Greater Hartford CAN Pre-Implementation 8/6/14

Greater Hartford - Coordinated Access Network

 Meeting Notes

August 6, 2014

In Attendance:

Ashley Blanchard- CRMHC - DHMAS

Sandra Terry – CRT

Crane Cesario- CRMHC - DMHAS

Roger Clark – Immaculate

Mary Davenport- The Network

Peg Doffek- Cornerstone

Kitty Dudley- DOC

Fred Faulkner- The Open Hearth

Bryan Flint- Cornerstone

Mary Gillette- Mercy Housing

Kristen Granatek- CCEH

Tenesha Grant – Mercy Housing

Mollie Greenwood- Journey Home

Andrea Hakian- CHR

Mark Jenkins- Blue Hills Civic Association

Sarah Melquist- MACC

Matt Morgan – Journey Home

Patrice Moulton- CRT/ East Hartford

Theresa Nicholson- Chrysalis Center

Pieter Nijssen- Tritown Shelter

Heather Pilarcik- South Park Inn

Sara Salomons- CRT – CoC Planning

Barbara Shaw- Hands on Hartford

Dave Shumway- Immaculate

Jose Vega- McKinney Shelter

Beth Moshier- AIDS Connecticut.

1.       Introductions & GH-CAN Meeting Notes from last week, 7/30/2014

a.       As a reminder, the meeting notes are not technically minutes, only notes.

2.       Updates

a.       Shelter Bed Availability Protocol

                                                   i.      The Google Document is up and running and has been accessed by almost every shelter.  Over the past week, people updated it nearly every day.  It also has a field right at the top of the document that shows how many total available beds there are across the site for men, women, and families.

b.      Universal Housing Application calculates VI score computed, VI-SPIDAT Score is listed.

                                                   i.      When you complete a Universal Housing Application, please also complete a VI-SPIDAT if one hasn’t been done already.  There is now a field for us to put the VI-SPIDAT score in the UHA, which will assist in prioritizing clients for housing. So far we expect to use the GH UHA which provides the necessary detail for prioritizing than the initial system that is being made available in HMIS.

c.       Waiting List Purge Letter

                                                   i.      The draft of a purge letter was sent out with this meeting’s materials. Programs with existing waitlists should be in the process of purging, and are welcome to use this letter.  It’s written in plain language, but agencies are welcome to modify.

3.       HUD Priorities List-

a.       HUD released the 18 page Notice on 7/28/14.  The link was sent out in the meeting materials email.  Attached to today’s agenda is a concise list of the prioritization criteria. 

b.      HUD has recommended this prioritization and the Hartford CoC has accepted this recommendation as the standard for prioritizing.  We’re waiting to learn the position of the Statewide Coordinated Access Planning group and the Balance of State CoC on these HUD priorities. HUD scores us by performance as a community according to the guidelines and will be looking at the prioritization in the next NOFA (application for funding).

                                                               i.      Because these guidelines are so clear, it is important for us to maintain good records and show evidence of third party documentation going forward.

4.       GH CAN Development Work Groups:

Shelter Topics Work Group:

1.       The Plan for including current shelter residents in GH CAN process.

2.       GH CAN Core Review Team Specifics: Define team composition and meeting plan, referral and review process, and communication plans.

1.       Including current residents in GH CAN process: Dave told the shelter group what Immaculate had been doing to try and include their current shelter residents in the GH-CAN process.  They have started having all their current residents complete the UHA.  He has a number of staff at Immaculate trained on the UHA.  In addition, outreach workers, an intern, and a housing case manager are being trained.  Interns are completing VI-SPIDATs with all the people in the shelter in the evenings.  Right now, he estimated that about half of the residents at Immaculate had completed VI-SPDATs, and the shelter staff have been working at it for a few weeks.

a.       When asked about training, Dave said that his interns had not found a training to be necessary. They indicated that the VI-SPIDAT is a fairly self-explanatory tool, and that the most important rule was to follow the tool’s directions. 

b.      Sarah also said that they had been doing the Universal Housing Application at MACC- it takes about 45 minutes to complete a UHA for a client, and the most time consuming part is scanning in all the client documentation.  Something that can be frustrating is that even after clients have uploaded all their documentation, some programs require further documentation for clients to be eligible, which can be very cumbersome.

c.       Dave said that the VI-SPIDAT takes even less time to complete than the UHA, an average of 20 minutes.

d.      A major group concern was about training for the VI-SPIDAT.  Although the Immaculate interns did not feel that training was necessary, Mary Gillette brought up an important scenario.  In cases where a client might be trying to minimize the difficulties in their experience, they might negatively impact their scores.  If we suspect that people are worse off than they’re letting on, should we try to encourage them to share more?  Is it appropriate to tell them that it’s very important to be completely honest?  If the person administering the VI-SPIDAT does encourage clients to be more honest about their hardships, it’s very likely that all the VI-SPIDATs that person does will be scored with higher vulnerability.  If people at another shelter are just sticking directly to a script, and not asking clients to share more, then those clients will probably be rated as less vulnerable.  This issue identifies the need to train every single person who will be administering the VI-SPIDAT in this CAN.

e.      The group then discussed what exactly we would be doing at the assessment appointments.  Wouldn’t every client be completing a VI-SPIDAT and a UHA at those appointments?  If so, why would we go through people now?

                                                               i.      If we do the full assessments with UHA on everyone, there will likely be a very long wait to get an appointment, once we actually get up and running as a CAN.  We shouldn’t wait to add the shelter clients if we don’t need to.  We can try to start working with them now.

                                                             ii.      We don’t actually know exactly what will happen in the CAN assessments.  Some people might do the UHA, but it’s certainly not necessary to complete a UHA on someone who might be able to get themselves out of the system quickly- we don’t need to waste anyone’s time.

f.        So far, only Immaculate has started doing VI-SPIDAT on their clients- the group all agreed that it would be very important to hold some kind of training as soon as possible to get everyone in the CAN on the same page about the protocol for VI-SPIDAT.

2.       Core Review Team:

a.       The group discussed again what exactly the purpose of this group is.  We discussed whether this group would bring in people like higher court judges, people from the medical system.  Ultimately, we established that this was not the place for that.  These meetings are taking place because clients have not succeeded in a positive exit from any of the programs they have been in so far.  This isn’t a group that will meet to pull in new resources- the assumption must be that if a client is referred to this group, that the shelter, and probably multiple other shelters, have already done absolutely everything possible to assist.

b.      Additionally, we came to an agreement that this group will ultimately be limited- if a client still refuses to accept the Core Review’s Recommendation, there might not be much we can do.  This group will not be responsible for following up with the client, and checking in.  That will be a responsibility of the referring case worker.

c.       We also want to be careful about not trying to replicate existing services.  There is a mobile crisis outreach team (and the HOPE team) for people with serious mental health and substance abuse needs.  

d.      The team: Bryan Flint, Fred Faulkner, Dave Shumway, Jose Vega, Mark Jenkins, and Lynn Naughton.

e.      Meetings will take place weekly.

f.        Meetings will take place at Immaculate, with the potential for certain members to call in, to save time and travel.

g.       Mary Gillette will be drafting a referral form for next week.

h.      We will be ready for these meetings to start October 1^st.

i.         Meeting day/time to be determined.

j.        Duration of meetings will depend on how many clients are on the agenda, ideally meetings would be less than 2 hours.  We will have to be flexible with amount of time in the beginning, as we get things started. 

Housing Referral Work Group:

1.       Housing Referral Team- Specific details: outline team composition and process for reporting opening in housing, reviewing unified referral list, communication with Oversight Group, etc.

2.       Process for identifying prioritized people for next openings, communication plan with providers re: openings

1.       Who will be on the housing committee?

a.       Agencies listed on the HIC representing PSH providers and referring programs. Community stakeholders will be welcome as well.

