Transcript Housing and Homelessness Impact Area

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
Est
Cost
Per
Person
Per
Day
Individuals
with Mental
Illness or
Disability
General
Population
$123
$96
Washtenaw
County Jail
Sheltering
for Single
Adult
Housing
with
Services
for Single
Adult
$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”)



Commitment to “500 Unit Plan”



Hundreds of Citizens and Scores of Organizations
Contribute to Creation of Plan
Published in Fall, 2004
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 “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”

Collaborative Management Strategy
 County, Cities, Businesses, Community Leaders
 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 “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
([email protected])
734-222-3570
734-645-0810
48107