REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #7454 COORDINATED FUNDING...Only agencies that received an approved response to the Request for Information #7454 are eligible to respond to this Request for Proposal

2018-20 Coordinated Funding Human Services Program Operations RFP #7454

1

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #7454

COORDINATED FUNDING: FY 2018-2020 Human Services Program Operations

United Way of Washtenaw County Washtenaw Urban County (CDBG) City of Ann Arbor (General Fund),

Washtenaw County (General Fund), Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation,

Saint Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor

FOR Washtenaw County

Office of Community and Economic Development Issued By:

Washtenaw County Purchasing Administration Building 220 N. Main Street Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Angela O. Perry Purchasing Manager (734) 222-6768


2

WASHTENAW COUNTY

Finance Department

Purchasing Division

220 N. Main, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Phone (734) 222-6760, Fax (734) 222-6764

www.purchasing.ewashtenaw.org

RFP #7454

December 31st, 2017 Washtenaw County Purchasing Division on behalf of the Office of Community and Economic Development, in partnership with the City of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, the Washtenaw Urban County, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, and Saint Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor is issuing a sealed RFP #7454 for identified human service program operations. Only agencies that received an approved response to the Request for Information #7454 are eligible to respond to this Request for Proposal in the form of an electronic program application. This RFP process is a single application for agencies meeting basic eligibility for Human Services Program Operations through the Coordinating Funding process for FY 2018 to 2020. Two informational meetings will be held. Attending one of these is mandatory for any agency wishing to apply for the RFP. Space is limited. Please visit www.coordinatedfunders.org to RSVP:

• Wednesday, January 3rd, 2018, 2pm, Washtenaw County Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Avenue, Ann Arbor

• Friday, January 5th, 2018, 9 am, Washtenaw County Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Avenue, Ann Arbor

Proposal: Agencies will submit their completed RFP response to the Washtenaw County Purchasing Division and the Washtenaw Coordinated Funders via the Foundant system: http://coordinatedfunders.org/apply/rfp/

By Monday, February 5, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. EST

http://www.coordinatedfunders.org/

http://coordinatedfunders.org/apply/rfp/


3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. General Information……………………………………………………………..….pages 4-8 A. Purpose of RFP B. Proposal Availability C. Online Grant Application & Training D. RFP Terms

II. Funding Rationale………………………………………………………………. page 8-9

III. FY 2018-20 Human Services Funding Priorities……………………………….pages 9

IV. Proposal Instructions……………………………………………………………….pages 9-25

A. Proposal Submission Requirements B. Washtenaw Coordinated Funders Human Services Program Operations

Application Questions

V. Standard Provisions for Contracts……………………………………………….page 26 A. Grants Awarded by Washtenaw County B. Grants Awarded by City of Ann Arbor C. Grants Awarded by the Washtenaw Urban County D. Grants Awarded by United Way of Washtenaw County E. Grants Awarded by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation F. Grants Awarded by Saint Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor

VI. Appendices…………………………………………………………………………...pages 27-72

A. Program Strategies & Outcomes Summary B. Key DEI Definitions C. Income Thresholds D. County Maps E. Budget Template


4

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

A. PURPOSE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL In 2008, the City of Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw Urban County and Washtenaw County embarked upon an integrated human services funding process in which all three sources of human services program funds were coordinated, awarded through a single RFP, and approved by each entity in coordination. Subsequent to that endeavor, these three entities entered into a coordinated funding process for systemic human services funding with the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation and United Way of Washtenaw County. This systemic human services funding – known as Coordinated Funding – is distributed through three funding mechanisms: Program Operations, Sector Leadership and Capacity Building. This RFP is for human services Program Operations funding ONLY. At this time, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, the City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The sixth funder Saint Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor became a Coordinated Funders partner in 2016. The funds available through this RFP are limited to four priority areas: Cradle to Career Initiative [Early Childhood (0-6 years) and School-Aged Youth (7-25 years)], Safety Net Health and Nutrition, Housing & Homelessness, and Aging. The funding available for bid in this RFP will cover the period from July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2020 contingent on available resources and funder budget approval. United Way of Washtenaw County investments are approved by their Board of Directors. The Washtenaw Urban County CDBG allocations are approved by the Washtenaw Urban County Executive Committee. The City and County budgets are approved, respectively, by the Ann Arbor City Council and the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners. The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation investments are approved by their Board of Directors. Saint Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor investments are approved by the Saint Joseph Mercy Health Partners Local Board.

B. PROPOSAL AVAILABILITY Copies of the complete Request for Proposal #7454 are available online in Adobe format at the Washtenaw County website: http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/finance/purchasing/online_bids/open_bids.html. Click the previous link, find RFP #7454 (you may need to scroll), and download the RFP.

C. ONLINE GRANT APPLICATION & TRAINING

All Applicants must complete their applications via the Washtenaw Coordinated Funders website. If you would like training on how to use the system or have any questions about using this system to submit your grant application, please contact Kimson Johnson via email only at [email protected] .

http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/finance/purchasing/online_bids/open_bids.html

https://coordinatedfunders.org/

mailto:[email protected]


5

D. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TERMS PROPOSAL INFORMATION I. PROPOSAL DEFINITIONS Definitions “Bidder An individual or business submitting a bid to Washtenaw County “Contractor/Vendor” One who contracts to perform services in

accordance with a contract “County” Washtenaw County in Michigan “Department” OFFICE OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT II. TERMS

A. Washtenaw County reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received as a result of this RFP. If a proposal is selected, it will be the most advantageous regarding price, quality of service, the CONTRACTORS qualifications and capabilities to provide the specified service, and other factors that the County may consider. The County does not intend to award a contract fully on the basis of any response made to the proposal; the County reserves the right to consider proposals for modifications at any time before a contract would be awarded and negotiations would be undertaken with that CONTRACTOR whose proposal is deemed to best meet the County’s specifications and needs. B. The County reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive or not waive informalities or irregularities in bids or bidding procedures, and to accept or further negotiate cost, terms, or conditions of any bid determined by the County to be in the best interests of the County even though not the lowest bid. C. Proposals must be signed by an official authorized to bind the CONTRACTOR to its provisions for at least a period of 90 days. Failure of the successful bidder to accept the obligation of the contract may result in the cancellation of any award. D. Proposals should be prepared simply and economically providing a straight-forward, concise description of the CONTRACTOR'S ability to meet the requirements of the RFP. Proposals must be typed or clearly legible. No erasures are permitted. Mistakes may be crossed out and corrected and must be initialed in ink by the person signing the proposal. CONTRACTOR shall ensure that proposals are submitted using both sides of recycled paper whenever practicable.


6

E. The initial award of this contract shall be for a period of _ 2 ___year(s), with an option to renew an additional ____1_____ year(s), pending agreement by both parties.

F. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Contractor warrants that to the best of contractor’s knowledge, there exists no actual or potential conflict between contractor and the County, and its Services under this request, and in the event of change in either contractor’s private interests or Services under this request, contractor will inform the County regarding possible conflict of interest which may arise as a result of the change. Contractor also affirms that, to the best of contractor’s knowledge, there exists no actual or potential conflict between a County employee and Contractor.

G. The bidder shall be responsible for all costs incurred in the development and submission of this response. Washtenaw County assumes no contractual obligation as a result of the issuance of this RFP, the preparation or submission of a response by a bidder, the evaluation of an accepted response, or the selection of finalists. All proposals, including attachments, supplementary materials, addenda, etc. shall become the property of Washtenaw County and will not be returned to the bidder.

H. Any responses, materials, correspondence, or documents provided to Washtenaw County under this solicitation are subject to the State of Michigan Freedom of Information Act and may be released to third parties in compliance with that Act.

I. Vendor Appeal Process – Unsuccessful bidders may appeal an award of contract, lease or purchase order to the County Administrator. All appeals shall be made in writing to the County Administrator within five (5) business days of the Notice to Award. The County Administrator shall take necessary actions to review the appeals and respond to the individual submitting an appeal within five (5) business days. This response shall be documented in writing in the bid file.


7

1. United Way of Washtenaw County, the Washtenaw Urban County, the City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, and St. Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor reserve the right to reject any and all proposals received as a result of this RFP. If a proposal is selected, the United Way of Washtenaw County, the Washtenaw Urban County, the City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, and Saint Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor will consider the most advantageous proposal in regards to alignment with community-level outcomes, delivery of best practices-informed services, applicant qualifications and capabilities to provide the specified service, geographic area to be served, funding availability and other factors. Award letters will be sent to applicants in May of 2018, and final contracts will be effective on July 1, 2018.

2. The United Way of Washtenaw County, the Washtenaw Urban County, the City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, and Saint Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor reserve the right to waive or not waive informalities or irregularities in bids or bidding procedures. Once submitted, no proposal may be amended or substituted, unless permitted by the Coordinated Funders.

3. Proposals must be electronically signed by an official authorized to bind the provider to its provisions for at least a period of 90 days. Failure of the successful applicant to accept the obligation of the bid may result in the cancellation of any award.

4. Neither United Way of Washtenaw County, the Washtenaw Urban County, the City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, nor Saint Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor will be liable for any costs associated with the preparation, transmittal, or presentation of any materials submitted in response to this RFP.

5. In the event it becomes necessary to revise any part of the RFP, an addendum will be provided. Deadlines for submission of the RFPs may be adjusted to allow for revisions.

6. Proposals should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward, concise description of the applicant’s ability to meet the requirements of the RFP. Proposals shall be submitted in their entirety on https://coordinatedfunders.org/.

7. United Way, the Urban County, the City, the County, the Community Foundation and St. Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor reserve the right before making an award to conduct a site visit to the applicant’s program and/or agency site.

8. The initial contract(s) will last from July 1, 2018 until June 30, 2019. Grantees will receive an amendment to the FY 2016 contracts, based on funding availability and performance, to extend the contract through June 30, 2020 (FY 2017).

9. United Way, the Urban County, the City, the County, the Community Foundation and Saint Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor reserve the right to recapture and reallocate funds to alternate projects for any project where the contract has not been executed by September 30, 2018, where the funds have



8

not been expended by the identified grant year-end, or where the projects are not progressing in a timely or appropriate manner.

10. United Way, the Urban County, the City, the County, the Community Foundation and Saint Joseph

Mercy Ann Arbor reserve the right to establish spending guidelines for all projects and approve funding contingent upon meeting additional requirements.

11. The applicant must affirm that the costs stated in their proposal will be valid for the year period after the proposal is submitted.

II. FUNDING RATIONALE

Washtenaw Coordinated Funders 2018 – 2020 Program Operations Funding Strategy The Washtenaw Coordinated Funders (Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, St. Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County, the City of Ann Arbor, the Urban County Executive Committee- represented by the Office of Community & Economic Development) seek to achieve a state in which all persons in Washtenaw County are able to achieve their full human potential regardless of race or socio-economic status. To this end, grant funds awarded through the Request for Proposals for the Coordinated Funding 2018 Program Operations Grant Cycle will be deployed through a funding strategy that prioritizes those persons and groups with the greatest needs in our community. The funding strategy is a tool to integrate grant investments across our four priority areas (aging/older adults, housing & homelessness, safety-net health & nutrition, and cradle to career) and focus our finite community resources on those who are in crisis or at-risk of being in crisis. This cycle, our grant investments (estimated $4.6 M annually) will take shape along these guidelines: Prevention Services & Programs: These are services and programs that focus on mitigating or reducing the likelihood of negative outcomes that affect quality of life.

• Target Percentage Dollar Allocation for 2018-2020 Program Operations Funding: 35% - 45%

Crisis Intervention Services & Programs: These are services and programs that address community issues as they currently exist: treating the immediate crisis for the individual or family as they arise.

• Target Percentage Dollar Allocation for 2018-2020 Program Operations Funding: 55% - 65%

Priority Populations: As a core tenant of the Coordinated Funding Theory of Change – Priority Populations are at the center of our work. Below are the boundary and priority area spanning populations that the Washtenaw Coordinated Funders are prioritizing across the funding portfolio. NOTE: “Target Percentage Dollar Allocations” provide a range for the named priority population, but does not function as a relative portion for the entirety of the Coordinated Funding grant investment portfolio.

• Individuals and families residing in the zip codes of 48197 & 48198

• Target Percentage Dollar Allocation of 2018-2020 Program Operations Funding for zip codes 48197 & 48198: 70 – 75%

• Individuals and families residing in census tracts with a low or very low opportunity score rating on the Washtenaw Opportunity Index • Target Percentage Dollar Allocation of 2018-2020 Program Operations Funding for census tracts with a

low or very low opportunity index score rating: 25 -50%

• Individuals and families with annual incomes at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level • Target Percentage Dollar Allocation of 2018-2020 Program Operations Funding for individuals and

families served who are at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level: 75 - 85%

http://www.opportunitywashtenaw.org/opportunity-index.html


9

• Families with newborns enrolled in Medicaid and/or families with children enrolled in the MIChild program • Target Percentage Dollar Allocation of 2018-2020 Program Operations for Families with newborns

enrolled Medicaid and/or families with children enrolled in the MIChild Program: 20-35%

• Homebound Seniors1: Estimation of those seniors served by COFU investments that are homebound • Target Percentage Dollar Allocation of 2018-2020 Program Operations Funding for Homebound Seniors:

20 – 35%

• Individuals and families experiencing chronic homelessness2 • Target Percentage Dollar Allocation of 2018-2020 Program Operations Funding for Individual and

families experiencing chronic homelessness: 15-30%

The Funding Rationale will be used to inform the scoring matrix.

III. FY 2018-20 HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING PRIORITIES The following are the Human Services Priorities for United Way of Washtenaw County, the Washtenaw Urban County, the City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation and Saint Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor for these coordinated human services program operating funds. While it is recognized that additional human service needs exist throughout the community, there is a limited pool of resources available. Therefore, only the following priorities will be eligible for funding through this RFP:

1. Cradle to Career Initiative [Early Childhood (0-6 years) and School-Aged Youth (7-21 years)] 2. Safety Net Health & Nutrition 3. Housing & Homelessness 4. Aging

IV. PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS Please review all instructions before proceeding. Be sure to answer all questions as instructed in this RFP and submit all components. Each proposal will be evaluated by a team of reviewers comprised of representatives from each of the funding entities. A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL & DUE DATE/TIME All Coordinated Funding Human Services Program Operations proposals will be submitted online through https://coordinatedfunders.org/ ONLY. NO HARD COPIES ARE REQUIRED OR REQUESTED IN RESPONSE TO THIS RFP.

• Applicants will not be limited to a maximum number of proposals submitted through this RFP; however, if a program utilizes multiple site locations for the delivery of similar programs, only one proposal should be submitted for that program(s).

• Collaborative applications are welcome and must be submitted by a single agency on behalf of all partner entities who have agreed to the terms and scope of the application. The applicant must be eligible to apply to the RFP as determined through the RFI process.

1 Home Bound Seniors: Homebound seniors are defined as individuals 60 years of age and older and unable to leave the home unassisted, and for whom leaving home takes considerable and taxing effort due to physical, emotional, or societal factors. 2 Chronic Homelessness: https://www.hudexchange.info/homelessness-assistance/resources-for-chronic-homelessness/


https://www.hudexchange.info/homelessness-assistance/resources-for-chronic-homelessness/


10

Proposals are due by 4:00PM on February 5, 2018 in Coordinatedfunders.org; proposals are time-stamped and any submitted after 4pm will not be reviewed or considered for funding through this RFP.

**LATE PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED NOR ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING**

APPLICANTS CONFERENCE A mandatory applicants’ conference is scheduled for the following times, below. Applicants must attend ONE (1) of the following:

• Wednesday, January 3rd, 2018, 2pm, Washtenaw County Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Avenue, Ann Arbor

• Friday, January 5th, 2018, 9 am, Washtenaw County Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Avenue, Ann Arbor

CONTENTS OF SUBMISSION Please be sure to complete ALL of the questions within each submission and submit prior to the due date/time. Submit one electronic application per proposal.



11

B. WASHTENAW COORDINATED FUNDERS HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM OPERATIONS APPLICATION QUESTIONS

Section 1: Basic Program Information

Q1-1 Program Name* Q1-2 Agency Mission Statement Character Limit: 800

Q1-3 Brief Agency Description Provide a brief overview of your agency which includes the year established and core programs/services provided. Character Limit: 800 Q1-4 Length* How long have you been operating this program? Character Limit: 250 Q1-5 Previously Funded* Did this program receive funding during the 2016-2018 Coordinated Funding program operations grants cycle?

Q1-6 Previously Funded Program Name If yes, please list the program name (if different than the one used on this application). Character Limit: 250

Q1-7 Amount of Grant Request * Please enter the annual amount requested for this program. Character Limit: 20

Q1-8 Is the application collaborative in nature?* Is this a collaborative application with more than one partner applying for funding?

Q1-9 Collaborative Applicants If yes, please list out name(s) of all collaborative applicants, including agency name, contact person, and email address for each. Character Limit: 800


12

Section 2: Program Description

Higher scores will be awarded to proposals that detail the specific program components and demonstrate that they are aligned with both the selected community level outcome(s) and corresponding best practices and research for the selected program strategy/ies. See Appendix A for best practice program components for the proposed program strategy/ies).

Q2-1 Description* Provide a brief program description that we may use in publications and on our website. Character Limit: 300

Q2-2 Services* What are the service(s) provided by this program and how do these services align with the strategy or strategies selected? Include additional details such as program eligibility requirements, anticipated length of program, frequency and intensity of program services (e.g. average length of program is 6 months, during which participants engage in twice weekly sessions lasting two hours each). Character Limit: 1500

Q2-3 Theory of Change* Describe the program theory used to support the program. Include relevant evidence and/or research based strategies and available data (e.g. studies, authors, statistics, etc.). Character Limit: 1500 Tip: A program theory, or theory of change, is your agency’s best thinking and articulation of the components of an intervention, making connections between the different steps explicit, and identifying desired (expected) outcomes as a result of the intervention. Q2-4 Most Significant Change* For existing programs: using an example from prior program performance data, what is the most significant impact this program has on a participant’s life? (For example, a change in knowledge, skills, condition or behavior) For new programs: what is the anticipated most significant impact this program will have on a participant’s life. Character Limit: 800

Q2-5 Equity* (Not Scored) Is your organization using an equity lens to inform this program’s services? See Appendix B for key definitions related to this question. Character Limit: 500

Section 3: Availability of Same or Similar Services

A fundamental element of sound program design is to understand and fill service gaps/unmet community needs. Higher scores will be awarded to proposals that articulate a strong knowledge of similar agencies/programs in their service area and how their program design makes them unique and/or meets an unmet need.

https://www.uwwashtenaw.org/sites/uwwashtenaw.org/files/FY2018%20Program%20Operations%20Strategies%20and%20Outcomes.pdf


13

Q3-1 Community Issues & Unmet Need* What community issues, unmet needs, or service gaps does this program address? Explain why it is critical for our community to address this issue at this time by using relevant research as well as program and community-level data. Character Limit: 1000

Q3-2 Other Service Providers* Please identify by name and program any other providers that are delivering similar services in your service area. Character Limit: 1000

Q3-3 Service Gap* Please describe how the proposed program 1) complements existing services in this space and/or 2) fills a service gap unmet by the programs identified in the question above. Character Limit: 1000

Section 4: Program Demographics

Q4-1 Priority Participant(s)* The Washtenaw Coordinated Funders are prioritizing the following populations for services. Please select the populations that the proposed program prioritizes. Check all that apply: Choices

� Individuals and families residing in geographies 48197 and 48198 � Individual and families residing in census tracts with extremely low opportunity scores � Individuals and families with annual incomes that are 200% and below Federal Poverty Level � Families of babies born on or eligible for Medicaid and/or families of children enrolled in or eligible for

the MIChild program � Homebound seniors � Individuals and families experiencing chronic homelessness

Note: There are also priority populations associated with each Community-Level Outcome. (See Appendix A for each of these: Priority populations of the Funders start on page 6 and priority populations for each Community Level outcome begins on page 10.)

Q4-2 Priority Participant(s) Description* Please describe your priority program participant(s) clearly and indicate the extent to which your service population aligns with any of the priority populations noted above (Funder priority populations and/or Community Level Outcome priority populations). Higher scores will be awarded to those proposals that clearly indicate service populations that are prioritized. Character Limit: 1500 Tip: Make sure that the participant that is described here aligns with the participant in question 2-4: Most Significant Change.

Q4-3 Geographic Area* Describe the current and/or proposed geographies/locales served by the proposed program (e.g. neighborhoods, census tracts, zip codes, and/or schools/school districts). If you are serving a priority geographic location identified by the Washtenaw Coordinated Funders, please indicate this here. (See Appendix A) Character Limit: 1000





14

Q4-4 Program Service Area Fill in the fields below indicating the estimated percentage (%) of the proposed program's participants in each of the following jurisdictions (totaling all five fields will equal greater than 100%. Maps of the jurisdictions are available at the Coordinated Funders website and below). This information helps to determine funding source. Q4-4 Washtenaw County* Washtenaw County map link Character Limit: 3

Q4-4 City of Ann Arbor* City of Ann Arbor map link Character Limit: 3

Q4-4 Urban County* Urban County map link Character Limit: 3

Q4-4 Eastern Washtenaw County Zip Codes 48197 and 48198* Eastern Washtenaw County map link Character Limit: 3

Q4-4 Outside Washtenaw County* Character Limit: 3 Q4-5 Unduplicated Participants* How many unduplicated participants did this program, in its entirety, serve during the last program year? Note: This should encompass ALL unduplicated participants that the proposed program is serving, not just participants served with Coordinated Funding. Character Limit: 50 Tip: If a person was provided with services more than once, that person would still be counted only once for the purpose of this unduplicated participant count. Q4-6 Projected Unduplicated Participants* If fully funded for this program, how many projected unduplicated participants will this program serve during the first program year (July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019)? Note: This should encompass ALL unduplicated participants that the proposed program will serve, not just participants served with Coordinated Funding. Character Limit: 50

Q4-7 Participant Count Change* Please explain any significant difference between the number of participants you served last year and the anticipated number you will serve during the first year of program operations funding. Character Limit: 500

https://washtenawcoordinatedfunders.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/washtenaw_county_base_map.jpg

https://washtenawcoordinatedfunders.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/ann_arbor_map.jpg

https://washtenawcoordinatedfunders.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/washtenaw_county_urban_county_participants_2015.jpg

https://washtenawcoordinatedfunders.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/48197_48198-map.pdf


15

Q4-8 Program Demographics and Population Details* Please select which of the following demographics or participant details the proposed program is currently collecting data on or will be able to by July 1, 2018. Supplying participant demographic information is a required component of annual reporting associated with program operations funding. Choices

� Subpopulation-Age � Subpopulation-Female Head of Household � Subpopulation-Veterans � Subpopulation-Families of babies born on/eligible for Medicaid � Subpopulation-Families of children enrolled in/eligible for the MIChild program � Subpopulation-Homebound seniors � Subpopulation-Individuals and families experiencing chronic homelessness � Race-White � Race-Black/African-American � Race-Asian � Race-Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander � Race-American Indian/Alaskan Native � Race-Middle Eastern or North African � Race-Other/Multi-Racial � Ethnicity-Hispanic, Latinx*, or Spanish � Ethnicity-Non-Hispanic, Latinx*, or Spanish � Gender-Female � Gender - Male � Gender-Transgender � Gender-Other � Geography-Zip Code

*Latinx: a person of Latin American origin or descent, used as a gender neutral or non-binary alternative to Latino or Latina.

Q4-9 Demographic Documentation* Please describe how your agency collects and documents the demographic information discussed in Section 4, above. Character Limit: 1000

Section 5: Participant Income Level

Programs that serve the most economically vulnerable populations in our community stabilize neighborhoods and local economies. Higher scores will be awarded to proposals whose primary program participants are the most economically vulnerable. Note: Depending upon funding source awarded to the proposed program, additional income-level reporting may be required. Area Median Income is used for some program reporting. Q5-1 Income Guidelines Please indicate the estimated percentage (%) of participants whose household incomes fall at or below the income thresholds listed below using the 2017 Department of Health and Human Services Federal Poverty Guidelines, found in Appendix C and online: 2017 Federal Poverty Guidelines

Q5-1 100 Percent of Federal Poverty Level* Income Level - 100% of Federal Poverty Level Character Limit: 3

https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines


16



Q5-2 Income Documentation* Please describe how your agency collects and documents the income information discussed in Sections 5-1 above. Character Limit: 800

Section 6: Program Outcome Achievement (For Current Grantees Only) Applicants that are applying for continued funding for the identified program in this application must answer the following questions. Q6-1 Prior Performance Using prior program performance data submitted to the Washtenaw Coordinated Funders, provide the rationale for why this program should be prioritized for continued funding. Character Limit: 1000 Q6-2 Obstacles & Risks Please surface (1) any obstacles encountered during the past year in operating this program and how your agency addressed them and (2) current and future risks to this program and its impact (e.g. change to Federal, state, and local policy, staffing at your agency, changes to external environment, etc.) and your strategies for managing them. Character Limit: 1000

Section 7: Systems Participation

Systems level efforts can best be described as work your agency is involved with that seeks to break the status quo in the environment your services currently operate in to support participant outcome achievement. Examples of this could include a policy change in the education system to support quality education access, or the development of a care management network that better facilitates service provision and referral streams. There are a variety of networks that convene for systems-level work. Their tactics may include development of services to close gaps, share best practices, community data or engage in public policy advocacy. Higher scores will be awarded to proposals that 1) demonstrate engagement in systems level change and/or 2) demonstrate relevant collaboration within a system and/or between systems that support participant outcome achievement.


17

Q7-1 Network Participation* Describe your agency’s role and participation in the network(s) that contribute to systems-level change. Examples of local networks include the Washtenaw Housing Alliance or a working group of the Washtenaw Health Initiative. Character Limit: 1000

Q7-2 Systems Participation* Describe your agency’s role and participation in the system(s) that contributes to outcome achievement for your program participants. Examples of local systems include the continuum of care supporting housing services, law enforcement, transportation, local government, food system, etc. Character Limit: 1000

Q7-3 Collaborative Relationships* Describe one or more key organizational or institutional partners, their primary roles and responsibilities, and how this partnership contributes to participant success in the proposed program. Character Limit: 1500 Note: For formal collaborative applications, please describe the collaboration strategy for this program, including but not limited to: overall participant process flow; clear roles and responsibilities between agencies; communication protocols which enhance information and referral exchange about shared participants. MOU’s/MOA’s from formal collaborative applicants will be required at the time of contracting.

Q7-4 Affirmation Statement By checking this box, I affirm that all partners identified in the response above are aware that we are referencing our relationship with them as part of this proposal. N/A: No partners are identified in the response above.

Section 8: Accessibility

Planning for the accessibility of a program to a wide array of customers ensures that services are inclusive of diverse participant needs. Higher scores will be awarded to proposals that articulate clear and appropriate plans which address potential barriers to service access by participants. The Washtenaw Coordinated Funders are committed to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion in our grant investments (See Appendix B). If applicable, please speak to those in responses below. Tip: Listing a program's hours of operation or nearby bus-availability does not constitute a clear and appropriate plan to address barriers. The plan must address the specific barriers that your priority population may have and how the program design will mitigate these barriers in an effective way. Q8-1 Affordability of Services* Character Limit: 650

Q8-2 Hours of Operation* Character Limit: 650

Q8-3 Transportation availability (to and from)* Character Limit: 650


18

Q8-4 ADA-accessibility of location and transportation options* Character Limit: 650

Q8-5 Language/culture barriers* Character Limit: 650

Q8-6 Literacy barriers (reading/writing/comprehending English)* Character Limit: 650

Section 9: Program Management

Q9-1 Staffing Structure* Summarize the staffing structure of the program, outlining the key responsibilities of each position as related to the success of the program. Please indicate whether any of these positions are contingent on this grant award. Character Limit: 1500

Q9-2 Program Staff* Summarize the qualifications and experience of program staff and how they are equipped to support participant success. Character Limit: 850 Q9-3 Staff Turnover* How has staff turnover impacted program operations in the past year? How will your agency mitigate the impact of staff turnover on outcome achievement for your participants? Character Limit: 850

Section 10: Program Budget

Note: The Program Budget section is for informational purposes only, and is not part of application scoring.

Q10-1 Budget Template - Please download, complete, and upload.* Download the Budget Template here. File Size Limit: 5 MB Tip: Budget costs should include administrative, operational, and outcome and program evaluation expenses associated with operating the program.

