Introduction & Overview

Purpose of this report:

Columbus and Franklin County’s joint Continuum of Care application was submitted to HUD on July 23, 2004. The purpose of this report is to create a final comprehensive record of the process and results of the 2004 Continuum of Care project evaluation and ranking process. In this process, new (proposed) and existing supportive housing programs were evaluated and ranked according to a set of community priorities established by the Continuum of Care Steering Committee. A 12-person subcommittee of the Steering Committee, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) performed the bulk of the evaluation and ranking work. One TRC member was from an organization (Community Shelter Board) that submitted an application on behalf of the Continuum of Care. CSB abstained from ranking and voting on that project. No other TRC members were from organizations that submitted applications.

2004 Continuum of Care Steering Committee and TRC Members

Organization	Individual
ADAMH Board of Franklin County	Suzanne Coleman-Tolbert*
City of Columbus	Kim Stands*
Citizen’s Advisory Council	Ronald Baecker
Citizen’s Advisory Council	Owen Bair
Citizen’s Advisory Council	Sheila Prillerman*
Citizen’s Advisory Council Columbus City Council	Claudell Thomas Robert Chilton
Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority	Tom Dobies*
Columbus Coalition for the Homeless	Don Strasser*
Columbus Coalition for the Homeless	Beth Fetzer-Rice*
Columbus Coalition for the Homeless	Virginia O’Keeffe
Columbus Coalition for the Homeless	Aaron Riley
Columbus Compact	George Tabit
Columbus Foundation	Emily Savors*
Columbus Health Department	Nina Lewis*
Community Connections	Candace Knight
Community Shelter Board	Barbara Poppe*
Corporation for Supportive Housing	Sally Luken
Franklin County Board of Commissioners	Anthony Forte*
Legal Aid Society of Columbus	Joe Maskovyak
Ohio Capital Corporation for Housing	Karen Kerns-Dresser*
United Way	Joe McKinley*
Veterans Administration	Judith Talbert
Veterans Services Commission	David Bradley

*Member of Technical Review Committee

Description of Process

Evaluation of Renewal Projects:

Renewal projects were reviewed by the TRC, along with Jill Spangler, an outside consultant. After a review of each project’s most recent Annual Performance Report data, two to three representatives from the TRC, along with the consultant, visited each project to evaluate and rate the programs’ performance and effectiveness at addressing the needs of the populations served and the community.

Satisfactory Performance

Effectively Addressing Needs

In order to measure whether the programs were performing satisfactorily, the TRC and consultant looked at the following indicators and included them in their reports:

The TRC and consultant looked at the following indicators to assess whether the programs were effectively addressing local needs as identified by the Continuum of Care Steering Committee:

· Description of the population served;

· Annual client data, including the number of individuals or families served;

· Admission and termination procedures and reasons for leaving the program;

· Average monthly occupancy over the 12-month reporting period;

· History of occupancy;

· Services provided;

· Outcomes achieved, particularly permanent housing outcomes and increases in income and/or employment;

· Status of issues identified in previous evaluations; and

· Planned program changes.

· Consistency with local Continuum of Care priorities;

· Effective use of community resources;

· Verification of providing services for those with the greatest needs and greatest difficulty accessing the current homeless service system;

· Verification of reducing dependency on the shelter system or repeat/chronic homelessness;

· Verification of reasonable costs;

· Community impact, including whether or not the project is providing housing or services not available elsewhere;

· Ability to leverage other funds to support the project; and

· Agency’s ability to provide accurate and complete data.

Preliminary reports based on the APR data and the site visits were distributed to each program for their review of the content and the conclusions. Along with the compilation of program information, the reports made note of strengths and challenges and rated the projects “high,” “medium,” or “low” performers. Agencies were able to appeal their performance rating, and appeal and/or correct any factual errors or interpretational disagreements. Final program reports (along with copies of the appeals) were then forwarded to the whole TRC for use in making ranking recommendations.

This year the two renewing projects (Lutheran Social Services’ Fresh Start 1 & 2 and Lutheran Social Services’ Second Chance) were rated as low-performing with low community impact.

Evaluation of New Projects:

New projects were invited to submit a pre-application by March 8, 2004, in order to have it reviewed for project quality and feasibility and consistency with local priorities. Four new project proposals were reviewed by a pre-application review group consisting of the outside consultant and Community Shelter Board staff. The group concluded that all of the projects met the threshold requirements and recommended that the applicants proceed with their applications with a few amendments. However, one group later decided not to pursue funding for their proposed new project this year (Amethyst new Shelter Plus Care).

In addition to the three remaining proposed new projects that were reviewed in the pre-application process, two others came in later. The Steering Committee voted to accept an application from the Community Housing Network for the St. Clair hotel which became an opportunity in June. HUD determined that the Community Shelter Board’s HMIS Upgrade & Expansion should be submitted as a new project instead of an expansion of the renewal; HUD also determined that the renewal is due to be submitted in 2005, not 2004 as originally believed. In both instances, the need for new project funding was known subsequent to the March pre-application date. Ultimately, the TRC and the Steering Committee reviewed and ranked five new project applications.

