Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development Homelessness Solutions Program

Research Proposal Option: Proposal to Conduct an Evaluation

(Evaluation Template)

Proposed Outcomes Evaluation of the Maryland Department of Housing and Community

Development’s Homelessness Solutions Program

HM893

January 26, 2024

Note: You are provided recommended page lengths per section to guide your writing efforts. Your entire paper should be a maximum of 30 pages (including Title Page, Abstract, References, and Appendices)

Abstract (150 to 250 words maximum): The abstract should contain the following information:

· What is the public health problem addressed?

· What is the program/policy you plan to evaluate?

· Who is the target population?

· What is/are the main evaluation question(s)?

· What is the evaluation design?

· What are the expected implications of the evaluation?

· What data will be collected and used to conduct the evaluation?

· Where and when will the evaluation be conducted?

Note: The abstract should be on a separate page after the title page and before Section 1.

The proposed evaluation seeks to address the homelessness issue in Maryland. Point-in-time data showed that over 6,300 people in the state were homeless in 2020. While homelessness rates in the state have declined over the past decade, special populations such as veterans, chronically ill patients, and unaccompanied youth continue to be overrepresented among the homeless population. This evaluation seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of the Maryland Homelessness Solution Program (HSP) in reducing homelessness among Marylanders. The target population is individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness in Maryland. The evaluation will be conducted between January 2024 and December 2025 at 10 homeless shelters across Baltimore City, Baltimore, and Anne Arundel Counties. The evaluation questions are: Compared to non-participants, are HSP participants more able to secure and maintain stable housing? How does their financial well-being compare with non-participants? Is the program accessible and relevant to the needs of homeless people? Are program participants satisfied with the services offered? The evaluation will follow a case-control design. It will use survey and interview data collected from 300 randomly selected participants (150 HSP participants and 150 non-participants) at baseline, program end, and at six months follow-up. The cases will come from 5 homeless shelters that receive HSP grants, and the controls from 5 that do not receive HSP grants. Descriptive statistics will be used to assess the program's effectiveness in reducing homelessness and participants' satisfaction with available services. The findings will inform public health policy by providing insights on designing effective homelessness prevention interventions.

Keywords: health, homelessness, Maryland, community, program, case, control group

Section 1: Background/Rationale for Proposed Evaluation: This section should address the following elements (2-3 double spaced pages):

1. What public health problem and/or issue does the program/policy address?

2. Why is this problem or issue important?

3. What does existing data demonstrate about the magnitude and potential health impacts of this problem or issue?

4. What population(s) is affected by this public health problem/ issue?

5. What has previous evaluation literature found regarding this problem? Use peer-reviewed references to summarize the findings from evaluations of similar programs or policies. Address the following elements:

a. Describe your search methods, inclusion criteria, and studies that you reviewed

b. Describe the overall evaluation findings, including the strengths and weaknesses of this work

6. What are the gaps or limitations in the evaluation literature? How does your proposed evaluation address these issues?

The proposed evaluation focuses on homelessness. The 2009 Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act defines homelessness as a situation where a family or individual lacks an adequate, regular, and fixed nighttime residence (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, 2023). This definition of homelessness includes persons living in transitional housing, emergency shelters, abandoned buildings, the streets, and other places not meant for habitation. Individuals who stand to lose their nighttime residence within 14 days or are fleeing domestic violence and lack the resources to obtain alternative housing are also considered homeless under the HEARTH Act of 2009 (SAMHSA, 2023).

Data from the National Alliance to End Homelessness shows that the number of homeless people in the United States (US) has risen by approximately 6 percent since 2017 (SAMHSA, 2023). Contrary to expectations, the COVID-19 pandemic that peaked in 2020 had no significant effect on the US homelessness rate (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2023). According to a report by the Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness (2022), this is due to the increase in economic assistance programs and attempts to de-congregate shelters in line with social distancing requirements that took place at the time. Nonetheless, a point-in-time count conducted in 2022 showed that over 582,000 (9 in every 5,000) people were homeless across the United States (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2023). Individual adults made up 72 percent of this population, while 28 percent lived in the streets and other unfit environments with their children (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2023).

In Maryland, point-in-time count data from 2020 showed that slightly over 6,300 people were homeless statewide, with Baltimore City accounting for the highest rates of homelessness at 35 percent (Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2022). Generally, the statewide annual count showed that Maryland had approximately 28,288 homeless people in 2020 (Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2022). Unfortunately, homelessness disproportionately affects special populations, including persons with disability, mentally ill individuals, veterans, unaccompanied in-parenting youth, and victims of domestic violence (Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2022). Twenty-one percent of homeless people in the state, as per the 2020 point-in-time count, were chronically homeless individuals who had been homeless for over a year and struggled with a physical disability, substance use disorder, or severe mental illness (Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2022). Homeless veterans made up 7.5 percent of the homeless population, while individuals experiencing domestic violence and unaccompanied homeless youth made up 5 percent and 4 percent of the homeless population, respectively (Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2022).

Policymakers across the US need to institute ways of addressing homelessness because it increases the risk of mortality and reduces the average life expectancy of affected populations (Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2022). Studies have shown that homeless people report higher rates of injury-related death and violence than the general population (Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2022). Data from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (as cited in Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2022) shows that approximately 243 homeless people died in Maryland in 2020. This translates to a death rate of 3,835 per 100,000 people for homeless populations, which is three times the death rate of the general Maryland population (Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2022).

On average, homelessness reduces an individual's life expectancy by 30 years relative to the average person (Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2022).

Besides mortality, homelessness is associated with a myriad of other adverse health outcomes. The most commonly-studied health outcomes among homeless populations include cardiovascular diseases (CVD), HIV and other infectious diseases, communicable diseases, opioid-related overdose, mental health problems, and mortality. A systematic review by Al-Shakarchi et al. (2020) sought to compare the risk of CVD in homeless and non-homeless populations using data from studies drawn from North America and Europe. The findings showed that the risk of CVD and CVD-related mortality among homeless populations was three times greater than that of non-homeless populations (Al-Shakarchi et al., 2020). Sources attribute this to the high prevalence of CVD-related risk factors among homeless populations, including smoking, use of illicit substances, and high cholesterol levels (Al-Shakarchi et al., 2020).

Studies have also found a positive association between homelessness and the risk of HIV, sexually-transmitted diseases, and Hepatitis C (Arum et al., 2021). This is because homeless individuals are more likely to engage in risky behaviors such as sharing of drug-injection needles and irresponsible sexual behavior (Arum et al., 2021). At the same time, homelessness increases the risk of communicable diseases such as influenza, tuberculosis, mosquito-borne illnesses, skin infections, and Hepatitis A because of limited access to vaccination, low health literacy levels, living in congregate settings, and low levels of personal hygiene (Liu et al., 2020). Homeless populations are also associated with higher use of illicit substances and opioid overdose, as well as opioid-related deaths (Fine et al., 2022). For instance, 65 percent of deaths reported among homeless individuals in 2020 were due to drug overdose and other related complications, with opioid overdoses accounting for 88 percent of these deaths (Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2022). In a study by Fine et al. (2022) on mortality rates among 60,092 homeless adults between 2003 and 2018, 12 percent of participants died during the study period, with drug overdoses accounting for 25 percent of the reported deaths.

Studies have also found homeless individuals to have higher prevalence of mental health disorders than their non-homeless counterparts (Gutwinski et al., 2021). A systematic review by Gutwinski et al. (2021) found that approximately 12 percent of homeless individuals had either schizophrenia spectrum disorders or major depression, compared to 0.7 percent of the non-homeless population. The study also found a higher risk of mortality among homeless individuals with mental health disorders as compared to the general population (Gutwinski et al., 2021). These adverse health outcomes necessitate programs or policies aimed at reducing homelessness. These programs are often implemented by government agencies or non-governmental organizations.

Many studies have sought to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions that focus on preventing or reducing homelessness. To inform this evaluation, a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles on homelessness prevention interventions was conducted. The search strategy targeted databases such as Cochrane, PubMed, and Science Direct, with inclusion criteria limited to studies published in the last ten years, conducted in the US, and evaluating homelessness prevention or intervention programs. The review identified several studies that evaluated programs similar to the HSP (Dwyer et al., 2023; Philips & Sullivan, 2022; Aubry et al., 2020).

Generally, the studies found that homelessness prevention programs and interventions were effective in preventing and reducing homelessness (Dwyer et al., 2023; Philips & Sullivan, 2022; Aubry et al., 2020). However, the studies also found some interventions or combinations of interventions to be more effective than others. For instance, Dwyer et al. (2023) evaluated the impact of unconditional cash transfers and coaching support programs in increasing housing stability among homeless individuals. The study found that unconditional cash transfers, coupled with coaching supports and workshops on plan-making, goal-setting, and self-affirmation, improved housing stability for homeless people within three months better than cash transfer programs alone. Similarly, Philips and Sullivan (2022) evaluated the effectiveness of financial assistance and case management programs in reducing and preventing homelessness among vulnerable populations. The study found that financial assistance coupled with case management for homeless people increased housing stability and reduced evictions more than monetary assistance programs alone. The primary weakness of these evaluations is that they focus on income intervention programs alone, and disregard supportive housing programs, which are also quite common.

In their systematic review, Aubry et al. (2020) address this weakness by studying the impact of both housing support and income assistance interventions targeting homeless individuals. The study found that compared to usual care, housing support programs increase long-term housing stability at a rate of 1.13. At the same time, income assistance coupled with case management improved the number of days a homeless individual is housed by eight days relative to usual care (Aubry et al., 2020).

The primary strength of this body of work is that the studies use comprehensive data collection methods, and include rigorous evaluation designs, both of which enhance the credibility of the findings. However, the reviewed studies have a limited scope, focusing on one or two interventions. The proposed assessment seeks to evaluate the HSP, which incorporates a range of diverse interventions targeted at homeless people. Moreover, the reviewed studies do not focus specifically on Maryland, and it would be interesting to check whether the findings of studies conducted in other environments could be replicated in the state of Maryland.

Section 2: Program or Policy Description: This section provides detailed information about the program/policy that you are evaluating. This section should include the following elements: (4-8 double spaced pages):

1. Program or Policy Purpose (Goals and Objectives)

a. What are the goals and objectives of the program/policy that you are evaluating? What are the goals and objectives of your evaluation? Goals are broad statements of what you want to achieve with the proposed evaluation. Objectives are specific steps that establish how the goal will be achieved. Objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-based (i.e., SMART). Both goals and objectives should be aligned with the main evaluation question(s).

Example of Goal and SMART Objective

Goal 1: Increase health educator knowledge about obesity among Hispanic

youth.

Objective 1.1: Conduct obesity training classes resulting in 80% of health educators completing the course “Obesity in among Hispanic adolescents” by May 31, 2021.

Note: Repeat this format if you have more goals/objectives.

The program to be evaluated is the Homelessness Solutions Program (HSP), which is administered by the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) as a statewide response to the homelessness issue that continues to affect the state (HSP Policy Guide, 2022). The program provides funding and technical support to Local Homeless Coalitions (LHC) and Continuums of Care (COCs), coordinating resources and funding for local service providers serving the homeless population. To qualify for a grant under the HSP, an applicant must be a local government or non-profit entity offering a client-centered approach to homeless services and compliant with anti-discriminatory policies (HSP Policy Guide, 2022). HSP grantees and sub-grantees must also implement formal grievance procedures, prove sound financial management of resources, and implement a sound homeless management information system (HMIS) (HSP Policy Guide, 2022).

The HSP pursues the following goals and objectives as stated in the HSP Policy Guide (2022) and the DHCD Consolidated Plan (2020), respectively:

Goal 1: Reduce the number of families/individuals at risk of homelessness by providing homeless prevention assistance and shelter diversion.

Objective 1.1: At least 50 percent of unsheltered homeless families/individuals reached through outreach programs exit to safe emergency shelters by the end of 2024.

Objective 1.2: 100 percent of households/individuals who fall homeless as a result of losing their permanent residence successfully exit to safe shelters by the end of 2024

Goal 2: Reduce the duration an individual or household remains homeless by supporting them in accessing permanent housing.

Objective 2.1: At least 80 percent of previously homeless individuals/households held in emergency shelters and interim housing options will transit effectively to permanent housing by the end of 2024.

Objective 2.2: At least 90 percent of households/individuals who fall homeless due to losing their permanent residence will successfully exit to alternative permanent housing by the end of 2024.

Goal 3: Reduce the number of individuals or households falling back to homelessness by connecting them to community-based resources, natural support networks, and income supports.

Objective 3.1: At least 10 percent of adult HSP beneficiaries report increased income by the end of 2024 due to the services and support they receive.

Objective 3.2: At least 25 percent of HSP beneficiaries report improved mental health by the end of 2024.

2. Need

a. What is the need for your evaluation? How do you expect it to contribute to public health?

