April 4, 2011
April 4, 2011
Members Present: Joanne Peters; Christine Ma; Wendy Phillips; Kevin Sharps; Richard Springwater; Erick Brown
Members Absent: Laura Guzman; Rae Suber
Meeting was convened at 11:10 am. Adjustments made to the agenda. Compass Community Services is no longer presenting under agenda item IV. For agenda item III, Department of Public Health will have to present at the end of the meeting due to a scheduling conflict.
II. Minutes from March 7, 2011
Motion made to approve the minutes from the March 7, 2011 meeting with the correction made by Board member Phillips.
III. Citywide Budget Update/Presentations
Derek Chu and Tiffany Wong from the budget office of the Human Services Agency presented on the budget proposal for 2011-2012. The agency submitted its budget on February 23rf which included a 10% base budget and a 10% contingency budget. The 10% contingency budget was not approved by the Human Services Commission. Despite it not being approved by the Commission, the Mayor’s office still has access to the information in the proposal and will make final budget decisions in May. There is probably another 4-5 week of back and forth with the Mayor’s Office about the budget.
Mr. Chu also mentioned the impact of the State Budget. The State budget was passed but the impact is still to be determined and how the cuts will be implemented is unknown. There is no direct impact to a homeless program because of a State cut, but there will be indirect impacts.
Board member Sharp asked why the Commission rejected the cuts how the agency responded to the Commission’s rejection of the cuts.
Mr. Chu said that the Commission was concerned with the amount of cuts and how it would impact services. HSA did present alternate cuts but the Commission rejected the alternates too.
Wendy asked the budgets of the resource centers.
Mission Neighborhood Resource Center is approx. $1 million; Bayview is approx $800,000.
An RFP was called for to consolidate the services and change scope of service.
Board member Ma asked if all City Departments who have general fund money were asked to make the 10% cuts and 10% contingency cuts?
Mr. Chu, said that e believes all departments that had general fund money were asked by the Mayor for these cuts. Some departments may still be working on it and not submitted it yet.
Board member Phillips expressed her concern for the cuts proposed on the SHEC, this is a model employment program.
IV. Presentation: Rapid Rehousing Program
Megan Owens, from Hamilton Family Center, provided a presentation on their Rapid Rehousing program. This program is for homeless families and provides housing location and rental subsidies, for a time limited basis, to get families into housing and stabilized. Hamilton gets funding from the general fund, and from the Federal Stimulus funds, under HPRP (Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing). In the year and half of having stimulus funds, Hamilton has served 99 families with rapid rehousing. Through their other funding sources they have served, 200 families since 2005 with rapid rehousing. It was also noted that the Federal Stimulus funds that fund part of Hamilton’s Rapid Rehousing program sunset in July of 2012, so currently they are not enrolling more families for 18 month subsidies.
Megan reviewed the profile of families that receive services/subsidies from this program. She also reviewed information that included data on family income level, length of time on subsidy, amount of subsidy, and some stabilization outcomes. In addition to this data, Megan reviewed program outreach, eligibility, and the extensive assessment process Hamilton uses to ensure appropriate placement.
When asked what about the program should be changed, Ms. Owens replied that there should be greater capacity.
Board Member Springwater noted how cost effective the program appears to be, based on information Ms. Owens provided.
It was suggested that Hamilton work with CPS and educate them on how their actions can impact homless families, often negatively. And they should track data to emphasize this point.
It was asked what the recidivism rate back to shelter was? Ms. Owens said very low, less than 5%.
Ms. Cross said that there should be non-smoking housing options offered for the families.
It was suggested that Hamilton advocate against slum lords and the Housing Authority who do not follow housing quality standards.
It was suggested that Hamilton track the number of veteran families. Ms. Owens said they already do that, and the have not seen a spike, as was suggested.
It was suggested Hamilton work against corruption found when wrongful evictions are happening.
