Co C Debriefing Summary 2009 Co C

Co. C Debriefing Summary 2009

Co. C Scoring 2009 Scoring Category Maximum Score (Points) Co. C Housing, Services and Structure 14 13. 25 Homeless Needs and Data Collection 26 21. 75 Co. C Strategic Planning 22 17. 75 Co. C Performance 32 26. 5 Emphasis on Housing Activities 6 4. 5 Total Co. C Score 100 83. 75

Co. C Scoring 2008 and 2009 Scoring Category Maximum Score 2009 Maximum Score 2008 Co. C Score 2009 Co. C Housing, Services and Structure 14 14 13. 75 13. 25 Homeless Needs and Data Collection 24 26 19 21. 75 Co. C Strategic Planning 16 22 12. 75 17. 75 Co. C Performance 28 32 25 26. 5 Emphasis on Housing Activities 18 6 18 4. 5 Total Co. C Score 100 88. 5 83. 75

Scoring Change: 2008 to 2009 Scoring Category Change Rate of Score 2008 Rate of Score 2009 Co. C Housing, Services and Structure --- -. 5 98. 2% 94. 6% Homeless Needs and Data Collection +2 +2. 75 79. 2% 83. 6% Co. C Strategic Planning +6 +5 79. 7% 80. 6% Co. C Performance +4 +1. 5 89. 3% 82. 8% Emphasis on Housing Activities -12 -13. 5 100% 75% Total Co. C Score 100 -4. 75 88. 5% 83. 75%

National Scoring Information 2009 • High Score: 91. 25 (TCHC 83. 75 = 92%) (tchc 2008 88. 5 = 96%) • Low Score: 43 • Median Score: 75 • Funding Line: 71. 25 (TCHC 83. 75= +12. 50) (tchc 2008 88. 5 = +10. 25)

TCHC Overall Comparative 2008 to 2009 • Did not score as high • More national competition • Always room for improvement…. – So let’s review……

Competition Summary • Renewals were NOT competitive • Streamlined renewal process – Eligible SHP and S+C projects announced soon after submission deadline – New projects announced … July 2010… • Samaritan House Villages II Acquisition • PNS HOSO III

Point Structure • For the 2009 Co. C Competition, HUD awarded up to 100 total points for all five scoring categories I. III. IV. V. Co. C Housing, Services and Structure Homeless Needs and Data Collection Co. C Strategic Planning Co. C Performance Emphasis on Housing Activities

Co. C Housing, Services& Structure Max Score Possible FW/ARL/TC Co. C Score 2008 FW/ARL/TC Co. C Score 2009 Difference 14 13. 75 13. 25 -. 50 ANALYSIS of 2009 1. Coordinated, inclusive, Outcome-oriented process 2. Housing developers, business associations 3. Well-defined comprehensive strategies to address entire Co. C system 4. Serving all subpopulations: DV, HIV/AIDS, VETS, SMI, Chronic Substance Abuse 5. Community-wide inventory of housing and services

Co. C Housing, Services & Structure IMPROVEMENTS INTO 2010 1. Coordinated, inclusive, Outcome-oriented process: • Planning Council Re-org; Consumer Council 2. Housing developers, business associations • Corporations for Supportive Housing, MACH Housing Sub. Committee 3. Well-defined comprehensive strategies to address entire Co. C system… • TCHC, Planning Council Strategic Work Plans 4. Serving all subpopulations: DV, HIV/AIDS, VETS, SMI, Chronic Substance Abuse • VA/VASH; Directions Home: So. S; MHMR Add Serv 5. Community-wide inventory of housing and services • Expansion of website, housing inventory, services inventory

Homeless Needs & Data Collection Max Score FW/ARL/TC Co. C Score 2009 26 21. 75 ANALYSIS of 2009 1. 3 of 4 AHAR participation (2008 2 of 4) 2. ES Individual not over 86% coverage 3. De-duplication of data plan/procedures – validating data on entry, timeliness 4. Unsheltered homeless data 5. Null value rate unchanged

Homeless Needs & Data Collection IMPROVEMENTS INTO 2010 1. 3 of 4 AHAR participation (2008 2 of 4) • Goal of 7 / 7 in new HMIS Goals and Objectives AHAR (including VETS Data) 2. ES Individual not over 86% coverage – • +86% in new HMIS Goals and Objectives, need weekly and monthly PIT for ES facilities 3. Deduplication plan/procedures – validating data on entry, timeliness • New MOA between TCHC, COC and TCACCESS October 1, 2010 4. Unsheltered homeless data • PATH and SOS teams, survey design for 2011 census 5. Null value rate unchanged: New MOA…

Co. C Strategic Planning Max Score Possible FW/ARL/TC Co. C Score 2009 22 17. 75 ANALYSIS of 2009 1. Ending Chronic homelessness and a 10 -year plan 2. Discharge policy: clear description of WHERE people go other than a homeless situation 3. Goals and timelines to achieve the five objectives 4. HPRP coordination with all Co. C

Co. C Strategic Planning IMPROVEMENTS INTO 2010 1. Ending chronic homelessness and a 10 -year plan • Less emphasis on planning, more on outcome performance 2. Discharge policy: clear description of WHERE people go other than a homeless situation • Still a major deficit with corrections and health care; draft proposal on health care for 2010 3. Goals and timelines to achieve the five objectives • Continue specific measurable and related plan through Planning Council and Taskforces 4. HPRP coordination with all Co. C • VASH/HPRP developing; Prevention Task force should meet with all HPRP grantees for year 2 5. Leveraging of funds (Dallas has a 200% leverage requirement).

Co. C Performance Max Score Possible FW/ARL/TC Co. C Score 2009 32 26. 5 ANALYSIS of 2009 1. Achieved proposed action steps from 2008 2. Increase PSH beds for chronic homeless and reduction in chronic homelessness 3. Achieve the five objectives

Co. C Performance GOALS Create new PSH beds for chronic homeless % Staying in PSH over 6 months at least 71% (80% for points) TH to PH at least 63. 5% (70% for points) Employment at exit Decrease number of homeless households with children PROPOSED ACTUAL +/ - 361 518 157 over goal 78 81 +3 over goal 64 68 + 4 over goal 38% 27% -11 under goal 385 545 First time measured 200 under goal

Co. C Performance IMPROVEMENTS INTO 2010 1. Achieved proposed action steps from 2009 Planning Council and Task force action steps in place • 2. Increase PSH beds for chronic homeless and reduction in chronic homelessness VASH: Chronic Vets; DH Fully lease up • 3. Achieve the five objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Permanent Housing Bonus: HOSO III, HHSP beds PSH: Eviction Prevention Planning; Housing Inventory; Housing Specialist TH: utilization is down for third year in a row: TH Taskforce Job Developer goals: Homeless Households: HPRP +, show collaboration with ES

Emphasis on Housing Max Score Possible FW/ARL/TC Co. C Score 2009 6 4. 5 ANALYSIS of 2009 1. Significant drop in importance (2008 18) 2. Not about adding PSH; amount of local financial leverage for NEW permanent housing bonus. Dallas requires 200% leverage Our Co. C Application 2009: 73%

The BIG Picture BIGGEST CHALLENGES 1. Evaluating progress and performance BEFORE the year is over by case managers, program directors and Executive Directors The Co. C needs real-time, accurate, analyzable, accessible data and reporting at all levels of Co. C implementation, management and evaluation

The BIG Picture BIGGEST CHALLENGES 2. Preparing for HEARTH and the new goal: Ending homelessness in 30 days (20 if you want to be high performing) The Co. C needs real-time, centralized, rapid intake and assessment and immediate referral systems in place for new homeless

The BIG Picture BIGGEST CHALLENGES 3. Planning, coordinating and responding to needs cannot just mean more and more meetings…the Co. C System most adapt smoothly with comprehensive Co. C-wide input and agreement (RH and LH…. ) The Co. C needs expedited identification of gaps in services or procedures and swift implementation of solutions that are consistent across key subject/target areas: e. g. VETS, SMI, ES, TH families, MHMR, Women

The BIG Picture BIGGEST CHALLENGES 4. The Co. C should examine who does what best and define some shared roles and some distinct roles in service and housing. Top level Co. C management needs to share and understand strategic directions of other Co. C providers to assure non-duplication, opportunities for MOU, and their strategic fit with HEARTH Act and HUD Co. C funding and policy changes

Painting that BIG Picture…