NERHMIS Minutes

Boston Field Office

3/20/09

10am-2pm

 

Welcome and Introductions

Attendance:

ME:  Cindy, Clif, Doug

NH: Linda, Rich, Scott

MA: Jennifer(Boston), Lisa Davidson(Somerville),  Brian Angelberg (Framingham), Susan Gentily(Framingham), Heidi Gould (Framingham), Antonio(Boston), Sue Smith(Attleboro), Matt Simmonds(Quincy),  Fred Berman (Cambridge)

CT: Natalie

RI: Bob, Don

VT:  Brian, Richard, Kim

HUD: Paula Newcomb, Stephanie Harrington , Robert Schemyko

DHCD: Chuck McSweeney

TA:  Kat, Michelle, Mary Coonan, John Sherwood

 

Introduction and overview of NERHMIS

Brian and Cindy gave an overview of the history of NERHMIS.

 

State and Regional Updates

·         Maine:

o   Have begun considering partially opening the system for agency to agency data sharing.  Many things to think and worry about, including merging records, business processes around the best way to do it, and what data to share.

o   Recently rolled out agency self-initiated reports for programs (especially DQ reports) these reports can be run for any timeframe determined by the programs.  Using Virtual Office to push out automatic DQ reports to programs.

o   The push for DQ in the past year has been pretty successful.  Now implementing a Data Quality Standard:  100% UDEs of 90% of the records as a requirement for funding starting in July 2009. 

o   Rolled out (as part of PIT) the “Maine” UDEs (includes HUD UDEs, 10 HUD PDEs, and several Maine specific questions).  The goal is to start linking the funding and data quality to those new elements by end of the year.

o   Tying Virtual Office to the Grants Management (ESG) for funding; collecting information to pull Chart K pops AND subpops data directly out of HMIS for PIT.  This will drastically reduce paperwork. 

o   PIT process – 30% of data came from HMIS for PIT requiring no intervention by the participating providers.

·         New Hampshire:

o   Regular data quality reports are happening now- with success.

o   New Hampshire currently has a closed system but a couple of agencies want to open the system.  They are looking for best practices on opening a closed system, including merging records, developing business practices around the merging of records; and what elements can be shared, especially when it comes to confidentiality and security.

Richard recommends that everyone wait until the new ServicePoint version comes out – the new security is much better and may help answer some of these questions. 

·         Developing new reporting for the State: weekly, monthly, quarterly, annual reports on capacity and traffic volume and flow.

·         Vermont:

o   Implemented a new web support portal

o   Publishing data quality reports which seems to be increasing data quality.  Data Quality reports are now colored coded to highlight instances of high data quality issues.

o   HCH program is looking to merge their data from medical records software to their HMIS. 

o   Lots of work on Data Quality.  Data Quality Council is starting to take on more responsibility - they are now handling all requests for reporting from the HMIS. 

o   Also starting to GIS their PATH programs, which includes some information on the programs that appears right on the map.  This use of GIS is likely to increase accessibility to PATH programs in the State.

o   VT PATH requires HMIS participation and meeting data quality standards or programs don’t get funds.

·         Massachusetts:  

o   Boston: focusing on data quality.  They are now providing monthly reports to any of their providers (covers Social Solutions and SHORE users as well).  They are using funding as the incentive – good data gets them their check.  Also they have started to look at bed utilization numbers regularly and are getting their subcommittees reactivated.  They were funded by ICHH for Regional network on rapid re-housing, got HUD rapid re-housing dollars, lots of stimulus monies coming in – having multiple systems in use by their providers and conflicting data collection requirements is a challenge.  Boston will be requiring their ETO Social Solutions HMIS system in order for subgrantees to get the HPRP funds.  This requirement will be daily ftp data pulls from each ETO implementation in Boston, which will be combined by ETO and then provided to the City as one file. 

o   Framingham: (uses Octopia) they have statewide programs and programs that cross 3 other CoCs.  Data collection is becoming a big burden for them.  They would like to see the State, ICHH, and HUD work on a common set of data.

o   Cambridge: (ETO Social Solutions) real time data quality error notification now available  MA (Boston), looking at publishing DQ reports – and are considering incentives to programs that perform well, for example, a new laptop, etc.

o   Attleboro/Taunton:  using SHORE, but it is doesn’t have all the functionality that they want or need.  The system isn’t capable of collecting the data currently being required by DTA.  The APR report doesn’t calculate properly.  They would like to see more effort put towards correcting available reporting and creating other reports that the CoCs need.  They would also like to see the State and ICHH align their data collection efforts with HUD’s current requirements.

