Evaluation of the U.S.

Department of Housing

and Urban Development

Youth Homelessness

Demonstration Program

Final Report

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

DISCLAIMER The contents of this report are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government.

Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development Youth Homelessness

Demonstration Program

Final Report

July 2022

Authors

Kathryn A. Henderson

Debra J. Rog

Harihar Bhattarai

Ariana Gilbert-Mongelli

Bridget Silveira

Ethan Jorge

Submitted to

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Submitted by

Westat

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of their colleagues, Ms. Emily Abbruzzi, Dr. Bernadette Blanchfield, Dr. Tamara Daley, Mr. Alan Dodkowitz, Dr. Maeve Gearing, Dr. Preethy George, Dr. Chandria Jones, Ms. Eleanor Kerr, Ms. Kathryn Kulbicki, Mr. Noah Lipshie, Ms. Elizabeth Quinn, Mr. Liam Ristow, Dr. Emanuel Robinson, Dr. Paul Toro, and Dr. Clara Wagner for their assistance with data collection, cleaning, and analysis for this report. We would also like to thank our project officers at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Ms. Sarah Zapolsky provided us guidance and support throughout the first 4 years of the evaluation as well as during the development of this report. Mr. Justin Brock, Ms. Anne Fletcher, and Ms. Madeline Steck provided us assistance with the final reporting activities.

Finally, we thank the many stakeholders we have interviewed over the years in the demonstration communities and our three peer communities (Colorado Balance of State [BOS], Memphis, and Sonoma County) for graciously providing us their time and knowledge in helping us understand the changes that were taking place. Most important, we are grateful to the youth and young adults who have participated in this study and have shared with us their experiences, struggles, and successes along the way.

Foreword

In 2017, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) launched a new demonstration, the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program (YHDP), which provides funding to local Continuums of Care (CoCs) to plan, develop, and implement coordinated community responses tailored to youth experiencing homelessness. The Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) sponsored an evaluation of the first set of 10 diverse CoCs that received YHDP funding. The study sought to understand the role of YHDP in shaping communities’ coordinated systems responses and the program’s effects on youth experiencing homelessness. Data col ection included two rounds of qualitative interviews with local stakeholders and youth serving in Youth Action Boards (YABs), focus groups with youth with lived experience, two waves of surveys with CoCs nationwide, and an analysis of Homelessness Management Information System (HMIS) data among the first round of awarded YHDP CoCs and three comparison CoCs.

Key findings from the final report indicate positive changes among the first round of YHDP CoCs compared to CoCs that did not receive YHDP funding. These changes include:

• A sustained increase in the involvement of youth with lived experience in local policy and decisionmaking roles.

• New local connections and increased cross-system coordination with child welfare, education, behavioral health, and juvenile justice agencies.

• Expanded outreach services, coordinated entry systems, and crisis and permanent housing interventions tailored specifical y for youth.

Due to study limitations, it is less clear whether YHDP influenced how many youth experienced homelessness, the demographic composition of those who did, or the ability of youth to exit to permanent housing. These limitations include a high baseline variance among sites, a relatively short implementation timeline of the program, and changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic—

including restricted access to shelters, how youth sought housing, and changes to resources and programs nationally. While this study was not designed to measure these outcomes, they are important for considering a framework for future research as HUD and communities explore programmatic changes within CoCs and their effects on ending youth homelessness.

This final report is the fourth published report from this study. 1 Previous reports include the

Early Implementation Report—a summary of the early planning phase of YHDP and the baseline status of services, housing, and system development; the CoC Survey Report—a summary of the first wave of CoC surveys, including a baseline understanding of the mix of youth services and housing across the country; and the Youth Perspectives Report—a summary of interviews and focus groups with youth experiencing homelessness and youth serving on YABs. This final 1 See the previous reports here https://www.huduser.gov/portal/Youth-Homelessness-Demonstration-Program.html.

iii

report integrates the findings from these previous reports and includes additional analysis from a second round of interviews and CoC surveys.

The early and emerging lessons from YHDP have shaped federal policy on homelessness at HUD

and other agencies—particularly the importance of allowing people with lived experience to drive the design and development of programs and the focus on creating coordinated systems of response rather than a loose collection of programs. HUD applied these principles, for example, in the recent $315 million funding initiative to address unsheltered and rural homelessness (HUD, 2023).

The importance of a coordinated systems approach and the empowerment of people with lived experience in decisionmaking have also been incorporated into the pillars and strategies of All In, the Biden-Harris Administration's new federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness (USICH, 2022). In short, YHDP's impact extends not only beyond the 10

communities examined in this study or the 96 communities who are currently implementing comprehensive systems to address youth homelessness, but to the federal and national response to homelessness as a whole.

Solomon Greene

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

iv

Table of Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................. vii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................ xii

Summary of Findings........................................................................... xii

Governance and Youth Involvement ................................................. xiii

Cross-System Coordination ................................................................ xiii

Housing and Services ......................................................................... xiv

Changes in the Size, Characteristics, and Rates of Exit to

Permanent Housing Among the Population of Youth

Experiencing Homelessness .................................................... xv

Summary ............................................................................................ xvi

Chapter I. Introduction and Methodology .............................................................. 1

Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

Purpose of the Report .......................................................................... 2

Structure of the Report ........................................................................ 2

Overview of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program ......... 2

Evaluation Methodology ...................................................................... 4

Study Design......................................................................................... 4

Data Collection ..................................................................................... 5

Analytic Approach ................................................................................ 7

Previous Evaluation Reports ................................................................ 8

Chapter II. Planning and Governance ..................................................................... 9

Planning and Governance .................................................................... 9

Youth Engagement ............................................................................. 14

Perspectives of YAB Members ........................................................... 17

Chapter II . Findings: Cross-System Coordination ................................................. 19

Overall Level of Coordination with Other Systems............................ 19

Coordination with the Child Welfare System .................................... 20

Coordination with the Education System .......................................... 22

Coordination with the Behavioral Health System ............................. 23

Coordination with the Juvenile Justice System ................................. 25

Patterns of Findings in Coordination Across the Four Systems ......... 26

The Nature of Coordination in Systems Governance, Planning,

Funding, and Data .................................................................. 27

Challenges to Cross-System Coordination ......................................... 30

v

Chapter IV. Housing and Services ......................................................................... 32

Overview of System Changes and Assistance Received .................... 34

Outreach and Drop-In Services .......................................................... 39

Coordinated Entry, Navigation, and Diversion .................................. 44

Crisis and Permanent Housing ........................................................... 54

Other Services and Supports ............................................................. 70

Chapter V. The Population of Youth Experiencing Homelessness: Changes

in the Size, Characteristics, and Rates of Exit to Permanent

Housing .............................................................................................. 76

Changes in the Size of the Population of Youth Experiencing

Homelessness ........................................................................ 77

Changes in the Characteristics of the Population of Youth and

Young Adults Experiencing Homelessness............................. 80

Summary of Changes in the Size and Characteristics of the

Population of Youth Experiencing Homelessness and

their Exits to Permanent Housing .......................................... 95

Chapter VI: Summary and Implications of Findings .............................................. 97

Planning and Governance .................................................................. 97

Cross-System Coordination ................................................................ 98

Services and Housing ......................................................................... 98

Changes in the Size and Characteristics of the Population of

Youth Experiencing Homelessness ...................................... 102

Changes in Exits to Permanent Housing .......................................... 104

Conclusion ........................................................................................ 104

Appendix A. Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Grantees ............... 106

Appendix B. Additional Governance and Planning and Cross System

Coordination Exhibits ....................................................................... 109

Appendix C. Additional Housing and Services Exhibits ....................................... 112

References .......................................................................................................... 144

vi

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1. Map of the Round 1 YHDP and Peer Sites ............................................................. 3

Exhibit 1-2. Round 1 YHDP Awards, by CoC ........................................................................... 4

Exhibit 2-1. Overview of YHDP Governance Structure ........................................................... 10

Exhibit 2-2. Percentage of CoCs with Youth-Specific Governance: Comparison of YHDP

Rounds 1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs ......................................................................... 13

Exhibit 2-3. Percentage of CoCs with Youth-Specific Strategic Plans: Comparison of YHDP

Rounds 1-3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs ......................................................................... 13

Exhibit 2-4. Status of Youth Action Boards at Baseline and End of the Demonstration, By Site 15

Exhibit 2-5. Percentage of CoCs Engaging Youth in CoC Activities .......................................... 17

Exhibit 3-1. Cross-System Coordination with Child Welfare, Education, Behavioral Health, and

Juvenile Justice ................................................................................................................. 20

Exhibit 3-2. Cross-Systems Coordination with Child Welfare ..................................................... 21

Exhibit 3-3. Cross-Systems Coordination with Education ........................................................... 22

Exhibit 3-4. Cross-Systems Coordination with Behavioral Health Systems ................................ 24

Exhibit 3-5. Cross-Systems Coordination with Juvenile Justice .................................................. 25

Exhibit 4-1. Status of Youth-Specific Housing and Services at Baseline and Post-YHDP, By Site

........................................................................................................................................... 36

Exhibit 4-2. CoCs’ Level of Development at Baseline and End of the Demonstration, By Site . 37

Exhibit 4-3. Change in the Percentage of Youth Receiving Services Between CY 2017 and CY

2020, By Site ..................................................................................................................... 38

Exhibit 4-4. Youth-Specific Outreach Services at Baseline and Post YHDP: Change in

Implementation Status and Percentage of Youth Served, By Site .................................... 40

Exhibit 4-5. Availability of Youth-Specific Outreach Services at Baseline and Post-YHDP:

Comparison of YHDP Rounds 1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs .................................... 42

Exhibit 4-6. Youth-Specific Drop-in Centers at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in

Implementation Status and Percentage of Youth Served, By Site .................................... 43

Exhibit 4-7. Youth-Specific Coordinated Entry at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in

Implementation Status and Percentage of Youth Served, By Site .................................... 46

Exhibit 4-8. Availability of YHDP Rounds 1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs Nationally:

Implementation of Coordinated Entry .............................................................................. 47

Exhibit 4-9. Youth-Specific Navigation/Case Management at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change

in Implementation Status and Percentage of Youth Served, By Site ................................ 50

Exhibit 4-10. Availability of YHDP Rounds 1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs Nationally:

Implementation of Navigation/Case Management ........................................................... 51

Exhibit 4-11. Availability of YHDP Rounds 1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs Nationally:

Implementation of Youth-Specific Diversion ................................................................... 53

Exhibit 4-12. Youth-Specific Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing at Baseline and Post-

YHDP: Change in Number of Units and Percentage of Youth Served, By Site .............. 55

Exhibit 4-13. Length of Stay (in Days) in Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing at

Baseline and Post YHDP, By Site .................................................................................... 56

Exhibit 4-14. Availability of YHDP Rounds 1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs Nationally:

Implementation of Crisis Housing .................................................................................... 58

Exhibit 4-15. Availability of Host Homes at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Comparison of YHDP

CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs Nationally ........................................................................... 61

vii

Exhibit 4-16. Youth-Specific Rapid Rehousing at Baseline and Post YHDP: Change in Number

of Units and Percentage of Youth Served, By Site ........................................................... 62

Exhibit 4-17. Length of Stay (in Days) in Rapid Rehousing at Baseline and Post-YHDP, By Site

........................................................................................................................................... 63

Exhibit 4-18. Availability of YHDP Rounds 1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs Nationally:

Implementation of Rapid Rehousing ................................................................................ 64

Exhibit 4-19. Youth-Specific Permanent Supportive Housing at Baseline and Post-YHDP:

Change in Number of Units and Percentage of Youth Served, By Site ........................... 68

Exhibit 4-20. Length of Stay (in Days) in Permanent Supportive Housing and Other Permanent

Housing at Baseline and Post-YHDP, By Site.................................................................. 69

Exhibit 4-21. Availability of YHDP Rounds 1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs Nationally:

Implementation of Permanent Housing ............................................................................ 70

Exhibit 4-22. Availability of Family Intervention Services at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change

in Implementation of Family Intervention Services ......................................................... 71

Exhibit 4-23. Availability of Youth-Specific Education and Employment Services at Baseline

and Post-YHDP: Change in Implementation of Education and Employment Services ... 73

Exhibit 4-24. Availability of Youth-Specific Behavioral Health Services Post-YHDP ............... 75

Exhibit 5-1. Number of Youth in YHDP and Peer CoCs’ PIT Counts in 2017 and 2020, and

Percentage Change Over Time, By Site ........................................................................... 78

Exhibit 5-2. Number of Youth in YHDP and Peer CoC HMIS in 2017 and 2020, and Percentage

Change Over Time, By Site .............................................................................................. 79

Exhibit 5-3. Average Age of Youth in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

........................................................................................................................................... 81

Exhibit 5-4. Percentage of Youth Who Were Minors in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and

CY 2020, By Site .............................................................................................................. 82

Exhibit 5-5. Gender and Parenting Status of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017

and CY 2020, By Site ....................................................................................................... 83

Exhibit 5-6. Race and Ethnicity of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY

2020, By Site ..................................................................................................................... 84

Exhibit 5-7. Percentage of Youth Identifying as Hispanic among Youth Served in YHDP and

Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site .................................................................. 87

Exhibit 5-8. Percentage of Youth with One or More Disabling Conditions Served in YHDP and

Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site .................................................................. 88

Exhibit 5-9. Disabling Conditions and Family Violence Reported by Youth Served in YHDP and

Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site .................................................................. 89

Exhibit 5-10. Monthly Income Reported by Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017

and CY 2020, By Site ....................................................................................................... 91

Exhibit 5-11. Percentage of Youth Who Exited to Permanent Housing in YHDP and Peer CoCs

in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site .................................................................................... 93

Exhibit 5-12. Number of Youth Served, Exited, and Exited to Permanent Housing in YHDP and

Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site .................................................................. 94

Exhibit 5-13. Summary of Changes in the Population of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs

Between CY 2017 and CY 2020 ....................................................................................... 95

Exhibit A-1. YHDP Grantees, by Round .................................................................................... 106

Exhibit B-1. Percentage of CoCs with Youth-Specific Governance and Strategic Planning ..... 109

Exhibit B-2. Percentage of CoCs Engaging Youth In CoC Activities ....................................... 109

viii

Exhibit B-3. Cross-Systems Coordination with Child Welfare .................................................. 110

Exhibit B-4. Cross-Systems Coordination with Education ......................................................... 110

Exhibit B-5. Cross-Systems Coordination with Behavioral Health Systems ............................. 111

Exhibit B-6. Cross-Systems Coordination with Juvenile Justice................................................ 111

Exhibit C-1A. Percentage of Youth Receiving Services in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site .... 112

Exhibit C-2. Youth-Specific Outreach Services at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in

Percentage of Youth Served, By Site............................................................................... 114

Exhibit C-3. Youth-Specific Drop-in Centers at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in Percentage

of Youth Served, By Site .................................................................................................. 115

Exhibit C-4. Youth-Specific Coordinated Entry at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in

Percentage of Youth Served, By Site............................................................................... 116

Exhibit C-5. Youth-Specific Navigation/Case Management at Baseline and Post-YHDP: ....... 117

Exhibit C-6. Youth-Specific Crisis Housing at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in Percentage

of Youth Served ............................................................................................................... 118

Exhibit C-7. Length of Stay in Crisis Housing (in Days) ........................................................... 119

Exhibit C-8. Youth-Specific Rapid Rehousing at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in

Percentage of Youth Served, By Site............................................................................... 120

Exhibit C-9. Change in Length of Stay in Rapid Rehousing (in Days), By Site ........................ 121

Exhibit C-10. Youth-Specific Permanent Supportive Housing at Baseline and Post-YHDP..... 122

Exhibit C-11. Change in Length of Stay in Permanent Supportive Housing and Other Permanent

Housing (in Days), By Site ............................................................................................. 123

Exhibit C-12. Number of Youth in YHDP and Peer CoCs’ PIT Counts in 2017 and 2020 and

Percentage Change Over Time ....................................................................................... 124

Exhibit C-13. Number of Youth in YHDP and Peer CoCs’ HMIS in 2017 and 2020 and

Percentage Change Over Time ....................................................................................... 125

Exhibit C-14. Average Age of Youth in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

......................................................................................................................................... 126

Exhibit C-15. Percentage of Youth Who Were Minors in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and

CY 2020, By Site ............................................................................................................ 127

Exhibit C-16A. Gender of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By

Site .................................................................................................................................. 128

Exhibit C-17. Percentage of Parenting Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and

CY 2020, By Site ............................................................................................................ 130

Exhibit C-18A. Race and Ethnicity of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and

CY 2020, By Site ............................................................................................................ 131

Exhibit C-18B Race and Ethnicity of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and

CY 2020, By Site ............................................................................................................ 132

Exhibit C-18C Race and Ethnicity of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and

CY 2020, By Site ............................................................................................................ 133

Exhibit C-18D Race and Ethnicity of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and

CY 2020, By Site ............................................................................................................ 134

Exhibit C-19. Percentage of Youth Identifying as Hispanic Among Youth Served in YHDP and

Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020

135

..............................................................................

Exhibit C-20. Percentage of Youth with One or More Disabling Conditions Served in YHDP and

Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020

136

..............................................................................

ix

Exhibit C-21. Disabling Conditions Reported by Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY

2017 and CY 2020, By Site ............................................................................................ 137

Exhibit C-22. Family Violence Reported by Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017

and CY 2020, By Site ..................................................................................................... 138

Exhibit C-23. Income Reported by Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY

2020, By Site ................................................................................................................... 139

Exhibit C-24A. Percentage of Youth Who Received One Or More Non-Cash Benefits in YHDP

and Peer CoCs’ HMIS in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site............................................. 140

Exhibit C-24B. Percentage of Youth Who Received One Or More Non-Cash Benefits in YHDP

and Peer CoCs’ HMIS in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site............................................. 141

Exhibit C-25A. Percentage of Parenting Youth Who Received One Or More Non-Cash Benefits

in YHDP and Peer CoCs’ HMIS CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site ................................. 142

Exhibit C-25B. Percentage of Parenting Youth Who Received One Or More Non-Cash Benefits

in YHDP and Peer CoCs’ HMIS CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site ................................. 143

x

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AHAR

Annual Homeless Assessment Report

BOS

Balance of State

C3

Community Change Collaborative

CARES Act

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act

CoC

Continuum of Care

CSH

Corporation for Supportive Housing

DCHS

Department of Community and Human Services

DUA

Data Use Agreement

FYI

Foster Youth to Independence

FUP

Family Unification Program

HEARTH

Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing

HIC

Housing Inventory Count

HMIS

Homeless Management Information System

HSH

Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing

HUD

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

LGBTQ

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning

NOFA

Notice of Funding Availability

PD&R

Office of Policy Development and Research

PIT Count

Point-in-Time Count

PSH

Permanent Supportive Housing

SAMHSA

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

TAC

Technical Assistance Collaborative

TAY-VI-SPDAT

Transition Age Youth—Vulnerability Index—Service Prioritization

Decision Assistance Tool

USICH

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

YAB

Youth Action Board

YDST

Youth Dedicated Service Team

YHDP

Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

xi

Executive Summary

In 2017, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) launched the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program (YHDP) to address the troubling problem of youth homelessness. The first round of awards was made to 10 diverse Continuums of Care (CoCs) to plan, develop, and implement coordinated community responses aimed at preventing and ending youth homelessness. The demonstration required CoCs to col aborate with Youth Action Boards (YABs), child welfare agencies, and other community partners in developing and implementing comprehensive community plans to end youth homelessness. Approaches included developing or improving ways to identify and reach out to youth in need of assistance, provide resources to prevent homelessness for at-risk youth, offer services to support the broad array of needs youth may have while homeless, and offer a variety of housing options, including crisis housing as well as permanent housing options.

HUD contracted with Westat, an independent research firm, to conduct a longitudinal cross-site evaluation of YHDP. The evaluation included cases studies tracking the 10 CoCs’ efforts in shaping communities’ coordinated systems responses and their

Throughout this report,

effects on the population of youth experiencing homelessness.

the term youth refers to all

The evaluation aimed to isolate the role that YHDP played in

youth and young adults,

creating those changes by including data on two bases of

ages 14–24. The term

comparison: (1) case studies of the experience and outcomes of minors refers specifically three peer CoCs that did not receive YHDP awards and (2)

to youth younger than age

results of a web survey conducted at two points with CoCs

18.

across the country.

Summary of Findings

YHDP led to a number of key changes in the Round 1 sites that the three peer sites and other non-YHDP CoCs nationally do not experience to the same degree or as consistently, including the fol owing:

• The development of youth-specific governance and strategic planning.

• Engagement of youth in decisionmaking.

• Increased coordination with other systems.

• A notable increase and expansion in the portfolio of housing available to youth.

• Increased receipt by youth of specific services, including navigation and rapid rehousing.

• Decreases over time in the use of crisis housing and increases in the receipt of permanent housing.

The effects of those changes on the size and nature of the population served and their ability to exit to permanent housing are less clear. The lack of clear outcomes across sites is not surprising given the variety of factors that can affect the size of the population and exits to permanent housing. The 10 YHDP sites varied in terms of the size of their baseline youth homeless populations, the number and type of housing and services available for youth at xii

baseline, and the use of YHDP funds. Also, the 3-year timeframe may be too short to realize changes in outcomes, especially during the pandemic.

These findings are discussed in greater detail below.

Throughout the report

YHDP Round 1 CoCs are

Governance and Youth Involvement

compared to two different

YHDP led to youth-specific governance that remained relatively comparison groups: (1) stable over the course of the demonstration. As required by

three matched peer sites

the YHDP Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), each CoC’s

and (2) all non-YHDP CoCs

coordinated community plan outlined a governance structure

nationally.

responsible for guiding YHDP decisionmaking throughout the

demonstration. In most sites, that YHDP leadership remained

relatively consistent over the course of the demonstration, despite chal enges posed by COVID-19, stretched stakeholder capacity, and reduced engagement of youth and other partners.

By the end of the demonstration, YABs, established during the planning process in all 10 YHDP

sites, remained active in one-half of the sites, although with smaller membership and decreased activity. As sites moved into an ongoing implementation and monitoring stage of the demonstration, maintaining an active YAB was challenged by having less well-defined work, frequent turnover as members aged out or transitioned to other activities in their lives, and COVID-19. Among the YABs that remained active, members reported playing an active role in their communities, providing input into the design and implementation of YHDP, and engaging in a range of other activities within their CoC. YAB members largely held positive views of their roles on the YAB, but, in some sites, YAB members spoke of initial or enduring resistance to having youth at the table from others in the system.

YHDP CoCs were more likely than the three peer CoCs and al other non-YHDP CoCs to have in place youth-specific governance structures, strategic plans for addressing youth homelessness, and efforts to engage youth in decisionmaking.

Cross-System Coordination

Over the course of the demonstration, YHDP CoCs significantly increased the level and nature of coordination with child welfare, education, behavioral health, and juvenile justice systems in a number of areas of activity. Non-YHDP sites, in contrast, did not report increases in cross-system coordination in most areas of activity over the same period. However, the level of coordination with healthcare, employment, law enforcement or courts, benefits, and some other systems was comparably low for both YHDP and non-YHDP sites.

The increased cross-system coordination with the four main systems largely occurred through representatives’ participation in the CoC, YHDP governance, and planning and through funding, sharing data, and providing services and housing. The most common service-related activities across systems included referrals between homelessness providers and other systems and between identification and outreach activities. Resources and encouragement provided through YHDP helped facilitate, expand, and deepen cross-system coordination.

xiii

Despite the improved coordination, chal enges continued. Systems partners struggled to coordinate with the CoCs due to limitations in their capacity strained by staff turnover and competing priorities, varying definitions of homelessness, and the ineligibility of significant portions of their service populations for the housing and services provided by the CoCs.

Furthermore, coordination with other service systems that are decentralized often required CoCs to work with agencies across many independent counties. Finally, COVID-19 posed significant barriers to cross-system coordination as routine meetings were suspended, staff were reassigned from their regular responsibilities to address issues related to the pandemic, and some efforts, such as data merging across systems, were deprioritized.

Housing and Services

YHDP led to a broader range of services and housing in all 10 CoCs:

• YHDP increased youth-specific outreach services and access to drop-in centers, more so than the three peer sites or non-YHDP CoCs nationally; yet, despite the increased availability of outreach, youth in focus groups in many sites continued to report that services were not well advertised, and knowing where to go to get assistance was hard.

• Sites either developed or improved upon their coordinated entry systems for youth by adding more access points, increasing the number of assessors, and developing new methods for connecting youth to the system. In addition, nearly all of the YHDP sites increased their use of navigation assistance over time to strengthen youth’s access to housing and services, and most YHDP sites also either enhanced or added diversion

assistance to facilitate youth’s rapid access to permanent housing. Over the same period, non-YHDP sites experienced less, more varied progress in coordinated entry, navigation, and diversion than among demonstration sites.

• YHDP funding led to increases in availability of crisis housing (that is, emergency shelter or transitional housing) for youth, which youth identified as preferable to adult shelters, where they reported feeling unsafe. Also, although smal in scope, the number of host homes increased in YHDP sites. Host homes were considered a valuable strategy for serving minors, who often were ineligible for other types of housing assistance, and youth in rural locations, where crisis housing facilities were harder to locate. A smaller proportion of non-YHDP sites nationally had crisis housing for youth before the demonstration, and fewer experienced increases in the crisis housing stock over time.

• Al YHDP sites increased the number of units of rapid rehousing provided for youth, and most sites experienced significant increases in the number of youth receiving it. Non-YHDP CoCs nationally also increasingly provided rapid rehousing to youth; however, YHDP accelerated the trend. Despite those increases, YHDP sites continued to struggle to find stable housing for youth.

• YHDP also led to increases in permanent supportive housing and other permanent housing options for youth. Peer sites and other non-YHDP CoCs also increased the availability of other permanent housing resources over time, although at lower rates than in YHDP sites.

xiv

• Finally, other services—such as family intervention services, employment and education services, and behavioral health services—were typically comparably available through mainstream providers in YHDP sites and in the peer sites and non-YHDP CoCs nationally.

Fol owing the demonstration, the majority of YHDP sites experienced significant decreases over time in the percentage of youth who received any crisis housing and significant increases in the percentage of youth who received permanent housing, outreach, and other services. Despite those shifts, crisis housing remained the most commonly received intervention for youth (after coordinated entry) in the majority of YHDP CoCs.

Changes in the Size, Characteristics, and Rates of Exit to Permanent Housing Among the Population of Youth Experiencing Homelessness

No consistent pattern of change emerged over the course of YHDP across the demonstration sites in the size of the population of youth experiencing homelessness, and no clear difference from peer sites occurred. One-half of the YHDP CoCs realized a decrease in the number of youth experiencing homelessness between 2017 and 2020, reflective of a national trend, whereas two CoCs experienced an increase and the remaining three sites stayed largely unchanged. Neither the size of the community nor the level of resources available to address youth homelessness seem to be related to that variability.

One goal of the demonstration was to identify and engage greater numbers of youth in need of assistance. Analysis of Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) data across the 10

YHDP Round 1 CoCs revealed that the results were mixed, with six sites serving more youth and four sites serving fewer youth from 2017 to 2020.

Even without YHDP resources, two of the three peer sites also experienced decreases in their Point-in-Time (PIT) Counts, and all three peer sites served a greater number of youth in 2020

than in 2017.

The composition of the youth population served by YHDP CoCs changed in a number of ways between 2017 and 2020. Some of those changes may have resulted from the implementation of various YHDP-funded programs, but others, also detected in the peer sites, likely reflect national trends in the population of youth experiencing homelessness or other contextual influences, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes in YHDP sites include the following:

• Increases in the average age of youth served in six sites and corresponding decreases in the proportion of minors served at each time period—likely resulting from the implementation of new interventions, such as rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing, in which youth must be 18 years old or older to sign a lease.

• Decreases in the proportion of males served between 2017 and 2020—related to increases in the proportion of female parenting youth served.

• Shifts in the racial and ethnic composition of youth served in most YHDP CoCs—

primarily serving more youth of color.

• Significantly more youth with one or more disabling behavioral health and health concerns (including chronic mental health conditions, chronic health conditions, and xv

substance abuse problems) and rates of family violence—likely in part due to increased referrals from other systems in the communities that serve those youth.

• Significantly more youth who reported income at program entry in 2020 than in 2017, with increased average amounts in a few sites.

The 10 Round 1 YHDP sites showed a mixed rate of success in exiting youth to permanent housing. The evaluation team examined exits first using the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) measure, which computes the proportion of youth exiting to permanent housing to all exits. Exit rates in 2020 using the HEARTH measure ranged from 11 to 69 percent; al but two sites, however, exited more than 35 percent of youth to permanent housing.

Because the HEARTH measure can be shaped by the total number of exits as well as the number of youths served in a CoC, the evaluation team also examined change in the absolute number of exits to permanent housing that a site experienced. When rates of exits to permanent housing are computed for al youth served (not limited to youth who exited), the range in 2020 dropped considerably, ranging across sites from 8 to 47 percent (down from 11

to 69 percent across sites). In all but two sites, however, the rate of exits to permanent housing among all youth served was less than 30 percent, suggesting that many sites may not exit youth from assistance until they can obtain permanent housing.

One-half of the sites show an increase over time in the proportion of exits to permanent housing. Using the HEARTH measure, only three YHDP sites showed significant increases in the proportion of al exits to permanent housing. Two other sites, despite showing little change in the HEARTH measure, significantly increased the number of youth exiting to permanent housing between 2017 and 2020, as the total number of youth served and the total number of exits also increased, bringing down the percentage of change. The remaining sites either decreased on one or both measures or saw no change over time.

Of the two peer sites with data, only one showed a significant increase in the HEARTH measure, but both showed an increase in the number of youth exiting over the two periods. Their rates of exits were comparable to the higher end of the YHDP continuum.

Summary

In summary, the YHDP demonstration sites, compared with peer and other CoCs, initiated a greater number of changes to facilitate coordinated community approaches to housing and serving homeless youth. The lack of consistency and clarity in outcomes is not surprising, given the variety of factors that can affect the size of the population and exits to permanent housing, including COVID-19; the variability among the Round 1 YHDP sites on a number of factors that can create site-specific dynamics that affect the outcomes; and a short timeframe in which to realize changes in outcomes. Moreover, the ability to discern clear patterns is further chal enged by having comparative HMIS data from only three peer sites and only implementation-level data from CoCs nationally.

xvi

The cross-site movement to rapid rehousing, coupled with greater attention to outreach and diversion, is encouraging. Over time, it will likely lead to more exits to permanent housing and less time spent in crisis housing for youth. Longer-term tracking of the outcomes from these 10

YHDP sites, augmented with tracking from all YHDP-funded sites, may be able to provide a more sensitive examination of the effects of YHDP.

xvii

Chapter I. Introduction and Methodology

Introduction

HUD established the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program (YHDP) to reduce the number of youth experiencing homelessness. In the first round of the demonstration, HUD

awarded $33 million in YHDP funds in January 2017 to 10 diverse Continuums of Care (CoCs) to develop and implement coordinated community approaches to prevent and end youth homelessness. The demonstration encourages youth homeless service systems to work together with Youth Action Boards (YABs), child welfare agencies, and other partners to create and implement comprehensive community plans to end youth homelessness. Approaches include developing or improving ways to identify and reach out to youth in need of assistance, provide resources to prevent homelessness for at-risk youth, offer services to support the broad array of needs youth may have while homeless, and offer a variety of housing options for those who need them, including crisis housing and permanent housing options.

HUD contracted Westat, an independent research firm, to conduct a longitudinal, cross-site implementation evaluation of the 10 Round 1 demonstration sites. The evaluation compares changes over time in the YHDP-funded CoCs to changes in three non-funded peer CoCs, selected to be similar to one or more of the YHDP sites at baseline, and to all CoCs nationally.

This evaluation seeks to examine if and how a comprehensive, system-level approach to serving youth can reduce youth homelessness across diverse urban and rural settings. The evaluation also examines how communities approach the goal of preventing and ending youth homelessness and how they build comprehensive systems of care for young people.

The evaluation seeks to answer the fol owing research questions:

•

How do the YHDP CoCs compare with and contrast to each other and to peer sites and other non-YHDP CoCs nationally in their baseline status on services for youth experiencing homelessness?

•

How are the CoCs planning and implementing coordinated community responses to youth homelessness?

•

What role has technical assistance had in shaping the coordinated community plan and its implementation?

•

How are YHDP communities engaging youth in the planning process and the execution of the plans?

•

What do youth and other stakeholders think worked?

•

How does the pattern of change in the services, supports, and housing exits for youth experiencing homelessness in demonstration communities compare with selected peer communities and all other non-YHDP CoCs nationally?

•

What changes have occurred in the number and composition of youth experiencing homelessness who need services and those receiving services in the demonstration and peer communities?

1

Earlier reports focused on the baseline status of the communities’ systems serving youth who are at risk of or experiencing homelessness; the development and early implementation of efforts to build a coordinated community response to youth homelessness through the YHDP

demonstration; the role of technical assistance in facilitating implementation; and youth involvement in the demonstration and their perspectives on the changes taking place.

Purpose of the Report

This report provides an assessment of the extent to which YHDP led to comprehensive, coordinated systems of services and housing for youth, the extent to which those changes led to changes in service and housing receipt and exits to permanent housing, and how those changes affected the size and composition of the youth homeless population. The research team reviewed those changes in the context of changes in the three peer communities and CoCs nationally. In addition, where available, this report provides data on changes in the services and housing available in a broader set of YHDP sites (that is, those participating in Rounds 2 and 3 of the demonstration). Final y, throughout the report, the research team discusses the perspectives of youth and other stakeholders on the chal enges the CoCs face in addressing youth homelessness—including COVID-19 and other contextual factors—and what changes in the system were most beneficial.

Structure of the Report

• Chapter 1 provides an overview of the demonstration, including the sites selected as Round 1 grantees and the YHDP resources they received. Chapter I also presents the evaluation methodology, including the study design and analytic approach, evaluation questions, and data col ection efforts. In addition, Chapter I provides a guide to previous YHDP evaluation reports.

• Chapter 2 examines the extent to which the demonstration led to the development of youth-focused governance structures and the more formal engagement of youth in decisionmaking.

• Chapter 3 assesses the role of YHDP in fostering coordination with other systems that serve youth at risk of or experiencing homelessness, including child welfare, education, and juvenile justice systems, among others.

• Chapter 4 provides data on the role the demonstration played in expanding the housing and services available to youth in need of assistance.

• Chapter 5 examines the effects of those service and housing expansions on the size and composition of the population of youth experiencing homelessness and on exits to permanent housing.

• Chapter 6 summarizes whether and how the demonstration advanced coordinated services systems for youth, the areas that require continued attention, and the implications for other communities throughout the country.

Overview of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

In 2016, HUD, its federal partners, and youth with lived experience in homelessness designed the YHDP, guided by the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) vision for a coordinated community response to prevent and end youth homelessness (USICH, 2013).

2

YHDP encourages communities to develop and implement coordinated community approaches to prevent and end homelessness of youth ages 14–24 years. To date, HUD has funded 76 CoCs through five rounds of funding, totaling nearly $300 million, to implement a variety of interventions to prevent and end youth homelessness (see appendix A).

Exhibit 1-1. Map of the Round 1 YHDP and Peer Sites

Seattle/King County

NW

Michigan

Connecticut

BOS

Cincinnati/

Sonoma County

Ohio BOS

Hamilton County

San Francisco

Kentucky BOS

Santa Cruz

Colorado BOS

Memphis

Austin/Travis

County

Anchorage

YHDP Sites

Peer Sit es

BOS = Balance of State. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Source: YHDP Evaluation

In the first round of the demonstration (the focus of this evaluation), HUD awarded $33 million2

in YHDP funds in January 2017 to 10 CoCs, including four rural sites. Exhibit 1-1 provides a map of the 10 Round 1-funded CoCs and the three peer CoCs. Exhibit 1-2 provides the award amount for each Round 1 YHDP grantee.

Grantees received not only financial assistance but technical assistance to help develop and implement their coordinated plans. Six organizations, funded by HUD and coordinated by the Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH), provided technical assistance to the 10 Round 1

sites. In addition to CSH, the organizations included Abt Associates Inc., Homebase, ICF

International Inc., the Partnership Center, and Technical Assistance Collaborative (TAC).

Technical assistance was delivered through in-person site visits, telephone calls, video conferencing, and email. The amount of technical assistance that sites received varied over time, with the most intensive period of delivery occurring during the planning stages of the 2 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 averaged fewer than 30 persons per square mile.

3

demonstration. In the implementation stages, sites received light-touch technical assistance.

Sites also received more limited cross-site capacity building and technical assistance from additional organizations and agencies, including True Colors United, A Way Home America, the National Center for Homeless Education, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The evaluation’s Early Implementation Report provides more detail on the technical assistance received. 3

Exhibit 1-2. Round 1 YHDP Awards, by CoC

YHDP CoC

Award

($ million)

Anchorage (rural)

1.5

Austin/Travis County

5.2

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

3.8

Connecticut Balance of State

6.6

Kentucky Balance of State (rural)

1.9

Grand Traverse, Antrim, Leelanau Counties (rural)

1.3

Ohio Balance of State (rural)

2.2

San Francisco/San Francisco County

2.9

Watsonvil e/Santa Cruz City/Santa Cruz County

2.2

Seattle/King County

5.4

CoC= Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Source: U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development

Evaluation Methodology

Below, the report provides an overview of the study design, data col ection methods, analytic approach, and previous evaluation reports developed for this evaluation.

Study Design

The evaluation, beginning in May 2017, incorporated a longitudinal comparative case study design involving the 10 Round 1 YHDP CoCs and three peer CoCs. The research team selected three CoCs as peer sites—Sonoma County, Memphis, and Colorado Balance of State (BOS)—

from the pool of more than 60 applicants for the first round of the YHDP that met minimum eligibility criteria and were not selected for either Round 1 or Round 2 of the demonstration.

The research team used data from the Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR), Housing Inventory Counts (HICs), Point-in-Time (PIT) Counts, and other existing data (such as the American Community Survey) to guide the selection. Based on those data, the research team selected peer CoCs that represented the best possible match to the demonstration sites in terms of the baseline status of their youth homeless systems, geography, urban versus rural status, size of the youth homeless population, and other key characteristics. The research team categorized the YHDP sites by their system’s development (high development, medium development, or early development) and selected a peer site to match as closely as possible each of those three categories and the other characteristics.

3 The report is available here: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/Youth-Homelessness-Demonstration-

Program.html.

4

The research team col ected data through multiple sources on each of the 10 YHDP and 3 peer CoCs over the course of the demonstration to understand (1) the baseline status of the systems in place for serving youth at risk of and experiencing homelessness; (2) systems changes implemented over time to improve the coordination and availability of housing, services, and supports for youth; and (3) the effects of those changes on the size and composition of the population of youth experiencing homelessness and on the receipt of and exits to permanent housing.

In addition, data from a web survey of youth services and housing of CoCs across the country provide an additional comparative basis for understanding the role of the demonstration resources in creating system changes. The survey, conducted at two points, provides data on the extent to which all other CoCs across the country change their systems over the same period as the demonstration. Through that survey as well, the researchers were able to identify the CoCs that were engaged in Rounds 2 and 3 of YHDP and analyze the changes in their systems along with the Round 1 YHDP sites and more than 300 non-YHDP CoCs nationwide.

Data Collection

The evaluation includes four data col ection activities: document reviews, site visits, Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) data, and the web survey of CoCs.

Document Review

Documents provided information on the YHDP planning process, the baseline status of the homeless system for youth, the coordinated community plans, and the history and context of each of the YHDP and peer sites. Documents included the grant applications; the YHDP

community plans or other strategic plans; other CoC documents (for example, CoC

Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports, Annual Action Plans, Consolidated Plans); documents for each site identified through the sites’ websites, such as pertinent meeting minutes, newsletters, presentations, and needs assessments; and information from the technical assistance providers and HUD. In addition, the research team reviewed secondary data from each site on the size of the youth population (for example, AHAR, PIT) and data on the housing inventories (for example, HICs).

Site Visits

The evaluation team conducted three rounds of site visits to the 10 demonstration and 3 peer CoCs in early 2019, mid-2020, and mid-2021. The initial visit was aimed at understanding each site’s overall context and plan for a coordinated response to youth homelessness, early implementation of plan governance and the YAB, other youth involvement, coordination with other systems, and implementation of services and housing. The team made subsequent visits to understand changes in the systems and context over time, additional opportunities experienced, and chal enges confronted.

The first round of visits was conducted in person, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the second and third waves of site visits were conducted remotely through videoconferences and telephone calls. At each wave, site visits included interviews with a variety of key informants, including members of the CoC lead agencies and representatives from homeless service 5

providers, child welfare agencies, education systems, other government agencies, and service providers. The evaluation team interviewed stakeholders from advocacy groups and philanthropic organizations engaged with youth homelessness and representatives from the YABs. The team also conducted focus groups with youth who had previously or were currently experiencing homelessness and sought to represent a range of experiences and characteristics, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ) youth; pregnant and parenting youth; members of racial and ethnic minority groups; and youth exiting foster care, among others.

HMIS Data

The research team obtained HMIS administrative data records on all youth (ages 14–24) served in calendar years 2017 and 2020 for each of the 10 YHDP CoCs and the three peer CoCs. After establishing a data use agreement (DUA) with each site, the research team provided a template to each of the sites’ HMIS administrators outlining the population of youth to be included and the data elements to be extracted. The research team worked with the HMIS administrators to ensure that the data obtained were accurate and complete. Eleven sites provided client-level data, and two sites (San Francisco, Colorado BOS) provided aggregate data. Westat conducted analyses within and across sites focused on changes in the size and composition of the youth population experiencing homelessness; the type of services and housing assistance youth received; youth’s average length of stay in various programs; and rates of exit to permanent housing.

Web Survey

Westat administered a web survey at two periods to gather information about the status of youth homeless systems in all other non-YHDP CoCs nationally. The first wave of the survey was administered between January and March 2019, just as the first round of YHDP-funded projects was being launched, and the second wave of the survey was administered between May and July 2021, at the end of the Round 1 demonstration. The survey was sent to the CoC lead agency director (or designee) in al CoCs national y (393 in 2019, 379 in 2021). The survey captured information about the systems components in place to serve youth populations (for example, outreach, coordinated entry, crisis housing, permanent housing), the level of coordination across different agencies (for example, child welfare, juvenile justice, education), and chal enges that communities face when addressing youth homelessness. The research team received response rates of 81 percent in Wave 1 and 79 percent in Wave 2. 4 Through the survey, the team was also able to compare responses among Round 1 YHDP sites, sites funded in Rounds 2 and 3 of YHDP, and non-YHDP CoCs nationally. 5

4 Wave 1 included 10 Round 1 YHDP CoCs, 27 Round 2 and 3 YHDP CoCs, and 280 non-YHDP CoCs. Wave 2 included 10 Round 1 YHDP CoCs, 29 Round 2 and 3 YHDP CoCs, and 260 non-YHDP CoCs.

5 CoCs selected for Rounds 4 and 5 of the demonstration may have participated in the CoC survey. They are coded as non-YHDP CoCs because both waves of the survey were administered before receipt of their YHDP awards.

6

Analytic Approach

Several types of analyses were conducted. First, qualitative data from interviews, focus groups, and document reviews for each of the three waves of data col ection were initial y coded and organized according to a broad set of a priori codes based on key topics in the data col ection and abstraction protocols. Within those codes, key themes were extracted for each wave of data collection for each site by the site visitors. For the final analyses, the key themes were examined over time for each site by a team of analysts working together, and then those trends and changes were examined for sites within each stage of baseline systems development (high, medium, early). The researchers looked for changes in system governance, YAB and other youth involvement, coordination with other systems, implementation of services and housing, and the overal context. Quantitative data from the Housing Inventory Charts were used to provide more specific detail for each CoC on the available number of units of shelter, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing, and other permanent housing.

Finally, the research team used the set of qualitative data to examine challenges over time and other developments that facilitated growth in a coordinated response.

Second, analysis of the two waves of administrative data from the HMIS data provided by each community included bivariate analyses examining change over time in demographic characteristics (for example, age, gender, race); household composition; disabling conditions; income and benefits; type of assistance received (for example, shelter, transitional housing, rapid rehousing); length of stay in services; and exits to permanent housing. 6 The researchers then compared and contrasted findings from the qualitative data with the findings from the quantitative analyses and conducted additional analyses and reviews of both the qualitative and quantitative data to better understand any areas of discrepancy within sites (for example, when qualitative data indicated that a service was not in place but data were provided on the number of youth receiving the service).

Third, PIT Count data were analyzed across the demonstration sites and compared with those at the peer sites to examine changes in the number of youths experiencing homelessness between 2017 and 2020.

The researchers examined the findings from those three sets of analyses to identify patterns in systems development (for example, how they developed their coordinated community response, the nature of cross-sector collaboration, and the YHDP projects they were implementing). The team examined how those changes related to other factors, such as overall context, community size, and urban versus rural status and how they related to changes in the size of the youth population experiencing homelessness (PIT Counts), the size and characteristics of the population receiving services, and exits to permanent housing.

6 For the two sites that provided aggregate data, the research team provided a list of data elements and an analysis plan to the sites’ HMIS administrators. They completed the data extraction and conducted analyses comparing changes over time in characteristics, services received, average length of stay in programs, and rates of exit to permanent housing of the youth population served.

7

The same sets of analyses were conducted for the 10 YHDP sites and the three peer sites. The results were then compared, first, within the baseline level of systems development and then across all sites.

Finally, using the web survey, the researcher team compared responses from the 10 YHDP sites, sites in YHDP Rounds 2 and 3, and al non-YHDP CoCs nationally at Wave one in 2019 and Wave 2 in 2021. Descriptive analyses of the web survey included the extent to which each CoC had youth-specific prevention, outreach, coordinated assessment and entry, and availability of housing, services, and supports for youth experiencing homelessness and the ways in which CoCs col aborated with other systems to serve youth.

Previous Evaluation Reports

The research team has completed three previous evaluation reports aimed at addressing one or more of the evaluation questions. The reports are available here:

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/Youth-Homelessness-Demonstration-Program.html.

Early Implementation Report

Completed in June 2020, the early implementation report assesses the baseline status of the 10

YHDP communities compared with the three peer sites and al other non-YHDP CoCs nationally.

The report describes how the YHDP CoCs were using YHDP resources to develop and implement coordinated community responses. In addition, through the analysis of HMIS data, the report describes the number and composition of youth experiencing homelessness across all sites, the services they received, and their housing outcomes before implementation of the coordinated community plans.

Initial CoC Survey

Completed in July 2020, this report summarizes findings from the first wave of the survey of al CoCs national y to provide a baseline understanding of the mix of services and housing that were in place to serve youth ages 14–24 across the country. The report compares the availability of housing and services for youth in the 10 Round 1 CoCs to those available in the 3

peer CoCs and in all CoCs nationally.

Youth Perspectives Report

Completed in July 2021, this report provides a summary of the perspectives of youth from the 10 Round 1 YHDP and 3 peer CoCs, gathered through interviews with YAB members and more than 60 focus groups with youth at risk of or experiencing homelessness. The report examines youth’s experiences of homelessness, their roles in the governance and activities of their CoCs, and their perceptions of the service systems in their communities and how those systems have changed between baseline and more than 1 year later. This report also synthesizes information on youth’s views of the challenges that remain and recommendations for improvements.

8

Chapter II. Planning and Governance

Summary of Findings

• The Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program (YHDP) led to youth-specific governance, including greater involvement of youth in decisionmaking through Youth Action Boards (YABs).

• As the demonstration moved from planning to implementation, YHDP sites experienced governance chal enges resulting from COVID-19, stretched capacity, and difficulty maintaining the participation of youth and other community partners.

• At the end of the demonstration, YABs remained in place in most YHDP Continuums of Care (CoCs), although with decreased activity and fewer members.

• YAB members reported playing an active role in their communities and held positive views of their roles, yet members also cited a number of challenges that affected their ability to participate as much as they may have liked.

• The three peer sites and non-YHDP CoCs nationally generally lacked youth-specific governance and planning, compared with YHDP sites.

In this chapter, the researchers discuss the role of planning and governance and youth engagement in the CoCs over the course of the demonstration, using data from the site visits to the 10 Round 1 YHDP CoCs and three peer CoCs and the CoC survey administered to all CoCs nationally in 2019 and 2021. The team used those data to highlight changes over time in the Round 1 YHDP CoCs and to draw comparisons between Round 1 YHDP CoCs and the three peer sites and all other non-YHDP CoCs national y. Using CoC survey data, the team also compares changes over time in planning and governance in Rounds 2 and 3 of YHDP.

Planning and Governance

YHDP led to youth-specific governance. YHDP was the impetus for developing a CoC committee or workgroup specifical y focused on youth homelessness in al but two sites (Connecticut Balance of State [BOS] and NW Michigan, both of which had a prior working group focused on youth). As required by the YHDP Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), each CoC’s coordinated community plan outlined a governance structure responsible for guiding YHDP decisionmaking throughout the demonstration (see exhibit 2-1). In each site, the YHDP planning and implementation group was generally composed of representatives from local government, youth and non-youth homeless services providers, behavioral health providers, child welfare agencies, school districts, and youth with lived experience. The groups also included representatives from advocacy groups, philanthropic groups, juvenile justice, and law enforcement in communities in which they are present and engaged in youth homelessness.

9

In addition, each YHDP-funded CoC designated an organization to serve as the lead agency of the demonstration, which was responsible for leading the effort and providing support to the Planning and Implementation Group, YAB, and other groups as needed. The CoCs designated a variety of organizations to lead the effort to plan and implement the coordinated community responses. In six sites, the YHDP lead was the CoC lead agency. In three other sites (Anchorage, Cincinnati/Hamilton County, and Santa Cruz), an existing provider of youth homeless services was selected as the YHDP lead agency because it was a leader in serving youth experiencing homelessness within its community. In the remaining site, Kentucky BOS, the CoC originally designated The Partners for Education at Berea College as the YHDP lead. The Partners for Education at Berea College is a nonprofit organization near the demonstration region, with a history of engaging in anti-poverty and educational initiatives in the region.

Exhibit 2-1. Overview of YHDP Governance Structure

YAB = Youth Action Board.

YHDP leadership remained relatively consistent over the course of the demonstration. Sites that designated the CoC lead agency as the YHDP lead remained in that position at all but Seattle/King County. At that site, the CoC lead agency, All Home, situated within the county’s Department of Community and Human Services (DCHS), was dissolved while a regional homelessness authority was being developed, and the work in the interim moved within DCHS

more directly.

Among the four sites led by a provider or other nongovernmental organization, only one transitioned YHDP leadership to the CoC in the early stages of the demonstration. In that site, Kentucky BOS, the parties came to realize that the planning work was not a good fit for the academic-affiliated organization that was originally selected to lead the effort.

10

In the other three sites with service providers designated as the lead agency, each transitioned leadership to the CoC toward the end of the demonstration. In al three sites, stakeholders reported that as the YHDP-funded programs transitioned to CoC-funded programs, the CoC

lead agencies, which administered the contracts, were in a better position to monitor their ongoing implementation.

Among the CoC-led YHDP sites, governance structures often changed, even while retaining

the same overal leadership. CoCs often changed their governance structures, either to consolidate or to delineate roles and responsibilities more clearly. In two sites, for example, efforts were made to consolidate youth-focused governance with the governance of al homeless populations—with varied success. In NW Michigan, in response to turnover in its YHDP staff, the CoC transitioned the YHDP governance from a subcommittee of the CoC to the CoC agency overall. In Connecticut, a similar reorganization was attempted, consolidating roles and responsibilities by reorganizing from multiple committees organized around specific populations (with one focused on youth) to committees focused on topics (for example, homelessness prevention for all populations), resulting in the dissolving of the youth committee. With general agreement that this dissolution contributed to a loss of momentum around youth-specific issues, the CoC reconstituted the youth committee after about 1 year of not meeting. In a third site, Austin/Travis County, the CoC restructured its decisionmaking body during the demonstration period from a large group of community members to a smaller Leadership Council in an effort to delineate the roles and responsibilities more clearly within the CoC. At the end of the demonstration, a YHDP Task Force, responsible for the planning and implementation of the demonstration, reported to the new Leadership Council.

As the demonstration moved from planning to implementation, YHDP sites experienced a new

set of governance chal enges, including COVID-19, stretched capacity, and difficulty

maintaining the participation of youth and other community partners. In the Early Implementation Report, the researchers discussed several chal enges the governance groups experienced in planning and implementing YHDP, including fully embracing a community focus in the process and engaging providers when YHDP was led by the CoC lead agency, and several logistical challenges, such as delays in HUD funding, guidance, and procedures.

As the demonstration progressed, many of those chal enges were resolved, often with the help of HUD-funded technical assistance providers. Several challenges remained and new ones emerged that challenged the sites’ YHDP governance, with COVID-19, staff turnover, and maintaining the active engagement of others surfacing as the most critical concerns.

11

COVID-19 emerged in the middle of the demonstration and, not surprisingly, posed a significant chal enge to the sites. Challenges were created by moving from in-person to remote meetings and by staff having to response to other needs due to the pandemic. In San Francisco, for example, CoC leadership was largely focused on managing the COVID-19 crisis and collaboration. The lead CoC agency—the city’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH)—continued to have bimonthly meetings with providers, the child welfare system, and other partners; however, several YHDP team members were reassigned to manage the city’s COVID-19 shelter-in-place hotels.

In addition to the capacity chal enges created by COVID-19, staff turnover and reorganization changes stretched the capacity of CoCs during the implementation of the demonstration. As noted earlier, staff capacity loss at All Home, the lead YHDP agency in Seattle/King County, in part due to the creation of a regional authority, also led to the inactivity of the Joint Committee, its governance body. Similarly, turnover in lead YHDP staff in NW Michigan made maintaining the same level of activity difficult for a period of time, with meetings occurring less frequently until a new lead was designated.

COVID-19, along with other factors as described below, made maintaining a high level of youth participation in YHDP decisionmaking difficult. Participation and communication with providers also dropped in some sites. Representation and involvement from juvenile justice, child welfare, and mainstream employment services also was a struggle for some YHDP sites.

Although representatives from those systems were available to work on specific cases, they had less capacity to be involved in the CoC governance on an ongoing basis.

Peer sites did not have formal youth-specific governance bodies. Each of the sites, however, had some mechanism for informing its efforts to address youth homelessness. In Memphis, for example, the Family and Youth committee of the CoC determined ways to better reach youth, connect youth with services, and address barriers that youth commonly experience. Similarly, in Colorado BOS, the Rural Collaborative for Runaway and Homeless Youth, a nonprofit organization, partnered with the CoC to focus on issues specific to youth. In the third peer site, Sonoma County, the CoC was informed on youth homelessness by a set of youth services providers.

12

Exhibit 2-2. Percentage of CoCs with Youth-Specific Governance: Comparison of YHDP Rounds

1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs

100

90

80

70

60

50

f CoCs 40

% o 30

20

10

0

YHDP R1 Wave 1

YHDP R1 Wave 2

YHDP R2—3 Wave 1

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2 Non-YHDP Wave 1

Non-YHDP Wave 2

CoC= Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation

Non-YHDP CoCs general y lacked youth-specific governance and planning. As exhibit 2-2

shows, non-YHDP CoCs nationally were less likely to have youth-focused governance structures than YHDP CoCs at both periods: 26 percent versus 100 percent in 2019, and 28 percent versus 90 percent in 2021. The majority of Round 1 YHDP sites had a youth-focused governance structure in place at both periods (in part because the first survey wave was administered after their YHDP planning phase), whereas Round 2 and Round 3 CoCs were more likely to add this structure between the two periods (from 59 percent in 2019 to 79 percent in 2021) (see exhibit 2-2).

Exhibit 2-3. Percentage of CoCs with Youth-Specific Strategic Plans: Comparison of YHDP

Rounds 1-3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs

100

80

60

f CoCs 40

% o

20

0

YHDP R1 Wave 1

YHDP R1 Wave 2

YHDP R2—3 Wave 1

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2 Non-YHDP Wave 1

Non-YHDP Wave 2

CoC= Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation 13

Similarly, as exhibit 2-3 shows, less than one-half of the non-YHDP CoCs nationally (47 percent in 2019) had youth-focused (or encompassing-youth) strategic plans in place at the first wave, with a small increase over time (55 percent in 2021). In contrast, by 2021, the vast majority of Round 1 CoCs and Round 2 and 3 CoCs had plans in place at both periods.

Youth Engagement

YABs remained in place in most of the YHDP Round 1 sites, although activity decreased in

most sites due to COVID-19 and other chal enges. During the YHDP planning stage, al 10 YHDP

sites developed YABs composed of youth with lived experience, with membership ranging from 3 to more than 20 members. Most of the YABs were developed in response to the YHDP, although seven sites had histories of engaging youth in advisory boards, advocacy efforts, and decisionmaking. The role of the YABs in their CoCs was clearly specified at the beginning of the demonstration program, when the coordinated community plans were being developed and YHDP-funded projects were being designed and implemented.

As sites moved into an ongoing implementation and monitoring stage of the demonstration, maintaining an active YAB was challenged by having less well-defined work and frequent turnover as members aged out or transitioned to other activities in their lives. As exhibit 2-4

shows, by the third site visit, four sites had active YABs, although they al experienced some diminished activity. A fifth site was active but had a single member seeking input from other youth in the community. Three sites no longer had YABs (although one was being re-formed), and two had YABs in place that were not meeting during the pandemic.

YABs that dissolved, especial y those in rural areas, experienced recruitment and support

chal enges. The three YABs that dissolved (including the one being re-formed in Cincinnati/Hamilton County) did so due to difficulties in recruiting and sustaining members.

Two large, multicounty rural sites, Kentucky BOS and Ohio BOS, struggled with establishing and maintaining YABs, in part due to relatively small numbers of youth experiencing homelessness over large geographic areas and chal enges with limited public transportation and the lack of reliable internet. Both sites were working to obtain youth input on homelessness assistance either through preexisting youth boards for local behavioral health drop-in centers or through ad hoc meetings with youth participating in YHDP-funded projects. In Cincinnati/Hamilton County, the YAB dissolved fol owing staff turnover at the YHDP lead agency, Lighthouse, coupled with chal enges presented by the pandemic. By the time of the third site visit, new staff had been hired and charged with reconstituting the group.

Two other YABs were also inactive during the pandemic. The YAB in Santa Cruz experienced a hiatus during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic but, by the third site visit, was able to regroup and regain some involvement in the work, although less than it had initial y. In San Francisco, the YAB had an open membership that met monthly before COVID-19. At the time of the third visit, it had not yet reconvened; however, the CoC continued to receive youth input from members of youth in leadership roles in other committees in the community.

14

Exhibit 2-4. Status of Youth Action Boards at Baseline and End of the Demonstration, By Site

Status/Site

Baseline

End of Demonstration

(early 2019)

(mid-2021)

High Development

Austin/Travis

8 members

3 members

County

Met monthly

Met monthly

Cincinnati/

Open membership (10–20 regular

YAB dissolved during COVID-19

Hamilton County

attendees)

Met monthly

but was being re-formed

Seattle/King County

6 members

6 members

Met monthly

Met monthly

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

8 members

3 members

Met monthly

Met weekly

Ohio BOSR

6–8 members

Met monthly

YAB dissolved

Open membership

San Francisco

(15–20 regular attendees)

Open membership

Met monthly

Not meeting during COVID-19

Early Development

Open membership

Open membership

AnchorageR

(~20 regular attendees)

(10–12 regular attendees)

Met quarterly

Met monthly

Kentucky BOSR

3–5 members

Met a few times

YAB dissolved

NW MichiganR

5 members

1 member

Met biweekly

Ad hoc meetings with other youth

Santa Cruz

6 members

5 members

Met weekly

Not meeting during COVID-19

Peer Sites

Sonoma County

(High)

No YAB

No YAB

Memphis

3 members

Dissolved during COVID-19 but re-

(Medium)

Met monthly

formed with 13 members

Met monthly

Colorado BOSR

(Early)

No YAB

In process of developing a Youth Voice

Board with 2 VISTA volunteers

R Rural site.

BOS = Balance of State. COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. VISTA = Volunteers in Service to America. YAB =

Youth Action Board.

Source: YHDP Evaluation site visit data

Active YABs had fewer members over time yet continued their activities on a routine basis,

although they experienced ongoing chal enges. The five YABs that continued in operation throughout the demonstration shrunk in size, ranging from 1 to about 10 members at the end 15

of the demonstration but typical y having fewer than 6 members. Many continued to meet regularly (typically monthly) and engaged in a number of activities supporting the CoCs’ efforts to address youth homelessness. The Anchorage YAB was one of the more active of the YABs, with 10 members meeting biweekly and working on three subcommittees (for example, communication, research, outreach). Members of the Anchorage YAB and the broader CoC

reported the value that the YAB brought and the trust and respect that it received from the broader community. Connecticut BOS’s YAB, although considerably smal er than it was originally, with only 3 members, also continued to play an integral role in the CoC from all perspectives, such as working on CoC committees, performing the Youth Count, holding a youth summit, conducting research, and providing technical assistance to the regional coordinated entry hubs and individual providers. In NW Michigan, the YAB was reduced to one member, who held a leadership position in the CoC and sought to engage youth served in the system and incorporate their perspectives in the work of the CoC.

The other two YABs still in place at the end of demonstration (Austin/Travis County and Seattle/King County) were both from sites that were highly developed at baseline. The YABs at those sites were involved in a range of activities, similar to those noted above for Connecticut BOS. In Seattle/King County, a YAB member was also appointed to serve on the newly created regional authority. Despite those YABs stil being in place, however, they continued to experience difficulties remaining intact because of the need for frequent member recruitment and training, turnover in staff providing support, and lack of preparation or training.

The three peer sites have had intermittent youth involvement in their CoCs. In Sonoma County and Memphis, YABs were formed to participate in the development of the YHDP application.

Youth involvement did not continue formal y in Sonoma County (although the CoC planned to include a youth representative). The YAB in Memphis dissolved temporarily during the pandemic and was reconstituted with 13 members meeting monthly at the end of the demonstration period. Colorado BOS sought youth input for the YHDP application from existing youth boards from other systems, including child welfare and juvenile justice; and in the summer of 2020, Youth MOVE CO, comprising VISTA volunteers, several of whom have lived experience, became the statewide BOS Youth Voice Board, with a future plan to have two of those members serve on the BOS CoC governance board.

Despite chal enges in maintaining active YABs, YHDP sites reported greater youth

involvement than non-YHDP CoCs nationally. As exhibit 2-5 shows, along with the Round 1

YHDP sites, the vast majority of Round 2 and Round 3 YHDP sites (86 percent) reported on the 2021 web survey having a YAB in place, up from 76 percent in 2019. In addition, 66 percent of Rounds 2 and 3 sites in 2021 reported youth participation in CoC decisionmaking, and 15

percent reported that youth were involved in other ways—such as serving on specific CoC

workgroups or participating in youth counts—compared with 15 and 22 percent, respectively, in 2019. A small percentage of non-YHDP CoCs nationally reported having youth involvement in 2019, with a small increase in 2021. In 2021, 24 percent of CoCs nationally reported having a YAB, up from 19 percent in 2019; 20 percent reported youth participating in CoC

16

decisionmaking compared with 12 percent in 2019, and 12 percent reported other types of youth involvement, up from 8 percent in 2019.

Exhibit 2-5. Percentage of CoCs Engaging Youth in CoC Activities

100

90

80

↑

70

60

50

f CoCs 40

% o 30

↑

20

100

YAB

Youth Participate in CoC Decision-

Other Youth Involvement

Making

YHDP R1 Wave 1

YHDP R1 Wave 2

YHDP R2—3 Wave 1

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2 Non-YHDP Wave 1

Non-YHDP Wave 2

CoC = Continuum of Care. YAB = Youth Action Board. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓).

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation Perspectives of YAB Members

Interviews and focus groups were conducted with YAB members throughout the demonstration. A separate report on youth perspectives provides detail on the input provided by YAB members from the first two rounds of data collection. 7 Several highlights from all three rounds of YAB member data collection are listed below.

YAB members reported playing an active role in their communities, which evolved over the

course of the demonstration. YAB members reported playing an active role in providing input into the design and implementation of YHDP. In most sites, they also engaged in a range of other activities within their CoCs, such as participating in Youth Counts; soliciting input from other youth in the system; participating in presentations at community events and panels; organizing and hosting community events for youth; col ecting input from non-YAB-involved youth; developing social media; and participating in outreach activities. During the COVID-19

pandemic, members of YABs that remained active reported helping identify new chal enges the pandemic posed to youth experiencing homelessness in their communities and helping to strategize solutions to meet those needs.

Most YAB members largely held positive views of their roles on the YAB. They reported appreciating that they could contribute to improving services and supports for other youth who 7 See the previous reports at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/Youth-Homelessness-Demonstration-Program.html.

17

were struggling. For example, they appreciated getting to advocate for policies or reforms they believed in, such as encouraging systems to allow youth to have choice in their case managers.

YAB members also reported learning from their experience on the YAB, including learning about how government and service systems work and developing research and presentation skills that would benefit them in future jobs. They noted benefiting from the comradery on the YAB and close ties with others in the CoC.

At some sites, however, YAB members questioned whether

“Knowing that my input is

their contributions were valued. Among most of the YABs helpful, and knowing that

that remained active across the demonstration period,

they’re listening and they’re

members reported feeling as though their contributions were

taking what I say into account…

valued by members of the CoC and the community at large;

It’s amazing. I feel like I’m a part

yet, in some sites, YAB members spoke of initial or enduring

of something bigger than

resistance to having youth at the table. They reported feeling

myself.”

as though decisions had already been made before their input

was sought, that their feedback was not heard, and that their contributions were dismissed. In a few sites, YAB members described youth as tokenized.

YAB members also cited myriad challenges that affected their ability to participate as much

as they may have liked. In some sites, YAB members indicated that they were not provided with sufficient training about system functioning to al ow them to fully participate in decisionmaking. They reported wanting more training so that they could make better-informed contributions. They also noted logistical constraints that affected their ability to participate and attend meetings, including meeting times that occurred when they were in school or working, and limited or no transportation and childcare assistance. Finally, youth also noted that low levels of funding restricted the number of youth who could be involved, the number of hours that youth could engage in CoC activities, or both.

18

Chapter III. Findings: Cross-System Coordination

Summary of Findings

• The Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program (YHDP) Continuums of Care (CoCs) increased their coordination with the child welfare, education, behavioral health, and juvenile justice systems in a number of ways—more so than the three peer sites and other non-YHDP CoCs nationally.

• Increased coordination led to increased referrals of youth served in other systems to coordinated entry and to housing.

• Cross-system coordination was chal enged by staff turnover; differences between systems in eligibility, definitions, and priorities; the spread of systems across many agencies in large geographical areas; and the COVID-19 pandemic.

In this chapter, the researcher team highlights data from the CoC survey on the extent to which YHDP sites have coordinated over time with other systems that serve youth at risk of and experiencing homelessness, comparing the extent and nature of cross-system coordination with non-YHDP CoCs across the country.

The researchers then provide a more detailed summary from site visit data on the Round 1

YHDP sites and three peer sites to understand the roles other systems played in governance, planning, funding, and data integration. The roles those systems played in providing services—

such as coordinated entry, outreach, navigation, and diversion—and housing are also carefully analyzed. The chapter ends with a discussion of chal enges experienced in cross-system coordination and strategies CoCs used to address those challenges.

Overal Level of Coordination with Other Systems

The YHDP sites coordinated most frequently at baseline and experienced the most increase with four mainstream systems: child welfare, education, behavioral health, and juvenile justice (see exhibit 3-1). Fewer sites coordinated with health care, law enforcement and court systems, benefits, and other systems, and the level of coordination among YHDP CoCs was comparable to the level experienced by non-YHDP CoCs nationally. Sections below, therefore, concentrate on those four systems and their involvement with the Round 1 YHDP sites. 8

8 Due to the volume of data presented here, data on the Round 2 and 3 YHDP CoCs are not presented in this chapter, but are available in appendix B.

19

Exhibit 3-1. Cross-System Coordination with Child Welfare, Education, Behavioral Health, and

Juvenile Justice

100

90

80

70

60

50

f CoCs

% o 40

30

20

10

0

Child Welfare

Education

Behavioral Health

Juvenile Justice

Wave 1 YHDP

Wave 2 YHDP

Wave 1 Non-YHDP

Wave 2 Non-YHDP

CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation Coordination with the Child Welfare System

At baseline, the child welfare system coordinated with more of the YHDP sites than did other

systems. Child welfare representatives participated on the CoC boards of 70 percent of YHDP

sites and in 50 percent of the sites in YHDP governance and planning (see exhibit 3-2). In 40

percent of the YHDP sites, child welfare systems provided housing for youth experiencing homelessness, typically through the Family Unification Program (FUP). For all other activities, child welfare systems were involved in 20 percent or less of the YHDP sites. 9 As shown in appendix B, coordination between child welfare and Rounds 2 and 3 CoCs was also high and showed a similar pattern of activity.

9 Other types of coordination varied by sector but typical y included case conferencing for individual youth and participation in events such as the Youth Count and 100-Day Chal enges.

20

Exhibit 3-2. Cross-Systems Coordination with Child Welfare

100

90

80

70

↑

60

50

f CoCs 40

% o 30

20

↑

10

0

Wave 1 YHDP (N=10)

Wave 2 YHDP (N=10)

Wave 1 Non-YHDP (N=280)

Wave 2 Non-YHDP (N=260)

CE = coordinated entry. CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓).

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation

Over time, coordination with the child welfare system increased across the YHDP sites in most

activities and was particularly robust in the areas of housing and planning. All 10 Round 1

YHDP CoCs, in fact, indicated coordinating on one or more activities with the child welfare system at the second wave.

YHDP sites reported housing as the most common area of joint activity between the youth homeless and child welfare systems. Between 2019 and 2021, the number of CoCs involved in housing with child welfare agencies more than doubled, from four to nine. Housing efforts coordinated with the child welfare system typical y involved the use of FUP or Foster Youth to Independence (FYI) vouchers to serve eligible youth who were experiencing homelessness. In one site, Connecticut Balance of State (BOS), the Department of Children and Families funded a state-level position specifical y focused on housing issues for child welfare-involved youth.

Other key areas of growth over time for YHDP sites with child welfare systems included participating in CoC planning, coordinating funding, engaging in prevention and diversion, 10 and making efforts to house youth. As appendix B indicates, Rounds 2 and 3 YHDP sites also showed high levels of coordination with the child welfare system, frequently participating in planning, sharing data, engaging in prevention and diversion, and housing but with less growth over time.

Non-YHDP sites national y show far less involvement of the child welfare system in the youth

homelessness systems than YHDP sites; however, the three peer sites al reported strong

10 Prevention services are defined as supportive services or rental assistance to prevent homelessness for at-risk youth and young adults. Diversion is a form of prevention that involves a focus on problem solving and often provides short- to medium-term financial assistance and supportive services to divert youth and young adults from entering shelter.

21

relationships with child welfare. Child welfare representatives were involved with less than one-half of the sites in each of the activities, with little discernable change over time (with the exception of other activities, such as participating in case conferencing, the Youth Count, and 100 Day chal enges). The most common areas of involvement for non-YHDP CoCs nationally included YHDP planning and participating on the CoC Board.

Although non-YHDP CoCs as a whole coordinated less than the YHDP sites with child welfare, all three peer sites reported having strong relationships with child welfare, including participating in planning around applications for later rounds of YHDP funding. For example, in Sonoma County, the CoC col aborated with child welfare through the Sonoma County Coalition for Foster Youth, which included routinely meeting to coordinate services and housing for youth exiting child welfare and sharing data.

Coordination with the Education System

At baseline, similar to the child welfare system, representatives from the education system

were most commonly involved with the Round 1 YHDP sites on the CoC boards and planning.

In one-half the sites, education systems representatives participated on the CoC boards and were involved in planning (see exhibit 3-3). In 40 percent of the Round 1 YHDP sites, education systems participated in outreach efforts, especially to minors that they served who were at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and were involved in the coordinated entry systems in 30

percent of the sites. On all other activities, education systems representatives were involved in 20 percent or less of the sites. Among Round 2 and Round 3 CoCs, baseline rates of coordinating with education systems were higher (see appendix B).

Exhibit 3-3. Cross-Systems Coordination with Education

100

90

↑

80

70

60

↑

50

f CoCs 40

↑

% o 30

20

↑

↑

10

0

Wave 1 YHDP (N=10)

Wave 2 YHDP (N=10)

Wave 1 Non-YHDP (N=280)

Wave 2 Non-YHDP (N=260)

CE = coordinated entry. CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓).

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation 22

Over time, coordination with the education system increased across the sites, with

educational systems involved in outreach, prevention, and planning in the majority of sites.

Nine of the YHDP CoCs had education representatives involved in outreach activities, and eight had education representatives involved in prevention. Two CoCs, NW Michigan and Seattle/King County, had YHDP-funded programs in schools to help identify youth in need of assistance.

Over time, education representatives also were involved in planning in eight of the Round 1

sites and in governance or serving on the CoC board, providing funding for services, and engaging in coordinated entry in at least one-half of the sites. Only 10 percent of the sites’

education partners were involved in housing, as education systems infrequently support or engage in housing initiatives. As shown in appendix B, YHDP CoCs in Rounds 2 and 3 of the demonstration reflected a pattern similar to the Round 1 CoCs, although a greater percentage of Round 1 CoCs’ education systems were involved in prevention and outreach activities.

Educational systems engaged with at least one-half of the non-YHDP CoCs and the three peer

sites on several activities, although those findings show little change over time and less

involvement than with YHDP sites. Educational systems are more involved than other mainstream systems national y with homeless systems, particularly in representation on the CoC boards, involvement in planning, data sharing, and outreach. More sites experienced their involvement over time in coordinated entry, housing, and other activities but still at less than one-half of the sites. On most areas of activity, YHDP sites showed more involvement of education systems over the course of the demonstration.

The three peer sites also had some limited coordination with the education system, primarily through McKinney Vento liaisons. 11 In Sonoma County, liaisons participated in planning and governance and outreach activities to youth at risk of or experiencing homelessness. In Colorado BOS, the Department of Education participated in governance and planning at a state level but did not engage in activities specifically within the BOS CoC, in part because limited services were available to refer youth. Similarly, in Memphis, the McKinney Vento liaison sat on the CoC’s governing council; however, little other collaboration occurred between the CoC and the school system.

Coordination with the Behavioral Health System

Coordination with behavioral health systems was a particular area of growth among YHDP

sites (see exhibit 3-4). Over the course of the demonstration, the behavioral health needs of youth at risk of or experiencing homelessness were increasingly becoming recognized as critical to address. Behavioral health systems, generally through the efforts of specific providers, became increasingly engaged with the Round 1 YHDP CoCs across a variety of activities.

11 The McKinney-Vento Act guarantees educational rights and supports for students experiencing homelessness so they can succeed in school. To accomplish that goal, every local school district is required to appoint a homeless education liaison (also referred to as a McKinney Vento liaison).

23

Although typical y fewer than one-half of the Round 1 YHDP sites in 2019 reported engaging with behavioral health providers on each activity, 50 percent or more were involved in each type of activity by 2021. The majority of CoCs had one or more behavioral health representatives on their boards, and behavioral health providers made referrals to coordinated entry and conducted outreach efforts to identify youth who were at risk of homelessness.

Coordination with behavioral health systems in 2021 was not quite as strong among Round 2

and 3 YHDP CoCs. For those CoCs, more than one-half had behavioral health system involvement in serving on the CoC, engaging in planning, and sharing data, but less than one-half reported other types of coordination (see appendix B).

Exhibit 3-4. Cross-Systems Coordination with Behavioral Health Systems

100

90

↑

↑

80

70

↑

↑

60

50

f CoCs 40

% o 30

20

↑

10

0

Wave 1 YHDP (N=10)

Wave 2 YHDP (N=10)

Wave 1 Non-YHDP (N=280)

Wave 2 Non-YHDP (N=260)

CE = coordinated entry. CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓).

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation

Non-YHDP CoCs and the three peer sites collaborated with behavioral health systems at rates

similar to YHDP CoCs; however, they engaged in fewer types of collaboration. With respect to behavioral health systems nationally, nearly 60 percent of the non-YHDP CoCs reported representation of the behavioral health system on their CoC boards, but all other measured areas of activity revealed less than one-half of the non-YHDP CoCs coordinating with the behavioral health systems and increased participation over time only in coordinated entry.

Among the three peer CoCs, Sonoma County and Memphis coordinated with behavioral health systems at baseline, primarily through system planning, outreach activities, and case conferencing; the third, Colorado BOS, strengthened its relationship with behavioral health systems during the demonstration period by integrating Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)-funded housing into the nascent coordinated entry system.

24

Coordination with the Juvenile Justice System

At baseline, representatives from juvenile justice system were involved with few of the Round

1 sites. Among the four systems highlighted, juvenile justice systems coordinated with the fewest YHDP CoCs at baseline. The highest level of cross-systems activity was in YHDP

governance, with juvenile justice representatives participating in the governance in three sites (exhibit 3-5). Twenty percent of Round 1 sites’ involvement was serving on the CoC boards, but 10 percent or fewer were involved in other activities. As appendix B il ustrates, Round 2 and Round 3 CoCs experienced a similar pattern of coordination with the juvenile justice system, with the exception of higher involvement in planning.

Exhibit 3-5. Cross-Systems Coordination with Juvenile Justice

100

90

80

70

60

50

f CoCs 40

% o 30

20

↑

↑

↑

↑

10

0

Wave 1 YHDP (N=10)

Wave 2 YHDP (N=10)

Wave 1 Non-YHDP (N=280)

Wave 2 Non-YHDP (N=260)

CE = coordinated entry. CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓).

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation

Coordination with the juvenile justice system improved over time, especially in the areas of

planning, diversion, and prevention. Juvenile justice system representatives were involved in the planning and diversion efforts of 60 percent of the Round 1 sites and in prevention efforts at one-half of the sites. Their involvement also grew in most other areas but at fewer than half the sites. Rounds 2 and 3 sites show a similar pattern of change (see appendix B).

Among non-YHDP sites and peer sites, coordination with juvenile justice systems was

uncommon. The experience with juvenile justice systems was similarly low across the non-YHDP sites nationally and the peer sites. Nationally, less than 20 percent of the sites coordinated with the juvenile justice system on each type of coordination. Modest, but significant, growth over time was reported in their involvement in prevention, diversion, governance, and other activities. None of the three peer sites reported having much coordination with juvenile justice systems over this period except providers in Colorado BOS

25

and Sonoma County, who coordinated with probation staff in the juvenile justice system to meet the needs of exiting youth.

Patterns of Findings in Coordination Across the Four Systems

Encouragement and resources provided through YHDP helped facilitate, expand, and deepen

cross-system coordination. Stakeholders noted that one of the positive impacts of YHDP was encouraging people to get out of their silos and coordinate more with other agencies through planning, governance, and infrastructure activities; referrals; connecting youth to coordinated entry; and the operation of different services and housing programs. Coordination was especially more likely among systems where youth at risk or experiencing homelessness was an increasingly recognized subgroup, such as in the four systems highlighted in this chapter.

Coordination between systems did not always involve the lead agencies. Other forms of coordination involved either the CoC working with one or more providers from other systems; one or more homeless providers working with lead agencies from other systems; or providers from the homeless systems and other systems working together. That distinction is important because any coordination that does not involve the system-level agency—although it may provide improved access to services or housing for youth—is likely limited in bringing about broader change in policies, funding, and data.

In Ohio BOS, for example, coordination was much stronger at the provider level, in large part because a lead YHDP provider, Sojourners Care Network, provided both youth homelessness and child welfare services. Collaboration became more formalized over time as the organization established memorandums of understanding with child welfare agencies in four of the five demonstration counties to serve minors through coordinated entry and outreach. In Cincinnati/Hamilton County, coordination with child welfare also was largely through a homeless youth provider, Lighthouse Youth and Family Services, that received child welfare funding and participated in the Community Change Collaborative (C3), an initiative focusing on collaborative change, collective impact, and participatory research aimed at working with and within the community to make Cincinnati a better place to live, work, learn, and play.

In some CoCs, coordination was limited to specific geographic areas. With education, for example, some coordination involved only selected school districts. With other systems, such as child welfare and juvenile justice, coordination may involve only one or two counties in a multicounty CoC, typical y when the system relationships were decentralized and had to be negotiated county by county. Continuing to draw on Ohio BOS as an example, the amount of collaboration that existed between the CoC and child welfare varied considerably from county to county.

The strength, stability, and growth of system relationships was not related to the level of

development of the CoCs’ service systems at baseline. CoCs that were in early development in their youth homeless systems at baseline, such as Anchorage and NW Michigan, were equally likely as medium and highly developed sites to have strong and growing relationships with 26

other systems. Strength of coordination may be dependent on other factors, such as the size of the community, the number of social service providers, and the CoC jurisdiction. Stakeholders in both Anchorage and NW Michigan credited the smal size of their communities as being key to strong relationships with partners from other systems. In Austin/Travis County, stakeholders indicated that having one main youth provider helped coordinate services for youth across systems. Finally, Connecticut BOS credited its cross-sector coordination to having representatives from state-level agencies at the table.

The Nature of Coordination in Systems Governance, Planning,

Funding, and Data

In addition to understanding the level of coordination, these case studies provided an opportunity to examine the nature of the roles of other systems. In this section, the research team focuses on the roles other systems played in CoC governance, planning, funding, data integration, and the provision of services and housing. Because the roles played were similar across systems, the researchers provide a summary synthesized across the four major mainstream systems.

Systems Governance and Planning

For many communities, YHDP provided the first impetus for engaging other systems and

providers in youth homelessness. The planning year of the demonstration provided a structured focus on youth homelessness that most communities had not had before receipt of the award. The systems focus extended beyond opportunities for other systems to engage in planning to a more active role in the governance of YHDP projects and in the CoC more broadly.

In San Francisco, where YHDP resources account for a small proportion of funding available to address youth homelessness, stakeholders credited the demonstration with inspiring cross-system, CoC-wide planning that had not previously occurred.

Funding

Few other systems in the YHDP Round 1 CoCs provided funding for youth homelessness over

the course of the demonstration, and the funding that was provided was rarely braided or

blended with other funding. The Anchorage site is an exception; the Office of Children’s Services added funding to the YHDP-funded Permanency Navigator program to hire an additional staff person to focus on serving minors experiencing homelessness. The most common funding approach involved another system providing funding for services within one or more local homeless youth providers, such as the Austin/Travis County Mental Health Department, which provided funding for behavioral health services for youth at Lifeworks, the primary homeless youth service provider. Other approaches, as in Cincinnati/Hamilton County, included providing funding for a subgroup of individuals at risk of or experiencing homelessness, such as a child welfare agency that provided funding for youth in foster care who are entering permanent housing. Coordinating funding with systems other than child welfare, behavioral health, and education was uncommon, with three sites coordinating 27

funding with employment systems and only one or two sites each coordinating with healthcare, law enforcement, court, benefits, and other systems.

Data

None of the YHDP CoCs linked their data on youth experiencing homelessness with any of the

other systems on a routine basis. Data sharing more typically centered on individual cases or on a one-time basis to explore the overlap between the youth homeless population and the service population from another system (for example, with juvenile justice in Cincinnati/Hamilton County) or to examine a specific question (for example, the extent to which homeless youth experience school absenteeism in Connecticut BOS). To guide planning efforts, in Seattle/King County, multiple state agencies provided relevant data to the CoC to conduct systems mapping efforts to help identify when youth are most likely to fal into homelessness. Although not an example of the integration of databases, Connecticut’s Department of Juvenile Justice offers an example of another form of data integration. The department integrated housing questions into its MIS to understand the housing needs of the population it serves. Finally, only two YHDP CoCs indicated any type of data sharing with any of the other systems (healthcare, employment, law enforcement, courts, benefits, and other systems).

Services

The most common service-related activity across systems was referrals, with homelessness

case managers and navigators referring youth to services in other systems, such as behavioral health or education assistance, and other systems, such as education and juvenile justice, in turn referring youth to available homeless services and housing. In all 10 YHDP CoCs, other systems referred youth to coordinated entry and navigators, and in four sites, one or more providers served as a coordinated-entry access point. For example, in Kentucky BOS and Ohio BOS, behavioral health providers conducted coordinated entry assessments for youth and other populations. Two YHDP sites reported receiving coordinated entry referrals from healthcare systems, and one received referrals from law enforcement or court systems.

All three peer CoCs also indicated that other systems made referrals to the youth homelessness service system; in Colorado BOS, however, stakeholders noted that the lack of available housing and services for youth limited the number of referrals providers received.

Outreach was also a common area of activity in which other systems engaged. For child welfare and juvenile justice systems, in particular, outreach often involved systematically screening youth for housing needs as they were exiting the system and then referring those in need to the youth homelessness system. In the juvenile justice system in Connecticut BOS, homelessness screening questions were integrated into probation officers’ protocols to identify youth needing housing and services. Within education, McKinney Vento liaisons were often involved in outreach, identifying youth in need of assistance and connecting them with coordinated entry.

28

In the majority of YHDP CoCs and two of the three peer sites, behavioral health agencies also played a role in outreach, often participating in mobile outreach activities.

In six YHDP CoCs, navigators worked to identify youth in need of assistance and connect them

with an array of services and housing. Anchorage, for example, implemented a YHDP-funded Permanency Navigator project, through which navigators conducted outreach services, were assigned cases via coordinated entry, worked with youth to access services and housing, and continued providing services for at least 6 months fol owing entry into housing. Permanency Navigators received referrals from multiple systems. Initially planned for ages 18–24, the project expanded with additional funding from the Office of Children’s Services to include a navigator who specialized in minors and child welfare-involved youth. For minors, Permanency Navigators worked on family reunification options first.

Across sites, navigators offered an opportunity to build cross-systems relationships from the case level up. For example, through its YHDP-funded outreach project, NW Michigan created a cross-sector connector role. The Connector served as a liaison for youth exiting child welfare and juvenile justice to the youth homeless service system. If a provider from one of those systems had a client in need of services, the provider cal ed the Connector, who conducted

“informal coordinated entry” to quickly determine if the youth was eligible for assistance from the homelessness system.

Some systems increased access to their services by colocating them with housing or homeless

services. In Anchorage, for example, the main homeless service provider for youth, Covenant House Alaska, had an onsite classroom where youth could complete their high school degree and an onsite health clinic that provided health and behavioral health services. In Kentucky BOS

and Ohio BOS, employment services were colocated with crisis housing for youth.

Within education, McKinney Vento liaisons often served as important bridges to the homeless

service system and, at times were involved in working to create linkages even if the broader school systems did not play a role. In NW Michigan, for example, the liaisons were trained to reach out to youth that met YHDP eligibility criteria. In Connecticut BOS, the liaisons were encouraged to attend trainings and conferences held by the youth homeless system and to use a toolkit for school outreach that was developed by the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness. In some sites, such as Ohio BOS, the McKinney Vento liaisons met monthly with the YHDP and other staff in the youth homeless system.

Community col eges and universities also played key roles at several sites in coordinating with

the homeless service system. In both San Francisco and Santa Cruz, community colleges served as coordinated-entry access points for youth. In Santa Cruz, during the pandemic, Cabrillo Community College provided space on campus for trailers to provide crisis housing to homeless youth. The col ege also provided rental assistance and access to a food bank to students experiencing homelessness.

29

Housing

The most common coordinated housing efforts involved working with child welfare systems

on FUP and FYI vouchers. In several YHDP and peer CoCs, the youth homeless system coordinated with the child welfare agency to identify youth aging out of foster care who were homeless and eligible for the vouchers. At times, identification efforts included screening youth exiting other systems, such as juvenile justice, to determine if they met the eligibility criteria.

Few other cross-system housing efforts were evident; those that existed typically involved the system providing services to youth in permanent supportive housing or rapid rehousing, some of which they might also have operated. For example, the Department of Children and Families in Connecticut operated a rapid rehousing program that was initially available only to youth exiting child welfare but expanded to include al youth experiencing homelessness.

Chal enges to Cross-System Coordination

Limitations in the bandwidth of a system or competition with other priorities: Across the sites and systems, different challenges strained systems’ ability to work together. Staff turnover, in particular—especially in child welfare agencies—stretched a system’s capacity. At times, turnover in the CoCs and in other systems necessitated frequent efforts by the CoCs to connect with and train staff and orient them to the types of resources available to help youth. At one site, in response to high turnover in the child welfare agency, the CoC changed its model for coordinating from a single point of contact to working with multiple key staff who could serve as a broader network for contact and coordination. Other challenges that limited the time available for other systems to participate in cross-system efforts included reorganization efforts and unexpected chal enges, such as lawsuits.

Differences in eligibility, definitions, and priorities: Differences in how homelessness was defined also challenged cross-system coordination. Education systems, for example, use the broader McKinney Vento homeless definition, whereas CoCs fol ow HUD’s more focused definition. 12 In both juvenile justice and child welfare systems, youth younger than age 18 were often referred but difficult to house in settings other than host homes, which were not always easy to locate. For some systems, such as juvenile justice, in which most of the youth served were younger than 18 years of age, few homeless services and housing options were available to meet their needs. Thus, across the sites, representatives from those systems often expressed frustration that more of the youth they identified as needing housing assistance were not eligible for many YHDP-funded programs.

Decentralized systems and many counties: Especially in CoCs that involve large geographic areas and multiple counties, coordination was chal enged by the number of entities with which the CoC had to work. For example, in an effort to coordinate with the child welfare system in 12 Most CoCs restricted YHDP-funded housing assistance to youth meeting HUD’s homelessness criteria for Categories 1 (literal y homeless) and 4 (fleeing domestic violence) and sometimes 2 (precariously housed). The U.S. Department of Education further expands HUD’s definition of homelessness to include al school-age children who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.

30

the Ohio BOS, the YDHP had to develop a separate Memorandum of Understanding with the child welfare agency in each of the five counties in the CoC.

COVID-19 delayed and challenged efforts: The onset of COVID-19 occurred midway through the demonstration. Even in sites where cross-system efforts had had momentum after the planning stage, COVID-19 often delayed them or created other challenges. For example, programs in education that required onsite presence were made difficult by COVID-19. Other efforts such as data merging across systems that were not viewed as a critical priority were placed on the back burner.

31

Chapter IV. Housing and Services

Summary of Findings

• All Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program (YHDP) sites added or enhanced the services and housing available for youth at risk of or experiencing homelessness, with a shift away from crisis housing and increasingly toward receipt of permanent housing assistance.

• YHDP sites tended to make more progress than the three peer sites in developing their services, such as youth-specific outreach, navigation and case management, and a range of other services for homeless youth and offering more youth-specific crisis transitional housing and permanent housing, particularly rapid rehousing.

Outreach and Drop-in Services:

• Youth-specific outreach services were greatly enhanced in all YHDP sites; the three peer sites also had some improvement in outreach services, but non-YHDP

Continuums of Care (CoCs) nationally experienced little change.

• Drop-in center availability increased in YHDP sites compared with the three peer sites; however, many centers closed or restricted their use during the pandemic, reducing youth access to drop-in centers during this period.

Coordinated Entry, Navigation, and Diversion:

• Through the demonstration, YHDP sites developed or improved upon their coordinated entry systems for youth by adding access points, increasing the number assessors, and developing new methods of connecting youth to assistance. Nearly all of the YHDP sites also increased their use of navigation and diversion assistance to facilitate youth’s access to housing and services.

• Providers and youth in YHDP sites reported chal enges related to the coordinated entry assessment process, limited capacity, and staff turnover.

• Increased access to coordinated entry, navigation, and diversion services among the three peer sites and the non-YHDP CoCs nationally was less substantial and more varied than among demonstration sites.

Crisis and Permanent Housing:

• YHDP led to increases in crisis housing, host homes, rapid rehousing, and permanent supportive housing, relative to the three peer sites and non-YHDP CoCs nationally.

• Despite an increase in youth-specific crisis housing, YHDP sites increasingly focused on connecting youth to permanent housing.

• Among the chal enges YHDP sites faced were determining the right model for crisis housing; recruiting hosts for host homes, especial y during the COVID-19 pandemic; and finding sufficient suitable housing to meet the needs of youth in their communities.

• Youth were grateful for youth-specific crisis and permanent housing assistance but also wanted more supports.

32

Other Services and Supports

• Other services—such as family intervention services, employment and education services, and behavioral health services—were not a focus of YHDP and were typical y available through mainstream providers in YHDP sites and in the peer sites and non-YHDP CoCs nationally.

In this chapter, the researchers describe the youth-specific services and housing that YHDP

Round 1 CoCs implemented over the course of the demonstration and how those changes compare with the experience of three peer sites and all other non-YHDP CoCs nationally. Data for this chapter are integrated from the site visits, the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), and the CoC survey. Using CoC survey data, the researchers also compare changes over time in services and supports in Rounds 2 and 3 of YHDP. A fuller set of data for the exhibits presented here are available in appendix C.

The HMIS data presented here include some limitations:

• The data are not specific to either youth services or YHDP-funded services and can

include areas outside the YHDP demonstration area. HMIS data in each of the 13

sites include youth receiving adult services and youth receiving youth-specific services. Therefore, increases or decreases in the number of youth receiving certain types of services, such as outreach, can be affected by changes in the adult service system and those in the youth serving system. In addition, in sites where the YHDP

was confined to certain counties within a CoC (such as in Kentucky Balance of State

[BOS] and Ohio BOS), the HMIS includes al youth served across the whole CoC, not just in the YHDP demonstration area. This broader inclusion means, again, that changes in other areas of the CoC can affect the findings, and even if no additional changes occur, the changes caused by YHDP can be difficult to assess in the broader numbers served. Even when the HMIS is limited to the YHDP demonstration area, not all of the youth in the HMIS received assistance from a YHDP-funded program.

The percentage of youth served by YHDP programs in each site ranged from 10

percent in Ohio BOS to a high of 56 percent in NW Michigan. However, in a number of YHDP-funded CoCs, the demonstration has had effects on services and processes in the broader system, not just with specifical y funded services and housing.

• The data are limited to a single year at the baseline period and at the post-

demonstration period. Having a single year of HMIS data limits the ability to examine complete lengths of stay for some youth and longer-term outcomes.

Calculations of lengths of stay and exits to permanent housing are limited to youth who exited during 2017 or 2020 and do not include youth who were stil receiving services at the end of each year. As a result, the sample sizes for those calculations can be quite small, making it difficult to draw generalizable conclusions.

• Changes in the administration of HMIS systems can confound some of the findings.

Multiple CoCs (that is, Cincinnati/Hamilton County, San Francisco, Memphis) made transitions in their data systems to new vendors over the course of the 33

demonstration that could result in changes in the quality or completeness of the HMIS data over time. Throughout the evaluation, the research team communicated regularly with data administrators to understand how changes in their systems may affect the data included in those analyses. Where relevant, the researchers note where those confounds may be influencing the findings.

• The 2020 data include youth served during the first 10 months of the COVID-19

pandemic. During that period, HUD released a series of program waivers, such as extending time limits for receipt of rapid rehousing assistance and additional funding for communities to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and mitigate the economic impacts caused by the pandemic. Those changes in programs and policies, and other factors that resulted from the pandemic, may have affected the size and composition of the population of youth experiencing homelessness, the number of youth served by CoCs, the range of services they received, and their lengths of stay and exit rates. For example, some providers closed drop-in shelters, restricted the number of youth who could access them, or encouraged youth to exit crisis housing early if they had another place to go. Other providers extended stays in crisis housing and permanent housing programs as youth struggled to exit to find housing or support themselves without assistance.

• Because the number of youth served in some communities changed between 2017

and 2020 (some increasing, some decreasing), similar percentages over time may

mask actual differences in the number of youth served. For example, Cincinnati/Hamilton County served more than 1,000 fewer youth in 2020 than in 2017. Thus, similar percentages in the 2 years (as with transitional housing) represent a decrease in the number of youth who received that assistance. Santa Cruz served more than three times as many youth in 2020 than in 2017. A decrease in the percentage of youth who receive rapid rehousing, in fact, stil represents an increase in the number of youth who received the intervention. Appendix B provides detailed tables, including the sample size for each site at each wave.

• Final y, at both periods, the number of youth served across sites ranged dramatically, from 142 in NW Michigan to more than 5,000 in Connecticut BOS (in 2020). In sites with larger sample sizes, smaller differences in percentages are statistically significant, whereas in sites with small sample sizes, larger differences are required to detect statistically significant changes.

Throughout the sections to fol ow, the researchers review these considerations where appropriate and take them into account as they examine the role of YHDP in affecting youth’s receipt of various services and supports.

Overview of System Changes and Assistance Received

Before implementing YHDP, the 10 CoCs varied considerably in the extent to which they had

services and housing in place to serve youth at risk of and experiencing homelessness. To characterize that variation in systems development, the researchers categorized the 10 CoCs 34

into three broad groupings based on their level of development at the beginning of the demonstration: high, medium, or early. Sites with “highly developed” systems all had in place some level of outreach services, coordinated entry systems aimed at or inclusive of youth populations, crisis and permanent housing interventions specifically for youth, and other assistance available, such as prevention, family interventions, employment, and other services.

Sites with “medium” starting points also had youth-specific outreach, coordinated entry systems, and crisis and permanent housing interventions, but those sites generally had fewer other youth-specific services than the highly developed sites. Sites categorized as “early”

development had limited outreach services available, coordinated entry systems that were nascent or under development, and few youth-specific crisis and permanent housing interventions.

The researchers then examined the level and type of change achieved within each of those categories. They also selected one peer site for each of the three categories to provide a matched comparison. Sonoma County, which was selected as a highly developed site, had already implemented a wide range of outreach, prevention and diversion, housing, and other programming tailored specifically to youth at baseline. In Memphis, selected as a medium development site, youth largely accessed a breadth of services through mainstream adult- and family-oriented programs. Colorado BOS, also selected as a rural site, was in the early stages of system development at baseline and had few resources available for youth other than those available for specific populations, such as those exiting child welfare.

After participating in the demonstration, all YHDP sites added or enhanced services and

housing, more so than the three peer sites. During the demonstration, al YHDP CoCs implemented new or enhanced existing services and housing for the youth experiencing homelessness in their communities. Those changes included YHDP-funded initiatives and some that have occurred outside the demonstration in both YHDP and peer sites. As exhibit 4-1

indicates, by the end of the demonstration, al 10 CoCs provided youth-specific outreach, coordinated entry, case management, and crisis and permanent housing assistance, and most provided a range of other services for youth. According to this classification system, by the end of the demonstration, al YHDP CoCs were highly developed.

The YHDP high and medium development sites al worked to close any gaps they had in services. The availability of host homes was the most common (and often only) gap that remained for sites. Early development sites often built systems where none had previously existed, such that, even among those sites, few service gaps were evident after YHDP.

Permanent housing and coordinated entry had been gaps for the four early development sites, but those issues were addressed through YHDP. Diversion services was the most common gap remaining for those sites.

35

Exhibit 4-1. Status of Youth-Specific Housing and Services at Baseline and Post-YHDP, By Site

nt

loyme

s

ntry

e

mp

Status/Site

ter

ousing

ention

nt

g

E

ealth

en

es

l H

ch

n

usin

inated E

ion/Cas

om

nent H

ly Interv

op-in C

igat anageme

ersio

vices

vices

vices

Outrea

Dr

Coord

Nav M

Div

Crisis Ho

Host H

Perma

Fami Ser

Education & Ser

Behaviora Ser

High Development at Baseline

Austin/Travis

B

Light-blue

Light-blue

Light-blue

Blank

Light-blue

Light-blue

Blank

Light-blue Light-blue

Light-blue

Light-blue

County

P

Dark-blue Dark-blue Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Blank

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Cincinnati/

B

Light-blue

Blank

Light-blue

Blank

Light-blue

Light-blue

Light-blue

Light-blue

Blank

Light-blue

Light-blue

Hamilton County P Dark-blue Dark-blue Dark-blue Dark-blue Dark-blue Dark-blue Blank Dark-blue Dark-blue Dark-blue Dark-blue Seattle/King

B

Light-blue

Light-blue Light-blue

Light-blue Light-blue Light-blue Light-blue

Light-blue Light-blue

Light-blue

Light-blue

County

P

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Medium Development at Baseline

Connecticut BOS

B

Light-blue Light-blue Light-blue

Blank

Light-blue Light-blue

Blank

Light-blue Light-blue

Light-blue

Light-blue

P

Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Blank

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Ohio BOSR

B

Blank

Blank

Blank

Blank

Blank

Light-blue

Blank

Light-blue

Blank

Light-blue

Light-blue

P

Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Blank

Dark-blue

Blank

Dark-blue

Dark-blue

San Francisco

B

Light-blue Light-blue

Blank

Blank

Blank

Light-blue

Blank

Light-blue Light-blue

Light-blue

Light-blue

P

Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Blank

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Early Development at Baseline

AnchorageR

B

Light-blue Light-blue

Blank

Blank

Blank

Light-blue

Blank

Blank

Light-blue

Light-blue

Light-blue

P

Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue Dark-blue

Blank

Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Kentucky BOSR

B

Blank

Light-blue

Blank

Blank

Blank

Blank

Blank

Blank

Light-blue

Light-blue Light-blue

P

Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue Dark-blue

Blank

Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue

NW MichiganR

B

Light-blue

Blank

Blank

Blank

Light-blue Light-blue

Blank

Blank

Light-blue

Light-blue

Light-blue

P

Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Blank

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Blank

Dark-blue

Santa Cruz

B

Blank

Light-blue

Blank

Blank

Blank

Light-blue

Blank

Blank

Light-blue

Light-blue Light-blue

P

Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue Dark-blue

Blank

Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Blank

Blank

Dark-blue

Peer Sites

Sonoma County

B

Light-blue

ight-blue Light-blue

Blank

Light-blue Light-blue Light-blue

Light-blue Light-blue

ight-blue

Light-blue

(High)

P

Dark-blue

ark-blue Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue

Dark-blue

Dark-blue Dark-blue

ark-blue

Dark-blue

Memphis

B

Blank

lank

Blank

Blank

Blank

Light-blue

Blank

Blank

Light-blue

ight-blue

Blank

(Medium)

P

Dark-blue

ark-blue

Blank

Dark-blue

Blank

Dark-blue

Blank

Dark-blue Dark-blue

ark-blue

Blank

Colorado BOSR

B

Blank

lank

Blank

Blank

Blank

Light-blue

Blank

Blank

Light-blue

ight-blue

Light-blue

(Early)

P

Blank

lank

Blank

Blank

Blank

Dark-blue

Blank

Dark-blue Dark-blue

ark-blue

Dark-blue

R Rural Site.

B = baseline status. BOS = Balance of State. P = post-YHDP status. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Light-blue cel s indicate that services were in place at baseline. Dark-blue cel s indicate that services were in place post-YHDP. Blank cel s indicate that service was not available.

Sources: YHDP Evaluation site visit data and Housing Inventory Counts

36

Over the same period, the housing and services available in the three peer CoCs remained largely the same, with a few exceptions. During that period, Sonoma County began a housing navigation program for youth through the local housing authority. Memphis opened a new drop-in center and four-person lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ) shelter and added 17 units of rapid rehousing for youth. Colorado BOS implemented 30 units of permanent supportive housing for youth but otherwise did not increase its capacity to serve youth experiencing homelessness.

Al YHDP sites progressed in their level of development more than the three peer sites and the

non-YHDP CoCs national y. The three peer CoCs experienced less change in their systems compared with YHDP CoCs over the same period, largely maintaining their original level of development classifications. Sonoma County, which was highly developed at baseline, expanded some of its existing services for youth and introduced a navigation program for youth in subsidized housing. Memphis, a medium site at baseline, opened a new drop-in center for LGBTQ youth and introduced a rapid rehousing program for youth but stil did not provide youth-specific outreach, coordinated entry, or crisis housing. Colorado BOS was in the early stages of development at baseline and remained there, with limited youth-specific outreach, no rapid rehousing assistance, and a still-developing coordinated entry system.

As shown in exhibit 4-2, by 2021, in non-YHDP CoCs across the country, about one-third of the CoCs were found to have highly developed youth service systems that included outreach, coordinated entry, and housing and services for youth; 37 percent had medium developed systems, with outreach, coordinated entry, and either housing or services; and 28 percent were in the early stages of development, without outreach and coordinated entry fully implemented.

Exhibit 4-2. CoCs’ Level of Development at Baseline and End of the Demonstration, By Site

Baseline

End of Demonstration

(early 2019)

(mid 2021)

CoC Sites

Early

Medium

High

Early

Medium

High

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

YHDP

40

30

30

0

0

100

Peer

33

33

33

33

33

33

Non-YHDP

38

37

25

28

37

34

CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for YHDP Evaluation

YHDP led to a shift in how youth were served—away from crisis housing and increasingly to

permanent housing. Before the demonstration, emergency shelter was the primary service youth received across sites, and few youth received permanent housing assistance. As exhibit 4-3 shows, fol owing the demonstration, the percentage of youth who received any crisis housing significantly decreased over time in six of the nine sites for which the research team had complete data, with only Cincinnati/Hamilton County moving in the opposite direction.

Likewise, the percentage of youth who received permanent housing significantly increased in seven of the nine YHDP CoCs. Santa Cruz recorded a significant decrease in youth receiving permanent housing over time, but that difference reflects a large increase in the number of 37

youth served overall rather than a decrease in the number of youth accessing permanent housing. The percentage of youth receiving outreach and drop-in services also significantly increased in six of the nine YHDP CoCs. Receipt of coordinated entry and navigation assistance increased significantly in five of the nine YHDP CoCs and decreased in three CoCs. San Francisco did not provide those summary measures in the aggregate data.

Despite those shifts over time, emergency shelter remained the most commonly received

intervention for youth (after coordinated entry) in six YHDP CoCs. As shown in appendix C, among the remaining sites, rapid rehousing was the most common intervention that youth received in San Francisco; navigation assistance (recorded as services only in the HMIS) was the most common in Cincinnati/Hamilton County and Connecticut BOS; and street outreach was the most common in Austin/Travis County.

Exhibit 4-3. Change in the Percentage of Youth Receiving Services Between CY 2017 and CY

2020, By Site

Received

Received

Received Any

Received Any

CoC Sites

Outreach/

Coordinated

Crisis

Permanent

Drop-In

Entry/

Navigation

Housing

Housing

High Development

Austin/Travis County

↓

↑

↓

↑

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

↑

↓

↑

↑

Seattle/King County

↓

↑

↓

↑

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

↓

↓

↓

↑

Ohio BOS

↑

↑

↓

↑

San Francisco

No data

No data

No data

No data

Early Development

Anchorage

↑

↑

↓

↑

Kentucky BOS

↑

↓

−

−

NW Michigan

↑

↑

↓

↑

Santa Cruz

↑

−

−

↓

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)

↑

↓

↓

↑

Memphis (Medium)

↑

↑

↓

−

Colorado BOS (Early)

No data

No data

No data

No data

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change over time. Empty cel s indicate data elements not provided by sites in the aggregate data.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

The peer sites also experienced a change in how youth were served between 2017 and 2020,

yet no clear pattern is evident. Both Sonoma County and Memphis experienced decreases in the percentages of youth in crisis housing, and Sonoma County served more youth through permanent housing interventions in 2020 than in 2017. Colorado BOS did not provide those summary measures in the aggregate data.

38

Among the peer sites, the most common services youth received in both 2017 and 2020 were emergency shelter in Colorado BOS and rapid rehousing in Memphis, whereas the most common service received in Sonoma County changed from emergency shelter in 2017 to street outreach in 2020.

Outreach and Drop-In Services

Below, the researchers describe the youth-specific outreach and drop-in services that YHDP

Round 1 CoCs implemented over the course of the demonstration, and how those changes compare with the experience of three peer sites and all other non-YHDP CoCs nationally.

Outreach Services

Access to youth-specific outreach services was a noted challenge in YHDP sites before the

demonstration. Youth-specific outreach services, generally described as street or mobile outreach, were available in 7 of the

Outreach services

10 YHDP sites before the demonstration began (as shown in the

identify and engage

first column of data in exhibit 4-3), but both youth and providers

youthat risk of or

across all sites noted chal enges. Focus groups with youth revealed

experiencing

that youth lacked knowledge about what type of assistance was

homelessness and

available and where to go for assistance. In addition, stakeholders

connect them with

in all 10 sites reported struggles in identifying and engaging youth

assistance. Examples

in services. Rural communities, in particular, described youth as a

include street outreach

hidden population that moved frequently between different living

teams, mobile vans,

situations, including doubled up and homeless locations. Those

school-based outreach,

youth did not often reach out for assistance from the homeless

and websites or social

service system or other mainstream services.

media.

By the end of the demonstration, youth-specific outreach services were available in al 10

YHDP sites. One site, NW Michigan, added more youth-specific outreach services to its system with YHDP funding, and four additional sites embedded outreach services in their YHDP-funded navigator positions (described in more detail

below). In those sites, a key component of

In six sites, YHDP-funded navigators worked

the navigator’s role is to visit locations where

to increase referrals to the youth homeless

youth experiencing homelessness tend to

service system from other systems, such as

congregate, provide them with basic

child welfare, juvenile justice, and education

supplies, and connect them to services. Other

through outreach to those agencies about

sites expanded their existing outreach

the types of assistance available and

services through projects not funded by

eligibility criteria for receiving assistance.

YHDP. For example, Austin/Travis County

developed a Facebook page and a texting subscription app that youth can sign up for to receive alerts about cold weather shelters, changes in meal schedules, and where outreach teams will be located.

39

Evidence from the HMIS also indicates that, between 2017 and 2020, more youth received outreach services in six of the YHDP sites, including all sites that invested YHDP funding in outreach. The early development sites realized the largest gains, with increases ranging from 14

percent (8–22 percent) in Santa Cruz to a high of 44 percent in Anchorage (2 –46 percent), as shown in exhibit 4-4.

Exhibit 4-4. Youth-Specific Outreach Services at Baseline and Post YHDP: Change in

Implementation Status and Percentage of Youth Served, By Site

Baseline

End of the Demonstration

Change

in % Served

CoC Sites

Availability

% Served in

Over Time

CY 2017

Availability

% Served in

CY 2020

High Development

Austin/Travis County



24



33

↑

Cincinnati/Hamilton

County



8



9

−

Seattle/King County



19



11

↓

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS



7



1

↓

Ohio BOS

4

*

12

↑

San Francisco



49



4

↓

Early Development

Anchorage



2

*

46

↑

Kentucky BOS

3

*

18

↑

NW Michigan



5

*

36

↑

Santa Cruz

8

*

22

↑

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)



35



56

↑

Memphis (Medium)

0

22

−

Colorado BOS (Early)

8

21

↑

Youth-specific services in place. Services in place for subpopulations of youth. *Service was expanded or enhanced with YHDP funding.

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Blank cel s indicate service not available. Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change in percent served over time.

Sources: Site visit data; 2017 and 2020 HMIS

In three YHDP sites, the percentage of youth who received outreach services significantly decreased between 2017 and 2020, due largely to the pandemic and shifts in services. In Seattle/King County, stakeholders reported that street outreach services declined as people were moved into motels during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the other two sites, the change was likely less a decrease in service but rather a shift in the type of services youth in need first received. In San Francisco, outreach was the primary point of entry into the system for youth experiencing homelessness, yet by 2020, coordinated entry typically replaced outreach as youth’s first point of contact. In Connecticut BOS, navigation services likely replaced the services that had fal en under outreach.

40

The three peer sites experienced little change in the availability of youth-specific outreach

over time, yet each realized increases in the number of youth receiving assistance, largely

from non-youth-specific outreach. Sonoma County was the only peer site that had a youth-specific outreach program at both periods and added funding over time for outreach for al populations, particularly those living in encampments. Memphis did not have youth-specific outreach at either period but expanded its street outreach programs for all populations in 2020

with funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. In Colorado BOS, very limited youth-specific outreach operated outside Denver (which is not a part of the Colorado BOS CoC) at either period, with street outreach and school-based outreach available in only a few counties across the 68-county CoC.

Despite the absence of youth-specific outreach, all three sites experienced significant increases in the proportion of youth receiving outreach assistance (see exhibit 4-4). The expansion of outreach for al populations in Sonoma County and Memphis, in particular, likely account for the increases at those sites, along with the addition of navigation services in Sonoma County and a drop-in center in Memphis. For Colorado BOS, the reason for the increase is less clear, although youth may have benefited from outreach services for other populations in addition to the limited youth-specific services that were available.

The percentage of non-YHDP CoCs nationally having youth-specific outreach services (either

fully or partially implemented) grew between 2019 and 2021 but at a much smal er rate than

at YHDP sites. As exhibit 4-5 shows, by 2021, al 10 Round 1 YHDP sites indicated they had outreach services for youth, with 7 sites fully implemented. Of the Round 2 and 3 YHDP sites, 100 percent had outreach services for youth in place, with 62 percent ful y implemented. By contrast, 81 percent of non-YHDP CoCs nationally indicated having youth-specific outreach services in place, of which only 38 percent had services fully implemented.

Despite increased access to outreach services across YHDP sites, youth in focus groups in

many sites continued to report that services were not wel advertised, and knowing where to

go to get assistance was hard. At two YHDP sites that funded outreach programs, youth in focus groups credited outreach workers with connecting them to other assistance. However, at other sites, youth reported that they learned about where to get homelessness assistance from other service providers, such as health clinics, behavioral health providers, LGBTQ agencies, and employment programs; through word-of-mouth from friends or family; or through their schools. Echoing recommendations provided by youth during baseline focus groups, in multiple sites, youth suggested that having all available resources compiled into a single source, such as a centralized directory, would be helpful, and that the information needs to be regularly updated.

41

Exhibit 4-5. Availability of Youth-Specific Outreach Services at Baseline and Post-YHDP:

Comparison of YHDP Rounds 1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs

YHDP R1 Wave 1

YHDP R1 Wave 2

YHDP R2—3 Wave 1

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2

Non-YHDP Wave 1

Non-YHDP Wave 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% of CoCs

CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for YHDP Evaluation

Drop-in Centers

Before the demonstration, 5 of the 10 YHDP sites had youth-

specific drop-in centers. 13 At a sixth site, Kentucky BOS, youth had

Drop-in centers are

access to drop-in centers operated by a local behavioral health

locations where youth

provider, and at a seventh site, a drop-in center was available for

and young adults can go

youth aging out of child welfare or juvenile justice.

to access food, clothing,

and other basic needs;

Following the demonstration, drop-in centers for youth

get connected to

experiencing homelessness were available at all YHDP sites (see services and supports;

exhibit 4-6). Santa Cruz was the only YHDP site to invest YHDP

and spend time with

funds in a youth-specific drop-in center (the center’s opening,

other youth and young

however, was delayed due to challenges with securing a site). Other

adults.

sites—including Cincinnati/Hamilton County, San Francisco, and

Ohio BOS—opened drop-in centers for youth experiencing homelessness using funds other than YHDP. Austin/Travis County opened a drop-in center specifically for youth sex trafficking survivors.

In large, multicounty CoCs such as Connecticut BOS, NW Michigan, and Ohio BOS, stakeholders noted that drop-in centers were not available in all counties. Similarly, in rural sites such as Kentucky BOS and Ohio BOS, the vast geography, limited public transportation, and 13 The CoC survey did not include questions about drop-in centers for youth, therefore the research team cannot compare the availability of drop-in centers in the YHDP CoCs to those of al non-YHDP CoCs national y.

42

proportional y smal er population of youth experiencing homelessness made both access and demand lower for drop-in centers.

Based on data from the HMIS, use of drop-in centers14 by youth served in the YHDP CoCs was

rare both before and after the demonstration (see exhibit 4-6). Fewer than 1 percent of youth at six sites used drop-in centers during either period. Higher percentages of youth used drop-in centers at four sites, yet only Seattle/King County indicates a significant increase over time, from 18 to 24 percent. In Austin/Travis County, fewer youth were served by day shelter in 2020

than in 2017, likely because LifeWorks’ drop-in center was closed during much of the COVID-19

pandemic.

Exhibit 4-6. Youth-Specific Drop-in Centers at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in

Implementation Status and Percentage of Youth Served, By Site

Baseline

End of the Demonstration

Change

in %

CoC Sites

Served

Availability

% Served in

CY 2017

Availability

% Served in

CY 2020

Over Time

High Development

Austin/Travis County



20



5

↓

Cincinnati/Hamilton

County

0



<1

−

Seattle/King County



18



24

↑

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS



<1



<1

↓

Ohio BOS

0



0

−

San Francisco



0



0

−

Early Development

Anchorage



0



0

−

Kentucky BOS



0



0

−

NW Michigan

0



0

−

Santa Cruz



0

*

8

−

Peer

Sonoma County (High)



5



0

−

Memphis (Medium)

0



0

−

Colorado BOS (Early)

0

0

−

 Youth-specific services in place.

 Services in place for subpopulations of youth.

* Service was expanded or enhanced with YHDP-funding.

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change in percent served over time. Blank cel s indicate service not available.

Sources: Site visit data; 2017 and 2020 HMIS

Among the three peer sites, one had drop-in centers at both periods, one added a drop-in

center during the course of the demonstration, and one did not have drop-in centers for youth

in place. At baseline, Sonoma County had youth-specific drop-in centers. Memphis did not have 14 Drop-in center is recorded as day shelter in the HMIS.

43

a youth-specific drop-in center but operated a drop-in center for al populations, which youth could access. Between 2017 and 2020, Memphis opened a drop-in center for LGBTQ youth.

Colorado BOS did not have youth-specific drop-in centers in place at either period; due to its vast geography, youth-specific drop-in centers were challenging to locate in places that would be accessible to youth in many counties throughout the state. Use of drop-in centers did not significantly differ between 2017 and 2020 in any of the peer sites.

Youth considered drop-in centers to be a valuable resource. Without such places, youth often had to spend money in bars and coffee shops to stay warm and off the streets. In sites where drop-in centers were available, youth reported using the centers to meet their basic needs when they were couch surfing or staying in unsheltered locations. Youth in shelters also used drop-in centers during the day, when they were required to exit the shelter and needed a place to spend time. They used drop-in centers to access food, showers, laundry, and hygiene products and to have social interactions with others. Youth also used drop-in centers to get coordinated entry assessments, receive referrals to needed services and supports, and connect with case managers.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, in many sites, drop-in centers implemented social distancing policies that restricted their hours of operation and their capacity. Thus, in many locations, fewer youth had places to go to hang out or socialize or get connected to other types of assistance. During the second and third round of focus groups, youth indicated that the lack of access to drop-in shelters during the pandemic was difficult, increasing their sense of isolation and eliminating a valuable source of support.

Coordinated Entry, Navigation, and Diversion

Below, the researchers describe the youth-specific coordinated entry, navigation, and diversion services that YHDP Round 1 CoCs implemented over the course of the demonstration and how those changes compare with the experience of three peer sites and all other non-YHDP CoCs nationally.

44

Coordinated Entry

Coordinated entry is a

Before YHDP, coordinated entry was in place or in process at

process that ensures

nearly all sites. At baseline, five medium to highly developed sites that all youth and

(Austin/Travis County, Cincinnati/Hamilton County, Connecticut

young adults

BOS, Ohio BOS, and Seattle/King County) had coordinated entry in

experiencing

place for all populations (that is, adult, family, youth), whereas the

homelessness or other

remaining five sites had coordinated entry systems for families or

housing crises are

adults, to which youth 18–24 years old had access (NW Michigan,

quickly identified,

San Francisco) or had coordinated entry systems that were in the

assessed, referred, and

early stages of development (Anchorage, Kentucky BOS, and Santa

connected with

Cruz).

housing and homeless

During the demonstration, many of the YHDP sites either

assistance in a

developed or improved upon their coordinated entry systems for

coordinated manner.

youth by adding access points, increasing the number of

assessors, and developing new methods for connecting youth to the system (see exhibit 4-7).

For example, Austin/Travis County and Ohio BOS increased the number of youth assessors so that youth could be served more quickly. Connecticut BOS developed a texting option for 211

and began conducting assessments over the telephone, which were easier for youth to attend and reduced the number of no-show appointments.

In NW Michigan, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz, where coordinated entry had not existed, YHDP

funds were used to hire and train youth-specific assessors and staff to oversee youth coordinated entry processes, whereas Anchorage and Kentucky BOS used other resources to support those efforts.

Despite YHDP sites’ enhancements to the coordinated entry processes, HMIS data show a

mixed pattern of youth engaged through coordinated entry. As exhibit 4-7 indicates, among the five YHDP sites that had coordinated entry data linked to HMIS at both periods, three experienced significant increases in the percentage of youth served by coordinated entry.

Cincinnati/Hamilton County experienced a significant decrease in the percentage of youth accessing coordinated entry, largely due to a corresponding increase in the availability of emergency shelter and diversion services (both of which youth could receive without accessing coordinated entry). Connecticut BOS also experienced a significant decrease in the percentage of youth accessing coordinated entry over time, although whether due to an increase in access to other services is unclear. Moreover, in five of the eight sites, less than 50 percent of youth were served through coordinated entry in 2020, suggesting that additional efforts are needed to connect youth to coordinated entry.

45

Exhibit 4-7. Youth-Specific Coordinated Entry at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in

Implementation Status and Percentage of Youth Served, By Site

Baseline

End of the Demonstration

Change

in %

CoC Sites

Served

Availability

% Served in

CY 2017

Availability

% Served in

CY 2020

Over Time

High Development

Austin/Travis County



51



73

↑

Cincinnati/Hamilton

County



81



33

↓

Seattle/King County



No data



35

−

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS



85



75

↓

Ohio BOS

No data



4

−

San Francisco

No data

*

69

↑

Early Development

Anchorage



19



46

↑

Kentucky BOS

No data



No data

−

NW Michigan

No data

*

No data

−

Santa Cruz

No data

*

6

−

Peer

Sonoma County (High)



13



43

↑

Memphis (Medium)

9

22

↑

Colorado BOS (Early)

No data

No data

−

 Youth-specific services in place.  Services in place for subpopulations of youth.

* Service was expanded or enhanced with YHDP-funding.

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Blank cel s indicate service not available. Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change in % served over time.

Sources: Site visit data; 2017 and 2020 HMIS

Among the three peer sites, progress in coordinated entry was more mixed. At baseline, only Sonoma County had coordinated entry for youth fully implemented; youth in Memphis were served by the adult or family coordinated entry systems, and Colorado BOS was still developing its coordinated entry. By 2020, Sonoma County began allowing emergency shelter placement outside of coordinated entry to facilitate quick access to crisis housing for youth waiting for additional assistance. Memphis did not make changes in its coordinated entry system over time and continued to serve youth through its adult and family systems. Colorado BOS developed a coordinated entry system for al populations but, by 2020, was still working to roll it out across its vast, rural geography. HMIS data indicate significant increases in the number of youth using coordinated entry in both Memphis and Sonoma County, but the rates in both sites in 2020

remained below 50 percent. 15

National y, non-YHDP CoCs increasingly reported having coordinated entry systems in place,

but YHDP sites have developed systems more quickly. As shown in exhibit 4-8, 81 percent of 15 Colorado BOS did not link coordinated entry data to HMIS data during either period.

46

non-YHDP CoCs nationally reported having coordinated entry systems fully or partial y implemented, a slight increase from 74 percent in the first wave of the survey. By contrast, as noted, al Round 1 YHDP sites and nearly al YHDP Rounds 2 and 3 sites reported having coordinated entry systems in place for youth in 2021, reflecting 20-percent increases for both groups from the baseline survey.

Exhibit 4-8. Availability of YHDP Rounds 1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs Nationally:

Implementation of Coordinated Entry

YHDP R1 Wave 1

YHDP R1 Wave 2

YHDP R2—3 Wave 1

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2

Non-YHDP Wave 1

Non-YHDP Wave 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% of CoCs

CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for YHDP Evaluation

Over the course of the demonstration, youth in focus groups increasingly reported being

aware of and using coordinated entry. During baseline data col ection, youth in focus groups varied in the degree to which they were familiar with or had used coordinated entry, even in sites with youth-specific coordinated entry systems in place. Fol owing the demonstration, however, youth in eight YHDP sites were familiar with the coordinated entry process and were able to articulate where they went for assistance, what the assessment process was like, and the assistance they were offered. Youth in large, multicounty rural sites, such as Ohio BOS and Kentucky BOS, were less familiar with coordinated entry, although many described being asked questions about their situation before receiving services. The difference in familiarity with coordinated entry among youth in the rural sites, with few youth-specific services or providers, may be due in part to youth receiving coordinated entry from the same organizations that provided them other types of assistance, such as shelter, rather than from a separate entity responsible for assessing youth and referring them to additional assistance. Coordinated entry, therefore, may not be viewed as a separate process, particularly in rural areas, but just part of the admission process to crisis housing.

47

Despite progress, in many sites, both providers and youth continued to face chal enges with

coordinated entry, largely related to the assessment process and capacity issues. Across YHDP

sites, providers and youth expressed frustration with the assessment process overal . Nine YHDP sites used the Transition Age Youth—Vulnerability Index Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (TAY-VISPDAT) to assess youth; San Francisco used its own community-developed tool. In one-half of the sites, providers argued that the TAY-VISPDAT is too rigid, is not culturally sensitive, and does not accurately assess youth’s needs and vulnerabilities. As a result, they argued, not all youth in their systems were being appropriately prioritized for the assistance they needed, and racial inequities in receipt of homelessness assistance were being exacerbated. By the end of the demonstration, at least four sites were reconsidering their use of the TAY-VISPDAT and working to develop new assessment tools or adding questions to it to better capture youth’s specific vulnerabilities, reflecting the larger national trend of questioning the use of this tool (Bitfocus, 2021).

Independent of the tool used, youth reported being

The Transition Age

uncomfortable with the assessment process, saying it could be

Youth—Vulnerability

traumatizing for some. Some youth reported feeling like their

Index Service

answers to the assessment were not believed. Others said the

Prioritization Decision

assessment questions were invasive, including questions about

Assistance Tool (TAY-

topics such as past abuse that they did not feel were relevant to

VISPDAT), also called the

their current situation. Youth also reported that they were not

Next Step Tool for

sure that young people answered al of the questions accurately

Homeless Youth, is a

because they may be reluctant to share some information even

screening tool used by

though it could help prioritize them for assistance.

CoCs to assess the needs

and eligibility for

Another chal enge with coordinated entry noted by stakeholders homelessness assistance.

was insufficient capacity to serve youth. Stakeholders at rural

sites with fewer providers across large regions—such as

Kentucky BOS, NW Michigan, and Colorado BOS (peer site)—reported that the number of providers was often insufficient to warrant separate access points for youth and, instead, al providers must be capable of serving all populations. At other sites, stakeholders indicated they still did not have enough crisis and permanent housing resources to serve all youth who needed assistance; therefore, some youth who needed assistance were given less than they needed or were required to wait long times for assistance.

Both providers and youth noted that the coordinated entry process took a long time to connect youth with assistance. Providers—particularly those in large sites with many youth-specific agencies such as Seattle/King County—indicated that available units often went unfilled by coordinated entry for long periods of time while youth waited for assistance, in part because of difficulty locating youth and engaging them in services once they had been matched to a program. In some sites, that circumstance led to providers fil ing units through pathways other than coordinated entry or ending their participation in coordinated entry.

48

Difficulty fil ing units with youth at the top of the list also resulted in long wait times for other youth on the list. In a few sites—Austin/Travis County, Connecticut BOS, and Sonoma County (peer site)—youth reported contacting coordinated entry multiple times or completing multiple assessments to get scores high enough to get assistance. In Santa Cruz, stakeholders reported that many youth avoided coordinated entry because the “word on the street” was that coordinated entry does not immediately lead to housing.

Navigation/Case Management

Before the demonstration, navigation assistance was rare at YHDP

Navigation/case

sites. Navigation assistance for youth was available only in Seattle/King

management

County. Youth at other YHDP sites could receive case management

involves a provider

assistance through shelter, housing, or service programs, yet navigation assigning an

assistance to guide youth through the system of housing and services

individual to meet

was rare before the demonstration.

with youth and young

Nearly al of the YHDP sites increased their use of navigation assistance

adults to help guide

over time to strengthen youth’s access to housing and services. As part them through the

of the demonstration, 8 of the 10 YHDP sites trained and funded mobile, system of housing

youth-specific navigators. At some sites, including Anchorage and

and services.

Connecticut BOS, navigators are assigned to youth who contact

coordinated entry. At other sites, such as Ohio BOS and Kentucky BOS, navigators serve as outreach workers, engaging with youth who need assistance and connecting them with coordinated entry. Across both approaches, navigators help youth find the available services and supports to meet their needs, including crisis housing, and facilitate their access to the assistance.

As exhibit 4-9 shows, youth’s increased access to navigation is reflected in the significant changes over time in the number of youth who received navigation/case management16 at 8 of the 10 YHDP sites. The eight sites include al of the CoCs with YHDP-funded navigation, except Kentucky BOS, as well as San Francisco which funded navigation as part of its coordinated entry system through non-YHDP sources.

Peer sites had more limited navigation services than YHDP sites. Memphis and Sonoma County provided limited navigation programs to specific subpopulations of youth (those receiving behavioral health services and those with a housing subsidy, respectively); all three peer sites also provided case management assistance to youth through other shelter, housing, and services programs in the CoC. Between 2017 and 2020, al peer sites experienced a decrease in the percentage of youth in the HMIS receiving services only.

16 Navigation assistance is recorded as ‘Services only’ in the HMIS.

49

Exhibit 4-9. Youth-Specific Navigation/Case Management at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change

in Implementation Status and Percentage of Youth Served, By Site

Baseline

End of the Demonstration

Change

in %

CoC Sites

Served

Availability

% Served in

CY 2017

Availability

% Served in

CY 2020

Over Time

High Development

Austin/Travis County

2

*

33

↑

Cincinnati/Hamilton

County

4

*

41

↑

Seattle/King County



32

*

18

↓

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

3

*

18

↑

Ohio BOS

3

*

8

↑

San Francisco

0



1

↑

Early Development

Anchorage

4

*

39

↑

Kentucky BOS

27

*

12

↓

NW Michigan

3

35

↑

Santa Cruz

52

*

54

−

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)

26



20

↑

Memphis (Medium)

16



No data

−

Colorado BOS (Early)

40

28

↓

 Youth-specific services in place.  Services in place for subpopulations of youth.

* Service was expanded or enhanced with YHDP funding.

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Blank cel s indicate service not available. Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change in % served over time.

Sources: Site visit data; 2017 and 2020 HMIS

National y, approximately one-half of non-YHDP CoCs indicated that they provided case

management/navigation assistance to youth, comparable to the rate of YHDP sites (see exhibit 4-10). In the CoC survey, navigation assistance was not distinguished from case management assistance that youth could receive through crisis and permanent housing programs. Although YHDP Rounds 2 and 3 CoCs have a higher rate of full implementation of navigation/case management than non-YHDP CoCs nationally (69 percent vs. 46 percent) and Round 1 YHDP sites, the researchers expect that the difference among navigation services alone would be more pronounced between YHDP and non-YHDP CoCs nationally.

50

Exhibit 4-10. Availability of YHDP Rounds 1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs National y:

Implementation of Navigation/Case Management

YHDP R1 Wave 1

YHDP R1 Wave 2

↑

YHDP R2—3 Wave 1

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2

↑

Non-YHDP Wave 1

Non-YHDP Wave 2

↑

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% of CoCs

CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change in percent served over time.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation

Stakeholders and youth reported several chal enges with navigation programs, generally

related to capacity issues and turnover. In about one-half of the CoCs, the navigation caseloads were too high for staff to meet with youth on a timely or routine basis, often requiring the CoC

to hire more staff or make eligibility criteria for assistance more restrictive. For example, Cincinnati/Hamilton County initially envisioned its Youth Dedicated Service Team (YDST) as a group of case managers that would be accessible to any youth in the CoC needing assistance.

However, staff reported being unable to meet that demand, so eligibility was limited to youth receiving YHDP-funded housing or diversion assistance. Other sites, such as Connecticut BOS, began the demonstration including youth at imminent risk of homelessness and those who were experiencing homelessness. When demand for assistance exceeded the funding available, eligibility was restricted to those experiencing homelessness. Four sites also noted struggling with staff turnover, requiring frequent hiring and training of new navigators; likely as a consequence, youth reported uneven quality of assistance. Whereas many youth praised their case managers for going “above and beyond,” others reported that their case managers did not have sufficient information about the services and supports available in their communities, some were hard to get in touch with, and some did not treat them respectfully.

In addition, during the pandemic, a lot of case management assistance became remote, delivered through telephone calls and text messages rather than in person. Youth reported that getting in touch with their navigators/case managers could be difficult because they did not always return youth’s telephone cal s or were slow to do so. Youth indicated wanting more 51

face-to-face meetings with their navigators/case managers so they could work together to achieve the youth’s specific goals.

Diversion

At baseline, one-half of the YHDP sites had diversion services for

youth. The three highly developed sites provided both financial

Diversion is a form of

assistance and supportive services to youth experiencing

prevention that involves

homelessness. In addition, two other sites (Connecticut BOS and NW

a focus on problem

Michigan) provided problem-solving conversations without financial

solving and often short-

assistance.

to medium-term

financial assistance and

Through the demonstration, most YHDP sites either enhanced or

supportive services to

added diversion assistance to facilitate youth’s rapid access to

divert youth and young

permanent housing. 17 All five sites that provided diversion assistance adults from entering

before YHDP enhanced those projects to include case management

shelter.

and financial assistance. Despite implementation differences,

diversion assistance in all sites has the goal of stabilizing youth in housing through case management, family reunification assistance, supportive services, and short-term rental assistance or other one-time financial assistance, including money for security deposits, moving costs, transportation expenses, or other expenses to help youth access stable housing. Two additional sites, San Francisco and Ohio BOS, began using diversion/problem-solving protocols for youth with youth assessors who had access to limited financial resources through non-YHDP

sources to assist with diversion-related solutions to homelessness, such as bus tickets and grocery gift cards.

The three peer sites were less likely to provide

Diversion assistance was typically

diversion assistance at either baseline or

provided as part of the coordinated entry

following the demonstration period. Among the process. During the assessment, peer sites, only Sonoma County provided

navigators would work with youth to

diversion assistance to youth, through a

determine if they could resolve their

problem-solving conversation offered during

housing crisis through less intensive

coordinated entry. The program was enhanced

supports than those provided through

from a program without financial assistance at

other CoC programs.

baseline to one with limited financial assistance,

supported with CARES Act funding at the end of

the demonstration.

Non-YHDP CoCs national y also were significantly less likely to provide diversion assistance

than YHDP sites. As exhibit 4-11 shows, among CoCs national y, 56 percent reported having 17 Diversion assistance is not recorded as a distinct service in the HMIS, so the researchers cannot examine changes in the percentage of youth who received it over time.

52

diversion assistance for youth implemented by 2021 compared with 70 percent of YHDP Round 1 CoCs and 100 percent of YHDP Round 2 and 3 CoCs.

Exhibit 4-11. Availability of YHDP Rounds 1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs National y:

Implementation of Youth-Specific Diversion

YHDP R1 Wave 1

YHDP R1 Wave 2

YHDP R2—3 Wave 1

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2

↑

Non-YHDP Wave 1

Non-YHDP Wave 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% of CoCs

CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change in percent served over time.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for YHDP Evaluation

Stakeholders appreciated the flexibility that diversion provided but struggled to determine

the right level of assistance to provide. Across sites with diversion in place, stakeholders reported that diversion was a welcome resource and provided additional flexibility for serving youth. Diversion was particularly helpful for youth who did not want to stay in crisis housing or when crisis housing was unavailable. It also was noted as helpful for stabilizing youth while they were looking for housing and for maintaining contact with youth during periods of crisis.

However, in at least three sites, stakeholders reported struggling to determine who should be eligible for diversion assistance and the right level of assistance to provide. Most CoCs with YHDP-funded diversion indicated that youth required more than just one-time financial assistance and “light touch” case management, opting instead to provide at least a few months’

rental assistance and more frequent contact with case managers, resembling rapid rehousing programs. As a result, both Connecticut BOS and Seattle/King County spent their diversion funding quickly and required supplementing YHDP funds with additional public and private sources.

53

Crisis and Permanent Housing

Below, the researchers describe the youth-specific crisis and permanent housing that YHDP

Round 1 CoCs implemented over the course of the demonstration and how those changes compare with the experience of three peer sites and all other non-YHDP CoCs nationally.

Crisis Housing

Before the demonstration, al but one YHDP site had

Crisis housing, including

some crisis housing (that is, emergency shelter or

emergency shelter and crisis

transitional housing) for youth in place. Only Kentucky transitional housing, provides a

BOS did not have any crisis housing for youth because

temporary place for youth and

none of its units were in the demonstration region. The

young adults experiencing

number of units available varied dramatically across the

homelessness to stay and case

sites, from a high of more than 200 units of emergency

management assistance while

shelter and 300 units of transitional housing in

they secure permanent

Seattle/King County to only 6 units in the demonstration

housing.

region of Ohio BOS. 18 In six sites, the number of youth-specific crisis housing units was less than one-half the

number of youth in the 2017 Point in Time (PIT) count, indicating that the demand for crisis housing outweighed the available units, and youth often relied on adult shelters for a place to stay. In addition, in some sites, youth-specific shelter was limited to youth 18 and younger (NW

Michigan) or 20 and younger (Anchorage).

As exhibit 4-12 shows, following the demonstration, al YHDP sites had crisis housing, and

several expanded the number of units available. Between 2017 and 2020, five sites increased the number of youth-specific crisis housing units, with two sites using YHDP-funded programs to do so. A third site, Kentucky BOS, used YHDP funding to implement crisis housing for youth for the first time in the demonstration region. Two other CoCs (Austin/Travis County and Seattle/King County) repurposed existing crisis housing units to be part of YHDP-funded joint crisis transitional housing and rapid rehousing programs.

The increase in access to crisis housing, in many sites, also represented a transition from emergency shelter to transitional housing. Four YHDP CoCs decreased the number of emergency shelter units for youth between 2017 and 2020, whereas six CoCs increased the number of transitional housing units available over time (see exhibit 4-12).

18 Data are based on the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Housing Inventory Charts, 2017.

54

Exhibit 4-12. Youth-Specific Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing at Baseline and Post-

YHDP: Change in Number of Units and Percentage of Youth Served, By Site

Emergency Shelter

Transitional Housing

Number of Units

Percentage of Youth Served

Number of Units

Percentage of Youth Served

CoC Sites

CY

CY

Change

CY

CY

Change

CY

CY

Change

CY

CY

Change

in # of

in %

in # of

in %

2017

2020

Units

2017

2020

Served

2017

2020

Units

2017

2020

Served

High Development

Austin/

Travis

20

13

↓

31

11

↓

56

48*

↓

4

3

−

County

Cincinnati/

Hamilton

48

56

↑

32

38

↑

8

9

↑

2

1

−

County

Seattle/King

County

210

198

↓

46

36

↓

324

320*

↓

11

12

−

Medium Development

Connecticut

BOS

13

14

↑

14

8

↓

17

97*

↑

3

5

↑

Ohio BOS

5

5

−

59

48

↓

12

38*

↑

9

10

−

San

Francisco

96

89

↓

30

19

↓

97

192

↑

9

8

−

Early Development

Anchorage

60

60

−

86

51

↓

55

51

↓

9

8

−

Kentucky

BOS

20

32

↑

39

37

−

12

32*

↑

5

8

↑

NW

Michigan

9

8

↓

53

38

↓

5

1

↓

6

4

−

Santa Cruz

0

0

−

34

31

−

28

34

↑

6

1

↓

Peer

Sonoma

County

22

43

↑

37

25

↓

12

12

−

7

2

↓

(High)

Memphis

(Medium)

8

0

↓

43

35

−

0

0

−

14

3

↓

Colorado

BOS (Early)

22

22

−

44

39

−

20

33

↑

4

8

↑

 Youth-specific services in place.  Services in place for subpopulations of youth.

* Service was expanded or enhanced with YHDP-funding.

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Blank cel s indicate service not available. Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓) in percentage of youth served. (–) indicates no significant change in percent served over time. Significance tests were not conducted on Housing Inventory Count (HIC) data.

Sources: Site visit data; 2017 and 2020 HMIS

Increases in YHDP-funded crisis housing did not consistently result in increases in the

percentage of youth served from 2017 to 2020, according to the HMIS. Exhibit 4-12 presents the percentage of youth who received emergency shelter and transitional housing in 2017 and 2020 and whether they increased, decreased, or stayed the same, according to data in the Homeless Management Information System. The majority of YHDP sites (7 of 10) realized 55

significant decreases in the use of emergency shelter for youth, as would be expected fol owing the transition to crisis transitional housing away from emergency shelter. Cincinnati/Hamilton County is the only YHDP site to serve more youth in shelter in 2020 than 2017, largely due to the opening of a new emergency shelter for youth in 2018. However, only one-half of the YHDP

sites that implemented new crisis transitional housing (Kentucky BOS, Ohio BOS, and Connecticut BOS) realized increases in the percentage of youth served by transitional housing before and after the demonstration. The other two sites (Austin/Travis County and Seattle/King County) were both highly developed sites at baseline and offered a small number of crisis transitional housing units relative to their overall systems.

Exhibit 4-13. Length of Stay (in Days) in Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing at

Baseline and Post YHDP, By Site

Emergency Shelter

Transitional Housing

CoC Sites

CY 2017

CY 2020

P-Value

CY 2017

CY 2020

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

57

45

−

356

211

↓

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

32

30

−

99

195

−

Seattle/King County

105

97

↓

253

249

−

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

74

75

−

184

187

−

Ohio BOS

28

33

↑

138

108

↓

San Francisco

40

107

--

184

464

--

Early Development

Anchorage

36

52

↑

155

241

↑

Kentucky BOS

31

29

−

154

77

↓

NW Michigan

31

32

−

161

250

−

Santa Cruz

28

63

↑

516

192

↓

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)

60

70

−

206

132

−

Memphis (Medium)

23

33

−

108

244

--

Colorado BOS (Early)

151

6

↓

477

208

↓

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change over time.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

Lengths of stay in emergency shelter increased in three sites and lengths of stay in

transitional housing decreased in four sites over time. A goal of the demonstration was to increase youth’s quick access to permanent housing and, as a result, decrease their time spent in temporary or unstable situations. If the demonstration was successful at achieving that goal, the researchers would anticipate shorter lengths of stay in emergency shelter and transitional housing over time. However, beginning in March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic affected youth’s access to and exits from all types of assistance. Finding housing became more challenging during that time, as fewer rental units became available, necessary documentation 56

such as birth certificates became harder to obtain, and fewer youth were stably employed. The average lengths of stay in shelter increased or stayed the same in nine of the YHDP sites and decreased only in Seattle/King County. By 2020, four sites had lengths of stay of about a month or less, two sites had stays between 1 and 2 months, and the two remaining sites had stays exceeding 3 months (see exhibit 4-13).

In transitional housing, al but two sites had stays of more than 6 months. Five sites experienced no significant change in the average time youth spent in transitional housing, four sites experienced decreases, and one site (Anchorage) experienced an increase.

57

Peer sites tended to serve fewer youth in emergency shelter and transitional housing over

time and, in Colorado BOS, for shorter lengths of stay. Two of the three peer sites had modest increases in the number of crisis housing units for youth between 2017 and 2020, whereas Memphis lost funding for its youth-specific emergency shelter over the period. Over time, all three peer sites served fewer youth in crisis housing with the exception of transitional housing in Colorado BOS. In addition, lengths of stay in crisis housing decreased significantly in Colorado BOS; the changes in the two other sites were nonsignificant due to the smal number of youth served.

Compared with YHDP sites, fewer non-YHDP CoCs national y had crisis housing (both shelter

and transitional housing) before the demonstration, and fewer experienced increases in crisis

housing for youth. Among all CoCs nationally, the percentage of CoCs with crisis housing for youth increased only slightly between the first and second waves of the survey, increasing to 62

percent from 59 percent (see exhibit 4-14). Rates among YHDP CoCs were higher at both periods, with 100 percent of Round 1 and Rounds 2 and 3 sites having crisis housing for youth in place by 2021.

Exhibit 4-14. Availability of YHDP Rounds 1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs National y:

Implementation of Crisis Housing

YHDP R1 Wave 1

YHDP R1 Wave 2

YHDP R2—3 Wave 1

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2

Non-YHDP Wave 1

Non-YHDP Wave 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% of CoCs

CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for YHDP Evaluation

Youth were typical y grateful to have youth specific crisis housing and voiced the need for

more. Crisis housing for youth was considered a welcome resource by youth, who appreciated having a safe place to stay where they could get case management assistance and access to other services. In contrast to adult shelters, where youth reported feeling unsafe or vulnerable—including being fearful of bullying, assault, robbery, and pressure to use drugs—

youth in youth-specific crisis housing reported feeling safer and receiving more assistance. They 58

spoke of case managers who helped them get jobs, find housing, and access services they needed and learn things they did not know how to do, such as laundry and cooking.

In about one-half of the YHDP sites, youth indicated that their communities did not have enough crisis housing, a chal enge that was exacerbated during the pandemic, when many shelters were deconcentrating their facilities. In addition, in some instances, youth commented that the crisis housing available had restrictive rules that can deter the youth from staying there. For example, curfews or rules that required them to leave during the day were challenging, especially for those that worked late hours. Youth in multiple sites mentioned that they do not get much sleep because they get back to the shelter fol owing an evening shift and then have to leave early and find a place to spend their time. Others noted that they felt unsafe not having any place to be during the day.

Providers wrestled with the right model of crisis housing to provide and made adaptations as

needed. Across sites, CoCs struggled with determining the right model of crisis housing to provide to youth. For example, in Austin/Travis County, to accommodate youth who wanted more privacy than a dormitory setting allowed, providers began also offering crisis housing in the form of individual apartments. In some sites, providers believed that individual apartments decreased the motivation for youth to leave. They noted that youth appreciated staying in crisis transitional housing, where their expenses were covered, as opposed to rapid rehousing programs that would require they contribute to household expenses. Youth in some sites, including Ohio BOS and Kentucky BOS, however, welcomed the communal living space of youth-specific crisis housing, in which they could be surrounded by other youth who were going through similar experiences.

Staffing crisis housing was another chal enge, with providers struggling to determine the right level of staffing. Providers reported preferring to have 24-hour staffing at the crisis housing facilities but not having a sustainable source of funding to pay for staff to be present 24 hours per day.

Host Homes

Host homes are a type of

Before the demonstration, host homes were in place in three

housing assistance in

YHDP sites. Host homes are one of the more innovative

which youth and young

temporary housing approaches and have increasingly been

adults reside with an

promoted as a promising intervention model for youth at risk

unrelated adult in the

of or experiencing homelessness (HUD, n.d.). Before the

adult’s home for a

demonstration, host homes were in place in three YHDP sites.

temporary period of time.

In Cincinnati/Hamilton County, the program served LGBTQ

youth. In Ohio BOS, host homes were available to child-

welfare-involved youth, and Seattle/King County was implementing a pilot host homes program for a larger population of youth experiencing homelessness, with philanthropic support.

Over the course of the demonstration, five additional YHDP CoCs included host homes in their

portfolios. Host homes were embraced by a number of sites as a possible strategy for serving 59

minors who often were not eligible for other types of assistance. Sites funding host homes with YHDP support included Anchorage, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, NW Michigan, and Kentucky BOS, including all of the early development sites that had limited youth-specific crisis housing at baseline. 19 In each of those sites, host homes programs tended to be small, aiming to serve about 10 youth per year. As noted below, however, COVID-19 proved to be an obstacle in operating host homes. During the course of the demonstration, both Ohio BOS and Cincinnati/Hamilton County discontinued their host homes programs.

Host homes were also available at two peer sites. Two

Host Home projects in Anchorage

peer sites, Colorado BOS and Sonoma County, had host

and San Francisco were targeted,

homes programs at baseline, with both available to

but not limited, to LGBTQ youth.

child-welfare-involved youth. Colorado BOS paid

Santa Cruz targeted LGBTQ youth,

increased attention to host homes over time as a

pregnant and parenting youth,

strategy for sheltering youth experiencing homelessness and youth of color. Kentucky BOS

in regions of the CoC without access to crisis housing for

targeted host homes specifically

youth. In addition, the state received an infusion of

to school-age minors who are not

funding from the Marijuana Cash Fund for youth-specific able to live at home with their housing, a portion of which was going to be used for

parents or guardians but did not

host homes outside metro Denver. Sonoma County’s

rise to the level of needing to be

program did not change over time.

in the care of the state child

welfare system.

Fewer CoCs nationally operated host homes than YHDP

sites. As shown in exhibit 4-15, only 23 percent of non-YHDP sites had host homes fully or partially in place by 2021, marking a small increase from 13 percent in 2019 but still significantly lower than YHDP CoCs. Between 2019 and 2021, a greater percentage of both Round 1 YHDP

sites and Rounds 2 and 3 YHDP sites included host homes in their portfolios (nearly 50 percent of each group). Round 1 YHDP CoCs had a greater percentage of sites with fully implemented host home programs (40 percent) than both YHDP Rounds 2 and 3 (17 percent) and non-YHDP

CoCs nationally (8 percent).

19 In early 2020, NW Michigan launched a host homes program using unspent YHDP funding from its coordinated entry program.

60

Exhibit 4-15. Availability of Host Homes at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Comparison of YHDP CoCs

and Non-YHDP CoCs National y

YHDP R1 Wave 1

YHDP R1 Wave 2

YHDP R2—3 Wave 1

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2

↑

Non-YHDP Wave 1

Non-YHDP Wave 2

↑

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% of CoCs

CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change in percent served over time.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation

Sites faced chal enges in implementing the host homes program, which were exacerbated by

the pandemic. During the first year of program implementation, most YHDP-funded host home programs were able to hire and train staff; develop program policies and procedures, including processes for recruiting hosts and matching them to youth; and develop onboarding materials for hosts and youth about how to live together. Three of the five sites were slow to enrol youth, in part because identifying and engaging potential hosts was difficult. That challenge was exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, when people were reluctant to open their homes to people they did not know. Therefore, some programs ended, and others temporarily paused recruitment of hosts and placement of youth. As a result, few youth across sites participated in the program during the evaluation, which limited the data on their experiences. The few focus group participants who had had experience with host homes spoke positively of the experience, noting that it provided more of a family setting than other options.

Rapid Rehousing

Rapid rehousing

Before the demonstration, only three CoCs had more than five

provides housing

units of rapid rehousing for young adults 24 years or younger.

location and

Cincinnati/Hamilton County, Connecticut BOS, and Seattle/King

stabilization services to

County had programs ranging from 55 to more than 80 units.

youth and young adults

Anchorage and Ohio BOS each had three units of youth-specific

with time-limited rental

rapid rehousing, and the remaining five sites (Austin/Travis

assistance for market-

County, San Francisco, Kentucky BOS, NW Michigan, and Santa

rate housing.

Cruz) did not have rapid rehousing programs for youth in place.

61

Exhibit 4-16. Youth-Specific Rapid Rehousing at Baseline and Post YHDP: Change in Number of

Units and Percentage of Youth Served, By Site

Number of Units

Percentage of Youth Served

Change in

Change

CoC Sites

2017

2020

# of Units

2017

2020

in %

Served

High Development

Austin/Travis County

0

164*

↑

7

22

↑

Cincinnati/Hamilton

County

55

122*

↑

7

21

↑

Seattle/King County

83

98*

↑

7

19

↑

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

8

220*

↑

3

11

↑

Ohio BOS

3

148*

↑

20

31

↑

San Francisco

0

152*

↑

5

23

↑

Early Development

Anchorage

3

22*

↑

1

6

↑

Kentucky BOS

0

33*

↑

11

13

−

NW Michigan

0

43*

↑

<1

22

↑

Santa Cruz

0

7*

↑

24

13

↓

Peer

Sonoma County

(High)

15

9

↓

5

11

↑

Memphis (Medium)

0

17

↑

49

50

−

Colorado BOS (Early)

0

0

−

2

2

−

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HIC = Housing Inventory Count. YHDP =

Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change in percent served over time.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HICs and HMIS

Al YHDP sites increased the number of units of rapid rehousing provided for youth and young

adults, and eight experienced significant increases in the number of youth receiving it. Rapid rehousing was the most common area of response addressed by YHDP. All 10 CoCs either developed new youth-specific rapid rehousing programs or expanded existing programs with the addition of new units. Between 2017 and 2020, YHDP CoCs added between 7 and 212 units of rapid rehousing for youth, with six sites adding nearly 100 or more units, funded by the demonstration and additional sources. At four sites, YHDP represented the first time the CoC

had implemented rapid rehousing for youth.

Commensurately, a greater number of youth received rapid rehousing over time in all YHDP

sites. As exhibit 4-16 indicates, both the number and percentage of youth receiving rapid rehousing increased in 8 of the 10 YHDP sites. The remaining two sites, Santa Cruz and Kentucky BOS, both served a greater number of youth in rapid rehousing in 2020 than in 2017, with 13 and 21 additional youth, respectively, but the difference was not large enough to reach statistical significance, particularly given the substantial increase in overall youth served between 2017 (N=122) and 2020 (N=335) in Santa Cruz. Kentucky BOS served roughly 62

the same number of youth overal in the two periods,

In most CoCs, rapid rehousing

but the increase in the percentage of youth who

assistance was aimed at all youth

received rapid rehousing was not statistically

populations; however, a few sites

significant. Despite those increases, however, the

implemented programs that

proportion of youth receiving rapid rehousing is only a targeted specific subpopulations fourth or less of the youth served in al sites except

(for example, pregnant and

Ohio BOS (where 31 percent of youth served received

parenting youth, underserved youth

rapid rehousing).

of color).

Over time, YHDP sites served youth for longer periods

of time in rapid rehousing. As exhibit 4-17 indicates, between 2017 and 2020, lengths of stay in rapid rehousing increased in seven of the eight sites that had youth exit during both periods, with statistical y significant increases in five sites. The only site that experienced shorter lengths of stay was Connecticut BOS, which served youth in 2017 through a rapid rehousing program funded by the Department of Children and Families, in which youth could stay for up to 24

months. Longer lengths of stay at most sites may have result from the CoCs having additional rapid rehousing resources with which to serve youth; longer lengths of stay also may have resulted from HUD’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic by extending the amount of time youth could be served in time-limited programs such as rapid rehousing.

Exhibit 4-17. Length of Stay (in Days) in Rapid Rehousing at Baseline and Post-YHDP, By Site

Rapid Rehousing

Change in

CoC Sites

CY 2017

CY 2020

Length of

Stay

High Development

Austin/Travis County

168

421

↑

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

299

367

↑

Seattle/King County

220

260

−

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

354

227

−

Ohio BOS

99

128

↑

San Francisco

143

271

↑

Early Development

Anchorage

107

254

−

Kentucky BOS

165

249

↑

NW Michigan

No data

409

Santa Cruz

No data

292

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)

125

120

−

Memphis (Medium)

88

155

↑

Colorado BOS (Early)

298

228

−

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

63

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change over time. Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

The three peer sites did not realize the same level of change over time as the YHDP sites. At baseline, neither Colorado BOS nor Memphis had youth-specific rapid rehousing, and Sonoma County had 15 units. By 2020, only Memphis experienced an increase in the number of rapid rehousing units for youth funded through its regular CoC award. Before, Memphis had served a large number of pregnant and parenting youth in its family rapid rehousing programs. Rates of receipt of rapid rehousing by youth stayed stable between 2017 and 2020 in Colorado BOS, where only 2 percent of youth received assistance. In Memphis, where one-half of the youth served received rapid rehousing, the rate of receipt stayed the same over time, but the average length of stay increased from less than 3 months to about 7 months. In Sonoma County, 11

percent of youth received rapid rehousing in 2020, up significantly from 5 percent in 2019.

National y, non-YHDP CoCs are increasingly providing rapid rehousing to youth; however,

YHDP accelerated the trend in those sites funded. Non-YHDP CoCs nationally also significantly increased their use of rapid rehousing for youth over time (see exhibit 4-18). The use of rapid rehousing grew from 48 percent of sites in 2019, with 18 percent fully implemented, to 83

percent in 2021, with 50 percent fully implemented. However, at both periods, al YHDP Round 1 CoCs and Round 2 and 3 CoCs indicated having the intervention implemented in 2021, with 90

percent and 75 percent, respectively, fully implemented.

Exhibit 4-18. Availability of YHDP Rounds 1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs National y:

Implementation of Rapid Rehousing

YHDP R1 Wave 1

YHDP R1 Wave 2

↑

YHDP R2—3 Wave 1

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2

↑

Non-YHDP Wave 1

Non-YHDP Wave 2

↑

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% of CoCs

CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change in percent served over time.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation 64

The demonstration provided CoCs an opportunity to develop innovative rapid rehousing

models. In most sites, the rapid rehousing programs included housing identification assistance, rent and move-in assistance, and case management

services for up to 24 months. However, four of the

Joint transitional housing/rapid

CoCs implemented innovative approaches to rapid

rehousing models immediately

rehousing. For example, three CoCs (Austin/Travis

placed youth experiencing

County, Cincinnati/Hamilton County, and Seattle/King

homelessness in crisis transitional

County) implemented joint transitional housing/rapid

housing and matched them with a

rehousing models. In addition, three YHDP CoCs (San

housing case manager, who worked

Francisco, Cincinnati/Hamilton County, and

with them to secure permanent

Seattle/King County) requested and received waivers

housing with rapid rehousing

of HUD requirements, which allowed them to be more

financial assistance as quickly as

flexible with rapid rehousing assistance and tailor the

possible.

services offered to the individual needs of the youth

they served. Such waivers al owed the CoCs the ability

to extend the period of time youth received assistance from 24 to 36 months, serve youth in leases for less than 12 months, house youth in master-leased buildings, and periodically stop participating in the program without losing eligibility for additional assistance.

Important to note is that in 2020, HUD granted all CoCs nationally a number of waivers to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and to mitigate the economic impacts of the pandemic. Among those waivers included a suspension of time limits on rapid rehousing.

Despite increases in rapid rehousing assistance at al YHDP CoCs, sites continued to struggle

to find stable housing for youth. A lack of affordable housing was noted as a challenge in all sites—including sites with high rents and low vacancies and those that are more affordable but lack housing stock. The COVID-19 eviction moratorium further exacerbated that challenge, as fewer units became available. Across sites, providers reported that finding a suitable unit and scheduling the necessary inspections could sometimes take several weeks. Providers indicated that they often struggled to find landlords wil ing to rent to youth, especial y those who were unemployed, had limited rental histories, or had criminal records or histories of property damage or eviction. Not all landlords were willing to accept HUD subsidies as a form of payment. Providers argued that the difficulty in finding housing for youth in rapid rehousing often extended youth’s stays in crisis housing beyond the desired 30-day goal and limited the availability of crisis housing units for additional youth. In a number of sites, such as Seattle/King County and Connecticut BOS, providers tried to encourage shared housing to ease youth’s rental burden during and fol owing receipt of the subsidy; however, they noted, most youth have histories of trauma and prefer the security and privacy of living alone.

A related challenge, unanticipated in many sites, was the reported high rates of rehousing that occurred among youth in the program due to conflict with roommates or partners, neighbors, and landlords. Providers noted that relocation expenses often were not factored into program budgets.

65

YHDP CoCs relied on additional public and private funding to supplement expenses related to

rapid rehousing that were not al owable by HUD. In 9 of 10 sites, stakeholders spoke of using other funding sources to cover expenses, such as overdue utility bil s, moving expenses, household supplies, and furniture that were required to help youth access housing. In most sites, those expenses were covered by philanthropic funding or by state and city sources. For example, in Ohio BOS, providers noted that much of the available rental housing stock does not include appliances such as refrigerators and ovens and thus does not pass inspection for HUD-subsidized housing. The CoC was able to secure a grant from the Ohio Department of Health for flexible funds, which they used to purchase necessary appliances to bring units up to code.

Across sites, youth noted the poor quality of the units they were able to find. Some youth in focus groups reported living in run-down apartments or units in locations they considered unsafe. Youth spoke of difficulties in getting their landlords to respond to repair requests and mentioned going months without needed repairs to AC units and light fuses, for example. Some youth reached out to case managers for assistance in dealing with their landlords, but case managers often encouraged them to advocate for themselves. One youth, receiving rapid rehousing assistance, indicated that the landlord did not listen to her requests because she was not paying the rent; she believed that the provider would have more influence over the landlord because the provider paid the rent.

Final y, providers noted chal enges in serving youth with multiple barriers in rapid rehousing.

Across sites, providers indicated serving youth that have more serious barriers than anticipated, especially mental health and substance abuse challenges. Moreover, case managers reported that engaging these youth in behavioral health services can be difficult. They also reported that youth who had never lived independently before the program often lacked basic life skills, such as how to do laundry or clean an apartment. Providers noted that at times, youth who have those characteristics may be better suited for more permanent assistance, such as permanent supportive housing, rather than being served through rapid rehousing programs because insufficient other assistance is available in the CoC. As a result, lengths of stay can be longer than expected, and, for some youth, rapid rehousing is used as a bridge for more permanent subsidies.

Permanent Supportive Housing/Other Permanent

Permanent

Housing

supportive housing

Before the demonstration, al of the YHDP sites except Santa Cruz

provides youth and

had permanent supportive housing or other permanent housing

young adults with

for youth. The number of units ranged considerably, from 5 in NW

non-time-limited

Michigan to more than 200 in Seattle/King County, yet al but two

housing assistance

sites had fewer than 50 units available.

with wraparound

supportive services.

YHDP led to increases in the number of units of permanent

supportive and other permanent housing offered. During the demonstration, three sites implemented YHDP-funded permanent supportive housing programs for specific populations of youth (for example, youth with mental health problems, 66

justice-involved youth, youth with disabilities), with the number of units ranging from 4 to 10, marking the first time this type of housing was available in both Anchorage and Santa Cruz. Two other sites—Cincinnati/Hamilton County and Ohio BOS—increased the number of permanent supportive housing units for youth through non-YHDP funded sources.

As exhibit 4-19 shows, the percentage of youth who received permanent supportive housing increased significantly in three YHDP sites and in other permanent housing in Austin/Travis County. In Ohio BOS, the percentage of youth receiving permanent supportive housing decreased despite the site increasing the number of permanent supportive housing units for youth from 15 to 41. Part of the possible explanation for this seemingly conflicting finding is that the new units were available in counties outside the demonstration region and represented a fraction of the new 145 new units of rapid rehousing over the same period.

Among the remaining six sites, rates of receipt of other permanent housing were low at both periods for sites with very few units and those with more housing units.

The three peer sites also increased availability of other permanent housing resources. Among the peer sites, only Sonoma County had permanent supportive housing for youth in place at baseline, with eight units. However, by 2020, Colorado BOS added 30 units to its portfolio, and Sonoma County increased the number of permanent housing units for youth to 66 units, resulting in more units than seven of the YHDP CoCs. Even as the rates remained low, the increase in units resulted in a significant increase in the percentage of youth who received permanent supportive housing in Colorado between 2017 and 2020 but not in Sonoma County.

Memphis did not have any units of permanent supportive housing or other permanent housing for youth at either period but served about 4 percent of youth through units for other populations.

67

Exhibit 4-19. Youth-Specific Permanent Supportive Housing at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in Number of Units and

Percentage of Youth Served, By Site

Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)

Permanent Housing (Only or With Services)

Number of Units

Percentage of Youth Served

Number of Units

Percentage of Youth Served

Change

Change

Change

Change

CoC Sites

CY 2017

CY 2020

in # of

CY 2017

CY 2020

in %

CY 2017

CY 2020

in # of

CY 2017

CY 2020

in %

Units

Served

Units

Served

High Development

Austin/Travis County

23

0

↓

<1

1

−

0

20

↑

2

<1

↑

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

35

70

↑

2

4

↑

0

0

−

0

0

−

Seattle/King County

61

61

−

2

2

−

147

139

↓

3

2

−

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

40

7

↓

1

1

−

0

0

−

<1

<1

−

Ohio BOS

15

41

↑

11

7

↓

0

0

−

<1

0

−

San Francisco

122

106*

↓

<1

3

↑

0

64

↑

<1

3

−

Early Development

Anchorage

0

10*

−

1

3

↑

10

0

↓

<1

1

−

Kentucky BOS

9

0

↓

2

2

−

0

0

−

0

0

−

NW Michigan

5

0

↓

3

4

−

0

0

−

1

0

−

Santa Cruz

0

7*

↑

0

3

−

0

0

−

0

0

−

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

8

42

↑

4

6

−

0

24

↑

6

7

−

Memphis (Medium)

0

0

−

4

4

−

0

0

−

0

1

−

Colorado BOS (Early)

0

30

↑

<1

2

↑

0

0

−

0

0

−

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HIC = Housing Inventory Count. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change in percent served over time.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HICs and HMIS

68

Across sites, as expected, few youth exited permanent supportive housing or other permanent

housing during the two periods. Because the numbers are low, drawing conclusions about changes in the length of stay in the two programs over time is difficult. Youth in Seattle/King County experienced a significant increase in the length of stay in other permanent housing between 2020 and 2017, and youth in Kentucky BOS stayed, on average, fewer days in permanent supportive housing in 2020 than in 2017 (see exhibit 4-20).

Exhibit 4-20. Length of Stay (in Days) in Permanent Supportive Housing and Other Permanent

Housing at Baseline and Post-YHDP, By Site

Permanent Supportive Housing

Other Permanent Housing

Change in

Change in

CoC Sites

CY 2017

CY 2020

Length of

CY 2017

CY 2020

Length of

Stay

Stay

High Development

Austin/Travis County

No data

355

No data

656

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

No data

650

No data

No data

Seattle/King County

412

503

−

314

1026

↑

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

321

504

−

150

No data

Ohio BOS

834

534

−

No data

No data

San Francisco

174

621

−

103

671

−

Early Development

Anchorage

275

230

−

No data

No data

Kentucky BOS

695

214

↓

No data

No data

NW Michigan

566

729

−

No data

No data

Santa Cruz

No data

230

No data

No data

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)

874

243

−

127

595

Memphis (Medium)

468

391

−

No data

735

Colorado BOS (Early)

No data

475

No data

No data

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change over time. Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

YHDP CoCs were more likely to have other permanent

housing for youth than non-YHDP CoCs national y. As exhibit

Other permanent housing

4-21 demonstrates, by 2021, 100 percent of YHDP Round 1

could include permanent

CoCs had other permanent housing for youth fully

supportive housing, Family

implemented, up from 60 percent in 2019, and

Unification Program (FUP)

90 percent of YHDP Round 2 and 3 CoCs had programs

and Foster Youth to

partially or fully in place, By contrast, less than 60 percent of

Independence (FYI)

non-YHDP CoCs nationally had other housing fully

vouchers, and other

implemented for youth. Moreover, a greater proportion of

subsidized housing.

69

Round 1 YHDP sites reported that their programs were fully implemented compared with YHDP

sites in Rounds 2 and 3 and non-YHDP CoCs nationally.

Exhibit 4-21. Availability of YHDP Rounds 1–3 CoCs and Non-YHDP CoCs National y:

Implementation of Permanent Housing

YHDP R1 Wave 1

YHDP R1 Wave 2

YHDP R2—3 Wave 1

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2

Non-YHDP Wave 1

Non-YHDP Wave 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% of CoCs

CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation Other Services and Supports

Below, the researchers describe the youth-specific family intervention, education and employment, and behavioral health services that YHDP Round 1 CoCs implemented over the course of the demonstration and how those changes compare with the experience of three peer sites and all other non-YHDP CoCs nationally.

Family Intervention Services

Before the demonstration, nearly all YHDP CoCs provided

Family intervention

some family intervention services to youth. Nine sites had

services include services

family intervention services in place, but those services were

such as counseling,

primarily provided only to child-welfare-involved youth or

mediation, and

through select youth providers rather than being available to

reunification assistance to

all youth experiencing homelessness who might need them.

help youth and young

Family intervention services were not often the focus of

adults strengthen family

YHDP programs. Only Seattle/King County invested YHDP

ties and return to their

resources in expanding family intervention services. Other

families or to identify new

YHDP sites included services to help youth engage or reunite

kinship supports and

with family and other natural supports through other

housing opportunities.

interventions, such as diversion and navigation/case

management.

70

The three peer sites, similarly, tended to offer family intervention services to specific

subpopulations rather than to al youth experiencing homelessness. At baseline and over time, in both Memphis and Colorado BOS, family intervention services were offered to specific subpopulations, such as LGBTQ youth or child-welfare-involved youth rather than more broadly to al youth experiencing homelessness. Sonoma County was the only site of the three that offered family intervention services to youth at risk of or experiencing homelessness through its primary youth providers, Social Advocates for Youth.

Seattle/King County’s Youth

Some family intervention services are available in most

Engagement Team was a

non-YHDP CoCs national y and are comparable to the

multidisciplinary team

Round 1 YHDP sites. As exhibit 4-22 shows, among non-

composed of a clinical

YHDP CoCs nationally, the majority of sites (77 percent) had

therapist, a child welfare

family intervention services at least partially implemented,

representative, and a legal

with about one-third (37 percent) having services fully

counselor who worked closely

implemented in 2021. That rate is comparable to the rate

with youth and their parents

in 2019, when 74 percent of CoCs indicated that family

and natural support systems to intervention services were available, and 35 percent provide family therapy and

indicated that they were fully implemented. The

wraparound services to minors

percentage of CoCs nationally that report having family

(ages 18 and younger) who

intervention services in both timeframes is comparable to

were experiencing

the percentage of YHDP Round 2 sites with family

homelessness.

intervention services but lower than Rounds 2 and 3 YHDP

sites.

Exhibit 4-22. Availability of Family Intervention Services at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in

Implementation of Family Intervention Services

YHDP R1 Wave 1

YHDP R1 Wave 2

YHDP R2—3 Wave 1

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2

Non-YHDP Wave 1

Non-YHDP Wave 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% of CoCs

CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation 71

Education and Employment Assistance

Education assistance offers

Before the demonstration, education and employment

help completing high school

assistance was available in all YHDP sites but not

or a GED, applying for or

always specifically designed for youth experiencing

attending postsecondary

homelessness. At baseline, education and employment

education, or participating in

assistance specifically for youth experiencing

training programs.

homelessness was available in eight of the YHDP sites

(Austin/Travis County, Cincinnati/Hamilton County,

Employment assistance

Seattle/King County, Connecticut BOS, Ohio BOS, San

includes job search and job

Francisco, Anchorage, and NW Michigan). Those

preparation services, support

services were often colocated with other types of

or coaching while employed,

homelessness assistance by youth-specific providers,

paid or unpaid work

such as Lifeworks in Austin/Travis County and

experiences, and other

Lighthouse in Cincinnati/Hamilton County. In the

services to find or keep

remaining two YHDP sites (Kentucky BOS and Santa

employment.

Cruz), youth were able to access education and

employment assistance through mainstream service

providers, but the assistance was not aimed specifically at youth experiencing homelessness.

As part of the demonstration, al of the YHDP sites indicated that youth participating in YHDP-

funded projects, such as navigation services and rapid rehousing, received education and

employment supports. Services were typically provided by case managers through either direct assistance or referrals to partner agencies. For example, youth receiving housing assistance in Ohio BOS received help to develop housing plans that included employment goals, and Seattle/King County provided education and employment assistance through its navigation and diversion programs. However, none of the sites used YHDP funding for projects specifical y for education or employment. By 2020, 80 percent of CoCs indicated that they had education and employment services for youth in place.

Education and employment services for youth experiencing homelessness were also available

in peer CoCs. Like the YHDP sites, one peer site, Sonoma County, had employment and education services collocated at youth homelessness providers. In the other two peer sites, Memphis and Colorado BOS, youth were able to access education and employment assistance through mainstream service providers that did not specially target youth experiencing homelessness.

Among non-YHDP CoCs national y, education and employment services for youth were also

widely available. As exhibit 4-23 displays, no dramatic differences were apparent between the three rounds of YHDP sites and non-YHDP CoCs nationally in access to employment and education services. YHDP CoCs were more likely to have those services in place at baseline than other CoCs, but by 2021, the percentage of CoCs reporting having those services available were comparable across YHDP Round 1 CoCs (80 percent), Rounds 2 and 3 YHDP sites (90 percent), and non-YHDP sites (83 percent). As noted in chapter 3, CoCs nationally typically had higher 72

levels of coordination with education agencies than with other systems through the agencies’

McKinney Vento liaisons.

Exhibit 4-23. Availability of Youth-Specific Education and Employment Services at Baseline

and Post-YHDP: Change in Implementation of Education and Employment Services

YHDP R1 Wave 1

YHDP R1 Wave 2

YHDP R2—3 Wave 1

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2

Non-YHDP Wave 1

Non-YHDP Wave 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% of CoCs

CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation

Even though education and employment assistance was widely available in YHDP sites, youth

struggled with finding time for school and reliable transportation to jobs. Many focus group participants expressed interest in going back to school; however, they frequently noted difficulty finding time, money, or both to get more education. Youth also mentioned chal enges they had with finding or keeping jobs, including dealing with health or behavioral health issues, struggling to balance jobs and schooling, and having responsibility for taking care of children.

Across sites, transportation posed a significant challenge to employment for youth, especially in the rural communities that had no public transit options.

The COVID-19 pandemic posed additional chal enges for youth for both schooling and employment. Youth in school reported difficulty staying current in online classes without computers or reliable internet and with less guidance from their instructors. Employed youth also reported losing their jobs or having their hours reduced when their communities locked down. Others reported leaving their jobs to take care of children when day care facilities and schools closed, to take care of sick family members, or because they were afraid of becoming sick.

73

Behavioral Health Services

Before the demonstration, al YHDP sites offered behavioral

Behavioral health services

health services for youth experiencing homelessness. In provide assistance with

some cases, such as Anchorage and San Francisco, those

mental health and chemical

services were provided on site at youth homelessness

dependency disorders and

providers. At other sites, such as Connecticut BOS, services

can include inpatient and

were available through mainstream providers in the

outpatient treatment,

community. Both Austin/Travis County and Seattle/King

counseling, and medication.

County had outreach teams in place that included mental

health and substance abuse professionals.

The direct provision of behavioral health services was not a focus of the demonstration,

although most YHDP sites coordinated with behavioral health service providers. Only one site, Seattle/King County, used YHDP funding to expand behavioral health services for youth experiencing homelessness. The Youth Engagement Teams provided wraparound services by a clinical therapist to minors (ages 18 and younger) who were experiencing homelessness. In addition, YHDP funds were used to expand the age group served under King County’s existing Behavioral Health crisis response teams from youth younger than age 18 to include young adults ages 18–24 experiencing homelessness. The teams provided mobile outreach with in-home and community supports for up to 8 weeks and stabilization beds where youth with more intensive needs could stay. The YHDP component focused on implementing pre-intervention activities (for example, meditation, African drumming circles, yoga) that engage young adults with their communities. Over the course of the demonstration, the program evolved into a peer intervention program. Other CoCs provided referrals through navigators and case managers to youth in need of assistance. In the majority of YHDP sites, CoCs collaborated with behavioral health agencies to facilitate access to homelessness assistance for the youth they served and to streamline the referral process to behavioral health services for youth receiving homelessness assistance.

Behavioral health services for youth experiencing homelessness were also available in al

three peer sites during both periods. In Sonoma County, youth experiencing homelessness could access counseling services through the primary youth homelessness provider, Social Advocates for Youth. Services were available in Memphis through two large behavioral health organizations in the city, both of which provided services specifical y for people experiencing homelessness. In Colorado BOS, services were available through youth homelessness providers in some counties, such as CASA of the 7th Judicial District in Montrose County, and through mainstream providers in others.

Behavioral health services are similarly available in most non-YHDP CoCs national y. As exhibit 4-24 indicates, behavioral health services were reportedly in place in 82 percent of non-YHDP CoCs nationally at Wave 2, with 46 percent having services fully implemented. By comparison, services were available in all YHDP Round 1 CoCs and 90 percent of Rounds 2 and 3

CoCs. [The CoC survey did not capture implementation of behavioral health services provided 74

directly by CoCs in Wave 1. However, Wave 1 did capture cross-system coordination with the behavioral health system, which was found to be substantial, especial y for YHDP sites.]

Exhibit 4-24. Availability of Youth-Specific Behavioral Health Services Post-YHDP

YHDP R1 Wave 2

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2

Non-YHDP Wave 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% of CoCs

CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation 75

Chapter V. The Population of Youth Experiencing

Homelessness: Changes in the Size, Characteristics, and

Rates of Exit to Permanent Housing

Summary of Findings

• Across the Round 1 Youth Homeless Demonstration Program (YHDP) sites, a clear pattern of change did not emerge in the size of the population of youth experiencing homelessness between 2017 and 2020, although most either decreased or stayed the same in the number experiencing homelessness, and more than one-half of the sites increased in the number of youth served.

• The composition of the population changed over time and relatively consistently across the sites, largely reflecting the services and housing put into place through the demonstration. These included the following:

- Increases in the average age of youth served and decreases in the percentage of minors.

- Decreases in the proportion of males and commensurate increases in the proportion of pregnant and parenting youth.

- Shifts toward serving more youth of color and Hispanic youth.

- Higher rates of disabling conditions, especially behavioral health issues.

- Slightly higher incomes among youth.

• YHDP sites show a mixed rate of success in exiting youth to permanent housing based on both the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) measure and the actual number of youth exiting to permanent housing.

• Peer sites general y experienced a decrease in the number of youth experiencing homelessness and an increase in the number of youth served in the homeless system, the population of youth served, and exits to permanent housing.

By implementing coordinated systems responses to youth homelessness, YHDP aims to ultimately reduce the number of youth experiencing homelessness through both prevention and housing efforts. In addition, through additional outreach and other services, the aim is to reach out to those in the population who may be underserved and who make up a larger share of the population. Final y, by increasing services and housing, the goal is to exit more youth to permanent housing.

YHDP’s influence on each of those indicators is confounded, to some degree, by other changes in the broader context (such as COVID-19, described below) that are influencing those indicators and are difficult to ascertain due to qualifications about the data sources. The Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) was used for al three indicators; the researchers also analyzed the Point in Time (PIT) Counts to examine changes in the size of the youth population experiencing homelessness.

