10-26-20 Work Session Agenda and MaterialsCITY COUNCIL
KCITY OF WORK SESSION AGENDA
ALISPELL October 26, 2020, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting will occur via video conferencing to provide an environment that will comply with
the Governor's Phase 11 COVID-19 Directive. Public comment can be provided via email to
publi ccommentkkali spell. com or verbally during the video conference.
Register to join the video conference at
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_SXEaYw70QZ-w4yNKNHQ.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Homeless Task Force Report
C. PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to address the council are asked to provide public comment via email to
publiccomment2kalispell.com or verbally during the online meeting. Register to join the
meeting at: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/" SXEaYw70QZ-
wy 1 F4yNKNHQ.
D. CITY MANAGER, COUNCIL, AND MAYOR REPORTS
E. ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING SCHEDULE / FOR YOUR INFORMATION
Next Regular Meeting — November 2, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers
Next Work Session — November 9, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers
Watch City Council sessions live on Charter Cable Channel 190 or online at the Meetings on
Demand tab at www.kalispell.com.
Page 1 of 1
KALISPELL
CITY OF
City of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903
Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Fax: (406) 758-7758
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Doug Russell, City Manager
Re: Report from Homeless Task Force
Meeting Date: October 26, 2020
BACKGROUND: Earlier in the year, a Homeless Task Force was established as part of the
discussion related to affordable housing and the unsheltered population. As stated in the attached
report:
"The original intent of the Mayor's Homeless Task Force was to offer an honest, unbiased
assessment of the various homeless populations, address the underlying causes, chronicle the
available resources and networks established in servicing them, and make recommendations to
assist government officials and community stakeholders to effect positive change where possible.
With the broad net cast, and following the progress of the Flathead County Health Department
Housing Maps the focus was redefined to focus on and address the unsheltered population in
Kalispell- those at greatest risk of elemental exposure and negative social and law enforcement
contacts. "
At the work session, the Co-chairs for the taskforce will be present to review this effort and the
attached report.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council receive the report from the Co-
chairs of the Homeless Task Force.
ATTACHMENT: Homeless Task Force Report
MAYOR'S HOMELESS TASK FORCE 2020
"One of the first things taught in introductory statistics textbooks is that
correlation is not causation. It is also one of the first things forgotten. "
Thomas Sowell
The Mayor's Task Force to assess the current Homeless situation in the city of Kalispell was
comprised of two former city councilors, two local pastors, two city staff persons, and two
county residents, one who owns commercial property in Kalispell, and one former county
commissioner. The task force did not include any stakeholders or direct providers in order to
avoid any industry bias or cognitive dissonance in the information gathering process. The task
force conducted interviews with the following major stakeholders in order to gain an
understanding of homelessness and the surrounding services in Kalispell:
• Salvation Army
• United Way
• Community Action Partnership (CAP)
• SD 5 Homeless Liaison
• Assist Center
• Flathead Warming Center
The original intent of Mayor's Homeless Task Force was to offer an honest, unbiased assessment
of the various homeless populations, address the underlying causes, chronicle the available
resources and networks established in servicing them, and make recommendations to assist
govertunent officials and community stakeholders to effect positive change where possible.
With that broad net cast, and following the progress of the Flathead County Health Department
Housing Maps the focus was redefined to focus on and address the unsheltered po ulp ation in
Kalispell —those at greatest risk of elemental exposure and negative social and law enforcement
contacts.
This unsheltered population, besides being most at risk to exposure and disease, seems to be
underserved by social agencies in terms of social and mental health services, while putting
additional stress on city resources. Additionally, adverse social interactions and damage to
public and private property put additional costs on the city and its reputation that cannot be
enumerated. Calls for assistance put additional stress on local law enforcement as well. The
Chief of Police cites an example of a single unsheltered homeless individual's actions that
resulted in 50 separate law enforcement interventions in a single year.
The Task Force realizes that there might be some who find fault with not interviewing other
stakeholders who deal with the homeless in emergency, temporary or transitional settings. To be
fair, narrowing our scope was a way to clarify the issues by focusing on the unsheltered subset,
but in no way discounts the work of other stakeholders like Samaritan House, Ray of Hope,
Abbie Shelter, Peggy's House, Sparrows Nest, Flathead Youth Homes, Sunburst Mental Health,
the VA, Neighbors in Need, the various Food Banks, Judicial Services, and over 30 other faith
based and private service organizations that work tirelessly to help meet the needs of our
homeless.
WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS?
One of the first challenges of the Task Force was to get a grasp of what the actual numbers of
unsheltered homeless were. Obviously the number would be in constant flux, but the troubling
reporting of different numbers, depending on who was asked, was not only different, but
substantially so given that most data cited usually came from the same Point in Time Survey
source.
For example, The Daily InterLake, Julyl2, 2018 story quoted Cassidy Kipp, deputy director of
the community services department at Connnunity Action Partnership, stating that there "were
233 people who were literally homeless —so, living on the streets, in a vehicle, in a tent or in a
shelter."
In the Flathead Beacon on November 28, 2019 the survey is cited as showing 170 homeless in
Flathead County. Chris Krager, Samaritan House Director explained that 58% of that population
is unsheltered —which would be around 99. A far stretch from the 233 of the prior year.
In another Daily InterLake story, January 6, 2020 the director of the Sparrow's Nest quoted a
Youth Behavior Risk Survey conducted by the Montana Office of Public Instruction showing
350 homeless teenagers in Flathead County. (We were unable to find any confirming data in the
cited report.)
In another recent article in The Daily InterLake, February 29, 2020, the survey was again cited
showing 434 homeless individuals in Flathead county, of which 25% were unsheltered (108).
DISPARITY OF NUMBERS
The number of homeless depends on whose definition of homeless one uses. There are several
criteria in deterinining what qualifies as homeless and stakeholders, depending on their
professional capacities, as well as their funding sources, may use a different definition or criteria
to define those they serve within the homeless community.
Looking at the considerable range of numbers reported, and community members own
observations, it is easy to see why there is not only a level of confusion, but even one of distrust.
In this regard it is helpful to consider the different stakeholders and the homeless population each
serves to illustrate the dynamic homeless community and the often necessary and overlapping
services available to meet its needs. Following are the major groupings and although most have
service providers, (and in many cases more than one) most providers report a lack of financial
resources.
0 Veterans
• Youth
• Women's/Domestic Violence
• Mental Health/Substance Abuse/Addiction
• Judicial: Probation, parole, pending
• Working Poor
• Disabled
• Crisis related: Medical, Divorce, Unexpected expenses, Layoffs, Stranded
Travelers
• Chronic Homeless
DATA SOURCES
The Task Force opted to isolate the data and look at Kalispell numbers from the Point in Time
surveys. We further recognized that many of the County's homeless come into Kalispell to
access services and resources which adds to the city's burden on limited resources and services.
Nevertheless, the data available, for at least one day in the year, was able to single out Kalispell's
homeless population. Those numbers provided a look at the microcosm of homelessness in
Kalispell and challenge some of the conventional ideologies and talking points.
Sticking to one set of universally accepted data by the community stakeholders in the homeless
services profession (as well as by the federal govermnent for funding allocations) seemed
statistically and scientifically prudent. And a closer scrutiny of the data included in the Point in
Time Survey (http://mthomelessdata.com/) was assessed to understand the problems of the
unsheltered homeless in Kalispell, not simply a final count.
It is clear that there are seasonal fluctuations in the local homeless population and it would be
most beneficial to all concerned to come up with a local monthly or quarterly reporting system.
Additional reporting to one centralized data collection point would lead to a better understanding
of the immediate needs and to understand long-term trends of homelessness for planning
purposes. Accordingly, the task force recommends that the process used for the Point in Time
Survey be done more than once a year to have a more accurate understanding of the homeless
population.
