Committee Minutes

City of Grand Forks
10-Year Plan to End Long Term Homelessness
Minutes from Meeting #2 – Thursday, September 20, 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
Pat Berger, United WayLeslie Stastny, NDAD
Keith Berger, GF County Social ServicesLynda Berger, GF Housing Authority
Mary McConnell, Prairie HarvestDeb Johnson, Prairie Harvest
Amanda Lupien, CVICAndrea Brudvig, CVIC
Amy Brooks, Lutheran Social ServicesJohn Colter, GF Apt. Assoc. & Board of Realtors
Faye Kihne, CVICEliot Glassheim, City Council
Tami Byzewski, Northeast Human ServicesDave Sena, Northlands Rescue Mission
Mike Danielski, Fargo VACraig Knudsvig, GF Housing Authority
Terri Keehr, GF Public Health Dept.Jamie Hager, Ryan House (Metroplains)
Lora Machart, RRVCADevon Hansen, UND Geography Dept.
Dawnita Nilles, GF County Social ServicesCharlotte Gregerson, Mountainbrooke
John Ramberg, GF County Sheriffs Office
Peggy welcomed everyone to the second stakeholder meeting. She also welcomed Jessica Thomasson, who has agreed to help facilitate the rest of the meetings and develop the plan. Jessica said she would like to spend time today processing the information that was presented at the last meeting, talking about our target population, and about the existing environment in Grand Forks in terms of housing and services. We’re going to discuss strong and weak points of the system and view a short video on a housing concept called “Housing First”. At the end of the meeting, we’ll have the start of a framework of the direction in which we want to go. We’re also going to talk about the community’s philosophy of housing; the concept of housing first vs. housing ready and congregate versus scattered site housing.

Jessica said that Grand Forks has many unique features already in place and asked for input on strengths and weaknesses in the housing market. Peggy said we have a Housing Authority that is willing to take on challenges for hard-to-house clients. Deb Johnson said we have seen a nice shift in the formation of strong partnerships with the Housing Authority, UND, NEHSC, and many other agencies; there’s not so much “turf protecting”. We have a good start on our continuum but we also have a lot of need. We have permanent supportive housing here while other communities don’t. She explained that supportive housing provides staff to assist people with SMI (Serious Mental Illness) who are having a hard time living in the community. Prairie Harvest provides 24-hour staff, which is valuable because staff can notice early signs of decompensation and report it to the case manager at NE. Because of this, we have seen a decline in the number of rehospitalizations. Supports are what make permanent housing possible. Prairie Harvest’s support dollars are from a HUD COC grant for a life skills therapist and job developer and they work with people who are living in permanent supportive housing. Jessica said this sounds very similar to an Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) team, which has received a “best practice” nod. Deb agreed that it wouldn’t take much to get ACT teams together; we just don’t have the law enforcement arm in place at this time.

Housing Strengths and Weaknesses:

Jessica talked about the supply of available housing units. Craig Knudsvig said the Housing Authority waiting list for rental assistance is short. He felt the supply is good but there are things that hold up the process. Terry Hanson put his thoughts together for Craig on the “cracks in the system” handout, as Terry was not able to be at this meeting. Terry’s main points were: the Housing Authority has enough vouchers/units to house 1800 people; they are the permanent housing provider for LMI families in the community; it is Terry’s belief that the Housing Authority can house all chronically homeless people within 30 days; they employ Resident Service Coordinators, who don’t provide services directly but connect people with the needed services; they do not provide emergency shelter (but asks if they could); they don’t directly provide meals but Senior Citizens Association does at three Housing Authority sites; they don’t provide GED but again provide sites for Adult Education classes. Craig said that Terry’s point is that supply isn’t the biggest battle, but rather lack of cohesion; connecting the dots by expanding partnerships with other agencies. Lynda Berger added that most people can find housing but a big obstacle is their rental history, especially if they have been destructive to the property. Jessica recorded that some of the criteria for accessing housing could be a barrier for the hard-to-house. Pat Berger asked what can be done for people who have burned their bridges and Craig said that’s exactly the population we need to talk about. Mike Danielski said that personal choice must be considered and gave an example of a man who served his country in wartime. He comes home with PTSD and tries to put his life together. There are services and programs but all have rigid rules, so he wonders how it can be that he can put his life on the line for his country and come back only to be told where to live, what time to get up, what time to go to sleep, when to eat, etc. It’s a matter of respect and choices. Deb Johnson added there are also issues of criminal felonies and drug charges; even just the suspicion of having pot in an apartment is enough to lose one’s housing, at which time they may be forced into substandard housing, which exists in Grand Forks and is a weakness in our system. Lynda Berger said several agencies did form a crisis intervention team for hard-to-house families who owe money or have poor rental histories, but it hasn’t met in awhile. Jessica recorded that starting fresh in the development a crisis intervention team was perhaps less challenging than trying to rework an existing one. Lynda added that we have also developed a renter education program which teaches people about rental responsibilities.

