The Partnership ForThe Homeless responds to DHS Concept Papers

November 6, 2008

Suellen Schulman
City of New York
Department of Homeless Services
33 Beaver Street
New York, New York 10004

Re: Drop-In Centers Concept Paper No. 071-09S-03-1347

Respite Bed Program Concept Paper
No. 071-09S-03-1348


Dear Ms. Schulman:

After reviewing the above-referenced concept papers disseminated by the Department of Homeless Services (the “Department” or DHS), we at The Partnership for The Homeless felt compelled to provide our feedback on the programs outlined in these documents. It is our belief that, as outlined, these programs will not adequately address the needs of homeless adults and therefore need re-thinking.

Since 1993, The Partnership has run Peter’s Place – a drop-in center serving the needs of older adults who are homeless. We have, since that time, assisted more than 4,000 seniors with housing placements, linkage to medical and mental health care, and a full array of psychosocial programs designed to meet the specific and unique needs faced by these individuals. In addition, for more than 25 years The Partnership has provided a place to sleep for thousands of homeless New Yorkers through our city-wide Emergency Shelter Network. Greater than merely the sum of its parts, the Shelter Network it has become a model of ecumenical unification and cooperation that plays a vital and irreplaceable role in helping the city meet its obligation to protect and house its most vulnerable residents.

It is our belief that the programs as set forth in the concept papers, rather than serving as part of a comprehensive constellation of services designed to alleviate homelessness in our City, only serve to fragment a well-established network of support that has developed over time. As such, we believe that the Department should suspend the process of generating RFPs for these programs, and should instead re-engage service providers, advocates and others in the community in an effort to develop a concept that truly meets the needs of homeless adults -- and does so in a cost-effective manner. The process to date, essentially one meeting at the Department’s offices, has been insufficient. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience throughout those sectors concerned about and working to address homelessness, and DHS must tap into this resource prior to issuing any RFPs. Through further discussions with providers and advocates, DHS will gain greater insight into the needs of both the clients and those organizations providing service. By, for example, establishing subcommittees on strategic areas (e.g., client assessment and referral, linking shelter with housing placement services, assisting specific sub-populations), the Department can engage an array of experts in a process of developing creative and cost-effective solutions.

Moreover, by engaging the community at this level, DHS can help to mitigate the perception of arrogance that now exists; the sense that the City is not listening to the constituencies most directly and intensely involved in issues relating to homelessness.

Alternatively, the current concept papers must be revised so that RFPs can address several issues of concern. I will first address issues relating to the Drop-in Center concept, and then turn to the Respite Bed program.

A. Drop-in Center Concept Paper

1. The concept paper represents a reduction in resources available to meet an increasing need.

As proposed, this program will result in a reduction in resources available to assist homeless adults and, therefore, a reduction in our collective ability to address the issues surrounding homelessness. Under this concept, DHS is proposing to reduce the number of Drop-in Centers and to eliminate overnight hours for those that remain. In so doing, the Department is creating a system in which each remaining center will have to work with greater numbers of people each night, without a related increase in financial support and capacity. By only supporting Drop-in Center operations until 8:30 pm, the Department is also endangering those individuals who would, under the current system, spend the night in the center. To be sure, we are certainly not advocating that spending the night in a chair is anywhere close to appropriate housing. The simple fact remains, however, that on any given night, the average overnight census for Drop-In Centers numbers in the hundreds of people. To expect that this need would no longer exist under the proposed plan is not realistic. DHS must either provide support to the Centers to remain open 24 hours or provide increased alternatives for finding shelter for the night.

In addition, the proposal creates general population Drop-in Centers, thereby eliminating those that specialize in the unique needs of selected sub-populations. Through our experience at Peter’s Place, we have learned that certain groups require a distinct set of services. To be successful, these services must be delivered in an environment that feels welcoming and supportive. The fact that there is a need for Peter’s Place shows that, for example, older adults would not come off the street but for the existence of a center designed to assist their specific issues. Requiring these individuals (who must be counted among our most vulnerable of neighbors) to enter the drop-in system with a general population, and failing to provide specific accommodations for them, will either create unnecessarily dangerous and potentially life-threatening situations for clients or will result in these individuals opting out of the system and remaining exposed to the risks of life on the streets. If we have learned nothing else during the Partnership’s 25 years of service, it is clear that individuals facing the challenges of aging, severe mental illness and HIV/AIDS – among others – require specific types of services to enable them to thrive.

