NOFA Input Session: August 1

Topic: Planning Project Application

I. Welcome & Introductions

Members Present: Alyson Collier, SCOE; John Foley, SSHH Staff Present: Anne Moore, Interim CEO; Desli Beckman, CFO; Kate Casarino, CoC and Contracts Coordinator; Michele Watts, CPO

II. Planning Project Application Background & Education See Memo: NOFA Input Session- FY2018 Planning Project Application (8/1/18)

Additional Comment:

In fulfilling our respective roles, with SSF responsible for meeting HEARTH Act requirements and the CoC Advisory Board responsible for holding SSF accountable for doing so, regular financial and program reporting on the use of planning funds will be provided by staff to members at Board meetings.

Michele clarified that while the HEARTH Act specifies the formula for the amount of planning funds available in any one cycle, this amount is the maximum and HUD could offer less or no planning funds in the NOFA competition. This has not been the case to date, but it could happen.

III. FY2017 Planning Project See Memo: NOFA Input Session- FY2018 Planning Project Application & Attachments (8/1/18)

Additional Comment:

Michele shared a draft Data Hub Detail document and noted she is still working on this. Additional detail will be added throughout the document including (a) more detail on how the HEARTH Act defines “developing a CoC system,” (b) further discussion on the relationship between the CoC Advisory Board and the Data Hub, including how the former will provide input on the participants and process of the latter and the frequency with which reports will be made, and (c) a more detailed timeline.

IV. FY2018 Application See Memo: NOFA Input Session- FY2018 Planning Project Application (8/1/18)

Member Input:

Members and staff reviewed the Eligible Planning Costs table in the memo, which includes the local response to each eligible cost category of activities. SSF intends to submit a funding request similar to the FY2017 request, except for reducing the amount requested for the PIT, which won’t need as much funding in the next cycle. We could propose an additional project as a result. There are several areas where additional work could be done, with three areas in need of attention: (1) project evaluation of ESG; (2) participating in the consolidated plans of jurisdictions in the CoC area; and (3) CoC-level monitoring of recipients and subrecipients. Members suggested projects and activities that would support progress in these areas, some of which require additional funding and some of which do not.

ESG Evaluation- Summarize how the CoC is currently engaged with ESG, specifically the Emergency Shelter Performance Targets and Minimum Standards approved by the Advisory
Board in March 2016 (utilization rate, length of stay, and exits to permanent housing); systemlevel standards established by the Local RRH Policy Manual (how rent is calculated, duration of assistance, policy on returns to RRH after exit, etc.). Staff can summarize these elements and post them on the SSF website in the CoC section as a starting point. Ultimately, the CoC will need to work with SHRA, City, and County on ESG project evaluation. This effort could benefit from planning funds for facilitation.

Con Plans Participation- Inviting all jurisdictions with consolidating plans to present to the CoC Advisory Board is one way to begin educating members on con plans in preparation for meaningful participation. A more in-depth and useful approach would be for staff to prepare a comprehensive report/summary and analysis of all the con plans, how they intersect with the scope of the CoC, and their administrative processes and calendars for updates and revisions. The latter option could be accomplished with planning funds for a consultant or temporary staff.

Monitoring- For CoC-level monitoring of recipients and subrecipients, a good first step is to define what CoC monitoring means. Members were interested in using existing monitoring efforts rather than adding more monitoring of projects. SSF monitors its subrecipients and could prepare a summary report. The other recipient agencies, TLCS, SHRA, and Mercy Housing are all subject to outside monitoring and probably have existing reports that could be presented or otherwise shared. Members suggested that this work could take place within the Performance Review Committee and formal report(s) made by the PRC to the CoC Advisory Board.

V. Next Steps Staff will post the input session materials and notes on the SSF website and invite all members to comment via email to contracts@sacstepsforward.org. The topics calendar for the remainder of the input sessions is being finalized now and additional opportunities for discussion of the planning grant will be noted. A draft FY2018 Planning Project Application in esnaps will be available by August 15, 2018.