2015 Continuum of Care Priority Application

(1)

The Seattle King County CoC is submitting the attached 2015 Continuum of Care

Application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on

Wednesday, November 18, 2015.

This application reflects the commitments and activities of our community to

make homelessness rare, brief and one time, including:



CoC Engagement



CoC Coordination



Discharge Planning



Coordinated Assessment



Project Review



HMIS



Point-in-Time Count



System Performance

o

Chronic Homelessness

o

Family Homelessness

o

Youth/Young Adult Homelessness

o

Veteran Homelessness

(2)

1A. Continuum of Care (CoC) Identification

Instructions:

For guidance on completing this form, please reference the FY 2015 CoC Application Detailed Instructions, the CoC Application Instructional Guides and the FY 2015 CoC Program NOFA. Please submit technical questions to the HUDExchange Ask A Question.

1A-1. CoC Name and Number: WA-500 - Seattle/King County CoC

1A-2. Collaborative Applicant Name: King County

1A-3. CoC Designation: CA

(3)

1B. Continuum of Care (CoC) Engagement

Instructions:

1B-1. From the list below, select those organizations and persons that participate in CoC meetings. Then select "Yes" or "No" to indicate if CoC

meeting participants are voting members or if they sit on the CoC Board. Only select "Not Applicable" if the organization or person does not exist in

the CoC's geographic area.

Organization/Person Categories Participates in CoC Meetings Votes, including electing CoC Board Sits on CoC Board

Local Government Staff/Officials Yes Yes Yes

CDBG/HOME/ESG Entitlement Jurisdiction Yes Yes Yes

Law Enforcement Yes No Yes

Local Jail(s) Yes No Yes

Hospital(s) Yes No Yes

EMT/Crisis Response Team(s) No No No

Mental Health Service Organizations Yes Yes Yes

Substance Abuse Service Organizations Yes Yes Yes

Affordable Housing Developer(s) Yes Yes Yes

Public Housing Authorities Yes No Yes

CoC Funded Youth Homeless Organizations Yes Yes Yes

Non-CoC Funded Youth Homeless Organizations Yes No Yes

School Administrators/Homeless Liaisons Yes No Yes

CoC Funded Victim Service Providers Yes Yes Yes

Non-CoC Funded Victim Service Providers Yes No No

Street Outreach Team(s) Yes No No

Youth advocates Yes No No

Agencies that serve survivors of human trafficking Yes No Yes

Other homeless subpopulation advocates Yes Yes Yes

Homeless or Formerly Homeless Persons Yes Yes Yes

Veteran Service Organization Yes Yes Yes

Immigrant / Refugee Organization Yes Yes Yes

(4)

1B-1a. Describe in detail how the CoC solicits and considers the full range of opinions from individuals or organizations with knowledge of

homelessness in the geographic area or an interest in preventing and ending homelessness in the geographic area. Please provide two examples of organizations or individuals from the list in 1B-1 to answer this question.

(limit 1000 characters)

CoC membership open to the public & all orgs engaged in ending homelessness.

Members represent all levels/perspectives of the CoC-- DESC, largest

shelter/PSH-CH provider [CB, Data/Eval, CEntry, Single Adult]; Solid Ground-family TH/PH, coord. County-wide prevention [CB; Family, CEntry]; Brian R., represents Rental Housing Association of WA board and private landlord perspective[CB].

1) 28 person CoC Board (CB) is cross-sector & regionally balanced includes 14 providers, 6 formerly/homeless, 9 persons of color; 150+ people participate in 9 CoC sub-committees.

2) Consumer hosted open meeting prior to all CB meetings for input on agenda/CoC activities; input shared at CB mtg.

3) CoC Annual Conference open to all interested to prevent/end homelessness. 2015 CoC Plan update included 500+ stakeholders. Input solicited: county-wide meetings, workshops, electronic feedback mechanisms.

4) CoC Weekly News is distributed to 2,000+. Reflects CoC activities & requests input.

1B-1b. List Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY)-funded and other youth homeless assistance providers (CoC Program and non-CoC Program funded) who operate within the CoC's geographic area. Then select "Yes"

or "No" to indicate if each provider is a voting member or sits on the CoC Board.

Youth Service Provider (up to 10)

RHY Funded?

Participated as a Voting Member in at least two CoC

Meetings within the last 12 months (between October 1, 2014

and November 15, 2015).

Sat on the CoC Board as active

member or official at any point

during the last 12 months (between October 1, 2014 and November 15, 2015).

Youth Care Yes Yes Yes

Friends of Youth Yes Yes Yes

Auburn Youth Resources Yes Yes Yes

YMCA No Yes Yes

Teen Feed No Yes No

Mockingbird Society No Yes Yes

New Horizons No Yes Yes

(5)

ROOTS No Yes No

1B-1c. List the victim service providers (CoC Program and non-CoC Program funded) who operate within the CoC's geographic area. Then select "Yes" or "No" to indicate if each provider is a voting member or sits

on the CoC Board.

Victim Service Provider for Survivors of Domestic Violence (up to 10)

Participated as a Voting Member in at least two CoC Meetings

within the last 12 months (between October 1, 2014 and November 15, 2015).

Sat on CoC Board as active member or official at any point during

the last 12 months (between October 1, 2014

and November 15, 2015).

API Chaya No No

Consejo Counseling and Referral Services (CoC Program funded No No

Domestic Abused Women's Network No No

Interim Community Development Assoication Yes No

Jewish Family Services No No

Lifewire (CoC Program funded) Yes Yes

Refugee Women's Alliance No No

The Salvation Arm (CoC Program funded) No No

Seattle Indian Health Board No No

YWCA King/Snohomish Counties (CoC Program funded) Yes Yes

1B-2. Does the CoC intend to meet the timelines for ending homelessness as defined in Opening Doors?

Opening Doors Goal

CoC has established

timeline?

End Veteran Homelessness by 2015 Yes

End Chronic Homelessness by 2017 Yes

End Family and Youth Homelessness by 2020 Yes

Set a Path to End All Homelessness by 2020 Yes

1B-3. How does the CoC identify and assign the individuals, committees, or organizations responsible for overseeing implementation of specific strategies to prevent and end homelessness in order to meet the goals of Opening Doors?

(6)

Diverse, representative All Home (AH) Coord. Board (CB) provides oversight & leadership to implement CoC plan & ensure accountability for results.

