Washtenaw County Emergency Solutions Grant

2014-15 MSHDA/HUD ESG Funding Process Recommendations

Prepared by the Office of Community & Economic Development www.ewashtenaw.org/oced

August 12, 2014

The CoC Executive Committee was empowered to act on behalf of the full Continuum of Care Board through a formal vote on Wednesday, July 9, 2014.

The CoC Executive Committee approved this report and its contents on Tuesday, September 12, 2014.

1

Introduction The 2009 Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act reauthorized the 1992 McKinney-Vento Act with a renewed emphasis on performance and establishing goals and outcomes to end homelessness. In an effort to align all of its homelessness programs with the implementation of HEARTH, the Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) updated the focus of the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) program to have an increased focus on a mandated centralized intake and assessment function for the homeless response system as well as both homeless prevention and rapid re-housing programs.

Washtenaw County receives two sources of the ESG program funding – a direct allocation from HUD through the local Urban County Consortium as well as an allocation from the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA). The Urban County delegates authority for ESG funding allocation to the Washtenaw County Continuum of Care (CoC) in order to align with the MSHDA ESG funding process. The CoC Board utilizes a committee – the Funding Review Team (FRT) – to conduct an annual funding review and recommendation process for both sources of ESG funding. Funding recommendations are then submitted to the CoC Board for final review and approval.

Due to the short timeframe between receiving the ESG NOFA and award information and completing the application process, the CoC Board delegated authority to the CoC Executive Committee at the July 19th, 2014 Board meeting. Acting on behalf of the entire CoC Board, the Executive Committee will give final approval for funding recommendations for the 2014 MSHDA & HUD ESG awards.

On Friday, July 26th, members of the Funding Review Team (FRT) began the funding process for the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) 2014-15 grant year. As expected, MSHDA is again mandating that agencies designated as the centralized Housing Assessment and Resource Agency (HARA) during the 2013-2014 ESG fiscal year – locally called Housing Access for Washtenaw County (HAWC) and operated by the Salvation Army – continue their role as the HARA for the 2014-2015 ESG Program, unless there is documented evidence of poor performance or extenuating circumstances. Additional mandates/considerations include:

a. MSHDA is no longer requiring a matching requirement. b. The HARA must have a dedicated staff person to oversee the Housing Choice Voucher

Preference waiting list, with a budget line to highlight where the cost/salary of this employee is entered.

c. The CoC must add two standing agenda items to check in on the adequacy of names on both the HCV and the PBV waiting lists.

d. Domestic Violence (DV) MSHDA ESG funds will be distributed through DHS and DV shelters will not receive MSHDA ESG funds through any other avenues.

e. The Special Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (SPDAT) will be a mandated tool for MSHDA ESG subgrantees.

f. Locally, the MSHDA ESG DV funding change does not affect our DV shelter as they received HUD ESG funds in FY2013-14. In future years this change in funding for DV providers may benefit our local provider as there may be an opportunity for new funding through the DHS partnership beginning in FY2015-16.

2

Given these limitations and reductions to funding, particularly the limiting mandate that the HARA remain the same entity, the FRT determined that a full competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) for any remaining program components was impractical. As such, the FRT moved forward with a renewal grant review process as outlined below.

MSHDA/HUD ESG Funds for FY 2014-15 Washtenaw County received a total of $156,155 from HUD directly and a total of $310,975 from MSHDA. This amounts to an overall increase in ESG funds for FY2014-15 through both HUD and MSHDA to $46,796.

In addition to the aforementioned NOFA guidelines, MSHDA mandated that a minimum of forty percent (40%) of their total grant amount must be awarded to the HARA, and funding to a HARA cannot be reduced from last year’s level. Also, CoCs receiving an increase in funds must increase funding to the HARA at an amount equal to the highest increase provided to another sub-grantee.

Local ESG Funding Process for 2014-15 Renewals In anticipation of the late June release of MSHDA’s ESG NOFA and Exhibit 1, OCED staff shared a projected timeline of the funding process to prepare CoC members for the ESG process.

Additionally, OCED staff released a survey of the current ESG grantees (attachment A) requesting information to inform the FRT’s renewal funding process for FY2014-15. These questions included:

• current year’s successes • current year’s challenges • FY 2014-15 budget assuming level funding • recommendations if increased funding is received • potential impacts to services if reduced funding is received

To determine grantee eligibility for renewal, the FRT reviewed a performance rubric (attachment B) with supporting documents, including the results from the above-mentioned survey. The rubric evaluated renewal programs in five sections comparing FY2012 and the first three quarters of FY2013. The rubric indicated any changes in performance in the following sections:

Section 1- Program Outcomes (reporting data on ESG semi-annual reports) Section 2- Compliance (findings from 2014 ESG monitoring) Section 3- HMIS Data Quality (null values in Universal Data Elements) Section 4- Agency Survey feedback (agencies were asked for their input regarding funding recommendations for their agency) Section 5- Governance & Fiscal Review (summary of governance & fiscal review as conducted by through the 2014 Coordinated Funding RFI process)

3

Upon reviewing these documents, the FRT corresponded with current grantees to address any remaining questions or concerns prior to making funding recommendations.

FRT Review: Performance Concerns & Recommendations The FRT members identified the following concerns for ESG renewal applicants:

Interfaith Hospitality Network (IHN) The FRT noted no specific concerns for this agency.

Ozone House The FRT noted no specific concerns for this agency.

Shelter Association of Washtenaw County (SAWC) The FRT identified a concern regarding data quality for this agency. Given that specific data-entry changes were mandated by MSHDA in the past fiscal year and that the HMIS Systems Administrator is actively working with this agency to address data quality, the FRT recommends continued monitoring through the Data & Performance Measurement and HAWC Oversight & Evaluation committees.

SafeHouse The FRT noted two specific performance concerns for SafeHouse. Specifically, decreases in the following performance measures were identified:

• Percentage of clients discharged to stable housing • Number of adult clients with income at exit, especially those with employment

The FRT recommends continued monitoring through the Data & Performance Measurement. In addition to performance concerns, the FRT noted that SafeHouse’s indicated in its survey responses continued concern regarding agency funding reductions and the threats to existing programming. FRT members were unable to ascertain the immediacy of these threats and recommend the agency be more specific about programmatic viability in future funding rounds. This concern should continue to be explored by the CoC in the coming year.

The Salvation Army of Washtenaw County/Housing Access of Washtenaw County (HAWC) The FRT noted the following specific performance concerns for the Salvation Army:

• Increase in the number of null or unknown social security numbers • Overall, need for the HARA to improve data quality. In particular the Universal Data Elements

(UDE) entry and collection • In many instances for HARA data, the percentage of null or unknown data elements have

increased

4

The FRT recommends continued monitoring through the Data & Performance Measurement and HAWC Oversight & Evaluation committees. Other than performance concerns, the FRT recommends that Board engagement be improved. This recommendation is in response to the recent Coordinated Funding review on agency’s governance, which found that the Board lacked in regular attendance and annual giving. Furthermore, since The Salvation Army had recently received funding to hire additional HAWC staff through the Coordinated Funding process, there is an expectation from the FRT for HAWC data quality to improve.

SOS In terms of performance, SOS had a significant increase in the percentage of null or unknown UDE for residence prior to program entry and zip code of last residence. The FRT recommends continued monitoring through the Data & Performance Measurement and HAWC Oversight & Evaluation committees.

Furthermore, the FRT had the following concerns:

• SOS’s survey responses indicated concern regarding agency funding reductions and the threats to existing programming. FRT members were unable to ascertain the immediacy of these threats and recommend the agency be more specific about programmatic viability in future funding rounds. This concern should continue to be explored by the CoC in the coming year.

• In response to stated agency concerns that SOS staff are now conducting half of all HAWC prevention assessment, the FRT analyzed data from HMIS to determine the need for more support for SOS staff. It was determined that SOS is completing 43% of prevention assessments, and has the same staffing levels as Salvation Army maintains for this function. Therefore, the FRT does not recommend prioritizing increased funding for SOS staffing at this time.

2014-15 ESG Funding Recommendations When considering how to award increased funding from both MSHDA and HUD, OCED staff and the FRT strived to complete a full community assessment of MSHDA requirements, and community resources and needs. During this comprehensive review, recent awards from the Coordinated Funding process and the CoC reallocation process were considered.

HARA Administration: To support smooth operations of HAWC, a communitywide service, a $2,533 increase to HAWC administration is recommended. MSHDA mandates that administrative funds be capped at 7%. This 7% administrative allowance is currently split between HAWC and OCED, and OCED has elected to forego any increase in administrative funds through this process.

RRH Assessments: To ensure that individuals and families experiencing homelessness receive assessments and shelter referrals when needed, both IHN and SAWC should continue their role as assessment agencies at current funding levels.

5

RRH Direct Assistance: RRH direct assistance is available for both families and individuals. It is recommended that this amount is increased by $4,617 to continue to support this best-practice. This funding will continue to be disbursed by the HARA, as per MSHDA mandate.

