On the agenda: Bangor meeting — data center (Aug 25)

Advisory Committee on Homelessness
August 25, 2026 @ 5:15 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall, 73 Harlow St.
Agenda

1. Day Center RFP – Council Referral to Committee
2. 3 Plans from Community Members – Preliminary Discussion
a. Two Included in Packet, one found here: The Bangor Opportunity Plan
3. City Communication on Homelessness – Communicating to the General Public
4. Next Meeting – September 8th @ 5:15 pm

Future Meeting Agenda Items:
•

Understanding the Homelessness Response “System”
o

•

•

Provider ecosystem mapping/journey mapping

Continued Discussion on City Communication on Homelessness
o

Communication and collaboration with the provider community

o

Communication with system users

Future Public Comment Opportunities – Structure & Schedule

Request for Proposals (RFP)
Day Center for People Experiencing Housing Insecurity
Proposal No. P26-63

Purchasing Department
73 Harlow Street
Bangor, ME 04401
207-992-4282

Issue Date: June 2, 2026

I. Introduction
The City of Bangor Health Department (“City”) is requesting proposals from qualified vendors to
provide a low barrier day space. The City is allocating funding to address the issue of homelessness,
housing instability, and challenges of being newly housed during the day time. This application notice
invites applications for funding of a Day Center. This funding can be used to support current
programming, expand beyond existing services and/or establish a new day center.
II. General Information
Available at the following web address: www.bangormaine.gov/proposals on the City’s website. By
submitting a response to this solicitation, the Proposer accepts the responsibility for downloading,
reading, and bidding by the terms and conditions set forth in the City’s “General Information for
Vendors.”
In your proposal, please specify whether you currently have, or are in the process of developing, a
domestic violence policy. If you do not have such a policy, let us know if you would like to receive a
copy of the City of Bangor's policy as a reference.
III. Submission
For consideration, submit the proposal Bid Form (page 10) and all materials requested in Section XI.
Scope of Practice/Qualifications electronically or in an envelope via submission methods listed
below. The envelope or subject line must be clearly marked as "Proposal No. P26-63: Day Center."
Submissions must be received by 2:00 P.M. on Wednesday, July 1, 2026.
Submission of documents can be completed by:
A. Emailing to [email protected]; or
B. Hand Delivery to Customer Service, 73 Harlow Street, Bangor, ME; or

P26-53

Page 1 of 11

Day Center

C. US Post Office addressed to 73 Harlow Street, Purchasing Department, Bangor, ME 04401
(items must be received by the deadline); or
D. All Other Delivery Services to City of Bangor: Purchasing Department, 73 Harlow Street,
Bangor, ME 04401 (proposal must be received by the deadlines).
All submissions should reference “Proposal No. 26-93: Day Center”. Proposals will be publicly
opened at the time stated above in the Paul Bunyan Room (first floor by the side elevator), 73 Harlow
Street, Bangor, Maine.
A tabulation of all the proposals received will be posted on the City's website as soon as possible
after the opening date. Visit www.bangormaine.gov/bids for results. The "Show
Closed/Awarded/Cancelled Bids" box must be checked to see the proposal information.
IV. Questions
Any questions must be directed in writing to [email protected] no later than 4:30 P.M., Friday,
June 12, 2026.
The City will provide a response by 4:30 P.M. on Friday, June 19, 2026. This response will be in the
form of an addendum, accessible on the City's website. Notifications will be sent to those who have
signed up to receive notifications at www.bangormaine.gov/bids through NotifyME. Notifications
will be sent when new addenda are released.
V. Late Proposals
It is the responsibility of the Proposer(s) to see that their proposals have sufficient time to be received
by the Purchasing Department before the submittal deadline. Any proposal, portion of a proposal,
or requested proposal revision received at the City Purchasing Department after the time and date
specified will be returned to the Proposer unopened or, if by electronic submission, deleted without
being opened.
VI. Withdrawal of Proposals
No Proposer may withdraw their proposal for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of opening.
All proposals shall be subject to acceptance by the City during this period.
To withdraw a proposal prior to the opening, the Proposer shall request the withdrawal in writing.
All costs associated with the withdrawal (i.e., mailing fees) will be borne by the Proposer.
VII. Rejection
The City reserves the right to reject any proposals, waive any informalities or defects in proposals, or
accept a higher-cost proposal if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the City. The City also
reserves the right to request clarification of any details from the successful Proposer. The evaluation
of proposals and determination of the award will be at the discretion of the City, and its judgment
shall be final and without right of recourse by any Proposer.

P26-53

Page 2 of 11

Day Center

VIII. Information for Proposers
A. Tax Exclusion: All Federal and State taxes must be excluded from the proposal price. Upon
request, a tax exemption certificate for the City of Bangor shall be furnished to the successful
Proposer.
B. Bid Form and Requirements: The Bid Form (page 10), all materials requested in Section XI.
Scope of Practice and Qualifications and all materials requested in XVI. Proposal Submission
Requirements must be completed and returned with the proposal to be considered
responsive.
C. Required Insurance: Proposers are required to maintain the following insurance policies
throughout the life of the project and name the City of Bangor as an additional insured where
applicable and may be required to provide proof:
1. Worker’s Compensation Insurance
2. Employer’s Liability Insurance
3. Comprehensive Automobile Liability
4. Commercial & General Liability
5. Professional Liability (Errors &
Omissions)

Statutory
$500,000 each accident
$500,000 disease – policy unit
$500,000 disease – each employee
$1,000,000 combined, single limit per
accident
$1,000,000 combined single limit
$2,000,000 aggregate
$1,000,000 combined single limit
$2,000,000 aggregate

IX. Background
Bangor Public Health and Community Services (BPHCS) is a department of the City of Bangor,
employing 52 full, part-time, and per-diem employees. BPHCS supports the health of the
community through the maternal and child health services, General Assistance, Shelter Plus Care
Housing, homeless outreach, housing navigation, Woman, Infant, and Children Nutrition Program
(WIC), immunizations, infectious disease and travel health, nutrition education, and prevention
programs addressing substance use disorder, tobacco, and childhood obesity.
The goal of the Day Center is to provide a safe, low barrier, sanitary, secure, and welcoming place for
individuals experiencing homelessness, housing instability, and newly housed to receive information,
connect to services, and be supported by staff and peers. It is a location where people can congregate
during operational days/times. The Day Center must offer one meal a day, snacks, phones charging, Wi-Fi,
and access to health care and social services. The Day Center will be open at least Monday – Friday from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., but optimally Sunday – Saturday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

P26-53

Page 3 of 11

Day Center

X. Principal Contact
The vendor’s primary point of contact for this proposal shall be Ken Kinnear, Purchasing
Coordinator. This individual will coordinate the RFP process and serve as the point of contact for all
communications and inquiries. Please submit all inquiries to [email protected].
XI. Scope of Services and Qualifications
The RFP is open to nonprofit organizations with experience providing health, mental health, and
social services support that support people experiencing housing instability, substance use
disorder, and mental health challenges. The organization must be owners of the building proposed
for the Day Center or have a rental agreement that aligns with the time period of the Day Center.
The plan could include transportation services, such as providing bus passes or partnering with
another organization that can transport clients. The site must work with Bangor Code Enforcement
to ensure code standards and requirements are met.
Other Provider Qualifications
Experience providing shelter and/or services to individuals/families experiencing
homelessness.
Familiarity with the homeless response system and housing providers/resources.
Proven history of fiscal and reporting integrity. The City may require financial
statements or other documentation to evidence fiscal integrity, financial health, and
organization sustainability.
No uncompleted deliverables and/or reporting past contract deadline with City of
Bangor.
Preferences to spaces and organizations that could operationalize and manage a
warming shelter in the same space as the Day Center.
This RFP seeks to fund the Day Center services that will serve adults (ages 18 and over)
experiencing homelessness, housing instability, newly housed, and/or anyone seeking to be
connected to housing, social services, and other relevant resources.
The selected provider(s) must have the ability and competency to provide the following minimum
service components.
•
Program management and operation
•
Site and facility maintenance
•
Day center activity development and coordination
•
Offer one meal a day, snacks, phones charging, free internet access
•
Health and support services coordination –offer space for case management, mobile
services, housing navigation, employment, and other health and social service supports
•
Outreach and promotion of the program to the target population
•
Welcoming, safe, sanitary and inclusive program
•
Bathrooms with ability to quickly recognize and respond to overdoses

P26-53

Page 4 of 11

Day Center

•

Data Collection and reporting

XII. Time Requirements
The following schedule outlines the anticipated timeline for this RFP process. The City reserves the
right to modify these dates as necessary.
A. Release of RFP: June 2, 2026
B. Deadline for submission of questions: June 12, 2026 4:30PM EST
C. Responses to questions issued by the City: June 19, 2026 4:30PM EST
D. Proposal submission deadline: July 1, 2026 2:00 PM EST
E. Proposal review and evaluation period (to include interviews and presentations as needed):
July 2, 2026 through July 17, 2026
F. Proposals discussed at subsequent City Council Workshop or related Committee meeting.
XIII. Assistance to be Provided to the Vendor and RFP Preparation
The City will make reasonable efforts to provide information and assistance necessary for vendors
to prepare responsive proposals. Such assistance may include:
•
•
•
•

Responding to written questions submitted by the stated deadline
Providing clarification or additional information through formal addenda to the RFP
Coordinating and scheduling vendor demonstrations as part of evaluation process.
Providing general information regarding current workflows, program structure, and service
lines

All communication regarding this RFP must be directed to the designated point of contact.
Information shared in response to vendor inquiries will be available to all prospective vendors
accessible on the City’s website, as appropriate, to ensure a fair and transparent process.
Vendors are responsible for all costs incurred in the preparation and submission of proposals,
including any costs associated with demonstrations or presentations.
The City does not guarantee the availability of detailed technical documentation, data samples, or
on-site access during the proposal period. Vendors are expected to base their proposals on the
information provided in this RFP and any formal addenda issued.
XVI. Proposal Submission Requirements
Proposals must include:
A. General Information:
The vendor must include one (1) original, two (2) copies, and one (1) electronic copy), of the
following:

P26-53

Page 5 of 11

Day Center

•
•

Title page with vendor contact information
Letter of transmittal describing the vendor’s understanding of the project and ability
to perform the work

B. Technical
The Technical Proposal should clearly describe how the vendor will provide a
comprehensive day center. Proposal should meet the following specifications:
Applicant Experience: (5 pages maximum). Please describe your organization’s experience
and capability to provide the service being proposed. In your response, please include the
following:
Organization’s mission
Years of experience serving the unhoused population
Description of current programs provided to unhoused populations, locations
where services were provided, and funding sources of those services
Description of current collaborations with local organizations and agencies
Other information that demonstrates your organization’s capability and capacity
to deliver the program being proposed
Your organizations history and ability to operationalize and manage a warming
shelter 7 evenings a week from mid-November to end of March
Description of organization’s ability and proven history of financial management
and accountability.
Proposed Program: (7 pages maximum). Please provide a description of your proposed
program and services. In your response, include the following:
- Detailed description of the services to be provided – include a description of any
evidence-based/evidence-informed practices that will be implemented. Include
location of the Day Center and ownership or rental of the space.
- Approximate number of people to be served.
o For new day center proposals, describe maximum capacity of participants at
one time and justification for that number.
o For expanding your organization’s current day space, describe current
maximum capacity, proposed maximum capacity, and justification for the
new maximum capacity.
o For maintaining your organization’s current day space, describe current
maximum capacity and justification for that number.
- Outreach and marketing plan – include a description of how the program will be
promoted to clients and how clients will get to the location and access services
- Proposed staffing – include staff names, title, relevant experience, role in the
proposed program, number of hours per week in the program proposed, and
reporting/supervision structure. Describe the role of volunteers.
- Policies for participants ability to attend the day center. Describe how your proposal
provides low barrier access along with safety for participants, staff, volunteers, and
equipment/materials.
P26-53

Page 6 of 11

Day Center

C.

Partner organizations or subcontracts relevant to the proposed program
For organizations with existing day centers, describe current funding sources.

Budget Proposal
Provide a comprehensive itemized budget proposal. Include a detailed statement of hourly
rates for all positions, full-time employees dedicated to the proposed program,
subcontracting and consulting agreements, equipment and supplies, reimbursable
expenses, in-kind contributions, other funding sources, etc. The budget should clearly
explain all costs related to the services provided.
Please provide 2 budgets. One budget for 5 days a week (Monday – Friday, 9am-5pm) and
one for 7 days a week (Sunday-Saturday 9am-5pm). See Appendix A
All costs must be clearly stated and represent the full cost of services.

XV. Evaluation Procedures
A. Review of Proposals:
1. Proposals submitted will be evaluated by a Selection Committee comprised of the
City staff.
2. The City reserves the right, where it may serve the City’s best interest, to request
additional information or clarifications from Proposers, or to allow corrections of
errors or omissions.
3. At the discretion of the Selection Committee, one (1) or more Proposers
submitting proposals may be requested to make oral presentations or take part in
formal interviews or demonstrations as part of the evaluation process.
B. Evaluation Criteria:
Proposals will be evaluated using three (3) sets of criteria. Proposers
meeting the mandatory criteria will have their proposal evaluated for both technical
qualifications and price. The following represents the principal selection criteria, which will
be considered during the evaluation process.
1. Mandatory Elements:
a.
b.
c.
d.

The vendor is a non-profit organization.
The vendor does not have a conflict of interest with regard to any other work
performed by the firm for the City of Bangor.
The organization must be owners of the building proposed for the Day Center or
have a rental agreement that aligns with the time period of the Day Center.

P26-53

Page 7 of 11

Day Center

e. The vendor adheres to the instructions in this Request for Proposals on preparing
and submitting the proposal.
2. Technical Qualifications:
a. Vendor qualifications and relevant experience providing shelter and/or services to
individuals/families experiencing homelessness and collaboration with local partners
b. Adequacy of project team structure, staffing, and key personnel
c. Practicality and feasibility of proposed Day Center including scope of services, low
barrier access, and maximum capacity
d. Adequacy of outreach and promotion plan to ensure access
3. Oral Presentation: During the evaluation process, the Selection Committee may or may
not, at its discretion, request a presentation. Such presentations will provide an opportunity
for selected vendors to answer any questions. Not all vendors may be asked to make such
presentations.
4. Final Selection:
A recommendation for the award will be made to the City Council based upon the
recommendation of the Selection Committee

P26-53

Page 8 of 11

Day Center

Bid Form

Bid Form
Day Center
Proposal No. P26-63

Bid Deadline:
2:00 P.M., Wednesday,
July 1, 2026

Notes: The proposal must include this Bid Form. Failure to comply will result in disqualification.

Business Name:
Contact Name/Title:
Street Address:
City, State Zip:
Telephone Number:
Email Address:
Do you currently have, or are you in the process of, developing a domestic violence policy?
Yes / No
Item

Description

1

Total Price for Day Center (5 days)

2

Total Price for Day Center (7 days)

P26-53

Amount Requested

Page 9 of 11

Day Center

Appendix A
Budget Worksheet- 5 Days a Week
Provide a full budget to operate the Day Center for 1 year, using July 1 to June 30.
Day Center Program Budget
Staffing & Benefit Expenses
Amount

Description

Total Staffing & Benefit Expenses
Operational Expenses (including utilities)
Description
Amount

Total Operational Expenses
Description

Materials and Supplies Expenses
Amount

Total Materials and Supplies Expenses
Description

Other Expenses
Amount

Total Other Expenses
Total Day Center Expenses
Total Requested City of Bangor Funds
Total Other Leveraged Funds

P26-53

Page 10 of 11

Day Center

Budget Worksheet- 7 Days a Week
Provide a full budget to operate the Day Center for 1 year, using July 1 to June 30.
Day Center Program Budget
Staffing & Benefit Expenses
Amount

Description

Total Staffing & Benefit Expenses
Operational Expenses (including utilities)
Description
Amount

Total Operational Expenses
Description

Materials and Supplies Expenses
Amount

Total Materials and Supplies Expenses
Description

Other Expenses
Amount

Total Other Expenses
Total Day Center Expenses
Total Requested City of Bangor Funds
Total Other Leveraged Funds

P26-53

Page 11 of 11

Day Center

Request for Proposals
Day Center
Bid No. P26-63

Purchasing Department
73 Harlow Street
Bangor, Maine 04401
207-992-4282

Addendum Issue Date: June 18, 2026
Addendum No. 1
I. Questions:
The following questions were submitted. The City’s responses to the questions follow in Italics.
1. Q: Is there a minimum or maximum award amount?
A No, there is no minimum or maximum award amount.
2. Q: Can you please confirm the correct proposal number?
A: This request is proposal number P26-63.
3. Q: Are multiple awards anticipated, or is only one award expected?
A: The decision on whether to have multiple awards will be determined after proposals are
reviewed.
4. Q: What is the anticipated contract start date, given that proposals are due at the start of the
proposed period of performance?
A: This will be negotiated after award.
5. Q: Are administrative and indirect costs allowable under this contract?
A: Yes.
6. Q: Is automobile insurance required if transportation assistance is provided through bus
passes rather than agency-operated vehicles?
A: No.
7. Q: Is a phased start-up allowable if core services can begin immediately, but the organization
requires additional time to expand to full seven-day operations?
A: Yes.

Addendum No. 1

Page 1 of 2

P26-63 Day Center

8. Q: Does the City have preferred performance measures or outcomes for the Day Center
program?
A: We would work with the funded organization(s) to determine together.

The following Addendum(s) is/are hereby acknowledged:
Day Center – Addendum No. 1 – June 18, 2026
____________________________________
Business Name
____________________________________
Name (print or type)
____________________________________
Signature

Addendum No. 1

Page 2 of 2

P26-63 Day Center

City of Bangor Bid Tabulation
Bid: Day Center
Proposal No. P26-63
Bid Opening:July 1, 2026

Maine Mental Health
Connections
Total Price for Day Center (5 Days) $
Total Price for Day Center (7 days)
$
Was Proposal Responsive?

Bangor, ME
529,478.00
754,024.00
Yes

Bid Form
Bid Deadline:
2:00 P.M., Wednesday,
July 1, 2026

Day Center
Proposal No. P26-63

Notes: The proposal must include this Bid Form. Failure to comply will result in disqualification.

Business Name:
Contact Name/Title:

Maine Mental Health Connections d.b.a. Together Place Peer Run
Recovery Center
Joseph Hartel, Executive Director

Street Address: 2 Second Street
City, State Zip: Bangor, Maine 04401
Telephone Number: 207-941-2907
Email Address: [email protected]
Do you currently have or are you in the process of developing a domestic violence policy?
Yes | No
Description

Amount Requested

1

Total Price for Day Center (5 days)

$529,478

2

Total Price for Day Center (7 days)

$754,024

P26-53

Page 9 of 11

Day Center

Appendix A

Budget Worksheet- 5 Days a Week

Provide a full budget to operate the Day Center for 1 year, using July 1 to June 30.
Day Center Program Budget
Leveraged Funds consist of: $40,400 In-kind, $14,702 Individual/Corporate Donations, $208,000
Foundation/other Grants
Staffing & Benefit Expenses
Description
Amount
Program Manager (1 FTE @ $27.47/hr)
$72,656
Peer Support (CIPSS) Staff (2 FTE @ $24.46/hr)
$117,643
Recovery Coach (2 FTE @ $22.20/hr)
$68,664 (1staff w/Healthy Acadia @$15,000/annually)
Housing/Health Navigator (1 FTE @ $23.54/hr)
$55,222
Day Center Support & Safety Staff (2.5 FTE @
$96,535 (1staff w/Healthy Acadia @$15,000/annually)
$21.70/hr)
Custodial Staff (1 FTE @ $22.07/hr)
$53,367
Clinical Supervisor CIPSS (.06 FTE @$25.50/hr) $3,233
Administrative Support Allocation
$41,454
Total Staffing & Benefit Expenses
$508,774
Operational Expenses (including utilities)
Description
Amount
Facility Occupancy & Utilities
$19,882
Facility Operations & Maintenance
$9,534
Communications & Technology
$1,360
Insurance & Security
$11,894
Professional Services
$33,610
Total Operational Expenses
$76,280
Materials and Supplies Expenses
Description
Amount
Meals, Snacks & Kitchen Supplies
$93,600
Hygiene and Showers
$28,076
Program & Participant Supplies
$40,600
Facility & Medical Supplies
$4,800
Technology & Equipment
$23,350
Total Materials and Supplies Expenses
$190,426
Other Expenses
Description
Amount
Volunteer & Guest Stipends
$9,600
Staff Training & Development
$2,500
Recovery Data Platform
$5,000
Total Other Expenses
$17,100
Total Day Center Expenses $792,580
Total Requested City of Bangor Funds $529,478
Total Other Leveraged Funds $263,102 (see breakdown at top of worksheet)
P26-53

Page 10 of 11

Day Center

Budget Worksheet- 7 Days a Week

Provide a full budget to operate the Day Center for 1 year, using July 1 to June 30.
Day Center Program Budget
Leveraged Funds consist of: $44,844 In-kind, $14,702 Individual/Corporate Donations, $208,000
Foundation/other Grants
Staffing & Benefit Expenses
Description
Amount
Program Manager (1 FTE @ $27.47/hr)
$72,656
Peer Support (CIPSS) Staff (2 FTE @ $24.46/hr)
$117,643
Recovery Coach (2 FTE $22.20/hr)
$68,664 (1staff w/Healthy Acadia @$15,000/annually)
Housing/Health Navigator (1 FTE @ $23.54/hr)
$55,222
Day Center Support & Safety Staff (5.44 FTE
$248,601 (1staff w/Healthy Acadia @ $15,000/annually)
@$21.70/hr)
Custodial Staff (1.5 FTE @ $22.07/hr)
$77,253
Clinical Supervision-CIPSS (.06 FTE @$25.50/hr ) $3,233
Administrative Support Allocation
$41,454
Total Staffing & Benefit Expenses
$684,726
Operational Expenses (including utilities)
Description
Amount
Facility Occupancy & Utilities
$21,291
Facility Operations & Maintenance
$13,168
Communications & Technology
$1,360
Insurance & Security
$11,895
Professional Services
$33,610
Total Operational Expenses
$81,324
Materials and Supplies Expenses
Description
Amount
Meals, Snacks & Kitchen Supplies
$131,400
Hygiene and Showers
$34,537
Program & Participant Supplies
$44,333
Facility & Medical Supplies
$4,800
Technology & Equipment
$23,350
Total Materials and Supplies Expenses
$238,420
Other Expenses
Description
Amount
Volunteer & Guest Stipends
$9,600
Staff Training & Development
$2,500
Recovery Data Platform
$5,000
$17,100
Total Other Expenses
Total Day Center Expenses $1,021,570
Total Requested City of Bangor Funds $754,024
Total Other Leveraged Funds $267,546 (see breakdown at top of worksheet)

P26-53

Page 11 of 11

Day Center

Proposal Narrative
City of Bangor Day Center RFP P26-63
Submitted by Maine Mental Health Connections dba Together Place
July 1, 2026
Applicant Experience: (5 pages maximum). Please describe your organization’s experience and
capability to provide the service being proposed. In your response, please include the following:
Organization’s mission
Maine Mental Health Connections, d/b/a Together Place, is a peer-run recovery center located in
Bangor, Maine, grounded in the belief that people receiving mental health and/or developmental
disability services have the right to make meaningful choices about their own lives, recovery,
independence, and participation in the community. Together Place’s mission is to create opportunities
for individual and collective empowerment by providing a welcoming, peer-led environment where
participants can build connection, exercise choice, strengthen recovery and stability, and move
toward self-defined goals, including housing, wellness, employment, and community belonging.
Since 1981, Together Place has carried out this mission by creating a peer-led environment where
people can access recovery support, connection, meals, employment opportunities, and support
taking the next step toward greater independence and stability.
Years of experience serving the unhoused population
Together Place has 45 years of experience serving vulnerable adults in Bangor, including people
experiencing homelessness and housing instability. Since 1981, the organization has operated as a
peer-run recovery center for people facing mental health challenges, substance use disorder, poverty,
social isolation, and barriers to independence. Over time, Together Place has adapted its services to
meet growing community need, including increased demand for food access, daytime safety,
recovery support, service navigation, emergency shelter, housing stability, overdose response, and
employment pathways.
People experiencing homelessness and housing instability already use Together Place as a trusted
daytime location. Some come for meals, coffee, phone charging, recovery groups, peer support,
service navigation, or a safe place to be. Others are not yet ready to engage in formal services but are
willing to come inside because the environment is familiar, peer-led, and nonjudgmental. This
existing trust gives Together Place a strong foundation for operating a low-barrier Day Center that
people are likely to use consistently.
Together Place’s experience with the unhoused population is woven through the Recovery Center,
2nd Street Diner, Employment Connections, Together Place Housing, outreach and service
navigation, overdose response work, and The Sanctuary Warming Center. The organization
understands that people rarely experience one issue at a time. A person may need a meal today, a
place to rest tomorrow, help replacing identification next week, recovery support next month, and
employment support later. Together Place’s peer-led model allows people to remain connected across
those stages and co-occurring needs, creating repeated opportunities for engagement, stabilization,
and connection to housing, treatment, health care, benefits, employment, and community supports.

Description of current programs provided to unhoused populations, locations where services
were provided, and funding sources of those services
Maine Mental Health Connections, Inc. (MMHC) is the nonprofit applicant for this proposal. It
operates several connected program areas that together support recovery, housing stability,
employment, and community participation. Together Place Peer Run Recovery Center is one division
of MMHC and serves as the organization’s peer-run recovery and daytime community hub. MMHC
also operates housing-related supports through Together Place Housing and Employment
Connections, which provide pathways to housing stability, income, work experience, structure, and
longer-term independence as described in more detail below. The proposed Day Center would build
on this connected organizational structure by using Together Place as the primary site while drawing
on MMHC’s broader housing, employment, recovery, and stabilization capacity.
From its location at 2 Second Street in Bangor, MMHC, through its Together Place Peer Run
Recovery Center division, provides a connected set of low-barrier services that support adults
experiencing homelessness, housing instability, poverty, recovery needs, social isolation, and other
barriers to stability. These programs are intentionally complementary: participants may enter through
a meal, peer support, employment, housing-related assistance, outreach, or winter shelter, and then
remain connected to the organization as their needs and readiness change.
Together Place Peer Run Recovery Center provides a peer-run daytime community space where
people can access recovery support, groups, meals, coffee, informal peer connection, basic needs
support, service navigation, and a reliable place to return. Although the Recovery Center is not
exclusively a homelessness program, many people who are unhoused or housing insecure already use
it as a familiar and trusted daytime place to land, build relationships, and begin connecting to
support.
Peer-run recovery services are services designed and delivered in a setting where people with lived
experience of recovery, mental health challenges, substance use, homelessness, poverty, trauma, or
other life disruptions help create the culture of support. At Together Place, peer-run does not mean
informal or unstructured; it means that trained staff, peer specialists, recovery coaches, volunteers,
and participants use lived experience, mutual respect, choice, and relationship-building to reduce
stigma, build trust, and help people engage at their own pace.
The 2nd Street Diner provides meals, hospitality, and a low-pressure point of first contact. For many
participants, food is the immediate reason to come inside; over time, that first connection can become
a conversation about housing, recovery, treatment, benefits, employment, health care, documentation,
or other next steps. This makes the diner an important engagement tool as well as a source of basic
needs support.
Employment Connections helps participants rebuild income, work history, confidence, structure, and
purpose through supported employment opportunities, including paid cleaning contracts and
supervised work. These contracts give participants access to supervised, paid work in a setting that
understands recovery, housing instability, and barriers to traditional employment. They also
demonstrate MMHC’s ability to manage operational responsibilities, quality expectations,
scheduling, supervision, and earned revenue in support of its mission. For people who have
experienced homelessness, poverty, behavioral health challenges, incarceration, or recovery barriers,

employment support can be a critical part of longer-term stabilization because it restores routine,
income, self-efficacy, and connection to community.
Together Place Housing provides another part of MMHC’s support pathway by helping people move
toward greater housing stability when appropriate resources are available. The proposed Day Center
is not itself a housing program, but MMHC’s housing-related work strengthens its ability to help
participants connect to housing navigation, coordinated entry, referrals, documentation, benefits, and
support after housing is obtained.
Across these program areas, MMHC also provides outreach, service navigation, overdose response
awareness, partner connection, and practical help accessing housing resources, treatment, benefits,
identification and other documentation, health care, recovery supports, transportation options, and
day-to-day basic needs.
From November 2025 through April 2026, MMHC operated The Sanctuary Warming Center,
providing overnight safety, meals, basic needs support, recovery coaching, case management
connections, coordinated entry, and referrals for adults who had nowhere else to go during the coldest
months. With the first season complete, we anticipate this offering to continue in the coming years.
Current funding sources for these services include foundation grants, public support, individual and
corporate donations, earned revenue through cleaning contracts, diner income, in-kind support,
volunteer time, and other community contributions. MMHC has also pursued additional private and
public funding to help sustain and expand its year-round food, shelter, daytime, recovery, housingrelated, employment, and stabilization services. City Day Center funding would therefore build on an
existing service platform rather than create an isolated program from scratch.
Description of current collaborations with local organizations and agencies
Together Place works within Bangor’s broader homeless response, recovery, behavioral health,
public health, housing, food access, employment, and social service network. These relationships are
important because the proposed Day Center is not intended to operate as an isolated program.
Instead, it is designed to be a reliable access point where people who may not attend traditional
appointments can connect with providers, referrals, and supports in a familiar, low-barrier setting.
Together Place’s recovery, treatment, and behavioral health partnerships help participants connect to
substance use treatment, recovery coaching, medication-assisted treatment, counseling, medication
management, peer recovery supports, and follow-up care. Current service connections include
organizations such as Wellspring, Liberty Bay Recovery Center, Wabanaki Public Health, Courage
House, Cedar Roads, SaVida, Better Life Partners, Bangor Area Recovery Network, Northwest
Winds, Bangor Comprehensive Treatment Center, Northern Light Acadia Hospital, Healthy Acadia,
and mental health providers supporting therapy and medication management.
Public health and outreach partnerships also strengthen Together Place’s ability to reach people who
may be difficult to engage elsewhere. Bangor Public Health, HIV case management, STI testing
providers, PATH providers, and other outreach partners use or can use Together Place as a trusted
community access point for testing, prevention, education, referrals, follow-up, and service
connection. This is especially important for participants who may be disconnected from primary care,
behavioral health care, housing services, or other office-based systems.

Together Place’s shelter, housing, and stabilization partnerships support real-time connection to
coordinated entry, shelter resources, housing navigation, General Assistance, documentation,
benefits, and related services. Through its warming shelter work, Together Place coordinated with the
City of Bangor and community partners to provide overnight safety, meals, recovery coaching,
coordinated entry, case management connection, and referrals. That experience strengthened
Together Place’s role as a bridge between people experiencing homelessness and the broader network
of providers working toward housing stability.
Food access, basic needs, employment, and community-support partnerships help Together Place
meet immediate needs while also creating pathways toward longer-term stability. Meal and food
access relationships include partners such as Manna, Birch Stream Farms, the Salvation Army, and
Food AND Medicine. Employment and workforce connections include Eastern Maine Development
Corporation and MMHC’s Employment Connections program. Faith and community partners,
including Mansion Church, Church 27:4, The Brick Church, and other local faith communities,
support meals, volunteer engagement, spiritual support when requested, outreach, showers, and other
participant supports.
Together Place’s role in this network is both direct-service provider and connector. The organization
does not attempt to provide every specialized service itself. Instead, it uses its peer-run setting, daily
contact with participants, and community relationships to help people connect with the providers,
resources, and supports that already exist in Bangor.
Other information that demonstrates your organization’s capability and capacity to deliver the
program being proposed
Together Place is well-positioned to deliver the proposed Day Center because MMHC already
understands the population to be served, the Bangor service landscape, and the operational realities
of running low-barrier services in a shared community setting. A successful Day Center requires
more than an open room. It requires trained staff, clear expectations, daily structure, food access,
cleaning and sanitation, partner coordination, de-escalation, crisis response, data collection, and the
ability to build trust with people whose needs and readiness may change from day to day.
The proposed Day Center is a structured expansion of work MMHC is already doing, not a new or
untested program concept. Through its existing programming, MMHC has demonstrated the practical
capacity to operate daily services for people experiencing homelessness, housing instability, poverty,
behavioral health challenges, substance use disorder, and social isolation. MMHC’s leadership has a
demonstrated track record of operating homeless programming.
MMHC also brings the advantage of an established site, existing participant relationships, and an
integrated service pathway. Many potential Day Center participants already know 2 Second Street as
a place where they can access meals, peer support, recovery connection, employment pathways,
service navigation, and winter shelter. This existing trust reduces start-up risk and increases the
likelihood that people who may avoid traditional office-based services will actually use the Day
Center.
The proposed Day Center also fits within MMHC’s broader pathway of recovery, housing
connection, employment support, and stabilization. A person may first connect through the warming
shelter, local emergency department, jail reentry, street outreach, a housing crisis, a meal, or a peer

relationship. From there, MMHC can help the person stay connected to recovery support, housing
navigation, employment pathways, benefits, healthcare, basic needs, and community. The Day Center
would strengthen this pathway by creating a more reliable daytime front door into support.
Your organization’s history and ability to operationalize and manage a warming shelter 7
evenings a week from mid-November to end of March
Together Place has direct and recent experience operating a low-barrier warming shelter seven nights
per week during the winter season, which directly aligns with the RFP’s preference for organizations
and spaces that could operationalize and manage a warming shelter in the same location as the Day
Center. During the 2025-2026 winter, Bangor faced a severe shortage of warming shelter beds, and
MMHC responded by opening The Sanctuary Warming Center.
The Sanctuary operated seven nights per week from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. with 40 total beds. Over
the course of the season, Together Place provided more than 5,000 bed stays and served more than
400 unique individuals. The shelter remained open consistently, with only one night when it was
unable to open. This experience demonstrates MMHC’s ability to move quickly from community
need to implementation, operate at meaningful scale, and maintain consistent low-barrier access
during a period of high demand.
The Sanctuary was more than an emergency place to sleep. It functioned as an active engagement
point where staff and volunteers provided safety, meals, basic needs support, recovery coaching, case
management connection, coordinated entry, referrals, and follow-up opportunities in real time.
Description of organization’s ability and proven history of financial management and accountability.
MMHC’s 45-year operating history reflects sustained organizational continuity across changing
funding environments, community needs, and service demands. The organization is overseen by
leadership and a board of directors and maintains budgeting, bookkeeping, payroll, purchasing,
invoicing, reporting, and contract-management processes to support responsible financial
stewardship and program accountability.
MMHC uses standard nonprofit accounting practices to track revenue and expenses, maintain
documentation for grant and contract costs, monitor restricted and unrestricted funds, and support
accurate reporting to funders. Program-related revenue and expenses are tracked so that funds can be
used for their intended purposes and supported by appropriate documentation.
MMHC uses independent third-party financial reviews and professional financial support as part of
its fiscal oversight structure. MMHC is prepared to provide financial statements, review
documentation, budget reports, invoices, supporting expense documentation, or other fiscal materials
the City may request. If additional fiscal documentation is required by the City or future contract
terms, MMHC is prepared to work with its financial professionals to meet that requirement.
MMHC has successfully managed and reported on City-supported warming shelter funds, including
documentation of operations, bed capacity, individuals served, bed stays, meals, challenges,
accomplishments, unmet needs, and service connections. MMHC has no outstanding deliverables or
overdue reports from past City of Bangor contracts. For the proposed Day Center, MMHC will track
program activity and expenditures, maintain supporting documentation, submit required invoices and
reports on time, and work with the City to ensure reporting expectations are met.

Proposed Program: (7 pages maximum). Please provide a description of your proposed
program and services. In your response, include the following:
Detailed description of the services to be provided – include a description of any evidencebased/evidence-informed practices that will be implemented. Include location of the Day
Center and ownership or rental of the space.
MMHC proposes to expand the existing daytime recovery and support space at Together Place into a
formal low-barrier Day Center for adults experiencing homelessness, housing instability, newly
housed vulnerability, and related barriers to stability. The Day Center will be located at 2 Second
Street in Bangor. MMHC has a rental agreement for the space that is valid for the proposed Day
Center term described in this proposal and aligned with the period required by the RFP. MMHC will
work with Bangor Code Enforcement to ensure the site meets applicable code standards and
requirements for the proposed use. If awarded, MMHC will maintain all insurance coverage required
by the RFP throughout the period of performance and will provide documentation of coverage upon
request. MMHC already maintains the requested insurance apart from auto insurance because we do
not own or lease any vehicles at this time.
The Day Center will operate at least Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with a
proposed expanded option of Sunday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. if the City selects
and funds the 7-day model.
The Day Center will operate as one coordinated program with two connected spaces. The downstairs
area will serve as the lower-barrier day space for people who may not yet be ready for a formal
group, appointment, or referral. Some participants may arrive exhausted, overwhelmed, experiencing
substance use or mental health symptoms, or unsure whether they want to engage with services. The
first goal is to allow people to come inside, settle, eat, use the bathroom, and experience the space as
safe enough to return. That is not passive work. It is the beginning of engagement.
The upstairs area will continue to serve as the Recovery Center and structured engagement space.
Participants who are ready for peer support, recovery groups, wellness activities, service
conversations, or partner-led supports will be welcomed upstairs. This two-space approach allows
Together Place to serve people at different levels of readiness while preserving the peer-led recovery
culture that already exists at Together Place.
The Day Center will provide the required core services identified in the RFP. These include a safe,
sanitary, and welcoming daytime space; one meal per day and snacks; phone charging; free internet
access; bathrooms; basic hygiene and sanitation support; peer support; recovery-oriented
engagement; housing and service navigation; activity development and coordination; space for
partner providers and mobile services; outreach and communication with the target population;
transportation support through bus passes or partner coordination as funding allows; safety and deescalation; rapid recognition and response to medical emergencies, including suspected overdoses;
and data collection and reporting.
MMHC will operationalize these services through existing resources, dedicated Day Center staffing,
partner coordination, and budgeted program supports. Meals and snacks will be prepared and served
by Together Place staff and volunteers, with support from food partners, including Birch Stream
Farms. Phone charging and free Wi-Fi are already available at 2 Second Street and will continue to
be offered as part of the Day Center.

Bathrooms will be available onsite and monitored by staff to support participant safety and rapid
response to medical emergencies, including suspected overdoses. Together Place will also install
Brave Sensors as an added safety measure to alert staff to potential medical emergencies in
bathrooms or other high-risk areas. This technology will supplement, not replace, staff monitoring,
naloxone availability, overdose response protocols, and emergency response procedures. Together
Place expects to partner with The Brick Church to provide access to showers for participants.
Health and support service coordination already occurs at Together Place and will be strengthened
through the Day Center. The Day Center will function as a practical access point for public health,
recovery, housing, treatment, and social service partners who are trying to reach people who may not
reliably attend traditional appointments. The site is already used by providers trying to reach people
who are difficult to connect with elsewhere in the community, including HIV case management and
other service partners. Together Place also provides onsite STI testing and will continue to coordinate
with partners to connect participants to care and follow-up support.
Transportation barriers will be addressed through available bus passes and partner coordination. Bus
passes may be used to help participants access the Day Center, medical appointments, housingrelated meetings, treatment, benefits appointments, employment opportunities, or other essential
services.
Data collection and reporting will be completed through the Recovery Data Platform, which will
support consistent tracking and reporting and may help align with systems used by other shelters and
recovery centers. This platform will allow Together Place to log participant utilization, services
provided, meals, referrals, service connections, activities, incidents, partner engagement, and other
information needed for City reporting.
Together Place already offers a strong base of peer recovery and wellness programming that will
support the Day Center. Current or recently offered groups include Member Facilitated Peer Support,
Pathways to Recovery, Recovery FOR-U, All Recovery, SMART Recovery, SMART Recovery for
Family and Friends, Anger Management, Anxiety & Depression, Good Grief, Alternatives to Suicide,
Creative Writing, Arts & Crafts, Music Support, Mindfulness, Boundaries, Adulting 101, Maine Can
Work, and related peer-led or facilitator-led groups.
Together Place will offer simple engagement activities in the lower-barrier space and more
structured groups in the Recovery Center space.
Together Place will use the SAMHSA Eight Dimensions of Wellness as an evidence-informed
planning framework for Day Center activities. The framework recognizes that wellness is influenced
by multiple parts of a person’s life, including emotional, environmental, financial, intellectual,
occupational, physical, social, and spiritual well-being. For people experiencing homelessness or
housing instability, these areas are often deeply connected. A person’s recovery may be affected by
grief, sleep, food access, isolation, unsafe surroundings, lack of income, limited transportation,
untreated health needs, or disconnection from community.
Using this framework will help Together Place offer activities that support the whole person without
requiring every participant to follow the same path. A simple daily check-in may be used as an
anchor activity. Participants may be invited to answer questions such as: What is your goal for today?
Who can help you with that? What is one step you can take?

Approximate number of people to be served.
The figures in this section describe two different measures: annual unduplicated or substantially
unduplicated people served over time, and maximum point-in-time capacity in the physical Day
Center space. Together Place currently serves approximately 500 people per year through the
Recovery Center and related peer recovery programming. During the 2025-2026 winter season,
Together Place also served more than 400 unique individuals through The Sanctuary Warming
Center. These annual figures demonstrate both ongoing year-round engagement through the
Recovery Center and recent high-volume service to adults experiencing homelessness, housing
instability, and related barriers.
With City support, Together Place anticipates serving approximately 400 additional people per year
through the expanded Day Center. Some overlap across the Recovery Center, warming shelter, and
Day Center populations is expected and appropriate because the proposed program is designed to
provide continuity for people who already use Together Place services while also creating a more
consistent daytime access point for people who are not yet connected. The annual number served will
depend on final operating schedule, outreach, staffing, seasonal need, and participant utilization.
The proposed Day Center would expand usable daytime capacity by adding the downstairs lowerbarrier day space and formalizing the two-space model. Together Place proposes a maximum Day
Center capacity of approximately 60 participants at one time, with up to 30 participants in the
downstairs lower-barrier day space and up to 30 participants in the upstairs Recovery Center and
structured engagement space.
The 60-person maximum is intended to balance community need with safe and effective operations.
If utilization approaches capacity, staff will use participant-flow practices, partner coordination, and
real-time judgment to maintain safety, preserve access, and ensure that meals, bathrooms, activities,
and service connections remain manageable.
Outreach and marketing plan – include a description of how the program will be promoted to
clients and how clients will get to the location and access services
Together Place will promote the Day Center through practical, relationship-based outreach rather
than relying only on traditional marketing. Many potential participants are already familiar with 2
Second Street through the Recovery Center, 2nd Street Diner, Employment Connections, Together
Place Housing, outreach/service navigation, and The Sanctuary Warming Center. Staff will use these
existing relationships to explain the Day Center’s schedule, location, services, expectations, and lowbarrier access in clear, direct language.
Outreach will also occur through the broader network of organizations that regularly interact with
adults experiencing homelessness, housing instability, or newly housed vulnerability. Together Place
will share information with local shelters, outreach teams, case managers, housing providers, public
health partners, treatment and recovery providers, healthcare partners, General Assistance, faith
communities, law enforcement/community response partners as appropriate, and other community
organizations. Outreach materials will include clear information about hours, location, available
services, walk-in access, basic safety expectations, transportation options, and the low-barrier nature
of the program. Outreach materials will clearly state the Day Center’s standard operating hours.

Participants will be able to walk in during operating hours without a formal referral, appointment,
treatment enrollment, or proof of housing status. Staff will welcome participants, explain the space
and expectations, help identify immediate needs, and connect people to available supports when they
are ready. Many participants are expected to access the Day Center on foot, by public transportation,
or through partner-supported transportation.
Together Place will treat outreach as an ongoing implementation activity, not a one-time
announcement. Staff will monitor utilization, participant feedback, partner input, referral patterns,
and observed gaps. If people who need the Day Center are not accessing it, Together Place will work
with community partners to identify barriers and improve communication, referral pathways,
transportation supports, and access.
Proposed staffing – include staff names, title, relevant experience, role in the proposed
program, number of hours per week in the program proposed, and reporting/supervision
structure. Describe the role of volunteers.
The staffing model includes senior oversight, day-to-day program management, peer support,
recovery coaching, health/housing navigation, day center support and safety coverage,
custodial/facilities support, administrative support, and trained volunteers. Budgeted positions that
are not yet filled will be filled before program launch, and the final schedule will be confirmed based
on whether the City funds the 5-day or 7-day operating model.
Joseph Hartel, Executive Director, will provide senior oversight for approximately 10 hours per week
under both operating models. He has served as Executive Director since May 2024 and has
experience in peer recovery leadership, program operations, staff and volunteer supervision,
treatment access, residential care, community partnerships, fiscal oversight, and City-supported
warming shelter implementation. He will be responsible for contract oversight, City communication,
supervision structure, partner coordination, budget accountability, and overall program
accountability. He reports to the Board of Directors and will supervise the Program Manager and
administrative/financial staff as applicable.
The Program Manager, to be hired, will work 40 hours per week under both operating models.
Minimum qualifications will include experience in human services, homeless services, recovery
services, peer support, staff supervision, daily program operations, crisis response/de-escalation,
partner coordination, data collection, and low-barrier service settings. The Program Manager will
oversee daily management, scheduling, participant flow, partner and activity coordination, data
collection, incident review, and reporting. This position will report to the Executive Director and
supervise peer support/CIPSS staff, Recovery Coaches, the Health/Housing Navigator, Day Center
Support/Safety Staff, and volunteers.
Greg Pratley will serve as the core Custodial/Cleaning staff member, providing approximately 1.0
FTE under both operating models. If the City funds the 7-day model, MMHC will add a part-time
custodial staff member to be hired at approximately 0.5 FTE. Custodial staff will support cleaning,
sanitation, restrooms, trash removal, restocking, setup/cleanup, and facility support; report to the
Program Manager; and will not supervise other positions.
Annette King, CIPSS Supervisor, will provide approximately 2 hours per week of CIPSS supervision
under both operating models. She has experience in peer support, participant engagement, recovery
center programming, group facilitation, staff/peer support supervision, de-escalation, boundaries, and
connection to recovery, housing, health, employment, and community resources. She will supervise
CIPSS/peer support practice and report to the Executive Director.

Peer Support/CIPSS staffing will include Sheena Ramsdell and one additional staff member to be
hired, with each position budgeted at approximately 36 hours per week under both operating models.
Relevant experience and qualifications include recovery planning, peer-led groups, motivational
interviewing, housing/community connections, de-escalation, and self-advocacy support. Peer
Support/CIPSS staff will provide participant engagement, orientation, informal check-ins, deescalation, groups, and connection to supports. They will report to the Program Manager, with CIPSS
supervision from Annette King.
Recovery Coach staffing will include Andrea Page and a Healthy Acadia Intern, with each position
budgeted at approximately 36 hours per week under both operating models. Relevant experience and
qualifications include one-on-one recovery support, treatment and recovery referrals, relapse
prevention support, group facilitation, motivational engagement, and connection to recovery, MAT,
mutual aid, and community resources. Recovery Coaches will provide recovery coaching,
treatment/recovery referrals, groups, and one-on-one support. They will report to the Program
Manager, with Healthy Acadia supervision as applicable.
The Health/Housing Navigator, to be hired, will work approximately 36 hours per week under both
operating models. Minimum qualifications will include experience with housing navigation,
coordinated entry, benefits/documentation support, General Assistance, healthcare/public health
referrals, partner coordination, and work with people experiencing homelessness, behavioral health
needs, or housing instability. This role will support coordinated entry, housing navigation, benefits,
documentation, healthcare connection, and partner follow-up. The Health/Housing Navigator will
report to the Program Manager and will not supervise other positions.
Day Center Support/Safety Staff will support participant flow, meals and snacks, supplies, safety
expectations, bathroom monitoring, setup/cleanup, and de-escalation. Core support/safety coverage
will include per diem support of approximately 20 hours per week as needed under both operating
models and upstairs/downstairs coverage of approximately 36 hours per week under both operating
models, including staff to be hired and a Healthy Acadia Intern. If the City selects and funds the 7day model, MMHC will add contingent expansion coverage consisting of one additional 8-hour per
diem/float position and six additional 16-hour upstairs/downstairs support/safety positions. Minimum
qualifications will include experience in human services, shelter/day center operations, participant
support, de-escalation, safety monitoring, bathroom checks, food service, setup/cleanup, and work
with high-need populations. These positions will report to the Program Manager and will not
supervise other positions.
Administrative/Financial Support will be provided by existing administrative/financial staff as
needed under both operating models. Relevant experience includes nonprofit administration,
bookkeeping, purchasing, invoicing, payroll support, grant/contract documentation, expense tracking,
data entry, reporting, and fiscal recordkeeping. This role will support purchasing, invoicing,
documentation, expense tracking, data entry, and reporting support. Administrative/financial staff
will report to the Executive Director or role-specific supervisor and will not supervise other
positions.
During core operating hours, Together Place’s goal is to maintain approximately one staff/support
person for every ten participants across the downstairs day space and upstairs Recovery Center,
depending on final scheduling and daily utilization. This coverage level is intended to support
participant engagement, safety, de-escalation, bathroom monitoring, meals, partner coordination, and
activity flow without relying on volunteers as the primary safety structure.
Volunteers will supplement, but not replace, paid staff. Volunteers may support meals, hospitality,
activities, groups, cleaning support, donations, faith/community connections, and other appropriate
tasks. Volunteers will be oriented to Day Center expectations, participant confidentiality, boundaries,
safety protocols, and when to seek staff support. Paid staff will remain responsible for supervision,
de-escalation, participant safety, incident response, documentation, and overall program operations.

