*if an individual was in crisis 30 days within service, an authorization is required instead of registration (to avoid misuse)
*Agreement to all admission criteria, but also should include DOC, because this is an integration from facility to the community which warrants "effective" transitioning, (if an individual meets the criteria/MNC)
Housing shouldn't be retractable, just needs to be justified in conjunction/coordination with long term stable placement, or while the appropriate level of care is being put in place. If not, it may cripple the client too way much. I think we should use more discernment here. The reality is some individuals need temporary housing support while transitioning into the most appropriate level of care. If we are worried about people just using this for a housing resource, then imposing a "REQUIRED AUTHORIZATION within 30 days of recent use", will eliminate this concern, in addition to the proposed admission criteria (that states individuals must be "stepping down" or referred from certain and very specific places.)
I think the goal for all parties is to create transparency, and ultimately be evidenced based.
Therefore, it is further suggested that any provider administering crisis services be evaluated and monitored by the number of clients who are successfully placed in the appropriate levels of care, and linked with the proper long term supports. This will easily and quickly weed out any one (providers and individuals) who misuses the service. This can be monitored by following the database. The industry will be able to openly see which providers stop/reduce crisis cycling versus any of the ones that promote crisis cycling.
I believe this is a matter of putting oversights in place and making adjustments, however, we don't want to hinder the GREAT providers who are delivering high quality and effective work, (and saving lives), because of the ones who may be abusing the system. Transparency will help with this. WE NEED OUR GREAT PROVIDERS TO STAY IN PLACE!
