County of Riverside Continuum of Care and Board of...

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, 2016

3. 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 18th 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. 2016 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

County of Riverside Continuum of Care and Board of Governance

CoC Membership Meeting

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. James A. Venable Community Center 50390 Carmen Ave., Cabazon, 92230

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

of 6 County of Riverside, CoC Membership Minutes – 06.22.16 Draft for approval

Minutes for County of Riverside Continuum of Care Membership Meeting

June 22, 2016

9:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. James A. Venable Community Center

50390 Carmen Avenue, Cabazon, CA 92230 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, 2016. Motion carried with no abstentions. Motion was made by Jeffrey Moritz and seconded by Le McLellan to approve the previous minutes for April 27, 2016. Motion carried with no abstentions.

NEW BUSINESS PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME

CoC Membership Election of Officers:

Steve Falk, Membership Committee Chair

All candidates for the CoC Officer positions gave brief introductions of themselves.

Michelle Davis, City of Riverside, was elected as the new CoC Chairperson.

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, 2017.

2015 HUD Application Scoring Review:

Jill Kowalski, Collaborative Applicant

A handout with the Tier 1 and 2 awards listed was given to the meeting attendees.

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, 2016. 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 3rd to DPSS.


There will be a non-mandatory bidder’s conference on July 20th at 4060 County Circle Drive, Riverside, CA 92503 – 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.

2016 HUD Consolidated Application Review and Ranking Process Update:

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.

Revised HUD Monitoring Tool: David Leahy on behalf of Susan Larkin

This agenda item was discussed at the last meeting; however, there was no quorum to make a final decision.

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 the motion. Motion carried unanimously.

Collaborative Applicant & CoC Memorandum of Understanding:

Donyielle Holley, CoC Planner

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.


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.

CoC Service Needs & Gaps Survey Results:

Linda Barrack, Standards and Evaluation Committee Chair

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.

2016 HUD System Performance Measures:

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.

State Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Timeline & Process

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 31st. The award process will need to go to the County Board of Supervisors and the CoC Board of


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 18th.

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 Update

Steve Falk As of today, 70 new and updated CoC Applications have been received.

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


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

50390 Carmen Ave., Cabazon, CA 92230

Adjournment David Leahy The meeting was adjourned at 11:59 a.m.


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

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.

2

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 3.917 data element in HMIS. (3.17 will be incorporated to this measure possibly next year. This element will be replaced by the new element 3.917 Living Situation (3.9 + 3.17). 3.917A 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

3

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.


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 FY12-13.

“No Exit interview completed” identified for PSH project.

4

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).


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.


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.

5

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 non-employment cash income over time

1. Client Universe

4.1 - 4.3 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)

4.4 - 4.6 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.


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 4.1-4.3 (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 non-employment 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.

6

4.4-4.6 (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.


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 4.1 – 4.3, 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.

7

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


“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.


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.

8

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.


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.

9

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.


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

Measure 1: Length of Time Persons Remain Homeless

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 4041 50 20

1.2 Persons in ES, SH, and TH 4907 80 30

b. Due to changes in DS Element 3.17, metrics for measure (b) will not be reported in 2016.

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 - - - - - - - -

1.2 Persons in ES, SH, and TH - - - - - - - -

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.

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, 2012.

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.

Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM)

8/15/2016 1:33:13 PM 1

Measure 2: The Extent to which Persons who Exit Homelessness to Permanent Housing Destinations Return to Homelessness

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(181 - 365 days)

Returns to Homelessness from

13 to 24 Months(366 - 730 days)

Number of Returnsin 2 Years

# of Returns % of Returns # of Returns % of Returns # of Returns % of Returns # of Returns % of Returns

Exit was from SO 121 8 7% 7 6% 12 10% 27 22%

Exit was from ES 77 8 10% 3 4% 4 5% 15 19%

Exit was from TH 772 82 11% 32 4% 44 6% 158 20%

Exit was from SH 0 0 0 0 0

Exit was from PH 107 13 12% 4 4% 4 4% 21 20%

TOTAL Returns to Homelessness 1077 111 10% 46 4% 64 6% 221 21%

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.


8/15/2016 1:33:13 PM 2

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%

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 2945 2372 -573

Emergency Shelter Total 575 609 34

Safe Haven Total 0 0 0

Transitional Housing Total 482 275 -207

Total Sheltered Count 1057 884 -173

Unsheltered Count 1888 1488 -400

Metric 3.2 – Change in Annual Counts

This measures the change in annual counts of sheltered homeless persons in HMIS.


Universe: Unduplicated Total sheltered homeless persons 5004

Emergency Shelter Total 4126

Safe Haven Total 0

Transitional Housing Total 1095


8/15/2016 1:33:13 PM 3

Metric 4.2 – Change in non-employment cash income for adult system stayers during the reporting period



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



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


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



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



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

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


Universe: Person with entries into ES, SH or TH during the reporting period. 4387

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. 974

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)

3413

Metric 5.2 – Change in the number of persons entering ES, SH, TH, and PH projects with no prior enrollments in HMIS


Universe: Person with entries into ES, SH, TH or PH during the reporting period. 5146

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. 1107

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.)

4039

Measure 6: Homeless Prevention and Housing Placement of Persons de ined by category 3 of HUD’s Homeless De inition in CoC Program-funded Projects

This Measure is not applicable to CoCs in 2016.


8/15/2016 1:33:13 PM 5

Measure 7: Successful Placement from Street Outreach and Successful Placement in or Retention of Permanent Housing


Universe: Persons who exit Street Outreach 820

Of persons above, those who exited to temporary & some institutional destinations 503

Of the persons above, those who exited to permanent housing destinations 60

% Successful exits 69%

Metric 7a.1 – Change in exits to permanent housing destinations

Metric 7b.1 – Change in exits to permanent housing destinations


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


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

Board of Governance Meeting

August 18, 2016

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.

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

Returns to Homelessness - All clients 10/1/12 to 9/30/15

Desired Outcome: Reduction in the percent of persons who return to homelessness

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

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

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

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.

7a. Successful Placement from Street Outreach – SO, ES, TH RRH, PSH, Other PH

7b.Successful Placement in or Retention of Permanent Housing

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

2016 Review and Evaluation Process Page 1

County of Riverside Continuum of Care 2016 HUD CoC Program Competition Project Review and Ranking Process

Rationale

HUD’s Continuum of Care (CoC) homeless assistance programs serve as the largest single source of funding for homeless services in the County of Riverside. In the 2015 NOFA, Riverside County received more than $9 million from HUD to support 29 projects for homeless individuals and families. HUD awards homeless assistance grants through an annual application process known as the CoC Program Competition. HUD strongly encourages each CoC to implement a thorough review and oversight process at the local level for both new and renewal projects submitted to HUD-CoC Application Process. The CoC Program Interim Rule requires local Continuums of Care to establish performance targets appropriate for population and program type, monitor recipient and sub recipient performance, evaluate outcomes, and take action against poor performers (24 CFR 578.7a.6). HUD expects each CoC to implement a thorough review and oversight process at the local level for both new and renewal projects submitted to the HUD-CoC Application Process. Ranking of renewal projects must incorporate data on project performance and effectiveness. HUD notes that it is important that new and renewal projects meet minimum project eligibility, capacity, timeliness, and performance standards identified in the annual HUD CoC NOFA or they will be rejected from consideration for funding. In the 2016 HUD CoC Application, HUD will award up to 30 points to CoCs that clearly demonstrate the existence of a coordinated, inclusive, and outcome-oriented community process for the solicitation, objective review, ranking, and selection of CoC Program project applications:

Objective Criteria and Past Performance

Ranking and Selection Process

Recipient Performance Monitoring

Accuracy of GIW (Grant Inventory Worksheet)

Accuracy of Project Submissions

The County of Riverside CoC is eligible to renew a total of 29 projects for the 2016 HUD CoC

Program Competition. Projects are eligible for renewal for FY 2016 funds if they have an

executed grant agreement by December 31, 2016 and have an expiration date that occurs in

Calendar Year 2017 (the period between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017). These

projects are renewable under the CoC Program Competition as set forth in 24 CFR 578.33 to

continue ongoing leasing, operating, supportive services, rental assistance, HMIS, and project

administration costs.


