From what I’ve observed, the Homelessness Planning Council (HPC) is struggling to assert itself against Metro and the Office of Homeless Services (OHS). The distrust between the two entities has become palpable, and Metro seems to do all it can to shift the power in its favor.
Ultimately, the ones who suffer and lose in the midst of these clashes over policy matters are the people who are trying to survive on the streets and in shelters.
HPC members for years have felt they had no real say over any resources, which they concluded ultimately renders them powerless. I believe that the HPC has enough tools to hold its members, including — and especially — the Office of Homelessness and Metro accountable.
Distrust on both sides
OHS and the HPC are expected to work closely together to strengthen our local homelessness crisis response system. But let me back up.
The HPC was created in 2018 to move from a bifurcated governance structure with two separate boards — one staffed and housed within Metro, the other at the Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) — and both tasked to build a system capable of preventing and ending homelessness for residents in Nashville-Davidson County.
The two boards, one called the Metropolitan Homelessness Commission, the other the Continuum of Care (CoC) Governance Board, formed a working group to marry the interests of Metro while integrating the federal requirements of the CoC and create a unified backbone agency to address homelessness in Nashville more efficiently. The conversation stretched over months to ensure that the governance structure maintains its integrity and continues to meet federal requirements.
Recently, specifically since Metro’s investment of $50 million from the federal American Rescue Plan (ARP), the community observed a power shift away from a collaborative effort to an environment where Metro hired outside consultants and increasingly exercised power by intimidating nonprofit agencies it funded when their staff was voicing criticism of how Metro went about closing large encampments. During that time, the Metro Council formed a separate department called the Office of Homeless Services (OHS), which directly reports to the Mayor’s Office.
Under current Metro leadership, transparency steadily evaporated, with nonprofit and other government agencies often being left out of the planning and coordination process that OHS is supposed to lead.
Why the HPC does not function like a regular Metro Board
When the HPC was formed, it was anchored within Metro. I like the term that the CoC’s strategic plan uses to describe it as a quasi-Metro entity because ultimately, its duties are outlined by federal regulations.
The Metro Charter calls it an independent board, stating that “The Nashville Davidson County Continuum of Care Homelessness Planning Council shall serve as an independent body and shall be empowered to make decisions and recommendations as the governance board for the Nashville-Davidson County Continuum of Care, as required by 24 C.F.R. Part 578.”
That last part, namely “24 C.F.R. Part 578,” refers to the federal regulation that governs the Continuum of Care (CoC) Program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which among other things require the CoC to promote a communitywide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness, to quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families while minimizing trauma, to promote access and effective utilization to mainstream programs, and to optimize self-sufficiency. Because the HPC is housed within Metro, government rules such as the state’s open meetings act or that Metro Council members appointed to the HPC serve in an ex-officio capacity apply. All this technical governing language boils down to two facts:
- The HPC does not have hiring and firing power over the OHS director as other Metro boards and commissions do; and
- The HPC has no oversight or input in OHS’ budget, which has grown to over $18 million in the current fiscal year, from roughly $2 million in 2021.
I looked at other community boards that are tasked to hold Metro departments accountable, including the Metro Human Relations Commission (MHRC) and the Community Review Board (CRB), to compare them to the HPC.
As a quick sidenote, the MHRC’s responsibilities include resolving complaints and offering educational programming related to discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, financial services and commercial transactions, the provision of public accommodations and the provision of city activities and services. They are currently investigating OHS.
The CRB’s function is to “strengthen the relationship between citizens and the department of police; to ensure the timely, fair, and objective review of citizen complaints while protecting the individual rights of police officers; and to make recommendations concerning citizen complaints to the chief of police.”
Both the MHRC and CRB often take critical stances against other Metro entities — and because of that can be viewed as activist boards by other Metro departments. Both of them have a Metro budget and Metro staff they oversee. The HPC, as we have already established, has neither.
The Powers of Metro
Calling the HPC a Metro board has blurred the boundaries between how much oversight Metro has in terms of how the HPC functions as opposed to this being an independent community board as required by federal regulations.
