Looking at Homelessness in New York and Philadelphia

Transcription

London Housing Foundation
Personal Development Grant
July 2012
Looking at Homelessness in New York and Philadelphia
Katy Bennett
Angus Mulready-Jones
Joanna Rigby-Jones
Octavia Williams
1
July 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Philadelphia
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Bethesda Project
DePaul USA
People’s Emergency Center (PEC)
Project HOME
Horizon House
3. New York City
a. Common Ground
b. Community Solutions
4. Conclusion
5. References
2
July 2012
1. Introduction
The aim of this visit was for professionals from Prison Advice and Care Trust (Pact) and One Support
to learn from the response to homelessness in New York and Philadelphia.
One Support
One Support, part of One Housing Group, is a major provider of high-quality housing, care and
support. One Support brings a fresh approach to providing meaningful, customer-focused support
services.
One Support employs around 600 staff and provides high-quality, modern supported housing and
services to more than 5,000 customers. It helps customers with a wide range of needs and is the
largest developer of new supported housing schemes in London, with a strong reputation for
excellence in this field. One Support is also a major provider of floating support in London, the South
East and East region.
Arlington
Arlington is owned and managed by One Housing Group. Support at Arlington is provided by One
Support, the care and support arm of One Housing Group. Launched in 2010, Arlington takes a
revolutionary approach to tackling homelessness in the UK. Learning from the Times Square model
pioneered by Common Ground in New York, Arlington is a stimulating mixed community of high quality
accommodation for homeless people, social enterprise, business and low rent accommodation for
young professionals or other low income workers.
Pact
Pact is a national charity which currently works inside 20 prisons, has staff placed with several local
authorities, and volunteers working to support families and prisoners on release. Pact works with
offenders, ex-offenders, and their children and families, focusing on relationships, mentoring and
befriending support, and safeguarding and supporting children and vulnerable adults. Pact is working
with the London Housing Foundation and the Prison Service to mitigate the impact imprisonment has
on children and families of offenders in London.
In May 2011, Pact incorporated the Kids VIP charity, which set up the very first prison play services
inside prison visits halls, and which today runs a prison-based parenting programme (Time to
Connect), and provides training and support to prison staff to promote the needs of prisoners’ children.
Homelessness in the USA
According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), there were 643,067
sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons nationwide as of January 2009 (HUD, 2012).
Additionally, about 1.56 million people used an emergency shelter or a transitional housing
programme during the 12-month period between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009. This
number suggests that roughly 1 in every 200 persons in the US used the shelter system at some point
in that period. The reasons for homelessness seem to be similar to the UK; a lack of employment and
affordable homes, and poverty.
America has undergone a shift in its response to homelessness moving from a system of emergency
shelter provision that managed the problem, effectively keeping it out of sight, to the provision of
programmes that will end homelessness.
This has led to the establishment of several key approaches in addition to the housing vouchers
detailed below.
• Shelter Plus Care - a federal programme that provides housing subsidies that are matched by
local funds to provide long-term supportive services (typically case management). This is
similar to the floating support often commissioned by local authorities in the UK. The idea
3
July 2012
•
•
behind this scheme is to reduce the number of people who lose their housing shortly after they
have been housed. The Shelter Plus Care programme provides long-term supports including
working with the landlord to keep the individual housed. This scheme was operated by many
of the providers we visited most notably Horizon in Philadelphia.
Housing First – An idea rather than a service, this theory assumes that all homeless people
are ready to be housed and that it is often only once they are housed that the underlying
issues and causes can be addressed. Homeless people seeking help are often required to
participate in programmes around substance abuse, mental health, and life skills for a year or
more regardless of whether those are factors in their case.
Assertive Outreach - a form of engagement and outreach that emphasises building a bond of
trust between the case worker and the individual. Engagement is highly individualised with the
pace dictated by the individual in need. Case workers do not force rules, regulations or
programme services until they are requested. This model was used by organisations in both
cities to engage homeless, mentally ill individuals.
Housing Funding in the USA
In order to understand the reports into the services delivered in the two cities, it is important to outline
the funding and policy context in the United States. When we visited, the main funding stream came
from the section 8 provisions in the Housing Act of 1937 (HUD, 1999). This is commonly referred to as
‘section 8’ housing or vouchers. In the Section 8 stream, tenants pay about 30% of their income
(including welfare benefits) for rent, while the rest of the rent is paid with federal government money
from HUD which is paid through a local Public Housing Authority (PHA).
Section 8 funding is issued through vouchers that work in two ways;
Project-based vouchers: These vouchers are linked to a project or building and this system works in a
similar way to council housing in the UK where all residents in the building will pay 30% of their
income as rent and the remainder will be covered by the voucher. All of the programmes we visited
