1

Board of Governance (BoG) Meeting January 18, 2018 | 9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. DPSS Banning Children/Adult Services Office 901 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220

Vacant, Chairperson Leticia DeLara, Vice-chairperson

1. Call to Order: Welcome & Introductions – Roll Call (Sign off)

2. Minutes Approval:

a. December 14, 2017

3. Public comment: Members of the Public are encouraged to address the Board. Anyone who wishes to speak must submit a comment request card to the board clerk. Each speaker should begin by identifying themselves for the record and is allowed up to three minutes.

4. New Business:

a. Introduce and induct new Board of Governance members Leticia DeLara, Vice-chair

The Board of Governance welcomes three new members, and one returning member, who were elected in

December, 2017:

Public Sector: Rusty Bailey, City of Riverside, Mayor Public Sector: Sabby Jonathan, City of Palm Desert, Mayor Pro Tem

Private Sector: Ray Osborne, Executive Director, HomeAid

Non-profit Sector: Susan Larkin, Grant Administrator, Valley Restart Shelter

Biographical information for each board member is on pages 4-6.

b. CoC Board of Governance vacant Chair position: Leticia DeLara, Vice-chair

The Board of Governance will nominate and elect a chairperson.

c. CoC Board of Governance (BOG) member terms ending in 2018 and 2019:

Leticia DeLara, Vice-chair

The Board of Governance voted in December to revise the initial BoG member terms in the Charter to be staggered so that all of the board members who started in 2015 would not have to go off the board at the same time. Four member terms

County of Riverside

Continuum of Care (CoC)

2

ended in 2017 and an additional four member terms will end June 30, 2018. The remaining five member terms will end in 2019. Subsequent elections to fill each of the members’ seats shall be for a three-year term.

There was discussion at the December BoG meeting on how the board could determine which members’ terms will end in 2018 and 2019. Eric Stopher, Riverside County Counsel, suggested for balance the board could select two public seats, one private seat and one non-profit seat for every three years. The board members agreed to Eric’s suggestion and that the names/seats selected could be drawn from a hat.

Brenda Freeman, Executive Director, Community Action Partnership of Riverside County, has resigned from her public sector seat, effective immediately. Her resignation to the BoG is on page 7.

There is nothing in the Charter that prohibits a board member from running for another term.

Motion: Approve the process of determining which member terms will end in 2018 and 2019 by drawing the following seats/names from a hat: one public sector seat, one private seat and one non-profit seat. The public sector seat vacated by Brenda Freeman will be the second public sector seat to term out in 2018. The seats selected to term out this year will end June 30, 2018.

d. Coordinated Entry System (CES) Policies and Procedures: Jill Kowalski, DPSS

Consultant Margaret McFaddin presented on the draft CoC Coordinated Entry System (CES) Policies and Procedures and gave an overview of CES and the process for implementation. A draft of the CES policies and procedures was sent to the board prior to the December 14 meeting for review. The CoC membership approved the document on December 13. HUD requires that all CoCs have a Coordinated Entry System in place by January 23, 2018.

Motion: Approve the CoC Coordinated Entry System Policies and Procedures.

e. 2017 HUD CoC Program Awards announcement and debrief:

Joe Colletti, Consultant

5. Old Business:

a. Review of process for teleconferencing and public comments at Board of Governance meetings: Continue discussion from Dec. 14 meeting. Leticia DeLara, Vice-chair

At the August 17 Board of Governance meeting, Eric Stopher, Riverside County Counsel, stated there was a miscommunication at the BoG meeting on July 27 regarding teleconferencing. The BoG agreed that teleconferencing would not be allowed until further discussion with the CoC (Board of Governance Aug. 17 minutes, page 7).

The CoC membership voted on December 13, 2017 to approve the CoC Planning Committee’s recommendation to provide teleconferencing at the CoC Standing Committee meetings that are in compliance with the Brown Act. An overview of the teleconferencing requirements under the Brown Act is included as an attachment.

Before this item came up on the December 14 meeting agenda, two BoG members had to leave the meeting, so there was no quorum to take action. Leticia DeLara clarified at the meeting that the BoG will make the final decision on whether teleconferencing will be allowed at the Board of Governance meetings.

Motion: To allow teleconferencing availability at Board of Governance meetings for board members with the understanding that the Brown Act guidelines will apply.

3

b. Board of Governance meeting frequency:

Leticia DeLara, BoG Vice-chair

A proposed meeting schedule is included as an attachment for the BoG to review and discuss.

Motion: Approve the Board of Governance meeting schedule for 2018.

c. Formation of a Board of Governance Executive Committee: Discussion only Leticia DeLara, BoG Vice-chair

Former BoG Chair Steve Falk recommended forming a smaller Executive Committee to meet more frequently to discuss motions before they are brought before the board for action. Since the chair position is vacant, the board members decided to wait until a chair is elected at the January 18 meeting to continue discussion on forming an Executive Committee.

d. Review the CoC Board of Governance Charter Article VI: Leticia DeLara, BoG Vice-chair

It is recommended that this item be tabled to a future meeting in 2018.

6. Call for Agenda Items for Next Meeting:

7. Next Meeting: The next scheduled meeting is March 15, 2018, 9:30 - 11:30 a.m. at 901 E. Ramsey Street Banning, CA 92220 (Conference Room 1).

8. Adjournment

4

Board of Governance Meeting

January 18, 2018

Item 4a: CoC Board of Governance election Subject: The CoC membership elected four new members to the Board of Governance. The new members will each serve a three-year term (through June 30, 2020) and are being inducted today.

Contact: Jill Kowalski, Manager, DPSS Homeless Programs Unit (JKowalsk@rivco.org)

Public Sector: two seats

Rusty Bailey – City of Riverside, Mayor

William R. “Rusty" Bailey III is a Riverside native who has served as Mayor of his hometown since 2012, having previously been a member of the City Council. His family came to Riverside in 1914 and has a long history of service to the community. Mayor Bailey is proud to be part of the fourth generation of Baileys working for the advancement of Riverside.

Mayor Bailey was elected to the City Council in 2007, representing Ward 3, and took office on Dec 11, 2007. He was re-elected in 2011 and served in that role until he was elected Mayor in November, 2012. Mayor Bailey took office on Dec 11, 2012 and was re-elected in June, 2016. Mayor Bailey is active in regional affairs as a member of the Western Riverside Council of Governments, and as a member of its executive committee. He also serves on the Southern California Association of Governments Regional Council 68 and on its Transportation Committee.

Mayor Bailey’s many accomplishments include serving as a helicopter pilot, platoon leader, and Company Executive Officer in the U.S. Army; earning a two-year Presidential Management Fellowship; and working for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Executive Office of the President in Washington D.C. Mayor Bailey also served as a Legislative Aide for County Supervisor John F. Tavaglione and worked at the Riverside County Economic Development Agency. He spent more than a decade as a teacher at Poly High School in Riverside and served as a member of the City of Riverside’s Cultural Heritage Board.

Sabby Jonathan –City of Palm Desert, Mayor Pro Tem

Sabby Jonathan has been involved in shaping Palm Desert for more three decades – as an involved resident and community volunteer, as a member of the City’s Planning Commission for 16 years, and since December 11, 2014, as a member of the Palm Desert City Council.

A certified public accountant licensed in California since 1981, Sabby is also certified in Financial Forensics by the AICPA. Sabby’s expertise and interest in taxpayer rights resulted in an appointment by the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to a three-year-term on the Internal Revenue Service Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, where he was elected National Chair.

Sabby has also taken a leadership role in addressing the issue of homelessness in the Coachella Valley. Last year, he was elected as chair of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Homelessness Committee.

Closer to home, Sabby helped found the Desert United Soccer Club and played a vital role in the creation of the Palm Desert Soccer Park. He was also one of the founders of the College of the Desert Foundation and was involved in the formation of the California State University – Palm Desert Campus.

5

In addition to his many years on the Palm Desert Planning Commission where he served as Commission Chair, Sabby’s long record of community service includes past service as: president of the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce; president of the Family YMCA of the Desert; president and Co-Founder of College of the Desert Foundation; local campaign chairman for United Way of the Desert; and as a board member of The Living Desert.

Sabby’s outstanding record of service was recognized by the Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce in 2011 when it named him as the recipient of the “George Berkey Citizen of the Year” award.

Sabby is the principal of Jonathan & Associates Inc. Certified Public Accountants in Palm Desert. He has a Master's Degree in Business Administration from the University of Redlands and a Bachelor's Degree in Accounting from the University of Southern California.

Sabby and his wife, Wendy, have made Palm Desert their home since 1979. Their sons, Daniel and Josef, grew up in Palm Desert and graduated from Palm Desert High School. Daniel is now an attorney and Josef is pursuing an MBA at USC. Sabby’s hobbies include sailing, soccer, reading and travel.

Private Sector: one seat

Ray Osborne - Executive Director, HomeAid Inland Empire

Ray Osborne, Executive Director of Riverside-based HomeAid Inland Empire, is a homebuilding industry veteran with more than 40 years of marketing, sales and operations management experience.

In his work as HomeAid Inland Empire Executive Director, Ray oversees the daily operations of the Inland Empire homebuilding industry’s non-profit charity that focuses on providing housing for men, women and children who need a safe place to stay temporarily while they work to rebuild their lives and regain self-sufficiency.

During his tenure at HomeAid Inland Empire, the organization has established excellent working relationships with 18 homeless service provider operations in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, and has renovated or built 22 shelter facilities with these service providers, housing 700 emergency and transitional living beds in the two-county Inland Empire area.

Since 1990, HomeAid Inland Empire has created 39 shelter facilities housing nearly 1,150 beds throughout Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The value of these facilities is over $17.8 million, with more than $6.9 million in funding and in-kind donations of labor and materials coming from members of the Baldy View and Riverside County Chapters of the Southern California of Building Industry Association (BIA) through its non-profit charity, HomeAid Inland Empire.

Under Ray’s leadership, HomeAid Inland Empire has become a strong advocate for ending homelessness in Riverside and San Bernardino counties by providing housing and community outreach to those people who don’t have a place to live. Ray serves on the San Bernardino Interagency Council on Homelessness (ICH) and is the chairman of that organization’s Housing sub-committee. Ray is also active on the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Homeless Committee and provides expertise on development of housing facilities.

Ray’s professional background includes fifteen years as the principal/owner of Osborne Advertising, as well as more than seven years as a Business Development and Regional Sales Manager with the Ryness Company. Ray has also been a Vice President of Sales and Marketing for homebuilding companies in Southern California, Raleigh, North Carolina and Portland, Oregon.

6

In addition, Ray was the President of Southern California’s Inland Empire Sales and Marketing Council (SMCIE) in 2002, and received that council’s Industry Leader of the Year Award in 2000. He also served on the Board of Directors for the Desert SMC from 2005 to 2008.

Non-profit Sector: one seat

Susan Larkin – Grant Administrator, Valley Restart Shelter in Hemet

Susan is a native of Riverside County, born and raised in Riverside; she received her Bachelor’s degree from La Sierra University. Susan’s long history in the social services arena began with Riverside County Department of Social Services (DPSS). Beginning as an eligibility technician for food stamps, general relief, and Medi-Cal, she promoted to Adult Protective Services Social worker and then to Program Specialist for In Home Support Services. Her last five years were as the HUD Program Specialist for DPSS Homeless Programs Unit. Retiring in February 2013 after 25 years with DPSS, she had a brief stint with US Vets at March AFB. She has been with Valley Restart Shelter since April 2013 initially as Program Manager and currently as Grant Administrator.

7

Board of Governance Meeting

January 18, 2018

Item 4c: CoC Board of Governance member terms ending in 2018 and 2019 Subject: The BoG needs to determine which remaining seats will term out in 2018 and 2019.

