City of Lawrence

Task Force on Homeless Services

February 14, 2005 minutes

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Randy Beeman, Candy Davis, Katherine Dinsdale, Rich Forney, Helen Hartnett, Loring Henderson, Caroline Hicks, Barbara Huppee, David Johnson, Steve Ozark, Mike Rundle, Jim Schneider, Shirley Martin-Smith, and Sarah Terwelp

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Bruce Beale, Tami Clark, Sara Taliaferro, and Barbara Tucker

STAFF PRESENT:

Monica Cardin and Margene Swarts

Rundle called the meeting to order at 9:19 a.m.

There followed a brief discussion regarding the process for the retreat.

Swarts distributed information from Rena Taylor.

There followed a brief discussion regarding whether to synthesize the Task Force responses to the “no” votes.

Schneider stated he wanted to discuss some issues that the Task Force keeps ignoring.

Henderson agreed with Schneider. He voted against some items because he wants to talk to the Police Department, clarify what is meant by “station” and what the ordinances mean. It could be a helpful piece of information for the public if they really understand why something was voted down.

Rundle asked if it would be helpful to state the reasons why the recommendation was voted down.

Henderson stated he believed the Task Force should do that.

Martin-Smith stated she thought the Task Force was going to review the non-approved recommendations so the public could see the reasons behind the vote.

Reasons for Voting NO

The City should purchase a location-2

Martin-Smith stated that statement does not really solve anything. She would like a better understanding of what would go in a location and how that would or would not compliment the Salvation Army’s facility.

Huppee stated there will be protesting, but the Task Force needs to have reasonable responses to that.

Dinsdale stated the purpose is to not have a single-site facility.

Rundle stated that Salvation Army is still working on a shelter.

Have police stationed at homeless facilities/LINK-2

Rundle stated that the Task Force wants to cooperate with the Police Department but not direct them.

Schneider stated the Task Force should make recommendations of the ideal.

Davis stated that is addressed under safety.

Terwelp stated that police involvement is already in there.

Dinsdale read from the plan where the police involvement is stated. She asked if the no vote be that police involvement is already discussed in the document.

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

Rundle asked if it was possible to come up with reasons for the no vote and put it aside to come back to. He would prefer to move ahead and add any comments later.

Ozark asked if the issue was whether the plan is strong on dealing with transients.

Huppee asked what is meant by the transient homelessness and how to distinguish from this population and Lawrence population.

Henderson stated that this shows the plan is weak.

There followed a brief discussion regarding definitions of homeless. The Task Force agreed no distinction would be made between transient and Lawrence homeless persons.

Schneider stated that it has large implications for resources.

Huppee stated that the Task Force needed to wrestle with this question and services to transients and those to Lawrence residents.

Forney questioned the definition of resident.

Huppee asked if the Task Force thinks it is their job to discuss if the homeless individuals will have different services.

Schneider stated that they should be exposed to the same plan.

Dinsdale stated that as it stands, they have three days to be in a rehabilitative program.

Henderson stated that there are two models in the plan: one with limits and one with no limits.

Schneider stated that he wants the three-day limit.

Huppee stated she voted against it and would have the same problem without defining it.

Schneider stated that it is a good plan if it requires people to be part of the treatment plan. The Task Force has not agreed that the three day rule is the model. Both have allowed the Task Force to feel comfortable.

Huppee stated it will be addressed through a comprehensive plan.

Schneider stated it needs to discourage transients.

Henderson stated that they are not draining resources, and if they are truly transients they will move on.

Huppee stated Henderson made a comment that getting a mat on the floor is not much of a service. Taking it in terms of our comfort level and the homeless’ comfort level, the ease of service, maybe it is only a service with a mat and meals that is the comfort level.

Henderson noted his objection is not to the three-day requirement, but the programs are not in place yet.

Schneider compared the Task Force to architects designing a plan. They develop the foundation. This assumes all these services are going to be in place.

Martin-Smith stated that if the Task Force makes that assumption, the burden falls onto the next group.

Schneider stated that making a commitment is enough.

Davis stated she liked the qualifiers because the prioritization addresses things. There has to be a package to the community, to get everyone behind it and the Task Force should keep that in mind.

Schneider commented that a mere commitment in three days would get a lot of community support.

Henderson agreed with Schneider but added that the practice is difficult because of the individual.

Martin-Smith stated she supported the three-day requirement assuming all the programs and services are there.

Schneider stated that it only works if the programming is available. The public needs to know what it will cost. This is a selling point.

Henderson noted the Topeka Rescue Mission has a three-day requirement as well as six or seven internal programs. One of them is for all the other people; no one is out of a program.

Forney stated that if people do not adhere to the three-day requirement, then they are out.

Henderson commented that he still works with them individually.

Schneider commented that at least in the Topeka model, someone in the system is responsible for that person.

Terwelp noted they serve more than just the homeless.

Huppee stated that there are services that are predicated under a whole different philosophy. They will continue to serve people.

Rundle stated he does not think the transient problem is a well documented problem. There is no hard information to know who one is talking about. The Task Force is not going to ignore the issue.

Huppee asked if there was an implication for this plan. Does the plan rely on LINK as its feeding program, neither of which is homeless?

Davis stated she is not willing to support a plan that will not feed people.

Beeman noted that LINK serves a diverse clientele. How does it deal with seniors who are lonely and the working poor?

Davis asked if personnel do ask that. Beeman stated that there is no easy way to do that.

Huppee asked if LINK received City funding. Beeman stated no.

Huppee stated that if they do not receive City funding, then they do not have to adhere to the plan.

Ozark stated there is a need for a comprehensive plan.

Huppee stated anybody can do that if they have the resources because it does not matter if it is all privately funded. Beeman agreed unless there is a licensing issue.

Rundle noted the Topeka Rescue Mission confers with those that want to offer services to reach a cooperative agreement. He asked if the concern could be acknowledged, and then expect this on-going route to gather data and monitor concerns, steps can be taken to bring the policy or ordinances to meet the issues.

There followed a brief discussion regarding how other cities feed the homeless.

Forney stated that the public is very concerned with the person who cannot get into shelter, where do they go and what about the mental health issue? The Task Force needs to talk about that. Where do we send them? If they refuse to adhere to the rules, where do they go?

Ozark stated that if a strict system is set up, more people will be on the street.

Forney stated that when the Salvation Army instituted attending classes, people complained, some people left until they saw it worked. At first, there will be people complaining and then they will see it works.

Hartnett stated that the context is important and people have to have other options otherwise they will be on the street.

Dinsdale asked Henderson what he would like to do for that population. Henderson stated longer and local detox because drinking is major problem.

Hartnett commented there are communities where whole populations have never come in to shelter.

Schneider stated he did not think the Task Force should set up programs that sustain that behavior.

Huppee asked how he would address that. Schneider stated they should look to other communities that solved these problems.

Davis commented that they look good on paper, but they all struggled about the same issues.

Schneider briefly discussed the Fontana, CA model.

Huppee asked what happens if they go there, are not successful and go back on street, What happens next?

Schneider stated that they drive them out of town.

Henderson stated that it does not work with some people because this is their home.

Forney commented that as long as they have a place to go, they will always be here. There is a large population that stays at the river. They do not want to be inside any place.

Ozark suggested limiting the areas in which homeless people are not allowed to hang around.

Hartnett asked if he was talking about zones in which the homeless are not allowed to go into.

Ozark stated that it is not that they cannot go there, but that one cannot do certain behavior.

Forney asked where the homeless go. Ozark stated the City needed a new facility for when someone gets kicked out of place.

Huppee stated that they need to be arrested and there needs to be a holding facility.

There followed a discussion regarding ordinances and possible discussions with the City attorney and Police Department regarding what would be feasible and possible.

Johnson stated that they cannot deprive people of their constitutional rights.

Rundle stated the other side of the issue is prosecution and the courts.

Huppee stated the Task Force should identify the behaviors it wants curbed and then talk about what is needed to curb those behavior.

There followed a discussion regarding the list of anti-social behaviors.

LIST OF BEHAVIORS:

Public drunkenness, urination, defecation, fornication, lying or sitting on the sidewalk, loitering, camping, aggressive panhandling, disorderly conduct, vandalism and setting fires, trespassing.

