Open Door Evaluaiton Report FINAL

OPEN DOOR EVALUATION REPORT
JUNE 2005
Prepared for the Open Door at Fort Street Presbyterian Church

by:
Bart W. miles, PhD
and
Stephen Sills, PhD
Executive Summary
The Open Door was established in 1967 and is located in a gymnasium at Fort Street Presbyterian
Church. It serves the basic human needs of homeless men and women. This evaluation of the
Open Door at Fort Street Presbyterian Church was conducted at the request of John Heiss,
Director of the Open Door not-for-profit corporation. The evaluation, conducted over a 7-month
period (November 2004 to May 2005) by Dr. Bart W. Miles and Dr. Stephen J. Sills, involved a
mixed-method design including ethnographic observation and site visits, focus group and individual
interviews, and a survey of the population receiving services at the Open Door. The intent of this
report is to provide feedback and assistance for the Open Door in understanding what elements of
their program work, what areas need improvement or changes, and finally what are the unmet
needs of their clientele. Several relevant findings were made:
• Demographics of the immediate geographic area of the Open Door:
o The majority of residents are African American (88.2%). The economic health of
this community may be gauged by its high unemployment rate (16.4%) and its
relatively high residential mobility (45.6% of the residences were occupied by the
same tenants/ homeowners five years prior). The violent crime rate of the area
was 26% higher than that of Detroit as a whole and the property crime rate was
57% higher. Another recent study of Detroit’s homeless population found there are
2,950 homeless in Central Detroit of whom 72% had issues of substance
use/abuse.
• Findings from Ethnographic Observations:
o Three areas of concern emerged as most important including entering/exiting the
gymnasium space, security, and the use of signage.
A portion of the problem is due to the physical design and structure of the
space, requiring entrance and exit through the same stairway and door.
Especially late in the meal, clients are attempting to enter while others are
leaving causing a jam, which elevates tempers, and presents a potential
fire hazard.
Much of the security plan centers on keeping individuals known to be
dangerous from entering the building. While no evidence of violence or the
presence of weapons were observed, the possibility of a fight, or even an
incident involving a weapon, is real.
The lack of signs denoting policies, directions regarding the use of
services, as well as guidelines for volunteers and clients was apparent. In
addition, clients had trouble distinguishing volunteers and staff from other
clients.
• Findings from Focus Groups and Interviews
ii
o Five broad categories of themes which consisted of service that were helpful,
service they could use, Impressions of the staff and volunteers, knowledge about
the Open Door, and barriers to service provision.
The services that were identified as helpful included; meals, clothing
showers, groups, case-management, and health care.
Service they could use consisted of more case-management, employment
opportunities, education, dental, and shelter.
Impressions of the staff and volunteers were that they listened to the
clients and that they were friendly and helpful.
Knowledge about the Open Door referred to how clients and volunteers
heard about the agency. Often this was word of mouth and the agency
could use better advertisement for both groups. Another knowledge area
was knowledge of services was often limited to meals, showers and
clothing.
Finally barrier to services consisted of problem with gatekeepers
restricting access to services, problems with getting to services due to
certain rules, and negative perception of the population.
• Findings from Client Survey:
o The majority of respondents were male (69.7%), African American (89.6%), and
between the ages of 25 and 83 years old (avg. 47.9 years). The most commonly
reported sources of income were Social Security/ Disability (34.1%) and day labor
(15.9%). Less than a tenth (8.0%) of respondents held part-time or full-time jobs.
Clients most often reported residing in an emergency shelter (32.6%), followed by
a rental apartment (19.9%). A little over a third (36%) indicated that they resided in
the 48201 zip code area and most (68.0%) walked or bused (27.3%) to the Open
Door.
o Most respondents (89.2%) indicated learning about the Open Door from a friend or
from another service agency (9.2%). Most reported that their primary reason for
coming to the Open Door was for the food (63.3%).
o More than three-quarters (77.7%) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that
the Open Door is a clean place (average 4.0 on a scale of five). However, only
65.7% agreed or strongly agreed that the Open Door is a safe place (average 3.6
on a scale of five).
o The lowest scoring service was eye glasses with a satisfaction rating of 3.9 of five,
followed closely by housing assistance (4.0 of five) and transportation assistance
(4.1 of five). Also to note is the large percentage of respondents (56.6%) who did
not know about other area services.
o Eleven (of 85 respondents) indicated that staff/volunteer politeness and attitudes
needed improvement. Write-in response named an individual volunteer as being
rude or racist. On average volunteers/ staff received their highest rating in
Helpfulness (4.25 out of five) and lowest score in Respectfulness (4.06 out of five).
• Findings from Volunteer/Staff Survey:
o The average age of the respondents was 63.6 years with the youngest 29 yrs. and
the oldest 79 years. Five respondents were female and four were male. Only two
of the nine respondents live within the city. Several respondents indicated that the
best thing about volunteering was the “satisfaction in helping to fill a need.”
iii
o Respondents indicated that volunteer coordination and organization occurs by
assignment to a particular position. Training for those positions occurs “on the job.”
Suggestions for improving the efficiency of volunteers included creating a better
system of organizing the day that volunteers come to the Open Door to “spread
out” the workers.
o Volunteers and staff rated services quite high overall. The lowest average rating
was a 4.0 out of five for eye glasses. The highest rated service was hair cutting
with 4.7 out of five. No services were felt to be redundant. The Open Door
environment was rated best by volunteers on friendliness and worst on safety. The
most common improvement mentioned was the “attitude of a couple of workers.”
The respondents rated themselves as good to very good in all areas. Most
improvement, according to the self-assessment scores, could be made in the area
of compassion and knowledge.
The conclusion to this report notes recommended programmatic changes based on the analysis of
these findings.
iv
Abstinence Education Evaluation Project 2004 Baseline Report
Contents
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................ii
Contents............................................................................................................................................v
Tables, Figures, and Maps.............................................................................................................. vii
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Background.................................................................................................................................. 8
Demographic Profile of the Downtown Detroit Area..................................................................... 9
Population Characteristics....................................................................................................... 9
Crime......................................................................................................................................11
Homelessness in Detroit.............................................................................................................11
Evaluation Design ...........................................................................................................................13
Observations...............................................................................................................................13
Focus Groups and Interviews .....................................................................................................13
Survey ........................................................................................................................................13
Observations...................................................................................................................................14
Entrance/Exit Issues ...................................................................................................................14
Security.......................................................................................................................................15
Signage ......................................................................................................................................15
Findings from Focus Groups and Interviews...................................................................................16
What has been helpful ................................................................................................................16
Showers .................................................................................................................................16
Recovery ................................................................................................................................17
Groups....................................................................................................................................17
Social Interaction....................................................................................................................18
Case-management/One-on-One ............................................................................................18
Healthcare ..............................................................................................................................19
What you could use ....................................................................................................................19
Case-management/One-on-One ............................................................................................19
Employment/Jobs...................................................................................................................20
Education ...............................................................................................................................20
Identification ...........................................................................................................................20
DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS v

Dental.....................................................................................................................................20
Shelter....................................................................................................................................21
Impression of the staff & volunteers............................................................................................21
Knowledge about the Open Door for Clients...............................................................................22
How referred...........................................................................................................................22
Awareness of various programs .............................................................................................22
Knowledge about the Open Door for Volunteers ........................................................................23
Organizational History ............................................................................................................23
How referred for volunteer......................................................................................................23
Awareness task and roles of volunteers. ................................................................................23
Purpose of Volunteering .............................................................................................................24
Barriers identified........................................................................................................................24
Gatekeepers...........................................................................................................................24
The eat first rule an issue .......................................................................................................25
Perception of population.........................................................................................................25
Findings from Survey Data..............................................................................................................27
Characteristics of Clientele .........................................................................................................27
Service Provision ........................................................................................................................27
Ratings of Staff and Volunteers ..................................................................................................28
Volunteer/Staff Survey ....................................................................................................................29
Characteristics of Volunteers/Staff..............................................................................................29
Volunteer Organization and Training ..........................................................................................30
Rating of Services.......................................................................................................................30
Conclusions and Recommendations...............................................................................................32
Volunteer Coordination and Training ..........................................................................................32
Security and Safety.....................................................................................................................33
Information and Referral .............................................................................................................33
Case Management .....................................................................................................................33
Appendix A: Client Survey Results and Item Analysis ....................................................................35
Appendix B: Survey Instruments .....................................................................................................58
Appendix C: Scripts for Focus Groups ............................................................................................65
DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS vi

Tables, Figures, and Maps
Table 1 - Total Crimes in 2004 ........................................................................................................12

