►
From YouTube: Homeless Initiative Advisory Committee – July 27, 2023
Description
Regular meeting of the City of Asheville Homeless Initiative Advisory Committee.
Access the agenda and other meeting materials at the City of Asheville website: https://www.ashevillenc.gov/department/city-clerk/boards-and-commissions/homeless-initiative-advisory-committee/
Participate before and during the meeting on our public engagement hub: https://publicinput.com/P7267
A
A
B
Good
morning
we
have
been
very
busy
in
our
division,
as
you
might
imagine,
I
want
to
share
a
few
highlights
and
updates
with
you.
You
want
to
go
ahead
to
the
next
slide.
B
So
last
week,
three
of
our
folks
Catherine
and
Debbie
and
I
attended
the
annual
conference
National
Conference
on
ending
homelessness.
That
is,
the
annual
National
Alliance
to
end
homelessness
conference
It's,
a
Wonderful
learning
opportunity
it
sold
out
in
48
hours.
There's
such
demand
for
people
to
be
participating
in
this.
It
was
I
think
about
a
thousand
folks
from
across
the
country,
so
really
a
robust
conference
with
a
lot
of
great
information.
B
Some
of
the
themes
that
I
think
we
heard
are
that
unsheltered
homelessness
and
encampments
have
increased
significantly
during
the
pandemic.
That's
certainly
been
true
here,
but
not
only
here.
Really,
a
theme
across
the
country
ends
definitely
clear
messaging
from
HUD
and
from
the
alliance
that
we're.
You
know
that,
as
we
continue
to
come
out
of
the
pandemic
and
as
housing
costs
continue
to
increase,
we
are
struggling
to
gain
ground
and
that
this
is
an
important
moment
in
time
for
us
to
really
work
together
to
move
forward.
Providers
are
struggling
with.
B
Staffing
shortages
need
increased
funding
to
improve
retention.
That
was
a
definite
theme
that
we
heard,
obviously,
staff
retention,
improves,
client
outcomes
and
Community
outcomes,
a
lot
of
focus
on
continued
and
renewed
commitment
to
housing,
first
principles
and
evidence-based
practices.
Just
the
messaging
that
what
has
worked
for
a
long
time
does
still
work.
B
We
just
need
to
bring
that
to
scale-
it's
not
it's
not
currently
at
scale
across
the
country
and
then
an
increasing
emphasis
from
HUD
on
valuing
the
expertise
of
people
who
have
lived
experience
of
homelessness,
making
sure
that
folks
are
seated
at
decision
making
tables
and
provided
with
support
and
compensation.
I
know
that
we
have
discussed.
All
of
that.
You
know
this
board
is
certainly
in
alignment
with
that
and
then
also
an
increased
need
and
impact
means
that
there's
increased
attention
on
the
issue
and
increased
will
to
act
in
communities
across
the
country.
C
So
last
meeting
we
had
suggested
board
members,
look
at
the
dashboard
that
the
National
Alliance
post
on
the
state
of
homelessness,
which
is
based
on
Pitt
data.
If
you
go
to
that
site,
it'll
give
you
a
map
of
the
United
States,
you
can
click
on
a
given
state
in
a
given
COC
and
you
can
see
metrics
related
to
pit
data
and
the
question
from
the
board
was
what
about
age
data,
because
the
graphs
that
we
went
over
did
not
include
age
data.
C
The
National
Alliance
does
not
have
age
data
on
their
dashboard,
but
because
it's
based
on
pit
data,
this
graph
is
based
on
what
is
HUD
posts
on
their
website
for
National
Data,
and
this
is
2022.
They
do
not
have
yet
have
not
yet
posted
2023.
But
basically
this
is
two
graphs.
The
one
on
the
left
shows
you
adults.
Only
the
one
on
the
right
says
you,
adults
with
children,
and
the
lighter
bar
is
what
we
reported
locally
for
Asheville
Buncombe
and
the
darker
bar
is
what
is
reported
nationally.
C
Overall,
you
can
see
it
breaks
it
down:
emergency
shelter,
transition,
housing
and
unsheltered,
and
the
age
groupings
that
they
have
in
2022
are
limited,
but
it's
less
than
18
18
to
24.
24
and
older
in
2023.
The
age
groupings
changed,
but
you
can
see.
Overall,
there
is
some
positive
relative
to
National
Trans
locally.
Our
emergency
shelter
and
transition
housing
is
performing
better
nationally,
but
in
the
unsheltered
area
there
is
less
of
a
difference
in
terms
of
National
numbers,
so
the
other
I'm.
A
So
we
have
fewer
people
in
the
then
nationally
in
the
shelter
group
and
more
people
in
the
unsheltered
group.
A
A
C
C
All
right,
so,
you
may
recall
the
last
meeting.
We
have
proposed
the
idea
of
implementing
sharing
agreements
with
nc501.
Currently
we
have
significant
restrictions
for
hmis
agencies
and
how
they
can
view
each
other's
data.
Within
hmis,
and
so
the
structure
in
which
this
would
be
done
is
called
a
sharing,
kusoba,
sharing
qualified
service
organization,
business
associate
agreement,
and
so
today,
we'll
be
giving
an
update
on
the
progress
that
we've
made
in
looking
into
that
in
the
interest
level
of
agencies
to
pursue
that.
C
When
we
talk
about
sharing
agreements
you
get
into
privacy
and
security
issues,
which
you
know
can
get
very
complicated,
pretty
quick,
so
I'm
going
to
try
to
give
some
brief
context.
You
know.
Ideally
this
might
be
an
issue
wrestled
with
on
the
on
a
data
governance
committee,
but
as
such
we
did
not
have
that
yet
so
I'm
going
to
probably
be
giving
you
more
information
that
typically
in
a
board
meeting.
But
first
of
all,
why
is
sharing
data
an
official
and
this?
C
That
was
a
question
that
had
come
up
last
meeting
and
Hyde
does
have
a
paper
that
they've
posted
on
their
website
where
they
describe
the
corporation
for
Supportive.
Housing
has
done
a
review
of
25
studies
between
2002
and
2017
regarding
sharing
of
data,
and
they
found
that
it
reduces
utilization
and
costs
associated
with
emergency
crisis
for
single
adults
with
chronic
disabilities.
C
Sharing
data
also
provides
a
secured
location
for
agencies
to
share
their
housing
related
documentation.
It
assists
agencies
to
avoid
duplicating
work
of
another
agency.
It
can
reduce
redundant
paperwork
for
clients
and
staff,
especially
around
the
ROI,
the
release
of
information
that
clients
are
asked
to
sign,
which
is
reciprocal
in
the
sharing
agreement.
C
So
what
does
HUD
require
around
privacy
and
security?
Hud
has
in
place
guidelines
for
protecting
personal
identity,
personal
identification,
information.
That
would
be
things
like
name
gender
year
of
birth
last
four
years
of
Social
and
their
veteran
status,
but
HUD
also
includes
a
reference
to
protected
health
information
Phi,
which
is
related
to
HIPAA,
and
for
those
of
you
that
are
aware
of
HIPAA.
Those
are
very
strict
federal
guidelines
about
how
information
can
be
shared.
C
So
that
the
reason
they
they
value
HIPAA,
because
it's
a
national
standard,
that's
commonly
known,
but
it
is
not
something
we
are
acquired
by
law
to
follow
Community
Services,
that's
the
HMR
software
that
we
use
isn't
intended
to
be
an
electronic
health
record.
So
we
are
not
documenting
psyche,
vowels
or
lab
test
results
or
prescription
medications.
C
That
is
not
information,
that's
being
collected,
which
would
be
examples
of
what's
covered
by
HIPAA.
C
Self-Reported
mental
and
physical
health
would
be
like
depression,
substance
use,
HIV
infection
and
the
reason
those
questions
are
asked
is
because
a
caseworker
gives
a
caseworker
some
indication
of
what
programs
or
services
that
client
could
be
eligible
for.
