Do you want me to cover this real quick while we're waiting for Dr. Thomas to come?
Good afternoon, everyone. See we have about 2627 people in the world. Maybe we wait another three to five minutes. In the meantime, please feel free to drop your name. The name of the organization you represent into the chat box
Okay, good afternoon, everyone. I'm Dr. Sylvia Thomas. Your COC board chair. Welcome. And it looks like there are some 40 of us in this space. So thank you so much for showing up. And I encourage you to turn your screens on turn your video on if you can. In this cold, cruel world. It's often helpful if we can at least see each other's faces and make our way through the work that we have to take on as we're doing the business of the COC board. As is usually the case we do have a packed agenda. And we'll start out with the consent agenda. Then we're going to have an update on cam transition activities. We'll move to conversation around strategic planning and information about our new project funding priorities and domestic grants for system performance measures. And we will be aiming to take a break by about 4pm and then come back to do a brief debrief on the scoring of our COC application from fiscal year 2022. And we will have public comments. On your screen you'll see the reminder around public comment section of our meeting and as has been the case since we started. Amy Brown COC board member Amy Brown, it will facilitate us in that space. I know. Okay, there's Amanda. But we'll go ahead and get started and try to jump into our agenda following our time schedule as is laid out in that agenda. So the first item on the agenda would be to secure the consent agenda around the May board meeting minutes. You've had your board packet and those may board meeting minutes are in the board packet. I would really appreciate someone's making a motion to approve those may 2023 board meeting minutes and somebody supporting that. I'll take a motion for the consent agenda around board meeting minutes. That's the city I'll make a motion that we accept the board meeting minutes as as they are okay. Thank you so much, Candice. Dr. Crowley, Detroit VA I second. Thank you Dr. Curly. It's moved and supported and so there's a vote on your screen should be there the consent agenda, reminder to those of you who are not members of the COC board, to please refrain from voting. And we'll get this done in good order and pretty quickly so if you can, folks go ahead and respond to the poll. And I'll wait maybe one more minute. Before moving on so long in the agenda. I see something from Julie so Julissa, I'm sorry, to hear about that love. Oh my god. It's such a it's a cold, cruel world sometimes.
And I see, you're saying you can't vote Julissa, if you don't mind if you can? Direct Message Chelsea, that will stand as a vote as well. And just direct message her yes, no or abstaining. To the May board meeting meeting minutes.
Okay, well, we'll go on and I'm sure Chelsea will pop up the results as we get there. We're going to go on then to item number one under those tier one priorities. Thank you, Chelsea. And that item is cam transition update. And since I see Amanda, I'm gonna assume Tasha is in the room. I don't see her. There you are. Tasha. Hi. I'll turn it over to you. All right.
Hello, everyone. Happy Monday and I started a new month right. So looking forward to seasons changing not only in the physical but whatever season you may be in your life Well, I'm just want to get started and share some updates with you are regarding a cam transition. I think I only have about 10 minutes or so. So I want to make sure that I stick with him my timeframe and get things moving along. If you all have been attending the general membership meeting or if you are part of the cam transition team then this update will not be new for you all but um for others this may be new information so bear with me those who are part of the regular meetings because this information will be the same for you all. So just want to share some updates and some of the work that is happening. Um, let's start with first of all, just kind of review from the general membership meeting. So for our board members who were not able to attend the meeting that was held on May 25. I believe it was the general membership had a chance to vote for the recommendation that was put forth by the cam RFQ committee and that recommendation was to appoint Han as the cam lead agency. So they did vote for general membership the vote and approve that recommendation. There was also some additional considerations put forth before the general membership and that was since Han had only applied for the lead agency we were going to have to figure out what is needed for services for access services in in person sir access both in person call center and then back office services. And so there was also a recommendation that had came out of the camp transition team with the support of some members from the camp, our cute committee review committee and that was to really build upon the application that the city of Detroit had already submitted and work collaboratively collaboratively in that respect. And so what we asked of the general membership from the cam transition team is that the cam transition team now actually let me go to the next dislike is that the general membership would authorize the cam transition team to work with Pam the city of Detroit and Wayne metro to develop and finalize the plans for the provision of services for access and backoff services.
Tasha Yes, um Are you navigating slides? Or
on my screen? I am.
I think um, is this Chelsea that needs to navigate here or
Chelsea can I get sharing? That is so funny. I was going to town you just go
in at it. I figured like wait or screen isn't changing.
Thank you for pointing that out. Let me check. Can you all see now? Oh, wait, it's It's looks like it's still pulling it up. It means Yeah. Um, well, I'm going to keep talking while it's pulling up because I don't want us to get off track in our time and I know the agenda is pretty intact. But as I mentioned, I one of the things that we had asked for the general membership to do is to give authority to the cam transition team. So the city of Detroit and Wayne Metro could work together to find a lot to develop and finalize the provision of services for access and back office. So general membership also approved that and so the cam transition team will be responsible for developing the final plans. Just something that you all should know what's been happening since really, since the general membership or proved the camp transition team to really to work on their behalf or related to the services for access in back office. Hand in the city of Detroit have been meeting frequently a couple of times a week, over the last couple of weeks, and so we have made significant progress in budget negotiations. There are still a couple of more things that we're figuring out with the budget and we're getting some put TA to figure out those final things and then we should be able to finalize the budget after that. We're also putting together a joint implementation plan. So as part of the RFQ, it was required that each agency who submitted the application put together an implementation plan. So now we're merging those implementation plans. And then we're also putting a transition plan together specifically for the period of June 1 through really the end of August. And just making sure that we have detailed steps and timelines and persons responsible or committees responsible for that matter, and making sure that things are accomplishing we're able to really roll out cam by September at the start of September. What we're also hoping to do is to be able to relaunch some of the existing cam Transition Team subcommittees. So if you remember, we started out the cam transition team with about eight or so subcommittees. And some of those subcommittees went dormant after the RFQ was released. And so we're hoping to relaunch some of those subcommittees to be able to move some of the work and the implementation and transition plans forward. So I'm going to go back since you all didn't get a chance to see this slide, basically just outlining here what the plan is going forward. Again, as I mentioned, the general membership data like hand to be the cam lead agency. What that means is that we're going to be providing the administrative and oversight and coordination for all of the entities that are with under the cam system. So that means whoever is providing services for access, which as of right now, that is proposed to be way Metro in the city of Detroit. With the city of Detroit providing back office services. And then also working with C H S with their navigation services working with street outreach providers really working with the and you all this, who are service providers that get referrals from cam. We will be working with you all to make sure that we're working in concert we'll be taking on the cam FSL grant and sub granting those funds out to various entities. We'll be doing evaluations and just a number of system level things is what the can lead agency will be doing we will not be providing direct services. Instead those services will be provided by Can I mean I'm sorry, by way Metro and the city of Detroit. So, that is the propose plan to kind of move forward. I don't know if we have time we may not but if if we have some time and if tears on the call if you're willing to kind of walk through this slide Tara. Before we get there, though, I would just say that what the can transition team is wrestling with now is a couple of decision points around our service provision. So in person access is the first thing that they're tackling. We're making sure that we have the size identify and we're taking in consideration, location and population. I know Tara is going to speak to that a little bit later today. I believe. We're also just looking at the process in general that is proposed. So this is the process that is proposed. But the cam transition team is looking at that process in identifying that there needs to be any changes to that process. There's also going to be discussion around the cam number and then the cam brand itself, the name and the website and what that means kind of going forward. So how am I doing on time because if I have time, I would love it if terrorists able to go over just a little bit sorry to have to put you on the spot. But if you aren't able to go over a little bit
of time. We have time, Tara, if you can.
Sure. I'm happy to Tasha, you want me to kind of go over the potential flow of how a resident Okay, yes. Okay. So how I how we're proposing this B setup is the way Metro. Wayne Metro is signing on to run a call center for the city of Detroit for housing services, which is a new division in HRD. That is kind of more further upstream prevention. And so as this is a number that households are going to be contacting for housing assistance, and we wanted to build off of that and so add the cam line to a service that Wayne Metro provides. And so when households households can access cam through basically three different ways. The first is calling, calling Wayne Metro through this 866 number and we're working on you know, making sure we have enough time to transfer the 305 number and that the community knows about it. So that was being worked out right now but they will call Wayne Metro and we Metro would basically triage the resident to see if they really do need emergency shelter that night or maybe they need some other services. Maybe they're in their unit but they got an eviction notice and they don't understand and they think they need to move immediately and then connecting them to other resources such as like legal assistance or utility assistance. There's a variety of different services that both the city and we Metro offers through this call center. If the household is determined that they need emergency shelter, through this triage system, then they would be directed to an access point. We put three access points up here, maybe, maybe two, maybe three, but most likely we no longer no more than three just given the funding that we currently
might have in person access points would also be designated by population. Can you all hear me my internet just said it was unstable. So if you can't please let me know.
You blipped for a minute Tara but you're back.
Okay, if you
okay. No, I think we're okay.
Okay. All right. So they would go to having, you know, a place for families to go. Families, single adults, whatever population could go to any in person access point, but we know that families with minor children may feel more comfortable going to a site that's designated for them. It really just depends on the household comfortability at the in person access points. This is where the city staff would actually be employees that would do the the the assessor role where they would do that full diversion assessment. And then if the household is not able to be diverted and is referred to shelter, that full Coordinated Entry HMIs intake, so that is not going to be done at the phone line because we wanted to really shorten the amount of time that people needed to be on the phone and to shorten the wait times. So those really that in person diversion, that really in depth in diversion assessment and access points will be will be done at ease. Or I'm sorry, I'm going to slow down diversion. And that cam intake will be done at the in person access points from there if they have our shelter referral. They'll be directed to the shelter transportation assistance could be provided at that point too if the household needs it. And then the third way that people can access can access coordinated entry is going to be if they come in after hours to the actual shelter. There will be a mobile cam team that will rotate throughout the shelters and we'll be working primarily in the evening hours 5pm to 10pm. And there'll be touching those households that bypass the phone line bypass the in person access point and just walked into an emergency shelter or were dropped off at an emergency shelter to make sure that those households have that coordinated entry. assessment. And we're also looking at the diversion piece of it as well. So that's the overview. The back office portion of it will also be through the cities through the city as well. Candace. I see you have your hand raised
Yes thanks. Tara had a question about the call center just to make sure I understood it correctly. So you're eliminating some verbiage that we've used previously through the call center. Is that my understanding? I guess I'm trying to figure out if a person uses the cost center and they don't need to touch the what are we calling it the access point? How are those questions getting answered then or is I'm just trying to make sure that people are getting there's equity and what they're getting and how they're getting it and all that kind of stuff? Sure.
So I think I understand your question, but if I don't respond appropriately, let me know and I can I can try again. But so what households are calling the calling Metro the call center line they're going to be asked a series of questions to really try to basically have like a phone tree system to basically determine if they actually need emergency services. And if they don't need emergency shelter, then they won't be sent to the in person or will instead be sent to another one of the resources that either the city operates that the call line is like managing or through another one away metros programs that they host. So that data will be entered into way Metro has an eight by eight system and that eight by eight system will then port over to Salesforce. So that information will still be collected will still have access to the information to know how many folks originally call the call center. How many of those folks get sent to emergency shelter to get sent to an in person access point will still be able to have all of that data and because it can be ported over in real time and just Salesforce. When a household shows up to an in person access point they'll have the data that was already collected at the call center. So household will be sent to an in person access point if they say that they need emergency shelter that night and there's no other no other options for them. Then they'll be sent. They'll be sent to the emergency shelter or the in person access point for that for that depth diversion conversation.
And has it been Tara or anyone has that has that always been the process that no people who called the cost center had to go to in person?
I think cam can speak to it more in depth. I think when when Southwest has currently operated the phone line system. They did the full diversion to assessment over the phone and the Phone entry over the phone. Well we know that that just bogs down the phone lines and makes it makes one diversion more hard because it's over the phone. That's what we've heard from cam staff. And that it you know you're we'd be on the phone for 45 minutes to an hour. So given the volume of households that we expect to do the calling these numbers and given that the community concerns about long wait times. That's why we have this triage system with that transportation assistance for the households that may be disabled or not able to get places on their own to be able to provide that that assistance for them to get to an in person access
point. Okay,
so I guess my other question is I understand your presentation today. Does this go back to Cam governance at all or is is there any any more oversight on this besides what has been presented today?
So we did discuss this with Cam transition committee last week. Okay. For their feedback. I will let Tasha discuss if what else would happen with a key of transition, but this is the model that we're currently operating off of in terms of budget and MOU.
Yeah, so some like to say some of it was presented in this slide here, though, we do talk about like, you know, the decision points that the camp transition team has to make and one of them is including the process, right. And so if we, if and where it's feasible to make changes to the process that is something that the camp transition team will wrestle with.
Thank you. And folks, Candice mentioned cam Governance Committee and Tasha is calling it can transition team. So you are reminded that the cam transition team is made up of all the members of cam Governance Committee and then some more folk. So you are reminded that as we started this transition process, that was the decision that was made to ask cam governance to stand in their usual stead to function as the oversight body of all things cam, and to add to it, add more people to the group and call it the cam transition team. And so that will continue they will continue cam governance supplemented by additional people to be equal to Cam transition team. They will continue to work alongside and as our newly determined cam lead agency and the city as our very much present partner. will continue to work with the can transition team through the process that will get us to the handoff from Southwest Solutions and then the forward movement. i We technically are out of time but if you have questions, would you please drop them in the chat? And either someone will chat to answer you or we'll try to make time as we're going through our agenda to answer any questions that look to be pressing or that have multi prongs. Okay. Tara and Tasha is this a good point? For both of you to stop presenting? Awesome, awesome. Thank you. Thank you so much, Tasha and Tara. So folks, we're gonna move on in our agenda and we have a strategic planning update report. out to this group, Sofia and maybe there are full care from Barbara Poppy and Associates. I see Courtney Clark and Lowe's. And I'll turn it over to you Sophia.
Yeah, I'm just a brief. We have a Barbara Poppy and Courtney Courtney Clark from Barbara Poppy associates here just to give a brief update and an introduction now that the contract has kind of fully kicked off the ground. So I'll let Barb take it from here. But I appreciate having some time to have an introduction.
Great. Thank you so much. Courtney and I are delighted to be with you. I sent ahead this morning to the board members. Just a reminder on what the project was about. And along with. I understand there's some questions about the role of the strategic planning oversight commission. So I'm going to cover those two topics here. So first of all, just if you look in the document that I provided, we responded to the RFP and we've incorporated what you all requested as far as services for supporting the work to create a five year strategic System Improvement Plan to Prevent an end homelessness. And we established that we have key pillars that are important to the work that we're doing and how we as a group of consultants, bring our values and those pillars to that work. And then we've laid out the process and essentially there's two big phases to the project. The first phase is to work with you to understand your community, what's working, what you what are your aspirations for improvement, all of the various plans that you have adopted through various processes over over the last number of years and then do engagement to understand kind of what the community is interested and then bringing that forward into creating your strategic System Improvement Plan. So phase one is community engagement planning together through lots of working groups and lots of activities that we will support you in coming together on that. And that concludes by the end of December with a plan that we will then support the early launch of that plan during starting in January. So that's essentially the phase two of the plan. We we see this as always a work in progress. It's a blueprint and we will continue to evolve as we understand your community and as you come together and provide the input and directions and the guidance that's needed. You will also see that we have a really strong consulting team that we've put together. These are some of the folks who have deep experience across the country but also deep experience in your community. And we are very excited to have Elijah and Donna in particular granting our work locally and the experience that they have in your community and bringing to it so we'll say just one since I left the Obama administration in 2014. And this is definitely the strongest team that I've ever had the chance to work with on the consulting side of things and all of the individuals will bring different strengths to the project. So we're really excited about it. Any questions on the overall project and our consulting team?
Great.
I went into court court I can't there's so many people on this call. I can't see it. I know Courtney's here somewhere. And you want to just say Hi Courtney. She is our project manager and keeps us all together. So I don't know if you wanted to add anything. Courtney before I launch asbach
Yes, I'm here at the U bar. Hello, everyone. Thanks for giving given us this time today to present to you.
Thanks, Gordon. And we do have dinner to Oh, Donna, are you there? There you go. Thanks, Don. I'm glad you're with us. All right. So we put together the strategic plan oversight Commission and the charter for that group because as a consulting group, we're we're here to support the work. But we are not here to make the decisions and there needs to be a body that actually makes the decisions about what the community five year strategic System Improvement Plan will be. And we see in your community as in many other communities the opportunities to have a community on plan is broader than the continuum of care you guys have a great strong continuum of care. You've been recognized for the good work that you've been doing. But there's more players in your community who can be engaged are currently working to address homelessness. And so we are wanting that the five year System Improvement Plan is about engagement of the broader community as well as all of you who are working so diligently on this effort in your in your day to day. We also believed that it was really important as you have asked for is that there is shared leadership and a strong equity focus to this work. And the best way to achieve equitable decision making is to have people with lived expertise and lived experience of homelessness, to be involved not just in providing input, not just in providing data that gets analyzed. But actually to be at the table and to make the decisions about what the community should be doing going forward. So the as we set up the s POC, the strategic plan oversight Commission, we looked for balanced participation between people with live expertise of homelessness and other professionals, community leaders in the community that were representative of some of the core organizations that should be represented in this. The scope of the commission is to guide the development of the plan and really inform what being the conduit by which we have the chance to make these decisions. And the you can see their scope is that of what what will be in the plan and then the priorities that we have so only the s POC is going to be helping us focus on the community engagement. They will be the entity that determines preliminary unity priorities as we engage with the community on site during July they will be the ones are the feedback that we have an input that we bring and they will establish the initial priorities for the planning process. They will establish the working groups. They will participate in the working groups but there will be so many more people than just them involved in all of this work, but they are the decision points that are needed to do that. And you can see they have a pretty long list of duties that they're going to be engaged in. The intention is that at the first meeting of the s POC they will elect two co chairs one being a person with lived experience of homelessness and the other, another individual whoever the group select, the group will operate on a consensus basis. And the meetings will be documented by the city of Detroit so everybody will have a chance to kind of see what's reported out there. The city has also set up for us a website it's in process and documents related to those, you know any of the meetings will all be available to everyone we want to be as transparent as open as promptly as possible. But we're really we also though need some group to actually make these decisions. So the the, the as POC we see is really important to make the decision what's in the plan, but there'll be many other decisions that will get made along the way by the working groups that are a part of planning and then the working groups that are part of the process. We're trying to make this as streamlined as we can but also provide opportunities for as much participation as we as as as possible. So I guess the question I would ask to you is there any things that you would like to additionally now our thoughts on this I understand you have just decided who will be the three representatives for the COC board and advisory group has worked to identify the five people for the lived experience any coordinated I forget anything to
you did not you covered everything really well.
All right.
So we would expect that all of you as members of the continuum of care as all of you as providers of services, would be invited to participate across the plan. We are as in providing quarterly updates to the community you'd receive those updates and other consultations that we've done. There have been times for us to come and make presentations. So we're I think we would plan to be doing that as we move through the process as well. But the because you have three representatives to it you we will rely heavily on them to be the people bringing that information back to you as well but we're here to support their activities as well. Sofia anything you wanted me to also mention her and I get it covered
No, I think that's about it. Great.
Okay, thank you so much, Barb, and Courtney. And I see a question Jeremy asking if I'm assuming Jeremy talking about the SPLC and the project description that you didn't get a copy of Is that what you're talking about? Yeah, no. Yeah, it wasn't just for the documents, but Sofia said she can share them out. So. Okay, yeah. And my understanding is that it went to all board members. So I'm looking at the list if if you all don't have it, it came out at about 845 this morning. So we should have it. It is basically a public documents. So if anybody else wants it, just dropping him in the chat, I think and we'll get it to you. Were
in the process of setting up this buttoned up a site where all of this will live.
If you don't, if you don't get it today, you'll get it you can have access to that location.
I think I found one thing sorry to
the charter is in draft form. It needs to be adopted at the first meeting. So there might be some tweaks to this by that so that's why it's marked draft.
All right. And that'll be tweaked by the folk who are going to be your group. Yes. Thank you. And I'm not sure if our board members have all seen the announcement. Let me do a quick poll. You guys put give me a thumbs up if you've seen the announcement. Anybody here anybody here? Give me a thumbs up either by hand or put it on your screen. Thank you, Regina. Yay. Courtney Smith. Thank you so much, folks. We did get the announcement that Dr. Gerald Curley Amy Brown and Sarah Rennie were voted on to this group, the strategic plan oversight commission. And I don't know though if I've seen the names of our partners with lived experience. I don't know that I've seen those Miss Donna are those out yet. Night Yeah, okay. Okay. So we'll stay tuned. We know you all will make great choices as well in that space and you know, we're definitely looking forward to this work taking off in in a focused and big way. Thank you so much, Barb, and Courtney, and Sofia. Okay, and as usual, folks, if you have any other questions that pop up as you're thinking about all of this, put them in the chat box and we'll be doing our best to respond via chat or we'll try to figure out time if somebody needs to talk. And moving on in our agenda, then we're at a report from Amanda Sternberg this report does require a vote. So listen carefully and I'll turn it over to you Amanda.
Thanks, lift. Listen carefully. Alright. Alright, thanks. I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen. So it's a little bit more than a report. This is a series of recommendations that is coming to the board as it relates to new project funding for this year's COC competition. So give me just a moment to get myself set up here. So in for, for our board members, the materials that I'm going through, I did send out to the board on Thursday. I apologize that it only really gave you a couple of days heads up before the board meeting. Wanted to try to give you some time to review the materials before we come to the meeting today. So hopefully you did have a chance to at least look them over. But in broadly here's what we're going to be talking about right now for about the next 30 minutes or so. The board is going to be asked to approve five different recommendations as it relates to the upcoming COC competition for new project funding. And at the end of this, there you'll have a link where board members can go and vote and you'll be asked to vote on each one of these recommendations separately. I put this in my email to the board members as well. But just to kind of reiterate at the start of this conversation, consistent with how we have done this in the years past this vote, board members can vote on these recommendations, as long as they don't have any intention of applying for new project funding in this year's competition. So this is the way that we've done it in the past just to try to prevent any conflict. So just kind of keep that in mind. As we're going through these recommendations. So before we get into the details of the recommendations, I'm going to be going over just sort of an overview trying to set some context of where we are at this point in the local competition and what we intend to accomplish with these recommendations. So I discussed this at our May board meeting as well when we approved some recommendations as it relates to renewal project funding. So today we're talking about new project funding, but just to again, kind of set the stage as it relates to the competition. So when we talk about the COC competition, which has not yet formally kicked off, but when we, when it occurs, there are essentially kind of two branches to the competition. There's the national competition, which is where the Detroit COC competes against every other COC across the country for continuum of care funding. I'm on the agenda later today to talk about our COC competition and our score that we receive. And so when we get to that that might hopefully become a little bit more clear when we talk about this being a national competition. The other branch of the competition that we talked about is the local competition. And so that is the part where individual agencies are essentially competing locally for funding to fund their projects, whether it's to continue to receive funding to fund their renewal projects or to receive funding to fund new projects or projects that don't currently receive funding. So those are the kind of two types of projects that we have those won't be done. We've turned renewal projects. So projects that are currently receiving COC funding that would like to continue to receive that funding. And those projects that are meeting community need meeting certain performance standards. Those are our renewal projects. We at our main board meeting, we approved evaluation criteria for those projects. So that process is already underway. And then we have again, the new project funding which is really what we're talking about today. The amount of funding that we have for new projects is not yet known. We won't know that until HUD releases the Notice of Funding Opportunity and the NOFA which will be coming out at some point this summer. So once we know that we'll obviously have a better idea of what funding we have to work with. And lastly, I just want to make a note that HUD has an expectation that CoCs have an open fair and transparent process for identifying projects to receive this funding, and that we have a manner of evaluating those projects in a way again, that is fair and transparent and that is objective. So some of those things you'll see is really what we're working to accomplish through this process here. So just a quick overview of timeline as well. So this the preparing for the COC competition has really been happening since the beginning of this year, back in March, May even you know, kind of prior to March we really started diving into the process of evaluation criteria as it relates to renewal projects. We also received in March our awards from the 2022 competition going through March and then into May we the COC board made decisions on the renewal project evaluation criteria. So that was all based on input that we had during the public comment process. It was based on input that we received from the values and funding committee in the project, the project evaluation committee, so that all went to the board in May and that was approved and those again, new Renewal Project applications are underway. agencies are working on those and the review process is underway as well for our renewals. Starting in May as well, the values and funding priorities committee, they met weekly in May. So kudos to that committee. They really did a ton of work over the past month. And I should say to it really has been a subset of the values and funding committee again, those committee members who who are associated with agencies that have no intention of applying for new project funding this year. Again, that's one of the protocols that we have in place again, just to avoid conflict. So it's really been a subset of the overall values and funding committee that has been meeting over the past several weeks to work through the recommendations that are going to be coming to you in this meeting here. So if we're up to June, so this is what the board is going to be asked to present. If everything is approved today. The applications for new project funding will be released in the coming weeks. It's not uncommon