funded some or all of their transitional and permanent accommodation through this system.
Person-based vouchers: These vouchers are linked to an individual who can use the voucher to find
private accommodation in an area. Residents will pay 30% of their income as rent as in the case of
project-based schemes. This equates to the housing benefit system in the UK. As in the UK, many
private landlords are reluctant to accept tenants who have section 8 vouchers for many reasons
including:
• not wanting to be subject to a full inspection of their premises by government workers for
HUD's Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the possible remedial work required
• fear that a section 8 tenant or their children will not properly maintain the premises
• a desire to charge a rent for the unit above the fair market rent
• unwillingness to initiate legal action for eviction of a tenant as HUD requires
Despite this, it is against the law to refuse a tenant for the sole reason that they have a section 8
voucher. Having said this some landlords are enthusiastic about accepting a section 8 voucher as
there is a large pool of potential tenants and the voucher will ensure that the majority of the rent is paid
on time. It is this type of voucher that funds the rent of many of Horizon’s service users in
Philadelphia.
Unfortunately, the supply of vouchers to both projects and people exceeds demand for them and it is
not uncommon for people to wait between three and six years to receive a voucher from their PHA.
The system is administered locally and many PHAs close their waiting lists for vouchers for years at a
time while others close their lists halfway through a financial year. From a UK perspective, this
seemed to highlight the worst aspects of localism and raised some concerns about the impact of the
imminent devolution of the housing benefit system to local authorities in the UK.
In the current climate of poor economic growth and cuts to public spending, there have been several
local and national schemes to target shrinking resources towards those either most in need or deemed
most deserving. This has led to funding for veterans being prioritised throughout the housing system,
4
July 2012
as well as the creation of definitions of chronically homeless people. This refers to those people who
have been homeless for more than the last twelve months or for several spells in the last three years
(HUD, 2009). Changes such as these, while obviously helping those they target, seem to assist with
the managing of budget reductions rather than addressing the root cause of the problem.
Living Costs
People who have worked in the United States are entitled to contributory- based welfare payments
similar to Jobseekers’ Allowance for a period of up to 99 weeks after they become unemployed
(Mayer, 2010). Obviously, many of the people who experience chronic homelessness have not
previously worked or have been unemployed for too long. These people often have no family support
as well as other needs such as drug dependency and mental health problems. These people would be
likely to slip through the gaps in the safety net provided by the welfare system. In order to ensure
these people have some income, states across the US implemented a system of General Assistance
(GA); programmes that give small cash payments to people who could not work but were not entitled
to other support. In a stark demonstration of the impact of national fiscal problems on the most
vulnerable people, a week after we left Philadelphia, these $205 a month payments were cut
(Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 2012).
Savings
In all of the programmes we visited there was a requirement on residents to save a proportion of their
income (usually between 20 and 40%), enabling them to be better prepared when they moved out of
transitional housing and into a permanent option. Professionals we spoke to said that rates of
compliance varied, but as a bare minimum all residents had a bank account and pressure to save a
small amount each week as a condition of their tenancy. We felt that this was a really positive aspect
of the American system, enabling and encouraging residents to save for a deposit or furniture when
they moved on.
The Role of the Voluntary Sector
During this visit we visited some inspirational provision outlined in the body of the report, run by very
motivated professionals and dedicated volunteers, and we have brought back a huge amount to
inform practice in the UK. Most of the voluntary sector agencies we saw had roots in local churches
and were established in living memory. Nearly all were still lead by their founders.
As a result, the provision is grounded in specific communities, and often reflects the vision of its
founders leading to an amazing variety of services that were wrapped around the core housing offer.
The downside of this arrangement is that it varies greatly across the country and even within a city.
For all those who receive the support of Common Ground or Project H.O.M.E, there are many more
that are equally needy elsewhere. As the founders that we met told us, there is a huge amount for
them to do before they achieve their missions.
5
July 2012
2. Philadelphia
The group met with five agencies in Philadelphia, visiting a several schemes provided across these
agencies.
2a. Bethesda Project
Bethesda Project works with “chronically homeless” men and women in Philadelphia in emergency
shelters, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing and independent housing. It was set up
by Reverend Dominic Rossi in 1979, who is now the Executive Director, having left Philadelphia for
some years in between. His mission and values remain paramount in the identity of the organisation,
with the line “to be family with those who have none” being spoken during our visit as well on the
agency’s website. Bethesda Project was the first service we
saw in the USA, and therefore its focus on providing permanent
housing surprised us. Some of the women at Spruce had been
there for some years, and this demonstrated the recognition that
people need permanence and stability. Many of Bethesda’s