V. Discussion “Unmet Need” as part of the 2011 McKinney Application Process
Bridget, from Homebase, lead the discussion about unmet need. Unmet need is information required to send to HUD in our application that tells HUD what housing for homeless people is needed in our community.
Bridget reviewed the methodology. The proposed methodology is the same one used since 2008, just with updated numbers. The methodology and numbers used includes homeless count data; data on units lost in previous years; units coming on line; waitlists (where that info is available); and best estimates. HUD allows for communities to create their own methodology to create this unmet need number. It is an art, not a science. One change this year, is that HUD is asking for unmet need data for units needed for unaccompanied youth (kids under 18).
Board members reviewed the proposed methodology and the data sources.
Recommendations were to use the same methodology, however look for any additional data, if helpful, from Human Services and Dept. Public Health. Get data from Larkin Street and other appropriate agencies about unaccompanied youth. Finally, if there is a way to capture data on the number of single adults waiting for shelter, to get that. Currently the single adult shelter system does not use a waitlist.
Explore other waitlists from agencies outside of Connecting Point.
Look at number from respite care centers and Board and Care Homes.
Ask agencies if they have other waitlists. Also know that there are people who simply do not want to be counted.
Motion made to approve the unmet need methodology as presented, and get additional information to inform the unaccompanied youth section.
Citywide Budget Presentation Continued:
At this point in the meeting, agenda item III was continued. Margot Antontetty, from the Department of Public Health provided a presentation on the DPH budget for 2011-2012. Just as with all City Departments with general fund dollars, DPH has to present a 10% baseline budget cut and a 10% contingency cut. The department was able to meet the baseline cut via continued mid year cuts, revenue, retirement costs, and other efficiencies it did not impact service provision. However to meet the 10% contingency cut there will be cuts that impact services. DPH has not yet presented all of the contingency cuts , but will do so to their Commission on April 5, 2011.
Total cuts the department us being asked to make is almost $70 million, this includes the contingency.
Ms. Antonetty noted that the type of funding that was looked at for reduction, was general fund dollars that did not leverage federal funding, were not used as a match, and didn’t have some sort of mandate or restriction attached to the dollars. The proposal will be made public at the Commission hearing on April 5th.
Board Member Sharp asked if CBOs had been notified yet and asked if reduction in FTEs was layoffs?
Ms. Antonetty said that CBOs would be contacted by the contract managers. Some of the FTE reductions are just leaving vacant positions unfilled and others are layoffs.
Board member Ma asked which of the cuts are homeless specific?
Ms. Antonetty said that since public health services are the services of the last resort for the poor and needy, any reduction to services would impact the homeless. However she noted that no one would be displaced from housing, or evicted to the streets.
One member of the public asked how the Department defines substance abuse? She sated that the problem of substance abuse should be addressed on a macro level and not individually. Also the department should focus on prevention care.
One member suggested everyone attend the public health commission hearing and address concerns about this budget to that commission.
One member of the public suggested that DPH go after pharmaceutical companies as a revenue source. Make them pay the bill for substance abuse services.
The LHCB then had a general wrap up discussion about the Citywide Budget.
Board member Phillips stated that there is a meeting being held with the Mayor and homeless service providers and advocates The LHCB should have representation at that meeting. Board member Phillips said she could attend.
The LHCB would like staff to follow up and find out if all City departments that have general fund in their budget are being asked to do a 10% baseline cut and a 10% contingency cut.
Board member Ma said LHCB members are still setting up meetings with the Supervisors to discuss the budget. Also the Funding Committee will look at cuts to specific agencies.
VI. Update from the Workforce Investment Community Advisory Committee
This item was tabled.
VII. General Public Comment
Nancy Cross stated that the response to her questions of the Public Health department were not adequate. It is important to create good policy. She wants her questions answered. How will the LHCB address the issues of nutrition and smoking in shelters?
It was suggested that she attend the Health Commission to bring up these concerns.
Meting adjourned at 1:25pm.