University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Love Your Neighbor Collaborative: a multi-sector response to homelessness

(USC Thesis Other)

Love Your Neighbor Collaborative: a multi-sector response to homelessness

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 1
Love Your Neighbor Collaborative: A Multi-Sector Response to Homelessness

by
Marni Straine
Final Capstone Project for Completion of
Doctor of Social Work
Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work
University of Southern California
August 2020
SOWK 722
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 2
Table of Contents
Part I: Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………….…3
Part II: Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………….…6
Problem Statement…………………………………………………………………………….6
Literature Review……………………………………………………………………………...7
Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………………………11
Part III: Problems of Practice and Innovative Solutions………………………………………...12
Description of Innovation……………………………………………………………………12
Stakeholder Perspective……………………………………………………………………...18
Innovation Landscape……………………………………………………………………......19
Logic Model……………………………………………………………………………….…21
Part IV: Structure and Methodology……………………………………………………………...22
Implementation Method……………………………………………………………………...23
Financial Plan……………………………………………………………………….….…….26
Assessment…………………………………………………………………………….….….31
Evaluation of Outcomes………………………………………………………...…...……….32
Stakeholder Involvement……………………………………………………….……………34
Part V: Conclusions, Actions, and Implications…………………………………………….……34
Limitations………………………………………………………………………………..….35
Next Steps……………………………………………………………………………..……..36
Part VI: References…………………………………………………………………….……..…….37
Part VII: Appendices……………………………………………………………………….………42
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 3
Executive Summary
Love Your Neighbor Collaborative: A Multi-Sector Response to Homelessness
Homelessness is one of the most challenging and expensive issues facing society as it
impacts over one and half million individuals every year in the United States (Padgett, Henwood,
and Culhane, 2016). It is an issue that various entities have attempted to resolve for decades, yet the
problem persists. A consistent factor associated with this matter is the lack of safe and stable housing
options. Government and non-profit entities have long been equipped with funding and resources to
address homelessness, yet as more research emerges on the topic, it becomes apparent that there is a
gap in the provision of services, and that while there may be resources available, the capacity to
intervene is often lost due to siloed service experiences (National Alliance to End Homelessness,
2018). This final paper discusses an innovative link that closes that gap and uses collaboration with
faith communities and social work student interns in an effort to eradicate homelessness.
Innovation Description
The Love Your Neighbor Collaborative (LYNC) is an innovative program finishing its pilot
year in Riverside, CA. Partnering with the city’s government agencies, non-profit organizations
(NPOs), three university social work programs, and 15 faith-based organizations (FBOs), LYNC
places student interns into FBOs under the auspices of Riverside’s leading non-profit service
provider, Path of Life Ministries. LYNC was approved for a three-year grant in the amount of
$300,000 through Unihealth to financially back the innovation (Unihealth, 2019). The mission of
LYNC is to reduce and prevent homelessness by building a coalition of these entities to work
collaboratively with the city of Riverside in creating a stronger, more integrated collective effort
resourcing those who are in homeless situations, or at risk of losing their home, through shared
projects and capacity building.

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 4
Focused Problem Response
Following feedback of LYNC’s beta year, a focused training model for LYNC’s preceptors,
called The Bridge, was developed. Piloted in fall 2019, The Bridge focuses on preparing
participating preceptors to receive and engage social work interns, identify goals for how their FBO
will engage with community partners, and increase their knowledge of the culture of homelessness.
The Bridge incorporates the following pieces: vision and goals, academic requirements, community
training, spirituality and religiosity, ongoing outreach, and placement and support. Preliminary data
from the pilot year indicates that The Bridge was effective, which increases the capacity of LYNC’s
success (Path of Life, 2020; Unihealth, 2019).
Methodologies
Embedded within a macro system’s perspective, LYNC utilizes the Theory of Change to
slowly roll out the collaborative approach using a Normative Re-educative Strategy (McNutt &
Hoefer, 2016). Through ongoing relationship strengthening, educational experiences, and capacity
building, unlikely resources and bridges to siloed service provision will be identified. Over the four-
year roll out of LYNC, student interns, in partnership with FBOs, will learn, create, implement, and
reassess by conducting needs assessments, facilitating trainings, asset mapping, solidifying
stakeholders and funders, setting goals, building capacity, and measuring success (Path of Life,
2020).
Implementation and Next Steps
At the beginning of each academic year, the non-social work preceptors participate in the day
long training of The Bridge, and complete pre/post-tests and follow up quarterly surveys to measure
the success and applicability of the content within The Bridge. Implementation methodology takes
the form of a three-part prototype: The Bridge Training Model Slide Deck, the assessment
instruments, and a working preceptor manual. Implementation utilizes an EPIS model to ensure
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 5
comprehensive planning and sustainable evaluation (Aarons, Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011). Moving
forward, The Bridge will make pivots to incorporate feedback from evaluations to ensure
applicability of training as it relates to the larger LYNC program. Further, LYNC is currently
networking for additional sources of funding. Following the pilot year’s report back to Unihealth,
LYNC has been approved for an additional two years of funding (Unihealth, 2019).
Scalability and Generalizability
Moving forward, LYNC looks to grow in partnerships and awareness in bridging gaps for
neighbors without homes in Riverside, CA. As LYNC is unique in connecting service provision
between government, non-profit, and faith-based organizations, it has the ability to scale to other
cities and to other multi-disciplinary service providers, such as hospitals, universities, nonprofits, or
local businesses. Using the model of LYNC as a framework, student interns from other disciplines
could be used as a bridge between existing and untapped resources in the response so various social
issues, such as homelessness. LYNC and The Bridge have great potential for generalizability
because it focuses on using resources that already exist within a community, leveraging and building
capacity among existing stakeholders, and creating solutions through long-term relationship
building.
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 6
Love Your Neighbor Collaborative: A Multi-Sector Response to Homelessness
According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness (2018), there are nearly 555,000
individuals who experience homelessness throughout the United States on any given night. Two of
the largest contributing factors for sheltered and unsheltered homeless individuals are the lack of
available housing and the lack of affordable housing (National Law Center on Homelessness and
Poverty, 2015). Padgett, Henwood, and Culhane (2016) stress that in order to address this grand
challenge of ending homelessness, reactive and preventive measures must simultaneously take place
within policy development and intervention planning. A paradigm shift in the provision of services
needs to follow three principles: “(a) prioritize housing over shelters and permanent supportive
housing over transitional housing; (b) value client choice and direction; and (c) match flexible
support services to needs” (Padgett, Henwood, and Culhane, 2016, p. 1). In other words, a one-size-
fits-all approach will not work, and innovative, unlikely solutions must be created.
Problem Statement
For the approximately one and a half million individuals who experience homelessness in
United States each year, the inaccessibility of housing plays a key role in their situation (Padgett,
Henwood, and Culhane, 2016). Other large contributing factors include the lack of employment
options, the decrease in available public assistance, the lack of affordable health care, domestic
violence, mental illness, and addiction (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2019). In an attempt to
address each of the factors listed, various programs, methodologies, models, and theories have been
researched, implemented, and evaluated. In many ways, these solutions have been effective. Shelters
are filled, families are rapidly rehoused, and individuals receive treatment for mental health and
addiction struggles (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2018). Many subgroups, such as
veterans, have seen a decrease in numbers experiencing homelessness, yet overall, the trend reveals
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 7
individuals coming into homelessness faster than those exiting the situation (National Alliance to
End Homelessness, 2018).
At each point in the service delivery, there is a stall. The problem with the current solution
delivery system is that it is not equipped to address the overload of service recipients. The public and
non-profit agencies funded to implement homelessness solutions have reached capacity. Individuals
coming into a homeless situation may be set up with a temporary housing situation with a promise of
permanent, supportive housing within 30-60 days, yet because there are no physical spaces available,
that time frame triples, and that individuals remains in a shelter intended to be temporary (United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2018). In turn, a new individual
coming into a homeless experience may be met with a shelter at maximum capacity and nowhere to
go. The federally funded agency may refer to a local non-profit who is experiencing the same type of
service barriers, and the individual falls through the crack in service provider gaps (HUD, 2018;
National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2018). Is there a remedy for this? How does a community
ensure that the service provision capacity matches the needs of its residents? Key concepts
(Appendix A) help to explore the environmental context for this problem of homelessness.
Review of Literature and Environmental Context
As homelessness is something that has been experienced in communities for centuries,
solutions for addressing it have also existed for as long. In the search for how to end homelessness,
communities should first look to reach a functional zero rather than an absolute zero. Doing that will
ensure a community has the capacity and resources to address the issue. According to Turner,
Albanese, and Pakeman (2017), before a community can strive for that functional zero, it first has to
agree on their definitions of homelessness, housing, and the factors that contribute to an individual
of family becoming homeless. It is also suggested that to best understand the experiences of those
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 8
who are homeless, it would require gaining input from those who have, or are, currently
experiencing homelessness (Turner et. al, 2017).
According to Stafford and Wood (2017), to truly understand all aspects of homelessness,
clinicians and service providers have to grasp the myriad of reasons and experiences that lead an
individual to not seek help, specifically for a medical issue. “The many health issues of homeless
individuals cluster with, and are exacerbated by, other social determinants of health such as
psychological trauma, poverty, unemployment, domestic violence and social disconnection”
(Stafford & Wood, 2017, p. 7). If not addressed in a comprehensive way, then simply following a
housing first methodology and finding homes will not matter (Padgett, Henwood, & Tsemberis,
2016). Instead, the risk of death from suicide, addiction, or violence increases significantly for those
experiencing homelessness (Nilsson, Laursen, Hjorthøj, & Nordentoft, 2018). Understanding the
complexity of this issue lends itself to supporting a collaborative service approach.
Additionally, while the aforementioned layers are important to consider, policies around
housing and cultural frames of reference are also essential to understanding the challenges that many
individuals and families face on a daily basis. People that grew up in group housing or vulnerable
neighborhoods are more likely to experience generational and economic discrimination. Nichols and
Braimoh (2018) suggest that young people of color from lower socioeconomic living conditions
often believe that their own safety and inclusion is not considered in the creation of social housing
policies. This important cultural component must be considered when determining if and how a
collaborative approach would serve individuals who have had similar discriminatory and systemic
discrimination (Rothstein, 2017).
Historically, institutions took turns providing support and resources for families living in
poverty and homelessness. Frank (2018) exerts that while existing institutions could have taken
responsibility to help the vulnerable populations, it was not until the late 20th century that non-profit
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 9
(NPO) agencies were developed to specifically address the issue of homelessness. The federal
government often supported the NPOs with funding, and eventually required states and cities to
disclose their plan to address homelessness in order to justify continued funding for their services.
However, the plans of public and NPOs were not always comprehensive or accessible. Frank (2018)
cites a study in which a large community attempted to adjust or fix their poorly operated and
delivered homeless services. “This required negotiating the consequences of very different
understandings of homelessness and what to do about it, understandings that often-divided secular
and faith-based providers and greatly complicated compliance with federal mandates” (para. 3).
When researching the role that faith-based organizations (FBOs) play in service provision
within a community, there are various factors to consider. First, most often, an FBO volunteers its
time and resources, which could suggest that availability of services many not be consistent. Second,
the resources that one FBO has may be vastly different than the next FBO. Third, the motive behind
the service provision of an FBO may weigh heavily on who or how an FBO chooses to serve. Last,
the overall goal or mission of an FBO might vary greatly between communities. Strife (2018)
expresses that although there can be an outdated or negative stigma surrounding the concept of
charity, “it remains the primary faith-based response to poverty, and throughout history has been a
tremendous force for church growth, social solidarity, and the development of social movements”
(para. 6).
Further, there is discussion around whether service provision is negatively or positively
impacted by the motive in which it is offered. When an FBO offers to provide service to someone,
Strife (2018) suggests that members of an FBO might be seeing themselves from a place of privilege
and, subsequently, seeing the person receiving the help as privileged to receive the help. “Christian
practices of charity are inextricable from these secular projects and political agendas, but are not
contained or exhausted by them” (Strife, 2018, para. 3). An important question to ask then is, ‘what
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 10
is the motive behind the desire to serve?’ Donaldson (2016) suggests that the values between social
worker and faith-based service providers are not that different, in that historically, faith-based
institutions have focused on meeting the needs of marginalized or oppressed populations.
A final study relating to collaborative practices among various sectors takes place in Florida.
Fogel and Moore (2011) indicate that over the last two decades, FBOs have risen to the top in aiding
those in need. The study sought to determine whether the outcomes were better for people who were
served in a collaborative way with an FBO, or solely by a secular agency. “There is also growing
interest in examining how faith-based and other diverse organizations work together to maximize
opportunities for seamless service delivery” (Fogel & Moore, 2011, p. 94).
Ultimately, this research demonstrates that efforts are being made by FBOs and NPOs to
address needs that larger public, often federally funded, programs are also set up to address. Ideally,
the coverage of these three entities would eradicate homelessness because the capacity would subsist
to provide the services needed. However, as annual PIT counts and housing costs demonstrate,
barriers to ending homelessness still exist (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2018; Conrad,
2017).
Social Significance
Homelessness and housing both have significance to communities nationwide. The health of
a community relies on many factors, including economic growth, physical and mental health,
environmental health, and at least a core of shared values (Fogel & Moore, 2011; National Coalition
for the Homeless, 2019). Homelessness impacts each of these factors directly or indirectly. Most, if
not all, residents in a city wish for their community to be free of homelessness, and yet ideas for
solutions often vary widely.
Businesses and restaurants can be negatively impacted when there is panhandling outside
their doors. Residents, particularly NIMBY supporters, do not appreciate that homeless activity near
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 11
their homes can bring down home values. Funding for federal and state programs aimed at
addressing the issue is tapped out and the physical resources are not available (Kuntz, Ripper, &
Tracey, 2018). Emergency service providers, such as medical personnel and law enforcement, can
spend nearly $50,000 in emergency services on a single homeless individual in a year (HUD, 2018;
National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2018).
The implications for the aforementioned negative effects of homelessness demonstrate that
this is an issue that impacts all members of a community in some capacity. This is a problem that is
widespread, and while there are evidenced practices that work to eliminate the problem, the
organization and capacity needed is missing (Rothstein, 2017; McNutt & Hoefer, 2016). Without an
effectively implemented solution, this challenge will continue to break down the infrastructure of a
city, impacting not just the individuals and families experiencing homelessness, but the very
communities that are supposed to provide the assistance to help resolve the situation. Could the
missing piece be an organized, collaborative response?
Change Theory
The idea that a solution to the aforementioned issue could exist in a collective response falls
under the umbrella of a systems lens within the macro theoretical framework of Change Theory, and
plays out using a normative re-educative strategic method. According to The Center for Theory of
Change (2019), before a large, effective change can occur, long-term goals must first be made. “It is
focused in particular on mapping out or ‘filling in’ what has been described as the ‘missing middle’
between what a program or change initiative does and how these lead to desired goals being
achieved” (para. 2).
The Theory of Change (TOC) is a relevant framework in that it considers large system
infrastructures and looks at long-term, slow methodical shifts to achieve goals, giving the outcome a
better chance at longevity. The six steps within this theory are “identifying long-term goals,
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 12
backwards mapping, identifying assumptions, identifying interventions that the initiative will
perform to create desired change, developing indicators to measure outcomes to assess performance,
and writing a narrative to explain the logic of the initiative” (The Center for Theory of Change,
2019, How Does TOC Work?, para. 1).
As TOC considers multidimensional shifts essential to implementation success, the strategic
approach of normative education is vital to reaching the aforementioned goals. McNutt and Heofer
(2016) describe the normative re-educative strategy as re-socializing the public to shift their views to
new concepts or paradigms, what TOC describes as the missing piece. People often resist things that
are inconsistent with their view of the world, which could include beliefs on the causes of
homelessness, ideas on probable solutions for homelessness, or the social responsibilities of
individuals and organizations in the eradication of homelessness. Often used on a micro, mezzo, and
macro level, the normative re-educative strategy focuses on prevention, education, and community
development, making it an ideal strategic method for creating long-term shifts within a community
(McNutt & Hoefer, 2016).
Description of Innovation
Love Your Neighbor Collaborative (LYNC) is a new program in Riverside, California
designed to connect the public, private, NPO, and FBO sectors to address homelessness from both a
preventive and reactive perspective. It is currently wrapping up its pilot year. The mission of LYNC
is to utilize social work interns from three schools of social work as catalysts within local faith-based
organizations (FBOs). The interns partner with Path of Life Ministries and the Mayor’s Office in an
effort to reduce gaps in services to neighbors without homes or those at risk of losing their homes
(City of Riverside, 2018; Path of Life Ministries, 2020). LYNC interns are trained in the Housing
First Methodology and look for ways to build capacity in and around their FBO community through
a series of needs assessments, qualitative interviews, and psychoeducational trainings.
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 13
LYNC interns identify gaps and overlaps in services and act as a bridge between public,
NPO, and faith-based services so that recipients can more easily navigate the social service system.
During this pilot year, one of the more frequent requests received by LYNC interns is for access to
housing opportunities (City of Riverside, 2018; Path of Life Ministries, 2020). While LYNC interns
are likely to begin the referral process to a local homeless shelter or place recipients on a HUD
waiting list, there is also opportunity for LYNC participants to leverage the capacity of the FBO in
which they are placed (Unihealth, 2019). It is an opportunity for FBOs to mobilize their resources
and, if they are willing participants of LYNC, provide additional, unlikely resources, such as land,
rental, or other housing opportunities that would not otherwise be available to recipients (City of
Riverside, 2018; Path of Life Ministries, 2020).
In Riverside, California, there is a huge need for affordable housing. According to the
County of Riverside (2019), the last Point in Time (PIT) Count revealed the need for housing or
shelter for nearly 500 individuals or families on any given night across the city. Due to red tape on
the political and local level, the land space or physical units for that many people do not currently
exist; and although there is funding and resources allocated for these causes, there are barriers,
including local NIMBY movements, zoning approval delays, and city planning requirements that are
contributing to the delay or halting of these building projects taking place (California Department of
Housing and Community Development, 2006; City of Riverside, 2018).
In this challenging gap between the red tape and the hybrid model of addressing affordable
housing lays the opportunity for the LYNC program. The interns are placed in FBOs that have
volunteered to be a part of the multi-sector solution for increasing housing within the city. Including
the faith-based sector in a larger conversation is a newer concept, and not one without limitations
(Billis, 2010). Ensuring that the value systems of the FBO and the larger public and private
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 14
organizations remain aligned without losing independent identities is essential for the success of
LYNC (Conrad, 2017).
While LYNC is the larger contextual framework in which the proposed project lays, the idea
for creating the training model, The Bridge, stemmed from listening to the feedback of the students,
preceptors, and community partners that participated in the beta year of LYNC during the 2018-2019
school year. While LYNC in and of itself is the larger innovative initiative, a vital embedded
innovation is the training model developed specifically for the preceptors whose job it is to work and
connect with the interns at the FBO on a daily basis. There are already trainings for the students and
preceptors on the academic side, but nothing scalable currently exists that trains preceptors on the
unique blend of congregational social work and community collaboration using social work interns
(Diana Gardner School of Social Work, 2019; Pearson, Poole, Moore, Moore, & Rife, 2018).
The Bridge
The Bridge is an innovative training model intended to create a structure, embedded in the
larger LYNC program, in which FBOs grasp how to receive a student intern, identify the roles of the
intern, identify the goals of their FBO, identify the goals of the FBO with an intern, and how the
FBO is to engage with the community partners. This framework (Appendix B) is currently designed
to be implemented in a full day with follow up components on a quarterly basis and will incorporate
the following pieces: vision and goals, academic requirements, community training, spirituality and
religiosity, ongoing outreach, and placement and support. The following subsections outline the
form in which the training will take. As it currently stands, the training will be open to current
participating FBOs and their preceptors as well as any FBOs that are interested in determining
whether to participate in coming years. The Bridge training will take place in one six-hour day, with
potential for ongoing, supportive and/or topic-based meetings, including the development of an
interfaith support network (McNutt & Hoefer, 2016).
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 15
Vision and Goals
The first component of the training involves conceptualizing and identifying perceived needs
and intended goals. Preceptors will write down their responses to the following two questions: What
are the top three goals for your FBO? What is the FBO looking to accomplish by having an intern
placed at the site?
Preceptors may share their goals with others at their tables once they have completed the
exercise, but may not change their responses during this exercise. Once completed, goals will be set
aside until later in the day when each list will be revisited with the knowledge gained throughout the
day. The training will then shift into a nuts and bolts presentation identifying the logistics of the
academic piece of having an intern.
Academic Requirements
Internships are a fundamental piece of the last year of undergraduate and graduate social
work programs. Field directors are typically responsible for finding and training field instructors, or
preceptors, on the requirements of the academic outcomes for the students. While most social work
internships are located at agencies with social workers, many schools also place interns in non-social
work locations, including schools, hospitals, or FBOs. Based on feedback from preceptors and
experience with non-social work placement settings, it is essential to embed The Bridge with
intentional training on not only the expected core competencies of field placement, but also an
overall simplified training on what social workers do in general.
The specific components of the academic overview include student learning agreements
(Appendix C), an overview of the NASW Core Values (Appendix D), and the core competencies
outlined by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) (Appendix E). This portion of the
training also incorporates the roles and expectations of the students, FBO, and participating
community partners. This tri-directional method identifies appropriate micro, mezzo, and macro
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 16
tasks with which the interns are able to engage, recognize the potential conflicts with values and
faith traditions that may emerge, and pinpoint specific expectations, such as communication styles,
meeting times, and supervision outcomes. The afternoon portion of the training then shifts mezzo
and macro topic pieces related to the challenges faced within a community.
Community Training
The community training pieces of The Bridge intend to help FBOs increase awareness and
openness around the challenges faced within the community. Invited experts will be from various
organizations around the city and will be compensated with funds out of the Unihealth grant
received for the LYNC program (City of Riverside, 2018; Unihealth, 2019).
Cultural Humility. Likely the most important connective aspect of The Bridge is the
training on cultural humility. Having an understanding, openness, and sensitivity for all aspects of
diversity is key in the success of The Bridge as it is embedded into LYNC. Social work interns may
delve into conversations that prove difficult for some faith communities, including topics of identity,
systemic racism, homelessness, mental health, or addiction (Tormala, Patel, Soukup, & Clarke,
2018). Participating preceptors will be guided by an expert through an intentional and formal
training on diversity of faith and practice in the context of cultural humility, “where the focus is on
openness and acknowledgement of one’s own lack of knowledge and understanding as a key to
engagement” (Loue, 2017, p. 39). Only through a willingness to discuss and learn from this training
will a goodness of fit for the preceptor be determined.
Congregational Social Work. According to Diana Garland School of Social Work (2019),
congregational social work is the integration of social work practice into a church community.
Training and education on congregational social work is essential for The Bridge because preceptors
need to understand that interns can engage in aspects of this field of work, such as education,
service, and church-related leadership (Diana Garland School of Social Work, 2019), yet LYNC
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 17
interns will also engage in community capacity building, networking, grant writing, homeless
outreach, short-term crisis intervention, and more. Each participating FBO must determine in what
capacity the interns work, whether more internally focused on the congregation, or externally
focused on community members (Pearson, Poole, Moore, Moore, & Rife, 2018). Either way,
congregational social work is an essential piece of The Bridge and the greater LYNC program.
Culture of Homelessness. Based on LYNC’s beta year feedback from participating FBOs,
The Bridge incorporates an educational component on the process and speed of change as related to
homelessness. FBOs often have the desire and resources to provide supportive solutions, yet that
desire is, at times, met with frustration because the perceived offer of a solution does not
immediately work (Pearson, Poole, Moore, Moore, & Rife, 2018).
Housing First Methodology. As LYNC incorporates aspects of the Housing First model in
its approach to increasing affordable housing, a specific training on the evidence, successes, and
challenges of this method is implemented (Padgett, Henwood, & Tsemberis, 2016). A national
perspective is also presented, including facts from the longitudinal studies on the impact of Housing
First. Data from the city of Riverside on homeless rates as well as needed units of affordable housing
are provided.
Spirituality and Religiosity
When a student intern is placed in a faith community, it is possible, even likely, that the
student may not be familiar with, or share the same values or faith tradition as, the church in which
he or she is placed. It is completely appropriate that an intern be placed in an organization that does
not share the same faith tradition, so long as both the student and the preceptor understand the
student’s role. Further, just as students are trained to immerse themselves into the culture and
traditions of the FBO, preceptors are trained on the values of the social work students, and a mutual
respect forms (Pearson, Poole, Moore, Moore, & Rife, 2018).
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 18
Placement and Support
Following the community training components of The Bridge, preceptors are guided through
reviewing the goals written at the beginning of the training. Based on learnings throughout the
training, preceptors, with support of the trainers, determines if there is a goodness of fit for an intern
placed in their church, or it would be more useful to have a community-based intern available for
additional support, education, or training, but only when needed.
Ongoing Outreach. At the end of the training day, an interfaith coalition is established for
preceptors to discuss how each faith community is integrating the support of their intern. This
ongoing support is intended to act in the dual purpose of providing additional encouragement, as
well as collecting quarterly to mid-year qualitative data.
Stakeholder Perspectives
The embedded innovative training, The Bridge, considers the perspective of four primary
stakeholders, and less directly, three secondary stakeholders. The primary actors include the
participating preceptors, the student interns, the community partners, and individuals or families
experiencing homelessness that may benefit from the impact of The Bridge training method. The
secondary actors include the FBO’s congregation, community members who may be resistant to
collaborative efforts, and social work field directors.
The innovation created with The Bridge very specifically addresses the direct feedback of the
preceptors, student interns, and community partners by providing intentional training surrounding
the needs of neighbors without homes. The preceptors benefit from educational awareness, social
awareness, and clear behavioral expectations, which was designed directly based off of feedback
provided after the beta year of LYNC (LYNC Steering Committee, 2019). The students benefit from
The Bridge model because it meets the needs of their educational outcome requirements, while also
providing insight and understanding into the diverse and complex challenge of homelessness and
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 19
faith-based social work practice. The community partners will benefit from The Bridge because it
supports the success of LYNC, which helps to increase capacity and identify alternative supportive,
affordable housing for members of the community. Without The Bridge, LYNC would not survive,
and social worker interns would only act as a stop gap between academic years. The goal behind The
Bridge and LYNC is to help build capacity and cultural humility among a faith community, so that
when an intern is not there, the FBO can feel empowered to continue working in a collaborative,
solution-focused manner (Unihealth, 2019).
Landscape of Existing Innovations
The components of LYNC and The Bridge are rooted in research areas of collaborative
practices, faith-based service provision, congregational social work, homeless solutions, social work
internship learning outcomes, and also experiential practice as both a social worker and a supervisor.
Collaborative practices in and of themselves are not a new concept (Elliott, 2017). Businesses,
medical practices, and schools have functioned as cooperatives in many circumstances. Some
temporary and out of financial necessity, and some intentionally, for the purpose of a shared
workload. Less often, however, does research discuss collaborative efforts in a cross-disciplinary
method. And rarely do those efforts cross church/state boundaries, yet the practices have paralleled
for decades.
Faith communities have long been involved in providing aid to the homeless population.
Warm meals, food boxes, second-hand clothing, and possibly a place to shower once a week are all
common services offered by FBOs. There is a small, yet rich, body of research on the benefits and
practices of congregational social work. In this unique field, social workers are embedded into the
congregation of a faith community with the purpose of educating and equipping the church to
address the needs both the church and the community (Diana Garland School of Social Work, 2019).
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 20
While congregational social work is a strong example of empowering the capacity of a
congregation to grow socially, ethically, culturally, and responsively, it also infringes on the notion
that members of a faith community will agree on how to address a social challenge; challenges that
are often resolved with resources through federally funded programs (Diana Garland School of
Social Work, 2019; Pearson, Poole, Moore, Moore, & Rife, 2018). Historically, as stated by the
constitution, and to protect freedom of speech, the state should not get involved with the happenings
of a faith community. Likewise, the church should remain apolitical on matters of social
responsibility (Pearson, Poole, Moore, Moore, & Rife, 2018; Stafford & Wood, 2017; Nichols &
Braimoh, 2018). No talk of politics, poverty, mental health, oppression, discrimination, or addiction
should occur within the church. This idea appears to be shifting.
While this alternative solution exists, and collaborative efforts are not new, The Bridge
incorporates concepts of congregational social work, yet stretches beyond the parameters of just a
faith community. The concept proposed looks at the solutions created when multiple faith
communities work in collaboration with existing public and non-profit agencies to implement bi-
directional capacity building and evidenced-based practices to address a myriad of social issues,
such as homelessness. When social work interns become a bridge between the church, public, and
non-profit agencies, those seeking help from any of those entities are less likely to fall through the
cracks (LYNC Steering Committee, 2019; Unihealth, 2019).
A little over a decade ago, studies began emerging about the benefits of the Housing First
Methodology as a solution to homelessness. Instead of focusing on treating the secondary symptoms
of someone experiencing homeless, such as addiction or struggles with mental illness, or
unemployment, before being eligible for a housing option, the new methodology drew from the
understanding that basic needs, like housing and food, came before more complex challenges
(Padgett, Henwood, & Tsemberis, 2016; National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2018). Many
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 21
federal and private agencies adopted this model and begin making shifts to the services provided.
Homeless individuals and families needed homes, and that is where the solution needed to start.
While the concept sounded simple, the resource capacity was quickly limited. There were not
enough beds in the local shelters or homes for rapid-rehousing to abide by the new methodology,
which brings to attention the issue faced by the nation today: there are not enough federally funded,
affordable homes for the number of homeless individuals and families (HUD, 2018; National
Alliance to End Homelessness, 2018; Office of Homeless Solutions, 2018). This challenge creates
room for an innovative opportunity.
Innovation’s Alignment with Logic Model
The model of The Bridge takes into consideration the time in which the larger shift of LYNC
can take. The logic model for LYNC (Appendix F) outlines a four-year roll-out process to allow for
the normative re-educative strategy to be implemented to ensure a better reception of new
methodology among hesitant community members, especially NIMBY supporters (McNutt &
Hoefer, 2016). This strategy understands that for a new model to take effect well, and for resistant
members to accept a new model, it takes time. The methodical process of that strategy allows change
in a community to take place over years, rather than weeks or months (McNutt & Hoefer, 2016).
Specifically for The Bridge, the following aspects of components have been embedded into
the model to allow for openness and softening surrounding difficult topics. While the initial training
is a day long, the ongoing supportive components of an inter-faith network incorporate long-term,
relationship-based trainings and support that model the concepts in a slow, methodical process of
change which embodies the strategies of normative re-education.
Likelihood of Success
Although The Bridge is specifically designed to create a solution embedded into LYNC,
which addresses the grand challenge of homelessness, the program is intended to be scalable to other
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 22
challenges or disciplines. This allows The Bridge to be applicable to any multidisciplinary solution
and various other grand challenges, including the healthy development of all youth and ending
family violence. LYNC’s purpose is to increase collaboration and capacity among existing programs
and faith communities in order to address the lack of affordable housing, and in turn, address
homelessness. While the collaborative works in theory, a missing piece is The Bridge, or a way to
ensure the preceptors effectively fill their role in the larger LYNC project.
The Bridge training model has a strong opportunity for success because it is developed in
direct response to the needs identified by participants in the beta year of LYNC. The first
participating FBO, La Sierra University Church, exemplified the opportunity for LYNC, and thus
The Bridge. The year before social work interns became an option, the pastoral staff gave out almost
$13,000 in cash, food, gas, or hotel vouchers, paid utility bills, bus passes, car repairs, and medical
equipment, yet only to the same 27 people throughout the year. The first year with interns, the
amount spent was just over $3,000, yet the amount of people served reached over 230. The second
year, that number decreased again to just under $2000 yet those service increased again by another
20 (Thomas, Straine, & Hemenway, 2017; The Press Enterprise, 2018; LYNC Steering Committee,
2019). What did that demonstrate? With appropriate assessment knowledge and skills, individuals in
need can be referred to appropriate locations for further support, or can choose to work with the
church on a longer-term solution. In both scenarios, relationships are being built, and solutions stick.
The results indicate the opportunity for great success of The Bridge, which enables other FBOs to
learn and grow in knowledge, capacity, and relationships.
Methodology
As LYNC is finishing its pilot year, the prototype for the larger initiative has been
disseminated into the various partnering agencies. The prototype for The Bridge is a three-part
model. First, the slide deck (Appendix G) outlining the content in the preceptor training. Second, the
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 23
existing assessment tools (Appendix H), and third, the working preceptor manual (Appendix I)
which includes the structure of LYNC overall, the academic pieces for the students, and tasks and
strategies to use when working with student interns as it relates to the city’s homeless services.
Implementation Strategies
During the beta year of LYNC, it was discovered that more preparation is needed to
effectively implement The Bridge so that the outcomes accurately reflect the needs determined. To
ensure this, a more detailed timeline and plan has been established using the EPIS model and a Gantt
Chart (Appendix J) (The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, 2019; Tran,
2015). Each phase is described below.
Exploration
During the exploration phase, similar existing frameworks are examined to establish
evidence-based criteria. Specific to The Bridge, although there are similar models in existence for
field instructors/preceptors within social service agencies, and even across disciplines, including
schools and hospitals, there is not a model that incorporates training for academic, multi-
disciplinary, and cross-sector work. While this is a newer framework being created, the component
of each of the training modules are still based in evidence-based knowledge (Aarons, Hurlburt, &
Horwitz, 2011).
Inner. Each of the key players, the field instructors, preceptors, student interns, and
community partners, have voiced buy-in and need for the training, so the inner culture and morale
for The Bridge is strong (Aarons, Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011). The academic requirements for the
student interns are being met more comprehensively and objectively with this training.
Outer. Because the majority of this training is based on in-kind contributions and volunteers,
the external requirements are not as heavy (Aarons, Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011). There is funding
through the Unihealth grant to pay for the expert trainers and the logistics of the training, including
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 24
venue, food, and materials. There are no policies or laws prohibiting this training from taking place,
and there is support from the Mayor’s office, who started an initiative to end homelessness.
Preparation
During the preparation phase for The Bridge, it is essential to ensure each of the participating
community partners are willing to participate and are prepared to train the preceptors and students on
the evidence-based methods by which they operate (Aarons, Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011). Specific
training modalities to prepare for include the housing first methodology, homeless service system of
delivery, congregational social work, mental health first-aid, systems perspective, and the normative
re-educative change strategy for communities (McNutt & Hoefer, 2016).
Inner. An important aspect of the inner component of preparation is planning for the
measures and assessment tools to gauge the success the outcome of The Bridge. The training is one
full day, and then ongoing quarterly meetings for additional support. When working with volunteer
organizations and preceptors who are likely not trained in social work or the culture of
homelessness, it is possible to bump up against personal value conflicts that spill over in the
workplace. It is an area of continued assessment.
Outer. Likely the most essential piece of outer preparation that must take place is ensuring
that each of the major community partners are prepared to receive interns into their processes and
daily activities. Once they are trained, the student interns interact not only with the FBOs, but also
the Path of Life Ministries, Office of Homeless Solutions, and the Mayor’s office. The main contact
at each of these places needs to ensure the students have access to the facility, and the software
database to access the resources and input new client information they received at the FBO.
Implementation
During the Implementation phase, participants arrive at 8am to the Cactus Training Room at
La Sierra University. Breakfast is provided. The Bridge facilitator introduces the training, explains
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 25
the informed consent process and asks participants to complete the pre-test. As discussed in the
sections above, the first component, the conceptual piece, is also led by the developer of The Bridge.
The second piece of the training is about the academic requirements and is led by the three
field instructors from each of the participating universities. This portion lasts about three hours
(Aarons, Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011).
The next phase is the community training components. This section lasts three hours as well.
The cultural humility training is taught by a representative from the Culturally Connected Institute of
Riverside. It lasts for one hour with resources and trainings offered throughout the rest of the year.
The culture of homelessness is taught by the former CEO of Path of Life and expert on
homelessness. A representative from the Office of Homeless Solutions guides the training piece on
existing services and navigating the data entry system. The facilitator leads the final training on
Spirituality and Values as it relates to blending FBOs and public organization service provision.
The final component of The Bridge relates to gaining feedback through conversation and a
post-test on the training. Additionally, an interfaith coalition of support is established during this
meeting and the quarterly update meetings will be scheduled at the training as well (Aarons,
Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011).
Sustainment
The final phase of sustainment has a two-tier approach as it relates to The Bridge. The first
piece relates to the evaluation of the training day itself. Was the setup helpful? Were the content
areas covered informative? Did the model of round table discussion and survey prove useful? Were
all questions answered? The second piece is based on results from the pre-post-test that is discussed
in the evaluation section of this paper.
Inner. The internal aspects of sustainment include the ongoing relationship development
between the interns, preceptors, and community partners. This value is determined by the responses
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 26
to evaluation surveys and supervision conversations about the goodness of fit between participants.
Sustainment is also be determined by the development of a formal policies and procedures manual
for LYNC as a whole.
Outer. External aspects of sustainment revolve around funding and data from number of
clients served. The Unihealth grant funded LYNC for three years, which helps with short term
sustainment. Additional funding sources need to be identified. Long term sustainment is through
receipt of in-kind services and the development of a scalable model of LYNC that will be proposed
to two other cities within the next two years.
Financial Plan
The following financial plan summary and working budget looks at the breakdown of
anticipated costs and revenues of the first full year of operations. The start-up budget has already
been implemented, and therefore is discussed as findings.
Financial Plan Summary
Start-Up Budget. As LYNC is currently in its pilot year, the pre-operation start-up plans
have already been initiated. The start-up resources needed to make LYNC an option for piloting
included establishing relationships with the three participating social work programs in the area,
namely La Sierra University, Loma Linda University, and California Baptist University, gaining the
buy-in from existing public and NPO agencies, including the Office for Homeless Solutions and
Path of Life Ministries, and finding local FBOs that wanted to participate. Further, to make it a
viable option for a social work internship, a master’s level or licensed clinical social worker was
needed and hired to provide the mandatory weekly supervision for the participating interns.
Due to the increasing layers of LYNC, a program manager was also desired, to help
streamline and centralize the overall implementation of LYNC. This position was developed and
hired. In 2018, a steering committee for LYNC was established, which included the Mayor, the
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 27
mayor’s Chief of Staff, the field directors from the three participating universities, the CEO and
COO of Path of Life Ministries, the CFO and city councilman from La Sierra University Church (the
first FBO to pilot this program), a rep from the Office for Homeless Solutions, a former intern, two
individuals who participated and have been housed through LYNC, and myself (the original intern,
co-creator of LYNC, and supervisor for the first LYNC intern). The purpose of the steering
committee is to identify and build a scalable model of LYNC and to determine the implementation
process and which FBOs would be a good fit to pilot the program.
The budget findings for the start-up/beta year (Appendix L) amount to $1,500,000, which
included a diversified revenue source of a foundation grant, allocation of measure Z’s state funds,
private donations, and a large composition of in-kind revenue, including donations of land, the full-
time equivalent (FTE) of 15 social work interns and half FTE of three field instructors of in-kind
time donation. Of that $1.5 million, $4,290 was the end-of-the-year surplus (City of Riverside,
2018).
First Full Year of Operations. Based on learnings from the beta year, LYNC’s first full
year of operations (FFYO) (Appendix L) has various modifications to its projected budget. The
operating cost for the FFYO is projected at $724,733. The reduction in cost is due to eliminating the
cost of the donated land and building labor as the project was completed during the beta year and
now operates as a housing option under the NPO that houses LYNC. The majority of the operating
budget comes from personnel expenses, both in-kind and grant funded.
Projected Budget for LYNC 2019-2020
The detailed projected budget of the 2019-2020 FFYO of LYNC (Appendix L) outlines the
breakdown of expenses and revenues allotted to ensure LYNC runs smoothly. It is noted that the
budget for The Bridge Preceptor Training falls under the non-personnel training and curriculum
section.
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 28
Program Expenses
Personnel/Staffing Costs. The personnel costs of LYNC are the largest expense for the
program. $618,880 has been allotted for the following personnel positions: One Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) Program Coordinator, three field instructors totaling one FTE, 15 social work
interns totaling 2.8 FTE, one social work supervisor equivalent to 0.5 FTE, and seven FTE on-site
preceptors.
Non-Personnel Operating Costs. A significant shift from the beta year to the FFYO was the
variance between anticipated and unanticipated costs. Most of the unanticipated shifts fell within the
non-personnel direct costs. Adjusted for beta year variance, $49,190 has been budgeted for the
following direct expenses: Transportation, office space, equipment and supplies, and assessment,
curriculum, and training.
Indirect Costs. As LYNC is newly implemented, the indirect costs are vital to the successful
long-term launch of the collaborative response. $65,663 has been allotted to cover reporting,
utilities, insurance, and a comprehensive marketing plan.
The marketing goals during LYNC’s FFYO include publishing outcomes in both academic,
economic, and local news publications. Additionally, hiring a local videographer to document the
innovative model created by LYNC and highlight the successes, like the Grove Village, with the
intent to market this model to similar communities, both local, and nation-wide. Finally, interns are
tasked with networking within their communities to build relationships and identify new partnerships
for LYNC. The allotted budget within indirect costs for this marketing expense is $38,613 of
diversified funds.
It should be noted that looking forward to LYNC year two, the goal is for the budget to
reflect a new paid position of a marketing expert, who is solely dedicated to launching LYNC to
other communities. This position would preferably be held by an MBA who has experience in
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 29
program development and implementation and an expertise in research-based marketing. This
position would be a lateral position to the program coordinator, and would get paid similarly. The
LYNC steering committee is currently looking at a few funding options for this position, including a
grant from La Sierra University’s School of Business.
Program Revenues
Revenue Strategies/Models and Funding Types. The strategy to fund LYNC for the first
three years is a diversified model of grants, private donations, federal funds, and in-kind donations.
LYNC operates under the auspices of Path of Life Ministries, which is a non-profit homeless
services organization in Riverside, CA. As such, LYNC is seeking revenue from various entities.
In July 2018, LYNC’s steering committee applied for a grant through Unihealth Foundation.
This foundation was selected based on their support for the health and wellbeing of those living on
the margins. The population LYNC serves meets that description. Unihealth approved the
application and the CEO of Path of Life Ministries signed an agreement and acceptance of the grant
in the amount of $300,000 over 36 months to provide support for LYNC (Unihealth, 2019).
During the second annual Faith Summit, hosted by the Mayor’s office, who is a partner of
LYNC and Path of Life Ministries, Mayor Bailey made an appeal for donations to the 170 attending
FBOs on behalf of LYNC. That day, LYNC received an unrestricted one-time donation from
Sandals’ Church. Another community partner in attendance, Riverside Ending Homelessness
Coalition, also made a one-time donation to LYNC.
The final, and largest, source of revenue for LYNC comes from in-kind contributions of
various types. As mentioned earlier, the majority of personnel for LYNC is supported through
volunteer hours (social work interns), or time accrued (field instructors and preceptors). Other forms
of in-kind payments include equipment, office space, and even liability coverage.
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 30
Revenue Plans (the “Numbers”). During the FFYO, it is projected that LYNC will need an
operating budget of $724,733. The Unihealth grant allotted $300,000 over three years, or $100,000
for this year. Under personnel, $88,358 is allotted for the new position of Program Coordinator.
Under direct costs, $2,552 is allocated for trainings and curriculum. Within indirect costs, $9,090 is
for marketing and administration.
The second source of revenue comes from a one-time unrestricted private donation from
Sandals’ Church in the amount of $10,000. Within personnel, $4,635 is assigned to pay a portion of
the social work supervisor salary. Under direct costs, $1,300 is set aside for office supplies and
equipment. The indirect costs covered by this donation include $4,065 toward marketing and
administration.
The third source of revenue comes from a diversified collection of in-kind contributions.
Personnel accounts for $510,887 of the donation. $139,950 represents the time and pay for the three
field instructors. $93,184 accounts for the time and would-be-pay of the 16 social work interns. The
15 on-site preceptors account for $277,753 of the in-kind personnel contributions. In-kind
contributions account for $17,861 of other direct costs, including office space ($6,750), equipment
and office supplies ($5,753), and assessment tools, curriculum and training ($5,358). Finally, in-kind
donations make up $51,763 of the revenue to cover indirect costs, including reporting ($7,050),
utilities ($8,000), insurance ($15,000), and marketing ($21,713).
The final source of revenue for the FFYO comes from a restricted one-time donation of
$34,222 from Riverside Ending Homelessness Coalition. Based on services and support already
offered by their program, the donation restrictions are solely due to the offering of support in ways
the organization can help also. $15,000 was allotted to the remaining portion of the salary for the
social work supervisor. The donation covered $18,477 of other direct costs, including transportation
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 31
with the organization’s van ($6,000), equipment and office supplies ($5,000), and assessment tools,
curriculum, and training ($7,477). The remaining $745 was allocated to support.
Performance Measures
Identifying performance measures is vital to the success of any program, but also mandated
by a large source of LYNC’s revenue, the Unihealth grant standards. The following two sections
summarize the measurable objectives, key activities, and evaluation indicators for both outputs and
outcomes (Aarons, Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011).
Outputs and Operational Efficiency
To determine the output efficiency of LYNC, the three measurable objectives to observe are
resourcing, capacity building, and collaboration. For resourcing, the following objectives must be
met: 80% of clients receiving case management services six months or longer will be housing-ready,
appropriate referrals provided for 85% of health-related needs, and appropriate referrals for 85% of
needs identified by clients on the pre-engagement survey. These objectives are measured using the
data within the case management system and by comparing referrals made with referrals requested.
These objectives are reviewed quarterly in a data analysis session with interns, data analyst, and the
program coordinator (Unihealth, 2019; LYNC Steering Committee, 2019).
The second objective, capacity building, looks at the following activities: 100% of FBOs
receive at least one capacity building training and 100% of FBOs complete a capacity inventory and
receive a proposal for program development. These objectives are measured by looking at the
number of attendees and the insight from the inventory. There is a monthly check-in for this process
(Unihealth, 2019; LYNC Steering Committee, 2019).
The final objective is collaboration with new partners. New partnerships are to increase by
25%, which can be measured by each intern identifying two new partners during their time as interns
(Unihealth, 2019; LYNC Steering Committee, 2019).
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 32
Outcomes and Program Effectiveness
To ensure internal and external validity, the program effectiveness for participants must also
be measured. For each category of stakeholders, namely students, preceptors, and field instructors,
internal assessments should be completed.
For each participant bracket, there is a review of informed consent, then pre/post tests for any
trainings, quarterly assessments, and end-of-the-year evaluations. Each measurement tool
incorporates a mixed methodology of qualitative and quantitative questions, and anonymous
identifiers between pre/post-tests to ensure fidelity. Success is measured by improvements on scores
and qualitative responses measuring morale within, comfort navigating, and understanding of LYNC
and the trainings/services it provides. Outcome data is compiled by Path of Life and presented to the
appropriate reporting parties of Unihealth (Unihealth, 2019; LYNC Steering Committee, 2019).
Assessment and Evaluation
Institutional Review Board
Prior to implementing the new training model, The Bridge model submitted for approval with
the Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Appendix N). This allows the steering committee to
implement The Bridge, conduct research on the findings, and assess the findings in an approved,
ethical manner. With the condition of specifying the acronym LYNC on the request for approval
form, the IRB approved the research.
Informed Consent
The day of the training, each participant is verbally informed that participation in the
evaluation/survey is voluntary and anonymous. The preceptors read and sign the informed consent
form in front of two witnesses, validating their willingness to participate. The forms are reviewed by
the LYNC Steering Committee and then reviewed and stored with the program manager at Path of
Life Ministries.
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 33
Pre-Test/Post Test of Training
Prior to the start of the training, each participant is time and privacy to complete the pre-test
survey. The survey (Appendix H) consists of eight Likert Scale quantitative questions, reflecting the
preceptors’ readiness and understanding of the expectations of a LYNC preceptor.
At the end of the training day, preceptors are given time and privacy to complete the post-test
survey. The survey mirrored the pre-test in questions, with the addition of one quantitative question
and one qualitative question. There was 100% participation in the pilot of The Bridge in August
2019 and the results indicated that the training was helpful in increasing knowledge of and
preparedness for having a social work intern.
Quarterly Surveys
Part of the overall evaluation process of The Bridge includes anonymous quarterly surveys,
which will also be mixed method evaluations. This will allow the researchers to measure movement,
growth or decline, in preceptors’ experiences at various point throughout the school year. Questions
will be specified to correlate with the academic expectations of the interns during that particular
quarter, yet will also be broad enough in the qualitative sections to allow feedback on unexpected
occurrences, newfound learnings, or unanticipated challenges.
End of the Year Evaluation
The final evaluation at the end of the academic year will be vital to validating the reliability
of the former evaluation methods. This evaluation will be longer in length and broader in scope. It
will also be an anonymous mixed method questionnaire. While it has not been developed yet due to
COVID-19, the survey includes questions relating back to the training specifically, and questions
about the preceptors’ experiences connected to the content presented in the training, including
increased capacity, increased problem-solving skills, new learnings, number of individuals served,
and unexpected challenges that emerged.
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 34
Stakeholder Involvement
As discussed above, the primary stakeholders in The Bridge are the participating preceptors.
Through participation in the training and ongoing assessment, the preceptors carry a significant role
in the implementation, success, and improvement of the training itself. Without their feedback, The
Bridge would not be able to make pivots to improve the training. Secondary beneficiaries for The
Bridge, such as the students and field instructors also contribute to the success of The Bridge, and
therefore LYNC, by providing honest and comprehensive feedback during the assessment process.
Ethical Concerns
Due to the collaborative modality of LYNC and The Bridge, ethical considerations of value
conflicts, liability, and privacy may emerge. When individuals from FBOs participate in service
provision typically offered by public assistance, personal and professional values can conflict,
especially surrounding belief systems about causes of and solutions for homelessness. Although
social workers must uphold their professional code of core values, preceptors may not be held to the
same requirements. This conflict is discussed in depth in the limitations section below.
The latter two ethical considerations, liability and privacy, emerge when asking participants
to engage in the assessment and evaluation portion of a newly implemented program, especially
when attempting to maintain anonymity in a small sample size of preceptors. Further, because The
Bridge, and therefore LYNC, is reliant upon volunteers and in-kind services, there is always a risk
that any given service may no longer be available to the homeless population.
Conclusion and Implications
The growing body of research points to the benefits and necessity of collaborative efforts in
addressing many social challenges, including homelessness. The proposed training model, The
Bridge, does just that; it trains preceptors and FBOs to work with interns cooperatively and with
every service sector to link individuals and families with the resources they need, ensuring they do
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 35
not fall through the cracks. For The Bridge to be successful, strong implementation is paired with
ongoing assessment, providing the capacity to disrupt the normative approach to siloed service
delivery, and demonstrates potential for scalability and generalizability to addressing homelessness.
Limitations
Within the larger LYNC context, a main limitation of The Bridge involves the conflict
between public and faith-based values. While the suggested model sounds, and is, positive, it is not
without its challenges. Not all faith communities think alike or have the same social approach when
working with the needs of the community (Tormala, Patel, Soukup, & Clarke, 2018). For example,
one of the churches that volunteered to participate in LYNC decided to raise money and build four
homes for homeless families on the church property. The majority of the project was funded with
money raised by church members, with the specific conditions that the church, not the city or Office
of Homeless Solutions, could decide which families were able to move into the homes. During an
interview with the lead pastor, he reported that the church would be mentoring the families to
become a part of their faith community (The Grove Community Church, 2019).
To some, putting conditions on an offered resource, such as a home, is appropriate because
the resource is still creating a solution to an existing problem. The end justifies the means. To others,
however, it exemplifies potential conflict between church and state collaboratives. Perhaps the city’s
homeless shelter had a family at the top of the wait list for four months, yet the church chose a
different family that was either far down the list, or not on the list at all. The four homes would not
have existed without the collaborative efforts of the church, public, and private entities, yet it draws
into question the weight of value conflicts from participating FBOs.
While not through the first year of implementation yet, a final limitation that has already
emerged is the lack of anonymous identifiers linking pre and post-test surveys during the pilot.
While the information is valid, the reliability of the methodology is not strong due to not being able
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 36
to link the growth of an individual preceptor to the training. The limitation creates a challenge with
the fidelity of the evaluation process. That will be changed before the next training.
Next Steps
The next steps for the success of The Bridge and the larger LYNC program fall in two
categories. First, growing LYNC within the city of Riverside, CA by gaining more traction with the
faith-communities and building relationships with public service providers. This growth will take
place each year through the annual Faith Summit and by social work students identifying at least two
new FBO or related stakeholder who would be interested in participating. Second, in looking at
scalability and generalizability, an important next step is to contact a neighboring city, namely
Corona, CA or Moreno Valley, CA to propose a similarly laid model.
In closing, the growing body of research points to the benefits and necessity of collaborative
efforts in addressing many social challenges, including homelessness. LYNC has the capacity to
disrupt the normative approach to siloed service delivery. When service providers work
collaboratively, innovative solutions are possible. Without engaging actively in the public discourse
surrounding this topic, this challenge will continue to break down the infrastructure of a city,
impacting not just the individuals and families experiencing homelessness, but the very communities
that are supposed to provide the assistance to help resolve the situation. Yet through collaborative
and seemingly unlikely partnerships like LYNC, homelessness can be eradicated and communities
can be restored.

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 37
References
Aarons, G., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. (2011). Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based
practice implementation in public sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and
Mental Health Service Research, 38(1), 4-23.
Billis, D. (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory, and
policy. Journal of Social Policy 41(4), 853-854.
California Department of Housing and Community Development (2006). From NIMBY to YIMBY:
Strategies and techniques to garner community support for affordable housing development.
Housing Policy Development Division. Retrieved from http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/community-acceptance/index/docs/nimby_yimby0507.pdf
California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (2019). The EPIS model of
implementation. Retrieved from www.cebc4cw.org
City of Riverside (2018). Measure Z 5-year spending plan. Retrieved from
https://www.riversideca.gov/citymanager/measure-z/measure-z-5-year-spending-plan
Coltman, L., Gapka, S. Harriott, D., Koo, M, Reid, J., & Zsager, A. (2015). Understanding
community integration in a housing-first approach: Toronto at home/Chez soi community-
based research. Intersectionalities: A Global Journal of Social Work Analysis, Research,
Polity, and Practice, 4(2), 39-50.
Conrad, J. (2017). To the least of these: A better Christian response to homelessness. CreateSpace
Independent Publishing.
Diana R. Garland School of Social Work (2019). What is congregational social work? Retrieved

from https://www.baylor.edu/social_work/index.php?id=870768.

Donaldson, L.P. (2016). Micro, mezzo, and macro considerations for understanding the role and

meaning of religion and spirituality in meeting the needs of the world. Journal of
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 38
Religion and Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought 35(4), 269-270.
Elliott, N. (2017). Faith, ethics and social work: Framework for an introductory lecture. Ethics

and Social Welfare 11(1), 92-99.

Fogel, S. & Moore, K. (2011). Collaborations among diverse organizations: Building evidence to
support community partnerships. Chapter XXV in Using evidence to inform practice for
community and organizational change by Roberts-DeGennaro, M. & Fogel, S. Chicago,
Il: Lyceum Books.
Frame, J. (2016). The social construction of success among leaders of faith-based and secular
NGOs in Cambodia: Examining the role of faith. Journal of Religion and Spirituality in
Social Work: Social Thought 35(4), 271-294.
Frank, J. (2018). Making it work: Small-town system building in homelessness services.
Humanities and Social Sciences 78(9-A[E]), n.p.
Health Communication Capacity Coalition (2019). What is the role of faith based organizations?
Retrieved from https://healthcommcapacity.org/i-kits/role-faith-based-organizations-
religious-leaders/
Kuntz, K., Ripper, J., & Tracey, L. (2018). Housing first strategy: A road map to create, implement,
and operate a housing first approach in the city of Riverside. City Council Meeting March 13,
2018. Retrieved from: https://www.riversideca.gov/homelesssolutions
Loue, S. (2017). Cultural and spiritual humility: A guiding principle. Handbook of Religion and
Spirituality in Social Work Practice and Research, 37-49. Springer: New York, NY.
Love Your Neighbor Collaborative Steering Committee (LYNC) (2019). Committee meeting
conversation on June 13, 2019.
McNutt, J. & Hoefer, R. (2016). Social welfare policy: Responding to a changing world. Oxford
University Press: New York, NY.
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 39
National Alliance to End Homelessness (2018). The state of homelessness in America. Retrieved
from https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/
National Coalition for the Homeless (2019). Homelessness in America. Retrieved from
http://nationalhomeless.org/about-homelessness/
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (2015). Housing rights. Retrieved from
https://nlchp.org/issue-areas-2/
Nichols, N. & Braimoh, J. (2018). Community safety, housing precariousness and processes of
exclusion: An institutional ethnography from the standpoints of youth in an ‘unsafe’
urban neighbourhood. Critical Sociology; Thousand Oaks 44(1), 157-172.
Nilsson, S.F., Laursen, T.M, Hjorthøj, C., & Nordentoft, M. (2018). Homelessness as a predictor
of mortality: an 11-year register-based cohort study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology 53(1), 63-75.
Office of Homeless Solutions (2018). Housing first. Retrieved from

https://www.riversideca.gov/homelesssolutions/housing-first

Padgett, D., Henwood, B., & Culhane, D. (2016). Policy recommendations for meeting the grand
challenge to end homelessness. Grand Challenges for Social Work (Policy Brief 6), 1-2.
Padgett, D., Henwood, B., & Tsemberis, S. (2016). Housing first: Ending homelessness,
transforming systems, and changing lives. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.
Path of Life Ministries (2018). About homelessness. Retrieved from
http://www.thepathoflife.com/about-homelessness/
Path of Life Ministries (2020). Love Your Neighbor Collaborative. Retrieved from
http://www.thepathoflife.com/lync
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 40
Pearson, F., Poole, K., Moore, W., Moore, L., & Rife, J. (2018). The congregational social work
education initiative: A new pathway in field education and community partnership. Social
Work and Christianity 45(1), 82-108.
Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated
America. Liveright Publishing Corporation: New York, NY.
Stafford, A. & Wood, L. (2017) Tackling health disparities for people who are homeless? Start
with social determinants. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health 14(12), 1-13.
Strife, J.R. (2018). The object of charity: Secular subjects, Christian practice and the politics of
faith-based social services. Health and Mental Health Treatment and Prevention 78(8-
A[E]).
The Center for Theory of Change (2019). What is theory of change. Retrieved from

https://www.theoryofchange.org/what-is-theory-of-change/

The Grove Community Church (2019). The Grove Village. Retrieved from

https://thegrove.cc/event/the-grove-village-ribbon-cutting-ceremony/

The Press Enterprise (2018). Students help churches help the poor. Retrieved from

http://pe.com/local/lasierrauniversity

Thomas, D., Straine, M., & Hemenway, S. (2017). Bridging gaps: Social workers provide solutions
in faith-based arenas. [Professional Presentation]. National Association of Christian Social
Workers. November 2017, Charlottesville, SC.
Tormala, T., Patel, S., Soukup, E., & Clarke, A. (2018). Developing measurable cultural competence
and cultural humility: An application of the cultural formulation. Training and Education in
Professional Psychology 12(1), 54-61.
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 41
Tran, L. (2015). The importance of the Gantt Chart and the critical path for project management.
InLoox. Retrieved from www.gantt.com/articles.
Turner, A., Albanese, T., & Pakeman, K. (2017). Discerning ‘functional and absolute zero:
Defining and measuring an end to homelessness in Canada. The School of Public Policy
Publications 10(2), 1-44.
Unihealth (2019). Love your neighbor collaborative grant proposal; edited by Villalobos, L. out
of the Office of the Mayor, Riverside, CA. Submitted in January 2019 and approved in
March 2019.
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (2018). History of fair
housing. Retrieved from
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/aboutfheo/history

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 42
Appendix A
Extended Key Concepts
Homelessness
Although there are a number of lengthy descriptions used to define homelessness, the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (2018) provides the following brief, yet
comprehensive definition: “an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime
residence” (para. 2). Individuals may qualify as homeless not just because they have no home, but
also if they are at a high risk of becoming homeless or if they are fleeing from domestic violence
(HUD, 2018).
For this paper, the term homelessness may be used to described an individual or a family
who is at risk of, currently experiencing, or attempting to exit, homelessness. This specification is
important because when moving from existing solutions to proposed innovative solutions, including
preventive and reactive considerations is paramount to success. Addressing the grand challenge of
homelessness before a homeless state occurs greatly impacts the success of a proposed solution.
Housing First
According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness (2018), the Housing First Method is
an approach that prioritizes housing for individuals experiencing homelessness. “This approach is
guided by the belief that people need basic needs like food and a place to live before attending to
anything less” critical, such as getting a job, budgeting properly, or attending to substance use issues
(National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2018, Housing First, para. 1).
Housing First has been adopted nation-wide as the key method to use when addressing
homelessness. Padgett, Henwood, and Tsemberis (2016), describe the success of Housing First as
demonstrating an effective solution to homelessness. Two of the most common Housing First
program models include rapid re-housing and permanent supportive housing (PSH). Rapid re-
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 43
housing is geared toward individuals and families who need short-term assistance to get back to
autonomy (Kuntz, Ripper, & Tracey, 2018). Rental assistance and basic case management services
may be offered. Permanent supportive housing is an option for people with more long-term needs;
individuals and families with chronic issues like physical or mental illness or addition struggles can
be housed long-term with more comprehensive wrap-around and supportive services (National
Alliance to End Homelessness, 2018; Padgett, Henwood, Tsemberis, 2016).
Affordable Housing
According to HUD (2018), an individual earning minimum wage cannot afford to rent an
apartment alone anywhere throughout the U.S. Additionally, of those who rent or who have
purchased homes, over 12 million pay more than half their income for housing (HUD, 2018).
The National Alliance to End Homelessness (2018) indicate that affordable housing is the number
one factor in addressing homelessness, and that without access to homes, homelessness will remain.
In this paper, affordable housing refers to living spaces that are accessible and attainable when
comparing cost of living with income. Attainability also accounts for housing vouchers or subsidies
that may be provided by federal or local programs.
Not In My Backyard
Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) is movement started by community members nation-wide
who, although support the desire for ending homelessness, reject any proposed solution that includes
housing homeless individuals near their home, be it through rental properties, shelters, or newly
developed high-density homes (Padgett, Henwood, Tsemberis, 2016; Conrad, 2017; Coltman,
Gapka, Harriott, Koo, Reid, & Zsager, 2015).
Faith-Based Organizations
Traditionally, a faith-based organization (FBO) is a non-profit entity driven by religious or
spiritual values. According to Health Communication Capacity Collaborative (2019), FBOs have a
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 44
“good understanding of the local context, speak out for the disenfranchised, deliver high quality
services, mobilize energy and resources, contribute to consensus-building and connect local
communities with higher authorities” (para 2). A common belief among FBOs is that there is a moral
responsibility to improve the lives of others through whatever help can be offered (Frame, 2016).
While this value system can enable FBOs to be of service to those experiencing homelessness, it can
also pose challenges if religious values systems conflict with those of collaborating agencies or the
individuals experiencing homelessness (Health Communication Capacity Collaborative, 2019;
Conrad, 2017). For this paper and proposed project, FBOs play an essential role in the fight to end
homelessness.

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 45
Appendix B
The Bridge Training Model Summary

The Bridge
Preceptor Training Model
Identify Goals
For FBO
Intended Goals
For Intern
Discussion
Learning
Agreements
Code of Ethics
Competencies
Roles and
Expectations
CONCEPTUAL
ACADEMIC COMMUNITY SPIRITUALITY
Cultural
Humility
Culture of
Homelessness
Congregational
Social Work
Housing First
Value Conflicts
Interfaith
Support
Network
Placement vs.
Support
15 Minutes 2 Hours
3 Hours 45 Minutes
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 46
Appendix C
Sample Learning Agreement for La Sierra University Social Work Interns
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 47
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 48
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 49
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 50
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 51
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 52
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 53
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 54
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 55
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 56

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 57
Appendix D
National Association of Social Work: Core Values
Service
Social Justice
Dignity and Worth of a Person
Importance of Human Relationships
Integrity
Competence

National Association of Social Workers (2019). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from

https://www.socialworkers.org/about/ethics/code-of-ethics/code-of-ethics-english

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 58
Appendix E
Council on Social Work Education: Core Competencies
Competency 1: Demonstration Ethical and Professional Behavior
Competency 2: Engage Diversity and Difference in Practice
Competency 3: Advance Human Rights and Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice
Competency 4: Engage in Practice-Informed Research and Research-Informed Practice
Competency 5: Engage in Policy Practice
Competency 6: Engage with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities
Competency 7: Assess Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations and Communities
Competency 8: Intervene with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities
Competency 9: Evaluate Practice with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and
Communities

Council on Social Work Education (2015) Performance standards: EPAS. Retrieved from
https://www.cswe.org/getattachment/Accreditation/Standards-and-Policies/2015-
EPAS/2015EPASandGlossary.pdf.aspx

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 59
Appendix F
LYNC Logic Model Roll-Out Summary

Figure 2. Overview of LYNC implementation plan. Adapted from unpublished presentation by M.
Straine (2018) for SOWK 711. Innovation Lab I. Fall Semester. Doctor of Social Work Curriculum.
University of Southern California.

Needs
Assessments
Asset Mapping
Qualitative
Interviews
Trainings &
Education
Program
Development
Future Funding
Solidify
Stakeholders
Set Long Term
Goals
YEAR 1
LEARN
YEAR 2
CREATE
YEAR 3
IMPLEMENT
YEAR 4
REASSESS
Streamline
Referral Process
Track Progress
Identify
Remaining Gaps
Recruit Future
Participants
Assess Goals
Funding
Set New Goals
Orientation
For Future
Participants
What is? What if? What wows? What works?
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 60
Appendix G
Prototype Part I: The Bridge Training Model Slide Deck
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 61
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 62
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 63
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 64
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 65
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 66
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 67
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 68
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 69
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 70
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 71
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 72
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 73
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 74
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 75
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 76
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 77
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 78
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 79
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 80
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 81
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 82
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 83
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 84
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 85
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 86
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 87
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 88
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 89
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 90
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 91
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 92
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 93

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 94
Appendix H
Prototype Part II: The Bridge Training Assessment Tools

Love Your Neighbor Communities (LYNC) Preceptor Training
Informed Consent

Participation:
Your participation is voluntary, thus you may stop at any time and choose not to complete the pre-survey or
answer questions in the “check out ” questionnaire. Please know that there will be no negative consequences if
you choose to withdraw from this study or skip any questions in the questionnaire. Opting out of the study will
not affect your ability to have an intern placed at your faith-based organization.

Purpose:
The purpose of this study/research is to determine the effectiveness of the preceptor training and how well it
prepares you to receive and utilize social work student interns during the 2019-2020 school year.

Procedure:
You will attend an eight hour training and will be asked to actively participate in the training by listening,
discussing, and responding to training topics including academic expectations of student interns, the LYNC
program overview, culture of homelessness, existing services in your community serving the homeless
populations, and values and ethics surrounding faith-based service provision.

Risks/Benefits:
There is a small risk that you may be asked to discuss sensitive topics, including communal and/or personal
values/conflicts as it relates to serving the homeless population or working with interns of a different faith
background. The benefits for participating include gaining useful information that could help increase your
knowledge of the larger LYNC project and your role in providing support for your student intern and your faith-
community; also, the opportunity to provide input that will help to improve the preceptor training for future
years and

Results:
The results of this study will be presented to social work faculty and members of the LYNC research team and
steering committee. Results may also be published and presented to outside entities, however your information
will always be kept confidential and anonymous. If you would like to have a summary of the results, please
contact Marni Straine at mstraine@lasierra.edu or by phone at 951-785-2058.

If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact Dr. In-Kyeong Kim,
chair of the Institutional Review Board at La Sierra University at irb@lasierra.edu.
If you understand the procedures, and agree to participate voluntarily, please sign and date below.

Signature of Participant____________________________________ Date:____________

Signature of Research Assistant ________________ _____________ Date:____________
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 95

Preceptor Training
Pre-Test

Instructions: Please circle the number that best reflects your answer.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1. I understand my role and responsibilities as a preceptor of Love Your Neighbor Collaborative (LYNC)
1 2 3 4 5
2. I am prepared to provide support and mentorship to a LYNC intern.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I have a specific plan for what I want the LYNC intern to accomplish.
1 2 3 4 5
4. I understand the academic expectations for social work internships.
1 2 3 4 5
5. There is potential for value conflict in the work that I do.
1 2 3 4 5
6. I know how to address value conflicts in my organization.
1 2 3 4 5
7. I understand the current support systems available to individuals in homelessness.
1 2 3 4 5
8. I am comfortable navigating homeless services for individuals in homelessness.
1 2 3 4 5

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 96

Preceptor Training
Post-Test

Instructions: Please circle the number that best reflects your answer.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1. I understand my role and responsibilities as a preceptor of Love Your Neighbor Collaborative (LYNC)
1 2 3 4 5
2. I am prepared to provide support and mentorship to a LYNC intern.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I have a specific plan for what I want the LYNC intern to accomplish.
1 2 3 4 5
4. I understand the academic expectations for social work internships.
1 2 3 4 5
5. There is potential for value conflict in the work that I do.
1 2 3 4 5
6. I know how to address value conflicts in my organization.
1 2 3 4 5
7. I understand the current support systems available to individuals in homelessness.
1 2 3 4 5
8. I am comfortable navigating homeless services for individuals in homelessness.
1 2 3 4 5
9. This training improved my readiness for being a preceptor.
1 2 3 4 5
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 97
Appendix I
Prototype Part III: The Bridge Working Preceptor Manual
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 98
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 99
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 100
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 101
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 102
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 103
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 104
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 105
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 106
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 107
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 108
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 109
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 110
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 111
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 112
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 113
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 114
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 115
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 116
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 117
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 118
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 119
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 120
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 121
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 122
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 123
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 124
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 125
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 126
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 127
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 128
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 129
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 130
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 131
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 132
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 133
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 134
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 135
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 136
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 137
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 138

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 139
Appendix J
Gantt Chart for The Bridge Training Model

Collect Data
Develop
Plan
Launch
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020
Record Collected Survey/Evaluation Results
Compile and Interpret Results
Prepare Report
Data Collection R2 Begins
Submit Pilot Outcomes
for Publishing
Development Phase I of Training Curriculum
Comparative Analysis Goal Identification
Planning Phase I
Planning Phase II
Reserve Training Space
Identify Expert Presenters
Provide Summative Results to Data Collection Staff
The Bridge Y2 Launch August 19, 2020
Interfaith Coalition Launch October 12, 2020
Steering Committee
Jan 9
The Bridge Roadmap (Embedded into LYNC)
Steering Committee
Feb 13
Steering Committee
Mar 12
Steering Committee
Dec 10
Steering Committee
Oct 8
Steering Committee
May 14
Steering Committee
Jul 9
Steering Committee
Apr 9
Steering Committee
Jun 11
Bridge Launch R2
Aug 19
Bridge Evaluation
Sep 10
Development Phase II – Long Term Goals
Create Evaluation Forms
Planning Phase III
Identify LYNC Interns
Identify and Invite Preceptors
LYNC Year 2 Begins September 28,2020
Figure 2. Roadmap based on collected data from LYNC ’s beta year in 2018-2019. Jan 2020 begins with existing data
from the First Full Pilot Year of Operations FFYO (2019-2020) of LYNC. Adapted from Gantt Charts retrieved from
www.gantt.com
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 140
Appendix K
LYNC Beta Year Financial Summary

LYNC Start-Up Budget Report (2018-2019) **Summary Chart
Line Item Foundation
Grant
Measure Z
Funds
In-Kind
Contributions
Private
Un-Restricted
Donation
Sub-Total
Personnel 100,000 800,000 900,000
Equipment 10,000 10,000
Trainings 5,000 5,000
Land 400,000 400,000
Contracted Labor 180,000 180,000
Indirect Costs 5,000 Budgeted
710 Spent
4,290 Surplus
5,000
TOTAL 100,000 190,000 1,200,000 10,000 1,500,000

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 141
Appendix L
LYNC Pilot Year Financial Summary

First-Full-Year-of-Operations (FFYO) 2019-2020 **Summary Chart
Line Item Foundation
Grant
Sandals
Church
Unrestricted
In-Kind
Contributions
Riverside
Ending
Homelessness
Sub-Total
Personnel 88,358 4,635 510,887 15,000 618,880
Other Direct
Costs
2,552 1,300 17,861 18,477 40,190
Indirect Costs
(up to 10%)
9,090 4.065 51,763 745 65,663
TOTAL 100,000 10,000 580,511 34,222 724,733

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 142
Appendix M
LYNC Detailed Projected Budget for 2019-2020 Full Year of Operations

Line Item
Uni-health
Foundation
Grant
Sandals
Church
Unrestricted
In-Kind
Contributions
Riverside
Ending
Homelessness
Sub-Total
Personnel
Program
Coordinator
(1.0 FTE)
88,358 88,358
3 Field
Instructors
(1.0 FTE)
139,950 139,950
15 Social Work
Interns
(2.8 FTE)
93,184 93,184
Social Work
Supervisor
(0.5 FTE)
4,635 15,000 19,635
7 On-Site
Preceptors
(7 FTE)
277,753 277,753
Subtotal 88,358 4,635 510,887 15,000 618,880
Other Direct
Transportation 6,000 6,000
Office Space 6,750 6,750
Equipment &
Office Supplies
1,300 5,753 5,000 12,053
Assessment
Tools,
Curriculum,
& Training
2,552 5,358 7,477 15,387
Subtotal 2,552 1,300 17,861 18,477 40,190
Indirect Costs
(up to 10%)

Reporting 7,050 7,050
Utilities 8,000 8,000
Insurance 12,000 12,000
Marketing/
Admin
9,090
(Marketing)
4,065
(Admin)
21,713
(Marketing)
745
(Admin)
38,613
Subtotal 9,090 4,065 51,763 745 65,663
TOTAL 100,000 10,000 580,511 34,222 724,733

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 143
Appendix N
Extended Descriptions of Expenses
The following section describes and justifies the specific line items related to the expenses of LYNC
throughout the FFYO of both personnel and non-personnel costs.
Personnel/Staffing Costs
The personnel costs of LYNC are the largest expense for the program. The following
descriptions and budget allotment are of each personnel position for LYNC.
Program Coordinator. During the planning and initial pilot years of LYNC, it was
determined by the steering committee that the program needed a coordinator whose sole position it
would be to continue to develop the framework, oversight, structural organization, and ongoing
financial plan of LYNC. The full-time position required a minimum of a master’s degree in either
social work, organizational leadership, or non-profit management. It was preferred if the candidate
also had experience in program development as LYNC was still early in its inception. The starting
yearly salary budgeted for this position is $88,358, which includes the same medical, dental, mental
health, and vision health benefits afforded to all full-time employees of Path of Life Ministries.
Field Instructors. As the LYNC program uses social work interns from three local
universities, the field instructors from each university not only sit on the steering committee, they
each are responsible for the time, supervision, and academic requirements for the students’ field
practicum experience. Each of the three field instructors are licensed clinical social workers
(LCSWs), have over 20 years’ experience, and are on the track for academic tenure. The time
allocated for these three positions is equivalent to one FTE position in the yearly budgeted amount of
$139,950 from in-kind contribution.
Social Work Interns. The success of LYNC relies on the work of the 15 social work interns
placed during the FFYO. The interns are either final year BSW students or first year MSW students
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 144
from the participating universities. The interns complete 14-16 hours each per week, which is the
equivalent to approximately 2.8 FTE paid intern positions for an in-kind budgeted amount equating
to $93,184.
Social Work Intern Supervisor. As required by all social work field placements, each
student is to have a minimum of an hour of individual supervision per week, and the supervisor must
have a minimum of a master’s degree in social work, yet it is preferred if the supervisor is an LCSW.
The purpose of this position is to guide student interns through the processing of client interactions
and self-awareness as they complete their hours. The supervisor is not responsible for daily tasks or
curriculum development, yet serves as a sounding board that holds interns accountable ethically and
legally during their practicum year. This position is a 0.5 FTE position with a secured budget
allotment of $19,635.
Preceptors. Each of the seven participating FBOs have a preceptor who is in charge of
assisting the intern with becoming familiar with the organization’s culture and makeup. The
preceptor is likely an office administrator or assistant in the office who is able to show the intern
around and keep track of any needed tasks that day. The preceptor may schedule appointments for
the interns during their day, assign them new projects or manage ongoing projects. The reasoning
behind utilizing existing employees at the participating FBOs is because they would already be
familiar with the organization, the culture, and the needs. The budgeted salary for each of the seven
preceptors is $39,679 per year, for a total in-kind contribution of $277,753.
Non-Personnel Operating Costs
A significant shift from the start-up year to the FFYO was learning about variance between
anticipated and unanticipated costs. Most of the unanticipated shifts fell within the non-personnel
direct costs. Each category is described below.
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 145
Transportation. During the start-up year, students were placed at one FBO, and had no need
to travel during their time at internship. During the FFYO, students are placed in “hubs,” which
means they are responsible for a neighborhood, which can include two or three FBOs. They need to
be able to travel between FBOs, and possibly transport potential clients to or from the shelter or FBO
to various appointments, the hospital, treatment, or potential housing opportunities. Students have
access and permission to use the shelter’s van when transporting other individuals. The budgeted
allowance for transportation is $6000 a year, which includes gas, maintenance, and insurance on the
shelter van.
Office Space. One of the requirements for FBOs to host a student intern is to ensure there is
a private working space for the intern while they are completing their hours. Each of the
participating FBOs ensures that there is an office available for the interns, complete with a closing
security door. Some FBOs have redistributed office use to make this accommodation, while others
have created a new space altogether. The budgeted yearly expense for office space is $6,750. This
cost accounts for any new construction required, and the accommodation of partial rent for spaces
that are used only when the intern is on site.
Equipment and Office Supplies. The equipment and office supplies needed for LYNC to
run smoothly include desks or work surface and chair, access to up-to-date computers, compatible
software that is used across the social service providers in the city, cell phones, security clipboards
for work in the field, paper and printer and printer ink for tracking assessments and intakes, and a
locking file cabinet. The anticipated expense for these supplies is $12,503 a year.
Assessment Tools, Curriculum, and Training Materials. An essential component of
LYNC is collecting data on needs, implementation processes, program evaluation, and training
methodologies to create a foundation for opening LYNC up to scalability and sustainability.
Assessment tools include Point-In-Time counts, VIA-SPDAT, needs assessments, pre/post surveys,
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 146
and quarter, mid, and end-of-the-year evaluations. The budgeted $4,000 covers the trainings for the
interns on each of the above listed assessment tools. The curriculum budget covers the yearly
preceptor training, The Bridge, that includes $1,500 honorariums for each of the three experts that
present on homelessness, cultural humility, and affordable housing. Additionally, the training
materials cover the training space at La Sierra University, the parking passes for each of the
preceptors attending, breakfast, lunch, and snacks for the attendees, and binders with all the printed
materials needed for the day, amounting to $5,500. The total expense for this category is $14,000.
Indirect Costs
Reporting. To ensure LYNC meets the terms of the grant from Uni-health, tracking progress
and implementation is essential. At the end of each quarter, the CEO of Path of Life, the auspice
under which LYNC falls, is responsible for submitting not only a budget review, but a report of
current data, including clients served, services offered, persons housed, training offered, and new
potential partners identified. Each of the data points listed above is already collected by Path of Life
Ministries on a quarterly basis, LYNC is simply the new, innovative way of increasing that data, so
the employees in the data collection unit of Path of Life are now tasked with collecting and
differentiating data that is unique to LYNC implementation. The expense of this in-kind contribution
is $7,050 a year.
Utilities. The utilities used by LYNC employees and participants include electricity, water,
and landline phone bills during the time student interns use these resources while at their respective
FBO sites or in the Path of Life office for group supervision. The yearly expense for utilities, also
covered through in-kind contributions of each site, is $8,000
Insurance (Student Liability). As LYNC operates under the auspice of Path of Life
Ministries, the only hired employee, the program coordinator, is covered under the employer’s
insurance, and it is taken out of the bi-weekly paycheck. However, there is an added expense for
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 147
each of the 15 social work interns. Each student is covered through their respective university
insurance, yet as volunteers working in various off-site organizations, Path of Life volunteered to
absorb an additional liability insurance fee for each student to ensure optimal coverage for their
work. An additional $1,000 of liability insurance per intern was donated through in-kind
contribution for the total expense of $15,000 a year.
Marketing/Admin. During the FFYO, LYNC’s program coordinator will work to continue
to develop the curriculum for student interns, manage and cultivate the policies and procedures for
LYNC interns, fields instructors, and preceptors, and coordinate the supervision and academic
output from each partner or student. Administrative responsibilities that are anticipated to emerge
include compiling, organizing, printing, and distributing newly developed curriculum or policy and
procedure manuals, sending emails or answering phone calls for the program coordinator as needed.
These responsibilities during the FFYO will be completed by the program coordinator and any
overflow, which is anticipated, will fall to existing administrative staff. It is estimated that this
portion will be an expense of $4,810 from unrestricted private donations by Sandals Church and a
one-time donation from Riverside Ending Homelessness Coalition.

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR 148
Appendix O
Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval for Research of The Bridge

Running head: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1

Acknowledgements for Capstone Completion
Love Your Neighbor Collaborative: A Multi-Sector Response to Homelessness
Marni Straine
SOWK 722
University of Southern California

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

2
Acknowledgements for Capstone Completion
Over the course of my doctoral journey, I have received support in various forms and
from varying places. I am grateful for the unwavering support personally and professionally as I
juggled the responsibilities of being a social worker, colleague, mother, partner, educator,
daughter, and friend.
On a professional level, I am grateful to La Sierra University, my employer, for gifting
me this study leave to focus on my doctoral research. Namely, thank you to my dean (now
Provost) Dr. April Summit, for advocating on my behalf. Thank you to Jill Rasmussen and
Daphne Thomas, who have been my professors, mentors, colleagues, and friends for nearly two
decades. I am grateful to work with such a supportive, compassionate, and empowering team.
On an academic level, I am forever grateful for Cohort 7. Without you, these last two
years would not have ended well. Thank you for the texts and calls of support, the virtual humor,
and words of clarity and encouragement. Thank you to Dr. Ashli Dees, Dr. Angelique Anderson,
and Dr. Jasmine Rollins for the pep talks, processing sessions, late night practices, and personal
check-ins. Thank you to the DSW faculty for stretching me, challenging me, growing me, and
believing in me. Specifically, thank you Dr. Annalisa Enrile, for seeing my project for its
innovative worth, for fostering a design thinker in me, and for walking alongside me from the
beginning of this program to being the chair on my defense committee.
On a community level, I am grateful for the Love Your Neighbor Collaborative. Without
the partnerships, steering committee, and social work faculty, this project would not exist.
Namely, thank you to the members of the steering committee: Dr. Mandy Smith, Casey Jackson,
Daphne Thomas, Talolo Lepale, Jennifer Castillo, Cheryl Marie Hansberger, Vadim Dementyev,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

3
and Steve Hemenway. Thank you to Path of Life Ministries and Mayor’s Office of Riverside.
Without those partnerships, LYNC would not exist.
Most importantly, thank you to my friends and family that have supported me on this
journey. For increased babysitting, coffee runs, late nights, missed calls, irritable moods, and
messy living spaces, I am grateful for your patience and generosity. Thank you to my best friend,
Dr. Natalie Nelson-Blake, for traveling this road before more, and always knowing exactly what
to say and only being a phone call away. Your friendship and support are invaluable. I love you.
Thank you to my husband, Kevin, for being my number one supporter, for never doubting my
ability, for quietly doing all the chores I intended to do, for making the best egg sandwiches, for
always being a present and attentive daddy to our boys, and for loving me steadily through the
storms as only you can do. I love you. Thank you for my boys, Cooper and Milo, for being
patient and understanding as I was often found behind a computer screen. Thank you for only
interrupting my zoom classes in the cutest of ways. Thank you for your prayers of “help mommy
do good in class.” May you both know that you can accomplish your dreams. Mama loves you!

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Despite numerous existing resources offering solutions, there are still over half a million individuals who experience homelessness on a nightly basis (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2018). Public, private, non-profit, and faith-based organizations (FBOs) each have programs geared toward addressing various aspects of homelessness. This capstone examines the research and support behind collaborative efforts, and the benefits of placing social work interns into FBOs with the intention of increasing capacity and partnerships with existing services, and therefore reducing gaps in services. Specifically, it discusses a program started in Riverside, CA, called the Love Your Neighbor Collaborative (LYNC), which piloted a partnership between local social work programs, FBOs, NPOs, and local government. Further, The Bridge Preceptor Training model looks at the solutions created when multiple faith communities work in collaboration with existing public and non-profit agencies to implement tri-directional capacity building and evidenced-based practices to address a myriad of social issues, such as homelessness and the lack of affordable housing. When social work interns act as a bridge between the church, public, and non-profit agencies, those seeking help from any of those entities are less likely to fall through the cracks. Details of LYNC and The Bridge training model are outlined, theoretical frameworks and budgetary considerations are made, strengths and limitations are discussed, and findings from a pilot year noted.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Homeless female veterans—silent epidemic

PDF

Strength-Based Reporting: a trauma-informed practice for mandated reporters, to address behavioral health concerns in children at risk of child welfare involvement

PDF

Transitions to health a cost savings impact new pilot prototype dual acute hospital homeless response team social healthcare through housing...

PDF

We are our neighbors' keeper: an innovative field kit of outreach and assessment tools to help end homelessness

PDF

Transitional housing and wellness center: a holistic approach to decreasing homelessness and mental illness in the Black community

PDF

Ensuring the healthy development of all youth by focusing on the psychosocial well-being of early childhood professionals

PDF

The Senior Social Isolation Project (SSIP): a comprehensive response to a growing aging population

PDF

Rethink Homelessness project

PDF

Conjoint homeless prevention services for older adults

PDF

Addison’s Neighbor: permanent supportive housing for parenting youth transitioning out of foster care

PDF

Assessment and analysis of direct care community worker training: addressing social determinants of health in the home care setting

PDF

Blue Star Families Connected Communities Pilot

PDF

Stigma-free pregnancy: a recruitment and retention strategy for healthcare systems to engage pregnant women with substance use disorder in collaborative care

PDF

The social work-medical-legal partnership: next-level collaborating

PDF

From “soul calling” to calling a therapist: meeting the mental health needs of Hmong youth through the integration of spiritual healing, culturally responsive practice and technology

PDF

Interdisciplinary community collaborative to reduce adverse outcomes with teen pregnancies

PDF

Integration of behavioral health outcomes into electric health records to improve patient care

PDF

Flockittome: an app to support and encourage volunteering for social good, to make it fun to volunteer and be on a team

PDF

Building a trauma-informed community to address adverse childhood experiences

PDF

Mental health advocacy and navigation partnerships: the case for a community collaborative approach

Asset Metadata

Creator Straine, Marni Michele (author)

Core Title Love Your Neighbor Collaborative: a multi-sector response to homelessness

School Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work

Degree Doctor of Social Work

Degree Program Social Work

Publication Date 08/25/2020

Defense Date 08/11/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag affordable housing,change theory,collaborative,faith-based organizations,Higher education,homeless,Homelessness,Housing First,innovation, partnerships, social work,non-profit,OAI-PMH Harvest,siloed service provision,student interns

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Enrile, Annalisa (committee chair), James, Jane (committee member), Weiss, Eugenia (committee member)

Creator Email marni.straine@gmail.com,straine@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-365925

Unique identifier UC11666552

Identifier etd-StraineMar-8933.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-365925 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-StraineMar-8933.pdf

Dmrecord 365925

Document Type Capstone project

Rights Straine, Marni Michele

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA