NYC Department of Homeless Services
New York City Hurricane
Sandy Hotel & Interim
Placement Program
Executive Report
Office of Commissioner Ovesey
11/1/2013
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
Partners and their roles .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Mayor’s Housing Recovery Office (HRO) & Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) ........... 3
American Red Cross ............................................................................................................................................ 4
New York City Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) ........................................................................ 4
New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) ...................................................................................................... 5
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)............................................................................................. 5
City Hall............................................................................................................................................................... 5
DHS-Contracted Case Management Providers ................................................................................................... 5
Approach ................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Why the evacuees needed transitional housing ...................................................................................................7
Interim Placement Facilities (IPFs) .....................................................................................................................7
Compliance.......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Program Costs ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
Findings .................................................................................................................................................................10
Analysis of where the evacuees come from ........................................................................................................10
Who the evacuees were, demographics.............................................................................................................. 15
Where the evacuees went after participating in the Program ............................................................................10
Conclusion & Recommendations........................................................................................................................... 16
The Model .......................................................................................................................................................... 16
Eligibility ............................................................................................................................................................ 17
Interim Placement Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 17
Legal Issues/Concerns ....................................................................................................................................... 17
TDAP Lessons Learned (referrals to any subsidized housing program) ........................................................... 17
Appendix I: Queens ...............................................................................................................................................18
Appendix II: Brooklyn .......................................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix III: Staten Island .................................................................................................................................. 22
Appendix IV: Bronx .............................................................................................................................................. 24
Appendix V: Manhattan........................................................................................................................................ 26
Appendix VI: Acacia.............................................................................................................................................. 28
Appendix VII: Project Hospitality ........................................................................................................................ 28
Appendix VIII: SCO .............................................................................................................................................. 29
Appendix IX: Samaritan Village ........................................................................................................................... 29
Appendix X: BRC .................................................................................................................................................. 30
2
Introduction
On October 29 2012, Superstorm Sandy hit New York shorelines, devastating many homes and leaving thousands of
people displaced from their communities. City evacuation centers accepted more than 6,800 evacuees in 73 evacuation
centers across the five boroughs. During the weeks following the storm, the City began to consolidate restoration
facilities and transitioned the remaining evacuees to other temporary housing options: Rooms were procured at more
than fifty hotels and interim placement facilities to accommodate 3,149 displaced individuals (1,360 households).
The New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) was deeply involved in the Evacuation Centers and Shelters
and also managed the City Hotel and Interim Placement Facility Program (The Program) in collaboration with City Hall
and the Mayor’s Office of Housing Recovery Office (HRO). Throughout the year long program resources were marshaled
by the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and the NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA) to
provide permanent and affordable homes to low-income evacuees. Five DHS-contracted case management providers
were brought on immediately after the storm through emergency contracts in order to provide services to evacuees and
to transition evacuees to permanent and stable housing in the community.
The City of New York (The City) has issued two reports that provide background information from the days that led up to
the storm and the decisions made in the following days and weeks by the City and its partners: 1) The City Of New York’s
Eligibility Justification for the Hotel Essential Sheltering Program (June 3, 2013), written by Arthur Craig of Hagerty
Consulting, Inc. for the New York City Office of Management and 2) The City of New York Community Development Block
Grant Disaster Recovery Action Plan Incorporating Amendment 1 (August 23, 2013)
http://www.nyc.gov/html/cdbg/downloads/pdf/cdbg-dr_action_plan_8-23-13.pdf. These reports provide more details
on the City’s preparation and response to Hurricane Sandy and can be used as reference.
The intention of this report is to use the information gathered during the Program to reflect on and better understand
the population who participated in the Program. The report examines the social services marshaled for evacuees during
their stay in the hotels as well as how those services contributed to successful getting evacuees back in the community
and often in stable and permanent housing. Lastly, this report closes with recommendations for establishing and
managing a more efficient emergency transitional housing program.
Partners and their roles
Mayor’s Housing Recovery Office (HRO) & Department of Citywide Administrative Services
(DCAS)
The City decided that having hotels leased directly by DCAS was the best and most reasonable solution to the need for
quickly establishing an intermediate-term emergency sheltering program to address the risks posed to life, safety and
health to the evacuees leaving the congregate care shelters. It was modeled after FEMA’s Transitional Sheltering
Assistance (TSA) direct-payment-to-hotel program, which is based in Section 403 of the Stafford Act. DCAS sought out
and secured rooms in 53 hotels across all five NYC boroughs. DCAS took the lead in managing and addressing the hotel’s
financial issues. The City expected full FEMA reimbursement for all Sandy related costs.
