered or living in sh target and prioritize those who a elters. Funders invest only in interventions that can be measur ably demonstrated to move homel ess people into housing and r results. The effectiveness o providers are held accountable fo f the system is measured by the number of homeless people who a re housed and do not subsequentl y return to homelessness. Establish an Action Oriented and Data Informed Governance and F unding Structure Local leadership has appointed Al ty’s Continuum of Care, and to l Home to serve as the communi oversee coordination and planning for homelessness‐related acti vities more broadly. Yet, All Home does not have the authorit y to make and implement decision s. Its governance is designed to solicit input, identify prob lems, and discuss solutions. It can convene but cannot make critical decisions, so leading significant changes may not be possible a s currently structured. Typically, 18 Seattle/King with County: Homeless System Performance Assessment and Recommendations Emphasis on Single Particular Adults, p. 5 ‐ 7. > < departments/pathwayshome/FS.pdf 22 Page |

26 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp re made when public agencies id successful, large‐scale shifts a entify the changes needed and hold all stakeholders accountabl e for the use of public dollars . Although the All Home governance structure has recentl y been re‐organized, Focus Stra tegies recommends that local hanges. Most importantly, we advis leadership consider further c e re‐structuring the All Home Executive Committee to include o nly funders and designate it as the entity empowered to make and implement decisions relating to design and implementation o f the community’s homeless crisis response system. The Exec utive Committee needs to overse e the community’s investment strategy for all targeted homelessness funding, and ensure that investment decisions are data‐ driven. Much faster progress c if all funders can agree on a an be made to reduce homelessness shared set of objectives and p erformance targets and hold all p roviders accountable to meeting them. Improve Performance throughout the System Our analysis found a wide range of performance levels amongst p rograms and program types. There are some highly effective projects and system components, while some are performing poorly. Focus Strategies has re commended a set of performance t argets for all program types that have been accepted by the client group. We have also recom mended some strategic shifts ction in the size of the homeless in how the system operates to yi eld improved results and a redu population: 1. Use Outreach and Coordinated E ntry to Target and Prioritize Unsheltered People and Frequent Shelter Users Our analysis found that there are holds entering homeless a significant number of house programs in King County who are not literally homeless – meanin g they are not living outdoors, bled‐up, but assessed as being in vehicles, or in an emergency shelter. Many are housed or dou ople who are unsheltered is at‐risk of homelessness. This means system capacity to serve pe essness. At the same time, ther e are approximately 5,000 diverted away from solving homel out of emergency shelter – lon g‐term shelter stayers who may people cycling repeatedly in and eds and not effectively being c be “stuck” in temporary crisis b onnected to housing. The community is investing in a Coor dinated Entry system – Coordina ted Entry for All (CEA) that is establishing policies to ensure rioritized for assistance. Yet, to literally homeless people are p ensure this system is as effectiv e as possible, we further reco mmend that people be prioritized not just on whether they are cu rrently homeless, but how long t hey have been homeless. Finding housing solutions for those who have been homeless the longest and who are repeatedly accessing shelter will significantly improve the movement of pe ople from homelessness into housing. 2. Expand Shelter Diversion/More Effective Targeting of Preven tion Resources s in the community who are A significant number of people cu rrently enter homeless program doubled‐up or otherwise housed. As part of CEA, some households receive shelter diversion – an 23 Page |

27 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ry into shelter by helping peop approach designed to prevent ent le who are still housed to stay in place or to move directly to oth er housing using problem solvin g, mediation, and small amounts of financial assistance. To maxi mize the use of homeless system resources for people who are ted for all households seeking unsheltered, we recommend that shelter diversion must be attemp shelter. 3. Improve Effectiveness of Shelt er in Exiting People to Perman ent Housing Our analysis found that the emerg ency shelter system in Seattle /King County does not perform to maximum effectiveness. Signifi cant reductions in homelessnes s could be achieved if households had shorter lengths of stay in shelters and exited i nto permanent housing at a or accomplishing this will invol ve bringing rapid re‐housing to higher rate. One key strategy f r, so that those households in shelter beds have a rapid pathway scale and connecting it to shelte to exit. Shelters also need to be required to meet performance targets and re‐orient their work to focus on helping people exit to permanent housing as quickly as possible. Long‐term shelter stayers must be prioritized for w long they have been homeless. housing assistance, based on ho 4. Shift Funding from Low Perform ing to High Performing Interve ntions and Programs Seattle/King County currently inv ests significant resources in interventions that are not key measures, which assess prog achieving strong results on the ress in rapidly moving homeless households into housing in a cos t effective manner. To make fas ter progress, we recommend that are high performing, while disinvesting in those that are less investing in intervention types effective. This includes bringi cutting back investment in lower ng rapid re‐housing to scale and performing transitional housing, p ermanent supportive housing, and other permanent housing (OPH). This does not mean that f unds are lost to the system – t hey are re‐invested in strategies that are the most effective at r people. educing the numbers of homeless 5. Make More Strategic Use of P ermanent Affordable Housing to P rovide Pathways out of Homelessness. g is incredibly challenging, wi The rental market in Seattle/Kin th low vacancy rates and extremely high rents. Continuing efforts to expand the supply of deeply a ffordable housing are critical if ls for continued economic and r acial diversity, and to be a the community is to meet its goa welcoming place for lower incom ver, expanded affordable e families and individuals. Howe housing is not a precondition f or reducing homelessness. The co mmunity has to commit to making an impact on the problem w ith the existing housing inven tory or there may never be a significant reduction. Waiting fo d means continuing to tolerate r enough housing to be produce the current situation in which t housands of people, including s ome families with children, are living on the streets and in tents. Focus Strategies recommends a number of strategies to help improve access to the existing supply of housing of affordable housing, including ensuring that sting those who are unsheltered people is targeted towards assi affordable housing for homeless 24 Page |

28 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness rs, and lowering or removing barr iers to entry. We also or are long‐term shelter staye ent tenants in permanent on” effort that identifies curr recommend a large‐scale “moving supportive housing, who are st sive services. This program abilized and no longer need inten egular affordable housing. This would help them transition to r approach has been successfully to be a highly effective way to ral communities and has proven implemented and utilized in seve permanent supportive housing i free up capacity in the existing nventory for chronically homeless, unsheltered individuals. Recommendations from Barbara Poppe System Transformation on the analysis and recommendations from Building Focus Strategies SWAP process, the City of the with Barbara Poppe and Associates contracted to provide recommendations for the Seattle of the development Homeless Policy Framework. The result has been “ The Path Forward – Act Now, Act Strategically, and Act Decisively ” report, which helps the City to operationalize the vision of homeless as rare, brief and one ‐ time in our community. report identifies The twin priorities: 1) homelessness. Reduce unsheltered 2) the “throughput” from homelessness to stable housing. Increase priorities can be accomplished through a series of recommendations designed to shift key These 19 reallocate resources and advocate with local partners to policies, support system improvements: Recommendation 1: Create a person‐centered crisis response sys tem To be successful, the City of Se attle must develop and invest i n a comprehensive array of interventions that are integrated to provide a person‐centered crisis response system that responds to the unique needs of each family and individual. So me interventions will be existing program models, some will need t o be re‐tooled for improved res ults and greater efficiency, and some will be new approaches. Addi tionally investment in some p rogram types may need to end or at least not be included as part of Seattle’s investment in homelessness. All interventions must contribute to rapidly provid ing access to stable housing f or families and individuals who riencing literal homelessness, t are at imminent risk of or expe hat is, living outside, on the streets, or in a shelter... Recommendation 2: Improve Progra equire Accountability m and System Performance and R 19 Recommendations for the City of Seattle’s Homeless Policy: The Path Forward – Act Now, Act City Strategically, and Act Decisively, Commissioned by the of Seattle, Barbara Poppe and Associates, > August 2016, p. 6 ‐ 15. < departments/pathwayshome/BPA.pdf 25 Page |

29 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness To be successful at reducing homelessness, the homeless crisis response system must be ders. The system leadership lic and major philanthropic fun organized and invested in by pub must be action‐oriented and ni ections promptly when mble enough to enable course corr omising practices and providers needed. Funders must invest onl y in evidence‐based, best and pr should be required to effectively implement these practices and meet performance standards as a condition of receiving funding. 20 and national best practices, Seattle and King County have In keeping with the HEARTH Act programs to building a system begun undertaking the shift from a loosely organized network of lies. The large number of ckly rehouse individuals and fami of care with the intent to qui providers that will need to shift practices makes the challenge of transformation daunting. The current level of public funding in act of shifting to more effective vestment is strong so the imp approaches can be immense if the funders establish a strong inf rastructure to support the new system. ed to inform planning, set reso urce allocation strategies, HMIS and other data should be us measure progress and system perfo rmance, and evaluate program p erformance to inform hould invest in and use HMIS as investment decisions. Seattle s the primary data system. HSD should require providers that put quality, timely, and receive funding to collect and in to receive city funding... comprehensive data in order ent well with urgency Recommendation 3: Implem elessness – Houston, Las The communities which are making the greatest reductions in hom rapidly change systems to meet Vegas, and New Orleans – are acti ng boldly and with urgency to the needs of families and indivi duals who are facing homelessne ss. The findings of this report t indicate that solutions ar e within imminent reach. and the 2016 Focus Strategies repor act concurrently in six key ar The City of Seattle will need to eas: 1) Translate the investment re tegies modeling and the Path commendations from the Focus Stra of Seattle specific investmen ts and design a competitive Forward recommendations into City funding process. Develop and impl ures, and protocols to ement updated policies, proced implement the Path Forward recommendations. 20 Housing On May 20, 2009, President Obama signed the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to and (HEARTH) Act of 2009. The HEARTH Act amended reauthorized the McKinney ‐ Vento Homeless Assistance Act. One key change was requiring communities to adopt a performance based, data driven, systems approach to ending homelessness. 26 Page |

30 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness o prepare for competitive 2) Implement the performance standards with current providers t funding. am, Outreach Action Team, and t 3) Stand up the Family Impact Te he Long Term Shelter Stayers Team. 4) Design and implement communi ty engagement and communications plans to ensure free hin the City of Seattle and flow of information across, amo ng, and between stakeholders wit other stakeholders. 5) Engage with All Home , King County, United Way and other majo r funders to coordinate and collaborate on execution of the Focus Strategies recommendation s. 6) Increase HSD staff capacity, expertise, and skills to operat e as effective change agents for the new paradigm. Seattle and King County have a tr emendous foundation of public investments, quality providers, and dedicated elected official s, staff, volunteers, and communi ty leaders who believe in the 21 that “no one should experience homelessness – no one should be vision of Opening Doors without a safe, stable place to litical will and disciplined action by elected officials call home.” Po If the City of Seattle acts bo and City staff will be required. ldly and with urgency, reductions in unsheltered homelessness can occur quickly.” 21 was prevent Opening Doors is the nation’s first comprehensive federal strategy to and end homelessness. It the by the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness to presented Office of the President and Congress on June 22, years. five past and amended in 2015 to reflect what updated we have learned over the and 2010, 27 Page |

31 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness City Seattle Implementation Plan of Principles and Strategies Investment vision of the City of Seattle is that all persons, regardless of their housing status, are members of The community and deserve access to this best possible intervention to help them exit homelessness. In the order to ensure that the City of Seattle is in programs that have the best investing possible outcomes, the Human Services Department (HSD) has adopted the following investment priorities and principles. HSD’s and principles will provide the basis for priorities the requirements and scoring criteria for all funding processes and investment decisions. future a Person ‐ Centered with Models Create in Racial Address Invest Systemic Success Demonstrated Response Disparities Based ‐ Performance Housing First ‐ Results Based Contracting Accountability Engagement Progressive Driven Data Outcomes of Analysis Prioritization by Race Model Fidelity Processes Name List By Furthering Affirmatively Continuous Quality Fair Housing Partnerships Improvement Create a Person ‐ Response Systemic to Homelessness Centered integrated and comprehensive The interventions of City of system Seattle must develop and invest in a homelessness to response systemic A system. response crisis centered ‐ person a form that involves more than having quality individual programs accessible, be must programs Those available. unique each to the needs of results. A person ‐ centered approach responds coordinated, and achieving assessment Once and individual based on a brief family of their needs, strengths and vulnerabilities. fit people assessed, are matched to the appropriate housing resource. Services should be customized to to a guidelines. funder, As HSD intends an individual’s needs rather than following strict programmatic to ensure customized services are not in conflict with provide increased latitude and flexibility in funding needs compliance requirements. Individualized services must rather participant the fit to altered be an being not refused being than participant’s a consider also should Services referral. appropriate for cultures. different in diverse very looks often homelessness as culture, 28 Page |

32 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness It that the homeless crisis response system be solely focused on exiting persons from is essential factors are many economic, social and personal that contribute to the While there homelessness. homelessness, the homeless crisis response system must be experience focused on placing of intensely but market, housing challenging an enormous task a in such This housing. is into families individuals and cannot be a barrier allowed to stand in the way of identifying solutions to ensure someone has that to Overcoming the challenge of a high cost housing market will require creative access housing. effort in affordable housing an of to exit people from ideals and some of abandoning the solutions That may mean that formerly homeless clients are placed in shared housing, or housing homelessness. is a considerable distance from work or which creates a substantial rent burden. While these are that of homelessness. alternative The response to than the ideal situations, they not are all better homelessness must stay focused on responding to the immediate crisis of exiting individuals and from homelessness and rely on the City’s efforts in other arenas to address larger social and families issues inequality such as housing affordability, income and food insecurity. economic Housing First the idea of a Homeless Crisis Response Underlying System must be the philosophy of Housing First. First’s foundation is that living on the street is a barrier to successfully Housing services and accessing that vulnerable people are more successfully engaged in clinical services once that barrier has been Funded removed. barriers must allow access and to admission, including programs remove that participants be sober, participate in treatment, or requirements a certain level of income. have unsheltered homeless adults, youth, and By providing with a safe and permanent housing families The services. additional necessary in successfully they are able to engage more step, first a as option United Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) and the United States Department of States and Urban Development (HUD) identify Housing First as a proven method of ending Housing demonstrate First has also been shown to higher housing retention rates, lower homelessness. Housing 22 institutions. and significant reductions in the use of crisis service and homelessness, to returns modified projects ensure housing and service options are to meet the unique needs of Housing First individual or family requesting services and that each are offered the services that they identify clients as important to them. However, participation in services not be a condition of housing. should the and Way Seattle, along with other local Gates funders, such as King County, the United of City The First recognize the importance of utilizing a Housing philosophy as a means to address Foundation all There are providers and programs in Seattle homelessness. pioneered the Housing First approach who must but programs, However, Housing First must specific not be limited to it. embrace to continue and be a philosophy throughout our entire system. programs, Emergency shelters, rapid re ‐ housing (e.g. Youth and Young Adult or housing Bridge Housing), and permanent supportive housing transitional programs must all have low ‐ barrier admission criteria. Communities that are making progress on 22 United States Interagency Council on Homelessness Housing First Checklist: Tool for Assessing Housing (USICH), checklist ‐ First in Practice, ‐ for ‐ action/housing ‐ first 29 Page |

33 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness reducing homelessness implement Housing First in every program and as a community and ending system. Progressive Engagement progressive engagement model is a Utilizing best practice in addressing homelessness and a a national of person ‐ centered service delivery and efficient use of resources. Progressive engagement hallmark the preserves households and to most expensive interventions of assistance levels customized provides those with the most severe barriers to housing success, enabling service providers to effectively for that resources. This approach is supported by research household characteristics such as income, target substance use, etc., cannot predict what level of assistance a household employment, will ultimately 23 exit homelessness . need to Prioritization funding programs receive City of Seattle homeless services that will be required to prioritize All households are experiencing literal homelessness, which is defined as unsheltered, living in a place that meant for habitation, or residing in emergency shelter. All programs whose populations are not included the Coordinated Entry in 100 (CEA) are required to receive system percent of their admissions this system, which should ensure compliance with the via homeless designation. All program literally referrals from CEA must be accepted for services. Those populations and programs not initially included shelters, result this achieve to need will Adult Single Adult and &Young Youth as such system, CEA the in of the CEA system. outside case of Targeted Homeless Prevention funding, priority will be given to those at imminent risk In of the to and those households who are most likely to be admitted shelters or be unsheltered if homelessness for this assistance. not Data collected from HMIS on prior living situation will be used as an indicator of whether housing services are effectively targeting those programs who are literally homeless. and By Name List Processes ensure the availability HSD’s services to investments assist those who are experiencing homelessness, of to assessed the Coordinated Entry for All system ensures that individuals and families are uniformly and on the appropriate waiting list for housing. However, both the system and services can be be placed piecemeal, and difficult to use. Even fragmented, experienced case managers often admit difficulty must Lists Name By of their clients establishment rely. The systems on which complex the navigating lists can increase the coordination between providers to actively work to move people off of the waiting services by coordinated entry. HSD will convene all agencies who are funded to provide generated for a 23 National Alliance to End Homelessness Progressive Engagement Stability Conversation Guide (NAEH), > guide < ‐ engagement ‐ stability ‐ conversation ‐ 30 Page |

34 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness specific and actively work from the top of the lists down, consulting on barriers to housing population case and problem solving as a group. Participation in By Name List collaboratively placement, will be included in contracts appropriate. consultation as Partnerships City of Seattle is part of a larger regional The to In homelessness. order for our efforts to be response we county, must align with the direction of our community, state and philanthropic partners. successful, partnerships and funder alignment, resources are maximized and systems work cohesively. It Through similar utilizing funders consistency to providers to have all their program level a provides also of and messages. HSD can only adequately address the crisis of homelessness facing our standards and with support and collaboration of numerous City regional partners. community the  Office of Housing Seattle Office of Housing (OH) manages investments from the Seattle Housing Levy and The the sources federal capital to fund preservation and production of affordable other and local now has over 12,500 affordable rental homes that provide a critical resource homes. for Seattle serving a diverse and equitable making city. OH’s portfolio includes thousands of units Seattle on including both permanent supportive housing with extensive services homeless households, via site and affordable units set aside for homeless families and individuals with partnership homeless providers. OH is a significant partner in implementing the systems changes service in the HPF. OH will work with housing providers to improve access to housing for outlined who people experience homelessness. OH will also and housing owners work funders to with that our community’s real estate investments are preserved ensure and continue to valuable serve homeless and other extremely low income people as homeless program changes and are implemented. funding shifts Seattle Housing Authority  efforts our City’s in to provide stable, partner Seattle Housing Authority The is a key (SHA) affordable housing for homeless individuals and families and other extremely low ‐ income SHA households. provides ongoing operating funding (project ‐ based Section 8 vouchers) for over units of nonprofit rental housing, most of which received development funding from 3,500 units projects include 1,620 These of permanent supportive Housing. the Office of Seattle chronically homeless people with disabilities. for SHA also provides vouchers for housing homeless veterans and their families, and is a partner in an innovative partnership working to schoolchildren. prevent and improve educational outcomes for Seattle homelessness Office  Mayor’s Domestic Violence on and Sexual Assault cause Gender based violence (GBV) is a leading ‐ of homelessness among women and youth. systems While Pathways Home recognizes this important connection, throughout planning for 31 Page |

35 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness work, very conscious decisions were made to exclude domestic violence (DV) transformation from homeless systems analysis. The data analysis was based in client data programs the excludes which for domestic violence programs HMIS, most of the essential obtained from protect to SWAP analysis. This data accommodation is done complete to necessary elements the confidentiality and safety. In addition, most of the metrics being analyzed by the survivor’s tools to would be expected yield significantly different results for DV programs than they SWAP for homeless such as entries from housed situations. It should be expected would programs, people most DV that entering would enter from a housed situation and most people shelter entering shelters would not. homeless While violence is a significant contributing factor to homelessness, in Seattle/King domestic the interventions for DV and homelessness are very distinct. DV shelters and housing County the is which backbone of process Entry been exempted from the Coordinated programs have homeless response system. Currently HSD funds DV and sexual assault programs for the significantly outcomes than homeless investments, recognizing that the primary different GBV response is survivor safety. In addition to building upon coordinated entry, the outcome in of the system transformation work was intent to all funders and contracts with similar align standards, for outcomes, measures and program metrics most of which would not performance for practices be appropriate for inclusion in DV program contracts. Best and recommendations the populations are often very divergent as well, such as transitional housing. While two families, a poor intervention for most considered homeless adults and it is is transitional housing appropriate considered an still intervention for domestic violence survivors. widely recognition Throughout planning process, there was that applying these homeless system the transformation efforts to DV housing programs would create significant barriers for both GBV that serve them. It was never the intent for the homeless system the programs and survivors transformation to negatively impact domestic violence programs or investments. The metrics investment principals, priority activities, and performance are not intended to be of applied to housing programs serving victims any form of gender based violence. on to closely with the Mayor’s Office Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault will work HSD that appropriate training on recognizing gender ‐ based violence and responding ensure goal provided to homeless service providers. The is being to connect any appropriately meet their families homeless as a result of violence to the appropriate resource to individuals or needs. Alignment with Regional other funders  coordination between Without funders, the homeless service delivery system cannot possibly expect to become a fully integrated and cohesive system. All Home is a broad coalition of stakeholders to focus on addressing and eliminating homelessness in King County. The Funder’s by plan, Committee operationalizes the funding priorities of the All Home strategic Alignment 32 Page |

36 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness the prioritized strategies, allocating and monitoring resources and leveraging funding supporting to accountability to identified policies, priorities, and best practices. The decisions ensure has withstood multiple changes Alignment of administrations, governance, Funders Committee leadership all levels and demonstrates considerable at commitment to ensuring funding and Funders the in participant Seattle has been an active continuity. of The City and collaboration Committee since its inception. Alignment are often influenced by intense political pressures when funders attempt to Funding decisions goals and priorities individually. This is particularly true for the set three major funders in our United the in participation to addition and the Way. In The King Seattle, County of City region: Home Funders Alignment Committee, these three All funders have worked cooperatively to establish additional consistency between their funding processes. These funders contracted and jointly for the System Wide Analysis and Project (SWAP) and have agreed to implement paid performance minimum and system targets for funding decisions. System change, standards can be expected its very nature to incur resistance, can be defeated by individual funders which by supporting change or “backfilling” with dollars to not the status quo when others try to support funder alignment creates a priorities and work plans, redirect investments. By embracing shared aligned successful force for change. Having funders much also encourages the other more partners system, such as providers and advocates, within to be more accepting and willing to the eventually the work in new ways. The hope is that other regional funders in cooperation through adopt are able to Committee similar performance standards. Alignment Funder’s to agreed investment priorities, performance standards and best practices, In the City of addition align King County and United Way have agreed to contracting to the extent possible. Alignment Seattle, contracting is achieved by inclusion of consistent language for areas in all funders, such as that impact of the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) and participation in CEA. the use other issues intersect with homelessness. While the Many response system must be focused homeless on interventions that address literal homelessness and not on broader social and economic issues, these and juvenile be ignored. Through partnerships with systems such as child welfare, cannot intersections response criminal justice, education, the homeless system is best able to connect persons experiencing homelessness mainstream providers to meet their needs. Partnerships may also result in to homelessness to effectively prevent further upstream. interventions designed in Models with Demonstrated Success Invest be Moving all funding for homeless investments will forward, awarded on a competitive basis for programs which meet critical needs and can demonstrate that the program contributes to reducing homelessness assisting program participants in obtaining or maintaining by stable permanent housing. permanent housing can our programs with relentless focus on Only by concentrating investments on to system obtain enough throughput to adequately begin address our large unsheltered population. All on adult and family programs must focus on program exits to permanent housing. Programs focused 33 Page |

37 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness and young adults must demonstrate housing stability outcomes, as youth many not be youth prepared permanent housing options. HSD must reallocate funds to new projects developmentally for homelessness. improve outcomes and reduce would whenever reallocation ‐ Based Contracting Performance Based Contracting is a results ‐ oriented contracting method that focuses on Performance ‐ obtaining specific, performance outcomes. Funding processes will clearly define the results being measurable by the investment and the range of eligible activities service providers may use to achieve purchased HSD By clearly defining and measuring specific outcomes, will be able to respond more those outcomes. our in homelessness experiencing families of individuals and needs the to immediately and directly HSD will also use past performance data to guide future funding decisions, make policy community. and being help ensure that city funds are spent in an impactful way. changes, success must be designed to reflect meaningful Outcomes of individuals and families metrics and be to the provider’s service relevant delivery model. HSD will review multiple outcomes metrics to ensure that programs are having positive impacts on reducing the time an individual or family experiences the number homelessness, people moving into permanent housing, and reducing increasing the of to homelessness. return people who of number Data Driven and Accurate and reliable data is the best means available to evaluate the performance of a program system. using cost, performance, and outcomes data, HSD can improve how resources are utilized to By homelessness. to HSD will use data regularly evaluate system and program performance end in with funded agencies. Funded agencies will be expected to implement improvement partnership and quickly demonstrate improvement in performance is below expectations. strategies Communities that make progress on preventing and ending homelessness use the community’s Information System (HMIS) as the primary Homelessness data source for planning, Management levels. system results at program and All of the funders have resource allocation, measuring and identified HMIS as the primary source for data management; therefore, funded agencies must participate in HMIS. Data quality will be monitored as a part of routine contract monitoring. Data must the by established Seattle/King County be meet the standards timely, and complete and accurate, Care (CoC). The data contained Continuum within HMIS will be the primary source of of data for all program monitoring and system performance evaluation. Model Fidelity Implementation of evidence ‐ based practices requires fidelity to the best practice program models. to an ideal model up based on ongoing research and measures Fidelity determines how a program expert consensus. For example, Rapid Re ‐ housing (RRH) has three core components: Housing the Identification, Financial Assistance and Case ‐ Management. In order for RRH programs to achieve 34 Page |

38 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness evidence ‐ results, each of these elements must be present and executed effectively. Research has based the model fidelity is a critical factor in success of achieving program outcomes. HSD demonstrated that ensure that programs funded implement all evidence ‐ based practices with fidelity. HSD will work in will program experts best practice to develop standard manuals that will be partnership providers and with the development and scoring of used processes, as well as in contract development. throughout funding Contract monitoring will ensure increased fidelity to program models. intended Continuous Quality Improvement homeless system analysis has provided the most comprehensive overview of our SWAP The performance has ever been compiled in King County. This data has formed the basis for necessary that functioning work. An effectively system system engages in ongoing evaluation and transformation course based on performance data. HSD commits correction to engaging in regular data evaluation, effort an in projects pilot and the development of innovative gap analysis, reviews, performance system homeless to work towards a more effective continuously response system. Address Racial Disparities People of color continue to be in the overrepresented homeless service system, and the City and HSD continue to work to eliminate institutional must policies and practices that perpetuate these 24 City justice disproportional numbers. As a dedicated to racial equity and social , cannot ignore the we Report according to HUD’s 2014 Annual Homeless Assessment , people of color make up only fact that a third of the U.S. population yet about comprise just over half of all sheltered people experiencing they homelessness. These disparities are even more stark African ‐ Americans and Native Americans. While for African ‐ Americans make up only 12% of the U.S. population, they comprise an estimated 41% of all that experiencing homelessness. This data indicates African ‐ Americans are more than people sheltered five (5) times as likely to experience homelessness as White Non ‐ Hispanics. In communities with a homelessness higher American population such as Seattle, the rates of Native among Native Americans unsheltered population identifies as American percent of our City’s are even more alarming. Eighteen Indian or Alaskan Native. In 2015, 80 ‐ 90% of the people served in our family homeless programs were 25 Because of a city where less than 34% our population are people of color. persons color, in of so disproportionately impacts persons of color, it is essential to use a racial equity lens homelessness any programming and investments in this area. examining when the racial disparities in the homeless system is a critical component to system Addressing it takes more lives of those experiencing homelessness. However, transformation and improving the than being committed to addressing these disparities; it simply takes specific focus and attention on the institutional structures and policies that perpetuate the increased risk of homelessness for persons of 24 City of Seattle Race and Justice Initiative – Social 25 2014 US Department of Housing & Urban Development Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) – homelessness/ ‐ fo/resource/4074/2014 ‐ ahar ‐ part ‐ 1 ‐ pit ‐ estimates ‐ of 35 Page |

39 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness the HSD made an intentional effort to apply this lens to the development of such, homeless color. As framework. The City’s Racial policy Toolkit utilized to was help Equity (RSJI) Initiative Justice Social and Race Seattle The formulate recommendations for (RSJI) and Social Race Seattle “The Justice Initiative More policies. these in inclusion to effort citywide end a is institutionalized racism on the race and social justice information based inequities in Seattle. and Race ‐ RSJI on builds analysis resulting the and of work the the and movement rights civil the in included are recommendations and individuals of efforts ongoing Seattle in groups C. Appendix term is goal long confront racism. The Initiative’s to system underlying the change to Race ‐ creates that based inequities in our community and to achieve Accountability Based ‐ Results racial equity.” Results ‐ Accountability™ (RBA) is a Based disciplined of thinking way and taking action used by communities improve lives of children, families the whole. a as community the and to HSD to define used also is RBA allows RBA programs. their of performance the improve to agencies by goal or impact of an investment and then the work backwards, to outline step ‐ by ‐ step the means communities, For outcome. that achieve to necessary well ‐ being for children, are goals of the conditions housing,” “Children ready for as a whole – such as “Residents with stable families and the community school,” or “A safe and clean neighborhood” or even more specific conditions such as “A place where neighbors know each program the when off better are clients how are ends the programs, For other.” Housing” of to Permanent or “Number as “Percentage of people who exit the works it should – such way 26 keep good paying program training job the of graduates jobs.” who get and a having on focus will investments HSD’s values, measurable RSJI City’s the of support RBA Using in Racial equity goals are impact on identified racial disparities that exist related to any investment area. required be included in each funding process proposal. This has not yet applied to homeless to there have not been any funding as processes conducted for homeless investments since investments the adoption of the Outcomes Framework. All future funding processes will include the inclusion of design. racial disparity goals based on this framework Programs responding to Requests for Proposals (RFPs) will be required to report their plan for impacting the racial disparity goal(s) identified in the RFP as portion of their application. a of Outcomes Analysis by Race In to effectively monitor if racial disparities are being adequately addressed by homeless order investments, it is necessary to track the achieving are color of people which in rate outcomes. program It is not enough to know that persons of color are being served by investments, it is essential to those understand if programs are successful serving disproportionately impacted by homelessness. 26 Based Accountability Guide – 2010, Results ‐ Leadership Group, LLC. < > Results 36 Page |

40 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness disaggregated by race will be tracked and evaluated at both the programmatic and system Outcomes to the efficacy of interventions in addressing racial disparities. evaluate This will allow us to see at levels rate persons of different races are successfully exiting what homelessness. Technical assistance will be when standards whose outcomes are not meeting minimum performance to those offered programs disaggregated. racially Furthering Affirmatively Fair Housing has historically funded numerous programs specializing in meeting the housing and Seattle service needs of culturally specific populations. While these services provide positive support for the comes meet their eligibility criteria, the challenge participants who from providing those while resources further affirming Fair Housing laws, which prohibit the assignment of housing based on race or also classifications. other As there are insufficient resources to ensure equal access to the same protected to best how meet the is or cultural group, it of essential to determine service level for every racial fair HSD specialized needs of persons of color and immigrants and refugees. is committed to upholding housing and examining ways to ensure that the unique needs of individuals are best served practices, non ‐ discrimination will require all agencies to that provide fair housing and practice within context. HSD to ensure fair, equal, and appropriate access. Already Underway Actions The City of Seattle has worked closely with Focus Strategies and Barbara Poppe over the past year in order to plan for system reform and become more familiar with best practices. Their recommendations guidance also align with In from HUD. addition, our region is committed to system improvement as of implement All Home Strategic Plan. Therefore, some the the work to systems reforms has outlined in begun. already to to ACTIONS ACTIONS ACTIONS to Address Create a Racial with Models in Invest Person ‐ Centered Success Systemic Response Disparities Demonstrated Reducing Program the Adoption of MOU Funding Barriers Framework Outcomes Shelter Enhanced Models Report Outcomes Pilot Portfolio Contract Disaggregated Race by Move On Strategies SOE Assessment of in Investment Renewal of Seattle Fair Diversion and RRH Housing Levy Housing 37 Page |

