Housing and Homelessness Impact Area

Document Sample
Housing and Homelessness Impact Area Powered By Docstoc
					A Home for Everyone: Building A Way
The Blueprint to End Homelessness in Washtenaw County

Collaboration Counts


Welcome to Ann Arbor, Where We’re “Crazy” for Collaboration It’s Messy…Demanding….Challenging



BUT


Collaborative Planning and Action are Key to Our Community’s Success in Tackling Social Issues

Homelessness: Where Housing and Human Needs Intersect


Annualized Homeless Count - 2007

  

3,431 Individuals were Homeless or At-Risk
2,293 (67%) were Persons in Families 1,089 (32%) were Single Adults 82 (2%) were Unaccompanied Youth



Point-In-Time Count of Homeless Persons - 2007


580 Individuals (including children)
 18%

Chronically Homeless  41% report Mental Health Condition  56% report Substance Abuse Issues

Economic Impact Across Community Systems


Reduction in Chronic Homelessness  Reduction in Costs for Mainstream Systems (e.g., Health, Jail, ER)




73% Reduction in ER, Psychiatric, Detox, Jail, and Shelter Care Costs in Denver ($20 million/year) 62% Reduction in ER, Health, and Jail Costs in Portland

Cost of Housing Far Exceeds Household Capacity to Pay


HUD Fair Market Rent for 0-BR Unit (Efficiency) $690/month


Income Needed to Afford 0-BR Unit (@30%) $27,600/year (or $13.27/hour)



HUD Fair Market Rent for 2-BR Unit (Family) $942/month


Income Needed to Afford 2-BR Unit (@30%)  $37,680/year (or $18.12/hour)

WHY Do We Respond?


Social Imperative
 

Concern for Human Costs It’s the Right Thing to Do



Economic Imperative
 

Concern for Economic and Community Costs Economic Imperative Often Trumps Moral Suasion

The Exorbitant Cost of “Doing Nothing”


In Indianopolis, 96 homeless individuals  $1.7 million/year in public expense In Athens, GA, 576 homeless individuals $12 million/year



Cost-Analysis for Local Community

Michigan Corrections Prison Individuals with Mental Illness or Disability General Population

Washtenaw County Jail

Sheltering for Single Adult

Est Cost Per Person Per Day

Housing with Services for Single Adult

$123

$96

$94

$66

$32

HOW Do We Respond? History of Community Collaboration


We Are A Community of “Compulsive Collaborators” Shared Efforts Date Back 20+ Years
  






Early Collaborations in 1980’s HUD Continuum of Care in Mid-90’s County Task Force on Homelessness – Late ’90’s Washtenaw Housing Alliance -- 2001 Success in Initial Alliance Campaign -- 2003
 

Delonis Center + Community Kitchen + Alpha House Family Shelter $9 Million Capital Campaign

More Recent Steps


Creation of Blueprint to End Homelessness (“10 Year Plan”)
 

Hundreds of Citizens and Scores of Organizations Contribute to Creation of Plan Published in Fall, 2004



Commitment to “500 Unit Plan”
 

Creating Common Vision and Broad Buy-In Adopted in Fall, 2006 Implemented Fall, 2008 Advancing Collaborative Community Investment



Initiation of Joint Integrated Funding Pilot
 

What IS the Blueprint to End Homelessness?
  

Vision Statement 10-Year Strategic Plan Community Process



The Blueprint is both a product and propagator of continuing community commitment and collaborative planning

Key Principles Informing Blueprint Planning and Implementation


Systems Transformation: Changing the Way We Do Business
     

Linked to Common Quality and Service Standards Shared Community Outcomes Consumer-Informed Provider-Driven Results-Based Decision-Making Integrated Funding

Four-Fold Focus of 10-Year Strategic Plan
Homeless Prevention Housing with Services Engaging the Community Reforming the System of Care

   

Homeless Prevention



Homeless Outreach Court



Community Wide Eviction Prevention Plan
“Barrier Busters” System



Creating Housing with Services
“500 Unit Plan”
 



