CoC Debriefing Summary2009

CoC Scoring 2009

Scoring Category Maximum Score (Points)

CoC Score (Points)

CoC Housing, Services and Structure 14 13.25

Homeless Needs and Data Collection 26 21.75

CoC Strategic Planning 22 17.75

CoC Performance 32 26.5

Emphasis on Housing Activities 6 4.5

Total CoC Score 100 83.75

CoC Scoring 2008 and 2009Scoring Category Maximum

Score2008

Maximum Score2009

CoC Score2008

CoC Score2009

CoC Housing, Services and Structure

14 14 13.75 13.25

Homeless Needs and Data Collection

24 26 19 21.75

CoC Strategic Planning 16 22 12.75 17.75

CoC Performance 28 32 25 26.5

Emphasis on Housing Activities 18 6 18 4.5

Total CoC Score 100 100 88.5 83.75

Scoring Change: 2008 to2009 Scoring Category Change Change Rate of Score

2008Rate of Score

2009

CoC Housing, Services and Structure

--- -.5 98.2% 94.6%

Homeless Needs and Data Collection

+2 +2.75 79.2% 83.6%

CoC Strategic Planning +6 +5 79.7% 80.6%CoC Performance +4 +1.5 89.3% 82.8%

Emphasis on Housing Activities

-12 -13.5 100% 75%

Total CoC Score 100 -4.75 88.5% 83.75%

National Scoring Information 2009

TCHC Overall Comparative2008 to 2009

• Did not score as high• More national competition• Always room for improvement….

– So let’s review……

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

Point Structure

• For the 2009 CoC Competition, HUD awarded up to 100 total points for all five scoring categoriesI. CoC Housing, Services and StructureII. Homeless Needs and Data CollectionIII. CoC Strategic PlanningIV. CoC PerformanceV. Emphasis on Housing Activities

CoC Housing, Services& Structure

Max ScorePossible

FW/ARL/TC CoC Score 2008

FW/ARL/TC CoC Score 2009

Difference

14 13.75 13.25 - .50

ANALYSIS of 20091.Coordinated, inclusive, Outcome-oriented process2.Housing developers, business associations3.Well-defined comprehensive strategies to address entire CoC system4.Serving all subpopulations: DV, HIV/AIDS, VETS, SMI, Chronic Substance Abuse5.Community-wide inventory of housing and services

CoC Housing, Services & StructureIMPROVEMENTS INTO 20101.Coordinated, inclusive, Outcome-oriented process: • Planning Council Re-org; Consumer Council

2.Housing developers, business associations• Corporations for Supportive Housing, MACH Housing Sub-

Committee3.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

Homeless Needs & Data Collection

Max ScoreFW/ARL/TC CoC

Score 2009

26 21.75

ANALYSIS of 20091.3 of 4 AHAR participation (2008 2 of 4)2.ES Individual not over 86% coverage3.De-duplication of data plan/procedures – validating data on entry, timeliness4.Unsheltered homeless data5.Null value rate unchanged

Homeless Needs & Data CollectionIMPROVEMENTS INTO 20101. 3 of 4 AHAR participation (2008 2 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 facilities3.Deduplication plan/procedures – validating data on entry, timeliness• New MOA between TCHC, COC and TCACCESS October 1,

20104.Unsheltered homeless data• PATH and SOS teams, survey design for 2011 census

5.Null value rate unchanged: New MOA…

CoC Strategic Planning

Max ScorePossible

FW/ARL/TC CoC Score 2009

22 17.75

ANALYSIS of 20091.Ending Chronic homelessness and a 10-year plan2.Discharge policy: clear description of WHERE people go other than a homeless situation3.Goals and timelines to achieve the five objectives4.HPRP coordination with all CoC

CoC Strategic PlanningIMPROVEMENTS INTO 20101.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 20103.Goals and timelines to achieve the five objectives• Continue specific measurable and related plan through

Planning Council and Taskforces4.HPRP coordination with all CoC• VASH/HPRP developing; Prevention Task force should meet

with all HPRP grantees for year 25.Leveraging of funds (Dallas has a 200% leverage requirement).

CoC Performance

Max ScorePossible

FW/ARL/TC CoC Score 2009

32 26.5

ANALYSIS of 20091.Achieved proposed action steps from 20082.Increase PSH beds for chronic homeless and reduction in chronic homelessness3.Achieve the five objectives

CoC Performance

GOALS PROPOSED ACTUAL +/ -

Create new PSH beds for chronic homeless

361 518 157 over goal

% Staying in PSH over 6 months at least 71%

(80% for points)78 81 +3 over goal

TH to PH at least 63.5%

(70% for points)64 68 + 4 over goal

Employment at exit38% 27% -11 under goal

Decrease number of homeless households

with children385 545

First time measured 200 under goal

CoC Performance

IMPROVEMENTS INTO 20101. 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 objectives1. Permanent Housing Bonus: HOSO III, HHSP beds2. PSH: Eviction Prevention Planning; Housing Inventory; Housing Specialist3. TH: utilization is down for third year in a row: TH Taskforce4. Job Developer goals:5. Homeless Households: HPRP +, show collaboration with ES

Emphasis on Housing

Max ScorePossible

FW/ARL/TC CoC Score 2009

6 4.5

ANALYSIS of 20091.Significant drop in importance (2008 18)2.Not about adding PSH; amount of local financial leverage for NEW permanent housing bonus.

Dallas requires 200% leverageOur CoC Application 2009: 73%

The BIG Picture

BIGGEST CHALLENGES1.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

The BIG Picture

BIGGEST CHALLENGES2.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

The BIG Picture

BIGGEST CHALLENGES3. 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

The BIG Picture

BIGGEST CHALLENGES4. 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

Painting that BIG Picture…