Greater Hartford Coordinated Access
Network
Leadership Committee Agenda
Wednesday, May 1st,
2019
In Attendance:
Stephanie Corbin –
Mercy Housing and Shelter Corporation
Kara Capobianco –
CT Dept of Housing
Elijah McFolley –
The Open Hearth
Keysha Starks –
South Park Inn
Audrey Kennedy –
South Park Inn
Heather Flannery –
Interval House
Andrea Hakian –
CHR
Barbara Shaw –
Hands On Hartford
David Grant –
City of Hartford
Letticia
Brown-Gambino – Chrysalis Center
Rebekah Lyas –
ImmaCare
Steve MacHattie –
ImmaCare
Steve Bigler –
CRT
Crane Cesario –
DMHAS
Sarah DiMaio –
Salvation Army Marshall House
Matt Morgan –
Journey Home
1. ImmaCare
Rennovations – Lou Gilbert (10 minutes)
a.
ImmaCare has had a long-term goals to renovate
the shelter for many years. Finally, ImmaCare
is hoping to be under construction this summer.
ImmaCare had initially hoped to continue operating the shelter upstairs
during renovations. They’ve ended up
seeking alternative locations.
b.
It seems to make most sense to close the
shelter for about eight months instead.
c.
Next Friday is the first date that the shelter
will stop taking new intakes. From that
point forward, the shelter’s focus will be moving people into housing as
quickly as possible.
d.
While closed, ImmaCare plans to maintain some
staff and have them do outreach, support folks in shelters who need additional
hand-holding. They can assist in doing
unsheltered homeless outreach.
e.
As a community, we want the messaging to be
that our goal is to immediately house everyone at ImmaCare.
f.
There will likely be some changes afterwards
around capacity after this period. The
ultimate goal is to create some systems flow.
How can we make sure nobody feels that their best option is to stay
outside?
g.
It’s probably realistic to say that July 1st
is the date that folks need to be out of the shelter. It’s possible that the shelter won’t be open
for the start of winter.
h.
There are 75 beds that our community has been
used to.
2. City of
Hartford Boards and Commissions – David Grant (10 minutes)
a.
David will soon be meeting with City Council members
to reinvigorate the Housing Commission.
The City of Hartford requires a city staffer on all commissions. These folks act as liaisons between
commissioners and the mayor’s office.
David has taken on an active role, including taking on staffing some
commissions.
b.
Moving forward into the work that David has
been doing with CAN and with Journey Home, David feels strongly that the
housing commission can help support the needs of these agencies.
c.
Councilwoman Rosado and councilwoman fox agree. They’ll be meeting on Friday to identify the
best ways to support.
d.
The fair-rent commission is also up and
running, and may be an important player.
e.
David hopes to provide a more detailed report
after this meetings. There are a number
of groups who seem interested in participating in these commissions.
f.
David would suggest that if any of you have a
wish list for what the housing commission or fair rent commission could
prioritize, he would welcome feedback.
David is seeking guidance and insight from these commissions. David would like to see representation from
inside this body, but he’d also like to have active participation within each
group.
g.
In the past, there had been several folks from
this group. The commission on
homelessness is also dormant.
Homelessness will be the second commission David will focus on once the
housing commission is up and running.
3. Coordinated Entry
a. YHDP Navigator
Enrollments for Individuals in Shelter – Mollie Greenwood (5 minutes)
i. See handout
ii. There have been
challenges around data collection for the YHDP Navigator program. Navigators have been tasked with ensuring
that all youth in adult shelters are on their caseload, but doing a separate
intake with the navigators once in shelter had blurred the lines of who the
youth should be primarily going to for case management assistance. Because there are additional data elements
being collected for YHDP intakes compared to shelter intakes, there was a
request from the navigators that shelters complete these intakes with any youth
at the time of shelter entry.
iii. GH CAN Leadership
approved this decision. The document
will be distributed to shelter staff and should be completed for any youth in
an adult shelter beginning immediately, and the document should be uploaded to
CT HMIS.
4. Coordinated
Exit:
a.
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Preference –
Matt Morgan (5 minutes)
i. Some clients
may have been matched to the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Preference and have
been waiting for a long time. We
recently heard that the City of Hartford has been requesting that Imagineers
delay on releasing vouchers to Journey Home.
ii. Kylie
Gosselin, who used to be at the City of Hartford, has gone to Partnership for
Strong Communities. The City’s new
leadership is interested in focusing more on downtown development, and they
were hoping to project-base some vouchers in downtown developments.
iii. The CAN
had been receiving about 72% of the vouchers that had been turning over that
were controlled by the city.
1.
The City of Hartford wants to reduce that 72%
of turnover to about 40% of the turnover vouchers. This turnover would only be available over
the course of the next three years. The
city wants to further limit the turnover voucher allocation – and give only 10%
of the 5,000 turnover units to the CAN.
After 3 years, it would only be the turnover of that 10% of vouchers.
2.
This is a major shift from where the city had
been in the past. We think that this may
impact how our preferences are in place – we may want to prioritize our
preferences differently. We have
normally been receiving a few vouchers per month (about 10-15). This will reduce the among we are receiving
to about 7-8 turnover vouchers per month.
3.
Matt’s question is, how would you like us to
respond to the City? What should our
response be?
a.
We should thank the city for their support so
far, but also indicate disappointment in the reduction.
b.
We are disappointed to see the reduction
c.
Could we ask as part of the response to help
them facilitate talks with the Hartford Housing Authority?
d.
Crane added that the Housing Authority world
is very different. There have been
several iterations of trying to help partnerships start.
e.
Letticia commented that this seems to be the
ideal time to open up the conversation about other preferences. Other major housing authorities have similar
preferences in place, so they could benefit from learning.
f.
Lou asked about whether HUD has been pushed to
require housing authorities to become more collaborative.
g.
From HUD local, Suzanne and Alana have been
incredibly supportive of this. They have
a colleague who is the Housing Authority point person who is less supportive.
h.
At the state government level, they can’t tell
housing authorities what to do. It’s up
to each housing authority.
i.
Letticia also added that it would be important
to add a mix of populations, and that seems to be appreciated.
j.
Barbara added that although things are
improving, they need to continue to be resourced. Heather added that we would urge to maintain
the 40%.
k.
Kara added that we should strongly consider
them to include project-based openings.
l.
Statistics about how it has improved our
system turnover.
m.
The city has not yet clarified when the
reduction will begin.
n.
There is a large family who needs a 5 bedroom –
DOH has requested a 5 bedroom certificate to stop this logjam. As part of this, Crane requested a 5-bedroom
voucher from the state.
o.
DMHAS is also in the process of combining
grants, and that combination happens in a reduction of FMR. There’s additional pressure on Crane’s
program to operate with tightness. We’ll
need to make sure folks are on our By-Name List. That’s an ask to all of us right now.
p.
Matt will prepare a draft letter and
distribute it to the CAN. Barbara Shaw
was voluntold to review it.
q.
David suggested sending to the Mayor, copying
his chief of staff, and the leader in housing.
5. Sub-COC
Updates – Crane Cesario (10 minutes)
a.
CT HMIS Steering Committee: Duplicate Record
Creation – Crane Cesario
i. The CT
HMIS Steering Committee has identified people who are creating duplicate
records in CT HMIS. Other communities
are looking like folks are generating one duplicate record, but there are some
other folks who are repeatedly creating duplicates. Your agency should have received a report of
who is generating duplicates.
ii. Andrea
asked whether there was a way to easily stop this.
iii. Crane also
needs to discuss a few CT BOS items:
1.
Consumer Surveys – Crane has consistently
brought concerns about timeliness expectations to complete consumer
surveys. We really want to hear from
people, and if people are compromised and don’t have case managers, we want to
give them adequate time.
a.
The resolution that has been identified is
that surveys can be completed in a year-round way. It’ll be a challenge for some of us to
implement.
2.
Project Evaluation – They’re still using the
lowest scoring projects to go into Corrective Action, or intakes of ineligible
folks automatically triggers Corrective Action.
There’s a range of 35-99 for project renewals.
3.
Dedicated Plus – there are essentially two
options on the table.
a.
Dedicated means you dedicate all units for
chronically homeless.
b.
Dedicated plus allows more options, like
incorporating folks with long homeless histories but who don’t meet the chronic
criteria. They’re going to put something
out.
c.
We can’t bring down our average length of stay
as we continue to have folks with multiple years of homelessness, while folks with
30 months of homelessness.
6. Data and
Estimated Needs – Matt Morgan (10 minutes)
a.
See handout
b.
The aim of this document is to understand our
system flow through our CAN.
i. As we’ve
been discussing for years, there’s a definite imbalance in access to shelter between
individual men and individual women in our community.
ii. 85% of
individuals and 45% of folks are discharging from shelter to a positive exit
destination without a housing intervention.
This does include shelter discharges.
Matt should revise how this is laid out.
iii. Rapid Exit
Dollars are available. Identification of
apartments has been a challenge.
1.
Salvation Army has been using YHDP Rapid Exit
first, as has South Park Inn.
iv. Way more
than 10% of clients are able to use Rapid Exit, but there’s the absence of
available landlords.
v. Letticia
suggested identifying data from the SWAP analysis.
1.
Kara suggested that Matt reach out to Beau at
CT DOH.
2.
Steve DiLella has data around costs for
emergency shelters. Shelter costs about
$9,200/bed.
3.
Letticia volunteered to have her staff help
with translating Matt’s document into a document that can be marketed
statewide.
7. Youth 100
Day Campaign Updates – Matt Morgan (10 minutes)
a.
The 100 Day Campaign is launching yesterday
and today. Hartford’s 100 Day Campaign
Goal around youth homelessness will be: In 100 days, we will safely
and stably house 75 youth and young adults between the ages of 16-24 with 60%
connected to education, employment, or training, and 35% being involved in juvenile
justice and/or reentry.
8. Racial
Equity Collaborative – Crane Cesario (5 minutes)
9. Statewide
CAN Leadership Updates
a.
Reaching Home Campaign is restructuring the
campaign work group structure
b.
CCEH will be working with local CANs to
provide assessment of existing homeless outreach
c.
We’re working to identify what are considered
positive exits from shelter, local CANs will be seeking feedback.
10. GH CAN
Shelter and Housing Data
a.
CT BNL Weekly Status Report
b.
GH CAN Housed Data (see p.2)
c.
GH CAN Waitlist Data (see p.2)
11. Future
Agenda Items?
a.
Project Review And Recommendations (CT BOS)
b.
Action Steps from local CAN Leadership’s April
planning.
c.
Duplicates in CT HMIS – Crane
d.
Dedicated Plus – Crane
e.
Point In Time Count
f.
Racial Equity – to top of next agenda
(Crane). We need people with lived
experience and staff who are POC. Date
not yet identified. Thinking the week of
May 10th.
12. Announcements
GH CAN
Housing Data
|
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
|
50
|
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
|
693
|
|
|
Verified
Chronic Matched
|
22
|
|
|
Verified
Chronic Not Yet Matched
|
29
|
We
currently have 29 chronic verified clients who have not yet been matched to
housing.
|
|
Potentially
Chronic Refusers
|
1
|
|
|
Verified
Chronic Refusers
|
2
|
|
|
Not
Chronic (Verified) Refuser
|
1
|
|
|
Potentially
Chronic Matched
|
1
|
These
households did not disclose a disabling condition, and are matched to various
programs.
|
|
Not
Chronic Matched
|
30
|
|
|
Potentially
Chronic Not Yet Matched
|
36
|
Right
now we believe 36 households have the chronic length of homeless
history, but none of these individuals have their homeless and disability
verifications completed.
|
|
Individuals
- Active – Not Matched
|
343
|
This
is Enrolled in CAN, Enrolled in TH, and In
an Institution
|
|
Families
– Active – Not Matched
|
41
|
This
is Enrolled in CAN and Enrolled in TH
|
|
Families
- Verified Chronic – Not Matched
|
1
|
|
|
Families
– Potentially Chronic – Matched
|
0
|
|
|
Families
– Potentially Chronic – Not Matched
|
0
|
|
|
Families
– Not Chronic (Verified) – Matched
|
13
|
This
includes RRH bridges
|
|
Families
– Verified Chronic – Matched
|
1
|
|
SmartSheets Shelter Priority List Data
Individual Men
|
Individual Women
|
Family Stabilization List
|
|
41 unsheltered
|
43 unsheltered
|
16 families on Stabilization List
|
|
56 total
|
52 total
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment