glhrn.orgglhrn.org/wordpress1/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/1.31.… · Web viewLike us on Facebook: facebook.com/lansinghomelessresolution. GLHRN Board . Minutes. ... Katrina Urista

GLHRN Board MinutesTuesday, January 31st, 2017

9:00-11:00City Rescue Mission

Board Members:Sharon Dade, Jessica Robinson, Katrina Urista, Erin Roberts, Susan Cancro, Su A’lyn Holbrook, Jenny Leaf, Jennifer McMahon, Elizabeth Rios, Al Platt, Vicki Sandbrook, Rose Taphouse and Doris Witherspoon

Present: Sharon Dade (VOA), Patricia Baines-Lake (LHC), Susan Cancro (AHM), Mark Criss (CRM), Su A’lyn Holbrook (DHHS), Joan Jackson Johnson (HRCS), Jennifer McMahon (CFC), Al Platt (CMH), Erin Roberts (EVE), Jessica Robinson (MMRS), Julie Shaltry (VOA), Resa Tran (GLHC), Katrina Urista (HRCS), Doris Witherspoon (PND), Toni Young (HRCS), and David Henrion (GLHRN)

1) Introductionsa) Jessica Robinson chaired the meeting, as Sharon Dade was not expected to attend. She

called the meeting to order, and all introduced themselves.2) Approval of Previous Minutes

a) Erin Roberts moved to approve the minutes, and Al Platt seconded. All were in favor.3) Additions to the Agenda4) Brief Committee Reports

a) Membership Committeei) Susan Cancro said the Membership Committee had several new members, so they

discussed the committee, its purposes, and possibly having a member agency training. Doris Witherspoon asked who the new members were. Susan answered Deb Smith, Sophia Estrada-Ferriera, and Sam Johnson.

b) CQI Committeei) David Henrion provided a brief update on the CQI committee, stating MSHDA would

be changing the required reports which included one that indicated the numbers of clients with VI-SPDATs were lower than expected. After Sharon joined the meeting, she said she and Matt Stevenson had talked about this.

c) Finance Committeei) Erin Roberts went over the approved policy and said they will discuss grant spending

and how to fulfill spending requirements at the next meeting. Erin added there was a brief discussion on adding an appointed board position for the county.

d) Human Servicesi) Al said they met at EVE and learned a lot about their services. They will next meet at

CACS. e) HARA

i) Julie Shaltry said the next meeting is after the network meeting, and they discussed PSH referrals from the HARA. Pat Baines-Lake said the plan was created by Susan and herself to address an ongoing occupancy issue. They wanted a definitive way to know when to move.

f) Strategic Planningi) Katrina Urista said they worked on ranking the SWOT analysis points, and reminded

the group to turn in their rankings. Katrina also said they are working on rewriting the mission and drawing in additional agencies to prepare before the next housing crisis.

Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/LansingCoCLike us on Facebook: facebook.com/lansinghomelessresolution

g) Veteran Coordination Servicesi) Julie said they met last Monday, referencing Matt’s report, and talked about the

difficulties of tracking clients in VOA’s GPD program but connected to a VASH program elsewhere.

ii) Julie added January was another successful month with more veterans housed than identified.

5) HARA Activity Reporta) Julie said the HARA sent out 42 letters in January and recertified 20 folks. The HCV

waitlist is over 200 people. The HARA also has hired some new faces. The IDT group has been able to add more names to the IDT group.

6) Finance Monitoring Policya) Erin reviewed the policy, and noted it had been discussed multiple times. Al moved

to accept the policy and Susan seconded. All were in favor. 7) City of Lansing Reports

a) Katrina previewed the reports, noting these encompass 2 quarters usually.b) Toni Young started by discussing her grants.

i) Advent House Ministries has three CoC grants and one MSHDA grant. Hope Housing has been operating for 6 months, has spent 16%, is great on report timeliness, and still has 4 vacancies. PSH for Families has operated for 7 months, has spent 46.5%, is great on report timeliness, and is at 123% of utilization. Next Step Housing has been operating for 3 months, has spent 7.25%, is very timely, and has a lower utilization due to its recent start date. The MSHDA Veterans program is a special MSHDA grant for RRH/Prevention and CM for veterans. It is at 9 months, and there has already been a grant extension request at MSHDA.(1) Doris reiterated the importance of seeing these issues highlighted. Katrina and

Jessica noted the Finance Committee would discuss any 10% variance in spending, and Erin asked agencies to come to the meeting prepared with a plan to address any grant issues. (a) Joan Jackson Johnson said her concern is that we are at the six-month point,

and as the fiduciary, they need to see grants fully utilized.(2) Susan said she has been talking about these problems for months at numerous

meetings and is happy to talk with Finance. She said there are two issues: first, with the referral process and secondly there has been difficulty managing the FMR increases.(a) Katrina noted that more rent can be paid up front, but Susan said this would

depend on what is the “last month.” (b) Susan added that Hope Housing is either completely full or waiting on 1 unit,

and Next Step Housing has 4 vacancies with 2 more possibilities. She found there to be a significant change in the referrals process during January.

ii) Toni said CFC’s CoC grant has been operating for 4 months, is on target with money, has perfection with timeliness, and has 80% utilization. Their ESG grant is slightly underspent at 41% after 6 months, with shelter operations at 50% spent but outreach at 32%. Their MSHDA grant is looking good on spending, and on everything else.

iii) Toni then discussed GLHC’s Walnut CoC grant, which has had staff turnover and is a little underspent. She said she is working with Resa Tran to get everything accurate.


Al agreed that it could be difficult replacing the CMH position. Toni added they are working with Matt to address the numbers of CM hours on HMIS.

iv) Toni then discussed Haven House’s ESG and MSHDA grants. Their ESG grant is about 10% back, but Haven House uses it in conjunction with their MSHDA grant, so she is not concerned about overspending, as long as the shelter stays open.(1) Katrina stated that Stephanie Oles asked that the length of stay be revised

throughout the CoC until people are housed. Loaves & Fishes was able to extend their lengths of stay, so MSHDA rewarded that with $5000. There is also another disagreement between MSHDA and Haven House, so until that is resolved MSHDA will not pay Haven House.(a) Sharon said the shelters are working together on this, and she believes they are

moving towards MSHDA. (b) Joan and Katrina talked about the grievance procedure for GLHRN.

v) Toni said EVE’s grant was 59% spent after six months. c) Katrina then began to discuss her agencies.

i) CACS’s HUD grant is about 9% underspent after 4 months. The only concern she had was that their case management hours were low.

ii) Katrina said that Desirae Kelley-Kato is MMRS’s contract manager, but on her behalf Katrina noted their CoC grant is underspent at 10.13%. Everything else is looking good, but their CM hours are a little down. Their ESG and MSHDA grants are good.

iii) For LHC, PSH2 is their biggest grant. There is a bit of a question on their spending, but this number will be ready for Finance. PSH’s utilization rate is down, but their CM hours are good. PSH4 is 23% underspent, and their CM hours are low. HRCS is now the fiduciary for SPC, which is looking good.

iv) For VOA, PSH1 is slightly underspent, looking mostly good. ICPSH2 is underspent, and HRCS hasn’t received all of their bills. Their ESG grants are overspent by 33%, so that is also referred to Finance.(1) Sharon said they spent the city ESG prevention funds first, causing the

overspending. Katrina said this could be dangerous, since we don’t want programs to close down.

(2) For the MSHDA grants, the shelter is a bit overspent, prevention is a bit underspent, and RRH is on target.

v) Legal Services’ grant is reported on time and accurately, while a little underspent. vi) Both of Loaves and Fishes’ grant were on target.

d) The grants for Hope Housing, Next Step Housing, MSHDA Veterans, Walnut Apartments, Haven House ESG, Sober Houser, PSH4, ICPSH2, and VOA ESG will be referred to Finance.

8) Appointed County Position to the Boarda) Sharon said the executive committee had talked about the Linda Vail situation and having

the County Commissioners have a place on the board. Some members thought it should be an appointed position, and others thought it should be voted on. i) Al asked what would be the objections. Sharon said that having board members

accountable to the network would be ideal, so we need minimal appointed members. ii) Joan said an appointed seat gives a financial incentive to the Commissioners, and it

would be good to broaden the CoC’s horizons with the Health Department and the Commissioners.


iii) Susan said by having an appointed County slot could actually protect the voted positions by removing what is possibly seen as a necessary member from the voting pool.

iv) Sharon said there should be a stronger board orientation because we have a working board. Since board members are required to be on committees, making sure members fulfilled this would be key. (1) Susan said she would like another board member to be on Membership.

v) Al was concerned the county could be offended by losing an election. vi) Erin believes an appointed seat would strengthen our relationship with the county,

and Joan thinks it would help with HUD. vii)Erin moved to recommend a bylaw change, and Al seconded.

(1) David said he would send out the bylaws.(2) Doris confirmed this would be a position for the County Commissioners to fill. (3) Pat asked if the County would be interested in an appointed seat. Joan said they

would. viii) All were in favor of this except for Sharon, who said she favored elected

positions.9) Proposed PSH policy

a) Susan said the board had voted that all PSH referrals must go through the HARA, and she felt strongly that this would recognize the role of the HARA in the community and create a valuable single stream of entry. However, after the new CH definition, this created a great deal of confusion and difficulties. LHC and AHM were struggling with this situation, so she and Pat created a new procedure on both the referral process and deciding when to move from CH individuals or families to those with high needs. Pat added this will significantly impact their ability to meet occupancy rates.i) Sharon asked what needs to happen at this meeting. Susan said there needs to be a

procedure to move on from the CH list, and Pat added they were looking for a conclusion.

b) Sharon said she doesn’t believe this aligns with the intent of these units, which are based on serving CH according to Housing First. Sharon said we needed to make sure any CoC policies align with the order of priority. She said we need to consider the clients being served, as CH people can’t be expected to go to meetings or show up sober. Sharon believes the Master Leasing procedure is better for PSH units to prevent some of these issues.i) Pat said either we have to choose to leave units vacant or to have a procedure that

outlines a reasonable attempt to find people, and if people can’t be found to then move to those with the next highest needs. She said if you can’t find someone after 30 days, you need to move on.(1) Susan thought that 30 days would be too long at this point.

ii) Susan said this isn’t about VOA’s programs but the HARA and its referral system, which is a separate entity than VOA.

c) Katrina said with these programs with major underspending, maybe we need to go triage to get these units filled.i) Pat said that HUD would look at everything, so there needs to be a policy to follow.

