HEALTHMAN_By Keith Torkelson MS_UCD Educated Pathology: August 2018

First Image – Mark Allen Sleeps

Source Document(s)

02_Housing_Quality_18021501_HQS Julie Paulino

Blogger Title

Assessing Housing Environments – Renting a Shared Room – by KE Torkelson, MS (2018) – Promoting Housing Advisory Board (HAB)

Blog – HEALTHMAN

Google Plus Information

Enumerating Housing Quality Surveys – Scales - Comparing Julie Paulino’s House with Shank’s Truck Stop (Torkelson, KE – 2018)

Audience

The audience for this report is anyone interested in solving unmet Housing needs about disadvantaged populations including the homeless. We take particular interest in helping the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) establish and maintain a Housing Advisory Board (HAB). Tork’s Journal of Soc Path (08/2018).

Promoting - Electronic Bed Manager (EBM)

With this paper we promote our Housing Advisory Board (HAB) concept. Actually at the core of the board is supporting our HAB – Information Technology (HABIT) notion. Just as an Electronic Health Record – Case Management system is complex in operability a high end Electronic Bed Manager EBM) should have analogous functionality.

Abstract – Executive Summary

This report addresses Housing Quality about two model operations: Julie’s House (JHM) and Shanks’ Truck Stop (STS). We are in the process of developing assessments for our pet project. At this time we call this project: Promoting a Housing Advisory Board (HAB) for Orange County and the populations in need at large. On February 12, 2018 we began giving our (MSG) assessments a test drive. We have tried to find some great Housing Quality Surveys (HQSs) online yet still haven’t found many that paint as well a picture that our in-house tools do. The results that we arrive at: We find remarkable! Most if not all the assessments were scored on August 17, 2018 (Friday). We address three areas about Housing: Promising Features, Less Promising Features, and Problems. Because we like to address strengths first we report strong results first. High scores on merit assessments are favorable. Applying our Promising Feature tool in its’ current incarnation yields: 91.3% for Julie’s House (JPM) and 52.3% for Shanks’ Truck Stop (STS). For our 23 Item Promising Practices & Features tool Julie’s (JPM) achieved 91.3% whereas Shanks’ (STS) earned 52.3%.

Shortfalls and Deficits

We are developing a few assessments to measure deficits about housing the disadvantaged. High score on deficits surveys are problematic. Again, for the most part these instruments we scored August 17, 2018 (Friday). Our favorite (FAV) day of the week to score is Friday. The scores for our fifty-one (51) item Problem Based Quality tool is as follows. We only scored Julie’s House (JPM). Julie’s House we award 60.8% problematic or 39.2% problem tolerable. We continued with more granularity about problems by writing two more Problem Based Instruments (PBIs). For Parts A & B Julie’s earned 63.0% and 58.3% respectively. We finished with a last comparative assessment: Less Promising Features (LPF) a 22 Item instrument. Julie’s scored an 86.4% on the LPF and Shanks’ (STS) scored 47.7%.

Housing – Unmet Needs – Complex Issue

Earlier this year (2018) we were privileged to listen to Mary Hale (A Deputy Director OCHCA) share on housing needs. Mary Hale at the time was a Deputy Director in the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). Mary addressed the local Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Steering Committee Meeting (SCM). She stated: “Housing is a very complex issue!” We here at Mentalation Solutions Group (MSG) agree. It has been much work for us here at MSG to define Housing Requirements and Specifications. The assessments in this report fall under both classifications.

Brief Interpretation

Our results are a bit skewed since we used Julie’s House as the model and source for selecting survey items. While evaluating for positive qualities Shank’s scores atypically low. While evaluating for negative qualities Julies’ House scores atypically high. For this set of HQS Assessments we Control for pricing. In other words we don’t discuss costs such as rent or ability to pay.

