# Presentation: 510215

##   HUD Perspective

-   HUD Perspective

## Welcome and Introduction

- Presenters
***Mark Johnston, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for ******Special Needs***** **
***Robyn Raysor, Deputy Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs***
***Michael Roanhouse, Director, Program Coordination and       Analysis Division***** **
***Brian Fitzmaurice, Director, Community Assistance Division***
***Jim Greene, Emergency Shelter Commission, Boston, Mass.***
- Moderator
***Julie Hovden, Special Needs Assistance Program Specialist***

**Notes:**
Facilitator:

Welcome session participants.

Introduce self and co-presenters.

Housekeeping details:

Session evaluations have been placed on each seat.  The evaluations can be completed at the end of the session and left on the chairs or deposited in a designated spot for collection by conference staff.
There will be a short break during the session. 

## 

HUD’s Homeless Definition

Robyn Raysor
Deputy Director
Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs

**HUD’s Homeless Definition**
**Robyn Raysor**
**Deputy Director**
**Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs**

## HUD’s Definition of Homelessness

- The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act states the following (general definition):
- The term “homeless individual” or “homeless person” includes:
- An individual who lacks a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence; and
- An individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is:
- A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations;
- An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized;
- A public or private place not designated for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

## How HUD Operationalizes the Definition

- Street
- Emergency Shelter
- Transitional Housing (originally from the street or emergency shelter)

## HUD’s Definition and Setting Priorities

- HUD’s definition prioritizes populations.
- HUD’s funding is meant to work in conjunction with local or state resources in order to address the needs of communities.
- Dept. of Education uses a slightly different/more broad definition as related to homeless youth and children.  *This is used to determine eligibility for education-related programs, not housing.*

## HUD’s Resources and Priorities

- Nearly 800,000 persons experience homelessness at any point in time (by HUD’s definition):
- In 2006, HUD received $1.3 Billion for homeless assistance.
- HUD homeless programs fund approximately 135,000 units of housing per year.  HUD is the only federal agency authorized to do permanent housing.
- Approximately 2.8 million households are in doubled up situations annually.
- Need and resources do not match, even under current definition.  Therefore certain populations must be prioritized through eligibility criteria.

**Notes:**
These numbers need to be checked for accuracy

## HUD’s Resources and Priorities

- The current definition of homelessness allows HUD to:
- Set national priorities and target resources in order to make an impact;
- Serve the families and individuals with the deepest needs through its housing programs;
- Maximize the funding it has available; and
- Encourage other mainstream service systems to develop and provide resources to those not eligible for HUD homeless services.

## What is Chronic Homelessness?

- HUD uses the Federal inter-agency definition.
- A chronically homeless person:
- Is an unaccompanied homeless individual,
- Has a disabling condition, AND
- Has either been continuously homeless for a year or more, OR has had at least 4 episodes of homelessness in the past 3 years.

## Why Focus on Chronic Homelessness?

- Nearly 50% of persons served through HUD-funded programs are families.
- This definition allows HUD to prioritize this population because*:
- Chronically homeless persons comprise approximately 10% of the total homeless population but use 50% of emergency shelter bed nights.
- Research indicates that housing chronically homeless persons can result in an overall savings due to decreased use of resources such as emergency hospitalization, jail/prison nights, and inpatient mental health care.

- *Culhane, D.P. & Kuhn, R. (1997). Patterns and determinants of shelter utilization among single homeless adults in New York City and Philadelphia: A longitudinal analysis of homelessness. *Journal of Policy Analysis and Management*, 17 (1) 23-43. *

**Notes:**
HUD recognizes frustration
What is the Stated Rationale for the Chronic Homelessness Initiative?
 Proponents of the chronic homelessness initiative point to research analyzing the shelter use patterns of single adults in publicly funded shelters in New York and Philadelphia.[2] This research found that 80% of these shelter users experienced a single episode of homelessness and stayed in shelter for a relatively short period of time; another 10% had four or five episodes of homelessness and, cumulatively, stayed in shelter for a longer period of time; and yet another 10% had an average of two episodes of homelessness, but stayed an even longer cumulative time in shelter. This last group of people, classified as "chronically homeless," and often suffering from serious health and mental health issues, occupied 50% of the total number of shelter days over a three-year period.
Many policy implications have been drawn from this research. Most significantly, proponents of the "chronic homelessness" initiative argue that because the "chronically homeless" group "used up" half of all the shelter days, a larger portion of homeless assistance dollars should be targeted to permanent supportive housing for them. The often-stated purpose of this policy is to "free up" more emergency shelter beds for the remaining 90% in need.

## 

Discharge Planning

Robyn Raysor
Deputy Director
Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs

**Discharge Planning**
**Robyn Raysor**
**Deputy Director**
**Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs**

## Discharge Planning is Homelessness Prevention

- Inappropriate discharges from foster care, health care institutions, jails and mental health facilities increase the number of homeless:
- Discharge planning is important to ensure that mainstream service providers do their part in reducing homelessness;
- Strong discharge planning policies offer more coordinated resources to those in need

## Discharge Planning and HUD’s Homeless Assistance Programs

- Coordination on discharge planning has been a scored element of HUD’s CoC Application since 2004:
- CoCs must actively involve themselves in discharge planning;
- Has included statutory requirements for certification of discharge policies.