The Point in Time Survey for 2020 is in a preliminary review format only at this point so a full
yearly comparison by homeless category is not possible. However, the gross number of
homeless reported for 2020 was 235, with the unsheltered portion listed at 79. That compares to
279 and 96 unsheltered in 2019. Because the data collection was not handled the same as it was
for the prior three years (United Way 2017-2019 vs. Samaritan House 2020) we should not
assume that there has been a 16 to 18% decrease in the homeless population.
Using the Point in Time figures from 2019 which show a more consistent count over a three year
period from 2017-2019 (data could not be separated by City in prior years) we analyzed the
number of unsheltered homeless of 96. As the Task Force's primary concern was the unsheltered
population, and more specifically, those having regular interaction with the public, and law
enforcement, which generated the most negative interactions requiring some type of intervention
or response, we chose to look more critically at this number.
A casual, non -clinical look around our community would certainly make such a high number of
96 suspect so the first priority was looking at how "unsheltered" was defined. Following is the
list used to define anyone who is homeless:
1. Sleeping in a place not meant for habitation.
2. No running water or electricity.
3. Living in RV, car or truck.
4. Staying in Homeless shelters or group homes.
5. Anyone who is otherwise without a home.
6. In treatment facilities and shelters.
7. Lacking a pennanent place to live.
8. Living in parks, on sidewalks, cars, abandoned buildings.
9. Living with fhcnds or family because they do not have a place or can't afford a place of
their own.
10. Living in an institution or hospital for at least 30 days.
11. Facing eviction or has an eviction notice.
The people fitting into the category of unsheltered we had pinpointed were in numbers 1, 2, 3,
and 8. Using this as a sorting tool we thought this would be a more accurate reflection of those
"literally living on the streets." But again, the number, 96, didn't seem congruent with
observations, nor with numbers served by the recently operational warming shelter, nor with the
numbers served at the Emergency Covid shelter. The more practical number to use based on that
qualifying data would be just under 40. In fact, and to further support the number at 40, when the
Director of the Wanning Shelter was asked how many beds she thought were needed in order to
not turn people away, she thought 40 would be sufficient.
Although 40 is a much more manageable number and almost half what the survey data showed,
it is still too high, and the needs are still great. It is important to note that focusing on this
subgroup of the entire homeless population does not discount the great need in continuing to
serve in any way we can the other homeless people in temporary housing, shelters, or other non-
permanent locations. This is simply a place to start and it is definitely the `tip of the spear.'
POINT IN TIME: KALISPELL all household types
Compiled from mthomelessdata.com
_
2019 unsheltered
2018 unsheltered
2017 unsheltered
Total Homeless* HUD and Non HUD
279
69
363.
79
305
55
Total accompanying
116
27
320.
25
207
42
Listed Not Homeless under "since had a home
none
160
68
HUD Homeless
154
69
143
79
119
55
HUD Accompanying
53
27
44
25
72
42
207
96
187
104
191
97
Listed Not Homeless under "since had a home"
0
74
78
4
PRIOR EFFORTS
Flathead Homelessness Interagency Resource Education's (H.I.R.E.) 5 year plan to address
homelessness drafted by H.I.R.E., "Finding the Way Home," (2014-2019) has not seemed to
have made measurable strides toward changing the unsheltered homeless numbers, even though
progress has been made in many areas of the study's five point plan. The mission of the H.I.R.E.
group is to "promote interagency collaboration to address homelessness, and together we work
smarter and more efficiently. We envision a coordinated community that meets the needs of the
homeless population and provide safe and viable alternatives to homelessness." The 5 year plan
is attached as an addendum to this report.
The Task Force scrutinized the "Finding The Way Home" 5-year report paying particular
attention to the plan's five goals to see if there had been any appreciable changes made.
Our goal was to look at the issues the unsheltered homeless population was dealing with so we
could more accurately answer the question "What is the root cause of the unsheltered homeless
population?" If resources and energy are going toward a solution, it would be prudent to direct
that to the proper area —whether it is lack of affordable housing or other factors. Conversely, a
misdiagnosis of the unsheltered populations root causes could lead to a misdirection of resources
and manpower.
It should be noted that the Task Force looked closely into the Goal 2 — Single Point of Entry,
within the plan. Throughout the stakeholder interviews it became abundantly clear that that goal
clearly has not been accomplished, although it was continually brought up as an issue. None of
the groups interviewed considered their organization the single point of entry for the homeless
population, nor did they know who the single point of entry was. A single point of entry should
involve an organization where an individual facing a potential homelessness issue, and/or is
already homeless can go to be directed to the appropriate services. If the leaders in the
community don't know who the single point of entry is then how would those needing the
services know where to go for services that are available?
Stakeholders' interviews brought up the need for the 211 system. 211 is an integral component to
getting those individuals in need of services to those services and is an integral component to
single point of entry. Historically, 211 was funded through the United Way and the program
went away for funding reasons. There is funding for 211 this coming year, but at this time there
is no long-term funding for the 211 program. Finding a way to make sure the 211 program is
funded in perpetuity was something that the task force feels is warranted to get those in need of
services as quickly as possible. Likewise, stakeholders' interviews brought up the need for more
homeless data and the need for more usage of the Homeless Management Information System
(HMIS). HMIS is used to track homeless individuals using services administered by multiple
agencies. The system is administered by Montana Continuum of Care Coalition with the
guidance of Pathways and compiles the Point in Time Survey. Currently, not enough of the
service providers have access to the HMIS system. All of the service providers need access to
HMIS, which can be used to keep up-to-date data on the homeless population.
5
*The Task Force forwarded its findings to the team Collaborative Housing Solutions of Northwest
Montana (CHSNM) working on anew 7-year plan. CHSNM has replaced HJR.E as the collaborative
stakeholdergroup. That review is attached as Addendum I at the end of this report. Expectedly, some
information will be a duplicate of this report's content.
THE MYTH OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
"Homelessness is NOT a housing issue. "
William Matson, Executive Director
Pathways Community Network Institute
In a November 28th, 2019 Flathead Beacon story, the Director of the Samaritan House explained
that "fifty-eight percent of the (homeless) population is unsheltered, and that he suspects the lack
of affordable housing in the valley is a root cause of many people's lack of housing." (emphasis
added). Conversely, the above quote from William Matson, Executive Director of Pathways
Community Network Institute, stands in contrast. Pathways Community Network Institute is
Montana's Continuum of Care Coalition consulting service for compliance with HUD, HMIS,
HIPAA, and other applicable regulations. They also provide date and training services for
administration of the HMIS system.
In order to understand if this hypothesis was correct, a deep dive into the Point of Time survey
data was conducted. The task force looked at data from 2017, 2018, and 2019 to understand the
personal issues that the homeless, specifically the unsheltered population, had addressed in the
survey responses, and looking at how the often used term of "affordable housing" could be
applied to them.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) explains that if a family pays more
than 30% of their income for housing, it is considered a cost burden. To help address this cost
burden, the Office of Affordable Housing administers several programs. Related to, but apart
from affordable housing, they also steer those dealing with homelessness to a variety of other
resources. In other words, affordable housing and homelessness are not mutually inclusive, they
are dealt with as two distinct issues with different solutions and resources.
The term "affordable housing" is a moving target that is relative to income. Many homeless are
unable to work and have little to no income so affordable housing for those on the streets is
literally unattainable. The statistics from the 2019 Point in Time survey show that fifty-two
percent of Kalispell's unsheltered homeless are disabled and unable to work, thus without being
subsidized they would not be able to afford housing, no matter the cost.
The two graphs below illustrate this for the latest year, 2019:
96 Total UNSHELTERED Homeless in Kalispell
on
1. 90% (87) of the unsheltered homeless had a disability.
2. 35% (34) were disabled and could not work
3. 30% (29) had NO income
4. 26% (25) had a part -tinge income
5. 20% (19) had a full-time income
Therefore, even if the community had an abundant supply of housing below the median gross
household income guidelines of the community ($49,511 annually as of 2017), the majority of
Kalispell's unsheltered homeless would still not be able to afford it. In other words, Kalispell
could solve the affordable housing problem, and never touch the homeless problem.
Although definitions for affordable housing may be useful in household budget preparation, and
in establishing community guidelines for urban planning purposes, and even as convenient
political catch-all phrases, for those unsheltered homeless with no income there is simply no
practical definition of affordable housing. For them, the term "affordable housing" is simply a
myth. Again the 2019 Point in Time Survey showed that thirty percent have NO INCOME!
Rather than focus on housing affordability, snore appropriate questions should be asked like,
"Are the unsheltered homeless with various disabilities receiving all of the state and federal aid
to assist them in coping with their disabilities and employment opportunities? Are they being
directed to the services they need when available?" Fortunately, the new co -responder position
with Flathead County will be able to work with local law enforcement to connect those in need
of help with life -changing mental health services in the community. Whether the disability listed
was physical, mental, or substance related, the high percentage of unsheltered homeless who
share this characteristic suggests that there is not enough aid for that population, it is not being
used effectively, or possibly there are no effective programs to address the issue.
Further, there is no way a municipal government can control the building costs associated with
construction. Initial costs can be mitigated in terms of impact fees, but actual costs of materials
and labor can neither be subsidized nor controlled by local governments. For example, recent
supply chain limitations have raised costs of building supplies as much as 70% for items such as
lumber and drywall. This significantly alters the feasibility of large construction projects,
including housing. Most importantly, the rising costs of construction can halt development which
will limit the supply of housing that is desperately needed.
7
City government is fielded solely through property tax dollars and enterprise funds. City coffers
do not have the resources to go beyond basic services already provided on the scale required to
address the homeless needs. This fact is acknowledged in Montana Budget and Policy Center's
report on affordable housing published in April 2018. Their conclusion is that there should be
more Federal and State investments in "increasing the levels of assistance available and targeting
its resources to meet the housing needs of families."
Affordable housing assistance, whether rental assistance or subsidized housing, is a state and
federal issue in terms of funding, and outside the scope of local funding except for grant
acquisition. City government in terms of scale alone is not equipped to fund anything other than
its commitment to the City/County Health Department programs that assist the homeless and
housing challenged.
One area of particular interest caught our attention while looking into the Point in Time data. It
appeared as though almost half of the unsheltered population had been approved for Section 8
housing vouchers and yet they remained homeless. According to CAPNWMT "the Department
of commerce determines the allocation of vouchers for the Housing Choice Voucher Program
(aka Section 8) which generally has a 3-5 year waitlist that has no priority for unsheltered
homeless." Further, CAPNWMT infonned us that they are not involved in the process, nor were
they aware of "any specific that homeless individuals or households were selected for a
voucher," and they were not aware of that information from their data sources.
The following table is information compiled directly from the Point in Time Surveys. It was
both troubling and disconcerting that CAPNWMT was unaware of these numbers. If half of our
unsheltered homeless population qualifies for benefits but there is no Section 8 housing
available, it's important for applicable stakeholders to know that information and act
accordingly. Or, if the respondent information is inaccurate, survey methodology should be
scrutinized.
POINT IN TIME: KALISPELL all household types
Compiled from mthomelessdata.com
2019 unsheltered
2018 unsheltered
2017 unsheltered
SNAP
97
94
116
WIC
97
94
116
Sec 8
97 40
94 48
116 S8
Finally, affordable housing is a separate issue from the root causes of most of the chronically
homeless, and is being addressed by city and county officials through the Health Department.
Discussions on what can be done at the City level to increase affordable housing opportunities
beyond current practices can be addressed through City Council work sessions, but some topical
issues need to be considered.
CITY INVOLVEMENT
There is often questions about why the City of Kalispell does not have a housing authority. In
respect to housing authorities, the City of Kalispell used to operate a housing program, but
turned that effort to Northwest Community Action Partnership. Generally, a move of this nature
creates more independence and flexibility, versus operating under a municipal umbrella. Should
there be a desire to operate a municipal housing authority, it would be first important to answer
the question of what is not being achieved by Northwest Community Action Partnership that is
desired in a municipal housing authority. Then identify if the Community Action Partnership can
address that gap. If it is felt that it needs to be turned over to municipal ownership, it should also
be understood that the municipal entity would seek resources from the same entities that provides
funding for Community Action Partnership, thus inhibiting their ability to operate programs.
CAP acts as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). A CHDO is a private
nonprofit, community -based organization that has staff with capacity to develop affordable
housing for the community it serves. Accordingly, if the City of Kalispell were to implement its
own housing program they would simply be duplicating those services and/or competing for
monies that is already going to CAP. As the Kalispell City Council regularly hears about housing
related issues, it was concerning to the task force that the Council isn't always aware of the
programs that are being utilized in the City through CAP. It would be beneficial for the City to
have regular updates from CAP on housing related matters.
City policy issues and decisions of the past have been very favorable to the homeless/shelter
community by being flexible with zoning and conditional use permits to make it easier for
stakeholders to maneuver within the city. Sparrows Nest, Peggy's House, Youth/Group Homes,
etc. have all benefited from the City's helpful stance in recognizing the community need. This
was further demonstrated during the creation of the Emergency Shelter with a temporary zoning
amendment. Although there is a necessary public process (Conditional Use Permit) for the
aforementioned uses that takes some time, history has shown that the public process was not
used as a barrier for entry and this is exhibited in past approvals.
There is a general misunderstanding in the community about funding options for homelessness
issues in the valley. It is often mentioned that other cities, i.e. - Missoula, Billings, Great Falls,
Boise, etc. have designated social workers focused on this cause. It should be noted that all of
those cities are "entitlement" cities that have a population of more than 50,000 people. Cities
with populations of more than 50,000 people are automatically allocated grants on formula basis
from CDBG to carry out a wide range of community development activities. Nationally, 70% of
all CDBG money is allocated to entitlement cities. There is not a single city in the valley that
qualifies for this status. Nor does the entire Flathead County, which would need a population of
200,000 people to qualify for automatic CDBG funding.
The Flathead Valley is a "non -entitlement" area because of its size and non -entitlement
communities are left with only 30% of the CDBG money. The money for non -entitlement
communities first goes to the State, who allocates the money to all the smaller communities
throughout the state in a highly competitive application process. This process ultimately
"sprinkles" the money across the state and certainly can make an impact, but unfortunately does
not provide a guaranteed income flow that would be needed to provide for a full FTE designated
.41
for homeless issues. Accordingly, because of highly competitive application process local
governments often leave it up to the local stakeholders to fill a community need so they are not
competing for the same money. The City has partnered with local stakeholders on multiple
occasions, such as the Community Land Trust which is the largest of its kind in the State of
Montana with over 50 affordable houses. This program is an example of the type of partnerships
that can be utilized to fill a community need. City staff has met with CAP and there is an
understanding that they will continue to work together where appropriate to meet community
needs and/or to take advantage of resources available to them.
STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT
Throughout the interview process it became clear that coordination between various stakeholders
was lacking. Multiple times, we heard about the desire for an agency to coordinate the non-
profits, which are admittedly protective of their funding sources. Although protective,
stakeholders share a mutual respect for the missions they have and the tasks they perform.
However, until the recent Covid Emergency Shelter for the Homeless coordination,
communication between stakeholders appeared to be unplanned, dysfunctional, and competitive.
