Chicago Continuum of Care Board of Directors Meeting

Chicago Continuum of Care Board of Directors Meeting City Hall

121 N. LaSalle, Room 501A, Chicago February 25, 2020 9:30am – 11:30am

Agenda

= Voting item = Document included in Board packet

I. Welcome, Introductions/Roll Call – Ben Applegate 9:30 am

II. Consent Agenda Items – Ben Applegatea. February Meeting Agendab. December Board Meeting Minutesc. CoC Board Committee Slatesd. CoC Board Committee Reports

i. System Operations & Performance Committee Report1. Collaborative Applicant Committee Report

9:35 am

III. Board Affairs Committee Report – Fred Friedmana. Charter Update

9:40 am

IV. System Operations & Performance Committee Report – Carmelo Barbaroa. System Performance Score Cardb. 2020 System Goals

10:00 am

V. Finance Committee Report – Richard Rowe 10:25 am

VI. CoC Implementation Structurea. Performance/Data/Research Line of Work Spotlight

i. Community Standards & Program Models Chart – Karen Kowalb. Local Evaluation Instrument Appeals Memo – Karen Kowalc. Action Agenda Refinement Plan Update – Nicole Bahena

10:30 am

VII. Collaborative Applicant Updatea. 2019 HUD NOFA Funding Announcementb. UFA Registration Update

11:00 am

VIII. Public Comment Period – Ben Applegate 11:15am

IX. Adjournment – Ben Applegatea. Upcoming Meeting Dates:

i. Wed, Apr 15, 9:30‐11:30amii. Wed, Jun 17, 9:30‐11:30amiii. Wed, Aug 19, 9:30‐11:30amiv. Wed, Oct 21, 9:30‐11:30amv. Wed, Dec 16, 9:30‐11:30am

11:30am

CoC Board of Directors Packet – February 25, 2020, 1

Chicago Continuum of Care Board of Directors Meeting City Hall, 121 N. LaSalle, Room 501A

Chicago, IL

December 11, 2019 DRAFT Minutes

(submitted by C. Brown, All Chicago)

In attendance: Commissioner Morrison-Butler, Fred Friedman, Richard Rowe, Larry Smith, Gwendolyn Turner, Audrey Thomas, Ken Burnett, Pete Toepfer, Emily Krisciunas, Mary Howard, Ben Applegate, Christy Prahl, Saeed Richardson, Carmelo Barbaro, Commissioner Arwady, Debra Carey, Sam Mordka, Regina Freeman-Hodges, Anna Lee.

Alternates/Proxies: Rev. Sanja Stinson, Michael Banghart

Guests: Jajuana Walker, Melinda Koeng, Amber Westbrook, Doug Nicholas, Nicole Bahena, Christine Haley, Keri Lowder, Adam Rogers, Laura Bass, Emily Metz, Joan Bundley, Carolyn Ross, Art Bendixen, Adina Young, Megan Hamann, Padma Thangaraj, Jackie Edens, Steve Gaydos, Karen Kowal, Torelen Winbush, Betsy Benito.

MINUTES I. Introductions:

Commissioner Morrison-Butler, Chair, welcomed the Board and audience to the meeting. The Board and audience members introduced themselves.

II. Consent Agenda:a. Passed unanimously

III. Board Affairs Committee Updatea. Fred Friedman reported on proposed new Board Slate. Amber Westbrook, YAB,

will be added to the slate before being presented at the All CoC meeting. A votewas put forward to approve the proposed Board Slate to go to vote at the nextAll CoC Meeting. Passed unanimously.

b. Fred gave update on Board Member Analysis. He would like to get input fromBoard members.

c. Fred reported on the revision of the charter and the proposed timeline. Meetingis scheduled next week and should be ready to submit by January 17th. Currentversion of charter is on All Chicago website.


IV. System Operations & Performance Committeea. Carmelo Barbaro presented update on System Operations & Performance

Committee report.b. Carmelo gave update on MOU template and SOPC’s oversite set goals and

recommendation.c. A vote was put forward to accept recommendation from SOPC to extend term of

Collaborative Applicant until April 2020. Passed unanimously.

V. Finance Committee a. Richard Rowe gave update on Finance Committee report. A motion was put

forward to accept the report. Passed unanimously. b. The committee recommended to the Board of Affairs to reconvene the

Membership Committee.c. Jackie Edens presented UFA Subcommittee update. All Chicago was approved

for a line of credit and has a business plan in place. A motion was put forward tolet the UFA Subcommittee Recommendation continue to move forward. Passedunanimously.

VI. CoC Action Agenda Refinement PlanDave Thomas gave update on the CoC Action Agenda Refinement Plan, with the goalof completing refinements in January 2020. It was mentioned that stakeholders,leadership teams and committees were included in all conversations.

VII. CoC Action Agenda Recommendations for Boarda. Karen Kowal presented Community Standards & Programs Models Chart and

discussion ensued.b. Kimberly Howard, DFSS, presented PIT Methodology and discussion ensued. A

motion was put forward to approve the methodology for the 2020 PIT count.Passed unanimously.

VIII. Public Comments:The audience had opportunity to make comments. Comments included:• Art Bendixen mentioned that the Board has to decide at the next meeting

whether All Chicago moves forth with the UFA. Dave Thomas to set aside time atthe February meeting for the UFA decision.

• Inner Voice has many lived experience people on their staff, so they arerepresented in the CoC. Beware of workforce programs. They have a programthey are rolling out. USICH, new leadership is moving in different direction, bemindful of their new perspective.

• Maura, DFSS, is going to look at strategically matching family shelters withworkforce resources. DFSS would like to connect workforce with others.


• Richard Rowe would like to see more in-depth around decision making authority(UFA). What does it look like? Reallocation, where is input coming from? Hirepeople with lived experience in the UFA hiring.


Chicago Continuum of Care (CoC) Board of Directors Board Affairs Committee Recommendation for

2020 Committee Slates For Board of Directors Meeting on February 25, 2020

Executive Committee Slate

On February 18, 2020, the Chicago Continuum of Care (CoC) Board of Directors, Board Affairs Committee, convened to

make a recommendation on the slate for the 2020 CoC Board of Directors, Executive Committee.

The current Charter, Article 4 states that, “The Chicago CoC Board of Directors will elect an Executive Committee

including five board members representing the diversity of the Board:

1 seat: ESG Recipient

1 seat: Lived Experience Commission

1 seat: Service Providers Commission

2 seats consisting of representation from other constituencies on the Board, i.e. key stakeholders, private

funder, government representatives, Mayor’s Office

In addition to the above, the Executive Committee shall have additional seats for each chair of the Board

Committees:

o Finance Committee

o Board Affairs

o System Operations & Performance Committee.”

