To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

Meeting Information


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 

San Francisco Local Homeless Coordinating Board
Funding Committee
Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2009

I. Introduction
Laura Guzman, committee co-chair, chaired this meeting. All were welcomed.

II. Minutes from June 19, 2009
Everyone there reviewed the minutes from the June meeting. There were no changes or edits suggested. Minutes stand as are.

III. 2009 McKinney Application Update
Bridget from Homebase reviewed the newest updates and changes for the 2009 McKinney application.

First the timeline was reviewed. Word from HUD is that the NOFA will not come out anytime before August 15, 2009. They also stated that the application will not be available online on ESNAPS anytime before August 24, 2009.
The exact date the NOFA will be released is still unknown, we can only make assumptions from these dates. A shorter time frame to complete the application is expected, but by law HUD has to give a minimum of 30 days for completion.

Bridget then reviewed the known changes to the 2009 Application that HUD announced via a webcast.  (1) The renewal process will be expedited; (2) no reallocation for hold harmless funds; (3) new definition for those that can be served via bonus funding; (4) leveraging and housing emphasis scores will only be determined by the new application; (5) CoCs must report on the coordination of their stimulus funds; (6) grants awarded in 2002/3 must be renewed this year.

 With these given changes that HUD announced the Funding Committee then discussed a set of proposed changes to our local application process. In particular the changes would reflect the possible shorter timeline; whom the bonus money can serve; how the application will be scored.

The first proposed change is: should the target population for the bonus money also be families?  Also do we still want to prioritize chronically homeless persons? HUD encourages this but did not say specifically if they would score on this.

Gail Gilman asked the representative from Mayor’s Office if there are projects in the pipeline that serve families and would be able to apply and use this funding? There might be some projects that fit the needs of the bonus project and serve families, but the MOH rep didn’t have all the information with her at the time. There is a project for single adults that would work for this funding.

Members of the Funding Committee agreed on the proposal to include agencies that serve families to be targeted for the funding. It was also discussed that although it doesn’t explicitly say it yet, the committee feels HUD will continue its emphasis on serving the chronically homeless and score accordingly. Therefore we should prioritize chronically homeless and the scoring tool should reflect that prioritization.

The new changes dictated by HUD also include the new way to score leverage and housing activity points. These scores will be based entirely on the new application. The committee agreed that more points on the scoring tool should be allocated towards leverage. In order to get more points there, the point values in cultural competency and disability access will be decreased. Also, instead of making “project readiness” a scored category, it will become a threshold category. Those points will also be reallocated to the leverage section.

Locally we already have a policy that our bonus funds be used for housing activities, so we will get full points for that.

The Committee next discussed changes that can be made to our application process for renewal projects. The committee is in agreement that the local process works well and allows us to see our local priorities and also evaluate program performance. However there is benefit to modifying and streamlining the process, for just this year, because we anticipate a shortened timeline

Suggestion was made to have a smaller number of panelists reviewing the application. Also suggested to have less information for the renewal projects to submit. The renewal projects would only have to submit their exhibit two and along with the Homebase Evaluation, would be what the projects were scored on. The renewal projects would not submit the project narrative, the disability narrative, or the cultural competency narrative. However it was noted that this information is included in some way in the Homebase evaluation and therefore the projects would be evaluated on these aspects of their program.
Bridget stated that Homebase would send out a notification to the providers saying that they can submit information or a rebuttal to any of the information presented in their evaluation.

New projects will submit all materials as done in the past.

Shelter Plus Care projects will only have to submit their Exhibit II.

There will still be an appeals process.

These suggestions are subject to change if any information in the NOFA or application suggested we will be scored on different criteria on the local application process.

IV. 2009 McKinney Application Exhibit One
At the last Full Board meeting of the LHCB, board members reviewed the suggestions made by the funding committee for the goals and achievements to be included in the 2009 McKinney application. They had suggested changes/additions made and wanted it to go back to the funding committee for review.

In particular the LHCB members wanted the funding committee to revisit the numerical goals attached to each HUD outcome.

Goal one: Increase percentage of homeless persons staying in PH over 6 months.
The committee still recommends keeping the 12 month goal at 82%; suggested increasing the 5 year goal to 89% and the 10 year goal to 91%.

Goal two: Create new permanent housing for chronically homeless persons
Numerical goals (units) were kept the same because they are based on projections made from information found in the housing pipeline.
The committee changed the language of one o f the goals to reflect the goal of working towards, and maintaining existing, networks of housing developers regionally to meet the need in San Francisco.

Goal three: Decrease the number of homeless households with children.
The committee suggested changes to the numeric goals for 5 and 10 years out. They all agreed that the percentage by which the community predicts to decrease family homelessness is a reflection of our commitment to the issue.
Committee kept 12 year goal the same; 5 year goal changed to a decrease of 20%; 10 year goal changed to a decrease of 40%.

Goal four: Increase percentage of homeless persons employed at exit.
Written goals are good but possibly need to shorten them.
The committee kept the 12 month goal the same. For the 5 year and 10 year goal they increased it by 2% from their prior suggestion. The five-year goal is now 24% and the ten-year goal is 26%.

Goal five: Increase percentage of homeless persons moving from Transitional Housing to Permanent Housing.
The committee again took some time to discuss the barriers that are facing transitional housing agencies in placing their clients in permanent housing. Currently we are not meeting the HUD goal. Some of the barriers brought up by the providers were:
There is not enough affordable and suitable permanent housing placements available. There will also be a lull in the housing pipeline for families that will impact placement. Finally, those in transitional housing programs have multiple barriers to entering permanent housing.
For the numeric goals the committee changed the 12-month goal to 64%; the 5-year goal to 73%; and the 10-year goal to 76%.

The committee decided that there should be a transitional housing workgroup formed. This workgroup will talk about the barriers to placing people in housing and solutions moving forward.

In general, it also suggested that the goals and action steps presented in the application should be reported on to the LHCB members on a quarterly basis.

V. Federal Legislation
At the last meeting of the LHCB they reviewed two pieces of federal legislation that impact homeless children who are homeless. The full board asked that letters to our congressional members be drafted and then reviewed by the funding committee.

Committee members reviewed letters and approved them.
The letters will be presented to the Full Board at their August meeting.

VI. Adjournment