Submitted by MillennialNightmare t3_zlqrdv in nyc
Comments
bsanchey t1_j06uqv5 wrote
The simplest solution is often the best and the cheapest. But NYCs non profit industrial complex needs its slice of money with no incentive to solve the issues.
PiffityPoffity t1_j06wnku wrote
This program is operated by Breaking Ground, a nonprofit.
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_j06x81u wrote
Well can’t expect people to actually be informed. They just need to say “activists and non profits” are to blame so they can go about their day.
bsanchey t1_j072f2s wrote
Here a link to the millionaire nonprofit ceo but I’m the uninformed one one right jackass?
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_j074cse wrote
Okay? Yes breaking ground takes outlandish salary for their top staff. How is that somehow a gotcha? You think if he took a lower salary this would all be solved?
MillennialNightmare OP t1_j07llak wrote
That link isn’t even about Breaking Ground to begin with.
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_j07ncjw wrote
Yeah they do though. Executive staff there all 400k+. Again doesn’t change anything about the conversation, but they are critiqued often for high salaries.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j0855rx wrote
If they are going to provide housing plus services, their salaries need to be competitive.
Something in between a corporate job at a big landlord company and a hospital management salary.
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_j085ekb wrote
I agree for the folks doing the direct clinical work. And not even hating on the high salaries for all the executive either. It’s just many folks point to the high pay of some of their staff as problematic. Again in the grand scheme of things I don’t think it’s a big deal at all
NetQuarterLatte t1_j06v5im wrote
>Mr. Hughes has criticized supportive housing providers for “creaming,” or selectively screening applicants who require the least services, leaving many others to restart the arduous review process. The selection criteria can also vary from one unit to another, further creating a bottleneck.
The devils are in the details.
Without a standard and transparent criteria with a controlled and randomized selection, it makes it impossible to extrapolate the nicer looking "success rate" (98%) of the model to the general homeless population (who may never qualify to the opaque screening criteria applied here)
strangedigital t1_j076o9w wrote
That is not a negative if stated clearly. They help those who can be helped the easiest at a low cost is a good thing. Rest of the system can be less crowded. As long this is not pitched as the only solution.
Angrychihuahuaroar t1_j07kehh wrote
I worked in supportive housing. Generally, tenants are selected based on the type of services we can provide on site. Not all housing sites can offer all of the same services for different reasons. For example, a site with nursing staff and a medication monitoring program is going to take people with complex medical or psych needs (or both) while a site that doesn’t have either probably isn’t going to because services that the client actually needs aren’t available.
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_j06xdhn wrote
More housing everywhere is always a part of the solution. Something this sub seems to understand for every population except for the homeless.
spoil_of_the_cities t1_j07cr4u wrote
So we're used to developments where the affordable housing units are mixed with normal units, here seems like they're mixing homeless shelter units with affordable housing units.
Seems good if they properly select the residents, but not gonna do anything for people who won't go to the shelter
Do these places allow drugs?
MillennialNightmare OP t1_j07lprj wrote
Supportive housing developments are not homeless shelters.
spoil_of_the_cities t1_j07nn8f wrote
Having a hard time figuring out these fine distinctions between places the city sends homeless people. Certainly apartment-style shelters have existed a long time, family shelters and safe havens. I guess the difference here is the nonprofit makes its money by taking 30% of the resident's SS/disability/welfare check rather than by charging the city?
ammar825 t1_j08er5u wrote
There’s a lot of things that are difficult to do when you’re at a shelter because it isn’t a permanent residence. You aren’t allowed to stay forever. Having a lease in your name isn’t just a technical difference, it can be a requirement for a lot of things like training programs, credit cards, etc.
And the city contracts many of its supportive services to non-profits; they’ve been doing it longer and know the communities better.
Darrackodrama t1_j07u1vu wrote
More barriers to entry and selection of tenants just like an apartment building, whereas homeless shelters operate under specific mandates, they have more latitude to build healthier communities and exclude problematic tenants
MillennialNightmare OP t1_j082nyz wrote
Shelters are temporary, holdover solutions until a person can be housed. Permanent supportive housing is the permanent, end goal solution.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j0dxz6g wrote
>Do these places allow drugs?
That's a crucial question.
In SF, the permanent supportive housing program has an overdose death rate more than 16x compared to the general population (they house less than 1% of the pop, but has more than 16% of overdose deaths), but SF pols have been trying to sweep those concern aside for political reasons...
Firm_Parsley_8251 t1_j09nfxd wrote
Wow how poor do you gotta be? Ima quit my job and smoke some weed and get on dat'
DryGumby t1_j09upkv wrote
Yeah, the poors got it made
MillennialNightmare OP t1_j06m89t wrote
>In essence, supportive housing is rent-stabilized, affordable housing, with voluntary, on-site services designed for formerly homeless tenants. Proponents of the model believe residents should be persuaded, not forced, to accept social services.
>“This is not an institution,” said Brenda Rosen, the president and chief executive of Breaking Ground, the developer of 90 Sands. “This is an apartment building with a lease and a key.”
>There are several public agencies involved in supportive housing and units can have different criteria, but qualified applicants generally have serious mental illness, substance abuse issues or both. Even so, supportive housing is less expensive than operating temporary shelters, said Eric Rosenbaum, the president and chief executive of Project Renewal, a homeless services group. It cost Project Renewal almost $52,000 last year to keep a single adult in a shelter, but only about $26,000 for an individual in supportive housing, he said.
> Over 98 percent of the nonprofit’s supportive housing tenants were still living in their apartment after one year, Ms. Rosen said. And at two of their older supportive housing projects — former hotels in Manhattan converted in the 1990s — the average length of tenancy is over 12 years.