Greater
Hartford Coordinated Access Network
Meeting
Agenda
Wednesday,
August 12th, 2015
Next
Meeting: Wednesday August 26th, 2015
|
In
Attendance:
Shannon
Baldassario – MACC Charities
Janet Bermudez
– Hands On Hartford / MANNA
Cordelia
Brady – The Open Hearth
Rebecca
Copeland – CHR Manchester
Stephanie
Corbin – Community Health Network
Fred
Faulkner – The Open Hearth
Bryan Flint
– Cornerstone Shelter
Amanda
Girardin – Journey Home
Ruby
Givens-Hewitt – My Sisters’ Place
Tomiko Grant
– Salvation Army Marshall House
Mollie
Greenwood – Journey Home
Nathalie
Guzman – Salvation Army Marshall House
Andrea
Hakian – CHR Manchester
LaQuista
Harris – VA
|
Amber
Higgins – CHR
Aaron Jones
– VA
Brittany
King – The Open Hearth
Steve
MacHattie - ImmaCare
Andre
McGuire – Tabor House
Matt Morgan
– Journey Home
Malika
Nelson – CHR Manchester
Heather
Pilarcik – South Park Inn
Jamie
Randolph – CHR Manchester
Amy Robinson
– CRT / SSVF
Chris
Robinson – Chrysalis / CABHI
Iris Ruiz –
Interval House
Sandra Terry
– CRT / Supportive Housing
Jose Vega –
CRT / McKinney Shelter
|
1. Announcements
a. CHR
Manchester and CHR Enfield have some diversion funds to assist clients with
diversion to assist with moving costs, rent arrearages, and furniture. In
addition, the staff who are working with this diversion funding are also
available to assist with landlord mediation.
These resources are available for people who are not yet literally
homeless, but who are within 2 days of becoming literally homeless. We know that we are getting a lot of these
folks into our appointments. CHR
Manchester staff will not be able to start this programming until September,
but CHR Enfield is able to take referrals.
If people are within 2 days of homelessness, staff should reach out to
Philomena McGee at CHR Enfield. You can
email her at pmcgee@chrhealth.org or call
her at 860-253-5020 x136.
b. There will
be an all-day forum focused on SOAR on September 11th at Chrysalis
Center, 255 Homestead Ave., Hartford.
SOAR stands for SSI/SSDI Outreach Access and Recovery and is a model for
helping people apply for SSI benefits in a faster process. The model is designed specifically for the
homeless population, and we are hoping to expand this program in Greater
Hartford. If anyone is interested in
attending, please email Matt Morgan at matt.morgan@journeyhomect.org.
c. Full SPDAT
Training – updates from staff who attended
i.
One staff update was that even with all the
information in front of you, it can still be challenging to separate your
morals and values from the objective tool.
There was one example in the training of a sex worker who was in a
support group for sex workers. The
example showed that even though sex work was not something that wouldn’t be
encouraged, the support group the client had developed were actually helpful
and healthy. It was an important
reminder that the tool is helping us to be objective, and so people should be
able to do SPDAT assessments together and come to nearly the same result.
ii.
Attendees learned that unlike the VI-SPDAT, the full
SPDAT doesn’t need to be completed in one sitting. You can discuss multiple domains over an
extended period of time, depending on what works for the client.
iii.
Attendees also learned that the SPDAT can be used for case
management once someone is housed. Doing
the SPDAT with someone while they are homeless, and then re-assessing over time
once they are housed, the SPDAT can be used as a tool to help people measure
their growth in certain areas and set goals.
iv.
Another recommendation that came through the SPDAT
training was that the VI-SPDAT tool is most effective when delivered 2 weeks
after someone arrives into shelter, because so many people self-resolve their
homelessness within their first two weeks in a shelter. This may be worth
exploring as we move forward in adapting our GH CAN assessment process.
v.
GH CAN Policy on when to complete a full SPDAT
1. For next
week, Journey Home will draft some suggestions about protocols for completing
the full SPDAT assessment.
vi.
VI-SPDAT 2.0 Additional Questions
1. The
VI-SPDAT 2.0 will be coming online in a few months. Although the updated triage tool has fewer
questions overall, nationwide communities are including a few additional
questions. These include questions
regarding DV and Veteran status. We will
be looking at the questions and which ones to include on a statewide basis,
through CT HMIS Steering Committee. If
you were at the training, please review your materials, and send any
recommendations for these added questions to Crane Cesario at
crane.cesario@ct.govSPDAT practice for those who attended training; others to
review CH maybes list
vii.
Break Out Groups:
1. Those who
attended the training had some opportunity to practice a few case studies that
we did not get to in the training. CCEH
will be sending out the correct answers for scoring, and Journey Home will
distribute them as soon as they are available.
2. The rest of
the staff at the GH CAN meeting reviewed the Chronic Maybes, Unsheltered, and
MIA/On Hold lists.
d. CCEH to
visit 8/26 CAN meeting- discussion on how to focus technical assistance and
other supports
i.
If you have ideas for specific technical assistance
you’d like to see from CCEH, bring your ideas to the next GH CAN meeting!
e. Zero: 2016
Chronically Homeless Veteran Check-In
i.
Nobody reported any chronically homeless veterans that
they knew of who were not yet connected to services.
ii.
For the Zero: 2016 Campaign, we will need to develop a
by-name registry to see if we are on-track to be at functional zero by the end
of 2016. We are working to create a
by-name list, we distribute a number of lists at every meeting. Right now the statewide advocacy groups have
used HMIS to extrapolate what they think our numbers of chronically homeless
clients and housed clients are- we now need to do the crosswalk between the
lists we are working with, and the data they have to figure out what pieces are
missing.
2. Reducing
the backlog of assessment appointments – Fred Faulkner
a. It came to
Fred’s attention that a number of clients currently staying at the Open Hearth
haven’t had assessments completed, for one reason or another, and many have
come through a number of shelters. In
light of how far we are booking out for appointments, it would make sense for
all shelters to assess anyone currently in their shelter.
b. While the
group agreed that we needed some changes, not all staff present could speak on
behalf of their agency. Many of the
larger shelters have high turnover rates, and trying to assess everyone in
shelter would be a large undertaking. Although
there was a collective interest in changing something, the representatives who
attend CAN meetings cannot necessarily make commitments of this scale on behalf
of their agency.
i.
The CAN intake itself would not be very time
consuming, because you could copy the recent shelter assessment.
ii.
The VI-SPDAT is a big piece that we may need
additional assistance to complete. We
need to figure out which shelters think that they could benefit from additional
staff helping to complete VI-SPDATs.
c. We may need
to reenergize the idea of an Oversight Group for the CAN. This kind of group, made up of key leaders
from the participating agencies, would be able to discuss decisions about how
to troubleshoot issues like the number of people who are not assessed. Crane
Cesario said she will be a point person for gathering leadership for this
group.
d. Andrea of
CHR expressed the success her site has had with adding a drop-in time for their
CAN assessment appointments. Although
they are continuing to see some people who are inappropriate, they are getting
people closer to real time because there is a higher volume of available
appointments. Additionally, they aren’t
seeing as high of no-show rates, as they are asking for multiple people to come
in from 12-3. She mentioned that when
they started drop-in hours, it was as a pilot, and 211 was really receptive to
the kinds of changes they needed to make early on.
e. A few staff
from CHR volunteered to help to complete these assessments at shelters if there
was a capacity problem.
3. Triage
visit to 211
a. Shelter bed
waitlist
i.
When the triage staff and Journey Home staff visited
211, there were some concerns that the current shelter bed triage system was
not the most efficient system. People
are asked to call 211 to locate a bed, but if none are available, they are
directed to call back multiple times to continue checking for
availability. This seems like a waste of
time for the clients, and the 211 operators who are handling the same client
calls throughout the day. The triage
centers wondered if it may be more efficient to have a shelter bed call-back
list. The purpose of this list would be
to track who called throughout the day looking for a bed, and then, as anything
becomes available, to reach out to those people directly to let them know what
was available. It is something the
triage centers want to continue to think about before implementing.
b. Real-time
shelter bed availability
i.
