Funding2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Local Homeless Coordinating Board
Meeting Minutes DRAFT
March 27, 2009
All were welcomed. Meeting was lead by funding committee co-chair, Laura Guzman
No changes were made to the minutes from February.
III. San Francisco Budget Update
Bridget of Homebase went over the budget cuts document that represents budget cuts facing programs that serve the homeless. The information was gathered from documents provided by City Departments that represent their mid year and next year budget cuts. Bridget noted that the document is draft and for discussion purposes only. Programs and agencies should review the information and provide any edits, additions, or omissions to Bridget. The document is helpful and will provide good information when presenting the big picture of how cuts are affecting the homeless.
Co- Chair Guzman talked about the upcoming budget committee hearings. She also stated that there is recent news of the federal increase in match for medical dollars. This will create funding for the City. She thinks that this revenue should be used by Human Services Agency and Public Health to stave off the cuts to homeless programs. This idea and stance should be brought up at the Local Homeless Coordinating Board meeting.
IV. Housing Pipeline
The Mayor's Office on Housing presented the housing pipeline. They reviewed what housing, for homeless persons, has recently opened and also buildings that are coming online in the next few years. Housing for families and seniors was noted.
They also provided guidance on projects that might be good fits for the next round of McKinney bonus funding for chronically homeless single adults. Projects mentioned were 850 Broderick and 9th and Jessee.
It was also noted that despite the rough budget times most if not all projects that were already started are still moving forward.
V. 2009 McKinney Application: Scoring Process
In preparation for the 2009 McKinney process the funding committee reviewed information key to the rank and review process.
Late Applications- there will be a 15 point deduction for late applications and anything submitted after 48 hours over the deadline will not be accepted. Also, when it comes to incomplete applications, projects will not be able to submit any documents that were missing past the deadline. The original will be used to determine what was submitted for the complete application. However if the information that is missing will affect the application to HUD, it will be asked to be included, post the deadline, but the information will not be given credit in the score.
Appeals Process- Same as 2008.
Priority Panel Review Process and Scoring Threshold-
There was consensus that having programs call in during the review process to speak with the panelist is not a good idea. Staff can assist in clarifying any questions the panelists might have.
Next the group discussed if there should be a scoring threshold meaning that if a program scored below a certain number on their application they panelists could recommend defunding, or if a project scores above a certain line they are safe.
The committee discussed that there are many reasons some project might score low, one reason could be simple like poor grant writing skills, other reasons more substantive like poor outcomes. The consensus was that the panelists should not have the authority to recommend defunding any project, irregardless of score. The panelists can point out areas that the projects need improvement and TA and share this information with DHS, if DHS is their grantee. Panelist recommends programs that need help and not defunding.
It was also agreed that the LHCB should be aware of projects that are continuously scoring low year after year. The projects should work with DHS and HUD for TA when appropriate.
The policy that the priority review panel cannot recommend defunding is new this year.
Finally the committee did not feel that defunding should be an option this year because of the current local economic situation and the fact that programs are facing cuts elsewhere. It was also talked about that the LHCB made the recommendation that no programs would be defunded for re-allocation, however Bridget pointed out that not reallocating is still based on the foundation that programs have to be performing well. This is written in the motion the LHCB approved.
Scoring Tools and Materials: There were no changes made to the narratives for both new and renewal projects. They will stay the same as the 2008 Application. Renewal projects that completed the narrative "how my project is in compliance with the CoC Plan" will not have to do that again for 2009 unless their program has made significant changes that would result in a new and different response to that question.
No changes were made to the cultural competency narrative or the disability access narrative. Those will stay the same as they were in 2008.
The new project scoring tool will stay the same as it was in 2008.
It was proposed to make a change in the scoring tool for the renewal projects. For the section that scores the project on meeting HUDs prescribed goals (PH retention; TH to PH; and employment) the suggestion was to have projects be scored on the local goal (percent) we set for ourselves, not the national goal. Our local goal is sometimes slightly higher. The committee did not agree to this suggestion. The 2008 renewal project scoring tool will stay the same as 2008.