PFTH City Hall Testimony 01/12/09

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

City Council Hearing by the Committee on the General Welfare, is set for Tuesday, January 13th at 1:00 PM

Hi All:

We just got word that a City Council Hearing by the Committee on the General Welfare, is set for Tuesday, January 13th at 1:00 PM. It will be held in the Council Chambers. The hearing is entitled “Restructuring of Services to the Street Homeless Population.” To testify, call Migna Traravera 212-442-0140 in Councilman de Blasio’s office. Even if you choose not to testify, be there. This and the budget process that officially begins on January 16th , may be our last chance to impact on DHS’ policy. Your presence is important.

Congratulations! You guys made this happen.

See you on the 13th.

Zoilo Torres
Director
Community and Volunteer Relations
Emergency Shelter Network
Partnership for the Homeless
212-645-3444 Extension 403
fax: 212-477-4663
fax: 212-645-4987
ztorres@pfth.org

Hi Peter's Place Staff

Attention all Peter's Place staff, this is Eugene Grey emailing you. I hope you had a blessed Thanksgiving. I just want to let you know that for now on I am going to send you blogs pertaining to nutrition information that will be beneficial to you. Thank you

Eugene Grey M.S.
Food and Nutrition Consultant

Notice to our ESN network...

Dear Network,

Petitions are starting to hit the Mayor’s office but time is running out! With over 3,000 signatures, we are still a long way away from hitting our goal of 10,000!

We need your help!

Whether or not you are a shelter affected by recent closings, the proposed changes affects us all. We must come together, reach out to our congregations and use our force in numbers to demand a spot at the negotiating table and provide all that we can for our city’s homeless.


Times are tough and the demand for beds are at an all time high! Help us help you, to continue the work we began, together, 25 years ago.

We are requesting that all petitions be submitted by the week of December 8th! That means this weekend is the final weekend to gather as many signatures as possible! Once collected, you can either send in petitions to the Partnership or ask your organizer to come and pick them up!

If you have any questions, suggestions or concerns, please contact Lindsey Shilleh at 212-645-3444 x 400.


Thank you!

Emergency Shelter Network Staff and Steering Committee
Partnership for the Homeless


Lindsey Shilleh

ESN Field Organizer
Department of Community and Volunteer Relations
212-645-3444 ext. 400
lshilleh@pfth.org

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

"Helping the Homeless" Letter to the Editor of the New York Times- by PFTH CEO Arnold Cohen

Re “Crises on Many Fronts,” by Bob Herbert (column, Oct. 25):

During these fragile and uncertain economic times, we’ll certainly be seeing thousands upon thousands more people teetering on the precipice, falling into homelessness. Just think back to the days of the 2001 economic slump when homelessness in New York City dramatically increased.

By the fall of 2002, more than 16,000 children were living in city homeless shelters, setting an all-time record. So Bob Herbert is absolutely correct. We also need to be deeply concerned about how this financial turmoil will affect the most vulnerable among us — people who were barely getting by before.

The shrinking economy will undoubtedly mean less public and private financing for critical services and fewer jobs for our neighbors in need. But deep budget cuts — which may appear on their face prudent — have historically proved to be fiscally unwise.

The loss of services only manages to push people further into poverty and homelessness, costing taxpayers millions more. Arnold S. Cohen

President and Chief Executive

Partnership for the Homeless

New York, Oct. 25, 2008

Food Safety and Sanitation

FREE

REGISTER NOW!

Food Handlers Protection Course
(For Emergency Shelter Programs)
Soup Up Food Safety in Your Kitchen

FALL 2008 SCHEDULE
October 24th
November 21st
December 19th

Certificates of attendance will be issued by the
New York City Department of Health.

This free course is offered through the Partnership for the Homeless
To register, call Maurva ArticeMoss at 212-645-3444, ext. 504
All classes will be held at 305 Seventh Avenue, 13th fl
(bet. 27th & 28th St. in Manhattan)