State System Administrator Operations Briefing

Transcription

1 State System Administrator Operations Briefing Presented to the Advisory Task Force (ATF) on Contents 1. January recap... 2 Notable developments and achievements... 2 Where did Wilder spend its time? Follow-ups from last month s ATF meeting... 3 FIXED: LSA Access to Complex Agency providers (aka The Mark Herzfeld issue )... 3 PENDING: Restructure Round 2 work plan and time estimates What community partners can do to maximize SSA resources AHAR reportability/usability and HMIS participation rates... 5 About AHAR... 5 About Minnesota s AHAR submission process... 5 AHAR data is submitted in... 5 Change in Reportable/Usable by CoC... 6 Reportable/Usable results & HMIS Participation rates Operations Calendar... 8 Innovation focus areas for February Status of HMIS contracts Helpdesk Stats (Jun 2015-Jan 2016) HMIS Funding requested via NOFA Hearsay about Bowman s upcoming ServicePoint 6 and ART upgrades ServicePoint ART may be replaced by the end of Restructure Round 2 update New approach to Verify & Save problems Ballpark budget for Bowman costs Last updated February 15, of 13

2 1. January recap Notable developments and achievements AHAR usability and HMIS participation results now in Slight improvement overall - Overall, Minnesota s AHAR submissions were slightly more usable in 2015 (86%) than in 2014 (85%). 6 of 10 CoCs had 100% usable results (again!) Same as 2014, the following CoCs submissions were deemed 100% usable: Central, Northeast, Northwest, Southwest, St. Louis and West Central CoCs. 1 CoC had 100% usable results AND 100% HMIS participation Congrats to West Central! CoC gains & losses in usability Two CoCs (Hennepin and SMAC) improved their usability since 2014; one (Southeast) had a reduction. 2. VI-SPDAT 2.0 launched for all CoCs Wilder has provided written instructions and an instructional video to assist LSAs in "turning it on" by attaching it to a Servicepoint provider 3. Catholic Charities-ESG/AHAR Conversations continued with Catholic Charities on compliance with ESG requirements and full HMIS participation for its two high-volume shelters (Dorothy Day and Higher Ground). 4. Restructure Round 2 Last month s ATF meeting led to scheduling of a community discussion with Bowman, Wilder, DSS members and Kat Freeman, a HUD TA rep recommended by Matthew Ayres. Bowman s and Wilder s many conversations leading up to the meeting resulted in identification of a promising new solution for Verify & Save problems that could mean big savings in Wilder time and costs to Bowman. Heading Home Minnesota / Family Housing Fund committed to fund part of the Bowman costs for the new solution, which means we can keep going without delays. (Thanks Cathy ten Broeke & Lisa Koenig!) 5. ServicePoint 6 upgrade timing and ART status We have received further confirmation that Bowman will be upgrading Servicepoint and replacing the ART reporting tool with a different reporting solution. We understand their goal is to put a new reporting tool in place by the end of Nothing has been officially announced yet, and there is no word on what the new reporting tool will be. Regardless, these changes will represent two highly significant (and probably costly) changes for our community, and will need to be figured into future budgets and staffing plans. Last updated February 15, of 13

