Homelessness is on the rise in America. With the recent increase of homeless encampments throughout communities, local municipalities are under increased scrutiny on how to address the issue. To promote greater social order and improve public safety – for those in the encampments and the broader community – the recent Supreme Court decision in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson will greatly impact local policies.  

We believe this decision will allow local governments and law enforcement agencies to determine how best to respond to homelessness in their own communities, allowing greater local autonomy in policy decision-making and implementation.  

Esther Larson, Philanthropy Roundtable’s senior director of programs, interviewed Devon Kurtz, public safety policy director at Cicero Institute, to better understand this issue. The Cicero Institute is a nonpartisan public policy organization with deep experience in public policy and technology, law and entrepreneurship.  

Q: Homeless rates across America are only increasing. What do you see as the key contributing factors to this reality? 

Kurtz: When we talk about homelessness, we often refer to it casually as a monolith. But that’s exactly the same problem with the policies most states use to respond to it. Homelessness is very complex with distinct subpopulations with varied needs and challenges. For example, it is important to distinguish between sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations, the latter of which refers to people who live in tents and sleeping bags on the street.  

America is not experiencing a homelessness crisis as much as an unsheltered homelessness crisis. All but 12 states have seen the proportion of their homeless population without shelter increase over the last five years, and 22 states have seen unsheltered homelessness increase by more than 50%. 

The imprecision of how we talk about homelessness and in how we make policy means that most states are missing the mark. Federal homelessness policies take a one-size-fits-all approach known as Housing First, which prioritizes low-barrier housing interventions that offer people apartments without any requirements for behavioral health treatment or sobriety.  

But more importantly, Housing First explicitly moves funding away from other types of programs that might be better suited to help high-risk, high-need individuals. The vast majority of states have moved in this direction, as federal funding decisions tend to drive local policies in the homelessness space. The result has been a growing gap between the capacity of communities to respond to different types of homelessness and the increasingly complex needs of those individuals living on the street. 

Q: Policies at the federal, state and local levels have contributed both positively and negatively to homelessness in America today. What policies have had the greatest impact on homelessness – for good or bad? 

Kurtz: Federal Housing First policies are at the root of most of the decisions made at every level of government in regard to homelessness. In addition to changing how resources are allocated, Housing First’s philosophy also de-emphasizes any sort of mandatory or coerced interventions, such as involuntary mental health treatment or legal prohibitions against street camping.  

Cities well outside of California have followed along the same path in allowing sprawling street encampments to take hold of their downtowns. Austin is a notable example. These policies have good intentions—draw people into services and shelter with care and compassion rather than coercion. The problem is that they neglect service-resistant individuals or people whose conditions improve with personal accountability alongside compassion.  

The line between “meeting people where they are at” and enablement is fine. But many homelessness policies lack that nuance out of an aversion to approaches that might be uncomfortable and involve penalties for failure. The results, however, speak for themselves—homeless encampments are toxic environments filled with waste and trash, and are often hotbeds of crime. Unsheltered homeless people have 2.5 times the premature mortality rate of sheltered homeless. The road to desperation was paved with good intentions. 

A few states are taking a more nuanced approach with state resources. Florida, Georgia and Utah have all committed millions of dollars in state funding to fill the gaps for high-need individuals created by Housing First. They also take a more proactive approach with street camping that empowers law enforcement to intervene in dangerous encampments.  

These policies are often criticized as lacking in compassion. But in many ways, they more effectively approach the situations of the street and the dangers faced by unsheltered homeless people and the communities around them. Most importantly, they take seriously the reality of the human condition in that they present an actionable response to severely addicted or mentally ill individuals who are “service-resistant.”  

The policy discussion here is very, very challenging because we are ultimately discussing our society’s level of tolerance for squalor and human suffering.  

Q: For those who are newer to the recent SCOTUS decision City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, could you explain how the case went to the Supreme Court and what its impact will be? 

Kurtz: The fundamental question before the Supreme Court was whether or not laws that prohibit people from sleeping on the street or in parks punish individuals for qualities inherent to their condition. In fewer words, whether they punish people for passively “being homeless” or for specific illicit actions. In 2018, the Ninth Circuit prohibited enforcement of bans on street sleeping or camping, with few exceptions, out of a belief that it punished people for their condition as “homeless” and was thus cruel and unusual. This decision fettered how communities could respond to unsheltered homelessness and street encampments.  

Ultimately, SCOTUS saw that street sleeping could be committed by people who were not homeless, which broke down the argument that the law prohibited a condition rather than an action. But more importantly, the Court found that the federal judiciary was playing far too large a role in setting homeless policies for communities. Thus, it affirmed in part this theme of ‘multifaceted and tailored local solutions’ that I have discussed.   

In most of the U.S., this decision will affirm communities’ power and responsibility over responding to homelessness. In the Ninth Circuit, the decision will help smaller communities the most. Big cities were already forced to deal with the undeniable public safety and public health crises in encampments, even if they tend not to be proactive. Smaller communities, however, see encampments a fraction of the size of those in L.A. The problems in those camps are still pressing, but law enforcement may have felt restrained in their ability to respond to smaller camps until they grew sufficiently dangerous to warrant action. Now, communities can respond earlier. 

Q: Though your focus at Cicero is public safety, you also focus on homeless-related issues. How do you see homelessness relating to other issues – public safety, mental illness, addiction, incarceration, access to affordable housing, etc.? 

Kurtz: Street homelessness is the great public safety crisis of our time. Visible public disorder is tied directly to street homelessness, and by some measures, a significant portion of violent crime is associated with homeless victims, offenders, or both. Yet, the relationship between criminal justice and homelessness isn’t simple. Roughly one-third of homeless people in California had left prison or long-term jail stays within six months of becoming homeless.  

Rates of substance abuse and mental illness among prison populations and unsheltered homeless individuals are high and increasing rapidly. About 50% of America’s psychiatric beds are in prisons. These systems are highly interrelated and, in my view, inextricable. 

Eleven states have seen the number of unsheltered homeless people with severe mental illness more than double since 2018. Thirteen states have seen the number with chronic substance abuse at least double. To deny the public health and public safety implications of this crisis is misguided. 

Q: Is there a state or city you point to as a guiding light in this work, in terms of their effective approach to homelessness and curbing its impact on individuals and communities? 

Kurtz: It is a difficult question to answer because no two communities are the same. So what works in Detroit might not work in Austin, and what works in a rural state like Vermont certainly won’t work even in Boston. We will not find a silver bullet. There are great organizations like Haven for Hope that are often cited. And cities like Miami and Houston are often shown off for their reductions in homelessness.  

But instead of trying to copy what other people do, policymakers and the philanthropic community should look to social entrepreneurs and innovators to help build new solutions and push the borders of what we think is possible. We need to build systems that reward innovation and challenge incumbent programs to improve and grow. Experimentation and dislodging barriers to entry and innovation are essential to effectively responding to homelessness.  

We also need to look in unlikely places. For example, Nomadik AI, a start-up in Austin, Texas, is bringing a whole new approach to data collection in relation to homelessness. Organizations like theirs are so important to evaluating interventions and tracking how complex social problems like homelessness evolve over time and in different communities. 

If you want to learn more about how Philanthropy Roundtable supports donors committed to addressing our nation’s homeless communities, please contact Esther Larson, senior director of Programs at Philanthropy Roundtable here. 

The post “Street Homelessness is the Great Public Safety Crisis of Our Time”: An Interview with Cicero Institute  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Citygate Network is North America’s oldest and largest community of independent, faith-based crisis shelters and life-transformation centers. Started in 1906, the organization has grown to partner, educate, train and guide a network of 300 member organizations. Each organization works to move people in desperate situations and destitute conditions (i.e., hungry, homeless, abused and addicted) from human suffering to human flourishing through the process of gospel-powered life transformation. 

The Citygate Network focuses on breaking the bonds of destructive habits, bad decisions (made by or forced upon the person) and enslaving conditions. By providing services and care in the context of community, Citygate Network’s tagline “Enter here. Start anew.” underscores the network’s focus on life transforming change.  

Philanthropic investment into Citygate Network’s work is making life transformation possible in communities across America. To get a better sense of their work and impact throughout the country, Esther Larson, senior director of Programs, recently interviewed Tom DeVries, CEO of Citygate Network. 

Q: Rates of addiction and homelessness are drastically increasing across American communities. What are you seeing in terms of the evolving needs for those who are homeless, struggling with addiction or facing other life crises? 

DeVries: Numbers tell a story, and the reality is that more and more people are finding themselves without help, in need of support and looking for those who will offer assistance and services that can address the challenges they are currently facing.  

Between 2022 and 2023, the number of people experiencing homelessness on any given night in the United States rose by 12%, reaching 653,100 – the highest number recorded since tracking began in 2007. The challenges are increasingly complex, with a growing demand for holistic support. Immediate needs include access to shelter, food and health care services alongside long-term, sustainable solutions addressing mental health, addiction recovery and affordable housing.  

Homelessness is more often the symptom of a greater pervasive problem: broken relationships. This lack of supportive community leads to so many of the issues contributing to rising rates of homelessness and intersecting problems of mental illness, addiction, ability to remain in employment and limited access to affordable housing. At Citygate Network, our missions and ministries reach out to people where they are, in whatever situation they are in and offer solutions that can move them from a place of individual suffering to a place of flourishing in the context of a caring community.  
 

Q: What is Citygate Network’s unique approach to address these needs? 

DeVries: The unique approach of the missions and ministries within Citygate Network is that each approach is unique. With more than 320 missions and ministries in our network, each one helps, loves and serves differently, in response to their unique context. 

For example, in Baltimore, Helping Up Mission partners with Johns Hopkins Hospital to provide health care for moms with children who are experiencing homelessness as well as mothers who are expecting. In Colorado, the Denver Rescue Mission has a contract with the city of Denver to provide emergency shelter and housing for the unhoused in that community. In Southern California, Hope: The Mission has multiple sites of tiny homes that offer safety and security as an alternative to the challenge of living on the streets. 

Our ministries offer professional mental health services, Christ-centered recovery programs, trauma-informed case management, workforce development and spiritual support, ensuring individuals receive the resources and relationships needed to rebuild their lives and achieve long-term stability. 

Q: What is the impact of Citygate’s programs and what makes your program model unique?  

DeVries: The programs of the missions and ministries of Citygate Network have profound impact, transforming lives and future generations as people are restored. As one of the largest providers of homeless services in the United States, we collectively provide nearly 80,000 beds. In conversation with Dr. Robert Marbut, former director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, between Citygate Network and The Salvation Army, we provide 75% of the nation’s emergency shelter services. The fact that 75% of emergency shelter beds are being provided by faith-based organizations demonstrates the significant role faith-based providers play in serving those who are most vulnerable in our country. 

Though vitally important, providing emergency housing is only one aspect of our work. We aim to transform the lives of those who are hungry, homeless, abused and/or addicted. We do this by providing recovery and restoration through God’s message of hope and help to people in the most difficult and challenging places. 

Q: Speaking of life transformation, could you share a story of someone who has benefited from Citygate’s ministries? 

DeVries: Citygate Network partners with missions and ministries across North America and the Caribbean and the impact of our programs is vast. For example, in Seattle, Sarah, a young mother, overcame homelessness and addiction through mental health support, Christ-centered recovery and job training with help from Union Gospel Mission. Now employed and volunteering, she helps others on their recovery journey. In Washington D.C., James, a veteran with PTSD, found refuge and stability through similar comprehensive services with Central Union Mission. He now serves as a mentor to other veterans, exemplifying the transformative power of Citygate Network’s comprehensive approach.  

These stories highlight the life-changing impact of our programs, demonstrating how we empower these missions to carry out this vital life-transforming work. 

Q: In the midst of oftentimes flawed policies to address community needs, what are some of critiques you have on the Housing First policy and the recent SCOTUS decision addressing homeless encampments?  

DeVries: While Housing First is a valuable approach, it often overlooks the need for comprehensive support like incorporating mental health and addiction services, which are crucial for sustainable recovery. Providing housing alone, especially to those deemed most in need, without addressing underlying issues, can result in repeated and prolonged homelessness. 

The recent SCOTUS decision on homeless encampments underscores the urgency for humane and lasting solutions. Criminalizing homelessness without offering viable alternatives does not address root causes and can exacerbate the situation. Effective policies should integrate housing with robust support services to foster long-term stability and well-being. 

Q: Could you describe how Citygate Network’s mission is funded? How does philanthropy propel your mission? 

DeVries: Citygate Network’s mission is funded through three streams: annual dues from our members, revenue from annual events we provide and the generous support from donors and foundations. Of those three streams, philanthropy is currently the smallest. Historically, we have viewed ourselves more as an association than as a missional movement. While this model has sustained us thus far, we are now poised for growth and require additional financial support to accomplish goals focused on bringing long-term solutions to people’s lives and to how we address homelessness overall. 

Increased philanthropic contributions would significantly expand the reach and impact of Citygate Network by enhancing our leadership development equipping and training. These contributions would also empower us to drive systematic change and raise awareness about the intersection of homelessness and addiction and/or mental health through advocacy to key policymakers. 

Q: Are there any specific donor partnerships that have been pivotal in the organization’s impact? If so, what made the partnership so compelling? 

DeVries: Citygate Network’s Hope in the Gate initiative, in partnership with the Maclellan Foundation, Unwavering Resolve plus Willow Bend Creative, offers transformative three-day retreats for individuals nearing the end of their rescue mission recovery programs. Set in the serene hills of Tennessee, participants work with singer-songwriters, life coaches and other professionals to discover their unique gifts, hear God’s voice and celebrate their journeys. The retreats include original music, outdoor activities, counseling support and community building, providing a powerful capstone to their recovery process. You can watch Hope in the Gate: Krystal’s Story to see a story from one of our Hope in the Gate events. 

We also partner with the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust to host Ripple Effect, a leadership and board governance development program, enhancing our member missions’ ability and capacity to grow leadership, determine ministry direction and raise the level of kingdom impact and ministry effectiveness. 

Q: Are there any specific initiatives you’d like to highlight for donors who might be interested in your work? 

DeVries: One major initiative we are working on is better tracking (of) our outcomes and impact across the country. To do this, we have entered a new relationship with MissionTracker, which offers a customer relationship management system to members, enabling us to create a national dashboard that reflects our collective impact, enhancing our ability to measure impact and showcase the significant work our members are doing.   

This will ultimately improve scalability and strengthen our collective voice, offering a comprehensive view of emergency service beds, addiction recovery programs, meals served and key demographics. Although launching this system is a significant and costly endeavor, it will offer invaluable insights into the role of Christians and faith-based ministries in addressing homelessness across the U.S. and Canada. 

Another initiative is our new leadership development track focused on learning communities and coaching. Through connection and content, the program will provide learning, support and accountability for leaders to grow and develop to ultimately see increased missional impact. 

Finally, we have a strategic partnership with Adult & Teen Challenge, The Salvation Army and Duke University, where we are actively working to measure the impact of faith on recovery. This collaboration is crucial to our mission, especially in light of the HUD survey revealing that one in five individuals experiencing homelessness struggle with substance abuse, with Citygate Network members and other studies estimating this figure to be significantly higher.  

With the economic impact of substance abuse in the U.S. estimated at $740 billion annually, our partnership aims to provide valuable insights into how faith-based support influences recovery outcomes. By studying these effects, we hope to enhance treatment and support strategies for those affected by addiction, with the goal of life transformation impacting communities for generations to come. 

If you are interested in learning more about how Philanthropy Roundtable supports donors committed to addressing our nation’s homeless communities, please contact Esther Larson, senior director of Programs at Philanthropy Roundtable here.  

The post “Enter here. Start anew.”: A Conversation with Citygate Network appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

In an op-ed published in USA Today, “I lived in a homeless encampment for a week. I saw how Housing First doesn’t work.” Mayor Mike Coffman of Aurora, Colorado, explains how the community is combating homelessness.  

Coffman describes how nonprofit models can work to help improve communities and alleviate homelessness.  

Below are excerpts from the op-ed. The full article can be found here at USA Today. 

“After spending time in encampments, it became clear that solving homelessness won’t have a one-size-fits-all solution. Many individuals were battling addiction and had little chance of holding down a job. Others dealt with mental health challenges.  