After Katrina’s question, Pat reiterated that all clients would be treated the same.d) Sharon said these folks are hard to serve, and 14 days is not enough time to find them.


i) Pat said there can’t be another Band-Aid on the situation to put us back here in 3 months. She said they were looking for feedback, and would be happy to move the time period to 21 days.

e) Su A’lyn Holbrook mentioned DHHS’s mail system as a point of contact, and Pat said to add it to the list.

f) Sharon said she didn’t have the staff capacity to help with this. i) Pat said they were asking VOA to post the names of people they were looking for.

Sharon said they can’t post names due to privacy concerns.ii) Sharon said they can contact agencies if they run into people. Pat said that clients are

in a location for a moment in time, and leave before staff can get there. g) Julie said that HARA folks are referring clients, and three calls and 2 emails is not due

diligence. She said you need to physically go and find people, and talked about what PSH staff does at VOA.

h) Jessica said there have been some issues asking for HMIS information from the HARA. i) Susan said we can’t just keep having meetings without anything happening. She said this

situation is not working and Advent House is under the gun. j) Pat said they could give the whole program to VOA. k) Erin said this would give HUD an action step to look at.l) Sharon said they may miss people. Pat said they might, but there needs to be a next step.

i) Pat said they would like to hear some feedback.m) Susan moved to approve the procedure, and Erin seconded.

i) Sharon said to take out VOA from the proposal.ii) Mark Criss suggested using email to contact CRM.iii) Sharon said that another agency would need to keep the CH list, as most people on

the list would not be fully vetted. iv) Su A’lyn suggested creating an “Amber Alert”-esque system to get a name out to

CoC agencies of people who have PSH units available to them. Jessica said this to go to people outside of the CoC. Joan said it could go to LPD and LFD.

v) Susan, Erin, Su A’lyn, and Doris voted in favor, and Katrina, Jessica, and Sharon opposed. Katrina said there were not enough details for her to vote in favor. (The policy is attached to these minutes.)

10) Old Business11) New Business

a) Susan brought up the need to do a 1099.12) Adjournment

Next Board Meeting:February 28, 2017


To determine PSH administrator has exhausted reasonable efforts to house the most chronically homeless households (i.e. with head of household having disabling condition and household determined to have required episodes and timeframe of homelessness):

1. Call the applicant – 3 times over 1 week. If no available phone number, move to step 2.

2. Contact DHHS, Advent House, and the City Rescue Mission (in writing preferably email) to request staff assistance at overnight and weekday shel-ters that they search for this person or household from X date to X date (al-lowing no more than 3 weeks for search process, which should be done si-multaneously with search at Advent House).

3. Request a staff notice for the same 21-day period above for VOA, Advent House, and the City Rescue Mission, requesting Applicant to call/drop into the office at LHC or Advent House, as appropriate per HIPA rules and regu-lations.

Steps 1, 2, & 3 should be concurrent and/or overlapIn writing means letter/e-mail. Request should include a response time and respondent.Essentially after 3 weeks of trying to locate a household Advent House Ministries and LHC can proceed to the next household on the waiting list. If all Chronically homeless households are not accessible after following the protocol above and the file is documented, then households that have been determined to be high acuity but are not chronically homeless can be offered PSH assistance.

In addition to the process outlined above to ensure that PSH units are utilized appropriately, consider the following:

1. The “by-name” list of eligible CH clients may only contain those who have been fully vetted (in process is not fully vetted) with all required documenta-tion uploaded to HMIS

2. The process to vet household as CH require the following:a. Household is interviewed by the HARA staff, which

i. EITHER establishes CH immediately and uploads all required documentation AND adds the household to CH “by-names” list

ii. OR determines through household reporting and existing HMIS records that there MAY be sufficient episodes of homelessness and refers household to VOA Clinic or other resource to secure all required documentation of disability, if documentation does not already exist, ADD the household to a NON-CH HIGH ACU-ITY list. NON-CH/HIGH ACUITY does not qualify for placement on the CH by names list.


b. Household on CH “by-names” list is referred to appropriate PSH pro-gram.

c. Household WITH disability documentation and documentation of at least 12 months of homelessness but in process of seeking verification of appropriate episodes of homelessness will remain on the NON-CH/HIGH ACUITY list and work with HARA staff until other program resources are available.

d. All NON-CH/HIGH ACUITY households will be eligible to enter PSH programs once the CH “by-names” list has been exhausted, as out-lined in the process stated above.


Documents

glhrn.orgglhrn.org/wordpress1/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/1.31.… · Web viewLike us on Facebook: facebook.com/lansinghomelessresolution. GLHRN Board . Minutes. ... Katrina Urista