I often wonder why this even matters. But when you look at homelessness funding available to nonprofits, Metro clearly controls the largest amount with its $18-million budget.
In comparison, the CoC as a whole currently receives just under $12 million in federal dollars, which are disbursed through direct contracts between HUD and each agency. The HPC has some oversight over only about $755,000 of CoC funds, which are allocated to the CoC Lead agency, which is [the Office of Homeless Services.]
Those $755,000 are supposed to be used by OHS for planning purposes and to manage the HMIS database and Coordinated Entry (CE) process. However, earlier this month, OHS surprised the HPC by deciding not to apply to the HMIS or CE funds. This move, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing, as OHS claims that they would make up for the loss of nearly $300,000 by paying for it out of their Metro budget.
Sounds great, right?
The problem that HPC members voiced in no uncertain terms is that OHS has made it abundantly clear in the past that they (the HPC) do not have any control over Metro money, and also that there was ample time to bring this change and proposal before the HPC to fully discuss it rather than spring it on them at the last minute.
But that has been a pattern by OHS, which last year also sent an after-hours email to HPC members the evening before an early morning meeting where the HPC was prepared to vote on updated CE policies. In that email, OHS essentially wanted to make significant changes to the policy to benefit Metro.
OHS requires nonprofits to participate in CE when they award a grant, but OHS takes itself out of the CE process whenever it suits their director to do so. That has caused a lot of tension in the community because systems do not work when the lead agency builds two sets of rules – one for agencies it funds, the other for itself.
Besides controlling the largest pot of homelessness funding in our community, OHS also manages the homelessness data on behalf of the CoC. In that role, OHS has shown to hold on to the data and use data outputs in a way they believe makes them look good — or so they think. In reality, their data reports are riddled with mistakes to the point that they render the published data useless (see my column in the July-29 issue).
The Powers of the HPC
The HPC is not as powerless as it may seem. In the past, HPC members have complained that they don’t have oversight or influence over OHS staff or their budget and therefore cannot hold Metro accountable.
A professor once told me that power stems from three main sources:
- A position and title;
- Control over money and resources; or
- Knowledge and information.
When we examine where the power lies in the Metro versus HPC imbalance, we already established that Metro holds position and resources. But the HPC members ultimately control their own knowledge.
The problem is, the HPC is a volunteer board, and members have full-time jobs. Yet, if they are truly passionate about building a system to improve the lives of people experiencing homelessness, they do have an extremely strong and effective tool: they can call for transparency and do so in a public forum.
For example, when OHS violates the CE policies it is supposed to implement, the HPC can question them publicly about it. The HPC completely missed this opportunity when OHS kept 80 beds in a transitional housing facility open for one year, even though they had the money and resources to fill them.
The CE policies and procedures document states, “Participating agencies are expected to contribute to the CE System by,” among other things, “… promptly report any current or expected vacancies to the CE lead so referrals can be made quickly and beds do not sit empty. This is based on program and care coordination expectations to facilitate prompt referrals and reduce vacancy rates.”
In addition, according to its own policies, the CoC’s Coordinated Entry Oversight Committee is “responsible for creating and implementing an annual evaluation of the CE lead and reporting its findings to the CoC General Membership and Homelessness Planning Council (HPC) for consideration.”
This has not happened. HPC members would do well to demand that the oversight measures they have put in place are actually implemented.
If all else fails, which often does when a Metro department is fully backed by an administration, the HPC has the right to directly approach the Metro Council, in particular the Metro Council’s Public Health and Safety Committee that has the authority to question OHS. And with several Councilmembers serving on the HPC, they could put forth their own questions and reports counteracting some of the flawed data reports produced by OHS. The HPC members, together or as individuals, can also make public information requests when OHS refuses to share information in a transparent and timely manner. Or the HPC could keep items on its agenda under Old Business until OHS has responded to them in a satisfactory manner.
In the end, these are all options I hope the HPC can avoid by rebuilding the trust with their own CoC Lead agency. But if the HPC members continue to be too polite to stand up and recognize what they actually can and should do, people struggling to survive on Nashville’s streets will continue to suffer for longer and at higher levels than necessary.