3 Where did Wilder spend its time? Total Time % of Total Hours Nov Dec Jan Nov Dec Jan Trunk (HUD-CoC & related) % 79% 79% Branch (Other fed/state funding streams) % 20% 20% Adjacent (Provider contracts) % 1% 1% Monthly Total Hrs % 100% 100% 3-Mo Total Hrs 5248 Selected projects/efforts 3-Mo % 3-mo % Jan Nov Dec Jan Project Hrs Total Hrs Total Hrs HMIS 2.0 (Trunk) % 18% CoC/LSA support (Trunk - Innovation) % 3% Coordinated Entry (Trunk - Innovation) % 3% Lead Agency transfer & comm (Trunk) % 3% MN-HSG FHPAP (Branch) % 3% AHAR (Trunk) % 3% HUD-ESG (Branch - 6 grantees) % 2% MN-HSG LTH (Branch) % 2% % Monthly Total Hrs 30% 43% 35% % 35% 2. Follow-ups from last month s ATF meeting FIXED: LSA Access to Complex Agency providers (aka The Mark Herzfeld issue ) Issue: LSAs did not have access to some Complex Agency Provider Admin Pages in Servicepoint. Background: A Complex Agency is one where the providers are not directly within the CoC Tree. Examples of Complex Agencies are LSS, Catholic Charities, and The Salvation Army. These agencies have their own tree, outside of the CoC. LSAs automatically have access to Provider Admin Pages within their CoC Tree. In order to provide LSAs with access to Complex Agency providers, additional configuration is required. Solution: SSA staff assessed which LSAs were missing access to providers at Complex Agencies in their CoC. LSA users were then given access via configuration of Resource Groups. Resource Groups allow LSAs to have access to Provider Admin Pages for any provider listed as part of that Resource Group. Status: Fix complete Result: All LSAs now have access to the Provider Admin Pages for all homeless service providers in their CoC, including Complex Agency providers. LSAs do not have access to Complex Agency providers for nonhomeless services, as these are created and maintained by the agency for internal (non-hmis) purposes only. Last updated February 15, of 13

4 PENDING: Restructure Round 2 work plan and time estimates Wilder is updating its internal work plan and time estimates to account for a promising new solution to Verify & Save problems and will share it with the ATF when complete. 3. What community partners can do to maximize SSA resources 1. Leadership across the system a. CES Help us identify where/how to get answers to questions that arise about Coordinated Entry b. State FY Change process Clarify what this year s process is for determining the HMIS changes to be implemented as of July 1, Please be sure to include a check-in with Wilder before finalization. Best timing for Wilder to have complete specs on the changes is late April or early May. 2. CoCs & LSAs a. CE in the sandbox - Set up, test and document your CE systems in the HMIS CE training site. Request assistance from Wilder or Michigan resources as questions arise (or if you re not sure what to do next). b. Get to know all projects in the CoC and how they operate in Servicepoint. i. Create a spreadsheet that lists all the projects in your CoC and the corresponding Servicepoint ID. ii. Pull the Project Descriptor Elements Report and review it on a regular basis. Wilder has created this report to help you identify all projects in your CoC: ART-->SSA Report Gallery-->System Admin-->CoC Support-->Project Descriptor Elements iii. Set up a meeting with Wilder staff to review how your HIC relates to projects in Servicepoint. Anything we can do to better align HIC and ServicePoint projects will save all of us time when it comes to the next AHAR. c. Update the Federal Partner Funding field - Wilder will distribute instructions this week. This is necessary for the System Performance Measures. 3. Hennepin County Help Wilder find the right person at Hennepin County who can tell us which providers should remain in the Hennepin County tree-(not the CoC, just providers that should remain as Hennepin County providers). We will be moving all the FHPAP providers out, but remain somewhat unclear about which should stay. Last updated February 15, of 13

5 4. AHAR reportability/usability and HMIS participation rates About AHAR According to Wikipedia: Perhaps the most accurate and current data on homelessness in the United States is reported annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (AHAR). The AHAR report relies on data from two sources: single-night, point-in-time counts of both sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations reported on the Continuum of Care applications to HUD; and counts of the sheltered homeless population over a full year provided by a sample of communities based on data in their local Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS). About Minnesota s AHAR submission process Submitting data for the AHAR is a complex, time consuming and iterative process that involves Wilder Research staff, CoC staff and HMIS Agency staff all working together to ensure the highest level of HMIS data quality possible. Wilder staff enter and submit the data via HUD s HDX, but CoC Coordinators provide final sign-off. Wilder staff also work closely with an Abt Associates representative who reviews Minnesota s submitted data, requests clarifications and improvements, and ultimately determines if the data will be deemed reportable and usable for the AHAR. AHAR data is submitted in Minnesota s AHAR data is submitted in 224 distinct. Every shell must be submitted via HUD HDX, but at least 51% of the projects in each shell must be participating in HMIS in order for the shell to be considered reportable by HUD. Furthermore, each shell must meet additional HUD standards for data quality and bed utilization in order to be considered usable. Here s how we get to 224 : Minnesota s CoCs represent 16 AHAR sites. Six of our 10 CoCs have both sample and contributing sites. The remaining four are contributing only. Each site is comprised of 2 categories: The two categories are All Persons data and Veterans data. Each category has 7. There is a Family and an Individual shell for each of the following types of housing: Emergency Shelter (ES), Transitional Housing (TH) and Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH). Additionally, each category has a Summary shell. 16x2x7 = 224 AHAR for Minnesota. Last updated February 15, of 13

6 Change in Reportable/Usable by CoC CoC # 2014 usable NUMBER 2015 usable Gain/loss in usable 2014 usable PERCENT 2015 usable Gain/loss in usable Central % 100% Hennepin % 50% 7% Northeast % 100% Northwest % 100% Ramsey % 71% SMAC % 79% 14% Southeast % 64% -7% Southwest % 100% St. Louis % 100% West Central % 100% % 86% 1% Note: For purposes of this chart, "usable" means both reportable and usable as defined by HUD. Last updated February 15, of 13

7 Reportable/Usable results & HMIS Participation rates Minnesota's AHAR: 2015 Reportable/Usable results & HMIS Participation rates Individual shell results (results are identical for All Persons and Veterans) Summary of results by Site (multiplied by 2 to account for identical All Persons and Veterans results) MN COC Site 500 Hennepin 500 Hennepin 501 Ramsey Contributing - Minneapolis Sample - Greater Hennepin Contributing - Greater Ramsey ES-Fam ES-Ind TH-Fam TH-Ind PSH-Fam PSH-Ind Summary Not usable; Participation is below 51% Usable; Participation improvement is possible Usable; Participation is best possible 100% 66% NR NR 90% NR NU % ZP 100% NR 62% NR NU % ZP 100% NR 100% 100% NU Ramsey Sample - St. Paul 100% NU 1 66% 86% 99% 76% NU Southeast Contributing 69% NR 94% 55% 97% 100% NU Southeast Sample - Rochester 100% NR NR ZP 100% 76% NU SMACC Contributing 100% 100% 100% 88% 86% 90% usable SMACC Sample - Washington Co. NR ZP 69% NR 100% 100% NU Northeast Contributing 100% 100% 100% 100% 88% 91% usable Central Contributing 91% 74% 82% 59% 96% 61% usable Northwest Contributing 100% 66% 100% 100% 91% 93% usable Northwest Sample - Norman Co. ZP ZP ZP ZP ZP ZP usable West Central Contributing 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% usable West Central Sample - Moorhead 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% usable St. Louis County Contributing 76% 94% 100% 100% 79% 100% usable Southwest Contributing 76% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% usable 2 12 Subtotal TOTAL This shell was deemed reportable but not usable due to the poor quality of Catholic Charities' data. Union Gospel Mission would be reported here but it is non-participating. HMIS improvements by either agency could result in a usable shell Key: NR = Not Reportable because HMIS Participation is less than 51%. NU = Not Usable due to low data quality or poor utilization rates. X% = HMIS participation rate ZP = Zero Providers (no usability penalty to site/coc) Not reportable or Not usable Usable; participation rate can be improved Usable; participation is best possible Last updated February 15, of 13

8 5. Operations Calendar Starting in September 2015, Wilder launched use of an internally developed Operations Calendar as a tool to aid in resource planning, communication and transparency. The Calendar includes all activities and projects that are expected to take place in the foreseeable future and identifies the anticipated number of HMIS staff hours needed to accomplish the work for each month. Note: While this tool is a good starting place for communicating about all the various aspects of HMIS SSA work, it is fairly crude in its capabilities and not designed do a number of desirable things such as: Differentiate time commitments for different levels of staff Compare estimated hours to actual hours Estimate costs Update itself, thereby saving LOTS of time Innovation focus areas for February 2016 The following chart shows the Innovation areas where Wilder expects to spend about 34% of its time in February. Hrs CE planning/implementation Continue developing work plan; provide support and testing on CE set-ups (assume MI will supplement significantly); plan for CE user training needs; participate in CE meetings (CoC/IDG/etc); provide input on question bank & core questions 286 CE/data sharing CE/VI-SPDAT Phase West Central; assessment naming convention document; merge script review Implement VI-SPDAT: create instructions and provide training for LSAs to "turn on" DSS meetings (2x/mo) 42 Expanded Access - ART support Expanded Access - LSA support Support ART Ad hoc users; develop ART report spec form New SP user role for LSAs; LSA-Wilder agreement; Monthly LSA calls; Prepare for Yr2 support/communication plans; reporting groups for LSAs/funders; LSA support reports Restructure Round 2 Implement Verify & Save fixes and new user role. 84 Total 514 % of all HMIS hours for Feb 34% Last updated February 15, of 13

9 6. Status of HMIS contracts A confluence of happenings between May and November 2015 resulted in a rough patch where many of our funding stream contracts were technically expired for extended periods of time. Luckily, our contracting colleagues at the state were responsive and patient. The following chart shows the current status of HMIS contracts, a big improvement over where we were in November HMIS Contract status 2016 Nov Jan Feb Current Expired / close to execution 6 5 Expired / start of process Pending (new) 2 2 Exploring 3 3 Total Helpdesk Stats (Jun 2015-Jan 2016) HMIS Helpdesk: Total Cases by Month # of Cases June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Last updated February 15, of 13

10 8. HMIS Funding requested via NOFA Funding requests via NOFA CoC Requests Wilder submitted to CoCs Requests CoC submitted to HUD Tier 1 CoC Rank Tier 2 (top) Tier 2 (middle/ bottom) Central 61,099 41,099 41,099 Hennepin 49,994 49,994 49,994 Hennepin - New 111, , ,147 Northeast 19,999 19,999 19,999 Northwest 10,658 10,658 10,658 Ramsey 82,083 82,083 82,083 Ramsey - New 62,205 26,603 26,603 SMAC 140, , ,872 Southeast 29,217 25,000 25,000 Southeast - New 18,498 not accepted Southwest 35,500 35,500 35,500 St. Louis 39,280 39,280 39,280 St. Louis - New 32,447 not accepted West Central 33,359 33,359 33,359 $726,802 $660,594 $384,990 $53,358 $222,246 Renewal 477,844 New 182, funding: $503, ,594 $660, Hearsay about Bowman s upcoming ServicePoint 6 and ART upgrades ServicePoint 6.0 Nothing has been officially announced yet, but Wilder is consistently hearing unofficially from Bowman resources that they are working to release an initial Version 6.0 upgrade to Servicepoint by the fall of If Bowman stays true to this timeline, Wilder would likely recommend for Minnesota to start its upgrade process in January of ART may be replaced by the end of 2016 You may have noticed that ART has been going offline quite a bit lately. That, and several other reasons are why Bowman is moving towards a new reporting tool by the end of this year. We understand that the current plan is to have both ART and the new reporting software co-existing in the fall/winter season of This will allow users to attempt to reproduce their reports from ART into the new software. This may or may not work out; many internet browsers are phasing out Java support and without Java, ART will cease to operate in an editable fashion. Current ART reports and any reports requested will have to be recreated in whatever software we use when it becomes available; the new tool will not support ART reports. The current advice is that we should assume the original cost to create a report will be the cost to re-create it. Reports supplied and maintained by Bowman (such as the ART Gallery and the Dashboard Last updated February 15, of 13

