The Partnership to Prevent and End Homelessness

The Partnership to Prevent and End Homelessness

in the City of Alexandria

Ranking Committee Meeting

Notes

/

August 17 & 18, 2017

/

12:30pm

/

Atrium conference room, DCHS 2525 Mount vernon avenue

Type of meeting / Ranking Committee – called to order at 12:359m by Stefan Caine
Attendees Present / Jennifer Skow, Brendan Haley, Stephanie Carl, Stefan Caine, Shelley Murphy, Allen Lomax
visitors
Members excused
Members Absent
Note taker / Stefan Caine

Agenda

I / Call Meeting to Order
II / Overview of the Process
Renewal projects were monitored in April, producing scores that will inform an objective project prioritization list created by the Ranking Committee. An outline of this process, scoring standards, and final scores are posted to the Partnership’s website.
To prioritize the new projects, the ranking committee will first select the best new project proposal to go forward with the application based on their submitted Notices of Intent. The Notices of Intent along with community data will then inform the objective prioritization of the selected new projects.
New funding opportunities are limited in scope because of the size of our annual renewal demand, and in community fit due to federal funding requirements. This year for the first time, renewal grants were eligible to apply for new funding to expand their existing programs. All Notices of Intent submitted were to expand existing programs, so some data from those programs’ previous operating year was used in the decision.
Action items / Person responsible / Deadline
III / Review Bonus Project Proposals
New Hope PSH - program aims to add 2 additional units and serve 3 additional people over the course of its grant term with $47,079 in bonus funding
·  Both PSH and RRH have their merits in certain applications, but the greater need at the present in Alexandria seems to be PSH units;
·  New Hope proposal is focused on clients with higher housing barriers (harder to serve) than B2i’s proposal;
·  Past program performance, while good to know, should not dictate the decision about a bonus proposal, but rather community need;
·  The program proposal aims fill a sizeable gap in the CoC according to the numbers; This past year’s PIT saw a large number of singles, and especially singles with a Serious Mental Illness and or a Substance Abuse disorder, which this program targets;
·  Cost per client does not increase as much as the other proposal for the same amount of additional dollars; Cost per client not unreasonable either considering the intensity of services offered in the program;
·  The CoC has 47 PSH beds at present and all are occupied; Meanwhile the Chronic Homeless by-names list stands at 43 indicating a sizeable population in Alexandria still in need and eligible for HUD-PSH;
·  System performance measures can improve exponentially by targeting the Chronic Homeless population because they’re statistical outliers in many of the measurements, “Length of Time Homeless” especially;
·  Program offers to lease an additional two units as opposed to one;
·  It would be helpful for evaluation if the proposal included all levels of match and leveraging so that cost per client could be compared more equivocally;
B2I RRH – program aims to add one additional unit and serve one additional household (2-3 people) over the course of its grant term with $47,079
·  Considering the short-term nature of Rapid Rehousing, the committee had hoped to see more than one household increase for the amount of available bonus funding, though it was noted that this is likely due to the nature of HUD’s rental assistance projections in the application;
·  The city’s new standard operating procedures for RRH programs may lead to the program serving more families than proposed, but that information was not immediately apparent;
·  Around 150 households are housed through one of the city’s 3 rapid rehousing programs per year indicating higher availability of services for this population than the Chronically Homeless; there are also over 20 units of transitional housing for families; However, there is still a sizeable gap and a definite need for RRH for families, illustrated by 30 homeless families in shelter;
·  The supports available for households with children are ample, allowing the program to leverage many more community resources;
·  The amount of match and leveraging are a great supplement to the program and would further drive down an impressive cost-per-client balance;
On 8/18/16 Ranking Committee reached consensus and selected the New Hope Permanent Supporting Housing - Bonus Project Proposal to be included in the FY17 HUD CoC Competition. They felt the community need for Permanent Supportive Housing units was too much to ignore, particularly illustrated by the CoC’s Chronic Homeless which is currently stagnating at 43 people. That service gap was equally highlighted in recent PIT numbers of singles with a substance abuse disorder or severe mental illness. While the program’s cost effectiveness was not ideal it did not seem unreasonable considering the severity of clients’ needs. Furthermore, targeting this population will affect a larger improvement on the CoC’s system performance measures because these clients represent statistical outliers in several of the metrics, especially Length of Time Homeless.
The Ranking Committee felt Bridges submitted a well-thought proposal and made a strong case for themselves considering the cost effectiveness of the program as well as the additional dollars they’re able to match and leverage for clients. Likewise, the community need for this intervention was made apparent on last years’ PIT with 30 homeless families counted this past January. However, it was recognized that there is currently more support for this population in the CoC than chronic singles, including 2 other RRH programs serving another 100+ families per year and 20+ Transitional Housing units for families. Finally, adding one unit instead of two like the PSH proposal was a disadvantage. The Ranking Committee felt that the RRH program could make up the difference by graduating clients quickly and serving more than one family in that additional unit over the course of a year (each for 6 months or less), but such a plan was not explicitly stated in the proposal.
Action items / Person responsible / Deadline
Meeting with Remaining Ranking Members / CoC Lead Administrator / 8/18/16
Approve Final Decision / Ranking Committee / 8/18/16
Notify Selected Applicant / CoC Lead Administrator / 8/18/16
Include Leveraging Despite HUD / CoC Lead Administrator / Next cycle
iV / Next Steps
The Ranking Committee will convene on Monday, August 28th, 2017 at 2525 Mt. Vernon Avenue to review renewal project monitoring & evaluation scores and other data, and then rank new and renewal projects on the project priority listing.
V / Adjournment
10:38pm adjourned.