Key to “Housing First” Orientation Over 300 Supportive Housing Units Created or “In the Pipeline” since 2004
  

New Construction Acquisition and Rehab Rental Assistance Vouchers

Engaging the Community


Delonis Center Capital Campaign
Blueprint Work Group Champions





County Task Force on Sustainable Revenues

Reforming the System of Care


Quality and Services Standards Common Community Outcomes Community-Wide Data Gathering (HMIS) Integration of Blueprint, Continuum of Care, HUD Consolidated Plan, and Other Community Plans







Other Significant Planning Linkages




     

Community Collaborative of Washtenaw County (Human Services) City/County Office of Community Development Michigan Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative Blueprint on Aging Aging Out Coalition Success by Six Adult Literacy Coalition Statewide Campaign to End Homelessness

Early Wins and Long-Term Commitments


Initial Focus on “Early Wins” Helps to Sustain Energy for the Long-Haul


Focus on “Low-Hanging Fruit” in Housing, Prevention, Community Engagement, and Systems Reform



Impact and Achievement Expands Ownership and Investment

Integrated Funding Strategies as Key Approach to Implementation
Our challenge is not so much to answer “if” we want systems change, but “how” we will best fund it



Why Integrated Funding?


As our community pursues creation of a homeless solutions system that is more unified, strategic, and collaborative, our funding processes should both mirror and support that commitment

Integrated Funding and Systems Transformation


Integrated Funding is about Changing the Way We Do Business
  



Altering relationships among funders Altering relationships among providers Altering relationships between funders and providers Altering relationships between funders, providers, and community

Increasing Strategic Impact of Funding Decisions


Funding decisions made in fragmented “silos” cannot address the complicated reality of homeless assistance needs Funding decisions made through a culture of “competitive entrepreneurialism” frequently fail to reflect system-wide perspective on needs, gaps, capacities, and priorities



Enhancing “Intelligence” of Decision-Making


Funders delegate responsibility for decisions to provider community to assure alignment with Blueprint priorities and consistency with provider capacities Folks on the ground bring “experiential intelligence” to decision-making




Providers are the ultimate “no spin network”

Improving Results
Integrated funding incentivizes pursuit of shared outcomes and common targeted results
Integrated funding supports FOCUS on key community targets





Joint Integrated Funding Pilot Project


JIF Pilot Concept
  

Creation of new joint public-private sector funder and provider structure for decision-making and accountability Focused explicitly on supportive housing services Use of new decision-making models



Joint Integrated Funding Commitment
 

Initial commitment of $1 million, over two years, for supportive housing services (2007-2009) Emerging commitment of up to $1.5-$2 million for supportive housing services in following two years (2009-2010)

Initial Focus: Integrated Funding and “500 Unit Plan”


New Community Funding Model Emergent from Blueprint Process






Integrated Funding Plan Driven by Major Community Funders Funding Coordination Focused on “500 Unit Plan” Reliance on Provider-Based Funding Recommendations

Initial JIF Investment Partners
   





City of Ann Arbor Washtenaw County Washtenaw United Way Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation Washtenaw Community Health Organization Private Donors

Task Force on Sustainable Revenues for Supportive Housing


Follow-Up to JIF Pilot – Intended to establish long-term, sustainable funding stream for services in supportive housing County Board of Commissioners chartered “blueribbon” Task Force to bring forward recommendations for generating dedicated revenues to assure $2.5-$3 million/year “in perpetuity” Emerging recommendations will propose unique “hybrid” private-public sector funding model





Key Partners in County Task Force
 


       

County Administrator City Mayors (Ann Arbor & Ypsilanti) Chair, County Board of Commissioners Chair, Downtown Development Authority President, Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce Chair, Washtenaw United Way President, Ann Arbor Community Foundation Vice-President, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital County Treasurer Vice-Chair, Public Mental Health Authority Business and Philanthropic Leaders

United Way Adopts Community Impact Funding


Transformation of local United Way funding model coincides with commitment to integrated funding Shared commitment to Joint Integrated Funding pilot Delegation of responsibility for all housing and homeless program funding recommendations – current and new -- to Housing Alliance ($650K/year)





What Makes This Work: Shared Vision/Shared Leadership

 Structure and Function Build on Respect for Importance of Provider-Driven Process  Builds on Engagement of Jurisdictional, Systems, and Community Leadership

What Makes this Work: Ethos of Community-Wide Collaboration


Willingness of Key Providers and Key Funders to “Play Together” Active Engagement of Jurisdictional, Mainstream Systems, and Community Leaders in Commitment to Shared “Ownership” of Problem AND Solutions



What Makes This Work: Learning our Way toward Success


Baby Steps  Practice with “new funding opportunities”  Establishing common service standards  Developing decision-making protocols and practice  Building trust  Evaluating provider feedback  Measuring results

What Makes This Work: Structural Elements
 
Neutral Non-Profit Entity as Intermediary (WHA)
 Partnership of Public, Private and Non-Profit Sectors

Delegated Authority
 Both Public/Governmental and Private/Philanthropic Community Have Charged WHA with Responsibility for Implementation of 10-Year Plan

 

Broad Community “Buy-In”

 County, Cities, Businesses, Community Leaders
 Engagement of Core Providers in Governance Process

Collaborative Management Strategy

How Will We Measure Success?: Shared Community Outcomes


Reducing # of first-time entries into homelessness Reducing # returning to emergency shelter system Reducing length of stay in shelter & transitional housing Increasing rates of positive exit from homelessness









Increasing length of stay in permanent housing

Challenges: “We’re Building the Plane While Flying”
Building New Models for Shared Leadership and
Decision-Making Cultivating New Norms for Collaborative Governance Negotiating New Relationships with Community Leaders and Investors Developing New Tools for Documenting and Assessing Impact and Outcomes

Challenges: Surrendering “SelfInterest” for “Good of the Whole”


Learning Our Way Into New Culture of FullBlown Collaboration Re-framing Commitment from “My Agency Needs This….”  “Our Community Needs This….”



Challenges: Balancing Values
 Managing Sometimes Conflicting “Cultural” Values in the Trenches
 “Housing First” vs. “Housing Ready”
 “Voluntary” vs. “Mandated” Services  “Ending Homelessness” vs. “Ending Poverty”

 Inclusive Process vs. Organizational Efficiency
 Ability to be Flexible and Nimble in DecisionMaking  Exploiting Unanticipated Opportunities

Challenges: Transcending Conflict of Interest
Reframing Issue Helps to Resolve Problem






When we all share common interest and commitment to common outcomes, we no longer have conflict of interest When we nurture culture of collective accountability, we minimize conflict When we maximize transparency, we minimize opportunity for conflict

……………………..BUT NONE of this comes easy!

Challenges: Data Development and Management


Developing Data Meaningful for PolicyMaking and Systems Change Processes Need ability to monitor and enforce datagathering expectations of both funding partners and grantees Need capacity to generate timely and effective cross-systems data reporting and analysis.





Challenges: Time, Practice, and Trust


TIME Spent in Shared Decision-Making Developing Culture of Collaboration in an Entrepreneurial Environment





Managing Fears and Concerns
Building Trust and Confidence



At the End of the Day… It Works!



The Time it Takes Is Worth the Trust it Makes
In Spite of the Continuing “Cost”, Collaboration is Worth the Price of Admission



Benefits of Collaborative CrossSystems Initiatives and Efforts
     

Maximize Community Assets & Resources Enhance Consumer Access to Services Increase Systems Accountability Enhance Cost-Effectiveness of Service Delivery Advance Systems Change Goals Accelerate Achievement of Long-Term Vision

Where to From Here???

Contact Information

Washtenaw Housing Alliance
PO Box 7993 Ann Arbor, MI www.whalliance.org Chuck Kieffer
Executive Director (kiefferc@ewashtenaw.org) 734-222-3570 734-645-0810

48107


				
DOCUMENT INFO