Committee Minutes

City of Grand Forks
10-Year Plan to End Long Term Homelessness
Minutes from Meeting #3 – Wednesday, October 24, 2007; 2:00 – 5:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers – Grand Forks City Hall

Present:
Peggy Kurtz, City of Grand ForksJessica Thomasson
Meredith Richards, City of Grand ForksJoAnn Brundin, St. Vincent de Paul
Susan Houser, Job Service NDGerri Anderson, NEHSC
Joyce Belbas, Adult Learning CenterLynda Berger, GF Housing Authority
Mary McConnell, Prairie HarvestMichael Fuqua, The Salvation Army
Amanda Lupien, CVICAndrea Brudvig, CVIC
Terry Hanson, GF Housing AuthorityRachel Hafner, Prairie Harvest Foundation
Lora Machart, RRVCAEliot Glassheim, City Council
Craig Knudsvig, GF Housing AuthorityCharlotte Gregerson, Mountainbrooke
Todd Fahrni, City Urban Development InternKatie Osborn, City Urban Development Intern

Peggy welcomed everyone to the meeting. She said today’s meeting will be mostly small group discussions about the draft framework for the final plan, which was provided by Jessica Thomasson. Jessica showed excerpts from two videos about New York’s Pathways to Housing program: (1) From Streets to Homes and (2) Journeys in Recovery. The videos showed the ACT concept in action and “what happens next” after someone is housed. After the videos, Jessica asked for insights and discussion. Gerri Anderson said the videos show how outreach has changed over the years. When deinstitutionalizing was occurring in North Dakota, a large number of mentally ill people ended up at the Mission. Prairie Harvest was formed in 1982 and operated on the concept of asking their clients where they wanted to live, which evolved into “scattered sites”. NE and Prairie Harvest worked together to get in-home support services. The first year, they looked at a continuum of services, i.e., supportive housing, scattered sites, and many other options and even though people were moving around a lot, but they saw a decrease in hospitalizations. Gerri added that the permanent supportive housing concept was a godsend. Jessica asked if the partnership between Prairie Harvest and NE still existed and Gerri replied it did. A downside is that they are constantly having to decide who they can cut hours from in order to stretch their funding. Jessica said it appeared like an ACT concept was already in place, just with a limited number of spots. Charlotte Gregerson said we must remember that some people choose not to use the services available and when we’re talking about CMI homeless, we’re talking about those who are not hooked up with services. Jessica asked about Mountainbrook and Charlotte replied that it was a psycho-social day support center open to people with CMI. Their staff are not case managers or doctors, but instead inform people what services are available and try to get them hooked up with those services. Jessica said that, even though it seems that the needs out there are overwhelming, we need to remember that there are many things that are going right in Grand Forks and that’s reflected in the fairly small numbers of long term homeless. Charlotte felt we need to develop a one-stop shop because chronically homeless people need immediate help, not help “in a couple of days”. Eliot asked where Mountainbrook clients live and Charlotte replied they live in group homes, in their own apartments with support, or even on the street.

Jessica said the draft framework is the beginning, or skeleton, of our final plan. Half the battle is defining who is homeless and why, as it exists in Grand Forks. The “premise” box is blank – “To succeed we must…. “ There are things that are working in Grand Forks that are modifications of work that has already been identified by the National Alliance to End Homelessness as being proven to work around the country. Jessica reviewed the draft framework “What Can Be Done”:

#1 be deliberate in planning
#2 emergency prevention of eviction and homelessness
#3 effective outreach – fostering trust
#4 permanent housing – making a high priority in all interactions
#5 coordinating services to provide rapid access
#6 focus on security income and support to help people pay for housing
#7 create an adequate supply of permanent and affordable housing

By the end of this meeting, we will talk about how to define success: what data we can use to measure that things are working. Jessica said we must be in agreement as to who is long-term homeless in Grand Forks:
· 87% are single adults
· 61% have a history of substance abuse or mental illness
· 52% have some type of chronic medical problem - can co-occur with substance abuse or mental illness
· 43% are unemployed
· 26% have a criminal background

This is the population that we’re trying to address. The chart on page 1 of the draft Strategic Framework shows the various combinations and co-occurrence. Jessica said the data shows there is no one answer to the question “who is long term homeless”, but rather a complex interaction of situations.

Terry Hanson asked if all of the above groups can be housed in a single facility or would you need separate facilities for different types of populations. Gerri Anderson said Centre Inc. is for populations in crisis and it’s wise to keep separate because certain populations are vulnerable to each other. Each has its own set of issues. Jessica said there are many ways you can approach housing - you could have an SRO which is just basic housing with no screening for mental illness (MI) or substance abuse (SA). Or a person can get a voucher and get their own apartment. Gerri said it’s been her experience that people with mental illness who live in close proximity also support each other, which is similar to a half-way house for substance abusers, who support each other. Gerri added it’s important to have the choice. Rachel Hafner said it depends on what kind of facility; i.e. a lodge is more like a co-op where people have roommates, whereas most permanent housing is individualized units. Jessica added part of the challenge is the economics of co-location vs scattered sites. Terry said, because the numbers of LTH are low, trying to develop individual services to take to scattered sites could be cost prohibitive. If we bring services to them, it shouldn’t make any difference what their disability is; the ultimate goal for them is to live independently in their own home. Jessica asked if independent meant no supportive services and Terry replied no, it’s with the services that they need. Eliot asked what was the number we are talking about. Jessica said if we look at the PIT, the count is 26. Research shows if you take the PIT data X 2, you get a pretty accurate count; so we’re looking at about 50 people who would fall into this category. Then we need to extrapolate this number over 10 years. Charlotte asked if we would develop our own model to go by or are we assuming we’re going to use the Pathways model. Terry asked if we could assume that all the services needed to end LTH are available or is there a service that is absent in Grand Forks. Joyce Belbas felt there needs to be one person who coordinates the people to the services. JoAnn Brundin felt we have the services, but we need the manpower. Terry Hanson said, if only the lack of money is the case, that’s a whole different issue than not having enough services in place. Jessica said this is the challenge - if you buy into this, then we have perfect system, it’s just not big enough. So have what you’re doing now be part of your thinking, but understand that there are new ways to use what we already have to address this small population. Lynda Berger agreed that the services exist, but we need someone; i.e. a case manager or coordinator, to help people deal with all the overwhelming details. Gerri Anderson felt services are already in place, there’s just not enough people to do them. Charlotte added that chronically homeless people are often not using these services. They have burned their bridges and have chosen to keep abusing or not take their meds. Mike Fuqua said, if you take a person off the street and simply get them warm, you’re not doing what that person needs. JoAnn Brundin felt if give someone gets enough chances, they have no choice but to change, just like what was shown in the video. We have to be prepared to deal with people who may take years to acquire the ability to be successful. Mike Fuqua felt that providing housing with no services was not going to help. Gerri Anderson added there is a fine line between enabling and helping. Craig Knudsvig said the video takes you at face value, then at some point, you have to make choices and if you don’t, you can fail and become a statistic. We talked about living in treatment; i.e., in order to get treatment, you must submit to treatment; but the video shows permanent housing can remove one of the biggest pressures, which is losing your housing and becoming homeless again. Jessica said that statistics show that 85% of people who get “housing first” and then deal with other issues later succeed; i.e., are still housed two years later. Housing First doesn’t mean there are no rules. Terry added they can still abuse drugs or alcohol, something they can’t do if they are on housing assistance. Jessica said there has to be other ways of receiving housing and services such as Shelter + Care, where you can define the nature of the services. JoAnn Brundin said studies have shown it take 3-6 months for someone to recover from homelessness before providers can go beyond that and provide meaningful services. Terry felt that some people will get into an apartment and say “now what” there are no people to talk to so they will go back to a Mission-type atmosphere. Terry asked about the issue of housing sex offenders.

Jessica said, after a short break, we will break out into small groups to talk about the four “Why is Someone in Housing Crisis” characteristics (can’t afford rent, substance abuse, mental illness, or history of eviction). What is the difference between Homeless and LTH - what puts someone in that category. Poverty is common factor, but disability seems to be the difference for LTH. There’s a high incidence of MI and SA and sometimes they co-occur which makes it all the more difficult to address. Eliot asked about the determination of disability, and Jessica replied it can include a mental or physical disability, or substance abuse. She asked people to discuss what is working and what we must keep, but to feel free to put any idea out there.

