Evaluation of the HUD

Youth Homelessness

Demonstration Program

Initial CoC Survey

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness

Demonstration Program

Initial Continuums of Care Survey

Prepared by:

Debra J. Rog, Ph.D.

Kathryn A. Henderson, Ph.D.

Eleanor M. Kerr, M.P.H.

Westat

July 2020

Foreword

Over 42,000 unaccompanied youth and young adults in the United States experience homelessness on any given night. This number does not fully capture the scope of the problem, which is magnified when considering the additional numbers of youth who are in living situations that heighten their risk of homelessness. In 2016, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—along with its partners and youth with lived experience—designed the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program (YHDP) to encourage communities to develop and implement coordinated community approaches to prevent and end homelessness of youth aged 14–24. In January 2017, during the first round of the demonstration, HUD awarded $33

million1 in YHDP funds to 10 diverse Continuums of Care (CoCs), which included four rural sites.

This report presents the findings of the first survey of CoCs, conducted in early 2019, to provide a baseline understanding of the status of homeless housing and service systems across the country for youth ages 14–17 and young adults ages 18–24. The survey was designed to gather information on the system components, the extent to which the homeless service systems coordinate with other service systems, and the challenges in meeting the housing and service needs of youth and young adults. The report also compares the baseline status of all surveyed CoCs with the baseline status of the 10 first-round YHDP-funded CoCs and communities.

The report, together with data from a future repeat-survey to be taken in 2021, will examine changes over time in youth homeless service systems across the country and will provide insight into the role the YHDP demonstration plays in changing the youth homeless service systems in the first 10 demonstration CoCs.

1 Sites were considered “rural” by HUD if: the area did not belong to a metropolitan statistical area (MSA); the area was part of an MSA but 75 percent of the population was located in non-urban census blocks; or if the population was less than 30 persons per square mile.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 1

Overview ......................................................................................................... 5

Methodology ....................................................................................................... 7

Findings

......................................................................................................... 8

Overview of the Youth Homeless Service Systems ........................................ 8

Types of Services Available to Youth and Young Adults Experiencing or

at Risk of Homelessness ............................................................................. 9

Availability of Shelter and Housing for Youth .............................................. 16

Level of Development of Baseline Systems ................................................. 20

Coordination with Other Systems ............................................................... 20

Systems Planning ........................................................................................ 25

Challenges and Gaps ................................................................................... 26

Systems Gaps ............................................................................................. 28

Summary and Conclusion .................................................................................. 29

Appendix A Survey of Status of Homeless, Housing, and Service Systems

for Youth and Youth Adults ............................................................ A-1

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

i i

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1.

Overview of Youth Homeless Service Systems (N = 305) ........................................8

Exhibit 2.

Comparison of Youth Homeless Service Systems with YHDP

and Peer CoCs .......................................................................................................9

Exhibit 3.

Prevalence of Education and Employment Assistance (N = 305) ..........................10

Exhibit 4.

Prevalence of Outreach Services (N = 305) ..........................................................11

Exhibit 5.

Prevalence of Family and Natural Support Services for Youth (N = 305) ...............12

Exhibit 6.

Coordinated Entry: All CoCs .................................................................................13

Exhibit 7.

HUD Criteria for Defining Homelessness ..............................................................14

Exhibit 8.

Prevalence of Prevention Services (N = 305) ........................................................15

Exhibit 9.

Prevalence of Diversion Services for Youth (N = 305) ...........................................16

Exhibit 10.

Prevalence of Youth-Specific Shelter and Transitional Housing:

All CoCs (N = 305) ................................................................................................17

Exhibit 11.

Prevalence of Youth-Specific Housing (N = 305) ...................................................18

Exhibit 12.

Prevalence of Youth-Specific of Housing Across Geographic

Areas (N = 305) ....................................................................................................19

Exhibit 13.

Status of Baseline Youth Homeless Service Systems (N = 305) .............................20

Exhibit 14.

Comparison of Baseline Youth Homeless Service Systems (N = 305) ....................20

Exhibit 15.

Coordination with Other Systems ........................................................................21

Exhibit 16.

Coordination with the Education System (N = 305) ..............................................22

Exhibit 17.

Coordination with Mental Health and Substance Abuse

Services (N = 305) ................................................................................................22

Exhibit 18.

Coordination with the Child Welfare System (N = 305) ........................................23

Exhibit 19.

Coordination with the Healthcare System (N = 305) ............................................24

Exhibit 20.

Coordination with the Juvenile Justice System (N = 305) .....................................24

Exhibit 21.

Use of a Needs Assessment (N = 305) ..................................................................26

Exhibit 22.

Underserved Populations (N = 305) .....................................................................28

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

iv

Executive Summary

In 2017, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded funds through the first round of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program (YHDP) to 10

diverse Continuums of Care (CoCs) (hereafter, YHDP or round one demonstration CoCs) to plan, develop, and implement coordinated community responses aimed at preventing and ending youth homelessness. The demonstration encourages CoCs to collaborate with Youth Advisory Boards, child welfare agencies, and other community partners in developing and implementing comprehensive community plans to end youth homelessness. The plans build upon existing services and support to prevent homelessness, identify and engage youth, and provide needed resources. Services can include assistance to prevent youth homelessness, help youth navigate the service system, or connect them with family and other natural supports. Services can also include a variety of housing options, including rapid re-housing, permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, and innovative programs such as host homes.

HUD has contracted with Westat, an independent research firm, to conduct a cross-site evaluation of the demonstration to understand the role of the YHDP in shaping communities’

efforts. The evaluation will examine patterns of change across the 10 demonstration CoCs over time and examine how demonstration resources contributed to fostering those changes. The evaluation wil compare any observed changes to those in three peer CoCs that are not part of the demonstration. Also, to provide an additional basis of comparison, Westat is conducting a survey of all CoCs national y (N = 380) at two points in time. This will provide a broader contextual understanding of how changes in the demonstration communities fit with changes that are occurring in communities across the country. The main research question the survey is addressing is:

How are CoCs planning and implementing coordinated community responses to youth homelessness, and how do demonstration communities compare and contrast with comparison communities and all CoCs?

This report presents the findings of the first survey of all CoCs, conducted in early 2019, and provides a baseline understanding of the status of homeless housing and service systems across the country for youth, ages 14-17 and young adults, ages 18–24. Of the 380 CoCs contacted, 305 CoCs participated in the survey yielding a response rate of 80 percent. The survey was designed to gather information on the system components in place, the extent to which the homeless service systems coordinate with other service systems, and the challenges to meeting the housing and service needs of youth and young adults. The report also compares the baseline status of all surveyed CoCs with the baseline status of the 10 first-round YHDP-funded CoCs and communities.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

1

Types of Housing and Services Available

Survey results indicate that, as with the 10 demonstration CoCs, there is a great deal of variation in the status of youth homeless service systems across CoCs. Most CoCs have at least one system component fully or partially in place, but at this baseline measurement, less than one-fourth of surveyed CoCs have highly developed systems. Systems considered highly developed include those containing youth-specific components such as outreach services, coordinated entry systems (aimed at or inclusive of youth populations), housing interventions, and other assistance, including prevention, family interventions, employment, and/or other services.

Among all surveyed CoCs, the most common system component reported to be fully implemented is a coordinated entry system that includes youth-targeted processes. Other services commonly reported to be fully or partially implemented for youth across the CoCs are outreach, case management or navigation services, family and natural support services, and education and employment assistance. As with coordinated entry, services within these components are more likely to be available to young adults age 18 to 24 than to youth under age 18 (with the exception of school-based outreach and family mediation or counseling). The systems components that are the least likely to be implemented for youth are prevention and diversion services and youth-specific shelter or housing assistance.

The YHDP CoCs are similar to all surveyed CoCs in terms of the system components that are most and least developed. Coordinated entry, education and employment services, outreach services, and family and natural support services are implemented for youth in most YHDP CoCs, and prevention and diversion services are among the least developed. Compared with the three peer CoCs or all other CoCs, a greater share of the YHDP CoCs have shelter, transitional housing, and other housing for youth implemented.

Level of Development of Baseline Systems

CoCs fall into three broad groupings across the various housing and service components—

highly developed, medium developed, and in the early stages of development. At baseline, less than one-fourth of surveyed CoCs have highly developed youth service systems that include outreach, coordinated entry, housing and services for youth; 40 percent have medium developed systems with outreach, coordinated entry, and either housing or services; and 37

percent are in the early stages of development, without outreach and coordinated entry fully implemented.

Similar to the distribution of all surveyed CoCs, at baseline, three of the YHDP CoCs have highly developed systems, three have medium developed systems, and the remaining four YHDP CoCs are in the early stages of development.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

2

Coordination with Other Systems

The majority of the surveyed CoCs report coordinating with child welfare, education, and mental health and substance abuse services. Most commonly, coordination involves representatives of these agencies serving as members of the CoC and participating in planning for the youth homeless system. Less common are more active forms of coordination, such as blending funding and providing services and housing. Less than one-half of CoCs report coordinating with the healthcare and juvenile justice systems. Surveyed CoCs note that coordination can be a challenge due to different definitions of homelessness, restrictions on how funding can be spent, and difficulty in sharing confidential data across systems. While most surveyed CoCs struggle to coordinate with child welfare and juvenile justice, the 10 YHDP CoCs have high rates of coordination with these service systems, as wel as education, mental health, and substance abuse services. This coordination is likely due in part to the demonstration program, which encouraged such partnerships throughout the community planning process.

Systems Planning

Few of the surveyed CoCs have components in place for planning services and housing to meet the needs of youth and young adults. More than one-half of the surveyed CoCs have a strategic plan in place for addressing youth homelessness. Fewer than one-half of the CoCs surveyed indicated they have conducted a youth-specific needs assessment or another study to inform the efforts of the CoCs to address homelessness. Even fewer of those surveyed CoCs incorporate youth with lived experience in the decisionmaking process for their CoCs or have a governance structure, such as a workgroup or committee, specific to the homeless housing and services for youth. One limitation the surveyed CoCs noted is a lack of accurate and complete data on youth at risk of or experiencing homelessness, which creates challenges both in demonstrating a need and in planning for services.

Challenges and Gaps

The surveyed CoCs report a number of challenges in providing housing and services to youth and young adults experiencing homelessness. Barriers include a lack of available resources, such as insufficient services, funding, or housing resources for youth. Surveyed CoCs note challenges in identifying and engaging youth, in part, because youth experiencing homelessness do not often reach out for assistance from the homeless service system or other mainstream services. Other challenges noted by surveyed CoCs include a lack of affordable housing, limited educational and employment opportunities, and difficulty in serving minors (youth under age 18) who cannot sign contracts or leases for housing, cannot consent to data sharing, and often require parental consent to receive shelter assistance or other health and behavioral health services.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

3

Next Steps

In 2021, we wil be repeating this survey with al the CoCs (N = 380) not participating as case study communities in the evaluation. These data will allow for the examination of changes over time in youth homeless service systems across the country. This data will provide insight into the role played by the YHDP demonstration in changing the youth homeless service systems in the 10 demonstration CoCs. 2

2 HUD funded an additional 11 CoCs in a second round (in 2018) and 23 CoCs in a third round (in 2019) of the demonstration. Our analyses of change over time wil examine whether these CoCs are similar to al unfunded CoCs or whether they have different patterns of change that may be attributable to the YHDP funding and/or technical assistance.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

4

Overview

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded funds to 10

Continuums of Care (CoCs) in round one of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program (YHDP) to develop and implement coordinated community approaches to preventing and ending youth homelessness. Throughout this report, youth homeless service systems refer to the set of programmatic approaches used to address homelessness for unaccompanied youth ages 14–24, including both residential assistance (for example, shelters, transitional housing, and rapid re-housing) and nonresidential assistance (for example, outreach, prevention, behavioral health services, and education and employment services). CoCs, entities composed of representatives from relevant organizations within a specified geographic area, are responsible for homeless services system design, resource allocation, and system management.

The demonstration encourages youth homeless service systems to work with Youth Advisory Boards, child welfare agencies, and other community partners in creating comprehensive community plans to end youth homelessness. These plans include efforts to identify and reach out to youth in need of housing, provide resources to youth at risk of homelessness to ensure they do not need to live on the streets or in a shelter and to offer a variety of housing options for those who need it—including rapid re-housing, permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, and host homes. YHDP is also supporting youth-focused performance measurement and coordinated entry data systems. Finally, a team of technical assistance providers is assisting the CoCs in developing their service and housing approaches, as wel as in refining and strengthening their data capacity.

HUD has contracted with Westat, an independent research firm, to conduct a cross-site implementation evaluation of the project. The evaluation seeks to examine if and how a comprehensive system-level approach to serving homeless youth can reduce youth homelessness across diverse (urban and rural) contexts. The goal of this evaluation is to examine how communities approach the goal of preventing and ending youth homelessness by building comprehensive systems of care for young people. The evaluation research questions focus on understanding:

•

The baseline status of the CoC communities’ existing structures serving youth who are homeless or at risk of homelessness;

•

The implementation of efforts to build a coordinated community response to youth homelessness and the role of technical assistance in the demonstration sites in facilitating implementation;

•

Youth involvement in the demonstration and perspectives on the changes taking place; and

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

5

•

Changes over time in the systems and the size and composition of the youth homeless population.

This evaluation employs a longitudinal multiple comparative case study design involving the 10 demonstration Continuums of Care (known as YHDP or demonstration CoCs) and 3

“matched” peer CoCs selected based on their level of baseline system development. In all 13

CoCs data are being collected over 4 years on the implementation of community-wide system responses and the effects of these system changes on the size and composition of the population of youth experiencing homelessness. To isolate the role of the demonstration resources in fostering these changes, the evaluation will examine patterns of change across the demonstration CoCs and compare them to the changes in the three comparison CoCs that are not part of the demonstration.

To provide an additional basis of comparison, Westat is conducting a survey of all CoCs at two points in time. The aim of the survey is to construct a broader contextual understanding of changes that are occurring in communities across the country and how the demonstration communities fit within this context. The main research question the survey is addressing is: How are CoCs planning and implementing coordinated community responses to youth homelessness and how do demonstration communities compare and contrast with comparison communities and all CoCs?

This document provides the data from the initial survey of the CoCs, conducted between January and April of 2019, to provide a baseline understanding of the status of homeless housing and service systems for youth and young adults, ages 14–24, across the country and a comparative basis for understanding the demonstration communities.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

6

Methodology

Westat administered a web survey to the directors (or their designees) of all 380 CoCs across the country between January and April 2019, excluding the 10 round one YHDP CoC awardees and the 3 CoCs participating as peer sites for the evaluation. We received responses from 305

CoCs, yielding a response rate of 80 percent. (Results below do not include data from the nonresponsive 75 CoCs.)

This survey aims to understand:

•

The types of housing and services available to youth and young adults who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness;

•

The level of coordination between youth homeless service systems and other systems (for example, child welfare, juvenile justice, and education) that serve the population of youth and young adults experiencing or at risk of homelessness;

•

Systems planning efforts; and

•

The challenges and gaps in the experience of CoCs.

In order to compare responses from the 10 demonstration CoCs and the 3 peer CoCs to the larger set of CoCs, we coded responses to the survey questions for those 13 CoCs based on information gathered via their YHDP applications, community plans, and our baseline site visits.

A copy of the survey is provided in appendix A.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

7

Findings

Overview of the Youth Homeless Service Systems

Exhibit 1 provides an overview of the current status of various components of youth homeless systems across the CoCs that responded to the survey. We asked each CoC respondent to note whether the component was fully implemented (systemwide), partially implemented (not all pieces in place or not all youth and young adult populations served), or not yet developed but in the planning phase, or not yet in place.

The vast majority of the CoCs (95 percent) report having at least one service area fully or partially implemented. Three-fourths of the CoCs report that each of the following components is either fully or partially implemented: coordinated entry, outreach, case management or navigation services, family and natural support services, and education and employment services. Diversion is the service least likely to be in place. In at least one-half of the surveyed CoCs, however, none of the service components are fully implemented.

Exhibit 1.

Overview of Youth Homeless Service Systems (N = 305)

Fully

Partially

In

Developed

Developed

Planning

Not in

Don’t

Servicea

(%)

(%)

Phase (%)

Place (%)

Know (%)

Case management or

navigation services

41

37

10

11

1

Education and

employment assistance

36

42

11

9

3

Outreach

38

38

9

12

2

Family and natural

support services

35

41

9

13

3

Coordinated entry

44

30

12

12

1

Prevention

22

39

12

25

2

Diversion

17

32

17

30

2

Shelter

37

23

8

31

1

Transitional housing

33

33

8

24

2

Other housing

31

34

12

20

2

a The order of services is presented from the highest percent reporting fully or partially implemented to lowest, followed by shelters and housing services.

Source: 2019 Survey of Continuums of Care conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation.

The YHDP CoCs are similar to all surveyed CoCs in terms of the various components of the youth homeless systems in place. (see exhibit 2). Across both groups, at the baseline, coordinated entry for youth is the system component fully implemented in the greatest share of sites, with 6 of the 10 YHDP CoCs and 44 percent of all CoCs having it in place. Other services frequently in place across the groups include education and employment services, outreach services, and family and natural support services, with at least 7 of the 10 YHDP sites and three-Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

8

fourths of all other CoCs having these services fully or partially implemented. 3 Similarly, as with the 305 surveyed CoCs, diversion services are among the least likely to be implemented among the YHDP CoCs.

A greater share of the 10 YHDP CoCs have shelters, transitional housing, and other housing for youth implemented than other CoCs.

Exhibit 2.

Comparison of Youth Homeless Service Systems with YHDP and Peer CoCs YHDP CoCs

All CoCs

(N = 10)

(N = 305)

Fully

Partially

Fully

Partially

Implemented Implemented Implemented Implemented

Servicea

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Case management or

navigation services

10

0

41

37

Education and

employment assistance

50

50

36

42

Outreach

40

30

38

38

Family and natural support

services

20

80

35

41

Coordinated entry

60

20

44

30

Prevention

20

50

22

39

Diversion

50

0

17

32

Shelter

50

30

37

23

Transitional housing

40

40

33

33

Other housing

50

30

31

34

CoC = Continuum of Care. Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

a The order of services is presented from the highest percent reporting fully or partially implemented to lowest, followed by shelters and housing services.

Source: 2019 Survey of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation Types of Services Available to Youth and Young Adults Experiencing or at Risk of Homelessness

In the following section, we describe the services available to youth and young adults within each component of the system, as well as any additional detail about the types of shelter and housing available within the CoCs.

Case Management or Navigation Services

Case management or navigation services is defined as assistance to guide youth and young adults through the system of housing and services. Seventy-eight percent of the CoCs had it 3 We do not believe the difference in implementation rates of case management or navigation services between YHDP CoCs and al other CoCs reflects differences in data col ection rather than true differences in their systems.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

9

fully (41 percent) or partially (37 percent) in place; an additional 10 percent were planning to add this service.

Education and Employment

The majority of CoCs (78 percent) offer some education and employment resources, counseling, skill-building programs, and training for youth and young adults. Thirty-six percent of the CoCs consider it fully developed.

