City of Lawrence, KS
Task Force on Homeless Services
March 16, 2005 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Candy Davis, Katherine Dinsdale, Rich Forney, Helen Hartnett, Loring Henderson, Barbara Huppee, David Johnson, Mike Rundle, Jim Schneider, Shirley Martin-Smith, and Sarah Terwelp
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
Bruce Beale, Randy Beeman, Tami Clark, Caroline Hicks, Steve Ozark, Sara Taliaferro, and Barbara Tucker
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
Monica Cardin and Margene Swarts
|
Rundle called the meeting to order at 8:50 a.m.
Approval of Agenda
Rundle announced City staff will be reviewing current ordinances. After discussion, they will report back to the City Commission their findings.
Henderson briefly explained the Practitioners Panel homeless survey results. He will e-mail out the results to the Task Force.
Martin-Smith moved to approve the agenda. Schneider seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Approval of February 7 and 14, 2005, minutes
Martin-Smith moved to approve the February 7, 2005, minutes. Terwelp seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Swarts noted Ozark e-mailed corrections to the February 14, 2005, minutes.
Dinsdale moved to approve the February 14, 2005, minutes with corrections. Martin-Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Discuss final DRAFT report for review
Martin-Smith noted she made minor changes in the Jobs Program section. She also noted that several good things happened in the interim period. She met with some private employment agencies and had discussions with Cheryl Wright. Wright e-mailed all agencies and asked for information regarding employment components, how it works and barriers to employment. Martin-Smith suggested placing the minimum components in the plan with the knowledge that things will progress. Martin-Smith stated she plans to ask Wright to help her organize and plan the next step. Wright has many resources available. Martin-Smith noted that more discussion will need to take place.
Davis noted that the Jobs Program mentions supported work programs and she is unsure what the definition is. She stated she thought it is a job coach.
Martin-Smith stated that she will expand on that. She noted that they all have job coaches.
Dinsdale asked if it can state “experiencing homelessness or at-risk.”
Forney asked if the supportive work programs intention is for permanent, full-time positions. Martin-Smith stated that was the intent.
There followed a brief discussion regarding job coaching and supportive work environments.
Forney stated that one area he notes is a big problem is where the person has no residency papers. Martin-Smith stated that she believes that as long as they have papers, they should be able to work in the United States. The agencies will have to work with them to get papers.
Martin-Smith also noted that they are developing a flow chart to help the agencies better guide people.
Schneider asked how many jobs are currently open for those in job training or work training. Martin-Smith suggested not narrowing the field to just the homeless, but looking at the general population. Generally, one goes to a temporary employment agency, gains skills and is hired.
Forney asked how many jobs are available. Martin-Smith stated that it was not possible to know the number.
Hartnett inquired about the capacity of the agencies in terms of how they can access services. Martin-Smith stated that she did not know that information.
Schneider stated that the community’s concern is that 50 or 60 homeless individuals are not in a job/training program and are just on the streets. The concern is that they hang out on the streets.
Martin-Smith stated that it is an isolated piece of the program. There are people who would immediately want to go in the program.
Schneider noted that he is excited about what is available for jobs, but noted his concern about slippage between the streets to a job and programs.
Martin-Smith stated that there needs to be a central intake for the Jobs Program.
Schneider suggested that after the medical assessment, a job skills assessment be completed. He also suggested listing what is currently available.
Rundle stated the Task Force will review each section. He noted that the Topeka Rescue Mission’s assessment take three to seven days because it is tailored to the individual’s needs.
Hartnett suggested the use of “felons” be changed to “people with criminal history.”
Henderson noted that all references to the “Community Drop-In Center” and the “Lawrence Open Shelter” should be changed to the “Lawrence Community Shelter,” except for the listing of members on the Task Force.
Dinsdale moved to approve the Jobs section. Henderson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Executive Summary
There followed a brief discussion regarding the Executive Summary.
Huppee stated that they are misplacing the emphasis on why people are homeless. She believes that the Plan reads that the lack of housing is the reason why people are homeless and that is not the case. There are other reasons, like personal behaviors, that are causes. The problems need to be addressed.
Terwelp noted that without the necessary support services, if clients experience problems, housing may not be available. They also need affordability.
Huppee stated that it was the barriers in the individual and overcoming those barriers is the problem. The Task Force is mistaking the issue.
Henderson agreed.
There followed a brief discussion regarding inclusion of a vision statement in the Plan.
Huppee and Dinsdale volunteered to create a vision statement.
Henderson noted that on page 3, the six bulleted items are not inclusive. He asked what the purpose of the listing is. Johnson stated that the idea behind those are suggestions that the City could implement successfully right away. He suggested stating “Suggest the following initial strategies:”
Henderson noted that it is funding for case managers and one outreach worker.
Forney suggested “funding for case manager, one outreach worker and staff.” Henderson agreed.
Johnson noted that he and Henderson discussed moving the mental health section first to emphasize the mental health picture.
Martin-Smith suggested moving the mental health bullet to number one and adding emphasis.
Johnson added to the mental health bullet, “Without adequate coordinated physical health, mental health and substance services, the end goal of stable housing will be unsustainable for many persons experiencing homelessness.”
Johnson stated the biggest problem is that Osawatomie turns people out so quickly that they do not have any choice for housing but the shelters. Huppee agreed and added that they are being turned out without being stabilized.
Schneider noted that a Lawrence resident complained that after the person gets into housing they can fire the case worker.
There followed a brief discussion regarding service support plans with housing.
Dinsdale asked if it is important that the person sometimes ends up back on the street in order to eventually be successful. She asked if it is more effective to have constant support or more effective to have the ability to fail.
Johnson stated that the Task Force cannot claim that the bumpers will work. At some point, the person will stop failing. One cannot set up a system with consequences and that is where it becomes complex.
Forney noted that it is very difficult once a person is in housing. They have problems with housing and then they have to be out. There needs to be case managers that work with supportive housing.
Emergency and Shelter Services Plan
Davis stated that the bullets under Emergency Shelters should be categorized. She also stated that on page 4, the first paragraph should start with “Lawrence needs care for homeless individuals released from other systems.” She also stated that the noted systems need to begin with mental health.
Henderson stated that the current situation is not to invite people from other towns to come to Lawrence.
Rundle stated this addressed those individuals in jail that are known to be returning so it is possible to begin lining up the services they will need. Johnson noted the services need to be coordinated before discharge.
Schneider noted there needs to be communication between institutions for discharge planning.
Davis suggested “Systems need to be coordinated and provide for discharge planning for people released from other systems” before the parenthetical references.
Henderson noted that in the next paragraph on page 4, it should say “Headquarters, Inc. with support, might.”
There followed a brief discussion regarding the second bullet: “Rehabilitation programs, including daytime case management and night time shelter, for shelter residents with a commitment to enroll in a program within three working days.”
Henderson stated that the Task Force agreed on the wording at the last meeting. He noted that different people move at different paces. This allows the case manager to work with the individual to get them enrolled in a program.
Dinsdale stated the point needs to be made more strongly. It is currently up to the case manager whether or not someone is pressured to enroll in a rehabilitation program. There needs to be a program commitment from everyone who is able. As it is written, it leaves the choice to the individual.
Dinsdale suggested re-writing it to “Guests must enroll in programs within three working days based on their personal capabilities. These programs as possible shall include rehabilitation including daytime case management and nighttime shelter.”
Schneider stated that they need some level of functioning, and it should not be left entirely to the overwhelmed case manager. He questioned if the Task Force sets a high standard for case management. The Task Force does not clearly list goals.
Terwelp stated that Schneider made an assumption that the case managers will be overwhelmed.
Dinsdale asked whether the case manager’s goal was: housing or wholeness.
Johnson stated that it needs to be tailored to the individual’s needs.
There followed a brief discussion regarding case managers creating programs based on the individual’s needs and their level of commitment.
Rundle stated that the idea is success. The case manager has to have flexibility to get people into a program.
Huppee questioned why the Task Force refers to “guests” and asked for clarification.
Swarts suggested using “individuals.”
Harnett stated that the first three bullets discussing case managers are really qualities of a case manager.
Davis stated that she will make corrections to that section.
Mental Health Programs
Johnson stated that page 8, reference to the Lawrence Memorial Hospital should be deleted and the sentence followed with “Without adequate coordinated physical health, mental health and substance services, the end goal of stable housing will be unsustainable for many persons experiencing homelessness.”
Davis stated that the Task Force needs to clarify the community needs an emergency outreach team.
Johnson suggested an “emergency outreach treatment team.” He also suggested “The cost of providing these services around the clock is considerable.”
Hartnett questioned the ride-along.
There followed a brief discussion regarding ride-alongs and the possibility of funding for it.
Martin-Smith suggested an opening paragraph be written explaining what is currently done with regard to mental health services.
Johnson stated that he will re-write the section and follow the quote with an explanation of what is currently available.
Huppee noted that for those coming out of the shelters with more severe problems the Bridges house is a likely possibility. If they are on social security, they are probably already participating in the HOPE Building because LDCHA can bill Medicaid.
Johnson noted Bert Nash is participating in a national study.
Housing Programs
Hartnett questioned if a paragraph should tell the community what is currently being done.
Huppee stated that the people move out of the shelters and there is a need for more housing assistance to serve them. The way transitional housing is currently run assistance can only happen with HOME funds. It cannot be conditioned that housing assistance is tied to a support service plan when it is administered through other agencies.
Martin-Smith noted that she will work and expand the Jobs Program.
Communication and Quality of Life Program
Davis stated that she wanted to discuss the first bullet.
Schneider stated that the Task Force decided that a committee would be formed to develop a ten-year plan and that committee would oversee an implementation of the Task Force plan. He noted that his concern is that the Ten-Year Plan Committee will be made up of a broad-based committee to elect the chair and the term of the chair. He also noted that the Permanent Fixed Entity (PFE) is a separate recommendation. Schneider stated that he does not like the community commission being headed by someone other than the community.
Hartnett stated she thought they voted for a grant staff person.
There followed a discussion regarding the PFE and the Committee.
Schneider stated that the Task Force should not recommend the committee establish HMIS, but should recommend the City Commission establish HMIS.
Hartnett suggested that the PFE oversee the Ten-Year plan and the Task Force Plan and that HMIS should be separate.
Dinsdale questioned why the plan to end to chronic homelessness is a separate issue. She noted that elements to end chronic homelessness are in the plan. She stated she has never understood why the two are separate. She thought the implementation of the plan is the Ten-Year Plan.
Rundle noted that the management and advisory board will be looking at the plan from the ground level.
Johnson stated that the Ten-Year Plan provides a structure. Planning is an on-going process.
Schneider suggested calling the entity the Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness Committee.
Davis stated she thought the PFE is a body that coordinates the entire effort and attempts to make sense of it all.
Schneider stated that it is a broad-based community plan.
Hartnett asked for clarification regarding the issue: is it the paid position or is it the discussion of separating the tasks. Henderson stated that it is both.
Hartnett stated that bullets represent the responsibility of the group.
Martin-Smith stated that it looks like a paid position and the creation of another agency.
Henderson stated that his concern is that the PFE oversees the Task Force’s Plan and the Ten-Year Plan.
Hartnett suggested the possibility of dividing up the tasks and identifying which committee would do each task.
Henderson noted that HMIS is moving along and will probably be established and running before the Task Force plan is implemented. The software is established. They did receive a grant from the Douglas County Community Foundation for the first segment of funding. Henderson suggested removing HMIS from the tasks. He noted there is another committee working on establishing HMIS.
Hartnett stated that it should be reworded and she would support it.
Henderson stated that they have proposed a one-year budget and then individual agencies will pay the annual fee.
Davis suggested moving it to Emergency Shelter and placing it is a program component.
Martin-Smith suggested moving it to the front. She noted that many of the recommendations will go through because HMIS is established.
Johnson stated that it is an example of an accomplishment that is facilitated by the merger. He suggested pointing out other accomplishments because of the Task Force.
Henderson questioned how to sort out the two purposes: the Ten-Year Plan and the oversight of the Task Force Plan.
Terwelp stated that they are discussing two different things. There is a discussion around the Ten-Year Plan group that will oversee the outcomes. The other issue is that if the two groups are separate, what should each be called and who is responsible for that.
There followed a discussion regarding the difference between the Ten-Year Plan and the Task Force Plan.
Davis suggested that the Community Cooperation Committee (CCC) become a subcommittee.
Henderson stated that it is a balance. The intention of this is to have a balance on the ten-year committee of representatives of the community groups so no one is dominating.
Johnson stated that he hopes they are not establishing another non-profit.
Rundle read the ten steps on how to help end chronic homelessness in the community.
How can you end chronic homelessness in your community?
The final step is to execute the identified strategies and action steps to begin ending chronic homelessness in your community
Dinsdale suggested stating that the Task Force will continue this work through the following means and then whatever is lacking, the Committee will set. The Task Force Plan is the Ten-Year Plan.
Forney asked about trying to receive HUD funding. Rundle stated that the funding sources will be what the funding sources are.
Schneider commented that part of the ten-year model is to shift the paradigm from emergency shelter output model to an outcome-based model. That is an extremely important goal of that committee and the emphasis is not there. There needs to be a structure there to address the problem.
Dinsdale suggested rather than developing a plan, they should recognize what the Task Force has done.
Henderson suggested tying it to the introduction and future entity.
Rundle read the elements of a successful Ten-Year Plan.
Rundle stated that he believes the Task Force is close to a successful plan.
Henderson stated that they seem to be developing another agency.
Johnson stated that they will miss things if accountability is not placed in the Plan. This committee should force agencies to be accountable to the community. He stated that accountability exists separate from the Committee.
Henderson stated that he thinks the governing body is suggesting something else.
Dinsdale suggested including in the first paragraph, “The Task Force recognizes what much of what is required in the federal plans to end homelessness has already been addressed and accomplished. We will continue to take advantage of the ICH and its member agencies.”
Henderson noted that the list needs to include health services.
Dinsdale suggested renaming the PFE to Commission on Homelessness.
Rundle suggested the Community Commission on Homelessness (CCH). The Task Force agreed.
Dinsdale stated that they need to decide if they are going to oversee or have some authority to review and enforce the implementation.
Rundle stated that they have to do the seven items listed. Johnson stated that they need to report to the City Commission.
Schneider stated that they need to produce recommendations that should be made to the City and County Commissions.
Hartnett questioned how realistic the bullets on page 12 were because they are things an agency does.
Martin-Smith stated that they came from the public recommendations.
There followed a brief discussion regarding the CCC as a subcommittee.
Summary Outline
Huppee inquired why the Task Force refers to Boulder, CO and Topeka, KS.
Henderson stated that it should be deleted and placed in the appendix. The Task Force agreed.
There followed a brief discussion regarding flow charts.
Miscellaneous Items
Hartnett asked to discuss the calendar and establishing priorities.
The Task Force re-writes are due to staff by Monday, March 21, 2005 at 12:00 p.m. Staff will then send the plan back out on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 for comments to be sent back by Friday, March 25, 2005, at 12:00 p.m.
Hartnett asked that those who are re-writing sections think of a ballpark figure of funding so they can start to develop the funding part of the plan.
Huppee stated that it would be helpful to know any funding sources that already exist.
The Task Force will discuss the prioritization of recommendations and funding at the next meeting. The next meeting is April 6, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. in the Neighborhood Resources Department.
Adjourn
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m.