2017 August CoC Advisory Board Meeting

Approved Minutes

Wednesday, August 9th, 2017 8-9:30 AM

Sacramento Steps Forward, 1331 Garden Highway, Sacramento, CA 95833 – VCR Room (2nd Floor)

MEMBERS PRESENT: Joan Burke, Bill Knowlton, Beth Hassett, Emily Bender, Sarah Bontrager, Cindy Cavanaugh, Cathy Creswell, Dion Dwyer, John Foley, Emily Halcon, Jason Henry, Todd Henry, David Husid, Erin Johansen, Patty Kleinknecht, Lt. Dan Monk, Jonathan Porteus PHD, Amani Sawires Rapaski, Sarah Thomas, Charles Ware

GUEST(S): Lacey Mickleburgh, Nick Mori, Mike Jaske, Verna Catalfano, Jeffrey Tardaguila, Jenn Flemming, Dorothy Landsberg, Kate Hutchinson, Michael Yanuck, Robynne Rose-Haymer, Stefan Heisler, Tricia Rosenbaum, Karen Lepe, Arturo Baiocchi PhD, Keith Hodson, Carolyn Brocht

MEMBERS NOT IN ATTENDANCE: Katherine Cooley, Lisa Culp, Katie Freeny, Olivia Kasirye MD, Holly Wunder Stiles

STAFF: Ryan Loofbourrow-CEO, Michele Watts-VP of Programs, Nick Lee-VP of Operations, Desli Beckman-CFO, Ben Avey, Gabrielle Salazar


Call to Order: Bill Knowlton, Chair 8:02am, Quorum met.

  1. Welcome & Introductions by: Joan Burke
  2. Review & Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes: Motion to accept as presented, John Foley. David Husid, 2nd.    No abstentions. MSC.
  3. Chair’s Report: Joan Burke stated that she will hold her comments other than to say that a great concern is that the number of unsheltered individuals has doubled in two years. We must work to find an answer to the question “Where do I sleep tonight?.”
  4. SSF CEO’s Report: Ryan Loofbourrow recommended that we move into the agenda as there was a lot of information to cover.
  5. New Business:

A. Item: FY2017 CoC Program NOFA Updates

Michele Watts explained that the NOFA competition is in full swing. On August 28th and 29th, there will be a two day review of the ranked list. The ranked list will be brought to the Advisory Board for approval. To meet the needs of the NOFA, Michele explained that we will need to meet a day or two before the regular Advisory Board meeting time. The dates we will be looking at are the 11th or the 12th. Whichever day we can ensure we will have a quorum is the day that the next Advisory Board meeting will take place.

Action: Gabrielle will schedule the next meeting to ensure there will be a quorum on that day.

In between the approval by the panel and the approval by the Advisory Board, appeals will be made. The Advisory Board may be called upon to assist with this. Michele noted that we may need a second Advisory Board meeting in September. If that is the case, the Advisory Board will be notified.

B. Item: FY2017 CoC Program Planning Grant Opportunities

Michele discussed that we have an opportunity to apply for funds for CoC Planning. See handout. We could obtain up to $555,000 for a one year grant for Program Planning Activities. We could use this funding for our next PIT Count, and other planning activities as well. The Executive Committee had discussed the gaps analysis, so it is possible that the funding could be utilized to continue that work. John Foley asked if this grant is competitive. Michele explained that it is not included in the ranked list. We have received this grant in the past and it is likely we will receive it again. Previously we used the money for funding the PIT Count and for assistance from Homebase. Cindy Cavanaugh inquired about the amount this year compared to what SSF received last year. Michele explained that we did not apply for this much in the previous two cycles. Action: SSF will share previous amounts from prior years. The Executive Committee made the decision of how much money to apply for. This year they have decided to apply for more than the previous years. SSF will take the lead and continue to get feedback from the Advisory Board. Mike Jaske recommended that we use the money on a plan to end homelessness. Cathy Creswell asked that we continue to discuss this at the next meeting. Amani Sawires Rapaski asked what would happen if we do not get these funds. Michele said that we could work to get private funding, and look for other avenues. We need collaborative planning community wide, not just within the CoC. Emily Halcon asked why we did not apply for the full amount previously. Michele explained that it does not look good to leave money unspent from a grant. There is a grant amendment that can be utilized if a person can not deliver on their grant. That is how we can avoid repercussions of not spending the whole amount. Cindy recommended that we spend the money on data. She would like to have a better way of evaluation outcomes. Ryan discussed how SSF is working on putting together a data team. One idea is that some of the Planning Grant funding can go towards making this team more robust. Michele will be taking the information collected today, and convene a small work group to discuss the Planning Grant further. Erin Johansen recommended that we discuss the Planning Grant funding earlier in the year before the NOFA so we can think it through and make the best decision we can.


