County of Riverside Continuum of Care and Board of Governance CoC Membership Meeting

Transcription

1 County of Riverside Continuum of Care and Board of Governance CoC Membership Meeting Wednesday, August 24, :00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. James A. Venable Community Center Carmen Ave., Cabazon, Chair: Michelle Davis Vice-chair: Kristii MacEwen Secretary: Florence White 1. Call to Order: Welcome & Introductions 2. Approval of Minutes: a. CoC Membership Meeting, June 22, New Business: a. Recognition & Appreciation of Outgoing & Incoming Officers: Michelle Davis, CoC Chair b. Vision of New Leadership: Michelle Davis c. Board of Governance Private Seat Nominations: Steve Falk, Membership Committee Chair At the Board of Governance (BOG) meeting on August 18 th the Board nominated the following people for the Private Sector seat vacated by Jack Olree of Wells Fargo: Ray Osborne, Executive Director, HomeAid Inland Empire Steve PonTell, President and CEO, National Community Renaissance Leeann Faucett, Vice-president of Philanthropic Services, Community Foundation Additional nominations are being requested of the CoC membership to be placed on a ballot for the next CoC membership meeting. d. CoC-wide Systems Performance Measures report: Jill Kowalski, Collaborative Applicant A presentation was made to the Board of Governance at the June 16 meeting about HUD s new requirement for all CoCs to report on seven performance measures in the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). Following the June 16 BOG meeting, HUD sent guidance that the system performance measures report would be due on August 1. The deadline was later extended to August 15. The System Performance Measures (SPM) report that was submitted to HUD on August 15. The report was sent to the CoC membership on August 8 for review and comment prior to submitting to HUD. The SPM report will be presented to the CoC for brief analysis. 4. Unfinished Business: a HUD Consolidated Application Review and Ranking Process Update: Jill Kowalski i. New Projects ii. Tier 1 and 2 Priority Ranking b. Revised HUD Monitoring Tool Update: Jill Kowalski c. Collaborative Applicant & CoC MOU Update: Donyielle Holley, CoC Planner d. State Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Timeline & Process: Jill Kowalski

2 5. Standing Items: None 6. Consent Items: a. Committee Reports: Housing: Chair: Darrell Moore Vice Chair: Kristii MacEwen (no report) Standards/Evaluation: Chair: Linda Barrack Vice Chair: Susan Larkin (no report) HMIS Council: Chair: Lynne Brockmeier Vice Chair: Leonard Jarman (no report) Planning: Chair: Karyn Young-Lowe Vice Chair: Susan Larkin (report submitted) Membership: Chair: Steve Falk Vice Chair: TBD (no report) CES Advisory: Chair: Jill Kowalski Vice Chair: Michelle Davis (no report) Employment/Self-Sufficiency: Chair: TBD Vice Chair: TBD Funding/Finance: Chair: TBD Vice Chair: TBD b. New Members: i. Help For Future Leaders c. CoC Letters of Support: None d. APRs: None 7. Riverside County CoC Member Comments 8. Call for Agenda Items for the Next Meeting 9. Announcements 10. Next Meeting: October 26, 2016, 10 a.m. 12 p.m., James A. Venable Community Center, Cabazon 11. Adjournment

3 Minutes for County of Riverside Continuum of Care Membership Meeting June 22, :30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. James A. Venable Community Center Carmen Avenue, Cabazon, CA Minutes Recorded and Transcribed by Tiffany Nelson, Office Assistant III, DPSS Homeless Programs Unit TOPIC PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME Call to Order David Leahy, Chair The meeting was called to order at 9:48 a.m. Introductions Self-introductions were made by all in attendance. No quorum was reached for the Continuum of Care or Board of Governance members present. Approval of the Minutes for February 24, 2016 and April 27, 2016 David Leahy Motion was made by Ron Vervick and seconded by Angelina Coe to approve the previous minutes for February 24, Motion carried with no abstentions. Motion was made by Jeffrey Moritz and seconded by Le McLellan to approve the previous minutes for April 27, Motion carried with no abstentions. NEW BUSINESS PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME CoC Membership Election of Steve Falk, All candidates for the CoC Officer positions gave brief introductions of themselves. Officers: Membership Michelle Davis, City of Riverside, was elected as the new CoC Chairperson. Committee Chair Kristii MacEwen, Path of Life Ministries, was elected as the new CoC Vice-chairperson. Florence White, Alternatives to Domestic Violence, was elected as the new CoC Secretary. The terms of the new seats will in effect from July 1, 2016 to June 30, HUD Application Scoring Jill Kowalski, A handout with the Tier 1 and 2 awards listed was given to the meeting attendees. Review: Collaborative Applicant Jill presented that HUD eliminated the funding from Whiteside Manor and from our CoC. Our CoC did not receive the $1.4 million dollars in Bonus Funds for Behavioral Health. HUD eliminated Transitional and low performing projects that were Permanent Supportive Housing and Rapid Rehousing throughout the country. Many CoCs reallocated their Transitional Housing Projects. The 2016 HUD Independent Review Panel is in place and met for the first time on June 1, The Panel recommended that it was in the best interest to reallocate funding from the remaining Transitional Housing projects: Operation SafeHouse, Martha's Village and Kitchen, and ABC Recovery Center, Inc. They also recommended reallocating funding from agencies that were not able to meet the requirements of Housing First, such as Valley Restart Shelter (note: VRS rescinded their intent to apply for renewal). The Board of Governance met on June 16 and approved the recommendations of the Review Panel to reallocate the funding from the three TH projects to fund new projects. There is a Request for Proposal for the 2016 NOFA in place that is due by August 3 rd to DPSS. County of Riverside, CoC Membership Minutes Draft for approval Page 1 of 6

