Strapped, New Reach Considers Closing A Shelter

This is why you need more mix income housing.

Why would you cut the funding without knowing where the money was coming from and that it was actually available. In the same budget process, Harp gave the schools more than $3 million and added staff. This judgement and priorities are flawed. There is a lot of short term thinking in the Harp administration without regard to the consequences.

This is a human rights emergency!!!!

I agree with Noteworthy.

It is despicable that the city doesn't do anything when they could leverage the money from somewhere. Toni Harp is rich enough to solve this problem on her own. Yale, Fusco, Pike Intl., and the 2 or 3 other super rich entities in town can easily afford to pay this amount as a charitable gesture to a proven non-profit but I dont see the city gov. asking for it.

Many nonprofits rely on government funding - the shakiest funding possible... They need to start thinking outside the box...

The first thing I would do is look at the salaries... of the upper management ...in 2013, the three employees (CEO,COO and CFO) were paid a total of $ 302,000 (rounded up) in salary (2013,IRS 900, Guidestar.com)... if New Reach were to take $20k away on each of the salaries, these workers will still be living on a well off income and New Reach would have $60k more to put into the programming aspect of their business and eliminate half the deficit.
The second thing I would do is think outside the box, create a strategic plan that relies less on government funding and more on private, corporate and institutional giving programs.
It can be done. Reliance on government funding is not a good thing for a nonprofit and they know it, but don't find creative alternative fundraising opportunities and look realistically at the salaries being paid to management.

New Haven is known in both the homeless and released felon world as the best place to go in Connecticut. The more support you give, the more you attract.

Seems that one poster on here wants all the state's homeless folks and then wants everyone in the city to pay for them to have an apartment. We have to use more common sense than that.

This needs to be addressed as a statewide issue and people in the places where some of the homeless come from need to be paying a share.

First I agree with all of the above comments.

Printed after this story is a story about the homeless man the got killed. And a do gooder sitting on the bench the man slept on...as I look at the pic in the story of the bench in the background is city hall. It just hurt my heart that right outside the doors of our local government homeless people sleep.

Ok had to just mention that. With that said I do want to mention my disgust in most of the religious houses in this city. Long before the city's having to take on the homeless it use to be the job of the churches, temples ect. Is that not one of the reasons they have tax except status? There are very few of these MANY tax exempt places that help the homeless (some do help with food some help the poor in other parts of the world) but what about shelter? I see church leaders driving around in expensive cars, driving home to there expensive homes? Is that what the pensioners give there money to? Maybe I am wrong.

I would also like to add that the state needs to UP its mental health care system. Many of the homeless have mental health issues that are not being cared for. If a person can get that part of their lives under control in the first place maybe we would have less homeless. (this includes changing laws that do not allow families of the ill people more control in getting there adult family members help when it first all states).
Ok rambling now. I think the city, large comp., and churches can find this money, and I think they can find alot more and house most of our homeless. And I also would like to see our leg. rep fight for family rights of adult mental ill family members as a preventive of homelessness.

@Cedarhill - Many churches do provide shelter in the winter months right at the churches through a Columbus House program called Abraham's Tent-
http://www.interfaithnewhaven.org/Abrahams Tent.htm
and a program called Midnight Run-
http://www.newhavensda.com/article/21/the-ministries-of-our-church/community-service

Is it enough? Probably not, but it does help during the coldest months of the year...do we need to do MORE absolutely... for instance, the Abraham's Tent program impacts only 12 MEN, what about the women and children? There are MANY homeless children and youth in our schools... how can we reach out to them and their families? The homeless problem is more than just those we see on our park benches, in our libraries and on our street corners...

Homelessness is a HUGE problem that we as a community of human beings each needs to address as a community. It might not just be throwing money at programs; maybe it's working together- as a community- and rehabbing some of these empty warehouses, factories and houses that litter the streets of New Haven so that there is affordable housing, supported housing and even "hostels" where those who are homeless or on the brink of homelessness can find a warm shower, soft bed, therapy and recreation.... There are answers out there- perhaps the money is better spent creating solutions and giving the homeless citizens of New Haven a sense of home.

posted by: Theodora on August 9, 2015 8:21am

This needs to be addressed as a statewide issue and people in the places where some of the homeless come from need to be paying a share.

New Haven took this on themselves by calling themselves New Haven County Homeless Shelters And Social Services

Welcome to my New Haven County, Connecticut Homeless Shelters page. Below are all of the homeless shelters and homeless services in New Haven County, CT that I have found. In fact the other towns do have homeless shelters.

http://www.homelessshelterdirectory.org/cgi-bin/id/county.cgi?county=New-Haven-County&state=CT


Again you need mix income housing to fix this problem.

JCP4's comments -- which BTW I am not attacking -- are representative of the kind of thinking which really reflects an outdated understanding of the nonprofit sector. The days or low salaries for people who do "human service work" are over. The nonprofit sector has been professionalized over the past couple of decades to the point where it attracts many talented, well-educated individuals. It looks like Kelly Ann Day's salary is in the $100k plus range. Consider she runs an organization with a $6m budget, that she was probably responsible for the leadership that grew that organization's budget to $6m, and in my opinion her salary is right around where it should be. If you were in the private sector and offered someone less than $100k to run a $6m business they would laugh in your face! The nonprofit world should be no different. That's not to say there are not people earning inflated salaries, or earning high salaries they don't deserve. I don't think that's the case at New Reach. There's an adage "you get what you pay for", and this is certainly the case with employees. If we want talented people to lead organizations, then expect those organizations to have an impact in the community, that's not going to happen with someone being paid $50,000. It just won't.

Lastly, all capable nonprofits already seek funding from individuals, institutions and corporations. These are one-shot sources of money and no one "lives off" such funding. Rarely will a corporation or institution like Yale give money for more than one year. The only source of recurring or multi-year funding are foundations (no more than 3 years) and government. Government funds and should continue funding services such as those described in this article because nonprofits like New Reach will generally do a better job at a cheaper cost.

I think it sends an extreme mixed message when the directors in an organization make in excess of 100k each, meanwhile the people the organization is serving are making chicken scratch and eating crumbs.

Perhaps New Reach would not be struggling if the City hadn't made the poor decision to reallocate money for homeless services to organizations like Community Action Agency of New Haven (CAANH).

According to a July 17 article in the Independent, the City gave more than $190,000 to CAANH, an organization with no experience with homeless services. In fact, the only recent experience CAANH had with housing services of any type was an utter failure. CAANH actually had its subcontract to provide those services cancelled by another nonprofit because CAANH had thoroughly mismanaged the program.

The City will have to live with the knowledge that it is harming actual homeless families by shifting money from competent service providers to a historically inept agency. Whether the city's decision to reward CAANH was a political decision--or something else--is for the media to question.

The city is reducing payments by $130K but according to the article, the organization has had multiple years of half million dollar deficits. In one respect I appreciate that the city holds organizations accountable but on the other hand, a helpful intervention might be more valuable than punishment.

That all being said, I'm extremely interested in Ludivicus' suggestion that the city may be shuffling money from one nonprofit to another for political purposes; especially if the recipient is undeserving.

As someone in the non-profit industry, I am sure New Reach continues to think outside the box as we all have to do because we do know we cannot rely on public dollars. It is interesting people always feel non-profit leadership should not be paid their value. If this were a $5,000,000 private industry (employing over 60 people supporting a variety of programs to help the homeless and families living in poverty), I suspect most people would have no problem with the top 3 making $302,000. Yet, when it is a non-profit, recognized locally and nationally, people immediately think the top management and staff should be doing this for less than their worth.
It is a nice thought to say "turn to the private sector". Many non-profits already have done so because they are aware the public dollars are drying up. Takeovers and mergers in corporate America have resulted in fewer companies being headquartered in New Haven. Consequently, charitable donations from banks and other private industries on which non-profits have relied shrink each year forcing those that remain to make tough choices. Should they continue to focus on one cause or spread the funding around at a reduced amount?
New Reach funding from the city has remained constant dollar wise but represents a smaller percentage of their growing budget as operating expenses (like all of us in non-profits have seen) have increased. When the line item funding remains the same, the percentage the city is funding decreases each year. But from that article it shows that support from the city is critical to keeping their three shelters opened. Like all of us, New Reach must continue to seek out new and innovative ways to fund the needs of their clients.
In the City's new budget, more money was allocated to the city schools. I like many support increased funding to education if the money is well spent. Studies have shown student performance will continually fall short of the pubic expectations in spite of the teachers

@Walking Lady - I have spend the majority of my working life in the non-profit sector... and realize that funding is difficult, to say the least.

The point I was making in my remarks was that even with a $60k cut in upper management salaries, they would be living quite well and have their organization live to see another day.

I agree that New Reach does good work and should continue doing so... but in looking at their 2013 990 I see that the majority of their funding comes from government sources and one major fundraiser...

They can become more diverse in how they receive funding- yes, government dollars are important in a program like New Reach- all I am saying is that reliance on government funding as your main source is a slippery slope and many NFPO's seem surprised when all of a sudden their funding has been reduced or cut.

This isn't just a problem for New Reach, it is one faced by ALL NFPOs that receive funding from any source... But it's the nature of running a NFPO- one can not become content; you must continue to seek out new sources or revenue, adjust strategic planning with the ebb and flow of the economy and keep your program(s) running.

Lifehaven in particular has a strong mission of housing battered women and children who often flee crisis and have zero resources. I would prefer the city try to advise them out of their budget problem rather than punish them. There's only two ways to cure that kind of problem, cut spending or raise more money. Both are hard to do.

LH's 2012 990 shows about a $1M budget. If one were to simply house 20 families in $1500/month apartments, the rent would be $360K. Using BLS %'s, non-elective things like food, health, etc, should be about 2/3 of that. So that would leave 40% of LH's budget for other support services and administration. However, their 990 shows @50% of budget going to employee compensation which is a metric one would expect from a startup. That figure should probably be more like 30%. Unfortunately, this organization is in that very painful budget place where they really need to upscale their services in order to justify the staff expenditure and lower it as a percentage of total budget.

FWIW, this non-profit trade magazine lists average executive compensation for non-profits of various scales and services. Keep in mind that New Reach is a 3-headed beast.

http://www.blueavocado.org/content/high-pay-nonprofit-execs-analysis-100000-salaries

Tax Yale and its $24 billion endowment and all wealthy non-profits.
Problem solved.
Tax relief to the middle class.
Money for services to the needy.

The CEOs salary corresponds to the Blueavacado data as being exactly the same as the average of the mean salary figure of the $1-5m NPOs and the $5-10M NPOs.
I don't know why compensation as a whole looks to be such a high percentage.

DS,

How about this? Forget taxing Yale since you're battling a national industry that's had this status for the past 400 years and whose tax status has a reasonable logic (societal benefit.) Focus instead on getting the CT state legislature (something you can theoretically influence) to reimburse NHV for ALL forfeited taxes since the idea that societal benefit remains mostly local is now proven to be an anachronism for large scale institutions. The legislature should recognize the anachronistic unfunded mandate.

Taxing wealthy non-profits makes sense and should be part of tax relief to the middle class.
Having read the rationale for Yale's tax break on its own website, it's clear it was a modest break at the time and not the colossal loophole it has become.
We are not going to get reimbursement from the State for the lost taxes. History shows that we continue to get a fraction of the formula already in place.
No. I think it better to push for a big idea that will gather support over time.
Nothing is forever, including the special privilege in place for wealthy non-profits.
The middle class is breaking under the burdens of real estate taxes, personal property taxes and funding college education for the children.
Something has to give.
Time and the weight of a collapsing system is on my side, even if I'm not around to see it.

In response to Robn's post of Aug. 10 at 7 am, I do believe the city made an irresponsible move. Community Action Agency of New Haven (CAANH) is clearly undeserving of $190,000+ in homeless-services funding based on CAANH's past performance.

First, it has no experience with homeless services. As I stated before, CAANH recently lost its only housing program--eviction and foreclosure prevention--due to mismanagement. It lost that program within about a year of receiving funding for it.

Second, CAANH can barely operate the one program--Energy Assistance--that is supposed to be its bread and butter. In fact, a recent Connecticut Department of Social Services audit graded CAANH an "F" for its provision of energy assistance.

Third, CAANH has failed to manage its own finances. It has consistently run into fiscal trouble, to the point where, a year ago, it had to furlough its entire staff (other than the CEO). The furloughs came on the heels of CAANH's senior management receiving 5% raises and the CEO leasing a brand new GMC SUV on the company dime. So much for fiscal responsibility or sharing the pain with lower-level staff.

Why the city would take money away from experienced homeless-services agencies and reward CAANH is anyone's guess. CAANH seems to be a specialist in one thing only--failure.

Perhaps an enterprising journalist should look into why the city made a funding decision that surely does a disservice to homeless individuals and families throughout the city.