Detroit Continuum of Care (CoC) Board of Directors
8:35PM May 6, 2024
Speakers:
Taura Brown
Keywords:
committee
recommendation
coc
board
vote
project
policy
move
clc
agency
questions
board members
shelter
staff
people
cam
year
recommended
meeting
governance
To move to the next we're going to ask everyone please, to prepare yourself for announcements. You've announced announcements. Yeah, I see. Yes. I see Mr. Berg on the call. And she is going to be up for our announcements at 205.
Hi, yes. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Amanda with hand. So this is just a real quick announcement. At the April board meeting, the Board voted for the representative from the board to the performance and evaluation committee. You may recall Tasha gray led that process in my stead and just wanted to let everyone know that Lydia Goddard was the individual who was elected to be the COC board rep, to performance and evaluation. So just wanted to circle back on that. And thank you for the time that you took for that process.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Also now announcements from Chelsea.
Yes, thank you. So I just wanted to go ahead and say Congratulations to Dr. Jerrica. Curley, for winning the cold Cerci as well as when it got her who won the at large Murphy, can I get a virtual round of applause or congratulations in the chat. And also, if Dr. G or Lydia, if you guys want to say a few remarks, then feel free to pop it in the chat. And then the next announcement is about a board member membership updates. So Deseret, our Scott was elected to the Member at Large seats from the city of Detroit. And so New James, who was appointed from Detroit, Wayne integrated health network has resigned, and we wish them well on very young and diverse. So the last update for me, will be for the government charter. So the government's charter Review Committee has made convening weekly since March. As we progress through the Charter, the group has realized the need to adjust the timeline. Originally, the final draft of the charter was tentatively scheduled to be released and voted after the July general membership meeting. However, as discussed in previous meetings, there are additional processes underway such as the strategic planning process that needs to be properly reviewed based on the recommendations that came from it. Also, the review committee is interested in taking a more holistic review of the charter, rather than looking at chances bit by bit. Therefore, the review committee voted to extend the timeline for what is reasonable to complete a holistic review and write about the charter. The goal is to complete the work and have the vote take place at the September general membership meeting. All other dates, including the public comment period will shift accordingly. We will continue to provide updates as the process continues. And that will be all for me. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Chelsea. I know that the governance charter review has been on our agenda for many months now. We've weighed in many times. And that committee is working very hard. And they are meeting weekly to continue their conversations and they have discussions. And they will bring back information to this body as they move through through the work. We will be hearing a little more about some recommendations a little later in today's meeting. Thank you, Chelsea for the timeline update. We want you to spend a couple of moments. Looking at the agenda. If you are a board member you have already received that. Our hope is that you have reviewed it. But we still want to give you just a couple of seconds and it's just seconds. We have a really full meeting today. And we want to give all of our presenters enough time to walk through their documents. For us. The Consent Agenda is a consent item. So as we move forward if there's anyone who would like to make a motion that you can do that at any moment.
So moved. Dr. Curly.
Do we have a second? Thank you, Dr. Curly. A second. Alan Roseto. Thank you very much appreciate you. So it has been properly moved and seconded that we accept our April board meeting minutes as presented before us. If you are a board member, please do Do the poll that is in front of you only board members please.
As a disclaimer, I am having some computer difficulties, if at any time Good afternoon, Tara, if at any time I lose conductivity, your vice chair will assume facilitation responsibilities.
Okay, as the board members vote for the consent agenda, we can go ahead and move through agenda. Thank
you very much, Chelsea. First up on our agenda for today, most of you have had an opportunity to meet Mr. Allen, Mr. Allen was introduced to us, I believe, two months ago, I'm not really sure. But it's been several months he has been providing us recommendations and guidance. Mr. Allen is an attorney who specializes in the area of law that we need guidance. And we appreciate him again, for meeting with us today to go over to walk us through the recommendations that he has made. Any recommendations that you see here today, we'll go through the governance charter, come in. We are sharing these to the board, of course, because of transparency, and we want to all be on the same page. But our governance charter review team or committee will go through things even further. And because their recommendation is the rec recommendation that we will be voting on when we vote in September. So no further ado, we're going to introduce you again to Mr. Jad out. Well,
thank you, Chair Morgan. And good afternoon, everyone. Again, I know you have a packed agenda and lots to accomplish today. So I will be really brief with these recommendations. Basically, just to sort of set an overall structure for what I did, you can look at the changes that are in my draft under four categories. First of all, you can look at simple typos that I found, which are few, but I changed them as I went through, you can look at another category being internal inconsistencies in the document. That means where one section of the document may not agree with another section in terms of specifics, it may be contradictory, or inconsistent. And I took where I found those and reconciled them as best I could. Subject of course, to your continuing review. The next overarching type of edit that I did was ambiguity in edits, where I looked at a word or phrase and it appeared to me that it left substantial room for interpretation. And in order to have greater precision in the document, I edited to perhaps choose a more specific or more descriptive word or phrase to to modify or eliminate the ambiguity. next and final. And there were very, very few of these were substantive policy edits, things that I know were of concern and really needed to be addressed. And there were only a couple of those that I want to focus on today. If there are questions about the typos and the internal inconsistencies, the ambiguities I can address those either at the end here in a little q&a or in the chat, but I just want to kind of highlight a couple of high level substantive changes that were made. And I don't know if Chelsea maybe can share the document, but I'm looking at page 21. And page 22 of the document that I have that I sent back, I think most of you have. And the first area is in the area of the the choosing or selectors selection of elected members. And I wanted to clarify in that section. seemed to me that you really you had the section kind of contemplated a vote, which I know will occur but it actually is a multi faceted process that sort of starts With the idea that there will be a call for nominations at one meeting, and then a sort of a vetting, and a review of those nominations between two meetings, culminating with a vote on nominations at a second meeting. So I've sort of tried to lay that out a little more clearly. So that you can see that elections don't just happen in a snap at one meeting. But there's actually a process that's established to do that over a couple of different meetings.
can I do for one second? Thank you. I was just going to ask Chelsea to share, the link is in your chat. I wanted to make sure everyone was able to follow along with you, John. And thanks, I seems like we're on we're on point now. So please continue. Great.
So that that is really the first place where I really want to call out a change that was made. The second area there that I want to call out to you for special attention today is that page 22 of this document where we talk about removal and 10 removal from the board. And there are three ways actually there are three ways that removal can occur. One is the attendance policy and the removal for non attendance. And that's sort of treated separately from the other two ways which are with or without cause removal. So let me start with the attendance policy. The document itself lays out how many excused and unexcused absences a member is entitled to have before they are considered to delinquent in their obligation to attend. What I did here was, and I will say it is a pretty liberal attendance policy. For an organization that has, I believe, six or a board that has six official meetings in a year. This policy as it stands permits for a total of five excused and unexcused absences. And to me, that might be something that your committee may want to review a little further because when you have only six meetings, and I know that there are other meetings that are called in between but six meetings that are official every year, I'm told, if you have a total of five, excused or unexcused, you've got a board member that potentially only comes to you and participates one out of those six meetings, before there is an attendance policy issue. So consider that food for thought. But what I did do affirmatively was to add here that the attendance policy removal for non attendance would be subject to a vote of the board. And that it is a vote that is to occur by a majority of the meeting of those present at a meeting where a quorum is is in effect at the meeting. There is also excuse permitted, if you fallen off to the board chair, there is an excused absence policy. And I added that the excuse must be for good cause, which seems common sense. But it's good to stay to the next area where board members can be removed as with or without cause. And your prior, your prior or existing for charter says that this removal is only with cause. That is there are times when perhaps without causes appropriate. And so I have added that in there subject to your ongoing discussions. But what you should know is that that with or without cause is subject to a three quarter vote of the continuum of care boards, then serving members. So 75% or three quarters of the of the enrolled members of the board, it's a pretty high standard to attain and removing somebody either with or without cause is a pretty heavy lift to get 75% of the board to agree on things like that. And if you do have 75% of the board agreeing, it seems to me then there is probably a pretty good reason to remove someone to begin with. So there's that I have also added one a definition of for cause I supplemented it because it was there in the beginning, but I've supplemented it to add the following, engaging in any intimidating harassing discriminatory, abusive, derogatory speech or actions towards other board members or community members in the meetings, digital communications or other public forums, or continuum of care spaces. And then I needed a definition of harassment, that suggests that it is a communication or conduct that a reasonable person in the individual circumstances would find unwelcome, intimidating, hostile, threatening, violent, abusive, or offensive, particularly where it involves or relates to a person's gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, other protected categories, or their personal background or experience. I did add also that at the discretion of the chair, member would be recognized to address the board regarding that person's removal. And that that ability to address could be either in person or in writing, again, at the discretion of the chair. So those are areas I think, where there is, you know, at least from my perspective, been some some policy put in place here. And I would add that the policy is really consistent with your code of conduct, basically taking some of the language directly out of your code of conduct and saying that it is grounds for removal to remove somebody when they have breached these provisions of the code of conduct. So that's basically what I have for you, I'd be happy to take any questions that you have about some of the other edits that I have, or the ones that we discussed.
Thank you, John, for the presentation. Again, just so everyone will know, all of these recommendations are going to be shared with the governance charter review, and I may be calling their name wrong review team committee, but the group that meets every Tuesday, they will have an opportunity to go through these and for discussion, and to include them if they feel free to add any recommendations that they bring back to the body.
Thank you, John. See,
I have a question for John. My hand was raised. I
don't know if you can see how many people here. I did not see a tariff? Forgive me. Yeah, it's a lot of
people here. I do have a question. I was reading the code of conduct. And there is a section, the section that you just reviewed, about discussing personal information in public spaces. And in meetings. Some of us are in other public spaces where these conversations come up. Like right now I am having a conversation. And part of it was public, had another meeting with Michigan, about funding of an organization right now to send volunteer in the CLC. And it was a project that they're working on Long story short, they were given $11 million. I don't agree with it, and several people don't agree with it. And we've been discussing it and all the reasons why we don't agree with it. Those meetings are public, that information is valuable. I'm gonna say what I'm gonna say, however, it seems like it what he's saying is, I can't have that conversation and be on the board with the CLC Is that not correct?
I think that the policy that I just read is not restrictive of communication, but it is that it is prescriptive above the way that communication is to take place. In other words, if a person is going to communicate, they need to do it in a respectful manner. That is non threatening, and that is not abusive to anyone. I don't see that that would necessarily prescribe anybody from talking publicly in another forum.
No, not only that, but it was a person and information it has a perspective
it understand the governance charter goes to commune vacation in this forum on this. Okay. And when it basically says when we are together as a group or when we're doing our work together, this is how we are going to communicate or this is how we're going to refrain from communicating and acting and people that don't abide by those norms within our space here. You know, there is ascension for that
they Thank you. Thank you, Tara for the question. Thank you, Mr. Allen, for your response, Tara, it's interesting that you brought up the code of conduct, because that is another document that we're going to be walking through. So you'll hear more about that as well, in the ensuing months to come ahead. If there are no other FYI, maybe missing a hand, like Tara said, and quite a few people here, so hopefully, I haven't missed any other hands, I don't see them. For that reason, we will move forward. And we will turn it over to Executive Director and Tasha gray is going to talk to us about governance governance charter part two. Okay.
Hi, everyone that has known. I'm assuming that you all can, I'm going to start sharing my screen if for some reason, you're not able to see, please let me know. And I will do my best to adjust that. So I want to talk with you all, as John has just shared with us some changes related to the governance charter that he spoke about. There's also some parallel processes that are going on. And I think Chelsea mentioned that when she spoke earlier about some of the things that are happening with our strategic plan that will have an impact on our governance charter. And for that reason, there's, the committee has decided that they need some more time to kind of work through these things. So in parallel, is basically a conversation that was started within the strategic planning space. And that's now moving to the governance charter spaces, governance, charter review space. And so I want to talk to you all about that. Let me see. So I'm going to start with this is all really related to the CLC committees. And the need to change some committees, maybe update date, modified some committees based on what we currently need in our system, and then also what we are anticipating upon the release of the strategic plans. So I'll start with giving you all some background information, how these recommendations came to be. Then talk about the proposed new committee structure, which have been shared with the strategic planning committee when they were convening also recently shared with the governance charter committee. And so now we're coming to you. And there's there's some additional steps as well. So, and the strategic planning Oversight Committee, asked Hans to come to them with some recommendations on what committees would really be needed in order for us to move forward the work of the strategic plan, kind of taking a look at what we already have in play. And then, based on our knowledge of what, what we were anticipating to come from out of the strategic plan and making some recommendations. So hanging around in November of 2023, provided some recommendations to the Strategic Planning Committee based on that request. And at that time, we didn't even have a draft of the strategic plan. All we had was the report, the interim report where they had done a lot of focus groups with our community, and things of that sort. And so we knew what some of the things people wanted to see based on those focus groups, but we didn't have a draft yet. And so we made some recommendations based on that interim report. We were then asked to come back with a recommendation because as you all know, in order to have committees, there has to be staffing and support for those committees, many of which had support committees, but we also do have other partners like the city of Detroit and VA that also support some of those committees as well. And so from hands perspective, we were asked to give some recommendations what what our capacity was to be able to staff committees, recognizing that we may have to maybe add some committees remove some committees change and modify some committees. So in January of 2024, earlier this year, we came back to the strategic planning oversight committee and made some recommendations to that committee based on our staffing capacity. So all of that I will be sharing with you all during this discussion. I do know that those recommendations that we made in January in terms of our staffing capacity, are were also put in the final two Right after the strategic plan and we're approved by the Strategic Planning Committee oversight committee, so when that is released, you will see the recommendations in terms of hand staffing, staffing capacity. I'm also around that time the strategic planning oversight committee. we're wrestling with an idea around establishing funders council or interagency council comprised the funders who would really be working together to align their funding resources, align their policies and their procedures to support the goals of the strategic plan and effectively move the continuum forward. That funders Council will be consisting of leadership from different funders. And the goal, again, is really to streamline and align. And so the city of Detroit, once the strategic planning oversight committee accepted, or made a decision regarding the funders Council, the city of Detroit agreed to staff that funders Council, so I want to attend it'll take them. All right. Um, so also should be noted that in the final draft of the strategic plan, in addition to the inter agency funders council that we that I just mentioned, there were also a couple of other committees that were mentioned, one being a racial equity committee that will focus on advancing the goals of equity within our continuum of care. From a policy standpoint, performance standpoint, things of that sort. Advocacy Committee was also mentioned in there. However, it was more of a grassroots level kind of advocacy. And so not necessarily a committee that will be staffed by an entity within the COC. But encouraging grassroots advocacy, advocacy, and then not mentioned in here, but knowing that we need to get that strategic plan off the ground, we, we being hand made a recommendation that there is also an ad hoc implementation committee that can help us really start turning the wheels and making sure that that document doesn't just sit, but is actually put into implement a mutation. So it would be a temporary committee to make sure the structure is in place, things are moving forward. And then it would disband in its work would be taken up by other committees, the CLC board, the funders, Council, you name it. So I'm only going to go over this briefly, I don't want you all to focus too much on this because this is the recommendation that was made in November of 2023. It has since changed, but I'm just giving this to you for background. So this is a list of a couple of things, some of the CLC committees that are recognized in our continuum of care. Also, some of what we were anticipating might be committees coming out as a strategic plan. Again, remember that this recommendation was made before we have the draft strategic plan. And so we just had to infer some things from the interim report. And so we put together a list that we infer from the interim report of strategic planning committees. We also have some committees that are focused specifically on people with lived experience and homelessness and so they are no pay to hear. We have several workgroups. These work groups are not necessarily defined in the CLC governance charter. But these are in operation and typically these workgroups are staffed and led by funders, such as the city of Detroit. Hand staff, some of these work groups of VA staff, some of these work groups. And then also these work groups typically are only open to those who are receiving funding for that particular area. So for example, where you see a shelter work group, which is staffed by the city, typically that work group is open to shelters that are being funded by the city of Detroit. Lastly, we have some consort groups. And so these cops are groups are really like our binding lists, groups in case a case concert groups, and so these groups again are not mentioned in the strategic plan. Mainly they are led by funders of these various types of programs. And these are really population specific with the exception of moving up. I'm not mentioned on here is some of our subcommittees that we have, you don't see any ad hoc committees that are mentioned on here. And then you also don't see some of the other committees that
that the funders have been leading, for example, there are a number of cam committees, that happened, probably good seven to 10 Different cam committees in there, they are not listed on here, but they do continue to move the work forward. And we found those to be necessary. Particular for hand as the cam lead, we found some of those to be necessary as we work with our cam implementing partners. So this, it is color coded in these recommendations, you know, Green was either to keep an ADD, there were a couple of that we weren't unsure about. But after I went back, we went back and looked at the governance charter, these aren't in the governance charter anyway. So we don't need to be concerned about those. And then we had a couple of that we have listed as at that time, we're moving. I will note here that the workgroups again, after going back and looking at the governance charter are not defined in the governance charter anyways. And so this was probably an era to list them in as being removed, because they're not mentioned in the governance charter to begin with. So that was the recommendations in November 2023, before we received the final draft of the report. As I mentioned to you all, we also made a recommendation on staffing capacity for hands on really how many committees it was realistic for us, given our resources to be able to staff. And so that recommendation went to the spot committee in January of 2024, and was put into the final draft of was approved and put in the final draft of the strategic plan. And so we had to take a look at our work. And different areas of our work. As we're you know, we've played many roles within the CLC system. This is Part work, it's particularly looking at our role as the CLC Li, and really just COC lead it and I will say the collaborative applicant. And so what we came, we're able to kind of come up with is recognizing one that we need to staff committees, but also that there's going to be additional work that we will probably have to take on as a result of strategic planning, right. So we have all of these ideas and goals that are in a strategic plan, but there actually has to be some body that is doing the work, right. And so recognizing that some of that work would also fall into hand. And so we built in some time, as best as we can. What you do need to remember is that this is really the staffing resources that we have largely come from our COC planning dollars, which have already been funded, so we're not getting additional resources. So we have to move resources around as best as possible to be able to accommodate this additional workflow. And so essentially, what we're saying here is that we can use about 25% of our COC team, time to staff committees and additional 17% of our CLC team's time to do strategic planning work. In the past, it was about the same number, but all of that was dedicated to staff and committee. And now we have to split that up a little bit so that it's a share between staffing committees and strategic planning work. So based on some number crunching, what we were able to come up with is that comfortably, can can staff about six to nine committees, six on the low end, and nine on the high end, recognize that some committees fluctuate in their intensity, and things of that sort. So some of those more intense committees. If we're always having intense committees, then it's probably more likely that we can start to staff six, but if we do have some support and things that are sort more likely to pick them about not, so that is the range. So I'm going to go over the proposed structure, and I will also in a chart. So I'll show you the chart, but I wanted to show you how we arrived at some of these recommendations before I show you the chart. And so we took a look at the strategic plan again, the draft strategic plan, we were able to look at it. Look at it now. Now that we have that draft strategic plan, and really, really look at the recommendations that we had made in November, and see if there needed to be changes based on now having a final draft of the strategic plan. And so within the strategic plan, there are eight, I believe, eight areas of work or action areas, I believe, is what they're being called to, for the strategic plan. And so we looked at all of those eight areas. And we began to kind of plugging in and identify where we already have committees that are in play, that can help support and move forward that that particular action area. So we divided it up into strategy, meaning who's going to come up and develop the strategy, you know, we have goals, we have to ask, but you actually have to develop a strategy to kind of move it forward, right. And so we divided it up into strategy. And then we also took a look at some of like implementations, because it might not those who are developing the strategy might not also be the ones that are responsible for doing implementation, and or consulting, meaning getting feedback and input. So you'll see the eight areas here, this light list, the first five, and then this next slide list the next eight. And so based on that, we were able to identify the committees that are currently in play. Also those committees that are in the draft strategic plan, remember I showed this slide before about there's a racial equity committee, funders Council, things of that sort. So we were are we were able to really take a look at action area by action airy committee by committee and in kind of slack to me and align them where they made sense. So that is that I won't walk through all of this because I don't want to bore you. And I'm also assuming that you all may have had a chance to review this prior to the meeting. So what I will show you is a quick summary of our updated recommendations, which are we share with the governance charter review committee in April. So you can see here that there, these are the CLC committees, we are recommending removing one of the CLC committees, which is the chronic committee. We are in really the removal of the chronic committee is based on as we looked at the strategic plan, and the various action areas within a strategic plan, the Climate Committee, or the work that was being done by the committee, cronic committee didn't seem to advance the goals of the strategic plan. And some of that work could maybe fall into other areas such as the psh. Committee. So this is our recommendation, it is only removing one committee, which is the chronic committee. And why that we have over here are the workgroups and the console group. Again, these groups are not mentioned in the strategic plan. And so it's free for their funders. And we do encourage the funders to continue to move forward these groups. But this is not a part of the overall COC structure. So that is the updated recommendation. And it shakes out a little like this. We would be hand would be stacking about 10 committees, solely snapping to committees. And so right away, that is over the limit that we said that we had capacity to staff, which is nine committees, we would also be jointly staffing about two committees. And then the city would be staffing solely three committees and jointly two committees. And then others which again is like the VA and also that advocacy committee that will be staffed separately as well. So all in all, roughly about 10 to 12 committees that are hand in particular we will be staffing. We talked about this internal internally and it is going to be a stretch for us to be able to staff this amount of committees kind of based on the resources that we have. We're going to stretch it as much as possible, but we do recognize that we may have to come back to the table and rearrange some of the work if we indeed feel like we need some all of these committees. So this is really the same information but more in a narrative format. So some people like visuals, but this is the narrative format. So this gives you a sense of which committees that ham will be staffing. Also a sense of which committees, we're proposing that the city will be staffing, we do have to have some conversations with the city, and see if they are in agreement with what we've laid out here.
And all in all, we added five committees. And they are listed here. And then we remove one committee. And so the net result was an addition of four new committees. So move for the strategic planning work. So let's talk about next steps. So one of our next steps was to come here and get some feedback from the COC board about this committee restriction. And so we're here and we'd love to hear from you. We are also going to talk to the leadership of the chronic Committee, which is the committee we are recommending removing, and so we just want to hear from them and get some thoughts from them, I will tell you that that committee has been dormant for close to about a year now. And then we also plan to have a meeting with the city of Detroit, we were actually meeting with them last week, but it didn't work out as planned. And then in order to finalize the recommendations, we definitely need to have our discussion with the city of Detroit and make sure they're agreeable, especially with some of the committee's that we are recommending that they staff. This will then go back again to the strategic planning. And that's excuse me to the governance route charter review committee. And based on their recommendations be included in the drafts. What am I trying to say the draft governance charter data is going to be released for public comments. And ultimately, the vote on these committee structures will occur alongside the vote with the governance charter because this bill will become part of the governance charter. I'm also just noting here that as we implement this recommendation, we may need to find it necessary to ship the purposes and or work plans of some of the committee's to make sure that they truly align with the goals that we are trying to advance over the next five years or so with our strategic plan. So that concludes my presentation. And I will hand it back over to our chair. And happy to take any questions, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Tasha, very thorough presentation. I guess I don't see any hands. But I do have a question. You were moving fast. So I may have missed something. I'm sorry, Tara. I'll get you right after me. The leitet committee was renamed. Is that committee still in line to remain and be staffed?
Yes, it is light tech as a club committee, I believe. Oh, no, it's on here. Let me see. So just check the look at it. Really? Why
are you looking at that I was also concerned about and I know a lot of this is provided or you're able to provide this these additional services because of the planning grant dollars. And the planning grant dollars are for the running of the CLC. So I'm concerned about the the workgroups that were that are not in the governance charter, but workbooks like Rapid Rehousing, psh those things. And again, you may have went over this, but we were moving pretty swiftly. I didn't see that those particular workgroups were going to remain or as those ones that need to be reimagined and repurposed.
So the AMI committee committee that has been removed is crying, right. So that's here, work girl. And Kasab groups are not mentioned in the governance charter. They're not currently mentioned in the governance charter and we're not recommending that they be added to the governance charter. We are recommending, however to the funders as they have been in that they continue to operate these different workgroups in Kakaako because they are bringing adding value, especially for those particular programs or specific popular nations they are adding value. And so we are making a recommendation for the funders to continue to operate these, but they are not part of the governance charter, and we're not recommending that they be added.
So So my point was this, I know that they're not a part of the governance charter. And the ones that you are including, which are the four that you're including are totally new coming from the strategic planning process. And I'm sure they add value as well. But I don't want to lose to gain if we're going to lose something that's needed. So I just wanted to make sure that I, I mentioned that and I'm particularly aware of the shelter workgroup, the PSH workgroup, those that I know add a lot of value to our system and how we are servicing our citizens through this service delivery. So I just wanted to make mention, I think I'm clear now that you've provided some clarity. I think Tara had a hand.
Good afternoon, everyone. Tasha, I just had a couple of questions you mentioned, you know, kind of talking about committee purpose and making sure it was aligned with the strategic plan. So that conversation along with the proposed committee like structure, is that conversation happening? Where is that conversation happening? And is it the governance charter? workgroup?
No, that conversation is not being taken up, I think that is going to be a step that is going to happen, something needs to happen within the implementation. As we've indicated, here, there's some committees purposes and a work pants may need to be reimagined. So that is likely probably something that will come in like either that ad hoc committee, I'm trying to
scroll and see where
we added like the ad hoc implementation committee, and so that is likely a conversation that will have to take place and like that ad hoc implementation committee. I also think that, you know, a lot of these committees that we have are already formed and have great leadership. And so as they get when the strategic plan is released, the final plan is actually released, I think we can also expect them to just take a look at what is in a strategic plan, and also just make some recommendations on how their committee can be a lot better aligned with the strategic plan. So we could also look forward to be some sort of two way street where they're making recommendations that I have committee in the ad hoc committee has already making recommendations to them.
Is it the plan to do the ad hoc committee first before finalizing which committees will have in the in the COC for so that's what I'm saying is oh, God,
I think that is a so we're at, we're asking them to and so we're basically saying that we don't have capacity to do an ad hoc committee. And so we're asking that the city of Detroit do the ad hoc committee. So if they are agreeable, I think it's up to them to determine the when and how in all of that, for the ad hoc committee to, you know, begin meeting and things of that sort.
Yeah. Okay. I guess what I'm trying to get to is, are these recommendations final? Or is there any other places where there's conversation about committee structure and, and integrate in like, the strategic plan, like is this? Is this final, I guess, is what I'm trying to say? Or is there other? Is there a space where other conversations would happen besides the conversations with the city and what the city would staff?
So it is going back to the governance charter Review Committee, they will deliberate deliberate in decide, ultimately, what goes into the the draft that is shared for public comments. Okay,
so that's where the conversation would happen is in the governance Governance Committee.
Yeah. And I believe they have a date and time kind of slotted out for trying to have this conversation, although some things may have shifted based on some conversations that they have this morning. Okay,
that's what I was trying to get to
is like, where I was just trying to understand like
how Final this recommendation was, or there was still conversation. So
that is, that is helpful.
Thank you.
Thank you, Tara. Thank you, Tasha. Are there any other hands? I would note that Han because they do how they say draft the planning grant they do write it and it's very specific on what those planning dollars are for that they are very sure the hours than the committee's that they can stamp I don't I don't know if that's something that can be done away with, you know, they're pretty sure have the time that they can spend and dedicate to certain areas. So thank you both. Tasha, thank you again. For the for the report. If there are no other hands, I don't do it. And I hope I'm not missing something. I thought I saw some fires and but maybe, maybe I missed that. I'm
sorry. Oh, no, I'm good. Canis. Thank you. Thank
you. Eleanor Bradford, there's a hand
Eleanor Did you Did you
agree with your comment about our capacity and being able to do thank
you appreciate the comment. So we're gonna move on again. Thank you, Tasha. We're gonna move on to the I know all of you are just waiting to hear this because Amanda is so exciting when she talks about competition. So we're going to give it over to Amanda for the seal, the COC renewal project evaluation criteria.
