St. Louis Continuum of Care Overview of HEARTH and COC Changes 2 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• St. Louis Continuum of Care

Overview of HEARTH and COC Changes

2

What is HEARTH?

Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing

The HEARTH Act of 2009 amends & reauthorizes the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act with substantial changes to:

* Homeless Definition * Continuum of Care Program (CoC) * Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) * Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)

3

What is HEARTH? A Game Changer!

• New definitions and eligible activities allow CoCs

to provide more services to prevent homelessness and to rapidly move homeless people into housing

• Emphasis on outcomes, with new additional

measures that evaluate both system and individual program results

4

HEARTH: CoC Required Responsibilities

• CoC Governance & Structure
• CoC Planning & System Operations

– Performance Measures – Assistance Eligibility – Coordinated Assessment

• Ensure operation of HMIS

5

HEARTH: CoC Required Responsibilities

Governance & Structure

• Establish written process to select a Board to act on

behalf of CoC

• Establish a Governance Charter
• Appoint committees, subcommittees, or workgroups to

carry out the tasks of the CoC

• Hold at least semiannual meetings of full membership of

the CoC

• Ensure new members are invited to the CoC annually

6

HEARTH: CoC Required Responsibilities

Planning

• Coordinate the housing and service

system for the CoC geographic area

• Plan & conduct Point-in-Time Count, Gaps

Analysis, Grant Inventory Worksheet, & Housing Inventory Count

• Participate in Consolidated Plan & consult

with ESG recipients

7

HEARTH: CoC Required Responsibilities

System Operations

• Establish performance targets, monitor

performance, evaluate outcomes, take action against poor performers, report to HUD

• Establish written standards for providing CoC

program assistance

• Establish & operate a coordinated assessment

system

8

HEARTH: CoC Required Responsibilities System Operations: Performance Measures

• Measures performance at the system level

and the program level

• System level performance measures:
• Reduce length of time persons are homeless
• Reduce number of persons who are homeless
• Reduce # of persons who become homeless for first time
• Reduce % of persons who return to homelessness (recidivism)
• Increase % of adults who gain/increase employment or cash income
• Increase % of persons who exit to or retain permanent housing

9

HEARTH: CoC Required Responsibilities

System Operations: Written Standards for Assistance

• Eligibility policies & procedures
• Prioritize eligible persons for TH,

RRH, & PSH

• Determine levels of RRH assistance

and participant rent contribution

10

HEARTH: CoC Required Responsibilities

System Operations: Coordinated Assessment System

• Operate in collaboration w/ ESG Recipients
• Cover the full geographic area of the CoC
• Be easily accessible to individuals and

families seeking housing or services

• Use a comprehensive and standardized

assessment tool

11

HEARTH: CoC Required Responsibilities

HMIS

• Designate a single HMIS for geographic

area

• Select HMIS Lead to manage HMIS
• Comply w/ HUD’s HMIS planning and

participation requirements

12

HUD HEARTH DEADLINE

13

Understanding Dayton and Montgomery County CoC System and Governance

14

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio

Population = 537, 409 people 74% White, 21% Black, 5% Other 16% of individuals and 12% of families live in poverty Half of renter households pay more than 30% of their income for housing

15

Homelessness in Dayton & Montgomery County CoC OH-505

2014 Point-In Time Count (Single Day)

Unsheltered = 34 (4%) Sheltered = 757 (96%)

TOTAL PEOPLE = 791 Single Adults = 583 (74%) Families w/ children = 208 (26%)

16

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio Homeless Assistance System

• Overseen by Mont. Co.

