SCHA-LA

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: , ,

request for solidarity letters/support for escalation of racist/homophobic threats and transphobic violence

Posted in lgbt, transgender by SCHA-LA on April 23, 2010

NOTE: “Last week a transgender student was attacked on the CSULB campus. This person does not want to disclose identity, this person is dealing with it privately and wishes for it to remain that way. This person is thankful for the concern the community is showing and is grateful for your well wishes. Thank you for respecting this person’s privacy at this time”

From: Katherine Ojeda Stewart

Hi friends,

Sorry to blast on email and sorry for the scary subject heading – but I was asked to pass this information along. Note: what I’m passing on is pretty graphic and upsetting, just so you are prepared . . ..

I shared with some folks that recently California State University Long Beach has had a pretty serious anti-LGBTQ response to a Chicana Feminisms conference that was hosted there about a month ago. The conference was organized by the student group Conciencia Femenil. The attacks came in the form of remarks made on the student newspaper (online) that included calling the conference organizers “a bunch of lesbians hiding under the guise of feminism”, calling Alma Lopez a “fucking idiot” and her art sacrilegious, Cherrie Moraga a “perverted dyke”, the conference an “abomination”, stating that “lesbians and homosexuals . . . . practice their abominable sexual perversions [and] want to be able to destroy the religions which oppose them,” and finally . . . a call to murder all LGBTQ folks under Aztec Law, and specifically noting the *way in which they should be murdered*.

Big sighs.

So apparently, people are taking the violence from the page, to real life. Below is part of an email from Clarissa Rojas, a former INCITE! National person. She teaches at CSULB, has been working with the students both on organizing the conference and organizing in response to this violence.

*From Clarissa*:

*i have some bad news tambien to share with you, i’ll post something on it today on facebook and if you could also share with folks.* *there was a recent escalation of the violence at csulb, we’re gathering with some new students to talk about how to organize against the stuff we’ve been dealing and this new attack: a trans student left class [one] night to go to the bathroom and on the way there was assaulted by someone who knew [X] by name but whom [X] didnt know. he beat [X] and threw [X] against a wall then carved “It” on [X’s] chest with a knife.*

I know this is intense and a lot to pass on in an email – but I wanted to let you all know. Also, I know I’ve stepped out of INCITE until after the bar is over, but if there is any capacity to support CSULB I really hope our chapter can take that on. Clarissa’s email is: clarissita@gmail.com .

Sending love to you all,

Katie

Katherine Ojeda Stewart, M.A.
J.D. Candidate, UCLA School of Law, Class of 2010
stewartk2010@lawnet.ucla.edu

Thurs 03/18/10 Community Forum on Transgender Census

Posted in transgender by SCHA-LA on March 16, 2010

Sorry about the short notice! Please circulate widely.

On Thursday, March 18th (that’s this Thursday) there will be a Community forum at Plummer Park hosted by LAGLC and the US Census Bureau to discuss trans-related census information. It is critical that we attend, so we can get information out to the community.

Video made by local community activists
Facebook page
Queer The Census

Tagged with: ,

Center for AIDS Prevention down – consent decree

Posted in hiv by SCHA-LA on March 11, 2010

CENTER FOR AIDS PREVENTION CONSENT DECREE 01-20-10

There have been a LOT of articles about the Center for AIDS Prevention (see below), the fake AIDS charity which was soliciting funds from all over the country. A Consent Decree has been signed in Illinois, and their website is down. I think this means that they’re out of business.

I checked with Chris Weaver, Expert-at-Large, and he tells me:

On your second question, in short, No. It means only that they won’t be able to work in Illinois or qualify to do business elsewhere as an Illinois-based company. Because this is a matter of state law, not federal law, nothing prevents Neely and his associates from incorporating a new business – perhaps with the same name – in California or any other state. However, California may decide not to grant Neely’s applications on the basis of the Illinois charge, which Jerry Brown’s office is aware of. Brown’s spokesman could not say whether they would mirror the Illinois action.

So, for now, we’re happy. I sent an email to Lomax Burnett (lomax@capfundraising.org), the fellow who some local activists paid a visit to in Beverly Hills and the spokesperson for CAP, and it bounced back with the following message:

Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:

lomax@capfundraising.org
The recipient’s e-mail address is invalid. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the recipient’s e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator.

The following organization rejected your message: capfundraising.org.

Background:

ProPublica articles on CAP


Tagged with: , ,

Press Conference $50K reward in trans murder case

Posted in Uncategorized by SCHA-LA on March 11, 2010

Detective supervisor at Rampart Detective Division is currently handling an investigation into the murder of Paulina Ibarra, a transgender woman who was slain in her East Hollywood apartment on August 28, 2009. A suspect has been identified, and a reward offered.