The responsibilities of the Executive Committee according to the Charter are:

Setting and timely dissemination of the agenda for CoC Board meetings, including regular updates on the work

of Committees;

Setting and timely dissemination of the agenda for the two annual all‐CoC member meetings;

Providing Board leadership in ensuring clear and effective lines of communications between the Board and CoC

members and stakeholders;

Providing Board leadership in ensuring that CoC planning and implementation is consistent with requirements

articulated by HUD in 24 CFR Part 578 and other directives, with applicable federal, state, and local laws, and

with the strategic direction of Plan 2.0; and

Setting and upholding process decisions to determine which issues go to the Board for official vote, and for

determining when the need for action is sufficiently urgent as to require either an unscheduled meeting, or a

vote by the Board on a matter which was not included on the publicly disseminated meeting agenda, or action

by the Board without a meeting.

Based on nominations from the various constituencies, and the Charter guidance, the Board Affairs Committee is

recommending the following slate for the Executive Committee of the 2020 CoC Board of Directors.

Executive Committee Seat 2020 Recommendation

ESG Recipient Comm. Lisa Morrison Butler

Lived Experience Commission Larry Smith, Vice Chair

Service Providers Commission Ken Burnett

At Large/Other Constituencies Debbie Reznick

At Large/Other Constituencies Ben Applegate, Chair

Board Affairs Committee Chair Fred Friedman

Finance Committee Chair Richard Rowe, Treasurer

SOPC Chair Carmelo Barbaro




Remaining Committee Slates

Based on the feedback that Committee continuity and institution knowledge is important, Committee membership

beyond the Executive Committee will continue with current members, with the addition of new members as 2020 CoC

Board Members elect to participate in a Committee.

Committee chairs will review the makeup of their Committees with Committee members to determine whether

additional recruiting is necessary to achieve a diverse representation of stakeholders. The Collaborative Applicant

Subcommittee is currently recruiting new members. A list of the Committees, required composition and responsibilities

according to the Charter, and current slates are listed below.

Finance Committee

Current Chair: Richard Rowe Support Staff: Steve Gaydos Committee Composition (according to Charter):

A minimum of three (including one LEC and oneSPC member) and maximum of five board members.

Chair must be a Board member.

CFO or a representative of the CoC MembershipFiscal Agent shall participate as a non‐votingmember and provide technical support.

Committee Activities:

Annual CoC Budget

CoC Financial Policies

Review and Approval of CoC Application

Review and approve workgroup requests to usemembership dues

Finance Committee Members

Name Representation

Richard Rowe, chair Board Member (LEC)

Mary Howard Board Member (At Large)

Jeri Linas Board Member (SPC)

Richard Cunningham At Large (LEC)

Fred Friedman Board Member (LEC)

Jajuana Walker Board Member (YAB)

Board Affairs Committee

Current Chair: Fred Friedman Support Staff: Steve Gaydos Committee Composition (according to Charter):

A minimum of three (including at least one LECand at least one SPC member) and maximum of five board members.


Co‐System Project Managers will participate asnon‐voting members and provide technicalassistance.


Board and Board Committee Nominations

Board Orientation

Charter Amendments

Board Affairs Committee Members

Name Representation

Fred Friedman Board Member (LEC)

Larry Smith Board Member (LEC)

Michael Banghart Board Alternate (SPC)

Todd Fuller Board Member (At Large)

Sherri Allen Reeves At Large Member (SPC)

Jennifer Miller Rehfeldt

At Large Member (SPC)

Christy Prahl Board Member (Private Funders)

Sharon Cargile At Large Member (LEC)




System Operations & Performance Committee

Current Chair: Carmelo Barbaro Support Staff: Maura McCauley Committee Composition (according to Charter):

A minimum of six people and maximum of 10people: (including at least one SPC and one LEC member)

• three board members• three at‐large CoC members

Up to four additional members can be added inpairs (board member plus at‐large CoCmember).


CEO of the CoC Lead Agency will participate as anon‐voting member and provide technicalsupport.


Lead Agency MOUs (Collaborative Applicant,HMIS, Coordinated Entry System)

Annual Administrative Evaluation of LeadAgencies

System Data Dashboard

System Operations & Performance Committee Members

Name Representation

Adam Rogers At‐Large Member/CA Subcommittee

Amber Westbrooks Board Member (YAB)

Andrea Dakin At‐Large Member/SPEC

Carmelo Barbaro ‐ Chair

Board Member (At‐large)

Carolyn Ross Collaborative Applicant CEO

Emily Krisciunas Board Member (Mayor’s Office)

Gwendolyn Turner Board Member (LEC)

Laura Bass At‐Large Member/CES Leadership Team

Margarita Gonzalez At‐Large Member/HMIS Committee

Otha Gaston Board Member (LEC)

Pete Toepfer Board Member (SPC)

Sanja Stinson Board Member (SPC)

*The HMIS Committee and Coordinated Entry Workgroups will continue their work as part of the CoC implementationinfrastructure. However, the governance functions (e.g. MOUs & Administrative Evaluation) will be overseen by the SOP Committee.

Collaborative Applicant Subcommittee of SOPC

Current Chair: Kim Davidson, Adam Rogers Support Staff: None Committee Composition (according to Charter):

Current members from the 2018 CollaborativeApplicant Committee.

Must include Board members.Committee Activities:

Development and execution of CollaborativeApplicant MOU.

Annual administrative evaluation of theCollaborative Applicant.

RFP process every three years, if necessary.

Appeals

Collaborative Applicant Subcommittee Members

Name Representation

Kim Davidson At Large Member (SPC)

Robert Cunningham

Board Alternate (LEC)

Dorothy Yancy Board Member (LEC)

Chris O'Hara At Large Member (LEC)

Larry Smith At Large Member (LEC)

Ken Burnett Board Member (SPC)

Adam Rodgers At Large Member (At Large)

Richard Rowe Board Member (LEC)

Jackie Edens At Large Member (SPC)

Danny Gutman At Large Member (At Large)


CoC Board System Operations and Performance Committee

Report to Board of Directors

The System Operations and Performance Committee met on January 27, 2020.

Committee members in attendance: Carmelo Barbaro (CoC Board Member/At‐large), Otha Gaston (CoC

Board Member/LEC), Peter Toepfer (CoC Board Member/SPC), Laura Bass (Coordinated Entry System

Leadership Team/SPC), Margarita Gonzalez (HMIS Committee/SPC), Sanja Stinson (CoC Board

Member/SPC via phone), Adam Rogers (Collaborative Applicant Committee via phone) Carolyn Ross

(CEO of All Chicago via phone), Andrea Dakin (System Performance and Evaluation Committee/SPC via

phone).

Guests in attendance: Maura McCauley (DFSS/committee support), Doug Nichols (All Chicago), Denise

Pikes (All Chicago), Chris O’Hara (LEC), Michael Banghart (CoC Board Member/SPC).

Approval of agenda – Carmelo reviewed the agenda. Michael and Laura requested the addition of a

proposal from the Service Providers Commission to the Racial Equity Discussion Agenda item. The

agenda with SPC addition was approved.

Review of committee report and slate – There was no discussion from the group about the November

committee report as it was approved via email. Maura provided an update on 2020 CoC Board

Committee Recruitment: Nicole Bahena from All Chicago will reach out to confirm ongoing participation

for Board Committee membership for 2020. New board members will be recruited to join committees of

their preference.

Lead Agency MOU template ‐ Carmelo walked through the MOU template, which ULabs drafted from

the MOU outline that SOPC has already approved. The group discussed. Adam pointed out Section D.1.2

Oversight by SOPC conflicts with the current charter which says Collaborative Applicant Committee has

oversight. The Board Affairs Committee is leading a charter amendment process right now and SOPC will

work with Board Affairs to provide recommendations about areas of the charter that need to be

reviewed in coordination with the new MOU.

Action Steps:

Committee members may email any additional feedback to Carmelo.

Maura will work with Carmelo and Board Affairs Chair to coordinate timelines for SOPC to

share MOU for the Board Affairs charter review process.

SOPC will begin working with the new template to draft the updated Collaborative Applicant

MOU for the April CoC Board meeting.

SOPC will establish timeline for renewal of HMIS and CES MOUs to be added to the work

plan.


System Performance Goals:

2019 Performance ‐ Doug Nichols reviewed 2019 performance on all system goals. The group discussed

the following key questions:

CES Metric – data may have changed since originally presented to the CoC Board. If so, report

should communicate the change and why.

Employment metric was presented for the first time in this report. Can data be split out by

housing programs and non‐housing programs? What is the increase in income for both

employment and benefit income? SOPC, SPEC and the Employment Task Force recommend fine‐

tuning this goal this year.

2020 System Goals – Doug presented proposed 2020 Attainable and Challenge Targets developed by

SPEC. SPEC will be adding information about what it would take (resources) to achieve the targets. SOPC

gave feedback on minor suggestions to bring back to SPEC.

Action steps:

Doug will re‐circulate final drafts of both reports to SOPC before the February 25th CoC

Board Meeting.

Equity Discussion ‐ Carmelo noted that SOPC originally wanted to define a system goal around racial

equity. Subsequent discussions over the past few months have resulted in some ideas to lay some

groundwork for creating a plan to address equity first that he invited SOPC to consider.

Carolyn shared that she is having a discussion with group of leaders from mostly south and west

side agencies. One idea is to create an Equity Caucus/Taskforce. Carolyn will ask that leadership

group the following questions with the goal of informing the development of a plan:

1. Why is this an issue in our system? What are the causes contributing to disparate

outcomes?

2. What are we willing to work on together to recommend back to the CoC/SOPC?

3. What are we willing to commit to doing?

SOPC discussed ways that this committee can support this task force. One idea discussed was

identifying data to support the work of the task force.

Laura presented the following proposal from the Service Providers Commission: The SPC

requests that the Systems Operation and Performance Committee, a committee of board of

directors of the Chicago Continuum of Care, conduct an analysis of the racial data from Chicago’s

Homeless Management Information System in order to inform the CoC Board of Directors

development of a CoC Racial Equity Plan, which should be a priority for our system.

SOPC discussed and Carolyn requested that the group she is convening meets first and brings

back recommendations to SOPC and at that point SOPC can determine if a data plan can be

determined. The group agreed.


Action steps:

SOPC March meeting agenda will include an update on the initial recommendations

from the equity group that Carolyn is convening.

SOPC work plan will include a goal to explore the committee’s ability to support an

equity plan and outline it by date to be determined after additional discussion.


Collaborative Applicant Sub-Committee

02/25/2020

Report to Chicago Continuum of Care (“COC”) Board of Directors

Activities and areas of focus of the Collaborative Applicant sub-committee of the Systems Operation and Performance Committee (“SOPC”) of the Board in recent months have included:

Review and discussion with All Chicago of the ongoing quarterly reportsdemonstrating fulfillment of the Scope of Services and Performance and PolicyObjectives of the Collaborative Applicant (“CA”) in fulfillment of theMemorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the COC Board.

Recommendation to extend the existing MOU with All Chicago as the COC’sCollaborative Applicant based on All Chicago’s demonstrated performancedetailed with the quarterly reports;

Continued conversation with the SOPC on the Scope of Services and Performanceand Policy Objectives of the COC to be included within an updated MOU with theCollaborative Applicant;

Continued conversation with the SOPC on the reporting and evaluation criteriathat will be used to assess the CA under an updated MOU;

Representation and participation on the SOPC committee working towards theadoption of a universal COC MOU template;

Representation and leadership on the UFA Committee;

Review, consideration, and feedback on proposed revisions to a modified serviceprovider evaluation appeals process to be tested in 2020;


2019 Full-year Data Report&

2020 CoC System GoalsCoC Board of Directors Packet – February 25, 2020, 12

2020 System Goals


Goal 1Reduce the number of persons who are homeless and are in the homeless system (One List), overall and for subpopulations.

2019Target 2019 Actual

2020 Attainable

Target

2020 Challenge

Target

Metric 1.1: decrease in the total number of households on the One List. 15% No change 5% 10%

Metric 1.2: decrease in the system-wide inflow. 5% 12% 5% 10%

Metric 1.3: increase in number of households placed in permanent housing (CoC housed and outside-of-CoC housed).

10% 16% 2% 5%


Goal 2Reduce the time persons remain homeless.


2020 Attainable

Target

2020 Challenge

Target

Metric 2.1: Average days between entry into the homeless system and move into housing. 90 Days 235 Days 15%

(200 Days) 90 Days

Metric 2.2: Average days between referral to project and move into housing. 30 Days 80 Days 15%

(68 Days) 30 Days


Goal 3Projects committed to CES will use only the system to fill its units.


2020 Attainable

Target

2020 Challenge

Target

Metric 3.1: Projects committed to CES will use only the system to fill its units. 100% 82% 100% 100%


Goal 4Increase the earned income and/or other income of adults served in the homeless services system.


2020 Attainable

Target

2020 Challenge

Target

Metric 4.1: adults engaged in Chicago’s homeless services system increase their earned income during the year.

8% 6%

Metric 4.2: adults engaged in Chicago’s homeless services system increase their non-employment cash income during the year.

15% 15%

Work group comprised of Employment Task Force, SPEC, SOPC and HMIS team members will develop new metrics and bring back to the CoC Board for final approval.

n/a n/a


Goal 5Increase persons who exit street homelessness to enter sheltered destinations.


2020 Attainable

Target

2020 Challenge

Target

Metric 5.1: increase in the number of households moving from street homelessness to a sheltered destination (as defined by HUD for System Performance Measure 7).

10% 10% 10% 15%


2019 System GoalsFull Year Data


2019 System Goals

Goal 1Reduce the number of persons who are homeless and are in the homeless system (One List), overall and for identified subpopulations (Chronic Homeless, Street Homeless, Family w/- Children, Youth, Veteran).

Metrics1.1 15% decrease in the total number of households on the One List.1.2 10% increase in number of households placed in permanent housing (through the homeless system and self-resolved).1.3 5% decrease in system-wide inflow.


Compare First of the YearJanuary 1, 2019 January 1, 2020 % change

One List Count 9,435 9,446 No change

Metric 1.1: 15% decrease in the total number of households on the One List

10,500

8,815

9,435

8,996

9,446

7,500

8,000

8,500

9,000

9,500

10,000

10,500

11,000

1/1/2018 7/1/2018 1/1/2019 7/1/2019 1/1/2020

Total One List


Previous 12-months comparisonJan 1, 2018 – Dec 31, 2018 Jan 1, 2019 – Dec 31, 2019 % change

Total Inflow 15,417 13,619 (12%)New to Homelessness 12,340 11,334 (8%)

Previously Inactive 2,282 1,596 (30%)Previously Housed 795 689 (13%)

Metric 1.3: 5% decrease in system-wide inflow

5% 5% 5% 5%

17% 13% 13% 11%

78% 82%82%

84%

7,718 7,6997,045

6,574

2018 Jan -Jun 2018 Jul - Dec 2019 Jan - Jun 2019 Jul - Dec

Previously Housed Previously Inactive New to Homelessness Total Inflow



Total Housed 3,711 3,101 (16%)Outside-of-CoC Housed 2,154 1,803 (16%)

CoC Housed 1,557 1,298 (17%)

Metric 1.2: 10% increase in number of households placed in permanent housing

43% 41%39% 45%

57% 59%

61% 55%

1,827 1,884

1,540 1,561


CoC Housed Outside-of-CoC-Housed Total Housed


2019 System Goals

Goal 2Reduce the time people remain homeless.

Metrics

2.1: Average 90 days between entry into the homeless system and move into housing.2.2: Average 30 days between referral to project and move into housing.


192 186214

253

90 90

0

50

100

150

200

250

300


Days

ID to Housing ID to Housing Goal

Metric 2.1: Average 90 days between entry into the homeless system and move into housing.


Average days from ID to Housing 188 235 25%


Metric 2.2: Average 30 days between referral to project and move into housing.

99

79 79 80

30 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Days

Referral to Housing Referral to Housing Goal


Average days from Referral to Housing 89 80 (10%)


2019 System Goals

Goal 3Homeless dedicated units should all be filled utilizing the Coordinated Entry System (CES).

Metrics 3.1: 100% of homeless-dedicated units will have been filled utilizing CES.



Filled from CES % 79% 82% 3%Filled from CES 1,141 1,048 (8%)

Not Filled from CES 295 228 (23%)CES Exempt 140 66 (53%)

Metric 3.1: 100% of homeless-dedicated units will have been filled utilizing CES

79% 80% 83% 81%

21% 20% 17% 19%

7% 11% 6% 4%

93% 89% 94% 96%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Filled from CES Not Filled from CES CES Exempt CES Required


2019 System Goals

Goal 4Increase the earned income and/or other income of adults served in the homeless services system.

Metrics4.1: 8% of adults engaged in Chicago’s homeless services system increase their earned income during the year.

4.2: 15% of adults engaged in Chicago’s homeless services system increase their non-employment cash income during the year.


• Text here

% who increased earned income

Total who increased earned income

Total Client Universe

29,384

1,713

6%

4,427

15%

Total who increased non earned income

% who increased non earned income

Metric 4.1: 8% of adults engaged in Chicago’s homeless services system increase their earned income during the year.

Metric 4.2: 15% of adults engaged in Chicago’s homeless services system increase their non-employment cash income during the year.

All adults enrolled in a CoC program in 2019


2019 System Goals

Goal 5Increase persons who exit street homelessness to enter sheltered destinations (ES, SH, TH, PH).

Metrics5.1 10% increase in the number of households moving from street homelessness to a sheltered destination, either Emergency Shelter, Safe Haven, Transitional Housing, or Permanent Housing.


58% 66%76% 82%

15% 13%

10%9%

27% 21%

13%9%331

304

345 354

2018 Jan-June 2018 July-Dec 2019 Jan-June 2019 July-Dec

Total ShelteredDestinations

Outside-of-CoCPerm. Housed

CoC Perm. Housed

Emergency Shelter &Transitional Housing

14

Metric 5.1: 10% increase in the number of households moving from street homelessness to a sheltered destination, either Emergency Shelter, Safe Haven, Transitional Housing, or Permanent Housing.


Total Sheltered Destinations 635 699 10%Outside-of-CoC Perm. Housed 154 78 (50%)

CoC Perm. Housed 89 68 (24%)Emerg. Shelter & Transitional Hse. 392 553 41%


Chicago CoC System Goals 20201

1. Reduce the number of persons who are homeless and are in the homeless system (One List),overall and for subpopulations.

Metric 2019

Actual Attainable

Target Challenge

Target

1.1 Decrease the total number of households on the One List.

No change 5% 10%

1.2 Decrease the system-wide inflow. 12% 5% 10% 1.3 Increase the number of households placed in permanent housing (CoC housed and outside-of-CoC housed).

16% 2% 5%

2. Reduce the time persons remain homeless.

Metric 2019

Actual Attainable

Target Challenge

Target 2.1 Average days between entry into the homeless system and move into housing.

235 Days 200 Days2 90 Days

2.2 Average days between referral to project and move into housing.

80 Days 68 Days 30 Days

1 Data will be disaggregated by the following subpopulations, dependent on applicability to the metric: chronic homeless, street homeless, families, youth, veterans, race & ethnicity, gender, single adults (non-chronic, non-veteran), and experienced domestic violence. 2 For metrics 2.1 & 2.2 the attainable target is a 15% reduction compared to 2019.


mailto:[email protected]

3. Projects committed to CES will use only that system to fill their units.

Metric 2019

Actual Attainable

Target Challenge

Target

3.1 Projects committed to CES will use only the system to fill their units.

82% 100% 100%

4. Increase the earned income and/or other income of adults served in the homeless servicessystem.

Metric 2019

Actual Attainable

Target Challenge

Target 4.1 Adults engaged in Chicago’s homeless services system increase their earned income during the year.

8%

4.2 Adults engaged in Chicago’s homeless services system increase their non-employment cash income during the year.

15%

Work group comprised of Employment Task Force, SPEC, SOPC and HMIS team members will develop new metrics and bring back to the CoC Board for final approval.

n/a n/a

5. Increase persons who exit street homelessness to enter sheltered destinations.

Metric 2019

Actual Attainable

Target Challenge

Target

5.1 Increase the number of households moving from street homelessness to a sheltered destination (as defined by HUD for System Performance Measure 7).

10% 10% 15%


CoC Financial SummaryFor the Period Ended 01/01/19 thru 12/31/19

Additional ProjectedActual Projected Total For The ProjectedTo Date Amount Year Budget Difference

Revenue 32,201$ (263)$ 31,938$ 30,000$ 1,938$

Expenses to Date (See note below) 22,842$ 11,407$ 34,248$ 38,932$ (4,684)$

Net Surplus (Deficit) 9,359$ (11,669)$ (2,310)$ (8,932)$ 6,622$

Projected Fund Balance at End of Year 45,497$

Note:• The 2019 expense budget includes $8,932 in expenses carried over from the 2018 budget.

Action Items/Meeting Highlights from 2/7/2020 Meeting1. The committee reviewed the detailed financial report for membership dues through December 31, 2019, noting the following:

• We finished the year $6,622 ahead of budget and have a healthy fund balance of $45,497 at the end of the year.• Our 2019 membership dues receivables are $2,952. This revenue is not reflected in the financial report.

2.

3.

The committee reviewed and approved for recommendation the proposed 2020 budget. (See Exhibit A) The budget is based on the 2019 budget, with the the following changes from 2019.

The committee also reviewed the changes proposed by the Charter Review committee for the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee agrees with the recommendation. The proposed changes are:

The Finance Committee is responsible for: •the Annual CoC Budget; •CoC Financial Policies; •Reviewing and approving requests for use membership dues.

The Finance Committee composition shall be as follows: •Have a minimum of three Board members (including alternates) and must include one LEC and one SPC member. •Chair shall be the Treasurer of the Board •May include at-large CoC members who are not Board members. •The CFO of the Collabora ve Applicant or other representa ve shall par cipate as a non-vo ng member and provide

technical support

•Dues revenue is budgeted to be $30,000, which is approximately what we received in 2019. •Membership so ware fees were increased by $480 to reflect the increase in fees due to membership size. •Payment processing fees were increased by $80 •All CoC mee ngs budget was reduced by $1,000 to be in line with our actual 2019 costs. •Supplies and support expense were increased by $440.


Exhibit ACoC 2020 BudgetAnnual Revenue

2020 Membership Dues $30,000

ExpensesAll CoC Meetings

Spring CoC meeting 5,500 Winter CoC meeting 5,500

11,000 Fiscal Support

All Chicago Fiscal Agent fee 1,000 Membership software 1,080 Payment Fees 480

2,560

Parliamentarian 1,000

HMIS Training Fees 5,000

CoC Capacity Training 5,000

Action Agenda Support Subject matter expert (LEC/YAB) expenses 4,000 Supplies and support expenses 1,440

5,440

Total Expenses 30,000

Net Surplus, Current Year $0

Fund Balance as of 12/31/19 $45,497

Projected Fund Balance as of 12/31/20 $45,497


Program Model Chart Overview of Changes

For Approval at CoC Board of Directors February 2020 Meeting

The Program Model Chat (PMC) work group of the System Performance and Evaluation Committee (SPEC) recommends the following updates to the Chicago CoC’s Program Model Chart.

All Chicago, on behalf of PMC work group, held feedback sessions with the following groups: Right Sizing work group, Youth Leadership, System Performance and Evaluation Committee and HUD CoC Funded Partner Quarterly Meeting. All Chicago also received 12 responses through a feedback form.

As with the previous update the Program Model Chart, the work group has developed this recommendation with the follow goals and definitions.:

1. Simplicity. Move aspects that were standards to operate a program to Community Standardsdocument.

2. Each model includes the following aspects:

a. Population: Primary population to be served in the program model and will include HUDhomeless definition categories as appropriate.

b. Time Frame: All models are defined as short, medium or long term. Some models alsoindicate an average length of time for the majority of households to be enrolled in themodel.

c. Essential Elements: The CoC has defined the minimum service elements for each model.These essential elements are the minimum needed to achieve the model’s outcome.

d. Outcome: This is the primary, anticipated result of a household’s participation in theprogram model. It is also the primary product of the project’s efforts.

e. Indicators: These are a group of metrics that taken together give an indication ofsuccess towards or achievement of the desired outcome.

3. For each indicator, a threshold and challenge metric was set

a. Threshold: level or value to meet or exceed to exist; baseline

b. Challenge: hard but attainable goal given current knowledge, capabilities and resources

c. Indicators were set by reviewing 2 years of data for each model type and indicator.Thresholds were set so the majority of projects can meet or exceed the metric.Challenge metrics were set using either the average or median and would be achievableby many projects.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indication

Overview of Changes

1. Creation of a Population Specialization category. The Population Specialization was created becausethe Program Model Chart work group has determined that some projects should be dedicated to aspecific population. In these instances, the entire project is for one specific population and isrequired due to safety, service needs and/or building community. Inherent in this focus is formaladoption or certification of national best practices for the special population. All staff receivesspecialized training to serve the population.

2. Increase income potential indicator added and defined as a connection to resources that increase ahouseholds potential in increase income such as training programs, education, internships,volunteer opportunities and others. This indicator was added to three models. The measurementand percentage for this indicator will be developed and tested in 2020.

