Greater Hartford Coordinated Access Network
Leadership Agenda
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
1.
Welcome and Introductions
Kara Capobianco – Department of Housing
Sarah Dimaio – Salvation Army Marshall
House
Amy Robinson – US Department of Veterans
Affairs
John Lawlor – The Connection
Rosemary Flowers – My Sisters’ Place
Kathy Shaw – My Sisters’ Place
Tenesha Grant - Mercy Housing and Shelter Corp
Kyren McCorey – The Open Hearth
Fred Faulkner – The Open Hearth
Brian Baker – South Park Inn
Collette Slover – Charter Oak Health Center
Sonia Brown – Community Renewal Team
John Ferrucci – South Park Inn
Lou Gilbert - ImmaCare
Iris Ruiz – Interval House
Mollie Greenwood – Journey Home
Matt Morgan – Journey Home
Theresa Nicholson – Chrysalis Center
2.
Housing Data Updates – see p. 2
a.
Housing resources have really slowed down but
the community has been doing a great job getting folks verified. We currently have 61 clients who are
potentially chronic and need disability verifications or homeless
verifications.
b.
63 chronic verified matched – delay could be
clients going MIA, CHFA barriers are now higher, clients refusing housing
multiple times. We have specifically
seen a lot of refusals around project-based units. Those housing programs who
are audited by CSH may be penalized if their utilization is low, which can be a
result of households being housed too slowly. How many clients are matched and
chronic verified more than 90 days?
c.
Everyone needs to have a representative at
coordinated exit. We need to have better communication to get updates about
pending referrals and case conferences. It’s really essential to have staff
present at in-person meetings. Have 2 in person meetings a month and we do lots
of matching and case conferencing so when folks aren’t at the table, it’s a challenge.
3.
CT BOS Performance Measures Update and Deadline
– Cat Damato, Crane Cesario
i. All
should have email from CT BOS about performance measures. If not, Crane will
send it to you. The deadline to clean up your data is 4/28/17 which is a week
from Friday.
ii. Right
now there is a known problem with questions about chronic status and health
insurance. Nobody in family program is answering health insurance question. Is
data not collected really count?
iii. On
page 5 of 6 there is a question that is concerned with exits to permanent
destination. Because this field wasn’t previously collected, housing programs might
have to go in and go back to all original clients and input the data. Only APRs
for PSH that she sees.
1.
Crane printed out each agency in our CAN that she
could get to – timeliness report. When you look at CT BOS email, instructions
on how to get reports in HMIS are in there. Line that has data standards. Shows
all programs – how many days your data was inputted in your program – average
days. Now it has to be 11. Something we need to improve on, depending on your
program type. Just something for them to look at, shocking wake up call.
Performance measures are for Balance of State so everywhere but Fairfield
County, they have their own report.
iv. How
do we pay for all this? Proposal to have 2% of total budget pay for CAN
functions. 2% of which budget? We have planning grant, reallocated funds to
HMIS and CAN and Permanent Supportive Housing – 9 individual units for
referrals – under Capital Region. Still waiting to see if state is going to
pick up CAHBI but with this budget, she doesn’t think so. Will lose about 5
people. CT BOS meeting on Friday. Sonia said when she ran her APR there was a
lot of missing data because of updated questions so she had to go back and have
them answer. Crane said who told her to go back and fix. She currently has 135
clients in one program that are missing one question and she might not get them
done by Friday. She needs clarity from CT BOS if it’s internal review of CT
then can they give them a break for a month? Sarah said she had issues with
children in her data and can’t fix it because the question doesn’t exist
anymore. She reached out to Nutmeg and they said she just has to deal with it.
Crane said she is just at the level where she just wants to pass, be above the
ladder. Outcomes from exits is important. Legacy clients who were allowed to go
from TLP to PSH and are we going to get dinged every year because they haven’t
moved out?
4.
HUD Coordinated Entry Self-Assessment Items –
Mollie Greenwood
a.
HUD put out guidance on what coordinated entry
needs to be doing and has created a checklist you can go through and what your
community is already doing and what we should be doing. HUD wants us to do
everything on this checklist by January of next year. At Journey Home, we been
reviewing the checklist to see what GH CAN is doing to make sure we can reach
benchmarks by January 2018.
i. Accessibility
of Coordinated Entry Site (p. 3)
1.
We need to be able to provide accessible
assessment appointments to households with hearing impairments, vision
impairments, and other disabilities, as well as providing translation services
for any households whose first language isn’t English.
a.
Theresa suggested medical providers because they
are required to have medical paperwork in client’s language.
b.
Iris said Coalition has language line for all DV
networks. Will look to see if they have contract with Language Line or if it’s
per charge.
ii. Written
Standards for RRH Programs (p. 3)
1.
No one in GH CAN RRH program has a written standard
at this point that outlines the specific amount of rental assistance that will
be provided for each household. One
suggestion was for RRH providers to come together to see if we can draft
something. Sarah asked if it’s one standard for the whole CAN or by program
since her budget is so small compared to others.
2.
Another suggestion was to ask CT BOS if they
have a standard. Have standard of increase in payment. Have something in
guidelines. CRT tried to adapt these guidelines when building their program.
a.
Mollie will look into the CT BOS COC Policies
and Procedures to see what is currently provided as a written standard and will
bring that information back to Leadership.
3.
Fairfield County had a one pager for clients but
it backfired because they would have something to show that they would only pay
50% in month 6.
b.
Timeline between Assessment and Referral (p. 3)
i. Needs
to have prioritization list – we have a by-name-list. Should not wait 60 days
to housing referral services. If they cannot offer within 60 days, then they
adjust prioritization standards in order to prioritize households who have the
highest need. We need to be aiming at getting prioritized household matched to
homeless resource within 60 days or not. Have been changing Enrolled in CAN
date for folks who were inactive or had their VI-SDPAT completed and then
disappeared and came back so we are getting credit and doesn’t show a lag.
c.
Crane asked if this is something Mollie was
asked to investigate or if she’s being proactive? She stated she was being
proactive because she didn’t want to wait until November to try to tackle 15
things. Crane said she wants COC to own up to it as the entity to deal with it,
as much of the list requires COCs to have written processes and be following
this.
d.
Lou asked about shelter priority list. ImmaCare
had 8 empty beds and couldn’t reach the people at the top so he’s taking walk-ins
who are on the prioritized section of the shelter priority list. Is this a
problem?
i. Kara
reminded shelters that the contractual expectation is to ensure shelters remain
80% full. We don’t want to fill beds with people who can be diverted. As the
weather continues to get warmer, this may become a larger issue. One question
is are we as a community going through right channels to access those who
outdoors because we start offering doors to someone who could be diverted?
ii. Sarah
asked how far down staff are going to fill beds- are the folks ImmaCare is
taking in still in the unsheltered or living in their car section of the
priority list?
1.
Lou doesn’t think they are calling everyone but
just taking walk-ins.
2.
Steve checks the smartsheet to see if folks at
the bottom are getting shelter before other folks and that hasn’t happened yet
at ImmaCare- when cases like that are identified he has been quickly reaching
out to the shelters who are taking those folks from lower on the list to
determine what is going on.
5.
Coordinated Exit: What to do when households
refuse multiple housing options? – Tenesha Grant
a.
An issue we have been seeing recently in the
Coordinated Exit meeting is clients who have been offered and keep declining
housing. Sometimes they are refusing
housing options because they have barriers or trauma in certain areas, other
times it is more a matter of preference.
i. We
can’t stop offering them housing. As long as they’re literally homeless we have
to keep offering them housing, because they are still a part of the community.
1.
One question is should we kick them out of
shelter if we have offered them all types of housing and we have exhausted all
options? We can no longer offer you shelter bed because you have had 6 or 7
opportunities for housing. We need to
have case conferencing before we make this decision.
2.
In some cases, maybe the client is just not a
good fit with their current case manager, in other cases they may be getting
comfortable in the current shelter environment. A change of environment to a
new shelter may solve the problem in some cases.
3.
A long time ago we had a dedicated committee
that had hoped to work on these specific challenging cases. Fred Faulkner offered to lead this committee.
a.
Fred and Mollie will talk together about what
time and group of providers makes the most sense to do this type of case
conferencing.
6.
Veteran Eligibility for Supportive Housing – Amy
Robinson
a.
Veterans that are in TLP do hold chronic status
and are considered homeless going into other programs. We will be getting
additional guidance from Katie Durand and HUD very soon. If a veteran is in a
transitional living program, HUD says they are still homeless and don’t lose
chronic status. One line that makes all the difference in this guidance is that
veterans who are considered homeless are also considered homeless within 2
weeks of not having a place to stay (when other populations are just considered
at risk). Guidance from HUD was if the TLP provider says to you that this
person in TLP status prior to entry was homelessness that’s all we need in our
files for us to be in compliance but if you take HUD homeless definition and
GPD and TLP side by side that is the difference – eligible for GPD imminent
risk within 14 days.
b.
There was still a question of whether this
qualify for GPD (VET TLP) or regular TLP?
c.
There have also been historic issues with
determining who is considered veteran – must serve 2 years after 1980 and have
honorable discharge to be considered a veteran.
7.
Announcements
a.
The CT Coalition to End Homelessness will be
hosting their Annual Training Institute on Thursday, May 18th. Register online at www.cceh.org. Early-bird registration discounts
are available until May 1st.
b.
There are openings available in this month’s
full-day CAN Training on Friday, 4/21.
Email mollie.greenwood@journeyhomect.org
to register.
c.
The next Youth Engagement Team Initiative (YETI)
meeting will be this Friday, 4/21, at 3:30 at 960 Main St., Hartford. Contact Steve Hurley for more information.
d.
Journey Home has written letters of support for
all of our GHBI SAMHSA applicants.
i. All
letters of support have been written for 3 applicants.
ii. Total
statewide for advocacy day reached 135 legislators or their aid.
e.
S8HCV has closed – housing authority is not taking
referrals but we are still keeping a waitlist for S8HCV – has 11 people from
PSH that are applying for that preference. 7 chronic clients still on the list.
Heard from city of Hartford to encourage the 16 people who have received
vouchers already – worried about what is going to happen at federal level –
encouraging them to get leased up asap. 85 clients have leased up from PSH. One
at ImmaCare and rest at Chrysalis.
f.
Hartford Health Dept. that we have 8 active TB
guests from last week. Roger will track down clients to get to Hartford Health
Dept. to get chest XRays.
g.
SAMH has overflow shelter – contract is for cold
weather overflow shelter but have been running it year round without funding
but we can no longer do that – only Nov 1 to march 31st. Have transitioned
all into housing except for one family. Loss of 23 beds for women and families.
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
|
64
|
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
|
377
|
|
|
Verified Chronic Matched
|
63
|
|
|
Verified Chronic Not Yet Matched
|
15
|
We currently have 15 chronic verified clients who have not
yet been matched to housing.
|
|
Potentially Chronic Matched
|
0
|
|
|
Potentially Chronic Not Yet Matched
|
61
|
Right now we believe 65 households have the chronic length
of homeless history, but none of these individuals have their homeless and
disability verifications completed.
|
Coordinated Entry Self-Assessment
A.8. COC, in consultation with
recipients of ESG program funds within the geographic area, has established and
consistently follows written standards for providing COC assistance which can
guide the development of formalized policies and procedures for the CE process.
·
Written
standards provide guidance for determining what percentage or amount of rent
each program participant must pay while receiving rapid rehousing assistance.
B. 11. COC's written CE policies and
procedures document steps taken to ensure effective communication with
individuals with disabilities.
Recipients of federal funds and COCs must provide appropriate auxiliary
aids and services necessary to ensure effective communication (e.g. Braille,
audio, large type, assistive listening devices, and sign language
interpreters.
B. 12. COC's access point(s) take reasonable steps to offer CE process materials and participant instruction in multiple languages to meet the needs of minority, ethnic, and groups with Limited English Proficiency.
B. 12. COC's access point(s) take reasonable steps to offer CE process materials and participant instruction in multiple languages to meet the needs of minority, ethnic, and groups with Limited English Proficiency.
D. 14. COC maintains a prioritization
list such that participants wait no longer than 60 days for a referral to
housing or services. If the COC cannot
offer a housing resource to every prioritized household experiencing
homelessness within 60 days or less, then the COC adjusts prioritization
standards in order to more precisely differentiate and identify resources for
those households with the most needs and highest vulnerabilities.
|
Data on Average Timeframes for Individuals from the
By-Name-List in HMIS
|
Time (days)
|
|
Chronic
Individuals in PSH
|
|
|
Average time
between completing a VI-SPDAT to verifying CH status
|
301
|
|
Average time
between verification of CH status to housing
|
86
|
|
Average time
between CH verification and housing matching to PSH
|
7
|
|
Average time
between referral of CH clients and housing in PSH
|
79
|
|
Chronic
Individuals in RRH
|
|
|
Average time
between completing a VI-SPDAT to referral in RRH
|
315
|
|
Average time
between referral of CH clients and housing in RRH
|
57
|
|
Non-Chronic
Individuals and RRH
|
|
|
For non-chronic
individuals, average time between completing a VI-SPDAT to referral in RRH
|
144
|
|
For non-chronic
individuals, average time between referral to RRH and housing
|
55
|
No comments:
Post a Comment