Ending Homelessness in Ada County: Opportunities for Boise State University Engagement 2018

Report Authors

• Vanessa Fry, PhD, Assistant Director
• Sally Sargeant-Hu, Research Associate
• Ana Costa, Research Assistant
• Lantz McGinnis-Brown, Graduate Research Assistant
• Connor Sheldon, Graduate Research Assistant

This report was prepared by Idaho Policy Institute at Boise State University and commissioned by Boise State University’s Blue Sky Institute.

Recommended citation: Fry, V., Sargeant-Hu, S., Costa, A., McGinnis-Brown, L., Sheldon, C. (2018). Ending Homelessness in Ada County: Opportunities for Boise State University Engagement. Idaho Policy Institute. Boise, ID: Boise State University.

Download a printable pdf of this report

Executive Summary

How can Boise State University engage with Ada County stakeholders to end homelessness?

To answer this question, the Blue Sky Institute at Boise State University partnered with the university’s Idaho Policy Institute to analyze the Ada County, Idaho, homelessness service provider network. Research included conducting a SWOT analysis, mapping the network, interviewing stakeholders and analyzing provider operations.

While this particular research project used Interfaith Sanctuary, a nonprofit homelessness service provider in Ada County, as the focal point, the project analyzed and addressed the entire homelessness service network in the county. This report demonstrates that the Ada County homelessness service network functions best when stakeholders collaborate to address the issue of homelessness. Ultimately, this report recommends Boise State University work to purposely build relationships within the homelessness service provider network in order to work collaboratively with the community’s efforts to address and end homelessness.

Return to the beginning of the report

Overview

Examining an organization’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) provides structure to analyze how an organization can strategically advance their work while taking into consideration internal (strengths and weaknesses) and external (opportunities and threats) factors. This report discusses the SWOT analysis conducted for Interfaith Sanctuary (Interfaith) and provides objective information about the strengths and weaknesses of Interfaith as well as the opportunities and threats confronting all of Ada County’s homelessness service network (the Network). The full Scope of Work (SOW) that provides a detailed outline of this entire project can be found in Appendix A. This SWOT analysis can inform Interfaith’s future decision-making and also enable inference into where Boise State University (Boise State or university) can strategically engage with Interfaith as well as the greater Network.

Appendix B provides the complete SWOT matrix developed for this report. The consolidated version below highlights the key areas identified in each part of the matrix.

Appendix C outlines past engagement of Boise State with Interfaith. As a whole, however, the university has not strategically interacted with Interfaith or the greater Network. This report articulates numerous ways in which Boise State can strategically engage with the Network. These avenues for engagement can be consolidated into six primary categories.

Limitations

The following tables summarize information from the SWOT analysis, which was informed by extensive interviews of stakeholders, secondary data analysis and a network analysis of Ada County homelessness service providers and stakeholders. The corresponding recommendations are by no means exhaustive, but are meant to reflect the most pressing issues that came to the attention of the research team throughout the course of this project.

Faculty and staff at Boise State University were not consulted on the recommendations that this report sets forth. As Boise State moves forward in response to this report, a variety of departments and colleges from the university need to be invited to join the conversation and actively participate in implementing the recommendations in this report. In addition, the recommendations do not articulate the necessary partnerships outside of Boise State. External partners must also be engaged in future efforts. The next step for this project would be to vet these recommendations with stakeholders from within Boise State, and stakeholders from across the Network in Ada County.

Return to the beginning of the report

Entrepreneurship

Interfaith has created several notable programs over the past two years, such as the City of Boise Parks and Recreation Work Program, Monday Meet-Up and Daytime Family Care. These programs are proof of the entrepreneurial spirit of Interfaith as well as the capabilities of Interfaith staff to gather resources through fundraising and grant applications, create partnerships and launch innovative programs.

• COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Leadership and staff at Interfaith demonstrate an infectious positivity, dedication and optimism in their work and interaction with guests. Interfaith has valuable knowledge and insights to contribute to the community’s conversations surrounding homelessness.
• PILOT PROGRAMS: Interfaith can use its entrepreneurial spirit to pilot programs for the community and then strategically transition programs to other providers with capacity to run and manage the program.

Human-Centered Approach to Guests

Interfaith’s staff lead with compassion to proactively create a welcoming environment for individuals who are often marginalized in the community. Interfaith is inclusive of all genders and welcomes families into their shelter.

• NARRATIVE: Interfaith’s leadership and on the ground staff work to understand individual narratives and to share these stories with the community. By doing so, Interfaith is actively working to provide the community with a very personal and compassionate view of homelessness.
• HEALTH AND WELLNESS: Interfaith makes a notable effort to make their guests feel as comfortable, safe and healthy as possible through various activities including: providing showers, clean linens, providing opportunities for guests to store their belongings and allowing guests to keep the same bed for multiple nights.
• HEALTH AND WELLNESS: Interfaith provides individualized attention to guests through one on one case management.

Teamwork

Interfaith staff are active participants and stakeholders in the design, creation and implementation of programming. Interfaith board members enable staff to work with autonomy and flexibility, which provides Interfaith staff the ability to be adaptable and responsive in a timely manner.

• STAFF ENGAGEMENT: Staff participation in board meetings enables board and staff to connect, build a shared understanding of each other’s roles and strengthen the organization.
• BOARD ENGAGEMENT: Board members engaging directly with guests and staff demonstrate a clear understanding of Interfaith’s programs.

Return to the beginning of the report

Crisis Management

Interfaith consistently responds to the most pressing issues. This reactive approach impacts Interfaith’s ability to focus, both as individuals and as an organization. For instance, reacting to immediate ‘needs’ interrupts employees’ daily workflow. While it is important for Interfaith staff to remain fluid, it is also important to strategically and systematically make organizational decisions and to implement daily operations that best utilize the skills of the workforce and support long term mission goals.

• MISSION: Interfaith’s current mission is extremely broad, which has compromised Interfaith’s ability to strategically focus their efforts and resources. Although Interfaith is working within their broad mission, attention is spread thin.
• SECONDARY TRAUMA: The staff at Interfaith are often presented with severe challenges facing guests. As a result, the staff at Interfaith may experience emotional duress, also known as secondary trauma, that results when an individual hears about the firsthand trauma experiences of another. This can contribute to burnout and compassion fatigue.
• REACTIVE: Faced with a constant bombardment of needs of guests and communication within the organization, Interfaith’s staff often react to what may not be the most important need. Pausing, assessing the situation and thinking and reacting more strategically would promote improved ability to better prioritize or ‘triage’ their response and enable Interfaith to recognize what they can, and can not, reasonably provide their guests.

Information Sharing

Interfaith does not demonstrate consistent data collection or utilization of evidence-based decision making.

• RESEARCH: Interfaith’s entrepreneurship is a strength that can be leveraged by integrating evidence-based best practices into program design and funding requests.
• DATA: Interfaith currently does not have a systematic method for the collection of programmatic and organizational data. This hinders their ability to measure programmatic impact and overall performance.
• INFORMATION ASYMMETRY: Research revealed a lack of shared knowledge among board members, staff and guests regarding the services that Interfaith provides.
• INFORMATION ASYMMETRY: Staff and board display inconsistent understanding of the organization as a whole.

Resource Allocation

Strategic resource management is vital for Interfaith to prosper. The responsibility to apply for grants, fundraise and cultivate relationships with donors rests on the shoulders of the Interfaith team.

• ACQUISITION: Interviews indicate additional financial resources would become available if Interfaith integrated both ‘hard’ data as well as narratives into funding requests.
• STAFF: Interfaith is currently experiencing high staff turnover and difficulty in attracting and hiring staff members. Not only does high staff turnover affect team morale, but it can also interrupt the process of case management and fail to provide consistency to guests.
• FACILITY: Interfaith’s largest asset is their shelter facility, which is utilized daily by over 100 guests. Interfaith Sanctuary should determine if its current facility will suffice for future programmatic delivery and, if so, invest in improving the facility and pursuing funding opportunities that will allow them to do so.

Return to the beginning of the report

Partnership

Partnerships between service providers have been built around a number of projects, but there is still room for improvement. The network map in Appendix D indicates, for example, that the Ada County school districts are potentially under-represented in the Network. Likewise, there are a number of other agencies that could expand Network capacity if integrated more fully. Two current examples of successful strategic partnerships among service providers are Monday Meet-Up and the coordinated entry program, Our Path Home. Monday Meet-Up has created a central point of access to services for those experiencing homelessness and promoted interaction between various service providers facilitating improved information sharing and data use. Our Path Home is a partnership of over 30 agencies in an effort to provide people experiencing a housing crisis access to housing safe, stable housing.

• CASE MANAGEMENT: Many homelessness service providers in Ada County have case managers on staff and recognize that case management is a key component to developing a relationship with someone experiencing homelessness and effectively addressing their needs. Greater partnership amongst case managers could foster knowledge sharing. Case conferencing could enhance client need identification and service delivery.
• STUDENT ENGAGEMENT: There has been, and continues to be, engagement from Boise State students with homelessness service providers in Ada County. During stakeholder interviews, it became apparent that providers would appreciate greater consistency in student engagement. E.g., commitment over a longer period of time and consistency in the students that show up for their volunteer hours. Being strategic about how students engage will benefit the entire Network.
• COORDINATION: There are great partnership opportunities within the Network, that if cultivated, could better coordinate resources, prevent duplication of services and waste and correct information asymmetry within the Network. For example, our research revealed a distinct misunderstanding of Housing First as a best-practice for addressing homelessness, among members of the Network. Monday Meet-Up, the Continuum of Care and Our Path Home are examples of opportunities for greater coordination.

Data Collection and Utilization

The Network does not use a consistent data gathering tool, thus homelessness information is difficult to systematically analyze.

• HMIS (Homelessness Management Information System): HMIS is available for service providers across the Network; however, it is under utilized. When information is correctly and consistently input into HMIS, the platform provides insight as to the needs of individuals experiencing homelessness and how they are interacting with providers. When used correctly, the data can correctly map homelessness experiences across the county, serve as a program evaluation tool and empower providers to improve case management.
• SYSTEM-WIDE KNOWLEDGE: Presently, there is limited knowledge of how the system, as a whole, is performing and how the services being provided are contributing to the goal of ending homelessness in Ada County.

