Greater Hartford - Coordinated
Access Network
Meeting Notes
August 13, 2014
In Attendance:
|
(Listed by Agency Name)
|
|
|
Mark Jenkins- Blue Hills Civic Association
Andrea Hakian- CHR
Justine Couvares- Chrysalis Center
Roxan Noble- Chrysalis Center
Lionel Rigler- City of Hartford
Peg Doffek- Cornersone
Bryan Flint- Cornerstone
Sandra Terry- CRT
Ashley Blanchard- DMHAS
Crane Cesario- DMHAS
Roger Clark- Immaculate
Lou Gilbert- Immaculate
Dave Shumway- Immaculate
|
Iris Ruiz- Interval House
Mollie Greenwood- Journey Home
Matt Morgan- Journey Home
Sarah Trench- Journey Home
Jose Vega- McKinney
Mary Gillette- Mercy Housing
Tamara Womack- My Sister’s Place
Lynn Naughton- Salvation Army Marshall House
Josephine Wilson- Salvation Army Marshall House
Ruby Givens-Hewitt- Salvation Army Marshall House
Brian Baker- South Park Inn
Heather Pilarcik- South Park Inn
Mary Davenport – The Network
Fred Faulkner- The Open Hearth
|
1.
Introductions
& GH-CAN Meeting Notes from last week.
2.
Updates:
a.
GH CAN’s updated assessment schedule included
The Open Hearth, Immaculate, McKinney, YWCA/Chrysalis, My Sisters’ Place,
Salvation Army Marshall House, South Park Inn, CRT/East Hartford, MACC,
Tri-Town, CHR Manchester, and Cornerstone.
Mercy also offered to fill a spot in the schedule, and indicated that
they would have the ability to work with Spanish speakers in their assessments.
i.
McKinney, Immaculate, South Park Inn, and
Salvation Army Marshall House all also indicated that they could hold
assessments in Spanish. All other
locations will confirm whether or not they can perform assessments in Spanish
next week.
b.
Shelter Bed Availability Report- Every shelter
has logged in to the Google document at least once since it became
available. Mollie will check with
shelters to see how often they will update.
i.
Immaculate is still having firewall problems at
the shelter, but they are able to update the document from Casa De
Francisco. In September, when they have
their IT maintenance, the firewall block at the shelter will be resolved.
c.
GH Can Programs and Agencies Summary- Using the
Housing Inventory Chart, Journey Home has provided a count of all housing
programs available within our CAN based on category. Our next step, based on this information, is
to see who is already participating in GH-CAN activities, and to reach out to programs and agencies that
have not started working with the GH-CAN process yet.
d.
VI-SPDAT / Diversion Tool Training Schedule:
Tuesday, August 26th, from 1:00-4:00 at CHR, 487 Center St,
Manchester
Thursday, August 28th, from 9:00-12:00 at Sue Ann Shay Place, 76
Pliny St, Hartford
Wednesday, September 17th, from 9:00-12:00 at CHR, 487 Center
St, Manchester
Tuesday, September 23rd, from 1:00-4:00 at Sue Ann Shay
Place, 76 Pliny St, Hartford
i.
Journey Home will send an email for sign-up.
e.
HUD Priorities List (attached) – for ongoing
reference.
3.
Contact
Information:
a.
The sign-in sheet is organized by agency today,
and we are asking that each agency choose someone to be their GH-CAN
Representative for the Oversight Committee.
If your representative is not listed on the sheet, please write-in their
contact information.
b.
In addition to the representative, we are asking
that each site that is hosting assessment appointments have one Duty Services
Coordinator. We are still clarifying the
scope of responsibilities of the DSC, so we are asking that every agency provide
a tentative DSC.
4.
GH-CAN
Development Work Groups, Part I:
A.
Shelter /
Assessment: GH CAN Core Review Team:
Review and Finalize Referral Form, Identify next steps needed.
a.
Thanks Mary for drafting a referral form, and
thanks to Crane for helping to format it- we’re off to a great start, and this
form has a lot of good components.
b.
Something this form needs is the specifics of
where to sending this form.
i.
Originally, we talked about sending this form to
Journey Home before it goes to the Core Review Team, so that Journey Home could
compile a group of cases and get them organized, to remove an extra level of
work for the Core Review Team.
1.
This means that Journey Home must be listed on
whatever ROI form the GH-CAN adopts.
2.
We’ve asked for statewide guidance on ROI
coverage and usage.
ii.
As of now the form has “Initial Diversion
Recommendations/ Issues” but it’s important to add information like previous
referrals and outcomes. It’s very
important to know, not only what has been tried, or who has been contacted, but
what the result of those interactions was.
Just sending over a form that says “client was referred to DCF” doesn’t
tell us the whole story. It is very
important for the referring body to provide as much information as possible
about previous efforts, as well as any results.
iii.
It is also important that when a case-worker is
planning on referring a client to the Core Review Team that the case- worker
has a conversation with the client. This Core Review Team should not be a group
that blindsides clients, we want to make sure that before a client’s case is
referred to the Core Review Team that the client has a conversation with the
case manager about what steps are being taken.
We think that we need to add an area where the referring agency can
record the date of this meeting between case-worker and client.
iv.
The process for referring a client will
therefore be as follows:
1.
Case-worker recognizes a history of challenges
with a particular client.
2.
After exhausting all other options and resources
available to that case-worker, the case worker will gather all information
possible about the clients’ past referrals / systemic challenges / use of the
system etc.
3.
Case-worker will sit down with the client and
explain that they are being referred to this Core Review Team and explain why
they have chosen to refer them.
4.
Case-worker will send referral form and any
other relevant information to Journey Home to compile.
5.
Journey Home will collect whatever referrals
come within a certain time period. It is
important to note that referrals should come complete, because it is the burden
of the referring agency to find information on client history- the Core Review
Team realistically will not be able to do background research on each client.
6.
The Core Review Team will meet to discuss each
case in person, or potentially via conference call if necessary, at weekly
meetings. The team will be looking at
what avenues have already been tried with clients, and looking to see if there
is a system problem in any case.
7.
Core Review Team will make recommendations and
deliver these recommendations back to the referring agency. These recommendations will be in written
form.
8.
The referring case-worker will then hold another
meeting with the client to explain the recommendation and determine what the
next steps should be for the client.
v.
We had discussed earlier whether or not we
should have clients present for these meetings, and ultimately decided that for
the client, going into a room with a group of people they’ve never met before,
it could do more harm than help, so it is important for the referring case
worker to be integral in this process.
They will have meetings with the client before and after the Core Review
Team makes a decision.
vi.
It is also important to note that we do not know
for sure who our clients will be yet.
Initially, we might start with a few clients who have churned, been
banned, been non-compliant, but as time goes on its likely that many clients
will have dealt with gaps in the system, or large personal obstacles that their
providers could not overcome at the time.
We cannot restrict our thinking to only one kind of client, because
until we get started, we really won’t know what we’re working with.
vii.
An essential next step for this group is
gathering resources. The Core Review
Team needs to be fully aware of all resources that are available to the Greater
Hartford CAN so that when the Core Review Team comes together, they are aware
of every program that could help these clients.
viii.
We still need to determine our timelines between
referrals and meetings. Last week we
talked about having weekly meetings for the Core Review Team, so perhaps we are
looking at 10 days maximum between a referral and the Core Review Team
discussing a case. 10 days will be our
tentative time frame.
ix.
Going forward, it may also be important for this
team to consider a name change. There is
another program with the initials CRT already participating in the CAN, and the
Core Review Team could get very confusing very quickly.
x.
We discussed that it might be very helpful for
the Core Review Team to run a pilot, with maybe one or two clients before
October. Unfortunately, until the GH-CAN
has a working release, this sort of case conferencing is not possible.
B.
Housing
Referral Team: Review Housing Referral Workflow (Handout); Identify Changes
and next steps needed.
a.
The Housing Referral Team determined that it was
important to ensure that clients are document-ready by the time programs are
finalizing eligibility reviews.
i.
The group discussed which agencies help people
come up with ID/documents. Right now,
shelters often assist clients with obtaining IDs. Perhaps the responsibility of obtaining IDs
should stay with the referring agency (whoever helps the client complete a
UHA).
ii.
Other documentation, like income, is often more
variable than ID, and so it should be the responsibility of the housing
providers to ensure that clients have all necessary documentation.
iii.
DMHAS can request statewide arrest records
without a fee- Crane will recommend that CRMHC makes reports accessible to the
GH-CAN.
iv.
A question that remains about unified waitlist
procedures is who is responsible for notifying clients? Clients are put into a community-wide process
after they have been referred. Is it the
responsibility of the referring agency, or someone else?
v.
There needs to be a process for people who
aren’t housed easily, such as if a client has been referred for a program
several times and has been denied. As of
now the client struggle is the Core Review Team responsibility to review. The
Housing Referral Team will have to review why Programs deny admission.
5.
GH-CAN
DEVELOPMENT WORK GROUPS, PART II
vi.
It would be helpful to have a Google document
for communicating openings and making sure programs pre-qualify people before
having availability.
1.
This document could include a description of
if/why a client has been denied entry into an available program spot.
2.
Journey Home will request a copy of New Haven’s
forms.
C.
GH-CAN
Oversight Group:
a.
Identify
a recommended membership and the name for the GH-CAN Oversight Committee. Outline the scope and role, and next steps
needed for development and implementation of this group for our CAN.
b.
The working name (subject to change) is GH-CAN
Oversight Committee
c.
The scope and role of this group is as follows:
i.
Reviewing outcomes / Measures of Housing and
Shelter programs
ii.
Evaluation of program. We need to make sure we are getting feedback
about what works, what is challenging, what could be made better, what gaps are
in the system. We need to get this information from consumers of the CAN,
agencies within the CAN, and 211. We
could conduct group or individual surveys.
iii.
Monitoring Data
iv.
Problem solving, difficulties, Capacity Issues
within the CAN- these system problems with the CAN itself will be addressed by
the oversight group.
v.
Agency-level complains
vi.
Policies, updates, changes, approvals
vii.
Relations to the Continuum of Care
viii.
Review Grievances
ix.
Communications to providers / outside
stakeholders
x.
Reconvene to discuss the Development process for
the GH-CAN if any problems arise.
xi.
Meet monthly for the first three months of CAN,
after that, meetings might become quarterly depending on necessity.
d.
List GH-CAN Representative name and contact
information for your agency (contact info attached in spreadsheet):
i.
Matt Morgan- Journey Home
ii.
Crane Cesario- DMHAS
iii.
Theresa Nicholson- Chrysalis
iv.
Sarah Melquist- MACC
v.
Lionel Rigler- City of Hartford
vi.
Bryan Flint- Cornerstone
vii.
Lynn Naughton- Salvation Army Marshall House
viii.
Mark Jenkins- Blue Hills Civic Association
D.
Duty
Services Coordinator:
a.
Review and edit the draft GH-CAN information and
policies in this handbook, revised from the model provided by the New
Britain-Bristol CAN. Make
recommendations for additions and changes, identify next steps as needed.
i.
Things we need to start thinking about: what
happens if we really don’t have any beds available. We think we have our triage set up, and are
able to provide a chair for the night if nothing is available. It’s something to consider.
ii.
DSC is responsible for coordinating assessments-
in some cases he DSC might be responsible for making a referral to the Core
Review Team.
iii.
Eventually we need to talk about grievance and
appeal processes.
iv.
Organizations may also need to consider who will
be their DSC alternates.
v.
When the DSC group came together, everyone
reviewed the handbook for a efw minutes, and then we started discussion on
section 3. Duty Services Coordinator Responsibilities.
1.
This section indicated that the DSC was
responsible for managing shelter bed waitlists if necessary. We had all thought that we were trying to
avoid creating waitlists for beds, so this point was confusing.
2.
This section also indicated that on Monday,
Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, there was a conference call between all Duty
Service Coordinators at 4:30.
a.
We
realized that 4:30 was not going to be a possible time slot for this CAN’s
DSCs. We also wondered how necessary a
phone call was every day for every DSC.
Right now, we have 13 agencies signed up to host assessments, meaning we
have 13 DSCs, and eventually may have more.
Is it really necessary for each assessment site to report to every other
site every single day? We agreed that
this might be oversharing non-essential information.
b.
We talked about other venues for communicating,
other than a conference call, including instant messaging, a google document,
and chats within a google document, through ECM, and a form email.
c.
We also discussed possibly just reporting
directly to 211 daily, but possibly not with every other DSC.
3.
We then started looking at section 4. Intake
Appointment Process and Referrals.
a.
Looking at the first part of section four, that
“the participant may need referrals for eviction prevention” could become tricky
for assessors.
b.
In section 4. C. “Search for beds in other CANs
if the participant is willing to relocate” was tricky for us.
i.
We had been under the impression that the goal
of CANs was to try and provide services within the CAN, and that our clients were
our responsibility. We would like more
statewide guidance on whether or not we are supposed to look outside the CAN
for beds.
