1 / 59

TRANSITION ISSUES AND BUILDING A FOUNDATION FOR SUCCESS

TRANSITION ISSUES AND BUILDING A FOUNDATION FOR SUCCESS. Bridget Kurtt DeJong Stacey Murphy. TOPICS:. Differences between current CoC and new CoC practices and roles

dale-dickson
Download Presentation

TRANSITION ISSUES AND BUILDING A FOUNDATION FOR SUCCESS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TRANSITION ISSUES AND BUILDING A FOUNDATION FOR SUCCESS Bridget Kurtt DeJong Stacey Murphy

  2. TOPICS: Differences between current CoC and new CoC practices and roles New requirements for CoC oversight structure, oversight, and responsibilities under HEARTH Act (changeover to be completed by 2011) Possible Structures for CoCs Under HEARTH

  3. CoC Leaders’ Goals: • Realistically assess their current CoC’s inter-organizational arrangements and current strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities • Understand what they need to do to work towards designing an optimal alternative

  4. Agenda I. HEARTH Changes to CoC Structure and Activities • Discussion of Impact on CoC Stakeholders II. Restructuring Your CoC Governance/Management • Discussion of Choosing an Entity to Lead III. A New Grant System

  5. I. HEARTH Changes to CoC Structure and Activities- Big Overview • Continuum of Care (CoC) becomes Collaborative Applicant (CA) • CA has a few more responsibilities • CA receives funds to do work • CA can become Unified Funding Agency (UFA) • take on more responsibilities • receive even more funding

  6. The Pre-HEARTH System • A Continuum of Care: • Engaged in community planning • Filed the annual HUD application • Oversaw HMIS implementation • Project grantees: • Contracted with HUD • Monitored fund use • Maintained financial management procedures

  7. Post-HEARTH System- Option 1 • A Continuum of Care: • Engages in community planning (including Con Plan) • Files the annual HUD application and tracks outcome data • Oversees HMIS implementation • Oversees project requirements • Project grantees: • Contract with HUD • Monitor fund use • Maintain financial management procedures

  8. Post-HEARTH System- Option 2 • A Continuum of Care: • Engages in community planning (including Con Plan) • Files the annual HUD application and tracks outcome data • Oversees HMIS implementation • Oversees project requirements • Contracts with HUD • Monitors fund use • Oversees financial management procedures • Project sponsors: • Run the projects and keep accurate files

  9. Map of the Old to New System: Two Options Option 1: Option 2:

  10. CHANGES, CHANGES… • The changes in structure and responsibilities could change other parts of your CoC too • Role of your CoC in the community • Relationships among CoC members • CoC power structure

  11. Collaborative Applicant • Collaborative Applicant: • Submits CoC application for all projects in its community • Is not required to be a legal entity • Can receive up to 3% of a community’s CoC grant to cover its costs • Conflict of Interest: No board member of a CA may participate in decisions concerning an award to her or her organization

  12. Duties of a Collaborative Applicant • Submits consolidated CoC grant application • Designs collaborative process to apply for funding • Evaluates outcomes • Determines compliance with program requirements and selection criteria • Establishes funding priorities • Participates in the Consolidated Plan • Ensures operation of and consistent participation in HMIS Summary: Much of what CoCs currently do, with additional roles and responsibilities.

  13. Becoming a Unified Funding Agency A CA can apply to serve as a UFA or HUD can designate a CA as a UFA if: • the CA has capacity • the change would serve the purposes of HEARTH

  14. Unified Funding Agency Duties • In addition to the CA duties, a UFA: • Receives and distributes funds from HUD • Requires each project to establish proper fiscal control and fund accounting procedures • Arranges for an annual audit of the financial records of each project

  15. Unified Funding Agency • A UFA can receive up to 6% of a community’s CoC grant to cover the administrative costs of performing these duties Summary: UFA takes on CA duties PLUS other key tasks related to grant management and oversight

  16. Agent of Collaborative Applicant • A CA may designate an agent to: • Apply for grant funding • Receive and distribute grant funds • Perform other administrative duties • But CA retains all duties and responsibilities

  17. Reminder: Duties of a Collaborative Applicant • Submits consolidated CoC grant application • Designs collaborative process to apply for funding • Evaluates outcomes • Determines compliance with program requirements and selection criteria • Establishes funding priorities • Participates in the Consolidated Plan • Ensures operation of and consistent participation in HMIS

  18. CA RESPONSIBILITY #1A : APPLICATIONWHAT’S THE APPLICATION PROCESS GOING TO BE LIKE? Still a competition Some selection criteria for CoCs described in legislation Funding directly awarded to projects or to UFAs

  19. CA RESPONSIBILITY #1A AND B: APPLICATIONCOC SELECTION CRITERIA IN THE LEGISLATION… • CA’s Plan for reducing homelessness and length of homelessness, which should include: • Needs of subpopulations • Comprehensive strategies • Quantifiable performance measures • Timelines • Funding sources • Responsible parties • And more

  20. CA Responsibility #1a and b: ApplicationMore CoC Selection Criteria • Prior performance of ESG and CoC grants and including at least: • Length of time people remain homeless • Extent of repeated homelessness • Thoroughness in reaching homeless people • Reduction in number of people who are homeless • Jobs and income growth for homeless people • Reduction in number of people who become homeless

  21. CA Responsibility #1a and b: ApplicationEven More CoC Selection Criteria • Review and Rank Process: • Uses outcome data • Involves a range of stakeholders • Based on objective criteria that are publicly announced • Open to proposals from previously unfunded entities • Leverage for CoC grants • Coordination with other Federal, State, local, private and other entities ending homelessness

  22. CA Responsibility #1a and b: ApplicationEven MORE CoC Selection Criteria • Outcomes of projects serving DOE-defined homeless families with children and youth (e.g. doubled up), such as • Preventing literal homelessness for those at highest risk • Achieving independent living in permanent housing among highest risk households • Other criteria HUD creates • The need within the geographic area for homeless services

  23. CA Responsibility #1c: Program Requirements • By submitting application, CA agrees to: • Ensure operation of project • Monitor and report progress of project • Ensure consumer involvement in management and execution of project

  24. CA Responsibility #1c: Program Requirements • By submitting application, CA agrees to: • Require certification from project sponsors to • maintain DV confidentiality • establish policies/staff to protect educational rights • provide data/reports • Monitor and report provision of matching funds • Consider educational needs when placing families • Other activities

  25. CA Responsibility #1c: Matching Funds • CAs demonstrate match • Match required: At least 25% of funds provided to the area (except admin, leasing) • Match may be: • Funding for eligible activities • In-kind services • By an entity other than sponsor • Need an MOU in place

  26. CA Responsibility #1d: Funding Priorities • Determining how to use CoC funds • Including scoring of project applications, perhaps using CoC Selection Criteria as guidance (esp about Project Performance and Review and Rank process) • HEARTH: CA may use up to 10% of funds to serve families w/ children and youth defined as homeless under other Federal statutes, IF the CA shows use of such funds is: • Of an equal or greater priority OR • Equally or more cost effective in meeting the goals of the CA’s plan

  27. Reminder: Duties of a Collaborative Applicant • Submits consolidated CoC grant application • Designs collaborative process to apply for funding • Evaluates outcomes • Determines compliance with program requirements and selection criteria • Establishes funding priorities • Participates in the Consolidated Plan • Ensures operation of and consistent participation in HMIS

  28. CA Responsibility #2: Con Plan Participation • CA must participate in the Con Plan • CA must consult with the body allocating ESG funds (prevention and shelter)

  29. CA Responsibility #3: Operate and Ensure Participation in HMIS HMIS must: • Collect unduplicated counts • Analyze patterns of use • Provide information to projects for needs analyses and funding priorities • Meet all technical and privacy standards • encryption • documentation • rights protected • criminal/civil penalties for unlawful disclosure • etc.

  30. Key Differences between CA and UFA A CA does the things CoC currently does plus some oversight of program requirements and outcomes A UFA does everything a CA does plus grants management– it receives the grant funds, distributes them, audits programs, etc.

  31. Things to Think About: Current Stakeholders Changing roles Changing relationships among sister agencies Data driven Best practices Evaluation Monitoring Centralization (esp. UFA) Current authority or decision-making within the CoC

  32. Things to Think About: Geography • Improving partnerships with Con Plan bodies and Education Coordinator • Meeting additional data collection and outcome tracking requirements • Merging may increase competitiveness • Administrative capacity • UFA duties may require an economy of scale • Consider current grant administrators in community • Consider CoC mergers to achieve greater efficiency

  33. Things to Think About: So much more! • Big decisions! • Merging • Choosing one entity to serve as CA • Structure • Aligning funding streams • Each CoC will need to determine their existing players, structures, processes, funding, and decide how to best allocate resources and design its system

  34. A Case Study: Community X X has a young CoC, led by local providers City and county staff have been involved, but peripherally X has been moderately successful in the competition, but mostly focuses on coordinating services and advocacy Each provider is its own grantee

  35. A Case Study: Community X How will HEARTH changes affect CoCs current role in the community and its stakeholders? Will the CoC be able to collect data and report out on the Selection Criteria under HEARTH? How will that affect projects? Would the CoC want to become a legal entity and centralize grants? How would that affect members?

  36. A Case Study: Community X Would the CoC benefit from increasing economy of scale by merging with a staffed CoC nearby? How will the CoC structure and membership need to change? How will that affect the current CoC’s activities and success? What is the effect of changes on sister agency relationships? What else?

  37. Activity: Impact on YOUR Geography and Stakeholders

  38. II. Restructuring Your CoC Governance/Management The big question….

  39. Possible Models Disclaimer: The following models may not work in precisely the way presented below for your CoC. They are only for discussion. Other Disclaimer: We do not know if additional CA/UFA administrative funds will be available. You may not receive more funding. Final Disclaimer: These slides should not be used on their own. Discussing Pros and Cons and resources is key to fully understanding these models.

  40. Collaborative Applicant: Option 1COC Governing Body becomes C.A. All CA Responsibilities – HMIS, application, planning, monitoring • Current CoC takes on all CA responsibilities • May assume 3% of grant

  41. COLLABORATIVE APPLICANT: OPTION 2CA RESPONSIBILITIES DIVIDED BETWEEN COC GOVERNING BODY AND AGENT 3% admin • CA responsibilities AND 3% admin divided between CA (planning, HMIS participation) and Agent (monitoring, application) • Similar to current CoC structure, but allows agent to take on new CA responsibilities

  42. Unified Funding Agency: Option 1CoC Governing Body Becomes UFA 6% Admin • Existing CoC becomes legal entity and contracts with HUD as UFA • UFA contracts with agent for grants management • Grant recipients contract with UFA, not HUD • UFA and Agent divide UFA responsibilities and up to 6% of grant • May make sense where there is a very strong CoC body

  43. Unified Funding Agency: Option 2UFA and CoC Body in Government Agency CoC Commission with CoC Members • Government Agency becomes UFA and contracts directly with HUD • UFA contracts directly with grant recipients • Government Agency assumes up to 6% of grant and most UFA responsibilities • CoC Advisory Commission created for planning • May make sense in CoC where a government agency is involved now

  44. Unified Funding Agency: Option 3Nonprofit or Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Becomes UFA • Nonprofit or Joint Powers Authority becomes UFA and contracts with HUD • UFA assumes all UFA responsibilities and up to 6% of grant, and contracts with grant recipients • UFA establishes mechanism for ensuring CoC member participation/representation • May make sense in a CoC that contains multiple jurisdictions or a large geographic area

  45. Barriers Each CA/UFA will be required to collect and report on complex data and do project oversight Additionally, each UFA will need to have excellent financial oversight and management procedures and capacity

  46. Barriers HUD usually looks to past performance to establish capacity; will possible entities in your area have experience? Your community is likely comfortable with the current set-up; getting buy-in may be difficult especially if stakeholder roles will be diminished.

  47. Preparing for the Application Process Each CA/UFA will need to be collecting more information than it does now Each CA/UFA will need to be engaging in restructuring activities in order to be ready for the application process in 2011

  48. Implications for HMIS HMIS will: • Need to be more robust to meet HEARTH data requirements • Need to collect additional information • Be supported by the oversight structure

  49. Choosing an Entity to be the CA or UFA • Consider current structure • What works or doesn’t work • Consider entities in community • Their capacity to be CA/UFA • Their interest in being the CA/UFA • Consider bringing other funding streams under central oversight • May present the opportunity to improve alignment among various funding streams/application processes, creating efficiencies at many levels

  50. Case Study: Community Y Community Y is a successful, established CoC that would like to centralize homeless system oversight (e.g. Ten Year Plan, CoC, shelter system, etc.) and improve its adequate HMIS system. CoC membership wants what is best for the community. With budget cuts, the PHA, the County, the Cities, local United Way and foundations are nervous about taking on the responsibilities of the CoC. Y has a strong faith-based community and provider network.

More Related