1. 2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY COC EVALUATION INSTRUMENT Abt Associates and CSH

2. Introduction  Why CoC’s, including LA, need to conduct a performance evaluation  HEARTH Act requirement  Objective analysis of which programs are HEARTH ready  Assistance can be offered to those that are not prepared for the HEARTH Act  Community examples of Performance Evaluation impact  Chicago CoC  Indiana BoS

3. Overview of Evaluation Instrument  Overview of 2012 Process  Simple application  Baseline data (APR) used for all programs  Time constraints due to HUD TA  Future Applications  More in-depth analysis  Desire from stakeholders for more sub-population comparisons (youth, DV, etc.)  Ability to track improvement (vs. 2012 application)

4. Overview of Evaluation Instrument Timeline  July / Early August  Collection and analysis of APR data  Mid-August  Preliminary release of draft evaluation results, training on results  August 24th  Appeals Due  Sept. 17 th  Final results released

5. Overview of Application Scoring Program Design/Continuum of Care Integration 0% Target Population 15% Organizational Capacity/Past Performance 60% Program Budget/Cost Efficiency/Financial Stability 15% Regional Capacity Building 10% Total100%

6. Section 1: Program Design and CoC Integration  Questions are designed to encourage national best practices and their integration into a program’s design  Not all programs will qualify for every question— application is not designed for anyone to get 100 points  Questions in this section are not scored in 2012  Providers should consider how they will integrate these best practices into their program for 2013

7. Section 2: Target Population  Designed to assist programs serving chronically homeless individuals  Programs with 50% or more of their total client population demonstrating chronic homeless characteristics will receive 15 points  Definition of an absolute measure vs scored by quartiles

8. Section 3: Organization Capacity and Past Performance  System-wide measures:  Note about DV providers  HMIS bed / unit participation  HMIS data quality  Program measures  Broken down by program type PH S+C TH SSO

9. Section 3: Organization Capacity and Past Performance  PH and S+C  Exits to PH destinations Explanation and background  PH retention Explanation and background  Length of Participation in program “Moving On”, not scored  Increased or maintained income Calculation and background

10. Section 3: Organization Capacity and Past Performance  Transitional Housing  Exits to PH destinations Calculation and score  Permanent Housing Retention Score and methodology  Length of Participation in Program Explanation and background  Increased or maintained income Score and methodology

11. Section 3: Organization Capacity and Past Performance  Supportive Service Only (SSO)  Exits to PH destinations Calculation and score  Permanent housing retention Scoring and methodology

12. Section 4: Program Budget/Cost Efficiency/Financial Stability  Question 1: Bed / Unit Utilization  Importance of high bed occupancy  Ways to improve utilization for next years application  Question 2: Spending Down Previous HUD Awards  Importance nationally of spending down awarded money  Ways to amend your contract if your award is too high

13. Section 5: Regional Capacity Building  Geographic need is calculated by dividing the total number of homeless persons by SPA, as found in the most in the most recent Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count, by the amount of emergency, transitional, and vacant permanent supportive housing by SPA.  Programs will be awarded points based on which SPA they are located in based on LAHSA’s records.

14. Questions about Application