Beginning the Coordinated Entry Process


Published on

Powerpoint presentation from a webinar on Coordinated Entry, held on 2/14/12 by Building Changes.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Beginning the Coordinated Entry Process

  1. 1. Beginning the Coordinated Entry Process Seth Howard - Building Changes Tedd Kelleher - Department of Commerce Troy Christensen - Pierce County February 14, 2012
  2. 2. Learning Objectives• Learn more about what is going on in different counties around the state• How to begin the coordinated entry plan in your county• Who should be involved in the planning process• What have been some common stumbling blocks in counties that have coordinated entry systems 2
  3. 3. Coordinated EntryA uniform method of client intake which may be customized for families orsingle adults, etc. There must at the very least be a common tool at intake that consistently screens for eligibility and need for housing and services (including type and intensity). -Department of Commerce Administrative Requirements for Consolidated Homeless Grant All Lead and Sub Grantees must have a system in place by 12/31/14 3
  4. 4. Different Types of Coordinated Entry Physically/Geographically Centralized- a single location, building, room or spaceCentralized Telephone- one call access to services (i.e. 211, Clark County Emergency Shelter Clearinghouse)Decentralized- Multiple coordinated locations throughout the community or county 4
  5. 5. Advantages and Disadvantages Physically Centralized Decentralized Centralized TelephonePhysical Single, centralized Space for MultipleRequirements location Phones/staff coordinated locationsAdvantages Fewer sites needed, Easier to handle More locations= Control over large # of clients, easier access for consistency Cost clientsDrawbacks Accessibility for Need for additional Less control over clients referrals /in person consistency of meeting can slow services, Cost down process 5
  6. 6. House Bill 1811 and Informed ConsentHB 1811 allows social service providers to screen clients overthe phone and enter their information into HMIS, providedthey attain informed oral consent from the client over thephone, and informed written consent the first time a clientmeets in person with the agency. 6
  7. 7. “Planning across disciplines takes time. There needs to be aclear and transparent communication structure and processwith lots of opportunity for dialogue. And there needs to bea point at which decisions are clearly made and notconstantly revisited.” 7
  8. 8. Making the Transition to Coordinated Intake• Involve all stakeholders (not just those in the homelessness system)• Use the Stakeholder Analysis to look at the entire system for strengths and weaknesses• Get buy-in from providers• Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate 8
  9. 9. Pierce County• Telephone Based, multiple offices around the county where assessment is available. If transportation is an issue, outreach is possible• Funded by Document Recording Fees• Steering Committee made up of funders and consultants that were informed by a group of providers and people who were currently or formerly experiencing homelessness.• Biggest Challenge: Demand 9
  10. 10. Snohomish County• Telephone or in person at multiple coordinated locations• Pilot phase: families only• Design Process: Strategic Advisory Coordinating Committee made up of key stakeholders and consultants, that was informed by a large number of frontline and management staff who worked on specific committees.• Hindsight learning: more involvement from domestic violence providers and churches. 10
  11. 11. Kitsap County• Multiple coordinated sites, appointments can be made by phone• Funded by Document Recording Fees• Open transparent decision making process that included critical constituencies• Challenge providers to do business differently 11
  12. 12. Clark County• Telephone based• Serves all populations, except for those in immediate domestic violence crisis: transferred to DV shelter and advocacy line• Expanding to prevention efforts in 2012, with system-wide common assessment form• Funded through Document Recording Fees, local and private donations• Staffed by 1.8 FTE and telephones answered by volunteers 12
  13. 13. Whatcom County• Multiple coordinated sites• Serves all populations (including prevention)• Funded by Document Recording Fees, CHGs, and other local grants• The need for Multi-Agency HMIS data sharing agreements• Never underestimate the willingness of independent agencies to collaborate if you offer the right mix of incentives 13
  14. 14. Additional ResourcesCase Studies from today: One Way In: The Advantages of Introducing System-Wide Coordinated Entry for Homeless Families 14