Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Coordinated Entry Standards topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lane County updates coordinated entry written standards to add HUD links and Spanish vulnerability tool

3848321 · May 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Lane County staff updated its coordinated entry written standards to add direct HUD definitions for chronic homelessness and dedicated-plus, added a Spanish translation of the vulnerability assessment, and reported low numbers of participants closed as inactive and later returning.

Andrea Brenna, the county’s coordinated entry lead, told the executive committee that the written standards for the county’s coordinated entry process were revised to include a direct link to HUD Exchange definitions for chronic homelessness and dedicated-plus and to add a Spanish translation of the local vulnerability assessment.

Why it matters: The changes aim to make definitions and assessment tools easier to access and to reduce language barriers for assessors and clients. Brenna said the Spanish translation will be added to the appendix of the written standards and made available to assessors.

Inactive-policy data: Brenna also presented data on the coordinated entry inactive policy, which governs when participants who cannot be contacted are closed from the centralized wait list. Since 2021, 39 participants have been exited from the centralized wait list for inactivity; nine of those 39 subsequently returned to the system. The average time between an inactivity exit and a person’s return was about 90 days. Brenna said that when an assessment (front door assessment) expires after six months it is recorded differently in the data system to reflect expiration rather than prioritization or inability to contact.

Questions and clarifications: Board member Sherry, who serves in a lived-experience seat, asked whether assessments that expire after six months result in closure. Brenna replied that expirations are tracked under a separate data code and that staff attempt to contact households and outreach partners before closing a file.

What the board directed: No formal vote was taken. Members thanked staff for the update and noted the revisions will guide policy in the coordinated entry system.

Ending: Brenna said the updated document will be used as a policy guide and available to assessors and that staff will continue monitoring outcomes for participants who are closed for inactivity.