City of Lawrence
TASK FORCE ON HOMELESS SERVICES
July 20, 2004 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Bruce Beale, Randy Beeman, Tami Clark, Candy Davis, Katherine Dinsdale, Rich Forney, Helen Hartnett, Caroline Hicks, Barbara Huppee, David Johnson, Shirley Martin-Smith, Steve Ozark, Mike Rundle, Jim Schneider, and Sarah Terwelp |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Loring Henderson and Sara Taliaferro |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Cindy Nau and Victor Torres |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Quincy McCrary |
Rundle called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m.
Approval of Agenda
Hartnett moved to approve the agenda. Martin-Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Approval of June 15, 2004 minutes
The last paragraph incorrectly reflects who moved and seconded the adjournment. Forney was not present at the June meeting and Clark left the meeting mid-way. None present could recall who made the motion, so it was accepted by affirmation.
Forney noted that he wished Herman Leon was present to explain the Kroc Funds. They are still in the attorney’s hands and the Salvation Army has 1 in 100,000 chance of receiving any funds. The community would have to match the operating expenses, approximately three million dollars per year, if the building was built in Lawrence. The building would require at least a 12 acres area.
Martin-Smith stated that on page two, Jim Schneider should be included as a member of the ID Card Committee.
Huppee moved to approve the June 15, 2004 minutes as amended. Hicks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Rundle explained that Leon believes Lawrence is eligible for the Kroc Funds and wanted to discuss it with the Task Force. Leon was asked to provide documentation. City staff also did research. On the surface it does not appear that Lawrence is eligible. Rundle said that he has attempted to get Leon in touch with a regional representative from The Salvation Army further explaining that he believes The Salvation Army and/or the City Commission should address this matter, and that the Task Force is not the proper entity.
Committee Reports
Update from Current Lawrence Area Resources Committee
No report.
Resources and Programs in Other Communities
Johnson stated that the report issued last time was close to finalization.
ID Card Committee
Clark reported that the ID Card Committee reviewed the pros and cons of the Clearwater, Florida ID cards. She noted that on many different levels, one could see where people will be left out of services and people might be less inclined to use services. There were differing opinions on the Committee and they have not come to a conclusion. Clark added that the first meeting was spent noting the pros and cons of the issue.
Martin-Smith asked if the ID Card Committee had set another meeting. Clark believed the next meeting to be August 5th at 1:30 p.m. at the Lawrence Open Shelter.
Rundle asked if this Committee came out of another part of the Task Force. Martin-Smith explained it came about as a result of comments made at the public forums. The feeling was that further investigation into issues surrounding ID cards needed to be done. Schneider further stated it was part of developing a comprehensive view.
Hartnett remarked that any further action taken by the ID Card Committee should be included in the steps of developing a final plan. She added it felt like an action step more than research.
Rundle agreed. Clark asked if the ID Card Committee’s work is thus complete. Rundle said it would be good to have the next meeting to finalize a report with the pros and cons.
Johnson suggested the Committee try and find answers to addressing the identified pros and cons. Hartnett agreed saying it should relate how an ID card program would tie into the bigger picture.
Schneider reaffirmed it should be a part of an overall plan.
Davis said there should be real clarification on the intent of the use of ID cards.
Work Finalization Committee
Huppee reported the group had a three-hour meeting on July 15th to identify what the goals of the Committee were, the deadline of a report, and the tasks to accomplish by that deadline. The Committee determined there were two goals: establishing a deadline and identifying the activities to accomplish by the deadline.
A deadline of December 3, 2004 was established, when a report will be submitted to the City Commission. A Study Session with the City Commission will follow for discussion of the report.
All members agreed that the Task Force has done a lot of work, but the reports need to be finalized. Huppee stated the deadline to submit final drafts of reports to the Task Force is August 17th. If the reports are not done by then, they will be considered final as currently written.
Huppee said the Committee believed enough information has been gathered to review and enable proceeding to a final report.
The following is the timeline presented by Huppee:
Timelines and Activities for Completing the Work of the
Task Force on Homeless Services
August 17, 2004 – Task Force Meeting
Existing subcommittees or work groups of the Task Force will submit their final reports to the Task Force. These groups are Model Cities, Existing Services, Service Gaps, Homeless Research, Public Forums. Time is of the essence in moving the task force forward to the conclusion of its work, therefore reports not in final form August 17 will be considered final on that date.
These reports taken together will be considered the background research on the state of homelessness in Lawrence and examples of successful models with potential for addressing the homeless problem in Lawrence.
September 14, 2004 – Deadline for Task Force members to complete their reviews of subcommittee reports and submit recommendations for solving the problem of homelessness in Lawrence to city staff.
Based on subcommittee reports and all other information a member may have collected or have knowledge of by virtue of experience and expertise, members are to develop a list of recommendations for solving the problem of homelessness in Lawrence. Each recommendation should be no more than one or two sentences in length and should state what the member thinks and believes is the best approach, components of an approach, or element for solving homelessness.
Members may submit as many recommendations as they like. A member might decide to submit one recommendation that covers a single concept or numerous recommendations that, when taken together comprise discrete components of a homeless program or approach to solving homelessness. Some examples might be as broad as “Lawrence should develop a 24/7 homeless shelter without any restrictions.” Another might state “Lawrence should develop a 24/7 homeless shelter”, followed by numerous one or two sentence recommendations on what the shelter should or should not do. Another might be “the City Commission should adopt an anti-loitering ordinance.” The recommendations can be service or program oriented, can address behavior, training, laws, restrictions, eligibility, or any other element the members believes should be incorporated into a program to address the homeless problem in Lawrence.
September 17, 2004 – Deadline for city staff to distribute unduplicated list of member recommendations to the task force.
September 21, 2004 – Task Force Meeting (to be scheduled for 3:30 pm)
The Task Force will review the list of recommendations and vote on those recommendations it wants included in a program plan. Recommendations that receive the votes of 70 percent of the members present at the meeting will be considered to have consensus and will be developed into a proposed plan for addressing homelessness in Lawrence. Those recommendations receiving 33 to 69 percent of the votes will be considered the official minority view of the task force and will be included as such in the task force final report to the City Commission.
The Task Force will name a Program Development Committee. This Committee will take the approved recommendations and develop them into a written program plan. The program plan must follow HUD issued criteria on successful homeless programs.
October 15, 2004 – Program Development Committee issues preliminary report to the task force.
October 19, 2004 - Task Force Meeting
The Task Force will review the preliminary report and makes recommendations for changes. The acceptance of changes to the report will be based on the 70 percent consensus rule.
October 20-October 29, 2004 – Program Development Committee revises and issues an interim report on a Program for Addressing Homeless in Lawrence.
November 4-9, 2004 - Interim report presented to stakeholders to solicit their comments on the plan.
Separate closed stakeholder meetings will be held with the following groups. 1) Homeless individuals and their advocates. 2) Service providers. 3) Downtown Lawrence business community. 4) Neighborhood Associations. 5) Funders.
The interim plan will be presented to each of these groups separately at scheduled meetings. Each group will be asked to comment and make recommendations on the interim plan. All comments offered at the meetings will be recorded.
November 16, 2004 – Task Force Meeting
The Program Development Committee will report to the task force on the stakeholders’ comments. The Task Force will consider each comment and respond by either incorporating it into the proposed plan or by developing a written response explaining why the comment was not incorporated into the plan. The Task Force will follow the 70 percent consensus rule in deciding which comments to incorporate into the plan.
November 17-29, 2004 – Program Development Committee revises interim report
Program Development Committee submits final report to the Task Force.
December 3, 2004 – Final Report on the Recommendations of the Task Force on Homeless Services submitted to the City Commission.
December 15, 2004 - Task Force presents its report to the City Commission in a Study Session.
Ideas submitted as a successful component of a comprehensive plan (see September 14th) should be stated in a single sentence. There is no limit to the number of ideas that may be submitted.
Huppee stated that in order to have credibility and acceptance, the Task Force must go to stakeholders in a non-public meeting with specified audiences. The Program Development Committee would submit their interim report to the stakeholders between November 4 and 9. Huppee noted she would like to see the police added to the list of stakeholders.
The Committee would then bring the stakeholder comments back to the Task Force and the Task Force would then discuss each comment. Each comment will either be incorporated into the report or stricken. The stakeholders will be notified in writing as to why their comments were not included in the report. Rundle asked if there was anticipation of removing duplicates. She said yes.
Huppee said what is important is to see that issues are raised across the group.
Forney asked if initial recommendations would go to the stakeholders. Huppee stated they would and explained that each group of stakeholders will have their own meeting to provide feedback.
Huppee said the timeline is very ambitious and moving it forward one month could be considered. However, she felt the Task Force should be able to stay on track at least until October 15th and then the Task Force could decide if it will need to amend the timeline. The critical issue is getting the report on the City Commission agenda for a Study Session.
Hartnett said she appreciated the work the subcommittee did; the process makes sense, and follows good steps in terms of getting a plan with Community consensus. Hartnett says her fear is that it feels like there is a lot of work to happen in six months. She commented that she is not sure what a final report from a committee would look like. She added that after having been on a couple of committees, she would not like to agree to something she could not accomplish.
Huppee asked if that applied to final reports or overall plan. Hartnett said that it was the whole overall plan and noted there are parts of this plan that would take a full-time job to complete. She applauds the process, procedure and commitment, but really wonders about the amount of work that can be done in this timeline.
Johnson said the committee considered the timeframe and established it based on the Community’s view that the meetings are never-ending. The Task Force started on June 11, 2003 and is talking about getting a report out within a year-and-a-half and that getting to the end is as significant a goal as all the other goals to produce the report.
Rundle asked for other general comments.
Schneider stated he feels this should have been completed six months ago. He has always wanted more input from other parts of the community and he is really concerned that they will have to take a token representation when the Task Force goes to the stakeholder meetings and in the final report they will say there was discussion back and forth and this is the final product. He is concerned about the short timeframe the community will have to review the plan and that there will not be alternatives, such as tough-love vs. low-barrier. He believes that if stakeholders are not given alternatives and given only one plan, they will have flawed opinions.
Davis said that after the stakeholder meetings there would be a pondering of the input and a public meeting to provide explanation of how to put the information into action. It will incorporate the need for consequences.
Schneider feels there is a minority that believes both alternatives should be offered. He read from the Task Force’s scope of work…“alternatives should be offered with the pros and cons.”
Hartnett said Schneider was assuming what will be the final plan. Rundle agreed saying there is a large array of ideas that will be put together and that there is not just two approaches, but a variety and the final report will explain areas that have conflict, including minority reports.
Schneider asked if anyone felt the way he did. Davis said she believed there are combinations and that accountability is a big issue, but there are programs that address how to help those that cannot be accountable. She believes there are those that will benefit from accountability in a system and that there will always be some that will not and that there can be a combination.
Johnson said if Schneider’s only recommendation was to adopt the 10-year plan then he would not vote for it because there are many things in the plan he disagrees with, but there are parts of that plan that could be encompassed in a final plan.
Huppee said she thinks many will be surprised by what the recommendations are in the end. She does not feel it will be one or the other. Clark agreed saying there are going to be a lot of gray areas.
Huppee said also that whatever is developed, in order for it to be accepted by the City Commission and given weight, it will have to be responsible, well written, and will also have to address some of the controversial issues. Given that, she believes the community in general, will accept it.
Forney said comments and questions are expected. The Salvation Army has made changes requiring some accountability and has seen an increase in those housed, but have also seen many who refuse to participate because they do not want to be told what to do. He asked rhetorically if the City should support those that absolutely do not or will not help themselves.
Rundle said that issue has to be covered in the report, but is not the whole report. Forney agreed.
Clark asked if there was a way to continually re-evaluate the timeline to be sure they are on time. Rundle suggested a small steering committee be formed to meet weekly. Davis suggested the steering committee help with committees that need help meeting deadlines.
Hartnett said she would still like to know what the final report should look like.
Nau explained that most of the reports submitted by committees were submitted as drafts. The committees need to go back and do whatever work needs to be done to make the report final.
Huppee said these reports would become part of the appendix of the final report and there should be commonalities in at least format for all the reports. Huppee suggested the steering committee begin with this issue and the process needs to push forward.
Beale agreed with the need to push forward with the plan. He would suggest adding three weeks to the stakeholders meetings and move the remainder of the schedule back three weeks.
Rundle said the form of the report could be another committee. Rundle said the committee reports are the beginning of the final report and help to explain the plan that should follow. He suggested that whoever writes the report draw upon them.
Schnedier stated he is behind the timeline provided members have the opportunity to provide issues, even as many as three. He would like to see members able to supply a maximum of three problems or issues that should be addressed at the September 21st meeting.
Rundle said he feels more comfortable keeping the limit open and letting the staff reduce it down to an unduplicated list. Huppee agreed saying the recommendations will reveal the issues. She said the issues are being proposed though solutions rather than as problems. For example, having laws and arresting people addresses unacceptable behavioral issues.
Dinsdale remarked that Schneider is underestimating the group. The first step before making recommendations is to review all the committee reports and draft recommendations based upon the researched information and gaps. This process is democratic and she believes it is the best that can be produced from a group.
Schneider asked if the key issues and goals could be distributed. Hartnett said it is included in this process because it is a part of the subcommittee process.
Forney asked that if there are things that were handed out not as an attachment to e-mail that everyone is provided a copy of those handouts. He suggested having a group show pros and cons and make recommendations and conclusions. He asked who would be better to do this than the members working on the information.
Davis says the committee does not have to come up with a recommendation, but a conclusion based on the information reviewed.
Ozark said the point about stakeholders is taken and time needs to be adjusted to give them more time to review the report since they have not been privy to this information the whole year.
Dinsdale asked if it would be appropriate to add members to the process to review the packet of information and make recommendations – such as the Lawrence Police Department and LMH.
Rundle said perhaps a new set of committees is in order. At a minimum, the stakeholders should be notified as soon as possible. This would give them an outline and tell them the Task Force wants them to be involved. He stated they should be well versed in the research as the process continues to development of a final plan. Rundle asked if an Outreach Committee could be formed to contact stakeholders to ensure invitees into the process and not just an ad in the paper.
Huppee thought this could be accomplished if a real focus is made on who the stakeholders are.
Ozark said if stakeholders are involved earlier, they might be more amendable to the plan.
Schneider said they should have access to the reports the Task Force has.
Nau said part of the request for finalized reports is to be able to release them to the public. The drafts have not been released.
Forney said if a proposal is going to the City Commission and plans are to apply for HUD funds, it should be noted how strict the guidelines are for HUD. Another committee could adapt the plan to make sure it meets the requirements for funding.
Rundle said he would also like to see this be a City/County Commission joint effort and wishes the County been involved in the beginning.
Clark moved to adopt the timeline and activities for completing the work of the Task Force on Homeless Services. Beale seconded the motion. Forney noted that Beale requested three weeks be added. Huppee commented that the decision could be made on whether more time is needed at that point.
Dinsdale said she wondered if this group is complete enough to accomplish this task. As the schedule stands, stakeholders have five days to review all this information and make recommendations. She would like to invite them into the process earlier. It could only spread coordination. Dinsdale asked if the stakeholders could be invited to participate now. That would give them the same information, let them make recommendations, and then proceed with the process.
Rundle said that before the meeting he was talking to Nau about the idea of having the Task Force Study Session with the City Commission earlier in the process. He provided a brief explanation as to why this might be a good idea. He asked if the Task Force should put this before the City Commission at a regular meeting.
Johnson noted that bringing the issue before the City Commission at a regular meeting might not be necessary and suggested that in order to get the stakeholders including the City Commission, involved with the process without delaying the timeline, the document prepared as of October 15th could be distributed to the stakeholders with response forthcoming during the stakeholder meetings. He noted great big “draft” stamps would need to be all over it.
Rundle said the timeline implies that a final solution will not be ready until December and thinks Johnson’s plan could work.
Johnson offered the idea as a friendly amendment. Clark and Beale accepted the amendment, which passed unanimously as amended.
Beale left the meeting.
Rundle asked for reaction to a steering committee to keep the timeline on task.
Martin-Smith said that many members served on various committees and may not know which one to serve on to complete a final report.
Huppee suggested committee chairs contact their members and prepare final reports.
Rundle suggested backing up the date for submitting final reports from August 17th. It was determined unnecessary. Any committee having a problem meeting the timeline should contact Rundle.
Hartnett again expressed concern on how a final report should look and the time frame in which it should be completed. The data she has could be interpreted many ways. Johnson said the Task Force would rely on the professional judgment of its members with regard to interpretation of the data.
Rundle recommended Hartnett and Taliaferro meet with Rundle and the Neighborhood Resources Department staff to assist in final development of the plan.
Dinsdale asked if they needed to form a steering committee now. Huppee remarked not at this time, but at the next meeting. Rundle would like to identify who the stakeholders are and what their issues are and have the list submitted to Nau. Nau will compile a log of stakeholder input.
Other Business
Nau stated Margene Swarts is accepting ideas for the theme of the Kansas Homeless Summit, which is being held October 13th – 14th in Lawrence. She also provided an update on the HMIS system. Providers will be applying for the SBC Excelerator Grant due on August 13th and for Douglas County Community Foundation funds this fall.
Ozark thanked members and staff of the First Christian Church, Community Drop-In Center, and Lawrence Open Shelter for working to provide a 24/7 shelter. Staffing has been provided by paid professional staff instead of volunteers.
Rundle commented that he appreciates everyone’s hard work.
Public Comment
Quincy McCrary said he would be available to assist with whatever is needed.
Adjournment
There being no further public comment, Clark moved to adjourn the meeting. Forney seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.