Opportunity, People and Capital

By: Arita Liu

What Have We Learned

By: Arita Liu

Throughout the past three weeks, our team has been actively doing research and meeting with experts to discover issues of and search for solutions for homelessness. What we learned through our exploration process can fall into following four scopes.

Understand homeless situation in Tri-Cities

Homelessness is a complicated social problem. Each city differs in its homeless problems due to geographical, economical and cultural factors. Tri-Cities homelessness is distinguished with the fact that there is no permanent shelter in the area yet church plays an important role in providing temporary shelters and connecting homeless individuals with available services and resources. The reality that a permanent shelter is nowhere closer calls for alternative innovative housing opportunities.

Touched by community involvement

Last Wednesday we were in the food hamper provided by SHARE Family & Community Services Society in Trinity United Church. We had a chance to see how the church worked with community volunteers to organize and deliver the service and how the food hamper is a socializing event for the homeless families and individuals. It is a very special experience to witness the bond of the community in helping the homeless people. Through interviewing two volunteers, one of them used to be homeless and addictive to drugs, we get to hear homeless citizens’ voice on their needs and perspectives, which is valuable in helping us to adjust the solution to meet their needs.

Perceive from multiple perspectives

In the process of searching for an innovative solution to homelessness, we contacted experts from the real estate. They provided financial and economical advise on our solution and raised issues from their perspective for us to consider in developing the model. Hearing opinions from business professionals is inspiring because it makes us realize that people from different fields with different perspectives can share a same vision and collaborate with each other to solve a problem. Cross- sector collaboration and partnership may bring about some really innovative solutions by exchanging ideas and values and mobilizing social resources.

Apply knowledge to practice

It is amazing that we are given an opportunity to actually apply the knowledge we learned from the course Social Innovation to our practice of trying to come up with a novel solution to a social problem. We come to understand better that in order to bring about positive changes to the social problem, we need to think bold, actively contact informants, and persistently pursue opportunities.

A Novel Solution

By: Arita Liu

This model is using a community–NGO–business-municipality partnership approach to create housing opportunities for homeless individuals.

The novelty of the model lies in two aspects. First, it combines giving circles with real estate agents in creating housing solutions for the homeless. Real estate agents are involved to find potential investors and provide expertise advise on financial services and policies concerning property investment and management. Second, landowners/investors receive a moderate return on a social responsible investment.

By partnering with other NGOs, real estate, communities and municipalities, this model can achieve higher efficiency through the coordination among stakeholders in broader social sectors. By building on the established knowledge of NGOs and churches who are dedicated in helping the homeless and real estate agents who are from a vast business network, it creates a partnering network in which governmental support and communities are involved to help the homeless. Supportive services such as life and social skills development and employment placement through NGOs and communities are provided to ensure that homeless individuals integrate into the society smoothly. Involving supportive services and communities into the model ensures the efficiency and the effectiveness of the solution.

Economically this model is cost-effective. Instead of constructing new buildings, the model adapts to existing housing stock to serve the needs. It also holds an intrinsic value that extends beyond its cost effectiveness. Being housed in normalized accommodation in the community helps the homeless individuals to stabilize and be linked to community-based resources and services more effectively.

The sustainability of the model lies in the fact that there can be many potential funding opportunities. As long as there are well-designed partnering strategies, sustainability can be ensured.

As the British Columbia Housing Service Plan (2003/2004) states, “there has been a significant shift towards providing more community-based subsidized housing to assist those in need of housing and support in order to gain or maintain independence”. This model adds flexibility to homeless housing solutions as to how communities can conceptualize and implement housing solutions for homeless individuals.

Success with other Models

By: John Gill

There have been many studies and projects that have linked the Cost/Benefit analysis of housing the homeless. It costs significantly less to house the homeless than to leave them out on the streets. This is based on the amount of time and cost of police, ambulance and other social services that are required by leaving them on the streets. The key thing to keep in mind is that these costs are repeated on an individual basis, thereby compounding the costs! Whereas if we house them in one central unit and have all the necessary services installed there, there will be a drastic cost reduction.

