Question 1
From Kari
Apologies for my delayed reply. My concern continues to be that this report is rooted in opinions that were subjectively selected by the authors and incomplete data. By not asking uniform questions in the conversation or through a survey to every HPC or CoC chair, the information is incomplete. In addition the differing conversations allowed HousingNola contractor staff to lead conversations in unique directions they chose.
Basing a report off of these unorganized conversations also allows for subjective memory. I would summarize that the majority of my conversation with HousingNola staff was about what my agency does, the need for a separate office of homelessness, and the remainder was mostly the HousingNola staff informing me about resources Nashville has left on the table. I didn’t engage in conversation around size of HPC or governance vs management. And in regards to “what works” that is very broad and again allows for subjective selection of what to focus on.
The data in this report is also not a complete picture of the data within our community over time. This report characterized that our data over the past 5 years is woefully incomplete, but didn’t break down those 5 years to see if data collection has improved over time. The report mentioned none of he efforts made to improve our data capacity and collection and work to correlate improve (or disprove) it over time.
HousingNola and our homeless services community did agree that a separate office of homelessness is needed and thanks to the advocacy our our HPC, CoC, and the greater community we successfully made that happen. That work began long before this report was written. I have strong concerns utilizing this report to determine other next steps for our CoC and communities effort to end homelessness.
Answer 1
Dilman, April and Laura all sent numerous emails requesting that HPC members set appointments through Dilman, April or through me directly. I attended the PEC and Executive Committee and met with Beth Shinn and FreddyO’Connell from data committee.
You and I did discuss governance versus management during our session but we did not discuss the size of the HPC I am happy to go over my notes from my session with you. I used an informal interview process as opposed to a formal interview process there are pluses and minuses to both. Most interviewed from the HPC were asked a variation of all of those questions and then encouraged to talk about what they felt was important.
They are broad topics to allow people to express themselves and tell me what they thought I needed to know. The questions were different from those I asked of metro employees or those with lived experience. I wanted people to have the opportunity to express their thoughts. In addition I watched all recorded city council sessions and read notes from HPC meetings and news coverage.
This was a report issued at 12 weeks and the work is ongoing. We continue to meet with stakeholders and to review and update.
All of that said, your concerns are noted.
Question 2
From Sean
Both in the written document and in the presentation, there was mention of “interviewing key stakeholders” but no specific reference to who those stakeholders (individuals, groups, agencies, and/or government entities) were and noting specific cited as information provided by these stakeholders as to the functional workings of the community, CC, and Planning Council. Not been my experience in many years to have research without citing reference. In this case also leads some of us to question if recommendations came from “people with full knowledge” or “people who had an agenda”.
Answer 2
A list of everyone who wanted to be listed is included. There were 5 Key Stakeholders who asked to remain anonymous due to fear of the response of other members.
Question 3
The report and presentation failed to cite as even a general reference any of the active changes that have been undertaken in the CoC since we enacted many of the Focus Strategies recommendations. I would note that at the time of that report, I was the Chair of the CoC, I was part of the shared CoC/Homeless Commission work to combine entities and served as the Vice Chair of the first year of the CoC Planning Council and was not contacted/interviewed for this assessment. Failure to acknowledge this fact left the reporting incomplete in reference to the shift
PC member Karri Gornick correctly pointed out a specific example where their failure to acknowledge activity and improvements in HMIS since Focus Strategies lead directly to misleading information about current status and efforts with HMIS improvements.
Answer 3
The report was not meant to represent complete assessment as it is ongoing. The report was made after 12 weeks of engagement and reviewing a snapshot of HMIS data, which continues to be reviewed. Mrs. Gornick requested a more in-depth review and that is occurring. Data is being reviewed at the individual and programmatic level and, modifications and adjustments to the living documents will be made accordingly. We are waiting on all necessary data to show data quality and completeness. As analysis is completed we will post a report card on the system as a whole and at the agency level . All new information will continue to be updated on the MHID website.
As to the Focus Strategies report the recommendation of the Focus Strategies report that was adopted fully was the increase in RR which enabled the CoC to maintain the Homeless Count at roughly 2011 numbers. Unfortunately, this also came with a decrease in 9% PSH and did not include a prioritization of Chronically homeless.
Review of the other recommendations of the report shows, Nashville implemented variations of the recommendations but they were not fully adopted as recommended nor to meet best practices and standards of high performing communities.
Question 4
Curiously, the report/presentation notes that the CoC has too many committees while also stating that the community does not have feedback into the running of the CoC. Actually, the committees are the most direct way that the community has and provides feedback in decision making processes, that was the intent of the original design. An examination of the role of each of the committees shows that they represent particular functions of the homelessness resolution system. Those processes can certainly be and have been progressively better defining their role and function and the PC can/should improve development of the relationship between the PC/Executive Committee and the individual committees to improve coordination and implementation of systemic improvements.
Answer 4
The governance and committee structure continues to be reviewed. Of the active committees the Performance Evaluation Committee (PEC) rank and review was noted to be the most functional but the Homelessness Planning Council still made a choice to overturn it’s decisions. Giving the Coc and committees a true voice is the recommendation with the addition of more community partners such as, philanthropy, business, corrections, state government, corrections etc. HUD has just approved TA specifically to assist with Governance.
So I request they:
Cite their sources of information
Response: See attached a list of sources that were willing to go on record.
Re-reference information to acknowledge and cite activities relative to before and after Focus Strategies
Response: See answer above.
More closely examine committee structure and purpose as tool of community involvement and functionality to CoC/PC.
Response: Great recommendation, we have requested and are acquiring HUD TA to assist with Governance and Committee level work.