Section 11: Measurement and Program Evaluation

All proposals will be required to select the following items below: 1. A PRIMARY Community –Level Outcome 2. One or more Program Strategy/ies associated with your primary Community-Level Outcome. Programs

are required to measure and report out on all Outcomes corresponding to each Program Strategy selected.

https://washtenawcoordinatedfunders.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/appendix-d-budget-template-revised.xlsx


19

3. One or more Outcome Indicator (OI) associated with each Outcome corresponding to each Program Strategy you selected.

Applicants are allowed, but not required, to select a SECONDARY Community-Level Outcome if the outcomes being produced by the proposed program span more than one Priority Area. Applicants must also select corresponding Program Strategy/ies and Outcome Indicators for the SECONDARY Community-Level Outcome in the appropriate space provided below. Note: Applicants that select more than one Program Strategy or more than one Community-Level Outcome will not be scored more favorably. Scoring will be based upon clear program alignment with each Community-Level Outcome and Program Strategy selected. See Appendix A of this RFP for more detail about the Community-Level Outcomes, corresponding Program Strategies, Outcomes and Outcome Indicators

Q11-1 Primary Community-Level Outcome* Appendix A link Choices

o Early Childhood o School-Aged Youth-Graduation o School-Aged Youth-Safety o Safety Net Health o Nutrition o Housing & Homelessness o Aging

Q11-2 Primary Program Strategy/ies* Please select one (1) or more program strategy/ies that correspond to your selected PRIMARY community- level outcome. Choices

� EC Program Strategy #1: Family Engagement & Parenting Education � EC Program Strategy #2: Access to High-Quality Early Learning � EC Program Strategy #3: Strengthen Parenting & Home Environments � SAY-GRAD Program Strategy #1: Intervention Programming to Foster Literacy, Academic

Success, and School Attendance and Engagement � SAY-SAFETY Program Strategy #1: Out-of-School Programming � SAY-SAFETY Program Strategy #2 Programming that facilitates youth-adult relationships � SAY-SAFETY Program Strategy #3: On-Site School Programming � SNH Program Strategy #1 Benefits Advocacy and Referral Coordination � SNH Program Strategy #2 Positive Maintenance of Services � SNH Program Strategy #3 Expansion of Services or Pilot Programs � NUTR Program Strategy #1 Hunger Relief (Directed Investment, non-competitive) � NUTR Program Strategy #2 Enhancement of Food Security and Nutrition Education � HH Program Strategy #1: Homelessness Prevention and Diversion � HH Program Strategy #2 Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing and/or Homelessness

Outreach � HH Program Strategy # 3 Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) � HH Program Strategy# 4 Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) � AGING Program Strategy #1 Senior Crisis Intervention � AGING Program Strategy #2 Senior Service Network Navigation � AGING Program Strategy #3 Senior Social Integration




20

Q11-3 Primary Outcome Indicators (OI)* Applicants must measure and report on all Outcomes associated with selected Program Strategy/ies. For each Outcome, applicants must select at least one Outcome Indicator (OI) to track progress towards each Outcome for that Program Strategy. Applicants may select up to two (2) Outcome Indicators for a given Outcome. Choices (See Appendix A & Online Application)

Q11-4 Secondary Community-Level Outcome (if appropriate, optional) Appendix A link Choices

o Early Childhood o School-Aged Youth-Graduation o School-Aged Youth-Safety o Safety Net Health o Nutrition o Housing & Homelessness o Aging

Q11-5 Secondary Program Strategy/ies (if appropriate, optional) Please select one (1) or more program strategy/ies that correspond to your selected SECONDARY community- level outcome. Choices

� EC Program Strategy #1: Family Engagement & Parenting Education � EC Program Strategy #2: Access to High-Quality Early Learning � EC Program Strategy #3: Strengthen Parenting & Home Environments � SAY-GRAD Program Strategy #1: Intervention Programming to Foster Literacy, Academic

Success, and School Attendance and Engagement � SAY-SAFETY Program Strategy #1: Out-of-School Programming � SAY-SAFETY Program Strategy #2 Programming that facilitates youth-adult relationships � SAY-SAFETY Program Strategy #3: On-Site School Programming � SNH Program Strategy #1 Benefits Advocacy and Referral Coordination � SNH Program Strategy #2 Positive Maintenance of Services � SNH Program Strategy #3 Expansion of Services or Pilot Programs � NUTR Program Strategy #1 Hunger Relief (Directed Investment, non-competitive) � NUTR Program Strategy #2 Enhancement of Food Security and Nutrition Education � HH Program Strategy #1: Homelessness Prevention and Diversion � HH Program Strategy #2 Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing and/or Homelessness

Outreach � HH Program Strategy # 3 Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) � HH Program Strategy# 4 Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) � AGING Program Strategy #1 Senior Crisis Intervention � AGING Program Strategy #2 Senior Service Network Navigation � AGING Program Strategy #3 Senior Social Integration


https://washtenawcoordinatedfunders.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/appendix-a-draft-outcomes-and-strategies.pdf


21

Q11-6 Secondary Outcome Indicators (OI) (if appropriate, optional) Applicants must report on all Outcomes associated with selected Program Strategy/ies. For each Outcome, applicants must select at least one (1) Outcome Indicator to track progress towards each Outcome for that Program Strategy. Applicants may select up to two (2) Outcome Indicators for a given Outcome. Choices (See Appendix A & Online Application)

Q11-7 Projected Participants Achieving-First Outcome Indicator* Out of the projected unduplicated participants identified in question 4-6 above, how many participants are expected to achieve the selected indicator? Note: This assumes that the total unduplicated number of participants served stated in Q4-6 will be working on the Outcome. Character Limit: 10

Q11-8 Achievement Percentage-First Outcome Indicator* Please calculate this percentage: Number achieving/unduplicated served from Q4-6. Character Limit: 10

Q11-9 Projected Participants Achieving-Second Outcome Indicator Out of the projected unduplicated participants identified in question 4-6 above, how many participants are expected to achieve the selected indicator? Note: This assumes that the total unduplicated number of participants served stated in Q4-6 will be working on the Outcome. Character Limit: 10

Q11-10 Achievement Percentage-Second Outcome Indicator Please calculate this percentage: Number achieving/unduplicated served from Q4-6. Character Limit: 10

Q11-11 Projected Participants Achieving-Third Outcome Indicator Out of the projected unduplicated participants identified in question 4-6 above, how many participants are expected to achieve the selected indicator? Note: This assumes that the total unduplicated number of participants served stated in Q4-6 will be working on the Outcome. Character Limit: 10

Q11-12 Achievement Percentage-Third Outcome Indicator Please calculate this percentage: Number achieving/unduplicated served from Q4-6. Character Limit: 10



22

Q11-13 Projected Participants Achieving-Fourth Outcome Indicator Out of the projected unduplicated participants identified in question 4-6 above, how many participants are expected to achieve the selected indicator? Note: This assumes that the total unduplicated number of participants served stated in Q4-6 will be working on the Outcome. Character Limit: 10

Q11-14 Achievement Percentage-Fourth Outcome Indicator Please calculate this percentage: Number achieving/unduplicated served from Q4-6. Character Limit: 10

Q11-15 Projected Participants Achieving-Fifth Outcome Indicator Out of the projected unduplicated participants identified in question 4-6 above, how many participants are expected to achieve the selected indicator? Note: This assumes that the total unduplicated number of participants served stated in Q4-6 will be working on the Outcome. Character Limit: 10

Q11-16 Achievement Percentage-Fifth Outcome Indicator Please calculate this percentage: Number achieving/unduplicated served from Q4-6. Character Limit: 10

Q11-17 Projected Participants Achieving-Sixth Outcome Indicator Out of the projected unduplicated participants identified in question 4-6 above, how many participants are expected to achieve the selected indicator? Note: This assumes that the total unduplicated number of participants served stated in Q4-6 will be working on the Outcome. Character Limit: 10

Q11-18 Achievement Percentage-Sixth Outcome Indicator Please calculate this percentage: Number achieving/unduplicated served from Q4-6. Character Limit: 10

Q11-19 Projected Participants Achieving-Seventh Outcome Indicator Out of the projected unduplicated participants identified in question 4-6 above, how many participants are expected to achieve the selected indicator? Note: This assumes that the total unduplicated number of participants served stated in Q4-6 will be working on the Outcome. Character Limit: 10

Q11-20 Achievement Percentage-Seventh Outcome Indicator Please calculate this percentage: Number achieving/unduplicated served from Q4-6. Character Limit: 10


23

Q11-21 Projected Participants Achieving-Eighth Outcome Indicator Out of the projected unduplicated participants identified in question 4-6 above, how many participants are expected to achieve the selected indicator? Note: This assumes that the total unduplicated number of participants served stated in Q4-6 will be working on the Outcome. Character Limit: 10

Q11-22 Achievement Percentage-Eighth Outcome Indicator Please calculate this percentage: Number achieving/unduplicated served from Q4-6. Character Limit: 10

Q11-23 Projected Participants Achieving-Ninth Outcome Indicator Out of the projected unduplicated participants identified in question 4-6 above, how many participants are expected to achieve the selected indicator? Note: This assumes that the total unduplicated number of participants served stated in Q4-6 will be working on the Outcome. Character Limit: 10

Q11-24 Achievement Percentage-Ninth Outcome Indicator Please calculate this percentage: Number achieving/unduplicated served from Q4-6. Character Limit: 10

Q11-25 Projected Participants Achieving-Tenth Outcome Indicator Out of the projected unduplicated participants identified in question 4-6 above, how many participants are expected to achieve the selected indicator? Note: This assumes that the total unduplicated number of participants served stated in Q4-6 will be working on the Outcome. Character Limit: 10

Q11-26 Achievement Percentage-Tenth Outcome Indicator Please calculate this percentage: Number achieving/unduplicated served from Q4-6. Character Limit: 10

Q11-27 Measurement Tool(s)* What tool(s) will the proposed program use to measure achievement of the outcomes selected and how does it measure that progress? Character Limit: 800

Q11-28 How will this data be collected?* Describe the methodology (ex: case notes, surveys, participant records) of data collection, frequency of data collection, and the title or role of the person who will collect the indicator data on an on-going basis. Character Limit: 800


24

Section 12: Optional Q12-1 Additional Information Is there anything else you want the Washtenaw Coordinated Funders to know about your proposed program? Character Limit: 500

Section 13: Additional Evaluation: Proposal Clarity & Historic Program Performance

In addition to the narrative responses identified above, staff will also evaluate the clarity of your proposal as well as prior program performance. There is no additional narrative response expected from the applicant for this category. Further explanation of the criteria on which those categories will be evaluated can be found in the Scoring Matrix provided.

CEO Certification

By entering my name below, I acknowledge the following: That all information submitted as a part of this online Request for Proposal (RFP) is true and accurate. That the information contained in this online RFP may be shared with other funders. That the funding request detailed in this online RFP is consistent with the agency's mission, articles of incorporation, and by-laws. I understand that under the Act, an “Iran linked business means an individual or one of the above-listed groups who engages in investment activities in the energy sector of Iran, including, but not limited to, providing oil or liquefied natural gas tankers or products used to construct or maintain pipelines used to transport oil or liquefied gas for Iran’s energy sector or a financial institution extending credit to another person to engage in investment activities in Iran’s energy sector. I further understand that “investment activity” is defined by the Act as an individual or one of the above listed groups that invests $20,000,000.00 or more in Iran’s energy sector or a financial institution that extends credit to another person, if that person uses the credit to engage in “investment activity” in Iran’s energy sector

By signing this bid submission, I certify that I and/or my corporation, company, limited liability company,business association, partnership, society, trust or any other non-governmental entity, organization or group is not an “Iran linked business” as defined by P.A. 517 of 2012 (MCLA 129.311 et seq)(“Act”).

CEO Name Certification* Character Limit: 50

CEO Title* Character Limit: 90

Agency Address* Character Limit: 250

Office Phone*

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(efulzfclbarsys2qkujlv4r2))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-Act-517-of-2012

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(efulzfclbarsys2qkujlv4r2))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-Act-517-of-2012


25

Character Limit: 20

Cell Phone Character Limit: 250

Federal Tax ID* Character Limit: 35

Email address for Purchase Orders* Character Limit: 100

Finance Contact Name* Character Limit: 250

Finance Email Address* Character Limit: 20

Date Certification* Character Limit: 10


26

V. STANDARD PROVISIONS FOR CONTRACTS

A. GRANTS AWARDED BY WASHTENAW COUNTY If a grant is awarded, the selected applicant will be required to adhere to a set of general grant provisions, which will become a part of any formal agreement. These provisions are general principles, which apply to all contractors of service to Washtenaw County. A copy of these general provisions is available on https://coordinatedfunders.org/. A copy may also be obtained by contacting Kimson Johnson, Human Services Program Specialist, Office of Community and Economic Development at [email protected] Final grant provisions will be communicated after award notices are posted.

B. GRANTS AWARDED BY THE CITY OF ANN ARBOR

If a grant is awarded, the selected applicant will be required to execute a contract containing the terms and conditions set forth by the City of Ann Arbor. A copy of the current contract used for human services providers is available on https://coordinatedfunders.org/. A copy may also be obtained by contacting Kimson Johnson, Human Services Program Specialist, Office of Community and Economic Development at [email protected]. Final contract terms will be communicated after award notices are posted.

C. GRANTS AWARDED BY THE WASHTENAW URBAN COUNTY If a grant is awarded, the selected applicant will be required to execute a contract containing the terms and conditions set forth by the Department of Housing & Urban Development and Washtenaw County. A copy of the current contract used for human services providers receiving federal funds is available on https://coordinatedfunders.org/. A copy may also be obtained by contacting Kimson Johnson, Human Services ProgramSpecialist, Office of Community and Economic Development at [email protected]. Final contract terms will be communicated after award notices are posted.

D. GRANTS AWARDED BY UNITED WAY OF WASHTENAW COUNTY If a grant is awarded, the selected applicant will be required to adhere to a set of general grant provisions, which will become a part of any formal agreement. These provisions are general principles, which apply to all human services providers funded by United Way of Washtenaw County. A copy of these general provisions is available on https://coordinatedfunders.org/. A copy may also be obtained by contacting Amanda Reel, Community Impact Manager, United Way of Washtenaw County at (734) 677-7234 or [email protected]. Final grant provisions will be communicated after award notices are posted.

E. GRANTS AWARDED BY ANN ARBOR AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION If a grant is awarded, the selected applicant will be required to adhere to a set of general grant terms, which will become a part of any formal agreement. These provisions are general principles, which apply to all human services providers funded by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. A copy of these general provisions is available onhttps://coordinatedfunders.org/. A copy may also be obtained by contacting Katie Van Dusen, Community Investment & Projects Coordinator, Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation at (734) 663-0401 or [email protected]. Final grant provisions will be communicated after award notices are posted.

F. GRANTS AWARDED BY SAINT JOSEPH MERCY ANN ARBOR If a grant is awarded, the selected applicant will be required to adhere to a set of general grant terms, which will become a part of any formal agreement. These provisions are general principles, which apply to all human services providers funded by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. A copy of these general provisions is available on https://coordinatedfunders.org/. A copy may also be obtained by contacting Elisabeth Vanderpool, Director of Community Health, Saint Joseph Mercy













27

Ann Arbor at (734) 712-1294 or [email protected] . Final grant provisions will be communicated after award notices are posted.

Appendix A Community-Level Outcomes &

Program Strategies - Outcomes and Measurements



28

FY2018 PROGRAM OPERATIONS GRANTS CYCLE PROGRAM STRATEGIES AND OUTCOMES SUMMARY

Published: 10.27.17 Revised: 12.19.17 This date reflects the timing of revisions, which will be infrequent and occur based on the evolving nature of this work.


29

Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary

Table of Contents About the Washtenaw Coordinated Funders………………………………………………………….30

History……………………………………………………………………………………………………...30 Theory of Change…………………………………………………………………………………………30 Our Value…………………………………………………………………………………………………...31

Key Assumptions About Our Work……………………………………………………………………....31 Understanding Equity…………………………………………………………………………………….31

How We Invest Our Resources …………………………………………………………………………...32 Our Community-Level Outcomes, Program Strategies and Program Outcomes………………..34

Community-Level Outcomes…………………………………………………………………………34-36 Program Strategies and Program Outcomes……………………………………………………..36-60

Points of Contact ............................................................................................................................ 60


30

Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary ABOUT THE WASHTENAW COORDINATED FUNDERS HISTORY The Washtenaw Coordinated Funders is a funding collaborative established in 2010. Its partners now include United Way of Washtenaw County, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, Saint Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor, the RNR Foundation, Washtenaw County, the City of Ann Arbor, and the Washtenaw Urban County (represented by the Office of Community and Economic Development).The partnership focuses its collective funding within four (4) priority areas through three (3) funding components intended to: support human services programming; build nonprofit capacity; foster community collaboration and systems-level change. We articulate our mission, vision, impact, and activities in our Theory of Change, featured below. THEORY OF CHANGE

https://washtenawcoordinatedfunders.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/theory-of-change-final.pdf


31

Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary OUR VALUES

• Collaboration - We embrace long-term interactions based on shared mission and goals; and shared decision making and resources

• Equity - We pursue greater access to opportunities and resources for all • Transparency - We are open about our policies and practices • Outcomes - We invest in evidenced-based interventions • People - We keep Washtenaw County people at the center of our work • Adaptive Capacity - Our model will sustainably flex and evolve over time in response to

changing community conditions

KEY ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT OUR WORK The Washtenaw Coordinated Funders . . . . . . are part of the community, and are one participant in many community efforts to improve the community . . . take a long-term approach to affecting community-level outcomes, and acknowledge that changes to those outcomes may be incremental . . . recognize that to affect community-level outcomes requires changes in many community factors; many of these factors may be outside the Washtenaw Coordinated Funders’ influence . . . work together with community partners to select program-level strategies, outcomes and indicators in which direct short-term change can and should be seen. UNDERSTANDING EQUITY The Washtenaw Coordinated Funders use the following definitions of social, racial, and economic equity to guide our work:

• Social Equity - Social equity means that all persons in Washtenaw County have fair and equal access to livelihood, education, resources, and other social securities; full participation in the political and cultural life of the community; self-determination in meeting fundamental needs; and equal status and rights under the law. To achieve social equity, measures must be taken to eliminate enforced social class and discrimination in systems, based on unchangeable parts of a person’s identity, such as race, gender, age, place, sexual orientation, origin, class, or income.

• Economic Equity - Economic equity is the state in which goods and incomes are fairly distributed among all persons in Washtenaw County. Currently, large differences exist in relative incomes for people of different races, ethnicities, and presenting genders. To achieve economic equity, actions must be taken to eliminate poverty and differences in income currently sanctioned by systems, policies, and institutions, and then replaced with systems that produce equal opportunity for all to achieve the American dream of prosperity in return for hard work and a universal system of support that includes an adequate safety net for those in need.

• Racial Equity - Racial equity is the state in which race and ethnicity no longer adversely shape an individual or group’s experience with power, access to opportunity, treatment and outcomes.


32

Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary HOW WE INVEST OUR RESOURCES We invest in best-practice program strategies decided through a collaborative process with grantees and stakeholders. Each strategy evaluates grantee's movement on measurable program outcomes. Achievement on these program outcomes is in service of our community-level outcomes. To best deliver on our value as a grant making collaborative, we will: 1. Identify effective strategic priorities, priority populations, program outcomes and program strategies

• Set measurable program outcomes in collaboration with our grantees • Determine key drivers for change and incorporate them into our funding strategies • Select and execute best-practice strategies that will create the most impact

2. Partner with others • Collaborate closely with organizations from all sectors to advance on our community- level

outcomes • Invite others to “co-invest” with us to achieve our community-level outcomes

3. Evaluate our progress • Report to the community on our progress towards our community-level outcomes, including the

efficacy and effectiveness of our strategic priorities to address them • Engage the community to influence how we improve our model and processes • Adjust our approach as needed

We employ a variety of strategies, beyond grant making, to achieve our strategic priorities including: • Advocacy- we raise our collective voices in support of policies that positively affect our priority

populations • Co-investment- we collectively invest resources to advance on our community-level outcomes • Collaboration- we work together with community partners in service of our community-level

outcomes • Convening- we hold space for enriching peer-learning opportunities and provide technical

assistance • Building Public Awareness- we increase knowledge through sharing valuable resources with

the community • Relationships-we work hard to ensure our community relationships are meaningful and driven

by a collective purpose • Research-we keep ourselves abreast of the most up-to-date research affecting our investment

areas to assure we are making the most meaningful impact possible

FY18-FY20 PROGRAM OPERATIONS FUNDING STRATEGY The Washtenaw Coordinated Funders (Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, St. Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County, the City of Ann Arbor, the Urban County Executive Committee- represented by the Office of Community & Economic Development) seek to achieve a state in which all persons in Washtenaw County are able to achieve their full human potential regardless of race or socio-economic status. To this end, grant funds awarded through the Request for Proposals for the Coordinated Funding 2018 Program Operations Grant Cycle will be deployed through a funding strategy that prioritizes those persons and groups with the greatest needs in our community.


33

The funding strategy is a tool to integrate grant investments across our four priority areas (aging/older adults, housing & homelessness, safety-net health & nutrition, and cradle to career) and focus our finite community resources on those who are in crisis or at-risk of being in crisis. This cycle, our grant investments (estimated $4.6 M annually) will take shape along these guidelines: Prevention Services & Programs: These are services and programs that focus on mitigating or reducing the likelihood of negative outcomes that affect quality of life.

• Target Percentage Dollar Allocation for 2018-2020 Program Operations Funding: 35% - 45% Crisis Intervention Services & Programs: These are services and programs that address community issues as they currently exist: treating the immediate crisis for the individual or family as they arise.

• Target Percentage Dollar Allocation for 2018-2020 Program Operations Funding: 55% - 65% Priority Populations: As a core tenant of the Coordinated Funding Theory of Change – Priority Populations are at the center of our work. Below are the boundary and priority area spanning populations that the Washtenaw Coordinated Funders are prioritizing across the funding portfolio. NOTE: “Target Percentage Dollar Allocations” provide a range for the named priority population, but does not function as a relative portion for the entirety of the Coordinated Funding grant investment portfolio.

• Individuals and families residing in the zip codes of 48197 & 48198 • Target Percentage Dollar Allocation of 2018-2020 Program Operations Funding for zip codes

48197 & 48198: 70 – 75%

• Individuals and families residing in census tracts with a low or very low opportunity score rating on the Washtenaw Opportunity Index • Target Percentage Dollar Allocation of 2018-2020 Program Operations Funding for census tracts

with a low or very low opportunity index score rating: 25 -50%

• Individuals and families with annual incomes at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level • Target Percentage Dollar Allocation of 2018-2020 Program Operations Funding for individuals and

families served who are at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level: 75 - 85%

• Families with newborns enrolled in Medicaid and/or families with children enrolled in the MIChild program • Target Percentage Dollar Allocation of 2018-2020 Program Operations for Families with newborns

enrolled Medicaid and/or families with children enrolled in the MIChild Program: 20-35% • Homebound Seniors3: Estimation of those seniors served by COFU investments that are

homebound • Target Percentage Dollar Allocation of 2018-2020 Program Operations Funding for Homebound

Seniors: 20 – 35%

• Individuals and families experiencing chronic homelessness4 • Target Percentage Dollar Allocation of 2018-2020 Program Operations Funding for Individual and

families experiencing chronic homelessness: 15-30%

3 Home Bound Seniors: Homebound seniors are defined as individuals 60 years of age and older and unable to leave the home unassisted, and for whom leaving home takes considerable and taxing effort due to physical, emotional, or societal factors. 4 Chronic Homelessness: https://www.hudexchange.info/homelessness-assistance/resources-for-chronic-homelessness/ Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary

http://www.opportunitywashtenaw.org/opportunity-index.html




34

OUR COMMUNITY-LEVEL OUTCOMES, PROGRAM STRATEGIES AND PROGRAM OUTCOMES Following are our community-level outcomes*, program strategies and program outcomes. Additionally, we have identified secondary data and rationale for investment in our priority areas. At the onset of the 2018-2020 funding cycle, Sector Leaders (lead organizations for a given priority area) and the Washtenaw Coordinated Funders engaged the network of providers and stakeholders working within each priority area to review, assess, and refine the program strategies and outcomes to:

- Understand how the landscape supporting services in this priority area has changed since the advent of the prior funding cycle

- Identify new or evolved research and best practices in program strategies or outcome measurements

- Co-create and collectively affirm the program strategies and outcome measures that the Washtenaw Coordinated Funders will resource through the 2018-2020 grant cycle

The majority of grant investments will be made through a competitive process. Some of our investments will resource “systems-level” organizations within our priority areas through a non-competitive process. These are organizations that are cornerstones of the systems in which they work, disruption of which would destabilize the system as a whole. We commit to working with our grantees and community partners in assessing and understanding our progress towards achieving community goals, systems-level change and program outcome achievement. * We will continue to modify the Community Indicators associated with community-level outcomes as new measures of community well-being become available and are disaggregated by race, income, and other demographic information. COMMUNITY-LEVEL OUTCOMES All our investments and actions are anchored to the following community-level goals. We acknowledge that positive change on these outcomes will require more than grant funding alone from the Washtenaw Coordinated Funders. Achievement of these community-level outcomes will require aligned funding, advocacy, and systems-change by the ecosystem of human services funders and organizations in Washtenaw County.

PRIORITY AREA

COMMUNITY-LEVEL OUTCOME

OUTCOME INDICATORS

EARLY CHILDHOOD

Increase the developmental readiness of children with low incomes5 (0-5) so they can succeed in school at the time of school entry.

• % of (single birth) babies born at low birthweight • # of children 0-8 who are substantiated victims of abuse or

neglect • # and % of children entering kindergarten ready to learn The

Kindergarten Readiness Assessment6 • Third grade reading scores of children from economically

disadvantaged families • Third grade reading scores of African American children

SCHOOL-AGED YOUTH

Increase the high school graduation rate of

• % of students who graduate high school from MiSchoolData • % of students attending/absent from school from MI SchoolData

5 Low-income is defined as at or below 200% of the Federal poverty limit (FPL) 6 The Kindergarten Readiness Assessment is to be fully implemented in Washtenaw County public and charter schools in the fall of 2018. Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary


35

economically disadvantaged7 youth.

• % of students proficient in reading and math on state standardized tests

Increase the physical and emotional safety of economically disadvantaged children and youth in their homes, schools and communities.

• # of youth arrested or seen at juvenile court for a violent offense • # of runaway reports filed with local law enforcement agencies • # of students expelled from school as reported on MI School

Data • % of students who felt depressed in the last 12 months from

MiPHY • % of students who ever seriously considered attempting suicide

from MiPHY • % of students who feel safe at school from WISD Senior Exit

Survey

SAFETY NET HEALTH & NUTRITION

Increase access to health services and resources for people with low-incomes.

• % of people with low incomes (household income below $35k) with health insurance

• % of people with low incomes who report 10 or more days in month when mental health not good

• % of people reporting general health is 'excellent, very good, or good

Increase food security8 for people with low incomes.

• Percentage of people with low incomes (household income below $35k) who consume 5 or more servings of fruits or veg per day from HIP Survey

• Percentage of adults who accessed food stamps/SNAP within the past 12 months from U.S. Census Bureau

• Percentage of people with low incomes who are food secure from Feeding America’s Map the Meal Gap

HOUSING & HOMELESSNESS

Reduce the number of people who experience homelessness.

• % of households that maintained housing after receiving housing stabilization services

• % of households that were successfully diverted to safe and appropriate alternatives to emergency shelter

• % households permanently and/or positively housed from emergency shelter/transitional housing and/or street outreach

• % households that increase or maintain income and/or benefits • The average or median time that households experience

homelessness (emergency shelter and transitional housing) • % of households that exit rapid re-housing and remained housed

for at least 6 months • % of households enrolled in permanent supportive housing

(PSH) that remain successfully enrolled in PSH or exit to other permanent housing

7 Economically disadvantaged is defined as qualifying for the free or reduced lunch program and/or from families with incomes below 185% of FPL 8 Food insecurity refers to USDA’s measure of lack of access, at times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members and limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate foods. Food-insecure households are not necessarily food insecure all the time. Food insecurity may reflect a household’s need to make trade-offs between important basic needs, such as housing or medical bills, and purchasing nutritionally adequate foods. Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary


36

AGING

Increase or maintain independent living factors for vulnerable adults 60 years of age and older, with low incomes.

• % of vulnerable older adults that increase quality of life score on the 60+ Survey

• % of older adults concerned about losing their housing as reported in Health Improvement Plan and 60+ Survey

• # of days/month older adults reported healthy mental health • # of days that older adults reported mental health preventing

engagement in usual activities PROGRAM STRATEGIES AND OUTCOMES BY PRIORITY AREA Note: Applicants must report out on all outcomes associated with a selected program strategy. For each program outcome, there is one or more outcome indicator. Applicants need only select one outcome indicator to track progress towards an outcome, but are welcome to select and report out on more than one outcome indicator for a program outcome. New this cycle, applicants are invited to select the program strategies that best demonstrate the impact of the proposed program on their participants across priority areas. Selecting multiple program strategies (and corresponding outcomes) does not increase the likelihood of grant funding being awarded.

PRIORITY AREA EARLY CHILDHOOD COMMUNITY-LEVEL

OUTCOME Increase the developmental readiness of children (0-5) with high needs so they can succeed in school at the time of school entry.

KEY RESULTS • High needs children in Washtenaw County have access to quality early childhood education.

• High needs children in Washtenaw County enter kindergarten ready to learn.

PRIORITY POPULATIONS

Children with high needs include: children from birth through kindergarten entry who are from low income families (at or below 200% FPL), families living in low equity/opportunity neighborhoods and/or otherwise in need of special assistance and support. Specifically those children who have disabilities or developmental delays; those who are English learners; those who are migrant, homeless or in foster care; and/or those who are the children of teen mothers.

PROBLEM & KEY DATA

From infancy through high school, children’s educational outcomes are dependent on the quality of their learning experience. Quality early childhood education, in particular, has been shown to have a significant positive effect on future success, because brain circuits are developing actively then.9 In fact, 85% of the brain’s development happens before a child enters kindergarten.10 However, thousands of children in Washtenaw County start school without the skills needed to succeed which can eliminate the achievement, or “opportunity” gap. At present, 66.5% of children in Washtenaw County aged 0-5 live with two parents or single parents who work11. An increasing trend shifting care from parent to provider underscores the need for more high quality early care and

9 Center for the Developing Child. “National Scientific Council on the Developing Child,” 2010. 10 Winter, Suzanne M., and Michael F. Kelley. “Forty Years of School Readiness Research: What Have We Learned?,” 2008. 11 American Community Survey, 2015 Estimate Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary


37

learning outside of the home. However, for many families, particularly those with low incomes, the demand for early care not only exceeds the available supply, but also costs more than they can afford. For a family with an infant and a preschooler in full-time care, the average cost in Washtenaw County is $16,116 annually12, forcing many families to place their children with family and friends in informal care settings.

RATIONALE FOR THIS PRIORITY AREA

High-quality early childhood education is the highest leverage investment in education. Attendance in high-quality early care and education settings is proven to substantially increase the number of children who start school ready to succeed. Every public dollar invested generates a return of up to $16.13 This includes increased economic productivity and reduced reliance on social service programs. The foundation built by early childhood education strongly influences a child’s future academic performance. Research indicates that when children receive quality early childhood education, they are more likely to read at grade level by 3rd grade.14 The number of words a child knows at age 3 strongly correlates with reading and comprehension levels at ages 9 and 10.15 By age 4, children in high-income homes have heard an estimated average of 48 million words while children in the poorest households have heard just 13 million. Ensuring all children are ready for kindergarten helps their peers and the entire education system by reducing the need for expensive remedial education, disruptive discipline and special education programs. Children who are school ready by age 5 are more likely to grow up to be productive in the workplace, a key to economic growth.

PROGRAM STRATEGY #1

Family Engagement and Parenting Education

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Programs with the greatest likelihood of funding should exhibit some of all of the following components: • Uses a research- or evidence-based program design • Adheres to structure & content of program model to ensure fidelity • Is culturally responsive to caregivers and families • Focuses on family strengths rather than deficits • Provides evidence that it will effectively educate caregivers about

parenting, child health and development in all domains (including language development and communication and/or the impact of trauma and toxic stress and ways to build child resilience

• Incorporates one or more of the protective factors of the Strengthening Families Approach: parental resilience; social connections; knowledge of parenting & child development; concrete support in times of need; and social/emotional competence of children

12 ALICE Report, Washtenaw County 13 National Education Policy Center, November 2011 14 The importance of early brain development. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.readyazkids.com/ 15 Ibid. Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary

http://www.readyazkids.com/


38

• Includes a two-generation approach: 1. quality early education for children, 2. workforce training and/or post-secondary education for their parents and 3. a focus on family literacy

• Staffed with professionals trained in the program design who are credible with families

• Includes strategies to engage & connect with families who are economically disadvantaged

• Includes a curriculum-based assessment used to inform instruction, monitor progress and evaluate the program

OUTCOME 1A. Improved caregiver engagement in their child’s learning OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-1: #/% of caregivers who increase participation in activities that

increase protective factors (knowledge, skills, supports, parent-child bonding, family stability) which reduce toxic stress for their young children

• OI-2: #/% of caregivers that engage in activities and parental supports identified in the selected curricula that encourage optimal learning for their children

OUTCOME 1B. Increased capacity of families to navigate community supports that bolster their child’s success

OUTCOME INDICATORS

• OI-3: #/% of caregivers who are referred to needed safety net services • OI-4: #/% of caregivers with increased knowledge of safety net services • OI-5: #/% of caregivers who feel more confident navigating safety net

services • OI-6: #/% of caregivers with increased literacy skills

PROGRAM STRATEGY #2

Access to High-Quality Early Learning

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Programs with the greatest likelihood of funding should exhibit some of all of the following components: • Provide scholarships to children and their families so they can access

high-quality early care and learning programs • Scholarships can only be used with programs that participate in a

quality improvement or rating system, such as NAEYC accreditation or participate in the Great Start to Quality and have a Quality Improvement Plan or a 3, 4 or 5 Star Rating .Programs must also use a recognized evidence-based curriculum and child assessment tool for measurement of child development.

• Includes family engagement components and demonstrates cultural sensitivity and responsiveness and support for English Language Learning parents.

• Scholarship programs must include: o Clear eligibility requirements o Prioritize children with highest need

OUTCOME 2A. Improved quality of early learning programs OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-7: Agency demonstration of a plan for a higher Star Rating in the

Great Start to Quality • OI-8: # of training hours completed by staff on an annual basis.

OUTCOME 2B. Increased kindergarten readiness of children birth - age 4 OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-9: #/% of children demonstrating age appropriate progress, with the

use of a screening or assessment tool such as COR, TS-GOLD or ASQ-3.

• OI-10: #/% of children with high needs who have a documented


39

developmental delay, who are connected with intervention services • OI-11: #/% of children with high needs participating in high quality early

learning programs OUTCOME 2C. Increased family financial stability

OUTCOME INDICATORS

• OI-12: #/% of families who report a reduction in financial burden as a result of receiving a childcare scholarship

• OI-13: #/% of families who report a reduction in stress as a result of receiving a childcare scholarship

PROGRAM STRATEGY #3

Strengthen Parenting & Home Environments

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Programs with the greatest likelihood of funding must meet the DHHS criteria for an evidence-based home visiting program model (per the Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness, HomVEE). The evidence based program chosen must be one that has demonstrated positive outcomes for child development and school readiness. Program examples include:

• Child FIRST • Early Head Start – Home Visiting (EHSHV) • Early Start (New Zealand) • Family Check-Up • Healthy Families America (HFA) • Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) • Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) • Parents as Teachers (PAT) • Play and Learning Strategies (PALS) • Project 12-Ways/SafeCare

Evidence-based curricula should include a curriculum-based assessment used to inform instruction, monitor progress and evaluate the program. Funded programs must demonstrate dosage and fidelity to the evidence-based model.

OUTCOME 3A. Increased kindergarten readiness of children birth – age 4 OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-14: #/% of children demonstrating age appropriate progress, with the

use of a screening or assessment tool such as COR, TS-GOLD or ASQ-3.

• OI-15: #/% of caregivers with increased knowledge about child development

• OI-16: #/% of children served through home visiting programs OUTCOME 3B. Improved parenting skills

OUTCOME INDICATORS

• OI-17: #/% of caregivers who increase participation in activities that increase protective factors (knowledge, skills, supports, parent-child bonding, family stability) which reduce toxic stress for their young children

• OI-18: #/% of caregivers who feel more confident in their ability to care for their children

• OI-19: #/% of caregivers who achieve their family improvement goal OUTCOME 3C. Improved caregiver engagement in their child’s learning

OUTCOME INDICATORS

• OI-20: #/% of caregivers who report engaging regularly in developmentally-appropriate activities with their children such as reading


40

• OI-21: #/% of caregivers that engage in activities and parental supports identified in the selected curricula that encourage optimal learning for their children

PRIORITY AREA SCHOOL-AGED YOUTH - GRADUATION COMMUNITY-LEVEL

OUTCOME Increase the high school graduation rate of economically disadvantaged youth.

KEY RESULTS • Economically disadvantaged youth graduate on time • Economically disadvantaged youth are equipped with the knowledge

and skills necessary to succeed in college or career. PRIORITY

POPULATIONS Economically disadvantaged youth, defined as those who qualify for the free or reduce lunch program and/or youth from families with incomes below 185% of the federal poverty limit. The following populations will be further prioritized for services: children and youth living in low equity/opportunity neighborhoods, youth from single-parent households, youth with incarcerated parents, youth of color, youth disconnected from work and school, homeless youth, and/or court-involved youth.

PROBLEM & KEY DATA

Education is a lifelong experience that begins well before a child ever sets foot in a classroom and continues long past a cap‐and‐gown commencement. It is the broadest avenue to opportunity and the most influential factor in ensuring that children will grow up to do as well or better than their parents. But today’s young Americans are less likely to earn a diploma than their parents, a distinction not shared by any other industrialized country.16 Although the on-time graduation rate for non-economically disadvantaged youth in Washtenaw County is well above the state average (89% versus 79.6%), wide socioeconomic disparities persist. Only 72% of students on free/reduced lunch graduate on time.17


Children are learning to read until fourth grade; after that, they’re reading to learn.18 Students who don’t read on grade level by the time they are in fourth grade typically don’t catch up, and are four times as likely to drop out of high school.19 During the 2016-17 school year, 65% of non-economically disadvantaged 3rd graders in Washtenaw County were proficient in reading, compared to only 24% of economically disadvantaged students.20 A successful transition into middle school, a year when many students are held back or drop out, is especially important to high school success.21 If students do not experience success in middle grades, they are much less

16 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (n.d.). Education at a Glance 2007: OECD Indicators, Indicator A1, Table A1.2a. 17 Washtenaw Alliance for Children & Youth, 2017 Report Card 18 Craig D. Jerald, Identifying Potential Dropouts: Key Lessons for Building an Early Warning Data System. 19 Donald J. Hernandez. Double Jeopardy: How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High School Graduation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation; Center for Demographic Analysis, University at Albany, State of New York; Foundation for Child Development, 2012. 20 2017 WACY Report Card 21 Wheelock, Anne, and Jing Miao. “The Ninth- Grade Bottleneck: An Enrollment Bulge in a Transition Year that Demands Careful Attention and Action.” School Administrator, 2005. Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary


41

likely to experience success later on. By eighth grade, gains in student achievement made during elementary school are often diminished. Notably, during the 2016-17 school year, 75% of non-economically disadvantaged 8th graders were proficient in reading as compared to 38% of economically disadvantaged students. Similarly, the percentage of non-economically disadvantaged 8th graders who were proficient in grade-level math was 63% as compared to 19% of economically disadvantaged 8th graders. We know that middle school students who are held back are seven times more likely to drop out, and 80% of students who repeat a class more than once are likely to drop out as well.22

PROGRAM STRATEGY #1

Intervention Programming to Foster Literacy, Academic Success, and School Attendance and Engagement

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Research indicates that programs should have some or all of the following best practice components:

• Academic-focused programs led by trained tutors using evidence-based approaches that are aligned with school-curriculum

• Programs that engage parents, guardians or caretakers either in programs along with youth or in separate programs with aligned goals, specifically related to improving academic performance and school engagement

• Attendance initiatives • Positive peer groups and/or youth-driven engagement • Evidence-based mentoring for improved academic outcomes • Educational support, including enrollment assistance and advocacy,

accessing tutoring services, test preparation, credit recovery, academic monitoring and other activities to achieve educational goals

• Programs offered outside the classroom and in summer. Programs that engage youth in high-quality programming that supports the development of voice, self-efficacy, and sense of agency by providing opportunities for youth collaboration, leadership, planning, choice, and reflection (see Youth Program Quality Assessment).

OUTCOME 1A. Improved school attendance among chronically absent youth23 OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-22: #/% of youth who increase school attendance, as measured by

PowerSchool or report cards • OI-23: #/% of youth who maintain school attendance, as measured by

PowerSchool or report cards OUTCOME 1B. Improved academic achievement of youth

OUTCOME INDICATORS

• OI-24: #/% of youth who are proficient in core academic subjects (math, English language arts, science, and/or social studies), as measured by PowerSchool, report cards, or research-based and normed pre/post-assessment for the specific subject being targeted to be chosen by the agency.

• OI-25: #/% of youth who earn passing grades in core academic subjects

22 Alexander, Karl, Doris Entwisle, and Nader Kabbani. “The Dropout Process in Life Course Perspective: Early Risk Factors at Home and School.” Teachers College Record 103, no. 5 (2001). 23 “Chronic absence” is defined as students who miss 10% or more days of school per academic year. This definition aligns with the Michigan Department of Education. Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary


42

(math, English language arts, science, and/or social studies), as measured by PowerSchool, report cards, or research-based and normed pre/post-assessment for the specific subject being targeted to be chosen by the agency.

• OI-26: #/% of youth who maintain passing grades in core academic subjects (math, English language arts, science, and/or social studies), as measured by PowerSchool, report cards, or research-based and normed pre/post-assessment for the specific subject being targeted to be chosen by the agency.

PRIORITY AREA SCHOOL-AGED YOUTH - SAFETY COMMUNITY-LEVEL

OUTCOME Increase the physical and emotional safety of economically disadvantaged children and youth in their homes, schools and communities

KEY RESULTS Economically disadvantaged children and youth will experience a decrease in their exposure to trauma, which adversely affects their ability to thrive in and out of school


Economically disadvantaged youth, defined as those who qualify for the free or reduce lunch program and/or youth from families with incomes below 185% of the federal poverty limit. The following populations will be further prioritized for services: children and youth living in low equity/opportunity neighborhoods, youth from single-parent households, youth with incarcerated parents, youth of color, youth disconnected from work and school, homeless youth, and/or court-involved youth.

