Structures of Sustainability for Ending Homelessness

2. Structures of Sustainability for Ending Homelessness Presentation to Keys to Housing Advisory Council Dec. 3, 2010

3. Research Methodology • National Alliance to End Homelessness Best Practices • Similar study conducted for Sacramento County – in process of change • Telephone interviews with more than 10 communities

4. Current Structures in SD County • Regional Continuum of Care Consortium Representatives of the 18 cities within the county, nonprofit service providers and other interested parties.  Meets monthly • City of San Diego Continuum of Care – San Diego Housing Commission is lead • County of San Diego Continuum of Care -County HCD is lead applicant • Administer ESG, S+Care, SHP from HUD

5. Current Structure in SD County • HomeAgain – United Way funded – focus on downtown chronic homeless; • administers Plan to End Chronic Homelessness • Project 25 – to address high users of emergency services • Board has broad representation of community stakeholders, not govt

6. Other Regional Funding Streams • CDBG – to jurisdictions • FEMA – Ecumenical Council administers • HHSA funding: • CalWorks, Child Care & Development, SNAP, MHSA, Community Services Block Grant • Workforce Investment Board • Housing Authorities – bring down state, federal funds, HOME, Sec 8 vouchers, etc.

7. Structure Types • Joint Powers Authority – California only • Integrated into government – typically county or Mayor’s office • New non-profit created to monitor and/or implement • Use of existing non-profit • Collaborative Body of Stakeholders

8. Cross-cutting Features for Success • Strong political will • Elected leadership • Financial resources aggregated/aligned • Priorities & strategies aligned • Regional outcomes measurement • Broad community/stakeholder involvement • Development of ongoing revenue streams • Governing body/structure singular focus

9. Joint Powers Authority • Authorized by CA state legislature • Los Angeles City & County -LAHSA • 10 member Commission • Large Advisory Board • Does not include small cities or all funding • Driven by HUD Contin. of Care application • Political issues, many large programs • County has several plans developed, not approved/developed implementation plans

10. Joint Powers Authority • Solano County Community Action Partnership • 5 cities and County • No large cities in County • Sets policy and provides oversight • Continuum of Care is sub-group Sacramento County working to move to this structure from Government structure

11. Incorporated into Government • Most common structure • Ability to coordinate majority of resources • Minneapolis/Hennepin County, MN • City & County only – not small cities • Executive Committee – 20- elected, foundations, corporate leaders • Coordinates but not manages funds • Centralized system of care for prevention & rapid re-housing – prior to HPRP

12. Incorporated into Government • Denver City & County • One government; within Mayor’s office • Needs prioritized, funding blended and administered through United Way • RFPs issued based on priorities – Housing First model • Most integrated funding model

13. Incorporated into Government • Seattle/King County • Hosted at County HHS – viewed as most neutral • Funded by County, City, United Way, private • Receive $4 – 5 mil annually from loan financing/recording fees • Housing First model – no $ for shelters

14. Incorporated into Government • San Francisco – City & County • Local Homeless Coordinating Board • 9 board members appointed by Mayor and Supervisors • Primary policy board, advises Mayor/Sups • Is Continuum of Care • Consolidated all regional plans

15. Incorporated into Government • Alameda County – 14 jurisdictions • Government pays for coordination role • Board is County HCD staff • Uses community-based fiscal agent • No blending of funding streams • Does not serve as Continuum of Care • Can function like non-profit but does not have overhead; focus on coordination • Looking at JPA/non-profit structures

16. Independent Non-Profit Host • Flexible, but may not have political will • Columbus, OH Community Shelter Board • Has developed several national models for implementation • City, County, UWay, private foundations, corporate support • Founded by small group 20 years ago • Single point of entry – like 211

17. Independent non-profit • Santa Barbara County • Leadership Council of electeds, providers, funders, government agencies • Interagency agreements to staff teams • Washington, DC – Community Partnership for Prevention of Homelessness • Coordinates Continuum of Care on behalf of City • Interagency Council

18. Collaborative Body • Neutral convener with MOUs • Lack of money can = lack of power • Riverside County • Board of Supervisors set up 2 regional interagency councils • Housing & Homeless Coalition is CoC • Centralized govt funds and regional priorities • Housing Trust Fund funded with fees, tax

19. Collaborative Body • Chatham-Savannah Authority • Created by Georgia State legislature • Funded by City • Board of Directors, Advisory Council • Works like interagency council • Coordinates local, state, fed funds as CoC

20. Collaborative Body • Seattle/King County • Members of County Office Governing Body • Founded by broad base of funders including housing authorities, City, County, private foundations – formalized MOUs • Established tax revenue funding streams • People issuing RFPs aligned • Gates Foundation provided seed money

21. Collaborative Body • City of Chicago Continuum of Care • Governing Board of 60 • Department of Family & Support Services controls funding • Focus on prevention, Housing First, supportive services incl. job training, education, substance abuse treatment, mental/physical healthcare

22. Structure Types • Joint Powers Authority – California only • Integrated into government – typically county or Mayor’s office • New non-profit created to monitor and/or implement • Use of existing non-profit • Collaborative Body of Stakeholders