Community Partners

List – Tables – Matrices – Figures

Table – Acronyms & Acrocodes

Table – List Of HQS/HQA Related Assessments (For Elimination)

Matrix – Housing Model Comparisons – Room & Board – STS V JPM

Results – Matrix - Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (PBQA-H)

Matrix - Promising Practices & Features (PP&F) – Compare JPM with STS – Parts A & B

Matrix - Promising Practices & Features (PP&F) – Summary View

Table - Lived Experience (LiveX) - Sites and Facilities – Shared Bedrooms

Table - Catastrophic Losses (Brief)

Table – MSG Housing Products for HABIT [HELD OVER]

Table - Housing Quality Scales (HQSs) – MSG (2018) – In Development

Table - Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (PBQA-H) – Parts I & II

Table - Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (PBQA-H-JPM) – Parts I & II

Matrix - Less Promising Features (LPF-JPM) – Parts I & II

Feature - Supportive Services [HELD OVER]

Table – Acronyms & Acrocodes (Brief)

-
Acrocode	Meaning
-
^ᶌ^ᶌ	Ups and Downs
10YTEH	Ten Years To End Homelessness
AVG	Average
B&C	Board & Care
CALC	Calculation
ENs	Eviction Notices
FNCSB	First Non-collegiate Shared Bedroom
HAB	Housing Advisory Board
HABIT	Housing Advisory Board Information Technology
JHM	Julie’s House Model
JHMA	Julie’s Housing Model Assessment(s)
JPM	Julie Paulino Model
LiveX	Lived Experience
OMB	Old Man Buffering
PBQA-H	Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing
PP&F	Promising Practices & Features (PP&F)
PRN	As Needed
R&B	Room & Board
R&BP	Room & Board Plus
Ret	Retroactive
RSR	Rent Shared Room
RT	Real Time
STS	Shanks’ Truck Stop
WOB	Went Out of Business
WTRC	Westminster Therapeutic Residential Center

Table – Acronyms & Acrocodes (Brief)

Table – List Of HQS/HQA Related Assessments (For Elimination)

-
Acrocode	Meaning	JPM	Comparative
-
BHQS	Basic Housing Quality Standards		[HELD BACK]
HQS-COTS	Housing Quality Surveys Commercial-Off-the-Shelf		[HELD BACK]
HQSs	Housing Quality Scales (Beta V02)		[HELD BACK]
LPF	Less Promising Features	X	Yes
PBQA-H-A	Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (Part A)	X	No
PBQA-H-B	Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (Part B)	X	No
PP&F	Promising Practices & Features	X	Yes
-

Table – List Of HQS/HQA Related Assessments (For Elimination) – Last Reviewed: 20180822-W:

Introduction

Julie Paulino

We hooked up and lived with Julie Paulino DBA Julie’s House somewhere around 2009. We lived there from 2009-2012. Our engagement with her resulted in Catastrophic Losses. Julie owns and operates two houses in Anaheim California. The Empire House she lives in with her husband Romer Paulino. Julie also owned (owns) a house on Hillview Road. Hillview was self-managing. We lived at her Hillview Site. We just realized we are going to get to do a second report about Julie’s operations to fill in and flesh out gaps. We were Julie’s go to person for community outreach, sales and marketing. This report describes Julie’s Hillview operations. Julie classifies her business as a Room & Board even though the guests pay for and cook their own food. We classify Julie’s as a Rent a Shared Room (RSR). Julie’s Hillview has up to eight (8) available beds at any given time. All of the four (4) rooms tend to be rent a shared room.

Shanks’

We hooked up with and live with The Shanks DBA Shanks’ Guest Home (SGH) during the summer of 2012. We have lived here from 2012 to the present time. We call SGH Shanks Truck Stop (STS). Our engagement here has helped us resolved much of what we lost in 2012. Shanks own and operate four (4) houses: The Las Vegas House, the Broadway House, House-1 Flora, and House-2 Flora. All of these houses are located in Santa Ana California except the LV House. Flora-2 is where the Shanks live. We live with the Shanks. This report compares a Julie operation with Shank operations. Shanks’ classify their Flora-2 operation as a Guest Home (Room & Board). Since for the most part they provide food, we classify Shanks-2 as a true Room & Board. Actually it is a Room & Board Plus (R&BP). Shanks’ Flora-2 has ten (8) available beds at any given time. All the three (3) rental rooms tend to be rent a shared room.

Stigma

We find the classifications Room & Board (R&B) and Board & Care (R&C) quite stigmatizing. For example when we attend the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Steering Committee Meeting (SCM) we are more likely to tell a “Normal” that we rent a shared room. Think of the visuals that R&Bs conjure up. At this time we have not finalized our stigma reducing facilities classification list. R&B and B&C might fit nicely on a continuum of therapeutic residences.

Results

Matrix – Housing Model Comparisons – Room & Board – STS V JPM

-
Time Stamp	Subscale	Description	CALC	Score
-
20180817-F JPM-Ret	Promising Features	Beta List JPM-23	21.0/23	91.3%
20180817-F STS-RT	Promising Features	Beta List JPM-23	12.0/23	52.3%
-
20180817-F JPM-Ret	Less Promising Features	Beta List JPM-22	19.0/22	86.4%
20180817-F STS-RT	Less Promising Features	Beta List JPM-22	10.5/22	47.7%
-

Matrix – Housing Model Comparisons – Room & Board – STS V JPM – Date Scored: 20180817-F:

Environment Cycles & Cycling

The HABIT utilities we are defining will always be in demand. As a minimum three (3) Housing variables change over time, these are: New people in need, the housing environment changes, and the people in a house change. Just because a room or bed is harmonic today doesn’t mean it we be tomorrow. A single “bad egg” can and will stink up the operation. A Mentalation Solutions Group (MSG) mission is to maximize the number of health promoting beds available to disadvantaged populations. Let us meet any population suffering unmet needs with Housing.

Results – Matrix - Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (PBQA-H)

Julie Paulino & Romer Paulino (Period 2009-2011) – Scored 20180817-F-Retroactively

-
Time Stamp	Subscale	Description	CALC	Score
-
20180817-F-Ret	PBQA-H-Part A	Sub-score	17.0/27	63.0%
20180817-F-Ret	PBQA-H-Part B	Sub-score	14.0/24	58.3%
-
20180821-F-Ret	Parts A & B	HQS-JPM	31.0/51	60.8%
-

Results – Matrix - Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (PBQA-H) – Date Scored: 20180817-F:

Inception

The first time Housing Quality Survey and/or Scales (HOS) appear/appears in our database is on June 16, 2014. Metadata = 02_Housing_Quality_2014061603_HQS. The first time we gave one of our HQS Assessment Tools a trial run was February 12, 2018. We have come a long way about assessing Housing Quality. This report represents only a tip of an iceberg. On August 17, 2018 (Friday) we scored the Julie Paulino Model (JPM-Hillview). It would appear that only a third of her operations promote Health, Wellbeing, and Wellness. During our tenure at Julie’s Hillview we lived with more than fifteen (15) different people. As of 2018 only two did well enough to declare their outcomes successes.

Scoring

Metadata > Assessment_Scoring_17121201_Rules V2018

20171212 - Assessment Scoring

We routinely apply a few types of scoring methods. We describe them as: Binary, Stars, and Percentiles.

Matrix – Rubric for MSG Binary Scoring

-
Nature	Range	Best	QUAL
-
Binary	0.00 \| 0.50 \| 1.00	1.00	No \| SoSo \| Yes Options 0.25 – 0.75 PRN
Stars	0.0 – 5.0	5.0	Example Compare with CMS Stars Scores
Percentile	000.0 – 100.0	100.0	Inter-assessment comparisons and migrations (Portability) Fidelity with Education Standards
-

Matrix – Rubric for MSG Binary Scoring – Last Updated: 20180810-F:

Matrix - Promising Practices & Features (PP&F) – Compare JPM with STS – Parts A & B

