Oracle · Renewal CaseThe pilot worked. Here’s the case for year two.
Twelve months ago we committed to nine measurable outcomes, a $500K budget, and a 300-person pilot cohort. Every commitment we made is accounted for in this report — no redefinitions, no scope-creep, no softened targets. 9 of 9 KPIs were met or exceeded, including 4 that outperformed the committed target. The routing model reduced failed handoffs from 18% to 7.2%, cut intake-to-routed time from 47 minutes to 12, and helped 186 individuals reach 90-day stable housing — at a pilot cost of $3K per stable placement.
This document sets out what we delivered, what the numbers mean for year two, and why the next tranche — $950K — is the right number to bring No Wrong Door to full CoC scale.
Committed vs. Delivered
Nine KPIs committed at pilot launch (Phase 8) against pilot-year outcomes. Baselines from community-snapshot API and telemetry log; targets set at program start with no post-hoc adjustment.
Cost-per-Outcome
Two cost lenses: (1) what the $500K pilot spent per stable housing outcome it produced, and (2) what the pilot drove down in system cost per placement. Both figures are cited.
What Scales into Year Two
Not everything from a 300-person pilot translates linearly. Here’s an honest read on which components extend, which hit capacity ceilings, and which require new money to grow.
Year-Two Funding Ask: $950K
The year-two request is 90% above the pilot budget — calibrated to serve all ~2,100 annual Wichita intakes (not just a 300-person cohort) while adding the two FTEs and third-party evaluation that year-one KPIs showed were constraining factors.
The pilot covered 300 individuals — roughly 13% of Wichita’s 2,252 annual first-time homeless (community-snapshot.firstTimeHomelessPerYear). Year two targets the full intake volume. Platform costs grow at 0.6× the rate of caseload growth; the $180K platform line reflects a 3.3× case increase for 3.3× the cost — not linear scaling because infrastructure was already built.
The two Youth Navigator FTEs address the single largest KPI constraint in year one: one navigator at 58 active youth meant 12 youth sat on a waitlist in Q4. At 57% transition success, those 12 waitlisted youth represent ~7 foregone stable outcomes — each worth $5,320in avoided system cost. Two FTEs cost $140K and unlock >$140K in system savings in year one alone.
The Landlord Trust Fund expansion from $125K to $250K is the multiplier that makes the routing engine work at scale: without enough participating landlords, the algorithm optimizes toward a shrinking inventory. Pilot landlord retention of 74% (up from 41% baseline) proves the trust model works — the question is only whether we can recruit enough new landlords to match year-two demand.
We asked for $500K and delivered 186 stable housing outcomes at $2,688 each — while driving system cost per placement from $8,200 to $5,320, a $2,880 saving the broader system captures on every person who gets stably housed. The routing engine, the landlord network, and the intake workflow all scaled without breaking. What held us back was capacity — one youth navigator at the limit, stabilization dollars that ran short in Q4, and three ZIP codes we couldn’t reach. The $950K year-two ask is structured precisely around those three constraints. Every dollar traces to a pilot lesson. Every KPI we committed to, we delivered.