This dissertation is unlike most in form and formality. It is an ethnographic study of how I entered the world of people experiencing homelessness, first as an observer and then as a practitioner. My hope, at a minimum, is that this work inspires a look at homelessness in your own backyard with a new lens. Come and see.

I was twelve years old when I first saw poverty. Our ministry bus pulled into Guatemala City’s landfill, and I distinctly remember being so repulsed by the stench I shuddered to get off the bus. But the sound of children laughing louvered me out. There was a community of thousands who had carved their homes out of compacted trash and made their living scrounging, salvaging, and scraping. I was instantly amazed and horrified. But our time there was not filled with pity or despair, only the laughter that comes so easily in childhood as we were invited into the community with warmth and delight. How could I have so much while others had so little? This question would define my life. I understood that day that my privilege comes with responsibility. The following year, I visited Saint Petersburg, Russia, and witnessed girls my own age drugged and prostituted. These trips shaped my worldview and focus. In my younger years, I would continue to travel, study, and do my small part to alleviate poverty, or at least better understand its devastating consequences.

Fast forward nearly twenty years and you will find me in a PhD Housing Studies program where I set out to develop and implement a construction system for impoverished communities overseas. Two years into my program, the principal investigator with whom I was working left on emergency medical leave, and I was left without a project. Just one prospect was available to me: a research position to look at homelessness in the Twin Cities, jointly funded by a large healthcare system and the University of Minnesota’s Minnesota Design Center. I was surprisingly ungrateful. Homelessness was not on my radar for two reasons: first, I believed that if you were poor in America, you were fine. There are government programs and church programs, nonprofits, food shelves, and social safety nets. I had traveled to poverty-ridden places across the globe. I had seen what it looked like to live on two dollars a day. And, to be honest, I felt that people in other countries were the deserving poor; their countries’ economics and politics caused their situation, whereas the American homeless had only themselves to blame. However, it seemed to me that it was time to look at poverty in my own backyard with a deeper curiosity and inquiry.

There was growing concern about the homeless population using the emergency room (ER) as a place of refuge. In 2017, our UMN research team was told by the CEO of a large county hospital that it costs $1500 a day to provide a bed and a meal to someone who otherwise has no emergency medical needs. The homeless had found a loophole in the system: they would not be turned away from the hospital. So, on nights when the shelters are full or on very cold nights when the unsheltered have no choice but to go indoors, the homeless find their way to the ER for reprieve. I began to investigate how a healthcare system might offer a more appropriate and less expensive intervention to homeless individuals who were frequent users of the emergency department.

As I immersed myself in the prevailing models of thought and care around homelessness, I became convinced that something was missing from the national “solution” of a Housing First model and the Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) associated with it. At the same time, the CEO of the county hospital I was working for was interested in learning more about the tiny home movement. So, as I examined the existing available housing options, I included the Tiny Home Village model in my inquiry. Many were self-governed, privately funded, and offered transitional accommodations, most often for what might be called the “easiest to house” homeless - those with the agency to advocate for themselves and participate in the creation of the village (for example, Dignity Village, Occupy Madison, or Opportunity Village).

Of the approximately 34 Tiny Home Village developments for people experiencing homelessness throughout the United States, as of 2019, only two offered Permanent Supportive Housing: Quixote Village in Olympia, Washington, and CF!V in Austin, Texas. Quixote Village is home to 30 micro-units located on two acres of land; CF!V (Phase I) has 240 micro-units on 27-acres, significantly larger than the average village size of 15-60 people (Segal, 2015). While both Quixote and CF!V met the supportive housing criteria put forth by the Corporation for Supportive Housing, CF!V adheres to what they coined a “community-first” model, which goes beyond the Housing First model by creating an intentional community of people who have and have not experienced homelessness living together for the sake of the formerly homeless. It was the only village for the homeless that had resourced people living there voluntarily and with intention. In fact, it appeared to be the only homeless housing project with this type of arrangement. It was the outlier of the outliers, which Gibbert and colleagues (2021) refer to as “promising candidates for theory building because they defy expected cause-and-effect relationships” (2021, p. 172).

It seemed productive to compare a nationally acclaimed traditional PSH development with this alternative PSH development. However, it became clear that it was the philosophical assumptions of the causes of chronic homelessness that made the solutions significantly different, rather than the type of development (apartment building versus tiny home). Why was it that CF!V chose to house 20% fewer homeless people within the village to make room for resourced people who could afford to live elsewhere? How did they come to this solution? What was the model, how did it work, and was it worth scaling?

My investigation into these questions began by presenting this emerging, somewhat elusive, community-first idea to my colleagues from the healthcare innovation center with whom I was working. We agreed to visit CF!V and see for ourselves. In 2017, we attended a quarterly symposium put on by Mobile Loaves and Fishes (MLF), the organization that runs CF!V. We joined people from around the nation looking to replicate this model in their own cities. The symposium was part storytelling, part lecture, and part workshop, with tours of the various components of the village. We heard from key staff and selected residents, who discussed topics ranging from the faith, values, and principles of MLF to mental illness and substance abuse, home types, and community foundations.

At the end of the three-day symposium, most of the two dozen attendees were impressed by the sheer magnitude of the 240 micro-unit development with acres of organic farming, goats and chickens, an art house, blacksmith forge, and woodshop, a bed and breakfast, drive-in cinema, medical facility, outdoor kitchens, fellowship hall, and walking paths throughout the 27 acres. Alan Graham, the founder of the concept, responded to the question “How do we do this in our community?” by replying, “Go home and start by lifting one person up off the streets in one RV.”

While I took him literally, my colleagues from the healthcare industry liked the approach but felt conflicted by the reliance on faith and private funding. As a non-religious, county hospital, they sought to apply the model by replacing “faith” with “health equity” and private funding with public dollars. I disagreed, believing it important to study the model intact before changing it. I had hoped, as I am sure the other attendees did, that MLF would give us a road map for how the community-first concept worked and how it could be implemented. Instead, we received information on what they believed and how they applied this in one context, which was, no doubt, invaluable. But I wondered how lifting one person off the streets in one RV would turn into a village of artisans, farmers, and missionals?  I was not sure, but I decided to trust the process laid out by Alan Graham at the symposium and in his book, Welcome Homeless. That approach turned my attention from examining the symptomatic relationship between healthcare and homelessness to investigating the root cause of chronic homelessness.

Wicked problems (Rittel & Weber, 1973) are hard to solve for a number of reasons, including: (1) they are a symptom of other problems, and (2) how the problem is described determines its possible solutions. Homelessness is certainly one of these. Every major city in the US is struggling to respond to the needs of an ever-growing homeless population. The hardest to house and most expensive to the public are those in long-term homelessness who are living in a constant state of emergency. For the past two decades, our society has taken a “Housing First” approach to chronic homelessness: providing housing without prerequisites such as sobriety and offering professional services for things like substance use disorder and mental illness. While this has been an important step forward from a linear model of care which made people jump through hoops to get into permanent housing, housing with supportive services only solves houselessness. Research shows the vast majority of individuals experiencing long-term homelessness come from broken homes and broken communities, having faced significant intergenerational trauma described as “Adverse Childhood Experiences” (ACEs) (Nelson-Dusek et al., 2018) and “Adverse Community Environments'' (Ellis & Dietz, 2017). This unresolved trauma leads to lifelong struggles with substance use, mental illnesses, and chronic health conditions (Felitti et al., 1998). These adverse circumstances can limit people from participating meaningfully in society, erode their social networks, and ultimately lead to the loss of social belonging.

The Housing First model focuses on getting people into stable housing and then helping them with medical, mental health, and substance disorders which have contributed to their remaining homeless, but in a system that will never have enough funding, staff, or housing to come close to meeting the need, a Housing First approach has made minimal impact on ending chronic homelessness. Instead, using case studies and participatory action research, this dissertation provides the first in-depth exploration of an emerging new idea called “community-first.” Most people experiencing long-term homelessness lack the social support of family or community to help them have a sense of belonging and purpose we all need to thrive. Rather than place people in isolated housing units with the support of helping professionals, which can create a new set of challenges, a community-first approach focuses on creating supportive communities for people, within which they can have productive lives, sustain meaningful relationships, and find the help that they need both professionally and socially.

What makes chronic homelessness so challenging to solve is the entangled nature of the problems leading into and reinforcing it. Present throughout our society, these problems are magnified in the lives of those in extreme poverty. In order to understand and respond to the fullness of what contributes to chronic homelessness, I have broken it down into five problems that I have found to be insufficiently identified or addressed in our current model of care. These include social isolation, unaffordable housing, restrictive land use, fragmented services, and lack of meaningful work opportunities. I discuss these in the remainder of Chapter One. Problem definitions were conceived of through a review of literature shown in Chapter Two, a study of the emerging community-first idea presented in Chapter Four, and the creation of an action-oriented model for growth—a “full community” approach proposed— in Chapter Five. The “full community” approach draws upon “community first” concepts, but as will be discussed in Chapter Five, it is intended to scale beyond the originating ideas and cases. Beginning with the end in mind, I present the five nested problems discussed in Chapter One as a theoretical framework for defining a new model of care for people experiencing chronic homelessness, community-first idea (Chapter 4) and five key elements necessary for scaling the approach nationally, Full Community model (Chapter 5).

Lack of affordable housing, unemployment, poverty, mental illness and substance use disorders are commonly cited causes of homelessness (see Trawver, Oby, Kominkiewicz,  Kominkiewicz, & Whittington, 2019; National Coalition for the Homeless, 2007; Lee, Jones, & Lewis, 1990). While these risk factors can exacerbate the probability of becoming homeless, Alan Graham, founder of the community-first approach and first and leading example in practice: Community First! Village (CF!V), argues, “The single greatest cause of homelessness is a catastrophic loss of family” (Graham & Hall, 2017, p. 129).

Based on the belief homelessness is a housing crisis and can be addressed through the provision of safe and affordable housing, the federal government has endorsed Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) using a Housing First approach as the ‘‘clear solution’’ to chronic homelessness (USICH, 2010, p. 18). While studies reveal increased housing stability for chronically homeless individuals who enter PSH, with an average of an 80% housing retention rate (see Clifasefi et al., 2013; Collins et al., 2013; Tsemberis, Kent, & Respress, 2012; Tsemberis et al., 2004), many studies only look at housing retention for one year (Pearson, Montgomery, & Locke, 2009; Palepu, Patterson, Moniruzzaman, Frankish, & Somers, 2013; Aubry et al., 2015). Wong and colleagues (2006) found that only half of the tenants stayed in their housing for three years or more. The other half of the tenants left for both voluntary (61%) and involuntary reasons (39%). Voluntary reasons for leaving included finding accommodations that allowed for more independent living skills and less reliance on supportive services or moving away from problems within the development. Those leaving involuntarily either violated program rules or the staff felt they were not able to maintain themselves in PSH. As noted by Mingoya (2015), the low retention rate (50%) may be due to an absence of collective agency and a sense of belonging.

Several studies have investigated the community and social integration of homeless individuals coming off the streets and into PSH programs and found limited changes (Somers et al., 2017; Stergiopoulos et al., 2015; Tsai, Mares, & Rosenheck, 2012). This type of integration has been a national goal beginning with the Community Mental Health Act of 1963, but the objective of moving this vulnerable population out of institutional settings and into community settings has not been fostered with a sustainable community support system. This was highlighted by Bachrach in 1976 and remains true today.

Experiences of loneliness and isolation are prevalent among residents in Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) developments associated with a Housing First approach (Schutt & Goldfinger, 2011; Pleace, 2011; Patterson, Rezansoff, Currie, & Somers, 2013). One contributing factor could be adult homelessness is often preceded by Adverse Childhood Experiences (Nelson-Dusek et al., 2018). The vast majority of the chronically homeless have experienced significant trauma during their childhoods, including living with a substance abuser, witnessing abuse, and experiencing abuse (Wilder, 2016). Few can rely on support from family and friends (Kertesz et al., 2005; Caton et al., 2005), increasing their isolation and decreasing their opportunities for social inclusion (Daiski, 2007). While the Housing First model addresses the lack of housing and services, it has yet to demonstrate community integration for its residents.  This dissertation takes the stance that homelessness is a social problem, rather than an individual one. From this position, providing housing is necessary but it is not sufficient. “Housing will never solve homelessness, but community will,” argues Alan Graham (Dodd, 2019).

The need to belong is among the most fundamental of all human needs (see Baumeister & Leary, 1995, one of the most cited research studies on the matter). The Harvard Study of Adult Development, the world’s longest study of adult life reveals conclusively that more than genes, money, success, or any other variable, what determines a long and healthy life is the quality and frequency of social connection (Waldinger, 2015). Within the field of homelessness, research reveals a profound need for rehabilitation interventions in supported housing programs to improve social integration of chronically homeless adults, yet the current model of care does not address this sufficiently (see Tsai, Mares, & Rosenheck, 2012; Stergiopoulos et al., 2015; Somers et al., 2017)

Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), or affordable housing with the provision of voluntary supportive services, using a Housing First model, has been the acclaimed response to chronic homelessness for more than two decades, yet there is a severe shortage of such housing (Burt et al., 2002; Kirby & Keon, 2006; Newman & Goldman, 2008; Joint Center, 2015; Wilder Research, 2016). Notably, researchers, activists, healthcare plans, and government agencies alike call for a dramatic increase in the supply of affordable supportive housing (see Goering et al., 2014; Viveiros, 2015). The Corporation for Supportive Housing (2016) estimates 1.2 million new units of PSH are needed. But costly private financing (Lawson, Milligan, & Yates, 2012; Benecki, Andrew, & Chan, 2014), rigorous government subsidies (Cho & Gallagher, 2012), and inflexible building codes (Manville, 2014) make the development of supportive housing an expensive and bureaucratic undertaking (Mingoya, 2015).

Regulations have made affordable housing so expensive the supply cannot keep pace with the demand (Fischer & Sard, 2013). Despite the evidence that housing a chronically homeless person costs far less than managing their homelessness (Culhane, 2008), there lacks strong and united political support for creating, financing, and sustaining such housing. As a result, an insufficient number of units are built each year, while the number of those needing such accommodations increases (Fischer & Sard, 2013).

At an average cost of $255,103 per studio unit, producing new affordable supportive housing requires government subsidies that often come in the form of 20 or more funding streams pieced together (Cho & Gallagher, 2012). Additionally, more grants are needed to cover ongoing operating costs since rents do not generate enough income to support a traditional loan (Segal, 2015).  It would cost $300 Billion to provide the 1.2M units of new PSH needed in our nation and many decades to build this supply.

At a minimum, the homeless have been regarded with indifference, but more often with contempt, fear, and loathing (Hopper, 1987). Land use regulations and exclusionary zoning policies (Glaeser & Gyourko, 2002; Kautz, 2001) as a response to Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) opposition (Tighe, 2010) have contributed to preventing housing for the homeless from being developed. And more specifically, slavery, Jim Crow laws, redlining, and racially restrictive covenants have excluded people of color from accumulating wealth through valuable land ownership (Olivet et al., 2019). These discriminatory practices work to keep the poor out of certain neighborhoods and concentrated in others. Racially segregated neighborhoods can often be characterized by “Adverse Community Environments,” including poverty, discrimination, community disruption, and violence, in addition to lack of opportunity, economic mobility, and social capital, which play a key role in who ends up homeless (Ellis & Dietz, 2017). These systemic traumas disproportionately affect the black community, who are overrepresented within the chronically homeless population. As the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority summarizes, “Black people have been historically and systematically precluded from housing opportunities, including through redlining, exclusionary zoning, and other forms of discrimination codified by federal, state, and local law. While laws have changed, the effects of these previous policies are still pervasive” (2018, p. 20).  

As environmental justice pioneer Robert Bullard wrote, "NIMBY, like white racism, creates and perpetuates privileges for whites at the expense of people of color" (2000, p. 144). Local opposition to low-income housing is prevalent in affluent, white communities. Organizers apply pressure on local governments to use their zoning and land use powers to keep this type of development out. Such powers include requirements for large building lots and restrictions on the ability to subdivide property into smaller lots; restrictions on new utilities; construction and design standards; and zoning prohibits multi-family dwellings (Gerrard, 1993), as well as development impact fees and urban growth control measures (Quigley & Raphael, 2004).

Substantial research suggests that the chronic homeless population, although small in percentage, is among the costliest concerning the use of social services (Culhane & Kuhn, 1998; Thornquist, Biros, Olander, & Sterner, 2002; Culhane, 2008; Doren, Raven, & Rosenheck, 2013). The public spends between $35,000 and $150,000 per person per year caring for unsheltered individuals (Henwood et al., 2015b). This population cycles in and out of emergency rooms, hospital beds, detox centers, mental health facilities, and jails, creating a revolving door of treatment, arrest, illness, and injury (USICH, 2018). The cycle is not only detrimental to the health of the individuals but equally detrimental to the health of the community by paying for unnecessary interventions rather than less costly and more humane preventative care. There are enormous societal benefits to moving people from the streets and into community that are less easily quantifiable, such as eliminating the shame, guilt, or ignorance that comes from leaving people homeless.

People experiencing homelessness say social services are fragmented, overburdened, and can be dehumanizing. The chronically homeless report paperwork is too difficult for government subsidies (Nino, Loya, & Cuevas, 2009); provider staff expresses the ineffectiveness of case management due to overly burdened case managers, high caseload ratios, lack of follow-through, and excessive turnover rates; shelter guests say they feel dehumanized, and people with lived experiences of homelessness express feelings of not being cared for or valued within a social service system which lacks empathy and compassion (LAHSA, 2018). “Our social systems [were] designed to deal with occasional troubles, not the endemic consequences of persistent inequality” (Cottam, 2020, p. 9).

While numerous studies show the cost-savings of a Housing First model (see Larimer et al., 2009; Basu, Kee, Buchanan, & Sadowski, 2012; Levanon Seligson et al., 2013), there lacks evidence of increased community participation, civic and religious engagement, work, or social support as an outcome of this approach (Somers et al., 2017; Stergiopoulos et al., 2015; Tsai, Mares, & Rosenheck, 2012), leaving participants of a Housing First program with little more than surviving.  

Despite the stereotypes of the homeless being lazy (Hopper, 2003), people experiencing homelessness want to work. Still, the barriers are considerable, including physical and mental disabilities, and the Housing First model alone is insufficient in helping people gain employment (Poremski, Woodhall-Melnik, Lemieux, & Stergiopoulos, 2016).

The majority of supportive housing tenants receive some federal assistance like Supplemental Security Income (SSI) which is $735 a month. After paying the required one-third of their income toward rent, residents are left with less than $500 a month to pay for transportation, utilities, phone and internet, laundry, medications, food, and personal needs. To increase incomes, case managers often work with clients in accessing employment or improving their employment situation (Case Management Foundations, n.d.), but employment opportunities within the developments are not a requirement or regularly provided within PSH projects. Employment, purpose, or even healthy ways of spending time is not a tenet of the Housing First model. This means, in the event that someone is able to exit long-term homeless and move into subsidized housing, they still remain in poverty and without opportunities for purposeful or productive ways of using their time within the prevailing model of care.

The standard approach to homelessness is called Housing First: providing four walls and a roof and offering social services (USICH, 2010). This approach falls short because it is based on the assumption that homelessness is the result of a lack of housing, disregarding the evidence most people experiencing long-term homelessness have suffered extreme individual and environmental trauma, which leads to lifelong consequences, including the loss of family and community. Many of the effects of homelessness: chronic health conditions, substance use disorders, and mental health disabilities are costly to treat without the stability of housing. Yet, despite the national adoption of a Housing First response, long-term homelessness has continued to rise due to the severe shortage of affordable units, the tremendous cost and regulatory barriers of developing new supportive housing, and a lack of integration into a supportive and nurturing community. A community-first concept is an alternative focusing not only on providing genuinely affordable housing options but on holistically meeting the relational and social needs of people experiencing chronic homelessness.

This dissertation provides an investigation into this emerging model which understands homelessness as a result of a lack of community support, and not a lack of housing alone. Its goal is to seek and share new knowledge that could contribute to eradicating chronic homelessness.

Federal counts show chronic homelessness as the only segment of the homeless population increasing, despite a federal commitment to focus on its eradication. This research study is the first to recognize, articulate, and academically explore this new approach to homelessness, community-first, which challenges the prevailing assumptions of the root causes of long-term homelessness and, subsequently, the response. Adding new knowledge to the causes of chronic homelessness will lead to more effective prevention and intervention strategies. This work has tremendous potential to impact public policy, allocation of resources, and public opinion in the areas of homelessness, affordable housing, and supportive communities.

This dissertation reconceptualizes the problem of homelessness and the response.  First,  it uses a literature review to provide a gap analysis of the Housing First approach, that is, the space between the present state and the desired state, and redefines the need for an alternative one. Next, it conducts exploratory research and synthesis of the core components of the alternative “community-first” path.  It pursues this exploration through a detailed case study of the founding example, CF!V, and the first spin off example, Eden Village, with the development of a conceptual framework underpinning this path. And finally, by offering an evolving typology of the key elements for the growth and evolution of the community-first concepts through participatory action research and the proposal and intial application of a “full community” approach.

The following questions guided this research:

1

What are the critical components, underlying assumptions, and guiding principles of a community-first approach and how does it work within the context of Community First! Village (CF!V), the first demonstration of the idea, and Eden Village, the first spin-off version?

2

How is the community-first approach different from, or built upon, the Housing First model?

3

What is the model for development and replication of the alternative ideas within myriad contexts?

‍

The Housing First model is a reaction to its predecessor, “Housing Ready,” which placed preconditions on the person to demonstrate their “readiness,” such as sobriety or enrollment in mental health treatment before they were placed in housing (Tsemberis, Gulcur, & Nakae, 2004). A Housing First model transfers the causes of homelessness from the individual to their life circumstances. While the notion of Housing Readiness was based on the idea a person must earn their housing by addressing the issues which may have led to the episode of homelessness prior to entering housing, Housing First offered the perspective that an individual can best work on their life circumstances from the stability of housing and not for the reward of stability. In the same way, this paradigm shift changed public policy, funding, and opinion, a community-first approach challenges the notion that those same life circumstances are the real problem. Instead, the model focuses not on fixing the circumstances in the individual's life but rather on addressing the root causes that have led to those circumstances: loss of family, which leads to the loss of community, and ultimately leaves one without a dignified role in society.

This research aims to contribute to the existing framework, building upon the vital work of moving away from Housing Readiness to Housing First and shifting the blame from the individual to environmental forces, to offer a new perspective on the social constraints related to homelessness. The study provides the academy, policy-makers, and community leaders a comprehensive explanation of the inner workings of a community-first approach to address chronic homelessness.

Two critical assumptions are made in this research: the need to explain better why people experience long-term homelessness and the need to value their lives as equal to everyone else.

Experts have framed, defined, and disseminated evidence on homelessness favoring positions of dependency rather than personal independence (Cronley, 2010). Current practices for moving someone from chronic homelessness into housing often begin with establishing trust with the client through outreach, inviting them out of the informal sector and into the formal one. While this seems a worthy endeavor, it can be both detrimental and undignified for the person, pulling them out of everything they know and have known and plugging them into a system that has failed them again and again. The ingenuity of someone surviving without adequate necessities seems to be a feat that should be valued rather than overcome. While a person is homeless, myriad survival skills keep one alive, including strategies for bathing, resting, eating, cooking, transporting, collecting, storing, saving, earning, and so on. And yet, these tactics have not found a respected place in society. Leaving homelessness and entering housing often means conforming to how society deems actions appropriate. People re-entering the rental-housing market are encouraged to apply for housing benefits, food benefits, and income benefits and rely on a system that may or may not remain, rather than reinforcing their abilities and skills that have kept them alive: skills that could prove to be beneficial in a society continually valuing convenience over resourcefulness.

A tale of two approaches: housing first–the prevailing model, and community first–an emerging one, is presented in Chapter Two, beginning with a review of homelessness and policy responses to homelessness in the literature.  An overview of the housing first model of care follows and an introduction to an alternative model of care, community-first, is provided. The third chapter presents the research approach, methodological framework, and methods for data collection and analysis. The fourth chapter is an empirical exploration and analysis of the originating community-first ideas within the context of the first example, CF!V, and the first spin-off version, Eden Village. The fifth chapter explores early variants of this model through participatory action research and proposes a conceptual solution that goes beyond the leading examples, through a “Full Community” approach to responding to chronic homelessness. The sixth and final chapter concludes with commentary on impact, generalizations, and limitations, as well as policy implications and future research recommendations.

During the 1700s and 1800s, family and support networks provided emergency shelter to those who found themselves homeless (Hopper, 2003), including almshouses and poorhouses of the American north, which sheltered both white homeless and runaway slaves (Johnson, 2010). It was not until the mid-1800s that care began to shift from home settings to institutional ones and continued into the 1900s. Hopper (2003) argues it was during this time that the homeless began to be perceived as lazy and deviant with the correct course of action being discipline or punishment. However, those in institutional settings remained a small percentage of the homeless receiving help, with the majority still being aided by family networks (Hopper, 2003).  

By the end of the Civil War, there were an estimated 4 million newly freed slaves who found themselves homeless (Slaughter, 1969). New support networks developed at the end of the nineteenth century with the establishment of “skid row” communities or homeless encampments (Wallace, 1965). At the turn of the century, nearly every major city had a well-established area where the homeless gathered to eat and sleep (Johnson, 2010). These informal settlements were predominantly made up of homeless men suffering from substance abuse, mental illness, or the effects of slavery, resembling the chronically homeless population of today. Having no family network of their own to rely on and resistant to institutional care, these men formed their own supportive communities. “The homeless, in short, were those who were not embedded in more or less permanent quarters and were not in enduring contact with a set of kin” (Rossi, 1991, p. 22).

With the Great Depression came a shift in the homeless demographic and the nation's response (Wright, et al., 1998). As needs became overwhelmingly great, the government stepped in to take a more prominent role in assistance. Homelessness no longer predominantly included the mentally ill, substance abusers, and former slaves. An estimated 1.2 million people including women and children and entire families were homeless during this economic downturn (Crouse, 1986). As a result, the National Housing Act of 1934 and the Housing Act of 1937 were put into place to assist with mortgages and improve the living conditions of low-income households. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) were all formed to oversee newly created housing regulations and policies. The American Housing Act of 1949 expanded the preceding legislation in the government’s role in mortgage insurance, financing, and public housing development (Wright et al., 1998), the consequences of which were mass displacement of people of color (Olivet et al., 2019). Federal practices of redlining, or residential security maps to indicate the level of security for mortgage investments, and disinvestment in black neighborhoods led to increased racial segregation and housing and wealth disparities throughout the nation (Berkovec, Canner, Gabriel, & Hannan, 1994). The 1968 Fair Housing Act and Civil Rights Act prohibited racial discrimination in the sale and rental of property and in zoning, yet discrimination continued (Gerrard, 1993).

Societal perceptions of homelessness continued to reflect individual deficiencies as well as structural ones into the 1960s. Lyndon B. Johnson's administration was associated with the War on Poverty, which positioned homelessness as a crisis of poverty and economic injustice (Jeppesen, 2009). Deinstitutionalization, or moving the mentally ill from overcrowded institutions into independent community settings (Fakhoury & Priebe, 2007), was favored by policymakers. However, there lacked sufficient housing options, and this particularly vulnerable population became susceptible to chronic homelessness. Baum and Barnes (1993) argue that abandoning the most economically and mentally vulnerable resulted in an isolated group of people experiencing severe mental illness, chronic health conditions, substance use disorders, and violence. However, deinstitutionalization only contributed to a small segment of homelessness (Wright et al., 1998).

Those finding themselves temporarily homeless and without severe disabilities were affected by worsening economic conditions and conservative policies of the 1970s and 1980s. Within one decade, federal funding for housing was cut by 80 percent (Koschinsky, 1998), reflecting perceptions favoring personal disabilities rather than structural impediments (Wright et al., 1998). National homelessness rose during the 1990s with the smallest portion resembling single males lacking family support and suffering from mental illness and substance use disorder (Kuhn & Culhane, 1998). Much of the increasing population consisted of the transitionally homeless population, those who found themselves homeless for a short period of time and could benefit from emergency shelter and services to exit homelessness quickly (Culhane et al., 1994; Kuhn & Culhane, 1998). Their homelessness is most often the result of economic hardship rather than personal disorders or disabilities (Weitzman, Knickman, & Shinn, 1990).

The increase in homelessness over the decades can be attributed to several compounding factors including high rates of unemployment, decreased living wages for low-skilled employees, increased housing costs (Danzinger & Danzinger, 2006; Wright, et al., 1998), the loss of manufacturing and public-sector jobs and the replacement with low-wage service jobs (Stanback & Noyelle, 1982), gentrification and urban renewal leading to the demolition of single-residency occupancies (SRO) (Philip, 1984), reduced eligibility for public benefits, values not keeping pace with inflation and low vacancy rates (Park, 2000), cutbacks in government housing programs (Kuhn & Culhane, 1998), and systemic racism (Olivet, Dones, & Richard, 2019). The culmination of the low-income housing crisis, deindustrialization, recession and unemployment, increases in the poverty rate, cutbacks in social welfare programs, racism, and increasing family instability and domestic violence has resulted in a growing and diverse homeless population (see Ropers, 1988; Ji, 2006; National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2017; Giano et al., 2020).

According to the 2018 point-in-count estimate, roughly 553,000 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States (Henry, Mahathey, Morrill, Robinson, Shivji, & Watt, 2018). One-fifth or 20 percent of those experiencing homelessness were children, nine percent were youth between the ages of 18 and 24, and 71 percent were adults over the age of 24, (Henry et al., 2018). African Americans are considerably overrepresented among the homeless population, accounting for 40 percent, despite representing only 13 percent of the U.S. population. (Henry et al., 2018).

In the period from 2010 to 2018, a decline in homelessness was reported by federal point-in-time counts across the spectrum including family homelessness by 25 percent, chronic homelessness by 16 percent, and veteran homelessness by nearly half (49 percent). To note, unaccompanied youth homelessness counts have not been reported consistently during this period. Conversely, in Minnesota, the Wilder Foundation found in their 2018 point-in-time count the number of people not in a formal shelter had increased by 62 percent since 2015 (Nelson-Dusek et al., 2018). While other homeless segments have remained relatively steady from 2016 to 2018, the unsheltered chronic homeless population is rising across the nation (Henry et al., 2018).

Roughly 25 percent of the homeless population, an estimated 110,528 individuals, are classified as chronically homeless, according to the 2020 point-in-count estimate (HUD, 2021). Two-thirds of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness remain unsheltered, staying outdoors, in abandoned buildings, or other locations not suitable for human habitation rather than staying in shelters, making them a particularly vulnerable population (HUD, 2021). Chronic homelessness declined by 27% from 2010 to 2016, but in 2017 this number increased by 12% with more than half of all states seeing an increase in the number of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness (USICH, 2018), and reports show an increase in 2018, 2019, and 2020 (HUD, 2021). The Wilder Foundation believes this growing number is a result of limited shelter and subsidized housing availability (Nelson-Dusek et al., 2018), while the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness remains uncertain of the precise causes (USICH, 2018).

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, HUD, the federal department responsible for collecting yearly point-in-time counts of people experiencing homelessness throughout the country, allowed individual communities to decide whether or not to conduct an unsheltered PIT count given the risk factors for transmission among people experiencing homelessness, staff, and volunteers. Given the limited capacity that organizations were working under, many communities chose not to. Therefore, accurate data of our chronically homeless population in America is not available at this time (HUD, 2022).

The chronically homeless population is predominantly individuals rather than families, disproportionately older, black, males (Barrow, Soto, & Cordova, 2004; USICH, 2018) suffering from one or more chronic medical conditions (Dillon, 2014), physically or behaviorally disabled (Culhane, Metraux, & Hadley, 2002), severely mentally ill (Dillon, 2014), substance dependent (Goering, Tolomiczenko, Sheldon, Boydell, & Wasylenki, 2002), persistently unemployed (Caton et al., 2005), or a combination thereof (Culhane & Kuhn, 1998; Caton, Wilkins, & Anderson, 2007), and disproportionately affected by Adverse Childhood Experiences (Nelson-Dusek et al., 2018) and Adverse Community Environments (LAHSA, 2018).

These compounding effects most often lead to the use of emergency shelter and healthcare and involvement with criminal justice and social services, which have shown to be incredibly costly per person per year (Culhane et al., 2002; Perlman & Parvensky, 2006; Martinez & Burt, 2006; Larimer et al., 2009; Poulin et al., 2010; McLaughlin, 2011). Not only are chronically homeless persons a highly vulnerable group with complex needs but their continued homelessness comes at a high cost to society. The longer someone remains homeless, the greater the barriers become to escaping homelessness including increasingly serious mental, medical, and legal problems as well as significant social disconnection (Flaming, Burns, & Carlen, 2018).

“Eradicating chronic homelessness means helping people who have one or more severe disabilities, and often have a history of resisting efforts to help them address those disabilities,” says Burt (2002, p. 1270). However, significant gaps remain in the national data related to this segment of the homeless population. The data that does exist is usually from those individuals interacting with social services (USICH, 2018). There is a lack of a clear understanding of the characteristics, demographics, service and shelter usage, and needs of the sheltered and unsheltered chronically homeless (USICH, 2018).

The process of deinstitutionalization, moving the mentally disabled out of long-stay psychiatric hospitals and into community settings with mental health services, took place during the 1960s and 1970s (Mosher, 1999) beginning with the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. “Unfortunately, ‘the community’ came to mean ‘the streets’” (Powers, 2017). The objective of moving this vulnerable population out of institutional settings with often poor living conditions and into community settings was not supported with sufficient accommodations or a sustainable support system (Bachrach, 1976). The newly created homeless population found refuge in emergency shelters with the promise of it being the first step toward permanent residency within the community.

Prior to deinstitutionalization, chronic homelessness in its magnitude was virtually nonexistent, argues Baum & Barnes (1993). The initial reaction to this spike in the number of chronically homeless was predominantly local. The Reagan administration did not recognize the problem as a federal one and instead insisted it was handled at the community level. The government did, however, create a task force on homelessness in 1983 aimed at helping local communities obtain vacant federal land. It was not until years later, after much lobbying, that the government addressed policy change. In 1986, the Homeless Persons’ Survival Act, later renamed The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, created emergency relief provisions for shelter, food, mobile healthcare, and transitional housing, addressing the needs of the transitionally and episodically homeless, but not the chronically homeless. The McKinney-Vento Act was the first, and remains the only, major federal legislative response to homelessness.

The McKinney-Vento Act programs have been expanded over the years with substantial money allocated toward helping the homeless, but they were never meant to be stand-alone legislation, simply first response and emergency solutions. More robust legislation was needed to provide permanent housing for those experiencing homelessness. However, even as an emergency response, the programs have failed to deliver the provisions necessary for a growing population. The past decade or more has seen funding significantly decrease, limiting the success of the programs to care for the immediate needs of this population (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2006).

In 2009, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act amended and reauthorized the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. An important change to the act came in the form of increased preventative resources and an emphasis on program performance (HUD Exchange, n.d.-b). Furthermore, the HEARTH Act consolidated the three separate McKinney-Vento homeless assistance programs: the Supportive Housing Program, Shelter Plus Care Program, and Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation SRO Program, into the Continuum of Care (CoC) Program. This program was and is intended to create a national strategy for eradicating homelessness with a commitment to long-term, far-reaching measures for ensuring permanent, stable housing solutions (HUD Exchange, n.d.-a).

From long-stay institutional care to emergency care, to permanent community care, reforms have become more human-centered. The HEARTH Act mandated that a national strategic plan to end homelessness be created and in 2010 the first Federal plan to eradicate homelessness was passed by Congress (US Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2010). The plan is known as “Opening Doors” and is based on the belief that “no one should experience homelessness, no one should be without a safe, stable place to call home” (USICH, 2010). The ten-year Federal Plan outlines a collaborative effort to combine mainstream housing, health, education, and human services to prevent and end homelessness through four strategic goals, the first of which is to end chronic homelessness by 2015 (USICH, 2010). The plan was amended in 2015 and extended the time to “finish the job of ending chronic homelessness” to 2017 (USICH, 2015). Since 2010, many communities have adopted or updated plans to end homelessness, incorporating strategies aligned with the goals of this plan (USICH, 2015), yet the numbers have persistently increased (HUD, 2021). As of 2020, at a minimum, 110,528 individuals remain in chronic homelessness (HUD, 2021).

