All Chicago’s Journey to Reassess the Continuum of Care
Homelessness in US
Based on Point-in-Time (PIT) and accompanying Housing Inventory Count (HIC) data by CoC from 2007 - 2023
Methodology
For this project, we decided to take a two-pronged approach to collect the data that was required in order to revise the charter of the Chicago CoC. This involved holding two listening sessions with relevant stakeholders, as well as a document analysis that involved a comprehensive overview of existing charter documents, academic literature, and other relevant sources.
For the listening sessions, we aimed to include as much relevant diversity as possible among the participants, including executive leadership, operational staff, and those with lived experiences of homelessness. Furthermore, to ensure greater flexibility for both capstone team members and participants, these sessions were held virtually over Zoom, enabling us to reach more people than if we had used in-person alternatives. Nevertheless, these listening sessions were not without their limits, most notably limited representation, despite our best efforts.
Findings from interviews
Summary of Peer CoC Charters
Summary of Peer CoC Board/ Steering Committee Compositions
Attendee Member Type Collected through Session Registration Form
Years that Attendee has been Involved in the CoC (Collected through Zoom Poll).
Findings from the Listening sessions
- There is a perception that service providers and others in the general membership do not have enough input in decisions made by the CoC.
- There is a desire for increased collaboration and coordination between different service providers and between service providers and other parts of the CoC.
- Participants generally connected with the mission and values but had mixed responses in how effectively they felt the values were being carried out
- There was a feeling that the CoC and All Chicago could do more to coordinate advocacy efforts surrounding homelessness.
- The structure and purpose of the CoC is not clear to some participants, particularly those with lived experience.
- There was some feedback that recruiting individuals to serve on the Board and the various committees could be more broad.
Robert’s Rules Alternatives
An important component of this project was finding alternatives to Robert’s Rules, which is the Chicago CoC’s current structure for operating meetings. These include the Simplified Rules of Order, Atwood’s Rules of Order, Martha’s Rules of Order, and Consensus Decision Making, and they each have their advantages and disadvantages. To begin with, we have the Simplified Rules of Order, which are a simplified version of Robert’s Rules created by the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. On one hand, they are familiar to those who understand the full version of Robert’s Rules, but they still require some understanding of Robert’s Rules in order to be successfully implemented.
Then, we have Atwood’s Rules, which were written by Roswell Atwood in 1956 to challenge what he saw as the inefficient aspects of Robert’s Rules. Significant advantages of Atwood’s Rules include that they flow very smoothly, and that they use less Latin jargon, making them more accessible. Yet Atwood’s Rules are not without their flaws, as they are still long, dense, and complicated to understand. In Martha’s Rules, ideas become actions based on only two votes, one to share initial thoughts, and a second to ratify the decision. They have a straightforward process and are a good first step to help transition away from Robert’s Rules, but they do not work well with large groups, which is important given the large scale of the CoC.
Lastly, we have Consensus Decision Making, which is heavily focused on agreement and disavows the debate heavy aspects of Robert’s Rules. It is advantageous in that it is much more streamlined than Robert’s Rules, while also being more flexible. Yet it also would require a complete reworking of the CoC’s decision-making process, and its focus on unanimity can be very difficult to achieve.
Summary Table
Summary | Voting Process | Advantages | Disadvantages | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Simplified Rules of Order | Stripped down Robert’s Rules. | Propose a motion – vote, table, refer to committee, postpone, and vote | Will feel familiar to those who understand Robert’s Rules. | Still difficult to learn for those who are not familiar with Robert’s Rules. |
Atwood’s Rule of Order | Robert’s Rules with more complicated concepts removed. | Propose a Main motion – seconded, debate, amend and vote | Reduced jargon and complexities. | Very dense. |
Martha’s Rule of Order | Focused on the decisions. | Two stage voting process – first to get an understanding and second to finalize. | Streamlined process. | Difficult to use at a large scale. |
Consensus Decision Making | Equitable and people-centric approach to decision making. | Discuss, propose, vote OR discuss, propose, vote, modify, adapt, vote | Inclusive and accessible. | Time consuming. |
Results/Implications
- The primary goal of the Chicago CoC and its partners is to prevent and end homelessness in the Chicago area.
- Although the CoC is required to involve organizations in decision making, the structure of how that is implemented is not communicated well.
- To remedy this, we recommend first increasing collaboration between service providers, as well as greater integration and providing more opportunities to share best practices.
- As for replacing Robert’s Rules, in the short-term, we recommend transitioning to Atwood’s Rules, before eventually making the final transition to Martha’s Rules of Order.
Bios
Lucas Andersen
Lucas Andersen
Will Emanuel
Will Emanuel
Cody McHale
Cody McHale
Anthony Scarborough
Anthony Scarborough
Peramin Songchaikul
Peramin Songchaikul
-