for us to release our local applications. Before HUD releases the NOFO. We often have to do that just because of the timing that's involved. So we do anticipate our new project applications being released before the NOFA is out. Next month so at the July board meeting the board can anticipate being asked to approve policies related to project ranking. Again, the values and funding committee is going to be working through those recommendations in the coming weeks. Once we move into August and September some of the decision making points are a little bit more tentative as it relates to making decisions on appeals new project funding, like which projects to be funded. And final project priority ranking list. We do anticipate that at least over the coming months and August September and October there will be at least one item that the board will be asked to approve as it relates to the COC competition. There may be more a lot of this is going to depend on more clarity on the timeline once the NOFO is released, but it's going to certainly be a busy summer ahead in many respects. And so, before we get into the kind of the details of the recommendations, I also just want to lay some groundwork in terms of what we intend to accomplish with these recommendation recommendations are kind of what has been on our mind as we've been done developing them and really a lot of these intents is similar to what we've done in years past. Excuse me. The first intent is we really wanted to look to increase the capacity and the quality of our permanent supportive housing projects. The board may recall that in prior conversations, we've talked about how the majority of the COC RCOC funding is allocated to PSH projects about 75% of our funds go towards PSH and so we always intentionally look to see how we can also use new project funding as a way to either you know, bring on additional PSH or improve the quality and capacity of our current PSH providers. Given that permanent supportive housing is a key intervention to help reduce chronic reduce and end chronic homelessness and as a key intervention for people that have high barriers to housing and have significant needs to be able to remain stably housed the second kind of aim of our recommendations also has to do with increasing the capacity of rapid rehousing programming. That's sort of the second biggest bucket of types of programs that we find with our Rapid Rehousing programs. So we look to create opportunities, they're also creating opportunities to help meet the needs of people fleeing domestic violence, which is done through specific funding that we anticipate having available called the domestic violence bonus funding, and then likewise creating opportunity to fund projects that are going to improve and support our COC infrastructure, which by COC infrastructure. In this context, we need our coordinated entry system and our Homeless Management Information System, the overall implementation of HMIs
kind of touched on this a little bit but overarching aim of these recommendations also is to help further our goal to end chronic homelessness, and which again, we'll see through the recommendations being made around PSH funding. So I put together this little graphic to hopefully show how these five recommendations that are going to be coming at you are all connected and how one kind of builds off of the other. They may feel like they're a little disjointed, but hopefully this will help sort of lay the flow of how one recommendation or one kind of decision point then impacts the next decision point that needs to be made. So the first recommendation that's going to come to the board at this right now is recommendations around the types of new projects that the COC should consider new project applications for I'm going to kind of quick run through each of these. And then we're going to go into the details. So what I'm doing right now. So after that first recommendation we have the types of projects that we want to consider for funding. There's a recommendation that's been made this year as well as it relates to making a change on the types of supportive services costs that new projects can recommend. Moving on to the third recommendation, once we have settled the types of projects that we want to consider for new project funding, then we're going to go into a series of recommendations that looks at both COC bonus which is one pool of new funding that we have, and domestic violence bonus, which is another pool of new funding that we'll have and looking at the recommendations on how we should allocate those funds based on the project applications that we receive, which is going to be based on the types of project applications that we have set we're willing to entertain. So first is like the types of projects we want to entertain. And then once those applications come in and are reviewed, how are we going to allocate the funding that we'll have to those projects, given that we may not have sufficient funding to fund everything that we would like to so those are recommendations three and four. And then lastly, recommendation number five is getting into the details of the those evaluation criteria that we want to evaluate our new projects on. So that's how these kind of five recommendations all work together and relate to one another. So with that, we're gonna go into these one by one. And by back up to the top. So we're looking at the types of new projects that we're recommending the COC consider. So there's a lot of information on these screens, I realized that again, I do hope that folks have had a chance to review some of the materials that were sent out beforehand. But I'm just going to kind of walk through this and want to particularly highlight as well, some things that we're recommending that are different from last year. I will say overall and in general. We're not recommending a lot of changes from from last year. So if that kind of helps to set the stage where we are recommending changes, for sure, highlight that. So this first set of recommendations. Really again, this is the types of new projects that we recommend we consider applications for so the first is on the screen, which can die. Sorry, I think I skipped a slide. Yes. All right here, permanent supportive housing. So I've already alluded to this PSH is a key intervention that we use to address homelessness in our community. So as in years past, we are recommending that we consider applications for new PSH that will either bring on additional units or that will allow for PSH providers to apply for just supportive services funding to augment and expand their current operations. Which can help them bring on additional staff and prove the breadth, the breadth and the depth of the services that they provide. So one of the changes that is being recommended this year in prior years, we had limited considering applications for PSH that were targeted to single individuals. And this was done in the past based on you know, looking at data that really showed that the majority of people that were assessed as needing permanent supportive housing were single individuals. Recommended change this year is that we allow PSH applications to also propose serving families or households with more than one person in it which you know, could definitely be families with with children. So this is a change. This is kind of one change that we are recommending this year. And the reason that we are recommending that is that just taking a you know a look at some of the data. Well, we are seeing an increased number of families that are coming through Coordinated Entry being assessed as needing permanent supportive housing and while we do currently have some PSH resources that are targeted to families, that right now the vast majority of our PSH is targeted to single individuals. So given some of the data that we've been that we've been seeing, there may be a need for some additional PSH programs. That are able to serve families. Again, but all of these applications, the applicants are going to have to you know, provide a rationale on why they're proposing what they're doing and their experience serving those populations they're proposing to serve. But the key change here for PSH is that we do open it up a little bit more and to consider applications and projects that would serve either families or single individuals. Again, the provider could choose to target one or the other or both, again, depending on what they're proposing to do. The one other thing I do want to point out for PSH as in years past, we are recommending that we not entertain applications that are specifically targeted just to youth ages 18 to 24. That's because we do have some PSH projects that are currently specifically targeted to youth specifically funded through one specifically funded through our yDp also people who are ages 1818 through 24 can and are still served in our general PSH programs, because they're you know they're an adult and so they're included in those projects as well. So that's, that's not a change. That's the same that we've had in prior competitions as well. And you'll see on this on the slides here, the funding source, this is just a little kind of a green check this to denote whether we're recommending that specific project type be funded with that funding source or not. Domestic Violence bonus funds, which are funding that must serve people fleeing domestic violence. Historically, we cannot use those dollars to fund new PSH projects. So that's why you see in NA there I'm going to continue to kind of walk through these recommendations but if anyone has any questions as I go along, feel free to drop them in the chat or raise your hands as well. The so the next type of project that we're recommending that we consider applications for is rapid rehousing against it's pretty standard. We're recommending we consider applications with either COC bonus or the domestic violence bonus again, and the DB bonus side, those projects would be specifically targeted to people fleeing domestic violence. So no changes for this recommendation the same as last year. Again to kind of the caveat that we are recommending we not consider Rapid Rehousing programs specifically targeted to that 18 to 24 range, again, simply because we do have other resources targeted to that age range. And our data does show that the majority of people who are being assessed as needing Rapid Rehousing are 25 and older, so wanting to increase some resources for that older age group. The next type of projects is abbreviated as CEE SSOs. So that stands for coordinated entry supportive services only so this is funding that is used to specifically find our coordinated entry system. This is part of that COC infrastructure funding that I referenced before. So there's kind of a couple of sort of like a threefold recommendation on this and for the Coordinated Entry project this recommendation really came out of the can transition team. The cam transition team really talk those through at length over the course of April. So this is really coming from them. So the first piece to the recommendation here for coordinated entry funding is that the COC essentially set aside $350,000 In COC bonus money for a new Coordinated Entry project for that would
right now be applied for by the new can lead agency and full transparency. This recommendation was made before we knew who the new can lead agency was. So I am saying this as an employee of hand however, this recommendation was on the table before we know who knew who that cabinet agency was. So reiterating what the kam transition team has recommended. This recommendation for that set aside really came out of a lot of in depth work that we did within the camp transition team and looking at what would ideally take to fund and to be what we wanted it to be, what the funding gaps were, where we felt like we could approach other funding sources to help fill those gaps based on their participation in coordinated entry and really identified that the COC could be contributing to at a greater extent, and the amount of $350,000 So that's where that kind of set aside came in. The other two recommendations for this funding type is that we also allow current recipients of Coordinated Entry funding, which there are two right now. Community home supports and then the new lead agencies who will be receiving the other Coordinated Entry grant currently held by Southwest that they be allowed to apply competitively for additional funding, should they choose, based on again, the recommendation of the camp transition team. And then the third piece to this recommendation, is that for any any eligible agency be allowed to apply for domestic violence bonus funding to support Coordinated Entry specifically for people fleeing domestic violence. So there's sort of a three part to that recommendation, but again, this is all birthed out of the camp transition team. I see Lea I saw your hand up but maybe the question was answered and
I just wanted this group to know that the question of funding coordinated coordinated entry is one that the can governance grapples with every year, and that the fact that we have this opportunity to pursue more funding, I think it's great. You know, that this year, we're going to do exactly that in advancement of the work that we want. To see happen for or Coordinated Entry work. Thank you.
