HPRP
IMPACTS: CASE STUDIES IN COMMUNITY CHANGE
A series of brief case studies documenting ways in which the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program is
promoting community change and transformation of local homeless assistance systems.
Community Case Studies Overview
Beginning in mid-2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) allocated $1.5 billion in Homelessness
Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP) funding across the country, infusing communities with new
resources to prevent and end homelessness. This influx of new funding provided a unique opportunity and a
dual challenge to local communities – both how to gear up quickly for effective implementation and how to do
so in a way that anticipated continuity at the end of the ARRA funding period. In the process, HPRP motivated
many communities to re-assess, re-configure and re-focus their commitment to homeless prevention and rehousing, promoting many levels of change.
This series of brief case studies documents ways in which seven different communities responded to this challenge
with innovative strategies, practices and local systems change. Cities and regions profiled in this series include:
• Charlotte, NC • Dayton/Montgomery County, OH
• State of Rhode Island
• Sacramento County, CA
• Santa Clara, CA
• Worcester County, MA
• Yolo County, CA
Examination of practices adopted by these communities revealed a series of common processes and dynamics
in community-wide change. Five of these transformative processes, in particular, are worth highlighting, as they
represent key change mechanisms that are consistent with previous research findings on systems change1:
• Inclusive Governance Structure and Centralized Program Oversight - All profiled communities referenced
a governance and management structure that incorporates diverse community leadership, invests
stakeholders in the change process, and centralizes monitoring functions.
• Commitment of Cross-Sector and Governmental Leadership to Systems Transformation – In each
community highlighted, there was broad commitment from local government and mainstream
systems leaders to using HPRP resources as a means to initiate and/or accelerate transformation of the
community’s prevention and housing assistance system.
• Alignment of Organizational Philosophies: Housing Stabilization and Housing First - Most of these
communities reflected a shared philosophical framework drawing on the “Housing First” approach, and, in
turn, emphasized training and development that supported this approach.
• Innovative Use of Local Impact Data – Most communities went beyond required reporting, and actively
used HMIS and client outcomes data to evaluate and improve system capacities.
• Service Coordination and Standardization – In most instances, service delivery innovations and practices
were standardized across the community to ensure program efficiencies and impact.
1. Changing Homeless and Mainstream Service Systems (National Symposium for Homelessness Research, 2007) http://aspe.hhs.gov/
hsp/homelessness/symposium07/burt/index.htm; Aligning Forces for Quality Healthcare Findings (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
2009); Critical Success in High Performing Rural Communities (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2010).
HPRP IMPACTS: CASE STUDIES IN COMMUNITY CHANGE
Page 1
Key Change Factors
Examples of Community Activity
Lessons Learned
Inclusive Governance
and Centralized
Program Oversight
In Worcester (MA), Montgomery County (OH), and
Rhode Island, local leadership councils integrated service
delivery systems by strategically allocating resources from
HPRP, CoC, City, State, and other funding sources. Most
communities established a system-level HPRP coordinator
position to provide consistent coverage via newly
coordinated service partnerships.
Centralized leadership structures
are vital in re-orienting system-level
planning, allocation, and monitoring,
and blending resources for prevention
and re-housing assistance. Establishing
a systems level coordinator is critical
to help regions bridge traditional
organizational barriers and boundaries.
Commitment of
Cross-Sector and
Governmental
Leadership to Systems
Transformation
In Yolo County (CA), local leaders had established
prevention as the centerpiece of their Ten Year Plan to
End Homelessness, and used HPRP resources to create a
regional system of Housing Resource Centers in support of
that goal.
Commitment of local leaders to
systems transformation (both at
the jurisdictional and institutional
levels) is critical to coordinating and
streamlining service delivery systems
– leading to more efficient and costeffective deployment of resources
across geographic and programmatic
boundaries.
Leaders in Worcester integrated HPRP resources with
all other homelessness system funding to advance
commitment to transforming the region’s systems for
prevention and housing stabilization.
Alignment of
Organizational
Philosophies
In Charlotte (NC), local leaders established an innovative
program that targets rapid re-housing services to
homeless households with multiple housing barriers,
based on a prior City-wide commitment to the “Housing
First” approach. Training for front-line staff in Housing
First methodology, as well as rapid re-housing and
prevention strategies, helped align service system models
across multiple communities in a unified approach.
Advancing a housing stabilization
system requires incorporation of both
prevention and Housing First solutions,
predicated on shared “buy-in” by all
stakeholders and systems-wide efforts
to align all practices with this approach
and its intended outcomes.
Innovative Use of
Local Impact Data
In Santa Clara (CA) and Montgomery County, communities
are using both HMIS and other performance outcomes
data to inform leadership of needed adaptations in
planning systems re-design.
Early evaluation of HPRP, i.e. assessing
the effectiveness and efficiency of new
assessment and assistance approaches
and networks, is critical in planning
for and creating a desired post-HPRP
system.
Service Coordination
and Standardization
Sacramento (CA) established “2-1-1” as the community’s
centralized intake provider, created a standardized
assessment tool, and coordinated legal services providers
to pre-screen all eviction cases for HPRP.
The development of standard
processes, staffing roles, training, and
assessment tools allows all local system
providers to adopt consistent practices
in the delivery of prevention and
housing assistance services.
Yolo County created an integrated system of service and
access points by establishing six new Homeless Resource
Centers and using common intake tools to standardize
service delivery.
Community Commitments to System Change
Each region or community profiled in this series was strategic in its use of HPRP funds to create or redesign
a community system to achieve sustainable housing assistance practices. Each of these communities relied
on leaders who were committed to doing “whatever it takes” to achieve desired results. All operated with
openness to new possibilities through a fundamental re-orientation of practice and priorities, and each
approached implementation with an investment in ongoing systems improvement and transformation.
HPRP IMPACTS: CASE STUDIES IN COMMUNITY CHANGE
Page 2
HPRP
IMPACTS: CASE STUDIES IN COMMUNITY CHANGE
A series of brief case studies documenting ways in which the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program is
promoting community change and transformation of local homeless assistance systems.
Community Profile
Santa Clara County, California
Santa Clara County includes much of Silicon Valley, the
City of San Jose, and numerous smaller jurisdictions,
encompassing a population of roughly 1.75 million
people. According to the most recent homeless census,
at any point in time approximately 5,000 people are living
on the streets and 2,000 people are in shelters across the
county. Santa Clara County formulated one of the first Ten
Year Plans to End Homelessness in which homelessness
prevention was a top priority.
Prior to the implementation of HPRP, however, very few
resources were available to fund prevention services, and
assistance was most often limited to one-time interventions.
The advent of HPRP provided a valuable systems-change
impetus which produced a new county-wide servicedelivery system that now serves both households in
homelessness and households at-risk.
Participating
jurisdictions and providers have adopted shared program
protocols that ensure coordinated, comprehensive, and
consistent service delivery.
Local Environment Prior to HPRP
Before HPRP, the homelessness assistance service system’s
leadership was fragmented. The County’s Ten Year Plan
(Destination: Home) and the Santa Clara Collaborative
on Affordable Housing and Homeless Issues (the local
Continuum of Care decision-making body) had specific
roles for planning and service development. The City of
San Jose Housing Department and the County of Santa
Clara’s Office of Affordable Housing had additional roles.
All operated independently.
HPRP brought a broad diversity of decision-makers and
stakeholders to the planning table, effectively increasing
the visibility and viability of the planning work and
coordination of all priorities and strategies. HPRP resources
created the opportunity and impetus to bring together Ten
Year Plan and CoC leadership to work directly with the City
of San José Housing Department, and the County of Santa
Clara’s Office of Affordable Housing.
HPRP IMPACTS: CASE STUDIES IN COMMUNITY CHANGE
HPRP focused this new collaborative partnership on the
need to create a single, integrated county-wide prevention
and re-housing system. The group’s leadership agreed to
develop shared intake and assessment tools and common
outcome measures that define HPRP’s activities and
determine its success.
Local Systems Transformation Through HPRP
Collaborative Regional Partnerships:
The City of
San Jose and Santa Clara County pooled their funding to
create a single HPRP program, combining the City’s $4.1
million HPRP award with the County’s HPRP allocation
of nearly $717,500. A coalition of providers representing
non-entitlement jurisdictions, also received another $1.6
million in HPRP funds from the State. Total HPRP funds for
the County system came to just under $6 million. In order
to generate broad geographic support for HPRP goals and
implementation, all local CoC providers in Santa Clara
County were invited to help develop what would become
shared HPRP protocols, priorities and a new collaborative
network.
As a result of this coordination, a county-wide system
emerged that now delivers HPRP assistance in the same
way for every person. With each provider serving a
different geographical region, six experienced nonprofit
agencies now provide consistent HPRP services that
Page 1
together comprise the County’s first community-wide
prevention assistance system.
By establishing a standardized assessment process and
a single set of protocols, the county-wide homeless
prevention and rapid re-housing system ensures that no
matter which door a household enters, they will receive
the same housing assistance and prevention services
across all of Santa Clara County.
Self-Sufficiency Matrix Used for Targeting Assessment:
A variation of the Arizona Self-Sufficiency Matrix (SSM)
is being used by all county agencies as part of the HPRP
intake. It establishes the baseline “number” from which
progress is measured. The initial assessment consists of
questions scored from eight primary domains: Income,
Legal, Employment, Housing, Child Care, Life Skills, Safety,
and Credit History. HPRP staff calculate the total points
and ensure that all households meet the “but for” criteria
established for HPRP eligibility. Households with an SSM
score between 51-70% are viewed as the highest priority
for HPRP assistance. During the household’s first 30 days
of enrollment, HPRP staff work with the participant to
complete the entire self-sufficiency matrix, comprised
of 18 domains. Matrix scores are used along with HPRP
eligibility determination to guide program decisions
regarding duration and intensity of HPRP assistance,
including the level of case management support.
Matrix Used for Re-Assessment, Termination,
Evaluation: As required by HPRP rules, households
approved for assistance must return for re-assessment and
determination of need for ongoing assistance. Households
receiving ongoing assistance are re-assessed every 90 days
with the self-sufficiency matrix.
All households get channeled to assistance services
according to need. Very few Santa Clara County HPRP
households receive one-time assistance, as other network
agencies provide it. In Santa Clara’s model, households
successfully “graduate” from the HPRP program once they
no longer meet HUD eligibility, or their self-sufficiency matrix
score exceeds 81% and/or a Case Manager determines
assistance can be terminated, whichever comes first. If
a household does not reach this goal, assistance will be
ended at the 18-month maximum, as required, but staff
members will work to identify future sustainability plans
for those households prior to termination. In addition
to HPRP program assessment, the self-sufficiency matrix
serves as both a pre- and post-assessment tool to evaluate
program impact and outcomes.
Centralized HPRP Coordination and Staff Training:
City of San Jose Homelessness and Housing staff ensure
that all standard protocols are followed by the partner
agencies across Santa Clara County. Staff plays a critical
neutral coordinating role for all network training,
collaboration, and quality assurance procedures. City staff
also coordinate the monthly HPRP Working Group, where
providers gather to discuss progress, challenges, successes,
and lessons learned.
Key Features of Systems Change
Data-Driven Evaluation and Analysis: To assess
the effectiveness and efficiency of this new countywide
system, all clients are tracked for at least one year on a
range of outcomes that go beyond basic HPRP reports.
The following benchmarks have been established as key
outcome measures driving systems change:
Housing Stability:
• 85% of assisted households remain stably housed
while receiving HPRP assistance.
• 75% of assisted households remain stably housed for
at least 6 months following HPRP.
Shelter Diversion:
• 75% of assisted households will not enter or reenter the shelter system within one year following
participation in HPRP.
Self-Sufficiency Matrix Scores:
• 75% of assisted households who complete the
program will improve their total self-sufficiency
matrix score by a percentage of 10% or more.
Key Lessons Learned
• Use of common assessment and case management protocols can ensure that every client
contacting the homeless assistance system at any place within a region will have access to the same
comprehensive services.
• Use of a self-sufficiency matrix can guide and evaluate the impact of systems change.
HPRP IMPACTS: CASE STUDIES IN COMMUNITY CHANGE
Page 2