Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFMCoC+CES+Management+Entity-+Selection+Process 1 FMCoC CES Management Entity Selection Process O VERVIEW The Fresno-Madera Continuum of Care (FMCoC) met and decided that the Fresno Coordinated Entry System need a designated management entity that would be responsible for the day-to-day operation of coordinated entry, recordkeeping documentation, technology, and other infrastructure that supports the implementation of coordinated entry at the CoC or homeless system level. In preparation for soliciting applicants, the FMCoC created a “Description of Staffing and Responsibilities” that outlined the exact number of positions and types of roles they saw as necessary to fulfill the responsibility of the management entity. To that end, they determined that the FMCoC CES should be managed by an entity that included housing matchers to process match referrals and conduct case conferencing; CES trainers to conduct ongoing CES trainings and develop expertise with the existing CES policies and procedures; data analysts to review data entry into the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS); and system administrators and coordinators to track and report the status of each client and to ensure the day to day management of the system and its continued successful growth is possible. The FMCoC put out a request for statements of interest that were due Jun e 25, 2021. Three applicants submitted statements of interest: RH Builders, Poverello House and Westcare. Since there was more than one statement of interest, the FMCoC decided to move forward with a full RFP. R EQUEST FOR P ROPOSALS A request for proposal was released on Friday, July 8th and proposals were due July 28th. Only projects that submitted a statement of interest were eligible to apply. All three applicants who submitted a statement of interest applied: RH Builders, Poverello House and Westcare. They responded with essays and supporting documentation on the following topics: (1) Recruiting and Hiring, (2) Coaching, Management and Training, (3) Financial Capacity and Control, (4) Community Coordination and Training (5) Housing Identification and Referrals, (6) Prioritization, Matching, and Referrals, (7) Data Quality and Reporting, and (8) Audit Results. There was also a 5 point bonus if the project was able and willing to provide up to 25% match for the funds. A panel of three non-conflicted members of the FMCoC met on Wednesday, August 4th to review and rank the applications. All three applications scored highly and showed promise for being selected. The panelists did a thorough and thoughtful review of all materials using the eight scoring criteria topics. Ultimately, Poverello House scored the highest and is therefore recommended to be the CE Management Entity. If the board confirms the recommendation, Poverello House will apply in the 2021 NOFA CoC competition as a new CE project in order to receive the funds necessary to operate as the Management Entity. The panel requested that the Poverello 2 House is recommended with a request to ensure that the primary position of CES Administrator is filled by one FTE person and not comprised of two part time people. The total budget for the Poverello House CE ME design is $773,879.32 which includes a 25% match they have secured. A DDITIONAL I NFORMATION - SUMMARY OF APPLICATIONS WestCare had a total proposed budget of $875,000 ($700,000 with $175,000 match). The WestCare proposal demonstrated strengths in hiring and recruiting and demonstrated experience with the CES by describing how they have had a contract to provide a Housing Matcher and Community Coordination sinc e 2015. They provided an audit with some findings, but a correction action plan was completed. While they cited to 25% match, it was unclear where the match would come from and how/whether it would support the project. The review committee members noted that their training program and process could have been clearer with details and would have liked to see more specific details around timelines for their community coordination and housing identification plan. Elevate Community Services had a proposed budget of $835,319 (no match included - 25% of this amount would need to come from the jurisdictions). The proposal demonstrated that they have strengths in their hiring and training planning, and could be especially skilled at housing identification through landlord engagement initiatives and relationship-building. Review committee members noted that the budget submitted was much higher than the budgets for the other two proposals, and that the budget submitted did not include match, which would make the budget even higher once obtained. Additionally, Elevate Community Services is a newer organization, so they did not yet have an audit, or as much as Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) experience as the other two applicants, though they did demonstrate an understanding throughout the application of how important both qualitative and quantitative data is when running a Coordinated Entry project. The Poverello House proposal obtained high scores for most essay narratives, especially in the Community Coordination and Training section and in the sections related to recruitment and hiring. Poverello House made it clear they hire people from diverse backgrounds and experiences, have a lot of experience using HMIS, and made it clear they have experience doing much of the work outlined in the Request for Proposal. Poverello House’s budget was the clearest of the proposals, especially in its description of match and how that would be used to support the project. The Review committee also felt the budget was the best value of the three proposals. However, Poverello House’s proposal included that the Coordinated Entry Administrator position would be split by two employees at half - time each. Although the Request for Proposal did not require that the Coordinated Entry Administrator position be filled by one person, the Review committee had a lot of concern about there not being one main CES administrator who could spend 100% of their time on this project. During a call with Poverello House and the Review committee t hey said they were open to changing this aspect of the application and assigning this role to one employee rather than splitting it between two, so this concern was absolved and is included as a recommendation by the Panel as part of the funding recommenda tion.