All right. Thanks, Candace. Thank you for that setup. I hope that this is an exciting conversation. I feel the pressure now. Give me a minute to get my own screen here. Okay, all right. So I'm going to be talking with you for a minute, I do have the next kind of two agenda items. So hopefully, we can get through this by 335. That's the time that I have. We ultimately there's sort of two buckets of things that I'm going to be talking about. And so let's just dive right in. So ultimately, there's going to be two decisions that are coming before the board today. One is to the board is going to be asked to vote to approve the renewal project evaluation criteria for this year. And then the board is going to be asked to approve the updated Detroit COC funding appeals policy. So the materials that I'm going to be going over are going to be relatively high level, and I'm going to be going over them relatively quickly, just because of the time in the board packet that was sent out last week, the materials that I'm going over were provided, as well as to in a much greater depth as well as links to even additional supplemental material that you were encouraged to review. So I am going to be kind of entering into this conversation with kind of from the framework that the those items that were in the board packet have been reviewed by the board members, and so that you do have a level of familiarity with kind of what I'm going to be talking about here. So first, to kind of kick things off the set a little bit of context, I want to give a bit of an overview, broad overview of the local continuum of care timeline, just so you have an idea of where this all fits, again, kind of within the context. So this is sort of a timeline of what's happened over the past couple of months. So over the course of February and March, enhance staff as in our role as a collaborative applicant, we developed the draft renewal project evaluation criteria, and we developed throughout changes to the appeals policy. This work was done that based on you know, looking back on the successes or the challenges that we saw in the 2023 competition, and just really sort of doing that look back and analyzing what are some possible changes that we may want to implement for 2024. In excuse me, then, also in March, we had the conversations with the values funding priority committee around these draft evaluation criteria and the appeals policy. So everything that's coming to you today has also gone through the values and funding priorities committee. In April, Dan, we had a public comment period for this draft evaluation criteria and for the recommended changes to the appeals policy. That public comment period was open for I think is about three or four weeks. At the end of April, the values and funding committee came together, review those comments, develop responses to the comments, and really work through them to see do we need to make changes to these documents based on the comments that were received in your board packet in the documents that are I do link to another document that gives the full comments and the responses to those comments. Those documents the comments received and our responses to them are also posted on Hans website so you can see them there as well. So that brings us today to today to May so again, today the board is going to be asked to approve these evaluation criteria. And the updated appeals policy. Following the meeting today, pending approval of everything, all of the this application materials for the renewal projects will be developed, produced and published, we have already communicated to renewal applicants a webinar that we're having later this month to kick off the application process for them. Also, as we are working through May, the values funding priorities committee is going to be meeting regularly to develop recommendations around new project funding priorities. So that would be the funding priorities for agencies, programs that do not currently receive COC funding. So there's a number of items that the committee is going to be working through throughout May, then at the June board meeting, the board is going to be asked to approve those viewing project priority recommendations and the evaluation criteria. And then, you know, pending the board's approval of that the new project application materials will be published in June. As we move into June and July, the values to funding committee is also going to start having conversations around project ranking policies. For those will be coming to the board later on to summer, July or August, kind of depending on how things shake out, we anticipate that the continuum of care and Notice of Funding Opportunity from hired will be released in July. That is all TBD once we have this timeline kind of after July gets a little speculative. So I'm not going to go into a lot of details. Once that NOFO is released, we'll certainly have more ideas for deadlines, and that will be communicated accordingly. So that's a broad overview of the timeline. And we will always be updating the timeline as opposed to on our website as well, but wanted to give the board just kind of a heads up on what to expect, at least in the next couple of board meetings, I will say the board should anticipate, really pretty much every meeting in between now and September, there's going to be action that will need to be taken regarding the COC competition, there's just a series of decisions that will need to be made. And so just want to get before that heads up. I should say too, as I go along, you know, you can feel free to drop comments in the chat. And you know, as as we go along, I'll do what I can to keep an eye on that as well.
Okay, so you can also raise your hand and interrupt me as we go along, too. So moving into kind of the first decision item. Before I get into this today, what we're going to be, again, the first thing that the board is going to be asked to vote on are those renewal project evaluation criteria. So before we get into this, I do want to pause for a moment to make a recommendation to the board about this today's decision making process. So I'm going to give a bit of a kind of a history sort of how we have done things for the past several years, and then make a recommendation for how I'm recommending we move things forward today and going forward. So what's being voted on today are the evaluation and scoring criteria that all of our renewal projects, which are projects that currently receive COC funding will be evaluated on. So these are essentially policies that those evaluation criteria. My recommendation is that when we get to that vote opportunity that all of our suit, all of our COC board members, so all of our board members would be eligible to vote yea or nay or abstain on this, on these criteria, historically, starting in the 2020 competition, so really, for the last four years, we have historically limited this vote to just be conducted by COC board members that we're not affiliated with a COC agency, so non COC funded board members. We had a practice that we put in place again about four years ago, to recuse from the vote, COC funded board members, and that kind of became became our presidency and became our practice. And I believe we set that practice in place at that time, based on our understanding at that time of reading, what the regulations and the governance charter said around conflict of interest regarding board members not being able to vote on a project in which they had a direct financial concept of interest. So we interpreted that at that time, to also mean board members needed to be recused from the vote on these evaluation criteria. That was how we interpreted it again several years ago, and then through our practice, we continued that practice. So the reason we're kind of bringing this back here today is upon him sort of further reflection and really realizing that what is being voted on today are not specific projects. There's no projects that are going to be named, you know, by name or anything. The vote today is based on its policy, essentially, the policies around what are the evaluation criteria, that all projects are going to be scored on? What are those scoring scales. And so because the vote at hand is around, again, as policy rather than specific projects, the kind of recommendation is that all of us board members be able to vote, again, when we get to that vote today. So it gave her some additional rationale, just wanting to kind of have as many decision makers around the table for that item as we can and making sure that we are getting, you know that good the diversity of viewpoints and input on this item that does need to be voted on. I will say, as well, we are we have recognized the need when I say we mainhand staff have recognized the need to have a better codified and more clear policy language, these items related to who needs to be recused from when for these certain folks. And so that is an additional piece of work that we are working on and putting into some more formal language. We just didn't have that. It's just not ready to kind of be formalized today. However, because we did have this vote in front of us today, we wanted to at least kind of get this first piece off the ground and bring this first recommendation to the board for this vote today on these evaluation criteria. I will say, however, that if this is a direction that the board is just not comfortable going in today, that is totally fine. We can continue with our historical precedents, only having non COC funded board members to do this vote, we simply wanted to kind of lay this recommendation or this opportunity on the table.
So I will pause there before I go on if there are any, like comments or questions around kind of this piece. I realized I haven't even really gotten into quite the meat yet of what I'm presenting.
Man, I don't see any hands. Okay.
Okay. All right. Again, maybe you need a mole a mole through your boss naturally fine, you can always drop them in the chat.
Okay, so one kind of other thing to set the stage before we move into these criteria, in particular to kind of set the stage on how we got to this point. So for the renewal project, evaluation and scoring criteria, the way this comes together is that we look at, or really kind of aim to say the aim of these recommendations is wanting to fund projects that continue to meet our performance standards, and are filling and community unique community need. We've really tried to focus on criteria that are data driven. And so really looking at the data looking at the performance data. And also aligning our program performance with those system performance measures, which those are the measures that ultimately impact how well we perform on them impact our overall continuum of care funding levels. We also really try to this is something we've done historically is look at those measures that are going to further our efforts to end chronic homelessness. So a lot of that is going to be related to PSH programming, which is the bulk of the programming that serves people who are experiencing chronic homelessness. These evaluation criteria were developed a couple of different ways. What we did is we looked back over the average performance over the course of 2022, which is the time period projects were evaluated on last year, we ran some preliminary data to look at, you know, on average, how projects are performing over the course of 2023 Excuse me, which is the evaluation time period, this year's competition. We took into consideration of what we've been hearing from providers within workgroups, etc, around factors in the community that may be impacting performance. And then of course, we can have that public comment period. So this is those are some of the pieces of information that have gone into how we've developed this evaluation criteria. But I'm going to be going over for this criteria specifically is not every one of them because there's a lot. And again, all of the details are in the board packet that you received, that board packet document actually links to an even more comprehensive document that goes even to even more details. So what I'm gonna be focusing on here are those criteria that we heard are modified in some way from last year's competition, those criteria scoring criteria that are new that were not included in last year's competition, and then any new or modified informational only questions that we're going to be including in the application materials as well, information only, just as it sounds are some of their questions that applicants have to respond to, but they're not scored on that they may become a score component in a future competition. So anything that has no changes recommended to it from last year to this year, I'm not even touching on in my presentation, just those that are changed somehow from last year. Alright, so I'm going to dive into the next few screens are going to look like this, the first few criteria that we're going to be talking about are those that are modified or changed somehow from last year. In these charts, I indicate if this criteria is a data driven component, meaning we're looking at the data there HMIs data or self reported data in the application, if the criteria SPM stands for system performance measures. So if the criteria aligns with us yeah measures. And then chronic homelessness is is this criteria somehow connected to ending chronic homelessness, which you could kind of make that argument for many of them. But we really tried to hone in on some of those specific, you also see the project type that these criteria were refer to. So the first one that's been modified is around utilization rates. So the recommended change is that the scoring scale be changed, so that a project must have at least 80% utilization in order to earn any points possible. That's an increase from 75% from last year. So really just increasing the utilization expectations for the projects really just helps to ensure that we are fully utilizing our resources, which is key to ending homelessness. The modified hearing that you see, has to do with the length of time it takes to move someone into housing once they receive the referral from camp. So the modification is really changing history, we update the scoring scale every year to align with the prior years average data. So updating the scoring scale and formulate the most significant kind of modification to this scale as well, is that we would allow certain projects who would otherwise have earned zero points last year, and our slate would be slated to Route Zero points this year, to earn a small number of points if they showed any improvement of like 10% improvement between those two years. So we are recommending this sort of improvements for acknowledgment that some projects struggle more than others with this length of time to housing, but wanted to acknowledge that some improvement is important and valuable. And so to allow a project to earn, again, a small number of points, not the full points, but a small number of points just in acknowledgement of that individual project improvement. I'm going to keep kind of walking through these just in the interest of time. So just make note that I'm sorry, I. The next modified criteria is returns to homelessness. So this is looks at the percentage of people who exit a project or permanent housing and subsequently returned to homelessness within six months. So the recommended change is similar to the other the length of time where projects that would otherwise return zero points for this kind of two years in a row. But if they showed some improvement, they could get a small number of points, again, acknowledging that some projects have struggled more with this measure than others, but we want to acknowledge individual project improvement that they have made on this measure. The next modification has to do with spending rates so this looks at the overall percentage of funds for the most recently completed grant term. have data project friends. So this change in one of the board actually approved last year. Last year, the board approved decision to increase the percentage of funds that our project needed to spend in order to earn full points. It was approved last year, but put on hold to actually implement until this year. So this is really just implementing the decision that the board made last year. So the more the greater percentage of funds a project spends, the more points it's going to learn. The next couple of modifications have to do with HMIs related HMIs compliance related items. The first one is attendance at the HMIs Agency Administrator meetings, we update this one annually, to align the meeting the meeting dates and the number of meetings that were held. So we've just really modified that to align with what happened in 2023. And the next one does is actually kind of two measures that this data. Now excuse me, as part of this, this data quality completeness measure looks at the percentage of various data elements that projects have to complete more completeness and accuracy. So what we're adding this year is the data element on veteran status two, as one of the evaluation criteria in terms of looking at what percentage of records have errors for that veteran status question in the individual's HMIs record. So adding that because two other data elements race and ethnicity were combined into one this year. And to kind of keep this at 10. That data elements that we're looking at, we wanted to add the veteran status. This next one is next modification. Again, this is still related to each one is this one, it was new last year. And so making some recommended modifications this year based on some feedback, and based on kind of again, are reflecting on how well this criteria went over last year. So this one is the one where there's sort of two components into one here. And this looks at the extent to which agencies may have changed their data after they have already affirmed to our HMIs team, during their quarterly audits, that their data was accurate and complete. This is a bit of a kind of a more complicated one, the details are again, all given in that four packet document. Essentially, the modification is that last year, this was really kind of an all or no point scaled was worth either three points or two points, depending on some of the specifics. And an agency can either earn all of those points or none of those points. Again, based on kind of self reflection back on this one, we are recommending changing the scale so that it is more of a scale. And that allows for a small room of error within an agency.
Errors do sometimes happen. And so it has been a bit more generous with the scoring scale, still a high expectation for good performance. But just taking into consideration some of the feedback that we've heard from providers. Out there, this evaluation criteria is when it's not another month of patient. This is the last modified one. This is a narrative response. So you'll see we don't have that data driven box here. So this is a narrative response that will require applicants to describe how they meaningfully How do you have meaningful inclusion of people with lived experience of homelessness within their agency programming and staffing structures. So last year, this was one question and there were a number of bullet points agencies had to respond to and it was worth a total of six points. This year, their recommendation is at this one question become two questions to allow for some more details and kind of teases things out a little bit more. And the total number of points goes from six to 10. So asking for more information requiring some more details from the agencies and also making the overall point value worth more worth 10 points instead of six points. The these modifications were read through with the Detroit advisors group. So worked with them talk through through this with them to get their input and their support of this recommended change. Those are all the modified criteria that we're recommending there are only two new evaluation criteria scored criteria that we're recommending this year.
So the first scoring criteria this you kind of see as the agency you've been around for a while this should look familiar. Every time we do an unsheltered point time counts, there's points that you can earn in your application that year for participation in the unsheltered pit. So I commend you bringing that back again, because we had the unsheltered pit in January of 2024. So, awarding a couple of points for agencies have participated in the unsheltered pit, which all of our COC pointed agencies did, which was wonderful. And then the last news court evaluation criteria, is this something new that we're trying this year, and this would be structured as bonus points. So it would allow agencies to earn a few bonus points for being compliant with HMIs instructions as it relates to the submission of their quarterly audits, get details on how this would work are given in the application materials. But we're recommending these bonus points as a way to acknowledge that some agencies really stay on top of this they respond and the timeliness that we need them to. So wanting to just really acknowledge and report down for those agencies that have done so over the past year. All right. Stick with me, I got a couple more. So these last year are modified informational only questions. So these are not score criteria. These are simply questions we're asking the agencies to respond to. There's additional information or only questions. Again, those are detailed in the board packet, just wanted to point out those that are changed in some way. So this first one is a description of how services are provided within the project. So really fleshing out this question a little bit more than how we've asked it in the past. The purpose of asking this is to really get a better understanding of the scope of service provision, including description of how services are provided in person, there's some specific bullet points we'll have agencies respond to. And then the second information, new information on the question has to do with the housing unit inspection process, but really wanting to hear from providers, how they go about that housing inspection process to make sure that units pass HQ is prior to moving at annual inspection, and how providers respond to any unit repair needs that may arise during the year even if it's outside of that manual inspection process. So really, just drilling down a little bit more to how to how to vote providers ensure that people are residing in units that are appropriate, you know, repairs are done timely, that sort of. So that is the that is a I realized that was a lot of information. And again, I intentionally did go over it. Sorry. I mean, a heavier, a bit quickly, just in the interest of time, again, with the assumption that board members have had a chance to review it. So I'm going to pause for questions, comments, clarification, and that we will need to move into the vote. And before we do the vote, and we will need clarification, as I mentioned earlier in terms of who was voting. So I will pause for a moment for any questions or clarifications. Ultimately, we're gonna need a motion as well, before we vote.
I have a question, Amanda. A couple slides ago, you mentioned a bonus point under the bonus points. And there was something you mentioned about a timely getting in a paperwork and timely. Yep, somewhere in here. Okay. So we're getting their paperwork in timely. Obviously, you're giving a bonus for the ones that did? Is there a penalty for the ones that don't? I think they're I remember that there was but I can't remember how many points or how that works?
Yes, yes, that's great question, I think I know you're referring to as well. So there's kind of two different things at hand here. So the this what this is referring to here, these bonus points is kind of background to this is every quarter, our HMIs team does a I mean, I get the terminology correct. But basically, it's a audit review of an agency's data. That agency gets a report from the HMIs team, there are certain data elements that agency has to correct or fix. And they have to return that back to the HMIs team by a certain deadlines. Some agencies are great at getting that into the HMIs team by that deadline every quarter. Some agencies struggle with it a little bit more. And the reason why we do this quarterly audit is to make sure that throughout the year, we're having these checking points on our HMIs data to make sure that it's kept up to date and accurate throughout the year. So that's kind of what these bonus points are in terms of, hey, if you've done a good job of getting into the HMIs what they asked for every quarter V A timely submission of application materials is kind of a separate thing. So excuse me and the consequences that happen if the agency does not turn that in. So we have a standing
policy, this will continue this year where application materials are placed, is a due date. Everything is we buy, whatever that due date is, if they don't turn everything in by that date, or they know. There are negative points that are assigned at that time, those points for labor is really tied to the application. A little bit different, a little bit different, it's very different than kind of these bonus points for these HMIs. Really, it's one of the reasons why we are interested in breaking these points this year, is that it means that an opportunity to make this score criteria for future competitions, and not just bonus points. So we felt like this sort of lays the groundwork in that respect, and kind of gives the agencies a heads up that hey, getting this HMIs data. Regularly, each of those four points throughout the year is really awesome. Any other questions?
I don't see any other questions. So before we before I just ask for a motion, I do want to revisit the conversation that I had earlier. Regarding the recommendation that this goes be open to all COC board members versus only what the historical practice has been. We've only been available, or COC funded for two years. So I guess I'm sorry. It's impossible to tell people. My name and I want to be like them.
The right and Amanda, if anybody else has any question, okay.
So in terms of the recommendation, from staff for this voting is that all COC board members be allowed to, to participate in this? I'm not hearing any opposition to that recommendation. I also don't want to make assumptions. So so this will be a change, how can you express best explain that as well. So historically, we have limited this folks, only B not C to C workers. So that's what we've done for the past four years with the recommendation on the table is that we change that given that both here today is essentially policies it's not a vote on any particular project. And so because it's that little bit broader allow even those agencies Thank you very much. Just want to make sure the board members understood what the change was.
So you are right.
I don't see any objection to that. There are no hands I don't see anything in the chat that would fit otherwise. So that'd be the case I think we do with Okay, I think I do.
We do finally Need a motion before we can vote. channeling my inner Dr. CLC Boris Assa from the recommended fiscal year 2024 renewal project evaluation and scoring criteria for COC projects. We need a separate little second. Thank you. We have been properly moved in second. to move forward with the bill. All right, wonderful, I'm going to drop the link in the chat. So this link has been dropped in the chat is eligible for any COC. So you're gonna see that question is going to be a yes, no or state will ask me or name synthesis, nobody can ensure that the individuals who are filling this out are board members. As always, we don't ever release those for months. So that's the only reason why we're asking for your name. So I'm going to continue is active, I can see it looks like it's working, I can see responses coming in already. Thank you for that. Appreciate that. Time to that. So just because we do have an additional item to vote on. And just to kind of set the stage, this item that is the Detroit COC appeals policy. So this policy of all board members,
this is never one of those items restricted,
so no change there. So once we get to that, board members, I will put a different link in the chat. So why peels policy, again, a full policy document with all the recommended changes are in the packet. So again, I'm hopeful that you've had a chance to review that the recommended changes as we do every year after the competition. And staff doesn't look back to kind of evaluate what we consider doing differently. That happened as well, because the appeals policy process. So they brought some of our recommended changes to the values and funding committee work through those changes there, again, to spin out for public comments and comments I've been receiving, we responded to most of those responses on our website, say that we did receive those comments, we ultimately ended up not making any changes to the policy in response to those promises. But we did respond to the comments. So here are two really key changes to this policy. If you've read the policy document itself, you'll notice there's some minor edits to language or clarifying terms or some more relatively minor changes that we just needed to make to their policy to clarify things, not going to go over those today. Because they're administrative test, it's really, but really what I want to focus on are two pretty significant changes to the policy and the process as it relates to appeals. Before I do that, I'm gonna define a couple of terms that are going to be important for everyone. So just to make sure that we're kind of on the same page. So the first term is threshold. So what this term means is we have right now, all of our projects, or projects that are seeking funding must earn a score of at least 70% in order to be submitted for funding, unless they have appealed granted and explored less than that 70% is considered under a threshold. So the threshold is that 70% Essentially, projects that are under the threshold and don't have an appeal granted will be reallocated. So what does the allocation mean? reallocation or reallocate is when we reduce a renewal projects budget, and take those funds and use those funds to fund new projects. So the threshold and reallocation, those are kind of insurance that we're going to hear throughout this conversation, so just wanted to make sure we have some familiarity with that. So the first kind of significant change that is being recommended is a process by which an agency can appeal afford decision to reallocate their renewal project for reasons other than that project funding below threshold. Let me give an example of how this has occurred in the COC have passed in about three years from 2015 to 2017. Most are continuing with care, transitional housing and supportive services only grants were allocated. We took the funding from this grass to not continue to fund those projects, that those funds towards projects. That decision was made not based on project performance, but it was based on an analysis of what our community needed. Some different cost aspects, a lot of different data that were suggested. The years and the board made a strategic decision in those years to reallocate those projects to new projects. This is an example of when a project could be reallocated for reasons other than project performance. And we'll say that this is a relatively common way that we have reallocated projects that we have passed, and therefore we need to have some language around when it aims to appeal that decision. So the way that a policy is currently. And I'm gonna acknowledge overtime here on the agenda, I apologize for that. So I appreciate your patience. The way the policy is currently, the board decides to reallocate a project, that agency can submit an appeal to the appeals committee. From there, the appeals committee for whether the board should uphold that decision they made or modify that decision. The board would then decide on that appeals committee recommendation and make a final determination. This is how the policy currently reads kind of like that those four pieces to it. So they're promising language first support with design to rehab care project. Again, based on requirements, that the agency has the right to appeal that decision to the appeals committee, his committee reviews that appeal and makes the final decision. So to uphold or modify the court's decision, so kind of the biggest change here reduces step in the process. And this gives the appeals committee a final decision making authority in these instances, when the board has already made a decision, the appeals committee is able to make the final decision. Get some details. This would grant the appeals committee decision making authority this will be the only instance in which the appeals committee would have this level of decision making authority when it comes to reallocation. If such decision is made, and that needs to be made with 75% of the appeals committee in favor of the rationale behind this recommendation is that a strings line that appeals process and helps to eliminate kind of some of the circular nature of what could be really appeals process. So again, this is sort of isn't the first kind of most significant change that is being recommended in the appeals policy. I'm sorry, let me so this second most significant change to the appeals policy, this is a scenario that is probably more common to occur is if a reallocation decision is made for a project that fell below that funding threshold of 70% funding threshold. So again, this is the more typical scenario. We had this happened last year in the competition, we had six projects that were reallocated due to falling below the threshold, they went through the appeals process as it is currently written. It's happened in prior competitions as well before just last year. So again, this is the typical kind of scenario that we're likely to see. In a run through this, again, credit policy. So before we get to this orange square, but it's kind of already happened here is that renewal agency has received their project score. They've seen that that scores below 70%, and they have submitted their material to the appeals committee. It feels committee reviews, and the appeals committee recommends that the project be reallocated either the board reviews that appeal committee recommendation and makes a decision. In this case, they would make the decision to prove that recommendation. And so the board decides to reallocate the project. The way the policy is currently agency reallocation decision to to get appeals committee, so they can go back to the appeals committee, the appeals committee recommendation on whether or not to pull or modified the board's decision before it can mean that recommendation goes to the board as essentially a second recommendation. The board makes a final decision on that second recommendation In order to uphold the allocation decision, this is how the policy is currently written with those five steps. This is how it was implemented last year. So the proposed policy, as you'll see is, the recommendation is simpler and more straightforward process. So again, this orange box, we start at the same if the agency has received notice that their professional day of appeal to the appeals committee, the appeals committee has recommended to the board backup projects be reallocated. The board makes a decision on the appeals recommendation, they decide to either approve that recommendation or not approve that recommendation. And then this is the final decision. So essentially, what would occur is that those final three steps of going back to the appeals committee and doing sort of a second round of yield
would no longer be a part of the process. So some additional details to this. Again, if the appeals committee recommends to reallocate at least 75% of committee members meetings with that, again, intentionally setting that aside, because there are significant ramifications to reduce project budgets. Again, the detail the final decision ultimately does lie with the board. So some rationale for this recommended changes streamlines and simplifies the decision making process and eliminate some of the circular nature of the process. It really emphasizes the importance of agencies addressing project performance, again, to make sure that we are really addressing those possible deficiencies in project performance. I see what happens if the board goes to the recommendation. We currently have a policy that is the board does not approve the appeals committee recommendation that the board is tasked with coming up with our own decision direction. So essentially, the committee has done its work. If the board says no, we don't agree with that part of the board that takes on the task of determining what direction to go. So the appeals policy doesn't speak to the appeals policy does not speak to the board vote majority, but that isn't trust in the governance charter. I believe the governance charter does say decisions can be made with a simple majority. defer to the governance charter language for decision making. Great questions. Any other questions or clarification that I can provide?
Okay
after we've gone through the process of scoring
the agency does not agree with what has been recommended
and recommended recommendations and goes to hierarchy receives the funding without without that hierarchy coming back to us and asking us, okay, they didn't receive that.
What was your reasoning behind it? And what, you know, even explain to them why we did. Yeah. On top So, agencies can only see, an agency cannot apply for additional COC funding. Quite literally, because we're the ones in particular, who actually submitted their application that
allowed for it For COC funding, so So there's certainly an agency. Yes reallocation agency may rightfully be upset about it and
perhaps not, agencies always seek to express their opinion. If they want that, as always said something agency can do as well. So Tara give me a second, I want to see if I can add Amanda's answer. There are situations maybe you're talking about Regina, where we maybe we get another thority like city council or someone that a person can go to, in this particular incident. The recommendations about a board are 100% appealed if they're not the only one who could not. And that has not happened. So I just wanted to share that with you. So you would know that. I hope that helps. Tyler I'm sorry. My question because I know that I can't remember the source of funding, but that was gonna be my next question. Are we talking about? Okay, there it is there put him in the chat. Because there was an instance I do believe, when HIV recommended someone not be funded in a ticket to city council. And it was funded specifically for what the COC is funding for. This is only independent battery. Press Continue.
So board members on this board, when you it's so important for us to stay engaged and in tune, because you've you make some some decisions that are very impactful. So I'm glad that the question was asked. Thank you, Regina. Thank you. Are there any more questions for Amanda?
No, Amanda, I don't see any question. Great. Thank
you. Sorry. In the interest of time, I apologize for being a little over time. I would like if we could have a motion to approve the appeals policy. And then I'm going to put a link in the chat. And again, a voting link in the chat. And again, all board members are welcome to vote on this item. Yes, Tara? Oh, sorry. I
just have one more question. Amanda, the board could make a motion to the appeals committee to I don't know, to ask to do something else with like, so appeals committee makes a recommendation, right? Maybe the board's like, I want to see it. I want to see more justification as to why this project got money taken away and wasn't approved versus this project that appeals was approved or whatever. So the four could make a motion to send information back to the appeals committee to provide additional contacts prior to voting right? Or is it like they must be
semi ticketed. We don't have that spelled out in a policy right now. The language in the policy is a little bit more, I guess, straightforward, and just says that the board does not approve the appeals committee recommendation they have to develop their own. But I think what you're talking about is maybe a step prior to that. I think in general appeals committee or other committee aside, I think the board always would have the authority to delay a decision and essentially say we need more information from the Committee on blah, blah, blah. So we're going to table this decision. Do your committee please come back next month with a little bit more information? I think the board has the authority to do that kind of in any with any committee. Okay. Okay.
I was just curious if like additional information was needed.
I would say the one thing that we would need to keep in mind with this process is that we often have timing issues that we need to consider. So we need to kind of work through that as well, when we
Yep. Okay. Thanks.
Thanks, Tara. Do we have a motion to move?
I have another question. So basically, my question is, if the board doesn't like the recommendation of the appeals committee, then they can turn around and say, well, we want more information because we don't like this answer.
I think that they can request more, Tara but it's still a consensus. We would still go ahead, Amanda. I'm sorry for cutting. Yeah.
I think what I what I'm saying maybe I'm not seeing it. See Tasha, support In my understanding of Robert's Rules, I think what we're talking about is before the stadium appeals committee is making a recommendation to the board, the board does not feel like they can take a formal vote on the recommendation, there's discussion back and forth. And the board is maybe saying we don't know what direction to go, we're not going to take a vote a formal vote. So we're not going to approve or disapprove. Rather, we're going to request that the committee's we're going to table the vote request that the committee bring back to us a little bit more information. The committee then does that. So then at a subsequent meeting, the Board would then review that additional information, unable to vote, like bring the boat back or bring the vote back to the floor to then take a formal vote on I would say, if at any, my guess my point being if the outcome of any formal vote is that the board does not approve the recommendation, it's at that point, that would kind of be the trigger then for the where that language and the appeals policy would say, Okay, now you board, it's up to you to kind of make a decision on the big the committee has done its work. You have tasked the committee with certain words, the committee has done its work. You are not, you know, approving the recommendation of the committee. So essentially, this task is now being handed over to you the board to make a decision to work through.
Thank you, Amanda.
The details that I needed that made sense. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Any more questions before we move forward?
Thank you all for your questions. They were very insightful, and very informative. We are now looking for a motion to move forward with the vote.
I will I move that the COC board approves the updated Detroit CLC funding appeals policy as written.
Thank you. Can we have a second? Our brown Thank you, Tara. Thank you, Tasha.
You have to the voting link is in the chat. So again, all board members are please welcome to vote against going to be a simple yes, no or abstain question will ask for your name just to affirm. That is board members who are voting. I apologize for going over time. But I appreciate the time that you gave me this was really important to our competition process. So after today's decision, decision, and whatnot, will all be incorporated into our application materials that will be released within the coming weeks. So
that they do, Amanda and always for a very informative and exciting presentation. It was exciting. I want to let you know that. Anytime that we are doing work for the community work that's going to affect so many lives, and so many people it is important. So thank you. Thank you for all the board members who participated who asked the questions, and help us reach a decision. And as far as the time is concerned, this is what we're here for these type of agenda items. So we are a little behind time, but not that much. We're going to move forward very swiftly. If you don't mind. We're going to I'm going to make an executive decision to move forward our five minute break in the essence of getting us all off as soon as possible. So thank you, Eleanor. for that. We're going to now turn it over to Miss Welch who's going to do shelter access.
Thank you instead. All right, if I share my screen, Candace, of course.
All right. Um, hello. Thank you for having me. My name is Brenda Welch. I'm the I go by she her pronouns. And I'm the director of cam access at Wayne Metro. I'm presenting today with Katie Gisa, the Engagement Manager hand who facilitates the people with lived experience of homelessness Engagement Committee. I'm also presenting with Briana Travis, who is a member of Dag and yeah, and who is here as a member of the people with lived experience of homelessness engagement subcommittee as well. I'm here kind of to talk to you specifically about shelter access data and how things have been going in the last 30 days. I will then invite Katie and Bri to share a bit of their experience and working with the shelter AXA is planning group and the then they will request the vote for us. So the shelter prioritization, I know we've been coming before the board for a bit. So I think a lot of folks in this space are quite familiar. But just as kind of like an update a background just so that we're all on the same page. This pilot began on January 29. And the intent of the pilot is to ensure that clients with the highest need, or highest risk most vulnerable, are prioritized for shelter according to such. So we're currently organizing our prioritization list according to unsheltered status, attempting to flee or fleeing TV. The clients by dat wellness score, the length of time since their request. And then also if the client has an open outreach entry points are added to the prioritization value score. So in implementation, this access model looks kind of like this household either an individual or family experiences a housing insecurity, they contact cam by phone or by presenting in person to one of our access points. If they can't be diverted, they get added to the list along with all of those prioritizing factors. After we at cam have collected the daily bad vacancies, clients are contacted within available reservation. This reservation is held for that client until 2pm, so they need to contact him by 2pm in order to confirm that reservation, and once they contact him and confirm that shelter space, then a referral is entered at 2pm. This is what our model looks like. All remaining beds are offering to households with high prioritization values. This is currently happening at a one shelter referral 12 text are set rate. So they're notified of better availability by SMS text message. Him and other service providers tend to contact that household. And they need to confirm shelter placement, sorry about this not by two HTN to confirm shelter placement. And then, after the household has confirmed their shelter space, a referral is made to a provider for them. So I'm here to share some of this shelter access data. This data encompasses the entire pilot, so we're looking at January 29 through May 1. Beginning with the makeup of seeking shelter list by population type. So we can see here that the population that is most frequently requesting shelter are singles, that youth as a subset make up a large portion of that list. So singles are 46.9% of like total use are 42.5 as a subset. And then families make up 7% of our list for a total of 106 families on our list. And veterans make up 3.6% or 45 as a subset. These numbers are representative of clients who are seeking shelter on our list, and not representative of clients who have been referred to shelter or who have closed out their shelter referral, because maybe they've self resolved their experience of homelessness. This shows an average number of days on the prioritization list before shelter referral. In our last presentation on I believe April 1, I shared what the data looked like that and for the average number of days on list. This red bar shows that data which was from January 29 through April 1, the orange bar shows January 29 through May. So we have seen some increases, particularly in overall average which is now 15 days. unsheltered is now 13 days. Bullying Divi has gone up quite a bit to 19 days. Clients with wellness score greater than zero has increased by one for 14 days. And then engagement with street outreach has actually decreased three days for an average of 20 days before shelter referral is received there It shows the outcomes of daily shelter reservation list. So as I shared in the two separate sites, we have a 10 a m list where a single bed is held for one individual until 2pm. And this is what the response rate looks like on that our highest rate of like, our highest rate of variable would be unable to reach with 63.9% of clients on the reservation list, being unable to reach daily on average, that looks like 12 clients per day, who are not able to be contacted to confirm or decline that shelter referral possibility. We're seeing 22% of clients referred to shelter which means that from that 10am list, we're referring about four clients to shelter. And then on average, we see three clients decline shelter. This occurs for two reasons. Either one, the client has self resolve their experience of homelessness, or to the client declines the shelter provider that is available, and we do not have another shelter provider available that day, that client would likely be pulled the following day for a bad referral again, sometimes that bad referral is offered for the same provider if that's all that we have. And sometimes we're able to offer a DAP a different provider on the following day, just depending on bed availability and the COC. This graph shows available beds as compared to beds remaining at the end of day. So on this yellow line, you'll see the beds that are being reported to Cam at Wayne Metro that we're able to offer to clients, we have recently seen quite an increase in beds available. It kind of like goes up and down. So like one day, we'll have a lot of beds the next day, we won't have so many and then the next day we'll have a lot. So we are seeing almost close to 40 on some days recently. But definitely trending in the 30s. On average. Down here, the red line shows beds remaining at end of day. So early in the prioritization pilot, we did see kind of higher numbers of beds remaining at the end of the day. As a reminder at the beginning of this, this prioritization pilot, we were not texting clients at 2pm. And that was a later addition. And after that later addition, we did see a decrease in beds remaining at end of day. And I would contend that like recent high rates of beds remaining at the end of the day, is likely due to the recent high rates of reporting. And so kind of more beds that we have at the beginning of the day to fill the more beds that we're likely to have remaining at the end of the day. Although some of those situations, some of the sometimes that's not always true. Sometimes we do have beds that are just tricky to Bill and it's not that we had a lot that day. So that brings me to community input and feedback. The last time that I came before the board or that we the shelter access planning group came before the board, there was a request made for an additional 30 days to gather community input and feedback. During those 30 days. The shelter planning access group joined with the people with lived experience of homelessness engagement subcommittee. The subcommittee has made some recommendations for focus groups. But I will turn it over to Katie Giza to speak a bit more about the subcommittee and then Bri later to speak about those specific recommendations.
Katie? Perfect, thank you, Brianna. Hi everybody. My name is Katie, Giza she her pronouns. I am the Engagement Manager, as Brennan mentioned in my role at hand is really to help make sure that we are centering folks with lived experience of homelessness and the work that we're doing as a system and try to create space for power sharing and making space for people with lived experience of homelessness to really drive this work moving forward. And so as part of that role, I have been helping to run our our people with lived experience of homelessness engagement subcommittee. Brenda and I were just joking earlier about how that is a mouthful. But this committee was formed as a temporary committee that came about as part of the cam transition planning process. It's a subgroup of the cam transition team that At, oversaw the planning for selecting a new can lead agency and Cam implementing partners. And its its intention was really to ensure that folks with lived experience were centered in this process and that their needs and desires for this system were heard and honored and respected. And so this committee is made up of members from Camp governance committee from the camp transition team. And it also has 10 representatives from the trade advisors, group and Youth Action Board. Some of the things that our committee has done over the last year and a half just to give you a sense of kind of what role we've played. In this work, we held a series of focus group interviews and surveys to get client input. To inform the transition process, they gave information on things like what qualities they wanted to see from the new cam lead agency, how an ideal cam would function, what that would look like, recommendations for training, the new cam implementing partners, and just general system recommendations as well. And that feedback was used throughout the process, including through the RFP process, that feedback was used to directly inform a number of questions that were developed and use to evaluate agencies applying to be the lead agency. We also made sure that folks with lived experience were a part of the selection process. One of the feedback to that came out of that engagement with clients was a request to get into the community share information about what was happening with the cam transition also just share general information about what cam is how folks can get access to the system, and use it as an opportunity to also troubleshoot and problem solve with people. And so to honor that recommendation, our committee also helped to lead and put on the community forum that we had in November. And we're hoping that you will approve to allow us to help get client feedback to inform the decision that we are going to make as a community on whether or not to continue to implement this pilot. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Bri who's really going to underline that request for you all. Hello, everyone. My
name is Brianna Travis, I'm a part of the DAG and the gap. And I am also representing youth. I'm a youth advocate, as someone who has experienced homelessness in the past and a little bit about this slide is we sent you guys in a letter earlier today. And these are some of the main points that I'm going to iterate that we asked from the letter. We would like the adequate time to consult with and gather new data from people with lived experience of homelessness who have utilized as the shelter prioritization process from our community. We would also like to allow this data to inform the way that we move forward with our program, because we want to keep our community's voice at the center of the design and implementation of the program as well. And if we are approved, we will diligently gather the feedback from the community to reflect the needs and desires and we will synthesize this feedback and we'll present it back to you to the board so you guys can accurately make informed decisions about people with lived experience. And I will pass it back on to Brennan.
Thank you, both of you. So that brings me to the request that we are bringing to the COC board today. So this slide kind of gives you the timetable just to act as a reminder on previous board votes, that in December, there was a board approval for implementation of the shelter prioritization pilot for a period of 90 days, that implementation kind of got a slow start, and started on January 29 2020. For real first, there was a request that the pilot would be extended an additional 30 days to truly give the pilot full 90 days of operation, but also to offer the opportunity to establish focus groups. Through establishing those focus groups shelter access planning, partnered with people with lived experience of homelessness engagement subcommittee to plan those focus groups, groups and heard back that At the time allowed did not feel enough, it didn't feel substantial enough to be able to gather the feedback from people with lived experience, especially those who have recently experienced the shelter prioritization pilot. So I'm here representing the shelter access planning group. To support Bree and Katie and the subcommittee's requests, we would like to see an extension of 60 days to allow time for that community feedback. Also, for the 60 day feedback period, the shelter access planning group will work with that subcommittee to identify opportunities for improvement, to suggest implementation methods, and then also to seek approval of any possible changes or opportunities for growth from the CIM Governance Committee for any process improvement, though, I will turn it back over to Bri to formally make the request for a vote.
Okay, so currently the subcommittee, we are requesting approval for an extension for an additional 60 days for the pilot and recommending that we go before you guys on July 1 With our final version of the shelter prioritization policy. And we ask that
this is the vote that I'm sorry, I'm sorry, we asked for this vote to take place. And I'm passing it back on to you guys.
Thank you, Bree. For that motion. It seems that we're we need a second to move forward.
Our brown our second motion.
Thank you, Tara. And thank you for the we're going to have something put in the chat Katie or Brenda for this or how would you like us to vote? Oh, yeah, good question I can make. Chelsea. Awesome. So again, thank you for that presentation. It was wonderful. Thank you, Katie and Bree and Brenda for presenting to us today. And we look forward to your recommendations at our July 1, July board meeting.
Thank you again, ladies, we're going to move forward, it is now 411. And we're almost right where we're supposed to be. And we're gonna have our camp update from Tasha gray.
Back again, but hopefully only before you briefly Can I think I am the one that is standing in between you all and ending your day. So don't want to prolong that. I'm going to pull up the screen. I have a couple of slides to share with you all as it relates to Cam updates. Since our last meeting, just want to make sure that we're keeping the board abreast of activities that are happening related to Cam. All right, hopefully you all can see it if you can't please let me know.
So they're
so starting here, um, looks like we're missing a slide. I apologize for that. But I will just give it to you all verbally, since it did not get included in this PDF. Just wanted to circle back to you all at our last board meeting, you all had a chance to look over the guiding documents that were being proposed for the relaunch of the cam Governance Committee, you all looked over those guiding documents and did make an approval of the guiding documents. And so those are official and are being put into use. We have began crew recruiting members to be a part of the relaunch of the cam Governance Committee. And so that process is well underway. And we're you know, still under the process. The first meeting will be hailed one 515. This is a bit of change from what we had originally envisioned, which was to have that first meeting on May it was May 1. However, we didn't have enough people to sit on the committee and form a quorum at that time. So now we are launching it on May 15. And we do have even though we're still in our recruitment process, we do have enough to feel for fulfill a quorum. We also were recording For a COC board represent on the cam Governance Committee. And so we received two interests from you all from that time, last board meeting until the deadline that we had established. And so two people from the CLC board did express interest. And so we sent the that interest of the Powell for votes of the executive committee. And Courtney Smith, who has previously served on the cam Governance Committee, was elected to serve as the CLC. Board rep for the cam governance committee. So congratulations to Courtney. And for new board members, that is now your board rep for the cam Governance Committee. I do want to acknowledge that last time, when we met with you all, I had said that the board will be voting on the CLC board rep the full board. When we went back and looked at the guiding document, it actually indicated that the executive committee selects it. And so I had to double back and correct that and make sure that the correct body did the election. So I wanted analysis, that error on my car. I'm also what didn't make this slide. But I do want to make sure that we get a chance to inform you all, and I will share it with Chelsea so that she can put it in the board packet is that. So there was a closure, as you all probably are aware of, for one of the cam access sites in I think it was early to mid April. It was closed for almost a couple of weeks, I believe it was. And so the reason for that closure was because there was some safety concerns that happened. Basically, there was a perceived threat of violence at two locations, including the Wayne metros location, pay quarters, I believe it's in their headquarters and then also at the NOAA access site. And so out of an abundance of caution, a decision was made to go into lockdown. And so that day that that perceived threat was made to staff went into lockdown, and the site was closed. I believe that was like on a Thursday or so. And so the following day, it also remained close. After some discussion, I believe, the way Metro team really wanted to do a safety evaluation. And so it remained closed until they could conduct a safety evaluation and get some recommendations from a safety expert. So there have been some additional safety measures that have been implemented as a result, including hiring of an additional guard who is going to be president that no access center. There are also weekly check ins now that are happening between Noah and Wayne Metro. And then we are also in a process. And when I say we the cam Planning Committee is in the process of developing some more formal safety policies. So including we're developing a crisis communication policy, to make sure that we have something in play and should hopefully this doesn't happen again. But if it does happen in the future, we definitely will know that we have a policy and a process in place to make sure that communication goes out to the right parties. At the right time. We are also developing some things around. Sorry, I lost my train of thought crisis. We're also developing some things around like evacuation plans and things of that sort and a couple of other different policies just to ensure that everyone is safe. I do want to acknowledge that everyone is safe. The staff, both LA Metro and NOAA, they are safe, but I think they were rightfully so a bit shaken after that process. And now that that additional guard is in place, I think and I don't want to speak for Wayne Metro here, but from what I've been told that their staff feel much more comfortable. Having, you know, returned back to the space after that particular incident.
I believe that is it in regards to
that. But if you all have any questions for me, happy to take those questions.
I'm sorry, cash on my phone ring. Did they happen to find the person who who made those threats or did they get to the bottom of that?
Yes.
Thank you, Tasha. And we are so very happy that does no harm came to anyone. And we certainly make we want to make sure that that no harm does come to anyone who is working to help our community. So shout out to Winnie Metro for looking at the additional things that could be done to provide the safety measures needed. If there are no other questions for Tasha, Tasha, thank you for the update the cam update. Now it is time for public comments. I don't know if anyone putting anything in the chat. Chelsea, if you can put the slide up. Dr. G. is Kiana here. I'm not really sure. Yes. Thank you Qian.
Has anyone acknowledged that they want it to do public comment at all? I'm gonna just gonna turn it over to Kiana. Thank
you, Candace. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm as you can see, the guidance in relationship to public comments is posted on the screen. And if you are interested in public comment, you can send me a chat. Or you can just simply raise your hand. And we will call you for public comment. I have not received any direct messages I'm going back through at this time. So I have not received anything yet.
Thank you, Kiana. We'll give it a couple of seconds in case someone does want to reach out to you. While we wait, I want to thank everyone again for all your hard work, all of the work that has gone into today's meeting the press the presenters, the information that was shared with us was excellent. We appreciate your time and your effort. And all the board members for giving us your time and all of your expertise as we do this work to gather really appreciate what we're doing and where we're going. We're making strides. course there's always going to be more to do. And there's going to be room for improvement. But working together makes a difference. I appreciate you. And I wanted to let you know that. If we have one, let me see. Let me check the chat one more time or Kiana if you
Yeah, I still do not have anything yet,
though that great app from
anyone absolutely great.
We thank you again, for coming. We thank you for all that you are doing. We expect to be getting updates as we move along and all of our process. And we will see you again, hopefully very soon. I think that's it. I think we can officially call this meeting. adjourn.
I'm sorry. Hello.
Is there someone who wants to make comments? Yes, yes,
I do. I'm sorry about that. My computer's been acting up. Okay.
Can already
I can I can't see. Give me a second. Can you
go? Yeah, my camera's still working. But I can tell you my
opinion. Nichols? Yes, your name. All right.
So my name is dark. My name is Fabian, because I had to go by guard for short. And I work over at Community Health Awareness group, where I am the Case Management Supervisor. And so I I have for quite some time, we've been working with this new system, which we call cam. And I have to say that it is probably one of the most frustrating systems that we could have created for our our community. And I believe that this cam system creates more barriers and it does actually granting access to housing for people that need it. Just today, I was with a staff member. And I was with the staff member. I'm trying to get a question answered by the client. And we understand the Christ that we service, right. And our job is to advocate for our clients. And so we know we had a client who was kind of like, emotionally unstable, and we decided to do the footwork, and we call to the access line. And I and I said our preference. My question says hey, you know, we have a client, and I started saying blah, blah, blah. But the issue was, I was told that she could not talk to me because she had to get consent from the client in order to discuss anything with me. And I said, but you don't need consent. And I'm just asking to make sure that this is the right arena for us to have You know, to putting our client in, this is not the first time that we've had this issue. I don't know who, who thought of this idea of what cam would do or who is overseeing the functionality of cam. But I think this is something that we as a community to come back and address, because the people are experiencing homelessness, and we're supposed to use the services. They are being frustrated along the way. And the people who are trained people to navigate these systems are becoming frustrated. And I think it's time that we re approach cam in our city.
Thank you, Mr. Nichols, for your comment. I also have another hand up. So I want to reset the clock please. All right, and then Julissa, you can be unmuted. Hi, everyone, I won't take that long. I just wanted to say to the people that presented today, or that gave us information. Thank you so much, because it was very useful. Tara Brown, you ask some really good questions when that I had particularly myself, so thank you for putting in the chat. Darth Daniel, I agree with everything that you said. And I just honestly wanted to say that I am. For me, I'm speaking from I, I feel like today, we made traction for the last couple of meetings that we've had. So I'm really, really pleased with this meeting, and that we're able to move forward. And I hope that we can continue to accomplish our objectives. So just thank you, everyone that that presented today. And that asked questions because it was stuff that I needed to know for myself. So thank you. Thank you, Julissa for your comment. Anyone else? Feel free to raise your hand or just unmute yourself. If you have an additional comment for today.
I just want to say as a board, we need to be back here on July 1 in its entirety. I think a lot of times when stuff comes out of the dam or from people with lived experience. There's this idea. We don't have to participate. We need to be here and we need to listen to this presentation and be intentional. And listen and try to do whatever it is that people would be able to experience need us to do whether it's be heard, say something, whatever we need to give this presentation from series. The right thing, it is the only way that really would apologize.
Okay, let's go oh, by y'all.
All right, Candace, just a lot of thank yous and great jobs in the chat. I'm gonna turn it back over to you. I don't think we have any additional comment today.
Thank you, Jana, for facilitating this part of our meetings. The first gentleman who hits spoke, I'm sure you have his name? Do we have a contact for him piano?
No, I do not. However, Chelsea may have something if he registered for the meeting today.
We want to make sure when people make comments who we don't see a lot or know a lot about that we try to address their comments. So we'll make sure if if we don't have his information, Mr. Nichols, maybe you can drop it in the chat. And we can at least try to reach out to you. I think Brianna Welch has her hand up.
Yeah, I just wanted to share, I reached out via direct message to Mr. Nichols as well, to offer my personal email, it sounds like he engaged with some of my call center staff today. And I just wanted to offer that like, he can reach out to me directly in the future. If he's looking for client information. There are some limitations about what call center staff are able to provide so hopefully, you know, in the future, he's able to contact me. That's
wonderful if we hopefully he received your information. We want to make sure that we're responsive to everyone who who comes to our meetings and we're able to, even if we can't solve it, we can definitely try. So thank you for that Brianna and hope that he's able to connect with you. So thank you again, everyone for joining us today. We are glad that we leave a little better than we came. Again. We appreciate you and we will see you next time. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Thanks everyone.