I 2. THE CHAMBER Context and approach Context The report is not intended for The Chamber engaged McKinsey (pro?bono) to evaluate the current state of the Crisis Response System and status of the 2016 report recommendations from Barb Poppe and Focus Strategies The work examined homelessness within the context of the broader affordable housing landscape in King County public distribution .o -. - - Approach resources (not exhaustive) 20+ interviews and site visits with Providers 10+ interviews with housing experts, representing orgs across public, private, non?profit/ academic sectOrs Expert and funder interviews Gates, Raikes, Barb Poppe) All Home Coordinating Board meetings (2) and trainings Diversion) - -1lr?sr? Focus Strategies and Barb Poppe Reports All Home Strategic Plan 2017 Count Publicly available system documents One Year Update on Pathways Home) Funding data from All Home, City, and County HMIS population data from County All Home County Dashboards PIT Count 81 Survey data Affordable Housing: American Community Survey Seattle/ King County Comprehensive plans Regular check?ins (3 total) with All Home, City of Seattle, King County, and United Way to share findings 1?day data 8L methodology workshop with King County ?7 .- )0 . . . Executive Summary Challenges connected with increasing incidence of homelessness (cont. from previous page) Affordable housing supply in King County is limited and decreasing: - Across all income tiers under 100% 30-50%, 50-80%, 8040096), demand for units is greater than supply. The 0-3096 tier, which includes the majority of people exiting homelessness, is most constrained with four households seeking every one unit available Even with full implementation of HALA recommendations, there will be a gap of ~3i units in the 0?50% income tier 1? The Crisis Response System has improved since 2014 but will require more efficiency or more funding to meet needs: The growth in population of people accessing services outpaces funding (1, i094} per year, 2.4% per year) Efficiency gains were captured as Focus Strategies/ Poppe recommendations implemented; there is more funding and efficiency needed to fill gap to need Opportunities to reduce homelessness in King County investments across mutually reinforcing system elements, such as the Crisis Response System and Management infrastructure, are necessary to make homelessness rare, brief, and one-time 3' To exit all households entering homelessness in 20W (21.7K households) would require investments Within the Crisis Response System? diversion, improving coordinated entry, and increasing shelter exits? and increasing affordable and available housing options Levers to facilitate more exits from the Crisis Response System include: improving Coordinated Entry (no cost), expanding diversion exit), and improving exits from emergency shelter exit) Levers to increase housing stability for households experiencing homelessness include; expanding the share of existing units that go to homeless, increasing turnover rates, and increasing affordable housing options. The most cost effective and scalable strategy is rental assistance at 1.9k unit. An optimal strategy to increasing affordable housing options over time will also involve developing affordable units through building or buying units Subsidizing the rent of all cost-burdened households under 50% AW would be ,1 year, providing an upper bound of spend to stabilize households that have exited homelessness For investments to be more sustainable over time, rental subsidies could be tiered based on population detail: inflow, proportion with high-needs (requiring Permanent Supportive Housing), and potential rental contribution {earned received income) Total annual cost and funding gap for the Crisis Response System and additional housing interventions can be determined based on additional population detail to target the appropriate investments across populations in need leg, the proportion of the population requiring Permanent Supportive Housing) Executive Summary Size and drivers of homelessness in King County As oilanuary 20i7 (Point in Time count) the population of people experiencing homeiessness in King County was estimated at 1i,643 people (7.1 households). From 2014?2017, the population has grown 9.2% per year, compared to King County population growth over the same period of 1.6% per year. The unsheltered population is growing faster than the aggregate homeless population and King County population, and has accelerated since 2014 (26.1% per year) Racial inequities are present in rates of homelessness, even when for poverty: African?American and Native? American households comprise 29% and 6% of the homeless population, but 19% and 2% of the pOpulation experiencing poverty Major drivers of homelessness in King County are the lock affordable housing stock as well as destabilizing risk factors leg, behavioral health conditions, incarceration) - Over the same period of increase in the population of people experiencing homelessness pa. 2014?2017), rent in King County increased 12.3% per year, and supply of affordable units at or below 50% AMI decreased 13% per year Job loss (affordability) and substance use (behavioral health) are the two most frequently reported causes of homelessness episodes 20%) in King County?s PIT Count Risk factors, such as poor social networks or incarceration differentially impact sub?populations Challenges connected with increasing incidence of homelessness (cents on next page) The Crisis Response System has increased exits to permanent housing 13% per year from 2034?2016 and 35% from 201 6 to 2817; however, system performance cannot keep pace with the growing population of clients accessing services, projected at ~22l< households in 2017 Efficiency and effectiveness of the Crisis Response System has been examined in reports by Barb Poppe and Focus Strategies: of the 10 report recommendations, six have been implemented while the remaining four leg, fully implementing Coordinated Entry) require system-wide coordination and are in progress There are insufficient affordable and available units to exit the number of people needing to leave the Crisis Response System: ~8l< potential units available annually for households needing them (gap of units per year) Additionally, there is insuf?cient time limited housing to sheiter those waiting to exit the system: 4.1 units in Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing for 7.1 households experiencing homelessness at a given point in time (gap of 3K units at point in time) Contents Size and drivers of homelessness in King County System performance and challenges . Areas of focus for impact Homelessness in King County has increased 92% pa. since 2014, faster than King County population growth for the same period (16% CAGR King County homeless population at a given point in time King County popuiation led?v?doals counted to P11, "thousands ted?v?doels, lyl?tlioes Unsheltered Homeless I Sheltered Homeless Experiencing Poverty Not Experiencing Poverty 1.6% 92% 1.6% 21 11.6 2,1 2.1 . 2.4% . :01 109.0 9.0 9.0 8.9 9.1 8.9 7.9 280/ 300 38% 42% 47% it}: 2 31% 29% 673196 2876.21?1337; 2007 1620171 2007 20162 Changes in Point in Time Count methodology in 2017 led to an increased Count pepuiation Growth in unsheltered homelessness (26% pa 2014?17)) is driving overall homelessness population growth 1 The sheltered homelessness population has stayed more constant, hovering around 6K each year, close to the system?s shelter capacity of ~6.51< beds Poverty is increasing at half the annual growth rate of people llving above the poverty line vs the number of people living in poverty decreased ~501< from 2013 to 2016 (254K to 1 PET worth-:1: gown-97 updated .10: r? avm?aule oopu?aaiw: Hum L871?u> while King County rents increased over the same period of time, showing a strong correlation between affordability and homelessness PET Count FMR King County Homeless Population and King County Fair Market Rent for Studio Unit CAGR Individuals counted in Thousands; Unit rents in USD $1,200 12,395/1 12,000 $1,000 i 10,000 . . $800;? i i 8,000 . I i . 1 $600!? i i I 1 I $400 147,902: 35-01; 8'952 l8'972 8399: ?9,106; $8349? I 1 i 4,000 ?$200 9 a I - 2,000 .: $Rent 2007 2017 Persons Since 2014, units affordable at or above 80% AMI have increased ~10% ii?? p.a. while units affordable at or below 50% AMI declined by 13% pa, Supply of Affordable Rental Units by Tier? 3.100% I 813-10096 I 50-80% 30-50% 50% CAGR "{boosar?dg of Units 381 2907-15 2014-(16%0 a 134 139 @339 3? -. ,3 33% 5.45 F39 .57" I) (1&1 2008 L- 152 2009 zs "3 2010 2012 .1 utl ,v - . 27 2013 .. .122 Fill 53:4; 27"' ii. 20 1 4 201 10.0351?? 3 4.6% 25 2016 ?eei?ioe offordabie birdie below 50% AW primarily driven at 303032: iewl, with boogiog 3mm affordable or beiow 30% mm remaining eonetant (within margin of error) Inciodes those was affordable at :he high end of z'ne range anc unaffo'dabie a: the is end of . ?ange -. Affordability and risk factors can drive households into homelessness Reported am" of homelessness. 96 ?.respondents? Native Hawaiian Multiple Races iOb mOSt affeCted I or Pacific Islander a 2 Common risk Famil Vete- American Indian I Black or African . . 1 . orAlaskan Native American Aicohol or Drug Use Adults les rans YYA I I Other Asian Less access to . White I Eviction housing .. . . Poor social v? Divorce/ Separation/ networks Breakup Exposure to 8/ IEIness/ Medicai Problems domestic violence, abuse Mental Health Issues Behavioral or mental health .. Argument With a Friend/ issues Fami! Member Previous v? Incarceration incarceration in ?13696 the Justice system i .- Could Not Afford Rent Repeated or Increase extended I 5 Famiiy/ Friend?s Housing deployments .w I Wouldn Let Me Stay Self? identify as 66916- i Family/ Domestic Violence . I Experience with I . . . a institutional or Generaw . er foster care . Population Homelessness . . .I. gnu--o?qContents . Size and drivers of homelessness in King County . System performance and challenges 1 Areas of focus for impact System exits to stable housing have increased 13% per year from 2014?2016, and 35% since 2016 following report recommendations Total exits to permanent stable housing, 2014-17 men Thousands 2014 2015 2016 20171 ?>rojeatted based on. rate {or ?rst t?ws?ee quart-3:3 of 21:1? --.- I I I?wnrusia.- . . t. 2 Effectiveness of the Crisis Response System was reviewed by Barb Poppe and Focus Strategies: 6/10 recommendations have been implemented Detail laterin materials v? implemented Partiailyimpiemented Level of system change Recommendation Policy Operational Status 4' Create a distinct Crisis Response System Act with urgency and boldness C: .3, . Establish action oriented Governance structure? Ensure data informed funding decisions 5. D. El Ensure adequate data analysis System? Performance Improvement Use outreach and Coordinated Entry for All (CEA) to Target Unsheltered Persons Expand Shelter Diversion/More Effective Targeting of Prevention Resources Improve Effectiveness of Shelters in Exiting People to Permanent Housing invest in More Effective Interventions: Expand Rapid Re?Housing and Eliminate Low Performing Projects More Strategic Use of Permanent Affordable Housing? .. Adoption of system?wide targets, min. standards, and performance based contracting by ail major funders Launched a competitive, data driven RFP process for City cf Seattle funding - Increased investment in RRH and Diversion 3x, while reducing investment in low preforming Transitional Housing programs I Increased data and evaluation capacity and released 5 new public dashboards to track system and provider performance i Whiie Home has ?mpiemented structural changes inciading creat?on of subcommittees, reduction of providers or: the coordinating board, and enforcement of con?ict of interest policy, there may be fertl?ier opportunities ta improve action?ei?ientation 2 Most actior: steps have been taken besides the delay of the Housing Resource Center - ?o ?2 24' I Increase system- facilitated exits Current status of recommendation that are still in progress .Weaseumts available for exits Area Progress to date Next Steps increased stat:c capacity to remove inactive clients "from . Increase PSl?l utilization from current 93% to 95% queue by reducing time from referral to enrollment (avg Limited entries outside of CEA by cross referencing HMIS ~l month), limiting rejections and denials improved case conferencing and assessment practices to Right size the prioritized list to reduce time from prioritize and house rnost vuinerable ciients assessment to referral (avg is ~1 yr) and motivate improved PSH utilization from 91%. IO 93% less vulnerable clients to pursue other options 330 clients successfully diverted (QB 2016? -Q2 20in Increase rates of diversion by integrating the through Regional Access Points, UW Street to Home, approach across system elements all shelters) and WA Pilot and creating targets and system?wide accountability King County launched quarteriy Diversion Dashboard Recent city RFP Awards allocate an additional in funding toward diversion, with 846 projected exits Launched two 24/7 enhanced shelters housing improve exits rate to permanent housing toward resources and navigators the 50% target by investing further in 24/7 Added 4 Housing Navigators to existing shelters enhanced shelters and housing navigators Overali exits to Permanent Housing remains low at 11%, down 3% from 2015 providers cite lack of exit options as largest barrier Re-Launch Previous contract ended July 2017; King County assumed Relaunch HRC to increase units available to clients the interim operation [while not accepting new ciients) exiting homelessness by Housing The next operator has not yet been identified Replicating past performance with small Resource Pianning for the new HRC was inciuded within the landlords Center activation of the Emergency Operations Center (a rnolti? - Building new relationships with large landlords to dept. effort led by the Seattle Office of Housing) secure one unit from each building with 100+ units To further enable Crisis Response System exits, it may be helpful to examine distribution of roles and governance Detail in appendix Role Functions City County All Home Identify key metrics; set targets and Ail Home has minimum standards influence but not authority and is therefore not fully empowered or accountable to drive change With decision making spread across multipie bodies, the system lacks agility to Set policy Craft new system elements (dwersron and outreach team housing navagators etc) strategic - Establish program criteria (e directlon reduCIng barriers) Set rules for prioritizing clients and resources CEA policy, diversion eligibility) Provide training and facilitate gathering Provrder input ?xx ?xx managiive Manage data and infrastructure quickly implement fugf?ons and change Coordinate with other agencies 7 Critical tasks (9.9-: g. behavioral health foster care) CEA)dreqUIre coorina?on -. Manage contracts .. .. . between bodies I Track outcomes hOStEd in diffEl?El?it a encies increasin Re allocate/ prioritize funding based cgmpiexity on outcomes Dedicated system capacity for time limited housing (shelter) and stable housing are insufficient to shelter and house the homeless population Stable Housing Time Limited Housing (Households per year, available units per year; thousands) (Households, units; thousands) Existing peput. . ation Unsheltered 2.Emer enc entries - 9 2.7 24 Emergency Affordable units Sheiter Shelter Units Outside CRS . . . . Transational RRi?l E?Tra.?5??0?ai Housing Units ousmg 3 4 Annual Demand1 Current Demand Current Supply A iu nctional Crisi :5 Response System needs sufficient capacity at two district stages: . Exiting clients to Stable Housing using system? dedicated resources (Permanent Supportive Housing, Rapid Rehousing); and resources outside the Crisis Response System public housing, market rate units) Sheltering clients waiting to exit in time limited housing: Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing MES data? nnuaii zed he aseo onr L: rat *t?eeo 3 Oct ass?L: Ines 5% Ln" Housenolds are new entries: ES 3H) E: Hou inventory Count and anaiysis otafioroabie i i is: an 393 i Count GT5 i-ioL sing invemory? Con ant Totes nous enoios in Emergency Shelter in the January 23? 2 Hi?? Conn at excess?" toe iota? neinoer of, U?i?iS of are e. sergenoy sneiteci's noon: inti sore Honsi ng invent on. COL Int. oi as: epanoy? coo be addressed with Count with expected reiease. 203? if Illustrative: Demand for time limited housing will increase if new entries continue to exceed available exits to stable housing Supply and Demand for Stabie Housing Households, units; thousands New Entries to Homelessness Annual Affordable Exit Opportunities Supply and Demand for Time Limited Housing Households, units; thousands i?rojected Demand for I Supply of Time Limited Housingi Time Limited Housing units pa. 2017 2018 2019 2020 2 . . . . There is a gap of housing options to meet today?s need of households entered in Comparison of housing demand and outflow capacity Hoosenoids needing 5550:3535 5: its aonoaiiy, housing options (ti?iousaodsj: I Permanent Supportive Housing Housing Authority Programs Rapid Rehousing I Other Affordable (eg, tax credit) Households . seeking each 22 Housmg housing option type Qemand Sopply Lower sewice Gap in Permanent needs (d9 m. permanent supportive ?Gt ?Emilie affordable housing PSH) ~18 hgusing3 Non? Permanent Supportive Houdng High servrce I ll needs (requnre Overa Househoids experiencing Affordable, availabie, arid/or homelessnessi subsidized housing options2 115224 nomeiess 5305: 5553:5535 :epo Red by 555: 3g Cour: 5; based CEH 5.132355 :33 iess 5355 33:5 sez?kio pr: 5o: :ery io? 3.5?5- 3::or33e 53:35.5: 50% AV 30% 35:51:53: sswnes :5 {roar 530:: :35: of 5153: :e :3rfor 5535: le? 3:35- a: L*le a or 3335:3311 2253: 55;. secure those 5353555 with equal; mterval or?: "G553er Affordabie? aoiow options include do good as 05 oar 5:3: 2 3:55 os ssur?r es no mer5ap bet: ?3353 3? 5 ea 3: 3d :2 355 55g 30? 5305,: this :5 go est ate 3d 3:353: 3 is 3 253000/o I I 50?80% 30-50% <302014 remainlng cenetant {Eecline Se afferdabie unite below 50% AMI pc?imag??iy {Sylvan at am level? with homing; @an affm?ciabie a?gt belew 30% ?eMi There has been grewth in bee?ng eupbiy afferc?able >80f?$ ?Mi since 2007, with corresponding ?53% decline in flees?g?eg Supply affere?abie am: evec game i??me periedz 1 includea these units affordable at the by end of the range and unaffor 2 Note {bat pelcenzage changes {fled beie zefer io changes n?fagnltude an daL a? ?ne 300cesneosiz?on Looking also at availability, ~30?40% of units affordable to households at an income tier are down?rented by a household at a higher income tier - - .- .. - ..-. -. . .. -. -. Thousands Down?rented Unit Income Tier of Resident Household, of Up?rented Affordability Category Total Down- of AMI (Vacant) 30-50 50?80 80-100 >100 Units Vacant rented 0.7 16.2 4.4? 232.3 12.7 11.0 - 8.1" .. 3.2 6.2 - 5.3% 40.1% 43.5 2.4 23.9 20.2 31.4 23.5 32.3 133.7 7.8% 41.7% 4.8 10.0 9.0 16.0 14.5 44.159- 4 9% 44.8% 5.4% 0.0% I -: 438-: -: 4:-55139 4 380 8 33 0% . Only ~2f3 of units etfordable to those Se? 33% are also eseilabi to those households that make {34 3i)% due to the effects of down? renting Given a much targer demand for affordable units than units affordable and avoidable. of renters at: the: @3034. trimmer t??er ?rigsnrent.? inhabiting a unit they cannot afford and experiencing cost burdens Therefore, the effect of down?renting is a more limited supply of units i?i?L both affordable and available to lower income households Supply of Affordable Available Rental Units by AMI Tiler1 Thousands of I 80?30% I 50?80% 30?50% ?302007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 201 units affordable and available at or below lemme tiecs between assess has since 2011 rented by households at a lower income tier 8-8 Supply constraints exist for all renters <80% AMI, especially for households at 0?30% AMI, as measured by ratio of demand to supply Affordable Available Units Comparison of Supply and Demand Ratio Cumulative Gap Househelds] Units, Heusehoids/ Units; {Demand Supply units; El 0-30% I 50?80% El >100% I Cumulative Demand 30?50% I 80~100% Cumulative Supply 226.9 80?100% 10 10 217.3 -- Demand 139 366 508096 13 43? 30-50% 25 69? Supply 164 3381 I 0?30% :40: sr seekis?ig every ?i affordable unit that is affordable and availablel The housing supply is most constrained for households at 0w30% AMI, with about 4 heuseheids The gap in affordable units for households at pr beiew 39% AME is units Noze that az?crc'as?e and available units include vacant units For reference: housing supply and demand analysis methodology, definitions Income tiers based off of the HUD Section 8 income limits, as documented on HUD website. Household income and gross rent determined from the American Community Survey margin of errors exist in these samples and numbers presented in the analysis represent the center of confidence intervals Affordable units by income tier defined as units for which the gross rent (scheduled rent plus utilities) does not exceed 30% of household income for a household at the highest end of the income tier . Affordable and available units defined as units that are affordable to a household at a particular income tier and is either vacant or occupied by a household at the same income at which the unit is affordable - Down-rented units are units affordable occupied by households at higher income tiers than at which the unit is affordable Appendix King County affordability trends and benchmarks Detail on Crisis Response System, Housing cost and impact sizing Detail on length of time lived in King County Crisis Responses System governance and funding streams King County HMIS population data 2012?2017 Current diversion exit rates and survey data indicate King County could reach a diversion target of 35% of the population Current diversion exit location? of successfully diverted clients Addressable diversion population Estimated 0 Unit rented or owned 1004? 100%" by client subsidy 35% Reported 399??! Potential for move?in 0 successful Unit rented by client to diversion? . . 219 50% WIth Reported prev? Expected ious doubled? 13% unsuccessful . up living3 diversion Staying with I . . 110 family of friends '6 Other Dedicated housing for 3 formerly homeless I ll Addressable Expected l; population success King County inversion Dashboard 2. 442?s of Pi? espoodeots. inane that" monet for mo ring (out; sou? he: roam obtai housing 3 i 3 brewer: oecoming noo eiess due a. .as one we. T: wit o'er Li raoti inr Issac/ta oi coui c: eito. to :e?i tl en?; stay {excioding those aiready counted as A Assumes current Uersioo success rat: ec. ?t as mesa ?50. on Kine Came Di ers: on Dashboard i=2- I-xr'w' gr- isitaiml?erntz Current exit rates are ~60% for those enrolled in diversion 35% target is within the range of outcomes from benchmark communities, although substantial variation exists Diversion exits may not all be incremental new exits as some households may have otherwise self? resolved or had fewer barriers to placement ":99 .g inotean t?b?i$ ice} - 3-.- L2, - The Housing Resource Center could house 1500 total households if each building in King County with 100+ units contributed one unit to the program Potential Exits?! Estimated Program Costs2 Theusand people EEK/exit -- Admin and i .. $1024 client assistance A i Landlord Risk . $176 Reduction 2016 Landlord Additional Potential exits 2017 Estimated Liaison exits from Budget2 Project exits 100+ unit - complexes - i Rrovidei interviews with YWCA staff who i?nanaged the Lanciiord Liaison Project 2 King County estimates shared 1523/18 via emaii Previous ?Landlord Liaison Project" primarily engaged landlords with less than 12 units4 Large landlords provide a future market opportunity, but the number of units provided could be limited by investor demands for high returns There are currently 900 buildings in King County with more than 100 units, each contribute at least one unit without significantly impacting profitability For reference: cost drivers of providing additional, affordable housing supply Estimate Cost Driver unit Rationale Build Cost $343,750 Midpoint of high/low estimates for development costs High$375009 Highendofdevempmemwst ?ange given recent ng county Egan-jaws LOWendofdevelopmemcost ?n?eu?gven recent King. county estimates . BuyCost $277299 Miedlantof 75 bedding sales between $10 50m an last 2 median yr buult 1988 3.56.294 75th p?ice??'ie gf sales Between $13 mm iast 2 . low $l72 ?22 Z?lnpereentsie