As exhibit 3 shows, two-thirds of CoCs provide GED classes, other certificates or training programs, and job preparation and job search services to youth; approximately one-half of CoCs provide transportation assistance, to attend school or work, and other assistance such as textbooks, work clothes, and equipment. Smaller shares of CoCs offer employment support or coaching and paid or unpaid work experience. Education and employment assistance is available to youth 18 years and older in a greater share of CoCs (72 percent) than to youth under age 18 (61 percent); GED classes or other training programs are the most commonly provided assistance available for youth under age 18.

Exhibit 3.

Prevalence of Education and Employment Assistance (N = 305) Serves Young Serves Youth

Service

Adults Age 18 Under Age 18

Service

Available (%) and Older (%)

(%)

Education and employment services for

78

72

61

youth

Types of education and employment services

GED classes or other certificate or

68

66

50

training program

Job preparation/job search services

67

64

45

Transportation assistance to attend

51

44

38

school or work

Other assistance (such as textbooks,

48

43

37

work clothes, equipment)

Support or coaching while employed

42

40

28

Paid or unpaid work experience (such as

39

38

28

internships or apprenticeships)

Other employment or education services

6

5

4

Source: 2019 Survey of Continuums of Care conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation

Outreach

Outreach (identification and engagement) is defined as services to identify and engage youth and young adults at risk of or experiencing homelessness and connect them with assistance.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

10

Seventy-six percent of CoCs have either a fully or partially implemented outreach for youth, and 9 percent are in the planning stages of including outreach.

As exhibit 4 indicates, street outreach is the most common form of outreach services available (63 percent), followed by drop-in centers (54 percent), and school-based outreach (52

percent). Most outreach services are more available for youth over 18 years than for youth under age 18, with the exception of school-based services that are available to youth under age 18 in about one-half of all CoCs (48 percent).

Exhibit 4.

Prevalence of Outreach Services (N = 305)

Serves Young

Adults 18

Serves Youth

Service

Years and

Under Age 18

Service

Available (%)

Older (%)

(%)

Outreach services for youth

76

74

69

Types of outreach services

Street outreach workers

63

60

53

Drop-in centers

54

49

45

School-based outreach

52

32

48

A central intake website or hotline

32

31

25

Mobile vans

18

17

14

Other outreach services

11

12

8

Source: 2019 Survey of Continuums of Care conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation

Family and Natural Supportive Services

Family and natural supports are defined as counseling, mediation, and reunification assistance to help youth and young adults strengthen family ties and return to their families, or to identify new kinship supports and housing opportunities. One-third of the CoCs have fully implemented family and natural supports, 41 percent have partially implemented them, and 9 percent are in the planning stages. More than one-half of CoCs provide case management with youth and family supports, help in identifying natural supports, and family mediation and counseling (see exhibit 5).

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

11

Exhibit 5.

Prevalence of Family and Natural Support Services for Youth (N = 305) Serves

Young

Adults Age

Serves Youth

Service

18 and Older Under Age 18

Service

Available (%)

(%)

(%)

Family and natural support services for youth

76

66

62

Types of family and natural support services

Case management with youth and family

64

59

54

supports

Help identify natural supports

57

54

47

Family mediation/counseling

56

47

51

Other family/natural support services

7

5

5

Source: 2019 Survey of Continuums of Care conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation

Coordinated Entry

Coordinated entry is defined as a process that ensures all youth and young adults experiencing homelessness or other housing crises are quickly identified, assessed, referred, and connected with housing and homeless assistance in a coordinated manner. Across CoCs, coordinated entry systems may be implemented in a variety of different ways, serve different populations, use different methods to assess populations, and make referrals to different types of assistance.

Nearly one-half of the CoCs (44 percent) indicate that coordinated entry for youth is fully in place, and an additional one fourth have it partially in place. Among those that noted that coordinated entry is partially implemented, 38 percent expect it to be fully implemented in 2019, and an additional 16 percent expect it to be fully implemented in 2020; for almost one-third of these CoCs (29 percent), the implementation date was unknown or missing. The remaining 12 percent of CoCs indicated that coordinated entry was currently implemented but the system was continuing to undergo refinements, particularly in tailoring youth-specific processes and procedures.

Exhibit 6 presents the characteristics of these coordinated entry systems. The first column indicates the prevalence of these characteristics among all CoCs and the second column indicates the prevalence of these characteristics only among those CoCs with coordinated entry fully or partially in place for youth.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

12

Exhibit 6.

Coordinated Entry: All CoCs

Those with

Coordinated Entry

All CoCs

for Youth

Characteristic

(N = 305) (%)

(N = 227) (%)

Points of entry

In-person

65

87

Telephone-based

47

63

Other

14

19

Number of points of entrya

One

4

12

Multiple

66

88

Access points specific to youth

44

58

Case management/navigation specific to youth

41

56

Populations served

Youth under age 18

37

49

Young Adults ages 18–24

73

98

HUD Category 1

73

99

HUD Category 2

56

81

HUD Category 3

39

59

HUD Category 4

71

97

Other

5

7

Use an assessment tool

67

90

TAY VI-SPDAT

35

51

VI-SPDAT

34

51

Family VI-SPDAT

27

39

Community-created assessment tool

19

29

Next Step Tool

2

2

Other

3

4

Use of assessment tools

Accessing shelter

33

50

Making housing referrals

67

100

Making service referrals

53

80

Other

2

3

CoC = Continuum of Care. TAY = Transitional Age Youth. VI-SPDAT = Vulnerability Index-Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool.

a Due to missing data, the sample sizes for CoCs reporting the number of points of entry are 272 (of all CoCs) and 192 (of those with coordinated entry for youth).

Source: 2019 Survey of CoCs conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation Of those systems with coordinated entry fully or partially in place for youth, the most common system is one with multiple points of entry (88 percent) that connects with youth in person (87 percent). More than one-half of CoCs (63 percent) have telephone access; few connect through outreach teams or online. Fifty-eight percent have access points that are specific to youth (as opposed to access points open to all populations that also serve youth). A Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

13

similar percentage of CoCs (56 percent) have case management or navigation through coordinated entry that is specific to youth and young adults. One-half of the sites serve both youth and young adults 18–24 years, while the other one-half serves only young adults 18–24

years old.

HUD has four categories of homelessness relevant to children and youth (see exhibit 7).

The vast majority of CoCs with coordinated entry for youth fully or partially in place serves youth in HUD Homeless Categories 1 (99 percent) and 4 (97 percent), and most CoCs (81

percent) serve youth in Category 2 and Category 3 (59 percent).

Exhibit 7.

HUD Criteria for Defining Homelessness

Category 1

Literally Homeless

Individuals and families who live in a place not meant for human habitation (including the streets or in their car), emergency shelters, transitional housing, and hotels paid for by a government or charitable organization

Category 2

Imminent Risk of Homelessness

Individuals or families who will lose their primary nighttime residence within 14 days and have no other resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing Category 3

Homeless Under Other Federal Statutes

Unaccompanied youth under 25 years of age, or families with children and youth who do not meet any of the other categories but are homeless under other federal statutes, have not had a lease and have moved two or more times in the past 60 days and are likely to remain unstable because of special needs or barriers

Category 4

Fleeing Domestic Violence

Individuals or families who are fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking and who lack resources and support networks to obtain other permanent housing

When looking across HUD Categories, nearly one-half of CoCs (45 percent) serve youth in all four categories, 26 percent serve all but Category 3, 17 percent serve Category 1 and Category 4 only, and the remaining 12 percent serve various other combinations.

Nearly all of the CoCs with coordinated systems for youth (90 percent) use an assessment tool, the most common being the Vulnerability Index-Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) (51 percent), and the Transitional Age Youth (TAY) VI-SPDAT (51

percent), but also significant percentages of the systems use the Family VI-SPDAT (39 percent) and a community created assessment tool (29 percent). All CoCs using an assessment tool, use it to make housing referrals in 100 percent of the CoCs, 80 percent use it to make service referrals, and 50 percents use it to make shelter referrals.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

14

When we look at the different features of the coordinated entry systems for youth, the most common pattern includes having multiple points of entry, connecting with youth in person, serving youth in HUD Homeless Categories 1 and 4, and using an assessment tool for housing referrals.

Prevention

Prevention services are defined as supportive services4 and rental assistance to prevent homelessness for at-risk youth and young adults. Sixty-one percent of the CoCs report having prevention services for youth and young adults, though less than one-fourth of the CoCs (22

percent) report that they are fully developed, and 12 percent report being in the planning stage for prevention.

As exhibit 8 indicates, the most common prevention services for youth are supportive services (56 percent), rental assistance (49 percent), and family counseling/intervention services (45 percent). Prevention services, especially rental assistance, other financial assistance, and legal assistance, are more likely to be provided to young adults, age 18 and older, than to minors, under age 18.

Exhibit 8.

Prevalence of Prevention Services (N = 305)

Serves Young Serves Youth

Service

Adults Age 18 Under Age 18

Service

Available (%) and Older (%)

(%)

Prevention services for youth

61

58

47

Types of prevention services

Supportive services

56

53

42

Rental assistance

49

48

13

Family counseling/intervention services

45

42

39

Financial assistance for something other

34

33

19

than rent

Legal assistance

31

30

19

Other prevention services

8

7

5

Source: 2019 Survey of Continuums of Care conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation

Diversion

Diversion is defined as short- to medium-term financial assistance and supportive services to divert youth and young adults from entering shelters. Although one-half of the CoCs (49

4 Supportive services are generally considered to be a system of social or health services provided by government or community-based organizations intended to help individuals address barriers to housing access and stability, such as case management, life skills, physical health services, mental health services, and chemical dependency services. These services could include, but are not limited to family counseling and legal assistance.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

15

percent) note that they used diversion with youth and young adults, only 17 percent considered it fully developed. As with prevention, the most common diversion services for youth include supportive services (43 percent), family counseling/intervention services (38 percent), and rental assistance (32 percent) (see exhibit 9). About one-third of CoCs (37 percent) provide any services to minors; rental assistance, other financial assistance, and legal assistance, and other diversion services are the services least commonly provided to minors.

Exhibit 9.

Prevalence of Diversion Services for Youth (N = 305)

Serves Young

Serves Youth

Service

Adults Age 18 Under Age 18

Service

Available (%) and Older (%)

(%)

Diversion services for youth

49

47

37

Types of diversion services

Supportive services

43

40

31

Family counseling/intervention services

38

33

31

Rental assistance

32

31

11

Financial assistance for something

25

23

14

other than rent

Legal assistance

20

18

12

Other diversion services

6

6

4

Source: 2019 Survey of Continuums of Care conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation

Availability of Shelter and Housing for Youth

In the following section, we describe the availability of shelter, transitional housing, and other types of housing for youth. We begin with a discussion of these resources across all CoCs, and then examine differences between urban, suburban, and rural CoCs. 5

Shelter and Transitional Housing6

Shelter is defined as an emergency shelter specifically for youth and young adults. Sixty percent of the CoCs have some youth shelter in place, 8 percent are in the planning stage, but 31

percent have no youth-specific shelter. As exhibit 10 indicates, of those CoCs with emergency shelter for youth, one-third of CoCs (34 percent) report having 10 or fewer beds, one-half (51

percent) report having between 11 and 50 beds, and almost one-sixth, (15 percent) report 5 The survey did not capture whether shelter and housing were available for youth under age 18 as well as young adults age 18 and older. Rather, the questions focused on whether the assistance was targeted to specific subpopulations of youth.

6 CoCs were asked to report the date as of which data on the number of units of shelter, transitional housing, and other housing types were current. Among those reporting units, 97 percent of CoCs (n = 232) were able to provide numbers for 2018 or 2019.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

16

having more than 50 beds. Twenty-seven percent of CoCs have shelter beds dedicated to specific subpopulations of youth. The most common groups being sexually exploited or trafficked youth (8 percent); pregnant and parenting youth (7 percent); LGBTQ youth (6

percent); and other populations, such as minors (9 percent).

Exhibit 10. Prevalence of Youth-Specific Shelter and Transitional Housing: All CoCs (N = 305) Transitional Housing

Assistance

Shelter (%)

(%)

Available for youth/young adults

60

66

Number of beds (of those with type)

10 or fewer beds

34

26

11–50 beds

51

56

50 or more beds

15

18

Number of CoCs

(N = 183)

(N = 203)

Any dedicated for specific subpopulations

27

29

(of those with type)

Subpopulations

Sexually exploited/trafficked

8

5

Pregnant and parenting

7

15

LGBTQ

6

4

Aging out of foster care

5

8

With mental health problems

5

4

With substance abuse problems

5

2

Exiting juvenile justice

3

4

Immigrant/Refugee

1

0

Other populations

9

4

CoCs = Continuums of Care. LGBTQ = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer.

Source: 2019 Survey of CoCs conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation Sixty-six percent of CoCs report having youth-specific transitional housing, defined as time-limited housing, with supportive services intended to bridge the gap from homelessness to permanent housing by offering structure, supervision, support, life skills, and, in some cases, education and training. Eight percent of the CoCs report they were planning transitional housing, and 24 percent do not have it in place. Of those CoCs with transitional housing for youth, 26 percent report having 10 or fewer beds, 56 percent report having between 11 and 50

beds, and 18 percent report having more than 50 beds. Twenty-nine percent of CoCs dedicate their transitional housing to specific subpopulations, including most commonly pregnant and parenting youth (15 percent) and youth aging out of foster care (8 percent).

Permanent Supportive Housing, Rapid Re-Housing, and Host Homes

Sixty-five percent of CoCs report having some type of youth housing, either fully or partially implemented, with rapid re-housing being the most common type of housing available. Twelve percent of CoCs are in the planning stage for youth housing and 20 percent indicate that they Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

17

had no youth housing available. Exhibit 11 presents the prevalence of different types of youth-specific housing.

Twenty-three percent of CoCs have permanent supportive housing, non-time-limited housing assistance with wrap-around supportive services. The majority of CoCs having 10 or fewer beds (41 percent) or between 11 and 50 beds (48 percent). Two percent of those with permanent supportive housing has over 100 units: these are large urban CoCs, such as New York, Minneapolis, Denver, and Houston. Among the CoCs that have permanent supportive housing, 18 percent have beds dedicated for youth with mental health problems, 15 percent for youth with substance abuse problems, and 14 percent for youth aging out of foster care.

Thirty-three percent of CoCs report having rapid re-housing for youth, which provides housing location and stabilization services and time-limited rental assistance. One-third of CoCs have 10 or fewer units and one-half have between 11 and 50 units. As with permanent supportive housing, 2 percent of those CoCs with rapid re-housing have over 100 units (for example, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Cleveland). About one-fourth of CoCs have rapid re-housing dedicated for specific subpopulations of youth. The most common subpopulations are pregnant and parenting youth (15 percent), youth aging out of foster care (10 percent), and LGBTQ youth (10 percent).

Exhibit 11.

Prevalence of Youth-Specific Housing (N = 305)

Permanent

Rapid

Host

Other

Supportive Re-Housing

Homes

Housing

Assistance

Housing (%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Available for youth/young adults

23

33

10

2

Number of beds/vouchers (of those with type)

10 or fewer beds

41

31

66

0

11–50 beds

48

53

28

100

50 or more beds

11

16

7

0

Number of CoCs

(N = 71)

(N = 101)

(N = 29)

(N = 6)

Any dedicated for specific

43

29

35

50

subpopulations (of those with type)

Subpopulations

With mental health problems

18

3

3

0

With substance abuse problems

15

3

3

0

Aging out of foster care

14

10

0

17

Pregnant and parenting

13

15

0

17

Exiting juvenile justice

4

1

0

0

LGBTQ

3

10

7

0

Sexually exploited/trafficked

1

2

3

0

Immigrant/Refugee

0

0

0

0

Other populations

13

2

14

17

CoCs = Continuums of Care. LGBTQ = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer.

Source: 2019 Survey of CoCs conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

18

Ten percent of CoCs report having host homes, a type of housing assistance in which youth reside with an unrelated adult; this form of shelter is more commonly available in suburban and rural CoCs than in urban ones. The majority of CoCs with host homes report having 10 or fewer units. When host homes are targeted to specific subpopulations, they are most commonly targeted to LGBTQ youth and other populations.

Only 2 percent of the sites (N = 6) report having other types of housing, such as other permanent housing, extended foster care, or joint transitional housing/rapid re-housing models. The number of units ranges from 11 to 30 units. One-half of the sites dedicate units to specific subpopulations (such, youth aging out of foster care, pregnant and parenting youth, and other populations).

As exhibit 12 indicates, there are differences in the types of units of youth housing in urban, suburban, and rural areas. A greater proportion of urban CoCs have all types of housing except host homes than suburban or rural CoCs; urban CoCs are statistically significantly more likely to have transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and rapid re-housing and rural CoCs and suburban CoCs are significantly more likely to have permanent supportive housing and rapid re-housing than rural CoCs. There are no geographic differences in the number of units of shelter, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, or host homes per 100 youth and young adults. Yet, suburban CoCs have a greater number of rapid re-housing units per 100 youth and young adults (21.08 units) than rural CoCs (6.71 units).

Exhibit 12.

Prevalence of Youth-Specific of Housing Across Geographic Areas (N = 305) Total

Urban

Suburban

Rural

Prevalence

(N = 305)

(N = 78)

(N = 137)

(N = 90)

Shelter

Available for youth/young adults

60%

68%

60%

53%

Number of beds/vouchers per 100

youth/young adultsa

18.54

15.03

18.16

22.20

Transitional housing

Available for youth/young adults*

66%

77%

66%

58%

Number of beds/vouchers per 100

youth/young adults

20.05

18.55

20.65

20.46

Permanent supportive housing

Available for youth/young adults*

23%

33%

26%

10%

Number of beds/vouchers per 100

youth/young adults

9.75

6.89

12.21

8.48

Rapid re-housing

Available for youth/young adults*

33%

46%

37%

16%

Number of beds/vouchers per 100

youth/young adults*

14.86

13.23

21.08

6.71

Host homes

Available for youth/young adults

10%

9%

9%

11%

Number of beds/vouchers per 100

youth/young adults

2.17

0.80

2.68

2.58

a Calculated using the number of bed/vouchers reported by the Continuum of Care (CoC) over the number of youth and young adults reported in the 2018 Point-In-Time Count.

* Indicates there is a statistically significant difference between two or more groups (p < .01).

Source: 2019 Survey of CoCs conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

19

Level of Development of Baseline Systems

To categorize the level of development of youth homeless systems across housing and service components, we used the data from the survey to classify CoCs into three broad groupings.

“Highly developed” systems have in place outreach services, coordinated entry systems, housing for youth, and other services tailored for youth. “Medium developed” systems have outreach services, coordinated entry systems, and either housing interventions or other services for youth. “Early development” systems have no outreach services available and coordinated entry systems that are stil in the planning stage. As exhibit 13 indicates, less than one-fourth of CoCs have highly developed youth service systems at baseline, 40 percent have medium developed systems, and 37 percent are in the early stages of development.

Exhibit 13.

Status of Baseline Youth Homeless Service Systems (N = 305) Urban

Suburban

Rural

Status of Systems*

Total (%)

(N = 78) (%)

(N = 137) (%) (N = 90) (%)

High development

23

24

28

16

Medium development

40

44

37

41

Early development

37

32

36

43

* There are no significant differences in the level of development across urban, suburban, and rural CoCs.

Source: 2019 Survey of Continuums of Care conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation

Similar to the distribution of all CoCs, at the baseline, three of the YHDP CoCs have highly developed systems, three have medium developed systems, and the remaining four CoCs are in the early stages of development (see exhibit 14).