## Discharge Planning at the Local Level

- State and local governments must develop and implement, to the maximum extent practical and where appropriate, discharge policies that do not result in homelessness.
- States and units of local government are primarily responsible for planning for those discharged from public institutions.

## Discharge Statistics

**Notes:**
Over a million people are discharged from jail, mental health facilities and foster care in the U.S annually.
If even 10% were to be discharged into homelessness, homeless service systems would be overwhelmed.

## Discharge Planning and HUD’s Homeless Assistance Programs

- HUD does not fund programs specifically designed for persons being discharged from institutions.
- HUD CoC funds alone cannot address the needs of this population.

**Notes:**
When discharge planning is required by local law, persons discharged from public institutions are not eligible for HUD-funded homeless programs

## Community Progress

- CoCs are proactively working on discharge planning by:
- Gathering data on how discharges from public institutions impact the homeless service system.
- Working with state legislatures to draft policy/statute preventing public institutions from discharging into homelessness.
- Making public institutions accountable for complying with local law/policy on the discharge of people into the homeless service system.

**Notes:**
Iowa CoC has worked to draft this type of legislation about discharging into homelessness
Wisconsin has statute, shelters can return people discharged from an institution to shelter to that institution for proper discharge planning, if necessary.

**The Evolution of Continuum of Care Governance**
**Michael Roanhouse**
**Director, Program Coordination ****& Analysis Division**
**Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs**

## Words of Wisdom

- "If we could first know where we are, and wither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it."
- 					*Abraham Lincoln*
**Attribution:*** 1858 “House Divided" speech*

## Words of Wisdom

- "You got to be careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there."
*Yogi Berra*

## History of HUD Homeless Competition

- From 1988-1993, national competitions were based on individual agency applications rather than being community driven.
- Multiple solicitations were released for:
- SHP (TH &PH)
- SRO
- SAFAH
- Shelter Plus Care
- HUD rates need based on project narratives, but cannot judge real community-level need
- Required consistency with CHAP and CHAS

## History of HUD Homeless Competition

- HUD phased in the CoC concept administratively over 3 years:
- 1994: Introduction of CoC as a part of homeless service planning
- 1995: Addition of rating points for evidence of coordination
- 1996: Community-driven application required; SHP, SPC and SRO combined into 1 NOFA; pro-rata need estimate developed

**Notes:**
The first CoC-based NOFA was released in 1994

## HUD’s Values Drive Local CoC Governance

- HUD’s guiding principles for homeless programming:
- Recognition of the diverse characteristics and needs of persons experiencing homelessness;
- Comprehensive and collaborative local planning and decision-making: inclusive of all essential stakeholders; public and private representation;

**Notes:**
HUD develops and articulates guiding principles for homeless programming

## HUD’s Values Drive Local CoC Governance (cont’d)

- CoCs should develop a fair and unbiased process for determining need, developing strategies and prioritizing projects while assessing program and community level performance;
- Flexibility within and across HUD’s programs offers opportunity for innovative and creative solutions at the local level;
- Communities to focus on better data and performance measures.

## What Works in CoC Governance?

- In 2002 HUD conducted research on CoC governance and performance:
- – 25 geographically diverse CoCs were studied
- Statewide, Regional, County and City
- 10 without a formal CoC authority/body
- 10 with public-private arrangements including a Board and at least one government agency playing a strong role
- 4 communities with formal independent agencies leading homeless planning

## What Works in CoC Governance?

- Key Findings:
- “Limited planning produces limited results.”
- Jurisdictions with stable leadership and firmly entrenched planning structures tend to be:
- more successful in establishing comprehensive, system-wide planning
- providing a reasonably well-coordinated and full continuum of programs and services.
*Evaluation of Continuums of Care for Homeless People Final Report*,
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, May 2002

## Moving Forward: HUD’s Proposed Legislation and CoC Governance

- HUD’s Homeless Assistance Consolidation Act (H.R. 5041) proposes changes based on research and from CoC applications:
- Each CoC would have a formalized CoC Board to lead the collaborative planning process and to evaluate progress;
- The Board or an agent would be the applicant for CoC funds;

## Moving Forward: HUD’s Proposed Legislation and CoC Governance

- Membership would be diverse and inclusive of all stakeholders;
- Goals include prevention of homelessness, ending chronic homelessness, and promoting self-sufficiency;
- Other priorities include discharge planning, HMIS, access to mainstream resources.

## Proposed CoC Board Membership and Responsibilities

## The 2006 CoC Application: Governance Section

- Anticipating new legislation, HUD included informational questions in the 2006 application.  The purpose was to:
- Inform communities about the possible upcoming changes;
- To encourage a “fast start” for local responses to anticipated legislation; and
- Get a status on current CoC governance in order to help with implementation of new legislation.
- Not iron-clad standards.