Non-competitive Shelter Plus Care renewal projects were reviewed by the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority and submitted for inclusion in the Continuum of Care’s consolidated application.

Ranking Process:

The evaluation reports for the new and renewal projects, 2004 applications, and agency appeals were presented to the Citizen’s Advisory Council and the Provider’s Group for their ranking recommendations on July 1, 2004. Results of the groups’ reviews and ranking recommendations were reported to the TRC at the final ranking meeting.

The Technical Review Committee met on July 6, 2004, to rank project applications. Each project was presented to the full committee for discussion. An important element of the discussion was the score assigned to each project application (new and renewal) by at least two TRC members using a standard Application Review Tool that awarded points for the following:

· Consistency with Local Priorities;

· Quality of Project Design;

· Organizational Capacity and Experience;

· Community Impact; and

· Accuracy and Completeness of Submission.

Overall, the committee used the following information to rank the projects:

Performance categories for renewal projects based on the project evaluation report;
Response by renewal project sponsors to their evaluation report;
Project application scores;
Priority rankings of the Citizens Advisory Council and CoC Providers Group; and
Other relevant information from TRC members.

The final project ranking was based on ranking principles outlined in the Columbus & Franklin County Continuum of Care 2004 Project Evaluation & Ranking plan. According to the plan, ranking preference would be given to the top scoring new permanent supportive housing project to take advantage of available bonus funds. Some adjustments were made to the applicants’ request in order to bring proposed costs in line with other comparable projects currently operating in Columbus and Franklin County, as well as assure funding to all projects submitted.

The 2004 number one ranked project is Jireh Services’ new permanent supportive housing project for chronically homeless men and women, including those disabled by traumatic brain injuries. New HUD funding will provide capital funds along with support for operations and supportive services. This project was unanimously recommended by the TRC and subsequently approved by the CoC Steering Committee.

Permanent supportive housing is a higher priority in our community than transitional housing or supportive services only projects not directly linked to housing. This relative priority was taken into account by the TRC at their ranking meeting, and is reflected in the priority ranking of three other new permanent supportive housing projects (ranked #3, #4 and #8). A renewing, higher performing permanent supportive housing project for families was ranked #2, in keeping with the 2004 Project Evaluation & Ranking plan guidance to assure that existing medium and high-performing projects continue to operate to avoid increasing gaps in the local Continuum of Care. However, two remaining renewal projects were ranked as lower priority projects, based on current low performance and historic project performance problems, as well as application scoring and rankings by the provider and consumer groups. These projects were consequently recommended for one year of phase-out funding and were requested to report to the Steering Committee with a phase-out plan and its impact on homeless families and other programs. The Dedicated HMIS Upgrade & Expansion project was viewed as very important to the effectiveness of the Continuum although not as important as most of the new and renewing permanent supportive housing projects.

At a meeting on July 12, 2004, the Continuum of Care Steering Committee approved the final project priority list. One appeal of the final project ranking was received from the YWCA, whose Supportive Housing Program was recommended as the #2 ranked project with a smaller budget than was requested by the YWCA. The Steering Committee agreed to increase the funding request but rank the project #8, with a portion of the funding over the HUD pro rata share and anticipated permanent housing bonus amount.

Other Issues

This year, the unusually large number of new projects prompted the TRC to ask the Steering Committee to clarify for next year the required process for and review of new projects. Of particular interest, is whether new projects will be required to submit pre-applications. The Steering Committee is scheduled to take up this issue during the fall of 2004.

The other issue that was raised during the TRC ranking meeting concerned certain programs’ current or proposed admissions criteria. The TRC specified that they expect that Continuum of Care programs practice inclusive, non-discriminatory admissions.

2004 Project Priority Ranking

*Rank*	*Project Sponsor*	*Project Type & Name*	*Project Description*	*Term*	*Total HUD*	*Cumulative*
					*Request*	*Total*
1	Jireh Services	PSH - new ($750,000 bonus) Mi Casa	16 new units of PSH for chronically homeless men and women	3 years	$710,100	$710,100
2	Volunteers of America	PSH – renewal Permanent Supportive Housing for Families	30 units of PSH for families with disabilities	3 years	$1,060,296	$1,770,396

3	Community Housing Network	PSH – new St. Clair	16 units of PSH for elderly homeless men and women with AOD, SMD and other disabilities	3 years	$411,949	2,182,345
4	Maryhaven	PSH – new Chantry Place Families	10 units of PSH for homeless families with AOD	3 years	$249,045	$2,431,390
5	Community Shelter Board	Supportive Services Only - new -

2004 Continuum of Care Steering Committee and TRC Members

Legal Aid Society of Columbus

United Way

Satisfactory Performance

Other Issues

2004 Project Priority Ranking