Greater Hartford
Coordinated Access Network
Leadership Agenda
Wednesday, May 17th,
2017
1. Welcome
and Introductions
a. Dave
Martineau
b. Barbara
Shaw
c. Crane
Cesario
d. Kathy
Shaw
e. Amy
Robinson
f. Rosemary
Flowers
g. Steve
McHattie
h. Fred
Faulkner
i. Kyren
McCorey
j. John
Lawlor
k. Sonia
Brown
l. Iris
Ruiz
m. Mollie
Greenwood
n. Matt
Morgan
o. Theresa
Nicholson
2. Service
Gaps Determined by Operations Committee – Gaps identified by Operations team
a. Furniture
– Barbara Shaw
i. Issue
of transportation furniture
ii. Identifying
furniture for folks who are recently housed
iii. JH
has a program but there’s a waitlist
1. Theresa
has contact for furniture who always wants to give us furniture but they don’t
have storage. His name is Kevin with a moving company in West Hartford, CT.
Does a lot of moving for revitalization – upscale consignment for estate sales.
Contact Theresa with information.
b. Utility
Assistance
i. Another
issue with clients already in shelter is folks who have utility arrears. They weren’t
able to be diverted using any utility assistance, and it’s a barrier when
client is matched to housing unit. Right now we have no funding stream for
utility assistance once folks are in shelter. We have had help from Larrabee
fund and some agencies can assist here and there but it’s been coming up at
housing matching meeting with folks with high utility bills. Sometimes the bill
is in a family member’s name.
ii. Barbara
asked if we have amounts of those bills. Bills vary from couple of hundreds to
thousands of dollars. During Z:16 we had flex funding to be able to assist
chronic with bills but no longer have funding.
iii. Chrysalis
uses CRT energy assistance but utilities have to be on already.
iv. Many
providers are also working with Eversource who were allowing hardship plan, but
now they are requesting a certain down payment before they can even start.
1. Iris
stated they can negotiate where they get credit for half of the bill and they
will pay the other half. Not sure about criteria or if it’s pick and choose.
2. Barbara
said they received some funding and Janet was getting ready to roll it out. One issue is if the bills are so large then
they won’t be able to serve as many people with this funding. Barbara estimated
around $30,000 is what may be available, so she may propose to use half for utility
arrears. CHR has contacts with landlords who will include all utilities for
folks who can’t rectify their arrears.
v. CCEH
utility assistance is only diversion dollars.
The Be Homeful campaign began over a year ago. This fund includes both
flexible diversion funds and about $13,000 in Greater Hartford that is restricted
for diversion utility assistance.
c. Childcare
1. CCEH
used to have childcare for clients in shelter, but funding is gone right now. We are hearing at the family matching meeting that
one consistent issue is lack of childcare while getting employment.
2. There
is virtually no more Care 4 Kids unless you’re already on it. Another issue is
that they never covered employment search.
3. There
is a particular issue is with kids who are too young to get into Head Start.
a. Iris
remembered that there used to be a program at the YWCA where you could drop
your kids off for a couple of hours called “Time Out for Parents.”
b. As
a housing provider, the harder these things are, the harder it is to get the
households housed and there are strict protocols about how long we have to get
people into housing.
i. Theresa
indicated that we’re going to be asking navigators to be in a bigger role than
just disabling condition and homeless verification moving forward so by the
time a client gets to the housing provider they will be ready to go into a unit.
ii. In
some cases housing providers are taking more than 2 months to get people housed
because they don’t have ID or because of utility bills. All these hoops are
preventing them from housing folks within 2 month’s timeframe.
iii. Crane
expressed that we have switched the problem from having huge delays before
matching to now having delays after matching. We should keep track of why
clients are taking longer to house. If we list or keep track of barriers of why
the performances are lower, we can track them. We might want to revisit
categories of barriers. This is something we should start talking about next
meeting.
d. DSS
and DCF Involvement
1. We
need more representatives at the table, or at least have some liaisons that CAN
staff can reach out to with questions or challenges. We finally have some DCF folks who are going
to be involved in YETI. DSS continues to be a concern, and the Operations
committee is expressing concerns about DSS eligibility. We don’t have anyone
who comes to the table from DSS, nor a good contact there.
2. Kara
said she has had conversations with Steve to infiltrate some level of
management so they can do some training. Last conversation was where was the
most important place to begin this in DCF.
a. We
need to have a champion in the department and someone who can authorize 1 or 2 people
to be a contact.
i. The
state just eliminated 88 positions at DSS due to recent budget cuts. Depending
on where budget goes, there could be 9% layoff.
ii. Kara
said she will email Steve again.