On Thursday, March 11, 2010, at 2:00 pm, a press conference will be held at the downtown police headquarters, 1st & Main Sts., to announce the reward.

Among speakers at the press conference will be City Council President Mr. Eric Garcetti and Ms. Maria Bueno, the victim’s niece. Flyers announcing the reward are attached in English and Spanish. If you have any questions feel free to call or e-mail Wes Buhrmester, Lieutenant, Rampart Detective Division
[1401 West 6th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017] (213) 484-3441

HOMICIDE
WARRANT NO. LACBA36473001
SUSPECT IS WANTED FOR A MURDER

Suspect’s Description:
Jesus Catalan (AKA Brian Nanes, Luis Santiago)
Male, Hispanic, 5’9”, 140 pounds, black hair, brown eyes,
24 years of age, unknown tattoo on right arm.
Warrant No. 2090827446—–Parolee-at-

Large
TT: Unk Design on right arm.
Suspect is considered ARMED AND DANGEROUS.
WEAPON(S): Unknown sharp object —-Outstanding
The Los Angeles City Council has offered a $50,000 Reward for the suspect’s arrest and conviction.

Please contact Dets. Arteaga or Linscomb, Rampart Detective Division Homicide Unit, at (213) 484-3650, or (877) LAPD-247 (527-3247). Online: go to http://www.lapdonline.org, and click on “Anonymous Web Tips.” Text: Enter “CRIMES,” and begin your message with “LAPD.”

Census Information for Transgender Communities

Posted in transgender by SCHA-LA on March 10, 2010

The only information that the 2010 census is giving transpeople on this fact sheet is that they know transpeople exist – (that’s why they made this fact sheet) But that they’re not going to counting folks as trans on the census. People can put down whatever they like with regard to sex, as long as it’s “M” or “F”. There are no questions about gender identity.

The fact sheet goes on to provide information for same-sex marriage and for transpeople who are interested in obtaining census jobs. (Selective service is mentioned, but no information is provided on the fact sheet as to whether transfolk need to register for SS, and what the details are for that. There is a line suggesting that people go to the selective service website, but there isn’t even a URL provided).

I strongly suggest a MAKE YOUR OWN BOX campaign for trans- people.  I also suggest that as census workers come to your communities for town hall meetings and the like that they are confronted with this bullshit.


Tagged with: ,

Man Suspected in Ibarra Murder: REWARD

Posted in transgender by SCHA-LA on March 4, 2010
Tagged with: , ,

80s and 90s queer activism

Posted in lgbt by SCHA-LA on February 17, 2010

What did “queer” activism look like in the 80s and 90s, and who was doing it? What are the differences to activists of the 60s / 70s / 00s? What did visibility mean, and what did it look like? Who were your activist heroes of those days?

I’m using “queer” as a blanket term – not to assign identity – but rather to focus on activism through a lens of gender & sexuality, (perhaps) outside of mainstream feminism, and inclusive of HIV/AIDS. Did activism focus on L/G/B/T issues specifically, or were there other issues in which we were visibly active? What of the lesbian ‘sex wars’? What role – if any –  did performance/arts play in activism (remember the NEA 4?) What role did organizations play in activism?

I eagerly seek your memories. And, if you happen to be Los Angeles focused, please leave contact information if you are so inclined.

Residential Services: Future Direction (Mario Perez)

Posted in Uncategorized by SCHA-LA on January 14, 2010

notes to accompany the powerpoint (which I will try to get and post) Mario J Perez, Director Office of AIDS Programs & Policies, and Carlos A Vega-Matos, Clinical Enhancement Services Division

LA County Residential/Housing Investment

  • OAPP $7,051,034
  • HOPWA $14,788,755
  • TOTAL: $21,839,789

These are 2 very distinct service categories. Discreet, separate portfolios.

OAPP RCS Portfolio:

  • emergency housing $271,711
  • transitional housing $210,347
  • RCFCI $4,868,185 [residential facilities for the chronically ill] spread out geographically, distribution based on where they were able to obtain and license services, not on the geographic distribution of need.
  • ARF $1,047,049 [adult residential facilities]
  • Skilled Nursing $583,542 [1 provider]
  • Hospice $70,200 [1 provider]
  • TOTAL: $7,051,034

Looks like this:

  • 4 agencies provide EMERGENCY HOUSING – 18 beds for 216 clients
  • 3 agencies provide TRANSITIONAL HOUSING – 20 beds for 135 clients
  • 4 agencies provide RCFCI – 99 beds for 231 clients
  • 2 agencies provide ARF – 1,621 days of service for 4 clients
  • 1 agency provides HOSPICE – 234 days for 2 clients

Issues/Challenges:

  • OAPP/HOPWA overlap [emergency/transitional]
  • regulations, standards, services out of sync with changes in disease progression
  • matching actual need with level of services provided
  • inadequate incentives for self-sufficiency

Proposed Changes:

  • reduce overall OAPP investment to $5,420,660 [$1.6m savings]
  • sunset OAPP investment to emergency & transitional housing
  • reconfigure ARF in to a transitional group home
  • tighten eligibility requirements (Karnofsky used now, Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) added to assessment)
  • set time-limits: RCFCI 24 mo, TARF 12 mo [some of this is to get “in step” with federal requirements, ie: time limits]
  • reduce # of RCFCI beds from 99 to 80

we have created an environment in which folks who don’t have critical need are receiving a level of service which is unnecessary. to the extent that  we can get folks healthier, stabler, employed, moving along the self-sufficiency continuum, but the incentives aren’t’ there to make that happen.

will lean on HOPWA partners to ensure that the shift is as seamless as possible.

these changes will result in a decreased investment of $1.6million. held off on doing this sooner to ensure that this can be done in a way that doesn’t unduly impact housing of clients.

there will be exception clauses built in to all of this. “Doctor’s note” requesting an exception if client doesn’t move along continuum.

will sunset emergency/transitional in the next month. ask the Board Of Supervisors (BOS) for extension until the RFP is released with new modifications. Need to make sure that Title II is adjusted (federal guidelines will trump the state guidelines), standards of care are approved and in place etc.

Q & A:

$14.8 HOPWA  that $ also includes some rollover money and money that came from LAHD. Actually, that money includes housing, beds, permanent, supportive services incl food, legal, CHIRP, development etc. That year approx $1.8m spent on development. With the new funding year, looking at re-examining programs in order to accommodate OAPP’s needs. [HOPWA FY is 4/1 – 3/31]

Q: how was information gathered re SNF? We get many calls per month, so confused that the number of SNF/hospice clients is 4.There is a lot of discrimination at facilities not funded by us.

A: worked with current provider who delivers SNF & hospice. staff pulled charts. there was no change in SNF/hospice. We are not the only funder. Some get hospice care at home. the rfp will look at whether services can be provided in a more cost-effective way (at home) or does it have to be funded only in an agency setting. They are $300/day – 2 most expensive services. May be able to reduce costs if people have homes.

Q. incentives/motivation for changes – questions about. also, measuring acuity with K & GAF. concerned that our doctors might move us on karnofsky and take us off the next month. will the GAF catch moderation if it is being monitored quarterly?

A. GAF will also be done quarterly. we understand that there might be difficult months and the karnofsky score might be lower, and then a month later it may go up. Do understand that it fluctuates. fairly trustworthy gauge to determine numberof hours of support needed. Karnofsky good to measure daily living function. If client has mental health or other issues the GAF can catch non-HIV-specific issues. HIV may not be the debilitating factor – it may be depression – but we will be able to see that with the GAF.

Q. Might there be higher utilization of service?

A. there might be fewer people eligible, but more people served.

Q. Is this for undocumented people as well?

A. yes. Anyone in LA County who meets eligibility requirements, regardless of documentation status. Individual providers assess eligibility. OAPP doesn’t do that. It is the providers who manage the services who do all of the eligibility-related expectations. Physician determines whether person is eligible for either skilled nursing or hospice.

Q. Is this for undocumented people as well?

A. yes

“The truth of the matter is that RCFCI has become a very, very expensive permanent housing program. Whatever needs to happen in order for that to be fixed needs to happen. We need to be real about what’s going on in this housing”.

“we need to massage some of [the] expectations between now and the release of the rfp …  staffing patterns, assessment requirements”. There are professionals besides a physician who can do the Karnofsky scoring.

Q: “without talking about what’s going into the rfp… are you looking to have a system that serves about the same number of people? in terms of numbers themselves.

A: The goal is to serve a greater number of unduplicated people living with hiv who are sick and in need of assisted living.

Richard Kearns: “I live in assisted living. Those institutions are rife with mismanagement and abuse. All they’re interested in is billing. They resist letting us in there. I had to call a lot of places to find an assisted care. Because they do stuff for me, I am able to be an advocate. … Activism is healthcare. … HIV is not a steady state.  … They don’t want clients who are “too alert” to let them not provide the services they are supposed to provide.”

Sharon White: “As chair of SPN in SPA 6, I want to talk about the incarceration issue. Please form some small commission where we can do due diligence before the inmates come out. … in SPA 6 we know there are a lot of african-americans and latinos who are incarcerated. we have 1 case manager and over 100 people on our case management roster. we need to be in front of this not behind it.”

Kathy Watt: “many times, they have managed to not do drugs & alcohol while they are incarcerated. they come out with 2/4/6 years of being clean. so when they try to access CD treatment they are denied. they don’t have a support network. we must work with ADPA on this, to help providers know that having X amount of clean time should not preclude them from treatment.”

HIV Commission will look at forming a group and will get Sharon to sit on it.