Charlotte Gregerson said she sees people who choose to be outside the system or have burned their bridges. Perhaps they may be too sick to recognize they have a problem. It’s starting to get cold now so we will see more people that need shelter. We need a place to refer people who are alcoholics/chemically dependent because there are no agencies that will serve them if they are actively drinking/using. This is a gap, or weakness, as well. Craig agreed, saying we should have a “door” for people to get into the system, and educate the community so everyone knows where that door is. Deb Johnson agreed that not having a drop-off place for people who are intoxicated was a system weakness. Tami Byzewski said that their director, Kate Kenna, is currently in discussions with the County about a detox facility but nothing is in place yet. Jessica added lack of detox facility to our list of system weaknesses. Deb said she thinks people in Grand Forks don’t believe there is a problem because they don’t see it often. Dave Sena said that people feel, if they get picked up more than 3-4 times, they will get committed to Jamestown. The Mission’s big concern is liability if they admit inebriates into the shelter, but they would rather see people sleeping in their foyer than in an alley or car, especially in the winter; adding that the Mission is seeing an increase in the number of people with this problem. Pat Berger asked if we had a sense of how many people we’re talking about and if we can do a better job of finding out who they are. Dave Sena said he’s talking about a hundred people over time, not at a time. The Mission sees about 500 different people a year and there will always be people who don’t want services, but with an aggressive form of intervention, we can help more. The most important place to start is to build a trust relationship. Craig asked if there was a need for an SRO. Jessica said different solutions are needed for people in a one-time crisis than for people that are in crisis over and over again. Deb felt that there’s a gap in identifying people who need detox services. Peggy said she had visited with Gayla Drengson at Altru Hospital regarding this and had received some very preliminary data on the number of detox-type admissions at Altru and whether they are one-time or multi-admits; adding that Altru would be the best place to gather more detailed data. Jessica said we need to involve Kate Kenna in further conversations, along with that data.

Jessica said that an SRO, or Single Room Occupancy, is basically an efficiency apartment with affordable rents; sometimes with services and sometimes not. Lynda Berger didn’t think that we have any formal SRO’s in Grand Forks. Pat Berger felt we need to make a distinction between an efficiency and SRO; some efficiencies are more loft-like and are expensive. Jessica recorded that there does not seem to be an excess supply of affordable “simple” units and Pat agreed. JoAnn Brundin felt that SRO’s with services attached would be the best scenario.

Services Strengths and Weaknesses:

Pat Berger said one of our strengths is that we work together; most professionals know one another and know what’s out there. Lynda Berger said that the Community Area Networking Association (CANA) meets monthly and includes representatives from all the core agencies. Jamie Hager said he has been very impressed by the amount of excellent cooperation between Grand Forks agencies. He stated that Prairie Harvest, Centre Inc., and the Housing Authority have all referred people to him for housing, which is not the case in other cities; this is a definite strength. Jessica said the PIT data for Grand Forks indicates that no one was unsheltered which points to a strong emergency shelter system. Deb Johnson said we have people living outside in the summer but the PIT is a winter count, and that may skew the data somewhat. Pat Berger wondered if it would valuable to do the PIT in the summer, as well. It was mentioned that a drawback to this is the cost; both in terms of allocating staff and analyzing the data. Jessica said, from HUD’s perspective, it’s a good snapshot by which to gather information, but not all places have our winter climate. She reported that Fargo does a detailed homeless study every three years or so, via the Wilder Research Center. JoAnn Brundin felt we could get better information out of the PIT if more agencies take part in filling it out. Eliot asked, anecdotally, how many people do we have living down by river or in cars. Charlotte Gregerson said, in summer the number is greater, but they have recently had about four clients living in tents down by the river. Tami Byzewski said this number is about 5-6 for Northeast. Jessica recorded that it doesn’t appear that we’re talking about dozens of unsheltered people; perhaps around the 5% range. Deb Johnson also added that it’s not counted if they go inside somewhere at night but come out in the daytime. JoAnn Brundin reported that, two Saturdays ago, they set up at the Town Square and there were two people sleeping on benches in that location. Deb Johnson added these are usually people dealing with an alcohol or substance abuse issue. Charlotte Gregerson added that some people may be delusional and we think they are using when they’re not. Faye Kihne felt it was a strength that we have so many people in this room who have compassion to help homeless people, but a weakness was that we have a serious problem with crisis housing. CVIC’s biggest goal budget-wise is finding funds for emergency shelter-types of needs. Funding is fragile or just not there. Deb Johnson said there is not enough money for services. Just because a service exists doesn’t mean the problem is taken care of and we can go on to the next problem. Jessica recorded concerns that this shouldn’t be an either/or conversation – we don’t have to serve either one population or the other. Deb Johnson said the federal direction is that new money should go to people who are chronically homeless. Our HUD officials need to know we still need to serve the homeless folks we are serving now or they will become chronically homeless. Fay Kihne said it’s about finding a safe place to be, adding that 4-6 weeks is an average stay.