Homeless Solutions & Continuum of Care (CoC)

• Providers give input to CoC
• Providers agree to abide by

policies set by CoC

• Performance targets set by

CoC

• All providers use HMIS

17

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio Homeless Assistance System

Prevention and Shelter Diversion

• Community Referrals: 211 & Homefull

–Screened for ‘at-risk of literal homelessness’

• If No, referred to other community

prevention programs (by subpopulation)

• If Yes, referred to Homefull & homeless

system

18

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio Homeless Assistance System

Prevention Assistance

• Must meet HUD risk factors and at least
• ne local risk factor:

– Previously homeless – Income below 15% AMI – Large Family (5 people or more) – Family w/ young children (age 5 & under) – Young Adults (age 18-24)

19

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio Homeless Assistance System

Diversion Focus

• Triage those w/ a housing crisis immediately upon

‘first knock’ at the Front Door

• Can they stay safely somewhere else as alternative

to shelter while a Diversion Plan is developed?

• What can be done to prevent loss of current

housing or expedite to new housing?

Financial assistance, mediation/legal, transportation

20

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio Homeless Assistance System

Diversion Priorities

• Families
• Veterans
• 18 year olds
• DV
• Serious medical/psychiatric
• Physical disabilities
• Out-of-County residents
• Those transported to shelter by another agency/system
• Significant Income

21

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio Homeless Assistance System

Front Door Programs: Street Outreach

• PATH

– Federally & Locally Funded – Primarily serves street homeless (SMI & AOD) – Considered a Front Door, uses Coordinated Assessment

• Homefull Neighborhood Outreach

– Serves as point of contact for local citizens and businesses regarding homelessness/transportation

22

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio Homeless Assistance System

Front Door Programs: Gateway Emergency Shelter

• 4 primary Front Doors : 500 beds total

– Youth – Single Men – Women and Families – Domestic Violence

• All use Diversion screen to see if a shelter stay can be

completely avoided or rapidly reduced

• All use Coordinated Assessment
• All offer Housing-Focused Case Management

23

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio Homeless Assistance System

Front Door Programs: Gateway Emergency Shelter

• CoC Guidelines for:

– Length of time until Front Door & Comprehensive Assessments – Assessment Scoring & Program Referral Criteria – Making referrals – Receiving referrals – Prioritizing referrals (PSH and Safe Haven) – County maintains centralized Wait List! (TH & PSH) – Participation in Front Door Meeting/Case Conferences

24

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio Homeless Assistance System

Pathways to Housing Programs: Rapid Re-Housing

• House directly from shelter (within 14 days)
• Provider determines level & length of assistance

(both financial and case management support)

25

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio Homeless Assistance System

Pathways to Housing Programs: Transitional Housing

• 8 programs + Safe Haven: 270 beds

– Youth, Families, Singles, Vets, DV

• Scattered Site and Congregate
• Must case conference w/ the County upon a

discharge exit

• Rapid Re-Housing now offers effective and

less expensive alternative to TH

• 26

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio Homeless Assistance System

Permanent Supportive Housing

• 16 programs: 982 beds
• Scattered Site and Congregate
• Various case management models
• Must case conference w/ the County

upon a discharge exit

27

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio Homeless Assistance System

Permanent Supportive Housing Referral Prioritization

– Chronically homeless households – Unsheltered households (in life threatening weather) – Large Family Households/Pregnant HoH – Medically frail Households – Long-stayer households (200+nights) – Young Adult households (age 18-24) – Households 60+ years & older not eligible for senior housing

28

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio Homeless Assistance System

Supportive Services

• Healthcare for the Homeless/Respite Care
• Rapid Employment/Supported Employment
• Follow-Up Services

29

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio System & Project Performance

Specific System Targets for:

–Prevention & Shelter Diversion –Street Outreach –Front Door Shelter –Pathways to Housing (TH & RRH) –Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)

30

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio System & Project Performance

Prevention and Shelter Diversion

• # of Households Served
• # of Leavers
• % Exit to Permanent Housing
• % Leavers w/ Cash Income
• % Leavers w/ Employment Income
• % Return to Shelter after Assistance

31

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio System & Project Performance

32

Prevention and Shelter Diversion

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio System & Project Performance Street Outreach

• # of Contacts before Engagement
• # of Days of Length of Stay in Program
• % Exit to Positive Destination
• % Leavers w/ Cash Income
• % Leavers w/ Employment Income
• % Leavers w/ Non-Cash Benefits

33

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio System & Project Performance

FRONT DOOR STREET OUTREACH

34

Reduction In Homelessness

Measure (*proposed) 2011 Mean 2012 Mean 2013 Mean 2015 Target* # of Contacts Prior to Engagement Length of Time on Street 101 days 113 days 210 days TBD

Sustainable Housing

Measure (*proposed) 2011 Mean 2012 Mean 2013 Mean 2015 Target* Destination – PH or next step in CoC 54% 49% 73% TBD

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio System & Project Performance

Front Door Shelter

• # of Households Served
• # of Leavers
• # of Days Length of Stay in Program (Target = 51 Days)
• % Exit to Positive Destination (Target = 59%)
• % Leavers w/ Cash Income (Target = 59%)
• % Leavers w/ Employment Income (Target = 23%)
• % Leavers w/ Non-Cash Benefits (Target = 86%)
• % Return to Shelter (Target = 33%)

35

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio System & Project Performance

Front Door Shelter

36

Reduction In Homelessness

Measure 2012 Mean 2013 Mean 2015 Target Length of Homelessness-Days 57 days 50 days 51 days Return to Shelter Rate 37% 20% 33%

Sustainable Housing

Measure 2012 Mean 2013 Mean 2015 Target Destination – PH or next step in CoC 54% 68% 59%

Income

Measure 2012 Mean 2013 Mean 2015 Target Cash Income LEAVERS 54% 52% 59% Employment Income LEAVERS 21% 20% 23% Non-Cash Benefits LEAVERS 78% 78% 86%

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio System & Project Performance

Pathways to Housing (TH & RRH)

• # of Households Served
• # of Leavers
• # of Days Length of Stay in Program (Target = 193

Days)

• % Exit to Permanent Housing (Target = 81%)
• % Leavers w/ Cash Income (Target = 73%)
• % Leavers w/ Employment Income (Target = 50%)
• % Leavers w/ Non-Cash Benefits (Target = 87%)
• % Return to Shelter (Target = 13%)

37

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio System & Project Performance

Pathways to Housing (TH & RRH)

38

Reduction In Homelessness

Measure 2012 Mean 2013 Mean 2015 Target Length of Homelessness-Days 215 days 140 days 193 days Return to Shelter Rate 15% 20% 13%

Sustainable Housing

Measure 2012 Mean 2013 Mean 2015 Target Destination – Permanent Housing 74% 64% 81%

Income

Measure 2012 Mean 2013 Mean 2015 Target Cash Income LEAVERS 66% 63% 73% Employment Income LEAVERS 37% 33% 50% Non-Cash Benefits LEAVERS 79% 85% 87%

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio System & Project Performance

Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)

• # of Households Served
• # of Leavers
• % Housing Stability (Target = 95%)
• % Exit to Permanent Housing (Target = 62%)
• % Stayers w/ Cash Income (Target = 84%)
• % Stayers w/ Non-Cash Benefits (Target = 93%)
• % Return to Shelter (Target = 15%)

39

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio System & Project Performance

Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)

40

Reduction In Homelessness

Measure 2012 Mean 2013 Mean 2015 Target Return to Shelter Rate 17% 12% 15%

Sustainable Housing

Measure 2012 Mean 2013 Mean 2015 Target Destination – Permanent Housing 56% 67% 62% Housing Stability 95% 96% 95%

Income

Measure 2012 Mean 2013 Mean 2015 Target Cash Income STAYERS 76% 75% 84% Non-Cash Benefits STAYERS 93% 94% 93%

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio CoC Governance & Structure

• Evolved from our 10 year plan to end chronic homelessness and reduce
• verall homelessness
• CoC represents all geographic area of the region
• Community leaders, businesses, colleges, provider representation,

elected by providers, consumers, landlords

• Reviews, evaluates and approves all activities
• Establishes committees
• Oversees all HUD compliance requirements
• Chaired by a community leader

41

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio CoC Governance & Structure

Committees do the work:

– Executive – Program Performance and Evaluation

• HMIS Performance

– Nominating – Agency Directors – Increasing Income

• Front Door
• Prevention
• Case Management
• Middle Group Work Group

– Affordable Housing

42

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio CoC Governance & Structure

• Executive Committee

–Proposes the agenda –Interim decision making authority –Appoints a Nominating Committee

43

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio CoC Governance & Structure

• Program Performance and Evaluation

Committee

–Evaluating and ranking CoC funding –Develops overall benchmarks for system performance –Establishes annual HUD priorities –Assures HMIS compliance –Evaluates all programs in system –Develops protocols for reallocations –Identifies gaps and trends in services

44

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio CoC Governance & Structure

• Nominating Committee

– Appoints Chair and Co Chair of the (CoC)

45

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio CoC Governance & Structure

• Agency Directors

– Comprised of agency directors from service delivery organizations – Provide feedback and advice to the CoC and Montgomery County Human Services Planning and Development Department – Appoints 3 service providers to voting members of CoC

46

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio CoC Governance & Structure

• Increasing Income

– Oversees the Front Door Assessment Process – Establishes and oversees standards for providing financial assistance including criteria – Designs programs and services to meet the trends and gaps within our system

47

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio CoC Governance & Structure

• Affordable Housing

– Determines the type of permanent housing needs for subpopulations – Assists with financing options for housing – Provides information on best practice models – Assures equitable geographic dispersal

48

Dayton & Montgomery County, Ohio CoC Governance & Structure

• Montgomery County Human Services Planning and

Development Department

– Provides primary staffing support to all committees – Manages the HMIS system and contracts – Provides oversight management to the front door – Monitors recipients for compliance – Ensures coordination between organizations – Gathers and analyzes data – Oversees the collaborative funding process – Responsible for submission to HUD for all required reports – Ensures implementation and compliance of CoC HUD priorities

49

Understanding City of St. Louis CoC System and Governance

Observations and Recommendations

50

Homelessness in City of St. Louis CoC MO-501

2014 Point-In Time Count (Single Day)

Unsheltered = 96 (7%) Sheltered = 1,258 (93%)

TOTAL PEOPLE = 1,354 Single Adults = 780 (58%) Families w/ children = 574 (42%)

51

City of St. Louis, Missouri Homeless Assistance System

• St. Louis City Homeless Assistance System

• St. Louis Winter Outreach

• St. Patrick Center

• St. Louis

• St. Martha

• St. Patrick Center GPD

• St. Louis Employment Connections

• St. Patrick Center (Protect, Rosati)

• St. Louis Employment Connections

Information used to make

• bservations
• 2014 AHAR
• 2013 and 2014 PIT
• 2013 and 2014 HIC
• 2013 and 2014 GIW
• HMIS generated reports by

program type

• HMIS User Agreements
• City of St. Louis HMIS Contract
• City of St. Louis ESG Allocations

and COC contracts

• COC Governance Documents
• St. Louis Provider Interviews
• Homefull COC Providers Survey

52

City of St. Louis, Missouri Homeless Assistance System

Prevention and Shelter Diversion Observations

• Can not determine the type of financial resources
• No system policies and procedures exist on the delivery of

financial assistance

• No priorities established for targeted prevention
• No consistency between emergency assistance providers
• How do you access services?
• Can not determine if shelters are attempting diversion at

the time of shelter entries

• Need more information on Prevention and Diversion

53

City of St. Louis, Missouri Homeless Assistance System

Front Door Programs: Street Outreach Observations

• Some outreach is being provided to limited

populations

• Passionate providers
• In-reach verses outreach
• Outreach should be able to access housing from the

street

• Outreach providers should also be using a front door

assessment

• Coordination between outreach providers and shelter

providers

54

City of St. Louis, Missouri Homeless Assistance System

Front Door Programs: Emergency Shelter Observations

• Mission driven organizations to serve homeless people
• Strong partnerships with onsite providers
• All providers are performing an intake
• Sophisticated case management models
• No coordinated entry or assessment
• Not all shelters utilize the Hotline
• No structured coordination between providers
• Not sure of the number of beds available on any given night
• No consistent outcomes being measured
• No 24 hour safety net for people experiencing homelessness
• No consistency with length of time in programs
• Not all providers participating in HMIS

55

City of St. Louis, Missouri Homeless Assistance System

Pathways to Housing Programs: Rapid Re-Housing Observations

• Need more information
• Not enough Rapid Re Housing programs
• Need to understand HUD’s emphasis on moving from a

Transitional Housing Model to Rapid Re Housing Model

• Can not determine the financial resources allocated to Rapid Re

Housing Programs

• No screening to determine appropriateness or referrals for

Rapid Re Housing from emergency shelters

• KEY TO ENDING HOMELESSNESS FOR LOW BARRIER HOMELESS

POPULATIONS

56

City of St. Louis, Missouri Homeless Assistance System

Pathways to Housing Programs: Transitional Housing Observations

• Significant amount of TH providers
• Sophisticated case management models
• Long time programs
• “Traditional” transitional housing programs
• No coordinated entry or assessment
• No centralized waitlist
• Entry points from various referral sources
• Not all serving the “transitional, or moderate barrier” homeless person or family
• No consistent outcomes being measured
• Can not determine exactly how many Transitional Housing Beds exist in your

system

57

City of St. Louis, Missouri Homeless Assistance System

Permanent Supportive Housing Observations

• Significant amount of PSH providers
• Individual providers with good outcomes
• Strong case management models
• Good partnerships
• Low turn over and high housing stability rate
• No assessment to determine appropriateness for PSH
• No prioritization for those in emergency shelters
• No centralized waitlist
• No consistent documentation of homelessness
• Cannot determine the amount of PSH units needed with no waitlist or

documentation of need

• Cannot determine the total amount of PSH units due to inconsistency in reports

58

City of St. Louis, Missouri Homeless Assistance System

Supportive Services Observations

• Employment programs shows innovation on

meeting HUD outcomes and addressing client needs

• Not a bad thing that there are limited SSO grants

as HUD as moved away from funding these

• Need to create new opportunities if available

59

System Performance Observations and Recommendations

60

City of St. Louis, Missouri System Performance

• Specific System Targets for:

–Prevention & Shelter Diversion –Street Outreach –Front Door Shelter –Pathways to Housing (TH & RRH) –Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)

61

City of St. Louis, Missouri System Performance Observation

Prevention and Shelter Diversion Can not be determined no data exists in HMIS to our knowledge from Prevention and Diversion Providers

62

City of St. Louis, Missouri

System Performance Recommendation Prevention and Shelter Diversion

• # of Households Served
• # of Leavers
• % Exit to Permanent Housing
• % Leavers w/ Cash Income
• % Leavers w/ Employment Income
• % Return to Shelter after Assistance

63

City of St. Louis, Missouri System Performance Observation Street Outreach

Can not be determined no data exists in HMIS to our knowledge from Street Outreach providers

64

City of St. Louis, Missouri

System Performance Recommendation

Street Outreach

• # of Contacts before Engagement
• # of Days of Length of Stay in Program
• % Exit to Positive Destination
• % Leavers w/ Cash Income
• % Leavers w/ Employment Income
• % Leavers w/ Non-Cash Benefits

65

City of St. Louis, Missouri System Performance Observation

Front Door Shelter **

66 Clients served during this period: 2013 2014 Change Total Persons 1301 1176

• 125

Family Households 239 237

• 2

Total Adults 844 747

• 97

Front Door Measures

• St. Louis City

2013

• St. Louis City

2014 Change

• St. Louis

City APR 2013

• St. Louis

APR City 2014 Length of Homelessness - Days 51.49 53.36 1.87 Return to Shelter Rate 0.0% Destination - PH *12.39% *16.67% *4.3% *22.57% *24.77% Cash income at exit 42.15% 39.53%

• 2.6%

Employment income at exit 10.76% 11.74% 1.0% Non-Cash benefits at exit 57.30% 53.75%

• 3.5%

City of St. Louis, Missouri

System Performance Recommendation

Front Door Shelter

• # of Households Served
• # of Leavers
• # of Days Length of Stay in Program
• % Exit to Positive Destination
• % Leavers w/ Cash Income
• % Leavers w/ Employment Income
• % Leavers w/ Non-Cash Benefits
• % Return to Shelter

67

City of St. Louis, Missouri System Performance Observation

Pathways to Housing (TH & RRH)

68 Clients served during this period: 2013 2014 Change

Total 1181 1120

• 61

Family Households 223 207

• 16

Average family size 3.06 3.16 0.1 Total Adults 700 657

• 43

Total Leavers 645 640

• 5

Pathways to Housing Measures

• St. Louis City

2013

• St. Louis

City 2014 Change

Length of Homelessness - Days 288.8 272.4

• 16.4

Return to Shelter Rate 0.0% Destination - PH 65.5% 67.1% 1.6% Cash income at exit 31.6% 44.4% 12.8% Employment income at exit 14.8% 23.0% 8.2% Non-Cash benefits at exit 25.2% 30.5% 5.3%

City of St. Louis, Missouri

System Performance Recommendation

Pathways to Housing

• # of Households Served
• # of Leavers
• # of Days Length of Stay in Program
• % Exit to Permanent Housing
• % Leavers w/ Cash Income % Leavers w/

Employment Income

• % Leavers w/ Non-Cash Benefits
• % Return to Shelter

69

City of St. Louis, Missouri System Performance Observation

Permanent Supportive Housing

70 Clients served during this period: 2013 2014 Change

Total 1303 1443 140 Family Households 185 281 96 Average family size 3.4 2.36

• 1.04

Total Adults 928 1056 128 Total Leavers 134 181 47

PSH Measures

• St. Louis City PSH

2013

• St. Louis City PSH

2014 Change

Return to Shelter Rate Destination - PH 49.2% 45.7%

• 3.5%

Housing Stability 98.4% 98.4% 0.0% Cash income Current 68.9% 66.7%

• 2.2%

Employment income Current 20.3% 13.9%

• 6.4%

Non-Cash benefits Current 54.0% 61.9% 7.9%

City of St. Louis, Missouri

System Performance Recommendation

Permanent Supportive Housing

• # of Households Served
• # of Leavers
• % Housing Stability
• % Exit to Permanent Housing
• % Stayers w/ Cash Income
• % Stayers w/ Non-Cash Benefits
• % Return to Shelter

71

HMIS

72

City of St. Louis, Missouri HMIS Performance

Observations

• Local system evolved from previous data collection system
• No policies and procedures available
• Inconsistency on how using amongst providers
• Not all providers are entering data
• Many providers find it difficult to use
• Providers aren’t able to create their own performance reports
• No system reports readily available
• Many providers using duplicative systems
• Most use only as required
• User agreements did not match with program descriptions
• Users feel there is little training or communication on updates
• Missing data makes it difficult to make accurate assumptions on outcomes
• Providers feel like they don’t own their own program reports

