City of Lawrence

Task Force on Homeless Services

February 7, 2005 minutes

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Randy Beeman, Candy Davis, Katherine Dinsdale, Paula Gilchrist (Filling in for Rich Forney), Helen Hartnett, Barbara Huppee, David Johnson, Steve Ozark, Mike Rundle, Jim Schneider, Shirley Martin-Smith, and Sarah Terwelp

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Bruce Beale, Tami Clark, Rich Forney, Loring Henderson, Caroline Hicks, Sara Taliaferro, and Barbara Tucker

 

STAFF PRESENT:

Margene Swarts and Bobbie Walthall

 

 

Rundle called the meeting to order at 1:11 P.M.

 

Approval of Agenda

The agenda was approved unanimously.

 

Approval of February 2, 2005, minutes

Hartnett moved to approve the February 2, 2005, minutes.  Martin-Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

 

Discuss format of final document to be submitted to the City Commission

Swarts briefly explained the lunch orders for the retreat.

 

Rundle stated the proposal is to vote on each item. Swarts will tally.  Paula Gilchrist will represent Rich Forney for the Salvation Army.

 

There followed a brief discussion regarding the retreat.

 

Schneider asked what an abstention counted as.  Swarts stated that she thought it was a no.  She indicated that just the yeas should speak up. 

 

Huppee asked if the 70% would be based on the yeas.  Ozark noted members could still abstain. 

 

Dinsdale stated she was not here at the last vote. How did it work?  It appeared there was no discussion, just voting. 

 

Rundle stated there are some things that are simply questions. Are there any other things that might throw in a wrinkle? 

 

Ozark commented that if there was part he would vote for but if part of the recommendation was taken away, he might not.  If the Task Force is voting for what is written on the page and not some portion of, then the Task Force can discuss that at the next meeting. 

 

Huppee said she had a different issue. In her view some of these recommendations go beyond her idea of what the scope of a program for the homeless would be and would be very expensive to implement and could take it in a different direction. 

 

Hartnett said if everyone voted on that today, then on February 14th, it would be discussed in greater detail.  However, if they get voted yeas today, then the Task Force would talk about feasibility and priority on the 14th. 

 

Johnson said that it seems to him that the main thing we are going to do today is eliminate things and things that get voted on might end up being eliminated after discussion on Monday.  He would feel better if he knows we’re going in to the retreat stating that these are the things we want to talk about and support but realize that they might not make it in the report.

 

Dinsdale asked if things should be tabled and not voted on if there is not enough time to talk about them. 

 

Johnson said yes or expects to discuss those on the 14th.

 

Davis stated it sounded like the board wanted to be flexible and the rules might need to be bendable for a reasonable discussion and the need to stay focused on the task.

 

Rundle stated that we talked in the past about commentary on why things were not included and if things are not included today we could say that it was not agreed to by 70% of the group. 

 

Schneider said he didn’t know if that would be enough. 

 

Rundle said we could talk about it later. 

 

Huppee said there would need to be discussion on the things that were dismissed. 

 

Henderson said there are two wrinkles in the voting: one is a problem voting on something that involves police when there is no representation in the room and secondly, some of the items as Hartnett suggested are micromanaging a program, which is beyond the scope of a plan for this Task Force. We can still proceed and hash it out, but it is too detailed. 

 

Schneider said some items are ambiguous and at first glace he would vote, but others are open for interpretation and then he would abstain or vote against.

 

Rundle said we could bring that up on Monday too. 

 

Huppee asked if after there is discussion clarifying any questions, and the Task Force discovers it wants to include it in the report, could the Task Force include it after all.

 

Davis said she agreed.  “Homeless unemployed would be involved in daily activities 8-5,” she is not comfortable voting for that, but after a discussion on the 14th, she might be in favor of something like that.  She suggested tabling some things and then come back for discussion later.

 

Huppee suggested voting now and then discuss it later. 

 

Ozark noted he will abstain for some things rather than saying no. 

 

Swarts suggested going back and discussing those recommendations that do not pass and suggested using Davis’s example. 

 

Rundle said it is okay to abstain and he will keep track of those. 

 

Dinsdale inquired whether the Task Force should state the reason for voting an item down if the Task Force unanimously votes it down.

 

Davis inquired about how to handle the duplications. 

 

Dinsdale stated she numbered the paragraphs so that she knows which paragraph the recommendations are mentioned in and she knows where they are.  It is very helpful. 

 

Huppee recommend that the Task Force continue to vote on duplications as they come up.

 

Hartnett questioned if the Task Force was voting on questions on things in the plans.  Huppee stated she was correct.

 

Vote on Recommendations

 

 Approved Recommendations- 9 Votes Needed for 70%

A. EMERGENCY AND SHELTER SERVICES

Shelter Issues:

1. The City needs to address immediate needs by having proper space for shelter

10

  1. The City needs a larger shelter-10

3.  Crisis shelter needs must be met in bad weather-10

  1. comprehensive, long-term services need to be provided - 13
  2. Is there an effort to separate women/children/families from men in the shelter? 12
  3. Allow guests in shelters to have bed assignments to promote safety and involvement/ownership- 9
  4. Need storage for personal items – 10
  5. 24/7 shelter very important   - 11
  1. Visiting by police at homeless facilities/LINK is beneficial  - 11
  2. Continued coordination and cooperation with existing agencies – 12
  3. Coordination of and with Faith Community – 12
  4. Bring churches in with social service agencies on the HMIS system- avoids duplication of services – 12
  5. Bring as many providers together to discuss how to address the problems (enhance and structure greater and ongoing communication) – 12
  6. Services for homeless people who are not on the street – single mothers/families/working poor need identifiable services and support – 12
  1. Plan needs to clarify who will be served – 10
  1. Don’t drop people back into the situation they were in before the problem (putting someone whose out of control on the streets makes the problem worse) – 10
  2. Continue 24-hour notice before clearing out camps. – 12

Program Issues:

  1. Prevention is not addressed – 12
  2. Have programs that assess level of need and clearly indicate steps toward goals – 12
  3. Rehabilitation programs should be outcome based/measuring progress toward goals – 12
  1. Homeless individuals need a place to socialize, sit, rest during transitional phases of programs – 10
  2. Religious programs or worship should not be required – 12
  1. Community needs to publicly and privately fund homeless services program – 11
  2. Crisis intervention is very important in order to help shelters and individuals be supported – 12
  1. Expectation/responsibility/accountability built into service – 12
  1. Lawrence needs a 24/7 place for information that is not an emergency shelter, a 24/7 centralized phone helpline (possibly Headquarters) -  10
  1. Lawrence needs a comprehensive system of care that meets the needs of people after they’ve graduated program – 11
  2. Need for after care for people released from other places (jail/prison/mental health institution/detox) – 11
  1. Need key management of homeless plan in order to coordinate service and funding. Should be a paid position. - 10

Funding Issues:

  1. Editorial comment: Confusing language “negotiate” for funding- “collaborative” funding might be more appropriate -  collaborative funding – 12
  2. Lawrence needs a Representative Payee Organization to assist Social Security Disability Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients with their monthly finances - 11

Miscellaneous-- Non-Shelter Issues:

  1. Need more housing – 9
  2. Need ongoing support services for those in housing programs - 12

B. CASE MANAGEMENT

  1. Hire professional with programming experience with the homeless – 12
  2. Add case management workers – 12
  3. Add outreach workers – 12
  4. Ensure timely response to case management plan - 12
  5. Assign case manager to each person to make sure they are receiving help and services – 11
  6. Fund case managers through the city, county, state, and mental health and alcoholic treatment centers – DISCUSSION for NEXT MONDAY.  Change to FUND CASE MANAGERS – 11

C. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE

  1. The last sentence should read “There still remains a great need for transitional housing in this community for homeless persons with mental illness.”   - 10 Developmental disabilities providers and advocates report that there is no need for transitional housing for those with DD.  - 
  2. Add the italicized words “The Task Force unanimously recommends that the City Commission request Lawrence Memorial Hospital to reopen the crisis mental health inpatient unit and operate or coordinate with DCCCA the development of a local social detoxification program.” – 11 
  3. Prior to the sentence above, insert “While additional programs would assist in meeting mental health needs, there is no alternative service that can replace the need for inpatient hospitalization.” -   12

D. HOUSING PROGRAM

  1. Seeking new financing to increase the amount of subsidized and affordable rental housing for the homeless – 11
  2. Develop a campaign to recruit landlords with vacant units to rent to the homeless under a transitional/supportive housing program - 12

E. JOBS PROGRAM

  1. Hire homeless individuals in office positions and other non-degree jobs - 12
    1. -This can be clarified in the proposal to say that people can be assessed for skills and placed in office or industrial work.
  2. Gap-obtain legal documents - 12
    1. -This is in the plan
  3. Employment agencies working more closely with Community Drop-In Center, etc. - 12
    1. -This is understood and will be clarified in the plan
  4. 24/7 facility could become a day-labor job placement provider to the community - 10
    1. -This requires discussion of the pros & cons and is a voting item
  1. Is there a child care piece in the jobs program? - 9
    1. -Discussion/voting item

F. COMMUNICATION AND QUALITY OF LIFE

  1. Full time program coordinator – 10
  2. Seek cooperation and support from local media / ed., public service announcements – 10
  3. Use a more relaxed definition of “homeless” –10
  4. Prioritize goals, steps, action – 11
  5. Expand and develop funding possibilities – 12
  6. Establish broad-based fundraising plan – 12
  7. General homeless information available through headquarters or similar agency – 12
  8. Discussion of barriers and needs for partnership between public and private sector to address homeless concerns – 12
  9. Publicly list funding amounts and program costs – 11
  10. Venue for business people to talk about homeless concerns - 11
  11. Community-wide support of homeless plan – 12
  12. Available accurate statistical information on homeless population and related facts – 12
  13. Facts to support plan recommendations/priorities/action – 12
  14. More efficient services - avoid duplication – 11

(SAFETY)

  1. Police presence should be visible, friendly, and supportive. (ex: bike-walking patrols, one designated police officer as in high schools, or possible sub-station) – 10
  2. Involve homeless individuals as monitors to help regulate unruly behavior in and around service facilities – 9
  3. Sub-committee to handle neighborhood / merchant / community problems and act as police liaison – 9
  4. Review existing city ordinances, guidelines, rules – 11

 

Non-approved Recommendations- 9 Votes Needed for 70%

A. EMERGENCY AND SHELTER SERVICES

Shelter Issues:

4. The City should purchase a location- 2

10. Have police stationed at homeless facilities/LINK- 2

17. The plan is weak on the problem – move people out of community – 8

18. We should take care of our own first - 3

19. Should “break” up the population – move people out of community – 6

20. Services should be all under one roof – 6

22. Three strikes and you are out for bad behavior – 1

25. Can the breath test be lowered at Salvation Army? – 7

Program Issues:

29. Participation in rehab should be outcome based/measuring progress towards goals – 1

30. Non-Lawrence residents will only be served for 3 days – 1

31. Registration/intake will include a background check – 1

32. Police will offer homeless city ordinance violators a choice of a standard penalty or rehab. – 5

33. One central processing and intake center – 5

34. Homeless unemployed will be involved in daily activities from 8:00am to 5:00pm – 3

37. Within 48-hours of application for homeless services a background check must be made by the Lawrence Police Department – 6

38. Identification system, including a background check and assessment of needs

39. Implement an ID or service card system – 5

40. Long-term service should be for Douglas County residents only – 3

41. Participation in rehabilitation programs must be mandatory in order to receive long-term services – 5

44. Use models that have worked for other communities – Ex. Fontana, California – 7

46. The service actually perpetuate the condition of a homeless person rather than helping them become more self-sufficient – 3

47. Prefer a single site location for homeless services away from downtown – 6

49. Food Pantries and Clothing Closets should be combined (possibly ECKAN or Salvation Army) – 7

52. City shall open a single-site service facility for homeless residents in Lawrence – 5

53. Single-site service facility shall be outcome based model where the homeless individual is rehabilitated to the point where he/she no longer requires community care (keeping in mind that some individuals may require some on-going services or permanent service) – 7

54. Single-site service shall serve homeless on-Lawrence residents for a one time only three day period – 0

55. Single-site service facility shall immediately, from day one, enroll all individuals in an active treatment and rehabilitative program before receiving service – 1

56. Single-site facility shall have an emergency shelter provision that will open the facility to individuals not enrolled when temperature fall below 25degrees.  Those who do not adhere to rules and guidelines will face being turned away from the facility – 7

57. Homeless individuals would be referred to the facility by any and all service groups and faith-based groups, private and public, who are presently providing services, including free food and shelter, to the homeless; by police officers; by all community individuals – 8

Funding Issues:

59. Funding – City is the initial funder and then 3 to 5 years down the road, it should be self funded – 0

60. Better regulation of duns by the City that are earmarked for homeless service – 8

61. Have one city-wide funding source that distributed to all service organizations thus encouraging cooperation – 0

63. Clients should pay for services – for responsibility and reality of rent when moved into housing.  Could have sliding scale of payment as a means of getting people ready to pay full rent – 7

B. JOBS PROGRAM

5. Work should be connected to a bed – 2

6. Funding could be accomplished though job training and employment of homeless persons – 6

C. COMMUNITCATION AND QUALITY OF LIFE

Safety

19. Add/alter ordinances, guidelines, rules to be more effective in dealing with anti-social behavior, including aggressive panhandling – 8

20. Camping will be prohibited on public property or public right-of-ways – 7

21. No person will interfere with free passage of persons on public sidewalks – 7

22. No swap meets or business will be allowed on any public right-of-way without a permit – 7

23. Review Fontana California program “Ten-4” regarding quality of life and safety issues – 5

Reasons for Voting Down

Davis stated she understood from the discussion last week that the Task Force was going to try and give more weight to some of the comments that it keeps hearing so often.  She is not sure that the Task Force could do that and maybe there can be some discussion on the no votes. 

 

Rundle stated that he hopes the discussion will clarify things. 

 

Johnson stated it is down to basic funding. The Task Force needs to look at the funders city-wide and what they are willing to fund and what will make sense to them.  We need some kind of balance.

 

Schneider said he has heard homeless people question why the community is not dealing with the small population giving homeless people a bad name.  The streets are dangerous so why can’t the community deal with the small number.  The majority of the homeless population would want that, but the Task Force voted no because it’s painting the entire population.

 

Huppee was going to comment that she hopes as the Task Force goes through the pros and cons of why items were voted down, the Task Force is able to inform one another of the basis of that decision.  In her view, she voted against things because she thinks they will happen in the structure of the programs.

 

Johnson said maybe he should wait, but he voted for things that passed and others he did not because he did not think they would work, i.e. a disabled person who may be unable to work, so work tied to the bed thing won’t work.  The idea of holding programs accountable and the idea of rehabilitation components are things the Task Force voted to include today.

 

Gilchrist entered the meeting.

 

Dinsdale agreed with Johnson and thinks that a lot of the things she voted against were because of the wording.  She does not think there needs to be a revote, but there are some no votes that people want to discuss more fully because of the way the recommendation was worded.

 

The City should purchase a location- 2

Rundle stated he was concerned that the location assumes a whole range of services.

 

Huppee stated she voted against it because it was either a building or a site and was not realistic.

 

Ozark stated the funding and site need to be a cooperative effort.

 

Henderson noted he voted for it but the wording was unclear and there needs to be a clearer statement on how the City would be involved in getting a building.

 

Schneider stated he voted against it because of how the Topeka Rescue Mission is run.  There is no City involvement at all.  It is privately funded and he does not want the City involved.

 

Have police stationed at homeless facilities/LINK-2

Ozark stated the police themselves said it will not work for them as well as the homeless services. 

 

Schneider stated that the Police Department had said that a substation would not work, but that is different than police stationed “at.” The police are stationed at Free State High School, but do not have a substation. 

 

Rundle pointed out there was a funding source for that. 

 

Hartnett noted that from a social worker prospective, confidentiality is huge and if the Task Force says police should be at LINK, it poses a threat.  People might not come in if a police officer is present.

 

Davis stated that it limits the creativity in how one can involve the Police Department in a positive way. 

 

Schneider stated that he liked the idea of the Police Department being friendly and if there are people afraid of the Police Department there is a problem.

 

Henderson stated he voted no because the Police Department says they don’t want to have one there. 

 

The plan is weak on the problem of transient homelessness-8

Huppee stated she voted against it because she does not think the program should distinguish between transient and Lawrence area residents. There are a lot of long-term homeless that are from Lawrence and she thinks that for whatever transients that com e into Lawrence, they move out fairly quickly and could be helped under a different part of the program.  The quality of our services and nature of services would not distinguish between the two. 

 

Schneider said there were several ways to look at things.  There is a problem with transient homeless people in Lawrence and the community is concerned. He suspects 40-50 percent of the street homeless population has been in Lawrence less than 6-12 months.  Much of Lawrence’s service system to the homeless is used up by the street homeless.  Unless the community gets a hold of the transient problem, Lawrence is going to have another facility that is attractive to other communities to send homeless here.

 

Davis stated the plan addressed that.  People who are truly transient will not want to be part of that if there are stipulations built in.  She is concerned with the transient component, but it is complex.

 

Johnson voted in favor of it.  Many of the solutions that Schneider has proposed he would not vote in favor of, but the plan has not addressed the transient population yet.  He thinks our programs now are addressing it. 

 

There followed a brief discussion regarding transients and services.

 

Rundle stated he voted against it because of the ambiguity of the recommendation. 

 

The Task Force agreed to discuss the transients’ issue at the retreat.

 

We should take care of our own first- 3

Rundle stated he voted against it because of the ambiguity of the recommendation.

 

Should “break” up the population- move people out of community- 0

Rundle stated he voted against it because of the ambiguity of the recommendation.  

 

Hartnett stated that the homeless, themselves, are a community and the recommendation is that they should be broken away from their community group because some of their friends will pull them down, not wanting them to succeed.

 

Davis asked if it could be addressed under providing more effective services.

 

Henderson stated this was one he would have voted for if the Task Force understood it. 

 

Hartnett stated she would not have voted for it.

 

Johnson stated supportive services are needed not un-supportive services.

 

Huppee stated they have had a number of homeless people end up homeless again because of lease violations, etc. 

 

Hartnett said this is not the way to deal with this, which is why she voted against it.

 

Dinsdale asked if Huppee should reword the recommendation.  Huppee stated the other issue will cover it. 

 

Services should be all under one roof- 6

Johnson stated there needs to be consensus for cooperation, not consolidation. 

 

Ozark stated that if there is only one point for all services, then people will fall through the cracks. 

 

Hartnett stated she voted against it because of the current issues of having it under one roof, which overburdens one neighborhood with the homeless population. 

 

Rundle asked if this would not preclude an agency bringing in someone.  Huppee stated no.

 

Three strikes and you’re out for bad behavior- 1

Huppee stated she voted no because they had one at the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority asked the Board to change the policy and allow discretion.  People learn at different rates and some need to re-learn and develop, which might take longer. 

 

Rundle stated he voted against it because he disagrees with any “three strikes and you’re out” programs.  The programs do not allow for forgiveness when someone learns their lesson; it tends to be expensive, and when one totally cuts the person off, they create the problems the Task Force is trying to solve.

 

Can the breath test be lowered at Salvation Army?- 3

Hartnett stated she voted against it because it is not the Task Force’s responsibility to tell the Salvation Army how to do their business or to change their policy. 

 

Gilchrist stated that it was something that Rich Forney might be the one to talk with about it.  It used to be zero tolerance, but now it is raised to .04. 

 

Huppee asked if Forney had the authority to make that change. Gilchrist stated that he does. 

 

Schneider stated that it changes drinking trends. 

 

Participation in rehab programs should begin on the first day of intake- 1

Rundle stated that Topeka realized that the first day people were in shock and needed a day or two to settle down.

 

Ozark said that their research reported that three days is more realistic.

 

Non-Lawrence residents will only be served for 3 days – 1

Davis stated it goes back to the previous discussion.

 

Registration/intake will include a background check – 7

Hartnett stated she voted against it because she wonders about the enforcement of it and, from a social service perspective, of an unintended consequence.  Also once people figure out background checks are required, they might not go. 

 

There followed a brief discussion regarding the discovery of arrest warrants.

 

Dinsdale asked if the Salvation Army does background checks. 

 

Gilchrist replied that they do background checks, but mainly for sex offenders so that they know.  It is not public information and they require their residents to apply for housing.  Individuals will usually tell the Salvation Army when they have to fill out an application for housing. 

 

Hartnett stated there are other options. 

 

Schneider asked if this could be discussed on the 14th. 

 

Davis stated background checks could be a selling point to some neighbors. 

 

Schneider stated people are concerned about transients slipping in and using services and food. 

 

Hartnett stated that they will show up regardless.  She was referring to the neighborhoods that have people hanging around on the streets.  That behavior on the streets is going to get worse.

 

Police will offer homeless city ordinance violators a choice of a standard penalty or rehab – 5

Rundle stated that it seemed to him that one cannot tailor an ordinance toward a particular population group and have it sustained. 

 

Huppee agreed with Rundle.

 

Schneider stated that other cities actually do this in a rehab sort of way. 

 

Johnson stated he voted against it because he would like to hear from the Police Department on what they believe would be effective.

 

One central processing and intake center – 5

 

Hicks entered the meeting.

 

Homeless unemployed will be involved in daily activities from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm – 3

Rundle stated he voted against it because of the time requirement, but they should have programs to be involved in. 

 

Huppee said that it does need to be a support activity program. 

 

The Task Force agreed to state that they voted against it because of both the time issue and that a program should be included.

 

Within 48-hours of application for homeless services a background check must be made by the Lawrence Police Dept – 6

The Task Force agreed to discuss this issue on the 14th.

 

Identification system including a background check and assessment of need – 6

Huppee stated she voted for it because there has to be a needs assessment.  There cannot be a program without an assessment of need.  People are going to be known in the homeless community and that whole issue of id system is moot through the HMIS system.  

 

Schneider stated his concern is whether the police will be part or the treatment system. 

 

Dinsdale stated the HMIS system does not involve the Police. 

 

Schneider said the Police Department is part of the treatment system. 

 

Dinsdale stated the identification, the assessment and background check does not involve the police.

 

Schneider asked what would happen if the Police Department walks up to person and they do not have an identification card.

 

Ozark stated the intentions should be to minimize the Police involvement to emergencies only.   

 

There followed a brief discussion regarding i.d. cards.

 

Implement an ID or service card system – 5

The reasons are stated above and followed the discussion above.

 

Long-term services should be for Douglas County residents only – 3

This was covered under the transient discussion.

 

Participation in rehabilitation programs must be mandatory in order to receive long-term services– 5

Johnson stated he voted against it because there are people in long-term services that have completed and received all the benefits they are going to get, but are still in need of supportive housing and those types of things.  There are just people that are going to need the long-term services.

 

Hartnett agreed.

 

Huppee wondered if there is not a question of understanding here. 

 

Johnson stated the point of the whole thing is that shelter services are not considered long-term care.

 

Use models that have worked for other communities- Ex. Fontana, CA– 7

Rundle stated he thought the plan was based on numerous communities. 

 

Huppee stated she is opposed to importing something here and making it work for Lawrence.

 

Davis agreed with Rundle and Huppee.

 

Henderson stated he voted for expectation and accountability because that is a component that the Task Force can use.

 

The EXISTING services actually perpetuate the condition of a homeless person rather than helping them become more self-sufficient – 3

Huppee said it sounded like a statement. 

 

Schneider suggested discussing it on the 14th.

 

The Task Force would like to discuss enabling existing services on the 14th.

 

Henderson stated the existing services are not enabling services that allow people to go die in parks, the services are doing the best they can to help people start their lives over.  What we are talking about here is having a plan that will have a lot of different things in it and then we can help people become more self sufficient. 

 

Prefer a single site location for homeless services away from downtown – 6

Schneider stated that from what he has heard from the downtown people is that there is shelter that feeds some people and provides classes.  He said it is a good plan.

 

Henderson stated it was discussed earlier.

 

Ozark suggested discussing the issue on the 14th because there are two proposals, a single site and away from downtown. 

 

Dinsdale stated that the huge issue is the assumption in the statement that says services perpetuate the conditions because the public does not think right now that service providers are necessarily working as team players. 

 

Henderson stated they are, but it could always be better, and communication about what agencies as a whole are doing, lots of discussions, etc. 

 

Gilchrist said that the case manager might be a personal choice.  They might have a personal relationship elsewhere where they should start. 

 

Rundle asked if there was communication now.  Gilchrist said yes, that is why she was late today.

 

Huppee questioned that the plan goes with the person from agency to agency and if someone is in violation, i.e., they are suspended form the Open Shelter; they are also automatically suspended from the feeding program.  Dinsdale stated that was her understanding of the intent of this program.

 

Ozark stated it is a big community problem because they are kicked out of services and then out into the neighborhoods. 

 

Henderson stated they have a program that if they are banned form the Shelter or Drop-In Shelter, they can make an appointment to see someone because there is no point in kicking them out on the street. 

 

Ozark stated that it is larger crisis at 2:00 a.m. and the gap needs to be closed on where they can go. 

 

Huppee stated that is called a safe house and Lawrence does not have one.

 

Schneider stated that Dinsdale’s point needs to be discussed on the 14th.

 

Food Pantries and Clothing Closets should be combined (possibly ECKAN or Salvation Army) – 7

Henderson stated he voted against it because it is telling an organization how to run itself. In some cases, it would work if the facility is big enough. 

 

Hicks stated Pelathe’ has a food pantry, but it is small and used by neighborhood people.  Transportation becomes an issue, and the neighborhood pantries fulfill a specific need.  

 

Rundle asked Gilchrist if they have food vouchers and if someone comes to them, do they have the ability to receive another voucher the same day.  Gilchrist stated yes. 

 

Dinsdale suggested collaboration, not consolidation.

 

Hicks said it is an issue of marketing. The community and funders need to know it is going on and has been going on. 

 

Dinsdale stated that it provides relationships too which is very helpful.

 

City shall open a single-site service facility for homeless residents in Lawrence – 5

Ozark stated that if single-site was taken out, then there is more merit to it. 

 

Rundle stated the City needs to be a partner, but not sole provider.

 

Single-site service facility shall be outcome based model where the homeless individual is rehabilitated to the point where he/she no longer requires community care (keeping in mind that some individuals may require some on-going services or permanent serve) - 7

Huppee asked if our comment is directed to the recommendation that there is a single site facility and not other components. 

 

Hartnett said no.  There is the issue of non Lawrence residents.

 

Schneider stated the Task Force needs to address what it means by single-site.  Ozark agreed.

 

Ozark stated he understood it to be everything single service is under one roof in one building.  We have a multiplicity of people needing more than one service. 

 

Henderson stated we have two single-site services now.

 

Gilchrist stated that there will not be a concentration of the population when there are several locations.

 

Single-site service facility shall serve homeless non-Lawrence residents for a one time only three day period – 0

 

Single-site service facility shall immediately, from day one, enroll all individuals in an active treatment and rehabilitative program before receiving services – 1

 

Single-site facility shall have an emergency shelter provision that will open the facility to individuals not enrolled when temperatures fall below 25 degrees. Thos who don’t adhere to rules and guidelines will face being turned away from the facility – 7

 

Schneider stated the Task Force needs a definition of bad weather, which is why the 25 degrees was put in there.  

 

Rundle stated that the Salvation Army had a policy of when to open to the public because of temperature. 

 

Henderson stated it is a moot issue because there is now 24/7 shelter.  He stated that if the words single-site were taken out, it would read different.  It would be great if LINK or someone could open up for the night. 

 

Hartnett agreed.  If she were to vote on this, it would mean that people would have to be enrolled. 

 

Huppee stated she thinks it will be addressed on the 14th.

 

Homeless individuals would be referred to the facility by any and all service groups and faith-based groups, private and public, who are presently providing services, including free food and shelter, to the homeless; by police officers; by all community individuals – 8

Rundle said it seemed okay except it said that THE FACILITY seemed as one place. 

 

Davis suggested changing it to the “appropriate facility.”  She suggested discussing it on the 14th.

 

Funding- City is the initial funder and then 3 to 5 years down the road, it should be self-funded - 0

The Task Force agreed this was previously discussed.

 

Better regulation of funds by the City that are earmarked for homeless service. – 8

Swarts noted the comment was from the LINK forum. 

 

Rundle stated the person did not think the City paid attention to how funding was used. 

 

Hartnett stated that was right, it was a comment about squandering the money and it is an equality issue. 

 

Huppee stated that this has to do with the funding source and what the reporting requirements are.  If the City gives $1 million to LOS, it is up to the City to have reporting guidelines to see how the money is being spent. 

 

Davis said the Task Force also voted on having public availability of that information. 

 

Henderson stated it was public.

 

Regulate expenditures – 7

The Task Force referred to the above discussion.

 

Davis stated she wants to discuss it. 

 

Rundle stated he skipped it because he thought they were all the same. 

 

Huppee questioned regulating what expenditures.

 

Have one city-wide funding source that distributes to all service organizations thus encouraging cooperation – 0

Davis stated it is confusing to her.  She recalled other communities that had a central funding source and then worked out the distribution, just like the United Way. 

 

Hartnett stated that at the stakeholders meeting, the Task Force had this discussion.  There are some towns that there is one city-wide funding source, but it is monitored by a non-profit separate entity and city people sit on the board.  They have partner agencies and monitor and plan for the community in terms of funding.

 

Henderson stated it sounded too broad. 

 

Hartnett stated that the way it is written, it said one city-wide funding source and does not go beyond that.

 

Clients should pay for services- for responsibility and reality of rent when moved into housing.  Could have sliding scale of payment as a means of getting people ready to pay full rent – 7

Hartnett stated that she voted against it because it puts them under the landlord/tenant law.  It changed the nature of a service participant once money was exchanged.  Responsibility is important. 

 

Schneider stated Topeka requires individuals to put money in a savings account toward their own rent for when they are eventually housed.

 

Work should be connected to a bed - 2

Martin-Smith stated that under the job section that if the Task Force puts together an employment program in this community, the background check is very important.  Most companies demand this information.  She wanted everyone to think about those things.  Martin-Smith stated she wants to discuss this on the 14th.

 

Henderson stated he voted for the day labor thing, but appreciates Martin-Smith’s comments.  This is the kind of discussion the Task Force needs to have.  

 

Martin-Smith said she wasn’t at the meeting where a person expressed a desire to go to work for the city to pick up twigs, limbs, etc after the ice storm, but there is some real work they can do for the city. 

 

Henderson stated he is going to discuss that option with Fred De Victor. 

 

Funding could be accomplished through job training and employment of homeless persons –6

Huppee stated that this was similar to the Cottonwood model.

 

Martin-Smith stated she thinks the Task Force needs to discuss it more.

 

Rundle asked why it was voted down.

 

Ozark stated that Salina’s shelter has a good relationship and the homeless get jobs.  He asked if it is antiquated. 

 

Martin-Smith stated no, but if one wants employment in a major corporation, at least 95% require a background check.  One needs to assure the customer that there is some accountability for the person getting sent in. 

 

Hartnett stated she sees this as someone opposed to the background check.

 

Schneider stated his concern was that the worker uses the money for alcohol consumption.

 

Add / alter ordinances, guidelines, rules to be more effective in dealing with anti-social behavior, including aggressive panhandling – 8

 

Camping will be prohibited on public property or public right-of-ways – 7

 

No person will interfere with free passage of persons on public sidewalks – 7

 

No swap meets or business will be allowed on any public right-of-way without a permit – 7

 

Huppee stated she voted against it because she thinks that any serious program has to have a discussion of ordinances. 

 

Ozark stated he voted yes because if the plan has a good comprehensive program of services and they fail to follow the rules, here are the ordinances. The ordinance runs the program and then it is not a service anymore. 

 

Martin-Smith stated that some ordinances should be implemented right away.  She provided an example.

 

Henderson stated he voted against it because he voted for the one just prior that said view EXISTING ordinances / guidelines and rules.  He thinks the Task Force needs someone to tell them what the ordinances are. 

 

Hartnett stated she thought there was an ordinance about burning in public places.  It would not necessarily stop the behavior but give folks “teeth” to enforce it.

 

Rundle stated he disagrees with the discussion being tied with the homeless. If it is a bad behavior, it should be discussed and policed.  It could be a student doing it rather than a homeless person.  It needs to be addressed in that discussion and not label it as a “homeless ordinance”. 

 

Henderson stated another reason he voted against it was “anti-social”.  He wants a clearer definition.

 

Huppee stated that is generally means interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the community. 

 

Dinsdale noted the plan already states it will be reviewed.

 

Rundle stated no person shall interfere with free passage on city sidewalks.  Part of the issue is the way they are worded.

 

Schneider stated the Task Force recommended an ordinance against aggressive panhandling.

 

Gilchrist asked if the police cite a person who does not move, what happens.

 

Schneider stated that first they get warned, then a citation. 

 

Hartnett stated the person receives a notice to appear.

 

Re-voting for a more lenient breath test – 7

Davis wanted to clarify the breath test.  First page, very last one, she is concerned that it reads wrong.  She wants it to be more lenient.

 

Terwelp left the meeting.

 

Public Comment

Phil Hemphill stated that everything the Task Force voted for with 9 votes or less, he is with them on some, but not others.  The Task Force voted no on background checks and mandatory requirements.  He stated that if you eliminate everything circled, you eliminate all recommendations from neighborhood meetings and Downtown Lawrence, which makes it seem like the Task Force ignored their concerns.  There have to be rules and sanctions against homeless people to get a handle on their behavior.  If you can’t get a handle on their behavior, they don’t belong in the system, or in Lawrence, Kansas.  By ignoring the neighborhood and community, the Task Force is making a big mistake.

 

Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.  The meeting ended at 5:08 p.m.