4 2016 HUD Consolidated Application Review and Ranking Process Update: Revised HUD Monitoring Tool: Collaborative Applicant & CoC Memorandum of Understanding: There will be a non-mandatory bidder s conference on July 20 th at 4060 County Circle Drive, Riverside, CA Dodge Room. Linda Barrack asked for clarification regarding the Permanent Supportive Housing Bonus that we didn t receive. The other CoCs that did receive the bonus funds had stronger applications, which made them more eligible for the bonus. HUD encourages that the supportive services budget for the Permanent Supportive Housing Bonus to be less than 30%. HUD is also expecting CoCs to meet all of the System Performance Measures, so the agencies that enter into HMIS will be hearing from the DPSS HMIS team on what data needs to be corrected. If the data isn t corrected, it will impact our CoC score. In regards to question 3B on the Scoring Summary Sheet handout, Linda Barrack asked why Riverside CoC scored 0/5. DPSS staff responded that is was a data quality issue. Florence White of Alternative to Domestic Violence (ADV) wanted to know if it affects the score that they don t enter into HMIS. Jill responded that ADV, being a domestic violence shelter, would not be required to enter into HMIS (just like Shelter From The Storm). She said domestic violence shelters can create their own tracking system for confidentiality reasons. Jill Kowalski The Review and Ranking Process draft was brought to the CoC for approval at the April 27 meeting; however, there was no quorum to vote on the agenda item. The Board of Governance approved the review process on June 16. Jill will be sharing the Board of Governance decisions with the CoC. David Leahy on This agenda item was discussed at the last meeting; however, there was no quorum to make a behalf of Susan final decision. Larkin Discussion was had regarding whether identification cards were a HUD requirement. DPSS asks for ID and Social Security cards to verify client identity in HMIS according to HMIS Data Standards. Motion: Was amended by Anthony Brazier to approve the revised HUD monitoring tool that has been updated to meet HUD requirements and to approve that DPSS will use this tool in future monitoring visits, with the amendment to set the requirement for identification and social security cards as a best practice rather than a finding. The revised tool will be brought back to the CoC for review. Michelle Davis seconded Donyielle Holley, CoC Planner the motion. Motion carried unanimously. This agenda item was discussed at the last meeting; however, there was no quorum to make a final decision. Every CoC is required by the HEARTH Act to have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the CoC and the Collaborative Applicant. The draft MOU was sent out to the CoC membership requesting feedback; no feedback was received. The draft MOU was taken to the Planning Committee and they reviewed it very carefully. Motion: Approve the MOU between the Collaborative Applicant (DPSS) and the CoC. Background: The HEARTH Act requires that there is an MOU between the Collaborative Applicant and the CoC to put in writing responsibilities and duties of each entity. County of Riverside, CoC Membership Minutes Draft for approval Page 2 of 6

5 CoC Service Needs & Gaps Survey Results: 2016 HUD System Performance Measures: State Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Timeline & Process Linda Barrack, Standards and Evaluation Committee Chair County of Riverside, CoC Membership Minutes Motion was made by Michelle Davis to approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Collaborative Applicant (DPSS) and the Continuum of Care. Steve Falk seconded the motion. Linda Barrack shared her concern with pg. 2, item IV. D. of the draft MOU. She suggested that it be added for DPSS to provide technical assistance to low performing funded projects. Linda also addressed pg. 6, item XIX. F.; she suggested DPSS should provide a timeline to process the claims. During the discussion of the initial motion, the membership agreed to have the following suggested changes made to the draft MOU: o IV. DPSS Responsibilities D.: DPSS will provide technical assistance for agencies with poor performance, in addition to taking CoC action. o XIX. Fiscal Provisions F.: The DPSS Fiscal Unit shall provide the assigned deadlines to the CoC and ensure that claims are paid to contract recipients by the assigned deadlines. Amended motion was made by Elizabeth Dearen to conditionally approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Collaborative Applicant (DPSS) and the Continuum of Care with the suggested changes to items IV.D and XIX.F. Jeffrey Moritz seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Linda went over the ranking survey results handout with the CoC membership. She thanked everyone for taking the survey and hopes to look at it again at the next meeting. Donyielle Holley Donyielle presented the 7 System Performance Measures that HUD is requiring us to meet as a CoC. 1. Length of time persons remain homeless; 2. The extent to which persons who exit homelessness to permanent housing destinations return to homelessness; 3. Number of homeless persons; 4. Jobs and income growth for homeless persons in CoC Program-funded projects; 5. Number of persons who become homeless for the first time; 6. Homelessness prevention and housing placement of persons defined by Category 3 of HUD s homeless definition in CoC Program-funded projects (Measure 6 is not applicable for any CoCs to meet during the 2016 NOFA); 7. Successful housing placement. Donyielle asked two things of the CoC membership: 1) for HUD funded agencies to take entering accurate data very seriously; and 2) for other agencies to understand that data is important and to remember as they serve clients not to sacrifice any data. Jill Kowalski In February of this year, the CoC approved for DPSS to become the Administrative Entity for the State Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG). The State is giving back to the County and we need to put together an award process by October 31 st. The award process will need to go to the County Board of Supervisors and the CoC Board of Draft for approval Page 3 of 6

