1 / 22

San Francisco Homeless Families Services Redesign

San Francisco Homeless Families Services Redesign. Cindy Ward Human Services Agency Division of Housing & Homeless Programs February 9, 2007. Overview. Why did we undertake this process? How did we do it? Who was involved? What happened as a result?. Goal.

fathi
Download Presentation

San Francisco Homeless Families Services Redesign

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. San Francisco Homeless Families Services Redesign Cindy Ward Human Services Agency Division of Housing & Homeless Programs February 9, 2007

  2. Overview • Why did we undertake this process? • How did we do it? • Who was involved? • What happened as a result?

  3. Goal Explore transforming the current emergency system for homeless families into a proactive “Housing First” model.

  4. Process • Six-month process to elicit recommendations • Advisory Committee met monthly to provide direction to the sub-committees • Three sub-committees each met twice per month • Eviction Prevention/Rental Assistance • Emergency Shelter/Assessment • Transitional/Permanent Housing • Community Involvement workgroup designed ways to bring family voices into the process

  5. Impetus • Mayor issued a press release

  6. Impetus • Based on the success of a Housing First model in the single adult population, interest in expanding Housing First to the family system

  7. Before the Process Began • Decided on subcommittee topics • Eviction Prevention/Rental Assistance • Emergency Shelter/Assessment • Transitional/Permanent Housing • Allocated staff • Each subcommittee was staffed by one Housing & Homeless staff member and one Planning Analyst • Developed list of initial invitees • Decided on timeframe

  8. Getting Started • HSA invited dozens of community stakeholders to participate, and encouraged them to invite others • Letters of invitation were sent • Follow-up phone calls to all invitees • The process was kicked off with an Advisory Committee meeting

  9. Service providers Advocates Housing developers School District Housing Authority Foundations Families Other City Agencies Over 140 people participated overall! Who Participated?

  10. Structure Advisory Committee Community Involvement Workgroup Eviction Prevention/ Rental Assistance Emergency Shelter/ Assessment Transitional/ Permanent Housing

  11. Ground Rules • Housing First is the goal • Translation is available for every meeting, but HSA staff request 48 hours notice if translation will be needed • Meetings are chaired by co-chairs, who represent the agencies involved

  12. Ground Rules • Agendas emailed to everyone before every meeting and posted on website • Meeting minutes written up and posted on website after every meeting • Meetings held at community locations • Discussion is great; Decisions are better!

  13. Community Involvement Although families were welcome to every meeting, we found that expecting them to come to meetings in the middle of the day was not realistic. A workgroup developed the following to better hear from homeless families: • Survey of homeless families • Focus groups • Questionnaire of families living in SROs • Provider survey • Shelter benchmark data collection

  14. How Decisions Got Made • Subcommittees decided on their decision-making process. • All three made decisions by consensus, with minority views offered space to voice other considerations • Subcommittees brought their recommendations to the Advisory Committee for a vote. • Advisory Committee decisions made by a straight majority. Each organization got one vote. • Advisory Committee members prioritized the recommendations.

  15. Lessons Learned • Staff intensive • Getting family input is an extra step – plan for it from the beginning (and provide incentives!) • Identify and define the target population from the beginning • Big processes need consistent leadership and vision • Deadlines are difficult, but necessary • Budget some money for the process and provide guidelines about how it may be spent

  16. Big Lesson Learned • Change is hard

  17. Change is Hard “And it should be considered that nothing is more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than to put oneself at the head of introducing new orders. For the introducer has all those who benefit from the old orders as enemies, and he has lukewarm defenders in all those who might benefit from new orders.” -- Machiavelli

  18. Talking About Change • How you talk about the changes is important • The current system isn’t “broken” • The new ideas will improve services in ways that are definable

  19. Results – Recommendations • Subcommittees developed 19 recommendations • Key themes emerged throughout the process: Families need: • Access to affordable housing • Affordable/subsidized childcare • Culturally and linguistically competent services • Vocational/employment services that enable a family to increase their income

  20. Results – Implementation • Released an RFP to provide expanded rental assistance and temporary rental subsidies • Community lobbied for increased funding for these services - $3 million • Created a system for expedited access to childcare for families in shelters • Forming a Housing First workgroup

  21. The full SF Family Redesign Report is available on the NAEH website. Contact Info: Cindy Ward Cindy.Ward@sfgov.org 415-558-2847

More Related