Once the City understood that a significant number of evacuees would not be eligible for FEMA’s TSA, it began putting
into place the needed pieces to transition the responsibility of client management activities from the American Red
3
Cross to NYC. For a variety of reasons involving the City’s complex and unique housing and rental markets, there were
thousands of City households and individuals who were either not willing to register with FEMA, or who were unable to
meet TSA’s eligibility requirements. This transition from ARC’s client tracking system to the city occurred through
November and included the City working with a private contractor, through an emergency procurement, to develop by
early December a web-based system, King, capable of tracking evacuees from their first contact with the city hotel
program. King was able to search for available rooms and place client in these rooms. In addition to reservations, the
system was used to manage inventory and kept a running list of room available end dates and cost of each room. HRO
was responsible for maintaining the relationship with hotel management, on-going contracting and the hotel reservation
system.
American Red Cross
From the outset of the emergency, the City and the American Red Cross (ARC) using ARC’s existing database platform
(CAN), put in place a case management system to help evacuees access available services. The City began to transition
the responsibility of client management activities from ARC to the City once it became apparent that significant number
of evacuees would not be eligible for FEMA’s TSA program and would enter the Program.
Early on ARC met the emergency food needs of the evacuees in the hotels in the form of a cash assistance card (CAC)
then in July a grocery store gift card. All households referred to ARC for food card assistance received $100 per week per
family member. The program was funded by donations to the ARC, and ran from December 2012 to October 2013. The
food assistance program helped more than 1,000 households and at its peak, ARC spent more than $500,000 on monthly
food cards assistance for families in the Program.
ARC also established the Move-In Assistance Program (MIAP) to help the most vulnerable people affected by
Superstorm Sandy. MIAP is one of many Red Cross-funded resources used to help Sandy survivors. Eligible evacuees
could have received up to $10,000 in expenses per household, including first month’s rent, security, broker’s fee and
furniture assistance.
At the request of FEMA and other government partners, the Move-In Assistance Program provided assistance to people
whose primary homes were destroyed or made uninhabitable by Sandy. In addition to loss of the primary home, people
were eligible for this program if they met one of three additional criteria: 1) The person lived in a TSA hotel or
transitional housing unit after December 17, 2012, or 2) The person received a FEMA maximum grant ($31,900) and has
additional needs, or 3) The person was ineligible to apply for federal assistance.
New York City Housing Preservation and Development (HPD)
As a result of Hurricane Sandy, many New Yorkers across the city are unable to stay in or return to their homes and need
to find stable short-term or long-term housing solutions. New Yorkers who have been displaced by the storm created an
account on the HPD Housing Portal, an online portal to learn about housing options and find guidance on how to pursue
housing opportunities on their own, or with help from the City with the aim of signing rental leases with the property
owners and landlords. Acknowledging already scares resources, HPD secured approximately 150 Section 8 vouchers for
evacuees still in the Program.
The City used Community Development Block Grant Disaster recovery (CDBG-DR) funds to create a rental subsidy
program, Temporary Disaster Assistance Program (TDAP) to serve households displaced by Hurricane Sandy for up to 24
months, administered by HPD. In early June, HPD began calling in City Hotel clients for TDAP eligibility appointments.
They continued to review applications and make eligibility decisions through October 4, 2013 and even after the
program ended. More than 243 City Hotel and Interim Placement clients were referred to HPD for TDAP applications and
as of November 1, 2013 there were 98 coupons issued to Program participants. Even after the end of the Program on
4
October 4, 2013, HPD continued reviewing pending applications and servicing all households that applied.
Approximately twenty-six (26) cases were still pending an eligibility decision as of November 1, 2013.
New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA)
In support of the transition efforts, NYCHA identified approximately 400 public housing units for those impacted by the
hurricane. Evacuees applied through the “Housing Portal”, were screened by HPD and referred to NYCHA for eligibility
determinations. Once families were determined eligible, NYCHA moved quickly to match them to an apartment, provide
keys and donated furniture that was delivered to their new home. Approximately 123 households were determined
eligible and successfully moved from the City Hotel Program to a NYCHA apartment.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
On November 3, 2012 FEMA activated its Transitional Sheltering Assistance (TSA) program. It became apparent very
quickly that due to the strict eligibility requirements a significant number of evacuees would not be eligible for FEMA’s
TSA nor was it an option for several thousand NYC evacuees. Per an agreement with the City, FEMA provided individual
household FEMA benefit information on a regular basis which helped Providers develop housing plans for families in the
City Hotel Program that did not qualify for FEMA TSA.