Policies for participants’ ability to attend the day center. Describe how your proposal provides
low barrier access along with safety for participants, staff, volunteers, and
equipment/materials.
Together Place will operate the Day Center as a low-barrier program for adults experiencing
homelessness, housing instability, newly housed vulnerability, and related barriers to stability.
Participants may walk in during operating hours and will not need a formal referral, appointment,
treatment enrollment, sobriety requirement, or proof of housing status to enter. Staff will welcome
participants, provide a brief orientation, explain basic safety expectations, help identify immediate
needs, and connect people to available supports based on readiness and choice.
Low-barrier access does not mean the Day Center will operate without structure. Together Place will
maintain clear, predictable guidelines to protect the safety, dignity, and well-being of participants,
staff, volunteers, visitors, equipment, materials, and the facility. Expectations will be explained in
plain language and reinforced consistently, including expectations related to respectful behavior,
smoking areas, food and drink, pets/service animals, personal belongings, equipment use, cleanliness,
bathrooms, and conduct that creates a safety concern.
Together Place will not allow weapons, threats, harassment, violence, stealing, property damage,
alcohol or illegal drug use on site, or behavior that creates an immediate safety risk. At the same
time, the Day Center will not exclude participants solely because they are experiencing substance use
disorder, mental health symptoms, poverty, homelessness, trauma, or other barriers.
Staff will use trauma-informed, peer-informed, and de-escalation-oriented approaches whenever
possible. When concerns arise, staff will use a graduated response that may include redirection,
reminders of expectations, offering a quieter space, separating individuals, involving a supervisor,
documentation, or helping a participant leave and return later when they can do so safely. If behavior
poses a serious or immediate risk, the participant may be asked to leave for a cooling-off period or
may be temporarily restricted from the Day Center. Re-entry after a serious incident will be handled
case by case with a focus on safety, accountability, and re-engagement when appropriate.
Staff will monitor participant flow, check bathrooms consistent with safety protocols and participant
dignity, respond quickly to medical emergencies including suspected overdoses, document incidents
as needed, and contact emergency services when appropriate. Equipment, supplies, food, cleaning
materials, participant belongings, and program materials will be stored and supervised in appropriate
areas. Volunteers will receive orientation on boundaries, confidentiality, safety expectations, and
when to seek staff support, while paid staff will remain responsible for safety, de-escalation, incident
response, documentation, bathroom safety protocols, equipment/materials oversight, and volunteer
support.
Partner organizations or subcontracts relevant to the proposed program
MMHC, through Together Place, will operate the Day Center as the lead organization and will
remain responsible for program management, staffing, participant engagement, safety, supervision,
data collection, reporting, fiscal accountability, and contract compliance. The Day Center will build
on Together Place’s existing partner network by serving as a consistent, low-barrier access point
where providers can connect with adults who may not otherwise make it to traditional office-based
appointments.
Together Place will continue coordinating with recovery, treatment, behavioral health, public health,
outreach, shelter, housing, food access, employment, workforce, faith-based, and community partners
already described in this proposal. These partnerships may support treatment and recovery referrals,
medication-assisted treatment connection, counseling and medication management referrals, HIV
case management, STI testing, PATH/outreach connection, coordinated entry, housing navigation,

General Assistance, meals, snacks, showers, donations, volunteer support, work readiness, supported
employment, activities, and other practical supports.
MMHC does not anticipate using subcontractors to replace its core responsibility for operating the
Day Center. MMHC may use ordinary vendors, subcontracts, partner agreements, or service
arrangements to support specific functions such as meal preparation, facilities support, cleaning,
showers, activity facilitation, wellness programming, partner-led groups, transportation coordination,
intern coordination, specialized navigation, or other operational needs. Partner roles, referral
pathways, onsite schedules, and any needed agreements will be finalized during implementation.
For organizations with existing day centers, describe current funding sources.
Together Place currently supports its daytime Recovery Center, peer support programming, meals,
basic needs support, service navigation, and related operations through a blended funding structure
that includes foundation grants, individual and corporate donations, earned revenue, in-kind support,
volunteer time, and other community contributions. The organization also generates earned revenue
through Employment Connections and related cleaning contracts, which support Together Place’s
broader mission and operating structure while creating supervised work opportunities for
participants.
Existing daytime services are supported through a blended funding structure that helps maintain the
Recovery Center, 2nd Street Diner, peer recovery programming, employment supports, housingrelated work, and general operations. The City’s investment would formalize and expand a trusted
daytime access point that already exists in the community, while giving MMHC the staffing,
structure, and accountability needed to meet the RFP’s Day Center requirements consistently.

What Makes a Star Shine?
A Measure of Excellence in Human Services
Prepared by J. Goodrich

Introduction
Excellence in human services is often recognized the way a star is recognized: by the
light it gives off. The light can be seen from a distance. But the light is not the star itself.
It is the result of what is happening within.
Human service organizations work the same way. An organization may have a good
reputation, dedicated employees, attractive facilities, successful fundraising, full
programs, and strong relationships with government and the community. Those things
matter. They are not, by themselves, proof of excellence.
The real question is what produces the light. What is happening inside the organization?
How does it treat people? How does it make decisions? Are its employees competent
and supported? Does it understand the problem it exists to address? Does it deliver what
it promises? Does anything actually get better for the people it serves? Does it know
when something is not working? And, most importantly, is it willing to let someone
outside the organization look closely enough to find out?
Excellence is not one thing. It is the result of many things working together.
What follows is a practical framework for examining those elements.

1. Human Services Are Different
Human services differ fundamentally from an ordinary retail transaction. In retail, the
relationship is relatively straightforward: a business provides something, a customer
pays for it, and the customer receives the product or service.
Human services are rarely that simple. There may be a provider, a payer, and a person
receiving the service. Those roles frequently do not overlap. Government may pay for
Page 1

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

part of a service. Medicaid or Medicare may pay for another part. A foundation, private
philanthropy, or municipality may contribute funding or facilities.
The arrangement is less a straight line than a triangle, and sometimes more like a web.
Each party has legitimate interests and responsibilities. The provider must deliver
competent services. The payer must ensure resources are used appropriately. The
person receiving the service has a right to be treated with dignity and to receive what
was promised. The community and taxpayers often have a legitimate interest because
they form part of the funding structure.
This complexity makes accountability more difficult—and more necessary.
The person receiving a human service is not simply a customer. The organization is not
simply a vendor. The money supporting the service does not necessarily come from the
person receiving it.
Evaluation must therefore look beyond whether a program is busy or whether the bills
are being paid. The question is whether the entire arrangement produces the result it was
intended to produce.
This distinction is important throughout the framework. A human service organization
may have multiple stakeholders, multiple funding sources, multiple measures of
success, and multiple responsibilities. Excellence therefore cannot be reduced to a
single financial, operational, or satisfaction measure.

2. Purpose
Know Why You Exist
An excellent organization should be able to explain who it serves, what problem it is
trying to address, what it hopes to accomplish, and why its approach makes sense. A
mission statement must be more than words on a website.
There should be a clear connection between the organization's mission, population
served, services, staffing, resources, partnerships, funding, and intended outcomes.
If the organization's name and logo were removed, would its purpose still be
understandable?
That question matters because organizations change. Programs grow. Funding
opportunities appear. New services are added. Leadership and staff turn over.

Page 2

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

Community needs shift. Over time, an organization can become very busy doing things
without stopping to ask whether those things still connect clearly to its purpose.
An excellent organization keeps asking:
What are we actually here to accomplish?
This is closely related to the basic logic of program evaluation. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) describes program evaluation in terms of understanding
program intent and the relationship among resources, activities, and expected outcomes.
A logic model can help make those relationships visible.
For example, a housing navigation program might have funding, staff, housing
information, partnerships, and data systems as inputs. Housing searches, applications,
landlord contacts, and case-management activities are activities. The number of housing
applications completed or landlord contacts made may be outputs. Housing obtained
and retained is an outcome. Longer-term housing stability and improved quality of life
may represent broader impact.
The important point is that the pieces should connect.
If an organization cannot explain how what it does is expected to produce the result it
claims to pursue, that is a legitimate question about the organization itself.

3. The Person
The Person Should Come Before the Program
Human services should begin with the person, not simply with the program. A program
should not ask only whether a person is appropriate for the program. It should also ask
whether the program is appropriate for the person.
People arrive with different histories, abilities, disabilities, needs, strengths, risks,
preferences, and levels of readiness. No organization can meet every need of every
person. It should, however, understand the people it serves well enough to recognize
those differences and respond appropriately.
This principle is consistent with person-centered planning. The Administration for
Community Living (ACL) describes person-centered planning as a process directed by
the person receiving support, with attention to individual strengths, goals, preferences,

Page 3

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

needs, and desired outcomes. It also emphasizes that people should be involved in
decision-making to the maximum extent possible.
Engagement is often a process. Someone may not be ready today and may be ready
tomorrow. Trust can develop. A crisis can settle. A housing opportunity can appear. A
relationship with a case manager can become meaningful.
Expectations around safety, responsibility, and participation remain important. Good
human services meet people where they are while helping them move toward where they
want and need to be.
The central question is:
Does the organization adapt its services to people, or primarily expect people to adapt
themselves to the organization?
A simple example is a person seeking housing who is technically eligible for a program
but cannot navigate its application process because of transportation problems,
cognitive limitations, communication difficulties, or other barriers. The organization may
be able to say that the person was offered a service. A person-centered evaluation asks a
harder question: Was the service actually accessible and useful to that person?

Dignity, Rights, and Responsibility
People do not surrender their rights because they need help.
An organization should establish clear expectations concerning dignity, privacy,
informed participation, grievances, appeals, reasonable accommodations, advocacy,
exclusion, reentry, and the responsibilities of the person receiving services.
People should understand what they can expect from the organization and what the
organization expects from them. Dignity and accountability are not opposites. People
can be held accountable while still being treated with respect.
This becomes especially important when an organization has the authority to remove
someone from a program or deny access to a service. There should be understandable
rules, a fair process, and, when appropriate, a pathway back.
A program may have legitimate reasons for excluding someone because of violence,
serious safety concerns, or behavior that cannot be safely managed within the program.
Excellence requires more than simply having the rule. It requires asking whether the rule
is clear, whether it is applied consistently, whether the person understands what
happened, and whether there is any reasonable pathway toward reengagement.

Page 4

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

Would a person receiving services understand both their rights and their
responsibilities?

Who Is Being Served?
It is necessary to know not only who is being served, but who is not.
A program can be technically available to everyone while still creating barriers that make
it difficult for certain people to use it.
Who gets through the door? Who leaves before receiving the intended service? Who is
repeatedly excluded? Who has different outcomes? Are those differences understood?
Some barriers may be necessary for safety or effective operation. Others may be
policies, habits, assumptions, or administrative practices that have never been
examined.
Accessibility matters. Disability, transportation, language, cognitive limitations,
communication, culture, and other circumstances can affect a person's ability to engage.
Not every person will receive identical services or identical outcomes. An organization
should understand who it is reaching and who it is not.
The question is:
Who is this program working for, who is it not working for, and what is known about
why?

4. Practice
Competence Matters
Good intentions are not enough. Human services require knowledge, skill, judgment,
preparation, and supervision. Employees need appropriate training and access to
supervision and consultation. The organization should prepare people for the actual
situations they will encounter.

Page 5

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

Where credible evidence exists, organizations should understand and use practices
supported by that evidence. Where evidence is less certain, the organization should be
honest about the uncertainty and able to explain why it has chosen its approach.
It is equally important to know whether the organization actually does what it says it
does.
A program can look excellent on paper and operate very differently in practice. If an
organization claims to provide intensive case management, housing navigation, peer
support, recovery services, or individualized assistance, people should actually be
receiving those services.
The standard is not what the brochure says.
The standard is what happens.
For example, an organization may report that it provides housing navigation. A
meaningful examination would ask what housing navigation actually consists of. Does
staff help people identify available housing? Complete applications? Obtain
identification? Address barriers? Communicate with landlords? Follow up after
applications? Remain involved when problems arise? The name of the service tells us
much less than the actual practice.

Safety Without Losing Humanity
Human services often involve difficult questions of autonomy, risk, behavior, mental
health, substance use, medical needs, and community safety. Those tensions are real.
A responsible organization needs clear procedures for emergencies, violence, medical
emergencies, mental health crises, overdose response, suicide risk, critical incidents,
exclusion, reentry, staff safety, and participant safety.
Safety should not automatically become an excuse for unnecessary restriction. The
challenge is to protect people without stripping away dignity, autonomy, and access.
Trauma-informed practice provides one useful framework for thinking about this balance.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) identifies
safety, trustworthiness and transparency, peer support, collaboration and mutuality,
empowerment and voice, and attention to cultural, historical, and gender issues as
guiding principles of trauma-informed approaches.

Page 6

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

That does not mean every organization must use a particular model. It does mean that
organizations should think carefully about the effects their policies and practices have
on people who may already have experienced trauma, loss, instability, or coercion.
The question is:
Can the organization protect safety while preserving dignity, autonomy, and access to
services?

5. Capacity
Capacity Is Part of Quality
A good mission and good intentions are insufficient if an organization lacks the capacity
to deliver its promises.
Capacity includes leadership, staffing, supervision, facilities, financial systems,
technology, policies, partnerships, information systems, and the infrastructure needed to
operate effectively.
An organization can genuinely want to do excellent work and still be overextended or
under-resourced. It needs enough qualified people to do the work. Supervisors must be
able to support staff. The organization must manage the money involved, collect reliable
information, respond when circumstances change, and understand its own limits.
Knowing what cannot reasonably be done is not weakness. It is often evidence of good
management.
Capacity also includes the ability to recognize limits before they become failures. An
organization that accepts more people, programs, funding obligations, or responsibilities
than it can reasonably manage may appear ambitious while actually weakening the
quality of its work.
For example, a program may promise intensive, individualized case management but
carry a caseload so large that meaningful individual attention is impossible. The problem
may not be the commitment of the case managers. It may be a capacity problem.
The question is:
Does the organization have the capacity to deliver what it has promised?

Page 7

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

6. Performance
Activity Is Not the Same as Results
There is a fundamental difference between activity and outcome.
Serving 500 people is useful information. It tells us that 500 people came into contact
with the organization. It does not tell us whether their situations improved.
What happened after the service was delivered? How many people achieved the intended
outcome? How quickly? Was the improvement sustained? What happened to those who
did not succeed? What did the organization learn?
The appropriate outcome depends on the service. It might be housing obtained and
retained, improved health, increased income, reduced crisis utilization, increased
engagement with recovery services, improved safety, improved quality of life, or reduced
recurrence of homelessness.
Outcomes must also be understood in context. A program serving people with extremely
complex needs may produce different results from one serving people with fewer
barriers. That difference does not automatically make one organization better or worse.
Meaningful evaluation requires knowing who was served, what needs they brought, what
barriers they faced, what the program was designed to accomplish, what outcomes were
reasonably expected, and what actually happened.
The decisive question is:
Did the organization produce meaningful change in the lives of the people it serves?

Measure What Matters
Human services can easily fall into the trap of measuring what is easiest to count.
There are several different levels of measurement.
Inputs show what resources were invested.
Activities show what was done.
Outputs show how much was produced.

Page 8

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

Outcomes show what changed.
Impact asks about the larger difference the work ultimately made.
These are not interchangeable.
A program may spend $500,000, employ eight people, conduct thousands of contacts,
and serve hundreds of individuals. Those numbers matter. They do not, by themselves,
show whether the program accomplished its purpose.
The CDC's current Program Evaluation Framework uses logic models to help connect
program resources and activities to expected outcomes and emphasizes evaluation as a
means of producing actionable information for decision-making and improvement.
The difference can be illustrated simply.
A shelter may report:
●
●
●
●

1,000 overnight stays;
200 individuals served;
150 assessments completed; and
75 housing referrals.

Those are useful outputs and activities.
They do not answer the next questions:
How many people moved into housing?
How many remained housed?
How many returned to homelessness?
How many received the services they needed?
What happened to the people who left without housing?
The farther the focus moves from activity toward meaningful outcomes, the closer it
comes to answering the question that matters most:
Did the investment make a difference?

Three Different Measures of Success
Three things are often treated as though they are the same, yet they are distinct.
Page 9

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

Service quality asks whether the service was delivered competently, respectfully, safely,
and as promised.
Program effectiveness asks whether the program accomplished what it was intended to
accomplish.
System effectiveness asks whether the program contributed to a stronger overall
response.
A person can receive a well-delivered service and still experience little improvement. A
program can produce good outcomes while providing a poor participant experience. A
program can be effective for the people it serves while creating gaps or duplication
elsewhere in the system.
All three levels matter.
Was the service good?
Did the program work?
Did the larger system benefit?

7. The People Doing the Work
Human services are ultimately delivered by human beings. Staff who are exhausted,
poorly trained, poorly supervised, unsafe, or constantly leaving cannot reliably provide
excellent services. Staffing is therefore a quality issue.
Qualifications, training, supervision, workload, turnover, burnout, safety, professional
development, and retention all matter.
If an organization continually loses experienced employees, the reasons should be
understood. If employees are overwhelmed, the organization should address it. If
experienced employees stay because they believe in the work and feel supported, the
practices that produce that result should be recognized and protected.
Staff conditions also affect the people receiving services. High turnover can disrupt
relationships, reduce continuity, increase training demands, and weaken institutional
knowledge.
An organization that wants consistent quality must pay attention to the conditions under
which its employees are expected to provide that quality.

Page 10

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

The question is:
Does the organization create the conditions necessary for good people to do good work?

8. Leadership and Organizational Culture
Leadership Is More Than the Person at the Top
Leadership is more than the person at the top. It is the culture created throughout the
organization.
Leaders should understand the mission, know the data, listen to staff and participants,
accept difficult information, and make changes when something is not working.
They should understand the difference between protecting the organization and
protecting its mission. Those are not always the same thing.
Concerns about reputation, funding, government relationships, or public criticism
matter. They cannot become more important than the people the organization exists to
serve.
Staff should be able to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. An organization cannot
learn if people are afraid to tell the truth.
The question is:
Does the culture support honesty, accountability, ethical practice, learning, and good
human services?

Can the Organization Tell the Truth About Itself?
Perfection is not expected. No human service organization succeeds with every person.
Honesty is expected.
A mature organization should know where it is succeeding and where it is struggling. It
should know who is not being served effectively, where people are leaving, where
exclusions occur, where staff are struggling, and where outcomes fall below
expectations.

Page 11

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

Failure that is recognized, examined, and learned from can make an organization better.
Failure that is hidden, denied, or repeatedly ignored becomes an organizational problem
of its own.
An organization should be able to say:
Here is what we do well.
Here is where we struggle.
Here are the people we serve effectively.
Here are the people we do not serve effectively.
Here is what we think is causing the problem.
Here is what we are doing about it.
Here is how we will know whether the change worked.
That is organizational maturity.
The question is:
Can the organization tell the truth about itself?

9. The Larger System
No Organization Exists Alone
Very few human service organizations operate independently.
People move among outreach, emergency shelter, health care, behavioral health,
recovery services, emergency medical services, corrections, housing, benefits,
employment, transportation, and permanent housing.
An organization needs to understand where it fits. It should know what happens before
someone reaches its door and what should happen after that person leaves.
A program can be very good at its own piece of the work while still creating problems for
the larger system if it produces duplication, gaps, conflicting expectations, or dead ends.

Page 12

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

For example, a program may successfully enroll a person, complete its own
requirements, and report that the person was served. But if the person leaves with no
next step, no connection to housing, no connection to treatment, or no realistic pathway
forward, the program's internal success may not translate into system success.
A strong organization understands that its responsibility does not necessarily end at the
edge of its program.
The question is:
Does the organization strengthen the larger system, or simply operate its own piece of
it?

The Organization and Its Community
Human service organizations are also part of the communities in which they operate.
Their responsibilities extend beyond participants and employees to neighbors,
businesses, municipalities, other providers, taxpayers, and the broader community.
Community discomfort should not determine who receives services. Legitimate
community impacts should, however, be acknowledged and addressed.
Serving vulnerable people and being a responsible neighbor are not mutually exclusive.
An organization should understand the effect its operations have on the community and
should be willing to participate in reasonable efforts to address legitimate concerns
without compromising the rights and dignity of the people it serves.
The question is:
Does the organization understand that it is part of the community?

10. Stewardship of Resources
Public and charitable money carries an obligation.
When an organization receives those resources, it should be clear what they are buying.
What does the service cost?

Page 13

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

How are resources allocated?
What services are actually delivered?
What outcomes are produced?
What does the community receive in return?
The question is not simply whether the organization spent the money. It is what the
community received for the money entrusted to the organization.
Cost alone does not determine quality, nor does low cost. The goal is value.
Value requires considering the relationship among resources, services, quality,
outcomes, and the needs of the population being served. A more expensive service may
be justified if it produces better or more appropriate results. A less expensive service
may be a poor value if it produces little meaningful benefit.
Good stewardship also means thinking about sustainability.
What happens if funding changes?
What happens if demand increases?
What happens if circumstances shift?
An organization should understand the relationship between resources, services,
outcomes, and sustainability.
The Government Accountability Office's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government, commonly called the Green Book, provides a useful reference point for
thinking about internal control, risk, accountability, and stewardship. The current
standards also expressly state that the framework may be adapted by nonfederal entities,
including nonprofit organizations and state and local governments.
The purpose of applying such a framework is not to turn a human service organization
into a government bureaucracy. It is to recognize that responsible stewardship requires
systems that help an organization understand what it is doing with the resources
entrusted to it.

11. Trust Requires Accountability
Trust is important. It should not require blindness.

Page 14

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

A strong organization should be willing to have its work examined through government
oversight, contract monitoring, financial audits, accreditation, independent evaluation,
participant review, community feedback, peer review, or other appropriate forms of
external examination.
The organization should not always be the only judge of whether it is succeeding.
Accountability is not the opposite of trust. In a healthy organization, accountability is one
of the things that makes trust reasonable.
An organization that can say, in effect, “Look at our work. Ask hard questions. Examine
our results. Tell us where we can do better,” demonstrates confidence grounded in
accountability rather than weakness.
This is reflected in accreditation models such as the Commission on Accreditation of
Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF), whose accreditation process includes organizational
self-evaluation and external review against standards of quality, with attention to
outcomes for people served and sustained organizational success.
The willingness to be examined should extend beyond financial compliance. An
organization can spend every dollar appropriately and still fail to accomplish its mission.
Financial accountability is necessary.
It is not sufficient.
Organizational excellence requires examination of practice, performance, outcomes, and
impact as well.

12. The Human Test and the Evidence Test
After all the policies, reports, audits, dashboards, contracts, and performance measures,
one human question remains useful:
If someone close needed this service, would this organization be trusted to provide it?
That is the human test.
It is not enough by itself. Liking an organization, respecting its employees, or believing in
its mission does not prove effectiveness.
The evidence test is also required.

Page 15

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

What does the organization say it is accomplishing?
What do the data show?
Are people actually receiving what was promised?
Are meaningful outcomes being achieved and sustained?
Who succeeds?
Who does not?
What happens when results fall short?
How much does the work cost?
Is the organization learning?
Can someone outside the organization examine the evidence?
The human test recognizes something that numbers cannot fully capture: the experience
of being served by an organization matters.
The evidence test recognizes something that personal experience cannot establish by
itself: an organization needs more than good stories to demonstrate that it is effective.
Trust matters.
Evidence matters.
Excellence requires both.

13. Excellence Means Learning
A strong organization is never finished.
It asks what it is learning, what is not working, what should change, whether the change
worked, and what should be tried next.
Continuous improvement should not be a slogan. It should be visible in organizational
behavior.
When participants identify a problem, leadership should respond. When staff identify a
safety issue, leadership should act. When outcome data show poor performance,
Page 16

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

something should change. When a policy repeatedly creates an unintended barrier, the
organization should examine the policy. When a promising practice produces better
results, the organization should understand why.
Learning also requires closing the loop.
It is not enough to collect information. The organization should use it.
It is not enough to conduct an evaluation. The organization should respond to what the
evaluation reveals.
It is not enough to identify a problem. There should be some indication of what was done
about it and whether the response worked.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) describes quality improvement
as a continuous activity rather than a one-time event and uses the Plan-Do-Study-Act
cycle as a practical model for testing changes, studying results, and adjusting future
action.
In practical terms:
Plan: What are we trying to accomplish?
Do: What change are we going to try?
Study: What happened?
Act: What did we learn, and what should we do next?
That cycle can be applied to something as simple as improving the way appointments
are scheduled or as significant as changing a program's approach to participant
engagement.
The organization should be better today because of what it learned yesterday.
That capacity for learning is what allows an organization to become excellent rather than
simply claim to be excellent.

What Makes the Star Shine?
A star does not shine because someone puts a label on it. It shines because of what is
happening within.

Page 17

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

The same is true of a human service organization.
Its mission provides direction. Its people do the work. Its competence gives that work
substance. Its capacity determines whether promises can actually be delivered. Its
culture determines how people behave when nobody is watching. Its treatment of
participants shows whether dignity is more than a word. Its outcomes reveal whether the
work is accomplishing something. Its stewardship shows whether resources are being
respected. Its relationship with the larger system shows whether it understands that it is
part of something bigger. Its willingness to be examined shows whether its confidence is
earned. Its willingness to learn determines whether the light gets brighter.
That is what makes a star shine—not reputation alone, not money alone, not activity
alone, not good intentions alone.
The light comes from all of these things working together in service of something that
matters.
The brightest stars do more than shine.
They help illuminate the way forward.

A Working Definition of Excellence
An excellent human services organization knows whom it serves, understands why it
exists, understands the problem it is trying to address, has the capacity to fulfill its
mission, treats people with dignity, respects rights and responsibilities, employs
competent people, supports and supervises its staff, delivers the services it promises,
uses appropriate and defensible practices, measures meaningful outcomes, understands
the difference between activity and results, understands who it is and is not reaching,
manages risk responsibly, protects safety without unnecessarily restricting dignity or
access, works effectively within the larger system, understands its relationship with the
community, stewards public and charitable resources carefully, listens to the people it
serves, accepts appropriate outside scrutiny, acknowledges failure, learns from
experience, and continually improves.
Perfection is not required.
Excellence is a reasonable expectation.
When public resources and the lives of people at difficult points in their lives are
entrusted to an organization, asking whether it is doing excellent work is not an attack. It

Page 18

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

is accountability. It is stewardship. It is respect for the people being served. And it is
respect for the people who provide the resources that make the work possible.
If the goal is to help an organization become a star, the concern should be more than
whether the light is visible.
The real work is understanding what makes it shine.