Table 2 - Crime Rate in 2004 .........................................................................................................12
Figure 1: Land Use in the Open Door Service Area ........................................................................10

Figure 2 - Average Ratings of Services and Percentage Reporting Using Services .......................29
Figure 3 - Volunteer/ Staff Rating of Services .................................................................................30
Figure 4 - Rating of the Open Door .................................................................................................31
Figure 5 - Rating of the Staff/Volunteers .........................................................................................31
Map 1 - The Open Door Service Area.............................................................................................. 9
DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS vii

Introduction
The evaluation of the Open Door at Fort Street Presbyterian Church was conducted at the
request of John Heiss, Director of the Open Door not-for-profit corporation. The intent of this final
report is to provide feedback and assistance for the Open Door in understanding what elements of
their program work, what areas need improvement or changes, and finally what are the unmet
needs of their clientele.
Background
The Open Door was established in 1967 and is located in a gymnasium at Fort Street
Presbyterian Church. It serves the basic human needs of homeless men and women. According to
a recent needs assessment1, the Open Door serves a population of approximately 2,000
individuals annually of whom the majority (76%) were African-American, live in Detroit (85%), had
been employed within the last 6 months (75%); and reported problems with drugs or alcohol (65%).
The program has a staff of 14, including full and part-time employees and 8 interns. It also recruits
over 400 volunteers for its programs. It provides comprehensive services including meals,
showers, clothing, personal hygiene kits, HIV testing/counseling, Alcohol/drug counseling, shelter
referrals, and primary healthcare services to the homeless population. The stated mission and
vision of the Open Door is to provide these comprehensive services in a way that maintains human
dignity and worth:
• Vision statement: The vision of the Open Door is to affirm the humanity of the
homeless and those imprisoned by poverty
• Mission Statement: Open Door, a volunteer mission of the Fort Street Presbyterian
Church and its friends will comfort, care for and encourage the homeless and
indigent people of Detroit by ministering to their physical, social, and spiritual
needs.
1 Needs Assessment statistics referenced here were obtained from the Open Door’s Woman’s Club Foundation Proposal Narrative.
DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 8

Demographic Profile of the Downtown Detroit Area
Map 1 - The Open Door Service Area
While client respondents to the Open Door Survey resided in over 25 zip codes in and
around the city, the most frequently reported zip code (accounting for 36% of known zip code
responses) was from the immediate geographic area just north of the Open Door (zip code 28201).
With this in mind, demographic data, crime data, and land use data were compiled for the census
tracts of the 14.3 square mile immediate geographic service area of the Open Door2.
Population Characteristics
Within the immediate geographic area of the Open Door, accounting for about 10.3% of
the total land area of Detroit , there are 34,596 households with 15,054 families and a total
population of 79,615 persons. This accounts for about 8.4% of the total population of Detroit. The
majority of these residents are African American (88.2%), followed by non-Hispanic White (11.4%)
and Hispanic (3.4%).
2The following Census tracts were references: 5312, 5116, 5331, 5322, 5330, 5332, 5333, 5167, 5168, 5178, 5179, 5180, 5181, 5188, 5112,
5115, 5201, 5325, 5326, 5327, 5207, 5172, 5208, 5209, 5211, 5214, 5165, 5215, 5220, 5219, 5202, 5204, 5212, 5205, 5160, 5206, 5174, 5175,
5176, 5177, 5171, 5170, 5169

The economic health of this community may be gauged by its high unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate for this area was 16.4% in 20003, with a female unemployment rate of
15.2% and a male unemployment rate of 17.6%. For comparison, the unemployment rate in the
Detroit Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2000 was 3.6%. Figures are not available at the census tract
level for 2005, however the unemployment rate in Michigan is currently 7.6% overall and for Detroit
it is 14.9%. Nearly a third (32.4%) of the population of the area showed an income below the
federal poverty line, and 11.1% were receiving public assistance.
The age structure of this geographic area lets us understand some of the demographic
factors that influence the economic health and social atmosphere of the area. Nearly a quarter of
these individuals (23.2%) are under the age of 18, while 13.7% were 65 or older. In comparison,
the percentage of minors in the overall Detroit population is 31%. Thus, there is a smaller
proportion of the population who are minors in this service area than is average for the city.
However, there are more individuals of retirement age that is average for the city as well. Overall
10.4% of the total population of Detroit is 65 years old or older.
A little more than half (54%) of the parcels in the area were residential, while 29% were
vacant. Of the 41,153 housing units in the area, 84.1% were occupied in 2000. Nearly two-thirds of
occupied residences were rental units. Another 6,557 units were vacant in 2000.4 A little less than
half (45.6%) of the occupied residences were occupied by the same tenants/ homeowners five
years before the census.
Figure 1: Land Use in the Open Door Service Area
3 Note that this was during a time of relative economic prosperity

4 Evidence from housing studies in other parts of the city indicate that vacancy rates have steadily increased since 2000.

Crime
In 2004, the geographic area surrounding the Open Door accounted for about 10.7% of the city’s
reported violent crimes and about 13.5% of all reported property crimes. This translates as a
violent crime rate 26% higher than that of the city as a whole (3,133 violent crimes per 100,000)
and a property crime rate 57% higher than that of the city (9,857 property crimes per 100,000). The
higher crime rate is attributed to a greater percentage of reported robberies, assaults, larcenies
and, car thefts in the area than the rest of the city.
Homelessness in Detroit
According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors-Sodexho Hunger and Homelessness Surveys
hunger and homelessness have continued to increase in major cities across America since the
year 2000 (US Conference of Mayors, 2000; 2002; 2003; 2004). These studies have reported that
unemployment and various employment-related problems were the leading causes of hunger.
Additionally, they reported that the lack of affordable housing was the leading cause of
homelessness. Other contributing factors to hunger and homelessness identified were mental
illness, lack of needed health services and low paying jobs.
Detroit, with an estimated population of 879,575; has the third highest poverty rate in the
country. Almost a third of the residents (263,800 people) live below the poverty line (US census
2003). A recent Wayne State University study of Detroit’s homeless population found that on a
typical night there are 2,950 homeless in Central Detroit (Toro 2002). The study found that 72% of
survey respondents reported substance use in the past month compared to 16% in the general
population. Health care for the Homeless in Detroit estimates that 80-90% of the homeless
population seen have either mental illnesses or substance abuse problems (Urgent Matters, 2004).
The Wayne State University study also noted changes in the demographics of Detroit’s homeless
over the last decade. For example:
•
The percentage of European-American homeless had declined from 18.2% in
1992 to 12% in 2002, the percentage African-American remained the same at
71%, while the percentage of Hispanic homeless individuals increased from 6.2%
to 10% from 1992-2002. And while in1992, only 5.4% of Detroit’s homeless were
over the age of 64, by 2002, over 9% were over 64 years of age.
The PATH study (Toro, 2002) included a 2002 Detroit Gaps Analysis that found that there was a
gap of over 1400 emergency shelter slots, 2600 case management slots, and 3,500 slots for
homeless medical/dental assistance. The Open Door is one of the few of agencies attempting to fill
the gap.

CRIMES IN 2004
Crime Type Selected Area Detroit Wayne County Michigan U.S.
Homicide 33 392 398 610 16,503
Rape 62 719 1,151 6,428 93,433
Robbery 634 4,756 6,806 11,246 413,402
Assault 1,765 17,080 14,680 34,064 857,921
Larceny 4,047 20,638 48,876 208,449 7,021,588
Burglary 957 12,200 20,330 68,072 2,153,464
Car Theft 2,843 25,380 32,763 53,731 1,260,471
Violent Crime 2,494 22,947 23,035 51,510 1,381,259
Property Crime 7,847 58,218 101,969 330,252 10,435,523
Total Serious Crime 10,341 81,165 125,004 381,762 11,816,782
*Crime totals for Wayne County, Michigan and U.S. are 2003 figures
Table 1 - Total Crimes in 2004
CRIME RATES IN 2004 (CRIMES PER 100,000 PERSONS)

Crime Type Selected Area Detroit Wayne County Michigan U.S.
Homicide 42 43 20 7 6
Rape 78 78 57 65 33
Robbery 797 513 333 113 146
Assault 2,217 1,841 718 341 302
Larceny 5,084 2,225 2,390 2,087 2,469
Burglary 1,203 1,315 994 682 757
Car Theft 3,571 2,736 1,602 538 444
Violent Crime 3,133 2,474 1,127 516 486
Property Crime 9,857 6,276 4,986 3,306 3,669
Total Serious Crime 12,989 8,749 6,112 3,822 4,154
Estimated population in 2004 79,615 927,766 2,045,473 9,990,817 84,496,887

