Greater Hartford Coordinated Access
Network
Leadership Committee Agenda
Wednesday,
February 20th, 2019
In Attendance:
Steve
Bigler – CRT
Sonia
Brown – CRT
Letticia
Brown-Gambino – Chrysalis Center
Crane
Cesario – DMHAS
Stephanie
Corbin – Mercy Housing and Shelter
Sarah
DiMaio – Salvation Army
Lauren
Fair – Salvation Army
Fred
Faulkner – The Open Hearth
Heather
Flannery – Interval House
Rosemary
Flowers – My Sisters’ Place
Mollie
Greenwood – Journey Home
Andrea
Hakian – CHR
Rebekah
Lyas – ImmaCare
Steve
MacHattie – Mercy Housing
Matt
Morgan – Journey Home
Lisa
Quach – Journey Home
Lionel
Rigler – City of Hartford
Zoe
Schwartz – CRT
Barbara
Shaw – Hands ON Hartford
Kathy
Shaw – My Sisters’ Place
Audrey
Kennedy – South Park Inn
Ymonne
Wilson - CRT
1. Sub-COC
Updates – Crane Cesario, Zoe Schwartz
a.
Merge of BOS COC HMIS grant and Hartford HMIS
Grant
i. The last
CT HMIS Steering Committee meeting we spent a lot of time talking about
performance measures. There’s a need for
your agency to go through your APRs.
Please make sure you get in your annual assessments, particularly in
PSH. The annual assessment date is at
enrollment date. Crane’s been looking at
how to manage annual assessments particularly in cases where folks have
different lease dates than their initial lease date with a program (in terms of
time of year).
ii. CCADV’s
new Rapid ReHousing program was funded.
iii. We need to
think about how to prioritize our future applications through CT BOS, and some
options are more PSH, more RRH, services for PSH programs that don’t have
services funded. We are likely to be
asked for additional feedback on our needs.
2. Coordinated
Entry:
a. Cold Weather
Protocol Updates – Sarah DiMaio
i. There were 62
people at the Warming Center last night, which was the first time the Warming
Center has been over capacity outside of a Governor Activation period. The Warming Center is still experiencing a
lot of turnover in folks moving back and forth between shelters and the Warming
Center and are still some refusals. We
think there are about 260 unique individuals have accessed the warming
center. Of those, three individuals have
been banned.
b. Diversion Center
Updates – Stephanie Corbin
i. We are trying to
resolve the issue of how far we are booked out.
So far, we are booked out until March 11th, so we are
back-filling slots, and we have not booked out in over a week.
ii. Salvation Army
staff is calling folks who have future-booked appointments and we have been
able to divert a lot of people away from accessing assistance.
iii. The Open Hearth
is starting to work towards providing diversion for folks in halfway houses in
Hartford.
iv. CHR will be
taking on some mobile diversion in partnership with the City of Enfield, funded
by CDBG small cities funding through CT DOH.
This program will be opening for July 1, and we will have two staff
coming on board.
3. Performance Measures Related to
Shelter – Matt Morgan
a.
The
EDEN Committee of the Reaching Home campaign has proposed some targets for CANs
to focus on.
b.
Our family shelter system is always taking
folks in from another family shelter (for example, from our triage
location). HUD considers the Warming
Center as unsheltered, so shelters accepting folks from the Warming Center
should be marking them as unsheltered.
c.
For the next meeting it would be helpful to
break this out into individuals vs. families, it would be helpful to also
exclude the winter overflow shelters as they will dramatically impact the exits
to shelter (many people) and length of stay (short for many people).
d.
Are there unintended consequences of focusing
on any of these? One example is that a
strong focus just on length of stay could potentially drive up the number of
transfers shelter to shelters.
i. Heather’s
point that shelter entries from other shelters doesn’t really account for the
fact that shelters are collaborating and making mindful transfers.
1.
One recommendation is that there should be
some sort of a flag for folks who were transferred after a CAN discussion. Maybe we could have some sort of other
area.
2.
If we were to take out interCAN transfers
because of capacity or CAN recommendations and administrative issues, would a
“client churning” rate of 5% make good sense?
I think that’s what this metric is trying to address.
3.
We like the goal of 10% returns to
homelessness
4.
Length of stay, 30 days would be ideal. Sarah thinks that 90 would be a realistic
goal for us to hit.
a.
We want to get more clarity on how the Length
of Stay information is being calculated on CT CAN Data’s dashboards.
4. City of Hartford ESG Discussion –
Lionel Rigler
a.
This
is related to FY 19-20 which starts July 1.
Previously we’ve been discussing moving more towards funding based on
performance measures. We’ve been talking
about it for the last three years.
b.
Lionel
distributed a breakdown for funding for the purposes of discussion. Lionel will come back in two weeks based on
input. Lionel would like to get a
decision in either two weeks or four weeks.
c.
The
proposed revision would be a change in focus, the weight based on total number
of beds is 60%, 35% based on permanent exits, 5% focus on returns to
shelter.
d.
Sarah
raised concerns about how permanent exits are being calculated. There was recommendation to calculate
permanent exits based on the % of exits are permanent. The way it’s broken down is a measure of
volume, not a measure of performance.
The total beds measure should be the volume measure.
e.
There’s
a suggestion to measure the individual shelters against individual shelters and
family shelters against family shelters.
i. Could we take the percentage of family
beds versus the performance of overall beds be the funding for families?
ii. Take EHFS, Women and families at South
Park Inn, and Salvation Army, and combine, and identify their funding. Maybe we just remove men’s shelters.
iii. Alternately, you can get 60% of the
budget based on volume, and 40% based on performance. Right now it’s designed to be 60% 40%. We could also consider backing it off to
70%/30%.
iv. Lionel will make some updates and will
re-share in advance of an upcoming meeting.
5. Review of
Affordable Housing Programs – Matt Morgan
a.
This is a list compiled by CSH of affordable
and supportive housing programs across the state. CSH is trying to forge better partnerships
across the CANs and these properties. But
CSH is missing a lot of information on some of these projects. They’re asking each CAN for feedback. So if you know who the service provider or
property manager is, please share that.
Ideally, when these projects have openings, it would be great to get
clients experiencing homelessness on their waitlist.
b.
The other thing that we learned through this
process is that the projects that were awarded since 2016 through the CHAMP
rounds, any supportive housing units are supposed to have built into their
budgets, they should be able to afford taking in someone with zero income
without bringing a subsidy into these units.
So theoretically, we should be able to refer folks to these properties
to consider them. Some of these projects
may have high barriers within their tenant selection plans. We want to try and maximize this
resource.
c.
Barbara said that it would be important to
keep in mind the projects that have not yet gone before the bond
commission. Lamont has discussed the
bond programs, and it’s unclear whether this means programs that have already
had bond funds allocated, or if they are programs that are waiting to figure
out bond funding.
i. Zoe
Schwartz said she would share out the powerpoint slides with this
information. There’s a lot to be
determined, but with bond funds the governor can have a lot of sway over
whether those bond commission meetings happen.
6. Advocacy
Day Preparations – Matt Morgan
a.
The Advocacy Day for Housing and Homelessness
days have already had legislative priorities established by the reaching home
campaign. Each year we typically divide
up the list of legislative priorities.
i. Preserving
Housing Supports and Services at DMHAS – who would like to speak about
this?
1.
Rebekah Lyas will speak on this.
ii. Preserve
the DOH Housing and Homelessness Line Item –
1.
Does this include the AIDS Housing within
DOH? Matt will clarify.
2.
Sarah DiMaio will speak about the CIA funding
3.
Matt will talk about Youth Homelessness
Funding
4.
Reducing barriers to childcare for children in
shelters –
a.
Matt needs to reach out to Chris McClusky, Marilyn
Rossetti, Cathy Zeiner, Andrea Hakian.
7. Coordinated
Exit
a.
Progressive Engagement – Crane Cesario, Kara
Capobianco
i. We figured
out that we’re jumping really far ahead and that Progressive Engagement isn’t
the terminology to use. The whole idea
is to have a framework of what our overall goal is and our rationale for
managing limited resources.
8. GH CAN
Shelter and Housing Data
a.
GH CAN Housed Data (see p.2)
b.
GH CAN Waitlist Data (see p.2)
c.
ESLC Data
9. Future
Agenda Items?
a.
CAN Data dashboard for Emergency Shelter
performance – Breakdown the data into individuals and families.
i. Need to
understand in a numerical sense -- mollie
follow up with Crane, what did she mean here?
b.
HOPWA Referral process – Mollie reach out to
Barbara to share info.
10. Announcements
a.
CT Department of Housing has distributed a
survey on CAN performance, please encourage your staff and colleagues to
complete this survey before 2/28/19!
b.
The Town of Enfield was awarded CDBG Small
Cities funding to provide Homeless Diversion assistance throughout Greater
Enfield!
c.
CAN Data Dashboards are available at www.CTCANData.org . Please check out your organization’s data and
work on cleaning up any incorrect data so that we can start using these
dashboards to inform our system work.
d.
The Soup Kitchen Gathering is next Thursday
February 28th at 3PM at SVDP in Middletown.
GH CAN Housing Data
|
Data Element
|
Number
|
Notes
|
|
Chronically
homeless individuals housed in 2015
|
102
|
This
includes clients housed through GH CAN programs
as well as through other subsidies or independent housing
|
|
Chronically
homeless individuals housed in 2016
|
211
|
This
includes clients housed through GH CAN programs
as well as through other subsidies or independent housing
|
|
Chronically
homeless individuals housed in 2017
|
179
|
This
includes clients housed through GH CAN programs
as well as through other subsidies or independent housing
|
|
Chronically
homeless/potentially chronic individuals housed in 2018
|
151
|
This
includes clients housed through GH CAN programs
and bridges to PSH as well as through other subsidies or independent
housing
|
|
Chronically
homeless/potentially chronic individuals housed in 2019
|
21
|
This
includes clients housed through GH CAN programs and bridges to PSH as well as
through other subsidies or independent housing
|
|
Total
Chronically homeless individuals housed in GH CAN
|
663
|
|
|
Verified
Chronic Matched
|
33
|
|
|
Verified
Chronic Not Yet Matched
|
9
|
We
currently have 9 chronic verified clients who have not yet been matched to
housing.
|
|
Potentially
Chronic Refusers
|
1
|
|
|
Verified
Chronic Refusers
|
2
|
|
|
Not
Chronic (Verified) Refuser
|
0
|
|
|
Potentially
Chronic Matched
|
8
|
These
households did not disclose a disabling condition, and are matched to various
programs.
|
|
Not
Chronic Matched
|
15
|
|
|
Potentially
Chronic Not Yet Matched
|
30
|
Right
now we believe 30 households have the chronic length of homeless
history, but none of these individuals have their homeless and disability
verifications completed.
|
|
Individuals
- Active – Not Matched
|
303
|
This
is Enrolled in CAN, Enrolled in TH, and In
an Institution
|
|
Families
– Active – Not Matched
|
38
|
This
is Enrolled in CAN and Enrolled in TH
|
|
Families
- Verified Chronic – Not Matched
|
0
|
|
|
Families
– Not Chronic (Verified) – Matched
|
8
|
|
|
Families
– Verified Chronic – Matched
|
2
|
|
SmartSheet Shelter Priority List Data
|
Individual Men
|
Individual Women
|
Families – Waitlist Does Not Exist
|
|
80 Unsheltered/ In a Car
|
81 Unsheltered/In a Car
|
17 families are on our Family Stabilization List
|
|
99 Total
|
98 Total
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment