Greater Hartford CAN Meeting 7/8/15

Greater Hartford Coordinated Access Network

Meeting Notes

Wednesday, July 8^th, 2015

Next Meeting: Wednesday July 22^nd, 2015

In Attendance: Janet Bermudez – Hands On Hartford Cordelia Brady – The Open Hearth Aisha Brown – Community Health Resources Manuel Burnias – CRT Crane Cesario – DMHAS / Hartford COC Marcel Cicero – CRT / East Hartford Shelter Roger Clark – ImmaCare Rebecca Copeland – Community Health Network Stephanie Corbin – Community Health Network Rosa DeJesus – Mercy Housing Ruby Givens-Hewitt – My Sisters’ Place Mollie Greenwood – Journey Home Amber Higgins – Community Health Resources Philomena McGee – Community Health Resources Evan McGloin – CRT / SSVF Matt Morgan – Journey Home

Patrice Moulton – CRT / East Hartford Shelter Theresa Nicholson – Chrysalis Center Heather Pilarcik – South Park Inn Patricia Pollicina – Chrysalis Center Amy Robinson – CRT / SSVF Chris Robinson – Chrysalis Center CABHI Emmett Ruff – Journey Home Iris Ruiz – Interval House Sarah Simonelli – Chrysalis Center CABHI Rob Soderberg – Community Health Resources Sandra Terry – CRT Housing Sarah Trench – Journey Home Jose Vega – CRT / McKinney Shelter Ymonne Wilson – CRT Housing Tamara Womack – My Sisters’ Place

1.      Introductions and updates from Housing Referral Group 7/1

2.      Announcements

a.      Cold Weather Discussion at Hartford COC – During the 100 Day Campaign the community was experimenting with so many different things and doing a lot of multitasking, so we have not yet started really discussing Cold Weather Protocol for the coming winter.  We are hoping to have a whole meeting specifically dedicated to Cold Weather Protocol in the future.  At the 7/7 Hartford COC meeting, the group started to talk about Cold Weather Protocols.  We have been told that there will be some funding available from the Department of Housing for Cold Weather this year.  Last year, the Department of Housing provided funding for hotel/motels, as well as funding to support the No-Freeze shelter at ImmaCare.  The No-Freeze shelter was also supported by the City Of Hartford funding, and the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving.  ImmaCare has announced that they will not have a No-Freeze shelter this year. 

b.      Hartford COC agreed to use VI-SPDAT 2.0

                                                              i.      Yesterday the Hartford COC agreed to the future use of the VI-SPDAT 2.0, a newer version of the VISPDAT.  CCEH is asking the CoC’s for their decision: Hartford is the first on the schedule to request approval to move towards the VI-SPDAT 2.0. 

1.      The tool isn’t expected to come online for a while, as we are hoping to have version 2.0 input to HMIS.

2.      We believe there is a way to align the scores from the original VI-SPDAT with this 2.0 version. 

3.      It will be at least six months before we are ready to transition to this new VI-SPDAT 2.0, so for the time being we will continue to use the original VI-SPDAT, and deliver training on the original VI-SPDAT.

                                                            ii.      We discussed the upcoming Rapid ReHousing that is supposed to start at CRT shortly. 

1.      ESG training is supposed to be up and running with CHR’s rapid rehousing. 

2.      CHR will operate 2 Rapid ReHousing programs, one short term, and one long term.  They will be serving shelters in the area with diversion, and Rapid ReHousing staff will be doing more 211 appointments.  The referrals to Rapid ReHousing should come from the GH CAN assessment appointments.

3.      CHR will operate two distinct Rapid ReHousing programs, with some short term funding and some longer-term funding.  Clients will be referred to this program at their GH CAN appointments, but we are still figuring out how to incorporate clients who were recommended for Rapid ReHousing by the VI-SPDAT while there was no funding available for Rapid ReHousing through CHR. 

c.       GH COC Rapid ReHousing through Salvation Army Marshall House is currently accepting referrals.

                                                              i.      Referrals to this program can be made via the Rapid ReHousing Referral Form, available here: https://docs.google.com/a/journeyhomect.org/forms/d/1-piWGIBUyXwMU7BxdaoUAWuubPc-f8rm02SNCLv3mSs/viewform

d.      Zero 2016: Chronically Homeless Veterans Check-In

                                                              i.      We asked the group whether any staff knew of any chronically homeless veterans.  One veteran is currently on the Prioritized List.

                                                            ii.      GH CAN staff indicated they knew of two other veterans in the community.

                                                          iii.      As a reminder, any staff who know of homeless veterans should contact the SSVF program.

3.      Priority Level / VI-SPDAT Discussion

a.      There was a previous request to discuss priority levels.  There’s a chart of priority levels. 

b.      The HUD notice was distributed.  Verification for History of Homelessness is so strict.

c.       We created a chart to try and summarize the HUD notice, to help guide our discussion.  That chart was on p. 2 of the agenda.

                                                              i.      The first priority level (P1) is made up of clients who are chronically homeless, who have been homeless for over 12 months, and who have “severe service needs”.  HUD does not designate how “severe service needs” are defined. 

                                                            ii.      The second priority level (P2) is made up of clients who are chronically homeless, and who have been homeless for over 12 months.  There is no designation of service needs. 

                                                          iii.      The third priority level (P3) is made up of chronically homeless clients who have had 4 episodes of homelessness in the past 3 years, but who have not been homeless for 12 months or longer.  These clients are also designated as having “severe service needs”.

                                                           iv.      The fourth priority level (P4) is made up of chronically homeless clients who have 4 episodes of homelessness in the past 3 years, but who have not been homeless for 12 months.  These clients are not designated as having severe service needs.

                                                             v.      A major challenge here is that HUD does not explain how a community should determine “severe service needs”.  Priority level 1 and 3 are determined by clients having high service needs.

                                                           vi.      The Greater Hartford CA, along with the rest of the state, has chosen to use the VI-SPDAT as our common triage assessment tool.  We have used this tool to determine what different levels of service need are.  Up until now, we have been using VI-SPDAT scores to determine priority levels (P1, P2, P3, and P4 on the Priority List).  This has caused some clients with a score lower than 10 to be prioritized above other clients with a higher score, because according to HUD guidance chronically homeless clients with over a year of time homeless should be prioritized over chronically homeless clients with a shorter time homeless.

1.      Another challenge is that the VI-SPDAT does not recommend permanent supportive housing for VI-SPDAT scores lower than 10 (for individuals) and 11 (for families). 

2.      Statewide leaders have indicated that all clients with VI-SPDAT scores higher than 10 should be housed before moving down to lower VI-SPDAT scores.  This presents a challenge, because the way we had previously been sorting the prioritized list prioritized over those with shorter histories, but higher scores, and the recommendation from the VI-SPDAT that clients scoring below 10 are not recommended for Permanent Supportive Housing. 

                                                         vii.      As a community, it is the responsibility of the GH CAN to figure out how we will reconcile HUD’s guidance to prioritize high service needs and length of time homeless, with the statewide guidance to prioritize all clients with a score of 10 or above.  We need to figure out how we will work with those clients who score over a 10, but have shorter homeless histories, as well as those clients with longer homeless histories but lower scores. 

                                                       viii.      What has happened in our CAN is we have been housing people P1 which is 10+ and at least a year homeless.  Now, we’re working our way through all those clients.  In previous meetings, there’s been some confusion about trying to match people with a lower VI-SPDAT score (those P2s).  There is a tension between the guidance from HUD which seems to suggest that clients with a longer history of homelessness should be prioritized over those with shorter histories, but higher scores, and the VI-SPDAT indicates that clients scoring below 10 are not recommended for Permanent Supportive Housing. 

                                                           ix.      Once we have received statewide training on the full SPDAT, that assessment tool should be able to help us see when the VI-SPDAT is incorrectly assessing a client’s needs.  For cases of clients with a long history of homelessness and a disability who are scoring low, the SPDAT could help us see if the VI-SPDAT recommendation is appropriate for that client’s needs. 

                                                             x.      Next week, we will come together and make a decision on these cases, and how to work with our priority list moving forward. 

4.      Appointment Backlog – We discussed the fact that we are still booking two months out for CAN appointments.  Some communities have been able to reduce backlog by having their whole community step up to host assessments for a few weeks. 

a.      We discussed trying to focus on appointment backlogs for an hour or two per week. 

b.      Amber of CHR explained their “Appointment Fact Sheet” that they distribute to clients coming in for a CAN appointment.  The explanation helps outline the expectations and potential of the appointment, and helps inappropriate clients understand what they are and are not eligible for.  Amber offered to share that page with the CAN by emailing it to Mollie this week. 

5.      Outreach Calendar – There is a calendar available online for staff to sign up, if they have any available time to drop-in to a soup kitchen and help complete assessments. 

6.      Status of our Lists – Master List, Priority List, Chronic Maybes List maintenance and utilization

a.      One thing we wanted to discuss was the ongoing maintenance of all of the lists that Journey Home has been tracking.  We have over a 1200 heads of households on our          registry of people who have touched the homeless services system in the past few months.  

1.      We need to figure out where we will hold the names of clients who are currently not responding.  We need to figure out our standard for folks who are MIA, and how long they stay on our active lists.  We want to make sure we are doing our due diligence to connect with hard to engage clients.

a.      Amy of SSVF offered to share the protocols for hard to engage veterans.

2.      At one point, we had talked about a Core Review Group, so we can discuss and network possible options for clients who are hard to engage, together.

3.      We are also constantly working on how we can incorporate homeless households from DV shelters or DOC into this process. 

7.      Housing Referral Group

a.      Pending Referrals – updates

                                                              i.      All housing programs with current referrals updated the status of those clients. 

                                                            ii.      CRT indicated that they had three openings in their Project Teach Transitional program.

GH CAN Coordinators:

Matt Morgan – matt.morgan@journeyhomect.org

Crane Cesario – crane.cesario@ct.gov