Exhibit 14.

Comparison of Baseline Youth Homeless Service Systems (N = 305) YHDP CoCs

All CoCs

Status of Systems

(N = 10) (%)

(N = 305) (%)

High development

30

23

Medium development

30

40

Early development

40

37

CoC = Continuum of Care. Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Source: 2019 Survey of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation Coordination with Other Systems

Coordination across service systems is an integral component of the YHDP. Coordination means these different systems of care work together to allocate resources and plan and implement services for youth and young adults at risk of or experiencing homelessness. Exhibit 15 indicates the percentage of CoCs that report coordinating with other service systems that serve youth experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

20

Exhibit 15.

Coordination with Other Systems

YHDP CoCs

All CoCs

Types of Other Systems

(N = 10) (%)

(N = 305) (%)

CoC coordinates with:

Education

90

87

Mental health and substance abuse services

70

67

Child welfare

100

66

Healthcare system

40

39

Juvenile justice

80

37

Other mainstream services

40

18

CoC = Continuum of Care. Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Source: 2019 Survey of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation The most common service systems CoCs across the country coordinate with are education (87 percent), mental health and substance abuse services (67 percent), and child welfare (66 percent ), while fewer than one-half of CoCs report coordinating with the healthcare system (39 percent) or juvenile justice (37 percent). About one-fifth of CoCs (18

percent) also noted some coordination with other mainstream service systems, such as workforce development, benefits (for example, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

[TANF], Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP]), and public housing authorities. The ways that CoCs coordinate with each of these other service systems are detailed in exhibits 16–

20.

YHDP-funded CoCs were encouraged to work closely with child welfare and other service systems in creating and implementing their comprehensive community plans. Thus, not surprisingly, the 10 YHDP CoCs report coordinating with a number of other agencies, including child welfare, education, juvenile justice, and mental health and substance abuse services.

Higher rates of coordination with child welfare and juvenile justice among YHDP CoCs than among other CoCs may be a direct result of the YHDP community planning process. Similarly to the comparison groups, YHDP CoCs are less likely to be coordinating with the healthcare system and other mainstream service systems.

Education is the service system with which CoCs are most likely to coordinate, with 87

percent of CoCs indicating some type of coordination. As exhibit 16 indicates, the most common forms of coordination include representatives from the education system serving as members of the CoC, participating in planning for the youth and young adult system, sharing data with the CoC, providing outreach services, and participating in governance for the youth and the young adult system. Fewer CoCs indicate that education systems provide prevention or diversion services to youth and young adults at risk of or experiencing homelessness, participate in coordinated entry, or provide housing. In one-fourth of CoCs, the education system blends or braids funding with the CoC.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

21

Exhibit 16.

Coordination with the Education System (N = 305)

Types of Coordination

% of CoCs

CoC coordinates with the education system

87

Education system

Serves as a member of the CoC

68

Participates in planning for the youth/young adult system

60

Shares data with the youth/young adult system

54

Provides outreach services for youth/young adults

48

Participates in governance for the youth/young adult system

44

Provides prevention for youth/young adults

36

Provides diversion services for youth/young adults

31

Participates in coordinated entry

28

Blends/braids funding with the youth/young adult system

22

Provides housing specifically for youth/young adults

7

CoC = Continuum of Care.

Source: 2019 Survey of CoCs conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation Sixty-seven percent of all CoCs coordinate with mental health and substance abuse services (see exhibit 17). The most common forms of coordination include representatives from mental health and substance abuse services serving as a member of the CoC, participating in planning for the CoC, and participating in coordinated entry. Providing outreach, prevention services, diversion services, and housing as wel as participating in governance, sharing data with the CoC, and blending funding are less common.

Exhibit 17.

Coordination with Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (N = 305) Types of Coordination

% of CoCs

CoC coordinates with mental health and substance abuse services 67

Mental health and substance abuse services

Serve as a member of the CoC

60

Participate in planning for the youth/young adult system

48

Participate in coordinated entry

46

Provide outreach services for youth/young adults

41

Participate in governance for the youth/young adult system

39

Share data with the youth/young adult system

34

Blend/braid funding with the youth/young adult system

31

Provide prevention for youth/young adults

30

Provide diversion services for youth/young adults

27

Provide housing specifical y for youth/young adults

22

CoC = Continuum of Care.

Source: 2019 Survey of CoCs conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

22

Two-thirds of the CoCs report coordinating with the child welfare system (see exhibit 18). In less than one-half of CoCs, however, representatives from child welfare participate in planning for the youth and young adult system, serve as a member of the CoC, or participate in governance for the youth and the young adult system. One-third of CoCs or fewer report that the child welfare system provides prevention, diversion, or housing, and only one-fourth of CoCs indicate that child welfare provides outreach services, participates in coordinated entry, or blends funding with the CoC.

Exhibit 18.

Coordination with the Child Welfare System (N = 305)

Types of Coordination

% of CoCs

CoC coordinates with the child welfare system

66

Child welfare

Participates in planning for the youth/young adult system

47

Serves as a member of the CoC

39

Provides prevention for youth/young adults

37

Provides diversion services for youth/young adults

31

Participates in governance for the youth/young adult system

30

Provides housing specifically for youth/young adults

30

Shares data with the youth/young adult system

27

Provides outreach services for youth/young adults

26

Blends/braids funding with the youth/young adult system

26

Participates in coordinated entry

24

CoC = Continuum of Care.

Source: 2019 Survey of CoCs conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation As exhibit 19 indicates, 39 percent of the CoCs report coordinating with the healthcare system; the most common areas of coordination include representatives of the healthcare system serving as a member of the CoC, participating in planning for the CoC, and in coordinated entry. Small percentages of the CoCs indicate they coordinate with the healthcare system to provide services such as outreach, prevention, diversion, or housing for youth at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and less than 10 percent of CoCs report that the healthcare system blends funding with the CoC.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

23

Exhibit 19.

Coordination with the Healthcare System (N = 305)

Types of Coordination

% of CoCs

CoC coordinates with the healthcare system

39

Healthcare system

Serves as a member of the CoC

31

Participates in planning for the youth/young adult system

19

Participates in coordinated entry

19

Provides outreach services for youth/young adults

16

Participates in governance for the youth/young adult system

15

Shares data with the youth/young adult system

13

Provides prevention for youth/young adults

12

Blends/braids funding with the youth/young adult system

9

Provides diversion services for youth/young adults

7

Provides housing specifically for youth/young adults

4

CoC = Continuum of Care.

Source: 2019 Survey of CoCs conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation Only 37 percent of CoCs report coordinating with the juvenile justice system (see exhibit 20). About one-fifth of CoCs indicate that representatives from juvenile justice participate in planning for the youth system. Fewer than 15 percent of CoCs indicate any other type of coordination with the CoC.

Exhibit 20.

Coordination with the Juvenile Justice System (N = 305)

Types of Coordination

% of CoCs

CoC coordinates with the juvenile justice system

37

Juvenile Justice

Participates in planning for the youth/young adult system

21

Provides diversion services for youth/young adults

13

Serves as a member of the CoC

11

Participates in governance for the youth/young adult system

11

Provides prevention for youth/young adults

11

Shares data with the youth/young adult system

10

Provides outreach services for youth/young adults

9

Participates in coordinated entry

8

Blends/braids funding with the youth/young adult system

7

Provides housing specifically for youth/young adults

6

CoC = Continuum of Care.

Source: 2019 Survey of CoCs conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

24

Systems Planning

Youth and Young Adult Governance and Youth Involvement

Thirty percent of CoCs report having a governance structure specific to the homeless housing and service systems for youth. Among these, the vast majority (93 percent) report directly to the CoC board. In other cases, the governance structure for youth homeless services is independent of the CoC board but shares information and/or collaborates with the CoC board.

The YHDP-funded CoCs were required to involve a Youth Advisory Board in their community planning efforts. Among other CoCs in the country, 35 percent actively include youth who have experienced homelessness in the decisionmaking process for their CoC. In those CoCs, the most frequent method of this involvement was through a formal Youth Advisory Board (70 percent); in 36 percent of CoCs one or two individuals participated in CoC

decisionmaking, and in 26 percent of CoCs youth were involved in other activities such as participating in youth counts; focus groups, surveys, and other information sharing; and other community events.

Needs Assessments and Plans

As exhibit 21 indicates, 40 percent of CoCs report they have conducted a youth-specific needs assessment or another study that identified the needs of youth experiencing and at risk of homelessness. In most CoCs, this assessment was conducted after 2017. Five sites reported conducting such assessments annually. (For these sites, the most recent assessment was recorded in exhibit 21.) Most sites report that the needs assessment has guided the efforts of the CoCs to address homelessness for youth and young adults either quite a bit (39 percent) or somewhat (49 percent).

Only 17 percent of CoCs report having a strategic plan for addressing homelessness that is specific for youth and young adults, but a greater percentage (39 percent) has a plan that covers youth and young adults along with other populations. An additional 9 percent of CoCs indicated that a strategic plan for youth was in progress at the time of this survey.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

25

Exhibit 21.

Use of a Needs Assessment (N = 305)

Needs Assessment Usage

% of CoCs

CoC has conducted a needs assessment

40

Number of CoCs

(N = 120)

Year it was conducted

2015 or prior

13

2016

13

2017

21

2018

48

2019

6

Needs assessment has guided efforts

Quite a bit

39

Somewhat

49

Very little

8

Not at all

3

CoC = Continuum of Care.

Source: 2019 Survey of CoCs conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation Challenges and Gaps

Eighty-five percent of the CoCs reported one or more major challenges faced in serving youth and young adult homeless populations. These chal enges fal broadly into three categories: challenges in the service systems, challenges in policies or regulations, and challenges in the CoCs in which the systems are situated.