Terry Hanson said that someone’s history of eviction is an issue because the Housing Authority uses past rental history in determining whether someone will receive housing assistance. Charlotte Gregerson felt that what we’re here to solve are the people we’re not reaching, who don’t have housing or haven’t applied for housing because other issues have gotten in the way. Terry said the problem isn’t that there isn’t a house to put them in; it’s whether they can get into the house. Jessica added that housing authorities are a big key to success. JoAnn Brundin asked about the number of those who have burned their bridges and can’t get into housing assistance. Jessica said she talked with Dave Sena about the duration of trust building, or the length of time it takes to earn someone’s trust. Key points from the last meeting are outreach and trust building. That might be the only way we eventually get the hard-to-house people into housing. Lynda Berger relayed a story of someone who came to her office that morning with apparent MI issues who would not seek services.

After a short break, the group broke out into five tables. After about 15 minutes, Jessica reconvened the meeting and asked for input on the characteristics:

Can’t Afford Rent

· Money management problems – may be extensive medical bills or credit card debt.
· High rents.
· Education - don’t know about or how to apply for child support, insurance, social security or whatever other benefits for which they are eligible. Need help in securing employment.
· Need someone (point of contact) to ask why they can’t afford rent; help them apply for housing assistance.
· Our goal of permanent housing may not be their goal.
· Rep payee service to help pay bills and manage money better.

Rachel Hafner asked if there was some kind of forum where we could meet with people who are homeless and ask them these questions. Jessica said this is one of the challenges of these types of meetings; would homeless people come to these meetings and talk before a large group about their own situations. Or perhaps we can do this through a more in-depth survey of homeless people (i.e., Fargo’s Wilder Study).

Substance Abuse

· Evaluation and treatment - linking people with AA sponsor or whatever they need/want.
· Find out what problems other communities have encountered with “wet” house programs in order to avoid those problems here. What kind of liability is there?
· Develop continuum of services; i.e. social detox, medical detox, in and outpatient, half or “quarter” houses, so people can remain in recovery and maintain their housing.
· What’s available for substance abuse treatment services in GF? Northeast offers inpatient, outpatient, evening, adolescent, dual diagnosis, women and mens after-care, and private addiction counselors. Glenmore Recovery Center in Crookston offers private treatment. Altru no longer has inpatient treatment. People can participate voluntarily or involuntarily through the court system.
· Harm reduction model - reducing harm to self, not requiring total abstinence in programming.
· Regular contact is very important.

Mental Illness

· Monitoring medication is crucial.
· Access to meds - everyone needs to be mindful that cost is a big issue. A provider needs to ask “can you afford these meds” or offer suggestions on where you can get them.
· Reducing the stigma of mental illness – scattered site housing can help.
· If congregate housing, need staff or case manager on site.
· Need regular contact/relationship - someone who says what can I do for you today or are you ready for me to help you today.
· Need help preventing eviction; i.e. “your apartment needs cleaning”. Check on daily to stay on top of situations.

Jessica asked if there had been a discussion on congregate placement versus scattered site. Gerri Anderson said we haven’t had a formal conversation but, from her experience, the answer is varied. Amanda Lupien said, for CVIC, putting all their families in the same building could be a safety issue so it’s better to use scattered sites.

History of Eviction:

· “Hard to House” population - tie renters education to “second chance” housing. Have a case manager who would ensure that a client attended the renters ed classes and then could recommend that person for housing assistance to say the condition that caused the prior eviction before is being addressed. Maybe provide guarantee to check on person regularly to alleviate landlord concerns.
· Develop relationships with landlords to educate as well as to provide assurances.
· Indemnify/guarantee landlords against losses (rent; damages)
· Re-develop crisis intervention team –Develop “second chance” housing – take into consideration “hard to house” characteristics and extend “second” chances to “third, fourth, or fifth” chances.
· Helping people pay back rent they owe.
· Availability of immediate housing.