2.       Where will we meet?

a.       Journey Home, for a monthly conference call. 

b.      Chrysalis Center, for quarterly meetings.

3.       When will we meet?

a.       Twice monthly, via conference call.

4.       What is the method in which we communicate?

a.       Electronically (via email), conference calls, and in face to face meetings.

5.       How will the committee review clients/eligibility?

a.       Source of Data: UHA which includes chronic status, VI-SPDAT score, and length of homelessness. VI-SPDAT score is expected to be the measure for Service Need.

b.      Prioritization and List Management tool: Pivot Tables using UHA data and HUD Prioritization levels as approved by Hartford CoC.

c.       PSH programs that need additional information than the UHA provides will have to qualify households on the list, in advance of vacancies in their program.  If s some additional documentation required for any housing program, the program need to gather that information ahead of time so the household can be selected off of the GH CAN priority list.

d.      Theresa Nicholson said she would follow up with Sherry at DeMarco property management, to check in on the waitlist management process for that housing program.  We need to bring in property managers who control waitlists for PSH programs.

6.       How will providers communicate vacancies?

a.       Google Doc- New Haven has created a document that different groups could use for collaboration- perhaps we could replicate this type of system. We’re still waiting on the information from the statewide planning process, discussed there on 7/24/14.

b.      The document could include information like actual & upcoming vacancies, unit size, programs the household qualifies for, location, and other pertinent information. 

7.       How will we make sure each agency has purged their waitlists by Sept 15^th?

a.       Mollie at Journey Home will be responsible for calling each agency to see if they stopped taking paper applications after August 15^th.  Additionally, she will check in to see where they are in the process of moving to the UHA, if staff are trained and using UHA at every site, etc.  She will record this information and report back to the GH CAN.

8.       What will an ROI system look like?  What would be best for both clients and staff? 

a.       We have been waiting for a statewide answer to see if we could modify the HMIS ROI to allow us to communicate about clients (case conferencing).  Right now, there are a number of different ROIs - we need to see if we can consolidate them and modify them to allow GH CAN communicate as necessary.

9.       Which staff in your agency will be trained to administer VI-SPIDAT?

a.       CCEH will provide training on VI-SPIDAT.  Journey Home will connect with CCEH and coordinate possible training times for next meeting. 

5.       GH-CAN Coordination Teams Needed: GH-CAN Oversight Group (Leadership); Housing Referral Team (in process); Core Review Team (in process).  Need to coordinate with Community Care Teams (Hospitals)

a.       Amanda Girardin at Journey Home has been working with the Community Care Teams.

6.       Scheduled Items: a) 211 Decision Points/ HMIS Information Sheet: Due 8/29.

a.       We need every shelter to complete their sign-up for assessment times and complete the forms. We will send around the schedule.

7.       LIST OF REQUESTS FOR STATEWIDE CAN PLANNING PROCESS- attached to your agenda, there is our list of needs and requests.  Crane is following up.

8.       Announcements

a.       We are going to STOP accepting paper applications for all supportive housing programs in the Greater Hartford Area.

b.      We will identify specific need for staff training on the UHA, there is going to be a period of time where we do not take paper applications.  

c.       Please send us your ideas about what we should talk about at upcoming meetings! 

d.      Kristen and Matt will connect to schedule trainings on VI-SPIDAT soon.

                                                               i.      We hope to have two trainings in August and in September, VI-SPIDAT and the Diversion Tool with both be covered in each training.  We hope to have both August and September trainings in Hartford, and in a neighboring town.  Locations and times TBD.

                                                             ii.      CHR offered to host one of the trainings for GH CAN, in Manchester.  We may be able to use MSP space at Sue Ann Shay, or Capitol Region MHC in Hartford.

e.      Rapid Rehousing training is on the 20^th, it’s unclear when or where it will take place.

f.        One suggestion is to hold a potluck on the GH-CAN scheduled go-live date of 10/1, rather than having one of these meetings - we need a celebration! Thanks to Mary G for the idea!