May 15, 2006 1

Report to the Board of Selectman

Social Service PILOT and

Comparative Impact Study Committee

May 15, 2006 2

Agenda• Recommendations• Findings• Conclusions

May 15, 2006 3

Human Service Coordinator• Create Professional position as advocate for

Framingham in the social service delivery system• Reports directly to Town Manager and Selectman• Role may also include:

– Assist Board of Selectmen in developing and implementing social policy

– Assist Board in revamping bylaws and enforcement– Oversight of all programs and sites in Framingham– Liaison between Framingham, agencies and state– Tabulate information and statistics, including growth of

property values and income distribution– Source of knowledge of laws and system

Framingham has never had a town employee charged with addressing impact and growth of social services

May 15, 2006 4

Create a PILOT• Board of Selectman authorize Assessor

to design and implement PILOT

• PILOT is voluntary, but …– Agencies benefit from town services– Agencies have investment in Framingham

• Town may negotiate services from the agencies in exchange for payment – A tool for compromise, not starting point

May 15, 2006 5

Join Coalition of CommunitiesLocal Officials Human Service Council (LOHSC)• Work for pre-notification of site proposals• Lobby State for Cherry Sheet funding for

host communities– Direct compensation for hosting State

contracts– Full school cost reimbursement for

qualifying McKinney-Vento Students based on State Charter School calculations: 2004 =$1.63M

Engage others – State, Community and Agency leaders

May 15, 2006 6

Address Funding DisparityState and Special Funds per capita

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

Sherborn

Waltham

Natick

Brookline

Medford

Framingham

Beverly

Arlington

Southborough

Marlborough

Ashland

Plymouth

Quincy

Cambridge

Sudbury

Weymouth

Peabody

Salem

Somerville

Wayland

Newton

Malden

Revere

Taunton

Lynn

Source: MA Municipal Data Bank

CDBG Funds per capita

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80

Framingham

Plymouth

Taunton

Waltham

Weymouth

Quincy

Salem

Medford

Cambridge

Arlington

Lynn

Newton

Malden

Somerville

Brookline

Source: HUD Entitlement Community Program

May 15, 2006 7

Other Recommendations• Regulate or close the wet shelter

– Waltham closed their wet shelter– Barnstable refused sex offenders

• Strict regulations that apply to any new wet shelter – single or group

• Ensure de-tox facilities serve town residents and have Police oversight

• Count all units towards 40B

May 15, 2006 8

Findings

May 15, 2006 9

Findings on Social Service Sites• A site is a social service facility - single family

home, lodging house, condominium, office, or several buildings assessed as a single parcel

• Framingham had 34 sites in 1990 and 244 sites in 2006– Growth of over 600%

• SMOC has 387 program based Section 8 units in Framingham

• Framingham has strong and extensive ‘Continuum of Care’ network

• Significant number of clients come from outside Framingham, according to agencies

May 15, 2006 10

Comparative CommunitiesGroup 1 – Contiguous Ashland, Marlborough, Natick, Sherborn, Southborough, Sudbury, Wayland

Group 2 – HUD PMSA and Population 40-100,000Arlington, Beverly, Brookline, Cambridge, Lynn, Malden, Medford, Newton, Peabody, Plymouth, Quincy, Revere, Somerville, Taunton, Waltham, Weymouth

May 15, 2006 11

Inventory of Sites – Group 1 Private Non-Profit Social

Service sites per 1,000 people using 2000 U.S. Census

Population

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.7

0.7

0.9

3.6

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Sherborn

Southborough

Sudbury

Wayland

Ashland

Natick

Marlborough

Framingham

Source: PILOT research 2000 Census

Community Sites*

Sherborn 1

Southborough 2

Wayland 3

Sudbury 4

Ashland 10

Natick 21

Marlborough 34

Framingham 244

* The social service sites counted and listed are dependent upon the definition that has been used consistently throughout the study.

May 15, 2006 12

Inventory of Sites – Group 2 Private Non-Profit Social

Service sites per 1,000 people using 2000 U.S. Census

Population

0.4

0.6

0.7

0.7

0.8

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.4

1.5

3.6

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Brookline

Weymouth

Taunton

Peabody

Waltham

Malden

Salem

Quincy

Beverly

Lynn

Framingham

Source: PI LOT research and 2000 census

Community Sites*

Brookline 22

Weymouth 30

Peabody 32

Salem 38

Taunton 41

Malden 43

Waltham 46

Beverly 53

Quincy 101

Lynn 132

Framingham 244

* The social service sites counted and listed are dependent upon the definition that has been used consistently throughout the study.

May 15, 2006 13

Framingham has not Participated

• State provides funds and clients but has little accountability to towns

• Framingham has not been engaged– Representation in the system lacking– “Unofficial Levers” - licensing and permits,

awarding of grant funds, relationships with agencies and state - not used effectively

• Care system not transparent• Limited enforcement of existing

bylaws • Current bylaws do not address all

concerns

May 15, 2006 14

Real Data, Real Questions• Framingham pays $500,000+ for LIFT• Lower property growth than other towns• Property Study shows long-term growth

impacted by proximity to sites– Agency claims of ‘no impact’ refuted

• Lower income growth than other towns• Demographic shifts

– Overall population grew by 3%– Low-moderate income population grew 12%– No change in over 60 population

Does Continuum of Care system contribute to these observed effects?

May 15, 2006 15

Property Tax Impact

Human Service Coordinator $100,000

Professional Grant Writer $50,000

3 Police Officers $195,000

Resiliency for Life $90,000

1 Fire Officer $65,000

Total $500,000

• Framingham waives $515,751 tax FY2006• Estimated FY2007 waiver over $600,000 due

to anticipated conversions to exempt status• Impact on taxes small - $15/year for $300K

But, what could $500,000 do for Framingham?

May 15, 2006 16

Direct Impact on Schools• Benchmark expenditure is $1.63M for 155 students

qualifying under McKinney-Vento (2004 numbers)– Discussed on March 22 with Dr. Martes and Anna Cross– 87 students from committee’s list of site addresses – 20 students live in shelters outside but attend FPS.

We do pay school costs– Remaining addresses confidential

• Additional 22 students live in Framingham shelters– Do not attend FPS – we do not pay school costs

• Transportation costs not provided, may be significant• Use of school information in Final Report discussed,

voted and passed 8-2 on April 18, 2006– Dr. Martes, Anna Cross and Pam Kaufman re-confirmed this

information was correct on May 8, 2006• Use of Benchmarking number for expenditure follows

protocol established by the state for Charter Schools• Need to update impact estimate with 2005 M-V student

count when available from School Department

May 15, 2006 17

Other Direct Impacts• 6% of fire calls from 144 social service sites• Demand for Framingham Housing Authority

services impacts both our needs assessment and daily operations of the FHA

• Library is becoming day site for homeless• Arrests throughout town linked to wet shelter

– 70%-90% clients have criminal records – 70% clients not from Framingham area

• At least 6 active criminal justice programs– Re-entry transitional and permanent housing – Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth In Sentencing– Other services for released offenders

May 15, 2006 18

Prisoner Re-Entry - Cause for ConcernFrom a recent agency contract application:• Housing Specialists have developed creative housing search

techniques to address high risk, difficult to place offender subgroups, for example arsonists and sex offenders

• In specific cases, Housing Specialists turn to non-traditional housing venues as a viable alternative for offenders.

• Private SRO’s (single room occupancy) and rooming houses where C.O.R.I. checks are not required are an enormous resource for placing their specific populations.

“People are being released from prison by the department of correction and being brought into our community because there are social services agencies here that serve them in the community.”

--Police Chief Carl

May 15, 2006 19

In Summary• Hire professional Administrator to advocate

for Framingham• Authorize the assessor to create and

implement a PILOT • Join coalition of communities - lobby State• Address grant and aid funding disparity• Regulate or close the wet shelter• Strict regulations for any future wet shelter• Ensure any de-tox serves Framingham

residents and has police oversight• Count all units towards 40B

May 15, 2006 20

Conclusions• Framingham is not represented in system

• Framingham needs clear Social Policy

• Framingham needs transparency

• Framingham needs a professional administrator

• Framingham must act now

Our recommendations will ensure that you, our leaders, can effectively direct Framingham’s future

May 15, 2006 21

Questions?

May 15, 2006 22

Back Up Slides

May 15, 2006 23

Median Family and Household Income

Median Household Income Growth: 1990-2000

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

Revere

Weymouth

Framingham

Sherborn

Lynn

Quincy

Taunton

Malden

Ashland

Salem

Medford

Beverly

Plymouth

Marlborough

Peabody

Wayland

Waltham

Natick

Somerville

New ton

Cambridge

Brookline

Arlington

Sudbury

Southborough

Source: U.S. Census

Median Family Income Growth: 1990-2000

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

Revere

Lynn

Framingham

Sherborn

Malden

Weymouth

Somerville

Quincy

Ashland

Taunton

Salem

Medford

Beverly

Plymouth

Waltham

Wayland

Peabody

Cambridge

Marlborough

Arlington-

New ton

Brookline

Natick

Sudbury

Southborough

Source: U.S. Census

May 15, 2006 24

Framingham Population Shifts

Age 1990 2000 Diff Change

< 19 14,659 15,932 1,273 9%

20-44 29,149 27,494 -1655 -6%

45-60 10,009 12,297 2,288 23%

60 + 11,177 11,187 10 0%

Overall 64,944 66,910 1,916 3%

“The proportion of low-moderate income people has grown from 28% in 1990 to 39% in 2000.” --Framingham Community Development Plan

This is an increase of about 8,000 people in the low-moderate income category

Population changes 1990-2000

May 15, 2006 25

Wet Shelter is a Problem• “It was opened to help people.

But there is a dark side to everything that happens. The dark side to the shelter is its negative impact on crime, disorder and fear of crime in the town.”

• --Chief of Police Carl

An analysis of the home addresses of those arrested in Framingham between 7/2005-3/2006 shows that 15% had the wet shelter listed as their home address --Final Report

May 15, 2006 26

Arrests in Framingham

From Chief Carl’s Presentation to Board of Selectmen, 11/15/05

May 15, 2006 27

The Wet Shelter is a Factor

1543 40

76105

0

50

100

150

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

I ndividuals providing Wet Shelter address at time of their booking

*From Chief Carl’s Presentation to Board of Selectmen, November 15, 2005

70% of wet shelter clients are from outside of the Framingham area*

May 15, 2006 28

Financial Findings - Non-Profits • Financial Stability

– Financial consideration is intended to ensure that the state is investing in a viable organization

• Deficits– By definition, Non-Profits have no profit– State contracts require full spending– Local agencies said they avoid deficits

• Social Service Non-Profits are big business– $1.2B from EOHHS statewide– Additional funds spent from other State agencies– Framingham has many agencies, large and small

May 15, 2006 29

Motions on School Information• Motions to exclude all school data were

rejected by the committee• On April 18, a motion to accept all school

information received to date passed 8-2– Included 155 M-V students and benchmarking costs– SPED data noted as not available on that date

• On April 24, a motion to state in Final Report that “information is not available” to determine SPED impact. This passed 9-0-0– Discussion shows scope limited to SPED

• Use of school information was confirmed on 5/8 with Dr Martes and Anna Cross