C. Item: 2017 PIT Report

Arturo and Keith came from Sacramento State University to present the Point in Time Count. See handout.

Arturo noted that Sacramento State was involved only in analytics, not the logistics of the PIT Count. Patty Kleinknecht  asked why they believe the number has inflated. Arturo explained that 15% of the estimate came from South County. In 2015 PIT Count, there were no people counted in the south area. Erin Johansen asked why it looks like there is a decrease in shelter beds. Michele requested some time to look into that. This year’s count showed an overall 38% increase compared to the 2015 count. However, they believe that there was a severe undercounting from 2015, so they suspect the number to be closer to a 30% increase rather than 38%. Either way, it is a very significant increase. Joan Burke feels that it is not valid to change the numbers, especially in regards to homelessness. There are many people who rely upon this data. Amani requested to see the shelter numbers. Action: SSF will share the shelter numbers. Jonathan Porteus recommended that we look at occupancy versus shelter beds available. Michele stated that our Inventory Report shows the number of shelter beds and how many are occupied. Arturo discussed the need for consistency in measuring data, to be able to capture trends. The methodology from 2015 had to be improved. The Sac State team was going to duplicate the methodology used in 2015, but ultimately they decided to improve it. Arturo stated that he could not in good conscience use the same methodology used in 2015.

Next there was a discussion around the undercounting of families and TAY. Arturo plainly discussed that they were undercounted in this years PIT Count. There was concern about the message that the low numbers sends to the public. They may think that TAY and families are not often homeless after seeing the numbers. Michele explained that there is a complete explanation that will be submitted to HUD explaining this undercount. There was an undercount because most families stay in cars. The PIT Count volunteers are not allowed to knock on car doors or tents given that the PIT Count takes place in the evening into the early morning hours. Families and TAY are less likely to be found out at night. Joan mentioned that in previous years there was a morning count the next day at Mustard Seed School. Last year most were sheltered, now most families are unsheltered at first contact. Motels were not counted, and we know there are a lot of families in motels through DHA. Ryan explained that we really do not want to count duplicates, but that we will continue to look into our methodology and figure out the best way to capture these groups. Patty mentioned the way we have been trained to count over the years has changed, and that makes it difficult to look for trends. The TAY count was especially low. Keith stated that the reason behind this may be that if people were uncomfortable asking certain questions to TAY, then they did not ask. Arturo explained that there were survey quality issues with TAY. It was advised that we hold extra trainings for our surveyors in the future.

Jason Henry made the point that he is not surprised our numbers have increased. We have been at war for 17 years, continuing to create homeless veterans. Jason is seeing more homeless individuals in the age rage of 23-35. The numbers will continue to rise as mental health issues continue to develop. Arturo discussed that there are three times as many tents as there were in 2015. There has been a general increase in homelessness across the state. Patty made mention of the fact that what is called “flooding” in the PIT report is actually not flooding. No neighborhoods were flooded. It may be more accurate to say that the river waters raised to high levels. It may be interpreted differently if read that Sacramento was experiencing flooding. There was also discussion around the zones and how they changed. It was suggested that Sac State looks into legacy zones and look at changes within those zones. Emily Halcon suggested that we obtain information from 311 to get a total history of calls and what areas they are coming from.

There was a question around the colors on the map and what they represent. Arturo explained that they represent similarities. Cindy Cavanaugh suggested that in the future PIT Counts we include questions related to  AOD, mental health, physical health, etc. Emily Bender asked how the question of gender is asked in this PIT Count. Arturo explained that it is asked in a very basic way, just male, female, transgender, or other. Emily suggested that it be reframed in a more welcoming manner. Amani wondered if the PIT Count had been compared the Gaps Analysis. Ryan explained that the PIT Count was included in the Gaps Analysis. Erin Johansen suggested that SSF utilize TLCS MSW interns to conduct the PIT count in the future. Beth Hassett added that her employees at Weave undergo a 72 hour training, so it could be good for them to be a part of conducting the PIT Count as well. It was recommended that SSF get new equipment to better survey in the dark. SSF will be looking into IPads and will field test before the next PIT Count. Cindy recommended that people from the City and the County, and others participate in preparing for the next PIT Count. There were several other recommendations made by board members. It was suggested that there is a question around sexual orientation and gender identity. Another suggestion was that we ask what the person needs to get out of homelessness. There was a suggestion that for TAY and families that there is a separate study done.

For the PIT Count, the Advisory Board is responsible for giving guidance and input. SSF staff is responsible for the implementation. It was suggested that we begin thinking about and working on the next PIT count.

6. Announcements: N/A

7. Meeting Adjourned: 9:38 am

Prepared by: Gabrielle Salazar, CoC Coordinator