City’s Homeless Strategy Overhauled

City Hall has changed the way it pays to help house the homeless — cutting $129,725 from the money it gives one agency, while enlisting three other agencies to try new ideas.

The Harp administration’s new approach—first announced back in March, following a study of homeless services in town—was fleshed out in dollars and cents in its decisions on whom to fund, and how much, for the fiscal year that started July 1.

In doling out roughly $1 million — the same amount as last year — the administration asked its longtime vendors, and some prospective new ones, to submit detailed written proposals. It also sought help not just with housing people temporarily, but with following up on whether homeless people are getting the health care and job-training needed to get back on their feet. Then it enlisted an independent ​“technical review panel” to score the proposals, and relied on those findings in deciding how to spend the money.

In letters to agencies about the allocation decisions, the city also spelled out strengths and weaknesses found in the applications.

The goal, according to city Community Services Administrator Martha Okafor: Have evidence and data, and independent oversight, drive decisions. And spend more of the money to prevent more people from remaining homeless in the future.

The results, though they haven’t yet been publicly announced, have already sparked surprise and discussion within the world of local agencies that deal with the homeless. A number of agencies, like Columbus House (at $255,150, for both its main and overflow shelters), are receiving roughly the same amount as last year. Two agencies saw their money cut:

• New Reach, a not-for-profit organization that runs three New Haven shelters for women and children, saw its annual city allotment drop from $329,725 to $200,000. The independent review panel concluded that the New Reach application didn’t state a strong enough specific case to support all the work done by each of the three shelters, Careways, Martha’s Place, and Life Haven, the latter focused on young moms and pregnant women.

• The money for the Grand Avenue homeless shelter (called Emergency Shelter Management Services) was cut from last year’s $513,138 to $383,250. That’s because the city previously paid the shelter to house on average up to 75 people a night, Okafor said. She said her team analyzed the census at the shelter this winter — the busiest months — and found the average number of clients hovering around 50 to 55. So the city this year will pay for an average of 50 clients per night, at $21 per night. In addition, the city is now using that $21 per-night average for all shelters. The Grand Avenue shelter has come under criticism for poor conditions over the years, but in the past has not had to compete for city money in a process like this year’s.

Meanwhile, three local organizations are joining the roster of city-supported homeless providers, with new missions:

• Community Action Agency will get $190,596 to coordinate referrals of homeless shelter residents to job-training, housing, food and mental-health help. Some shelters (like Columbus House) do that, while others don’t. Okafor said the city wanted a centralized coordinator not just to connect people to the services, but to follow up on how they fare — so the city can make more informed, data-driven decisions in future years. For instance, how many people sent to the Regional Worfkorce Alliance continued showing up to job-training programs, landed jobs, and kept them? How many people sent to Connecticut Mental Health Center (CMHC) stayed on their medications, or relapsed? ​“Nobody could tell me” the answers to those questions to date, Okafor said.

• Christian Community Action, which scored 94 out of 100 in the independent proposal review, will receive $60,000 to work with the newly homeless or families at risk of becoming homeless. CCA Executive Director Bonita Grubbs said her agency already works with people in that category through its food pantry and diaper bank; her goal is to divert people and prevent them from homelessness, and connect them with ongoing support.”

The independent panel scored CCA’s proposal at 94 out 100 and, unlike with most other reports, noted only ​“strengths” (“demonstrated capacity,” ​“strong Case Management Services,” ​“information on leverage funding,” ​“local linkages”) without listing any ​“weaknesses.”

• Bethel AME Church will get $76,650 to open a shelter for homeless teens at its Communitiy Outreach Center on Orchard Street, and another $50,000 to run a warming center during winter cold snaps. The city funded a warming center this past winter at Church on the Rock.

Also new this year, the city will maintain storage bins at the old Goffe Street Armory because officials heard from homeless people that they need place to keep possessions that they’d prefer not to sell.

Continuum of Care is receiving $88,300, the same as last year; and Youth Continuum, $57,000, up from $55,700 from last year.

Tapped Out?

All the agencies except New Reach have agreed to accept the grants, according to Okafor. New Reach is speaking with Okafor about trying to find some other city money or else helping locate other funding to help make up a deficit.

“We want to help them find other money,” said Okafor, who has visited New Reach facilities. ​“I know they do good work.”

New Reach usually has to raise money to bridge the gap between state and city grants and costs, according to CEO Kellyann Day,. ​“I’ve been doing this for 20 years,” she said. ​“It used to be we had to raise $10,000.” By last year the deficit for running the three New Haven shelters had grown to $400,000. The new cut means her agency will need to find $518,000, she said.

“My concern is that at some point, how much money can I really raise from citizens of New Haven?” Day said. She questioned whether the city’s new process should rely exclusively on the numerical reviews of written proposals rather than factoring in site visits and organizational history.

Okafor said she supports the independent review process, which she modeled after federal reviews. ​“An independent reviewer should be able to discern the quality of your work,” she said. She added that the feedback given in this first year’s round can help agencies do a better job on their proposals next year. For instance, Columbus House, which scored 63 out of 100, was criticized for leaving out a job description and failing to ​“include a detailed work plan” or ​“clarify duties regarding wraparound services” or offer justification for a budget increase.