However,
hmis
heads
make
very
clear:
hmis
should
not
be
used
to.
E
C
C
C
The
county
circled
in
red
are
the
ones
that
belong
to
NCH
Mis.
So
these
are
the
counties
that
we
have
a
shared
database.
We
use
the
same
software.
We
cannot
see
each
other's
data
with
the
exception
of
abccm,
who
runs
veteran
services
for
the
Carolinas,
and
they
serve
more
than
one
County
they're.
The
only
agency
that
we
have,
that
is
in
more
than
one
County.
So
in
that
respect
you
have
one
agency
one
program:
the
fact
that
they're
in
different
counties
doesn't
matter
in
terms
of
visibility
for
sharing
data.
C
C
This
is
a
list
of
the
cocs
that
are
in
the
state
of
North
Carolina
and
whether
they
have
sharing
agreements
so
right
now,
Asheville,
Buncombe
and
Northwest.
Coc
are
the
only
two
that
do
not
have
sharing
agreements
and
the
reason
Northwest
is
not
have.
A
sharing
agreement
is
because
and
they're
the
ones
located
in
the
upper
left
corner
of
the
map
is
because
they
had
so
few
hmis
participating
agencies
involved
that
it
was
not
worth
the
admin
burden
that
comes
with
executing
a
sharing
to
soba
and.
C
Certain
admin
burden
that
comes
with
executing
and
maintaining
that
I
will
mention
balance
of
state,
which
is
the
largest
one.
They
they
break
their
areas
up
into
regions,
they
have
limited
sharing
and
what
that
means
is
their
coordinated
entry,
which
is
the
interview
process
that
someone
who
is
homeless
initially
goes
through
to
start
beginning
to
identify
what,
where
to
direct
them
in
terms
of
services
and
needs,
they
do
share
their
coordinated
entry
data.
They
are
a
more
restrictive
about
some
of
the
assessment
data.
That's
collected
once
someone
gets
into
the
homeless
system.
C
F
C
Clients
sign
a
sign,
a
km
Roi
that
basically,
our
hmis
Roi
currently
has
two
sections
basic
identifying
information,
which
is
primarily
intended
for
performing
searches
to
minimize
the
possibility
of
having
duplicates
in
the
database,
and
then
they
also
can
share
relevant
assessment
information.
So
it's
asking
the
client,
if
they're,
giving
the
agency
the
ability
to
share
that
information.
C
C
The
non-hmis
agencies
and
the
hmis
agencies
other
than
the
agency
working
directly
with
that
client
only
become
aware
of
hmis
client
data
via
paper
forms
or
verbal
sharing,
such
as
during
case
conferences,
and
these
are
the
list
of
agencies
that
we
have
on
our
cam
Roi,
which.
F
C
C
So
what
will
change
with
the
sharing
agreement?
First
of
all,
we're
going
to
modify
the
security
settings
so
that
the
sharing
kusoba
agency
can
see
each
other's
data.
This
is
a
simple
example
of
what
that
would
look
like.
Basically,
an
HMI
is
participating
agency
that
currently
uses
Community
Services
like
Homeward
Bound.
They
can
see
that
they
have
a
client
that
enrolled
in
their
City
outreach
program.
They
were
out
on
the
streets,
they
contacted
a
client.
C
The
client
is
interested
in
working
with
them,
and
so
Homeward
Bound
goes
in
and
documents
that,
and
they
started
working
with
that
client
on,
in
this
case,
January
2021,
and
stopped
working
with
that
client
in
March
of
2021.
During
that
time,
Homeward
Bound
is
going
to
be
collecting
assessment
data
on
that
client
with
a
sharing
kosova.
C
So
what
does
that
look
like
more
specifically,
so
the
ROI
has
three
sections
basic,
identifying
acknowledgment
of
Rights
and
then
the
third
section
coordination
of
care
sharing
plan.
The
third
section
is
the
one
that
has
the
most
changes.
The
other
two
sections
are
fairly
nominal
in
terms
of
changes,
so
one
of
the
key
changes
that
we're
we're
making
is
we
want
to
be
listing
who
the
hmis
participating
agencies
and
programs
are.
C
We
also
also
from
the
cam
Roi
we're
adding
the
non-hmis
participating
agencies
couple
of
points
about
the
listing
of
these
agencies.
We
are
also
attempting
to
expand
our
relationship
with
RHA
and
Via
Health,
who
have
both
expressed
an
interest
in
being
able
to
have
you
only
access
to
hmis.
As
you
know,
the
RHA
jail
diversion
program
have
staff
based
in
the
Buncombe
County
jail,
and
this
allows
them
to
be
able
to
go
into
hmis
and
find
out
what
agencies
are
working
with
these
clients
that
are
coming
onto
their
radar.
F
C
G
I
don't
know
if
this
would
be
that
specific
I
have
lived
experience,
and
that
is
my
voice
on
this
committee,
but
when
I
was
homeless
and
applying
for
services
via
Health,
when
doing
their
intake
asks
for
the
score
on
my
bed
and
I
didn't
know
it.
Nor
did
I
know
how
to
find
it.
So
if
I
would
just
think
there
would
be
a
benefit
to
sharing
information
with
via
and
RHA.
C
Okay,
so
the
second
part
that
is
the
section
three
that
is
changing
is
we're
listing.
The
data
elements
that
are
candidates
to
be
shared,
and
one
thing
is
I
want
to
emphasize,
is
twice
on
the
ROI.
It
says
the
client
does
not
have
to
provide
information
in
order
to
receive
services
in
the.
Unless
an
agency
is
working
with
more
than
one
agency
they're
trying
to
collaborate
services
and
when
they
collaborate
Services,
it
could
be
a
requirement
for
them
for
that
program,
but,
generally
speaking,
especially
with
a
client
working
with
a
particular
agency.
C
Excuse
me
their
destination
race,
an
ethnicity,
referrals
and
other
service
connections,
Services
received
from
other
hmis
agencies,
their
sexual
orientation,
which
this
is
a
new
requirement
that
HUD
is
implementing
on
October
1st,
specifically
around
permanent
Supportive
Housing
social
security,
number
type
of
health
insurance
and
our
medical
assistance
and
Veteran
status.
There
are
two
separate
subgroups
veterans
and
youth
listed
below
that,
and
that's
because
there
are
questions
that
are
asked
of
veterans
and
youth
that
are
not
asked
of
other
clients
who
are
non-veterans
or
do
not
fall
in
that
age
group.
C
One
of
the
things
that's
not
on
this
list
is
case
notes
we
specifically
made
the
decision
that
case
notes
would
not
be
shared
generally.
The
guidance
is
that
caseworkers
should
not
record
private
confidential
notes
about
a
client
they
can,
but
there
are
some
times
where
we
looked
at
the
notes.
Agencies
may
share
or
excuse
me,
may
record
information
about
substance,
use
treatment
or
interactions
with
law
enforcement.
So
the
decision
at
this
point
was
that
we
would
suppress
case
notes
for
now.
C
What
doesn't
change
with
this
privacy
and
security
roll
out
clients
are
not
required
to
provide
the
information
requested
in
order
to
reserves,
receive
services,
clients
and
agencies
also
will
have
the
option
to
suppress
a
client's
information.
So
if
the
client
says
yes,
I'll
give
you
my
information,
but
I
don't
want
to
share
it
with
anybody.
Then
the
agency
has
that
option
to
do
that
within
the
software,
the
agency,
at
their
discretion,
may
decide
to
lock
down
a
client's
record
and
that
being
in,
for
instance,
a
light
of
homes.
C
Who's
working
with
children
who
are
under
18
would
automatically,
as
as
a
normal
business
process,
lock
that
account
down
now
once
that
child
becomes
an
adult
they'll
have
the
ability
to
unlock
their
account
if
that
client
so
chooses.
