Santa Clara County Collaborative

On Affordable Housing and Homeless Issues

Technology Subcommittee

August 3, 2005 2:00 û 4:00 pm

United Way Silicon Valley

Present:  Kitty Mason and Maria Sandoval, Catholic Charities; Jeff Davis, City Team;  Jerry Burstein, Community Consultant; Ray Allen (Chair), Betsy Arroyo, Michelle Ogburn, Marc Byrd and Steve Sangervasi, Community Technology Alliance; Mark Foote, EHC LifeBuilders; Rosalva Martinez, Eduardo Moriera, Robert Smart and Anna Hemmerle, Health Connections;  Julie James, Housing Authority of Santa Clara County; Wolfram Alderson, Charlotte Pizzo and Kevin McKenney, InnVision;  Alejandra Perez, New Directions; Loc Chau, Aracely Miron and Marizela Maciel, Sacred Heart Community Service; Trish Crowder, San Jose Family Shelter;  Alison Dougherty, Santa Clara Adult Education

Introductions and Announcements

Introductions were made by all present.   

New Data Reporting and Integration Tool

Powerful new software had been obtained by Community Technology Alliance from Business Objects. The data integrator software (DIXI) will help facilitate movement and merging of data from multiple sources.  Integration of the data in HelpSCC into HMIS SCC would be used to pilot the software.  EHC LifeBuilders requested involvement in a pilot of the proposed new reporting framework application of the Business Objects reporting software (BOXI).

Setting Standards and Parameters for Sharing Aggregate Data with the Community

It was noted that while collecting data does not in itself reduce homelessness, data from HMIS can be used to shape our shared response, and may be used to revamp allocation of resources.  Collection of data is Community Technology Alliance's responsibility:  CTA is not currently responsible for interpretation of this data.  Recommendations relating to data analysis and interpretation are contained in the County's Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness "keys to Housing" which places responsibility in the County's Office of Affordable Housing.  The Technology Committee û possibly represented by a Working Group -- should make recommendations to the Collaborative on the standards and parameters for sharing aggregate data.

The Committee discussed the following:

What do we want to know?

What aggregate data do we want to share with the community?

How should we determine what data is valuable to policy makers and the general public?

Who should issue reports on behalf of the Collaborative?

Where û and how often û should reports be released?

Is there any data that we should be collecting that we aren't?

The group discussed what aggregate data could lead to answers to these and other questions. 

For most questions Universal Data Elements would need to be collected to determine the demographic of clients served.  These fields, per the HUD Data Standards are:

Name; Social Security Number; Date of Birth;

                        Ethnicity; Race; Gender; Veteran's Status;

                        Disabling Condition;      Prior Residence

                        Zip Code of Last Permanent Address

Suggested questions to consider included:

• How many people are receiving shelter on any given night?
• How many people accessed homeless services?
• How many people are homeless?
• How many people changed their income?
• How many people were in transitional housing?
• How many people were in permanent supportive housing?
• How many of the total unduplicated clients were chronically homeless?  (Data required to determine the number of chronically homeless was noted: Disabling condition; Universal Data Elements; family size; extent of homelessness; years since last permanent residence; Case Manager Assessment.)
• Where do the homeless come from?  (Data required to determine this was noted: Last known zip; last known residence; where did you sleep last night?)
• What services, and combination of services, are leading people to housing?
• What changes to client's circumstances result in housing? (Data required was noted: destination; reason for leaving; increased income; receiving benefits; other goals met.)
• What doesn't work?  What are the shared characteristics and services received of those who find housing and/or increase income compared to shared characteristics and services received of those who don't?
• How many residents/former residents of specific jurisdictions received services and what were the outcomes?
• How many residents/former residents of specific jurisdictions were homeless?
• Does data collection improve service? Reduce homelessness?  Reduce costs?  Eliminate redundancy?
• What changes in the answers to these questions do we see over time?
• How many years of homelessness has our Continuum of Care prevented?
• What are the key causes of homelessness and shared characteristics of our clients?

It was agreed to establish a Working Group to address all questions annotated above;  to determine what other considerations are required to best use HMIS data to understand and respond to homelessness in the County; and how to share aggregate data with stakeholders, funders and policy makers, with participating agencies and with the general public.  Wolfram, Jerry, Trish, Betsy, Michelle, Aracely, Kevin and a representative of EHC LifeBuilders agreed to participate and Wolfram agreed to chair. Representatives of the County Office of Affordable Housing and San Jose û Housing would be invited to attend.[1].

HMIS SCC Data Quality

Those present were reminded of several requirements for data quality.  Currently, only seven of fourteen emergency shelters were using ShelterPoint.  All emergency shelter providers were again reminded to use ShelterPoint as agreed at the March Technology Committee meeting. The group acknowledged that unique circumstances could lead to incomplete data û some programs (emergency shelter and some specialized service providers) would not collect all the information on SCC Standardized Intake.  [2]

Currently, many Universal Data Elements are null.  All present were encouraged to continue to collect all data previously agreed û all of the HUD Universal Data Elements and Program Level Elements -- as the minimum data entry standard

InnVision would set up an agency-wide HMIS user group.  It was noted that it would be helpful to identify which HMIS users were making mistakes in data quality.  It was pointed out that Agency Administrators already have this capability through the existing ServicePoint Report Writer.

