Homelessness in New York City is a unique issue. The political and economic environment of the city has produced policies that continue pushing around the problem, but not directly facing it. Although homelessness in New York comes with its own set of challenges, studying past and present policy can help to better understand it and develop new proposals to move forward.

History
            Around the 1980s, the homeless population experienced a large demographic shift. Prior to that time, the typical homeless person was a substance abuser, white, and male.¹ After New York shut down numerous mental health institutions in 1975, a flood of patients was released and they often ended up homeless.¹ At the same time the economic gap in the city was growing, and as a result children and families also ended up in the streets for the first time. This marked the new age of homelessness due to poverty.
In 1981, a monumental court case known as Callahan vs. Carey established the right to shelter in New York City, the only city with this mandate.² This forced politicians to take on the issue more directly and has been a major policy shaper since it passed. Mayor Ed Koch made it illegal to sleep outside on freezing nights and eventually reshaped the shelter system into barrack style housing to eliminate those taking advantage of the system for free housing.¹ Afterward Mayor David Dinkins challenged Koch with a more comprehensive policy but he cut back on his promises due to lack of funding.¹ Mayor Rudi Giuliani introduced harsher policies, arresting homeless people and sending them to shelters, limiting time in temporary housing, and increasing requirements to get into the system.¹
Mayor Bloomberg proposed a much more ambitious plan designed to cut homelessness by two thirds in five years.²   While it did reduce the number of homeless individuals, the number of homeless families increased because of poor planning and the 2008 recession. He also instituted assistance for families on the brink of homelessness and subsidies for recent exits of the system. However, most families who received the subsidy saw a reduction in welfare and increased income from new job placement caused them to lose assistance, making them unable to afford housing. In 2011 funding was cut from the program and as many as 10,000 new families became homeless since nothing was created to replace it.²

Methods
In attempts to get a full understanding of this issue, our group made it a priority to engage by getting a first-hand experience with the community and those involved in the current housing system.  Observing the discussions at the Community Board 11 Meetings was crucial to gain perspective on the homelessness predicament in the East Harlem neighborhood specifically, as explained by local officials, community members, and activist groups.  Working with Picture the Homeless was another major strategy in searching for the best possible solutions.  With the organization, we visited a current cluster-site in the Bronx, met with several families and heard their heart-rending frustrations with the housing system. We saw personally the dilapidation of the sites, and then continued a dialogue with them on what they, the first-hand victims of this system, see as the most necessary future actions.
Our team of eight divided our research into three phases. Phase one consisted of preliminary research into the topic of homelessness in New York City and what Picture the Homeless is. We spent about two and a half weeks in phase one as we scoured through online sources to understand the nature and scope of the problem. To conclude phase one, our team arranged the first meeting with PTH where they formally introduced themselves and their goals.  Members from our team went to PTH’s office to discuss what specific policy recommendations they were pushing for.
Phase two focused on researching more into the history of NYC policy in handling homelessness and how the current administration is handling the current crisis. Phase two lasted about a month, during which PTH invited our team to visit cluster-sites and got to interview a couple of the residents. Most of our research was in reading newspaper articles, case studies, and especially looking into community land trusts. We focused a lot of our efforts on finding proposed solutions to the homeless problem at the advice of PTH, but also in our online research.
Lastly, phase three was our two-week wrap up session. We met with PTH for our third and final meeting to discuss our team’s action plan. PTH gave us specific directions as to how they would like us to create our public engagement piece. It was suggested that we create a trifold brochure that can be passed out as reading material. Our team has already split the tasks accordingly. One section of the brochure will address the current crisis for the general public, the other section we’ll list the goals of PTH, and the third section will encompass information on shelter-sites and rent-stabilized housing.