76

The same HMIS data limitations outlined at the

HMIS Data Limitations To Consider

beginning of chapter 4 must be considered in

• The data are not specific to either

reviewing the findings (see box). The findings

youth services or YHDP-funded

produced with the PIT Count also should be

services and can include areas outside

regarded carefully, as it may not be an accurate

the YHDP demonstration area.

count of youth experiencing homelessness over

• The data are limited to a single year

time. The PIT Count is an annual count of

at the baseline period and a single

homeless persons on a single night in January,

year at the post-demonstration

conducted by a set of volunteers canvassing to

period.

identify individuals living on the streets and other • Changes in the administration of outdoor areas and in shelters and transitional

HMIS systems can confound some of

housing. Because that number is influenced by

the findings.

system capacity (both the crisis housing capacity

• The 2020 data include youth served

and the outreach capacity), changes in PIT

during the first 10 months of the

Counts over time may reflect changes in the

COVID-19 pandemic.

CoCs’ capacity that have resulted from the

• Because the number of youth served

demonstration, rather than the true number of

in some communities changed

youth experiencing homelessness. In addition,

between 2017 and 2020 (some

any changes over time in a CoC’s methodology to

increasing, some decreasing), similar

conduct the PIT Count could result in changes in

percentages over time may mask

the count. 20

actual differences in the number of

Throughout the sections to fol ow, the

youth served.

researchers take the data limitations into

• At both periods, the number of youth

account as they examine YHDP’s influence on

served across sites ranged

each of the key indicators.

dramatically (from 142 to more than

5,000).

Changes in the Size of the Population of Youth Experiencing

Homelessness

The size of the population of youth experiencing homelessness most commonly decreased or

remained the same (as measured by the PIT Counts). As exhibit 5-1 demonstrates, one-half of the YHDP CoCs realized a decrease in the number of youth experiencing homelessness between 2017 and 2020, ranging from 8 to 35 percent, reflective of the 11-percent decline experienced nationally in the overal number of unaccompanied youth identified as homeless between 2017

and 2020 (HUD, 2021). The most notable decreases were realized in the sites with the largest population at baseline, Seattle/King County, and the smal est, NW Michigan, with 34-percent and 35-percent reductions, respectively. Three CoCs remained largely unchanged, and three experienced increases between 4 and 10 percent.

20 Seattle/King County changed its methodology for the PIT Count in 2017, before the data were col ected for this evaluation. The research team is unaware of any CoC that changed its methodology during the course of the study.

77

Two of three peer counties also experienced decreases in their PIT Counts. Sonoma County and Colorado BOS21 realized considerable decreases in the size of the population of youth experiencing homelessness, of 32 percent and 31 percent, respectively. Memphis experienced a small increase, from 40 youth in 2017 to 43 youth in 2020.

Exhibit 5-1. Number of Youth in YHDP and Peer CoCs’ PIT Counts in 2017 and 2020, and

Percentage Change Over Time, By Site

-34%

1,800

1,600

h

-8%

1,400

out 1,200

f Y 1,000

r o 800

+4%

-32%

be 600

-48%

400

Num

+10% 3%

-12% -2%

1% -14%

200

-35%

+8%

0

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. PIT Count = Point in Time Count. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Percentage changes of more than 3 percent are noted in green (decrease) and red (increase).

Sources: 2017 and 2020 PIT Counts

The number of youth served across the YHDP sites, as recorded in the HMIS, increased in 6 of

the 10 sites, somewhat consistent with the pattern of the change in the PIT Counts. One goal of the demonstration was to identify and engage greater numbers of youth in need of assistance. As exhibit 5-2 illustrates, across the 10 YHDP Round 1 CoCs, the results were mixed with respect to increases in the number served over time. Six sites—including both of the sites where the PIT Count reflected an increase in the size of the population experiencing homelessness—served a greater number of youth in 2020 than in 2017, according to the HMIS, with increases ranging from 4 percent to 175 percent. Decreases in the number of youth served ranged from 7 percent to 35 percent. Seattle/King County and NW Michigan are two of the four sites that served fewer youth over time, which may reflect decreases in the number of youth in need of assistance, as reflected in the decreases in the PIT Counts. The other two sites recorded by the HMIS to have served fewer youth in 2020 than in 2017—Cincinnati/Hamilton County and 21 In 2020, a portion of the Colorado BOS split into its own CoC. To accurately capture change in the number of youth experiencing homelessness from 2017 to 2020, the 2020 number sums PIT findings from the Colorado BOS

CoC and the Fort Col ins, Greeley, Loveland/Larimer, and Weld Counties CoCs.

78

Ohio BOS—did not realize changes in the size of the population in need of assistance over the same period.

Exhibit 5-2. Number of Youth in YHDP and Peer CoC HMIS in 2017 and 2020, and Percentage

Change Over Time, By Site

6000

10%

5000

-7%

4000

-35%

3000

35%

-15% 34%

2000

14%

4%

14%

1000

-19% 175%

24%

44%

0

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. PIT Count =

Point in Time Count. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Percentage changes of more than 3 percent are noted in green (increase) and red (decrease).

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

San Francisco and Connecticut BOS had inconsistencies in their counts and numbers served.

Both served a greater number of youth in their HMIS over time but experienced decreases in the PIT Count. The two sites may have become better at identifying and engaging with youth in need from 2017 to 2020. In San Francisco, for example, youth-specific coordinated entry was implemented during that time, whereas the mechanism behind the inconsistencies in Connecticut, where coordinated entry was wel established in 2017, is less clear.

Peer sites also experienced increases in their youth HMIS population. All three peer sites served a greater number of youth in the Homeless Management Information System in 2020

than in 2017, with rates ranging from 14 percent in Colorado BOS to 44 percent in Memphis.

Although they did not realize the same level of change in housing and services as the YHDP

sites, each of the peer sites added or enhanced services between 2017 and 2020 that may have resulted in serving additional youth. Sonoma County increased the number of its emergency shelter units for youth and permanent supportive housing units from 8 to 42 and introduced a navigation program for youth in subsidized housing. Memphis opened a new drop-in center for LGBTQ youth and introduced a rapid rehousing program for youth. Colorado BOS was developing a coordinated entry system and increased its number of units of transitional housing and permanent supportive housing for youth.

79

Changes in the Characteristics of the Population of Youth and Young Adults Experiencing Homelessness

To understand changes in the composition of youth experiencing homelessness, the researchers examined differences between the youth served in 2017 and those served in 2020

on a range of variables, including demographic characteristics (age, gender, race, and ethnicity), family composition, disabling conditions, income, and benefit receipt. Because the demonstration aimed to identify and engage in services a greater number of youth in need of assistance, the researchers would hypothesize that the YHDP CoCs as a whole would serve a more diverse population of youth in 2020 than in 2017.

Changes in specific variables, such as age or the percentage of youth with children, likely vary by site depending on factors such as whether programs limited their population to youth 18

years and older or, conversely, whether a site increased its attention on engaging minors through cross-system partnerships. Within programs, some sites targeted specific populations of youth, such as pregnant and parenting youth or youth with behavioral health conditions, which could affect the overall service population composition. Finally, the agencies selected to implement the programs could influence some characteristics. For example, San Francisco funded the Third Street Youth Center and Clinic to implement YHDP-funded rapid rehousing; this provider is a community-based organization in the Bayview/Hunter’s Point neighborhood, which primarily serves youth of color. Those considerations, when known, are highlighted in the sections to fol ow as possible explanations for the changes experienced in the composition of the population served.

Age

YHDP sites tended to serve older youth in 2020 than in 2017. The average age of youth served by the HMIS in the 10 YHDP CoCs significantly increased between 2017 and 2020 in six sites and decreased significantly in three sites (see exhibit 5-3).

The increase over time in six sites is likely due to decreases in the proportion of minors (that is, youth ages 14 to 17) served at each point in time with the addition of new interventions, such as rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing, that required youth to be 18 years or older to sign a lease. In addition, in most sites, coordinated entry served only youth age 18 and older.

As can be seen by reviewing exhibit 5-4, across YHDP sites, the average age served aligns with the proportion of minors served. In five of the six sites where the average age of the population served significantly increased, a commensurate decrease occurred in the proportion of minors served. The largest increases in age were in the two sites (San Francisco and NW Michigan) that had the lowest age averages in 2017 and had experienced the largest drops in the proportion of minors served. In NW Michigan, in particular, more than 40 percent of the youth population served in 2017 was younger than age 18, in part because in 2017, NW Michigan was the only site in which minors were eligible for coordinated entry and also because the CoC provided a large portion of its crisis housing beds for minors. In 2020, the proportion of minors served 80

dropped to 25 percent with the introduction of new programs that served youth ages 18 and older. However, despite the drop in the proportion of minors served, NW Michigan continued to have the highest percentage of minors served across the 10 YHDP sites.

Exhibit 5-3. Average Age of Youth in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

CoC

CY 2017

CY 2020

Change Over Time

High Development

Austin/Travis County

21.5

21.8

↑

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

21.5

21.0

↓

Seattle/King County

21.0

21.4

↑

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

22.1

22.0

--

Ohio BOS

21.3

21.7

↑

San Francisco

19.2

21.2

↑

Early Development

Anchorage

20.3

20.9

↑

Kentucky BOS

21.5

20.9

↓

NW Michigan

18.9

19.8

↑

Santa Cruz

21.9

21.4

↓

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

21.0

21.6

↑

Memphis (Medium)

21.9

21.9

−

Colorado BOS (Early)

20.4

20.2

--

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change over time.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

The three YHDP sites (Cincinnati/Hamilton County, Kentucky BOS, and Santa Cruz) that experienced a decrease in the average age served in 2020 compared with 2017 all experienced an increase in the proportion of minors served. During the demonstration period, Kentucky BOS

introduced a navigation program that served minors and also doubled the number of crisis housing beds for minors from 16 in 2017 to 32 in 2020. Similarly, Santa Cruz served minors through its YHDP-funded navigation program. Although al of the YHDP-funded projects in Cincinnati/Hamilton County were limited to youth ages 18 and older, during the demonstration, the CoC increased outreach to and coordination with multiple systems that serve youth younger than 18—including education, child welfare, and juvenile justice—and served a larger number of youth in emergency shelter.

81

Exhibit 5-4. Percentage of Youth Who Were Minors in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY

2020, By Site

% of Youth

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Austin/Travis County

↓

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

↑

Seattle/King County

↓

Connecticut BOS

Ohio BOS

San Francisco

↓

Anchorage

↓

Kentucky BOS

↑

NW Michigan

↓

Santa Cruz

↑

Sonoma County

↓

Memphis

↓

Colorado BOS

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓) between CY2017 and CY 2020.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

In only one of the three peer sites, the average age of the youth population served increased

between 2017 and 2020. Sonoma County experienced an increase in the average age of youth and young adults served between 2017 and 2020 and a significant decrease in the proportion of minors served over this period, consistent with a decrease in the percentage of youth who received emergency shelter and an increase over time in the percentage of youth who received rapid rehousing. In Memphis, the average age remained the same, despite a significant decrease in the proportion of minors served over time, from 7 percent in 2017 to 2 percent in 2020. Colorado BOS experienced a nonsignificant decrease in average age of the youth served, commensurate with the increase in the proportion of minors served, likely resulting from legislation passed midway through 2020 allowing minor youth ages 15 and older experiencing homelessness to consent to receiving shelter or services.

Gender and Parenting Status

Eight YHDP sites experienced a decrease in the proportion of males served between 2017 and

2020. 22 Although the decrease in the proportion of males served was not always significant, the trend across the eight sites was in the same direction (see exhibit 5-5) and consistent with a 22 Five percent or less of the population served in each Round 1 YHDP site identified as transgender/gender nonconforming or did not report their gender. Data are displayed in appendix C.

82

national trend among unaccompanied youth decreasing from 61.6-percent male in 2017 to 57.7-percent male in 2020 (HUD, 2021). The two remaining sites, Cincinnati/Hamilton County and NW Michigan, experienced decreases in the proportion of females served; however, Cincinnati/Hamilton County continues to have the largest proportion of females served across the 10 YHDP sites.

Exhibit 5-5. Gender and Parenting Status of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017

and CY 2020, By Site

Male

Female

Parenting Youth

CoC

%

%

Change

%

%

Change

%

%

Change

Served

Served

Over

Served

Served

Over

Served

Served

Over

CY 2017 CY 2020

Time

CY 2017 CY 2020

Time

CY 2017 CY 2020

Time

High Development

Austin/Travis County

46

40

↓

51

55

↑

17

23

↑

Cincinnati/Hamilton

County

32

40

↑

68

59

↓

26

12

↓

Seattle/King County

48

45

↓

47

50

↑

10

12

↑

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

35

34

−

65

65

−

4

5

↑

Ohio BOS

44

42

−

55

57

−

29

27

−

San Francisco

46

42

↓

43

54

↑

9

21

↑

Early Development

Anchorage

58

54

↓

41

43

−

6

6

−

Kentucky BOS

50

47

−

50

52

−

22

12

↓

NW Michigan

42

42

−

55

52

−

5

8

−

Santa Cruz

47

41

−

52

53

−

20

12

↓

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

50

51

−

47

44

−

6

2

↓

Memphis (Medium)

11

29

↑

87

67

↓

72

43

↓

Colorado BOS (Early)

57

49

↓

43

48

−

15

8

↓

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change over time.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

In four YHDP sites, the gender makeup of the populations served relates to changes in the

proportion of parenting youth served. Females are disproportionately represented among parenting youth experiencing homelessness. As exhibit 5-5 indicates, over the course of the demonstration, the proportion of parenting youth served significantly increased in four YHDP

CoCs, three of which also experienced decreases in the proportion of males served and increases in the proportion of females served. In one site, the proportion of parenting youth served significantly decreased over time, as did the share of females served. A number of YHDP

sites invested in programs to serve pregnant and parenting youth, including NW Michigan and Santa Cruz, but those programs did not change the share of parenting youth served between 2017 and 2020, likely due to their small sizes.

83

Similar changes were evident in two of the three peer sites. Memphis stood out in 2017 as almost exclusively serving females (87 percent), and 72 percent were parenting youth (as seen on lower portion of exhibit 5-5). In 2017, Memphis’s homeless services did not include many resources for youth; most of the housing assistance that was available was for homeless families; thus, most of the youth served were parenting. Between 2017 and 2020, Memphis followed a similar pattern to that of Cincinnati/Hamilton County, introducing additional services for nonparenting youth and, in turn, serving a lower percentage of females and a higher percentage of males in 2020. Colorado BOS also served fewer males in 2020 than in 2017, but Sonoma County did not experience a change in the gender composition of youth. All three peer sites, however, served a smaller proportion of parenting youth in 2020 than in 2017. That change may have resulted from increased supports specifical y for youth, including rapid rehousing in Memphis and permanent supportive housing in Sonoma County and Colorado BOS

that provided assistance to youth who were not parents.

Race and Ethnicity

The racial composition of youth served in YHDP CoCs changed over time, general y in the

direction of serving more youth of color and Hispanic youth. As exhibit 5-6 shows, four sites (Seattle/King County, San Francisco, Anchorage, and Kentucky BOS) experienced significant increases in the share of youth identifying as Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, or multiracial and decreases in the share of youth identifying as White. Two additional sites (Austin/Travis County and Cincinnati/Hamilton County) also changed in the direction of serving a smaller proportion of youth identifying as White, but the change was not significant.

Connecticut BOS experienced an increase in the number of youth identifying as White, Black, and multiracial, changes that likely resulted from a decrease in the share of youth with unreported race. The racial composition of youth served in Ohio BOS, NW Michigan, and Santa Cruz remained statistical y consistent over the two periods (although Santa Cruz had an increase in unreported race in 2020).

In al sites except Anchorage, the share of youth identifying as Hispanic increased from 2017

to 2020 (see exhibit 5-7), with statistical y significant increases in the five sites that served the largest share of Hispanic youth.

In al but one YHDP site, youth of color were overrepresented in the HMIS. Consistent with findings from 2017, in 2020, youth of color were overrepresented among youth experiencing homelessness. Across all sites except San Francisco, youth who identified as Black/African American were overrepresented in the HMIS at three to eight times the rate of the general population. The discrepancy is highest in Cincinnati/Hamilton County, where more than 70

percent of youth in the HMIS identified as Black/African American, compared with 27 percent of the general population. In Anchorage, three times as many youth in the HMIS identify as American Indian/Alaska Native than in the general population.

Disabling Conditions and Family Violence

Overal , YHDP sites are serving significantly more youth with one or more disabling

behavioral health and health concerns. As exhibit 5-8 shows, rates of disabling conditions 84

(including chronic mental health conditions, chronic health conditions, and substance abuse problems) increased in seven of the nine YHDP sites between 2017 and 2020 for which the research team has col ected data at both periods. 23 Kentucky BOS is the only site to experience a decrease in the rate of disabling conditions over time and had the lowest rate in 2020, at 22

percent. In al other sites, the rate of youth with disabling conditions was higher than 30

percent and 50 percent or higher in Seattle/King County, San Francisco, and NW Michigan.

Those high rates of disabling conditions among youth reflect providers’ observations that more youth they serve face more challenges, especially behavioral health concerns.

23 The research team did not have baseline data on the percentage of youth with one or more disabling conditions in San Francisco or Memphis, so they are unable to determine how rates changed over time in those two sites.

85

Exhibit 5-6. Race and Ethnicity of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY

2020, By Site

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Austin/Travis County

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

Seattle/King County

Connecticut BOS

Ohio BOS

San Francisco

Anchorage

Kentucky

NW Michigan

Santa Cruz

Sonoma County

Memphis

Colorado BOS

Black

AI/AN

Asian

Hawaiian/PI

Multiracial

White

Unreported/Other

AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native. BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. PI =

Pacific Islander. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Lighter bars indicate 2017 data. Darker bars indicate 2020 data.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

The three peer sites experienced few changes in the racial composition of youth served.

Sonoma County experienced small changes among American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian youth, and Memphis experienced a significant change in the share of White and Black youth, with the proportion of White youth increasing and the proportion of Black youth decreasing (although Black youth stil constituted 89 percent of the youth served). Colorado BOS did not 86

experience significant changes over time in the racial composition of youth served. In those sites, as in the YHDP sites, youth identifying as Black and American Indian/Alaska Native were disproportionately represented in the HMIS. Black youth made up the vast majority of youth served in Memphis.

With respect to youth identifying as Hispanic, the general trend across the three sites was an increase in serving youth identifying as Hispanic; however, none of the differences were statistical y significant, despite two sites serving more than 30 percent of youth identifying as Hispanic.

Exhibit 5-7. Percentage of Youth Identifying as Hispanic among Youth Served in YHDP and

Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

% Served

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Austin/Travis County

↑

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

Seattle/King County

↑

Connecticut BOS

↑

Ohio BOS

San Francisco

↑

Anchorage

Kentucky BOS

NW Michigan

Santa Cruz

↑

Sonoma County

Memphis

Colorado BOS

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓).

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

87

Exhibit 5-8. Percentage of Youth with One or More Disabling Conditions Served in YHDP and

Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

100

90

80

↑

70

60

↑

↑

↑

50

↑

↑

40

↑

↑

↓

↑

30

20

100

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). Baseline data were not available for Memphis.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

Mental health conditions are the most common disabling condition experienced by YHDP

youth in 2020, but al three conditions have increased in the population served . Exhibit 5-9

provides greater insight into the nature of conditions experienced by youth and the conditions that have increased the most over time. Of the three conditions categorized as disabling, mental health conditions are the most common in all YHDP sites, affecting one-fourth or more of all youth in all sites except Kentucky BOS. 24 Moreover, that percentage significantly increased between 2017 and 2020 in six of the sites, more than doubling in Cincinnati/Hamilton County and San Francisco. The significant increases in rates in San Francisco across all conditions may be due to more complete recording of those data elements through coordinated entry than previously occurred when outreach services were most youth’s first point of contact with assistance.

24 Smal sample sizes likely prevented the increases in NW Michigan and Santa Cruz from reaching statistical significance.

88

Exhibit 5-9. Disabling Conditions and Family Violence Reported by Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By

Site

Mental Health Condition

Chronic Health Condition

Substance Abuse Problem

Family Violence History

CoC

% Served % Served

Change

% Served % Served

Change

% Served % Served

Change

% Served % Served

Change

CY 2017

CY 2020

Over

Over

Over

Over

Time

CY 2017

CY 2020

Time

CY 2017

CY 2020

Time

CY 2017

CY 2020

Time

High Development

Austin/ Travis

County

33

39

↑

12

16

↑

11

9

−

35

47

↑

Cincinnati/Hamilt

on County

14

31

↑

5

12

↑

9

14

↑

6

16

↑

Seattle/ King

County

29

43

↑

11

19

↑

14

20

↑

17

34

↑

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

19

26

↑

7

10

↑

9

9

−

12

23

↑

Ohio BOS

33

33

−

3

5

↑

10

8

−

23

26

−

San Francisco

13

46

↑

<1

25

↑

6

27

↑

3

35

↑

Early Development

Anchorage

19

27

↑

3

6

↑

14

17

−

20

23

−

Kentucky BOS

12

13

−

2

1

−

19

9

↓

14

24

↑

NW Michigan

39

47

−

11

12

−

9

6

−

41

49

−

Santa Cruz

No data

25

9

12

−

19

12

−

30

25

−

Peer

Sonoma County

(High)

41

53

↑

16

21

↑

24

41

↑

29

41

↑

Memphis

(Medium)

No data

19

No data

7

No data

5

No data

10

Colorado BOS

(Early)

11

9

−

25

35

↑

11

16

↑

10

10

−

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change over time. Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

89

Most sites also experienced increases in youth with chronic health conditions and substance

abuse problems, but both conditions general y affected one-fifth or less of the population

served. San Francisco is a noted outlier, with 25 percent having chronic health conditions and 27 percent having substance abuse problems. By contrast, compared with 2017, in 2020, Kentucky BOS served comparable rates of youth with chronic health conditions and lower rates of youth with substance abuse problems.

Rates of family violence also increased at 9 of the 10 sites, with significant changes at six

sites. In 2020, rates of family violence ranged from 16 percent in Cincinnati/Hamilton County to nearly 50 percent in Austin/Travis County and NW Michigan. As exhibit 5-9 demonstrates, those rates significantly increased over rates in 2017 in six YHDP CoCs, including all of the highly developed sites. Increases in mental health conditions generally corresponded with increases in the rates of family violence.

The three peer sites, especial y Sonoma County, also are serving increased proportions of

youth with mental health, chronic health, and substance abuse problems and youth who

report family violence. In the two sites for which the researchers had data at both periods, the rates of having one or more of those conditions increased from 51 percent to 67 percent in Sonoma County and from 33 percent to 44 percent in Colorado BOS. As exhibit 5-9 shows, youth in Sonoma County were more likely to have each of those conditions and increased experience of family violence in 2020 than in 2017. Youth in Colorado BOS reported higher levels of chronic health conditions and substance abuse problems in 2020 than 2017.

Income

In six of the YHDP sites, significantly more youth reported income at program entry in 2020

than in 2017, with increases in average income amounts in one-half of those sites. Two additional sites had nonsignificant increases in the proportion reporting income, and two other sites had significant increases in the amount earned25 (see exhibit 5-10). Income is measured as reports from both earned and nonearned sources at the start of a youth’s first enrollment in each calendar year. Increases over time in rates of income receipt in five sites correlate with serving fewer minors in 2020 than in 2017. Rates of income receipt in 2020 varied considerably, from 8 percent in Connecticut BOS to 49 percent in San Francisco. Not surprisingly, the average monthly amount of income reported by youth also ranged, from a low of $886 in Cincinnati/Hamilton County to a high of $1,253 in San Francisco—the variability among sites reflecting, to some degree, site differences in cost of living.

Across all YHDP CoCs, navigators and case managers made efforts to connect youth to employment opportunities; however, even among youth with income, the average monthly amounts are rarely sufficient to afford rent in their CoCs without being severely rent burdened.

25 Across YHDP CoCs, rates of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) receipt were low, in part due to a low percentage of parenting youth. Information about receipt of TANF, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is available in appendix C.

90

The three peer sites also experienced shifts in income. In Colorado BOS, a higher percentage of youth reported receiving income at program entry in 2020 (28 percent) than in 2017 (22

percent). In Sonoma County, comparable rates of youth reported receiving income at the two periods, but youth received a higher average amount of income in 2020 than in 2017 ($1,308

versus $1,096).

Exhibit 5-10. Monthly Income Reported by Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017

and CY 2020, By Site

Reported Income

Average Amount

CoC

% Served

% Served

Change

CY 2017

CY 2020

Change

CY 2017

CY 2020

Over Time

($)

($)

Over Time

High Development

Austin/Travis County

23%

28%

↑

$981

$964

−

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

5%

17%

↑

$695

$886

↑

Seattle/King County

23%

27%

↑

$976

$1,222

↑

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

6%

8%

↑

$783

$1,208

↑

Ohio BOS

35%

32%

−

$856

$879

−

San Francisco

10%

49%

↑

No data

$1,253

Early Development

Anchorage

18%

19%

↑

$1,156

$965

↓

Kentucky BOS

26%

23%

−

$804

$936

↑

NW Michigan

40%

42%

−

$581

$945

↑

Santa Cruz

24%

33%

−

$1,087

$1,065

−

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

33%

29%

−

$1,096

$1,308

↑

Memphis (Medium)

No data

26%

No data

$771

Colorado BOS (Early)

22%

28%

↑

$645

$740

−

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change over time. Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

Exits to Permanent Housing

The central outcome the research team examined was whether having YHDP increased the rate of exits of youth to permanent housing and whether the rates of exit in YHDP sites were greater than those of the three peer sites. They used the HEARTH26 measure, the primary measure used by CoCs and HUD for this outcome. The HEARTH measure computes the proportion of 26 The HEARTH measure considers any exit to permanent housing, with or without additional assistance. Thus, in addition to exits to market-rate housing, exits to permanent housing include youth exiting from one type of assistance, such as emergency shelter, to another program, in which they are placed in permanent housing (that is, rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing). Exits to temporary locations—such as emergency shelter, transitional housing, institutions, and temporary doubled-up locations—are not included.

91

youth exiting to permanent housing of al youth exits within a CoC. To fully understand this measure, however, the researchers examined it within the context of changes in the fol owing:

• The actual number of exits to permanent housing. The absolute number of youth exiting to permanent housing could increase or decrease over time in a site but not affect the rate of exits either due to changes in the overal exit rates, changes in the number of youth served, or both.

• The total number of exits (not just to permanent housing). Changes in the total number of youth exiting could change the rate of youth exiting to permanent housing even if the actual number of youth exiting to permanent housing remained the same.

• The number of youth served in the CoC. The HEARTH rate could significantly improve over time in a site, but the number of youth exiting to permanent housing could remain the same if the site served fewer youth in the second period.

Changes in any of those metrics can affect the meaning of the HEARTH measure. In general, when the total number of youth served in a CoC was lower in 2020 than 2017, a decrease in the number of youth exiting to permanent housing could be masked by the HEARTH measure.

Similarly, if the total number of youth served increased considerably between 2017 and 2020, increases in the number of youth exiting to permanent housing also may not be captured fully in the HEARTH measure.

YHDP sites show a mixed rate of success in exiting youth to permanent housing based on both

the HEARTH measure and the actual number of youth exiting. Using the HEARTH measure, three YHDP sites (Austin/Travis County, Seattle/King County, and Connecticut BOS) had significant increases in the proportion of al exits to permanent housing (see exhibit 5-11). The increase was most pronounced in Connecticut BOS, with 69 percent of all exits going to permanent housing in 2020 compared with 3 percent of al exits going to permanent housing in 2017. In Austin/Travis County and Seattle/King County, a little more than one-third of al exits were to permanent housing in 2020, reflecting 17-percent and 8-percent increases, respectively, from 2017.

In both Connecticut BOS and Austin/Travis County, the total number of youth served also increased significantly, as did the absolute numbers of youth exiting to permanent housing (see exhibit 5-12). 27 Those measures indicate that those sites are serving more youth, exiting a greater number of youth to permanent housing, and concentrating more of their exits to permanent housing.

Seattle/King County, however, experienced only a small, nonsignificant increase in the number of youth exiting to permanent housing over that period. Because they served fewer youth overall in the two periods (decreasing from 4,237 in 2017 to 3,956 in 2020), the significant 27 San Francisco and Colorado BOS did not provide the rate of exits to permanent housing overal , so those two sites are excluded from this analysis.

92

increase in the HEARTH measure is less a function of exiting more youth and more a function of serving fewer youth.

Two additional YHDP sites (Kentucky BOS and Santa Cruz), despite showing little change in the HEARTH measure, significantly increased the number of youth exiting to permanent housing between 2017 and 2020 (by 10 and 21 youth, respectively). In both cases, the total number of youth served and the total number of exits increased substantial y, thus masking any absolute increase in permanent housing exits. In Santa Cruz, in particular, the number of youth served more than doubled, from 122 in 2017 to 335 in 2020, and the number of youth exiting to permanent housing, although relatively small, tripled between 2017 and 2020, from 8 to 24

exits.

Exhibit 5-11. Percentage of Youth Who Exited to Permanent Housing in YHDP and Peer CoCs in

CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

Percentage of Youth Who Exited to

Percentage of Youth Who Exited to

PH (of exits)—HEARTH Measure

PH (of al youth served)

CoC

CY 2017

CY 2020

Change

Over Time

CY 2017

CY 2020

Change

Over Time

High Development

Austin/Travis County

19

36

↑

10

15

↑

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

51

54

--

18

26

↑

Seattle/King County

26

34

↑

16

18

--

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

3

69

↑

1

11

↑

Ohio BOS

62

62

−

48

47

--

San Francisco

No data

No data

No data

No data

Early Development

Anchorage

15

11

↓

13

8

↓

Kentucky BOS

40

37

−

21

22

--

NW Michigan

53

56

−

30

35

--

Santa Cruz

15

11

↓

7

9

--

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)

50

51

−

14

25

↑

Memphis (Medium)

64

61

−

43

44

--

Colorado BOS (Early)

No data

No data

No data

No data

BOS = Balance of State. HEARTH = Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing. CoC =

Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. PH = permanent housing. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Notes: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓). (–) indicates no significant change over time. Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

The four remaining sites for which the team had data (Cincinnati/Hamilton County, Ohio BOS, Anchorage, NW Michigan) al experienced decreases in the number of youth who exited to permanent housing (ranging from 3 fewer youth in NW Michigan to 153 fewer youth in Ohio BOS). Only one of those sites (Anchorage) had a significant decrease in the HEARTH measure 93

between 2017 and 2020 because each site served fewer youth overal and exited fewer youth between 2017 and 2020.

For the two peer sites with data, only Sonoma County experienced a significant increase in

the HEARTH measure, but both showed increases in the number of youth exiting to

permanent housing. Sonoma County experienced about an 11-percent increase in the rate of youth exiting to permanent housing among al exits, with the absolute number of youth exiting to permanent housing more than doubling between 2017 and 2020. Although the HEARTH

measure is dampened somewhat by an increase in the total number of youth served between the two periods, it reflects a significant increase over time. For Memphis, however, the HEARTH

measure stays the same across the two periods, despite over a 50-percent increase in the number of youth exiting to permanent housing, because the overall number of youth served increased from 2017 to 2020.

Exhibit 5-12. Number of Youth Served, Exited, and Exited to Permanent Housing in YHDP and

Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

Number of Youth

Number of Youth Who

Number of Youth Who

CoC

Served

Exited

Exited to PH

CY 2017

CY 2020

CY 2017

CY 2020

CY 2017

CY 2020

High Development

Austin/Travis County

1,187

1,604

631

685

123

245

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

2,985

1,946

1,052

924

532

502

Seattle/King County

4,237

3,956

2,587

2,072

675

698

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

4,960

5,434

993

836

30

573

Ohio BOS

1,828

1,554

1,418

1,175

880

727

San Francisco

1,306

1,744

1,215

No data

No data

No data

Early Development

Anchorage

958

1,096

844

843

123

90

Kentucky BOS

751

781

398

461

160

170

NW Michigan

175

142

100

89

53

50

Santa Cruz

122

335

48

152

8

29

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)

528

657

321

465

72

162

Memphis (Medium)

207

299

138

214

88

131

Colorado BOS (Early)

585

668

No data

No data

No data

No data

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. PH = permanent housing. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

The proportion of exits to permanent housing and the proportion of exits of youth served

varies considerably across YHDP sites. As exhibit 5-11 demonstrates, the HEARTH measure (the rate of exits to permanent housing) ranges from a low of 11 percent in Anchorage to nearly 70

percent in Connecticut BOS in 2020. The rate was more than 50 percent in only four sites (Cincinnati/Hamilton County, Connecticut BOS, Ohio BOS, and NW Michigan).

94

When the researchers examine the proportion of all youth served who exited to permanent housing, they find that the percentages drop precipitously, ranging from less than 10 percent in two YHDP sites (Anchorage and Santa Cruz) to 47 percent in Ohio BOS. In al but two sites, the rate of exits to permanent housing among al youth served was less than 30 percent, suggesting that some sites may not exit youth from assistance until they can access permanent housing.

Exits rates do not seem to be related to the size of the CoC (as the sites with highest exit rates include both the largest and smallest CoCs among the 10), the CoC’s number of permanent housing resources, the average lengths of stay in crisis housing, or the CoC’s baseline level of development (early development sites have among both the highest and lowest exit rates, with medium and highly developed sites composing the middle of the range).

Peer sites’ exit rates are slightly higher, on average, and comparable to the YHDP sites with

higher exit rates. In Sonoma County, using the HEARTH measure, one-half of the youth who exited, exited to permanent housing, involving one-fourth of al youth served in 2020. In Memphis, 61 percent of exits went to permanent housing, encompassing 44 percent of all youth served—a rate that is higher than eight of the nine YHDP sites and corresponds to the CoC’s high rate of serving youth in rapid rehousing compared with other CoCs.

Summary of Changes in the Size and Characteristics of the

Population of Youth Experiencing Homelessness and their Exits to

Permanent Housing

Exhibit 5-13 provides a high-level summary of the changes observed between 2017 and 2020 in the population of youth experiencing homelessness in the YHDP and peer CoCs. As this summary indicates, no clear pattern emerges across the sites in the change in population size over time. Whereas PIT Counts for both YHDP and the three peer CoCs mostly decreased or remained the same, the HMIS revealed mixed findings in terms of the number of youth served.

Exhibit 5-13. Summary of Changes in the Population of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs

Between CY 2017 and CY 2020

Characteristic

YHDP CoCs

Peer CoCs

Size of the Population

PIT Counts

Mostly decreased or

Mostly decreased or

remained the same

remained the same

Youth Served in HMIS

Mixed findings

Increased in al sites

Characteristics of the Population

Age

Tended to serve older youth and

fewer minors

Mixed findings

Gender

Fewer males and more females

Mixed findings

95

Parenting youth

Mixed findings

Decreased

Race/Ethnicity

Served more youth of color

Remained the same

Disabling conditions

Increased

Increased

Family violence

Increased or remained the same

Increased or remained the same

Income

Increased or remained the same

Increased or remained the same

Exits to Permanent Housing

Exits to permanent housing

Mixed findings

Remained the same

CoC = Continuum of Care. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. PIT = Point in Time.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 PIT Counts; 2017 and 2020 HMIS

The population of youth served over time shifted, however. Fol owing the implementation of the demonstration, most YHDP sites tended to serve older youth and fewer minors, fewer males and more females (related, in many sites, to increases in the percentage of parenting youth), and more youth of color. Fewer of those changes were observed among the three peer sites. Both groups of CoCs served more youth with disabling conditions and, in many CoCs, experiences of family violence. In addition, both groups served youth with higher incomes in 2020 than in 2017.

The findings in exits to permanent housing among YHDP CoCs were mixed, with three sites showing significant increases in the HEARTH measure and two other sites exiting a greater number of youth to housing despite showing little change in the HEARTH measure. The remaining sites either decreased on one or both measures or saw no change over time. Of the two peer sites with data, only one showed a significant increase in the HEARTH measure, but both showed an increase in the number of youth exiting over the two periods.

96

Chapter VI: Summary and Implications of Findings

The Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program (YHDP) led to a number of key changes at the Round 1 sites that are not experienced to the same degree by the three peer sites and non-YHDP Continuums of Care (CoCs) nationally. The most significant changes that have distinguished the YHDP sites from other sites have been the development of system responses to youth homelessness characterized by—

• Focused governance of the system of services and housing for youth experiencing homelessness, including the involvement of youth in decisionmaking.

• Increased coordination with other systems in both the governance of the system and the delivery of services and housing.

• The expansion and deepening in services and housing provided, with a notable increase and expansion in the portfolio of housing available to youth.

• Increased receipt by youth of specific services, including navigation and rapid rehousing.

Less clear after 3 years of implementation are the effects of those changes on the size and nature of the population served and their ability to exit to permanent housing. YHDP and peer sites showed largely patterns of decrease or staying the same in their Point in Time (PIT) Counts over the two periods studied, reflecting national trends. They also showed similar patterns of increases in the majority of sites’ Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) numbers.

Changes in the composition of the populations served also were similar between YHDP and peer sites, with the notable exception of the YHDP sites showing a strong pattern of including more youth of color and of Hispanic origin. Finally, exit patterns were similar between YHDP

and peer sites, with slightly higher exit rates in the peer sites.

The lack of a clear influence of YHDP across sites is not surprising given the variety of factors that can affect the size of the population and exits to permanent housing, including the size of the baseline youth homeless populations, the number and type of housing and services available for youth, and contextual factors such as COVID-19. In addition, the timeframe of the evaluation provides a restricted window to realize change. As described below, YHDP has helped to provide a systems foundation for change, with increased services and housing aimed at providing greater permanent housing access for youth and safer, more youth-specific accommodations while homeless.

Planning and Governance

YHDP led to youth-specific governance in al sites that was largely sustained throughout the demonstration and was much more evident in YHDP sites than in CoCs nationally. Whether YHDP was led by the CoC lead agency or a provider did not appear to affect the extent to which the site continued to have youth-specific governance; what seemed to be more important was whether the organization was viewed as a leader in youth homelessness and whether the leadership structure fit within the CoC context. Having YHDP resources brought new visibility to youth homelessness that helped strengthen the governance structure and bring other systems 97

to the table in planning and governance. Cross-system coordination, as described below, is a strong by-product of this effort.

Youth Involvement

Sites all developed Youth Action Boards (YABs), albeit with varying success. Although most YABs struggled in their development, and some YAB members noted that their work was not uniformly valued, most of the YABs had a voice in the planning stages of the demonstration, providing input into the design and implementation of YHDP and engaging in a range of other activities. The relative vagueness in what role YABs could play in the implementation stage, coupled with COVID-19, chal enged the stability of YABs, resulting in several dissolving either permanently or temporarily. A key lesson in maintaining YABs and fostering their involvement was the ability to pay members for their time, provide financial and logistical support to the members in their roles, and provide resources for ongoing training as new members rotated through.

Cross-System Coordination

The 10 Round 1 YHDP sites increased more than non-YHDP sites in their level of engagement with agencies in four other sectors: child welfare, education, behavioral health, and juvenile justice. Each of those systems, especially the first three, increased their role in the CoCs and in the governance of YHDP. Increased coordination in the delivery of services, often between providers in the different systems rather than at the systems leadership level, led to increased referrals to coordinated entry and to housing needed by youth served in the other systems.

Staff at several sites, however, noted the difficulty in finding housing for youth served in child welfare and education systems; in particular, those systems typically serve youth younger than 18 years of age, who were not eligible for rapid rehousing or most other housing options offered by the homeless system. They also often only meet a broader definition of homelessness, which makes them ineligible for the HUD-supported housing.

Another challenge to cross-systems coordination that emerged across a number of sites was the lack of staff capacity and ongoing turnover in other systems. At times, other systems’ staff could only attend to pressing situations involving individual youth rather than participate in broader systems activities, as their capacity was stretched too thin. That challenge is an important consideration for other youth homeless systems as they determine how best to foster the involvement of other systems. As noted below, with evidence of an increase in youth served in the systems who are struggling with disabling conditions, especially mental health conditions, the involvement of other systems becomes increasingly critical in planning for how best to meet youth’s needs and in the direct delivery of services.

Services and Housing

Before YHDP, the 10 Round 1 sites varied considerably in the range and depth of services and housing they had available for youth at risk of and experiencing homelessness. The sites fel 98

into three broad categories of systems development: high, medium, and early development.

Highly developed sites all had in place some level of outreach services, coordinated entry systems aimed at or inclusive of youth populations, crisis and permanent housing interventions specifically for youth, and other assistance available, including prevention, family interventions, employment, other services, or a combination of those types of assistance. Sites with medium development starting points also had youth-specific outreach, coordinated entry systems and crisis and permanent housing interventions but general y had fewer other youth-specific services than highly developed sites. Sites categorized as early development had limited outreach services available, coordinated entry systems that were nascent or under development, and few youth-specific crisis and permanent housing interventions.

At the end of the demonstration, al YHDP sites could be categorized as highly developed. Sites either added new services or deepened and expanded the ones they had already been providing.

Overal , YHDP led to a shift in how youth were served—away from crisis housing and increasingly to permanent housing with additional services. Before the demonstration, emergency shelter was the primary service youth received, and few youth received permanent housing assistance. Fol owing the demonstration, fewer youth received crisis housing, and more youth received permanent housing in the majority of sites. Despite those shifts, however, emergency shelter remained the most commonly received intervention for youth (after coordinated entry) in the majority of YHDP CoCs, indicating that additional efforts to quickly connect youth to stable, permanent housing are needed.

The status of the YHDP sites at the end of the demonstration, particularly by comparison with peer and other non-YHDP sites, was as follows:

• Al YHDP sites had youth outreach services, and most realized increases in the number of youth receiving outreach services. Peer sites experienced less change in the implementation of outreach services but also realized increases in the number of youth receiving outreach services. National y, 80 percent of the CoCs had outreach services in 2021, with less than 40 percent having them fully implemented (compared with 70 percent of YHDP Round 1 sites). Similarly, all YHDP sites had drop-in centers, whereas peer sites were more variable in the extent to which they had drop-in centers available to youth living in the demonstration areas of their sites.

• Coordinated entry was in place or in process in nearly all YHDP sites at baseline,

and most were enhanced during the demonstration. In the five sites where data from coordinated entry were available through the HMIS at both time periods, three showed significant increases in the percentage of youth served. In the other two sites where a decrease was experienced, in at least one of those sites, the decrease was due to a corresponding increase of shelter and diversion services that youth could receive without accessing coordinated entry. Among the eight sites that had data on the rate of receipt of coordinated entry in 2020, five had rates less than 50

99

percent, suggesting that additional efforts are needed to connect youth to coordinated entry.

• Progress in coordinated entry among peer sites and sites national y was also occurring, but more slowly. Among the peer sites, only one had youth-specific coordinated entry in place, and one other system was developing one. Nationally, 81

percent of the non-YHDP sites reported having coordinated entry systems for youth in place, with a little more than one-half fully implemented. Despite progress in the YHDP sites and across CoCs nationally, challenges continued to loom, with sites reporting continued chal enges with the Transition Age Youth—Vulnerability Index Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (TAY-VISPDAT) and the assessment process more broadly; insufficient capacity to fully staff the access points needed, especially in rural areas; and considerable time and effort required to connect youth with assistance. To become a more useful and used process, the coordinated entry process for youth likely requires efforts by HUD and others to work with sites in determining how best to streamline the process and increase its efficiency and effectiveness as a tool in matching youth to services and housing.

• Navigation assistance, available in only one YHDP site at the beginning of the

demonstration, became an essential service in 8 of the 10 sites during the

demonstration. Sites trained and funded mobile youth-specific navigators, who helped youth find the available services, housing, and supports to meet their needs.

Youth’s increased access to navigation is reflected in the significant increase at those sites in the number of youth who received services-only programs, as recorded in the HMIS. The three peer sites, by contrast, had limited navigation assistance for specific subpopulations of youth and experienced decreases in the percentage of youth receiving services-only programs across the two periods. 28 As with many of the services offered, however, the implementation of navigation services was hampered by staff turnover, stretched capacity, and the inability to connect in person with youth during the pandemic.

• Diversion services, available at one-half of the YHDP sites at baseline, were

enhanced in those sites and added in two other sites. Diversion assistance varied across the sites, from sites that combined case management and financial assistance, including short-term and one-time housing financial assistance, to those that focused on problem solving, with more limited access to financial resources, such as bus tickets and grocery gift cards.

• Peer sites and all other non-YHDP sites were less likely than YHDP sites to provide diversion assistance. Across YHDP sites, stakeholders considered diversion a key resource and appreciated the flexibility it offered in serving youth but also noted that determining the right level of assistance to provide was difficult. Sites would benefit from more guidance and technical assistance from HUD in how best to use diversion in a way that maximizes the resource and does not duplicate rapid rehousing assistance.

28 The researchers could not examine the implementation of navigation services national y because the question posed in the CoC survey did not distinguish navigation assistance from more routine case management services.

100

• Al but one of the Round 1 YHDP sites had some emergency shelter or transitional

housing in place at the start of the demonstration. At the end of the

demonstration, al sites had shelter or transitional housing, and several sites had

expanded the number of units available. Even at sites that added units, few experienced increases in the percentages served. (At some sites, the actual number served in those units may have actually significantly increased or decreased, but the percentage remained the same due to changes in the total number of youth served.) Overall, in 2020, seven of the YHDP sites served 30 percent or more of their youth population through shelter, and all YHDP sites served 12 percent or less of their youth in transitional housing. Lengths of stay also shifted variably across the sites.

• Peer sites experienced similar fluctuations in their crisis housing portfolios and little increase in the number of youth served. National y, fewer sites (62 percent) have crisis housing available for youth than do YHDP sites, and growth since 2017 has been limited.

• Stakeholders across sites commented on the struggles with determining the right models of crisis housing to offer that meet youth’s needs but also maintain their motivation to find more permanent housing options. Youth, however, voiced a strong desire and need for youth-specific crisis housing, citing the lack of safety in adult shelters and the added difficulty of finding space when shelters were deconcentrating their facilities during the pandemic. One implication from the mix of implementation experiences and youth’s strong and consistent feedback for shelter options is the need for more general direction and technical assistance from HUD in how best to add and implement different models of crisis housing to CoCs’

existing portfolios, especially as they add more permanent housing resources.

• Host homes, another form of temporary housing, were added to the portfolio of

options in five sites during the demonstration and had already existed in three

sites. Host homes were also in place in two of the peer sites but in only 23 percent of the non-YHDP sites. This type of housing was particularly promising for serving minors who were not eligible for other types of housing assistance and for providing a housing option in sites where limited crisis housing was available. Despite the promise of this housing model, few host homes were available during COVID-19; two YHDP sites actual y discontinued their programs. Chal enges in recruiting and onboarding hosts were exacerbated by the pandemic. Youth who were interviewed who had experience with the model, however, spoke positively of the experience.

Exploring this model more fully and providing more guidance on its implementation once the pandemic subsides wil be important, especial y to provide another housing option for youth younger than 18 years of age who are referred by other systems, especially child welfare, education, and juvenile justice.

• Rapid rehousing was the most successfully implemented form of service and

housing across the YHDP sites. The demonstration provided an opportunity for CoCs to test different types of rapid rehousing approaches, such as joint transition housing/rapid rehousing models, more flexibility in the type of financial assistance and services provided, and different lease arrangements. Lengths of stay in the housing general y increased over time, likely resulting from HUD’s response to 101

COVID-19, extending the time youth could stay in time-limited programs. Overall, sites significantly increased the number of units of rapid rehousing they offered to youth, and eight sites significantly increased in the number of youth receiving it.

Despite those increases, however, most sites served only one-fourth or less of their youth through rapid rehousing.

• Peer sites did not experience the level of change that was experienced by YHDP

sites, and nationally, although the percentage of sites implementing rapid rehousing for youth increased significantly between 2017 and 2020, it still lagged behind the percentage at the YHDP sites. Chal enges noted in implementing rapid rehousing that would benefit from assistance and guidance included identifying strategies for covering expenses that youth incur as they move into housing (such as moving expenses, furniture, household supplies) and incentivizing landlords to rent to youth and to maintain the quality of the units they rent. In addition, cross-systems support, especially from behavioral health systems, may be critical in assisting youth who have disabling conditions and need more services to maintain their housing.

• YHDP also led to sites increasing their portfolios of permanent supportive and

other permanent housing. Despite that growth, few sites experienced an increase in the numbers served in the housing, and most had rates of receipt of less than 5

percent in either period. Peer sites had comparable amounts of permanent supportive and other permanent housing, but fewer CoCs national y had this type of housing in their systems.

• Other services, such as family intervention, employment and education, and

behavioral health services, were not a focus of YHDP specifically. Those services were recognized as important but were typically available through mainstream providers in YHDP sites, the three peer sites, and non-YHDP CoCs national y.

Changes in the Size and Characteristics of the Population of Youth

Experiencing Homelessness

A key evaluation issue is understanding whether the changes in the systems affected the size and composition of the population of youth experiencing homelessness. The research team examined the size of the population through the PIT Count and through the number recorded in the HMIS as receiving one or more services. A number of caveats are needed when examining each of the numbers, including their overall imprecision due to the methods of data collection (especially PIT Counts), changes over time in how HMIS systems are maintained that may confound some findings, and the lack of specificity of the data in both the PIT Count and HMIS to YHDP demonstration areas in CoCs that cover broader jurisdictions. Moreover, the PIT

Count was conducted early in 2020, before COVID-19, and the 2020 HMIS covered 10 months when COVID-19 was occurring.

With those caveats in play, there is not a clear pattern across the sites in the change in population size over time. According to the PIT Counts, one-half of the sites decreased in number, similar to what was experienced nationally. Two sites experienced increases, and three 102

sites remained largely the same. Using the HMIS, the authors found that four sites decreased in the number served, including the two sites that had experienced the greatest declines in PIT

Counts and two others that realized little change. A few sites showed inconsistent patterns as wel , with two sites that showed decreases in the PIT Counts showing increases in the numbers served over time in the HMIS. All three peer sites experienced decreases in their PIT Counts but increases in the numbers of youth served across the two time points.

Composition changes in the HMIS population across the 10 YHDP sites are somewhat clearer than changes in the size of the population. For most sites, their service populations increased in age (with a commensurate decrease in the percentage of minors served), increased in the proportion of females served (in part related to increases in the proportion of parenting youth served), and increased in racial diversity and in the proportion of youth identifying as Hispanic.

Those trends tended to reflect changes national y in the population of unaccompanied youth experiencing homelessness. Among the three peer sites, less of a pattern emerged in gender changes, with one site having a decreased proportion of males, one site with an increase in the proportion of males (but still more than 65 percent females), and one site maintaining the same gender distribution over time. Only one of the three sites experienced an increase in the average age of youth, however, and al three sites had fewer changes in the racial composition of the youth served.

By far, however, the most consistent change across sites was the significant increase in the proportion of youth served that had one or more disabling conditions. Rates of disabling conditions, with the exception of one site, exceeded 30 percent in al sites and were 50 percent or more in three YHDP sites. Mental health conditions were the most common disabling condition in al sites and increased significantly in six of the sites between the two periods.

Chronic health conditions and substance abuse problems were less common but also increased across most sites. Rates of family violence history also affected 16 to 49 percent of the population served and increased in six sites between 2017 and 2020. The three peer sites experienced similar changes with respect to increases in disability conditions and reports of family violence.

Finally, in both YHDP and peer sites, significantly more youth reported income—from earned and non-earned sources—at program entry in 2020 than in 2017 in six of the sites, and the average amount increased in five of the sites. The biggest increases were realized for youth in the high and medium developed sites, typical y located in more urban contexts.

Those changes in the characteristics of the youth population served, especial y with respect to disability conditions and reports of family violence, may reflect the referrals of youth served in other systems but also heighten the importance of working col aboratively with those systems in providing the services youth need, especially as they obtain housing and work toward gaining stability in their lives.

103

Changes in Exits to Permanent Housing

The 10 Round 1 YHDP sites showed a mixed rate of success in exiting youth to permanent housing. The researchers examined exits first, using the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) measure, which computes the proportion of youth exiting to permanent housing of al exits. However, because the measure can be shaped by the total number of exits and the number of youth served in a CoC, they also examined the change in the absolute number of exits to permanent housing that a site experienced.

Using those two measures, the team found that three sites experienced increases in the proportion of al exits to permanent housing, two of which also had significant increases in the absolute number of youth exiting to permanent housing. Two additional sites had significant increases in the number of youth existing to permanent housing between 2017 and 2020 but did not show increases in the HEARTH measure because the total number of youth served and the total number of exits also increased, bringing down the percentage of change. All four remaining sites for which data were available experienced decreases in the absolute number of youth who exited to permanent housing, only one of which reflected the decrease in the HEARTH measure.

Exit rates to permanent housing in 2020 ranged widely, with the HEARTH measure ranging from 11 to 69 percent; al but two sites, however, are above 35 percent, suggesting that sites may not exit youth from assistance until they can access permanent housing. When rates of exits to permanent housing are computed for al youth served (not limited to youth who exited), the range drops considerably, from 8 to 47 percent. In all but two sites, however, the rate of exits to permanent housing among al youth served was less than 30 percent, suggesting that many sites may not exit youth from assistance until they can access permanent housing.

Of the two peer sites with data available, only one shows a significant increase in the HEARTH

measure, but both showed an increase in the number of youth exiting over the two periods.

Their rates of exits were comparable to the higher end of the YHDP continuum.

Conclusion

The lack of consistency and clarity in outcomes is not surprising, given the variety of factors that can affect the size of the population and exits to permanent housing. First, the effects of COVID-19 on those changes are likely as strong as or stronger than most other influences.

COVID-19 may have deterred some youth from seeking services, especially shelter, and decreased the numbers served due to efforts to deconcentrate facilities. The researchers also believe that the pandemic had a direct effect on lengthening stays in rapid rehousing. Changes made by HUD to address the effects of COVID-19 continue to affect the operation of housing and services for youth.

Second, YHDP was implemented with sites that varied on a number of dimensions, including the size of their youth homeless populations, the development of their systems, and the 104

urban/ruralness of their context, among other dimensions. In addition, sites varied in how they used their YHDP funds, some concentrating on specific subpopulations or specific types of services, for example. The interplay of those different factors may have created site-specific dynamics that affected the outcomes, especially exits to permanent housing, and made determining consistent cross-site patterns in outcomes difficult.

Third, with such variability across the 10 sites, having comparative information from the HMIS

on only three peer sites limited the ability to see differences across the two sets of sites. Having data from the CoC survey on implementation helped to place YHDP in the broader context of al CoCs that shared the same amount of variability. Unfortunately, the research team did not have outcome data from all CoCs that may have offered similar variability and heightened the ability to see differences in outcomes.

Finally, the 3-year timeframe may be too short to realize changes in outcomes, especial y during the pandemic. However, the cross-site movement to rapid rehousing, coupled with greater attention to outreach and diversion, is encouraging and should lead to more exits to housing over time and less time spent in crisis housing. Longer-term tracking of the outcomes from the 10 YHDP sites, augmented with tracking from al YHDP-funded sites, may be able to provide a more sensitive examination of the effects of YHDP.

105

Appendix A. Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Grantees

Exhibit A-1. YHDP Grantees, by Round

Name of CoC

Amount ($ in mil ions)

2016

Anchorage

1.50

Austin/Travis County

5.20

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

3.80

Connecticut BOS

6.60

Grand Traverse, Antrim, Leelanau Counties

1.30

Kentucky BOS

1.90

Ohio BOS

2.20

San Francisco

2.90

Seattle/King County

5.40

Watsonville/Santa Cruz City & County

2.20

2017

Boston

4.92

Columbus/Franklin County

6.07

Everett/Snohomish County

2.39

Louisville-Jefferson County

3.45

Nashville-Davidson County

3.54

Nebraska BOS

3.28

New Mexico BOS

3.37

Northwest Minnesota

1.41

San Diego City and County

7.94

Vermont BOS

2.00

Washington BOS

4.63

2018

Alaska BOS

1.65

Baltimore

3.70

Bridgeport, Stamford, Norwalk/Fairfield County

3.01

Buffalo, Niagara Falls/Erie, Niagara Counties

3.59

Clackamas County

1.78

Cook County

6.08

Des Moines/Polk County

1.87

District of Columbia

4.28

Gulf Port/Gulf Coast Regional

2.05

Honolulu City and County

3.80

Indianapolis

3.88

106

Maine BOS

3.35

Montana Statewide

3.43

Ohio BOS

1.47

Pittsburgh, McKeesport, Penn Hil s/Al egheny County

3.49

Pittsfield/Berkshire, Franklin, Hampshire Counties

1.96

Prince George’s County

3.48

San Antonio/Bexar County

6.88

Springfield/Hampden County

2.43

Tucson/Pima County

4.56

Waco/McLennan County

2.23

West Palm Beach/Palm Beach County

4.92

Wyoming Statewide

1.08

2019

Chattanooga/Southeast Tennessee

2.25

Detroit

5.60

Eugene, Springfield/Lane County

3.54

Ithaca/Tompkins County

2.00

Lincoln

2.20

Los Angeles City and County

15.00

Massachusetts BOS

5.90

Memphis/Shelby County

3.73

Oklahoma City

2.97

Rhode Island Statewide

3.50

Salinas/Monterey, San Benito Counties

5.57

South Dakota Statewide

2.98

Spokane City and County

2.70

Virginia BOS

1.60

Western Pennsylvania

3.71

Wheeling, Weirton Area

1.24

Wisconsin BOS

7.52

2020

Atlanta

2.25

Charlotte County

1.13

Dayton, Kettering/Montgomery

1.77

Fort Worth, Arlington/Tarrant

4.08

Houston, Pasadena

10.08

Madison/Dane County

2.45

Manchester

1.20

Minneapolis/Hennepin County

3.46

New Hampshire BOS

2.21

New York City

15.00

North Dakota Statewide

1.98

107

Oakland, Berkeley/Alameda

6.57

Poughkeepsie/Dutchess County

1.37

Salem/Marion, Polk Counties

3.69

San Jose/Santa Clara City and County

10.20

West Virginia BOS

2.56

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care.

Source: HUD Exchange

108

Appendix B. Additional Governance and Planning and

Cross System Coordination Exhibits

Exhibit B-1. Percentage of CoCs with Youth-Specific Governance and Strategic Planning

100

90

80

70

60

50

f CoCs 40

% o 30

20

10

0

Youth-Focused Governance

Strategic Planning

YHDP R1 Wave 1

YHDP R1 Wave 2

YHDP R2—3 Wave 1

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2 Non-YHDP Wave 1

Non-YHDP Wave 2

CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation

Exhibit B-2. Percentage of CoCs Engaging Youth In CoC Activities

100

90

↑

80

↑

70

60

50

f CoCs

↑

% o 40

↑

30

↑

20

10

0

YAB

Youth Participate in CoC Decision-

Other Youth Involvement

Making

YHDP R1 Wave 1

YHDP R1 Wave 2

YHDP R2—3 Wave 1

YHDP R2—3 Wave 2 Non-YHDP Wave 1

Non-YHDP Wave 2

CoC = Continuum of Care. YAB = Youth Action Board. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓).

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation 109

Exhibit B-3. Cross-Systems Coordination with Child Welfare

100

90

80

70

↑

60

50

f CoCs 40

% o 30

20

↑

10

0

Wave 1 R1 (N=10)

Wave 2 R1 (N=10)

Wave 1 R2—3 (N=27)

Wave 2 R2—3 (N=29)

Wave 1 Non-YHDP (N=280) Wave 2 Non-YHDP (N=260)

CE = coordinated entry. CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration.

Note: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓).

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation

Exhibit B-4. Cross-Systems Coordination with Education

100

90

↑

80

70

Cs 60

↑

↑

50

f Co 40

↑

% o 30

20

↑

↑

10

0

Wave 1 R1 (N=10)

Wave 2 R1 (N=10)

Wave 1 R2—3 (N=27)

Wave 2 R2—3 (N=29)

Wave 1 Non-YHDP (N=280) Wave 2 Non-YHDP (N=260)

CE = coordinated entry. CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Project.

Note: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓).

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation 110

Exhibit B-5. Cross-Systems Coordination with Behavioral Health Systems

100

90

↑

↑

80

70

↑

↑

Cs 60

50

f Co 40

% o 30

20

↑

10

0

Wave 1 R1 (N=10)

Wave 2 R1 (N=10)

Wave 1 R2—3 (N=27)

Wave 2 R2—3 (N=29)

Wave 1 Non-YHDP (N=280) Wave 2 Non-YHDP (N=260)

CE = coordinated entry. CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓).

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation

Exhibit B-6. Cross-Systems Coordination with Juvenile Justice

100

90

80

70

Cs 60

50

f Co 40

% o 30

20

↑

↑

↑

↑

10

0

Wave 1 R1 (N=10)

Wave 2 R1 (N=10)

Wave 1 R2—3 (N=27)

Wave 2 R2—3 (N=29)

Wave 1 Non-YHDP (N=280) Wave 2 Non-YHDP (N=260)

CE = coordinated entry. CoC = Continuum of Care. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Arrows indicate statistical y significant increase (↑) or decrease (↓).

Sources: 2019 and 2021 Surveys of CoCs conducted for the YHDP Evaluation 111

Appendix C. Additional Housing and Services Exhibits

Exhibit C-1A. Percentage of Youth Receiving Services in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

Received Outreach/Drop-In

Received Coordinated

Entry/Navigation

CoC

% Served

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

32%

26

78

(493)

(594)

0.0004

54

(845)

(1,760)

<.0001

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

5%

7

66

(237)

(174)

0.0036

86

(3,708)

(1,590)

<.0001

Seattle/King County

31

29

42

(1,546)

(1,389)

0.0295

29

(1,444)

(1,994)

<.0001

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

7

1

74

(395)

(61)

<.0001

82

(4,325)

(4,367)

<.0001

Ohio BOS

3

11

11

(79)

(256)

<.0001

3

(80)

(268)

<.0001

San Francisco

No data

No data

No data

No data

Early Development

Anchorage

2

43

50

(17)

(512)

<.0001

25

(259)

(598)

<.0001

Kentucky BOS

2

15

14

(25)

(147)

<.0001

31

(335)

(140)

<.0001

NW Michigan

5

34

31

(10)

(56)

<.0001

7

(14)

(51)

<.0001

Santa Cruz

6

23

51

(10)

(96)

<.0001

45

(79)

(212)

0.2181

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)

36

53

53

(216)

(366)

<.0001

32

(192)

(368)

<.0001

Memphis (Medium)

0

12

23

(0)

(67)

<.0001

13

(68)

(128)

<.0001

Colorado BOS (Early)

13

30

28

(76)

(203)

<.0001

40

(233)

(189)

<.0001

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

112

Exhibit C-1B. Percentage of Youth Receiving Services in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

Received Any Crisis Housing

Received Any Permanent Housing

CoC

% Served

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

33

14

2

(508)

(323)

<.0001

3

(42)

(35)

0.0137

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

26

36

4

(1,106)

(868)

<.0001

2

(84)

(94)

<.0001

Seattle/King County

53

44

4

(2,593)

(2,080)

<.0001

5

(259)

(208)

0.0480

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

20

14

2

(1,053)

(829)

<.0001

2

(84)

(114)

0.1655

Ohio BOS

58

48

7

(1,684)

(1,169)

<.0001

13

(365)

(176)

<.0001

San Francisco

No data

No data

No data

No data

Early Development

Anchorage

90

55

4

(945)

(665)

<.0001

1

(11)

(48)

<.0001

Kentucky BOS

37

42

2

(398)

(407)

0.0128

3

(35)

(15)

0.0140

NW Michigan

55

37

5

(106)

(62)

0.0009

7

(13)

(8)

0.4394

Santa Cruz

41

30

2

(71)

(125)

0.0114

0

(0)

(10)

0.0391

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)

44

26

12

(261)

(181)

<.0001

9

(55)

(86)

0.0640

Memphis (Medium)

62

41

7

(318)

(227)

<.0001

4

(18)

(40)

0.0076

Colorado BOS (Early)

45

44

2

(264)

(295)

0.7313

<1

(1)

(16)

0.0007

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

113

Exhibit C-2. Youth-Specific Outreach Services at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in

Percentage of Youth Served, By Site

CoC

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N)

CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

24 (of 1,187)

33 (of 1,604)

<0.0001

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

8 (of 2,985)

9 (of 1,946)

0.2614

Seattle/King County

19 (of 4,237)

11 (of 3,956)

<0.0001

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

7 (of 4,960)

1 (of 5,434)

<0.0001

Ohio BOS

4 (of 1,828)

12 (of 1,554)

<0.0001

San Francisco

49 (of 1,306)

4 (of 1,744)

<0.0001

Early Development

Anchorage

2 (of 958)

46 (of 1,096)

<0.0001

Kentucky BOS

3 (of 751)

18 (of 781)

<0.0001

NW Michigan

5 (of 175)

36 (of 142)

<0.0001

Santa Cruz

8 (of 122)

21 (of 335)

0.0019

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)

35 (of 528)

56 (of 657)

<0.0001

Memphis (Medium)

0 (of 207)

22 (of 299)

Colorado BOS (Early)

13 (of 585)

30 (of 668)

<0.0001

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data.

Sources: Site visit data; 2017 and 2020 HMIS

114

Exhibit C-3. Youth-Specific Drop-in Centers at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in Percentage

of Youth Served, By Site

CoC

% Served

% Served

CY 2017

CY 2020

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

20 (of 1,187)

5 (of 1,604)

<0.0001

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

0 (of 2,985)

<1 (of 1,946)

0.0614

Seattle/King County

18 (of 4,237)

24 (of 3,956)

<0.0001

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

<1 (of 4,960)

<1 (of 5,434)

<0.0001

Ohio BOS

0 (of 1,828)

0 (of 1,554)

San Francisco

0 (of 1,306)

0 (of 1,744)

0.9750

Early Development

Anchorage

0 (of 958)

0 (of 1.096)

Kentucky BOS

0 (of 751)

0 (of 781)

NW Michigan

0 (of 175)

0 (of 142)

Santa Cruz

0 (of 122)

8 (of 335)

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

5 (of 528)

0 (of 657)

Memphis (Medium)

0 (of 207)

0 (of 299)

Colorado BOS (Early)

0 (of 585)

0 (of 668)

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data.

Sources: Site visit data; 2017 and 2020 HMIS

115

Exhibit C-4. Youth-Specific Coordinated Entry at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in

Percentage of Youth Served, By Site

CoC

% Served

% Served

CY 2017

CY 2020

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

51 (of 1,187)

73 (of 1,604)

<0.0001

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

81 (of 2,985)

33 (of 1,946)

<0.0001

Seattle/King County

No data

35 (of 3,956)

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

85 (of 4,960)

75 (of 5,434)

<0.0001

Ohio BOS

No data

4 (of 1,554)

San Francisco

5 (of 1,306)

69 (of 1,744)

<0.0001

Early Development

Anchorage

19 (of 958)

34 (of 1,096)

<0.0001

Kentucky BOS

No data

No data

NW Michigan

No data

No data

Santa Cruz

No data

6 (of 335)

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

13 (of 528)

43 (of 657)

<0.0001

Memphis (Medium)

9 (of 207)

22 (of 299)

<0.0001

Colorado BOS (Early)

No data

No data

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data.

Sources: Site visit data; 2017 and 2020 HMIS

116

Exhibit C-5. Youth-Specific Navigation/Case Management at Baseline and Post-YHDP:

Change in Percentage of Youth Served, By Site

CoC

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N)

CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

2 (of 1,187)

33 (of 1,604)

<0.0001

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

4 (of 2,985)

41 (of 1,946)

<0.0001

Seattle/King County

32 (of 4,237)

18 (of 3,956)

<0.0001

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

3 (of 4,960)

18 (of 5,434)

<0.0001

Ohio BOS

3 (of 1,828)

8 (of 1,554)

<0.0001

San Francisco

0 (of 1,306)

1 (of 1,744)

<0.0001

Early Development

Anchorage

4 (of 958)

39 (of 1.096)

<0.0001

Kentucky BOS

27 (of 751)

12 (of 781)

<0.0001

NW Michigan

3 (of 175)

35 (of 142)

<0.0001

Santa Cruz

52 (of 122)

54 (of 335)

0.8322

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

26 (of 528)

20 (of 657)

0.0365

Memphis (Medium)

16 (of 207)

No data

Colorado BOS (Early)

40 (of 585)

28 (of 668)

<0.0001

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data.