References and Influential Frameworks
The framework presented in this paper is a synthesis by J. Goodrich. It is informed by
established approaches to program evaluation, person-centered practice, traumainformed care, continuous quality improvement, organizational accountability,
accreditation, and stewardship of resources. The framework is not intended to reproduce
any one of these models or present them as a single standard. Rather, they provide
established reference points for many of the questions raised in this paper.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — Program Evaluation
Framework
The CDC's Program Evaluation Framework provides a foundation for examining program
intent, logic, activities, outputs, outcomes, context, and evaluation. The CDC's current
Action Guide emphasizes making evaluation useful for decision-making and
improvement and provides practical guidance for determining whether a program is
ready to be evaluated.
This framework informs the sections of this paper concerning purpose, logic, inputs,
activities, outputs, outcomes, evaluation, and the distinction between activity and
meaningful results.
Example: A program may report the number of people served, assessments completed,
referrals made, or contacts conducted. Those are important measures of activity and
output. Evaluation must go further to determine what changed as a result.
CDC Program Evaluation Framework Action Guide

Administration for Community Living — Person-Centered Planning
The Administration for Community Living describes person-centered planning as a
process directed by the person receiving support. It emphasizes individual goals,
strengths, preferences, needs, desired outcomes, decision-making, and adjustment of
services as circumstances change.
Page 19

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

This informs the sections concerning the person, dignity, choice, participation,
accessibility, and the question of whether services adapt to people rather than requiring
people to adapt to programs.
Example: A person may technically be eligible for a service but still be unable to use it
because of transportation, communication, cognitive, or other barriers. Person-centered
practice asks whether the service was actually usable and meaningful to that individual.
Administration for Community Living — Person-Centered Planning

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration — TraumaInformed Approach
SAMHSA's trauma-informed framework identifies principles including safety,
trustworthiness and transparency, peer support, collaboration and mutuality,
empowerment and voice, and attention to cultural, historical, and gender considerations.
This informs the discussion of safety, dignity, trust, participant experience,
organizational culture, and the need to consider how organizational practices affect
people who may have experienced trauma.
Example: A program may need rules concerning safety and behavior. A trauma-informed
examination asks whether those rules are understandable, consistently applied,
transparent, and implemented in ways that preserve dignity whenever possible.
SAMHSA — Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality — Continuous Quality
Improvement
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality describes quality improvement as a
continuous process rather than a one-time exercise. Its Plan-Do-Study-Act model
provides a practical way to test changes, examine results, learn from experience, and
adjust future action.
This informs the sections concerning organizational learning, continuous improvement,
measurement, experimentation, and the importance of closing the loop between
identifying a problem and determining whether a response actually worked.
Example: If an organization discovers that participants frequently miss appointments
because of a scheduling or transportation problem, it can test a small change, measure
what happens, study the result, and then decide whether to adopt, modify, or abandon
the change.
AHRQ — The Improvement Cycle: Plan-Do-Study-Act

Page 20

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities — CARF
CARF provides an example of an external accreditation model in which organizations
evaluate their own practices against standards and undergo external review. CARF
describes the process as one focused on quality, outcomes for persons served,
continuous improvement, and sustained organizational success.
This informs the discussion of organizational quality, self-evaluation, external scrutiny,
outcomes, and the proposition that an organization should not always be the only judge
of its own performance.
Example: An organization may believe its program is operating well. A structured selfassessment followed by an external review creates an opportunity to compare
organizational claims with documented practices.
CARF — Accreditation Information

Government Accountability Office — Standards for Internal Control
The Government Accountability Office's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government, commonly called the Green Book, provides a framework for internal
control, risk, accountability, and responsible management. The current standards state
that the framework may also be adapted by nonfederal entities, including nonprofit
organizations and state and local governments.
This informs the sections concerning stewardship, risk management, organizational
controls, accountability, and responsible use of public and charitable resources.
Example: Financial stewardship is not simply a question of whether every dollar was
spent legally. An organization also needs systems that help management understand
whether resources are being used in support of its objectives and whether risks are
identified and addressed.
GAO — Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government

Closing Note
These references provide established foundations for portions of the framework, but the
framework itself is intended as a practical synthesis.
The central proposition remains simple:

Page 21

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

A human service organization should be judged not merely by its reputation, its activity,
its funding, or its intentions, but by the relationship among purpose, people, practice,
capacity, performance, culture, system, stewardship, accountability, and learning.
The light that others see is the result of what is happening within.

Page 22

The Measure of a Good Human Services Organization

Fish Position Summary: Goodrich Response
A Review of Carolyn Fish's Observations, Proposed “HUB,” and Homeless
Response Manager Model
Prepared by J. Goodrich
Bangor Advisory Committee on Homelessness

Purpose
Carolyn Fish's Position Summary, Updated Observations, Draft Report, and December 30,
2025 Summary contain a substantial number of observations and recommendations concerning
Bangor's response to homelessness.
I believe her work deserves careful consideration, particularly because much of what she raises
concerns the organization and coordination of the homelessness response system, rather than
any single program or service provider.
Fish's central argument is that Bangor needs a more organized approach. She identifies concerns
involving coordination, communication, duplication of services, gaps in services, accountability,
municipal boundaries, resource allocation, and measurable outcomes. She proposes a “HUB”
structure and a Homeless Response Manager to coordinate participating organizations and City
departments, assess resources, identify duplication and gaps, establish expectations, monitor
performance, and report outcomes.
I am not presenting this response as an argument that Fish is either right or wrong.
My purpose is to examine the questions raised by her work against what we know about
Bangor's homelessness response in 2026 and identify what the Advisory Committee should
understand before making recommendations to the Bangor City Council.
In particular, I think we should determine:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

pg. 1

What structures already exist?
Who is responsible for what?
Where does Bangor fit within the larger system?
What functions are already being performed?
Where are the gaps?
Are there overlapping or duplicative functions?
What information and outcome measures are currently available?
And, ultimately, does Bangor need a new structure, or does it need to better use and
connect structures that already exist?

1. Fish's Central Organizational Argument
Fish writes:
“I think the problem starts at the top.”
Her position is that Bangor needs to think in terms of an organizational, operational, and
processing model before attempting to manage individual aspects of homelessness.
She argues for clearer boundaries, guidelines, strategies, collaborative processes, and
accountability.
I think this is an important question.
At the same time, Bangor does not operate in an organizational vacuum.
There are already numerous structures involved in homelessness, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

the City of Bangor;
the Bangor Advisory Committee on Homelessness;
the Continuum of Care;
Coordinated Entry;
the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS);
Homeless Response Service Hubs;
Hub 7 and its coordinator;
the Region 3 Homeless Council;
MaineHousing;
housing authorities;
shelters;
outreach organizations;
health and behavioral-health providers;
substance-use disorder providers;
state agencies;
law enforcement;
and other regional partners.

That changes the question somewhat.
Rather than simply asking whether Bangor has enough organizational structure, I think we
should ask:
Are the structures that already exist sufficiently understood, connected, coordinated, and
effective?

pg. 2

That leads to some basic questions:
Who coordinates the overall response?
Who identifies duplication?
Who identifies gaps?
Who monitors outcomes?
Who communicates those outcomes?
Who determines where the City's responsibility ends and another organization's
responsibility begins?
These are questions raised by Fish's work that deserve answers.

2. Fish's Proposed “HUB”
Fish proposes a “HUB” bringing together City departments and outside partners.
Her suggested participants include hospitals, correctional facilities, municipalities, nonprofit
organizations, for-profit organizations, state agencies, faith-based organizations, and other
stakeholders.
She envisions the HUB as a mechanism for:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

coordination;
resource assessment;
identifying duplication;
identifying gaps;
accountability;
communication;
outcome measurement; and
strategic planning.

I think the first question we should ask is whether some or all of these functions are already
being performed.
Bangor is already part of Hub 7, which serves Penobscot and Piscataquis Counties, and there is a
Hub 7 Coordinator.

pg. 3

Bangor also participates in the broader Continuum of Care system, Coordinated Entry, and other
regional and state structures.
The existence of Hub 7 does not mean that it is the same thing Fish is proposing.
But it does mean that we should understand the distinction before creating another structure.
The question I would ask is:
What does Hub 7 currently do, what does the Hub 7 Coordinator coordinate, what
authority does that structure have, and which of Fish's proposed functions are not already
being performed?
If the functions Fish describes are already being performed, we need to know whether the
problem is:
•
•
•
•
•
•

insufficient participation;
unclear authority;
inadequate communication;
inadequate resources;
lack of accountability;
or poor performance.

If those functions are not being performed, then Fish's proposal may identify a genuine
organizational gap.

3. Bangor and the Regional Homelessness
System
This question became even more important following a recent Advisory Committee meeting.
During public comment, a shelter provider stated that the City of Bangor had not been
participating in the Region 3 Homeless Council. That was confirmed during the meeting,
along with an indication that City participation would be occurring going forward.
I think that is a positive step.
It also raised a larger question for me:
Do we, as a committee, have a sufficiently clear and shared understanding of the
homelessness system of which Bangor is already a participant?

pg. 4

The Continuum of Care, Region 3 Homeless Council, Homeless Response Service Hubs,
MaineHousing, municipalities, housing authorities, service providers, and people with lived
experience all have roles.
They are connected.
They are not interchangeable.
Bangor is also more than a municipality with a local homelessness problem. It is a regional
service center.
People access shelters, health care, housing assistance, behavioral-health services, substance-use
services, and other resources here from throughout the region.
The City itself also participates directly in the homelessness response.
Among other responsibilities, Bangor administers the Bangor Rental Assistance Program,
formerly known as Shelter Plus Care, providing permanent rental assistance to eligible people
experiencing homelessness with qualifying disabilities.
Bangor therefore isn't standing outside the homelessness system looking in.
Bangor is already a participant in the system.
For that reason, I do not think our strategic planning process should begin by asking:
“What new program should Bangor create?”
I think we should first ask:
“What system are we already part of, how is it supposed to work, and where does Bangor
fit within it?”

4. Bringing the Existing System to the Table
One practical step would be to invite representatives from the existing homelessness system to
meet with the Advisory Committee.
I recommend conversations with:
•
•
•

pg. 5

Maine Continuum of Care leadership
MaineHousing
Region 3 Homeless Council

•
•

Hub 7 Coordinator
People with lived experience of homelessness

I would prefer these to be conversations rather than simply presentations.
We should be able to ask:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

How do the different pieces connect?
Where does Bangor fit?
What should Bangor be participating in?
What information should flow between the different structures?
Where are the gaps?
Where are the breakdowns?
What does the regional system need from Bangor?
What should Bangor expect from the regional system?

I think this is particularly important because the Advisory Committee has been charged with
developing a strategic plan that is data-driven, evidence-informed, and considers regional
and structural coordination.
Before we can responsibly recommend changes, we need a common understanding of the system
we are attempting to improve.

5. The Proposed Homeless Response
Manager
Fish's proposed Homeless Response Manager deserves similar examination.
She envisions this position as responsible for:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

strategic planning;
program design;
resource coordination;
identifying duplication and inefficiencies;
monitoring performance;
managing accountability and risk;
stakeholder engagement;
communication;
and outcome evaluation.

That is a substantial responsibility.

pg. 6

Before recommending such a position, I think we should determine whether these functions
already exist elsewhere.
For each function, we should be able to identify:
Who performs it?
What authority do they have?
What information do they have access to?
Who do they report to?
What outcomes are they responsible for?
If nobody performs a particular function, that may identify a legitimate gap.
If several organizations perform portions of it, the problem may be fragmentation.
If an existing organization already performs it, the issue may instead be participation,
communication, authority, resources, or performance.
There is also a fundamental question about authority.
A coordinator can organize meetings and facilitate communication. But if participating
organizations have no expectation to participate, share appropriate information, respond to
identified gaps, or work toward agreed outcomes, coordination can become another meeting
rather than an effective management structure.
Before creating a Homeless Response Manager position, I believe we should understand what
authority such a position would actually have and how that authority would relate to the
structures already in place.

6. Outcomes and Accountability
Fish places considerable emphasis on measurable outcomes, accountability, performance
measures, timelines, deliverables, and reporting.
I believe this is an area where the Committee needs more information.
Before concluding that outcomes are good or poor, we need to know what outcomes are being
measured.

pg. 7

At a system level, I believe the Committee should be able to understand:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

How many people enter the homelessness response system.
Where they enter the system.
What services they receive.
How long they remain in those services.
How many obtain housing.
How many retain housing.
How many return to homelessness.
What services are unavailable when needed.
What programs receive public funding.
What those programs are expected to accomplish.
What outcomes they actually report.

This would allow the Committee to evaluate the system without beginning with the assumption
that existing programs are either succeeding or failing.
It would also give us a baseline against which future recommendations could be measured.

7. Fish's Research Into Other Communities
Fish reports contacting nearly 40 community leaders in colder-climate communities with
populations generally comparable to Bangor.
She reports that many of those communities experienced some homelessness but did not
experience what she considered the same level of visible homelessness or require the same
degree of specialized municipal response.
I think that research is potentially useful.
At the same time, telephone conversations alone cannot establish that Bangor is directly
comparable to those communities.
We would need to consider:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

pg. 8

how each community defines homelessness;
how unsheltered homelessness is counted;
housing costs;
poverty;
regional service responsibilities;
shelter availability;
behavioral-health resources;
substance-use conditions;

•
•
•

population characteristics;
geography;
and whether the community functions as a regional service center.

Fish's research therefore gives us a reason to conduct further comparison, rather than
providing a final answer.
A systematic comparison of Bangor with similarly sized cold-climate communities could
become a useful component of the strategic planning process.

8. The “From Here” and “From Away”
Question
Fish reports conflicting information concerning where Bangor's unhoused population originates.
She notes that some residents believe many people are from outside Bangor or Maine, while
some service providers believe the majority are from Bangor or the Hub Bangor service area.
She also reports an estimate from some people in the field that approximately 60 percent may be
from outside the service area.
Fish ultimately concludes that both positions may contain some truth.
I think this is an area where we need better definitions before drawing conclusions.
“From away” can mean many different things.
Someone may have been born somewhere else but lived in Bangor for decades.
Someone else may have recently arrived from another community.
Someone may have family, employment, education, or other longstanding connections here.
If origin is important to understanding Bangor's homelessness population, we should establish
what we actually mean.
Useful questions might include:
•
•
•
•

pg. 9

Where did the person last maintain permanent housing?
How long did they live in the Bangor area?
Where did they become homeless?
Are they from within the Hub 7 service area?

•
•

Are they receiving services from Bangor because those services are unavailable
elsewhere?
Are they moving between communities?

Those questions would give us more useful information than simply labeling someone local or
“from away.”

9. A Personal Observation About “From
Away”
There is another reason I think we should be careful with this terminology.
I moved to this area at age 26.
I have lived here for decades. I raised my family here. My children grew up here, attended
college, and live here today in their own houses. I have worked in the human-services field in
this community for approximately 30 years.
At what point does a person stop being “from away”?
That is not merely a rhetorical question.
It illustrates why place of birth, previous residence, current community connection, and
service-area eligibility are four different things.
If the Committee wants to understand geographic movement within the homelessness system, we
should use objective definitions rather than a broad local-versus-outsider distinction.

10. Municipal Responsibility and Boundaries
Fish argues that Bangor needs clearer boundaries regarding what the City can and should
provide.
I agree that this deserves examination.
The City cannot reasonably be expected to provide every service associated with homelessness,
mental health, substance-use disorder, housing, health care, poverty, or recovery.
At the same time, Bangor has legitimate municipal responsibilities involving:

pg. 10

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

public safety;
public infrastructure;
municipal services;
land use;
emergency response;
ordinances;
public property;
and responsible use of public funds.

The challenge is defining where those responsibilities begin and end.
I think the strategic planning process should ask:
What is Bangor responsible for, what is Bangor currently providing, what is being
provided by others, and where are the remaining gaps?
That is a more useful starting point than simply asking what more Bangor should provide.

11. Duplication and Missing Services
Fish states that some services may be duplicated while others are lacking.
That is an area where we should be able to obtain better information.
A system-wide resource inventory could identify:
Category
Information
Provider
Who provides the service?
Program
What is being provided?
Funding
Who pays for it?
Population
Who is eligible?
Capacity
How many people can be served?
Eligibility
What requirements exist?
Location
Where is the service available?
Hours
When is it available?
Referral
How does someone access it?
Expected outcome What is the program intended to accomplish?
Actual outcome What results are being reported?
Once that information is assembled, duplication and gaps become much easier to identify.

pg. 11

Without such an inventory, discussions about whether Bangor has “enough” services can depend
heavily on individual experience.

12. Communication
Fish's updated observations also discuss communication between the Committee and the public.
She reported that members of the public had difficulty hearing a Committee discussion after
members moved away from microphones and that some people left the meeting as a result.
The immediate issue was technical.
The larger point is worth retaining.
The Advisory Committee is a public body. Public participation and public understanding are part
of its legitimacy.
Communication should therefore be treated as part of our work.
That means:
•
•
•
•
•
•

making meetings understandable to people who are not service professionals;
making sure people can hear the discussion;
explaining terminology;
distinguishing information from recommendations;
providing accessible information about what the Committee is studying;
and communicating what the Committee is learning.

A committee cannot build public confidence if people cannot hear or understand what is
happening in the room.

13. Accountability and Consistent
Expectations
Fish argues for accountability, boundaries, consistent expectations, and enforcement.
I believe accountability is appropriate, but it should be applied across the system.
There should be appropriate accountability for:

pg. 12

•
•
•
•
•
•

individuals receiving services;
service providers;
organizations receiving public funds;
municipal departments;
regional partners;
and other organizations responsible for particular functions.

If the City expects measurable outcomes from organizations receiving public funds, those
expectations should be clearly established.
Likewise, if people receiving services are expected to follow rules, those rules should be clear,
lawful, consistently applied, and understandable.
Accountability should be a system-wide principle, not something applied only to one part of the
system.

14. What Fish's Work Raises for the Advisory
Committee
After reviewing Fish's various work products, I believe the central question is not simply
whether her proposed HUB is a good idea.
The more fundamental question is:
Do we currently understand the system well enough to know whether we need another
structure?
That question is particularly relevant because Bangor already has multiple layers of
homelessness coordination.
We have:
City of Bangor
↓
Bangor Advisory Committee on Homelessness
↓
Continuum of Care

pg. 13

↓
Region 3 Homeless Council
↓
Hub 7
↓
Service providers and community partners
with MaineHousing, housing authorities, state agencies, health systems, municipalities, and
others interacting across those structures.
That is a simplified picture, not a description of formal lines of authority.
And that is precisely the problem.
We need to understand the actual picture.

15. What I Believe the Committee Should Do
Next
I recommend that the Committee invite representatives from:

Maine Continuum of Care
We should ask leadership to explain:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

how the CoC is organized;
how Bangor participates;
how Coordinated Entry operates;
how HMIS data is used;
how federal funding flows;
how performance is measured;
and what the CoC expects from Bangor.

MaineHousing
We should ask MaineHousing to explain:

pg. 14

•
•
•
•
•
•

its role in homelessness;
housing programs and funding;
resources available to Bangor;
how housing development is financed;
how municipalities participate;
and current housing needs and opportunities.

Region 3 Homeless Council
We should ask:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Why does Region 3 exist?
How is it organized?
What does it coordinate?
Who participates?
What does Bangor's participation mean?
What does Region 3 need from Bangor?
What should Bangor expect from Region 3?

Hub 7 Coordinator
We should ask:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

What does Hub 7 actually coordinate?
Who participates?
How does it interact with the CoC?
How does Coordinated Entry operate locally?
What information is shared?
What services are available?
Where are the gaps?
What authority does the Hub have?
What does the Hub need from Bangor?

People With Lived Experience
We should also hear from people who have actually navigated the system.
A system can look very different from the perspective of the people administering it than it does
from the perspective of the person trying to obtain shelter, health care, identification,
transportation, treatment, housing, or other assistance.
That perspective should be part of our understanding of how the system actually functions.

pg. 15

16. These Should Be Conversations, Not Just
Presentations
I would prefer that these meetings not consist simply of a twenty-minute presentation followed
by a few questions.
The Committee should use the opportunity to understand how the pieces connect.
We should be able to ask:
Who does what?
Who has authority?
Who collects the information?
Who coordinates the work?
Who funds the work?
Who measures the results?
Who reports the results?
Where does Bangor fit?
What should Bangor be participating in?
What does the regional system need from Bangor?
What should Bangor expect from the regional system?
And, perhaps most importantly:
Which functions identified by Fish are already being performed, which are being
performed only partially, and which are not being performed at all?
That last question could tell us whether Fish has identified an actual organizational gap.

17. Before We Recommend a New HUB
pg. 16

I do not think the Committee should reject Fish's HUB proposal.
I also do not think we should endorse it yet.
First, we should map the existing system.
If Hub 7 already performs many of the proposed functions, perhaps the issue is that Bangor
needs to participate more fully.
If the Continuum of Care already performs certain functions, perhaps those functions need to be
better understood or connected locally.
If Region 3 provides a regional structure but lacks municipal coordination, perhaps that is the
gap.
If no existing organization has responsibility for particular functions, then Fish may have
identified something important.
The answer may ultimately be a new HUB.
It may be stronger participation in an existing HUB.
It may be a municipal coordinator.
It may be some combination.
We should determine that from the evidence.

18. Before We Recommend a Homeless
Response Manager
The same principle applies to Fish's proposed position.
Before creating a new position, I would recommend that the Committee identify the functions
first.
For example:
Function
Strategic planning
Resource inventory

pg. 17

Who Does It Now? Authority Data Available Reporting Gap?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?

Function
Who Does It Now? Authority Data Available Reporting Gap?
Provider coordination ?
?
?
?
?
Identify duplication
?
?
?
?
?
Identify service gaps ?
?
?
?
?
Outcome measurement ?
?
?
?
?
Grant monitoring
?
?
?
?
?
Public communication ?
?
?
?
?
Regional coordination ?
?
?
?
?
If the table reveals that one person or organization already performs these functions, we have
learned something.
If it reveals that responsibilities are scattered among several organizations, we have learned
something else.
If it reveals that important functions have no clear owner, we may have identified the
organizational problem Fish is describing.

19. Preliminary Goodrich Assessment
I believe Fish has identified legitimate questions about the organization and management of
Bangor's homelessness response.
Her concerns about:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

coordination;
accountability;
municipal boundaries;
resource allocation;
duplication;
communication;
regional responsibility;
and measurable outcomes

deserve serious consideration.
Her proposed HUB and Homeless Response Manager are possible responses to those concerns.
But Bangor already participates in a larger homelessness response system containing many of the
structures and functions Fish describes.

pg. 18

That means we should be careful not to create another layer before understanding the ones that
already exist.
The problem may be:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

a missing function;
fragmented responsibility;
inadequate participation;
insufficient communication;
lack of authority;
inadequate resources;
or some combination of these.

We need to know which one we are dealing with.
That is why I believe the Committee should first hear directly from the organizations responsible
for the existing regional and state structures and from people who have actually navigated the
system.
Fish's work gives us useful questions.
Our responsibility is to determine which of those questions can be answered with evidence,
which require further investigation, and what that information tells us about Bangor's next steps.

20. A Practical Next Step for the Strategic
Plan
I believe these conversations could become one of the first building blocks of our strategic
planning process.
Before we recommend additional programs, funding, staffing, or organizational structures, we
should establish a baseline understanding of the existing homelessness response system.
That baseline should identify:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

pg. 19

The structures that already exist.
The organizations participating in them.
The responsibilities and authority of each.
The resources available.
The services being provided.
The populations being served.
The funding supporting those services.

8. The outcomes being measured.
9. The information currently available to the City and Committee.
10. The gaps, duplication, and unresolved questions.
Once we have that information, we will be in a much better position to determine what Bangor
should do next.

Conclusion
Carolyn Fish's work has prompted a useful discussion about something larger than any individual
homelessness program.
It asks whether Bangor has an organized, coordinated, accountable system for responding to
homelessness—or whether we have a collection of organizations and programs that sometimes
work together but are not operating from a sufficiently clear common structure.
I don't think we should assume the answer either way.
Bangor already has substantial resources and established structures. The question is how well
those pieces fit together and whether the responsibilities among them are sufficiently clear.
That is why I believe the Committee's first response to Fish's proposal should be understanding
rather than immediate adoption or rejection.
Let's bring the existing system into the room.
Let's hear from the Continuum of Care.
Let's hear from MaineHousing.
Let's hear from Region 3.
Let's hear from the Hub 7 Coordinator.
Let's hear from people who have lived through the system.
Then let's compare what we learn with the functions Fish believes are missing.
At that point, we can make a much more informed decision about whether Bangor needs a new
HUB, a Homeless Response Manager, stronger participation in existing structures, better
coordination among existing structures, or something else entirely.
The City may ultimately determine that a new coordination structure is necessary.

pg. 20

It may determine that existing structures need to be strengthened.
It may determine that Bangor needs to participate more fully in structures that already exist.
The answer may be some combination of all three.
But I think there is a sound principle for the Committee to follow:
Before we change the system, let's understand the system.
And before we decide what Bangor needs to do, let's make sure we understand where Bangor
already belongs.
J. Goodrich
Bangor Advisory Committee on Homelessness

pg. 21

Homelessness and Suggested Strategies
Setting the Stage
It is a great understatement to say that homelessness in Bangor is a significant and complex issue. It is
complicated by having several variations of homelessness and inconsistent definitions.
Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant comes to mind
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town,
but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and
know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it, they
groped about it. The first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said, "This being is like a thick
snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another
person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man
who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it
as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
The rest of the parable is that they did not believe each other; thought the others were lying; and
violence ensued, until a wise person stepped in, calmed them down, and got them to talk with each
other.
These are not technical or “official” definitions, but I think in terms of Homeless (anyone lacking safe
reliable housing); Homeless but Sheltered (which includes those who are homeless but sheltered in
temporary settings, which can include designated “shelters,” and Homeless but Unsheltered.
Some Causes of Homelessness
The root causes of homelessness are manifold. It is rare that homelessness is caused by one variable; it is
almost always multifactorial including several variables, such as: a lack of affordable housing, poverty,
mental health challenges—including PTSD, substance use, the economy and losses of jobs, extreme medical
bills, young people being forced out of their homes, racism and other forms of discrimination, educational
levels, transitions out of incarceration, a lack of community support services, and individual choices.
Homelessness

Categories to Consider
While each homeless person has individual circumstances it is helpful to consider a few broad groupings:
(These are not mutually exclusive, e.g., the ability to find suitable affordable housing cuts across all.)
•

Individuals and families who would be able to independently maintain an apartment or house—if they
could find one at an affordable price (There is a whole separate interrelated set of housing issues for all
these categories that this paper does not address.)

