County of Riverside Continuum of Care (CoC)

Transcription

1 County of Riverside Continuum of Care (CoC) Board of Governance (BoG) Meeting May 17, a.m. 11 a.m.* Special BoG workshop: 11 a.m. to noon DPSS Banning Children/Adult Services Office 901 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, CA Tammy Marine, Chairperson Leticia DeLara, Vice-chairperson 1. Call to Order: Welcome & Introductions Roll Call (Sign off) 2. Minutes Approval: a. March 15, Public comment: Members of the Public are encouraged to address the Board. Anyone who wishes to speak must submit a comment request card to the board clerk. Each speaker should begin by identifying themselves for the record and is allowed up to three minutes. 4. Old Business: a. Independent Review Panel (IRP) recommendation to adopt the 2017 HUD CoC Project Review and Ranking Process Angelina Coe, IRP vice-chair This was tabled from the March meeting to give the BoG more time to review the document, which can be found at: Motion: Approve the IRP recommendation that the Board of Governance adopt the 2017 HUD CoC Project Review and Ranking Process for 2018 with no changes other than those changes needed to reflect the 2018 HUD CoC Program NOFA when it is released. Public comment for this item only. b. Special Board of Governance Workshop: Information only Tammy Marine, BoG Chair The BoG approved a special BoG workshop to be scheduled on a date to be determined; April at a location to be determined. However, there was low availability of board members, even when some dates were added in May. DPSS consulted with BoG Chair Tammy Marine to hold a shortened workshop following this meeting. The workshop will be from 11 a.m. to noon following today s BoG meeting. Public comment for this item only. 1

2 5. New Business: a HUD CoC Program Application Process: Independent Review Panel (IRP) recommendations Angelina Coe, IRP vice-chair The Independent Review Panel (IRP) has met on April 4 and May 10 to continue the 2018 HUD CoC Program review and evaluation process of projects to be renewed in the consolidated application. A staff report on the IRP meetings begins on page 5. The California Emergency Solutions Grant (State ESG) allocation for the County of Riverside is $996,600. However, due the additional funding from SB 2, the California Dept. of Housing and Community HCD will release two separate Notice of Funding Availability (NOFAs) for the county s state Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) allocation. The first allocation is for the federal ESG amount ($323,445) to be released in June. A second NOFA for SB 2 funds will likely be released in early It is unknown yet what the amount will be. The state requires that 40% of these funds be used for Rapid Rehousing. This year, homelessness prevention (rental assistance) is also an allowable category. This would help provide rental assistance to keep individuals/families at-risk of homelessness in housing. Motion: Approve the Independent Review Panel s recommendation to appropriate the first round of State ESG funds ($323,445) to the following: 40% ($129,378) to be used for Rapid Rehousing; and 60% ($194,067) to be used for Homelessness Prevention. Public comment for this item only. b HUD Independent Review Panel (IRP) Brown Act: Discussion only Eric Stopher, County Counsel Please see staff report on page 7. Public comment for this item only. c. Coordinated Entry System (CES) Lead Agency status: Information only Jennifer Claar, DPSS Assistant Director On April 11, the BoG and CoC was notified that the CES Lead Agency, Riverside University Health System Behavioral Health (RUHS-BH), made the decision not to renew their contract with DPSS to be CES lead agency beyond November 30, After further review, RUHS-BH submitted a letter to DPSS on May 9 to remain the CES Lead Agency. The letter is attached. Public comment for this item only. 2

3 d. Coachella homeless encampment response: Information and discussion only Jennifer Claar, DPSS Assistant Director The County of Riverside Executive Office and key departments, including DPSS, RUHS-BH and the Housing Authority of Riverside County, directed county staff to address the immediate needs of approximately 60 homeless people who built an encampment on Caltrans property in the City of Coachella (along Hwy 86 and Dillon Road). DPSS, Behavioral Health and Housing Authority have partnered with CalTrans, CVAG (Coachella Valley Association of Governments) and other local stakeholders to develop a joint plan to assess and provide emergency and permanent housing to the individuals who were evicted from the encampment by CalTrans on May 1. Based on the short timeframe remaining, along with the health and safety concerns related to the encampment, county officials had an even greater urgency to expedite rehousing of these homeless individuals. The County identified CoC agencies with available funds and willingness to provide bridge housing to these homeless individuals, as well as to continue working with them toward supportive permanent housing. Expediting this response means that the standard decision-making processes established by the CoC, including the policies established for the Coordinated Entry System, were not followed although the individuals being served are in CES and score within range for permanent housing. Public comment for this item only. 6. Consent Items: a. Annual Performance Reports (APRs): The current APRs for each CoC Program project to be renewed in the 2018 HUD Consolidated Application is posted on the DPSS website and can be accessed through the following link: pdf 1. Behavioral Health HHOPE 10. Behavioral Health Coachella PH 2. City of Riverside Disabled 11. Housing Authority Consolidated All County 3. Behavioral Health Men's PH 12. Desert Horizon PSH 4. Housing Authority Street to Home 13. Shelter Plus Care Project Based w/osh 5. Behavioral Health Riverside PH 14. Path of Life Rapid Rehousing 6. Housing Authority EHOP 15. JFS Desert Vista PH 7. Lighthouse Rapid Rehousing 16. City of Riverside PSH Chronically Homeless 8. Lighthouse PH for Disabled Women with Children 17. Housing Authority Consolidated 9. Path of Life PSH 18. POLM RRH East County b. Monitoring reports (with findings or concerns only): A summary of five projects with concerns/findings is included as an attachment. The full monitoring reports for each project is posted on the DPSS website and can be accessed through the following link: 7. Call for Agenda Items for Next Meeting: 8. Next Meeting: The next scheduled meeting is June 21, 2018, 9-11 a.m. at the DPSS Children s and Adult Services office, 901 E. Ramsey Street Banning, CA Adjournment Please stay for the special BoG workshop on the 2018 HUD CoC Program NOFA and process 3

4 County of Riverside CoC Board of Governance May 17, 2018 Meeting Teleconferencing Notice The following committee members have confirmed they will call in to the meeting from the locations indicated: Board Member: Call-in Location: None 4

5 Board of Governance Meeting May 17, 2018 Item 5a: 2018 HUD CoC Program Application Process: Independent Review Panel (IRP) recommendations Subject: The Independent Review Panel (IRP) has met on April 4 and May 10 to continue the 2018 HUD CoC Program review and evaluation process of projects to be renewed in the consolidated application. A summary and recommendations are in this report. Contact: Jill Kowalski, Manager, DPSS Homeless Programs Unit (JKowalsk@rivco.org) Independent Review Panel April 4 and May 10 meetings: The documents for both meetings is on the DPSS website and can be accessed through the following link: Scorecards were presented to each agency with a renewal project. Two agencies submitted written responses to their scorecards: RUHS- Behavioral Health: Provided written comments with an explanation on why the cost per bed is higher compared to other projects since they serve difficult population. This was specifically for two projects: RUHS-BH Riverside Permanent Housing (score: 95); and RUHS-BH Coachella Permanent Housing (score: 92). The letter is attached as a handout. Path of Life: Provided explanation on all three renewal projects. The IRP reviewed and discussed the lowest scoring project, RRH East County (score: 76). The other two projects scored high enough to remain safely in Tier 1. See attached written comments for three renewal projects (Path of Life PSH (score: 94); Path of Life Rapid Rehousing (score: 91); and Path of Life RRH East County (score: 76). DPSS staff met with Path of Life staff and two board members on April 26 to review their concerns about their scores. Path of Life submitted a second letter to the IRP for review and consideration (attached). After further review and analysis of data, the IRP voted unanimously that the scores for the RUHS-BH and Path of Life projects will remain. May 10 IRP meeting: The IRP reviewed the following documents as part of the review and evaluation process for the 2018 HUD CoC Program competition (go to: Actions and decisions: The IRP did not take any action to recommend reallocation this year. Agencies with unspent funds should be put on a corrective action plan, even if they are in their first year. The IRP will review on June 6 whether the scoring matrix should be updated to include scores with the new HUD tool so agencies will know how they scored and can prepare for implementation of the new tool in 5

6 2020. DPSS will conduct a technical assistance workshop on the new HUD tool in the fall after the 2018 application is submitted. Overview of DedicatedPlus was tabled to June 6. IRP Recommendations: State ESG allocation and SB 2: The California Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) allocation for the County of Riverside is 996,600. However, due the additional funding from SB 2, the California Dept. of Housing and Community HCD will release two separate Notice of Funding Availability (NOFAs) for the county s State Emergency Solutions Grant (State ESG) allocation. This will allow the amount of State ESG funding to be increased. The first allocation is for the federal ESG amount ($323,445) to be released in June. A second NOFA for SB 2 funds will likely be released in early It is not yet known what the county s allocation will be. An overview of SB 2 is included as an attachment. The state requires 40% of these funds be used for Rapid Rehousing. This year, homelessness prevention (rental assistance) is an allowable category. Background: Information from an April 9 call with California Housing and Community Development (HCD) on state ESG and SB 2: A NOFA for the State ESG and first two quarters of 2018 SB 2 funds will be released in late summer. A second NOFA for the last two quarters of 2018 SB 2 funds will likely be released in early The federal ESG NOFA will be released in June. This is about $328K (part of the total $996K originally allocated to Riverside). The state ESG and SB 2 funding will be combined and will include any recaptured/unspent state ESG. No release date or amount of funding has yet been determined. The combined funding will follow the ESG components and will be expanded; however, HCD was not able to provide any information about this, other than to say there will be more funding to address homelessness and that we should watch out for the notice. They also advised counties to start the procurement process for the federal ESG and to not wait for the NOFA to be released in June. 6

7 Board of Governance Meeting May 17, 2018 Item 5b: 2018 HUD Independent Review Panel (IRP) Brown Act: Discussion only Subject: BoG member Susan Larkin has asked whether the Independent Review Panel should be subject to the Brown Act. Contact: Jill Kowalski, Manager, DPSS Homeless Programs Unit Background: Susan Larkin sent an dated Dec. 31, 2017 asking whether the IRP should be a Brown Act entity. The is below: From: Susan E Larkin <valleyrestart.susanl@yahoo.com> To: Jill Kowalski <jkowalsk@rivco.org>; Eric Stopher <estopher@rivco.org>; Michelle Davis <mdavis@riversideca.gov>; Angelina Coe <angelina@shelterfromthestorm.com>; Leticia DeLara <ldelara@regionalaccessproject.org> Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2017, 10:09:08 AM PST Subject: Review panel In light of the recent review panel elections, and meeting schedule, I am wondering if the review panel has become a group subject to brown act rules. The election added new members, but the old members stayed on, indicating a continuing group, in addition the plan to meet year round also seems to indicate that. It was mentioned that the panel could still have some closed sessions where sensitive voting and material could be discussed while still meeting brown act requirements? Please advise.. Susan Larkin Contract-Grants Administrator Valley Restart Shelter Eric Stopher, County Counsel has been researching this issue and will present to the BoG for discussion and possible action at a future BoG meeting. The Independent Review Panel was created about three years ago because the composition of the BoG at the time was made up of a majority of representatives from agencies that received CoC Program funding. At the time, the BoG was almost entirely conflicted. The IRP was created to put a non-conflicted process in place and ensure that agencies receiving funding were not making decisions about the process and who would receive funding, etc. The IRP has served this purpose, even after the BoG was restructured in There are still a few conflicted members on the BoG; however, there are enough non-conflicted members that the review, evaluation and ranking process can now shift to the BoG, with continued support by DPSS s Homeless Programs Unit. 7

8 Minutes for County of Riverside Continuum of Care Board of Governance (BoG) March 15, :00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. DPSS: Banning Children/Adult Services 901 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, CA TOPIC PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME 1. Call to Order: Tammy Marine, The meeting was called to order at 9:15 a.m. Welcome & Introductions Chair A roll call of the BoG members was conducted. County of Riverside, CoC: Board of Governance Minutes Draft for approval New BoG Chairperson Tammy Marine started the meeting with introductions. She thanked the BoG for electing her as chair and applauded the devotion of board members who are working for the greater good of the County of Riverside. She said the board is charged by HUD to carryout mandates and hopes to ensure there is no misunderstanding of HUD. She said she hopes she can help the board bring more transparency to this challenging and complex process and issue. She looks forward to bring unity and working together for the greater good. She also would like to help the board fulfill the vision to bring outside funding sources to the county to address homelessness. 2. Minutes Approval: Tammy Marine Motion was made by Sabby Jonathan to approve the minutes from January 18, Ray Osborne seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Yay 7; Nay 0; Abstention 0. Motion carried. 3. Public Comment: Tammy Marine None 4. NEW BUSINESS PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME 4a HUD CoC Program Application Process: Independent Review Panel (IRP) Recommendations Angelina Coe, IRP vice-chair The IRP met twice to begin the 2018 application review and evaluation process. In addition to current data and reports for funded projects, the panel members spent time reviewing a new evaluation tool that HUD released in The IRP is recommending that the BOG receive mutual reports so they remain updated on the performance of CoC Program funded projects. The reports will include Annual Performance Reports (APRs), HMIS report cards and monitoring status reports of each CoC project. Angelina said the BoG would continue to make difficult decisions in the future as higher performing CoC projects fall into Tier 2. Motion was made by Ron Vervick and seconded by Sabby Jonathan to approve the 2018 HUD CoC Program Independent Review Panel (IRP) recommendation that the Board of Governance receive regular Annual Performance Reports (APRs) and monitoring status reports of CoC Program funded projects on a consent calendar on the agenda of regular BoG meetings. Roll Call Vote: Yay 8; Nay 0; Abstention 0. Motion carried. The IRP has unanimously decided to rescind their recommendation for the BOG to adopt HUD s new scoring tool to review and rank projects for the 2018 HUD application. At the March 7 IRP meeting, DPSS Page 1 of 6

9 County of Riverside, CoC: Board of Governance Minutes Draft for approval staff presented a summary of how each renewal project scored using the new HUD tool. The scores with the new HUD tool were significantly lower than the scores the renewal projects received with the existing scoring tool used in Original Motion: Approve the IRP recommendation to use the 2017 review and evaluation tools and process for the 2018 HUD CoC Program NOFA process with the intent of introducing the new HUD tool in There was discussion about the HUD tool and the performance benchmarks that are currently not being met by many of the existing projects. Jill Kowalski referred to a hand-out with the scores of the current projects using the new HUD tool. She said they are much lower than the scores using the 2016 and 2017 scoring tool and was concerned that this could impact the overall score on our consolidated application to HUD. She pointed out three criteria that HUD uses to determine whether CoCs are serving high need populations. There are three data elements related to measuring this that projects report in their annual APRs. Previously, CoCs were only asked to answer in a written narrative how they are prioritizing people with the highest needs. However, in HUD s new tool, there are three questions asking: o Whether 80% or greater of participants have zero income at entry (to housing programs) o Whether 75% or greater of participants have more than one disability type at entry (to housing) o Whether 75% or greater of participants are entering housing projects from a place not meant for human habitation. All but two projects received points for the first criteria; 7 projects (of 17) received points for the second criteria and no projects received points for the third criteria. Jill said that if HUD begins to require CoCs to report this data, it will impact our overall score and could jeopardize funding. For the third measure, whether 75% or greater are coming from a place not meant for human habitation, Jill said none of the projects are meeting this criteria because most of the clients being housed are coming from emergency shelters, rather than from encampments or being on the street, etc. She said this percentage needs to flip so that only about 25% are coming from shelters. Melissa Conrad asked if this measure tracked the point of entry a homeless person comes into the system or whether it is when they are in emergency shelter. DPSS staff said this may be an issue with how the projects are reporting in HMIS when a person comes from before going into housing. This will be clarified with the projects to ensure this is being input correctly. Melissa also expressed concern that HUD does not factor in each community s need when requiring these measures. Jill responded that as long as we have people experiencing homelessness who have no income and are living in encampments, etc., we need to make sure they are prioritized based on HUD requirements. She said that if/when our data shows this, we can use as a justification to HUD as to why we are not meeting these measures. She used as an example that we still have a large number of chronic homeless in our annual point in time count and Coordinated Entry System by name list. So, we still need to be prioritizing HUD funds Page 2 of 6