41 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness to Create a Person ‐ Centered Systemic Response Actions barriers family shelter and homeless housing programs Reducing in Committee the All Home Funder Alignment established standardized screening December 2015, In program eligibility for all projects dedicated to serving criteria and families experiencing for individuals in our community. These standards align with the guidance from HUD and best practices homelessness creating a low barrier homeless response system. Programs are no longer able to enact screening for that is more restrictive than defined by the funding source. Our Seattle/King County Continuum criteria low Care is working towards establishing system ‐ wide Housing First approach, which requires ‐ of a households. homeless serving interventions dedicated to policies housing all in barrier shelter services, Enhanced preparation for a Seattle ‐ based navigation center and In order to bring people indoors and connect them to housing resources, shelters must be very low and provide sufficient services to result in housing placement. The navigation center is modeled barrier on Francisco Navigation Center , which is a the dormitory ‐ style living facility that provides people San outside with shower, bathroom, laundry and dining facilities, and a place to store their living belongings. Additionally, the navigation center will provide round ‐ the ‐ clock case management, mental and services, and connections to benefit programs and housing behavioral all in one location. This health for offer support basic needs like shelter, hygiene, meals, secure site will funding that staff intends on to and accessible storage, case management, and supportive services including meaningful referrals substance and mental health that are organized to quickly move people into housing. abuse Seattle Navigation Center up to $1.67 million in funding HSD create a to an opportunity for established The serve at least 75 people at a time. open and competitive request for qualifications (RFQ) intended to was released on August 26, 2016 and the contract for the new model is process anticipated to start in early December. strategy pilot with On Plymouth Housing Move Plymouth Housing’s Sylvia’s Place opened at the end of 2015. This ‐ unit development serves residents 65 in the Housing Options Program, which is Plymouth Housing’s graduation program. The formerly homeless residents of Sylvia’s Place have stabilized with the support of intensive services from one of programs. Residents have demonstrated an (PSH) Plymouth Housing’s Permanent Supportive Housing ability live more independently but may not be able to make the transition to fully independent living. to who allows the more expensive, This ‐ intensive units to be available to other people process service require that level of support to exit homelessness. of Seattle Renewal Housing Levy In August 2016, Seattle voters passed the largest housing levy in our City’s history sending the message that there is a strong desire to ensure that all of Seattle’s residents have access to affordable housing in to particularly the most vulnerable. The levy provides $290 million dollars our community, housing affordable support low ‐ income housing, double the previous levy. In addition to an overall increase in 38 Page |

42 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness stock, the levy funds essential programs to address homelessness. There was a strong emphasis housing the on of units for people living below 30% area median income and a substantial increase development in homeless prevention programs. funding for with in Models Demonstrated Success Actions to Invest MOU between City of Seattle, King County and United Way Funding to the recommendations from Focus Strategies, the City of Seattle, King County and United Way In response in agreed to adopt consistent minimum and target performance standards for inclusion contracts and have Alignment between funders processes. will allow for funding consistent expectations messaging to and providers. Each funder will be implementing the standards on a slightly different timeline based on their but the method of integrating the standards into funding processes has been agreed on by cycles, funding directors. appropriate the of each commitments has been signed by detailing MOU An funder. each these information on the implementation of performance standards is included in Appendix D. More Implemented Portfolio Contract Pilot July 2016, HSD launched the first Portfolio Pilot contracts after a yearlong In planning process with five agencies. Streamlined portfolio contracts work to services for people experiencing homelessness, align manage increase agency flexibility, implement standardized outcome metrics, and more actively contracts a results ‐ driven contracting framework. through and SOE in Shelter Diversion investment Rapid Re ‐ housing Mayor Murray declared the State of Emergency (SOE) in November 2015, he made additional When available to support services to meet the housing needs of those living funding unsheltered. Since that Diversion investments in and Rapid the SOE HSD to expand time, has utilized money available through Re ‐ housing (RRH) by $1,347,000. This funding more than doubled the City’s investment in Diversion. to Actions Racial Disparities Address Outcomes Framework adopted by HSD of Beginning in 2014, HSD developed a theory data change called the Outcomes Framework that ensures disparities. informs investments, particularly around addressing racial our The theory of change allows HSD to define the goal or impact of an investment and then map backwards to outline the steps necessary to achieve that outcome including the necessary analysis of racial disparity data and the change, a target. Using this theory of HSD’s investments focus on having development of a racial equity measurable impact on identified racial disparities that exist related to any investment area. Racial equity goals are required to be included in each funding process proposal. 39 Page |

43 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Outcomes disaggregated by race report Seattle/King The CoC established a new vendor contract for the management of its HMIS in County 2016. transition to this new data system has allowed The for the development of more March has not easily accessible to both the comprehensive and to funders. HSD reports that are providers the capability to routinely conduct analyses of the impact of our investments on different previously had of and ethnic groups. While knowledge about the demographics the clients being served is a racial served being and it only tells us the rate in which racial and ethnic populations are point, data useful about their success at exiting homelessness. A new report has been developed that will allow nothing outcomes to be disaggregated by race and ethnicity so that relevant data can be used to housing the impact our investments are having on addressing racial disparities. maximize Assessment Fair of impacts Housing Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) report is due to HUD in April 2017. Completion of the report Seattle’s in order for the is City to continue receiving CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG funds in 2018 required and provide services and provide the City with approximately $14 million to beyond. Combined, these funds for housing for low ‐ and moderate ‐ income persons. The AFH explores previous patterns and reasons residential in the City and commits the City to strategies and actions to address and redress segregation patterns and reasons. HUD requires extensive community engagement in the AFH process. those data Extensive based on residential mapping data provided analysis, by HUD, is also required. The of the AFH involves input and assistance from a number of City departments, including development for Office of Economic Development, Office HSD, Civil Rights, Office of Community Planning and OH, The Seattle Housing Authority Transportation. of Law Department, and Department Development, the HSD have elected to do a joint submittal to and both their departmental requirements. fulfill Priority Actions Strategies and Barbara Poppe have recommended Focus a comprehensive set of actions necessary to implement system reform. The City of Seattle is highly committed to exploring the implementation of all This of these reforms. includes working in partnership with King County to explore implementation of City. Implementing a number of the recommendations have recommendations the live outside of that be facility, and staffing impacts that must explored thoughtfully and with extensive considerable budget, engagement. However, there are recommendations that should stakeholder be implemented immediately in order to begin to address the crisis homelessness in our community. These priority of actions will have immediate measurable impact and have been identified as the necessary first steps for the system transformation efforts. City’s Commitment to Families Living Unsheltered Currently there are over 500 families on the Coordinated Entry waitlist who are living unsheltered. The with vision of Coordinated Entry is to provide families quick centralized access to shelter and housing. wait However, barriers to program entry and system inefficiencies cause families to experience very long 40 Page |

44 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp Living unsheltered with young children creates a serious health and safety risk with potentially times. negative consequences. The City of Seattle is making a commitment that no family should be lifelong to following actions are the first essential steps fulfilling that commitment: unsheltered. The Family Impact Team order to In more problem solve barriers and service gaps to move families off the Coordinated efficiently list, the City of Seattle will stand up a Family Entry Impact Team. HSD staff will convene and waiting actively engage family service providers in working a “By Name List” to shelter families on the CEA The By Name List process will allow HSD to identify barriers and gaps so they can be addressed waitlist. and families can more quickly access the resources necessary to exit homelessness. Coordinated Entry Prioritization are currently prioritized on the Coordinated Entry waitlists based on their scores on Families the VI ‐ SPDAT assessment . The recommendations from both Focus Strategies and Barbara Poppe suggest that prioritization for shelter and housing should use alternative criteria. While the City is not the lead entity for Entry, it is a priority action to work Coordinated with All Home and King County to explore alternative options for shelter and housing prioritization so that families with children are not forced to result unsheltered as a live of prioritization factors. housing ‐ Increase Investments in Diversion and Rapid Re Through State of Emergency, $1,347,000 in additional funding was allocated to support diversion the and re ‐ housing investments. Continuing the increased level of investments and dedicating more rapid is to diversion investment essential dollars to ensuring that families are to access flexible funding to able end their homelessness quickly. Expanding 24 ‐ Hour Shelter Options During 2016 One Night Count in January, 2,942 people the were counted living unsheltered in the City of Seattle. At the same time, the SWAP analysis indicates that we have unutilized shelter capacity. People are choosing to live outdoors rather than in shelter very clearly state that there are significant who some barriers to coming indoors for people. In order to bring people inside and connect them with appropriate interventions, shelter must be perceived as a preferable option to living outdoors. housing a housing first, low barrier, service ‐ oriented By shelter model, the City is committed to embracing making shelter accessible shelter away from and only moving models to comprehensive shelters survival that focused on ending a person’s homelessness. Seattle Navigation Center The Seattle Navigation Center, based off a successful model in San Francisco, will provide single adults The and food and homelessness access to the basic needs of shelter, hygiene, and couples experiencing meals but will also include enhancements such as secure, accessible storage and supportive Navigation services/case management that are focused on quickly move people into housing. The 41 Page |

45 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness model will eliminate many of the traditional barriers to entering shelters, such as sobriety, pets, Center segregation, and morning closures. It will be a model for the adoption of the system gender curfews will provide valuable insights into ways to expand recommendations these interventions and reform and to other shelters. principles for Access to Shelter Prioritization to shelter for single adults currently is not included in the Coordinated Entry for All system. Entry Access the those Navigation Center will be prioritized to living unsheltered and who have the longest into prioritization as the factor, the time length of homeless time homeless. By focusing on lengths of Center can pilot methods for effectively moving people Navigation who have been living outdoors for very long periods into permanent housing. Navigation Funding Process Center was recently Request for Qualifications for the Seattle Navigation Center released developed to The the system reform in include recommendations project The competitive funding process the design. contract will allow HSD an early resulting to integrate infrastructure changes into the and opportunity and monitoring process. The contracting Center contract will be developed utilizing the Navigation performance based contracting elements defined in the Good Government section. Wait Solving Problem Lists Actively Entry for All is an essential element to a fully Coordinated integrated response to functioning homelessness. However, developing prioritized Coordinated Entry is not sufficient to move waitlists of homelessness people quickly into housing. Currently, our system has thousands people experiencing intervention. The process needs living to access an appropriate housing or in shelter waiting outdoors transition from one focused on matching people to to one that adapts programs to match to programs from communities that have made substantial Learning progress in reducing their waitlists, as people. as our development community’s work on Veteran’s Homelessness, the well of “By Name List” (BNL) procedures has been shown to be an essential tool to help with managing the lists and reducing wait times. By Name Lists allow providers and funders to work together to actively problem solve the lists developed by Coordinated Entry. They do not circumvent Coordinated Entry; but rather use the between process and enhance it by overlaying case staffing. It creates accountability entry coordinated the the funder, but most importantly, to people experiencing homelessness. HSD is providers, to to developing By Name List processes for committed Family Impact Team, Youth and Young Adults, the Long term Shelter Stayers and People Living ‐ Unsheltered. New Role A for HSD Traditionally, the Human Services Department (HSD) has focused primarily on contracting with providers to services, and while that will not change, the execute addition of managing By Name List processes will of knowledge depth ‐ in greater much for staff. HSD taking on this role allows HSD for function new be a ‐ time the barriers to access and the gaps in services that exist in our system. It also allows the real 42 Page |

46 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp in problem solving restrictions that sometimes only a funder can provide. This knowledge will flexibility useful the planning and design of future funding processes, initiatives and pilot projects. be in Stakeholder Engagement HSD develops procedures for each of the unique populations, it will be essential to engage multiple As sets in each development process. There is a commitment to working with King County, of stakeholders to engage the Coordinated Entry process but also to both explore the possibility of expanding teams beyond the City of Seattle to have the greatest impact. Providers will also have opportunity to provide be a ultimately procedure development, and while participation in BNL staffing will the input into the contracting with HSD, the goal is for process to enhance providers' ability to requirement of connect people to housing. Each procedure may effectively slightly different based on the unique look work which to level the population, that to with contracting providers the population, the of needs factors. and Coordinated Entry is engaged with the population many other People to Services Connecting Outreach is a critical component in connecting people who are living outdoors to services and housing interventions. While HSD providers funds multiple outreach who individually do good work, Seattle/King County does not have a coordinated system of outreach to ensure adequate placement and Outreach in a week and others none. multiple contacts coverage. Some geographic areas may receive Outreach must become a gateway to housing interventions. will always include other components also as survival supports, medical interventions, mental health and substance abuse, but outreach must such either the entrance to our homeless response system, be actively working to get people indoors also shelter or into permanent housing placements. into Outreach Planning Group with with REACH, a local outreach HSD and along the support of All Home, has jointly provider, convened a workgroup to develop a comprehensive outreach plan. The goal is to develop an outreach not continuum that ensures only geographic coverage and continuity of services between providers but to also shifts the goal of outreach be housing placement. The plans developed by this workgroup will processes. implemented and will ultimately inform the planning for future funding accordingly HMIS Participation point for services, it essential that housing serve as an entrance In order for outreach to begin to outreach providers input their services and clients into the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). Currently HSD does not require HMIS participation of outreach providers. However, beginning in 2017 contracts, all providers will be required to enter HMIS data. This will not only facilitate the connection of people to housing, but also will provide a more comprehensive picture of our system and services. the efficacy of outreach 43 Page |

47 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp Rental Units Accessible Making is doubt that Seattle is in the midst of no an affordable housing crisis. Nothing in the There or this plan denies that. Rather, Focus Strategies recommendations and Barbara Poppe both focus on to increase access to any and all available need affordable and private market housing stock and to the creative housing solutions so that homelessness can be reduced in spite of identify housing market. our Rapid re ‐ housing and rental voucher programs can only place people into housing if the housing stock is difficult rent. Currently, people with these supports are often faced with challenging and available to housing complicated by rental restrictions and barriers to entry such as credit and background searches, can take months for people on the checks. verge of permanent housing placement to successfully It the locate a rental unit to make use of their subsidy. The City of Seattle is committed to supporting a Housing Resource Center to increase access to rental units. development of Housing Resource Center Housing Resource Center (HRC) is a systematic The way of increasing access to the stock of affordable and market rate rental units available to individuals and families exiting homelessness through the use of a voucher program. HSD, along with King County and the United Way, have for several subsidy or rental the years invested in Landlord Liaison Project. The HRC is a redesign of the Landlord Liaison Project, that expanding the lessons learned locally and the success on other cities have had increasing their rental Request a King County Department of Community and Health Services (DCHS) will be releasing access. The for Proposal (RFP) for the implementation of the project in 2016. HSD will support King County in the planning of the RFP process. through community has a long history of building affordable housing with the support of our Seattle successful levies. The creation and preservation of affordable housing is primarily the work of housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA), but it intersects the with homelessness as accessing Housing homelessness. can those a way to help someone exit units Currently, affordable property owners or be property managers often maintain independent wait lists; navigating these lists and accessing a unit requires lot of luck or an extremely skilled case a manager. A centralized list of available affordable units will assist case managers and people experiencing homelessness to more effectively locate permanent housing options. need, in everyone serve to stock the country that has enough affordable housing city a in not is There and Seattle is no exception. In order to increase access to units, the HRC must also focus on increasing the of private, market rate units for people exiting homelessness. This will require engaging availability them property managers to help understand the financial argument for and with developers private is including in the Housing Resource Center. This their a different approach to the way our units community has historically engaged landlords, with a focus on the civic responsibility and being a good of secured has the participation approach some landlords, it does need. While that neighbor those to in not appeal to the business needs of a property developer. Rather than having a social service focus, the based staff at the HRC will have a real estate focus and can recruit both affordable and market rate units 44 Page |

48 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness sound business arguments and incentives for participation. More information on the Housing on Center Resource be found in the Barbara Poppe Report. can Good and Government Ensuring Performance of Seattle and the Human Services The also have had a significant role to play in the City Department state of our homeless response system. current The lack of clarity, strategy and formal investment a contributing factor to the disjointed patchwork collection of programs. Routine competitive process is resulting not happened in over a decade, in legacy funding with little change to processes funding have new directions or models. That type accommodate environment does not encourages innovation. of In order to develop a person ‐ centered homeless response system, the City must make investments HSD commits practices. to conducting routine based on data and grounded in best strategically, funding processes and engaging in performance based contracting. competitive Minimum and of Performance Standards Implementation Target 2013, the Seattle/King County Continuum of Care (CoC) In CoC System Wide Performance established Metrics for: 1) Exits to Permanent Housing, 2) Length of Stay, and 3) Returns each that to Homelessness to accomplish. The current CoC program targets were aspires developed based on a review of existing United project type data considering sub ‐ population distinctions. The City of Seattle, King County, and Way contracts all include the current CoC targets language detailing the quarterly monitoring of funding and the consequences of projects failing to meet projected targets. While the City of Seattle has targets monitoring these targets in contracts, and contract negotiations do not routinely included use targets. Strategies has recommended that our continuum move away from an approach based on Focus incremental to our improvements current system to based on setting standards according to one national best practices. They also recommend that the Seattle/King County CoC adopt minimum two performance standards that determine eligibility for future funding, and adopt additional entries performance utilization rate and measures, from homelessness . the of adoption the to agreed have Way the United and King with along County Seattle, of City The following performance standards for inclusion in all future funding processes and resulting contracts:  Utilization Rate: Measures the average daily bed or unit (for families) occupancy of the program. This is re capacity. Rapid ‐ housing does maximum by program calculated using HMIS data compared to not utilization rate standards because the rapid re ‐ housing model does not have a fixed have comparisons. bed capacity to generate occupancy 45 Page |

49 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Entries from Homelessness:  the Measures to which programs are serving people who are literally homeless, including degree a car or in outdoors, another emergency shelter. The measure is calculated in in HMIS living on responses to “immediate prior living situation.” based Lengths of  Stay: number of Measures the For from entry to program exit. program rapid re ‐ housing days this is defined as the time programs, program entry to the end of the financial subsidy. from Exits to Permanent Housing (PH):  the percentage of program participants who exit the Measures into a form of program permanent supportive housing, including term rental of shared stable/long permanent housing, subsidized housing or market rate housing. For Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), housing, measure also includes existing residents who exit the PSH program but remain stably the another form in permanent housing. housed of Return to Homelessness :  the who program exited participants program and are have percentage of Measures the homeless by any other subsequently intervention in HMIS within two years. served performance Beginning 2017, HSD will add these standards into contracts for monitoring and in will technical assistance purposes. Programs not meeting minimum standards a be required to develop The assistance with their HSD program specialist. plan implementation of minimum standards technical revision of current target performance standards provides an opportunity to support systems and by identifying and rewarding high ‐ performing projects and providing targeted assistance improvement implementing performing projects. Specific minimum and target standards to and the CoC plan for low ‐ performance measures is included in Appendix D. Funding Allocation Process commits to routine competitive funding HSD as a means to ensure system performance and processes adherence to best practices. HSD will release a Combined Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) in a advance of Request for Proposal to take place Successful ‐ to late 2017. mid proposals will receive in for 2018 contracts. This Combined NOFA will include funding for all homeless investments and funding based populations. Priority populations will be determined all on proportional representation in serving and unsheltered population using annual One Night Count results for both the sheltered the homeless populations and additional data from current service numbers. System analysis and best practices models. research will identify priority services or Agencies providing emergency shelter, transitional navigation housing, permanent supportive housing, rapid re ‐ housing, outreach, day services and housing 46 Page |

50 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness will be able to compete for city resources to address the needs of the populations they serve. assistance combining homeless investments into a single funding process, agencies will have increased By all to the project and models that will allow propose them to most effectively implement services flexibility the performance outcomes. The combined funding process will also ensure HSD has the meet and to fund a comprehensive system of services rather than piecemeal programs for different ability and housing models. populations goal is to remain on a two ‐ year funding cycle, but minor deviations The may occur in order to best align our partners. regional funding with Contract Monitoring Performance aims to establish HSD clear and distinct protocols for analyzing program performance based on best practices and fidelity to program model. A Planner and a Grants and Contracts (G&C) Specialist assigned developing a program standards engage with stakeholders in each project type/program model will to for each project type, based on best practices, which clearly defines the service expectations. manual will use program manuals in the development of all funding processes and for contract HSD monitoring. investments and funding will clearly know what the City intends to purchase with its Applicants for HSD are elements that the considered essential to successful program implementation. program Contract will include both monthly and quarterly processes. Monthly monitoring will focus monitoring by achievement on fiscal monitoring and of outcomes, including an invoice and status report submitted will staff. Quarterly monitoring HSD utilize data pulled and an HMIS data report pulled by the agency HMIS to look at achievement of minimum performance standards. If monitoring results in any from regarding finance or performance issues, HSD will work with the program to develop a plan of concerns necessary. action when all contracts least annually. Monitoring visits will at will conduct on ‐ site program monitoring for HSD handbook, utilize appropriate program standards manual, monitoring the and checklist to ensure equity in monitoring approach. If any necessary actions result, program notification will occur during the monitoring visit and a follow up letter sent within 30 days of the monitoring visit a with of clear list log action required responses, and date due. Due date for action will be noted in a monitoring items, staff weekly by administrative specialists to and checked of deadlines and follow up required. alert and type program specific their and interpret system ‐ wide data gather on will leads area program The meetings coordinate quarterly program with all funded agency providers. Program meetings will partnership provide opportunity for HSD to engage in an with providers to evaluate system level performance, and for programs to see where they are performing compared to the rest of the project type cohort. technical Program meetings will also provide opportunities for peer learning and ongoing assistance. 47 Page |