FEMA in coordination with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided temporary rental
assistance for Sandy Evacuees through the Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP) a one-year rental assistance
program for families deemed eligible by FEMA. Approximately 13 Program participants were determined eligible for
DHAP, 3 of which chose to participate in the DHAP Program.
City Hall
City Hall provided agency oversight and policy decision guidance for the City Hotel Program.
DHS-Contracted Case Management Providers
DHS contracted with local, community-based providers to provide services to evacuees, as early as November in the
emergency shelters and later in December as households transitioned into hotels and Interim Placement Facilities. In
November 2012, the City engaged the services of Acacia, BRC, Project Hospitality, Samaritan Village, and SCO Family
Services who provided intensive case management services to more than 1,400 displaced households across 50 different
locations until November 2013.
These case management contractors provided evacuees with 24-hour-per-day, 7-day-per-week assistance. Once
evacuees were placed in hotels or Interim Placement Facilities, they were guided through a formal intake system and
assigned a case manager. DHS case managers regularly performed site visits with the families and individuals in hotel
rooms in order to determine the support needed, such as medical and mental health services, to help the families
stabilize their lives and, looking forward, eventually transition out of the Program.
Throughout the case management process, the Providers helped evacuees develop strategies for transitioning from the
Program to longer-term housing options. As part of this process, the caseworkers have:
 helped families with children locate schools and transportation methods to the schools
 provided primary care physician contact information
 distributed Metro Cards
 interfaced with the ARC to help evacuees receive food aid
 accessed rental assistance and furniture-purchase assistance
 provided referrals for section 8 vouchers and NYCHA housing units
5
Provider Census
03/18/2013 - 10/04/2013
350
300
Samaritan Village Hotel Census
Households
250
SCO Hotel Census
200
150
Project Hospitality Hotel & IPF
Census
100
Acacia IPF Census
50
0
BRC Hotel Census
Providers developed individualized transition plans for each household. They transported evacuees to their homes and
to NYCHA appointments, gathered information for the Section 8 and NYCHA application process and performed a wide
range of tasks needed to make the move out plan a reality. Each participating household received assistance in trying to
identify an appropriate housing option. When exiting the City Hotel Program to permanent housing many received
move-in assistance that consisted of first month’s rent, security deposit, broker’s fees, and furniture. The average
amount of rental and furniture assistance funded by the Providers was $4,000.00 per household.
Provider
Total Budget
Initial Contract Period
Acacia
Project Hospitality
SCO
Samaritan Village
BRC
$1,140,071.00
$4,332,455.00
$4,190,995.00
$4,190,995.00
$1,700,000.00
1/16/2013-7/15/2013
11/6/2012-0505/2013
12/12/12 – 6/10/13
12/12/12 – 6/10/13
11/2/2013 – 5/31/2013
Contract Extension
Date
12/11/2013
12/11/2013
12/11/2013
12/11/2013
6/30/2013
Approach
DHS was the lead agency responsible for managing the intensive case management services provided to the Program
participants. Initially DHS program staff was assigned responsibility for managing the DHS-contracted providers,
coordinating with HRO, liaising with NYCHA, HPD, DOB and ARC. They were responsible the Program’s data
management, operational and programmatic responsibilities, policy and procedures and inter-agency coordination.
The goal of the emergency program was to connect all evacuees to available resources and to transition them quickly to
permanent and stable housing in the community. In an attempt to achieve this goal, DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond
hired a team of consultants in March 2013 to manage the City Hotel program, ensure data integrity, and coordinate all
6
agency partners, set expectations and deadlines. Finally, to measure and track the census reduction and attain a “zero”
census.
The team, comprised a Project Manager, Program Analyst and a Technical Analyst quickly developed a Microsoft Access
database, dubbed SMART (Sandy Management Assistance Relocation Tracker) to manage the data. The “SMART” team
functioned as the central point of contact for the City Hotel Program between DHS and the contracted case
management providers and all city, state, federal and partner agencies. The Project Manager was the central person for
funneling information to DHS staff as well as the Provider’s staff; organizing, scheduling meetings and communicating
with all the parties any data related to the clients in the hotel program. The SMART team received regular census
information and Hotel Exit Strategy Status Reports from the Providers, housing updates from HPD, NYCHA, and benefit
information from FEMA. Often, updates would contain information for more than 900 clients; Data was reviewed and
analyzed quickly, then communicated to the Provider agencies in an effort to influence individualized housing plans.
Under the guidance of the Commissioner, the SMART team set the Program priorities for Providers and partner agencies
and ensured data integrity. The team’s data driven approach targeted resources versus using an “all for everyone”
approach.
Why the evacuees needed transitional housing
Many Hurricane Sandy Evacuees, from November 2012 to early Spring 2013, were not able to return to their pre-storm
homes. Evacuees remained in the emergency shelters days after the storm. Since most of the evacuation sites were NYC
Department of Education facilities and the public schools needed to resume there was a need to create transitional
shelter. NYC’s post-Sandy emergency congregate shelters needed to be closed by November 18, 2012. Consequently,
the city entered into an agreement with hotels to provide alternative stable, short-term evacuation sheltering. DHS
transitioned remaining evacuees from shelter to hotels beginning November 12, 2012, with additional referrals from the
national Guards’ door-to-door outreach program and from non-profit providers at public evacuation shelters through
November 19, 2012. DHS providers delivered on-site case management services at the hotels to connect evacuees to
City or Federal benefits and worked with the household to develop a longer-term plan for permanent housing.
The case management providers found that the households who remained in the program the longest were the lowincome New Yorkers who did not have stable, long-term permanent housing prior to the storm, making it difficult to
return to that dwelling. Many were subletting basement apartments and some were known to the DHS Homeless
Shelter System. Many of these New Yorkers didn’t have family or friends to stay with nor did they have the resources to
support themselves independently, in many cases. The storm was the breaking point for many of these families that had
subsisted just above the fringe of homelessness and poverty for so long.
Most participants in the program came to the hotels in the weeks after the storm, while others came in as a result of the
National Guard’s door-to-door operations and continued to come in from providers as the winter months grew colder
and heat and electricity remained obsolete in some neighborhoods.
Interim Placement Facilities (IPFs)
In early November 2012, the City was faced with the responsibility of providing housing ahead of the imminent onset of
single- digit temperatures to thousands of displaced Hurricane Sandy evacuees who were not eligible for or who had not
registered for the TSA program and who were without access to heat or power.
7
The City decided that having hotels leased directly by the DCAS was the best and most reasonable solution to the need
for quickly establishing an intermediate-term emergency sheltering program,. The City also integrated the goal of
maintaining a buffer of beds and rooms in order to have capacity for clients who did not qualify for FEMA TSA and
sought to lease two large congregate care facilities, Interim Placement Facilities (IPF), King’s Inn in Brooklyn and Bayley
Seton Hospital on Staten Island.
DHS established an agreement with the landlord of Bayley Seton Hospital; a location that provided more than 500 beds
in a congregate care setting for $60,000 per month. Project Hospitality, under an emergency contract, provided
intensive on-site case management services to the client’s assigned to Bayley Seton.
Additional space was identified at the King’s Inn on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn for the hard to serve clients in Queens,
Manhattan and Brooklyn. It became apparent in the early days of the emergency that though the hotels provided
temporary housing some clients with behavior issues required intensive case management services. As behavior issues
arose in the hotels, clients were transferred to King’s Inn, under the case management supervision of Acacia. Reasons
for a King’s Inn transfer included public use alcohol and substance abuse, violence and/or abusive language against hotel
staff or other guests, and evidence of mental health disorders. A month to month rental agreement for $330,000 was
established in December 2012 with the landlord of King’s Inn. Approximately 120 individual rooms were available, each
with a bathroom room, and many that were ADA compliant. Based on this agreement DCAS paid the landlord each
month through October 15, 2013.
IPF Providers were in a unique position to provide “residential” like case management services. The Providers staffed the
facilities 24/7 and assisted households with domestic violence issues, ACS cases, mental health referrals, daily case
management and housing plans. The facilities provided three meals a day plus snacks, linen service, and access to
computers and internet for housing and job search. Each facility maintained on-site security guard services.