Moreover, the level of funding contemplated by this concept paper represents a significant reduction in resources. Currently, there are 9 Drop-in Centers operating throughout the City. The centers are open 7 days a week, 24 hours per day. By reducing the number of centers to 5 and limiting their hours of operation, the Department will be creating a situation in which these 5 centers will have to assist nearly twice as many people over a condensed period of time. And, they will be required to do so at the same level of funding currently received by each of the 9 centers. While there may certainly be room to identify operating efficiencies, the program as proposed would either require drop-in centers to assist fewer people or provide lower quality service to the same number of people. Neither of these scenarios is acceptable, unless one operates under the wrong-headed assumption that a significant percentage of the people seeking Drop-in Center services truly have other alternatives for housing.

Finally, if DHS is serious about housing clients, the City needs to increase not decrease the resources available to Drop-in Centers. These centers can help integrate newly-housed individuals into their communities and then provide additional support to help them maintain their housing. In this way, the Department would help reduce the need for emergency shelter by increasing the number of people with stable housing.

2. The intake system contemplated by the concept paper is flawed.

In addition to the issues surrounding the reduction in resources allocated to address issues of homelessness, we have concerns about the intake, assessment and referral processes outlined in the concept paper. Through this program, DHS Outreach Teams will be the exclusive referral source for Drop-in Center clients; a system that immediately establishes limits on who and how many people could possibly receive assistance from a center. And, for those individuals not known to the Outreach Teams, there will be a screening/rapid assessment process established in each Drop-in Center. With fewer centers and shorter hours, each center will have to work with more people than they assist under the current system. Therefore, in order to address the needs of each individual, this screening/rapid assessment process must be both exceedingly time – efficient and precise. Given that there are no accommodations made for individuals with distinct needs, the process is rife with the potential for mistakes, for decision making with incomplete information and for improper placements/referrals. The end result is likely to be that people’s health and welfare are put at risk and, potentially, that the most frail among us remain out in the street.

To be sure, assisting those who are chronically homeless should be an important priority. There is, however, a real need to continue our efforts with those people who do not meet the City’s definition. Under the current system, these people also access services through Drop-in Centers. The centers have, historically, been a stop of last resort, serving people who would not enter the City shelter system. This program, as outlined, would present yet another barrier to services for these people. In so doing, we run the risk of creating a new class of “chronically homeless” individuals in need of emergency services, rather than providing a more comprehensive solution to homelessness in our City.


B. The Respite Bed Concept Paper

1. The concept paper presents a service model too limited in scope.

The program as outlined would attempt to essentially duplicate services currently provided by the Partnership through our Shelter Network, a move that we see not only as unnecessary, but potentially detrimental to the thousands of homeless individuals we assist each year. The Partnership’s Emergency Shelter Network is not simply a contractual relationship with the faith community that can be easily transferred to another agency; it was an idea born over a quarter of century ago by Mayor Ed Koch and the Partnership’s founder, Peter Smith, to provide homeless adults with safe, overnight lodging, wholesome meals, and fellowship. This Network is not merely a loose collection of congregations that makes space available for sleeping. It is a true network, in that the participating congregations operate as a unit -- working with each other, sharing volunteers, other resources and best practices. There is also a deeply held, and shared sense of ministry and social justice that underlies the work of this Network. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that any new program mandated by a city contract can match the quality, compassion and cost-effectiveness now provided by the small paid staff of the Partnership and thousands of seasoned volunteers that are proud to call themselves members of the Partnership’s Emergency Shelter Network.

Moreover, this Network is a manifestation of a deep relationship, developed over time, among members of the faith community and between the faith community and the City. This public-private partnership, in addition to providing shelter for homeless men and women, can also support any number of volunteer projects designed to enhance the life of the City. By dismantling this Network and attempting to replace it with a loose collection of vendors, a valuable resource will be lost to the City.

In addition, based on the Department’s own data, the 350 – 450 beds sought under the concept paper would not meet the need. Given that Drop-in Centers currently see more than 1,000 people each day, with approximately 500 of those individuals relegated to sleeping in chairs, in addition to the 250 – 300 people accessing faith beds, the number of respite beds the City seeks to make available would not come close to providing enough space for those in need.

2. The concept paper raises grave concerns about the quality of services available under this program.

The concept paper outlines the process by which individuals are screened and assessed before being assigned to a respite bed. Given that respite providers have no discretion about accepting guests into their beds, they must rely on a rapid assessment conducted at the Drop-in Centers. The assessment process will likely miss significant needs and issues, as Outreach Team members will have more people to assess (with fewer centers in operation) and less time in which to complete these assessments (with centers closing at 8:30 pm). As a result, respite providers must anticipate receiving clients with needs that are more intensive than their volunteers are equipped to manage. While the concept paper does outline the need for volunteer training, there is no indication as to who will conduct this training and how it will be held to a consistent standard of quality across providers. Ultimately, respite providers will find it exceedingly difficult to recruit and keep volunteers due to safety concerns as well as concerns about the nature of their volunteer service.

There are also no provisions, in either concept paper, to address the likely event that respite providers reach capacity on any given night. Will respite providers be expected to prepare excess or emergency capacity on-site? Will people be kept at Drop-in Centers when respite beds are at capacity? If so, will Drop-in Centers have the capacity, given that there will be fewer centers than under the current system? If not to the Drop-in Centers, will people be sent to respite providers only to sleep on chairs? These questions must be addressed if this program is to have any chance of success.

3. The program as outlined in the concept paper is seriously under-resourced.

Under this new proposal, respite providers would be required to offer those services currently delivered by Emergency Network participants in addition to transportation and linens. The funding offered for this program does not support the expenses incurred by Network members under the current system. Maintenance and repair, heating and food represent significant expenses for these programs. In light of the current economic challenges, providers will have even fewer options for funding and support of their programs. Given that, DHS should not expect respite providers to bridge what will be ongoing shortfalls in funding that will invariably occur under the program outlined in the concept paper.

In another clear effort at cost-cutting, DHS seeks to off-load responsibility for transportation between Drop-in Centers and respite providers. Instead, they are planning to only provide Metro Cards, except in limited extreme circumstances. This will create chaos in the system and unnecessary logistical challenges for the providers, as guests will arrive sporadically (if they even choose to get on a bus or subway). Only a more robust transportation system will insure that everyone referred from a Drop-in Center to a respite site will arrive safely and on time.

Finally, if implemented as written, the program concept would result in the loss of critical volunteer resources. Fragmentation of the system, by making it borough-based instead of city-wide, will result in less coordination and support among respite bed providers. It will also present heightened challenges to volunteer recruitment and management. The loss of volunteers also means the loss of community connections; connections that can help integrate newly-housed individuals into their communities and thereby increase the chances for maintaining housing stability.


In sum, it is our belief that this program represents a step backward in the City’s efforts to resolve homelessness. Currently, Drop-in Centers and Emergency Network providers are part of a comprehensive service system. They collaborate to offer more than just a place to sleep. They offer caring and compassion along with concrete services. And, they do so in a cooperative, organized way that expresses the best aspects of public-private ventures. There is little reason to believe that new providers, with perhaps little experience delivering this type of service, can offer the same level of quality for their guests. From our perspective, there is little justification to dismantle this system without further discussion about how it could be improved.

As you can see, we have significant concerns about the programs as outlined in the concept papers. We remain committed, however, to working with you to address these concerns and develop programming that truly seek to address the needs of our homeless neighbors.

Very truly yours,

Scott Cotenoff
Scott Cotenoff, JD, MPH
Senior VP, Programs & New Initiatives