51 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp on lessons learned from the Portfolio Pilot, HSD plans to expand performance ‐ based contracting Based to homeless services contracts managed by the other department. The increased focus on strategies and collaboration between HSD and service providers performance has the potential to boost the of people homelessness in experiencing of programs and help improve the effectiveness outcomes Seattle. Capacity Building and Technical Assistance and technical assistance will be an essential component of implementing minimum Capacity building standards and performance ‐ based contracting. While contracts will include performance performance with standards renewal contracts in 2017, program performance will not impact agency beginning funding in 2017. Programs that are not meeting will receive capacity building and technical standards future assistance designed to improve their performance and increase their ability to compete in decisions. competitive processes where performance measures will impact funding funding HSD will all funded agencies through regular providing technical assistance and support to take an active role in with communication and training. HSD will work in partnership King County and All Home to implement programs a capacity ‐ building plan to increase the abilities of meet to performance standards. If technical assistance is determined to be necessary, HSD will contact program staff or agency administration to identify the best way to meet the agency’s technical assistance needs. For issues that the require in ‐ person technical assistance, HSD staff will visit agency on site at the program location or provide meeting is to to a meeting at the City of Seattle. The goal of the in ‐ person invite the agency deeper clarity, set expectations and answer any concerns with the agency as well as to engage in solving to course correct on outcomes or program. problem plan assistance is If necessary, a technical assistance further will be developed outlining the program assist to available be increase the program performance. Budget support may to items action and needs agency in building their capability to meet program standards. the to goal of technical assistance is to increase the likelihood The an agency or program is able meet that their performance standards. Technical assistance is intended to be a between HSD partnership and the agency and is not meant to be punitive in nature. City Staff Capacity Building ‐ Performance based contracting will require additional capacity and expertise to implement effectively. Current practices focus almost exclusively on fiscal monitoring with minimal attention paid monitoring a based contracting is ‐ time and labor ‐ intensive to Results implementation and outcomes. program program process expertise to collect and interpret both requiring ‐ and system ‐ level data as well as data program model knowledge to actively monitor fidelity to models. Monitoring is also made more contracts. Currently just over included federal funding requirements by in many complex the addition of 50% of our funds are city General Fund with the other half in restricted federal funds that add to complexity to the contracting and monitoring process for both the agency and HSD. In addition 48 Page |

52 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness program monitoring, HSD will also be required to provide meaningful technical assistance to ongoing programs. & Development and Grants & Contracts staff must have a depth and breadth of knowledge in Planning areas of homelessness and then very specific expertise in their assigned program models in order to all can implement performance ‐ based contracting and technical assistance plans. Staff capacity effectively by peer learning and cross training and participating in educational offerings. Staff should be increased encouraged to engage in these activities and staff work be should reflect them as a priority. plans Timeline a system as multifaceted and fractured as Reforming current homeless response system is a complex the task and must be undertaken in a thoughtful and meaningful way. We have reached an this point after entire of staff process, working with consultants, and year stakeholder engagement. Now it is time to taking action to implement change. Not everything will be accomplished at once, so decisions begin Over been made regarding the elements to prioritize. have the next two years, continued planning and way engagement will occur as we move toward the best and to operationalize the commitments priorities details timeline below the The and actions that the within this contained framework. priorities City of Seattle intends to undertake immediately and over the next two years. These actions lie within a with larger implementation plan that the City has agreed to King County, All Home, and the United Way reform. for those areas where there is joint responsibility for system 49 Page |

53 2017 2016 2018 Centered Systemic Response to Homelessness - Create a Person Commit to get Families living unsheltered indoors Sustain Change through Continuous Stand up Family Impact Team: HSD staff to convene and actively engage family service providers in working a “By Name List” to elter families on the CEA waitlist. • sh • Work with All Home and King County to adjust prioritization model for shelter to focus on health and safety outcomes Quality Improvement • Offer diversion to every family entering homelessness Families Conduct routine system performance evaluations • • Increase investment in Rapid Rehousing using SWAP tool. • Conduct regular gaps analysis. • Evaluate changes: Build on what works, course correct where necessary and develop proposals to Expand 24 hour shelter options (Navigation Center, Housing First) - address identified issues or gaps. centered, low barrier, housing first, comprehensive shelter - • Early adoption of the person who are on wait – Actively problem solve for each person – by name Adjust to maintain alignment with best practices • approach with focus on achieving exits to permanent housing for a population not from HUD and USICH currently served by our homeless system. lists Access only to those unsheltered with priority to those experiencing long lengths of time • ist process to other populations: unsheltered Apply lessons learned from Family By Name • L homeless. outreach, long - term shelters stayers and Youth and Young Adults Single Adults staff engagement and exposure to program successes and challenges to inform 2017 • Active RFP. (Housing Resource Center) Improve access to affordable housing units Implement HRC in partnership with King County to increase access to permanent housing exits through 2016 RFP • - homeless affordable units and market rate units in HRC through incentives • Increase participation of non Implementation of Outreach Connecting people to services by developing an Outreach Continuum Continuum • design coordinated outreach continuum Work with Outreach providers to implement some changes in • All Home and City leading stakeholder engagement process underway to focused on housing outcomes. advance of 2017 RFP System Infrastructure • Establish expectation of HMIS participation Invest in Models with Demonstrated Success and Address Racial Disparities Establish Expectations for Performance - Based Housing Stabilization Request for Proposal (RFP) Invest in What Works All homeless investments in one RFP allows for the most flexibility to shift dollars to the • Contracts Awards in Q1 to those best meeting the intent and • programs making the biggest impacts Management and . (Case Outreach, Diversion Funders alignment on minimum • metrics standards and target performance needs of the redesigned homeless crisis response and Housing Stability Services, Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, Rapid and timeline for implementation. system Rehousing, Day/Hygiene Centers) Providers notified of past & current performance • • Contracts in Q2 will require model fidelity, housing Funding will be focused on programs that can demonstrate: • Provider • engagement to develop technical assistance plans to achieve first, HMIS participation. to permanent housing • Meeting performance standards, including rapid exits outcomes. • Contracts will hold programs to minimum standards. • Housing first approach • Develop Housing First definition and communicate expectations to HSD will actively engage when programs not Fidelity to best practice models • providers. meeting targets. • Cultural competency and advancement of racial equity goals Release RFP in Q3. • to Increase Performance Outcomes Build Capacity • 2017 will be a “Hold Harmless Year” Contracts will include metrics that will be actively - monitored and evaluated by HSD so that technical assistance plans can be executed to improve but funding will not be impacted. Performance Based System • Improve data: Require HMIS participation and monitor data quality. • Focus on training and technical assistance to providers (housing first, progressive engagement, exits to permanent housing, data quality, addressing racial disparities, etc.) • Develop capacity to monitor achievement of outcomes by race.

54 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Closing adoption of the Homeless Policy Framework is a pivot point for the Human Services Department and The provide City of Seattle to ensure that investments truly a pathway home for people experiencing the While this report is the culmination of several homelessness. years’ worth of system reform discussions a year of strategic learning and planning, rather than an ending it is a beginning. It is and a dedicated from a very clear call to response action to our Federal government, two nationally recognized of consultants, our community, and most importantly from people suffering from the crisis care for our to most vulnerable neighbors. must do better homelessness. We Seattle The City of has a unique opportunity based on a window of time in which there is more working information about how our homeless response system is and is not had then we have ever clear system necessary implement to ways on directions received and for very asked have We before. improvements. Now is the time to engage with stakeholders, providers and community to ensure that we providing meaningful solutions to homelessness. 51 Page |

55 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp A: HPF Development Process Appendix Homeless Framework has been developed by a Core Policy Team consisting of staff from HSD’s The Support & Assistance (CSA) and Youth and Family Empowerment Community Divisions and the Office (YFE) (OH). The work has also been guided by a Housing larger Planning Team made up of HSD leadership, of staff from divisions and the Mayor’s Office. Barbara Poppe, a nationally recognized expert, was other contracted to provide consultation and recommendations on the process. Ms. Poppe is a leader in through data driven solutions and addressing community collaboration. Ms. Poppe served as homelessness Council on Homelessness from November 2009 to Executive the Director of the United States Interagency March 2014. During her tenure, Poppe oversaw the Federal response to homelessness by working with 19 Federal to create partnerships at every level of government and with the private sector to reduce agencies Secretaries announced Opening 2010, and Poppe and four Cabinet Barbara homelessness. In June end 27 plan the nation’s first ‐ ever comprehensive Federal to prevent and end homelessness. Doors , Over the past year, the HPF Framework has been developed in conjunction with Ms. Poppe’s work and recommendations her consultation with the City of Seattle. from The Core and Planning teams have worked closely with Barbara Poppe, including three in ‐ person work sessions. when lens equity racial a used HSD color, Because of persons impacts disproportionately so homelessness development developing the HPF and conducted a Race and Social Justice analysis throughout the HPF process support from staff experienced with the intersections of race and social justice with with analysis is included in Change Team. A summary homelessness, of the RSJI members of HSD's RSJI including Appendix C. builds development of the Homeless Policy The upon all the previously conducted systems Framework reform work and all of the resulting community engagement processes that have occurred. The and recommendations the HPF reflect the resulting recommendations of the vision of the community throughout these previous processes. The HSD staff accompanied Ms. Poppe during all her program site visits and interviews utilized to formulate her recommendations. Staff from HSD, OH, the Mayor’s Office and City Council also participated in a series of learning sessions with cities that from around the country their reducing in homeless populations. have progress significant made ongoing community engagement is essential to as the success of any systems transformation, However, staff and Barbara Poppe, the consultant working HSD the HPF development, met individually with on providers from each of segment of the service delivery system. Many providers participated in multiple HSD meetings helped inform providers about the HPF development process and allowed These meetings. Ms. Poppe to gain valuable insights into staff the and homeless service delivery system in order to better inform HPF recommendations. Providers all agreed that the current system is not adequately meeting the conducted were Meetings also homelessness. with other funders, neighbors experiencing needs of our 27 ‐ doors United States Interagency Council on Homelessness – 52 Page |

56 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp and and private, in order to discuss issues of funder alignment ensure that funding supports a both public service delivery system. seamless Staff HSD participated in multiple homelessness meetings throughout the development process. These also meetings included membership meetings for the Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness, All Home not was meetings and strategic planning sessions. While the focus of these meetings Group Advisory HPF, there was valuable information specifically gained the that informed the development process. This was particularly useful in ensuring that the direction of the HPF aligned with other initiatives throughout ‐ specific strategic plans. the All Home population the community, such as time The goal of transforming the homeless service system to make homelessness rare, brief and one Policy through development and adoption of the Homeless the Framework was presented to the general community at a number of community meetings. Many community members expressed frustration with They neighborhoods. of unsheltered homelessness in their would like the city to develop crisis the current and a solution that balances the needs of those experiencing homelessness and the quality of life in safety City the Residents consistently expressed desire for the community. to use homeless investments in the tax City that ensuring There was also support for increasing accountability, means effective most possible. dollars are invested only with programs that demonstrate success in reducing homelessness. a complete list of community engagement For for the development of the Homeless Policy efforts B. Framework, see Appendix 53 Page |

57 REACH 54 Pioneer Page | Meetings Foundation, Commerce Ground, Seattle of Alliance, Foundation, Solid Gates 2016 DEEL, Raikes July Stakeholder DESC, Square Downtown Association, Chamber DCHS ort People Experiencing Homelessness PSKS, Friends House, Poppe Youth Services, and with Horizons 2016 Youth, Resources, Auburn Compass of Alliance, Housing Outreach New Lambert Therapeutic Health Youth Youthcare, Services, Calls Barbara Providers July for UGM, Way, Solid 2016 Homeless, Home, Ground, REACH, Housing Compass Healthcare Alliance, Housing YWCA Development Consortium, DEEL DESC, the Stakeholder’s June Meeting United All DCHS Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp up ‐ 3rd SHA, Council SKCCH, Solid Seattle, USICH DCHS Rights Project, Housing Healthcare UGM, Poppe Pathways Home: Homeless, Way, REACH, of Church 2016 Share, sight/Follow the Home, Greater Homeless Housing Wellspring Development Consortium, calls Barbara June On Advocacy United Intergovernmental Relations, Office All Ground, of LIHI, DESC, Nicklesville, Youthcare, Parks, Compass Alliance, for Out, 2016 Home April Best Events Community Practices Calls/ Livability Night Belltown Community Council All DESC Efforts On 2016 nd 2 SKCCH, Interim Home Foundation Raikes Foundation, Gates Poppe sight Barbara February All DESC, CDA, UGM, Youthcare, Wellspring Engagement 2016 Interim Home Meetings Individual January Foundation Raikes All Wellspring, DESC, SKCCH Youthcare, CDA, Community 2015 Focus HPF Poppe Place, YWCA, sight Plymouth B: Home On st All September Barbara 1 Community Strategies Meeting YMCA, Youthcare, Mary’s DESC, Services Catholic Community Housing, Appendix County Providers Audience King Other

58 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Appendix Racial and Social Justice Analysis C: order In conduct a thorough racial and social justice analysis a team was assembled of participants from to Participating each of the three service divisions. staff members had a HSD, representing throughout expertise in homelessness and in race and social combination often combining both. Three of justice, of the HSD members Team and Social Justice Initiative Change participated in the ongoing Race (RSJI) and half of the analysis participants were persons of color. Utilizing a combination of data review, guided application of the City of Seattle’s Racial Equity Toolkit , the RSJI analysis team was able to discussion and the an framework development. In addition to working on on ‐ going basis with the advisory team, the guide of the Homeless Policy Framework was presented to the HSD RSJI Change Team and all members concept and race were invited to participate in a deep dive conversation regarding the potential change the of team justice ramifications of the policy outcomes. social analysis and discussion opportunity, the following recommendations to attempt ensure increased From this for the Homeless Policy Framework to maximize the capacity of HSD to address the disparate ability on of people color experiencing homelessness in our city. impacts Race Collect Data on Outcomes by Recommendation 1: we can easily the overrepresentation of persons of color participating in our homeless While identify services, HSD does not collect or analyze assistance outcomes of those services by race. All indications the in a resulting crisis of capacity homeless system achieve permanent housing, are that very few people in the crisis unsheltered people living on our streets. This is potentially compounded if persons of and ultimately are not achieving permanent housing outcomes at a rate color commensurate to their white counterparts. a lack data. An of the capacity to analyze the situation due to However, HSD does not currently have to expectation of the development of the HMIS system under the new vendor should include the capacity pull of exits to permanent housing by race. Grants and Contracts Specialists should use this data as reports data system wide use to ensure that an should HSD of their program performance monitoring and element are increasing racial equity in our city. investments HSD should require the measurement of exits homeless to permanent housing for persons of color as a programmatic evaluation element. Recommendation 2: Develop New Strategies to Increase Racial Equity populations marginalized serving in specialize who funding of agencies historically upon relied has HSD the to ensure that racial disparities are adequately addressed. However, with the overall increase in the size of the disproportionate homeless population in Seattle and the number of persons of color experiencing demand. Should this homelessness, are not able to adequately meet culturally specific agencies small without additional funding or interventions, HSD practice is omitting culturally sensitive and/or continue example, specific for the remaining, unfunded groups. For services while Native Americans are seven times more likely to experience homelessness, there are no culturally specific programs funded to provide vulnerable services this to population. Reliance primarily on funding these culturally specific agencies to achieve racial equity is not ensuring the desired results across all populations. Therefore, it is essential to identify additional strategies to ensure be racial disparities are addressed throughout the homeless service system. One possible strategy could 55 Page |

59 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness the option of a system that separates housing resources from culturally specific case ‐ exploring services. HSD should consider requiring all programs to participate in race and social justice management training fair housing training for staff, leadership, and volunteers as a condition of their contract. and practices. increase to elect also ‐ discriminatory may HSD strictly enforcing non includes strategy Another funding specific available to offer homeless assistance services across a broader range of culturally groups with a focus on those groups that service are shown in local data to be disproportionately homeless with the community, Seattle’s homeless population. HSD should work closely over ‐ represented in disproportionately particularly with those communities of color impacted by homeless, to identify racial equity. additional strategies to increase 56 Page |

60 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp D: Revised System Wide Performance Targets and New Minimum Appendix Implementation Plan Standards I. Background federal Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act requires that The progress Continuum of Care (CoC) establish targets and show annual in achieving those targets and each homelessness. reducing In the Seattle/King County CoC established CoC System Wide Performance Metrics for: 1) Exits to 2013, Permanent Housing, Length of Stay, and 3) Returns to Homelessness that each program aspires to 2) accomplish. current CoC targets were developed based on The a review of existing project type data taking sub ‐ population distinctions into consideration. The City of Seattle, King County, and United Way funding all include the current contracts CoC language detailing the targets quarterly monitoring of and the consequences of projects failing to meet projected targets. Programs targets were provided with performance data in both 2013 and 2014 as an initial step toward measuring progress quarterly. The All Home Strategic Plan calls for a continuation and improvement of to measure our progress efforts and adapt practices based on data. As part of the action steps of the Strategic Plan, All Home stakeholders committed to using the System ‐ Wide Analytics and Projection (SWAP) suite of tools to planning systems City the County, King efforts. change and better understand our of and United Seattle, of King County (the “Funders”) jointly funded a consulting contract with Focus Strategies that Way a full system analysis using the SWAP tools. Using our local data, Focus Strategies has made includes realign funding and programming, recommendations to to improve investment alignment between and King County funders homelessness better support our shared goals to make rare, brief, and a one ‐ to time occurrence. II.Focus Strategies Recommendations Strategies recommends that the Seattle / King Focus County CoC revise the current CoC System Wide Targets as follows: move away from an approach grounded in local data to one based on national standards; additional as homelessness and the eliminate practices; adopt utilization rate from entries distinction overnight and between single emergency case for managed adults; adopt standards shelters for transitional housing that reflect a ‘bridge’ model; and alter the distinctions between sub ‐ system populations.. See Attachment A for a comparison of current and recommended Focus Strategies wide Based on the Focus Strategies recommended targets, the proposed System targets. Wide Targets are: REVISED System Wide Targets Outcomes Core Project Utilization from Entries to Rate Return Type Homelessness Rate PH Length of Stay Exit Rate to Homelessness (S & F) 8% (S & F) Emergency days 50% (S & YYA) 30 95% 90% (F) 80% Shelter (YYA)** 5% (YYA)** 20 days Standards Performance Targets and Minimum Wide System 2016 September

61 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp Transitional 90 days (S &F) F) 8% (S & 85% 95% 95% Housing 5% (YYA)** 180 (YYA)** F) & 3% (S Rapid NA 95% 85% days 120 5% (YYA)** Rehousing 3% (S & F) PSH 95% 95% N/A 90%* 5% (YYA)** HEARTH, the PSH performance standard for Exits to Permanent Housing will be exits to and *Following of permanent retention housing. This measure differs slightly from the Focus Strategy PSH permanent housing exit data included in the SWAP. standards minimum specific Youth for **Focus Strategies’ recommendations do not include targets or established Young Adults (YYA). These YYA metrics were and through subsequent analysis provided by Barbara Poppe. Wide System Minimum NEW Standards Entries from Core Outcomes Rate Utilization Homelessness Type Project Exit Rate to to Length of Stay Rate Return (days) PH Homelessness 40%(S) 85% Emergency (S/F) 90 (S/F) 10% (S/F) 65%(F) 90% (YYA) (YYA) 30 (YYA) Shelter 20% 90% 35% (YYA) 150 (S/F) Transitional 10% (S/F) 80% 90% 85% 270 20% (YYA) (YYA) Housing (S/F) 5% Rapid 180 90% NA 80% 20% (YYA) Rehousing (S/F) 5% *90% PSH 85% 90% NA 20% (YYA) addition, Focus Strategies recommends that for the first time the Seattle / King County CoC adopts In standards. As below, the minimum in standards reflect the following changes minimum approach: move away from an approach grounded in local data to one based on national best practices; adopt utilization rate and entries from homelessness as additional standards; eliminate the distinction between single adults; housing from emergency shelters for overnight and case managed for exits to permanent length adopt for transitional housing of stay that standards reflect a ‘bridge’ model; and alter the ‐ between sub distinctions populations. HEARTH, the PSH performance *Following and to exits be will Housing Permanent to Exits for standard permanent of retention permanent PSH Strategy Focus from slightly differs measure This housing. the housing exit data included in the SWAP. **Focus Strategies’ do Youth recommendations for standards minimum or targets specific include not (YYA). and Young by provided analysis subsequent through established were metrics YYA These Adults Barbara Poppe. Standards Minimum and 2016 Performance September Wide System Targets