## The 2006 CoC Application: Governance Section

- Questions related to:
- Type of planning/decision making body;
- Composition and selection of planning/decision-making body members;
- Financial oversight/fiscal agent.
- Design goal is to develop guidance that allows flexibility at the local level.

## Overview of 2006 Governance Chart Responses

- 94% of 2006 CoCs have a separate planning and decision making body/entity that is broadly representative.
- 87% of CoCs indicate that their primary decision-making entity is at least 65% private sector representation.
- 87% of CoCs select their decision-making membership through an open and democratic process.

## Overview of 2006 Governance Chart Responses (cont’d)

- 43% of CoCs responded “yes” to having rotating co-chairs representing public/private sectors with staggered 2-year terms.
- 73% of CoCs have developed a code of conduct.
- 54% of CoCs report that they can use a fiscal agent.
- 95% indicate that decision-making members would recuse themselves to avoid a conflict of interest.

## Final Thoughts on CoC Governance

- New legislation, if passed, will help HUD and CoCs reach goals, and will adhere to original principles and values.
- Most CoCs have formal planning and decision-making structures already in place.
- Details of these structures may need to be further formalized or adjusted if the new legislation passes.
- HUD will give adequate time to CoCs for compliance with new legislation.

**Notes:**
These requirements are not yet final.  
Provide HUD feedback over the next 2 days.

## HUD CoC Data Requirements 

**Michael Roanhouse**
**Director, Program Coordination ****& Analysis Division**
**Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs**

## Importance of Data 

- Communities need data to:
- Determine the size and scope of the homeless problem at the local level
- Plan services and programs appropriately to address local needs
- Measure progress in addressing homelessness
- Measure performance of individual programs and the system as a whole

## Importance of Data 

- HUD needs data to:
- Understand the extent and nature of homelessness throughout the county
- Provide Congress with information on services provided and gaps in services
- Report to Congress and OMB on performance
- Make funding decisions

## HUD Data Requirements 

- Housing Inventory Charts - Annual
- Inventory of beds to shelter homeless people. including seasonal/overflow capacity
- Point-in-Time Counts - Biennial
- One-night count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons
- HMIS Unduplicated Counts
- Annual unduplicated data on persons served (unsheltered, sheltered, and housed), characteristics, services needs/use, and effectiveness of programs

## Dispelling the Myth 

- Old Myth: HUD does not use the data you report in CoC Application
- New Reality: HUD analyzes all data reported in CoC Application
- Accuracy is important
- Increasing coverage in HMIS is important and will be scrutinized carefully for changes from year to year
- PIT counts need to be accurate and based on reliable methods, _not_ “guesstimates”
- Data will be verified prior to publication if numbers appear to be over or under reported

**Notes:**
Explain what “verified” means - HUD will be contacting you to 

## Housing Inventory Charts 

- Purpose:
- To understand bed capacity of the shelter system at the local and national level
- Required Data
- Annual bed and unit capacity:
- emergency shelter (including seasonal and overflow)
- transitional housing, and
- permanent supported housing
- Program level data
- Target population served
- Extent of HMIS data collection

## Uses of Housing Inventory Data 

- HUD will begin to publish inventory data on its web site along with CoC maps
- HUD aggregates total beds recorded in the Housing Inventory Chart for the Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress and will report changes in bed inventory over time
- CoC level data will be verified if over or under utilization is reported

**Notes:**
Explain what “verified” means – HUD will be contacting you

## Point-In-Time Counts 

- Purpose
- To understand the number and characteristics of people sleeping in shelters, and on the street or other places not meant for human habitation
- Required Data:
- Unduplicated one-night count or estimate of sheltered and unsheltered adults, children, and youth
- Estimates *must be* based on statistically-reliable sampling methods
- Subpopulation information

## Point-in-Time Counts

- PIT Requirements:
- Conduct counts at least every other year; encouraged to conduct annual counts
- One-night count must take place during last seven days of January
- Must collect information about chronic homelessness for all homeless people
- Must use accepted methods, no “guesstimates”

**Notes:**
Explain why counts must talk place during last seven days of January:
Generally the time of year shelter usage is at its peak
Winter months threatening to unsheltered homeless persons
Explain that the HUD timing of the release of the NOFA keeps moving up, thereby moving up the CoC due date.

## 2005 Unsheltered Counts

- Source:
- 2005 CoC Application Data for 447 CoCs

**Notes:**
Explain that CoCs will gain or loose points if PIT methods are not up to par
Explain what verified means – i.e. HUD will contact you

Notes about 2005 data: 
All statistics out of N=447 – street or service-based counts on unsheltered people
Data was missing for remainder of CoCs
“Conduct or plan to conduct”

## Uses of Point-in-Time Data

- HUD will publish sheltered and unsheltered CoC data reported in the Homeless Population and Subpopulations Chart
- PIT methods and counts reported are part of the competitive process
- CoC data will be verified prior to publication if count or methods reported are questionable

**Notes:**
Explain that CoCs will gain or loose points if PIT methods are not up to par
Explain what verified means – i.e. HUD will contact you

## HMIS

- Congressional Directive
- Capture unduplicated counts of clients served, analyze patterns of service use of people entering and exiting the homeless assistance system, and evaluate the effectiveness of these systems.
- HMIS costs are eligible under the Supportive Housing Program (SHP)

**Notes:**
In 2001, Congress directed HUD on the need for data and analysis on the extent of homelessness and the effectiveness of the McKinney-Vento Act Programs including:
Developing unduplicated counts of clients served at the local level;
Analyzing patterns of use of people entering and exiting the homeless assistance system; and
Evaluating the effectiveness of these systems.

