Findings and Recommendations for Western Mass Network to End Homelessness

Western Mass Network to End Homelessness Findings and Recommendations Based on January 2018 stakeholder interviews Joyce Tavon consultant February 12, 2018 1

Executive Summary (Based on 24 phone interviews and written input from 47 stakeholders / 33 organizations and entities see last slide) After nine years of building regional collaboration, winning resources, and increasing visibility for the work of ending homelessness in Western Mass, the Network faces a changed landscape. Input suggests it s time to revamp in response. While opinions diverged significantly among the diverse stakeholders, certain themes emerged that form the basis for these findings and recommendations. A top recommendation is to focus the work of the Network on a few targeted projects and activities. Regional events and committees continue to add value, but need to be re-examined to align limited resources with top priorities. Funding options are few and not stable; by every account funding will not increase and is more likely to decrease. Leadership Council engagement has diminished and lost a clear purpose. While Network support is broad, commitment by senior leadership from stakeholder agencies is limited. Some are fatigued or over-stretched; some have other priorities. Additionally, the CoCs have a much greater role and set of responsibilities now than in 2009. Several stakeholders are busy with that work. Instead, the Network needs to focus on its opportunities. There are gaps not filled by the CoCs or other entities. It has an experienced director with flexibility of schedule and there are pockets of strong support and engagement. The Network needs to become much more targeted and project-focused with meeting frequency adjusted as needed to reflect that focus. Ideally it would remain open to all four counties, but focus where there is greatest interest. The needs in the work of ending homelessness are enormous, but given the current landscape and funding realities, where can the Network have greatest impact? The priority should be where there is support, funding, and opportunity for targeted impact over the next 1-3 years. February 12, 2018 2

Interview Findings Interview Findings S Strengths Weaknesses W Broad base of stakeholders Strong support among direct care/mid manager staff Effective, widely respected director Right mix of skills Able to continue in role even with unstable funding, limited hours Geography Visibility & one voice for WMass Coordination on some issues Regional committees Provide networking, info-sharing Address emerging issues Regional events Allow for regional learning, sharing resources, raising visibility Legislative advocacy Visibility & one voice on the issue Helped win resources in the past (e.g., Secure Jobs, Consortium) Very divergent opinions and commitment Leadership void limited support/involvement among homeless stakeholder leadership Lack of stable funding Consumes time Stimies longterm planning Rise of CoC role/responsibilities Diverts leadership time from Network Increased meeting demands Divergent goals between 2 CoCs hard for Network to be the bridge Geography Lack of consensus logical region? Hampden-driven Only pockets of non-Hampden engagement Mixed support for legislative advocacy Other statewide networks cover most of the asks February 12, 2018 3

Interview Findings Threats Opportunities O T Shelter procurement planning DHCD support for a strategic role Could serve as neutral convener Encourage collaboration Ensure competitive response by WMass providers Gaps not addressed by CoCs Family services Career Services Emerging needs & opportunities Youth planning & funding DV/EA Regional events positive record, interest by stakeholders, gaps not filled by others Resource fairs Reporting on impact, progress Visibility events w/legislators, others Network Director schedule flexibility Expand/contract based on needs 2 CoCs with divergent goals, increased load Time demands Merger not viable Earmark Highly volatile can t plan Some resentment scarce homeless funds for Network planning vs. direct services (FY18 funds released after interviews) Pitfalls of trying to maintain Network based on conditions/funding of 9 years ago Lose engagement, momentum, focus Leadership void Some are over-stretched and fatigued Some are not supportive Don t find value in regional approach Want resources for direct needs, not systems planning February 12, 2018 4

Recommendations General Themes 1. Prioritize and target where there is greatest interest, opportunity, and funding o Eliminate activities where Network doesn t add high impact o Determine simple and focused action plan for 1-3 years o Recognize the changed landscape from 9 years ago o Precarious funding o Increased role of CoCs 2. Remain open to four counties o But concentrate where there is interest, stakeholders and Network funding o Offer video or phone meeting access for stakeholders from farther away, if there is interest February 12, 2018 5

Recommendations - Specific 1. Prioritize committees and frequency by interest and impact, and within funding reality: o Within committees, have members define: mission, goals, priorities, frequency o Family services o Career services o Youth o Veterans- reduce frequency given CoC-Coordinated Entry? o Individuals reduce frequency given CoC-Coordinated Entry? 2. Convene and help plan state shelter procurement response o Opportunities for formal collaboration o Best practice expectations 2. Hold 2-3 regional events per year for example: o Resource fair o Visibility event with legislators and homeless constituents o General gathering to review impact, data, big picture themes February 12, 2018 6

Recommendations - Specific 4. Reduce or eliminate annual legislative advocacy 5. Revamp or eliminate Leadership Council o How does this group add value? o Replace with regional events as opportunity for large gathering of leaders and stakeholders and reporting on impact 6. Create small steering committee for oversight and decisions o Revisit membership o Ensure buy-in about purpose o Limit to quarterly meetings at most, available as-needed for decisions February 12, 2018 7

Stakeholders 47 people from the following gave input via interviews and/or written comments Berkshire County Regional Housing Agency CareerPoint Catholic Charities Agency City of Springfield Springfield/Hampden County CoC Community Action Construct Inc. DIAL/SELF Eliot Community Human Services Elizabeth Freeman Center Food Bank of Western Massachusetts Formerly homeless constituent Franklin County Regional Housing & Redevelopment Authority Franklin Hampshire Career Center Friends of the Homeless - Springfield Gandara Center Hilltown CDC Three-County CoC Holyoke Community College Housing activist Louison House MA Dept. of Public Health/BSAS MA Dept. of Transitional Assistance/DV unit PeoplesBank Pioneer Valley Planning Commission Safe Passage ServiceNet Soldier On State Representative Aaron Vega Town of Northampton United Way of Pioneer Valley U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA) Valley Opportunity Council Way Finders Womanshelter/Compa eras February 12, 2018 8