Responding to deinstitutionalization, homeless policy allocated funds from institutional settings to supervised room and board accommodations called by any number of names: group homes, cooperative apartments, community residences, or halfway houses (Leff, Chow, Pepin, Conley, Allen, & Seaman, 2009). The premise was to move this population with mental illness and often co-occurring substance use disorder, from long-stay psychiatric hospitals to community settings, transitioning from an institutional feel to a “homey” one (Robinson, 2006). Services would still be provided on-site, sometimes by live-in staff, yet within a home environment including accessible kitchens and intimate living room settings . The housing staff oversaw making and enforcing strict rules, including sobriety and mandatory participation in treatment (Nuttbrock, Rahav, Rivera, Ng-Mak, & Link, 1998).

The community care model began to progress as providers realized this population not only needed support in rehabilitation but in social recovery which would lead to employment, self-managed life skills, and healthy relationships (Goldman & Morrissey, 1985). The housing was intended to be normalized to help individuals achieve personal independence (Rog, 2004). This was done by limiting staff and services within the home. The expectation was residents would participate in treatment, training, and if possible, work during the day. As individuals progressed in their rehabilitation and recovery, they were moved to more independent housing sites with fewer restrictions and more control over their environment (Barrow & Zimmer, 1999).

As providers began to see the benefit of recovery services, housing models began to reflect a more human-centered, versus a treatment-centered, approach (Tsemberis, Gulcur & Nakae, 2004). The emphasis became the creation of normalized housing settings where having a stable home was not contingent on a person’s degree of rehabilitation, recognizing that having housing provided or taken away based on their performance was detrimental to the individual's sense of stability and progress. Instead, permanent housing was provided, and voluntary supportive services were offered. At this time, housing models created a high demand on the residents, which in turn meant individuals had to be highly motivated in their recovery. Supportive housing models began to emerge with less restrictive settings offering low-demand environments to residents. ‘Housing Readiness’ and ‘Housing First’ models both exist within the supportive housing framework with the main difference being the conditions placed on individuals to participate in treatment (Leff et al., 2009).

Supportive housing is an evidence-based practice combining affordable housing and voluntary support services to help people experiencing homelessness remain housed and healthy and has been shown to be successful by dozens of studies, spanning nearly two decades, as a beneficial health intervention for people experiencing homelessness (see Hunter, Harvey, Briscombe, & Cefalu, 2017; Goering et al., 2014; Basu et al., 2012; Culhane, Metraux, & Hadley, 2002). A significant shift in delivering this type of housing has been in adhering to the principles of Housing First, a model which transfers the responsibility, and subsequently the blame, from the individual to their life circumstances. Preconditions such as sobriety or enrollment in treatment have been proven to be ineffective at making an individual “housing ready” (Tsemberis, Gulcur, & Nakae, 2004). The notion of housing readiness was based on the idea that a person must graduate from the streets to emergency shelter, then into transitional housing, and finally, be rewarded with permanent housing. Each advancement would require the successful completion of certain conditions by the individual. However, many of these terms are impossible to accomplish while living in precarious situations where safety, transportation, and environmental conditions are uncertain at any given moment. A Housing First approach, on the other hand, places no requirements on the chronically homeless client in need of accommodations (Tsemberis, 2010). An individual is placed in permanent housing and then given the opportunity to participate in supportive services intended to help them maintain their housing and improve their health.

The Housing First model was developed by Pathways to Housing, Inc. as a means to end homelessness and support the recovery of homeless individuals struggling with severe mental health disabilities and co-occurring substance use disorders. “We start by housing people directly from the streets, without preconditions. Then we address their underlying issues around mental health, addiction, medical care, income, and education to help integrate and welcome them back into our community,” says Dr. Sam Tsemberis, founder of the model (Pathways, 2017).

Dr. Tsemberis was a clinical psychologist conducting outreach to his mentally ill patients, many of whom were homeless when he realized the current response to individuals suffering from mental illness and substance disorders was not working. He would see the same individuals brought into the clinic, again and again, making no real progress. Emergency services and transitional housing programs had been a way of making people work for their housing. Instead, he proposed putting people in housing, first and then allowing them the opportunity to work on their health. In 1992, Dr. Sam Tsemberis, a faculty member of the Department of Psychiatry of the New York University School of Medicine, founded Pathways to Housing in New York City, eliminating the steps to independence and placing individuals directly into housing. From 1993-1997, Tsemberis and colleague Eisenberg examined the effectiveness of the supported housing approach on 242 clients with severe psychiatric disabilities and addictions in New York City. The study revealed an 88 percent retention rate compared to 60 percent in the control group who were housed through a linear residential treatment approach (Tsemberis & Eisenberg, 2000). This groundbreaking study revealed many people suffering from mental illness and substance disorder could live independently with supportive services, without the need for an institutionalized setting or treatment requirement.

Housing First is based on the overarching belief that housing is a human right, and only after an individual is stably housed can full recovery be achieved. Furthermore, the model relies on the following principles: 1) homelessness is a housing crisis and can be addressed through the provision of safe and affordable housing; 2) all people experiencing homelessness, regardless of their housing history and duration of homelessness, can achieve housing stability in permanent housing; 3) everyone is “housing ready,” meaning sobriety, compliance in treatment, or even a clean criminal history is not necessary to succeed in housing; 4) many people experience improvements in quality-of-life, in the areas of health, mental health, substance use, and employment, as a result of achieving housing; 5) people experiencing homelessness have the right to self-determination and should be treated with dignity and respect and; 6) the exact configuration of housing and services depends upon the needs and preferences of the population (HUD Exchange, 2014, p. 1).

The critical components of a Housing First model include: limited or no prerequisites to housing entry, low barrier admission policies, rapid entry into housing, provision of voluntary supportive services, full rights, responsibilities, and legal protections for the tenant, practices, and policies which prevent lease violations and evictions, and the applicability in single and scatter-site housing models (HUD Exchange, 2014, p. 2).

The Housing First approach is used in both single-site development and scattered-site placement and is referred to as Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH). A single-site development is a designated apartment building with on-site services (Collins, Malone, & Clifasefi, 2013), while scattered-site refers to apartments throughout the community rented from private landlords with the provision of mobile services (Tsemberis, Gulcur, & Nakae, 2004). Both single-site and scattered-site supportive housing models have been shown to increase housing stability for people experiencing chronic homelessness (Collins et al., 2013; Tsemberis et al., 2004) as well as significantly reduce service use and cost (Larimer et al., 2009; Levanon Seligson et al., 2013; Henwood, et al., 2015a).

Based on convincing evidence, the Federal Government has endorsed Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) using a Housing First approach as the ‘‘clear solution’’ to chronic homelessness (USICH, 2010, p. 18). This method has been proven effective in communities across the nation (see DeSilva, Manworren, & Targonski, 2011; Frisman, Thomson- Philbrook, Lin, & Lee, 2012; Goering et al., 2014). Findings include increased housing stability, fewer emergency room visits, fewer detox center visits, fewer days incarcerated, improved mental health, and decreased substance use (see Gulcur, Stefancic, Shinn, Tsemberis, & Fischer, 2003; Stefancic & Tsemberis, 2007; Pearson, Montgomery, & Locke, 2009; Aubry et al., 2015).

Research over the last two decades has shown that PSH improves housing stability for people formally experiencing chronic homelessness with housing retention rates consistently higher than 80 percent. These same studies have shown the cost of the housing is captured by savings from reduced use of emergency departments, hospitals, jails, shelters, and other public services once housed (see Shern et al., 1997; Tsemberis & Eisenberg, 2000; Culhane et al., 2002; Rosenheck, Kasprow, Frisman, & Liu-Mares, 2003; Tsemberis, Gulcur, & Nakae, 2004; Martinez & Burt, 2006; Padgett, Gulcur, & Tsemberis, 2006; Perlman & Parvensky, 2006; Siegel et al., 2006; Larimer et al., 2009; Sadowski, Kee, VanderWeele, & Buchanan, 2009; McLaughlin, 2011).

This well-documented approach to ending chronic homelessness has been the fuel for policymakers across the nation to commit funds to provide more PSH (Burt et al., 2002; Culhane & Byrne 2010; US Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2012). Ten-year plans (2010-2020) have been developed in nearly every major city to implement this strategy. At the federal level, “Opening Doors” called for the elimination of chronic homelessness in the first five years with the expansion of PSH playing a significant role in achieving this goal (US Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2010). The end of the 10-year timeframe has lapsed and homelessness is still a nationwide problem. While communities that have committed to building more PSH have lived up to their promise (between 2010 and 2018, the supply of PSH increased by 50 percent, or 113,000 units (Henry et al., 2018)); in this same time frame, the number of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness declined by approximately 17,000 people. Though the reduction of chronic homelessness could be attributed to PSH housing development, researchers are skeptical, seeing as only a small portion of the units are dedicated specifically to the chronically homeless population (Byrne, Fargo, Montgomery, Munley, & Culhan, 2014). Using longitudinal data, Byrne and his colleagues (2014) found only modest negative associations between the expansion of PSH and rates of chronic homelessness over time. Corinth (2017) found similar results when investigating relationships between PSH beds and homeless counts, concluding any decline in chronic homelessness could also be explained by the increase in PSH units, but its small size could be the result of poor targeting, inaccurate counts, migration to PSH locations, and disincentives to becoming housed.

Recent data shows despite investing more money in the Housing First approach (including the investment in PSH), homelessness has only increased. “Federal funding for targeted homelessness assistance has increased every year in the last decade, resulting in being more than 200 percent of what it was a decade ago. However, from 2014 to 2019, people experiencing unsheltered homelessness increased by 20.5 percent nationally (USICH, 2020, p. 4). “In cities that have aggressively embraced housing first… the rate of homelessness rose steadily and dramatically (USICH, 2020, p. 10).

In 2020, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), a collective of 19 different federal agencies working to address homelessness, released a strategic Federal plan criticizing the Housing First strategy the federal government has used as a “one-size-fits-all approach,” claiming that Housing First “has not worked to reduce homelessness for all populations and communities'' (USICH, 2020, p. 27). Instead, the plan calls for addressing the root causes of homelessness with an emphasis on trauma-informed care.

Furthermore, the Housing First model has been criticized for not addressing broader service outcomes (Kertesz, Crouch, Milby, Cusimano, & Schumacher, 2009). These accusations have been refuted on the basis that a Housing First approach is intended to end homelessness and nothing beyond this. The selection of outcomes and expectations for the model are determined by the philosophical assumptions of the root causes of homelessness and responses to those causes. A distinction between houselessness and homelessness becomes important. Housing First assumes people experiencing homelessness lack a physical housing unit, rather than lacking a home among a group of people who care and constitute a community.

Several studies have investigated the community integration of individuals in Housing First programs and found no changes (Somers et al., 2017; Stergiopoulos et al., 2015). In one study, researchers looked at housing, work, social support, community participation, civic engagement, and religious faith to measure social integration (Tsai, Mares, & Rosenheck, 2012). While housing outcomes increased significantly after one-year, positive community participation, civic engagement, and religious faith outcomes were limited, and work or social support outcomes showed no improvement.

In another study among homeless adults with mental illness, residents of scattered-site PSH increased their housing stability over 24 months compared to the control group, but the quality-of-life including physical or psychological community integration remained unchanged (Stergiopoulos et al., 2015). One study found slight improved psychological community integration in Congregate Housing First (CHF) when compared with Scattered Housing First (SHF) (Somers et al., 2017). Researchers say factors of the perceived integration may be attributed to the presence of on-site staff, recreational and vocational opportunities, and a supportive peer environment. Qualitative research has found that ongoing substance use and experiences of loneliness and isolation are often reported in SHF (Schutt & Goldfinger, 2011; Pleace, 2011; Patterson, Rezansoff, Currie, & Somers, 2013). Previous research on CHF has identified that shared backgrounds and experiences of residents contributed to a positive sense of community (Collins et al., 2012). However, while the literature overall shows substantial gains in housing stability and health improvements through a Housing First model, social needs are not adequately addressed or studied (Owen, 2015).

In an opinion piece, Andrew Brown, director at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Michele Steeb, former CEO of Saint John’s Program for Real Change critique the Housing First approach by arguing, “Giving [the chronically homeless] a roof over their head without expecting them to address the root causes of their homelessness robs them of their inherent dignity and the opportunity to reach their full potential” (2019). There are no requirements for Housing First residents for participation in supportive services, work programs, or community service, a perceived pitfall the of linear model of care which did place requirements on people that they could not fulfill.

Just as the Housing First model challenged the Housing Readiness model, which required individuals to “earn” housing, community-first challenges the assumption that housing with supportive services can solve homelessness. Alan Graham, founder of the model and faith-based social outreach ministry, Mobile Loaves & Fishes (MLF), is moving the national benchmark of a Housing First model to a community-first one that takes a relational approach as opposed to a more transactional, service-oriented one. MLF asserts from its twenty years of service with the homeless that the problem is not the loss of housing, but rather the loss of family (Graham & Hall, 2017, p. 129).

...when we’re dealing with profound human issues, we need to manage, deal, and attack them at the lowest social level. And the lowest social level and fundamental “sphere” is the family. That is the foundation and original social cell of all societies. So, if the family has been obliterated...it’s up to the “village” -the community- to help alleviate that profound catastrophic loss of family. Now, what’s happened at the village and community level is that we have abdicated these human responsibilities to city hall, the state government, and Washington, DC. And these entities, as important as they are in our society, are the least capable of dealing with profound human relationships. If you believe in mitigating homelessness and bringing palliative relief to those suffering on the streets, then you believe in the power of relation, not transaction. You believe in friendship, not funds. You believe in love as ultimate shelter (Graham & Hall, 2017, pp. 144-145).

Providing food and shelter to those experiencing homelessness does little more than maintain their survival. Participants of a groundbreaking study involving multi-layered community feedback and data analysis on black people experiencing homelessness were asked, “What would have kept you from becoming homeless?” They responded in a variety of ways, “having someone who cared about me,” (2018, p. 7). For the chronically homeless who are often battling mental illness, substance abuse, loneliness, lifelong abuse, chronic health conditions, persistent unemployment, or a combination thereof (Nino, Loya, & Cuevas, 2009), belonging to a healthy community could be the most impactful treatment available, as suggested by one study on congregate housing (Somers et al., 2017). At the very least, it begins to address the gaps in the Housing First (HF) approach identified above. This dissertation takes the stance that these gaps will not close themselves through Housing First. Hence a different approach is needed and explores Community-First (CF) as a better conceptual and practical fit for solving the wicked problem of chronic homelessness.

CF!V, Eden Village, and Sacred Settlements, founding examples of the community-first approach, use an alternative housing model, the Tiny Home Village (THV) to house people coming off the streets. The concept has been recognized as a successful model of extremely affordable housing for individuals and couples previously experiencing homelessness (see Heben, 2014; Bagshaw, 2014; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014). THVs are designed to provide people experiencing housing instability or homelessness with safety and protection, dignity, self-sufficiency, and community (Wyatt, 2014). This model can cut the average per unit development cost of affordable housing from over $255,000 (Cho & Gallagher, 2012) to under $50,000 (Heben, 2014) by utilizing smaller footprints and shared amenities. For a fraction of the cost, many more units can be built without the need for deep government subsidies.

The Tiny House Village model was born out of three distinct movements: tent cities, co-housing, and tiny homes. Tent cities or encampments date back to the Great Depression days or earlier; these tend to be unsanctioned encampments, without utilities, assembled on unused land, operating in a self-governance structure (Heben, 2014). An increase in tent encampments has been seen across the nation over the last several years due to shelter shortages and failures (Herring & Lutz, 2015; Hunter et al., 2014), a desire for privacy and freedom (Lutz, 2015; Hunter et al., 2014; Sparks, 2017), and a sense of safety and community within the encampments by dwellers (Donley & Wright, 2012; Speer, 2017). However, conditions are often “harsh, volatile, and unhealthy” (Cohen, Yetvin, & Khadduri, 2019, p. 4); and surrounding neighbors and local governments are most often unaccepting of their presence, eventually resulting in clearance of the encampment (Cohen, Yetvin, & Khadduri, 2019).

Co-housing, its origins dating back to the 1960s in northern Europe (Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands), is just a new name for an old concept of collective village life including small private homes surrounded by shared communal space (Williams, 2005). Researchers for the past four decades have upheld the model as an optimal form of housing for social interaction through interdependence, improving residents' social relationships and increasing their sense of community  (McCammant & Durret, 1994; Meltzer, 2001; Williams, 2005; Jarvis, 2011; Ruiu, 2016).

...cohousing is an intermediary social structure that allows those services traditionally assigned to individual households to transfer into the neighbourhood. This enables resources and tasks to be shared amongst households thus easing individual burdens, promoting disadvantaged citizens and consolidating society (Horelli & Vespa, 1994, as cited in Williams, 2005, p. 201).

While co-housing has gained momentum in Europe, it has had less success in the US (Williams, 2005). Whereas Tiny Homes are a more recent trend to redefine the American dream within simpler and smaller spaces (though Thoreau’s Waldon Pond was an early exploration of the idea of deliberate living). The movement is fueled by those who practice “voluntary simplicity” (Alexander & Ussher, 2012). Proponents are environmentally conscious and deliberately intentional about how they wish to spend their time and resources (Anson, 2014), content with a small place that is low-cost because they do not seek to own or acquire a lot of possessions.

Tiny Home Villages for the homeless have maintained the notion of small individual dwellings with the existence of common spaces for daily needs such as eating, bathing, and recreating. “They are a multi-roof version of the old-fashioned urban single-room occupancy (SRO) hotel” (Bee, Hodgkins, & Pao, 2015), clusters of free-standing micro-units, often around 30, with shared communal spaces (Brown, 2016). The villages range from publicly funded communities built by contract labor to more commonly, informal villages funded through private donations and built by volunteer labor. Housing types, zoning, land ownership, and infrastructure vary from community to community, but cities like Ithaca, NY; Eugene, OR; Portland, OR; Madison, WI; and Seattle, WA have all successfully established transitional villages for people experiencing homelessness to bridge the gap between homelessness and permanent housing. However, at the time of writing only a handful of villages have provided permanent housing through this model: Quixote Village in Olympia, WA, CF!V in Austin, TX, and Eden Village in Springfield, MO. Residents of these villages are allowed to stay indefinitely as long as they follow the requirements of the tenancy. (CF!V and Eden Village are both included in this dissertation, Quixote is not as it is a government-sponsored project and does not adhere to CF principles.)

The Village Model employs smaller living quarters and shared facilities to reduce project costs and encourage routine interactions among neighbors. Community is central to the village model where everyone is expected to participate and contribute in a capacity they are able, establishing a solid social commitment to living intentionally (see Lundahl, 2014; Segal, 2015; Schmidt, 2017; Speer, 2016; ). Strategies for utilizing and enlisting the talents, skills, and knowledge of the residents themselves for ongoing operations allow for the villages to have a sustainable model that relies on sweat equity rather than subsidies. However, duties require people to adhere to a particular code of conduct, including reliability and responsibility, both of which can be problematic within a population that historically struggles to adhere to conventional rules (Wyatt, 2014). The villages are often the fruit of a broader community and nonprofit commitment to housing neighbors in need. The housing is most often coupled with external support services for residents to thrive in their stability and recovery.

I believe that we should strive to upgrade housing and make it more accessible and affordable, but my work with the homeless has led me to [believe]: making places that are dignified, providing options for people who may have had no options at all, and attracting the homeless to accommodations that offer opportunities to take advantage of ancillary social services is a worthy approach,” says Davis, architect, and author of Designing for the Homeless. (2004, p. 42)

A study conducted by students of Regents Academy of Austin sought to understand if Mobile Loaves and Fishes' approach to treating homelessness successfully improved the quality-of-life of the people it serves, as compared to their life on the streets. A convenience sample was conducted with both residents and future residents of the village comparing life on the streets to life in the community through quality-of-life indicators on a scale of 1 to 5. Unpublished results from the study reveal a decrease in use of drugs and alcohol, ER visits, detox centers, and criminal citations, as well as increased housing stability, the healthiness of diet, and happiness level for residents of CF!V (Mountain et al., 2017). The results may be biased as participants self-selected, self-reported, and results included future residents who reported how they perceived their life would be in the village after moving in.  

Policymakers such as the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson and the Lieutenant Governor of Hawaii, Josh Green, have visited the village to experience the model firsthand. “What we saw at Community First! [Village], by putting together small houses in a community, people felt a sense of belonging,” says Lt. Gov. Green (Blair, 2019). He hopes to implement a form of this model throughout the state beginning in 2020.

There is no formal critique of the model itself as it has yet to be presented to the academic community.  This dissertation is the first formal description and exploration of a community-first approach to homelessness.  It synthesizes the ideas behind CF!V and expands on them by looking across to two other CF-oriented initiatives (Eden Village and Settled).  More research on this model going forward will reveal its successes and shortcomings.

Philosophical debates around the cause of homelessness often center on personal deficiencies: substance abuse, laziness, or antisocial behaviors. Research has linked Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) as huge risk factors for adult homelessness (Herman, Susser, Struening, & Link, 1997). Yet, policymakers are more likely to focus on the consequences of that trauma (mental health and addictions challenges, physical health problems, or disabilities) (Wright, Rubin, and Devine, 1998) and not the trauma itself. This unbalanced discourse around homelessness has influenced research agendas, funding priorities, and project demonstrations (Cronley, 2010). The homeless are often seen as deviant or dependent and rejected by the housed community (Hopper, 2003). This stigma has created a general fear of the homeless in our society and has led to community opposition to developing permanent solutions.

What is missing from the national conversation is a recognition that chronic homelessness is connected to the loss of family support systems, and therefore to adequately respond to homelessness we must build those back up. While this notion is absent in homelessness literature, an acknowledgment that belonging, connection, and purpose are critical to the human condition can be found throughout social science research. Examples of such research are highlighted in the sections that follow.

A review of forty years of research on predictors of homelessness found “family instability” to be the most prevalent variable (see Giano et al., 2020). Giano and associates argue, “Homelessness is an indirect consequence of unstable families,” (p. 704). It is well established that family and residential instability, as well as economic hardship, are closely linked with adverse childhood experiences (Merrick et al. 2018). Isolation and lack of social support are also strong predictors of child abuse and neglect. More specifically, we know that Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) have been proven to be tremendous risk factors for adult homelessness (Koegel, Melamid, & Burnam, 1995; Herman, Susser, Struening, & Link, 1997; Tam, Zlotnick, & Robertson, 2003; Montgomery, Cutuli, Evans-Chase, Treglia, & Culhane, 2013). Nearly three-quarters of homeless adults self-report ACEs (Wilder Research, 2016).  The most common reported childhood experiences among homeless individuals include having lived with someone who abused substances and witnessing the abuse of another family member (Nelson-Dusek et al., 2018).

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) negatively impact the function and structure of a child’s brain and its ability to respond to stress, profoundly damaging the immune system (ACEs Science 101, 2018). Toxic stress caused by ACEs impacts every part of the body, resulting in life-long and generational health problems by altering how one’s DNA functions. Four or more ACEs put an individual at significantly increased risk of chronic health conditions, mental illness, and substance abuse, the most commonly found conditions of the chronically homeless population.

“ACEs” was coined by the seminal CDC-Kaiser Adverse Childhood Experiences Study which discovered a direct link between childhood trauma and adult onset of chronic health conditions (Felitti et al., 1998). ACEs include physical, emotional, and sexual abuse; physical and emotional neglect; living with a family member who’s addicted to alcohol or other substances, or who’s depressed or has other mental illnesses; experiencing parental divorce or separation; having a family member who’s incarcerated; and witnessing a mother being abused. The study found that as the number of ACEs increases, so does the risk for physical, mental, and emotional health problems. The study also found that people who have experienced one ACE most often have experienced two or more, meaning ACEs usually do not happen in isolation.

Hundreds of research papers have been published since this landmark study linking illicit drug abuse, alcoholism, mental illness, depression, and a suicide attempts to ACEs, as well as an increase in smoking, poor self-rated health, and chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, lung disease, skeletal fractures, and liver disease. More than 50 sexual partners, intimate partner violence, sexually transmitted disease, unintended and adolescent pregnancies are also connected consequences of ACEs, as are poor academic achievement, poor work performance, and financial stress (see Dube, Anda, Felitti, Edwards, & Croft, 2002; Dube et al., 2003; Edwards, Fivush, Anda, Felitti, & Nordenberg, 2001); Anda et al., 1999; Hillis, Anda, Felitti, & Marchbanks, 2001); Brown, Thacker, & Cohen, 2013). People who have experienced multiple categories of childhood trauma are likely to have multiple quality-of-life risk factors later in life.

Childhood experiences, both positive and negative, have a powerful impact on homelessness, and lifelong health and opportunity. Assuring, nurturing relationships and environments prevents life-long struggles with physical, emotional, and mental health (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014).

Ellis and Dietz (2017) are credited for coupling ‘Adverse Childhood Experiences’ with ‘Adverse Community Environments’ to make a ‘pair of ACEs’. Together, they illustrate adversity within a family and adversity within a community. Adverse experiences such as domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental illness are the symptoms of much deeper roots of adverse environments. Environments of poverty, discrimination, poor housing and affordability, community disruption, violence, and lack of economic mobility, opportunity, and social capital contribute to homelessness.

To eliminate these toxic environments, Ellis and Dietz (2017) call for building community resilience. This begins by moving away from personal deficit frameworks which ask: “What did you do?” toward more empathetic ones which ask, “What happened to you?” (Adverse Experiences) and finally systemic questions of, “What happened to your people?”  (Adverse Environments).

Writer George Monbiot has called modernity “the age of loneliness.”

We were social creatures from the start, mammalian bees, who depended entirely on each other… The war of every man against every man – competition and individualism, in other words – is the religion of our time, justified by a mythology of lone rangers, sole traders, self-starters, self-made men, and women, going it alone. For the most social of creatures, who cannot prosper without love, there is no such thing as society, only heroic individualism (Monbiot, 2014).

While people labeled “chronically homeless” are one of the most socially disconnected segments of the population (Flaming, Burns, & Carlen, 2018), authors Bouma-Prediger & Walsh (2008) expand the definition of homelessness to a culture-wide phenomenon with many starved for community beyond the archetypal man on the park bench as a result of mass emigrations, displaced families, and human alienation (pp. 41-45). They assert that we are all in need of the restoration of home in a culture of displacement.

Stanley Hauerwas diagnoses the homelessness of our age in these words (Moore, 2016),

...We live in a social order that has confused freedom with the isolation of the self...we share no common story and no corresponding judgments about what is true, good, and beautiful. As a result, we become strangers to ourselves and to those we call friends. In such a social order, people too often confuse community with being a crowd. And crowds are intrinsically dangerous. We live in a time when people think they should have no story other than the story they choose for themselves when they had no story. The story they chose is, they think, the story of freedom. The only problem with this belief is that none of us actually did choose this particular story. As a result, lives lived according to this false story are subject to self-deception and self-hate.

The Harvard Study of Adult Development, one of the world’s longest studies of adult life following the lives of participants and their offspring for over 80 years, has concluded that the quality and frequency of social connection is a determinant of a long, healthy life, more than any other variable. “Loneliness kills,” says Robert Waldinger, director of the study, a psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital, and a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. “The surprising finding is that our relationships and how happy we are in our relationships has a powerful influence on our health,” (Waldinger, 2015).

Social isolation is a critical factor and early indicator of homelessness (McCullough, Distasio, & Dudley, 2012). Both objective and subjective social isolation are significant risk factors for premature mortality (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, Baker, Harris, & Stephenson, 2015; Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010). Waldinger and Schulz (2010) found that people with strong social support had better mental health than those without such support (Waldinger & Schulz, 2010). Similarly, Julianne Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton (2010) found that greater social connection was associated with a 50% lower risk of early death in a systematic review of 300,000 participants in 148 independent studies on loneliness.

Dorothy Day, credited for starting the Catholic Worker Movement which provides direct aid to the poor and homeless and advocates on their behalf, said in her autobiography, “We have all known the long loneliness and we have learned that the only solution is love and that love comes with community,” (1952).

The term ‘community-first’ was coined by the charity Mobile Loaves & Fishes (MLF); however, the idea of integrated community residential care has a long history.  For example, the citizens of Geel, Belgium have hosted the mentally ill, or ‘boarders,’ who would otherwise be institutionalized or homeless, in their homes for 700 years. The ‘foster families’ receive a small stipend from the government, and a central hospital supervises patient treatment, but for the most part, the treatment is simply to incorporate boarders into family life (Goldstein & Godemont, 2003). Boarders are accepted as part of the fabric of the community with an average boarding time of 28.5 years. “Residents of Geel have not only accepted the eccentric or disruptive behaviors of the boarders but have come up with creative ways to help boarders and residents manage them,” says Ellen Baxter, pioneer of supportive housing and founder of Broadway Housing Communities in NYC (Chen, 2016). The philosophy is that rather than trying to change people, the community embraces this population for who they are, working and living alongside them. “The psychiatric profession is stuck on recovery,” says Ellen, “but this isn’t applicable to people whose disabilities are more chronic in character.” ‘Letting people be’ is contrary to the medical profession which works to fix people. “It’s almost like their professional experience and language clouds them from seeing who people are” (Chen, 2016). But a community approach allows for a human-to-human, heart-to-heart connection (Graham & Hall, 2017) to override rules and diagnoses, seeing people and accepting people for who they are without a prescription for being ‘fixed.’ “The role of the family as caretaker, teacher, natural supportive parent, and behavioral model allows the boarder to function in the “normal” social world despite their illness” (Goldstein & Godemont, 2003, p. 449). This non-treatment of family-life and community acceptance that Geel has taken has shown individuals with mental illness to live peaceful, nonviolent lives within the structure of normal society (Pierloot & Demarsin, 1981; Goosens, 1986; Goldstein, Godemont, & Crabb, 2000).

‘Addiction shouldn’t be called “addiction.” It should be called “ritualized compulsive comfort-seeking,”’ says Dr. Daniel Sumrok, director of the Center for Addiction Sciences at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center’s College of Medicine. He says:

Ritualized compulsive comfort-seeking (what traditionalists call addiction) is a normal response to the adversity experienced in childhood, just like bleeding is a normal response to being stabbed. (Ellen, 2017)

Addiction is a crisis of social disconnection, and it cannot be responded to by simply removing something and making it harder to get, as though that were the problem (Hari, 2015). Instead, research shows that reducing social and physical isolation and poor external conditions may lead to significant reductions in addictive behaviors. A study on drug addiction conducted at Simon Fraser University in the late 1970s compared the drug use of caged rats with those placed in a large housing colony with ample food, water, toys, and space for mating. Those in the colony avoided drug use because it interfered with their social behavior, even when previously drug dependent (Alexander, Beyerstein, Hadaway, & Coambs, 1981). The study implies that the social and physical environment has much to do with personal drug use.

It isn’t the drug that causes the harmful behavior—it’s the environment. An isolated rat will almost always become a junkie. A rat with a good life almost never will, no matter how many drugs you make available to him. As Bruce put it: he was realizing that addiction isn’t a disease. Addiction is an adaptation. It’s not you—it’s the cage you live in (Hari, 2015, p. 172).

It is well known that lack of employment is a contributing factor of homelessness. By definition, to be chronically homeless means one has a disabling condition, making employment difficult to access and maintain. Barriers identified on the federal disability application include difficulty understanding, remembering, and applying information, interacting with others, concentrating, maintaining pace as it relates to the ability to complete tasks in a timely manner, managing oneself, and/or adapting to changes and challenges. Furthermore, an inability to work a full-time schedule due to disabilities, having bad days which result in missed work, criminal history, shame related to previous job history, fear of failure, and/or a desire to be independent are also considerable barriers to gainful employment. Chronic abuse, experienced by the majority of the chronically homeless population, can result in toxic stress resulting in post-traumatic stress disorder, conduct disorder, and learning, attention, and memory difficulties (Fortson, Klevens, Merrick, Gilbert, & Alexander, 2016).

Unemployment among homeless people has been estimated to be around 80–90% (Aubry, Klodawsky, & Coulombe, 2012; Acuna & Erlenbusch, 2009). A qualitative study with homeless individuals diagnosed with mental illness desiring employment self-identified several barriers to employment, including current substance abuse, having a criminal record, work-impeding shelter practices, and difficulties obtaining adequate psychiatric care (Poremski, Whitley, & Latimer, 2014). Organizations recognizing these barriers and willing to remove them have had success at employing some of the hardest to employ people in society. Two noteworthy cases are described below.

In the early 1970s, a residential services and vocational training program for substance abusers, prostitutes, and convicted criminals was birthed to explore a new model of care they called “mutual restitution.”  "The residents gain the vocational, personal, interpersonal, and social skills necessary to make restitution to the society from which they have taken illegally, consistently, and often brutally, for most of their lives. In return, Delancey Street demands from society access to the legitimate opportunities from which the majority of residents have been blocked for most of their lives,” Silbert, 1984, p. 2). Members of Delancey Street are the “hardcore helpless” with an average of 10 years of drug addiction and seven years in prison, they come from poor families, are functionally illiterate, unskilled, and have never held a job for more than one year (Silbert, 1984).

The Delancey Street Foundation invites people directly off the streets to enter into what they refer to as “an extended-family learning community” where people are taught to discover and develop their strengths. Each person is both student and teacher, like you might find between younger and older siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles, and grandparents. Besides the president of the organization, the entire program is run by residents rather than a staff of experts and professionals. In addition to gaining an academic education and social skills for re-entry into society, everyone participates in vocational training through the organization’s many economic enterprises which support the operation. The Foundation is based on a “traditional family value system” where everyone plays a role and has responsibilities according to their abilities (Silbert, 1984). An emphasis on work ethic, mutual restitution, personal and social accountability, responsibility, decency, integrity, and caring for others for the public good is instilled in the model. Silbert estimates of the 18,000 graduates, more than 75% of people are now thriving in the community, living purposeful lives as lawyers, executives, sheriffs, engineers, entrepreneurs, and other contributing members of society (2007).

Similar to Delancey Street in its mission to love, empower, and employ society’s outcasts is Homeboy Industries, boasting the largest and most successful gang intervention, rehab, and reentry program in the world (2019b). The goal of the 30-year-old organization is to help gang members and convicts become contributing members of their families and communities. Father Boyle, founder of the organization, was fueled by the belief  that, “to eliminate gang violence, it was necessary to root out its cause—the lack of hope arising from a lack of opportunities” (Choi & Kiesner, 2007, p. 769). They do this by providing a supportive environment in which former criminals can develop job skills and experience through their many social enterprises from bakeries, restaurants, farmers' markets, and catering to electronics recycling and silk-screening. Profits from these enterprises directly contribute to participants earning a legitimate, living wage which they otherwise may not have the ability to do because they lack work history, education, and reference, not to mention have felony convictions and faces and bodies covered in tattoos. The profits from the enterprises also support the organization’s many free programs including tattoo removal and counseling. Trainees reported a significant reduction in substance use and arrest since entering the program, as well as increased social connectedness and reunification with family (Homeboy Industries, 2019a). Both Delancey Street and Homeboy Industries stress a family-like supportive community within which people can find help, self-esteem, and the desire to live a purposeful and productive life. Boyle says the culture at Homeboy Industries is to remind people who they are and then they will begin living into that.

[The homies] think they're the bad son. I keep telling them over and over, “You are the son that any parents would be proud to claim as their own.” That's the truth. That's not some fantasy. As soon as they know that they're exactly what God had in mind when God made them, then they become that. Then they like who they are. Once they can do that—love themselves—they're not inclined to shoot somebody or hurt somebody or be out there gang–banging (Morrow, 1999, as cited in Choi & Kiesner, 2007, p. 772).

Some argue chronic homelessness is largely a consequence of deinstitutionalization (Baum & Barnes, 1993; Powers, 2017), economic hardship (Weitzman, Knickman, & Shinn, 1990), or systemic racism (Olivet, Dones, & Richard, 2019). Mobile Loaves and Fishes, originators of the community-first idea, argue that the slow-moving epidemic should be attributed first and foremost to the profound loss of family (Graham & Hall, 2017). The prevailing and federally accepted model for ending homelessness, Housing First, is to provide permanent, single-site, or scattered-site housing coupled with supportive services. While the goal of the community-first approach is to welcome those experiencing chronic homelessness into a supportive community where they can experience belonging. This approach is relatively novel without clear definition. Utilizing case study and participatory action research methods, this investigation defines the community-first ideas within a typological framework and explores the implementation of the model through a “Full Community” approach for growth.

As argued in the previous chapters, chronic homelessness is a complicated problem that is understood primarily as a housing problem and not as a social one. Given the complexity of homelessness and the relative novelty of the community-first approach (as compared to a Housing First approach), this investigation adopts an action research approach. The data are gathered from three interlinked case studies—Community First! Village (CF!V), Eden Village, and Settled—each of which builds upon the experience of the others.  The three cases are therefore not used in the traditional way of ex-post units. Instead, they represent iterative developments of the community-first idea. The third case, Settled, developed as my own response to learning from CF!V and Eden Village, and is the clearest example of action research. Each of the cases are connected through a common goal and therefore are not intellectually distinct. The contexts are different, utilizing varied strategies to achieve a common mission but each case contributes in its own way toward building a typology, or categorization of thematic elements for understanding the community-first perspective on homelessness.

This investigation has two components: traditional case study research through the study of the evolution of the community-first idea through the CF!V founding example and a spin-off case, Eden Village, as well as experimenting and implementing key elements of the model within a new context through an action research approach “learning by doing,” through a third case, Settled.

A case study research design was chosen as the appropriate device for focusing the inquiry of this groundbreaking approach toward homelessness to gain insight into the inner workings of the model. Case studies, argues well-cited researcher John Gerring, can be defined as, “an intensive study of a single unit with an aim to generalize across a larger set of units,” (2004, p. 341). This design allows for cross-unit analysis with quantitative and qualitative data input. Evidence is investigated in subunits, each focusing on salient parts of the case and a multiplicity of methods are applied within the subunits of the inquiry (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). The strength of case studies relies on the diversity of sources to capture the many facets and complexities found in the approach.

The central intent of the case study, as described by Schramm, is to “illuminate a decision or a set of decisions: why they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what result” (1971, cited from Yin, 2009, p. 17). The research is exploratory; investigating a phenomenon existing across distinct units observed over a period of five years. This provides a useful way of defining the community-first approach that is emerging, first at CF!V, and then at the first spin-off community, Eden Village. The comparative case study approach allows a broader and deeper analysis than a traditional ethnographic study of one case, as it affords the ability to compare, contrast, and triangulate across different populations and geographies, with a degree of comparability found among the three cases, the third being participatory-action oriented.

Regarding the study of the third case, Settled, it is important to note there are several attributes that separate action research from other types of research. Firstly, the research takes place in a real-world context with the goal of tackling real-world problems. And, unlike in other mothodological approaches, the principal researcher makes no attempts to remain objective, instead fully immerses themselves in the work and is transparent with participants about their biases (O’Brien, 1998). This type of research is particularly meaningful for social change. “To make academic research relevant, researchers should try out their theories with practitioners in real situations and real organizations” (Avison, Lau, Myers, & Nielsen, 1999, p. 94). Because the community-first concept is a relatively new one, action research is useful for further exploring the interpretation of the approach and more specifically the ability for growth within a new context. Action research has been used to influence social change across disciplines like Public Health where Conquergood (1988) used a first-person account of his fieldwork using theatre in a Hmong refugee camp to influence better sanitation practices, or in the housing field where Nix and colleagues (2019) conducted a pilot study in Delhi, India to identify sustainable and realistic  low-income housing solutions within local development practices and policy.

The community-first concept is based on a set of assumptions, beliefs, and practices held by the founders of the movement, the faith-based nonprofit Mobile Loaves & Fishes (MLF). These ideas are the result of years of interaction with their unsheltered neighbors. The social outreach organization realized early on in their work that chronic homelessness had to be linked to more than simply a lack of housing. According to the founders, members of the organization sought to understand the root causes of chronic homelessness by sleeping alongside people on the streets of Austin, TX, and listening to individual stories. To their surprise, the stories were all very similar, stories of extreme childhood neglect, abuse, and violence. Stories they themselves could not relate with, explains the founder of the approach, Alan Graham. From hundreds of nights on the streets, they began to form what would become the foundation of the community-first approach.

As Mobile Loaves & Fishes has matured over twenty years from feeding the poor to housing the poor, to now cultivating community with the poor, the formation of core philosophies and principles has taken root. These ideas are commonly held by those a part of the first example community, CF!V, and their goal is to empower the broader community to adopt them as well. What anchors the possibilities of a community-oriented lifestyle, says leadership, is their shared foundation embodied in the vision, mission, and values of the community.

Mobile Loaves & Fishes (MLF) envisions empowering communities across the nation into a lifestyle of service with the homeless. Their mission is “to provide food and clothing, cultivate community and promote dignity to [their] homeless brothers and sisters in need” by “empower[ing] communities into a lifestyle of service with the homeless” (MLF, n.d.-a). They approach this in three ways. First, through a food truck ministry that has delivered hundreds of meals a night to Austin’s poor in partnership with local churches for the last twenty years (Truck Ministry). Second, by owning and operating a micro-home village for housed and unhoused to live in unity together for the last six years (CF!V). And finally, by managing micro-enterprises that offer the formerly homeless the opportunity to rediscover their talents and earn a dignified income also for the last six years (Community Works). The goal of the organization is to transform the way people view the homeless while reconnecting those who have found themselves in this position to a supportive community by

welcom[ing] home individuals considered outcasts who had been despised and pushed to the fringe of society… [through] a community with supportive services and amenities to help address an individual’s relational needs at a fraction of the cost of traditional housing initiatives. We seek to empower our residents to build relationships with others and to experience healing and restoration as part of engaging with a broader community. (MLF, n.d.-c).

MLF is a non-proselytizing, faith-based organization where all are invited but not required to participate in the spiritual life of the community. The founding members, organizational leadership, and board of directors, as well as most of the staff and missional neighbors, are all rooted in a Judeo-Christian belief system. The model is propelled by a belief in a relational Father God who is good and wants His children to serve one another. This worldview shapes all their decisions as an organization.

While MLF is the originator of the community-first approach, many of the held beliefs can be found in literature and practice, as explored in the literature review, for a variety of populations and contexts. MLF’s specific model of care for the chronically homeless has manifested itself in three distinct examples. First, CF!V is the founding and leading example of the model in practice developed by MLF. Next is Eden Village in Springfield, Missouri which was started by a long-time employee of MLF and carries some of the community-first ethos. And finally, I began Settled, a Minnesota-based organization, as a way of exploring the growth of the core tenets of this model within any (or a new) context.

CF!V is the first and leading manifestation of the assumptions and principles of the community-first idea and is the impetus for reorienting, redefining, and reimagining how to respond to homelessness. CF!V was founded not just on practical considerations, but on a spiritual desire to “love your neighbor as yourself” (MLF, n.d.-a). The village is referred to by the overseeing organization as, “the country’s only master-planned community designed specifically for men and women coming out of chronic homelessness” by the mayor as, “Austin’s most talked about neighborhood,” and a “magical place” by People magazine. Alan Graham, CEO, and Founder of the model and village has been recognized with nearly two dozen awards including Urban Land Institute’s Vision Award for his “transformative” work over the past two decades serving “homeless friends'' in Austin, Texas. He has been invited to speak at TED talks, provide expert knowledge at roundtable discussions on the federal response to homelessness with U.S. Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Ben Carson, and hosted hundreds of elected officials and leaders from across the country at CF!V.

CF!V is a landmark case, offering a plethora of features in addition to the expected on-site support services you would see at a typical PSH development. These include active farming, and entrepreneurial work programs, as well as resourced ‘missional’ neighbors who live in the village to be good neighbors to their formerly homeless “brothers and sisters” without compensation. The village has gained media coverage and recognition including AIA Austin’s Community Vision Award and the Commercial Real Estate Award for Community Impact. Its pioneering community-first approach makes it the only tiny home village development for the homeless designed specifically for housed and unhoused to live communally. This distinction contrasts with the prevailing housing and service models for the homeless.

The organization began as a mobile food truck operation and has served over five million meals since its inception in 1998. The vision for lifting people off the street began in 2004 when the organization placed one person in one RV. This vision multiplied over the next decade to more than 100 individuals in half a dozen RV parks across the Austin metro area. Building their own RV park was what they call “their next logical step” to providing affordable, permanent housing in a supportive community setting for more of their homeless neighbors. In addition to RVs, CF!V offers micro-homes and canvas cottages with shared facilities, providing a variety of low-cost housing options.  

The first resident moved into the village in the Fall of 2015. In Phase I of their development, MLF lifted over 200 chronically homeless men and women off the streets, with a retention rate of 88% at year five. Additionally, another 50 people from the housed community came to live in the village as “missionals” or good neighbors. They are currently developing Phase II on an adjacent piece of land to grow the village to 550 residents- representing about 40% of Austin’s long-term homeless population. MLF’s goal is to completely eradicate chronic homelessness in their city by 2028.

The second case is a comparative study of the first spin-off of CF!V, Eden Village, run by a former staff member of MLF who is intimately knowledgeable of the ethos of MLF and CF!V. Nate Schlueter, CEO of the non-profit Gathering Tree, wanted to start something simpler than CF!V he said, “They’re building a town, I’m building a pocket neighborhood,” (interview).

The first Eden Village was developed in 2018 in Springfield, MO, consisting of 32 Park Model homes for people previously experiencing chronic homelessness. A second village with 24 units was completed in 2021 and plans for the third village in Springfield are underway. The Gathering Tree has licensed the Eden Village model and begun partnering with communities across the nation. The farthest along is in Wilmington, NC, and is currently under construction, making it the fourth Eden Village and first outside of Missouri.  

Eden Village exhibits many of the philosophies and principles on which CF!V was founded, yet there are some deviations, namely a lack of missional-neighbors or extensive work opportunities. While the investigation of this case is not comparable in depth or breadth to the CF!V origin case, important insights were learned that influenced the participatory research of the third case, Settled, most notably their “Home Team” program. These details will be explored in Chapters Four and Five.

Settled officially began in 2018 after a year of research and incubation at the University of Minnesota. The organization was founded as participatory action research to explore and pilot direct learning from CF!V, with supporting evidence from Eden Villages. The intent of Settled was to create a housing development that would match a community-oriented model of care, similar to Permanent Supportive Housing reflecting a Housing First approach. Piloting this innovative approach in Minnesota presented several challenges that CF!V and Eden Villages did not face: harsh winters, strict regulatory practices, and a 7-county metro with distinct procedures and policies, social services, and leadership. The challenges, while considerable, strengthened the framework for growth, presented in Chapter 5, with considerations for maximum adaptability. This framework consists of five key elements needed to achieve what I call a “Full Community” approach to homelessness and introduces a housing development to implement the model which we have named, “Sacred Settlements.”

The first model community was planted at a small church in St. Paul, Minnesota. “Sacred Settlement Mosaic” consists of six tiny homes and a converted portion of the church building as a common house for inhabitants to shower, do laundry, cook, and gather. The project is described in its entirety within the framework presented in Chapter 5.

Data was gathered through five primary means: documents, interviews, observations, participation-observation, and physical artifacts. Each of the three cases replied on multiple forms of data for a mixed methods approach to gaining insight and understanding of the community-initiatives.

Data collection for the CF!V case was collected over a five-year period, including four separate field visits, and maintained relationships with leadership, staff, and missionals. During my time at CF!V I learned of my second case, Eden Village, and was introduced to the gentleman who helped found that community. Data collection for this spin-off case was significantly less extensive than CF!V and relied on interviews with leadership and documentation to supplement findings from the first case, CF!V.

The third case, Settled, is my own work to implement findings from CF!V. Data for this case was collected through participatory action research which involved listening sessions with more than 200 people experiencing homelessness and those serving the homeless in order to learn about their lives, their needs, and what was important to them in a home. Field visits and overnight stays at local shelters and weekly outreach to the unsheltered population in St. Paul, MN also informed this case research. My process was an iterative and inductive one as I learned, applied, assessed, asked new questions, and tried again. Much of my time was spent collecting, analyzing, and presenting data in a cyclical manner in a real-world context (O’Brien, 1998), always building on the findings from CF!V.

For the first of the cases, CF!V, I was granted full access to organizational documents, activities, and the community of people. My first field visit was as a participant in a 3-day symposium hosted by MLF. My second visit was an intensive 10-day immersion into the community. The third field visit was as a presenter at MLF’s annual board retreat, and the fourth as a part of a small replicators’ summit.

The second and most extensive field visit was organized with the assistance of a missional staff member of the organization who helped me arrange meetings with key staff members, introduced me to the missional community, and connected me with the formal and informal gatherings of the community. I spent ten, 12-hour days on-site, dividing my time between scheduled meetings with leadership, staff, and missionals, participation in the events of the community, direct observations, and informal spontaneous conversations with residents and volunteers between meetings and appointments. I was welcomed into many homes including leadership, missionals, and residents, and was shown Texan hospitality at its finest from folks like Shelley who popped a Ritz cracker with tuna in my mouth as I entered her tiny home and sent me away with a butter pie later that afternoon. Shelley had lived on the streets of Austin for more than a decade before moving to CF!V.

Multiple sources of evidence were collected to establish validity and reliability in this case study research including documentation, archival records, guided conversations, direct observations, participant observations, and physical artifacts. While any one of these sources could be the sole investigative tool of inquiry, the strength of this case study relies on the diversity of sources to capture the many facets and complexities found in the case study. This research relies on multiple sources of data, or “converging lines of inquiry”, (Yin, 2013, p. 115) to answer the research questions, thus giving the investigation a richness and completeness not found in other methodologies. The multiple sources of evidence used to investigate CF!V are outlined and described below.

Documents were widely available and written from and for numerous audiences. As a result, much information was gathered about the case from the examination of data from this source. However, information may be biased as well as inaccurate and therefore was used in conjunction with first-hand sources. The source of evidence is stable, exact, and extensive. It was reviewed repeatedly for specific details over a broad range of time, places, and events.

External reports, evaluations, and media were collected including community surveys conducted by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and Regions of Austin as well as the land-use case study conducted by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and key media articles used to corroborate historical events.

Key internal documents were used including the organization’s current and past business plans alongside program materials from their Food Truck Ministry and departments of Neighbor Care, Property Management, and Community Works. Organizational records including employee descriptions, the organizational chart, program services, financial statements, and architectural drawings contributed to answering the research questions. Documents from the missional and befriender programs were also obtained as well as training materials from their educational symposium. Videos from the organization’s YouTube channel were reviewed in addition to episodes from their ongoing podcast series, Gospel Con Carne.

External documents were collected through systematic internet searches before field visits were made to prepare for and inform guided conversations.  Internal documents were obtained during field visits. Documents were used as primary sources as well as to corroborate other data sources.

Rather than a typical survey method, the interviews were treated as guided conversations, fluid rather than rigid (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The interviews followed a line of inquiry while conducting a conversation. Questions aimed to be unbiased and non-defensive (Becker, 1998, p. 58).

Conversations provided targeted and insightful data directly related to the objective of the research agenda. Participant bias, limited recollection, or inaccuracy can weaken the evidence, as well as reflexivity in asking the questions. To counter these weaknesses, triangulation with other sources of evidence was critical (Yin, 2013).

Rich and thick detail of the perspectives of key informants is documented in the participants' own words. Titles like staff, missional, or leadership were used rather than names. In the case of individual stories, names were changed for confidentiality unless the person had publicly shared their story and that could be verified with another source. The intent was to develop an in-depth description of the model, honoring the participants' experiences within their world context and from their own words. Key informant conversations allowed for in-depth investigation of facts and opinions as they related to answering the research questions while also verifying other sources of evidence.

Internal experts, or individuals who live and/or work in the community and have expert knowledge of the community or a significant aspect of the community. Here ‘expert knowledge’ is defined as either being trained in some aspect of community-first or working in that capacity for some time. This includes individual guided conversations identified in the finding as “leadership”(the executive team), “missionals” (voluntary resourced neighbors living full-time in the community), “discerning missionals” (in the process of moving into the community), “missional/staff” (members who live in the village and work for the organization), “staff” (paid directors from Neighbor Care, Property Management, Education, and Community Works), and “befrienders” (resourced voluntary friends of neighbors). Each of these interviews was recorded and transcribed.

Lay experts, or individuals who have extensive local knowledge of the community or an aspect of the community without necessarily either being trained in some aspect of community-first or working in the field. This includes formerly homeless residents, befrienders, and volunteers in the village. These conversations were not planned but happened organically as I visited and explored the village. Individuals were told upfront who I was and the intent of my visit. Residents invited me into their homes for pie and popsicles, and on their porches and sofas for conversation. Between scheduled meetings, I sat in the community library or front office and welcomed conversation. I would get to know volunteers visiting the village for the first time while walking the grounds as well as recurring volunteers who found their place in the gardens or arthouse alongside residents. Often these conversations happened while I was participating in community activities. Interactions were documented through reflective journaling rather than recorded transcripts.

Multiple field visits provided me with a wealth of information and were conducted at the same time interviews were scheduled. Direct observations allowed for first-hand verification or refutation of information obtained from other sources of evidence as well as providing additional softer information including attitudes and aesthetics.

Contextual reality allowed for first-hand assessment and information gathering, yet these observations can be skewed. To lessen the chance for selectivity and reflexivity, multiple observers were used (Yin, 2013), particularly during organizational symposiums. Additionally, select photographs are included to provide valuable characteristic information for the study’s audience (Van Maanen, Dabbs, & Faulkner, 1982).

Direct observation included sitting in on Property Management and Neighbor Care staff meetings and resident support groups like Recovery Coffee Talk and Flapjacks and Friends, where I did not participate but only observed. The leader of the meeting would introduce me to the group so they would know who I was and why I was there.

Participant-observations allowed me to conduct research from the inside, rather than as a spectator. Assuming the role of a volunteer provided a variety of observations that would otherwise not be accessible from the outside. This participation included sharing community meals and engaging in specific functions, roles, and activities within the community.

The participatory observation allowed for insight into the relationships and communication between individuals. There is a greater opportunity to see how people behave when engaging with them and not solely observing them. However, engagement also means a greater chance of bias as the observer participates in events and thus manipulates the environment (Becker, 1958). I participated in many of the activities being offered in the community at the time of visitation from small intimate bible studies and book clubs to community dinners, corporate gatherings, and spiritual services. I joined yoga sessions and stone soup dinners, soap-making workshops, and a karaoke welcome home party for a resident who had just completed rehab. A detailed journal of my encounters, observations, and experiences was kept throughout.

Tool, instrument, or device, artwork, meal or material, physical artifacts express meaning and value. The physical environment of the case study was of relevance when corroborating facts. Reading about and listening to facts and opinions was strengthened by the physical manifestation of the goals and objectives of a model. The built environment and the material world provided contextual information in the case study. Artifacts provided a deeper understanding of the culture and how it operates. With myriad products, features, and objects to choose from, selecting the most suitable artifacts to study was of critical importance (Yin, 2013).

All physical structures in the community were investigated, including each of the housing types offered within the village, and shared facilities including outdoor kitchens, single-stall bathrooms, shower units, covered outdoor spaces, and indoor gathering spaces. Site walks were conducted multiple times, exploring the village in its entirety.

A mixed-methods approach was taken to analyze data from CF!V following Rubin and Babbie’s content analysis methodology (2016) and Wolcott’s three-stage process of describing, analyzing, and interpreting (1994). Inductive reasoning guided the research process through the investigation of the data within the context of the problem. The first step of the research design involved organizing the data into a matrix following the well-established Housing First manual: The Pathways Model to End Homelessness for People with Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders developed by clinician Sam Tsemberis, Ph.D. (2010). This was done for a side-by-side comparison of the two models and as an initial way of organizing the data.

The side-by-side comparison proved only moderately useful as the new model deviated greatly from Housing First. So, I then developed a series of short themes, such as Community Integration and Land Use, from the content to describe recurring notions, causal networks, and emerging concepts. Interactions of recurring themes were then isolated and cross-referenced with multiple sources of data and key informants. Finally, the data was reorganized around each of the identified themes. These became the typological framework for defining the “elements” of the model.

Rich, thick descriptions from the data were extracted to articulate findings in participants' own words. Matrices were then examined for exceptions to the identified themes and present literature to examine outliers and potential conflicts within and about the data. The last step involved examining the original documents and transcripts a final time for deviant themes outside the research questions to gain the greatest level of insight from the data. The analysis was emergent, a back-and-forth process of discovering, uncovering, synthesizing, and repositioning, looking for both nuances and broad understandings of a complex social model.

The findings go beyond mere reporting; instead, a narrative is shared and meant for engagement, discussion, dialog, and debate (Lichtmen, 2006). Reflexivity was achieved by keeping a detailed audit log throughout the research project, including personal reflections. Special attention was taken to triangulate findings using multiple sources of evidence namely, interviews and guiding documents. Additionally, key informants, including leadership from Mobile Loaves and Fishes, reviewed a draft case study report during the composition phase. Colleagues were consulted throughout the analysis to reinforce reliability and ethical rigor for interpreting the data correctly and eliminating any potential for bias to seep into the meanings. Thus, the research is highly reliant on the triangulation of mixed methods and multiple sources of data. The result of the analysis was a typology of what I refer to as the five core components of the community-first approach.

The Eden Village case was analyzed against the newly created typology from case number one, CF!V, for two reasons. First, to understand the usefulness of the classification, and second to see where this case study either was like or deviated from the origin of the founding model.

The analytical process for the Settled case was one of diagnosing the barriers to implementing the community-first ethos within a new context (Minnesota), identifying potential strategies for overcoming them, implementing these strategies, evaluating the success of the strategy, and re-assessing the barrier considering the intervention. The process then began another iterative cycle and was repeated until each identified barrier was resolved (Susman, 1983). Gilmore, Krantz, & Ramirez (1986, p. 161) describe this type of action research in this way,

[it]...aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to further the goals of social science simultaneously. Thus, there is a dual commitment in action research to study a system and concurrently to collaborate with members of the system in changing it in what is together regarded as a desirable direction. Accomplishing this twin goal requires the active collaboration of researcher and client, and thus it stresses the importance of co-learning as a primary aspect of the research process.

The community-first way is an emerging idea that is being defined as it is being practiced. The manifestation of the concept has been an iterative process for MLF as the community has spent time living on the streets of Austin with their homeless neighbors, housing neighbors in RV parks across the city, and finally, gathering everyone up and creating their own intentional RV park where they have grown greatly. The community-first notion is twenty years in the making but the founding case for this emerging model of care, CF!V, is only six years old, and it is still growing. Much of this research has focused on Phase I of CF!V, while Phase II is currently underway, and Phases III and IV are being planned. This case study is a snapshot in time of how the approach has evolved thus far, with guiding principles of where it could go. It is value-led, rather than rule-led. The community-first style is highly flexible and reliant on the stories and experiences of the individuals involved. The investigation shown here is a representation of a slice of those experiences, the fullness of which is too enormous to capture in its entirety.

Furthermore, the community-first concept focuses exclusively on the chronically homeless population, of which the vast majority are individuals and couples rather than families. It does not address the transitionally homeless. The model is founded on the belief that chronic homelessness is the result of a loss of family and community and not merely the loss of housing. This is based on a hypothesis that as more social responsibilities have been allocated to the government the greater the breakdown of family has become (Graham & Hall, 2018). To fully investigate this assertion, an in-depth, interdisciplinary literature review should be done, which is beyond the scope of this dissertation. Additionally, CF!V is not for all people experiencing chronic homelessness. Some do not stay. This investigation is limited to those who are actively living and participating in the village and does not recount the stories and experiences of those who have either chosen to leave or have been asked to leave, which is around 12 percent (Kimble, 2018).

Finally, the community-first way is designed to respond to homelessness today, however, it may one day be replaced with something more relevant to the times as social, cultural, economic, and ecological forces shift. However, a need for authentic community as an important part of the solution to homelessness is here to stay.

The community-first approach to homelessness is being documented within the context of the first and longest-running example: CF!V. Through a mixed-methods approach to analyzing the data, a classification system is developed to explain the concept. A second case study, Eden Village, is introduced and analyzed through the lens of the newly created classification. And a third and final case study, Settled, is presented using an action research approach to implement the model within a new context. While not equally studied and analyzed, the three cases work in tandem with one another, always building on the founding principles and representing iterative developments of the emerging community-first idea.

Five important topic issues emerged from the research findings through gap analysis of the literature and case study of the community-first idea in practice. Research findings are presented within a theoretical framework for defining a new model of care for people experiencing chronic homelessness. The distinct themes (Social Integration, Housing, Land Use, Service Provision, Employment and Work) each highlighting a key component of the approach, are presented.  In this chapter, each thematic component is presented in turn, beginning by reintroducing an identified problem definition first introduced in Chapter 1. The underlying philosophical assumptions and guiding principles associated with that topic are presented from the perspective of the founders of the idea, Mobile Loaves and Fishes. Specific case context for CF!V, the first model community, and Eden Village, the first spin off, follows. (“CF!V”, the community, “MLF”, the organization, and “Alan Graham, the individual founder, all pertain to the origins of the community-first idea, but play different roles within the text).

Chapter five discusses early iterations of this newly defined idea within the case context of Settled, a participatory action research project. Five critical elements for the growth of the community-first idea are presented (Intentional Neighbors, Permanent Homes, Cultivated Place, Supportive Friends, Purposeful Work) and conclusions of how each element is different from or built on the Housing First framework are examined.

According to the program staff/leaders of CF!V, the general assumption as to the cause of chronic homelessness is a lack of housing and professional help alone.  They maintain, however, that it is also due to a lack of integration into a supportive and nurturing community.  They believe that those with strong-enough social connections do not end up in long-term homelessness, as they state here:

You cannot meet one formerly chronically homeless person that came from a loving, wholesome family. (Graham, 2017a)

Our friends on the streets come from broken, homeless homes…. Unless we understand the backgrounds of those that are homeless, we will shortchange the causes. Unless we address the catastrophic breakdown of family and community that is behind homelessness, it will just continue to increase. (S. Hebbard, 2017)

MLF asserts that homelessness is a result of the loss or lack of family which leads to displacement, and ultimately, social isolation.  Their philosophy is that there is an invisible supportive social net stretched out beneath each person. That net keeps people feeling like they are okay and that they will continue to be alright. But for nearly every person in long-term homelessness, it is this supportive net of family and community that is damaged or missing, from their experience. MLF suggests that the net cannot be repaired or replaced without others sharing a bit of their own.

Although we will not be able to replace the loss of family, we believe that we can build an accepting community that will welcome those who have been targeted as outcasts in our society. (MLF Leadership)

We need a community where we can showcase our poverty and then get nourishment and be met as a real person. (CF!V Missional/MLF Staff)

The CF!V founders assert the philosophical belief that the family is the original cell of social life and all are called to live in community and relationship with one another.

For one to come out of homelessness, a community-first way presumes that one must be welcomed into community. Restoration of the biological family may be unrealistic for those who have experienced the catastrophic loss of that family, though restoration of one’s sense of belonging is seen as achievable by MLF through a supportive community choosing to walk alongside folks as equals. They believe that community, and not housing, is at the heart of what has been lost and what needs to be restored.

We believe that the original cell of society is the family. That’s where life begins. That’s where we are nurtured and formed. That’s where we’re protected. And what evolves out of that family: aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters, and then the community at large, is there taking care of us. (Graham, interview)

Graham, founder of MLF and the community-first idea, explains that community is an extension of the family and historically it has been the responsibility of the family to care for one another in order for the community in its entirety to operate well.

This is where the essence of community-first is valuable in contrast to the extreme individualism of our society today. It is becoming increasingly prevalent to consider oneself as an independent actor rather than one part of a larger whole. (Graham, interview)

MLF has been heavily influenced by the book "Beyond Homelessness" (Bouma-Prediger & Walsh, 2008) in which the authors expound on the problem of one who is homeless as primarily missing a sense of belonging.

A homeless person can best focus on the causes of his or her homelessness if his or her basic human needs are being met including a sense of being placed - a connection, loyalty, affection, identity, ownership, a location, a home, a community. Taking someone off the streets, putting a roof over his head and a cup of soup in his stomach will not change the status of a homeless person. To no longer be homeless, a person must think of home as a matter of community, that home is about belonging, connectedness, and shared memory and that home involves relationships of trust. (Bouma-Prediger & Walsh, 2008, p. xi).

MLF is motivated by the guiding principle that every human being desires to be wholly and fully known and wholly and fully loved.

Men and women on the streets can go days, months, even years without someone using their real name, without someone knowing who they are, or without anyone taking the time to look them in the eye and say, “It’s nice to see you,” explains a staff member. A guiding principle of the community-first idea is to build relationships in which people feel known and loved (MLF Staff).

We want to be recognized. We want to be valued. We don’t want to be despised outcasts discarded to the farthest fringes of society. (Graham, 2017)

‍

Twenty-five years ago, as the Housing First idea was taking root at the national level, Mobile Loaves and Fishes questioned the assumptions the model rested on, namely, people were homeless because they lacked housing and access to social services. MLF believed it had to be more that kept people in homelessness long-term. They sought to understand the root causes of chronic homelessness by sleeping alongside people on the streets of Austin, TX, and listening to individual stories. While the backgrounds and experiences were varied, the stories all had a common theme: extreme childhood trauma. It was from hundreds of nights on the streets that their hypothesis emerged: people experiencing chronic homelessness have experienced a profound and catastrophic loss of family which has led to a profound and catastrophic loss of community. Therefore, what they need, first, is a supportive community in which they can be known and loved.

MLF began housing people over a decade ago in RV parks across the city of Austin, TX but they found it difficult to cultivate community in an environment where the formerly homeless were the minority and where surrounding residents did not share a common goal of living communally. Graham began to dream of developing his own ‘RV park on steroids’ where formerly homeless and housed people would interact through shared BBQs, kayak rentals, and campouts. Alan imagined ‘weekend warriors’ would get to know the formerly homeless while visiting the campsite and stereotypes would begin to shatter. What Alan did not factor in until they began trying this at the RV parks was the immense need for consistent, round-the-clock support. Family, in its purest state, is constant. It is intimate. It is authentic. And they found that that is exactly what a homeless, familyless group of people needed: authentic, intimate, constant love and support. The idea of missional-neighbors, or resourced people who desire to be good neighbors to the poor, was born. Leadership is emphatic that it is this group of people living in the community and augmenting the role of family for those coming off the streets, who have become the “secret sauce” of community life with this vulnerable population.

The foundation of missional-life at CF!V is rooted in the Greatest Commandments found within the Judeo-Christian faith:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these. (Mark 12:30-31)

Among the missionals in the community is Alan Graham and his wife, staff members, board members, leaders, and founders of the movement. Households choosing to live in the community of former drug addicts, prostitutes, and criminals include a recent empty-nester single mom, a dean at the University of Texas with his wife and sons, a family with four young children, a couple who consider themselves missionaries to the community, a CEO of a billion-dollar tech company and his artist wife, and others. While the backgrounds, stories, faith journeys, and reasons for living in the village are varied, the racial diversity is not. Missionals are predominately white, coming from middle to upper-class backgrounds, and were raised in relatively healthy, happy homes, a stark contrast to those coming off the streets, where people of color are overrepresented, poverty is pervasive, and severe childhood trauma is the norm.

Missional-neighbors make up 20% of the population of the Village, though some expressed the need for this number to be higher.

You need to have more health than unhealth to begin with, then over time, this can shift as people grow into who they were called to be. This ratio can be made up of staff, missionals, and befrienders on a rotational basis to create reprieve and breaks, but regardless, you need more healthy than unhealthy people influencing the environment (MLF Staff).

No special privileges are allotted to missionals within the village. They sign the same lease agreement as people coming off the streets, live in the same type of housing, pay the same rent based on the square footage of the home, and wait on the same maintenance service calls if they rent the home. Many missionals choose to own their own home, in which case they are responsible for their own maintenance. However, the monthly lot lease is the same, regardless of ownership.

In addition to going through the same background checks as people coming out of homelessness, missionals have additional requirements for admittance into the Village. Adult missionals are required to go through a discernment process that begins with a statement of their unique calling to live in the Village. They are then asked to participate in the community, getting to know residents and building relationships, and are paired with a missional mentor to connect with monthly. This phase of the process is intended to be the foundation for the community to either affirm or deny their professed calling.  When the mentor believes the discerner is affirmed by their community engagement (minimum of 6 months), the mentor asks for a second statement professing their call as it relates to their experience at the Village. This is shared with a discernment team who then votes, “ready”, “needs more time”, or “not a good fit”. Some reasons for people to be considered “not ready” or “not a good fit” are they have not built relationships with residents and/or residents generally do not like them or they seem more interested in living in a tiny home community than specifically living alongside the formerly chronically homeless. Another obstacle could be significant life challenges or changes that would prevent them from being engaged in the community, such as going through a divorce, battling a life-threatening health condition, or struggling with trauma, substance abuse, or mental illness that affects their day-to-day life. It is understood that missionals not only sense a calling and that calling is affirmed by their participation in the community, but additionally, they have margin in their lives to have a faithful presence in the community, extending hospitality to neighbors around them, and welcoming people into their lives through regular meals, games, walks, and celebrations. This in turn should result in them being welcomed into residents' lives, stories, and traditions. Complete documentation of the roles and responsibilities of missionals is included in Appendix 1.1-1.3.

Eden Village. As an early spin-off of CF!V, the leadership of EV recognized the potential usefulness of the missionals and tried implementing it in their new community. The first and only missional was a single man from the clergy who had never experienced homelessness himself yet felt compelled to live in the community alongside the formerly chronically homeless. However, without the presence of other missionals, his role felt undefined and unsustainable, says the director of the governing organization, Gathering Tree. The gentleman, a personal friend of the director, struggled with alcoholism privately. Once in the community, this struggle intensified and became a community problem. The man was asked to leave, and the leadership never considered the presence of missionals in the villages again.

Missional-neighbors have not become an element of Eden Villages for several reasons. Speculatively, the leader of Eden Villages was not involved with the missional community during his employment at MLF and therefore may not have experienced the value. Secondly, the leadership believes their “home teams,” a group of trained volunteers (described in 4.4.4), create the social belonging and engagement that a missional community would without taking homes away from those who otherwise have no options. And finally, they argue that office staff plays a key role in residents being seen and heard, while also having a regular opportunity to take a break from the high needs of the community by living off-site.

We really want Eden Village to feel like an intentional community neighborhood, but prefer to bring in outside relationships in the form of our Home Team program. (Gathering Tree Leadership)

Decades of trends confirm that affordable housing is not affordable and there is not enough to go around.

As shown from the literature, traditional Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), the housing development reflective of a Housing First model, is inherently unsustainable with regard to cost, time, and funding mechanisms. As a result, scalability is limited through this type of housing, leaving the majority of people experiencing long-term homelessness on the streets or in emergency shelters. MLF, like many in the tiny home village movement, believed there was an inherent flaw in using scarce public subsidies to build expensive multifamily apartment complexes and sought instead to explore alternative housing models.

We know that [the PSH] model is not sustainable. We’ve done everything we can [as a society] with that model for a lot of years and we’re not putting a dent in the homeless population. So how do we do something completely different? (MLF Leadership)

MLF operates under the philosophical assumption that society has allocated the responsibility of taking care of the poor to the government instead of the community accepting that responsibility.

MLF leadership believes that it has been the responsibility of the community for most of human history to care for the poor and disabled and only in the last century have we begun to outsource this role to the government. As a result, many people fall through the cracks and go without the support they need, argues MLF.

