Another Lancaster Community Conversation proposal

Again, the Lancaster group put a lot of thought and effort into their proposals and I'm going to respect that by including them verbatim. This is the second of their five proposed strategies.

Action Item
CENTRALIZED RESOURCE CLEARINGHOUSE FOR LANCASTER & NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTIES
Lancaster Visions Group: Proposed 3/27/10

Description

To establish an “umbrella” service organization for area churches in Lancaster & Northumberland Counties to serve as a clearinghouse to match county residents seeking services and programs to community resources. *

The purpose would be to coordinate and/or utilize church resources (money, volunteers, programs) targeted to social service needs and to provide an effective, coordinated process of interviewing and connecting people with resources. The clearinghouse would work in partnership with all components of the local social services infrastructure, including the local Departments of Social Services.

The clearinghouse could offer satellite intake locations on designated days to accommodate client access. Suggested satellite locations are feasible in locations near or adjacent to where County Courthouse/County DSS are located (for ex. Heathsville for Northumberland Co, Lancaster Courthouse for “Upper” Lancaster Co.).

Current effective “Clearinghouse” models/organizations exist all around the U.S. Examples include: ACTS in Richmond, VA; ACTC in the Baltimore, MD area; LOVE, Inc. in multiple locations, etc. Other models may vary as to emphasis : 1) simply connecting needs and resources; 2) providing some services (ex. Food Pantry, Thrift store) directly on-site; 3) facilitating/offering “relational” ministries/programming.

Provision of financial and programmatic resources as distributed by government funded agencies such as local Departments of Social Services (DSS) have criteria which limit accessibility, dependent on the funding program. Other non-profit organizations (ex. Bay Aging) that utilize government grants/funding also have limitations placed on distribution. A “privately” funded clearinghouse organization has greater flexibility to assist those who fall outside the “criteria” required by government funded programs.

Some features of the Clearinghouse Model:
The program would include a paid Director (part-time or full time). It would utilize trained volunteers:
To interview and screen clients
To manage and maintain computerized data base
Of clients and use of services
Of available resources (see Lancaster Group Action Plan re Integrated Data Base)

The duties of the Director would include:
•Train and coordinate volunteers
•Oversee data bases
•Maintain contact/communication with other public (i.e. DSS’s) and private service organizations
•Serve as liaison with churches and clergy
•Develop/implement marketing and publicity strategies
•Manage operations budget, subject to Board

Funding
•From grants
•From participating churches who are able to provide funding
•In kind provision of space by churches and of volunteers

Reasons Needed

•Churches who have financial resources to distribute to people in need and people desiring assistance to help them achieve financial stability could benefit from the coordination and centralization of certain functions that make screening and distribution most effective. It is a time consuming process when decentralized fraught with concerns that our distribution from church to church may not be reaching the people who are really in need and who desire to move into longer term financial stability.
•It is a way for smaller churches, less financially able, to participate in a network of service provision and be an integral part of the connection of area residents to services.
•It offers an opportunity for all the churches, whatever the denomination, whatever the population they serve, to come together, to develop relational ministries and to serve the common good.
•It eases the access challenges for potential clients, who at this time, go from church to church, service organization to service organization, as they seek assistance.
•The ministerial associations (Lancaster and Northumberland) have identified a need to examine some form of centralization of certain functions and greater coordination of identification and distribution of church and community resources.
•It would help reduce the overuse of financial assistance by those individuals who utilize the system to perpetuate a dependent lifestyle and model such to continuing generations.
•It would better assure that the limited financial resources are distributed in a way that would more effectively impact poverty in the Northern Neck and assist those who desire to achieve financial stability and independence.
•It could help decrease overlap and/or duplication of services.
•It could help identify gaps in services/programming that may be needed for area residents and stimulate the development of such.


*Alternative would be to develop this model within an existing non-for-profit organization, such as Church Resource Service (CRS) or Lancaster/Northumberland Interfaith Services Council