a home for everyone: building a way the blueprint to end homelessness in washtenaw county
TRANSCRIPT
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
Est Cost Per
PersonPer Day
Michigan Corrections - Prison Washtenaw
County JailSheltering for Single
Adult
Housing with
Services for Single
Adult
Individuals with Mental
Illness or Disability
General Population
$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
Initiation of Joint Integrated Funding Pilot Implemented Fall, 2008 Advancing Collaborative Community Investment
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 “blue-ribbon” 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
Collaborative Management Strategy Engagement of Core Providers in Governance
Process
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 “Self-Interest” for “Good of the Whole”
Learning Our Way Into New Culture of Full-Blown 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 Decision-
Making 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 Policy-Making and Systems Change Processes
Need ability to monitor and enforce data-gathering 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 Cross-Systems 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 AlliancePO Box 7993 Ann Arbor, MI 48107
www.whalliance.org
Chuck KiefferExecutive Director
([email protected])734-222-3570734-645-0810