Jessica gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Housing First concept and Assertive Community Treatment teams. She said that Housing First is a fairly new concept, which has consumer choice at the forefront and addresses the immediate need of housing first, with follow up via case management and introduction to other needed services. Jessica showed a 15-minute video of Dr. Sam Tsembaris’ presentation on the concept of Housing First in Fargo. Peggy presented PowerPoint examples of solutions being tried by other communities such as converting emergency housing to permanent supportive housing, the Transition from Prison to Community Initiative started in North Dakota in 2005, Homeless Connect events, Integrated Dual Disorder Treatment, and landlord indemnity funds.

Jessica asked which philosophy will be at the center of how we proceed. Are we moving towards Housing First vs. Housing Ready? Pat Berger asked, when new rental units are being constructed, if there was a way to require that a certain amount of these units be set aside for these types of services. Lynda Berger said that Cottages and Suites of Grand Forks, which are new units in the south end, are limited to 55 and older and are LIHTC projects, which are supposed to be affordable; but the LIHTC-approved rent is still above the fair market rent. To make them truly affordable to low income people, the Housing Authority is placing project-based vouchers in them (tenant pays 30% of month adjusted income). With the exception of The Promenade, new housing is out of realm of these folks. Jessica recorded that a good housing supply is a strength. She asked if it was possible to adopt a “scattered site” model to address homelessness and Lynda Berger felt it was. Jessica said that requiring developers to dedicate a certain number of units for a specific purpose is called inclusionary zoning and it has to be a City policy, but it is legal and done in many communities. Jamie Hager said that The Current, which is a LIHTC apartment complex under construction downtown, is going to be a very nice building. For builders of LIHTC properties, the profit margin is small. Jessica said that the economics of building affordable housing is such that if you are going to reach poverty level and below clients, you have to access “soft” dollars through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME, and Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) as equity you don’t have to pay back. A strong Housing Authority that can do this is an ace in the hole. They are a key player, but not the only one. Jamie Hager felt that a property indemnity fund would make it more palatable for builders to participate. Craig said, when HUD sets market rents, it’s based on what working people are paying. There has to be some way for private developers to make their bottom line in order to be a part of this. Craig said another good relationship we have is with Grand Forks Homes, Inc., a non-profit housing provider, adding that a non-profit can access certain dollars with a different outcome in mind. The question becomes how we make up the gap between public dollars and private dollars. Jessica asked if the group felt scattered sites would work better or are they leaning more towards congregating in one location. Eliot said it would depend on the target audience, since some people need specific services, at which point it may be better to congregate together. Mary McConnell said they are seeing an increase of older people with mental illness aging out of services who need to have more care than what can be provided in an apartment setting. Eliot said, over last 20 years, it has been a government trend to move away from centralized sites. Lynda Berger said we are finding that it’s easier for agencies providing services to go to one place rather than all over the city. Jessica added that some people are also more comfortable choosing congregate housing for the social aspect. A positive point of an SRO is that you have neighbors who don’t look down on you because you have a mental illness; you can still be in your own place and be independent. What we need to determine is what type, either congregate or scattered site, will work with chronically homeless.

Jessica said that the composition of a chronically homeless household is different that the overall homeless population; 87% of chronically homeless people are single adults with at least one disabling condition. Those with a dual diagnosis of substance abuse and mental illness are finding that housing is a primary challenge. In Region 4, the incidence of substance abuse and mental illness is 40% higher for chronically homeless than long term homeless; this could just be that the data collection was different from the 2006 numbers. Plus the PIT shows that unemployment is down from last year, which easily coincides with the actual unemployment numbers in Grand Forks.

Jessica discussed “cracks” in the system, referring to a handout entitled “Evaluating Local Need”. In order to evaluate whether there are cracks in our system, we need to look first at the people (individual adults, individual youth, families with children and families without children). We then need to examine whether a disability is involved in their homelessness (substance abuse, mental illness, chronic medical condition, developmental disability, or a combination thereof). Then we look at the basic needs that everyone has (shelter, food, clothing, case management services) in order to be stable. Then we locate mainstream resources ($), stabilizing needs (housing, job placement, life skills, child care, legal aid, etc.) and health care needs (mental health, medical/dental, medication, substance abuse treatment, etc.). If there is a crack in the system, it will be in between people and services; i.e., are they available, are people eligible, do people have access? Keith Berger discussed the need for life skills for youth aging out of foster care. Dawnita Nilles, County Social Services, said they have an independent living program targeting this population. When youth turn 18, they leave the foster care program. They have the choice to participate in this program, which has limited funding to help them get into an apartment and hook up with other resources. What they are finding is that, unfortunately, spending a couple of homeless nights changes their perspective and they come in and request help. The youth have until they are 21 years of age to come back to this independent living program, but the crack in the system is finding them.