PROBLEM & KEY DATA

We know that when children are nurtured and well cared for, particularly during their early years, they have better social-emotional, language and learning outcomes. Social-emotional development includes building positive relationships with others (also known as “attachment”), positive peer interactions, self-regulation, and social problem solving.24 These skills have a far-reaching impact, as they are predictive of success in school and positive life-long outcomes. In Washtenaw County, 29% of students are economically disadvantaged, with particularly high percentages in Whitmore Lake (36.5), Lincoln (44.6), and Ypsilanti (74.4). We know that Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES) can negatively affect someone's overall quality of life and well-being throughout the lifespan. According to Kids Count and the Michigan League for Public Policy, rates of confirmed victims of abuse and neglect have been steadily rising from 2009-2015 (6.2 to 10.7%, respectively). In the 2015-16 school year, 1258 youth experienced homelessness and there were 750 confirmed cases of abuse or neglect in Washtenaw County. Washtenaw County also experienced an alarming uptick in the number of completed suicides in 2016: 17 students, aged 15-24, died by suicide. This is

24 Services, S. C. (2012). Investment to Impact: Building the Future. Early Learning Division Outcomes Report 2011-2012. Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary


43

the highest number on record at the Washtenaw County medical examiner’s office.25


Good social-emotional and mental health is a key component of healthy youth development. Poverty, trauma, and inadequate treatment are three factors that have been shown to have a sustained, negative impact on children’s social, emotional and mental health.26 Nationally, just over 20 percent of children (or 1 in 5) have either currently or at some point in their lives experienced a seriously debilitating mental disorder. Child mental health disorders are not only common but can also begin at a very young age, and if undiagnosed and treated, can have long-term consequences. Statistically, children and youth with mental health problems have lower educational achievement, greater involvement with the criminal justice system and fewer stable and longer-term placements in the child welfare system than children with other disabilities.27 Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are stressful or traumatic events-- such as childhood abuse, homelessness, extreme poverty and household dysfunction-- that occur between birth and age 18.28 ACEs can cause changes in the brain that potentially lead to school failure, substance abuse and anti-social behaviors. The more ACEs one has, the greater one’s likelihood of engaging in high-risk behaviors and performing poorly in school. In turn, failing at school, using drugs and engaging in criminal behaviors create a fast track to low wage jobs, chronic unemployment and other conditions leading to poverty.29

PROGRAM STRATEGY #1

Out-of-School Programming

PROGRAM COMPONENTS


• Ensure safe out-of-school and community time and space through structured, supervised spaces and activities for children and youth.

• Utilize curriculum on social emotional and other life skills, as well as harm reduction approaches, evidence-based family-focused services and crisis care, and evidence-based preventive care, treatment, and aftercare.

• Provide programs that prioritize high-risk hours (evenings and weekends).

• Provide opportunities for youth to develop and apply social emotional skills including self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision-making, relationship skills, and social awareness.

• Provide programs that engage parents, guardians or caretakers either in programs along with youth or in separate programs with aligned goals.

• Plan for communication and coordination among schools and other systems in which youth are involved.

25 MLive, http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2017/08/key_takeaways_youth_sucide.html 26 Center for the Study of Social Policy (2012). Results-based public policy strategies for promoting children's social, emotional and behavioral health. 27 Ibid. 28 Burchill-Blaisdell, W., Goldbaum, G., & Serafin, N. (2011). The effects of adverse childhood experiences in Snohomish county. 29Washington State Family Policy Council. (n.d.). Adverse Childhood Experiences. Retrieved from www.fpc.wa.gov. Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary

http://www.fpc.wa.gov/


44

• Staff are trained in cultural proficiency and service delivery is culturally responsive to youth and families served.

Staff trained are trained in positive youth development practices and trauma-informed care.

OUTCOME 1A. Increased youth safety at home OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-27: #/% of youth who report feeling safe at home, as measured by

youth self-reporting. OUTCOME 1B. Improved perception of mental health among youth

OUTCOME INDICATORS

• OI-28: #/% of youth who report an increase in positive well-being, as measured by youth self-reporting.

PROGRAM STRATEGY #2

Programming that facilitates youth-adult relationships

PROGRAM COMPONENTS


• Build relationships between youth and positive, supportive adults who serve as role models, supporters, advocates and/or mentors; relationship is not academic-based.

• Provide for regular contact between mentors and mentees for a minimum of one year.

• Provide opportunities for youth to develop and apply social emotional skills including self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision-making, relationship skills, and social awareness.

• Provide short-term, but high-impact opportunities for youth to build relationships and interact with community members who serve as role models, supporters, advocates and/or mentors such as life skills workshops, internships, job shadows, and career panels.

• Utilize a youth-driven approach that focuses on the needs of youth and aims to develop their competence and potential, including opportunities for youth to inform and drive the relationship and mentorship process such as during the matching process, relationship goal setting, and other support.

• Interactions may focus on helping the young person reach a goal, such as connecting youth with an employment opportunity. Other relationships may be more open-ended and include participation in a variety of activities.

• Provide adults specific training with clear expectations and on-going support.

• Establish processes for monitoring and closing of relationships. • Provide programs that engage parents, guardians or caretakers either

in programs along with youth or in separate programs with aligned goals.



OUTCOME 2A. Increased youth safety at home OUTCOME INDICATOR

• OI-29: #/% of youth who report feeling safe at home, as measured by youth self-reporting

OUTCOME 2B. Increased supportive youth-adult relationships


45

OUTCOME INDICATORS

• OI-30: #/% of youth who report at least one adult outside of their immediate family, as a result of participation in the program, who provides practical and emotional support, as measured by youth self-reporting

• OI-31: #/% of parents, guardians or caretakers engaged as a part of program services

OUTCOME 2C. Improved perception of mental health among youth OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-32: #/% of youth who report an increase in positive well-being, as

measured by youth self-reporting PROGRAM

STRATEGY #3 On-Site School Programming

PROGRAM COMPONENTS


• Support safe school environments through on-site programming. • Focused on conflict resolution, evidence-based restorative practices,

positive interactions and violence prevention. • Efforts foster accountability, community safety, and build social

competency skill development. • Provide opportunities for youth to develop and apply social emotional

skills including self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision-making, relationship skills, and social awareness.

• Promotion of alternative disciplinary responses to enhance communication, explore issues, and resolve conflict such as circles, peer juries, mediation, counseling, and community service.

• Student engagement initiatives. • Programs that engage parents, guardians or caretakers either in

programs along with youth or in separate programs with aligned goals.



OUTCOME 3A. Increased youth safety in school OUTCOME INDICATOR

• OI-33: #/% of youth who report feeling safe in school, as measured by youth self-reporting

OUTCOME 3B. Improved perception of mental health among youth OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-34: #/% of youth who report an increase in positive well-being, as

measured by youth self-reporting

PRIORITY AREA SAFETY NET HEALTH COMMUNITY-LEVEL

OUTCOME Increase access to health services and resources for people with low incomes.

KEY RESULTS • People can more easily access and obtain benefits for which they are eligible

• People have access to quality services to necessary to maintain their health and wellbeing


People with low incomes, immigrants, refugees and those residing in 48197 & 48198 zip codes and western Washtenaw County.

PROBLEM & KEY Poverty is considered a “key driver of health status.” Poverty makes it harder


46

DATA to access health care, healthy food, and other necessities that contribute to health.30 Nearly one-third of all K-12 public school students enrolled in Washtenaw County are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, used as a proxy for poverty. Schools with the highest eligibility are located in the City of Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, and Ann Arbor.31 Further, we know that health inequities persist in Washtenaw County. The average age of death for white people (age 75) is higher than that of Black or African American people (age 62) and 20 years longer than that of Hispanic or Latino people (age 55).32 In Washtenaw County, 92% of residents aged 0‐64 years have health coverage; 8% are uninsured.33 Those in Washtenaw County at highest risk for being uninsured include: Hispanics or Latinos; Black or African Americans; individuals with less than high school education; the unemployed; immigrants and refugees. Many Washtenaw County immigrants are low‐income adults under 65 years of age that do not qualify for government health coverage because they have not been permanent legal residents for at least five years. Many immigrant families have children eligible for Medicaid. Approximately 19% of people of all ages (or 9%) in Washtenaw County have a disability categorized that limits their activity due to a physical, mental or emotional problem. Nearly half of all adults in the US will be diagnosed with a mental illness in their lifetime and 26% of adults. Forty seven (47%) of HIP 2015 Survey respondents reported that cost/insurance coverage was the reason for not accessing mental health treatment.


Individuals with access to healthcare services, on a timely basis, have better health outcomes. Limited access to needed healthcare services can results in reduced health outcomes and potentially unnecessary health complications, including premature death. Removal of barriers to health services and social supports are key factors in facilitating the behavioral changes that can lead individuals of all ages towards improved health and well-being.34 Research demonstrates that reducing health care costs, including Medicare and Medicaid, is beneficial both for society and the consumer. Lowering medical expenses and improving health so that costly medications are no longer needed increases one’s ability to purchase other necessary items

30 Community Commons, Community Health Assessment www.chna.org. 31 US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data, Public School Universe File. Accessed from www.chna.org. 32 MDHHS 2011 33 2015 HIP survey data 34Farley, Tom, & Cohen, Deborah. (2005). Prescription for a healthy nation: a new approach to improving our lives by fixing our everyday world. Boston: Beacon Press. Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary


47

such as food, housing and chore services. PROGRAM

STRATEGY #1 Benefits Advocacy and Referral Coordination

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Programs with the greatest likelihood of funding will: • Assess eligibility for and assist eligible clients in enrolling in and

maintaining benefits including: o Health benefits - Medicaid, Marketplace, VA, Medicare o Food benefits - SNAP, WIC, other food programs o Federal and State financial benefits - child care, State Emergency

Relief, SSI, SSDI o Local programs—Fare Deal, Washtenaw County ID, utility assistance

• Demonstrate the ability to not only assist with initial applications but also

handle trouble-shooting and advocacy with relevant agencies to ensure individuals obtain and maintain the benefits for which they are eligible

-- AND/OR –

• Provide care management or care navigation activities to assist

individuals in finding providers and other assistance for medical, dental, mental health, substance use disorder, and disability needs

All program proposals should include benefits education and health literacy education.

OUTCOME 1A. Increased or maintained access to federal, state, and local benefits and income supports

OUTCOME INDICATORS

• OI-35: #/% of individuals who are assessed for benefits eligibility and income supports

• OI-36: #/% of individuals who completed or received assistance with applications (e.g. assistance with turning in supporting documentation)

• OI-37: #/% of individuals who are approved for benefits and income supports

OUTCOME 1B. Improved connection of priority population to healthcare and social services OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-38: #/% of health referral connections made for individuals • OI-39: #/% of individuals who are referred to needed social services • OI-40: #/% of individuals with increased knowledge of healthcare and

social service system navigation • OI-41: #/% of individuals who feel more confident navigating the

healthcare and social service systems PROGRAM

STRATEGY #2 Positive Maintenance of Services

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Funding will support maintenance of services that contribute to improved health or to the diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of low-income individuals. Services include, but are not limited to: primary care, dental care, mental health services, substance use disorder services, and services to people with disabilities.

Note: A proposed program could still qualify for maintenance of effort funding


48

if it was previously funded outside of Coordinated Funding, to do so it must demonstrate a prior track record and articulate the community need for maintenance services.

OUTCOME 2A. Positive maintenance of services to priority populations OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-42: #/% of individuals [insert priority population name] in [insert

geography name] who receive [type of] services • OI-43: #/% of individuals reporting a positive experience

PROGRAM STRATEGY #3

Expansion of Services or Pilot Programs

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Funding will support: • • Expanded organizational capacity for services, and/or services to a

specific geographic or priority population. Services include but are not limited to: primary care, dental care, mental health services, substance use disorder services, and services to people with disabilities

• Examples of expansion include o adding nontraditional hours o adding staff time o adding language or other translation capacity o expanding an existing program to a new geography or population

-- OR –

• Evidence-based pilot programming to a particular geography and/or priority population.

Note: Expansion refers to a program which demonstrates a documented need for increased capacity. A pilot refers to a program or service that is new to the organization, although it should be an evidence-based practice.

OUTCOME 3A. Increased access to services for priority populations OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-44: #/% of individuals [insert priority population name] in [insert

geography name] who receive [type of] services • OI-45: #/% of individuals reporting a positive experience

PRIORITY AREA NUTRITION COMMUNITY- LEVEL

OUTCOME Decrease food insecurity for people with low incomes

KEY RESULTS • All people in Washtenaw County have improved access to nutritious food

• Barriers to people with low incomes preparing and consuming nutritious food are reduced


People with low incomes, immigrants, refugees and those residing in 48197 & 48198 zip codes and western Washtenaw County.

PROBLEM & KEY DATA

There is still much work to be done to reach those people who struggle with hunger in our community. There are 49,170 food insecure people in Washtenaw County, which translates to a food insecurity rate of 13.9%.35 Of these households, only 61% qualify, based on estimated household income,

35 Map the Meal Gap 2015, Feeding America Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary


49

for SNAP or other federal nutrition programs. This figure is low compared to 74% of food insecure households statewide who qualify for SNAP or federal nutrition programs. We know that each year over 44,000 people in Washtenaw County turn to Food Gatherers’ network of food pantries and meal service programs to feed themselves and their families. This includes 9,717 children and 2,829 seniors.36 Food Gatherers distributes more than 2.4 million pounds of produce each year; however, we know that people with low incomes have low intake levels of fresh fruits and vegetables. Surveys done in FY15 revealed that Food Gatherers’ pantry clients consumed on average less than 2 cups of fruits and vegetables per day (compared to the recommended 4.5 cups). These clients reported very high interest in consuming more fruits and vegetables, yet struggled with the affordability and accessibility of fresh foods. African-Americans in Washtenaw County have 15% higher obesity levels than their white neighbors, and have the highest rates of diabetes throughout the county (2010 Washtenaw County Health Equity Index Report Card) These diseases can be a consequence of poor diet, and show up at higher levels in areas of concentrated poverty. While we are living longer, healthier and more functional lives, a large portion of older adults continue reporting a variety of nutrition-related chronic health conditions. Access to an adequate, safe and healthy diet affects both the health and well-being of an individual as well as the ability to remain at home, which is the desire of most older adults37. Food insecure older adults are 50% more likely to have diabetes, 60% more likely to have congestive heart failure or a heart attack, twice as likely to report fair/poor health, twice as likely to have asthma and three times more likely to suffer depression.38 Even being marginally food insecure ages individuals by nearly 14 years, such that a 64-year old suffering from hunger is likely to have the functional limitations of someone who is 78.39


Access to nutritious food— through food pantries, home delivery programs, or community gardengs-- help alleviate hunger immediately, and it also helps individuals and families with low incomes manage scarce resources. When an individual or family receives free groceries they are able to spend available cash on medical expenses, utilities, transportation or education instead of facing an impossible spending trade-off decision. Furthermore, we know that providing reliable and consistent of access to healthy food resources improves nutrition outcomes and the likelihood of behavior change when it comes to nutritional choices made.40

36 Hunger in America 2014, Feeding America 37 Anyanwu et. al., 2011 38 Ibid. 39 Ziliak et. al., 2008 40 As written by Food Gatherers in their FY16 year-end report to the Washtenaw Coordinated Funders. Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary


50

Re-allocating resources like fresh, healthy food to communities and populations that have experienced the consequences of persistent racial and socio-economic inequity creates the opportunity for more of Washtenaw County people to lead healthier lives. Professor and aging activist Dr. Fernando M. Torres-Gill (1996) sums up the impact of senior hunger best when he says “Malnutrition costs. It costs older people by exacerbating disease, by increasing disability, by decreasing their resistance to infection, and by extending their hospital stays. It costs caregivers by increasing worry and caregiving demands. The entire country pays health care costs related to this increase in complication rates, increasing hospital stays, and increasing mortality rates. Malnutrition costs people and it costs dollars.”