## HUD Response to Congressional Directive

- HMIS becomes eligible activity under 2001 SuperNOFA
- Decide on data, privacy, and security requirements
- Data and Technical Standards Final Notice: _[www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/hmis/standards/](http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/hmis/standards/)_
- Implements National HMIS TA Project
- Develops an approach to capture meaningful data in an Annual Homeless Assessment Report
- Assesses the most viable approaches to obtain homeless client-level reporting in the Annual Progress Report (APR)
- _[http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/hmis/strategy/](http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/hmis/strategy/)_

## HMIS: Who is Responsible?

- Continuum of Care (CoC) is responsible for HMIS Implementation, including planning, software selection, setting up and managing the database according to HUD Standards.
- The HMIS administering agency of the SHP HMIS project grant are agents of the CoC, manage HMIS operations on behalf of the CoC and provide HMIS administration functions at the direction of the CoC

**Notes:**
Through the experience of successful HMIS implementations, we have learned that active participation by CoC members, either through Committee/sub-committee structure or other meetings, in the management of the HMIS process, including establishing policies, procedures and protocols for privacy, data sharing protocols, data analysis, reporting, data integrity/validity, etc. are essential to the viability and success of the HMIS. 

## HMIS Bed Coverage Projections

**Notes:**
From 2005

## 2006 HUD Goals for HMIS

- HUD must report annually to Congress on progress
- Increase HMIS participation is one of HUD’s GPRA (Government Performance Results Act) goals
- Ultimate indicator is participation in AHAR
- HUD will require all CoC’s to participate in AHAR in the near future
- Participation in AHAR requires CoCs have adequate HMIS bed coverage

## Congress Continues to Support HMIS: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005

- “The Committee remains strongly supportive of the Department's ongoing efforts on data collection and analysis within the homeless programs, especially its efforts to collect a nationally representative sample of homeless data. HUD should continue its collaborative efforts with local jurisdictions to collect an array of data on homelessness in order to analyze patterns of use of assistance, including how many people enter and exit the homeless assistance system. The Committee directs HUD to continue its role in leading the Federal Government's efforts on this data collection and analysis activity.”

## HUD Appropriation Committee 2006

- “... the Committee strongly urges the Department to ensure full participation by all CoCs in the HMIS effort and consider future CoC funding to be contingent upon participation in HMIS and AHAR.”
- -Senate Report 109-109

**Notes:**
In order to improve efforts in addressing homelessness, it is critical for providers and government officials to have reliable data. To address this matter, the Committee began an effort in 2001 that charged the Department to collect homeless data through the implementation of a new Homeless Management Information System [HMIS]. The implementation of this new system would allow the Department to obtain meaningful data on the Nation's homeless population and develop annual reports through an Annual Homeless Assessment Report [AHAR]. While this initiative has been delayed through a variety of factors, including participation resistance from some CoC communities, HUD recently reported that a majority of communities are now implementing or operating an HMIS. The Department has encouraged the participation of HMIS through financing and incentives through the annual, competitive CoC Notice of Funding Availability [NOFA] process. Nevertheless, ...

Due to the Committee's continued interest in the Department's data collection and analysis efforts, the Committee again directs HUD to report on its progress by no later than March 10, 2006.”

## HUD Appropriation Committee 2007

- “...the Committee continues to believe that the Department must ensure full participation by all grantees in the HMIS effort and ensure that grantees and interested stakeholders fully understand the importance of this effort and that adequate protections are in place for homeless people...”
- -Senate Report 109-293

**Notes:**
The Committee also continues to support an effort begun in 2001 that charged the Department with collecting homeless data through the implementation of a new Homeless Management Information System [HMIS]. The Department has recently begun collecting data on the Nation's homeless population and developing annual reports through an Annual Homeless Assessment Report [AHAR] through the HMIS. Further, the Committee supports the Department's efforts to ensure participation of HMIS through financing and other incentives...

... Nevertheless, Due to the Committee's continued interest in the Department's data collection and analysis efforts, the Committee again directs HUD to report on its progress by no later than March 23, 2007.”

