2016 HUD CoC NOFA Community Input Session Oakland City Hall - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

2016 HUD CoC NOFA Community Input Session

Oakland City Hall Hearing Room 3 June 21st, 2016

1. Welcome and Meeting Purpose 2. Committee Introductions, Roles, and Responsibilities 3. 2015 Results and Analysis 4. Where are we headed in 2016? 5. Community Input

a. Transitional Housing b. Funding Coordinated Entry c. Tier 1 d. Current Performance Criteria e. Strategic Reallocation f. Guiding Principles g. Questions or Feedback on Last Year’s Local Application

6. Closing and next steps

Agend a

• 1. Welcome and Meeting Purpose
• Alameda County needs to make several critical

strategic decisions about how to proceed in the 2016 HUD NOFA process.

• Community feedback will be considered by the HUD

CoC and HUD NOFA committees.

• Feedback will inform the development of the local

rating and ranking process, and the local application

• design. All comments and questions will be responded

to in writing by the CoC or NOFA Committees

• 2. Committee Introductions

HUD CoC

• C Com
• mmitt

ttee

Kristen Lee (Chair), City of Berkeley Riley Wilkerson (Representative to Steering Committee), Alameda County HCD Anna Kelleher, Rubicon Programs Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative Paulette Franklin, Behavioral Health Care Wendy Jackson, EOCP Rachael McNamara, City of Hayward Lara Tannenbaum, City of Oakland

• 2. Committee Introductions

HUD NOFA Committe tee

Moe Wright, BBI Construction* Jill Dunner, former consumer* Laura Escobar, Bay Area United Way* Heather McDonald-Fine, Alameda Health System Alin Lancaster, City of Union City Dave Lopez, Swords to Plowshares

* Indicates having previously served on this committee

HUD CoC Committee HUD NOFA Committee Seat the NOFA Committee Craft the local renewal and new project applications System Priority Setting Facilitate the local rating and ranking process Determine and facilitate process for gathering community feedback Release the final rating and ranking Work to identify resources to support non-prioritized programs Attend feedback / input sessions Ensure NOFA Committee is proper size Respond in writing to community questions and feedback A committee designee attends HUD CoC Committee meetings

• 2. Committee Roles & Responsibilities

• 3. 2015 Results and Analysis

Type Amount Requested Amount Awarded Renewals $26,325,202 $26,208,015 New/Reallocated $948,202 $897,264 Bonus $4,091,009 $1,191,736 Planning Grant $818,202 $818,202 Total $31,364,412 $28,980,863

HUD NOFA 2015 Results

• All but one renewal program was funded
• Rental Assistance project amounts were awarded at lower amounts because HUD

Lowered the 2016 FMRs

• Two of three projects proposed using reallocated funds were awarded.
• Two of four bonus projects were awarded
• First ever HUD CoC Planning Grant awarded to strengthen HMIS and the CoC Lead*

*as indicated during the 2015 funding round, the planning grant was not in competition with any project

• grants. HUD set aside CoC funds specifically for that purpose.

• 3. 2015 Results and Analysis:

Scores

Scoring Category Maximum Score Alameda County Score CoC Engagement 55 43.75 HMIS 27 24 System Performance 98 74.5 Assessing Mainstream Benefits 19 18.5 Leveraging 1 0.5 Bonus Points (for early submission) 3 3 Total CoC Score 203 164.25

Overall Scores for All CoCs

Highest Score for any CoC: 188 Lowest Score for any CoC: 49.5 Median Score for all CoCs: 149.75 Weighted Median Score for all CoCs: 158.25

• 3. Results and Analysis: Four Year

Look Back

$- $5,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $15,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $25,000,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $35,000,000.00 2012 2013 2014 2015

HUD CoC Program Awards 2012-2015

ARD Tier 2 Total Awarded

• 3. Results and Analysis: How the

System has Changed

What HUD has said about CoCs that did well versus didn’t (nationally)

• Communities that did well….

– Reallocated lower performing projects, especially TH and SSO. – Used Performance Criteria to rate and rank projects – Used Housing First practices – Reduced homelessness in their communities

What HUD has said about CoC that did well versus didn’t (nationally)

• Communities that did poorly…

– Had increases in homelessness within the CoC’s geography – Used poor strategies to reduce the length of time individuals experience homelessness – Used poor strategies to reduce returns to homelessness – Strategies to prevent and end homelessness were inadequate – Did not use evidence-based practices

• 4. Where are we Headed in 2016?
• We expect to have an equally large Tier 2

(15%)

• Communities may request up to 5% of their

ARDs in bonus projects

• The FMRs are likely to be corrected in this

funding round.

• CoC Application will again be performance

based and have a high impact on Tier 2 scores

• 4. Where are we Headed in 2016?

HUD Policy and Program Priorities Per the 2016 CoC Registration Notice 1. Create a Systemic Response to Homeless (pg 29): This section focuses on CES and low barrier approaches 2. Strategically Reallocate Resources using cost, performance and

• utcome data (pg31):

a. Review project quality, performance and cost effectiveness (only scored 5/13 pts in 2015) b. Maximize use of Mainstream resources (we scored well here) c. Review TH projects

3. End Chronic Homeless (pg 31):

a. Target highest need (we scored 1.5/3 and 2/5) b. Increase units c. Improve Outreach

• 4. Where are we Headed in 2016?

HUD Policy and Program Priorities Per the 2016 CoC Registration Notice

• 4. End Family Homelessness
• 5. End Youth Homelessness (we scored 2/5 on one
• f the indicators for this)
• 6. End Veteran homelessness
• 7. Using a housing first approach (we scored 6/6
• n this)

• 5. Community Input:

Strategic Questions

• A. Transitional Housing: What is HUD saying
• HUD continues to question the efficacy of the traditional site-based,

service intensive, long stay model of TH (pg 31 of the registration notice)

• Indicates it may work for youth, DV victims or persons in recovery

(31)

• Strongly encourages communities to consider reallocation (pg31)
• In webinar HUD staff have indicated that short stay, low barrier,

high performing TH may help continuum performance and CoC’s may want to keep such projects in their packages in Tier 1.

• Local Context: Given the high unsheltered population we have

discussed having site-based TH function as crisis housing along with shelters and fund them from a different source. That may take some years to fully implement.

What are our options?

• 5. Community Input: Options

for TH in HUD package

1. Option 1: Treat TH as we have in past rounds. It will lose points for project type and meeting HUD priorities, means maximum TH program score = 84. Utilize the same performance criteria as in the 2013 and 2015 rounds 2. Option 2: Automatically place TH in Tier 1 so it is not at risk while local funds are secured to support it as interim housing. 3. Option 3: Adjust the performance criteria by which TH is evaluated so that it too could score up to 100 points. Criteria could include length of stay (4 months or less); % of clients served directly from the streets; exits to PH; cost per PH exit; others… 4. Option 4: Other

• B. Coordinated Entry System
• HUD has required communities to establish a

Coordinated Entry System – a task on which Alameda County is behind. Staff believes this affected our score in the 2015 round.

• HUD is able to assist with CES funding,

through reallocation only. CES cannot be a bonus project.

• 5. Community Input: Strategic

Questions

• B. Coordinated Entry System
• Proposed design includes regional HUBs for

assessment, diversion, outreach, shelter access and some rapid rehousing and navigation services.

• Annual budgets for the HUBs are still under

development—will use some existing and new resources, likely including Boomerang and ACA funds.

• Does the community think HUD should help to fund

CES?

• If yes, what portion of CES costs should be requested in
• ur CoC submission?
• If so, should CES be placed in Tier 1 as an essential

system component?

• 5. Community Input: Strategic

Questions

• C. Reallocations / Tier 1
• Historically, all reallocated and bonus projects

have been placed in Tier 2, with only renewing projects in Tier 1.

• In the 2015 round, no community got all of

their Tier 2 projects funded.

• 5. Community Input: Strategic

Questions

• 5. Community Input: Strategic

Questions

• C. Reallocation / Tier 1
• In the 2016 round, should the community

consider putting reallocated and/or bonus projects in Tier 1?

– What are the benefits or risks to doing so?

• D. Current Performance Criteria
• We can improve our CoC Application the most

by improving our scores in 2 major categories:

• 1. CoC Engagement (worth 55 we scored

43.75):

– includes our local ranking process we lost 8 points

• n not being performance based enough.

– May have also lost points on not having an

• perational CES (worth 3 points).
• 5. Community Input: Strategic

Questions

• 5. Community Input: Strategic

Questions

• D. Current Performance Criteria
• 2. System Performance (We scored 74.5 out of

98 points)

– Includes scores for alignment with Open Doors, prioritizing the most vulnerable, committing non- dedicated beds to chronically homeless, reducing the number of homeless, the length of time homeless, and returns to homelessness. Progress in reducing veterans homelessness, chronic homelessness, youth and family homelessness.

• 5. Community Input: Strategic

Questions

• D. Current Performance Criteria
• How can the local and consolidated applications be

constructed so as to increase our point values on these topic areas? e.g.

– Should we keep the questions about unspent funds? – Should we consider incorporating drawdown rates? Local Context: Most of our Rental Assistance Projects have higher unspent funds than previous years, due to the housing crisis in our county. – Should program size be a factor for consideration when scoring performance? – Should we score programs on client eligibility?

• 5. Community Input: Strategic

Questions

• E. Strategic Reallocation
• Prior Strategies
• HUD has indicated that Strategic Reallocation is

still a heavily weighted factor in communities scoring well nationally.

• What does the community think is a good way to

create strategic reallocation this year?

• How do we continue using this as a mechanism to

score well, while still protecting projects that contribute valuable housing and services to our response to homelessness.

• 5. Community Input

Guiding Principles were developed by the NOFA Committee and affirmed by the Leadership Board and the Community in each NOFA round. The most recent of these are below.

• F. Guiding Principles

• 5. Community Input:
• F. Guiding Principles
• Are these principles still the right ones for our

community?

• Are these still in line with what we want and need

to prioritize?

• Does the community think there are principles

we need to add, or take away?

• What adjustments do people want to see?

• 5. Community Input
• G. Local Application
• Specific feedback about local applications will

be solicited via an online survey in near

• future. EveryOne Home will send all today’s

participants and grantees a link to the survey as well as posting it on the website.

Next Steps

• HUD CoC and HUD NOFA Committees will meet to

review feedback.

• Responses to questions and comments from this

meeting will be published to the EveryOne Home website

• Second Community Input meeting if time allows.
• The NOFA Committee will develop the local

application, supported by EveryOne Home staff.

• Local Application will be released at a Bidders’

Conference after the NOFA is released.