SCHA-LA

Q and A With Dr. Roland

Posted in CA Budget, hiv by SCHA-LA on May 13, 2010

Questions to Dr Roland:

5.6million allocation from HRSA. What is the breakdown again?

ADAP $4.7m

MAI $207k

Base $691.6k

“diversion communities” 9k

Are there any attempts to amend bill that would allow electronic reporting from other jurisdictions?

Not aware of any being prepared by author. That limitation is recognized. Very difficult for me to talk abt legislation when it is active.

Re CA care & prevention plans – what’s up?

CPG/OA Jointly developing integrated care & prevention plan. It’s really impossible to do good planning or programming with separate plans, but in terms of planning we need to do, we need to have a joint plan. Foremost charge of cpg.

Room for community input- but no details from michelle about what that means.

Advertisements
Tagged with: ,

update from State Office of AIDS

Posted in CA Budget, hiv by SCHA-LA on May 13, 2010

Michelle Roland’s update (State Office of AIDS)
May Revise:
Might come out at 11 instead of 1. As soon as she knows she’ll send out notifications. There is a lt more likely to be in the budget which will impact PWAs than just SOA programs.
Program Allocations:
Re: increased HRSA Part B award: we got $5.6mill. very specific abt alloc $4.7 to ADAP $307k to MAI and … (didn’t get it – sorry.)
CARE funding has been a distressing situation for us. Last year we sent out 2 sets of allocation tables. 1st made initial decisions about how to handle loss of general funds, but then got an increase (1 time supplement) and we don’t have that at this point, so we’re back to that same pot + a little bit of addl $ in base award.
There is 89% of resources compared to last year.
LA County minus LB had reduction to 89.2% of the current FY allocation.
Continuing to work with all allocation formulas as fast as possible to move to a straight formula… many subjective issues which come up with changing …
Hard to have less $ on top of less $
Main diff with MAI is that last year there were 2 counties which would have rcvd MAI but they didn’t b/c of not getting previous bridge funding and there might not be capacity to do reporting, but this year they weill get it. 19 counties instead of 17. The amt is bad. Current year – for entire state is $875k. next year $1mill for entire state. Tyring to figure out a balance of giving jurisdictions a reasonable, meaningful amount and trying to stretch to as many jurisdictions as possible.
Surveillance:
This year we anticipate receiving $1m less from general funds. Good news is that when we were faced with this last year, with all the ehars and names-based changes, we had to terminate any contracts with any academic partners who were helping us with research. All OA staff entirely funded with CDC research funds. This year, though, we have to pass the reduction to the local jurisdictions. Used a 2-step capping strategy… hold-harmless factors…
Everyone is doing a great job getting data into our surveillance systems associated with ehars transition. We are still not a names-based state yet. Increased RW award shows this.
AB2541 re: electronic lab reporting issue. The state system is under development & getting ready to be piloted. We need to ensure that hiv will be part of this.
Some sort of matching system between office of corrections & office of aids. Able to leverage this to understand better what is happening with hiv+ inmates. Questions about reporting from those institutions.
Successfully completed ehars migration. Not been able to implement full functionality due to state issues.

Tagged with: ,

summary of motion

Posted in hiv by SCHA-LA on May 13, 2010

revised motion:

“Move that up to $300k of funding be utilized by OAPP at it’s discretion to provide stable housing for HIV+ persons & their families who would otherwise lose their current housing due to their inability to qualify for other credible programs.”

discussion:

“want to make sure that the neediest families get it first. Want to make sure that the money is used for housing and that it doesn’t get used somewhere else.”

“the word undocumented was taken out on purpose. We were told that we legally shouldn’t say that.”

“$1,329 per person is what it comes out to. Is this enough money to really help? Is OAPP the agency which can really make it happen with that little amount of money. I’ in support of making this happen. Also, I’m gonna get a lot of questions about where this money is coming from. I don’t see the city stepping in in a proactive way. I understand the pressure we can apply, but… they might not be proactive in this process. It’s a lot of questions.”