## HUD Plans to Publish Data 

- Reporting of:
- Annual bed inventory *from* the Housing Inventory Chart
- One-night count *from* the Homeless Population and Subpopulations Chart
- Longitudinal Unduplicated Count and Characteristics Data *from* the Annual Homeless Assessment Report (HMIS data)

## CoC Maps

## CoC Housing Inventory Data 

## HMIS Resources 

- _[www.HMIS.Info](http://www.hmis.info/)_
- Ask the Expert
- Request Technical Assistance
- Low Coverage Regional Meetings

## Resources for Point-in-Time Counts

- A Guide to Counting Unsheltered Homeless People **Revised**
- Guidance on Counting Sheltered Homeless People **New**

## 

Financial Management

Brian Fitzmaurice
Director, Community Assistance Division
Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs

**Financial Management**
**Brian Fitzmaurice**
**Director, Community Assistance Division**
**Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs**

## Financial Management Closely Linked to Performance

- •	Timely and efficient use of awarded funds
- •	Statutory and regulatory time requirements
- •	Scoring factor
- •	Crucial element of applicant capacity
- •	Documentation of Match
- Monitoring priority
- •	Unused Funds Recaptured

**Notes:**
Facilitator:

Welcome session participants.

Introduce self, HUD presenter, and CoC representative.

Housekeeping details:

Session is structured to involve participants in a discussion and to allow time for questions and answers, following a relatively short presentation.  Please hold questions and comments until the discussion and question and answer portions of the session.

Session evaluations have been placed on each seat.  The evaluations can be completed at the end of the session and left on the chairs or deposited in a designated spot for collection by conference staff. 

After the session, participants should proceed to the Grand Ballroom Foyer for the morning break and return to this room for the CoC Management session.

## Timely and Efficient Use of Awarded Funds 

- Recipients are expected to execute grants and implement projects in a timely manner to benefit homeless participants as soon as possible.
- Grants should serve the level of participants proposed in application, i.e., utilize the full grant amount for intended purpose.

## Statutory and Regulatory Time Requirements

- The law allows up to 2 years to execute grants (obligate funds), e.g.  2006 awards must be obligated no later than 9/30/08, or funds will return to Treasury.
- Statutory and regulatory  timeliness standards include:
- SHP, Site Control within 12 months of award notification;
- S+C, Start rental assistance within 12 months of award notification.

**Notes:**
Did not have room for SRO on slide, but include in talking points: 12 months to do rehab and open after ACC. 

## Timely Use of Awarded Funds

- Where recipients and grantees are unable to use awarded funds in a timely manner, HUD reserves right and does reduce or pull back awarded amounts.

## Scoring Factor

- Timely obligation of past CoC awards is a scoring factor in the competition.
- Under Performance section, CoCs with any unexecuted grants for awards older than 1 year are penalized in scoring. For the 2006 competition, a CoC is penalized if they have any awards prior to 2005 that remain unexecuted at time of application.

## Financial Management and Applicant Capacity

- Adequate financial management is a key factor in grantee’s capacity to administer HUD CoC programs.
- In addition to CoC scoring for unexecuted grants, the award of an individual project also depends on adequate capacity of the applicant.  Poor financial management could cause an applicant’s project to be rejected in the competition.

## Documentation of Match

- Match is statutorily required under SHP and S+C programs.
- Documentation of match must be maintained in the grantee’s financial records on a grant-specific basis, and is an important element of reporting requirements.

## Financial Management and HUD Monitoring

- Financial management is a priority review area HUD monitoring of grants.
- The revised HUD CPD Monitoring Handbook 6509.2, released in 2005, has a dedicated section for financial management for each program area.

## Unused Funds Are Recaptured

- Funds that are not used within the term of the grant will be recaptured by HUD.
- Contracted projects that fall through and cannot be developed within a reasonable timeframe will be terminated and the funds recaptured.
- Funds remaining at the end of a grant term will be recaptured.

## 

Housing Emphasis

Mark Johnston
Acting Deputy Assistance Secretary for Special Needs
Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs

**Housing Emphasis**
**Mark Johnston**
**Acting Deputy Assistance Secretary for Special Needs**
**Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs**

## HUD’s Role in Funding Housing

- Homelessness means first and foremost that someone lacks **housing**
- HUD is uniquely positioned to provide **housing resources**
- Nearly 70% of Federal transitional housing for homeless persons is supported by HUD’s Continuum of Care funding
- HUD is the only agency that can provide permanent supportive housing

**Notes:**
70% of all Federal transitional housing for homeless persons is provided by HUD’s Continuum of Care.  Even more significantly, 100% of all Federal permanent supportive housing for homeless persons is provided through the Continuum of Care.  HUD is the only agency that can provide permanent housing.  While HUD can fund and values the importance of supportive services, HUD is not the only Federal agency that can provide supportive services.

## Mainstream Supportive Services

- Supportive services can and do come from a variety of Federal agencies
- Healthcare: Medicaid, Medicare, HHS targeted programs, VA
- Food Assistance: Food Stamps
- Substance abuse and mental health treatment: SAMHSA targeted and mainstream programs
- Family self-sufficiency support: TANF
- Need to improve access to mainstream service systems and leverage other existing resources

**Notes:**
Supportive services can and do come from a variety of Federal agencies:
Medicaid, Medicare, HHS Healthcare for the Homeless program, and VA’s health systems.  The VA alone provides over $1 billion in health care assistance to homeless veterans each year.
The Food Stamp entitlement program provides $___ billion in food assistance to low-income persons, including homeless persons, each year.
Substance Abuse Treatment and Mental Health Treatment are both funded through HHS’ SA and MH targeted homeless grants and mainstream block grants.  SAMHSA’s block grant programs provide $____ each year.

These agencies all have a mandate and resources to provide these types of services.  They are also the experts on how to provide these services.  HUD will never be the expert on, for instance, substance abuse treatment, health care or childcare.  In addition, mainstream service systems are funded at far higher levels than any targeted homeless programs will ever be.  We do a disservice to homeless individuals and families when we try to exclusively provide for their needs with limited targeted homeless resources.  We will be much more effective if we can identify ways to improve access to mainstream service systems.

I am not saying it’s easy to secure services from other sources, but given that Continuum funding is our only Federal source for permanent supportive housing and the primary source for transitional housing, HUD wants to use more of its funds for housing AND wants to work with CoCs to leverage federal, state, local government and private resources to fund services.

## Housing-Services Funding Mix

**Notes:**
Emphasizing housing became necessary because the use of HUD homeless funds for housing declined.  

In 1993, nearly 70% of HUD homeless funds were for permanent housing.  

This was the result of Congress appropriating specific amounts of funds for each program: SHP, SPC, and SRO.  They appropriated a significant amount for SPC, which is all permanent housing.  Shortly thereafter Congress created a single appropriation account and allowed HUD to decide how funds would be allocated between programs.  Through the new COC approach, HUD passed on that flexibility to Continuums.  At the same time, Congress inadvertently eliminated any requirement to match supportive services.  With flexibility on choosing from any HUD homeless program and no match for services and a high match on housing, applicants requested unprecedented levels of service funding.

By 1998, 57% of HUD homeless funds were used for services and only 43% for housing.

## Efforts to Shift Focus Back to Housing

- Services match reinstituted
- Policy Academies established to increase access to mainstream services
- Congressional requirement that 30% of funds support permanent supportive housing
- Created PH Bonus
- Created “Housing Emphasis” scoring element

**Notes:**
Congress and this Administration became concerned with the lack of focus on housing.  The services match was reinstituted into law so that housing and services were on more equal footing.  Policy Academies were developed to increase access to mainstream programs.  HUD worked with other Federal agencies, with HHS as lead, to create policy academies to encourage that mainstream services be accessed so more of HUD funds could be used for housing.  Finally, Congress required that 30% of funds were for permanent housing.

To ensure we met the 30% requirement, HUD instituted incentives in the competition
Created a permanent housing bonus
Created a scoring element called “Housing Emphasis”

These features have helped increased the focus on housing at HUD.  With Continuums scoring well in most other areas, Housing Emphasis has become a key scoring factor, resulting in Continuums reducing their service requests and increasing their housing requests.  

## Housing-Services Funding Mix

**Notes:**
As a result of these incentives, the percent of funds going to housing has been increasing.  This past competition, 58% of the funds supported housing activities versus just 43% in 1998.  As a result, 42% of the funds went to services versus 57% in 1998.

Over the last several years this shift has resulted in more than $700 million being shifted from services to housing, resulting in new units of housing in virtually every Continuum that otherwise would not have been there.  The decline in the percent of money going to services has slowed.  This has probably occurred for several reasons.  First, we know that not all services can be readily funded by mainstream resources, such as case management.  Second, CoCs now probably focus unspent pro-rata share on housing, but more and more often, CoCs meet their pro-rata need based on renewals alone, which allows fewer opportunities for shifting resources.  HUD’s Hold Harmless option provides CoCs more flexibility to reallocate dollars and to improve their competitiveness on the Housing Emphasis scoring element.

## Reallocation Strategies

- Reallocation can be a strategy for shifting CoC resources from services to housing
- Under pro-rata need (PRN), CoC can fund new projects with uncommitted PRN or drop renewals and fund new projects
- Over PRN, CoC can reallocate funds to new permanent housing projects using Hold Harmless option
- Potential “lower risk” 2007 Hold Harmless option

**Notes:**
If a CoC’s renewal demand is less than its pro-rata need, then it can use its uncommitted pro-rata share to focus funding on housing.  It also has flexibility to defund renewals and fund any new projects.

For several years we have allowed Continuums whose renewal burden exceeds their PRN to reduce or eliminate existing SHP renewals and use the savings to create new permanent housing projects.  A number of high performing continuums have taken this option and as a result have created additional housing by reducing or eliminating underperforming projects or projects that have outlasted their usefulness.  They have also increased their Housing Emphasis score, making them even more competitive.

The downside to reallocation is that if the Continuum scores below the initial funding line---last year it was 82 points—then any new projects, including the reallocated projects, would not be funded.  And as a result the resources used previously for renewals and proposed for reallocation would be permanently lost.  We recognize that is a significant risk that many Continuums are not willing to take.

We are considering a change for 2007 whereby reallocated projects would be considered as renewals.  As such even if the Continuum scored below the initial funding line—such as 82 points—the new projects would still be funded.

Given the potential of reallocation, we invited the a representative from one of the Continuums that chose to reallocate in each of the last two years to make a brief presentation for your consideration.  It’s Boston.  They have been very creative and effective in reallocation. I would like to ask Jim Green, Director of Emergency..... for the City of Boston to take a few minutes to describe what they’ve accomplished.

## Initiatives to Improve Access to Mainstream Services

- FirstStep Resource Linkage Tool
- Policy Academy Planning
- HHS’ efforts with Medicaid and TANF Directors
- Community and state level assessments of barriers
- Systematic CoC benefits screening strategies
- Program-level partnerships

**Notes:**
If a CoC is intentionally shifting its use of HUD funds to support housing, it has to be equally intentional about its efforts to improve access to mainstream services.  There is an entire breakout on this topic tomorrow afternoon; however, I’d like to generally point out some of the Federal government’s efforts in this area and some recognized strategies for improving access.

FirstStep is a Federally-developed tool to help case managers link homeless persons to relevant mainstream benefits.  The software can be downloaded from HUD and HHS’s website and is a valuable resource, especially for communities that haven’t developed their own benefits screening tools.

Policy Academies, as mentioned before, were convened by HHS in conjunction with other federal agencies, to develop state-level planning entities charged with identifying and removing barriers to accessing mainstream benefits.

HHS has also been very proactive in publishing guidance and reaching out to State Medicaid and TANF directors to encourage them to streamline application processes and expand eligibility to homeless populations, particularly those experiencing chronic homelessness.

CoCs have also conducted these types of mainstream benefit application assessments, and have used the results to coordinate with state agencies to remove barriers and reduce the time it takes to process applications.

Several CoCs have been very proactive in establishing systematic strategies through a central intake or across all programs to screen all clients for eligible benefits and to assist them with applications.  For instance, some CoCs have created program performance measures related to benefits screening and acquisition for certain types of programs, against which these programs are evaluated annually.

Program-level partnerships can also be very effective in bridging the gap between homeless and mainstream services.  For instance, the State of New York has been very strategic in using its state behavioral health and Medicaid resources to fund behavioral health services associated with its new permanent supportive housing units.

There are many strategies out there, and we look to CoCs to help share ideas about creative and effective solutions to expand access to services.

## 

Reallocation of Funds

Jim Greene
Director
Emergency Shelter Commission City of Boston, MA

**Reallocation of Funds**
**Jim Greene**
**Director**
**Emergency Shelter Commission ****City of Boston, MA**

## 2005 Hold Harmless Reallocation

- SHP Renewal Burden approx. $12 Million
- 53 Programs in 38 Agencies receive SHP Funding
- _Communication in Community Meetings_:
- _Context_: HUD McKinney-Vento SuperNOFA Information
- HUD Permanent Housing Emphasis stressed
- Hold Harmless Opportunity the Primary Focus

## 2005 Hold Harmless Reallocation (cont.)

- _Collaborative Decision-Making_**:**
- 	5 Strategic Components for DiscussionDecision
- Re-Allocation Goal of 10% ($1**.**2 Million)
- No Cuts to Existing Permanent Housing
- Voluntary Reduction of Budget by 10% or more
- Funding Re-Allocation based on Performance
- Sliding Scale of Cuts from 5% (Top-tier) to 13% (Bottom)
- 11% Re-Allocation of $1.2 Million = 34    Units

## 2006 Hold Harmless Reallocation

-  SHP Renewal Burden approx. $10.8 Million
** **49 Programs in 31 Agencies receive SHP Funding
-  3 Community Meetings _*before*_ SuperNOFA 	Released
-  75 CoC Member Agencies present, others 		surveyed
-  Reviewed 2005 Strategy of Sliding-Scale Cuts

## 2006 Hold Harmless Reallocation (cont.)

- Contemplated 10%, 20%, 25% Reallocation Scenarios
- Preference for Voluntary Reallocation
- 8% Reallocation $822,227 = 21 units
_**2 yr Total**_**:** $2 Million = 55 units PH

## Lessons from Boston CoC Reallocation Process

-   _**Leadership Challenges**_:
- 	Working _*on*_ vs. Working _*in*_ CoC
-   Shift to More _***Dynamic ***_Process:
- 	Reallocation  Renewal
-   Emphasis on Collaborative Decision-making
-   Active Participation Key:
- 	Providers, Advocates, Funders & Consumers          All Have Voice in Process

## Lessons from Boston CoC Reallocation Process

- Shift to Year-round CoC Planning from
- Annual NOFA-driven
- Promote “3 C’s” of Planning Process: 	***Communication, Collaboration, ******	******Coordination***
- Renewed Focus on Advocacy for non-McKinney-Vento
- Mainstream funding for supportive wrap-around services

## 

Performance 

Mark Johnston
Acting Deputy Assistance Secretary for Special Needs
Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs

**Performance **
**Mark Johnston**
**Acting Deputy Assistance Secretary for Special Needs**
**Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs**

## Performance Matters

- Performance of Continuums and Continuum projects has become increasingly important
- HUD must report progress on meeting program goals annually to Congress through the passage of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
- HUD is rated on its performance by OMB through a process call PART- Program Assessment Rating Tool
- PART scores influence +/- in funding levels

**Notes:**
Review each and then lets talk about each individually.  

## History 

- Movement from documenting and counting the people we serve to more fully understanding the most effective interventions to move people to permanent housing.
- Transition from paper based to electronic management systems (HMIS).
- Movement towards benchmarking and measuring progress.