But
the
information
that
was
recorded
while
the
client
is
locked
down
a
record
is
locked
down,
will
not
be
viewable,
except
for
it
by
a
lot
of
homes.
C
Hmis
users
are
still
required
to
take
annual
online
privacy
and
security,
and
we
monitor
that
in
terms
of
what
their
recertification
date
is
and
if
they
have
not
met
their
recertification
date,
we
inactivate
their
login.
The
city's
homeless
strategy
division
will
still
conduct
annual
hmis
audits
with
each
individual
Agency
for
compliance.
C
C
Ashley
Asheville
City
legal
has
approved
the
language
and
the
sharing
crusoba
and
the
updated
Roi
feedback
was
solicited
on
the
ROI
from
the
coordinated
entry,
workbook
work
group,
The,
coordinated
assessment
and
Veteran
assessment
meetings
as
the
cam
and
the
vcam,
the
housing
groups,
and
so
far,
eight
of
the
ten
agencies
who
are
candidates
for
participating
have
agreed
to
join
the
sharing
kusoba,
the
other
two
still
have
it
under
discussion
and
I
have
not
heard
back
from
them,
yet
our
implementation
timeline.
This
is
what
we
were
presented
last
month.
C
We're
presenting
our
findings,
but
today
is
not
going
to
we're
not
requesting
a
vote
today
that
will
be
in
the
August
meeting,
but
we
still
should
be
able
to
be
on
track,
assuming
that
we
agreed
to
pursue
this
to
execute
the
kusoba
on
October.
1St
main
justification,
for
that
is,
that
is
the
HUD
here.
It
starts
on
October
1st
HUD.
Does
data
standard
changes
every
two
years
when
they
do
data
standard
changes?
C
That
means
we'd
have
to
execute
a
new
sharing,
kusoba,
potentially
depending
on
what
the
changes
are,
and
so
this
maximizes
executing,
as
you
can
imagine,
executing
a
new
sharing
kosova
is,
is
very
involved.
It's
not
a
simple
process,
so
we
maximize
our
use
of
our
current
sharing
qsoba
for
two
years
before
HUD
comes
out
with
new
data
standards.
B
Yes,
the
the
policy
in
the
Q7
will
be
on
your
August
agenda
for
a
vote.
A
Okay,
we're
running
a
little
behind
so
quick
update
from
boards
and
commissions
on
hybrid
meetings.
If
we
have
that
or.
B
Yes,
briefly,
the
equity
and
engagement
committee
voted
unanimously
to
move
all
boards
and
commissions
to
all
meetings
to
a
hybrid
meeting
format.
B
Once
that's
implemented,
that'll
be
true
for
both
members
of
the
board
and
four
members
of
the
public.
It
will
take
a
bit
of
time
to
roll
that
out.
We
obviously
have
a
governance
work
group.
That's
actively
moving
this
Continuum
of
Care
board
out
of
the
boards
and
commission
structure,
so
this
may
not
end
up
applying
to
this
this
body
depending
on
the
timeline,
but
we'll
continue
to
share
updates
as
those
become
available
from
the
communications
folks
of
the
city.
F
A
Next
information
pieces
on
the
community
responder
initiative.
H
Good
morning,
good
morning,
I'm
assistant
fire,
chief
Patrick,
crudup
and
I'm
the
program
manager
for
the
community
responder
programs,
we'll
give
you
an
update
on
the
program
what
we've
been
doing
and
where
we're
heading.
We
started
the
initiative
and
thank
you
for
inviting
us.
We
started
this
initiative
on
May
the
1st
as
part
of
the
downtown
safety
initiative.
The
plan
was
to
run
that
Initiative
for
60
days
and
collect
some
data
and
see
what
we're
going
to
do
moving
forward.
H
The
responder
group
is
two
to
three
firefighters,
I'm
working
seven
days
a
week
from
nine
to
nine,
so
occasionally
we'll
make
adjustments.
We
may
come
in
before
nine
or
we
may
go
later
than
nine,
depending
on
what
we
need
to
do
what's
happening
in
our
community.
H
We've
had
some
successes
in
building
relationships,
using
a
proactive
approach
going
out
and
meeting
people
in
the
spaces
where
they
are
and
collecting
data
and
providing
some
needs
and
resources
to
them.
We're
going
to
be
continuing
to
evaluate
we've
heard
from
internal
and
external
stakeholders
that
the
program
is
going
well
and
the
need
to
continue
that
program.
So
right
now,
what
we're
doing
is
kind
of
building
that
program
out
and
Gathering
some
information
to
push
to
our
city
leaders
leadership
to
continue
and
see
which
direction
we
need
to
go
with
that
program.
H
We're
going
to
continue
to
work
with
the
homeless
strategy
Division
and
our
goal
is
to
fit
into
the
overall
board,
which
you
have
here
going
on
and
to
be
a
cog
to
see
what
we
can
do
to
move
the
needle
forward
or
providing
additional
services.
That's
basically
the
responder
program.
So
what
questions
can
I
ask
for
you.
G
And
then
one
just
share
with
you
that
I
did
called
Community
responder.
There
was
a
man
passed
out,
I
couldn't
tell
if
he
was
dead
or
breathing
and
I
did
call
and
stay
with
him
and
took
movie
responders,
got
there
and
then
they
took
over
so
I
think
it
was
a
very
positive
experience
for
the
general
public.
Yes,.
F
D
D
H
Not
overnight,
yes,
sir
9am
to
nine
p,
and
sometimes
we
come
a
little
bit
earlier
as
they're
working
at
9A
to
9
P.
If
they
identify
any
kind
of
Trends
where
people
are
showing
up
later,
they
will
make
their
adjustments.
And
currently
we
started
in
the
CBD.
We've
expanded
West
now
some
so
our
plans
to
expand
that
program
outside
the
CBD
and
continue
in
the
CBD
as
well
what's
happening
now
is
as
we.
J
H
A
H
H
H
H
So
those
five
were
the
best
of
the
18
20
people
that
we
had
to
apply
for
the
position.
B
Other
questions
can
I
I
just
want
to
say
a
big
thanks
to
the
fire
department.
It's
been
really
wonderful
for
our
division
to
be
able
to
collaborate
with
them
and
to
let
us
be
part
of
this
I
think
we
want
to
be
sure.
As
you
said
earlier,
we
want
to
be
sure
that
this
kind
of
effort
gets
integrated
with
the
work
of
the
COC
and
doesn't
happen
kind
of
in
a
vacuum
separate
from
this
overall
systems.
Work
and
they've
been
really
wonderful
about
about
partnering
in
that
direction.
D
H
E
Just
a
clarifying
question
because
the
Durham
heart
program
runs
through
their
Community
safety
department.
I
heard
you
say
an
advanced
position
in
response
to
a
question
about
the
community
paramedics.
Could
you
explain
the
difference
between
the
two
and,
if
you've
identified
any
needs
in
those
gaps?
Yes,.
H
So
when
you
look
at
Medical
Services
the
EMS
Services,
you
have
a
basic
level.
You
have
an
advanced
level.
You
have
a
paramedic
level,
so
where
our
department
operates.
Is
that
that
middle
level,
once
you
get
to
the
paramedic
level,
those
are
they're
able
to
push
certain
drugs
and
do
certain
procedures
that
you
may
not
be
able
to
do
at
the
advanced
level.
A
L
Certainly
so
I
want
to
give
you
a
little
bit
of
background
on
this
priority
placement
addendum
for
a
domestic
violence
survivors.
L
As
you
know,
the
coordinated
entry
work
group
is
evaluating
every
kind
of
element
of
our
system
and
we'll
present
Hayak
with
recommendations
as
we
move
through
that
when
we
were
reviewing
the
policies
and
procedures
for
prioritization,
we
determined
that
the
current
policies
don't
account
for
The
Unique
needs
of
people
fleeing
domestic
violence.
Currently,
our
prioritization
is
based
on
length
of
time
homeless,
followed
by
the
vi.
Spadat
score.
L
So,
as
you
can
see,
folks
fleeing
domestic
violence,
don't
often
have
that
longest
length
of
time
homeless
due
to
the
nature
of
their
experience,
and
so
their
vulnerability
and
their
vulnerability
is
better
determined
by
the
danger
assessment,
which
is
a
national
tool.
That's
used
to
predict
lethality
risk
for
those
survivors,
so
our
COC
resources,
as
you
know,
include
rapid
rehousing
provided
by
helpmate
and
dedicated
to
survivors
of
domestic
violence
and
So,
currently
inflow
for
that.
L
L
The
work
group
looked
at
this
with
the
help
of
staff
and
developed.
This
new
suggested
priority
for
folks
fleeing
domestic
violence
and
Rapid
rehousing
that
is
dedicated
for
those
survivors,
and
so
first
priority
would
be
people
with
the
highest
danger
assessment
score
and
if
there
are
multiple
people
that
have
the
same
danger
assessment
score
than
the
second
priority
would
be
the
greatest
length
of
time
homeless,
measured
in
months,
followed
by
the
vulnerability
measured
by
currently
the
bi
spadat.
So
I
think
that
is
a
basic
overview.
F
D
L
L
J
Help
me
understand
this:
for
clarity
purposes.
Are
there
separate?
Is
that
a
separate
access
like
coordinated
entry
system
for
individuals
playing
domestic
violence,
where.
L
B
I
would
say
it's
more
like
a
lane
within
a
common
system,
a
common
coordinated
entry
system
where
eligibility
for
those
dedicated
projects,
those
projects
that
are
dedicated
to
people
fleeing
domestic
violence,
that
that
has
that
specific
eligibility
overlay.
But
it
is
integrated
with
the
whole
system.
J
L
Yes,
so
I
think
that
we,
the
coordinated
entry
work
group,
will
be
making
a
recommendation
at
some
point
in
the
future,
as
as
that
group
continues
to
do
their
work
that
may
adjust
prioritization
for
the
general
population
as
well.
It's
that
our
policies,
our
current
policies
and
procedures,
do
not
allow
for
this
unique
population
currently,
so
we,
the
group,
felt
the
need
to
implement
this
now,
so
that
we
have
it
and
can
continue
the
work
when
we
get
to
prioritization.
L
This
population
right
for
this
population,
they
are
being
considered
the
same
as
folks
that
have
a
long
period
of
time
homeless
and
that
doesn't
accurately
reflect
their
needs.
D
D
L
K
As
far
as
DV
versus
ipv,
so
in
the
like
HUD
category
for
homelessness,
which
you
all
know
all
about
so
I-
don't
need
to
bore
you
with.
That
definition
does
break
that
down
into
more
specific
subsets
as
far
as
human
trafficking,
sexual
violence
that
may
not
even
be
related
to
an
intimate
partner
but
as
helpmate
specifically
the
folks
Who,
provided
some
insight
and
guidance
around
this
interim
policy.
We
specifically
serve
victims
of
intimate
partner
violence.
K
So
our
organization
does
kind
of
sometimes
conflate
the
two
DV
versus
ipv,
but
to
be
specific,
we
do
support
specifically
victims
of
intimate
partner
violence,
and
so
there
there
are
some
I
guess,
there's
meaning
behind
those
those
definitions,
certainly,
and
the
way
that
this
shakes
out
and
I
guess.
K
There
is
further
clarification
around
the
fact
that,
like
the
danger
assessment,
score
does
need
to
be
administered
by
somebody
who
is
certified
to
be
able
to
not
only
you
know,
score
that
assessment
properly,
but
also
provide
accurate
safety
planning
based
off
of
how
they
are
scored
and
what
their
lethality
risk
is,
which
is
something,
of
course,
that
helped
me
all
of
our
staff
are
set
up
to
do
so
in
some
way.
I
guess
where
I'm
going
with.
K
That
is
that
they
will
be
unless
there's
cross-training,
which
is
part
of
our
goal
right
in
the
future
of
our
coordinated
entry
system
right,
so
that
more
folks
outside
of
help
me
have
the
ability
to
administer
the
danger
assessment,
but
they
would
have
some
sort
of
interaction
with
our
organization,
whether
it's
us
being
the
folks
who
are
presenting
them
in
our
coordinated
entry
meetings
or
or,
if
they're
being
referred
by
an
outside
organization,
which
is
not
uncommon
as
we
currently
are
operating
in
CE
I.
Don't
know
if
that
answers
your
question,
but
what.
D
D
K
A
J
K
So
that's
a
great
question.
I
wish
I
had
spit
like
a
reference
for
you,
I
think
that's
something
that
we're
still
actively
in.
We
haven't
even
really
gotten
to
that
point.
Yet
we're
still
on
the
access
chapter
of
Another,
One,
Jump,
Ahead,.
D
K
What
we
have
used
to
inform
this
interim
policy
is
what
we
see
currently
playing
out
in
our
COC,
which
is
that
the
HUD
definition
of
fleeing
and
attempting
to
flee
does
not
is
not
currently
reflected
or
supported
by
the
prioritization
as
it
stands
right
now,
because
also
as
HUD
defines
right,
somebody
who
is
in
a
unsafe,
you
know
their
primary
nighttime
residence
is
unsafe
due
to
an
abusive
partner
that
should
not
be
considered
safe
and
stable
permanent
housing
of
choice,
but
also
for
folks
who
have
recently
fled
right
their
length
of
time
homeless,
maybe
three
weeks
right,
but
their
lethality
risk
is
a
32
which
means
that
they're
at
the
at
the
top
right
in
terms
of
their
imminent
risk
to
their
physical
being.
A
It's
a
local
decision
regardless
so
does
the
does
the
coordinated
entry
work
group
support
this
yeah
just.
A
Any
further
discussion,
thank
you
experts.
All
in
favor
hi.
Can
you
post
all
right
work
group
progress,
coordinated
entry.
F
Okay,
so
we
just
did
the
DV
policy,
that's
one
of
the
things
that
we've
been
working
towards
as
an
accomplishment,
we're
also
currently
working
on
a
draft
for
Outreach
policy
and
how
that
feeds
into
coordinated
entry.
F
One
of
the
challenges
that
we
see,
and
one
of
our
upcoming
focuses,
will
be
to
work
with
the
Outreach
and
encampment
group
on
that
coordinated
entry
policy
for
outreach
specifically
around
what
practices
Outreach
will
take
that
will
feed
into
the
coordinated
entry
process
to
make
sure
that
individuals
who
are
not
currently
receiving
services
in
a
traditional
manner
will
have
the
same
opportunity
to
participate
in
that
process.
As
we
move
forward,
we
have
some
new
membership
with
lived
experience
and
specific,
as
well
as
some
coordinated
entry
experience.
F
We
are
currently
reviewing
information
of
the
sharing
agreement
and
I
believe
Charles
mentioned
that,
and
we've
done
consultation
to
overcome
Language
and
Cultural
access
barriers.
It's
been
a
really
big
conversation
about
the
lack
of
Equity
that
comes
up
and
the
fact
that
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
minorities
that
are
participating
in
the
coordinated
entry
system
at
present.
So
our
Focus
moving
forward
will
be
to
make
sure
that
we
do
look
at
that.
F
Equity
piece
and
coordinated
entry
potential
challenges
that
we
see
right
now:
language,
barriers
and
cultural
barriers.
Our
needs
our
partnership
in
underserved
communities
in
multilingual
Outreach,
marketing
efforts
in
multilingual
efforts
in
general,
and
we
will
be
looking
at
interacting
and
completion
of
tasks
that
involve
standing
work
groups,
completion
of
coordinated
entry
access
review,
which
we
hope
to
have
done
within
the
next
couple
of
meetings
and
begin.
Our
focus
on
our
assessment
and
then
prioritization
review.
A
A
With
their
process,
I
understand
get
some
kind
of
you.
J
We
have
continued
to
work
on
membership
board
appointments.
What
that
structure
will
look
like
reviewing
other
Charters
and
development
of
a
draft
Charter
for
this
group,
you
all
hear
a
presentation
in
just
a
moment
from
Rick.
Our
challenges
continue
to
be
very
similar,
which
is
numerous
options,
competing
priorities
and
differing
of
opinions,
but
it's
led
to
really
good
discussion.
J
M
Continuing
of
cares,
Federal
program,
community-wide
commitment,
full
membership
body
or
established
to
act
on
behalf
of
a
full
membership
lead
agency
selected
by
the
board.
We
started
with
the
board,
because
that
is
the
key
place
we
needed
to
have
agreement
and
we
needed
to
have
a
strategy
to
remind
you.
The
National,
Alliance
recommendation
was
formally
establishing
a
membership
body
of
stakeholders,
Community
engagement
and
ownership,
and
restructuring
the
board
outside
of
the
city
of
Asheville
and
Buncombe
County
Board
structure.
M
M
We
believe
that
the
Board
needs
to
be
filled
with
decision
makers
from
the
community
and
from
the
organizations
that
have
a
large
stake
in
making
this
happen,
and
you
don't
have
to
read
in
detail
all
the
stuff
in
the
top
blue,
because
I
want
to
break
that
down
into
the
left
and
the
right
as
I
go
on
to
the
next
stages.
As
a
reminder,
the
board
sets
policy,
creates
committees,
work
groups
as
needed,
monitors
the
progress
of
all
COC
activities
and
revisits
the
charter
on
a
regular
basis.
M
One
of
the
challenges
this
team
has
is:
we
are
reviewing
Charters
that
are
many
years
old
and
have
gone
through
dozens
of
improvements
over
the
lifetime
of
those
Charters,
whereas
we're
starting
fresh
and
we're
going
to
have
new
people,
and
that
that's
one
of
the
reasons
the
conversations
are
so
good
and
so
strong
all
the
COC
Charters
we've
reviewed
COC
is
where
recommendations
are
approved.
Clearly,
the
board
is
the
decision-making
body
that
takes
the
work
from
so
many
others
to
make
it
happen.
M
One
thing
that
is
clearly
different
from
this
than
the
way
Hayek
operates
today
is
the
sort
of
pink
box
around
the
whole
thing,
which
shows
that
everybody
who's
in
here
is
a
member
and
that
extends
to
Affinity
groups.
Individual
members,
all
the
cocs
that
we've
evaluated
and
their
Charters
make
a
big
effort
to
get
the
broader
Community
engaged
and
active
and
part
of
the
work
and
the
decision
making
and
that
sort
of
thing.
So
that's
that's
very
critical.
M
So
this
is
the
first.
This
is
just
the
left-hand
side.
Group
I
just
call
them
group
one
one
thing
I
want
to
make
clear
here
is
we
have
lots
of
debate
about
whether
we
would
name
an
organization
that
fulfilled
these
categories?
Like
the
name,
a
Faith
organization
or
a
business
Community
representation?
M
We
decided
as
a
team
that
we
needed
feedback
from
Hayak
and
the
public
that
these
were
the
right
types
of
organizations
to
lead
this,
and
then
we
and
after
we
received
that
then-
and
only
then,
would
we
start
our
Outreach
to
the
people
we
think
from
these
organizations.
Who
would
be
the
strong
leaders
that
are
necessary
to
really
make
this
work?
So
what.
M
M
M
Of
a
board
the
larger
the
group
gets
the
more
difficult
it
is
to
make
progress
and
to
get
things
done
and
I
think
we're
all
very
hopeful
that
we
can
recruit
people
who
can
dedicate
their
time
to
this,
and
we
can
take
action
and
make
the
changes
that
are
necessary
to
be
more
effective
quickly,
so
that
will
always
run
in
opposition
to
getting
a
board
that
begins
at
20
or
22
or
25
people.
Once
we've
conducted
interviews
with
candidate
organizations,
we'll
be
in
a
better
position
to
make
better
recommendations
on
that.
M
We
we
need
your
feedback
on
this
and
there's
the
questions
are
at
the
bottom.
That
you
should
consider
is
any
organization
missing
that
you
think
has
a
huge
impact
and
would
be
a
strong
decision
maker
in
this
third
thing.
D
G
M
Sort
of
opposite
of
the
first
question
who
might
be
missing?
Do
you
see
anybody
in
this
group
that
you
think
shouldn't
be
in
decision-making
category?
That
doesn't
mean
they
don't
contribute
because
they'll
be
committees
and
work
groups
and
hard
work
will
be
done
and
strong
recommendations
will.
C
M
And
those
won't
be
filled
by
board
members
alone.
Those
will
be
filled
by
experts
throughout
the
organization
and
then,
finally,
how
should
these
organizations
be
nominated
and
what's
the
electing
body
we
have
seen
in
our
studies
that
sometimes
the
board
does
the
electing
and
the
voting
and
we've
seen
also
other
cocs,
where
the
general
membership
is
part
of
the
electing
community.
M
M
Va,
of
course,
because
it's
a
big
part
of
our
community
County
City,
both
staff
and
elected
members,
and
specifically
there
one
of
the
things
we
need
feedback
on
for
elected
members
is
whether
they
should
vote
or
whether
they
should
simply
advise,
and
we
have
seen
both
examples
in
other
cocs
that
we've
evaluated
so
again.
Any
organization
missing
any
that
shouldn't
have
a
seat
at
this
time
and
then
your
feedback,
please,
on
voter
advice,.
M
And
so
we
will
then
go
out
and
have
these
conversations
and
see
if
we
can
get
the
decision
makers
of
the
quality
and
experience
that
we're
looking
for,
and
that
will
give
us
Clarity
on
who
our
first
group
of
candidates
would
be
for
the
board,
while
we're
waiting
for
those
meetings
to
proceed,
we're
going
to
start
doing,
work
on
committees
and
work
groups,
and
we've
done
some
of
that
work.
M
Since
we
finished
this
presentation,
we
had
another
meeting
and
we
we
got
to
some
committee
work
and-
and
we
have
done
substantial
work
on
the
full
Charter.
It's
kind
of
based
on
Houston's,
not
completely,
but
it
was
the
most
complete
of
the
three
that
were
recommended
to
us
and,
and
some
of
the
work
is
pretty
just
rope.
M
You
know
there
needs
to
be
certain
kinds
of
policies
and
procedures
that
I,
don't
think
will
be,
requires
much
debate
as
some
of
the
harder
work
that
we've
already
done
and
then
we'll
bring
it
all
back
for
feedback
and
about
questions,
feedback.
K
M
So
the
the
final
number
we're
sort
of
holding
in
reserve
until
we
start
to
get
feedback
from
the
candidate
organizations
and
see
what
their
enthusiasm
is
and,
frankly,
if
they're
willing
to
assign
a
decision
maker,
you
know
somebody
with
the
kind
of
not
only
ability
to
represent
their
organization
but
to
think
broader
and
to
then
pull
in
other
big
players.
Who
can
really
make
this
kind
of
thing
happen?
It's
going
to
be
a
tough
balance.
M
I
see
this
going
anywhere
between
15
and
25.,
and
the
good
thing
is:
is
it's
just
going
to
be
a
start
right?
If
we
put
15
people
in
place
who
are
motivated
to
do
this
one
year
later,
they
can
decide
to
make
it
23
or
12
or
whatever.
The
right
answer
is
anybody
else.
D
I
I
So
we
try
to
take
out
the
branding
of
adding
specific
organization
and
saying
that
they
were
going
to
be
represented
over,
let's
just
say
Asheville
in
general,
so
we're
trying
to
give
the
power
back
to
the
people
here.
So
we
took
out
all
the
names,
so
it's
it's
Asheville
so
now
Asheville
can
build.
Asheville
can.
A
All
right,
so,
are
there
any
comments
on
this
list
as
far
as
sort
of
General
types
of
members
that
should
be
included,
I,
don't
see
a
number
with
any
of
them.
Are
we
considering
multiple
individuals
with
lived
experience.
M
Again
that
all
of
these
faith-
community
community
members,
Supportive
Services
providers,
there
can
be
one
in
each.
There
can
be
three
in
each.
There
can
be
none
in
one
if
we
can't
find
the
right
people
to
do
the
work
or
willing
to
sign
up,
and
one
of
the
things
I
forgot
to
mention
I
had
never
put
in
my
slides-
is
that
anybody
who
is
a
member
signs
on
to
the
goals
of
the
COC
right,
so
the
goals
of
the
COC,
which
we've
started
through
all
of
the
work
that
Hayek
has
done.
M
You
sign
in
to
be
a
member.
You
commit
to
those
goals.
What
you're
there
for
is
to
help
us
reach
those
goals,
and
that's
where
the
debate
exists.
So
part
of
this
process
will
be
finding
people
who
will
agree
to
sign
up
to
those
goals
right
right
and,
and
so
we
need
people
who
are
all
in
and
that
will
determine
whether
there's
one
Community
member
organization
or
two
and
whether
there's
one
or
four
Supportive
Services
providers.
M
O
And
you
know,
I'll
withhold
most
of
my
feedback
until
I,
you
know
can
see
the
whole
policy,
but
I
do
I
think
this
is
a
wonderful
start
and
I
know
the
first
slide.
Had
it
had
work
groups
in
standing
committees
below
and
so
I
would.
O
My
feedback
now
would
be
to
go
with
a
smaller
board
in
light
of
what
you're
saying
about
how
difficult
it
is
going
to
be
to
get
started
in
identifying
these
people,
obviously
there'll
be
opportunities
to
amend
the
bylaws
and
find
gaps,
but
I
also
think
those
standing
committees
are
going
to
be
where
a
lot
of
the
work
is
done
right
when
you
think
of
the
new
board
not
having
so
many
service
providers,
but
rather
people
who
are
connected
to
decision
makers
able
to
help
us
bring
the
funding
that
we're
going
to
need
to
provide
the
services.
O
B
A
A
A
A
I
I
would
like
to
add
as
well
with
this
second
group
or
board.
There
were
some
issues
with
having
trust,
Etc
stakeholders,
Etc
donors,
voting
with
the
with
their
intent
or
positions
of
possibilities
of
looking
like
lobbyists.
I
We
didn't,
we
weren't
sure
that
others
would
allow
them
to
vote
or
want
them
to
vote.
Because
of
that
that
look
or
feel
we
already
have
a
government
that
looks
like
that
and
I
wasn't
sure
that
anybody
else
in
Nashville
would
like
that.
So
that
is
why
we
placed
those
with
opinions
who
would
like
to
donate
to
this
cause.
We
would
like
you
to
be
able
to
do
that,
but
I
don't
think
voting
is
proper
to
have
the
ability
to
do
both.
M
For
clarity,
we
didn't
we
left
that
as
an
open
issue
for
further
discussion.
There
was
definitely
opinions
on
both
sides
of
that.
So
when
we
come
back
after
we
have
talked
to
candidates
to
be
in
doubt,
I
think
we'll
be
in
a
better
position
to
know
what
it
will
take
for
them
to
make
an
impact
and
to
participate
and
we'll
bring
that
back
through
the
working
group.
A
Yeah
I
have
one
other
thought
just
on
in
terms
of
structure
processes
that
you
know
we
should.
We
should
have
a
governing
document
drafted
and
that
we're
comfortable
with
before
we
invite
new
people
to
participate
on
that
I
think
it's
important
to
have
it
in
place
and
have
those
things
settled.
D
A
A
A
But
I
I
mean
we
can
look
back
at
the
charter
for
the
work
group
to
make
sure
that
we're
being
consistent
with
that.
But
my
memory
at
the
moment
is
that
it
was
to
come
up
with
a
new
governing
document
so
and
you
may
want
some
additional
voices
and
or
additional
individuals
involved
in
that
recruitment
effort,
not
just
the
work
group.
A
All
right,
Outreach
and
enhancement.
B
Sorry
we
have
another
item
on
the
governance.
A
Work
group-
oh
okay,
I'm,
sorry,
appointment
of
a
new
work
group
chair
Jen,
is
stepping
down
from
the
work
group
and
from
the
Hayak
after
this
meeting.
Is
that
correct.
A
Work,
okay
and
I
believe
we've
talked
with
Lance
who's,
a
member
of
the
work
group
about
being
the
chair.
Do
you
all
have
any
questions
or
concerns
about
that
perfect,
so
I'll
make
that
motion
that
we
approve
Lance.
As
the
chair
of
the
governance
work
group,
a
second
all
in
favor,
aye
aye
any
opposed,
sorry,
Lance
Crawford.
If
there's
any
question
about
that,
Outreach
and
encampments.
O
So
we've
met
a
few
times
since
our
last
meeting
I
believe
three
separate
meetings.
It
has
been
a
difficult
process
with
some
setbacks,
some
of
them
just
you
know,
kind
of
wrangling
with
the
difficulties
of
having
a
policy
where
we
consider
telling
people
they
have
to
leave
their
homes
camps
and
some
of
just
the
the
practicalities
of
we
don't
have
all
the
decision,
makers
and
authorities.
So
a
lot
of
times.
O
O
We
have
a
group
that
is
really
passionate
about
this
work
and
coming
up
with
you
know,
policy,
that's
going
to
be
Humane
and
improve
things
for
our
community
and
I
do
think
some
of
the
disagreements
have
been
fleshed
out
and
and
identified.
So
we
are
behind.
O
September
is
going
to
be
difficult,
but
I
think
we
haven't.
We
have
four
parts
of
the
policies
and
some
of
them
have
been
drafted
into
policy
looking
documents
and
others
are
sort
of
more
ideas
and
principles.
O
So
my
hope
is
that
at
the
next
meeting
we
can
look
at
a
draft
that
those
those
things
can
be
tied
together,
I'm
thinking
about
trying
to
spend
some
time
next
week,
kind
of
putting
these
things
together
in
a
draft
and
and
identifying
where
we
agree
and
where
we
still
have
decisions
to
make
in
the
hopes
that
we
can
bring
something,
certainly
not
in
two
weeks,
but
something
to
the
Hayak.
A
So
I
have
a
suggestion,
since
I
just
mandated
your
deadline,
I
think
if,
if
it's
too
difficult
to
to
come
up
with
an
encampment
policy
and
how
it's
going
to
be
implemented,
I
would
encourage
the
work
group
to
focus
on
what
types
of
policies
you
would
like
to
see
in
a
final
encampment
policy.
A
So
things
like
we
believe
that
encampments
should
not
be
closed
until
there's
a
place
to
take
people
or
something
like
that,
and
not
not
worry
so
much
about
the
who's
going
to
do
it
or
how
it's
going
to
be
done
or
how
many
days
there's
going
to
be
given
for
this
that
or
the
other
thing,
but
focus
on
the
broad
principles
of
what
what
we
are
advocating
for
as
a
what
you're
advocating
for
as
a
work
group
and
I
think
I
know
that
there
are
some
complexities
around
public
land
versus
private
land
and
there's
not.
A
A
Owned
land,
so
those
are
just
suggestions
to
to
help,
and-
and
you
know
we
we
can
report
out
that
the
truth
is
this.
The
work
group
may
not
have
some
of
the
decision
makers
that
are
needed
to
really
Implement
who's
going
to
do
this,
and
how
are
we
going
to
do
it
and
if
it's
a
good
idea,
even
if
it's
workable
idea,
so
we
may
need
to
restructure
after
September.
A
Shelter
any
other
things
on
camera,
okay,
shelter.
We
have
a
recommendation
kind
of
long
and
I'm
not
going
to
read
it
but
I'll
I.
Will
it's
not
long?
It's
just
a
little
over
a
page,
but
the
the
lead
here
is
that
the
shelter
work
group
and
we
may
have
buried
it
in
the
document.
So
I
apologize
for
that.
But
the
shelter
work
group
is
recommending
two
things
that
we're
recommending
them
to
the
Hayak
and
if
you
approve
we'll,
we
will
all
be
recommending
them
to
the
city
and
county
and
Dogwood
Health
Trust.
A
The
long-term
thing
is
sort
of
toward
the
end
of
it,
but
I
want
to
highlight
that
that
we
are
recommending
a
an
ongoing
planning
process
for
a
new
housing.
First
focused
shelter
serving
Asheville
Buncombe,
so
that
that's
the
long-term
recommendation
and
there's
a
lot
more
work.
That
needs
to
happen
around
that.
The
short-term
recommendation
is
that
we
are
recommending
that
those
three
bodies
and
whoever
else
they
can
identify
to
collaborate
with
fund
up
to
1.75
million
dollars
to
secure
a
certain
number
of
beds
that
would
meet
our
needs.
A
This
will
be
operational
funding
for
the
most
part
and
it
will
create
a
58
new
beds,
which
is
not
our
goal
of
95,
but
it's
a
significant
chunk
or
move
in
that
direction.
A
It
will
support
both
existing
providers
and
a
new
group
that
has
been
developing
itself
over
the
last
couple
of
years
in
the
code,
purple
winter,
shelter,
space
and,
and
it
will
Preserve
30
existing
beds
at
the
Salvation
Army
that
are
currently,
the
funding
will
run
out
for
those
on
September
30th,
if
I'm,
if
I'm
correct
so
it'll,
be
the
58
new
beds,
plus
30
existing
that
were
originally
included
in
the
in
the
inventory
that
National
Alliance
did,
and
if
that,
if
those
are
funded,
my
understanding
is
the
Salvation
Army
believes
they
can.
A
They
can
without
additional
funding.
They
could
create
32
code
purple
bids
over
the
course
of
the
winter.
A
D
A
Into
the
details
in
more
detail,
we
have
the
different
agencies:
Salvation
Army,
the
safe
shelter
group
and
Haywood
Street
respite
those.
The
first
two
groups
are
are
proposing
to
provide
new
beds
and
and,
as
I
mentioned,
continue
existing
beds
at
Salvation
Army,
that's
primarily
operational
funding.
The
last
group
he
would
treat
respite
is
in
the
process
of
developing
three
new
beds.
A
G
One
comment
that
I
have
is
what
Tim
shared
at
an
earlier
highest
board
meeting,
which
is
where
Emergency
Shelters
stabilize
individuals,
so
they
can
make
the
choice
for
transitional
housing.
So
these
shelters
are
not
long
term.
They
are
more
emergency
room
and
also
can
you
share
the
per
diem
to
give
people
a
perspective
and
maybe
compare
that
with
others.
A
H
I
For
it,
I
think
we've
already
talked
about
this
for
the
Haywood
Street
respite
beds
in
the
package,
according
to
how
we
delegate
our
funds
from
the
way
we
have
talked
about
this
in
December.
All
of
our
packages
need
to
express
Equity
inclusion.
A
I
I
I,
don't
see
that
that
detail,
and
since
that
is
our
part
of
our
bylaws
and
how
we
decided
in
the
beginning
how
we
were
going
to
require
that
from
everyone
who
comes
to
the
table,
it's
not
there
and
I
think
that's
would
be
a
fair
assessment
for
everybody
who
comes
through
that
door
to
ask
us
for
anything.
Everybody
else
has
to
do
it
and
it's
not
done.
J
Don't
have
a
question
or
comment
around
more
just
number
two
I,
just
wonder
if
there's
an
ability
to
revise
that
to
just
be
funding
in
general
feels
a
little
remiss
to
only
list
those
three
when
there
are
potential
other
foundations
or
funders
that
could
support
in
our
community.
J
D
A
Trying
to
get
a
recommendation
to
these
three
groups,
specifically
for
shelter
beds,
that
we
hope
would
start
on
October
1,
so
I,
don't
know
that
we
will
have
a
lot
of
time
to
I
mean
certainly
we'll
accept,
or
the
groups
would
accept
funding
from
other
funding
sources,
but
I'm
not
sure
I
want
to
list
other
funding
sources
in
our
recommendation,
or
we
could
say
something
other
funding
sources
come
forward
willing
to
support,
I
mean
I,
don't
want
us
to
have
to
go
I,
don't
want
us
to
have
to
go
out
to
multiple
funding
sources
and
see.
A
A
I
everybody:
okay
with
that
yeah
go
ahead;
Laura
from
Haywood
Street
respite.
N
I
just
wanted
to
I
guess
offer
clarification
that
this
is
not
the
full
extent
of
The
Proposal.
We
had
a.
We
had
a
four
or
five
page
proposal
that
the
committee
reviewed
and
in
it
we
were
asked
to
comment
on
our
efforts
at
diversity,
equity
and
inclusion,
and
we
expressed
the
ways
in
which
we
are
implementing
different
types
of
training
for
our
staff.
All
of
our
staff
completed
the
DHHS
cultural
understanding,
cultural
humility,
training.
I
Thank
you
for
being
here.
Laura
I
appreciate
that
I
asked
Laura
to
be
here
yesterday,
because
I
I
wanted
her
to
speak
to
that
I
just
asked
that
it
be
somewhere
written
in
your
proposal,
because
I
I
intend,
for
others
to
have
that
written
into
their
proposal.
A
I
M
I
Yeah
I
think,
if
you
come
to
our
meetings
and
you
read
our
mission
statement,
then
you
know
that
when
you
submit
an
application
here
for
anything,
it
should
meet
our
requirements.
D
B
Know
what
this
makes
me
realize
is
that
a
Miss
on
my
part
is
that
we
should
have
included
the
proposals
from
these
three
parties
in
our
meeting
materials
to
accompany
this
work
group
recommendation.
The
kind
of
detailed
question
that
you're
asking
Elvia
is
the
right
kind
of
question,
and
it
is
part
of
what
the
work
group
did
in
their
review
of
the
proposals
that
they
received.
So
what
you're?
B
Getting
what
you
all
as
the
board
are
getting
is
kind
of
a
condensed
version
of
recommendations
from
the
work
group,
but
you
haven't,
haven't
had
the
opportunity
to
see
the
full
proposals,
but
the
work
group
has
has
filtered
through
exactly
those
kinds
of
things
that
you're
discussing.
A
So
I
guess
we
would
be
the
work
group
would
be
asking
for
Trust
on
a
couple
of
issues.
One
is
that
we
are
alert
to
those
issues
and
will
continue
to
be
alert
to
them
and
we'll
provide
you
with
copies
of
those
applications
if
you'd
like,
and
also
so
that
we
can
get
a
recommendation
to
the
city
and
county
and
Dogwood
before
the
end
of
this
month.
For
your
approval
of
this
recommendation
today,.
E
E
Okay,
so
that
made
me
think
of
our
covid-19
relief
funds
and
the
arpa
funds.
One
of
the
things
that
came
up
is:
should
we
consider
applications
that
we
knew
might
have
issues
with
our
non-discrimination,
ordinances
for
the
city
in
the
county,
and
so,
if
we,
if
we
were
more
explicit
in
our
language,
it
would
provide
accountability
at
the
front
end
that
we
could
use
throughout
the
process
when
we're
looking
for
those
Equitable
outcomes.
Absolutely.
I
E
I
E
I
A
Okay,
so
under
item
two
we're
asking
for
authorization
as
a
work
group
to
negotiate
final
budgets.
A
E
Could
those
could
there
be
a
language
about
agreeing
to
comply
with
the
city
of
the
county?