CB establishes committees to plan for & monitor implementation of strategies, including HMIS (Patrice Frank – Sea), Data/Eval (Amanda Thompkins – King Co Eval.). CB also establishes & oversees Advisory Groups for subpops: single adult (Jason Johnson –Sea), YYA (Megan Gibbard –AH), family (Kira Zylstra – AH) that advise CB on strategies & policies. Additional workgroups are formed to meet Opening Doors goals: Mayor’s Challenge Vet Homelessness

Leadership Team (Mark Putnam - AH), Longterm Shelter Stayers (Josh Hall – Sea) & Coord. Entry (Kira Zylstra – AH). Those named work for entities with authority/responsibility for area. Each group has co-chairs other than ID’d lead, 1 provider & 1 funder; diverse CoC-wide members. Co-chairs determine if critical sector missing, receive nominations / provide recommendations for approval by committee

1B-4. Explain how the CoC is open to proposals from entities that have not previously received funds in prior CoC Program competitions, even if the CoC is not applying for any new projects in 2015.

CoC solicits new CoC Program projects thru its Operating/Services (ORS) NOFA combining funds (including HUD CoC) from 7 agencies (public/private) into a single application. It is a widely advertised/highly anticipated annual process. Coordinated between all funders, staff are available throughout the year to answer questions/guide new project development/ provide

feedback/technical assistance. During the capital/service/operating review phase, staff meet with providers to discuss project plans, service models & project budgets and the allocation of HUD CoC funds and/or other local & federal dollars that best match project need/scope. New projects are selected for CoC program funding based on factors including CoC gaps/needs, target population, capacity/feasibility/readiness & CoC/HUD priorities. CoC issued a Request for Letter of Interest Notice in addition to the combined NOFA to solicit applications for the 2015 Bonus funding. Ten agencies responded on behalf of 16 projects.

1B-5. How often does the CoC invite new members to join the CoC through a publicly available invitation?

(7)

1C. Continuum of Care (CoC) Coordination

Instructions:

1C-1. Does the CoC coordinate with other Federal, State, local, private and other entities serving homeless individuals and families and those at risk of homelessness in the planning, operation and funding of projects? Only

select "Not Applicable" if the funding source does not exist within the CoC's geographic area.

Funding or Program Source

Coordinates with Planning, Operation

and Funding of Projects

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Yes

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Yes

Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY) Yes

HeadStart Program Yes

Other housing and service programs funded through Federal, State and local government resources.

Yes

1C-2. The McKinney-Vento Act, as amended, requires CoCs to participate in the Consolidated Plan(s) (Con Plan(s)) for the geographic area served by the CoC. The CoC Program interim rule at 24 CFR 578.7(c)(4) requires that the CoC provide information required to complete the Con Plan(s) within the CoC’s geographic area, and 24 CFR 91.100(a)(2)(i) and 24 CFR

91.110(b)(1) requires that the State and local Con Plan jurisdiction(s) consult with the CoC. The following chart asks for information about CoC and Con Plan jurisdiction coordination, as well as CoC and ESG recipient

coordination.

CoCs can use the CoCs and Consolidated Plan Jurisdiction Crosswalk to assist in answering this question.

Numbe r

Percen tage

Number of Con Plan jurisdictions with whom the CoC geography overlaps 6

How many Con Plan jurisdictions did the CoC participate with in their Con Plan development process? 6 100.00

%

How many Con Plan jurisdictions did the CoC provide with Con Plan jurisdiction level PIT data? 6 100.00

(8)

How many ESG recipients did the CoC consult with in the development of ESG performance standards and evaluation process for ESG funded activities?

3 100.00 %

1C-2a. Based on the responses selected in 1C-2, describe in greater detail how the CoC participates with the Consolidated Plan jurisdiction(s)

located in the CoC's geographic area and include the frequency, extent, and type of interactions between the CoC and the Consolidated Plan jurisdiction(s).

WA-500 is 6 Con Plan jurisdictions (Auburn, Bellevue, Federal Way, Kent, Seattle, King Co.). All jurisdictions represented on CoC Coordinating Board (bi-monthly planning mtg; 3 hr), and Funder Alignment Committee (bi- (bi-monthly planning mtg 2hr; plus e-mail). All jurisdictions participated in recent CoC strategic plan update (10 individual jurisdic. mtgs; 3group mtgs) and all Con Plans include CoC strategic plan and goals for ending homelessness. King Co. hosts All Home, our CoC lead organization, and with Seattle participates in weekly CoC planning meetings re: prevention / ending homelessness including population specific (i.e veteran, youth); coordinated entry, funding coordination and HMIS (15 hours minimum /week). Additional: Seattle and suburban cities weekly calls with CoC lead (1/2 hour).

1C-2b. Based on the responses selected in 1C-2, describe how the CoC is working with ESG recipients to determine local ESG funding decisions and how the CoC assists in the development of performance standards and evaluation of outcomes for ESG-funded activities.

WA-500 ESG recipients are Seattle, King Co, & WA State (Auburn, Bellevue, Fed. Way, Kent). KC & Seattle ESG allocation policy/plans reflected in Con Plans. CoC strat plan is framework for ESG funding decisions for both, & CoC staff manage RFP & other funding decision processes. CoC participates with WA through Homeless Advisory Committee (informs ESG plan/funding decisions), comments during public comment, and is in continuous dialogue with WA re: implementation / evaluation. We share an HMIS with WA.

CoC provides the 3 ESG recipients Con Plan jurisdiction-level PIT & HMIS data. CoC has system & project outcomes & targets tailored to program & population type developed by CoC Data & Eval. Committee & approved by population groups & Coord Board. ESG recip. participate at all levels, & ESG sub-recipient info used in process. Outcomes used for evaluating relevant projects, including those funded with ESG from three recipients. Contracting and evaluation implemented by CoC.

(9)

1C-3. Describe the how the CoC coordinates with victim service providers and non-victim service providers (CoC Program funded and non-CoC funded) to ensure that survivors of domestic violence are provided housing and services that provide and maintain safety and security. Responses must address how the service providers ensure and maintain the safety and security of participants and how client choice is upheld. (limit 1000 characters)

Coordinated Entry (CE) is the gateway for housing placement in the CoC. DV survivors who are homeless and refer to CE for housing assistance are immediately connected to trained advocates who screen for safety, security, and eligibility and are put on a separate placement list for their security. DV providers and non-DV specific housing agencies work together using a co-advocacy model to ensure safe, secure confidential housing within existing housing programs. The CoC also uses the Day One System for real-time inventory DV shelter for immediate assistance which has expanded outside the region for more opportunity. When referred to a housing provider, client

information is entered into the local HMIS using de-identifiers. Client

information collected by advocacy programs is subject to Washington State confidentiality statutes. Information can only be shared across programs or agencies with signed Releases of information by the clients

1C-4. List each of the Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) within the CoC's geographic area. If there are more than 5 PHAs within the CoC’s geographic area, list the 5 largest PHAs. For each PHA, provide the

percentage of new admissions that were homeless at the time of admission between October 1, 2014 and March 31, 2015, and indicate whether the PHA has a homeless admissions preference in its Public Housing and/or Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. (Full credit consideration may be given for the relevant excerpt from the PHA’s administrative planning document(s) clearly showing the PHA's homeless

preference, e.g. Administration Plan, Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP), Annual Plan, or 5-Year Plan, as appropriate).

Public Housing Agency Name

% New Admissions into Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher Program from 10/1/14

to 3/31/15 who were homeless at entry PHA has General or Limited Homeless Preference

Housing Authority of King County 29.10% Yes-Both

Housing Authority City of Renton 7.41% No

Seattle Housing Authority 42.71% Yes-Both

If you select "Yes--Public Housing," "Yes--HCV," or "Yes--Both" for "PHA has general or limited homeless preference," you must attach documentation of the preference from the PHA in order to receive credit.

(10)

1C-5. Other than CoC, ESG, Housing Choice Voucher Programs and Public Housing, describe other subsidized or low-income housing opportunities that exist within the CoC that target persons experiencing homelessness.

The CoC added 6,314 units of PH w/supports for homeless HH since 2004, for a total of 8,859 units. Over 50% (4,895 units) were non-HUD funded (outside of CoC/ ESG /HCV). Fund sources for on-going rent, operating, maintenance, services funding include: County levy dollars ($6.6M); local general funds

($1.5M) Seattle Housing Levy ($2.8M); Philanthropy ($1.7M). Funds were used for short-term rent subsidies through RRH and Diversion ($17.4M). Recent action directed toward increasing access to affordable housing for homeless HH:

1)Implementing a $2M Risk Mitigation Fund to reduce screening criteria/increase access to housing.

2)Using the Medicaid Benefit in PSH and right sizing/converting homeless housing stock (TH) and using the savings for low cost affordable housing. 3) Strengthening the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO); Reducing barriers to housing for persons with criminal records

1C-6. Select the specific strategies implemented by the CoC to ensure that homelessness is not criminalized in the CoC's geographic area. Select all

that apply. For "Other," you must provide a description (2000 character limit)

Engaged/educated local policymakers:

X Engaged/educated law enforcement:

X Implemented communitywide plans:

X No strategies have been implemented:

In developing CoC strat plan, met with staff and elected officials from all municipalities in King County to discuss reducing criminalization. CoC presented / discussed criminalization with elected officials at the Sound Cities Association (SCA) public issues committee; Bellevue City Council; and Seattle City Council. In 2016, we are co-hosting a convening with the SCA on best practices for cities, and will conduct analyses of policies for cities

(11)

1D. Continuum of Care (CoC) Discharge Planning

Instructions:

1D-1. Select the systems of care within the CoC's geographic area for which there is a discharge policy in place that is mandated by the State,

the CoC, or another entity for the following institutions? Check all that apply.

Foster Care:

X Health Care:

X Mental Health Care:

X Correctional Facilities

X None:

1D-2. Select the systems of care within the CoC's geographic area with which the CoC actively coordinates to ensure that institutionalized persons that have resided in each system of care for longer than 90 days

are not discharged into homelessness. Check all that apply.

Foster Care:

X Health Care:

X Mental Health Care:

X Correctional Facilities:

X None:

(12)

1D-2a. If the applicant did not check all boxes in 1D-2, explain why there is no coordination with the institution(s) and explain how the CoC plans to coordinate with the institution(s) to ensure persons discharged are not discharged into homelessness.

(limit 1000 characters) N/A

(13)

1E. Centralized or Coordinated Assessment

(Coordinated Entry)

Instructions:

CoCs are required by the CoC Program interim rule to establish a Centralized or Coordinated Assessment system – also referred to as Coordinated Entry. Based on the recent Coordinated Entry Policy Brief, HUD’s primary goals for coordinated entry processes are that assistance be allocated as effectively as possible and that it be easily accessible regardless of where or how people present for assistance. Most

communities lack the resources needed to meet all of the needs of people experiencing homelessness. This combined with the lack of a

well-developed coordinated entry processes can result in severe hardships for persons experiencing homelessness who often face long wait times to receive assistance or are screened out of needed assistance. Coordinated entry processes help communities prioritize assistance based on

vulnerability and severity of service needs to ensure that people who need assistance the most can receive it in a timely manner. Coordinated entry processes also provide information about service needs and gaps to help communities plan their assistance and identify needed resources.

1E-1. Explain how the CoC’s coordinated entry process is designed to identify, engage, and assist homeless individuals and families that will ensure those who request or need assistance are connected to proper housing and services.

The CoC redesigning its CE system in 2016 to an aligned systematic all-population assessment & placement process using a common screening tool. The CE prioritizes entry based on vulnerability and length of homelessness. To ensure swift/equitable access to housing county-wide, CE decentralized for youth/families. Assessments are conducted at five regional HUBs across King County. Assessors are mobile, able to meet households anywhere as needed. Staff are multi-lingual/trained to work with special populations. CEA is made known through All Home, Crisis Help Line, targeted outreach to community partners (school districts, DSHS offices, churches, nonprofit providers;

jurisdictions). Outreach teams for unsheltered are directly connected to CE. The CoC is using the VI-SPDAT to develop a One List, name-based roster for

veterans experiencing homelessness. A similar One List roster is planned all single adults in 2016

(14)

1E-2. CoC Program and ESG Program funded projects are required to participate in the coordinated entry process, but there are many other organizations and individuals who may participate but are not required to

do so. From the following list, for each type of organization or individual, select all of the applicable checkboxes that indicate how that organization

or individual participates in the CoC's coordinated entry process. If the organization or person does not exist in the CoC’s geographic area, select

“Not Applicable.” If there are other organizations or persons that participate not on this list, enter the information, click "Save" at the

bottom of the screen, and then select the applicable checkboxes.

Organization/Person Categories Participates in Ongoing Planning and Evaluation Makes Referrals to the Coordinated Entry Process Receives Referrals from the Coordinated Entry Process Operates Access Point for Coordinated Entry Process Participates in Case Conferencing Not Applicable

Local Government Staff/Officials

X X X X CDBG/HOME/Entitlement Jurisdiction X X Law Enforcement X Local Jail(s) X Hospital(s) X EMT/Crisis Response Team(s)

X Mental Health Service

Organizations X X X X X

Substance Abuse Service

Organizations X X X X X

Affordable Housing Developer(s)

X X X

Public Housing Authorities

X X

Non-CoC Funded Youth

Homeless Organizations X

School

Administrators/Homeless Liaisons

X Non-CoC Funded Victim Service

Organizations X

Street Outreach Team(s)

X X X X

Homeless or Formerly Homeless

(15)

(16)

1F. Continuum of Care (CoC) Project Review,

Ranking, and Selection

Instructions

1F-1. For all renewal project applications submitted in the FY 2015 CoC Program Competition complete the chart below regarding the CoC’s

review of the Annual Performance Report(s).

How many renewal project applications were submitted in the FY 2015 CoC Program Competition? 62

How many of the renewal project applications are first time renewals for which the first operating year has not expired yet?

5

How many renewal project application APRs were reviewed by the CoC as part of the local CoC competition project review, ranking, and selection process for the FY 2015 CoC Program Competition?

