Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

CoC Debriefing Summary 2009. CoC Scoring 2009 Scoring CategoryMaximum Score (Points) CoC Score (Points) CoC Housing, Services and Structure1413.25 Homeless.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "CoC Debriefing Summary 2009. CoC Scoring 2009 Scoring CategoryMaximum Score (Points) CoC Score (Points) CoC Housing, Services and Structure1413.25 Homeless."— Presentation transcript:

1 CoC Debriefing Summary 2009

2 CoC Scoring 2009 Scoring CategoryMaximum Score (Points) CoC Score (Points) CoC Housing, Services and Structure Homeless Needs and Data Collection CoC Strategic Planning CoC Performance Emphasis on Housing Activities64.5 Total CoC Score

3 CoC Scoring 2008 and 2009 Scoring Category Maximum Score 2008 Maximum Score 2009 CoC Score 2008 CoC Score 2009 CoC Housing, Services and Structure Homeless Needs and Data Collection CoC Strategic Planning CoC Performance Emphasis on Housing Activities Total CoC Score

4 Scoring Change: 2008 to2009 Scoring CategoryChange Rate of Score 2008 Rate of Score 2009 CoC Housing, Services and Structure % 94.6% Homeless Needs and Data Collection % 83.6% CoC Strategic Planning % 80.6% CoC Performance % 82.8% Emphasis on Housing Activities % 75% Total CoC Score % 83.75%

5 National Scoring Information 2009 High Score: (TCHC = 92%) (tchc = 96%) Low Score: 43 Median Score: 75 Funding Line: (TCHC 83.75= ) (tchc = )

6 TCHC Overall Comparative 2008 to 2009 Did not score as high More national competition Always room for improvement…. – So let’s review……

7 Competition Summary Renewals were NOT competitive Streamlined renewal process – Eligible SHP and S+C projects announced soon after submission deadline – New projects announced … July 2010… Samaritan House Villages II Acquisition PNS HOSO III

8 Point Structure For the 2009 CoC Competition, HUD awarded up to 100 total points for all five scoring categories I.CoC Housing, Services and Structure II.Homeless Needs and Data Collection III.CoC Strategic Planning IV.CoC Performance V.Emphasis on Housing Activities

9 CoC Housing, Services& Structure Max Score Possible FW/ARL/TC CoC Score 2008 FW/ARL/TC CoC Score 2009 Difference ANALYSIS of Coordinated, inclusive, Outcome-oriented process 2.Housing developers, business associations 3.Well-defined comprehensive strategies to address entire CoC system 4.Serving all subpopulations: DV, HIV/AIDS, VETS, SMI, Chronic Substance Abuse 5.Community-wide inventory of housing and services

10 CoC Housing, Services & Structure IMPROVEMENTS INTO Coordinated, inclusive, Outcome-oriented process: Planning Council Re-org; Consumer Council 2.Housing developers, business associations Corporations for Supportive Housing, MACH Housing Sub- Committee 3.Well-defined comprehensive strategies to address entire CoC system… TCHC, Planning Council Strategic Work Plans 4.Serving all subpopulations: DV, HIV/AIDS, VETS, SMI, Chronic Substance Abuse VA/VASH; Directions Home: SoS; MHMR Add Serv 5.Community-wide inventory of housing and services Expansion of website, housing inventory, services inventory

11 Homeless Needs & Data Collection Max Score FW/ARL/TC CoC Score ANALYSIS of of 4 AHAR participation ( of 4) 2.ES Individual not over 86% coverage 3.De-duplication of data plan/procedures – validating data on entry, timeliness 4.Unsheltered homeless data 5.Null value rate unchanged

12 Homeless Needs & Data Collection IMPROVEMENTS INTO of 4 AHAR participation ( of 4) Goal of 7 / 7 in new HMIS Goals and Objectives AHAR (including VETS Data) 2.ES Individual not over 86% coverage – +86% in new HMIS Goals and Objectives, need weekly and monthly PIT for ES facilities 3.Deduplication plan/procedures – validating data on entry, timeliness New MOA between TCHC, COC and TCACCESS October 1, Unsheltered homeless data PATH and SOS teams, survey design for 2011 census 5.Null value rate unchanged: New MOA…

13 CoC Strategic Planning Max Score Possible FW/ARL/TC CoC Score ANALYSIS of Ending Chronic homelessness and a 10-year plan 2.Discharge policy: clear description of WHERE people go other than a homeless situation 3.Goals and timelines to achieve the five objectives 4.HPRP coordination with all CoC

14 CoC Strategic Planning IMPROVEMENTS INTO Ending chronic homelessness and a 10-year plan Less emphasis on planning, more on outcome performance 2.Discharge policy: clear description of WHERE people go other than a homeless situation Still a major deficit with corrections and health care; draft proposal on health care for Goals and timelines to achieve the five objectives Continue specific measurable and related plan through Planning Council and Taskforces 4.HPRP coordination with all CoC VASH/HPRP developing; Prevention Task force should meet with all HPRP grantees for year 2 5.Leveraging of funds (Dallas has a 200% leverage requirement).

15 CoC Performance Max Score Possible FW/ARL/TC CoC Score ANALYSIS of Achieved proposed action steps from Increase PSH beds for chronic homeless and reduction in chronic homelessness 3.Achieve the five objectives

16 CoC Performance GOALSPROPOSEDACTUAL+/ - Create new PSH beds for chronic homeless over goal % Staying in PSH over 6 months at least 71% (80% for points) over goal TH to PH at least 63.5% (70% for points) over goal Employment at exit 38%27%-11 under goal Decrease number of homeless households with children First time measured 200 under goal

17 CoC Performance IMPROVEMENTS INTO Achieved proposed action steps from 2009 Planning Council and Task force action steps in place 2.Increase PSH beds for chronic homeless and reduction in chronic homelessness VASH: Chronic Vets; DH Fully lease up 3.Achieve the five objectives 1.Permanent Housing Bonus: HOSO III, HHSP beds 2.PSH: Eviction Prevention Planning; Housing Inventory; Housing Specialist 3.TH: utilization is down for third year in a row: TH Taskforce 4.Job Developer goals: 5.Homeless Households: HPRP +, show collaboration with ES

18 Emphasis on Housing Max Score Possible FW/ARL/TC CoC Score ANALYSIS of Significant drop in importance ( ) 2.Not about adding PSH; amount of local financial leverage for NEW permanent housing bonus. Dallas requires 200% leverage Our CoC Application 2009: 73%

19 The BIG Picture BIGGEST CHALLENGES 1.Evaluating progress and performance BEFORE the year is over by case managers, program directors and Executive Directors The CoC needs real-time, accurate, analyzable, accessible data and reporting at all levels of CoC implementation, management and evaluation

20 The BIG Picture BIGGEST CHALLENGES 2.Preparing for HEARTH and the new goal: Ending homelessness in 30 days (20 if you want to be high performing) The CoC needs real-time, centralized, rapid intake and assessment and immediate referral systems in place for new homeless

21 The BIG Picture BIGGEST CHALLENGES 3.Planning, coordinating and responding to needs cannot just mean more and more meetings…the CoC System most adapt smoothly with comprehensive CoC-wide input and agreement (RH and LH….) The CoC needs expedited identification of gaps in services or procedures and swift implementation of solutions that are consistent across key subject/target areas: e.g. VETS, SMI, ES, TH families, MHMR, Women

22 The BIG Picture BIGGEST CHALLENGES 4.The CoC should examine who does what best and define some shared roles and some distinct roles in service and housing. Top level CoC management needs to share and understand strategic directions of other CoC providers to assure non-duplication, opportunities for MOU, and their strategic fit with HEARTH Act and HUD CoC funding and policy changes

23 Painting that BIG Picture…


Download ppt "CoC Debriefing Summary 2009. CoC Scoring 2009 Scoring CategoryMaximum Score (Points) CoC Score (Points) CoC Housing, Services and Structure1413.25 Homeless."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google