New Mexico Balance of State

Impartial Review Committee Meeting

Monday, August 8, 2016

Meeting Minutes

Committee Members: Henrietta Correa, Anita Dunmar, Kevin Hoover, Cynthia Melugin, Angela Merkert, Natalie Michelback, Eva St. John

Staff (non-voting): Hank Hughes, Rada Moss

  • The meeting began at 12:10 p.m.
  • Tier 1 funding ends at $4,460,471. Tier 2 funding ends $5,036,016. The projects should be scored by Tier 1 and Tier 2 rankings and according to Renewal and New projects. The committee began by reviewing renewal projects that scored the lowest.
  • The most troubled program is Hoogan Hozho by Care 66. The program spent its service money before the project started while also admitting ineligible participants into the program.
  • The committee agreed not to fund the $66,708 renewal request.
  • Youth Shelters and Family Shelters, and the Dream Tree were too new to evaluate. Both were not able to access their funds until June 2016 even though they were granted new funding in 2015.Care 66 is not renewing their Transitional Housing project this year, but instead requesting a new permanent housing project in its place.
  • HMIS/Coordinated Assessment
  • The amounts stay the same and are not adjusted from last year to this year.
  • Natalie Michelback explained that there was much discussion within the Special Review Committee, which she also served on, to recommend placing HMIS in Tier 1and Coordinated Assessment in Tier 2 so that more Rapid-Rehousing projects could be in Tier 1.
  • The committee members decided that placing Coordinated Assessment in Tier 2 might backfire since it is now a required part of the CoC. One committee member was worried that since all new entries into housing must go through Coordinated Assessment, a cut to Coordinated Assessment could make it harder for people to access the housing programs.
  • The committee decided to place both Coordinated Assessment and HMIS in Tier 1 near the bottom for probable funding.
  • It was noted that the new Mesilla Valley grant covers CAS for the southern portion of the state while the NMCEH CAS grant covers the northern part of the state.
  • New Projects
  • There was much discussion about the CARE 66 new project, but given the problems that CARE 66 is having placing eligible clients into any of its housing and the problems with the Hoogan Hozho project, the committee decided not to include the new CARE 66 permanent housing project.
  • In order to make all other new projects fit within the funding available, the committee lowered the request of Navajo United Methodist Centeras it was the lowest ranked new project.
  • Hank explained that new projects could be ranked anywhere and did not necessarily have to go in Tier 2.
  • Tier 2 Decisions
  • The committee next worked on ranking the projects into Tier 1 and Tier 2. The Chuska new project is a reallocation and was allowed to keep its original score in Tier 1. All projects were placed in order by overall score, with the adjustment that DV projects scores were adjusted up by 10 points to make them on the same scale as the other projects. The projects that just started, HMIS and Coordinated Assessment were given a score of 27.5 to place them at the bottom of Tier 1. The projects going into Tier 2 were thus:
  • Casa Milagro (portion)
  • Mesilla Valley III
  • Lifelink E
  • New Projects (except for Chuska in Tier 1)
  • Hank explained that some of the new projects will have to be reallocation projects and some labeled as bonus projects but that that this distinction would not affect the ranking. He also explained that the necessity of fitting the new projects into one or the other might make it necessary to move a few thousand from one new project to another so that all the projects fit exactly into one of the other. The final project listing will include this adjustment. The committee asked that Hank send them the final project listing with the adjustments for their final approval by email.
  • Cynthia made a motion to accept the rankings as noted above and shown in the attached ranking chart; Natalie seconded the motion. The motion passed.
  • There was a concern and discussion to provide technical assistance and a sustainability plan for Gallup for appropriate service provision.
  • The committee also expressed concern that many projects were returning funds to HUD at the end of the grant periods and that some projects cost effectiveness was not very good. These are issues that may be looked at even more closely next year
  • The meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m.

Minutes respectfully submitted by Rada Moss

1