Contact: Jill Kowalski, Manager, DPSS Homeless Programs Unit (JKowalsk@rivco.org)

Brenda Freeman resignation from the Board of Governance:

8

Board of Governance Member Terms

BOG SEAT/ROLE ORIGINAL BOG

NAME/ORGANIZATION Term

TERM 1 (elected 2017)

PUBLIC SECTOR Rusty Bailey, Mayor, City of Riverside 2017-2020

PUBLIC SECTOR Sabby Jonathan, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Palm Desert

2017-2020

PRIVATE SECTOR Ray Osborne, Executive Director, HomeAid Inland Empire

2017-2020

NON-PROFIT SECTOR Susan Larkin, Grant Administrator, Valley Restart Shelter

2017-2020

TERM 2 (ends 2018) and TERM 3 (ends 2019)

PUBLIC SECTOR Vacant 2018-2021

PUBLIC SECTOR Chuck Washington, District 3 Board Supervisor, County of Riverside

TBD

PUBLIC SECTOR

Steve Steinberg, Director, Riverside University Health System - Behavioral Health

TBD

PUBLIC SECTOR Melissa Conrad, Chief of Social Work Service, VA Loma Linda Healthcare

TBD

PRIVATE SECTOR Leticia DeLara, CEO, Regional Access Project (RAP) Foundation

TBD

PRIVATE SECTOR Tammy Marine, Executive Director, Habitat for Humanity, Inland Valley

TBD

NON-PROFIT SECTOR Angelina Coe, Executive Director, Shelter From The Storm, Inc.

TBD

NON-PROFIT SECTOR

Karyn Young-Lowe, President/Chief Executive Officer, Lighthouse Social Service Centers

TBD

FORMERLY HOMELESS Ron Vervick, Director, Whiteside Manor ends 2019

9

Board of Governance Meeting

January 18, 2018

Item 4e: 2017 HUD CoC Program Awards Announcement Subject: Consultant Dr. Joe Colletti will present and discuss the 2017 CoC Program awards, that were released by HUD on January 11.

Contact: Jill Kowalski, Manager, DPSS Homeless Programs Unit (JKowalsk@rivco.org)

Page 1 of 7 County of Riverside, CoC: Board of Governance Minutes – 12.14.2017 Draft for approval 1.18.2018

Minutes for County of Riverside Continuum of Care Board of Governance (BoG)

December 14, 2017

10:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Rustin Conference Center

2085 Rustin Avenue, Riverside, CA 92507

Minutes recorded and transcribed by Evelyn Pham, Office Assistant III, DPSS – Homeless Programs Unit

TOPIC PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME

1. Call to Order: Welcome & Introductions

Leticia DeLara, Vice -Chair

The meeting was called to order at 10:42 a.m.

A roll call of the BoG members was conducted.

Eric Stopher, Deputy County Counsel for the County of Riverside was in attendance to counsel the Board of Governance.

Jill Kowalski introduced Jennifer Claar as the new Riverside County Adult Services Division Assistant Director, who is now in the position after Lisa Shiner retired from Riverside County in November.

Jennifer Claar stated she is looking forward to working with the CoC and BoG and meeting everyone.

Self-introductions were made for all Board members present.

2. Minutes Approval: Leticia DeLara Motion was made by Ron Vervick to approve the minutes from August 17, 2017. Ray Osborne seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Yay – 7; Nay – 0. Motion carried.

3. Public Comment: Leticia DeLara None

4. NEW BUSINESS PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME

4a. CoC Board of Governance (BoG) Initial Member Terms:

Jill Kowalski, DPSS

Jill provided some background in reference to the BoG Governance Charter on page 5 section 6.03, when the Board was restructured in 2015. She said when the board was restructured in 2015 and all new board members were appointed, a provision was made in the Charter that the initial terms of the members shall be staggered so that four (4) members shall serve a one-year term for the initial appointments and four (4) members will serve a two-year term for the first appointments. Subsequent elections to fill each of those members’ seats shall be for the full three-year term.

Jill stated that we are a little more than a year behind in staggering the terms of the board based on the initial terms specified in the Charter. The CoC Membership Committee has recommended to the CoC to allow the four seats that have already been vacated to be first term seats. In 2018, the BoG will need to decide which members will serve the two- and three- year terms. The first year term will end in 2017, second year term will end on June 30, 2018, and the remaining five seats will end in 2019. Newly elected seats will serve three-year terms.

There is nothing in the CoC Board of Governance Charter that prohibits a current board member from being re-elected to their seat. In this case, Ray Osborne has agreed to stay in his private sector seat for another term and was included on the election ballot.

Page 2 of 7 County of Riverside, CoC: Board of Governance Minutes – 12.14.2017 Draft for approval 1.18.2018

Motion was made by Ron Vervick to approve the CoC Membership Committee’s recommendation that the Board of Governance initial terms of the members shall be staggered so that:

Four (4) members shall serve a two-year term for the initial appointments (ending in 2017 instead of 2016):

Four(4) members shall serve a three-year term for the initial appointments (ending in 2018 instead of 2017); and

The remaining five (5) original members will serve a four-year term (ending in 2019 instead of 2018); and

Subsequent elections to fill each of those members’ seats shall be for a full three-year term. Melissa Conrad seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Yay - 7; Nay - 0. Motion passed unanimously.

4b. Board of Governance election:

Jill Kowalski, DPSS To fill the four vacant seats designated as “one-year” terms in the Board of Governance, elections were held by ballot for the CoC to submit nominations to elect new members. There was one non-profit seat, two public sector seats and one private sector seat open. Ray Osborne currently fills the private sector seat but would like to stay on the board, so he is on the ballot for re-election to a second term. A call for nominations was announced and the CoC was then instructed to vote by ballot from Monday, December 11, 2017 to Wednesday, December 13, 2017 by 5 p.m.

The board packet includes the election ballot and biographies of each nominee.

The results of the CoC membership vote are as follows: o Public Sector seat: Mayor Rusty Bailey, City of Riverside o Public Sector seat: Mayor Pro Tem Sabby Jonathan, City of Palm Desert o Private Sector seat: Ray Osborne, HomeAid Inland Empire o Non-Profit Sector seat: Susan Larkin, Valley Restart Shelter

Discussion:

The board members discussed whether Ray Osborne was able to vote or abstain since he is a current board member and has been re-elected to serve a second term. If Ray abstains, there would be no quorum to vote.

Eric Stopher, Deputy County Counsel, suggested an option for voting would be to draw names out of a hat with the remaining board members that have not voted in order to reach a quorum.

The board members agreed to vote on the original motion and draw names from the hat to vote for quorum, knowing that Ray Osborne’s name was the only name in the hat. Ray Osborne’s name was pulled from the hat to vote.

Motion was made by Karyn-Young Lowe to approve the CoC recommendations to fill the following vacant seats on the Board of Governance with terms ending June 30, 2020 (The new board members will be inducted on January 18, 2018):

Public Sector (two seats): Mayor Rusty Bailey and Mayor Pro Tem Sabby Jonathan

Page 3 of 7 County of Riverside, CoC: Board of Governance Minutes – 12.14.2017 Draft for approval 1.18.2018

Private Sector (one seat): Ray Osborne

Non-profit Sector (one seat): Susan Larkin Angelina Coe seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Yay – 7; Nay-0. Motion passed unanimously.

4c. Independent Review Panel election:

Angelina Coe, IRP Chair

Similar to the Board of Governance elections, the CoC also voted on two vacancies by ballot to fill for the 2018 Independent Review Panel (IRP).

Leticia announced the results and congratulated the new IRP members as follows: o David Leahy, ABC Recovery Center o Monica Sapien, Social Work Action Group (SWAG)

Motion was made by Ron Vervick to approve the CoC recommendations to fill two vacant seats on the 2018 Independent Review Panel. Melissa Conrad seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Yay – 7; Nay -0. Motion passed unanimously.

4d. CoC Board of Governance member terms ending in 2018 and 2019: Discussion only

Leticia DeLara, Vice-Chair

To comply with the Charter, four member terms will end in 2018 and five member terms will end in 2019. The BoG will need to decide how it will determine which four member terms will expire June 30, 2018. The terms of the remaining five seats will end June 30, 2019.

Jill provided a few examples that the board could choose from which could include drawing names from a hat to determine the terms.

Eric Stopher suggested for balance to take two public, one private, and one non-profit seat for every three years so that there are equal amounts of each sector seat up for election.

The board members agreed to Eric’s suggestion and to draw the names from a hat. There would be a nomination and voting process conducted for the seats to be vacated.

4e. CoC Board of Governance Chair position: Discussion only

Leticia DeLara, Vic-Chair

BoG chairperson Steve Falk submitted a resignation letter from the board in September. The BoG will need to hold an election for a new BoG chairperson.

Leticia said if any board members are interested to please contact Jill Kowalski. If there is more than one board member who would like to be chair, there would be an election at the next BoG meeting.

Leticia DeLara has agreed to continue serving her term as vice-chairperson.

4f. 2018 Homeless Point-In-Time (PIT) Count Methodology:

Jill Kowalski, DPSS Jill announced the 2018 Homeless Point-in-Time (PIT) Count will be on the morning of Tuesday, January 23, 2018 between 5:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. The CoC has decided to do the count annually, instead of every other year as HUD requires.

An overview of some of the changes in the 2018 methodology are listed on page 11 of the agenda and highlighted on the survey tool. Most of the changes are required by HUD.

The CoC approved the following changes to the 2018 PIT Count Survey tool: o Added to the top of the survey: 7-day post count follow-up (DBH, Law enforcement, Service-

based). o Question 3: added dogs, cats and other animals to “who slept in the same location with you

last night” this was requested by county Animal Services. o Question 7: HUD required CoCs add “transgender or non-conforming”.

Page 4 of 7 County of Riverside, CoC: Board of Governance Minutes – 12.14.2017 Draft for approval 1.18.2018

o Question 16h: HUD required “fleeing domestic violence and sexual assault”. o Observation survey question 7: added age range as a request from the Office on Aging to align

with methodology. Motion was made by Angelina Coe to approve the 2018 Point-in-Time Count Methodology as recommended by the CoC membership. Ray Osborne seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Yay-7; Nay-0. Motion passed unanimously.

4g. Coordinated Entry System (CES) Policies and Procedures: Information only

Jill Kowalski, DPSS Jill asked the board members to review the draft CoC Coordinated Entry System (CES) Policies and Procedures, included as a handout. Consultant Margaret McFaddin has been working with the CES Oversight Committee and CES lead for the past few months to finalize a draft that has been approved by the CoC and needs to be approved by the BoG by January 23, 2018, to be in compliance with HUD regulations. The BoG will vote on final approval at the next BoG meeting on January 18, 2018.

5. OLD BUSINESS

5a. Review of process for teleconferencing and public comments at BoG meetings:

Leticia DeLara, Vice-Chair

Eric Stopher, Deputy County Counsel, explained at the August 17, 2017 BoG meeting that there was a miscommunication at the BoG meeting on July 27, 2017 regarding teleconferencing. The BoG agreed that teleconferencing would not be allowed until further discussion with the CoC. Eric said there were two separate issues. One was if a BoG member calling in for a meeting, per the Brown Act, the location they are calling from needs to be open to the public and posted on the agenda 72 hours in advance. The second issue is whether the public is allowed to call in. The Brown Act currently does not have any wording as to who can call in. Ultimately, the board can choose to allow members of the public to call in, or only allow board members to call in.

Jill announced the CoC voted yesterday (December 13) to approve teleconferencing availability at the Board of Governance meetings and CoC Standing Committee meetings with the understanding that Brown Act guidelines will apply. However, it was only for the board members to call in, and for each standing committee. It was not decided if the public would be allowed to call in.

Eric stated it would be easier to maintain quorum if the board allows members to call in.

The board no longer has a quorum to vote on motion 5a, and has decided to continue with a discussion session to deliberate on whether or not to allow members of the public to call in at BOG meetings.

Karyn Young-Lowe asked if the public can call in at their own location and how they would proceed when it is time to make a public comment without a comment card present. Eric said it could be done by making a request at the beginning of each meeting if anyone present or on the phone to state if they have a comment or comment card, and to please provide their comments before the start of the meeting.

Angelina Coe suggested an alternative idea would be to host live meeting call-in similar to webinars where anyone who wants to participate will join in on the webinar and phone, and would be able to view the meeting online and also ask real time questions by typing in the chat box. This would be a way for everyone to connect and provide transparency.

Karyn Young-Lowe agreed for transparency and would like to keep the BoG as open as possible, to be

Page 5 of 7 County of Riverside, CoC: Board of Governance Minutes – 12.14.2017 Draft for approval 1.18.2018

less restrictive, so the CoC can feel like they are a part of it.

Susan Larkin raised her hand and spoke from the audience that her concern was not being able to call in as a member of the public, and it would be justifiable to just have board members allowed to call in, but she stated in whichever case, to please be clear to everyone what the regulations are. She also asked if the board will make the final decision or does it go back to the CoC or Planning Committee? Leticia answered since the motion is specific to the BoG and CoC Standing committees, the board will make the final decision on the BoG motion, and the CoC will make the final decision on the CoC Standing Committees.