3. Rapid
ReHousing Referrals – Kara Capobianco
i. Two
meetings ago at RRH, we did not get as many referrals as the RRH programs were
able to take, so we came back to the Leadership Committee and indicated that we
were having trouble getting referrals. At last week’s meeting we were still
having issues getting rapid rehousing referrals.
ii. We
had 95 people that we discussed last week and only referred 8 and the programs were
ready to take 3 or 4 more.
iii. The
short term program was ready to take 8 or 9 but not unable to make any matches.
The committee is running into issues with no income, pending SSI and before we
can even attempt progressive engagement they don’t have a chance.
iv. If
it’s a family, then they have disability and CAN determines vulnerable and no
other chronic families, they can potentially be bridged into PSH. But we don’t
want to assume that everyone is going to move to PSH.
v. Our
current referral model is not working. Rapid rehousing staff is doing
everything they can to work with referrals they receive. When the RRH providers announced that the
program would now only be assisting up to 6 months, that may have made case
management staff even more reluctant to refer, worrying that folks may not
succeed with such time-limited assistance.
Kara clarified that services are abbreviated but financial assistance
can go up to 12 months. Critical Time Intervention (CTI) is pushing case
managers to connect clients to community services as a warm handoff. This is
nothing different than what the RRH providers have been doing all long. No one
was getting the full 12 months of financial assistance in the past anyway.
Financial piece can go on longer, technically can go up to 18 months but you
need exemption from HUD to do that, and it happens very rarely.
vi. Another
part of the problem is that clients talk and started a rumor mill and now we
have had to do a lot to backpedal.
vii. The
whole CAN needs to work to make a culture shift about rapid rehousing, and
explain that it’s awesome and better than being in a shelter.
1. One
area for growth for our whole CAN is that we don’t have great consumer inputs.
We don’t have consumers being asked what housing options they have, or would
want. We have had clients who have been
in shelter for most of the year who have turned down RRH repeatedly and who are
adamant about refusing RRH. If a client says they don’t want a certain thing,
we can’t tell them to move on.
2. One
thing we could do to improve is having some kind of case conferencing about
those people, and we need consistent messaging that shelter is a place you can
stay if you’re working on housing.
a. Need
something in writing for clients who need to be discharged for nonviolent
offenses and have proper process.
b. We
have just begun to implement a case conferencing process like this, and are
going to see how it goes in the Operations meeting today.
c. We
have one case written up for now, but no formal written process around case
conferencing yet. We didn’t want
anything in writing yet until after first meeting to see what needs to be
hashed out. Following today’s meeting
Mollie will draft a memo so Brenda can see it. This is the CAN’s policy and
procedure, when we have shelter monitors we can have this in mind. One thing
she can tangibly look for in her monitoring is what information is in a
discharge file. Were they reported to the CAN for discussion? Were there notes
about the case?
d. One
issue is case managers saying “my client isn’t ready.” We at the leadership level need to have
conversations with them about the realities of what is and is not available.
i. We
need to have conversation with the clients. Most clients are requesting Section
8 and subsidized rent. How many times do you offer RRH? How many times do they
get to turn it down? Do we need something for clients to show them about
eligibility?
ii. Maybe
some of the CAN staff can write something out for the CAN. Ian DeJong puts a
lot of emphasis around self-resolving. Every single discharge at a shelter in
another CAN in CT was negative, disappeared, RRH or PSH, which was putting a
huge strain on our system. It’s important
for folks to keep in mind that there are other ways to exit positively.
iii. We
need to be able to explain PSH is not an entitlement. This is based on
eligibility and availability. A lot of people are afraid of failing in a RRH
program. Being homeless is lousy but that’s what they know, and the idea of RRH
can be scary to folks.
e. Dave
Martineau asked where is Department of Labor in these conversations? Our big
issue is the folks we’re working with need more income. Families who come into Department
of Housing Rapid Rehousing are eligible for Secure Jobs. We have an AAQ into
HUD with shared housing and RRH. For those people who are always going to be in
low incomes. Putting them in market units by themselves may be a recipe for
disaster.
f. Kara
brought up the “Ready to Roommate” program which put 4 individuals into 4
bedroom units and each client has a lease for their room and some shared space.
Not a lot of people like this model, but for some people it can work. Need to
explore natural supports as a bigger part of housing planning.
3. A
subgroup was formed to dive into some of these items with more detail. Sarah DiMaio, Lisa Quach, Andrea Hakian, Kara
Capobianco, Steve MacHattie, Theresa Nicholson, Crane Cesario, and Mollie
Greenwood will discuss further.
a. One
item for the group to discuss was clients failing out of RRH: can we serve them
again? Andrea said she doesn’t have guidance from BOS about this.
b. Another
item for discussion is clients who are matched and complying but then returned
due to other barriers.
4. Family
Homelessness Strategies –Crane Cesario
a. See
p. 3-4
b. As
we start working towards ending homelessness for families and youth in our
community, we are starting to look at the data we are currently collecting
about the need for shelter for families.
