Brief Evaluation of Step Up to Freedom
Subtitle
A Chronic Homelessness Initiative Rapid Rehousing Pilot in San Francisco for Individuals with Incarceration and Homelessness Histories
Samantha Batko, Sophie McManus, Kaela Girod, Pear Moraras, Libby Doyle, Mari McGilton
Display Date
File
File
Download Brief
(378.63 KB)

In May 2017, Tipping Point Community (Tipping Point) announced the Chronic Homelessness Initiative (CHI), a $100 million initiative to halve chronic homelessness in San Francisco in five years. One of CHI’s goals was to prevent people from experiencing chronic homelessness. To that end, Tipping Point, along with partners at Episcopal Community Services (ECS) and the San Francisco Adult Probation Department (APD), implemented the Step Up to Freedom (SUTF) pilot program. The SUTF pilot used a rapid rehousing (RRH) model to house 40 individuals with incarceration histories and who were experiencing housing instability or homelessness. The goal of the pilot was to serve as a proof of concept for intervening with RRH during reentry with people whose histories indicate they might be at risk for long-term homelessness. This brief provides the findings from SUTF program evaluation, including challenges experienced, lessons learned, and recommendations for future rapid rehousing programs.

Why this matters

Overall, the SUTF program helped participants quickly move into housing and have “successful exits”—meaning they had non-negative exits, leaving the program either at the end of their subsidy or voluntarily and not leaving to reincarceration or homelessness. Despite this success, it is unclear if the program is a “proof point” for preventing chronic homelessness. Employment and income requirements potentially screened out people with disabilities and other people facing more barriers to housing. As a result, it is possible that SUTF did not serve a population likely to experience chronic homelessness in the first place, and therefore it might not have actually prevented chronic homelessness. These are important learnings for policymakers, funders, and organizations implementing rapid rehousing programs.

What we found

  • Participants were quickly housed. On average, participants moved into housing within about six weeks and expressed high satisfaction with the housing search process.
  • Participants remained housed and were not reincarcerated. The program successfully met the goal of rehousing 40 participants. Of those, 30 successfully exited the program and only one exited for reincarceration.
  • The program provided advocacy and support when participants experienced housing discrimination, legal assistance for expunging records, and hands-on case management and support to help expedite that process. Additionally, the program embedded agency in housing choice and neighborhood and provided financial assistance to furnish participants’ homes.
  • The program may have not prevented chronic homelessness. Income requirements were greater than the amount a person could earn on Supplemental Security Income/Social Security Disability Insurance which would screen out people with a disability that prevents them from working. This requirement may have screened out those most likely to experience chronic homelessness.
  • Participants did not increase rent contributions at the expected rate. Although 53 percent of participants were able to increase their income, most participants did not increase their rent contribution at the pace projected when the program was designed. This meant that participants often exhausted their subsidy sooner than anticipated in the program design.

Despite some of the challenges and limitations of this program, SUTF served a population that has several risk factors for experiencing homelessness generally, and some risk factors for chronic homelessness, namely prior history of homelessness and incarceration history. And it appeared to be successful in providing these supports pointing to a program model that shows promise in helping people with incarceration and homelessness histories to successfully lease up in the private market and stabilize in housing without being rearrested and convicted.

How we did it

Tipping Point engaged the Urban Institute to evaluate CHI’s implementation and outcomes, with a primary focus on CHI’s success in helping San Francisco halve chronic homelessness and make long-term, systemic improvements to the affordable housing system. Urban was also tasked with documenting and evaluating discrete CHI components, including SUTF. This evaluation employed both qualitative and quantitative components, including in-depth interviews with SUTF staff and partners and SUTF participants, as well as analysis of program data collected by ECS.

Read other reports from Urban’s evaluation of Tipping Point’s Chronic Homelessness Initiative.

Research and Evidence Housing and Communities Justice and Safety
Expertise Housing, Land Use, and Transportation Preventing and Ending Homelessness Courts, Corrections, and Reentry Housing
Research Methods Qualitative data analysis Quantitative data analysis
Tags Reentry Housing subsidies
Cities San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley, CA