Meeting
Notes July 16, 2014
In Attendance:
Julie
Ackerman – CRT
Sandy
Barry – Salvation Army
Crane
Cesario – DMHAS
Roger
Clark – Immaculate
Fred
Faulkner – The Open Hearth
Bryan
Flint- Cornerstone
Lou
Gilbert – Immaculate
Mary
Gillette – Mercy Housing
Tenesha
Grant – Mercy Housing
Dave
Martineau- Mercy Housing
Sarah
Melquist – MAAC
Matt
Morgan – Journey Home
Patrice
Moulton – CRT/ East Hartford Shelter
Roxan
Noble – Chrysalis Center
Heather
Pilarcik – South Park Inn
Iris
Ruiz – Interval House
Dave
Shumway – Immaculate
Jose
Vega – McKinney
Tamera
Womack – My Sister’s Place
Ashley
Blanchard – CRMCH
Sara
Salomons – CRT
·
Agenda
·
Introductions:
o
Fred said there had been an exciting
morning at Open Hearth with a surprise DOC visit.
o
Sara Salomons from CRT, Ashley Blanchard
from CRMHC, and Mollie Greenwood from Journey Home all introduced themselves as
new members to future CAN meetings.
·
GH CAN Meeting Notes for last week,
7/9/14
o
Reviewed the minutes from last week.
·
Sarah from MACC offered to be our
“question keeper” and record any questions or concerns that need to be brought
to the state, or items that the group needed to table for later discussion.
·
We discussed Bed Availability Protocol,
including the google docs.
o
Bryan discussed keeping the info on
google docs, but after information has been posted, he can email people as
necessary. He suggested that it might be
difficult for people to log into google docs to update information as
necessary.
§ Others
responded that we are already connected in email.
§ Bryan
suggested switching to collecting email daily to determine the maximum number
of beds available. Cornerstone offered
to check the google doc daily and then send out emails updating shelters about
bed availability.
·
Using daily emails might be less
efficient than using the google doc as it stands.
·
Workflow
Project: Identify the process of referring a household to shelter from the CAN
assessment appointment: c)household came from the shelter prior to CAN
assessment appointment). Household was referred to shelter
while waiting for available CAN appointment or was self-referral to a shelter and was assisted
in making CAN appointment).
o
We need to look at how we handle these
CAN appointments with clients.
Specifically, we need to figure out clients that could not be diverted
at CAN- they are now in need of shelter.
§ Ideally,
these clients would stay where they are.
If a client is already staying somewhere, they should be allowed to
return the evening following their CAN appointment.
§ Can
all clients leave their things in the shelter while they go to the appointment
during the day?
·
All shelters present said that clients
can leave their belongings at the shelter while they go to CAN assessment.
o
We need to figure out what the protocol
will be when you take in a client prior to their assessment. We need to be able to communicate about
client needs across shelters.
§ In
order for us to communicate across shelters, do clients need to sign a release
of information of some kind?
o
What happens when a client skips an
appointment and then goes to a shelter?
o
Right now, we aren’t totally clear on
what will happen at an assessment- as a group we need to determine how we will
communicate between assessment sites and the host shelter.
§ Maybe
clients could bring a paper from the shelter to the appointment, then have the
paper signed, and return it to the host shelter in order to gain entry? This is not a foolproof system.
o
Focusing on those clients who do attend their appointments as
scheduled, how can the appointments find out whether the clients can return to
the same shelter to stay following the appointment?
§ The
host shelters could fax over a release to the appointment site to confirm that
the clients show up
§ We
could program HMIS to ask a few questions designated for the appointment
·
We all use HMIS, so this could be
practical
·
However, there could be a delay. In some shelters, the person who enters
client data may not be there between the Friday night, when a client arrives at
a shelter, and their Monday morning appointment. This would lead to client data not being
entered prior to the appointment.
o
It’s possible that HUD may be calling
for a 24 hour turnaround on client data in HMIS in the future.
§ The
host shelter could send an email to the appointment center, indicating that the
client had been staying at the shelter, and that they would, or would not be
welcomed back after the appointment.
§ Shelters
could enter client data into “the bucket”
§ For
the purposes of communicating about clients while maintaining confidentiality,
shelters and appointment centers can refer to clients’ HMIS numbers. If the client is not yet entered into HMIS,
the shelter and appointment sites can refer to client initials in
correspondences.
·
One way to ensure that there can be more
open communications following the assessment is to have clients sign a release
of information at the host shelter, and then another release of information
when they arrive at their appointment site.
·
Would it be practical to create a
regional webpage for communications?
There are 8 regions in CT.
·
We need a statewide CAN in some shape,
because clients are transient.
§ Clients
already sign HMIS releases- could the HMIS release and the CAN release be
consolidated into one release form?
§ Can
211 be responsible for holding this client data so that it can easily be
located by shelters and appointments in the client’s file?
·
The goal is for information about
whether or not the client can stay at the same shelter the night following the
assessment so that the assessor can access that information during the
appointment.
§ The
norm will be that a client can return to the shelter unless otherwise
stated. It will become the
responsibility of the host shelter to notify the appointment if the client is
not welcome to return to the shelter.
·
Clients are not coming to this
appointment for the purpose of finding out whether they can remain in the same
shelter- they come to determine their eligibility for different programs and
try to start planning their next steps.
o
How does VISPIDAT information get from
the CAN assessors back to case workers?
§ Norwich
reviews all clients in one meeting, but because we are much larger, we will
need to set up an oversight committee.
§ Maybe
we could enter CAN data into HMIS so that everyone could access CAN data after
the appointment
§ *A
statewide question is how do we track the CAN data and assessments to prevent
clients from surfing for better referrals?
o
What about in cases where transportation
is a challenge- if clients have an appointment scheduled at one shelter, but
are staying at another.
§ Is
it possible to change appointments to remain in a current shelter?
§ If
possible, shelters should create alternate in house appointments to decrease
the burden to clients.
o
Rollout date for CAN is October 1st.
·
Workflow
Project: Shelters d) other: Household can no longer stay at any other shelter.
o
If a client is not welcome at a shelter
after their appointment, the shelter must tell the client.
o
What is the process after CAN for clients
who have been discharged?
o
Clients who are a no-show, arrive
clearly intoxicated, or the CAN person feels unsafe, they will be referred to
211 and will need to schedule a new appointment.
·
Oversight
Group Development
o
CAN must establish a group to deal with
challening clients who are discharged from multiple shelters, or repeatedly
miss CAN appointments.
§ Bryan
Flint, Fred Faulkner, and Dave Shumway volunteered to be a part of this group.
o
Need to create an oversight group to
assess CAN eventually
§ Representatives
from each agency would ideally help provide oversight/assessment of CAN
·
Announcements
o
Waitlists are freezing August 1st
o
We need VISPIDAT for waitlist clients as
soon as possible
o
We are looking for chronic families who
can manage in a 2 bedroom- head of household must have disability
o
Next week we will figure out what we
have already done / need to do /what we have agreed upon
No comments:
Post a Comment