I submit that 2,000 years ago if I was killed while hunting the rest of the tribe would take care of my family. But we’ve allocated this responsibility to the government instead of [the community] taking that responsibility on. …(Graham, interview)

The executive leadership of MLF believes that the government should only play a subsidiary role in giant human needs like homelessness, while the community should play the primary one.

We don’t believe the government can solve homelessness. This is not a government problem. This is a community problem. (MLF Staff)

The community-first ethos is a call to homemaking. Beyond building housing, the organization believes that what is needed is to rebuild ‘home’ and all the attributes that come with experiencing a place as such. “People aren’t houseless, they’re homeless” (MLF Staff).

I love giving tours to children because I’ll start out by asking, “If you were to tell me about your home, what words come to mind?” And every time they say, “Safe, warm, fun, cozy. It’s where I hang out, it’s where my bed is, my family is there.”  And every time I’m able to say, “None of you said, ‘My home is made up of four walls and it has a door with a doorknob and a lock.’” Your home is the place that is safe and warm and cozy and fun and those are the things that people have lost ultimately when they’re homeless. (MLF Staff)

MLF has used the eight marks of home described in "Beyond Homelessness" (Bouma-Prediger & Walsh, 2008, pp. 65-66) to shape their understanding and creation of home. Below is a description of each of these elements.

Home is a place of permanence. Whether connected to a stable location or not, home signifies what endures over against what is transient. At home we are host, not guest.

Home is a dwelling place. Saturated with meaning, home is no mere domicile. We are at ease at home because we know the way around, we know the family customs, the quirks and the jokes - the 'rules of the house.'

Home is a storied place. A home is a dwelling made familiar and particular by the stories that have shaped it. At home, the stories we remember recall our common past and infuse our hoped-for future.

Home is a safe resting place. Home is a berth where we are secure and at rest because of the mutual respect everyone has for the integrity of the inhabitants.  

Home is a place of hospitality. At home we take family in; ideally, we also welcome the stranger because we are at ease, without fear.

Home is what we inhabit. More than merely where we reside, ecologically understood, home is our habitat, and as such, it includes our nonhuman neighbors. Home roots us in the sights, smells, and sounds of a particular piece of earth.

Home is a point of orientation. From home our world is made meaningful. Away from home we become homesick.

Home is a place of affiliation and belonging. Home is, minimally, where they have to take us in, like it or not. Ideally, it is where we are loved and cherished even though we are known. Home is where we have a shot at being forgiven.

Penny, a CF!V resident, is a compelling story of homecoming I first heard about in Welcome Homeless and then experienced while meeting her during my visit to the Village. Penny first ran away from home when she was six years old, not knowing how to take care of herself she had to return to her abusive mother. At age 10, she left again and never returned. Penny never felt like she belonged anywhere, so she made the streets her home. Because her mother drugged her at a young age in order to pimp her out, she began a long struggle with addiction. With no family support, Penny remained in a cycle of suffering and homelessness. Eventually, Penny found a home in CF!V, where she now lives and works as an artist, and is known for her “bright personality” in the community. Each month, Penny donates the profits from five of her art pieces to help friends still suffering on the streets. Penny says, “After 51 years, I finally have a home” (MLF). (n.d.-e).

CF!V. MLF has no city, state, or federal money for Phases I and II. Everything has been fundraised or donated privately. Because of this, they express ultimate flexibility over their funding expenditures, arguing that government grants come with strings that do not allow for people to be cared for in an individual, human, and meaningful way.

However, as they rolled out plans for phases III and IV, they were offered Federal American Rescue Plan Act funds allocated for efforts to combat homelessness and made an executive decision to accept the funds. The $50 million grant will be used for infrastructure costs in the latter two phases. This is a strategic shift, but one they felt was right, given they had already proved their model in phases I and II and the funds did not come with requirements that pulled them off vision or mission, such as eliminating missional neighbors or limiting religious activities within the village. MLF says using government dollars for only infrastructure means, “they [the government] can’t dictate how we engage with our neighbors,” remarks one MLF board member.

The master-planned community was designed with Bouma-Prediger and Walsh’s (2008, pp. 65-66) eight Marks of Home in mind and is based on Kampgrounds of America (KOA) which provides a mix of RVs, tent sites, and cabins (S. Hebbard, 2017), see Figure 1. The village site plan was designed to encourage interactions through routine encounters through shared amenities. Tiny houses programmed as libraries, chapels, and hair salons are scattered throughout the property. Organic gardens and a fellowship hall are located in the middle of the property drawing neighbors to the heart of the development. Homes are nestled together and face one another yet are far enough for acoustic privacy and personal space. Edge to edge, units are a minimum of 20’ apart for a sense of place. Thirty percent of the area footprint is devoted to front porches with room to host a neighbor or two. And every home is no more than 125’ away from a shared kitchen and bathhouse (Community Architect). The village is open during the day allowing visitors and guests to enjoy the property and closed during the evening to deter illegal behavior and unwelcome guests.

Figure 1. Phase I Site Plan of CF!V

There is an inherent sense of community when we live inside a small space because it commands that we come outside and hang out with each other. In 1958, the average size of a single-family dwelling was 958 sf with 3.6 people, 250 sf average per person. Today, the average size home is 2,500 sf with 2.5 people. The front porches are just big enough to cover you as you get inside the front door. And then the large backyards are guarded by 8’ privacy fences. We’re disconnecting from each other. You walk around here and there are no backdoors. No backyards. There’s only front porches and front yards. (MLF Leadership)

In Phase I, the RVs are situated together to support water/wastewater infrastructure and the tiny homes and cottage tents are situated on the opposite side of the property utilizing shared facilities for restrooms, showers, laundry, and open-air kitchens. But in Phase II, housing types are weaved throughout the village to overcome criticism that residents who have plumbing and those who do not were segregated, creating a feeling of the “haves'' and the “have nots.” Additionally, Phase II incorporates more plumbed Park Home RVs to accommodate the needs of a predominantly older, disabled population coming off the streets. This of course means less volunteer labor in the home-building as MLF has chosen to purchase the Park Homes over building them like they do the tiny homes, which are considerably simpler.

Homes are clustered together in what their staff architect has coined as, “neighborhoods of knowingness,” which help to maintain the intimacy of a close-knit community, even as they expand in phases from 250 homes to an anticipated 1900. “We’re not anonymous, we say each other's names, we do life together, we depend on each other,” (Graham, & Satterlee, 2020). To preserve this closeness, the community is clustered together in smaller neighborhoods of about 50 homes, with a diverse mixture of ethnicities, incomes, backgrounds, home types, and shared amenities.

Residents are offered a variety of housing options from canvas-sided cottages to tiny homes and Park Home RVs. The variety allows residents to choose a home that fits their particular needs and budget. Homes range from $15,000 to $36,000 and rent for $225 to $430 per month. To MLF, offering dignity requires creating homes that are within people’s reach. “A different way of life is happening around here because people are able to live differently and they’re experiencing this as good news” (CF!V Missional/MLF Staff). To ensure that people feel welcomed, each home is completely furnished including a brand-new mattress, bedding, pillows, and towels. Hangers in the closet, cleaning supplies under the sink, food in the refrigerator, utensils, Tupperware, and small appliances in the drawers and cabinets; it has everything one needs to begin living in it immediately (MLF Staff).

Canvas-sided cottages. Approximately 12×12 in size, these one-room, one-occupant cottages come fully furnished and are equipped with electrical power, a wall socket, and ceiling light, see Figure 2. Outdoor kitchens, private bathrooms and showers, and laundry facilities – similar to what one might find in an RV community – are located throughout the property. These units rent for $225/month. While some residents appreciated the lower rent and chose the structure for that reason, the organization has chosen not to add this type of housing to Phases II, III, or IV because of limited insulation value and durability.

Figure 2. Canvas-Sided Cottage at CF!V

‍

Tiny-homes. These compact, environmentally-sustainable homes, boasts MLF, are between 150–200 square feet to accommodate one occupant. The homes have electrical power, but no plumbing. Community kitchens and private restrooms and shower facilities are available for use throughout the village. The homes are competition-winning designs by architects from around the country offering residents variety for a sense of ownership and uniqueness, see Figure 3. Homes are built for $15,000-$30,000 with considerable volunteer labor and rent for $325-$375/month.

Figure 3. Tiny Home at CF!V

‍

Phase II introduced a new type of tiny home construction for more than half a dozen inhabitants - 3D printed homes. The homes are made from a proprietary concrete mixture called Lavacrete that is automatically extruded from a 33-foot-long machine. Each home takes around 27 hours of print time over several days and produces zero waste. CF!V was among the first communities in the US to inhabit this new technology. "Vulnerable populations like the homeless are never among the first to access leading-edge anything," says Alan Graham. "But here in Austin, Texas, they’re among the first in line who will be living in some of the most unique homes ever built—and we think that’s a beautiful thing," (Nielsen, 2020).

Figure 4. 3D Printed Home at CF!V

‍

RV Park Homes (RVPHs). RVPHs are approximately 200-400 square feet in size and can accommodate one or two people. Each unit includes a full-service kitchen, bathroom with standup shower, bedroom, and living area. Fifth wheel RVs (or towable RVs) were originally bought gently used for $10,000-$20,000 and refurbished to a high standard, says the MLF team. Then the organization began purchasing new North American RVs directly from the manufacturer for $27,000, recognizing the maintenance and upkeep are easier on new models. However, after several years in operation, they have found that the slide-outs leak and the upkeep is laborious on even newly purchased RVs. For Phase II, they have transitioned the plumbed units exclusively to Park Homes, built for year-round living. New Park Homes are purchased for $36,000 and rent for $430/month, plus monthly electric & propane costs.

Figure 5. Park Homes at CF!V

‍

The majority of missionals choose to live in Park Homes (with bathroom and kitchen) rather than a tiny home (without sewer and water), in which case they need to supply their own unit. One pain point as CF!V expands is the procurement of housing for missionals. Because of current supply chain constraints, there is a 9-12 month lead time for custom Park Homes, which most missionals need in order to fit their unique long-term needs (e.g. safety with young children, privacy for teenagers, or dedicated home office space). As a result, residents coming out of homelessness are outpacing residents coming in as missionals in Phase II. While plans for Phases III and IV are not solidified, one accommodation MLF is making is for missional families. Homes around 900 sf, as opposed to the current 400 sf models, will better suit the needs of missional families with children still at home.

Eden Village. Unlike CF!V, Eden Village accepted government dollars from the beginning. However, similar to phases III and IV of CF!V, the funds are only for infrastructure costs and not the homes themselves. They say this distinction of “lighter money” from the government is important, as it does not come with burdensome reporting requirements. For EV1, they used Community Block Development funds to develop the parking lot, village roads, fire hydrants, and water lines, all of which had standard requirements they would follow and pay for with or without federal dollars. This is a “favorable way of working with the city” says the executive director, to accomplish overlapping goals.

Eden Village decided to include only full dwelling units with plumbed bathrooms and kitchens in the villages, unlike CF!V where rooming units with shared amenities are offered in addition to full dwelling units, which MLF argues offers neighbors a range of rental price points. At EV, a common house with shared kitchen, laundry, computer, meeting, and dining space is a part of every village design to encourage daily interactions and community-building among residents and volunteers. Volunteer labor is utilized for maintenance, cleaning, and beautification throughout the village. However, EV chose to partner with a manufacturer to produce factory-built homes, delivered and installed on a permanent foundation. The Park Model homes are certified by the state and approved by HUD as manufactured, modular homes, suitable within zoning designated for this type of housing (see 4.3.4 Land Use). Each full dwelling unit is just under 400sf and rents for $300/month including utilities.

The organization uses Community Reinvestment Funds granted by federal home loan banks to fund their homes. The funds are private and not attached to burdensome reporting requirements like government grants are, says leadership. In turn, the bank is given a better FDIC rating. The funds can only be used for homes that are universally seen as permanent housing, of which after Gathering Tree’s civil rights settlement with the city of Springfield (see 4.3.4 Land Use for details) Park Homes now qualify within their villages.

Figure 6. Park Homes at Eden Village 1

‍

Fear of who the homeless are and what type of neighbors they will be creates NIMBY (Not in my backyard) opposition and prevents housing designated for the homeless from being built.

Restrictive land-use laws are largely a response to the outcry of resourced constituents opposing any development that would place the poor, and more specifically poor people of color, in their neighborhoods. MLF believes stereotypes which portray people experiencing homeless as dangerous and deviant perpetuate this opposition.

“The single greatest obstacle [to housing the homeless] is the Not in My Backyard mentality,” Graham says.

The scattered-site strategy [to affordable housing] is a response to NIMBY opposition. Nobody wants all of ‘those’ people together. (MLF Leadership)

MLF fundamentally believes that NIMBYism cannot be overcome with reason, but instead, must be strategized around to get housing for the homeless built.

While arguments that affordable housing will lower surrounding property values or increase crime in the area are unsubstantiated, the organization believes statistics and data alone are not enough to overcome opposition to unwanted development. A land-use strategy is necessary to enable the project to come to fruition.

You can’t overcome NIMBYism. You should tattoo this on your forehead backward as a reminder so you see it every time you look in the mirror. You have to strategize around it. (MLF Leadership)

NIMBY sentiments toward the homeless take on a deeper meaning when layered with racial segregation still prevalent in our society today. Essentially, resourced white people and poor people of color do not interact much in our society, other than in a charitable situation, and almost never do we see the two living intentionally in the same neighborhoods and homes. In a community-first concept, all of this changes; housed and unhoused, resourced and under-resourced, wealthy and poor are no longer segregated by good and bad neighborhoods, schools, and community resources, but instead, are learning to live interdependent with one another.

Tremendous dollars go toward maintaining homelessness in this county. A community-first way says charity without heart investment will only perpetuate racial and economic segregation, at whatever cost. MLF often uses the phrase, “Heart over pocket,” meaning that relationships are key to breaking down stereotypes and moving people away from seeing the homeless as a problem to be dealt with to individuals of great value who, when welcomed in, will enrich society.

You can’t throw enough money at the problem and [homelessness] be solved. It takes time to build relationships. We all have a responsibility to cultivate relationships among us. It doesn't magically happen. (MLF Staff)

CF!V. MLF fought 12 years of battles with NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) neighbors before locating their community outside Austin city limits where local zoning laws do not apply, only state regulations involving density and water quality (ULI, 2017). The organization had the favor of the mayor and city council members when identifying possible sites within city limits, but each time they went to purchase the land, nearby neighbors rallied together in opposition. The meetings were heated, says Alan Graham, complete with opponents spitting and screaming that ‘those’ people don’t belong in their neighborhood (Graham & Hall, 2017, pp. 159-161). But in 2013, after two hours of debate, county commissioners granted the organization the ability to develop a recreational vehicle park for the homeless on an undesirable piece of land outside of town. The largest crowd the court had seen all year appeared before the commissioners including those against the community who argued the development would bring heightened crime and lowered property values. The commission unanimously voted in favor of the village development and some even voiced their desire to see more of this type of community throughout the county (Moore, 2013).

Six years later, the village attracts more than 20,000 visitors a year and has been coined, “Austin’s most talked about neighborhood,” by the mayor, and a “magical place” by People magazine. Alan shares that he has yet to give a tour of the village without a resourced person in the group saying they would like to live there, a community devoted to former prostitutes, drug addicts, and criminals. Racial and economic divides are beginning to blur at CF!V and intentional community is the result.

… I feel it’s a distinct privilege to be part of this. You know, there are moments of some pretty challenging situations, but I know my neighbors better here than in thirteen years in a gated community where everybody had everything. (CF!V Missional)

Eden Village. Eden Village also strategized around NIMBY opposition to enable development. However, unlike Texas, Missouri has zoning regulations even outside city limits. So instead, the leadership looked for land that did not need to be rezoned, avoiding neighborhood review and inevitably opposition. For them, this meant redeveloping an abandoned manufactured home community for EV1. The infrastructure was already in place, the cost of the property relatively low, and the zoning unrestricted for their purposes, meaning they could “quietly pull permits” and develop the property without suspicion from neighbors. In fact, their improvements to the properties meant improvements to the surrounding neighborhoods as well; run-down, abandoned trailer homes were replaced with newly constructed Park Homes, freshly paved roads replaced pothole-laden streets, and overgrown landscaping was turned into abundant gardens with the efforts of hundreds of volunteers. Gathering Tree leadership boasts that the police department says the village is now the saftest neighborhood in Springfield, MO.

For EV2, they had a piece of land donated to them that required a zoning change. They chose to accept the land, knowing this was off strategy. Initially, Gathering Tree had support from the mayor but this changed when they asked for reasonable accommodations under the American Disability Act and Fair Housing Act which they thought would strengthen their case. Instead, the mayor perceived this as “threatening” and the rezoning request was denied. In which case Gathering Tree filed suit against the city. "We allege that the City of Springfield and specifically Mayor Ken McClure violated several Federal Statutes and unfairly discriminated against our organization and most importantly, the disabled people that we are attempting to house through future Eden Village Communities in our city," a release from Eden Village said. To settle the lawsuit, the city admitted to discrimination, paid their attorney fees, purchased the land in question, and gave them the right to use Park Homes as permanent dwellings in all future villages. (At the time, the country viewed Park Homes as permanent, but the city only recognized them as temporary). EV2 was ultimately developed on the site of a former trailer park that did not require a zoning change.

This civil rights lawsuit was validation of the strategy to use land already zoned for their purposes. If zoning approval is needed, it invites city and neighborhood opposition, and religious or civil rights litigation is likely necessary. To position themselves against potential pushback, Gathering Tree documents all residents as having a disability, which is consistent with the federal definition to qualify as chronically homelessness.

But by the third EV, the organization had run out of mobile home parks available for purchase in Springfield, MO, and turned to land zoned Residential Low Density, allowing for 11 units per acre. Because housing units in this zone need to be multi-family or connected with a one-hour firewall, they created “modular duplexes” nearly identical to the EV homes found in the first two villages, just connected back-to-back (the design implications of this may be less access to light and ventilation). In EV4 of Wilmington, NC, they purchased a parcel zoned R7, which allows a voluntary development style for Cottage Courtyard developments. Again, avoiding the need to rezone land, ask for permission, or open themselves up to scrutiny.

Our niche continues to be to discover zonings that are already in existence in local municipalities to build an EV without rezoning.

‍

Mainstream services are fragmented, overburdened, difficult to access, and can be dehumanizing and perpetuate dependency, resulting in a tremendously expensive homeless service industry.

While on the street it is not uncommon to have worked with a dozen or more case managers and a dozen or more other organizations each siloed in their work to feed, cloth, preach, treat, fix the homeless. (MLF Leadership)

The chronically homeless are a significantly costly segment of the homeless population, suffering from a combination of chronic health conditions, mental illnesses, and substance use disorders. They are a highly mobile population cycling in and out of emergency care and requiring intensive resources. Furthermore, they are a highly disconnected group of people, on the furthest fringes of society. While social services can be important for those experiencing long-term homelessness, the sometimes isolated agendas of helping professionals, from county workers to private health practitioners can result in siloed care. The consequence is an enormous chasm between those who could benefit from services and the services themselves, in addition to a deep mistrust of ‘the system’ where their routine interactions are either with paid professionals or others in chronic poverty.

This particular group of people, they’re hurt. They’ve been stepped over by society. They’ve been ignored. (Befriender)

Trusted relationships must be formed before people can connect with and benefit from professional services.

The majority of homeless adults have experienced significant childhood and community traumas, making them more likely to suffer from major chronic health issues, mental illnesses, and substance use disorders later in life. A community-first notion asserts that these issues can best be addressed and healed through meaningful relationships formed within a healthy community.

People coming out of long-term homelessness have had many people offer help along the way: caseworkers, social workers, mental health practitioners, addiction counsels, and ordinary people offering a meal, a few dollars, or a pair of socks out of their car window. Charitable people and helping professionals are in and out of the lives of people stuck in homelessness, which makes the help marginally effective. As a result, trust erodes with each lost connection while on the streets. A philosophical assumption of the community-first paradigm is that only through intentional, committed relationships can trust begin to form again and lead to connecting people with supportive services that they will benefit from.

This population is so vulnerable, filled with a past of uncertainty and displacement, that they require stability in their environment, including the [community] that they are building and forming trusting relationships with. (MLF Leadership)

‍

[We’re] more interested in providing relational transformation than transactional “handouts.” (MLF Leadership)

Unlike a soup kitchen or shelter, where people are served as one in a sea of immediate need, a community-first style addresses the deeper wounds people carry. A meal and a bed are necessary for people to establish a sense of stability but very quickly after one’s basic human needs are met, the emotional, psychological, and spiritual ones must be addressed. In this relational model, time is highly valued. The journey of healing requires friends (and not just helping professionals) walking alongside them as they learn to trust and live in community for the first time in years, decades, sometimes for the first time in their lives.

Community-first requires relationships at every level. From volunteers to donors, to staff, MLF believes what moves the heart to care is a human connection. Bringing people into the folds of the community and community life offers people the opportunity to become part of the story.

The interaction that you have with a [formerly homeless] neighbor while volunteering, the human-to-human, heart-to-heart connection, those memories become part of your story and story is so powerful for inviting and motivating others to join in the movement. (MLF Staff)

CF!V. MLF works to build a trustworthy community through three primary groups within the village: Missional neighbors, Neighbor Care staff, and volunteer Befrienders. Neighbor Care staff and Befrienders are described below.

Neighbor Care Staff. The Neighbor Care (NC) department is the main contact for support, connecting residents to the right sources to get their needs met. The department is both relational and administrative, describing staff as resource liaisons. NC primarily addresses two groups of people: prospective inhabitants still living on the streets who want to live in the community and those already living there. NC staff emphasizes they work hard to build trusted relationships so that they can be seen as trustworthy and connect people with the opportunities that they would enjoy and benefit from.

We don’t want to slap a Band-Aid on something to get a person out of the office. We want to dive deep and have a professional that is going to help them in a way that is tailored and compassionate to the person’s needs. The way that we’re addressing the needs fits into the model of ‘community will solve homelessness’ because people are cared for in a really dignified way and we help navigate these really complicated systems. (MLF Staff)

In addition to relying heavily on agencies to provide professional care (which is also present in Permanent Supportive Housing), CF!V staff have the support of missionals to assist with errands, transportation, and relational needs. The type of care neighbors receive would be infinitely complex and costly if it were done solely by paid staff members. Noteworthy, MLF pays their staff twenty percent less than similar organizations as a way of vetting people for the work, reinforcing the notion that it is a privilege to come and serve alongside the homeless and be transformed by this relational work. However, the leadership expresses that they make considerable investments in their staff’s personal growth through ongoing training, retreats, events, and workshops.

Your work is part of your calling, ministry, and mission. It’s sacrificial. It’s not only you that's serving, but being served, receiving, invited to be a part of something much larger. (MLF Staff)

Neighbor Care works with a person from day one, walking with them through their interview, home-choosing, and move-in process. The team prepares each home with the resident in mind and makes sure the new resident has what they need and feels comfortable transitioning from the streets and into community. Once they settle a new neighbor, NC continues to engage and support the neighbor by getting to know them, suggesting ways they can participate in the community, and inviting community members to wrap around the neighbor to support their sense of purpose and belonging. Neighbor Care helps people live in community and fill their time productively with the goal of building community at every level and with every community member. For a complete look at CF!V’s Neighbor Care, see Appendix 4.1.

Befrienders. MLF has envisioned a group of Befrienders, people who do not live in the village like missionals but still desire to come alongside inhabitants as friends and help support their needs. For many people on the street, the world feels set up for them to fail and is overwhelming in its sometimes-conflicting agendas and motives. This special team of volunteers is described as invaluable to aiding people in navigating life and fulfilling personal goals. Their love and support augment the role of staff and missionals by providing much-needed physical, emotional, and even financial support. “In some ways, it’s like adopting somebody,” describes one CF!V Befriender.

MLF staff say befrienders exemplify what it means to “love your neighbor” through visits, shared meals, and assistance with other homemaking and life tasks. The objective of this supportive friendship is to initiate connections and integrate inhabitants into community, providing much-needed structure and mentoring.

Lola calls her Befriender, her ‘Helper’, a 20-something guy from her church that comes over once a week, takes her to Walmart, sweeps her porch. They talk about Korean politics. And for that guy, it’s a super life-giving thing and for Lola, most of her needs are met by her Helper. She doesn’t come to [missionals or staff] asking for many requests because she has her Befriender. (CF!V Missional)

While many within MLF desire for this program to expand, they express that it has been difficult to grow for a couple of reasons. First, the Befrienders were originally thought of as informal caseworkers, trained by professionals and documenting their interactions for review, rather than ordinary people offering genuine friendship. This distinction can create a power-over dynamic that makes the relationship somewhat transactional, even though Befrienders are not paid for their work. Secondly, it is difficult to pair people together and manufacture authentic friendships. As one missional/staff sees it, “There’s a deep kinship that even illness can’t obscure, and some people are just going to get along better with some people than others.”

MLF leadership, staff, and missionals all agree that the more resourced-friends residents have in their orbit, the better they can be cared for holistically and fully. However, there is no designated volunteer or staff position coordinating efforts to multiply Befrienders.

Ideally, every neighbor in the community would have several Befrienders they can call on for love and support, distributing the physical, sometimes financial, and most frequently emotional needs among a group of committed, invested people. (Befriender)

Those who have found success in befriending a formerly homeless neighbor (even with being paired) have done so by involving them in their personal lives. From including a Befriendee in family dinners to sharing special occasions together, the commitment of a Befriender can be one of authentic, genuine involvement.

I thought I was coming to serve and help the woman I was paired with through this program, but my life has been so enriched from our relationship. The more real I am, the more connected we are. We have both grown from sharing our experiences and lives! (Befriender)

Eden Village. Recognizing the need for a stronger supportive network, leaders from MLF visited Springfield, Missouri’s Eden Village at the beginning of 2020 to learn about their successful befriender program. Called ‘Home Teams,’ the program consists of over 250 volunteers which help to support the emotional and physical needs of the residents at EV1, requiring one half-time staff position to coordinate efforts and be available for check-ins and questions.

Home Teams are designed to be a support system that assists a resident with their transition out of homelessness through the development of relationships and community. Teams are made up of 4-6 people per resident. During the onboarding process, new residents are told about the program in this way: You are the CEO of your own life, you make the decisions. You call the shots. But every good CEO has a board of directors they rely on for advice and expertise. We’d like to put together a board of directors for you, called a ‘Home Team’ to walk alongside you and help you meet your personal goals.

Out of the original 31 residents at EV1, only one has declined a Home Team. The retention rate of volunteers is 80%. Many of the befrienders came by way of first being a part of a home sponsorship team. Eden Village says it is these teams that are the most important component to creating a relational community at the village. Home Teams commit to meeting with their befriendee at least once per month as a group for one year, offering support through friendship, and working as a team.

Teams are encouraged to use their resources and relationships to help their new neighbor, ask questions and get to know them, be a safe and trusted friend, look for ways to help their neighbor improve their quality-of-life, send regular encouraging messages, and continue to show up and be a consistent presence in a neighbor’s life.

Some common things Home Teams assist with are budgeting, housekeeping, transportation, acquiring official documents, trips to the store, cooking, laundry, supporting hobbies, and setting goals. Guidelines for Home Teams include active listening and allowing their neighbor to have a voice, having a posture of reciprocity rather than one of trying to fix them, being sensitive to their needs and struggles, recognizing their neighbor’s decisions may look different from their own, having a mindset of assisting with rather than doing for, encouraging independence as much as possible, avoiding imposing personal agendas, and maintaining healthy boundaries by understanding it is acceptable to say ‘no’.

In addition to Home Teams to support residents transitioning out of homelessness and into the village, providing temporary accommodations has been found to be successful as a recruitment strategy for Eden Villages. In addition to operating the permanent supportive housing villages, Gathering Tree operates an overnight campground as a low barrier shelter. Unlike traditional homeless shelters, pets and couples are welcome, and no ID is required. Campers rent for $10/night and include a teardrop camper no bigger than the twin-size mattress inside. Shared showers, bathrooms, and laundry are provided on-site. Vouchers are available for those who do not have the cash through donations. The CEO says this is great opportunity to help people transition off the streets until they are ready to be a good neighbor in a permanent village.

‍

Lifelong trauma, disorders, and disabilities often restrict the chronically homeless from employment and limit their ability to have a meaningful role in society.

On the streets, every day is survival mode. Your thoughts are, “What am I going to eat today? How am I going to protect my things today? Who’s going to try and hurt me today?” And when all of a sudden your brain isn’t occupied with those thoughts anymore, we see a lot of things bubble to the surface that they have not been able to look at or deal with...and there is a lot of trauma, and pain, and sadness that has gone untouched for a long time. (MLF Staff)

The chronically homeless have little opportunity to participate in meaningful work or healthy ways to spend their time, says MLF. The organization recognizes that many homeless individuals desire to work but substantial obstacles stand in the way of gainful employment. Staff share that most residents struggle with the typical structure of employment, and some are learning disabled. This leaves a homeless individual struggling to keep a commitment and struggling to stay focused, further compounding barriers to employment, including mental health and substance use disorders, criminal records, and physical disabilities (Poremski, Whitley, & Latimer, 2014).

Every Person is Created for Goodness.A community-first philosophy rests on the belief that people are meant for more than just survival. Each person exists for a unique purpose and with the proper encouragement and support to pursue this purpose the community at large benefits.

It’s our belief that everyone has talents and skills but not everyone has had the opportunity to build them up, to put them into practice, and to earn an income from them. (MLF Staff)

Community-first asserts that a thriving community is steeped in a lifestyle of service with one another. For the housed community this means entering the pain and trauma that homeless neighbors have experienced and for those coming off the streets it is about learning to trust again.

People on the streets are accustomed to being abandoned by human beings all along the way. There’s no overnight fix to this. We have to inspire people into a lifestyle of service with the homeless. Compassion comes from two Latin root words: “com” which means “with” and “pati” which means “to suffer”. If you want to understand something as profound as homelessness, you’re gonna have to go and suffer with these brothers and sisters. (Graham, 2017a)

For people coming off the streets, a lifestyle of service means entering something more than charity, bigger than oneself and one’s own needs. This is done by inspiring inhabitants who may be accustomed to a lifestyle of receiving while homeless - from soup kitchens and food shelves to shelters and emergency services - toward a lifestyle of contributing and giving back as a result of the stability and love they have found within a supportive community.

When we’re bringing people off the streets, what are we bringing them in to do?  We’re not just bringing them in to receive. We’re bringing them in to cultivate this place, to cultivate community, and to keep it, preserve it, and protect it. (CF!V Missional/MLF Staff)

CF!V resident John Vincent shares his perspective.

I think I could speak for pretty much every homeless person here. There’s times in our life, man, to the point where we wasn’t ready to be forgiven for anything. We just kept our hand open, we never wanted to close our hand to give back, we always wanted to keep them open to receive. Well, when we got here, we learned how to give back. That’s the whole key. We learned how to live as a community. And that is a blessing in itself because out there on the streets there is no community, there is no family, but here I have a family, here I live in a community. (Graham & Vincent, 2018)

‍

CF!V. Recognizing that many of their residents are entrepreneurial in nature, MLF developed a work program to empower individuals to rediscover their “God-given talents” and move those talents into the economy. The Community Works program is made up of an array of micro-enterprises that allow neighbors to participate in work they enjoy and can be successful in. Every program is inspired by the natural interests and talents found in the residents of the village. Several micro-enterprise programs exist to serve the village, while others are intended to serve visitors or the regional community. Each program provides employment opportunities for those who are interested, currently about 60% of residents. Positions are reserved for applicants who have been approved for a home or are currently living at CF!V.

The goal of Community Works is for housed and unhoused to participate in meaningful work together. An estimated 10,000 volunteers a year participate in these opportunities. Larger volunteer groups pay to participate and this is where the revenue for the program is generated. These donations contribute to a formerly homeless neighbor earning a dignified income by being their guide for the activity and in return, the volunteers are receiving an experience and a story with the goal of them returning to deepen their interactions with neighbors.

The income generated through CW is intended to support neighbors living expenses at the village and is not limited to one program. In addition to government income benefits (Supplemental Security Income or Disability), that 70% of residents receive, MLF believes a dignified income should allow a villager, with discipline, to pay for rent, utilities, public transportation, and food. During the CW onboarding process, residents establish their initial income goals considering the housing costs and benefits they receive and CW staff support neighbors in achieving their goals.

Project-based micro-enterprises. Gardening, staffing a concessions stand and outdoor cinema, maintaining the bed and breakfast, offering oil changes, inspections, and car detailing, and cleaning the shared amenities are project-based micro-enterprises within CF!V. Resident-Contractors are paid for completed tasks rather than an hourly wage. This is intended to help neighbors have ownership over their work, offer flexibility, and allow for relationship building with volunteers and other villagers participating in the work.

Compensation does not come with benefits as they are not necessarily needed and could affect an individual’s medical and financial assistance. On average, inhabitants work 4-20 hours per week on a contract basis. This flexibility gives people the ability to find and sustain work that they can manage. Supervisors are there to keep people accountable by helping folks decide before they start what block of time they will be working and if they miss work, the supervisor finds out why and connects them with the help they may need. And perhaps most importantly, the work is meant to be relational. “If only 80% of the mulch that was set out gets moved because it turns out your volunteers are middle-schoolers and you’re herding cats all morning, that’s fine. Make sure they have a good time. Tell them your story.  Show them around the village,” emphasizes staff.

Product-based micro-enterprises. The art-house, forge, and woodshop are product-based micro-enterprises that allow neighbors to make and sell products in the village. These enterprises are understood as historical, restoring something that has been lost and challenging a sense of time including arts and trades that people can learn and master with purpose. You can carve a piece of wood, throw a piece of pottery, or make a piece of soap, sell it in the Community Market and collect the profits. This work is flexible which is necessary for many coming out of long-term homelessness who have not and may never be able to hold a scheduled job with significant responsibility to show up on time and on particular days. Product-based work allows people to do the work that they can when they can.

One of the advantages of neighbors working within the village is that they have much more flexibility and they have an employer who understands if they’re depressed or anxious and don’t show up at work for a few weeks. We have work opportunities that are very flexible for those who might have extreme ups and downs. (MLF Staff)

The work is entrepreneurial in nature, recognizing that many have the ability to produce meaningful work and these opportunities allow them to participate in the economy. Profits from the sale of the product, minus the cost of materials and a small administrative fee, go directly to the artist. Dignified income goals are set with each artist and the CW staff and volunteers support the artist in reaching these goals as much as possible. And again, the work is relational. It is about connecting volunteers and neighbors to learn from one another and create quality artifacts together.

Community Works Staff. Staff meets weekly to discuss every neighbor in the micro-enterprises so as to assess whether they are meeting their dignified income goal and if they are well-suited for the work. If not, they look for other positions available that are better matched to meet their goals and their abilities.

We know the reason why people are and are not meeting their goals due to sickness or rehab or relapse or any number of things. The point is that these life triggers are connected with their work, their home, and their position in the community. The life factors that affect one affect them all and we have a holistic understanding of what the effects might be and how we can support that individual through the crisis without being evicted or fired. (MLF Staff)

Each month staff introduces village residents to every job on-site through a job fair, personally inviting villagers who have never attended to come and participate. “Our hope is that all will find a role within the community” (MLF Leadership).  Some residents will not work because they believe it will affect their benefits which is a laborious process to get. For this reason, MLF has an expert in government assistance programs on staff who can advise neighbors on how much they can earn before it affects their financial assistance and health insurance benefits.

Eden Village. Eden Village does not have the volume of residents, volunteers, or visitors to support a large micro-enterprise operation like CF!V’s arthouse, forge, or bed and breakfast. Furthermore, the villages do not have shared bathrooms and showers to maintain which offers another opportunity for stable income at CF!V. But leadership does value increasing residents’ income. A small on-site tie-dye business allows residents to make and sell branded t-shirts to visitors and volunteers of the village, which they say has been successful. However, more stable work has come by way of local partnerships. Eden Village looks for strategic partnerships with local companies willing to take a chance on their residents who have multiple employment barriers. The work is almost always part-time and low-skilled, such as dishwashing or factory work.

