Greater Hartford - Coordinated
Access Network
Meeting Notes
August 27, 2014
In Attendance:
Crane
Cesario – DMHAS
Joel Cox –
Town of Enfield Social Services
Bryan Dixon-
InterCommunity MHG
Fred
Faulkner – The Open Hearth
Mary
Gillette- Mercy Housing
Tenesha
Grant – Mercy Housing
Mollie
Greenwood – Journey Home
Mark Jenkins
– Blue Hills Civic Association
Matt Morgan
– Journey Home
Patrice
Moulton- CRT/ East Hartford Shelter
Theresa
Nicholson- Chrysalis Center
Roxan Noble
– Chrysalis Center
Heather
Pilarcik – South Park Inn
Sara
Salomons – CRT / Planning
Dave Shumway
– Immaculate Conception
Sandra Terry
– CRT
Jose Vega-
CRT/ McKinney Shelter
Tamara
Womack – My Sister’s Place
Steve
McHattie – Immaculate Conception
Ruby
Givens-Hewitt – Salvation Army
1.
Introductions & GH-CAN Meeting Notes for
last week, 8/20/2014
a.
This week, in addition to normal sign-in sheet,
we are passing around a sheet to collect a list of who plans to be a part of
which different groups. We want to
solidify representatives to the Oversight Committee, Duty Services
Coordinators, Core Review Group and the Housing Referral Team.
2.
Updates:
a.
CAN Implementation Schedule: GH-CAN Tentative
Start Date 10/27/14.
i.
Our date has been pushed back- this means for
the groups that were planning to start their meetings on October 15th,
they may not want to start that day.
1.
We plan to discuss what kinds of ROIs are going
to be necessary, and whether the HMIS release is an acceptable release for
right now.
2.
We have also attached a meeting summary of the
statewide CAN meeting from 7/24. We are
still keeping our ongoing list of action items (attached to agenda), but the
state has also laid out their list of requests for further guidance.
b.
Stand Down Representatives
i.
We have been asked by CCEH for representation
from the GH-CAN. We would like to send
two representatives. Ashley Blanchard from DMHAS will be attending as one of
our representatives; Mollie Greenwood of Journey Home might be a second CAN
representative.
ii.
A couple of our veteran programs will be going
to Stand Down as well. They offered to
let the GH-CAN representatives sit at their table to explain the benefits we
have available.
c.
Final
GH-CAN Assessment Schedule
i.
The final schedule is attached to last week’s
minutes.
ii.
Our final assessment schedule, HMIS and 211 questionnaires
are due this Friday, 8/29.
d.
Shelter Bed Availability Report
i.
All shelters are updating fairly regularly, Tri -Town
has already indicated that due to low turnover, they will not update very
often. If this is true for any other
shelter, let Mollie know.
ii.
Immaculate Conception indicated that they still
have firewall problems at the shelter, and can only update from Casa De
Francisco.
e.
Reminder: Purge existing waitlists by 9/15/14
i.
To clarify, purging means that you contact the
household on your waitlist to see where they are, and whether they are still
eligible for your program.
ii.
We got some news from DMHAS this week. The DMHAS decision right now is that agencies
should continue to draw from existing waitlists that are first-come,
first-serve basis until they are exhausted; then programs can use the GH CAN
priority lists. DMHAS’s decision is
based on trying to avoid causing undue hardship to clients who been on these
lists for a long time.
iii.
HUD has said that going forward all programs
will need to prioritize waitlists based on vulnerability. However, HUD has not clarified what to do
with the people on your existing waitlists.
Everyone can purge their waitlists of people who are no longer eligible,
but right now, until there is more HUD guidance, all DMHAS funded housing
programs need to work through their existing waitlist before they can begin
working from a prioritized waitlist as noted above.
iv.
Unfortunately, the reality is that we can’t just
flip a switch in October and be able to do everything immediately.
v.
This update is not applicable to the UHA. The UHA is a pre-screen into many programs,
so if the UHA is a program’s only waitlist, the DMHAS directive will not apply.
1.
We also discussed veteran programs referring
through the UHA, and the fact that the UHA is a pre-screen only for veteran
programs, and the process can get difficult if VA referrals are required for
different programs. Please note, 211 will refer directly to SSVF.
f.
CAN access call time frame until housing crisis
(previous decision was 14 days or less)
i.
Originally we said that anyone who was 14 days
away or less from homelessness would be referred to the CAN. Some counties have chosen (due to high
volume) to refer people who are only 48 hours away from homelessness.
ii.
There were concerns that if we only started
taking people 2 days away from homelessness that every call we took would
probably be a crisis call- perhaps a compromise between 2 days and 14 days
would be ideal.
iii.
Our community has therefore decided that we will
take people who are 7 days or less away from homelessness as CAN referrals. As we go live, we can re-evaluate.
g.
New State Rapid Re-Housing Funds
1.
The state has $650,000 designated for Rapid
Rehousing funds.
2.
The grant does not include any administrative
funds, it only pays for direct assistance to clients.
3.
Housing inspections are required, however no
funding is provided.
4.
We have been asked, as a CAN, to figure out one
or two agencies who will take point on this.
These agencies will apply for the funds, and then make them available to
clients of any agency. Apparently there
is a conflict with this request, as the model doesn’t allow collaboration.
5.
Only an agency can sign on, we can’t sign on as
a fiduciary through the MOU.
h.
Referral Process from Household Experiencing
Homelessness- workflow attached to last week’s meeting notes.
i.
VI-SPDAT Diversion Tool and Training
1.
The agencies that attended the training
yesterday said that the tool was very straightforward, and didn’t really
require a lot of training.
2.
A key point from the training was, however, that
the Diversion Tool is not meant to be used as a script at assessments, it is
meant to be a conversation guide, and the assessors don’t have to follow the
tool question by question. It is only
meant to encourage conversations, similar to the kinds of case management
conversations staff is already used to having.
3.
The VI-SPDAT, on the other hand, is meant to be
read as a script. In a few days,
everyone who attended the training will be receiving an email containing the manual,
which has further guidance on how to use the VI-SPIDAT as a script and on
helping to explain the questions to clients.
3.
CT BOS Coordinated Access Network Policies and
Procedures- Revisions
a.
A big thanks to Mary Gillette for being the
first to send in edits of these policies and procedures!
b.
While everyone edits the policies, keep in mind,
who is the CAN? The different sub-groups
we have created at these meetings will have different roles. As everyone is looking through and making
edits, try to think about what groups will be responsible for what duties.
c.
Please continue to review and edit these
policies for next week’s meeting.
4.
Duty Services Coordinators: Need final count and
Daily Operating Handbook revisions.
a.
A sign-up sheet is going around for DSCs- if
your organization has not yet selected one, please do so now.
5.
WORK GROUPS
A1. Shelter/ Assessment: For Families
and Individual Women:
1.
GH-CAN Core Review Group: Establish a baseline
for when a household is referred to the group.
a.
The group discussed the fact that they did not
want to take on existing case loads, but rather would prefer to work with women
or families who had already been banned from some shelters for the purposes of
this group. One proposed baseline involved behavior occurrences / being barred
from shelter.
i.
After being barred from 2 other shelters for
behavioral occurrences, the intake worker at the third shelter would notify the
client that if another behavioral occurrence takes place that the client would
be referred to the CRG. Upon the third
incident, the client would immediately be referred.
b.
Other baselines for referral are as follows:
i.
After any instance of extreme violence or attack
with a weapon, a client would be referred.
ii.
Chronic non-compliance including clients who use
the shelter frequently for short periods of time, with various stays that add
up to a year (those clients who move quickly and often through the shelter
system, or use the shelter system to crash for a few days at the end of the
month).
A2. Shelter/ Assessment: For Individual Men:
1.
GH-CAN Core Review Group: Establish a baseline
for when a household is referred to the group.
a.
Originally, when we started meeting, we had
discussed using this group to assess cases of clients with high recidivism.
b.
The difficulty of this group is the fact that if
clients are refusing to engage with case managers, it seems very unlikely that
this groups decision will create any kind of change.
c.
The CRG is also very reluctant to take on cases that
are already being managed. From the
individual men’s perspective, if a client is engaging with a case manager, they
don’t need this group yet. This group is
for people who aren’t able to engage with case managers anymore.
d.
We discussed dealing with clients who have been
banned from shelters, and determined that this will be the targeted client for
individual men’s CRG. The group will
take referrals from men who have been through all the shelters, and who have
been banned, but continue to present at shelter.
i.
We determined that if a client presents at a
shelter, and the shelter staff sees in his file that he has been banned from
all of the other shelters, that staff person will refer the client to the CRG.
ii.
After the client has been referred, it is the
responsibility of the client to contact someone from the CRG.
1.
Because it will be the responsibility of the
client to contact the CRG, and the client may not contact them at the time he
was told, the CRG recommendation needs to include provisions to deal with what
happens to a client who contacts the group 2 days late, 3 days late, etc.
2.
The reality of the situation may be that the
client hears their recommendation and rejects it.
a.
In this case it becomes important for the
recommendation to become part of the client’s file, so that at every shelter
they present, the shelter staff can give a uniform response to the client.
b.
