4.3 Designing Effective Housing Subsidy Programs Speaker: Katie Kitchin The Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program has led to experimentation with different housing subsidy models. During this workshop, presenters will discuss their experiences designing, implementing, and evaluating a variety of short- and medium-term rental subsidy programs. Presenters will also discuss how programs are preparing families to transition off of time-limited rent subsidies.

1. 4.3 Designing Effective
Housing Subsidy Models
Katie Kitchin, Community Alliance for the Homeless, Memphis TN
Elaine de Coligny, EveryoneHome, Alameda County, CA
Maria Barker, Fannie Mae - Facilitator

2. Presentation Overview
 Design Process Approach
 Screening and Assessment
 Subsidy Models
 Termination or Extension of Subsidy
 Housing Retention

3. The Design Process Memphis
 17 different private/public partners convened to design
the approach.
 Key drivers: 1) Research/Experience 2) Funding 3)
Existing infrastructure
 Most important decision: create a “front door” to
shelter/connect prevention to those seeking shelter.

4. The Design Process Alameda Cnty
 Started with a task force then entire community of
providers and local funders contributed to design.
 Key drivers: 1) Research on our system and best
practices 2) HPRP Funding 3) Seizing an opportunity to
create systems change
 Most important decisions:
 Serve higher risk households
 Create create a countywide approach
 Client files open to whole program

5. Screening and Assessment
Memphis
 Targeting, tailoring, and telepathy
 Clear connectivity to the emergency shelter system
 Individual needs factored/not one size fits all
 Subpopulations: foster kids, disabled caretakers
 Communicating expectation of resilience
 Structured Decision Making Risk Assessment tool determines
supportive services (35% assigned to FHAs)

6. Screening and Assessment
Alameda Cnty
 Basic Eligibility Screening and Targeting done over the
phone by 211
 Incomes 15% or below AMI, households doubled up with
family and friends, persons losing a housing subsidy
 Regional Housing Resource Centers did assessment and
intake
 Assessment tool scored people in or out of program
 Estimated likely length of subsidy needed
 Tool helped create consistency around who got served not
as useful predicting length of need

7. Subsidy Models: How Much is
“Just Enough”?
 Memphis: Expectation is once is enough
 Result: 74% required help only once
 Need to spend down encouraged some to “double dip”
 Human nature – wait until the last minute/take what is free
Number of Assistance Periods
One Time
Twice
Three or More
0 200 400 600 800 1000

8. Subsidy Models: Taking risks
 Alameda County: Serving “Higher risk” doesn’t result in
higher costs.
 Low scorers on assessment had less income, poorer rental and
credit histories, and were more often disabled
 They cost the program less than higher scorers on average, stayed
longer, and had the same permanent housing outcomes

9. Termination or Extension of
Subsidy Memphis
 Termination is automatic; extension requires
justification and triggers assignment to FHA in most
cases.
 Pressure to spend = spike in double dips.
 In 26 months, only 2 households (out of 1200) required
subsequent shelter placement = .01%
 Housing retention/stability is measured at 3, 6, and 12
months post subsidy.

10. Termination or Extension of
Subsidy Alameda County
 Eligibility for subsidy is assessed every three months
 60% of prevention clients exit within 60 days
 50% of homeless assistance clients exit within 60 days
about one quarter have been in longer than 6 months

11. Housing Stability in Memphis
Housing Stability With and Without FHA Support
100% 99%
94%
95%
90% 91%
89%
90%
86%
85%
80%
75% FHAs
Non FHAs
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
3 months 6 months 12 months

12. Housing Stability in Alameda Cnty
 Less than 3% of those served have returned to
homelessness since leaving the program
Returns to Homelessness
30%
25% 24%
20%
15%
10% 9%
7% 7%
5%
3%
0%
Systemwide Shelters TH HPRP SSO