By Kidest Yigezu
At the October 1 meeting of the Homelessness Oversight Commission, several community members weighed in on a plan to recontract more than $500 million in annual grants and contracts that will affect the homelessness response system, or “reprocurement” as the City calls it. It was the first hearing on the plan since the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH) held three “listening sessions” in September.
Among the critiques were the short-notice announcements of the sessions and the expectations placed on service providers.
In summarizing the sessions’ feedback, new HSH director Michael Levine told the commission that the plan is still in development. “This really is the earliest stage kickoff of a process to gather feedback from community members,from the people who use our services and from the providers who deliver them,” he said. However, many people sounded skeptical about possible changes in the system.
One criticism was that the way HSH had set up the listening sessions was not accessible enough. Dimitri Clark, a peer responder with Delivering Innovation in Supportive Housing (DISH), said the department should have informed his organization earlier about the sessions.
“I went to the first meeting and we basically had two days’ notice,” Clark said. “So I think you guys moving forward will get a much better turnout if we’re better notified.”
Commenters also requested that the department hold more listening sessions at shelters and permanent supportive housing sites to get in-depth response from people using these services. If HSH is truly committed to creating an “accountable system” then these feedbacks should be incorporated in the next steps. It is not a hard task to make sure community members are informed more than two days ahead of time of the listening session. It is important that HSH be able to meet people where they are at and reach out to PSH and Shelters to get in depth responses from clients about what they need.
Former commissioner Christin Evans called into question HSH emphasizing the responsibility placed on nonprofits in providing services over the department’s.
“So my hackles were going up during the presentation because I kept hearing ‘accountability, accountability, accountability,’” she said. “But it was about one type of accountability. It was provider accountability, and it didn’t talk about accountability to clients and people experiencing the system, and it was not talking about accountability of our own department to serve those clients effectively.”
A fear has been that as we spend more on better quality services, which is needed and no one is arguing against, it does bring fear that it means less people will be served, according to Lauren Hall, co-CEO of the Supportive Housing Providers Network.
“There is some anxiety on the provider side because we do feel like the more we talk about what we need, the pot doesn’t grow,” Hall said. “So as we think about what an amazing supportive housing program would offer, I just start to think ‘OK, if that’s a 20% cost increase, then we’re going to have 20% less units, and you feel like you’re in this zero-sum game. So I really want all of us to think about this as if high-quality housing and high-quality prevention are really our goals, how do we get there without making the pot even smaller? I think the number of folks that need housing is just going to continue to grow.” When there is not enough resources it often leaves frontline workers as the scapegoats to deny people these essential services. That is why it must be recognized that it is the responsibility of HSH and the Mayor’s office to properly fund these programs so they are able to provide the proper care with dignity and it is available to all who need it.
Evans expressed concern to the commission that “reprocurement” is just Mayor Daniel Lurie’s latest move to lend the appearance of addressing homelessness without significant action.
“So I’m dubious of this process,” Evans said. “This mayor has not shown any commitment to standing up real solutions to homelessness. He has no affordable housing plan. He has no interest in doing anything other than using homelessness as a scapegoat issue to be divisive in our community, and he continues to focus on half measures and temporary solutions. I’m very dubious that this process is going to lead to meaningful outcomes. Now could we still engage with this process and try to make it less damaging? Absolutely. But I look to you, commissioners, to really hold this department accountable because what I’m hearing here is a lot of bureaucratic talk to basically accomplish a political agenda.”