Eliot suggested providing funds to the Housing Authority to act like a bank to guarantee against tenant risks. Gerri Anderson said we need a crisis intervention team to advocate for people. There was a Crisis Intervention Program (CIP) in place previously but it fell by the wayside. It was modeled after a Fargo program and RRVCA was the lead agency. A new CIP could include St. Vincent de Paul, NE, RRVCA, or the Public School System, etc., whatever was needed for that particular client. Terry said we could provide transitional housing to people while agencies try to teach them to be more responsible. Jessica said one of hardest things for agencies doing eviction prevention is when landlords don’t collect the rent owed to them; if landlords lay down the law earlier, then it’s easier to get help early on and then people don’t get too far “in the hole”. Gerri Anderson said we could use this philosophy for utilities as well because people don’t come forward and ask for help until the bill is so high that no one can help.


Jessica thanked the committee for their input. She asked the committee to look at seven broad categories on the draft framework (pages 2-3). These are the categories of “What can be done to eliminate housing crisis”.

#1 – Be deliberate in planning to end homelessness:

Terry Hanson asked if this plan is for Grand Forks or for Region IV and Jessica replied it’s the city’s plan. Terry said we need to make sure that the people who can provide the resources to end homelessness are sitting at the table; including the City Council and County Commissioners. We need them to buy into the plan because it will take more resources than what exists now. Eliot said, if we came up with something that required State resources, he is hoping to bring that to the State legislators. Jessica said we will get buy in by explaining what is needed and why – by being able to make the case. Andrea Brudvig asked why we were using PIT data from Region IV and Jessica said that, in the last survey, most if not all of the surveys returned were from Grand Forks. Jessica said that maybe one strategy will be to develop a local baseline survey done at a different time of the year.

#2 – Emergency prevention program to prevent eviction and homelessness:

Gerri Anderson felt it was important to educate landlords that they are not doing their tenants any favors by not making them pay rent for 6 months. Terry Hanson said equally important was educating young adults coming out of the foster care system; i.e., before they turn 18. Jessica said we could make education a requirement and target independent living skills. Susan Houser added the requirement could include the youth opportunities program through Job Service. Lynda Berger said regular contact with people could help identify early signs of trouble and referral to the appropriate agency could take place before the situation gets out of control. This could include aggressive intervention and specialized training for police officers and early identification of a problem regardless of who is making the contact.

#3 – Foster trust to enable effective outreach to the long term homeless:

Gerri Anderson said we need to look at evidence-based practices to find solutions that have been tested and that work. It’s no good to do outreach if it’s not effective. Terry Hanson said regular continuous contact is important, whether the person is accepting of help or not. In the videos, regardless of what the individual was doing, there was someone there every day to offer assistance. Also, building trust is important. Rachel Hafner felt peer counseling could also be useful. Eliot said, if what we’re talking about is 50 or so people and it makes sense to have one point of contact, one person who is responsible to make sure people have clothing, job training, rental education, etc. Jessica said this is like ACT or IDDT – where a team of people are responsible and have authority to act.

#4 – Make permanent housing a high priority in all interactions with homeless people:

Jessica said the idea of permanent housing has to be something everyone talks about, whether interaction is from service providers, housing providers, law enforcement, or whatever. Permanent housing must be a goal. Rachel Hafner said Prairie Harvest developed an info sheet called “Why is Housing Important” which they review with each client. Jessica asked, when interacting with homeless individuals or someone who is at risk of being homeless, if permanent housing was a topic that everyone addresses with their clients. Gerri suggested that perhaps stable housing was a better term than permanent housing. Jessica said permanent means not time limited; i.e., they won’t be kicked out after so many days. Gerri said this interaction should also include asking people what they themselves want. Lynda Berger said some cities have landlord/tenant dispute boards who do mediation.

Because it was 5:00 p.m., Jessica said we will be scheduling a meeting in between now and the November 28th meeting to finish what we started today - perhaps meeting during the lunch hour would be best. So plan on getting an e-mail to schedule a working lunch meeting. Peggy thanked everyone for coming to the meeting. Jessica added she was very pleased with the discussions today.
Respectfully submitted by Peggy Kurtz, Office of Urban Development