Current Policies
The current homelessness policy of New York City is maintained by the Department of Homeless Services (DHS). This department aims to “provide temporary, emergency shelter when needed; and to help individuals and families transition rapidly into permanent housing.”³ In terms of funding, the DHS operates with an open-ended Request for Proposal process. With this process, “nonprofit social services providers submit proposals to open shelters in neighborhoods throughout New York City, as needed to meet demand.” A committee from the department then approves the proposal, and once it is approved, Community Board meetings and meetings with local elected officials must take place in order to “address any community issues and concerns.” If there is a general consensus about allowing the building of a new shelter, then it is opened in that neighborhood. DHS also encourages the current residents of the community to welcome the incoming homeless people as neighbors who are overcoming personal crises.
Bill de Blasio also launched the “Living in Communities (LINC) Rent Program,”⁴ in which rent assistance is provided to homeless families who have been living in emergency shelters the longest. The enrolled tenants would have to pay thirty percent of the rent and the subsidy would pay the rest. This program is exclusive to people whose situations seem most dire, such as a homeless person over age sixty who is constantly in and out of shelters. Due to limited funding, not everyone is deemed eligible for the program. LINC has also gotten off to a slow start since it launched in January, so the mayor is offering an incentive to landlords who provide the apartments. “As a landlord, you have an opportunity to fill vacancies in your building and receive a $1,000 bonus from New York City,” de Blasio says in an interview recording with NY Post.⁵ This policy is different from that of the DHS because it is aimed to incorporate the homeless back into the general population by having them live within neighborhoods, surrounded by other families, which is meant to motivate them to maintain their financial stability. Even with these current policies, homelessness is still an overwhelming problem in the city. Although no one is turned away from receiving a place to sleep for the night, the homeless are forced to wait on long lines to enter overcrowded shelters.

Cluster-Site Shelters
Homeless families comprise about four-fifths of the homeless shelter population, or 14,524 homeless families.⁶ The current policy to address these outrageous numbers is a program referred to as cluster-site shelters. Cluster-sites were conceived in the 2000s and are similar to the welfare hotels concept that was used to house homeless families back in the 1980s and 1990s. Cluster-sites were only supposed to be a temporary solution to the lack of Tier II shelters, which could not be contracted fast enough to combat the growing problem of homelessness in New York City. Tier II shelters are apartments for families eligible for shelter and are the most common type of housing available to the homeless population.
Back in 2011, when the New York City Department of Homeless Services issued 9,000 units to house homeless people, only 5,000 of them were Tier II.  The DHS requires that shelter families adhere to certain responsibilities listed under the Client Responsibility Rules. In some instances, these rules prohibit guests and extended family from visiting, even during the holidays.⁷ Failure to comply would potentially result in eviction.
The Department of Homeless Services spent $360 million dollars in the year 2014 in their homeless-shelter apartment endeavor. While the amount of money being put into this effort may seem like a positive thing, the most recent reports show that a large amount of the funding is being wasted. The city of New York pays roughly “$2,450 a month for cluster site apartments,” despite the fact that the average rent in these neighborhoods was is closer to $1,200.⁸ This is mainly due to the fact that the department is forced to negotiate prices with private owners, who have the ability to set their own rates. A prime example of this system abuse is found in the Podolsky family, who owns a significant amount of shelter housing real estate funded by the city. In the last four years this family has been able to generate 90 million dollars worth of rent revenue by exploiting New York City’s shelter system.⁹
One can argue that perhaps generating revenue from running private shelters may be justified if families are being helped off of the street. An underlying problem, however, is the fact that the Department of Homeless Services, despite investing millions of dollars, has not been enforcing a reasonable standard of living for these shelters. If private owners are receiving a significant amount of money from the city for housing the homeless, they must follow the basic living standards that any other landlord is legally obligated to provide, but this isn’t happening.
This month, the DOI completed a year-long investigation into 5 cluster site shelters in the Bronx and Brooklyn.¹⁰ Their conclusions were that of all types of shelters, the cluster-site shelters were the most badly-maintained, the least secure, and offered the least adequate social services to families. In these five shelters, they found 223 total violations from the Department of Buildings.
Fire Department, and Housing Preservation and Development.¹⁰ These included things like rats and roaches in the apartments, holes in the walls, uncovered radiators, trash bags piled in the halls, exposed electrical wiring, and broken windows, elevators, and appliances. There were also serious security concerns. Residents and guests are supposed to sign in and out with a guard, but this wasn’t enforced. Some buildings didn’t have guards, and at multiple locations the inspector found the front door unlocked. One building in Brooklyn had 100 NYPD complaints in the past two years, and residents said they didn’t leave their apartments after dark because they felt so unsafe. Residents also weren’t receiving the services to help them get out of the shelter system that the city says it provides. Only 10% of the case files that were selected for review in the Bronx showed any progress towards independent housing, and 87% were missing the Independent Living Plans that are supposed to be completed biweekly. Many residents said they didn’t have caseworkers, and had to travel long distances to meet with anyone about their case.¹⁰
The violations that the inspection reports account for are only a small portion of a corrupt system. The magnitude of the issues in the shelter system can be emotionally understood through the stories and opinions of the homeless individuals in the system. Many of these stories demonstrate the maltreatment of these individuals and their families. They are consistently viewed as another disposable homeless family. These homeless families also note that their landlords for their cluster site ignore their requests for repairs and that the negligence of the apartment building as a whole has also been of harm to them. In the opinion of one cluster-site resident, a single mother of six, “You are made to feel like a criminal simply because of how the system is run.” It’s important to note that she believes the “condition of the shelter system and its rules that deny basic comforts fail to empower New York City’s most vulnerable population to get back on its feet.”⁷
Many families also complain about the efforts of the shelter agencies that arrange their temporary residences. One family reported that they felt that their needs were regarded as less important that those of individuals who have been sheltered for many years prior to their induction in the system. The efforts of these agencies to provide services to the homeless should be directed towards the newly registered homeless peoples. Because these individuals are more recently considered homeless, their ability to transition out of the shelter system is more feasible. When compared to a family who has been sheltered for 7 years, one can become very skeptical of how they remain in this position. Of course, this issue has many layers. New policies should be applied to provide a more seamless transition back out of the shelter system. In addition, another family reported that they were being requested for eviction merely one week after the death of their father. There are consistent complaints about the lack of humanity in those who run shelter systems, especially from the business end. The attitudes of those housed in the shelter system need to be fully understood by those who run these shelters. Their cries for help from negligence and maltreatment must be heard so that changes can occur.
The roots of these problems are easy to point out, but difficult to solve. The pressure for economic growth creates ever-increasing land values that make housing unaffordable, which makes families homeless. As the system currently stands, private owners have a majority of the power when it comes to housing the homeless. The city of New York is forced to negotiate and pay owners in order to utilize private apartments, simply because the city government does not own enough property on its own. Since the privately owned cluster site system is spread out in various parts of the city, the Department of Homeless Services does not have the resources to consistently check up on all of these sites and make sure they are being maintained to their standards of living. With private owners in control it is easy for the government to waste money overpaying for apartments that are inadequate for families.