6 Governance. The CoC Membership s input is needed to decide where we need the money most. The two year, $600,000 grant allows for 4 components; HMIS, Outreach, Emergency Shelter, and Rapid Rehousing. 20% of the total grant would be administrative funds to DPSS and 40% must be Rapid Rehousing. We would have to do a Request for Quotation (RFQ) for this grant. Jill proposed a suggestion to the CoC for all of the $600,000 to be put into Rapid Rehousing. Kristii asked for clarification that the ESG is 100% cash match. Jill will check with the state to make sure that the cash match is 100%. CVRM recommends that we utilize a portion of the grant towards emergency shelter. We need to come up with the RFQ/RFP Process by August 18 th. Jill will send a proposed timeline for the State ESG process. No voting decisions can be made on this item today due to no motion on the agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME CoC Membership Application Steve Falk As of today, 70 new and updated CoC Applications have been received. Update 32 CoC member agencies have been attending 50%+1 meetings this fiscal year. Steve reminded that an agency must attend 3 consecutive CoC Membership meetings to become a member of the County of Riverside Continuum of Care. STANDING ITEMS PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME No Standing Items CONSENT ITEMS PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME Committee Reports: Steve Falk Steve Falk is stepping down as the Employment/Self Sufficiency Chairperson. He will still participate on the committee as a member. New Members: Steve Falk The following agencies are now official members of the CoC. o The Convergent Center o Hemet Police Department o Street Life Project CoC Letters of Support: None APRs: APRs for ABC Recovery Transitional, City of Riverside Chronic, City of Riverside Rapid Rehousing, JFS Desert Horizon, MVK formerly MFI, MVK Transitional, RCDMH Rapid Rehousing, and RCDMH Women s PH. Motion was made by Linda Barrack and seconded by Kristii MacEwen to accept the consent items. Motion carried unanimously. CoC MEMBER COMMENTS PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME None CALL FOR AGENDA ITEMS PRESENTER ACTION/OUTCOME None ANNOUNCEMENTS PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME None County of Riverside, CoC Membership Minutes Draft for approval Page 4 of 6

7 ADJOURNMENT PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME Next meeting David Leahy Wednesday, August 24, 2016, 10:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. FSA - James A. Venable Community Center Carmen Ave., Cabazon, CA Adjournment David Leahy The meeting was adjourned at 11:59 a.m. County of Riverside, CoC Membership Minutes Draft for approval Page 5 of 6

8 CoC Membership Meeting June 22, 2016: Attendance Report Total in Attendance: 54 *Chair **Vice Chair Path of Life Ministries Kristii MacEwen ***Secretary Prayer Warriors Enhancement Rochelle Lewis Present: 46 Recovery Innovations Robyn Kelley ABC Recovery Center David Leahy* Riverside County Housing Authority Tanya Torno Alternatives to Domestic Violence Florence White Riverside County Probation Jeffrey Richardson Board of Supervisors - District 3 Sundae Sayles Riverside County Probation Sherri Elmore Catholic Charities Jessica Meza Riverside County Probation Cintia Rivas City of Hemet Carla Callahan Riverside County Sheriff Aaron Avila City of Moreno Valley Diana Vasquez Riverside County Sheriff Bridgette Recksieck City of Palm Desert Frankie Riddle Riverside County Veteran Services Grant Gautsche City of Riverside Michelle Davis Riverside University Health System - Behavioral Lynne Brockmeier City of Riverside Adrian Varela Shelter From The Storm Angelina Coe City of Riverside Monica Sapien TEAM Community Pantry Randy Taylor/Steve Falk City of Temecula Robin Gilliland The Convergent Center Inc. Jeff Moritz Coachella Valley Rescue Mission Tom Cox U.S. Vets Gregory Coffos Community Catalysts of California - Veterans Services Janeth Ventura VA Loma Linda Healthcare Carmen Macias Community Connect Ahlam Jadallah Valley Restart Shelter Susana Harris Community Mission of Hope Steve Falk Whiteside Manor Ron Vervick EDA Terri Bowen EDA Elizabeth Dearen DPSS Staff: 8 Family Service Association (FSA) Deana Haywood DPSS Adult Services Assistant Director Lisa Shiner Foothill Aids Project (FAP) Anthony Brazier DPSS Homeless Programs Donyielle Holley H.O.P.E. In Elsinore Steve Falk DPSS Homeless Programs Elizabeth Hernandez HelpingOurPeople.org Jean Barnett DPSS Homeless Programs Jill Kowalski Inland Counties Legal Services (ICLS) Darrell Moore DPSS Homeless Programs Tiffany Nelson Jewish Family Services of San Diego Becky Ruiz DPSS Contacts Lupe Mkhitaryan Jewish Family Services of San Diego Le McClellan DPSS Contacts Catalina Guitron LightHouse Social Service Centers Mark Houck DPSS Contacts Kimberlyn Richardson Lutheran Social Services Ricardo Forbes Martha s Village and Kitchen Linda Barrack** Martha's Village and Kitchen Stephanie Minor County of Riverside, CoC Membership Minutes Draft for approval Page 6 of 6

