Clark County details RFA process, CAB role to sustain homelessness and anti-poverty programs

Clark County Community Services staff briefed the County Council on Aug. 6 on the request-for-application (RFA) process used to allocate Community Action Program and Homeless Crisis Response System funds, the role and composition of the Community Action Advisory Board (CAB), and near-term steps the county will take to support severe-weather sheltering and a new five-year homeless plan.

The RFA cycle covered two separate solicitations: one for anti-poverty programs under the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and local human services funds, and another for homeless crisis response funded primarily by the Consolidated Homelessness Grant (CHG) and local document-recording fees. Michael Torres, program manager for Clark County Community Services, said the county used the results of the 2024 community needs assessment to set categories and funding proportions for the CSBG-funded RFA, and that program eligibility for CSBG-funded services allows households earning up to 200% of the federal poverty level.

The CAB, a statutorily required advisory body under CSBG rules, reviewed applications and provided funding recommendations that went to the council for approval earlier this year. Vanessa Gaston, director of Clark County Community Services, told the council CHG funds—awarded by the Washington State Department of Commerce under the Homeless Housing and Assistance Act—are directed by the state to prioritize maintaining existing service levels. She also said local document-recording fees generated in Clark County must, by state law, allocate about 75% to the local homeless housing plan; the remaining portion is distributed via an interlocal agreement among the county and cities.

Why it matters: the RFA process and CAB recommendations determine funding for shelters, rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing, outreach, prevention and core supports that sustain the county’s crisis response infrastructure. Staff emphasized the current priority is sustaining capacity amid workforce and regulatory uncertainty.

Staff explained how solicitations were structured and scored. County staff wrote application questions and the scoring guidance, distinguishing objective questions (scored the same regardless of rater) from subjective questions the CAB scored. The CAB received in-depth training in January and submitted scores between February and April 2025; the CAB provided recommendations May 7, the council approved awards June 3, and contracts began July 1.

Funding categories selected from the community needs assessment included food assistance, dental services, income and asset-building programs (credit repair and financial coaching), and transportation assistance; housing assistance and utility assistance were funded through other streams outside this RFA (housing through the homeless crisis RFA; utility assistance through LIHEAP-designated funds).

Council members raised questions about coordinated entry and how it intersects with shelter operations. Councilor Young asked whether shelters’ placements are run through coordinated entry; staff responded that coordinated entry must be involved and that state rules allow emergency placement into shelter but require a coordinated-entry assessment within 48 hours. Staff also said system rules require vulnerability-based prioritization so that rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing primarily serve those with the highest assessed needs; as one operational rule staff cited, at least one in four program entries for certain housing programs must come from the shelter system.

Councilors expressed concern about how performance measures and application scoring account for the limited control shelter operators have over who is placed into or exits to permanent housing. Councilor Young asked how to avoid penalizing providers for outcomes outside their control; staff said they design objective and subjective scoring to reflect program roles and encouraged providers and CAB members to flag bottlenecks so coordinated entry processes can be adjusted.

The county described governance for the homeless response: Clark County operates as a locally governed Continuum of Care (CoC), with Council for the Homeless serving as lead agency and staffing a CoC steering committee that includes service providers, people with lived experience and elected officials. The county is drafting its next five-year local homeless plan guided by state strategic objectives. Staff said the draft will go to the Ending Community Homelessness Organization (ECHO) for review in October and is expected to come to the County Council for approval on Nov. 12.

Staff outlined CAB structure and appointment processes. Federal CSBG rules and implementing guidance require the CAB be composed of one-third elected officials, one-third low-income representatives and one-third community members; Clark County’s CAB aims to include one representative from each of the five county council districts within each category. CAB members serve three-year terms and may be reappointed up to three times; an executive committee is elected annually with one-year terms (up to three consecutive terms). Applications for CAB membership are scored by an executive team and recommended to the council for appointment.

Near-term actions and follow-ups recorded in the meeting included: staff will work with councilors to pursue any desired changes to CAB bylaws and county ordinance to add a designated county council seat if the council directs that change; County Services staff said they plan to issue a separate, expedited RFA to support severe-weather shelters and volunteer coordination for the November–March season and intend to include CAB and ECHO members on the scoring committee for that solicitation.

Council comments also emphasized workforce shortages, the need to protect existing system capacity, and the potential role of volunteers or extension-service partnerships to augment severe-weather shelter operations.

The presentation materials and the RFA guidance documents were made available with the council’s work-session packet and staff invited councilors to follow up by email for the full guidance and scoring matrices.