Victim-Accessible Coordinated Assessment

Report
VICTIM-ACCESSIBLE
COORDINATED ASSESSMENT:
COC SUCCESS &
COMMUNITY SAFETY
Annual Conference
MN Coalition for
the Homeless
15 Sept. 2014
WHO’S IN THE ROOM
•What type of service provider/agencies?
•What is your role in your agency?




Frontline
Policy
Director
Mid-level management
•How are you involved in housing, coordinated
assessments and CoCs?
TO TAKE AWAY WITH
YOU…(AKA –
OBJECTIVES)
•How to identify who to talk to in your local
community from victim service advocacy
programs about CA planning and process?
• This is the beginning of a conversation: What
questions to discuss at the local level as
designing coordinated assessment ?
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 101
•It’s a pattern of abusive tactics to gain power
and control over an intimate partner
•Most abusive tactics used are NOT illegal, but
they all intend to destroy personhood – so
survivors may not have protective orders or
criminal cases against abuser.
•Not just imminent physical and sexual danger –
economic, emotional and psychological.
•It crosses all social boundaries
•The cause?
• ≤substance use, anger, mental health
• = perpetrators perception that they are
entitled to dominate, subjugate, dehumanize
an intimate partner
• 1 in 3 women
• 1 in 7 men
• Abusers exploit social conditions to entrap
women and children in abuse (i.e., lack of
housing)
INTERSECTION OF DV &
HOUSING INSTABILITY
•~30% of homeless women are
homeless as a direct result of domestic
abuse.
•Higher in greater Minnesota (35%) than
the Twin Cities area (28%).
•Women fleeing abuse are in all shelter
types:
•37% are in transitional housing (25%
of all women in transitional housing)
•33% are in battered women’s shelters
(100% of women in battered women’s
shelters)
•16% are in emergency shelters (17%
of all women in emergency shelter)
•15% are living in non-shelter locations
(23% of all women not in shelters)
INTERSECTION OF DV &
HOUSING INSTABILITY
• In Minnesota in 2003, for
instance, 46 percent of
homeless women reported
that they had previously
stayed in abusive
relationships because they
had nowhere to go.
•84% of women who use
prostitution as an income
strategy report homelessness
or living with abusive pimps
or customers bc no housing
options.
•Victims are frequently evicted or
denied public (in violation of
Federal law) and private housing
because of domestic violence
(http://www.nlchp.org/content/pubs/NNEDVNLCHP_Joint_Stories%20_February_20072.pdf)
INTERSECTION OF DV &
HOUSING INSTABILITY
•#1 unmet need was survivor
access to housing
•92% of unmet needs for domestic
violence victims were for housing
MN DV PROGRAMS’
HOUSING NEEDS
•#1 housing need = rental
vouchers and emergency
assistance supports(MCBW
programs 2013 policy
survey)
•DV survivors’ housing needs
fit squarely within MN
priority to address family
homelessness.
•Many DV victims need
housing but may not meet MN
or Fed Definition of Homeless
DEFINITION OF HOMELESS
& VICTIMIZATION
•Federal vs. MN Homeless Definition
•HUD’s Homeless definition
• People who are fleeing or attempting to flee domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, (SA), stalking, or
other dangerous or life-threatening situations related to
violence; have no other residence; and lack the resources
or support networks to obtain other permanent housing.
•Not all women dealing with DV/SA or other
victimization are in battered women shelter, yet they
face housing instability.
•Victims may not be fleeing/attempting to flee, but
dealing with housing instability related to
victimization.
•How will your community address this issue?
•Varied funding sources with varied eligibility
requirements (Washington and Oregon RRH and
prevention models)
DV & SA
ADVOCACY SERVICES
•More than just DV Shelter; Community Based
DV Advocacy
•Crisis counseling
•Safety planning
•24 hotline
•Support group
•Shelter, hotel/motel, safe house (in some but
not all programs)
•Information and referral
•Children’s activities
•Legal Advocacy (civil, criminal, administrative)
•Housing Advocacy
•Economic Justice Advocacy
•Transportation
•Emergency assistance
•Community training and outreach
• Service menu will looks different at different programs. See
www.mcbw.org or www.mncasa.org for a list of DV/SA programs in
your area
DV & SA
ADVOCACY SERVICES
• Free
•Voluntary
•Confidential
•Survivor defined
•Funded by
•Federal VAWA, FVPSA
•State crime victim services
•AKA – “victim service
providers”
WHY IS CONFIDENTIALITY
IMPORTANT
•DV Advocates are bound by Federal and
State Law to keep victim information
confidential
•What would it take for you to tell intimate
information abuse?
•People will not share what is really going
on if they don’t feel safe.
•Safety
• Is NOT JUST imminent physical and sexual
danger.
• It is psychological, emotional
• It is economic
• It is control over personal information
•Safety for people who have been
traumatized is about returning control,
including control over information.
WHY IS CONFIDENTIALITY
IMPORTANT
•Confidentiality
• NOT JUST about keeping information private so an
abuser won’t “find” a survivor who has fled. If you
have children with someone, “fleeing” is almost
impossible, even if you have moved out.
• Often needed for people to protect themselves from
victimization of non trauma-informed systems and
people.
•Releasing data without proper consent can
traumatize b/c of:
•Discrimination against victims of domestic and
sexual violence
• In violation of the law, denying them housing or services
b/c of service provider “safety” concerns
• Pathologizing normal human trauma responses
• Removing their children without legal cause
• Dictating goals and activities
• Victim blaming
• Disbelief, accusations of lying to get “special benefits”
• Not recognizing the trauma of –isms (racism, sexism,
classism, ableism)
•There is a tension in balancing the need for
data about outcomes and individuals’ control
over their information.
MANDATE FOR DATA
•HMIS Requirements (Service Point)
• Fed, State, Private Funders
• Universal, program-specific, projectdescriptor data elements
•Coordinated Access, Assessment and
Assignment (Abt Associates) for efficient
allocation of resources based on
prioritization of needs.
•Many interim, proposed rules, regs, policies,
in addition to Federal law.
• HEARTH Act 2009 as amended by VAWA ‘05, ‘13
• HMIS Data Standards Manual (2014)
• HMIS Requirements, Proposed Rule (2011)
• ESG Interim Regulations (2011)
• Continuum of Care Program, Interim Rule (2012)
• Minnesota’s HMIS: Policies and Procedures (2014)
• MHFA and DHS regulations
• Private funders
• CoC policy and protocol
• Your agencies policies and protocols
DV ADVOCATE CONFIDENTIALITY:
THE LAW
•Violence Against Women Act 2005 & 2013
amended HEARTH Act.
•Generally, Victim Service Providers (VSP)
cannot release personally identifying
information without
• An informed, written, reasonably time-limited, release
• or court/statutory mandate
•Specific to HMIS, VSPs
• cannot enter personally identifying information in HMIS,
• can use comparable database to report aggregate
data
• can use CoC funding to create comparable database.
•Personally identifying information = name,
address, contact information, social security
number, or any non-personally identifying
information that would, in combination with
other non-personally identifying information,
reveal a client’s identity.
•Since it is possible to identify many victims in
rural states or small communities with only
ethnicity or age and zip code, the information
that victim service providers can share must be
carefully scrutinized and limited.
DV ADVOCATE CONFIDENTIALITY:
THE LAW
•Victim service providers = non-profits and
NGOs whose primary mission is to provide
services to victims of domestic violence,
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
•Victim service providers receiving funding
from CoCs are subject to this requirement.
•Service cannot be dependent on release of
information.
•Cannot share personally identifying
information to comply with Federal, Tribal,
or State reporting, evaluation, or data
collection requirements
•MN state law mandates confidentiality of
victim records for state funded VSP and
gives victims privilege in communications
with VSP.
IS VICTIM ADVOCACY
AT CA PLANNING TABLE?
•Why not?
• Tension between fed/state mandates for information
and victim confidentiality legal protections.
• VSP don’t know CA planning is going on
• Lack of time b/c of huge need and lack of VSP
resources
• Victim service as token without meaningful incorporation
of their suggestions.
• Confusing funding streams and eligibility requirements
• Historically contentious relationships
• Lack of clearly defined roles, rules and goals
• Blaming individuals instead of looking at structural
incentives
IS VICTIM ADVOCACY
AT CA PLANNING TABLE?
•Why?
• Proactive planning means that misunderstandings and
disagreements not fought on the backs of victims.