3. Three new housing models added:

a. Shelter was created to be a broad, flexible model that includes the previous models ofInterim Housing, Emergency Shelter, Youth Interim Housing & Low Threshold YouthOvernight Shelter under Shelter. Since the development of the 2014 version of the ProgramModel Chart, these indicated models have become more similar in regard to essentialelements and services. Diversity of shelter types is still needed in the Chicago CoC. (Pleaserefer to the CoC’s Community Standards for a full description of the model on pages 45-47)

b. Youth Rapid Re-housing (Y-RRH) was created to test and implement a RRH model dedicatedto youth that ensures a youth focused service package is developed. (Please refer to theCoC’s Community Standards for a full description of the model on pages 39--41)

c. Joint Component Transitional Housing – Rapid Re-housing (TH/RRH) is a new model in oursystem that provides short term crisis housing with housing-focused supportive services thatis designed to quickly connect households experiencing homelessness to permanent housingthrough a tailored package of assistance that may include the use of time-limited financialassistance and targeted supportive services. (Please refer to the CoC’s Community Standardsfor a full description of the model on pages 41-44)

All aspects, outcomes and indicators are available on the draft Program Model Chart, in the Community Standards under Program Models (starting on p. 34) or in the Program Model Chart Presentation.

4. Youth Permanent Supportive Housing (Y-PSH) has been included in the Permanent SupportiveHousing model and Youth has been indicated as a Population Specialization. See p. 35 of theCommunity Standards.

Not all models were updated in these recommendations. New models may be added in the future. Below is a chart of the models in the Program Model Chart from 2014 and their status.


https://allchicago.org/sites/allchicago.org/files/IL-510%20Community%20Standards%20DRAFT%202020.01.pdf



https://allchicago.org/sites/allchicago.org/files/Program%20Model%20Chart%20New%20with%20Indicators.pdf


https://allchicago.org/sites/allchicago.org/files/PMC%20Feb%20Recommendation%20Presentation%20for%20Feedback.pdf

https://allchicago.org/sites/allchicago.org/files/PMC%20Feb%20Recommendation%20Presentation%20for%20Feedback.pdf


Updated Pending To Do

Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)

Joint Transitional Housing & Permanent Housing – Rapid Re-housing (TH/RRH)

Basic Street Outreach

Rapid Re-housing (RRH) Shelter Specialized Outreach & Engagement Services

Safe Havens Youth Rapid Re-housing (Y-RRH) Housing System Navigators

Drop-In Centers & Youth Drop-In Centers

Youth Transitional Housing & Transitional Housing

Youth Outreach Program

Homelessness Prevention


Program Model Chart Update: February 2020

Program Model PopulationPopulation

Specialization Time Frame Essential Elements Outcome Indicators Threshold Challenge• Domestic Violence

• Low barrier to entry• Exits to More Stable & Permanent Housing

30%

• Youth• Diversion: Creative, problem-solvingconversation

• Exits to Permanent Housing 27%

• On-site basic needs: meals or kitchen access; showers and toiletries; limited storage

• Maintain or increase income (employment income or benefits)

40% 52%

• Connection to housing options • Increased income potential TBD TBD

• Case management (on-site or connection to) to ensure clients are linked to services and community resources that will help clients obtain or maintain housing,

• Completed CES Assessments 40% 60%

e.g. building income, building independent living skills, developing education/career path, addressing a variety of physical, mental, emotional, and other needs

• Low Demand with High Intensity Services • Retention 80% 93%

• Basic Needs (Food, shelter, safety) • Exits to Appropriate Housing/Level of Care

60% 71%

• Case Management • Maintain or increase income (employment income or benefits)

33% 50%

• Linkage/Referrals to services: income, benefits, legal aid, medical services (physical, mental, addiction, etc.), etc

• Skills for Daily Living/Preparation for Independent Living

• Youth • Rental Subsidy • Retention 85% 96%

• People livingwith HIV/AIDS

o Coordination between property manager / landlord

• Exits to Permanent Housing 65% 80%

o Housing Location• Maintain or increase income (employment income or benefits)

70%

• Case Management• Increase income (employmentincome or benefits)

35%

o Pre-tenancy and tenancy• Maintain or acquire health insurance / medical home

80% 90%

o Referrals to services: education, income, benefits, legal aid, medical services (physical, mental, addiction, etc.), etc• Health Care Access

o Medical Home

Shelter Individuals or families who are literally homeless

Short Term: Days or months

Connection to appropriate and stable housing

Safe Havens

Chronically homeless individuals with a Mental Health diagnosisThose hardest to reach/engage in services; highest vulnerabilityPrioritize: Street homeless

Long Term: No time limit

Retention and connection to appropriate levels of care and housing

Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)

Individuals and families who are literally homelessPrioritize: Most vulnerableExceptions: Exceptions for some populations based on funding. E.g. HOPWA

Long Term: No time limit

Stabilization in permanent housing

Page 1 of 3CoC Board of Directors Packet – February 25, 2020, 40



Specialization Time Frame Essential Elements Outcome Indicators Threshold Challenge

• Rental Subsidy • Exits to Permanent Housing 70% 73%



66%

o Housing Location• Increase income (employmentincome or benefits)

25%

• Case Management• Maintain or acquire health insurance / medical home

70% 80%

o Pre-tenancy and tenancy • Maintain housing after exit TBD TBD

o Referrals to services: education, income, benefits, legal aid, medical services (physical, mental, addiction, etc.), etc

• Emphasis on employment supports and benefits

• Progressive Engagement

• Health Care Access

o Medical Home

• Rental Subsidy • Exits to Permanent Housing 50% 60%



50%

o Housing Location• Increase income (employmentincome or benefits)

25%

• Case Management • Increase income potential TBD TBD

o Pre-tenancy and tenancy • Maintain housing after exit TBD TBD



• Emphasis on connection to education, training, etc. and developing a career path



o Medical Home

Maintain permanent housing

Individuals and families who are literally homeless between 18-24 years old at entry• No disability required

Medium Term: Average 24 months

Maintain permanent housing

Youth Rapid Re-housing (Y-RRH)

Rapid Re-housing (RRH)

Individuals and families who are literally homeless• No disability required

Medium Term: Average 6-18 months




Specialization Time Frame Essential Elements Outcome Indicators Threshold Challenge• Domestic Violence

• Crisis Stabilization • Exits to Permanent Housing 50% 60%

• Youth • Rental Subsidy• Maintain or increase income (employment income or benefits)

50%


• Increase income (employmentincome or benefits)

25%

o Housing Location • Increase income potential TBD TBD

• Case Management • Maintain housing after exit TBD TBD

o Pre-tenancy and tenancy



• Emphasis on connection to education, training, etc. and developing a career path



o Medical Home

Notes: The recommendation for Permanent Housing with Short-term Supports is to transition these projects to other program models. Updating the Program Model Chart is an iterative process, therefore not all models are included in this update. Other models will be updated in 2020 such as Outreach, Drop In Centers and Youth Transitional Housing models. The Program Models Chart was last updated in 2014. The original chart is available at www.allchicago.org/COC/COCProgramCompetition.

Obtain and maintain permanent housing

Joint Transitional Housing & Permanent Housing - Rapid Re-housing (TH/RRH)

Individuals and families who are literally homeless • No disability required

Medium Term: Average 24 months


memo To: CoC Board of Directors

From: Local Evaluation Committee

CC: Lived Experience Commission (LEC); Service Providers Commission (SPC); System Performance & Evaluation Committee (SPEC)

Date: Date

Re: Appeals Process for 2020 Local Evaluation Instrument

The Local Evaluation Committee with support from the Lived Experience Commission (LEC) Service Providers Commission (SPC) and the System Performance & Evaluation Committee (SPEC) requests approval to pilot a new process for Local Evaluation Instrument appeals in 2020. The benefits of this new process are that it would shorten the time required for the Local Evaluation Instrument with scorecards to be issued more quickly, leverage community expertise, ensure objectivity and provide a break between the Intent to Renew and the Local Evaluation Instrument processes.

The Local Evaluation Committee proposes that the new process should include two levels: 1) Remediation of Preliminary Scorecard with All Chicago and 2) Formal appeals to a Local Evaluation Instrument Appeals Panel. Decisions made by the Local Evaluation Instrument Appeals Panel would be final.

Justification:

The current process and timeline are outlined in the CoC Governance Charter Article 13; Appeals Process for Evaluation Instrument Scoring. Based on the timeframes outlined in the CoC Charter the appeals process takes a minimum of 35 business days (at least 7 weeks), which does not include time to allow providers to submit an appeal, which is usually 3-5 additional days per level of appeal. Because of this timeline, the Local Evaluation Instrument must begin no later than the middle of April to ensure these timelines are honored and the process is completed within HUD NOFA Guidelines each year. Reducing the number of levels and time at each level would significantly reduce the time needed to resolve scoring issues.

Historically, All Chicago has encouraged providers to resolve scoring issues directly without filing an appeal. All Chicago resolves a significant number of scoring issues in this way and advises projects to use the appeals process when necessary.

After providers appeal to All Chicago, subsequent levels are reviewed by the Collaborative Applicant Committee (CAC) and Appeals Panel of the Board of Directors. Historically, these additional levels have been tasked with ensuring that All Chicago followed the Local Evaluation


Instrument instructions and the CoC Charter guidelines. For both levels, All Chicago provides support for context and background on the Local Evaluation Instrument, Coordinated Entry, data collection and other system level processes. Because the justification of some appeals is beyond what is outlined in the Local Evaluation Instrument instructions, members of both CAC and the Appeals Panel of the Board often do not have the context to independently review the appeals they receive.

New Process:

In general, the scope of appeals will be erroneous scoring and not appeals for philosophical reasons regarding the questions (per the existing Instruction Manual guidance). These should be taken directly to the Local Evaluation Committee.

Remediation of Preliminary Scorecard (Level 1) – All Chicago will remedy any identified issues with a project’s score. This is limited to erroneous data errors or not following the Local Evaluation Instrument instructions. Providers will submit a request to remedy their score in writing through the [email protected] email. All Chicago will set a deadline and will respond in writing within 10 business days of issuance of the preliminary score card.

Local Evaluation Instrument Appeals Panel (Level 2) – Local Evaluation Instrument Appeals Panel will review and decide on any appeals of All Chicago’s decision during Level 1. The Local Evaluation Instrument Appeals Panel will not review appeals that were not submitted during Level 1. The panel will focus on whether or not All Chicago followed the Local Evaluation Instrument instructions and CoC Governance Charter. Providers will submit an appeal in writing through a form in SurveyGizmo and include documentation from Level 1. All Chicago will set a deadline for appeals. The Local Evaluation Instrument Appeals Panel will respond in writing within 5 business days after the appeal submission deadline. Decisions made by the Local Evaluation Instrument Appeals Panel would be final.

A two-stage process not only shortens the time line but also maintains the integrity and neutrality of the process. All Chicago surveyed providers regarding the Local Evaluation process. Providers agreed that a neutral body to file an appeal and review All Chicago’s decisions was needed. As mentioned above, All Chicago provides support and background to both the Collaborative Applicant Committee and Appeals Panel of the Board for appeals. An appeals panel specifically constructed for the Local Evaluation Instrument would ensure appropriate knowledge, background, expertise and neutrality. A Local Evaluation Instrument Appeals Panel would be constructed as follows:

Number of Members: Committee / Work Group: Purpose

2 Local Evaluation Committee (1 Lived Experience Commission; 1 Service Provider)

Background, knowledge and intent regarding development of Local Evaluation Instrument and instructions.

2 Collaborative Applicant Committee Ensures All Chicago followed Local Evaluation Instrument instructions and CoC Charter

2 Board of Directors (1 Lived Experience Commission; 1 Service Provider or Other Group)

Ensures All Chicago followed Local Evaluation Instrument instructions and CoC Charter




1 Coordinated Entry Lead or CE Leadership Team

Background and knowledge of expectations and policies around Coordinated Entry.

1 HMIS Lead or HMIS Committee Background and knowledge of expectations and policies around HMIS.

1 Lived Experience Commission Ensures voice and representation of persons of lived experience

2 Service Providers Commission Background and knowledge regarding implementation of CoC funded projects and community expectations.

Note: Service Providers who submit appeals to this level would not be able to be on the Appeals Panel. Service Providers who are subgrantees for a CoC grant of an agency that submitted an appeal would not be able to be on the Appeals Panel. All Chicago staff who participated in the review and scoring of Local Evaluation Instruments would not participate.

The Local Evaluation Committee will provide timelines and additional guidance in the selection of representatives and alternates. Coordinated Entry and HMIS representation will be selected by the CE Leadership and HMIS Committee respectively.

