"I couldn't do it" Lozier tells Alliance leadership

PARODY 

 

Special Meeting of Homeless Alliance Executive Committee December 3, 2024

With less than 30 days in which to find someone to replace outgoing director Elaine Lozier resigned abruptly in early November, effective December 31, the Homeless Alliance called a special, invite-only meeting of its leaders to "strategize" the transition to an interim director. 

~~~~~~~~~~

Jeremy:  Noon o'clock! Well howdy, everybody!  I hope you all had a happy turkey day and long weekend!  Got those leaves raked yet, Dan?  Thinking about Christmas yet Rhonda?  Of course it's not too early!  I love Christmas, why I was just--

Chris: Move approval of the agenda.

Jeremy: --telling my--what? Oh yeah, the agenda.  Let's wait a couple more minutes, just in case we're missing anybody.  I just love seeing everybody...Elaine, do we have quorum?

Elaine:  We have quorum. 

Jeremy: Alright then!  Any objections to the agenda? No? Well give me some of those "ayes"  will you?  

[unintelligible]

Jeremy: As you all know, Elaine is leaving us soon.  Yes, it's very sad.  Still, if we don't find a replacement before she goes, it's gonna be each one of our keesters on the line, and I know none of you wants that, ha ha! 

[unintelligible]

Jeremy:  Take a look at this 'job call' I drafted using Elaine's posting from last year.  Gosh!  Was it just last year?   

[unintelligible]

Jeremy:  What's that?  Oh, well, anyhow, I added a couple things needing someone's immediate attention, like how to do performance evaluation, we need a work group. That's a big one!  Probably shouldn't have promised it for last October, but who's looking, ha ha.  The important thing is, we got rid of the data Nazis!  Who needs 'em?  Do numbers tell us how many people are homeless?  I suppose not!

Rhonda:  I find it hard, not knowing, really, why Elaine is leaving, to judge what we should be asking for, but it looks to me like we're asking an awful lot.  And I'm thinking about what it's going to cost--every transition costs the organization, I'm not convinced an interim is the proper strategy.

Jeremy:  How about we soften the language, so as not to scare people, and kind of let them find out as they go, like Elaine did, heh heh.  Maybe something like, able to conduct genuine conversations with people about difficult topics, hear different opinions, identify common ground and understand varying viewpoints?

Cathy:  I've been here from the beginning and may be considered something of an expert in this area, and I think that really captures what the Alliance is trying to accomplish, because every one of us made a commitment to this work, this very vital work, this life-saving, life-changing work of compassion and caring for our homeless neighbors.  We are the guiding light for our communities and I am never, ever going to give up this work.   

Kathy:  Why are we going the interim route? 

Jeremy:  Good question!  We're doing it just in case.  

Chris: The reason is we have an immediate need.  We can't wait for just the right person. 

Elaine:  You can keep afloat without an ED, you know.  In fact, you've been doing it for some time now! Ha ha, just kidding.  Seriously, though, there are things that are not listed in the position description that we don't have coverage for, things that are not getting completed.  I wouldn't recommend changing the PD, I'm just saying it's not a reflection of the practical reality.  The day-to-day operations is where the difficulty lies.  It's not practical to have one person do both that and the CEOing.  Maybe someone could do it, but I couldn't.  

Leilani:  I thought we talked about an interim as a way to buy time to decide whether and what we wanted in an executive director.  I think it's kind of ridiculous that Elaine can't just say why she quit, but is willing to hint at it.  Obviously, the reasons are not just "personal", but related to the work.

Rhonda:  I'd like to know from Elaine what's not in Jeremy's list, what's not getting done.

Jeremy:  Gosh!  So many good ideas!  Thank you!  Alright, I'll fix this thing up and get it posted tomorrow. We might find just the right person right away, someone with compassion and foresight and all that HUD stuff, or we might not.  Cross your fingers and toes and remember, we are proven leaders on housing and homelessness and we've got to think positive, you never know.  We were so lucky to have found a servant leader in Elaine it just could happen again.  Maybe Santa will bring us a new director, ha ha!   

Elaine:  Okay, you want to know why I quit?  It was too dang much paperwork and not enough CEOing.  Staff reports, grant writing, meeting notices, responding to public records requests and HUD inquiries and complaints about public meeting law violations and not being able to get assessments or help from the Help Line, you name it, I got it.  Yeah, I knew when I took the job that I had no staff, but I had a mentor and I changed everything.  I changed the culture, remember?  I got rid of dissenters--do you have any idea how many useless committee meetings you were paying for?  All those stupid charters, pft!  I re-visioned that ridiculous strategic plan, and when you balked at giving me the staff I deserved, I forced the issue by taking over the operations of the coordinated entry program.  Okay, so that wasn't maybe the best call, maybe I didn't know just how bad a shape our data situation was in, but it's no longer my problem.  It's up to you where you go with this position.  I'm not going to continue to waste my talent for servant leadership on what amounts to menial housekeeping duties that no one appreciates. 

Jeremy:  Danielle?

Danielle:  We, the electeds, made a commitment to this effort.  We can lean into needs like grant-writing.  Marion County has a whole team doing HUD grants.  And remember Jan indicated she was willing to be involved in the transition. She's been handling the state funds, so the gap is HUD.

Cathy:  Jan is amazing. Jan understands our HMIS data and HUD rules inside and out.  I'd like to be on the interview panel.  I was on the interview panel before.  I'm on all the panels.  In fact, I've been here from the beginning and Danielle is right, every one of us made a commitment to this work, this very vital work, this life-saving, life-changing work of compassion and caring for our homeless neighbors.  We are the guiding light for our communities and I am never, ever going to give up this work.   

Jeremy:  Okay, I'll get this puppy posted tomorrow.  Thanks everyone.  Anyone have any updates or kudos?  We've got 15 minutes, c'mon lets hear some happy talk!  It's Christmas! 

Why have homeless camps shifted to Lancaster Drive?

Outreach and Livability Services and friends, City of Salem, Oregon

"Lady wanted to know why homeless camps have shifted to Lancaster Drive. "

"Ever year, same thing.  Week afore Thanksgivin', it's what 'bout dem homeless, why's d'city jes lettin' 'em multiply under bridges.  It's lak nobuddy ever hearda winter er the river raisin. 

"I tole her d'poleece er downtown.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Get me the latest data on homeless per capita by ward, please.

Good question, but I'm afraid that calculation is not available at this time.

Well, get me the city-wide numbers, then.  I want the newly homeless year over year, last three years, compared to the total stably housed at least six months, all housing providers, by program, if you please. 

Also a good question, but also not available.

What about that regional group the City's supported the last four years?  The Homeless Alliance.  Doesn't somebody have their numbers?  

Good question.  No.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   

Neighbors are scared, kids walking to school feel unsafe, and businesses are looking to relocate. I feel like Mayor-elect Hoy and I were the only ones raising this issue, but "[t]hey are now aware they have to do more and I'm hoping people will see the difference.  It will not go away completely, but they should see a difference [on Lancaster Drive] going forward."

                                                                                                    Jose Gonzalez, City Councilor, Ward 5

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“While it’s important to understand that the density of homeless persons on the east side of Salem has grown, few people have stopped to ask why.  The only person in the Statesman article that came close to addressing the “why” was the young homeless woman, who noted that “there was nowhere else to go.”  Salem, like every western city, has a deep and complex history of redlining race and poverty away from wealthier white populations with high property values. You need look no further than an overlay of current affordable housing projects in Salem for evidence that the practice continues. Some may argue that it’s best to “build within communities,” but mixed income and diverse communities are a HUD best practice.  It’s also true that the desire to keep the downtown free of the homeless and plans for future development are pushing the homeless population to the east side of town. Future development plans along Front Street in particular hope to drive the homeless out of Wallace Marine and the downtown to the east side of town, where poverty is concentrated compared to the rest of Salem.   There have been hushed, private meetings all summer saying the quiet part out loud: “for Salem to prosper the homeless have to go.”   These are all forms of structural racism, which concentrate poverty, reaffirm white privilege, protect and retain social and economic discrimination, and foster inequality.”

                                Jimmy Jones, Executive Director, Mid-Willamette Community Action Agency

Director Lozier Abandons Ship

 

"If your team truly believes that they’re helping the world by amassing piles of money, they may not pay much attention to how poorly the company is being run."  --Michael Lewis

The executive director of the Mid-Willamette Homeless Alliance, which is the seldom sung homeless "continuum of care" organization for Salem, Marion and Polk counties, resigned Friday for unstated "personal reasons."  

The announcement comes shortly after the Alliance Board and related ORS 190 entity (same people, different powers) approved this year's consolidated application to HUD for approximately $4.5M in CoC Program funds, and in the midst of a HUD inquiry into the efficacy of its Coordinated Entry and Street Outreach programs, which are supposed to ensure the most vulnerable have access to homeless housing and services.  Amid repeated complaints by Alliance board and committee members over the absence of reliable program-level data on which to base their recommendations and decisions, Lozier made the controversial decision to assume direct day-to-day operation of the Alliance's coordinated entry system, formerly delegated to the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency, and persuaded a majority of a divided board to go against budgetary convention and add several full-time positions with one-time funds.  See McDonald, A. "As Salem's homeless services grow quickly, disagreements emerge on overhead spending" (1 August 2024, Salem Reporter.).  Lozier and the boards' chairman, Polk County Commissioner Jeremy Gordon have been accused of whistleblower retaliation in connection with reports of flaws in the Alliance's prioritized housing list, a key component of its Coordinated Entry System, and data-access issues.  Issues and flaws that, to date, have not been adequately addressed.  Lozier's last day is 31 December 2024.  A successor has not been named.

Lozier is a Salem resident and former community health worker.  She moved from an unpaid position on the Alliance board to executive director in June of 2023.  Her predecessor was former Marion County Commissioner and board administrator, Janet Carlson, who retired.  Lozier is paid an annual salary of $120,000.  Before taking the con at the Alliance, she had no management or federal program  experience. 

Come Back Monday

"But, I cain't GIT a housin' assessment!" 

"You say you're single?" 

"Yes ma'am."  

"Veteran?" 

"No ma'am.  Wouldn't take me."  

"Fleeing domestic violence?

"Howzat ma'am?  Fleein' what?"

"How long have you been living outside?"

"Ten year, I reckon.  Cain't take it no more. Gettin' too old."  

"You have a case-worker?"

"I reckon not, ma'am, been livin' up d'canyon, most of it."

"Where are you now?" 

"Woods."  

"You'll need to be assessed."  

"What fer?"

"Housing.  It's how you get on the list when something comes available."

"What list?"

"The prioritized housing list.  It's like a wait list, but it's called an interest list, don't ask me why."

"Yes ma'am." 

"Let me just check...looks like you will need to make an appointment to get assessed at HOAP on Church Street on Tuesdays or Thursdays between 9 and 3, and at Church at the Park on Portland Road on Mondays through Fridays between 11 and 1."

"I ain't too good wid 'ppointmunts.  How 'bout now?"  

"It's after 2.  You'll have to come back Monday, if you can get an appointment."  

"But I ain't got a ride on Monday.  I only got a ride today, n' I cain't drag dis here laig tree mile n' back nohow.  How 'bout you assess me?"

"I'm not certified to do assessments."  

"Cain't you jes' take m'name 'n stick me onter dat list?"

"No, I can't.  You have to be assessed so they know what sort of housing is appropriate.  

"I reckon I'll take enytin' wid a roof."  

"It's not that simple.  You have to be enrolled in something called "coordinated entry."  And they have to know where to find you when your name comes up, which may take some time, depending."

"Dependin' on what?" 

"On your assessment score, and available housing, and whether you've recently been engaged in services."

"Services?  Like church services?"

"No, like going to HOAP or The ARCHES Project to check your mail."  

"But, I don't get no mail.  Nobuddy gets mail no more."

"You still have to check in from time to time, so they can make a note in they system, so they know where you are."

"But I cain't get in town reg'lar.  It's lack I done told you, ma'am, it's hard fer me to git 'round." 

"I'll see if one of the outreach teams can check on you."  

"Thanky, much obliged."  

"But you'll still have to come to town sometime, because the outreach teams don't make a habit of noting contacts in the system."  

"Law.  I reckon they'll note it well enuff when they find me daid."  

"Is there anything else I can help you with?"  

"No ma'am.  I reckon you've give me no morn' I deserve."      

_________________________________________

Alliance Director Elaine Lozier, responding to the charge that Alliance leadership is ill-equipped to confront serious problems of the sort identified in the recent review of Marion and Polk's Coordinated Entry program:

To fulfill our responsibilities well, and in a manner responsive to the needs of our community, the CoC continues in its ever-evolving process to foster true collaboration among its partners and within its governance. This past year, we have focused on deepening relationships with organizations inside and outside the CoC and clearly communicating common goals and priorities by re-visiting our mission and
purpose, creating a vision and designing a 5 year strategic plan. We also agreed upon shared values for how we will go about our work (Collaboration, Stewardship, Inclusion, Compassion, Leadership, Commitment and Adaptability).

                                                                                                    ---Elaine Lozier, 10/11/24

Alliance CEO: Dis' be Fine

Elaine Lozier, MWV Homeless Alliance CEO

Elaine Lozier is one of those rare CEOs who strives to be a trustworthy, servant leader, whose focus is on integrity, trust, transparency and empathy, and who believes these are what should guide conversations about the challenges facing housing and homeless service providers.  Her boards (she has two with overlapping membership) think she is doing a stellar job after just one year in the saddle (or, if you prefer, since she got her spurs, yeeha!).  So Michael was tickled pink to see she had jest one lil' bone to pick with his recent review of Alliance's Coordinated Entry program.  

He'd said in his review, see, somethin' about her being unwilling to increase the Alliance's contribution to the program.  Now, in all its four years of existence, the Alliance was contributin' jest $36,000 a year, and the cost had rise' to almos' $450,000 a year, which the Community Action Agency, who was operatin' the program, was payin' fer out of its state funds.  The Action Agency had been askin' fer more money fer years (well, not mor'n four, since the Alliance only bin around fer four), and the answer was always "cain't."  Well, the Action Agency, and ever'body else too, know'd it could if it'd wanted to, what with all that state money flowin' in after that 'ar pandemic.  So the Action Agency reckoned it was done bein' the Alliance's pack mule and shook that 'ar pack off.  Miss Elaine say, by way of correctin' Michael, she warn't reluctant to pay more, there jest warn't no more money, that the money that did come in fer the program came later.  Well, if that's right, and mebbe 'tis, I reckon it's a quibble'n detail I cain't unduhstan', 'cause we all knows what the papers said 'bout the millions comin' to the Alliance from the state last year.

'Side from that lil' bone pickin', Miss Elaine say ever'thing fine and dandy.  She's done took over the program three month ago, she's valuatin' systems, she's got some new fangled smarmy goals an' a heap o' plans an' charts an' sech an' I reckon lard knows what all.  An' she tell her boards she confident as ever, tho' I 'member her sayin' awhile back, when Rhonda ask her why she thot Alliances could do bettern' the Action Agency, and she say all cheerful like dat she din't know it could.  But lack I say, she say she plenty confident now she can do better, an' I reckon she would know cause she's a CEO now.   
 

Ms. Lozier's full response can be found in the comments section of Mr. Livingston's review. 

2024 Review of Coordinated Entry

 

When is a shed = shelter?

 By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

 

"Ambiguous Sleeping Locations"

Why, when Janet Carlson says it is!

Janet Carlson is the paid Board Administrator for the Mid-Willamette Valley Homeless Alliance and its weird twin, the ORS 190 Entity.  Let's call them the Alliance.  See "MWV Homeless Alliance Launches in Pandemic."  (25 May 2020)

In addition to being the Alliance's Board Administrator, Carlson is also a former Marion County Commissioner.  She lives in Idaho.  

Last week, Carlson authorized Jan Calvin, a paid Alliance consultant/contractor who lives in Salem, to reverse the decision of the Alliance's Point-in-Time Count (PIT) Workgroup co-chairs that those sleeping in Salem's "micro-shelters" on Portland Road NE should be counted as "unsheltered" for purposes of the PIT Count.  This blog will explore the reasons for and implications of the reversal.

The Alliance is a "Continuum of Care" organized in 2020 to carry out the purposes of HUD's CoC Program, described in 24 CFR Part 578.  Conducting the PIT Count is one if its responsibilities.  However, the Alliance assigned that responsibility to the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency (MWVCAA), which happens to be the Alliance's duly designated "Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) Coordination Entity."  

One of the PIT Workgroup co-chairs works for Church at the Park, which operates Salem's "micro-shelter" program, and the other works for MWVCAA/The Arches Project.  Their decision was based on HUD guidance and an inspection.  First the guidance:  HUD allows persons sleeping in "ambiguous sleeping locations" such as Salem's "micro-shelters" to be counted as sheltered when they are:

...[O]n a campus maintained by an organization, such as a governmental entity, nonprofit, or religious organization, where toilets, showers, and communal food preparation or food service areas are provided.  CPD Notice 21-12, 15 November 2021 at page 29.

However, "special considerations" apply, namely, "the campus must have enough toilets and showers per capita for the resident population within a reasonable distance from the units to count the residents as sheltered", and, because Salem's "regular seasonal patterns fall below 32 degrees or above 100 degrees Fahrenheit"), "the unit must have heat or air conditioning to be counted as sheltered."  CPD Notice 21-12.

The inspection of 2640 Portland Road NE ("Village of Hope" or DMV) found built-in heat, but only 1 toilet per 13 residents and 1 shower per 65 residents.  Conclusion:  not enough toilets or showers to count as "sheltered."  The inspection of 3737 Portland Road NE (CCS) found 1 toilet per 9 residents and 1 shower per 7.5 residents, but portable heaters (extension cords) for leaky, sometimes moldy, units.  Conclusion:  heating insufficient to count as "sheltered" (cooling capacity not mentioned).    

The decision to reverse was not based on an inspection, but on "information from other CoC's [sic] and consultation with HUD."  Reasons as such were not given, but the text of the email communicating the decision (set out in its entirety at the end of the blog) seems to say that reversal was required by the absence of HUD-established "ratio-based criteria" as to how many showers and toilets are "enough" (though others have figured this out), and HUD standards for whether Salem's "regular seasonal patterns fall below 32 degrees or above 100 degrees Fahrenheit" (she must have missed Salem's years-long controversy over warming).  In sum, the consultant/contractor found: 

The resources invested in these emergency sheltering communities move people from unsheltered to a place with sufficient weather protection and sanitary accommodations to consider them sheltered.  [Emphasis added.]

The first thing one notices about the decision to reverse is that it seems to be a policy decision made by contractors.  Contractors who religiously bring such routine decisions as accepting committee members' resignations to the Board.  Yet this decision was not taken to the Board.     

Another thing that stands out is that their decision gave no deference whatsoever to, or even acknowledged the role of, the Alliance's PIT Workgroup or its HMIS Coordination Entity, to whom the Alliance had given responsibility for the PIT.  It even suggests that the co-chairs' decision was  somehow a "discount" of Salem's "efforts to move individuals and families toward housing stability."  Such disrespect, and that is not too strong a word here, is contrary to the Alliance's mission and purpose, the success of which depends utterly on gaining the goodwill and cooperation of homeless services providers whose committee work is in addition to all their regular duties, which goodwill and cooperation is by no means guaranteed at this point in the Alliance's development.  Trust and cooperation are not built by politically-motivated, ham-handed tactical maneuvering.  

The last thing worth a mention is that, by reversing the co-chairs' decision, the contractors removed a perhaps strong incentive to address the defects that the co-chairs identified and thereby improve the situation for program participants.  Want the "micro-shelter village" to qualify as emergency shelter?  Bring in more toilets and showers.  Do something about the heating situation.  In other words, the decision to reverse may well have hurt those the Alliance exists to help.      

The Alliance might have, but has not so far, developed minimum standards for what constitutes "emergency shelter."  Thus the contractors' decision has implications beyond the PIT in that it will, in all likelihood, mean that Salem's "micro-shelters" will be classified in HMIS and counted as "emergency housing" for purposes of the Housing Inventory Count (HIC), along with UGM Men's Mission, UGM's Simonka Place, Safe Sleep United, The Arches Inn, Sheltering Silverton, Family Promise, etc.  Thus, the contractors' decision is likely to affect the Alliance's "statistics" in non-trivial ways -- for example,  its HMIS bed coverage rate, bed usage rate and system performance metrics.

The contractors' decision will also affect the way Salem looks at Salem's "micro-village" program outcomes.  Church at the Park (CATP) operates Salem's "micro-villages" with periodic grants from the City of Salem.  CATP has indicated variously that its goal is to move participants to "more permanent housing destinations", "positive destinations", "positive exit destinations", and "more permanent locations", and uses the below chart to illustrate.

 

The chart implies participants are moving from CATP's "managed sites" (which include duration warming (= sheltered) and vehicle camping (= unsheltered)) into housing of some sort.  A Statesman Journal story reported 18 people moving from the DMV site into "stable housing" and "67% of households [sic]" from CCS had moved into "more permanent destinations."  Woodworth, W. "Salem officials consider next sites for micro-shelter villages for homeless."  (3 January 2022, Statesman Journal.)  Councilor Phillips said at the 18 January work session, "The testimony from DJ Vincent during our last session in terms of the first year metrics on the micro-shelter sites that are managed is that we ended homelessness for about a hundred people" (at 22') and was not corrected.  In short, Salem thinks managed sites are moving people into housing.  

In fact, based on HMIS information provided by CATP, most program (both DMV and CCS) participants exiting to "more permanent locations" have exited to something other than the three housing classifications shown on the above chart, whether to emergency shelter, hotel, residential treatment facility or detox, friends or family (hardly more permanent).  Thus only 15% of DMV exits  (versus the reported 37%) and only 14% of CCS exits (versus the reported 61%) were to the type of housing advertised [figures revised 1/27/22 to correct math error].  The figures would like be even lower if calculated by household, but CATP did not provide that information.  See the chart at the end of the blog [revised 1/27/22]. 

Classifying "micro-villages" as "emergency shelter" would make moving from them to other forms of emergency shelter a lateral move, not "more permanent."  Those thinking, well, we all know "micro-villages" are subpar shelter must bear in mind that HMIS does not recognize gradations in the quality of emergency shelter.  In HMIS, ES is just ES.

CATP "Micro-Shelter Communities" FAQs

The big unanswered question here is why CATP feels the need, if it does, to be classified as an emergency shelter, or to prove that "micro-villages" are "an effective strategy to reduce homelessness."  Is it not enough that they offer some degree of comfort and safety?  That they offer folks who have difficulty meeting social demands of Salem's emergency shelters a way to reconnect?  See Harrell, S. "Relationship building is key to Church at the Park’s model in tackling homelessness."  (6 December 2021, Salem Reporter.)  Certainly, few true emergency shelters could prove they are an effective strategy to reduce homelessness, nor do they feel the need.  They just do the best they can.  Perhaps if CATP had not felt this unnecessary pressure to be what it is not, and to prove what probably cannot be proved, this controversy would not have arisen.  While it is still possible to correct this bad decision,  people have their ideas and people are stubborn.   

No doubt some will try to have it both ways -- that is, count the "micro-villages" as emergency shelter and count a move from them to a true emergency shelter as "more permanent."  And that's fine, if what we want to do is game the system so as to paint the rosiest possible picture for public consumption in order to make providers and donors and government officials, etc. feel better.  The alternative would be to focus on getting the best information one can about Salem's homeless services delivery system, and then communicating that information with as much focus as possible on the nature and extent of the problems, so that those problems can be addressed.  Nothing about this is easy.  Salem needs less obfuscation and cheer-leading, and more clear vision and leadership.  

 

text of Jan Calvin's 1/19 decision

 

Church at the Park's HMIS-sourced Report + Our #s in pink

 

The Struggle to Count Bodies & Beds

 By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

Every January, hope springs anew in communities across the country that they may be successful in the struggle to give an accurate accounting of all their homeless beds and bodies.  

Donations are solicited and warehoused, volunteers recruited and trained, and, to a greater or lesser extent, the count has been publicized in print and social media.  "The day of the count" will, usually, get heavy media coverage, even though the counting will continue for up to two weeks. 

The results, however, have tended to get very little, if any, attention.  Certainly not in Marion and Polk counties, which have historically been very slow to publish results compared to other geographic areas, or doesn't publish them at all, which happened in 2020.  

The state agency, the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department, publishes only odd-year counts, by county, but buries them deep in the OHCS website under a tab for providers, in inconsistent formats that make detailed comparisons difficult.  

Polk (L) and Marion (R) counties 2015-2017 PITC Summaries

 

Polk (L) and Marion (R) counties 2019 PITC Totals

So, what happened to the report on Marion and Polk's 2020 count -- the very first count for the newly-formed Mid-Willamette Valley Homeless Alliance?  See "The Pointless Point-in-Time Count."  24 December 2019.  

After asking Alliance staff repeatedly for several months when the 2020 PITC report would be published, and finally being told (incorrectly) "it's on the website", we decided to compile our own report, using raw data and the format that MWVCAA has used in prior years.  Turns out, the 2020 count showed a deep (>50%) drop in sheltered homelessness from previous years, and a significant (~10%) drop in overall homelessness from 2019.     

 

Realizing those figures couldn't be right, we asked MWVCAA Executive Director Jimmy Jones by email "what happened" with the 2020 count.  Here's what he told us.

The 2019 PIT Count showed 121 homeless persons in Polk and 974 in Marion, for a total in both counties of 1,095. The transition from a ROCC to a local process produced some confusion as there were a lot of people who were new to their roles.  The 2020 count showed 998 [homeless] persons [total], which is about a 10 percent reduction from the prior year.  Nothing fundamentally changed in the homeless population in Marion and Polk between 2019 and 2020.  The 10 percent decline was a product of new people in new roles, the transition to a new COC, and the use of a new technology platform also played a role. The shelter count was especially inadequate. And then, we have to come to terms with the fact that [the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)] in Oregon is completely unreliable. I have no confidence in the ultimate numbers that are produced by the state.  In recent years they’ve had to make adjustments to make the numbers they have in their system, and the numbers reported to HUD, match.   Until we have a competent statewide system the numbers are unreliable.

So why then are we doing a full count in 2021?  [HUD offered to grant CoCs waivers that would relieve them of the requirement of conducting a 2021 unsheltered count, but the Alliance chose not to seek a waiver.]

Because the community has to make a better effort at getting this right and we can’t wait til 2022 to figure out how to do it the right way.  [An unsheltered count is required only in odd-numbered years.]   Unsheltered homelessness will continue to get worse the next decade, and state and federal funding formulas will bend increasingly heavily toward point-in-time counts, especially if there are additional future increases in the Emergency Solutions Grant, which during COVID have been [awarded in proportion to community need based on communities'] unsheltered counts.  There are a lot of reasons not to do a count this year, and I would have opposed it but for the simple fact that the window HUD gives us is a full two weeks under these [pandemic] conditions.  That dramatically increases the odds of getting something closer to a[n] accurate count.   We also have next to no information on how much our homeless population has increased because of the wildfires. I think it’s greater than people believe and we need to be able to prove that now.

We asked Jones to say more about his assessment of Oregon's HMIS as completely unreliable.  (HMIS is a shared database that is used to track individuals entering and exiting the homeless services system, and is supposed to let communities know how well or poorly their homeless services system is functioning.)  Basically, his view is that the reports generated in HMIS should be viewed with skepticism.  Ask about the report's design (what data was included and what data was excluded) and the margin of error.  Ask about the report's history of reliability, and whether any program-level staff have signed off on this particular report, and if so, what, if anything, did they think the numbers signify.  Don't just accept a report at face value. 

With that caveat, we turn to a less known, but equally important, metric:  the Housing Inventory Count, or HIC, which also occurs in January, and is designed to inform communities about their homeless shelter and housing programs.  The HIC tells communities how many beds they have, of what type, and the extent to which providers and programs are participating in HMIS. 

Marion and Polk counties started 2020 far behind where we should have been in terms of HMIS "bed coverage."  See "HMIS and Bed Usage Rates", revised January 2019.  Last January's HIC demonstrated what was known already -- i.e, that the Alliance had a lot of HMIS "on-boarding" to do with providers before it could begin to compete as a CoC.  In this respect, the Alliance's greatest accomplishment in 2020 was adding Simonka Place, a program of the Union Gospel Mission of Salem that serves women and children, to the number of providers participating in HMIS.  

That said, because UGM's men's programs won't be added until later this year, when the new Men's Mission opens, the Alliance will be falling short of HUD's 85% bed-coverage benchmark in Emergency Shelter (44%) and Transitional Housing (61%) types this January.  This failure means the Alliance will fall short on the 2021 System Performance Metrics, or SPMs, that are based on ES and TH data (which is to say, most of them).  That's in addition to the reliability problems that Jones identified.  To find out more about plans for the 2021 PITC, visit the Alliance web page here.

Hless Alliance Looks at Trends

 By Sarah Owens

 

The Mid-Willamette Valley Homeless Alliance is trying to figure out just what the data (specifically, its "system performance" data) reveal about Marion and Polk counties' homeless services delivery system, and the picture is none too clear.  

The good news -- above all -- is that for the first time ever, we have an Alliance, a committed group of professionals from government and non-governmental agencies, asking questions and expecting to see improvements in the homeless services delivery system, and at the same time, offering supports to make that happen.  The other good news is that we have our own discrete data, specific to this geographic area, and not blended in with the data from 26 other counties.  (See the many posts on how Marion and Polk counties came to separate from the 28-county Rural Oregon Continuum of Care by searching on the CANDO Archive issue, "ROCC: Leave or Remain?")

Now for the numbers.  Looking at the staff report, which compares FFY 2018/19 SPMs with FFY 2019/20 SPMs, it does appear that more people exited emergency shelter into what's termed a "positive housing placement", but, for reasons no one really knows, the region is not reducing the length of time persons are in homeless service programs, or the number of homeless persons.  For now, C19 can usefully be blamed for this trend.

But, as horrid as the C19 year has been, we can thank C19 for forcing the cancellation of HUD's annual funding competition, and allowing the Alliance to avoid a challenge it most probably was not prepared to meet, given its inexperience and the negative trend in measures that can't be blamed on C19.  See "COVID Kills 2020 CoC Competition for Homeless $$"  (28 July 2020). 

The staff report (which is embedded below) was shared last week with the Alliance's Performance and Evaluation Committee, about three and a half hours before the meeting.  Asked during the meeting to speculate on what each of the graphs might mean, the committee basically scratched its collective head and said very little.  Consider if you would have done any better.     

 

 

It might help to know that Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) is included in Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), that the number of homeless persons = the number accessing emergency services, and that the area's largest emergency shelter provider, Union Gospel Mission, only recently and only partly began participating in the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).  According to staff, The Arches Project's "robust prevention/diversion program" may be credited for the reduction in the number of people accessing services for the first time.

The Alliance board will be receiving the staff report at its January meeting next week, which is open to the public.  Meeting details can be found on the Alliance calendar, here.  This post will be updated.

COVID Kills 2020 CoC Competition for Homeless $$

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

HUD has yet to drop this year's NoFA, and it's probably not going to.

It's now all but certain that SARS-CoV-2 has killed the 2020 CoC Program funding competition.

On May 15, 2020, the House narrowly passed the HEROES Act (H.R. 6800) with Representative Maxine Waters' NAEH-supported provision to cancel the 2020 CoC Program NoFA and renew CoC's 2019 awards:  

Yesterday, more than two months after the House passed its fourth stimulus bill, the Senate dropped the bill for the HEALS Act.  According to the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the Senate bill would require HUD to renew all projects with existing Homeless Assistance Grants expiring during calendar year 2021 for one 12-month period without additional competition.  (See NAHRO Monitor (paywall)). 

Despite the "stark disparities" between HEROES and HEALS, the difficulty facing HEALS in the Senate, and the odds against the House taking it up even if it does pass -- the two bodies appear to be  in agreement on canceling the 2020 CoC Program competition.  Given that HUD has yet to drop the 2020 NoFA and it's almost August, when under normal circumstances the competition would be in full and frantic swing, that provision of the HEALS bill means the competition's as good as canceled.

What this means for the newly-formed Mid-Willamette Valley Homeless Alliance is not entirely clear.  In the split with the Rural Oregon Contiuum of Care (ROCC), the Alliance took projects run by the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency, Shangri-la, and the Center for Hope and Safety.  See here.  But, some of those funds were not spent and had to be reallocated.  Also, the Alliance (being new) did not have a 2019 planning grant.  HUD could, under the Senate's HEALS bill, award planning grants for 2020.  We'll just have to wait and see, assuming this provision makes it into the final stimulus bill and is signed into law.  This post will be updated as events unfold.

