User menu

June 6, 2011

Full Board - June 6, 2011
San Francisco Local Homeless Coordinating Board
Meeting Minutes
June 6, 2011
Draft


Members Present:
Joanne Peters; Wendy Phillips; Laura Guzman; Kevin Sharps; Richard Springwater; Erick Brown; Kim Armbruster.

Members Absent:
Rae Suber; Christine Ma



I. Introduction
The LHCB welcomed new member, Kim Armbruster to the Board. Kim was appointed by the Board of Supervisors. He currently works at Glide. He stated one of the strengths that he would like to bring to the LHCB is integration of services.

II. Minutes from May 2, 2011
Motion made to approve the minutes, with proposed edits (grammatical/spelling).
M/S/C: Sharps/Brown/Unanimous

III. San Francisco 2011 Homeless Count Presentation
LHCB staff, and Homeless Count lead, Ali Schlageter, presented the results and data from the 2011 San Francisco Homeless Count.

Board member Springwater stated that cross tabulation of data is good, but it can also be skewed.

Board Member Sharps suggested that there be more analysis done on the unemployment data. Can there be analysis done on when a person became homeless and how unemployment/economic recession impacted that? Context is really important to this statistic. Also, the homeless specific unemployment data should be compared to the City’s overall unemployment rate.

Board member Armbruster questioned the statistic of 7% reported experiencing some form of domestic violence. He stated he thinks this number should be much higher, closer to 80-90%.

Board member Phillips pointed out the statistic that 73% of respondents became homeless while they were living in San Francisco and that the vast majority have lived here ten plus years. She said it’s a myth that people think the majority of homeless come from outside of the City. It does not help the situation to perpetuate this myth.

Board member Guzman first stated that she was offended by the quote in the Chronicle, given by the Mayor’s Office representative that compared the homeless to carpetbaggers.
She also stated that she thinks there was an undercount of Latinos and asked for the number of surveys that were done in Spanish. She added that the sheltered number decrease was impacted by the loss of shelter beds. There should be specific questions about mental health services and cross reference data by racial groups. Finally she noted the over representation of African American homeless compared to the general African American SF population.

Board member Armbruster asked if there was a correlation, or if one could be determined, that the increase in the number in the Bayview is due to homeless folks being pushed out of the Tenderloin?

Public Comment:
Joyce Crum, Director of Housing and Homeless, acknowledged the work of Human Services Agency staff, Ali Schlageter John Murray, and Dan Kelly.
She also noted that requests for additional data analysis cost money and the City doesn’t have additional financial resources. Ms. Crum also mentioned that the increase in the Bayview included a big increase of the vehicular housed. The Bayview has large industrial areas and few parking restrictions. The Mayor’s Office has also shown interest in the foreclosure rate in the Bayview.

Wanda from Swords to Plowshares thinks that it would be helpful to add the waitlist numbers to the Veterans totals. There are veterans who are homeless and waiting to get into programs such as Veterans Academy. This would bring the percent to higher than 17, which is what is in the report. She also provided insight as to why the report data suggests that so many veterans are not receiving veteran benefits but have an honorable discharge. She stated that if they serve less than 23 months, regardless of discharge status; they are not eligible for VA benefits.

Charles P. Asked if the homeless count measured those doubled up? He also suggested that there be a hearing about the homeless count data. He noted that there are less number of services available and an increase in the number of sheltered homeless. Finally he asked where the survey instrument and data by location in the City can be found.

Board member Phillips responded and said that it was challenging to get accurate and updated point in time data on doubled up families.


IV. Update from the Funding Committee
A) 2010 McKinney Application score debrief
Bridget, from HomeBase went over the summary of the San Francisco 2010 McKinney Application score. San Francisco did very well, scoring 87.5, 12 points above the national average, and 22 points over the funding line. Bridget reviewed each of the five scoring categories.

One section that San Francisco decreased in points from last year was the section “homeless needs and data collection”. Analysis suggests that this is the first year that HUD has scored whether or not a CoC conducts an annual Homeless Count. SF does not, points were deducted.
Another area for improvement is CoC performance. While SF improved on our transitional housing outcomes, the CoC did not meet the HUD, or its own, employment at exit goal.
LHCB’s employment roundtable meetings are addressing ways to increase the employment at exit outcome.

Board members inquired about who got the highest application score in the nation but the answer was unknown. HUD doesn’t divulge that.

Board members Phillips asked how their can be a point reduction on the issue of annual homeless counts if HUD does not mandate it.
The response was that often HUD awards certain behavior and encourages other behavior using scoring factors.

B) 2011 McKinney Application timeline
Bridget reviewed an estimated timeline for the 2011 application. The estimated timeline is constructed from current information provided by HUD and may change.
CoC registration will open mid June- early July 2011. 2011 NOFA release expected sometime between August and early September, being due October or November.
Also noted, this year’s application will include logic models and there will be slight changes to the way grantees submit their SF-424.

C) Additional report back from the funding committee
Co- chair of the Funding Committee, board member Guzman, said that the Funding Committee also looked at the new project scoring tool, and will review it again at their next meeting. In addition the idea was proposed to focus on HEARTH implementation and get programs prepared now, to do this an ad hoc committee might be formed.


V. Update on the 2011-2012 Budget
Board member Guzman provided a brief update on the City budget. At this point the Mayor is about to submit his budget to the Board of Supervisors.
Board member Guzman reported that the budget discussion process has gone well, and the Mayor has had numerous meetings and over 60 organizations have participated. Many of the policy priorities set by the Mayor during the budget align with the CoC priorities.
The Mayor rejected certain cuts that the departments had proposed, such as the reductions to shelter hours and the reduction to drop in centers. All of the specific budget information for each department is online.
Some areas of the budget that are still worrisome are reductions to the Homeless Outreach Team, Hospitality House, and the SHEC, amongst others.

Recommendation was for members of the public and the Board to attend upcoming Board of Supervisors public meetings regarding the budget, happening in June.

Next steps? The BOS will take the next few weeks to make final decisions about the budget. There will be advocacy done at one on one meetings and during the public hearings that will be held.
Suggestion was made that Board members, if able to, attend the hearing to represent the LHCB.

No public comment.


VI. New Business
Possible items for next month’s agenda:
Homeless Count data; Housing Access update; Employment Roundtable update; and in July or August get an update from the Mayor’s Office on Housing regarding the pipeline

Reminder that the next meeting is July 11th because the first Monday of the month, July 4th , is a holiday.

VII. General Public Comment
Project Homeless Connect will be in the Bayview on June 10th.

VIII. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 12:25pm



Back to Top