Briefs · Durham Strategic Framework

Measuring What Matters

How Durham knows whether the work is working.

City of Durham · Durham County · Durham Community Safety Department

Three categories, published monthly

The Framework is measured against three categories of metrics, published monthly and reviewed by the Champions Table, the Executive Table, and the Lived Experience Table — the same numbers elected leaders, funders, and residents see.

System outcomes

• The One Number — households actively homeless, by population, monthly
• Inflow — new households entering homelessness
• Outflow — households exiting to stable housing
• Length of time homeless; returns within 24 months

Operational performance

• Case conferencing — share with target move-in dates, share moved in on time
• Fund turnaround — days from documentation to payment
• Landlord engagement — leased units, network size, retention
• HSCM — completion of the 12-month arc and Month-13 readiness

Equity and voice

• Outcomes disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, age, and household composition
• Lived-experience input through the Lived Experience Table as a formal channel

What stabilization is held to

The HSCM Policies and Procedures set six performance targets, assessed quarterly with providers. They are framed as programmatic goals rather than contractual guarantees — performance is judged on the totality of circumstances, not any single missed number.

• 90% of enrolled households remain housed for the full duration of financial assistance
• 80% are housed and off Fund assistance as of Month 13
• 70% increase total income across the 12 months
• No more than 10% exit to homelessness
• 90% of household-weeks include a documented case management contact
• HMIS data quality meets or exceeds Durham CoC Data Quality Standards

Capacity is governed too: a full-time case manager carries a maximum weighted caseload of 25 households, weighted by phase — 1.0 in early phases stepping down to 0.25 for post-exit follow-up — reviewed monthly with supervisors. Quality assurance runs on a fixed rhythm: monthly chart reviews of at least 10% of each case manager’s cases, quarterly session observation, semi-annual DCSD site visits, quarterly cross-provider learning meetings and performance reports, and annual program evaluation.

The Built for Zero standard behind the numbers

• Quality data comes in two tiers. The initial standard means the data is comprehensive, accurate, reliable, and person-centered; the advanced tier signals durable, sustainable reliability over time.
• Reliability is quantified. The three-month data reliability score must sit under 15% for a population to meet the initial standard. Built for Zero frames this as a low margin of error test: it asks whether a population’s monthly numbers hold together well enough that a change in the count reflects a real change in people’s lives rather than noise in the data. It is measured separately for each population and subpopulation — veterans, chronic single adults, families — so a community can have reliable data on one group and not yet on another.
• By-name data is the foundation — a real-time, person-specific record covering the whole geography and the whole population, refreshed at least monthly, not an annual snapshot.
• Reductions are now verified, not just statistical. Built for Zero counts a reduction only with quantitative evidence of decline plus confirmation that the change is real — with communities documenting what drove it and whether any part reflects better data collection rather than fewer people homeless.

What gets published, and the posture behind it

A monthly public dashboard, a sprint report after every push, an annual report written for the public rather than the federal grant cycle, and a continuous story stream. Missed targets are treated as system learning, not staff judgment — the tables’ job is to clear what the data surfaces.