User menu

November 1, 2010

Full Board - November 1, 2010

San FranciscoLocal Homeless Coordinating Board

Meeting Minutes

Full Board

11:00am- 1:00pm

November 1, 2010

DRAFT

 

I.                  Introduction

Meeting was convened at 11:02am.

 

II.               Minutes from October 4, 2010

Motion made to approve the minutes from the October4, 2010 meeting with the corrected spelling of Jelani at the bottom of page 4.

M/S/C (Phillips/Ma/Unanimous)

 

III.            Performance Measurements 2010 Application

Ali, staff to the LHCB, went over the backgroundinformation about performance measurements in this year’s McKinney application.

 

When the NOFA was released HUD included a section inthe application regarding performance measurements for each project. At thelast LHCB meeting it was decided how the staff and Hombase would facilitate theprocess of creating performance measurements. Projects were categorized intosimilar service types and roundtables were held to discuss possiblemeasurements. The Funding Committee then met as a group to discuss finalrecommendations to present to the LHCB for approval of performance measurementsto include in the application.

 

Bridget then reviewed (with a prepared document) theproposed benchmark percentages for Question 1A “Persons remaining in permanenthousing”; Question IB “Persons exiting to permanent housing during theoperating year” ; Question 2A “Persons age 18 and older who maintained orincreased their total income as of the end of the operating year or programexit”. ; The additional community wide mainstream measurement “Percent ofhouseholds served by the project that will receive or be maintaining one ormore mainstream resource at 12 months into the program or upon program exit”;and finally additional program specific measurements were revised, these werecreated by the programs.

 

Bridget explained how she got the benchmarkpercentages by working with the providers, looking at APR data, turnover data,and the number of people the program serves each year. HUD did not provide thebenchmarks. It also noted that there will be actual percents determined, notranges. Bridget then did some clarification of why certain programs had certainpercentages and also clarified some definitions.

 

Board member Ma suggested that the Safe Havenprogram specific performance measurement be changed to something other thanjust tracking referrals. Possibly in the future work at creating more of anoutcome measurement, but it doesn’t have to change for the application. Boardmember Sharps also stated that the language for that measurement should read“women who appear to have mental health issues”.

 

Board member Sharps also asked if HUD would look atthe measurements outcomes collectively? No, each program will be looked atseparately.

 

Board member Springwater says he likes the approachand looks forward to seeing longitudinal data. Also suggested comparing data toa control group and getting a third party to analyze the data.

 

Public Comment:

Tomas Picarello stated that the acronyms on thehandout should have been written out so members of the public knew what theymeant. He is also concerned with who will collect the data since it is selfreported by the programs.

 

Board member Brown said the non-profits collect thedata.

Bridget stated that the non-profits submit the datato HUD and have to sign off on its accuracy.

 

Marcy from Salvation Army stated that Homebase doescheck data for errors.

 

Karen from ECS stated that all the data has to ehave backup documentation that supported and it is checked.

 

IV.             McKinney Vento Application Exhibit One

 

As part of the 2010 McKinneyApplication HUD has asked that projects funded by McKinney and as part of thecitywide consolidated application that certain questions are answered. Thesequestions had to do with the policies and procedures about the CoC and theschool system and how agencies ensure homeless families and children know theireducation rights. In order to respond to these questions and as part of theapplication writing process, McKinney funded projects were asked to attend aroundtable meeting. The meeting discussed current practices. As a result of themeeting a draft policy was created for review by the CoC. Also a draftprocedures policy was given to projects as a guide for their use at theiragencies.

Bridget from Homebase reviewed theCoC policy and took comment.

Board member Springwater mentioned atypo that needed to be fixed and also asked about which definition ofhomelessness the school district uses.

Board member Brown said its importantfor the families to feel okay to tell the schools that they are homeless.

Board member Ma mentioned a typo.Also recommended, getting better data from the school district for the HomelessCount. She also wants to add Head Start to the list of referrals the agenciesshould refer families too. Also might want to add that continued medical careis important for schools to be aware of and that hospital social workers can behelpful.

Board member Springwater thinks thateach year families should have to fill out a form updating their status andaddress. This will help keep data up to date.

Board member Sharps stated that itshelpful to have the agencies ensure kids are going to school and  having opportunities for success but parentsshould still have the final say about what information is given out and theyare the ones who should be following up on their kids. Board member Ma agreedsaying that agencies should ask parents what help they want.

Board member Sharps also said thatthe language in the policy about agencies knowing "legal rights"should be altered.

 

Public Comment:

Marcy from Salvation Army said thather agency staff checks school enrollment and sends that information to Tatum,the homeless education liaison at the school district. And its helpful that theparents sign a release of information form.

 

Karen from ECS said it was helpful tohave a draft policy sent to them to work from. She also thinks that even nonMcKinney funded programs could benefit from having a similar type policy touse.

 

Tomas stated that its not realisticfor parents to know if they are in Transitional or Permanent Housing, as it isstated on the paperwork. Also its not realistic to think people will state ofthey are doubled up because it may cause them to lose their housing. Also theform should delete the "declaration of purgery" part. (it was notedthat the form the person was referencing is a school district form so the LHCBdoes not have the authority to change it).

 

Bart from GLIDE asked if there wouldbe additional funding to do additional work in this area.

 

Wolfgang from DPH suggested takingthe name of the SFUSD staff person out of the policy, so it could be used evenif that person changes.

 

Charles Pitts stated that the policyis not ready and that families were not invited to attend the meeting where thetopic was discussed. Location of the meeting was a violation of SunshinePolicy,

 

Motion to approve the"Educational Policies for the San Francisco Local Homeless CoordinatingBoard" with amendments.

M/S/C (Springwater/Ma/Unanimous)

 

V.                Input on quarterly survey to be completed in Cityfunded homeless shelters

The Policy Committee had a meeting tocollect comments about the Single Adult Shelter Survey. Board member Phillipsreviewed the comments and recommendations that came out of the meeting. Thecomments were submitted to Scott Walton of the Human Services Agency. Morecomments regarding the survey were then taken.

 

Board member Sharps asked about theprocess for how case managers are supposed to proactively provider referrals.

A member from the public, Karen fromECS, explained how their shelter staff provides referrals. Examples were givenfrom information given, to things explained at orientation, to group meetings.There is not in depth case management services other than the STAR Team. Thereis some information given in Spanish and some attention given to literacycapabilities.

 

Public Comment:

Glide asked if the survey asks whattype of reservation the client got.

 

Tomas said the LHCB should not voteon anything now that they do not have quorum. He said the Shelter MonitoringCommittee should distribute the survey. Also question #11 should ask "haveu been informed____" and "have you been referred to____"

 

Charles Pitts stated that thequestions are repetitive. Keep the survey to one page. Ask about veterans.There should be a chance for general comments. Look at quarterly reports.

 

 

Board member Ma said that thequestion about length was discussed and there are pros and cons to a short vs.long survey.

 

Joyce Crum of HSA said that thesurvey would be two pages. She also clarified that there was a recommendationto ask the survey at shelter reservation sites and that they will considerthis.

 

Mari from VLSP said that question #11should ask what referrals the client received, not just if information wasshared.

 

Joyce Crum said that the responses to#11 should also be looked at with the context of knowing that some sheltersoffer services and some do not.

 

GLIDE also recommended that thenumber of requests for services should be tracked and that Project Connectshould be on the list of services offered.

 

After public comment LHCB staffreviewed the process. The deadline to submit official comments to HSA haspassed. The policy committee submitted comments by this deadline. Theinformation given during this meeting will be noted as public record and givento Scott Walton.

 

VI.             Old Business

A)   WICAC appointment

The vote for the appointee to theWICAC did not take place because the LHCB lost quorum. The vote will take placeat the November 15th meeting.

 

Marcy Orsco and Phil Clark, whoattended the last WICAC meeting, provided an update to the LHCB.

 

VII.          New Business

A)   LHCB Seats: Term expiration and next steps

 

Staff reviewed that four LHCB membershave terms that expire on October 21st. Members remain in their seats untilsomeone new is appointed.

 

B)   2011 Homeless Count

 

Date set for January 27, 2011. Moreinformation about Count methodology will be discussed at a later date.

 

VIII.       General Public Comment

 

Tomas stated that when there is noquorum the LHCB is not productive so tell the Mayor and BOS that making appointmentsis an urgent matter. Review absent member policy. There is no excuse forabsences. Members who do not show should not be on the Board.

 

Bart from GLIDE suggested that duringthe Homeless Count people interview the homeless to get more information.

 

Charles Pitts said that during theHomeless Count you need to count beaches and those doubled and tripled up inSROs.

 

IX.             Adjournment

12:55

 

Back to Top