The most thriving model is the Portland housing First model (http://www.portlandonline.com/BHCD/index.cfm?c=30140) and there are many other throughout the United States that have adopted similar models. However the underlying success of all these projects is housing. The solution requires housing these individuals so that they can be taken off the streets and supported, rather than just leaving them on the streets. The success of these programs as seen in the data is indeed encouraging. Furthermore, the encouraging statistics between different states is evident that this model works and could be implemented.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

By contrasting the costs of housing tenants:

In supportive housing ($42/night) with the costs of housing these individuals

V. S.

In shelters ($54/night),

In Hospitals ($1,185/night),

In State prisons ($164/night),

In Psychiatric institutions ($467/night)

Data from the Street-to-Home model from New York:

http://www.commonground.org/?page_id=21

Cost Reduction

Portland found that prior to entering the Community Engagement Program,

35 chronically homeless individuals: each utilized over $42,000 in public resources per year.

After entering permanent supportive housing, those individuals each used less than $26,000, and that included the cost of housing.

While making progress toward ending chronic homelessness, Portland Oregon is saving the public over $16,000 per chronically homeless person.

http://www.endhomelessness.org/section/tools/tenyearplan/cost

New York City Drops Thirty Percent in 2009

Other Models such as the  Street-to-Home (S2H) is a systematic method of identifying the chronic street homeless – people who have lived on the streets for at least nine months – and establishing a registry of these individuals in every neighborhood. Street-to-Home outreach workers assess their clients’ individual needs and prioritize for housing those who are the most vulnerable by calculating the impacts of disease and other risk factors.

Between 2005 and 2007, this program helped reduce homelessness by 87% in the Times Square area, from 55 street homeless down to 7.

Although our model is targeted towards the individuals that are currently employed and recently lost their homes. The success of housing the chronic homeless and severe addicts are encouraging. If it makes it profitable to house these individuals in dire needs. Then the government needs to step up and look at this. Currently, only two Canadian cities have adopted this housing first model, Toronto and Calgary. Having a central place for those in needs, is a huge step of mitigating the homelessness issue. Surely it is about time for Vancouver to step up and address these concerns rather than turning a blind eye.

Some Critical Issues

By: Arita Liu

There are several critical issues we need to consider in the process of the model.

It is critical to identify each partner’s focus, competencies and capabilities in order to facilitate collaboration in the network. In spite of the shared vision of reducing homelessness, each partner may have their specific value orientation due to religious, economic and social reasons. It is therefore important to evaluate the potential risk of value incompatibility and reduce the risk to the maximum extent.

Effective communication among investors and partners will be a high priority, which happens both before investors make the decision to purchase certain property, and during the time of jointly supporting the homeless individuals. A trust mechanism needs to be developed among investors to ensure the sustainability of the solution.

As we have a relatively complex funding environment which is populated with many potential funding opportunities, we need to find a way to manage and mobilize the funding effectively. Should we have a community foundation, or can we channel the funding to an existing NGO or a church, or are there any other options that serve our vision? We need to further explore into potential partners before we make the decision.

Incentives to benefit the investors or landlords need to be identified through various channels of municipal, financial and private sectors. More research into public policies and further discussion with experts and the investors or landlords themselves are needed to measure if the incentives will invite long-term investment.

Selecting clients is a complicated issue that we need to proceed carefully. We have worked out the criteria to select our clients, however, we will need to talk to outreach workers and homeless experts to further verify the applicability of the criteria. The selection criteria must be based on fairness and should not involve any degree of ambiguity or inadequacy; in other words, there must be well-grounded reasons for selecting certain clients. Again, this needs to be ensured by confirming with the experts.

Why this social innovation makes a difference

By: Jackie Go

This social innovation makes a difference to homelessness because of its ability to organize the resources in the community and involve the entire community. In a community where there is no permanent shelter, and the temporary shelter (the Cold Wet Weather Mat Program) runs only in the winter, there is a surplus of volunteers and concerned citizens who want to help the homeless all year round. By involving community members as volunteers who will provide support services, companionship and mentorship to the client, it helps dispel myths about homelessness and helps the client get re-integrated into a society where they are traditionally marginalized and disenfranchised. People who don’t have time to volunteer are also given the opportunity to give to the program as donors for the modest needs of the sponsored client, such as daily food, clothing, and furniture. Local businesses can also get involved by providing services to maintain the housing unit, such as painting, plumbing, and cleaning, all services which can add value to the housing unit. The large community support component can also be a motivating factor for the client, showing a person which has been largely isolated from society that the community does care for them and their well-being. By involving the entire community in sponsoring a homeless client, this program builds awareness and compassion for the homelessness issue, signaling its importance to politicians while also providing the community with a sense of pride in taking action on homelessness and watching a client go from homeless to self-sufficient in a period of 6-12 months.

The program also has potential to grow – if successful, the number of housing units to be funded by donation or to be bought by the investment giving circle can grow and more and more homeless clients can be helped out of homelessness. The program is also sustainable because it does not rely only on donations, but through the investment giving circle, provides people with the opportunity to make an investment on an appreciating asset while also giving back to their community. If community support can lower the costs of the property through decreased property taxes, utilities costs, lower mortgage rates, and other incentives, the extra cash that can be generated can fund the costs of this idea as it grows. If it grows larger, we may be able to fund, or ask for the city for funding for an extra outreach worker to work with our clients specifically. This idea makes a difference in the perceptions of homelessness in the community and provides people who want to help the homeless with a variety of ways to get involved – by donating, investing, or giving their time through volunteering.

Action!

By: Hannah Kim

Now that we’ve identified the Tri-Cities as the geographical area we will be focusing on, what actions do we need to take to tackle the homelessness issue there?

On a high level, we will be unleashing our talents as SFU Business students to:

• Create greater awareness & dialogue about homelessness in Metro Vancouver
• Demonstrate and encourage empathy for the homeless
• Mobilize the Metro Vancouver community to bring about social change

In other words, it may be valuable to examine the 2009 Strategic Plan by the Tri-Cities Homelessness Task Group and identify action items that have not been fully achieved yet. These actions that could be categorized into 1) Comprehensive Housing Strategy, 2) Support Services including employment assistance, 3) Cross-Sector Collaboration and 4) Advocacy & PR, may offer opportunities for us to make a significant impact.

To start developing a novel solution to the homelessness issue in the Tri-Cities, some key questions to ask are:

• What are the root causes?
• Why hasn’t the problem been solved so far?
• What are some best practices we can look to from around the world? (E.g. Large housing facilities such as the 160-unit building in Portland, Oregon funded by a multimillion-dollar bond issue to end homelessness in 10 years)
• How can we get funding and key decision-makers involved in solving the issue?
• What do the homeless want and need for themselves?

To help find answers to the above questions, we will need to contact and collaborate with homeless advocacy and related non-profit organizations/NGO’s, such as Sandy Burpee, chair of the Tri-City Housing Coalition and co-chair of the Tri-Cities Homelessness Task Force. Through these organizations, we would also be able to speak directly to some of the homeless in the Tri-Cities about their experiences and perceptions on the gaps that are not being filled to resolve homelessness in Metro Vancouver. Further, we need to contact the government sector such as local MLA’s or city councils, as well as local entrepreneurs involved in the homelessness issue.

Welcome to Help the Homeless

Hello everyone and welcome to our blog about helping the issue of homeless in the Tri-Cities area of Metro Vancouver. We are a  group of  students from Simon Fraser University in British Columbia who are trying to make a difference with a social innovation that we are going to come up with. Our group consists of four business majors and one interactive art major. Below is a slide show of where the problem currently stands and how we are planning on tackling the issue. Please feel free to comment on any of our posts and let us know what you think.