**Notes:**
Need for valid and reliable outcome driven data.   

Increased government accountability regulations.  

## Government Performance and Results Act

- Systematically holds Federal agencies accountable for achieving program results
- Sets program goals, measures program performance and reports publicly on their progress
- Helps Federal managers improve service delivery by planning for and meeting program objectives
- Improves congressional decision-making by providing objective data on achieving effective and efficient results

## Homeless GPRA Measures ‘06

- 1. Stable Housing
- At least 71% of persons who move into HUD’s permanent supporting housing projects remain housed for at least 6 months
- 2. Transition to Permanent Housing
- At least 61% of persons who leave TH will move into some form of permanent housing

## Homeless GPRA Measures ‘06

- 3. Employment
- The rate of employment among homeless clients will be 11% higher at exit.
- 4. HMIS
- At least 390 Continuums will have a functional HMIS.

**Notes:**
These outcome-oriented indicators were organized by OMB as exemplary.  
The measures are well below 100% because HUD does not want to encourage CoCs to cream.  That would be inconsistent with focusing increased attention on the chronically homeless.  

Changes in the indicators over time will be modest.   For example, the indicator for stable housing with increase only slightly (.5% from 61% to 61.5%) between 2006 and 2007.  

## GPRA Reporting Requirements

- HUD expects all CoCs to meet or exceed these minimum standards.
- CoCs must report annually in SuperNOFA application their 1, 5, and 10 year measures and progress they have made toward:
- Ending chronic homelessness
- Moving individuals and families to permanent housing
- CoCs will be held accountable for meeting annual progress goals through APR Reporting

**Notes:**
The standards have been set from national averages and are not extremely high.  

The GPRA measures are a core component of the CoC performance section of the NOFA.  AS you know there are other elements of progress that are also measured including:
Unexecuted grants- are CoCs using scarce funds in a timely manner
Access to mainstream programs.  HUD tracks participation in 11 mainstream programs. 
Creating housing for chronically homeless
Reducing chronic homelessness. 

## PART: Performance Assessment Rating Tool 

- Developed to assess and improve program performance so the Federal government can achieve better results
- PART review helps identify a program’s strengths and weaknesses to inform funding and management decisions
- Assesses:
- program purpose and design;
- performance measurement, evaluations, and strategic planning (short and long term goals);
- program management; and
- program results.

**Notes:**
OMB evaluates and score every Federal Program and assigns it a rating.  

## How did the Homeless Assistance Programs score? 

- Received the highest rating available: Effective (87)
- Approx. 15% of gov’t programs receive “effective”
- Validated by increase in funding for CoC process:
- 2005: $1,241m
- 2006: $1,327m
- 2007: $1,526m (proposed)
- Key factors:
- APRs
- Outcome-based measures in CoC SuperNOFA application
- HMIS

**Notes:**
PART score confirms that CoC is an effective planning and delivery system.  It is very important that is it performance driven and that we hold each other accountable in achieving measurable success.  
In August I testified before the Senate Subcommittee that oversees HUD programs and was asked several questions by the Chairman including:
Do you have outcome based performance measures?
What was your PART rating?
Congress is very interested in performance and documenting that we are providing effective and efficient services.  

## Future Direction

- Continue to put major emphasis on performance and monitor progress at the field office and headquarters through:
- Annual Progress Reports
- SuperNOFA application
- HMIS participation
- Further refine GPRA measures
- Future HMIS-based APR

## Future Direction for GPRA Measures

- 1. Stable Housing
- Is the person able to obtain and maintain their housing without return to the homeless system?
- 2. Transition to Permanent Housing
- Is the permanent housing placement stable?

## Future Direction for GPRA Measures

- 3. Employment
- What is the quality of employment?
- Should there be different measures for those that may be disabled and unable to work?
- 4. HMIS
- Is the CoC data valid and representative?
- Can the CoC participate in the AHAR?

- full/part time
- provides living wage

## HMIS-Based APR 

- Streamline data collection and reporting requirements
- Match APR with HMIS universal and program specific data elements
- Tailor performance expectations to different subpopulations or service type

**Notes:**
HUD is presently undertaking a process to solicit your input on the redesign of the APR through focus groups held at local field offices.  For those of you that were not able to attend there will be an opportunity tomorrow during the breakout sessions to offer your input on the redesign of the Annual Progress Report.  

## Slide 97