•

Temporarily homeless individuals and families, who, with some targeted help, can work through their
rough spots in a short time

•

Individuals who may be able to maintain an independent apartment (but only if they have support, such
as housing vouchers and in many cases other supplemental services, including counseling services) but
who cannot find a local rental, even with a voucher

•

Individuals who have difficulty staying in independent apartments even with assistance, but who could
live in managed/structured settings with others to reduce isolation risks and to receive support (formal
transitional living or a living setting such as Fresh Start)

For further information contact [email protected]

8/14/2023 Version

1

•

Those who might be willing to be and could live in a shelter, but no shelter exists that meets their
needs (wide range of individual perceptions of “needs,” including couples wanting to stay together—
but no family shelters available and people with pets)

•

Those who do not want to be in any shelters and resist help; many of whom have significant
substance use and mental health problems, some of whom have trouble staying in shelters or
have complexities for the care they need that exceed what shelters provide

•

Some who want the freedom to use drugs without scrutiny or intervention

•

Some who just do not want to be told what to do and want to live independently

•

Those with other concerns such as, “What do I do with my stuff? My pets? It is all I have.”

•

Those who are so problematic that being in a shelter with others is not realistic in most cases (e.g.,
due to violence and/or other disruptive behaviors)

•

Those who once they get a shelter/roof over their head (like a hotel room), are unwilling to further
work their way to a better, more stable situation

Compounding Complexity—complexity is compounded by several variations of how or where homeless
people are living. Most settings are particularly precarious shelters. They include, but are not limited to:
•

Temporary stays with family or friends—for some, defined as couch surfing—which creates a
substantial, but undetermined number of “invisible” homeless people (Sometimes these options are
only available seasonally, e.g., in the winter.)

•

Stays in shelters, such as the Bangor Homeless Shelter or Hope House, sometimes moving around
between shelters

•

Short-term subsidized rentals of hotel rooms, often through the Maine State Housing Authority (to
the extent that funds are available, and hotels are willing to accept homeless people)

•

Subsidized apartments or other housing rentals using housing vouchers

•

Supportive housing (e.g., Fresh Start) or transitional housing with more support services

•

Tents and other encampments, which may be clustered or just found in random locations
o At one point, last fall, in Bangor, there were eleven encampments and over two hundred
individuals. There have been substantial issues related to food, water, clothing, healthcare,
sanitation, and crime.
o Unfortunately, this is what many people think of as the homeless population. This is the inour-face, awful, the most visible aspect of the problem, but it is just the tip of the iceberg.

•

Some people, including some children, living in cars

•

Some, who are homeless and outside and unsheltered for most of the time, shelter in various
buildings, such as the library and Bangor’s daytime shelters some of the time. When it is cold, they
may use warming centers offered by several organizations, some of which may provide limited
additional support such as food and clothing. Bangor Homeless Shelter, Hope House, and the
Mansion Church are examples.

For further information contact [email protected]

8/14/2023 Version

2

Just imagine the permutations of two or more of the above variables. There is clearly no single definition of
homeless. Those who are homeless must be viewed as individuals and not lumped together. This greatly
complicates the challenge of framing a cohesive approach.
Some Exacerbating Factors…Just To Add More Complexity
Inadequate Data
No local organization, the State, or the City has accurate data on the number and types of homeless
individuals or families in Bangor. We do not know how many fit in which of the above categories. Thus,
we do not have an adequate needs assessment and are trying to define solutions without clear targets. This is
a major constraint in addressing our challenges. Solving the encampment “problem,” as important as this
may be, does not address the needs of our homeless population.
Insufficient Health Services and Services for those who are disabled
There are insufficient health services for most homeless people with multiple barriers to accessing care (e.g.,
too few providers, financial barriers, transportation). This is especially a challenge for providing mental
health and substance use related services. The lack of services prevents addressing some core issues and it
has a collateral effect on local emergency rooms, the Police Department, and EMS providers. There are
further gaps in care for those who have disabilities.
People From Other Places—The complexity is further amplified by the fact that many of those who are
homeless are not from Bangor. The data is not clear, but this may be greater than 30-40%. Many are here
because surrounding towns have not developed the capacity to meet their needs and Bangor is a “service
center.” In some instances, individuals, from other areas in Maine, migrate here on their own and sometimes
they are sent or even transported here. Some individuals and families also arrive from more distant locations
because they have heard that Bangor is a city with services. Sometimes they learn about Bangor through
word of mouth, or even the internet. Sometimes they are sent here from out-of-state, after even being
provided with free bus tickets).
Affordable Housing/Rents
Housing and Homelessness are intertwined. In Bangor, there is limited, available, affordable
housing/apartments, particularly for low income individuals and families. This is frequently cited as the
major cause of homelessness, although the factors related to mental health and substance use are a significant
overlay. Just having more housing units is not the solution.
There are multiple housing development initiatives in the city by private developers, Bangor Housing and
Penquis. More than between 350 and 500 units have recently been built or are in the pipeline. Some of these
units have had City support (e.g., Penquis projects). This development may slow down due to increasing
interest rates. The housing market is expected to ease, and our population is not projected to increase
substantially; but this will not erase needs.
COVID, Substance Use, and Needles
We face growth of an unprecedented mix of substance use disorder issues, mental health issues, and effects
of economic conditions that have caused or heightened the challenges faced by those needing shelter. This
has been compounded by COVID-19 related issues, which are easing. At times there have been issues
related to housing the homeless with adequate physical distancing and the ability to quarantine. There have
been further overlays of mental stress and substance use exacerbated by isolation and loneliness.
Covid conditions and expanding use of opioids, coupled with the efforts of various organizations and the
State to promote harm reduction, have led to increasing issues related to needles used by the homeless that
For further information contact [email protected]

8/14/2023 Version

3

are not disposed of properly. This is one, bad, unintended consequence of efforts to provide greater access to
clean needles.
Enforcing Trespassing
Tents or encampments along the waterfront or in any small tent cities are inhumane, unsightly, unhealthy,
and unsafe for the homeless and for others in the community. This is simply wrong, and it should be ended,
but there have been limited good strategies locally (and nationally) to prevent this. In addition, there are
court cases that limit options. (Unfortunately, this is a problem in hundreds of cities.)
The Police Department has professionals working with them on addressing the needs of individuals they
encounter, including mental health professionals and a homeless coordinator. The City is also implementing
a new Bangor Community Action Teams (BCAT) system of non-police officers being available to address
many non-emergent service needs and requests. This includes not only encampments but the challenges
resulting from individuals or small groups of homeless people who occupy public or private property.
Addressing homeless encampments and other situations through legally enforcing laws against trespassing
on City or private property is a last resort option, after other options are pursued. No one I have talked to
wants to criminalize homelessness, particularly in the case of mental illness or substance use.
Recently, progress has been made in addressing Bangor’s to largest encampments—eliminating one—with
the cooperation of several local organizations and technical assistance from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development. This cooperation may result in a sustainable model for addressing encampments. The
City must continue to address options for limiting the use of City property. Private landowners and
businesses have the right not to have their businesses compromised by homeless individuals.
Professional Staff Burnout and Associated Workforce Shortages
Working with homeless individuals in multiple settings, particularly individuals and families who are
unsheltered is an on- going stress for the Police Department, the Fire Department (and its Emergency
Medical Services providers), and for other professionals such as the Public Health Department staff and the
staff of other organizations There are many factors that can lead to burnout as well as being deterrents to
hiring (For example, hiring police officers who may spend 50% of the time on calls related to homelessness
is an increasing challenge.)
Multi-agency Collaboration, Program alignment/consolidation and merging /or Braiding of Funding
Bangor does not have a multi-organization/agency plan that defines shared responsibilities for serving the
homeless and how entities will collaborate optimally with each other. In 2022, the Bangor City Council
invited over twenty organizations to its Government Operations Committee to address programs for the
homeless. This did not even address the work of many local churches. It was clear that there are many,
dedicated, caring people and good programs, as well as and examples of some cross-organizational
collaboration…but there too much “siloing”, much too much room for fragmentation, non-aligned funding,
miscommunication, and failure to gain sufficient leverage on our problems. There is substantial detrimental
competition among programs for influence and available funding. The City has made some recent progress
pulling groups together working with a HUD technical assistance team. The lasting effects on the future of
expanded collaboration are uncertain.
The fragmentation and lack of adequate coordination of programs and assets is staggering. No one has an
accounting of all the funds that are flowing into Bangor or being generated by local organizations to support
housing and the homeless. It is likely to be tens of millions of dollars. I am confident that local taxpayers
would be astounded by the scope of activity and shocked the funding is not better applied.

For further information contact [email protected]

8/14/2023 Version

4

We need a fresh look at how various strategies can be woven together with input from ALL agencies, who
have programs for the homeless, regional communities, the State. There is a substantial need for reduced
fragmentation. There is also a great need for more shared accountability.
What is the City Doing?
Limitations
Bangor’s City government (and certainly not the City Council) cannot solve the challenges we face
through Council or administrative actions alone. Addressing many of the issues is not solely a
Government responsibility, it is a Community Responsibility. The City may provide incentives, but it
cannot compel other community organizations to work more closely together. Bangor taxpayers cannot
provide an open checkbook to increasingly shoulder responsibility for humanely addressing the needs.
Comments on 2021 Homeless Cost Summary
In 2021, City staff pulled together an estimate of the funding that was being provided through the City for
services to the homeless and for housing. This is a substantial, unrecognized City investment. (It does not
include the millions of dollars of funding flowing through community organizations.) Consideration was
given to:
Housing/ General Assistance
Community Funding Support (Community
Development Block Grant—CDBG) and Cares
Act
Public Health and Community Services
Homelessness Outreach Program
Overdose Response Team
Narcan distribution

Nursing services
Shelter + Care
Parks and Recreation (Clean-up)
Police and EMS (For a third of all Police Calls)
Mental health liaisons
Community Relations Officer
Overdose response team
Built for Zero

The following expenses were identified:
$2,575,062
City Funded (Not including the value of administrative time or the time of Councilors)
$4,593,289
Grants administered through the City from various entities
$7,169,351
Sub-total
$2,883,386
State of Maine General Assistance
$10,052737 Total
The current fiscal year budget continues to include similar funding. In addition, the City has recently
allocated almost fifteen million dollars to address various aspects of homelessness, housing, mental
health, substance use disorder, and childcare.

Short-term Action Package for Addressing Homelessness
The City of Bangor should have a clearly stated, readily and publicly available, 12-18 month
Homelessness Plan that embodies the following elements and provides a bold statement reflecting
commitment to action. Most of the following actions are currently in progress (IP) and a tremendous
amount of work is being done; despite what some public critics think is far too little. Nonetheless, actions
steps have not been integrated into a cohesive framework and, thus, it is hard to identify and to
communicate the City’s commitments or vision.
I) Assure sufficient warming center capacity daily and overnight shelter beds during extreme temperatures
(Complete for the past winter/spring season, but needs will reoccur later this year)
For further information contact [email protected]

8/14/2023 Version

5

II) With other community organizations, consider and implement the recent Department of Housing and
Urban Development’s, technical assistance recommendations for reducing the number of homeless
individuals in encampments (IP)
A) Find alternative options for the residents of encampments (IP)
B) Clean up the encampments (IP)
C) Evaluate effects of Portland’s ban on homeless encampments on public property (IP)
D) Develop a strategy to mitigate repopulation of encampments (IP)
E) Promote continuing adaptation and use of HUD “best practices” (On-going)
F) Evaluate Results (Upcoming)
III) Consider the needs and options for short-term diversion strategies (such as short-term, emergency,
rent or heating assistance) to prevent slippage into homelessness (Partially funded and to be
considered further) Continue to develop a rapid response assistance mechanism for those who are in
danger of becoming homeless integrated with the State’s 211 number.
IV) Continue and as appropriate expand Community and Public Health Department programs and look
for additional grant funds, e.g., Shelter Plus Care Program, Homeless Outreach Caseworkers, plus
programs such as Narcan distribution (IP)
V) Continue implementation and then evaluate the Bangor Community Action Teams (BCAT) (IP)
VI) Continue to evolve policies, consistent with state law, for police officers to direct unhoused people
accused of committing low-level crimes to help rather than charging them
VII) Continue to promote expanded community collaboration (On-going)
A) Develop a City-wide, multi-organization, homelessness work group and planning process like the
2019 Bangor Housing Study (This has been suggested by not yet agreed to.)
VIII) Where possible reduce barriers to individuals and families finding and keeping housing
A) Tenants’ Rights Ordinance that has recently been adopted (IP)
B) Continue to develop the Landlord Liaison Program (IP)
C) Continue to identify and promote available funding options, including Community Development
Block Grant funding and voucher programs
IX) Identify options for supporting community organizations in their efforts to expand mental health and
substance use disorder services (IP), including:
A) Clarifying and updating status of strategies to mitigate opioid use and align with recently received
grant funds, the opioid settlement funds, and State plans (IP)
B) Supporting organizations providing housing and treatment options (e.g., detox beds) for individuals
with substance use or mental health disorders (On-going)
C) Supporting workforce development for mental health and SUD treatment professionals (City
actions steps have not been clearly identified.)
X) Work with organizations such as the Health Equity Alliance, Needlepoint Sanctuary, and the State to
develop strategies to mitigate needle waste (IP with a recent agreement for a program with HEAL)
XI) Adopt a goal that every child in Bangor will be adequately sheltered and nourished; and have timely
access to appropriate mental health or substance use-related services (This must be done in
conjunction with the Bangor School Department, while recognizing that there are children in need
who are not in Bangor’s schools. (This includes a school-based health program at the High School and
funding for other programs at the middle schools.) The overall goal has been suggested by not
adopted.
For further information contact [email protected]

8/14/2023 Version

6

XII) Continue to collaborate with the State, Community Health and Counseling Services (as HUB 7
leader for the State), and other partners in the Built for Zero initiative (a coordinated entry to care
system) to improve our ability to identify and stay connected with those in need, build a data base,
including appropriate metrics, and sharpen integration of BFZ initiatives with other Bangor strategies
(IP)
XIII) Support Bangor’s Public Health and Community Services Department in obtaining accreditation,
developing a community needs assessment and a strategic plan, and updating homelessness and
housing related strategies (IP)
XIV) Explore the depth of involvement by area faith communities and options to encourage expanded
support for the homeless (particularly as collaborators in multi-party shared strategies) (Not yet IP)
XI) Remain open to the development of small temporary shelters pilot projects, if groups can develop
well-thought-out proposals, supported by multiple organizations that show reasonable likelihood of
success (Has been mentioned but not IP)
XII) With other community organizations and the State clarify the need for shelter beds and develop
better strategies to address the needs of the short-term homeless and the chronic homeless (Discussed,
but no definitive needs assessment or action steps)
XIII) Initiate discussion with the State about operating shelter beds and expanded mental health and
substance use disorder treatment facilities and programs at the Dorothea Dix site (IP)
XIV) Develop services, a clear protocol, and a phone number, in addition to access through the City’s
website, for rapid response assistance for residents and businesses experiencing homeless
encampments, trespassing, or needle waste on their private property (IP)
XV) Address the use of the Bangor Public Library for homeless individuals seeking daytime shelter
A) Develop a plan to reduce reliance on the library as a daytime sheltering space (IP)
XVI) Develop (with the Downtown Partnership) and fund a more complete plan for addressing
hospitality, cleanliness, and security for downtown Bangor and the waterfront (IP)
A) Consider constructing additional downtown bathrooms (IP)
XVII) Continue development and expand promotion of the Homelessness Response section the City’s
website’s (On-going)
XVIII) Hold other communities to greater accountability for caring for their homeless; and continue to
pressure the State to assume greater responsibilities. (IP)
XIX) Hire a Homelessness Strategist/Specialist to coordinate all City strategies (IP)
XX) Develop a 12-18 month housing development plan that integrates with homelessness strategies,
including the hiring of a housing specialist to coordinate all housing programs (IP)
XXI) Improve identification of strategies targeted to the root causes of homelessness, not only to
addressing the symptoms) (IP and on-going)
XXII) Consistently and rigorously evaluate results of all action steps
XXIII) Seek input from the Advisory Committee on Racial Equity, Inclusion, and Human Rights
XXIV) Listen to the homeless (On-going)
For further information contact [email protected]

8/14/2023 Version

7

XXV) Judiciously apply some of the City’s American Rescue Plan Funds (ARPA) to the identified
strategies (IP)
Limitations
Bangor’s City government cannot solve the challenges through Council or administrative actions alone.
Addressing the issues is not solely a Government responsibility, it is a Community Responsibility. The
City may provide incentives, but it cannot compel other organizations to work more closely. While
Bangor has some resources that it can use wisely, taxpayers cannot provide an open checkbook to
increasingly shoulder responsibility for humanely addressing all needs.
A Critical Point and a Dilemma
In addition to the above points, there is a great dilemma. If we develop a solid community plan to care for
those in need in humane ways, and we execute it well, we will become an increasingly attractive
community for more unsheltered people. Although Bangor is a service center for many things, it is highly
unlikely that a majority of Bangor residents and businesses want this City to become a magnet for more
homeless people, even if supportive resources were to be available. Many also want to see a “tough love”
approach with compassion coupled with enforcement of limitations and better defined expectations.
.
How the City can best balance its humanity, its resources, its caring capacity, and its goals is a great
challenge and still a great unknown.

For further information contact [email protected]

8/14/2023 Version

8

Sprague Recommendations: 2023 → 2026
A Review of Progress, Evidence, Remaining Questions,
and Priorities for the Future
Prepared by J. Goodrich
Purpose
Jonathan Sprague's 2023 paper, Homelessness and Suggested Strategies, provides a
useful starting point for examining Bangor's response to homelessness.
The paper identified homelessness as a complex problem involving different populations,
causes, living situations, service needs, organizations, and levels of government. It also
identified concerns involving data, fragmented services, unclear responsibilities, limited
coordination, and the need for more rigorous evaluation of results.
Three years have now passed.
Bangor has developed additional homelessness-response programs, created a
Homelessness Response Coordinator position, established an Advisory Committee on
Homelessness, continued coordinated responses to encampments, expanded housingrelated initiatives, and begun developing a new strategic plan.
That makes the 2023 paper useful for another reason:
It gives us a baseline.
Rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with Sprague's recommendations, this review
asks a more practical question:
What happened between 2023 and 2026?
For each recommendation, the review attempts to identify its current status and the
evidence supporting that determination.
Where implementation is documented, it is identified.
Where work is continuing, it is identified.
Where the underlying problem remains unresolved, that is identified.
And where the available evidence is insufficient to determine what happened, the status is
identified as Unknown.
pg. 1

The purpose is not to grade the City, the organizations involved, or the author of the 2023
paper.
It is to establish:
What has changed?
What remains unresolved?
What evidence do we have about progress and outcomes?
What do we still need to understand?
A program can be active without its outcomes being known. A recommendation can be
acted upon without the underlying problem being resolved.
That distinction is important throughout this review.
The goal is to move:
from activity to evidence, and from evidence to better questions.

Status Categories
Completed — Clear evidence that the specific recommendation was implemented.
Partially completed — A meaningful portion was implemented, but the
recommendation as written was not fully accomplished.
Ongoing — Work has been implemented or initiated and remains active.
Unresolved — The underlying recommendation or problem remains substantially
outstanding.
Unknown — Available evidence is insufficient to make a responsible determination.
“Unknown” does not mean nothing happened. It means that the evidence available for
this review does not allow a reliable conclusion.

pg. 2

Sprague Recommendations: 2023 → 2026
2023 Recommendation

2026 Status

I. Assure sufficient warming- Partially
center capacity and extreme- completed /
weather shelter beds
ongoing

II. Implement HUD
recommendations for
reducing encampments

Partially
completed /
ongoing

II-A. Find alternatives for
encampment residents

Partially
completed

II-B. Clean up encampments

Completed /
ongoing

II-C. Evaluate Portland's
public-property encampment Unknown
ban

pg. 3

Evidence
Bangor continues to maintain
warming-center and emergency shelter
resources. The City approved a
$60,000 allocation of State General
Assistance funds for a warming shelter
in October 2025, and current City
materials identify seasonal facilities
and additional extreme-weather beds.
Bangor's December 2025 railroadencampment strategy documents a
coordinated response involving a ByName List, care-coordination meetings,
outreach, shelter planning, storage and
multiple agencies. The strategy
references federal encampment
guidance.
The City's documented strategy
includes determining housing and
shelter plans, identifying barriers,
tracking shelter availability and
coordinating services. The evidence
establishes an effort to identify
alternatives; it does not establish that
all affected residents achieved durable
housing.
The City has conducted encampment
closures and cleanup operations,
including documented closures in 2024
and 2025. The continued presence of
encampments and related planning
makes this an ongoing operational
issue.
I have not identified sufficient
evidence in the City material reviewed
to establish that this specific evaluation
was completed.

2023 Recommendation
II-D. Develop a strategy to
prevent encampment
repopulation

2026 Status

Ongoing /
unresolved

II-E. Continue adapting HUD
Ongoing
best practices

II-F. Evaluate results

Unknown /
needs
verification

III. Develop short-term
diversion/prevention
strategies

Partially
completed /
ongoing

IV. Expand public-health,
outreach and Shelter Plus
Care-type programs

Ongoing

V. Continue and evaluate
Bangor Community Action
Teams (BCAT)

Ongoing

VI. Direct low-level offenders
toward help rather than
Unknown
charges where appropriate
VII. Expand community
collaboration

pg. 4

Partially
completed /
ongoing

Evidence
Bangor has developed coordinated
encampment-response strategies, but
the evidence reviewed does not
establish that a measurable, durable
strategy for preventing repopulation
has been demonstrated.
The December 2025 City strategy
explicitly references federal guidance
concerning humane and effective
encampment responses and responding
to unsheltered homelessness.
Implementation is documented. A
comprehensive public evaluation
demonstrating the outcomes of the
encampment-response strategy has not
been established in the material
reviewed.
Bangor's General Assistance program
addresses urgent needs, and the City
has housing/resource navigation for
people at risk of eviction or struggling
to remain housed. The broader rapidresponse system envisioned by
Sprague is not clearly established as
complete.
Bangor maintains homelessness
outreach, rental assistance and publichealth/overdose-response services.
BCAT remains an active City program
and is involved in responding to
quality-of-life concerns and connecting
people with services. It has also been
identified as part of the City's
encampment-response work.
I have not identified sufficient current
City evidence to determine whether
this specific recommendation was
formally implemented and evaluated.
Bangor now has a formal Advisory
Committee on Homelessness whose
mission includes coordination,
identification of gaps, sustainable

2023 Recommendation

2026 Status

VII-A. Develop a citywide
multi-organization
homelessness work
group/planning process

Partially
completed /
ongoing

VIII. Reduce barriers to
obtaining and retaining
housing

Ongoing

VIII-A. Tenants' Rights
Ordinance

Completed

VIII-B. Landlord Liaison
Program

Ongoing

VIII-C. Promote
funding/vouchers

Ongoing

IX. Expand mental-health and Ongoing /
substance-use services
unresolved

IX-A. Align opioid/substanceOngoing
use strategies and funding
IX-B. Support housing and
treatment options

Ongoing

IX-C. Workforce development
for mental-health/SUD
Unknown
professionals

pg. 5

Evidence
funding strategies, State legislative
issues and stakeholder engagement.
The City established the Advisory
Committee on Homelessness in 2026,
but its initial task is still to create the
strategic plan. The planning process is
underway rather than completed.
Bangor has housing-related programs
addressing rental assistance, landlord
relationships, tenant readiness and
housing-resource navigation.
Bangor City Council approved the
Tenants' Housing Rights Ordinance in
February 2023; it became effective in
March 2023.
The City identifies a Landlord Liaison
Program implemented in 2023 with
Community Health and Counseling
Services and MaineHousing funding,
focused particularly on people
experiencing unsheltered
homelessness.
Bangor operates rental-assistance
resources using vouchers and
participates in the HUD-required
Coordinated Entry system.
Bangor continues public-health,
behavioral-health, overdose-response
and supportive-housing efforts. The
continued need for these services
indicates that the underlying capacity
problem identified by Sprague has not
been resolved.
Bangor continues opioid-related
funding and overdose-response
programs.
Bangor continues housing and
treatment-related initiatives, including
development of supportive housing for
chronically homeless individuals.
I have not identified sufficient
evidence establishing completion of
the specific municipal workforce-

2023 Recommendation

2026 Status

X. Develop strategies to
mitigate needle waste

Partially
completed /
ongoing

XI. Every child adequately
sheltered/nourished with
timely behavioral-health
access

Unknown

XII. Improve identification,
data and coordinated entry
Ongoing
through Built for Zero/HUB 7

XIII. Support Public Health
Partially
accreditation, community
completed /
needs assessment and strategic
ongoing
planning
XIV. Explore faithcommunity involvement

Unknown

XV. Remain open to
temporary shelter pilot
projects

Partially
completed /
ongoing

XVI. Clarify shelter-bed needs Partially
and strategies for shortcompleted /
term/chronic homelessness
unresolved

XVII. Discuss expanded
shelter/treatment facilities at
Dorothea Dix

pg. 6

Unknown

Evidence
development strategy proposed by
Sprague.
Bangor continues public-health and
harm-reduction activity, including
overdose-response work. The evidence
reviewed does not establish a
completed evaluation of needle-waste
outcomes.
Sprague identified this as a proposed
goal rather than an adopted
recommendation. I have not identified
evidence that this specific goal
subsequently became an adopted
municipal homelessness strategy.
Bangor's current encampment strategy
documents HUB 7 coordination, a ByName List, care-coordination meetings
and shelter-availability tracking. This
demonstrates continued coordination
but does not establish that the larger
data problem has been solved.
Public Health remains a participant in
the City's homelessness response and
strategic planning. The specific status
of every element requires additional
verification.
I have not identified sufficient
evidence to determine the current
status of this specific recommendation.
Bangor continues to address shelter
and day-space needs, including
warming centers and discussion of day
space for unhoused people.
The City tracks shelter availability as
part of encampment response, but
shelter capacity remains an issue. A
comprehensive current needs
assessment remains an important
question.
I have not identified sufficient
evidence establishing that this specific
recommendation produced a completed
Bangor initiative.

2023 Recommendation

2026 Status

XVIII. Create rapid-response
mechanism for
Partially
businesses/private property
completed
experiencing encampments,
trespassing or needle waste

XIX. Reduce reliance on
Bangor Public Library as
daytime shelter

Partially
completed /
ongoing

XX. Develop
downtown/waterfront
hospitality, cleanliness and
security strategy

Ongoing /
unresolved

XX-A. Consider additional
downtown bathrooms

Unresolved /
needs
verification

XXI. Expand/promote the
Completed /
City's Homelessness Response
ongoing
website

XXII. Hold other communities
Ongoing /
accountable / seek greater
unresolved
State responsibility

XXIII. Hire Homelessness
Strategist/Specialist

Completed /
ongoing

XXIV. Develop a 12–18 month
Partially
housing development plan
completed /
integrated with homelessness
ongoing
strategies

pg. 7

Evidence
BCAT provides a non-police response
to quality-of-life concerns, while City
outreach and encampment-response
systems provide additional
mechanisms. Whether these
collectively satisfy Sprague's specific
proposed protocol remains unclear.
Day space remains an active municipal
issue. The City held a Council
workshop concerning park operations
and day space for unhoused people in
April 2026.
Downtown public-space, cleanliness
and homelessness-related concerns
continue to appear in municipal
discussions.
Downtown restroom access remains an
active issue. The City reported in July
2026 that two downtown public
bathrooms had been removed because
of chronic misuse.
Bangor maintains a dedicated
Homelessness Response webpage with
current programs, statistics, contacts,
updates and resources.
Regional and State coordination are
now explicitly included in the missions
of the Homelessness and Housing
advisory committees. Equitable
regional responsibility remains
unresolved.
Bangor created the Homelessness
Response Coordinator position, with
responsibilities including identifying
resources, assessing gaps, coordinating
stakeholders, helping develop the
strategic plan and producing an annual
report.
Bangor has created an Advisory
Committee on Housing and continues
housing-development initiatives. A
single integrated 12–18 month
housing-and-homelessness plan has not

2023 Recommendation

2026 Status

Evidence
been established in the material
reviewed.
The current Homelessness Advisory
XXV. Identify strategies
Committee is charged with developing
addressing root causes rather Ongoing
a data-driven, evidence-informed
than only symptoms
strategic plan addressing structural and
regional coordination.
Bangor has begun building a more
formal planning and reporting
Not
structure. However, the evidence
established /
XXVI. Consistently and
reviewed does not establish a
major
rigorously evaluate results
comprehensive outcome-evaluation
unresolved
system measuring the results and costissue
effectiveness of the full homelessness
response.
The Racial Equity, Inclusion and
Human Rights Committee has
XXVII. Seek input from the Partially
discussed homelessness-related
Advisory Committee on
completed /
matters. The extent to which Sprague's
Racial Equity, Inclusion and needs further
specific recommendation was
Human Rights
verification
incorporated into homelessness
planning remains unclear.
Bangor provides public participation
opportunities and the current
homelessness-planning process
Ongoing /
XXVIII. Listen to people
includes community stakeholder
needs
experiencing homelessness
engagement. The depth and influence
evaluation
of lived-experience participation
should be evaluated rather than
assumed.
The Homelessness Response
Coordinator position is funded by
XXIX. Judiciously use
Partially
ARPA through December 31, 2026.
American Rescue Plan Act
completed / Other ARPA-funded homelessness
(ARPA) funds
ongoing
activities should be separately
documented before determining the
full status of this recommendation.

What the Review Suggests
The evidence does not produce a simple story of success or failure.

pg. 8

There has been meaningful development since 2023.
Bangor now has a formal homelessness-response position, a dedicated municipal
homelessness-response webpage, an Advisory Committee on Homelessness, a developing
strategic-planning process, coordinated encampment-response procedures, continued
outreach, rental assistance, landlord coordination and additional housing initiatives.
Those developments matter.
But Sprague's 2023 paper also identified several problems that remain visible in the 2026
record:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

incomplete information about the population experiencing homelessness;
difficulty determining the needs of different populations;
shelter-capacity questions;
fragmented responsibilities;
regional responsibility;
housing availability;
behavioral-health and substance-use service needs;
encampment recurrence; and
the need to evaluate results.

The most important finding may therefore be the distinction between activity and
outcome.
The City can document an encampment response.
That does not necessarily tell us what happened to the people who lived there.
A person can be contacted without being housed.
A person can be housed without remaining housed.
A shelter bed can be provided without establishing whether the person ultimately moved
to permanent housing.
A program can serve hundreds of people without demonstrating what happened after they
were served.
These are questions about whether the system has the information necessary to
understand its own performance.

The Data Question
pg. 9

This is where Sprague's 2023 paper becomes particularly useful.
One of his central concerns was that Bangor did not have adequate information about
how many people were experiencing homelessness, what circumstances they were
experiencing, and what needs they had.
Three years later, Bangor has more sophisticated tools.
The current encampment strategy, for example, identifies the use of a By-Name List,
care-coordination meetings, shelter tracking and coordinated outreach.
That is progress.
But having a system for collecting information is not the same thing as having answered
all the questions.
The new Advisory Committee's charge recognizes this by requiring a strategic plan that is
data driven and evidence informed.
That creates an opportunity.
The question should now become:
What information does the City actually need in order to make good decisions?

The Most Important Unanswered
Questions
1. Who is experiencing homelessness in Bangor?
How many people are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

unsheltered;
in emergency shelter;
temporarily housed in hotels or other arrangements;
doubled up with family or friends;
chronically homeless;
experiencing homelessness for the first time; or
cycling repeatedly through the system?

2. What are the pathways into homelessness?

pg. 10

How many people enter homelessness because of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

loss of income;
eviction;
lack of affordable housing;
domestic violence;
substance use;
mental-health challenges;
release from incarceration;
family breakdown;
medical problems; or
other circumstances?

3. What are the pathways out?
When someone leaves an encampment, shelter or other temporary setting:
Where do they go?
And what happens six months later?

4. How durable are housing placements?
Of the people placed into housing:
•
•
•
•

How many remain housed?
How many return to homelessness?
How many require additional intervention?
What services are associated with successful outcomes?

5. Where are the gaps?
Which people are currently falling between the cracks?

6. What are we spending?
What is the total amount of:
•
•
•
•
•
•

City funding;
State funding;
federal funding;
nonprofit funding;
charitable funding; and
other resources

being directed toward homelessness and related housing interventions?
pg. 11

7. What are we getting for those resources?
Not simply:
How many people did we serve?
But:
What changed for the people we served?

8. Who is responsible for what?
Which responsibilities belong to:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Bangor;
surrounding communities;
Penobscot County;
the State of Maine;
the federal government; and
nonprofit and community organizations?

9. Which 2023 recommendations still make sense?
Some recommendations may have been completed.
Some may need to be rewritten.
Some may still be important.
Some may reveal problems that Bangor still has not solved.

pg. 12

What I Would Like to See in Bangor's
Next Homelessness Strategy
The review of Sprague's recommendations leads me to several areas where I believe
Bangor should strengthen its response.
These are not presented as a final list. They are the beginning of a discussion about what
the next strategic plan should contain.

1. Family Homelessness Services
Bangor needs a more clearly defined response for families experiencing homelessness.
Families have different needs from chronically homeless single adults.
A family response should address shelter, child safety, transportation, schooling,
employment, benefits, housing navigation and the preservation of family stability.
The strategic plan should specifically identify what services are available to families,
where the gaps are, and who is responsible for filling them.

2. A Low-Barrier Day Program Connected to a HigherBarrier Shelter
Bangor should explore a low-barrier daytime program that provides a place for people
to come inside, obtain basic necessities, connect with outreach workers and begin
working toward housing and recovery.
That day program should be connected to, but not necessarily identical with, a shelter
designed for people who are ready and able to meet higher behavioral or sobriety
expectations.
The two functions should complement one another.
A person should have somewhere to go during the day even when he or she is not yet
ready for a higher-barrier shelter.
At the same time, people who are ready for a more structured environment should have a
pathway into it.
This would create a clearer progression:
pg. 13

Street → Day Program → Shelter → Treatment/Recovery → Housing
while recognizing that people will not always move through those stages in a straight
line.

3. A More Robust Outreach System
Bangor needs to examine whether its outreach capacity is sufficient for the size and
complexity of the population it is attempting to reach.
Outreach should not simply respond when an encampment becomes a public problem.
It should be sufficiently robust to maintain relationships with people who are living
outside, identify emerging problems, connect people with basic needs, assist with
identification and benefits, coordinate health and behavioral-health services, and work
toward housing.
The strategic plan should establish:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

where outreach operates;
when it operates;
how many people it can realistically serve;
what happens after contact;
how outreach connects to Coordinated Entry;
how outreach connects to health and recovery services; and
how outcomes are measured.

4. Make Warming Centers a Permanent
Part of Maine's Emergency
Infrastructure
Warming centers should not depend primarily on whether sufficient money happens to
remain available from year to year.
Bangor should support a State-level statutory framework for warming centers.
Such legislation could:

pg. 14

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

formally recognize warming centers as part of Maine's emergency-weather
response;
establish eligibility standards;
establish minimum operating requirements;
provide a predictable funding mechanism;
establish responsibility for activation during extreme weather;
clarify the relationship between municipalities and nonprofit operators; and
provide consistent standards for people seeking emergency shelter from extreme
cold.

The goal should be predictable infrastructure rather than an annual scramble for
temporary funding.
Bangor could become an advocate for such legislation statewide.

5. Low-Income Transportation
Transportation is an important but sometimes overlooked part of the homelessness
response.
A person may have a housing opportunity, medical appointment, job interview, treatment
appointment, school commitment or employment opportunity and still be unable to take
advantage of it because transportation is unavailable or unaffordable.
The strategic plan should examine:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

public transportation;
reduced-fare transportation;
transportation to shelters and services;
transportation outside Bangor;
transportation for employment;
transportation for medical and behavioral-health appointments; and
transportation for families with children.

Transportation should be treated as part of the pathway to stability rather than simply a
separate municipal service.

6. Education and Employment Pathways

pg. 15

Housing stability is difficult to sustain without a pathway toward income, education and
meaningful work.
Bangor's homelessness strategy should therefore connect people who are able to work
with:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

adult education;
General Educational Development (GED) programs;
vocational training;
community college;
workforce development;
apprenticeships;
supported employment;
job placement; and
employers willing to provide opportunities to people rebuilding their lives.

For people who cannot work, the focus may appropriately be on benefits, disability
income, supportive services and long-term stability.
The important point is that employment should be an available pathway, not an
assumed requirement for everyone.

7. Regional Voluntarism
Bangor is the regional center of a much larger area.
That means the homelessness response cannot be viewed entirely through the boundaries
of the City of Bangor.
But regional responsibility does not have to mean simply asking neighboring
communities to contribute more money.
There is another possibility:
regional voluntarism.
Municipalities, businesses, faith communities, civic organizations, nonprofits, hospitals,
educational institutions and residents could voluntarily contribute resources, facilities,
volunteers, transportation, employment opportunities, food, basic necessities, funding and
expertise to a regional response.
A regional strategy should identify what each sector can realistically contribute.

pg. 16

This could include a regional volunteer and resource network coordinated with the
City's homelessness-response system.
The question should become:
What can the region contribute?
not simply:
What should Bangor pay for?

8. Mental Health and Substance-Use
Capacity
Sprague identified mental-health and substance-use services as an important part of the
homelessness response.
That remains true.
The strategic plan should identify the actual capacity available for:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

crisis response;
outpatient treatment;
medication-assisted treatment;
withdrawal management;
residential treatment;
recovery support;
peer support;
psychiatric services;
case management; and
long-term supportive services.

It should also identify where people go when the appropriate service is unavailable.
That last question is particularly important.
A service system can appear comprehensive on paper while still leaving people with
nowhere to go when they actually need the service.

pg. 17

9. Measure Housing Stability, Not Just
Housing Placement
Bangor should establish a common set of outcome measures.
For example:
How many people entered housing?
Then:
How many remained housed at 3 months?
6 months?
12 months?
24 months?
The same principle should apply to other interventions.
The goal should be to understand whether the system produces durable improvements in
people's lives, not simply whether a particular program completed its activity.

10. Establish a Clear Funding Picture
The Committee should attempt to understand the total investment being made in
homelessness and related housing services.
That means looking beyond the municipal budget.
The picture should include, where practical:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

pg. 18

City funds;
General Assistance;
State funds;
federal funds;
opioid settlement funds;
MaineHousing resources;
nonprofit funding;
charitable contributions;

•
•
•

hospital/community-benefit resources;
volunteer resources; and
other significant investments.

The question is not simply how much money is being spent.
It is:
Where is the money going, what problem is it intended to address, and what result is
expected?

11. Build an Actual Continuum Rather
Than a Collection of Programs
Bangor has many organizations and programs.
The strategic question is whether those programs function as a system.
A person should be able to move from:
Prevention
→ Outreach
→ Basic Needs
→ Day Services
→ Emergency Shelter
→ Treatment/Recovery
→ Housing
→ Employment/Education
→ Long-Term Stability
without falling into a gap between organizations.
The strategic plan should identify the handoffs between those stages.

pg. 19

What This Means for the Advisory
Committee
Sprague's paper should not be treated simply as an old list of recommendations to accept
or reject.
It can serve as a baseline.
The Committee now has an opportunity to ask:
What has changed since 2023?
But it should also ask:
What have we learned since 2023?
Those are different questions.
Before adopting a new strategic plan, the Committee should establish a reasonably clear
picture of:
•
•
•
•
•
•

the population being served;
the existing service system;
the gaps in that system;
the resources being invested;
the outcomes being produced; and
the areas where evidence is insufficient.

Where the evidence is incomplete, that should be identified as a planning problem,
rather than filled with assumptions.

A Practical Framework Going Forward
1. Understand the system
Identify the major components of Bangor's homelessness response and how they connect.

2. Understand the people

pg. 20

Develop a clearer picture of the different populations experiencing homelessness and
their circumstances.

3. Identify the gaps
Compare what people need with what the system actually provides.

4. Follow people through the system
Where possible, understand what happens after outreach, shelter, diversion and housing
placement.

5. Follow the resources
Understand the public and private resources being invested in homelessness and housing.

6. Measure outcomes
Measure more than contacts, beds, applications and placements.
Measure whether people actually become and remain housed.

7. Build pathways
Create clearer pathways for families, chronically homeless adults, people in recovery,
people seeking employment, and people who need long-term supportive services.

8. Strengthen regional participation
Identify what municipalities, nonprofits, businesses, faith communities, civic
organizations and residents can contribute to a regional response.

9. Use the information to establish priorities
The strategic plan should grow from what the evidence tells us rather than simply
becoming another list of programs.

Conclusion
Sprague's 2023 paper gives Bangor something valuable:
a record of what the community believed needed to be addressed three years ago.

pg. 21

The opportunity in 2026 is to look back at that record honestly.
Some recommendations have been acted upon.
Some remain active.
Some appear only partially addressed.
Some remain unresolved.
And in several cases, the available evidence is not sufficient to determine what happened.
That last category should not be ignored.
If Bangor cannot determine whether a recommendation was accomplished, or whether an
intervention produced the intended result, that is itself information the new strategicplanning process needs to address.
The next plan should therefore be more than a list of programs.
It should describe a system.
A system that recognizes that families and chronically homeless individuals may need
different interventions.
A system that has a place for people who are not yet ready for higher-barrier shelter.
A system with robust outreach.
A system that connects homelessness response with transportation, education,
employment, health, recovery and housing.
A system that recognizes the importance of predictable emergency infrastructure such as
warming centers.
And a system that recognizes that Bangor is the center of a region and that regional
participation can come not only through government funding, but through regional
voluntarism and shared civic responsibility.
The questions for the Advisory Committee are therefore:
What did we say we needed to do in 2023?
What have we actually done?
What evidence do we have about the results?

pg. 22

What remains unresolved?
What are the gaps in the current system?
What can Bangor reasonably do itself?
What requires State or federal action?
What can the region contribute?
And finally:
Based on what we now know, what should Bangor do next?

pg. 23

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

TO:

BANGOR CITY COUNCIL

FROM:

RINDY FOGLER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES

SUBJECT:

HOMELESS

DATE:

APRIL 9, 2021

Background

Over the past few years, the city of Bangor has experienced increases in the number of individuals
experiencing homelessness and living unsheltered in parks, open space and downtown. Two years
ago, the City hired a homeless coordinator and Community Health and Counseling hired 5 homeless
outreach workers (PATH). At the onset of the pandemic, the city had approximately 20-25
individuals that were living outside and taking advantage of services provided by the city, Path
Team, the Brick Church and the shelters. As spring turned to summer, the number rose to well
over 100 and stayed there until cold weather returned. More people were willing to accept shelter
beds as the temperatures dropped, and others likely found alternative solutions like “couch surfing”
with friends or relatives. We fully expect the numbers to rise again as the days get warmer.

At the start of the pandemic, there was significant public health concern for populations living in
congregate settings. As a result, PCHC, the Shaw House and the Bangor Area Homeless Shelter
created new protocols and distancing requirements which resulted in a reduction of the number of
individuals receiving direct services in shelters.

At the same time, the state provided significant resources to acquire hotel rooms for shelters for
social distancing. Specifically, the State issued contracts to shelters for hotel beds that also
provided for limited services and meals. However, many of the challenges with the unhoused
population in Bangor stems from untreated mental health or substance use disorder. Many of the
individuals that suffer from these disorders, although they may have income, have disease
progression such that they are unable to sustain housing, even in shelters.

At present, the Bangor Area Homeless Shelter and Shaw House have available beds, and the Hope
House is at capacity at both their shelter and the Ramada. The warming centers at the BAHS, Brick
Church and Mansion Church have kept guests safe throughout the winter months but have ceased
operation for the year. Combined, the warming centers hosted 40-50 people each night who now
will need to look for other options. Approximately a dozen individuals have been outside all winter,
choosing not to take advantage of either shelter or warming center options.

As has been the case for the past year, daily meals are being served by the BAHS, the Brick Church,
the Salvation Army and the Hope House. Hope House meals are open to their guests only, but the
three other sites serve all comers. Thanks to CDBG funding, the Brick Church is now fully
sprinkled and houses an indoor shower for use by anyone in need. We expect the portable outdoor
shower trailer located in the Brick Church parking lot will return once the weather gets warmer.
This past winter, the Parks and Rec Department installed needle boxes in four locations across the
City.

The City’s Homeless Outreach Caseworker continues to work daily with shelter guests and
unsheltered individuals willing to engage in the process of seeking permanent housing. The City’s
Shelter Plus Care program plays a significant role in helping to secure housing for these individuals.
In addition, we continue to purchase bus tickets for people experiencing homelessness who have
an established housing plan in another state. Despite the housing and relocation, our overall number
of people experiencing homelessness has declined very little as more people continue to come to
Bangor from both in and out of state.
Challenges


A core of about 20-40 individuals experiencing homelessness are difficult to house. They
typically live outside year-round. They are unable or unwilling to obtain a shelter bed or
permanent housing due to diagnosed/undiagnosed mental health disorder or substance use
disorder.



The incidence of substance use disorder and severe, untreated mental illness among our
sheltered and unsheltered homeless population appears to be growing. This makes
engaging them in any sort of housing- related service difficult. The City’s Homeless
Outreach Caseworker along with those from the CHCS PATH team and PCHC/Hope
House are finding it increasingly difficult to not only find landlords willing to take this
population but also to get the individuals to take the necessary steps to obtain secure
housing.



The behavior of some of these individuals due to mental health/substance use is the source
of substantial number of complaints from residents and business. Often the behaviors make
folks uncomfortable and sometimes residents/businesses are reporting criminal and
aggressive behaviors towards themselves or customers.

2



Campsites have begun to appear in various areas of the City. In all likelihood, unsheltered
individuals will once again migrate toward the waterfront, public parks, the Kenduskeag
Stream, the pines, Bass Park, and other more remote areas.



Many of the campsites will be in areas designed for the enjoyment of the broader
community (i.e. the waterfront).



Other communities continue to send and at times transport homeless individuals to Bangor.
This may be due in part to a statewide General Assistance program that is inconsistent and
puts a greater burden on service center communities.



Loosely organized community organizations are providing meals in public places like
Pickering Park and the waterfront. Additionally, they are distributing tents and sleeping
bags which makes camping a more attractive option.



Needle waste was a significant issue last summer. During the pandemic the state did away
with one for one needle exchange which may have contributed to the proliferation of
needles around the city. Additionally, the state has approved a new needle exchange and
there is some concern that the problem may grow. The city installed needle boxes and we
will monitor for their effectiveness.



Downtown businesses continue to voice concern over the number of homeless individuals
loitering in the area. Some has expressed concern that their staff members don’t feel
comfortable walking to the parking garage.



Police officers are spending an inordinate amount of time responding to people
experiencing homelessness, to the point where it is impacting the department’s ability to
retain staff.



The lack of public restroom facilities continues to be a concern. Local groups including
the Peace and Justice Center are pressuring the City to provide restrooms for those
experiencing homelessness as well as visitors to the downtown and waterfront areas. This
certainly makes sense from a public health perspective. Portable toilets have been provided
in the past, but significant damage to the units and altercations with vendor staff led to their
removal. Restrooms in the Harbormaster building have also been opened and saw many
of the same issues as the portable units downtown.

Options
Short Term


Create “points of service” where individuals experiencing homelessness can get shelter
(if available); outreach services from our staff, PATH, and PCHC; food; bathroom
facilities (portable toilets), showers, needle boxes etc. The logical service points are
BAHS, the Brick Church, Hope House, and the Salvation Army.

3







Limit the provision of food or other items, particularly camping gear, to these points of
service.
Prohibit camping along the waterfront and in City parks to ensure they are available for
the enjoyment of all residents and visitors.
Engage HEAL, Wabanaki, and Maine Access Points to help with issues around needle
waste. Distribute needles at point of access.
Reopen the Harbormaster restrooms and site portable toilets at the points of service noted
above and possibly Pickering Square or a location nearby.
Demonstration project to work with the Greater Bangor Homeless Coalition/volunteers to
monitor the restrooms.

Longer Term







Working with Community Health Leadership Board and a broad-based group to develop
a comprehensive plan for addressing homelessness.
Enlist the business community/private developers to help find solutions, particularly to
the shortage of housing.
Increase housing stock either through creating low income units or building workforce
housing to free up existing stock.
Explore options for a 24/7 response model to free up the Police Department. The HOME
model used by Portland is one option. Another is the Certified Community Behavioral
Health Clinic. Legislation introduced by Rep. Supica is looking at legislation to address
this.
Work on a state level to improve the delivery of General Assistance and ensure all towns
are responding to their residents as required by law.

4

Bangor/Brewer Area Resources

For resources not covered or listed in this guide, call 2-1-1 or go to the website www.211maine.org.
This guide was compiled by The Salvation Army Bangor Citadel Corps.
To the best of our knowledge the information in this guide is accurate.
Every effort has been made to verify this information but we advise users of this guide to contact the service provider prior to accessing services.
Corrections, additions or suggestions, should be emailed to [email protected]

Index
Page

Resource

Revised

1, 2, & 3

Community Agency Resources

2/15/2018

3

Community Meals

2/15/2018

3

Emergency Heating Assistance

2/15/2018

4&5

Faith Based Organizations

2/15/2018

5

Farmers' Markets

2/15/2018

5&6

Food Cupboards and Pantries

2/15/2018

6

Health Care Facilities

2/15/2018

6&7

Helplines/Hotlines

2/15/2018

7

Homeless Shelters

2/15/2018

8

Housing Resources

2/15/2018

8

Thrift Shops

2/15/2018
Revised 2/15/18

Agency Name

Address

Community Agency Resources

American Red Cross

145 Exchange St Suite 1., Bangor

941-2903

Care & Comfort

24 Springer Dr, Bangor

992-2535

Career Center (Tri-County)
BangorCatholic Charities
Catholic Charities

45 Oak St., Suite 3, Bangor
1066 Kenduskeag Ave
307 Congress, Portland

561-4050
941-2855
781-8550

Services/Description/Website
Disaster relief at home and abroad; CPR certification and first aid courses; blood
donation; and emergency preparedness. www.redcross.org
Provides home health care, behavioral health care, and home modification services.
www.careandcomfort.com
Provides employment and training services at no charge for Maine workers/businesses.
ccmaine.org
Provides innovative, community-based social services throughout Maine.

City of Bangor General Assistance 103 Texas Ave., Bangor

992-4530

Basic necessities www.bangorpublichealth.org/general-assistance

City of Brewer General Assistance 80 No. Main St., Brewer

989-7020

Community Care

945-4240

941-2865
942-6389

Assistance with health needs for low income eligible clients. www.brewerme.org
Case management. Home-based clinical support for children & families (HCT),
outpatient therapy for children and adults. Comcareme.org
“Community Connector" Bus tickets offered. Www.bangormaine.gov
Home health, hospice, and mental health services. www.chcs-me.org
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). MaineCare, elder, and low-income
assistance. Www.mymaineconnection.gov
62+ years – Assistance with most anything.
Retraining – help getting a job. www.emdc.org

973-7952

Routine appointment scheduling. www.emmc.org/center_family_medicine

942-1611

Attend parenting & bible classes.
Firststepbangor.com
Pre & post abortion counseling, pregnancy testing

40 Summer St., Bangor

Community Connector
475 Maine Ave., Bangor
Community Health & Counseling 42 Cedar St., Bangor
Department of Health and Human
396 Griffin Rd., Bangor
Services (DHHS)
Eastern Area Agency on Aging
450 Essex St., Bangor
Eastern Maine Development Corp. 40 Harlow St., Bangor
EMMC Family Medicine Center
895 Union St., Ste. 12, Bangor
and Residency
First Step Pregnancy Resource
336 Mt. Hope Ave., Ste. 8, Bangor
Center

Phone

992-4670
947-0366
561-4100

Food and Medicine (by apt only)

20 Ivers St., Brewer

989-5860

Help & support with Unemployment Apps. (Unemployment: 1-866-933-9236); Worker
Rights; Support for local farmers. es by appt.- www.foodandmedicine.org

Kindred at Home

175 Exchange St., Suite 100,
Bangor

990-9000

provide skilled home care and in home occupational therapy www.kindredathome.com

Habitat for Humanity of Greater
Bangor ReStore
Legal Services for the Elderly
Legal Services for the Elderly
(Medicare Part D Unit)
Lions Club
Lynx Transportation
Pillars Community Outreach
Maine Educational Opportunity
Center

83 Washington St.,
Penobscot Plaza, Bangor
5 Wabon St., Augusta Helpline
5 Wabon St., Augusta
PO Box 237, Bangor
262 Harlow St., Bangor
41 Acme Rd Suite #6, Brewer
5713 Chadbourne Hall, Orono

Elimination of poverty housing. Operates a ReStore at 83 Washington St., Bangor.
www.habitatbangor.org
1-800-750-5353 Free legal help for Maine's seniors.
Helps low-income Maine residents of any age, who have Medicare but are having
620-3114
trouble getting or affording their medications.
Abe Miller Vision Assistance Program
262-2530
MaineCare transportation (Penobscot ,Piscataquis, Somerset and Kenebec
973-3500
Adult, Child and Homeless case management, DLS
922-2329
942-8977

581-3736

www.meoc.maine.edu Services for ages 19+, grade 6-12(College Access Program)
Page 1

Revised 2/15/18

Agency Name
Maine Equal Justice Partners
Maine Department of Labor
Health Equity Alliance

Community Agency Resources

Address
126 Sewell St., Augusta
54 State House Station, Augusta
106 Pine St, Bangor

Northeast Occupational Exchange 29 Franklin St., Bangor
OHI, Inc. (Office)
Penobscot Community Health

25 Freedom Parkway, Hermon
103 Maine Ave., Bangor

Penquis, Inc.
www.penquis.org

262 Harlow St., Bangor

Penquis Journey House

59 Free St., Dexter

Penquis Law Project
Pine Tree Legal Assistance

Offices - Bangor & Dover-Foxcroft
115 Main St., Bangor 2nd Floor

Public Health Nursing and Commun103 Texas Ave., Bangor
Shepherd's Godparent Home

PO BOX 616, Bangor

Social Security Administration

Rm. 10307, 202 Harlow St.,

Partners for Peace

77 Essex St., Bangor

St. Paul The Apostle Parish

217 York St., Bangor

The Salvation Army

65 So. Park St., Bangor

United Way of Eastern Maine
United Way of Eastern Maine

700 Main St. suite 1
700 Main St. suite 1

Phone
626-7058
623-7900
990-3626

Services/Description/Website
Free advocating for low-income & poverty individuals www.mejp.org
Statewide unemployment Insurance www.mainegov/labor

LGBTQ+, HIV/AIDS, Substance Abuse support and services, syringe exchange,
HIV/Hepatitis testing, Naloxone distribution, advocacy, cultural competency training,
Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD), sex education training

Comprehensive adult/child outpatient mental health, substance abuse service.
Www.noemaine.org
Residential services for people with disabilities.
www.ohimaine.org
848-5804
Administrative office for comprehensive medical services. www.pchc.com
992-9200
Assisted Living Services
Low Income Home Energy Asst. Program (LIHEAP). Covers electric, oil, kerosene, and
propane. (Penobscot County only)
973-3500
Emergency Crisis Intervention Program (ECIP). Heat or electricity. (Penobscot Co.)
Good Neighbor Fund. Not for emergency heat needs. (Penobscot County).
Low Income Assistance Program (LIAP). Electricity discount. Does not stop disconnect.
Transportation solutions for low income. And helps with child care assistance.
A transitional living program for pregnant and parenting young women (ages 16-21)
924-0151
and their children. www.penquis.org
Creates access to civil legal services for low and moderate income individuals.
973-3671
Provides free legal help to Maine people with low income. www.ptla.org
942-8241
In-Home visits to pregnant women and new parents that could benefit from
992-4530
additional health support for themselves and their babies, parenting & asthma
education, breastfeeding counseling, family planning, and immunizations.
Provides pregnant women (age 13-up) with free housing and meals, parenting services,
949-2273
educational opportunities, and life skills training.
www.socialsecurity.gov
(877)-405-1448 Bangor Office - Provides Social Security services
Provides information and support to people of all ages affected by abuse and domestic
945-5102
violence. www.partnersforpeaceme.org 1-800-863-9909 24 hours
Provides emergency assistance with food, clothing, home heating, utilities, medicine,
217-6740
gas, and rent. Assistance is limited to once every 3 months.
Provides those in emergency situations with basic necessities such as food, clothing,
household items and oil. Please feel free to contact the office Mon-Fri 9AM-3PM.
941-2990
Serves: Bangor, Brewer, Exeter, Glenburn, Hermon, Kenduskeag, Levant, Orrington,
Veazie. www.use.salvation.org/bangor
Statewide directory of health and human services in Maine. www.211maine.org
211
www.unitedwayem.org
941-2800
Page 2
Revised 2/15/18
942-3816

Community Agency Resources

Agency Name
USDA Rural Development
Wabanaki Health and Wellness

Address
967 Illinois Ave., Ste. 4, Bangor
157 Park St., Ste. 5, Bangor

Phone
990-9160
992-0411

Services/Description/Website
Maine Office www.rd.usda.gov/me
Child and family case workers and HIV testing. Addresss: Suite 5 inside door #36
Residential & outpatient services for those affected by addiction & co-occurring
disorders. Men, women and family. www.wellspringmaine.com

Wellspring, Inc.

98 Cumberland St., Bangor

941-1612

Wings

900 Hammond St., Suite 915,
Bangor

941-2988

Women Infant Children Program
(WIC)

103 Texas Ave., Bangor

992-4530

New Ventures Maine

1 University Pl., Bangor

262-7840

Assisting pregnant woman and children who are at nutritional risk, vouchers for
nutritional foods, breastfeeding support, breast pump rental, referrals. Serves: Bangor,
Dexter, Dover, Corinth, Lincoln, Milo, Millinocket, Newport, and Greenville.
Works to improve the economic lives of Maine men, women and their families.

Name
Bangor Homeless Shelter
Breaking Bread
Columbia Street Baptist Church
First Congregational Church
First United Methodist Church
Hammond St. Cong. Church
Redeemer Lutheran Church
St. John’s Episcopal Church
Manna Ministries
The Salvation Army
The Together Place
Unitarian-Universalist Church

Address
263 Main St., Bangor
517 Hammond St., Bangor
63 Columbia St., Bangor
35 Church St. Brewer
703 Essex St., Bangor
28 High St., Bangor PO BOX 1106
540 Essex St., Bangor
234 French St., Bangor
126 Union St, Bangor
65 South Park St., Bangor
150 Union St., Bangor
120 Park St., Bangor

Phone
947-0092
570-8107
945-6616
989-7350
945-9567
942-4381
945-3166
947-0156
945-9798
941-2990
941-2897
947-7009

Days/Times
Lunch is served at noon 7 days a week
Monday 11-1pm
Sunday Noon-1P
4th Sat each month 8:30A
Thu 4P-6P Community Café Tue & Thu
1st Sat Noon-1:30P
Dec-Apr: Wed 4:30-6P Apr-Nov: 1st Wed 4:30-6P
2nd Sat each month 12:00 PM Office hrs 9-1 M-F
Mon-Fri 4:30- 5:30pm
Mon–Fri 11:45A–1P Sun Breakfast 8:30-9:15am
Mon & Fri Only 12-1:30pm
Bean Supper 4th & 5th Sat 4-5P

Organization
City of Bangor General Assistance
City of Brewer General Assistance
St. Paul The Apostle Parish
The Salvation Army
Community Evangel Temple

Address
103 Texas Ave., Bangor
80 No. Main St., Brewer
217 York St., Bangor
65 So. Park St., Bangor
124 River Rd, Lincoln

Case Management Services for Adults and Children www.wingsinc.org

Community Meals

Emergency Heating Assistance
Phone
992-4530
989-7020
217-6740
941-2990
794-6181
Page 3

Bangor
Brewer
Bangor area

Areas Served

Bangor, Brewer, Exeter, Glenburn, Hermon, Kenduskeag, Levant, Orrington, & Veazie

Penobscot county

Revised 2/15/18

Name
Advent Christian Church
All Souls Congregational Church, UCC
Amazing Grace Fellowship
Apostolic Lighthouse Church
Crosspoint Church
Bangor Church of Christ
Beacon of Hope
Bible Baptist Church
Calvary Baptist Church
Calvary Chapel Church
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Clifton United Baptist Church
Columbia Street Baptist Church
Beth Abraham Orthodox Synagogue
Congregation Beth El
Congregation Beth Israel
Dedham Congregational Church, UCC
East Eddington Community Church
East Orrington Congregational Church, CCC
Essex Street Baptist Church
First Apostolic Church of Brewer
First Assembly of God
First Baptist Church
First Church of Christ, Scientist
First Church of the Nazarene
First Congregational Church, UCC
First United Methodist Church
First United Methodist Church
First United Methodist Church
Forest Avenue Church, UCC
Glad Tidings Church
Grace United Methodist Church
Hammond Street Congregational Church
Holden Congregational Church, UCC

Faith Based Organizations

Address
2141 Broadway, Bangor
10 Broadway, Bangor
2 Canusa Way, Brewer
517 Hammond St., Bangor
1476 Broadway, Bangor
516 Union St., Bangor
1612 Ohio St., Bangor
967 Forest Ave, Orono
61 State St., Brewer
154 River Rd., Orrington
639 Grandview Ave., Bangor
742 Airline Rd., Clifton
63 Columbia St., Bangor
145 York St., Bangor
183 French St., Bangor
144 York St., Bangor
512 Upper Dedham Rd., Dedham
1410 Main Rd., Eddington
38 Johnson Mill Rd., Orrington
82 Essex St., Bangor
14 Parkway So., Brewer
614 Finson Rd., Bangor
56 Center St., Bangor
939 Broadway, Bangor
1465 Union St., Bangor
35 Church St., Brewer
703 Essex St., Bangor
40 So. Main St., Brewer
14 Center Dr., Orrington
300 Forest Ave., Bangor
1033 Broadway, Bangor
193 Union St., Bangor
28 High St., Bangor PO BOX 1106
Church Rd., Holden
Page 4

Phone
942-4327
942-7354
745-3927
942-2517
947-6576
942-4176
945-0224
945-9952
989-3912
991-9555
942-5626
843-5441
945-6616
947-0876
945-4578
945-3433
843-7646
843-5283
825-3404
942-4177
989-3585
947-1029
945-9694
947-7421
942-7216
989-7350
945-9567
989-7310
825-4414
942-4705
947-0324
942-8320
942-4381
989-4550

Website for Local Church
www.bangoradvent.com
www.allsoulsbangor.com
www.agffamily.com
n/a
www.crosspointbangor.com
www.bangorchurchofchrist.com
beaconofhopecog.com
www.bbcbangorarea.com
www.cbcbrewer.org
www.calvarychapel.org/Bangor
www.lds.org
n/a
www.csbcbangor.org
www.jewishbangor.org
www.bethelbgr.com
www.cbisrael.org
n/a
n/a
www.eoccmaine.com
n/a
www.facbrewer.org
www.firstassemblybangor.org
www.fbcbangor.org
Christiansciencebangormaine.com
www.bangornaz.com
www.firstcongregationalbrewer.org
www.fumcbangor.org
www.fumcob.org
www.umc.org
n/a
www.gtc.bangor.com
www.gracemethodistbangor.org
www.hammondstreetchurch.org
n/a
Revised 2/15/18

Name
Hope Lutheran Church
Islamic Center of Maine – Orono
Lighthouse Church of God
Messiah Baptist Church
New Life Community Church
North Brewer/Eddington United Methodist Church
Orrington Center Church
Pilgrim Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Redeemer Lutheran Church
River City Wesleyan Church
Second Congregational Church, CCCC
St. George Greek Orthodox Church
St. John's Episcopal Church
St. Patrick’s Episcopal Church
St. Paul the Apostle Parish
The Rock Church
The Salvation Army
The Unitarian Universalist Society of Bangor
Twin City Baptist Church
Market Name
Bangor Farmers' Market
Ohio Street Farmers' Market
Brewer Farmers' Market

Faith Based Organizations

Address
1520 Union St., Bangor
151 Park St., Orono
696 River Rd., Orrington
985 Union St., Bangor
391 No. Main St., Suite G, Brewer
31 Main Rd., Eddington
468 Dow Rd., Orrington
375 Mount Hope Ave., Bangor
540 Essex St., Bangor
146 Center St., Bangor
607 So. Main St., Brewer
90 Sanford St., Bangor
225 French St., Bangor
21 Holyoke St., Brewer
217 York St., Bangor
1195 Ohio St., Bangor
65 So. Park St., Bangor
120 Park St., Bangor
559 No. Main St., Brewer

Address
Harlow St. & Franklin St., Bangor
(Across from the Library)
Bangor Grange Hall
1192 Ohio St., Bangor
Brewer Auditorium,
318 Wilson St., Brewer

Area/clients Served
All
All
Aurora, Amherst, Clifton, Mariaville, & Otis
Bangor
Bangor
All

Farmers' Markets

Days & Hours of Operation
Sundays 11am-2pm
Apr 30 through November 24
Wednesdays 2P-5:30P
June through November
Tuesday/ Thursday/Saturday
8:30A-1P
Mid May

Phone
990-5900
866-3410
825-9001
947-7950
945-9937
989-4715
825-3492
942-8054
945-3166
990-1711
989-7930
945-9588
947-0156
989-1308
217-6740
942-9977
941-2990
947-7009
989-6852

Website for Local Church
www.hopebangor.org
www.theicmo.com
www.orringtonlight.org
www.messiahbangor.org
www.newlifechurch.today
www.nbeumc.org
www.orringtoncenterchurch.net
www.pilgrimopc.org
www.redeemer-lutheran-church.org
n/a
www.stgeorge.me.goarch.org
www.stjohnsbangor.org
www.stpatsbrewer.episcopalmaine.org
www.stpaulbangor.me
[email protected]
www.use.salvationarmy.org/bangor
www.uubangor.org
www.tcbcbrewer.com
Notes

Participates in the EBT/SNAP Discount Program.
Participates in the EBT/SNAP Discount Program.
Participates in the EBT/SNAP Discount Program on Saturdays in July,
August, & September (while funds last).

Food Cupboards and Pantries

Name of Cupboard/Pantry
Address
Bangor Area Homeless Shelter 263 Main St., Bangor
Seeds of Hope
1612 Ohio St., Bangor
Clifton Community
742 Airline Rd., Clifton
Ecumenical
28 High St., Bangor
Grace United Methodist
193 Union St. Bangor
Samaritan Inc. (The rock Church) 879 Hudson Rd. Glenburn
Page 5

Phone
947-0092
945-0224
843-5441
631-9996
942-8320
200-4747

Days/Times
Tue & Thu 1-4P
2nd and 4th Thursdays 11Mon. 1st + 3rd 5P-6P
M, W, & Fri 10-11am
9-1pm
Tues-Sat 9
Call first for info.
Revised 2/15/18

Food Cupboards and Pantries

Area/clients Served
Bangor
Bangor, Brewer, Holden, & Veazie
Bangor, Brewer, Exeter, Glenburn, Hermon, Kenduskeag, Levant,
Orrington, & Veazie
Bangor, Glenburn, Hermon and Veazie

Name of Cupboard/Pantry
Manna Ministries
Amazing Grace Fellowship

Address
126 Union St, Bangor
Private

Phone
945-9798
745-3927

The Salvation Army of Bangor

65 So. Park St., Bangor

941-2990

The Together Place

150 Union St., Bangor

941-2897

Brewer & Eddington

Brewer Area Food Pantry

222 No. Main St., Brewer

605-1218

Dedham, Green Lake, & Lucerne-in-Maine

Dedham Cong. Church

209 Mill Rd. Dedham

843-6013

By Appt. 557-9426

1410 Main Rd., Eddington

843-5283

Call for service.

106 pine st bangor
66 Church Rd., Holden

990-3626
989-4550

M-F 9-4:30pm
Call for service.

E. Eddington Community
Church
Health Equity Alliance
Holden Cong. Church

Eddington
Bangor
Holden
Facility Name
Acadia Hospital
PCHC
Eastern Maine Medical Center
St. Joseph Hospital

Address
268 Stillwater Ave., Bangor
1012 Union St, Bangor
489 State St., Bangor
360 Broadway, Bangor

Agency Name
2-1-1Maine
Alcoholics Anonymous
Al-anon
Child Abuse
Crisis Hotline

Health Care Facilities
Phone
973-6100
404-8100
973-7000
907-1000

Description/Website
Treats mental illness and substance abuse disorders. wwww.acadiahospital.org
Comprehensive medical center www.pchc.com
Comprehensive medical center 24-hour emergency room. www.emmc.org
Comprehensive medical center 24-hour emergency room. www.stjoeshealing.org

Helplines/Hotlines

Phone
2-1-1
1-800-737-6237
1-800-498-1844
1-800-452-1999
1-888-568-1112

Disabled & Aging Service Helpline (D.A.S.H.)

941-2865

Domestic Violence (Family Crisis Services)

1-866-834-4357

Domestic Violence (Next Step)
Drug Tips
Eating Disorders Treatment Program
Elder Abuse

1-800-315-5579
1-800-452-6457
1-800-236-7524
1-800-624-8404

Days/Times
Mon, Wed, & Fri 3-4P
On call.
Mon through Fri 9A11:40 and 1P-3P
Wed 9A-12P
1st Mon.& 4th Wed. of
month 10A-Noon

Description/Website
Statewide information for Maine regarding variety of services.
Literature, locate meetings, 24 hour advice
24 hour advice, locate meetings
Reporting child abuse, support, resources
Assists those with mental illness, locates psychiatric treatment, suicide prevention.
Aims to improve awareness of and access to long-term supports for older adults, adults
with disabilities and caregivers. www.eaaa.org/dashnetwork.html
Emergency shelter for women 18 years and older (with or without children) in
Portland. www.familycrisis.org/services/emergency-shelter
Hancock County, safe plan, resources
Drug enforcement tip line
Food addiction & eating disorders, counseling, resources
Support for elderly victims of abuse.
Page 6
Revised 2/15/18

Agency Name

Helplines/Hotlines

Phone

GLBT National Help Center

1-888-843-4564

Legal Services for the Elderly

1-800-750-5353

Maine Warm Line

1-866-771-9276

Narcotics Anonymous
National Pregnancy Hotline
National STI Hotline
Pet Loss Support
Poison Control
Sexual Assault
Partners for Peace
National Suicide Prevention/ Veterans Crisis
Tobacco Hotline

1-800-974-0062
1-800-395-4357
1-800-227-8922
607-253-3932
1-800-222-1222
1-800-871-7741
1-800-863-9909
1-800-273-8255
1-800-207-1230

The Women’s Project/Opportunity Alliance

1-800-611-1779

Worker’s Rights/Farmer’s Support (Food&Medicine)

1-866-933-9236

Shelter Name
Bangor Area Homeless Shelter
Emmaus Center – Clean & Sober Family Shelter
Hope House
Next Step
OHI
OHI Office
Shaw House
Partners for Peace

Description/Website
Provides free and confidential telephone and internet peer-counseling, information
and local resources. www.glnh.org
Free legal help for Maine seniors.
Callers will receive support, social connection, assistance with referrals to community
resources, recovery programs and an opportunity to connect with others during a time
of fear, grief or sadness.
www.maine.gov/dhhs/samhs/mentalhealth/wellness/warmline.shtml
Support for individuals addicted to narcotics; resources.
Find local pregnancy centers, referrals, helps seek necessities www.optionline.org
Provides local resources and information.
Iowa State University - College of Veterinary Medicine
Crisis information on injection of toxic substances
Victims of sexual assault support, resources
Domestic violence support, safe plan, information on safe house
Assists those with mental illness, locates psychiatric treatment
Individuals looking for ways to quit smoking, support
Helping women affected by substance abuse - their own or others.
www.maine.gov/dhhs/osa/help/women.htm
Helping local agriculture, unemployment information, worker rights, farmer support

Homeless Shelters

Address
Notes
Phone
263 Main St., Bangor
947-0092 Male & Female over 18. Clients need to be clean and sober.
Corner of Main St. and Water St.,
667-3962 Families and single males & females.
Ellsworth
179 Indiana Ave., Bangor
217-6713 Male & Female Single Adults Clients can be "wet".
735 Bangor Rd., Ellsworth
1-800-315-5579 Domestic violence shelter & support services
238 State St., Brewer
989-4007
Residential services for people with disabilities.
25 Freedom Parkway, Hermon
848-5804
Male & Female under 18. Clinic & counseling (youth only).
136 Union St., Bangor
941-2874
www.theshawhouse.org
77 Essex St., Bangor
1-800-863-9909 Domestic violence shelter & support services. Very limited spots.
(Administrative Office)
Page 7

Revised 2/15/18

Housing Resources

Agency Name

Address

Bangor Housing Authority
Bangor Health & Community Service
Brewer Housing Authority
Maine State Housing Authority
Penquis – Section 8
Welcome To Housing!

Shop Name
Bonnies Bargin Basement
Emmaus Center
Faithbuilders Cornerstone Resale
& Donation Center
Love The City Thrift Shop
Goodwill
Habitat for Humanity ReStore
Saving Grace Thrift Shop
The Attic Thrift Store
The Growing Place
The Salvation Army Family Store

Notes/Websites
Provides affordable housing opportunities and assistance for low to
942-6365
161 Davis Rd., Bangor
moderate income households.
www.bangorhousing.org
103 Texas Ave., Bangor
992-4530 Transitional housing for homeless people. Additional services available.
Assists low-income families with decent, safe and affordable housing
15 Colonial Circle, Suite 1, Brewer
989-7551
opportunities. www.brewerhousing.com
353 Water St., Augusta
1- 800-452-4668 Making housing more affordable to Maine people.
Individuals paying more than 50% of their wages for rent & make less
262 Harlow St., Bangor
973-3500
than the median of selected area’s wages.
Provides basic household items (from mattresses to can- openers) to
200-5524
333 Main St. Old Town
individuals who are transitioning from area shelters to permanent

Address
222 North Main St, Brewer
Corner of Main St. and Water St.,
Ellsworth 51 Main St

Phone

Thrift Shops

Phone
989-3200

Wed-Sat 10-4pm

667-3962

M,W,F and Sat. 10:30A-2:30P

401 No. Main St., Brewer

951-0828

54 Cumberland St., Bangor
805 Stillwater Ave., Bangor
610 Wilson St., Brewer
83 Washington St. Penobscot Plaza
Bangor
193 Union St., Bangor
170 Center St., Bangor
548 Hammond St., Bangor
1209 Broadway, Bangor

942-800
947-7984
989-1511

585 Broadway, Bangor

Hours/Notes

Tue-Sat 10A-5P&Sat 10A-4P. Women's Clothing Store. Assists victims of domestic
abuse.
Mon-Fri 10A-5P & Sat 10A-3P
Mon.- Sat 9A-9P. Sunday 10-7

992-0704

www.habitatbangor.org hours of operation Tues-Sat 9-5

942-8320
945-5523
941-1055
947-9055

Tue-Sat 9A-1P
Mon-Fri 10-3pm Wednesdays 10-12pm
Summer Mon-Fri 10A-6P & Winter 10A-5P. Thrift store for children's toys and
necessities; Woman's work and maternity clothing.

941-2993

Mon-Sat 9-6pm
Page 8

Revised 2/15/18

August 2019

Greater Bangor Area 2019 Point in Week2
(PIW2)

Regional III Homeless Council -- Not-in-Shelter Homeless Count
Point in Week 2 (PIW2) was held from July 8 through July 21, 2019, and was designed to count
the total number of persons in the Greater Bangor Area experiencing not-in-shelter
homelessness. The original concept sought to enumerate unsheltered homelessness only
(sleeping outside or in a place not meant for habitation); however, recognizing the fluidity of
prospects available to persons networked in the community, and/or the ability to sometimes
afford a hotel/motel room, and/or opportunities to find a crisis, shelter or psychiatric bed, a
broader framework was created to more accurately account for persons experiencing not-inshelter homelessness. The Council’s recommendations and assessment are at the end of this
report.
The impetus for this count was a response to discernable, early summer increases in homeless
encampments and persons sleeping in places not meant for habitation. In general, homeless
encampments nationally have grown more than 1,300% in the past 10 years -- 80% of that
increase taking place in the last few years (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty,
Tent City, 2017). The purpose was to better provide an assessment of need so as to enhance
homeless services and prioritize resources to improve the lives of those served by the homeless
response system. The design and implementation team was comprised of an ad hoc
subcommittee of the Region III Homeless Committee, which included agency representatives
from Community Care, Community Health & Counseling Services (CHCS), Bangor Area Homeless
Shelter, and Hope House Health & Living Center. Other local agencies and MaineHousing
representatives attempted to participate and did contribute to design and need discussions
during the Region III Homeless Council full meetings; however, due to the need to design a
protocol and organize quickly, scheduling barriers were prohibitive for some and interfered
with direct participation in this ad hoc committee.
The count was originally designed to be one week long; however, overwhelming consensus
among members of the ad hoc committee and Region III Homeless Council at the end of the
first week concluded the week-long effort to have been inadequate. A reasonable number of
persons known to be living outside and not captured, coupled with rumors of additional
unfound encampments, played a role in convincing the committee to extend the count an
additional week.
Persons experiencing homelessness in shelters were not counted unless they were expecting to
stay outside the night of the interview, or stayed outside the night before the interview. As
outlined below in the data section, some people expected to find a couch, hotel/motel, or to be
admitted to a crisis or psychiatric facility, or came from those destinations. Only heads of
households were interviewed; though, the number in each household was recorded. In addition
to agencies collecting data during the normal course of operations, including normal outreach
operations, two separate multi-agency coordinated outreach efforts took place. A sample count
sheet and list of participating agencies can be found attached to this report.
1

Strong efforts were made to protect the identity of persons being counted, while balancing
efforts to minimize duplication (counting a household more than once). A robust system was
developed where gender, the day born (1-31), age as a whole number, 3rd letter of last name,
and last letter of first name was used to create a unique string of characters significantly
difficult to decipher, if not improbable, while providing enough information to reasonably
identify duplicate interviews. For this count, 97 households totaling 157 individuals were
recorded. Sixteen (16) head-of-households were determined to be duplicates (16.5%), using 4
conditions as follows: 1) unique string match; 2) working cell phone status match; 3) zip code of
last address match; and 4) number of months homeless match. Meeting these 4 standards, 9
people were counted twice, 2 people were counted 3 times, and 1 person was counted 4 times
resulting in 16 records being removed from count sheet submissions. After removing
duplicates, the final dataset was comprised of 81 households representing 129 individuals
(refer to “Lost Data Interpretation” section for additional information).
The count sheets and electronic spreadsheets for this count have been archived securely.
The intent of this count was to inform the council on regional need so as to improve lives, not
cause harm or discomfort. If a person did not want to be counted, no pressure was applied. As
of this writing, no uneasiness, distress, or discomfort resulting from these interviews were
reported and only one person was reported to have refused. One person objected to sharing
their day born, age as a whole number, last letter of first name, third letter of last name, and
zip code of last address; however, they consented to being counted for purposes of quantifying
the unsheltered homeless in the area. The letter “n” was recorded for all interview elements
objected to.
The target population for this count focused on those who experienced not-in-shelter
homelessness the night before the interview or were expecting to experience not-in-shelter
homelessness the night of the interview, with interviews taking place between July 8, 2019 and
July 21, 2019. Three (3.7%) households experienced homelessness on one night, but not the
other. The remainder (78; 96.3%) experienced homelessness the night before the interview
and expected to experience homeless the night of the interview.
Future count methodologies and design should look at language and/or additional questions
seeking to determine prior homeless experience, such as:
•
•
•

Have you experienced unsheltered or in-shelter homelessness the past year;
Have you ever participated in a program designed for homeless or formerly homeless
persons, such as PATH, ESHAP, WISH, etc.; and
If there was room in a shelter tonight, would you stay in a shelter?

Additionally, future count methodologies should consider changing from creating a unique
string including the age of a person and, instead, substitute the year born. The Region III
Homeless Council does not believe this subtle change will negatively influence participation,
will continue to adequately protect the identity of those being counted, and benefit future
counts as unique identification strings will remain static longitudinally – age changes over
time; however, year born is static. By capturing age instead of year born, future counts will
2

be able to assess participation over time, which will enable the Council to better measure
year-over-year progress and trends.
Interview Questions
First question
Interviewers first asked if the head of household had been interviewed for PIW2. If the answer
was “yes,” the interview stopped and information was not collected again.
Working Cell with Minutes
This question, which could only be answered “yes” if the head of household had a cellular
telephone with minutes that could make a call without being connected to WiFi (internet), was
asked for two purposes: 1) to gather data on access to communication devices; and 2) as a
warm-up question to loosen conversation.
From Bangor
This question could be answered “yes” if the head of household worked, lived, went to school,
or had/has family in Bangor at any time past or present. Otherwise, the answer was recorded
as “no.”
Zip Code of Last Address
The zip code of the place interviewee lived for 6 months or more, most recently. The city and
state were to be entered if zip code was unknown. Interviewers were instructed to go as far
back in a person’s history as necessary to find a time and place a person lived for 6 months or
more.
Where Slept/Sleep
Where an interviewee slept or was sleeping was limited to the following responses: Jail, hosp,
psych hosp., outside, car, couch, shelter, own place, PNMH, or other (PNMH = other Place Not
Meant for Habitation).
Months Homeless Since Last July
Consistent with HMIS reporting, responses were recorded as whole months rounded to the
next month. For example, 45 days of homelessness was recorded as 2.
Gender
Gender was recorded as “m,” (male) “f,” (female), or “gnc” (gender non-conforming) as the
gender identity self-reported by the interviewee.
Day Born
Recorded as the day (1-31) of the head of household’s date of birth.
Age
Recorded as the whole number of the head of household’s age, rather than date of birth, which
is a less ambiguous demographic identifier,
Third Letter of Last Name and Last Letter of First Name
As indicated, the corresponding characters are recorded and like age, are simple identifies used
to assist in identifying duplicate records while maintaining a high level of identity concealment.
3

Number in Household
Recorded as the number of people in the head of household’s household including the head of
household.

Greater Bangor Area 2019 Point in Week2
(PIW2) Data

Regional III Homeless Council -- Not-in-Shelter Homeless Count

81
Unique Individuals: 129

54
67%
Total Female HH:
81
33%
Average Age Male: 39.33
Average Age Female: 35.00
Zip Code of Last
46
57%

Unique Households:

Total Male HH:

Average age:

37.9

From Bangor:

47

58%

Has working cell:

39

48%

Address 04401/2
Avg. Months

Last Night Slept…
Outside
Car/Camper
Couch
PNMH
Psych/Crisis
Hotel/Motel
Place Owned/Rent
Households with 1
Person
Households with 2
Persons
1 Person Households
Female

46
7
17
7
0
1
3

57%
9%
21%
9%
0%
1%
4%

54

67%

20

25%

12

22%

7.6

Homeless Past 12 Mo:
months
Tonight Will Sleep…
Outside
Car/Camper
Couch
PNMH
Psych/Crisis
Hotel/Motel
Place Owned/Rent
Households with
> 2 Persons

1 Person Households
Male
4

49
7
14
7
2
1
0

61%
9%
17%
9%
3%
1%
0%

7

8%

42

78%

Notable Numbers
Households Working Cellular Telephone
Status

Cell Phones. Of significance, only 48% of head of
households interviewed had a working cellular
telephone, with minutes, and able to make or
receive a call. Lack of access to a cell phone causes:
•
•

•

43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36

an inability to provide a contact number for
resumes, rental applications, emergency
services, or children’s schools;
Significant barriers to communicating with
potential employment opportunities,
landlord/property managers, children’s
schools, care management/housing
navigators, and social service programs; and
Decreased safety. An inability to call 9-1-1 or
other emergency services; and

•

7.6 months, 228 days

an Inability to maintain contact with social
networks (friends and family), maintain social
benefits, connect to the internet, receive push
notifications, and benefit from services such as
Google Maps and banking apps.

In addition to serious safety considerations, significant
barriers to treatment, housing, and coordination of
care result when outreach, housing navigator, peer,
recovery coach, and care management workers are
unable to connect with clients.

6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00

No

Figure 1. Distribution of head of households with working cellular
telephone. This question could only be answered “yes” if the
head of household had a cellular telephone with minutes that
could make a call without being connected to WiFi (internet).

12.00
8.00

39

Yes

Average Months Homeless in Past 12
10.00

42

Months

In the Past 12 Months, Average Months Homeless
Since Last July. The average number of month’s
Figure 2. Average number of months homeless in the past 12
months. Consistent with HMIS reporting, responses were
homeless among the 2019 PIW2 population was 7.6
recorded as whole months rounded to the next month. For
months, representing an average of 228 days for all
example, 45 days of homelessness was recorded as 2.
households. Of note, 51 of 81 (63%) qualify for the full
definition of LTS based on the last 12 months of
homelessness alone. While a disturbing number of people without cellphones living in high-risk situations is of
immediate safety concern, perhaps the most alarming result from this count is the number of Long-term
Stayers (LTS), who are potentially in a place of eligibility for prioritization of resources.
Recent regional Housing First efforts to end homelessness have
adhered to the recognized best practice of targeting resources
“The volume of regional unsheltered
to the most vulnerable, longest-term homeless. As a result,
homelessness is of significant concern
significant recent initiatives have meaningfully reduced Chronic
as we approach winter.”
and LTS Homelessness in shelters the past few years.
Coordinated outreach efforts and collaborative approaches, coupled with aligning system-wide resources
targeting the most vulnerable and longest-term homeless, have made exciting improvements in opening flow
5

through the homeless response system ensuring resources are getting to the right people, resulting in a more
efficient and just system. While the homeless response system has regionally improved housing outcomes for
those experiencing homelessness in shelters, the volume of regional unsheltered homelessness is of significant
concern as we approach winter.
In addition to the primary concern, which is the safety of those experiencing unsheltered homelessness, there
are significant system and program issues. Shelters are expending noteworthy, and largely unfunded,
resources triaging needs, mediating conflicts
to find temporary or semi-permanent
“Communitywide participation in Coordinated Entry
housing opportunities, providing safety gear
is of paramount importance to improving and
for survival in the elements, and delivering
saving lives and maximizing homeless resources.”
basic care/case management supports for
persons not in shelters. In addition to a host
of program redesigns necessary to accommodate the acute needs of persons experiencing unsheltered
homelessness, shelters are the de facto referral for all persons experiencing homelessness, and rightly so;
however, the resources required to coordinate the needs of someone unsheltered are significantly greater
than coordinating the needs of someone in shelter. Communitywide participation in Coordinated Entry is of
paramount importance to improving and saving lives and maximizing homeless resources.
Unsheltered homelessness requires different and explicitly coordinated engagement approaches. While our
homeless response system is well equipped with best-practice outreach protocols, the region has not
experienced a significant volume of unsheltered individuals warranting an intentional coordinate approach.
For example, unless LAAs accept self-report and
professional outreach certification of unsheltered
“…unless LAAs accept self-report and professional
homelessness, housing subsidies will not be an
outreach certification of unsheltered homelessness,
effective intervention in ending homelessness in
housing subsidies will not be an effective
the region. Previously, the handful of persons
intervention in ending homelessness in the region.”
sleeping outside have been managed as special
cases. Now, however, there are nearly as many,
and possibly more, people sleeping outside than in our shelters. Coordinating outreach interventions with
screenings, assessments, and shelter prioritization, with prioritization of housing intervention type and system
supports once housed, are necessary elements for the region’s homeless response system flow and essential
to maximizing resources to ensure the greatest number and the most vulnerable, with the longest histories of
homelessness, are receiving the those resources.
Distribution of where slept last night and where will sleep tonight.

Distribution of Place Will Sleep Tonight
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

61%

9%
Outside

Car/Camper

17%

Couch

9%
PNMH

6

3%

1%

0%

Psych/Crisis

Hotel/Motel

Place Owned/Rent

Figure 3. Distribution of Place Will Sleep Tonight. The interview was limited to the following responses: Jail, hosp, psych
hosp., outside, car, couch, shelter, own place, PNMH, or other (PNMH = other Place Not Meant for Habitation).

Distribution of Place Slept Last Night
57%

60%
50%
40%
30%

21%

20%

9%

10%
0%

Outside

9%

Car/Camper

Couch

PNMH

0%

1%

Psych/Crisis

Hotel/Motel

4%
Place Owned/Rent

Figure 4. Distribution of Place S. The interview was limited to the following responses: Jail, hosp, psych hosp., outside, car,
couch, shelter, own place, PNMH, or other (PNMH = other Place Not Meant for Habitation).

Zip Code of Last Address. Two (2) persons either didn’t know or refused to supply their zip code of last
address. One numerical sequence (33374) was determined to not be a zip code when checked against the
USPS database of current zip codes. 78 of 81 (96.2%) were determined to be valid zip codes.

50

2019 PIW2 Distribution of Zip Code of Last Address
from Maine

Bangor, 59.0%
46

From Brewer, 6.4%
Bradley, 2.6%
Caribou, 1.3%

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

5

2

1

1

70.0%

60.0%
Dixmont, 1.3%
Corinth, 1.3% Ellsworth, 1.3%
50.0%
Kenduskeag, 1.3%
Dexter, 3.8%
Lewiston, 1.3%
Waterville, 2.6% 40.0%
Madawaska, 1.3%
Milford, 2.6%
Springfield, 1.3%
Millinocket, 1.3%
30.0%
Owls Head, 1.3%
Lincoln, 1.3%
20.0%
Nobleboro, 1.3%
Sanford, 3.8%
10.0%
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.0%

Total

Percent

Figure 5. 2019 PIW2 Distribution of Zip Code of Last Address from Maine. A distribution of persons identifying zip codes of last
address in Maine. The zip code of the place interviewee lived for 6 months or more, most recently. The city and state were to be
entered if zip code was unknown. Interviewers were instructed to go as far back in a person’s history as necessary to find a time
and place a person lived for 6 months or more.

7

Zip code of last address data is consistent with
HMIS data from 2018 for all Bangor shelters
(Figure 7). Representing 1,154 shelter project
entries, data illustrates 55.12% of individuals had a
last address prior to project entry in Penobscot
County. While many people experiencing
homelessness spend a night in a zip code other
than Bangor prior to project entry, upon
investigation most are “from Bangor,” when
defined as “lived, worked, attended school, or
have family in Bangor either past or present.”

2019 PIW2 Distribution of Zip Code of Last
Address by State
80

75

60
40
20
0

1
Maine

1

1

Massachusetts North Carolina

Tennessee

Figure 6. 2019 PIW2 Distribution of Zip Code of Last Address by State. A distribution of persons. Where the zip code of the
place interviewee lived for 6 months or more, most recently. The city and state were to be entered if zip code was
unknown. Interviewers were instructed to go as far back in a person’s history as necessary to find a time and place a
person lived for 6 months or more.

60%

55.12%

2018 County Rate of all Unique Individuals Entering Bangor Shelters
Zip Code of Last Address Prior to Project Entry

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

1.71% 2.60% 2.96%

4.67%
0.09%

2.51%

1.17% 0.36% 0.45%

1.89%

0.36%

1.71% 2.06% 2.60% 1.08%

% Total Homeless Individuals
Figure 7. 2018 County Rate of all Unique Individuals Entering Bangor Shelters Zip Code of Last Address Prior to Project Entry. A
distribution of all persons from Maine entering Bangor shelters in 2018. 1,154 Shelter project entries in 2018 were distributed as
83.75% from Maine, 16.25% from other states, and 55.12% from Penobscot County. Raw data supplied by MaineHousing.

Lost Data Interpretation
One sheet containing 19 entries was lost by a program after collection, but before faxing to a centralized
data center for entry into an Excel Spreadsheet. This data is forever lost. Using a duplication rate of 16.5%
8

found in the total of all count sheets, 19 entries represents 16 unique households and 25 individuals. As
such, the Region III Homeless Council estimates the number of households in the community living
unsheltered to be 97, instead of 81, representing 154, instead of 129, individuals.
Region III Homeless Council Assessment
The Region III Homeless Council unanimously finds the data obtained from the 2019 PIW2 count to be
consistent with the professional observations reported to this body by WISH, PATH, and Shaw House
outreach teams and/or their supervisory representatives; the expert interpretations of assessments and
reports by the distinguished members of this Council, and anecdotal reports from other non-member
organizations opining on the current state of unsheltered homelessness in the Greater Bangor Area. Further,
the Council believes these outcomes to be part of an upward nationwide trend and not a temporary increase
in unsheltered homelessness.
Unsheltered homelessness in the Greater Bangor Area has reached unprecedented levels. While this is the
first count of its kind in the Greater Bangor Area, at no other time in memory have so many people been
living unsheltered. While unsheltered homelessness is nothing new to the staff at the Hope House; typically,
persons are known to camp in the woods far back and behind the Hope House. Indicative of significant
unsheltered homeless increase, on one day in, 12 tents were erected on the back lawn of the Hope House –
a practice not known to have occurred in the past. According to the National Law Center on Homelessness
and Poverty, an exceptionally large study in 2017 indicates homeless encampments are up 1,342% nationally
in the past 10 years. Cities across the nation are experiencing similar increases to Bangor. Members of this
Council attended the recent United States Interagency Council on Homelessness’ (USICH’s) Convening on
Ending Rural Homelessness and the National Alliance to End Homelessness annual conference, where
descriptions of communities similar in size to Bangor are all experiencing comparable increases in
unsheltered homelessness. At the forefront is a 60% drop nationally in affordable housing to very low
income families and stagnant wages (Freddie Mac).
As new guidance and best practices emerge concerning approaches to encampments and their residents,
the Council will continue to assess, incorporate into the homeless response system, and make
recommendations. For now, what works
according to the National Law Center on
“The current state of homelessness in the Greater
Homelessness and Poverty when communities
Bangor Area is solvable. Listening to the needs of
cannot provide enough affordable housing, to
its residents, more than 100,000 of the most
provide basic needs,”…providing access to
service-resistant and chronically homeless were
sanitation facilities and water, regular trash
housed by the 100,000 Homes Campaign.”
removal, and safe cooking facilities—all things a
city can do to improve the health & safety of its
residents” (Tent City, 2017). The current state of homelessness in the Greater Bangor Area is solvable.
Listening to the needs of its residents, more than 100,000 of the most service-resistant and chronically
homeless were housed by the 100,000 Homes Campaign.
Region III Homeless Council Recommendations
An adequate supply of affordable and accessible housing is the only solution to end homelessness – housed
people are not homeless. Absent an affordable housing solution, the immediate concern as we enter the
2019 / 2020 winter is the safety of those experiencing unsheltered homelessness. The Region III Homeless
9

Council unanimously recommends adding a low-barrier warming center to the region to protect persons
experiencing homelessness from the elements. Cold weather is fast approaching, requiring swift action by
agencies and organization able to commit and contribute to solving this dire safety issue. Unlike Portland,
Bangor is not a “right to shelter” community and when our shelters are full, lives are jeopardized.
This recommendation is meant to compliment the warming center at the Bangor Area Homeless Shelter. In
addition to working with community partners and Region III, the Council further recommends any additional
warming center to coordinate efforts with
MaineHousing, the Statewide Homeless
“The Region III Homeless Council unanimously
Council, and the Maine Continuum of Care
recommends adding a low-barrier warming center
(MCoC) to assess for purposes of implementing
to the region to protect persons experiencing
the following: 1) data collection (HMIS and
homelessness from the elements.”
PIW2 practices); 2) best practices for engaging
unsheltered and service-resistant populations;
3) Coordinated Entry System (CES) participation; and 4) system prioritization. Such coordination is not
complex or time consuming, but ensures the system is moving in the same direction, not at cross-purposes,
and when properly implemented, provides the greatest good to the greatest number of people.
The Council is aware of efforts by the faith-based community to create space for a warming center and
representatives have indicated progress toward that end. Collaborating with in-progress initiatives is also
encouraged.
In addition to an increase in unsheltered
homelessness in the Greater Bangor Area spurring
the need for an additional warming center, reports
from members of the Regional III Homeless
Council indicate the Bangor Police Department
lobby will not be an option, as it has in the past,
for persons to stay safe while experiencing
unsheltered homelessness. This closure further
compounds the need for an additional warming
center.

“Cold weather is fast approaching, requiring swift
action by agencies and organization able to commit
and contribute to solving this dire safety issue.
Unlike Portland, Bangor is not a “right to shelter”
community and when our shelters are full, lives are
jeopardized.”

From a best practice perspective, additional shelter beds are often not a solution for most communities
experiencing increases in unsheltered homelessness. The Region III Homeless Council cautions against
adding more shelter space at this time, for several reasons:
•

•
•
•

while shelters play a critical role in the homeless response system, without additional exit
strategies and additional affordable housing units, adding additional shelter beds often result
in those beds filling up while unsheltered homelessness continues to grow;
Communitywide coordinated Rapid Resolution diversion practices can have a greater impact
on reducing homelessness than adding shelter beds;
Improving shelter bed utilization among existing beds through intentional coordination and
CES can improve system flow and help more people;
Other practices, such as navigation, drop-in, and resource centers can improve exits to
permanent housing; and
10

•

From financial and exits to housing perspectives, adding more shelter beds often results in
taking funds out of permanent housing programs and supports resulting in longer stays for
existing persons in shelter. Additionally, in Maine, state shelter funds are divided among
eligible shelters based on the number of beds and how well they perform. Adding more beds
results in less available service and operation dollars for all shelters.

The Region III Homeless Council recommends a PIW2 count take place, using the recommended changes in
methodology, annually the second and third weeks of July.
The Region III Homeless Council strongly encourages coordination of programs, policy, best-practice
approaches, and homeless response system flow to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of
people. The best way to learn more and participate in solution-focused initiatives is to join us at our open
meetings the second Wednesday of each month in Bangor. Please Contact a Council Co-Chair for up-to-date
locations.

Region III Homeless Council Co-Chairs:
David McCluskey
Executive Director
Community Care
Office: 207-299-1142
Cell: 207-852-4600
Fax: 207-990-3660
Joshua B. D'Alessio, MHA, LADC, CCS
Associate Director
WISH Program Director
Hope House Health & Living Center
179 – 181 Corporate Drive, Bangor, ME 04401
C. 207/944.9838 ~ O. 217.6713 #1144

11

Attachment
Participating Agencies
Bangor Area Homeless Shelter
Shaw House
Community Care
CHCS -- PATH (Community Health and Counseling)
Bangor / Brewer PD?
Preble Street
Hope House
General Assistance / Bangor Public Health
Brick Church
Together Place
Columbia Street Outreach
Emergency Rooms (St. Joe’s and Northern Light)
Bangor Public Library
Penquis
Health Equity Alliance
Higher Ground
MAS
Sweeter
Catholic Charities
Clubhouse (Unlimited Solutions)
VA
OHI
Maine Pretrial
Salvation Army
Maine Prison Reentry
Northeast Occupational Exchange (NOE)
Partners for peace
Salvation Army

12

Attachment
Sample 2019 PIW2 Count Sheet

le
t
st ter
na
La m
st e
l
Fir ette
st r
na
m
e
Fr
om
Ba
ng
or
?
#
in
Ho
us
Zi
eh
p
ol
Co
d
La de
st
of
Ad
dr
es
m
s
on
t
Si hs
nc ho
eL m
as ele
t J ss
W
ul
he
y
re
La
S
st lep
Ni t
gh
W
he t
r
To e S
ni lee
gh p
t
la

3r
d

or
ki
n
ith g C
e
Ge Min ll
u
nd t
er es
Da
yB
or
n
Ag
e
w

w

Da
t

e

Point in Week (PIW) Count Form -- July 8 - July 14, 2019

The results of this effort will be used to inform the Region III Homeless Council and community partners to better align homeless
services with need and to improve the lives of those we serve.
Be kind. Be considerate. If someone doesn't want to be counted, don’t! Our aim is to improve lives, not cause harm or discomfort.
Target Population: Persons who experienced UNSHELTERED homelessness last night or will tonight -- currently unsheltered.
Ask if person has already been counted this week. If yes, don't count.

Key:

Working Cell with Minutes: Answer "yes" if can make a call without internet, "no" if no minutes to make a call or no phone.
From Bangor: Answer "yes" if worked, lived, went to school, has family in Bangor at any time in past or present -- "No" if not
Zip Code of Last Address: Enter zip code of place person lived for 6 months or more most recently. Enter city and state if don't know
zip. Go back as far as necessary to get to place person lived for 6 months or more. Can be jail, other institution, shelter, or other.
Where Slept/sleep answers: Jail, hosp, psych hosp., outside, car, couch, shelter, own place, PNMH, or other (PNMH = other Place
Not Meant for Habitation
Months homeless since last July: Round up to the next month for number of months homeless since July 2018. E.G., 1 day = 1
Month. 45 days = 2 months, etc.
Allow for anonymity. The purpose is to have an accurate count, not identify people. Place the letter “R” for any field a person
refuses to answer.
Data collection begins July 8, 2019 at 12:01am ends at 11:59pm on July 14. All forms are to be submitted to Josh D'Alessio at Hope
House by 7/21. Email:[email protected]; Fax: 207-217-6721; Mail: Hope House, 179 Corporate Dr., Bangor, ME 04401. (c)944-9838

13