City of Lawrence, KS

Task Force on Homeless Services

April 6, 2005 minutes

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Randy Beeman, Candy Davis, Katherine Dinsdale, Rich Forney, Helen Hartnett, Loring Henderson, Barbara Huppee, David Johnson, Shirley Martin-Smith, Steve Ozark. Mike Rundle, Jim Schneider, and Sarah Terwelp
MEMBERS ABSENT:	Bruce Beale, Tami Clark, Caroline Hicks, Sara Taliaferro, and Barbara Tucker
STAFF PRESENT:	Monica Cardin and Margene Swarts

Rundle called the meeting to order at 8:45 a.m.

Approval of Agenda

Rundle announced Henderson and Davis wanted to add items to the agenda.

Davis moved to approve the agenda.  Martin-Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Henderson briefly explained the 24/7 Inc. proposal by Dr. Collingsworth.  Collingsworth has incorporated, but has not applied for federal tax exempt status.  Collingsworth suggests receiving funding through programs that generate revenue, such as running a coffee shop or some other business.  The proposal has been submitted to the City Commission.   Henderson stated he believes it is not efficient or helpful for the proposal to go before the City Commission and that this proposal should be reviewed by the Task Force.

Martin-Smith stated that she does not have a problem with the Task Force reviewing the proposal, but feels it is presumptuous to have a hearing without direction from the City Commission.  She stated that maybe the City Commission should direct the Task Force to have a hearing.

Schneider commented that there needs to be a long-standing body that reviews all plans that are brought forth.  There is no mechanism in Lawrence that reviews newly created bodies.  He stated he believes that the Task Force should not endorse this.

Rundle stated that the Task Force would not be endorsing this plan, but just reviewing it.  He stated that he will ask the City Commission what they would prefer.

Johnson agreed that there needs to be some mechanism.  He likes the idea of asking the City Commission for clarity and he stated the Task Force could fill that function.  He suggested submitted the plan to the City Commission without the funding part.  The plan will continually change at every meeting.

Rundle stated that he will send a note to the City Commission and get feedback or he will bring it up as a City Commission agenda item and get direction at the meeting.

Dinsdale entered the meeting.

Approval of March 16, 2005, minutes

Martin-Smith stated it is Cheryl White, not Wright.

Schneider stated that on page 10, the Task Force discussed the seven steps for a successful plan, but a successful plan is one that ends chronic homelessness.

Rundle clarified that the elements are there, but there is no full-fledged plan.

Beeman moved to approve the March 16, 2005, minutes with corrections.  Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Davis noted that she and Dinsdale revised the Vision Statement.

Dinsdale thanked staff for making corrections.  She stated that reading through the Plan, she saw that many of the statements in the Vision Statement are also in the summary of the Plan.  They consolidated the Vision Statement to reduce redundancy.

There followed discussion regarding the Vision Statement.

Huppee stated that the Vision Statement should truly reflect a vision and that the statement should communicate the vision of the Task Force.

Hartnett commented that the Vision Statement is a broad idea and anything in the Plan should expand on the Vision Statement.  She noted that in the longer Vision Statement, it states the responsibility of the City of Lawrence and it is not in the shorter version.

Davis stated that the Executive Summary goes into detail about what the Community should and should not expect.

Martin-Smith stated that she saw several redundancies through the Plan.  She likes the Vision Statement because it stated some honesty.

Rundle stated that the last two paragraphs of the longer Vision Statement are not a vision, but commentary on the vision.  He asked if the longer version of the Vision Statement can be condensed and separate commentary from the statement.

There followed briefly more discussion regarding the Vision Statement.

Henderson moved to keep the first six paragraphs of the Vision Statement as is, and ensure that the City and individual responsibility are included.  Schneider seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Davis noted that there is a reference to expanding the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definition of Homelessness, but the definition is not stated anywhere in the text.

There followed a brief discussion regarding where to place the HUD definition of homelessness.

Dinsdale suggested placing the definition in the summary.

Martin-Smith, referring to page 13, the seventh bullet, stated that she does not like identifying any agency without their permission.

Henderson agreed.

Dinsdale stated that on page 14, half way down the page, the CCC is charged with information gathering.  It seemed out of place there.

Henderson questioned if it should be taken out of the bullet and placed in the Plan.

Beeman stated that he believed it should be that way.

Martin-Smith stated that the recommendations are based on the votes from the public recommendations.  She stated the Task Force needs to clarify why those points are there.

Henderson stated that it is misleading to the reader.  Headquarters, Inc. stated that it would be a hotline.  It is more of a referral line.

Huppee commented that the bullets should be numbered.

Schneider noted that the original task of the Task Force was to concentrate on ending chronic homelessness in one year.  There is no mention that the goal is to end chronic homelessness.

Huppee questioned whose goal that was.  She asked if the Task Force agreed to do that.

There followed a brief discussion regarding the goal of the Plan and the Task Force.

Mental Health Section

Davis stated that there are still several problems.  She also stated that she thinks there are references about a paid position.

There followed a brief discussion regarding the recommendations within the text.

Johnson suggested that he could pull out the recommendations and number them.

Hartnett suggested that he could leave the paragraphs alone and add one that says, “Therefore the recommendations the Task Force makes are:” and then list them.  She also suggested placing them at the end of the section.

Martin-Smith suggested that for each section.

Schneider stated the recommendations should be bolded.

Hartnett asked if Johnson could develop some funding figures and e-mail them to her.  Johnson stated that he started to develop figures, but realized that it is more difficult than he thought.

Huppee stated that she believes each section should be written in a way that the reader has a sense of what is going on in that particular section.

Rundle asked for details on the re-opening of the mental health unit at Lawrence Memorial Hospital.

Huppee asked what the Mental Health Plan would look like.  She inquired about the elements making up the Plan.  She stated that the elements specific to each section need stating so the reader knows what happens and how it addresses the homelessness issue.

There followed a brief discussion regarding making more changes to the Plan and some Task Force members concerns that the Plan will never be completed.

Henderson noted that detox is mentioned in the initial strategies, but not in the Mental Health section, but it does bring up the community’s need for an emergency outreach treatment team.  He argued that it should be included in the initial strategies or be listed as one of the highest priorities.  He stated that what happens to a person after he/she is released from the mental health unit is an issue. 

There followed a discussion regarding priorities within the Mental Health Plan.

Johnson stated that he can stress need for the outreach team, but he is not sure that it should be a priority because it can already be done.

Henderson stated that it should because it is a need.

Huppee stated that when the Task Force presents the Plan, members will need to broker the Plan.  The Commission needs to know what things the Task Force wants and what is absolutely necessary to address in this community.  She stated that if the detox is placed next to the re-opening of the Mental Health unit at LMH, the discussion might shift from the mental health unit to the detox.  The mental health unit is more important.

Henderson stated that he is more concerned that the community has an outreach team than a detox center.  He is more than willing to drive people to a detox center.  He stated he would place the detox center farther down the list of priorities.

Hartnett commented that the Task Force is not at that point.

Davis stated she would like to go back to the earlier discussion regarding who and what is going to manage all this.  She referred back to page 4, number 6 that comments that a permanent entity will review implementation of the plan.  She commented it is a lot of responsibility.

Davis also questioned that on the last page of the Plan, one bullet refers to a paid position.  She stated she is confused about the structure in terms of putting the Plan in effect.  She questioned who would manage the grant money.  Hartnett replied that the agencies will manage the money they receive.

Davis asked about volunteers and how the volunteers would be selected.  Martin-Smith stated that the Mayor and City Commission would appoint volunteers.

Hartnett commented that the items assigned to these groups seemed overwhelming.

Rundle stated that the items will be identified during the prioritization process.

Huppee stated that as a practical matter, agencies will already take on certain elements of the Plan.  Agencies will begin the coordination and collaboration.  Those agencies carrying out some aspects of the Plan will need to be in the group.  She stated that her point is that the permanent entity is going to have to start with those existing providers.

There followed a brief discussion regarding the volunteer group and if the expectations and duties assigned are realistic or unrealistic and then a discussion regarding a paid liaison between the community and the volunteer organization.

Ozark suggested asking communities leaders to help with the volunteer group.  Martin-Smith agreed that it would be a good idea to involve business and community leaders.

Hartnett stated that the issue is who is going to make the applications, minutes, agendas, and other necessary items the volunteer group would need.

Martin-Smith commented that it will require staff support.

Huppee stated that the more self-starting the Plan can be, the more successful the Task Force is going to be in getting it implemented and started.  Henderson agreed.

Dinsdale stated that the coordination of existing services is the biggest request. 

Huppee stated that there are many agencies already coordinating, but the Task Force should identify which agencies need to be added.

Henderson noted that part of the responsibility of the Task Force and existing agencies is to better educate the community.

Huppee stated that she personally believes the Task Force needs to provide direction for the City Commission on what needs to be done and how it should be done.  The City Commission needs to have confidence in the Plan.  The Task Force needs to state that this is the money it needs.  The Plan needs that level of specificity.

Rundle noted for the minutes that staffing and coordination is an issue that needs to be resolved.  He stated that he would convene a group to discuss how to better the coordination of this work, what would the coordination be and what is needed to take the Plan into action to give it the greatest chance of success.

Terwelp offered to ask the Roundtable about it and bring it back to the Task Force.

There followed a brief discussion regarding the level of specificity needed for the plan to succeed.

Rundle stated that it seems logical to rely on existing service providers to come together and from their discussion identify resources that they could use.  They could also go to City Commission and tell the Commissioners that they think the Plan can work, but for these particular items.

There followed a brief discussion regarding whether the Task Force should wait for the Roundtable to get back to the Task Force regarding their thoughts.

There followed a brief discussion regarding the Task Force’s calendar.

Huppee stated that she will give a presentation on the HOPE Building project at the next meeting.

Hartnett suggested that everyone make changes to their sections and number the recommendations and send it via e-mail to staff.

Staff agreed to send out the meeting and re-writes reminder.  The next meeting is April 25, 2005 at 8:30 a.m.

Adjourn

The Task Force adjourned by acclamation at 10:35 a.m.