HUD funding priorities:

In accordance with HUD’s Homeless Policy and Program Priorities (as stated in the 2016 HUD CoC Program Application Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), CoCs should continue to prioritize project applications that address these goals in the FY 2016 Application Process:

1. Strategic Resource Allocation. Each CoC must comprehensively review all existing projects within its geographic area, using CoC-approved scoring criteria and selection priorities, to determine the extent to which each project is still necessary and addresses the listed policy priorities. Funds for projects that are determined to be underperforming, obsolete, or ineffective should be reallocated to new projects that are based on proven or promising models.

2. Ending Chronic Homelessness.

a. Targeting: The chronically homeless should be given priority for non-dedicated PSH

beds as vacancies become available through turnover. PSH renewal projects serving specific disabled subpopulations (e.g., persons with mental illness or persons with substance abuse issues) must continue to serve those groups, as required in the current grant agreement. However, the chronically homeless within the specified subpopulation should be prioritized for entry.

b. Increasing Beds: Consistent with the HEARTH Act Interim rule, the chronically

homeless includes individuals and families who have a qualifying disabling condition who have been homeless and living in a place not meant for human habitation, emergency shelter, or safe haven for one year continuously or for a total of one year over a period of four occasions in the past 3 years. It is important to point out that persons in transitional housing are not considered to be chronically homeless even if they met the criteria prior to entering the transitional housing program.

c. Improve Outreach: To decrease the number of persons experiencing chronic

homelessness in a community, the community must identify and continually engage all persons who are currently experiencing sheltered or unsheltered chronic homelessness and those who are in jeopardy of experiencing chronic homelessness. This includes ensuring effective communication with individuals with disabilities and taking reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to services, programs, and activities by persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP persons). d. Housing First: A model of housing assistance that is offered without preconditions

(such as sobriety or a minimum income threshold) or service participation requirements, and rapid placement and stabilization in permanent housing are primary goals. Research shows that it is effective for the chronically homeless with mental health and substance abuse disorders, resulting in fewer inpatient stays and less expensive interventions than other approaches. Permanent Supportive Housing projects should use a Housing First approach in the design of the program.

3. Removing Barriers to CoC Resources.

a. CoCs should review system and project level eligibility criteria for each CoC funded project to identify and remove barriers to accessing services and housing that are

Comment [TN1]: *NEW* Taken directly from the 2016 NOFA (page 9)


experienced by homeless individuals and families. These barriers may employment, income, sobriety, credit repair, etc.

b. Centralized or Coordinated Entry System: Centralized or coordinated entry/assessment is a key step in assessing the needs of the homeless requesting assistance and matching the needs of those households to the most appropriate housing and service options. The CoC Program interim rule requires the implementation of a centralized or coordinated assessment (now entry) system.

c. Transitional Housing: HUD is strongly encouraging CoCs and recipients to carefully

review the transitional housing models within the geographic area for cost-effectiveness, performance, and for the number and type of criteria used to determine eligibility for the program and determine if rapid re-housing may be a better model for the CoC’s geographic area.

d. Prioritizing Households Most in Need: CoCs should prioritize those who are identified as most in need (e.g., those who have been living on the street the longest, homeless households with children living in unsheltered situations, those that are considered most medically vulnerable) for placement into appropriate housing.

4. Maximizing the Use of Mainstream Resources.

a. HUD strongly encourages CoCs and project applicants to ensure that they are maximizing the use of all mainstream services available. While the CoC Program interim rule allows for the payment of certain supportive service costs, it is more efficient for CoCs to use mainstream resources where possible and use HUD funds for housing-related costs.

b. CoCs should be actively preparing for implementation of the Affordable Care Act by determining how these funds may be used by CoC Program recipients to serve the homeless. CoCs should also encourage project recipients to participate in enrollment and outreach activities to ensure eligible households take advantage of new healthcare options.

5. Building Partnerships.

a. CoCs should proactively seek to engage in partnerships with Public Housing Agencies (PHA). CoCs and PHAs are encouraged to read and use the following HUD Notice (PIH 2013-15) published June 10, 2013: Guidance on housing individuals and families experiencing homelessness through the Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher Programs.

b. CoCs should assess the extent to which philanthropy plays a role within the community. CoCs and project recipients should consider how to engage with philanthropic organizations in a way to maximize resources and increase progress towards ending homelessness.

6. Other Priority Populations:

a. Veterans: CoC Program funded projects should, to the extent possible, prioritize veterans who are ineligible for VA services and their families. CoCs should work closely with the local Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and coordinate CoC resources with


VA-funded housing and services (e.g., HUD-VASH, Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF)).

b. Homeless Youth: CoCs should be able to identify and describe the needs of homeless youth within the geographic area and the current programs designed to serve this population, including performance.

Independent Review Panel

The Independent Review Panel is made up of 5-7 people who are nominated and elected by the

CoC membership. They must not have a conflict of interest, which means they should not work

or volunteer for an agency that is currently receiving HUD CoC and/or Emergency Solutions

Grant (ESG) funding. All decisions made will be reached through consensus (general

agreement).

The Independent Review Panel will evaluate and rank in priority order all project applications for

CoC Program funds. They will determine if any projects eligible for renewal should be

recommended to the Board of Governance to be reduced or eliminated to develop new projects.

The panel is also responsible for recommending a reallocation strategy, a process by which a

CoC shifts funds in whole or in part from existing CoC funded projects that are eligible for

renewal to create one or more new projects. These recommendations will also be approved by

the CoC Board of Governance. A reallocated project must be a new project that serves new

participants and has either a rapid re-housing or permanent supportive housing program design.

The Panel will make its recommendations known to the CoC membership prior to presenting the

recommendations to the Board of Governance. The Board of Governance may approve the

recommendations or make revisions to the recommendations before final approval.

Reallocation

Reallocating funds is one of the most important tools by which CoCs can make strategic

improvements to their homelessness system. Through reallocation, CoCs can create new,

evidence-informed projects by eliminating projects that are underperforming or are more

appropriately funded from other sources.

It is possible that funds will be reallocated from projects that will not receive renewal funding, or

whose funding will be reduced. This is done through a recommendation made by the

Independent Review Panel, based on HUD priorities, and approved by the Board of

Governance.

When considering reallocation, the Independent Review Panel will:

• Consider unspent funds and the ability to reduce grants without reducing service/housing

levels.

Receive guidance from the Collaborative Applicant about the limitations related

to spending CoC funds.


For projects receiving leasing or rental assistance, information about unspent

funds will be presented together with information about agency capacity (i.e.

serving the number of people the project is designed to serve).

Consider history of reductions.

Consider alternative funding sources available to support either new or renewal project(s)

at-risk of not being funded.

Consider renewal HUD “covenant” concerns.

Consider impact on CoC’s Consolidated Application score.

Consider non-compliance issues identified during the review and rank process project

monitoring.

Consider projects with consistently low scores.