It’s also important to realize that while it may
be frustrating if the group recommendations are not followed, this group will
provide a lot of data about banned clients, who aren’t necessarily being
recognized by the current system.
iii.
The group also discussed that while this CRG may
not be able to find a solution to every case, having a group of shelter experts
all in the same room, at the same time, talking about the same case, presents
some exciting possibilities for collaborative thinking. We haven’t had an opportunity to come
together and work like this before, so even though this group will be a
challenge, it is a great opportunity.
B. Housing Referral Team: Discuss communication process
regarding opening in programs, notifying households, and when referrals are not
accepted by either household or program.
Identify review threshold for problems.
1.
The group discussed the Housing Availability
Report Google form included in last week’s meeting notes, and made some format
modifications (changing multiple choice to dropdown menus), as well as possibly
removing the scattered site/site-based question.
2.
The group also determined that they wanted to
add a question for the housing profile to determine what towns a client could
find housing in for each program.
3.
The group then discussed issues of refusals.
a.
If a client refuses two housing options offered
to them, their case will be referred to the Housing Referral Team for review,
to determine what is preventing the client from going into these housing
programs.
b.
If a program refuses referrals two times, when
the clients are eligible and have been prioritized for their program, that
program will be referred to the Housing Referral Team for review.
i.
The group determined that we need staffing to
track refusals by both clients, and programs.
We need to determine who will gather this information, and who will make
referrals.
ii.
The group also discussed communication between
clients and housing programs- we still need to figure out exactly how clients
will be notified of a match, and how the matching information will be conveyed
to all appropriate parties (the program, the client, the Housing Referral
Team).
4.
Next steps:
a.
This group wants to talk about the process of
communicating openings, and how matches will be communicated. We will use the existing Greater Hartford
Shelter Plus Care meeting.
i.
In some cases, programs will show a client one or
more apartments that they are eligible for- we need to figure out which
programs show apartments, and which programs leave it to the client to find the
apartments.
b.
This group also needs to determine a timeline
for how long clients will have to either accept or refuse an offer of housing,
as well as timelines for communication, and timelines for the referral process
to the Housing Referral Team.
c.
This group also plans to make further
modifications to the Google forms, and discuss other possibilities for
communicating housing availability.
5.
Updated List of Internal Action Steps and
External Requests for CAN Information and Assistance (attached to agenda)
6.
Cold Weather Protocol Information from
CCEH. We’re going to need to put this on
our agenda for next week’s meeting, so we can discuss everything before the
Hartford meeting.
a.
There will be 3 meetings regarding Request for
Proposals for frontline homeless services.
i.
Thursday, Sept 4, 3:00-4:30 in New Haven, United
Way, 370 James St
ii.
Friday, September 5, 1:00-2:30 in Wesport at
Christ and Holy Trinity Church, 75 Church Lane
iii.
Monday, September 8, 3:00-4:30 in Hartford at
Journey Home, 241 Main St, 4th Floor
7.
Announcements:
a.
South Park let us know that the missing teenager
has still not been located. If you have
any information about this girl, please contact the police directly.
b.
There’s a conference in Harvard coming up
regarding single homeless women. It’s
called 1 in 4: Unaccompanied Homeless Women on October 23rd-24th. If you are interested in attending this
event, please email Crane for the information.
|
Duty Service
Coordinators for GH-CAN as of 8/25/14
|
|||
|
Agency
|
Name
|
Phone
|
email
|
|
CHR Manchester
|
Amber Higgins
|
432-8775
|
|
|
CHR Manchester
|
Robert Soderberg
|
432-8775 x 272
|
|
|
Cornerstone
|
Bryan Flint
|
670-0587
|
|
|
CRT/East Hartford
|
Jamie Randolph
|
568-0323 x 222
|
|
|
Immaculate
|
Dave Shumway
|
724-4823
|
|
|
MACC
|
Shannon Baldassario
|
860-647-8003 x 20
|
|
|
McKinney
|
José Vega
|
757-0661
|
|
|
Mercy
|
Tenesha Grant
|
860-808-2114
|
|
|
My Sisters’ Place
|
Tamara Womack
|
724-3143
|
|
|
The Open Hearth
|
Chris Fortier
|
525-3447 x 117
|
|
|
Salvation Army
|
Ruby Givens-Hewitt
|
543-8430
|
|
|
South Park Inn
|
Heather Pilarcik
|
724-0071
|
|
|
Tri Town
|
Julie Rybacki
|
(860) 875-9702
|
|
|
YWCA/Chyrsalis
|
Roxan Noble
|
860-727-0645 x13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment