Open Door Evaluaiton Report FINAL

8/14/2019 Open Door Evaluaiton Report FINAL

1/67

OOPPEENN DDOOOORR EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN RREEPPOORRTT

JJUUNNEE 22000055

Prepared for the Open Door at Fort Street Presbyterian Church

by:

Bart W. miles, PhD

and

Stephen Sills, PhD


2/67

ii

Executive Summary

The Open Door was established in 1967 and is located in a gymnasium at Fort Street Presbyterian

Church. It serves the basic human needs of homeless men and women. This evaluation of the

Open Door at Fort Street Presbyterian Church was conducted at the request of John Heiss,

Director of the Open Door not-for-profit corporation. The evaluation, conducted over a 7-month

period (November 2004 to May 2005) by Dr. Bart W. Miles and Dr. Stephen J. Sills, involved a

mixed-method design including ethnographic observation and site visits, focus group and individual

interviews, and a survey of the population receiving services at the Open Door. The intent of this

report is to provide feedback and assistance for the Open Door in understanding what elements of

their program work, what areas need improvement or changes, and finally what are the unmet

needs of their clientele. Several relevant findings were made:

Demographics of the immediate geographic area of the Open Door:o The majority of residents are African American (88.2%). The economic health of

this community may be gauged by its high unemployment rate (16.4%) and itsrelatively high residential mobility (45.6% of the residences were occupied by thesame tenants/ homeowners five years prior). The violent crime rate of the areawas 26% higher than that of Detroit as a whole and the property crime rate was57% higher. Another recent study of Detroits homeless population found there are2,950 homeless in Central Detroit of whom 72% had issues of substance

use/abuse. Findings from Ethnographic Observations:

o Three areas of concern emerged as most important including entering/exiting thegymnasium space, security, and the use of signage.

A portion of the problem is due to the physical design and structure of thespace, requiring entrance and exit through the same stairway and door.Especially late in the meal, clients are attempting to enter while others areleaving causing a jam, which elevates tempers, and presents a potentialfire hazard.

Much of the security plan centers on keeping individuals known to bedangerous from entering the building. While no evidence of violence or the

presence of weapons were observed, the possibility of a fight, or even anincident involving a weapon, is real.

The lack of signs denoting policies, directions regarding the use ofservices, as well as guidelines for volunteers and clients was apparent. Inaddition, clients had trouble distinguishing volunteers and staff from otherclients.

Findings from Focus Groups and Interviews


3/67

iii

o Five broad categories of themes which consisted of service that were helpful,service they could use, Impressions of the staff and volunteers, knowledge aboutthe Open Door, and barriers to service provision.

The services that were identified as helpful included; meals, clothingshowers, groups, case-management, and health care.

Service they could use consisted of more case-management, employmentopportunities, education, dental, and shelter.

Impressions of the staff and volunteers were that they listened to theclients and that they were friendly and helpful.

Knowledge about the Open Door referred to how clients and volunteersheard about the agency. Often this was word of mouth and the agencycould use better advertisement for both groups. Another knowledge areawas knowledge of services was often limited to meals, showers andclothing.

Finally barrier to services consisted of problem with gatekeepersrestricting access to services, problems with getting to services due to

certain rules, and negative perception of the population. Findings from Client Survey:

o The majority of respondents were male (69.7%), African American (89.6%), andbetween the ages of 25 and 83 years old (avg. 47.9 years). The most commonlyreported sources of income were Social Security/ Disability (34.1%) and day labor(15.9%). Less than a tenth (8.0%) of respondents held part-time or full-time jobs.Clients most often reported residing in an emergency shelter (32.6%), followed bya rental apartment (19.9%). A little over a third (36%) indicated that they resided inthe 48201 zip code area and most (68.0%) walked or bused (27.3%) to the OpenDoor.

o Most respondents (89.2%) indicated learning about the Open Door from a friend orfrom another service agency (9.2%). Most reported that their primary reason forcoming to the Open Door was for the food (63.3%).

o More than three-quarters (77.7%) of respondents agreed orstrongly agreed thatthe Open Door is a clean place (average 4.0 on a scale of five). However, only65.7%agreed orstrongly agreed that the Open Door is a safe place (average 3.6on a scale of five).

o The lowest scoring service was eye glasses with a satisfaction rating of 3.9 of five,followed closely by housing assistance (4.0 of five) and transportation assistance(4.1 of five). Also to note is the large percentage of respondents (56.6%) who didnot know about other area services.

o Eleven (of 85 respondents) indicated that staff/volunteer politeness and attitudesneeded improvement. Write-in response named an individual volunteer as beingrude or racist. On average volunteers/ staff received their highest rating inHelpfulness (4.25 out of five) and lowest score in Respectfulness (4.06 out of five).

Findings from Volunteer/Staff Survey:o The average age of the respondents was 63.6 years with the youngest 29 yrs. and

the oldest 79 years. Five respondents were female and four were male. Only twoof the nine respondents live within the city. Several respondents indicated that thebest thing about volunteering was the satisfaction in helping to fill a need.


4/67

iv

o Respondents indicated that volunteer coordination and organization occurs byassignment to a particular position. Training for those positions occurs on the job.Suggestions for improving the efficiency of volunteers included creating a bettersystem of organizing the day that volunteers come to the Open Door to spreadout the workers.

oVolunteers and staff rated services quite high overall. The lowest average ratingwas a 4.0 out of five for eye glasses. The highest rated service was hair cuttingwith 4.7 out of five. No services were felt to be redundant. The Open Doorenvironment was rated best by volunteers on friendliness and worst on safety. Themost common improvement mentioned was the attitude of a couple of workers.The respondents rated themselves as good tovery good in all areas. Mostimprovement, according to the self-assessment scores, could be made in the areaof compassion and knowledge.

The conclusion to this report notes recommended programmatic changes based on the analysis ofthese findings.


5/67

AbstinenceEducation Evaluation Project 2004 BaselineReport

DR BARTMLES DR STEPHENSLLS-EVALUATORS v

Contents

Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................ii

Contents............................................................................................................................................v

Tables, Figures, and Maps..............................................................................................................vii

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 8

Background.................................................................................................................................. 8

Demographic Profile of the Downtown Detroit Area..................................................................... 9

Population Characteristics....................................................................................................... 9

Crime......................................................................................................................................11

Homelessness in Detroit.............................................................................................................11

Evaluation Design...........................................................................................................................13

Observations...............................................................................................................................13

Focus Groups and Interviews.....................................................................................................13

Survey........................................................................................................................................13

Observations...................................................................................................................................14

Entrance/Exit Issues...................................................................................................................14

Security.......................................................................................................................................15

Signage......................................................................................................................................15

Findings from Focus Groups and Interviews...................................................................................16

What has been helpful................................................................................................................16

Showers.................................................................................................................................16

Recovery................................................................................................................................17

Groups....................................................................................................................................17

Social Interaction....................................................................................................................18

Case-management/One-on-One............................................................................................18

Healthcare..............................................................................................................................19

What you could use....................................................................................................................19

Case-management/One-on-One............................................................................................19

Employment/Jobs...................................................................................................................20

Education...............................................................................................................................20

Identification...........................................................................................................................20


6/67


DR BARTMLES DR STEPHENSLLS-EVALUATORS vi

Dental.....................................................................................................................................20

Shelter....................................................................................................................................21

Impression of the staff & volunteers............................................................................................21

Knowledge about the Open Door for Clients...............................................................................22

How referred...........................................................................................................................22

Awareness of various programs.............................................................................................22

Knowledge about the Open Door for Volunteers........................................................................23

Organizational History............................................................................................................23

How referred for volunteer......................................................................................................23

Awareness task and roles of volunteers.................................................................................23

Purpose of Volunteering.............................................................................................................24

Barriers identified........................................................................................................................24

Gatekeepers...........................................................................................................................24

The eat first rule an issue.......................................................................................................25

Perception of population.........................................................................................................25

Findings from Survey Data..............................................................................................................27

Characteristics of Clientele.........................................................................................................27

Service Provision........................................................................................................................27

Ratings of Staff and Volunteers..................................................................................................28

Volunteer/Staff Survey....................................................................................................................29Characteristics of Volunteers/Staff..............................................................................................29

Volunteer Organization and Training..........................................................................................30

Rating of Services.......................................................................................................................30

Conclusions and Recommendations...............................................................................................32

Volunteer Coordination and Training..........................................................................................32

Security and Safety.....................................................................................................................33

Information and Referral .............................................................................................................33

Case Management .....................................................................................................................33

Appendix A: Client Survey Results and Item Analysis....................................................................35

Appendix B: Survey Instruments.....................................................................................................58

Appendix C: Scripts for Focus Groups............................................................................................65


7/67


DR BARTMLES DR STEPHENSLLS-EVALUATORS vii

Tables, Figures, and Maps

Table 1 - Total Crimes in 2004........................................................................................................12

Table 2 - Crime Rate in 2004.........................................................................................................12

Figure 1: Land Use in the Open Door Service Area........................................................................10

Figure 2 - Average Ratings of Services and Percentage Reporting Using Services.......................29

Figure 3 - Volunteer/ Staff Rating of Services.................................................................................30

Figure 4 - Rating of the Open Door.................................................................................................31

Figure 5 - Rating of the Staff/Volunteers.........................................................................................31

Map 1 - The Open Door Service Area.............................................................................................. 9


8/67


DR BARTMLES DR STEPHENSLLS-EVALUATORS 8

Introduction

The evaluation of the Open Door at Fort Street Presbyterian Church was conducted at the

request of John Heiss, Director of the Open Door not-for-profit corporation. The intent of this final

report is to provide feedback and assistance for the Open Door in understanding what elements of

their program work, what areas need improvement or changes, and finally what are the unmet

needs of their clientele.

Background

The Open Door was established in 1967 and is located in a gymnasium at Fort Street

Presbyterian Church. It serves the basic human needs of homeless men and women. According to

a recent needs assessment1, the Open Door serves a population of approximately 2,000

individuals annually of whom the majority (76%) were African-American, live in Detroit (85%), had

been employed within the last 6 months (75%); and reported problems with drugs or alcohol (65%).

The program has a staff of 14, including full and part-time employees and 8 interns. It also recruits

over 400 volunteers for its programs. It provides comprehensive services including meals,

showers, clothing, personal hygiene kits, HIV testing/counseling, Alcohol/drug counseling, shelter

referrals, and primary healthcare services to the homeless population. The stated mission and

vision of the Open Door is to provide these comprehensive services in a way that maintains human

dignity and worth:

Vision statement: The vision of the Open Door is to affirm the humanity of thehomeless and those imprisoned by poverty

Mission Statement: Open Door, a volunteer mission of the Fort Street PresbyterianChurch and its friends will comfort, care for and encourage the homeless and

indigent people of Detroit by ministering to their physical, social, and spiritual

needs.

1 Needs Assessment statistics referenced here were obtained from the Open Doors Womans Club Foundation Proposal Narrative.


9/67



Demographic Profile of the Downtown Detroit Area

Map 1 - The Open Door Service Area

While client respondents to the Open Door Survey resided in over 25 zip codes in and

around the city, the most frequently reported zip code (accounting for 36% of known zip code

responses) was from the immediate geographic area just north of the Open Door (zip code 28201).

With this in mind, demographic data, crime data, and land use data were compiled for the census

tracts of the 14.3 square mile immediate geographic service area of the Open Door2.

Population Characteristics

Within the immediate geographic area of the Open Door, accounting for about 10.3% of

the total land area of Detroit , there are 34,596 households with 15,054 families and a total

population of 79,615 persons. This accounts for about 8.4% of the total population of Detroit. The

majority of these residents are African American (88.2%), followed by non-Hispanic White (11.4%)

and Hispanic (3.4%).

2 The following Census tracts were references: 5312, 5116, 5331, 5322, 5330, 5332, 5333, 5167, 5168, 5178, 5179, 5180, 5181, 5188, 5112,5115, 5201, 5325, 5326, 5327, 5207, 5172, 5208, 5209, 5211, 5214, 5165, 5215, 5220, 5219, 5202, 5204, 5212, 5205, 5160, 5206, 5174, 5175,5176, 5177, 5171, 5170, 5169


10/67



The economic health of this community may be gauged by its high unemployment rate.

The unemployment rate for this area was 16.4% in 20003, with a female unemployment rate of

15.2% and a male unemployment rate of 17.6%. For comparison, the unemployment rate in the

Detroit Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2000 was 3.6%. Figures are not available at the census tract

level for 2005, however the unemployment rate in Michigan is currently 7.6% overall and for Detroit

it is 14.9%. Nearly a third (32.4%) of the population of the area showed an income below the

federal poverty line, and 11.1% were receiving public assistance.

The age structure of this geographic area lets us understand some of the demographic

factors that influence the economic health and social atmosphere of the area. Nearly a quarter of

these individuals (23.2%) are under the age of 18, while 13.7% were 65 or older. In comparison,

the percentage of minors in the overall Detroit population is 31%. Thus, there is a smaller

proportion of the population who are minors in this service area than is average for the city.

However, there are more individuals of retirement age that is average for the city as well. Overall

10.4% of the total population of Detroit is 65 years old or older.

A little more than half (54%) of the parcels in the area were residential, while 29% were

vacant. Of the 41,153 housing units in the area, 84.1% were occupied in 2000. Nearly two-thirds of

occupied residences were rental units. Another 6,557 units were vacant in 2000.4 A little less than

half (45.6%) of the occupied residences were occupied by the same tenants/ homeowners five

years before the census.

Figure 1: Land Use in the Open Door Service Area

3 Note that this was during a time of relative economic prosperity4 Evidence from housing studies in other parts of the city indicate that vacancy rates have steadily increased since 2000.


11/67



Crime

In 2004, the geographic area surrounding the Open Door accounted for about 10.7% of the citys

reported violent crimes and about 13.5% of all reported property crimes. This translates as a

violent crime rate 26% higher than that of the city as a whole (3,133 violent crimes per 100,000)

and a property crime rate 57% higher than that of the city (9,857 property crimes per 100,000). The

higher crime rate is attributed to a greater percentage of reported robberies, assaults, larcenies

and, car thefts in the area than the rest of the city.

Homelessness in Detroit

According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors-Sodexho Hunger and Homelessness Surveys

hunger and homelessness have continued to increase in major cities across America since the

year 2000 (US Conference of Mayors, 2000; 2002; 2003; 2004). These studies have reported that

unemployment and various employment-related problems were the leading causes of hunger.

Additionally, they reported that the lack of affordable housing was the leading cause of

homelessness. Other contributing factors to hunger and homelessness identified were mental

illness, lack of needed health services and low paying jobs.

Detroit, with an estimated population of 879,575; has the third highest poverty rate in the

country. Almost a third of the residents (263,800 people) live below the poverty line (US census

2003). A recent Wayne State University study of Detroits homeless population found that on a

typical night there are 2,950 homeless in Central Detroit (Toro 2002). The study found that 72% of

survey respondents reported substance use in the past month compared to 16% in the general

population. Health care for the Homeless in Detroit estimates that 80-90% of the homeless

population seen have either mental illnesses or substance abuse problems (Urgent Matters, 2004).

The Wayne State University study also noted changes in the demographics of Detroits homeless

over the last decade. For example:

The percentage of European-American homeless had declined from 18.2% in1992 to 12% in 2002, the percentage African-American remained the same at

71%, while the percentage of Hispanic homeless individuals increased from 6.2%to 10% from 1992-2002. And while in1992, only 5.4% of Detroits homeless wereover the age of 64, by 2002, over 9% were over 64 years of age.

The PATH study (Toro, 2002) included a 2002 Detroit Gaps Analysis that found that there was a

gap of over 1400 emergency shelter slots, 2600 case management slots, and 3,500 slots for

homeless medical/dental assistance. The Open Door is one of the few of agencies attempting to fill

the gap.


12/67



CRIMES IN 2004

Crime Type Selected Area Detroit Wayne County Michigan U.S.

Homicide 33 392 398 610 16,503

Rape 62 719 1,151 6,428 93,433

Robbery 634 4,756 6,806 11,246 413,402

Assault 1,765 17,080 14,680 34,064 857,921

Larceny 4,047 20,638 48,876 208,449 7,021,588

Burglary 957 12,200 20,330 68,072 2,153,464

Car Theft 2,843 25,380 32,763 53,731 1,260,471

Violent Crime 2,494 22,947 23,035 51,510 1,381,259

Property Crime 7,847 58,218 101,969 330,252 10,435,523

Total Serious Crime 10,341 81,165 125,004 381,762 11,816,782

*Crime totals for Wayne County, Michigan and U.S. are 2003 figuresTable 1 - Total Crimes in 2004

CRIME RATES IN 2004 (CRIMES PER 100,000 PERSONS)

Crime Type Selected Area Detroit Wayne County Michigan U.S.

Homicide 42 43 20 7 6

Rape 78 78 57 65 33

Robbery 797 513 333 113 146

Assault 2,217 1,841 718 341 302

Larceny 5,084 2,225 2,390 2,087 2,469

Burglary 1,203 1,315 994 682 757

Car Theft 3,571 2,736 1,602 538 444

Violent Crime 3,133 2,474 1,127 516 486

Property Crime 9,857 6,276 4,986 3,306 3,669

Total Serious Crime 12,989 8,749 6,112 3,822 4,154

Estimated population in 2004 79,615 927,766 2,045,473 9,990,817 84,496,887

Table 2 - Crime Rate in 2004


13/67



Evaluation Design

The evaluation conducted over a 7-month period (November 2004 to May 2005) by Dr.

Bart W. Miles and Dr. Stephen J. Sills, involved a mixed-method design including ethnographic

observation and site visits, focus group and individual interviews, and a survey of the population

receiving services at the Open Door.

Observations

As a preliminary means for understanding the population participating in the later focus

group and survey, as well as to become familiar with the various services provided at the Open

Door, the primary evaluators conducted at three site visits in November and December of 2004. A

short narrative follows based on these observations. Observation notes were used in the

construction of the focus group script and in survey design.

Focus Groups and Interviews

Two focus group sessions were conducted in November and December of 2004 with

volunteers and two focus group sessions were conducted in January 2005 with homeless clients

from the Real Recovery Group and the Womens Group. These sessions, moderated by the

primary evaluators, were audio recorded for the purposes of providing a reliable record of the

sessions. The sessions were exploratory and involved and open-ended format. A key-questions

script, created prior to the sessions and based on information gathered in the observations, was

used. Four additional one-on-one interviews with staff, volunteers, and service customers were

conducted to provide a deeper understanding of particular issues raised in the focus group

sessions. Qualitative information, including observations, focus groups, and interviews, have been

analyzed by means of an hermeneutical analysis (Van Manen, 1990).

Survey

Based on findings from the focus groups and interviews, a questionnaire was designed to

collect demographic, housing, and income information on clients as well as indicators of client

satisfaction with particular services of the Open Door. The data from the survey, administered in

May 2005, was scanned and entered into an SPSS database and used in the descriptive analyses

that follow. These statistical analyses are presented in a narrative format with figures, charts, and


14/67



diagrams used to clarify important findings. Raw data, reported in frequency tables, are found in

the appendices for reference purposes and to assist the Open Door in preparation of public

relations materials, reports, funding proposals, etc.

Observations

This evaluation began with three observations of the Thursday program at the Open Door

in the months of November and December 2004. The evaluators observed activities and

interactions that took place on typical days at the Open Door. The evaluators asked questions

about processes; talked with volunteers and clients; and documented their impressions, reflections,

and observations. Some of the findings that resulted from the observations centered on the

process and procedures of the Open Door. It was noted that the gymnasium of the Fort StreetPresbyterian Church where the Open Door lunch program occurs is a dynamic setting with a

multitude of activities occurring in a tight space. The Open Door, understanding the limitations of

this space, have made thrifty use of all of the available areas by fitting services into every niche

and economizing wherever possible. There are, however some areas in which we noted

improvements to be made. Three areas of concern emerged as most important including

entering/exiting the gymnasium space, security, and the use of signage.

Entrance/Exit Issues

From the clients perspective as well as our own, the first issue observed would be the

system used for entering and exiting the gymnasium. A portion of the problem is due to the

physical design and structure of the space, requiring entrance and exit through the same stairway

and door. While entrance is regulated by the use of a ticket system, the area outside the building

becomes very congested as clients jostle for position in line. Especially late in the meal, clients are

attempting to enter while others are leaving causing a jam, which elevates tempers, and presents a

potential fire hazard.Similarly, access to other parts of the building (for showers, haircuts, medical services,

case management, and church services) are restricted by either a gatekeeper or a first-come-first

served line. The gatekeeper, who screens service seekers and adds them to a list of those to be

seen by medical personnel and others, is seen as holding a very powerful and central position. On

the other hand, the line for haircuts, showers, and clothing provides a somewhat more equitable

way of granting access to services, yet it was observed to be a slow process as IDs or other


15/67



documents are checked against a recently computerized database. Both systems could be

rationalized to some extent by an up-to-date management information system (requiring at least

two laptops and a wireless hub linked to a database on a desktop) and barcoded IDs issued by the

Open Door. This suggestion will be discussed later in the conclusions and recommendations .

Security

In a program that serves 300-700 people in a day, the Open Door relies on only a few

individuals to provide security for a great number of people in a very confined space. Much of the

security plan centers on keeping individuals known to be dangerous from entering the building.

While no evidence of violence or the presence of weapons were observed, the possibility of a fight,

or even an incident involving a weapon, is real. A detailed plan for dealing with security situations

should be made and training regarding conflict resolution and security should be considered forvolunteers and core staff.

Signage

The lack of signs denoting policies, directions regarding the use of services, as well as

guidelines for volunteers and clients was apparent. The only sign which denoted the presence of

the service itself was a small sign over the entrance at the back of the Fort Street Church. This sign

can only be seen if you are at the back of the church parking lot or walking down the alley behind

the Church. Nowhere did we find signs explaining the various services offered. Though there was

one small sign explaining that everyone had to pass through the meal line before seeking other

services, clients were observed to be confused about the process as they entered. They often

attempted to give there meal tickets to the wrong person or came in without meal tickets, they

attempted to head to the clothing line thinking it is the food line, they tried to take food out of the

building, etc. In addition, clients had trouble distinguishing volunteers and staff from other clients.

The use of nametags, Open Door t-shirts, or other means of identification would be helpful in these

cases.


16/67



Findings from Focus Groups and Interviews

When Im here Im amongst my people. This is where God put meat; there is a reason why I am here. It aint an accident I came

through that open doorMale focus group participant

The second phase of data collection involved focus groups and informal interviews. Two

focus group sessions were conducted in November and December of 2004 with volunteers and two

focus group sessions were conducted in January 2005 with homeless clients from the Real

Recovery Group and the Womens Group. Four one-on-one interviews with staff, volunteers, and

service customers were conducted further explore themes that were emerging from the focus

groups. The focus group and interview identified helpful elements of the program, services they

want, services they would like see expanded, impression of the staff/volunteers, knowledge about

the program, and barriers to services.

What has been helpful

One of the major thematic findings from the client focus groups involved identification of services

that were helpful. Many of the participants spoke of the showers and the meals as a given benefit

of coming to the Open Door. Several participants identified that these services were the starting

point of their relationship with the agency. One male focus group participant stated, Clothing and

showers is what brings peoples in and then from there they find out about other things. Another

male focus group participant stated, I originally came for the meals. These basic services at the

Open Door (meals, clothes, and showers) were a vital element in the lives of the focus groups

participants as noted by one male participant. This church they feed me they cloth me and help me

with transportation. I cant say nothing bad about this church.

Showers

The showers were regarded as an exceptionally helpful service. This was particularly true

for the women involved in the focus groups. When asked what they like the most at the Open Door

the one woman responded, having a clean shower plus I fell safe here. All the other women in the

groups acknowledged agreement through verbal and nonverbal responses. This same respondent

went on to state, Its hard to keep clean at the NSO at least safe & clean (at the open door). In

the female client focus group they brought up the topic of the showers three different times.


17/67



Recovery

Several focus groups participants mentioned a drug abuse history. Most of those

participants identified that a significant portion of their recovery process was due to their

participation at the Open Door. This is highlighted by one female focus groups participant.

Why I came hear was because of a drug called crack cocaine. The guy I was with was adrug dealer. So I left and to make long story short and I was at the Salvation Army overthere (she points) and they told me about this church where I could get clothes. Since Ididnt take any when I left, and I have been coming here every Thursday since. Its part ofmy recoveryThis sentiment that the Open Door is part of a recovery process is reiterated by a male

focus groups participant in the following quote. This place is saving our live one day at a time and

to have a business inside the church that keeps us here and more focused on what we have to do

(for our recovery).

Groups

Another helpful component of the Open Door highlighted by the focus groups participants

was involvement in various groups. These groups consisted of the Real Recovery group, the

Womens group, Micro Enterprises project, and the Anger Management group. One male

participants discusses all the various groups he attends,

Ben told me about the group on Monday then I started coming to the groups on Tuesdaysand sorted clothes. I come here on Thursday and we have the printers program. I just cant

say enough about this program, its beautiful.The Real Recovery program for many of the participants was the first group they attended.

As one male focus participant notes, I come here for food and someone told me about the Real

Recovery program and I started coming. Another male focus group participant identified that the

participation in Real Recovery lead to further participation in other programs services, I heard

about this Real Recovery group and now we are starting a business (Micro Enterprise project), this

church it helps us out a lot.

Another male focus groups participant discussed the importance of the of the Micro

Enterprise project,

For the group (Micro Enterprise) Ben originally approached John wanting to give us a joband something to put on a resume etc. So the church put up the cost initially. (This) givesus an opportunity to show willingness on out part to move forwardMuch of the discussions about groups referenced the Real Recovery group and the Micro

Enterprise project. Though one male focus groups participant did mentioned a new group he was


18/67



excited about, they just started an Anger Management program and we need that to deal with our

emotions.

Social Interaction

Several participants discussed being actively involved in multiple groups at the Open Door

and how this gives them a weekly routine and opportunity to interact with people. This is

highlighted by the response of one female focus group participant,

Im going to begin coming on to meetings on Monday. Because I think it will help with mydepression. When you had a job for 38 a years and you cant find a job, you need a placeto come to like here, to interact with other people.Another theme identified by the focus group participants was the opportunity to have social

interaction. This was highlighted in some of the previous quotes where participants mentioned

coming to the open doorto interact with other people and that coming here is theirsupportnetwork. Other quotes that reflect this sentiment are;

Its like family here, stated a male respondent Another male respondent stated, these are the face I came to see. Finally, one male focus groups participant said that one of the best things about

coming to the Open Door is the camaraderie amongst us.

Case-management/One-on-One

Case-management/one-on-one contact was also highlighted as important element of the

services offered at the open door. One female participant emphasized how important of an element

this is in the following quote,

They have people like Stacey I can talk too, and even if I dont discuss issues with themthey make me feel real good and when I leave here I am always smiling. No matter howbad I am feeling when I come in. I always leave smiling Its that support network.

The importance of having someone to talk with is further reinforced by a response of a

male focus groups participant when talking about what the Real Recovery program has done for

him. It makes a change, you feel just better and when Friday and Saturday hit youre thinking about

being here Monday (youre looking forward to it). Its good to have someone to talk with For

many of the participants the Open Door functions as a place that gives them a sense of belonging.


19/67



Healthcare

Several participants talked about using the medical services provided by Health Care for

the Homeless and the referral service for eyeglasses. A male focus group participant highlighted

the importance of the eyeglasses referral, they helped me out with glasses something I been trying

to get for two years. The Open Door has a thing with Lens Crafters. Another male focus groups

participant discussed using the Health Care for the Homeless medical services. If you need to get

a prescription filled you need to get here earlier. But if you need it youll be here. This quote

emphasized the tremendous demand for the medical services.

What you could use

The participants in the client focus groups primarily discussed the helpfulness of the services,

though they did make some suggestions for improvement. The clients and the staff/volunteersdiscussed providing more of some services that are already offered and adding some additional

services.

Case-management/One-on-One

One suggestion that they all agreed upon is more on-on-one time. This often referred to

the case-managers and intern contact time very helpful, but that they were often very busy. This is

noted by two female focus groups participant in the following quotes.

I think I would better to have more time for one-on-one, because sometimes the social

workers become so busy that they run in and out and then they have something else. They

should have more one-on-one to handle the business with one person and then (move on)

Another stated,

I agree with the comment on the one-on-one a little of time to have someone to sit down

and talk too would great for someone like me. Once a week, or just once a month just to

vent or something else.

The need for more one-on-one case management was also reinforced by participants inthe volunteers focus groups. The desire for case-manager contact was not just for

emotional/therapeutic purposes, but also for a more comprehensive information and referral

regarding available benefits and services. One female participant discussed specific information

she would like to know more about, What I could use now is more on what is available for seniors.

There are things that are available that I am just not aware about. The lack of knowledge about


20/67



available services & benefits was highlight by the Health Care for the Homeless staff; I think they

could use some information on how to get mental health services since I dont know a whole lot

about that. Case-management was the number one suggested service expansion.

Employment/Jobs

The issue of employment opportunities and job services was identified as an unmet need.

One female focus groups participant requested a jobs posting board, If they could pull jobs off the

internet and post them so we can read them and copy down what we need. Another female focus

groups participant later reinforced the desire for job listings, If the was someone who could do job

listing once a month or something that would be great. In the volunteer focus groups jobs and

possible job placement were suggested a services that were needed. According to a few

volunteers in the past the Open Door did post jobs. The jobs were important because having anincome was a requirement for getting into housing assistance.

Education

Related to jobs was the desire for Educational Opportunities for the participants in the

program. One female focus group participant stated, Id like to see some job training or like GED or

computers training. Education was reiterated by a male participant, Educational (opportunities)

would help a lot.

Identification

The focus groups participants also identified that for jobs and housing you need for ID/

birth certificate services. The need for help with getting ID was pointed out by a male focus group

participant. More people need help with getting IDs or birth certificates.

Dental

One absent service identified by regular volunteers, but not by clients, was dental. One

female volunteer stated, the most notable health care issue is the dental hygiene, and in the city

there is hardly any place to get dental hygiene done. Another female volunteer stated that [dental

hygiene problems]impact a lot of thing such as what they can eat. We have a lot of people who are

virtually toothless and thats a shame.


21/67



Shelter

One final suggestion was that the Open Door offer shelter. Several the participants

identified that the Open Door treats clients better than many shelters. So one male focus group

participant suggested the following,

If this church could provide a shelter type environment. They would touch a lot of peopleespecially if these people are running it, because they are not as judgmental as some ofthe people at other places. They would help a lot more people and get more people in theMonday or Tuesday groups.

Impression of the staff & volunteers

Another major theme was the impression of staff and volunteers. The participants wanted to

emphasize the positive regard and treatment they received from the staff and volunteers at the

program. Overall the focus group participants found the staff and volunteers, friendly and helpful.

One male focus group participant stated, the people here is beautiful. This sentiment is reinforced

in the description one female focus group participant gave about her first visit to the Open Door.

They were so friendly & nice and all (when I first came). Another male focus group participant

summed up what he feels is the unique to this program, the thing about this program they take the

time to listen, and I think that is a good thing.

When talking about the staff and volunteers a lot of the positive impressions were often

related to the core staff. One male focus group participant stated, we have one-one-one case-

management now and they are beautiful people. One person the female focus groups participants

spoke highly of was Stacey. One female focus group participant stated, with Stacey here I just love

messing with her, I love the way she handles herself. [Yes absolutely, asserts another female

participant]. She continues, I look forward to speaking with her. But she is so busy. The male focus

group participants spoke highly of Ben. Several participants referred to Ben as, the man and

noted him as the person they would go to if they had a problem or issue. The importance of the

key staff is highlighted in following quote by a male focus groups participant, Ben is a good guy.

And Justin, and Megan, and John all of them, you make sure you put that in your notes. Everyonein the focus groups agrees with verbal & non verbal responses. Reasons they had such strong

feelings about the staff were because staff take time and listen to them, this is highlighted in the

following quote from a male focus group participant. The way John is, the way Ben is, the way

Megan is, they listen if have something legitimate to bring to the table they will take the time to

listen


22/67



Knowledge about the Open Door for Clients

From the client focus groups another major theme centered on knowledge about the Open Door.

One area of knowledge involved how they found out about the Open Door. The other knowledge

are involved what they knew about the various services at the Open Door.

How referred

How participants were referred was discussed by all the focus groups participants. One of

the major ways they were referred was through word of mouth. Due to the longstanding practice of

serving meals the Open Door is known though out the community. The most common form of word

of mouth entailed a referral from a friend, as highlighted by the following quotes by male focus

groups participants. For example, one client saidBasically I hear about his place through a friend.

Another stated, I heard about his program through a friend of mineOthers identified that they had been referred by the shelters or other service agencies. As

noted in a previous quote one participant was referred to the Open Door by the Salvation Army.

Several others mentioned referrals from various shelters. One male participant was referred to the

Open Door while staying at a shelter, I was hungry and someone told me I could come down here

and get something to eat. A female focus groups participant stated, (the NSO) has a van that takes

people here once a week. So the Open Door is known to local service providers and within the

local homeless community.

Awareness of various programs

Several participants identified that they found out about the various programs at the Open

Door by asking question or through a referral from Ben. During the male focus groups one

participant stated, we all started out eating the meals here and didnt know nothin about the other

programs. Often the participants came into the Open Door for the meals, and then they started

asking questions about other services. One male focus group participant stated that he started

asking about other services, because you see people gettin' showers, clothes, and haircuts. So youask questions. Another male focus group participant stated, a lot of people dont know about the

blessing that this church has put out. They just look at it as a meal. Others male focus groups

participants noted that they were referred to other programs by Ben;

I didnt know about the other programs until I talked to Ben.

Another participant chimed in,


23/67



Yeah I was getting transportations when he told me.

Finally, one male focus groups participant highlighted that Ben has been encouraging

them (the group participants) to spread the word about the other programs at the Open Door. Ben

has been stressing this for us to tell others about the Monday group

Knowledge about the Open Door for Volunteers

Knowledge about the Open Door was also a major theme from the volunteer focus groups.

One area of knowledge consisted of the history and background of the program. Another area of

knowledge involved how they found out about volunteering at the open door. The final knowledge

area had to do with knowledge of volunteer task and roles.

Organizational History

One of the volunteer focus groups spent a significant amount of time discussing the history

of the program and its affiliation with the Fort Street Presbyterian Church. These volunteers gave

detailed information on the origins of the program, how the program is funded, and about the

committee that oversees the program. Further these key long term volunteers held essential

knowledge of the informal policies and practices of the Open Door. Such as which volunteers are

good at what tasks, what groups regularly volunteer, where funding comes from, where the food

comes from, what to do when they are running out of a food item, etc.

How referred for volunteer

Most of the volunteers had been referred to the program via their affiliation with various

Presbyterian churches in the Metro area. Fort Street, St Pauls, and First Presbyterian were

mentioned as referral places for volunteers. Other volunteer referrals came from various other

churches and religious organizations. A few volunteers had heard about then Open Door through

friends and decided to come down help out. A few regular volunteers mentioned that some

colleges/universities groups come down to volunteer at various times of the year.

Awareness task and roles of volunteers.

Another topic discussed was knowledge about the service tasks and roles of volunteers.

This knowledge was communicated informally and varied based on who was asked. For example

when ask how roles/tasks are filled the response were;

I think you just fill in where ever stated a male volunteer.


24/67



Well Marilyn does a lot of that, and Ruth does some of that, and John does some of that

stated a female volunteer.

Another female volunteer stated that who goes where is based on the type of volunteer

and their personal preferences. There are those people who are the filler inners, those that come

every week (the regulars), then there is another group that comes like once a month, and then

there are those that come only occasionally There are those regulars who are very protective of

their spot and have been there a long time and dont mess with that. And that works out OK, but

then there are a lot of other people who say OK where do you need me

A male volunteer followed that with and example of regulars preferences for spots, but

that there is some flexibility in roles. When Jerry is here does the meat if he is not here someone

else does the meat. Don usually does the gravy, but we didnt have gravy today so he carried the

trays.

When asked who assigns volunteer tasks, two female volunteers stated that, in general

John is the volunteer coordinator. As note in this quote they refer to John as the coordinator of

task assignments. One male volunteer described how this worked, So if we are short (a person) we

find John and tell him. Or we go grab someone and get them to fill in.

Purpose of Volunteering

For most of the volunteers church affiliation was a key element in why they participated in the Open

Door. Several volunteers mentioned that retirement was key aspect of their decision to become

involved in the Open Door. One male volunteer stated, this (volunteering) is sort of like a faux job.

Finally, one volunteer mentioned that she had experiences hard times and felt that she should help

those experiencing hard times, since she had received help when she had hard times.

Barriers identified

One final broad topic area mentioned across the various focus groups and interviews was that of

barrier to services. These are broken down into three major categories; gatekeepers, the eat firstrule, and perceptions of clients.

Gatekeepers

A concern that emerged was the issue of gate keeping behavior in access to the services.

Several volunteers and staff noted that clients had approached them about conflicts with the

individuals who were the gatekeepers. Often gatekeepers were referred to as bossy, pushy,


25/67



condescending, and high & mighty. This highlights a possible concern over misuse of power and

authority. Further concerns relate to knowledge and skill of gate keepers to perform tasks well. The

Health Care for the Homeless nurse practitioner suggested that the gatekeeper be someone with

knowledge of medical (needs and) insurance to due a triage of those who get through for health

care. This raises other concern about gatekeepers in how well are the people at the front door

equipped to assess and address potential violent or intoxicated clientele or the current gatekeeper

for to see the nurse practitioner to assess the most urgent cases?

The eat first rule an issue

Eating first before receiving any other service is one of the major rules at the Open Door.

This rule was an issue for many volunteers and staff. Some volunteers mentioned that clients get

their meal and throw it out because they are just looking to get some other services. This is aparticular concern since people are required to eat before seeing the doctor and then and ill person

must choose between nutrition and health care. This was mentioned by both volunteers and Health

Care for the Homeless staff. One female volunteer stated that she think theeating first rule should

have some qualifiers such as using health care or clothing. She stated, you see men standing in

the clothing line with their plate in their handI think this is a problem. Another volunteer strongly

felt they should stick to the rules.

Perception of population

The perception of the population was another major theme that emerged from volunteer

interviews and focus groups. This emerged in two forms the first was a concern about others

volunteers perceptions and the other was in the variation of perceptions amongst the volunteers.

One key volunteer discussed her concern about the perceptionnon-regularvolunteers

might have about the populations the agency is serving. She suggested that there should be

cultural awareness training because, lots of times people come down and serve and leave and

have a little concept of it (what homelessness is about). Another female volunteer agree with theneed for cultural awareness training in the following quote.

I think that is a huge thing because a lot of people who havent had much exposure to

people of other races and economic level the come with preconceived ideas and

prejudices. A lot of cases people want to help and mean well but they may not even be

aware of the fact that their biases come forward.


26/67



In the focus groups the volunteers demonstrated a wide rage of perceptions of the

homeless from judgmental to sympathetic. Some volunteers referred to clients as not appreciative,

here for a free ride, andnot really homeless this tended to be the perspective of the only a few

volunteers. While most volunteers were sympathetic and saw the clients as people who had a

rough lives,bad luck, or had fallen through the cracks. The male volunteers tended to be more

judgmental, while the female volunteers tended to be the sympathetic.


27/67



Findings from Survey Data

The Open Door Client Survey was administered on Thursday May 19th, 2005. Of the 512 estimated

clients that day, 137 completed surveys were returned for an estimated response rate of 26.8%.

This response rate was affected by direct refusals of patrons to participate, the low reading level of

some clients, the lack of an incentive to participate, the hurried nature of the service delivery (which

prohibited participation as many rushed to eat then receive additional services), as well as issues

regarding fear/apprehension brought on by paper forms. While survey-interviews conducted in the

more controlled setting of social service provision (typically as a part of the intake process) have

reached as high as 70%, 5 it is felt that this response rate does provide a sufficiently diverse set of

responses to be representative of the clientele. Least represented, however, in this data are thoseclients with the most severe mental health and poverty needs.

Characteristics of Clientele

A majority of clients were male (69.7%), African American (89.6%), and between the ages of 25

and 83 years old (avg. 47.9 years). One-in-five (20.4%) had not completed high school, while half

(51.3%) had a high school diploma or GED. The remainder of respondents (28.3%) reported

having attended some college or completing an undergraduate degree. The most commonly

reported sources of income were Social Security/ Disability (34.1%) and day labor (15.9%), or a

combination of several income sources. Less than a tenth (8.0%) of respondents held part-time or

full-time jobs. Clients most often reported residing in an emergency shelter (32.6%), followed by a

rental apartment (19.9%). Thus, both housed and homeless individuals use the Open Door

services. A little over a third (36%) indicated that they resided in the 48201 zip code area and most

walked (68.0%) or bused (27.3%) to the Open Door. Average travel time is about 40 minutes with a

range of as short as 2 minutes to as much as 2 hours.

Service Provision

Most respondents (89.2%) indicated learning about the Open Door from a friend or from another

service agency (9.2%). Most reported that their primary reason for coming to the Open Door was

for the food (63.3%), followed by other reasons (22.4%) such as one respondent who reported, I

5 See for example the City of Boston 1997 Emergency Shelter Survey Hhttp://www.mccormack.umb.edu/csp/publications/snapshotexec.pdf H


28/67



needed a winter coat. Overall, the Open Door received a satisfaction rating of 4.2 on a scale of

five, with 78.8% of respondents reporting that services were eithergood orvery good. The most

frequent write in category for the best thing at the Open Door was the food/ meals (31%).

Meanwhile, the entrance/exit and ticketing process was shown to be the service needed the most

improvement. More than three-quarters (77.7%) of respondents agreed orstrongly agreed that the

Open Door is a clean place (average 4.0 on a scale of five). However, only 65.7% agreed or

strongly agreed that the Open Door is a safe place (average 3.6 on a scale of five).

Nearly all respondents (94.6%) reported having had lunch at the Open Door and 70.1%

indicated that lunch had helped them the most out of all services. A strong majority (90.1%) rated

lunch eithergood orvery good, with an average score of 4.4 (between good and very good) on a

scale of five. The second most frequently utilized service was clothing (78.8%) and showers

(60.3%). Four-fifths (80.9%) rated showers as eithergood orvery good, with an average score of

4.4 of five, and most (83.1%) rated clothing as eithergood orvery good, with an average score of

4.2 of five (See Appendix A for a complete item analysis and Figure 2 Below).

The least used service was Micro Enterprise/ Human Capital Development (3.5%).

However, the few who participate in this program all rated it as good orvery good (average 4.5 of

five).The lowest scoring service was eye glasses with a satisfaction rating of 3.9 of five, followed

closely by housing assistance (4.0 of five) and transportation assistance (4.1 of five). The low

satisfaction on these services may indicate a required re-evaluation of the way in which they are

currently being administered. Also to note is the large percentage of respondents (56.6%) who did

not know about other area services. This may indicate a need for referral information for additional

services that clients may need.

Ratings of Staff and Volunteers

Ten individuals (of 87) indicated that the staff and volunteers were the best thing about the Open

Door. However, eleven (of 85) indicated that staff/volunteer politeness and attitudes needed

improvement. One respondent wrote, Sometimes the workers aren't as polite as one would like,

but its understandable with so many people asking for so much at once. Other write-in response

also named an individual volunteer as being rude or racist. On average volunteers/ staff received

their highest rating in Helpfulness (4.25 out of five) with 78.7% reporting this category as good or

very good. The lowest score was inRespectfulness (4.06 out of five) with 74.4% reporting good or

very good.


29/67



Figure 2 - Average Ratings of Services and Percentage Reporti ng Using Services

Volunteer/Staff Survey

The Open Door Volunteer/Staff Survey was administered on Thursday May 19th, 2005. Of the 30

estimated volunteers and staff that day, 9 completed surveys were returned for an estimated

response rate of 30.0%. As the response rate is based on a very low number of completed surveys

it is not felt that the survey may be used for generalizable purposes. Results are presented as

anecdotal information that may be used to inform later data gathering from volunteers and staff.

Characteristics of Volunteers/Staff

Of respondents to the volunteer/staff survey, three indicated that the began working at the Open

Door as a result of church affiliation, one explained that they began after the death of a spouse,

one was a walked in volunteer, and another had been invited. Two of the nine respondents live

within the city. The respondents reported an average of 32 minutes travel time to the Open Door.

The average age of the respondents was 63.6 years with the youngest 29 yrs. and the oldest 79

years. Five respondents were female and four were male. Three held masters degrees, four had

bachelors degrees, one a high school diploma or GED, and one had not finished high school. Of

respondents, two were African Americans and the rest were non-Hispanic Whites.

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

Lunch94.6%

HairCut

48.6%

Shower

60.3%

Clothing

78.8%

Medical

Services

32.8%

Case

Management

17.7%

Recovery

Group11.3%

Womens

Group14.8%

CareerCloset

16.7%

Housing

Assistance

20.0%

Transportation

Assistance

22.6%

EyeGlasses

28.1%

Micro

Enterprises/

Human

Capital

Church

Services

25.0%


30/67



Volunteer Organization and Training

Respondents indicated that volunteer coordination and organization occurs by assignment to a

particular position. Training for those positions occurs on the job. Suggestions for improving the

efficiency of volunteers included creating a better system of organizing the day that volunteers

come to the Open Door to spread out the workers. Also it was noted that since there is no

consistency in whos here from week to week a routinized system would help in the assignments.

Rating of Services

Volunteers and staff rated services quite high overall (See Fig.3 below). The lowest average rating

was a 4.0 out of five for eye glasses. The highest rated service was hair cutting with 4.7 out of five.

No services were felt to be redundant. One respondent indicated that they felt clothing was

underutilized and several respondents indicated need for more medical services. The Open Doorenvironment was rated best by respondents on friendliness and worst on safety. Several

respondents indicated that the best thing about volunteering was the satisfaction in helping to fill a

need. The most common improvement mentioned was the attitude of a couple of workers. The

respondents rated themselves as good tovery good in all areas. Most improvement, according to

the self-assessment scores, could be made in the area of compassion and knowledge.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

44.5

5

Lunch

HairCut

Shower

Clothing

Medical

Services

Case

Management

Recovery

Group

Womens

Group

CareerCloset

Housing

Assistance

Transportation

Assistance

EyeGlasses

Micro

Enterprises/

Church

Services

OtherService

Figure 3 - Volunteer/ Staff Rating o f Services


31/67



4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

safe friendly warm social clean

Figure 4 - Rating of t he Open Door

4.16

4.18

4.2

4.22

4.24

4.264.28

4.3

4.32

4.34

4.36

Frien

dliness

Helpf

ulness

Polite

ness

Comp

assio

n

Knowled

ge

Respectfu

lness

Figure 5 - Rating of the Staff/Volunteers


32/67



Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the data collected over the evaluation period, a number of conclusions and

recommendations may be made. For many years, the Open Door has done an outstanding job

serving a large number of individuals with extremely limited resources. It provides an impressive

list of services every Thursday throughout the year. The clients it serves rate the services highly

and rely on the fact that the Open Door has always been there to provide these services. As one

client noted, This church, they feed me, they clothe me and help me with transportation. I cant say

nothing bad about this church. Yet, there are several areas for improvement that have been

identified by this evaluation. These fall into the categories of volunteer coordination and training,

security and safety, information and referral, and case management.

Volunteer Coordination and Training

With anywhere from 30 to 50 volunteers on a given Thursday and over 400 volunteers in a year,

the Open Door obviously does a commendable job of recruiting assistance for its weekly program.

However, improvement to the coordination and training of volunteers could be made as some

volunteers noted that training was often on the job, and there was often a lack of clarity of their

roles and responsibilities. The most obvious solution to this problem would be the creation of a

volunteer coordinator position. This position could either be staffed by a part-time paid person (thus

affording more authority to the leadership role) or by an experienced and regular volunteer.

In addition to coordinating the assignment of volunteers to jobs each week, the primary

role of this individual would be to create a job description and list of responsibilities for each station

or job. Especially important would be the assignment of the screening or gate keeping positions. It

was noted in observations, interviews, and surveys that these key individuals exercise great power

in determining who will be served. The rotation of these positions or the requirement of additional

training in triage care are recommended.The volunteer coordinator would also be responsible for training new volunteers and

conducting ongoing workshops for regular volunteers. As several volunteers from the focus groups

identified concerns about cultural awareness, a cultural awareness training would be

recommended among these workshops. From our observations, it is clear that there are distinct

class and race differences between the volunteers and the client population. Further, the


33/67



attitude/politeness and respectfulness of the staff and volunteers were not rated as highly as other

characteristics. Cultural awareness concerns could be addressed by in-service training on cultural

differences and cross-cultural understanding.

Securi ty and Safety

Security concerns were noted in surveys with volunteers and clients as well as in observations of

the operations of the program. While no direct threats were noticed, the potential for violence must

be recognized. It is recommended that a clear plan be established for all safety/security

contingencies including: severe injuries (perhaps from falling down the stairs), fire, fights, weapons,

etc. Staff and volunteers should have a clear understanding of what to do in each of these cases. A

fire and security assessment would be recommended in addition to regular staff/ volunteer trainings

on the matter.

Information and Referral

Most clients arrive at the Open Door as a result of its good reputation for providing hearty meals.

This word-of-mouth referral system has worked well for its lunch, shower, and clothing services.

However, many clients were unaware of the other services that the Open Door offers. Better

signage, information sheets, and volunteers who walk the floor and help connect clients with

services are all possible ways to raise awareness of these resources. In addition, the Open Door is

in a good position to help refer clients to other downtown resources. A large map of

homeless/social service providers in the central Detroit area could be generated at low cost and

hung on the wall. Photocopies of the map could be placed in a resource kiosk with materials from

other agencies.

Case Management

Another recommendation is to increase the volume of case management services. This suggestion

is reinforced by the qualitative date (focus groups and interview). Case-management was one of

the highest rated services by the clients after food, clothing and haircut. An increase in case-

management service would allow the Open Door to move beyond emergency services and

address a vital service need. Additionally, the use of case-management services builds on the

strengths of the core staff that have developed a strong rapport with the clients. Moreover, these


34/67



services would clearly help to meet the mission of the Open Door by providing comfort, care for

and encouragement for the homeless of Detroit.


35/67

Open Door Evauaion June2005 Report


Appendix A: Client Survey Results and Item Analysis


36/67




37/67




38/67




39/67




40/67




41/67



Item Analysis: Q1_Referral

Label Value Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Friend 1 107 78.10 81.68

Family 2 2 1.46 1.53

Agency 3 11 8.03 8.40Fort Street Church

Member

4 5 3.65 3.82

Other Church

Member

5 1 0.73 0.76

Other 6 5 3.65 3.82

Total Valid 131 95.62 100.00

Total Missing 999 6 4.38

Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q3_housing


Percent

Home Owner 1 4 2.92 3.15

Home Renter 2 8 5.84 6.30

Apartment Renter 3 28 20.44 22.05

Emergency Shelter 4 46 33.58 36.22

Transitional Living 5 9 6.57 7.09

Half-way House 6 1 0.73 0.79

Domestic ViolenceShelter

7 1 0.73 0.79

Family and friends 8 20 14.60 15.75

Nursing Home 9 0 0.00 0.00

Abandoned Buildings 10 9 6.57 7.09

Vehicle 11 1 0.73 0.79

Outside 12 10 7.30 7.87

Other 13 4 2.92 3.15

Total Valid 127 92.70 100.00


Total 137 100.00


42/67



Item Analysis: Q5_Transport


Percent

Walk 1 87 63.50 67.97

Car 2 2 1.46 1.56

Taxi 3 2 1.46 1.56

Bus 4 35 25.55 27.34

Bicycle 5 1 0.73 0.78

Van from anotherservice

6 0 0.00 0.00

Other 7 1 0.73 0.78

Total Valid 128 93.43 100.00


Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q7_Lunch


Percent

Yes 1 87 63.50 94.57

No 0 5 3.65 5.43

Total Valid 92 67.15 100.00


Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q8_Hair


Percent

Yes 1 36 26.28 48.65

No 0 38 27.74 51.35

Total Valid 74 54.01 100.00


Total 137 100.00


43/67



Item Analysis: Q9_Shower

Label Value Frequency Percent ValidPercent

Yes 1 44 32.12 60.27

No 0 29 21.17 39.73Total Valid 73 53.28 100.00


Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q10_Clothing


Percent

Yes 1 67 48.91 78.82

No 0 18 13.14 21.18

Total Valid 85 62.04 100.00


Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q11_Medical


Percent

Yes 1 22 16.06 32.84No 0 45 32.85 67.16

Total Valid 67 48.91 100.00


Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q12_Case


Percent

Yes 1 11 8.03 17.74

No 0 51 37.23 82.26

Total Valid 62 45.26 100.00


Total 137 100.00


44/67



Item Analysis: Q13_recovery


Percent

Yes 1 7 5.11 11.29

No 0 55 40.15 88.71

Total Valid 62 45.26 100.00Total Missing 999 75 54.74

Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q14_Women


Percent

Yes 1 9 6.57 14.75

No 0 52 37.96 85.25

Total Valid 61 44.53 100.00


Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q15_Career


Percent

Yes 1 10 7.30 16.67

No 0 50 36.50 83.33Total Valid 60 43.80 100.00


Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q16_Housing


Percent

Yes 1 12 8.76 20.00

No 0 48 35.04 80.00

Total Valid 60 43.80 100.00


Total 137 100.00


45/67



Item Analysis: Q17_Transportation


Percent

Yes 1 14 10.22 22.58

No 0 48 35.04 77.42

Total Valid 62 45.26 100.00

Total Missing 999 75 54.74Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q18_glasses


Percent

Yes 1 18 13.14 28.13

No 0 46 33.58 71.88

Total Valid 64 46.72 100.00


Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q19_Mircoenterprise


Percent

Yes 1 2 1.46 3.51

No 0 55 40.15 96.49

Total Valid 57 41.61 100.00Total Missing 999 80 58.39

Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q20_Church


Percent

Yes 1 15 10.95 25.00

No 0 45 32.85 75.00

Total Valid 60 43.80 100.00


Total 137 100.00


46/67



Item Analysis: Q21_Other


Percent

Yes 1 7 5.11 13.73

No 0 44 32.12 86.27

Total Valid 51 37.23 100.00

Total Missing 999 86 62.77Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q07_LunchRating


Percent

Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00

Poor 2 1 0.73 1.10

Acceptable 3 8 5.84 8.79

Good 4 37 27.01 40.66

Very Good 5 45 32.85 49.45

Total Valid 91 66.42 100.00


Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q08_HairRating


Percent

Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00Poor 2 3 2.19 6.38


Good 4 18 13.14 38.30

Very Good 5 20 14.60 42.55

Total Valid 47 34.31 100.00


Total 137 100.00


47/67



Item Analysis: Q09_ShowerRating


Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00

Poor 2 0 0.00 0.00Acceptable 3 6 4.38 11.54

Good 4 18 13.14 34.62

Very Good 5 28 20.44 53.85

Total Valid 52 37.96 100.00


Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q10_ClothingRating


Percent

Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00

Poor 2 2 1.46 3.08


Good 4 28 20.44 43.08

Very Good 5 26 18.98 40.00

Total Valid 65 47.45 100.00


Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q11_MedicalRating


Percent

Very Poor 1 1 0.73 3.33

Poor 2 0 0.00 0.00


Good 4 12 8.76 40.00

Very Good 5 14 10.22 46.67Total Valid 30 21.90 100.00


Total 137 100.00


48/67



Item Analysis: Q12_CaseRating


Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00

Poor 2 1 0.73 4.55Acceptable 3 2 1.46 9.09

Good 4 11 8.03 50.00

Very Good 5 8 5.84 36.36

Total Valid 22 16.06 100.00


Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q13_RecoveryRating


Percent

Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00

Poor 2 0 0.00 0.00


Good 4 10 7.30 55.56

Very Good 5 8 5.84 44.44

Total Valid 18 13.14 100.00


Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q14_WomenRating


Percent

Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00

Poor 2 0 0.00 0.00


Good 4 11 8.03 57.89

Very G

Open Door Evaluaiton Report FINAL

Documents

Transcript of Open Door Evaluaiton Report FINAL