One of the unintended consequences of using 211 as a
front-door to shelter has been that clients have started churning more. Clients are now using 211 to try and locate a
different shelter bed if they do not like the place they are currently
staying. In the past, shelters would
communicate with each other, and so if someone was trying to come into a
shelter bed, the receiving shelter would see if they were already staying
somewhere. There was some push-back to
prevent shelter-hopping and now there isn’t as much of this.
ii.
One suggestion was to see whether 211 was able to view
current shelter bed enrollments. If the
211 operator is able to see where someone stayed last night, they would be
better able to explain to the client that shelter beds are a limited resource,
and that they should stay where they already have a space.
1. A challenge
with this is that shelter bed data is not always up-to-date. 211 can only really provide this push-back if
they are able to see accurate data that is close to real time.
iii.
For next week, Journey Home will prepare a few
questions that we would like 211 staff to ask any clients if they can see a
shelter enrollment, specifically asking whether clients had been
discharged.
c. Shelter is
a priority queue at 211
i.
The shelter/housing queue is being prioritized at
211. When a client is in need of
shelter, they should call 211, wait for the introduction to finish, then press
3, then 1 to be directed to the shelter queue.
Clients should not request a
call-back if they have pressed 3 and then 1, as that call should be answered
more quickly than others coming into 211.
4. Updates
from the CT HMIS Steering Committee
a. ROI Update
i.
The Release of Information is currently being reviewed
for update by the Attorney General’s office.
Also, HUD recently put out a notice outlining the difference between the
right to collect data and the right to share it with others.
b. HMIS 5.2
upgrade (including VI-SPDAT 2.0 and better reports)
c. Case note
delegation process through your HDC
i.
If you have case notes that need to be deleted, you
should contact your Data Coordinator (HDC).
d. HMIS
retraining policy
e. HMIS
evaluation – Email coming to all users soon.
i.
If you are having a consistent problem in HMIS, you
should record this information on the evaluation survey.
5. Statewide
CAN Subgroup – Policy and Governance
a. There was a
handout attached with the agenda that outlined the proposed role of a CAN,
statewide. We did not discuss this item
due to time constraints.
6. Parking Lot
Items: Outreach – How can we incorporate our various outreach teams to help
populate our registry and locate clients who have been referred to housing?
a. We are
trying to set up a meeting for early September to bring all the outreach
workers together to review the lists of unsheltered clients we currently have.
7. Housing
Referral Group
a. One new
referral was made to CHR Enfield.
b. There are 4
Moving On openings available. The units
are project-based in the building next to ImmaCare’s supportive housing. The first priority for who could fill these
units is anyone in supportive housing who is ready to move onto not receiving
services. The next priority is anyone
who is chronically homeless who has had six months clean, who is not a sex offender,
and has no felonies in the last 3 years.
If anyone knows of someone they believe would be eligible, please
contact Amanda Girardin at Amanda.girardin@journeyhomect.org
GH CAN Chairs:
Matt Morgan
– matt.morgan@journeyhomect.org
Crane
Cesario – crane.cesario@ct.gov
Parking Lot: Items for Continued Discussion
|
#
|
Category
|
Challenge
|
|
1
|
Shelter
search through 211
|
Clients
churning, high shelter turnover
|
|
2
|
Shelter
search through 211
|
People
staying out of doors to avoid the 211 process
|
|
3
|
Documentation
|
Challenges
gathering documentation of homeless history
|
|
4
|
Data Quality
|
Multiple
client records in HMIS
|
|
5
|
Shelter
search through 211
|
Empty beds
in shelters
|
|
6
|
Case
Conferencing
|
Clients who
no-show for multiple appointments
|
|
7
|
Data Quality
|
Misrepresentation
of homeless status due to HMIS assessments not checking current status.
|
|
8
|
Shelter
search through 211
|
Clients
calling to get a hotel instead of shelter
|
|
9
|
Data
Collection
|
Identifying/validating
progress matching clients housed through CAN to Zero 2016
|
|
10
|
Data Quality
|
CH status on
HMIS is self-reported – gathering the length of time to verify CH is a
continuing challenge
|
|
11
|
Identifying appropriate
clients for CAN
|
Backlog of
CAN appointments
|
|
12
|
Navigation
|
MIA clients
at soup kitchens
|
No comments:
Post a Comment