Table 2 - Crime Rate in 2004

Evaluation Design
The evaluation conducted over a 7-month period (November 2004 to May 2005) by Dr.
Bart W. Miles and Dr. Stephen J. Sills, involved a mixed-method design including ethnographic
observation and site visits, focus group and individual interviews, and a survey of the population
receiving services at the Open Door.
Observations
As a preliminary means for understanding the population participating in the later focus
group and survey, as well as to become familiar with the various services provided at the Open
Door, the primary evaluators conducted at three site visits in November and December of 2004. A
short narrative follows based on these observations. Observation notes were used in the
construction of the focus group script and in survey design.
Focus Groups and Interviews

Two focus group sessions were conducted in November and December of 2004 with
volunteers and two focus group sessions were conducted in January 2005 with homeless clients
from the Real Recovery Group and the Women’s Group. These sessions, moderated by the
primary evaluators, were audio recorded for the purposes of providing a reliable record of the
sessions. The sessions were exploratory and involved and open-ended format. A “key-questions”
script, created prior to the sessions and based on information gathered in the observations, was
used. Four additional one-on-one interviews with staff, volunteers, and service customers were
conducted to provide a deeper understanding of particular issues raised in the focus group
sessions. Qualitative information, including observations, focus groups, and interviews, have been
analyzed by means of an hermeneutical analysis (Van Manen, 1990).
Survey
Based on findings from the focus groups and interviews, a questionnaire was designed to
collect demographic, housing, and income information on clients as well as indicators of client
satisfaction with particular services of the Open Door. The data from the survey, administered in
May 2005, was scanned and entered into an SPSS database and used in the descriptive analyses
that follow. These statistical analyses are presented in a narrative format with figures, charts, and

diagrams used to clarify important findings. Raw data, reported in frequency tables, are found in
the appendices for reference purposes and to assist the Open Door in preparation of public
relations materials, reports, funding proposals, etc.
Observations
This evaluation began with three observations of the Thursday program at the Open Door
in the months of November and December 2004. The evaluators observed activities and
interactions that took place on typical days at the Open Door. The evaluators asked questions
about processes; talked with volunteers and clients; and documented their impressions, reflections,
and observations. Some of the findings that resulted from the observations centered on the
process and procedures of the Open Door. It was noted that the gymnasium of the Fort Street
Presbyterian Church where the Open Door lunch program occurs is a dynamic setting with a
multitude of activities occurring in a tight space. The Open Door, understanding the limitations of
this space, have made thrifty use of all of the available areas by fitting services into every niche
and economizing wherever possible. There are, however some areas in which we noted
improvements to be made. Three areas of concern emerged as most important including
entering/exiting the gymnasium space, security, and the use of signage.
Entrance/Exit Issues
From the clients’ perspective as well as our own, the first issue observed would be the
system used for entering and exiting the gymnasium. A portion of the problem is due to the
physical design and structure of the space, requiring entrance and exit through the same stairway
and door. While entrance is regulated by the use of a ticket system, the area outside the building
becomes very congested as clients jostle for position in line. Especially late in the meal, clients are
attempting to enter while others are leaving causing a jam, which elevates tempers, and presents a
potential fire hazard.
Similarly, access to other parts of the building (for showers, haircuts, medical services,
case management, and church services) are restricted by either a gatekeeper or a first-come-first
served line. The gatekeeper, who screens service seekers and adds them to a list of those to be
seen by medical personnel and others, is seen as holding a very powerful and central position. On
the other hand, the line for haircuts, showers, and clothing provides a somewhat more equitable
way of granting access to services, yet it was observed to be a slow process as IDs or other
documents are checked against a recently computerized database. Both systems could be
rationalized to some extent by an up-to-date management information system (requiring at least
two laptops and a wireless hub linked to a database on a desktop) and barcoded IDs issued by the
Open Door. This suggestion will be discussed later in the conclusions and recommendations .
Security
In a program that serves 300-700 people in a day, the Open Door relies on only a few
individuals to provide security for a great number of people in a very confined space. Much of the
security plan centers on keeping individuals known to be dangerous from entering the building.
While no evidence of violence or the presence of weapons were observed, the possibility of a fight,
or even an incident involving a weapon, is real. A detailed plan for dealing with security situations
should be made and training regarding conflict resolution and security should be considered for
volunteers and core staff.
Signage
The lack of signs denoting policies, directions regarding the use of services, as well as
guidelines for volunteers and clients was apparent. The only sign which denoted the presence of
the service itself was a small sign over the entrance at the back of the Fort Street Church. This sign
can only be seen if you are at the back of the church parking lot or walking down the alley behind
the Church. Nowhere did we find signs explaining the various services offered. Though there was
one small sign explaining that everyone had to pass through the meal line before seeking other
services, clients were observed to be confused about the process as they entered. They often
attempted to give there meal tickets to the wrong person or came in without meal tickets, they
attempted to head to the clothing line thinking it is the food line, they tried to take food out of the
building, etc. In addition, clients had trouble distinguishing volunteers and staff from other clients.
The use of nametags, Open Door t-shirts, or other means of identification would be helpful in these
cases.

Findings from Focus Groups and Interviews

When I’m here I’m amongst my people. This is where God put me
at; there is a reason why I am here. It ain’t an accident I came
through that “open door”
Male focus group participant
The second phase of data collection involved focus groups and informal interviews. Two
focus group sessions were conducted in November and December of 2004 with volunteers and two
focus group sessions were conducted in January 2005 with homeless clients from the Real
Recovery Group and the Women’s Group. Four one-on-one interviews with staff, volunteers, and
service customers were conducted further explore themes that were emerging from the focus
groups. The focus group and interview identified helpful elements of the program, services they
want, services they would like see expanded, impression of the staff/volunteers, knowledge about
the program, and barriers to services.
What has been helpful

One of the major thematic findings from the client focus groups involved identification of services
that were helpful. Many of the participants spoke of the showers and the meals as a given benefit
of coming to the Open Door. Several participants identified that these services were the starting
point of their relationship with the agency. One male focus group participant stated, Clothing and
showers is what brings peoples in and then from there they find out about other things. Another
male focus group participant stated, I originally came for the meals. These basic services at the
Open Door (meals, clothes, and showers) were a vital element in the lives of the focus groups
participants as noted by one male participant. This church they feed me they cloth me and help me
with transportation. I can’t say nothing bad about this church.
Showers
The showers were regarded as an exceptionally helpful service. This was particularly true
for the women involved in the focus groups. When asked what they like the most at the Open Door
the one woman responded, having a clean shower plus I fell safe here. All the other women in the
groups acknowledged agreement through verbal and nonverbal responses. This same respondent
went on to state, It’s hard to keep clean at the NSO… at least safe & clean (at the open door). In
the female client focus group they brought up the topic of the showers three different times.

Recovery
Several focus groups participants mentioned a drug abuse history. Most of those
participants identified that a significant portion of their recovery process was due to their
participation at the Open Door. This is highlighted by one female focus groups participant.
“Why I came hear was because of a drug called crack cocaine. The guy I was with was a
drug dealer. So I left and to make long story short and I was at the Salvation Army over
there (she points) and they told me about this church where I could get clothes. Since I
didn’t take any when I left, and I have been coming here every Thursday since. It’s part of
my recovery”
This sentiment that the Open Door is part of a recovery process is reiterated by a male
focus groups participant in the following quote. This place is saving our live one day at a time and
to have a business inside the church that keeps us here and more focused on what we have to do
(for our recovery).
Groups
Another helpful component of the Open Door highlighted by the focus groups participants
was involvement in various groups. These groups consisted of the Real Recovery group, the
Women’s group, Micro Enterprises project, and the Anger Management group. One male
participants discusses all the various groups he attends,
Ben told me about the group on Monday then I started coming to the groups on Tuesdays
and sorted clothes. I come here on Thursday and we have the printers program. I just can’t
say enough about this program, it’s beautiful.
The Real Recovery program for many of the participants was the first group they attended.
As one male focus participant notes, I come here for food and someone told me about the Real
Recovery program and I started coming. Another male focus group participant identified that the
participation in Real Recovery lead to further participation in other programs services, I heard
about this Real Recovery group and now we are starting a business (Micro Enterprise project), this
church it helps us out a lot.
Another male focus groups participant discussed the importance of the of the Micro
Enterprise project,
For the group (Micro Enterprise) Ben originally approached John wanting to give us a job
and something to put on a resume etc. So the church put up the cost initially. (This) gives
us an opportunity to show willingness on out part to move forward…
Much of the discussions about groups referenced the Real Recovery group and the Micro
Enterprise project. Though one male focus groups participant did mentioned a new group he was