Compliance
In order to ensure a rapid return to permanent housing as well as a safe and respectful environment for evacuees and
other hotel guests and hotel staff, the City began issuing evacuees non-compliance and non-responsive letters in March
2013. The City targeted these letters towards evacuees who failed to provide proof of their residence prior to Hurricane
Sandy, or evacuees who were non-responsive to their social service case manager provider. The City took the stance
that not only should hotel resources be limited to those truly displaced by the storm, but also that because hotels were
not viable long-term housing solutions, evacuees needed to be actively working towards finding permanent housing. To
the extent evacuees continued to be non-compliant and non-cooperative, the City sought to terminate their
participation in the Program.
In mid-April and with less than 500 participating households, City Hall and DHS decided to end the City Hotel and Interim
Placement Program for all evacuees lacking a housing plan. This constituted households who were referred to, and
deemed ineligible for, City services such as NYCHA or Section 8 housing. DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond testified to
the City Council on April 26, 2013, that for the prior six-months the City had provided critical assistance to Sandy
evacuees who suffered overwhelming damage and loss of their homes, and who were in desperate need of services, but
that for 125 of the remaining households there was simply no viable housing assistance the City could offer them. The
125 households were expected to leave the Program by April 30, 2013. Commissioner Diamond assured the Council that
none of the 125 households would be refused DHS shelter if they so wished to apply and that case management services
would continue to be available to them for up to 30-days after leaving the hotels.
On May 13, 2013, the Legal Aid Society, on behalf of five evacuee households, filed suit against the City, arguing in part
that plaintiff households and others still in the program may in fact have a housing plan as there was a temporary
8
housing subsidy that was, in the months to come, going to be made available through the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds and administered through the NYC Department of Preservation and Housing Development
(HPD). In the suit, Sapp, et al. v. City of New York, New York State Supreme Court Justice Margaret Chan granted a
preliminary injunction enjoining the City from unilaterally discontinuing the Program without affording individualized
due process to evacuees. This decision largely rested upon the assumption that the federal government would
reimburse the City for its hotel costs.
Starting in mid-July, DHS in conjunction with the City’s Law Department established a comprehensive process that
provided evacuees notice of their non-compliance or non-responsiveness, and which provided evacuees the ability to
request a hearing to challenge that determination in front of an impartial agency hearing officer. If a determination of
non-compliance or non-responsiveness was found and upheld, the City would cease payment to the respective hotel or
interim placement facility for that evacuee’s room. Throughout the months to come, approximately 60 evacuees were
issued notices to discontinue the payment of their hotel stay and were offered an agency hearing. Approximately 15
households exited the City Hotel Program after receiving such a notice.
On September 12, 3013, FEMA entered into an agreement with the State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency
Services and the City to reimburse nearly all costs associated with the Hotel Program through September 30, 2013.
Given the new information about the extent of FEMA reimbursements, the City returned to court and argued Justice
Chan to reconsider her prior order and vacate the injunction. Following submission of legal briefs and oral argument,
Justice Chan agreed with the City that without continued FEMA funding there was no longer any mandate to continue
the program, and she lifted her injunction that had prevented termination of the Hotel Program. In line with Justice
Chan’s decision, the City sent all remaining program participants a letter stating that their hotel payments would cease
on October 4, 2013, and that they could move into permanent housing, pay for hotel rooms on their own, or seek DHS
shelter (DHS provided information sheets on how to apply for shelter for each of its populations). The letter also stated
that evacuees could continue to access their social services caseworkers for another 30 days.
Program Costs
From November 16, 2012 to October 4, 2013 the Program serviced more than 1,400 households and 3, 000 individuals in
53 hotels in all five boroughs. Total approximate program costs were more than $73 million dollars and the average
hotel rate was $266 (*average daily rate of hotel as of 9/11/2013). Through emergency contracts the five case
management providers were awarded contracts ranging from $1.7 million dollars to more than $4 million dollars. All
contracts were initially established for six months with BRC first expiring on May 31, 2013. In May, DHS, decided to end
the BRC contract and extend the remaining four contracts for time only for another 6 months thru December 11, 2013.