PROGRAM STRATEGY #1

Hunger Relief [Directed Investment. Noncompetitive.]

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Food Gatherers seeks to leverage county, state and federal resources along with private philanthropy for the maximum benefit of people experiencing food insecurity in our community. In service of hunger relief, Food Gatherers will strengthen the food security system in the following ways: Maintain and strengthen the Food Security Network (FSN), a coordinated system comprised of strategic partner pantries that provide community members easy access to a variety of foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables, protein, and non-perishable items in a choice-style pantry. FSN sites provide referrals to additional services to help support individuals on their path to food security. Provide FSN partners with:

• Healthy food for their pantries and free food deliveries • Ongoing technical assistance to optimize operations including free

trainings and peer-learning opportunities • Prepare FSN partners to react to policy changes and coordinate

countywide efforts to adjust services • Collect and share data between Food Gatherers and the FSN on

programs and individuals served in order to understand the impact of programs and opportunities to collaborate

• Promotion of the FSN partners through the Need Food page, phone line, flyers, and coordination of community outreach with other service providers such as schools and health clinics in order to reach underserved populations

OUTCOME 1A. Increased consumption of fruits and vegetables among populations served by Food Security Network partners

OUTCOME INDICATORS

• OI-46: Total pounds of food distributed • OI-47: Total pounds of produce distributed • OI-48: Total pounds of healthy food distributed (F2E or Produce/Protein)

OUTCOME 1B. Improved capacity of Food Security Network members to address hunger


51

relief in Washtenaw County OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-49: Total monetary value of food and services provided to FSN

members through the Annual Benefits of Membership Report • OI-50: # and type of technical assistance offerings provided to to FSN

members • OI-51: # and type of advocacy opportunities provided by GF to FSN

members • OI-52: Positive changes to the food security system made by Food

Gathers and/or FSN members PROGRAM

STRATEGY #2 Enhancement of Food Security and Nutrition Education

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Programs with the greatest likelihood of funding will: • Prioritize individuals with low incomes for services • Demonstrate use of evidence-based practices and/or prior program

impact • Include some or all of the following components:

o Distribute home-delivered meals to eligible people. o Deliver groceries to eligible individuals who can prepare food

themselves o Provide training, support, and supplies for people who would

like to grow their own food • Show support for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans • Provide nutrition education in combination with the distribution of food

or support of home gardening • Enhance, not duplicate, services provided by SNAP-Education or

other existing nutrition education programs • Proposed food distribution services must:

o Use written eligibility criteria which prioritizes people with greatest need

o Cooperate with other home delivered meal programs in the program area so that services are not duplicated

o Clearly describe how many days’ worth of meals will be delivered as well as delivery frequency

• Other strategies can be proposed and must effectively demonstrate the capacity to enhance food security and nutrition education

Note: Eligible people are those who are home-bound (e.g. unable to leave his/her home under normal circumstances), unable to participate in a congregate nutrition program due to physical or emotional difficulties, unable to obtain food or prepare complete meals

OUTCOME 2A. Increased access to healthy foods, including fruits and vegetables OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-53: #/% of participants that improve their health and/or nutritional

status through Meals on Wheels • OI-54: #/% of participants able to remain safely in their own homes as a

result of the nutrition and daily volunteer contact received through home-delivered meals

• OI-55: #/% of participants who reduce frequency of skipping meals • OI-56: #/% of participants getting fruits/vegetables through the program • OI-57: #/% of participants who engage in home and/or community

gardening

https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietary-guidelines


52

OUTCOME 2B. Increased client awareness of nutritional choices OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-58: #/% of participants who report a change in intent to consume fresh

fruits and vegetables • OI-59: #/% of participants who increase frequency of fruit and vegetable

consumption • OI-60: #/% of participants who report selecting and cooking foods lower

in fat, sugar, and salt • OI-61: #/% of participants who report cooking/preparing fresh fruits and

vegetables • OI-62: #/% of participants who report an increase in knowledge around

healthy food choices

PRIORITY AREA HOUSING & HOMELESSNESS COMMUNITY-LEVEL

OUTCOME Decrease the number of people experiencing homelessness

KEY RESULTS • A reduction in the number of people experiencing homelessness for the first time

• People experience homelessness for brief periods of time (less than 45 days)

• A reduction in the number of people who experience recurring homeless episodes, following a permanent placement

• A reduction in the number of people counted during the annual Point-In-Time Count


• Individuals and families experiencing chronic homelessness • Individuals and families with disabling conditions • Individuals and families disproportionately impacted by homelessness

in Washtenaw County (per local trend data) PROBLEM & KEY

DATA It is generally good to live in Washtenaw County, where high-level analysis reflects a healthy, wealthy, and thriving populace compared to other counties in the state and nation. In fact, Washtenaw County was ranked the third “hottest housing” market in the country. While the County’s housing market presents as a thriving metro area for those with assets and incomes above AMI, safe and affordable housing remains a precious and limited commodity for individuals and families in Washtenaw County with low incomes. The 2016 Annual Homeless Count report revealed that 5,346 people accessed homeless services in Washtenaw County. Deeper analysis highlighted that 3,425 people resided in an emergency shelter, transitional housing program or a place not designed for human habitation. Additionally, the 2017 Annual Point-In-Time Count (PIT) revealed that 300 people experienced homelessness in Washtenaw County on January 26, 2017. This point-in-time data can be used to paint the picture of what homelessness looks like on any given night in Washtenaw County. Further analysis of the PIT data revealed disparities when considering race and disability. Over 50% of those counted identified as African American, and nearly 40% reported having a disabling condition.


Homeless services and housing programs provide a critical safety net for people experiencing homelessness in Washtenaw County. Not only do these services and programs address the immediate housing insecurity, but they provide much needed stabilization in other basic need domains (food,


53

medical and behavioral health, and employment and benefits), as persons experiencing homelessness are often unable to address other needs until their immediate shelter needs are resolved. Decades of research indicates that ending homelessness begins and ends with housing. Homeless services and housing programs are leveraged to end homelessness for: families, unaccompanied youth, veterans, seniors, people surviving domestic violence and human trafficking, individuals with disabilities and those experiencing chronic homelessness. To that end, we must continue to invest resources in homeless services and housing programs that aid in ensuring that homelessness is rare, brief and non-recurring in Washtenaw County.

PROGRAM STRATEGY #1

Homelessness Prevention and Diversion

PROGRAM COMPONENTS


• Provide financial assistance and support services to quickly stabilize those most at-risk of homelessness

• Intake and assessment through Housing Access for Washtenaw County (HAWC)

• Housing search assistance as needed • Housing placement services as needed • Linkage to appropriate support services as needed • Progressive engagement approach to case management: Programs

should make efforts to maximize the number of households able to be served by providing households with the financial assistance in a progressive manner, providing only the assistance necessary to stabilize in permanent housing.

• Provide diversion services to find safe and appropriate housing alternatives to entering shelter through problem-solving conversations, identifying community supports, and offering lighter touch solutions.

OUTCOME 1A. 60% of households served maintained existing housing, or moved to other permanent housing, after receiving direct financial assistance for housing- related payments and/or housing stabilization services as measured by the homeless management information system (HMIS)

OUTCOME INDICATOR

• OI-63: #/% of households served that maintain their housing or move to other permanent housing post intervention

OUTCOME 1B. 60% of households served remained stably housed for 3 months after service intervention as measured by HMIS

OUTCOME INDICATOR

• OI-64: #/% of households that remain stably housed post intervention (financial assistance and/or non-financial housing stabilization supports)

OUTCOME 1C. For Diversion programs, 33% of households who receive diversion assistance were diverted to safe and appropriate alternatives to emergency shelter as measured by HMIS

OUTCOME INDICATOR

• OI-65: #/% of household assisted with diversion assistance that are successfully diverted from emergency shelter

PROGRAM STRATEGY #2

Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing and/or Homelessness Outreach


54

PROGRAM COMPONENTS


• Provide low-barrier, short-term and housing-focused interventions designed to move people quickly into permanent housing

• Intake and assessment through HAWC or coordination through existing system of care

• Engage people experiencing homelessness in support services through targeted outreach

Recent research suggests that transitional housing should be used only for populations “in transition”. It is recommended only for youth and those in substance abuse recovery.

OUTCOME 2A. 60% of leaver households exit to permanent and/or positive housing (including RRH and PSH) as measured by HMIS

OUTCOME INDICATOR

• OI-66: #/% of households that exit to permanent housing from emergency shelter, transitional housing and/or street outreach

OUTCOME 2B. 50% of leaver households increase or maintain income and/or benefits as measured by HMIS

OUTCOME INDICATORS

• OI-67: #/% of households that acquired income and/or benefits during emergency shelter, transitional housing, and/or street outreach during program enrollment

• OI-68: #/% of households that increase or maintain their income and/or benefits after exiting emergency shelter, transitional housing, and/or street outreach

OUTCOME 2C. The average and median lengths of time households are homeless (which includes time spent in ES and TH) is less than 45 days, as measured by HMIS

OUTCOME INDICATOR

• OI-69: #/% of households who exit emergency shelter and transitional housing in 45 days or less

PROGRAM STRATEGY # 3

Rapid Re-Housing (RRH)

PROGRAM COMPONENTS


• Intake and assessment through HAWC and all referrals made by the HAWC Community Housing Prioritization (CHP) Committee

• Housing identification services: Help households access units that are desirable and sustainable by recruiting and retaining landlords and housing managers willing to rent to program participants who may otherwise fail to pass typical tenant screening criteria

• Move-in and Rent assistance: Provide short-term help to households so they can pay for housing, including paying for security deposits, move-in expenses, rent, and utilities.

• Case management and services: help participants obtain and move into permanent housing, support participants to stabilize in housing, and connect them to community and mainstream services and supports if needed.

• Progressive engagement approach to case management: Programs should make efforts to maximize the number of households it is able to serve by providing households with the financial assistance in a progressive manner, providing only the assistance necessary to stabilize in permanent housing.


55

• A Housing First model in which “housing assistance without preconditions or service participation requirements, and rapid placement and stabilization in permanent housing are primary goals”.

OUTCOME 3A. Reduce the length of time households remain homeless: households served

by the program should move into permanent housing in an average of 30 days or less from referral date to lease-up, as measured by HMIS

OUTCOME INDICATOR

• OI-70: #/% of households served in RRH that move into permanent housing within 30 days or less from program referral date

OUTCOME 3B. 80% of leaver households exit to a permanent housing destination (defined in the glossary of terms) as measured by HMIS

OUTCOME INDICATOR

• OI-71: #/% of households to exit to a permanent housing destination

OUTCOME 3C. 60% of leaver households increase or maintain income and/or benefits as measured by HMIS

OUTCOME INDICATORS

• OI-72: #/% of households that exit RRH with increased or stable income and/or benefits

• OI-73: #/% who acquired income and/or benefits during RRH program enrollment

OUTCOME 3D. 85% of households that exit a rapid re-housing program to permanent housing will not become homeless again within 6 months, as measured by HMIS

OUTCOME INDICATORS

• OI-74: #/% of households that exit RRH to permanent housing • OI-75: #/% of households that exit RRH who maintain permanent housing

for at least 6 months following RRH exit PROGRAM

STRATEGY# 4 Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)

PROGRAM COMPONENTS


• Provide homeless persons with safe, decent, affordable housing units attached to the supports and case management necessary to keep people with significant challenges (such as mental illness, and substance use disorder) housed

• Intake and assessment through HAWC and all referrals made by the HAWC Community Housing Prioritization (CHP) Committee

• Provides tenant households with a lease or sublease identical to non-supportive housing — with no limits on length of tenancy, as long as lease terms and conditions are met

• Evidence-based approaches to case management, such as Critical Time Intervention

• A Housing First model in which “housing assistance without preconditions or service participation requirements, and rapid placement and stabilization in permanent housing are primary goals”

OUTCOME 4A. 90% of all leaver and stayer households served retain permanent housing or move to other permanent housing, as measured by HMIS

OUTCOME INDICATOR

• OI-76: #/% of households who remain housed in PSH programs or exit to other permanent housing destinations

OUTCOME 4B. 60% of adult leavers and stayers served increase or maintain income and/or benefits as measured by HMIS

OUTCOME • OI-77: #/% of adults who exit from PSH that increase or maintain their


56

INDICATOR income PRIORITY AREA AGING COMMUNITY- LEVEL

OUTCOME Increase or maintain independent living factors* for vulnerable adults with low incomes who are 60 years of age and older *Independent living factors are those that lead to an older adult’s ability to age in the location of their choosing (age in place). Factors can include matters related to finance, housing, physical and mental health, social support, transportation, and personal care.

KEY RESULTS • Vulnerable older adults with low incomes are able to age in place with a better quality of life

• Vulnerable older adults with low incomes have increased access to services that maintain or improve their quality of life


Older adults with low incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) who are residing in rural townships, subsidized housing units, mobile home communities, homebound, non-native English speaking, as well as those living alone.