Matt and Crane have analyzed some of the data we have about requests for
shelter and looked at the number of shelter beds we have and how quickly beds
turnover.
i. How
do we reduce the waiting list for families? How do we meet the need of
unsheltered families? Matt and Crane looked at four factors to see what would
have an impact.
a. Data
for the proposed strategies does not include doubled up safe or reporting
doubled up unsafe.
ii. Can
we reduce average length of stay in family shelter from 45 to 40? If so, that would
increase 27 beds per year for use in the CAN.
1. Sarah
of Salvation Army Marshall House said they are having trouble filling
beds. They can’t get families in from
family shelter waitlist because they prioritize literally homeless families and
there aren’t any literally homeless families. EHFS is having the same issues.
a. When
calling through the waitlist they start with unsheltered households. When they
call, they say we’re calling to update your information, where did you sleep
last night? The families on our list are all reporting sleeping with
family/friends so they get all their statuses changed on the list to doubled up
safe.
b. So
far Marshall House has found one family literally homeless in their car.
c. When
calling through the list they also called doubled up-safe to see if their
status has changed.
d. A
concern is DV families who are unable to get into DV shelters because they’re
full so they can shift their clients from DV shelter into emergency shelter to
open up more space for DV shelters. DV shelters
across the state are over capacity and have a high need to move families who
are not in immediate dangers to emergency shelters so they can accept more DV
victims.
e. In
New London, if you’re doubled up safe you are deemed ineligible and will not be
added to the waitlist, the last thing we want to hear is to bring people in
just to bring them in. We need to look at the family shelter waitlist. When you
get through categories 1, 2, 3 on the SmartSheet– call Iris instead of going to
4 so that they have families. Sarah said if they don’t fill their beds by 8am
tomorrow, they will call Interval House. The shelters have to wait for the 24
hours to clear because of the messages they left.
f. Another
issue is if we find families and offer them shelter, they don’t show up.
g. Iris
said there is a family who has gone to diversion center and has a service dog.
Needs to be in shelter. They can’t continue to pay for motels. 24yo disabled
male with his mother and a service dog.
5. CAN
Achievements and Gaps – Matt Morgan
a. CAN
Principles, Goals, and Objectives handout
1. CAN
Core Functions – This is a document that was put together a few years ago to
outline the essential functions of a good CAN system. If you have any suggestions for other
activities that the CAN is or should be doing, please send that information to Matt
so he can get it updated for Statewide CAN Leadership to review.
b. CAN
Achievements and Gaps handout
1. Cross
referenced what the CAN should be doing and what we’ve already done.
a. Program
Resources
b. CAN
Wide Service Functions
c. CAN
Management and Administration
2. Commissioner
Klein will be coming to visit the CAN. Will present to Klein and her staff our
achievements and gaps in our system. Send any feedback to Matt.
6. Domestic
Violence Victims in Shelters – Iris Ruiz
7. Housing
Data Updates – see p. 2
8. GH
CAN Housing Chart – Mollie Greenwood
i. CAN
Inventory Chart was distributed today with bed numbers pulled from recent HIC
charts. Journey Home is open to feedback
and Mollie will follow up with this group later. If we have changes, let Mollie
know.
ii. Andrea
announced that CHR is not going to be doing Short Term RRH in GH CAN as of
7/1/17. CHR will instead be converting those resources to diversion. We have
had additional RRH programs funded in this region so there seems less of a need
for the ST. Regular rapid rehousing could be used for Short Term RRH.
iii. Crane
reminded us that we have to update our housing inventory every year with the
HUD application, so this will be good to be prepared.
9. Announcements
a. Crane
just received an email stating that homelessness needs to be verified within 24
hours of person receiving a certificate. This means that even if a person has
been approved for a program, HUD requires the Housing Coordinator to verify
that the person is still homeless when she receives the Rental Assistance
certificate. Now have to verify homelessness for doc ready date, when the
client is matched (if there is a lag) and also when client receives
certificate. Some programs are already
doing this, but for others it may be a process change.
b. Journey
Home pulled the list of folks who are potentially chronic in our community. These households have long homeless histories
and look like they may be chronic, but we do not have any information about
disabling conditions. For 4 shelters, we
need to find out if they’re still around.
Mollie will be checking in with individual shelters, but it’s important
for us to be able to update this information.
Not knowing about the disability status is dragging out our data, and it’s
also a problem if folks are languishing in shelters without getting the resources
to assist them.
c. The
CT Coalition to End Homelessness will be hosting their Annual Training
Institute on Thursday, May 18th. Register online at www.cceh.org.
d. There
are openings available in this month’s full-day CAN Training on Friday,
5/19. Email mollie.greenwood@journeyhomect.org
to register.
e. Dinner
in the Park will take place Saturday, May 27 at Bushnell Park at 5:00 PM.
f. The
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Preference is open again.
i. For
folks who are in PSH and chronic verified. Not for sex offenders, no felonies
in the last 3 years or owe housing authority money.
ii. Diversion
Center is hiring for coordinator position. Help to support diversion staff.