Lack of Available Resources

One of the primary challenges identified by the CoCs was the lack of resources available to serve youth. Almost one-third of CoCs (29 percent) indicated their major challenge was insufficient services, funding, or housing resources to serve the youth experiencing homelessness in their communities. Numerous CoCs indicated they had limited or no youth-specific services or providers, and youth have challenges receiving services through adult systems because other populations, such as chronically homeless or families, are prioritized or because they are reluctant to utilize them. This challenge is intensified among CoCs that cover a wide geographic area, such as many rural balances of state CoCs. Limited services spread over large geographic areas make it difficult to connect youth to the few services that are available.

A few CoCs indicated that they had small populations of youth experiencing homelessness that made it difficult to prioritize funding and services for them over other populations that represented a greater need.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

26

Difficulty Identifying and Engaging Youth

Another major challenge noted by 29 percent of CoCs was identifying and engaging youth in need of assistance. Multiple CoCs describe youth as a hidden and/or transient population. They move frequently between different housing, doubled-up, and homeless situations and do not often reach out for assistance from the homeless service system or other mainstream services.

Minors, in particular, may be afraid of becoming involved with the child welfare system.

Point-In-Time (PIT) Counts reportedly represent a smal fraction of the youth experiencing homelessness in these communities and the lack of concrete data on this population creates challenges in both demonstrating need and in planning for services. One CoC reported, “Not being able to quantify unsheltered/unaccompanied youth to see what our problem is. We've conducted two targeted PIT Counts for youth using the Chapin Hall Voices of Youth Toolkit, held focus groups and outreach events, but we can't get youth to show up (even with youth leading efforts). How can we effectively address a problem when we can't quantify the need?”

Lack of Affordable Housing

Lack of affordable housing was cited as a challenge by 18 percent CoCs. High rents (relative to wages) and low vacancy rates make it difficult for people experiencing homelessness to access permanent housing. This is especially chal enging for youth who may not have credit or rental and employment histories; landlords may be hesitant to rent to youth under such circumstances.

Lack of Coordination across Agencies

Approximately one-fifth of CoCs (17 percent) also noted challenges with coordination with different service systems that serve youth, such as child welfare, juvenile justice, and education and attributed these challenges to a number of factors including different definitions of homelessness, restrictions on how funding can be spent, and difficulty in sharing data across systems because of confidentiality issues. Moreover, CoCs spanning many counties also have many different regional partners (such as child welfare offices and school districts) and face challenges coordinating with all of them.

Limited Educational and Employment Opportunities

A few CoCs (6 percent) also noted that their communities offered limited educational and employment opportunities for youth. Many youth experiencing homelessness do not have their high school diplomas or additional training, making it difficult to find jobs that will enable them to earn a living wage.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

27

Policy Restrictions

Four percent of CoCs cited challenges posed by policy or regulatory restrictions, most often regarding minors experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Minors cannot sign contracts or leases for housing, cannot consent to data sharing, and often cannot receive shelter assistance or other health and behavioral health services without parental consent. These regulations thus restrict youth homeless service providers in the assistance they are able to provide. In some CoCs, providers must refer all minors experiencing homelessness to the child welfare system.

Systems Gaps

One-half of all CoCs surveyed (51 percent) indicated that the major service gap in their systems was the availability of youth-specific housing options, including rapid re-housing, permanent supportive housing, and host homes, either for all youth or for specific subpopulations of youth—such as youth aging out of foster care and juvenile justice, LGBTQ youth, or pregnant and parenting youth. Approximately one-fourth of CoCs indicated their biggest service gap was a youth-specific shelter or other crisis housing. Smaller proportions of CoCs indicated a greater need for youth-focused health or behavioral health services, prevention and diversion services, education and employment services, or case management.

CoCs were asked to report whether there were specific subpopulations of youth that were underserved by their CoC. As exhibit 22 indicates, more than 40 percent of CoCs reported that youth involved in the juvenile justice system, youth aging out of foster care, and LGBTQ

youth were underserved by their youth homeless service systems. At least one-third of the CoCs indicated that each population included here was underserved, however.

Exhibit 22.

Underserved Populations (N = 305)

Underserved Populations

% of CoCs

Youth/young adults involved in the juvenile justice system

45

LGBTQ youth/young adults

44

Youth/young adults aging out of foster care

43

Youth/young adults 18–24 years old

39

Youth/young adults with substance abuse problems

39

Youth/young adults with mental health problems

38

Youth under 18 years old

37

Sexually exploited/trafficked youth/young adults

36

Pregnant/parenting youth/young adults

35

Immigrant/refugee youth/young adults

35

Other subpopulations of youth/young adults

1

Source: 2019 Survey of Continuums of Care conducted for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Evaluation

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

28

Summary and Conclusion

Results from this baseline survey of CoCs indicate that most youth homeless service systems are in medium or early stages of development and face a number of challenges in serving youth and young adults at risk of or experiencing homelessness. While the vast majority of communities (95 percent) indicate they have one or more systems components partially or fully implemented, fewer than one-fourth of communities report having highly developed systems at this point.

Communities are most likely to identify coordinated entry and case management or navigation as the components that are fully implemented. More than one-half of the CoCs indicate they have coordinated entry systems in place, with multiple points of entry, serving youth in HUD Homeless Categories 1 (literally homeless) and 4 (fleeing domestic violence), and use an assessment tool—most commonly the TAY-VI-SPDAT or the VI-SPDAT. The system components that are the least likely to be in place are prevention and diversion as well as youth-specific shelter, transitional housing, and housing interventions.

The CoCs report a number of challenges they face in the youth and young adult homeless service system. Among the most common challenges is a lack of available resources to serve youth, with numerous CoCs reporting having few or no youth-specific services or providers. CoCs also note the lack of affordable housing as well as limited educational and employment opportunities for youth experiencing homelessness. Moreover, barriers to identifying and engaging youth are confronted, in part, because youth experiencing homelessness are a hidden population reluctant to seek assistance.

While CoCs indicate highest levels of coordination with the education system, as wel as child welfare and mental health and substance abuse services, coordination is limited to agencies serving as members of the CoC and participating in planning for the youth systems.

Coordination across agencies is noted as one of the major challenges communities face, and the lowest levels of coordination are with the healthcare system and juvenile justice. Not surprisingly then, communities identify youth involved in the juvenile justice system as one of the largest underserved populations.

Communities also indicate that they face difficulties serving minors due to policy or regulatory restrictions that prevent minors from signing leases, consenting to data sharing, and receiving shelter or services without parental consent. In fact, CoCs are more likely to serve youth over age 18 than youth under age 18 for all services except school-based outreach and family mediation or counseling.

CoCs also report facing challenges in planning systems that meet the needs of youth and young adults. Some CoCs point out that lack of data on youth at risk of or experiencing homelessness is a limitation of their systems. Fewer than one-half of the CoCs surveyed indicated they have conducted a youth-specific needs assessment or another study to inform Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

29

the community’s efforts to address homelessness. Moreover, just over one-half of CoCs have a strategic plan in place for addressing youth homelessness, and just over one-third of CoCs incorporate youth with lived experience in the decisionmaking process for their CoCs.

These CoC survey findings help to provide a natural context of the baseline status of youth homeless service systems across the country within which to place the YHDP

demonstration CoCs. An additional survey, conducted in 2021, will reveal how the youth homeless service systems change over time across the country without the assistance of the YHDP funding and/or technical assistance (TA) and will provide insight, along with the 3 peer CoCs, into the role played by the demonstration in changing the youth homeless service systems in the 10 demonstration communities.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

30

Appendix A

Survey of Status of Homeless, Housing, and

Service Systems for Youth and Youth Adults

Appendix A

Survey of Status of Homeless, Housing, and Service Systems for Youth and Youth Adults

Introduction

Westat, an independent research firm located in Rockvil e, Maryland, has been contracted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to conduct a survey of all Continuums of Care (CoCs) to assess the status of homeless, housing, and service systems for youth and young adults, ages 14-24 years old, including those that may be pregnant and parenting. This survey is part of a larger evaluation Westat is conducting on the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program involving 13 CoCs across the country. The goals of the survey are to understand for your CoC:

•

The types of housing and services available to youth and young adults who are experiencing or at risk for homelessness;

•

How youth and young adults access housing and services;

•

The degree to which housing and services are coordinated across providers within the youth homeless service systems; and

•

The level of coordination between youth homeless service systems and other systems (e.g., child welfare, juvenile justice, education) that serve the population of youth and young adults experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

Instructions

The survey should take approximately 30 minutes to complete. All the information we collect wil remain confidential and only Westat staff wil have access to this survey. We wil share data in reports that do not present identifiable information. At the end of the study in 2021, we will give an aggregate copy of the dataset without names and identifying information to HUD for their records. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey as your feedback is very important to us.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Project Manager, Dr. Kathryn Henderson at 301-610-4849 or kathrynhenderson@westat.com.

Please complete this survey by January 19, 2019.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Dr. Debra Rog, Principal Investigator

Vice President, Westat

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-1

Background

1.

Please fill in your name. (Survey results wil be de-identified.) [Required]

2.

What CoC (number and name) do you represent? _______________________ [Required]

3.

What agency do you work for? _______________________________________

4.

What is your role within the CoC? _______________________________

5.

Has the CoC conducted a youth-specific needs assessment or other study that identified the needs of youth experiencing and at risk of homelessness in your community?

○ Yes

When year was it conducted? _________________

○ No

6.

[IF YES] To what extent has the needs assessment guided the community’s efforts to address homelessness for youth/young adults?

○ Not at all

[SKIP TO Q.6]

○ Very little

○ Somewhat

○ Quite a lot

System Overview

7. Please indicate if each of the youth-specific programs and processes are currently in place or planned for the future. Please include all programs, including those funded by the CoC

and those that are not funded by the CoC, including programs funded by other agencies, faith-based programs, privately funded programs). By youth-specific, we mean programs and processes, like coordinated entry or outreach, that are specifically targeted to 14-24

year olds. Programs that serve adults and/or families should be included as long as they have youth-specific guidelines or processes.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-2

Partially implemented

Fully

(not all pieces in place or

implemented, not all youth/young adult In planning

Don’t

system-wide

populations served)

phase

Not in place

know

Coordinated entry – a process that

○

○

○

○

○

coordinates providers to ensure all

youth/young adults experiencing

homelessness or other housing crises are

quickly identified, assessed, referred, and

connected with housing and homeless

assistance

Outreach (identification and

○

○

○

○

○

engagement) – services to identify and

engage youth/young adults at risk of or

experiencing homelessness and connect

them with assistance

Prevention – supportive services and/or

○

○

○

○

○

rental assistance to prevent homelessness

for at risk youth/young adults

Diversion – short- to medium-term

○

○

○

○

○

financial assistance and/or supportive

services to divert youth/young adults

from entering shelter

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-3

Partially implemented

Fully

(not all pieces in place or

implemented, not all youth/young adult In planning

Don’t

system-wide

populations served)

phase

Not in place

know

Shelter – emergency shelter specifically

○

○

○

○

○

for youth/young adults

Transitional Housing – time limited

○

○

○

○

○

housing with supportive services meant

to bridge the gap from homelessness to

permanent housing by offering structure,

supervision, support, life skills, and, in

some cases, education and training

Other Housing – including rapid re-

○

○

○

○

○

housing, permanent supportive housing,

and host homes specifically for

youth/young adults

Case management or navigation

○

○

○

○

○

services – assistance to guide

youth/young adults through the system

of housing and services

Family and natural support services –

○

○

○

○

○

counseling, mediation, and reunification

assistance to help youth/young adults

strengthen family ties and return to their

families, or to identify new kinship

supports and housing opportunities for

youth/young adults

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-4

Partially implemented

Fully

(not all pieces in place or

implemented, not all youth/young adult In planning

Don’t

system-wide

populations served)

phase

Not in place

know

Education and employment assistance –

○

○

○

○

○

education and employment resources,

counseling, skill building programs, and

training for youth/young adults

Coding Instructions: Respondents who indicate “fully implemented”, or “partially implemented” ” to each of the above programs/processes will be lead to additional questions about each program/process. Respondents who indicate “in planning phase”, “not in place”, or “don’t know” will be omitted from the follow-up questions.

[IF YES TO COORDINATED ENTRY]

8.

[IF COORDINATED ENTRY IS PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED] When do you expect coordinated entry to be fully implemented?

___________________________

9.

How do youth/young adults primarily access the coordinated entry process? [Mark all that apply.]

○ In-person

○ Telephone-based process (call- or text-based)

○ Other: _________________________________________

10. [IF IN PERSON/BOTH IN-PERSON AND TELEPHONE] Are there multiple points of entry?

○ One point of entry

○ Multiple points of entry

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-5

11. Are there access points that are specific to youth?

○ Yes

○ No

12. Is there case management or navigation through coordinated entry that is specific to youth?

○ Yes

○ No

13. Who is eligible to enter coordinated entry in the youth/young adult system? [Mark all that apply.]

○ Youth under 18 years old

○ Youth/young adults 18-24 years old

14. What definitions of homelessness are used to be eligible for youth-specific coordinated entry?

Yes

No

Category 1: Literally homeless – individuals and families who live in a place not

○

○

meant for human habitation (including the street or in their car), emergency shelter, transitional housing, and hotels paid for by a government or charitable organization

Category 2: Imminent risk of homelessness – individuals or families who will lose

○

○

their primary nighttime residence within 14 days and have no other resources or support networks to obtain permanent housing

Category 3: Homeless under other Federal statutes – unaccompanied youth

○

○

under 25 years of age, or families with children and youth who do not meet any of the other categories but are homeless under other Federal statues, have not had a lease and have moved 2 or more times in the past 60 days and are likely to remain unstable because of special needs or barriers

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-6

Yes

No

Category 4: Fleeing domestic violence – individuals or families who are fleeing or

○

○

attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking and who lack resources and support networks to obtain other permanent housing Other (Specify):

○

○

15. How are the needs of youth/young adults assessed as part of the coordinated entry process? [Mark all that apply.]

○ No assessment process

○ Providers’ own assessments

○ Assessment through coordinated entry

○ Other (Specify): _________________________________________________

16. [IF ASSESSMENT THROUGH COORDINATED ENTRY] Which tool or tools are used? [Mark all that apply.]

○ Next Step Tool

○ VI-SPDAT

○ TAY-VI-SPDAT

○ Family VI-SPDAT

○ Community created assessment tool

○ Other (Specify): _________________________________________________

17. [IF ASSESSMENT THROUGH COORDINATED ENTRY] Are the assessments used for Yes

No

Accessing shelter?

○

○

Making housing referrals?

○

○

Making service referrals?

○

○

Other:________________________

○

○

Other:________________________

○

○

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-7

18. Are there any additional comments or clarifications about coordinated entry you would like to provide here?

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-8

[IF YES TO OUTREACH SERVICES]

19. Which of the fol owing

IF YES,

IF YES,

IF YES,

IF TARGETED TO SPECIFIC

efforts in place to identify

Are these services

Who is eligible for

Are these services

SUBPOPULATIONS,

and engage youth/young

specifically tailored to

these services?

targeted to only specific

Which specific subpopulation are they

adults who are at risk of or

youth and/or young

subpopulations?

targeted to?

experiencing homelessness?

adults?

[Mark all that apply.]

[Mark all that apply.]

 Yes

 Yes

 Youth under

 Yes, targeted to

 Unsheltered youth/young adults

 No

 No

18 years old

specific

 Youth/young adults aging out of foster

 Somewhat/partially

 Youth/young

subpopulations

care

tailored

adults 18-24

 No, targeted to all

 Youth/young adults exiting from the

years old

youth/ young adults

juvenile justice system

 LGBTQ youth/young adults

 Pregnant/parenting youth/young adults

 Immigrant/refugee youth/young adults

 Sexually exploited/trafficked

youth/young adults

 Youth/young adults with substance

abuse problems

 Youth/young adults with mental health

problems

 Other: ___________________

 Other: ___________________

a. Mobile vans?

b. Street outreach workers?

c. Drop-in centers?

d. A central intake website

or hotline?

e. School-based outreach?

f. Other outreach efforts?

(Specify: ________)

Are there any additional comments or clarifications about outreach services you would like to provide here?

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-9

[IF YES TO PREVENTION]

20. Which of the fol owing efforts

IF YES,

IF YES,

IF YES,

IF TARGETED TO SPECIFIC

are in place to prevent

Are these services

Who is eligible for

Are these services

SUBPOPULATIONS,

youth/young adults from

specifically tailored to

these services?

targeted to only specific Which specific subpopulation are they experiencing homelessness) not

youth and/or young

subpopulations?

targeted to?

including diversion services)?

adults?

[Mark all that apply.]

[Mark all that apply. ]

 Yes

 Yes

 Youth under

 Yes, targeted to

 Unsheltered youth/young adults

 No

 No

18 years old

specific

 Youth/young adults aging out of foster

 Somewhat/partially

 Youth/young adults

subpopulations

care

tailored

18-24 years old

 No, targeted to all

 Youth/young adults exiting from the

youth/young adults

juvenile justice system

 LGBTQ youth/young adults

 Pregnant/parenting youth/young adults

 Immigrant/refugee youth/young adults

 Sexually exploited/trafficked

youth/young adults

 Youth/young adults with substance

abuse problems

 Youth/young adults with mental health

problems

 Other: ___________________

 Other: ___________________

a. Rental assistance?

b. Family counseling/intervention

services?

c. Legal assistance?

d. Supportive services?

e. Financial assistance for

something other than rent?

f. Other prevention efforts?

(Specify:________)

Are there any additional comments or clarifications about prevention services you would like to provide here?

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-10

[IF YES TO DIVERSION]

21. Which of the fol owing

IF YES,

IF YES,

IF YES,

IF TARGETED TO SPECIFIC

efforts provided to divert

Are these services

Who is eligible for

Are these services targeted to

SUBPOPULATIONS,

youth and/or young adults

specifically tailored to

these services?

only specific subpopulations?

Which specific subpopulation are they

before they enter shelter or

youth and/or young

targeted to?

another homeless situation?

adults?

[Mark all that apply.]

[Mark all that apply.]

 Yes

 Yes

 Youth under

 Yes, targeted to specific

 Unsheltered youth/young adults

 No

 No

18 years old

subpopulations

 Youth/young adults aging out of foster

 Somewhat/partially

 Youth/young

 No, targeted to all

care

tailored

adults 18-24 years

youth/young adults

 Youth/young adults exiting from the

old

juvenile justice system

 LGBTQ youth/young adults

 Pregnant/parenting youth/young adults

 Immigrant/refugee youth/young adults

 Sexually exploited/trafficked

youth/young adults

 Youth/young adults with substance

abuse problems

 Youth/young adults with mental health

problems

 Other: ___________________

 Other: ___________________

a. Rental assistance?

b. Family

counseling/intervention

services?

c. Legal assistance?

d. Supportive services?

e. Financial assistance for

something other than rent?

f. Other diversion efforts?

(Specify:________)

Are there any additional comments or clarifications about diversion services you would like to provide here?

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-11

[IF YES TO HOUSING FOR YOUTH]

22. Which of the fol owing types of

What is the current

Are any beds/vouchers designated IF TARGETED TO SPECIFIC SUBPOPULATIONS,

shelter or housing are available in your

number of beds or

for specific subpopulations of

Which specific subpopulation are they targeted to?

