Funding2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Local Homeless Coordinating Board
May 1, 2009
Bobbie Rosenthal, co-chair, of the committee started the meeting and welcomed all in attendance.
II. Minutes from March 27, 2009
Minutes were reviewed and no edits were proposed to the draft version. Minutes stand as are.
III. 2008 McKinney Scoring Breakdown
Bridget from Homebase completed an analysis of the scores that San Francisco received on its 2008 McKinney application. She reviewed this analysis with the committee, which included a breakdown of the scores received for each section of the application, areas of success, and possible areas of improvement.
It is important to review how HUD scores us because the competitive scores that are high allow us to be eligible for "bonus funding" or pilot programs. Also looking at how HUD scores us gives us insight into HUD direction and priorities.
Overall San Francisco scored very well on the application, there were many categories where the application was given the top score or close to it, and therefore there is not significant improvements that need to be made.
The Committee did look at a couple of areas where improvements are needed.
The percent of transitional housing participating entering into permanent housing needs to increase, especially in order to meet HUD's goal.
There can also be improvements in how many people are participating in HMIS and also entering data into all required fields, as HUD is scoring on this. Co-Chair Rosenthal stated that the LHCB could write a letter to the agencies who are not fully participating to encourage their full involvement with HMIS.
Finally, the last area of improvement that was discussed was the housing activities points which scores the CoC on how much of their grant funding is used for housing activities.
Bridget showed an analysis of other communities and their scores, SF is right on the cusp of getting scored lower.
This area needs to be looked at in future applications. In the past the CoC has reallocated funding to housing which then increases the chances of getting a higher housing activities points. It was noted that with the City's current budget situation, programs that were defunded due to reallocation would be less likely to have their funding backfilled by the City's general fund, which is what has happened in the past years.
Another idea is to lobby with HUD that housing activity points should reflect the entire stock of housing that the City provides for the homeless, not just the projects funded by McKinney dollars. This would be helpful for SF because the City has invested a significant amount of local dollars into housing for the homeless.
For next year there is still no exact date of when the 2009 NOFA will be released.
IV. 2009 McKinney Application
A) Priority Panel follow up discussion
This discussion, on the role of the priority panelists who read the applications, was continued from the last funding committee meeting and the last full meeting of the LHCB. The question is do the priority panelists have the option to recommend defunding of a program?
The committee decided that the panelists, as they have done in the past, can recommend defunding, but final decisions are made by the LHCB and the grantee, and after working with the project. It was noted that if defunding, due to performance, ever comes up as an option there should be much more than the project's application considered and reviewed before final decisions are made.
B) SHP and S+C Cash Match; In Kind Match; Leveraging
During this time of economic challenges and unknowns it will be more difficult to get commitment from other agencies, who are facing budget cuts, to commit to cash match or in-kind services for matching and leveraging. Bridget handed out information that explained match and leverage and also what can be used as sources for both. Tips were also shared on how to work with agencies to get their assistance.
Daryl Higashi of Human Services told any programs, that get match letters from the Housing Homeless Division, have to go through the director, Joyce Crum for signatures and not jus the program manager.
V. HMIS Report
Bernhard Gunther reviewed the data that was last submitted in the Federal AHAR report. The committee again talked about increasing participation in HMIS of all CoC members. Providing good data to HUD makes us look good. The question did arise if improvements in HMIS are needed will there have to be additional funding provided, and if so where would it come from?
VI. Old Business
A) Update on Budget
The LHCB presented at the committee hearing in April on the potential cuts to homeless programs. Agencies are encouraged to continue to provide Bridget or Ali information about new or changing funding cuts to their programs. This is needed so the LHCB has the most up to date information when doing advocacy during the budget process.
VII. New Business
A) Homelessness 101 Training
HUD sponsored training for agencies that receive McKinney funds, on how to manage their grant. All are encouraged to attend.