While there has been a notable drop in homelessness rates in Maryland over the past several years, homelessness continues to disproportionately affect special populations, including veterans, people with physical disabilities, mentally ill individuals, and unaccompanied youth (Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2020). For instance, the 2020 point-in-time count revealed that veterans made up close to 8 percent of the homeless population, while chronically homeless persons with some disabling condition made up 21 percent of the homeless point-in-time count (Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2020). This data accentuates the need to evaluate the effectiveness of the HSP in reducing or preventing homelessness among special populations in Maryland. According to Smith and Ory (2014), program evaluation serves two purposes in public health promotion and education: to assess the effectiveness of a program or policy of interest and its interventions and to identify areas of weakness that could be used to improve overall program quality.

The proposed evaluation would help policymakers determine how effective the HSP is to the target population, including the relevance of its interventions to selected special populations. This would increase efficiency by ensuring program implementers identify interventions that work and commit more resources to make homelessness non-recurring, brief, and rare for all Marylanders (HSP Policy Guide, 2022). At the same time, the evaluation would help improve program quality by indicating the quality of deployed human resources, their areas of strength, and areas requiring capacity-building to enhance overall quality (Smith & Ory, 2014). Generally, the evaluation contributes positively to the field of public health by providing insights on what interventions may or may not work effectively in a homeless prevention program. The findings of the evaluation exercise will go a long way towards guiding program managers running similar programs on best practices, thus minimizing the risk of errors and wastage.

3. Program/Policy Context

a. What social, cultural, and political context/environment exists for the public health problem/issue that you propose to evaluate? What contextual/environmental factors may influence or affect your evaluation?

As Mabhala et al. (2017) point out, "Homelessness is a more complex social and public health phenomenon than the absence of a place to live" (p. 2). Homelessness is the result of a combination of structural forces (lack of access to mental health services, racial disparities, poverty, and lack of affordable housing) and social factors such as poor mental health, family breakdown, domestic violence, and addiction (Mago et al., 2013). Studies have shown that a majority of homeless people have been victims of traumatic experiences and social disadvantage from childhood, including dysfunctional families, neglect, emotional and sexual abuse, physical abuse, lack of psychological support, and disrupted schooling (Mabhala et al., 2017). All these factors serve as possible drivers of homelessness among Marylanders and may not be addressed by providing housing alone. The HSP's effectiveness will depend on how relevant its interventions are to the specific drivers of homelessness in the state. While the HSP may be effective in linking homeless people with interim or permanent homes, failure to effectively address the social context of homelessness may result in high rates of people falling back into homelessness upon exiting the program.

At the same time, structural factors such as ineffective housing assistance programs, budget cuts affecting federal housing, and rent increases may all increase homelessness rates (Mabhala et al., 2017). These factors are often dependent on the political environment and may affect the operations of the HSP, reducing its overall effectiveness. Thus, it would be prudent to assess the possible effect of these factors during the evaluation to obtain a holistic view of the program's sufficiency and relevance.

4. Target population

a. What population does the program/policy target?

Generally, the HSP targets the homeless population in Maryland. However, the program offers diverse support and services targeting different segments of the homeless population. The HSP's support for homeless individuals/households is divided into three areas: Outreach, Emergency Shelter, and Housing Stabilization (HSP Quick Reference Guide, 2022). Outreach services target unsheltered homeless people to link them with critical health services, housing, and emergency shelters (HSP Quick Reference Guide, 2022). Emergency Shelter services target unsheltered individuals living in places unfit for habitation, linking them with overnight shelters (HSP Quick Reference Guide, 2022). The HSP supports these populations indirectly by providing essential services during their stay in shelters and contributing towards the shelters' operating costs. Housing Stabilization focuses on preventing people from falling back into homelessness by supporting them in moving into permanent housing (HSP Quick Reference Guide, 2022).

The Housing Stabilization Services segment is divided into three support areas that target different populations (HSP Quick Reference Guide, 2022). The first area, Rapid Rehousing, targets households and individuals who lack adequate, regular, and fixed nighttime residences (HSP Quick Reference Guide, 2022). The second area, Homelessness Prevention, targets individuals with annual incomes below 30 percent of the median income. They risk becoming homeless but lack the support and resources to prevent it (HSP Quick Reference Guide, 2022). Finally, the Permanent Housing Case Management segment targets individuals in permanent housing who risk falling homeless for diverse reasons (HSP Quick Reference Guide, 2022).

The eligibility criteria for an individual/to benefit for HSP services as per the HSP Quick Reference Guide 2022) is:

i) The individual/household lives in a place unfit for human habitation or is in a temporary living arrangement such as a motel, transitional housing, or congregate shelter paid for by government programs or charitable organizations.

ii) The individual/household’s annual income is less than 30 percent of the median family income.

iii) The individual/household lacks sufficient support networks and resources to maintain stable housing without the HSP’s intervention.

These criteria define who may or may or may not benefit from HSP services. To effectively evaluate the impact of the HSP, the same criteria will be used to determine who is to be included in the evaluation as part of the control group. One’s annual income, current living arrangement, and ability to maintain stable housing are confounding variables that may affect housing stability among the controls, leading to misleading findings. To avoid this, the evaluators will ensure that control group participants match HSP participants in regard to the confounding variables (Rosales & Atroshi, 2023). Thus, control group participants will only be eligible to take part in the evaluation if their annual incomes are less than 30 percent of the median family income of $98,461 in Maryland State, if they are living in the streets or in a temporary living arrangement, and if they lack access to supports and resources needed to obtain stable housing. Controls who do not meet these criteria will be excluded from the evaluation. This will ensure that cases and controls are within comparable levels (Rosales & Atroshi, 2023).

5. Stage of Program or Policy

a. How long has the program/policy been in place?

b. Is it in the planning or implementation stage?

The HPS was instituted in 2017 following a decision by Maryland’s agencies to develop a central agency to coordinate activities of Local Homeless Coalitions (LHC) and continuums of Care (COCs) across the state (Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2022). The role of the HSP was to oversee homelessness programs statewide and to ensure that they align with federal and national best practices (Maryland Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2022). The formative years 2017 to 2019 served as the planning phase for the HSP. This period was characterized by setting goals and objectives, defining the project scope, and developing the DHCD Consolidated Strategic Plan 2020 to 2024. The program is currently in the implementation phase, guided by the framework, milestones, and targets laid out in the consolidated strategic plan 2020-2024 (DHCD Consolidated Strategic Plan, 2020).

6. Resources/Inputs

a. What resources are available to support your evaluation (e.g., staff, space, technology, money)?