10 toward this population. Sabby Jonathan added that we need to remain cautious that we do what HUD says. Rusty Bailey agreed to move forward only with an amended motion to change the year to introduce the new HUD tool from 2019 to The board discussed whether the new HUD tool should be introduced in 2019 or if there should be a longer transition, such as two years, and agreed to amend the motion with the intent of using the new tool in Amended Motion was made by Rusty Bailey and seconded by Ron Vervick to approve the IRP recommendation to use the 2017 review and evaluation tools and process for the 2018 HUD CoC Program NOFA process with the intent of introducing the new HUD tool in Roll Call Vote: Yay 8; Nay 0; Abstention 0. Motion carried. The board members opted to table the approval of adopting the 2017 HUD CoC Project Review and Ranking Process until further discussion at the May BOG meeting. 4b. Proposed BoG workshop on 2018 HUD CoC Program NOFA and process: April 19 4c.CoC and ESG program Housing Quality Standards (HQS): written standards Original Motion: Approve the IRP recommendation that the Board of Governance adopt the 2017 HUD CoC Project Review and Ranking Process for 2018 with no changes other than those changes needed to reflect the 2018 HUD CoC Program NOFA when it is released. Motion was made by Rusty Bailey and seconded by Susan Larkin to table the above motion to the May meeting. Roll Call Vote: Yay 8; Nay 0; Abstention 0. Motion carried. Jill Kowalski, DPSS There was favor by the board to hold a special BoG workshop in April, however, a date could not be determined. The board members agreed to revise the original motion. Original Motion: Approve a special BoG workshop to be scheduled on Thursday, April 19 from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. at a location to be determined. Amended Motion was made by Rusty Bailey and seconded by Ron Vervick to approve a special BoG workshop to be scheduled on a date to be determined; April at a location to be determined. Roll Call Vote: Yay 8; Nay 0; Abstention 0. Motion carried. DPSS staff will send a Doodle poll to BoG members to see what day/timeframe will work best for a majority of the board members. Jill Kowalski As recipient of HUD funds, DPSS is required to ensure Housing Quality Standards (HQS) are kept for each unit. These are the HUD-established minimum quality standards for Continuum of Care (CoC) and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Programs. A copy of the HUD-CoC Program Housing Quality Standards Policies and Procedures was provided for BoG review. Motion was made by Rusty Bailey and seconded by Sabby Jonathan to approve the new Housing Quality Standards Policies and Procedures as recommended by the CoC Standards and Evaluation Committee and the CoC membership. Roll Call Vote: Yay 8; Nay 0; Abstention 0. Motion carried. County of Riverside, CoC: Board of Governance Minutes Draft for approval Page 3 of 6

11 4d Homeless Point-in- Time Count Update: Information only 4e. County of Riverside Executive Oversight Committee on Homelessness (EOCH) Plan: Information only 4f State Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Solicitation of Interest: Information only Donyielle Holley, DPSS Planner and Point-in-Time Count Coordinator Donyielle Holley presented a status report on the 2018 Homeless Point-in-Time Count. She emphasized that the PIT count is not meant to be a total count of our homeless population; but rather a census using the same standardized methodology that provides a year-to-year comparison of trends related to our county s homeless population. The PIT count is required by HUD and is used to measure increases/decreases and changes in each community s homeless population. Donyielle said that at the recent National Alliance on Ending Homelessness Conference (NAEH) in Los Angeles, HUD officials made a statement that the PIT count is here to stay and that they intend to continue to require CoCs to conduct biennial PIT counts. Donyielle reported that preliminary PIT data will be released on April 9 and the full report will be available May 9 or after. Rusty Bailey commented on his experience participating in this year s PIT count and suggested giving gift cards to volunteers to incentivize getting surveys completed. He said that he noticed some volunteer teams only went to the places marked on the maps, even if they saw other homeless individuals in other areas. He also recommended having smaller teams (two people instead of four) and there was a recommendation about ensuring at least one street outreach or other experienced worker is assigned to each team because they are more knowledgeable about where homeless people are living, etc. Jill Kowalski Jill Kowalski reported on the EOCH homeless plan and next steps, including the recruitment for a countywide deputy director, or homeless czar who would report to the county s Executive Office and provide oversight and direction on homeless issues. She distributed a recruitment pamphlet for the position. The position will be responsible for some of the following initiatives: o To engage cities and Continuum of Care and provide progress reports. o To end homelessness of single individuals and families who are living on the streets, in shelters or in transitional housing programs. o Prevent homelessness among individuals and families at-risk of becoming homeless o Ensure funding for a coordinated system to end and prevent homelessness among individuals and families. Jill Kowalski The State ESG NOFA: o Scheduled to be released: May o Deadline to submit an application: June 2018 allocation for Riverside County: $996,600 an increase from 2017 of $630,757. State ESG funds may be used for: o Rapid Housing (40% of the allocation must be used for this) o Street outreach o Emergency Shelter o Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) County of Riverside, CoC: Board of Governance Minutes Draft for approval Page 4 of 6

12 4g HUD Youth Homeless Demonstration Grant: Information only 4h. Housing and Disability Advocacy Program (HDAP) Funding: Information only 4i. Board of Governance proxy designation letter: Information only Jill Kowalski Jill referred to the staff report in the agenda and a hand-out in the BoG packet to provide an overview of the Youth Homeless Demonstration Program (YHDP) grant application to HUD. She explained that the focus has been on creating a Youth Action Board of homeless/formerly homeless youth (up to age 24) to help lead the planning and development of the application. She emphasized that there is no funding available for projects in this application. It is only to become a demonstration community and participate in an 8-month planning process to create a community plan to address youth homelessness. Jill Kowalski DPSS has received $994,760 for 3 years from the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to implement the Housing and Disability Advocacy Program (HDAP). (Note: DPSS was notified April 6 that we will receive additional funds in the amount of $365,372 for a new total allocation of $1,360,132). o Grant Term: March, 2018 through June 30, 2020 o DPSS will use funds to hire an HDAP Specialist to coordinate program o Program components: Connect chronically homeless to SSI/SSDI benefits More details will be provided at the April BoG workshop. Tammy Marine A sample proxy letter was provided as a handout and the board members were reminded that they could use this form to send a proxy in the event that they are unable to make a BoG meeting. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5a.Board of Governance Tammy Marine Tabled formation of an Executive Committee 5b. Review the CoC Board of Governance Charter Article Vl: Tammy Marine Tabled 6. CALL FOR AGENDA ITEMS PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME Next Meeting Agenda Items: Tammy Marine ADJOURNMENT PRESENTER ACTION/ OUTCOME 7. Next meeting The next Board of Governance meeting date is scheduled for May 17, 2018, 9:00-11:00 a.m. at DPSS: Banning Children/Adult Services, 901 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, CA Adjournment Roger Uminski from IEHP asked if he could introduce Tyler Fong, Program Director from Brilliant Corners, an organization based in Los Angeles that IEHP is contracting with to oversee a flexible housing subsidy pool in the Inland Empire and assist in building relationships with landlords to provide housing to IEHP members who have high needs, including being homeless. The meeting was adjourned at 11:03 a.m. County of Riverside, CoC: Board of Governance Minutes Draft for approval Page 5 of 6

13 Board of Governance March 15, 2018: Attendance Report *Chair **Vice Chair Total members present: 10 of 15 Total guests in attendance: 7 PUBLIC SECTOR PRESENT (X) TELECONFERENCE (T) PROXY Vacant Chuck Washington, District 3 Board Supervisor, County of Riverside Rusty Bailey, Mayor, City of Riverside x Sabby Jonathan, Mayor, City of Palm Desert x Melissa Conrad, Chief of Social Work Service, VA Loma Linda Healthcare x Steve Steinberg, Director, Riverside University Health System PRIVATE SECTOR **Leticia DeLara, CEO, Regional Access Project (RAP) Foundation *Tammy Marine, Executive Director, Habitat for Humanity, Inland Valley x Ray Osborne, Executive Director, HomeAid Inland Empire x NON-PROFIT SECTOR Angelina Coe, Executive Director, Shelter From The Storm, Inc. x Karyn Young-Lowe, President/Chief Executive Officer, Lighthouse Social Service Centers Susan Larkin, Grant Administrator, Valley Restart Shelter x FORMERLY HOMELESS Ron Vervick, Director, Whiteside Manor x EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS CoC Chair: Michelle Davis, Housing Authority Manager, City of Riverside x Secretary: Jill Kowalski, Manager, County of Riverside, DPSS Homeless Programs x Guests: 7 Brilliant Corners District 2 Board of Supervisors, County of Riverside District 3 Board of Supervisors, County of Riverside IEHP Inland Empire Health Plan Riverside Deputy County Counsel RUHS Behavioral Health Step up on Second Tyler Fong Corinne Awad Sundae Sayles Roger Uminski Eric Stopher Lynne Brockmeier Barbara Bloom DPSS Staff: 3 Homeless Programs, CoC Planner Homeless Programs, Admin Svcs. Officer Homeless Programs, CoC Support Donyielle Holley Rowena Concepcion Tiffany Nelson County of Riverside, CoC: Board of Governance Minutes Draft for approval Page 6 of 6

14 Reply to: Behavioral Health Administration P.O. Box 7549 Riverside, CA May 9, 2018 Department of Public Social Services Homeless Program Unit Attn: HUD Desk 4060 County Circle Drive Riverside, CA SUBJECT: Coordinated Entry Lead Grant On April 10, 2018, Riverside University Health System Behavioral Health notified you that we were going to remove ourselves from the Coordinated Entry System process. We believed that support was dwindling from contract providers who are essential to the Continuum of Care in Riverside County. We believed that this would lead to slower and less effective housing responses. We also had a concern about the workload this has created for our Behavioral Health housing staff. I thanked you for your consideration and support at the time. After further review, comments from non-county providers who want us to stay on with CES, and recent meetings and discussions between County agencies, I am confident that we can overcome the barriers and we can contribute greatly to CES. Therefore, I am sending this to officially rescind our request to end our participation and look forward to working with both public and county partners Sincerely, Steve Steinberg, Director Riverside University Health System - Behavioral Health CC: Lynne Brockemeir Jill Kowalski Administrative Office 4095 County Circle Drive / Riverside, CA / / RUHealth.org

15 CoC Program Project Review Monitoring Findings Project Name Grant Number Operating Start Date Operating End Date Monitoring Visit Findings and/or Concerns 1 Lighthouse Rapid Rehousing CA1367L9D /01/17 06/30/18 12/06/17 Finding 1: Match 2 Lighthouse PH Disabled Women CA0665L9D /01/17 08/31/18 02/21/18 Finding 1: Lease Agreements; Concern 1: Procurement Procedure. 3 Path of Life PSH CA1364L9D /01/17 06/30/18 02/08/17 Finding 1: Match 4 Path of Life Rapid Rehousing CA1365L9D /01/17 06/30/18 02/07/18 Finding 1: Match; Concern 1: Slow Spending 5 POLM RRH East County CA1450L9D /01/16 06/30/17 02/07/18 Finding 1: Match; Finding 2: Slow Spending

16 March 28 th, 2018 Riverside CoC HUD Review Committee C/o Department of Public Social Services Attn : Review Committee Chair Re: Scorecard for RUHS-BH : Riverside Permanent Supportive Housing The PLACE Coachella Valley Permanent Supportive Housing The PATH Review Committee Chair, Please allow us Riverside University Health system Behavioral Health (RUHS-BH) this opportunity to express to you, our significant thanks for your volunteering for this difficult group. RUHS-BH does recognize the challenges you face in making these decisions. Our intent is to maintain the integrity of this process and advocate for our projects and ensure clarity around our program successes and your understanding of any challenges. RUHS-BH has been providing more than a decade of supportive housing for the CoC and it our desire to continue to be a collaborative, effective and supportive member of the Continuum of Care in Riverside County. We are combining our response for both the above listed grants in our response, as they have similar issues and benefits and were designed to cover 2 geographic areas in the county. The original design met the COC and community goals and requests to have services aligned at access center points. Therefore with continuum support, one was located in the western end near the Path Of Life Shelter and the access center, while the other was located in the eastern end, next to Roys access center and shelter. RUHS-BH noted on the scorecards two areas that we wanted to provide more specific detail around representing these specialized programs. From the start these programs used a unique shared housing program following a Safehaven model of very low barriers, Harm reduction and Housing First principles. They include 24 hr staffing and a drop in center, serving those who are the hardest to reach and engage, with the most challenging behaviors and risk issues. The drop in centers were designed to allow opportunities to engage individuals with significant behavioral health issues, build rapport, allow law enforcement 24 hour access to bring individuals to this service site rather than incarceration and diverts usage of higher costs resources. At these locations our contractor provides 24 / 7 round the clock peer supports to help the residents as they learn to re-integrate themselves back into the community and acclimate to living indoors. We provide cooked meals, meals for drop in guests, food prep training and meal planning along with full utilities, other housing and personal needs, transportation, bus passes, onsite Behavioral health services, SSI applications assistance, and various other evidenced based best practices. The programs were designed as a shared housing program for a number of reasons including that it has a drop in center attached that allows the individual to see what a living situation could be and to help them feel a sense of community rather then isolated in an apartment.

17 This shared environment can be very positive as they work through their recovery, but also can be very challenging for an individual with active paranoia, anger issues and significant behavioral health symptoms. Due to the shared environment they also have the opportunity as they recover to begin to develop better life skills and relationships. Additionally the shared housing aspect naturally encourages them to move out and into their own housing as that recovery builds stronger. Unfortunately at times, especially with the addition of the CES where we can receive an individual we have little rapport with, their disability challenges may result in unexpected behaviors, violent episodes or a refusal to follow the limited guidelines. Some will lose their eligibility, others will fire us and leave housing abruptly. With this challenging group of individuals, this is to be expected. This does affect our length of time in housing and can be reflected in our outcomes, although does not affect our behavioral health services to the individuals. We still attempt intensive engagements and outreach, trying to link them back to housing and behavioral health services. Additionally, we noted the lowered score due to an above average cost factor. While we do acknowledge higher staffing and overhead costs, the programs both fully support the individuals while they are in housing, even if they refuse to accept their challenges or disability and apply for funding. Again, as some of the hardest to serve, they often struggle with insight into their challenges and as a Housing First provider we continue to be open to their needs and provide housing. Providing full 24 hr supports, meals and a drop in center, certainly increases our costs, but is a trade off of other community resources. We believe it is of significant importance that while these individuals are in this housing, many of them do not return to emergency rooms, behavioral health or other high cost inpatient systems, have repeat incarcerations or community policing efforts, nor are they using other community resources such as Cal Fresh and financial resources. While our program costs are increased, the community s costs are reduced. RUHS-BH consistently attempts to look at our community and our clients with a holistic viewpoint. It is our goal to serve our individuals as best we can in all aspects, while serving our community as well. We believe this program meets those goals. Sincerely, Lynne M Brockmeier Administrative Services Manager Housing Region 2 P age

18 Independent Review Panel Comments Path of Life Score Card CA1364L9D Path of Life PSH 2016/17 Score: 94 of 100 (-6) #11: 0 of 5 (-5) for Second Consecutive concern that Match was low at time of monitoring. Notes/Comments: We have projected what we will be applying to this contract for match through the end of the contract year and our projections show that we will fully meet the match requirement. In April, we will be receiving the documentation needed for a significant portion of this for the in-kind match we have available, and this will bring us up to compliance. Path of Life has met its match requirement year over year. However, due to the many different contracts requiring match and the high volume of In Kind match that Path of Life receives/applies, it is difficult for us to provide it evenly throughout the year. Historically, we have been able to collect and properly apply the majority of our match toward the end of the contract period, especially once we have run out of administrative funds in the contract and begin to apply all of our administrative expenditures on each contract as match. #13: 4 of 5 (-1) for Unspent Funds in Prior Year Notes/Comments: Our current projections for the year have us fully spending down this project. This was year 2 of this project. It was also the first year that CES became fully functional under its new contract. When we first started to receive referrals through the new CES system, we were finding that many of those being referred (as a result of their prioritization) were assessed a long time ago and were, thus, difficult to track down and work with once we finally got in touch with these high obstacle participants.

19 Independent Review Panel Comments Path of Life Monitoring Report Concerns and Findings CA1365L9D Path of Life Rapid Rehousing 2017/18 Score: 91 of 100 (-9) #11: 0 of 5 (-5) for Second Consecutive Concern that Match was low at time of monitoring. Notes/Comments: We have projected what we will be applying to this contract for match through the end of the contract year and our projections show that we will fully meet the match requirement. In April, we will be receiving the documentation needed for a significant portion of this for the in-kind match we have available, and this will bring us up to compliance. Path of Life has met its match requirement year over year. However, due to the many different contracts requiring match and the high volume of In Kind match that Path of Life receives/applies, it is difficult for us to provide it evenly throughout the year. Historically, we have been able to collect and properly apply the majority of our match toward the end of the contract period, especially once we have run out of administrative funds in the contract and begin to apply all of our administrative expenditures on each contract as match. #13: 1 of 5 (-4) for Unspent Funds last year. Notes/Comments: Path of Life is on track to spend our full grant this year. There were 2 very specific things that contributed to the unspent funds last year. 1. We made a mistake of planning exits according to our participant s Individual Service plans that were too close to one another. Since the Individual Service Plans were created separately, we did not catch that the exit dates from the program were so close together. As a result, the program went from over full utilization to almost zero very quickly, which meant that rental dollars were not being spent. 2. At the same time, we were experiencing an incredible slowdown of families who would accept RRH assistance throughout the CoC resulting from a preference rule at the Housing Authority for Families in shelter. Families became aware that if they could get into a shelter, or already were in a shelter, they could then get to the front of the

20 list for Section 8 Vouchers. In turn, since the Section 8 Vouchers are permanent and do not include an exit within 2 years, the Families were turning us down for RRH services that require a family to exit within 2 years. As a result, it took us MUCH longer than before for us to fill the RRH program and last year we more than doubled the units we had to fill resulting from the additional RRH Project.

21 Independent Review Panel Comments Path of Life Monitoring Report Concerns and Findings CA1450L9D POLM RRH East County 2017/18 Score: 76 of 100 (-24) We believe that, based on the information below, this score should be at least 10 points higher. #2: 0 of 5 (-5) for 0% of Participants Gained or Increased Any Income Notes/Comments: This score does not reflect the performance of our project in this area. As a result, this score does not provide a fair apples to apples comparison between programs who have not had clients in their project for one full year at the time of the APR and those programs who have. We believe that we should have received 5 points for this category for a fair comparison. The APR s from which the monitors obtain this score come from 3 areas: Income at Entry (which is used as the baseline and collected on every participant) o We collect and report this information on everyone in the program as is exhibited in Q s Income at Annual Reassessment (at one year of them being in the program) o No one in this program had been in the program for 1 year at the time of the APR, therefore there was no information to report for the questions asked, but the question does not allow for a N/A answer. o Q19 is populated by Q 5a, which shows that we had 0 people in the program for Income at Exit (When a participant Leaves the Program) o We only had one adult out of 19 adult participants leave the program. That one adult had the same amount of income as when they entered. #3: 0 of 5 (-5) for 29% Bed Utilization Notes/Commments This score does not reflect the performance of our project in this area.

22 As a result, this score does not provide a fair apples to apples comparison between programs who have not had clients in their project for one full year at the time of the APR and those programs who have. We believe that we should have received at least 4 points for this category due to what our bed utilization was for the latest month in this new program (if not a 5 for where we ended the program that year) for a fair comparison. This scored is determined not on the actual bed utilization reached or maintained in the program year, but on an average of point in time counts throughout the year even for programs that are starting a new year and start at 0. Our program started in July, and therefore the percentages reported are as follows: July 16 (first month of the program) 0% October 16 (fourth month of the program) 11.11% January 17 (seventh month of the program) 29.63% April 17 (tenth month of the program) 74.07% We are confused as to why we would use an average of these months for first year programs rather than what bed utilization is ultimately achieved in the first year if we want to evaluate actual performance. Doesn t this put first year programs at an automatic and unfair disadvantage to renewal programs? #11: 0 of 5 (-5) for Second Consecutive Concern that Match and spending was low at time of monitoring. Notes/Comments: We have projected what we will be applying to this contract for match through the end of the contract year and our projections show that we will fully meet the match requirement. In April, we will be receiving the documentation needed for a significant portion of this for the in-kind match we have available, and this will bring us up to compliance. Path of Life has met its match requirement year over year. However, due to the many different contracts requiring match and the high volume of In Kind match that Path of Life receives/applies, it is difficult for us to provide it evenly throughout the year. Historically, we have been able to collect and properly apply the majority of our match toward the end of the contract period, especially once we have run out of administrative funds in the contract and begin to apply all of our administrative expenditures on each contract as match.

23 We address spending rates in #13. #13: 1 of 5 (-4) for Unspent Funds last year. Notes/Comments: Last year was the first year of this project, we started with 0 participants and had to ramp up the amount of subsidies and, therefore, rents we were spending throughout the year. At the same time, we were experiencing an incredible slowdown of families who would accept RRH assistance throughout the CoC resulting from a preference rule at the Housing Authority for Families in shelter. Families became aware that if they could get into a shelter, or already were in a shelter, they could then get to the front of the list for Section 8 Vouchers. In turn, since the Section 8 Vouchers are permanent and do not include an exit within 2 years, the Families were turning us down for RRH services that require a family to exit within 2 years. As a result, it took us MUCH longer than before for us to fill the RRH program and last year we more than doubled the units we had to fill resulting from this additional RRH Project. We are currently overserving for the number of households in the project this year and continuing to lease up additional people and overserve. The reason this is possible is because we have negotiated leases at rates significantly lower than the FMR projected in the budget. Based at our run rate at this capacity, we are currently evaluating whether or not we can voluntarily return any of the funds in this project back to the CoC without underfunding the project in the coming year. #14: 0 of 5 (-5) for Cost Effectiveness of Case Management and Other Supportive Services Notes/Comments: We are confused about how this is calculated and have asked for the following Technical Assistance on March 30 th. The scorecard reads: Measures percentage of budget costs in case management and other supportive services. and then in the note: HUD provides guidance and recommendations that supportive services/case management costs for PSH and RRH projects should not be higher than about 25% of the total project budget.