11 Reports) are currently being reviewed and will be reproduced in the new software based on demand and usage. Users will need to be trained on the new reporting software. Bowman staff anticipate they will offer trainings in Winter 2016/Spring 2017, with Boot Camp 2017 being the first event to incorporate it on a large-group scale. At this time there are no ART trainings scheduled for this year's Bowman Boot Camp and Collaborate summits. 10. Restructure Round 2 update New approach to Verify & Save problems From: Colleen G. O Brien Sent: Friday, January 29, :40 PM To: tenbroeke, Cathy (MHFA) Koenig, Lisa H (MHFA) Subject: Restructure Background & add'l cost ballpark Hello Cathy & Lisa: Following up to my and memo of January 6, this is to: 1. Let you know about a promising new approach Wilder is exploring with Bowman to address some of the Restructure-related problems we are experiencing in Minnesota s HMIS. If the approach works, we will be able to save a lot of costs to Bowman (also lots of Wilder time) that were described in my memo of January 6, Request a commitment, by 2/4/16, of $23,000 in additional funding. This will allow us to move forward with the new approach and to complete custom programming work with Bowman before a window of opportunity is lost. Promising new approach identified While preparing for a community discussion about Bowman s proposed approach to fixing the Restructure problems, Wilder and Bowman identified an alternate approach that both parties agreed would be preferable to the original if it works. (DSS members heard about both options on January 20 and also support the new approach.) The new approach would utilize one of the SOWs that has already been defined (referred to as B in the attached) in a different way than was originally envisioned. The script created by this SOW would be run in realtime on an as-needed basis to correct the Restructure data problems that are occurring, thereby eliminating the need for two other SOWs that were part of the original solution. The attached document provides an overview of the ballpark budget needed for both of the solutions that have been defined to date. Solution #1 is the approach I described in my 1/6/2016 memo; we would need $63,000 in additional funding to implement it. Solution #2 is the new approach we are exploring; we may be able to do this with just $23,000 in additional funding. The one thing to be aware of is that Bowman cannot guarantee they can create the B script in a way that is light enough to run in realtime. The only way we will know for sure is to have Bowman create the script and do their best to optimize it for realtime performance. Last updated February 15, of 13

12 Request a commitment of $23,000 in additional funding by 2/4/16 In order to move forward with Solution #2, we need a commitment of $23,000 in additional funding. Furthermore, because certain aspects of this project are highly time sensitive (they must move forward right away, or we may lose our opportunity for a year or more) we are requesting the commitment by Thursday, 2/4/16. Actual receipt of funds would not be needed until after Wilder approves invoices from Bowman for payment on May 1 or after. Note: Should commitment of the full $23,000 not be possible within the 2/4/16 timeframe, a commitment of $15,000 would allow us to get started on the most urgent aspects of Solution #2 while the remaining funds are being located. Thank you for your consideration of this request. I will be happy to answer any questions that arise. Sincerely, Colleen Colleen G. O Brien HMIS Project Director Wilder Research colleen.obrien@wilder.org Last updated February 15, of 13

13 Ballpark budget for Bowman costs Restructure Round 2: Ballpark Budget for Bowman costs Bowman Restructure costs w/ V&S Solution #1 Bowman Restructure costs w/ V&S Solution #2 1 Bowman SOW costs 2 A : Hennepin County Visibility Issues TBD TBD 3 A : Funder Visibility Fix 1,000 1,000 4 A3-TBD: Regional Visibility Issues TBD TBD 5 A4-TBD: Salvation Army Visibility Issues TBD TBD 6 A : CoC Visibility Fix TBD TBD 7 A6-TBD: Provider Restructure TBD TBD 8 A : New LSA User Role 1,000 1,000 9 B : V&S: Client Record Default Visibility 13,500 n/a Update 10 B : V&S: Add visibility to Sub-assessment 12,000 n/a 11 B : V&S: Script to apply retroactive 5,250 5,250 visibility to client record and sub-assessment recordsets 12 B : V&S: Add Verify and Save 4,500 4,500 functionality to ShelterPoint Check-in and Checkout 13 Bowman's Total Estimated SOW costs 37,250 11, Multiply Line 13 by 1.2 (this is Bowman's total 44,700 14,100 guaranteed not-to-exceed cost for known SOWs) 16 Add Wilder's best guess for cost of 9,000 9,000 5 additional "TBD" SOWs 17 Total of lines 15 & 16 53,700 23, Contingency budget for unforeseen issues that 16,110 6,930 arise (30% of line 17) 19 Total of lines 17 & 18 (This is the Ballpark $69,810 $30,030 estimate of Bowman costs remaining) 20 Less grant funds remaining -7,100-7, Ballpark estimate of additional funding needed $62,710 $22,930 Blue text identifies SOWs which are urgently needed as of 1/29/16. Last updated February 15, of 13