Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Jacksonville, Florida by Carl Falconer

1 765 vues

Publié le

This presentations by Carl Falconer is from the workshop 3.03 Implementing Effective Governance to End Homelessness from the 2015 National Conference on Ending Homelessness.

Effective governance sets the tone for a systemic focus on ending homelessness. Speakers will discuss the essential elements of effective governance, including managing and measuring performance and right-sizing the crisis response system through resource allocation.

Publié dans : Formation
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Jacksonville, Florida by Carl Falconer

  1. 1. Jacksonville Florida • Population of Jacksonville – Approx. 1,000,000 • ESHC was formed in 1978, incorporated in 2000 • 50+ member agencies of ESHC • Three County Area • ESHC Manages = $4.3 million in CoC, $1.78 million in SSVF, $400k in EFSP, $200k in other. • PIT Count – 2015 – 1,853
  2. 2. The Old CoC Process 1. Get all the providers around the table. 2. Discuss overall goals from HUD’s perspective. 3. Everyone votes for their own agency to continue to receive funding. 4. The CoC application writers make the vote fit the HUD scoring criteria. 5. We only considered HUD Funding.
  3. 3. The New CoC Process 1. Form a CoC Governance Committee made up of providers and community members (at least 51% of non providers). 2. Utilize the HUD priorities to lead the discussion for HUD funding. 3. Discuss scoring criteria and standards for improving our system of services in the community, including HUD funding, but also other forms of funding. 4. Discuss the use of data to drive decisions. 5. Determine an impartial group to score each project within the specified criteria. 6. Discuss as a group the monitoring of standards throughout the year.
  4. 4. Challenges in Mindset • Community vs. Individual Agency • Data vs. Anecdotal or Assumed Information • Year Round vs. NOFA Time Process • All funding vs. One funding source for the community • Transitioning to a new system • Disagreeing
  5. 5. Outcomes • Eliminated some low performing programs – reallocated funding to other programs. • Increased our community NOFA scoring • Created Community Buy In • Lowered the number of Homeless Persons