Data Quality and Null Fields

It was noted that there had been some improvement to the past client records previously identified as requiring attention at the last Technology Committee meeting and everyone was thanked for their proactive response.  However, new clients added since April 1 showed deterioration in data quality.  This was of particular concern.  Answers to some important questions could not be shared with the community because data was not inclusive enough.  Discussion ensued on how to get more complete data, particularly for the chronic homeless, a difficult question to answer on intake.  Those present were reminded that homeless households are NOT chronically homeless by HUD definition.

It was acknowledged that there were some problems with exception reports previously issued by CTA.   Further consideration would help determine whether reports should be distributed to the originating agency and/or to all agencies that input any data on a client with a null data field.

The value of the weekly exception reports was stressed and it was agreed that exception reports should be issued on a regular basis. It was stressed that additional information on clients should be added to the client record each time a case manager met with a client irrespective of whether they were the original intake agency.

Opportunities for Improvement                                                                                                                                                                                                

All present were asked to suggest opportunities to improve the quality of the data and for easing the process for users.  City Team, scheduled to come on board, noted that while the 52 HMIS questions were not burdensome for clients in transitional housing, the length of time for intake for emergency shelter clients would demand a great deal of front-end work.

It was suggested and agreed that a Special Intake form (paper) and Assessment (software û with fewer intake screens) for high volume, emergency shelters and certain specialized service providers be designed and distributed. Assurances were requested of other agencies that in the case of shorter intake forms for high volume shelters, that other agencies "touching" these clients would complete the remainder of the fields.

Many present were concerned about the eventual collection of complete data on clients who entered the continuum of care through emergency shelters using the abbreviated form. It was therefore further agreed that, for the "rest of the story" Continuum members commit to collect the remainder of Standardized Intake form, and that every inputting agency would strive to collect as much information as possible.  CTA would look at the possibility of flagging records collected using the short form to highlight the fact that additional information on the client was needed. 

It was further noted that swipe cards would greatly help with emergency shelter intake.

New Software Feature:  Locking Fields

Community Technology Alliance staff announced that the new ServicePoint upgrade would include the ability for a community to lock fields, so that users would  not be able to move forward unless certain fields are completed.  It was recommend that Universal Data Elements and some agreed on Program Data Elements specifically the "currently homeless" field be locked.  Universal data fields were:

1.      Name

2.      Social Security Number (this field could not be locked)

3.      Date of Birth

4.      Ethnicity & Race

5.      Gender

6.      Veteran's Status

7.      Disabling Condition

8.      Residence Prior to Program Entry

9.      Zip Code of Last Permanent Address

10.  Program Entry/Exit Date û System Generated

All present agreed that universal data fields and the currently homeless field be locked and that locking other program fields be revisited at the next Technology Committee meeting.  Those present were also asked to bring feedback to that meeting on the positive and negative impacts of locking fields. 

Swipe Card Update

It was announced that ServicePoint had made software modifications requested by CTA to enable the use of swipe card technology. All agencies would have access to this specialized technology.  Piloting of swipe cards would begin with Cecil White Center.  Any agencies interested in implementing swipe cards were encouraged to contact Community Technology Alliance.

Protecting HMIS from Public Access

Because HMIS SCC operated on a Public Forum HUD required the system be able to verify the identity of the computer attempting to access HMIS.  Details of this were set forth in the final HUD Data and Technical Standards issued in July 2004.  Specifically, to quote directly from page 45931 of the standard, the requirement stated the following:

4.3.1. System Security

Public Access. Baseline Requirement.

HMIS that use public forums for data collection or reporting must be secured to allow only connections from previously approved computers and systems through Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificates, or extranets that limit access based on the Internet Provider (IP) address, or similar means. A public forum includes systems with public access to any part of the computer through the Internet, modems, bulletin boards, public kiosks or similar arenas.

Currently, HMIS SCC was not in compliance.  While there were various solutions, research had shown that PKI was expensive and time consuming to agencies while static IP could be verified for very little money or effort to partnering agencies.  CTA recommended, and the Committee agreed that our community require fixed IP addresses for HMIS agencies.  CTA would issue details before the end of the following week. 

It was further noted that programs doing street outreach would require a separate agreement.

CollabSCC.org Website

It was announced that a new revamped CollabSCC website was being developed using SharePoint technology.  The website would encompass all requirements previously set forth by the Committee and the Collaborative.

Next Steps

The next meeting of the Collaborative's Technology Committee would agendize feedback on all items set forth at today's meeting. 

Some Committee members expressed concern that HMIS was taking dollars and effort away from other attempts to end homelessness.  This was an ongoing discussion within the National Human Services Data Consortium (NHSDC).  Any developments within HMSDC would be reported back to the Technology Committee.

The next meeting of the Technology Committee of the Collaborative would be scheduled at a later date.