Homelessness Prevention Assessments: Both SOS and Salvation Army will continue to provide Prevention assessments for HAWC to ensure there is sufficient capacity in the system to access both MSHDA ESG Prevention funds as well as other community funds (i.e. Barrier Busters funds). Due to the new MSHDA mandate to have a dedicated staff person oversee the Housing Choice Voucher Preference waiting list at the HARA, it is recommended that the Salvation Army receive an increase of $29,646 to support this new role. To accommodate these new duties, the Salvation Army suggests that one part-time intake specialist position could become full time, with 20 hours dedicated to screening assessments and 20 hours dedicated to the HCV duties. The FRT is in agreement with this staffing recommendation.

Homelessness Prevention Direct Assistance: Funding to support prevention direct assistance will continue with a recommended $10,000 increase to support more clients. This funding will continue to be disbursed by the HARA, as per MSHDA mandate.

Special Populations: SafeHouse Center and Ozone House are recommended for funding to continue services to domestic violence survivors and youth at current levels, because they are identified as the community’s experts for these respective populations. SafeHouse Center is recommended to continue to receive funds for essential services, while Ozone House to continue to receive Homelessness Prevention Services dollars. Fiduciary: It is recommended that OCED remain the role as the Fiduciary. As stated above, OCED has elected to forego any increase in administrative funding, in order to maximize the functioning of HAWC.

2014-15 ESG Funding Recommendations Approval The FRT submitted the recommended funding allocations in attachment C for the CoC Board’s review and approval on Monday, August 11, 2014. The CoC Executive Committee, empowered by the CoC Board to approve the ESG funding recommendations, met to discuss the FRT’s findings on Tuesday, August 12, 2014. After discussion, the CoC Executive Committee voted unanimously to approve the MSHDA ESG funding recommendations. Additionally, they approved the HUD ESG funding recommendations with one abstention (Katie Doyle of the Executive Committee abstained from the HUD ESG vote as she is the Director of Ozone House, an agency that receives HUD ESG funding).

6

MSHDA/HUD ESG 2014-2015 Funding Process Funding Recommendation Survey

AGENCY:_______________________

Thank you for providing your survey responses by 5pm on Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014 to Laura Urteaga-Fuentes at urteagal@ewashtenaw.org.

Please answer the survey questions and attach the following to this survey response:

• Budget & Budget Narrative

Please summarize top three successes in your ESG funded program in the past fiscal year. Please indicate the top three challenges in your ESG funded program for the past fiscal year. BUDGET QUESTION 1: Please complete the attached budget and budget narrative for FY2014 and answer the following question. Please construct the budget assuming level funding from FY2013 to FY2014.

Linking your answer to your agency’s attached budget, list any changes in funds requested by program expense (e.g. RRH Direct Assistance) and provide an explanation for any change(s).

ATTACHMENT A

BUDGET QUESTION 2: If there is an increase in ESG funding, how would your agency allocate additional funds? Please be specific about which program expenses would increase and describe why this would be a useful change to your agency. BUDGET QUESTION 3: If there is a decrease in ESG funding, how would your agency’s ESG budget change? Please be specific about what program expenses would be affected. Since the implementation of HAWC, there have been many changes and an effort to gain community buy-in. What is your agency’s perspective on community buy-in and existing processes for HAWC? Feel free to be specific about all components, including Call Center, Walk-In Clinic, Assessments, and the HAWC Executive Committee. How has your agency built public support and political will for ending homelessness with city and county officials, McKinney-Vento school liaisons, businesses, and other interested parties? Please provide specific examples. Please list the SOAR trained case managers in your agency.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSES!

EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT- 2014

FUNDING REVIEW TEAM RENEWAL PROJECT PERFORMANCE RUBRIC

This rubric evaluates renewal programs, comparing FY2012 and the first three quarters of FY2013 for 3 of 5 sections. The sections are as follows:

Section 1- Program Outcomes (reporting data on agency semi-annual reports) Section 2- Compliance (finding during monitoring) Section 3- HMIS Data Quality (null values in Universal Data Elements) Section 4- Agency Survey feedback (summary of agency survey responses- survey attached) Section 5- Governance & Fiscal Review (summary of Governance & Fiscal Review- letter attached)

The rubric will indicate any increase or decrease in performance, or if there was no change. The key below indicates how change in performance is represented.

PERFORMANCE LEVEL KEY:

Increase in performance

Performance remained the same

Decrease in performance

INSTRUCTIONS:

After reviewing the rubric and attachments, please fill out the section at the end of the rubric. Please specify whether you recommend the agency for renewed funding. You may provide comments if any apply.

Final recommendations for funding will be determined at the next FRT meeting on 8/5, 2-4pm. Contact Laura Urteaga-Fuentes with any questions at 734.222.6586 or urteagal@ewashtenaw.org.

Thank you for your continued commitment to the ESG funding process!