CoC specifically for youth and/or young

vouchers

youth and/or young adults?

adults? Please provide the date as of

[Mark all that apply.]

which these data are current.

_______________________

 Unsheltered youth/young adults

 Youth/young adults aging out of foster care

 Youth/young adults exiting from the juvenile justice

system

 LGBTQ youth/young adults

 Pregnant/parenting youth/young adults

 Immigrant/refugee youth/young adults

 Sexually exploited/trafficked youth/young adults

 Youth/young adults with substance abuse problems

 Youth/young adults with mental health problems

 Other: ___________________

 Other: ___________________

a. Emergency shelter

○ Yes

○ No

b. Transitional housing

○ Yes

○ No

c. Permanent supportive housing

○ Yes

○ No

d. Rapid re-housing

○ Yes

○ No

e. Host homes

○ Yes

○ No

f. Other: __________________

○ Yes

○ No

Are there any additional comments or clarifications about shelter or housing you would like to provide here?

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-12

[IF YES TO FAMILY AND NATURAL SUPPORT SERVICES]

23. Which of the fol owing

IF YES,

IF YES,

IF YES,

IF TARGETED TO SPECIFIC

family and natural support

Are these services

Who is eligible for

Are these services targeted to

SUBPOPULATIONS,

services available in your CoC

specifically tailored to

these services?

only specific subpopulations?

Which specific subpopulation are they

for youth/young adults?

youth and/or young

targeted to?

(Family and natural support

adults?

[Mark all that apply.]

services are those provided

[Mark all that apply.]

to help youth/young adults

strengthen family ties and

 Yes

 Yes

 Youth under

 Yes, targeted to specific

 Unsheltered youth/young adults

return to their families or to

 No

 No

18 years old

subpopulations

 Youth/young adults aging out of foster

identify new kinship supports

 Somewhat/partially

 Youth/young

 No, targeted to all

care

and housing opportunities.)

tailored

adults 18-24 years

youth/young adults

 Youth/young adults exiting from the

old

juvenile justice system

 LGBTQ youth/young adults

 Pregnant/parenting youth/young

adults

 Immigrant/refugee youth/young adults

 Sexually exploited/trafficked

youth/young adults

 Youth/young adults with substance

abuse problems

 Youth/young adults with mental health

problems

 Other: ___________________

 Other: ___________________

a. Family

mediation/counseling?

b. Case management with

youth/young adults and

family supports?

c. Help in identifying natural

supports?

d. Other family/natural

support efforts?

(Specify:________)

Are there any additional comments or clarifications about family/natural support services you would like to provide here?

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-13

[IF YES TO EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE]

24. Which of the fol owing education

IF YES,

IF YES,

IF YES,

IF TARGETED TO SPECIFIC SUBPOPULATIONS,

and employment efforts are available

Are these services

Who is eligible for

Are these services

Which specific subpopulation are they targeted

for youth/young adults who are

specifically tailored to

these services?

targeted to only

to?

experiencing homelessness?

youth and/or young

specific

adults?

[Mark all that apply.]

subpopulations?

[Mark all that apply.]

 Yes

 Yes

 Youth under

 Yes, targeted to

 Unsheltered youth/young adults

 No

 No

18 years old

specific

 Youth/young adults aging out of foster care

 Somewhat/partially

 Youth/young adults

subpopulations

 Youth/young adults exiting from the

tailored

18-24 years old

 No, targeted to

juvenile justice system

all youth/young

 LGBTQ youth/young adults

adults

 Pregnant/parenting youth/young adults

 Immigrant/refugee youth/young adults

 Sexually exploited/trafficked youth/young

adults

 Youth/young adults with substance abuse

problems

 Youth/young adults with mental health

problems

 Other: ___________________

 Other: ___________________

a. GED classes or other certificate or

training programs?

b. Job preparation/job search services?

c. Paid or unpaid work experience,

such as internships or apprenticeships?

d. Support or coaching while

employed?

e. Transportation assistance to attend

school or work?

f. Other assistance (e.g., text books,

work clothes, equipment)?

f. Other employment or education

services? (Specify:________)

Are there any additional comments or clarifications about education or employment services you would like to provide here?

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-14

System Coordination

25. Is the [FILL IN NAME OF

IF YES,

IF YES,

SYSTEM LISTED BELOW]

What is the level of

Does the [FILL IN NAME OF SYSTEM] …?

coordinated with homeless

coordination between these

service system for youth and

systems?

[Mark all that apply.]

young adults?

 Yes

 High

 Serve as a member of the CoC?

 No

 Medium

 Participate in governance for the youth/young adult system?

 Low

 Participate in planning for the youth/young adult system?

 Blend/braid funding with the youth/young adult system?

 Share data with the youth/young adult system?

 Participate in coordinated entry?

 Provide outreach services for youth/young adults?

 Provide prevention for youth/young adults?

 Provide diversion services for youth/young adults?

 Provides housing specifically for youth/young adults?

a. child welfare system?

b. juvenile justice system?

c. education system?

d. health care system?

e. mental health/substance

abuse services?

f. other mainstream services?

(Specify:________)

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-15

Governance

26. Is there a governance structure specific to the homeless, housing, and service systems for youth/young adults in your CoC?

○ Yes

○ No

27. [IF YES] Does this body report directly to the CoC board?

○ Yes

○ No

28. [IF NO] Specify how the youth-specific governance structure or workgroup works with the CoC?

29. Is there a strategic plan for addressing youth/young adult homelessness in your CoC?

○ Yes—a plan specific for youth/young adults

○ Yes—a plan that covers youth/young adults and other populations

○ No

○ Other Describe: __________________________________________________________________

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-16

30. Does the CoC actively include youth/young adults who have experienced homelessness in the decision-making process?

○ Yes

If so, what year this practice begin? ____________________

○ No

31. [IF YES] In what ways are youth/young adults who have experienced homelessness involved in the decision making process?

○ A formal youth advisory board [Mark all that apply.]

○ One or two individuals who participate in CoC decision-making

○ Other ways? Specify: _____________

Systems Challenges, Barriers, and Gaps

32. What are the major challenges in the youth/young adult homeless system in your CoC?

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-17

33. What are the major service gaps for youth/young adults in your CoC?

34. Are there specific subgroups that are underserved? Please describe.

○ Youth under 18 years old

○ Youth/young adults 18-24 years old

○ Youth/young adults aging out of foster care

○ Youth/young adults involved in juvenile justice system

○ LGBTQ youth/young adults

○ Pregnant/parenting youth/young adults

○ Immigrant/refugee youth/young adults

○ Sexually exploited/trafficked youth/young adults

○ Youth/young adults with substance abuse problems

○ Youth/young adults with mental health problems

○ Other :_________________________________________

○ Other :_________________________________________

○ Other :_________________________________________

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-18

35. Are there any additional comments or clarifications you would like to provide about the information requested here?

(with a text box)

36. This is the end of the survey. Thank you for taking the time to share information about your CoC with us. We wil be conducting a similar survey in 2021.

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

A-19

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

July 2021

Document Outline

- Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

- Foreword

- Table of Contents

- Executive Summary

- Types of Housing and Services Available

- Level of Development of Baseline Systems

- Coordination with Other Systems

- Systems Planning

- Challenges and Gaps

- Next Steps

- Overview

- Methodology

- Findings

- Overview of the Youth Homeless Service Systems

- Types of Services Available to Youth and Young Adults Experiencing or at Risk of Homelessness

- Case Management or Navigation Services

- Education and Employment

- Outreach

- Family and Natural Supportive Services

- Coordinated Entry

- Prevention

- Diversion

- Availability of Shelter and Housing for Youth

- Shelter and Transitional Housing

- Permanent Supportive Housing, Rapid Re-Housing, and Host Homes

- Level of Development of Baseline Systems

- Coordination with Other Systems

- Systems Planning

- Youth and Young Adult Governance and Youth Involvement

- Needs Assessments and Plans

- Challenges and Gaps

- Lack of Available Resources

- Difficulty Identifying and Engaging Youth

- Lack of Affordable Housing

- Lack of Coordination across Agencies

- Limited Educational and Employment Opportunities

- Policy Restrictions

- Systems Gaps

- Summary and Conclusion

- Appendix A Survey of Status of Homeless, Housing, and Service Systems for Youth and Youth Adults

- Introduction

- Instructions

- Background

- System Overview

- System Coordination

- Governance

- Systems Challenges, Barriers, and Gaps

Table of Contents

Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

Foreword

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Types of Housing and Services Available

Level of Development of Baseline Systems

Coordination with Other Systems

Systems Planning

Challenges and Gaps

Next Steps

Overview

Methodology

Findings

Overview of the Youth Homeless Service Systems

Types of Services Available to Youth and Young Adults Experiencing or at Risk of Homelessness

Case Management or Navigation Services

Education and Employment

Outreach

Family and Natural Supportive Services

Coordinated Entry

Prevention

Diversion

Availability of Shelter and Housing for Youth

Shelter and Transitional Housing

Permanent Supportive Housing, Rapid Re-Housing, and Host Homes

Level of Development of Baseline Systems

Coordination with Other Systems

Systems Planning

Youth and Young Adult Governance and Youth Involvement

Needs Assessments and Plans

Challenges and Gaps

Lack of Available Resources

Difficulty Identifying and Engaging Youth

Lack of Affordable Housing

Lack of Coordination across Agencies

Limited Educational and Employment Opportunities

Policy Restrictions

Systems Gaps

Summary and Conclusion

Appendix A Survey of Status of Homeless, Housing, and Service Systems for Youth and Youth Adults

Introduction

Instructions

Background

System Overview

System Coordination

Governance

Systems Challenges, Barriers, and Gaps