Loading...
Mayor's Taskforce on Homelessness Public Comment fro Cassidy KippAimee Brunckhorst From: Cassidy Kipp <ckipp@capnwmt.org> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 11:04 AM To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment: Mayor's Taskforce on Homelessness Please submit into public record the following response from Community Action Partnership (CAPNM) to the Mayor's Taskforce on Homelessness report. Our goal is to increase collaboration and understanding with our partners in city government. We feel that it is negligent to have a taskforce composed of people who do not, or have not, directly worked in the field of homeless services. We further feel that our one meeting with the task force is not fully or accurately reflected in the report. Further, it seems that the report focuses heavily on CAPNM negatively and does not call other groups into question in the same manner. We feel that the taskforce did not work with providers to gather information in a transparent and unbiased way. As we were told by Rod Kuntz in March `I am aware of your services and efforts'. We would challenge this, since most of the recommendations made are things we are currently doing, have a lengthy history of doing, or would be prohibited from doing based upon program rules. Even a cursory review of our website would help with seeing the scope of services, but this was not included. Further, we challenge the integrity of the report as we see it omits critical information that we shared with the taskforce. All of this information is easily accessible in email histories that we would be happy to supply to anyone who wishes to review them. In our observation there is a clear pattern of targeting CAPNM in a negative way and in a way that other social services are not called upon to answer. This extends beyond this report and into areas, such as the parking lot issue that we were left out of despite being a large business owner with multiple paid spots in the lot, and our efforts to get the governmental supports (in the form of completing paperwork) as required by our funding. It would be wonderful to have a candid conversation in which some of these concerns could be expressed. We saw how wildlife professionals were invited to share information and insight on the duck issue in Woodland Park. We ask that the same respect be afforded to the social service agencies who work with the homeless. We know that when stakeholders work together to address homelessness it saves money. If, as the taskforce asserts, the duty to address homelessness rests with the social service providers, then why not allow the professionals you call upon to address the issue to also be part of the problem assessment? This is imperative as the errors and omissions within the task force report are detrimental to our community and will work against the goal of reducing homelessness. This goal is shared by the business, government, and non-profit sectors. It is hard to know how to reply to the content of the report. So, we will begin with a few generalized responses and will then look at places where CAPNM is called upon specifically or the errors are so egregious that they must be corrected. Again, our goal remains to increase collaboration and data driven understanding of the local issues. CAPNM is not, and has not, asked the city for funding. Our goals are transparent. We need collaborative efforts in order to move the needle on homelessness. Our comments reference data that has been gathered from internal and external outcome tracking reports vetted by the Montana Continuum of Care, Housing and Urban Development, Montana Housing, Montana Department of Commerce, Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services and audited financial statements. Further information cited is verifiable through attendance records, emails, public information from other municipalities. CAPNM posts 990s, audits, board meeting minutes and program information on our website at http://www.capnm.ne.. Our website also contains information about the programs we offer, including budgeting and rental classes/ homebuyer education/ rental assistance/ employment and training/ heating assistance/ housing counseling. We have supplied links to many referenced resources. Including information about specific projects and targeted outcomes, like our overarching commitment to provide one-on- one budget counseling to every program participant we serve, information on group budgeting courses or our history of having extended hours, weekend courses, etc. Our first note regarding the report is that there is an obvious misunderstanding of the definitions of homelessness. If we tried to bill for services based upon the definition supplied by the task force on page and 4 and page 13, we would be denied reimbursement and be at risk of losing the contracts that allow us to provide housing services for those who are homeless (for example in 2019 CAPNM re -housed 107 literally homeless persons, without this funding we question how this could be accomplished locally; also, why was this data not noted in the report? Interesting.). With the inaccurate presentation of definitions by the taskforce, we question the value of extensive focus on the report because it is built upon fundamentally flawed understanding of the vocabulary and conditions used to address the topic. Below is the true HUD definition that is used for the PiT data. The task force report states that cost burdened households in the rental market are included in our homeless numbers. This is factually wrong and a dangerous misunderstanding for the purpose of a conversation surrounding homelessness. This cannot be stressed enough. 2 An ndi-Aual or family who lacks e fixed, regular, and ni9W11tt1,: �� r�sifferl Three c1fc rnsllEin 5 o,-�a � � I'i�i i m . - L���r�r� i�-� f� e r r ri a t ti to - ov d e to rn po l i i ng I t o g an i n atl utio n (e g jail [105 pity I) v&.,er a they to si tm l i for 90 days or Ie.s s and viere residing in e r~ti r en cy O lter or place nol rn� ��� ��� u rna ri hab i0ti o n -m mp_6 2tel� begot e entering iFISMLItion W C. It �140 r® I is c: el arty d an ie�d'r dU al � � m� �,� ilk I� I� r �M f I * 0 ,, ] �; �:I re acid adpqua +e 1 h r-!te c: r'CUM, StA rif e.S I fe Pry d I it erall-y h aniv lase lew l u i ng- I , 9 Ma%-v n c k fo of rdin-ari Li5e d -i ;,i rI'-gu ix +d-ee piing" CKCOM 0 ti1L1017 v',odvdo nZ� (a rPerk, abaacJo ne-d 13ui I d i n ., t., u ,, -:3r Lrair"11, Sa'aI 10nr av rpon. a nd --a n, p in g grt3umd J p0ace not, m eam f6r h,u m; r F�nna t.ltlon b • L,.jvl n �, rri ) e:, esignaled to p rQvi d P, a tempQrar' I rvi n g a ra ngemv nt, i nd ud it g congre-pt� She ltev� transillon 31 ho using. hotel ) n d �-(�I% pa id tor by c hart zi�e o r n ization-5 Qr tede ral/mci'te/loca I p,,c ef-r ni Prit, pr6(rrlAJ. • E�i k it., an r, stitution ; e g-, ja if, Kospija 1) w eLm ah1P ox irri pari n.t ress dvd foe 90 d ��,s m r , ei �, AND weTe �e�sid r�,S in, ,7 n vn,e r i me X si%.21L;� r cor p lant% nint i°n-paint for h u n� jvr h.1) t,ii: ion ilii ni Pe i atel V b e1oTt enteri ng the iWitution- We would further make the assertion that leaning so heavily on Point In Time data provides a one- dimensional assessment of local systems operations. CAPNM uses the PiT data to provide quantifiable dimension to the issue and uses these numbers to examine how they relate to homeless programming efforts. For example, CAPNM annually takes the PiT data and completes a trend analysis of year-to-year fluctuations along with an analysis of the previous year's homeless programming. This is done to see if what we are doing is impactful and results in a correlating decrease in homeless numbers. This assessment is given to the local Collaborative Housing group and is submitted for a state wide groups as part of a ranking process that determines which programs are the most effective in the state. This is a part of our funding application process; please note that we compete and are awarded funding for this annually and that no other local entities have ever applied for these funds. CAPNM is consistently ranked as a top performing agency statewide based upon data driven programming, verified increased incomes for those served, housing placements and fiscal responsibility. This information about homeless numbers and the relationship to local services was not referenced in the report but would have helped readers gain a better understanding about the connections between local interventions and correlating numbers. Our reports are public information and shared with the Montana Continuum of Care for inclusion on their website and provide expert analysis of the issue of homelessness. But, again the taskforce said that they were `aware of the services and efforts' of our agency. We feel that the blinders from their bias allowed them to overlook areas of tremendous success that have been verified by state/ federal government agencies through monitoring of our homeless program operations and financials. The taskforce notes the limitations of using annual PiT data on page 3 of their report and reference this again on page 14. The taskforce indicated that homeless data should be available for review more frequently. We would like to direct the council to the HMIS outcome reports updated monthly for Kalispell homeless activity. This easy to use, web -based resource shows a monthly summary of the number of homeless persons in Kalispell who enter into the system and how many exit to housing (it even let's the viewer compare how we are doing to other communities in real-time). Each of the exits is reflective of cross sector work done in the community to help house people through Coordinated Entry. Coordinated Entry is an effort that takes place twice a month and lets homeless service providers collaborate in an effort to identify resources that can help people get into housing. Medical, behavioral health, Office of the Public Deffender, Veteran providers, shelter providers, domestic violence providers all participate. This process is not discussed in the report, but has proven to be a very successful local effort spearheaded by CAPNM. Again, we already are doing what the taskforce is suggesting but due to the negative and slanted perception of CAPNM, this is not included. Instead the taskforce states that homeless services are not coordinated. The city has been invited, but not participated in these meetings. While the taskforce cites feelings and opinions about coordination, it fails to look at the hard data produced by the Coordinated Entry system that has been meeting twice a month for nearly three years to address homelessness. If you want to see how the homeless system is working here, use this resource as a guide. An area in which the task force calls out CAPNM specifically, but fails to provide a full assessment of information, is on page 9 surrounding CHDO status designation. The report fails to mention that in 2019 CAPNM completed a $4.8 million multifamily low-income apartment complex rehabilitation project made possible in part by having this CHDO status. In a May 2019 Montana Department of Commerce article.. the state reports that this project created 64 local jobs and $2.8 million in earned wages. This was the first multifamily low-income housing tax credit project in Kalispell for 20 years (as verified through public Montana Housing tracking records). The CHDO status also allows us to own and operate a senior apartment complex in Kalispell. In fact, CAPNM owns 6 complexes that are all low-income with 99%+ annual average occupancy rates. The CHDO does not bring funding or staffing to our agency but it does allow us to pursue housing options that create economic growth, increased supply of affordable housing and stabilizes neighborhoods through improvements. There are other non-profit agencies in Kalispell who are also CHDOs. These are not mentioned in the report but they also have the ability to complete projects. The taskforce appears to indicate that CAPNM should be stepping up to address the affordable housing needs in our community, but fails to recognize what we are doing. We also question again, why the taskforce would focus only on CAPNM and not other CHHDOs. This seems targeted and intentional. One area where CAPNM is not mentioned, is on page 10 when the land trust is discussed. Instead the authors say `partnered with local stakeholders'. Please note that CAPNM was the primary partner on this from the time the land trust started until 2019. Another area in which CAPNM is specifically mentioned, is in relation to the questions the taskforce asked about Section 8 numbers in the Point In Time count. As CAPNM indicated in an email to the taskforce, we were not sure where those specific figures came from. We couldn't match the numbers with vetted information used to track voucher allocations. We later found out that the numbers the taskforce asked about, were