Jessica Thomasson reviewed the “round robin” PowerPoint slide that emphasizes that agencies don’t have to be everything to their clients – by developing close partnerships with other agencies, they can free up their resources to do what they do best. Communication is key to success.

Jessica asked for input on ideas or different components. Eliot suggested adding different subpopulations who might otherwise be overlooked. Jessica agreed and added sex offenders, Native Americans, veterans, migrant workers and felons to the list of subpopulations. Eliot wondered if we should focus on substance abuse, since so many other things relate to it. If we target substance abuse, we can remove this population from the homeless stream. Dave Sena said, whatever solution comes up, we need to address the time factor; there are some people we have seen for years as well as people who come in for one-time help and get back into the system. We also see people who distrust authority so it’s important to build a trust relationship so they will be willing to learn new skills. We start by teaching very simple things such as making and keeping appointments. Pat Berger said the people at these meetings are the ones who deal with issues on a daily basis and felt we need to bring other people to the discussion; i.e., city and county elected officials. We need to elevate the understanding of issues and solutions in public. Dave suggested doing this at an evening meeting. Eliot felt we need to know where we are and where we want to go first, then we involve the elected officials. He said the Council understands that where there is poverty, there are problems; so they have concern for this population as is evidenced by the amount of CDBG funding approved to the Mission. He agreed that we need to educate, but we have to be clear on what we’re asking them to do. Lynda Berger felt it was important to show the savings of money and manpower; to demonstrate the economics of action and inaction. Jessica agreed, saying that first we put together our thoughts and plans, then we go to the decision makers.

Keith Berger said we are working with people who have a lot of needs and issues, so maybe we need to create a supportive congregate environment rather than scattered site. Tami Byzewski added we need to take into account the lack of transportation, and then placement close to services becomes important. Jessica said the key difference is that we have to decide whether providing housing with services should be available or mandatory; we need to look at interventions that will work for them. Dave Sena said the Mission operates close to a housing first model now, except people can’t be drinking or violent. The core value is to challenge growth so he sees the concept of making services available but not a requirement. We need to build trust and then find out what motivates them. Dave added, if a housing first facility is the result of this discussion, he would like to see around-the-clock support staff. Charlotte Gregerson said they also should be able to help people obtain support documents, such as photo ID’s, birth certificates, social security cards, etc., in order to help them obtain jobs or Social Security income. Jessica recorded that an ACT-like approach is important, but asked if we should “wrap” these services around a person or a place. Tammy Byzewski said she attended the IDDT training at the mental health center in Fargo and felt it would be an excellent model for Grand Forks; it focuses on intensive outreach and establishing trust. Dave Sena added that the Mission allows them to stay in the system longer, which also builds trust. Craig said one thing the Family Self Sufficiency program has learned, in providing services to families, is that it’s important to have partnerships; i.e., Job Service, the school system, County extension office, etc. People don’t want to live in treatment, they want to live in a community. The question is how to get to them to a community they feel comfortable in. Jessica said one of the problems people have when they get their own place is they are isolated and lonely, so an ACT team follows them and gets them back into a social environment. She said that Grand Forks appears to be doing this already to some extent. She asked if there was a crack in the system that works well for other populations that won’t work for this population. Keith Berger felt that a facility should be separate from but close to the Mission. Dave Sena said people need one contact person they can build trust with; this is the key person who will build them back into the community. Dave added that it is challenging for his staff to do the outreach they want without running out of resources.

Jessica said we are now at the crux of finding the problem; i.e., “we are confused but philosophically thoughtful”. Eliot asked if we need input from homeless people themselves to help us go forward (asking them what they need). Mike Danielski said it was his experience that they all want different things, but the place to start is developing trust, which can lease to aggressive intervention, which then becomes help. SuAnn asked about the people who don’t show up on any radar; i.e. hidden homeless. Jessica said that the statistics have shown that, if you take the PIT data X 2, you get a pretty accurate snapshot. The profiles show that people are very different and their characteristics include many combinations of needs.

Jessica and Peggy thanked people for their input and for attending the meeting. We hope to have a draft framework for the next meeting, which will be Wednesday, October 24th; same time – same place.
Respectfully submitted by Peggy Kurtz, Office of Urban Development