Provider
Acacia*
Spent 11/12/12
to 4/30/13
5/31/13
6/30/13
7/31/13
8/31/13
9/30/13
10/31/13
320,660
112,456
106,665
106,665
106,665
106,665
106,665
Project Hospitality*
1,757,954
321,963
322,101
322,101
322,101
322,101
322,101
SCO Family Services*
848,187
354,364
202,806
275,721
275,721
275,721
275,721
Samaritan Village*
993,918
270,076
319,407
319,407
319,407
319,407
319,407
744,001
381,732
381,732
0
0
0
0
1,980,000
330,000
130,370
330,000
330,000
330,000
330,000
330,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
BRC*
King’s Inn Rent
Bayley Seton Rent
9
488,495
NYCHA Moving Contract
54,200
15,550
0
0
15,000
0
0
42,900
37,000
37,000
37,000
37,000
37,000
37,000
46,347,213
3,600,304
2,842,609
2,130,660
1,755,600
1,468,320
1,470,000
516,438
9,700
4,850
4,850
4,850
4,850
4,850
53,577,528
5,553,815
4,607,170
3,586,404
3,226,344
2,924,064
2,925,744
DHS Staff *
Hotel Room Charges**
King System*
TOTAL
*Projected provider monthly costs are the average of the past 3 months of actual invoicing
Projected estimate of BRC last month of invoicing
**Hotel projection based on the # of rooms at the first of the month multiplied by the daily average rate of $266
Findings
Where the evacuees went after participating in the Program
Government agencies worked together to address the varying needs of evacuees. The Housing Recovery Office (HRO),
the City’s Department of Building (DOB) and Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) worked to ensure home
repairs were made as quickly as possible and identified additional work that needed to be completed. HPD developed a
housing portal to register evacuees and provide referrals to low and moderate income units. Acknowledging already
scares resources, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) was able to identify 400 public housing units for those
impacted by the hurricane and HPD pulled from their development pipeline 150 Section 8 vouchers for eligible evacuees
in the City Hotel Program.
Once the resources were available, the Providers developed individualized transition plans for each household. The
providers transported evacuees to their homes and to NYCHA appointments, gathered information for the Section 8 and
NYCHA application process and preformed a dull range of tasks needed to make the move out plan a reality. Each
participating household received care and assistance in trying to identify an appropriate housing option. When exiting
the City Hotel Program to permanent housing many evacuees received move-in assistance paid for by the American Red
Cross and/or the City. Move-in assistance consisted of first month’s rent, security deposit, and furniture.
When exiting, 67% of households (665 households) gave their case managers information regarding their new
permanent housing. One hundred and fifteen (115) households moved to a HPD Section 8 (housing choice) apartment
and 123 households moved to a NYCHA apartment, both are rent subsidized apartments that the tenant can live in for
their life-time. Approximately 30 households moved to a TDAP (temporary disaster assistance program) apartment, a
two-year rent subsidized apartment. Three households moved to a DHAP (disaster housing assistance program) a oneyear rental subsidy program administered by FEMA (federal emergency management agency), which assists evacuees in
rebuilding their damaged dwelling. One hundred and sixty-two households returned to their homes upon additional
repairs provided by the City and volunteer organizations. The City also assisted 166 households in finding and moving to
a market rate apartment.
10
Strategies used to Exit the Program
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
188
174
123
59
5
2
11
1
7
3
7
32
468
101
95
4
23
2
39
31
17
Sandy Evacuee Displacement
12
Analysis of where the evacuees come from
Sandy evacuees entered the City Hotel and Interim Placement Facility Program either, immediately after the storm at
the at City restoration centers, or later, as heat and electricity remained off in numerous parts of the Region during the
cold winter months following the storm. All evacuees were obligated to give their pre-Sandy address during intake. This
information helped in understanding which neighborhoods had the highest concentration of New Yorkers displaced by
Hurricane Sandy.
Evacuees’ addresses prior to Sandy
13
The Program was able to capture the pre-Sandy addresses for 93% of participating households (1057 households).
Evacuees were not refused admittance to the program despite whether they came from a hurricane evacuation zone or
not. Out of the 1057 households, most came from low-lying areas in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.
Pre-Sandy Borough
Staten Island
15.9%
Bronx
0.5%
Manhattan
0.9%
Brooklyn
19.5%
Not from NYC
1%
Queens
62.1%
Fifty-six percent (642 households) revealed whether they were a renter or a home owner. Of those households, 11% (71
households) were home owners and 89% (571 households) were renters. Some renters disclosed additional information
regarding the stability of their housing prior to Sandy. Nineteen percent were subletting off the books or living in a
basement apartment. It was difficult for this population in particular to find permanent housing after Sandy because
they often could not prove that they were displaced by the storm.