The evaluation requires financial resources of at least $669,300.80. These cover staffing costs and benefits, staff training costs, and financing of equipment and supplies. In equipment and supplies, $43,000 will be required to cover emergency clothing or food vouchers, rental assistance vouchers, housing supplies and furniture vouchers, and participant incentives. Finances are necessary for staff salaries and benefits, amounting to $620,760.80, and an additional $5,600 is required to finance training sessions for case managers engaged in the evaluation.

The evaluation will engage two full-time staff and eleven part-time staff in human resources. The evaluation will employ a project director and project assistant on a full-time basis. The project director will serve as the primary contact person and will be responsible for recruiting case managers, training consultants, and the program analyst and overseeing the evaluation process. The project assistant will assist in accounting and record-keeping, data entry, and coordinating and scheduling training sessions. The part-time staff will include ten case managers and a program analyst. The case managers will be responsible for conducting assessments and offering case management services, while the program analyst will collect and analyze data.

The evaluation will additionally require office space from which the staff will carry out their duties. The DHCD agreed to provide office space (2,200 square feet) for the evaluation.

Finally, the evaluation team will require technological equipment, including computers (three desktop computers and one laptop for the project director), ten tablets for the case managers, an office printer, and a projector for meetings.

7. Outputs

a. What products/outputs will you produce as a result of the planned evaluation?

Outputs are the direct immediate results of implementing a certain activity (Scott, 2023). Outputs are directly related to activities. One of the activities that the HSP uses to reduce and prevent homelessness is outreach that targets people living in the streets and other places unfit for human habitation with the aim of linking them with emergency shelters. The immediate result of this activity is that homeless individuals/households living in unfit places learn about the HSP and its services and accept to move to emergency shelters. Declines in the proportion of homeless people living in unfit areas will serve as an indicator that the outreach program is effective.

Upon moving these individuals/households out of areas unfit for habitation, the HSP carries out a range of other interventions including assessments to identify their income levels, financial literacy, and housing needs; short-term financial assistance; counseling and financial education services, as well as long-term supportive and housing services. The direct results/outputs of these interventions are that homeless individuals and households have increased access to safe and affordable housing as a result of the financial supports they receive, have a better understanding of how to manage their finances, and have improved psychological health as a result of the counseling services they receive from the HSP. Success in the realization of these outputs would be indicated by increases in the levels of HSP participants’ financial literacy levels and improved psychological well-being upon joining the program.

8. Outcomes

a. What are the evaluation’s intended outcomes (short-term, immediate, and long-term)?

b. How do these intended outcomes align with the overall program’s or policy’s goal(s)?

Outcomes are the mid-term results of implementing a given activity. Outcomes are only evident after some time. In the short-term, one of the outcomes realized by the HSP is increased access to permanent homes as a result of the long-term supports offered to program participants. At the same time, participants are able to apply their financial literacy skills in making proper budgeting, investment, and financial management decisions, leading to increased income streams and greater ability to support themselves and their families. Additionally, HSP participants are able to use their improved psychological well-being to improve the way they relate with others (social skills) and their ability to secure and maintain employment. Ultimately in the short-term, say by the end of the first six months of HSP participation, individuals would demonstrate a lower risk of falling back to homelessness. In so doing, the HSP realizes its goal of reducing the number of individuals or households returning to homelessness.

In the intermediate period, HSP advocates for effective homelessness prevention interventions among community members and stakeholders to ensure its partners implement effective interventions. This advocacy ultimately minimizes the duration that individuals stay homeless and the risk of beneficiaries falling back to homelessness. Further, the HSP would increase collaboration among service providers working with homeless individuals to ensure that more homeless people, especially in marginalized areas, benefit from HSP interventions. By increasing its reach through increased collaboration with local service providers, the HSP is able to realize its goal of reducing the number of individuals and households at risk of homelessness or facing homelessness.

In the long-term, HSP participants report sustainable housing stability, which is the ability to maintain stable housing in the absence of the HSP. Ultimately, inequality and poverty rates among HSP participants decline as they are more able to secure and maintain employment or to run successful business ventures. Finally, the quality of life among HSP participants will improve, leading to better health and more happiness.

9. Logic Model -- This is a graphical depiction of the components that you are evaluating and how they align with anticipated outcomes. [There is an example at end of document and template provided in the course] A logic model includes the following elements:

a. Inputs

b. Activities

c. Expected Outputs

d. Outcomes (short-term, intermediate, and long-term)

Inputs

Activities

Outputs

Outcomes

Short-Term

Intermediate

Long-Term

Funding allocated to HSP

Staff and volunteers trained to work with homeless participants

Partnerships with stakeholders

Access to affordable housing

Access to financial education resources

Evaluation specialist to assist with program planning and data collection

Outreach and engagement to identify and connect with individuals and families experiencing homelessness

Assessment of participants' needs, including housing, income, and financial literacy

Delivery of short-term financial assistance, such as rental and utility payments, to prevent or end homelessness

Delivery of long-term housing and supportive services to help participants maintain housing stability and improve their financial situation

Delivery of financial education and counseling services to help participants build financial literacy and achieve their financial goals

Outreach programs successfully identify and link individuals and households experiencing homelessness to HSP services

The available assessments accurately identify homeless individuals’ income, housing needs, and financial literacy

Short-term financial assistance provided to homeless individuals and households successfully increases access to safe and affordable housing.

Long-term housing and supportive services delivered to homeless individuals and families successfully increase access to permanent housing.

Counseling and financial services offered to homeless individuals effectively improve their mental health and financial literacy.

Increased number of individuals and families receiving services through HSP

Increased housing stability for program participants

Improved financial literacy for program participants

Increased access to affordable and safe housing for program participants

Improved psychological well-being for program participants.

Reduced rates of homelessness for program participants in Maryland

Increased knowledge and understanding of effective homelessness solutions among stakeholders and community members

Increased collaboration among housing and service providers to address homelessness in Maryland

Sustainable housing stability and financial well-being for HSP participants

Reduced rates of poverty and inequality among HSP participants.

Improved overall quality of life among HSP participants

Section 3: Evaluation Focus: This section provides information on how you will design your evaluation. This section should include the following elements (1-2 double spaced pages):

1. Evaluation Question(s):

a. What specific questions do you intend to answer through your evaluation?

The proposed evaluation seeks to answer the following crucial questions:

a) Compared to non-participants, are HSP participants more able to secure and maintain stable housing?

b) How does the financial well-being of HSP participants compare with non-participants at program start, end, and at six-month follow-up?

c) Is the program accessible and relevant to the diverse needs of homeless people?

d) Are program participants consistently satisfied with the support and services they receive from the HSP?

2. Stakeholders:

a. Who are the stakeholders? Who will use the evaluation findings?

b. What role will stakeholders play in developing this evaluation proposal?

c. How do you plan to engage these stakeholders when implementing this evaluation proposal (e.g., participating in data collection, interpretation of findings)?

The stakeholders in this evaluation can be categorized into primary and secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders have a direct stake in the evaluation, and include HSP participants, the DHCD board, and staff working directly in the HSP. Secondary stakeholders are indirectly affected by the evaluation findings. They include HSP grantees and sub-grantees (the Local Homeless Coalitions (LHC) and Continuums of Care (COCs) that work with the HSP), funders, and local communities.

The evaluation findings will be crucial to the DHCD and its staff, grantees and sub-grantees, funders of the HSP, and local communities. To the DHCD and its staff, the evaluation findings will provide insights into the overall quality and effectiveness of the HSP's homelessness solutions and possible areas of improvement. This will help them determine what works and what does not work effectively and identify areas of improvement to facilitate the realization of policy goals. The HSP management could use the evaluation findings to analyze program staff performance and identify areas that require capacity enhancement (Harris, 2016). Grantees and sub-grantees of the HSP interact directly with the HSP participants. The evaluation findings will indicate how relevant the services and supports offered by grantees and sub-grantees are. It will also indicate how satisfied their beneficiaries are with the services and support they receive. To the federal government, the primary funder of the HSP, the evaluation findings will indicate whether or not the program is worthwhile by measuring its effectiveness in reducing homelessness in Maryland.

Harris (2016) notes that engaging stakeholders in program evaluation goes a long way toward creating buy-in and minimizing resistance in case there is a need for changes to enhance program quality and effectiveness. Thus, stakeholders will be engaged in developing the evaluation proposal and its implementation. In developing the proposal, stakeholders, particularly program staff, volunteers, grantees, and sub-grantees, will design data collection tools and determine what to include in the survey/interviews to assess the quality of HSP interventions. During the implementation phase, stakeholders such as representatives of COCs, LHCs, and program staff will be engaged in interpreting and drawing conclusions from the evaluation findings. Finally, a stakeholder forum will be organized with representatives of all relevant stakeholders to disseminate the project findings. The stakeholders will be expected to disseminate the evaluation findings to their colleagues in their respective agencies and organizations.

3. Evaluation Design:

a. What is the design for this evaluation (e.g., experimental, pre-post with comparison group, time series, case-study, post-test only)?

b. Why was this design selected? What are the strengths and limitations of this design?

The evaluation uses a case-control evaluation design. According to Tenny et al. (2023), a case-control design provides an effective means to study factors associated with rare outcomes or diseases of interest. It is often used as an alternative to longitudinal approaches when such an approach would require lengthy and large studies that are not feasible to conduct (Tenny et al., 2023). The proposed evaluation seeks to investigate how HSP participation affects housing stability (outcome of interest) among homeless individuals. A longitudinal design that involves collecting repeat data on housing stability from a large number of HSP participants over a long period of time would be the most appropriate design. However, such a design may be extremely costly and complex to implement, especially with the difficulties involved in following up HSP participants long after they have exited the program. The case-control design provides a plausible alternative to the longitudinal design in this case.

The case-control design involves selecting cases (group of individuals with the outcome of interest) and controls (another group with similar characteristics to the cases, but without the outcome of interest) and then comparing etiological factors to determine if exposures occur more commonly in the cases than controls (Tenny et al., 2023). If the cases report a more common occurrence of the exposures than the controls, one could conclude that there is an association between the exposures and the outcome of interest (Tenny et al., 2023). The case-control design thus provides a less costly and less complex alternative to the longitudinal design in this case.

Using the case-control design, the evaluator will compare the outcomes of HSP participants (cases) with non-participants (controls) to determine whether the program effectively reduces the risk of homelessness among its beneficiaries. The control group will include homeless individuals who frequent the five participating shelters that do not receive HSP grants, yet meet the HSP eligibility criteria. The cases will be obtained from five homeless shelters that receive HSP funding. Comparison will be based on financial literacy and housing stability scores before joining the program, when one completes the program, and six months after exiting the program. This will enable the evaluators to assess how individuals’ risk of homelessness progresses at the three different points in time.

The case-control design has several advantages or strengths. First, it provides an appropriate means to study rare outcomes or conditions (Tenny et al., 2023). If an outcome, condition, or disease is very rare, it may take a long time before a researcher can accrue sufficient cases to study (Tenny et al., 2023). In such cases, case-control designs provide a plausible alternative, allowing a researcher to identify cases and controls and study various exposures to determine which ones are more common among the cases than controls. This makes case-control designs more cost-effective than longitudinal or cohort research designs. Another strength of the case-control design is that it allows one to study multiple factors or exposures at the same time (Tenny et al., 2023). In case of a disease, the case-control design allows one to study multiple risk factors at the same time to identify which ones have an effect on the outcome variable. This makes the design less costly and time-consuming.

The primary limitation of the case-control design is that it is susceptible to recall and selection bias (Tenny et al., 2023). Recall bias is the risk that individuals with the outcome (cases) will recall the presence of exposures better than the controls, leading to wrong conclusions that associations exist when they actually do not exist (Tenny et al., 2023). At the same time, one of the preconditions for a case-control study to yield accurate results is that the controls and cases have similar or comparable characteristics. Selection bias occurs when the selected controls negate this ideal and are not representative of the population from which the cases developed (Tenny et al., 2023). Selection bias increases the risk of obtaining inaccurate findings. The third limitation of case-control designs is that they only show correlation and do not establish causation (Teny et al., 2023). For instance, the case-control design may show that a correlation exists between HSP participation and housing stability. However, it will not establish whether a cause-and-effect relationship exists, or whether HSP participation is the cause of high housing stability among participants. To establish causality, the evaluators will have to use other designs, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which take care of pre-existing differences between controls and cases.

Section 4: Data Collection: This section provides information on how you will collect/compile data for your evaluation. It should provide information on the methods that you will use to collect data and how these methods, and the data that will be compiled, are related to the evaluation question(s) you are trying to answer. This section should include the following elements: (1-2 double spaced pages):

Data Collection Methods:

1. Will you collect new data to answer the evaluation questions, or will you use secondary data?

2. How will the data align with relevant program/policy performance measures?

3. What methods will be used to collect or acquire the data?

4. Will you collect data from a sample of participants? If so, how will the sample be selected?

5. How will data collection instruments be identified and tested? If you are using a previously validated instrument, include this detail and cite the corresponding source(s).