Solutions
When looking at this issue of abuse and neglect from the policy standpoint, one simple change is clearly necessary. The city government currently does not publicize shelter addresses or their private owners. This policy allows for landlords, such as the Podolsky family, to get away with making an unreasonable profit from housing the homeless. The city should be required to create and maintain a current and accurate database where anyone can look up the addresses and owners of all shelters, along with how much the city is paying them. Allowing for a more democratic and transparent system when it comes to funding privately owned shelters is essential because it will allow the information regarding owners and building to be put out in the open, and provide a forum for any injustice or exploitations to be brought to life. For Picture the Homeless and organizations like them, this tool would be very useful in organizing efforts. The individuals and families who are going to reside in the privately owned housing have the right to weigh in on the decisions made regarding funding and living conditions.
One of the greatest fears of someone involved in the shelter system or other current forms of “affordable housing” is that they have no rights, no voice in their living situations, and no security of tenure.¹¹ If the defining characteristics of a community are personal commonalities, interdependence, and a collective capacity for growth, then solutions that instill human value and let the local community control its land and growth are what are best to ensure that the future development is based on what is most needed and desired.¹²  These principles are embodying in the following several suggestions for progress away from the current shelter system.
The 7A Program is a government takeover of abandoned properties that pose health and safety hazards to their tenants. The court chooses a new manager, usually a housing management company with experience, to take over the building, make repairs, and collect rents.  Sometimes the program allots financial assistance to pay for the repairs and management of the building. There is a rather rigorous application and selection process that attempts to limit a repeated mismanagement. This program often results in the owners relinquishing the buildings, since the process is so expensive for them. This program could be useful in reclaiming cluster cites in poor conditions from slumlords and turning them over to non-for profit organizations. Policy recommendations for this program are to redefine what classifies the building as “in hazardous condition.” If they are turned over to experienced managers before their condition deteriorates further, a large investment in repairs can be avoided and the process streamlined as a whole. ¹³
Community Growth Corporations aim to take underutilized and unoccupied spaces and develop them for desired uses, such as affordable housing.¹⁴ Outer boroughs would leverage the air rights, allowing them to use this money to finance improvements in a city where open land is rare to come by.  Excess floor area ratio (FAR) is auctioned, and then exchanged for CGC shares.  With new regulations, this land (such as rooftops or backyards) which would normally go unused, can be repurposed for necessity and absorb greater density.  This exchange of shares puts landowners in control, with investments that go right back into maintenance of the housing.  All residents thus are able to gain shares, and this way, not only is the future of these units staying in community control, but the returns go back to the land itself.  Similar to CLTs, this puts the land in community control, but also creates a system of funding that ensures that money goes directly into the housing itself rather than to a private owner for profit.
Policies regarding an allocation of funding and power, though moderately radical, can start to be more seamlessly adapted if first smaller steps are made to assuage the bigger picture.  There are many abuses of the housing system, and actions such as rent freezes for stabilized units, speaking out against AirBnB as their presence drives up housing costs and takes housing stock, stop Section 8 housing from downsizing, and ensuring lower rent for the disabled and seniors who have no income to pay high housing costs. Another part of the problem is that the number of rent-stabilized apartments that are declining, which correlates to an increase in the amount of homeless people in New York City. This issue is caused in part by vacancy deregulation, in which an apartment qualifies for permanent rent deregulation if it is vacated without coercion from the landlord and had a rent of $2500 per month.¹⁵ Therefore, this is an incentive for landlords to push out their tenants in order to increase the rent afterwards, which results in a larger homeless population. A possible solution is repealing the Urstadt Law that would repeal vacancy deregulation and give more control over rent regulation to the city instead of to New York State, which would allow greater efforts to be made to preserve affordable housing.¹⁶ Moreover, if affordable housing is preserved, then cluster-sites can be converted to permanent housing more smoothly versus if rents continue to increase, which contributes to increased homelessness.