Thanks, Delia. Um, the last recommendation that on this screen has to do with HMIs funding. So this is HMIs funding specific to the HMIs lead agency, which again, I'll transparency is hand. My colleagues though, on the HMIs program side develop this recommendation to allow the HMIs lead agency to apply for new funding, should they choose to expand or augment in the HMIs services again, this is the overall HMIs implementation. Every project application that's submitted, whether it's Psh, or rapid rehousing can always request their own individual budget line or HMIs. To do their did the data entry that they're required to do. The last type of new projects that recommendation that's on the table here is this joint components. Transitional Housing Rapid Rehousing project type, see it abbreviated as th R h. This is a project type that can be funded with either COC bonus or domestic violence bonus funding this year consistent with past years, we're recommending that we only consider projects of this type with domestic violence bonus funding, which means individuals served in their project individuals or households would have to be fleeing domestic violence. This recommendation is based on our understanding that this is a good type of intervention for people who are fleeing domestic violence. We do have two DV joint component projects already in operation in our COC. So right now, the recommendation is that we limit these project types to being funded with DV bonus funding. However, there was conversation in values and funding to really consider for future competitions if there's other population types that may benefit from this type of intervention, which again, combines transitional housing and with rapid rehousing into one project type. There are other population types such as people who may be medically fragile or have other needs, who may benefit from this type of intervention. At this point, we just don't know. Again, there's some further kind of digging into that that may be beneficial. So we're really just recommending we focus on DB for this type of intervention. there any questions on this? We're going to go through each of these recommendations before we do the vote, but are there any any questions or anything I can clarify at this? Point on these types of projects?
Okay, so the next recommendation we're going to move into going back to this little flowchart is recommended the hopefully a quick recommendation as it relates to some specific supportive services cost and change that's been recommended from prior competitions. So the recommendation this year is that applicants for any of these project types, it will probably be seen most specifically within the housing programs, but they be allowed to request funding for the four costs that you see on your screen childcare, education, employment assistance and outpatient health services. These cost types HUD has always allowed applicants to request locally for the past couple of years we have limited our applications in not being able to request these cost types just based on a decision that was made a number of years ago in wanting to see agencies kind of tap into other sources of funding to cover childcare education costs, and given that some of the other recommendations that are on the table in terms of expanding PSH projects to serve families. And some of the other rationale that I'll get into the recommendation is that we do allow applicants to be able to even request these cost types if they choose. Again, part of the application review process we'll be looking at how they propose to spend those dollars how while they're conducting those costs to what they're proposing to do. You know, so it's not just a given there's going to have to be explanation in the application, but the rationale for incorporating these costs back in again, if our PSH projects do propose serving families, there certainly may be a need for some childcare resources. Likewise, at the COC as a whole, we definitely want to see some improvement in the overall outcomes that we have related to income and employment. So allowing applicants to request funds that kind of can kind of get to that end through education or employment services, just helps to make that connection. And then lastly, over the past couple of years, there's certainly been a lot of conversations around the intersection of housing and healthcare. And so allowing, you know, that possible provision of outpatient health services just kind of makes sense given that emphasis that we've seen in recent years on housing and health care. So again, these costs, it would be optional for applicants to request them should they choose, but And again, they would have to provide, you know, just like any other cost, explanation on what they're going to use those funds for, and how those activities connect to what they're proposing to do in their application. Okay, so that's just a slight change there in that one. Okay. Um, the going back to again, our flowchart kind of the third recommendation, so now we're kind of backing up and going back down the branch here. So we've talked through that and the types of projects that we wanted to consider funding. So now I'm going to move into for the COC bonus funding, which is one specific pool of funding that we receive, given an assumption that we are going to be receiving more project applications that we're going to review that are going to be quality applications that we want to find, how are we going to make decisions on what order in which to allocate the funding network that we have to those projects, given that we don't anticipate having sufficient funding to fund everything? So this is where this fund allocation recommendation comes in. And you see it's a bit there's a lot of layers to it. So this is the same order as how we implemented it in last year's competition. So there's no changes from how we did this last year. I'm just going to kind of run through these allocation orders. So they ended up first order of priority in terms of allocating COC bonus funding will be to those. You see that you're gonna see the phrase I'm sorry, new or expansion throughout here. That's essentially that's all new project types expansion is psh. Projects that currently receive COC funding that are requesting additional COC funding to expand or augment their current services. So that's what expansion means. So the first order of allocation would be new PSH projects newer expansion that are proposing to bring on additional units, then with a goal of funding 40 new units. So applications have specifically have in their budget. They will be bringing on new units for people to move into that's kind of the first order allocation priority. Then if funds remained to allocate, we would allocate to DSH projects that are requesting supportive services or operations only. So these would be projects primarily likely expansion projects that are requesting new funds to again augment or expand their current services. This is a need that we've heard from our PSH providers just in the need the need that they have for additional service funding to bring down case loads and have that breadth and depth of services that we would like them to see. The third allocation order would be again if funds remain if there's any remaining PSH projects, you know, to Allah give them an allocation. So so you can see PSH is definitely prioritized in this allocation order. Then if funds remain new Rapid Rehousing projects, then if funds remain new the dedicated HMIs grant and then lastly, if funds remain, new or expansion, coordinated entry grants. And again within this, as I said, here, kind of two things this allocation order does not include that kind of set aside that $350,000 set aside for coordinated entry. That would kind of be taken off the top at the beginning. And likewise, projects would be funded within these sort of allocation orders by their own individual project score as well. All right, I'm gonna pause I see Tara's hand in a question in the chat. Both from Tara All right. Same question.
Wanting to know when you're making the when the the valleys and funding committee was making these recommendations, did they take into account the feedback that the focus groups had on coordinated entry and the improvements that they wanted to see? Because I understand like meeting new PSH and like, helping people end homelessness, but when I was looking at like HMIs versus coordinated entry, there was a lot of a lot of things that the community said they wanted improvements on, and ranking it as like the last funding priority. When we know we don't have enough money to do all of those improvements, just seems a bit
backwards. There's already $350,000 That's, that's taken off the top of these funding, so that was taken into consideration. So again, even you could almost have like an allocation priority. Ahead of this, that 350 Which, again, is that will be that set aside which will hopefully be used to help address those improvements that we've heard from the community that are needed. So that was taken into consideration. That that there will be that portion of money already going towards improving and expanding and operations. And so if you're trying to kind of find this balance between responding to that also responding to the need for additional housing resources.
Yeah, and I totally understand housing resources being ahead of Coordinated Entry. I think my thing is a $350,000 was like, our best guess at that time when we were trying to figure out like, what the COC should be doing in addition, but when we are actually looking at the budget, we know that that $350,000 still is like, what the community wanted and like what we currently have are very different. And so it just seems a little counterintuitive to place coordinated entry at the bottom when we very recently had the community say these are the things that we want coordinated entry to do better at and that takes that takes funding in order for that to happen. So I don't know if there'll be another application outside of $350,000. I realized that like I'm one of potentially the implementing partner so everybody can take this with a grain of salt. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me. Like, we know that there's gaps and yet it's ranked last.
It's also ranked first. Okay, but again, that
$350,000 was like everybody's best guess when we had conversation,
values and funny did not do go into a further budget analysis. More than what the camp transition team did. We went with the recommendation that came out of the camp transition team. We also recognize the fact that there's a gap in funding for housing and resources. So again, trying to find this balance and priorities between need for coordinated entry. At the same time, you need housing resources to refer people to so yeah, well, it's totally fine.
124 Completely good with the five to six seems odd to me. That's that's what I'm pointing out.
So yeah, so can we didn't we in terms of doing a greater analysis on the funding gaps? We did not. We did not do that apart from we did not go into any further than that than what the camp transition team did. Yes, still. Yeah.
And so I guess I'm wondering, as as these recommendations laid out here, what are the chances that there will be funds remaining to be allocated so that we get to the sixth option and historically is that something that we've been able to have we used up all the funds by the time we get to number fourth option,
so many years since any new project applications have been submitted for new Coordinated Entry funding? It's been many years. So last year, this is the financing from the number we had last year and last year and so just to kind of maybe give some context, new HMIs application was submitted, and we did have sufficient funding to give that project ID the amount that they had asked so we were able to get through allocation number five. Again, it's really unknown because it's going to depend on agencies good, chooses to submit an application, the review of those applications, you know, we do always have that 70% scoring threshold. So applications, you know, if they don't score high enough, you're not really going to be considered for funding. This again, is also the first year that we've ever done any kind of set aside for a specific project type. And again, that came out of the conversation with a camp transition team, which yes was at during those times earlier this year was our best estimate of what
abilities which
funding sources could which funding sources based on the amount of projects they have that contribute to that flow through Coordinated Entry could be asked to have a greater contribution to the Coordinated Entry System. Based on those that analysis in that recommendation, it was identified that the COC could be have a reasonable ask of contributing another $350,000 So that is and yes, that is where the that funding that kind of analysis has gone at this point for the
All right, Tara had to jump off, but I see. Another question. Do you have any answer for that, Amanda?
Um, oh, there's I mean, that's just her recommendation that they consider swapping, allocation, order five and six. HMIs is likewise a vital component of our COC infrastructure. So again, we really, you know, this was the webinar that we had last year. So taking all that into consideration, again, values and funding also took into consideration the set aside that's being made for coordinated entry off the top so I think that was aware kind of what drove those recommendations as well. Yes. Thank you and just
Oh, thanks, Amanda.
I was just going to add that as a part of the committee that review this information. I really wouldn't want to see it change arbitrarily without going back if there was to go back, but I think we were very, I think we had the information we needed to have to make a very sound and just decision which is what we did. So I wanted to share that.
Thanks, guys. So this so yeah, I mean, this recommendation, it is going to come to you Rector This is recommendation number three. It just kind of come to you as the board when we get to that point where you either approve or not approve or abstain. So if the majority of the board feels like you are not, you don't approve this order of recommendation and the majority vote no. We will then take that back to values and funding and rework it and come back to the board with a alternate recommendation. So when we get to the voting again, based on for board members, based on what you've heard here, if you are again, if you feel like this is not the best way to go, you can reflect that in your votes. And then we will proceed accordingly from there.
Okay, I do want to keep us going just to be mindful of time. So the next kind of, again, we're talking about the order of funding recommendations. This is now for COC bonus dollars to a completely separate pool of funding than the COC bonus. You're gonna see there's really only three orders of priority because there's fewer types of projects that we can find with our domestic violence bonus funding. So the first order of priority would be that we find new Rapid Rehousing programs and then if funds remain new joint component project types and again then a fun remain new, new Coordinated Entry grant for domestic violence with domestic violence bonus, I will say historically, we have historically we've always had sufficient domestic violence bonus dollars to give an allocation of funding to all of the project applications we do receive, the amount that we received in COC bonus funding is typically more than what we get in COC bonus. And so based on again history, we typically have sufficient funding to fund all of the Divi bonus projects that we receive. Nevertheless, this order of allocation is just a guide. In the event that we do have more quality projects that we would want to fund and we have funding available
okay, this is your hand up from earlier or do you have a winner Okay, I'm gonna assume that's from earlier. Okay, the next set of recommendations. So this has to do with details on the new project evaluation criteria. So we've kind of run through the kind of types of new projects we want to consider how we want to allocate funding to them. And now this recommendation really gets into details in terms of how do you want to evaluate those projects. So So there are a lot of details to this recommendation in the board packet. We just am in the interest of time, I'm not going to be able to go through the all of the details. Here in this meeting. So I am hopeful that as board members, you've had a chance to review them ahead of time. There's a lot of details in the board packet and then the board packet also linked to even more details so you could spend a lot of time reading through it. Again, I want to emphasize that the values and funding committee spent many hours talking through all of this. So these recommendations are coming to you from the committee's. So just know that it has been vetted again through them. So there are not a lot of recommendations that we are recommending to the evaluation criteria for all of our new projects this year. We made quite a few recommendations last year and so again, there's just kind of fewer things that we're recommending this year, the changes that are being made. The rationale for those changes are that we I it was either an evaluation criteria that we included as a part of the supplemental application process last year, which was a supplemental application. As you may recall, when we did those local applications, we included some additional criteria that we hadn't typically included. So for consistency sake, carry them over again this year. Likewise, there were some application questions that we included in the HDP process last year that we are again, including this year, really trying to create greater alignment and consistency with all of these new project applications that we've had over the past couple of years. Some of those key new criteria that we are recommending we include have to really do around diving into staff training and development. The agency's HMIs are comparable database experience and readiness, how the agency will recruit and retain people of color within their organization. The extent to which they leverage health care and non COC housing resources, the agency's a process and policy for preventing program termination, and likewise their internal process and policy for client grievances. So again, all of these questions are included in applications for supplemental funding or why HDP funding and so really wanted to carry them over and again, for consistency sake. And because these are great questions, they really get to a lot of the heart of the agencies, how they operate and how their programming operates as well. So again, there's a lot more details in the board packet, which I'm hopefully you did have a chance to review that again know that this was all thoroughly vetted by the values and funding committee. Okay, there's a lot of information um, I really am getting to the point of being able to move into the boat but I do want to apologize if there's any additional questions. I will put the link to voting in the chat while I open it up for questions.
Sorry, Commander, can you just remind us so like, we're not planning to apply for new project funding, we can vote. If you are planning to apply, you can't vote but if you receive like, normal COC funding, you can vote right?
This is Yep, yes. Yep. So as you can see, oops. So if you
if you need a motion in a second, right before,
yes, yes. So if you intend to apply for new project funding this year, whether it's COC bonus domestic violence bonus, please refrain from voting if all you intend to apply for is your renewal project and currently get funding you just want that renewal project. Please do that again. If you intend to apply for new project funding, we ask that you abstain from from voting. So the if if you want to do one motion or five motions there is each each of the separate recommendations when you go into the voting form. You'll see each recommendation is listed there separately, so you can vote for each one of them individually as well. So I will pause to allow for the motions in the seconds
Okay, okay, go ahead. chokey. I make a motion to vote on the on, you make a motion to approve the recommended five funding priorities and then we'll go and vote for each one individually. Okay, thank you. I need to remind myself of Robert's Rules.
Make a motion to approve the recommended FY 2023 new project funding priorities and evaluation criteria.
Okay, thank you any support? Second. Okay. Thank you, Regina. So it's moved and supported. And so, board members as per the instructions from Amanda, if you're not planning to apply for any of this new funding, you should go to the link. It's in the chat box and vote for each one individually. It'll be laid out that way if you're not planning to apply, and you can vote yes, you can vote no or you can abstain.
Okay, so we'll leave that link in the chat. So we can certainly go on to the next agenda item which I think might be new still. Just to know that, you know, well, once the votes come in, we'll review them and then we'll be able to, you know, move forward from there. Again, if if any of these recommendations come back, particularly with you know, that funding order recommendation, if it's not approved, we'll take that back to values in funding and then make a modified recommendation back to the board at a subsequent board meeting.
Man, I just have a question around that. So if that if that is voted no does that stop you guys from moving anything forward?
You know, yeah, thanks for asking know if we will still be I mean, ideally, when we release our local applications we'd like to be able to communicate at that time. Hey, this is the order of in which you know again for CUC bonus that we would intend to allocate funding to COC bonus projects. I guess that's a you know, if I guess what would stop us is if the evaluation criteria recommendation is not move forward. I guess, if also the recommendation on which projects we want to consider application for are not approved. That could also impact us might have to depends on which recommendation is not approved and may or may not impact us. Okay, hopefully it won't. But we'll, we'll cross that bridge if we get to it, I guess. And I mean, I may be able to circle back by the end of this meeting as well. And you know, the outcome of the vote,
okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. Yes, thank you. All right. And so as Amanda mentioned, the link is in the chat and we will move on to the next agenda item, which is another one that's going to require a vote. And I'll turn it back to you again, Amanda.
All right. You and I can see the votes for that though. What we just went over are coming into folks for that. Alright, let me share my screen again. Okay. So this is again, gonna be another recommendation. This is hopefully a little bit more straightforward, a little fewer parts to it. So there's just one item that the board is going to be asked to vote on at the end of this and that is the recommendation regarding transfer, the domestic violence Rapid Rehousing grant. So there's some again, the protocol, the way that we've done this in the past is that when we get to this vote, which I'll remind you of again, we entered has to do with the essentially an award of COC funding. Our protocol has been the only non COC funded agencies vote. Again, I will go over that again when we when we get to that. So the recommendation is that the COC board approve, transferring, COC domestic violence Rapid Rehousing grants that is currently held by access that it be transferred to neighborhood legal services. So just by way of some background in early 2023. Hand and access had some conversations about some new project funding that access was awarded in 2021. Competition and domestic violence. Rapid Rehousing grant that access was just having some challenges. Getting off the ground. Through the conversations that we had with the agency. It really was determined that the best steps was to identify a new agency to transfer those funds to and the COC board approved that plan in March as well. So key to note that there are no clients currently being served by this grant. There have been no staff hired by the grant. So there's no no individuals whose housing would be at risk or individuals whose employment would be at risk through the the transferring of this grant. The money has essentially been there just not not being used. So the Board approved the plan to identify a new agency to transfer this grant to. So in April, we released an application for the funds it's about $320,000 to provide 15 units of rapid rehousing we released an application we had an informational webinar. We received one application neighborhood Legal Services of Michigan was the only application that we received for the funds. Our review committee reviewed and scored the application and they did have a score of 86.6% overall in their application. And so the review committee just as an outcome of the review and the discussion of it is recommending that the funds be transferred to NLS. So just some rationale, so analyst has experienced administering Rapid Rehousing COC Rapid Rehousing, in particular they have for several years. They also have experience with a COC funded domestic violence grants, domestic violence bonus grants, they have experience serving that population. The agency has experienced implementing a comparable database which is a key reporting requirement for projects that receive domestic violence funding, and the agency's experience with their comparable database as well as their readiness to be able to kind of get this project off the ground quickly was it was a key component of our review process. That was something that we really wanted to see to be able to kind of get these funds going as quickly as possible, and they were able to demonstrate that in their application. So if this recommendation is approved, again, you're gonna get a link in the chat and you can vote yes no or abstain. If it's approved, the kind of immediate next steps is at hand will work with all of the parties involved access, NLS and HUD to hopefully move forward this grant transfer. big caveat to that so you can see on the bottom of that slide, HUD has recently communicated that there is a moratorium on Grant transfers. Our local field office it has is working with us as it relates to the grant transfer for the handling agency grants. So that is still going forward. If this moratorium does not lift within the coming weeks, which we have also heard may be happening that that had will, you know, again, lift this moratorium, but if it does not in the coming weeks, we may need to look at some other options as it relates to this domestic violence branch which may include reallocating it in this year's competition. So not really able to give more details at this point on that because it's really all going to depend on the guidance we get from HUD. If we do need to kind of do a little bit of a different strategy there will no final decisions will be made on that until it comes back to the COC board. We are hopeful though that we can still move forward with this grant transfer because doing so would allow these funds to get into play you know this summer still and hopefully we can get some programming off the ground within the next several months. So just wanted to put that caveat out there we learned about that moratorium a few weeks ago while we were, you know already in the process of this whole review process. So it kind of threw us a little bit for a loop. So we're going to kind of have to take those steps as they come. But just wanted to mention that Yes. Amy?
Just for those of us. Thanks. Sorry, how can or I'm confused as to what like I know what a grant transfer is. We've explained that well. But when you talk about like that we may not be able to do it because of this moratorium. Yeah, um, and you say reallocate, like remind us what that is. Yeah, sorry.
I'm just throwing things out there. So, commission is where and the board will be hearing more about this. So this is your sneak peek on what reallocation is. There a reallocation is when the COC takes currently existing grant of which the access grant is is currently existing. They've executed the grant agreement they just have not started implementing the programming. So the COC can take funding from an existing grants and essentially, de fund that program and put that funding towards a new grant a new program. So there's a lot of ways a COC could do this. You could reduce funding for a rapid rehousing grant and put it towards new PSH or reduce new PSH and put it towards new Rapid Rehousing. Would I guess I think what I'm trying to communicate here is sort of a plan B could be that we take the access grant reallocate it in this year's competition towards a new project which would be held by NLS because they have essentially been approved to receive the funding. It would be a quote unquote, new project for them and it would have to go through the competition cycle so funding would not be available until fall of 2024 until HUD makes funding announcements because it would be sort of included in as a new project in the competition cycle. That's really what we were hoping to avoid by this grant transfer because we wanted to be able to get these funds in operation this summer still, quite frankly, because these are grant funds that have been within our CFC that we just have not been able to find so we don't really want to wait another year if we don't have to.
Yeah, yeah, that makes sense. And it would avoid either of those both. Like you said the grant transfer would be easier, but are like we wouldn't have to wait till fall 24 to get the funds is really what that says. And but but both of these in both of these situations, we are not the funds are not being recaptured. Correct.
So there may so it looks like there will be so technically access has had now two grants their 2021 Grant, fy 2021 Point and their FY 2022 grant. So we would be transferring their FY 2022 grant their FY 21 grant will need to be recaptured because it is now essentially it's too old. We can't transfer. So there is there's going to be some funding that will end up being recaptured simply because we can't transfer both of the grants and so HUD would have to transfer the most current one, which is the 2022 grant, the one that was awarded just recently. It's part of this has to do with sort of the timing of how these funding cycles, these funding cycles work and we talked this all through with the local field office as well and this is the guidance that we've gotten from them
thanks for a deep dive into helping us understand
Yeah, I know it is. is a little complicated. Any other Yeah. Any other questions that can help answer on that one. Again, at the end of the day, what we are we are hopeful that within the coming weeks that this moratorium on the grant transfer will be lifted. We've heard from the local field office that they are hopeful it will be lifted as well. So we will certainly keep the board apprised of what happens there. But really, again, the recommendation is that's the access grant be transferred to neighborhood legal services.
Okay, thank you, Amanda. So this needs a motion and support, and then we'll move on. You see, Amanda has posted the names of our board members who are eligible to vote on this one, but we still need the motion and anyone can provide that if you're a board member so I'm looking for a motion to accept the Divi Rapid Rehousing grant transfer recommendation. I will set the motion for the Divi Rapid Rehousing grant transfer. Hi Deseret. Thank you second. Thank you, Regina. It's moved and supported. And that means that we can launch into vote Amanda is that yeah, that is the
link in the chat. Yes, I just want to shout out to Deseret who was one of our reviewers. So thank you for her work on that as well as Jennifer was also and Jeremy we're all on this call and I think I'm missing in page. We have a great great review team and I think I'm missing someone else as well. So I apologize. My brain. Alright. So yeah, so that please take a moment to vote by it via that link as well. That is what I have. We can leave that link active so folks can continue to go in and vote but that is what I had and so going to and that's what I have for now. Thank you all for this. I know that was a lot.
Right. Thank you so much, Amanda. Thank you folks. We're almost at our break point. And so I crave your continued attention we have one more agenda item which is Denise Scott Ashton, coming to us with a conversation around system performance measures Denise Europe.
Thank you, Phil. Yeah. First of all, let me get myself together here and thank you Chelsea for bringing up the slides and everything. A forewarning. If you hear like, sirens or anything, I live right next door to the fire department. And so that's the issue. Okay, so just want to warn you. So I want to go ahead and get started with the SPM presentation. So we'll be going over the SPM summary. Just given a little bit of background here as well as the Measures Overview and analysis and next steps. Next slide. Alright, so a little bit of background about the SP names the SPN report is a regulatory report that provides a summary and year to year comparison of system wide reports averages and medians related to the seven measures of performance places if this particular emphasis on three of the measures, which includes the length of time homeless persons remain homeless, successful placement and and we check tension of housing and then the returns to homelessness SPM provide CoCs with the look at the overall system functioning as well as used by HUD and the CLC to gauge progress measures and data is used to help guide decision making the process that's so we did submit the SPM to HUD in February of 2023. And the reporting period is October through September. Next slide. All right. And so as I mentioned earlier seven, there are seven measures. The seven measures also include sub measures there. So I want to talk a little bit about this. The screen you see here the little I don't know picture of whatever you see there. So one the measure one is to reduce the length of time people experience homelessness, and then measure to us reduce the number of people who return to homeless it is and measure three is to reduce overall numbers of homeless people who experience homelessness. Four is the increase in income for persons served by CLC funded programs. And the five is to reduce the number of people experiencing homelessness for the first time. Six is ending and preventing homelessness for people served in category three. However, HUD does not require us to report on this measure. Measure seven is housing outcomes and this is to increase the number of people who who have successful placements from street outreach, emergency shelter or transitional housing, rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing. Some of the measures also include only specific types of programs, but a programs inclusion and the measure is not dependent on how it's fine except for measure four which only looks at the COC funded programs. So as you see in the chart here that measures are intended to work together to reduce an end homelessness and also help people to become quickly and stately house. Next slide. So now I'm going to get into a little bit of the data that we had that we submitted to highlighting everything. So measure one and this as you can see as measure one eight on the screen. We also have measure one B that falls under measure one so this is the length of stay and days. And what this measure looks at is the average and median length of stay and it breaks