24 This is the reason why we were under the impression that cost effectiveness was based on comparing the amount spent on supportive services against the amount spent on rent. We have since been told that the score is based solely on dividing the number of beds by the total amount of the program. We are confused on 4 things: How does using the total cost per bed (which includes rental costs along with supportive services and, therefore will be higher in some areas of the county than others) help demonstrate the percentage of budget costs in case management and other support services as compared to rent? Why would we use a past application that has already been approved by the CoC/HUD verses performance to help determine the score of a program s performance and determination for future funding. How does the percentage in a past grant application for a program that is already complete helpful in determining the score for this upcoming year s application that may be different than that past application? Using the total cost per bed numbers, can you show us how our score (30% higher than average cost) was determined so that we can address this in future applications?

25 MAILING ADDRESS PO Box 1445 Riverside CA HEADQUARTERS Monday Friday 8:00am -5:00pm 1240 Palmyrita Ave Suite A 5/8/18 ATTN: Riverside County Continuum of Care Independent Review Panel CC: Riverside County Continuum of Care Governing Board RE: Current Monitoring Score for Path of Life Ministries Rapid Rehousing East County Project Dear Independent Review Panel: I am writing to provide some context and current information surrounding the current score for Path of Life s Rapid Rehousing East County Project in hopes that it will be helpful to you in your deliberations regarding the upcoming Continuum of Care application cycle toward a favorable outcome to the CoC; and also to bring some items to your attention that we believe the Continuum of Care needs to carefully consider our County s most favorable position and ability to offer greater levels of high quality projects in the future. In order to keep this brief I will provide these items in brief bullet points below, and I am happy to discuss them in further detail. Our request is for our score to be adjusted in the three areas highlighted below based on these explanations and, at the very least that it will not be recommended for this well performing project to be reallocated. This being said, even if our score is adjusted we are still very open to talking about what might be best for our CoC regarding this and other RRH projects. For example, we are willing to explore the possibility of closing this RRH project to make more PSH beds available in our County. We are also very open to evaluating whether or not we can give some funds back to the CoC from this program or adjusting the amount served due to being able to find lower than anticipated rents and now being able to serve single adults rather than just families in this project. The project in question is Path of Life s Rapid Rehousing East County project, which conducted its first year between July 2016 and June We are now finishing our second year, but the score is based on information from the program s first year. Path of Life s initial score for this one project was a 76. However, this score does not reflect the quality of our performance for this project, where we ended up at the end of that first year, or where the project is now. This is a strongly performing project. The project is currently overserving in the number of units provided, is on target to spend down between 95 and 100% of the funds (despite securing many much less expensive rents than originally projected), and our recent monitoring passed with no programmatic concerns.

26 MAILING ADDRESS PO Box 1445 Riverside CA HEADQUARTERS Monday Friday 8:00am -5:00pm 1240 Palmyrita Ave Suite A Here is some context that led to the low score: Unspent Funds (lost 4 points) o It is typical for a project to have some unspent funds in its first year due to being forced to budget for 12 months at full capacity even though a new project starts at zero utilization and has to build up to full utilization; not only did we experience this common scenario, but we also experienced a one, two punch of difficulty from other unique environmental factors that were out of our control. o This was also the first year of a full fledge d CES system, which Path of Life faithfully used for every single placement. Initial kinks in the CES system that were outside our control made it extremely difficult to fill beds up as quickly as we had been able to do with our other RRH program which had its first year the year before. o Also, this particular program was dedicated to serve families and this was also the first year of the Housing Authority s special rule that prioritized families living in shelter. As a result, programs throughout the continuum experienced difficulty in finding families who would accept the RRH support rather than just wait for Section 8. Many homeless families that scored well for RRH simply refused the program and many did so after our staff had worked with them for weeks and found multiply units which the families would turn down because they were waiting to get their section 8 voucher. Employment/Increased Income (lost 5 points) This data is collected at a participant s one year anniversary and/or at their exit. Due to this being the first year of the program, we had no person at their one year anniversary and only two exits from the program including the spouse of another participant who remained and another individual that left for housing. In turn, there was no way for this data to be captured with a sufficient sample of participants. Bed Utilization (Lost 5 points) As mentioned for unspent funds, this was the first year of the program (so we started at zero) and section 8 and the new CES kinks were all contributing factors to more slowly filling these first year beds. This score is derived by taking an average of utilization numbers based on four points in the year one of which is in the first month of this program s first year (automatically skewing our average due to starting at zero). This being said, we ended the year strong and are over serving in this grant year (year 2).

27 MAILING ADDRESS PO Box 1445 Riverside CA HEADQUARTERS Monday Friday 8:00am -5:00pm 1240 Palmyrita Ave Suite A Additional things to consider concerning the scoring process for the CoC for this and future years: As noted above, projects being scored based on their first year performance are automatically at a serious disadvantage due simply to being in a first year and needing time to ramp up the program. If this is not considered, it puts new programs at risk of not being able to continue for more than 3 years. (In the case of this project we are wrapping up our 2 nd year and have already been approved for our third, but run the risk of not being able to apply for our 4 th year despite the fact that the project has performed well in both of its first two years and is expected to perform well in its third.) The current way that we provide scores on a project s cost effectiveness sets programs up to automatically lose points in future years despite changes they might make in their application to provide greater cost effectiveness. This year s (17/18) score for next year s (19/20) application is based on last year s (16/17) application. Even if we were to make changes to make the project more cost effective either this coming year (18/19) or in the upcoming application (19/20), the next score will be based on an old and irrelevant application. As a result, regardless of performance or any changes we are already set to lose an automatic 5 points in next year s score. It seems to me that it would be better to create a score based on the nature of the application that will be considered by HUD in the current NOFA rather than on past years. Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts and our request, and also for your service to our continuum of care. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Damien O Farrell, CEO Path of Life Ministries dofarrell@thepathoflife.com