• Meaningfully and significantly involve victim service
providers in their design and implementation
• Build CA on shared tools and standards, not shared
databases or other structures that inherently expose
victims to unnecessary danger;
• Proactively address safety and privacy concerns;
• Adhere to confidentiality and safety policies with
regard to record-keeping or sharing and physical
locations;
• Allow direct, immediate access to safe housing for
victims.
• How will disclosure affects scoring
• How will data be collected and outcomes evaluated
while complying with confidentiality –
• IMPORTANT THAT PERCEIVED “LACK OF DATA OR
OUTCOMES” DOES NOT EXCLUDE VICTIM SERVICE
PROVIDERS AND THEREBY VICTIMS
IDENTIFY
VICTIMIZATION IN CA
•For domestic violence, sexual assault, dating
violence, stalking, other forms of violence
•Screening for DV & Assessment for Needs
• Difference between screening and assessment
• Who screens and assesses
• What tool and questions
• SPDAT not validated by DV experts,
• People identify with behaviors not labels
• Inaccurate tools can unintentionally create
“creaming” and undermine true success
• Contact your local VSP and MCBW for more
assistance with this
• When (crisis, continuing assessment, service
providers)
• Where – access points via phone, mobile
screeners, fixed location, at victim service provider
program?
• Special victim defined access points?
• What happens if victim discloses in non-victim
access point?
RESPOND TO
VICTIMIZATION IN CA
•How does disclosure in the assessment impact your
resource assignment, referral and practice?
•What proof is needed?
• Oral statement by the individual or head of household
seeking assistance, that is certified by the individual or
head of household;
• and
• Where the safety of the household is not in jeopardy:
• o Written observation by intake worker; or
• o Written referral by a housing or service provider, social
worker, or other organization from whom the household has
sought assistance for domestic violence.
•What weight/score is victimization given in
allocating housing resources?
•Does victim have autonomy in deciding which
housing resource is best for her, even if assessment
designates a different housing resource.
•What additional referrals are made if DV shelter
not needed (i.e., referral for victim services)?
• Referrals from VSP to housing programs
• Referrals from housing programs to VSP (either for housing
or services)
•Is victim allowed to opt out of victimization
information sharing?
•What happens to the information about
FEEDBACK FROM
REFERRALS
•This relates to data tracking and outcomes after
referrals are made to victim housing or service
providers.
•Referrals \or client-specific $$$ to VSPs will not
result in personally identifying follow up
information in HMIS about a client
•Aggregate data must still be provided by VSP in
accordance with applicable requirements.
•That should not stop referrals to VSPs when they are
assessed appropriate or requested by client.
•What are other ways to measure outcomes and
“success” without personally identifying information?
•We will only be successful at truly ending
homelessness,/housing instability if we address the
trauma that is often connected to the condition – not
just throwing services at the effects of trauma.
SUCCESSFUL
COLLABORATIONS
•Finding common goals while understanding
different roles and rules
•Understanding local VSP programs services
and capacity
•Understanding confidentiality & information
sharing
•Understanding voluntary VSP services vs.
mandatory compliance
•When there is a “problem”, instead of blaming
individual people, look at the structure of roles
and rules for questions and answers.
•Identify POC and protocol for conflict
resolution about victim access.
SUCCESSFUL
COLLABORATIONS
•Universal Notification of victim-related
eligibility, rights and program referrals
•No judgment/disbelief/unwillingness to
recognize victimization b/c “she is making it up
to get out of requirements”
•Trauma-informed
•Clearly defined screening/assessment with VSP
input: when, where, who, how,.
•Clearly defined referral to and from VSP
programs: relationships are everything
•No victim-blaming (“this person is doubledipping”, “not an ideal victim”)
SUCCESSFUL
COLLABORATIONS
•Clearly defined eligibility and proof requirements
•Understanding when child welfare/protection is and
isn’t appropriate
•No coercive referrals to VSP programs
•Accessibility: language, transport, child care,
cultural, attitudinal
•VSP Advocates, CoC, other service provider, and
community knowledge of process
•Investing resources and $$$ in cross-training
MORE INFO
Rebekah Moses
Program Manager – Public Policy
MN Coalition for Battered Women
651.646.6177 ext 117
[email protected]

similar documents