Pathfinders for Hope · Operation Iron Gate Vallejo Pilot

How Can a City Measure Whether Homelessness Referrals Worked?

To measure homeless referral outcomes, define the outcome before calculating a percentage. Referrals sent, referrals acknowledged, appointments attended, and services delivered are different measures. A city needs to know which one is reported, who verified it, and how pending or unknown results are handled.

Separate activity, coordination, and service outcomes

  • Activity: how many referrals entered the defined workflow.
  • Coordination: how many received an authorized acknowledgment, had an assigned next action, or remained unanswered.
  • Service outcomes: which specific event was confirmed, such as an assessment attended or a service started.
  • Longer-term outcomes: changes such as housing stability, which require their own definitions, evidence, and appropriate follow-up.

Do not move between these categories without saying so. An improved acknowledgment rate may show better communication. It does not by itself prove that more people obtained housing or that a program caused a change in homelessness.

Specify the denominator and reporting window

For a proposed receipt-confirmation rate, use the number of referrals with an authorized acknowledgment divided by the number of in-scope referrals sent in the same defined cohort. State which requests are included, how duplicates or corrections are treated, and the date through which responses were checked.

For a response-time measure, define the start event and the qualifying response. Say whether elapsed time or working time is used. Report pending and unanswered volume alongside the statistic so fast responses do not conceal unresolved cases.

A worked example with fictional numbers

Illustration only; these are not Pathfinders for Hope results: a city examines 40 in-scope referrals sent during a particular month. By its stated cutoff, 28 have an authorized receipt acknowledgment. The receipt-confirmation rate is 28 divided by 40, or 70%. The other 12 remain unconfirmed at that cutoff.

Of those 28 acknowledged referrals, suppose 18 have an assessment scheduled and 10 are still under review. Neither figure establishes that anyone attended an assessment or obtained housing. If the report later learns about attendance, that is another measure with a clearly defined population and verification rule.

Keep unknowns and person-directed choices visible

Use distinct categories for pending responses, an unavailable service, an option the person declined, and an outcome the team cannot verify. Unknown is an information state, not proof of failure. Declining an option is not automatically a negative outcome for the person.

Avoid a single league table that rewards organizations for selecting easier requests or closing records quickly. Compare like-for-like service scopes and time periods. Include enough context to explain a change in demand, partner participation, or data completeness without disclosing personal information.

Publish cautiously and improve the workflow

Have the responsible data and privacy teams review public aggregates, especially small counts and detailed subgroups. Removing names alone may not remove identification risk. Keep case-level information in approved systems with appropriate access.

A useful monthly review ends with a practical question: which communication or routing problem can the participating teams investigate next? Track whether that change is implemented, then assess the next comparable period. Do not describe a before-and-after difference as proven causation without an appropriate evaluation design.

Local standards and related resources

These are proposed operational measures, not substitutes for statutory reports, funder measures, or HUD requirements. Where HMIS applies, consult the current HUD data standards and the local HMIS lead before adding or redefining fields. Use HUD's Continuum of Care program information for broader official program background.

Use the county tracking guide for a proposed operational record and the receipt-confirmation guide for milestone definitions. Partnership planning can help teams agree on definitions before collecting data.

Frequently asked question

Does a high referral acknowledgment rate prove better housing outcomes?

No. It measures confirmed communication within a defined workflow. Housing or service outcomes need separate definitions and authorized evidence, and causal claims need an appropriate evaluation.

The metric set follows from the standard being applied. See referral accountability and Operation Iron Gate.

Operation Iron Gate Vallejo Pilot

Pathfinders for Hope is developing the pilot with organizational partners. Public intake is not open, and no service or placement is guaranteed. Discuss the pilot with Pathfinders for Hope or browse the resource hub.

Prepared by Pathfinders for Hope. Updated September 5, 2026. Resource scope and sources.

Join the Vallejo Pilot

Tell us how your organization can participate. Pathfinders for Hope will review your application and contact you using the information you provide.

Enter your organization’s full name.
Optional.
Select the option that best describes your organization.
Where does your organization primarily serve?
Briefly describe the services, programs, or resources your organization can offer.
How would you like to participate?
Select every role that applies.
Your Name
The primary person we should contact.
Your role within the organization.
We will use this email to respond to your request.
Optional.
Tell us what you want to strengthen, solve, or contribute.