Housing Prior to Hurricane Sandy
450
383
400
350
300
250
200
150
71
100
50
2
9
Boatowner
Homeless
94
2
1
8
Renter NYCHA
Renter Section 8
Renter - SRO
Supportive
Housing
0
14
Homeowner Illegal Sublet
or Basement
Renter
Who the evacuees were, demographics
There were 1,381 households that participated in the program during the total duration of the program; from November
12, 2012 to September 30, 2013 (this number does not include households who created reservations yet never checkedin to a hotel). There were 220 adult families, 438 families with children and 723 single adults who participated in the
program. Over 50% of participating families were single adults. Approximately 3,149 individuals participated in the
program, including 2,039 adults, 948 children, 63 infants, and 139 pets stayed in the City-procured hotels and interim
placement facilities.
Participating Individuals
Households Family Composition
723
800
600
400
2500
2100
2000
438
1500
220
948
1000
200
500
0
Adult Family
Family With
Children
63
139
Infants
Pets
0
Single
Adults
Children
Forty-eight percent of clients (668 households) disclosed their race to Providers. Of those clients, approximately 60%
(404 households) were Black, 27% were Caucasian (183 households), 15% (101 households) were Hispanic and less than
1% (14 households) were Asian, (7 households) were Native American and (4 households) reported being mixed race.
Race
500
404
400
300
183
200
100
101
14
4
7
Mixed
Native
American
0
Asian
Black
Caucasian
Hispanic
One percent of households (99 households) self-reported having a disability or barrier. Many evacuees did not have or
provide supporting documentation that documented their physical or mental health barriers. Providers addressed
barriers by providing transportation for mobility impaired clients, arranged phone interviews with city agencies, ensured
ADA rooms were available, and provided referrals to treatment programs as needed. Most clients reported mobility
impairments, mental health issues such as anxiety and depression, and other medical condition such as diabetes, high
blood pressure and asthma.
15
Disabilities
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
17
15
14
19
10
8
2
1
1
1
1
1
PA, SSI, Food Stamps
441
Do not receive
public beneifts
Receive public
benefits
730
3
1
2
2
1
The provider’s intake and assessment included the
collection of income and employment data, often selfreported. They developed of permanent housing plans
of which were within the financial means for the
evacuees. According to FEMA, the average household
annual income of participants was approximately
$31,606. According to the US Census Bureau the average
median income in New York City in 2010 was $48,631,
with 18.5% of the population living in poverty.
Approximately 730 participating households selfreported to the providers that they were receiving public
benefits such public assistance, supplemental security
income for either head of household or child (children)
and/or food stamps.
Conclusion & Recommendations
The Model




Ensure that the model is time-limited from the beginning and communicate this expectation to clients and
partners. Only allow the services to run 4-6 months
Obtain waiver from the Governor for the state unlawful eviction law
Create and communicate a buy-out model that will incent clients to exit the program quickly. A monetary buyout can be available prior to a client’s four-month stay in the program. At four months, the buy-out will no
longer be available and the only option remaining is limited move-in assistance if the client secures housing
Communicate in writing that the emergency transition housing is not a benefit or entitlement program
16


Contract with case management providers who will be responsible for 24/7 on-site services, field work, housing
placement. Require providers to build teams that included an administrative person responsible for tracking
documents and obtaining data
During the early days of the emergency, identify man-power to lead the transitional housing effort that includes
a project manager, analyst and data analyst
Eligibility



Within the first thirty days of the program, clients should be required to provide their social security numbers to
the case management providers during the intake and assessment process. The City will coordinate with all city
agencies (HPD, NYCHA, HRA, DOE,) to match client’s social security numbers and collect housing history,
previous address, income, family composition, CARES history, arrears, Section 8, and public housing and other
needed information
The City will utilize Worker Connect to collect and replace required client documents (birth certificates, social
security cards, etc.)
The City can utilize and access technology more quickly and implement and utilize a data tracking system
immediately. This may include use of fingerprint imaging or facial recognition software. The city should have
access immediately to a store-house of mobile technology such as lap tops, Ipads, portable printers and
scanners, smart phones, portable fingerprint imaging machines.