9 Descriptions of System Performance Measures Measure 1: Length of Time Persons Remain Homeless Desired Outcome: Reduction in the average and median length of time persons remain homeless 1. Client Universe Persons in ES and SH projects during the reporting period (10/01/2014-9/30/2015) Persons in ES, SH, and TH projects during the reporting period (10/01/2014-9/30/2015) 2. Basic approach for this measure Two measures Count up the number of days recorded in HMIS that a person has spent in emergency shelters and safe havens during a one year period and then find the average and median lengths of time for everyone in the system. Count up the number of days recorded in HMIS that a person has spent in emergency shelters, safe havens, AND transitional housing during a one year period and then find the average and median lengths of time for everyone in the system. 3. Basic calculation for this measure (1.a) Calculate each person s length of time homeless by looking at the client s entry, exit, and bed night dates. When client s last enrollment in one of those project types ended during the reporting period, calculation starts with client s exit date from the project, look back for 365 days, and count up all the days the client was enrolled in the project during that period of time. Anytime enrollments are continuous beyond the last 365 days, those continuous days are also included in the calculations. Two Methods for Tracking Emergency shelter bed nights 1. Entry/ Exit method : For entry/exit projects bed night means every separate date between the project entry date up and including the lesser of the lesser of the ([project exit date] 1) or (report end date). 2. Night by Night method: For n/n projects bed night means the separate bed night records dated between the client s project entry date and the lesser of the ([project exit date] 1) or (report end date). In our HMIS, the only ES project that is using Night by Night method is POL Emergency Cold Weather Shelter. Important Note: HUD measures this by looking at the average and median length of time people spend in homeless situations and then looks to see if that time period is getting shorter, staying the same, or getting longer. HUD will update and incorporate the data element 3.17 into this measure which tracks length of time on the street, in a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter. Therefore, street outreach participation in HMIS is strongly encouraged to help communities understand that part of experiencing homelessness over the course of the year and help them prioritize housing chronically homeless individuals and families with the longest history of homelessness.

10 Findings based upon the CoC performance There were some enrollments identified with no exit date recorded. There were some duplicated enrollments and client records identified in HMIS. There were overlapping stays in HMIS. Recommendation(s): It is very important to: Record accurate project entry and exit dates on each client in HMIS. Check dates to ensure that you are not entering dates that will dramatically affect the numbers for length of stay. Record project entry and exit dates on each client in a timely manner in HMIS. Avoid the duplicates (enrollment/client record). Run the report and review your project regularly for data entry and completeness in HMIS. Record data element in HMIS. (3.17 will be incorporated to this measure possibly next year. This element will be replaced by the new element Living Situation ( ) A is to be used for all persons entering a Street Outreach, Emergency Shelter or Safe Haven project, and 3.917B is to be used for persons entering in all other HMIS project types.) Measure 2: The Extent to which Persons who Exit Homelessness to PH Destinations Return to Homelessness Desired Outcome: Reduction in the percentage of persons who return to homelessness This measure looks at persons who exited from Street outreach, ES, TH, SH and PH to permanent housing and then later became homeless. 1. Client Universe Persons in SO, ES, SH, TH and any PH project type who exited to permanent housing destinations during the previous reporting period (to measure the return within 6 to 12 months) Persons in SO, ES, SH, TH and any PH project type who exited to permanent housing destinations during the fiscal year two years prior to the current reporting period (to measure the return within 2 years) e.g., when the current reporting period is FY 2015 (10/01/2014 9/30/2015), then look back to persons who exited to permanent housing destinations in FY 2013 (10/01/2012 9/30/2013) 2. Basic approach for this measure First, look at persons who exited homeless projects (SO, ES, TH and PH) for permanent housing destination Second, look at how many people returned to a shelter, safe haven or transitional housing after the exit to a permanent housing destination, then Third, add instances when people returned to homeless projects including permanent housing projects. (Note: This does not include transfers from one permanent housing project to another.) 3. Basic calculation for this measure Leavers with PH destination exited between 10/01/2012 9/30/2013 2

11 Of those leavers, how many people return to homelessness over the next two years: 6, 12 and 24 months after the client s earliest project exit date. (When a client has two exits to a permanent housing destination, we will look at the first one.) The total number of Returned to homeless under 6 months is identified as 111. o 32% of clients exited to Rental by client, no ongoing housing subsidy destination. o 30 % of clients exited to Staying or living with friends, permanent tenure destination. o 27 % of clients exited to Staying or living with family, permanent tenure destination. o 9% of clients exited to Permanent Housing for formerly homeless persons destination. o 2 % of clients exited to Rental by client, other (non-vash) ongoing housing subsidy destination. 74% of clients returned to Emergency shelter, 6% returned to Permanent Supportive Housing, 1% returned to RRH, 4% returned to Street Outreach and 15% returned to Transitional Housing. The total number of Returned to homeless between 6 to 12 months is identified as 46. o 44 % of clients exited to Staying or living with friends, permanent tenure destination. o 39% of clients exited to Rental by client, no ongoing housing subsidy destination. o 11 % of clients exited to Rental by client, other (non-vash) ongoing housing subsidy destination. o 4% of clients exited to Permanent Housing for formerly homeless persons destination. o 2 % of clients exited to Rental by client, VASH Subsidy destination. 74% of clients returned to Emergency shelter, 9% returned to Street Outreach, and 17% returned to Transitional Housing. The total number of Returned to homeless between 13 to 24 months is identified as 64. o 41% of clients exited to Rental by client, no ongoing housing subsidy destination. o 23% of clients exited to Staying or living with family, permanent tenure destination. o 19% of clients exited to Permanent Housing for formerly homeless persons destination. o 9 % of clients exited to Staying or living with friends, permanent tenure destination. o 5 % of clients exited to Rental by client, other (non-vash) ongoing housing subsidy destination. o 3 % of clients exited to Rental by client, VASH Subsidy destination. 46% of clients returned to Emergency shelter, 6% returned to Permanent Supportive Housing, 3% returned to RRH, 14% returned to Street Outreach and 31% returned to Transitional Housing. Findings based upon the CoC performance Because destination data element was not required to collect for ES projects during FY12-13 as UDE, this number is not accountable for this year. HMIS was able to generate some positive destination information as we started to recommend all projects to collect the destination information during FY No Exit interview completed identified for PSH project. 3

12 Recommendation: Timely entry and exit is critical. Check the entry/exit to increase accuracy. As the destination is a part of universal data elements, this element should be proactively collected by Emergency Shelter instead of selecting Don t know, No exit interview completed, or Place not meant for habitation. Destination is one of the critical elements to identify where a client will stay after exiting a project for purposes of tracking and outcome measurement. Tracking method for Emergency Shelters, except for POL Emergency Cold Weather Shelter, is Entry/Exit which is the preferred tracking method by HUD. Because HUD believes that Entry/Exit method outcomes are measureable and with this method ES projects have the most opportunity to actually work with clients to end their homeless situation. Effective case management is encouraged for ES projects to collect destination to track where those clients are going. Important Notes: The core purpose of the destination data element is to track where clients go after exiting the project. This data element is critical to understanding how your projects and the system as a whole are performing. This data element became a universal data element which means that it is required for all projects participating in HMIS to collect this information. HUD understands that it may be challenging for Emergency Shelter providers to collect this information; yet, the destination information helps providers, funders, and the system understand where clients go or if they remain homeless. Measure 3: Number of Homeless Persons Desired Outcome: Reduction in the number of persons who are homeless 1. Client Universe 3.1 Persons counted as sheltered and unsheltered in the PIT Count conducted during the reporting period 3.2 Persons served in ES, SH, and TH projects during the reporting period (10/01/2014-9/30/2015). 2. Basic approach for this measure Two tables 3.1 PIT Count How many people are homeless on a single day. 3.2 Annual Count How many people are homeless over the course of a year. 3. Basic calculation for this measure 3.1 Using PIT data, add the number of persons in the client universe. 3.2 Using HMIS data, add the number of persons in the client universe by project type, then add the overall unduplicated number of people in the client universe. Findings based upon the CoC performance There were some duplicated enrollments and client records identified in HMIS. There were some enrollments identified with no Exit Date recorded in a long term. 4

13 Recommendation: Timely entry and exit is critical. Check the entry/exit dates of client s enrollment for the accuracy of PIT and annual count. If a client in an entry/exit shelter was not exited and was in the shelter all the way back to 2012 (Look back stop date = 10/01/2012), the Length of Time (measure 1) will be impacted as well. Measure 4: Employment and Income Growth for Homeless Persons in CoC Program-funded Projects Desired Outcome: Increase in the percentage of adults who gain or increase employment or nonemployment cash income over time 1. Client Universe Adult system Stayers: In CoC program-funded, SH, TH, PH-RRH, and PH-PSH projects. Who have been in HMIS for at least one year and are still in the system at the end of reporting period. (The client must have at least 365 days in latest stay to be included in this measure) Adult System Leavers: In CoC program-funded, SH, TH, PH-RRH, and PH-PSH projects Who have exited from one or more of the relevant projects and who are not active in any of the relevant projects as of the report end date. 2. Basic approach for this measure Look at adult system stayer s and leaver s earned income (employment income) and other sources of cash income (non-employment income) separately when they enter projects, and compare to their income at Annual Assessment, or when they exit. Solely look at increases in income only. HUD wants to see whether clients increase their income during their time in the homeless system. Only required for CoC Program funded projects. 3. Basic calculation for this measure (Increased Income for Stayers) Add the number of adult stayers in the client universe Use data from each stayer s latest income assessment (income assessment recorded with Annual Assessment ) up to or on the (report end date) and compare this data to the client s most recent income assessment prior to that one. This may be either an Annual Assessment or entry assessment at project entry, whichever is later. Add the number of adult stayers who gained or increased earned income (employment income) during the reporting period, and then divide it by the total number of adult stayers in the client universe. Add the number of adult stayers who gained or increased nonemployment cash income during the reporting period, and then divide it by the total number of adult stayers in the client universe. Add the number of adult stayers who gained or increased total cash income during the reporting period, and then divide it by the total number of adult stayers in the client universe. 5

