CoC Debriefing Summary2009
CoC Scoring 2009
Scoring Category Maximum Score (Points)
CoC Score (Points)
CoC Housing, Services and Structure 14 13.25
Homeless Needs and Data Collection 26 21.75
CoC Strategic Planning 22 17.75
CoC Performance 32 26.5
Emphasis on Housing Activities 6 4.5
Total CoC Score 100 83.75
CoC Scoring 2008 and 2009Scoring Category Maximum
Score2008
Maximum Score2009
CoC Score2008
CoC Score2009
CoC Housing, Services and Structure
14 14 13.75 13.25
Homeless Needs and Data Collection
24 26 19 21.75
CoC Strategic Planning 16 22 12.75 17.75
CoC Performance 28 32 25 26.5
Emphasis on Housing Activities 18 6 18 4.5
Total CoC Score 100 100 88.5 83.75
Scoring Change: 2008 to2009 Scoring Category Change Change Rate of Score
2008Rate of Score
2009
CoC Housing, Services and Structure
--- -.5 98.2% 94.6%
Homeless Needs and Data Collection
+2 +2.75 79.2% 83.6%
CoC Strategic Planning +6 +5 79.7% 80.6%CoC Performance +4 +1.5 89.3% 82.8%
Emphasis on Housing Activities
-12 -13.5 100% 75%
Total CoC Score 100 -4.75 88.5% 83.75%
National Scoring Information 2009
TCHC Overall Comparative2008 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 CoC Competition, HUD awarded up to 100 total points for all five scoring categoriesI. CoC Housing, Services and StructureII. Homeless Needs and Data CollectionIII. CoC Strategic PlanningIV. CoC PerformanceV. Emphasis on Housing Activities
CoC Housing, Services& Structure
Max ScorePossible
FW/ARL/TC CoC Score 2008
FW/ARL/TC CoC Score 2009
Difference
14 13.75 13.25 - .50
ANALYSIS of 20091.Coordinated, inclusive, Outcome-oriented process2.Housing developers, business associations3.Well-defined comprehensive strategies to address entire CoC system4.Serving all subpopulations: DV, HIV/AIDS, VETS, SMI, Chronic Substance Abuse5.Community-wide inventory of housing and services
CoC Housing, Services & StructureIMPROVEMENTS INTO 20101.Coordinated, inclusive, Outcome-oriented process: • Planning Council Re-org; Consumer Council
2.Housing developers, business associations• Corporations for Supportive Housing, MACH Housing Sub-
Committee3.Well-defined comprehensive strategies to address entire CoC system…• TCHC, Planning Council Strategic Work Plans
4.Serving all subpopulations: DV, HIV/AIDS, VETS, SMI, Chronic Substance Abuse• VA/VASH; Directions Home: SoS; MHMR Add Serv
5.Community-wide inventory of housing and services• Expansion of website, housing inventory, services inventory
Homeless Needs & Data Collection
Max ScoreFW/ARL/TC CoC
Score 2009
26 21.75
ANALYSIS of 20091.3 of 4 AHAR participation (2008 2 of 4)2.ES Individual not over 86% coverage3.De-duplication of data plan/procedures – validating data on entry, timeliness4.Unsheltered homeless data5.Null value rate unchanged
Homeless Needs & Data CollectionIMPROVEMENTS INTO 20101. 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 facilities3.Deduplication plan/procedures – validating data on entry, timeliness• New MOA between TCHC, COC and TCACCESS October 1,
20104.Unsheltered homeless data• PATH and SOS teams, survey design for 2011 census
5.Null value rate unchanged: New MOA…
CoC Strategic Planning
Max ScorePossible
FW/ARL/TC CoC Score 2009
22 17.75
ANALYSIS of 20091.Ending Chronic homelessness and a 10-year plan2.Discharge policy: clear description of WHERE people go other than a homeless situation3.Goals and timelines to achieve the five objectives4.HPRP coordination with all CoC
CoC Strategic PlanningIMPROVEMENTS INTO 20101.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 20103.Goals and timelines to achieve the five objectives• Continue specific measurable and related plan through
Planning Council and Taskforces4.HPRP coordination with all CoC• VASH/HPRP developing; Prevention Task force should meet
with all HPRP grantees for year 25.Leveraging of funds (Dallas has a 200% leverage requirement).
CoC Performance
Max ScorePossible
FW/ARL/TC CoC Score 2009
32 26.5
ANALYSIS of 20091.Achieved proposed action steps from 20082.Increase PSH beds for chronic homeless and reduction in chronic homelessness3.Achieve the five objectives
CoC Performance
GOALS PROPOSED ACTUAL +/ -
Create new PSH beds for chronic homeless
361 518 157 over goal
% Staying in PSH over 6 months at least 71%
(80% for points)78 81 +3 over goal
TH to PH at least 63.5%
(70% for points)64 68 + 4 over goal
Employment at exit38% 27% -11 under goal
Decrease number of homeless households
with children385 545
First time measured 200 under goal
CoC Performance
IMPROVEMENTS INTO 20101. 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 objectives1. Permanent Housing Bonus: HOSO III, HHSP beds2. PSH: Eviction Prevention Planning; Housing Inventory; Housing Specialist3. TH: utilization is down for third year in a row: TH Taskforce4. Job Developer goals:5. Homeless Households: HPRP +, show collaboration with ES
Emphasis on Housing
Max ScorePossible
FW/ARL/TC CoC Score 2009
6 4.5
ANALYSIS of 20091.Significant drop in importance (2008 18)2.Not about adding PSH; amount of local financial leverage for NEW permanent housing bonus.
Dallas requires 200% leverageOur CoC Application 2009: 73%
The BIG Picture
BIGGEST CHALLENGES1.Evaluating progress and performance BEFORE
the year is over by case managers, program directors and Executive Directors
The CoC needs real-time, accurate, analyzable, accessible data and reporting at all levels of CoC implementation, management and evaluation
The BIG Picture
BIGGEST CHALLENGES2.Preparing for HEARTH and the new goal:
Ending homelessness in 30 days (20 if you want to be high performing)
The CoC needs real-time, centralized, rapid intake and assessment and immediate referral systems in place for new homeless
The BIG Picture
BIGGEST CHALLENGES3. Planning, coordinating and responding to needs
cannot just mean more and more meetings…the CoC System most adapt smoothly with comprehensive CoC-wide input and agreement (RH and LH….)
The CoC 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 CHALLENGES4. The CoC should examine who does what best and
define some shared roles and some distinct roles in service and housing.
Top level CoC management needs to share and understand strategic directions of other CoC providers to assure non-duplication, opportunities for MOU, and their strategic fit with HEARTH Act and HUD CoC funding and policy changes
Painting that BIG Picture…