·         DTA wants to see the implementation of the XML data exchange standards (using HUD’s schema as a basis).  There were a lot of questions on using a data warehousing approach to accomplish the regional reporting rather than data entry into a single system.  SHORE is trying to be both a data warehouse and a data entry system – neither are being accomplished adequately.  SHORE Uniform Assessment Tool (includes AZ SS Matrix) has been disseminated, but the system cannot yet receive the data (for example, the Matrix module has not yet been activated).  Concerns were also raised that the State is pushing the change to XML transfer too hard - XML will be a barrier due to provider technical expertise.  Also, SHORE won’t allow hashed IDs for upload because it is a client level management system, NOT a data warehouse. 

 

Cloudburst and the Boston Field Office are working with MA CoCs on their data and HMIS systems problems.  Cloudburst will follow up for next steps, including any potential for NERHMIS IT committee group involvement.

 

·         Connecticut:

o   Stimulus – concerned that DSS will use monies to support existing programs instead of creating new

o   DSS are now requiring HMIS participation including reporting from it; has caused an expansion of data elements the HMIS now collects, which is really great

o   The State is looking heavily at the data so data quality is improving

o   Using SkanPoint now, which is also increasing data quality (in particular length of stay, etc)

o   New players are starting to look at the HMIS data as well, especially communities looking to assess 10-year plans.  There is not a natural connection between the 10-yr plan entities and HMIS, so there are no clear lines for providing and using data and these issues are having to be assessed

o   FUSE project (started in NY) jail diversion – requires matching DOC and HMIS data

·         Rhode Island:

o   Consolidated all the homeless funds into one agency, who is requiring HMIS reporting for funding

o   Monthly reports are now required – don’t get money if don’t comply

o   Barrier is that persons making decisions are not well-versed in HMIS, so efforts are underway to educate these folks

o   All HMIS should have the ability to produce reports at the CoC level, so they are trying to prompt these things

National TA

·         Directive from Federal HUD is AHAR, AHAR, AHAR! 

·         Lawrence, Boston, Hartford have been identified for intensive TA, so they should expect contact from Cloudburst soon

·         PSH is being added to next AHAR

·         New England increased the number of CoCs successfully providing data to AHAR and HUD has noticed

 

IT Committee Update

·         NERHMIS website – demo at the April meeting

·         vendor engagement – working on having vendors participate in a NERHMIS meeting, at least every other month

·         IT committee would like to resurrect the “Vendor” group and include other vendors – purpose to provide input on how to make the systems better

·         IT committee will work out a presentation on the new standards (due out within about 7 days) so that a discussion can occur at the April meeting for a unified NERHMIS comment. 

 

Conference Update

·         May 18^th, here in Boston on UMASS campus

·         Natalie gave a historical on conference

·         Brochure with agenda should be ready for distribution by next Wednesday.  State representatives need to make sure that the brochure/notification with registration information goes out to folks.  Please forward to any and all folks. 

·         Follow up with vendors to get sponsorships. 

·         Add Prevention to the Rapid Re-housing (Bob Pulster is already doing this session, can we ask him to expand).   

 

Regional PIT Update

Missing:

·         All Vermont 2007 data;

·         Looks like unsheltered is going down, but emergency shelter numbers are going up – weather appears to be affecting this (is there any matching going on for days of emergency shelter usage to extreme weather days or is this antedotal).

·         Paula will help get data that Matt is missing.

·         Fred is going to ask Elaine Frawley to have the CoCs bring their 2009 PIT data to the upcoming CoC meeting.

 

Stimulus Package and HMIS

Key HPRP Highlights

·         Not ESG program

Application requirements

·         SF 424

·         Con Plan Substantial Amendment

·         Signed and dated Con Plan and HPRP Certifications

o   Note: CDBG-R will also be undertaking a substantial amendment process

o   Each grantee must coordinate with CoC on local plans to prevent and end homelessness

Key Dates:

·         Substantial amendments due in 60 days (May 18, 2009)

·         HUD will review substantial amendments no later than 7/2/09

·         HUD intends to execute all grant agreements no later than 9/1/09

·         Grantees must obligate their funds by 9/30/09

·         Requires must expend 60% of funds for HPRP within two years; 100% within 3 years

To receive HPRP funds:

·         Each eligible grantee must prepare and submit a substantial amendment to the con plan action plan (due within 60 days) posted for 21 days

·         HUD will approve/disapprove substantial amendment by July 15^th; grantees will have 15 days to revise substantial amendment

·         No match requirement

Funds to target two populations

1)      Individuals and families who are currently in housing but are at risk of becoming homeless and need temporary rent or utility assistance to prevent them from becoming homeless or assistance to move to another unit (prevention) and

2)      Individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness (residing in emergency or transition shelters or on the street) and need temporary assistance in order to obtain housing and retain in (rapid re-housing)

Four categories of eligible costs:

·         Financial assistance:  short-term rental assistance (3 months); medium-term rental assistance (maximum 18 months); security deposits; utlity depostings, utility payments; moving costs assistance; motel/hotel vouchers

o   Payments must be paid to landlords/utility companies not directly to program recipients

o   Maximum benefit 18 months

·         Housing relocation and stabilization services

o   Case management- coordination, monitoring and delivery of services related to meeting the housing needs of program participants and helping them obtain housing stability

o   Services includes: counseling, developing, security and coordinating services; monitoring and evaluation program participant progress

o   Outreach and engagement: funds may be used to publicize the availability of programs

o   Housing search placement:

o   Legal services:

o   Credit repair

·         Data collection and evaluation

o   Requires the data collection and reporting b e conducted through HMIS or a comparable client-level database that is compliance with HMIS  standards

o   Reasonable and appropriate costs with operating an HMIS for collection/reporting data and analyze patterns of use are eligible

o   Eligible costs: HMIS software/user license; leasing or purchasing needed computer requirement; staff, including training. 

o   Only those jurisdictions that do not have an HMIS already implemented may use a portion of these funds for HMIS implementation or start up activities. 

o   Evaluation: grantees and subgrantees must comply if asked to participate in HUD sponsored research and evaluation

·         Administrative costs – 5% maximum

o   Pre-award activities

o   Accounting of grant funds

o   Preparing reports for submission to HUD

o   Also includes training for staff

o   Does not include costs of issuing financial assistance, providing housing relocation, and stabilization services or carry out eligible data collection and evaluation

Eligible costs:

·         Utilities

·         Moving costs

·         Security deposting

·         Rent in a new unit

·         Storage fees

·         Other financial costs or services

What HPRP is not:

·         Mortgage assistance program

·         Funds cannot pay for mortgage costs or legal or other fees associated with retaining homeowners housing

·         Discharge planning is not eligible activity

Reporting requirements

·         Quarterly reports

·         Closely tracking grantee expenditures via quarterly reporting and IDIS

·         Required

o   Initial performance report – due 10/10/09

§  Total amount of funds with sub-grantees and total amounts awarded to each

§  Funds allocated by eligible activity

§  Estimate # of unduplicated individuals and families served

§  Estimate number of new jobs created and retained

o   Quarterly Performance Report

§  Funds expended by HPRP activity type

§  Number of unduplicated persons

o   Annual Performance Report

§  Total numbers of persons served- unduplicated

§  Funds expended by HPRP activity type

§  # of jobs created and retained