Funders Group
Funders Group Meeting Summary
Funders Group Present:
Emily Leslie
Andrew Lofton
Kathy Gerard
Jason Johnson (for
Catherine Lester)
Sara Levin
Andrew Lofton
Stephen Norman
Steve Walker
May 5, 2014
Funders Group absent:
Adrienne Quinn
Alice Shobe
Arthur Sullivan
Deborah Doyle
Others Present:
Mark Putnam, Gretchen Bruce, Rebecca Laszlo, Greg Ferland, Katy Miller, Cheryl Markham
Jason provided hardcopy early look at Seattle HSD planning numbers, and will email them to funders.
NOFA priorities – Check Back
Document Recording Fee Impact Analysis and Response
Katy provided an update on the impact of the Document Recording Fee (DRF), reflecting recent analysis.
 DRF changes impacts King County as follows: 38% of state portion of fee to go to private landlords,
decreasing the Consolidated Homeless Grant (CHG) which mostly goes to fund ES and TH. Net CHG
shortage estimated to be $465K out of a total $1.5MM set aside for private/for-profit landlords.
 King County, along with Snohomish and Pierce Counties, met with Commerce on 4/21.
 A response might be to shift $465K from non-time limited housing (taken from our local DRF). This
would require those projects to adopt the stricter CHG guidelines.
 If we shift funds, we would deplete our rental assistance funds and thus would need to focus more of
our other funds toward rental assistance.
 Such a shift might reflect and essential shift for us; local recording fees were intended to be for nontime-limited housing funds.
Legal opinions sought:
o It was observed that the private landlord portion lacks support services funds for the people
placed in housing. We [who?] are seeking a legal opinion on this.
o The legislation doesn’t allow utilities to be part of the rental payments. Are looking for a legal
interpretation to include utilities, if possible.
Representatives of the landlord association that brought forward this legislative change have reached out to
CEH. We will try to maintain a more year-round touch with them, rather than last-moment interactions prior to
legislative sessions.
NOFA Priorities, next steps, and moving forward
All funders confirmed that the combined NOFA edits included in the FG packet satisfy everyone’s concerns.
YES: everyone, except Arthur noted one minor FHI item to clarify: the 75% credit application wording implies
they should apply for the credit, but in fact it’s not necessarily the case.
2015 Planning
The goal of today’s discussion is planning around funding, based on the system map. Funders asked to review
the information in hand, and “is there a better way for our investments?”
Actuals data is updated for 2013 (pulled March/April), but it lacks Capital dollars and some of the Fall projects
that came together. Future funding cliffs outlined in the CLIFFS section.
Observation on the funding levels: If indeed we’ve been spending $146K/year for 8 years, that’s over $1B spent
(not even including Capital) to end homelessness, and we still have as many homeless people as before. In the
past eight years, we’ve served around 40K people to the point of exiting homelessness. Numbers served are
much higher than that. The money is likely still well spent – it saves society much more money than spent; but
serving the people who fail to exit homelessness is where the biggest social costs lie.
2-FG Summary 3-24-14
In the packet, the last page provides a framework for the priority discussions. It contains four boxes: CEH
investment priorities on the bottom; areas for aligning systems is on the top; left side has funder priorities and
policy.
Regarding Funder Policy and Leadership, each agency was asked to describe the priorities within their own
agencies and identify funding alignment ideas. Each agency provided this information:
UWKC
Coming to the end of their budget cycle; new budget in place effective 7/1/14. They expect their
budget to remain FLAT.
Priority: Youth, funds raised from softball game; proceeds likely to net $650K.
Priority: Crisis Response. No new money, but they might shift some funds from healthcare
serving general populations into homelessness work.
Priority: They have more money available for Chronic Homelessness, though no new funding
expected. Cliff expected 2020.
Will apply for Foster Youth and Homelessness from Federal HHS. Some new money possible
from this.
Bellevue
Have identified their funding focus areas (just published… 25% is toward homeless). Are now
starting their budgets (which are aligned by priorities).
General funding is through funding formula based on inflation and population growth… expecting
an extra $100K.
Priority: housing and related services
Priority: eastside winter shelter must be adequately funded for the next couple of winters.
Other NE
Cities
King
County
They are getting big requests for expansion of winter shelter and for day services.
Emily predicts the north/east cities other than Bellevue to be FLAT.
Funding expected to be largely FLAT overall.
Pressures in the Youth Action Plan; Councilmember Dembowski will look for general money for
youth, which may expand YYA but result in decreases in other areas.
KC Exec wants alignment of funding – where it’s going and where’s the need – could correct
skews geographically.
Transformation Plan: part might be beneficial to 10YP (one is geographic strategy, the other highuse individuals). Will focus on the handoffs.
Raikes
Foundation
Adrienne reports that Katie Hong and Tricia Raikes met with Jeff Raikes but still might be a netneutral shifting of Raikes funds. “Robbing Peter to pay Paul”.
KCHA
Funding will remain FLAT YoY, but is significantly below pre-sequestration levels.
Looking at the RRH Pilot to see if they can get more done with less and reduce need of Section 8
Priority: Step Down for YA
Looking to move DV vouchers to a more flexible approach (shorter term solution).