it up into a couple of different categories, which is the average and medium for Emergency, emergency shelter and safe haven and then the emergency shelter safe haven and transitional. I want to talk to your attention the highlight here what the highlight is is the goal what of what hunt looks at it, so they want the measure to go down. And then in this particular measure, it looks at the average length of time for ES safe haven and transitional housing. And so as you can see the change from 2122 remained the same as last year and the rest of the measures vehicle. So I want to talk a little bit about the impacts and everything. So usually before I bring this to the board, we discuss it at the performance evaluation committee. And you know, I reveal the data and this is how we come up with the impacts. So some of the impacts of measure one and Chelsea you can actually go to measure two so you guys can see it. There's nothing really there to call out except for you know who I was looking for. I'm sorry, not measured to one measure one A is one B, but it's looking for, for this goal to go down. So a little bit of the impacts that we found was housing resources are not readily available. Specifically for larger families. Hotel Motel programs have long left the stays. And then this also included emergency shelter programs at high utilization rates, which affected the length of time homelessness to the homeless, to housing, I'm sorry. And then ADATs were not able to quickly find housing due to lack of resources. Also, there was inflation of resources such as daycare and other support services. So there was a scarcity and resources that was available. All right, next slide. All right. So we'll talk a little bit about metric tool here. Metric tool that again, the goal is to go down and what specifically looks at as the returns to homelessness, what six months or less or six months to 12 months. Right and so we did you know better there than last year for the six months? Well, we remained the same for the six to 12 months. Some of this included some of the impacts included data quality cleanup efforts. So we do you know, once we get into SPM season we do go through a process of cleaning up data to make sure everything is properly reported to HUD and everything so that was one of the impacts there. In the UK clients were able to remain house less than six months at an incline and within six to 12 months timeframe at the same rate from the previous year due to provincial funding as well as the effects of COVID-19 such as eviction moratorium. So and then you'll see in the 13 mile 24 miles that went up a bit and then the cumulative return within two years that went up a bit. So that was one of the causes. There was the eviction moratorium had ended. And with the rapid down of the Sierra program last year, resources were no longer available. So cases that were backed up in court were now being reviewed. And this resulted in many people becoming homelessness homeless. So that was the reason for the third team through two year data. They're all right and then we can go to the next slide. All right, so this slide this is my my pain Chow here because of the Greathouse situation the grayed out information and I just want to make sure that you guys understand why it's grayed out right. So, it does not require for us to report on on shelter account if we did not conduct an on a shelter account. So this is why this is grayed out. So the information here is carried from a previous year. Right. And so the first one here you see the information for fiscal year 2020 was carried over to from 2009 teen and that was 86 and then in 2019 it was a polar vortex. Right and so that wasn't even a real a true look at our unsheltered count because there was pop up shelters that happened that year. And then there was also committee sent out to get people to try to bring them into the shelters and everything to get them out of the weather. So anyway, so as you see here, we we didn't go up except for and the annual annual transitional transitional house and total. So that was the only one that we went down and again for the goal HUD looks at the total PIT count which includes your sheltered and unsheltered and then the total shelter pick out as well as the total unsheltered pay account. So as you see here, it looked like it went up for the total unsheltered 135% Again, does not require us to report on that because we did not
we did not didn't duck the point in time about in the previous year. So what do you see this tool to keep in mind that this is actually this is more of a reflection of our community prior to like the fall of the impacts of the polar vortex and COVID-19. This is actually what our shelter Council looked like prior to that. So it's 2019 again, it was the polar vortex and 2020 We did it was not a mandate that we do on shelter count so we didn't and and 2021 We received a waiver to do our unsheltered count due to COVID 19 and PACs. And then again like I said 2022 is more of a reflection, a true reflection of our community. All right, and you can go to the next slide. All right. And so I think I'm asking myself Okay, so let's get into the income. So the income is a measure for and again, they look for this to go up and what has specifically looks at and it's not the data piece that they look at here. What they look at is it but it wouldn't surprise me if they come up with this later on for the collaborative application. What they look at here like for the collaborative application is the the strategy that our community has right like what is the strategy of increasing income and non cash benefits and so forth, so forth and so on. I may have to make it into that a little bit later. But I just wanted to let you guys know here so we did increase the income for stairs. And I believe that that has heavily to do with us really going to bat throughout the year to encourage the agencies to make sure that they're putting in the SSI and SSDI information that clients get, you know, that's in the permanent supportive housing programs. And again, like I said they were they're looking forward to go up this year for the increased income. We did a little bit better However, it's still in the negative right? We actually want it to appear like we have the green here with the stairs, increasing income and employment income and everything and then we did a little bit worse here what the levers increasing non employment. So those are things that we want to keep in mind. Again, this measure one of the impacts. Here this measure is limited to COC funded programs only right so it's not really looking at your emergency shelter programs. It's looking at, again, your COC funded program so we really don't have a full picture when it comes to this report. Another one of the impacts here that takes a while for people to apply for and receive benefits. Employment and Training programs also have a long process for clients to get into and then we you know, we may also see an increase of again like I said earlier increase where the stairs and everything is because that we really pretty heavily promote provide us with the SSI and SSDI information in there every January into the system. All right and then next slide. We will go over measure five impacts and data so this is the first time homelessness homeless lots for us to go down in this measure. And it looks at the program types of emergency shelter safe haven transitional housing and permanent housing. So you guys know this is a big, it's a big increase here, right? This is a large increase. And again, this has still has to do with COVID-19 because COVID-19 We had to you know, basically condense beds and everything we had to you know, do everything so that brought our first time home was down from the you know, in the system or whatever that we could capture. And then another thing is more people you know, we're losing how you know losing jobs because, you know, losing jobs. Because of the pandemic as well. Another thing was there was the effects of COVID and the COVID resources which came into play. So, what happened here was we had an increase in Hotel Motel, which actually increased our bank accounts and everything so you were able to see more people we were able to take more people in so that's why you will see the big jump here, as well as scores began to go through their backlog and you know, actually if they people unfortunately, as we saw in an earlier measure, so this this also reflects that the community is getting back to where we were pre COVID, which you guys may have seen and the data from 2021 state of homelessness report. We reported on at the end of the information that starting between the TSR and we get back right sighs All right, next slide. All right, so let's talk about metrics seven here. The goal is for us to go up in this metric and it looks for the housing outcomes the exiting from street outreach to positive housing destination and positive housing destination and this section could include emergency shelters right so you from street outreach to emergency shelter, and then it also looks at the exiting from emergency shelter, transitional housing, Rapid Rehousing, so as safe havens or permanent destination, and that's the one that looks at and then remaining and or exiting to permanent housing. So we always pretty much stay stable with the remain and are exiting. So that's a that's a good thing. You almost can't get better than 99 and I mean 100 You know we can shoot for but that's actually really, really good. The exiting to permanent destinations we also increase there by 3%. So some of the impacts on the street outreach as to why it went down and shelters may have been full which you know, sorry about that which may have taken that that metric down, and then high utilization rates and longer stays which affected the length of time and to whole housing. Also, we saw people returning to homelessness due to evictions, as well as some people may not have wanted to enter shelters because they felt safer outside. You know, they didn't want to they were still afraid of COVID didn't want to become you know, due to be in a close quarters. And some some people you know, after, like I said, I'm talking to the some of the people in the performance and evaluation committee that actually worked with clients some clients, so like it's too much responsibility to be indoors. So the next slide there. All right, so let's talk about next steps. So the performance and evaluation committee one of the things that we look at that we're gonna look at do one is identify him for measures to review specific measures to review and review the SPM dashboard data that's on a quarterly basis and that's on our website. If you guys want to ever review that to see where we are on a monthly basis that is usually updated every month around the 15th. Also evaluating specific measures at project level during the competition, the data quality piece that we are going to be looking at is tighten up our quarterly audit reports and revise it as necessary as well as review the assessed system performance. Like I said earlier, the system performance dashboard monthly and that would be on you know my site is like looking at it on a monthly basis and in the city of Detroit. They are also they also required the providers to do quarterly benchmarks and so that will also help with data cleanup and everything like that. What I don't have on here, but I think that the community should think about is like really looking at the system performance measures to like I said earlier, help guide decisions, right. So I think that's important there but that's that's I'm off my soapbox there. Do I have any questions or anything?
That's a ton of data. Denise, thank you for walking through with us. And I guess I see some positive and some negative. And like you say, in the space of some of the negative it appears that some of the negative is reflective of what we look like before COVID When people were coming out for services therefore accessing the system as someone experiencing homelessness versus during COVID where people were trying to just hunker down wherever they are good or bad to just try to get through COVID That's kind of what I'm taking away from some of this data that you're sharing. Thank you.
Anything else?
And thank you, Amanda, for popping the SPM links in there.
Okay, thank you. And folks, yeah, this is on the hand website. Okay. All of this information and more is on the hand website. So that you guys could take your look at it over and over and over again. As we try to ponder what else we need to do, to give people opportunities to come in and get out of our system in a way that provides them with housing and keeps them stable. Thank you so much for the data. And so folks, we're at that point where we can take a stretch break it is just a stretch break. I encourage you to take your stretch break put yourselves on mute, and it'll be just a five minute break, please. So we'll be back at four Golly 408 And if we do that, we'll be running just a little bit behind. Thank you very much. Well, we'll take a