Things Will Go Wrong
[serialposts]
PART TEN: Things Will Go Wrong
This is the last installment in our 10-part blog series on essential elements of successful housing programs. We’d love to hear from you about your thoughts on the series or any other topics you’d like to see in a future blog. idejong@orgcode.com
I have never seen a perfect housing program. Have you? I’ve seen some darn good ones, but never a perfect one.
I don’t even know how we’d absolutely measure perfection given there are so many variables. When I think about simple, complicated, complex and chaotic systems, I think primarily about the work of Ralph Stacey and Brenda Zimmerman. I think housing programs are complicated – akin to sending someone to the moon. It isn’t impossible, but you need the right people do the right things to get there, and get back. However, the experience of homelessness is a complex one – there are too many variables that are outside the control of the housing program, from conflicting policy to individual autonomy and how people respond and react to various situations. Zimmerman uses the analogy of raising a child – you can do all of the things that you think are the best things you can do as a parent, yet your child will be subject to other actors in their life that can also have an influence.
It seems that the two measurements people are most drawn to are retention rates over time (whether the clients stay housed – even if it is at a different address) and whether the quality of life of people improves as a result of the housing programs and its supports. Seems a lot of programs do the former – albeit often not with longitudinal follow up (which I would argue is a shortcoming). Not nearly enough organizations do the latter – and I would hope that more organizations do.
In the previous nine installments of this blog series I’ve talked in great detail about things you can do to make your housing program better. It has been based upon research, visiting loads of housing programs, evaluating housing programs, interviewing clients and staff, and my own experience as a researcher and practitioner.
What I know to be true is that stuff will go wrong. Whether stuff goes wrong is not a black eye for your housing program. How you address things when they go wrong is what counts, as does demonstrated efforts to be proactive and trying to prevent certain things from happening.
The things I have encountered that have most frequently gone wrong are:
Guests/partying
Rent payments
Damages
Pests
Pets
Hoarding/Excessive Collecting
Conflict with neighbors
Boundary issues
Operating the housing program like a crisis service
Training and innovation can help address these issues on an ongoing basis. Some of my ideas and observations on each are as follows:
Guests/partying – this happens most frequently in the Formative Phase of being housed. I encourage organizations to have the “What does it mean to you to be a responsible tenant?” discussion with their clients at least three times – when they are expressing interest in your housing program, when you are searching for the place to live, and during the first month of their tenancy. Lecturing your clients about rules isn’t going to be nearly as effective as them coming to the conclusion on their own that maybe having 12 people over in the middle of the night with the stereo blaring is not a good idea.
Rent payments – the best ways I have found to address this are through third party payment of rent directly to the landlord from income assistance or the place of employment, coupled with each housing worker checking with each one of their landlords by the fifth business day of the month to make sure they each received all their rent from all of housing program clients on time and in full.
Damages – the more you allow for choice in where to live (rather than placements), the more you allow for choice in furnishings and belongings for the unit (rather than pre-furnished) and the more you undertake home visits, the less likely there is going to be damage and/or when there is minor damage it is addressed before it becomes an ongoing or larger issue. Avoiding damage can also be part of what you want to hear clients talk about in the “responsible tenant” discussion.
Pests – bed bugs, mice, rats, cockroaches, etc happen. Rarely is the proliferation of these pests a direct result of your clients, though they may get blamed. When pests are detected, I encourage you to work with the client to notify the landlord and see how the landlord implements their pest control/eradication strategy. (You can read an article I co-authored with Stephen Hwang, Tomislav Svoboda, Karl Kabasele and Evie Gogosis on bed bugs in urban environments for the Center for Disease Control’s Emerging Infectious Disease publication.)
Pets – if the lease restricts pets or the number of pets and/or there are local laws that prohibit a certain number of pets within a residence, then I recommend specifically drawing these things to the attention of the client prior to move-in. You may not even know if they are a pet lover or not, but better to address this in advance than later. As much as I am a fan of pets, I hate to see people have to choose between their animal and becoming evicted. Bring proactive matters on this front.
Hoarding/Excessive Collecting – the portrayal of hoarding on TV shows seems so different from the experience I have had with clients who are hoarders, but I digress. The best defense there is to help counteract hoarding is the fact that there are regular home visits as part of the housing program. Yes, there will be times when the housing unit can be filled between visits, but this is rare and exceptional, not the norm. Seeing a mass of stuff start to grow when present at home visits allows for early detection, probing questions about the impact the client thinks it may have on their tenancy and if necessary, can allow for a connection to be made to a community-based expert in the matter before it gets out of control.
Conflict with Neighbors – rarely does anyone choose their neighbors. Sometimes we get lucky and our neighbors are people we like and form real friendships with; other times we are cordial, polite and tolerate their existence; other times still there is friction and conflict. I think it is good for clients to be encouraged to ask the landlord when they are looking at the place what the other residents are like. I think it is good for clients after they move in to introduce themselves to people living around them (as in “Hi, I’m Iain and I just moved in next door.” – not, “Hi, I’m Iain and I am formerly homeless and my support worker just helped me find the place next to yours.”) I also think that in some instances time on the part of the support worker will be spent modeling various types of social behavior. I remain hopeful that most clients, perhaps with some coaching, can address conflicts with their neighbors on their own, but I appreciate sometimes a mediator/facilitator will be necessary. Let us also not forget that sometimes it is the behavior of the client we are supporting that is the cause of the conflict. This is one of the reasons why I advocate for checking in with landlords/superintendents when the case manager does a home visit.
Boundaries – while I wish I didn’t have to write this as a common issue, I would be remiss not to bring it up given the unfortunate frequency with which it occurs. Our clients are not our friends. We have a professional relationship with them and nothing more. Do not hug them, kiss them, have sex with them, invite them to babysit your kids, ask them to build you a deck, hire them to clean out your gutters, invite them to rent the apartment in your basement, loan them your car, buy or accept gifts of value from them, befriend them on Facebook, have them over for Christmas dinner, ask them to house-sit for you, etc, etc, etc. It is perplexing to me that these types of relationships not only happen, but the frequency with which it happens. I think we need to create outlets for case managers to safely reveal when they think they may be about to cross a line prior to it occurring.
Operating the Housing Program Like a Crisis Service – your housing program is not a crisis service. (Repeat that again in your head or out loud if necessary – it is very important.) Too often I have seen service planning with clients get completely derailed because the case managers drop everything to deal with crisis after crisis. More often than not they soon find themselves never visiting some clients who are not in crisis, and spending a great deal of time with a smaller number of clients – many of whom will act like they are in crisis but are not really in a crisis state at all. I know a lot of staff that have been in this position that also soon feel that they are not really making any progress with casino their caseload and online casino are more susceptible to burnout and frustrations with their job. One of the ways we can help our clients understand our role is to complete a Crisis Plan with them soon after they have been housed. We also have the ability to help them understand the role of the case manager through the Objective Based Home Visit approach, discussed in an earlier blog in this series.
I hope you operate the best housing program you possibly can and that the blog series has been helpful to your professional practice. I encourage you to chat up the problems most frequently experienced within your team and/or across other housing teams in your community. Coming up with proactive strategies and solutions is a shared responsibility for our professional programs to get better and better.
[serialposts]
Iain De Jong welcomes your feedback and input on the blog series idejong@orgcode.com
Planning for Success throughout Phases of Housing Stability
[serialposts]
Part Nine: Planning for Success throughout Phases of Housing Stability
My pal (and Founding Partner of OrgCode), Dr. John Whitesell, has reinforced in me over the past dozen years the usefulness of the Sigmoid Curve to represent change, growth and development within people and organizations. He has also ingrained in me the ability to chunk the S-Curve into three main phases: Formative; Normative; and, Integrative.
While appreciating that everyone experiences housing support services somewhat differently, John and I meticulously went about trying to typologize various client characteristics in program phases relative to the S-Curve. Upon review of a whack of case files, interviews with staff in some highly successful housing programs, interviews with dozens of clients, mining of various data sets and reflecting on my own experience in creating and leading a rather successful housing program, we arrived at the following broad-stroke phases as experienced by the client, and as supported by the case manager:
The key is to use the understanding of stages of change and objective-based home visits to assist clients in moving through the program stages.
You may also have noticed reference to things like the Crisis Plan and the Exit Plan, as well as Risk Assessment. If you want copies of any of these sorts of documents, drop me a note atidejong@orgcode.com
And there are, of course, other tools and techniques that you can put into place through each phase of the program to help track progress and work on increased success. Some of my favorites (click on any of them if you want more information from the source documents) include:
If we plan for success, have a sense of what to expect along the journey of housing and life stability, support appropriately without coercion or misguided expectations, use tools & strategies to increase the likelihood of success and remain focused on the major outcome of helping people achieve greater independence over time, more success will be had.
[serialposts]
Iain De Jong has considerable experience helping organizations better understand how to support clients in moving from one phase to the other, and thinking about resource allocation and time management of staff in supporting clients in each of the phases. Feel free to drop him a line or ask questions idejong@orgcode.com
Professional Works Gets Professional Results
[serialposts]
PART EIGHT: Professional Works Gets Professional Results
Successful housing programs have a professional orientation. Well-trained staff deliver the housing program. Successful housing programs tend not to be those operated in a charity context where “well intentioned” is sufficient to get the job done. There is too much at stake, and generally too much complexity for a layperson without training to help a client achieve long-term sustainability.
I am not anti-charity. There is a time and place for it. And in fact it is often charitable organizations that hire the professional staff to deliver the housing program. The mistake, however, is when untrained staff are directly involved in client interactions. Truth is, it can do more harm than good.
With the properly trained staff, housing programs get better outcomes. Here are some of the essential ingredients for ensuring your housing program is provided by professionals who get professional results.
Start with the Right Job Description
I love to take a poll when I do training about whether the job people are in with their organization is exactly how it sounded on paper when they applied. My non-scientific polling results would suggest that between 90-100% of people in any given audience say the job is different than how it looked in the job description.
I encourage organizations to pull together professionally polished and accurate job descriptions for their housing staff team. (You can learn more about the staff compliment for a successful housing team here.) Be clear on the qualifications that you want. Talk about the caseload size and what you expect to be done. Use data to describe the population base that will be served and the outputs and outcomes expected. Don’t sugarcoat the experience, because it is hard, hard work.
Knowledge Base
There are certain fundamentals that I would expect a candidate to have knowledge of prior to joining a high-functioning housing program. These would include the following:
Homelessness – history, context, local condition, causes, solutions, etc.
Poverty – economic, social, relational, causes, solutions, etc.
Health services – availability, access, major health conditions affecting persons who are homeless, etc.
Mental health services – availability, access, major mental health conditions prevalent amongst homeless populations, etc.
Addictions – cause of addictions, impact on behavior, responses to addiction (from prevention through to harm reduction), etc.
Housing – availability, cost, subsidies available, rental process, working with landlords, etc.
Income supports & benefits – application process, amount available, eligibility, budgeting on low income, etc.
Justice and Corrections – links between homelessness and conflict with the law, post-incarceration housing, discharge planning, etc.
Domestic violence – links between homeless and domestic violence, safe housing approaches, linking victim to appropriate therapeutic resources, housing abusers, etc.
Children’s services (if working with families) – requirements of families, impact of household composition and housing needs, supporting access to parenting resources, duty to report, etc.
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders – impact of FASD on decision-making and planning and behavior, linking to FAS resources, etc.
Brain injuries – working effectively with persons who have brain injuries and the impact brain injuries can have on decision-making, planning and behavior, etc.
Treatment protocols – understanding what treatment protocols are, how to work with medical staff, housing workers role in supporting treatment protocols, etc.
Medication management – awareness of medications common to the health and mental health issues common amongst the population and the impact of the medications, medication access and storage, etc.
Trauma – defining trauma, trauma informed service delivery, etc.
Gender – understanding gender as self-defined, gender lens to service delivery, etc.
Hoarding – detection, causes, effective strategies to organize possessions, etc.
Life changes – working through the life cycle and changes in household composition, etc.
Partying – causes of partying behavior, strategies to affect change so as to not negatively impact other tenants, etc.
Stages of Change – from pre-contemplation through to relapse, candidates should be able to rhyme off all of the stages of change, the genesis of the concept, how it applies to housing support work, etc.
Fundamentals of Case Management – understanding the history and core concepts of case management practices, client-centered and strength-based approaches to case management service delivery, documented service planning, etc.
As part of the housing team, while I would expect staff to have some understanding and technical proficiency in the areas outlined below, more exposure to how the organization delivers these skills in the context of the housing program can be necessary:
Brokering – comprehension of the difference between direct delivery of services compared to brokering access to services for clients, etc.
Advocacy – understanding when and how it is appropriate to advocate for a client, and the impacts of advocacy on the overall program, etc.
Goal setting – how to work with clients for them to establish clear, measurable goals to work on relative to housing and life stability, etc.
Documentation – when, where and how to document client interactions, how to store the information securely, who has access to documentation under what circumstances, etc.
Individuals Service Planning/Case planning – process of establishing specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timed elements of a plan that will improve housing and life stability, etc.
Case conferencing – structure of pulling together other professionals and supports involved in the client’s case plan – as well as the client themselves – and the frequency, purpose and intent of doing so, etc.
Risk assessment – how the worker/organization works with the client to understand the people, processes or technology that may be necessary to ensure that the client does not negatively impact the community or worker or vice versa
Incident reporting – the documented process and information sharing protocol for when incidents occur involving clients, etc.
Harm to self or others – understanding the signs and assessments completed when a client may pose a risk to themselves or others, etc.
Conflict de-escalation and debriefing – understanding the strategies and techniques used to de-escalate conflict and how conflict is debriefed and learned from in the relationship with the client and across the staff team, etc.
Cultural awareness, competency and sensitivity – an appreciation of the ways in which culture informs how clients engage in supports, set goals, deal with conflict, socialize, etc.
From a health & safety and legal perspective I always encourage organizations to provide very clear evidence that each member of the staff team has demonstrated mastery in the following:
Community worker safety strategies – that each member of the staff team has been trained on how to increase their safety when working alone in the community; that there are adequate supervisory check-ins and awareness across the staff team of where people are at all times; and that each member of the staff team in each situation that they are in are cognizant of how to recognize potential risks and strategies to address those risks; etc.
First Aid and CPR – that each member of the staff team has current certification in the application of First Aid and CPR
Universal precautions – that each staff person knows how to use safety equipment as necessary when confronted with possible exposure to bodily fluids, and how to address risk factors appropriately
Relevant legislation – that the relevant legislation to the work has been identified and that each staff member is provided opportunities to stay current in the requirements of the legislation and associated regulations
Privacy and Confidentiality – that each staff member understands how information is collected, consents, storage of information, use of information and the proper procedures in the event that a third party (including police) request information or in the event that there is a privacy breach.
As a strong believer in evidence-based and evidence-informed practices, as part of a training plan, I would work towards ensuring professional excellence in the following at a minimum:
Motivational interviewing
Active listening
Wellness Recovery Action Plans
Assertive engagement
Integrated Dual Disorder Treatment
Supported Employment
Illness Management Recovery
Training
Professional people stay up to date in the main currents of thought and practice in their field. Training is one of the core ways of achieving this. While I appreciate it is not always practical, I do advocate that housing programs train as a team to ensure consistency throughout all of the staff.
High functioning housing programs have a training agenda set out a year in advance. There is a natural sequence to what people are expected to experience training at. When I help organizations set out their training agenda for the year, I also ensure that each one of the trainers is properly vetted and is aligned ideologically, strategically and operationally with what the organization is trying to achieve.
When helping to assemble a roster of trainers (outside of the training I deliver myself) I also look for trainers that understand adult learning strategies, are animated in their delivery and get trainees excited about learning. There should be well thought out content and take-aways for attendees.
Building consistency can also mean the use of highly skilled trainers on an ongoing professional development basis. Yes, it decreases diversity of messaging, but you can increase the quality of the training, relationship development with staff, trust building between trainee and trainer, and improve accountability for content delivery and improved professional practice based upon the content.
Given limited budgets, also approach the trainer in advance to see if you can tape them (audio or video). Some will allow it for free or a small fee on condition that you do not distribute it outside of your staff team.
In this day and age, not all training has to happen in person, and not all training has to take a half day, full day or multiple days. You may want to look for trainers that offer webinars through the likes of Go To Meeting or Go To Training or similar platforms, have podcasts, provide video materials, etc. This can make it a lot easier for scheduling and can also cut down on costs. I wouldn’t say exclusively to go this route, but it can and should be part of your overall approach.
Demonstrated Competencies
The demonstrated competencies pertain to both the application of the knowledge base outlined earlier in this blog, as well as how the staff team adheres to the service orientation necessary for effective service delivery.
Competencies are further demonstrated in how the staff member participates in the weekly case review and the objectives that they set out relative to the client’s identified needs, as well as the long term housing stability and improved quality of life achieved by the clients that they are serving. Team Leaders have to get out of the office – both in a scheduled and unscheduled manner – to support and work with their staff team to see core competencies in action.
Reflective Practitioners
As a professional practice, I expect the team members to be reflecting on how they are delivering their work, their training needs to improve practice and what their own internal data is telling them about their performance. There is a substantial difference between those housing teams that take the time out necessary to think and communicate about how and what they are doing and how to get better at their work, and those that just show up each day. Deliberate time is needed on a regular basis to think about practice and improvements. It is something that needs to happen throughout the staff team – not just at the supervisory/management level.
When I deliver Team Leader training one of the things that I spend a good chunk of time on is trying to teach the skills necessary to have staff teams becoming more reflective on their practice. This includes things like having other organizations speak with your clients and provide feedback on your service delivery (if you just asked your clients yourself they are more inclined to tell you that you are awesome than having a neutral party ask), how to encourage creative thinking and problem solving, to how to focus during self assessment and reflection, and how and when to use internal data.
Compensated Appropriately
Professional programs require an investment of resources so that the staff members receive the remuneration appropriate for their skill set and outputs and outcomes expected of them. I can’t say what that scale is in this blog because there are significant regional variations based upon a number of factors.
In surveys we have done with various staff teams throughout the world the lack of appropriate compensation is usually in the top three negative issues for staff. It can lead to turnover or resentment amongst the staff team. Or organizations feel that they are merely training staff who then leave to better paying positions in mental health facilities, hospitals, government, school boards, etc.
More than once I have been part of processes where individual non-profits have been offered more money to bring the pay up within their organization to be on par with other organizations in the same city or to bring pay up across the entire city for housing programs only to have Boards of Directors decline because they feel it would upset their own internal pay grade. Frustrating to be sure for everyone involved. But in part, I would argue, is that more education is needed on why and how this work is professionally different than some other roles within the organization or community at large.
Ethics and Boundaries
I wish I didn’t have to write this section. In various cities, I have either encountered or been asked to help problem solve a number of these types of ethical and/or boundary issues. It ranges from clients being brought to the case manager’s home for dinner several times per week, to requiring clients to babysit the case manager’s children, to odd jobs around the case manager’s house, to case managers that hug their clients, to case managers that perform fellatio to help their clients relax prior to apartment viewings, to case managers that use sex as a reward for progress in the service plan, and even case managers that have married clients. You may be shaking your head right now. I hope you are disgusted and outraged. It happens far too often.
As professionals we need to hold ourselves to a strict moral code in our work. We need to understand and appreciate the power differential that exists, and that we are required to be stewards of impeccable service. We also need to have appropriate, non-punitive outlets for staff who begin to feel conflicted with their boundaries to safely speak with someone before they act out and cross the line.
Turning Work Off
Given the nature of the work, the professionals involved need to deliberately practice self-care. We need to support the professionals in the work to recover emotionally and mentally from all that is seen and encountered in the nature of the work. We need staff to be able to distinguish between their professional time and their personal time.
Some housing programs based upon the nature of the clientele may offer some type of rotating on-call support across the staff team. Sometimes this is appropriate, but not always. I most definitely do not support the suggestion that all housing case manager supports have to keep their work phone on all day and night if they are not compensated to be on-call. I do not support work emails or documentation occurring in the evening hours when people are supposed to be off of work and enjoying activities and relationships outside of work. People who do this type of work most definitely need a life outside of work. Otherwise burn-out, inappropriate choices, resentment, workaholism, etc. can set in and the staff team becomes dysfunctional and unable to appropriately support staff. Professionals know the importance of “turning work off” when the work day is done.
Accountability
When we engage in professional practice we adamantly believe that there is value to our contributions to the lives of others…that our approach and training and skills result in something different than if people were solely served in a charity model. We must be able to demonstrate that the professional approach to work gets outputs and outcomes that are not attributable to chance – that there is a cause and effect relationship to the interventions that we support and the changes experienced in housing and life stability as a result.
We are accountable to the requirements of our job. As professionals we do not try to perform tasks outside of our area of expertise. We know when and how to integrate clients with other professional resources.
As professionals we look to our clients to provide feedback on the things that are working well and where they would like to see improvements. We look to our peers doing the same type of work to collaborate and share successful elements of practice rather than creating a monopoly of knowledge or a competitive culture across organizations.
As professionals we do not fear evaluation – we embrace it. Whether that is bringing in an outsider to examine and review the entire program from top to bottom, or having a “soft audit” across program areas within the same organization, what we want to do is instill a culture where there is viewed as helpful instead of threatening.
Successful housing program delivery is professional work. We need to appreciate, support and insist on professionalism across all organizations and staff delivering housing programs. The results will be improved greatly across the housing program as a result.
[serialposts]
Iain De Jong has established, evaluated and trained dozens of housing teams in various jurisdictions around the world. Grounded in evidence, pragmatism and liberal use of wit and humor, Iain’s housing programs have demonstrated success in program excellence and meeting the needs of their intended client base. If you would like to know more about these specific activities or the training program specifically for Team Leaders, drop him a note at idejong@orgcode.com
Objective-Based Home Visits
[serialposts]
PART SEVEN: Objective-Based Home Visits
Successful housing programs require case managers/housing support workers to visit their clients in their homes. You can’t have a successful housing program by having clients only come to your office. You can’t do it over the phone or by text message or email. Home visits are absolutely critical.
A common mistake that case managers make is to show up at a client’s home and say, “How are you today?” This type of open-ended question takes the conversation and purpose of the visit off the rails from the start. Yes, I want case managers to care about the welfare of their clients. Yes, I believe in conventional niceties in society. But I have very specific reasons for wanting Objective-Based Home Visits to be structured differently.
During the weekly case review meeting (as discussed in an earlier blog in this series) I want each case manager to identify the three objectives that they have for their next home visit. Each of these three objectives must be related to goals and anticipated outcomes identified in the individualized service plan. Some of these objectives may also be related to facilitating change with the client that is being supported. The objectives selected week to week will be directly related to the amount of time that the case manager and client have set aside for the meeting, as well as where the client is at in their service plan journey.
A conversation when a case manager shows up to conduct a home visit may open up with something like, “Iain, good to see you today. As we talked about last time, we have 30 minutes for this visit and I want to make sure we talk about ways that you can go about remembering your keys when you leave the apartment, make an appointment with Dr. Smith about your back pain and discuss the Fall Fair this weekend, which I think you might have a lot of fun attending.”
What this does is set the agenda for the interaction in a conversational style. Sure, the client (in this fictitious case surprisingly named Iain and spelled identical to my name) will have the opportunity to bring up other matters as time allows. The close of the meeting should also bring with it the opportunity for the client to talk about how they are doing, and at least in broad-strokes for the case manager and client to agree on what the objectives are for the next visit, as well as the day and amount of time needed for the next meeting.
At times, shorter meetings with smaller objectives may be appropriate. For example, “Iain, good to see you today. As we talked about last time, we have 10 minutes together for this visit and I want to follow-up to see if you mailed the postcard to your mom that you were planning on sending, drop off some information on free recreation programs at the community center that you may want to think about going to, and schedule a time with you to go grocery shopping together on Friday.”
And, of course at other times there will be longer meetings with some larger objectives. For example, “Iain, good to see you today. As we talked about last time, I have set aside an hour for us to spend together today to help you plan for your upcoming supervised visit with your son, complete some forms to apply for the disability benefits that you wanted to try and get, and schedule a time for later in this week for us to go to the library.”
By no means mandatory, but I have found that for longer meetings it can be helpful to have some activities to do while having the discussion about the other items. Depending on specific client situations, it can be a great opportunity to teach and model other skills. For example, the case manager and client could do a load of dishes together or do some general tidying or water plants or make some meals that can be frozen while discussing the objectives for the visit. Just ideas – and it will depend on what is appropriate in each different client scenario – but it can be disarming for the client and create a natural discussion environment while also increasing the benefits of the longer interaction. Plus, it can make the time go by quicker for everyone involved.
There are other benefits to Objective Based Home Visits as well.
Objective Based Home Visits improve time management for both case managers and clients.
For the client, when they know in advance when the visit is going to occur and how much time is going to be required they can schedule it in amongst other activities that they may be engaged in. It is my experience that clients miss fewer home visits when they know not only when it is going to occur, but how long it is going to take. For the case manager, they can better schedule their days in advance on what is achievable. Maybe the case manager wants to group together visits in the same part of the city on the same day. Maybe the case manager functions well when, say Mondays and Fridays are spent with a series of quicker visits and Tuesdays, Wednesday and Thursdays are best used for more in-depth visits. With about 20 people on a caseload at various stages of moving towards greater independence, this time management piece alone can be the difference between burning out or staying balanced for a case manager.
Objective Based Home Visits increase accountability and make it easier to measure progress.
Because the objectives are set out in advance of the meeting with the client, and because they are recorded as part of the weekly case review meeting, it is a lot easier to track whether these objectives relative to the case plan goals and intended outcomes are being met. It helps ensure ongoing progress relative to change and support in the client’s life. This type of measurement and accountability also allows the client to more easily see and feel that they are making progress. It can also help Team Leaders in coaching their case management staff to success in client interactions.
Objective Based Home Visits help ensure that the housing support program does not become a crisis support program.
Too many times I have seen what are supposed to be case management staff scrambling from one hot button issue to another with clients that they are supposed to be supporting in a case management function, not as a crisis support worker. I would argue that this happens for three reasons:
when the client entered the program it was not adequately explained to them how the case management services work and the structure of home visits;
without using objective based home visits and the time management elements associated with it there are some clients seen less frequently, which can create an environment where things can go off the rails without support;
it has not been explicitly explained to clients that this is a support service where there are goals set out and objectives for each interaction, and they therefore erroneously think the program has a crisis service element.
To be clear, there are great crisis services that do phenomenal work, and they are an important service to have in a community; however, the housing support program with its structured case planning and objective-based home visits is not a crisis service. Case managers should not be de-railed by crises. They should be able to plot their week out in advance, knowing which clients they are going to see at what times and what the objectives are for each interaction with those clients.
Objective Based Home Visits provide clearer direction for moving towards greater independence over time, and assists in moving through plateaus.
Related to accountability, the Objective Based Home Visit helps create an environment where there is steady progress in the service plan support process. The intent of providing supports is to promote greater independence over time. Does that mean that everyone will achieve complete independence? No. But in the case management process we can increasingly work towards helping the clients integrate with other community supports. We do not want there to be a culture of dependence created between the case manager and the client.
Even with the best case managers and most motivated clients I have seen instances where clients seem to reach a plateau in making progress towards greater housing stability and improved life stability. It has been described to me as “the case management stopped working”. We don’t want clients to experience relapse because of the frustration of feeling “stuck”. We also don’t want them to drop out of the support program as a result of their frustration. Objective Based Home Visits can be of tremendous assistance in these instances, as it allows for a multitude of strategies, actions and ideas that all remain connected to the service plan, but which encourage and allow for creativity.
When Assertive Engagement techniques are necessary, Objective Based Home Visits can help structure the conversation and get the supports back on track.
Assertive Engagement techniques are necessary in some instances when working with clients. One of the most powerful techniques that can be used when breaking through the support barriers that precipitated the need to use Assertive Engagement techniques is the use of an objective-based approach – even when/if the exchange with the individual is not at their home. Too often I have seen case managers pretty much scold their clients for being disengaged when they employ Assertive Engagement techniques. I would say that is unfortunate. Whether you are locating the client at a coffee shop or drop-in center or bottle depot or wherever in the use of Assertive Engagement, I would still focus the conversation the same… “Iain, good to see you and I am glad were able to connect with each other today. Now that we have found each other, let’s spend ten minutes scheduling a time when we can both commit to meeting at your apartment, talk about the three things we should focus our time on when we meet at your apartment, and I want to give you some information for you to look at about a new free dental clinic that opened up.”
Objective Based Home Visits can help encourage meaningful daily activities and improve healthy social networks.
One of the very positive results of an Objective Based Home Visit approach is that it has proven to be very effective at helping clients engage in meaningful daily activities outside of the service plan activities. This includes things like community events, libraries, engaging at a local college, social clubs, volunteering, engaging with places of worship, etc. If a client is experiencing social isolation (which can result in them choosing to leave their apartment) the objective-based approach creates an environment where the case manager can suggest and assist with structuring other opportunities for the client. This allows the client to also (re)create a healthy social network, which is critical for ongoing informal supports.
As this blog has gone to great lengths to demonstrate, home visits are not a casual check-in. Nor is each home visit intended to be a marathon session that addresses every issue under the sun. The Objective Based Home Visit approach provides important structure to working effectively with clients, balances the objectives relative to time availability, moves away from a crisis orientation in service delivery and improves connectivity with the case manager as the client works towards achieving greater independence. The Objective Based Home Visit approach allows for a “small wins” approach to be taken in the service plan process, and is naturally aligned with demonstrating ongoing progress in the service plan process incrementally.
[serialposts]
Iain De Jong teaches half-day seminars in person and through the web on improving service delivery to clients through the use of Objective-Based Home Visits. Home visits generally have proven to be necessary for successful housing programs. Making sure there are three objectives per visit provides a structure and focus that brings it to the next level. If you have questions or would be interested in learning more about Objective Based Home Visits, drop Iain a note at idejong@orgcode.com
Using Data to Drive Program Improvements
[serialposts]
PART SIX: Using Data to Drive Program Improvements
Data. I know it is a four-letter word. It makes policy wonks salivate lustfully and makes many front-line practitioners run for the hills (or the bottle).
Truth is, data doesn’t have to be scary or cumbersome or a nuisance. Done right, data is the ace up your sleeve to make your program transition from good to great.
As a starting point, know that there are resources out there that can help you if you are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with data. The National Alliance to End Homelessness has a range of nifty resources. I especially like What Gets Measured Gets Done. Data and performance measurement is also a subject matter I get asked to speak about a lot. So, if you want to check out some ofthat – littered with “Iain-isms” – feel free. Plus there are a few previous blogs (not part of this current series) where I have talked about performance measurement, data and organizing information in the context of functioning like a system instead of a collection of projects. This one in particular is short and the feedback we’ve received suggests it is my most entertaining blog entry (fire alarms, vibrating bed, strobe lights, knocks on the door in the middle of the night – how can you go wrong?). A couple of other articles may be a useful read if you are unfamiliar with some of the core concepts of data and performance management, or want to better understand how measurement improves organizational learning.
Now onto the matter at hand – driving program improvements through the use of data.
Collect the Right Data at Intake and Assessment to Help the Person/Family Get to the Right Program to Meet their Needs
I think a lot of intake and assessment processes can use refinement. Too often there is a “deep dive” into information that is completely unrelated to determining which housing program is best going to meet an individual’s/family’s needs. It can also be problematic to not have effective screening tools prior to going deeply into the intake and assessment.
Remember that an intake and assessment process should be about the client. It isn’t about the organization. It is about meeting their needs. It is about offering the right housing program choices based upon the needs they present.
We strongly recommend the use of the Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool to improve intake and assessment. To be transparent, we created it. But, it was created through a very thorough process with lots of vetting and research. And most of all we can PROVE that housing retention, client satisfaction and case manager satisfaction all increase through the use of the tool when compared to other tools, self-sufficiency matrices or no tool at all. The tool is now in use with over 70 communities across the world, been endorsed by various government entities and been supported by psychiatric consumer survivor groups.
Collect only What you NEED to Collect
More data is not better data. Twice as much is not necessarily twice as good.
So what is NEEDED?
You need basic (stress ‘basic’) demographic data and information that will help inform what the best housing program will be. Other information may be collected during a case management or support function; collecting that during intake and assessment is not necessary. In fact, I would argue it is unnecessarily intrusive.
High-functioning non-profits (and not just in the housing and homeless sector) have learned the lesson that less is more when it comes to data collection. Take for example Strive in Cincinnati. They went from about 150 data points down to about 10 that they felt were most important for their work. Dramatic decrease with remarkable increased performance (and buy-in).
Ask Yourself the “So What?” Question
I tell people repeatedly that we need to see our work in housing and homeless service delivery as QUALITY work, not QUANTITY work. I realize getting this message across to funders and politicians can be especially difficult. On a recent speaking tour throughout Minnesota I was bombarded with questions about the tension between what funders ask for and what organizations think they can deliver in a meaningful way. Many organizations feel pressured to serve more and more people, rather than focusing on a smaller number of people and serving them really, really well (so well in fact that they don’t become homeless again).
Which leads me to the “So What?” question.
Every organization needs to ask themselves the question of what difference they are actually making. For example: Organization X boasts that they housed 100 people last year. I ask, so what? Did they remain housed? Did the quality of their lives improve? Was there a positive impact on the community at large? What did it take (from a resource perspective) to achieve the work, and how much is it going to require on an ongoing basis? Why those 100 people and not a different 100 people – what selection process and prioritization process did you use and why?
Listen to Your Entire Staff Team & Build the Data Collection Requirements Across Organizations
There is some pretty interesting research that has explored the effectiveness of performance measurement systems when they are imposed down through a hierarchy as opposed to generated collaboratively (see for example Eckhart-Queenan’s work). There has been some other research that has explored the notion of trust as an important ingredient for successful performance management systems.
I highly recommend that on each staff team, everyone should be involved in the creation of the program logic model. It should not be something that happens in a back-room function solely as part of a funding application. Make it transparent and operational.
When building data collection requirements across a system, I strongly recommend the involvement of multiple organizations in the development of the approach and metrics. As we have done in our recent work in Detroit with the Homeless Action Network of Detroit, this is a three pronged process: conduct a survey to understand how people currently feel about data and how they use it; map out the existing array of services from the perspective of the client, from opportunities for diversion/prevention right through to how we support and monitor housing retention after they successfully exit the program; and, then have the community draft out the metrics that they think are important for each program area within the service system.
Your HMIS is NOT Your Performance Measurement System
Your HMIS is a place to store data and run reports on your data. That is awesome… if data entry is complete and there is a thoughtful data analysis plan. It also helps when it is an open system as opposed to a closed system.
Truth is, the HMIS presents information. It does not interpret information. That is up to you. The question you need to be able to answer from that which is included in the HMIS is What does this mean?
Don’t Just Do What your Funder Demands
Better data allows organizations to better influence the sort of information that funders look at as well as how they interpret it. For this reason – but not this reason alone – I am an advocate for organizations collecting not just what funders demand as a condition of receiving funds. Organizations should also collect the data they need to internally reflect on their program, what is working/not working (and why) and what they may want to consider doing differently.
Use The Data All Over the Place & Present it in Different Ways
Want buy in on data? Use it all over the place…staff meetings, newsletters, website, community meetings, board meetings, Facebook, that annoying spiel you here when you are waiting for someone to pick up their phone, Twitter, bulletin boards, plaques by the reception area, etc.
Too often, data is seen as something that drifts into a black hole never to be seen again. Or when it does emerge seems to be months or years after the fact. Bad idea. Bring the data to life. The way to do that is to use it in a timely way and plaster it all over the place. Everyone will know your organization and who visits your organization will know you are serious about data and performance if you do these things.
Also, remember that people learn in different ways and will respond to your data depending on how you present it. Consider different approaches – graphs, charts, infographics, trend analysis, narratives, etc. Don’t just hand out spreadsheets and expect people to do cartwheels.
Inputting Data is Part of the Real Work
If you want data to drive program improvements, the data has to actually exist, right? How many organizations reading this have one or more staff person who is behind in their data entry, despite frequent reminders/requests?
Every high performing housing program I have been a part of or evaluated sets aside work time within each and every day that is solely related to entering data and case notes. Nothing else. Not general admin time. It is data and information time. These organizations tend to have up to date data within their systems within 24 hours of client interactions.
Data and information entry is part of the real work done in housing programs. It is not something that happens when time allows or only when there are no direct service demands from clients. It can be a huge cultural change, but timely data entry is critical for housing program success.
Having a Meaningful Data Typology & Data Analysis Plan
If you create the right pieces of information in the right ways you will never need to hire a high-priced consultant, academic or analyst to make sense of your data (many of whom would just look at your watch and tell you what time it is anyway).
This means, however, that you need to invest time and energy thinking in advance about what progress reports and analysis you want to create at what time intervals, and what data manipulations or calculations will be required for that to happen. The more you think about this in advance and plan in advance, the more consistent you will become in the use of data (reports get run when they are supposed to get run) and your have focused attention not on all possible types of analysis that are possible, but rather the pieces of information that are most important to understanding if your housing program is working/not working, and for which populations and why.
The data typology simply refers to how you organize your data. Common ways are things like gender, age of clients, length of time homeless, veteran or non-veteran, ethno-racial identity, service entry point and the like.
The data analysis plan tells you how you find the answers to the questions you are asking. For example, if it is important to your organization to know how female veterans under the age of 30 are doing in housing compared to female non-veterans within the same age cohort you’d set up the queries necessary in advance to answer that very question on an ongoing basis.
Keep it Simple
The more simple you keep the data collection, analysis and dissemination of the data, the more buy-in there is going to be to data overall. If people feel that PhD’s need to muck about to make sense of the information, the day to day operational importance of the data has likely been lost. Everyone in your housing program should know exactly what the data being collected is, why it is important and what it is intended to measure. If they don’t all understand then you need to keep breaking it down until it is simply understood by one and all.
Don’t Ignore the Data if it Tells You Something You Didn’t Want to Know
Over the past 20 years working on various social justice projects it would seem to me that organizations love and celebrate their data when it seems to demonstrate that they are doing a good job and supports the narrative of what it is they say they are doing. BUT, many of these same organizations have a tendency to distance themselves from data if they think it presents any sort of picture that would somehow diminish their feeling of awesomeness.
Truth is, awesome organizations embrace continuous improvement not as a management buzz-phrase, but as something integral to their organizational DNA. Those organizations look at all data, but particularly like the data that suggests maybe their programs are not performing well. Then they can use data to reflect on practice and make substantial improvements, rather than continuing to deliver the same programs in the same ways with the same poor – or even just average – results.
Set Meaningful Indicators and Targets
Targets should never be an aspiration. They should be what you think the housing program can reasonably achieve with the resources available and within the specific operational climate. Unrealistic targets are a recipe for alienating people from wanting to collect and use data.
Indicators tell us the information we need relative to the targets. If we aren’t looking at the right things we’ll never know if the targets are being achieved. The two (indicators and targets) require a strong marriage.
I am a fan of creating indicators and targets within sectors of service as opposed to for specific projects. For example, I would suggest a minimum threshold in each of the following: outreach; emergency shelter; drop-in centers; employment & income; prevention & diversion; interim housing; permanent supportive housing; and, rapid re-housing. This allows for greater consistency within sectors of service, helps structure the services into a system model, but most importantly in the context of this blog allows us to track data that demonstrates that each of these sectors of service plays a role in ending homelessness. (And by the way, housing is the only known cure to homelessness, so surely to God – or the deity of your choosing – indicators and targets should have a housing orientation.)
Focusing on these areas of data will improve performance and drive the right performance changes within your housing programs. Ignoring information or working solely from intuition is not a recipe for success. If ignorance is bliss, then there are far too many organizations that are orgasmic. We need dedicated and purposeful attention paid to the importance of data and how it makes us all better practitioners. That which we think can be different from that which we know – and data helps us figure out the difference.
[serialposts]
Iain De Jong is a data nerd to the nth degree. He is always looking for kindred spirits who share his passion for making data and performance management cool. More than a third of his professional work is related to data and performance systems, both re-constructing them as well as keynote speaking and seminars to get people pumped up about the opportunities that data truly presents. If you share his passion for data or want to explore specific pieces of information that should be collected and analyzed relative to your specific program, let him know atidejong@orgcode.com
Helping Landlords Help You
[serialposts]
PART FIVE: Helping Landlords Help You
There should be a range of housing options for clients of your housing program to consider. In the best of circumstances this will include everything from permanent supportive housing to private market housing (with or without vouchers or rent supplements) and public/social housing. It will hopefully include a wide variety of units from multi-unit residential buildings to suites in the secondary market like basement suites or rented houses. It may also include the likes of well-maintained and managed rooming houses or boarding homes. And I could go on with the diverse types of housing. The key is to have a range of options that clients can CHOOSE from.
Choice is fundamental to housing program success. If your organization does housing placements instead of offering housing choices, you are missing an important part of program success. Inone research study it found that clients who felt that they had a choice in where they lived were most happy with their housing, whereas those who felt that had less choice were much less happy with their housing. The latter is also more likely to move and/or experience a return to homelessness.
For the purpose of this blog, I want to focus attention on working with private market landlords – even if your organization does not have access to any type of financial assistance to provide to landlords. In a perfect world there would be an infinite number of subsidies to provide; immediate access to subsidized housing; a balanced (or renter-friendly) vacancy rate; and rental rates comparable to the financial benefits that poor people receive on welfare. The reality, though, is that this is not the case. So here are some approaches that have proven to be effective in an imperfect world to gain access to units in the private market, often at a reduced rate.
As I mentioned in a previous part of the series, social workers tend not to make great landlords and landlords tend not to be great social workers. Sure, there are exceptions, but I think you would agree with me that these are separate disciplines.
It may be nice to think that landlords want to rent to your clients because they have big hearts and want to make a huge difference in their community. And sure, there may be some like this in your community. However, it is generally my experience that housing programs are more successful when you attempt to meet landlords where they are at and meet their interests, rather than vice versa.
Landlords are in the business of making money. Helping landlords make more money is entirely possible by you, even without subsidies. Consider some of the things that cost landlords money: underperforming parts of their building portfolio; vacancy loss for unrented units; rent collection; advertising; showing units; and, preparing units as part of turnover.
Larger landlords (or property management firms) that have several buildings in their portfolio are likely to have one or more buildings – or a small grouping of units within some buildings – that are underperforming. These are buildings/units that experience greater degree of turnover and more vacancy loss. When approaching prospective landlords, keep this in mind. Part of your pitch should be that you want to help them rent out units in parts of their portfolio that are underperforming. (To be clear, this doesn’t mean there is anything physically wrong with the units. All units should be in habitable condition.)
Further to this, when approaching landlords ask them if there are specific units where they experience greater vacancy loss. This is like the previous paragraph on underperforming parts of the portfolio. Approaching at this angle, the question you may want to ask landlords is, “Would you like greater revenue stability (or predictability) from some of your units that frequently go vacant?”
It is fair to say that all landlords, regardless of size, expend resources to collect rent. There are bookkeeping and accounting aspects of this task. There can be person-hours spent knocking on doors and trying to track tenants down who didn’t show up at a rental office to submit their rent. Here, again, you can help landlords. Whenever possible, have your clients hooked up with third party rent payments directly to the landlord. (As an aside, I think this is analogous to how my mortgage gets paid – directly from my bank account to my lender.) This can come from income supports or even an employer. What it tends to mean is a predictable process for landlords to receive rent payments with less resources expended.
Related to payment of rent, every housing program that I am a part of requires the client support worker to contact each of their landlords by the fifth business day of every month to ensure that the landlord received their rent on time and in full. Even with third party payment of rent, I find that doing this decreases issues that may stem from some sort of bureaucratic glitch. It also creates another communication vehicle for the landlord to share their insights on particular tenant situations.
To streamline communication – thereby also reducing potential person hour expenses for the landlord – have the Housing Locator staff person on your team be the only phone number and name that a landlord has to keep handy if they want to call to talk about an issue or even praise of how well things are going. It is not helpful to landlords to have a list of five or ten or even more workers that they have to keep straight from across multiple organizations related to tenants in their buildings that are involved in your housing program.
In communities where there are multiple housing programs operating, I strongly suggest that Housing Locators work cooperatively rather than competitively. To some this is going to sound threatening, and I have heard people say many times, “I’m not going to share my landlord list with (insert name of person or organization here)”. But the reality is, in the same way that landlords shouldn’t have to keep track of multiple housing support workers, they can equally despise having numerous Housing Locators contacting them from different organizations about the same pocket of units. I have seen some communities where the Housing Locator function has even been centralized across different organizations to tackle this very issue.
I never advocate for a landlord to provide all of their vacancy to one organization or to one program. A general rule of thumb is that unless there are permanent supports on site 24 hours a day, no more than 15% of the units in any given building should be occupied by tenants actively receiving case management supports. More than that and the general composition and character of the building can change. (This was a particularly painful lesson to learn as a practitioner.) The place I want to get to with landlords, however is for them to offer a program a predictable number of units across their portfolio on either a monthly or annual basis. This makes it easier to plan and create choices for clients. It allows the landlord to make informed choices about what part of their portfolio they want to strategically target. It also decreases their advertising costs and can reduce unit showing costs because they have greater say in when and how units are shown. (In a few situations I have even seen landlords that have the housing support workers or Housing Locators show the units to their clients without a superintendent present…though I have mixed feelings about this.)
A popular question/concern is about damage that may be caused to a unit. This relates to damage inflicted by a client, not the usual wear and tear that may occur regardless of who the tenant is. There are a few things that I have found to be very helpful in decreasing the likelihood of damages:
Ensure clients are making an informed choice of where they want to live. My experience as a practitioner suggests that the more choice people have, the more pride in their unit they have and the less damage that occurs.
Make sure the client has their basic needs met in the apartment on the day of move in (furnishings, food, cleaning supplies, etc.). If you really want the client to feel like they are creating a place of their own, allow them to pick out the furnishings that they want.
Focus on the activities that may be necessary to help convert the apartment into a home as one of the first meaningful daily activities that you encourage with the client. This includes things like putting up knick-knacks, photos of important people in their life, plants, newspaper clippings or posters, etc.
Ask the client before they move in “What do you think it means to be a responsible tenant?” Ask them that again when they move in and around the first time that rent is due.
Have housing support workers/case managers knock on the superintendent’s door (if there is a super on site) every time they go to visit a client just to let them know that they are around. This gives the superintendent a chance to bring up any issues. It also gives the landlord assurance that you are doing what you said you’d be doing and providing on-site supports.
Deliver supports in the client’s home. This gives you a chance to see first hand the condition of the unit.
If there is minor damage (e.g., a hole punched in the wall; a cupboard door ripped off) ask the client “How do you think you should go about telling the landlord about this? What would be a good outcome of telling the landlord about it? What do you think would be appropriate compensation or repayment for the damages? How might you convince the landlord that this won’t happen again?” (I can’t tell you how many times I have seen this save a tenancy.)
As the leader of a very large housing program, I had a small pocket of resources for exceptional circumstances. It amounted to about $20,000 a year that I could draw from. I used it only in exceptional circumstances and I never advertised to landlords that the pocket of money existed. Never did I spend the $20,000 in any given year. I attribute this to the suggestions and tips noted above.
When I first approach landlords about accessing units in their portfolio, I don’t start with a pitch that focuses on housing homeless people. I had a phenomenal Housing Locator once with incredible business savvy who taught me that was a dead-end before going any further. What I learned was to focus on a pool of tenants that I had access to which could help them meet their business objectives. I learned to focus part of the conversation to be about how all of the prospective tenants we had to offer them came with supports to help negotiate situations that may arise, which is something that their other tenants did not have. I also learned about pitching the direct payment of rent. The closing of the pitch – which again I learned from a masterful person who knew the ins and outs of the industry – was to ask the landlords to let us vet the potential tenants to be the right fit for their buildings…that they didn’t need to worry about credit checks or references, which would just be more time consuming on their end.
There are differing views in housing programs about the lease structure with the landlords. Some programs like to use head leases whereby the non-profit agency enters into the legal contract with the landlord for the unit and the clients, in essence, become sub-leasers. For those organizations that are happy with that and have the insurance to cover that sort of liability, I can see how it can be successful. My preference, however, is always to see the lease directly between the landlord and the client. For one, I think it further empowers the client. For another – and very practically speaking – it decreases potential liability in the off chance that something goes terribly wrong with the unit.
Maintaining the relationship with landlords is the next key. As previously mentioned, I want support workers to make sure rent is paid each month and to stop by and say hello when there is an on-site superintendent. I want everyone to be clear that we are never going to divulge private information about the tenant. What this attempts to do is create a forum where the landlord or superintendent can share information with us and gives them a sense of certainty that when we say our clients have supports, they can actually see the support person. I have also found it very effective, however, to create a landlord roundtable. About four times a year I advocate for bringing together all of the landlords involved with the program and structure an agenda where they can talk about both issues and solutions. Truth be told, the first few meetings will be littered with some program complaints. And landlords that attend the meeting have to know that you cannot and will not talk about issues regarding a specific tenant. There is something magical that happens a few meetings in, however, where landlords start to share ideas about addressing common issues as well as celebrating program successes. I have seen some landlord roundtables where a landlord become a co-chair of the meetings as well. This can be very effective.
I know that when housing programs see landlords as a program partner as opposed to just a resource to be consumed they get more access to units, more effective problem-solving and can also get positive press and accolades from within the landlord community. I remember when the World Habitat Awards were reviewing a program that I was operating, the endorsement of some of the landlords they spoke with was one of the overwhelming positives that the evaluators took away from the experience. I also remain grateful that when I was first starting a rather successful housing program and using this approach that it was the landlord community that got behind the approach early and encouraged their colleagues (and competitors) to get involved because they saw it as a good business relationship with good communication. This was in an environment with very low vacancy rates and high rents. We were able to negotiate rent reductions in exchange for helping them with underperforming parts of their portfolio.
I am not so naïve as to think that all landlord relationships are going to be perfect. They aren’t. As a very pragmatic practitioner, I also know, however, that there are a lot of landlords out there eager to maximize the profit potential of their portfolio. I have seen how reducing vacancy loss can result in rent reductions. I have seen effective problem solving rather than evictions when there are damages caused. I have seen communities actually become healthier with the addition of housing program tenants. Landlords should be seen as a partner in the process. Without them having an effective housing program is going to be very, very difficult.
[serialposts]
Iain De Jong has assisted many communities that operate housing programs in tapping into the potential within the local housing market, regardless of vacancy rates or average rents. With a strong business perspective and the view that landlords are a partner, not just a resource to be consumed, the relationship can be an ongoing positive and proactive one, working to the benefit of the landlord community and people seeking housing. If you’d like to learn more about the approach or various business models that can be used to make a pitch to landlords, drop Iain a note atidejong@orgcode.com