Twin Cities Regional

Kitchen Table

Tuesday, October 14th, 2025

Welcome Members & Guests!!

Please take the survey if you haven’t already!

We compensate lived-experience community members attending the TC-RKT. If you would like to receive a gift card email us at admin@shipcollab.org or let one of us know at the sign in table!

2

Introductions

&

Icebreaker

What does your perfect burger or sandwich have in it?

Name

Pronouns

Agency you are from

Response to the Icebreaker question

3

Space Agreements

• Be as present as possible.

​

• Hold each other accountable to showing up - Be here.

​

• Be candid and vulnerable in sharing ideas, concerns and guidance.

​

• Be in “let’s figure this out together” mode - no one has all the answers!

​

• If we need more time, we need more time.

​

• Normalize asking questions & seeking clarity together.

​

• Name bureaucratic challenges and commit to solving them.

​

• Any others?

4

Purpose and Outcomes

Purpose – Why are we meeting today?

• To gain the TC-RKT’s adoption of a platform for regionalizing the metro’s homelessness prevention system.

​

Outcomes – What do we hope to accomplish today?

• Build a shared understanding of the results of the survey.
• Introduce and gather feedback on the platform.

5

Process

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Recap of the world cafe and outcomes
3. Platform review and feedback
4. Survey data review
5. Platform adoption discussion
6. Closing

​

6

TC-RKT Mission Statement

The Twin Cities Regional Kitchen Table centers lived experience to lead system change toward homelessness prevention in the Twin Cities.

​

The table brings together housing system partners across the seven-county metropolitan area to co-create transformative strategies through shared power, relationship-building, and regional alignment.

Together, we work to advance housing justice and racial equity through coordinated, region-wide approaches to upstream homelessness prevention.

7

Prevention Definition

Keeping people from experiencing housing instability by being proactive, engaging all sectors to collaborate with one another and transforming systems to think of homelessness as a community issue.

8

TC-RKT Priorities

1. Service dollars tied to individuals rather than counties.
2. Think less in crisis and focus more on upstream prevention.
3. Coordinate alignment on regional prevention strategies.

​

Purpose and application:

• Serve as guiding values or principles rather then “end points”.
• Use these as we imagine a transformed regional prevention system today.

9

World Cafe Recap

10

How did we get here?

• Used this facilitation method to imagine what a new Twin Cities regional prevention system might look like.
• Small groups developed ideas across the following system components:
• Access - entry points and accessibility
• Eligibility - target populations
• Governance - management structure
• Services - service models
• SHiP completed grouping ideas and describing themes across them.

11

Access Component Prompts

• How do people access the system?
• What does it mean to make it accessible?
• What should that experience look like?
• How is it different from what we have today?

12

Access

• How do people access the system?
• What does it mean to make it accessible?
• What should that experience look like?
• How is it different from what we have today?

13

Consistent access that looks the same across the Twin Cities.

Easy to read and understand.

Shouldn't be exhausting to access the system

Cannot weaponize access points to harm people.

Cannot weaponize info to harm people.

Consistent access at all locations

Kiosk to support access where people frequent

Consistent looking access across the Twin Cities.

Accessible online and in-person

Available in any language

Accommodates different disabilities

Via Telephone, and Text

Meeting people where their at

Inviting, and Comfortable Space

Where people are living not just existing

Abundance Perspective; Not Deficit

Immediate Access, and Immediate Answer

?Internal? Encampment Engagement

Expedited Determination Response

Humanity Warmth Kindness Understanding

Other Resources Such As Flyers

Less Run Around

Remove Current Administration

Difference Of Now Compliance, and Scarcity

More Safe Spaces For All Cultures

Workers Going Out Into The Community

Convenience

Less Documentation

Tangible Tools for Workers

For Workers Using The Latest Technology

Connect with Community Partners to Deliver Services

Personal Connections Client Lead Options Access Points

Defined By The Lived Experience Client

Broad Menu Options for Clients Choice

Not A Wrong Door

More Complete Assessments

Via Telephone, and Text

System for Access that’s Centralized, Inclusive, & Equitable

Access Services Multiple Ways Language & Equitable

Zero Silos

Approachable

Trust / ?Closing That Communications? / Run Around

Non-Traumatizing

Follow-Up, and Follow Through

Various States of System Programs

Not Telling, and Re-Telling Your Situation

Not Applying Multiple Times, and Places

Applying Multiple Times Then Not Recieve Help

Short-Staffed Therefore, Follow-Up Follow-Through Doesn’t Happen

Access

• How do people access the system?
• What does it mean to make it accessible?
• What should that experience look like?
• How is it different from what we have today?

14

Remove Current Administration (4)

Difference Of Now Compliance, and Scarcity (3&4)

Workers Going Out Into The Community (3)

Tangible Tools for Workers (4)

For Workers Using The Latest Technology (3&4)

More Complete Assessments (3&4)

Zero Silos (4)

Follow-Up, and Follow Through (3)

Short-Staffed Therefore, Follow-Up Follow-Through Doesn’t Happen (4)

Personal Connections with case manager

?Internal? Encampment Engagement

Shouldn't be exhausting to access the system (3)

Less Run Around (4)

Trust / ?Closing That Communications? / Run Around

Non-Traumatizing

Not Telling, and Re-Telling Your Situation (3 & 4)

Not Applying Multiple Times, and Places

(3 and/or 4)

Applying Multiple Times Then Not Receive Help (4)

More Complete Assessments (3&4)

Less Documentation (1/4)

Expedited Determination Response

(3 & 4)

Immediate Determination Response

(3 & 4)

Immediate Access, and Immediate Answer (3)

Convenience

(1-4)

Similar programs across state boundaries

Programs adapt to people’s changing needs

Programs are equipped to meet peoples’ needs

Abundance Perspective; Not Deficit (3)

System for Access that’s Centralized, Inclusive, & Equitable (1)

Consistent access at all locations (2)

Consistent looking access across the Twin Cities (2)

More Safe Spaces For All Cultures (¾)

Inviting, and Comfortable Space (3)

Humanity Warmth Kindness Understanding (3)

Approachable (3)

Cannot weaponize info to harm people (3)

Cannot weaponize access points to harm people (3)

Meeting people where their at (¾)

Defined By The Lived Experience Client

(3&4)

Broad Menu Options for Clients Choice (2-4

Client Lead Options

Access Services Multiple Ways Language & Equitable

Kiosk to support access where people frequent (2)

Via Telephone, and Text (2)

Accessible online and in-person (2)

Available in any language (2)

Easy to read and understand (2)

Other Resources Such As Flyers (3)

Broad Menu Options for Clients Choice (2-4

Accommodates different disabilities (2)

Connect with Community Partners to Deliver Services (3)

Not A Wrong Door (2)

Access

• Ensure service delivery capacity is collaborative, supportive, effective, and efficient.
• Make access to services convenient for the client.
• Access points move with and defined by lived-experience populations.
• Create safe and welcoming access points that guarantee no harm.
• Consistent access across the Twin Cities.

15

Eligibility Component Prompts

• How do people access the system?
• What does it mean to make it accessible?
• What should that experience look like?
• How is it different from what we have today?

16

Eligibility

• Decrease eligibility requirements and administrative burden.
• Unify requirements and screening processes across the metro.
• Humanize eligibility decisions and interactions.
• Find ways to help everyone, especially those who want help.
• Create opportunities for information sharing rather than relying on clients for documentation service.

17

Governance Component Prompts

• What structure should be responsible for designing/ implementing/ maintaining the prevention system?
• Who should be involved in decision making for the system?
• How will we stay accountable to our priorities and values?
• How is this different from what we do today?

18

Governance

• Ensure power is balanced across system leaders and lived-experience.
• Allow lived-experience reps to be elected by lived-experience community.
• Go into programs to host conversations with lived-experience and keep them informed.
• Establish layers of accountability across the system
• Fully autonomous and responsible for all levels of decision making
• Include all localities in representation.

19

Services Component Prompts

• What services should be included in this system?
• What techniques, methods, and approaches should be used across the service models?
• How is this different from what we do today?

20

Services

• Ensure system models, approaches and language dynamically matches the changing expectations of the local community.
• Meet families where they are, support them with what they have, move them from surviving to living.
• Participant eligibility should not be used to punish, deny, or hinder access to programs.

21

Feedback from you on SHiP’s grouping/naming

• Questions of clarity you have on the process or product?
• Is there anything you saw or heard that was unexpected or caught you off guard?
• Are there ideas that were contributed that seem missing?
• Are there any thoughts expressed that make you uneasy or concerned?
• Are you comfortable enough with this analysis to move forward to the platform and survey as a group?

22

Review Platform

23

What we want to achieve here

• We want to make sure you think the platform aligns with what came out of the world cafe.
• This platform was developed from the world cafe data we just reviewed and added to our website.
• We combined this data with research from the Blueprint for Regionalization and organized it into a easy to read format.
• We also conducted additional research to corroborate your ideas and developed a one pager summarizing everything.

24

Issues you prioritized

1. Counties are in competition for prevention dollars.
• Counties compete for limited homeless prevention funding which leads to inequitable distribution of resources and uneven community support.
2. County boundaries create access barriers.
• Services are often county bound, making it difficult to transfer benefits when people move, and creating inconsistent access points and processes across the metro.
3. Lived experience does not have an authentic power.
• Lived experience involvement in county decision making is often minoritized, tokenized, and constrained by funding mandate focused agendas.

25

Solutions you imagined

• Build a regional prevention system to serve the metro.
• One system serving all seven counties eliminates competition, getting more resources to people in need across all metro counties.
• Establish regional resources everyone has access to.
• A regional prevention system can ensure access points and access processes, and access to services are consistent across the metro.
• Create governance that ensures equitable representation.
• New regional governance involves government, nonprofit, private, philanthropy, and LE, while allowing LE to vote for their own reps.

26

Other platform components

• We researched regionalization models around the country and included evaluated benefits.
• All Home California
• Built for Zero
• We also developed some important ideas around the collective action process.
• Coalition building across lived experience groups.
• Connecting with elected officials and those running for office in November.

27

So, do you think this all aligns?

We’ll spend more time digging into this over our last hour, but we want to know if we are on the right track.

​

• Is there anything you saw or heard that was unexpected or caught you off guard?
• Are there extremely important ideas from the world cafe that are missing in the platform?
• Is there anything you feel we misunderstood from the world cafe data re just reviewed?
• What items seem to resonate with you most?

28

BREAK

29

Survey Responses and Analysis

30

Stakeholder Interest Surveys:

31

• Collects perspectives on the regional platform.
• “How important/feasible is ______ to preventing homelessness in the Twin Cities?”

​

• Maps show where stakeholder groups agree and disagree on importance and feasibility.

​

• Surveys intended to be shared with every forum participant across the Twin Cities system.

​

• Displaying results hypothesized to encourage collective action.

32

33

*97% of respondents indicated high importance

Prime Opportunities: Likely already happening or should start now

​

Strategic Challenges: Need to address barriers

​

Casual Gains: Supports mission momentum

​

Nonstarters: Difficult to justify

n=37

34

*92% of respondents indicated high importance

n=37

35

*91% of respondents indicated high importance

n=37

36

*91% of respondents indicated high importance

n=37

Biggest challenges to building a regional Twin Cities prevention system:

37

What are your takeaways?

• Did you see the world cafe and platform reflected in the survey?
• Expanding 211 across the metro may be an opportunity to pilot regional service. In what ways can this data support this progress?
• What can we do to make sure your departments, teams, and convenings participate in this round of the survey?
• What other analysis would be useful for us in advocating for regionalization with key stakeholders?

38

Platform Adoption

39

Here’s what we want to get out of this activity…

• We want this platform to be adopted by the TC-RKT members (all of you)!
• We need to make sure:
• everyone understands the full extent of the platform.
• we identify anything else you need to establish this as the shared mission for our space.
• we start to clarify what other partners might need to commit to this system change.

40

Activity Design

• Break into four groups to review the sections of the platform:
• The Issues
• The Solutions
• The Benefits
• The Process
• Take 15 minutes to discuss the section and identify what, if anything, would need to change for you to commit to the vision.
• Present a 5 minute summary of the section and your edits to the large group.

41

The Issues

• MN Housing uses a formula. There is some level of competition when it comes to funding, but not much. It’s according to the need. Competition isn’t necessarily the issue.

(this isn’t the starting place, finding a starting place that works for all the people at the table including LE.. Inconsistencies is more of an issue. (Race, ethnicity, school free lunch is now included in the funding formula)

• For a moment, there was more money than counties ever had but it did cause some havoc.
• MN Housing doesn’t designate prevention funding, the counties do. The counties can change trajectory during funding period, it has flexibility.
• If we want to turn this train upside down, we have to start now.
• Ramsey uses needs assessments and their advisories to assist in setting priorities when talking about FHPAP. (We still will need to come up with an equitable distribution. Maybe speaking across programs and lived experience.
• Conversations in the past to applying for funding like FHPAP as a combined body.
• The big piece that gets brought up all the time is the county boards and getting them on board.
• The FHPAP hurdle, we could have a collaborative applicant approach.
• Starting with something like the phone system - 211 - United Way.
• There is a lot of energy and appetite in the area of INCONSISTENCIES. (Would the counties
• October 29th there is a MN Housing Meeting, champions

42

The Solutions

• ​

43

The Benefits

• ​

44

The Process

• ​

45

Closing

We compensate lived-experience community members attending the TC-RKT. If you would like to receive a gift card email us at admin@shipcollab.org or let one of us know at the sign-in table!

46

Appendix

47

Access

• How do people access the system?
• What does it mean to make it accessible?
• What should that experience look like?
• How is it different from what we have today?

48

Remove Current Administration (4)

Difference Of Now Compliance, and Scarcity (3&4)

Workers Going Out Into The Community (3)

Tangible Tools for Workers (4)

For Workers Using The Latest Technology (3&4)

More Complete Assessments (3&4)

Zero Silos (4)

Follow-Up, and Follow Through (3)

Short-Staffed Therefore, Follow-Up Follow-Through Doesn’t Happen (4)

Personal Connections with case manager

?Internal? Encampment Engagement

Shouldn't be exhausting to access the system (3)

Less Run Around (4)

Trust / ?Closing That Communications? / Run Around

Non-Traumatizing

Not Telling, and Re-Telling Your Situation (3 & 4)

Not Applying Multiple Times, and Places

(3 and/or 4)

Applying Multiple Times Then Not Receive Help (4)

More Complete Assessments (3&4)

Less Documentation (1/4)

Expedited Determination Response

(3 & 4)

Immediate Determination Response

(3 & 4)

Immediate Access, and Immediate Answer (3)

Convenience

(1-4)

Similar programs across state boundaries

Programs adapt to people’s changing needs

Programs are equipped to meet peoples’ needs

Abundance Perspective; Not Deficit (3)

System for Access that’s Centralized, Inclusive, & Equitable (1)

Consistent access at all locations (2)

Consistent looking access across the Twin Cities (2)

More Safe Spaces For All Cultures (¾)

Inviting, and Comfortable Space (3)

Humanity Warmth Kindness Understanding (3)

Approachable (3)

Cannot weaponize info to harm people (3)

Cannot weaponize access points to harm people (3)

Meeting people where their at (¾)

Defined By The Lived Experience Client

(3&4)

Broad Menu Options for Clients Choice (2-4

Client Lead Options

Access Services Multiple Ways Language & Equitable

Kiosk to support access where people frequent (2)

Via Telephone, and Text (2)

Accessible online and in-person (2)

Available in any language (2)

Easy to read and understand (2)

Other Resources Such As Flyers (3)

Broad Menu Options for Clients Choice (2-4

Accommodates different disabilities (2)

Connect with Community Partners to Deliver Services (3)

Not A Wrong Door (2)

Eligibility

49

• Who should receive services and who should not?
• Are there certain populations that should be targeted?
• How should we expect people to verify their eligibility?
• How is this different from what we do today?

A broad definition of Emergency type

Services should not be income based

Connecting with person while verifying

Screening people in not out

Providers providing paperwork in a timely manner

Standard prescreening tool for eligibility/services

Ensure interface for eligibility and services.

System shares documentation rather than burdening people

Response time to eligibility determination

Building a moldable foundation

Decreasing verification difficulties.

No time limits for eligibility

System alignment

Implement federal work requirements with least harm.

A broad definition of Emergency type

No affordability tests.

The goal is to help people who need help.

Help those who need and want help.

Target those in court facing eviction.

Focus on those who are already housed.

Serves everyone- especially with high needs.

Invest in people

Seniors, DV, those with disabilities

Being able to deviate to accommodate needs.

Looking at the person’s entire picture.

Extend timelines for services and avoid burdens

Broadening the scope of what’s allowable

Options to reflect individual needs.

Services continue after crisis resolution

Increasing upfront efforts

Use overlapping info to communicate among providers.

Element of trust needed from the provider.

Diversion when people become homeless

Provide flexibility for services to shift/traded.

Resources should not be racially/culturally targeted

Providers providing paperwork in a timely manner

Create the sentiment without the tragedy.

Empowerment versus the 1-time assistance.

Expand to MA, Housing Assistance, etc.

Inviting, and Comfortable Space

Where people are living not just existing

Abundance Perspective; Not Deficit

Humanity Warmth Kindness Understanding

Remove Current Administration

More Safe Spaces For All Cultures

Defined By The Lived Experience Client

Broad Menu Options for Clients Choice

Zero Silos

Follow-Up, and Follow Through

Non-Traumatizing

Approachable

Cannot weaponize info to harm people.

Cannot weaponize access points to harm people.

Not Telling, and Re-Telling Your Situation

Shouldn't be exhausting to access the system

Less Run Around

Not A Wrong Door

Trust / ?Closing That Communications? / Run Around

Governance

• What structure should be responsible for designing/ implementing/ maintaining the prevention system?
• Who should be involved in decision making for the system?
• How will we stay accountable to our priorities and values?
• How is this different from what we do today?

Reflect cooperative models

Make people accessing systems invested in them.

People who used services have leadership roles

Minnesota Housing being key partner

City partners, local planners and reps.

Legislative leaders, Co-design from regional level

Accountability comes from funders/people accessing the programs

Community feedback and data

Sharing with the public

We need more entities involved

Bringing Coc coordinators into prevention framework

City workgroups for implementation

Lead by people with lived experience.

The funders and the service providers

Advisory committees should be involved

Always dispelling misinformation

Ensuring layers of accountability

Data driven practices

There is not enough lived ex voices

Direct community involvement in decision making

Lived ex people being a part of city council

Eliminate current admin

Dismantle current systems that stifle progress

Create independent systems that create progress

Parking LOT: How do we inform and educate the public and dispel purposeful misinformation?

Get rid of the noise by keeping it local.

Values should be more prominent in conversation

Parking Lot: Have more forsight and intentional efforts before prevention dollars are allocated

Have fewer strings attached.

Accountability for recipients of the resources

Have tiered system vs. Arbitrary

Parking lot: Too much happening at state level for them to be effective

More funding for planning activities

Services

• What services should be included in this system?
• What techniques, methods, and approaches should be used across the service models?
• How is this different from what we do today?

51

Culturally specific programs

Build a comprehensive culturally responsive system

Investing in more training staff

Ensure the latest methods are adopted

Increase timeliness in accessing benefits (SOAR)

Ensure providers connect with their clients’ communities

Offer classes to support education

Linking workforce development with liveable wages

Workforce supports clients while in training

Use wrap around approaches

Give people what they want

Move at the pace of the client

Services support clients’ empowerment journey

Underscore client choices rather than system

Support client agency to identify needs/services

Provide child care services

Ensure transport to/from programs

A la carte service selection

Include all existing services (eg., rental assistance, employment, food, etc.)

People can use agency to resolve crises

Support staff relationship connections across programs

Include all existing services (eg., rental assistance, employment, food, etc.)

Offer classes to support education

Linking workforce development with liveable wages

Workforce supports clients while in training

Use wrap around approaches

Home ownership maintenance

Services not bounded by county limits

Ensure program participation doesn’t make clients ineligible

No mandated participation in secondary programs to maintain eligibility

Avoid using ineligibility as a punishment

Avoid punishment for dismissing services

Capture why clients refuse certain services

Support client agency to identify needs/services