The work program is not a focus for us right now in the sense of a strong micro-enterprise program like Community First! Village. Instead, we are working through partners and looking at companies that would employ our people part-time through strategic relationships with large employers. (Gathering Tree Leadership)

While outside work can be meaningful, the likelihood of it translating into intentional, meaningful relationships for people coming out of long-term homelessness, isolation, and mistrust of people, is limited. By contrast, at CF!V resourced and under-resourced throw pottery, carve wood, or tend the gardens together, with the goal of sharing their stories, their experiences, and their very lives. It is a place where invested people are encouraging, calling forth, and supporting people coming out of homelessness on their journey of finding purpose and translating that into a sustainable income source.

‍

It’s so much more than providing a house for someone and saying, “Ok, we’re going to help you get back on your feet.” It’s a way of thinking. It’s about learning how to build and live in community. It’s not just about the homeless people, it’s about the people that get involved with those homeless people and how they start looking at things through a different lens so that they’re going to respond differently. They’re going to raise their kids to respond differently. So hopefully at some point, the problems that we have [as a society] change. (CF!V Missional)

The emerging ideas of a community first response to homelessness first came about more than twenty years ago from a curious group of white, resourced, Christian men. As they began to sleep on the streets of Austin, TX alongside those who were experiencing long-term homelessness they learned the stories of hundreds. These stories all pointed to “a profound and catastrophic loss of family,” in their estimation. This understanding began to reshare their worldviews and ultimately their calling to care for the poor in a deeply authentic way, requiring them to enter into a life alongside the poor. What unfolded was loosening the bonds of racial injustice, social inequality, and transactional charity. That group of men formed into what is known today at Mobile Loaves and Fishes, a street outreach and supportive community ministry where more than 500 men and women have been lifted out of chronic homelessness and into a tiny home community where a quarter of the households are missional neighbors, coming from resourced, often privileged backyards, choosing to live in the community as good neighbors, friends, and as a way of healing the disparities too often found in our world between races and classes.

The work of MLF’s CF!V has been inspiring for many and the first spin-off community, Eden Village, was established by a former MLF staff member with the same convictions: people who were in chronic homelessness had lost family and community connections and therefore family and community needed to be apart of the solution if they were to become homefull. This chapter has explored these two case studies within a conceived framework of five important topics: social integration, housing, land use, service provision, and employment and work. Key insights from each community are described, the most noteworthy of which are outlined in Table 7.

More than four hundred organizations have visited and toured CF!V over the last six years looking for how to replicate their approach to homelessness, and another 500 people have reached out in the last year alone with the desire to bring this model back to their own communities. Not one has been able to fully replicate the model and nearly all struggle to get something off the ground. Some reasons for this may be the founding example, CF!V, is large, requiring a substantial amount of unrestricted land, private donations, and full-time staff to support and sustain the housing development. Likewise, Eden Villages have a niche strategy with limited opportunity for expansion. These villages are the first manifestations of the community-first concept in existence, but how might this model be adapted in communities across the nation within myriad contexts? What would the model look like, for example, in an urban core or cold climate? How might communities rely on underutilized resources, infrastructure, or people to see this achieved at a scale that meets the need?

This chapter presents ongoing action research of the case Settled, a project I began in tandem with the ongoing research of CF!V and Eden Villages. The work of Settled has been to identify the key elements needed for replication and growth of the community-first ethos. However, to continue to call this model of care “community-first” is to remain beholden to the Housing First movement. It remains referential to a model that was largely driven by policymakers and academics and funded by the government. These two stakeholders have very little, if any, influence within the community model that is emerging. Instead, what we are seeing is the broader community welcomed into personally contributing to eradicating homelessness in their own backyards. The agendas are not driven by politics or government funding mechanisms, but instead by faith congregations, local businesses, foundations, and individuals. The model of care is much better positioned as a new movement, rather than a critic of an old one. For this reason, I propose a “Full Community” approach as a way of scaling the community-first ethos, engaging entirely new stakeholders in addressing a wicked problem persistent in nearly every major city in our nation. It is no wonder that the government and helping professionals alone cannot solve this, it requires the commitment and efforts of the full community. The approach is community-led, community-built, and community-funded.

This chapter presents five key elements of a Full Community response to chronic homelessness: intentional neighbors, permanent homes, cultivated land, supportive friends, and purposeful work. Findings reflect the case study research explored in Chapter 4, as well as the participatory-action research of Settled, and our first community, Sacred Settlement Mosaic. In this work, I created a housing development to reflect the Full Community model of care called “Sacred Settlements.” Designed with adaptability and scale in mind, a Sacred Settlement is meant to address the five major identified problems to ending chronic homelessness within different social, cultural, political, or climatic environment by reconceptualizing the problems according to five key elements inspired by the community-first ideas found in CF!V and Eden Villages. Table 8 presents these elements in context with the societal problems each one addresses and highlights how it builds on the Housing First model.

The names “Settled”, the organization, and “Sacred Settlements”, the community development to implement a Full Community approach, are used interchangeably in this chapter. Yet, it should be noted that Setted and Sacred Settlements are only one manifestation of the Full Community model proposed here. This model could manifest in many ways within a variety of contexts, such as using land owned by healthcare systems rather than religious organizations or utlizing small apartment complexes instead of tiny homes. The model is intended to be both aspirational and practical, seeing the potential in what we already have while also imaging how things could be better.  

The worst social problems are often opportunities for the greatest innovation. Homelessness is one of the most visible epidemics we are confronted with today. The problem is currently handled in the public policy realm, which relieves citizens from being a part of the solution or having responsibility for solving it, even though significant public dollars are spent and the effects of which are an ever increasing homeless population.

Implementing a Full Community response to homeless invites the community to contribute to its eradication, proposing to add to the existing system a mechanism that could work for people that the current system does not work for while making use of underutilized resources, namely religious land, buildings, and volunteers. All of this has the potential to reduce public costs significantly. On a given night about 550,000 people are living on the streets of America (Henry, Mahathey, Morrill, Robinson, Shivji, & Watt, 2018). At the same time, Hartford Institute for Religion Research (2010) estimates there are roughly 350,000 religious congregations in the United States. If every faith community were to commit to walking alongside 1 to 2 people in homelessness (through sponsoring a home, hosting a village, or supporting another congregation in doing so), we could effectively mitigate homelessness in our lifetime, making better use of resources by redeploying and reapplying underused spaces, places, and people.

The broader community is recognizing the value of this model. At Settled, we have gained the recognition of the NFL Minnesota Vikings who honored us on the field as Hometown Heros (Minnesota Vikings, 2021). Local and national news outlets like Bloomberg (Poon, 2021), The Phoenix Spirit (Samples, 2021), Authority Magazine (Georgiadis, 2021), Next City (Janzer, 2020), Star Tribune (Fisher, 2021), Minnesota Public Radio (Yust, 2020), Twin Cities PBS (Yust, 2020 ), and Channel 5 News (Reeve, 2022) have featured our work. And we have been invited to speak at many events including the St. Paul Annual Prayer Breakfast, the Rotary circuit, UMN Womens Club, and the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Annual Convention with audiences of up to 600 in attendance.

Members of the committee overseeing this dissertation have found the research useful for applications in their own work. Tom Fisher, former dean at the University of Minnesota and current Director of the Minnesota Design Center has written about the implications of this model with regard to the effect of the pandemic on our use of land and space in his book, Space, Structures and Design in a Post-Pandemic World (2022). He also talks about Settled in a paper entitled, "Post-Pandemic, Nomadic Cohousing" (2021). Dr. Kathryn Janda, professor at the University College London, has presented the community-first ideas defined in this dissertation by overlaying the idea of middle actors (that is, the individuals who occupy the space between ‘top-down’ policy and instruction, and ‘bottom-up’ norm) at several peer-reviewed conference proceedings from Manchester, UK to Washington, DC (Janda, Clowdus, Parag, & Reindl, 2022a; Janda, Clowdus, Parag, & Reindl, 2022b). And Dr. Julia Robinson, professor of Architecture and Housing at the University of Minnesota brought a group of graduate students to Sacred Settlement Mosaic for a presentation and discussion on the design aspects of the development.

This new model of housing and care is also gaining support at the Minnesota Legislature where we have brought a bill forward. This proposal would add a new section to Minnesota law to recognize the ability of churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship to have Sacred Settlements on their premises. We worked extensively with the Department of Labor and Industry around building standard issues as well as the League of Minnesota Cities to address concerns. In the 2020 and 2021 sessions, the bill (SF1145, HF1484) passed unanimously through the House of Representatives’ Preventing Homelessness Division and the Human Services Finance and Policy Committee. We are hopefull it will pass in the 2022 session.

We can all benefit from entire communities modeling healthy relationships, productivity, and prosperity with purpose, providing places where everyone has value, is celebrated, and functions according to their gifts in a way that benefits the whole. It has been said by MLF, a community-oriented approach requires the unwavering faith of people so committed to the vision and mission that the strength of the opposition is overcome and the hardships withstood. For CF!V in Austin, this meant faith in a loving and abundant home-making God who desires to co-labor with His people. But can this model be fulfilled by some other shared value? Can this be done if you remove the God factor? Hundreds of organizations come to CF!V each year looking for answers to bring back to their own homeless communities. Cities have sent their elected officials, government agencies have attended their symposiums, people and entities want to know what is so special about this place and why it is working. How are individuals from the streets becoming valued members of society that lead school groups, tend organic gardens, and extend hospitality in such sincere ways that multi-millionaires are calling it their ‘distinct privilege’ to live in the CF! Village?

Total transformation happens through total commitment, apart from monetary compensation, on the part of those entering a lifestyle of service with the homeless. Within the homeless community, there is a heavy spirit of unworthiness that must be overcome, and this happens through committed people proclaiming every person is of value and worthy of being cared for and loved. A posture of faith does not require a religious affiliation or agenda. It requires people who believe transformation happens through healthy relationships formed in community and are willing to be faithful in the long journey of healing.

The community model of care has been tested with the chronically homeless who are most often the hardest to house, have the least options available to them, and are the costliest to society. However, this does not preclude the model from potentially being successful with other homeless populations with varying needs such as vulnerable youth or families who could benefit from a community-oriented lifestyle.

Finally, even the costliest example of housing associated with this new model of care (Eden Villages) is considerably less than the cost associated with a Housing First one and requires minimal investment from the government. Cities that adopt a Full Community approach by partnering with faith communities have the potential to free up hundreds of millions of dollars each year spent on emergency services and traditional affordable development for people experiencing homelessness.

A Full Community model is entirely dependent on relationships. Relationships are messy. They require time. They require acceptance, understanding, and forgiveness. It goes back to the universal mandate: treat others the way you want to be treated. There are many world forces that act against this notion; forces of individualism and competition, values of personal wealth and power. These are the real limitations to the success of this model becoming the new normal. Yet despite the difficulties that intentional, interdependent living can present, people choose this lifestyle and live it well (co-housing is one such long standing model, see McCammant & Durret, 1994; Meltzer, 2001; Williams, 2005; Jarvis, 2011; Ruiu, 2016).

The federal government adheres to a Housing First response to homelessness, along with most state and local agencies working in the homeless industry. Most often the assumptions of what people experiencing homelessness lack, and therefore need, are skewed. People that find themselves in long-term homelessness most often have experienced this homelessness since childhood. The approach to housing the homeless has gone in two directions: scattered-site housing vouchers which place people in apartment units next to neighbors who do not share their background and did not ask to have them there, or single-site housing developments which concentrate poverty and trauma. Neither one works. The Full Community model is an attempt to fulfill the promise of the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 to move people with mental health and substance use disorders who are homeless into community settings, by creating a community where people feel they are welcomed and belong, as well as, surrounded and supported by people who are resourced and desire to be good neighbors without compensation. The implications of the full adoption of this model could mean a decrease in the homeless population, a reduction in public spending on emergency services, and an increase in the affordable housing stock. Additionally, there is strong evidence to suggest this model of care could decrease social isolation and increase a sense of belonging and purpose among the formerly homeless, areas where the Housing First model has not shown success.

The community-first idea is two decades young (MLF began by housing people in RV parks and walking alongside them more than 20 years ago) and the first village implementing the model, CF!V, has only been in existence since 2014. Research that matches the depth and breadth of the Housing First model is needed to quantify and qualify the impact, particularly in the areas of sense of belonging, purpose, and productivity where the Housing First approach has fallen silent. Additionally, it should be documented if the model sufficiently helps people maintain housing stability comparable to the success of the Housing First demonstrations.

A Full Community model does not abolish the original Housing First revelation that the homeless need housing as a matter of survival; instead, it uses that premise as a foundation upon which to build. If we combine the two, we end up with communities making practical contributions to the needs of the homeless, while also confronting the intrinsic human need to live connected, authentic, and purposeful lives together. Perhaps it is these two things working in tandem that should be considered the balanced response to homelessness: house and community (see Table 11 for comparison). Up until this point, many of our agendas on ending homelessness have failed, including lobbying for more money to build more affordable housing. If money were able to solve homelessness it would have done so by now. Total transformation happens as people discover their true identity and purpose, and this includes acknowledging and responding to our interconnectedness and our deep need for one another. Providing housing for the houseless can be argued as a human right; cultivating home with the homeless, in contrast, can be understood as our collective mandate: to care for each other as we care for ourselves, found in every major world religions’ sacred texts. As religion influences cultures world-wide, such values are often reflected in secular institutions, like government social aid and humanitarian programs and even (to a lesser extent) corporate social responsibility endeavors. Therefore, although this dissertation suggests using a faith-based solution to solving homelessness, the proposal is not just religious.  It is also logical.  It proposes to use the agency and capacity, and zoning variances available to communities of faith to help solve the societal problem of homelessness.  This wicked problem has confounded public programs for decades. A “full community” approach could initially complement existing “housing first” approaches and eventually challenge or reconfigure the broader social understanding about homelessness, its causes, and its solution.

Abarbanel, S., Bayer, C., Corcuera, P., & Stetson, N. (2016).  Making a Tiny Deal Out of It: A Feasibility Study of Tiny Home Villages to Increase Affordable Housing in Lane County, Oregon. Berkeley, CA: Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California. Retrieved from http://www.venturacoc.org/images/Making_a_Tiny_Deal_Out_of_It.pdf

ACEs Science 101. (2018, November 24). Retrieved March 14, 2019, from https://acestoohigh.com/aces-101/

Acuna, J., & Erlenbusch, B. (2009). Homeless employment report: Findings and recommendations. Washington (DC): National Coalition for the Homeless.

Alexander, B. K., Beyerstein, B. L., Hadaway, P. F., & Coambs, R. B. (1981). Effect of early and later colony housing on oral ingestion of morphine in rats. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 15(4), 571-576.

Alexander, S., & Ussher, S. (2012). The voluntary simplicity movement: A multi-national survey analysis in theoretical context. Journal of Consumer Culture, 12(1), 66-86.

Algoe, H. (2019, July 17). Community First: Bringing More Voices Into Design. Retrieved August 22, 18, from https://magazine.texasarchitects.org/2019/07/17/community-first-bringing-more-voices-into-design/

AIA Austin, (2018). Post occupancy evaluation: Community First! Village [PowerPoint slides].

AIA Austin DesignVoice. (2014). Tiny Victories Overview. Retrieved August 22, 2018, from http://www.tinyvictories.org/tv1overview

Anda, R. F., Croft, J. B., Felitti, V. J., Nordenberg, D., Giles, W. H., Williamson, D. F., & Giovino, G. A. (1999). Adverse childhood experiences and smoking during adolescence and adulthood. Jama, 282(17), 1652-1658.

Anson, A. (2014). “The World is my Backyard”: Romanticization, Thoreauvian Rhetoric, and Constructive Confrontation in the Tiny House Movement. In From Sustainable to Resilient Cities: Global Concerns and Urban Efforts (pp. 289-313). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Aspen Institute. (2016, July 11). 11 Terms You Should Know to Better Understand Structural Racism. Retrieved from https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/structural-racism-definition/

Aubry, T., Klodawsky, F., & Coulombe, D. (2012). Comparing the housing trajectories of different classes within a diverse homeless population. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49(1-2), 142-155.

Aubry, T., Tsemberis, S., Adair, C. E., Veldhuizen, S., Streiner, D., Latimer, E., ... & Hume, C. (2015). One-year outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of housing first with ACT in five Canadian cities. Psychiatric Services, 66(5), 463-469.

Avison, D. E., Lau, F., Myers, M. D., & Nielsen, P. A. (1999). Action research. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 94-97.

Bachrach, L. L. (1976). Deinstitutionalization: An analytical review and sociological perspective.

Bagshaw, S. (2014, February 25). Building on Quixote Village: Divvy Up the Responsibility [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://bagshaw.seattle.gov/2014/02/25/building-on-quixote-village-divvy-up-the-responsibility/

Barrow, S., Soto, G., & Cordova, P. (2004). Final report on the evaluation of the Closer to Home Initiative. New York: Corporation for Supportive Housing.

Barrow, S., & Zimmer, R. (1999, August). Transitional housing and services: A synthesis. In Practical lessons: The 1998 national symposium on homelessness research. Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development and US Department of Health and Human Services.

Basu, A., Kee, R., Buchanan, D., & Sadowski, L. S. (2012). Comparative cost analysis of housing and case management program for chronically ill homeless adults compared to usual care. Health services research, 47(1pt2), 523-543.

Baum, A. S., & Burnes, D. W. (1993). A nation in denial: The truth about homelessness. Westview Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117(3), 497.

Becker, H. S. (1958). Problems of inference and proof in participant observation. American sociological review, 23(6), 652-660.

Becker, H. S. (2008). Tricks of the trade: How to think about your research while you're doing it. University of Chicago press.

Bee, C., Hodgkins, J., & Pao, J. (2015, April 28). tiny homes as a solution to homelessness in portland, maine: A Policy Analysis and Social Action Project.

Benecki, L. A., Andrew, J. S., & Chan, Y. E. (2014). Evaluating the feasibility of an affordable housing and community centre: A case study from rural Ontario. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 9(2).

Berkovec, J. A., Canner, G. B., Gabriel, S. A., & Hannan, T. H. (1994). Race, redlining, and residential mortgage loan performance. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 9(3), 263-294.

Blair, A. (2019, September 30). Lt. Gov. Green criticizes homeless sweeps, proposes new plan to create more housing. Hawaii News Now. Retrieved from https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/10/01/lt-gov-rejects-sweeps-pitches-idea-master-planned-communities-homeless/

Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J. H. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415), 295-298.

Brown, E. (2016). Overcoming the Barriers to Micro-Housing: Tiny Houses, Big Potential.

Brown, A. C., & Steeb, M. (2019, November 30). 'Housing First' approach won't solve homelessness crisis. The Hill. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/472449-housing-first-approach-wont-solve-homelessness-crisis

Brown, M. J., Thacker, L. R., & Cohen, S. A. (2013). Association between adverse childhood experiences and diagnosis of cancer. PloS one, 9(1), 10.1371/annotation/bd99c401-8d86-465a-a930-bd84bb662657.

Bouma-Prediger, S., & Walsh, B. J. (2008). Beyond homelessness: Christian faith in a culture of displacement. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Bullard, R. D. (2000). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. 3rd Ed. Routledge.

Burt, M. M. (1992). Over the edge: The growth of homelessness in the 1980s. Russell Sage Foundation.

Burt, M. R. (2002). Chronic homelessness: Emergence of a public policy. Fordham Urb. LJ, 30, 1267.

Burt, M. R., Pollack, D., Sosland, A., Mikelson, K. S., Drapa, E., Greenwalt, K., & Sharkey, P. (2002). Evaluation of continuums of care for homeless people: Final report. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Byrne, T., Fargo, J., Montgomery, A., Munley, E., & Culhane, D. (2014). The Relationship between Community Investment in Permanent Supportive Housing and Chronic Homelessness. Social Service Review, 88(2), 234-263.

Caton, C. L., Dominguez, B., Schanzer, B., Hasin, D. S., Shrout, P. E., Felix, A., ... & Hsu, E. (2005). Risk factors for long-term homelessness: Findings from a longitudinal study of first-time homeless single adults. American journal of public health, 95(10), 1753-1759.

Caton, C. L., Wilkins, C., & Anderson, J. (2007, September). People who experience long-term homelessness: Characteristics and interventions. In Toward Understanding Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019, April). About Adverse Childhood Experiences. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/acestudy/aboutace.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Essentials for childhood: Creating safe, stable, nurturing relationships and environments for all children. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/essentials-for-childhood-framework508.pdf

CF!V: a new movement [Brochure] (2017) Austin, TX: Mobile Loaves & Fishes.

Charlie’s story: gratitude, service, community (n.d.). Retrieved from https://mlf.org/charlie/

‍

Chen, A. (2016). For Centuries, A Small Town Has Embraced Strangers With Mental Illness. Shots: Health News from NPR, 1.

Cho, R. & Gallagher, S. (2012, January). Interim Report on Development and Operating Costs of Permanent Supportive Housing. Retrieved from Corporation for Supportive Housing: http://www.csh.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Revised-PSH-Devlp-and-Op-Costs_1-9-12.pdf

Choi, D. Y., & Kiesner, F. (2007). Homeboy industries: An incubator of hope and businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5), 769-786.

Christakis, N. A. (2010, February). The hidden influence of social networks [Video]. TED Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_christakis_the_hidden_influence_of_social_networks

Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2008). The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(21), 2249-2258.

Saint Paul City Council. (2022, June 8). Approving an interim ordinance requesting a Planning Commission study to undertake a zoning study of non-conventional residential housing unit products. City of Saint Paul. https://stpaul.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5656665&GUID=38F83D26-F187-48DD-9A1B-92B08A92A388

Clowdus, G. F., Fisher, T., Walsh Jr, W. E., Dempsey, S. P., Brown, A. T., & Pryor, J. L. (2018). Remote care communities: healthcare housing for the chronically homeless. Housing and Society, 45(1), 42-52.

Cohen, R., Yetvin, W., & Khadduri, J. (2019). Understanding encampments of people experiencing homelessness and community responses: Emerging evidence as of late 2018. Available at SSRN 3615828.

Collins, S. E., Malone, D. K., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2013). Housing retention in single-site housing first for chronically homeless individuals with severe alcohol problems. American journal of public health, 103(S2), S269-S274.

Collins, S. E., Clifasefi, S. L., Dana, E. A., Andrasik, M. P., Stahl, N., Kirouac, M., ... & Malone, D. K. (2012). Where harm reduction meets housing first: Exploring alcohol's role in a project-based housing first setting. International Journal of Drug Policy, 23(2), 111-119.

Conquergood, D. (1988). Health theatre in a Hmong refugee camp: Performance, communication, and culture. TDR (1988-), 32(3), 174-208.

Corinth, K. (2017). The impact of permanent supportive housing on homeless populations. Journal of Housing Economics, 35, 69-84.

Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH). (2013). Dimensions of Quality Supportive Housing. Retrieved from http://www.csh.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/CSH_Dimensions_of_Quality_Supportive_Housing_guidebook.pdf

Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH). (2016). Supportive Housing Need. Retrieved from https://d155kunxf1aozz.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Total-10-12-16.pdf

Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH). (2017a). Supportive Housing. Retrieved from http://www.csh.org/toolkit/public-housing-agencies-toolkit/primer-on-homelessness-and-supportive-housing/supportive-housing/

Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH). (2017b). Supportive services. Retrieved from http://www.csh.org/toolkit/public-housing-agencies-toolkit/primer-on-homelessness-and-supportive-housing/supportive-services/

Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH). (2019). The City Of San Diego Community Action Plan On Homelessness. Retrieved from https://www.sdhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SD_Homeless_CSH_report_final_10-2019.pdf

Cronley, C. (2010). Unraveling the social construction of homelessness. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 20(2), 319-333.

Crouse, J. M. (1986). The Homeless Transient in the Great Depression: New York State, 1929-1941. SUNY Press.

Culhane, D. P., Dejowski, E. F., Ibanez, J., Needham, E., & Macchia, I. (1994). Public shelter admission rates in Philadelphia and New York City: The implications of turnover for sheltered population counts. Housing Policy Debate 5(2): 107-140.

Culhane, D. P., & Byrne, T. (2010). Ending chronic homelessness: Cost-effective opportunities for interagency collaboration. Penn School of Social Policy and Practice Working Paper.

Culhane, D. P., & Kuhn, R. (1998). Patterns and determinants of public shelter utilization among homeless adults in New York City and Philadelphia. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23-43.

Culhane, D. P., Metraux, S., & Hadley, T. (2002). Public service reductions associated with placement of homeless persons with severe mental illness in supportive housing. Housing policy debate, 13(1), 107-163.

Culhane, D. P. (2008). The cost of homelessness: A perspective from the United States. European Journal of Homelessness, 2(1), 97–114.

Daiski, I. (2007). Perspectives of homeless people on their health and health needs priorities. Journal of advanced nursing, 58(3), 273-281.

Davis, S. (2004). Designing for the homeless: Architecture that works. Univ of California Press.

Day, D. (1952). The long loneliness; the autobiography of Dorothy Day (1st ed.].. ed.). New York: Harper.

DeSilva, M. B., Manworren, J., & Targonski, P. (2011). Impact of a Housing First program on health utilization outcomes among chronically homeless persons. Journal of Primary Care & Community Health, 2(1), 16–20.

Dillon, K. (2014). Hospital to Home: Reducing Avoidable Hospital Emergency Department Visits While Improving Stability and Health, Initial Report for Program Expansion. Retrieved from Wilder website: https://www.wilder.org/Wilder-Research/Publications/Studies/Hospital%20to%20Home/Reducing%20Hospital%20Emergency%20Dept%20Visits%20While%20Improving%20Stability%20and%20Health,%20Initial%20Report%20for%20Program%20Expansion.pdf

Dodd, J. (2019, July 19). This Developer Built a Community of Tiny Homes for Austin's Homeless: 'It's a Magical Place'. People. Retrieved from https://people.com/human-interest/alan-graham-austin-homeless-tiny-home-community/#:~:text=“Housing will never solve homelessness,human interaction that's so important.

Donley, A. M., & Wright, J. D. (2012). Safer outside: A qualitative exploration of homeless people's resistance to homeless shelters. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 12(4), 288-306.

Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Edwards, V. J., & Croft, J. B. (2002). Adverse childhood experiences and personal alcohol abuse as an adult. Addictive behaviors, 27(5), 713-725.

Dube, S. R., Felitti, V. J., Dong, M., Chapman, D. P., Giles, W. H., & Anda, R. F. (2003). Childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction and the risk of illicit drug use: the adverse childhood experiences study. Pediatrics, 111(3), 564-572.

Econsult Corporation (November, 2007). Project HOME's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Philadelphia Neighborhoods. Philadelphia, PA.

Edwards, J., & Farmer, P. (2014). The most terrible poverty: loneliness and mental health.

Edwards, V. J., Fivush, R., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., & Nordenberg, D. F. (2001). Autobiographical memory disturbances in childhood abuse survivors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 4(2), 247-263.

Ellen, J. (2017, May 2). Addiction doc says: It’s not the drugs. It’s the ACEs…adverse childhood experiences. [Web log post]. Retrieved March 8, 2019, from https://acestoohigh.com/2017/05/02/addiction-doc-says-stop-chasing-the-drug-focus-on-aces-people-can-recover/

Ellis: Part 3. (n.d). Retrieved from https://mlf.org/cfstory-ellis-part3/

Ellis, W. R., & Dietz, W. H. (2017). A new framework for addressing adverse childhood and community experiences: The building community resilience model. Academic pediatrics, 17(7), S86-S93.

Emily & Kent: knowing her name changed everything (n.d.). Retrieved from https://mlf.org/emily/

Fakhoury, W., & Priebe, S. (2007). Deinstitutionalization and reinstitutionalization: major changes in the provision of mental healthcare. Psychiatry, 6(8), 313-316.

Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American journal of preventive medicine, 14(4), 245-258.

Fisher, T. (2021, September 29 – October 1). Post-Pandemic, Nomadic Cohousing. [Paper Presentation]. AIA/ACSA Intersections Research Conference: Communities. Virtual Conference.

Fisher, T. (2021, October 16). Tiny houses could aid homeless. Star Tribune. Retrieved from https://www.startribune.com/tiny-houses-could-aid-homeless/600107294/

Fisher, T. (2022). Space, Structures and Design in a Post-Pandemic World. Routledge.

Flaming, D., Burns, P., & Carlen, J. (2018). Escape Routes: Meta-Analysis of Homelessness in L.A. Economic Roundtable. Retrieved from https://economicrt.org/publication/escape-routes/

Focused Strategies. (2019, August). Santa Cruz County Homeless System Baseline Assessment Report. Retrieved from https://housingmatterssc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Santa-Cruz-County-Baseline-System-Assessment-Final.pdf

Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2010). Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(12), 5334-5338.

Franklin, J. H., & Moss, A. (1994). From slavery to freedom: A history of African Americans. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Frisman, L., Thomson-Philbrook, J., Lin, H., & Lee, D. (2012). Evaluation report: Housing First pilot evaluation. Retrieved from Connecticut Department of Mental Health & Addiction Services website: http://www.ct.gov/dmhas/lib/dmhas/publications/HousingFirst8-27-12.pdf

Georgiadis, F. (2021, March 14). Heroes of The Homeless Crisis: How Gabrielle Clowdus of Settled is Helping To Support Some Of The…. Authority Magazine. https://medium.com/authority-magazine/heroes-of-the-homeless-crisis-how-gabrielle-clowdus-of-settled-is-helping-to-support-some-of-the-f5d46f80d180

Gerrard, M. B. (1993). The victims of NIMBY. Fordham Urb. LJ, 21, 495.

Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for?. American political science review, 98(2), 341-354.

Giano, Z., Williams, A., Hankey, C., Merrill, R., Lisnic, R., & Herring, A. (2020). Forty years of research on predictors of homelessness. Community mental health journal, 56(4), 692-709.

Gibbert, M., Nair, L. B., Weiss, M., & Hoegl, M. (2021). Using outliers for theory building. Organizational Research Methods, 24(1), 172-181.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S. S., & Scott, P. P. and Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage.

Gilmore, T., Krantz, J., & Ramirez, R. (1986). Action based modes of inquiry and the host-researcher relationship. Consultation: An International Journal.

Glaeser, E. L., & Gyourko, J. (2002). The impact of zoning on housing affordability (No. w8835). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Goering, P., Boydell, K., Butterill, D., Cochrane, J., Durbin, J., Rogers, J., ... Wasylenki, D. (1997). Review of the best practices in mental health reform. Toronto, ON: Clarke Institute of Psychiatry: Health Systems Research Unit.

Goering, P., Tolomiczenko, G., Sheldon, T., Boydell, K., & Wasylenki, D. (2002). Characteristics of persons who are homeless for the first time. Psychiatric Services, 53(11), 1472-1474.

Goering, P., Veldhuizen, S., Watson, A., Adair, C., Kopp, B., Latimer, E., & Aubry, T. (2014). National at home/Chez Soi final report. Calgary, AB: Mental Health Commission of Canada, 48.

Goldman, H. H., & Morrissey, J. P. (1985). The alchemy of mental health policy: homelessness and the fourth cycle of reform. American Journal of Public Health, 75(7), 727-731.

Goldstein, J., Godemont, M., & Crabb, J. (2000, August). Community factors, violence, and the mentally ill: A case study. Poster presented at the 108th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.

Goldstein, J., & Godemont, L. (2003). The Legend and Lessons of Geel, Belgium: A 1500-Year-Old Legend, a 21st -Century Model. Community Mental Health Journal, 39(5), 441-458.

Gonda, J. D. (2015). Unjust Deeds: The Restrictive Covenant Cases and the Making of the Civil Rights Movement. UNC Press Books.

Goosens, M. (1986). Onderzoek van de voorvallen en ongevallen bij kostgangers van de gezinsverpleging te Geel. (Study of the occurrences and accidents among boarders of the family system of Geel.) Unpublished manuscript, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Gordon-Achebe, K., Hairston, D. R., Miller, S., Legha, R., & Starks, S. (2019). Origins of Racism in American Medicine and Psychiatry. In Racism and Psychiatry (pp. 3-19). Humana Press, Cham.

Graham, A. (2017-a). “Just say yes: Discerning the call to Community First!”. Oral presentation at Symposium for Goodness’ Sake, Austin, TX.

Graham, A. [TedxTalks]. (2017, June 2 -b). The untold story of homelessness [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcnxHI4aI8w

Graham, A. & Hall, L. (2017). Welcome Homeless: One Man’s Journey of Discovering the Meaning of Home. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Graham, A. (Host) & Draper, R. (Guest). (2019, April 3). Meet my friend Robin [Podcast]. Retrieved from https://mlf.org/gospel-con-carne-podcast/

Graham, A. (Host) & Patton, S. (Guest). (2020, June 26). A Conversation about Racial Justice, the Gospel and Healing [Podcast]. Retrieved from https://mlf.org/gospel-con-carne-podcast/

Graham, A. (Host) & Satterlee, S. (Guest). (2020, September 2). Creating Neighborhoods of Knowingness, with Sarah Satterlee [Podcast]. Retrieved from https://mlf.org/gospel-con-carne-podcast/

Graham, A. (Host) & Shea, T (Guest). (2020, March 11). Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: My Neighbor, Tim Shea [Podcast]. Retrieved from https://mlf.org/gospel-con-carne-podcast/

Graham, A. (Host) & Vincent, J (Guest). (2018, November 28). Missing John Vincent [Podcast]. Retrieved From https://mlf.org/gospel-con-carne-podcast/

Gulcur, L., Stefancic, A., Shinn, M., Tsemberis, S., & Fischer, S. N. (2003). Housing, hospitalization, and cost outcomes for homeless individuals with psychiatric disabilities participating in continuum of care and housing first programmes. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 13(2), 171-186.

Hari, J. (2015). Chasing the scream: The first and last days of the war on drugs. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Hartford Institute for Religion Research. (2010). Fast Facts about American Religion. Retrieved March 2, 2022 from hartfordinstitute.org

Hebbard, B. (2017). Beyond Homelessness: Creating a home in a culture of displacement. Oral presentation at Symposium for Goodness’ Sake, Austin, TX.

Hebbard, S. (2017). How did we get here?: The history of modern-day homelessness. Oral presentation at Symposium for Goodness’ Sake, Austin, TX.

Heben, A. (2014). Tent City Urbanism: From Self-organized Camps to Tiny House Villages. The Village Collaborative: Eugene, OR.

Heben, A. (2015, March 1). The American Housing Affordability Crisis [Web log post]. Retrieved April 7, 2017, from http://www.tentcityurbanism.com/2015/03/the-american-housing-affordablity-crisis.html

Heermance, E. L. (1924). Codes of Ethics: A handbook. Free Press printing Company.

Henry, M., Cortes, A., & Morris, S. (2014). The 2013 annual homeless assessment report to Congress: Part 1, point-in-time estimates of homelessness. Report, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC.

Henry, M., Mahathey, A., Morrill, T., Robinson, A., Shivji, A., Watt, R., & Abt Associates. (2018). The 2018 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, Part 1: Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness. Report, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC.

Henwood, B. F., Dichter, H., Tynan, R., Simiriglia, C., Boermer, K., & Fussaro, A. (2015a). Service use before and after the provision of scatter-site housing first for chronically homeless individuals with severe alcohol use disorders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(9), 883-886.

Henwood, B.F., Wenzel, S.L., Mangano, P.F., Hombs, M.E., Padgett, D.K., Byrne, T., … Uretsky, M.C. (2015b). The Grand Challenge of Ending Homelessness (Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative No. 9). Baltimore: American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare.

Herman, D. B., Susser, E. S., Struening, E. L., & Link, B. L. (1997). Adverse childhood experiences: are they risk factors for adult homelessness?. American journal of public health, 87(2), 249-255.

Herring, C., & Lutz, M. (2015). The roots and implications of the USA's homeless tent cities. City, 19(5), 689-701.

Hillis, S. D., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., & Marchbanks, P. A. (2001). Adverse childhood experiences and sexual risk behaviors in women: a retrospective cohort study. Family planning perspectives, 206-211.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on psychological science, 10(2), 227-237.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS medicine, 7(7), e1000316.

Homeboy Industries. (2019a). 2018 Annual Report. Retrieved from https://issuu.com/homeboyindustries/docs/homeboyindustries_annualreport2018?e=17115914/70284197

Homeboy Industries. (2019b). General Information. Retrieved from https://homeboyindustries.org/learn-more/faq/

Hopper, K. (1987). The public response to homelessness in New York City: The last hundred years. On being homeless: Historical perspectives, 88-101.

Hopper, K. (2003). Reckoning with homelessness. Cornell University Press.

HUD (US Department of Housing and Urban Development). (2004). “Strategies for Reducing Chronic Street Homelessness: Final Report.” HUD, Washington, DC.

HUD (US Department of Housing and Urban Development). (2011). “Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Competition.” HUD, Washington, DC.

HUD (US Department of Housing and Urban Development). (2021). “The 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.” HUD, Washington, DC.

HUD (US Department of Housing and Urban Development). (2022). “The 2021 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.” HUD, Washington, DC.

HUD Exchange. (n.d.-a). Continuum of Care (CoC) Eligibility Requirements. Retrieved June 7, 2017 from https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/coc/coc-program-eligibility-requirements/

HUD Exchange. (n.d.-b). Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act. Retrieved June 22, 2017 from https://www.hudexchange.info/homelessness-assistance/hearth-act/

HUD Exchange. (2014, July). Housing First in Permanent Supportive Housing Brief. Retrieved from https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Housing-First-Permanent-Supportive-Housing-Brief.pdf

Hunter, J., Linden-Retek, P., Shebaya, S., & Halpert, S. (2014). Welcome home: The rise of tent cities in the United States. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School. https://www. nlchp. org/documents/WelcomeHome_TentCities. Last Accessed June, 24, 2016.

Hunter, S., Harvey, M., Briscombe, B., & Cefalu, M. (2017). Housing for Health: A State-of-the-art Program for Reducing Homelessness in Los Angeles County. RAND.

Jacobs, A. (2017). How to think: A survival guide for a world at odds. Currency.

Janda, K. B., Clowdus, G., Parag, Y., & Reindl, K. (2022, June 20—Jun 23). Energy services for all: opportunities and challenges to taking a ‘community first’ approach to homelessness. [Paper Presentation]. Energy and Climate Transformations: 3rd International Conference on Energy Research & Social Science. Manchester, UK.

Janda, K. B., Clowdus, G., Parag, Y., & Reindl, K. (2022, November 13—November 16). Energy services for all: opportunities and challenges to taking a ‘community first’ approach to homelessness. [Oral Presentation]. Behavior Energy & Climate Change Conference. Washington, DC.

Janzer, C. (2020, January 17). Minneapolis org looks to communities of faith to tackle homelessness. Nextcity. Retrieved from https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/minneapolis-org-looks-to-communities-of-faith-to-tackle-homelessness

Jarvis, H. (2011). Saving space, sharing time: integrated infrastructures of daily life in cohousing. Environment and Planning A, 43(3), 560-577.

Jeppesen, S. (2009). From the" war on poverty" to the" war on the poor": Knowledge, power, and subject positions in anti-poverty discourses. Canadian Journal of Communication, 34(3), 487.

Ji, E. G. (2006). A study of the structural risk factors of homelessness in 52 metropolitan areas in the United States. International Social Work, 49(1), 107-117.

Johnson, R. A. (2010). African Americans and homelessness: moving through history. Journal of Black Studies, 40(4), 583-605.

Kautz, B. E. (2001). In defense of inclusionary zoning: Successfully creating affordable housing. USFL Rev., 36, 971.

Kertesz, S. G., Crouch, K., Milby, J. B., Cusimano, R. E., & Schumacher, J. E. (2009). Housing first for homeless persons with active addiction: are we overreaching?. The Milbank Quarterly, 87(2), 495-534.

Kertesz, S. G., Larson, M. J., Horton, N. J., Winter, M., Saitz, R., & Samet, J. H. (2005). Homeless chronicity and health related quality of life trajectories among adults with addictions. Medical Care, 43, 574–585.

Kimble, M. (2018, November 12). Austin's Fix for Homelessness: Tiny Houses, and Lots of Neighbors. City Lab. Retrieved from https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/11/community-first-village-homeless-tiny-homes-austin-texas/575611/

Koegel, P., Melamid, E., & Burnam, M. A. (1995). Childhood risk factors for homelessness among homeless adults. American Journal of Public Health, 85(12), 1642-1649.

Koschinsky, J. (1998). Challenging the third sector housing approach: The impact of federal policies (1980–1996). Journal of Urban Affairs, 20(2), 117-135.

Larimer, M. E., Malone, D. K., Garner, M. D., Atkins, D. C., Burlingham, B., Lonczak, H. S., ...& Marlatt, G. A. (2009). Health care and public service use and costs before and after provision of housing for chronically homeless persons with severe alcohol problems. Jama, 301(13), 1349-1357.

Lawson, J., Milligan, V., & Yates, J. (2012). Towards cost-effective private financing of affordable rental housing'. Housing Finance International, 27, 25-31.

Lee, B. A., Jones, S. H., & Lewis, D. W. (1990). Public beliefs about the causes of homelessness. Social Forces, 69(1), 253-265.

Leff, H. S., Chow, C. M., Pepin, R., Conley, J., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, C. A. (2009). Does one size fit all? What we can and can't learn from a meta-analysis of housing models for persons with mental illness. Psychiatric services, 60(4), 473-482.

Levanon Seligson, A., Lim, S., Singh, T., Laganis, E., Stazesky, E., Donahue, S., ... & Lipton, F. R. (2013). New York/New York III supportive housing evaluation: interim utilization and cost analysis. New York (NY): New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA). (2018). Report And Recommendations Of The Ad Hoc Committee On Black People Experiencing Homelessness. Retrieved from https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=2823-report-and-recommendations-of-the-ad-hoc-committee-on-black-people-experiencing-homelessnes

Lutz, M. (2015). Uncommon claims to the commons: Homeless tent cities in the US. Urban Commons: Moving Beyond State and Market. Gütersloh: Birkhäuser, 101-116.

Manville, M. (2014). Parking Requirements and Housing Development: Regulation and Reform in Los Angeles. ACCESS Magazine, 1(44).

Martinez, T. E., & Burt, M. R. (2006). Impact of permanent supportive housing on the use of acute care health services by homeless adults. Psychiatric Services, 57(7), 992-999.

McCammant, K., & Durret, C. (1994). Cohousing: A contemporary approach to housing ourselves. Ten Speed Press.

McCullough, S., Distasio, J., & Dudley, M. (2012). Proceedings: Preventing Evictions and Managing Successful Tenancies.

McDermott, R., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2013). Breaking up is hard to do, unless everyone else is doing it too: Social network effects on divorce in a longitudinal sample. Social Forces, 92(2), 491-519.

Meltzer, G. (2001). Co-housing bringing communalism to the world? International communal studies association, communal living on the threshold of a new millennium: Lessons and perspectives. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Communal Studies Conference (pp. 25-27). Suva, Fiji: Peter Forster, University of the South Pacific.

Merrick, M. T., Henly, M., Turner, H. A., David-Ferdon, C., Hamby, S., Kacha-Ochana, A., ... & Finkelhor, D. (2018). Beyond residential mobility: A broader conceptualization of instability and its impact on victimization risk among children. Child abuse & neglect, 79, 485-494.

Mingoya, C. (2015). Building Together. Tiny House Villages for the Homeless: A Comparative Case Study (Master Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

Minnesota Vikings. (2021, October 6). U.S. Bank Hometown Hero: Gabrielle Clowdus and Anne Franz. Twitter. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/Vikings/status/1445894136700325895?s=20&fbclid=IwAR1gaLCWnjl5De4bz1dzEPkbN0ApaxvHsUEyuMkPAPTZpS3woTffBxs-5xc

Mobile Loaves & Fishes (MLF). (n.d.-a). About Us. Retrieved August 8, 2019 from https://mlf.org/us/

Mobile Loaves & Fishes (MLF). (n.d.-b). Community Works. Retrieved August 20, 2019 from https://mlf.org/community-works/

Mobile Loaves & Fishes (MLF). (n.d.-c). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved August 8, 2018 from http://mlf.org/faqs/

Mobile Loaves & Fishes (MLF). (n.d.-d). Truck Ministry. Retrieved August 8, 2019 from https://mlf.org/truck-ministry/

Mobile Loaves & Fishes (MLF). (n.d.-e). Penny. Retrieved August 13, 2018, from https://mlf.org/penny/

Mobile Loaves & Fishes (MLF). (n.d.-f). What is the difference between housing and community? Retrieved August 8, 2019 from https://mlf.org/faq-items/difference-housing-community/

Mobile Loaves & Fishes (MLF). (2009). Habitat on Wheels: Jennifer Gale Village Business Plan. Retrieved August 14, 2018 from http://fliphtml5.com/ijrx/opqc/basic

Mobile Loaves & Fishes (MLF). (2014, December 12). Ellis' Journey Home - Part 3 [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvpX9b9HQA0

Mobile Loaves & Fishes (MLF). (2018). 2017 annual report. Retrieved from https://mlf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2017-Annual-Report.pdf

Monbiot, G. (2014). The age of loneliness is killing us. The Guardian, 18.

Montgomery, A. E., Cutuli, J. J., Evans-Chase, M., Treglia, D., & Culhane, D. P. (2013). Relationship among adverse childhood experiences, history of active military service, and adult outcomes: homelessness, mental health, and physical health. American journal of public health, 103(S2), S262-S268.

Moore, C. (2013, August 14). Commissioners OK plans for Community First! Village for homeless. Austin Monitor. Retrieved April 5, 2019, from https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2013/08/commissioners-ok-plans-for-community-first-village-for-homeless/

Moore, C. E. (Ed.). (2016). Called to community: The life Jesus wants for his people. Walden, NY: Plough Publishing House.

Morrow, C. (1999, August). Jesuit Greg Boyle, Gang Priest, St. Anthony Messenger Magazine.

Mosher, L. (1999). Letter Mosher to Goodwin. Psychology Today, 32(5), 8.

Mountain, C., Grace, C., Standard, J., Anderson,​ C., Zarbock, J., Castleman, M., Wolf, C., & Larson, A. (2017). Community First! Statistical Survey. Regions Academy of Austin.

National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2016, April). Housing First Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/housing-first-fact-sheet.pdf

National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2017, July). Unsheltered homelessness: Trends, causes, and strategies to address. Retrieved from https://endho melessness.org/resource/unsheltered-homelessness-trend s-causes-strategies-address/.

National Coalition for the Homeless. (2006). McKinney-Vento Act: NCH Fact Sheet #18. Retrieved from http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/McKinney.pdf

National Coalition for the Homeless. (2007). Why Are People Homeless? Retrieved from https://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/Why.pdf

Nelson-Dusek, S., Pittman, B., Decker Gerrard, M., Shelton, E., Owen, G., & Sales, R. (May, 2018). “Characteristics and Trends among Minnesota’s Homeless Population.” Wilder, St. Paul, MN.

Newman, S., & Goldman, H. (2008). Putting housing first, making housing last: Housing policy for persons with severe mental illness. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(10), 1242-8.

Nguyen, M. T. (2005). Does affordable housing detrimentally affect property values? A review of the literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(1), 15-26.

Nielsen, D. (2020, March). This 3D-Printed Village Aims to House 40% of Austin’s Homeless Population. Dwell Magazine. https://www.dwell.com/article/community-first-3d-printed-houses-icon-mobile-loaves-and-fishes-3f950815

Nino, M. D., Loya, M. A., & Cuevas, M. C. (2009). Who are the chronically homeless? Social characteristics and risk factors associated with chronic homelessness. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 19(1-2), 41-65.

Nix, E., Paulose, J., Shrubsole, C., Altamirano‐Medina, H., Belesova, K., Davies, M., ... & Wilkinson, P. (2019). Participatory Action Research as a Framework for Transdisciplinary Collaboration: A Pilot Study on Healthy, Sustainable, Low‐Income Housing in Delhi, India. Global Challenges, 3(4), 1800054.

Nuttbrock, L. A., Rahav, M., Rivera, J. J., Ng-Mak, D. S., & Link, B. G. (1998). Outcomes of homeless mentally ill chemical abusers in community residences and a therapeutic community. Psychiatric Services, 49(1), 68-76.

O’Brien, R. (1998). An overview of the methodological approach of action research.

Olivet, J., Dones, M., & Richard, M. (2019). The intersection of homelessness, racism, and mental illness. In Racism and psychiatry (pp. 55-69). Humana Press, Cham.

Opportunity Village Eugene. (2017, May). Village Manual. Retrieved from https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/bd125b_32be9eddb4d34ea7ae64cf4beed1ddbb.pdf

Padgett, D. K., Gulcur, L., & Tsemberis, S. (2006). Housing first services for people who are homeless with co-occurring serious mental illness and substance abuse. Research on social work practice, 16(1), 74-83.

Palepu, A., Patterson, M. L., Moniruzzaman, A., Frankish, C. J., & Somers, J. (2013). Housing first improves residential stability in homeless adults with concurrent substance dependence and mental disorders. American Journal of Public Health, 103(S2), e30-e36.

Park, J. Y. S. H. (2000). Increased homelessness and low rent housing vacancy rates. Journal of Housing Economics, 9(1-2), 76-103.

Patterson, M. L., Rezansoff, S., Currie, L., & Somers, J. M. (2013). Trajectories of recovery among homeless adults with mental illness who participated in a randomised controlled trial of Housing First: a longitudinal, narrative analysis. BMJ open, 3(9), e003442.

Pearson, C., Montgomery, A. E., & Locke, G. (2009). Housing stability among homeless individuals with serious mental illness participating in housing first programs. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(3), 404-417.

Perlman, J., & Parvensky, J. (2006). Denver Housing First Collaborative: Cost benefit analysis and program outcomes report. Denver: Colorado Coalition for the Homeless.

Philip, K. (1984). Gentrification and Homelessness: The Single Room Occupant and the Inner City Revival. Urban and Social Change Review, 17(1), 9-14.

Pierloot, R. A. & Demarsin, M. (1981). Family care versus hospital stay for chronic psychiatric patients. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 27(3): 217–24.

Pleace, N. (2011). The ambiguities, limits and risks of Housing First from a European perspective. European Journal of Homelessness, 5(2).

Poon, L. (2021, February 17). The creative repurposing of plywood from boarded-up stores. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-17/how-plywood-from-boarded-up-stores-gets-reused

Poremski, D., Whitley, R., & Latimer, E. (2014). Barriers to obtaining employment for people with severe mental illness experiencing homelessness. Journal of Mental Health, 23(4), 181-185.

Poremski, D., Woodhall-Melnik, J., Lemieux, A. J., & Stergiopoulos, V. (2016). Persisting barriers to employment for recently housed adults with mental illness who were homeless. Journal of Urban Health, 93(1), 96-108.

Powers, R. (2017). No one cares about crazy people: The chaos and heartbreak of mental health in America (First ed.). New York: Hachette Books.

Quigley, J. M., & Raphael, S. (2004). Is housing unaffordable? Why isn't it more affordable?. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(1), 191-214.

Reeve, R. (2022, June 8). “It would be a new model of care.” Nonprofit hoping to place some tiny homes in St. Paul. KSTP.com Eyewitness News. Retrieved from https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/it-would-be-a-new-model-of-care-a-st-paul-non-profit-is-hoping-to-place-some-tiny-homes-in-st-paul/

Richard’s story: connected to community. (n.d). Retrieved from https://mlf.org/richard/

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169

Robinson, J. W. (2006). Institution and home: Architecture as a cultural medium.

Ropers, R. H. (1988). The invisible homeless: A new urban ecology. Human Sciences Press Warehouse, Building 424, Raritan Center, 80 Northfield Avenue, Edison, NJ 08817.

Rog, D. J. (2004). The evidence on supported housing. Psychiatric rehabilitation journal, 27(4), 334.

Rosenbaum, M. S., Ward, J., Walker, B. A., & Ostrom, A. L. (2007). A cup of coffee with a dash of love: An investigation of commercial social support and third-place attachment. Journal of Service Research, 10(1), 43-59.

Rosenheck, R., Kasprow, W., Frisman, L., & Liu-Mares, W. (2003). Cost-effectiveness of supported housing for homeless persons with mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60(9), 940-951.

Rosenquist, J. N., Murabito, J., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2010). The spread of alcohol consumption behavior in a large social network. Annals of internal medicine, 152(7), 426-433.

Rossi, P. H. (1991). Down and out in America: The origins of homelessness. University of Chicago Press.

Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. R. (2016). Empowerment series: Research methods for social work. Cengage Learning.

Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.

Ruiu, M. L. (2016). The social capital of cohousing communities. Sociology, 50(2), 400-415.

Sadowski, L. S., Kee, R. A., VanderWeele, T. J., & Buchanan, D. (2009). Effect of a housing and case management program on emergency department visits and hospitalizations among chronically ill homeless adults: a randomized trial. Jama, 301(17), 1771-1778.

Saint Paul Planning Commission. (2021, May 14). Our Coordinated Response to The Housing Crisis Exacerbated by COVID-19. Retrieved from https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/05.12.21%20Housing%20Crisis%20COVID%20Impacts_PlCom%2005.14%20%282%29.pdf

Samples, P. (2021, November 10). Tiny Solutions Give Homes to the Homeless. The Phoenix Spirit. Retrieved from https://thephoenixspirit.com/2021/11/tiny-solutions-give-homes-to-the-homeless/

Schmidt, A. (2017). The Big Politics of Tiny Houses: Zoning Villages for Homeless Individuals (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Michigan.

Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage.

Schutt, R. K., & Goldfinger, S. M. (2011). Homelessness, housing, and mental illness. Harvard University Press.

Segal, G. (2015). Tiny houses: a permanent supportive housing model. Bremerton: Community Frameworks.

Shern, D. L., Felton, C. J., Hough, R. L., Lehman, A. F., Goldfinger, S., Valencia, E., ... & Wood, P. A. (1997). Housing outcomes for homeless adults with mental illness: Results from the second-round McKinney program. Psychiatric services, 48(2), 239-241.

Short, C. & Gonzales, R. (2020, July 22). Investing for Results Report Release and P3 Homelessness Task Force Update. City of Austin. Retrieved from http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/pio/document.cfm?id=344008

Siegel, C. E., Samuels, J., Tang, D. I., Berg, I., Jones, K., & Hopper, K. (2006). Tenant outcomes in supported housing and community residences in New York City. Psychiatric Services, 57(7), 982-991.

Silbert, M. H. (1984). Delancey Street Foundation—Process of mutual restitution. Community psychology series, 10, 41-52.

Silbert, M. (2007). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from http://www.delanceystreetfoundation.org/faq.php

Slaughter, L. (1969). The freedmen of the South. Cincinnati, OH: Elm

Somers, J. M., Moniruzzaman, A., Patterson, M., Currie, L., Rezansoff, S. N., Palepu, A., & Fryer, K. (2017). A randomized trial examining housing first in congregate and scattered site formats. PloS one, 12(1), e0168745.

Stefancic, A., & Tsemberis, S. (2007). Housing First for long-term shelter dwellers with psychiatric disabilities in a suburban county: A four-year study of housing access and retention. The journal of primary prevention, 28(3-4), 265-279.

Still, W. (1970). The underground railroad. Chicago: Johnson.

Sparks, T. (2016). Neutralizing Homelessness, 2015: Tent cities and ten year plans. Urban Geography, 1-9.

Sparks, T. (2017). Citizens without property: Informality and political agency in a Seattle, Washington homeless encampment. Environment and planning a: economy and space, 49(1), 86-103.

Speer, J. (2016). Right to infrastructure: The struggle for sanitation in Fresno, California homeless encampments. Urban Geography, 37(7), 1049–1069.

Speer, J. (2017). “It's not like your home”: Homeless encampments, housing projects, and the struggle over domestic space. Antipode, 49(2), 517-535.

Stanback, T. M., & Noyelle, T. J. (1982). Cities in Transition: Changing Job Structures in Atlanta, Denver, Buffalo, Phoenix, Columbus (Ohio), Nashville, Charlotte (No. 15). Allanheld, Osmun.

Stergiopoulos, V., Hwang, S. W., Gozdzik, A., Nisenbaum, R., Latimer, E., Rabouin, D., ... & Katz, L. Y. (2015). Effect of scattered-site housing using rent supplements and intensive case management on housing stability among homeless adults with mental illness: a randomized trial. Jama, 313(9), 905-915.

Strange, J. W. (2014). Letter to Mayor Paul Soglin RE: “Regulation of tiny house village proposed for 2046-2050 E. Johnson St.” Dated May 5, 2014. Retrieved from http://americantinyhouseassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Memo_May_5_2014.pdf

Susman, G. I. (1983). Action research: a sociotechnical systems perspective. Beyond method: Strategies for social research, 95, 113.

‍

Tam, T. W., Zlotnick, C., & Robertson, M. J. (2003). Longitudinal perspective: Adverse childhood events, substance use, and labor force participation among homeless adults. The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse, 29(4), 829-846.

Thornquist, L., Biros, M., Olander, R., & Sterner, S. (2002). Health care utilization of chronic inebriates. Academic Emergency Medicine, 9(4), 300-308.

Tighe, J. R. (2010). Public opinion and affordable housing: A review of the literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 25(1), 3-17.

Torterello, M. (2014, February 19). Small world, big idea. The NY Times.

Trawver, K. R., Oby, S., Kominkiewicz, L., Kominkiewicz, F. B., & Whittington, K. (2019). Homelessness in America: An Overview. In Homelessness Prevention and Intervention in Social Work (pp. 3-39). Springer, Cham.

Tsai, J., Mares, A. S., & Rosenheck, R. A. (2012). Does housing chronically homeless adults lead to social integration?. Psychiatric Services, 63(5), 427-434.

Tsemberis, S. (2010). Housing first: The pathways model to end homelessness for people with mental illness and addiction manual. Hazelden.

Tsemberis, S., & Eisenberg, R. F. (2000). Pathways to housing: Supported housing for street-dwelling homeless individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric services, 51(4), 487-493.

Tsemberis, S., Gulcur, L., & Nakae, M. (2004). Housing first, consumer choice, and harm reduction for homeless individuals with a dual diagnosis. American journal of public health, 94(4), 651-656.

Tsemberis, S., Kent, D., & Respress, C. (2012). Housing stability and recovery among chronically homeless persons with co-occurring disorders in Washington, DC. American journal of public health, 102(1), 13-16.

Urban Land Institute (ULI). (2017, April 25). Retrieved March 15, 2018, from https://ulidigitalmarketing.blob.core.windows.net/ulidcnc/2019/02/CF!V-CaseStudy-HD.pdf.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). (2015). Opening Doors: Federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. Retrieved from https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/USICH_OpeningDoors_Amendment2015_FINAL.pdf

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). (2018). HOMELESSNESS IN AMERICA: Focus on Chronic Homelessness Among People With Disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Homelessness-in-America-Focus-on-chronic.pdf

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). (2020). Expanding the Toolbox: The Whole-of-Government Response to Homelessness. Retrieved from https://firststepstaffing.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/USICH-Expanding-the-Toolbox.pdf

US Census Bureau. (2015, January 28). Statistical Definition of “Family” Unchanged Since 1930. The United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2015/01/statistical-definition-of-family-unchanged-since-1930.html

Van Maanen, J., Dabbs, J. M., & Faulkner, R. R. (1982). Varieties of qualitative research (Vol. 5). Sage Publications, Inc.

Waldinger, R. (2015). What makes a good life? Lessons from the longest study on happiness [Video file].

Waldinger, R. J., & Schulz, M. S. (2010). What's love got to do with it? Social functioning, perceived health, and daily happiness in married octogenarians. Psychology and aging, 25(2), 422.

Wallace, S. E. (1965). Skid row as a way of life. Bedminster Press.

Weitzman, B. C., Knickman, J. R., & Shinn, M. (1990). Pathways to homelessness among New York City families. Journal of Social Issues, 46(4), 125-140.

Wilder Research. (November, 2016). “Homelessness in Minnesota: Findings from the 2015 Minnesota Homeless Study.” Wilder, St. Paul, MN.

Williams, J. (2005). Designing neighbourhoods for social interaction: The case of cohousing. Journal of Urban design, 10(2), 195-227.

Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Sage.

Wong, Y. L. I., Hadley, T. R., Culhane, D. P., Poulin, S. R., Davis, M. R., Cirksey, B. A., & Brown, J. L. (2006). Predicting staying in or leaving permanent supportive housing that serves homeless people with serious mental illness. Departmental Papers (SPP), 111.

Wright, J. D., Rubin, B. A., & Devine, J. A. (1998). Beside the golden door: Policy, politics, and the homeless. New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc.

Wyatt, A. (2014). Rethinking Shelter and Tiny House Communities: Dignity Village, Portland, and Lessons from San Luis Obispo. Focus, 11(1), 14.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications

Yust, A. (2020, May 19). Can tiny homes help to house the homeless? TPT Originals. https://www.tptoriginals.org/can-tiny-homes-help-to-house-the-homeless/

Found in the CF!V Missional White Paper are four tenets of missional living. Rather than set expectations for what a missional does and does not do, there are set values by which missionals ascribe to live.

Missional. The Missional Community claims personal gifts and attributes they offer to its greater good. They set personal purposes and goals that are achievable at the Village; goals that establish the Village as a home both personally and for the community. It is their shared commitment to a life of mission in solidarity with the lives of the men and women of the Village that binds them to each other and to the collective flourishing of all.

Visible. The Missional Community chooses to participate in volunteer opportunities and seeks ways to manifest their gifts at the Village. They recognize that their presence at Village events and in the homes of their neighbors is an important manifestation of their call.  They readily join in relationships that are honest, transparent and life-giving.

Committed. The Missional Community agrees to enter deliberately into the messiness of people’s lives. They devote themselves to personal growth and the common growth of the men and women of the Village. They strive to act in ways that are motivated by a full-bodied love for God manifested in heart, soul, and mind that spills over into a love of their neighbors equal to that God has placed in them.

Accountable. The Missional Community believes that accountability is an integral part of a healthy community. They commit themselves to a spirit of support for the leadership at the Village. They supportively walk alongside their fellow mission community members so they can better live in a way that will promote the common good.  They specifically commit to prioritizing a weekly gathering where they work out what it means to devote themselves to serving each other and the community at large. Each missional neighbor is accountable to the organization and the entire missional community. Missional residents are accountable to follow through with their promises of relationship and care of Village residents.

MLF uses Genesis 2:15 as a guiding framework for how to live.

The Lord God took the man and settled him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and take care of it.  (Genesis 2:15)

The scripture is interpreted by the organization in the following text (CF!V, n.d., pp. 6-7):

Settle. God desires for all to put down roots – to settle – in a safe, stable and secure place in order to grow and flourish. Settling into a home is vital to resolving the causes of homelessness, and begin physical and spiritual healing.

Cultivate. God ordained each person with special gifts, and He desires for all to cultivate and utilize those gifts in order to grow and flourish. For those who have lost their purpose, opportunities to rediscover God-given talents and share those in the community are fostered. The housed community is empowered to serve alongside formerly homeless neighbors as they develop new skills and build enduring relationships. This cultivation of the individual helps to promote dignity and restore self-esteem, uplifting the individual and strengthening the whole community.

Care. God directs all to care. People are called to care about the community – everyone and everything that is in it. This involves connecting with and lifting homeless brothers and sisters up off the streets and helping them on their way to a valued, purposeful life.

Missionals are intentionally focused on forming relationships and community with neighbors through mentorship, role modeling, and daily life routines.

“This is my forever home.” Missional life is entered with the intent of a long-term commitment, like marriage and kids, and with the understanding that the future is unknown and uncertain. Those choosing to live among the poor are choosing to enter into a long-term commitment to their formerly homeless neighbors. MLF has seen committed, enduring relationships are the key to healing a lifetime of disappointment, displacement, and distrust experienced by this population.

“It is our joy to do this, it is not our obligation.”  Missional life requires a clear calling to live missionally for the sake of others.

There’s no other way you’ll draw people into this lifestyle unless you pay them and even so it may be shoddy work because the motivating factor is transactional, and once that transaction becomes uneven, the individual will leave because their draw was money and not the heart. (MLF Staff)

Missionals do not monetarily get anything in exchange for living in the community. They follow the same rules, pay the same rent, and wait on the same property management service calls. It is the great equalizer between those coming from the streets and those coming with resources.  

Assumptions around whether or not you should take my call or drive me somewhere I need to go right now depends on if they think you’re getting paid for this or if you are volunteering. As a friend, there are understandable limitations, as an employee, you must do these things for me. (CF!V Missional/MLF Staff)

The role each missional plays is unique. To be on-mission as a neighbor means different things to different people. Rather than prescribe the role of the missional, the community allows for each person and household to identify for themselves how they will live this out and the missional community as a whole affirms that calling and supports the individual or household in their unique role.

Some missionals view being missional as being a missionary, taking Christ to the people. And some people view it as being a good neighbor, closing the gap of difference between folks who’ve lived on the street and folks who’ve lived in suburbs. Some people view it as being a role model and being supportive. Some people just view it as being present. Some people view it as a full-time service job. So, it varies by person. Every person is different and every person brings different gifts and there’s space and need for all of those things (CF!V Missional).

Missionals almost always have never experienced homelessness themselves. Missionals come from relatively stable, happy, healthy households and have a level of margin in their lives to help absorb some of the shock and chaos of neighbors coming out of homelessness.

Vulnerability allows for healing. While missionals most often come from far less broken backgrounds than people coming off the streets, they have still experienced pain and loss. Missionals have found that allowing oneself to be vulnerable generates personal healing as well as genuine relationships.

I feel seen. I feel belonging like I haven't felt in my life really…  and it feels safe to be flawed and human here. (CF!V Missional/MLF Staff)

Staff members can also be missionals. Practically speaking, staff members living on-site are beneficial because they have a needed key or know the right number to call or can respond to emergencies quickly. But more than this, it represents a blurring between vocation and advocacy, people are entering into a lifestyle where their work and service and family life are no longer siloed but intimately related, making each stronger and more focused.

Missionals need a support system. Missional life can be taxing, constantly surrounded by overwhelming need no one individual or household can fulfill. Missionals need their own support systems.

You’re going to try to give your best, but sometimes you’re not enough, so you need to bring other people alongside. You need to have a support team so that when you’re not feeling healthy, they’re healthy (MLF Staff).

Missionals need to be supported in their calling. The extent of a missional’s impact is in relation to how well they are empowered to use their gifting to support the community as well as feeling valued, supported, and affirmed in their work.

Missionals need external resources and people to carry out their calling in the community so that they are not doing it alone, just dreaming what their household can do. (CF!V Missional/MLF Staff)

The missional community has the potential to be a model of a different way of life.

The examples of what Missional life looks like are often things that are highly disruptive. We live among a very vulnerable population, so there are going to be emergencies but these should be the exceptions. By creating a lifestyle of service, the health of our own households are enriched by having neighbors and their needs among us. This type of hospitality can make my life more the life I want to have by closing my computer and beginning dinner a little earlier, stopping to take a walk and have a conversation. These types of encounters need to be honored and celebrated, on top of the laundry list of things that are hard (CF!V Missional/MLF Staff).

A story of “redemptive”relationships. So many of the residents who call CF!V “home” have tattered, broken relationships with their children, explains one missional. Many were not a part of their children’s upbringing. So, the opportunity to live in a community with kids who know them and love them just for being them is redemptive. And the feelings are mutual. A missional family with four young children has lived on-site since its inception.

At first, I never used to let my kids accept [gifts from our neighbors]. I just felt terrible like, ‘Stop, don’t buy them things, they don’t need anything.’ And one day a neighbor took my hand and goes ‘I need it. I need to give them this. I can do it, and I've never been able to. Just receive it. Let me give this to them.’ So, I’ve learned to do that. I’ve learned to receive from our neighbors… It’s such a beautiful, reciprocal thing that I did not expect. Things like that make it the most beautiful place to live. I can’t imagine being anywhere else. (CF!V Missional)

Life has changed since selling their house and moving into a 400 sf trailer with formerly homeless neighbors on either side.

What I love about it is that my kids don't see ministry as something you go and do. Like, it’s a Saturday and we’re going to go and serve the poor people and give them soup. It’s not how it is. It’s the way you live.

Part of life in the village is talking through unusual behavior their children might encounter.

We’ve had so many conversations about things that we probably would not have had, about how you know when someone’s tweaking or about medications or mental illness. We talk about how it’s not a scary thing, even though it might seem so the first time they experience those things, especially with someone they love and that they have sat in their laps and talked to them every day and then all of a sudden they’re having a bad day and they’ve got the wrong dose of medication or stopped taking it and see them yelling at everyone or talking to the air, whatever they see that’s not right. It doesn’t scare them anymore, but they’re aware and they come and talk to us about it. We still let them be out and about, they just know what to look for.

A story of life finally making sense.  Alan had a group of about 30 people in his house one night, considering being the first Missionals at the village. He went person by person and asked, “Are you in?” One of the discerning missionals replied an old professor once said to her, “You ought to live your life as if it doesn’t make sense without the Gospel.”

This was a powerful statement for many in the room whose life made a little bit too much sense. “Where am I really taking a risk for my faith?” Alan comes to me and I say, “Alan, I’ve been with you for 10 years. I’ll give you my time, I’ll give you my talents, I’ll give you my treasures, but I am not living out there.” And the next day I go to church and our pastor is teaching on caring for the poor and the oppressed and the downtrodden. And the key quote he says was, “And you don’t have to go to Africa to be a missionary. You can be a missionary on the east side of Austin.” I go home and tell [my wife] that I think we’re supposed to go live out on the property and she goes, “Well, it’s about time!” The next weekend we went and bought this trailer.

We moved out almost three years ago and we moved out from a 3900 square foot home on three acres with a guest house to 380 square feet. And you know what, people called me effin’ crazy so I said, “I think I'm finally doin’ something that doesn’t make sense without the Gospel.

… I feel it’s a distinct privilege to be part of this. It’s moved from, “I’m serving the Lord and loving my neighbor” to “I can’t believe we get to live here.” You know, there are moments of some pretty challenging situations, but I know my neighbors better here than in thirteen years in a gated community where everybody had everything. (CF!V Missional)

Tips shared from the missional community. Missional life is about establishing expectations for mutual respect, setting healthy and sustainable boundaries, leading by example, and supporting good habits. Current missional residents of CF!V share their advice on how to live this out.

Accept people for who they are.

We accept the person and who they are today. All humans have flaws so even if you think this person is flawed in some manner that doesn’t mean that you’re not flawed in some other invisible manner also, it’s just different things. No one is better than anyone else. Some of us just have learned to cope with life differently (CF!V Missional).

You can’t live in a belief that you can fix a person.

Like that’s your job. That you would ever possibly be capable of that, that that would even be helpful, that that could ever happen. Everybody’s on a journey here and you quickly learn that one good moment with somebody who’s really struggling with a situation, next week they might be missing because they went back out on the streets and they’re using again and you’re so worried, like, are they safe? Are they going to come home? (CF!V Missional).

You can’t take things personally.

The big thing that I’m learning from [disruptions in the community] is that I cannot take it personally. Usually, when a neighbor is spewing it’s not about me but it’s other things. And then they’ll start including you and then start attacking you. It’s just chaos. So, it’s reminding yourself not to bite off on the chaos (CF!V Missional).

We’re learning a different culture out here.

And we have to be patient, saying this is a new culture, we don’t treat each other this way. A lot of us who have come from a good background, we know about the unspoken rules, the social etiquette. They don’t know about that, so it has to be taught. You really have to know a person and they have to respect you before you can get through to a person (CF!V Missional).

Everything and everyone has a place.

There is space for different views. People find their flock in community and gravitate toward the activities and people that they share similar values and opinions with (CF!V Missional).

Really have to be flexible and pivot.

And see the value of new opportunities and the unexpected. Life here is so colorful and confusing and new and challenging and wonderful all the time (CF!V Missional).

It takes compassion.

You have to have compassion to live closely with many other people because it’s going to be too close sometimes and not your way (CF!V Missional).

You’ve got to be comfortable with differences.

When you’re stepping into a space where it feels like on the surface there’s a lot of difference, of life experience, of struggles, whatever, you have to be comfortable with that difference and hope folks have compassion for you and have compassion for others (CF!V Missional).

Build reciprocal relationships.

It takes time. We see them as different and they see us as different. I think a lot of times they see us as people who could not possibly relate. Just really different than them. And I think a lot of the time we see them as people to help and, um, there’s that guilt. It’s like, oh I don’t want to take up space with my problems and my truth ‘cause they have so much going on already. And I think we just have to check ourselves and say, ‘They’re not a project, they’re a person.’ It’s ok to put out there that you’ve had a rough day and why and if they’re going to be a friend then they’ll hear you and respond and if they’re not at that place they’re gonna just keep talking about themselves, which definitely happens a good amount (CF!V Missional).

‍

Boundaries Booklet:
A Guide for Setting Boundaries in a Missional Life

Chapter 1: Money Boundaries
Section 1: Loaning Money
Section 2: Giving Money
Section 3: Hiring Neighbors
Section 4: Bread Basket Fund

Chapter 2: Time Boundaries
Section 1: Grocery Runs
Section 2: Paying for Groceries
Section 3: Slow Shoppers

Chapter 3: Personal Boundaries
Section 1: Frequent Requests
Section 2: Your Contact Information
Section 3: Inappropriate Sexual Advances

Chapter 4: Drugs & Alcohol Boundaries
Section 1: Potential Drug Runs
Section 2: Money for Drugs

Chapter 5: Emergency Situations
Section 1: Inebriated Neighbors
Section 2: Drug Dealers
Section 3: Blood & Other Medical Emergencies

Missional Scenarios Quiz: How would you respond?

As a missional you will be confronted with situations that are uncommon in traditional neighborhoods. To help you prepare we’ve listed 13 hypothetical scenarios you might encounter while living in the Village. While the formerly homeless neighbors in these scenarios are fictional, they are based off common missional experiences with our neighbors. This is not a test with “right” or “wrong” answers but rather a tool to help you start the discussion on how you would establish personal boundaries while living missionally and prepare you for situations that might have otherwise caught you by surprise.

Scenario 1: Your neighbor Tom asks to borrow $10. He says he is getting paid tomorrow and will pay you back. How do you respond?

Scenario 2 - Your neighbor Jill says she is a little short this month and asks for $5 to help her pay her bills. How do you respond?

Scenario 3: Your neighbor Randal asks to clean your car for $20. How do you respond?

Scenario 4: Your neighbor Dylan asks you to take him to the store because he ran out of groceries. How do you respond?

Scenario 5: You took your neighbor Jack to the store for groceries. At the register he’s $7 short. He asks if you can help him out. How do you respond?

Scenario 6:  Every Saturday your neighbor Ryan asks for a ride to the store. Every time you take him he takes over two hours to shop. When he asks you again this Saturday for a ride, how do you respond?

Scenario 7: Your neighbor Brandon calls frequently asking for inexpensive household items because he has run out of paper towels, toilet paper, a trash bag, etc. He is asking you for something for the fifth time this week. How do you respond?

Scenario 8: Your neighbor Ben got your personal phone number. Every day he calls. You see him calling for the third time tonight. How do you respond?

Scenario 9: For Men: Gertrude shows up at your doorstep at 3am in a bathrobe. When you answer the door she drops the robe revealing her entirely naked body. Before you can respond she grabs your hand, places it on her exposed breast and says “anything you want for $5.” How do you respond?

For Women: Dijon has a habit of making sexual comments and advances towards you, especially when he’s been drinking. He shows up to Community Dinner buzzed and makes a beeline for your table. He sits right next to you and whispers “Looking good darlin.” How do you respond?

Scenario 10: Your neighbor Trina asks to go the store. When you offer to take her to JD’s on the corner she says that she needs to go to the HEB on Manor because she has a “gift card” plus the groceries there are cheaper. You know that the Manor HEB is a common spot where neighbors purchase illegal drugs and you suspect Trina might be using. How do you respond?

Scenario 11: Your neighbor Alex asks for 50 cents for a cigarette. He insists you must have at least 50 cents in your wallet you could spare. How do you respond?

Scenario 12: It’s 1am and your neighbor Brock is stumbling through the property extremely inebriated. He claims he has only been drinking, however you suspect he has also been using illegal drugs. He says he is fine and asks you not to call an ambulance. How do you respond?

Scenario 13: You see a suspicious car on property that you suspect is a drug dealer parked in front of your neighbor Annie’s house. How do you respond?

Scenario 14: While cooking dinner in one of the community kitchens you witness your neighbor Ethan cut his hand badly. He is bleeding heavily and there is blood all over the counters. How do you respond?

Chapter 1: Money Boundaries

Most Americans are irresponsible with money. From impulse purchases, unnecessary shopping sprees and credit card debt - everyone can struggle with money management. Unfortunately our neighbors are no exception. Many of them live paycheck to paycheck on tiny paychecks with no savings and little wiggle room. They often wrestle with expensive addictions. Any “irresponsible purchase,” relapse or unforeseen expense can cause them to come up short. When you build a relationship with someone with chronic money problems it’s common that they will ask you for money in various ways. It’s important to remember that there is no right or wrong way to respond to these requests. In fact many missionals admit it’s a judgment call that takes into account your financial situation, who is asking, why they want money and if you believe their story. The purpose of this chapter is to examine common ways you will be asked for money so you can determine your own boundaries.

Section 1: Loaning Money

Scenario 1 - Your neighbor Tom asks to borrow $10. He says he is getting paid tomorrow and will pay you back. How do you respond?

Policy against loaning money

Tell Tom that you have a policy against loaning money to your neighbors. You could have this policy for any number of reasons - you’re on a tight budget, you don’t want to damage your relationship with your neighbors or you can’t afford to loan everyone in the village $10.

Pay for the need instead (if legitimate)

Ask Tom why he needs the $10. If you feel that the need is legitimate, like he’s almost out of gas and needs to get to work tomorrow, offer to go with him and buy the gas directly. Paying for the need directly ensures that your money will not be used on things you don’t approve of like drugs or alcohol.

Hire him to do a job

Instead of giving him a loan, offer to have him do $10 worth of work for you and pay him $10 for his labor. With this strategy he will not need to pay you back.

Give him a chance

Loan Tom the money and give him a chance to pay you back. Don’t ever loan money if you need it returned. Many neighbors will struggle to pay you back and for some, “give me a loan,” was more of a sales pitch than an actual agreement to repay you.

Gift the money

Give Tom the $10 but tell him it’s a gift, not a loan. With this strategy you’re acknowledging that it will be difficult for Tom to save and repay you.

Set a Monthly Giving Limit

Every month set aside a certain amount of money for these “requests.” If Tom asks for money before you’ve hit your limit, you can give it to him.

“I don’t carry cash”

Tell Tom you don’t have any cash on you. Keep in mind that there is an ATM on the property and the neighbor might call your bluff.

Depend on Your History with a Neighbor

The more time you spend with your neighbors, you will learn who will most likely repay the $10 and who will not based on their past behavior.  

Mixed Approach

In addition to using different approaches with different neighbors, many missionals combine approaches. They will tell Tom they have a policy against loaning money and hire him to do a job instead. Or they will gift him the money while simultaneously setting a monthly giving limit. Like our current missionals, you do not need to pick one approach: you can use a combination of strategies.

Final Note: In addition to living below the poverty line, many of the neighbors struggle with profound addictions that take a serious toll on their ability to support themselves financially. Be aware that when a neighbor asks you for money, whether as a loan, a gift, or repayment for work, that income may go toward supporting an addiction. But that income could also go toward needs like food or gas. As you build one-on-one relationships with neighbors, you will be able to discern more accurately where that money will go, and it will help you decide what approach to take when asked for money.

‍

Section 2: Giving Money

Scenario 2 - Your neighbor Jill says she is a little short this month and asks for $5 to help her pay her bills. How do you respond?

This scenario is very similar to scenario 1 except this time Jill is asking for money as a gift with no plan for repayment. Because scenarios 1 and 3 are similar, many missionals use the following approaches that were discussed on page 6-7: Policy against giving money, Pay for the need instead (if legitimate), Hire him to do a job, Gift the money, Set a Monthly Giving Limit, “I don’t carry cash”, Depend on Your History with a Neighbor, Mixed Approach

The one major distinction between the two scenarios is that when asking for a loan the neighbor is communicating “I have enough money, I just don’t have it now” whereas a neighbor asking for a gift is communicating “I don’t have enough money.” Because of this distinction, when asked for a gift of money missionals have also responded with the following techniques:

‍Offer to help with budgeting

While most neighbors earn very little, poverty does not always translate into frugality. Sometimes helping the neighbor budget can help solve the underlying money management issues. If you do have a neighbor agree to a budgeting lesson, try not to pass judgment on how they spend their money. For example, instead of reprimanding the diabetic who spent over $100 on overpriced soda from the gas station, offer to help them buy their favorite soda in bulk at Sam’s Club. Remember that while you make more money, you’ve also probably made irresponsible and frivolous purchases at one time or another. Many of the common “money wasters” - alcohol, cigarettes, sugar - are often a form of self medication from lifelong trauma and the intense stress of living in abject poverty.

‍Tell them about job opportunities in the Village

From the Arthouse to Car Care to the Woodshop to the Gardens, [Organization] has many opportunities for neighbors to earn a dignified income. A job fair is hosted [insert  date, place, and time]. At the job fair neighbors can learn about all of the work opportunities on property. A neighbor must attend the job fair and fill out a contractors packet before they can start working. Jobs are only available to neighbors who currently live on property OR have been approved to live on property. Don’t be surprised when some neighbors turn down “above the table” work because they are afraid of how additional income will impact their government benefits.

‍Give them a loan

Tell Jill that you will give her the $5, but only if she agrees to repay you. Remember to never loan money you need back because even if the neighbor agrees to repay you there is still a high chance you will never see that money again.

‍

Section 3: Hiring Neighbors

Scenario 3 - Your neighbor Randal asks to clean your car for $20. How do you respond?

Hire him

If you want your car washed and the price feels fair- hire him. It’s a win-win situation.

“No Thanks”

Your car doesn’t need to be cleaned. The price is too high. You prefer to wash it yourself. Car washing isn’t in your budget. Whatever the reason, “no thanks” is a perfectly acceptable response.

Schedule a time

Depending on the neighbor you might be concerned that the sudden desire to wash your car is more of an attempt to earn quick cash for drugs than a genuine entrepreneurial venture. If this is a concern, one technique is to agree to have your car washed in a couple of days. This forces the neighbor to follow up at a time that works for your schedule when hopefully the craving for drugs has passed.

Encourage them to work for Community Works

If you don’t want to personally hire Randal to do a job, [Organization] has many work opportunities for them. If car cleaning is a passion of theirs, encourage them to go work at [Community Car Care]. As was mentioned in the previous section, some neighbors will turn down “above the table” work because of concerns, real or imagined, on how additional income will impact their government checks.  

Depend on the Neighbor’s Reputation

Once again, how you respond to a request for work can vary based on the neighbor. For some neighbors, washing cars might be their primary source of income while others only do it when they are in a pinch for drugs.

‍

Section 4: Bread Basket Fund:

What does the “Bread Basket Fund” fund?

The Bread Basket Fund is a fund run by Neighbor Care to cover neighbors’ “extraordinary” needs. An “extraordinary” need is defined as a large financial need that falls into one of the following categories:

1. Reconnecting with Family

1. Example: attending a funeral, meeting a child for the first time in 20 years

1. Necessary for work

1. Example: a vehicle that needs repair that is essential to a neighbor’s job

1. Medical expenses that cannot be covered in any other way

‍

To apply for funding from the Bread Basket Fund the neighbor must fill out an application that will be reviewed by Neighbor Care. There request will either be approved or denied.

What will the “Bread Basket Fund” not fund?

The Bread Basket Fund is not heavily advertised because every neighbor has money-woes and very few of those woes qualify for the Bread Basket Fund. Below are a few examples of common money issues that the Bread Basket Fund will NOT give to:

1. Helping a neighbor who didn’t budget well or misspent their money
2. Paying for people’s everyday living expenses (rent, AC, gas, food, etc)
3. Funding any and every family visit for neighbors
4. Fixing vehicles that are not essential to a neighbor’s current job
5. Covering medical expenses that should/can be covered by Medicare

‍

It’s important to know about the Bread Basket Fund so you can encourage neighbors who have legitimate qualifying needs to apply and discourage neighbors from submitting applications that will automatically be rejected.  

‍

Chapter 2: Time Boundaries

Many of our neighbors live on such little income that they cannot afford a car. While the bus is available it is not a convenient form of transportation. A 10 minute drive to the grocery store is a 1.5 hour bus ride. That’s why your time, often driving people places, is another common request in the village. Taking a neighbor to the grocery store can be a wonderful opportunity to build a relationship. However, some neighbors can be disrespectful of your time in how they shop or expect you to function as their free personal chauffeur.

Section 1: Grocery Runs

Scenario 4 - Your neighbor Dylan asks you to take him to the store because he ran out of groceries. How do you respond?

Take Him

If it works for your schedule, the drive to the grocery store is a great opportunity to get to know your neighbor better.

Plan a time to go

Find a time that works with your schedule and plan a time to go with Dylan. Don’t respond to the “I’m out of groceries” crisis but rather take control of the situation and go to the grocery store when it works for you.

Policy against giving rides

Tell Dylan that you don’t do grocery store runs. Just like a policy against loaning/gifting money, you can have a policy against giving rides to particular places or in general.

Give him food instead

Some missionals keep food on hand for these moments. Tell Dylan you can’t take him to the store but you can get him something to eat tonight if he’s out of groceries.

Give him a bus pass

Instead of a ride, give him a bus pass so he can take the bus to the store. While not the quickest or most convenient form of transportation, many neighbors survived years on the streets with the bus as their only form of transportation. It beats walking.

Offer to drop him off

Offer to drop Dylan off at the store if he can find a ride home. This strategy works well if you would like to give him a ride but are short on time. A ride one-way still beats taking the bus both ways.

Ask what he needs to buy

Asking for a grocery list is a good technique for vetting the legitimacy of the grocery run. Is the neighbor actually planning on stocking their fridge? Or do they want you to spend an hour of your day driving them just so they can buy a coke, a pack of cigarettes and some chips?

Tell him about the Monday grocery store runs

Every [Date/Time] there is a grocery store run to [Store] that is organized by missionals. You can encourage Dylan to go on the scheduled grocery run.

Special Note: Giving rides to the opposite sex

Some missionals have a policy where they will not give rides (or go anywhere) with a neighbor of the opposite sex. Some missionals will give rides to the opposite sex, but only in groups. Others will give rides to some members of the opposite sex, but not others. Once again it’s important to establish what you are comfortable with in any given scenario.

‍

Section 2: Paying for Groceries

Scenario 5 - You took your neighbor Jack to the store for groceries. At the register he’s $7 short. He asks if you can help him out. How do you respond?

Pre-Emptive Talk in the Car

Before you even get to the store, have a frank conversation with Jack in the car. Tell him that you cannot afford to pay for his groceries. Ask if he needs to go to an ATM and if he has enough money on hand. By setting expectations before you get to the store you can avoid this scenario.

‍Don’t go to the checkout line

Some missionals intentionally avoid being in or near the check-out line when their neighbor is checking out to avoid this common scenario.

Don’t go in the store

Wait in the car or plan a drop off/pick up plan. If you never enter the store Jack cannot ask for your help covering his grocery bill.

Don’t bring Cash/Credit Card/Wallet into the store

If you want to visit with Jack as he shops but are concerned with him expecting you to pay the bill, leave your wallet in the car. When you get to the check out line you can honestly tell him that you don’t have any money on you.

Pay the Bill

Pay the remaining $7.

Help him- once

Tell Jack you will help him this one time, but next time he needs to bring sufficient cash.

Set a monthly giving limit

As was discussed in the previous chapter, every month set aside a certain amount of money for these requests. If Jack asks for money before you’ve hit your limit you can pay the $7. If he asks for money after you’ve hit your limit, tell him you set aside a small amount of money for these types of emergencies and unfortunately you have already given all of that money to other neighbors so you cannot help him this month.

Give him a loan

Offer to pay the remaining $7 but only if he pays you back. Set an expectation of when Jack will be able to pay you back. Once again, never loan money you need repaid because Jack may not return the $7.

Offer to help him return $7 worth of food

Make it clear that you’re not going to be paying his grocery bill but you can help him return $7 worth of food.

‍

Section 3: Slow Shoppers

Scenario 6 - Every Saturday your neighbor Ryan asks for a ride to the store. Every time you take him he takes over two hours to shop. When he asks you again this Saturday for a ride, how do you respond?

Plan on running errands as you wait

If you have several errands to run in town and you know Ryan will take several hours, plan to complete your errands as he shops. You get stuff done and he can take his time.

Call when he’s done

Drop Ryan off and tell him to call you when he’s done. You can then go home and are not stuck waiting for him in the store.

Drop off only, Bus ride home

Tell Ryan that you can drop him off at the store but he will need to take the bus home.

Set a time limit

Tell Ryan you only have 45 minutes. If he takes longer than that you will have to leave him behind. If you’re going to adopt this policy it works best if you keep your word. Several missionals have left neighbors at the store who didn’t take the time limit seriously.

Give him feedback

Tell Ryan that every time you’ve taken him to the store in the past he has taken a very long time to shop, which is why you hesitate to take him again today. You might not be the only person he has annoyed with his shopping habits so the honest feedback might be helpful.

Give him a bus pass

Instead of giving Ryan a ride, offer him a bus pass so he can take as long in the store as he needs. While the bus is not the most convenient Ryan probably lived on the streets for years with the bus as his only means of transportation.

Tell him “no”

If you feel that Ryan has been disrespectful of your time in the past, it’s okay to tell him that you can’t take him to the store. Encourage him to go on the scheduled grocery run instead.

‍

Chapter 3: Personal Boundaries

As relationships form, it’s normal for social contact to become easier and for friends to become more embedded in each other’s lives. Friendships you form with neighbors at the Village are no different. Your cell phone number, email address, Facebook and personal space, however, can all be abused if you don’t set firm personal boundaries.

Section 1: Frequent Requests

Scenario 7 - Your neighbor Brandon calls frequently asking for inexpensive household items because he has run out – paper towels, toilet paper, a trash bag, etc. He is asking you for something for the fifth time this week. How do you respond?

I’m out of that

When Brandon asks for an item, tell him you’re out of it. In theory, if you’re “out of it” enough he will stop asking.

Offer to take him to the store

Instead of giving him toilet paper, offer to drive him to the store to buy it himself.

Offer to pick items up from the store

Tell Brandon that if he gives you $10 you will buy whatever household items he needs in bulk next time you go to the store. With this strategy, he’s footing the bill and you’re stopping the requests, hopefully.

Buy in bulk

If you know you’ll be fielding frequent requests, buy the needed items in bulk so you can give him plenty next time he calls.

Buy in bulk - but only once

Buy the household items Brandon needs in bulk- but only once. Tell him that by the time he runs out of this supply he needs to have his finances together so he can afford his own toiletries.

Suggest he use the communal facilities

Instead of supplying these household items to Brandon, remind him that he can use the restrooms in the bath-houses or the trash cans all around the Village.

‍

Section 2: Your Contact Information

Scenario 8 - Your neighbor Ben got your personal phone number. Every day he calls. You see him calling for the third time tonight. How do you respond?

Don’t give out your contact information

This scenario is one reason some missionals do not give out their contact information to neighbors. As you build one-on-one relationships with neighbors, you will begin to have enough information to decide with whom you’re comfortable sharing your personal contact information. Just like any other friendship, some neighbors are more or less likely to contact you regularly or at inconvenient times of the day.

POLICY: Never give out another missionals contact information without their consent! This rule is especially true for any missional who works on property! Unless there is a fire, flood or death, if a neighbor requests help from a particular staff member who lives on site, have them call the front office instead. Even when the office is closed, property management is notified when someone leaves a voicemail and if it’s a true emergency they will contact the appropriate staff member to handle the emergency. Property Management’s number is [insert number].

Do not answer

Ignore Ben’s call. If you don’t answer enough times, he will hopefully get the hint.

Block his number

If the phone calls are so frequent that they become bothersome even when ignored, it’s okay to block Ben’s number so you no longer see his calls.

Ask him to stop calling

Tell Ben you feel like he is calling too frequently and abusing your number, so you would like him to stop. He might be bothering other people with this same behavior so the honest feedback might be helpful for him.

‍Set a call limit

Tell Ben the number of times he is allowed to call you per day/week. Tell him you will respond to his calls only if he respects your boundaries.

Threaten to block his number

Tell Ben that you will block his number if he keeps calling at this frequency. Set boundaries for the frequency of calling that is acceptable.

‍

Section 3: Inappropriate Sexual Advances

Part 1: For Men

Scenario 9 - Gertrude shows up at your doorstep at 3am in a bathrobe. When you answer the door she drops the robe revealing her entirely naked body. Before you can respond she grabs your hand, places it on her exposed breast and says “anything you want for $5.” How do you respond?

Get a female missional

Gertrude is most likely under the influence and in a vulnerable state. Inappropriate sexual behavior from female neighbors is often a reaction to past trauma and sexual abuse. A female missional, whether it’s your wife or a neighbor, can talk to Gertrude and assist her in returning home safely.

Don’t answer the door at 3am

Some missionals will always answer the door in case there is a genuine emergency. Others have policies against answering in the late evening because of issues with drug abuse and intoxicated neighbors like Gertrude.

Shut the door quickly

Get out of the situation as quickly as possible. Shut the door, lock it and do not open it again.

Be firm and direct

Firmly tell Gertrude that her behavior is inappropriate, unacceptable and that she needs to go home immediately.

Contact Neighbor Care

Tell Neighbor Care about the incident. If this behavior is common for Gertrude, Neighbor Care might be able to help her if they’re aware of the situation.

Call 911

Gertrude’s behavior is not only inappropriate, it’s also illegal. Call the police and have them at minimum escort her home if not detain her until she sobers up.

‍

Part 2: For Women

Scenario 9 - Dijon has a habit of making sexual comments and advances towards you, especially when he’s been drinking. He shows up to Community Dinner buzzed and makes a beeline for your table. He sits right next to you and whispers “Looking good tonight darlin.” How do you respond?

Firmly tell him to stop

Tell Dijon firmly that his actions are inappropriate, unacceptable and that he needs to stop. You will not be talked to that way.

Threaten to report his behavior

Tell Dijon that his behavior is inappropriate and you will report it to Neighbor Care if he does not stop immediately.

Bring your husband into the conversation (if you’re married)

If you’re married, mention that your husband would not appreciate the way he is interacting with you. Bring your husband physically into the conversation if possible.

Confront him with another missional (preferably male)

Confront Dijon about how his behavior around you is inappropriate with another male missional present. Or ask another male missional to confront Dijon in your presence.

Get out of the situation

Get up and leave the table. Get as far away from Dijon as possible.

Change the subject

Quickly change the subject to a more appropriate topic. Hopefully, Dijon will get the hint.

Use Humor

Use humor to communicate that his actions are unwanted. Make a joke that you can’t be friends with him if he keeps being so creepy.

Ignore Him

Don’t respond. Completely ignore his comment and him. If he wants to have a conversation with you he needs to be appropriate.

‍

Chapter 4: Drugs & Alcohol Boundaries

Many of the neighbors have lived harsh, painful lives and use drugs and alcohol to help self-medicate from past trauma. While these substances are physically addicting they are also psychologically addicting for neighbors who want to numb the pain of sexual abuse, broken families and immense poverty. Community First! does not require neighbors to “get clean” to live on site which means you will experience people in varying levels of addiction and recovery while living in the Village.

Section 1: Potential Drug Runs

Scenario 10 - Your neighbor Trina asks to go the store. When you offer to take her to JP’s on the corner she says that she needs to go to the HEB on Manor because she has a “gift card” plus the groceries there are cheaper. You know that the Manor HEB is a common spot where neighbors purchase illegal drugs and you suspect Trina might be using. How do you respond?

Give her a chance

Take Trina at her word and take her to the store.  If she doesn’t buy groceries, disappears or visits with people outside - then you might take a different approach next time she asks.

Go with her into HEB

If you suspect Trina wants drugs, not groceries, go with her into HEB. If you don’t leave her side it will be difficult for her to buy illegal drugs right under your nose.

Offer to go to a different HEB

Trina says she has an HEB gift card but that doesn’t mean you have to take her to the HEB manor. Tell Trina you can take her to a different HEB. If she suddenly doesn’t need groceries, then you will know her true intentions.

Insist on going to JD’s

Tell Trina you don’t have time to drive to HEB but if she really needs groceries you can take her to JD’s on the corner.

Schedule a time

Drug runs typically occur late at night. Instead of agreeing to take Trina tonight, offer instead to take her some time during the day tomorrow. If she wants drugs not groceries she will most likely turn down your offer or not follow through.

Ask what she needs from the store

It’s expensive to buy both drugs and groceries so one common sign of a drug run is that the neighbor does not buy much food. Asking for a grocery list is a good way of vetting how much she’s shopping for food or illegal substances. If her list is suspiciously short or vague, you might turn down the emergency trip or offer her something from your fridge.

Offer to pick-up food

Offer to pick up food for her next time you’re at the store if she gives you money and a list. With this strategy you’re scheduling the trip when it works best for you and getting her to provide a list of items and the money to pay for those items.

Give her a bus pass

If Trina is determined to buy drugs, you refusing her a ride is unlikely to deter her permanently. You can offer her a bus pass if you don’t want to be responsible for taking her to the store yourself.  

Don’t take her

If you suspect that Trina is really just looking to buy drugs- don’t take her. Trust your gut. While she might find other ways to get her fix, you are putting barriers in her way that can hopefully stall her long enough that the urge passes.

‍

Section 2: Money for Drugs

Scenario 11- Your neighbor Alex asks for 50 cents for a cigarette. He insists you must have at least 50 cents in your wallet you could spare. How do you respond?

Policy against giving money

As was discussed in the Money Boundaries chapter, many missionals have a policy against loaning/giving money. Frequent requests, even for small amounts, can add up.

Policy against giving money for non-essentials/drugs & alcohol

While some missionals don’t have a policy against giving money in general, they have policies against giving money for certain things. Sometimes the personal policy is as broad as - “we don’t give money for non-essentials.” Other times it’s more specific like “we don’t give money for drugs and alcohol.”

I don’t support tobacco use

Tobacco is a known carcinogen. Tell Alex that because it causes cancer and is extremely bad for his health you won’t support his habit with your money.

I don’t carry cash/change

In our modern age of electronic spending its common to actually not have 50 cents in your wallet. Tell the neighbor you don’t carry change. Be warned there are ATM machines close by so Alex might call your bluff.

Give him 5 cents for every cigarette butt he picks up

Most neighbors smoke. Which means our beautiful village can easily become littered with cigarette butts from lazy smokers who don’t bother to properly dispose of them. If Alex really wants to smoke, he can help work to beautify the property in the process.

Give him the money- it’s not the worst vice

Compared to many of the drugs our neighbors are detoxing from, nicotine is the least of their problems. And when you factor in all of the trauma that caused them to start self medicating with hard drugs, nicotine is a very cheap form of therapy. So give Alex the 50 cents and don’t worry about it.

Depends on the neighbor

Some neighbors really need cigarettes to help them combat much worse addictions. Some neighbors are delusional schizophrenics and smoking helps them cope with episodes. Others will hound you for cigarette money every day if you give them a penny. A relationship with the neighbor can help inform your decision on what to do in this scenario.

Chapter 5: Emergency Situations

Section 1: Inebriated Neighbors

Scenario 12- It’s 1am and your neighbor Brock is stumbling through the property extremely inebriated. He claims he has only been drinking however you suspect he has also been using illegal drugs. He says he is fine and asks you not to call an ambulance. How do you respond?

Note: In general, it’s best to have the neighbor call the ambulance. If you call for them and they refuse to be treated, you end up wasting the paramedics time and taxpayers dollars.

‍

However, call an ambulance if the neighbor:

1) can't be awakened or is unconscious;

2) has irregular, shallow or slow breathing or pulse rate;

3) has cold, clammy, bluish skin;

4) is continually vomiting;

5) shows signs of possible head injury or overdose;

6) has seizures or convulsions;

7) has delirium tremens (confusion and visual hallucinations);

8) is blacking out

‍

Also call 911 if he is causing a large disturbance, if you feel threatened, or if he is a danger to himself or others.

If you have a non-emergency, instead of calling 911 you can call 311. You will be connected to the same dispatcher as 911 but at a lower priority status. You can also cancel a 311 call if the situation resolves itself.

‍

Section 2: Drug Dealers

Scenario 13- You see a suspicious car on property you suspect is a drug dealer parked in front of your neighbor Annie’s house. How do you respond?

When you suspect a drug dealer on property, record the following information:

1. License Plate #
2. Description of the Car
3. Date
4. Time
5. Location
6. If safe and possible, take a photo of the car and driver

‍

Those 6 points should be emailed to Property Management at [contact information].

‍

Section 3: Blood & Other Medical Emergencies

Scenario 14- While cooking dinner in one of the community kitchens you witness your neighbor Ethan cut his hand badly. He is bleeding heavily and there is blood all over the counter. How do you respond?

Important Facts:

• Pathogens present in human blood can transmit dangerous diseases like HIV, HBV and HCV
• You should assume that all neighbors have these diseases (many do because of illegal drug use with unsanitary needles)
• Even dried blood can contain pathogens for up to a week
• Any bodily fluids can contain blood and should therefore be treated as contaminated

‍

Unless you have training on how to properly handle contaminated blood, DO NOT touch or attempt to clean up the blood. If the spill occurs during office hours, contact Property Management. If the spill occurs after office hours, contact a missional who is trained in how to properly handle blood issues. Those missionals are:

• Name 1
• Name 2
• Name 3

‍

Keep other neighbors away from the blood and call 911 if the neighbor’s cut needs medical attention.

‍

‍

Sacred Settlement Mosaic Housing Application and Qualifying Criteria

‍

QUALIFYING CRITERIA

The following criteria and documentation will be used in the evaluation of the rental application for residency. At the time of completing the application all individuals must:

• Provide documentation of homelessness in the Twin Cities area for at least one year. (Third party certification through HMIS or attached form from shelter, human service provider, community member or outreach worker.)
• Be at least 18 years of age.
• Provide a valid government issued photo ID OR resident ID card.
• Provide a valid social security number.

‍

Date: ____________________

Full Legal Name: _____________________________________________

Preferred Name or other Names Used: _____________________________

Race/Ethnicity (optional): ______________________

Gender (optional): __________

How do we contact you?_____________________________________

Location: ________________________________________________

Phone Number: _____________________________________________

Email: ______________________________________________

Emergency contact: __________________________________________

Do you currently have a case manager? Yes/No

Name: Agency:

Phone: Email:

Have you taken a tour of the community?_________________________

What appeals to you about living in an intentional community?______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. How long have you been without stable housing?____________________

2. How long have you been in the Twin Cities Area? __________________

3. Who can validate this on your behalf? (name / organization): ___________________________________________________________

4. Do we have permission to reach out to them on your behalf?   Yes / No

5. Age: _________________

6. Government issued ID (name / photo)?  Yes / No  Type: _____________

(make copy or share photo)

7. If No, would you like help obtaining a valid ID?   Yes / No  

8. Are you on MA?   Yes / No  / Unsure  
Would you like help applying? Yes / No ________________________________________________________

Applicant Signature Date

*PLEASE ATTACH COPIES OF PHOTO ID TO THIS APPLICATION

Sacred Settlement Representative: Describe next steps related to previous questions

STEP 2: LEGAL HISTORY

Notice: We will conduct a background check on all applicants as a final step. If that background check does not match your answers on this form, your application to live in Sacred Settlement Mosaic will be denied. We work closely with individuals who have a criminal record, but make no guarantees of approval. Please be honest.

QUALIFYING CRITERIA

• Agree to a complete background check which includes social security verification, criminal activity and terrorists watch list.
• Meet the criminal history requirements of our community. Applications may be denied for the following reasons:

• Any deliberate falsification in the application or an invalid social security number will result in the automatic rejection of the applicant.
• Submitting an incomplete application.
• Applicants with misdemeanor assault records within the past seven years may be considered on a case by case basis.
• Crimes against persons committed by the applicant regardless of the date committed, include but not limited to: murder/manslaughter, kidnapping, sexual assault, assault, domestic violence, crimes of a sexual nature, and/or arson.
• Any individual who is subject to a registration pursuant to Chapter 243 of the Minnesota Code of Criminal Procedure or any other state’s sex offender registration program.
• A pattern (3 or more instances) of continuing conduct/acts, regardless of type of severity which may interfere with the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by others.

‍

Date of birth: _____________________  
Social Security Number:__________________

Any prior military service? ______Yes ______No

Branch:________________________________________

Veteran Status: __________________________________

Do you have a copy of your DD-214? ________________

Please list all County, States that you have lived in:  
________________________________

Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense?  Yes / No
If yes, please state the charges you were convicted of, the date of the conviction, and the City/Town, County and State. (Please use the back of the sheet if needed) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

‍
Do you currently have any outstanding warrants for your arrest?  Yes / No
If so, please provide dates & details: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Are you currently on probation? Yes / No
If so, please provide dates & details: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Are you a registered sex offender or have been convicted of a sex crime?
Yes / No

If so, please explain: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

Have you ever been arrested and/or convicted of domestic violence?  
Yes / No
If so, please explain: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL FAMILY MEMBERS:

There is a one (1) person maximum occupancy for our Single Occupancy Micro Units. Couples who both qualify separately may live together in Double Occupancy Micro Units.

Circle one: Single / Married / Partnered

Is your spouse/partner applying? Yes / No If so, their name: ______________________

The information on this form is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I give permission to verify all information provided as a final step in the application process. This background check will be disclosed to the host site.
___________________________________________________________

Applicant Signature Date
_________________________________________________________

Settled Representative Date
_________________________________________________________

STEP 3:  LIVING SITUATION

Do you own a car that will be parked on property? Y/N

If you answered yes, you are required to show proof that your car’s registration is up-to- date. Please note that vehicles are prohibited from parking on the premises if they are inoperable, have no license plates, no current registration, or no current inspection sticker.

Do you have a bike?  Yes / No

How much stuff do you have? Backpack / Car load / Truck load / Storage Unit

Do you own any animals? Y/N     Type and breed?                                              Weight?

If you are an animal owner, you are required to provide all shot records and other relevant paperwork prior to moving in. This application is not complete without the appropriate animal documentation.

Are you a smoker?   Yes / No Do you drink alcohol?  Yes / No

Do you struggle with substance use?   Yes / No

Have you had an incident of bed bugs in the last 12 months?

Do you have a disability or special needs? Yes / No If so, please describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

‍

PERSONAL BUDGET & BENEFITS

QUALIFYING CRITERIA

• Provide gross income documentation or income plan sufficient to pay rent.

Do you have a source of income? Yes / No          If so, what source(s)? ___________________________________________________________

Are you currently on SSI / SSDI? Yes / No / Unsure  (circle one)

Are you interested in a rep payee?   Yes / No / Unsure

Please provide print-outs for all income benefits and attach to this application.

What types of income are you currently receiving?          

$ __________ per month.
SSI - Supplemental Security Income Yes / No

$ __________ per month.
SSDI - Security Security Disability Income      Yes / No

$ __________ per month.
General Assistance                                  Yes / No

$ __________ per month.
SNAP                                                           Yes / No

$ __________ per month.
VA                                                                   Yes / No

$ __________ per month.
MSA - Minnesota Supplemental Aid Yes / No

$ __________ per month.
Other, Please describe____________________________

Total income per month $ ______________________

Do you want help applying for any of these benefits?

What would be your future expenses in a Sacred Settlement?

$ __________ per month.
Rent (rooming unit, gas / propane, electricity, laundry, wifi)

$ __________ per month.
Food

$ __________ per month.
Household Goods (i.e. hygiene, cigarettes, cleaning supplies)

$ __________ per month.
Phone

$ __________ per month.
Transportation

$ __________ per month.
Medical

$ __________ per month.
Other

Total expenses per month $ ______________________

What is your rental reduction goal? $__________ per month.

Limit is $150 / month

What is your total workshop income goal? $__________ per month.

All income will be reported to the IRS on a Form 1099. It is your responsibility to determine how much income you can earn without reducing your benefit income (i.e. GA, SSI, SSDI, MSA, etc). It is also your responsibility to set aside and pay federal taxes on your 1099 self-employment income and any applicable income you receive. We suggest withholding a minimum of 15%. However, this amount will vary for each participant.

Applicant Initials ________ Settled. Initials ________
Mosaic Initials __________

‍

STEP 4: PERSONAL HISTORY

You are welcome to bring a supportive friend to help answer these questions.

How did you become homeless? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What goals do you have for yourself? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What do you like doing?______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you prefer to work:   Alone  /  On a team  /  Either

What irritates you about other people? How do you deal with your frustration?______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What was the most fulfilling job / work you’ve done? __________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What are your favorite foods? ___________________________________

Is there anything you avoid eating? ___________________________

Do you have any memory issues? _______________________________

Have you been active in homelessness issues/activism? Yes / No              
If so, how? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you have children? Yes / No
If so, tell us about them:  ____________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you have any active legal issues?  Yes /  No   If so, tell us about them:  ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What are your favorite color(s) for decor?  ________________________________

Anything you want us to know to best accommodate your needs? Anything you would like us to know about you and your situation?______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Customized plan to prepare for housing based on previous discussions (benefits, income, pets, legal, etc)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

‍

Sacred Settlement Mosaic Housing Agreement

‍

This Housing Agreement (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of ______________, 20__ (the “Effective Date”) by Mosaic Christian Community (“Landlord”), whose address is 540 E. Wheelock Parkway, St. Paul, MN 55130 and ______________________________ (“Tenant”), whose address is the address of the Property described in Paragraph 1 below.

WHEREAS, Landlord is a Christian religious community whose charitable mission is based in its Christian faith and beliefs.  

WHEREAS, as part of its religious and charitable mission, Landlord has established Sacred Settlement Mosaic upon a portion of the church property owned by Landlord for the purpose of providing stable long-term housing for formerly chronically homeless people.

WHEREAS, in order for Landlord to grant Tenant the right to occupy the Residence (as defined below), Landlord requires Tenant to enter into this Agreement.

1. Description of Residence and Community. Landlord is providing the custom-made parked trailer identified as _____________ (the "Residence") for the Tenant to use as his/her residence.  The Residence is a part of the Sacred Settlement Mosaic (the "Community") located on the property owned by the Landlord with a street address of 540 E. Wheelock Parkway, St. Paul, MN 55130.  Tenant agrees at all times to follow all of the Policies and Regulations (the "Policies") established by the Community, which are attached to this Agreement as EXHIBIT A.  Tenant shall also have the right to use the common areas of the Community, which include the areas located in the lower level of the church building accessible from the parking lot (collectively, the "Common Areas" outlined in EXHIBIT B):  Tenant hereby agrees that all of its responsibilities to care for the Residence as outlined in this Agreement and in the Policies apply equally to the Common Areas.  The portion of the larger church property occupied by the Community where the Residence is located is referred to in this Agreement as the "Property". On-site transfers and relocations are not permitted. Tenant must remain in the Residence he/she moves into. If Tenant is a missional neighbor, please refer to EXHIBIT D of this Agreement for additional provisions.  Tenant also hereby agrees to comply with implementation and enforcement of the Policies by the Community’s Stewardship Team.  The “Stewardship Team” functions as a representative of the Landlord and consists of representatives from Mosaic Community Church and Settled, Incorporated, and is responsible for the operation, well-being of the Community, its reputation in the neighborhood, and resolving issues that arise within the Community.
2. Duty to Care for Residence. Landlord shall provide basic furnishings, including table, two chairs, dry toilet, and mattress (the “Furniture”) and appliances, including a refrigerator, hot plate, and heater (the “Appliances”), which Furniture and Appliances shall remain the property of the Landlord. Tenant agrees to care for the Residence, not to damage the Residence and to properly use the Furniture and Appliances provided with the Residence in order to maintain them in good working condition. Tenant shall not attempt to move or relocate the Residence from its location on the grounds. No other cooking devices are permitted for use in the Residence. Any cooking in the Residence beyond use of a hot plate must have written approval by the Landlord. For further information, please see EXHIBIT C in this Agreement.

3. Duration of Agreement.  The duration of this Agreement is referred to as the “Term.”  The Term of this Agreement shall be for a month-to-month basis, terminable by either party on thirty (30) days' advance written notice given in the manner described in the following Section 4.  
4. Notice. Tenant agrees that written notices will be effective if and when hand delivered to the Landlord or the Stewardship Team. Notices and demands for Landlord must be delivered to Landlord’s address set forth above and written confirmation of acceptance by a representative of Landlord must be obtained by Tenant.
5. Rent.

(a) Amount. The Tenant shall initially pay rent to the Landlord in the amount of $_________ ("Rent") per month. Subject to applicable laws, rental rates may be increased after the completion of the initial housing term, with a 30 day written notice to you. Rental increases will take effect on the first day of the month following the 30 day notice. The following utilities are included in the Rent: gas, electrical, Internet, water, garbage, laundry. In addition to Rent payable by Tenant, Tenant is subject to any fines imposed for violations of the Community Policies.  Payments by Tenant shall first be applied to any outstanding fines imposed against Tenant and then to the monthly Rent owed by Tenant. In addition to the Rent payable to Landlord as set out above, Landlord may require that Tenant reimburse Landlord for any loss, property damage, or cost of repair or service caused by negligence or improper use by Tenant, his/her agents, family or guests.

(b) Payment. The Rent payment for each month must be given to the Property Manager or deposited in the collection box or before the first (1^st) day of each month beginning the month following the Effective Date.  Rent shall be due and payable regardless of whether or not Landlord gives notice to Tenant to pay the Rent.  

(c) Security Deposit.   There shall be no security deposit required of Tenant.

(d) Credit for Work Performed. The Tenant shall receive credit toward Rent due in the amount of up to $150 per month for work performed at the Property.  The Tenant may elect to perform certain projects, including help with cleaning and maintenance of the Property. The Landlord shall provide a list of projects and tasks needed to be completed and deadlines for completing them, and Tenant may sign up for the month prior whichever tasks he or she desires to perform. It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement that Tenant shall be considered an independent contractor.

6. Landlord's Duty. If Tenant pays the Rent and complies with all other terms of this Agreement, including terms outlined in the Exhibits, Tenant will have the exclusive and continuous right to reside at the Residence during the Term of this Agreement.
7. Use of Residence. The Residence must be used only as a private home to live in and for absolutely no other purpose. This Residence is intended to be used in addition to the  amenities provided in the Common Areas. Tenant acknowledges that the Residence is designed as a single-resident unit and agrees that only the individual person listed as the Tenant at the beginning of this Agreement may live in the Residence.
8. Condition of Property. Tenant has inspected the Residence (including the Furniture and Appliances) and agrees that the Residence is in good order and repair. Tenant accepts the Residence in its "as is" "where is" condition and agrees that Landlord has not made any statements or representations regarding Landlord’s intentions with respect to any improvements, alterations, decorations, or repairs to the Residence. Residence is NOT designed or intended to have sewer or water connections. Tenant may not make any alterations or renovations to the Residence without written permission from the Landlord.
   
   
9. Damage to Property.

(a) In the event of damage to the Residence by fire or other casualty, Tenant must promptly give notice of the damage to the Landlord.  Tenant's personal property at the Residence will not be covered by Landlord’s insurance. However, renter’s insurance is required as a Tenant of this Residence. Proof of coverage is required prior to move-in.

(b) If the Residence is rendered uninhabitable by fire or other casualty, and if such damage cannot, in Landlord’s reasonable estimation, be restored within thirty (30) days of such damage, then Landlord may, at its sole option, terminate this Agreement as of the date of such fire or casualty.

(c) If this Agreement is not terminated pursuant to Paragraph (b) above, then the Landlord shall proceed with due diligence to repair and restore the Residence or substitute a replacement parked trailer or other living arrangement acceptable to Tenant for the Residence.

10. Damage or Injury to Tenant or Tenant’s Property. The Landlord is not responsible for any damage or injury that is done to Tenant or to Tenant’s property or to Tenant’s guests or their property.  The Landlord is not responsible for the actions, or for any damages, injury or harm caused by third parties (such as other residents, guests, intruders or trespassers) who are not under Landlord’s control.
11. Tenant's Telephone Number.  Provided that Tenant has a cellular phone, Tenant shall provide his or her telephone number to the Landlord. Tenant will notify Landlord of any change in telephone numbers or loss of cellular service within two (2) days of such change.
12. Right of Entry. Subject to requirements of applicable law, Landlord and Landlord’s representatives or agents may enter the Residence at reasonable hours upon reasonable notice to Tenant to repair or inspect the Residence and perform any work that Landlord determines to be necessary.  In the event that Landlord or its representatives or agents determine that a situation involving criminal activity or danger to personal safety exists, then Landlord may enter the Residence without notice to address the situation.  
13. No Assignment or Subletting. Tenant may not assign this Agreement, sublet the Residence to anyone else, attempt to sell the Residence, the Furniture, the Appliances, or this Agreement, or permit any other person to use the Property. Any assignment, sublease or other transfer by Tenant of its rights under this Agreement made without Landlord’s written consent will not be effective and will be a default under this Agreement that may result in termination of this Agreement.
14. Moving Out. When moving out, Tenant must, (i) leave the Residence and surrounding property in the same condition as at the start of the Agreement, except for ordinary wear and tear, (ii) completely vacate the Property, including any parking spaces or indoor or outside storages spaces, (iii) if possible, give Landlord a forwarding address, (iv) give Landlord all keys and personal property issued to Tenant for Tenant’s use; and (v) leave the Furniture and Appliances in the Residence. If Tenant does not return all keys within 24 hours of vacating, Landlord may change the locks and charge the costs to Tenant.
15. Abandonment. If there is no contact with Tenant after 30 days, no signature of Absence Amendment, and due diligence is performed by the Landlord to connect with Tenant and Tenant’s emergency contacts, Tenant’s personal property left behind at the Residence or in storage in the Common Areas will be deemed to have been abandoned and agreement will be terminated. Landlord may dispose of such personal property in any manner that Landlord thinks is proper. The Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for disposing of the personal property.
16. False or Misleading Rental Application. If Landlord determines that any oral or written statements made by Tenant in the written application or otherwise are untrue or misleading in any way, then Tenant will be deemed to have violated this Agreement.
17. Default by Tenant. If Tenant does not pay the Rent or other amounts owed to the Landlord when due or if Tenant violates any term of this Agreement, Landlord may terminate this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement, if Tenant does not move out, Landlord may bring an eviction action in Minnesota State District Court in Ramsey County. If Tenant violates a term of this Agreement and Landlord does not terminate this Agreement or evict Tenant, Landlord does not waive its rights to terminate this Agreement and evict Tenant for any other violation of this Agreement. By using one or more of these rights or remedies, Landlord does not give up any other rights or remedies it may have. Acceptance of Rent does not waive Landlord’s right to evict Tenant for any past or existing violation of any term of this Agreement. If contraband or a controlled substance manufactured, distributed, or acquired in violation of Minnesota law is seized in the Residence or on the Property incident to a lawful search or arrest, and if Tenant has no defense under Minnesota Statutes § 609.5317, Tenant shall have no further right to possession of the Residence, and Landlord may bring an eviction action against Tenant. If Landlord brings any legal action against Tenant, Landlord may collect its attorneys’ fees and court costs even if Rent is paid after the legal action is started.  Landlord shall comply with any notice requirements required under City of St. Paul Ordinances or applicable State or federal law, prior to terminating this Agreement and/or evicting Tenant.  For purposes of a Just Cause Notice, any violation of this Agreement that is not cured in the notice period stated in the Just Cause Notice shall be considered a material breach of this Agreement.
18. Consent to Video Surveillance. Tenant hereby acknowledges that Landlord may have surveillance cameras set up at the Property (but not within the Residence), including in the Common Areas, to help protect the safety of the residents of the Community and of the church employees, volunteers and members.  Tenant consents to video surveillance and waives any objection or legal claim based on a violation of Tenant's right to privacy.  
19. Termination on Death. The terms of this Agreement apply to Tenant only.  Upon the death of Tenant, this Agreement shall terminate at Landlord's option.
20. Agreement Subject to All Applicable Law; Each Provision is Separate. If any provision or portion of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, this Agreement shall be interpreted in a manner that most closely achieves the purposes of the Agreement in compliance with applicable law. If a portion is invalid or unenforceable, such event shall not affect, impair or render invalid or unenforceable the remainder of this Agreement.
21. Agreement is Subject to Mortgage. The property where the Community and Residence are located may be mortgaged or may be subject to a contract for deed. Tenant agrees that the rights of the holder of any present or future mortgage or contract for deed are and will be superior to Tenant’s rights. For instance, if a mortgage on the Property is foreclosed, the person who forecloses on the Property may, at their option, terminate this Agreement.
22. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and its attachments and exhibits make up the entire agreement between Tenant and Landlord. By signing below, Landlord and Tenant agree that no oral agreements of any kind exist; furthermore, only written agreements between Landlord and Tenant are binding on either party both now and for the duration of this Agreement.
23. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be deemed to be a contract made under the laws of the State of Minnesota.  By signing this Agreement below, Tenant also acknowledges that Landlord has notified Tenant pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 504B.181, subd. 2(b) that the Minnesota Attorney General's Office has published a Handbook for Tenants informing tenants of their rights and that such Handbook is available at the following website: www.ag.state.mn.us.

By signing this Agreement below, I am agreeing to be a contributing member of the Sacred Settlement Mosaic and contribute toward making it a safe, secure, clean and welcoming place to be.

THEREFORE, I AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING:

• I agree to comply with the Community Policies set forth in EXHIBIT A below.
• I agree to comply with the Common Areas and Property Use set forth in EXHIBIT B below.
• I agree to release and forever discharge the Landlord and Stewardship Team, their employees, agents, affiliates, and all people who might be claimed to be liable, from any claims, of any demands, damages, actions, causes of action or suits of any kind, which I know have or may have, arising out of or in any way related to any and all injuries and damages of any kind, to both person and property, and also any and all injuries and damages that may develop in the future, as a result of or in any way relating to living in this Residence and Community.
• I have read and fully understood the Agreement and I willingly and of sound mind sign this Agreement.

• I agree that a violation of this Agreement shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement.
  

Signature Page to Housing Agreement

Landlord and Tenant agree to the terms of this Agreement and any attachments or exhibits that may be made part of this Agreement.

LANDLORD:
Mosaic Christian Community
‍Signature: ___________________________
Date: _______________________________
(PRINT NAME)______________________

TENANT:
‍Signature: ___________________________
Date: _______________________________
(PRINT NAME)______________________

EXHIBIT A

Community Policies

‍

1. Penalties for Violations of Policies. Unless otherwise stated below, the penalties for violations of a policy will be as follows: Tenant’s first violation will result in a written warning. A subsequent violation will result in a $10 fine. Repeated violations may result in an additional $10 fine, and/or a mandatory meeting with Tenant and other residents of the Community and/or Stewardship Team. Repeated offenses may result in eviction from the Residence.

‍

2. Rent. Tenant must pay Rent on time. Fines must be paid first. If Tenant does not pay Rent on the due date, a late charge of $10 will be added after ten calendar days. Repeated offenses may result in eviction from the Residence.

‍

3. Cleanliness

1. Tenant must keep their home and surrounding area reasonably clean from dirt, debris, and clutter to maintain a healthy environment. All belongings need to be stored in Tenant’s Residence or designated personal storage areas in the Common Areas. In addition to the above penalties, repeated offenses may result in a required weekly or bi-weekly housekeeping at Tenant’s expense. Repeated offenses may also result in clutter being disposed of or moved to an offsite rental storage unit at the Tenant’s expense.
2. Tenant will dispose of trash by bagging it and disposing it in the designated dumpster.
3. Tenant will dispose of recycling in the designated dumpster.
4. Tenant will dispose of cigarette butts in the designated receptacle.
5. Tenant will dispose of greywater from the sink and black water according to the method which will be posted on the Community bulletin board.
6. Cars must have a permit and must be parked in a designated location. To get a permit, the car must be in working condition and Tenant must have insurance, registration, and a valid driver’s license. In addition to the above penalties, repeated violations may result in the car being towed at Tenant’s expense.
7. Tenant is required to inform the Landlord as soon as a known of a possible infestation in their residence (i.e. rodents, bedbugs, termites). The Landlord will be responsible for the cost of clean-up.

‍

4. Respect. Tenant will treat everyone with respect and dignity, including staff, hosts, guests, neighbors, and visitors.

1. Smoking and vaping are only permitted in designated outside areas when the windows and doors of the church are closed.  In addition to the above penalties, if Tenant smokes in their Residence, Tenant may be required to run the air filter for seven days.
2. Tenant may host guests during the day and must be with the guest if they are in the Common Areas. Once Tenant has been in good standing in the community for six months, Tenant may host one guest overnight in their Residence at a time for up to six nights during a month's time period.  Any minors (17 years old or under) staying overnight would need to have written permission from their guardian prior to the stay. Tenants may not charge their guests for their stay. To continue to be allowed to have overnight guests, Tenant must be in good standing in the Community.
3. Tenant is not permitted to solicit services for money through any means from the immediate neighborhood or guests of the community.
4. Tenant will observe Quiet Hours between 10pm and 7am to allow people to stay healthy and be well rested.
5. Tenant shall not act in a loud, boisterous, unruly or thoughtless manner or disturb the rights of other residents of the Community or neighbors of the Property to peace and quiet or allow Tenant’s guests to act in such a manner.

5. Safety. Tenant will help make this Community a place where everyone feels safe and respected.

1. Tenant may not use the Property or Residence for any unlawful activity.
2. Tenant may not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol outside their Residence.
3. Tenant may only consume alcohol in their Residence. Tenant may not be intoxicated outside their Residence.
4. Tenant may not threaten violence or display violence towards themselves or others. Anything picked up with the intent to harm or damage is considered a weapon. If Tenant is charged by law enforcement with a crime of violence, Tenant may be evicted immediately without a written warning or a fine.
5. Tenant shall keep the doorway of their Residence and at least one window clear for means egress in case of a fire.  
6. Tenant is only allowed to use electric lighting and heat in their Residence. Tenant may not use lit candles or propane inside the Residence.
7. Tenant shall take no action (including the use or storage in or near the Property of any flammable or explosive substance) that is dangerous or which would cause a cancellation, restriction or increase in the premium in Landlord’s insurance.
8. No additional locks may be installed on any door without the written permission of Landlord. Tenant will give Landlord a duplicate key for all locks installed at the Property prior to the time that the locks are installed. If Residence or Common Areas keys are lost, Tenant will be responsible for the cost of replacement. The Common Area key may only be used by the resident and may not be given to any guest.
9. With written permission of the Landlord, Tenant may have one pet per household, not to exceed 80 pounds. Tenant must pay a $100 animal deposit prior to bringing an animal on site. All animals must be spayed/neutered and have current vaccinations. Tenant must pick up after their pet and dispose of pet waste in the designated receptacle. Tenant must keep dogs controlled on leash outside of designated areas. Tenant may not leave dogs unattended outside. Pets are not allowed in the Common Areas.

‍

EXHIBIT B

Common Areas and Property Use

1. Common Areas and Access

1. Landlord will provide access to the Common Areas in the church building for Tenants and their guests.
2. Common Areas of the Community include the following areas located in the lower level of the church building: Kitchen, Fellowship Hall, Restrooms, Shower Room, Laundry Room, Lower-level foyer, Classroom 1, Classroom 2, Classroom 3, Classroom 4.  
3. The church building will remain locked with the exception of church events. Tenant will have access to the building at all times using a key fob to the building and may not give that key to anyone else.  Tenant will make sure the door is closed and locked when they leave. Guests must be accompanied by a member of the Community inside the building.
4. Tenant is expected to show respect to the Common Areas and Property by regularly cleaning up after themselves, disposing of trash, and notifying Landlord of any damage or needed maintenance.
5. Tenant will have access to a private storage compartment in the hallway of the lower-level foyer. If a Tenant needs additional storage space, they will ask permission from Landlord before storing their property in the church building.

1. Occasional Limited Access

1. Access to some Common Areas may be limited on occasion by the Landlord to accommodate Mosaic events and activities. Landlord will make every effort not to unnecessarily limit access and will reopen the Common Areas to Tenant as quickly as possible.
2. Prior to limiting access, Landlord will post notification on the Settlement bulletin board. Landlord will also post notification of any recurring events scheduled in the Common Areas.
3. Restroom and shower facilities will remain open to Tenant at all times.  

1. Requesting Permission for Use

1. Tenant may access the Common Areas at any time and do not need to sign up to use those spaces, as long as Landlord hasn’t posted a notice limiting access to an area.
2. Tenant will obtain permission from the Landlord before using an inside space that is not the Common Areas (including the sanctuary, upstairs foyer, and upstairs rooms).
3. Members may not access the church office or church storage rooms.

1. Outside Property

1. The Property refers to the outside portion of the larger church property next to the church building, and the area of the Settlement where the homes are located.  
2. Landlord may use the Property for Mosaic events and activities and may occasionally limit Tenant use of the parking lot and lawn next to the church building.
3. Tenant will have access to their Residence at all times.

1. Residence

1. Landlord and its agents may only enter a Tenant’s Residence if invited by the Tenant, or for any reason provided for in the Housing Agreement.
2. Tenant will get permission from the Landlord before storing any property outside their Residence, changing the landscape around the Residence, or putting up any additional structures outside the Residence.

‍

EXHIBIT C

Statement of Independence

Sacred Settlement Mosaic is an innovative program of Settled and Mosaic Christian Community. It is designed to provide independent, affordable, sustainable housing with dignity to those who have  experienced long term homelessness.

It is the expectation that all applicants will be able to live independently as single occupants, married couples, or established domestic partnership in a community environment. The occupant(s) will be expected to maintain a clean and orderly home. Community’s Stewardship Team will make random and periodic inspections to ensure the home is kept in an orderly fashion.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain extra support services and community resources as needed. Should this situation arise,  the Stewardship team will assist in identifying further support needed.

By signing this document, I attest that I am financially, physically and emotionally fit to live independently as set out above. All information provided is true and accurate. I understand that any inaccuracy or incomplete information provided could cause my application to be rejected.

Applicant’s Signature_________________________
Printed Name_______________________________ Date_____________

‍

EXHIBIT D

Sacred Settlement Mosaic Missional Agreement

Sacred Settlement Mosaic Mission:

Sacred Settlement Mosaic exists to provide a safe, hospitable neighborhood asset where all people, especially those who have experienced homelessness, feel a sense of belonging and are surrounded with loving, supporting people; where its inhabitants find a true sense of ‘home’ in affordable and sustainable tiny homes; by providing purposeful work to equip inhabitants in rediscovering their gifts and talents.

Sacred Settlement Mosaic elements of Missional Living:

1. Missional. The Missional Community claims personal gifts and attributes that they offer to its greater good. They set personal purposes and goals that are achievable at the Sacred Settlement; goals that establish the Sacred Settlement as a home both personally and for the community. It is their shared commitment to a life of mission in solidarity with the lives of the men and women of the Sacred Settlement that binds them to each other and to the collective flourishing of all.

‍

2. Visible. The Missional Community chooses to participate in volunteer opportunities and seeks ways to manifest their gifts at the Sacred Settlement. They recognize that their presence at Sacred Settlement events and in the homes of their neighbors is an important manifestation of their call. They readily join in relationships that are honest, transparent and life-giving.

‍

3. Committed. The Missional Community agrees to enter deliberately into the messiness of people’s lives. They devote themselves to personal growth and the common growth of the men and women of the Sacred Settlement. They strive to act in ways that are motivated by a full-bodied love for God manifested in heart, soul, and mind that spills over into a love of their neighbors equal to that God has placed in them.

‍

4. Accountable. The Missional Community believes that accountability is an integral part of a healthy community. They commit themselves to a spirit of support for the leadership at the Sacred Settlement. They supportively walk alongside their fellow mission community members so they can better live in a way that will promote the common good. They specifically commit to prioritizing a weekly gathering where they work out what it means to devote themselves to serving each other and the community at large. Each missional neighbor is accountable to the organization and the entire missional community. Missional residents are accountable to follow through with their promises of relationship and care of Sacred Settlement residents.

‍

Mosaic Christian Community Mission:

Mosaic Christian Community, a ministry of the Church of the Nazarene, exists to mobilize and equip the community of Christ into a lifestyle of hospitality. We are dedicated to joining with God and our neighbors in making the East Side a safe, peaceful, loving community.

Mosaic Christian Community elements:

1. We are a Christian people. As members of the Church Universal, and a mission of the Church of the Nazarene (Articles of Faith), we join with all true believers in proclaiming the Lordship of Jesus Christ and in affirming the historic Trinitarian creeds and beliefs of the Christian faith. We value our Wesleyan-Holiness heritage and believe it to be a way of understanding the faith that is true to Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. We are united with all believers in proclaiming the Lordship of Jesus Christ. We believe that in divine love God offers to all people forgiveness of sins and restored relationships. In being reconciled to God, we believe that we are also to be reconciled to one another, loving each other as we have been loved by God and forgiving each other as we have been forgiven by God. We believe that our life together is to exemplify the character of Christ. We ask that missionals live a lifestyle that is in respect of the Nazarene Christian Conducts.

‍

2. We are a Missional people. We are a sent people, responding to the call of Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit to go into all the world, witnessing to the Lordship of Christ and participating with God in the building of the Church and the extension of His kingdom (Matthew 28:19-20; 2 Corinthians 6:1). Our mission begins in worship,  ministers to the world in evangelism and compassion, encourages believers toward Christian maturity through discipleship, and prepares women and men for Christian service through Christian higher education.

‍

3. We are a Holiness people. God, who is holy, calls us to a life of holiness. We believe that the Holy Spirit seeks to do in us a second work of grace, called by various terms including "entire sanctification" and "baptism with the Holy Spirit" — cleansing us from all sin, renewing us in the image of God, empowering us to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbors as ourselves, and producing in us the character of Christ. Holiness in the life of believers is most clearly understood as Christlikeness. Because we are called by Scripture and drawn by grace to worship God and to love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbors as ourselves, we commit ourselves fully and completely to God, believing that we can be "sanctified wholly," as a second crisis experience. We believe that the Holy Spirit convicts, cleanses, fills, and empowers us as the grace of God transforms us day by day into a people of love, spiritual discipline, ethical and moral purity, compassion, and justice. It is the work of the Holy Spirit that restores us in the image of God and produces in us the character of Christ.

‍

Invitation to Mosaic Missional Role

As a Missional to Sacred Settlement Mosaic, Mosaic Christian Community welcomes you as family! Our facility and families are open to your needs, concerns and input. We thank God for you and are ecstatic to have you reside with us. Our activities, festivals and celebrations are all at your leisure and we would invite you to join us as you are able. Here are just a few things that we do annually and would love to see you partner with us in:  Easter Eggstravagaza, summer block parties, Trunk ‘n’ Treat, Toys for Tots.

We can't wait to see how God will use you (and your family) in partnership with Mosaic Christian Community to bring glory to Himself. Welcome!

Expectations of Mosaic Christian Community and Missionals with regard to our relationship:

Mosaic Christian Community commits to:

• Encouraging Missionals in their faith. We recognize Missionals have their own faith communities and we will support missionals' growth with their church. We will also encourage Missionals in their faith by offering times of prayer, worship and spiritual growth resources with the Mosaic faith community.

• Maintaining open communication with Missionals, which includes resolving disputes in a biblical manner.
• Maintaining an open invitation to Missionals to all Mosaic events and services.

Missionals commit to:

• Engaging with the Mosaic community by participating in community events and services as the Missionals are able (ideally at least once a month).
• Maintaining open communication with Mosaic, which includes resolving disputes in a biblical manner.
• Informing the leadership if the no long ascribe by the Settled tenets and the Statement of Faith (Apostle’s Creed).
  

‍

Statement of Agreement

As a Missional called to Sacred Settlement Mosaic, we have read the above and are in alignment with the Sacred Settlement Mosaic mission and tenets of missional living. We agree to the above expectations with regards to our relationship. We further agree that, in the event that we do not wish to continue in the missional role or if the Stewardship team finds that we are not making good faith efforts to fulfill our commitment to the four tenets of missional living, then we agree to work cooperatively with Mosaic to allow Mosaic to find a replacement Tenant to take our place in the Community.  In such event, we agree that the Landlord may terminate this Housing Agreement.

Name: _______________________________________
Date: _______________

‍

Name: _______________________________________
Date: _______________

Name: _______________________________________
Date: _______________

‍

‍

‍

Sacred Settlement Mosaic Good Neighbor Agreement

‍

Mosaic Christian Community is dedicated to joining with our neighbors in making the East Side a safe, peaceful, loving community. We strive to make the Sacred Settlement a Neighborhood Asset for all.

Residents of the Sacred Settlement and their guests agree to:

Cleanliness:

• Residents will keep the property and each home reasonably clean and free of clutter, cigarette butts, and trash.
• All vehicles permanently parked on the Mosaic property will be registered, insured, and in working order.

‍

Respect:

• Residents will not panhandle within two miles of the church property.
• Residents and their guests will not display loud or disruptive behavior.
• Residents will abide by Quiet Hours between 10pm-7am.
• Residents will not sublet their lease agreement.

‍

Safety:

• Residents will not use or store any flammable or explosive substances.
• Residents will follow civil law.
• All residents will have gone through an interview, background check, and application process.

‍

Because good relationships are reciprocal, we invite Neighbors surrounding Mosaic to:

• Come to community events and get to know your new neighbors! Check out the events calendar at MosaicStPaul.org

• Direct any concerns or questions to Mosaic first. Contact:
  ‍Unlawful behavior should be reported to the police.

The majority of the work that is done by Neighbor Care to build community among people within the village is small in nature. It is in these small acts that a big difference is made, staff emphasizes. Here are some of those ways.

Know every person by name.
It’s such a small thing, but when you don’t have that for sometimes years it feels really important (MLF Staff).

Move people in slowly.
This allows community members the opportunity to meet every person.

Move people in one at a time.
On an individual’s move-in day, it’s all about them.

Continually learn about residents.
Learn their interests, desires, goals, and favorite things to best serve, connect, and empower them.

Offering and requiring respect.

Everybody has their own story, but when we stand next to each other we have less differences. We are more alike. We both deserve respect. We both deserve dignity. We both have baggage, mine just looks a little different.

Respect is mutual.
“When you talk to me like that it makes me feel really disrespected.” I feel empowered to say that to a neighbor after they have calmed down. Neighbors come in all the time and apologize. Being honest with them is part of offering them that dignity to say how you treat me matters because you matter to me. You’re not just a nobody who can yell at me. It’s a friend yelling at me.

Extend grace and mercy.
But also help people to own their behavior and their decisions. There’s a difference between letting someone walk all over you and say, ‘Oh but you were homeless so you can’t control it, I’m going to let you talk to me however you want.’ That’s condescending, it’s not empowering them, it’s actually furthering the cycle of, ‘You are lesser than me.’

Know when to have crucial conversations.
In the heat of the moment it isn’t appropriate to point out a neighbor’s bad behavior because they’re not going to be able to recognize it then.

Healing takes time.
Two years compared to 30 years on the streets is just a drop in the bucket to just be totally healed and ready to be engaged in community the way you want them to be. I think time is going to be such a gift out here.

Holistic care is the goal at CF!V

• Cultural Competency Training
  Staff and missionals are offered extensive training to understand the homeless population, cultivating a sensitivity to the things they struggle with and offering ways to support them best. Community members are knowledgeable about signs of drug use, what the drugs look like and how much they cost, mental health disorders, symptoms, and harm reduction techniques, transsexual competencies and beyond.
• Healthcare Navigation
  A healthcare navigator is available to help neighbors take the confusing pieces of navigating healthcare and walk them through the process.
• Recovery Support Specialist
  This specialist helps to create a culture of recovery within the community by navigating all the pieces at play, coordinating supportive service partners, and building trusted relationships with neighbors to connect them with the help they need and want. MLF interfaces with professional services available both on and off-site, as well as promotes opportunities for classes and support groups within the community.
• Mental Health
  Professional mental health provider has a satellite office in the village staffed with trained specialists including five caseworkers, team RN, RN supervisor for all health and homeless services, psychiatric prescriber, program manager, and peer rehab specialist. When a neighbor is in a mental crisis the issue is addressed jointly with MLF. Many neighbors have chosen an on-site case manager which allows for counseling conversation to happen in conjunction with RC and PM for comprehensive attention and care.  
• Physical Health
  A mobile team comes out twice a week offering walk-in and in-home care to residents. Respite care is also available on-site.
• Substance Use Disorder
  Professional addiction services are offered through a partner organization with a satellite office within the community. Services are available along the spectrum of recovery to accommodate the desires and needs of neighbors from low-level classes and support groups to intensive in-patient programs where a neighbor’s rent is paid for while they are in rehab.
• Emergency Services
  MLF builds partnerships and informed relationships with local Emergency Rooms, Hospitals, Ambulance providers, and EMS responders, permeating a community-first approach within the broader community and with those agencies which engage with village neighbors on any semi-regular and regular basis.
• Law Enforcement
  MLF works hard to change law enforcement’s view of the homeless as well as formerly homeless neighbors’ who most often have had negative interactions with law enforcement. They do this by continually inviting local police to the community to walk around and get to know neighbors.

‍

We’re changing the paradigm that every time law enforcement shows up something bad happens. When the crisis team is out here, they are the ones that are going to take someone by force. In between calls they know to come out to the village and get to know folks, giving them their cards, shaking hands, so that when a crisis occurs it’s a familiar face. Anywhere you can create those relationships outside of your own space, whether it’s law enforcement, police departments, sheriff, judges, constables, is important! Creating those relationships have been absolutely vital to the community. (MLF Staff)

I was talking with the sheriff and he said, ‘I love this place!’ And I asked him, ‘Why would you say that? I thought we were a burden to you; we call you every day.’ And he says, ‘We have about 25% of the normal calls we would have for this demographic and for this density. So, if you put this demographic into an apartment complex, we have 25% of the calls we would have in that scenario because you’re policing yourself, you’re caring for one another, you’re getting them to the doctors. You’re doing all the things that you need to do as part of a community so we don’t have to intercede as much.’ (CF!V Missional)

CF!V has several microenterprise programs that serve the village and provide employment opportunities for those who are interested. Below is a brief description of each program. Positions are reserved for applicants who have been approved for housing or are currently housed in the village. Volunteer opportunities are available otherwise.

GENESIS GARDENS We’ve been blessed with several acres of gardens on our property. From the planting, tending, harvesting, and distributing of fruits and vegetables to the care for the different animals at Community First!, there are opportunities for residents to get involved in every level of the gardens.

FORGE & WOODWORKING SHOP Through blacksmithing, woodturning and most everything in between, those who are involved in the Community First! Forge are engaged in a new, restorative journey toward social contribution, financial stability, and a mastery of handcrafting skills.

THE ART HOUSE The Art House provides art opportunities to a unique, highly talented group of artists from the streets. If you are interested in art, the Art House is the place for you. Our artists have the opportunity to earn a dignified income from the sales of their work.

CONCESSIONS & CATERING We have a number of opportunities for residents to work in the concessions trailer at Community First!. Whether it be at a movie night, or at a catered event, we have several ways to get involved with the serving of concessions.