73

City of St. Louis, Missouri HMIS Performance

Recommendations

• Evaluate the Compass Rose system by comparing to other products
• Gain consensus from providers and City on a system
• Establish policies and procedures with minimum expectations on

providers usage

• Train users and offer ongoing support and Help Desk
• Develop CoC system reporting expectations
• Accurately reflect programs by type and agency
• Update user agreements
• Educate providers to inform consumers on the use of their data
• Work with the CoC committee to build HMIS Lead provider

expectations

• Evaluate your current HMIS contract to accurately reflect all the

expectations of the HMIS Lead provider

74

CoC Governance and Structure

75

City of St. Louis, Missouri CoC Governance & Structure

Observations/Recommendations:

• CoC Committee has lengthy history of operating
• Bylaws and structure already exists
• Committees already designed
• Good consumer representation
• Work towards full HUD compliance
• Understand the HEARTH Rules and governance

responsibilities

76

City of St. Louis, Missouri CoC Governance & Structure

Observations/Recommendations

• Move from a “loose” meeting to formal agenda actions and

committee reporting

• Define the committees and their expectations
• Understand the link between the CoC governance and the City
• f St. Louis
• Develop policies and procedures for operating all programs

through the Continuum

• Develop clear expectations for HMIS reporting
• Establish system wide performance expectations
• Create process to approve by appropriate committee all HUD

required reporting by City of St. Louis prior to submission

77

City of St. Louis, Missouri CoC Governance & Structure

Planning Committee

• Create policies and procedures for the operations of the CoC

Programs

• Should develop benchmarks for system performance
• Assign actions to committees
• Monitor critical data outputs
• Establish HMIS expectations
• Review HUD data prior to City of St. Louis submission
• Establish annual prioritizations for Permanent Supportive Housing
• Approve Ranking and Review of CoC applications from Rank and

Review Committee

• Evaluate annually the gaps analysis

78

City of St. Louis, Missouri CoC Governance & Structure

Rank and Review Committee

• Create a formal mechanism to rank and

prioritize the CoC funding application

• Review overall system performance
• Identify the gaps in the CoC system
• Work with the City of St. Louis on the annual

submission of the HUD CoC application

79

City of St. Louis, Missouri CoC Governance & Structure

Service Delivery Committee

• Create, implement, operate and monitor a coordinated assessment

process and a single prioritized waitlist for housing programs

• Develop a system approach for your entire CoC geographic area
• Conduct an annual gaps analysis for inclusion in the Consolidated

Plan with the City of St. Louis

• Develop regulations for Emergency Assistance Providers
• Oversee the Point In Time Count annually
• Create a process to accurately complete the Grant Inventory

Worksheet and Housing Inventory Chart for the City of St. Louis to submit

80

City of St. Louis, Missouri CoC Governance & Structure

Membership Committee

• Create a Governance Charter defining the

function of the CoC and Committees

• Assure CoC membership represents the

geographic area and has homeless or formerly homeless representation

• Update the bylaws and montior consistent with

new HUD regulations annually

• Create and adopt a Board selection process and

review every 5 years

81

City of St. Louis, Missouri CoC Governance & Structure

Advocacy Committee

• Assure the CoC Committee Structure

represents the geographic area and has homeless representation

• Assure all CoC activities are fully transparent
• Provide community activities to promote

awareness of homeless issues

82

City of St. Louis, Missouri CoC Governance & Structure

Consumer Committee

• Provide feedback to committees and CoC for

planning purposes

• Review gaps analysis annually to assure

programs addressing consumer needs are being developed

83

City of St. Louis Department of Human Services

City

• Oversee the CoC committee
• Provide support to CoC Committees
• Be fully transparent
• Report annually to the community progress on ending homelessness
• Assure CoC compliance
• Stay updated on HUD regulations and implications
• Submit accurate and timely data to HUD (AHAR, PIT, HIC, GIW, APRs)
• Assure HMIS Compliance and data integrity
• Construct collaborative funding process to select CoC, ESG and local

funding providers

• Incorporate CoC into funding and program decisions
• Monitor recipients and sub recipients operations and performance
• Assure HUD compliance through implementation of a coordinated front

door assessment process

84

Questions & Answers