2. History of Columbia’s efforts to address
downtown homelessness
Background to successful effort: Midlands
Housing Alliance
Challenges
Project Status
Lessons Learned
3. The measure of success is not whether
you have a tough problem to deal with,
but whether it is the same problem you
had last year.
John Foster Dulles
The definition of insanity is doing the
same thing over and over again and
expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
4. January 8, 1994
Co-locating for a Continuum of Care for the Homeless
December 1995
Community Steering Committee on Homelessness
April 3, 1997
Report to the Community
Steering Committee on Homelessness
March 1, 1998
Report to City Council: Columbia Committee in Conjunction with
the Columbia Community Development Department and the Office
of the Mayor
March 14, 2001
Report and Recommendation of the Midlands Commission on
Homelessness Task force on Emergency Services
Homelessness in Columbia:
Consensus on the Problem
5. September 2005
10 Year plan
Research
Community engagement
◦ Community Forums
◦ Stakeholder Meeting
◦ Intergovernmental Summit on Homelessness
10 key strategies including comprehensive housing
and service center for people on the street
September 2006: Site Selection
Committee Report
6. City withdraws from process; supports other
strategies
◦ NIMBY/Neighborhood resistance
◦ Lack of political will
◦ Breakdown of regional approach
◦ Neighborhood and race divisions
◦ Loss of public/private partnership
7. I couldn't wait for success, so I
went ahead without it.
Jonathan Winters
8. Fall 2006 Provider-Business group begins meeting
soon after Site Selection Committee proposal
rejected.
Summer 2007 Opportunity emerges for Salvation
Army property
Fall 2007 through Spring 2008 Coalition led by
MBLG, Chamber, UWM work on redevelopment plan
for Salvation Army property
•Bring in new partners including faith community MIHAC),
neighborhoods, more providers, more business.
•Negotiations with Knight Foundation
•Assessment and TA provided by Community Partnership
for the Homeless
9. June 2008
Midlands Housing Alliance announced
Option to purchase Salvation Army
property
$5 million Knight Foundation Grant
10. November 2008 MHA meets $5M Knight
Foundation Challenge Grant
•$6.5M Local, primarily private dollars raised
•$11.75M development budget
DDRC approves architectural plans
Board of Zoning Appeals approval; decision upheld
in Circuit Court
Property purchased January 2010
Project $2M budget when fully operating
•$838,000 HUD Supportive Housing Grant
•$625,000 from local governments
•$500,000 Kresge Foundation grant
To open May 2011
11. Community outreach workers
Day Center – to serve 100-125 people daily
with light meal, showers, laundry, case
workers, service providers
52 Emergency beds
26 Respite beds
72 Program beds
64 Transitional housing beds
12. Life must be understood
backwards; but... it must be
lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard
13. NIMBY
Neighborhood opposition
Expressed in neighborhood meetings, city council and zoning
meetings, letters, lawsuits, FOIA requests to HUD.
Concerns regarding neighborhood traffic; criminal activity and
sexual predators.
Responded with trip to Miami, engagement on board, Good
Neighbor Policy.
City opposition
Offered alternative site to appease neighborhoods.
Considered but rejected as unfeasible and risking Knight
commitment.
Church opposition
Expressed in meetings with MHA and conveyed to city council.
Concerns focused on security issues and impact on new church
property.
Responded with security risk assessment and adoption of
recommendations.
14. Environmental/regulatory issues
• Ground contamination. Designated Brownfield site.
• Licensing questions regarding level of care. Not
deemed a Community Residential Care Facility.
• Asbestos. Removed.
Negotiation with Salvation Army
• Challenges negotiating with distant decision
makers. Persisted.
15. Politics
• Neighborhood influence over city politics
• Lack of regional cooperation
• Poor financial situation, especially City of Columbia
16. $5M challenge grant coupled with local match
Identifying property zoned for the purpose
Consistent media support for effort
Close collaboration between business and
providers
Inadequacy of previous public efforts
Recent self organization of the homeless
17. Invited experts from other communities for
advice. Homeless centers in Atlanta, Savannah,
Charlotte, Raleigh, Greenville & Miami
participated.
Engagement of regional experts/investigation of
other programs/support from Miami team
Broad coalition of business, providers and faith
community
Leadership of strong intermediary in United Way
Passionate leadership must emerge
18. What role will politics play?
When should neighborhoods be engaged?
How visible should effort be?
How do you balance program goals while
addressing neighborhood concerns?
Hinweis der Redaktion
Overview of presentation—a little historyCurrent successful initiativeChallenges—how we were lucky or smart and what we have not figured out!
Our community certainly failed by this measure
NO need to review—just observe that there were six studies in 12 yearsnot lack for understanding the problem—lacked the will to implement the solutions
The point is it was collaborative—City, UWM, CCCFBroad engagementBuy in from all quaters(Stakeholder Meeting with 54 Participants including, Service Providers, Public Officials, Community Stakeholders)
City succumbs to NIMBY—set project back and probably community for invoking racism as problem
Enough persistent concern among business community—work with provider community to build trustCouple of false starts with strategies when opportunity presented from problemKey element that SA property had zoning!Acknowledge CPH
So what are we doing?—outline of programs—elements we do not or never have had in ColumbiaTarget homeless adults on the street—currently 1006—half of them on streets—1 out of 4 adults is a vet—very visible problem
We did have to live it forward but looking back—here are some conclusions from our looking backward
Basically the slide illustrates the source—the complaints and how we responded for better or worse
Some Unanticipated problems—delayed progress
Systemic issues—had to work through because our of scope to change
No way to understate impact of $5M coupled with local match—raising virtually 100% of development cost is very persuasive—difficult for city to walk away fromMedia frequently weighed inPeople were frustrated, disappointed, disgusted with public/gov’t failure to address issueRecently the homeless have organized themselves and now regularly show up at neighborhood meetings, city council—they are working to change the image of homelessness—very valuable in community meetings
Research and consultation helped a lot! Even helped us recognize that there are no obvious answers—handled problems differently (like security)Coalition was keyUWM contributions and capacity hard to overestimate
Issues we could debate—have no conclusions forNeighborhoods complain about being left out but when you bring them in use information to undermine not improve effortVisibility—draws more furor but have to ensure donors stay confident and project sense of momentumWe had developed programs from best practices and demonstrated success—some community needs are irrational and meeting them can compromise the program—lots of issues about restricting the clients—yet designed to be a low barrier facility