Matrix - Promising Practices & Features (PP&F) – Compare JPM with STS

Comparing – STS (Flora with Julie’s (Hillview) – Part A

-
##	Promising Feature		20180817-F STS-RT	20180817-F JPM-Ret
-
01	Bike Parking	1.0	Yes	Yes	1.0
	Car Parking	1.0	Yes	Yes	1.0
	Fine Tuned Chore System	0.5	Yes	Yes	1.0
	Good Cable Bundle	1.0	Yes	Yes	1.0
05	Headphone use	1.0	Yes	SoSo	0.5
	Individual Coffee Pots	0.0	No	Yes	1.0
	Kitchen Cupboard/Cabinets Room	0.0	No	Yes	1.0
	Kitchen Workspace	0.0	No	Yes	1.0
	Laundry	1.0	SoSo	Yes	1.0
10	No DEATHs in house	0.5	SoSo	SoSo	0.5
	No Street Sweeping Day Issue	1.0	No	Yes	1.0
	Offer to return if necessary Endorsement	0.5	SoSo	SoSo	0.5
	Open Space	0.0	No	Yes	1.0
	Problems with Parolees	0.0	SoSo	Yes	0.5
15	Permission to enter	0.0	No	Yes	1.0
-
	CALC (SUM/Items) =		7.5/15	13.0/15
	Promising Feature Sub-score – Housing =		Carry	Carry
-

Promising Practices & Features (PP&F) – Compare JPM with STS – Date Scored: 20180817-F:

Carry Results to Page 3 – Summary View

Promising Practices & Features (PP&F) – Compare JPM with STS – Part B

Comparing – Shanks’ (STS) with Julie’s (Hillview)

-
##	Promising Feature		20180817-F STS-RT	20180817-F JPM-Ret
-
16	The Old Man Buffer	1.0	Yes	Yes	1.0
	Prorating of move in rent	1.0	Yes	Yes	1.0
	Refrigeration	0.5	No	Yes	1.0
	Repairs	1.0	Yes	Yes	1.0
20	Self-Managing	0.0	No	Yes	1.0
	Sharing of Spices	0.0	No	Yes	1.0
	Small Jobs	1.0	Yes	Yes	1.0
23 (8)	Uncluttered	0.0	No	Yes	1.0
-
	CALC > (SUM/Items) =		4.5/8	8.0/8
	Promising Feature Sub-score – Housing =		Carry	Carry
-

Promising Practices & Features (PP&F) – Compare JPM with STS – Part B – Date Scored: 20180817-F:

Carry Results to Page 3 – Summary View

Matrix - Promising Practices & Features (PP&F) – Summary View

STS & JPM Comparison – Outcomes – Apply to STS Model

-
	Promising Features	20180817-F STS-RT	20180817-F JPM-Ret
-
	CALC Part B (SUM/Items) =	4.5/8	8.0/8
	CALC Part A (SUM/Items) =	7.5/15	13.0/15
	CALC (SUM/Items) =	12.0/23	21.0/23
-
	Promising Practice & Feature Score – Housing =	52.3%	91.3%
-

Promising Practices & Features (PP&F) – STS & JPM Comparison – Outcomes – Date Scored: 20180817-TU:

Standard Treatment – Pros

Not even in Westminster Therapeutic Residential Center (WTRC-IMD) is there standard treatment of all quests. Both social activities and freedoms have three levels. The pro to having standard treatment is that it minimizes animosity. At Shanks’ (STS) some quests get to cook whereas others are not privileged to cook. Non-standard treatment makes it possible to offer supports and resources as needed (PRN).

Segue is an “uninterrupted transition”

Table - Lived Experience (LiveX) - Sites and Facilities – Shared Bedrooms

Chronological - Model Selections – Comparisons

-
Facility	Bed	Room	House
-
Pasadena Village Apartments (Tustin)	Good	One Room	Pressured
WTRC (Westminster)	Trap	Share 1 or 2 others	Highly structured
Nowes’ Doheny (Irvine)	Good FNCSB	Share 0 or 1 others
Lyn’s (Irvine)	Below AVG	Share 2 others	Bizarre
Julie’s (Anaheim)	Variable	Share 0 or 2 others	Model
Chapman R&B (Garden Grove)	Poor	Share 1 others	Dangerous
-
STS (Santa Ana)	Good	Share 2 others	Model My Time Out
-