5b. Board of Governance meeting frequency and formation of Executive Committee:

Leticia DeLara, Vice-Chair

A proposed 2018 meeting schedule was included in a handout for the board members to review.

Jill stated that there are more meetings scheduled in 2018 than in 2017. The reason for this was to set additional meetings around the release of the HUD CoC Program NOFA. For meeting dates that do not have any motions set, they may be conducted as workshops to provide additional information to the board.

In regard to the formation of an Executive Committee, it was the previous Chair’s idea, Steve Falk, to form a smaller Executive Committee to meet more frequently to build more knowledge before motions are brought before the board for action and to help board members become more aware of the process. The idea was that the chair we lead the Executive Committee. Since the chair position is currently vacant, the board members decided to wait until a chair is elected at the next meeting to continue discussion on forming an Executive Committee.

5c. Review the CoC Board of Governance Charter Article VI:

Leticia DeLara, Vice-Chair

Tabled to January 18, 2018 meeting.

5d. Presentation on HUD requirements for Coordinated Entry System:

Margaret McFaddin, TDA

Margaret McFaddin HUD consultant, TDA Consulting, Inc., presented on HUD requirements for the CoC’s Coordinated Entry System (CES).

Margaret’s role the past few months working with the CES Oversight Committee and leads was to facilitate discussion and planning toward implementation of CES, review and recommend written policies and procedures and to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations.

Margaret stressed the importance to complete a written policy that will be in place by January 23, 2018, as required by HUD. She emphasized that even though the written policy is to be completed by January, this document would be a living and breathing document that will continually be updated and changed as needed.

In her PowerPoint presentation, Margaret reviewed key points with CES pertaining to: o Governance: HUD established guidelines but left a lot of the final program design for the

community and CoC to plan that will work well for them. o Access: No wrong door approach with agencies providing housing services and outreach

workers working together to provide assistance. o Assessment: Using a common assessment tool like the VI-SPDAT with the CES lead agency

(RUHS-BH) training staff to administer assessments and to standardize tools.

Page 6 of 7 County of Riverside, CoC: Board of Governance Minutes – 12.14.2017 Draft for approval 1.18.2018

o Prioritization: Will be based on length of time homeless and severity of need. o Referral: Will include all CoC-funded, ESG-funded and Riverside County-funded housing and

service providers. o Data management: The CES Lead works with HMIS and compiles HUD and CoC data with

security and protection for privacy and confidentiality policies. o Evaluation: Focuses on periodic reporting of annual survey and system performance

measures.

Margaret highlighted after months of working with the CES Oversight Committee and HMIS Administrators Council, the new data sharing policies will come to fruition in January 2018. The Board of Governance will be asked to review and approve the CES Policies and Procedures at its next meeting on January 18, 2018.

6. BoG MEMBER COMMENTS PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME

None:

7. CALL FOR AGENDA ITEMS PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME

Next Meeting Agenda Items: Leticia DeLara Elect Chairperson.

Review process for teleconferencing and public comments at BoG meetings.

Board of Governance meeting frequency and formation of Executive Committee.

Review the CoC Board of Governance Charter Article VI. ADJOURNMENT PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME

8. Next meeting The next Board of Governance meeting date is scheduled for January 18, 2018, 9:30 - 11:30 a.m. at DPSS: Banning Children/Adult Services, 901 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220.

9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.

Page 7 of 7 County of Riverside, CoC: Board of Governance Minutes – 12.14.2017 Draft for approval 1.18.2018

Board of Governance – December 14, 2017: Attendance Report *Chair **Vice Chair

Total members present: 7 of 15 Total guests in attendance: 10

Guests: 10 District 4 Board of Supervisors, County of Riverside Greg Rodriguez Jewish Family Services of San Diego Becky Ruiz Jewish Family Services of San Diego Lena Pollerana Path of Life Ministries Kristii MacEwen Riverside Deputy County Counsel Eric Stopher Riverside Recovery Resources Desmond Young RUHS – Behavioral Health Angela Igrisan Step up on Second Barbara Bloom TDA Consulting, Inc. Margaret McFaddin Valley Restart Shelter Susan Larkin

DPSS Staff: 6 Adult Services, Assistant Director Jennifer Claar Homeless Programs, CoC Planner Donyielle Holley Homeless Programs, CoC Support Elizabeth Hernandez Homeless Programs, CoC Support Evelyn Pham Homeless Programs, CoC Support Tiffany Nelson Riverside County Jennifer Sargent

PUBLIC SECTOR PRESENT (X) TELECONFERENCE (T) PROXY

Brenda Freeman, Executive Director, Community Action Partnership of Riverside County

Chuck Washington, District 3 Board Supervisor, County of Riverside

Vacant seat

Vacant seat

Melissa Conrad, Chief of Social Work Service, VA Loma Linda Healthcare X

Steve Steinberg, Director, Riverside University Health System

PRIVATE SECTOR

**Leticia DeLara, CEO, Regional Access Project (RAP) Foundation X

Tammy Marine, Executive Director, Habitat for Humanity, Inland Valley X

Ray Osborne, Executive Director, HomeAid Inland Empire X

NON-PROFIT SECTOR

Angelina Coe, Executive Director, Shelter From The Storm, Inc. X

Karyn Young-Lowe, President/Chief Executive Officer, Lighthouse Social Service Centers X

Vacant seat

FORMERLY HOMELESS

Ron Vervick, Director, Whiteside Manor X

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS

CoC Chair: Michelle Davis, Housing Authority Manager, City of Riverside X

Secretary: Jill Kowalski, Manager, County of Riverside, DPSS Homeless Programs X

Board of Governance Member Terms

BOG SEAT/ROLE

ORIGINAL BOG

NAME/ORGANIZATION Term

PUBLIC SECTOR Rusty Bailey, Mayor, City of Riverside 2017-2020

PUBLIC SECTOR Sabby Jonathan, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Palm Desert 2017-2020

PRIVATE SECTORRay Osborne, Executive Director, HomeAid Inland

Empire2017-2020

NON-PROFIT SECTORSusan Larkin, Grant Administrator, Valley Restart

Shelter 2017-2020

PUBLIC SECTOR Vacant 2018-2021

PUBLIC SECTORChuck Washington, District 3 Board Supervisor,

County of RiversideTBD

PUBLIC SECTORSteve Steinberg, Director, Riverside University Health

System - Behavioral HealthTBD

PUBLIC SECTORMelissa Conrad, Chief of Social Work Service, VA Loma

Linda HealthcareTBD

PRIVATE SECTORLeticia DeLara, CEO, Regional Access Project (RAP)

FoundationTBD

PRIVATE SECTORTammy Marine, Executive Director, Habitat for

Humanity, Inland ValleyTBD

NON-PROFIT SECTORAngelina Coe, Executive Director, Shelter From The

Storm, Inc.TBD

NON-PROFIT SECTORKaryn Young-Lowe, President/Chief Executive Officer,

Lighthouse Social Service CentersTBD

FORMERLY HOMELESS Ron Vervick, Director, Whiteside Manor ends 2019

TERM 1 (elected 2017)

TERM 2 (ends 2018) and TERM 3 (ends 2019)

Page 1 of 1

Coordinated Entry System

Policies and Procedures County of Riverside Continuum of Care

DRAFT DECEMBER , 2017

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Article I Overview Article II Access Article III Assessment Article IV Prioritization Article V Referral Article VI Data Management Article VII Evaluation Article VIII Structure and Governance Article IX Appendices

3 | P a g e

Riverside County CoC Coordinated Entry System (CES) ARTICLE I. OVERVIEW The Riverside County Continuum of Care (CoC) Oversight Committee has developed the following Riverside County Coordinated Entry System Policies and Procedures (CES PP) in conjunction with the Riverside County Continuum of Care Written Standards (required under Continuum of Care Program interim rule - 24 CFR 578.7(a)(8) and (9); 24 CFR 578.23(c)(9) and (11); and Emergency Solutions Grant Program interim rule – 24 CFR 576.400(d)) to operate a Coordinated Entry System (CES) that serves to increase the efficiency of the local crisis response system and improve the fairness and ease of access to resources. The Riverside County Coordinated Entry System Policies and Procedures outlines the process and policies for full implementation of the CES, as required of Continuums of Care under 24 CFR 578.7(a)(8) that are directly providing homeless housing and services, and operating Emergency Shelter (ES), Transitional Housing (TH), Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) and Supportive Services Only (SSO) projects. SECTION 1.01 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The Coordinated Entry System (CES) is a part of the Riverside County Continuum of Care’s cohesive and integrated housing crisis response system. The CES is designed to coordinate program participant intake, assessment, and referral for resources. In compliance with 24 CFR 578.3 and 24 CFR 578.7(a)(8), the CES will include the following:

Coverage of the entire geographic area of Riverside County;

Easy access by individuals and families seeking housing or services;

Broad advertisement;

A comprehensive and standardized assessment tool;

An initial, comprehensive assessment of needs of individuals and families for housing and services; and

A specific policy to guide the operation of the coordinated assessment system to address the needs of the individuals and families who are fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, but who are seeking shelter or services from non-victim specific providers.

To further the goals of ending homelessness in Riverside County, the CES PP is also guided by:

USICH/HUD’s Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness

HUD’s Coordinated Entry Policy Brief that outlines key principles for an effective coordinated entry system

HUD’s Notice CPD 17-01 - Establishing Additional Requirements for a Continuum of Care Centralized or Coordinated Assessment System

HUD 2017 HMIS Data Standards Data Manual

HUD Notices CPD-16-11 and CPD-14-012 on the Prioritizing Persons Experiencing Chronic Homelessness and other Vulnerable Persons in Permanent Supportive Housing and Record Keeping Requirements for Documenting Chronic Homeless Status

SECTION 1.02 MISSION AND PURPOSE

The Riverside County CES (HomeConnect) serves the Riverside County Continuum of Care’s goal to end homelessness and endeavors to streamline the process of prioritizing and connecting

4 | P a g e

persons experiencing housing instability with appropriate housing interventions in a manner that respects client choice in housing and client self-determination. The CES process is intended to help communities identify and prioritize persons for access to housing and services based on severity of need and vulnerability. The process also provides information to CoCs about service needs and gaps to help communities strategically allocate resources. By gathering information through a standardized assessment process, coordinated entry provides a CoC with data that it can use for system and project planning and resource allocation. The CES is designed to:

Ensure clarity, transparency, consistency and accountability for persons experiencing housing crisis, referral sources, and homeless service providers throughout the assessment and referral process;

Ensure that clients gain fair and equal access as efficiently and effectively as possible, in a standardized and consistent way, to the type of intervention most appropriate to their immediate and long-term housing needs;

Ensure that people who are experiencing a housing crisis the longest and/or are the most vulnerable have priority access to scarce permanent housing resources;

Facilitate exits from a housing crisis to stable housing in the most rapid manner possible given available resources;

Adhere to federal regulations and guidelines;

Ensure full coverage of Riverside County CoC’s geographic area; and

Provide real-time knowledge about program housing inventories and capacity. SECTION 1.03 CORE ELEMENTS Coordinated entry works by establishing a common process to assess the situation of all households who request help through the housing crisis response system. Core elements of the system are:

Access – The engagement point for persons experiencing a housing crisis

Assessment – Standardized process to gather information on people’s needs, preferences and the barriers they face to regaining housing stability

Prioritization – Established policies and procedures to ensure persons with greatest need and vulnerability receive supports they need to resolve housing crisis

Referral – Linkage to appropriate and available housing and supportive services

5 | P a g e

ARTICLE II. ACCESS

The CES Oversight Committee has adopted a hybrid “No wrong door”/assessment hotline model of access to the CES. The CES provides the same assessment approach, including standardized decision-making at all access points. The CES Lead Agency will market access to the Riverside CES by making presentations at public gatherings of housing and service providers and community events. The CES 800 number is printed on products (e.g. bracelets, lanyards, bags) and distributed to the public at public places such as libraries, hospitals, websites, public housing authorities, and social media. If necessary, the CES Lead Agency provides callers to the CES 800 number access to an Interpreter service. CES Lead Agency has bi-lingual staff who are fluent in English and Spanish. Riverside CES complies with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of Federal civil rights laws, including:

Fair Housing Act

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act

The Riverside County Continuum of Care non-discriminatory policy, regarding the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) final rule regarding equal access to Community Planning and Development (CPD) funded programs regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status, will ensure that individuals are aware of their rights to equal access to CPD funded programs. Persons presenting for emergency assistance at an access point at times when the CES intake and assessment process is not operating will be referred to the CES 800 number.