residents had drug or alcohol issues (45%) or mental health
problems (60%), and the services provided support in light of
this, as well as with life skills and education and training
(Bethesda Project, 2012).
Bethesda Project runs a range of services; an emergency “safe haven” for men who are taking the first
step to becoming housed, drop-in centres (particularly well-used during cold winters), permanent and
temporary supportive housing, as well as three properties for residents who need little supervision or
support. There were no services targeted towards families or young people, and as with other services
we visited, there appeared to be no link with criminal justice services for those being released from
prison.
Spruce: A permanent supportive home for women with medical conditions, Spruce is staffed 24-hours,
and a casework facility is provided to enable the women to plan goals, develop life skills and engage
in activities, education or training. There are units for sixteen women, and the staff clearly had very
positive relationships with them. The property has been used by Bethesda Project since 1983, and is a
homely town house in downtown Philadelphia. The sixteen residents have their own rooms, and there
is a common area. As with some other projects we saw, some communal meals were cooked and
brought in by volunteers.
Connelly House: This is a new property, sharing space with Project
H.O.M.E. in a purpose-built and high-specification building. Opened in
2010, the property is located in Philadelphia’s business district.
Bethesda Project has 24 units for men who are in recovery from
substance misuse (whilst Project H.O.M.E. use 55 units for both men
and women). Residents have their own bedrooms with bathrooms,
and small kitchenettes. Communal spaces enable residents to cook,
eat and relax. All residents cook their own meals, although some
communal meals are offered by volunteers. As with the Spruce
service, there are caseworkers to provide support in managing
recovery and engaging in meaningful activities. There is also an active
tenant council to enable residents to have input into the way the
property is run.
Connelly House
6
July 2012
My Brother’s House: Known as a “safe haven”, this is a space for men who are not yet in recovery.
The men generally have chronic mental ill-health and substance misuse issues. As the property is
emergency housing, it had a very different feel to the other services we saw. There was clearly less
focus on supporting residents to engage in work or training, and sobriety was not a requirement.
Twenty men stayed there, receiving three meals a day, laundry and washing facilities, plus support
services if they wished to take them. Essentially, it provided a safe space for men who would be
vulnerable living and sleeping on the streets. Men could sleep there as well as spend their days. We
saw a small sleeping area where longer-term residents have bedrooms, but it appeared that some of
the residents slept in communal areas. The building was basic but fairly clean, and staff were friendly.
There was an aim for services like My Brother’s House to be a starting point for some homeless men,
who would gain trust of the staff, and begin to engage in services. Therefore, some of the men staying
at My Brother’s House would move onto transitional housing at some point, and the service, whilst
very different to the others we visited, clearly provided a route into services for some of the chronically
homeless men in Philadelphia.
2b. Depaul USA
Depaul USA operates in Philadelphia, Georgia and New Orleans, whilst their international arm runs in
Ireland, London, Slovakia and the Ukraine. The organisation has faith-based roots, taken from the
spirit and work of St. Vincent de Paul. Interestingly, their UK work is specifically with young people
(aged 16-25 years), and some preventative family mediation work with those under sixteen years.
Conversely, Depaul House in Philadelphia provides supported housing for men aged between 20 and
65 years, and some statistics provided during our visit
suggested that 49% of homeless people in Philadelphia
are aged between 26 and 45 years, and 40% are 46 or
older (from Depaul USA presentation). This appears to
differ from the British situation, in which homelessness
has been found to be most prevalent amongst 16-19 year
olds (Fitzpatrick et al, 2000). All of the other services we
saw were also geared towards adults, although Common
Ground in New York has a project for young people
leaving care based on the UK’s foyer programmes
(Common Ground, 2012).
With staff from Depaul House
Depaul House required residents to pay 30% of their income towards rent and service charges, and
20% into a savings account, which staff said most managed. The aim of encouraging residents to
save is provided in policy and procedures published by local government. The city’s Office of
Supportive Housing “requires all Emergency Housing Providers to establish internal mechanisms
necessary to collect and maintain fees and savings from every client (with income from any source)
currently staying in their emergency housing facility” (p2). Therefore, this was standard throughout the
Philadelphia services we visited, as well as in Common Ground properties in New York City. This is
not something typically attempted in UK services.
Depaul House: Depaul House has space for 27 male residents between the ages of 20 and 65. The
property is located in the Germantown area of Philadelphia. Residents have their own units, and there
are communal areas and a computer lab. The project has some good links with the community, with a
meeting room available for use, and classes and groups run for residents in parenting, yoga and
budgeting. Meals were provided for residents and staff. At the time of our visit, Depaul USA had
recently set up a cleaning service run by residents, Immaculate Cleaning Services. This forms part of
Depaul House’s focus on residents gaining work or training (61% of residents discharged are in full-
7
July 2012
time employment according to a presentation
provided during our visit). Depaul House staff saw
education and employment as a key factor in
reducing homelessness, and thus Employment
Specialists worked closely with residents.
Furthermore, casework is provided to all residents
to facilitate the development of life skills, social
networks and education/work opportunities, and to
manage substance misuse or health conditions.
Staff also told us about the peer support specialist
programme that runs to support recovery. At
Depaul House, a staff member with a mental
Depaul House
health or substance misuse condition would be
paid to provide support to peers in identifying and achieving goals around recovery. This programme
does not run throughout the USA but exists in some states.
St. Raymond’s House: Depaul USA are currently developing a new service, which will provide 27
permanent supportive units for homeless people with complex medical issues. Interestingly, the
service has developed a close link with Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, which would be
referring eligible tenants directly, and then provide on-site medical services. This demonstrates a
unique collaboration between medical and social services. The property is an Old Catholic school, and
although some renovation and decorating is needed, it is generally an ideal layout for its new purpose.
Staff told us that the local community were positive about the aims of St. Raymond’s House, and as
with Depaul House, it seemed that the service had the potential to develop good links with its
neighbours.
2c. Peoples Emergency Center (PEC)
PEC was unique in the agencies that we visited in that it provided accommodation for families (mainly
single women with young children) whereas all of the other agencies provided services aimed at
combating single homelessness. PEC is the largest provider of support to homeless families in the
city.
PEC was established at the Asbury United Methodist Church Led by the
Reverend Jim Hallam, Director of the Wesley Foundation at The University
of Pennsylvania and Pastor of the Asbury Church; and the Reverend Bob
Edgar, Protestant Minister at Drexel University. PEC began with a staff
group of about 25 volunteers in 1972, and was initially set up to provide
emergency shelter and food to homeless families, couples and single
women each weekend.
Today, PEC provides a whole range of housing across west Philadelphia
and its buildings contribute to the regeneration of the neighbourhood. PEC
provides families not only with housing but a whole host of other services
including case management, therapy, employment support and education. The ethos of the
organisation is encapsulated in its mission statement:
PEC nurtures families, strengthens neighbourhoods, and drives change. We are committed to
increasing equity and opportunity throughout our entire community. We provide comprehensive
supportive services to homeless women and their children, revitalize our West Philadelphia
neighbourhood, and advocate for social justice (PEC, 2012).
8
July 2012
During our visit to its education facilities and emergency and transitional accommodation this ethos
was evident with the agency providing support to the wider community thought its education
programmes, food bank and criminal record expungement clinics (allowing those who have pleaded
guilty or not contested convictions to claim to have no convictions to private sector employers).
In terms of funding, PEC is overwhelmingly publicly-funded with 71% of its income coming from
government contracts which fund the emergency accommodation and most of the capital programmes
bringing buildings into use (PEC, 2011). In addition to this government support, the services users
were also supported by the state on a mix of welfare benefits and housing subsidy.
Its housing services are split into 3 categories: emergency, transitional and permanent. In common
with all of the other projects we saw, all tenants were required to save a proportion of their income.
Emergency Housing
We visited the emergency housing provided by PEC at Gloria’s
Place, which is where families are stabilised and begin working with
PEC to address the underlying issues that have lead to
homelessness. This accommodation was provided in the form of
seven dormitory rooms with common bathrooms, a cafeteria, visitors’
lounge, library, and computer lab. Families receive food, clothing,
healthcare, school supplies, and books. There were also play spaces
to provide a welcoming environment to children. The idea is that after
a short period of time in this accommodation families would move
into transitional accommodation some of which was provided in the
same building. The building was welcoming and well-secured and
staffed 24 hours a day but the facilities in this accommodation were
basic. The benefits of taking up a place in this emergency
accommodation are in the casework provision and wraparound
Gloria’s Place
services at PEC. PEC provide casework support to the families
throughout their stay, and as PEC caseworkers have a small caseload (around 12 each, half that of
their counterparts in other shelters in Philadelphia), families receive a move individualised support
package. During their stay in PEC, accommodation progress is measured against the following areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ability to handle stressful satiations in an appropriate manner
Maintains personal and family hygiene
Compliance with rules of the PEC community
Compliance with financial responsibilities
Modelling and teaching self-discipline
Achievement of personal goals
Drug and alcohol free (social drinking is acceptable)
Provision of healthy and sanitary living conditions
Arrangement of family schedules to allow for enough sleep, rest, relaxation and exercise
Active participation in child's education
Ensures that family receives adequate and appropriate healthcare/developmental services
Provision of adequate supervision of child(ren)
Understands and applies age appropriate expectations of child(ren)
Once sufficient progress is made in these areas, families progress onto transitional housing.
Transitional Housing
Once families move into transitional housing, they benefit from more privacy and their own bathroom,
as well as more financial responsibility which helps prepare them for independent living.
9
July 2012
We visited the transitional accommodation at Gloria’s place which provided families with
accommodation, meals, casework support, and family therapy as well as parent and child-focused
education programmes. The accommodation we saw was the more supported units. Families can then
advance to one of twenty-six individual family apartments with their own kitchens in Rowan House.
Families at Rowan House take on more responsibilities, including shopping for themselves, preparing
meals and assuring that their children are prepared for school on time each day.
Permanent Housing
PEC provides families with permanent housing through the development of local vacant properties into
rental units and houses for sale, and permanent housing opportunities are available through its
community development corporation.
Each family that graduates from PEC’s transitional housing into permanent housing receives case
management for a full year, including guidance in running a household and being a good neighbour,
assistance with finding, keeping, and advancing in a job, and follow-up services for health care, mental
healthcare, childcare, and drug and alcohol problems.
Families who are unable to secure PEC’s housing are able to apply for and move into a permanent
unit provided by Philadelphia Housing Authority. These families are entitled to receive the same case
management from PEC caseworkers.
Lessons for the UK
The services PEC provides are in great demand and the organisation manages to move on 30% of its
families into permanent accommodation each year. Providers in the UK could learn from the
enthusiasm and human face of the organisation as well as the individualised support that PEC was
able to a huge variety of wraparound services.
However, the system for housing families with children in Philadelphia was clear inadequate in
comparison to the UK where families with children are not expected to spend time in shelters or
hostels before they enter permanent housing with homeless families in the UK normally receiving
temporary housing while they bid for social housing properties.
It struck the group that the inspirational services PEC provides may well be a symptom of gaps in the
wider social welfare system in the city that both allowed people to develop a whole range of issues
before they received support and could not provide permanent housing to families.
2d. Project H.O.M.E
Project H.O.M.E. was developed as a response to Philadelphia’s large street population and a lack of
programmes to meet the need. In 1988, there was very little provision in the city beyond emergency
shelter accommodation. In 1988, Philadelphia had a large street population, and only a handful of
programmes were able to provide anything beyond emergency shelters. This failed to meet the needs
of the many chronically homeless people that often suffered from severe mental illness and/or
substance misuse.
Project H.O.M.E. emerged from the experience and expertise of two programmes that had been
providing services to homeless persons: Bethesda Project and Women of Hope. In the winter of 19881989, these two organisations pooled their personnel and administrative resources to respond to the
unmet needs of the chronically homeless people who were still living on the streets. With funding from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the donation of a vacant recreation centre from the
City of Philadelphia, they set up a temporary shelter called the Mother Katherine Drexel Residence. Its
10
July 2012
goal was to provide a refuge for chronically homeless men who sought food, clothing, medical care,
employment and to offer a sense of dignity and belonging.
The organisation was founded and continues with Christian values and has developed under the
leadership of its co-founder, Sister Mary Scullion, to deliver its mission:
…to empower adults, children, and families to break the cycle of homelessness and poverty, to
alleviate the underlying causes of poverty, and to enable all of us to attain our fullest potential as
individuals and as members of the broader society. We strive to create a safe and respectful
environment where we support each other in our struggles for self-esteem, recovery, and the
confidence to move toward self-actualization (Project H.O.M.E., 2012).
Sister Mary has worked with others to expand the services of
Project H.O.M.E. which has become the highest-profile provider of
services and the loudest voice speaking for homeless people in the
city. Today, Project H.O.M.E achieves its mission through a
continuum of care comprised of street outreach, a range of
supportive housing, and comprehensive services. They address the
root causes of homelessness through neighbourhood-based
affordable housing, economic development, and environmental
enhancement programs, as well as through providing access to
employment opportunities; adult and youth education; and
healthcare. Based in North Philadelphia the organisation provides
several services.
Street Outreach: Outreach response workers build trusting
relationships that enable individuals who are homeless to accept
placement in appropriate settings where they may obtain needed
Ray Homes
opportunities to stabilise their lives. The outreach teams attempt to
establish a rapport that gradually leads to acceptance and
openness to seeking help. Outreach teams work around the clock seven days a week, with additional
teams out during summer and winter weather emergencies.
Women's Emergency Respite Centre: The Women's Emergency Respite Centre serves a particularly
vulnerable population: women with a long history of street homelessness, many of whom are
incompatible or resistant to city-run shelter services.
Supportive Housing and Services: Project H.O.M.E.'s supportive housing programmes enable each
person to break the cycle of homelessness, move toward self-sufficiency and achieve his or her fullest
potential. Like other providers we visited in the city, Project H.O.M.E provides:
•
•
•
•
Entry-level housing: Safe Haven
Transitional Housing
Permanent Housing
Supportive Services
Alumni Programme: Project H.O.M.E.’s alumni group provides residents with the opportunity to stay
connected to our community even after moving out of supportive housing programmes.
11
July 2012
The aim of this programme is to address the problems homeless people have in establishing
themselves as a part of a community when they move out of supportive housing and into a more
independent living situation. The alumni programme is meant to create a space for former residents to
connect, meet, and create communities. It also provides opportunities for residents to stay involved
with some of the activities that are available to current residents.
Affordable Rental Housing: Project H.O.M.E. has developed an eleven-storey building in Rittenhouse
Square and a four-storey building in the Tioga neighbourhood to help address the gap in
Philadelphia's affordable housing inventory.
Affordable Homeownership Programme: This was
designed to stimulate housing production in North
Philadelphia, create a positive community impact, and
to increase the development and transformation of a
distressed urban community into an attractive place to
live.
Honickman Learning Centre and Comcast Technology
Labs: We visited this brand new building and were told
that 80% of the capital and ongoing funding had been
found through non-statutory funders and private
donations. This was a telling indication of the standing
of
both Project H.O.M.E and Sister Mary Scullion in the
Inside a flat at Ray Homes
city. Programmes at this 38,000 square foot technology
centre are tailored to help the residents of the community move towards greater prosperity by
increasing their educational and employment opportunities.
2e. Horizon House
Horizon House provides community-based treatment, rehabilitation and support to single homeless
people over the age of 18. They do this through a holistic approach to medical, psychiatric and
behavioural health needs. The support offered by Horizon House is comparable to what we might
consider floating support or community inclusion services in the UK. As a requirement of the housing
subsidy they receive, 75% of their services are provided within the community.
Horizon House was founded in 1952 by a group of Quakers as a
support group for former patients from local mental hospitals. Since
then, Horizon House has grown and significantly expanded their
services and now provides community-based support services to
more than 4,500 people in the region.
Horizon House offers a variety of services for people with mental
health needs, substance misuse, learning disabilities and
homelessness. For the purposes of our trip, we focused on the
services provided by their Housing First Treatment Teams, which
support people with a diagnosed mental health illness in conjunction
with chronic street or shelter homelessness (The US Department of
Housing and Urban Development defines chronic homelessness as
having experience one year of continuous street or shelter
homelessness, or four occurrences of street or shelter homelessness
over a three year period (HUD, 2009)).
12
July 2012
All referrals to the Housing First Treatment Teams are received through Philadelphia's Department of
Behavioral Health's Targeted Case Management Unit (TCMU). A needs assessment is determined
using the 'Environmental Matrix' tool, which identifies the appropriate level of care based on need.
Clients (or 'participants', as they are referred to) may be seen more than once a day, or even weekly
based on this assessment. Community support staff then work within participants’ homes to ensure
they are meeting goals such as sobriety, management of bills and household responsibilities and also
to provide advocacy and support with housing and welfare benefit entitlement.
While visiting Horizon House, we were invited to join one of their community Case Managers on a visit
to the home of one of their participants named Wendy. Wendy lives in government-subsidised housing
in an under-resourced part of north Philadelphia and is a recovered drug user with mental health
needs. Her Case Manager visits her on a weekly basis to ensure that she is taking her medication and
maintaining her sobriety and also supports her with personal goals, such as further developing her
relationship with her children, who are currently under her mother's care. Wendy's Case Manager also
provides support to her regarding benefits entitlement.
13
July 2012
3. New York City
While in New York the group visited three schemes developed by Common Ground. We also met with
Community Solutions, a newly established national not-for-profit organisation which aims to work in
existing communities to end homelessness.
3a. Common Ground
Common Ground is a developer of supportive housing based in New York City. They currently have
13 permanent and transitional housing residences and 120 scatter sites located in New York City, as
well as a transitional residence for homeless veterans in Westchester County, New York, and lowincome housing in Hartford, Connecticut.
The organisation’s mission is to provide safe, permanent homes without conditions. Common Ground
uses the ‘Housing First’ model, and residents are therefore not obligated to complete a rehabilitation
program, attain sobriety, or meet any other preconditions before moving into a Common Ground
property.
Since its founding in 1991, Common Ground has created 3,200 units of affordable permanent and
transitional housing and has helped over 5,000 people to overcome homelessness. Common Ground
also manages “Street to Home”, a street outreach programme which connects the most long-term
homeless individuals with housing and other supportive services.
While in New York, we visited three of Common Grounds developments. The Domenech and The
Hegeman are both new builds located in the under-resourced area of Brownsville, Brooklyn, while The
Times Square is an historic landmark hotel in Manhattan which was restored by Common Ground in
1991.
The Times Square: The Times Square is Common Ground’s flagship supportive housing residence.
The Times Square was a grand hotel that was built in 1922 and was acquired by Common Ground
through grant funding from the city in 1991, having fallen into a state of disrepair over the prior
decade. Common Ground then embarked on a large-scale transformation of the building, making it
the largest supported housing residence in the country.
The art room at The Times Square
The Times Square combines permanent affordable
housing for low-income and formerly homeless adults,
people with severe and enduring mental health needs and
people living with HIV/AIDS. Founders of Common Ground
believed that the combination of affordable housing and
supported housing under one roof helps to build a
community environment, which in turn eradicates, or at
least lessens, the stigmas associated with typical
homeless shelters.
Common Ground work in partnership with the Center for Urban Community Services, who provide onsite support services for residents at the Times Square, as well as some of their other properties.
14
July 2012
The most remarkable design feature is the doubleheight lobby, which serves as a gallery for displaying
the work of resident artists. There is a spacious
community room on the top floor with spectacular views
of the city. The room is used to host tenant events, and
is also made available for commercial rental to the
general public. Also at the ‘Top of the Times’ is a large
outdoor garden area, with seating amongst the plants
and trees. This large space provides an outdoor
environment which is unparalleled in an urban area
such as New York.
Top of the Times
There was a buzz and energy throughout the Times Square, with dozens of residents always coming
and going, while another sat playing the piano in the grand lobby. The sense of community was strong
and prevalent throughout the scheme, and it’s easy to see that Common Ground’s mission has been
an enormous success.
The Domenech: The Domenech opened in 2011 and provides permanent accommodation for older
people on low incomes, many of whom have a history of chronic homelessness. The Domenech is
located in Brownsville, Brooklyn and is a seven-storey, 72-unit building containing a mix of onebedroom and studio apartments.
As with the Times Square model, the Domenech
provides a mixed resident group of approximately 40%
older people with support needs and roughly 60% older
people on a low income, creating a mixed and diverse
community environment.
The courtyard at The Domenech
Common Ground coordinates on-site social services to
assist residents in connecting with community
resources, advocating for entitlements, and
coordinating home care and medical services.
There is a library equipped with computers on site, as well as a large open courtyard which we were
told has been host to many barbeques and festivities!
The Hegeman: Opened in 2012, the Hegeman is a five-storey, 161-unit
building located in the under-resourced neighborhood of Brownsville,
Brooklyn. The Hegeman offers studio apartments for formerly homeless
individuals with special needs, people with HIV/AIDS, and low-income
residents. Once again, the Hegeman is an example of Common
Ground’s model of combining affordable housing for people on low
incomes as well as accommodation for people with support needs.
At the Hegeman the reception area is managed by trained security staff.
While these staff are sourced from an outside agency, the building
manager explained to us that all potential new staff are interviewed
locally, as the role of a security guard within a supported housing
environment requires a very specific skillset.
The Hegeman
Being a very new build, the Hegeman makes use of many emerging development technologies. One
15
July 2012
of which is a system which enables the management staff to ensure that proper security checks are
being done. There are small metal discs installed at all security check points, which require the
security guard to touch-in using a small baton. This is
recorded, and thus ensures that all areas of the building
are checked routinely.
Additionally, the Hegeman employs a system which
automatically turns off all lights and utilities in individual
flats once the resident has checked out of the building,
having passed through a scanner at the reception area.
This system is expected to dramatically reduce utility costs
at the property.
Fitness Room at The Hegeman
Probably one of the most impressive components of the
Hegeman is the communal facilities. The Hegeman has a gym suite which is made available to all
residents and also features a large conference space and IT suite, which will soon be available for
commercial rental.
The Hegeman also features an enclosed garden which
is available to residents and their guests. The garden
has outdoor seating and tables, built-in chess/checkers
tables and a large bike rack. In addition to the enclosed
garden, Common Ground is also planning to develop a
small community garden adjacent to the Hegeman. The
community garden will be available for use by all
neighborhood residents, and will be monitored by the
onsite security guard as well as CCTV.
At The Hegeman
3b. Community Solutions
As part of our visit to New York, we met with a representative from Community Solutions (CS). CS is a
newly established national not-for-profit organisation which aims to work in existing communities to
end homelessness. Through a number of campaigns and experience, CS partners will coordinate
community leaders, public agencies, non-profits, property developers and health service organisations
to create practical, accessible and cost effective solutions to homelessness. For example; a key
initiative has been the 100,000 Homes Campaign, a four-year programme to move 100,000 homeless
people into housing. CS work with local communities across the US to rethink existing services and
improve overall delivery, advocating both property owners and social agencies to work together to
achieve a common goal. Their work is based on partnership and collaboration from local through to
national level, creating a network to end homelessness and strengthen existing communities. The lead
to meet with CS was through the founder, Rosanne Haggerty, who previously founded Common
Ground in 1990. Rosanne’s team at CS was made up of 30 professionals from multiple disciplines
that all had the ability to contribute to a holistic approach. Rosanne continues to be affiliated with
Common Ground, with New York offices for CS based in the Prince George Scheme, Manhattan.
They appeared to be a very ambitious organisation, but perhaps lacked the warmth of a local social
enterprise. According to CS, by working with real estate providers, redundant residential units which
have not been sold or let can be used to house homeless individuals, leading into the Housing First
model (discussed above). The key issue that all states seemed to be dealing with was the lack of
affordable accommodation. A question that occurred was whether planning requirements were used to
ensure all new developments included some form of affordable accommodation? This is an area that
16
July 2012
UK planning laws are already promoting through section 106s and local planning policies (Joseph
Rowntree Foundation, 2002).
What was evident was the passion and drive to work collaboratively, acting as the ‘glue’ to bring
different agencies together. The success of the organisation is driven by clarity of vision that only an
independent organisation such as CS can offer. It effectively communicates its vision and purpose to
many other entities and government agencies, building a very effective support network. Funding
streams through government contracts, philanthropy, individual donations, real estate and consultancy
fees in a social investment model, enable them to achieve their objectives.
A key message from CS was their reliance on marketing and communications to drive support for their
projects. One example that appeared to be a good idea was a news update on the website every time
a new person is housed. The have used media effectively to personalise the issue, and aid them in
achieving their goals.
17
July 2012
4. Conclusion
In summary, the group learned that while there are large systematic differences in the ways in which
homelessness is dealt with in the US, we can learn from a few points of good practice:
•
Personal Savings: In all of the programmes we visited there was a requirement on residents
to save a proportion of their income (usually between 20 and 40%), enabling them to be better
prepared when they moved out of transitional housing and into a permanent option.
Professionals we spoke to said that rates of compliance varied, but as a bare minimum all
residents had a bank account and pressure to save a small amount each week as a condition
of their tenancy. We felt that this was a really positive aspect of the American system,
enabling and encouraging residents to save for a deposit or furniture when they moved on.
•
Peer Support Specialists: The role of the Peer Support Specialist seemed embedded
throughout most, if not all, of the services we visited. This enables services to offer support
from an individual who is not only qualified in the area of care and support, but also has firsthand experience of homelessness.
•
Attitude: Providers in the UK could learn from the enthusiasm, passion and human face of the
organisations that we met with. The individualised support that these agencies offer allows for
a more personalised level of assistance to their clients and provides more rewarding
outcomes for the individuals that they work with.
18
July 2012
5. References
Bethesda Project. (2012) Fast Facts. [Online] <http://www.bethesdaproject.org/our-family/fast-facts>
Accessed 5th August 2012.
Common Ground. (2012) The Foyer Program. [Online] <http://www.commonground.org/ourth
programs/the-foyer-program/> Accessed 5 August 2012.
Fitzpatrick, S., Kemp, P. & Klinker, S. (2000) Single homelessness: An overview of research in Britain.
Bristol: The Policy Press. [Online]
th
<http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/jr073-homelessness-research-britain.pdf> Accessed 5 August
2012.
HUD. (1999) United States Housing Act of 1937 as amended by the Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act of 1998 as of 3/2/1999. [Online} <http://www.hud.gov/offices/ogc/usha1937.pdf>
Accessed 6th September 2012.
HUD. (2009) Chronic Homelessness. [Online]
<http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/chronic.cfm> Accessed 6th September 2012.
HUD. (2012) US Department of Housing and Urban Development – Homeless Assistance Grants.
[Online] <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=Homeless_Assis_Grants_2012.pdf>
th
Accessed 6 September 2012.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2002) Planning Gain and Affordable Housing. [Online]
<http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/planning-gain-and-affordable-housing> Accessed 6th September
2012.
Mayer, G. (2010) ‘The trend in long-term unemployment and characteristics of workers unemployed
for more than 99 weeks’, Congressional Research Service. [Online]
<http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41559.pdf> Accessed September 6th 2012.
People’s Emergency Center. (2011) Annual Review. Philadelphia: PEC.
People’s Emergency Center. (2012) Nurturing Families, Strengthening Communities, Driving Change.
th
[Online] <http://www.pec-cares.org/> Accessed 6 September 2012.
Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. (2012) General Assistance. [Online]
<http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/foradults/cashassistance/generalassistance/index.htm> Accessed 6th
September 2012.
Project H.O.M.E. (2012) The Mission of Project H.O.M.E. [Online]
th
<http://www.projecthome.org/about/> Accessed September 6 2012.
The City of Philadelphia: Office of Supportive Housing. (2009) Emergency housing savings and fees:
Policy and procedures. [Online]
<http://www.phila.gov/osh/PDFs/SectionD_Shelter_Savings_Fees_Policy_RevMay2009.pdf>
Accessed 5th August 2012.
19

Looking at Homelessness in New York and Philadelphia

Transcription

Similar documents

PPT - Arizona Coalition to End Homelessness

Pop Up Front Porches and HF Residents as Activists

11.2 - Hosanna Community

Online Casino Games Without Downloading

Annual Report 2013

January 2012 - Hope of the Valley Rescue Mission

Order Form - Jack L. Marcus Company Institutional Sales Catalog

Engagement, Not Enforcement - Arizona Coalition to End

For far too long, City Hall – and its signature courtyard

in search of architecture