Arnold S. Cohen
President & CEO Testimony by the Partnership for the Homeless submitted to the New York City Council Hearing on the Restructuring of Services for Street Homeless People Convened by the Council Committee on the General Welfare
January 14, 2009
Good Afternoon ladies and gentlemen, members of the New York City Council. The Partnership for the Homeless would like to extend our sincere appreciation to you, this committee, and particularly your Chairman, Councilmember Bill de Blasio, for bringing public attention to the plight of our street homeless people and what the city’s Department of Homeless Services plans to do about it.
We at the Partnership have significant objections to the city plans to restructure services for street homeless people as contained in the Respite Bed and Drop-in Center Request For Proposals recently issued by DHS. Based on more than a quarter century of experience assisting homeless men and women, these proposals represent yet another attempt by the City to manage the crisis of homelessness, and not to solve it. As a result the Partnership has made the historic decision not to apply for either of the RFPs.
Our concerns center on both the process by which DHS generated these proposals and the service models they have chosen. Rather than honoring the expertise developed by the faith community and the Partnership over a 26-year period, DHS chose not to engage in a constructive dialogue with the community.
As an example, DHS held only one meeting with service providers and representatives of the faith community. At this meeting, held in June 2008, DHS managers informed the attendees of DHS’ intended direction. The staff of DHS stated that the agency would issue Concept Papers in the fall and the RFPs in the winter. It turned out that, instead of a document of broad principles and programmatic framework, the Concept Papers read like the Executive Summary of what we knew would later become the RFP. No real input was sought from the religious community or advocates for the homeless; no real discussions were convened to assess whether their selected service model would truly address root causes of homelessness in our City.
It is our belief that, by implementing the program as outlined in the RFPs, the City will experience an overall reduction in the number of beds; particularly those that come with the same level of compassion, assistance and support as those found within the current faith-based shelter network.
Already we have seen the number of shelters dwindle from 109 shelters just a few years ago, to 56 shelters today. Twenty four of these were closed by DHS as recently as last September. If the shelter criteria in the current RFP prevail, we will have to close another 31 shelters leaving only 25 faith-based shelters in the system. Not only will this result in turning down the free services of thousands of volunteers, and rejecting thousands of square feet in free space, and the loss of years’ worth of experience providing emergency shelter, but all of this is also being done without any sign of appreciation by DHS for the tireless efforts of caring; efforts that represent a true spirit of concern for our homeless neighbors. And please don’t be fooled by DHS. Any new shelters that have recently opened were done so only at our insistence, not through the benevolence of DHS as they report to the press. The RFPs we speak of today are the fruits of sheer government arrogance.
Throughout this process, the Partnership and others offered to assist DHS. We agreed with DHS that some shelters should be replaced by other shelters located closer to the Drop-in Centers. This would have maintained our capacity to serve a growing need. We also agreed to help DHS reorganize transportation to the shelters. Through our efforts, bus routes became more efficient and fuel costs were reduced. In this same vein, we had some very concrete ideas about how to reduce cost in the provision of linen, laundry services, equipment, and supplies. DHS, however, opted to close shelters and prevent the opening of others as its main strategy to cutting cost, rather than truly identify operating efficiencies within the system.
The Council should also know that the current budget of the Emergency Shelter Network is $1.7 million. This is the program that will be replaced by DHS’ Respite Bed program, which has been allotted a $2.1 million budget. We contend that a $400,000 budget increase is not enough to subcontract the provision of linen, laundry services, equipment, supplies, and the transportation of these items to and from the shelters on a weekly basis without shutting shelters or keeping many from opening.
In addition to these concerns about process, there are significant issues with the service model; issues that will have considerable impact on the guests, the volunteers and the institutions housing the shelters. The structure of the Drop-In Center program creates concern about potential lapses in the screening process resulting from guests traveling via mass transit. The current screening ensures guests are free of contagious diseases, are self managed, and are generally appropriate to be placed under the care and supervision of lay volunteers. Too much can go wrong between departure from the Drop-in Center to arrival at a shelter that can place volunteers at risk, not to mention the scattered guests arrivals that can lead to guests be stranded in the streets of an unfamiliar community.
Moreover, we are particularly concerned that the RFP eliminates Drop-in Centers for special populations. If our experience has taught us anything, it is that those subpopulations that feel particularly vulnerable, like the elderly and in some cases women, will not access services from organizations with which they do not feel a sense of safety or whose services are perceived to be unaligned to their special needs. Simply stated, older adults who are homeless have not gone to a “general population” Drop-In Center, and they won’t do so now just because DHS says they will. More likely, these individuals, many of whom are among our frailest of neighbors, will return to the street and take their chances.
This proposal also makes no provision for those individuals who are currently sleeping on chairs in Drop-In Centers over night. We know that the City’s eight Drop-in Centers see an average of 1000 men and women walk through their doors every day. Of these, some 600 stay over night sleeping in chairs. Another average of 260 is sent to faith beds. What will happen to the 600 homeless who sleep in chairs once the Drop-in Centers close for the night in accordance with the RFP requirements? Will these individuals be added to the roughly 240 men and women who do not stay at the Drop-in Centers but that somehow disappear into the night? For this population, the municipal shelters are much too chaotic and dangerous to be an alternative. DHS says the agency will find homes or shelter for everyone. Experience, to this point, tells us otherwise.
Finally, and most importantly, these models do not address the issues that push men, women and children into homelessness. They focus on linens, not housing; on bus routes, not jobs and education; on logistics, and not poverty.
***
Ladies and gentlemen of the Council: That we at the Partnership have decided not to apply to any of DHS’ RFPs is not to say we have given up on solving the causes of homelessness. We have come to believe that we can best contribute to solving homeless through a robust advocacy program that will truly address fundamental issues of poverty. We believe that the resources exist in the City and country to end homelessness by 2020. What’s lacking, however, is the political will. This is why this hearing is so important. We hope that it marks the beginning of a budget process that will make the elimination of homelessness a priority in our City.
Thank you
Posts