In an era where real estate is highly contested and the current solutions to homelessness are inadequate, providing affordable housing has never been so crucial. Community land trusts offer the most promising alternative since they permanently remove land from the speculative market and lease it to non-profit organizations committed to providing affordable housing for families in needs¹⁷. With boards that consist equally of affordable housing residents, community members, and various urban planners and government representatives, community land trusts don’t only serve as liaisons between politicians and the community, but also place great emphasis on the longevity, accessibility, and stability of affordable housing; an emphasis that isn’t hindered by gentrification or any speculative pressure.¹⁸ Moreover, community land trust models offer considerable flexibility in terms of subsidy dependence.¹¹ Cooper Square, a slowly gentrifying neighborhood in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, offers a prime example of the benefits offered by community land trusts. Ever since its foundation in 1991, the Cooper Square Mutual Housing Association (MHA) has continued to provide affordable housing units to families earning 30-45% of Area Median Income (AMI) and has slightly increased rent only once in 1994.¹¹ Although maintaining low prices for residential units may seem irrational- for instance $431 for a 2-bedroom apartment instead of the market value of $2200- the method, when compared to affordable housing accommodated by private developers, ultimately saves the city a considerable amount of money in terms of subsidies allotted to individual households. More specifically, with less money directed towards costly rent, “the Cooper Square units cost on average $1,900 per year in subsidies compared to over $3-5,000 for the Partnership [private] units.” ¹¹
It might be difficult to imagine how homeless people could afford to live in a CLT on very low or no income, but it is very possible. A survey of CLTs that Picture the Homeless did with City College in 2011¹⁹ studied urban CLTs and MHAs all over the country to look at how they were founded and run. 70% of them housed formerly homeless people, and 18% had housing set aside specifically for housing the homeless. They did this by getting money from places besides tenants paying rent. They got funding through government housing assistance programs, foundation grants, and renting out commercial space in the buildings. Some of them also charged higher rents to some tenants to subsidize other tenants. Through these methods, 65% were able to house families that made less than 20,000 a year. This shows that CLTs can be a housing solution for all people.
It is therefore apparent that the existence of stable and affordable housing directly correlates with the growth of community land trusts in New York City.  Furthermore, the acquisition of land should be central for the expansion of community land trust networks. One way how the city could expand the community land trust system is by essentially increasing the amount of properties that are available through the Third Party Transfer Program (TPT). Although a considerable amount of land is acquired from the Third Party Transfer program, most of the properties are identified as “physically distressed” that inevitably entail costly repairs for the organizations that lease them.¹⁸   However, with the city adopting the Alternative Enforcement Program (AEP), the owners of such precarious buildings can be fined for neglecting such hazardous conditions and could eventually see their properties in the hands of the Third Party Transfer Program as a result of unpaid repair bills.¹⁸ Additionally, the utilization of specific task forces could allow for the identification of many more buildings that are not as distressed as the ones currently flowing through the Third Party Transfer Program but still eligible for community land trust procurement. By identifying and penalizing both seriously and moderately distressed buildings, the pool of properties available to community land trusts will be significantly augmented.
Neighborhoods like East Harlem need to be seen as environments that can be shaped over time by the aspirations and needs of their inhabitants to influence positive development.  Putting the power in the hands of the people isn’t just righteous, it’s also intuitive.  New York is currently amidst a social divide where funds are invested in the expanding luxury sector despite a growing need for middle and low-income housing.  The evidence is in the numbers; 60,000 homeless people in New York are currently living in shelters, 40,000 of which are in families, and 20,000 are children.⁶ The stigma most people assign to the homeless is ignorant; they are people who want to escape poverty and need a chance to advance.  Those stuck in this predicament aren’t demanding a long list of programs, handouts, or funding, or asking for much at all.  The first step is to get the homeless a home.

