Greater Hartford Coordinated Access
Network
Leadership Committee Agenda
Wednesday, June 5th,
2019
In
Attendance:
Kara Capobianco –
CT DOH
Crane Cesario –
DMHAS
Stephanie Corbin
– Mercy Housing and Shelter
Sarah DiMaio –
Salvation Army
Fred Faulkner –
The Open Hearth
Heather Flannery
– Interval House
Andrea Hakian –
CHR
Audrey Kennedy –
South Park Inn
John Lawlor - The Connection
Rebekah Lyas –
ImmaCare
Steve MacHattie –
Mercy Housing and Shelter
Elijah McFolley –
The Open Hearth
Kathy Shaw – My
Sisters’ Place
Keysha Starks –
South Park Inn
JR Fritsch
– Salvation Army
1. Coordinated
Entry
a.
Salvation Army Bridge Beds Proposal – Sarah
DiMaio (10 minutes)
i.
Sarah discussed further with her corps in
Florida who does this. Florida only did
this for individuals, which makes sense with what we had discussed. In talking with Diversion and with Outreach,
Sarah discovered that our waitlist for individual men is extremely low. So it seems like this may not be needed
immediately.
ii.
We may instead need an option for sheltering
folks who are unsheltered, and coordinating with outreach.
1.
Crane appreciates that Sarah thinks as a
community member, not just on behalf of her agency. When all community members work together,
there’s a bigger impact.
2.
Coordinated Exit:
a.
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Preference
Changes – Matt Morgan
i.
For the past two years, the City has had a
preference for folks moving on from PSH, and folks who are chronically
homeless, and families and youth.
ii.
About 6 months ago, new leadership at the City
started talking about what they want to do to expand HCVs in the City. This
means that the City is slowing the rate at which Journey Home (and the CAN) are
receiving vouchers.
iii.
We had previously been getting 75% of the
turnover. We will soon be getting only
40% of the vouchers. This comes out to
about 15 vouchers per quarter (or 5 per month).
iv.
In addition, the City will have a set-aside
for a 10% cap of what can come through the CAN.
There’s a maximum capacity, but we can reuse that 10%.
v.
The next step is that the City is seeking our
input on how to operationalize this.
vi.
Unfortunately, we don’t have a lot of time to
gather feedback.
vii.
Internally, we proposed having this just
operate for Moving On from PSH or RRH.
viii.
We’re also looking for feedback on how to
operationalize this.
1.
One option is: leave this up to the CAN Solutions
meetings to decide which moving on candidates are selected for the vouchers,
and who among RRH are selected.
a.
This option may mean that clients with
stronger advocates may benefit from this more than other clients.
b.
The second option is a little more structured,
and would rotate between the three subpopulations: families, youth and
individuals.
i.
Kara liked this option
ii.
Heather brought up that allocating 1/3, 1/3,
1/3 to populations, and they may not meet the actual demand in the
community.
1.
There was a recommendation to allocate to try
and match the actual population we serve.
iii.
Crane recommended that we do a hybrid
option. We want to try to keep this as a
more open process and will recommend a rotation among families, youth, and
individuals (perhaps 2 individual slots per each rotation). Crane envisions us being able to keep track
of where we are at this moment. Crane
wants to try and let this process serve the system based on the population
we’re serving. It could perhaps be a
little less restrictive of a process than option 2 while serving the goals of
option 2.
iv.
Kara recommends using the data about long-term
stayers in PSH to try and really open up PSH programs soon.
1.
Kara also believes that CSH is working with
DMHAS to really work on Moving On more proactively in the future.
2.
Kara and Crane also discussed using legacy
Shelter Plus Care programs (which don’t have services), and could legacy
Shelter Plus Care be used for the vacancies.
v.
Sarah also flagged that for some populations
we have had a huge period of time during which we haven’t had Rapid ReHousing
programs.
1.
Matt reminded us that we could theoretically
still work with large families in the way that we have been, by using just a
Rapid Exit resource (as this is technically RRH).
c.
We have the option of taking folks who have
been in PSH longer and having that be a preference. We could also approach folks in RRH in the
same way.
d.
Kara also recommended that all PSH programs
begin identifying a waitlist of clients who are already ready to go into a
Moving On voucher.
i.
Crane agreed, and this seems to support the
goal to not stick too closely to a structure, and allowing us to refer folks to
the vouchers based on community need.
e.
Rebekah asked about the folks who have already
been matched to vouchers, and Matt clarified that they will be approved, and
the CAN should treat them as being grandfathered in.
f.
We will share the feedback from this group at
Operations this afternoon.
3.
Data Needs of this
Committee – Matt Morgan
a.
Sarah likes seeing the information about the
priority list.
b.
Crane thinks it’s helpful to see a running
total of how many folks have been housed.
i.
Crane suggested pulling the statewide data
rather than this segment.
ii.
Total number of people housed would be ideal.
iii.
Crane offered to have a brainstorming session
to look at this.
iv.
This should be on the next agenda.
4.
Sub-COC Updates – Crane
Cesario
a.
Managing Project-Based Grant Funds – Crane
Cesario
i.
Crane would like to get a general consensus
around how people are feeling about project-based grant funding being
underutilized and identify some options to manage that.
ii.
PRA funding is what we’re discussing.
iii.
Kara reminded us that the CAN Policies and Procedures
went out through the CT BOS Listserv.
1.
This was re-sent to the Leadership Listserv.
iv.
There is a high-level fight going on to change
the policies at a HUD-level to institute work requirements and change equal
access rules as they stand. There are
some people in HUD who are trying to slow this progress.
1.
Programs who would be able to go in this
direction are just agencies who contract directly with HUD. Kara noted that the state has no plan to
change their standards around equal access and discrimination. We need to see how this plays out. Some of how it plays out will be in effect
when the NOFA comes out.
v.
A discussion that will be coming up at the COC
is how do we manage project based grant funds?
1.
When clients don’t do well and leave, sometimes
it takes time for the property managers to upgrade/turnover that unit. Those vacancies add up to a significant loss
for some programs.
a.
There are a few ideas – convert to a
sponsor-based. The YWCA has
sponsor-based. The subsidies are held by
the grantee/sub-grantee. The YWCA holds
the grant, and are responsible for spending the money on a certain number of
units. The benefit of this is that the
grant is consistently applied to keep the funding of the building whole.
b.
Another idea is to change the whole grant to
scattered site, and allow some grants to be used within the building.
i.
When clients know they have a scattered site
certificate, they leave the building.
ii.
We then struggle to find families to fill
these units.
c.
A third option would be to merge multiple
grants.
d.
Matt asked whether there were restrictions on
the building switching to these funding options? Crane didn’t think so.
e.
Matt also asked whether properties were able
to make revenue by renting units in the building at market rate while units
were scattered site.
5.
100 Day Campaign Updates –
Matt Morgan (5 minutes)
a.
The 100 Day Team just met and texted Matt some
issues. They’re struggling to identify
resources and employers to attend the Job Fair on June 28th,
particularly entities outside of Hartford.
b.
Andrea doesn’t want to duplicate, but is
willing to connect offline. Matt will
connect Andrea to the team leads.
c.
The team is also having difficulty with
establishing relationships with landlords, with knowing the appropriate
resources that exist in the community, language barriers, transportation
barriers, and communication barriers.
d.
Sarah mentioned that it seems like more
education must be required from CAN staff, and Sarah will reach out to the
change stewards and will plan to report at the next meeting.
e.
The last thing they said was that the system
is flawed and they want our input on what routes we should take to come up with
a consistent plan?
i.
John added that many youth providers are
seeing Category 2 folks and are not seeing them being served.
ii.
We need a drop-in center.
iii.
Lisa suggested a location in Enfield that may
be available for a youth drop-in center.
6.
GH CAN Shelter and
Housing Data
a.
GH CAN Housed Data (see p.2)
i.
We’ve housed over 700 chronically homeless
households as a CAN
ii.
There aresome Rapid Exit dollars that have been
available.
iii.
Sarah asked about partial second month’s rent
– Lisa will follow up with Amanda.
b.
GH CAN Waitlist Data (see p.2)
7. Future
Agenda Items?
a.
Sarah Updates to 100 Day Campaign for Youth
b.
Revisiting the Data discussion.
8. Announcements
a.
Sarah’s temporary full-time position to work
on the housing stabilization list has been essential, but the position is only
funded through June 30th.
Sarah asks that if programs are looking at reallocating a position, a
second shift diversion staff person has been essential for triaging emergencies
as they come up with families.
b.
State budget is looking the same as it has
historically been, so it seems like the CIA funds will operate in the same way
that they have.
c.
ImmaCare shelter will be doing renovations
beginning in the next few months, and stopped taking new intakes last Friday,
5/10/19.
d.
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.
e.
CCEH has funding available for victims of
Hurricane Maria- if you are working with anyone who was a hurricane evacuee
please contact Mollie Greenwood or Lisa Quach immediately.
f.
CCEH has funding available for childcare for
families in shelter!
g.
The action items from the April 3rd
meeting can be found on page 3. Several
action items had deadlines of this week!
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
|
62
|
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
|
705
|
|
|
Verified
Chronic Matched
|
23
|
|
|
Verified
Chronic Not Yet Matched
|
30
|
We
currently have 30 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
|
0
|
These
households did not disclose a disabling condition, and are matched to various
programs.
|
|
Not
Chronic Matched
|
23
|
|
|
Potentially
Chronic Not Yet Matched
|
27
|
Right
now we believe 27 households have the chronic length of homeless
history, but none of these individuals have their homeless and disability
verifications completed.
|
|
Individuals
- Active – Not Matched
|
245
|
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
|
0
|
|
|
Families
– Potentially Chronic – Matched
|
0
|
|
|
Families
– Potentially Chronic – Not Matched
|
0
|
|
|
Families
– Not Chronic (Verified) – Matched
|
17
|
This
includes RRH bridges
|
|
Families
– Verified Chronic – Matched
|
1
|
|
SmartSheet Shelter Priority List Data
|
Individual Men
|
Individual Women
|
Family Stabilization List
|
|
7 unsheltered
|
23 unsheltered
|
30 families on Stabilization List
|
|
9 total
|
30 total
|
|
Strategies for
Reducing Long Stayers in Shelter – Identified 4/3/19
|
Goal Area
|
Action Step Identified
|
Responsible Entity
|
Due Date
|
|
Change the Narrative to be
more Strength Based
|
Distribute DOH "Shelter
Questions" to individual shelters
|
Kara give to Mollie, Mollie
distribute to shelters, shelters to complete
|
May 20th Mollie
distribute – June 7th shelters will send in their identified areas
for improvement.
|
|
Change the Narrative to be
more Strength Based
|
Encourage other systems of
care to work on conversations about housing.
DOH?? NEED ACTION STEPS
|
Amy Robinson will reach out to
the VA and the CCT
HOPWA group – Barbara Shaw to
discuss
Barbara Shaw to discuss at CDC
May 30th
|
June 7th
HOPWA – May 30th
Barbara update CAN for June 19th.
|
|
Engaging People with Lived
Experience/ Peers
|
Identify existing peer/client
groups in shelters/meal programs
|
Audrey will ask Dave DuVerger
to pull a group together
Mark will follow up
|
By June 7th Audrey
will make a plan with Dave
5/15/19
|
|
Engaging People with Lived
Experience/ Peers
|
Identify housed clients who
may be good speakers about their experiences
|
Barbara will be keeping the
Melville / Reaching Home process at the forefront of her mind.
|
NEED TO IDENTIFY TRAINING
|
|
Engaging People with Lived Experience/
Peers
|
Identify funding for stipends
for peer-to-peer mentoring
|
Not identified
|
|
|
Shared Housing
|
Bring in New Haven for a Ready
to Roommate Training
|
Journey Home
|
June 7th (Mary)
|
|
Data
|
Get income information on BNL
via a request to Nutmeg
|
Lisa/Crane have submitted to
Release Bin.
|
June 14th due date.
|
|
More fully utilizing other
systems of care
|
Identify
MH/SA/Residential/Medical Treatment programs
|
Rebekah
|
June 19th
|
|
Increasing Income
|
Identify interns who can
assist with employment
|
Sarah DiMaio
|
June 14th
|
|
Data
|
Identify mechanism for adding
a "during" assessment for income for shelter and outreach programs.
|
Crane and Sarah will combine
with above
|
June 19th
|
No comments:
Post a Comment