City of Lawrence, Kansas

COMMUNITY COMMISSION ON HOMELESSNESS

April 19, 2011 Minutes (Lawrence City Commission Room)

Members present: Hubbard Collinsworth, Brad Cook, Wes Dalberg, Karin Feltman, Charlotte Knoche, Mike Monroe, Cary Strong

Members absent: Shannon Murphy, Samantha Snyder

Staff present: Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts

Public present: Steve Cowan, Loring Henderson, Saunny Scott, Valerie Miller-Coleman

The meeting was called to order at 8:30 am by Chair Knoche.

ITEM NO. 1 Introductions

The members of the CCH introduced themselves.

ITEM NO. 2 Approval of the Agenda and the March 8, 2011 Minutes.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion by Feltman to approve the Agenda and the March 8, 2011 meeting minutes of the CCH. Seconded by Cook.

Motion passed unanimously.

ITEM NO. 3 Housing Vision Reports.

a. Emergency Shelter – HMIS Update

Swarts said that Joe Coburn, Systems Administrator from the Mid America Assistance Coalition will be at the May meeting to discuss the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) with the CCH.

b. Temporary Housing – Valerie Miller-Coleman, Family Promise

Valerie Miller-Coleman, Executive Director or Family Promise of Lawrence, said that Family promise is a local interfaith network affiliate of the national Family Promise network. She said that the program currently runs a day center for homeless families with children. There is a network of 13 host congregations and 21 additional support congregations in the program.

Family Promise provides homeless families with food, shelter, and fellowship. Miller-Coleman said that they are able to house four families at a time and 14 individuals at a time. The program targets families with children. They are able to serve this population with a smaller scale, more intensive focus, which is appropriate for families with children. The goal of Family Promise is to move families as quickly as possible into safe, affordable housing.

Miller-Coleman said that Family Promise works closely with the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority (LDCHA), as well as with other agencies. They began operating in Lawrence in 2008. Miller-Coleman said that of the 34 churches that volunteer space and time all are located in Douglas County, so there is a wide selection in the community. She said that there is a broad diversity of faiths participating as well. Family Promise is staffed by two, but includes 1300 volunteers. Miller-Coleman said that Family Promise is highly efficient in their grant funding and resource allocation. She said the agency runs almost entirely with in-kind donations. In-kind donations make up three fourths of the Family Promise budget. She expressed that it was amazing to see what the community is willing to give to these families. Family Promise runs with very small overhead expenses.

Miller-Coleman said that in 2010 Family Promise served 14 families, including 18 adults and 32 children. She said that many of the families are made up of single parents, and in addition they see many single dads. She said that most of the children in the program are under 10 years old. She said that at the end of last year 9 of 14 families were housed and all that were housed had maintained housing.

Collinsworth asked what the basis for the money value of the in-kind donations was.

Miller-Coleman said that it was based on $17 per hour for volunteer service, volunteer dental, meal preparation, and professional services. She said that the per hour rate was a State average.

Knoche asked Miller-Coleman how families are referred to Family Promise.

Miller-Coleman said that referrals come from the school districts, service provider agencies, food pantries, and by word of mouth. She said that they accept self referrals as well. She said that the first level of screening is to briefly see what is going on with the family. There is a high priority placed on a sober and safe atmosphere for the children. Family Promise does not work with folks with a current addiction, however they will strongly consider working with a family that has a member in recovery, based on their current situation. Family Promise is not a domestic violence shelter, so victims of domestic violence cannot be assured of a safe and secret shelter. They also do not work with individuals with severe untreated mental illness. Those that stay there are able to receive the sufficient support and services that they need for parenting and employment. Family Promise performs a background check for criminal violence and sex offense histories. After this is complete, the family is interviewed and they go from there.

Knoche asked if there was an income criterion for the families in the program.

Miller-Coleman said no. Homeless is homeless.

Knoche asked what the most difficult problems that Family Promise encounters are.

Miller-Coleman said that there were not enough transitional housing vouchers. She said that the families in the program almost all rely on housing grants and vouchers to get housed. Most that the program serves serve cannot pay full rent because their household size is outside of their financial abilities. The program works with the families to talk about how they can increase their earning capacity with additional schooling or training. It is only a short term solution to rely on housing services. These families have what they have and it is very difficult to find a lease they can handle financially. For this reason it is valuable to Family Promise to have partnership with LDCHA.

Feltman asked how long the families can remain at Family Promise.

Miller-Coleman said the timeframe depends on the situation. If within 60 days there is no visible progress being made by the families, Family Promise will draw the line. If, after 60 days, the family is working hard and it is just not coming together for them despite their best efforts, Family Promise will continue to work with the family. Miller-Coleman said that the church congregation rotation is 13 weeks. After first rotation, if a family is still in the program and they repeat a stay at a congregation they can get disheartened. She said that the average stay is 120 days right now. She said that sometimes the families are out of the program quickly; sometimes there are other barriers that need to be worked through. Family Promise will work with them as long as they are working with the program.

Collinsworth asked about childcare for the families in the program.

Miller-Coleman said that Family Promise has a wonderful partnership with Trinity In-Home Care drop-in daycare center. She said that Trinity helps with child care during the day so parents can go on interviews or errands. She said that if the parent is working they can get a childcare subsidy thru SRS. Miller-Coleman said that locally, the second and third shifts are a struggle for both childcare and transportation. Family Promise has found that these can be barriers.

Feltman said that she serves as the primary Family Promise coordinator at Saint Margaret’s Episcopal Church. She said that not only is Family Promise a great program, but the church members enjoy it as well. She said that the guests come to the congregations from Sunday to Sunday. Volunteers come in the evenings at 5:30 and bring food and serve meals. Volunteers also help with homework. There are volunteers that help both in the evening and the morning. Feltman said that it is a very good environment for the families. She said that it is nice to sit at the table with these guests. Feltman said the congregation at Saint Margaret’s is a higher income congregation and it has been a good experience for the volunteers to work with the guests. When there is a need everyone wants to help. She said that the church is working together in ways that they normally would not be, and as a result have gotten to know each other better. A lot of people have that preconceived idea of homeless as someone lying in the alley. The congregations and the volunteers see these families and they are getting a very good view of homelessness. It is very good for the congregations.

Miller-Coleman said that the program is a very efficient use of 1300 volunteers. The main goal of Family Promise is to serve these families so the children have an appropriate place to have as little interruption to their lives as possible. Everyone works together. She said that Lawrence can do a huge amount as a community to create change and to allow for training for every volunteer. Miller-Coleman said that there is an educational component for the families as well. There are barriers in who these families are. Because of Family Promise, many people in the community have a much better idea of homelessness.

Feltman said it was worth it for Saint Margaret’s. She said it was wonderful on Christmas morning to watch guests open presents and to see the volunteers cooking breakfast. The volunteers were excited about helping. It is a great feeling on top of it all.

Miller-Coleman agreed the reward is great but the process is not always easy.

Steve Cowen, Executive Director of the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing (HPRP) added that the HPRP program and Family Promise have worked well together. With the HPRP money running out, Cowen said he hoped to find ways to continue the partnership.

Miller-Coleman said that the Family Promise Board is working to see how they can better support and advocate for this type of program funding. She said that there was good success shown with e-housing, and there are landlords within these congregations. The strength is the network of community partners. To be able to influence and be able to help support programs is essential to their success. Miller-Coleman said that a lot of communities have more rapid turnover than Lawrence does with this population. In Lawrence there are substantial transitional housing resources so Lawrence does not have that type of turnover here. Miller-Coleman said that she likes the scattered site vouchers because it does not isolate populations. The need in Lawrence is very high.

c. Transitional Housing

Dalberg suggested inviting Vivian Baars to speak to the CCH at the May meeting about Project Able.

Knoche said that 56 people were currently leased up in Transitional Housing. The wait list has been closed for a little while, but will not be for too much longer. The new funding is available soon so the list will be able to reopen. Knoche said that LDCHA is currently working on getting renewed participation agreements with agencies. She said so far they have received agreements from SRS, Bert Nash, Independence, Inc, Cottonwood, Douglas County AIDS Project, ECKAN, and the Re-entry program. They are looking at new agencies as well such as the Veteran’s Administration and Healthy Homes. Knoche said that there is a lot of interest within agencies. She said that in Lawrence a lot of good work is being done with families. She said that one can look at successes and failures and tie it to how cooperative the families are and how dedicated the service providers are. There are barriers around getting housed. When things get choppy again and a crisis comes up, the families that have stuck with the service providers are the ones who succeed. For families to continue services after they get housed is incredibly important. Many of the families who came in through Transitional Housing when it started are ones that are still successful.

d. Permanent Supportive Housing

It was suggested that the CCH hear from Five Loaves House in May. Staff will contact Katherine Dinsdale.

e. Permanent Housing

Knoche said that Pine Tree Townhomes is converting their HUD financing so there will be conversion vouchers available for renters at this location. The units will remain affordable. LDCHA is starting to go out to do informational meetings with the residents. All residents that are income eligible will be offered a conversion voucher. The main effort is so they can stay where they are. Since they are permanent housing vouchers they will stay with those people. If the residents do not take the vouchers then LDCHA can take them to the wait list.

Swarts asked if LDCHA can recapture vouchers if the income raises and the resident becomes ineligible.

Knoche said yes. LDCHA will retain those vouchers and can move them on to someone else. The current residents have three years to claim the voucher.

Feltman asked how the process worked.

Knoche said that the mechanism is that a tenant enters into a lease with the landlord, and the landlord has an agreement with the LDCHA. The tenant pays 30% of their income for rent, and it is full contract rent for market unit. If the market rate is too high, there is a maximum subsidy that can be paid.

Feltman asked if the landlords had to accept the vouchers.

Knoche said no and that the landlords have the option to not rent to the tenant. If the landlord would not rent to them without a voucher, then they should not be expected to rent to them with a voucher. It is a lease just like any other rental lease. Knoche noted that with tax credit properties, they are required to have these voucher units available, but if the client does not meet their rental requirements then they don’t have to rent them.

Knoche said that the City of Leavenworth received a grant for 20 Shelter+Care vouchers. The vouchers are for Permanent Supportive Housing units. These units assist those tenants with disabilities. Leavenworth has not been able to use these vouchers. LDCHA is in the process of working with the Balance of State Continuum of Care and HUD to see about transferring the vouchers to Lawrence. Knoche said that LDCHA put in a Shelter+Care application in three years ago and was not funded. If the transfer is approved then the LDCHA may get 20 additional vouchers.

Cook asked if the program would be administered by LDCHA.

Knoche said yes. She added that there is a match requirement with the grant as well. The LDCHA will have to document a dollar-for-dollar match on services for housing vouchers. Knoche said that it does not have to be a case match. She said that Medicare can be part of match, and additionally mental health services are a match. LDCHA will not accept the vouchers if they do not have the match. In addition, LDCHA will use it with the local preference for Douglas County residents, and they are also considering veterans preference. Leavenworth got VA vouchers as well, so these vouchers were not utilized fully. In Leavenworth these vouchers were required to be used by veterans. Knoche said that LDCHA does not want the vouchers tied to any specific population because they do not want them to go unused. LaTonia Wright with the Balance of State Continuum of Care, is working with LDCHA and the process is waiting on HUD approval.

Collinsworth asked how the Shelter+Care grant will affect Lawrence Community Shelter.

Knoche said the vouchers should not have any effect on LCS. LCS is an Emergency Shelter, which uses a completely separate funding stream. These vouchers are out of Continuum of Care Supportive Housing Program (SHP) funding. The funding for these vouchers was awarded three years ago and was not put to use.

Cook said that at the Homeless Summit there was a big push on the Housing First model. He asked if this housing type was covered in the Housing Vision as housing is the long term goal.

Cowen said that he attended a breakout session at the Summit on Re-Entry programs and dual diagnosis. He said that Kim Wilson Housing, Inc. did a Housing First presentation. He suggested that RADAC is one to have come to the table. He said that Kim Wilson has a model that seems to work in Wyandotte County.

Knoche said that Housing First is temporary transitional housing and that she has seen many different models. Some models have even been month-to-month.

Cook said that the belief of Housing First is that people cannot get better or work on issues until they are housed. He said if they are housed, then the basic needs of what they are going to do for food and what they are going to do for shelter are taken care of. The person can then move forward.

Knoche said that this program typically has no service requirements for anything, including sobriety.

Cook said different models have different ties.

Cowen said that the key is to do a cost benefit analysis on emergency room visits, police calls, and social service agencies. It has been found that it is much cheaper to do Housing First.

Knoche said that one barrier is that the program needs to have adequate staffing. With the Housing First program format, there is round-the-clock staffing requirements. Financially speaking, it is difficult to find that much funding in the grant. The staffing piece is very important.

Henderson said that in the Shelter they worked with the City to get the occupancy level to not be two tiered, so that did away with the insecurity of not knowing night-to-night where the guest was staying. Discontinuing the lottery helped as well. The guest can have a continued relationship with a case manager and services. They have the opportunity to work through the program and out of the shelter. It is a modified Housing First idea in that it gives them a place to be, and that they know they will have a place to be out of the elements and eat and sleep and give them that base.

Strong asked about the lottery procedures.

Henderson said that they no longer use it. The shelter used to have to do a list. The guests would sign up during the day. If more people signed up for sleeping spaces then were available, then there was a drawing. Families were given first priority, those employed also got a place to sleep, and those with jobs around the shelter earned a place to sleep as well. When those three categories filled up, the remainder went into the lottery and names were drawn around 6:30 or 7pm.

Feltman verified that it was not currently done that way.

Henderson said that was correct. LCS now has 75 sleeping spaces. He said that so far it has been adequate during the milder season. If the occupancy goes over 75, then typically it has only been a few and LCS will find volunteers to see if they can take their place in the shelter. If it is five or ten people, then LCS would do a small lottery. He said that in the wintertime LCS has church agreements for overflow shelter.

ITEM NO. 4 Point-In-Time Count Update

Swarts said that the Point-In-Time (PIT) County numbers were released at the Statewide Homeless Summit. She said that Dresslar had a role in the Balance of State process in the planning and data analysis of the surveys. The count was a partnership between state, local, and Balance of State Continuum of Care representatives. She said that the report was being provided to the City Commission at their May 3, 2011 meeting.

Swarts also said that there is an Outreach Report for Bert Nash Homeless Outreach Team for the first quarter. The team is transitioning to HMIS so going forward there will be the ability for a uniform picture.

Feltman asked what defines a household on the PIT survey.

Swarts said that HUD defines “household” different than “family”. “Household” can be one person or it can be multiple people that are together.

Feltman asked about the accuracy in the count for 2009.

Swarts said that 2009 was the first attempt at a Statewide coordinated count. The numbers and methodology were accurate, but not all folks got counted. United Way of the Plains in Wichita coordinated the count statewide. They determined the methodology, and some places and some people that we had counted in past did not meet the definition. Swarts said that there was a bit of problem locally in that Lawrence and Douglas County had good volunteers, but participation lacked in the count in some places that it was thought there would have been strong representation. Also, it was very cold in 2009. Swarts said that as the last page of the document reads, the way that one needs to look at the PIT count is that it is a snapshot, and things can be missed. With the PIT, a community will never get a truly perfect count. She said that people transition in and out of homelessness day by day. Swarts said that staff feels this year this count is an accurate snapshot. In the past, everything from the methodology to the media have made things difficult. It is good information to see that it appears that chronically homeless numbers have decreased. Female homeless have increased. Swarts said this perhaps can be an economic factor. She noted that the number of homeless veterans in Douglas County and Lawrence fell. Swarts said that this may be attributed to the fact that other counties have vouchers for veterans. Leavenworth and Topeka have VASH vouchers. The VA works to facilitate getting veterans where they need to go for services.

Henderson said he wanted to say thanks to the staff for this report. He said in years past the community has fluctuated from 383 to 112. This analysis is good and this number is good and closer to what the community sees itself as having as far as the number of homeless. Henderson said that for the veterans he thought that the 2009 number was off and the 2011 number was closer to right. He said the shelter has been around 7% for veterans. He said this 2011 number seems accurate based on their resources. Henderson pointed out that on the “Disabling Conditions” graph that it showed that 30% of the homeless surveyed admitted to suffering from mental illness. He said that this statistic is very true and that it is a large part of homelessness.

Collinsworth asked how many homeless veterans were treated by LMH.

Feltman said that LMH does not break this number down by homelessness. The patients have to give an address, so there is no breakdown of homeless treated by LMH.

Collinsworth asked if the VA hospitals in the area were affecting the veteran numbers in Lawrence.

Feltman said that if the patient qualifies for the VA then they transfer to the VA hospital. She said that there are certain conditions that do not qualify for VA treatment and then they stay and are treated at LMH. Feltman said that she will research getting that number.

Collinsworth said that he would like to know where Douglas County fits into the Balance of State in terms of the veteran population. He would like to see it compared percentage-wise with other areas.

Knoche said that VA eligibility for a patient starts at another hospital.

Cowen said that when he was working on the Needs Assessment for the Shelter+Care vouchers he talked to Randy Crandall at the VA. He has this information.

Saunny said she wanted to see how many veterans there are statewide and how they are counted. She asked if the survey included those Dishonorably discharged.

Dresslar said that the question in the survey asked only if they had served in the armed forces or the National Guard, not the extent or conclusion of their service.

Feltman said that LMH would have a number available for veterans.

Cook said that the VASH program states that if the veteran did not serve enough time or finish their tour, they are not eligible.

Cowen said that a person can be a homeless vet and not qualify for VA benefits, but can still get other agency services.

Swarts noted that even if a person is not eligible for VA services, they are still eligible for homeless services.

ITEM NO. 5 Miscellaneous

Henderson said that on June 3, 2011 the Shelter is hosting an all day workshop on funding for agencies with housing programs for homeless veterans, through the VA. The meeting will be at Plymouth Congregational Church.

Swarts said that staff has a conference on May 10 and will be leaving mid-morning, so the CCH might look at finishing the May 10 meeting early, if possible.

ITEM NO. 6 Public Comment

There was no public comment.

ITEM NO. 7 Adjourn

Motion by Cook to adjourn the April 19, 2011 meeting of the CCH. Seconded by Feltman.

Motion passed unanimously.

Attendance Record

Members

01/11

02/11

03/11

04/11

05/11

06/11

07/11

08/11

09/11

10/11

11/11

12/ 11

Hubbard Collinsworth

Brad Cook

Wes

Dalberg

Karin Feltman

Charlotte Knoche

Mike

Monroe

Shannon Murphy

Samantha Snyder

Cary Strong

X Meeting Cancelled Due to Inclement Weather