The document summarizes efforts in Dayton-Montgomery County, Ohio to prevent homelessness through affordable housing development and emergency financial assistance programs. It discusses the results of prevention programs targeting families at risk of homelessness and analyses of clients not enrolled to help improve targeting. The Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program served over 800 households and saw high shelter needs during the recession. Future prevention may focus on narrow targeting and rapid rehousing with new Emergency Solutions Grant funding requirements.

1. Homeless Solutions Policy Board Dayton-Montgomery County, OHJuly 2010 Homelessness Prevention System Evolution

2. Homeless Solutions Community 10-Year Plan Adopted June 2006 Prevention one of four key principles in Plan. Two types of Prevention recommendations: Affordable Housing Assistance Development of 1,800 units of affordable housing Preserve existing affordable housing Create county-wide rental rehab program Create rental subsidy program for LIHTC projects Explore affordable housing set-aside program

3. Homeless Solutions Community 10-Year Plan (cont.) Emergency Assistance Implement eviction prevention program modeled on Louisville, KY program for public housing and Section 8 tenants Consolidate existing emergency financial assistance into shared system of fund-raising, management and dispersal, with appropriate case management follow-up Develop eviction early warning system Identify and resolve discharge planning policies and practices that lead to homelessness

4. Definition of Prevention To keep something that would have happened from happening. Who will it happen to? How do you reach them? How likely is it to happen? What intervention will prevent it from happening? Not enough to show that most people who get the intervention do not become homeless – they might not have become homeless without the intervention or their homelessness may have only been delayed.

5. Prevention Committee Framing Questions How can emergency assistance be more efficient (targeted at those who are most at risk of homelessness)? How can emergency assistance be more effective (prevent homelessness for those most at risk)? Difference between preventing homelessness and creating self-sufficiency – need to be clear about goal.

6. Emergency Assistance Existing emergency assistance programs help low-income people with a financial emergency but often are not able to prevent homelessness: Limited assistance - $500 maximum or less Once a year Help recover from a one-time event Households must show that they will be able to pay the rent after the assistance ends Households have to have the lease or utility bill in their name Require eviction or utility shut-off notice

7. Emergency Assistance Client Analysis Sunrise Center – county agency that screens for several emergency assistance programs Compared Sunrise Center client list to HMIS Over two years Sunrise Center provided 2,559 households with emergency assistance 6% entered homeless system after receiving the financial assistance Either fairly effective or clients were not at risk of homelessness

8. Other Prevention Issues Do not want to replace the safety net of church, family and friends with public programs Some emergency assistance providers can not or will not exclusively focus on homelessness prevention Concern about low income households who rely on financial assistance programs but who will never become homeless

9. Ohio Family Homelessness Prevention Pilot Project Case management and up to $1,000 in financial assistance Focused on preventing eviction of families from subsidized housing Intensive home-based case management for 3-6 months All households who are referred for services are entered into HMIS

11. Prior stay in emergency shelter

12. Young parent (under 24 years old)

13. Young children (under 6)

14. Infant or pregnant

15. Extremely low-income (less than 67% of poverty)

16. Loss of benefits or employment

17. Paying over 40% of income for rent

18. Unable to secure other housing due to financial issues

19. Prior eviction, pattern to housing instability

20. No temporary housing options with family or friends

22. 109 families assessed

23. 92 families enrolledThrough May 2009

24. Family Homelessness Prevention Referred But Not Enrolled HMIS information was not available on all 273 families who were referred but not enrolled. HMIS information was not available for all 273 families who were referred but not enrolled. *Information on young children was not available for all households in this category

25. Homelessness Prevention & Rapid Rehousing Program City & County HPRP allocation $4 million Coordinated planning and implementation Local Outcomes Reduce entry to homelessness through effective targeting and services Reduce length of time in shelter Spending financial assistance at double the original estimate – project 2 year program, have restructured contracts

27. Clients who have been homeless before in HMIS automatically determined to be at-risk if meet all other requirements

28. Clients must have 2 or more of the following risk factors to qualify:

29. Monthly income below 15%

30. Severely overcrowded housing

31. Severe rent cost burden (more than 50% for rent)

32. Homeless in last 12 months (in HMIS)

33. Pending foreclosure

34. Numerous previous evictions (3 or more)

35. Criminal record

36. Discharged from mental institution

37. Young adult (18-24) with past or present involvement with foster care system

38. Young adult (18-24) that have dropped out of high school or lack credits

40. 876 (82%) determined to be eligible and received HPRP assistance

41. 188 (18%) determined to be ineligible (mostly because not at risk of homelessness)

42. 5 had shelter stays after being denied HPRP assistance

43. Of the 876 households that received assistance

44. 776 (89%) prevention – 41% singles, 59% families

45. Highest risk factors severe rent burden and income under 15% AMI

46. 223 households (29%) had entry in HMIS before HPRP assessment

47. 5 households had shelter stay after HPRP assistance

48. 100 (11%) rapid rehousing – 59% singles, 41% families

49. 3 households had shelter stay after HPRP assistanceThrough June 30, 2010

51. Ohio has been in recession for 3 to 4 years

52. May 2010 unemployment rate – 11.1%

53. Families in shelter or transitional housing declined from 2008 to 2009

54. In winter 2010 families entering shelter had higher needs than HPRP could serve

56. Possible ESG Prevention Program Narrow targeting for prevention Previously homeless Young mothers with young children Strong emphasis on rapid rehousing particularly for single adults Completely different structure than HPRP

57. What do we need? Research on preventing homelessness Screening tools with predictive value Technical assistance on effective outreach programs Permanent housing subsidies for low income people Increased benefits for people with disabilities

58. Joyce Probst MacAlpine Manager Housing & Homeless Solutions Montgomery County 937-225-4218 macalpinej@mcohio.org