Is
non-discrimination,
ordinances.
A
D
A
If
that
satisfies
diversity,
equity
and
inclusion,
that's
that's
one
way
of
looking
at
it
and
you
know
in
a
the
an
equally
important.
A
Goal
for
us
is
to
make
sure
that
these
beds
are
as
low
barrier
as
possible,
which
you
know
so.
There
could
be
barriers
related
to
race
and
other
categories
that
we
need
to
make
sure
are
not
in
the
contracts
and
there
could
be
barrier
other
barriers
related
to
sobriety
or
some
other
and
and
we're.
We
will
definitely
make
sure
that
those
are
not.
Those
barriers
do
not
exist
for
these
beds.
Yeah.
E
I'm,
just
I'm
gonna
I'm
gonna
try
to
get
out
of
the
fluffiness
of
the
clouds,
and
just
really
like
speaking
from
my
heart,
for
a
minute
for
young
people,
that
I
know
when
I
talk
to
somebody
who's,
a
young
trans
person,
who's
experiencing
homelessness
and
they're,
not
going
inside,
because
there's
fear
about
not
being
welcome
and
also
if,
if
they
are
excluded
from
a
service,
it
makes
them
vulnerable
for
them
to
complain
and
to
use
our
own
complaint
processes.
So,
while
we
were
anticipating,
there
would
be
complaints.
E
I
Are
also
working
on
a
grievance
committee
as
well,
but
I
hear
what
you're
saying
yeah
with
respite
beds.
There
is
also
I
was
curious
as
to
whom
is
welcome
to
those
beds
as
well,
and
so
I
wanted
some
language
about
that
as
well.
M
M
M
B
I'll
just
say
again,
I
think
missed
on
my
part
to
not
include
the
actual
proposals
in
the
meeting
materials
and
but
I
will
remind
the
board
you
all
that
you
did
approve
the
request
for
partnership
that
went
out
to
seek
proposals
and
the
requirements
of
that
request,
for
partnership
were
to
provide
information
about
housing
first
and
about
equity
and
inclusion.
So
again,
the
work
group
did
review
those
materials
and
and
vet
some
of
those
pieces
that
you're
bringing
up.
O
J
I
didn't
object
or
have
any
objections
to
this
I.
Just
do
wonder
about
long-term
for
Hayak,
because
this
is
outside
of
budget
cycle
for
many
of
these
organizations
and
so
just
a
thought
for
the
future
about
how
this
committee
plans
to
consider
that
in
future
requests,
not
necessarily
for
today's
discussion,
but
just
a
comment
for.
A
All
right
funding
allocations,
I
think
Zero's.
Not
here
do
we
have
any
updates.
B
Yep
I'll
share
briefly
that
the
funding
allocations
work
group
is
actively
meeting
their
next
meeting
is
tomorrow
at
one
o'clock
in
person
here
at
City
Hall
on
the
sixth
floor
in
the
training
room
where
they
will
hear
presentations
from
ESG
applicants
and
begin
their
deliberation
about
recommendations
for
ESG
they'll
meet
again
next
week
to
finalize
those
recommendations,
and
then
ESG
recommendations
are
coming
from
the
funding
allocations.
Work
group
to
you
all
at
your
August
10th
meeting.
B
Continuum
of
Care
funding
competition
is
upon
us.
That's
how
it
feels
to
me
so
annually.
You
know,
as
you
know,
HUD
publishes
the
Continuum
of
Care
competition
that
has
just
come
out.
July
5th.
We
never
know
when
that's
going
to
come,
it
just
comes
so
it
has
come
July
5th
and
the
funding
allocations.
Work
group
will
also
be
handling
the
Continuum
of
Care
process
very
similar
to
the
ESG
process,
meaning
they
will.
We
staff
will
facilitate
notice
to
the
community
which
we've
done
all
the
materials
are
up
on
our
website.
B
B
Today,
so
you
can
see
the
funding
availability
there.
We
are
our
annual
renewal
demand,
which
means
if,
if
our
current
funding
was
renewed
at
100,
we
would
be
eligible
for
just
over
1.8
million
dollars.
B
Hud
every
year
announces
through
the
notice
of
funding
opportunity,
the
percentage
of
that
annual
renewal
demand
that
is
available
in
tier
one
this
year.
That's
93
what
that
means
in
layman
terms,
it's
very
complicated
money.
What
that
means
in
layman
terms
is
that
we're
highly
likely
to
receive
all
of
the
projects
that
are
in
tier
one,
so
highly
likely
to
receive
the
93
of
our
renewal
amount
that
other
seven
percent
of
funding
will
fall
into
tier
two,
which
is
much
more
competitive
across
the
country.
It's
scored
differently.
B
The
scoring
in
tier
two
relates
directly
to
the
overall
performance
of
our
Continuum
of
Care,
not
only
the
quality
of
those
project
applications,
but
the
overall
system
performance
within
our
COC
additionally
to
be,
if,
if
we
are
competitive
and
are
awarded
those
tier
two
funds,
We
additionally
want
to
be
competitive
in
order
to
have
a
chance
at
increased
funding.
Increased
funding
comes
through
bonus
projects
and
you
can
see
the
amounts
that
are
that
we're
eligible
for
there.
B
A
Continuum
of
Care
bonus
project
is
the
same
eligibility
as
all
of
our
current
renewals,
all
kind
of
all
Continuum
of
Care
funds,
and
then
the
domestic
violence
bonus
is,
of
course,
specific
to
projects
that
serve
people
who
are
fleeing
domestic
violence
or
survivors
of
domestic
violence
and
then,
lastly,
we're
eligible
for
a
non-competitive,
collaborative
applicant
planning,
Grant,
and
so
the
city
is
eligible
for
that.
That's
essentially
admin
money
that
comes
along
with
the
the
overall
funding,
but
isn't
part
of
that
ranked
or
evaluated
process.
G
B
Absolutely
again,
Federal
funding
is
complicated
funding
and
we
want
in
our
division.
We
want
to
be
sure
that
people
have
the
tools
and
resources
in
order
to
understand
how
to
access
that,
and
we
want
to
be
a
help,
so
yeah
definitely
want
to
make
those
opportunities
available.
B
Letters
of
intent
to
apply
are
due
on
August,
9th
and
then
project
applications
are
due
August
23rd
funding
allocations.
Work
group
will
hear
presentations
from
applicants
on
August
29th
and
then
deliberate
make
their
recommendations
at
a
subsequent
meeting
that
is
scheduled
but
is
not
listed
here
and
I,
don't
remember
the
date
and
then
they
will
make
recommendations
to
you
all
at
a
September
12th
meeting
I
had
reached
out
to
you
all
about
ensuring
that
we
have
that
September
12th
meeting
when
HUD
publishes
the
notice
of
funding
opportunity.
B
There's
a
firm
deadline
which
you
can
see
there
is
September
28th
and
also
there
are
specific,
specific
timeline
requirements
in
that
nofo.
So,
for
example,
we're
required
to
let
project
applicants
know
what
your
decision
is
about
their
funding
recommendation
at
least
15
days
prior
to
that
final
submission
deadline.
So,
for
that
kind
of
reason
we
had
to
we
had
to
back
out
back
out
our
dates
based
on
those
nofo
requirements,
which
is
why
we
requested
that
meeting
of
the
board
on
September
12th.
A
A
There
is
a
this
is
just
information
for
right
now,
but
there
is
one
thing
that
we
need
to
kind
of
decide
and
that
is
or
we
don't
have
to,
but
our
normal
meeting
would
be
September
14th.
We
need
to
do
it
a
couple
days
earlier
to
meet
the
HUD
deadlines
and
we
definitely
need
to
have
a
quorum
at
that
September
12th
meeting
it's
going
to
be
critical
so,
but
the
so.
A
A
All
right,
our
next
meeting
is
in
two
weeks:
August
10th.
There
will
also
be
some
important
items.