2017

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

(Reports dues 10th of January, April, July, October)

 

 

 

  X

 

 

Individuals Served this Quarter

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

 

 

 

 

 

New Individuals this Quarter

31

 64

 50

 26

New Families w/Children this Quarter

4

3

1

2

Individuals Carried Over

75

80

68

31

Families Carried Over

2

2

3

2

Total Clients seen this Quarter

112

149

122

61

 

Demographics this Quarter

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

African American

 

 

11

9

Native American/Pacific Islander

 

 

6

2

Caucasian

 

 

94

46

Hispanic/Latin American

 

 

8

1

Mental Illness

71

83

63

37

Substance Abuse

53

58

54

35

Dual MI/SA

39

41

37

20

Veteran

4

8

2

0

 

Housing Status this Quarter

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

 

 

 

 

 

Unsheltered

15

20

27

7

Emergency Shelter

22

25

25

13

Precariously Housed

8

6

6

17

Housed

30

37

25

19

Unknown

16

23

21

7

Evictions this Quarter Despite Efforts

6

12

4

2

 

Additional Information

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

 

 

 

 

 

Approved for Disability this Quarter

1

0

0

0

Employed this Quarter

0

0

3

2

Chronically Homeless

39

35

34

20

Individuals Housed this Quarter

19

35

17

11

Families Housed this Quarter

1

3

0

1

Households Avoiding Eviction

4

2

4

0

 

Narrative: The fourth quarter proved to be another challenging one for the outreach team. An absent position created by the senior member leaving the team was not filled until Nov 6. Moreover, the new worker experienced several sudden onset medical issues during his first two months as a homeless outreach worker, forcing him to miss several weeks of work. As a result, the city outreach team predominantly operated with only one worker for at least 50% of the 4th quarter. This, combined with the holiday season resulted in a challenging quarter with a notable drop in numbers served for the quarter. Nevertheless, the outreach team was able to assist in housing 11 individuals and 1 family, while another 2 clients were able to obtain employment. For the year, the outreach team helped to house 82 individuals and 4 families. The team assisted a total of 171 new individuals and 10 new families for the year, and served a total of 444 overall individuals and families.

The most notable issue for the year is the ability of the team to serve the number of clients with the number of staff available. The team has been downsized from 4 to 2 members, with the number of annual clients served averaging between 400 and 500. It has proven an extreme challenge for the team to provide acceptable due diligence and quality of service to a caseload of this capacity. The level of work related stress due to the increased work load per worker has been a notable factor. Following the ability of staff to serve the number clientele in need, is the level of flex funding available to assist clients served. The outreach team has maintained an annual flex fund of approximately $10,000.00. This amounts to an annual average of $22.52 cents available per client served based upon 2017 statistics. It has proven extremely difficult throughout the history of the program to preserve funding at this level throughout the entire year. Funds are therefore typically depleted, on average, by August or September. Moreover, it has proven exponentially more difficult for the team to improve on outcomes for clients served, specifically the outcome of housing and applications for benefits completed, with an average of $22.52 per client per year. A replacement birth certificate in the state of Kansas costs $15.00. A replacement ID in the state of Kansas costs from $12.00 to $22.00 depending on the ID acquired, and whether it is a renewal or replacement. Obtaining ID and birth certificates (personal credentials required to complete applications for assistance through LDCHA or DCF) exceeds the average amount of funds available per client served. When considering other needs, such as warm clothing, blankets, food, application fees for potential housing, transportation, medications, medical co-pays etc. the level of funding available for outreach clients is alarmingly insufficient. Without more personnel and increased flex funding, the outreach program remains severely hobbled in its ability to provide an effective and acceptable quality of city service. Given that this is a service provided by the City of Lawrence, this reflects very poorly on the city by standing in stark contradiction to the City of Lawrence’s expressed commitment to the Critical Success Factors listed in the city’s strategic plan.