Prepared By:

Jill Spangler

Spangler & Associates, Inc.

 

For:

The Community Shelter Board

August 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS                                            

 

Introduction & Overview                                                                                     1

Purpose of this Report

Steering Committee and TRC Membership

Description of Process

2003 Priority Project Ranking

 

Evaluation of Renewal Projects:

Amethyst Rapid Stabilization                                                                       6

            Technical Review Committee Ranking and Comments                                         6

            Evaluation Report                                                                                            8

Community Housing Network North High                                             23

Technical Review Committee Ranking and Comments                                       23 

            Evaluation Report                                                                                          25

Community Housing Network Safe Havens                                            38

Technical Review Committee Ranking and Comments                                       38

            Evaluation Report                                                                                          40

Community Housing Network Wicklow                                                  54

Technical Review Committee Ranking and Comments                                       54

            Evaluation Report                                                                                          55

Community Housing Network Wilson                                                     69

Technical Review Committee Ranking and Comments                                       69 

            Evaluation Report                                                                                          70

Friends of the Homeless New Horizons Shelter Treatment                  83

Technical Review Committee Ranking and Comments                                       83 

            Evaluation Report                                                                                          84

Huckleberry House Transitional Living Program                                   85

Technical Review Committee Ranking and Comments                                       85

Evaluation Report                                                                                          87

Lutheran Social Services Supportive Housing Program                      100

Technical Review Committee Ranking and Comments                                    100

            Evaluation Report                                                                                       102

YWCA WINGS                                                                                             116

Technical Review Committee Ranking and Comments                                    116

            Evaluation Report                                                                                       117

 

Evaluation of New Projects:

            Community Housing Network: Supportive Housing                         130

           

Introduction & Overview                                          

 

Purpose of this report:

Columbus and Franklin County’s joint Continuum of Care application was submitted to HUD on July 14, 2003.  The purpose of this report is to create a final comprehensive record of the process and results of the 2003 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.   An 11-person subcommittee of the Steering Committee, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) performed the bulk of the evaluation and ranking work. None of the TRC members were from organizations that were submitting applications.

 

2003 Continuum of Care Steering Committee and TRC Members

 

 

*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, one to two 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 ranked the projects “high,” “medium,” or “low” performers.  Agencies were able to 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 Supportive Services Only projects (Lutheran Social Services Supportive Housing Program, and Friends of the Homeless New Horizons Shelter Treatment) were rated as low-performing with low community impact.

 

Evaluation of New Projects:

New projects were required to submit a pre-application by March 7, 2003, in order to have it reviewed for project quality and feasibility and consistency with local priorities.  Two 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 one project did not meet the threshold requirements in several areas and recommended that the applicant seek technical assistance from the Corporation for Supportive Housing to develop a more competitive application for next year. 

The other project was a new CHN permanent supportive housing project that had already received HUD and community funding to acquire and construct new housing.  New HUD funding would provide operating funds so that homeless men and women will be able to move in and successfully maintain permanent housing.  (Supportive services for the project are being leveraged from community resources, including the ADAMH Board.)  The panel recommended that CHN proceed with its application with a few amendments.

 

Ranking Process:

The evaluation reports for the new and renewal projects, 2003 applications, and agency appeals were presented to the Citizen’s Advisory Council and the Provider’s Group for their ranking recommendations on June 2.  Results of the groups’ reviews were reported to the whole TRC at the final ranking meeting.

 

The Technical Review Committee met on June 10, 2003, 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 2003 Continuum of Care Priorities and Process 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.  The 2003 number one ranked project is CHN’s new permanent supportive housing project; it was unanimously recommended by the TRC and subsequently approved by the CoC Steering Committee.   

According to the 2003 plan, renewal of existing projects received the next highest project priorities in the local ranking process.  This was done to assure that existing projects continue to operate and to avoid increasing gaps in the local Continuum of Care for the type of housing and services that these projects provide.  Generally, 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.  However, based on project performance and application scoring, as well as rankings by the provider and consumer groups, two transitional housing programs (Amethyst RSvP and YWCA WINGS) were ranked above other renewing permanent supportive housing programs.  The two renewing supportive services only projects that were evaluated as low-performing were ranked as lower priority projects, with the TRC and Steering Committee deciding not to support renewing the Friends project, as its application did not meet minimum requirements for performance or community impact and would have required substantial revision with virtually no likelihood of funding. The TRC recommended including Lutheran Social Services’ application for one year of phase-out funding in the HUD submission in case HUD has extra funds to allocate to Columbus/Franklin County.

The final project ranking includes a new permanent supportive housing project as project priority #1 and eight renewal projects as priorities #2-#9, ranked based on their evaluation performance category, community impact and consistency with local priorities.  One renewal project (LSS at #9) was rated a “low” priority and whose one-year phase out was assessed to have a low community impact. 

 

At a meeting on June 24, 2003, the Continuum of Care Steering Committee approved the final project priority list.  One appeal of the final project ranking was received from Lutheran Social Services, whose Supportive Housing Program was ranked ninth and below the anticipated pro-rata need amount for Columbus and Franklin County.  Because this project has a low community impact, was evaluated as a low performer, and has several long-term unresolved issues, the Steering Committee rejected the appeal and approved the final project priority ranking.

 

Other Issues

The Citizens Advisory Council and the TRC both took note of a general trend toward under-representation of black or African American individuals and families being served by the Continuum of Care projects that requested renewal funding this year.  The TRC recommended that the Steering Committee look into this matter for all Continuum of Care funded projects (included Supportive Housing Programs, Safe Havens and Shelter Plus Care).  The TRC also recommended undertaking an inventory of Continuum of Care units that are accessible to persons with mobility challenges. 

 

In their June 24 meeting, the Continuum of Care Steering Committee reached consensus on pursuing the TRC recommendation to look into racial representation at Continuum of Care funded projects by analyzing current population trends and researching the cause of the problem, if one is discovered.  The Steering Committee also recommended that CSB conduct an inventory of Continuum of Care project units that are accessible to clients with mobility challenges and report findings back to the Committee. 

2003 Project Priority Ranking