Leadership Committee Agenda
Wednesday,
April 4th, 2018
1. Welcome
and In Attendance:
Brian Baker - South Park Inn
Steve Bigler - CRT
Sonia Brown - CRT
Crane Cesario - DMHAS
Justine Couvares - Chrysalis Center
Sarah DiMaio - Salvation Army
Fred Faulkner - The Open Hearth
Lou Gilbert - ImmaCare
Mollie Greenwood - Journey Home
Andrea Hakian - CHR
Lauren Fair - Salvation Army
John Lawlor- The Connection
Kyren McCrorey - The Open Hearth
Matt Morgan - Journey Home
Lionel Rigler - City of Hartford
Barbara Shaw - Hands On Hartford
Kathy Shaw - My Sisters' Place
Cathy Zeiner - YWCA
Niya Solomon - Journey Home
zoe Schwartz - CRT
Stephanie Corbin - Mercy Housing and Shelter Corp
CT BOS COC Items
2.
CT BOS CoC Regional Representation – Sub-CoCs/CANS
a.
We have officially changed from Sub-COCs to
CANs for representation on the CT HMIS steering committee. In CT there are 2 COCs, ODFC and CTBOS. Up until recently CTBOS was running on
Sub-COC representation. We’ve had a vote
to move towards CAN representation. We
have the same number of representatives.
We can now merge our agenda with CAN meetings. Matt and Crane are our
representatives. We need alternative
representatives. We do get two votes, so
if there’s a time where one person can’t attend, the other attendee can send a
representative. It gives us some room to
do that. It’s in our best interest.
b.
Organizational structure: CT BOS CoC and
Reaching Home structures for coordination
i. Reaching
Home tries to organize our structure from Reaching Home. There are many many committees under Reaching
Home. They’ve changed one subcommittee
to being more focused on family homelessness.
Reaching Home didn’t have the HUD mission embedded and there was no
formal connection between CT BOS and Reaching Home. CT BOS will now be under the Reaching Home
campaign, we need the feedback loop between the campaign and the Continuum of
Care. There will be an organizational
chart change, and it may improve communication, and may change CT BOS’s
administrative requirements.
ii. Matt’s on
the Steering Committee and Coordinating Committee – Sharon is on Coordinating,
Diane is on Steering Committee. Crane’s
on the Estimated Data Needs Group.
3.
CT BOS Renewal Evaluations
a.
Current Evaluations: If you would like to file
a grievance regarding your score for consideration by the CT BOS Grievance
Committee, please SUBMIT THE ATTACHED FORM NO LATER THAN MONDAY,
APRIL 10th, 2018 to ctboscoc@gmail.com
b.
Upcoming Evaluations – determining standards
in spring, not fall
i. In the
past we’ve had to identify the evaluation standards in the fall, as we are
doing the work.
ii. Evaluations
for Rapid ReHousing programs are facing double jeopardy, if folks obtain more
income during the program, which is ultimately a success, the programs get
dinged for missing out on non-cash benefits.
iii. If our
consultants don’t fully understand some of the unique constraints of new
program types we will continue to encounter similar issues, which is why we are
working to determine evaluation standards earlier this year.
4.
Reallocations and New Projects - Evaluating the
cost per person on the services
a.
There has been a lot of discussion on programs
with underspent funds reallocating.
b.
HUD has standards on what you can spend on
FMR. Some programs have high costs for
services for cost per person. We’re
trying to sort out programs that are overfunding services, and are basically
looking for efficiencies. If you can
look at your renewal evaluation worksheet to see what you’ve expended, check on
it. There are some programs statewide
who have up to 40% unexpended.
c.
HUD’s pressure to recapture unexpended funds
is extreme, and it’s national. We may be
impacted by national trends, so in an effort to retain funds we need to be
mindful of it.
d.
Housing Search Staffing, Support Services to
attach to subsidy programs
i. It would
be helpful to get some more information from DOH on what is being
discussed. There’s been discussion about
having more flexible support services role.
The idea is not trying to hand them off as much.
ii. In terms
of funding new program types, there’s not a lot of consensus about whether the
COC wants to prioritize funding RRH vs PSH.
iii. Sarah
DiMaio mentioned that Jamie, a foundation-funded PSH case manager for programs
that don’t provide case management, has had to limit her caseload because so
many of her high intensity cases, and everyone she currently has require weekly
home visits. Adding any type of
supportive services would definitely be beneficial for our CAN, through what
Salvation Army has done with Private funds.
5.
