1 / 12

2011 CoC Application Summary

2011 CoC Application Summary. Memphis/Shelby County Continuum of Care. 2010 Score Details. Housing, Services, and Structure. 14 pts : coordinated, inclusive, fair/objective and outcome-oriented decision-making process; majority are not public agencies

eudora
Download Presentation

2011 CoC Application Summary

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. 2011 CoC Application Summary Memphis/Shelby County Continuum of Care

  2. 2010 Score Details

  3. Housing, Services, and Structure • 14 pts: coordinated, inclusive, fair/objective and outcome-oriented decision-making process; majority are not public agencies • Strategic plan is in place and incorporates all aspects of the continuum; inventory and gaps analysis are conducted • Last year score: 11.25 • Improvements this year: restructuring of the process, election of ranking and review committee, development of bylaws

  4. Homeless Needs and Data Collection • 26 possible points: HMIS coverage, effective PIT count, participation in AHAR • Extra points to “extremely high need” communities – Memphis not expected to meet criteria • Last year’s score: 22.5 • Improvements this year: modest improvement in bed coverage, PIT, and errors

  5. CoC Strategic Planning • 22 points possible • Alignment with plan to end homelessness • Discharge protocols; Collaboration with other federal programs • Leverage for new project • Last year’s score: 17.5 • Improvements: Discharge protocols improved, additional collaborations cited; alignment with ten year plan improved.

  6. CoC Performance • 32 points possible – MV section • Actions and specific steps toward meeting goals • Performance on increasing PSH for chronically homeless, retention in PSH, exits to PH from TH, employment at exit, and reduction in the number of homeless families. • Last year’s score: 19.75

  7. Performance Assessment: Chronically Homeless Beds • Bed number last year: 147 • Target: 186 • Achieved: 316

  8. Performance on Reducing Family Homelessness • Last year: 192 • Target: 175 • Actual: 210* • Controlling for improved bed counts, actual increase is 3 families or 2%.

  9. Housing Emphasis • Possible Score: 6 • Ratio of housing to services $; looks only at new projects • Last year’s score: 6 • Improvements: status quo (80/20 mix, lots of leverage)

  10. Funding Highlights • $4,552,665 for renewals plus $600k for Shelter Plus Care • New project request: $446,653 • Projects must meet a “quality threshold” • Includes factors such as: housing type, scale, location, sufficiency of supportive services, and capacity to connect with mainstream services and promote retention. • Award dependent on appropriation

More Related