57

Percentage of APRs submitted by renewing projects within the CoC that were reviewed by the CoC in the 2015 CoC Competition?

100.00%

1F-2. In the sections below, check the appropriate box(s) for each section to indicate how project applications were reviewed and ranked for the FY

2015 CoC Program Competition. (Written documentation of the CoC's publicly announced Rating and Review procedure must be attached.)

Type of Project or Program

(PH, TH, HMIS, SSO, RRH, etc.) X

Performance outcomes from APR reports/HMIS Length of stay

X % permanent housing exit destinations

X % increases in income

X (1) Housing Stability Bonus (movement to PH 90 days or less; (2) 10% or less exit with No resources cash or non cashome

(17)

Monitoring criteria Participant Eligibility X Utilization rates X Drawdown rates X Frequency or Amount of Funds Recaptured by HUD

X (1) % leverage contributed to the project (2) Complete/qualtity data in HMIS

X

Need for specialized population services Youth

Victims of Domestic Violence

Families with Children

Persons Experiencing Chronic Homelessness

X Veterans

None

1F-2a. Describe how the CoC considered the severity of needs and vulnerabilities of participants that are, or will be, served by the project applications when determining project application priority.

The rating and review criteria approved by the CoC All Home included elements/metrics determined by locally driven priorities. The CoC used CY 2014 APR data as the primary data source for evaluating each HUD CoC Program project. The following elements were weighted to ensure that the projects serving those with high vulnerabilities and most severe needs received consideration when determining the priority rank order:

1) The extent to which a project met the CoC system priority for serving exclusively those who are Chronically Homeless (CH). The coordinated entry for CH prioritizes high utilizers, longest term homeless, and high vulnerability.

(18)

1F-3. Describe how the CoC made the local competition review, ranking, and selection criteria publicly available, and identify the public medium(s) used and the date(s) of posting. In addition, describe how the CoC made this information available to all stakeholders. (Evidence of the public posting must be attached)

Seattle King County local CoC Program competition review/ranking/selection process guided by CoC funding priorities approved by the All Home InterAgency Council (03/02/2015) & re-confirmed by the Coordinating Board (10/07/2015). The CoC Data & Evaluation Committee reviewed/approved the annual

evaluation process/review criteria (03/12/2015). The approved review and ranking criteria were incorporated into the 2015 local application & shared with applicants at two workshops (04/13/2015)&(10/02 & 10/05/2015). Results of the CoC rating, review and final priority rank order were presented at a community meeting and posted on 11/2/15. Written notification was delivered on the same day. Minutes and documents were posted on the All Home website

1F-4. On what date did the CoC and Collaborative Applicant publicly post all parts of the FY 2015 CoC Consolidated Application that included the final project application ranking? (Written documentation of the public posting, with the date of the posting clearly visible, must be attached. In addition, evidence of communicating decisions to the CoC's full membership must be attached.)

11/18/2015

1F-5. Did the CoC use the reallocation process in the FY 2015 CoC Program Competition to reduce or reject projects for the creation of new projects? (If the CoC utilized the reallocation process, evidence of the public posting of the reallocation process must be attached.)

(19)

1F-5a. If the CoC rejected project application(s) on what date did the CoC and Collaborative Applicant notify those project applicants their project application was rejected in the local CoC competition process? (If project applications were rejected, a copy of the written notification to each project applicant must be attached.)

11/02/2015

1F-6. Is the Annual Renewal Demand (ARD) in the CoC's FY 2015 CoC Priority Listing equal to or less than the ARD on the final HUD-approved FY 2015 GIW?

(20)

1G. Continuum of Care (CoC) Addressing Project

Capacity

Instructions

1G-1. Describe how the CoC monitors the performance of CoC Program recipients.

CoC drives project and system performance through contract reimbursement, annual compliance monitoring, HMIS and HEARTH dashboard data published monthly/quarterly and the CoC Program Annual Program Report. The CoC goal is to identify issues early & support capacity as needed to ensure successful CoC funded projects. CoC staff conduct annual on-site compliance monitoring that look at, participant eligibility, recordkeeping, utilization, spending, etc. Project performance is measured in five CoC primary domains: Movement to Housing; Income Progress; HMIS data quality/ completeness; Project efficiency (on-time reporting, spending,& occupancy) and System Priority (target

population/project type).

The APR is used to assess project performance for project ranking/review during the annual CoC Program competition process and drives the CoC Priority Listing. The local HUD office provided supporting information regarding the 30% of projects that contract directly with HUD

1G-2. Did the Collaborative Applicant review and confirm that all project applicants attached accurately completed and current dated form HUD 50070 and form HUD-2880 to the Project Applicant Profile in e-snaps?

Yes

1G-3. Did the Collaborative Applicant include accurately completed and appropriately signed form HUD-2991(s) for all project applications submitted on the CoC Priority Listing?

(21)

2A. Homeless Management Information System

(HMIS) Implementation

Intructions:

2A-1. Does the CoC have a governance charter that outlines the roles and responsibilities of the CoC and the HMIS Lead, either within the charter itself or by reference to a separate document like an MOU? In all cases, the CoC’s governance charter must be attached to receive credit. In addition, if applicable, any separate document, like an MOU, must also be attached to receive credit.

Yes

2A-1a. Include the page number where the roles and responsibilities of the CoC and HMIS Lead can be found in the attached document referenced in 2A-1. In addition, in the textbox indicate if the page number applies to the CoC's attached governance charter or the attached MOU.

The role and responsibliity of the HMIS lead can be found on pages 1-4-5-9-11-13 of the attached CoC Governance Charter

2A-2. Does the CoC have a HMIS Policies and Procedures Manual? If yes, in order to receive credit the HMIS Policies and Procedures Manual must be attached to the CoC Application.

Yes

2A-3. Are there agreements in place that outline roles and responsibilities between the HMIS Lead and the Contributing HMIS Organizations (CHOs)?

(22)

2A-4. What is the name of the HMIS software used by the CoC (e.g., ABC Software)? Applicant will enter the HMIS software name (e.g., ABC Software).

Adsystech

2A-5. What is the name of the HMIS software vendor (e.g., ABC Systems)? Applicant will enter the name of the vendor (e.g., ABC Systems).

(23)

2B. Homeless Management Information System

(HMIS) Funding Sources

Instructions

2B-1. Select the HMIS implementation coverage area:

Single CoC

* 2B-2. In the charts below, enter the amount of funding from each funding source that contributes to the total HMIS budget for the CoC.

2B-2.1 Funding Type: Federal - HUD

Funding Source Funding

CoC $403,714

ESG $0

CDBG $0

HOME $0

HOPWA $0

Federal - HUD - Total Amount $403,714

2B-2.2 Funding Type: Other Federal

Department of Education $0

Department of Health and Human Services $0

Department of Labor $0

Department of Agriculture $0

Department of Veterans Affairs $0

Other Federal $0

(24)

2B-2.3 Funding Type: State and Local

City $178,382

County $300,000

State $0

State and Local - Total Amount $478,382

2B-2.4 Funding Type: Private

Individual $0

Organization $78,184

Private - Total Amount $78,184

2B-2.5 Funding Type: Other

Participation Fees $0

Other - Total Amount $0

(25)

2C. Homeless Management Information System

(HMIS) Bed Coverage

Instructions:

2C-1. Enter the date the CoC submitted the 2015 HIC data in HDX, (mm/dd/yyyy):

05/15/2015

2C-2. Per the 2015 Housing Inventory Count (HIC) indicate the number of beds in the 2015 HIC and in HMIS for each project type within the CoC. If a

particular housing type does not exist in the CoC then enter "0" for all cells in that housing type.

Project Type

Total Beds in 2015 HIC

Total Beds in HIC Dedicated for DV

Total Beds in HMIS

HMIS Bed Coverage Rate

Emergency Shelter beds 2,828 171 2,078 78.21%

Safe Haven (SH) beds 45 0 45 100.00%

Transitional Housing (TH) beds 3,579 445 2,515 80.25% Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) beds 1,326 7 1,319 100.00% Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) beds 4,675 0 3,839 82.12%

Other Permanent Housing (OPH) beds

1,382 0 1,255 90.81%

2C-2a. If the bed coverage rate for any housing type is 85% or below, describe how the CoC plans to increase this percentage over the next 12 months.

(26)

ES–78.21%; 180 bed gap. Gap mostly faith-based (Bread of Life; Mary’s; UGM – 577 beds). Otherwise partners in CoC work. Currently including in SWAP analysis of investments, & will leverage that to bring to HMIS over next year. If successfully bring 31% of their beds into HMIS, will pass 85% mark

TH–80%; 149 bed gap. By finishing work to bring Wellspring TH into HMIS (160 beds) will meet 85% target. Remainder of gap to 100% is primarily faith-based (Acres, Bread; Jubilee; Plym. HoH; UGM; VineMple; Vision; WayBack – 428 beds). Will work to leverage SWAP & other collaborative work to bring more of units into HMIS

PSH–82.12%, 135 bed gap. Of PSH beds not in HMIS, 94% (783 beds) are VASH. By bringing 2015 new project based VASH to HMIS (71 beds) will reach 84%. Local HA (Kng Co, Renton, Seattle) are strong partners in efforts to end homelessness & will work with them to include more VASH in HMIS. New PSH coming on-line (i.e., Interbay 97 beds) will be in HMIS & up %

2C-3. HUD understands that certain projects are either not required to or discouraged from participating in HMIS, and CoCs cannot require this if

they are not funded through the CoC or ESG programs. This does NOT include domestic violence providers that are prohibited from entering

client data in HMIS. If any of the project types listed in question 2C-2 above has a coverage rate of 85% or below, and some or all of these rates can be attributed to beds covered by one of the following programs types,

please indicate that here by selecting all that apply from the list below. (limit 1000 characters)

VA Domiciliary (VA DOM):

VA Grant per diem (VA GPD):

Faith-Based projects/Rescue mission:

X Youth focused projects:

HOPWA projects:

X Not Applicable:

2C-4. How often does the CoC review or assess its HMIS bed coverage?

(27)

2D. Homeless Management Information System

(HMIS) Data Quality

Instructions:

2D-1. Indicate the percentage of unduplicated client records with null or missing values and the percentage of "Client Doesn't Know" or "Client Refused" during the time period of October 1, 2013 through September 30,

2014. Universal Data Element Percentage Null or Missing Percentage Client Doesn't Know or Refused 3.1 Name 0% 0%

3.2 Social Security Number 35% 5%

3.3 Date of birth 0% 6% 3.4 Race 0% 14% 3.5 Ethnicity 0% 9% 3.6 Gender 0% 1% 3.7 Veteran status 0% 2% 3.8 Disabling condition 0% 2%

3.9 Residence prior to project entry 0% 1%

3.10 Project Entry Date 0% 0%

3.11 Project Exit Date 0% 0%

3.12 Destination 0% 8%

3.15 Relationship to Head of Household 1% 0%

3.16 Client Location 0% 0%

3.17 Length of time on street, in an emergency shelter, or safe haven 0% 4%

2D-2. Identify which of the following reports your HMIS generates. Select all that apply:

CoC Annual Performance Report (APR):

X ESG Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER):

(28)

None

2D-3. If you submitted the 2015 AHAR, how many AHAR tables (i.e., ES-ind, ES-family, etc) were accepted and used in the last AHAR?

12

2D-4. How frequently does the CoC review data quality in the HMIS?

Monthly

2D-5. Select from the dropdown to indicate if standardized HMIS data quality reports are generated to review data quality at the CoC level, project level, or both?

Both Project and CoC

2D-6. From the following list of federal partner programs, select the ones that are currently using the CoC's HMIS.

VA Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF):

X VA Grant and Per Diem (GPD):

X Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY):

X Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH):

X

None:

2D-6a. If any of the federal partner programs listed in 2D-6 are not currently entering data in the CoC's HMIS and intend to begin entering data in the next 12 months, indicate the federal partner program and the anticipated start date.

(29)

(30)

2E. Continuum of Care (CoC) Sheltered

Point-in-Time (PIT) Count

Instructions:

The data collected during the PIT count is vital for both CoCs and HUD. Communities need accurate data to determine the size and scope of homelessness at the local level so they can best plan for services and programs that will appropriately address local needs and measure progress in addressing homelessness. HUD needs accurate data to understand the extent and nature of homelessness throughout the country, and to provide Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with information regarding services provided, gaps in service, and performance. This information helps inform Congress' funding decisions, and it is vital that the data reported is accurate and of high quality.

2E-1. Did the CoC approve the final sheltered PIT count methodology for the 2015 sheltered PIT count?

Yes

2E-2. Indicate the date of the most recent sheltered PIT count (mm/dd/yyyy):

01/22/2015

2E-2a. If the CoC conducted the sheltered PIT count outside of the last 10 days of January 2015, was an exception granted by HUD?

Not Applicable

2E-3. Enter the date the CoC submitted the sheltered PIT count data in HDX, (mm/dd/yyyy):

(31)

2F. Continuum of Care (CoC) Sheltered

Point-in-Time (PIT) Count: Methods

Instructions:

2F-1. Indicate the method(s) used to count sheltered homeless persons during the 2015 PIT count:

Complete Census Count:

X Random sample and extrapolation:

Non-random sample and extrapolation:

2F-2. Indicate the methods used to gather and calculate subpopulation data for sheltered homeless persons:

HMIS:

X HMIS plus extrapolation:

Interview of sheltered persons:

Sample of PIT interviews plus extrapolation:

surveys completed for all ES and TH programs not participating in the HMIS (i.e., faith-based)

X

2F-3. Provide a brief description of your CoC's sheltered PIT count

methodology and describe why your CoC selected its sheltered PIT count methodology.

(32)

PIT contacts and HIC confirmed for all programs early January. HMIS:

agencies provided PIT data quality / completeness reports to run; instructions for correcting data; schedule for running reports & cleaning data. HMIS staff provide TA. PIT/Inventory administrator reviews HMIS data & agencies affirmatively confirm #s & explain notable changes.

Survey of non-HMIS implemented by CoC staff. Surveys & detailed instructions sent out pre- PIT; reminders / TA from survey receipt through PIT – until all received. Data reviewed for consistency/completeness & CoC staff work with agency staff to ensure clean/complete data.

Method chosen confirms inventory and ensures accuracy of sheltered population count. HMIS data strengthened for use in ongoing program and system performance analysis. Faith-based engaged in CoC, building

relationships for SWAP analysis and future HMIS engagement. Consistency in approach across years allows for comparison.

2F-4. Describe any change in methodology from your sheltered PIT count in 2014 to 2015, including any change in sampling or extrapolation

method, if applicable. Do not include information on changes to the implementation of your sheltered PIT count methodology (e.g., enhanced training and change in partners participating in the PIT count).

There was no change in our sheltered PIT methodology from 2013/14 - 2015

2F-5. Did your CoC change its provider coverage in the 2015 sheltered count?

No

2F-5a. If "Yes" in 2F-5, then describe the change in provider coverage in the 2015 sheltered count.

(limit 750 characters) N/A

(33)

2G. Continuum of Care (CoC) Sheltered

Point-in-Time (PIT) Count: Data Quality

Instructions:

2G-1. Indicate the methods used to ensure the quality of the data collected during the sheltered PIT count:

Training: X Provider follow-up: X HMIS: X Non-HMIS de-duplication techniques:

X

2G-2. Describe any change to the way your CoC implemented its sheltered PIT count from 2014 to 2015 that would change data quality, including changes to training volunteers and inclusion of any partner agencies in the sheltered PIT count planning and implementation, if applicable. Do not include information on changes to actual sheltered PIT count

methodology (e.g., change in sampling or extrapolation method). (limit 1000 characters)

(34)

2H. Continuum of Care (CoC) Unsheltered

Point-in-Time (PIT) Count

Instructions:

The unsheltered PIT count assists communities and HUD to understand the characteristics and number of people with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground. CoCs are required to conduct an unsheltered PIT count every 2 years (biennially) during the last 10 days in January; however, CoCs are strongly encouraged to conduct the unsheltered PIT count annually, at the same time that it does the annual sheltered PIT count. The last official PIT count required by HUD was in January 2015.

2H-1. Did the CoC approve the final unsheltered PIT count methodology for the most recent unsheltered PIT count?

Yes

2H-2. Indicate the date of the most recent unsheltered PIT count (mm/dd/yyyy):

01/22/2015

2H-2a. If the CoC conducted the unsheltered PIT count outside of the last 10 days of January 2015, was an exception granted by HUD?

Not Applicable

2H-3. Enter the date the CoC submitted the unsheltered PIT count data in HDX (mm/dd/yyyy):

(35)

2I. Continuum of Care (CoC) Unsheltered

Point-in-Time (PIT) Count: Methods

Instructions:

2I-1. Indicate the methods used to count unsheltered homeless persons during the 2015 PIT count:

Night of the count - complete census:

Night of the count - known locations:

X Night of the count - random sample:

Service-based count:

X HMIS:

Verterans and Chronic informed by other than public places count

X

2I-2. Provide a brief description of your CoC's unsheltered PIT count methodology and describe why your CoC selected its unsheltered PIT count methodology.

Known area PIT: 100+ teams walk areas w/ clear boundaries tallying

unsheltered by location from 2:30 - 5:30 am (people settled for night & few else on street). 2015 counted in 16 jurisdictions. Also special youth dropins; ER -persons not seeking med care, overnight buses, tent cities. Families ID’d thru coord. entry (info includes location, HH size; checked for no duplication).

Tallied for aggregate, unduplicated count. Chronically homeless are individuals known to meet definition & on the street on PIT. Demographics, including veteran status, collected in person at services county-wide without clientele overlap. 100% surveyed, only demog. of those on street night of count used. Method chosen because count documents people seen (not estimated or reported post PIT); rigorously precludes duplication of pops/subpops.; includes

(36)

2I-3. Describe any change in methodology from your unsheltered PIT count in 2014 (or 2013 if an unsheltered count was not conducted in 2014) to 2015, including any change in sampling or extrapolation method, if applicable. Do not include information on changes to implementation of your sheltered PIT count methodology (e.g., enhanced training and change in partners participating in the count).

(limit 1000 characters) No change in methodology.

2I-4. Does your CoC plan on conducting an unsheltered PIT count in 2016?

Yes

(If “Yes” is selected, HUD expects the CoC to conduct an unsheltered PIT count in 2016. See the FY 2015 CoC Program NOFA, Section VII.A.4.d. for full information.)

(37)

2J. Continuum of Care (CoC) Unsheltered

Point-in-Time (PIT) Count: Data Quality

Instructions:

2J-1. Indicate the steps taken by the CoC to ensure the quality of the data collected for the 2015 unsheltered population PIT count:

Training: X "Blitz" count: X Unique identifier: Survey question: Enumerator observation: X None:

2J-2. Describe any change to the way the CoC implemented the

unsheltered PIT count from 2014 (or 2013 if an unsheltered count was not conducted in 2014) to 2015 that would affect data quality. This includes changes to training volunteers and inclusion of any partner agencies in the unsheltered PIT count planning and implementation, if applicable. Do not include information on changes to actual methodology (e.g., change in sampling or extrapolation method).

(38)

Implementation changes to unsheltered count in 2015: worked with King Co. Housing Authority, other community partners to add new HQ, expanding PIT geography to add several jurisdictions, parts of unincorporated King Co.; new HQ on small rural island (Vashon) not previously counted. Staff worked in new areas to identify known locations, create maps, train new partners. ID'd 2 new organized tent camps and safe parking programs to include in PIT. Expanded sites for in-person daytime survey to collect demographic data for people

outside during PIT, special focus on geographic spread and inclusion of families with children. Coordinated with pre-PIT Youth & Young Adult surveyors to refer unsheltered YYA to special YYA overnight PIT events. Added survey questions to record self-ID race /ethnicity, and age; refined gender question per HUD framework (self-ID & options).

(39)

3A. Continuum of Care (CoC) System

Performance

Instructions

3A-1. Performance Measure: Number of Persons Homeless - Point-in-Time Count.

* 3A-1a. Change in PIT Counts of Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless Persons

Using the table below, indicate the number of persons who were homeless at a Point-in-Time (PIT) based on the 2014 and 2015 PIT counts as recorded in the Homelessness Data Exchange (HDX).

