Greater Hartford Coordinated Access
Network
Leadership Committee Agenda
Wednesday,
December 5th, 2018
1. Welcome
and Introductions
2. Capacity
and Need Document Updates – Matt Morgan
a.
Previously Journey Home had done some analysis
of need for different needs within our community. We have since updated this analysis to
include additional data with a focus on what would happen if we increased rates
of diversion throughout the community.
b.
The gap we had based on all the housing we had
this year, the results we get are that 49 individuals need PSH, negative 2
families would need PSH.
i. If we were
able to increase diversion, we would see a significant reduction in what would
be needed particularly for PSH.
ii. There are
some major changes that have been happening to increase capacity for
Diversion. The statewide CDBG process is
in progress for the Enfield area in this CAN.
The Office of Early Childhood is putting a million dollars into diversion
funding in a pay-for-success model.
Mercy Housing has gotten approval to get some of their diversion
financial assistance dollars into increased staffing capacity.
1.
Diversion is currently understaffed, but there
will soon be two full time staff to replace one full time staff who left.
c.
We continue to have a dramatic discrepancy in
the number of shelter beds for individual men’s beds compared to beds for
individual women. ImmaCare has been
looking into a possible change but because of zoning issues no progress has
been made.
3. Progressive
Engagement – Crane Cesario, Mollie Greenwood
a.
We’ve changed our perspective from talking
about bridging from Rapid ReHousing to permanent supportive housing.
i. Initially,
when we put folks into CRT’s RRH program, if we have chronically homeless
individuals going into RRH.
1.
Part of the issue is that the CAN keeps
changing our processes. Part of the
issue is that some individuals are getting disabling condition verification
forms.
2.
Some of this is how do we manage
openings.
3.
Some of this is a program needs to keep
bringing folks up and that CAN staff have to continue to be pushing back and
suggesting options. It’s about staying
on the same team.
4.
CRT’s in a difficult position because the
majority of folks coming into their program do have significant
disabilities. When it comes down to CT
BOS and they’re inquiring why folks are staying in their program past the 6-7
months. It’s a shift.
5.
Amy suggested avoiding the word pushback. It sets up more of a confrontation
6.
Mollie mentioned drafting a set of questions
that all RRH teams could come as a case conference.
7.
Crane suggested we talked about disabling
conditions. If people’s disabling
conditions are less severe, but they have long lengths of time… they’re still
hitting the top of the list. If people
think they can manage, we need to go with the expectation that folks can succeed in rapid. There are a lot of growing pains.
8.
Sarah said she thinks that some of the
frustration is getting taken out on CRT.
We’re seeing our chronic numbers going up. Frontline staff are feeling really
disappointed because they’re not seeing the system flow working.
9.
Barbara reminds us that we have a really big
aspirational vision. This approach is
transformative and is dramatically different.
“this is we”.
ii. Chronic –
80% of our chronic are matched. 41 are
active on the list. And 10 have been
chronic verified for a long time.
1.
As a leadership group, we need to identify
what is our strategy. What items may be
the most easily attainable. What do we
need to know to be able to move this? If
all 10 of them. If we can know who the
10 people are, we need to know who the 10 people are, what their barriers are
specifically.
a.
Are we dealing with a huge cohort of people
who are close to requiring hospitalization?
b.
Journey Home will pull together the list of CH
verified and potentially chronic, get a list of barriers.
c.
To what degree have we been successful getting
through the mental health residential doors?
We think it could be an area where we’re more successful.
i. For those
who are willing to get engaged in treatment it’s been successful.
d.
Amy offered to help us identified a need.
e.
Sarah suggested a training needed for how to
access group homes and residential care facilities.
i. When
supportive housing programs have brought this up, they’re being told “housing
first, we need to get them the opportunity”.
ii. We need to
understand more about the categories of group services.
1.
Stephanie suggested that we reach out to CHN
to identify ways to bridge that gap.
Mollie will reach out to the people who email CHN. Mollie needs to also follow up with Andrea Hakian
about residential care.
2.
Fred also raised the item of their TEP program.
f.
Matt mentioned the Release of Information that
we have for folks who can access health records. It would be helpful to have the case managers
perspective. If we want to talk with
clients further about higher levels of care.
b.
Draft Documents on Progressive Engagement
4. System
Flow
a.
Regarding CT CAN Data website. Andrea mentioned that at the SWAP meeting
there were a lot of folks entering PSH who weren’t literally homeless the night
before program entry. Andrea had
recommended to the data folks to note at the bottom that some of the data looks
misleading that folks
b.
Coordinated Entry
i. Diversion
Dashboard – our family diversion rate is significantly increased over the past
few months. Our family rate of diversion
is incredible.
c.
Coordinated Outreach
i. Outreach
Dashboard - page 23
1.
We need to take some ownership of homeless
outreach. Statewide homeless outreach
that DMHAS is running, and there’s no quarterly meeting. There is not significant support and level of
attention to sustain the work of homeless outreach. This is a serious issue that we’re
missing. With the PIT coming, we need
everyone to step up and participate.
d.
Shelter
i. Shelter
Dashboard
ii. Suspension
Lists at Shelters – Mollie Greenwood
1.
A large number of people are coming onto the
radar who are banned or suspended from every shelter in the region. On a case-by-case basis reviews have been
happening.
2.
It is extremely difficult for warming center
and overflow to have these folks in our radar.
3.
One of the last things Fred’s seeing, after
the point of a suspension has tended to have an impact on folks and he has seen
a lot of decisions changing.
4.
Heather would add that’s probably true for
about 80% of folks, but when we have folks who are banned at every program,
because that’s likely indicative of folks with a higher level of concerns. If we’re seeing that type of behavior in
shelter settings, it’s likely there are other conditions coming into play.
e.
Coordinated Exit
i. Rapid
ReHousing Standards – Andrea Hakian – the RRH standards are still in draft
form. The RRH workgroup has been meeting
for a long while. The need for the
workgroup came out of a desire to standardize RRH statewide. There was also a desire to create consistency
between HUD RRH and DOH funded RRH. One
of the first things that happened was to try and figure out what level of
rental assistance people need. Now in
the draft form there are different buckets of people. An example is high-need people who are
homeless but not CH, people who are chronic and likely need PSH, moderate
earning potential folks, high earning potential folks. There are different earning buckets for
folks. Sarah asked whether that would be
a decision at the CAN, or by individual programs, and it’s not yet clear who
makes that decision. The goal is to
standardize this so that we don’t have so many exceptions and we have more
consistency statewide. There’s also
conversations about what reasons are acceptable for terminating folks from
RRH.
1.
YHDP largely adopted the work from this
workgroup for their contracts. They also
don’t want to see rental portions exceed 65% of peoples’ income.
a.
MOLLIE schedule time to meet with Lisa around
the housing matching stuff above.
2.
HUD has requirements for utility allowances
that RRH programs are going to start incorporating.
3.
Rapid ReHousing Dashboard
a.
Challenges around time-limited nature of
assistance
b.
The returns number up at the top of that page,
how do those returns end up being reflected in here.
i. Most of
the CHR returns last year were clients who didn’t want to do RRH and who
rejected the referral.
ii. Some of
the information on here is helpful.
Average length of stay is helpful, income levels are helpful.
ii. Permanent
Supportive Housing Dashboard
iii. Special
Population Updates:
1.
HOPWA Committee Updates
2.
Veterans Committee – Amy Robinson
3.
Youth – Niya Solomon
f.
Returns to Homelessness – Mollie Greenwood
i. Explained
the list, how it’s broken down.
ii. For folks
who were housed and returned to shelter and then housed by another
program.
g.
Chronic Homelessness
i. Countdown
to End Chronic Homelessness
ii. Release of
Information for Disabling Conditions
5. Sub-COC
Items:
a.
HIC – Zoe Schwartz
i. Thank you
all for submitting your data. If there
are agencies who submitted helpdesk tickets and you aren’t hearing from
someone, please let Zoe know. Nutmeg is
sorting through tickets.
b.
PIT – Zoe Schwartz
c.
Consumer Satisfaction Surveys – For CRT Zoe
aggregates all the CRT satisfaction reports into one record. Zoe was wondering if she could have
everyone’s consumer satisfaction data to see the information across all
programs. Zoe thinks it could be really
cool to see the results across all of our programs. She can send out an example of what she’s
doing.
6. GH CAN
Shelter and Housing Data
a.
GH CAN Housed Data (see p.2)
b.
GH CAN Waitlist Data (see p.2)
7. Future
Agenda Items?
a.
Zoe will bring consumer survey info from CRT
to discuss aggregating them.
b.
Revisit returns to homelessness.
c.
8. Announcements
a.
No Freeze opens December 15th. That means warming center and overflow will
be openings. 7PM-7AM will be the hours of operation. All clients should still call 211. We can transport them to shelters.
b.
Iris is retiring!
c.
Heather is transitioning over to South Park
Inn.
d.
Journey Home has officially merged with A Hand
Up.
e.
CAN Data Dashboards are available at www.CTCANData.org . Please check out your organization’s data and
work on cleaning up any incorrect data so that we can start using these
dashboards to inform our system work.
GH CAN Housing Data
|
Data Element
|
Number
|
Notes
|
|
Chronically homeless individuals housed in 2015
|
102
|
This includes clients housed
through GH CAN programs as
well as through other subsidies or independent housing
|
|
Chronically homeless individuals housed in 2016
|
211
|
This includes clients housed
through GH CAN programs as well as
through other subsidies or independent housing
|
|
Chronically homeless individuals housed in 2017
|
179
|
This includes clients housed
through GH CAN programs as well as
through other subsidies or independent housing
|
|
Chronically homeless/potentially
chronic individuals housed in 2018
|
146
|
This includes clients housed
through GH CAN programs and bridges to
PSH as well as through other subsidies or independent housing
|
|
Total Chronically homeless individuals housed in GH CAN
|
638
|
|
|
Verified Chronic Matched
|
29
|
|
|
Verified Chronic Not Yet Matched
|
3
|
We currently have 3 chronic verified clients who have not yet been matched to
housing.
|
|
Potentially Chronic Refusers
|
2
|
|
|
Verified Chronic Refusers
|
2
|
|
|
Not Chronic (Verified) Refuser
|
1
|
|
|
Potentially Chronic Matched
|
9
|
These households did not disclose
a disabling condition, and are matched to various programs.
|
|
Not Chronic Matched
|
8
|
|
|
Potentially Chronic Not Yet
Matched
|
30
|
Right now we believe 30 households have the chronic
length of homeless history, but none of these individuals have their homeless and disability
verifications completed.
|
|
Individuals - Active – Not
Matched
|
404
|
This is Enrolled in CAN, Enrolled in TH, and In an Institution
|
|
Families – Active – Not Matched
|
29
|
This is Enrolled in CAN and Enrolled in TH
|
|
Families - Verified Chronic – Not
Matched
|
0
|
|
|
Families – Not Chronic (Verified)
– Matched
|
10
|
|
|
Families – Verified Chronic –
Matched
|
4
|
|
SmartSheet Shelter
Priority List Data
|
Individual Men
|
Individual Women
|
Families
|
|
36 Unsheltered/ In a Car
|
46 Unsheltered/In a Car
|
11 Unsheltered/In a Car
(7 report that only HOH is unsheltered)
|
|
52 Total
|
59 Total
|
15 Total
|
No comments:
Post a Comment