7/31/20 The ROCC newsletter contains this entry about the 2020 NoFA:

It was stated at the 7/24/20 COVID office hours that the GIW [Grant Inventory Worksheet] would be out sometime the following week. Typically, the NOFA follows 4-6 weeks after the GIW is released. It is not known if it will follow the same time frame this year, but it is worth preparing as this means the grant cycle is moving forward.  

ROCC appears to be assuming that the fact that the "grant cycle is moving forward" means there will be a funding competition.    

8/2/20  Pertinent parts of the Alliance's GIW.  Note the estimated annual renewal amount/demand is $769,919.  

12/28/20 Update:  yesterday, President Trump signed the 2021 Appropriations Act into law.  As expected, the Act provides a one-year renewal of Continuum of Care funding, without competition, for programs expiring in calendar year 2021.  Other details:  the Act provides $223M more in Homeless Assistance Grants than in FY 2020.  Of the total $3B allocated by the Act, not less than $2.569B is reserved for the Continuum of Care (CoC) and Rural Housing Stability Assistance programs, and $7 million for technical assistance for the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).  The CoC Program will see a $219M increase over FY 2020, while ESG remains flat.  The Act also includes language requiring HUD to award CoC grants based on CoCs' system performance and to prioritize funding for CoCs that strategically reallocate to high performing projects.

MWV Homeless Alliance Plan Needs Work

By Michael Livingston

The Mid-Willamette Valley Homeless Alliance (the Marion and Polk counties' Continuum of Care, or CoC) board adopted a strategic plan at its June 11 meeting.  The plan includes many elements outside the requirements of the federal CoC Program.  The discussion below outlines the CoC Program's core elements, identifies problems with the adopted plan, and explains how to align the two. 

HUD’s CoC Program

What a CoC is

HUD’s CoC Program is designed to provide services to help homeless individuals and families move into transitional and permanent housing, with the goal of long-term stability.
   

What is unique about the CoC Program -- and will be particularly challenging for the Alliance -- is that HUD expects a community participating in the CoC Program to think of its homeless services delivery system as a “continuum of care,” rather than an array of individual homeless assistance programs that operate independently from one another.

The model continuum of care includes all public and private programs in the continuum's geographic area that address homelessness, regardless whether the programs apply for HUD CoC funding, and CoC Program participation requires community-wide planning and the strategic use of all of those resources.

HUD expects that, in addition to analyzing the performance of individual projects and programs, CoC communities also measure their performance as a coordinated system.  For details, see CoC Program -- Introductory Guide.

Measuring a CoC's progress in housing the homeless

HUD assesses both the performance of individual projects funded with CoC Program dollars, and the performance of the continuum as a whole, by application of seven System Performance Measures (SPMs):

     (1) Length of time persons remain homeless; 

     (2) The extent to which persons who exit homelessness to permanent housing destinations return to homelessness; 

     (3) Number of homeless persons;

     (4) Jobs and income growth for homeless persons in CoC Program-funded projects;

     (5) Number of persons who become homeless for the first time; 

     (6) Homelessness prevention and housing placement of persons defined by Category 3 of HUD’s homeless definition in CoC Program-funded projects; and 

     (7) Successful housing placement.

For more information see CoC System Performance Measures in context 

NOTE:  HUD wants CoCs to focus strategically on housing those who are literally homeless, at imminent risk of homelessness, or fleeing domestic violence.  HUD therefore does not measure, and will not fund, programs aimed at prevention/Category 3 homeless (SPM #6) unless the CoC has applied for and received HUD approval. To date, no CoC has that approval. For more information see Introductory Guide to the SPMs​ and Determining "homeless" status of youth.

Where the System Performance Measure data comes from and how it is used

The SPM data --  for example, the "length of time persons remain homeless" --  comes from a CoC's Homeless Information Management System (HMIS), which is a computer software solution that complies with HUD’s data collection, management, and reporting standards. Oregon currently uses ServicePoint.  SPM data is the aggregate data derived from tracking the progress of individual clients through HMIS.  Example:  on 12/1/10, Salem Housing Authority moved client Z from the street to PSH (“permanent supportive housing”).  

Because SPMs are system-level measures, they reveal significant information about how well homelessness assistance programs are functioning and where improvements are necessary.  That's why HUD bases funding decisions on SPM data.  Communities can also use SPM data to evaluate and improve the performance of their homeless services delivery system.

Coordinated Assessment and Entry

Consistent with the expectation that CoCs engage in community-wide planning and ensure the strategic use of resources, HUD requires each CoC to establish a coordinated assessment and entry system.  The coordinated assessment and entry process uses a comprehensive, standardized assessment tool to prioritize the individuals who are most in need of assistance and then, based on the assessment results, refers them in a timely manner to appropriate housing and other services through a centralized, or coordinated, protocol.  Basically, it’s a “no wrong door” or “central waiting list” approach, in which a homeless person can go to any homeless services provider in the continuum and be assessed through the same tool and methodology so that referrals are consistently made and promptly completed across the community, and the most vulnerable move to the head of the line.   For more information see Coordinated Assessment and Entry.

The HUD CoC Program's 4-category definition of "homeless"

"Category 1" -- "Literally Homeless": An "[i]ndividual or family who lacks a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence, meaning: (i) Has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not meant for human habitation; (ii) Is living in a publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living arrangements * * *; or (iii) Is exiting an institution where (s)he has resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering that institution."

"Category 2" -- "Imminent Risk of Homelessness": An "[i]ndividual or family who will imminently lose their primary nighttime residence, provided that: (i) Residence will be lost within 14 days of the date of application for homeless assistance; (ii) No subsequent residence has been identified; and (iii) The individual or family lacks the resources or support networks needed to obtain other permanent housing."

"Category 3" -- "Homeless under other Federal statutes":  Unaccompanied youth under 25 years of age, or families with children and youth, who do not otherwise qualify as homeless under this definition, but who: (i) Are defined as homeless under the other listed federal statutes; (ii) Have not had a lease, ownership interest or occupancy in permanent housing during the 60 days prior to the homeless assistance application; (iii) Have experienced persistent instability as measured by two moves or more in the preceding 60 days; and (iv) Can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time due to special needs or barriers."

"Category 4" -- "Fleeing [or] Attempting to Flee DV":  "Any individual or family who: (i) Is fleeing, or is attempting to flee domestic violence; (ii) Has no other residence; and (iii) Lacks the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing."

NOTE:  for the reason cited in the above note, the Alliance should strategically target those populations described in Categories 1, 2 and 4. 

  

The plan adopted by the Alliance

The opening sentence of the “PURPOSE” statement of the Alliance's Governance Charter commits the Alliance "to carry out the purposes of the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Continuum of Care program as defined 24 CFR Part 578."  The CoC Program requirements discussed above make it clear that the initial primary goal of a strategic plan for our new and untested CoC is to build an effective homeless services delivery system and a competitive CoC by: (a) establishing full geographic coverage; (b) rigorous application of the SPMs; (c) strict adherence to HUD’s definition of “homeless”; (d) continuum-wide participation in HMIS and Coordinated Assessment & Entry; and (e) a continuum-wide commitment to data quality.   It also follows from the PURPOSE statement that the Alliance’s priority endeavors should be those that directly align with both the SPM framework and HUD’s definition of “homeless.”  Application of these standards to the plan adopted by the board demonstrates that the plan is substantively deficient in a number of respects and that those deficiencies are not likely to be cured by any future "work plans" the Alliance's consultants may develop.

The plan's failure to align with the SPM framework and purpose 

Because HUD assesses the performance of a CoC's individual projects and the performance of the continuum as a whole by application of the System Performance Measures (SPMs), what can be measured and assessed by the SPM data determines, in effect, both the goals CoCs should pursue and the kind of programs and homeless services delivery system HUD expects CoCs to develop.  It is essentially for these reasons that, on May 20, Jimmy Jones (Executive Director of the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency and a member of the Alliance's Board) sent an email to his fellow Board members, which began with the following observation:

The issue of our strategic plan came up at the Collaborative Committee meeting today.  I’m an ex-officio member of this Board, and I see my primary role as providing technical assistance to inform the Board on the choices in front of us.  I was deeply involved in ROCC planning, and I want us to avoid making the same mistakes that the ROCC made in previous years. Their biggest failure, in my view, was that they failed to take the single most important goal and work backward from that goal to create an action plan. 

In that email, he recommended that the Alliance "work backward" from the "priorities" in the NOFA that HUD issued in 2019, when our region was part of the Rural Oregon Continuum of Care (ROCC), and, "while taking a hard look at our systems," "create an improvement plan" that "becomes the heart of our strategic plan." (For more information, see 2019 NOFA , pages 50-67.)  The ROCC (“Your CoC”) scores on its 2019 NOFA application are set out and assessed in the HUD charts below.

The board did not consider the approach Jones recommended.  The board's plan takes a very broad approach, setting out a number of goals and "objectives" that do not align with the SPM framework, including: (a) “[s]ustain” the Marion County LEAD program;  (b) “[i]ncrease access and expand affordable housing units * * *”; and (c) “[s]upport * * * efforts to create a sobering center in the Salem area.” (Plan, pages 14, 21).  These goals and objectives may benefit the community and contribute indirectly to housing homeless individuals, but, their outcomes cannot be measured and assessed by SPM data.  For example, the CoC could never demonstrate by reference to aggregate SPM data from HMIS that those endeavors, in fact, had assisted identified individuals and families who are “homeless” under HUD’s definition to move into stable permanent housing.  Statements in the plan to the effect that they are “related” to one or more of the SPMs do not change that reality, and they are based primarily on unidentified and unsupported assumptions (e.g., Plan at pages 9, 21).  Indeed, the plan's use of the undefined term "related" is a tacit acknowledgment of that fact.  Instead of starting with goals and objectives that have been predetermined and then trying to make the SPMs fit them, the Alliance should have used SPMs to decide what the goals and objectives should be.

According to Jan Calvin, the consultant who seems to have done most of the work on the plan, the goal of increasing the number of affordable housing units is included in the plan in order to satisfy HUD's expectation that CoCs collaborate with public and private entities in the community, which -- unlike the Alliance -- do have the authority and capacity to develop affordable housing.  See CoC 101, pages 10, 11, 14.  If fulfilling that collaboration responsibility is the intent of the affordable housing goal, it is important to make that clear.  The plan simply states, "AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Increase access and expand affordable housing units to help fill the 15,000-household gap."  (Plan at page 5).  Other sections of the plan appear to confirm what that statement implies -- i.e., that the Alliance itself is taking on the task of developing affordable housing units.  (e.g., Plan at pages 8, 14, 15).   It is obvious that the problem with the framing and articulation of the affordable housing goal could be resolved by making it clear that the goal is to collaborate, and by assigning a priority to that goal that takes into account the more pressing tasks the Alliance must undertake in these early years.    
 

The plan's failure to align with the HUD CoC Program's definition of "homeless"

The Alliance's target populations are effectively limited to those described in Categories 1, 2 and 4 of the HUD CoC Program’s definition of “homeless.”  The target population references and descriptions in the Alliance’s strategic plan should both express and be consistent with that limitation.  As consultant Jan Calvin admitted in response to a question from board member Dan Clem during the June 11 meeting, the plan does not do that.  (e.g., Plan at pages 8, 12, 14, 15, 21, 22).  

Corrective Action

Many of the problems with the plan the board has adopted stem from the fact that it is based on a plan that was developed several years ago in a different context and for another purpose.  They could have been avoided by developing a new strategic plan, the framework for which is built from the ground up based on the HUD CoC Program’s requirements and the System Performance Measures.  The board still could do that, using the approach Jones recommended.   

   

An alternative, albeit less desirable, solution is to restructure the plan by creating two categories for the plan's goals and endeavors.  One category would include all the goals and endeavors that are aligned with the core requirements and expectations of HUD’s CoC Program, particularly the SPM framework and HUD's definition of "homeless."  The other category would include the remaining goals and objectives the Alliance wished to pursue that are authorized by the Governance Charter -- for example, collaborating with programs in the community that have the capacity and authority to develop affordable housing. Such a restructuring would serve to organize and prioritize the Alliance’s goals and to focus the Alliance's attention and limited resources on essential tasks.​

MWV Homeless Alliance Launches in Pandemic

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

As reported in Street Roots, the City of Salem, Marion County, Polk County, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, the Salem Keizer School District and several other  municipalities are creating  an intergovernmental entity under ORS 190.010 et seq. to operate the Mid-Willamette Valley Homeless Alliance (Alliance), the new name of the Marion-Polk "continuum of care." Aside from the Street Roots piece, there's been almost no press coverage.  See Holman, A. "Photos: Life as a leader in the pandemic, Commissioner Colm Willis."  (10 May 2020, Salem Reporter.)

The Street Roots article contrasts this latest government effort with immediate need, using quotes from advocate Jean Hendron and the director of the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency, Jimmy Jones, who holds a non-voting position on the Alliance Board.  See Henderson, T.  "Homeless residents, advocates, in Salem area take issue with government response."  (22 April 2020, Street Roots.)