Initial Contact All Access Points

Divrsion Tool

Self Resolve Certified Assessor -

VI-SPDAT

CES Lead Assigns Trained Navigator

Refer to Domestic Violence Provider

6 | P a g e

Any person presenting for assistance at any access point that is identified as a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking will not be denied access to the crisis response system. The operator of the CES 800 number transfers the call from any person who identifies as fleeing domestic violence to supervisory clinical staff, who will provide immediate intervention and referral to law enforcement and/or domestic violence shelters in the CoC. Outreach workers refer persons to law enforcement outreach team who support and protect. The CES Lead Agency will include safety planning and trauma-informed care into its annual training for staff who provide initial access and assessment. To ensure privacy, the CES Lead Agency maintains completed assessment forms in secure cabinet with limited access by staff. The three main types of access are through places, people and telephone. First, access points include the physical locations of agencies providing housing and services such as Access Centers, emergency shelters, food banks, mental health services, homeless services and social service agencies. These locations offer access, limited assessment, referrals, and the standard services of each provider. Each location is independently operated and staffed. The hours of operation vary and depend on each provider. Every CoC-funded program will participate in CES and will serve as a physical access point. See Appendix A for a listing and map of locations. The CES Lead Agency will train staff at CES physical access points and CES outreach workers/navigators in the administration of the screening and assessment tools and describe the process for administering and completing the surveys. See Appendix E for tools. Second, access is through contact with outreach workers and law enforcement personnel. Riverside CoC CES Lead agency will identify local street engagement teams and coordinate outreach efforts and access points. The CES Lead Agency will maintain a directory of outreach workers/navigators. The directory will include the following information: name, email address, phone, organization, service area, sub-populations. See Appendix B for a current directory. The CES Lead Agency and Collaborative Applicant will coordinate the development and maintenance of mapping system for more effective street outreach and engagement as well as system identification of service provision needs in key county geographic areas.

Street outreach workers will enter contacts into HMIS. This entry will begin the process of entering homeless persons engaged by Street Outreach workers into the Coordinated Entry System. Third, HomeConnect CES operates an 800 # hotline, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. This virtual access point provides an initial assessment screening. The process is:

1. CES Lead operator receives call and provides triage using a form or a checklist. See

Appendix E for checklist.

2. Operator will refer to the outreach directory and refer by service area and assistance

needed.

3. Outreach accepts or declines referral within 48 hours (declined referrals prompt the operator to call a different outreach team).

7 | P a g e

When no one is available to answer the call, callers are prompted to dial 9-1-1 in an emergency or to leave a voice message for all other instances. Homeless Prevention/ Diversion Homeless prevention assistance will be targeted to households who are at risk of losing their present housing and becoming homeless. While there are many people who are housed and have a great need for rental assistance, not everyone will become homeless without assistance. A risk assessment will be used to assess the household’s level of crisis and prioritize those who are at greatest risk of becoming homeless. See Appendix E for tools. Clients who present at any access point are triaged with a screening tool for shelter diversion or entry into the coordinated entry system. If it is determined that shelter diversion is not possible, the access point staff will refer the client to emergency shelter or CES Lead Agency for referral to an outreach worker/ navigator. The Collaborative Applicant and CES Lead Agency will coordinate the development and maintenance of a directory of resources for homeless prevention. See Appendix C for directory. ARTICLE III. ASSESSMENT Assessment is the process of gathering information about a person presenting to the crisis response system. Assessment includes documenting information about the barriers the person faces to being rapidly housed and any characteristics that might make him or her more vulnerable while homeless. In addition to identifying a person’s overall needs and preferences, the assessment also must appropriately triage the person by asking about immediate needs (e.g., “Are you safe where you are right now?” “Do you need medical services?”), accurately evaluating his or her vulnerability and barriers to housing, and providing information to support accurate referrals. A coordinated outreach and engagement effort ensures that all CES Participating Agencies are using a universal approach to CES assessment. Assessment Process Riverside CES incorporates a client-centered approach to the assessment process, including the following:

Assessments are based in part on participant’s strengths, goals, risks and protective factors.

Tools and assessment processes are easily understood by participants.

Assessments are sensitive to participants’ lived experiences.

Participants are offered choice in decisions about location and type of housing.

Participants are able to easily understand to which program they are being referred, what the program expects of them, what they can expect of the program and evidence of the program’s rate of success

Assessment Tool This assessment approach includes the use of an assessment tool. A common assessment tool is a standard set of questions used by outreach and engagement workers to quickly assess people based on

8 | P a g e

need and eligibility. The tool is used to understand the needs of a person experiencing homelessness, identify prioritization by vulnerability and to refer to the most appropriate housing or service intervention based on that need. The assessment applies a standardized scoring system to assist our community in determining the most appropriate level of intervention for an individual or family. The Riverside County CoC has selected the VI-SPDAT, Version 2.0 (Vulnerability Index- Service Prioritization Assessment Tool) as the CES common assessment tool. Both the Individual and Family forms are used, as appropriate. Navigation Navigation is defined as intensive supports, case management and engagement in development of a housing plan. Persons who require this additional support that access the CES through contact and assessment by street engagement staff will be navigated by the individual or program completing the initial assessment. If the assessed individual is not assigned a navigation team prior to placement on the CES Priority list, the CES Lead Agency will assign a navigator to assist with elimination of barriers to housing and work closely with the individual to develop a housing plan.

The CES Lead Agency will email the organization contacts in the Navigator Directory to solicit staff for assignment as navigators. The CES Lead Agency will assign navigators based on any prior involvement with the CES participant. If no organization offers for the assignment, the CES Lead Agency will look to their staff for assignment. If the CES Lead Agency staff are unable to accept the assignment, the CES Lead Agency will make an assignment from the list of organizations that are funded to conduct street outreach and case management prior to entering permanent housing.

If the participant remains on the Priority list for a period longer than 10 business days, the CES Navigation Council will conduct a Navigation Council Review of the case to identify and discuss solutions to any barriers to housing for the individual.

The individuals or families with the highest priority are assigned a Housing Navigator from the community to assist them in preparing to be referred to an available housing resource. This Housing Navigator provides support throughout the process, which may include accompanying them to all housing-related appointments and other necessary social service or benefit acquisition appointments, until such time that they are permanently housed.

The Housing Navigator serves as the primary point of contact for an individual or family after they have been assessed, and provides assistance in obtaining the program eligibility documents needed for that individual or family to enter housing. Program eligibility documents may include chronically homeless verification and disability documentation. Common documents needed are an ID, Birth Certificate, Social Security Card and DD214 (for Veterans). As Riverside County CoC has identified itself as a Housing First model, selection for housing identification does not wait until all the documents are acquired.

Additional duties of a Housing Navigator might include: securing bridge or emergency housing, applying for financial or medical benefits and assisting in the housing search if a client is issued a housing voucher rather than referred to a site-based unit.

Training The CES Lead Agency will train staff at CES access points in the administration of the screening and assessment tools and describe the process for administering and completing the surveys. These trainings, held at least annually, will provide assessors clear guidance on CoC-approved policies and procedures. The training curricula will include a review of CES policies and procedures, requirements for

9 | P a g e

use of assessment information to determine prioritization, and criteria for uniform decision-making and referrals. The CES Lead Agency will maintain a roster of persons who have completed the assessment training and certify persons as CES assessors. CES assessors will be encouraged to attend and participate in group sessions to share best practices and to learn from each other. These sessions could occur at the weekly Navigation Review Council meetings or at other scheduled times. The CES Lead Agency will incorporate the use of web-based technology for these training sessions. During the engagement and assessment process, assessors will inform participants that they may file a nondiscrimination complaint by calling the CES 800 number or emailing CES Lead Agency at homeconnect@rcmhd.org. Assessors will also inform participants that they have full autonomy (1) to decide what information they provide during the assessment process, (2) to refuse to answer assessment questions, and (3) to refuse housing and service options without any limitation on access to other forms of assistance. Participants cannot be required to disclose any specific disability or diagnosis unless that disclosure is required for determining program eligibility to make appropriate referrals. Any participant data collected during the engagement and assessment process will be protected according to applicable privacy protection rules and regulations. Assessors will submit the completed VI-SPDAT electronically to the HMIS system or if pre-arranged, via a paper copy to the CES Lead Agency or approved certified assessor.

ARTICLE IV. PRIORITIZATION FOR HOUSING Prioritization is based on and aligns with the HUD Prioritization Notice CPD-16-11 and Riverside CoC Written Standards for permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing, emergency shelter and street outreach criteria.

Prioritizing Chronically Homeless PSH is not a one-size-fits-all approach and should only be offered to those households that truly need that level of support. Thus, in order to use our limited resources in the most effective means possible, the Riverside County CoC is committed to prioritizing those most in need through an established order of priority. Within that order of priority, all CoC-PSH funded programs are required to ensure compliance with the “chronically homeless” definition and to fill vacant beds with chronically homeless individuals (CPD-16-011 (7/25/16)). The Riverside County CoC has developed an order of priority to establish a uniform process for prioritizing placement into PSH through the CES. The overarching intent of this order of priority is to ensure that chronically homeless persons with the longest lengths of time homeless and the most severe service needs are prioritized for housing. If there are no chronically homeless persons within the CoC, then prioritization will be: 1) First Priority–Homeless Individuals and Families with a Disability with Long Periods of Episodic Homelessness and Severe Service Needs

10 | P a g e

2) Second Priority–Homeless Individuals and Families with a Disability with Severe Service Needs. 3) Third Priority—Homeless Individuals and Families with a Disability Coming from Places Not Meant for Human Habitation, Safe Haven, or Emergency Shelter Without Severe Service Needs. 4) Fourth Priority–Homeless Individuals and Families with a Disability Coming from Transitional Housing. Prioritizing Rapid Rehousing

The Riverside County CoC will prioritize the following subpopulations: 1) families with children

2) domestic violence survivors

3) single adults

4) veterans that can exit homelessness with little or no assistance, those who experience chronic homelessness and who need permanent supportive housing, and households who are seeking a therapeutic residential environment, including those recovering from addiction.

Prioritizing Transitional Housing The Riverside County CoC prioritizes TH as follows (2015 HUD CoC NOFA): 1) Domestic violence survivors and youth ages 18 – 24 will be prioritized for transitional housing if they are not assessed as chronically homeless.

2) All chronically homeless individuals and families will not be served through transitional housing unless other housing is not available (Coordinated Entry Brief, pg. 5). Such households will be served by permanent supportive housing through a Housing First approach. Emergency Shelter Access and entry to emergency shelter will not be subject to prioritization based on severity of service need or vulnerability, allowing for an immediate crisis response. Essential services provided by emergency shelters will be targeted to individuals/families that cannot be diverted from the crisis response system, are literally homeless, can be safely accommodated in the shelter, and are not in need of emergency medical or psychiatric services or are a danger to self or others. The CES Lead Agency will determine initial prioritization by length of time homeless and score on the VI-SPDAT (Vulnerability Index- Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool). The certified Assessor completes the VI-SPDAT and Prioritization Request Form with the client, following the completion of a pre-screening tool. The pre-screening tool identifies diversion from the crisis response system or the need for assessment and prioritization. The Prioritization Request Form may include the following factors:

Death-related illness

High use of public resources (e.g. law enforcement, emergency department, psychiatric facilities

Significant health challenges or functional impairments, including mental health symptoms

Vulnerability to illness or death

Vulnerability to victimization and human trafficking

11 | P a g e

Youth at risk, especially children 0-3 living on the street

Advanced age of 75+ years Process for Prioritization Review at Navigation Review Council

1) Navigator/Advocate emails Prioritization Request Form to CES Lead Agency 2) Navigator/Advocate presents identified need to Council through the Prioritization Request Form 3) Navigator/Advocate leads discussion at the weekly Navigation Review Council meeting 4) Demonstration of need based on:

a. Narrative on the form b. If medical or mental health component,

i. Initial professional assessment documentation ii. Secondary verification in addition to the presenting Navigator/Advocate

5) Navigation Review Council discussion 6) Navigation Review Council recommendation

Any special exceptions to the approved prioritization standards should be presented to the weekly Navigation Review Council for discussion and review. Appeals of the process and Navigation Review Council decisions should be presented to the CES Oversight Committee. By Name List Riverside County CoC CES has established a CoC-wide list of all known homeless persons who are seeking or may need CoC housing and services to resolve their housing crisis. This list generated during the prioritization process is referred to as a By Name or Active List. The CES Lead Agency maintains the By Name List.

This Active list is a client “by-name” list of various demographics and groups of individuals that are currently homeless. See Appendix F for sample of client record fields.

The Active list is generated as an output from the CES data base system

The data tracking system will track a client’s return to homelessness (recidivism), and the reasons for those ongoing events.

Filtered “by-name” lists include veterans, individuals, families, disability and vulnerability levels. ARTICLE V. REFERRAL The Housing Linkage phase is a process by which housing provider programs and other available resources are connected with individuals/families experiencing homelessness that have been prioritized for specific housing interventions through the CES process. CES Lead Agency will maintain an Internet-based database of housing linkages, tracking the date of referral and referral outcome. CES Lead Agency processes referrals on a daily basis. Housing providers participating in the HomeConnect CES system commit to filling vacancies with referrals from the centralized housing resource list. All CoC-funded, ESG-funded, and Riverside County-funded housing and service providers are required to participate in CES as a condition of their funding and will only accept referrals from CES to fill vacancies. Each participating program must execute a CES Participating Agency Agreement. All CES Participating Agencies will comply with the equal access and nondiscrimination provisions of Federal civil rights laws and Fair Housing laws.

12 | P a g e

A CES Participating Agency may decline a referral for good cause, such as safety concerns for staff or participants. The CES Lead Agency will track the number of housing referral refusals and report on a quarterly basis to the CES Oversight Committee. Each participant may refuse or deny any Home Connection referral as a part of their choice for housing

options. He/she will remain on the Priority List with the notation of the specific concerns and

preferences. The outreach worker or navigator will counsel the participant after any refusal. After the

second refusal, the participant is marked as a Long Engagement on the Priority List. Continued outreach

will be documented in the Home Connect system. The CES Lead Agency will maintain the

individual/family on the Active list until the individual is willing to accept a housing opportunity.

Housing providers provide eligibility criteria for their housing units or vouchers in conjunction with signing the CES Participating Agency Agreement. See Appendix G. Upon housing unit availability, each housing provider completes the Housing Vacancy form and submits the information to the CES point of contact via email. The CES Lead Agency maintains a Housing Vacancy List by date and time of receipt of email from housing provider. Based on housing program eligibility criteria, CES Lead Agency matches the household with the highest priority to the housing provider within one day of receipt of notification of unit availability. Once a referral is made, if the housing provider is unable to locate the participant within three business days, the housing provider may return the referral. Housing vacancies are provided to the CES Lead Agency by calling 1-800-498-8847 or emailing to the HomeConnect address, homeconnect@rcmhd.org. Housing providers may re-locate housed households or eligible individuals within households that have been referred through CES within the geography of the Riverside Continuum of Care without re-submitting that household to the CES for subsequent prioritization and housing referral. Appeals

Anyone who wishes to appeal the referral process may do so by submitting a verbal or written request

to the Home Connect phone number, email, or any member of the Review Council or the COC to request

an appeal for reconsideration of the Home Connection process.

The information provided must include the concern, specific reason the Home Connection was not in

alliance with the Home Connection prioritization process and the desired resolution.

The CES Lead Agency will present the appeal at the next scheduled meeting of the Navigation Review

Council for discussion. The CES Lead Agency will present the Navigation Review Council’s

recommendation at the next CES Oversight Committee for review and action.

ARTICLE VI. DATA MANAGEMENT The HomeConnect system is maintained with HMIS quality security standards. All documents and Active

lists are maintained with HIPAA level security. Active Lists are available for review during the Navigation

Review Council (Council) meetings through a screen projection. Active lists are not to be printed or

exchanged outside of the Navigation Review Council meetings. Each member of the Navigation Review

Council has signed a confidentiality notice and it is reviewed in each Council meeting to ensure the

highest level of confidentiality.

13 | P a g e

As the CES transitions to the Riverside County HMIS, all data collection and data sharing will comply with CoC-approved HMIS policies and standards. HUD requires that all CoC Programs, especially those that house homeless individuals and are identified on the HMIS Housing Inventory Count (HIC), collect universal data and program specific information on all clients served by CoC Programs regardless of whether the program participates in the HMIS.

Victim service providers and legal service providers are exempted from entering data directly into a CoC’s HMIS because of privacy and confidentiality considerations. Victim service providers are prohibited by law to directly enter or provide client-level data to an HMIS, and legal service providers may choose not to enter client-level data into an HMIS. While they may be exempt from direct client-level data entry into HMIS, CoC recipients that are victim service providers or legal service providers still must keep required data in a comparable database.

Prior to intake and assessment, participants will be informed of reasons for the collection and sharing of

personal data. Written participant consent to share personal data will be obtained. See Appendix H for

Release of Information form. Participants may request to have all their information restricted. This

request will not affect their status on the Active list if they wish to remain active and receive any

HomeConnect referral for which they could be eligible.

All vulnerability assessments are treated with secure confidentiality. Participants are not required to

disclose disability or diagnosis.

Individuals are allowed to submit a complaint either verbally or in writing to the CES Lead Agency

regarding their concerns around a disability discrimination situation. Each complaint submitted will be

reviewed by the CES Lead Agency. Any necessary actions and additional trainings will be handled on a

case by case review status.

The CES Lead Agency reviews each day the data quality in the system to determine the need for re-

training of assessors on issues around data entry, reliability, and entry timeliness.

ARTICLE VII. EVALUATION The CES Oversight Committee will ensure that evaluation processes are guided by the Riverside County Continuum of Care Membership, its stakeholders, and the homeless individuals and families it serves by conducting a survey of the CES system’s functionality at least once annually. The evaluation process will include feedback from focus groups and individual interviews.

This annual evaluation of the intake, assessment, and referral process will consult with program participants as well as participating projects. The evaluation results will be included in the informed process for documenting CES system gaps and updating CES policies and procedures. The CES Oversight Committee shall designate an agent to prepare and administer the evaluation, decide on the evaluation criteria, evaluation tool, and how the evaluation results will be reported to the CoC Board of Governance. As part of its evaluation responsibility, the CES Oversight Committee will request certain data and reports from the CES Lead Agency. Examples of these reports may include the following:

Number of calls per day to CES 800 number

Number of referrals to navigators/ self-resolve/ emergency shelter/DV shelter

Number of referrals by navigator

14 | P a g e

Average case load by navigator

Average housing vacancy count by project type and by housing provider

Average number of days on Active list before referred/ before housed

Number of homeless on Active list

Issues Log ARTICLE VIII. STRUCTURE AND GOVERNANCE The governance of the Riverside CoC Coordinated Entry System shall be comprised of four main entities – the CoC Membership, the Board of Governance (BOG), HMIS Administrators’ Council, and the CES Oversight Committee. The CoC Collaborative Applicant serves as a funder, grant administrator and HMIS Lead Agency.

CONTINUUM OF CARE (COC)

The County of Riverside CoC is the planning body that coordinates the community’s policies,

strategies and activities toward ending homelessness.

KEY DUTIES Duties of the CoC are stated in section 5.04 of the County of Riverside Continuum of Care Board of Governance Charter. Regularly scheduled meetings are announced in compliance with the Brown Act.

COC BOARD OF GOVERNANCE (BOG)

The Board of Governance is comprised of elected members who advocate for and provide

information and/or recommendations to the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors, local

government and other elected officials that will monitor the overall effectiveness of the CoC

planning processes and activities.

KEY DUTIES

Duties of the BOG are stated in section 6.06 of the County of Riverside Continuum of Care Board

of Governance Charter. Regularly scheduled meetings are announced in compliance with the

Brown Act.

Riverside County CoC

Initial Authority

CES Oversight Committee

Policy

CES Lead Agency

Implementation

CES Navigation

Case Conferencing

HMIS Administrator's

Council Policy

HMIS Lead Agency

Implementation

CoC Board of Governance

Final Approval

15 | P a g e

CES OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

The CES Oversight Committee is comprised of key stakeholder agencies, CoC and ESG funded agencies and law enforcement agencies. It is responsible for oversight to ensure that the CES is managed, well-coordinated, collaborative, open and transparent, continually improving, and serves the needs of the Continuum of Care membership. The CES Oversight Committee serves as the policy making body for the County of Riverside Continuum of Care Coordinated Entry System and makes recommendations to the Board of Governance for review and approval. CES OFFICERS The CES Officers should be comprised of a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and a Secretary. CES CHAIRPERSON

The CES Chairperson shall be elected by the CES Oversight Committee and shall serve for a term of two years. The Chairperson shall have the following responsibilities:

Conduct all CES Oversight Committee meetings;

Ensure the actions of the CES Oversight Committee are consistent with CoC Board of

Governance Charter;

Review and protect the mission of the CoC and the CES Oversight Committee;

Speak or assign someone to speak on behalf of the CES Oversight Committee, as

requested;

Sets the CES Oversight Committee meeting schedule and agenda with assistance from

the Collaborative Applicant and CES Lead Agency;

CES VICE-CHAIRPERSON

The CES Vice-Chairperson shall be elected by the CES Oversight Committee and shall serve

for a term of two years. The Vice-Chairperson shall act when the Chairperson is unavailable

to act.

SECRETARY

The Collaborative Applicant shall serve as the Secretary and will be responsible for ensuring

the records and minutes of the Committee meetings are properly recorded, reviewed, and

distributed in a timely manner. The Secretary will ensure maintenance of records of

meeting attendance and performs other duties as may be delegated.

VOTING Each member of the CES Oversight Committee is a voting member and may vote on any actionable item that is presented to the CES Oversight Committee for a vote. Each member shall designate a delegate and an alternate delegate who would be present to cast the member’s vote. Any member who has a financial interest in any outcome of any voting must declare a conflict of interest and not cast a vote, in accordance with 578.95 of the CoC Program Interim Rule for Conflict of Interest.

KEY RESPONSIBILITIES

The CES Oversight Committee has the following key responsibilities:

16 | P a g e

Create and update CES policies and procedures within the Continuum of Care Governance framework that comply with all applicable federal and state laws, and local CoC Written Standards;

Create and update CES prioritization policies and procedures on behalf of the CoC with input from all community stakeholders that are consistent with CoC Written Standards, and are applied consistently throughout the CoC geographic area for all populations to ensure full coverage;

Ensure that ESG projects serve clients in accordance with written standards established under 24 CFR 576.400(e);

Ensure that a policy is created to address the needs of individuals and families who are fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, but who are seeking shelter or services from non-victim specific providers;

Ensure that an affirmative marketing and outreach plan is created and updated in accordance with 24 CFR 578.93(c) and 24 CFR 5.105(a)(2) for CoC Funded projects and 24 CFR 576.407(a) and (b) for ESG funded projects;

Evaluate CES project performance and outcomes at least once yearly, and prior to submitting the CES project renewal application with the CoC annual Consolidated Application;

Review and recommend: o Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the CES Lead Agency and the CoC; o CES Project Budget; and o CES Marketing Plan;

In partnership with the Standards and Evaluation Committee and HMIS Administrators Council, the CES Oversight Committee reviews and recommends a CES Participating Agency Agreement;

In partnership with the Standards and Evaluation Committee, the CES Oversight Committee reviews and recommends:

o Guidance to the CoC Board of Governance for the monitoring tool that will be utilized to review CES grant compliance.

HMIS ADMINISTRATORS COUNCIL

The HMIS Administrators’ Council is comprised of HMIS Agency Administrators and HMIS lead staff to provide oversight, guidance and data quality assurance within the chosen HMIS system, on behalf of the County of Riverside CoC. The Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) refers to a client-level data base system for tracking the use of homeless programs and producing an unduplicated count of the people using homeless programs. ROLE The HMIS Administrators Council will collaborate with the CES Oversight Committee to ensure compliance with all applicable federal and state laws regarding protection of client privacy and confidentiality regulations, user conduct, security and ongoing functionality and stability of services used to support the CES in the HMIS system. HMIS Administrators Council and CES Oversight Committee agree they will establish mutually satisfactory methods for the exchange of such information as may be necessary in order that each party may perform its duties and functions; and appropriate procedures to ensure all

17 | P a g e

information is safeguarded from improper disclosure in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. HMIS Administrators Council and CES Oversight Committee also agree they will establish mutually satisfactory methods for problem resolution. KEY RESPONSIBILITIES IN RELATION TO CES In collaboration with the CES Oversight Committee:

Determine and recommend data use guidelines for the CES system

Determine and recommend data use guidelines for participating agencies

Review and recommend an HMIS Workflow that considers: o Client consent and Release of Information to share data; o Confidentiality Agreement for partnering agencies and staff; o Use of HMIS, according to funder requirements and in compliance with HUD HMIS

guidelines; o HIPAA compliant referral process; o Safety for victims of domestic violence; and o Local data sharing protocols and client privacy protocols adopted for the CoC.

Ensure collaboration with the CES Oversight Committee so that the required data elements are collected per 2017 HMIS Data Standards Data Manual

COC COLLABORATIVE APPLICANT AND HMIS LEAD AGENCY

ROLE The Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) is the HUD grantee responsible for administering the Continuum of Care (CoC) Program grants, the State Emergency Solutions Grant (State ESG), the CoC Planning Grant, and the CES Project Grant. DPSS also serves as the HMIS Lead Agency for the CoC.

KEY DUTIES The Collaborative Applicant is the eligible applicant designated by the Continuum of Care (CoC)

to:

Complete and submit the CoC Registration;

Submit the CoC Consolidated Application (which includes the CoC Application and CoC

Priority Listing);

Apply for CoC Planning funds on behalf of the CoC during the CoC Program Competition;

Apply for HMIS Lead Agency funds on behalf of the CoC during the CoC Program

Competition;

Apply for CES Project funds on behalf of the CoC during the CoC Program Competition; and

Serve as the HMIS Lead Agency with duties and responsibilities outlined in the

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the CoC.

CES LEAD AGENCY

ROLE The CoC will designate a lead agency to serve as the CES administrator.

18 | P a g e

KEY RESPONSIBILITIES The CES Lead Agency is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the CES, including but not limited to:

Reinforces common purpose, guidelines, and shared process to assist all populations;

Designing and executing ongoing quality control activities to ensure clarity, transparency, and consistency to remain accountable to the homeless clients served, the Riverside County Continuum of Care and its stakeholders, the CoC’s Collaborative Applicant and Grant Recipient, referral sources, and homeless service providers throughout the coordinated entry process. This includes:

o Report generating, as specified by the CES Oversight Committee o Communicating to user agencies and outreach coordinators o Deactivating/Reactivating client records o Responding to requests for client deletions o Responding to system data inquiries in a timely manner

Create and regularly update a CES training curriculum for initial and ongoing training of Partner staff to ensure uniform application of screening, assessment and referral protocols. Creating a training delivery schedule that ensures training at least annually to all stakeholder agencies;

Create, and submit for review and approval to the CES Oversight Committee, a CES marketing plan that conforms to 24 CFR 578.93(c) and 24 CFR 5.105(a)(2) for CoC Funded projects and 24 CFR 576.407(a) and (b) for ESG funded projects;

Create and submit for review and approval to the CES Oversight Committee, a proposed CES Budget plan that conforms with CoC Interim Rule 578 and 578.3 for Supportive Services Only (SSO) grants;

Widely distribute marketing materials regarding homeless services available through the CES and how to access those services;

Ensure that pertinent information is entered into HMIS for monitoring and tracking the process of referrals including vacancy reporting and completion of assessments;

Convene local collaboration and partnership meetings in the CES Navigators Council to review and resolve rejection decisions by receiving programs and refusals by clients to engage in a housing plan in compliance with receiving program guidelines;

Manage an eligibility determination appeals process in compliance with the protocols described in the Riverside Continuum of Care Written Standards;

Manage the manual processes as necessary to enable participation in the CES by providers not participating in HMIS;

Provide reasonable accommodation assessments for individuals with a mobility impairment;

Participate in periodically evaluating efforts to ensure that the CES is functioning as intended and serves the purposes of the Riverside County Continuum of Care, its stakeholders and the homeless clients it serves;

Participate in the evaluation and adjustment processes informed by the Riverside County CES Oversight Council; and

Ensure that all requirements (programmatic and fiscal) for CoC sub-recipient grant funds received to underwrite any part of expenses associated with the continued development and implementation of the CES are met.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE COC In accordance with CoC Interim Rule 578.7, Responsibilities of the Continuum of Care, the role and responsibilities of the CES Lead Agency should be incorporated in a written Memorandum of Understanding between the CES Lead Agency and the CoC. The CES Oversight Committee is

19 | P a g e

tasked with reviewing and updating the MOU not less than once annually to ensure compliance with all federal and state regulations governing the CoC and ESG Programs. CES PROJECT APPLICATION FOR THE COC CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION To ensure that all programmatic and fiscal requirements are met for the continued development and implementation of the CES, the CES Oversight Committee shall review and recommend for inclusion the CoC project renewal application before it can be submitted with the CoC Consolidated Application. The CES Oversight Committee will work with the Collaborative Applicant to ensure that the CES renewal application meets the guidelines for the annual CoC Notice of Funding Availability and the local review panel process for renewing project applications.

CES PROJECT BUDGET To ensure that all fiscal requirements for CoC sub-recipient grant funds received to underwrite any part of expenses associated with the continued development and implementation of the CES are met, the CES Oversight Committee will review the CES project budget included with the renewal project application not less than once annually, and prior to the inclusion of the renewal application with the COC Collaborative Application in response to an open NOFA. CES Oversight Committee will also review and approve budget amendments on behalf of the CoC prior to expenditure authorization. CES MARKETING PLAN To ensure that all federal and state regulations housing laws are met, and to ensure that the CoC is affirmatively and proactively marketing HUD-assisted housing and supportive services that are inclusive of non-discrimination and equal opportunity laws, the CES Oversight Committee will review and approve the CES marketing plan that conforms to 24 CFR 578.93(c) and 24 CFR 5.105(a)(2) for CoC Funded projects and 24 CFR 576.407(a) and (b) for ESG funded projects.

CES NAVIGATION REVIEW COUNCIL The CES Navigation Review Council is an integral part of the CES. The CES Council is responsible for:

case conferencing;

providing support in implementing the Continuum of Care’s Coordinated Entry System; and

following the prioritization process established by the Continuum of Care for its membership, stakeholders and homeless clients served within the CoC’s geographic area.

The Navigation Review Council serves as a vehicle to open dialogue for different types of housing resources available to meet a broader range of needs and supporting outreach workers, navigators and social workers with more comprehensive solutions beyond the scarce resources available through the CES.

20 | P a g e

ARTICLE IX APPENDICES AND FORMS Appendix A: CES Access Sites Appendix B: Outreach Worker/ Navigator Directory Appendix C: Homeless Prevention Resource Directory Appendix D: Housing Providers Listing with Program Eligibility Appendix E: Screening and Assessment Tools Appendix F: By Name List Appendix G: CES Participating Agency Agreement Appendix H: Forms

Homeless Verification Form

Disability Documentation Form

Release of Information

VI-SPDAT (family)

VI-SPDAT (individual)

Navigation Review Council Membership Request

Prioritization Review Recommendation

Housing Vacancy

Home Connection

Status Update

21 | P a g e

Appendix F

BY NAME LIST

Client Record Field Names

Name

VI-SPDAT Score

Tags/Actions

Chronically Homeless

Date Added to Priority List

Social Security Number

Phone

Email

Date of Birth

Length of time homeless

Sleeping Location

Navigator Contact Information

Current Status

Notes

22 | P a g e

APPENDIX H

FORMS

23 | P a g e

24 | P a g e

25 | P a g e

26 | P a g e

27 | P a g e

SDPUB\SCS\225266

TELECONFERENCING UNDER THE BROWN ACT

In recent years, the California Legislature has considered various enactments to move municipalities fully into the information age. Although an amendment to the Public Records Act requiring full electronic access to city documents in electronic format appears likely to fall short of adoption in 1999 (AB 1099 - Shelley), a future enactment of these rules appears inevitable. Recent regulations relating to CEQA already encourage direct electronic public access to notices and documents. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15062, 15075, 15085, 15201, 15202, 15205, and 15206.)

The Brown Act has also been amended to allow cities to take advantage of information age

technologies for the conduct of public meetings. In comprehensive 1994 amendments, and through minor amendments in 1997 and 1998, the Legislature greatly expanded the ability of cities to conduct their business by teleconference. The 1994 amendments (codified in Government Code Section 54953 and hidden under the heading “Meetings to be open and public; attendance”) allowed only “video teleconferencing”, a term that required potentially costly audio and video participation by members of the city council1

and the public at each location. The 1997 law -- supported by both the California Newspaper Association and the League -- provides greater flexibility and freedom to use the full range of conferencing technologies available.

1. Basic Provisions

.

The Brown Act allows a city council to use any type of teleconferencing in connection with any meeting. (Gov’t Code § 54953(b).) “Teleconference” is defined as “a meeting of a individuals in different locations, connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both.” In addition to the specific requirements relating to teleconferencing, the meeting must comply with all provisions of the law otherwise applicable. (Id.) Section 54953(b) contains the following specific requirements: · Teleconferencing may be used for all purposes during any meeting. · At least a quorum of the city council must participate from teleconferencing

locations within the city’s jurisdiction. · Each teleconference location must be identified in the notice and agenda of the

meeting. · Agendas must be posted at each teleconference location. · Each location must be accessible to the public.

1 Although the Brown Act term “legislative body” applies to various city decision-making bodies

(Gov’t Code § 54952), I use “city council” herein because city attorneys most frequently interact with this body.

SDPUB\SCS\225266 2

· The agenda must provide the opportunity for the public to address the legislative body directly at each teleconference location.

· All votes must be by rollcall. These requirements are explained in detail below.

a. At least a quorum must teleconference from locations within the city.

The 1998 amendments to Section 54953 provide that at least a quorum of the city council must participate from locations within the city. (Gov’t Code § 54953(b)(3).) The 1999 amendments allow local agencies to provide teleconference locations for the public where no member of the legislative body is present. (Gov’t Code § 54953(b)(4).)

Although some opponents to the 1997 amendments argued that it is important to have at least a quorum in one room where the public can present face-to-face testimony, the 1998 and 1999 amendments make it clear that council members may participate from outside the city and that although a quorum must be within the city limits, they need not participate at the same location. The Southern California Association of Governments took the position in 1997 that this approach enhances public participation. SCAG argued that with regard to meetings in large jurisdictions or meetings of multi-jurisdictional regional bodies, the public’s opportunity to participate is enhanced if, for example, citizens do not have to travel across town to a city council meeting or to a neighboring jurisdiction to attend a regional transit board meeting. This view prevailed in the final version of the amendments.

b. Each audio/video teleconference location must be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting.

The Act requires public notice of all audio/video teleconferencing events. This

prevents a council member who is running late to audio/video teleconference in lieu of actual attendance if public notice of the teleconference location was not given in the agenda. Although the law is not specific as to what “identification” is required in the notice, cities should give the teleconferencing location, the street address, any suite or office number, and could even provide maps to the location. (An online agenda could provide a link to “Yahoo! Maps” or some other navigational device.)

c. Agendas must be posted at all teleconferencing locations.

Section 54953(b)(3) requires that agendas be posted at all teleconferencing locations. The Act does not provide specific guidance on this requirement, but where practical, the agendas should probably be posted both outside the main facility of a teleconference location at a main entrance (e.g., outside an office building) and outside the specific teleconference location (e.g., outside the particular room or office door).

SDPUB\SCS\225266 3

Agendas should, of course, remain visible at these locations. They should not be posted behind doors that are frequently ajar or behind counters, so as to be out of average reading distance.

d. Each audio/video teleconference location must be made accessible to the public.

While this requirement may not seem to be an obstacle, it may prove troublesome when deciding the means by which to teleconference. Because public access is not always possible, this requirement precludes some locations, such as car telephones or offices not accessible to the public. All telephones used for teleconferencing must have a functioning speaker to enable public access, even if there are no members of the public present at a particular location. The meeting must be conducted so that participants by audio alone are clearly identified.

Similarly, city staff must ensure that logistical problems do not occur in providing public access. For example, if a member is audio/video teleconferencing from his office, someone must be present to allow the public entry to the office building if it is normally locked after hours. If the office is in a location where the public is not welcome, then audio/video teleconferencing cannot occur at that location. Similarly, vacationing members wishing to teleconference must realize that the public must have access to the member’s hotel room or cruise ship cabin and receive notice of that opportunity in the agenda. Presumeably, the “no free admission” clause of Section 54952.2(c)(2) applies to members of the public wishing to join a member in a teleconference at these exotic locations as long as physical access is available.