6. How will the quality and utility of data be determined?

7. From whom or from what will data be collected? What is the source of the data?

8. How will the data be stored, managed, and protected?

9. Address ethical considerations (e.g., participant informed consent, confidentiality, IRB approval)

Primary data will be collected through a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques. A survey will be administered to sampled homeless adults at the program's start, at the time of exit, and six months after exit to gather quantitative data on satisfaction with HSP services, financial literacy, and housing stability. Financial literacy and housing stability will measure one's risk of homelessness thrice. Face-to-face interviews will be conducted to collect qualitative data from 10 HSP participants and 10 non-participants on the program's accessibility and relevance to the needs of homeless individuals. Studies have suggested that 20 to 30 interviews are optimal for theoretical saturation when conducting semi-structured interviews (Vasileiou et al., 2018). The evaluators feel that 20 interviews (10 from cases and 10 from controls) will sufficiently provide the information needed with minimal strain on the available resources. The interviews will be conducted at the end of the program (the time of exit). Thus, interviews will be used to collect in-depth information on the attitudes and perceptions of both HSP participants and non-participants. At the same time, the survey will provide data on the HSP's effectiveness in reducing homelessness among its participants. The evaluators will also review program records to gather data on the number of homeless individuals served annually and the support available for beneficiaries.

The sample will consist of 300 homeless adults, 150 of whom will be HSP participants, and 150 will be non-participants. The sample will be selected randomly from program records of community-based organizations and homeless shelters serving homeless individuals. Random sampling will help enhance the objectivity of the study findings (Bloomfield & Fisher, 2019).

The cases will be HSP participants at the five participating homeless shelters that receive HSP grants. Controls will be drawn from the five homeless shelters taking part in the study that are not eligible for HSP funding or grants. Coggon et al. (2009) advice that the recruitment of controls should meet two requirements: their exposure to confounder and risk factors should be representative of the at-risk population from which the cases are drawn, and the exposure should be measurable with a similar level of accuracy as the cases. In line with these requirements, controls will be recruited based on the HSP eligibility criteria as a means to enhance similarity between cases and controls. Thus, eligible control group participants will be required to have annual incomes less than 30 percent of the median family income in the state, be living in the streets or in a temporary living arrangement, and be lacking access to supports and resources needed to obtain stable housing.

Despite these efforts to ensure similarity, assessment of the control group’s exposure may not be accurately comparable to that of case participants due to selection bias (Coggon et al., 2006). To make the exposures more comparable, the evaluation will use as controls homeless individuals participating in other forms of supportive services or programs similar to the HSP. The evaluators will not reveal to the control group participants the exact focus of the evaluation to minimize issues related to recall bias (Coggon et al., 2006). The five shelters that are ineligible for HSP funding will provide records of homeless individuals in their organizations who meet the HSP eligibility criteria, and the evaluators will then use random sampling to select 150 of these to be recruited as controls.

To enhance the reliability and validity of the evaluation findings, the evaluators will use previously validated instruments to measure participants' satisfaction with HSP services, financial literacy, and housing stability. Satisfaction with HSP services will be measured using a survey adapted from the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) (appendix C in the appendices). Studies testing the psychometric properties of the CSQ-8 in outpatient and residential settings have found the instrument to be a reliable and valid measure of client satisfaction (Pedersen et al., 2022). Pedersen et al. (2022) found the CSQ-8 to have high internal consistency (Cronbach Alpha = 0.95) and high factor validity, with all factor loadings greater than 0.8. On their part, Kelly et al. (2017) found the CSQ-8 to have high concurrent validity, having shown a strong correlation with other scales, specifically the Treatment Perceptions Questionnaire (TPQ).

Financial literacy will be measured using a survey adapted from the Financial Well-being Scale (appendix D in the appendices) (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2023). Quantitative studies by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2023) found that the financial well-being scale had high internal consistency, as shown by the Cronbach Alpha of 0.8. This makes it a valid and reliable measure of financial well-being. Finally, housing stability will be measured using a survey adapted from the Vulnerability Index-Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT v 2.0 for individuals) (included in the appendices). Studies have found the tool’s predictive validity and test-retest reliability to be relatively lower than other vulnerability assessment tools (Brown et al., 2018). However, the study found that the tool’s predictive ability was improved by addition of housing type questions (Brown et al., 2018). The VI-SPDAT V 2.0 is preferred for the proposed evaluation because it focuses hugely on housing type and thus gives a better view of housing stability as compared to other vulnerability tools that focus more on social relationships and mental health.

To ensure the data collected is of high quality, the evaluation will standardize the data collection process by ensuring that all surveys are conducted and filled out in English. Interpreters will be engaged for non-English-speaking participants to ensure they adequately understand the interview/survey questions and that the data they give is captured accurately. Case managers engaged in data collection will be trained before the evaluation to ensure that they are well-versed with the survey instrument/interview protocol and adequately understand their roles and the rights of participants.

Participants will be required to give their consent before the start of the evaluation. They will sign an informed consent form to indicate their consent to participate. Participants will be notified in the consent form that their participation is voluntary and that any information they provide will be used solely for evaluation purposes. In line with anonymity requirements, self-generated identity codes that cannot be traced to a specific individual will be used to identify participants across the three waves of data collection (Audette et al., 2020). The self-generated codes will be created from answers to four personal questions arranged in a pre-determined order: the first letter of the participant’s middle name, their month of birth, how many older sisters they have, and the first initial of their mother’s first name (Audette et al., 2020). Thus, a participant whose middle name is Cate (C), was born in April (04), has two older sisters (02), and whose mother is named Mary (M) would generate the code C0402M, which will be used to link their data across the three waves of data collection. To ensure confidentiality, all the collected data will be stored electronically in a password-protected laptop used solely for the evaluation under the program director's care. The program manager will obtain prospective IRB approval to evaluate and enhance the welfare and rights of participants as human subjects.

10. Evaluation Question Link:

a. How does each data collection method relate to the evaluation question(s) proposed? Suggested table:

Evaluation Question

Data Collection Method

Source of Data

Timeline for Data Collection

1.Compared to non-participants, are program participants more able to secure and maintain stable housing?

Survey

HSP participants (150) and non-participants (150)

February 2024 –March 2024 (baseline);

November 2024 to February 2025 (end of program); August to September 2025 (follow up)

2.How does the financial well-being of HSP participants compare with non-participants at program start, end, and at six-months follow-up?

Survey

HSP participants and non-participants

February 2024 –March 2024 (baseline);

November 2024 to February 2025 (end of program); August to September 2025 (follow up)

3.Is the program accessible and relevant to the diverse needs of homeless people?

Face-to-Face Interviews

10 HSP Participants and 10 non-participants

February 2025 to March 2025

4. Are program participants consistently satisfied with the support and services they receive from the HSP?

Survey

Face-to-Face Interviews

HSP participants (150)

HSP participants (10)

November 2024 to February 2025 (end of program)

February 2025 to March 2025

Section 5: Data Analysis and Interpretation: In this section, you will provide information on the standards you will use to judge the performance and/or outcomes of the program or policy that you evaluate. You should describe how you will analyze your evaluation findings and interpret and justify your conclusions. (1-2 double spaced pages):

Indicators and Standards:

1. What are the measurable or observable elements that can tell you about the performance or outcomes of the program or policy that you are evaluating?

2. What constitutes “success” (i.e., by what standards will you compare your evaluation findings?) Suggested table:

Evaluation Question

Criterion or Indicator

Standards (i.e., what constitutes success?)

1. Capacity of the HSP

HSP beneficiaries who secure housing units every year as a proportion of the total population of beneficiaries according to agency records.

Number of new partnerships with other housing support networks every year

At least 30 percent of HSP beneficiaries acquire permanent housing units every year. This standard is drawn from Goal 2 (objective 2.1) of the HSP as per the 2020-2024 strategic plan, which focuses on ensuring that at least 90 percent of beneficiaries exit to permanent housing by the end of 2024 (DHCD Consolidated Plan, 2020). An annual transition rate to permanent housing of 30 percent will ensure that the HSP realizes its 90 percent target by the end of the current strategic plan period.

At least 25 new partnerships are formed with other housing support organizations every year to increase the HSP’s geographical reach. The HSP targets to reach at least 50 percent of homeless individuals/households in the state in the course of its strategic period (DHCD Consolidated Plan, 2020). Partnerships with other housing support networks are crucial for the realization of this objective. 25 new partnerships every year would translate into 100 new partnerships every strategic period, which would go a long way towards reaching more homeless individuals.

2. Reduce the rate of homelessness

Annual increases in the number of homeless individuals and families joining the HSP

The population of homeless individuals served by the HSP increases by 10 percent annually. In its Goal 1 (objective 1.1), the HSP targets to reach at least 50 percent of unsheltered individuals in the state by the end of the end of 2024 (DHCD Consolidated Plan, 2020). Annual increases of 10 percent in the population served would ensure that the HSP stays on course with this objective as it also increases its geographical reach.

3. Reduce time spent unsheltered

Proportion of homeless individuals living in conditions unfit for habitation that are referred to HSP-affiliated emergency shelters and diversion programs

75 percent of homeless individuals living in areas unfit for human habitation are referred to emergency shelters and diversion programs every year. This standard is informed by goal 1 of the HSP, which focuses on ensuring that 50 percent of unsheltered individuals/households and 100 percent of those who lose their permanent residence exit to safe shelters by the end of 2024 (DHCD Consolidated Plan, 2020). A transition rate of 75 percent for unsheltered individuals every year would ensure the HSP remains on course with its goal of achieving 100 percent transition by the end of the strategic plan period.

Analysis of Data:

1. What methods will you use to analyze your data (e.g., descriptive statistics, inferential statistics)?

2. Provide example data table templates, if applicable.

The collected data will be analyzed using qualitative and quantitative techniques. Survey data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics to assess financial literacy and housing stability changes over time. Percentages and means will determine the proportion of HSP participants with a satisfaction score above 26 in the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire. The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire yields scores of between 8 and 21, with scores above 26 indicating high levels of satisfaction. Percentages will also be used to determine the proportion of participants with above –average scores in financial literacy and housing stability across the three waves of data collection. These will then be compared with those of non-participants.

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be used to examine whether participating / not participating in HSP (independent variable) affects financial literacy and housing stability (dependent variables) by comparing participants’ mean scores against non-participants’ at baseline, program end and six-months follow up. One-way ANOVA is appropriate for examining mean differences between two or more populations when the dependent variable is continuous and the independent variable is categorical as in this case (Astle et al., 2023). Table 1 below presents a template of the one-way analysis of variance table comparing participants' and non-participants' mean scores in financial literacy and housing stability. Paired samples t-tests will be conducted to determine whether HSP participants' financial literacy and housing stability scores at program end and at six-month follow up differ significantly from baseline levels (Astle et al., 2023). Table 2 below presents a sample of the paired t-tests sample results table.

Thematic analysis will be used to analyze data collected through interviews. Thematic analysis will identify recurrent themes related to cultural competence and program effectiveness. The evaluator will also review program records to identify trends and patterns in the HSP support and service offerings. The results of all three analysis techniques will be integrated to provide a comprehensive view of the HSP's impact.

Table 1: One-way Analysis of Variance Results Table Template

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

Table 2: Paired T-Test Results Table Template

Pair 1

Baseline –Project End

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Lower

Upper

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Interpretation of Findings:

1. Which stakeholders will you involve in drawing, interpreting, and justifying conclusions from your findings?

2. What are your plans for involving them in this process?

Key stakeholders will be involved in drawing, interpreting, and justifying conclusions from the evaluation findings. Stakeholders to be involved include HSP staff and representatives of local service providers and COCs working with homeless individuals under the HSP. The evaluator will involve these stakeholders as part of an internal evaluation team to work with the external evaluators in interpreting the findings, providing explanations for conclusions drawn, and suggesting possible areas of improvement. Harris (2016) points out that involving stakeholders in the interpretation of findings and drawing of conclusions helps increase the integrity of the data analysis process and helps them own the findings and recommendations, ensuring effective implementation and minimal resistance.

Section 6: Disseminating Findings: This section should include the following elements: (1 double spaced page):

1. What are the target audience(s) for reporting evaluation findings?

2. What is the purpose of communicating with this audience?

3. What is the most appropriate communication type (e.g., report, presentation, audio-visual) for this audience?

4. When will evaluation results be disseminated?

An article by the University of Wisconsin-Madison (2021) indicates that when disseminating program evaluation results, it is prudent to consider whom the findings will impact. Based on this, the target audience for the dissemination of findings will include representatives of HSP participants, HSP staff, representatives of LCEs and COCs that directly render services to people experiencing homelessness, federal and state government representatives, partner agencies, community representatives, and members of the DHCD board of management.

Government representatives represent the funders of the HSP and will use the evaluation findings to assess whether the HSP is a worthwhile investment in reducing homelessness. The evaluation findings will also provide a means for government representatives to assess the sufficiency of budgetary allocations to the HSP and as a basis to request increased funding. Community representatives are crucial in disseminating findings as they determine the extent to which local communities support the activities of the HSP. Through the dissemination, they will understand the impact of the HSP in reducing homelessness. They will help further disseminate the information to local community members, who could offer support by referring homelessness cases to local service providers for support.

The HSP staff and representatives of local service providers are crucial in the communication as they are the direct implementers of HSP interventions. Thus, it would be prudent for them to understand the participants’ perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of services offered. Finally, the HSP management would use the evaluation findings to guide policy and decision-making on areas requiring improvement to ensure that the HSP realizes its goals. The evaluation findings will help the management assess the HSP's progress in realizing its goals and objectives, as well as possible areas of improvement for increased effectiveness.

Given the diverse nature of the audience, the evaluator will organize a dissemination workshop, where they will use a PowerPoint presentation to communicate the main findings and recommendations of the evaluation. The evaluation findings will also be summarized in a report that will be shared with the DHCD top management and available to the public on the HSP website. The DHCD's Homelessness Solution Program will share the final report in September 2025. The dissemination workshop to share findings and recommendations will occur between November and December 2025.

Section 7: Evaluation Project Activities/Timeframe: This section provides a detailed timeline (i.e., month by month or year by year) of the specific activities involved in starting, implementing, and concluding your evaluation. You can include a list of these activities (bullet points) or summarize them in a table. These activities should provide information about how the evaluation goals/objectives will be achieved. (1 double spaced page):

Timeline: Present your evaluation tasks along a timeline (use a GANTT chart -example provided at the end of the template)

1. Planning and administrative tasks

2. Data collection tasks

3. Data analysis

4. Report writing

5. Information dissemination

6. Any anticipated challenges regarding the feasibility of your timeline \?

Evaluation Activity

Responsible Person

To Be Completed By

Recruit/hire case managers, program analysts, and training consultants.

Program Manager

February 2024

Create partnerships with the Continuums of Care and the Local Homeless Coalitions

Program Manager and Administrative Assistant

March 2024

Train case managers on case management duties regarding the homeless population.

Program Manager and Administrative Assistant

May 2024

Meet with program analyst to review strategic plan and expected outcomes

Program Manager

May 2024

Contact homeless shelters to identify 150 participants for the participant group

Program Director, Director Assistant, and Program Analyst

May – July 2024

Contact community agencies serving people experiencing homelessness to identify 150 participants for the non-participant group

Program Manager, Administrative Assistant, and Program Analyst

May – July 2024

Introduce team and evaluation study to selected homeless participants. Obtain verbal and written consent for 6-month participation from 150 homeless participants. Administer the initial survey.

Program Manager and Program Analyst

July – August 2024

Randomly assign participants to case managers.

Program Manager and Administrative Assistant

July – August 2024

Initiate the series of eight training classes

Administrative Assistant and Training Consultants

September – November 2024

Administer surveys to shelter participants and non-shelter participants. (End of program)

Program Manager and Program Analyst

November 2024 – February 2025

Conduct participants' interviews to assess program satisfaction from 10 randomly selected participants and 10 non-participants.

Program Analyst

February – March 2025

Data analysis/outcome comparison between participant and non-participant groups at the beginning of the evaluation and after six months.

Program Manager

March 2025 – September 2025

Compile findings, prepare reports, and share with the Department of Housing and Community Development's Homelessness Solutions Program (HSP)

Program Manager and Administrative Assistant

September – October 2025

Share outcomes evaluation findings and recommendations to stakeholders

Program Manager

November 2025 – December 2025

Timeline:

The activity timeline is presented in a Gantt chart in the appendices section.

Section 8: Budget: This section provides a detailed breakdown of the budget for the proposed evaluation. Provide a narrative explanation of the budget (i.e., rationale/reasoning for budget items) as well as a line by line budget table (this table can be included in the appendix section). Some things to consider when developing a budget include: (1-2 double spaced pages):

· Describe the funding source. Where will you get the funds to conduct this evaluation?

· Salaries for professional and non-professional personnel. What are their roles/responsibilities?

· What are the costs associated with data collection and analysis (e.g., transcription of interviews, statistical software)?

· Are they any travel-related costs?

· Are there any marketing-related costs?

· Do you need special equipment?

· Will you provide incentives for participation?

· Are there any transportation-related costs?

Note: There are many ways to format the budget table. Be sure to include identifiable headings. Major headings to consider are: salary and wages (personnel); travel; equipment; supplies; incentives; service (e.g., transcription, statistical consultations). This is not an exhaustive list

The total projected budget for the proposed evaluation is $669,300.80. The evaluator will submit an application for funding to the J-PAL North America's Homelessness RFP, which supports evaluations of innovations and strategies to reduce and prevent homelessness in North America. The RFP provides funding for eligible proposal/travel development grants, pilot studies, and complete research projects to $250,000 (Poverty Action Lab, n.d.). The balance will be obtained from the Mercy Foundation Grants to End Homelessness, which provides grants to fund research that contributes to reducing or eradicating homelessness (Mercy Foundation, n.d.).

Staffing costs, including salaries and benefits, amount to $523,519.24. This covers two full-time and eleven part-time staff members. The evaluation will employ a project director and project assistant on a full-time basis. The project manager will serve as the primary contact person and will be responsible for recruiting case managers and training consultants, and the program analyst will oversee the evaluation process. The project assistant will assist in accounting and record-keeping, data entry, and coordinating and scheduling training sessions. The part-time staff will include ten case managers and a program analyst. The case managers will conduct assessments and offer case management services. At the same time, the program analyst will be engaged for two weeks each month and responsible for data collection and analysis.

$5,600 will be used to finance training sessions on financial literacy and housing stability for the program's ten case managers. The cost covers the training consultant's fees and lunch for participants during sessions. To appreciate participants, the evaluator will offer furniture supplies, rental assistance, and emergency food/clothing vouchers to participants at an estimated cost of $42,500. Incentives will also be offered to participants at the end of the evaluation to encourage them to participate in the evaluation. The projected cost of participants' incentives is $500.

The evaluator does not anticipate additional costs around data collection and analysis apart from the salaries of the ten case managers who will be involved in conducting interviews and administering the survey. The evaluator already has the relevant data analysis software installed on their computer and will not incur additional software purchase costs. Interviews and surveys will be conducted in the shelters to which participants are linked; thus, no costs will be incurred in transporting participants. A detailed breakdown of the budget line items is presented in the budget table in Appendix 1.

Section 9: Conclusions: Briefly summarize the primarily goal(s) and objectives of the proposed evaluation. Discuss its potential strengths, limitations, and how it is expected to contribute to public health. (1 double spaced page):