Timeline:

Current Appeals Process New Appeals Process Release Local Evaluation Instrument 4/20/2020 4/20/2020 Local Evaluation Instrument Deadline 5/18/2020 5/18/2020 Preliminary Score Card Released 6/1/2020 6/1/2020 Level 1: All Chicago 6/15/2020 6/11/2020 Level 2: Collaborative Applicant 6/30/2020 Level 2: LEI Appeals Panel 6/24/2020 Level 3: Appeals Panel of Board 7/21/2020 Final Scorecards Issued 7/24/2020 6/30/2020

Total Weeks 14 weeks 10.5 weeks (Timeline provided as an example)


Action Agenda Refinement Plan Update Prepared for the CoC Board of Directors

February 2020

Background The Action Agenda is a strategy and work plan to encourage the CoC, the Department of Family and Support Services (DFSS), and All Chicago to become more responsive, collaborative, and action‐oriented in our work to end homelessness. The Action Agenda guides how the CoC is organized to advance the goals of Plan 2.0, work toward the Chicago CoC system goals, and carry out our vision to end homelessness. All Chicago and DFSS developed an Action Agenda refinement plan through community input that includes improvements to Action Agenda communications and decision‐making processes. The complete Action Agenda refinement plan can be viewed on All Chicago’s website.

All Chicago staff frequently report on the progress of the refinement plan at CoC Board of Directors meetings.

Successes (items in bold are new since the last update)

CoC Meeting Calendar is being kept up to date with all Action Agenda community meetings; it is hostedon All Chicago’s website.

Action Agenda Alert emails are continuing to evolve to be concise and effective at sharing importantinformation. They contain a link where readers can provide feedback for continual improvement. AllChicago is working with SPC and LEC to ensure this process is meeting their needs.

All Chicago worked with LEC to create and support an LEC Communications Plan (see page 3).

All Chicago convened an ad hoc Consensus Building workgroup to establish guidelines for facilitatingmeetings using a consensus framework (see page 4).

In Progress Areas Communications Enhancements

Workgroup Participation Postings were being held on All Chicago’s website, but one work groupattendee was concerned about privacy and did not want her name to be listed on our website.Therefore, they are available upon request. All Chicago is circling back with LEC and SPC to discussprivacy concerns, and is exploring options to ensure attendance is timely, accurate while reducingthe administrative burden.

A Communications Committee was established to help guide the Communications line of work in theAction Agenda. The group was initially convened in 2019 and will convene again in 2020 to developand distribute a draft CoC Communications Plan.

All Chicago will be launching an improved website with a dedicated section for CoC webpages. The siteis constructed, and we expect it will be up and running by March 2020.

All Chicago and DFSS are working with the Action Agenda Project Managers to identify a streamlinedway to track and report out on workgroup progress. We anticipate a process will be developed androlled out by March 2020. This will include workgroup meeting summaries as well as a process forensuring the summaries are distributed.



February 2020

Decision‐Making Enhancements

All Chicago is in the process of identifying a trainer who can train the Action Agenda Project Managers and other community members who run and/or participate in meetings following the consensus guidelines. We hope to hold these trainings in the first half of 2020, and we are working to actively incorporate these concepts immediately within the Action Agenda.

DFSS and All Chicago are working to develop a document that outlines the current CoC Implementation Work Group leadership group structure that is formalized and standardized with the input of existing leadership groups. Once developed, it will be shared with SPC, LEC and the broader CoC.

DFSS and All Chicago are working to develop leadership groups for the active lines of work that do not currently have leadership groups in place. SPC and LEC representation will be included on all leadership groups.

All Chicago and DFSS are working with the Leadership Groups to determine a standardized approach regarding when a policy is ready to be voted on for implementation and/or Board approval.



February 2020

Lived Experience Commission Communications Plan

Last Updated: December 9, 2019 General Support

All Chicago will support LEC members to ensure they update their annual CoC membership.

All Chicago will continue to provide support to the LEC at the monthly LEC meetings and provide key CoC updates.

CoC Workgroup Updates

LEC Members will share pertinent and time‐sensitive updates at the monthly LEC Meeting utilizing the Meeting Note Taking Form.

When necessary, Project Managers will attend LEC meetings when broad LEC feedback is needed or detailed information must be provided on a specific issue within the CoC.

LEC Members can review monthly Action Agenda updates via the monthly Action Agenda Alerts or reviewing the Action Agenda on the CoC website. All Chicago will support LEC members to ensure they are signed up for the alerts.

CoC Workgroup Meeting Logistics

At least quarterly, LEC Members with All Chicago staff will review the CoC Workgroups to ensure appropriate LEC participation on all workgroups.

Calendar meeting requests will go out to workgroup members, including LEC members as quickly as possible after meeting times are determined. The calendar requests will include the date, time, and location of the meeting.

Meeting dates will be posted to the CoC Calendar on the CoC website.

When possible, Project Managers will send meeting reminders 2‐3 days prior to the meeting.

When possible, Project Managers will provide a call‐in number.

If meetings are canceled within 24 hours of the meeting, All Chicago staff will reach out to the LEC workgroup members via email and phone to ensure they are aware of the cancellation.



February 2020

Consensus Building

Definition The ad hoc Consensus Building workgroup reviewed and considered information from various sources to help develop a definition for consensus building, to be shared with and practiced throughout the CoC workgroup implementation structure.

For this purpose, consensus‐building is defined as: A group decision‐making process inclusive of many voices. In this model, meeting participants collaboratively develop and agree to support a decision in the interest of ending homelessness in Chicago. Throughout the decision‐making process, feedback and multiple perspectives from all meeting participants is encouraged. Workgroup members use collaborative problem‐solving and are engaged to come to an acceptable resolution.

It is important to note that the role of the Project Managers is to bring system‐level perspective and expertise, as well as, organize meeting logistics and materials; facilitate meetings based on the guiding principles; facilitate the work group to consensus; and ensure the work is tied back to other workgroups and the CoC’s goals and objectives.

Guiding Principles

Conflicts are natural and serve as opportunities to move things along

Representing a variety of stakeholders (not one group or agency), and to the extent possible, content‐area experts

Members and facilitators are committed and invested in the process (accountable); flexible with nextsteps; solution‐focused

Inclusive of voices in the workgroup and out of the workgroup; resolutions are shared with otherworkgroups

Information: prior to the meeting; during the meeting/clarifications/reflective listening; after themeeting

All efforts are made to incorporate data, facts, experiences, and experts

Creating a trusting and respectful atmosphereo Establish ground ruleso Universal statement around respecto Ensure everyone gets a chance to speak; everyone is heardo Flexibility and prioritizing the agenda


Documents

Chicago Continuum of Care Board of Directors Meeting