14 (Increased Income for Leavers) Add the total number of adult leavers in the client universe. Use data from each leaver s income assessment at project exit and compare this data to the one at project entry. Add the number of adult leavers who gained or increased earned income (employment income) from system entry to system exit, and then divide it by the total number of adult leavers in the client universe. Add the number of leavers who gained or increased non-employment cash income from system entry to system exit, and then divide it by the total number of adult leavers in the client universe. Add the number of leavers who gained or increased total cash income from system entry to system exit, and then divide it by the total number of adult leavers in the client universe. Findings based upon the CoC performance There are Annual Assessments recorded and created for adult stayers; however, the creation date of Annual Assessment is not associated with the data collection point as HUD defines. About 5% of adult stayers have no Annual Assessment recorded. Important notes: Annual Assessment is a specialized subset of the update collection point. HUD defines that Annual Assessment must be recorded in HMIS no more than 30 days before or after the anniversary of the client s Project Entry Date. For the increase to be counted in Measure , the income assessment should be recorded with Annual Assessment as defined by HUD. For example: A client enrolled to PSH project on 5/01/2013. The client s Annual Assessment is expected to be recorded in HMIS within the 60 day period surrounding the anniversary of the client s project entry date. (60 day window: between 4/02/2014 and 5/30/2014). If the Annual Assessment date falls outside of the Annual Assessment time window, the information will NOT be counted on this measure. Any client whose length of stay is less than 365 days is excluded in this measure. Any client who is under age of 18 is excluded in this measure. Recommendation: Check Project entry date for all adult stayers in HMIS and ensure the Annual Assessment date is recorded within the 60 day period surrounding the anniversary of the client s project Entry. Check the entry/exit dates of client s enrollment. Inaccurate of entry/exit dates in HMIS will be critical to identify and capture the accurate number of Stayers and Leavers in HMIS. Data element 3.3 (Date of Birth) is important to identify the client s age because the client universe is adult only. Income and Sources (4.2) data element must be collected for all adults at project entry, Annual Assessment, and project exit to measure the increases in income. Check persons aging into adulthood in your project (s) and ensure to update their income in HMIS. 6

15 Measure 5: Number of Persons who Become Homeless for the First Time Desired Outcome: Reduction in the number of persons who become homeless for the first time. 1. Client Universe (5.1) - Look at persons who entered ES, SH, or TH during the reporting period (5.2) - Look at persons who entered ES, SH, TH, or PH during the reporting period 2. Basic approach for this measure First time in 24 month look-back means to look at persons who entered a project for the first time in the previous 24 mounts. HUD defines First time homeless as a person who had not been served by the community s homeless system in the two years prior to an entry into that homeless system. 3. Basic calculation for this measure 5.1 Add the number of persons who entered in ES, SH, or TH during the reporting period. Of persons above, count those who were in ES, SH, TH, or any PH within 24 months prior to their entry during the reporting year. 5.2 Add the number of persons who entered in ES, SH, TH, or PH during the reporting period (PH is added to pick up persons who are first time homeless in housing first) Of persons above, count those who were in ES, SH, TH, or any PH within 24 months prior to their entry during the reporting year. Logic: This measure looks at the earliest project entry date for each client; taking this date in the date range and work backwards to see if those clients were homeless within 24 months prior. If they were, the client is NOT newly (first time) homeless. Findings based upon the CoC performance In measure 5.1, our HMIS data shows that 4387entered in ES, SH, or TH during the reporting period. It shows that 974 of the 4387 people were served in the system at some point during the previous 2 years. That means 3413 were homeless for the first time, as HUD defines for this measure. The breakdown of 974 is: 864 entered in ES and 110 entered in TH (those were in one of the homeless projects within 24 months prior to their project entry during the reporting period) The breakdown of 3413 is: 2962 entered in ES and 451 entered in TH for the first time. In measure 5.2, our HMIS data shows that 5143 entered in ES, SH, TH, or PH during the reporting period. It shows that 1107 of the 5143 people were served in the system at some point during the previous 2 years. That means 4036 were homeless for the first time, as HUD defines for this measure. The breakdown of 1107 is: 856 entered in ES, 109 entered in TH and 142 entered in PH (those were in one of the homeless projects within 24 months prior to their project entry during the reporting period) The breakdown of 4036 is: 2995 entered in ES, 451 entered in TH, and 630 entered in PH for the first time. 7

16 Recommendation: Although not all of performance measures start with the same universe of people, comparing measure 5 to measure 2 and 3 would be helpful and encouraging to get a sense of how people are moving into and out of the system overtime; changes in performance such as an increase in returns after PH exit which might require project evaluation to see what has caused the return, or an increase in people who are homeless for the first time which might require changes in the CoC s homeless prevention projects. Measure 7: Successful Placement from Street Outreach and Successful Placement in or Retention of Permanent Housing Desired Outcome: Increase in the percentage of persons moving from homelessness to permanent housing This measure has two parts: 7a: Exits from Street outreach to positive destinations 7b: Successful Placement in or Retention of Permanent Housing 7b.1: Exits from ES, SH, TH and RRH to permanent housing destinations 7b.2: Retained Permanent Housing or Exited PH to PH 1. Client Universe (7a) - Look at persons in Street Outreach project who exited from SO during the reporting period. (7b.1) - Look at persons in ES, SH, TH, and PH-RRH projects who exited during the current reporting period. (7b.2) Look at persons in all PH projects except PH-RRH during the current reporting period. 2. Basic approach for this measure How successful Street Outreach projects are helping people move off the street and towards positive destination in addition to permanent housing. Successful housing placement in two ways: move from the homeless system into permanent housing, and remain PSH housed either in the housing program or move to other permanent housing. 3. Basic calculation for this measure 7a.1 Add leavers across all SO projects during the reporting period. Of persons above, determine the latest project exit for each person. Of persons above, add the number of persons who exited to permanent housing destinations, temporary destinations (except for a place not meant for human habitation), and some institutional destinations during the reporting period. 7b.1 Add leavers across all ES, SH, TH and PH-RRH projects during the reporting period. Of the persons above, determine the latest project exit for each person. Of the persons above, add the number of persons who exited to permanent housing destinations during the reporting period. 7b.2 Add stayers and leavers across PH projects excluding PH-RRH during the reporting period. 8

