May 15, 2006 1
Report to the Board of Selectman
Social Service PILOT and
Comparative Impact Study Committee
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 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 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
Top Related