of 75 sales belween $10 50m in last 2 53% Average real estate cost; of capltal .9 5% A ssgr??s ?perage 5.51;;500 few! low 2 0% Assurnes debt requires Interest at ieast matching l??athi?l rate Unit Expenses $7,391 Median of total expenses for 506 10:19 County prepertles IHrgh $16 000 Annual-operating expenses for Perrnanent Suppoitive Housing LOW $534.5 25thpercem,;e OftOtaieXpenses four 595ng C55 .4345 Midpomt ofhigha?dlowest'mates High $8,130 Affordabie Wham com,iljutionf0r30%AMEhousehold LOW $3560 PSHTenantContnbution$2700 A. Unit sen a 6 are was ?gp?agd as; .. $20693 L..O.W @3989 Appendix King County affordability trends and benchmarks Detail on Crisis Response System, Housing cost and impact sizing Detail on length of time lived in King County Crisis Responses System governance and funding streams King County HMIS p0pulation data 2012-2017 . . - 81% of respondents in the 2017 Point in Time Count Survey have lived in King County for more than one year Length of time respondents have lived in King country 81 . 19? . .. I- Less than 1-4 years 5?9 years 10 years Born/grew 1 year or more up here same-.1017 meow; San-y. n45; 15Appendix King County affordability trends and benchmarks Detail on Crisis Response System, Housing cost and impact sizing Detail on length of time lived in King County Crisis Responses System governance and funding streams King County HMIS population data 2012?2017 i . 2017 contracts for each element of King County?s Crisis Response System were administered by up to 3 entities, as made evident by funding streams $Gf tending {nailiionsEmergency Services . . . 0.7 Housmg (1 . in: '3 Permanent Housmg -. - Rapid ReHousing 2.1 ?5&4 .. 3'03?353 i? 9? a o?v'r a .rd Coordinated pay?o. uo?avo 60.3 55422.: 3 n? 54.9 (3 - . r, 2 Enciudes fencing: for Regionai Access Quints and Housing Navigators King . 0t totai intervention tundin Count 'ty Of Seattle dbl- 1?.va ?wan-Iii} vai'du?dl??t .1. r-u QR cl, M3 dull?; dd? "-w'tcl'iv' L1, 0?4 we?d- HOE Total2 30.6 (100%) 2.4 05 U1 (100%) 61.2 (100%) 12.4 (100%) 0" A (1 00%) I. (100%) 0.0 12.0 (100%) 0.0 9.8 (100%) 0.0 2.3 (100%) 35.7 150.9 (100%) .. .00. 71-? Majority investor Multiple funding sources may create dupiicative proposais and reporting for providers and dupiicative RFP processes for funders J, trig-1t go Queen! Seattie and King {mint}; .1 3 Does not indede additionai Eederat Fundino issued outside of the Cot: such as Housin Atstnerit? dei?ars,? does not inciede mate fund?no sources; Kin? Count . and Cit? of Seattie genderets .j - . .3 :nc'uo?e federal and stare pass {bro-ugh (ands Appendix King' County affordability trends and benchmarks Detail on Crisis Response System, Housing cost and impact sizing Detail on length of time lived in King County Crisis Responses System governance and funding streams King County HMIS population data 2012?2017 Ad. ln? a King County HMIS data? shared Dec. 6, 2017 -. King Comfy 22.060 20.003 18.009 - -- 153.390 110,900 @900 Number of Households Entering and Exiting HMIS In King County, 2012-2017 Nate: EMS tacks only agencies funded with homeless fund sources. Other systemg such as housing authoritieg help peeple exit from namelessnegs but {it} net record those {exits in HMS. 11,73? 10.060 3.005} 3.000 woo 2.0330 7 I I . 2012 lid?? 2013 36553 2014 I 7 I, 1 20 5.30 15 17.292" {?69 21.344 4' I, a 2016 17,323 .25 intered HMIS Permanently ?awed Temmrarily Heused - Eximestmation Nat Reported in HMIS Unshelteored - Seamed E1123, d?at?imtlaag m: 513*; 12:93:): inwi'E. Many MMIWQB exit ta damm?ms tharam not rmx?ed in Time Wag/It #10me t4: {mm auxin as helm au?mti?as (e9 1.640 hmsehulds in WW1WE Affars how's-vs; wugrm, mam Mam: program, o?vate We: hwsing. amine? ugmpmed MSMM About 30% of clients do not consent shank their Marxism in?ormatim in HMISI As mm diam: cm tie?dupl?cm mesa in?ow estimates. mis?t be siigh?y War than the Mural imam to the harms system, deinated Ema! far All launched if! Ami! 20$ and remited in a large in?ux of housei?xads remsting homeless mites (maroximaiely 7.500 each in 2Gl?i and in 20!? YTDL 20]? data re?ect infirm and aut?ow 31112261 7 though E.