Communities are currently using HPRP funding to support solutions to homelessness locally. This workshop will focus on how this federal funding can also be used to prevent youth homelessness and strengthen family reunification efforts so that youth may safely return home.

1. NAEH Conference Tuesday July 13, 2010 Nancy Strohminger AIRS/ City Steps/Empire Homes of Maryland

2. Baltimore—A Poor City in a Very Rich State Population: 637,000 Median Income: $40,087 Persons Below Poverty Level: 19.2% STATEWIDE-- Population: 5,699,000 Median Income: $70,482 Persons Below Poverty Level: 8.2%

4. Emergency shelter-- ~1000 beds

5. Transitional shelter-- ~1400 beds

6. Youth-specific shelter services

7. 4 beds for runaway for youth under age 18

8. 7 transitional housing beds for youth age 18-21

10. Little sense of need other than anecdotal. Without services, it is hard to count the need.

11. Youth are not accessing traditional adult services—see themselves as vulnerable in these locations.

13. Money for Service Navigators (3) to fan out as a Mobile Team connecting youth to known resources

14. Additional dollars for rental down payments, utility supports, emergency shelter, support of family units with 16 and 17 yr. olds.

15. Collect basic profile data to better illuminate their needs

17. Exposing the need and strengthening knowledge

18. Defining current resources and possible gaps

19. Provide services

20. Developed basic services manual specific to age

21. Use the housing and utility dollars as honey to draw out, identify and serve the need.

22. Understand the target population and their needs

24. Track zip code at point of contact.

25. More in-depth intake for those wanting housing, HPRP Prevention dollars, including Verification of homelessness, Income Verification for household.

27. Use our mobility to perform intakes anywhere

28. Use their tools of communication

29. All had personal cell phones with texting capabilities

30. Treat youth like non-clients

31. Have something tangible to offer.

33. Extremely underserved—and unaware of available help

34. Transportation challenges enforce their isolation.

35. They call you when they need you, but not before or after.

36. They do not identify as “clients” or “homeless”

38. Income Profile

39. Education/ Training Profile

41. Most respond well to the “Call Charlie” approach

42. High percentage of women with young children

43. Highly mobile group—the folks who call this month fall off, and are replaced with a completely new set of callers.

45. Most subsisting on the cash economy. 7 out of 10 using food stamps.

46. High percentages of debt from failed attempt at education, child support, providing barriers to workforce enhancement.

48. Anticipate over 400 intakes/ year

50. Service Profile

52. The city’s voucher program used a vulnerability index that focused on cold weather exposure and did not identify “age” on the vulnerability spectrum.

53. Giving and getting the voucher to a young adult with no lease or apartment experience really exposed their lack of independent life skills.

55. Intervention does not have to be long-term to be valuable

56. How readily we found suitable adult services in all areas of basic services in the city—often willing to serve this group when invited by the Service Navigators.