self -reported numbers by people who are homeless. It is inappropriate to imply that we are negligent because we couldn't verify self -reported data gathered/ submitted for the PiT survey by the United Way. That is the entity who conducted the survey for all of the years reviewed by the task force. If the taskforce wants to look at the methodology of the PiT process, why have they not called upon the entity who completed the survey to help understand the information here? 4 Please note that we know how many vouchers are in Kalispell and how they are being used. We provided the taskforce a great deal of information regarding Section 8 and how federal/ state guidelines govern the provision of services. We shared with task force members that a barrier to Section 8 in Kalispell was a lack of eligible scattered site units (Section 8 is NOT attached to an apartment complex, which is materially misunderstood by the taskforce). CAPNM told the taskforce that an inventory issue exists. This information was not included in the report. In fact, the authors of the report imply that CAPNM has not shared with stakeholders the issues surrounding utilization of Section 8 vouchers within Kalispell. Again, why does this bias exist when there are emailed documents from months ago that specifically contradict the taskforce assertions? The following statement was sent to the taskforce on June 10t" by Cassidy Kipp: `With Section 8, we currently have 160 households who receive the housing choice voucher in the 59901 zip code. These are not place based vouchers so they fluctuate all the time as tenants move in or out of the area. What I can say, is that in the month of December we had 9 vouchers expire due to not being able to find units in our area.' The taskforce also mentions that due to the rate of reported disabilities in PiT data, services were lacking or not working effectively to address the problem (page 7). The taskforce does not discuss what is happening to address the need for services for those who are homeless with a disabling condition. Nor are current planning projects mentioned or data regarding services for this population included in their report. Had we been asked or allowed a place on the taskforce, we could have mentioned that CAPNM received a new competitive grant this summer to provide ongoing assistance for those who are chronically homeless with disabling conditions. Also omitted from the report is reference to the Institutional Release Housing program for homeless persons that CAPNM is piloting. Please note that just last month this program was selected as one of two projects in the state to be reported to the national Office of Community Service due to data driven structure and well documented outcome tracking. Innovative solutions are being generated locally, but we didn't get a chance to explore what is happening right now versus where needs still exist, because we were not invited to participate in this conversation as task force members. Not only do we operate a variety of successful programs that move people from homelessness to housing, in 2019 HUD sent a senior officer to conduct a 5-day review of CAPNM homeless programs for people with disabilities, people fleeing domestic violence and people who were literally homeless. It was the first time in the officer's 10+ years that he did not find one single fault with program set-up, operations, outcomes, financial management, etc. It was his first EVER clean audit of an agency in his entire HUD career. Our successes are based upon actual tangible outcomes that are corroborated by state and federal agencies. We have not asked the city for money or materials, just an opportunity to collaborate. While we hear from city representatives that they are willing to collaborate, we see a one-sided effort. In fact, we recently risked not being able to accept a new grant for housing homeless youth, because it took over three work weeks to get a response from the city about their intentions to follow through with the a form that they had agreed to supply. In the end the form was done and submitted so funding is secured but it was the last minute and we had already reached out to the states CoC to express our concern over being able to meet the deadline. Please note that we asked for this assistance 6-weeks ahead of needing it. When on page 17 the task force notes that a decrease in `bureaucratic obstacles' should happen, we couldn't agree more. From lack of response to our inquiries at the city or being told months later that our requests for city audience were not submitted in the right way and therefore the city didn't feel it necessary to respond, we find that bureaucratic obstacles sideline our efforts. It's sad that because we did not send an email correctly the people who are homeless did not benefit from the coordination that comes through conversation and mutual understanding. In our business this type of lack of response would not be tolerated. In our business we would circle back around to the sender and let them know how the email was sent wrong so that the procedural misstep could be remedied (we actually asked the city to let us know if there was a more appropriate way to submit our request, but did not get a response to this). We feel that our agency is uniquely targeted and wonder why. We are hopeful that moving forward we are better able to align efforts with city representatives in order to address homelessness. There are numerous other portions that warrant discussion, but ultimately it is our belief that there is a lack of credibility within the report. It appears to be written by people unfamiliar with the complexities of the issues. Please do not accept this report as written before you are able to verify the data contained within and provide an unbiased presentation on the issue. We remain hopeful that as a community of caring individuals we can work together to reduce the financial and social costs of homelessness. Respectfully, Cassidy Kipp, Deputy Director and Tracy Diaz, Executive Director Cassidy Kipp, Deputy Director ckipp@capnwmt.org Community Action Partnership of Northwest Montana 214 Main Kalispell, MT 59904 406-758-5419 Fax:406-752-6582 http://www.capnm.net �Ovt"hi �� , CAPNM in Action! Support our Cause: F azons,160n] i j 1OV. Amaum Uwa 6 i This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. if you have received this email in error please notify the sender and delete this email from your system.