Interim Placement Facilities


Ensure that the City maintains an inventory of facilities that can provide beds and vacancies for 5,000 to 7,000
individuals. The City can identify landlords with vacancies and maintain an inventory of buildings in preparation
for an emergency.
The IPF model allows case management services to be provided on-site in a residential-like model. Families are
managed and supervised 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. The approach intensifies case management services
and is likely to result in program outcomes more quickly.
Legal Issues/Concerns



Establishing program guidelines and rules of participation immediately. Require all participants to sign and
acknowledge that the rules and the voluntary nature of the program. Communicate with participants that there
will be no tolerance of violence, drug and alcohol use, verbally aggressive behavior and other examples of gross
misconduct
Create appointment letters and acknowledgements for every housing appointment, agency appointment to
measure sufficient notice of appointments, compliance, and client acknowledgements
Establish guidelines that reduce duplication of benefits
TDAP Lessons Learned (referrals to any subsidized housing program)



Identify individualized housing plans for each participant and issue letters, appointments, and
acknowledgements to the client. All correspondence with the clients must be dated and signed
The City agency responsible for the housing subsidy should develop and communicate fact sheets and eligibility
requirements for the applicants prior to referral to the program. Appointment notices should be standardized
and communicated at least 3 days notice (in writing).
Ensure a short timeline from initial application to eligibility determination
17
Appendix I: Queens
18
Household Family Composition
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
343
314
114
Adult Family
Family With Children
Single
Participating Individuals
1400
1212
1200
1000
685
800
600
341
400
90
200
0
Adults
Children
Infants
Pets
Strategies used to Exit the Program
232
250
200
150
90
100
50
3
2
0
19
30
1
99
91
71
58
4
1
1
2
19
4
19
2
25
17
Appendix II: Brooklyn
20
Households Family Composition
140
122
120
100
80
60
48
60
40
20
0
Adult Family
Family With Children
Single
Participating Individuals
358
400
300
200
126
100
9
12
Infants
Pets
0
Adults
Children
Strategies used to Exit the Program
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
77
27
16
16
1
21
32
25
1
1
5
15
2
6
6
Appendix III: Staten Island
22
Household Family Composition
148
160
140
120
100
80
60
52
45
40
20
0
Adult Family
Family With Children
Single
Participating Individuals
400
370
350
300
250
200
150
113
100
50
37
10
0
Adults
Children
Infants
Pets
Strategies used to Exit the Program
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
81
56
33
7
1
23
1
2
11
17
4
3
4
12
1
6
6
Appendix IV: Bronx
24
Households Family Composition
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
Adult Family
Family With Children
Single
Participating Individuals
10
8
6
4
2
0
Adults
Children
Infants
Pets
Strategies used to Exit the Program
2.5
2
2
2
Section 8 Sandy Voucher
Residence
Whereabouts Unknown
1.5
1
1
Homeless Shelter
New Unsubsidized
Residence
1
0.5
0
25
Appendix V: Manhattan
26
Households Family Composition
10
8
8
6
4
2
2
1
0
Adult Family
Family With Children
Single
Participating Individuals
13
14
12
10
8
6
4
1
2
0
Adults
Children
0
0
Infants
Pets
Strategies used to Exit the Program
8
7
7
6
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
0
Arrested
27
Returned Home
Staying With Family
Whereabouts Unknown
Appendix VI: Acacia
Strategies used to exit the Program
Approximately 75 total household move-outs!
30
25
25
20
15
13
11
10
5
5
1
5
5
1
4
1
0
Appendix VII: Project Hospitality
Strategies used to exit the Program
Approximately 160 total household move-outs!
60
49
50
38
40
30
20
14
10
1
0
28
4
1
2
2
1
13
16
9
1
4
6
Appendix VIII: SCO
Strategies used to exit the Program
Approximately 400 total household move-outs!
120
107
100
80
62
53
60
32
40
18
20
2
14
1
35
39
9
8
4
9
1
7
0
Appendix IX: Samaritan Village
Strategies used to exit the Program
Approximately 320 total household move-outs!
120
96
100
80
60
40
20
20
2
0
29
8
2
3
5
31
27
31
42
22
7
14
2
8
Appendix X: BRC
Strategies used to exit the Program
319 total households move outs!
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
30
190
55
2
16
2
1
2
13
4
55
57
16
2
12