17 Of the leavers above, determine the latest project exit for each person. Of the leavers above, add the number of persons who exited to permanent housing destinations during the reporting period. Of the stayers above, determine the number of persons who remained in PH projects except PH-RRH project. Findings based upon the CoC performance In measure 7a.1, our HMIS data shows that 820 exited from SO during the reporting period. It shows that 503 of the 820 people exited to PH destinations, 60 exited to temporary & some institutional destinations, and 257 exited to the following: Don t know (60) Jail, Prison, Juvenile Detention Facility (12) Other (1) Place not meant for habitation (36) Refused (148) In measure 7b.1, our HMIS data shows that 4613 exited from ES, SH, TH and PH-RRH during the reporting period. It shows that 1668 of the 4613 people exited to PH destinations, 604 exited to temporary and some institutional destinations, and 2341 exited to the following: Don t know (1527) Data not collected (45) No Exit Interview completed (5) Other (85) Place not meant for habitation (655) Refused (24) In measure 7b.1, our HMIS data shows that 5143 entered in ES, SH, TH, or PH during the reporting period. It shows that 1107 of the 5143 people were served in the system at some point during the previous 2 years. That means 4036 were homeless for the first time, as HUD defines for this measure. The breakdown of 1107 is: 856 entered in ES, 109 entered in TH and 142 entered in PH (those were in one of the homeless projects within 24 months prior to their project entry during the reporting period) The breakdown of 4036 is: 2995 entered in ES, 451 entered in TH, and 630 entered in PH for the first time. Recommendation: Although it is challenging for some projects to collect the destination information, as the destination is a part of universal data elements, this element should be proactively collected by Emergency Shelters instead of selecting Don t know, No exit interview completed, or Place not meant for habitation. Destination is one of the critical elements to identify where a client will stay after exiting a project for purposes of tracking and outcome measurement. Overlapped/duplicated enrollments identified should be avoided in HMIS. Record accurate project exit dates on each leaver in HMIS. Completed by Ryoko Yamasaki 9

18 Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM) Measure 1: Length of Time Persons Remain Homeless This measures the number of clients active in the report date range across ES, SH (Metric 1.1) and then ES, SH and TH (Metric 1.2) along with their average and median length of time homeless. This includes time homeless during the report date range as well as prior to the report start date, going back no further than October, 1, Metric 1.1: Change in the average and median length of time persons are homeless in ES and SH projects. Metric 1.2: Change in the average and median length of time persons are homeless in ES, SH, and TH projects. a. This measure is of the client s entry, exit, and bed night dates strictly as entered in the HMIS system. Universe (Persons) Average LOT Homeless (bed nights) Median LOT Homeless (bed nights) Previous FY Current FY Previous FY Current FY Difference Previous FY Current FY Difference 1.1 Persons in ES and SH Persons in ES, SH, and TH b. Due to changes in DS Element 3.17, metrics for measure (b) will not be reported in This measure includes data from each client s Length of Time on Street, in an Emergency Shelter, or Safe Haven (Data Standards element 3.17) response and prepends this answer to the client s entry date effectively extending the client s entry date backward in time. This adjusted entry date is then used in the calculations just as if it were the client s actual entry date. Universe (Persons) Average LOT Homeless (bed nights) Median LOT Homeless (bed nights) Previous FY Current FY Previous FY Current FY Difference Previous FY Current FY Difference 1.1 Persons in ES and SH Persons in ES, SH, and TH /15/2016 1:33:13 PM 1

19 Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM) Measure 2: The Extent to which Persons who Exit Homelessness to Permanent Housing Destinations Return to Homelessness This measures clients who exited SO, ES, TH, SH or PH to a permanent housing destination in the date range two years prior to the report date range. Of those clients, the measure reports on how many of them returned to homelessness as indicated in the HMIS for up to two years after their initial exit. Total # of Persons who Exited to a Permanent Housing Destination (2 Years Prior) Returns to Homelessness in Less than 6 Months (0-180 days) Returns to Homelessness from 6 to 12 Months ( days) Returns to Homelessness from 13 to 24 Months ( days) Number of Returns in 2 Years # of Returns % of Returns # of Returns % of Returns # of Returns % of Returns # of Returns % of Returns Exit was from SO % 7 6% 12 10% 27 22% Exit was from ES % 3 4% 4 5% 15 19% Exit was from TH % 32 4% 44 6% % Exit was from SH Exit was from PH % 4 4% 4 4% 21 20% TOTAL Returns to Homelessness % 46 4% 64 6% % 8/15/2016 1:33:13 PM 2

20 Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM) Measure 3: Number of Homeless Persons Metric 3.1 Change in PIT Counts This measures the change in PIT counts of sheltered and unsheltered homeless person as reported on the PIT (not from HMIS). Previous FY PIT Count 2015 PIT Count Difference Universe: Total PIT Count of sheltered and unsheltered persons Emergency Shelter Total Safe Haven Total Transitional Housing Total Total Sheltered Count Unsheltered Count Metric 3.2 Change in Annual Counts This measures the change in annual counts of sheltered homeless persons in HMIS. Previous FY Current FY Difference Universe: Unduplicated Total sheltered homeless persons 5004 Emergency Shelter Total 4126 Safe Haven Total 0 Transitional Housing Total 1095 Measure 4: Employment and Income Growth for Homeless Persons in CoC Program-funded Projects Metric 4.1 Change in earned income for adult system stayers during the reporting period Previous FY Current FY Difference Universe: Number of adults (system stayers) 267 Number of adults with increased earned income 19 Percentage of adults who increased earned income 7% 8/15/2016 1:33:13 PM 3