PROBLEM & KEY DATA

There are an estimated 65,756 individuals who are 60+ in Washtenaw County based on SEMCOG datasets. In the next 25 years, it is projected that the older adult population will increase to 108,129 people – with the majority of individuals being over 75 years old. Roughly 4,300 seniors in Washtenaw County are living at our below 125% of the Federal Poverty Level. To qualify for this category, the senior’s individual or household income ranged between $14,000 - $19,000. For older adults to maintain independent living in Washtenaw County without public or private assistance, the following financial considerations need to be taken into account. Based on the Elder Economic Security Standard Index (which includes costs for housing, medical care, food, transportation), a single older adult that rents needs an annual income of $26,184 and a couple that rents needs an annual income of $38,604 to maintain independent living without any support.41 For many of the estimated 4,300 low income older adults, this in not attainable. Also in Washtenaw County, we know that older adults that reside in the zip codes of 48197, 48191, 48160, and 48198, have a projected life expectancy below 79 years of age. Compared to seniors that reside in the zip codes of 48104 and 48105 live on average 5 years more than their counterparts. Additionally, when we factor in race, White or Caucasian individuals have a life expectancy of 80 years, compared to People of Color who have a life expectancy of 66 year – in total a 14 year disparity in life expectancy in Washtenaw County.


Today older adults across our County, especially those on fixed incomes, are forced to make the difficult choice between food, medicine, or housing. On top of that, they must learn to navigate an incredibly complex health and social support system in order to meet their needs. Vulnerable older adults in particular, have difficulty accessing and utilizing the services that are

41 Elder Economic Security Standard Index: https://www.ncoa.org/economic-security/money-management/elder-index/ Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary

https://www.ncoa.org/economic-security/money-management/elder-index/

https://www.ncoa.org/economic-security/money-management/elder-index/


57

available in our community, especially when they are in a crisis. We can do better as a community to make sure that older adults have the support network that they need not only during a crisis, but also in times of stability.

PROGRAM STRATEGY #1

Senior Crisis Intervention Movement by older adults with low incomes from crisis to a more stable condition as measured by the self-sufficiency assessment tool.

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Information, support, resources, referral and benefits access and advocacy for seniors who are in imminent risk for losing their independence. Programs with the greatest likelihood of funding will employ some of all of the following:

• Strategies or tools for identifying at-risk seniors (e.g. current case loads, outreach, referrals, waitlists)

• Strategies or tools for client and crisis needs assessment (e.g. self-sufficiency assessment tool)

• Use an integrated services team approach in crisis intervention planning

• Provide urgent and intensive case management (e.g. coordination of services, sharing of resources, capitalizing on subject-matter expertise of providers)

• Strategies for personal contact with client (e.g. in-home, telephone, or other technology)

• Strategies for re-assessment for continuation of service or discharge • Use Motivational Interviewing techniques to achieve positive

environment and behavior change • Strategies to ensure crisis interventions are person-centered and

culturally competent • Assess the intervention’s outcome (e.g. post-intervention self-

sufficiency assessment) • Engage in short-term interventions (≤6 months)

OUTCOME 1A. Improved stability of vulnerable adults with low incomes OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-78: # of participants served • OI-79: #/% of participants who became more stable as a result of

services (moved along the self-sufficiency continuum) • OI-80: #/% of participants who exited services at the safe and thriving

levels Outcome measurement tool: Abbreviated Arizona Self Sufficiency Scale Derivative

OUTCOME 1B. Increased or maintained access to federal, state, and local benefits and income supports

OUTCOME INDICATORS




• OI-84: Average cash value of benefits received per participant as a result of intervention (excluding intervention costs)

• OI-85: Total cash value of benefits received by participants annually as a result of intervention (excluding intervention costs)


58

Outcome Measurement Tool: Tracking of cash and cash equivalents as measured in market value and/or cash equivalents.

PROGRAM STRATEGY #2

Senior Service Network Navigation Increased or maintained protective factors and decreased risk factors for vulnerable, low-income older adults as measured by the self sufficiency assessment tool and economic status enhancement reports

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Programs with the greatest likelihood of funding will employ some of all of the following validated or best-practice components: • Strategies or tools for client service needs assessment (pre-intervention

self sufficiency assessment tool) • Provision and coordination of in-home or community based services in an

individual or group format • Utilization of Resiliency approach

- Focuses on identifying and developing protective factors - Targets at-risk seniors - Targets during times of transition and stress (e.g. bereavement,

decline in health, change in housing/finances) - Focuses on fostering supportive environments (e.g. access to aging

services network and social support) • Strategies to ensure ease of access to benefits and navigation of senior

service network (i.e. visible presence in community, on bus line, hours of operation, benefit application assistance, ADA accessible, staff availability, etc.)

• Awareness and promotion of local aging resources • Utilization of Motivational Interviewing techniques enhance self

management skills and achieve positive environment and behavior change.

• Strategies to ensure services are person-centered and culturally competent

• Protocol for routine follow-up with clients • Assess the intervention’s outcome (e.g. post-intervention self-sufficiency

assessment and economic status enhancement ) • Strategy #2 services are typically less intensive than Strategy #1

services. OUTCOME 2A. Increased financial stability of vulnerable adults with low incomes


59

OUTCOME INDICATORS




• OI-89: Average cash value of benefits received per participant as a result of

• OI-90: #/% of participants that experienced enhanced economic status from accessing new benefits

• OI-91: Average cash value of benefits received per participant as a result of intervention (excluding intervention costs)

• OI-92: Total cash value of benefits received by participants annually as a result of intervention (excluding intervention costs)

Measurement Tools: Service navigation benefit value calculator & benefits access return on investment report

OUTCOME 2B. Maintained independence of vulnerable adults with low incomes OUTCOME

INDICATORS • OI-93: #% of participants who report the program helped them get

needed services • OI-94: #/% of participants who report the services received were needed

to enable them to stay in their home Measurement Tool: Program assessment tool

PROGRAM STRATEGY #3

Senior Social Integration Improved or maintained senior social integration as measured by the Center for Disease Control Health Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) Healthy Days Symptoms Module

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Provide outreach, activities, information, resources, referral and advocacy to help seniors improve or maintain social integration. Programs with the greatest likelihood of funding will employ some of all of the following validated or best-practice components:

• Provision of preventive, community based services in an individual or group format (e.g. adult-day programs, senior centers)

• Orientation of evidence-based programs and activities around the Six Dimensions of Wellness Model

• Utilization of Motivational Interviewing techniques to assist in assessing participant social isolation risk and achieving positive environment and behavior change

• Provision of person-centered, culturally appropriate information, resources, and referral to other community programs/ services based on identified participant needs and preferences

• Routine assessment of participant social integration status using the CDC HRQOL Healthy Days Symptoms Module

• Provide longer-term services (≥6 months) OUTCOME 3A. Improved quality of life among vulnerable adults with low incomes

OUTCOME INDICATORS

• OI-95: #/% of participants who report an increase in number of days they feel good/healthy

• OI-96: #/% of participants who report an increase in number of days with healthy mental health as reported in HRQOL Healthy Days Symptoms Module factors for depression, anxiety


60

• OI-97: #/% of participants who report same number of days with healthy mental health as reported in HRQOL Healthy Days Symptoms Module factors for depression, anxiety

• OI-98: #/% of participants who report a decrease in number of days that mental health prevents them from engaging in usual activities

Measurement Tool: HRQOL Healthy Days Symptoms Module OUTCOME 3B. Reduced social isolation among vulnerable adults with low incomes

OUTCOME INDICATORS

• OI-99: #/% of participants who report participation in program activities helped maintain their social integration status

Washtenaw Coordinated Funders Points of Contact Questions regarding the grants cycle may be directed to any of the below Coordinated Funding staff:

POINTS OF CONTACT REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

(RFI) PROCESS United Way of Washtenaw County Bridget Healy [email protected] Amanda Reel [email protected]

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL(RFP) PROCESS

Office of Community & Economic Development Mercedes Brown [email protected] Kimson Johnson [email protected]

CAPACITY BUILDING Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation Jillian Rosen [email protected] Katie Van Dusen [email protected]

TCC EVALUATION AND OTHER INQUIRIES

Elisabeth Vanderpool, Saint Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor [email protected]

Questions regarding the program strategies, components, program outcomes and measurements can be directed to the below Coordinated Funding staff:

PRIORITY AREA

POINTS OF CONTACT

EARLY CHILDHOOD Bridget Healy [email protected]

SCHOOL-AGED YOUTH Jillian Rosen [email protected]

SAFETY NET HEALTH & NUTRITION Elisabeth Vanderpool [email protected]

HOUSING & HOMELESSNESS Mercedes Brown [email protected]

AGING Jillian Rosen [email protected]

Washtenaw Coordinated Funders: FY18 Program Strategies and Outcomes Summary














61

Appendix B Key DEI Definition


62

Appendix B: Key Definitions for Washtenaw Coordinated Funders RFP #7454

Diversity - Being composed of a demographic mix of an intentional collection of people, taking into account elements of difference across national origins, languages, ethnicities, races, skin colors, cultures, generations, religions, spiritualties, socio-economic backgrounds, gender identities and sexual orientations, as well as different skills, abilities, customs, values, behavioral styles and beliefs.11

Equity- We define equity as the presence of justice and fairness within the procedures, processes, and distribution of resources by institutions or systems2 Social Equity - Social equity means that all persons in Washtenaw County have fair and equal access to livelihood, education, resources, and other social securities; full participation in the political and cultural life of the community; self-determination in meeting fundamental needs; and equal status and rights under the law. To achieve social equity, measures must be taken to eliminate enforced social class and discrimination in systems, based on unchangeable parts of a person’s identity, such as race, gender, age, place, sexual orientation, origin, class, or income. Economic Equity - Economic equity is the state in which goods and incomes are fairly distributed among all persons in Washtenaw County. Currently, large differences exist in relative incomes for people of different races, ethnicities, and presenting genders. To achieve economic equity, actions must be taken to eliminate poverty and differences in income currently sanctioned by systems, policies, and institutions, and then replaced with systems that produce equal opportunity for all to achieve the American dream of prosperity in return for hard work and a universal system of support that includes an adequate safety net for those in need. Racial Equity - Racial equity is the state in which race and ethnicity no longer adversely shape an individual or group’s experience with power, access to opportunity, treatment and outcomes.

Historical and Systematic Racism- Present day conditions resulting from institutional (e.g. government) policies, cultural practices and/or historic injustices, from slavery to segregation to redlining (the practice of denying services, either directly or through selectively raising prices, to residents of certain areas based on the racial or ethnic composition of those areas). For example, the great expansion of wealth post WWII was fueled by policies such as the GI Bill, which mostly helped white veterans attend college and purchase homes with guaranteed mortgages, building the foundation of an American middle class which largely excluded people of color.3

Inclusion – The full engagement of individuals sharing power at all levels of an organization. All members are valued, respected and supported. The act of inclusion is reflected in an organization’s culture, practices and relationships that support a diverse workforce and is an intentional demonstration that counters the historical exclusion of underrepresented communities. Inclusive organizations ensure equal and full participation in decision-making processes by considering all views. While a truly “inclusive” group is necessarily diverse, a “diverse” group may or may not be “inclusive.”4

Marginalized People and/or Populations- Those excluded from mainstream social, economic, cultural, or political life. Examples of marginalized populations include, but are by no means limited to, groups excluded due to race, religion, political or cultural group, age, gender, or financial status.5


63

Appendix C Income Thresholds


64

Income Thresholds

2017 Federal Poverty Guidelines (as published by HHS)

Household Size Income Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 200% $24,120 $32,480 $40,480 $49,200 $57,560 $65,920 $74,280 $82,640 185% $21,978 $29,637 $37,297 $44,955 $52,614 $60,273 $67,951 $75,647 100% $12,060 $16,240 $20,420 $24,600 $28,780 $32,960 $37,140 $41,320

Effective 1/26/2017. Data Location: https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines

2017 WORKING DOCUMENT

INCOME LIMITS & AFFORDABLE HOUSING LIMITS (as published by HUD)

2017 Income Limits- Washtenaw County (as published by Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 120% Median $74,200 $84,800 $95,400 $106,000 $115,120 $131,840 $148,560 $165,280 Median income $61,900 $70,700 $79,500 $88,300 $95,400 $102,500 $109,500 $116,600 85% AMI (Covenant Units Only)

$52,615 $60,095 $67,575 $75,055 $81,090 $87,125 $93,075 $99,110

Low income (80% / 78%)

$47,600 $54,400 $61,200 $68,000 $73,450 $78,900 $84,350 $89,800

Low income (60%) $37,100 $42,400 $47,700 $53,000 $57,560 $65,920 $74,280 $82,640 Very low income (50%)

$30,950 $35,350 $39,750 $44,150 $47,700 $51,250 $54,750 $58,300

Extremely low income (30%)

$18,550 $21,200 $23,850 $26,500 $28,780 $32,960 $37,140 $41,320

Effective 4.14.17 for all programs except HOME. Note: the 80% AMI level may not exceed the U.S. Median level. Consequently, our median income is actually 78% of median income. Data Location https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2017/2017summary.odn

https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2017/2017summary.odn


65

Appendix D County Maps


66


67


68


69


70

Appendix E Budget Template


71

Washtenaw Coordinated Funders FY 18-19 Budget Appendix E - Budget Template

Agency Name

Program Name

SECTION 1: ANNUAL EXPENSES

Please identify all programmatic expenses

Total Project Expenses

Washtenaw Coordinated

Funders Request Explanation

Salaries, Benefits, Payroll Taxes

$ -

$ -

Please list the number and titles of FTEs supported by this budget. Please also indicate whether or not all employee wages paid through this Coordinated Funding request comply with local living wage ordinances.

Professional Fees/Contracts

$ -

$ -

Please describe.

Equipment

$ -

$ -

Please describe.

Rent/Utilities

$ -

$ -

Please describe.

Training

$ -

$ -

Please describe.

Printing/postage/publications

$ -

$ -

Please describe.

Supplies

$ -

$ -

Please describe.

Other

$ -

$ -

Please describe.

TOTAL $ -

$ -


72

SECTION 2: ANNUAL REVENUE

Please describe the external funding sources (secured or pending) that support this program.

Total Project Revenues Explanation

Coordinated Funding Program Grant

$ -

Government Grants/Contracts

$ -

Please describe all applicable funding sources

Corporate Grants

$ -


Foundations Grants

$ -


Program Service Fees

$ -

Describe the source of program fees

Individual Contributions (describe)

$ -


Other Revenue (describe)

$ -


TOTAL PROPOSED REVENUE

$ -

Documents

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #7454 COORDINATED FUNDING...Only agencies that received an approved response to the Request for Information #7454 are eligible to respond to this Request for Proposal