Looking for really qualified kick butt positon to fill this role.
GH CAN Housing
Data
|
Data Element
|
Number
|
Notes
|
|
Chronically homeless households housed in 2015
|
102
|
This includes clients housed through GH CAN programs as
well as through other subsidies or independent housing
|
|
Chronically homeless households housed in 2016
|
211
|
This includes clients housed through GH CAN programs as
well as through other subsidies or independent housing
|
|
Chronically homeless households housed in 2017
|
85
|
This includes clients housed through GH CAN programs as
well as through other subsidies or independent housing
|
|
Total Chronically homeless households housed in GH CAN
|
398
|
|
|
Verified Chronic Matched
|
58
|
|
|
Verified Chronic Not Yet Matched
|
10
|
We currently have 10
chronic verified clients who have not yet been matched to housing.
|
|
Potentially Chronic Matched
|
0
|
|
|
Potentially Chronic Not Yet Matched
|
51
|
Right now we believe 51
households have the chronic length of homeless history, but none of these
individuals have their homeless and disabling
condition forms completed.
|
Possible Strategies for Ending Family
Homelessness
|
||||||
|
Unmet Family Shelter Need
from 9/1/16 - 3/31/17 (Households)
|
Estimated Annual Unmet Family
Shelter Need (Households)
|
Number of year-round family
shelter beds
|
Average Family Length of Stay
in shelters in days in 2016**
|
Shelter Bed Turnover ***
|
Number of households served
in RRH in 2016
|
Ave. number of days from
intake in RRH to housed in RRH in 2016
|
|
69
|
118
|
82
|
45
|
8.1
|
116
|
36
|
|
Possible Strategies
|
Estimated reduction in Unmet Need
|
Notes
|
||||
|
1. Reduce the average
length of stay in family shelter from 45 days to 40 days
|
27
|
This would increase turnover of
beds. 365/40 = 9.1 That would mean we would be able to serve an
additional 82 people (27 families)
|
||||
|
2. Convert 15 shelter beds
from individuals to families
|
46
|
15 beds X 9.1 people =
136.5 Then, divide 136.5 by 2.99 = 45.6 ****
|
||||
|
3. Add 12 Long Term Rapid
Rehousing slots (16 per year)
|
16
|
16 households would be served
per year in this program
|
||||
|
4. Add 10 Short Term Rapid
Rehousing slots (30 per year)
|
30
|
30 households would be served
per year in this program
|
||||
|
Total Reduction
|
119
|
|||||
|
Remainder
|
0
|
|||||
|
Additional Strategies for Ending Family Homelessness
|
||||||
|
1. Increase diversion
efforts for those on the shelter priority list. The purpose is to
reduce the numbers of unmet need and improve our data quality of the shelter
priority list.
|
||||||
|
2. Implement a system to
better communicate vacancies in landlord partners' units with housing search
staff. The purpose is to decrease the amount of time it takes from
intake to housed in RRH.
|
||||||
|
3. Increase assistance for
obtaining identification documentation to make referrals faster to Rapid
Rehousing programs.
|
||||||
|
4. Increase/Convert the
size of units/certificates for housing programs to accommodate 15 large
families.
|
||||||
|
5. Increase access to
utility arrearage assistance for households who are already literally
homeless.
|
||||||
|
Notes:
|
||||||
|
* This data includes those who
reported staying the previous night in temporary cold weather hotel,
unsheltered, staying in a car, doubled up unsafe, in a hospital, and from
domestic violence shelter. This data does not include the number of
people who were added to the shelter priority list who were facing eviction
or foreclosure, in a hotel paid for by third party, in a hotel paid for by
self/family, or doubled up safe. The unmet need was calculated by
looking at the number who could not be diverted at the CAN assessment and
were added to the shelter priority list and subtracting the number who
refused shelter or did not show when it was offered. The data will
likely change as we begin to offer shelter closer to the time that someone
was added to the waitlist.
|
||||||
|
** This data is the length of
stay by shelter, not the household's entire length of time homeless, so it
does not take into account families moving from one shelter to another.
However, most families do not move from one shelter to another, so this
number is probably a good proxy.
|
||||||
|
***Average number of times each
family shelter bed is newly occupied each year
|
||||||
|
**** The number of families
served is calculated by dividing the number of beds by the average family
size (2.99) requesting shelter
|
||||||
|
This data was compiled by Journey Home on May 5, 2017
using data from SmartSheets and data from CT-HMIS.
|
||||||