Resources and Capacity

The Network consists of many organizations that each have their own focus, areas of expertise and resources to offer those experiencing homelessness as well as other Network providers.

• STOCK: Throughout the interview process it became evident that providers are often unaware of the services other providers are offering and/or the resources other providers have available to share. Without such knowledge, services are being duplicated, are sometimes under utilized and may not be placed where there is greatest opportunity for success.
• DUPLICATION: Without a shared understanding of what services providers are offering, and a limited perception of the entire Network, duplication of services occurs. Such duplication is not an efficient use of Network resource or provider capacity and often leads to waste. One example of duplication of services is the many meals that are offered throughout the day by numerous organizations, some of which are not properly licensed to provide food. This duplication of meals is inefficient and not the best use of resources.

Return to the beginning of the report

Increasing Homelessness

The number of people experiencing homeless in Ada County is growing. This is due in part to changing demographics, limited housing stock, increasing housing and rental costs and the opioid crisis.

• CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS: More and more service providers are encountering an increasingly diverse population, with diverse needs.
• AWARENESS: Stakeholders need to remain engaged in the larger community conversation surrounding housing stock, refugee resettlement, community health care services and the opioid crisis. Engaging in community-wide conversations with stakeholders from housing, services and health backgrounds fosters learning between sectors and the potential for collaborative responses to these threats.

Competition

Interviews with service providers revealed a mentality of competition over finite resources. During interviews, service providers voiced concerns about (1) competition for funding, (2) competition of programs and (3) competition of being the “latest and greatest.” A significant contributing factor to this [perceived] competition is duplication of services. To increase Network efficiency, providers should concentrate on their programmatic strengths, avoid duplicating services that already exist in the Network and actively divert clients/guests to those services, rather than each provider trying to be “a one stop shop” for all needs.

• LACK OF DIVERSION: Once providers have gained knowledge of what each provider offers (see Opportunity No. 3: Resources and Capacity for recommendation to take stock of Network services), then Network members need to better divert guests/clients to the correct services, rather than try to offer “a one stop shop” for all needs.

Liability

When providing service to a vulnerable population many challenging situations can occur. Service providers are finding themselves addressing issues of gender identification, mental illness and drug use, to name a few. In addition, facilities throughout the Network are deteriorating. As providers navigate these challenging issues, while still striving to act with compassion, the threat of lawsuits has to be considered.

• LAWSUITS: If providers make a mistake, or clients feel discriminated against, or illegal encampments in the community occur again, then lawsuits could be filed.

Return to the beginning of the report

When interpreting the results of this study, it must be emphasized that homelessness services providers in Ada County interact within a complex network of shared information, ideas and resources. Taking this into consideration, it is incorrect to believe that the success or failure of the network-wide mission to end homelessness in Ada County rests on the back of any one organization. The greatest opportunities to create lasting change can be found in relationships and strengthened through facilitation and coordination. Furthermore, if Boise State is to play a role in this change, it must not consider itself immune from engagement in the network, as both a peer and a consultant.

Boise State University is in a uniquely advantageous position to aid in ending homelessness in Ada County. Academic research is in high demand among homelessness service providers looking for data to support, determine and advocate best practices among their peers. Across departments and colleges, Boise State has a wealth of expertise to offer in this area. Faculty, staff and students can provide program evaluation, technical assistance, training and facilitation network-wide. Finally, by supporting the provider Network and serving as an “honest broker,” Boise State can offer context and perspective to those in the Network and encourage service providers to coordinate their resources and services in a way that maximizes Network capacity and reduces the duplication of services.

Return to the beginning of the report

Boise State University’s (Boise State) Blue Sky Institute (Blue Sky) and the Idaho Policy Institute (IPI) partnered to provide an internal and external evaluation of Interfaith Sanctuary (Interfaith), a nonprofit homelessness service provider in Ada County, Idaho. The results of the research are intended to enable Boise State to strategically engage with Interfaith and the broader network serving people experiencing homelessness in Ada County in order to determine areas for future strategic partnerships. The project consisted of the following five tasks:

Task 1: Background Research and Literature Review

Information was gathered on the current operations and capacity of Interfaith. The research team built an understanding of Interfaith’s history, their programs and their approach to providing homelessness services in Ada County.

Task 2: Internal Benchmarking

The team conducted a comprehensive assessment of Interfaith’s programmatic offers, shelter operations and organization structure, as perceived by internal stakeholders. This information was gathered through semi-structured interviews with 17 stakeholders, including Interfaith staff, board members and shelter guests.

Task 3: External Benchmarking

An assessment was made of how Interfaith is positioned and operates within the entire Network of Homelessness Service Providers (the Network) in Ada County. This data was collected via 19 semi-structured interviews with external stakeholders and captures the perceptions of Interfaith and the Network as a whole.

Task 4: SWOT Analysis

Findings from tasks 1, 2 and 3 were analyzed to formulate a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis of Interfaith. This task combined the data gathered from internal stakeholders with data gathered from external stakeholders to create a holistic understanding of Interfaith and the larger Network.

Task 5: Presentation of Results

The final report details the methodology, analysis and findings of the project. The report presents opportunities for engagement for Boise State to consider within the Network and provides specific ways for Interfaith and Boise State to collaborate and work towards ending homelessness in Ada County.