In the words of one stakeholder: "most of my real frustration comes from working with the many
agencies that are supposed to be working in tandem to solve the issue, (of homelessness), but
then rq/use to work together. I, and many others feel that not much is able to get done because
people are territorial around funding. What that has led to is the same players getting all the
funding around homelessness and then not doing jack about it. At this point, this issue is only
gaining speed, and these folks are at risk (sic) being unhoused and it costs taxpayers millions of
dollars every year. "
Ironically, it seems these agencies are in the best position to coordinate amongst themselves
through either a fonnal association or informal gathering to understand what each other is doing
and then establish their goals based on collaborative efforts. It is unlikely that independent non-
profits would take the direction from an unrelated umbrella agency to better align their work
plan; several admitted as much upon discussing this issue in more depth. However, these
agencies may benefit from forming their own association and meeting informally to coordinate
efforts, or through a formalized process where they could establish a board of directors and hire
their own administrator that could be charged with Community Assessments, issue identification,
legislative efforts, etc. Thus, if they are truly looking for a coordinator, this would provide a
means where they would be directly in charge and responsible for the creation and supervision as
a board —similar to the Northwest Association of Realtors, Downtown Association, Building
Association, or the Chamber of Commerce.
It was brought up multiple times that the City needed a position that would coordinate all the
various stakeholders. The issue with this idea is that the coordination would not be regulated in
any way, meaning even if the City had a position in place there would be no way to require any
type of coordination. The reality is that in an effort to not be duplicating services the
stakeholders should be coordinating their services themselves. This issue is not limited to just
Kalispell and has been amplified in Seattle. Despite over 1 billion dollars spent yearly on
10
homelessness in Seattle there has been an inability to solve the problem. Homelessness in Seattle
is not a resource problem, it's a communication problem. A landmark Pathways Home report
highlighted the lack of coordination between groups and governments as a major challenge
costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Although different in scale, it is apparent that there are
many resources in Kalispell that are not being optimally utilized because of a "disjointed
patchwork of programs." The task force recommends that a method for the stakeholders
providing the services in the valley become more accountable to each other in an effort to
provide the best service possible without wasting resources on duplicated services —something
unique to Kalispell as outlined above.
It should be noted that communication improved considerably due to the work and coordination
necessary for the emergency shelter. The communication and coordination used to get the facility
up and running, as well as the logistical cross agency support needs to continue in an intentional
fashion to have a meaningful effect.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE VS. RENT CONTROL
It has been found that communities that implemented (legislated) rent control policies ultimately
shrunk the rental housing market. Developers will stop developing apartments because there is
no profit in it, which ultimately leads to a reduction in supply. It has been found that existing
apartments also see a lack of investment because there is not enough profit being generated to
warrant improvements, which leads to dilapidated buildings. Further, in many cities it has been
found the developers can get around the regulations by converting the units to condos which
takes those housing units out of the market and has led to gentrification of low-income
neighborhoods. The more successful model is to increase the rental inventory by implementing
YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) development policies for multi -family residential units, rather
than control it, and find Federal and State assistance to help the low-income renters bridge the
market rate rental gap.
In a look at cities that already have rent control shows no reduction in homelessness in California
cities that implemented it. Jim Breslo, in his assessment of rent control in California cities
(October 20, 2019), found that it prompts landlords to convert their properties into owner -
occupied homes, and deters investment in the housing market, aggregating the shortages that
caused them in the first place. He concludes that, "When landlords are limited in their ability to
raise rents and cannot freely evict tenants, they will be extremely careful in who they rent to.
That has a significant adverse effect on the ability of low-income people to find rental housing."
Here are some relevant articles that illustrate this phenomena:
hops:llwww.citylab.com/perstpectiyel2019/06lhousingrsupplly-debate-affordable-hornetpl ices-
rent- ' b /591061/
https:l/slate.comlbusinessl2017106/yimbys-and-the-dsa-cant- et-along.-despite-their-common-
enemy-high-rent.html
11
INCLUSIONARY ZONING
Inclusionary zoning should not be pursued based on available research. Emily Hamilton,
Research Fellow, at Mercatus Center at George Mason University published her findings in her
report "Inclusionary Zoning Hurts More Than It Helps," in September 2019.
Her report concludes that, policymakers should not pursue inclusionary zoning as an
affordability strategy. "Rather than using inclusionary zoning to appear as if they're pursuing
housing affordability, policyinakers who are actually concerned about affordability should
reform exclusionary zoning and provide targeted support to those households that need it."
hops:llwww.mercatus.org/publications/urban-economicslinclusionary-zoning-hurts-more-it-
helns —
Closer to home, inclusionary zoning like that legislated by the Whitefish Legacy Home Project
has yet to show any movement in the area of affordable housing inventory or income generation
to go toward alleviation of the problem. In fact, one project has already dissolved, and another
has not been able to address the time -line of the cash payment in lieu of affordable housing
which may result in a judicial remedy. According to the 2016 Whitefish Housing Needs
Assessment that found a need for 980 affordable units needed by 2020, and the inclusionary
zoning policy that has generated three in as many years, it will take 980 years for Whitefish to
reach their goal, providing growth is stagnant during that period. This legislative remedy has had
similar results in other municipalities as well.
Inclusionary zoning has negative results in that it disproportionally affects housing costs
compared to those you help. For example, when you require below market rent for 30% of units
within an apartment building you make the other 70% of the units more expensive. Simply,
inclusionary zoning helps 3 people while hurting 7 others financially if you were to look at a 10-
unit building. The developers have fixed costs in order to pay for their developments and those
costs are born by the tenants. So, an end result to an inclusionary zoning ordinance is that it will
make it much harder for those already on a limited income (but don't qualify as low income) to
afford housing.
Continuing to expend valuable time and energy to pursue these policies appears to be misguided
and indeed, according to the published studies and available research, counterproductive to
addressing the homeless population. The more successful model is to increase the rental
inventory by implementing YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) development policies for multi-
family residential units, rather than control it, and find Federal and State assistance to help the
low-income renters bridge the market rate rental gap. As with Whitefish where they need 980
units constructed, first and foremost there is a shortage in housing supply. Kalispell is also
hovering around the 04% vacancy rate. Accordingly, supporting the construction of more
housing units and ways to reduce construction costs will have a larger impact on housing
affordability than inclusionary zoning policies.
Other communities have tried to manipulate the housing market to address affordable housing
and homelessness with varied results:
12
Tiny home communities have been trendy but show little viability. Cost
breakdowns do not snake them fiscally feasible. Fads and trends that appeal to a
small fraction of a community do not seem to be a viable long-term solution. It
should also be noted that tiny homes are permitted within the City of Kalispell if
it is an option that a developer and/or homeowner chooses to proceed with.
Rent Control, although well intentioned, has invariably led to the opposite
effect —a lack of available rentals. See above.
Rent subsidies work. Funding issues and federal guidelines capping the amounts
need to be adjusted based on community needs. Although this appears to be the
most effective approach it will require changes in HUD guidelines for FAIR
MARKET rents with geographic considerations. The Task Force was informed
by CAP that Texas has had some success in this area but we were unable to get
specific information on their tactics. Hopefully, CAP will follow up and bring
this information to City officials for their review. This is an item that should
likely be looked at as a viable legislative agenda item for the Council moving
forward. If the cap could be raised, as it was in Texas, then the market rate rent
could be subsidized for those low-income individuals trying to find housing.
A look at published studies and articles show that most government programs, with the exception
of rent subsidies, are having little or no long term success. What is working are privately funded
community partnerships with stakeholders working together across disciplinary lines to create
solutions that best match their community needs in terms of services and scale.
RENTAL AVAILABILITY AND LIFESTYLE CHOICES
While it is obvious that rental prices and average wages show a major disparity, it must be
acknowledged that there are other factors present in the rental/income situation that should be
acknowledged.
• Pets can limit housing options as well as increase expenses for deposits, food and
vet bills
• Lack of Budget Knowledge
• Discretionary expenditures from toys to fast food
• Cascade of events when bills become past due, leading to additional charges
• Failure to know about or utilize available resources
• Addictions including gambling, alcohol, and drugs
The Task Force finds it troubling that those considered `rent burdened' (paying more than 30%
of their gross income to housing) are often included in homeless counts. To be sure, the rent
burdened are at risk of becoming homeless but so too are the mortgage burdened. Homeowners
and renters are equally at risk of losing their housing due to job loss, income reduction, divorce,
medical or a myriad of other unexpected expenses. Interviews with stakeholders concluded, that
although not the only remedy, consumer education programs would be beneficial in helping to
avoid these instances for the entire community.
13
EXPANSION OF SHELTER SERVICES
Not all shelters operate at capacity and many who are living on the streets would not meet
guidelines for accommodation if there was more space because of behavioral or substance abuse
issues, or criminal records.
Also, according to findings published in the 2019 US Council of Economic Advisors
Presidential report on The State of Homelessness an America, found that, "more tolerable
conditions" and a "larger supply of substitutes to permanent housing through shelter provision"
also increases homelessness.
Kalispell and the appropriate stakeholders should exercise caution in trying to overbuild for
projected growth as they may be creating that which they are trying to eradicate. The community
should only look at building facilities to house and transition their own population, rather than
increase homelessness in the community by building facilities that attract other homeless
individuals. Once again, see the results of major cities that have seen an increase in homelessness
despite having all the resources available to them to solve the problem.
IDENTIFYING GAPS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Vital areas that require more and immediate attention:
1. Coordinated Entry System and Data Center encourage entities to use the HMIS system
for strong data collection and monitoring. It was a consensus amongst those interviewed
that more HMIS accounts for the tracking of homeless individuals would make it easier
to connect them with the services they need. Currently, there are limited HMIS accounts
and not all the stakeholders have access.
2. Find ways to make sure 211 is a permanently funded program so those in need of services
can get direction on where to get them.
3. Conduct the Point in Time Survey quarterly.
4. If possible, prioritize Section 8 housing to those that are unsheltered.
5. Have major stakeholders regularly brief city and county officials on Homeless numbers
and issues.
6. CAP should regularly report to the Council on housing programs within the City. The
City should also consider representation on the CAP board.
14
7. The Task Force heard from several stakeholders who believed that homelessness was not
simply because of bad spending habits or inability to budget, and some even took offense
that it was a topic of discussion. We also heard from other stakeholders that felt it was
not only a contributing factor, but a serious one.
Although spending habits are certainly not responsible for homelessness, it is a factor and
it deserves to be addressed as seriously as other factors like affordability, and mental
health. There are opportunities for the community to begin to make both an immediate
impact as well as one for the next generation if we start in the schools.
The Task Force encourages a budget and resource education component congruent with
aid delivery. For example, 1-hour budget workshops after free community dinners
conducted by volunteers, or other regularly scheduled sessions at the library or local
churches.
Community Education programs like the ACCC in NewEngland, offer financial
education workshops to community members at no cost in the following areas:
Budgeting_where consumers learn about various personal finance topics like budgeting,
credit and credit scores, banking and savings, retirement, insurance, taxes, and more. The
workshops can be customized based on the needs of the individuals or organizations
served.
Understandingcwhere the important concepts of credit, including the importance of
credit, what inforination creates a credit score and how to improve a credit score. Also
cover best strategies for paying down high interest debt and credit cards.
Money Smart teaches how to develop financial confidence, build financial knowledge,
and learn how to use banking services, using the award winning FDIC Money Smart
Curriculum. Using customizable modules clients learn about banking services, borrowing
and checking basics, how to make credit work for them, paying themselves first, credit
history, and home ownership.
Identity the heft teaches what identity theft is, how it occurs, as well as how to protect
yourself against it and what to do if you become a victim.
Youth financial literacy workshops each children grades K-12 the basic concepts of
budgeting, checking and savings accounts, credit and investments using a variety of
lessons and activities. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty,
"Children born to low-income families are more likely to experience poverty in
adulthood than those who don't grow up poor." Investing more time and resources into
our youth is an investment in the long-term solutions of affordable housing and
homelessness in our community for the following generations.
15
8. Anecdotal evidence and community conversation show support for the expansion of
Abbie Shelter and related domestic violence services for those fleeing abusive
relationships.
9. Expansion of Intervention programs for Teens, especially those with no adult support
systems.
10. Identify why the chronically homeless with mental, and/or substance abuse issues are not
getting or taking advantage of resources.
11. Promote education about zoning for halfway houses to address the issue of those with
criminal backgrounds preventing them from housing options and thus gainful
employment to integrate them into the community.
12. Find ways to dismantle duplicated services among agencies. It is imperative that both
public and private agencies work more symbiotically to avoid duplication of services to
maximize human and physical capital. All stakeholders we interviewed agreed that there
are unnecessary duplications but without an outside entity leading the study and
elimination of the duplications, it is doubtful that this will come to fruition.
The individuals and agencies whose mission it is to assist in the myriad, far-reaching, and
often overlapping areas of homeless assistance are often competing for the same
resources. It is clear that serving the homeless is an industry, and those involved in their
niche areas are expected and required to protect that niche to continue and expand
services. The drawback, is they are not always working in collaboration with outside
stakeholders when soliciting grants, and once awarded, they are obligated to utilize them,
or risk loss of future funding.
Like most industries, even philanthropy, it is not uncommon to see cases of cognitive
dissonance and industry bias on display. Some occurs to protect the limited resources,
and some out of sheer frustration or as a defense against assumed stereotypes. Therefore,
it is of utmost importance to step back and approach the challenges from multiple vantage
points and with as many data sources as possible.
13. Put Homelessness on the City Council's Legislative Agenda and lobby for federal and
state funds and changes that would positively impact Kalispell. Getting a change in the
HUD "Fair Rental" Rate would be a great start.
14. The poor are not poor 8 to 5 Monday through Friday. Service agencies that require face
to face interaction should consider adjusting hours (even a couple days a week) to
accommodate the working poor so they can access services and resources without
missing work. Likewise, having resources available, at least for limited hours on
weekends would go a long way toward accommodating client work schedules, and
meeting needs. Every for profit service industry in America operates on a schedule that
works for the customer not just for the convenience of the business.
16
15. A low -barrier shelter is essential to give those with no others options a place to stay that
protects them from the elements and connects them to needed resources while avoiding
unnecessary negative community confrontations.
CONCLUSION
It is the Task Force finding that funding and even investigating the above items falls at the feet of
the stakeholders, the homeless assistance professionals, in collaboration with private and public
partners. These professionals are at the front lines, have the necessary training, and are able to
tap into the government grant resources which are ultimately taxpayer funded. Additionally, they
have the ability to organize and fundraise from the private sector according to the identified
community needs. Government agencies should foster in all ways possible a streamlined path to
enable them to meet their goals by removing bureaucratic obstacles.
Homelessness and Affordable Housing are not technical problems that can be solved with simple
technical solutions. They are complicated issues with numerous variables. There seems to be a
desire, and understandably so, that this can be solved if we just had (insert variety of preferred
solution). Moving forward with legislative action on areas that have proven to misidentify or
exaggerate a problem may in fact hinder long term solutions.
17
BIBLIOGRAPHY/RESOURCES CONSULTED
• Point in Time Survey 2017-2020, mthomelessdata.com,
• Montana Continuum of Care CoalitionFive-Year Plan to Address Homelessness (2014-2019),
Flathead Homelessness Interagency Resource and Education (H.I.R.E.)
• The State of Homelessness in America, The Council of Economic Advisors, September 2019
• United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, "Using Homelessness and Housing Needs
Data to Tailor and Drive Local Solutions," 2017
• Montana Budget and Policy Center, "Housing Affordability in Montana," April 2018
• "Housing Affordability and Homelessness.'
• United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, using.gov, "Searching Out Solutions:
Constructive Alternatives to the Criminalization of Homelessness," 2012
• United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, "Ending Homelessness for People Living
in Encampments," 2015
• Flathead County Housing Map, 2019-2020
• The Daily InterLake, as referenced
• The Flathead Beacon, as referenced
• The following professional urls:
https:llwww.mercatus.orglpublicationslurban-economicslinclusionary-zoning-hurts-more-it-helps
https:llwww.citylab.com/perspective/20l 9106/housing-supply-debate_ affordable -home -prices-
rent-yimby15910611
https:Hslate.com/business/20l7106/vimbys-and, the-dsa-cant-get-along-despite-their-common-
enemy-high-rent.htmi -
We would also like to acknowledge the assistance we received from Bob Beezus with the
Montana Continuum of Care and William Matson with Pathways in helping understand and
process the data, and the issues.
18
Addendum 1)
Five Year Homeless Plan Review
From: Mayor's Homeless Task Force
Date: June 25, 2020
To: Collaborative Housing Solutions of Northwest Montana
Re: "Functional Zero" 7 Year Plan to Address Homelessness Draft
Dear Collaborative Team,
Following please find our task force review of "Finding the Way Home" Five -Year Plan to
Address Homelessness (2014-2019). Included in the notes are other findings from some of our
previous efforts.
Each member of the task force was asked to review the five-year plan and report to the group
three take-aways from the plan now that the 5 year period has been reached.
Individuals addressed concerns based on personal observations as community members, sought
to seek clarification on goals, and brought up questions for the path forward based on review of
updated findings and reports. Many of the observations centered on the same or related topics
and responses were combined and listed under the five goals outlined in the Five Year Plan.
The Task Force has had recent conversations with stakeholders that have shed additional light on
some areas addressed herein, including updates on 211, the need to expand the community's data
collection with HMIS, low barrier housing needs, and attempting to reduce duplication of
services. We trust this information from community peers will prove helpful as you press
forward with the new 7-Year Plan.
1} Increase shelter space and the number of beds available to accommodate all of the
homeless in Flathead County.
• Does having more services is Kalispell contribute to the increase in homelessness?
• Need to know the true need to understand housing inventory needs for emergency shelter,
transitional, and affordable long-term options.
• Do not want to overbuild emergency, temporary or permanent low-income housing as that can
exacerbate the problem and have other detrimental community effects.
• Must build/expand to meet the need, not a forecasted need.
• In the 2019 Council of Economic Advisers Executive report "The State of Homelessness in
America," found that "a larger supply of substitutes to permanent housing through shelter
provision also increases homelessness."
2) Efficient coordination and communication between social service providers and the
community with an emphasis on a single point of entry.
19
• Questions about numbers and monitoring the data base data; would this be more effective with
a single point of entry?
• With the emphasis on single point of entry, what has prevented us from reaching that goal?
• The numbers used by reporting agencies do not appear consistent with those requesting
services.
• What entities are involved (would be involved) in getting the northwest region on the 211
program? What funding sources are available, and who would be the central point coordinator?
• Alternative communication possibilities like electronic reader boards at strategic community
locations providing pertinent and up to date resource directory.
• Real-time data is lacking. Waiting for annual survey compilation seems inadequate in
addressing fluctuating needs, especially seasonally.
• In the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness Report of March 2017, the
importance of gathering real-time data was stressed. "the data helps to ensure that we respond
with the right solutions, at the right scale, to address current and projected housing needs and
crises. " By including a full range of data communities can stretch the resources they have
further —and understand where new resources are needed —while getting better results. "
3) Increased preventive measures and affordable housing opportunities for people who are
homeless or on the verge of homelessness.
Realizing that housing is a key to stability, it appears there is a need to develop a "care plan"
for individuals and families to connect them and walk them through resource delivery and a
"discharge plan" after going through the "care plan."
As we learned from the Salvation Army efforts, more needs to be done in terms of educating
people on financial and budgeting issues. What integrated policies could the current providers
employ to facilitate this?
Preventative measures could include community awareness, public/private partnerships,
financial and budget education and outreach from all service providers, more substance and
alcohol abuse education and treatment, mental health support services before critical triggers
that affect housing, integrative options for rehousing individuals after incarceration or
treatment, developing policies of support services to identify at risk households and a
monitoring system for early intervention.
Affordable Housing is much more complex than lower priced permanent housing options. To
include affordable housing in the preventative measures in addressing homelessness is troubling.
In the 2019 Council of Economic Advisers -Executive report "The State of Homelessness in
America," it was found that, "the overregulation of housing markets, raises homelessness by
increasing the price of a home." It appears from other studies as well as observations of
metropolitan areas that have invested in government funded and regulated housing projects, that
most efforts have failed completely and were neither cost effective nor able to change the
numbers of the unsheltered homeless. Having a wide price range of housing inventory would be
more effective than government regulation of the housing market.
Low incomes deters -nine affordability and add to the "rent burdened." However, there are
numerous factors that may affect low income jobs than just the availability of higher paying jobs.
20
For example, tardiness, truancy, poor social skills, and poor job perfonnance which inhibits
recommendations for both advancement and employment at higher paying jobs.
In the Montana Budget and PolicyCe_ nter Report of April 2018 suggests rental/housing
assistance programs at the State and Federal level to help with housing affordability. According
to the report, "housing assistance can Delp cost burdened families at risk for housing instability
and homelessness achieve long-term stability, improve a child's educational and adult outcomes,
and significantly reduce poverty rates for families and their children." These Housing First
programs that prioritize finding and maintaining stable housing and providing long-term rental
assistance is "more effective and less costly way to tackle homelessness."
The task force also conducted a deep dive into the Point in Time survey data from 2017-2019.
Our focus was to look at the reported numbers for the UNSHELTERED Homeless in Kalispell,
not the entire Flathead Valley which accounts for a 7% increase. What we discovered for the
latest year, 2019, was:
96 Total UNSHELTERED Homeless in Kalispell
See graphs below and summary:
90% (87) of the unsheltered homeless had a disability.
35% (34) were disabled and could not work
30% (29) had NO income
26% (25) had a part-time income
20% (19) had a full-time income
The data shows that no matter what definition of rent burdened or affordable housing one uses, if
a person has limited income, or none at all, there is nothing that is affordable and no amount of
government regulation of the housing market can change that. The individual's circumstances,
or ability to get other assistance, must change.
Moving forward with legislative action on areas that have proven to misidentify or exaggerate a
problem may in fact hinder long term solutions.
Rental assistance versus rent control.
21
It has been found that communities that implemented (legislated) rent control policies ultimately
shrunk the rental housing market. Developers will stop developing apartments because there is
no profit in it, which ultimately leads to a reduction in supply. It has been found that existing
apartments also see a lack of investment because there is not enough profit being generated to
warrant improvements, which leads to dilapidated buildings. Further, in many cities it has been
found the developers can get around the regulations by converting the units to condos which
takes those housing units out of the market and has led to gentrification of low-income
neighborhoods. The more successful model is to increase the rental inventory by implementing
YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) development policies for multi -family residential units, rather
than control it, and find Federal and State assistance to help the low-income renters bridge the
market rate rental gap.
In a look at cities that already have rent control shows no reduction in homelessness in California
cities that implemented it. Jim Breslo, in his assessment of rent control in California cities
(October 20, 2019), found that it prompts landlords to convert their properties into owner -
occupied homes, and deters investment in the housing market, aggregating the shortages that
caused them in the first place. He concludes that, "When landlords are limited in their ability to
raise rents and cannot freely evict tenants, they will be extremely careful in who they rent to.
That has a significant adverse effect on the ability of low-income people to find rental housing."
Here are some relevant articles that illustrate this phenomena:
bgps://www.git
_ylab.com/perspective/2019/06/housi ng_-supply-debate-affordable-home-prices-
rent-yimby/591061/
haps://slate.com/business/2017/061ydmb s-and-the-dsa-cant- eg t-along-despite-their-common-
enem -hi h-rent.html
Inclusionary Zoning
Inclusionary zoning should not be pursued based on available research. Emily Hamilton,
Research Fellow, at Mercatus Center at George Mason University published her findings in her
report "Inclusionary Zoning Hurts More Than It Helps," in September 2019.
Her report concludes that, policymakers should not pursue inclusionary zoning as an
affordability strategy. "Rather than using inclusionary zoning to appear as if they're pursuing
housing affordability, policymakers who are actually concerned about affordability should
reform exclusionary zoning and provide targeted support to those households that need it."
hops:/lwww.mercatus.orglpublications/urban-economics/inclusionarv-zoning-hurts-more-it-
helps
Closer to home, inclusionary zoning like that legislated by the Whitefish Legacy Home Project
has yet to show any movement in the area of affordable housing inventory or income generation
22
to go toward alleviation of the problem. In fact, one project has already dissolved, and another
has not been able to address the time-
line of the cash payment in lieu of affordable housing.
Continuing to expend valuable time and energy to pursue these policies appears to be misguided
and indeed, according to the published studies and available research, counter productive to
addressing the homeless population.
Entitlement Status
There is a general misunderstanding in the community about funding options for homelessness
issues in the valley. It is often mentioned that other cities, i.e. - Missoula, Billings, Great Falls,
Boise, etc. have designated social workers focused on this cause. It should be noted that all of
those cities are "entitlement" cities that have a population of more than 50,000 people. Cities
with populations of more than 50,000 people are automatically allocated grants on formula basis
from CDBG to carry out a wide range of community development activities. Nationally, 70% of
all CDBG money is allocated to entitlement cities. There is not a single city in the valley that
qualifies for this status. Nor does the entire Flathead County, which would need a population of
200,000 people to qualify for automatic CDBG funding. The Flathead Valley is a "non -
entitlement" area because of its size and non -entitlement communities are left with only 30% of
the CDBG money. The money for non -entitlement communities first goes to the State, who
allocates the money to all the smaller communities throughout the state in a highly competitive
application process. This process ultimately "sprinkles" the money across the state and certainly
can make an impact, but unfortunately does not provide a guaranteed income flow that would be
needed to provide for a full FTE designated for homeless issues. Accordingly, because of the
highly competitive application process local governments often leave it up to the local non-
profits (CAP, Samaritan House, etc.) with a designated purpose to fill a community need so they
are not competing for the same money.
Rental Availability and Lifestyle Choices
While it is obvious that rental prices and average wages show a major disparity, it must be
acknowledged that there are other factors present in the rental/income situation that should be
acknowledged.
• Pets can limit options as well as increased expenses for food and vet bills
• Lack of Budget Knowledge
• Discretionary expenditures from toys to fast food
• Cascade of events when bills become past due, additional charges
• Failure to know about or utilize available resources
• Addictions including gambling, alcohol, and drugs
4) Public awareness and community involvement are paramount to remedying
homelessness in Flathead County.
23
• What is the actual cost breakdown of one individual to the homeless service system?
Understanding the true cost of services should include charity, donations, and volunteer man-
hours. Need to get an idea of the scope of the problem to evaluate if the allocation of resources
is appropriate or effective. Does it cost more to treat the symptoms than to fix the problem?
• What can be done to develop additional public/private partnerships in integrating the homeless
back into the community, and educational programs to mitigate a relapse into homelessness.
• Seek creative additional community funding sources like ear marked parking meter revenue.
5) Continue to sustain and develop the annual Project Homeless Connect event.
• How can the community get a better handle on the seasonal transient homeless population
numbers and the associated costs?
• Need more community outreach to help people understand the broader issues involved given
the broad set of homeless categories.
• An annual event seems inadequate in terms of providing needs and resources as well as in
providing an accurate physical count. What coordinated efforts could be employed to do more
outreach and gather data on a more regular basis, or even at seasonal corridors?
• Could Shepherd's Hand outreach be expanded to increase frequency and also to collect data on
the local homeless population?
24
u
x
x
r�l
X
c
O
it
rn
N
w
E
U
cu
O
z
oU)
LO b si o
a�
C\l m 0 o
U p U O (,u
UJ y O � � •� 4-� � 4� E
a o o a ~
m .cn o co+' o
C O y' fca•U '0 O C O Or� 00 Ll tic L m
ro O c� ( � O 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U co O 'd Un ul a- to N N CV N N N N
vJ �
Vl r- bb4 O 4.1
U ,`y o b 0
o F
cad - O o °' o
. �
}� :3 Cl O
o O bA
cz .� as WUl
[�
MC)�
�
4-1
[
a, o0
eo rd o
40.
r �" R+ O O cu C]
p � cC R+ '_� .rj � � � O
rn cs
c O 0
a;C
1jJ s O cd a, r] p U
i4-4 '}' CCi a-.+ a [.," Owl CCS Uj U U
n '
U O V O
a.� rn
O p ¢ m C
uy a O
OfuhJ r� O y L U LG C �F
00 v n v `} O - `d O �d rd CU O +.
PP
p t U
cz
cz
;-J O o o °
b � v o b
4-1N x cz
� p o
r �� O O Q) O O +`�
7U }+ C
O O •� O f, w rd s- O O
O - 4' u) �c % C v
." i+ r
F-r (D b
Q Ey U � � (z 10 w s" ;1. � Q Ey r
Finding the Way Home
Five -Year Plan to Address Homelessness (2014-2019)
by the Flathead Homelessness Interagency Resource and Education
Flathead County
Finding the Way Home
Table of Contents .................................. 1
To The Citizens of Flathead County .. ........ .. 3
Coregoals............................................4
Section 1: A Look at Homelessness in Flathead County..... 5
History.............................................. 5
Defining Homeless in the County ......................... 5
Definition of Homeless ........................................... 6
Defining the Numbers in the Flathead County ............... ....... 7
Defining the Causes............................................10
The Cost of Homelessness ............................. 11
Estimating the Cost of Homelessness in Flathead County ............ 12
Cost -Effective Approaches to Homelessness ............. .......... 13
Defining the Need .................................... 15
Estimating the Gap in Lack of Income and Affordable Housing ... ... 15
Shelter System ................................................. 18
Prevention....................................................21
Services.......................................................22
Community Awareness, Response and Outreach .................... 22
Section 2: Goals and Action Steps .................... 23
Accountability ........................................ 23
Goal 1: Increase Shelter Space and Demographic ........... 24
1 1 P a g e
Five Year Plan to Address Homelessness
Goal 2: Single -Point of Entry ............................ 25
Goal 3: Increased Prevention and Affordable Housing ...... 26
Goal 4: Public Awareness and Education ................. 27
Goal 5: Sustain and Develop Project Homeless Connect ..... 28
Section 3: Resources and Service Providers ........... 29
Samaritan House ...................................... 29
Community Action Partnership .......................... 30
Flathead School Districts ............. ................. 32
Abbie Shelter ........................................ 33
Flathead Youth Home ................................. 34
ARay of Hope ....................................... 35
Sparrows Nest NW MT ................................. 36
Flathead City/County Health Department ................. 37
Basic Needs Resources List ............................. 38
2 1 P a g e
Flathead County
To The Citizens of Flathead County:
It is with great pleasure that we present this plan to our community. For well over a year, we
have been wrestling with the issue of homelessness in Flathead County and how we can tangibly
address this epidemic that affects hundreds of people in our county every year. Part of our
solution involves the careful and deliberate implementation of a collaborative Five Year Plan to
end homelessness in our area.