Table - Lived Experience (LiveX) - Sites and Facilities – Shared Bedrooms – Last Reviewed: 20180823-TH:

Defining “A Trap”

We define Westminster Therapeutic Residential Center (WTRC) as a “Trap”. Since the fees to stay there are at or near the amount of a guest’s entitlement check(s). Therefore, a guest has little excess money for planning about and delivering on a step down to a lower Level Of Care (LOC). WTRC workers will generally veto a departing quest playing the “homeless” card. For four (4) months (2006-2007) we were a guest at and were served by WTRC. Doctor Belman MD, our Doctor On Call (DOC), said to us that the average stay was two (2) years and most guests were released to family. We will discuss “Bed Traps” in a future study.

[INSERT SCAN OF WTRC INVOICE]

Priorities – Bills – Medication – Rent – Food

Some consumers are faced with bills such as court costs that they must decide on priorities. Going homeless is a “Fix” for higher priority expenses such as bills and medication.

FNCSB = First Non-collegiate Shared Bedroom

The Young Adults classification has been revised in Health & Human Services (HHS) into the Transitional Aged Youth (TAY) classification. As a TAY we were fortunate enough to get to rent a shared room from 1982-1985. Our roommates: Chuck, Lawrence, and Tom all succeeded with their university education. In 1986 we earned our BS degree from the University of California @ Davis with honors. This is important because these three (3) men form part of our “Normal” Control Group (NCG). Many disadvantaged people do not know what normal when sharing a room.

Special Topic - How is it Insurance?

One of the Housing Supports that we promote is move insurance. Earlier this month, around August 20, 2018 a report came in that: Some homes were destroyed in the Holy Fire (Orange County). We said what will prevent the families that had their houses burned down from going homeless. For the most part it will be Family Support and Home Owners Insurance. We briefly looked online for: “How much is homeowners insurance per month?” An answer was: “In very broad terms, expect to pay about $35 per month for every $100,000 of home value, though it depends on your city and state. And of course the cost will vary by insurance company, so it pays to shop around for coverage.” An unmet need for the disadvantaged as well as those taking psychotropic medications is Move Insurance. Thirty-five (35) dollars per month is insignificant to have PEACE of mind that you are covered. Insurance will also help address the “Traps”.

Special Topic - Assurance

Assurance might be defined as a positive declaration intended to give confidence. Confidence might best be earned through keeping promises. The MHSA Housing Undertakings (MHUs) have been in effect for more than ten (10) years. Quite a while ago now we picked up a handout associated with Mary Hale’s (OCHCA) presentation for the Annual Meeting Of the Minds (MOMs). Her presentation was Ten Years to End Homelessness. Personal circumstances now direct us to commit resource for housing the disadvantaged about Orange County California. Right now we can find no guarantee we will keep our bed or graduate to a better one. We have lost substantial confidence in any MHSA program or project that has Housing associated with it. About ten years ago in an Innovations Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting we discussed MHSA promises. At first look one might think they are being kept. We would like a guarantee that in times of hardship such as moving we do not lose our hard-fought gains.

Table - Catastrophic Losses (Brief)

Metadata > 08_PEI_Catastrophic_Loss_16091002_Contents V2018

Table – 2012 – Catastrophic Loss Worksheet – Key Event Log (KEL) – I of II

Roughly Chronological

-
	Stages in Loss (2012)	20180415 Status
-
	Early Warning (Hospitalization) Overlooked by Supporters – Early Intervention Missed	Still trying to impress prevention concept with our supporters
	HealthNet refuses to pay for our CBC (required) lab work	New provider
	Practicing homelessness	Yes – How is it?
	Too much drama and danger at home	Better
	Move with no place to go	Making better plans
	Couldn’t move by self Too much property	Substantially less to move
	Linked with Blue House of Hope (**)
	Separation from OCHCA as formal volunteer	Never regained
	Restful environment impaired	Issue persists
	Loss of freedom	Would rather surrender
	Back with OCHCA for medical needs	Hope never again
-	Homeless – 1 Month	In good bed