21 Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM) Metric 4.2 Change in non-employment cash income for adult system stayers during the reporting period Previous FY Current FY Difference Universe: Number of adults (system stayers) 267 Number of adults with increased non-employment cash income 97 Percentage of adults who increased non-employment cash income 36% Metric 4.3 Change in total income for adult system stayers during the reporting period Previous FY Current FY Difference Universe: Number of adults (system stayers) 267 Number of adults with increased total income 110 Percentage of adults who increased total income 41% Metric 4.4 Change in earned income for adult system leavers Previous FY Current FY Difference Universe: Number of adults who exited (system leavers) 624 Number of adults who exited with increased earned income 208 Percentage of adults who increased earned income 33% Metric 4.5 Change in non-employment cash income for adult system leavers Previous FY Current FY Difference Universe: Number of adults who exited (system leavers) 624 Number of adults who exited with increased non-employment cash income 120 Percentage of adults who increased non-employment cash income 19% Metric 4.6 Change in total income for adult system leavers Previous FY Current FY Difference Universe: Number of adults who exited (system leavers) 624 Number of adults who exited with increased total income 313 Percentage of adults who increased total income 50% 8/15/2016 1:33:13 PM 4

22 Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM) Measure 5: Number of persons who become homeless for the 1st time Metric 5.1 Change in the number of persons entering ES, SH, and TH projects with no prior enrollments in HMIS Previous FY Current FY Difference Universe: Person with entries into ES, SH or TH during the reporting period. Of persons above, count those who were in ES, SH, TH or any PH within 24 months prior to their entry during the reporting year. Of persons above, count those who did not have entries in ES, SH, TH or PH in the previous 24 months. (i.e. Number of persons experiencing homelessness for the first time) Metric 5.2 Change in the number of persons entering ES, SH, TH, and PH projects with no prior enrollments in HMIS Previous FY Current FY Difference Universe: Person with entries into ES, SH, TH or PH during the reporting period. Of persons above, count those who were in ES, SH, TH or any PH within 24 months prior to their entry during the reporting year. Of persons above, count those who did not have entries in ES, SH, TH or PH in the previous 24 months. (i.e. Number of persons experiencing homelessness for the first time.) Measure 6: Homeless Prevention and Housing Placement of Persons deined by category 3 of HUD s Homeless Deinition in CoC Programfunded Projects This Measure is not applicable to CoCs in /15/2016 1:33:13 PM 5

23 Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM) Measure 7: Successful Placement from Street Outreach and Successful Placement in or Retention of Permanent Housing Metric 7a.1 Change in exits to permanent housing destinations Previous FY Current FY Difference Universe: Persons who exit Street Outreach 820 Of persons above, those who exited to temporary & some institutional destinations Of the persons above, those who exited to permanent housing destinations % Successful exits 69% Metric 7b.1 Change in exits to permanent housing destinations Previous FY Current FY Difference Universe: Persons in ES, SH, TH and PH-RRH who exited 4613 Of the persons above, those who exited to permanent housing destinations 1668 % Successful exits 36% Metric 7b.2 Change in exit to or retention of permanent housing Previous FY Current FY Difference Universe: Persons in all PH projects except PH-RRH 786 Of persons above, those who remained in applicable PH projects and those who exited to permanent housing destinations 747 % Successful exits/retention 95% 8/15/2016 1:33:13 PM 6

24 Board of Governance Meeting August 18, 2016

25 The purpose of the System Performance Measures (SPM) is to help communities gauge their progress in preventing and ending homelessness and provide a more complete picture of how well a community is achieving this goal. For the 2016 HUD CoC Program application, HUDs primary focus is whether CoCs have the ability to generate the SPM reports from HMIS. Starting next year and in future years, CoCs need to show improvements in this system-wide data based on many factors: Local strategies to end homelessness Effective and efficient utilization of funds and other resources How our CoC is able to move people in and out of homelessness and into permanent housing.

26 Length of Time Homeless All HMIS participating ES, TH, SH from 10/1/12 to 9/30/15 Desired Outcome: Reduction in the average and median length of time persons remain homeless

27 Returns to Homelessness - All clients 10/1/12 to 9/30/15 Desired Outcome: Reduction in the percent of persons who return to homelessness

28 Number of Homeless Persons Persons served in ES and TH on 10/1/14 to 9/30/15 Desired Outcome: Reduction in the number of persons who are homeless

29 Employment and Income Growth (CoC Program-funded Projects only) SH, TH, RRH, PSH only income for adults stayers and leavers

30 Employment and Income Growth (CoC Program-funded Projects only) SH, TH, RRH, PSH only income for adults stayers and leavers Desired Outcome: Increase in the percent of adults who gain or increase employment or non-employment cash income over time

31 Persons who Become Homeless for the First Time 10/1/12 to 9/30/15 Desired Outcome: Reduction in the number of persons who become homeless for the first time.

32 7a. Successful Placement from Street Outreach SO, ES, TH RRH, PSH, Other PH 7b.Successful Placement in or Retention of Permanent Housing

33 7a. Successful Placement from Street Outreach SO, ES, SH, TH RRH, PSH, Other PH 7b.Successful Placement in or Retention of Permanent Housing Desired Outcome: Increase in the percent of persons moving from homelessness to permanent housing Exits from Street outreach to positive destinations Successful Placement in or Retention of Permanent Housing Exits from ESS, TH and RRH to permanent housing destinations 7b.2: Retained Permanent Housing or Exited PH to PH