CT BOS Save the Date: June 15, 2018 – Next
Semi-annual meeting – anyone can attend.
a.
If you have questions about environmental
reviews, reach out to Crane. As far as
Lionel knows he has done all the Environmental Reviews
6.
CT HMIS Topics / System Performance Measures
a.
Crane is the current chair of CT HMIS’s
Steering Committee. System Performance Measures
is something we’ve been looking at. HUD
will ultimately be looking at our SPMs as a community. Our data coordinator should know about
it.
b.
Annual reviews need to be done within 60 days
of annual assessment. The date is not
the current lease date, it’s their original lease date. If you don’t have the assessment done on
time, you’ll lose points on your evaluation.
c.
The Point In Time Count is almost done, data
coming soon.
a.
Select “Sign up for CTBOS newsletters and
emails”
b.
Andrea commented that the CT BOS website is
very helpful.
c.
Zoe Schwartz of CRT will now be the person to
remind you about the HIC, PIT, GIW, and help with application review prior to
BOS submission.
GH
CAN Leadership Items
8.
City of Hartford ESG Allocation – Lionel
Rigler
a.
Lionel distributed proposed ESG funds. Four years ago came up with a formula that
ESG allocation would be based on 45% # of beds, 45% total bed stays, 10% based
on permanent exits. This is a proposal
for this fiscal year. It was distributed
in email.
b.
We assume a 2,500 reduction in ESG, we don’t
know our numbers yet. Because of the
increase in number of beds that TOH had, their funding went up 3500 because
their beds went up from 25 to 40.
Because of their increase, other organizations went down a bit.
c.
Lionel was hoping we could approve it today,
once there’s an actual allocation numbers would go up or down based on
actual.
d.
Cathy’s question is how we should be
perceived. YWCA is contracted for 12
beds by DOH. But they’re serving at a
higher capacity, up to 18. So YWCA is
operating at 18 beds, which isn’t necessarily reflected here..
e.
In the past, our numbers weren’t based on much
data, they were based on what had been historically done. This is much fairer than before, but if there
are issues we can work it out.
f.
We need to come to an agreement on what we
count. Do we go based on what’s
contracted, do we go by overflow? Does
HMIS enter data in your contracted category for your overflow beds. Using this calculation, anyone who uses
seasonal and overflow beds would get hit hard by the permanent exit portion of
the calculation.
g.
There seems to be consensus not to include
seasonal beds. If we’re going by HMIS
we’re going by HMIS.
h.
We want to go by contract. We’ll change CRT to 78 beds. If the decision is to include seasonal beds
the calculation will need to be adjusted.
i.
Can we run it without overflow beds to see the
impact and share that, it will help people make a decision. People will figure out what if they added 1/3
of overflow to account for part of the year, and if that is a more accurate
reflection.
j.
We will make a final determination on this at
next meeting.
9.
Households Over Income Limits – Crane Cesario,
Mollie Greenwood
a.
We’ve lately been having challenges in our
housing matching processes and concerns raised by shelters that they are
serving folks who are over income limits for some of our programs but are
remaining in shelter.
b.
We’ve talked before that people who go into
stay in a hotel but are returning to the system, how do we manage this? It’s one of those continuing problems that
will keep impacting our performance.
c.
Lisa’s doing a great job helping us move
forward. All of you need to engage your
staff in figuring out who has disabling conditions. We need these things to be verified. If we don’t do that for the longer term folks
we will start taking people from other communities to serve them.
d.
We have a higher volume of PSH than other
areas so it’s a more urgent issue. We’re
having trouble filling buildings because the only chronically homeless folks
don’t fit into a lot of our openings.
e.
Do people have income over a certain level
become identified as ineligible for shelter resources? It will be impossible to identify on the
front end. When Diversion talks to
people about their income, what we’re looking for is identifying eligible
financial status for shelter diversion funding.
i. We’re
having several discussions right now around this. RRH can only serve people up to 30% AMI in
addition to “people are in shelters with resources”
ii. I don’t
think we can filter it out. But once we
have folks on the BNL and they’re ineligible for things because their income is
too high. You’ll also find people
quitting jobs to fit into programs.
iii. Crane’s
more concerned about how we prioritize it, and we want to have the protection
of policy above us.
iv. We can
also park this. If there are better
questions Diversion can be asking at Diversion, they want to know.
10.
HOME Funding for Security Deposits – Mollie
Greenwood
a.
Could be a resource for the Diversion Center
staff – also had PATH able to access it so they can go after the funds. CHR thought of more using it among existing
programs.
b.
