|
Santa Clara Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homelessness
Technology Committee
Minutes of Meeting
January 9, 2002, 3:30pm
InnVision Administrative Offices
Present: Anne Ehresman, InnVision, Candy Capogrossi, Housing Authority, Denise Scovel, InnVision, Jaclyn Fabre, Cupertino Community Services, Jenny Niklaus, Support Network for Battered Women, Jerry Burstein, Consultant, Katherine Finnigan, Emergency Housing Consortium, Kathy Neilendar, InnVision, Margaret Gregg, County of Santa Clara Homeless Coordinator, Ray Allen, Chaithra Mahesha & Marnie DeBenedetti, Community Technology Alliance, Trish Crowder, San Jose Family Shelter
Introductions were made by all present.
Subject of Meeting: Santa Clara County HMIS Project;
Begin practical discussions of what the system will look like.
Ray Allen circulated handout (appended to these minutes), which set out a number of issues that needed to be addressed. It was recognized that decisions on all the points in the paper would not be possible immediately. It was suggested that discussion concentrate on the general and overall questions of what the system needed to do and once that was decided, how the system should do it.
Decisions Made by Technology Committee
╖ Committee made unanimous decision to recommend a centralized server for the HMIS database. This was considered the most cost effective and least time consuming method for all agencies.
╖ An individual's social security number should not be used as the unique identifier for the database.
╖ Data entry should be as "real-time" as possible. (As data is entered it gets sent directly to the centralized server.)
╖ Design for the bigger picture.
Discussion on the following points emerged:
╖ Big Picture: System should be designed to look at the big picture of health and human services not concentrate only on homelessness. Homeless shelters would be the initial users with other agencies to come on board at a later stage.
╖ Data capture: More than beds used each day needs to be counted. System should be able to count units of service. System should capture as much information as possible. You never know when
you're going to need it.
╖ Duplicate Service: System should be able to identify duplications of service.
╖ Availability of Information: System should be able to transfer data in "real-time" while maintaining real-time interaction. (As soon as agreed shared data is entered, it goes straight to the shared database for others to see.)
╖ Confidentiality for special circumstances: System has to be able to completely encrypt records for certain groups such as mental health and domestic violence customers.
╖ Ease of use: System implementation and maintenance methods least draining to the agencies are of high importance.
╖ Security of Data: It was explained that the information in the database would be extremely secure. Not only would it be password protected, but it would be encrypted. This way the network administrator
wouldn't even be able to see anything that could identify an individual. This is the same type of technology used for on-line bank transactions, on-line credit card purchases, etc.
╖ Centralized vs. Decentralized database architecture: The pros and cons were discussed for each type. (See hand out for more details) After considering the cost in dollars and time, the centralized system was unanimously agreed upon by all present.
╖ Smart Cards vs. Bar Code Cards: Smart Cards were brought up as a possibility. Concern was mentioned that the smart card was too much of an investment given how much people might lose them. Some agencies are already using bar code cards and seem to like them.
o Would the new system be able to accommodate some agencies using bar code cards and some not?
╖ Use of Data: Concern was mentioned about the possibility of data being used in a negative way against a consumer or agency. But the advantage of seeing a more complete picture about the individual being helped far outweighs the negative possibilities.
╖ Current Mandated Databases: Some agencies are already entering data into centralized databases such as for mental health and domestic violence. They
don't have time to double enter into the HMIS system. How can we make the HMIS implementation beneficial for them, and minimize duplication of input-effort?
╖ Existing Agency Databases: Most of these can be easily converted into the new HMIS. Especially if based in MS Access or File Maker Pro.
╖ Shared Consumer Information and Confidentiality: How much information is appropriate to share between agencies? What kind of permission or consent will be needed from the consumer? Everyone was excited about the possibilities of more effectively helping consumers.
╖ Duplicate Entries: If a record is completely encrypted, (for whatever reason) and the person goes to another agency for help and gets entered again into the system, how will the computer handle the duplication? (This will be checked with software providers.)
╖ Passwords and Employee Turnover: How would new employees get passwords? The Network Administrator would create unique passwords for each new user. It would be important to keep track of data sharing agreements between specific agencies.
╖ Terminology: A few words seem to have different definitions at different agencies. Such as "intake," "registration," "case management," etc. Agreement will need to be reached on definitions in order to facilitate detailed discussions.
╖ Required Information: Discussion was begun as to what the minimum requirements of information should be. HUD will dictate some of this.
╖ Shareable Information: At some point, the information that should be sharable to all agencies will need to be decided. Some of this information would not be required to gather by all agencies, but if gathered it would be shared.
╖ Maintenance Costs: How would system continue to operate after funding from HUD stops? Fundraising? Grants? Monthly fee from agencies? What about agencies that do not meet federal standards? Will HUD cover their costs in the beginning?
╖ Memoranda of understanding on the scope of the system would need to be agreed.
Next Steps:
╖ Committee to read and respond to hand out. Adding any concerns or issues not identified in the paper.
╖ Committee to think about what information would be appropriate to share.
╖ Next meeting to be announced.
|