TASK FORCE ON HOMELESS SERVICES

March 30, 2004 minutes

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:     Tami Clark, Rich Forney, David Johnson, Steve Ozark,

Mike Rundle, Jim Schneider, Sara Taliaferro, Sarah Terwelp, and

Loring Henderson

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:        Randy Beeman, Bruce Beale, Candy Davis, Katherine Dinsdale, Helen Hartnett, Barbara Huppee, Bruce Martin, Shirley Martin-Smith, Barbara Tucker, and Tom Wright

 

STAFF PRESENT:             Monica Cardin, Brad Hoff, Cindy Nau, Margene Swarts, and Victor

                                                Torres

 

Rundle called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m.

 

Approval of Agenda

Taliaferro moved to approve the agenda.  Terwelp seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

 

Approval of February 27, 2004 minutes

Henderson noted the minutes incorrectly stated that Wright was no longer associated with the Lawrence Open Shelter--he is no longer able to serve on the Task Force.  Terwelp moved to approve the February 27, 2004 minutes with noted correction.  Taliaferro seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

 

Update from Current Lawrence Area Resources Committee

Taliaferro thanked Cardin for entering the data and Hartnett for analyzing the data.  Taliaferro stated she has begun to interpret the data and write a report.  She noted the Committee needed to meet so they could review it and distribute for questions and comments to the whole Task Force.

 

Taliaferro provided a few points in the report.  She stated that surveys were anonymous.  The Committee mailed 52 surveys, but eliminated two of the providers because they felt they did not provide any service.  Out of the remaining 50, the Committee received 34 surveys back.  Out of the 34 respondents, preliminary review of the data shows that 65% indicated they have some type of eligibility requirements and within that 65%, 44% has “means” as a requirement, 38% has a residency requirement and 12% required psychiatric stability.  The survey asked if helping the homeless was part of the organizations mission.  Six percent reported that it was a part of their mission; 66% reported it was part of their general population and 18% reported they served both.  Twenty-one percent of those surveyed consider themselves a rehabilitation service provider and 44% considered themselves emergency relief service providers.  Taliaferro stated that she presented those numbers so individuals could have an idea.

 

Rundle asked if there was any data on the homeless interviews.  Taliaferro stated some informal interviews were conducted, but a clear direction from the Task Force to conduct a formal interview process and gather data was never given.  Additionally, it is a very labor- intensive process.

 

Rundle commented that he wanted a way to relate the homeless community to the area resource committee.  Taliaferro noted that she still had some kind of a profile that the committee could return to.

 

Rundle asked if it was realistic to expect the provider report to be complete for the next Task Force meeting in three weeks.  Taliaferro stated that the bulk of the work was done, leaving the report left.  She stated she hoped to have it out so the Committee could review it prior to the next meeting.

 

Ozark inquired about whether the homeless survey the Coalition for Homeless Concerns has would be valuable.  Some of the information that was gathered was quite good.  Taliaferro stated that the information was good, but it may take a large amount of time to go through and suggested perhaps some of the information in that survey could be incorporated into the final report from the provider survey.

 

Ozark stated he would ask for permission to distribute the homeless survey results to the Task Force.

 

Rundle asked about the confidentiality of those who participated in the survey because it includes participant stories and service providers may be able to identify the person based upon the circumstances of the story.  He noted that the survey would be helpful in regards to developing a profile or demographics of the homeless population.

 

Taliaferro stated she would resurrect the draft copy of the homeless profile she put together.  Nau asked if she was referring to the “Preliminary Rough Estimate Profile of Homeless Persons, November 17, 2003.” Taliaferro said she was referring to that profile.  Nau suggested finalizing the profile along with the many other “draft” reports that have been submitted.  Taliaferro remarked she would update it and re-distribute it.

 

There followed a brief discussion regarding Taliaferro’s draft report.

 

Schneider urged the Task Force to look at the past homeless surveys.  He stated that it was nice to see some consistency in need that keeps coming up.  Taliaferro stated that it is her intention to try to build on the information already available and further the information

 

Update from Funding Committee

Rundle stated that the Committee has not met. 

 

The Funding Committee not meeting brought to light that there is some work the Task Force has not pursued as aggressively as others when reviewing the original scope of work. Rundle commented some of the gaps in work might be resolved if the Task Force began to write up a report on their findings and suggested the Committees do just that.  Rundle further stated that he would try and make sure the Funding Committee meets, since he is on it, but thinks it will be hard to address funding until there are some proposals brought forth.

 

 

 

 

Update for Committees formed February 27th

Standardized Intake Form Committee

Report not given.  No one from Committee present.

 

Improved Caseworker Communication Committee

Terwelp stated that they attempted to meet, but due to scheduling conflicts were unable to do so.  However, discussions were beginning between agencies about how to best improve communication between caseworkers.

 

Nau updated the Task Force on the status of obtaining a homeless management information system (HMIS).  Three options are being reviewed: (1) joining Kansas City area database via MAACLink; (2) creating own HMIS to save on licensing fees; and (3) researching the HMIS Charity Check is developing.

 

Clark entered the meeting.

 

Other Business

Nau reiterated to the Task Force that Tom Wright would no longer be representing the Lawrence Open Shelter and introduced Loring Henderson as the new LOS representative.  Henderson’s contact information was provided.

 

Terwelp noted Clark was present and had draft copies of a standardized intake form, thus a report could be given for the Standardized Intake Form Committee.

 

Clark stated that she created an intake form based off those from The Salvation Army, LOS, the Leo Center, and CDIC.  This form would be used to assist clients with not having to tell their story over and over again and will only be in existence until an HMIS is in place.  Agencies that might use the form were requested to review it and provide feedback.

 

Rundle asked if the generalized intake form asks questions that lead to a needs assessment.  Clark stated that it is so diverse and specific to needs that she is not sure, but would work on it.  This intake form provides the information that would be the easiest to share while the case notes and additions to that would be above and beyond that.  Clark stated this was a preliminary tool.

 

There followed a brief discussion regarding the Topeka Rescue Mission’s intake form.  Nau stated TRM has a short intake form and after three days, they have a six-page form.  She read what type of information is asked for on the six page form.

 

Rundle asked if health issues were included.  Nau stated they were.

 

Nau commented that the sections in Clark’s intake form would provide enough detail that a provider could determine where to send an individual for services where a more detailed assessment could be done.

 

Taliaferro stated that it made sense to keep the form simple, but suggested that it also made sense to have a second wave of forms, which allow relationship-building.  Nau stated that when they get ready to move into an HMIS system that type of form would be needed.  The current form would allow the individual to not have to repeat their story over and over again.

Rundle stated he wanted to review the “Scope of Work” and discuss it.  He pointed out that the scope of work asks for alternatives, but only one idea has come to light and suggested more research be done to present other alternatives.

 

Schneider stated that the Task Force needs to decide on areas to be covered.  Nau added that there needs to be final copies developed of the many things that have already been submitted.  Only draft copies currently exist.  She stated that if the Task Force had final versions then they could start putting a comprehensive report together.

 

Schneider suggested that four or five cities with successful results or really impressive models be chosen and an interview be conducted via teleconference with those that run the programs.  Rundle believed that to be a good idea.

 

Nau stated that it should be cities of comparable sizes.

 

Schneider, Ozark, Forney, Clark, and Henderson volunteered to work with the Resources and Programs in Other Communities Committee.  Nau suggested one of the committee members contact HUD for the Continuum of Care contact person, as that person would have a good knowledge of how their community handles homelessness.

 

Schneider noted that he knows of a homeless task force member in Colorado Springs, CO who has a list of the top five programs in the United States.  Schneider mentioned that Clearwater, FL is a city about the same size as Lawrence and they have an excellent program.

He commented that Lawrence’s size permits programs to coordinate.

 

Nau asked about the number of cities Schneider had for comparison.  Schneider stated he had three.

 

Rundle reminded everyone that other areas of concern were mentioned and should be included in the research of other communities, i.e. emergency shelter and transitional housing. 

 

Taliaferro stated the Task Force should refer to the gaps report for points to consider in their research.  Rundle stated that he looked at the report with an eye toward finding other models.

 

Rundle stated the Committee should develop an outline of the topics to address.

 

Nau suggested the Committee prepare a list of questions for the interviews.  Schneider then suggested sending the questions ahead of time so the interviewee’s could think about them.

 

Rundle noted the last section of the scope of work mentions preparing a report listing alternatives and the only idea the Task Force has is a case management unit.  He further noted that if the Task Force writes its report, they still have no idea which organization would be the steward for the case management unit.

 

Johnson stated that people agreed on the case management unit because credibility comes from the independence of providers.  He suggested that in terms of housing, the Task Force should go ahead and nail down some of the specifics and make suggestions.  He noted that it would not be that difficult to put together and reminded them that it was a possibility to house it and manage it under United Way.  The only piece that Johnson has not heard any information about is who would pay for it.  He stated the greatest problem is the cost.

 

Clark stated that she knows cost is going to be a real issue.  She spoke to a few funding sources.  The United Way funds are very tight and cannot spare anything.  Clark noted that this made her think more toward collaborating and coordinating services.  She asked why the Task Force was trying to create a separate entity when the tools and services are currently available.  The major problem is the lack of staff.  Clark suggested empowering the services currently available.  She devised a plan that would provide, for $50,000 a year, a caseworker for four different agencies.  The plan allows for the funding to taper off and have 100% support for that 20 hours a week.  It would be up to the agencies to take on the additional costs after the four-year period.

 

There followed a brief discussion regarding Clark’s suggestion.  Henderson stated that he has a lot of experience with the HMIS in Kansas City, Missouri.  He believes the HMIS is a cornerstone and key to much of what the Task Force is trying to resolve.  He stated an investment in a good HMIS system pays off.  Henderson would endorse something along with what Clark stated and mixed with a strong HMIS system.

 

Terwelp stated that the organizations are underfunded and understaffed.  She does not see an external entity doing all the collaboration, but a combination of both.  She stated she likes the idea of mixing the two ideas together.  She does not know what the HMIS system would do for the Lawrence community.

 

Rundle asked what the community gains from the HMIS system and if it is essential.  He would like to have it in the report.

 

Johnson stated he would reiterate Terwelp’s opinion.  He stated Clark’s proposition would make a big difference and an HMIS could bring coordination.  He noted that the community sometimes forgets how good a job the service providers really do.  He commented that agencies that want to work together have lots of problems and misunderstandings.  It is a difficult thing to coordinate.  He commented that if the improvement the Task Force wants to see includes coordination and accountability than there should be a mechanism to hold the service agencies accountable.  The Task Force discusses coordination and accountability; it needs to also look at investment.  Johnson said the idea proposed by Clark is not a bad one.

 

Forney mentioned that most case managers have 25 people, which is a tremendously heavy load. 

 

Forney stated coordination and accountability deals with more than just agencies, but with law enforcement as well.  He stated that law enforcement has up to two years to press charges against a person.  He provided an example of where an individual went through one of The Salvation Army’s programs and was being a productive citizen.  Then the district attorney’s office decided to proceed with pressing charges and puts that person at-risk again, leaving them back at the beginning.

 

There followed a brief discussion about law enforcement and their lack of participation with the Task Force.

 

Rundle stated Resources and Programs in Other Communities Committee should devise a plan for soliciting law enforcement participation.

 

Taliaferro noted the Task Force’s next meeting is in three weeks.  She commented on who would be doing the work.  She noted the Committee on homeless services needs to wrap things up.  She stated that simply putting in the proposal as the Task Force implements the plan, it must contain a component of law enforcement and community policing.  She stated that at some point when the proposal is written, the Task Force should have a community meeting with the stakeholders or possibly a series of town hall meetings to educate the community on what the Task Force has developed allowing the Task Force to make adjustments before the proposal and report go before the City Commission. 

 

Rundle added that the presentation of the report and proposal should occur during a Study Session with the City Commission rather than at a City Commission meeting.

 

Forney suggested adding Cardin’s name to the contact list because she has done a very good job and has attended most of the meetings.  Schneider also agreed and commented that Cardin’s minutes are very accurate and detailed and minute taking is hard to do.

 

The next meeting is April 20, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers.  Johnson noted that he will not be able to attend the next meeting.

 

Adjourn

There being no Public Comment, the Task Force adjourned by acclamation at 5:46 p.m.