Terwelp questioned the reasoning behind making the list. Schneider stated that it was so the community could see that the Task Force listens to them.

Johnson briefly discussed why the Task Force voted down having the client pay for services.

Hartnett stated that having the client pay for services changes the relationship. For example, if the client pays for transitional housing the relationship changes to one of landlord/tenant issues.

There followed a brief discussion regarding paying for staying at a shelter.

Hartnett stated that it is more than appropriate in transitional housing because they are getting ready for permanent housing. Payment is direct relationship to service.

Schneider suggested talking to Dave Corliss, City Attorney, about ordinances and public behavior.

Rundle stated that they need to lean on the service providers to monitor those and possibly implement changes.

Dinsdale suggested establishing another committee of social providers and police to discuss ordinances and other issues.

The Task Force recommended members to recommend to staff.

Suggestions were made that it be made up of agencies such as the Salvation Army, the Lawrence Open Shelter, Downtown Lawrence, Inc., and LINK. Rundle suggested Huppee and Schneider meet with him to further discuss this.

Johnson moved to immediately ask the Mayor to bring this to the City Commission to review ordinances and behavioral issues raised by the community. Martin-Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Dinsdale asked if the Task Force could do the next three recommendations in one discussion. She suggested noting that the problems of the transient population will not be distinguished from the any other population and will have the same program requirements.

Terwelp stated it is the Task Force’s responsibility to state why it voted on specific recommendation as opposed to telling the public what it wanted to do in the plan.

The Task Force briefly discussed the concern that the City draws people from other regions of the country.

Johnson suggested someone conduct a study and take a look at the magnitude of the transient population.

Rundle recognized that this is a big concern of the community.

Schneider suggested that a permanent entity look at the issue.

We should take care of our own first- 3

The Task Force referred to the discussion above.

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

The Task Force referred to the discussion above.

Services should be all under one roof- 6

Henderson stated he did not understand this.

Johnson stated that this suggestion came from the Downtown Lawrence suggestion that the Tangier Outlet Mall would be a good location.

Henderson stated he was not sure what single-site meant.

Schneider stated they are concerned about LINK, CDIC, and LOC operating in one space. The homeless could go to one facility for the food service, the shelter, and service provider for those three services and educational opportunities, but not all the resources.

Dinsdale suggested that while the Task Force is interested in coordinating services, it sees one single site as impractical.

Beeman stated he hears that they do not want to travel. LINK will still offer food.

Forney commented that the Salvation Army is going to work with LINK and using LINK’s services. The Salvation Army will be responsible for providing food at the site.

Schneider asked if the Salvation Army would provide transportation. Forney stated that the Salvation Army provides food for those at its residential center and will continue to supply food for LINK.

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

The Task Force previously discussed this issue.

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

The Task Force agreed that it was the Salvation Army’s business.

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

Forney stated that three days would be more realistic. The general consensus of the group is it should be three days.

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

The Task Force referred to the reason above.

Registration/intake will include a background check – 7

Forney asked who would be paying for that.

Dinsdale asked who is required to do that. She also asked if the checks would be for intake or for services as well.

Forney stated the Salvation Army does background checks on its bell ringers. They go through the FBI, KBI and the Salvation Army headquarters.

Henderson questioned what happens if they find someone with an outstanding warrant. Forney stated that they do not get hired.

Henderson stated he spoke with Hemphill about this recommendation and Hemphill wants the police called and involved. It makes people feel less threatened if people are getting arrested.

Forney stated it is a confidentiality issue and they do not call the police. Background check takes 4 or 5 days. He asked what do the agencies do with them until it is complete?

Johnson stated that under state law agencies have to serve them.

Terwelp suggested that it become part of a disclaimer at intake. She asked what the consequence was if they have criminal history.

Rundle stated that it is addressed in housing and jobs.

Martin-Smith noted that they will not be able to help everyone.

Beeman stated the Task Force should state that this is addressed in the housing program or job program. It acknowledges the discussion.

Forney stated they should not have background checks. The cost is an issue. If it is brought up in the counseling services, then the service provider will bring it up. The person has to mention it.

Beeman stated that it is an intake form issue.

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

This topic was referred to the Mayor’s discussion group.

One central processing and intake center – 5

The Task Force agreed that the plan incorporates the spirit of the comment through the cooperation among agencies and HMIS.

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

Huppee stated that there will be a program of services and they will be involved in meaningful activities.

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

The Task Force agreed this was previously addressed.

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

Rundle stated the program expectation will address this.

Implement an ID or service card system – 5

It was agreed this will be addressed with the HMIS.

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

The Task Force agreed this was previously addressed.

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

Johnson noted there will be people who are in continual need of long-term services.

Forney asked what Johnson meant by long-term. Johnson stated that people who are disabled, but are able to be in supportive housing will never reach the place of not needing services.

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

This was previously discussed.

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

Johnson suggested stating that the recommendations will help in this regard and continue to encourage that people be incorporated into program.

Rundle stated that he wanted to specifically state LINK.

Schneider commented that feeding programs do not require participation in programs.

Rundle stated LINK is not exclusive to the homeless, but for the community.

Henderson stated he voted against it because it was more aimed at the shelter. He thinks that it does not recognize that a lot of existing programs do not enable people.

Hartnett stated that LINK services more than homeless people. She stated that it needs to be taken further out because otherwise it sends the wrong message.

The Task Force agreed to acknowledge the perception that some of the existing programs enable people to be homeless.

Rundle stated that there is a commitment to address this concern.

Huppee stated LINK is going to be outside the plan. No one can dictate to LINK how to run its feeding program. Dinsdale commented that without churches, LINK does not exist.

Forney noted that most people eat at LINK for different reasons.

There followed a discussion regarding police involvement at LINK.

Johnson stated that the Task Force needs to help people not be afraid of the police. It is also one of the problems that the police will figure out how correct.

Dinsdale questioned how LINK would participate in HMIS. Beeman stated he did not see a need to in terms of input, but there is a need to be able to access information.

Henderson noted the program gets larger as the community gets larger.

Huppee stated that she can certainly see how this perception exists, that the element does exist, the plan being proposed carries more responsibility for future participants than the current services provide and to look for the plan to address this issue.

Schneider stated that they have to acknowledge that some elements of the community choose to not be part of the plan.

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

This issue has already been addressed.

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

Davis stated that it was impractical because it would require so much space.

Ozark commented that it is good for people to access at different locations.

Rundle stated that they each are limited in regards to when they are open.

Martin-Smith commented that the agencies are open for a variety of people.

Rundle questioned whether the food pantries are going to be on the HMIS.

Beeman asked how the churches would be able to afford HMIS.

Rundle noted that several boards are already looking at HMIS funding.

Swarts advised the Task Force about the upcoming Housing Trust Fund RFP.

There followed a brief discussion regarding HMIS.

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

The recommendation has already been discussed.

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

Rundle stated that the reason he voted against it is because it states single-site.

Beeman stated that he believes there needs to be a third location if the temperature falls below a certain temperature or goes above the extreme.

Henderson stated that it could be a use as easy as opening LINK when the other shelters are full. He noted that when LOS is full, they give people blankets.

Beeman stated that he would rather have the plan that they could come into First Christian Church.

Ozark stated that they would like to get a facility that is large enough so there is no need for an emergency site facility.

Hartnett stated that it needs to be taken into the context that it is an issue of capacity.

Rundle stated it is part of it because it said single-site. The plan is committed to outcomes.

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

The Task Force agreed it was an equity issue.

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

The Task Force agreed that it was the single-site facility, which was already discussed.

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

Rundle stated that it was because it referred to a single-site and was already discussed. Existing programs already have a temperature threshold.

There followed a brief discussion about the need for a larger shelter.

Henderson asked if the Salvation Army will continue to have the emergency shelter in the gym once the new facility is built. Forney stated no. The Salvation Army will have two buildings, but it is for transitional housing. There will be some beds for emergency stays. The Salvation Army will be taking a lot of people off the streets and putting them into transitional housing.

Huppee inquired about the number of emergency beds available. Forney stated that they will have up to 10 beds available for men and six beds for women. Henderson will be referring people to the Salvation Army for transitional housing. He also stated that the current shelter could house up to 150, but the most people they have had stay there is 76. The new facility will hold 64.

Huppee asked about families. Forney stated that their plan calls for accommodations for up to four, but they have not drawn up the final interior design. They are trying to put in as many as six or eight apartments. The 64 residents include families.

Beeman stated that there will be fewer emergency beds. Forney stated that they could put people on cots in classrooms, the lounge and the dining room. Forney stated that the Salvation Army will have the space available if it is needed.

Hartnett asked how long can they stay. Forney stated they can stay as long as it takes.

Forney asked what is available if they have been kicked out of the Housing Authority. Huppee stated they can move into substandard units in the City.

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

The Task Force Already stated the reason above.

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

Terwelp stated that it should be multiple funding sources.

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

There is already regulation in place.

Davis stated that regulation would be continued to be monitored.

Regulate expenditures – 7

The Task Force agreed that they already discussed this item.

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

Hartnett briefly explained how one organization managed the funds in Ohio.

There followed a brief discussion regarding the possibility of one organization distributing the funding.

Martin-Smith moved to refer the comments to the informal funding group as well as discuss it with the funders. Schneider seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

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

Dinsdale stated that they already discussed this issue.

Johnson stated that the thought that it should be explored more closely so the landlord/tenant laws do not restrict the accessibility.

Terwelp stated that WTCS is not allowed to ask for money because of their federal funding.

Johnson suggested that the Task Force support services that do implement the idea behind this, if they do it responsibly.

There followed a brief discussion about protective pay.

Work should be connected to a bed - 2

Johnson stated that work cannot be connected to a bed.

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

Martin-Smith stated that it should be reviewed by the job training teams.

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

The Task Force referred this to another committee.

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

This was referred to the Mayor’s discussion group.

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

This was previously discussed.

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

This was previously discussed.

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

This was previously discussed.

Re-voting for a more lenient breath test – 7

This was previously discussed.

Placing the Approved Recommendations in the Plan

Schneider stated that while reviewing the plan, he was unclear of the difference between the oversight committee and the CCC. He stated he needed to know what each group was going to do. There is ambiguity about those groups.

Huppee briefly explained a force/field analysis. She also stated that the Task Force needed to incorporate the information it received from the Salvation Army.

There followed a discussion regarding the “immediate” needs for a larger shelter.

Henderson stated LOS could use the extra space for a Bert Nash representative, a DCCCA representative or legal services. Forney added that the Salvation Army plans to have two offices and a classroom in their new facility.

Schneider commented that in order to get the community behind a new 100-bed facility, the facility needs to be moved out of the area. They need to address the location of the facility along with the plan if the Task Force wants support from the public.

Henderson discussed the possibilities of what his organization could do with a larger shelter.

Davis asked for clarification regarding social detox versus medical detox. Forney stated that social detox is much more reasonable because medical detox would cost a minimum $200,000 a year. Johnson wanted to get clarification from Bruce Beale.

Henderson stated the plan does not have enough information regarding community care. He suggested explaining transitional housing more. He stated the number one issue is mental health.

Terwelp asked if that should really go to the Plan Development Committee.

Henderson stated that the prevelance of mental illness drains the network and public safety resources.

Johnson stated the most effective approach with the homeless population is an emergency outreach team consisting of a nurse, therapist and psychologist. The team physically goes to where the homeless population congregates.

There followed a brief discussion regarding gaps within mental health services for the homeless and transitional housing.

Johnson stated one real gap that is feasible is the need for an emergency outreach team.

Henderson asked if a partnership could be established. Johnson stated that Bert Nash does provide services at some of their client’s own apartments.

Huppee asked if Bert Nash staff administered medicine. Johnson stated that they reminded people to take their medication.

Huppee stated that they are living independently with a support service agreement and can go out of the home and participate in activities for the support service agreement. She stated that transitional housing is really independent living.

Henderson asked for clarification. Johnson stated that they could coordinate more closely. He also suggested speaking with Kent Hayes and discussing limitations.

There followed another brief discussion regarding mental health services and the plan.

Huppee stated that when this document is produced it does not leave planning to the future. They should start building a funding plan around the present.

Forney asked Huppee what she meant by future planning. Huppee stated that the plan needs to identify the intervention or the solutions the Task Force wants to put on the table and everything else will evolve over time. She stated the Task Force should make a recommendation about mental health services.

Forney stated they should make recommendations on a priority basis.

Schneider stated that if the homeless have a mental health issue, some of which are severe, there needs to be a system devised so someone knows the person and is on some level responsible for that homeless person.

There followed a brief discussion regarding the mental health issues and the barriers associated with mental health.

Huppee stated there is a large cadre of people with mental health services and suggested having an outreach worker.

Schneider stated that his concern is for those that suffer from mental illness, receive food from LINK, go back into the community, and then the person passes away. That avenue lets people escape and die.

Davis asked if the people at LINK could identify those who are at-risk. Henderson stated that they do have a good sense of who those at-risk people are. They see them often enough.

Incorporating approved recommendations: Force-Field Analysis

Huppee stated that when the writing team came together, they were going to make sure all the recommendations are incorporated.

Rundle asked about conflicting recommendations. Huppee stated that the Plan Development Committee would resolve the conflicts.

Dinsdale announced that she went through all the recommendations and made notations where the plan currently addresses them.

Johnson stated that if the individual needed serious help, Bert Nash will provide services for the eligible population. The concept of case management is that there should be coordination and cooperation.

Henderson stated that at the Practitioners Roundtable meeting, they discussed having a separate case manager meeting for coordination of services for individuals.

Johnson stated that confidentiality is an extremely important issue. Bert Nash could utilize the HMIS system to suggest appropriate releases to individuals, in terms of being able to determine if they are using services.

Henderson noted that B3, Add outreach workers, was Clark’s idea to have a person out on the street. The Roundtable amended that to have four outreach workers in the field, but be based at four different agencies. The fifth would be a coordinator or supervisor of the four.

Huppee asked how that would work.

Ozark asked who Kent Hayes reports to. Johnson stated that he is employed by Bert Nash.

Terwelp stated that the four would be based basically on their cell phones.

Huppee stated that for practical reason, they have to work for the agency that is supervising them. These are case managers who are in the shelters working with people in the facility. Terwelp stated that they would have to ask the agencies. Johnson stated the case manager would generally be in the field.

Ozark suggested the supervisor role be someone who was formally homeless.

Henderson noted that case management is a loose term that gets thrown around a lot. The Topeka Rescue Mission uses advocate. He is not sure that the Task Force should call them case managers because they could call them field advocates or field workers.

Hartnett stated that the Task Force voted on this language and it is not hard to incorporate it into the plan.

There followed a discussion regarding incorporating the language in the plan.

The Task Force began discussing the second bullet under Emergency and Shelter Services Plan, page 3.

Beeman asked if the Task Force could incorporate a recommendation to the City Commission about having the need assessment completed in three days.

There followed a brief discussion regarding the three day requirement, relief and rehabilitative models, and needs assessment and when the individuals would receive that.

Hartnett stated that it goes back to the original discussion and the majority vote. They voted to have the combination. She does not have a problem with the three day limit and saying that everyone has to is something that the Task Force voted on.

Schneider suggested re-voting. Huppee agreed with Schneider.

Martin-Smith stated that people cannot stay in relief all the time. There would be relief and they would not turn anyone away, but at some point the person needs to continue on.

Beeman stated that there is a three day relief program and then there are expectations.

Dinsdale read from the draft.

Terwelp stated that she voted on relief and rehabilitative. She voted with the understanding that it is relief until they have the capacity to follow through on a commitment.

Schneider stated that page 4, second paragraph was his wording. He stated the point is to get the individual involved in a rehabilitative program at his level of functioning. The case worker would determine that. The minimum requirement would be to meet with the case worker. The idea is that someone is responsible for someone.

Terwelp stated that there have to multiple options because “one size fits all” does not work.

Schneider stated there is one rehabilitation program. Huppee stated that everybody has a needs assessment, but not everyone will have the same results, goals or activities. Those are individually prescribed and some may be more intense than others.

Beeman stated that he liked the first paragraph and questioned when the uniform intake process needs to happen. Huppee stated that it needed to happen on the fourth day.

Schneider stated that they need to have a commitment to take an assessment and be involved.

Rundle stated that one can go through an assessment, which has multiple tracks; then one can craft an individual plan and finally a matter of agreeing.

Terwelp stated that if they do not make a commitment, then they go back out to the streets.

Rundle stated that the Task Force should leave this for the agencies.

Forney stated that ideally the assessment happens within three days.

Rundle stated it should be on a case-by-case basis.

Beeman asked what happens after the third day, is the person put back on the streets?

Hartnett stated that if the person can only commit to hanging out at the Community Drop-In Center, then that would be their program. Beeman agreed because the program needs to be something achievable and something able to succeed at.

Hartnett stated that to her, relief is making that minimum component of commitment.

Schneider stated that relief is being fed and wandering off.

Hartnett stated that the way it is written, the commitment is to show up at LINK everyday.

Forney asked how this helps get people off the streets. He asked what the ultimate goal was. Schneider stated that it is getting people off the streets. Dinsdale stated it was to help people.

Hartnett stated that it could take a year of providing relief to take one step forward.

Schneider stated that they need to be assigned to somebody. Hartnett stated that is how the system currently works, but the case worker cannot be responsible for someone outside of the social service agency.

Schneider stated there needs to be system accountability. Hartnett stated that system accountability is different than knowing where someone is.

Schneider asked if the Task Force agrees with the concept that after so many days of relief, the individual will have some structure.

Hartnett noted that is stated in the language.

Terwelp asked where the trust is in the case managers to do their job.

Schneider stated that everyone would say they would get involved in the program after three days. Hartnett stated that the Task Force cannot tell people what the minimum is.

Forney commented that it can take time to develop a relationship so the homeless individual will talk to the case manager. The ultimate goal is to get them to help themselves.

Huppee asked what time the Lawrence Open Shelter opens. Henderson stated 8:00 p.m.

Huppee stated that with a 24-hour shelter, could people be in the shelter at 7:00 p.m. doing something?

Henderson stated that they would not have access to beds 24 hours a day. The facility would be open 24 hours for people to have a place to go.

There followed another brief discussion regarding a three-day minimum and making a commitment.

Huppee stated that we do need the requirement because the Task Force needs to have both a practical and political response.

Schneider asked if there was a program available for those that are unable to make a commitment. Henderson stated that there was and it was the catch-all program that Topeka has for everyone. It is the lower level program. Relief will continue, but it does not mean that they are not being watched and talked to.

Huppee questioned what will happen to those people that will not make a commitment. Henderson stated that they do not know what to do with them.

Huppee asked how it differs from just getting a mat. Henderson stated that it differs on how well they do and go on to do it.

Huppee asked how long they could stay in that lower-tier program. Henderson stated that it depended on the person.

Huppee asked how Henderson would work with those think they do not have a mental health issue. Henderson stated that he would work with Bert Nash.

There followed a brief discussion regarding requirements for a lower-tier program and the mystery group.

Forney stated that he does not know what to do with them. Davis suggested combining relief and rehab. Henderson stated that they should provide structure because that is what gives them a sense of security.

Huppee suggested that as contract of services for those people, they cannot gauge in anti-social behavior.

Discussion of next step

The Task Force agreed the subcommittees would incorporate the approved recommendations into the plan.

The subcommittees are:

Em./Shelter Services	Case Management	Mental Health Service	Housing Program	Jobs Program	Comm. & Quality of Life
Steve Ozark	Loring Henderson	David Johnson	Barbara Huppee	Shirley Martin-Smith	Candy Davis
Loring Henderson	David Johnson	Mike Rundle	Caroline Hicks	Caroline Hicks	Jim Schneider
Rich Forney	Rich Forney	Rich Forney	Steve Ozark		Sarah Terwelp
Jim Schneider		Loring Henderson
Sarah Terwelp

Dinsdale stated that she is completing the reasons for the non-approved recommendations.

There followed a brief discussion regarding the timeline, how to prioritize items, and the discussion for the next meeting.

Swarts advised that staff would send out a revised report on March 10^th. Please e-mail all revisions to staff by March 9, 2005 at 5:00 p.m.

The next Task Force meeting is scheduled for March 16, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. in the Neighborhood Resources Department, 1 Riverfront Plaza Suite 110, and lunch will be provided.

The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.