The issue is a program became available and
agencies could apply to access it for folks we serve.
c.
There’s a concern that providers who didn’t
sign up for it won’t be able to get it and we have many in the community who
won’t be served by it.
d.
This may be where we push back to DOH to say
that if we had the housing navigator. If
we wanted to reimagine how we are doing things and resubmit.
e.
Sometimes supportive housing case managers
signed up to do it they could help out with it.
It never asked you to serve people outside of your population. If you can only serve 3 people a year, you have
to be able to do HQS. Mercy didn’t go in
on it because we didn’t have the case management piece. The question is. YWCA applied because Chrysalis said they
would help with housing HQS.
f.
Andrea may be able to help with some HQS inspections;
they just can’t take it on for every single household in the CAN.
g.
We will continue discussing this item at
future meetings.
11. Dynamic
Prioritization/Progressive Engagement Update – Crane Cesario
a.
A lot of pushback and political concerns. We’ve had one meeting, and there’s a
workgroup this Friday to talk about next steps.
We’re already ahead of the curve in terms of trying to sort out local prioritization.
12. Medical
Records in CT HMIS – Matt Morgan
a.
The HOPWA housing providers have been coming
together to figure out ways to better collaborate among the programs we
have. We aren’t able to prioritize their
programs in the same way. They’re trying
to de-duplicate existing processes. One
issue that came up was “what about HIPPA compliance”. The HMIS release was a question, and there
are HIV questions that are self-report.
b.
We got clarity from CCEH on the HMIS
Release. There isn’t a separate sign-off
for HIV, SA, MH, the way there would be on a HIPPA compliant ROI. Because it’s self-report, it was OK to input
it into a system. Medical records are
documents that have been uploaded. We
will be guiding people to keep it on FILE, but not upload into HMIS.
c.
We’re continuing to take the DIG project into
account throughout this process. That’s
the integration between Ryan White and CT HMIS.
Most of the medical info is coming from medical records not
self-report. Matt can help raise it to
CCEH. It’s odd because it’s a different
ROI. Barbara will talk to John
Merz. If you get info from a person on a
source, you get them to give you permission to enter it into the system.
13. GH CAN
Shelter and Housing Data – Mollie Greenwood
i. See p.2
ii. Can we
make progress on shortening shelter time?
14. Future
Agenda Items?
a.
Barbara is curious if we’ve talked about when
we’ll be planning for next Cold Weather Planning. Need to be thinking about the full 24 hours
each day, not just nighttime coverage. Another
issue to consider, because the Warming Center is going to be considered unsheltered. We need to push back with the City. It makes it complicated to administer the
process for a provider. But it’s going
to have a negative impact on community.
i. City of
Hartford will RFP it soon, in the summer.
15. Announcements
a.
Advocacy Day will be taking place next
Wednesday, April 11th, from 10:15 AM – 11:15 AM. Everyone planning to attend should meet in
the cafeteria of the LOB at 9:30.
b.
CT Department of Housing has made Capital
Funding available for shelter improvements.
See DOH website for more information.
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
|
179
|
This
includes clients housed through GH CAN programs as well as through other
subsidies or independent housing
|
|
Chronically
homeless households housed in 2018
|
27
|
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
|
519
|
|
|
Verified Chronic
Matched
|
36
|
|
|
Verified
Chronic Not Yet Matched
|
0
|
We
currently have 0 chronic verified clients who have not yet been matched to
housing.
|
|
Potentially
Chronic Refusers
|
2
|
|
|
Verified
Chronic Refusers
|
1
|
|
|
Potentially
Chronic Matched
|
13
|
These households
did not disclose a disabling condition, and are matched to various programs.
|
|
Potentially
Chronic Not Yet Matched
|
28
|
Right now
we believe 28 households have the chronic length of homeless history, but
none of these individuals have their homeless and disability
verifications completed.
|
|
Individuals
- Active – Not Matched
|
487
|
This
includes Enrolled in CAN, In an Institution, and Enrolled in TH
|
|
Families –
Active – Not Matched
|
22
|
This is
Active – Enrolled in CAN.
|
SmartSheet
Shelter Priority List Data
|
Individual Men
|
Individual Women
|
Families
|
|
288 Unsheltered or in Cold Weather Placement
|
95 Unsheltered or in Cold Weather Placement
|
33 Unsheltered or in Cold Weather Placement
|
|
395 Total
|
147 Total
|
50 Total
|
No comments:
Post a Comment