This plan is more than a compilation of statistics and demographics. Ending homelessness takes
perseverance. Our intent is to create solutions that will practically reduce the homeless
population in Flathead County and provide them with better access to safe, decent and
affordable housing. The Five Year Plan to Address Homelessness in Flathead County will
accomplish this by defining core problems facing the residents of Flathead County, identifying
gaps in the housing market for low-income and very low-income citizens, and assess additional
needs for prevention and service provider assistance for the homeless and at -risk populations.
The effort to achieve the goals in the plan has led to the creation of The Flathead H.I.R.E.
(Homelessness Interagency Resource and Education), a collection of social service providers and
private citizens dedicated to work together and address homelessness in the Flathead Valley.
The vision of H.I.R.E. is a coordinated community response that meets the needs of its homeless
population and provides safe and viable alternatives to homelessness.
Thank you for your involvement and interest in becoming part of the solution to a social disease
affecting not just the homeless, but the entire community. It is an honor to work with and rely
on you for the support needed to address, remedy, and eventually end homelessness in the
Flathead.
5lainte!
Flathead H.I.R.E.
"—",.nd F'r t tw.
3 1 P a
Five Year Plan to Address Homelessness
Flathead H.I.R.E. Goals to Address Homelessness in Flathead County
1. Increase shelter space and the number of beds available to accommodate all of the
homeless in Flathead County.
Homelessness encompasses all demographics and cannot be generalized in a few well-defined
categories; although there are some defining characteristics unique to each group. In Flathead
County, we interact with United States veterans, families, children, single adults, domestic violence
victims, sexual and violent offenders, and transients who want little to no fraternization with the
community. Each of these groups has unique needs.
2. Efficient coordination and communication between social service providers and the
community with an emphasis on a single point of entry.
If homelessness is to be properly addressed in Flathead County, there must be a single point of
entry for those inquiring about the services offered. Too many people fall victim to
misinformation or unproductive searches when attempting to find solutions on their own.
With so many needs present, there must be one central point that can determine the needs of a
person who is homeless or on the verge of homelessness. This will require proficient
communication between the single point of entry, the social service providers, and the
community. A further benefit of a single point of entry will be the better use of valuable resources
available in the community.
3. Increased preventive measures and affordable housing opportunities for people
who are homeless or on the verge of homelessness.
Research and data support the conclusion that when homelessness is curbed, the entire
community benefits economically. Therefore, Flathead County has the potential to reduce the
financial impact of homelessness on the community by working to prevent it from occurring. One
important facet in doing so, is to address the availability of affordable permanent housing
opportunities. Transitional housing and shelters should merely be the means to an end and this
system breaks down when there is no permanent affordable housing.
4. Public awareness and community involvement are paramount to remedying
homelessness in Flathead County.
Perception is reality; if the community is not aware of the problem of homelessness in Flathead
County, then effective measures will never be taken. There needs to be relevant training and
education available to help people avoid the conditions leading to homelessness.
5. Continue to sustain and develop the annual Project Homeless Connect event.
Project Homeless Connect is an annual event held by communities across the nation. Held
annually in Kalispell, Flathead Valley Project Homeless Connect is a two-day event that provides
much needed services to hundreds of individuals and families that are homeless or at -risk of
becoming homeless.
4 1 P a g e
Flathead County
Section 1: A Look at Homelessness in Flathead
Count
HHistoU
The beautiful Flathead Valley is located in Northwest Montana on the north side of
Flathead Lake, just west of the Continental Divide and on the west side of Glacier National
Park. Settled around the turn of the 201h century, the area is rich in natural beauty and
resources enabling it to grow and flourish through a wide variety of enterprises and
industries. The large increases in population throughout the 20"' century did not weigh
on the economy until a decline in the railroad and logging industries. Soon, the focus of
the economy was tourism and the high-priced costs of appealing to that industry
followed. This severely stifled the local, lower -income population's ability to afford to live
in Flathead County when the fewjobs available were in the low -paying service industry.
Homelessness did not appear in the Valley overnight as some inexplicable phenomenon.
The dramatic rise in Flathead County's homeless population over the past decade is a
result of a steady increase in population combined with the scarcity of low-income and
very low-income housing. To worsen the matter, there continues to be a deficit of
funding and support for services directed at helping the low-income and chronically
homeless populations.
The lack of affordable housing opportunities for low-income individuals and families in
Flathead County, and more specifically, the City of Kalispell, has forced more and more
individuals to resort to measures they would have never imagined. Increasingly people
find themselves seeking help from the already undersupplied emergency shelter system
or doubling up with friends and family. In extreme cases, some are forced to live in places
with substandard conditions (weekly motels, cars, the street, the woods, etc.).
Defining Homeless in Flathead County
When beginning to address homelessness, it is important to understand what defines
someone as homeless. The basic definition is seen in Merriam-Webster's version:
"Homeless: Having no home or permanent residence."1 While this covers the very
breakdown of the word 'homeless', it does not include the specific situations that define
someone as homeless.
Why is defining homeless important.
'"Homeless" Merriam-Webster.com. 2014, h.ttp://www.merriam-webster.com (2 April 2014).
51Page
Five Year Plan to Address Homelessness
The way homeless is defined determines who qualifies for specific services and programs
developed to address the problem. This led to systemic issues when the working
definition, over the majority of the past three decades, for U.S. federal policy and program
development regarding homelessness describes a homeless individual as anyone who
"lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.,2 This McKinney-Vento
definition directed funds towards a treatment -aver -prevention oriented system that did
not begin to prioritize those at -risk of becoming homeless until recently.
Defining Homeless:
While the McKinney-Vento definition led to a service -provider network that evolved into
an effective treatment system, there were still major gaps in efforts of prevention. Due to
this issue, a change in the definition was necessary to allow for new policy and funding
directed towards all populations that are homeless, or at -risk of becoming homeless. This
change was made in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) when it issued the finaf regulation to implement changes to the definition of
homelessness contained in the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to
Housing Act (HEARTH Act).
The new definition includes four broad categories of homelessness:
1. People who are living in a place not meant for human habitation, in emergency
shelter, in transitional housing, or are exiting an institution where they temporarily
resided. The only significant change from existing practice is that people will be
considered homeless if they are exiting an institution where they resided for up to 90
days (it was previously 30 days), and were in shelter or a place not meant for human
habitation immediately prior to entering that institution.
2. People who are losing their primary nighttime residence, which may include a
motel or hotel or a doubled up situation, within 14 days and lack resources or
support networks to remain in housing. HUD had previously allowed people who were
being displaced within 7 days to be considered homeless. This regulation also describes
specific documentation requirements for this category.
3. Families with children or unaccompanied youth who are unstably housed and
likely to continue in that state. This is a new category of homelessness, and it applies to
families with children or unaccompanied youth who have not had a lease or ownership
interest in a housing unit in the last 60 or more days, have had two or more moves in the
last 60 days, and who are likely to continue to be unstably housed because of disability or
multiple barriers to employment.
4. People who are fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, have no other
residence, and lack the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent
housing. This category is similar to the current practice regarding people who are fleeing
domestic violence.3
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11301 (1987).
Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act, S, 808/H.R. 1877 (2009).
61Pa-.
Flathead County
Defining the Numbers:
The most reliable numbers for assessing homelessness are derived from a Housing Status
Point -In -Tune Survey (PIT), which will show a snapshot in time of the homeless situation
in Kalispell and the Flathead Valley. The PIT Survey is a survey that is distributed nationally
by service providers on one specific day in January of each year. The goal of the survey is
to assess the numbers, needs and conditions of the homeless and at -risk population.
6000
5000
4000
c
0
3000
c
0
n
2000
1000
0
680,000
670,000
660,000
c
0 650,000
o 640,000
630,000
620,000
610,000
Homeless in Montana
Kalispell —i-Montana
2007 2009 2011 2013
Figure 1.1
Homeless in America
2007 7009 2011 2013
Figure 1.2
7 1 P a g e