Such comparisons are inevitable, even in a pandemic, when circumstances force a shift in priorities and resources to avoiding contagion.  "COVID-19 Returns Campers to City Parks";  Radnovich, C. "COVID-19: More than 100 medically vulnerable unsheltered homeless placed in Salem hotels." (12 April 2020, Statesman Journal.)  Neither the City nor Marion or Polk county have contributed to the hotel program, but the City did provide chemical toilets and hand-washing stations for the park camping program, which is popular with downtown businesses and unpopular with park neighbors.  See "Has Council 'moved the needle' on Homelessness?"; Woodworth, W. "Salem City Council votes to extend emergency declaration for COVID-19."  (28 April 2020, Statesman Journal.).

Alliance Board Chair Cathy Clark and Vice Chair Chris Hoy 2/13/20

The Alliance Board met for the first time in February.  Most of the meeting was spent approving organizational formalities.  Details in meeting minutes here.  The March meeting consisted of some more approvals (consent calendar), a round-table "Coronavirus Update", and an overview of the strategic plan adopted in 2017 by the Mid-Willamette Homeless Initiative Task Force (Task Force), which Alliance Board Chair Cathy Clark and Alliance staff lead Janet Carlson have urged the Board to revise and adopt as its own.  Both  held key positions on the Task Force and its successor, the Mid-Willamette Homeless Initiative Steering Committee.

Carlson is a former Marion County Commissioner who retired in January 2019, after 13 years in  office, and now lives in Idaho.  The push for the Alliance to adopt some form of the Task Force plan is seen by some as Carlson's "legacy project."

The other two staff are Jan Calvin, an 18-year veteran of the City's Community Services Department who "codified" the 2017 plan after it was adopted, and Carla Munns, former Director of Quality and Transformation at Willamette Valley Community Health (the regional Coordinated Care Organization prior to 2020).

Carlson, Calvin and Munns are acting as consultants to the Alliance under contracts with the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments.  They're paid $85/hr + expenses.  None has expertise in federal housing or homelessness programs, but the cost of hiring qualified, full-time staff is considered prohibitive, a judgment that may prove costly in the long run.

As readers know very well, this is not the region's first experience trying to build an effective, competitive housing and homeless services delivery system, aka, "continuum of care" or CoC.  By "competitive" is meant a system that meets HUD's high standards.  (For more on the region's CoC Program experience, scroll down to CANDO Archive Issues below, and click on "ROCC: Leave or Remain.")

What's fundamentally different about this newly formed CoC -- about the Alliance -- is the direct involvement of local government.  The experience of CoCs across the U.S. is that local government involvement is crucial to ensuring reliable and consistent leadership, community support, staff expertise, transparent processes and accountability for outcomes.  But, while local government involvement is definitely necessary to success, it's no guarantee.

Building a competitive organization will certainly take years, but that doesn't mean the Alliance can take its time.  The Alliance is decades behind where it needs to be in building an effective homeless services delivery system, and decades behind CoCs like the ones in Lane and Clackamas counties.  This means, in effect, that the Alliance is headed into senior finals having completed only the seventh grade.  HUD rewards outcomes, not "best efforts."  There is no "most improved" award for homeless services delivery systems.

One idea is to adopt a strategic plan that works backward from the CoC Program funding competition, which rates CoCs across the U.S. against HUD standards and priorities.  The goal of every CoC is to score above the weighted mean, which is the break point for funding.

FY 2019 Competition "Debriefing Document" for OR-505 (ROCC)

Above is the summary from the Rural Oregon Continuum of Care (ROCC)’s 2019 Competition debriefing document (Marion and Polk counties were in this CoC until March, when the Alliance was formed).  This is a HUD-generated “scorecard” that goes to all CoCs to let them know what they need to work on.  The Alliance will receive a similar document after the 2020 competition.

As you can see, out of 200 available points divided into 6 categories, half (100 points) are for  “System Performance” and “Performance and Strategic Planning.”  ROCC scored only 56 points in those categories, for an overall total of 134/200.  That’s 16.5 points below the median, and 23 points below the weighted mean.  It's also 4.5 points below ROCC's FY 2018 score.  See "ROCC Fissures Continue to Grow."  The debriefing document focuses on HUD’s high priority areas (for more detail, see the FY 2019 NOFA, which set forth the competition's rules and guidelines).  

 

Scoring above the weighted mean needs to be the Alliance's first priority in the coming years, which means the board should focus on the categories that offer the most points, namely system performance (60/200 or 30%), coordination and engagement (56/200 or 28%), performance and strategic planning as defined by HUD (40/200 or 20%) and project capacity, review and ranking (29/200 or 14.5%).  For more details on these categories, see the FY 2019 NOFA which lists the priorities (p 5-7), scoring matrix (p 50), and defines “system performance” (p 53) and “performance and strategic planning (p 58), among other things.

To succeed at what's counted, the Alliance needs an extremely focused plan, not some mish-mash of a wish list that includes every idea or project that in some way touches homelessness, which is what is on offer.  The Alliance's plan should be carefully tailored to this moment and this organization's immediate needs.  The Alliance charter states that "The COC is organized to carry out the purposes of the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Continuum of Care program as defined 24 CFR Part 578."  Yes, it's true that the program is broadly designed to promote community-wide planning and strategic use of resources to address homelessness.  But, for the foreseeable future, the Alliance Board needs a plan that carries out its most basic function, which is "to assist individuals (including unaccompanied youth) and families experiencing homelessness and to provide the services needed to help such individuals move into transitional and permanent housing, with the goal of long-term stability."

Collaborative Committee 29 April 2020 virtual meeting

Times are hard.  The pandemic has forced Oregon and the rest of the world into a massive shift in priorities and resource allocation, but it hasn't changed the Alliance's basic function, which is to provide the services needed to help stably house the homeless.   

Under the Governor's Stay Home, Save Lives order, the board skipped its April meeting while staff and committees worked kinks out of the virtual meeting process.  There's some good work going on in committees, but a lot of it's political, and the board needs to understand the work and actively support it. To do that, data, work product and meeting notes need to be readily available -- to the board, to the public and to other members of the Alliance.  A website is not much use if it's not kept current (and it's not).  The danger of not making information available without having to ask for it is that, without a constant flow of accurate, timely information, the Alliance loses credibility, people lose interest, and those that are left are just going through the motions.  It's happened over and over and over.    

The April meeting of the Collaborative Committee had 60 people in attendance.  The May meeting was half that.  After skipping April, the board held a virtual meeting in May, barely making quorum, with no decisions taken.  Declining attendance is never a good sign.  Maybe the answer is fewer meetings, more work outside meetings or more meaningful work inside meetings, less time cheer-leading and updating.  Whatever adjustments are needed, now's the time for the board to dig in to their new roles and learn how to exercise reliable and consistent oversight of the region's homeless services delivery system.  Active leadership is needed, now more than ever.