Return to the beginning of the report

Background

This project was initialized when Interfaith Sanctuary’s (Interfaith) leadership approached Boise State University, seeking better engagement between the organization and the university. The ensuing partnership between Blue Sky Institute (Blue Sky) and the Idaho Policy Institute (IPI) sought to evaluate both Interfaith and the entire Network of Homelessness Service Providers (the Network) in Ada County and identify potential engagement opportunities for Boise State that would strengthen both Interfaith and the Network.

The research team conducted a meta-evaluation, a review of available background information on Interfaith, as well as similar organizations. In addition to reviewing websites and gathering literature, the research team conducted scoping interviews with Blue Sky and Interfaith board members and staff to fill gaps in understanding about potential areas of research.

After this preliminary research, the research team determined that a SWOT (Strength-Weakness-Opportunities-Threats) analysis would be the best research tool to use. The resulting SWOT analysis provides an internal evaluation of Interfaith, as well as the opportunities and threats that are present in the entire Network, and was used to inform the report’s recommendations for Boise State’s engagement with both Interfaith and the Network.

Literature Review

A SWOT analysis is a “simple but powerful tool for sizing up an organization’s resource capabilities and deficiencies, its opportunities, and the external threats to its future” (Thompson et al., 2007:97). It is used commonly by businesses to inform a strategic plan that will create and maintain competitive advantages (Gürel & Tat, 2017). The acronym ‘SWOT’ refers to the four distinct areas of analysis that, collectively, provide a powerful and insightful overview of an organization: (1) Strengths, (2) Weaknesses, (3) Opportunities, and (4) Threats. The first two components of the SWOT analysis, strengths and weaknesses, measure the internal operations of an organization, while the last two components, opportunities and threats, evaluate factors external to the organization that should be considered for strategic planning. The internal focus of the analysis shows how an organization’s resources need to be improved and sustained, while the external focus of SWOT enables the business to align their future plans within the shifting environment in which they operate (Gürel & Tat, 2017, p. 1005).

Although the SWOT analysis was originally designed for use by businesses, the premise of evaluating internal and external factors can provide valuable analysis to other organizations, like nonprofits, who wish to strengthen operations and prepare for the future. A SWOT analysis can inform strategic management plans and empower an organization to “exert control over its own destiny …[and]…be more proactive than reactive in shaping its own future” (David, 2003, p. 16). If used correctly, a SWOT can inform strategic planning and management for any organization that is forward-thinking and dynamic.

The first component of SWOT, strengths, refers to things that an organization is doing well or things that give the organization an important capability (Thompson & Strickland, 1992, p. 109). A strength could be a resource, a skill, an asset, a characteristic of the team or something less tangible, such as the reputation the organization has in the local community (Pearce & Robinson, 1991, p. 182). Strengths highlight areas of excellence that an organization can recognize and continue to cultivate for the benefit of the organization. The strengths of an organization should be considered when an organization is looking to respond to the opportunities identified in the external environment. An organization should ask themselves, how can I leverage my strengths to respond well to these opportunities?

The second component of SWOT evaluates the weaknesses of an organization. This section of the analysis calls attention to things, internal to the organization, which are unfavorable, lacking or impeding an organization’s performance. A weakness could be a lack of resources, deficient skill, or limited capability and capacity (Pearce & Robinson, 1991, p. 182). Weaknesses highlight areas that an organization must address and seek to correct, strengthen, change or cut from their activities moving forward.

Next, the SWOT analysis transitions to consider the environment in which an organization exists. The third area of the SWOT framework is opportunities – “a situation or condition suitable for an activity…an advantage and the driving force for an activity to take place” (Güral & Tat, 2017, p. 998). Opportunities that a SWOT identifies could include potential partnerships, strategic collaborative opportunities and funding options (Harrison, 2010). Opportunities, external to an organization, have the potential to improve an organization’s output, services, community standing and reputation.

The final component of the SWOT analysis looks at threats, which are things existing in the external environment that could potentially cause an organization to suffer and not reach their organizational goals. Threats can take many forms – economic, social, cultural, political, environment, governmental or legal, just to name a few. Arguably, some threats are easier to see coming while others remain hidden. The SWOT analysis, however, is designed to identify threats so organizations can work to avoid them or be better prepared to handle them.

Methodology

In order to complete the SWOT analysis, the research team gathered secondary information and data, conducted a network analysis (see Appendix D) and interviewed Interfaith’s internal stakeholders and key stakeholders from the Network. Internal interviews were conducted with Interfaith staff, board and shelter guests. External stakeholders were identified through the research team’s pre-existing knowledge of the Network and through the recommendations made by interviewees. The selection of key stakeholders from the Network who were interviewed included state agencies, other nonprofits, healthcare providers, criminal justice representatives, funders and advocacy groups.

To structure the interviews, the research team designed four different interview protocols for the four different categories of interviewees: (1) Interfaith Employee, (2) Interfaith Board-member, (3) Interfaith Guest and (4) External Stakeholder. Each protocol was approved by Boise State’s Internal Review Board (IRB) and each interviewee signed an informed consent form prior to their interview to protect their anonymity. In total, the research team conducted 36 interviews (17 internal to Interfaith and 19 external to Interfaith), each lasting roughly one hour and attended by a minimum of two members of the research staff.

After gathering data, a comprehensive SWOT table was created. This report consolidated the SWOT findings to present prioritized recommendations for Boise State engagement in the Network.

SWOT MATRIX

Strengths

• Adaptability
• AmeriCorps Volunteers
• Autonomy / Board support
• Collaboration among upper level management
• Community outreach / Collaborative focus
• Compassion for guests / treatment of guests / freedom of guests
• Family shelter facilities – flexibility and accessibility of diverse populations
• Flexibility in choosing dorm based on selected identity
• Financially supportive board
• Interfaith expansion of programs, e.g. Monday Meetups
• Open doors to all – not a typical “short term” shelter
• Personal connections / narratives are positive and engaging / strong grant and funding support
• Plenty of supplies, donation of supplies
• Positive morale among staff
• Reputation within community is strong
• Strong leadership
• Work program and general spirit of innovation

Weaknesses

• “Be everything to everyone” mentality
• Board quorum difficult to achieve
• Case management tracking is in Google Docs
• Crisis mentality / triage mode
• Delegation / partnerships
• Doesn’t use HMIS
• Education regarding available resources / programs / services in community to tell guests; in particular Our Path Home
• Food service capability
• Inconsistent philosophy towards problem and solution
• Incongruity of language used by staff and language used by board members when describing guests and case managers
• Indispensable employee syndrome
• Lack of consistent program evaluation / lack of benchmarking success
• Limited space – no private room for sick guests, clients with different needs share same space
• Limited interaction between staff and volunteers
• Long-term vision – not specific
• Mission drift
• Need more data collection and data use abilities
• Lack of diversion to other programs
• Limited use of best practices
• No health specialists
• Overreliance on co-directors to make decisions and move programs forward
• Pay of staff / hiring and attracting the best candidates is challenging
• Qualifications / training of staff
• Staff turnover, burnout
• Staff: secondary trauma impacts
• Time management (ie. Interruptions through day, guest demands, email volume, etc.)
• Understaffing during external events

Opportunities

• 211 / dashboard of service providers
• Continuum of Care engagement / Coordinated Entry
• Collaboration between service providers
• Coordinating food
• Develop more systemic and comprehensive branding strategies
• Diversion
• Increased political involvement
• More pilot programs / innovation spirit / community court
• New programs help engage community and satisfy guests
• Needs assessment / informed programming
• Partnerships with Boise State
• Pioneer House – open all year round
• Pre-K for sheltered kids
• Resources
• Respite care

Threats

• Changing dynamics of homelessness population
• Concentration of services / chronicity / ghetto creation
• Cooper Court #2 = concentration of homeless population in one area
• Duplication of services.
• Difficulty securing affordable event venues
• Fair housing
• Funding – if HUD funding dries up/ future of vouchers
• Funding- funders are becoming more data driven
• HMIS tension
• Housing market / cost of living in Ada County, limited affordable housing opportunities
• Lack of community understanding of organizations
• Lawsuits
• Leadership at other organizations
• Medical costs (drugs and mental illness)
• Organizational perceptions
• Philosophical differences
• Proximity conflicts, eventual conflicts with shopkeepers in the neighborhood
• Refugee population and language barriers
• Transportation to services is costly and complex
• Stigma against substance abuse and mental health services; insufficient access to treatment
• Attracting the right candidates to the jobs
• Opiate crisis
• Philosophical differences between organizations may create animosities and hinder the mission of ending homelessness in Boise

Return to the beginning of the report

Background

Interfaith Sanctuary (Interfaith) is a 501c(3) organization created as a community response to homelessness. In the 1990s, the City of Boise (the City) closed their homeless shelter, Community House. The City-owned shelter had provided refuge to men, women, and children on the corner of 13th and River streets – the same location where the Boise Rescue Mission’s River of Life shelter currently operates. In 2004, the City sold the property to the Boise Rescue Mission who began to run a shelter specifically for men, and men only. On the verge of winter, the rest of the homeless population was left with no place to go. As a reaction to this process, members of different faith-based communities in Boise, who would periodically gather to address pressing local concerns, decided to create Interfaith, a mobile shelter that used schools and churches in Boise as its hosts.

Beginning in 2005, Interfaith operated an emergency winter shelter that served over 700 people experiencing homelessness. In the fall of 2007, Interfaith, with the support of Catholic Charities, was able to purchase its current facility, a 10,200 square foot building on River Street. This new building became a year-round shelter for men, women and accompanied children that also offered supportive services. In the first year of operations in the new building, Interfaith served almost 1,000 individuals.

Recently, Interfaith has gone through significant transformations. Cooper Court, a homelessness encampment of over 100 individuals adjacent to Interfaith, was a major catalyst for this change. Cooper Court created significant internal debate at Interfaith regarding the ideal strategy for serving guests inside and outside of the shelter. As the tent city gained notoriety, internal relations became more strained. This internal debate at Interfaith led to the resignation of the shelter’s longtime director, Jayne Sorrels, on April 1, 2016. Later that year, Jodi Peterson and Dan Ault were invited by the board to join the team, becoming Interfaith’s co-directors. During this time, there was also significant employee turnover.

In October 2016, Interfaith decided to forego federal funds and instead operate from private donations and grants only. The goal was to avoid the strings that often come with funding, such as limitations on how long people can stay in temporary housing. This transition is described by Interfaith, on their website (Interfaith Sanctuary, 2018a), as a deeper commitment to their guests to provide them with patient and, if necessary, longer term support. In their own words, Interfaith works to:

“Provide them [guests] with a safe place to sleep and a warm meal nightly but we have also brought an amazing team of case managers into the mix to help bring these guests hope and second chances. We are making so much progress because this dedicated team shows up each day prepared to do battle on behalf of our guests. They leave no stone unturned to find solutions to the problems that have been holding our guests back, and they walk alongside them until they have their feet firmly rooted back on the ground. Self- sufficiency for each of our guests is our ultimate goal, but, just like with a new plant, it takes lots of water in the beginning to establish its roots and then, with some patience and support, it can continue to grow and blossom on its own.”

Interfaith currently offers services to a wide sector of those experiencing homelessness. Interfaith has capacity for 160 guests, including a Family Side with 50 beds and 12 cribs. The organization houses men, women and families with children each night of the year and provides over 55,000 bed nights and meals annually. Other underserved populations are represented in this group, including victims of domestic abuse, persons with mental and/or physical illness, veterans, persons with drug/alcohol misuse issues and those facing under/unemployment.

In November 2017, Interfaith started its daytime, family-focused support program for families with children not yet school-aged. The shelter opens up its family area from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. throughout the weekdays so families experiencing homelessness can have access to newfound opportunities. The goal is to help transition families out of homelessness and provide families a safe place to be during the day. Families have access to early education programs for their children, parenting classes, case management support, nutritious snacks and scheduled nap times. Families who have school-age children may access after-school programs, nutritious snacks and case management.

In 2017, Interfaith developed a work program in partnership with the City of Boise Parks and Recreation Department (Parks and Rec.). The crews of Interfaith guests are eight-month seasonal employees and they spend their workdays pulling weeds, laying sod, and otherwise maintaining parks. The program is also beneficial to Parks and Rec., since finding seasonal workers has become more difficult in recent years. Interfaith assigns each crew member a case manager, who then sets them up with a checking account for direct deposit and confirms they have their Social Security and Identification cards. Encouraged by the success of this program, which started as a 30-day pilot program, Parks and Rec. and Interfaith have expanded the program.

Interfaith recently launched Monday Meet-Up, catalyzed by Interfaith’s desire to help reduce barriers that those experiencing homelessness often face (e.g., multiple misdemeanor charges, lack of proper identification, etc.). To accomplish this, Interfaith invited other community service providers to be present at the gathering in order to offer a convenient “one stop shop” for someone experiencing homelessness. For example, the College of Western Idaho offers sign-ups for life-skills classes and GED tutoring and the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare signs up people for SNAP or other programs. Those who attend Monday Meet-Ups are encouraged to discuss any legal issues they have and receive help with their misdemeanor violations from public defenders and a probation officer. They can also get connected with Coordinated Entry, attend a support group with Tides Treatment Services and Recovery 4 Life and get signed up for the work program with Parks and Rec. Lunch is provided by volunteers. Presently, close to 100 people are expected to show up each Monday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. within the Interfaith building. Participants begin by checking in with case managers who will gather basic information about them and the issues they are facing. The case managers work with the guests to create initial plans to tackle those problems. If successful, Monday Meet-Ups are expected to contribute to the reduction of costs associated with the criminal justice system.

For Interfaith to keep pace with its mission, fundraisers have special significance. Each year in December, the Xtreme Holiday Xtravaganza, a Curtis Stigers/Jodi Peterson Production, is hosted at the Egyptian Theatre. Many artists perform at the fundraiser and sing songs about home and shelter. All proceeds received during this popular event benefit Interfaith.

Another annual event held by Interfaith is its Home Sweet Home Gala, which happens every September. The event is an award ceremony honoring some of Interfaith’s long time volunteers, donors and partners, as well as guests who have successfully transitioned out of homelessness. Finally, Gimme Shelter is a live music and art benefit for Interfaith. It aims to share the organization’s mission and the work the organization does at the shelter.

Performance and Capacity

Since 2016, Jodi Petersen and Dan Ault have worked as co-directors of Interfaith Sanctuary. For fiscal year July 2017 – June 2018, Interfaith Sanctuary had total revenue of $943,000, of which fundraisers contributed around 25% or $235,500 (Interfaith, 2018c).

Fundraisers:

• Xtreme
• Creative Good
• Give Me Shelter
• Home Sweet Home Gala
• Idaho Gives

Individual, board and corporate contributions made up another 50% or $477,000 of revenue, while foundation contributions made up the rest. Interfaith’s supporters have included a variety of local foundations, government funders, business sponsors and faith-based organizations. Funding is primarily spent on payroll and benefits, as well as facility and equipment expenses and supplies.

Interfaith currently employs 23 individuals (as reported by Interfaith via email communication with research team). Of those employees:

Per their website (Interfaith, 2018b), Interfaith Sanctuary is currently coordinating the following services:

• Identification and official documents
• Health Insurance
• Assess Physical Health and Mental Health
• Substance Abuse Assessment
• Education Assessment
• Employability Assessment
• Assess Income opportunities
• Financial Health
• Life Skills Assessment
• Housing
• Peer Advocate
• Daytime Family Program
• Pre-K Programming
• Parks and Rec Work Program

Past Collaboration with Boise State University

Interfaith Sanctuary has built a relationship with Boise State departments as well as faculty and staff. The following table shows past projects between Boise State and Interfaith.* These projects have mostly occurred in an ad hoc manner:

2016

2017

Return to the beginning of the report

Background

Because a major purpose of this study was to evaluate the Network of Homelessness Service Providers (the Network) in Ada County, a network analysis was utilized as part of the study. The resulting network diagram can quickly and intuitively provide an overview of the relationships that connect and define the service network, including gaps and weak points.

Literature Review

Nonprofit organizations can be influenced to engage in relationships with other public, private and nonprofit organizations for a myriad of reasons, including funding insecurity, service expansion, and political pressure. Normally, when a nonprofit partners with another organization, the expectation from both parties is that the ensuing collaboration will yield results greater than each organization would be able to achieve alone. Indeed, research shows that collaboration and outreach often does increase nonprofit service capacity, as well as resilience to external threats (Paarlberg & Varda, 2009). In particular, collaboration is often used by nonprofits as a source of added value within a community, allowing the nonprofit sector to expand beyond the point that the community’s resource capacity would otherwise be capable of achieving (Paarlberg & Varda, 2009).

For these reasons, a nonprofit’s position and importance within the community service network, a local network of similar organizations with similar groups of stakeholders, is sometimes seen as an indication of that nonprofit’s potential to create successful and lasting community change (Woller & Parsons, 2002). Evidence suggests that nonprofits can improve their impact by also acting as network facilitators within their communities, actively seeking to develop relationships between community members in an effort to provide support and provide funding and services to previously inaccessible community members (Shea, 2011).

However, collaboration and network building can potentially come at a price. Some nonprofits cite the possibilities of mission drift, loss of autonomy and accountability, cooptation and financial obligation as reasons to avoid some partnerships (Gazley, 2008). Malatesta & Smith argue that the level of dependence that a nonprofit has on a partner increases that nonprofit’s risk for these possible outcomes. Even when these risks are controlled, productive relationships can be expensive and time-consuming to maintain, although built trust can decrease these negative consequences as a relationship develops over time (Malatesta & Smith, 2014; Paarlberg & Varda, 2009). Risks can be minimized, and benefits maximized, by making a conscious, planned effort to pursue mutually beneficial relationships that effectively use the strengths of each participating organization appropriately.

Methodology

IPI collected network data by sending a survey through Qualtrics, an online survey platform, to 66 members of the Network identified through interviews and previous research. The survey provided a list of these same organizations to each respondent, asking that they identify the organizations that they communicate with and then asking them to rank each of those relationships by frequency of communication, type of resource shared and importance of the relationship to their own organizational success. Of the 66 survey recipients, 29 recipients, or 43.9%, fully completed the survey. Organizations that did not respond to the survey may be somewhat less represented in the Network, as their participation had to be measured from the responses of other organizations that listed them as contacts.

The Network itself was analyzed with the Ucinet network analysis tool, which interpreted the provided survey data as a matrix of connections and used the matrix to develop a visual network which could then be analyzed according to the relationships portrayed.

Network Diagram

The following network diagram was built from the data collected on frequency of communication between organizations across the Network. The size of each node (the shapes representing each organization) is based on “betweenness,” a network calculation that measures an organization’s potential influence in the network by counting how many other organizations are connected through its presence. Organizations with a higher “betweenness” score tend to have a higher level of control over communication throughout the Network.

It is worth noting that Interfaith Sanctuary (Interfaith) (represented in orange, with blue ties) does have a rather central role in the Network, as indicated both by their own reported connections with others, as well as other organizations’ reported connections with them. Interfaith has been pulled out from its location in the circle to better highlight its position in the Network.

It is also apparent from the network diagram that some organizations are better represented within the Network than others, which highlights potential opportunities for development. For example, the Ada County school districts may be currently underrepresented, given their connection with youth experiencing or being threatened by homelessness. Likewise, other agencies with high Network involvement, such as Agency for New Americans and Family Advocates, could potentially become strong partners for Interfaith, despite having no current reported connection with them.

Return to the beginning of the report

Background

Interviews with service providers revealed a mentality of competition over finite resources. During interviews, service providers voiced particular concerns about competition for funding. Within the Network of Homelessness Service Providers (the Network) in Ada County a mentality of scarcity limits the Network’s ability to come together and address the common goal of ending homelessness (TED, 2017). To better understand the distribution of funding within the Network, the research team focused in on a particular type of funding, that from government agencies.

Sankey Diagram

The following flow diagram illustrates each government funding source (divided by color) that provides money within the Network as well as the organizations within the Network that directly received this funding in 2017. It must be noted, since this diagram is limited to government funding, many funding and provider relationships within the Network are not depicted. For instance, nonprofit organizations were not included in this chart, except for those that received grant funding that was directly connected to a specific government funding source.

Analysis

This chart demonstrates the narrow government funding environment that Ada County homelessness service providers operate within. It also shows that government funding is distributed to relatively few organizations, which may then act as pass-through agents, managing funds as they are distributed throughout the community. Ada County’s presence in this chart is a recent addition caused by a contribution to the New Path Housing Project that may highlight future funding and partnership opportunities.

Return to the beginning of the report

Best Practices – Procedures that have been shown by research and experience to produce optimal results and that are established or proposed as a standard suitable for widespread adoption

Blue Sky Institute – The Blue Sky Institute (Blue Sky) was founded as a collaborative venture between the Colleges of Health Sciences and College of Business and Economics. Blue Sky’s mission is to provide the foundation for a Boise State University-wide collaboration around entrenched global challenges, or what might be called “wicked problems.”

Continuum of Care – A Continuum of Care (CoC) is a regional or local planning body that coordinates housing and services funding for homeless families and individuals. CoCs are tasked to track and manage the homeless community in their area. One of most important activities entrusted to CoCs is the biannual count of the homeless population and an annual enumeration of emergency systems, transitional housing units and beds that make up the homeless assistance systems. These counts provide an overview of the state of homelessness in a CoC and offer the information necessary to redirect services, funding and resources as necessary.

Coordinated Entry – Coordinated entry is a process developed to ensure that all people experiencing a housing crisis have fair and equal access and are quickly identified, assessed, referred and connected to housing and assistance based on their strengths and needs (HUD definition).

Guest – A person staying overnight and/or receiving services at Interfaith Sanctuary.

Homelessness – A person experiencing homelessness is someone who is living in a place not meant for human habitation, or in an emergency shelter. Someone experiencing homelessness does not have regular, safe, secure and adequate housing.

Homelessness Management Information System (HMIS) – A local information technology system used to collect client-level data and data on the provision of housing and services to homeless individuals and families and persons at risk of homelessness. Each Continuum of Care is responsible for selecting an HMIS software solution that complies with HUD’s data collection, management, and reporting standards. (HUD definition)

Honest Broker – Facilitates negotiations and mediates interactions between parties with different interests, whilst not siding with any particular party.

Housing First – Housing First is an approach to quickly and successfully connect individuals and families experiencing homelessness to permanent housing without preconditions and barriers to entry, such as sobriety, treatment or service participation requirements. Supportive services are offered to maximize housing stability and prevent returns to homelessness as opposed to addressing predetermined treatment goals prior to permanent housing entry. (HUD definition)

Interfaith Sanctuary – Interfaith Sanctuary is a 501c(3) nonprofit that began by operating an emergency overnight shelter and now also provides supportive services.

Idaho Policy Institute – The Idaho Policy Institute at Boise State University works across the state with public, private and nonprofit entities to help articulate their needs, create research plans to address those needs and present practical data that allows for evidence based decision making.

Network Analysis – Network analysis is the mapping and measuring of relationships and flows between people, groups, organizations, computers and other connected information/knowledge entities. The nodes in the network represent people and groups while the links show relationships or flows between the nodes. Network analysis provides both a visual and a mathematical analysis of human relationships.

Network of Homelessness Service Providers (the Network) – A collection of service providers identified by the Idaho Policy Institute as providing homelessness services in Ada County.

Vertically Integrated Project – Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) are project-based learning opportunities for students to work alongside faculty as they pursue ambitious research, industry and community endeavors.

Return to the beginning of the report

David, F. R. (2003). Strategic management: Concepts and cases, (9th ed.), USA: Pearson Education.

Gazley, B. (2008). Beyond the contract: The scope and nature of informal government–nonprofit partnerships. Public administration review, 68(1), 141-154.

Gürel, E., & Tat, M. (2017). SWOT ANALYSIS: A THEORETICAL REVIEW. Journal of International Social Research, 10(51).

Harrison, J. P., & Association of University Programs in Health Administration. (2010). Essentials of strategic planning in healthcare (Vol. 19, No. 3). Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.

Interfaith Sanctuary. (2018a). About us. Retrieved from www.interfaithsanctuary.org/about-us

Interfaith Sanctuary. (2018b). Mission. Retrieved from www.interfaithsanctuary.org/mission

Interfaith Sanctuary. (2018c). Operating budget.

Malatesta, D., & Smith, C. R. (2014). Lessons from resource dependence theory for contemporary public and nonprofit management. Public Administration Review, 74(1), 14-25.

Paarlberg, L. E., & Varda, D. M. (2009). Community carrying capacity: A network perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 597–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009333829

Pearce, J. A. & Robinson, R. B. (1991). Strategic management, (4th Edition), USA: Irwin.

Shea, J. (2011). Taking nonprofit intermediaries seriously: A middle-range theory for implementation research. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 57-66. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41061155

TED. (2017, January 18). Vanessa Fry: Capital investment for social success

. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/FryCapInvestment

Thompson Jr, A. A., & Strickland III, A. J. (1992). Strategy formulation and implementation: tasks of the general manager (5th ed.. USA: Irwin.

Thompson, A. A., Strickland, A. J. & Gamble, J. E. (2007). Crafting and executing strategy: The quest for competitive advantage: Concepts and cases (15th ed.), USA: McGraw- Hill/Irwin.

Woller, G., & Parsons, R. (2002). Assessing the community economic impact of nongovernmental development organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(3), 419–428.