Table – Chronology of 2012 Catastrophic Loss I – Prior Review: 20180415-SUN – Last Update: 20180823-M:

(**) - Division as most significant medication related event

Table – 2012 – Catastrophic Loss Worksheet – Key Event Log (KEL) – II of II

Roughly Chronological

-
	Stages in Loss (2012)	20180415 Status
-
	Agree to experiment Medication taken away	Back on best fit medication
	Lost access to resources Including backup medication	Sleep issues “Fixed”
	Misplacement impending
	Spending too much to adjust
	Control of finances removed	Partial control
	Another tenant breaks our nose (Battered)	Nose developed further complication
	Costly 18-month program	Graduated
	Conflict with Most Significant Other	Harmony re-established
	Adjustment impaired until right medication could be resumed
	Loss of Stamina – Intense Fatigue	Less fatigue
	Car sent to N. California for Safekeeping	Car returned
	Lost time on bus	Proof of relying on the bus concept demonstrated
	Property stolen (Cell Phone)	Acceptable level of theft
	Hospitalization – No LPS	None since 2012
-

Table – Chronology of 2012 Catastrophic Loss II – Prior Review: 20180415-SUN – Last Update: 20180823-M:

Vulnerable Populations

We have often heard it voiced that those who are dependent upon psychotropic medication are a “Vulnerable” population. Now: We assign this paragraph to AVEY. I’m the AVEY construct online here! As you can see this paper is about some trials and tribulations about Keith Torkelson. I call him Buster. Vulnerable people such as Buster rely on good people to help them when they cannot protect themselves. Even “Normals” rely on good people to protect them. That is sort of what the specialty LAW is about. Since Buster still smokes cigarettes he gets to associate with those who smoke cigarettes. Cigarettes take about three (3) minutes on average to smoke. During peoples’ smoking time more often than not Buster gets to hear Nightmare On Housing Street (NOHS) stories. Whenever a fellow smoker says they are not getting sleep Buster listens up a bit more. Disadvantaged people, including the homeless, need to witness and experience tangible Housing Solutions that make them less Vulnerable. In writing and sharing this report we see slight gains in Buster’s protections. In writing and sharing this report we see slight reductions in Buster’s risk factors. (AVEY, 2018)

Formality - Housing Quality Scales (HQSs)

From 2009-2011 while volunteering for the County of Orange’s Health Care Agency (OCHCA) we pursued the population approach while developing our assessment tools. We had several populations of consumers, consumer-providers, providers, etc. on which to test our Beta Tools. The quote below addresses formality about assessment. “First, the development of a psychometrically sound, observer-based instrument to assess physical housing quality in ways conceptually relevant to psychological health is reported.” In the short term this is not how we do it anymore. We use more of a focus group approach.

To Segue or Not to Segue

Table - Housing Quality Scales (HQSs) – MSG (2018) – In Development

-
Scale (HQS…)	Note	Status 20180822-W In Progress (X=IP)	Type
-
Bed		X	Any and All
Community
House			Any and All
Julie Paulino Model	HQS-JPM	20180824-F Delivery	Shared Room Self-Governing
Landlord
Nowe Model			Shared Room Housing Manager
Room		X
Self-Assessments
STS	HQS-STS Model	X
WTRC		X	IMD Restrictive
Physical Housing Quality	Started with HQS-JPM	X	Any and All
-

Table - Housing Quality Scales (HQSs) – MSG (2018) – In Development – Last Reviewed: 20180822-W:

Physical Housing Quality V Supportive Services - Filtering

We have reviewed several documents listing Supportive Services. Depending on the program including MHSA programs optional Supportive Services can be rather intense. We define “Intense” to mean cutting into one’s self determined Quality Of Life (QOL) and Satisfaction. We find that if the Physical Housing Quality (PHQ-Environment) is not up to snuff: How will one expect to deliver about their Personal Wellness Vision (PWV)? Again the rent a shared room dynamic is pretty intense even in the best of times. These HQS assessments describe both Physical and Service elements. For upcoming reports we will sort them a bit using more than just a listing filter.