excited about, they just started an Anger Management program and we need that to deal with our
emotions.
Social Interaction
Several participants discussed being actively involved in multiple groups at the Open Door
and how this gives them a weekly routine and opportunity to interact with people. This is
highlighted by the response of one female focus group participant,
I’m going to begin coming on to meetings on Monday. Because I think it will help with my
depression. When you had a job for 38 a years and you can’t find a job, you need a place
to come to like here, to interact with other people.
Another theme identified by the focus group participants was the opportunity to have social
interaction. This was highlighted in some of the previous quotes where participants mentioned
coming to the open door to interact with other people and that coming here is their support
network. Other quotes that reflect this sentiment are;
• It’s like family here, stated a male respondent
• Another male respondent stated, these are the face I came to see.
• Finally, one male focus groups participant said that one of the best things about
coming to the Open Door is the camaraderie amongst us.
Case-management/One-on-One
Case-management/one-on-one contact was also highlighted as important element of the
services offered at the open door. One female participant emphasized how important of an element
this is in the following quote,
They have people like Stacey I can talk too, and even if I don’t discuss “issues” with them
they make me feel real good and when I leave here I am always smiling. No matter how
bad I am feeling when I come in. I always leave smiling… It’s that support network.
The importance of having someone to talk with is further reinforced by a response of a

male focus groups participant when talking about what the Real Recovery program has done for
him. It makes a change, you feel just better and when Friday and Saturday hit you’re thinking about
being here Monday (you’re looking forward to it). It’s good to have someone to talk with… For
many of the participants the Open Door functions as a place that gives them a sense of belonging.

Healthcare
Several participants talked about using the medical services provided by Health Care for
the Homeless and the referral service for eyeglasses. A male focus group participant highlighted
the importance of the eyeglasses referral, they helped me out with glasses something I been trying
to get for two years. The Open Door has a thing with Lens Crafters. Another male focus groups
participant discussed using the Health Care for the Homeless medical services. If you need to get
a prescription filled you need to get here earlier. But if you need it you’ll be here. This quote
emphasized the tremendous demand for the medical services.
What you could use

The participants in the client focus groups primarily discussed the helpfulness of the services,
though they did make some suggestions for improvement. The clients and the staff/volunteers
discussed providing more of some services that are already offered and adding some additional
services.
Case-management/One-on-One
One suggestion that they all agreed upon is more on-on-one time. This often referred to
the case-managers and intern contact time very helpful, but that they were often very busy. This is
noted by two female focus groups participant in the following quotes.
I think I would better to have more time for one-on-one, because sometimes the social
workers become so busy that they run in and out and then they have something else. They
should have more one-on-one to handle the business with one person and then (move on)
Another stated,
I agree with the comment on the one-on-one a little of time to have someone to sit down
and talk too would great for someone like me. Once a week, or just once a month just to
vent or something else.
The need for more one-on-one case management was also reinforced by participants in
the volunteers’ focus groups. The desire for case-manager contact was not just for
emotional/therapeutic purposes, but also for a more comprehensive information and referral
regarding available benefits and services. One female participant discussed specific information
she would like to know more about, What I could use now is more on what is available for seniors.
There are things that are available that I am just not aware about. The lack of knowledge about

available services & benefits was highlight by the Health Care for the Homeless staff; I think they
could use some information on how to get mental health services since I don’t know a whole lot
about that. Case-management was the number one suggested service expansion.
Employment/Jobs
The issue of employment opportunities and job services was identified as an unmet need.
One female focus groups participant requested a jobs posting board, If they could pull jobs off the
internet and post them so we can read them and copy down what we need. Another female focus
groups participant later reinforced the desire for job listings, If the was someone who could do job
listing once a month or something that would be great. In the volunteer focus groups jobs and
possible job placement were suggested a services that were needed. According to a few
volunteers in the past the Open Door did post jobs. The jobs were important because having an
income was a requirement for getting into housing assistance.
Education
Related to jobs was the desire for Educational Opportunities for the participants in the
program. One female focus group participant stated, I’d like to see some job training or like GED or
computers training. Education was reiterated by a male participant, Educational (opportunities)
would help a lot.
Identification
The focus groups participants also identified that for jobs and housing you need for ID/
birth certificate services. The need for help with getting ID was pointed out by a male focus group
participant. More people need help with getting ID’s or birth certificates.
Dental
One absent service identified by regular volunteers, but not by clients, was dental. One
female volunteer stated, the most notable health care issue is the dental hygiene, and in the city
there is hardly any place to get dental hygiene done. Another female volunteer stated that [dental
hygiene problems] impact a lot of thing such as what they can eat. We have a lot of people who are
virtually toothless and that’s a shame.

Shelter
One final suggestion was that the Open Door offer shelter. Several the participants
identified that the Open Door treats clients better than many shelters. So one male focus group
participant suggested the following,
If this church could provide a shelter type environment. They would touch a lot of people
especially if these people are running it, because they are not as judgmental as some of
the people at other places. They would help a lot more people and get more people in the
Monday or Tuesday groups.
Impression of the staff & volunteers

Another major theme was the impression of staff and volunteers. The participants wanted to
emphasize the positive regard and treatment they received from the staff and volunteers at the
program. Overall the focus group participants found the staff and volunteers, friendly and helpful.
One male focus group participant stated, the people here is beautiful. This sentiment is reinforced
in the description one female focus group participant gave about her first visit to the Open Door.
They were so friendly & nice and all (when I first came). Another male focus group participant
summed up what he feels is the unique to this program, the thing about this program they take the
time to listen, and I think that is a good thing.
When talking about the staff and volunteers a lot of the positive impressions were often
related to the core staff. One male focus group participant stated, we have one-one-one case-
management now and they are beautiful people. One person the female focus groups participants
spoke highly of was Stacey. One female focus group participant stated, with Stacey here I just love
messing with her, I love the way she handles herself. [Yes absolutely, asserts another female
participant]. She continues, I look forward to speaking with her. But she is so busy. The male focus
group participants spoke highly of Ben. Several participants referred to Ben as,” the man” and
noted him as the person they would go to if they had a problem or issue. The importance of the
key staff is highlighted in following quote by a male focus groups participant, Ben is a good guy.
And Justin, and Megan, and John all of them, you make sure you put that in your notes. Everyone
in the focus groups agrees with verbal & non verbal responses. Reasons they had such strong
feelings about the staff were because staff take time and listen to them, this is highlighted in the
following quote from a male focus group participant. The way John is, the way Ben is, the way
Megan is, they listen if have something legitimate to bring to the table they will take the time to
listen…

Knowledge about the Open Door for Clients

From the client focus groups another major theme centered on knowledge about the Open Door.
One area of knowledge involved how they found out about the Open Door. The other knowledge
are involved what they knew about the various services at the Open Door.
How referred
How participants were referred was discussed by all the focus groups participants. One of
the major ways they were referred was through word of mouth. Due to the longstanding practice of
serving meals the Open Door is known though out the community. The most common form of word
of mouth entailed a referral from a friend, as highlighted by the following quotes by male focus
groups participants. For example, one client said Basically I hear about his place through a friend.
Another stated, I heard about his program through a friend of mine
Others identified that they had been referred by the shelters or other service agencies. As
noted in a previous quote one participant was referred to the Open Door by the Salvation Army.
Several others mentioned referrals from various shelters. One male participant was referred to the
Open Door while staying at a shelter, I was hungry and someone told me I could come down here
and get something to eat. A female focus groups participant stated, (the NSO) has a van that takes
people here once a week. So the Open Door is known to local service providers and within the
local homeless community.
Awareness of various programs

Several participants identified that they found out about the various programs at the Open
Door by asking question or through a referral from Ben. During the male focus groups one
participant stated, we all started out eating the meals here and didn’t know nothin’ about the other
programs. Often the participants came into the Open Door for the meals, and then they started
asking questions about other services. One male focus group participant stated that he started
asking about other services, because you see people gettin' showers, clothes, and haircuts. So you
ask questions. Another male focus group participant stated, a lot of people don’t know about the
blessing that this church has put out. They just look at it as a meal. Others male focus groups
participants noted that they were referred to other programs by Ben;
I didn’t know about the other programs until I talked to Ben.
Another participant chimed in,

Yeah I was getting transportations when he told me.

Finally, one male focus groups participant highlighted that Ben has been encouraging
them (the group participants) to spread the word about the other programs at the Open Door. Ben
has been stressing this for us to tell others about the Monday group
Knowledge about the Open Door for Volunteers

Knowledge about the Open Door was also a major theme from the volunteer focus groups.
One area of knowledge consisted of the history and background of the program. Another area of
knowledge involved how they found out about volunteering at the open door. The final knowledge
area had to do with knowledge of volunteer task and roles.
Organizational History
One of the volunteer focus groups spent a significant amount of time discussing the history
of the program and it’s affiliation with the Fort Street Presbyterian Church. These volunteers gave
detailed information on the origins of the program, how the program is funded, and about the
committee that oversees the program. Further these key long term volunteers held essential
knowledge of the informal policies and practices of the Open Door. Such as which volunteers are
good at what tasks, what groups regularly volunteer, where funding comes from, where the food
comes from, what to do when they are running out of a food item, etc.
How referred for volunteer

Most of the volunteers had been referred to the program via their affiliation with various
Presbyterian churches in the Metro area. Fort Street, St Paul’s, and First Presbyterian were
mentioned as referral places for volunteers. Other volunteer referrals came from various other
churches and religious organizations. A few volunteers had heard about then Open Door through
friends and decided to come down help out. A few regular volunteers mentioned that some
colleges/universities groups come down to volunteer at various times of the year.
Awareness task and roles of volunteers.

Another topic discussed was knowledge about the service tasks and roles of volunteers.
This knowledge was communicated informally and varied based on who was asked. For example
when ask how roles/tasks are filled the response were;
I think you just fill in where ever… stated a male volunteer.

Well Marilyn does a lot of that, and Ruth does some of that, and John does some of that
stated a female volunteer.
Another female volunteer stated that who goes where is based on the type of volunteer
and their personal preferences. There are those people who are the filler inners, those that come
every week (the regulars), then there is another group that comes like once a month, and then
there are those that come only occasionally… There are those regulars who are very protective of
their spot and have been there a long time and don’t mess with that. And that works out OK, but
then there are a lot of other people who say “OK where do you need me”…
A male volunteer followed that with and example of regulars’ preferences for spots, but
that there is some flexibility in roles. When Jerry is here does the meat if he is not here someone
else does the meat. Don usually does the gravy, but we didn’t have gravy today so he carried the
trays.
When asked who assigns volunteer tasks, two female volunteers stated that, in general
John is the volunteer coordinator. As note in this quote they refer to John as the coordinator of
task assignments. One male volunteer described how this worked, So if we are short (a person) we
find John and tell him. Or we go grab someone and get them to fill in.
Purpose of Volunteering
For most of the volunteers church affiliation was a key element in why they participated in the Open
Door. Several volunteers mentioned that retirement was key aspect of their decision to become
involved in the Open Door. One male volunteer stated, this (volunteering) is sort of like a faux job.
Finally, one volunteer mentioned that she had experiences hard times and felt that she should help
those experiencing hard times, since she had received help when she had hard times.
Barriers identified
One final broad topic area mentioned across the various focus groups and interviews was that of
barrier to services. These are broken down into three major categories; gatekeepers, the eat first
rule, and perceptions of clients.
Gatekeepers
A concern that emerged was the issue of gate keeping behavior in access to the services.
Several volunteers and staff noted that clients had approached them about conflicts with the
individuals who were the gatekeepers. Often gatekeepers were referred to as bossy, pushy,

condescending, and high & mighty. This highlights a possible concern over misuse of power and
authority. Further concerns relate to knowledge and skill of gate keepers to perform tasks well. The
Health Care for the Homeless nurse practitioner suggested that the gatekeeper be someone with
knowledge of medical (needs and) insurance to due a triage of those who get through for health
care. This raises other concern about gatekeepers in how well are the people at the front door
equipped to assess and address potential violent or intoxicated clientele or the current gatekeeper
for to see the nurse practitioner to assess the most urgent cases?
The eat first rule an issue

Eating first before receiving any other service is one of the major rules at the Open Door.
This rule was an issue for many volunteers and staff. Some volunteers mentioned that clients get
their meal and throw it out because they are just looking to get some other services. This is a
particular concern since people are required to eat before seeing the doctor and then and ill person
must choose between nutrition and health care. This was mentioned by both volunteers and Health
Care for the Homeless staff. One female volunteer stated that she think the eating first rule should
have some qualifiers such as using health care or clothing. She stated, you see men standing in
the clothing line with their plate in their hand…I think this is a problem. Another volunteer strongly
felt they should stick to the rules.
Perception of population
The perception of the population was another major theme that emerged from volunteer
interviews and focus groups. This emerged in two forms the first was a concern about others
volunteer’s perceptions and the other was in the variation of perceptions amongst the volunteers.
One key volunteer discussed her concern about the perception non-regular volunteers
might have about the populations the agency is serving. She suggested that there should be
cultural awareness training because, lots of times people come down and serve and leave… and
have a little concept of it (what homelessness is about). Another female volunteer agree with the
need for cultural awareness training in the following quote.
I think that is a huge thing because a lot of people who haven’t had much exposure to
people of other races and economic level the come with preconceived ideas and
prejudices. A lot of cases people want to help and mean well but they may not even be
aware of the fact that their biases come forward.

In the focus groups the volunteers demonstrated a wide rage of perceptions of the
homeless from judgmental to sympathetic. Some volunteers referred to clients as not appreciative,
here for a free ride, and not really homeless this tended to be the perspective of the only a few
volunteers. While most volunteers were sympathetic and saw the clients as people who had a
rough lives, bad luck, or had fallen through the cracks. The male volunteers tended to be more
judgmental, while the female volunteers tended to be the sympathetic.

Findings from Survey Data
The Open Door Client Survey was administered on Thursday May 19th, 2005. Of the 512 estimated
clients that day, 137 completed surveys were returned for an estimated response rate of 26.8%.
This response rate was affected by direct refusals of patrons to participate, the low reading level of
some clients, the lack of an incentive to participate, the hurried nature of the service delivery (which
prohibited participation as many rushed to eat then receive additional services), as well as issues
regarding fear/apprehension brought on by paper forms. While survey-interviews conducted in the
more controlled setting of social service provision (typically as a part of the intake process) have
reached as high as 70%, 5 it is felt that this response rate does provide a sufficiently diverse set of
responses to be representative of the clientele. Least represented, however, in this data are those
clients with the most severe mental health and poverty needs.
Characteristics of Clientele
A majority of clients were male (69.7%), African American (89.6%), and between the ages of 25
and 83 years old (avg. 47.9 years). One-in-five (20.4%) had not completed high school, while half
(51.3%) had a high school diploma or GED. The remainder of respondents (28.3%) reported
having attended some college or completing an undergraduate degree. The most commonly
reported sources of income were Social Security/ Disability (34.1%) and day labor (15.9%), or a
combination of several income sources. Less than a tenth (8.0%) of respondents held part-time or
full-time jobs. Clients most often reported residing in an emergency shelter (32.6%), followed by a
rental apartment (19.9%). Thus, both housed and homeless individuals use the Open Door
services. A little over a third (36%) indicated that they resided in the 48201 zip code area and most
walked (68.0%) or bused (27.3%) to the Open Door. Average travel time is about 40 minutes with a
range of as short as 2 minutes to as much as 2 hours.
Service Provision
Most respondents (89.2%) indicated learning about the Open Door from a friend or from another
service agency (9.2%). Most reported that their primary reason for coming to the Open Door was
for the food (63.3%), followed by “other reasons” (22.4%) such as one respondent who reported, “I
5 See for example the City of Boston 1997 Emergency Shelter Survey http://www.mccormack.umb.edu/csp/publications/snapshotexec.pdf
H H

needed a winter coat.” Overall, the Open Door received a satisfaction rating of 4.2 on a scale of
five, with 78.8% of respondents reporting that services were either good or very good. The most
frequent write in category for the best thing at the Open Door was the food/ meals (31%).
Meanwhile, the entrance/exit and ticketing process was shown to be the service needed the most
improvement. More than three-quarters (77.7%) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the
Open Door is a clean place (average 4.0 on a scale of five). However, only 65.7% agreed or
strongly agreed that the Open Door is a safe place (average 3.6 on a scale of five).
Nearly all respondents (94.6%) reported having had lunch at the Open Door and 70.1%
indicated that lunch had helped them the most out of all services. A strong majority (90.1%) rated
lunch either good or very good, with an average score of 4.4 (between good and very good) on a
scale of five. The second most frequently utilized service was clothing (78.8%) and showers
(60.3%). Four-fifths (80.9%) rated showers as either good or very good, with an average score of
4.4 of five, and most (83.1%) rated clothing as either good or very good, with an average score of
4.2 of five (See Appendix A for a complete item analysis and Figure 2 Below).
The least used service was Micro Enterprise/ Human Capital Development (3.5%).
However, the few who participate in this program all rated it as good or very good (average 4.5 of
five).The lowest scoring service was eye glasses with a satisfaction rating of 3.9 of five, followed
closely by housing assistance (4.0 of five) and transportation assistance (4.1 of five). The low
satisfaction on these services may indicate a required re-evaluation of the way in which they are
currently being administered. Also to note is the large percentage of respondents (56.6%) who did
not know about other area services. This may indicate a need for referral information for additional
services that clients may need.
Ratings of Staff and Volunteers

Ten individuals (of 87) indicated that the staff and volunteers were the best thing about the Open
Door. However, eleven (of 85) indicated that staff/volunteer politeness and attitudes needed
improvement. One respondent wrote, “Sometimes the workers aren't as polite as one would like,
but it’s understandable with so many people asking for so much at once.” Other write-in response
also named an individual volunteer as being rude or racist. On average volunteers/ staff received
their highest rating in Helpfulness (4.25 out of five) with 78.7% reporting this category as good or
very good. The lowest score was in Respectfulness (4.06 out of five) with 74.4% reporting good or
very good.

4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
Services
Services
Transportation
Shower
Clothing
Assistance
Lunch 94.6%
Group 11.3%
Group 14.8%
Hair Cut
Career Closet
Enterprises/
Eye Glasses
Medical
60.3%
Church
Management
48.6%
78.8%
32.8%
25.0%
Assistance
Housing
Recovery
Women’s
Human
20.0%
Capital
Micro
28.1%
17.7%
16.7%
22.6%
Case
Figure 2 - Average Ratings of Services and Percentage Reporting Using Services
Volunteer/Staff Survey
The Open Door Volunteer/Staff Survey was administered on Thursday May 19th, 2005. Of the 30
estimated volunteers and staff that day, 9 completed surveys were returned for an estimated
response rate of 30.0%. As the response rate is based on a very low number of completed surveys
it is not felt that the survey may be used for generalizable purposes. Results are presented as
anecdotal information that may be used to inform later data gathering from volunteers and staff.
Characteristics of Volunteers/Staff
Of respondents to the volunteer/staff survey, three indicated that the began working at the Open
Door as a result of church affiliation, one explained that they began after the death of a spouse,
one was a “walked in” volunteer, and another had been invited. Two of the nine respondents live
within the city. The respondents reported an average of 32 minutes travel time to the Open Door.
The average age of the respondents was 63.6 years with the youngest 29 yrs. and the oldest 79
years. Five respondents were female and four were male. Three held masters degrees, four had
bachelors degrees, one a high school diploma or GED, and one had not finished high school. Of
respondents, two were African Americans and the rest were non-Hispanic Whites.

Volunteer Organization and Training

Respondents indicated that volunteer coordination and organization occurs by assignment to a
particular position. Training for those positions occurs “on the job.” Suggestions for improving the
efficiency of volunteers included creating a better system of organizing the day that volunteers
come to the Open Door to “spread out” the workers. Also it was noted that since there is “no
consistency in who’s here from week to week” a routinized system would help in the assignments.
Rating of Services
Volunteers and staff rated services quite high overall (See Fig.3 below). The lowest average rating
was a 4.0 out of five for eye glasses. The highest rated service was hair cutting with 4.7 out of five.
No services were felt to be redundant. One respondent indicated that they felt clothing was
underutilized and several respondents indicated need for more medical services. The Open Door
environment was rated best by respondents on friendliness and worst on safety. Several
respondents indicated that the best thing about volunteering was the “satisfaction in helping to fill a
need.” The most common improvement mentioned was the “attitude of a couple of workers.” The
respondents rated themselves as good to very good in all areas. Most improvement, according to
the self-assessment scores, could be made in the area of compassion and knowledge.
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Services
Recovery
Transportation
Lunch
Career Closet
Enterprises/
Women’s
Other Service
Medical
Services
Shower
Assistance
Clothing
Hair Cut
Management
Eye Glasses
Church
Assistance
Group
Housing
Group
Micro
Case
Figure 3 - Volunteer/ Staff Rating of Services

4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
safe friendly warm social clean
Figure 4 - Rating of the Open Door
4.36
4.34
4.32
4.3
4.28
4.26
4.24
4.22
4.2
4.18
4.16
ss
s
n
s
ss
dg
es
io
es
ne
ne
ss
ln
lin
le
l
lite
fu
pa
tfu
ow
nd
lp
m
Po
ec
Kn
ie
He
Co
Fr
sp
Re
Figure 5 - Rating of the Staff/Volunteers

Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the data collected over the evaluation period, a number of conclusions and
recommendations may be made. For many years, the Open Door has done an outstanding job
serving a large number of individuals with extremely limited resources. It provides an impressive
list of services every Thursday throughout the year. The clients it serves rate the services highly
and rely on the fact that the Open Door has always been there to provide these services. As one
client noted, “This church, they feed me, they clothe me and help me with transportation. I can’t say
nothing bad about this church.” Yet, there are several areas for improvement that have been
identified by this evaluation. These fall into the categories of volunteer coordination and training,
security and safety, information and referral, and case management.
Volunteer Coordination and Training

With anywhere from 30 to 50 volunteers on a given Thursday and over 400 volunteers in a year,
the Open Door obviously does a commendable job of recruiting assistance for its weekly program.
However, improvement to the coordination and training of volunteers could be made as some
volunteers noted that training was often “on the job,” and there was often a lack of clarity of their
roles and responsibilities. The most obvious solution to this problem would be the creation of a
volunteer coordinator position. This position could either be staffed by a part-time paid person (thus
affording more authority to the leadership role) or by an experienced and regular volunteer.
In addition to coordinating the assignment of volunteers to jobs each week, the primary
role of this individual would be to create a job description and list of responsibilities for each station
or job. Especially important would be the assignment of the screening or gate keeping positions. It
was noted in observations, interviews, and surveys that these key individuals exercise great power
in determining who will be served. The rotation of these positions or the requirement of additional
training in triage care are recommended.
The volunteer coordinator would also be responsible for training new volunteers and
conducting ongoing workshops for regular volunteers. As several volunteers from the focus groups
identified concerns about cultural awareness, a cultural awareness training would be
recommended among these workshops. From our observations, it is clear that there are distinct
class and race differences between the volunteers and the client population. Further, the

attitude/politeness and respectfulness of the staff and volunteers were not rated as highly as other
characteristics. Cultural awareness concerns could be addressed by in-service training on cultural
differences and cross-cultural understanding.
Security and Safety

Security concerns were noted in surveys with volunteers and clients as well as in observations of
the operations of the program. While no direct threats were noticed, the potential for violence must
be recognized. It is recommended that a clear plan be established for all safety/security
contingencies including: severe injuries (perhaps from falling down the stairs), fire, fights, weapons,
etc. Staff and volunteers should have a clear understanding of what to do in each of these cases. A
fire and security assessment would be recommended in addition to regular staff/ volunteer trainings
on the matter.
Information and Referral

Most clients arrive at the Open Door as a result of its good reputation for providing hearty meals.
This word-of-mouth referral system has worked well for its lunch, shower, and clothing services.
However, many clients were unaware of the other services that the Open Door offers. Better
signage, information sheets, and volunteers who walk the floor and help connect clients with
services are all possible ways to raise awareness of these resources. In addition, the Open Door is
in a good position to help refer clients to other downtown resources. A large map of
homeless/social service providers in the central Detroit area could be generated at low cost and
hung on the wall. Photocopies of the map could be placed in a resource kiosk with materials from
other agencies.
Case Management
Another recommendation is to increase the volume of case management services. This suggestion
is reinforced by the qualitative date (focus groups and interview). Case-management was one of
the highest rated services by the clients after food, clothing and haircut. An increase in case-
management service would allow the Open Door to move beyond emergency services and
address a vital service need. Additionally, the use of case-management services builds on the
strengths of the core staff that have developed a strong rapport with the clients. Moreover, these

services would clearly help to meet the mission of the Open Door by providing “comfort, care for
and encouragement for the homeless of Detroit.”

Open Door Evaluation June 2005 Report
Appendix A: Client Survey Results and Item Analysis






Item Analysis: Q1_Referral
Label Value Frequency Percent Valid

Percent
Friend 1 107 78.10 81.68
Family 2 2 1.46 1.53
Agency 3 11 8.03 8.40
Fort Street Church 4 5 3.65 3.82
Member
Other Church 5 1 0.73 0.76
Member
Other 6 5 3.65 3.82
Total Valid 131 95.62 100.00
Total Missing 999 6 4.38
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q3_housing

Percent
Home Owner 1 4 2.92 3.15
Home Renter 2 8 5.84 6.30
Apartment Renter 3 28 20.44 22.05
Emergency Shelter 4 46 33.58 36.22
Transitional Living 5 9 6.57 7.09
Half-way House 6 1 0.73 0.79
Domestic Violence 7 1 0.73 0.79
Shelter
Family and friends 8 20 14.60 15.75
Nursing Home 9 0 0.00 0.00
Abandoned Buildings 10 9 6.57 7.09
Vehicle 11 1 0.73 0.79
Outside 12 10 7.30 7.87
Other 13 4 2.92 3.15
Total Valid 127 92.70 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q5_Transport

Percent
Walk 1 87 63.50 67.97
Car 2 2 1.46 1.56
Taxi 3 2 1.46 1.56
Bus 4 35 25.55 27.34
Bicycle 5 1 0.73 0.78
Van from another 6 0 0.00 0.00
service
Other 7 1 0.73 0.78
Total Valid 128 93.43 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q7_Lunch

Percent
Yes 1 87 63.50 94.57
No 0 5 3.65 5.43
Total Valid 92 67.15 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q8_Hair

Percent
Yes 1 36 26.28 48.65
No 0 38 27.74 51.35
Total Valid 74 54.01 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q9_Shower

Percent
Yes 1 44 32.12 60.27
No 0 29 21.17 39.73
Total Valid 73 53.28 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q10_Clothing

Percent
Yes 1 67 48.91 78.82
No 0 18 13.14 21.18
Total Valid 85 62.04 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q11_Medical

Percent
Yes 1 22 16.06 32.84
No 0 45 32.85 67.16
Total Valid 67 48.91 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q12_Case

Percent
Yes 1 11 8.03 17.74
No 0 51 37.23 82.26
Total Valid 62 45.26 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q13_recovery

Percent
Yes 1 7 5.11 11.29
No 0 55 40.15 88.71
Total Valid 62 45.26 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q14_Women

Percent
Yes 1 9 6.57 14.75
No 0 52 37.96 85.25
Total Valid 61 44.53 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q15_Career

Percent
Yes 1 10 7.30 16.67
No 0 50 36.50 83.33
Total Valid 60 43.80 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q16_Housing

Percent
Yes 1 12 8.76 20.00
No 0 48 35.04 80.00
Total Valid 60 43.80 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q17_Transportation
Percent
Yes 1 14 10.22 22.58
No 0 48 35.04 77.42
Total Valid 62 45.26 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q18_glasses

Percent
Yes 1 18 13.14 28.13
No 0 46 33.58 71.88
Total Valid 64 46.72 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q19_Mircoenterprise

Percent
Yes 1 2 1.46 3.51
No 0 55 40.15 96.49
Total Valid 57 41.61 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q20_Church

Percent
Yes 1 15 10.95 25.00
No 0 45 32.85 75.00
Total Valid 60 43.80 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q21_Other
Percent
Yes 1 7 5.11 13.73
No 0 44 32.12 86.27
Total Valid 51 37.23 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q07_LunchRating

Percent
Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00
Poor 2 1 0.73 1.10
Acceptable 3 8 5.84 8.79
Good 4 37 27.01 40.66
Very Good 5 45 32.85 49.45
Total Valid 91 66.42 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q08_HairRating

Percent
Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00
Poor 2 3 2.19 6.38
Good 4 18 13.14 38.30
Very Good 5 20 14.60 42.55
Total Valid 47 34.31 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q09_ShowerRating

Percent
Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00
Poor 2 0 0.00 0.00
Good 4 18 13.14 34.62
Very Good 5 28 20.44 53.85
Total Valid 52 37.96 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q10_ClothingRating

Percent
Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00
Poor 2 2 1.46 3.08
Good 4 28 20.44 43.08
Very Good 5 26 18.98 40.00
Total Valid 65 47.45 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q11_MedicalRating

Percent
Very Poor 1 1 0.73 3.33
Poor 2 0 0.00 0.00
Good 4 12 8.76 40.00
Very Good 5 14 10.22 46.67
Total Valid 30 21.90 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q12_CaseRating

Percent
Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00
Poor 2 1 0.73 4.55
Good 4 11 8.03 50.00
Very Good 5 8 5.84 36.36
Total Valid 22 16.06 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q13_RecoveryRating

Percent
Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00
Poor 2 0 0.00 0.00
Good 4 10 7.30 55.56
Very Good 5 8 5.84 44.44
Total Valid 18 13.14 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q14_WomenRating

Percent
Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00
Poor 2 0 0.00 0.00
Good 4 11 8.03 57.89
Very Good 5 5 3.65 26.32
Total Valid 19 13.87 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q15_CareerRating

Percent
Very Poor 1 1 0.73 5.00
Poor 2 0 0.00 0.00
Good 4 9 6.57 45.00
Very Good 5 8 5.84 40.00
Total Valid 20 14.60 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q16_HouseRating

Percent
Very Poor 1 1 0.73 4.17
Poor 2 1 0.73 4.17
Good 4 10 7.30 41.67
Very Good 5 9 6.57 37.50
Total Valid 24 17.52 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q17_TransportRating

Percent
Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00
Poor 2 2 1.46 8.33
Good 4 12 8.76 50.00
Very Good 5 8 5.84 33.33
Total Valid 24 17.52 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q18_EyeRating
Percent
Very Poor 1 1 0.73 4.55
Poor 2 3 2.19 13.64
Good 4 8 5.84 36.36
Very Good 5 8 5.84 36.36
Total Valid 22 16.06 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q19_MicroRating

Percent
Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00
Poor 2 0 0.00 0.00
Good 4 7 5.11 53.85
Very Good 5 6 4.38 46.15
Total Valid 13 9.49 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q20_ChurchRating

Percent
Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00
Poor 2 0 0.00 0.00
Good 4 11 8.03 52.38
Very Good 5 8 5.84 38.10
Total Valid 21 15.33 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q21_OtherRating

Percent
Very Poor 1 0 0.00 0.00
Poor 2 0 0.00 0.00
Good 4 9 6.57 56.25
Very Good 5 7 5.11 43.75
Total Valid 16 11.68 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q22_srvcimpact

Percent
Lunch 1 96 70.07 86.49
Hair 2 19 13.87 17.12
Shower 3 32 23.36 28.83
Clothing 4 68 49.64 61.26
Medical 5 15 10.95 13.51
Case Management 6 2 1.46 1.80
Recovery Group 7 5 3.65 4.50
Women's Group 8 2 1.46 1.80
Career Closet 9 2 1.46 1.80
Housing 10 8 5.84 7.21
Transportation 11 10 7.30 9.01
Eye Glasses 12 10 7.30 9.01
Micro Enterprise 13 0 0.00 0.00
Church Services 14 8 5.84 7.21
Other 15 2 1.46 1.80
Total Valid 111 81.02 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q23a_Friendliness

Percent
Very Poor 1 1 0.73 0.93
Poor 2 2 1.46 1.87
Acceptable 3 23 16.79 21.50
Good 4 28 20.44 26.17
Very Good 5 53 38.69 49.53
Total Valid 107 78.10 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q23b_Helpfulness

Percent
Very Poor 1 1 0.73 1.01
Poor 2 1 0.73 1.01
Acceptable 3 19 13.87 19.19
Good 4 29 21.17 29.29
Very Good 5 49 35.77 49.49
Total Valid 99 72.26 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q23c_Politeness

Percent
Very Poor 1 2 1.46 2.15
Poor 2 3 2.19 3.23
Acceptable 3 18 13.14 19.35
Good 4 29 21.17 31.18
Very Good 5 41 29.93 44.09
Total Valid 93 67.88 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q23d_Compassion

Percent
Very Poor 1 3 2.19 3.37
Poor 2 1 0.73 1.12
Acceptable 3 19 13.87 21.35
Good 4 24 17.52 26.97
Very Good 5 42 30.66 47.19
Total Valid 89 64.96 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q23e_Knowledge

Percent
Very Poor 1 3 2.19 3.37
Poor 2 0 0.00 0.00
Acceptable 3 20 14.60 22.47
Good 4 27 19.71 30.34
Very Good 5 39 28.47 43.82
Total Valid 89 64.96 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q23f_Respoectfulness

Percent
Very Poor 1 5 3.65 5.56
Poor 2 1 0.73 1.11
Acceptable 3 17 12.41 18.89
Good 4 28 20.44 31.11
Very Good 5 39 28.47 43.33
Total Valid 90 65.69 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q27_safe

Percent
Strongly Disagree 1 11 8.03 10.19
Disagree 2 8 5.84 7.41
Neutral 3 18 13.14 16.67
Agree 4 44 32.12 40.74
Strongly Agree 5 27 19.71 25.00
Total Valid 108 78.83 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q28_friendly

Percent
Disagree 2 8 5.84 7.48
Neutral 3 12 8.76 11.21
Agree 4 51 37.23 47.66
Total Valid 107 78.10 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q29_warm

Percent
Disagree 2 3 2.19 2.88
Neutral 3 11 8.03 10.58
Agree 4 50 36.50 48.08
Total Valid 104 75.91 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q30_social

Percent
Disagree 2 8 5.84 7.77
Neutral 3 17 12.41 16.50
Agree 4 43 31.39 41.75
Total Valid 103 75.18 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q31_clean

Percent
Disagree 2 3 2.19 2.91
Neutral 3 14 10.22 13.59
Agree 4 42 30.66 40.78
Total Valid 103 75.18 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q33_overall

Percent
Very Poor 1 2 1.46 1.79
Poor 2 0 0.00 0.00
Acceptable 3 24 17.52 21.43
Good 4 33 24.09 29.46
Very Good 5 53 38.69 47.32
Total Valid 112 81.75 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q34_Sex

Percent
Male 1 76 55.47 69.72
Female 2 33 24.09 30.28
Total Valid 109 79.56 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q36_education

Percent
less than HS 1 23 16.79 20.18
HS or GED 2 58 42.34 50.88
Some College 3 20 14.60 17.54
Associates 4 5 3.65 4.39
Bachelors 5 7 5.11 6.14
Masters 6 0 0.00 0.00
PHD 7 1 0.73 0.88
Other Term degree 8 0 0.00 0.00
Other Degree 9 0 0.00 0.00
Total Valid 114 83.21 100.00
Total 137 100.00
Item Analysis: Q37_ethnicity

Percent
African American 1 98 71.53 89.09
Non-Hispanic White 2 7 5.11 6.36
Arab American 3 0 0.00 0.00
Asian Pacific Isl 4 0 0.00 0.00
Hispanic 5 2 1.46 1.82
Native American 6 3 2.19 2.73
Other 7 4 2.92 3.64
Total Valid 110 80.29 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Item Analysis: Q38_Income Source

Percent
SSI/SSD 1 38 27.74 34.23
TANF 2 1 0.73 0.90
Vets 3 6 4.38 5.41
Food Stamps 4 21 15.33 18.92
Temporary 5 10 7.30 9.01
PT 6 8 5.84 7.21
FT 7 4 2.92 3.60
Day Labor 8 21 15.33 18.92
Panhandling 9 8 5.84 7.21
Family Support 10 4 2.92 3.60
Other Gov Assistance 11 3 2.19 2.70
Other Non-Gov 12 1 0.73 0.90
Other 13 0 0.00 0.00
No Income 14 15 10.95 13.51
Total Valid 111 81.02 100.00
Total 137 100.00

Appendix B: Survey Instruments







Appendix C: Scripts for Focus Groups
Thursday, December 9, 2004

Moderator: __________________________
Recorder: ___________________________
Focus group: Volunteers
Introductions:
1. [round robin, first names only, ground rules, consent to tape, and introductions] Tell us
how long you’ve been a volunteer, how often you volunteer, and a little bit about how
you became a volunteer at the Open Door?
2. [round robin] Describe your role at the Open Door.
Services:
3. In general, what services does the Open Door offer its clients?
4. In your opinion, how well does it provide these services?
5. In your opinion, what areas need improvement in terms of services for the clients?
6. What services do you feel are redundant or unnecessary?
7. Are there any services that you feel are underutilized?
8. Other any services that you feel are over utilized or in need of expansion?
9. Other than funding, what is needed to improve existing services?
10. Other any services that you feel should be added to better meet the needs of the
clients?
Volunteering:
11. Tell me about your experiences volunteering at the open door.
12. Who organizes the volunteers?
13. How are the volunteers trained?
14. Who is responsible for this training?
15. In your opinion, what could be done to improve the organization of volunteers?
16. In your opinion, what could be done it and to improve the training of volunteers?
Clients:
17. Tell me about that people you serve. Describe the range of individuals as well as the
typical individual.
18. Are these individuals typically from the local neighborhoods or are they from other
parts of town? Do they come in from the suburbs as well?
19. What are the day to day problems that these people encounter?
20. Other than the Open Door, what other services are provided in this area?
21. Tell me how the timeline for a typical Thursday would be for the client?

o When the clients first come in who do they see and what do they do?
o Then what happens? [ continue as needed]
22. What happens at the end of the day after everyone has left?
23. How do the services offered on Thursdays overlap with case management, recovery
groups, referral efforts, and other services throughout the week?
o Follow-up –are the clients served during the week any different from those on
Thursdays?
o Do clients served only on Thursdays know about other services offered
throughout the week?
Conclusions:
24. Are there any other things in respect to volunteering, coordination and training of
volunteers, clients, or services that you feel that been left out of this discussion?
[probe as needed]
Focus group: Service Clients
Introductions:
1. [round robin, first names only, ground rules, consent to tape, and introductions]
o Tell us how long you’ve been coming to the Open Door?
o How often do you come?
o A little bit about how you became homeless…
o How did you learn about services at the Open Door?
Services:
2. In general, what services does the Open Door offer its clients?
3. In your opinion, how well does it provide these services?
4. In your opinion, what areas need improvement in terms of services for the clients?
5. What services do you feel are redundant or unnecessary?
6. Are there any services that you feel are underutilized?
7. Other any services that you feel are over utilized or in need of expansion?
8. Other than funding, what is needed to improve existing services?
9. Other any services that you feel should be added to better meet the needs of the
clients?
Clients:
10. Tell me about the other people who come here. Describe the range of individuals as
well as the typical individual.
11. Are these individuals typically from the local neighborhoods or are they from other
parts of town? Do they come in from the suburbs as well?
12. What are the day to day problems that these people encounter?
13. Other than the Open Door, what other services are provided in this area?
14. Tell me how the timeline for a typical Thursday would be for the client?
o When the clients first come in who do they see and what do they do?

o Then what happens? [ continue as needed]

15. What happens at the end of the day after everyone has left?
16. How do the services offered on Thursdays overlap with case management, recovery
groups, referral efforts, and other services throughout the week?
o Follow-up –are the clients served during the week any different from those on
Thursdays?
o Do clients served only on Thursdays know about other services offered
throughout the week?

Open Door Evaluaiton Report FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Open Door Evaluaiton Report FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OPEN DOOR EVALUATION REPORT

Prepared for the Open Door at Fort Street Presbyterian Church

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS v

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS vi

Tables, Figures, and Maps

Table 1 - Total Crimes in 2004 ........................................................................................................12

Figure 1: Land Use in the Open Door Service Area ........................................................................10

Map 1 - The Open Door Service Area.............................................................................................. 9

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS vii

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 8

Demographic Profile of the Downtown Detroit Area

Map 1 - The Open Door Service Area

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 9

Figure 1: Land Use in the Open Door Service Area

3 Note that this was during a time of relative economic prosperity

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 10

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 11

Table 1 - Total Crimes in 2004

CRIME RATES IN 2004 (CRIMES PER 100,000 PERSONS)

Estimated population in 2004 79,615 927,766 2,045,473 9,990,817 84,496,887

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 12

Focus Groups and Interviews

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 13

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 15

Findings from Focus Groups and Interviews

What has been helpful

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 16

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 17

The importance of having someone to talk with is further reinforced by a response of a

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 18

What you could use

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 19

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 20

Impression of the staff & volunteers

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 21

Knowledge about the Open Door for Clients

Awareness of various programs

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 22

Yeah I was getting transportations when he told me.

Knowledge about the Open Door for Volunteers

How referred for volunteer

Awareness task and roles of volunteers.

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 23

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 24

The eat first rule an issue

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 25

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 26

Findings from Survey Data

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 27

Ratings of Staff and Volunteers

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 28

Figure 2 - Average Ratings of Services and Percentage Reporting Using Services

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 29

Volunteer Organization and Training

Figure 3 - Volunteer/ Staff Rating of Services

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 30

Figure 4 - Rating of the Open Door

Figure 5 - Rating of the Staff/Volunteers

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 31

Conclusions and Recommendations

Volunteer Coordination and Training

DR. BART MILES/ DR. STEPHEN SILLS - EVALUATORS 32

Security and Safety