2014 PIT

(for unsheltered count, most recent year conducted)

2015 PIT Difference

Universe: Total PIT Count of sheltered and unsheltered persons 9,106 10,122 1,016 Emergency Shelter Total 2,874 3,282 408

Safe Haven Total 44 44 0

Transitional Housing Total

3,452 2,993 -459

Total Sheltered Count 6,370 6,319 -51

Total Unsheltered Count 2,736 3,803 1,067

3A-1b. Number of Sheltered Persons Homeless - HMIS.

Using HMIS data, CoCs must use the table below to indicate the number of homeless persons who were served in a sheltered environment between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014.

Between October 1, 2013

and September 30, 2014 Universe: Unduplicated Total

sheltered homeless persons

20,465

Emergency Shelter Total 15,857

Safe Haven Total 69

(40)

3A-2. Performance Measure: First Time Homeless.

Describe the CoC’s efforts to reduce the number of individuals and families who become homeless for the first time. Specifically, describe what the CoC is doing to identify risk factors for becoming homeless for the first time.

Entry (CE), Mainstream Resource data (DSHS, jail, M Health). Specific efforts to identify risk factors:

CoC engages mainstream in processes, & tracks exit data from mainstream inst. (jail & hospital) & changes in mainstream system eligibility as early determinates of risk. Prevention partners active in CoC

CoC & WA - DSHS used DHHS-funded Youth At Risk of Homelessness (YARH) grant to identify predictive factors of homelessness for youth in foster care with possible intervention pilot.

To prevent homelessness CoC:

1) developed local research based typology of YYA who become homeless to inform primary prevention effort (YYA Initiative & Eval team);

2) bringing to scale system-wide diversion for families thru CE 3) Foster Care extended to 21.

4) Seattle HALA – hsing affordability policies

5) King Co passed Best Starts Levy (11/2015) - $19M for homeless prevention/diversion

3A-3. Performance Measure: Length of Time Homeless.

Describe the CoC’s efforts to reduce the length of time individuals and families remain homeless. Specifically, describe how your CoC has reduced the average length of time homeless, including how the CoC identifies and houses individuals and families with the longest lengths of time homeless.

(41)

HUD specification based SQL script to measure length of time homeless (LOT). Data updated by extracting HMIS data, creating LOT variable in SQL, &

transferring dataset to Tableau for visual dashboard. Disaggregated by pop., proj type, & race/ethnic group. Results reported quarterly to stakeholders & public. Project-level length of stay is measured for all projects & contract targets are set based on performance at the population & project-type levels [i.e YYA ES-20 days; Single Adults (SA: ES-37 days].

Specific interventions to reduce LOS & target resources developed in CoC population workgroups: (1) YYA is using a name based list (updated quarterly) of long term YYA homeless; (2) single adults: ID most vulnerable/longest homeless SA; One List and VI SPDAT; Long-term shelter stayer initiative (3) Family transitional housing is realigning to shorter, more cost-effective RRH and (4) CoC has reduced screening criteria system-wide for quick low barrier entry. More RRH for all pops.

* 3A-4. Performance Measure: Successful Permanent Housing Placement or Retention.

In the next two questions, CoCs must indicate the success of its projects in placing persons from its projects into permanent housing.

3A-4a. Exits to Permanent Housing Destinations:

In the chart below, CoCs must indicate the number of persons in CoC funded supportive services only (SSO), transitional housing (TH), and rapid re-housing (RRH) project types who exited into permanent housing destinations between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014.

Between October 1, 2013

and September 30, 2014 Universe: Persons in SSO, TH and

PH-RRH who exited

4,204 Of the persons in the Universe

above, how many of those exited to permanent destinations?

1,963

% Successful Exits 46.69%

3A-4b. Exit To or Retention Of Permanent Housing:

In the chart below, CoCs must indicate the number of persons who exited from any CoC funded permanent housing project, except rapid re-housing projects, to permanent housing destinations or retained their permanent housing between October 1, 2013 and September 31, 2014.

Between October 1, 2013

and September 30, 2014 Universe: Persons in all PH projects

except PH-RRH

(42)

% Successful Retentions/Exits 89.55%

3A-5. Performance Measure: Returns to Homelessness:

Describe the CoC’s efforts to reduce the rate of individuals and families who return to homelessness. Specifically, describe at least three

strategies your CoC has implemented to identify and minimize returns to homelessness, and demonstrate the use of HMIS or a comparable

database to monitor and record returns to homelessness. (limit 1000 characters)

In 2014, 16% going from homeless to housed returned to homelessness within two years. Strategies/tools to improve performance and minimize returns include:

1) Using HMIS data to identify patterns of performance among providers & target TA;

(2) Using SWAP suite of tools to identify interventions that work;

(3) Adding capacity so HH in emergency can re-engage with their original program/service provider;

(4) right-sizing resources shifting 300 units of TH to PSH in 2016;

(5) Using a custom SQL code to identify who is returning to homelessness and target assertive outreach/diversion.

CoC uses SQL script running off HMIS data that is inclusive of all program exits from RRH, TH, and PSH. An HMIS master ID allows a look across multiple program enrollments for the same client. Quarterly dashboard reports to

stakeholders by population, project-type & racial/ethnic group and system wide. Project level data is shared publicly on annual basis

3A-6. Performance Measure: Job and Income Growth.

Describe specific strategies implemented by CoC Program-funded

projects to increase the rate by which homeless individuals and families increase income from employment and non-employment sources (include at least one specific strategy for employment income and one for non-employment related income, and name the organization responsible for carrying out each strategy).

(43)

Increasing ncome is essential to CoC effort to make homelessness brief and one time. In 2014, CoC added “Employment Navigator” program into the Rapid Rehousing (RRH) for Homeless Families’ pilot. Conducted by Neighborhood House, Career Connections and YWCA Works, individuals were ID’d at Coordinated Entry (CE) and offered 1:1 assistance focused on increasing income, primarily though employment, while enrolled in RRH. As of June 2015, more than 210 families obtained new employment (65% of total families

enrolled), 160 experienced an increase in their earned income (49% of total families enrolled in the program).

For many employment is not an option. The Washington State SOAR (SSI and SSDI Outreach, Access and Recovery) program to expedite the Social Security disability benefits application/approval process is key. Soar Traing offered regularly (most recent : 9/2015). Notably, the WA program is providing focused SOAR training for Vet program Case Managers through an MOU with DVA

3A-6a. Describe how the CoC is working with mainstream employment organizations to aid homeless individuals and families in increasing their income.

Workforce Development Council (WDC) is the primary mainstream employment organization in the CoC and oversee the region’s WorkSource Sites. Between 935-1545 unique homeless job seekers are served by the Renton, Auburn and Seattle sites.

To develop a stronger pathway to employment, WDC worked with the CoC to: 1) integrate employment/income questions and services into Coordinated Entry by assessment tool in order to quickly match homeless families with

employment opportunities, 2) realign funding for homeless job seekers, and 3) build a Business Leaders Taskforce to address employment/training needs for homeless HH.

The CoC is also building an enhanced employment navigator program into CE. A larger financial empowerment strategy includes programs like Solid Ground’s Financial Fitness Boot Camp and YWCA’s Hope and Power and Neighborhood House Financial Empowerment Centers. Almost 60% of CoC Program funded projects regularly connect HH to employment services

3A-7. Performance Measure: Thoroughness of Outreach.

How does the CoC ensure that all people living unsheltered in the CoC's geographic area are known to and engaged by providers and outreach teams?

(44)

CoC effort to reach all unsheltered on streets & connect to housing is a multi-partner effort:

Outreach (PATH, REACH, DESC) IDs thru assertive outreach & track in dbase. Outreach integrated in CoC & connect to hsing thru set asides, integration in single & CH work. Outreached clients prioritized thru prioritization of long-term homeless & vulnerable.

Vet outreach coordinated at VOLT mtgs. Outreach tracking/name based 1 list integrated VI-SPDAT & conferencing on priority housing to vets.

New mobile medical van expands outreach & access to healthcare & connect to rental assistance, leveraging CoC Program funds (bonus application)

Multi-Disciplinary Outreach Team (MDOT) pilots progressive engagement to unsanctioned encampments. Daily mtgs w/housing/service case conferencing & connect to housing

Scaling new investments connect outreach to housing (100 new shelter beds, flexible funds to REACH teams, expand Long Term Stayer Initiative with increased rental assistance).

3A-7a. Did the CoC exclude geographic areas from the 2015 unsheltered PIT count where the CoC determined that there were no unsheltered homeless people, including areas that are uninhabitable (e.g., deserts)?

Yes

3A-7b. What was the the criteria and decision-making process the CoC used to identify and exclude specific geographic areas from the CoC's unsheltered PIT count?

WA-500 is 2,307 sq. mi w/ 39 cities & National Forest land. CoC IDs unlikely areas w/ info from community, scouting, mapping, zoning & income data: high income residential; fenced industrial zones; suburban areas far from transit; National Forest, private or ag land distant from roads; areas under water excluded. Exclusion criteria consistent year to year. Prior count areas where no homeless in last 3 PIT or conditions perm. changed (construction in former open space) excluded (2 areas in 9 yrs). Areas unsafe for counters

(abandoned buildings; unstable terrain) routinely excluded. Team leads scout areas pre-PIT, IDing changes [construction; flooding] that may result in

exclusion that year. Staff convene lead community partners to review areas early, ID possible changes that may require special consideration, including consult w/ law enforcement, parks staff, providers & users of homeless services. Continue to refine our methodology for exclusion to inform full geographic coverage

(45)

3B. Continuum of Care (CoC) Performance and

Strategic Planning Objectives

Objective 1: Ending Chronic Homelessness

Instructions:

Opening Doors, Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness (as amended in 2015) establishes the national goal of ending chronic homelessness. Although the original goal was to end chronic

homelessness by the end of 2015, that goal timeline has been extended to 2017. HUD is hopeful that communities that are participating in the Zero: 2016 technical assistance initiative will continue to be able to reach the goal by the end of 2016. The questions in this section focus on the strategies and resources available within a community to help meet this goal.

3B-1.1. Compare the total number of chronically homeless persons, which includes persons in families, in the CoC as reported by the CoC for the 2015 PIT count compared to 2014 (or 2013 if an unsheltered count was not

conducted in 2014).

2014

(for unsheltered count, most recent year conducted)

2015 Difference

Universe: Total PIT Count of sheltered and

unsheltered chronically homeless persons

854 812 -42

Sheltered Count of chronically homeless persons

487 461 -26

Unsheltered Count of chronically homeless persons

367 351 -16

3B-1.1a. Using the "Differences" calculated in question 3B-1.1 above, explain the reason(s) for any increase, decrease, or no change in the overall TOTAL number of chronically homeless persons in the CoC, as well as the change in the unsheltered count, as reported in the PIT count

(46)

The numbers in 3B-1.1 represent 2013 and 2015 PIT numbers. The overall total and the unsheltered number of chronically homeless both decreased. The overall number decreased because of a concerted effort to house long term shelter stayers, including those with a disability (CH). The unsheltered numbers reduced because the housing of previously sheltered CH resulted in increased shelter bed availability for others, including unsheltered CH. Additionally, increased outreach and the support needed allowed unsheltered CH to be housed. NOTE: 2013 numbers were used because WA-500 does not have 2014 unsheltered PIT data in HDX. WA-500 did implement a PIT in 2014, however, numbers were not reported in HDX as we did not have full demographics to report as required.

3B-1.2. From the FY 2013/FY 2014 CoC Application: Describe the CoC's two year plan (2014-2015) to increase the number of permanent supportive housing beds available for chronically homeless persons and to meet the proposed numeric goals as indicated in the table above. Response should address the specific strategies and actions the CoC will take to achieve the goal of ending chronic homelessness by the end of 2015.

(read only)

CoC TYP has housing production, including CH as a top priority. a) Added 27 units DESC Aurora (by 2013 PIT)

b) CoC Agencies add 193 new CH beds in 2013: DESC Aurora (60); CHA Nyer Urness (55) DESC Cottage Grove (20); LIHI Ernestine Anderson (15), KCHA VASH (40); SHA VASH (3)

b) Will open in 2014: DESC Cottage Grove (46); CHS Patrick Place (20) c) CoC applying in 2013 for 97 CH units for DESC Interbay with reallocation (open 2015).

d) Increase units for CH through turnover of units not designated for CH under Client Care Coordination (CCC) for most vulnerable, and long term stayers initiative. CCC consortium includes FG, VA, Public Health, SHA, KCHA, PSH providers.

e) Coordinate housing/services funds for CH units in annual Combined NOFA/RFP with 7 public/private funding agencies. NOFA funds for new units include CH: 2009 Seattle Housing Levy (7yr property tax) to produce/preserve 1,670 units; 2011 King County Veterans & Human Services Levy (6yr property tax) includes housing capital/services funds.

3B-1.2a. Of the strategies listed in the FY 2013/FY 2014 CoC Application represented in 3B-1.2, which of these strategies and actions were

accomplished?

(47)

a) DESC Aurora (27); 1/13 – pre-PIT b) 193 new CH beds in 2013

DESC Aurora (60) 4/13 CHA Nyer (55) 9/13

DESC Cottage Grove (20) 12/13 LIHI Ernestine (15)4/13 KCHA VASH (40)2-12/13 SHA VASH (3)6-12/13 Opened 2014: DESC Cottage G (46); 3/14 CHS Patrick Pl (20)5/14

c) DESC Interbay