“I applaud OAPP for this. This motion is fraught with peril frankly. these folks are not gonna be kept in their current housing with this money. They are going to have to move out. If it’s stopgap and instant – is it THIS instant? as much as this is an issue of justice, I think this motion is problematic on a lot of issues and I move to postpone. And I will come back if we need to schedule an emergency meeting I will be there.”

“There was a second to the motion to postpone. This will require a majority vote. YES means consider at a future date. NO means vote today.” result:  MOTION NOT CARRIED.

Back to the motion at the top of this post:

“purely personal. This IS something we have to do today. We’re talking about people… we’re not talking about helping them AFTER they lost their housing. To engage them into case after that – the cost will be huge.”

“I want to help these people but I don’t think this is the way to do it. OAPP can do it with Net County Cost (NCC). I believe they can and will do so. It’s inappropriate to emotionally pull this money from we don’t know where”

people are talking too fast for me to accurately transcribe, so this is rough…

“I’m going to oppose this motion [because] it’s a very emotional issue – we all want a solution. This is a potentially illegal use of Ryan White dollars. This potentially highlights our ability to use RW  for undocumented [and what the fallout of that would be] Politically it creates a release valve and therefore doesn’t force the question on the original issue. I don’t like that outcome because it causes people to lose their housing, but it must be done to find a permanent solution.

There are 5 households who are being evicted in May, but more in June, July & August. Over the next 12 months there are 124 vulnerable households who could be removed involuntarily from their homes.

I would not say that this pot of money is stepping in to address that. I would say that this pot of money is there if it is needed.

We want to assist people in the Shelter Plus Care (S+C) program. Terry Goddard mentioned other programs which could be affected. We are only working on S+C issue. That’s all we’re talking about in this motion.

I am concerned that I don’t think that anyone here wants to vote to take away housing from someone. I can say that speaking from experience (referring to nutrition support drama last year). Caution us to pay attention to how we frame/phrase what we are doing.

It is implied that there may be other resources. If that is the case, we would like OAPP to spend other resources prior to using these funds – can we say that in the motion? We would like a demonstration that other resources have been exhausted?

We can say that this is funding of last resort. You would have to amend the motion.

Parliamentarian says that there might be “some implication” about who/what “last resort” means.

Motion to amend the motion seconded.

We have no authority to make a motion of net county cost.

co-chairs do not object to addition of this language.

Motion amended to include that language about ‘last resort’

If we don’t address this now it will cost more to the county in the end.

Regardless of how we vote today, this is a major public health issue. This is a canary in the coalmine. My suggestion is that we try to prioritize families with children first.

Sharon White (public comment): as a rep for SPA 6 (south LA) I heard some things about the MAI (Minority AIDS Initiative). I just want to know: how are there funds that are left over?

[public comment is not answered but it can be added to the agenda for P&P so it can be discussed]

this vote is outside of the conversation about actual allocations continuing in P&P subcommittee meetings.

NEW MOTION:

“Move that up to $300k of Ryan White funding be utilized by OAPP at it’s discretion to provide stable housing for HIV+ persons & their families who would otherwise lose their current housing due to their inability to qualify for other credible programs. Ryan White funding should only be used if other funding sources can’t be found or utilized.”

summary of the pre-vote comments: don’t pick on people who don’t vote the way you want them too. Everyone around the table is great.

watt – y

washington-hendricks – y

Villa –

sotomayor – y

simon – y

rivera – y

peterson – y

goddard – y

o’malley – y

o’brien – n

lopez – y

long – abs

liso – y

kochems – n

johnson – n

james – y

goodman – y

guigni – y

engeran-cordova – n

deaugustine – abs

ceja – y

butler – abs

ballesteros – y

avina – y

daly – y

braswell – y

yes = 17

no = 4

abstain – 4

PASSES

Tagged with: , ,