The impact of this policy is that high scoring projects may be reallocated if these considerations warrant that decision. Also, if a project receives less than 70 points, then the Independent Review Panel may recommend reallocation of funding. Decisions regarding reallocation are best made when guided by an overall strategic plan, in which the CoC assesses existing projects for their performance and effectiveness in ending homelessness. In general, CoCs should direct funding towards projects that:

a. Serve the highest need individuals or families and as specified by HUD (i.e. chronically homeless); b. Help project participants obtain permanent housing as rapidly and directly from homelessness as possible; c. Ensure long-term housing stability; and d. Ensure the best and most cost-effective fit given a community’s needs.

CoC Transparency HUD requires that each CoC conduct a transparent and objective process to review and rank all

applications for renewal of existing projects and creation of new projects. To ensure

transparency and fairness, this process will be:

1) Publically announced by the CoC;

2) Described and distributed in writing to the entire CoC;

3) Reviewed by the entire membership of the CoC during a designated meeting;

4) Recorded in the minutes of the designated meeting including all decisions made

concerning the review and ranking; and

5) Minutes will be distributed to the entire CoC.

Each individual CoC project will receive a report of the project’s score given by the Independent

Review Panel. Each project agency evaluated will then have ten (10) business days following

the release of individual project scores to appeal the results.


Appeals Process

The Appeals Committee represented by 3-5 non-conflicted CoC members will review all appeals

and will make recommendations to the CoC Board of Governance. The Appeals Committee will

be selected from the CoC Board of Governance or its designees. These individuals will have no

conflict of interest in serving, as defined by the same guidelines for membership on the

Independent Review Panel. Voting members shall not serve simultaneously on both the

Independent Review Panel and Appeals Committee; however, an Independent Review Panel

member and DPSS staff will participate in the Appeals Committee to inform discussion.

Applicants may appeal any of the following decisions of the CoC Board of Governance:

• Placement of a project in Tier 2.

• Reduction of a renewal grant amount (i.e. renewal grant partially re-

allocated to a new project).

• Reallocation of a renewal grant (i.e. entire grant reallocated to a new

project) if not previously notified that the grant was to be reallocated as

a result of low performance.

Applicants placed in Tier 1 may not appeal their rank on the Project Priority Listing. All renewal

applicants will receive a copy of their scorecard by Tuesday, June 28, 2016.

Any agency that wishes to appeal must notify the DPSS Homeless Programs Unit, c/o Jill

Kowalski in writing via email @ [email protected] no later than Monday, August 22,

2016; or at least two business days after the priority ranking has been communicated in writing.

An appeal can be in the form of a letter, a memo or an email and must state the following:

Agency name

Project name

Reason for appeal (no longer than two pages)

Documentation to support the appeal

Applicants will be notified of the outcome no later than Thursday, August 18, 2016. If an

appeal will be filed, other agencies whose rank may be affected will be notified as a courtesy.

Such agencies will not be able to file an appeal until after the appeals process is complete.

Review and Evaluation Process

The following are final recommendations for the 2016 County of Riverside Continuum of Care Application Renewal Project Evaluation Process. This process was approved by the Board of Governance on June 16, 2016. This process has also been reviewed and updated based on the release of the 2016 HUD CoC Program NOFA. Projects are eligible for renewal for the FY 2016 NOFA if they are currently operating and have a signed grant agreement with HUD that will expire during the period beginning January 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2017.

mailto:[email protected]


Permanent Housing (PH) All PH providers (which includes both Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) and Rapid Rehousing (RRH) should have the option to submit a project application for renewal if the project(s) meet or exceed project quality goals established by HUD and CoC guidelines which include the following:

At least 80 percent of project participants either remained in permanent housing or exited to permanent housing;

At least 20 percent or more of project participants have employment income (or other sources such as SSI and/or SSDI, for those who are not employable);

At least 54 percent of project participants increased their income from sources other than employment in a given operating year;

At least 56 percent of project participants obtained mainstream benefits; and

At least 100 percent of the project participants came from the street or other locations not meant for human habitation, emergency shelters, or safe havens. In addition, PH providers must:

Implement a housing first approach.

Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) projects only: fill vacant beds with only chronically homeless persons.

Permanent Housing providers who are not able to meet all goals may be considered low performing and, as such:

• May be placed in Tier 2; • Funding may be reallocated to create new projects through a Request

for Proposal process. Transitional Housing (TH) As noted in the 2016 CoC NOFA, HUD recognizes that transitional housing (TH) can be an effective tool in many communities for addressing the needs of specific subpopulations, such as homeless youth, domestic violence survivors, and homeless people with substance abuse issues. However, recent research shows that transitional housing is generally more expensive than other housing models serving similar populations, is often more service-intensive than most homeless households need, and the criteria for entry into many transitional housing programs are so rigorous that transitional housing beds are under-utilized because homeless households cannot overcome the barriers to entry. HUD is strongly encouraging CoCs and recipients to carefully review the transitional housing models within the geographic area for cost-effectiveness, performance, and for the number and type of criteria used to determine eligibility for the program and determine if rapid re-housing may be a better model for the CoC’s geographic area.


All TH providers should have the option to submit a project application for renewal if the project(s) meet or exceed project quality goals established by HUD and CoC guidelines which include the following:

At least 80 percent of project participants exited from transitional housing to permanent housing;

t least 20 percent or more of project participants have employment income (or other sources such as SSI and/or SSDI, for those who are not employable);

At least 54 percent of project participants increased their income from sources other than employment in a given operating year; and

At least 56 percent of project participants obtained mainstream benefits. In addition, TH providers should be able to answer “yes” as to whether the program implements a housing first approach. TH providers who are not able to meet all goals may be considered low performing and, as such, the projects:

May be placed in Tier 2;

Funding may be reallocated through a local Request for Proposal process.

The review and evaluation process will be conducted on three levels:

1. General Threshold Review

To help ensure compliance with regulatory guidelines and local competition requirements,

all organizations applying for funds under the HUD CoC Competition must complete the

General Threshold Checklist and provide attachments as requested.

2. Project Performance and Scorecard

Since the County of Riverside Continuum of Care has not established local performance

measures, the performance measures will be based on those established by HUD. Project

performance takes into consideration the type of project (e.g., permanent supportive

housing, rapid rehousing and transitional housing) and its performance relative to that type.

3. Annual Performance Report (APR): The HEARTH Interim Rule states that HUD may

terminate the renewal of a grant and require the recipient to repay the renewal grant if the

recipient fails to submit an APR within 90 days of the end of the program year or if the

recipient submits an APR that HUD deems unacceptable. The APR will be used to evaluate

the performance of the renewal project.

Performance will be evaluated using data from the project’s most recent Annual

Performance Report (APR) submitted for the last full operating year, financial

management/fund expenditures, cost effectiveness, match and leverage, monitoring reports,

prioritization of chronically homeless, CoC participation, HMIS data quality and bed

utilization, including but not limited to:


Performance Measures (for all projects)

a. Exit to Permanent Housing: At least 80 percent of project participants exited to

permanent housing.

b. Housing Stability: At least 80 percent of project participants remained in permanent

housing.

c. Increased Income: At least 20 percent or more of project participants have employment

income or 54 percent or more of project participants have income from sources other

than employment.

d. Access to Mainstream Benefits: At least 56 percent of project participants obtained

mainstream benefits.

e. Bed Utilization and cost effectiveness: Projects will be evaluated based on their bed/unit

operating capacity, utilization rate and cost effectiveness

Proposed versus actual beds

Bed/unit utilization rate (Projects with low utilization rates below 80% must have a

valid explanation as well as a plan to increase the utilization rate).

Cost per bed/client

Homeless Management Information System

f. HMIS Participation: Projects will be evaluated based on the extent of their participation in

HMIS, data quality, accuracy and timeliness. Participation in HMIS also includes:

a. Timely submission of required data for the Point-in-Time Count and Housing

Inventory Chart

b. Timely response for questions related to the AHAR (if any)

c. Adherence to HMIS standards as specified in the CoC HMIS Charter for the

following:

• Data Quality Standards – Accuracy, Completeness and Timeliness

(Section 5)

• Privacy and Security Standards (Section 6)

• HMIS Implementation Standards – Agency Participating Agreement,

End-User Agreement, Agency Administrator (Section 7)

• Data Collection and Reporting Standards (Section 8)

HUD-CoC Priorities/Requirements

g. Coordinated Entry System (CES) Participation: projects will be evaluated based upon

their commitment and participation in CES.

h. Housing First: projects will be evaluated based on whether or not they are using a

housing first approach in serving all participants entering their program.

i. Prioritization of Chronically Homeless: projects will be evaluated based upon whether or

not they are prioritizing the chronically homeless to fill vacant (turnover) beds.

Financial Management and Reporting


Renewal projects will be scored on the following:

j. Unspent Funds: projects will be evaluated on funds retuned/unspent in the last three years. Each project will be evaluated on the percentage of the overall project budget is unspent. For example, projects that return 5% or less of their overall project amount will receive the highest score. Unspent funds, no matter what the amount, will be considered for reallocation by the Independent Review Panel if there are unspent funds for a consecutive 3-year period of the project.

k. Timely Submission of Claims – whether or not the agency has a history of submitting claims on a monthly basis. This will be evaluated based on the percentage of timely claims submitted during a 12-month period and an overall review based on a 3-year period.

l. Match: Whether or not the project meets the 25 percent match requirement.

m. Leveraging: Whether or not the project meets the 150 percent leverage requirement.

n. History of serving ineligible persons, expending funds on ineligible costs, or failing to

expend funds within statutorily established timeframes.

o. Audit/Monitoring findings for which a response is overdue or unsatisfactory.

p. History of inadequate financial management accounting practices.

q. History of non-compliance with HUD CoC Program funding requirements, defined in the

HEARTH Act and /or NOFA.

r. History of other major capacity issues that have significantly impacted the operation of

the project and its performance.

New or recently reallocated PH projects (PSH or RRH) may not have data to be used in the

review because they have not been operational for a full year. This will be taken into

consideration in the ranking process.

See Scorecards for each housing component:

Permanent Supportive Housing

Rapid Rehousing

Transitional Housing

Prioritization and Ranking In the 2016 NOFA, HUD requires Collaborative Applicants to rank all projects, except CoC Planning and UFA (Unified Funding Agency) costs, in two tiers. Tier 1 is equal to 93 percent of the CoC’s FY 2015 Annual Renewal Demand (ARD) approved by HUD on the final HUD-approved Grant Inventory Worksheet (GIW), finalized either during the FY 2016 CoC Program Registration process or during the 10-day grace period after this NOFA was published. Tier 2 is the difference between Tier 1 and the CoC’s ARD plus any amount available for the permanent housing bonus (before adjustments are made to permanent housing leasing, operating, and rental assistance line items based on changes to FMR) as described in Section II.B.4. of the 2016 NOFA. The Independent Review Panel will adhere to the process required in the 2016 NOFA that is (Section I-C of the 2016 NOFA) as follows: Project applications submitted to the CoC for inclusion on the FY 2016 CoC Priority Listing as part of the CoC Consolidated Application must be reviewed and either accepted and ranked or


rejected by the CoC Board of Governance. All projects approved by the CoC Board of Governance must be listed on the CoC Priority Listing in rank order, with the exception of project applications for CoC planning and UFA Costs which will not be ranked, to establish the projects located within Tier 1 and the projects located within Tier 2, as described in Section II.B.16. of this NOFA. The purpose of this two-tiered approach is for CoCs to clearly indicate to HUD which projects are prioritized for funding (Tier 1, which is 93 percent of the CoC’s ARD).

The Independent Review Panel will score each project and rank in order based on highest to

lowest score. The projects will be ranked by which project components are prioritized for HUD.

In addition, the Panel will recommend whether or not projects that fall into Tier 2 should be

reallocated to new PSH or RRH projects.

Comment [TN2]: Section updated to match the 2016 NOFA.

2016 CoC Program

Priority Ranking List for the 2016 CoC Program Application

Project Name Type Project

Score

Percentage

Score Project Amount

Tier 1

1

County of Riverside Coordinated Entry

System (CES) n/a n/a $500,000.00

2 HMIS Consolidated n/a n/a $344,072.00

3 Path of Life Rapid Rehousing PH-RRH 85/85 100.00 $345,549.00

4

Path of Life Rapid Rehousing East

County PH-RRH n/a n/a $377,260.00

5

Lighthouse Social Service Center Rapid

Rehousing PH-RRH 69/70 98.57 $263,274.00

6

Riverside University Health System

(RUHS) Behavioral Health HHOPE PH-PSH 77/85 90.59 $495,415.00 RUHS Women’s PSH PH-PSH 85/85 100.00

7


(RUHS) Behavioral Health Rapid

Rehousing PH-RRH 76/80 95.00 $142,117.00

8 Housing Authority EHOP PH-PSH 80/85 94.12 $42,739.00

9

Lighthouse SSC Permanent Supportive

Housing for Disabled Women with

Children PH-PSH 70/75 93.33 $232,149.00

10


(RUHS) Behavioral Health Men's

Permanent Supportive Housing PSH) PH-PSH 78/85 91.77 $149,366.00

11

Path of Life Permanent Supportive

Housing PH-PSH 64/70 91.43 $1,314,354.00

12

Shelter Plus Care Project Based with

Operation Safehouse ($349,200) PH-PSH 59/65 90.77 $72,803.00

13 City of Riverside PSH for Disabled PH-PSH 81/90 90.00 $123,556.00

14

Jewish Family Services (JFS) Desert

Vista PSH PH-PSH 76/85 89.41 $684,148.00

15


(RUHS) Behavioral Health Coachella

Valley PSH PH-PSH 75/85 88.24 $498,468.00

16

Jewish Family Services Desert Horizon

PSH PH-PSH 74/85 87.06 $431,577.00

17


(RUHS) Behavioral Health Riverside PSH PH-PSH 73/85 85.88 $359,743.00

18

City of Riverside PSH Chronically

Homeless PH-PSH 73/85 85.88 $125,598.00

19

Housing Authority Street to Home

Chronic Homeless Project PH-PSH 72/85 84.71 $114,993.00

20

Housing Authority Consolidated (All

County 1 & 2) PH-PSH 71/85 82.36 $510,304.00

21

Housing Authority Consolidated All

County PH-PSH 73/90 81.11 $448,217.00

22 City of Riverside Rapid Rehousing PH-RRH 68/85 80.00 $229,728.00

23 US Vets Riverside PSH PH-PSH 66/85 77.65 $375,292.00

24 STEP UP PSH Reallocation (straddle) $254,029.25

Tier 1 Total $8,434,751.25

Tier 2

1 STEP UP PSH Reallocation (straddle) $634,873.75

2 STEP UP PSH Bonus $526,501.05

Tier 2 Total $1,161,374.80

TOTAL RENEWAL AMOUNT $8,180,722.00

Reallocation $ 888,903.00

PH Bonus (5% of FPRN) $ 526,501.05

Total (Renewal/Bonus/Reallocation) $9,596,126.05

NOTES

ARD $ 9,069,625.00

Tier 2 (7% ARD) $ 634,873.75

FPRN $ 10,530,021.00

Tier 2 (5% FPRN) $ 526,501.05

Tier 1 $ 8,434,751.25

Tier 2 $ 1,161,374.80

Planning (3% FPRN) $ 315,900.63

CoC Total + Planning $9,912,026.68

Program Review ‐ 1

SUB‐RECIPIENT:

GRANT #:

PROJECT NAME:

PARTICIPANT'S NAME: CLIENT ID#:

1

2

3

4

5

Persons living on the street

(and place meant for

human habitation).

Required for PH

participants.

6

Persons coming from an

emergency shelter for

homeless persons

7

Persons from a short‐term

stay in an institution who

previously resided on the

street or in an emergency

shelter.

8

Persons fleeing domestic

Violence.

9

COMMENTS/DOCUMENTATIONYES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

Written information obtained from

third party regarding the

participant’s whereabouts, signed

and dated.

Written referral from the

emergency shelter staff.

Written verification from the

institution’s staff that the

participant has been residing in the

institution for less than 90 days, and

information on the previous living

situation.

Written, signed, and dated

verification from the participant.

578.103 (5)(i)

Is the length and duration of homelessness documented to

qualify a participant as chronically homeless? 1 year or on at

least four separate occasions in the last 3 years where the

combined length of time homeless is at least 12 months? (effective Jan. 15, 2016. Participants prior to this date do not need to

meet this definition)

CoC PROGRAMS MONITORING TOOL ‐ PROGRAM REVIEW

PARTICIPANT ELIGIBILITY

Is there a completed intake form for the client? Specify the type

of (e.g., HMIS intake form, agency intake form, participant

application, etc.).

Is there a copy of ID (State issued ID, Driver's License, SS card,

Birth Certificate for Children)?Note:

Requesting a copy of ID is a best practice and will not result in a finding.

A photo ID is used to qualify clients for mainstream benefits.

Social Security number is a HMIS Universal Data Element and is required to be

collected by all projects participating in HMIS, regardless of funding source.

Is the program participant coming from the target populations

(e.g., chronically homeless, youth, substance abuse, mentally

disabled, domestic violence, veterans) identified and approved in

the application?

DATE:

GRANT PERIOD:

PROJECT TYPE:

24 CFR § 578.103 & 578.37(a)(1)(ii)(F)COMMENTS/DOCUMENTATION

Does the program participant's intake form or assessment

document that the individuals or families were homeless prior to

entry?

HOMELESS STATUS TYPE OF DOCUMENTATION

24 CFR § 576.500(c) & § 578.103


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COMMENTS/DOCUMENTATIONN/ANO24 CFR § 578.103 (a)(8) & § 578.73

Does the program participant file contain proof of disability of

the homeless individuals or family members?

(24 CFR 578.37 (a)(1)(i))

Does the agency conduct exit survey or interview with clients? If

not, describe how client feedback is obtained.

HOUSING QUALITY STANDARDS

Is there evidence of at least annual assessment of service needs

to ensure mainstream benefits are received and renewed? (24 CFR 578.53(a)(2)) &578.75(e)

Is transportation assistance provided to clients to attend

mainstream benefit appointments, employment training, or

jobs?

Is there an initial Individual Service Plan (ISP) developed by the

participant and Case Manager that includes goals and timeline

for completion?

Are the supportive services being provided (type and level of

service) consistent with those described in the approved

application? List the supportive services provided.

Is there evidence of referrals to mainstream resources?

(24 CFR 578.1(b)(3))

Is the disability documentation signed and dated by a person

credentialed to make a diagnosis?

24 CFR § 578.103 (a)(6))

24 CFR § 578.91 (a)(b)(c))


YES NO

Is there a completed HQS move‐in Inspection?

Is there a completed HQS annual Inspection?

Is there evidence of referrals to Affordable Healthcare?

24 CRF §578.53, §578.103(a)(7) & (9) & §578.75(e))

SUPPORTIVE SERVICES & CASE MANAGEMENT

YES

COMMENTS/DOCUMENTATIONN/A

Has the participant been terminated from the program?

Describe the reason for termination

Was due process applied on the participant's termination?

If the participant left the program, is there evidence of his/her

request and destination?

Did the participant go to permanent housing at exit?

Is there a completed verification on all sources of income? (24 CFR 578.75 (c)(3))

Is the rent charged accurately calculated, including deductions

and utility allowances, if applicable? (24 CFR 578.77(b)(4))

Does the agency charge fees other than the rent or occupancy

charges? (24 CFR 578.77(b))

DOCUMENTATION OF TERMINATION

INCOME DOCUMENTATION & RENT CALCULATION

YES NO N/A COMMENTS/DOCUMENTATION


28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

COMMENTS/DOCUMENTATION


YES NO N/A

If the participant's stay is longer than 24 months, is there

documentation on the need for extended program participation?

(24 CFR 578.79)

If a lead based inspection was required, was it completed? (Required: Households with a pregnant or 6 years of age or under member)

RAPID REHOUSING ONLY

How long is the rental assistance provided for? (24 CFR 578.37 (a)(1)(ii)(A)‐(C))

Is there a lease agreement under the participant's name with a

term of at least 12 months?

Did the project conduct a re‐assessment, at least once annually,

that the program participant lacks sufficient resources and

support networks necessary to retain housing without

Continuum of Care assistance?

Is there an updated individual service plan that document the re‐

assessment? (24 CFR 578.53(b)(4))

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ONLY

Do program participants have a lease or occupancy agreement

for a term of at least one month that is automatically renewable

upon expiration and may not exceed 24 months? (24 CFR

578.51(L)(2))

Do the entry‐exit dates shown in the participant files indicate

that the participants exceed the 24‐month limitation of stay?

24 CFR § 578.103 (a)

Do program participants have a lease or occupancy agreement? (24 CFR 578.51(L)(2))

24 CFR § 578.79

SUB‐RECIPIENT:

GRANT #:

PROJECT NAME:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Is the number of participants currently being served

consistent with the service number in the approved

application? The sub‐recipient must serve at least as

many program participants as shown in its

application for assistance (24 CFR 578.51(h)(3)).

YES NO N/A COMMENTS/DOCUMENTATION

Is there an agency written standards and procedures for

assessment, eligibility, outreach, intake, prioritizing

individuals, and reassessing participants?

Are all records regarding the program participant

centrally located and secure? (24 CFR 578.103(b) & (c))

Period of record retention: Are the records pertaining to

the program participant's qualification for the CoC

Program being retained for 5 years after the expenditure

of all funds from the grant under which the program

participant was served? (24 CFR 578.103(c)(1))

Does the agency have a written policy identifying the

involvement of homeless/ formerly homeless individuals

on the board of directors or other equivalent policy

making entity? (24 CFR 578.75 (g)(1)‐(2))

COMMENTS/DOCUMENTATIONN/ANOYES

YESAGENCY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Was the most recent APR submitted in a timely manner?

AGENCY PROGRAM REVIEW

CoC PROGRAMS MONITORING TOOL ‐ AGENCY PERFORMANCE MEASURES

DATE:

GRANT PERIOD:

PROJECT TYPE:

COMMENTS/DOCUMENTATIONN/ANO24 CFR § 578.33 (f)

AGENCY PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Will your project participants increase or maintain their

total income (by at least 54%) or earned income (by at

least 20%) during the grant period? If not, what actions

are being taken to improve this outcome?

Will at least 56% of your project participants have access

to mainstream resources during the grant period? If not,

what actions are being taken to improve this outcome?

Will at least 80% of your project participants maintain

housing stability at the end of the grant period? If not,

what actions are being taken to improve this outcome?

Are beds fully occupied? If no, what is the bed utilization

rate? If not at capacity, what actions are being taken to

improve this outcome?

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

PRIORITIZING CHRONICALLY HOMELESS

24 CFR PARTS 578, 42 U.S.C. 11381 AND CPD‐14‐012NO NA

Does the project prioritize beds for use by the

chronically homeless when beds become available?

COMMENTS/DOCUMENTATIONYES

COMMENTS/DOCUMENTATIONNANOYES

NO N/A COMMENTS/DOCUMENTATION

24 CFR § 578.7(a)(8)

HUD NOFA CoC ApplicationYES

a. Having too little or no income.

b. Active or history of substance abuse.

c. Having a criminal record with exceptions for state

mandated restrictions.

Are the project policies and practices consistent with the

laws related to providing education services to

individuals and families?

Does this project participate in the CoC Coordinated

Entry System?

Does the project ensure that participants are not

terminated from the program for the following reasons?

a. Failure to participate in supportive services.

b. Failure to make progress on a service plan.

c. Loss of income or failure to improve income.

d. Being a victim of domestic violence.

COORDINATED ENTRY SYSTEM

d. History of domestic violence (e.g. lack of

protective/restraining order, period of separation from

abuser, or law enforcement involvement.

Does the project have a designated staff person to

ensure that the children are enrolled in school and

receive educational services, as appropriate? 24 CFR part

§ 578.23 (c)(iv)

Does the project ensure that participants are not

screened out based on the following items:

Is there a written termination policy and does it provide

for a formal process that recognizes the due process

rights of individuals receiving assistance?

HOUSING FIRST

Does the project follow a "Housing First" approach?

Does the project quickly move participants into

permanent housing?

Is there a policy in place to ensure that families with

children under the age of 18 are not denied admission or

separated when entering housing?

21

22

23

24

25

26

GENERAL OPERATIONS YES NO NA COMMENTS/DOCUMENTATION24 CFR § 578.75 Sub‐Part F Program Requirements

Does the Agency allow family members retain

appropriate assistance after the death, incarceration

or institutionalization for more than 90 days of

qualifying household member?

Does the agency have a written policy identifying the

involvement of homeless/ formerly homeless

individuals on the board of directors or other

equivalent policy/decision making entity?

Does the Agency document their compliance with the

faith‐based activities requirements under § 578.87(b)?

Does the Agency offer religious activities separately, in

time or location, from the CoC Program and services?

Does the Agency ensures that participation in religious

activities is voluntary for CoC program participants?

Does the Agency discriminate against a prospective or

active program participant on the basis of religion or

religious belief?

MOU# XX-XXXXX

Version 6/22/16

1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CONTINUUM OF CARE (CoC) AND COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES (DPSS)

AS CoC COLLABORATIVE APPLICANT

I. PURPOSE This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into by and between the County of Riverside Continuum of Care, hereinafter referred to as “CoC,” and the County of Riverside Department of Public Social Services hereinafter referred to as “DPSS,” to allow DPSS to perform activities as a result of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) directives relative to the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009 and subsequent amendments. II. DEFINITIONS

A. “Collaborative Applicant” refers to eligible applicant that has been designated by the CoC to submit the annual CoC Consolidated Application for funding on behalf of the CoC. In addition, the Collaborative Applicant is the only entity that can apply for a grant for Continuum of Care planning funds on behalf of the Continuum.

B. “Continuum of Care” refers to the group organized to carry out the responsibilities required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) CoC Program and that is composed of but not limited to representatives of organizations, including nonprofit homeless providers and employment providers, domestic violence and sexual assault providers, faith-based organizations, governments, businesses, advocates, public housing agencies, school districts, social service providers, mental health agencies, hospitals, universities, affordable housing developers, law enforcement, organizations that serve homeless and formerly homeless veterans, and people experiencing homeless and formerly homeless persons to the extent these groups are represented within the geographic area and are available to participate.

C. “Board of Governance” refers to the group organized to govern the CoC by providing oversight and accountability for all CoC responsibilities.

D. “Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)” refers to the information system designated by the CoC to comply with the HMIS requirements prescribed by HUD.

III. TERMS This MOU shall be in effect from the date of approval until termination by the CoC Board of Governance (BOG). The CoC shall provide a 60 day notice of termination to DPSS in writing. DPSS shall provide a 60 day notice of termination to the CoC in writing. Upon termination, DPSS shall relinquish the entire work product within 30 days of termination date.

MOU# XX-XXXXX

Version 6/22/16

2

IV. DPSS RESPONSIBILITIES

A. For the purposes of the annual HUD CoC application and the management of CoC

Program planning grants, DPSS as the CoC Collaborative Applicant is the only entity that may: (1) Submit the CoC Consolidated Application to HUD. (2) Apply for CoC Program grants from HUD on behalf of the Continuum. (3) Apply for and receive CoC Program planning funds on behalf of the Continuum.

B. DPSS shall provide administrative support to the CoC in holding bi-monthly meetings of the full membership, with published agendas in accordance with the Brown Act (24 CFR 578.7(a)(1)). The DPSS specific responsibilities will include: (1) Providing administrative support to the CoC as needed and/or identified

between the CoC and DPSS (i.e., preparation of agendas and minutes, development of Strategic Plan, ongoing reports, correspondence, meeting notifications, etc. as may be needed).

(2) Providing all equipment necessary and meeting space for the meetings and other functions of the CoC as may be necessary.

(3) Keeping all records relative to CoC activities (e.g. Board of Governance (BOG), Standing Committees, Ad Hoc Committees, HMIS Administrative Council attendance records, agendas, minutes, important documents relative to each board/committee, and other documents, records, information as may be deemed necessary by the CoC and/or Collaborative Applicant).

(4) Maintaining accurate and up-to-date information relative to CoC calendars, rosters, and other documents as may be necessary.

C. DPSS shall collaborate with the CoC to develop, follow, and update annually a governance charter, which will include all procedures and policies needed to comply with HUD guidelines. (24 CFR 578.7(a)(5))

D. DPSS shall collaborate with the CoC recipients and subrecipients to establish performance targets appropriate for population and program type, monitor recipient and subrecipient performance, evaluate outcomes, provide technical assistance, and recommend taking action against poor performers. (24 CFR

578.7(a)(6))

E. DPSS shall collaborate with the CoC in evaluating outcomes of projects funded under the Emergency Solutions Grants program and the CoC program, and report to HUD. (24 CFR 578.7(a)(7))

F. DPSS shall collaborate with the CoC and the recipients of Emergency Solutions Grants program funds within the geographic area, establish and operate either a centralized or coordinated entry system in compliance with requirements established by HUD by Notice that provides an initial, comprehensive assessment of the needs of individuals and families for housing and services. (24 CFR 578.7(a)(8))

G. DPSS shall collaborate with the CoC to develop a specific policy to guide the operation of the centralized or coordinated entry system on how its system will address the needs of individuals and families who are fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, but who are seeking shelter or services from non-victim service providers. (24 CFR

Comment [DDH1]: On June 22, 2016, CoC Membership conditionally approved MOU with the following addition.

MOU# XX-XXXXX

Version 6/22/16

3

578.7(a)(8))

H. DPSS shall collaborate with the CoC and recipients of Emergency Solutions Grants program funds within the geographic area, establish and consistently follow written standards for providing CoC assistance. (24 CFR 578.7(a)(9))

I. DPSS shall collaborate with the CoC in the implementation of a housing and service system within its geographic area that meets the needs of persons experiencing homelessness (including unaccompanied youth) and families. At a minimum, such system encompasses the following (24 CFR 578.7(c)(1)):

(1) Outreach, engagement, and assessment (2) Shelter, housing, and supportive services (3) Prevention strategies

J. DPSS shall conduct planning for and conduct, at least biennially, but preferably annually, a point-in-time count of homeless persons within the geographic area that meets the following requirements (24 CFR 578.7(c)(2)): (1) Homeless persons who are living in a place not designed or ordinarily used as

a regular sleeping accommodation for humans must be counted as unsheltered homeless persons.

(2) Persons living in emergency shelters and transitional housing projects must be counted as sheltered homeless persons.

(3) Other requirements established by HUD by Notice. K. DPSS shall collaborate with the CoC in conducting an annual gaps analysis of the

homeless needs and services available within the geographic area. (24 CFR

578.7(c)(3)) L. DPSS shall provide data and information required to complete the Consolidated

Plan(s) within the Continuum‟s geographic area. (24 CFR 578.7(c)(4))

M. DPSS shall collaborate with the CoC, and State and local government Emergency Solutions Grants program recipients within the Continuum„s geographic area on the plan for allocating Emergency Solutions Grants program funds and reporting on and evaluating the performance of Emergency Solutions Grants program recipients and subrecipients. (24 CFR 578.7(c)(5))

N. DPSS shall undertake the annual HUD NOFA application process from data collection, application preparation, completion and submittal, and all other activities required in the preparation and completion of the document(s).

O. DPSS shall also assume responsibility for monitoring CoC programs in accordance with a CoC-approved quality assurance plan and to report outcomes to the CoC to ensure compliance for HUD requirements.

P. DPSS shall retain sufficient staff to perform all functions as necessary to fulfill the responsibilities as the Collaborative Applicant, including planning, contracts, fiscal, and administrative support; ensuring that employed staff is trained to assist with all aspects related to the needs of the CoC and implementation of HUD rules and regulations as the Collaborative Applicant.

Q. DPSS may assist the CoC in writing and submitting any required reports or documentation as specified by any funding source as may be needed by the CoC.

R. DPSS shall perform other functions that may arise that are not identified within this MOU but may be necessary to carry out the operation and functions of the CoC and/or as the Collaborative Applicant with full disclosure to the CoC.

MOU# XX-XXXXX

Version 6/22/16

4

V. CoC RESPONSIBILITIES The CoC serves as the primary organization responsible for carrying out rules, regulations, policies, procedures, etc. pertaining to federally funded projects that require CoC funded programs/projects as outlined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as outlined in 24 CFR 570.

A. The CoC shall hold bi-monthly meetings of the full membership, with published

agendas, in accordance with the Brown Act. (24 CFR 578.7(a)(1)) B. The CoC shall make an invitation for new members to join the CoC publicly at

least annually. (24 CFR 578.7(a)(2))

C. The CoC shall appoint additional committees, subcommittees, or workgroups. (24 CFR 578.7(a)(4))

D. The CoC shall collaborate with DPSS to develop, follow, and update annually a governance charter, which will include all procedures and policies needed to comply with HUD guidelines. (24 CFR 578.7(a)(5))

E. The CoC shall collaborate with recipients and subrecipients to establish performance targets appropriate for population and program type, monitoring recipient and subrecipient performance, evaluating outcomes, and taking action against poor performers. (24 CFR 578.7(a)(6))

F. The CoC shall coordinate the implementation of a housing and service system within its geographic area that meets the needs of persons experiencing homelessness (including unaccompanied youth) and families. At a minimum, such system encompasses the following (24 CFR 578.7(c)(1)): (1) Outreach, engagement, and assessment (2) Shelter, housing, and supportive services (3) Prevention strategies

G. The CoC shall oversee the development of a specific policy to guide the operation of the centralized or coordinated entry system on how its system will address the needs of individuals and families who are fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, but who are seeking shelter or services from non-victim service providers. (24 CFR

578.7(a)(8))

H. The CoC shall collaborate with the recipients of Emergency Solutions Grants program funds within the geographic area, establish and consistently follow written standards for providing CoC assistance. (24 CFR 578.7(a)(9))

I. The CoC shall collaborate with State and local government Emergency Solutions Grants program recipients within the Continuum„s geographic area on the plan for allocating Emergency Solutions Grants program funds and reporting on and evaluating the performance of Emergency Solutions Grants program recipients and subrecipients. (24 CFR 578.7(c)(5))

J. The CoC shall provide oversight to DPSS for planning and conducting, at least biennially, but preferably annually, a point-in-time count of people experiencing homelessness within the geographic area that meets the following HUD requirements (24 CFR 578.7(c)(2)):

MOU# XX-XXXXX

Version 6/22/16

5

(1) Homeless persons who are living in a place not designed or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for humans must be counted as unsheltered homeless persons.

(2) Persons living in emergency shelters and transitional housing projects must be counted as sheltered homeless persons.

(3) Other requirements established by HUD by Notice. K. The CoC shall conduct an annual gaps analysis of the homeless needs and

services available within the geographic area. (24 CFR 578.7(c)(3)) L. The CoC shall provide information required to complete the Consolidated Plan(s)

within the Continuum„s geographic area. (24 CFR 578.7(c)(4))

M. The CoC shall perform other functions that may arise that are not identified within this MOU but may be necessary to carry out the operation and functions of the CoC.

VI. MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES

A. The CoC and DPSS shall work together to build a CoC organization that is

capable of addressing the needs of people experiencing homelessness and

implement programs and projects addressing the identified needs and gaps in service.

B. The CoC and DPSS shall make every effort to approach various agencies,

entities, service providers, general public, and others to further the homelessness

cause and implement programs and services needed dependent on available

funding.

C. The CoC and DPSS shall strive to educate the community about our roles,

responsibilities, and collaborative mission working together to develop an effective

community plan for sharing information.

D. The CoC and DPSS shall communicate regularly and nurture our collaboration,

and will ensure that other partners are included in the collaboration and

development of appropriate community initiatives. E. The CoC and DPSS shall develop training programs designed to educate

CoC members relative to homeless issues, gaps, and services, HUD rules and regulations, and other training as may be identified.

F. The CoC and DPSS shall perform other functions that may arise that are not identified within this MOU but may be necessary to carry out the operation and functions of the CoC and/or the Collaborative Applicant.

VII. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR In the performance of the obligations under this agreement, it is understood and agreed that DPSS is at all times acting and performing services as an independent contractor, and the CoC shall exercise no control or direction over the manner and means by which DPSS performs its obligations under this contract, except as stated within the County of Riverside CoC Charter or pursuant to Federal or State law. DPSS assigned liaison and staff will report to the CoC. All persons employed by or volunteering for DPSS in the performance of CoC services and functions shall be considered employees, volunteers,

MOU# XX-XXXXX

Version 6/22/16

6

and agents of DPSS. No person employed or volunteering for CoC shall be entitled to a DPSS pension, civil service, or any status or right, nor shall he or she be deemed to be a DPSS employee as a result of this Agreement. Additionally, all persons employed by or volunteering for the CoC shall not represent themselves to be affiliated with DPSS. VIII. DATA CONFIDENTIALITY, SECURITY and SHARING DPSS and the CoC shall comply with any provisions of HUD and any other applicable federal and state laws regarding data security and confidentiality, as they now exist, or may be modified in the future, in both electronic and paper format. XIX. FISCAL PROVISIONS A. The CoC shall agree that DPSS will act as fiscal agent for all HUD/CoC funding

received for the purposes of addressing homelessness and those at-risk of becoming homeless and other related target populations.

B. The CoC shall agree that DPSS will receive 50% of administrative costs for each project submitted in the HUD Consolidated Application to undertake the activities associated with being the CoC's Collaborative Applicant.

C. DPSS shall agree that it will utilize funding in accordance with HUD rules and regulations.

D. DPSS shall agree to make available necessary funding to perform programs, projects, activities, staff, housing, services, and other HUD related costs, fees, etc. as may be necessary for the CoC to perform its job, unless funding restraints prevent such. If funding restraints are an issue, DPSS shall discuss with the CoC to attempt to resolve funding issues related to performing Collaborative Applicant‟s roles and responsibilities.

E. DPSS shall agree to provide financial data as required/needed by the CoC to perform its responsibilities according to the HUD and 24 CFR rules and regulations.

F. In compliance with the Timeliness Standards in the CoC Interim Rules, the DPSS Fiscal Unit shall ensure that claims are paid to contract recipients no later than 45 days after receiving an approvable request for such distribution. DPSS shall be responsible to know and follow all accounting procedures of the State of California and the Federal Government and retain all financial documentation as required under law.

X. GENERAL PROVISIONS

A. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. No waiver of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed a continuing waiver hereof. This Agreement is binding upon DPSS and their successors and assignees. Except as otherwise provided herein, DPSS shall not assign, sublet, or transfer its' interest in this Agreement or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the CoC. Any such assignment shall, at the option of the CoC, immediately void this Agreement.

Comment [DDH2]: On June 22, 2016, CoC Membership conditionally approved MOU with the

following addition.

MOU# XX-XXXXX

Version 6/22/16

7

B. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of the MOU,

unless specifically allowed in the MOU, shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing, duly signed and approved by the Authorized Representatives of both parties as an amendment to this MOU. No oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto.

C. This MOU shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of

California. Any legal action related to the interpretation or performance of this MOU shall be filed only in the appropriate courts located in the County of Riverside, State of California.

XI. INDEMNIFICATION

A. The CoC promises and agrees to defend, protect, indemnify, and save harmless DPSS, its officers, agents, and employees, volunteers from and against any, and all claims, demands, and liability for damages for personal injury or property damage suffered by reason of any act or omission of DPSS, or DPSS employees, volunteers, agents, or contractors, or by reason of any dangerous or defective condition caused or permitted by DPSS or DPSS's employees, volunteers, agents, or contractors.

B. DPSS promises and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the CoC, its' officers, employees, and volunteers from all claims, demands, and liability for damages for personal injury or property damage suffered by reason of any act or omission of DPSS or DPSS's officers or employees, or by reason of any dangerous or defective condition caused or permitted by DPSS or DPSS's officers or employees, except where such action, omission, or condition is caused by or is the result of an action, omission, or request of CoC or CoC's officers, employees, or volunteers or is alleged to arise out of the execution of this Agreement.

XII. INSURANCE

A. DPSS shall secure and maintain throughout the contractual period and any extensions thereof, professional liability insurance, public liability insurance, property damage, and vehicle liability insurance effective as of the effective date of this Agreement, and shall be protected from claims for damages for personal injury, including accidental death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise from operations from this Agreement. Said insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect during the term of the Agreement or renewals or extensions thereof. Such a policy shall be for not less than $1,000,000 for injuries, including accidental death to any one person, and subject to the same limit for each person in an amount not less than $1,000,000 on account for any one occurrence, and $1,000,000 for property damage, and shall be placed with a company authorized to conduct business in the State of California. The CoC shall be named as an additional insured on all policies and/or certificates of insurance. Copies of all policies or certificates shall be provided with a written notice to the

Comment [DDH3]: This section is subject to revisions by DPSS Contract staff.

MOU# XX-XXXXX

Version 6/22/16

8

CoC thirty (30) days prior to any reduction in coverage or cancellation. Such insurance coverage shall be primary and shall not require any contribution by the CoC. The amount of such insurance shall not be deemed a limitation of the CoC's agreement to save and hold harmless and if DPSS becomes liable for an amount in excess of the insurance, DPSS will save and hold the CoC harmless from the whole thereof.

B. DPSS shall secure and maintain throughout the term of this Agreement, Workers' Compensation insurance as prescribed by the laws of the State of California. A certificate evidencing such coverage shall be filed with the CoC BOG. Said certificate shall provide that the CoC will be given at least thirty (30) days written notice prior to cancellation.

XIII. NOTICES

Notices shall be deemed given under this MOU, when in writing and personally delivered to the CoC Chair at a regularly scheduled Board meeting.

XIV. SIGNATORIES The signatories below warrant and represent that they have the competent authority on behalf of their respective agencies to enter into the obligations set forth in this Agreement. The authorized officials whose signatures appear below have committed their respective agencies to the terms of this Agreement. For DPSS For CoC By: ______________________________ By: ___________________________ Jill Kowalski David Leahy Homeless Program Unit Manager CoC Chairperson Date: ____________________________ Date: __________________________

ESG Homeless RFQ/RFP Timeline Deadline: October 31, 2016

Due Date Activity

Wed 06/22/16Request feedback and comments on ESG review process at Continuum

of Care meeting

Wed 07/06/16 Review and comment period for CoC ends

Thu 07/21/16County Purchasing Review and Approval of RFQ/RFP; DPSS writes review

and selection process for ESG

Thu 08/18/16CoC Board of Governance approves ESG funding and allocation to Rapid

Rehousing

Thu 8/18/16 Draft Form-11 to Riverside County Board of Supervisors

Fri 08/19/16 Release RFQ/RFP

Fri 09/02/16 RFQ/RFP deadline

Tue 09/06/16CoC Independent Review Panel meets to review proposals and make

recommendations to CoC Board of Governance

Tue 9/13/16Route Form-11 to Program, MRU & CAU for preliminary review

(Electronic)

Thu 09/15/16CoC Board of Governance approves agencies to receive ESG funding

(needs to go to County Board of Supervisors for final review)

Mon 9/19/16 County Purchasing for preliminary review (Electronic)

Thu 9/22/16Route to Admin for Approval (DPSS Director & Executives)

DPSS Director will sign Form-11

Thu 9/29/16 Send to County Counsel for Approval (Stamp & Sign)

Tue 10/04/16 Send to Purchasing for Approval (Stamp & Sign)

Wed 10/11/16 Send to Auditor Controller's Office for Approval (New Funding)

Thu 10/13/16

Send to the Executive Office for placement on Agenda by 1:00 p.m.

(The Executive Office requires 9 days prior to any BOS Date)

Tue 10/25/16 BOS Date for final execution by the Chairman of the Board

Page 1/1

updated: 8/19/2016

CoC PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT

Chairperson: Karyn Young-Lowe, Lighthouse Social Services

Reporting Period: June 23 – August 24, 2016

Committee Members: Linda Barrack Lynne Brockmeier Michelle Davis Steve Falk Carrie Harmon Donyielle Holley Susan Larkin Rochelle Lewis

Kristii MacEwen Le McClellan Darrell Moore Damien O’Farrell Enid Reece Joan Thirkettle Karyn Young-Lowe

Date of Last Meeting: Thursday, July 21, 2016 @ 3:00 – 4:00 p.m.

Date of Next Meeting: Thursday, September 15, 2016 @ 3:00 – 4:00 p.m.

PLEASE LIST MAJOR ACTIVITIES SINCE LAST REPORT:

1) To ensure that the full CoC is engaged in the development of the Strategic Plan, the planning process will incorporate the ideas and work of various CoC Committees, including Housing, Standards & Evaluation, and Planning. Individual CoC members will also be recruited to serve as subject-matter-experts for feedback and review purposes.

Subject-Matter-Experts/Reviewers

Housing First/Eliminating barriers to housing Housing/Landlord Relationships Veterans Families & Youth Access to Homeless Families/CPS Transition Age Youth Bridge Housing Mental/Behavioral Health Fundraising

Employment/Workforce Development CES/Outreach Services Domestic Violence Emergency Shelter Services Mainstream Benefits AB109 Criminal Justice Involvement Homeless Indians/Tribal Alliance

The CoC Planner is currently developing a project plan including timeline for completing the Strategic Plan which will be submitted at next CoC Membership meeting.

QUESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR SUGGESTIONS: None

Karyn Young-Lowe August 18, 2016 Chairperson's Signature Date Report Submitted

County of Riverside Continuum of Care and Board of...

Documents

Transcript of County of Riverside Continuum of Care and Board of...