ATTACHMENT B

EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT- 2014 – PERFORMANCE RUBRIC

AGENCY: IHN PROGRAM: RRH SECTION 1 - PROGRAM OUTCOMES

Criteria Standard FY 2012 Performance

FY 2013 Performance

(first 3 quarters)

Performance Level

Percent of clients discharged to stable housing 60%

Percent of clients with “known” exit destination (engagement)

90%

Percent of adult clients with income at exit 50%

Percentage of adult clients with cash/noncash income at exit

75%

Percentage of adult clients with employment at exit

35%

PROGRAM OUTCOMES PERFORMANCE

SECTION 2 – COMPLIANCE (MONITORING)

FY 2012 Monitoring for 2011 Compliance FY 2013 Monitoring for 2012 Compliance Performance Level

COMPLIANCE PERFORMANCE

SECTION 3 – HMIS DATA QUALITY

Criteria Standard FY 2012 Performance

FY 2013 Performance

(first 3 quarters)

Performance Level

*HMIS - % of Universal Data Elements (UDEs) with No or Null Values in HMIS (left blank) for the following criteria:

Name 5% or < *

Date of Birth 5% or < *

Gender 5% or < *

Social Security Number 5% or < *

Race 5% or < *

Ethnicity 5% or < *

Veteran Status 5% or < *

Disabling Condition 5% or < *

Residence prior to program entry 5% or < *

Zip code of last residence 5% or < *

Housing Status 5% or < *

DATA QUALITY PERFORMANCE

SECTION 4– AGENCY SURVEY Agencies were asked to submit responses to a survey regarding any funding recommendations and other feedback about

HAWC and their agency’s performance. Budgets with budget narratives were also submitted along with updated policies & procedures.

Please see attached survey response.

SECTION 5– GOVERNANCE & FISCAL REVIEW SUMMARY Agency governance and fiscal information was submitted to Washtenaw County Coordinated Funders in order to determine

if the agency met the core governance and/or fiscal threshold needed to apply for program operating funds. Below is a summary of a review of the submitted information, including any recommendations for improvement.

REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS REVIEWER: ________________________________________________

Agency overall performance for sections 1-3 (please circle)

Do you recommend this agency for renewal funding? (indicate yes or no)

Reviewer Comments:

MSHDA ESG FY2014-15 - FRT Recommendations ATTACHMENT CBudget Breakdown by Activity and Funding Source

Operatio

ns

Essentia

l Serv

ices

Admin

istra

tion

Housing S

tabiliz

atio

n

Serv

ices (

HP)

Housing S

tabiliz

atio

n

Serv

ices (

RRH)

Financia

l Ass

istance

(HP)

Financia

l Ass

istance

(RRH)

TOTAL FY2012-1

3

Recom

mendatio

ns

ESG Note

s

MSHDA ESG

Interfaith Hopsitality Network - - - - $35,000 - - $35,000 HRS (1 RRH FTE)

Salvation Army - - $13,533 $183,102 $0 $50,000 $21,105 $267,740HRS (HCV/PBV) - 1 FTE; HRS - Coord. - 1 FTE; 4 HRS

(Portion of 4 part-time Intake Specialists)

Fiduciary (OCED) - - $8,235 - - - - $8,235

Category Totals $0 $0 $21,768 $183,102 $35,000 $50,000 $21,105 $310,975

Shelter vs. Housing First Totals $21,768 $310,975 Total MSHDA Award: $310,975

Shelter vs. Housing First % 7% 100%

Ozone House - - - $29,204 - - - $29,204 HRS (1 FTE)

SafeHouse $31,277 - - - - - $31,277 ES (1 FTE)

Salvation Army - - - $13,674 - - - $13,674 HRS (Portion of 4 part-time Intake Specialists)

SAWC - - - - $42,000 - - $42,000 HRS (1 RRH FTE)

SOS Community Services - - - $30,000 - - - $30,000 HRS (1 FTE)

Fiduciary (OCED) - - $10,000 - - - - $10,000

Category Totals $0 $31,277 $10,000 $72,878 $42,000 $0 $0 $156,155

Shelter vs. Housing First Totals $10,000 $156,155 Total HUD Award: $156,155

Shelter vs. Housing First % 6% 100%

Shelter/TH Services (All

Grantees)$0 $31,277 - - - - $31,277

HAWC $0 $31,277 $31,768 $255,980 $77,000 $50,000 $21,105 $467,130

Category Totals $0 $62,554 $31,768 $255,980 $77,000 $50,000 $21,105 $498,407

Shelter vs. Housing First Totals $31,768 $467,130

Shelter vs. Housing First % 7% 107%13% 87%

$31,277 $114,878

20% 74%

GRAND TOTALS

$62,554 $404,085

MSHDA ESG

$0 $289,207

0% 93%

HUD ESG