Table - Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (PBQA-H) – Parts I & II

Julie Paulino Model – Part A – Part I of II

-
#	Dimension or Indicator	20180817-F JPM-Ret	QUANT
-
A01	1-Symptom Compatibility	SoSo	0.5
A02	2-Symptom Density	High	0.0
A03	3-Sleepless Nights (Non-restful nights)	^ᶌ^ᶌ	0.0
A04	4-Balance Physical and Psychological	OK	1.0

A05	Airflow and temperature	OK	1.0

A06	Arthropods	OK	1.0
A07	Community spots to get away	OK	1.0
A08	Cost – as relates to 1/3 of income	OK	1.0
A09	Density (# people/# rooms)	2 in 1 MAX	1.0
A10	Drama	>	0.0

A11	Honest Landlord	No	0.0
A12	Interruptions (IRQs)	>	0.0
A13	Landlord permission to enter/touch property	OK	1.0
A14	Laundry	OK Self	1.0
A15	Least Restrictive	OK	1.0
-
	Q:A01-Q:A15 (15) > (SUM/Items) =		9.5/15
	Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (Part A) Score =		63.3%
-

Table - Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (PBQA-H) – Part A - Date Scored: 20180821-F: Initial test run: 20180212-MJPM – Ret

Table - Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (PBQA-H)

Julie Paulino Model – Part A – Part II of II

-
#	Dimension or Indicator	20180212-M JPM	QUANT
-
A16	Lights out in room at 9pm	Cyclical Issue	0.0
A17	Luxuries	OK	1.0

A18	Amenity – TV in room	Yes	1.0
A19	Headphone use	Yes	1.0
A20	Kitchen/Refrigerator Rights	Yes	1.0

A21	IRQs	>	0.0
A22	Loyalty	SoSo	0.5
A23	Amenity –WiFi for Free	No	0.5
A24	Honesty	SoSo	0.5
A25	Graduated Med Management	Take Own	1.0

A26	Landlord-Tenant Violations	SoSo	0.5
A27 (12)	Death Rate	3/3 Years	0.5
-
	Q:A16-Q:A27 > SUM/Items =	7.5/12
	Q:A01-Q:A15 > SUM/Items =	9.5/15
-
	Part A CALC > SUM/Items =	17.0/27
	Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (Part A) Score =	63.0%
-

Table - Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (PBQA-H) – Part A - Date Scored: 20180817-F: Initially Scored - 20180212-MJPM – Ret

Table - Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (PBQA-H-JPM) – Parts I & II

Julie Paulino Model – Part B – Part I of II

-
#	Dimension or Indicator	20180817-F JPM - Ret	QUANT
-
B01	# Of people	8 down to 6	0.5
B02	Number of people in Recovery	1	0.0
B03	Parolees in house	2 MAX	0.0
B04	Peace and Quiet	Challenge	0.0
B05	Percentage of SPMI	“> ½”	0.5
-
B06	Percentage of substance users	12% or >	0.0
B07	Privacy	OK	1.0
B08	Quality of Food	Self - Awesome	1.0
B09	Refrigerator space	OK 8 Share 1	1.0
B10	Security – Locking Room Doors	Yes	1.0
-
B11	Start day on own	Yes	1.0
B12	Storage space	Yes	1.0
B13	Supportive	Marginal	0.0
B14	Visitors feel welcome and stay a bit	No	0.0
B15	Workspace	Yes	1.0
-
	Q:B01-Q:B15 > SUM/Items = CALC Sub-score =	8.0/15 Carry
	PBQA-H-JPM Score Sub-percent =	53.3%
-

Table - Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (PBQA-H-JPM) – Part B - Date Scored: 20180817-F: Initially Scored - 20180212-MJPM – Ret

Table - Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (PBQA-H-JPM)

