Greater Hartford - Coordinated
Access Network
Meeting Notes
September 24th, 2014
|
|
1.
Introductions & GH-CAN Meeting Notes for last week, 9/17/14 (email)
a. No
changes were requested for last week’s notes.
2. Updates:
a. CAN Implementation Schedule: GH-CAN
Tentative Start Date 11/17/14. The
October 1 meeting is cancelled as the
HUD NOFA
application is out now and due 10/30/14: and the time is needed for HUD Grantee
meeting.
i. HUD is requiring grantees attend a one and
a half day training Wednesday, 10/22, or Thursday, 10/23.
ii. There is potential for Hartford to
receive new funding. The RFP went out
today.
iii. In preparation for next week’s meeting,
everyone planning to attend needs to read the NOFA. It’s about
50 pages long.
iv. Our 11/17 start date is not guaranteed,
but the push to a later date is good. It
gives all of us the
opportunity to get all of our current shelter
clients VI-SPDATed and get everyone with higher scores to
complete a Universal Housing Application.
1. It’s
important for us to be very specific when determining length of time homeless
while completing a UHA. HUD has defined
chronic homelessness to encompass people who are literally homeless, with a
disabling condition, who have been homeless for a year or more, or who have had
4 or more episodes of homelessness in the last three years. We are waiting for further guidance from HUD
regarding what length of time constitutes an episode. Length of time homeless is used to determine
priority so it's important to get accurate information.
b. Shelter Bed Availability Report- as of
Monday, 9/22/14 at 11:59 PM
i. This week everyone received two documents,
one that tracked who was logging into the Google Sheet on a daily basis. The chart showed which shelters logged in
every day for the last six weeks.
1. Mollie has been checking in with less
frequent updaters, and will continue to do so.
ii. The second chart showed the number of
available beds as of the last update each day.
This is not a real
time data chart- most shelters are not
updating the document outside of traditional business hours.
iii. While the Google Document will not be
able to accurately show where there are beds in real time, it can
help us determine where there are no
beds. For example, if Immaculate was trying
to triage a client, and saw
that McKinney shelter had no beds available
as of their last update, they now know not to call McKinney, and
to call shelters that might have open beds
first.
iv. The conversation around how helpful the Google
document is in real time led the group to a conversation
about what kinds of changes the CAN process
would be making to our daily interactions.
1. We
discussed the difference between calling 211 and making an appointment and our
immediate need protocol. When a client
calls 211 because of a housing crisis, they will first talk to a housing
specialist who will try to divert them.
Then they will schedule an assessment appointment with the CAN. If they absolutely still need a place to
stay, they will be referred to our triage shelters: Immaculate Conception or
Salvation Army Marshall House (depending on their household makeup). It is then the responsibility of the triage
centers to identify an available bed for
a client.
2. We
discussed whether we would be able to take people who were waiting in line at
the shelter doors to find a place to stay.
a. The short
answer is that we can’t accept people outside the door without going through
the right steps. Everyone looking for
shelter needs to make that call to 211 and schedule an assessment
appointment. But if there are five beds
available at a male shelter, and five men standing outside, they don’t all
necessarily need to call Immaculate Conception.
Once they have called 211 and entered the system, the shelter staff can
call the triage center and inform them that the five beds that were previously
available have been filled with new clients.
i. A great
benefit to this triage process is that beds will not be filled without
Immaculate Conception or Salvation Army Marshall House knowing about it- we
will all be gathering data and sharing so much information.
b. We
discussed that although there were some changes coming with CAN, the most
important changes were in documentation, and formalizing our processes. On a daily basis, although there we be some
changes, the Coordinated Access Network isn’t a massive upheaval- it is a
process for formalizing our practices, documenting more of our actions, and
trying to gather more data than ever before.
On a daily basis, things should not be changing drastically, and the
transition to the CAN will not be totally uprooting our relationships with one
another or changing the way we communicate regularly. Big thanks to Fred Faulkner for helping the
CAN to stay grounded, and not get too worried about the whole process changing!
c. There was
a question about whether a client’s HMIS ID number could be found in the
Universal Housing Application- Mollie will check in with Amanda and Sarah at
Journey Home to see if that would be possible.
3. One final
issue we touched on was whether any agencies had signed the new state RRH MOU,
and whether we would be working collaboratively on the new Rapid Rehousing
funds. So far Chrysalis has signed the
MOU, MACC and Salvation Army Marshall House are both planning on it or in
process. Unfortunately, although the
intention of the funding was to get
agencies to work collaboratively, the structure of the funding with no administrative
funding and high record-keeping demand makes it unlikely that agencies will
commit to using the funds for clients other than their own.
c. Prioritization List- Amanda and Sarah
at Journey Home have been working with the UHA to try and develop the charts
that the Housing Referral Group can use to refer people from the priority list
into housing programs. Attached to
today's agenda is a draft of what this of chart can look like.
i. We
explained that the different priority levels on the chart were based off of HUD
prioritization guidance. The highest
level of priority were chronically homeless clients with severe service needs
and a long length of homelessness. We
used the VI-SPDAT scores of 12 and up to be considered severe service needs.
ii. The
second priority level was chronic clients with the longest history of
homelessness, but with a VI-SPDAT score lower than 12.
iii. The third priority level was chronic
clients with severe service needs, but shorter length of homelessness.
iv. These
charts are pre-sorted by what programs clients are eligible for. So a client will not be listed for a program
if they are not already pre-screened as eligible. This chart gets at the programs that clients
are eligible for, while prioritizing them in order of vulnerability, based on
HUD guidance.
v. We asked
for clarification about how people would like the UHA to collect data about
length of homelessness. There were three
options:
1. Asking clients their total number and
length of homeless episodes in the last 3 years.
2. Multiple fields that say “length of
episode 1” “length of episode 2” etc.
3. Requiring date ranges.
a.
Ultimately, we decided to base our decision on how to capture the data on what
Nutmeg’s recent HMIS webinar decision was for capturing length of
homelessness. The two systems will
match.
vi. There
was a question about whether agencies outside of the CAN are using the UHA,
like Ryan White or HOPWA providers.
Right now, there are agencies that help clients fill out the UHA, but
agencies outside of the CAN are not pulling from the UHA.
3. VI-SPDAT – Score Ranges for Exit Recommendations
a. In addition to these charts, we drafted a
prioritization explanation, with suggested VI-SPDAT score ranges. We asked that people look over this draft for
the next meeting.
b. There was
a question about why transitional housing was recommended for people with
VI-SPDAT scores of 0-5 without income.
Transitional Housing tends to come with more support, and so the
question was why it was being recommended to the people with the lowest scores.
i. The
reason we suggested the range for transitional housing as 0-5 without income is
that people who are chronically homeless
(and who have VI-SPDAT scores of 10 or higher (for individuals) or 12 or
higher (families)) will lose their chronic status if they go into transitional
housing. The reason we do not want to
recommend a chronic household for transitional is that they will lose their
chronic status, and their chances at getting into permanent supportive housing
will be decreased or substantially longer wait if they enter transitional
housing.
ii. Transitional
Housing is also recommended for people who have been denied entry into other
programs, so people with higher scores are not necessarily barred from being
recommended to transitional housing.
iii. Our
logic for transitional housing has to be based on HUD’s logic, because of the
way they are making COCs prioritize funding for their programs.
4. Marketing Plan:
a. Suggested
Communication plan for shelters from MACC:
i. MACC has
started to use their staff to start the communications about CAN. At their staff meetings, they presented a one
pager of CAN information, to get their staff on board. Afterwards, they asked their staff to figure
out who they communicate with regularly, and asked that all staff start telling
their partners in the community about this process. Executive directors are talking to the other
executive directors, different levels are communicating with their community
counterparts. Thank you to Sarah Melquist
for sharing the process and logic.
ii. Although
the information might be going to the same people multiple times, that’s not
necessarily a bad thing.
b. Start
telling your contacts that we switch to 211 for access to shelters on 11/17;
and as of 11/17 please change voice mail
messages to indicate CAN process.
5. Existing Waiting List- Updates
a. Mollie
will continue to reach out to the PSH programs in the CAN that we don’t have
waitlist information for yet.
6. CAN Process Questions
a. For this
week, we tabled the question about how to document clients who refuses to stay
in shelter, and shelters who refuse to take certain clients.
b. We did
discuss what our “wish list” for HMIS would include. We would like to see the VI-SPDAT in HMIS, in
addition to the score.
c. Universal
Housing Application Considerations
i. We discussed an interest in seeing HMIS
client numbers in the UHA, to help us cross reference.
ii. We also
discussed whether we should do a UHA on all clients. In many cases, the VI-SPDAT will guide
whether or not a client is determined to need TH, PSH, or RR. But a low score does not mean you can’t do
the UHA.
iii.
Documentation has been a problem- today we noted that it is possible to upload
multiple different files in one upload, to make the process less time consuming
for staff. In New Haven they have had
people working as document navigators, we might want to try and think about
converting some of our resources.
iv. In terms
of a timeline for gathering UHA information, we said that we would like to see
UHAs being completed 3-5 days after assessments as much as possible. That 3-5 days does not include the time
needed to gather additional documentation, as it can be added later.
v. We are
working on a master list to make sure that the program names we have in the UHA
match with the names we have on the HIC chart.
vi.
Additionally, we are working to create program profiles to gather the detailed
profile information about different housing programs, such as whether they have
ADA accessible sites, and the details that would be relevant for clients before
accepting a program.
No comments:
Post a Comment