CITATIONS

1) Jeantet, Diane. “A Brief History of Homelessness in New York.” City Limits. Institute for Non-Profit News, 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.

2) “Callahan v. Carey.” Callahan v. Carey, No. 79-42582 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County, Cot. 18, 1979). International Network for Economic, Social & Cultural Rights, 05 Dec. 1975. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.

3) “NYC Department of Homeless Services.” NYC. Gov, 2015. 31 March 2015. Web. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/dhs/html/about/about.shtml>

4) “Living in Communities.” New Destiny Housing Co. 2015. 31 March 2015. Web. <http://www.newdestinyhousing.org/get-help/living-in-communities-linc>

5) Gartland, Michael. “De Blasio Offers Landlords Cash for Housing Homeless Families.” New York Post. 30 March 2015. Web. <http://nypost.com/2015/03/20/de-blasio-offers-landlords-cash-for-housing-homeless-families/>

6) “Basic Facts About Homelessness: New York City.” Coalition for the Homeless. 2015. 31 March 2015. Web. <http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/basic-facts-about-homelessness-new-york-city/>

7) Bah, Abdulai. “New York City’s homeless find little comfort in shelter system.” Aljazeera America. 30 March 2015. 31 March 2015. Web.<http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/fault-lines/articles/2015/3/30/new-york-citys-homeless-find-more-discomfort-in-shelter-system.html>

8) Peltz, Jennifer. “Study finds rats, rot, deplorable conditions at New York City-run homeless shelters.” Online. 12 March 2015. 31 March 2015. Web. <http://7online.com/news/study-finds-rats-rot-deplorable-conditions-at-nyc-run-homeless-shelters/555175/>

9) Rice, Andrew. “Why Run A Slum If You Can Make More Money Housing Homeless People?” New Yorker. 1 December 2013. 31 March 2015. Web. <http://nymag.com/news/features/podolsky-homeless-shelters-2013-12/index5.html>

10) Peters, Mark G. “Probe of Department of Homeless Services’ Shelters for Families with Children Finds Serious Deficiencies.” New York City Department of Investigation. March 2015. Web. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doi/downloads/pdf/2015/mar15/pr08dhs_31215.pdf

11) Angotti, Tom. “Community Land Trusts and Low-Income Multifamily Rental Housing: The Case of Cooper Square, New York City.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy(2007): Lincoln Institute. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. <http://nyccli.inq13.gc.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2013/09/Angotti.Cooper-Square-CLT-case-study.pdf>.

12) DeRienzo, Harold. “Community Organizing for Power and Democracy: Lessons Learned from a LIfe in the Trenches.” Power and Democracy: Lessons Learned. Ed. DeFilippis, James, and Susan Saegert. New York: Routledge, 2012. 244-248. Pdf.

13)  “7A Management Program.” Requirements to Qualify as a 7A Administrator. N.p., n.d. WEb. 29 Apr. 2015

14) “Uneven Growth: Community Growth Corporation (CGC).” Situ Studio. 20 November 2014. 31 March 2015. Web.

15) New York State Homes and Community Renewal. Fact Sheet #36: High-Rent Vacancy and Regulation and High-Rent High-Income Deregulation. 2, The Official Website of New York State, 20 January 2014. Web. 31 March 2015.

16) “Real Affordability for All: An Affordable Housing Policy Platform for Mayor de Blasio.” April 2014. Web. 31 March 2015. <http://coalhome.3cdn.net/1b1d743c30b064ba1a_y7m6bnd7e.pdf>

17) Ansanelli, Sean et al. “Community Land Trusts In New York City.” (2012): Community Land Trust Network, May 2012. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. <http://cltnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2012-CLTs-in-NYC.pdf>.

18) Wilner, Claudia. “Oversight Hearing – Building Homes, Preserving Communities: A First Look at the Mayor’s Affordable Housing Plan” Testimony before the New York City Council Committee on Housing and Buildings and the Committee on Land Use. NYC Community Land Initiative. November 17, 2014. Web. 25 April 2015.

19) City College and Picture the Homeless. “National Survey of Community Land Trusts and Mutual Housing Associations.” Picture the Homeless Fact Sheet. Fall 2011. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

Project Goals
This project aims to establish the issues surrounding the homelessness crisis in New York, and using those, research and analyze different policy recommendations involving a full understanding of the different authorities that currently uphold the complex, and who should be given the power instead.  This week centered on clarifying the main question of how that power-play is currently structured, and why the city may be investing so much in a strategy that causes more harm than good.

Project Design/Strategy & Key Activities
In attempts to finish the white paper, we all have been working to clarify most of our data. We have a firm understanding of the historical roots of the issue from a vicissitude of readings and texts, thus the historical context and current predicament are well debated and comprehended in the context of New York. In the white paper, we have been researching more into expanding on the root issues with cluster sites, including private owners and their control, the lack of organization of regulations of standards, etc.   Further research was also put into an organization of the cluster side violations, which have been put into a spreadsheet, listed out by location, and filled in with the various code violations from the recent Department of Buildings Information System report.

The nitty-gritty comes in with policies, mainly, trying to dive deeper into why certain policies are still in commission when they are clearly not doing as much good as others could be in their substitute. Change is not instant, but it is inevitable, and the question of when is very pressing, now more than ever, and increasingly as this homelessness issue starts to grow in magnitude. It’s very difficult to dig into these more covered-up processes, and since the majority of funds are given to private developers, and those records are not published, it makes the system difficult to track. However, we have focused efforts on instead trying to elucidate the processes towards solutions better suited to the problem, such as CGCs, but primarily CLTs.

Also, with Model City Council this weekend, we have been thinking about how to structure our presentation and somewhat collectively agreed that we need visuals and a PowerPoint presentation to present a well-rounded analysis and extrapolation of homelessness. Since our project decided to focus on how we got here, the here and now, and policy recommendations, the presentation will follow this chronology of evolution and end in our suggestions for the policy we support (CLTs) as well as an outline of how these work, since that seems to be the primary source of confusion. Clarifying this policy will help people not only to see how wrong the current state is, but also to see how the power needs to shift into the hands of the community. This is a rather ingenious policy, but a lot gets lost in translation with the many characters and circumstances of the land and its ownership. Perhaps a visual flow chart, or graphic, will be utilized to trace the timeline of necessary events and transactions.

With the brochure, much of our information will be re-directed verbally as if speaking to one of the three audiences; shelter residents, rent-stabilized residents, and the general public.  All can relate to and understand the historical context, but since the policies are regarding the current structure, it is important that each group sees how the system is affecting them directly, and how it could be better.

Work Plan:
– working on presentation materials
– SATURDAY 5/2: Model City Council
– MONDAY 5/4: meeting with Picture the Homeless
– MONDAY 5/11: presentation to Picture the Homeless (have draft of pop-ed brochures to present for feedback)
-MONDAY 5/18: submit final pop-ed piece

Proposed Deliverables:
– White Paper – all
– Pop-education piece (jobs previously assigned)
– pamphlet & website design
– pamphlet info
– Presentation boards/powerpoint:
-based on who did what for the white paper, consolidating this information into a short speech and choosing appropriate graphics and summarized text.