Sources: Site visit data; 2017 and 2020 HMIS

117

Exhibit C-6. Youth-Specific Crisis Housing at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in Percentage of

Youth Served

Emergency Shelter

Transitional Housing

CoC

% Served

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

31

11

3

0.1657

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

<0.0001

4

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

32

38

1

0.0649

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

<0.0001

2

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

Seattle/King County

46

36

12

0.2646

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

<0.0001

11

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

14

8

5

<0.0001

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

<0.0001

3

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

Ohio BOS

59

48

10

0.1905

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

<0.0001

9

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

San Francisco

30

19

8

0.4478

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

<0.0001

9

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

Early Development

Anchorage

86

51

8

0.3897

(of 958)

(of 1.096)

<0.0001

9

(of 958)

(of 1.096)

Kentucky BOS

39

37

8

0.0037

(of 751)

(of 781)

0.2924

5

(of 751)

(of 781)

NW Michigan

53

38

4

0.4629

(of 175)

(of 142)

0.0091

6

(of 175)

(of 142)

Santa Cruz

34

31

1

0.0191

(of 122)

(of 335)

0.6498

6

(of 122)

(of 335)

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)

37

25

2

<0.0001

(of 528)

(of 657)

<0.0001

7

(of 528)

(of 657)

Memphis (Medium)

43

35

3

<0.0001

(of 207)

(of 299)

0.0634

14

(of 207)

(of 299)

Colorado BOS (Early)

44

39

8

0.0007

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.1303

4

(of 585)

(of 668)

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HIC = Housing Inventory Count. HMIS =

Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HICs and HMIS

118

Exhibit C-7. Length of Stay in Crisis Housing (in Days)

Emergency Shelter

Transitional Housing

CoC

CY 2017

CY 2020

CY 2020

(N)

(N)

P-Value

CY 2017

(N)

(N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

57

45

211

(N=335)

(N=159)

0.0590

356

(N=31)

(N=35)

0.0080

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

32

30

195

(N=890)

(N=711)

0.3119

99

(N=25)

(N=9)

0.2937

Seattle/King County

105

97

249

(N=1,732)

(N=1,308)

0.1692

253

(N=270)

(N=264)

0.8120

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

74

75

187

(N=576)

(N=393)

0.9372

184

(N=63)

(N=196)

0.9298

Ohio BOS

28

33

108

(N=1,026)

(N=703)

0.0033

138

(N=118)

(N=113)

0.0245

San Francisco

40

107

464

(N=393)

(N=331)

184

(N=118)

(N=144)

Early Development

Anchorage

36

52

<0.0001

155

241

0.0173

(N=801)

(N=532)

(N=53)

(N=52)

Kentucky BOS

31

29

77

(N=285)

(N=259)

0.7151

154

(N=30)

(N=49)

0.0264

NW Michigan

31

32

250

(N=88)

(N=51)

0.8318

161

(N=10)

(N=4)

0.4516

Santa Cruz

28

63

192

(N=38)

(N=82)

0.0040

516

(N=3)

(N=4)

0.0214

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)

60

70

132

(N=186)

(N=154)

0.2050

206

(N=19)

(N=10)

0.1071

Memphis (Medium)

23

33

244

(N=83)

(N=100)

0.3111

108

(N=21)

(N=1)

0.3111

Colorado BOS (Early)

151

68

208

(N=585)

(N=668)

<0.0001

477

(N=585)

(N=668)

0.9999

(--) = no significant change over time. BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

119

Exhibit C-8. Youth-Specific Rapid Rehousing at Baseline and Post-YHDP: Change in Percentage

of Youth Served, By Site

CoC

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N)

P-Value

CY 2020 (N)

High Development

Austin/Travis County

7

22

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

< 0.0001

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

7

21

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

<0.0001

Seattle/King County

7

19

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

< 0.0001

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

3

11

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

<0.0001

Ohio BOS

20

31

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

<0.0001

San Francisco

5

23

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

<0.0001

Early Development

Anchorage

1

6%

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

<0.0001

Kentucky BOS

11

13

(of 751)

(of 781)

0.1765

NW Michigan

<1

22

(of 175)

(of 142)

<0.0001

Santa Cruz

24

13

(of 122)

(of 335)

0.0052

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

5

11

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.0003

Memphis (Medium)

49

50

(of 207)

(of 299)

1.0000

Colorado BOS (Early)

2

2

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.8943

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HIC = Housing Inventory Count. HMIS =

Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HICs and HMIS

120

Exhibit C-9. Change in Length of Stay in Rapid Rehousing (in Days), By Site

CoC

CY 2017 (N)

CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

168

421

(N=42)

(N=32)

<0.0001

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

299

367

(N=103)

(N=71)

0.0309

Seattle/King County

220

260

(N=104)

(N=179)

0.0516

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

354

227

(N=1)

(N=265)

Ohio BOS

99

128

(N=238)

(N=260)

0.0015

San Francisco

143

271

(N=65)

(N=401)

Early Development

Anchorage

107

254

(N=1)

(N=35)

Kentucky BOS

165

249

(N=47)

(N=53)

0.0323

NW Michigan

No data

409

(N=6)

Santa Cruz

No data

292

(N=12)

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)

125

120

(N=4)

(N=42)

0.9331

Memphis (Medium)

88

155

(N=72)

(N=52)

0.0046

Colorado BOS (Early)

298

228

(N=12)

(N=13)

0.7405

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

121

Exhibit C-10. Youth-Specific Permanent Supportive Housing at Baseline and Post-YHDP

YHDP: Change in Percentage of Youth Served, By Site

Permanent Supportive Housing

Permanent Housing

(Only or With Services)

CoC

% Served

% Served

% Served

CY 2017

CY 2020

P-Value

% Served

CY 2017

CY 2020

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

<1

1

<1

0.0146

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

0.5740

2

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

2

4

0

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

<0.0001

0

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

Seattle/King County

2

2

2

0.0461

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

0.6101

3

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

1

1

<1

(

0.0227

<1

0.6772

of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

Ohio BOS

11

7

0

(

0.2547

of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

<0.0001

<1

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

San Francisco

<1

3

3

(

<0.0001

<1

0.3779

of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

Early Development

Anchorage

1

3

1

(

<0.0001

<1

0.3536

of 958)

(of 1,096)

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

Kentucky BOS

2

2

0

(

0.8521

0

of 751)

(of 781)

(of 751)

(of 781)

NW Michigan

3

4

0

(

1.0000

1

of 175)

(of 142)

(of 175)

(of 142)

Santa Cruz

0

2

0

0

(of 122)

(of 335)

(of 122)

(of 335)

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)

4

6

7

(

0.3524

6

0.2426

of 528)

(of 657)

(of 528)

(of 657)

Memphis (Medium)

4

4

1

(

0.8255

0

of 207)

(of 299)

(of 207)

(of 299)

Colorado BOS (Early)

<1

2

0

(

0.0007

0

of 585)

(of 668)

(of 585)

(of 668)

OS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HIC = Housing Inventory Count. HMIS =

Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HICs and HMIS

122

Exhibit C-11. Change in Length of Stay in Permanent Supportive Housing and Other

Permanent Housing (in Days), By Site

Permanent Supportive Housing

Other Permanent Housing

CoC

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

No data

355 (N=1)

No data

656 (N=1)

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

No data

650 (N=23)

No data

No data

Seattle/King County

412 (N=28)

503 (N=29)

0.3943

314 (N=24)

1,026 (N=12)

0.0004

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

321 (N=11)

504 (N=9)

0.2432

150 (N=1)

No data

Ohio BOS

834 (N=57)

534 (N=25)

0.1010

No data

No data

San Francisco

174 (N=7)

621 (N=43)

103 (N=3)

671 (of 49)

Early Development

Anchorage

275 (N=3)

230 (N=3)

0.6816

No data

No data

Kentucky BOS

695 (N=6)

214 (N=6)

0.0327

No data

No data

NW Michigan

566 (N=4)

729 (N=1)

No data

No data

Santa Cruz

No data

230 (N=1)

No data

No data

Peer Sites

Sonoma County (High)

874 (N=4)

243 (N=7)

0.0965

127 (N=3)

595 (N=18)

0.0839

Memphis (Medium)

468 (N=1)

391 (N=2)

No data

735 (N=2)

Colorado BOS (Early)

No data

475 (N=16)

No data

No data

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

123

Exhibit C-12. Number of Youth in YHDP and Peer CoCs’ PIT Counts in 2017 and 2020 and

Percentage Change Over Time

Difference in

CoC

CY 2017 (N)

CY 2020 (N)

Number over

Percentage

Time

Change

High Development

Austin/Travis County

129

142

13

10%

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

99

102

3

3%

Seattle/King County

1,640

1,075

-565

-34%

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

168

148

-20

-12%

Ohio BOS

262

258

-4

-2%

San Francisco

1,315

1,211

-104

-8%

Early Development

Anchorage

127

128

1

1%

Kentucky BOS

177

152

-25

-14%

NW Michigan

17

11

-6

-35%

Santa Cruz

599

625

26

4%

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

538

365

-173

-32%

Memphis (Medium)

40

43

3

8%

Colorado BOS (Early)

302

209

-93

-48%

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. PIT = Point in Time. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 PIT Counts

124

Exhibit C-13. Number of Youth in YHDP and Peer CoCs’ HMIS in 2017 and 2020 and Percentage

Change Over Time

Difference in

CoC

CY 2017 (N)

CY 2020 (N)

Number over

Percentage

Time

Change

High Development

Austin/Travis County

1,187

1,604

417

35%

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

2,985

1,946

-1,039

-35%

Seattle/King County

4,237

3,956

-281

-7%

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

4,960

5,434

474

10%

Ohio BOS

1,828

1,554

-274

-15%

San Francisco

1,306

1,744

438

34%

Early Development

Anchorage

958

1,096

138

14%

Kentucky BOS

751

781

30

4%

NW Michigan

175

142

-33

-19%

Santa Cruz

122

335

213

175%

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

528

657

129

24%

Memphis (Medium)

207

299

92

44%

Colorado BOS (Early)

585

668

83

14%

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

125

Exhibit C-14. Average Age of Youth in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

CoC

CY 2017 (N)

CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

21.5 (of 1,187)

21.8 (of 1,604)

0.0060

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

21.5 (of 2,985)

21.0 (of 1,946)

<0.0001

Seattle/King County

21.0 (of 4,237)

21.4 (of 3,956)

<0.0001

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

22.1 (of 4,960)

22.0 (of 5,434)

0.0568

Ohio BOS

21.3 (of 1,828)

21.7 (of 1,554)

<0.0001

San Francisco

19.2 (of 1,306)

21.2 (of 1,744)

Early Development

Anchorage

20.3 (of 958)

20.9 (of 1,096)

<0.0001

Kentucky BOS

21.5 (of 751)

20.9 (of 781)

<0.0001

NW Michigan

18.9 (of 175)

19.8 (of 142)

0.0016

Santa Cruz

21.9 (of 122)

21.4 (of 335)

0.0479

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

21.0 (of 528)

21.6 (of 657)

<0.0001

Memphis (Medium)

21.9 (of 207)

21.9 (of 299)

0.9518

Colorado BOS (Early)

20.4 (of 585)

20.2 (of 668)

0.1411

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

126

Exhibit C-15. Percentage of Youth Who Were Minors in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY

2020, By Site

CoC

% Served

% Served

CY 2017

CY 2020

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

8 (of 1,187)

3 (of 1,604)

<0.0001

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

12 (of 2,985)

18 (of 1,946)

<0.0001

Seattle/King County

10 (of 4,237)

8 (of 3,956)

0.0041

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

1 (of 4,960)

1 (of 5,434)

0.4652

Ohio BOS

2 (of 1,828)

1 (of 1,554)

0.1065

San Francisco

31 (of 1,306)

8 (of 1,744)

Early Development

Anchorage

21 (of 958)

10 (of 1,096)

<0.0001

Kentucky BOS

10 (of 751)

14 (of 781)

0.0223

NW Michigan

43 (of 175)

25 (of 142)

0.0009

Santa Cruz

2 (of 122)

7 (of 335)

0.0342

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

9 (of 528)

5 (of 657)

0.0058

Memphis (Medium)

6 (of 207)

2 (of 299)

0.0351

Colorado BOS (Early)

11 (of 585)

12 (of 668)

0.7128

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

127

Exhibit C-16A. Gender of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

Male

Female

CoC

% Served

% Served

% Served

CY 2017

CY 2020

P-Value

% Served

CY 2017

CY 2020

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

46

40

55

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

0.0004

51

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

0.0382

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

32

40

59

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

<0.0001

68

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

<0.0001

Seattle/King County

48

45

50

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

0.0352

47

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

0.0038

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

35

34

65

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

0.4083

65

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

0.6512

Ohio BOS

44

42

57

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

0.1532

55

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

0.1540

San Francisco

46

42

54

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

0.0316

43

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

<0.0001

Early Development

Anchorage

58

54

43

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

0.0450

41

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

0.4198

Kentucky BOS

50

47

52

(of 751)

(of 781)

0.3575

50

(of 751)

(of 781)

0.3849

NW Michigan

42

42

52

(of 175)

(of 142)

1.0000

55

(of 175)

(of 142)

0.5727

Santa Cruz

47

41

53

(of 122)

(of 335)

0.3373

52

(of 122)

(of 335)

0.7515

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

50

51

44

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.8152

47

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.4456

Memphis (Medium)

11

29

67

(of 207)

(of 299)

<0.0001

87

(of 207)

(of 299)

<0.0001

Colorado BOS (Early)

57

49

48

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.0111

43

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.0680

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

128

Exhibit C-16B. Gender of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

Transgender/Gender

Nonconforming

Unreported

CoC

% Served

% Served

% Served

CY 2017

CY 2020

P-Value

% Served

CY 2017

CY 2020

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

2

3

2

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

0.2020

<1

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

<0.0001

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

<1

1

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

0.2212

No data

No data

Seattle/King County

3

4

1

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

0.0480

3

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

<0.0001

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

1

1

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

0.0838

No data

<1

(of 5,434)

Ohio BOS

1

1

<1

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

0.8377

<1

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

0.7099

San Francisco

3

4

<1

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

0.1762

8

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

<0.0001

Early Development

Anchorage

1

3

1

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

0.0004

0

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

0.0331

Kentucky BOS

<1

1

(of 751)

(of 781)

0.2885

<1

(of 751)

No data

NW Michigan

2

6

(of 175)

(of 142)

0.1451

No data

No data

Santa Cruz

<1

3

2

(of 122)

(of 335)

0.3021

<1

(of 122)

(of 335)

0.6878

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

3

3

1

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.6101

<1

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.0824

Memphis (Medium)

2

3

(of 207)

(of 299)

0.4172

<1

(of 207)

No data

Colorado BOS (Early)

<1

2

<1

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.0065

0

(of 585)

(of 668)

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

129

Exhibit C-17. Percentage of Parenting Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY

2020, By Site

CoC

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N)

CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

17 (of 1,187)

23 (of 1,604)

0.0002

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

26 (of 2,985)

12 (of 1,946)

<0.0001

Seattle/King County

10 (of 4,237)

12 (of 3,956)

0.0242

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

4 (of 4,960)

5 (of 5,434)

0.0113

Ohio BOS

29 (of 1,828)

27 (of 1,554)

0.2054

San Francisco

9 (of 1,306)

21 (of 1,744)

Early Development

Anchorage

6 (of 958)

6 (of 1,096)

1.0000

Kentucky BOS

22 (of 751)

12 (of 781)

<0.0001

NW Michigan

5 (of 175)

8 (of 142)

0.1709

Santa Cruz

20 (of 122)

12 (of 335)

0.0321

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

6 (of 528)

2 (of 657)

0.0059

Memphis (Medium)

72 (of 207)

43 (of 299)

<0.0001

Colorado BOS (Early)

15 (of 585)

8 (of 668)

0.0002

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

130

Exhibit C-18A. Race and Ethnicity of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY

2020, By Site

Black

American Indian/Alaska Native

CoC

% Served

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

36

37

1

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

0.6045

2

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

0.3051

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

71

73

<1

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

0.0919

<1

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

0.2975

Seattle/King County

30

37

5

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

<0.0001

4

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

0.3283

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

30

34

1

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

<0.0001

1

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

0.9037

Ohio BOS

17

16

<1

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

0.1931

<1

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

0.7637

San Francisco

27

52

3

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

<0.0001

2

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

0.0159

Early Development

Anchorage

10

9

38

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

0.6528

31

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

0.0006

Kentucky BOS

10

14

<1

(of 751)

(of 781)

0.0136

<1

(of 751)

(of 781)

0.6812

NW Michigan

5

2

3

(of 175)

(of 142)

0.2374

2

(of 175)

(of 142)

1.0000

Santa Cruz

7

6

4

(of 122)

(of 335)

0.5114

8

(of 122)

(of 335)

0.0497

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

8

11

19

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.1940

12

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.0004

Memphis (Medium)

95

89

(of 207)

(of 299)

0.0212

No data

No data

Colorado BOS (Early)

5

4

8

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.4282

9

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.3079

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

131

Exhibit C-18B Race and Ethnicity of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY

2020, By Site

Asian

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

CoC

% Served

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

1

1

<1

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

0.8256

<1

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

0.4677

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

<1

<1

<1

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

0.7933

<1

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

1.0000

Seattle/King County

2

3

3

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

0.0456

2

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

0.4760

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

<1

<1

<1

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

0.4454

1

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

0.0390

Ohio BOS

<1

<1

<1%

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

0.6664

<1

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

0.7810

San Francisco

2

3

3

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

0.3309

<1

(1,306)

(of 1,744)

0.0011

Early Development

Anchorage

1

1

3

(of 958)

(of 1096)

0.6151

3

(of 958)

(of 1096)

1.0000

Kentucky BOS

<1

0

<1

(of 751)

(of 781)

0.2401

0

(of 751)

(of 781)

0.2498

NW Michigan

<1

(of 175)

No data

No data

No data

Santa Cruz

4

1

1

(of 122)

(of 335)

0.0346

1

(of 122)

(of 335)

1.0000

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

3

1

1

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.0238

1

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.7749

Memphis (Medium)

No data

<1

(of 299)

No data

No data

Colorado BOS (Early)

<1

<1

<1

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.4874

<1

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.4874

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

132

Exhibit C-18C Race and Ethnicity of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY

2020, By Site

Multiracial

White

CoC

% Served

% Served

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N)

CY 2020

P-Value

CY 2017

CY 2020

P-Value

(N)

(N)

(N)

High Development

Austin/Travis County

6

6

50

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

0.6924

53

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

0.0719

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

6

5

21

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

0.0882

2%

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

0.3221

Seattle/King County

10

12

0.0190

3%

33

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

0.0001

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

4

8

29

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

<0.0001

26

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

<0.0001

Ohio BOS

5

5

78

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

0.8791

76

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

0.3698

San Francisco

3

6

19

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

<0.0001

25

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

0.0005

Early Development

Anchorage

18

12

23

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

<0.0001

32

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

<0.0001

Kentucky BOS

3

4

81

(of 751)

(of 781)

0.1996

87

(of 751)

(of 781)

0.0035

NW Michigan

13

14

81

(of 175)

(of 142)

0.7404

79

(of 175)

(of 142)

0.6748

Santa Cruz

9

7

66

(of 122)

(of 335)

0.4261

65

(of 122)

(of 335)

0.8236

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

17

14

52

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.1027

57

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.0889

Memphis (Medium)

2

1

9

(of 207)

(of 299)

0.7217

2

(of 207)

(of 299)

0.0040

Colorado BOS (Early)

4

5

81

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.6613

78

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.3629

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

133

Exhibit C-18D Race and Ethnicity of Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY

2020, By Site

Unreported/Other

CoC

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

3

5

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

0.0007

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

No data

<1

(of 1,946)

Seattle/King County

14

8

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

<0.0001

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

38

28

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

<0.0001

Ohio BOS

<1

<1

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

0.2022

San Francisco

41

14

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

<0.0001

Early Development

Anchorage

5

14

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

<0.0001

Kentucky BOS

<1

1

(of 751)

(of 781)

0.7263

NW Michigan

<1

(of 175)

No data

Santa Cruz

6

16

(of 122)

(of 335)

0.0093

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

2

2

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.5569

Memphis (Medium)

<1

<1

(of 207)

(of 299)

1.0000

Colorado BOS (Early)

2

2

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.5312

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

134

Exhibit C-19. Percentage of Youth Identifying as Hispanic Among Youth Served in YHDP and

Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic

Unreported

CoC

% Served % Served

P-

% Served % Served

P-

% Served % Served

CY 2017

CY 2020

CY 2017

CY 2020

CY 2017

CY 2020

P-Value

(N)

(N)

Value

(N)

(N)

Value

(N)

(N)

High Development

Austin/Travis

32 (of

36 (of

60 (of

4 (of

County

1,187)

1,604)

0.0269

65 (of

1,187)

1,604)

0.0073

3 (of

1,187)

1,604)

0.1938

Cincinnati/Ham

1 (of

2 (of

98 (of

ilton County

2,985)

1,946)

0.2964

99 (of

2,985)

1,946)

0.2631

No data No data

Seattle/King

14 (of

18 (of

77 (of

5 (of

County

4,237)

3,956)

<0.0001

73 (of

4,237)

3,956)

0.0001

12 (of

4,237)

3,956)

<0.0001

Medium Development

Connecticut

24 (of

30 (of

47 (of

23 (of

BOS

4,960)

5,434)

<0.0001

43 (of

4,960)

5,434)

<0.0001

33 (of

4,960)

5,434)

<0.0001

Ohio BOS

4 (of

5 (of

95 (of

<1 (of

1,828)

1,554)

1.0000

95 (of

1,828)

1,554)

0.9355

<1 (of

1,828)

1,554)

1.0000

San Francisco

19 (of

28 (of

1,306)

1,744)

<0.0001 No data

70 (of

1,744)

No data

2 (of

1,744)

Early Development

Anchorage

9 (of

8 (of

76 (of

15 (of

958)

1,096)

0.5285

85 (of

958)

1,096)

<0.0001

6 (of

958)

1,096)

<0.0001

Kentucky BOS

3 (of

4 (of

96 (of

1 (of

751)

781)

0.1996

97 (of

751)

781)

0.1802

<1 (of

751)

781)

0.7263

NW Michigan

7 (of

8 (of

90 (of

1 (of

175)

142)

0.8348

91 (of

175)

142)

0.8491

2 (of

175)

142)

1.0000

Santa Cruz

46 (of

57 (of

35 (of

8 (of

122)

335)

0.0339

52 (of

122)

335)

0.0008

2 (of

122)

335)

0.0093

Peer

Sonoma

32 (of

35 (of

63 (of

2 (of

County (High)

528)

657)

0.2951

67 (of

528)

657)

0.1588

<1 (of

528)

657)

0.0766

Memphis

<1 (of

2 (of

98 (of

<1 (of

(Medium)

207)

299)

0.4085

99 (of

207)

299)

0.7435

1 (of

207)

299)

0.5704

Colorado BOS

31 (of

33 (of

66 (of

1 (of

(Early)

585)

668)

0.5380

68 (of

585)

668)

0.4673

1 (of

585)

668)

0.1227

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

135

Exhibit C-20. Percentage of Youth with One or More Disabling Conditions Served in YHDP and

Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY 2020

CoC

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N)

CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

37

45

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

0.0001

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

18

40

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

<0.0001

Seattle/King County

37

51

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

<0.0001

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

23

30

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

<0.0001

Ohio BOS

38

37

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

0.6691

San Francisco

No data

55

(of 1,744)

Early Development

Anchorage

26

32

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

0.0016

Kentucky BOS

28

22

(of 751)

(of 781)

0.0076

NW Michigan

43

50

(of 175)

(of 142)

0.2145

Santa Cruz

23

33

(of 122)

(of 335)

0.0386

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

51

67

(of 528)

(of 657)

<0.0001

Memphis (Medium)

No data

No data

Colorado BOS (Early)

33

44

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.0002

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

136

Exhibit C-21. Disabling Conditions Reported by Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017

and CY 2020, By Site

Mental Health Condition

Chronic Health Condition

Substance Abuse Problem

CoC

%

%

%

%

%

%

Served

Served

Served

Served

Served

Served

CY 2017 CY 2020 P-Value CY 2017 CY 2020 P-Value CY 2017 CY 2020 P-Value (N)

(N)

(N)

(N)

(N)

(N)

High Development

Austin/Travis

33 (of

3% (of

16 (of

9 (of

County

1,187)

1,604)

0.0028

12 (of

1,187)

1,604)

0.0036

11 (of

1,187)

1,604)

0.2507

Cincinnati/Ham

14 (of

31 (of

12 (of

14 (of

ilton County

2,985)

1,946)

<0.0001

5 (of

2,985)

1,946)

<0.0001

9 (of

2,985)

1,946)

<0.0001

Seattle/King

29 (of

43 (of

19 (of

20 (of

County

4,237)

3,956)

<0.0001

11 (of

4,237)

3,956)

<0.0001

14 (of

4,237)

3,956)

<0.0001

Medium Development

Connecticut

19 (of

26 (of

10 (of

9 (of

BOS

4,960)

5,434)

<0.0001

7 (of

4,960)

5,434)

<0.0001

9 (of

4,960)

5,434)

0.9899

Ohio BOS

33 (of

33 (of

5 (of

8 (of

1,828)

1,554)

0.7970

3 (of

1,828)

1,554)

0.0040

10 (of

1,828)

1,554)

0.1234

San Francisco

13 (of

46 (of

25 (of

27 (of

1,306)

1,744)

<0.0001

<1 (of

1,306)

1,744)

<0.0001

6 (of

1,306)

1,744)

<0.0001

Early Development

Anchorage

19 (of

27 (of

6 (of

17 (of

958)

1,096)

<0.0001

3 (of

958)

1,096)

0.0003

14 (of

958)

1,096)

0.1591

Kentucky BOS

12 (of

13 (of

1 (of

9 (of

751)

781)

0.4411

2 (of

751)

781)

0.2525

19 (of

751)

781)

<0.0001

NW Michigan

39 (of

47 (of

12 (of

6 (of

175)

142)

0.1396

11 (of

175)

142)

0.8590

9 (of

175)

142)

0.5257

Santa Cruz

No

25 (of

12 (of

12 (of

data

335)

9 (of

122)

335)

0.5017

19 (of

122)

335)

0.0628

Peer

Sonoma

41 (of

53 (of

21 (of

41 (of

County (High)

528)

657)

<0.0001

16 (of

528)

657)

0.0197

24 (of

528)

657)

<0.0001

Memphis

No

19 (of

No

7 (of

No

5 (of

(Medium)

data

299)

data

299)

data

299)

Colorado BOS

11 (of

9 (of

35 (of

16 (of

(Early)

585)

668)

0.2451

25 (of

585)

668)

0.0001

11 (of

585)

668)

0.0225

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

137

Exhibit C-22. Family Violence Reported by Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and

CY 2020, By Site

Family Violence History

CoC

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

35

47

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

<0.0001

Cincinnati/Hamilton County

6

16

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

<0.0001

Seattle/King County

17

34

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

<0.0001

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

12

23

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

<0.0001

Ohio BOS

23

26

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

0.0717

San Francisco

3

35

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

<0.0001

Early Development

Anchorage

20

23

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

0.0873

Kentucky BOS

14

24

(of 751)

(of 781)

<0.0001

NW Michigan

41

49

(of 175)

(of 142)

0.1730

Santa Cruz

30

25

(of 122)

(of 335)

0.4022

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

29

41

(of 528)

(of 657)

<0.0001

Memphis (Medium)

No data

10

(of 299)

Colorado BOS (Early)

10

10

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.2488

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

138

Exhibit C-23. Income Reported by Youth Served in YHDP and Peer CoCs in CY 2017 and CY

2020, By Site

Percentage Reported Income

Average Amount

CoC

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

23

28

$964

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

0.0034

$981

(of 273)

(of 449)

0.7101

Cincinnati/Hamilton

5

17

$886

County

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

<0.0001

$695

(of 149)

(of 330)

0.0002

Seattle/King County

23

27

$1,222

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

<0.0001

$976

(of 975)

(of 1,068)

<0.0001

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

6

8

$1,208

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

0.0001

$783

(of 298)

(of 435)

<0.0001

Ohio BOS

35

32

$879

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

0.0927

$856

(of 640)

(of 124)

0.4283

San Francisco

10

49

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

<0.0001

No data

$1,253

(of 855)

Early Development

Anchorage

18

19

$965

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

0.8207

$1,156

(of 172)

(of 208)

0.0069

Kentucky BOS

26

23

$936

(of 751)

(of 781)

0.1906

$804

(of 195)

(of 180)

0.0265

NW Michigan

40

42

$945

(of 175)

(of 142)

0.8186

$581

(of 70)

(of 60)

0.0005

Santa Cruz

24

33

$1,065

(of 122)

(of 335)

0.0662

$1,087

(of 29)

(of 117)

0.8704

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

33

29

$1,308

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.1457

$1,096

(of 174)

(of 191)

0.0160

Memphis (Medium)

No data

26

(of 299)

No data

$771

(of 78)

Colorado BOS (Early)

22

32

$965

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.0109

$1156

(of 129)

(of 214)

0.0002

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

139

Exhibit C-24A. Percentage of Youth Who Received One Or More Non-Cash Benefits in YHDP

and Peer CoCs’ HMIS in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

Received One or More Non-Cash

Benefits

SNAP

CoC

% Served

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/

21

24

22

Travis County

0.1022

20

0.4249

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

Cincinnati/

3

6

6

Hamilton County

<0.0001

3

<0.0001

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

Seattle/King County

27

32

<0.0001

26

31

<0.0001

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

10

5

<0.0001

9

4

<0.0001

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

Ohio BOS

40

41

38

0.7764

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

0.5981

38

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

San Francisco

No data

24

0

1

(of 1,744)

(of 1,306)

(of 1,744)

Early Development

Anchorage

12

11

0.4045

12

10

0.2032

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

Kentucky BOS

32

20

<0.0001

32

19

<0.0001

(of 751)

(of 781)

(of 751)

(of 781)

NW Michigan

15

20

0.3000

15

16

0.7569

(of 175)

(of 142)

(of 175)

(of 142)

Santa Cruz

45

35

0.0466

43

33

0.0466

(of 122)

(of 335)

(of 122)

(of 335)

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

27

20

20

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.0045

27

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.0053

Memphis (Medium)

No data

22

(of 299)

No data

22

(of 299)

Colorado BOS (Early)

34

33

31

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.0575

32

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.0436

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

140

Exhibit C-24B. Percentage of Youth Who Received One Or More Non-Cash Benefits in YHDP

and Peer CoCs’ HMIS in CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

WIC

TANF

CoC

% Served

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/

3

6

<1

Travis County

0.0002

<1

0.2970

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

(of 1,187)

(of 1,604)

Cincinnati/

<1

2

1

Hamilton County

<0.0001

<1

<0.0001

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

(of 2,985)

(of 1,946)

Seattle/King County

2

3

0.1993

1

1

0.4272

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

(of 4,237)

(of 3,956)

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

2

<1

<0.0001

1

<1

0.0011

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

(of 4,960)

(of 5,434)

Ohio BOS

6

9

0.0018

1

1

0.8308

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

(of 1,828)

(of 1,554)

San Francisco

No data

0

19

(of 1,744)

No data

(of 1,744)

Early Development

Anchorage

1

1

0.5222

1

<1

0.2454

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

(of 958)

(of 1,096)

Kentucky BOS

2

3

0.1516

<1

<1

1.0000

(of 751)

(of 781)

(of 751)

(of 781)

NW Michigan

2

10

0.0058

No data

1

(of 175)

(of 142)

(of 142)

Santa Cruz

5

7

0.6607

2

2

1.0000

(of 122)

(of 335)

(of 122)

(of 335)

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

3

3

<1

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.7425

1

(of 528)

(of 657)

0.0866

Memphis (Medium)

No data

5

(of 299)

No data

1

(of 299)

Colorado BOS (Early)

4

2

<1

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.0221

2

(of 585)

(of 668)

0.0059

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

141

Exhibit C-25A. Percentage of Parenting Youth Who Received One Or More Non-Cash Benefits

in YHDP and Peer CoCs’ HMIS CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

Received One or More Non-Cash

Benefits

SNAP

CoC

% Served

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

59

56

0.5405

55

50

0.2583

(of 206)

(of 371)

(of 206)

(of 371)

Cincinnati/

3

18

18

Hamilton County

<0.0001

3

<0.0001

(of 789)

(of 245)

(of 789)

(of 245)

Seattle/King County

62

62

1.0000

60

58

0.5892

(of 437)

(of 470)

(of 437)

(of 470)

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

46

13

<0.0001

42

13

<0.0001

(of 219)

(of 298)

(of 219)

(of 298)

Ohio BOS

67

74

0.0224

62

65

0.3779

(of 531)

(of 421)

(of 531)

(of 421)

San Francisco

No data

No data

No data

No data

Early Development

Anchorage

64

34

0.0018

60

28

0.0008

(of 55)

(of 64)

(of 55)

(of 64)

Kentucky BOS

71

48

0.0003

71

43

<0.0001

(of 164)

(of 95)

(of 164)

(of 95)

NW Michigan

63

58

1.0000

63

33

0.3618

(of 8)

(of 12)

(of 8)

(of 12)

Santa Cruz

71

82

0.3569

71

77

0.7665

(of 24)

(of 39)

(of 24)

(of 39)

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

68

35

0.0383

58

35

0.2270

(of 31)

(of 17)

(of 31)

(of 17)

Memphis (Medium)

No data

37

12

No data

(of 130)

(of 130)

Colorado BOS (Early)

No data

No data

No data

No data

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

142

Exhibit C-25B. Percentage of Parenting Youth Who Received One Or More Non-Cash Benefits

in YHDP and Peer CoCs’ HMIS CY 2017 and CY 2020, By Site

WIC

TANF

CoC

% Served

% Served

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

% Served

CY 2017 (N) CY 2020 (N)

P-Value

High Development

Austin/Travis County

14

19

0.1065

1

1

1.000

(of 206)

(of 371)

(of 206)

(of 371)

Cincinnati/

1

10

5

Hamilton County

<0.0001

<1

<0.0001

(of 789)

(of 245)

(of 789)

(of 245)

Seattle/King County

17

17

0.8593

7

3

0.0314

(of 437)

(of 470)

(of 437)

(of 470)

Medium Development

Connecticut BOS

16

5

<0.0001

2

2

1.0000

(of 219)

(of 298)

(of 219)

(of 298)

Ohio BOS

20

27

0.0108

2

2

0.8117

(of 531)

(of 421)

(of 531)

(of 421)

San Francisco

No data

No data

No data

No data

Early Development

Anchorage

15

11

0.5901

13

2

0.0238

(of 55)

(of 64)

(of 55)

(of 64)

Kentucky BOS

7

14

0.0758

0

2

0.1336

(of 164)

(of 95)

(of 164)

(of 95)

NW Michigan

38

50

0.6699

No data

(of 8)

(of 12)

No data

Santa Cruz

13

36

0.0775

13

21

0.5094

(of 24)

(of 39)

(of 24)

(of 39)

Peer

Sonoma County (High)

32

18

0.3296

10

0

0.5430

(of 31)

(of 17)

(of 31)

(of 17)

Memphis (Medium)

No data

12

2

No data

(of 130)

(of 130)

Colorado BOS (Early)

No data

No data

No data

No data

BOS = Balance of State. CoC = Continuum of Care. CY = calendar year. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. YHDP = Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program.

Note: Empty cel s indicate tests for change over time were not computed due to missing data or insufficient sample size.

Sources: 2017 and 2020 HMIS

143

References

Bitfocus. 2021. “Going Beyond the VI-SPDAT: Deficiencies of the VI-SPDAT.”

https://www.bitfocus.com/blog/deficiencies-of-the-vi-spdat.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). 2013. Framework to End Youth Homelessness: A Resource Text for Dialogue and Action.

http://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/USICH_Youth_Framework__FINAL

_02_13_131.pdf.

———. 2022. All In: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness.

https://www.usich.gov/Al _In.pdf.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). n.d. Ending Youth Homelessness Guidebook Series: Promising Program Models. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development.

https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Ending-Youth-Homelessness-

Promising-Program-Models.pdf.

———. 2021. The 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress. Washington, DC: HUD. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2020-AHAR-Part-1.pdf.

———. 2023. “HUD Awards $315 Million in Historic Grants to Address Unsheltered and Rural Homelessness.” Press release. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

https://www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_advisories/HUD_No_23_029.

144

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

March 2023

Document Outline

Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Final Report

DISCLAIMER

Acknowledgments

Foreword

Table of Contents

List of Exhibits

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Executive Summary

Summary of Findings

Governance and Youth Involvement

Cross-System Coordination

Housing and Services

Changes in the Size, Characteristics, and Rates of Exit to Permanent Housing Among the Population of Youth Experiencing Homelessness

Summary

Chapter I. Introduction and Methodology

Introduction

Purpose of the Report

Structure of the Report

Overview of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program

Evaluation Methodology

Study Design

Data Collection

Document Review

Site Visits

HMIS Data

Web Survey

Analytic Approach

Previous Evaluation Reports

Early Implementation Report

Initial CoC Survey

Youth Perspectives Report

Chapter II. Planning and Governance

Summary of Findings

Planning and Governance

Youth Engagement

Perspectives of YAB Members

Chapter III. Findings: Cross-System Coordination

Summary of Findings

Overall Level of Coordination with Other Systems

Coordination with the Child Welfare System

Coordination with the Education System

Coordination with the Behavioral Health System

Coordination with the Juvenile Justice System

Patterns of Findings in Coordination Across the Four Systems

The Nature of Coordination in Systems Governance, Planning, Funding, and Data

Systems Governance and Planning

Funding

Data

Services

Housing

Challenges to Cross-System Coordination

Chapter IV. Housing and Services

Summary of Findings

Outreach and Drop-in Services:

Coordinated Entry, Navigation, and Diversion:

Crisis and Permanent Housing:

Other Services and Supports

Overview of System Changes and Assistance Received

Outreach and Drop-In Services

Outreach Services

Drop-in Centers

Coordinated Entry, Navigation, and Diversion

Coordinated Entry

Navigation/Case Management

Diversion

Crisis and Permanent Housing

Crisis Housing

Host Homes

Rapid Rehousing

Permanent Supportive Housing/Other Permanent Housing

Other Services and Supports

Family Intervention Services

Education and Employment Assistance

Behavioral Health Services

Chapter V. The Population of Youth Experiencing Homelessness: Changes in the Size, Characteristics, and Rates of Exit to Permanent Housing

Summary of Findings

HMIS Data Limitations To Consider

Changes in the Size of the Population of Youth Experiencing Homelessness

Changes in the Characteristics of the Population of Youth and Young Adults Experiencing Homelessness

Age

Gender and Parenting Status

Race and Ethnicity

Disabling Conditions and Family Violence

Income

Exits to Permanent Housing

Summary of Changes in the Size and Characteristics of the Population of Youth Experiencing Homelessness and their Exits to Permanent Housing

Chapter VI: Summary and Implications of Findings

Planning and Governance

Youth Involvement

Cross-System Coordination

Services and Housing

Changes in the Size and Characteristics of the Population of Youth Experiencing Homelessness

Changes in Exits to Permanent Housing

Conclusion

Appendix A. Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program Grantees

Appendix B. Additional Governance and Planning and Cross System Coordination Exhibits

Appendix C. Additional Housing and Services Exhibits

References