62 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp III.Funder Commitment recognize that projects have made considerable efforts to align with and reach the current CoC Funders phase To that end, King County, the City of Seattle, and United Way of King County agree to in a targets. our current CoC targets to from recommended Focus Strategies targets over shift the next the years two (hereafter referred to as the NEW system ‐ wide targets and minimum standards), fully implementing by agreement is reflected in the Memorandum of Understanding for 2018. Implementation of Revised This and Performance Targets System Minimum Standards. Wide to system ‐ wide performance Improving increases our ability make homelessness rare, brief, and one ‐ time in King County. The implementation of minimum standards and revision of current target performance provides an opportunity to support this improvement by identifying and standards ‐ performing projects and providing targeted assistance to rewarding low ‐ performing projects. high IV.Implementation Plan to the NEW system wide targets and Alignment minimum standards will be made as follows:  Effective immediately, the CoC will measure performance standards including entries from notified homelessness utilization rate. All programs will be and of the NEW system wide targets and minimum standards for use in future contracts. In the third quarter of 2016, the CoC  review the new system ‐ wide targets and minimums to will with align 2018. by targets recommended the exceed or create a project ‐ level plan to  will be reviewed annually by the All Home Data and Evaluation Sub ‐ Committee. Any Standards the standards will changes be determined by the Funders. to in annual An plan may be found Attachment B. implementation A. Future Funding Rounds In all future competitive funding rounds (see schedule below), minimum and target performance clearly standards be will defined. RFI/RFP funding decisions will be based on a model consistent with our Continuum of Care Notice of Funding Availability (CoC NOFA) ranking system , adopted by the All Home Funder Alignment Committee. Under this model, for each RFI/RFP: team, a create will Home, All behalf on of 1) For all funding processes, the CoC evaluation acting consolidated of all projects based on performance on the NEW system ‐ wide targets and ranking will identified above. The performance ranking standards minimum used by funders be for scoring in the RFI/RFP process. The ranking and the process used to create it will be shared on the All Home website. For processes led by a single funder, funder evaluation staff will follow a parallel process. 2) In addition, as part of the application process, agencies will report on project performance their and provide a and timeline for improvement where needed. plan time the RFI/RFP will the at effect of 3) Projects meeting the System Wide Performance Targets in points. bonus awarded be and 2016 Wide Performance Targets System Minimum Standards September

63 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness Continuation Funding B. seeking Projects continuation of existing funding must show increasing progress toward meeting the the standards. new system ‐ wide targets and minimum – project level to Project Shifts Models C. order to implement the NEW system ‐ wide targets and minimum standards, shifts in project In models housing projects and emergency shelters without case management are needed. for transitional in in relevant targets for those project types will made in accordance with shifts project Shifts be a goal to fully models, with implement recommendations by the 2018. V.Technical Assistance immediately, contract monitoring will include evaluation of Effective progress towards CURRENT System Wide Performance Standards and NEW Minimum Standards. All will be offered the opportunity to participate in technical assistance and support activities. Agencies in with projects not meeting System Wide Minimum Standards one or more categories, and/or Agencies with agencies projects not meeting at least one current System Wide Performance will be Standard required to participate in technical assistance activities. may include assistance the following: Technical Peer ‐ Peer Best Practice Seminars: Highlighting high ‐ performing projects  and cross ‐ training/learning opportunities (staffed by All Home) Provider  of Seattle City Learning Circles Housing Fair Includes Home. All by development Risk  Capacity Building Training, Plan – In Management Behavioral Health Cross ‐ training and Resources, Housing First Training, Training, Intervention, Risk Mitigation Funding, and Community/Neighborhood conversations about Crisis first. housing VI.Provider Notification Process All completion of the SWAP and following the Home Community Meeting with Focus Upon a Strategies, joint letter from funders will be sent to each agency to notify them of the changes documented here. and soon as possible for calendar year 2015, As Q1 2016, project ‐ level performance information on the ‐ recommended Focus Strategies targets will be published on the All Home website. Thereafter, project a on be will Results basis. quarterly level performance will be website published on the All Home will published with a one ‐ quarter lag (i.e., results for Q1 be published at the end of Q2) to allow sufficient time for data entry, clean ‐ up, and analysis. It is the expectation of funders that all HMIS data be correctly on the timeline documented in current entered contracts. Adjustments will not be made to quarterly performance reports due to errors in the underlying data. Targets in effect at the time of the Wide Minimum Standards will be Standards and System analysis for both System Wide Performance incorporated. and 2016 Wide Performance Targets System Minimum Standards September

64 NA CoC 95% 95% 95% Rate Target Revised 2016 NA 95% 95% 95% Focus Target Utilization Strategies September CoC 95% 90% 95% 95% Target Revised from ort People Experiencing Homelessness Entries 95% 95% 95% 90% Focus Target Homelessness Strategies (S/F) (S/F) (S/F) (S/F) Target (YYA) (YYA) (YYA) (YYA) Revised 3% 8% 3% 8% 5% 5% 5% 5% CoC Homelessness NA NA NA NA Focus Target to Strategies Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp Rate (S) (F) (YYA) (YYA) (S/F) Target 10% 10% 5% Return Previous 15% 7% CoC 15% 30% Pathways Home: (F) Chart Target 90% 85% 85% 50% Revised (S/YYA) 80% CoC PH (F) 90% 90% to ‐ ‐ NA 50% Focus Target Comparison (S/YYA) 80% Strategies 85% 85% Rate Standards Exit Metrics mgd) Target 80% 91% 33%(F) 80%(F) 70%(S) 33%(Y) Previous overnight/ 5%/20% 10%(YA) CoC ‐ 64%(YYA) case Minimum (S and days days days NA CoC 180 120 days days (S/F) (S/F) (YYA) (YYA) Target Revised 20 90 30 Performance Targets Stay of days days Wide NA 120 days Focus Target 30 90 Strategies Length Performance (F) (S) (F) (S) System 20 NA NA CoC 275 (YYA) (YYA) Target Wide 37 100 325 390 Previous A: System PSH Type Rapid Shelter Project Housing Rehousing Emergency Transitional Attachment

65 Pathways Home: Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp ort People Experiencing Homelessness B: Annual Implementation Plan Attachment is an outline of how each of the Funders will align to our shared 2018 goal that all Below housing meet at least one of the CORE NEW system will wide targets to be eligible for funding and that programs of RFP scoring will be based on performance metrics. 50% Year ‐ 2016 1 County UWKC City Data Review - Project ‐ level performance will be posted quarterly on the All Home website with a one ‐ quarter delay. - As always, providers may review their performance on all metrics other than returns to homelessness at any time. RFP’s process RFP No all in language Include - 2016 in - Include language in all RFPs the wide system NEW RFPs prioritizing prioritizing the standards. minimum and targets NEW system wide Apply Funding Order Ranking CoC - targets and minimum process applicants determine to standards. 30% points performance for awarded - are points RFP of to dedicated metrics. performance metrics. - Apply CoC Funding Order process Ranking determine to applicants points awarded for performance metrics. Contracts Continuation - At contract renewal, projects that do not meet or demonstrate progress on the project – level receive will 2016 during minimums performance. low of notification a targets and Year 2 – 2017 Changes 1 are from underlined year Data Review - Project ‐ level performance will be posted quarterly on the All Home website with a one ‐ quarter delay. - As always, providers may review their performance on all metrics other than returns to homelessness at any time. RFP’s - 40% of RFP points are dedicated to performance metrics. - Apply CoC Funding Ranking Order process to determine applicants points awarded for performance metrics. of one standards. minimum wide system NEW meet the - Projects must 2016 September Standards Minimum and Targets Performance Wide System

66 Pathways Home: ort People Experiencing Homelessness Seattle’s Person-Centered Plan to Supp Continuation Contracts Projects that do not meet or demonstrate progress on the project – - level targets and minimums during 2017 will not receive continuation funding in 2018. - At contract renewal projects must meet at least one of the Core NEW system minimum standards. Year 3 – 2018 Changes 2 are from underlined year Data Review - Project ‐ level performance will be posted quarterly on the All Home website with a one ‐ quarter delay. their review may providers always, to returns than other metrics all on performance - As homelessness any time. at RFP’s 50% of RFP points - dedicated to performance metrics. are - Apply CoC Funding Ranking Order process to determine applicants points awarded for performance metrics. - Projects must of meet one the core NEW system wide targets. Continuation Contracts - Projects that do not meet or demonstrate progress on the project ‐ level targets and minimum receive standards may not continuation funding. standards. minimum system NEW Core the of one least at meet must projects - At contract renewal and Minimum System September 2016 Targets Performance Wide Standards

Related documents

AgeFriendlyPGH ActionPlan

AgeFriendlyPGH ActionPlan

I E R N F - D E L Y G A G H R G E A R T U E B R S T P I T Age-Friendly Greater Pittsburgh Action Plan 2017–2020

More info »
Microsoft Word   ANE ActionPlan Template.docx

Microsoft Word ANE ActionPlan Template.docx

Plan Management implementing the plan? Who is Required ‐ 3. responsible for communicating the plan? responsible for How will the plan be managed? Who is Section Action to address risk Required ‐ Depar...

More info »
COPD info Guide

COPD info Guide

COPD Info Guide

More info »
06 53440 main pr.qxp

06 53440 main pr.qxp

Vienna International Centre, P.O. Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria Tel: (+43-1) 26060-0, Fax: (+43-1) 26060-5866, LEGISLATIVE GUIDE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION A...

More info »



More info »
Microsoft Word   LC 64 report final.doc

Microsoft Word LC 64 report final.doc

FINAL REPORT March 17, 2006 The Changing Nature of the Catalog and its Integration with Other Discovery Tools Prepared for the Library of Congress By Karen Calhoun Cornell University Library Ithaca, N...

More info »


Health Care Provider Name and Address: School Name & Address: STATE OF RHODE ISLAND Grade: _______ _________ Phone: SCHOOL PHYSICAL FORM -issued form. All districts must accept this form. General heal...

More info »
On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibiliographic Control

On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibiliographic Control

h t R e c e o r d O n t e n c h O e r d o R __________________________________________________________________________ Report of The Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Co...

More info »
National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention

More info »
AP25 StudentEntrepreneur final

AP25 StudentEntrepreneur final

ADVICE PAPER pril n o 2019 .25 - A Student entrepreneurship at research-intensive universities: from a peripheral activity towards a new mainstream lEAGUE OF EUrOpEAn rESEArCH UniVErSiTiES University ...

More info »
Microsoft Word   EJ.1 04.doc

Microsoft Word EJ.1 04.doc

October 2003 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Not in My Backyard: Not in My Backyard: Executive Order 12,898 and Title VI as T ools for Achieving Environmental Justice

More info »
controlling healthcare costs

controlling healthcare costs


More info »
Health in All Policies A Guide for State and Local Governments

Health in All Policies A Guide for State and Local Governments

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES A Guide for State and Local Governments

More info »