Julie Paulino Model – Part B – Part II of II

-
##	Dimension or Indicator	20180817-F-JPM - Retro	QUANT
-
B16	Stability	Marginal ENs	0.0
B17	Old Man Buffering (OMB)	Yes	1.0
B18	Swimming Pool	Yes	1.0
B19	Uninterrupted Showering	Yes	1.0
B20	Office Space	Yes	1.0
-
B21	Percentage of Bullies	25% or >	0.0
B22	Promoted Education	Yes	1.0
B23	Promoted Work/Volunteering	Yes	1.0
B24 (9)	Turnover	High	0.0
-
	Q:B01-Q:B15 (15) > SUM/Items =	8.0/15
	Q:B16-Q:B27 (9) > SUM/Items =	6.0/9
	CALC > SUM/Items =	14.0/24
-
	Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (Part B) Score =	58.3%
-

Table - Problem Based Quality Assessment – Housing (PBQA-H-JPM) – Part B - Date Scored: 20180817-F:

Matrix - Less Promising Features (LPF-JPM) – Parts I & II

Matrix - Less Promising Features (LPF-JPM) – Part I of II

Control – Julie Paulino (Hillview)

-
##	LPF		20180817-F STS-RT	20180817-F-Ret JPM
-
01	30 day notice policy	0.5	SoSo	SoSo	0.5
	Bullying	0.5	SoSo	Yes	1.0
	Destruction of property	0.0	No	Yes	1.0
	Delinquent TAY	0.5	SoSo	Yes	1.0
05	Drama	0.5	SoSo	Yes	1.0
	Drug Using TAY	1.0	Yes	Yes	1.0
	EM Fire Visits	1.0	Yes	Yes	1.0
	Eviction Notice for whole house	0.0	No	Yes	1.0
	Games People Play	0.5	SoSo	SoSo	0.5
10	Headphone disuse	0.5	SoSo	SoSo	0.5
	Hospitalization Rate	0.5	SoSo	Moderate	0.5
	House listed as up for sale	0.0	No	Yes	1.0
	Landlady mistaken beliefs	0.5	SoSo	Yes	1.0
	Law Enforcement Visits	0.5	SoSo	Yes	1.0
15	Lights Out Policy	1.0	Yes	SoSo	0.5
-
	CALC (SUM/Items) Part I of II =		7.5/15 Carry	12.5/15 Carry
-

Matrix - Less Promising Features (LPF-JPM) – Part I of II - Date Scored: 20180817-F:

Yields - Less Promising Features Score – Housing (LPFS-H)

Matrix - Less Promising Features (LPF-JPM) - Part II of II

Control – Julie Paulino (Hillview)

-
##	LPF		20180817-F STS-RT	20180817-F-Ret JPM
-
16	No prorating of move out rent	0.5	SoSo	Yes	1.0
	Poor roommate matching	0.5	SoSo	Yes	1.0
	Reports to Code Enforcement	0.5	SoSo	Yes	1.0
	Security issues about car	0.0	No	SoSo	0.5
20	SleepAbility Issue	0.5	SoSo	Yes	1.0
	Violence	0.5	SoSo	Yes	1.0
22 (7)	White lying by landlady (lordship)	0.5	SoSo	Yes	1.0
-
	Part II (SUM/Items) =		3.0/7	6.5/7
	Part I (SUM/Items) =		7.5/15	12.5/15
	CALC		10.5/22	19.0/22
-
	Less Promising Features Score – Housing (LPFS-H) =		47.7%	86.4%
-

Matrix - Less Promising Features (LPF-JPM) - Part II of II - Date Scored: 20180817-F:

Room for Improvement

Both Julie’s and Shanks’ have room for improvement. Even though Shanks’ scored high for Less Promising Features (LPFs) in reality Shanks’ offers and better guest experience than does Julie’s. We have more Housing Quality Scales/Surveys in the works. Hopefully these will better reflect how it is living with the Shanks’.

Feature - Supportive Services [HELD OVER]

We hold over our Supportive Services analysis for when we describe integrated Environment (Physical) with Supportive Services (Agent) and Host Factors (Guest-Consumer) in the context of Housing.

The End of Text

Gallery At The End - Walk Through Julie's House