Full Board - June 2, 2014 - Meeting Minutes
LOCAL HOMELESS COORDINATING BOARD
May 5, 2014
170 Otis St. Born Auditorium
Approved June, 2014
Called to order at 11:08
Members Absent: Erick Brown and Laura Guzman
Members Present: Kevin Sharps, Del Seymour, Joanne Peters, Dr. Christine Ma, Richard Springwater, Kim Armbruster, and Yoshiko Kennedy
- April 7 Meeting Minutes
Motion to Approve: Board Member Del Seymour
Board Member Richard Springwater: Second
- Update from Mayor’s Office of Housing Opportunities, Partnerships, and Engagement (HOPE):
Amanda Fried, HOPE: Bevan apologizes; he is injured and will not be able to attend today.
I would like to welcome Kristy Telford and her colleagues from the United Kingdown. They are interested in the different strategies that we use here in San Francisco.
There’s been a lot of work around ending veteran homelessness. We continue to work with 250 Kearny. We were able to submit an application to project base 75 new vouchers of VASH at the property.
Swords to Plowshares will also be co-locating the Rental Assistance for Homeless Veterans and the safe haven for chronic inebriate vets.
There is a lot of focus on the need to work more visibly and transparently throughout SF for the SF HOT team. The community really wanted to focus on the front end of the SF HOT program. Clients are either accepted or not into the program by peer based folks. There are ideas to conduct street medicine, and focus on improving the entry point aspect of the services. We want to make sure that all of the SF HOT members are highly focused on connecting all people to the showers and other services they are seeking immediately, and the housing and services resources.
Board Member Kevin Sharps: how does that work with Coordinated Assessment?
Amanda Fried, HOPE: this front line staff can really serve as an entry point to Coordinated Assessment.
It’s budget season, and I know that many of you are involved in various budget asks.
The hearing tomorrow is around evictions and the housing ladder. There are a lot of questions about this from the community and city departments.
Board Member Kim Armbruster: I want to congratulate you and Bevan on your excellent presentation at the Board of Supervisors. Some of those conversations were related to the Shelter Access Workgroup services. What is your hope for the outcomes of the hearings?
Amanda Fried, HOPE: to me, one of the most important pieces is context, data and information for the Board about homelessness. I hope that it informs a budget that is really about the needs in the community, not just the loudest voice at the 11th hour.
Board Member Kim Armbruster: I want to recommend that there be more information about the various funding sources for housing, including federal resources. What happened to wet housing?
Amanda Fried, HOPE: There was a proposal for a site, but given the housing financing or the property, the service provider did not think that there was the right financing in place for the more intensive model. We are pivoting to the safe haven for vets to test the model. DPH in the past two years has moved to providing wet housing in their existing housing portfolios.
Board Member Del Seymour: I think the presentation that Bevan Dufty was very eloquent at last week’s hearing. Please put me down that there should not be a safe haven in the Fairfax Hotel. The Tenderloin has had enough. I am not cool with it at that location.
Board Member Kevin Sharps: please say more about the Fairfax.
Amanda Fried, HOPE: Nationally, the model is to take some of the most vulnerable veterans and place them in the safe haven. The idea is that this would be a step up to bring people inside, give them treatment, and allow them to be moved on to permanent housing exits. The model is very well staffed, and very supportive. Since we have not been able to bring 250 Kearny on fast enough, the grant was at risk.
We are talking about making sure that someone who is homeless is able to get the support they need. The conversation is about how to ensure fluidity to help folks move out of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) if they are living in a setting that is not an appropriate level of care.
Board Member Richard Springwater: There is no secret to what you need to do to get people to leave PSH. They need section 8 vouchers. You will be amazed how many people do move out of PSH if they have a choice. Obviously it’s not about coercion, it’s about creating opportunities. There is an density issue in some buildings as well, it’s important not to have a building that is 100% acute.
- Coordinated Assessment Update
Megan Owens, Local Homeless Coordinating Board Policy Analyst summarized the plans for veteran and Continuum of Care (CoC) Coordinated Assessment.
There will be a kickoff event for the 25 Cities launch to create Coordinated Assessment for homeless veteran on June 25th and 26th. The veteran Coordinated Assessment system will focus on housing the most vulnerable veterans in VASH units, and the CoC Coordinated Assessment will focus on length of homelessness.
- Continuum of Care 2014 Project Scoring Tool:
Alissa Weber, HomeBase and the Center for Common Concerns: I will review the main changes in the 2014 Tool, compared to last year’s tool. The old tool was 106 points, we reduced it to 100 points. The maximum score for non PH projects is 94 points. We removed cost effectiveness, which was not valuable locally. We also eliminated the question about progress to HEARTH. That no longer has value, now we are measuring HEARTH performance.
Board Member Dr. Christine Ma: You are removing the HEARTH readiness; does that mean you are removing the evaluation of the associated evaluation?
Alissa Weber, HomeBase: Instead of focusing on the narrative, which was almost a writing test, we are focusing on the performance measures related to those topics.
Projects will be awarded full points when they meet their various benchmarks. Projects that do not meet the benchmark will be scored based on a scale comparing them to other similar projects.
The second change is a point of process. We have reduced the number of points for client feedback. That is because we are not doing focus groups with clients, so there will be less information.
Section 1E is focused on mainstream benefits. We are going to look at performance and prompt the programs to discuss these mainstream benefits.
We changed the scale for HMIS from 3 points to 8 points. Scoring has traditionally been high in this area.
The final 6 points are for PSH projects (5 points) and prioritizing only chronically homeless people for placement in turnover units (1 point). These were bonus points in previous years.
Board Member Kim Armbruster: At the funding committee meeting, what was the level of participation from the community?
Alissa Weber, HomeBase: There was a range of providers.
Board Member Kim Armbruster: Have any organizations been concerned about their scoring on this tool?
Alissa Weber, HomeBase: There is a natural disadvantage for programs that are not permanent housing. Also, some programs are less relevant to the various scoring tools.
Board Member Kim Armbruster: What will happen because of the lack of focus groups?
Alissa Weber, HomeBase: There is an impact of the number of clients in those programs. We will try to work with those projects to try and get feedback.
Board Member Del Seymour: It’s important to provide incentives.
Member of the Public: How do you support someone to complete the survey if they have poor literacy?
Alissa Weber, HomeBase: H.S.A. will provide the survey in several languages, and will be able to provide over the phone response for those with limited literacy only.
Member of the public: Is there a health angle?
Alissa Weber, HomeBase: We had this conversation at Funding Committee, and there were concerns that questions about the quality of case management seemed very difficult to manage without becoming a writing test.
Holly Hayes, Larkin Street Youth Services: One comment and one question. I just want to talk about what you referred to as a “natural disadvantage” not only has San Francisco stated the importance and value of THP for people and youth, and yet it is continually put on the second tier. We do not have the possibility to score 100%. I understand the systemic reasons for doing this. It is really in conflict with what HUD is saying. This is something that I would like to hear the board acknowledge.
Board Member Richard Springwater: We are very conscious that Larkin Street is one of our model agencies. I cannot imagine ever cutting Larkin Street.
Karen Grunieson, Episcopal Community Services: This is a process where people’s performance is scored, and for the Board to say that people will be held harmless is not appropriate. All of our projects except for permanent housing are in the same position. This is supposed to be a reflection of the value of the permanent housing programs.
Board Member Richard Springwater: This is a chance to thanks HomeBase, and the City for the support and resources that have driven our high scores in the national competition.
Board Member Christine Ma: I continue to be concerned about the 6 points for permanent support housing. I recognize the importance of permanent housing in the community, and I recognize why it’s done this way. I continue to be concerned that a program that is PSH will score higher than a better performing non PSH program.
Jeff Ugai, HomeBase: There are 3 major changes that I want to highlight on the 2014 New Project Scoring Tool. The tool now matches the renewal tool for match, and no longer calls for a narrative about performance, instead it requires them to participate in the community-wide performance measures.
Alissa Weber, HomeBase: There is a non-conflicted panel that conducts the scoring.
Motion to approve the renewal project tool: Kim.
Board Member Yoshiko Kennedy: Motion to approve the new project tool:
Board Member Kim Armbruster: Second
- Larkin Street Youth Services Grant Amendments
Alison Schlageter, Human Services Agency: I am responsible for liaising between our local programs and HUD. If a proposed change will impact local community, HUD seeks Continuum of Care approval. The ATI program for 15 youth was located on Haight St. The rent was increased by the landlord. Larkin Street was able to relocate the youth to the G House building. No beds were lost.
Board Member Christine Ma: What was the floor being use for before?
Holly Hayes, Larkin Street Youth Services: It is a multi-story building, and the building was underutilized before. This is an oddly configured building. We were able to do some work to make the building. We also added some educational programming on site.
Board Member Christine Ma: Is there additional underutilized space that can be used to increase the number of youth served?
Holly Hayes, Larkin Street Youth Services: If so, it would be small, and it would be at the expense of common space.
Board Member Christine Ma: What will happen with the rental costs for the ATI space?
Holly Hayes, Larkin Street Youth Services: Neither of the grants were sufficient to cover the real costs before, so there will be a chance to use those funds.
Board Member Del Seymour: Did you lose any jobs?
Holly Hayes, Larkin Street Youth Services: No.
Board Member Joanne Peters: What is the difference between the two programs?
Holly Hayes, Larkin Street Youth Services: Nothing substantive, we just try to give the clients a choice on sites.
Board Member Kim Armbruster: What about the names?
Holly Hayes, Larkin Street Youth Services: They will be one program, and they will have one name. That name is not yet known.
Ali Schlageter, Human Services Agency: We are also seeking approval to combine the two grants into one operating year, one budget, and one contract. If the merger is approved by HUD, Larkin Street has requested to become the grantee.
Board Member Christine Ma: Motion to approve the requested changes.
Board Member Del Seymour: I second, and I make the general comment that there should not be anyone outside—its cold for everyone out there. We thank everyone.
Alison Schlageter, Human Services Agency: I want to call out that this will be the first of two amendments related to nonprofit rental increases.
- Public Comment: No Comments
- Meeting Adjourned at 1:01 pm