The more difficult issues arise in accommodating council members confronted with hospital confinement, immunocompromising diseases, or treatments that limit public exposure. Although it appears safe to assume that dual teleconferencing facilities in the same building (e.g., one teleconference setup in an ill member’s garage and another setup in his bedroom) would satisfy the spirit if not the letter of this requirement, this arrangement, unfortunately, has not gone unchallenged. In this and similarly compromised situations, counsel should be certain to obtain and document the concurrence of public speakers in the Brown Act arrangement at each location before assuming it is safe to proceed.

e. The agenda must provide the opportunity for the public to address the city council directly at each teleconference location.

This provision requires some cooperation among teleconference sites. It requires

that all audio and video hookups ensure that all members of the city council can hear and respond to public comments from all locations. It requires that the public hear all council deliberations.

f. All votes must be taken by rollcall.

SDPUB\SCS\225266 4

The Act requires that all votes, regardless of topic, be taken by rollcall. With a

large body – a regional air quality board, for example – this may be cumbersome. Where it is clear on routine items such as agenda approval that all members are in accord, it may be possible to ask whether there is any dissent, and if there is none, to dispense with a member-by-member roll call. 2. New issues.

These new amendments raise several issues that require further definition at the implementation stage.2

a. Quorums and locations.

As noted above, former law provided that legislative bodies could only use video teleconferencing to hear public comment and to deliberate. Under former law, a council member was not present for the purposes of a quorum and therefore, could not vote if she teleconferenced with audio equipment such as a telephone.

The 1997 legislation not only allows the use of audio or video equipment for the purposes of teleconferencing, but allows the council to conduct all meeting functions by audio or video teleconference. Council members are present for the purposes of a quorum, are able to vote, deliberate, hear public testimony and participate in all council functions by remote location.

Further, there is no limit on the numbers of council members who may fully participate in a meeting by teleconferencing. But, as mentioned above, a least a quorum of the city council must participate from locations within the city. Conceivably, all members of the council can conduct a lawful meeting from their individual offices or homes, provided the statutory procedures are met.

b. Due process considerations.

Under former law, before a council member could participate in a meeting by video teleconference, the city was required to adopt “reasonable regulations” to protect the statutory and constitutional rights of citizens appearing before the council. The new law no longer requires cities to adopt reasonable regulations, but states that they shall “conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights” of citizens. (Gov’t Code § 54953(b)(3).)

2 Michael Jenkins raised several additional issues still lacking legislative or court direction in

“1998 Brown Act Amendments”, City Attorneys Department Meeting, Spring 1999.

This provision has interesting ramifications where substantive or procedural due process rights are at stake. For example, in land use proceedings, maps or photographs may be crucial to a council’s decision on an application or to a neighbor’s appreciation of

SDPUB\SCS\225266 5

the decision’s ramifications. Although video teleconferencing, a simultaneous telecopy, or some other digital transmission of an exhibit to each location would probably provide adequate due process, it may be difficult to protect these rights when only audio teleconference equipment is used. In the same vein, disciplinary proceedings or permit revocations may hinge on witnesses’ demeanor not adequately conveyed through still images. In these situations, city councils should probably refrain from any action until its voting members are physically present at duly authorized meetings.

c. Attorney/client confidentiality.

Protection of attorney/client confidences requires additional precaution where closed sessions are held by teleconference. The broad range of sophistication in technology presents a broad range of risks. · Video teleconferencing over dedicated telephone lines. This type of

teleconferencing is provided over dedicated ISDN telephone lines. Access is not shared with other users and the information passes only through conventional, secure data lines provided by the phone company. These communications are the most secure, providing security equivalent to traditional telephone communications.

· Wide area networks. These are services not provided through dedicated lines, but

by a provider willing to make a portion of its wide area network (WAN) available for teleconferencing. The WAN provider employs data encryption as the means of deterring interception of the communication. Because the lines are shared, confidentiality is not assured. However, some providers will guarantee security.

· Virtual private networking. This type of teleconferencing is available in many

off-the-shelf forms and can be employed with common PC’s. It can provide audio coupled with serial still pictures or video “streaming” where a relatively uninterrupted video image is transmitted. Although this technology is very inexpensive, faulty encryption or the involvement of too many hosts – common Internet problems – can compromise the lawyer’s duty to protect and maintain client confidentiality.

While the attorney/client privilege in Section 954 of the Evidence Code is

generally protected where an electronic eavesdropper intercepts a communication, communicating by means that others could easily intercept is evidence that the communication was not intended to be confidential. (See, Jack L. White, “You’ve Got Mail!”, City Attorneys Department Meeting, Spring 1999.) 3. Practice tips.

SDPUB\SCS\225266 6

The city attorney should not assume that teleconference procedures will go unscrutinized. On the contrary, it is probably safe to assume that for each council member who feels sufficiently compelled to take the extra steps to patch in, there is an antagonist who would rather see the council member not participate. In order to protect council action from invalidation under the Brown Act, it is important make sure the extra steps are documented.

This is doubly important where the city attorney might be called upon later to provide an opinion on the validity of the council proceeding or action. One city attorney called upon to issue an opinion letter for a bond issue, prepared the attached script to read into the record documenting that the agenda posting, setup of teleconference facilities, attendance, and rollcalls complied with the Brown Act.

SCOTT C. SMITH Mr. Smith wishes to acknowledge the assistance of colleagues Hayley Peterson, Steve Deitsch, and Steve DeBaun in preparing these materials.

SDPUB\SCS\225266 7

SAMPLE SCRIPT FOR TELECONFERENCING PUBLIC MEETINGS UNDER BROWN ACT (Gov’t Code Section 54953) PRIOR TO ROLL CALL: Prior to roll call, I would like to make clear for the record of this meeting, and it should be reflected in the minutes, that at least a portion of this City Council and Redevelopment Agency meeting is conducted pursuant to California Government Code Section 54953, in that Mayor Pro-Tem Hansen is on the Viking Standard Cruise Ship in or off the Coast of Mexico, and Council member Kensington is in Edinburgh, Scotland. Both Mayor Pro-Tem Hansen and Council member Kensington are participating by speaker phone. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, each teleconference location has been identified in the notice and agenda for this meeting. Madame Clerk, it would now be appropriate for you to conduct roll call, after which I would ask the Mayor to recognize me in order to confirm certain matters for the record. [ROLL CALL] I would now like to request that Mayor Pro-Tem Hansen respond to the following questions:

(1) Mayor Pro-Tem Hansen, can you hear me well? (2) Were you able to hear our proceedings on this end up until now? (3) Do you have a copy of the agenda for this meeting? (4) Have you posted the agenda at the location where you are? (5) Is your location reasonably accessible to the public, such that any member

of the public could participate in this teleconference from your location if he or she wished to do so?

(6) Is there any member of the public there with you who would like to participate in the public comment portion of this meeting, or otherwise address any agenda item for this meeting?

Next, I would like to request that Council member Kensington respond to the following questions: [REPEAT THE SAME QUESTIONS] I would now like to ask that any member of the City Council and Board of the Redevelopment Agency speak up at this time if such Council member and Board Member has not been able to clearly hear either Mayor Pro-Tem Hansen or Council member Kensington. Hearing no comment, the record should reflect that all Council members and Agency Board members present have indicated that they were able to hear both Mayor Pro-Tem Hansen and Council member Kensington clearly.

SDPUB\SCS\225266 8

I would next like to ask Mayor Pro-Tem Hansen whether he has been able to hear Council member Kensington. I would next like to ask Council member Kensington whether he has been able to hear Mayor Pro-Tem Hansen. I would next request that any Council member and Agency Board Member, including Council members Hansen and Kensington, speak up at this time if such Council member and Board Member has any reason to believe, based on voice recognition or otherwise, that those persons representing themselves to be either Council member Hansen or Council member Kensington are not truly so. Hearing no comment, the record should reflect that no Council member has expressed doubt that Council members Hansen and Kensington are the parties participating by teleconference with Council members and Board Members present here. I would now like to advise the Mayor and Council members and the City Clerk, that any votes taken during the teleconference portion of this meeting must be taken by roll call.

DRAFTCounty of Riverside Continuum of Care

2018 Meeting Calendar DRAFTMeeting Details Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Continuum of Care (CoC) Meeting

10 a.m. - 12 p.m.

City of Banning Council Chambers

99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220

Feb-28 Apr-25 Jun-27 Aug-22 Oct-24 Dec-12

Board of Governance

9:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.

DPSS: Banning Children/Adult Services

901 E. Ramsey Street Conf. Rm. 1 Banning, CA 92220

Jan-18 Mar-15 May-17 Jun-21 Jul-12 Aug-16 Oct-18 Nov-15

HMIS Administrators Council

1 p.m. - 3 p.m.

DPSS Staff Development Office

22690 Cactus Avenue, Moreno Valley, CA 92553

Jan-10 Apr-4 Jul-11 Oct-3

Housing Committee

2 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.

DPSS: Banning Children/Adult Services

901 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220

Feb-13 Apr-10 Jun-12 Aug-14 Oct-9 Dec-11

Membership Committee

1:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.

DPSS: Banning Self Sufficiency GAIN

63 S. 4th Street, Banning, CA 92220

Feb-28 Apr-25 Jun-27 Aug-22 Oct-24

Coordinated Entry System (CES) Oversight

1 p.m. - 3 p.m.

DPSS: Banning Children/Adult Services

901 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220

Mar-15 May-17 Jul-12 Sep-20 Nov-15

Planning Committee

3 p.m. - 4 p.m.

DPSS: Banning Children/Adult Services

901 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220

Mar-15 May-17 Jul-12 Sep-20 Nov-15

Standards & Evaluation Committee

2 p.m. - 4 p.m.

DPSS: Banning Self Sufficiency GAIN

63 S. 4th Street, Banning, CA 92220

Feb-15 Apr-19 Jun-21 Aug-16 Oct-18 Dec-13

CES Navigation Review Council

Every Tuesday

9 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.

Rustin Conference Center

2085 Rustin Avenue, Riverside, CA 92507

Jan-2

Jan-9

Jan-16

Jan-23

Jan-30

Feb-6

Feb-13

Feb-20

Feb-27

Mar-6

Mar-13

Mar-20

Mar-27

Apr-3

Apr-10

Apr-17

Apr-24

May-1

May-8

May-15

May-22

May-29

Jun-5

Jun-12

Jun-19

Jun-26

Jul-3

Jul-10

Jul-17

Jul-24

Jul-31

Aug-7

Aug-14

Aug-21

Aug-28

Sep-4

Sep-11

Sep-18

Sep-25

Oct-2

Oct-9

Oct-16

Oct-23

Oct-30

Nov-6

Nov-13

Nov-20

Nov-27

Dec-4

Dec-11

Dec-18

Coordinated Entry System (CES) Oversight

Standards & Evaluation Committee

Continuum of Care (CoC) Meeting

Board of Governance Meeting

HMIS Administrators Council

Housing Committee

Planning Committee

Vet/Non-Vet Navigation Review Council

Membership Committee

Contact: Evelyn Pham - EPham@rivco.org Updated: 12/4/2017

DRAFTCounty of Riverside Continuum of Care

2018 Meeting Calendar DRAFTMeeting Details Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Continuum of Care (CoC) Meeting

EFSP Local Board Meeting

9 a.m. - 11 a.m. (Working Mtgs immediately after)

DPSS: Banning Children/Adult Services

901 E. Ramsey Street Conf. Rm. 1 Banning, CA 92220

Jan-10 Mar-14 May-9 Jul-11 Sep-12 Nov-14

EFSP Local Board and Workgroup Meetings

2018 Housing First Partners Conference (HFPC)

Denver, CO

April 10 - 12, 2018

2018 National Human Services Data Consortium (NHSDC) Spring Conference

Pittsburgh, PA

April 18 - 19, 2018

2018 Riverside Fair Housing Conference

Riverside, CA

Save the Date: April 26, 2018

2018 Calendar Events2018 Homeless Point in Time Count

January 23rd, 2018

REGISTER TO VOLUNTEER!2018 NAEH National Conference on Ending Family and Youth Homelessness

Los Angeles, CA

March 01 - 02, 2018

2018 NAEH National Conference on Ending Homelessness and Capitol Hill Day

Washington, DC

July 23 - 25, 2018

Contact: Evelyn Pham - EPham@rivco.org Updated: 12/4/2017

HUD No. 18-001 (202) 708-0685

FOR RELEASE Thursday

January 11, 2018

HUD AWARDS RECORD $2 BILLION TO THOUSANDS OF LOCAL HOMELESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS ACROSS U.S.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development today awarded a record $2 billion to support more than 7,300 local homeless assistance programs across the nation. HUD's Continuum of Care grants provide critically needed support to local programs on the front lines of serving individuals and families experiencing homelessness. View a complete list of all the state and local homeless projects awarded funding.

Due to the last year's devastating hurricanes, HUD extended the application deadline for communities in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands until February 16, 2018.

HUD continues to challenge state and local planning organizations called "Continuums of Care" to support their highest performing local programs that have proven most effective in meeting the needs of persons experiencing homelessness in their communities. Many of these state and local planners also embraced HUD's call to shift funds from existing underperforming projects to create new ones that are based on best practices that will further their efforts to prevent and end homelessness.

"HUD stands with our local partners who are working each and every day to house and serve our most vulnerable neighbors," said HUD Secretary Ben Carson. "We know how to end homelessness and it starts with embracing a housing-first approach that relies upon proven strategies that offer permanent housing solutions to those who may otherwise be living in our shelters and on our streets."

Matthew Doherty, Executive Director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness added, "Continuums of Care are critical leaders in the work to end homelessness nationwide. When communities marshal these--and other local, state, private, and philanthropic resources--behind the strongest housing-first practices, we see important progress in our collective goal to end homelessness in America."

HUD Continuum of Care grant funding supports a broad array of interventions designed to assist individuals and families experiencing homelessness, particularly those living in places not meant for habitation, located in sheltering programs, or at imminent risk of becoming homeless. Each year, HUD serves more than a million people through emergency shelter, transitional, and permanent housing programs.

Last month, HUD reported homelessness crept up in the U.S., especially among individuals experiencing long-term chronic homelessness. HUD's 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress found that 553,742 persons experienced homelessness on a single night in 2017, an increase of .7 percent since last year. Homelessness among families with children declined 5.4 percent nationwide since 2016, local communities report the number of persons experiencing long-term chronic homelessness and Veterans increased. HUD's 2017 homeless estimate points to a significant increase in the number of reported persons experiencing unsheltered homelessness, particularly in California and other high-cost rental markets experiencing a significant shortage of affordable housing.

State Number of Local Programs Funded Total Awarded

Alabama 59 $17,752,162

Alaska 23 $3,731,246

Arizona 96 $38,526,473

Arkansas 26 $4,268,229

California 900 $382,566,777

Colorado 68 $30,590,720

Connecticut 147 $45,869,536

Delaware 31 $7,952,480

District of Columbia 50 $22,090,633

Florida 327 $83,226,614

Georgia 185 $41,017,540

Guam 7 $1,095,776

Hawaii 35 $11,762,496

Idaho 28 $3,717,376

Illinois 418 $109,110,715

Indiana 95 $19,300,787

Iowa 52 $9,108,676

Kansas 48 $7,835,720

Kentucky 105 $19,389,282

Louisiana 151 $46,623,544

Maine 39 $12,932,975

Maryland 185 $50,221,552

Massachusetts 275 $73,552,552

Michigan 296 $70,250,446

Minnesota 217 $33,094,266

Mississippi 27 $5,026,382

Missouri 145 $35,698,886

Montana 17 $2,500,597

Nebraska 50 $9,050,905

Nevada 49 $15,864,846

New Hampshire 63 $7,253,904

New Jersey 248 $45,902,844

New Mexico 59 $10,728,359

New York 579 $200,807,611

North Carolina 157 $25,573,629

North Dakota 18 $1,802,967

Ohio 316 $95,840,276

Oklahoma 67 $8,123,906

Oregon 128 $36,277,567

Pennsylvania 519 $102,583,484

Rhode Island 38 $5,796,184

South Carolina 59 $9,954,311

South Dakota 10 $1,294,469

Tennessee 128 $20,733,768

Texas 205 $88,239,025

Utah 55 $10,381,345

Vermont 22 $4,632,864

Virginia 152 $29,765,050

Washington 191 $59,556,796

West Virginia 63 $8,327,359

Wisconsin 95 $23,750,589

Wyoming 5 $292,329

Total 7328 $2,011,348,825

HUD's mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.

More information about HUD and its programs is available on the Internet at www.hud.gov and https://espanol.hud.gov.

You can also connect with HUD on social media and follow Secretary Carson on Twitter and

Facebook or sign up for news alerts on HUD's Email List.

The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness coordinates and catalyzes the federal response to homelessness, working in close partnership with senior leaders across 19 federal agencies. By

organizing and supporting state such as governors, mayors, and local planners. USICH drives action to achieve the goals of the federal strategic plan to prevent and homelessness, in order to ensure

that homelessness in America is ended once and for all.

Sponsor Organization Status Grant Number Application Req Award Amt Difference Incr from App to Award Previous Grant Diff to Previous Grant

1 County of Riverside - Planning Grant Renewal TBD $315,901.00 $329,354.00 $13,453.00 4.08% $315,901.00 $13,453.00

2 JFSD PSH Expansion New TBD $520,685.00 $525,009.00 $4,324.00 0.82% N/A N/A

3 City of Riverside PSH Chronically Homeless Renewal CA1055L9D081707 $125,598.00 $126,264.00 $666.00 0.53% $125,598.00 $666.00

4 City of Riverside PSH for Disabled Renewal CA0936L9D081708 $123,556.00 $124,285.00 $729.00 0.59% $123,556.00 $729.00

5 LightHouse Riverside PSH New TBD $334,452.00 $337,524.00 $3,072.00 0.91% N/A N/A

6 Desert Horizon PSH (JFS) Renewal CA1244L9D081704 $431,577.00 $434,275.00 $2,698.00 0.62% $431,577.00 $2,698.00

7 Lighthouse SSC PH for Disabled Women w/children Renewal CA0665L9D081707 $232,149.00 $233,891.00 $1,742.00 0.74% $232,149.00 $1,742.00

8 HMIS Consolidated Renewal CA0672L9D081710 $344,072.00 $344,072.00 $0.00 0.00% $344,072.00 $0.00

9 JFS Desert Vista PH Renewal CA0670L9D081710 $684,148.00 $688,476.00 $4,328.00 0.63% $684,148.00 $4,328.00

10 Lighthouse SSC Rapid Rehousing Renewal CA1367L9D081703 $263,274.00 $264,786.00 $1,512.00 0.57% $263,274.00 $1,512.00

11 Shelter Plus Care Project Based with OSH Renewal CA1017L9D081702 $72,803.00 $73,667.00 $864.00 1.17% $72,803.00 $864.00

12 Stepping Up in Riverside Renewal CA1613L9D081701 $888,903.00 $895,767.00 $6,864.00 0.77% $888,903.00 $6,864.00

13 Path of Life PSH Renewal CA1364L9D081703 $1,314,354.00 $1,323,522.00 $9,168.00 0.69% $1,314,354.00 $9,168.00

14 Path of Life Rapid Rehousing Renewal CA1365L9D081703 $345,549.00 $347,805.00 $2,256.00 0.65% $345,549.00 $2,256.00

15 Path of Life RRH East County Renewal CA1450L9D081702 $377,260.00 $379,096.00 $1,836.00 0.48% $377,260.00 $1,836.00

16 RUHS-Behavioral Health Coachella Valley PH Renewal CA0935L9D081708 $498,468.00 $499,496.00 $1,028.00 0.21% $498,468.00 $1,028.00

17 RUHS-Behavioral Health HHOPE PH Renewal CA1136L9D081706 $495,415.00 $498,042.00 $2,627.00 0.53% $495,415.00 $2,627.00

18 RUHS-Behavioral Health Men's PH Renewal CA0675L9D081710 $129,366.00 $130,338.00 $972.00 0.75% $149,366.00 ($19,028.00)

19 Stepping Up in Riverside (PHB) Renewal CA1634L9D081701 $526,501.00 $530,269.00 $3,768.00 0.71% $526,501.00 $3,768.00

20 RUHS-Behavioral Health Riverside PH Renewal CA0679L9D081710 $359,743.00 $360,127.00 $384.00 0.11% $359,743.00 $384.00

21 County of Riverside CES (RUHS Behavioral Health) Renewal CA1449L9D081702 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $500,000.00 $0.00

22 Housing Authority - All County I/II Renewal CA1056L9D081707 $448,217.00 $450,929.00 $2,712.00 0.60% $510,304.00 ($59,375.00)

23 Housing Authority - ECON (Consolidated) Renewal CA0683L9D081710 $422,304.00 $423,348.00 $1,044.00 0.25% $448,217.00 ($24,869.00)

24 Housing Authority - EHOP Renewal CA0664L9D081704 $42,739.00 $43,027.00 $288.00 0.67% $42,739.00 $288.00

25 Housing Authority - Street to Home Renewal CA0666L9D081704 $114,993.00 $115,521.00 $528.00 0.46% $114,993.00 $528.00

Total : $9,912,027.00 $9,978,890.00 $66,863.00

Riverside City & County CoC Project Listing - 2017 Awards

2017 Continuum of Care Awards and Tier 2 (prepared by Joe Colletti, PhD, Urban Initiatives)

It appears that HUD made a decision not to fund the last ranked project in Tier 2 for most, if not all, CoCs across the country. None of the 13 Southern California CoCs received funding for their last ranked project. In some cases, some CoCs did not receive funding for last ranked projects. NOTE: It is important to frame a discussion about ranked projects at the bottom of Tier 2 by noting last ranked project(s) and not permanent housing bonus because some CoCs did get their permanent housing bonus funded because it was not ranked last but lost another project(s). Last ranked project(s) could be the permanent housing bonus, a reallocated project, or a renewal. Most CoCs ranked their permanent housing bonus last because it was a new project. The rationale was if a new project was not funded services, beds, and jobs were not lost. Also, note that all Southern California CoCs received an increase in funds when compared to the awards made last year, which appears to be the case nationwide (see table below). The increase went towards Fair Market Rent (FMR) adjustments and, in some cases, increases in operations. The table below is a collection of comments from various CoCs across the country. None of them received funding for their last ranked project and in several cases last ranked projects. Continuum of Care

Was Last Ranked Project

in Tier 2 not funded?

Comments made by CoC

Boston yes Boston didn't receive any bonus projects but we

had them at the bottom of tier 2. all renewals and reallocations were funded. FMR increases across PH programs, so gain in ARD.

Chicago yes Chicago lost the bottom of Tier 2 which was one renewal and five bonus projects.

Columbus/Franklin County

yes Columbus didn't receive any bonus projects but we had them at the bottom of tier 2. all renewals and reallocations were funded. FMR increases across PH programs,

Dallas yes Dallas had the lowest ranked Tier 2 new project from reallocation not funded. No bonus projects funded.

Detroit yes Detroit got all Tier 1 (which included two new reallocated projects). We also received four new bonus which were at the top of Tier 2. However,

we lost the rest of our Tier 2 projects, which were at the bottom of Tier 2 and were all non-coordinated entry SSOs.

El Paso City and County

yes El Paso received everything but the Bonus.

Houston, Pasadena/ Harris, Fort Bend Counties

yes

Houston was similar to Dallas. Didn’t expect to lose re-allocation projects...

Milwaukee yes Milwaukee, WI. All tier I and II funded, that includes one reallocation. No bonus, we ranked it last. We did get an adjustment in our FMR which increased our ARD +(1.7%).

Minneapolis/Hennepin County

yes Minneapolis/Hennepin CoC lost the bottom project in Tier 2, however, gained PH Bonus funds – with a net gain in ARD as well.

New Orleans/Jefferson Parish

yes In New Orleans, we lost about as much as we gained. One bonus project was funded, but our bottom 6 projects in Tier 2 were not, which included another bonus project, a reallocation project, and four renewal projects.

North Carolina Balance of State

yes NC Balance of State is in the same boat as most others: Got ARD + FMR adjustments funded but nothing else. Practically that means we got all our renewals and reallocations funded and no bonus projects because we ranked the bonus at the bottom of Tier 2.

Phoenix, Mesa/ Maricopa County CoC

yes Phoenix had 2 bonus projects funded. We ranked some of the bonus projects above low scoring renewals. Unfortunately we lost five renewal projects at the bottom of Tier 2.

Texas Balance of State yes I’m curious about bonus project funding this competition. All of our projects were funded this year but no bonus, we had 5 bonus projects funded last year.

Wayne County including Detroit

yes The Out-Wayne County CoC in Michigan got all renewal projects funded (we had no reallocations) but not the two bonus projects submitted and ranked last

Wisconsin Balance of State

yes In the Balance of State WI, we lost our bottom 2 - Tier 2 projects (approximately $360,000), but gained both of our Bonus projects (approximately $550,000). So we ended up with a net gain in ARD.