That’s why a broader approach is necessary. Federal and state governments should expand support for other programs that respect individual responsibility and focus on moving people forward ‒ especially addiction recovery, mental health and job training ‒ rather than leaving them to repeat destructive cycles that hold them back.” 

… 

“As a Coloradan, I don’t have to look very far to find successful models with tangible results. 

Step Denver provides free housing, addiction recovery programs and peer recovery support for hundreds of men each year. The program includes career counseling, 12-step meetings and life skills classes. After leaving, 84% find a full-time job and 80% report sustained sobriety. 

Likewise, Ready to Work, a program run by Boulder-based nonprofit Bridge House, takes a “three-legged stool” approach by providing employment, housing and additional support like career mentoring and medical care to homeless individuals in Boulder and Aurora. Nearly three-quarters of Ready to Work’s trainees successfully move on to permanent housing after about a year in the program.”   

… 

“Aurora is taking action to invest in people and establish the infrastructure needed to have a lasting impact. I hope it can serve as a model for cities nationwide.” 

The post USA Today Op-Ed Highlights Philanthropic Efforts to Combat Homelessness    appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Rosado had left home at age 17. Since then, he’d dealt with tragedy from the death of his mother to “three violent experiences” after which he suffered depression and was diagnosed with PTSD.  

At 50 years old, Rosado was ready to turn his life around — and reconnect with his 15-year-old daughter, who he hadn’t seen for a year. But he needed the hard skills to help him compete in the workforce. Then he heard about The Doe Fund’s Ready Willing and Able program, which takes participants through a year-long program that offers job training, education and sobriety support.  

“It was unique,” Rosado says. “Other shelter systems did not have that.” 

Rosado, who is currently a member of the program, has since been through Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and welding training, and he and his daughter have reunited.  

“That’s been my thing,” he says, speaking of the motivation to see her again. “It’s helped me out mentally to get back into a relationship with my daughter.” 

Rosado’s experience with Ready Willing and Able has been life changing. But unfortunately, it’s also unique for someone who has experienced homelessness. The Doe Fund boasts that 78% of participants retain their job after six months and there’s a 62% reduction in recidivism three years after graduating from the program.  

Compare that to programs with the popular “housing first” model, which became the United States’ default solution to homelessness in the early 2000s.  

“There was a lot of rhetoric 10-15 years ago that we would solve homelessness with the housing first model in 10 years or so,” says Judge Glock, director of research at the Manhattan Institute.  

When the federal government adopted “housing first” as its policy in 2013, former President Barack Obama promised the federal government would end homelessness by 2023. Gavin Newsom, then mayor of San Francisco, pledged to end homelessness in his city within 10 years.  

“You had a lot of people very excited about this housing first model who made a lot of pretty expansive claims about what it would do to reduce the homelessness problem,” Glock says. “That bill has come due, and by most measures, the problem has gotten much worse.” 

Today, cities that were meant to be the poster children for the promise of “housing first” have become cautionary tales. San Francisco has the ninth highest homelessness population in the country, with 9.5 unhoused people per 1,000.  

“We’ve built over 200,000 new [permanent supportive housing] units for the homeless, as they’re known, and, since 2013, the federal government has mandated the Housing First strategy nationwide,” Glock writes for the Cicero Institute. “Yet since that nationwide mandate has gone into effect, we’ve seen street homelessness increase by almost a fourth.” 

Post-COVID, the problem has gotten even worse. “The data so far this year [on homelessness numbers] are up roughly 11% from 2022, a sharp jump that would represent by far the biggest recorded increase since the government started tracking comparable numbers in 2007,” The Wall Street Journal warned in a recent report.  

Why “Housing First” Has Failed 

Many researchers, nonprofit leaders and donors agree the “housing first” experiment has failed. It is not without good intentions, but suffers from some fundamental flaws.  

The first problem is that of perverse incentives.  

According to Glock, most of the country allocates scarce housing resources according to a point system. The idea is the neediest get the housing first, but in practice, it means there is incentive to abuse drugs, commit acts of violence and more just to reach a higher rung on the ladder.  

The Obama-era Department of Housing and Urban Development directed local groups to use this metric for providing housing, though states have some leeway on how far they go with it. In Massachusetts, for example, you get four points for being an active drug user, but only one point for being a recovering addict. But should you overdose, you can get two more points.  

Even critics of the policy agree that housing options are essential for people experiencing homelessness and some may even benefit from a simple gift of permanent housing. But for most, that can’t be the only solution.  

“The problem is that people become homeless for a variety of reasons, and putting them into an apartment just moves their homelessness inside,” says Mary Theroux, CEO of the Independent Institute. “They’re still culturally homeless, they still have the same issues they had when they were living on the street, except now they’re isolated inside, and they die at higher rates, actually, once they’re housed.”  

What people struggling with homelessness really need, she argues, is a holistic approach that combines housing with social support. Sometimes, people need a push in the right direction.  

Stephen Eide, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, says “housing first” relied on “false advertising” that presented it as an almost scientific solution.  

But it fails in theory — advocates hold up a “harm reduction” philosophy that says you cannot impose on people by directing them toward another lifestyle, you can only make resources available to them — and in practice. Not only are there perverse incentives, but “housing first” often ends up just looking like “housing only.” 

Yet homelessness is a problem of so much more than housing.  

“When we’re talking about that problem, we’re often actually talking about other problems — crime, untreated serious mental illness — and when we fail in those other areas, we do make our homelessness crisis worse,” Eide says.  

Multi-Pronged Approach Tackles Issue from All Fronts 

If housing first has failed, what should take its place? 

Isabel McDevitt, co-founder of Work Works America, is working to be part of the solution. The Doe Fund’s Work Works model, which inspired the Ready Willing and Able program that helped Rosado, helps people find housing, work and mental and emotional support through an employment-based holistic model to fight addiction, exit homelessness or just get back on their feet.  

Because McDevitt supports various interventions with the Work Works’ multi-pronged approach to homelessness, she finds it surprising so few organizations and government entities seem interested in expanding solutions to face this issue from all fronts.  

“What a lot of people don’t necessarily understand is the complexity of how people end up experiencing homelessness,” she says. “What I would hope is that we can have more of an open conversation about new, custom approaches to match the diversity of people in need. We haven’t yet solved homelessness, so let’s get creative. Policymakers should be looking at creative approaches that integrate people back into the community rather than keeping them separate in ‘homeless housing’ or doubling down on one-size-fits-all approaches.” 

While permanent, no-strings-attached housing has become the default solution to solving homelessness, Glock says more states should focus on recovery housing, such as the Oxford House model (temporary homes for those fighting addiction), and transitional housing. In Texas, the Health and Human Services Commission contracts with organizations providing recovery housing, with many positive results.  

Theroux has traveled the country looking for alternative programs. One such initiative is Haven for Hope in San Antonio, Texas, which says an astounding 91% of clients “are still in permanent housing after one year.” The organization describes its approach as “person-centered, trauma-informed and recovery-oriented.” 

Carrie Tynan of the Adolph Coors Foundation supported McDevitt in bringing the Work Works model to Boulder and Aurora, Colorado. McDevitt wanted to expand the model of the day shelter she was running to something with more long-term impact.  

This turned into the Ready to Work program at Bridge House, a “combination of employment, housing and support that breaks the expensive cycles of homelessness, incarceration and chronic unemployment,” per its website.  

Participants in the program are required to find work shortly after joining, and the program claims a success rate of 74%.  

“We believe in the value of work,” Tynan says. “We know that it can help people move out of a dependency mindset.” 

Tynan says she met one participant who said he liked his alone time and had a clean driving record. “So I decided I’m going to be a truck driver,” he concluded.  

How Philanthropists Can Make Lasting Changes 

For donors who want to get involved in solving the homeless crisis, supporting efforts that help people in a lasting way, what can they do?  

The fact that government programs seem generally disinterested in taking a holistic approach presents an opportunity for philanthropists to focus on mental health, foster care, substance abuse, public policy, direct service, preventive measures or all of the above. And they don’t have to do it alone.  

According to entrepreneur and philanthropist Joe Lonsdale, the key is to ask yourself, “Do you want to be subsidizing a broken system or do you want to be part of a solution?” Too many philanthropists dump their money on mediocre organizations with misaligned incentives and lack of accountability, he says. By pouring money into efforts that aren’t actually solving homelessness, he says, “You’re probably making the problem worse.” 

Tynan says policy change will do little if it doesn’t go hand-in-hand with the work of direct service nonprofits. For donors looking to scale a model, she suggests providing “multi-year gifts with benchmarks that need to be met in order to track the organization’s progress.” 

Theroux proposes a “Tocquevillian solution,” a “community-wide approach in which all sectors come together to advance solutions.” She applauds Haven, for example, for coordinating every other nonprofit in San Antonio working on homelessness, about 140 of them, to tackle the problem together. More than a decade later, “they’re all working in concert” rather than duplicating each other’s work, she says. “That’s where a funder can really help exert influence.” 

“The clearest lesson” from Haven for Hope, she says, “is that its success is a result of its being a product of the entire community’s coming together. It started with the partnership of an oil tycoon [Bill Greehey] and the Democratic mayor whose election he had opposed [Phil Hardberger], but then engaged and involved every sector: police, fire, EMS, hospitals, every nonprofit, the business community, philanthropic community, homeless advocates, the homeless themselves … And over the 12 years it has operated as an independent 501(c)(3), it has learned and adjusted its model based on learned information.” 

Theroux and her colleagues at the Independent Institute regularly partner to share ideas with peers at other organizations such as the Manhattan Institute, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Discovery Institute and Cicero Institute.  

Theroux and other leaders focused on addiction recovery and homelessness alleviation joined together earlier this year, organized by Michael Shellenberger and We Heart Seattle. They created North America Recovers, a network of organizations that share insights with each other and push for policy change together.  

“We share studies, interviews, information, Twitter posts and more, at a rate of probably 20-plus messages each day,” Theroux says. “Members meet with one another and visit policymakers and others to advance recovery. We meet monthly by Zoom to collaborate on ideas for messaging, outreach to policymakers and the public, and are currently organizing several events to be held next year.” 

One issue that faces even successful programs that fall outside the norm is funding. McDevitt says many nonprofits that don’t fit the government’s narrow mold for homelessness policy need alternative funding, adding philanthropists should look for local organizations that are trying new things.  

“Don’t assume your city has it figured out or that it’s just a resource issue,” she says. “Try to understand and support what’s happening and having an impact on the ground but also push for innovation.” 

Ultimately, while government homelessness policy remains stuck in the past, donors have a unique opportunity to support nonprofits that are shaping the future.  

“Philanthropists need to step up and be the civic leaders they have traditionally been in the U.S.,” Theroux says, “coming together in community and working on our problems together.” 

Madeline Fry Schultz is the contributors editor at the Washington Examiner. She previously worked at Philanthropy Roundtable and as the culture commentary writer at the Washington Examiner.  

The post How Philanthropy is Tackling Homelessness Through Holistic Solutions appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Philanthropy Roundtable recently spoke with Josiah Haken, CEO of City Relief, on the ways his nonprofit provides meals and essential supplies to homeless communities in New York and New Jersey. Each year, City Relief serves around 60,000 individuals in these urban centers with services that go far beyond a warm meal and a place to sleep. The nonprofit takes a holistic approach that incorporates mental health needs, addiction treatment, job programs and more.

Q: Please introduce us to City Relief. What’s your mission, history and focus?

City Relief is a nonprofit organization that creates pop-up outreach events in New York City and New Jersey where folks who are experiencing homelessness can share and receive a meal with dignity. They receive emergency supplies like socks and toiletries, masks, cell phones (in some cases) and other essentials that will hopefully allow them to survive the day. City Relief also provides connections and access to direct service providers and other organizations that can help them, hopefully, imagine and experience a better tomorrow and a future.

We started back in 1989. Our founders, Richard and Dixie Galloway, got this vision for taking a bus into the streets where people are struggling with homelessness and then creating access and connection points to direct service providers that they may otherwise not have been able to get to for help. As an organization, we’ve always been mobile and consistent, and we are ultimately trying to address homelessness in a holistic way so that we’re not just providing a transactional experience, but also creating a long-term solution. In a nutshell, that’s who we are and what we’re trying to do.

Q: Please give us a rundown of who your typical client is.

Homelessness, in general, is a very complex issue. I describe it as the ocean, where all rivers and streams of injustice tend to pool when they’re left unchecked. There isn’t really a typical client, in the sense that everybody gets to us through a different path.

Since the surge of asylum seekers to the United States, we’ve been seeing more kids, unfortunately. But typically, we see adults dealing with mental illness, substance use disorders, job loss or relational trauma, and their struggle has gotten them stuck. We see a pretty diverse range of people from all over the country and the world who have just had a run of bad luck. 

Q: How do you create a community response to the problem of homelessness?

City Relief is just a facilitator. We believe we can have a bigger impact by bringing other people along with us than we can by going it alone.

By ourselves, City Relief is not going to be an effective solution for homelessness on a large scale, just because of the limitations of time, space and money. We want to go all in on this idea of collaboration. We have invited other organizations, other direct service providers and other agencies to serve with us at our pop-up outreach events. 

We do eight of these events throughout the week, and invite other organizations to set up tables and tents, almost like a job fair. We offer legal services, mental health services, benefits and entitlements services, even haircuts — and we invite anyone who provides a direct service that the people we serve would benefit from.

We also invite volunteers to serve with us, and we train them to engage with compassion. The event is not just a service or a transactional exchange — it creates conversations so people can actually learn from each other. We’re trying to help shift the narrative from judgment and criticism to empathy and solutions.

By facilitating those conversations, creating a dignifying experience for our guests and inviting other organizations to come alongside us, we’re able to create this communal experience where it’s actually the community addressing the needs of homeless people and homelessness.

Q: Can you share one or two compelling stories of clients you’ve served?

One story that sticks out to me is about a gentleman I met in the South Bronx at our Saturday outreach event. He was wearing snakeskin shoes and a women’s cardigan. He was 6’5″, 250 pounds, and he just looked out of place. I ended up chatting with him for a little bit and found out that he had been released from prison the day before. He had nowhere to go, so he went right to the shelter system.

Before he got there, he spent the only remaining money he had in the world on a pair of boots, a hoodie, and some jeans. But when he slept, he took those clothes off so he’d be more comfortable and folded them under his bed. When he woke up, they were gone. 

He went to report the theft to the security guard, and the security guard was actually wearing his shoes. So he ended up being forced to collect whatever he could find in this downstairs dump of a room. That’s how he ended up dressed like he did. We were able to get him some new clothes and shoes, and then he actually volunteered with us for a few weeks and offered translation services. 

We try to invite our guests to not just be recipients of what we give, but also to be partners and collaborators with us. He served with us for a while, then disappeared. A month or two later, I heard someone honking, and it was him. He was in a utility truck — he’d found a job that was paying a living wage. 

He was just so grateful. He said, “You’re the reason I got this job. By meeting me where I was and giving me what I needed that day, you gave me the dignity and the belief that I wasn’t alone and I could pursue a better future.” 

Another story is about a guy named Willie, who was homeless for 40 years. From 17 to 57 years old, he was in the street. He didn’t start out addicted, but ended up addicted. People don’t realize that, sometimes, homelessness is actually the cause of addiction.

He was really tough. He’d get his soup from our outreach, then not talk to anybody. But eventually, one of our volunteers built a relationship with him. 

Willie ended up in the hospital one week, and the volunteer noticed he was missing and found out where he was. She went to visit him with balloons and a card, and her visit sparked something in him that made him believe he was worth loving, and it was worth pursuing a better life. He was motivated to get into rehab and rebuild his life. 

We got him a job at a local church, and he got an apartment, and the rest is history. He’s been doing great ever since, living a stable life.

Q: What motivates you, personally, in your work?

I started out taking teams into the streets and hanging out with people who were experiencing homelessness. A homeless gentleman from Argentina lived with my family for two years, and he was like a grandfather to my kids. What motivates me is when I think about folks like him, and others too. 

I realized there’s nothing intrinsically broken or wrong with people who have experienced homelessness — they’re just people. I’d like to help shift the narrative about homelessness so it’s no longer this ugly problem that needs to be fixed, but it’s actually an opportunity for us to encounter a human being with intrinsic value. That’s what motivates me to see macro-level change through micro-level impact.

Q: Can you share some of your outcomes?

We track all kinds of key performance indicators. For example, over the last 12 months, we’ve served almost 60,000 people, which is a 14% increase from 2021. We’ve given away 190,000 meals, socks, toiletries and masks. And the biggest thing for us is tracking the almost 5,000 people we’ve had one-on-one conversations with and developed action plans to help them navigate the bureaucracy of social services. 

We’ve made almost 9,000 direct connections for guests to specific community services over the last year, which includes things like housing placements, replacement of an ID, health services, employment, training and connections and legal support. The four buckets of impact that we’re trying to address are our guests’ income, overall health, housing situation and food and security.

Q: If money were no object, what would you imagine for your organization?

We understand that homelessness is a national crisis, not just a localized one. So we want to be a mobilizing force in addressing homelessness on a national scale.

If money were no object, we would be reaching a larger percentage of the people who are experiencing homelessness in New York City. We would be at additional locations, providing a much deeper and more comprehensive level of care coordination. 

The biggest gap that I see, in addition to access to low-income housing, is having specific, targeted care coordinators who are able to walk people through the process of meeting their needs. 

Our ratio is about 30 full-time staff to 60,000 people. The need far outpaces the supply of people who are there to help. I would love to see City Relief known as the most accessible service for people who are experiencing homelessness. 

For example, any pedestrian in New York will see homeless people. The question is, who do you contact to help those individuals? Right now, it’s the city. You call 311. They dispatch an outreach team. I would love to get to a place where City Relief is either participating alongside the organizations that are responding to those calls, or actually providing an alternative for people to call.

From a training and equipping standpoint, I would love to look at mobilizing across the country to respond to the needs of the homeless. We’d get in front of organizations in different places where homelessness is growing so that we can be a resource for those cities. If money was no object, we would be all over the place in terms of the geographic areas we’re serving.

City Relief is included in Philanthropy Roundtable’s Opportunity Playbook, where you can find more information about their impact and programming. If you are interested in helping to accelerate this organization’s impact, please contact Philanthropy Roundtable Program Director Esther Larson.

The post City Relief: Providing Dignity to the Homeless in New York and New Jersey appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

On this Giving Tuesday, Philanthropy Roundtable is adding over a dozen nonprofits to our Opportunity Playbook, a digital resource for donors looking to invest in high-impact organizations that promote economic opportunity for individuals and families and fulfill the promise of the American Dream. These 14 new organizations, as well as those already featured in the playbook, exemplify the Roundtable’s core values — liberty, opportunity and personal responsibility — and are devoted to empowering individuals, strengthening communities and improving lives.

In partnership with the Smith Richardson Foundation, Philanthropy Roundtable is seeking to address national concerns about issues like economic mobility and education from a philanthropic perspective. Through the Opportunity Playbook, we are committed to equipping philanthropists with the tools they need to be effective in these arenas and support excellent nonprofit programs and those who rely on their work.

This batch of exceptional organizations, which is working across education, workforce development and poverty alleviation, includes:

• ExcelinEd – A national nonprofit working tirelessly to advance student-centered policy solutions that “unlock opportunity and lifelong success” for children and prepare graduates for college and career.
• Fugees Family – A multi-state nonprofit working hard to support refugee and immigrant students through partnerships with local school districts in Ohio and Georgia that ensure students receive an excellent education. They are seeing 100% graduation rates among their program participants.
• Institute for the American Worker – A research and advocacy organization that educates policymakers and key stakeholders in Washington, D.C. about developments in labor policy that threaten to stifle entrepreneurship.
• Safe Families – A national family preservation organization motivated by radical hospitality, disruptive generosity and intentional compassion to keep children safe and families together.
• MentorKids USA – A K-12 mentorship program that makes long-term investments in children, families and neighborhoods. Its focus on academic excellence, spiritual growth and leadership development aims to create a world where all youth reach their full God-given potential.

Philanthropy Roundtable selected these organizations through a close examination of mission alignment, outcomes, fiscal health and potential for replicability. While some of the groups profiled are established nonprofits with a national presence, others are focused more locally or are still in start-up mode. Nevertheless, they all share a common commitment to helping people improve their lives.

The organizations featured in the Opportunity Playbook and our larger Values-Based Giving campaign, “Our Values Improve Lives,” support a growing movement of philanthropists who place our shared values at the heart of their giving by providing resources, strategic advising, connections and community. Through this campaign, we are sharing stories of impact to show how these values improve lives and encourage more philanthropists to adopt this approach. By growing our movement, together we can tackle society’s challenges and advance America’s founding principles, provide more pathways to opportunity and strengthen communities.

Click here to view the Opportunity Playbook. Learn more about Values-Based Giving here and get connected with our team of in-house program officers and strategic advisors.

The post Philanthropy Roundtable Adds High-Impact Organizations to Opportunity Playbook on Giving Tuesday appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Q: What has recovery been like, and how have your clients been impacted?

The aftermath of Hurricane Ian is unlike anything I’ve ever seen. In a matter of hours, life as Floridians knew it was washed away. The storm left most homes destroyed or uninhabitable. These families work hard, and they barely made ends meet before the storm. The costs of starting over, particularly for those without friends or family to help, are unthinkable.

The tragedy has presented opportunities for us to serve. We are focusing on Suncoast Estates, Harlem Heights, Pine Island and a few other neighborhoods whose residents are not getting the help they desperately need. We are providing first responders with child care and “adopting” families with children who need support but won’t ask for it — like the single mom who is working overtime as a nurse, has small children, lives in a damaged home and is barely keeping it together. 

We’re also supporting our elderly neighbors who are lonely, scared and overwhelmed, assisting with efforts to rebuild infrastructure and community. We are working to secure funds that will help repair small churches, like Suncoast First Baptist Church, which has storm damage but no money to pay its bills. Amid their own struggles, members of this congregation have been generous in letting our team use their facility, and their hospitality has brought our programs to life in that community.

Q: How has private philanthropy helped propel your innovative response to this storm?

We are 100% privately funded, which gives us the flexibility to adapt quickly to changing circumstances and needs on the ground. While drive-by distribution centers have provided relief to some people, we are offering help to families who don’t have the means to travel to those locations or need things these centers can’t provide. We’ve created a whole new model of care to bring supplies and support directly to these families.

To be more specific, we are going door-to-door and asking each individual family, “What do you need?” No two answers are the same. One family might need mosquito nets and cough syrup, while the family next door needs child care and help tarping their roof before the next rain. Their problems are urgent and often require creative solutions. That’s local philanthropy in action: see a problem, solve a problem.

Q: Please describe the response of civil society more generally — volunteers, faith communities, nonprofits and others — to the hurricane.

Our volunteers have knocked on more than 10,000 doors in areas of high need. We have given out more than $120,000 of essential supplies and tarped up 442 homes.

We are working closely with local and state governments, including Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) Secretary Shevaun Harris, who personally walked the streets with us to help families. It’s been a true team effort. When I called Shevaun about the critical condition of Suncoast Estates, she delivered pallets of supplies to us within 24 hours. Days later, DCF called our staff about urgent needs on Pine Island and we deployed volunteers to help them.

Churches from North Carolina to Ocala, Florida are driving donated items to us in trucks. More than 1,000 volunteers have distributed those items directly to families in areas of critical need. Local businesses are also donating meals, supplies and portions of their own profits. We’ve received support from radio stations, moms’ groups, child development centers, mobile health services, other local charities, you name it.

Q: Do you have an example of a family you’ve helped?

One woman, Jacqueline, lived in a brutally storm-damaged mobile home with her daughter and three grandchildren. There are now holes in the walls of the trailer with mold growing on them, no power, no AC and no cell phone service. 

On our first visit to their home, all three children looked like they had chickenpox, but the spots were from mosquitoes feasting on them at night. We brought apples, and the children ate them up like candy. Many families don’t eat for days at a time because they don’t have the means to travel to a disaster relief distribution center. They are stranded and forgotten. 

Even if Jacqueline’s family could somehow get to a distribution center, it wouldn’t have most of the things she needs right now. It doesn’t offer bug spray or child care or help with tarping up their home before the next rain. We promised to come back, and we did. 

We returned with mosquito netting, ointments, bug spray, cough syrup, thermometers, pull-ups, stuffed animals and dolls, sheets, toddler beds, first-aid kits, shoes, car seats, Pack ’n Plays, bicycles, food, water, clothing and more. 

Their gratitude brought us to tears.

“You came back,” Jacqueline said. She couldn’t believe it.

Q: What does the disaster response timeline look like? And which types of resources will you most need over the next six months to two years?

We are serving areas where homes are uninhabitable and families feel forgotten by the world. We will keep coming back until they don’t need us anymore. Our top three priorities are safety, security and relationships.

Right now, we are making sure everyone has a safe place to live and the basic necessities — food, water, medicine, beds, clothes, formula, diapers and shoes. We are tarping up and repairing homes that can be saved, while families who lost everything are staying with our screened and trained volunteer host families. Since thousands of people lost jobs overnight, our church partners are holding job fairs to help people get back on their feet and keep money coming in the door.

As we serve these families, relationships form. Volunteers are exchanging phone numbers with families, and from that point, that family is not alone. Whether it’s now or five years from now, we will be there for support, mentorship, emergency babysitting, anything they need — and the need is huge in these areas. We are looking to build capacity for our person-to-person outreach efforts. We need more volunteers, more people willing to invest personally in the lives of their neighbors. Community is our most precious resource.

Better Together is included in Philanthropy Roundtable’s Opportunity Playbook, where you can find more information about their impact and programming. If you are interested in helping to accelerate this organization’s impact, please contact Philanthropy Roundtable Program Director  Esther Larson.

The post Megan Rose: Better Together Responds to Hurricane Ian appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Q: Tell us a little bit about The Open Door. What’s your mission, history and focus?

This is our 13th year, so Open Door became a teenager this year. Our mission is to help immigrants become part of our mainstream society. We do this through English classes, computer literacy classes and GED prep classes.

Open Door is the second nonprofit that my wife and I founded. The first one, Operation Exodus, helps the children of immigrants in Washington Heights. Seeing the pain of the children is what led us to talk about and think of ways of trying to prevent or reduce that pain. My wife and I saw it up close when we adopted a child from that community. He was nine years of age. His birth mother, possibly not having proper guidance as to how to adjust to our country, got into a lot of trouble.

We hired a new team member this year who comes from the corporate world. After her first day, she said, “I see that this is much more than an ESL program.” People come here from work tired but happy, and they leave happy — including the volunteers.

Q: You have a unique personal background. Could you share some of your own story with us?

I’m the grandson of Cuban immigrants. That influences my thinking a lot. I came to this country in 1961, so I’m an adopted American. I think the whole idea of one life influencing another life is really powerful — the difference one individual can make on another. The challenge is not so much people sharing their material wealth, but their intellectual wealth. It is so important for people to share their hearts.

We build bridges, but we’re bridge crossers as well. There are a lot of cultural bridges in our society, but very few people cross them. That’s reality. In America, there are fairly new rivalries between different countries. Within The Open Door, that doesn’t exist. We say that we are familia, and we are familia. Our students say, “This is the first time that I made a white friend.” I know that there’s a lot more that needs to be happening, but I believe we’re on the right track and focusing on the right things.

Q: Could you talk a little bit about how you help bridge the language barrier and why that’s important?

The reality of all immigrants, not only Latino immigrants, is that once you arrive in this country, the children quickly become English-dominant. If the parents don’t catch up, they experience a big gap here, which can lead to a lot of troubles or misunderstandings between the generations. Strengthening families — that’s a big piece of what we do.

The reality of all immigrants, not only Latino immigrants, is that once you arrive in this country, the children quickly become English-dominant. If the parents don’t catch up, they experience a big gap here, which can lead to a lot of troubles or misunderstandings between the generations. Strengthening families — that’s a big piece of what we do.

That experience is personal for me. When I was a boy, I would translate for my mom with doctors. Back then, there were very few translators in hospitals, for example. I heard a lot of things that a nine-year-old boy should not be hearing. I should have just been playing or doing my homework.

Q: Related to that, who do you typically serve? What are they like?

The mass of them are between 30 and 50 years of age. The vast majority are Latino. We have 15 countries represented from Latin America.

Their education level varies. We have some Venezuelans who are highly educated in their home countries. But the majority of the others have a fourth- to sixth-grade education in their home countries. So that has forced us to develop our own GED program, because the curriculums out there assume that the student finished eighth grade, but very few of our students have.

Q: What does your volunteer base generally look like?

We have young professionals and a few people with gray hair, like myself. They come from churches, and they come from different walks of life. They’re finance people, marketing people. We have a few educators in our midst, and our volunteers are from a range of ethnic backgrounds as well.

One of our current staff members, Brianna Remache, is of American Ecuadorian descent, and is a scientist with Pfizer. She volunteered a few years back, and we’re really proud that she’s back on staff part-time, successfully leading one of our sites.

Q: Do you have a compelling client story that demonstrates Open Door’s impact?

The story of Casiano. His business is Franco Fruit Carving — he’s an artist. He started with us in our GED program. Casiano was a little intimidated the first day, and I encouraged him to stick with it and not leave us, and he did stick with it. He didn’t have his business at that time, and I encouraged him to do it. He’s now a successful businessman. He even opened up a subsidiary of his business in Mexico. So he’s doing well, and we’re really proud of him.

Q: What kind of metrics have you had, in terms of benefits to individual clients?

In 2021, 100% of our students reported improvements in computer literacy, and 75% said they have more confidence in speaking English. Seventy-five percent said that they improved in GED math. Seventy-five percent reported that they could communicate better with teachers, doctors and other authorities. And 85% of students ranked the sense of community at The Open Door 10/10. Classes have helped 85% of the students in their workplaces.

Q: Where’s The Open Door headed in the future?

We just opened up a new location in East Harlem. The goal is that every three years, we’ll open up a new site. We think that the combination of education and community is powerful. Here in the New York area, we want to continue to expand along the subway lines, and we’re doing two models. We’re doing a model where some of our sites are close to where they live, and other sites are close to where they work. And both are doing surprisingly well.

Q: If money was not an object for The Open Door, what would you imagine for your organization? What’s your big goal?

We would love to be an incubator where people spend a year with us, we train them in our system, and then they can do their thing. If we’re able to open up a new site every three years, each site winds up having a capacity of about 150 adults because of the space limitation. We’re only tapping a small percentage of the need.

The unmet need is huge. New York’s immigrant population is very underserved. Forty-nine percent of New Yorkers speak languages other than English. We have the world here.

The Open Door is included in the Philanthropy Roundtable’s Opportunity Playbook, where you can find more information about their impact and programming. If you are interested in helping to accelerate this organization’s impact, please contact Philanthropy Roundtable Program Director Esther Larson. America’s future is bright, yet dialogue, refinement of ideas and commitment to our country’s values and principles is fundamental to our future.

The post Luis Iza: Building Bridges for Immigrant Families appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Q: Can you quickly introduce us to LEO’s mission, history and focus?

Sullivan: LEO is a research center here at Notre Dame that partners with local social service providers and government agencies nationwide to build evidence to understand what works in terms of lifting individuals and families out of poverty.

The idea is that this evidence can be used to inform policymakers about how to allocate scarce resources, improve outcomes for the disadvantaged and inform social service providers about how to implement more effective programs. Policymakers and philanthropists can then allocate their resources toward programs that will improve outcomes.

We’re celebrating our tenth anniversary this year. Bill Evans is the co-founder along with me. We’re both economists here at Notre Dame. About 11 years ago, Bill and I got connected with the leadership at Catholic Charities USA, who were providing feedback from their member agencies about frustrations regarding how they articulate the impact of their work. How do they demonstrate to funders the effectiveness of their programs? That started a conversation where we talked about the researchers who are interested in addressing these same questions.

I think the realization we had from those conversations was that there was a market failure, and there are providers across the country who want to understand the impact of their work. Researchers at universities are really interested in these questions, but these two groups aren’t coming together to address them. That was the original impetus for LEO: to address that market failure and bring these two groups together.

Q: Why is the evaluation of outcomes so important in looking at these different nonprofits? Why is it important to know what works and what doesn’t?

Reynolds: My part of the story is that I started on the provider side. I’m a social worker by training, and I spent 17 years at Catholic Charities Fort Worth — the last 13 leading the organization.

I think I should just give you an example of why this sort of evaluation is so important, which is really causal evidence building. Many nonprofits, such as Catholic Charities Fort Worth, run a financial literacy program where local thinkers and investment experts come in and teach clients about financial literacy. We also had programs to get people jobs, and similar support. We tracked impact as a measurement of output.

How many people attended our financial literacy classes? How many people came through our job training programs? That is very common in the nonprofit space. Taking it a step further, a lot of organizations will then say things like, “Okay, our goal was to teach people to be more financially literate. Our goal was to help get people jobs. Well, what happened?”

We might say, “Oh, we got all these people jobs,” which is another measure of an outcome of impact. We might look at how many of them still have their job six months later, and then other pointed measurements.

The difference between that and what LEO does is that LEO offers an opportunity for us to capitalize on the sad fact that most nonprofits have more people to help than there are resources to help them. LEO can help that nonprofit fairly allocate resources where some people get the service, and some people don’t because of limited capabilities slots. Then, we study what happens to both groups. Instead of just saying, “Oh, we got this many people jobs, and they kept their jobs for this number of months,” we’re able to have two groups of people who look the same, but some got the help of the nonprofit and some did not.

What that allows us to do is know precisely whether that service is what was effective. Because oftentimes, going back to my Catholic Charities example, we might show great employment outcomes, but that’s because the Omni Hotel just opened up in Fort Worth, Texas, and hired 50 of our clients, something both the groups of those we helped and those we did not help would benefit from. Being able to do causal evidence building instead allows us a more precise way of identifying whether an intervention has the outcome we intended for it to have.

Q: Based on your experience and research, what are some of the top attributes of nonprofits that operate well in this space? What have you found?

Reynolds: There are a couple of things we’ve observed that have been key. One is that leadership really matters. We have found that a lot of the leaders we work with are concerned with understanding their impact. The pain of doing research is worse than the pain of not knowing why they got into this work in the first place, which is to make a difference and to really understand that level of impact.

We spend a lot of time working with organizations that have a level of innovative services they have developed. That can be anything from a small entrepreneur in Nashville, Tennessee, to a large multi-service organization in Chicago. The size of an organization is not as important as its leadership, the innovation of programming, and the desire to find real solutions that will drive forward change in the social service sector.

If we have the right partner, then we need to find the right project with that partner. That involves looking for organizations that have a very well-defined program or service to be studied, and clear outcomes of what they want to see happen. Then the organization will have an excess demand for services and a willingness to conduct this level of a randomized control trial.

Those are the typical things we look for in a partner and a project. We continue to be wowed, again and again, by our partners who are uber committed to understanding and unlocking the potential of what they do by building evidence alongside it.

Q: Can you think of one or two compelling stories of what nonprofits are doing with that sort of research?

Sullivan: One of the strongest predictors of spending a majority of your life in poverty is not to graduate high school. A startling realization we had here when we talked with some nonprofits is that after you reach a certain age, you can no longer get a high school degree.

There are state laws which prevent accreditation for high school degrees after you age out. You can get a GED, but there’s a lot of research that shows pretty convincingly that a GED is not the same. It doesn’t lead to more stable employment or higher earnings in the way a high school diploma does.

We have been working with a partner at the Excel Centers that is basically running a high school program and accreditation for older adults in states where this is possible. We partnered with them to measure the impact of the program, since these tend to be vulnerable individuals who have unstable employment or a criminal justice record. Excel Centers provide childcare and other case management support alongside the high school program.

We measured the program’s impact over the long term on factors, like the earnings and employment of graduates, and showed that it increased earnings by nearly 40%. Excel Centers then used this data to convince other states to invest in the program and allow for changes in the laws that will allow accreditation of high school degrees for adults.

Q: For both of you personally, what motivates you in the work you’re doing?

Sullivan: I’m an economist, and I got into this business because I thought the tools that economists use, particularly the data that they use and the models, provide the best hope for improving the way policymakers and leaders make decisions. In particular, I thought that with an understanding of economics, we could help policymakers and providers have a bigger impact on improving the lives of the disadvantaged.

I feel like we’re just getting started and the potential is much greater than I had ever imagined.

Reynolds: I’m committed to this work because when you start your social work career, you’re really excited about the industry. Then you work to change lives, and then even the industry itself, and it’s really rough.

You’re hamstrung a lot because so many of your dollars are expected to go to service, which in theory, is a great idea. But that really doesn’t leave a lot of room for what is typical in every other industry: research and development dollars, and dollars put toward innovation and trying new things.

Shortly after I became CEO of Catholic Charities, I read an article in our local newspaper about a homeless services CEO who was retiring. He had served in that role for over two decades, but he was quoted in the newspaper as saying he believed that the homeless in Fort Worth were no better off on the day he retired than on the day he began.

I remember thinking that was the saddest thing I could ever hear: that you dedicate your whole career to making things better, and you don’t really feel like they are. That became a rallying cry, both when I was at Catholic Charities, but personally through my career. We’re called to make the world better. I began to know what made a difference based on our partnership with LEO.

Q: If money were no object for your organization, what would you envision for that future?

Reynolds: We would double the number of projects we’re running. Second, we would be taking findings from one place and replicate that in five other communities across the country. We’d be testing whether it just worked in that one site, or whether it scales at several other places.

Sullivan: Ultimately, we want to have a broad impact. Evidence presents an opportunity to do that, but not if the results get buried. You really need to have a mechanism to take this evidence and inform providers and funders all across the country.

Reynolds: One beautiful example is the Dave Thomas Foundation. It focuses on foster care and adoption. They were giving out resources to help organizations place hard-to-place children for adoption, older children in particular. But then what they ended up doing is starting a program.

They ran a randomized control trial with the program and they found that it worked. Then, because of that, instead of just giving money to a variety of organizations across the nation, they gave money to say, “Who wants to do this program? Because this is what the evidence says works.”

Now, the Dave Thomas Foundation is making a huge difference in finding adoptive homes for hard-to-place kids.

The post How the Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities is “Working Smarter” to Take on Poverty appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

As housing prices across the country continue to rise and tent cities line the coasts, policy makers, nonprofit and philanthropic leaders are seeking solutions to homelessness in our country. Last week, a slew of Seattle-based corporations and philanthropists, including Amazon, Starbucks and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, announced a $10 million plan to decrease homelessness in that city. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom pledged more than $116 million for seven projects that will provide housing across the state. 

Data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development show that the rate of homelessness increased 2.2% between 2019 and 2020. Consequently, in 2020, 18 Americans in every 10,000, over 550,000 people total, were homeless.  Those numbers are only rising.

The greatest predictors and contributing factors of homelessness include gender, race and ethnicity. Men are at a far greater risk of becoming homeless, as are Blacks, Hispanics and individuals (as opposed to families). Higher rates of homelessness are directly connected with income disparities, unemployment rates, healthcare access and incarceration rates. To exasperate this further is the reality that the median home price has risen 30% over the last 10 years while incomes have risen just 11% over the same period.

But homelessness is not just a statistic – it represents complex, nuanced individuals who have dignity and purpose.  One organization working to tackle this issue and provide relief to those in need is City Relief, where thousands of volunteers serve over 30,000 homeless individuals in urban centers, primarily in New York City and New Jersey. Josiah Haken, chief executive officer of City Relief, says the need goes far beyond housing.

“With mental health services interrupted throughout the pandemic, many in the homeless community have had loss of contact with their psychiatrist or have had their medication routine disrupted, causing increased mental health incidents and violence,” Haken explained. 

“Compounding this reality, many in the homeless community have lost friends and loved ones and are experiencing grief, loss and depression. The collective anxiety temperature has been dialed up across our society, especially in the homeless community,” he added. 

Yet as City Relief and others work to confront this crisis, a debate is raging on how best to serve the homeless, with two competing policies: Housing First and Treatment First. In a recent report, Chris Rufo, former visiting fellow for domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, says proponents of Housing First policies say permanent housing to the homeless should be prioritized with no requirement for sobriety or participation in addiction and mental health services. Meanwhile, proponents of Treatment First policies argue we must address addiction and mental illness, creating a series of incentives to move the homeless into treatment programs then into more stable housing. Rufo and others believe Treatment First options more successfully address the human dimensions of homelessness – highlighting that those who are homeless are nuanced and complex individuals, and therefore, efforts to serve them must address this complexity.

Haken says providing only housing is too simplistic an approach to the myriad challenges contributing to homelessness. 

“Though it certainly is a key part of the continuum of care for those who are homeless, providing housing alone is not a silver bullet,” he said, adding, “Each individual who is homeless is unique and therefore our care for them must be highly tailored, providing relationship and connection.” 

City Relief’s approach focuses on serving those who are homeless in a way that dignifies their humanity. The organization’s outreach buses provide outreach “block parties” where those in crises can access hot meals, hygiene kits, socks and more. The nonprofit, which partners with over 250 organizations to serve tens of thousands of people, seeks to connect guests to specific shelters, job programs, detox or rehab, depending on their individualized needs. Founded by Dallas-based entrepreneur Richard Galloway in the 1980s, City Relief provides those struggling with homelessness and extreme poverty with the help, hope and resources to live a transformed life. 

The faith-based organization, which engages more than 6,000 volunteers each year, provides programs through a three-step process that recognizes each person deserves dignity and respect: 

• Step One – Compassion: Staff and volunteers serve hot meals, distribute hygiene kits and items like socks and pray for those in need at outreach pop-up care centers.
• Step Two – Connection: City Relief connects guests to resources that will help them find a better tomorrow through Life Care Visits, one-on-one meetings that provide hope and resources through individualized action plans. Attendees listen, encourage and pray with those who are struggling — and connect them to emergency shelter, jobs programs and detox or drug rehabilitation services.
• Step Three – Community: Guests work with City Relief’s Follow Up Care Team, which also provides introductions to community partners, nonprofit agencies and government programs. The Follow Up Team provides a range of services from assisting with paperwork to attending meetings to advocate on the guest’s behalf.

In response to the growing and evolving needs of those who are homeless, City Relief has expanded its programs and increased its holistic services – and has more than doubled its total budget in the past three years to meet the rising overall demand. 

According to the Legatum Institute’s U.S. Prosperity Index, a comprehensive assessment of each state’s (and some counties’) economic, social and institutional well-being, New Jersey, where much of City Relief’s work is concentrated, is one of the highest ranked in offering a reasonable quality of life, including material resources, shelter, basic services and connection to others. The organization’s approach to elevating living conditions among those who are homeless could very well be a contributing factor in this ranking. 

If you are interested in helping to accelerate City Relief’s impact, please go to https://cityrelief.org/ or reach out to Philanthropy Roundtable Program Director Esther Larson.

The post City Relief: Humanizing the Homeless appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Rhiannon Menn, a mother of three living in San Diego, decided she wanted to do something to help her local community during the pandemic. As Menn witnessed many families struggling to provide the basics, including meals, this is where she decided to make her modest mark.

Menn made seven trays of lasagna and offered them on Facebook to families nearby. What happened next could be considered a miracle: the effort went viral. Menn calls it a happy “accident.” Just 18 months later, Lasagna Love, as it is now known, boasts 33,000 volunteers, has baked over 100,000 lasagnas, operates in every state in the U.S. and recently launched operations in Canada and Australia.

“It just goes to show there were so many people in the beginning who really, really wanted to help their neighbors and didn’t know how to do it and didn’t know how to do it safely,” Menn said in an interview with The Associated Press. “And they saw this and latched onto Lasagna Love as an opportunity to really impact their communities in a meaningful way.”

If there is a silver lining in the COVID-19 cloud, this is it. Ordinary Americans are stepping up to help others even as they endure their own challenges. In fact, American generosity hit a new high in 2020 with charitable giving reaching a record $471 billion, according to Giving USA.

Of course, this does not begin to account for the amount of time people gave in addition to treasure. One example The Associated Press cited is Lasagna Love volunteer Lynne Hirsch, who drove 70 miles to deliver 20 trays of gooey pasta-goodness to residents of Chatsworth and Dalton, Georgia, who had no access to volunteer chefs in those areas.

Despite the efforts of volunteer organizations like Lasagna Love though, hunger persists. While the organization has brought in $2 million in in-kind donations since it registered as a nonprofit organization in September 2020, and over $200,000 in cash contributions, according to The Associated Press, there are more food requests than available chefs in both rural and densely populated metro areas. Menn identified Houston and Las Vegas as specific places of need. For those who want to help close the gap in these cities and elsewhere, click to volunteer here.

Still, volunteer shortage notwithstanding, the organization continues to have an outsized impact. On August 24, Lasagna Love announced it had broken its record for deliveries in a single week, with some 6,000 lasagnas delivered to places like the Willow Veterans Housing Community in California, a nonprofit in Indiana that helps needy women and children, and fire stations and homeless shelters in Virginia. These are only a fraction of the 428,000 people served since the organization’s founding.

While it is true COVID-19 prompted the launch of Lasagna Love, Menn promises the organization and its work will continue when the pandemic subsides.

“Even as we emerge from the pandemic, acts of kindness will forever be a welcome sight,” said Menn in a recent post on the organization’s website. “We envision an ongoing need not only to feed families but spread kindness during a time when uncertainty about many things remains high. One small act of comfort can change a mindset.”

The Philanthropy Roundtable believes communities are strengthened by such acts of comfort, with one person or group addressing the needs of others through private, voluntary action and inspiring those in their communities to follow suit … a core tenet of the American philanthropic tradition. In this case, that means spreading love – and a whole lot of lasagna – to hungry people in various corners of the globe.

Per the Lasagna Love website: “Lasagna Love is a nationwide grassroots movement that aims to positively impact communities by connecting neighbors with neighbors through homemade meal delivery. We also seek to eliminate stigmas associated with asking for help—especially from moms— when it is needed most.” Click here for more information.

The post Seven Trays of Lasagna That Changed the World appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Below are excerpts from The Economist article titled “The Woking Class: American Philanthropy Turns Left”:

Charitable giving was expected to be walloped by the pandemic. The opposite happened. Fidelity Charitable, America’s largest administrator of grants on behalf of donors, handed out $9.1bn last year, up from $7.3bn in 2019. A study in 2020 of more than 250 American foundations showed that a majority were increasing grants for the year, by an average of 17%.

Amid this welcome rise, philanthropy is veering left. In July the MacArthur Foundation said that it would give $80m to “combat anti-Blackness, uplift Indigenous Peoples” and otherwise advance “ethnic justice”, including through reparations. In April the Ford Foundation announced $1bn in funding for social justice. The month before Goldman Sachs, a bank, trumpeted $100m in grants to curb bias against black women. The Mellon Foundation, traditionally a big arts and humanities supporter, announced last year a “major strategic evolution” to prioritise social justice. PolicyLink, an Oakland think-tank, tallies $1.5bn in grants awarded for racial equity in America last year: nearly half the total for the previous nine years.

Some outfits are more blunt. One is the Miami Foundation, which is partly funded by Facebook. Its strategy adviser, Charisse Grant, says applicants of colour are generally better at serving poor communities. If you choose whites, she says, “you’re not necessarily getting the best.” She sees growing political support for this view. The Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity, a publisher of grant-making guides based in Washington, dc, writes that mostly-white organisations should be subject to “far more rigorous” vetting than usual.

Such practices have boomed in the past two years. Most big foundations now require detailed reporting on ethnicity, says Debi Ghate of the Philanthropy Roundtable, a non-profit organisation in Washington, dc. She argues that the newfound focus on group identity can divert attention away from scrutinising the charity’s performance. Asking if diversity is always visible (as opposed to things that cannot be seen, like sexuality or religious orientation), she adds, is now “outside the guardrails…you will be called a racist.” The Philanthropy Roundtable, she says, is regularly contacted by charity professionals who say they lost their jobs “because I don’t fit the checklist”.

Where is this heading? Naomi Schaefer Riley, a philanthropy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank, reckons nowhere good. Ms Ghate gives the example of a charity doing work with ex-prisoners. Though the white woman running the charity, who had herself been to prison, was producing results, the charity’s funder shifted funding to other organisations led by people of colour. “This is no longer about the community: it’s a new issue of what the leadership looks like,” she says.

Please continue reading “American Philanthropy Turns Left” in The Economist (paywalled).

The post Philanthropy Roundtable’s Debi Ghate Featured in The Economist appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.