How vouchers are used are based on collective community priorities. For example, could HASP
help with long term stayer SA. Family conversions to Transition in place might help with the
Hearth act, but it won’t free up much dollars. Trying to fold in some operations in with capital
dollars.
2-FG Summary 3-24-14
ARCH
Seattle
Office of
Housing
Since they fund Capital projects, they don’t have much to say about services spend.
Nonetheless, ARCH doesn’t look at income levels so much as population goals (like: disabled
seniors). Are on track with their targets at this point.
OH thinking about new capital dollar directions.
OH is hoping to set an affordability agenda with the mayor. Want to frame it with the data
perspective. Expecting to focus on 60% AMI and below.
They may try guarantee programs etc.
They have insufficient funds for the service subsidy on 30% AMI projects.
Unaware if the levy funds that feed 30% AMI funds can be repurposed to others.
Seattle
Human
Services
Dept
When must preparations be done for the next levy? By January 2015 likely to start with focus
groups and some communications. Higher expected voter turnout in Nov. ’16 election might help
campaigning, plus this mayor brings has new energy toward affordability issues.
They’ve been told to expect flat funding, but anticipating Council advocacy to add to it.
Internal tension exists with the Aging and Disability Services department. Summer decisions
expected which could change staffing, programming, and state resourcing.
Youth and Family Empowerment Division might be impacted by moving Office of Education and
Early Learning as a separate entity. Currently this group sits within HSD. Some early learning
programs for homeless families live in HSD now.
Significant reductions possible to compensate for McKinney disinvestments in service-only
projects. McKinney gap issue being looked at - $5M gap annually to services-only programs that
are important (like: PROYouth, Respite, and Child care services). The City might put more money
into the programs so they aren’t defunded by McKinney. There are six service-only programs that
really serve county-wide, not just city of Seattle.
HSD will try to be involved in Outcomes Framework to anticipate changes earlier.
Priority: Homeless population will be targeted by food programs.
Priority: DV and sexual assault prevention to be a focus next year.
Priority: to align efforts with King County. They have an urgency: Last year for first time funded
52% from General Fund. By not using as many other funding sources they are at increased risk.
Building
Changes
Steady services grants likely for next 3 years, predictable and flexible, though slightly decreasing
in their amounts. (System Innovation Grants).
SHA
If we go back to 2015 Legislature for funding we’ll ask for $6M statewide new funds
Not expecting many funding or priority changes.
Very interested in outcomes from Youth work and RRH work. Hoping it will suggests options they
can build to.
Cliff ahead is extreme for SHA (same as for KCHA).
Are looking at a new rent policy for public housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs. May
bring these forward by late summer for feedback. Two likely flavors: time-limited flat rents, or
graduated rents with a cap. Motivation: get more throughput in the units, to serve more people.
Other
Seattle
issues
The new Seattle voter districts are already resulting in some new political posturing
2-FG Summary 3-24-14
Affordable
Healthcare
Act issues
We’re not hearing anyone talking about funding caused by affordable care. Short term we expect
the situation to be far worse, because state dropped MHSA funding to offset new Medicaid
eligibles. We expect there will be increased rates of boarding in hospitals and less detox and MH
treatment.
Types of systems that are Medicaid reimburseable are smaller facilities. Are there ways to do
more with smaller facilities to get more wraparound services? Clients themselves want residential
programs to also be in their local systems.
On the other hand, Alice notes that the Healthcare Authority is getting traction and attention
Funders Group identified the following Opportunities:
 Figure out substance abuse treatment on demand.
 Stay involved with the Healthcare Authority, since it’s gaining traction and attention.
 Target 811 Vouchers toward homeless populations?
Funders Group identified these next steps to finding solutions:
 Are we spending the right amount per population?
 What are solutions for funding cliffs? What’s most important, and can we do fund swaps?
 The best plans get derailed if providers don’t agree with it. Maybe use August IAC meeting as a retreat
to help gain provider input into the funding decisions.
 FHI information gathered this month really crystallizes the decisions and choices that must be made.
Tools like theirs might help this discussion. Selected providers need to be asked to take the lead.
 August IAC is too late for KG budget and for helping the termination of the one-time homeless youth
projects.
 7/4/14 city and county budgets will be done. So August way too late.
 Data is best way to shore up the Council.
 Catherine facilitated a provider meeting last week in hopes of shoring up a collaboration with providers.
 Who should be involved in Committee data discussions related to McKinney gaps addressing servicesonly programs?
 Let’s have a Funders meeting without delay assuming similar priorities, and seek funding for servicesonly.
June 2nd FG Meeting – cancelled – other time?
On the agenda:
DECISION: hold an early June meeting (date TBD) and skip July 7 meeting. Lead: Putnam, Bruce
Old items:
 McKinney Services Only Projects – HUD’s de-prioritization of SSO projects and local response
 CEH infrastructure needs / funding – staffing, communication, capacity building projects
 Coordinated Entry & Assessment – Deadlines for implementation and funding sustainability
2-FG Summary 3-24-14