4.
We would like to revisit the DSC handbook soon-
we only had time to address sections 3 and 4 so far.
E.
October
1 Celebration Planning
a.
We want all of you to come! Everyone can come to the October 1st
meeting, and we will attend to GH CAN business first and then have a little
celebration for how far we’ve come.
b.
If the congratulatory segment is not something you
think is a good idea, please talk to Crane.
c.
If you are interested in providing snacks or any
other contributions, let Crane know!
F.
Data
Quality Management and Performance Measurement: Identify the group that
will develop the plan to monitor data and performance of our CAN; as well as
plan to integrate with CoC and CT-HMIS processes. We have a distinct responsibility to oversee
our work and communicate.
a.
People in New London did a data quality
presentation.
i.
They tracked data at the 211 state, whether
clients were housed, and if they subsequently became homeless.
ii.
New London only did families, and that was on a
smaller scale.
b.
CAN is connected to HMIS at several steps. HMIS will have CAN as a program for
assessments- individual data will be collected in coordinated access as a
program- this gets at the issue of tracking people who have been diverted to a
shelter.
c.
We came up with data points we would like to
collect.
i.
How many calls are coming into 211
ii.
How many people were successfully diverted at
the 211 call.
iii.
What they were able to assist with (rental
assistance, facing eviction, etc)
iv.
Where the clients were diverted
1.
Tracking diversions to shelter, where they go/
what types of programs they access from shelter.
v.
How many people were not diverted or given
assessment
vi.
How many people were given appointments for
assessment
1.
How many people did not keep appointments
a.
If they were cancellations vs. no-shows
b.
Reasons for cancellations
c.
How many times the same client has cancelled
2.
How many people did keep appointments
a.
How many people were duplicates/frequent
b.
How many people completed their assessments
3.
How many people were not eligible for housing
a.
What specific obstacles to housing they face
4.
How many people were offered placements
a.
How were they prioritized
b.
How many referrals per client
c.
Where/when were the placed on referral list
d.
Demographics/ info about clients who were given
placements
d.
An idea for data collection is that we could
give out surveys to clients asking them about their experience.
e.
It will also be important to track (internally)
how long it takes to do an assessment.
6.
Review
2 Questionnaire Responses: 2-1-1 Decision Points & HMIS Information Sheet
a.
Question:
Is email acceptable for referrals, documentation, and outcomes shared with 211?
i.
All of the people who were still at the meeting
at this point said that it would be alright with them. We will need to send around a checklist at a
future meeting to clarify if this is still ok with everyone.
b.
We need
to include Duty Service Coordinator List and Administrative Contacts
i.
All groups that were present have signed up an
Administrative Contact as well as a Duty Services Coordinator (see attached)
7.
List
of Requests for Statewide CAN Planning Process
a.
We have continued to track statewide questions
each meeting, and will add to this list weekly.
8.
Announcements
a.
Although there is a training on August 20th
in the morning about new Rapid Rehousing funds, please still plan on attending
GH CAN in the afternoon. The training is
from 10-12 in Meriden. The training is
only open to emergency shelter providers.
Matt will send out the training info.
b.
We are waiting to hear back from NB-B for okay
to shadow an assessment and talk with a DSC.
c.
We don’t know what scope HMIS ROI will cover -
we are waiting for more guidance on releases, especially as it pertains to the
Coordinated Care Team (Hospitals).
|
Duty Service Coordinators for GH-CAN as of 8/13/14
|
|||
|
Agency
|
Name
|
Phone
|
email
|
|
CHR Manchester
|
Amber Higgins
|
432-8775
|
ahiggins@chrhealth.org
|
|
CHR Manchester
|
Robert Soderberg
|
432-8775 x 272
|
rsoderberg@chrhealth.org
|
|
Cornerstone
|
Bryan Flint
|
670-0587
|
bryanflint@aol.com
|
|
CRT/East Hartford
|
not selected yet
|
|
|
|
Immaculate
|
Dave Shumway
|
724-4823
|
davids@icshc.org
|
|
MACC
|
not selected yet
|
|
|
|
McKinney
|
Jose Vega
|
757-0661
|
vegaj@crtct.org
|
|
Mercy
|
Tenesha Grant
|
860-808-2114
|
tgrant@mercyhousingct.org
|
|
My Sisters’ Place
|
Rosemary Flowers
|
724-3143
|
rosemaryf@sistersplacect.org
|
|
The Open Hearth
|
Chris Fortier
|
525-3447 x 117
|
chris@theopenhearth.org
|
|
Salvation Army
|
Josephine Wilson
|
543-8423 x225
|
josephine.wilson@use.salvationarmy.org
|
|
South Park Inn
|
Heather Pilarcik
|
724-0071
|
hpilarcik@southparkinn.org
|
|
Tri Town
|
not selected yet
|
|
|
|
YWCA/Chrysalis
|
not selected yet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GH-CAN Core Review Team as of 7/30/14
|
||||
|
First Name
|
Last Name
|
Organization
|
Phone
|
Email
|
|
Lynn
|
Naughton
|
Salvation Army
|
543-8430
|
lynn.naughton@use.salvationarmy.org
|
|
Jose
|
Vega
|
McKinney
|
757-0661
|
vegaj@crtct.org
|
|
Bryan
|
Flint
|
Cornerstone
|
670-0587 ( c )
|
bryanflint@aol.com
|
|
Mark
|
Jenkins
|
Blue Hills Civic Association
|
250-4146
|
jenkinsm@bluehillscivic.org
|
|
Fred
|
Faulkner
|
The Open Hearth
|
257-5571
|
faulkner@theopenhearth.org
|
|
Dave
|
Shumway
|
Immaculate
|
724-4823
|
davids@icshc.org
|
|
GH-CAN Administrative Representatives as of 8/13/14
(Contact for 211 related to CAN Assessments, etc.)
|
||||
|
First Name
|
Last Name
|
Organization
|
Phone (860)
|
Email
|
|
Mark
|
Jenkins
|
Blue Hills Civic Association
|
250-4146
|
jenkinsm@bluehillscivic.org
|
|
Andrea
|
Hakian
|
CHR
|
432-8775 x516
|
ahakian@chrhealth.org
|
|
Roxan
|
Noble
|
Chrysalis Center
|
727-0645 x13
|
|
|
Crane
|
Cesario
|
DMHAS
|
297-0874
|
|
|
Dave
|
Shumway
|
Immaculate
|
724-4823
|
|
|
Bryan
|
Dixon
|
InterCommunity
|
299-3250
|
|
|
Iris
|
Ruiz
|
Interval House
|
246-9149 x 315
|
Iris.Ruiz@intervalhousect.org
|
|
Matt
|
Morgan
|
Journey Home
|
808-0336
|
|
|
Mary
|
Gillette
|
Mercy Housing
|
808-2066
|
Mgillette@mercyhousingct.org
|
|
Heather
|
Pilarcik
|
South Park Inn
|
724-0071
|
hpilarcik@southparkinn.org
|
|
Fred
|
Faulkner
|
The Open Hearth
|
257-5571
|
faulkner@theopenhearth.org
|
|
Crane
|
Cesario
|
GH CAN Admin Coordinator
|
297-0874
|
crane.cesario@ct.gov
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suggested Members of GH-CAN Administrative Representatives List
|
|
First Name
|
Last Name
|
Organization
|
Phone (860)
|
Email
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GH-CAN Oversight Committee as of 8/13/14
|
||||
|
First Name
|
Last Name
|
Organization
|
Phone (860)
|
Email
|
|
Matt
|
Morgan
|
Journey Home
|
808-0336
|
matt.morgan@journeyhomect.org
|
|
Crane
|
Cesario
|
DMHAS
|
297-0874
|
crane.cesario@ct.gov
|
|
Theresa
|
Nicholson
|
Chrysalis Center
|
236-4400
|
Tnicholson@chrysaliscenterct.org
|
|
Sarah
|
Melquist
|
MACC
|
647-8003 x 10
|
smelquist@macc-ct.org
|
|
Lionel
|
Rigler
|
City of Hartford
|
757-9277
|
rigll001@hartford.gov
|
|
Bryan
|
Flint
|
Cornerstone
|
670-0587 ( c )
|
bryanflint@aol.com
|
|
Lynn
|
Naughton
|
Salvation Army
|
543-8430
|
lynn.naughton@use.salvationarmy.org
|
|
Mark
|
Jenkins
|
Blue Hills Civic Association
|
250-4146
|
jenkinsm@bluehillscivic.org
|
|
Suggested Members of GH-CAN Oversight Committee
|
|
First Name
|
Last Name
|
Organization
|
Phone (860)
|
Email
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment