ATTACHMENT A
WORKING GROUP REPORT
AND CONTRACT REVIEW DRAFT
May 4, 2026
Martha’s Village and Kitchen Navigation
Center Performance Assessment
Submitted by: Councilmember Grace Garner and Ron deHarte Executive Summary
To ensure the Navigation Center remains a high-impact asset for Palm Springs, Councilmembers Garner and deHarte convened a panel of local leaders on October 22, 2025, to evaluate the performance of Martha’s Village and Kitchen (MV).
Our objective was clear: to ensure that the Navigation Center (238339) is delivering on its promises to the community and meeting every benchmark established in its scope of work.
This evaluation serves as a strategic roadmap for our continued partnership with MV. To ensure high standards of service, Councilmembers Garner and deHarte request an ongoing status update on current operational gaps and the City's specific timeline for resolution.
The complete working group report is attached.
Page of 15
Methodology and Governance
To ensure a rigorous and unbiased assessment, the evaluation was conducted independently of City staff and Council influence.
Councilmembers Garner and deHarte acted strictly as facilitators, maintaining a clear separation from the evaluative process to preserve the integrity of the findings.
Evaluative Working Group
The independent working group was composed of the following subject matter experts and community leaders:
•Ginny Foat: Former Councilmember, City of Palm Springs •Tamara Hedges: Higher Education Executive and Community Leader
•Bob Smiland: Small business owner
•Bryan Rogers: Small business owner
Broad Working Group Observations
The assessment of the MV Contract Review Draft against the Navigation Center Operating Agreement reveals a program that is technically compliant but functionally constrained by an outdated legal and financial framework.
Contractual & Financial Assessment
•The committee concluded that the 2024 agreement is "obsolete as written" because it was drafted before the facilities actually opened. They found the $2.4M to $4.9M annual budget to be similarly outdated.
•There are "no apparent violations" of the current contract.
Martha's Village is successfully fulfilling its role as the operator for the Access Center, Early Entry Facility, and Navigation Center. •Performance regarding neighborhood relations is relatively high; neighbors report little disruption, crime, or trash caused by the facility. However, there continue to be requests for more neighborhood engagement and direct response from MV.
Page of 25
While the signed agreement lists specific "Programs and Services," significant gaps in their real-world application were identified.
•The agreement mandates employment services and a computer lab. The committee found the computer lab is available but has "limited" staffing support. Furthermore, the kitchen, designed as a food-service training center is not being used for that purpose. •The contract requires coordination of behavioral health and medical services. However, the committee found that MV’s partnership with Riverside University Health is "not adequate" for the high level of mental health and substance abuse needs among residents.
•Despite the requirement to keep the property in good condition, the committee found that nine housing units are currently unoccupied due to maintenance issues, including five with non- functioning AC units.
Two major external factors that the original agreement did not fully anticipate:
•Federal "Housing First" and HUD "Home Key" mandates require MV to admit individuals with monthly incomes below $1,070. This "stifles" MV’s ability to be flexible and forces them to turn away individuals who slightly exceed that threshold.
•Local hospitals often discharge patients back to the Navigation Center who require physical assistance (walking, bathing) that MV is not equipped or staffed to provide.
Working Group "Verdict" on Performance
The authors rate the MV leadership as "committed" and "passionate" but ultimately limited by a lack of "out-of-the-box thinking" from both the contractor and the City to clear these systemic hurdles. Their primary recommendation is a total contract re-write to move from a focus on "activities" to a focus on "outcomes," such as specific data on transitions to permanent housing and employment.
Page of 35
Outside of the Agreement evaluation, the Working Group provided recommendations to improve operations and oversight of the Navigation Center.
•The committee recommended evaluating current oversight levels to determine if a dedicated City staff position is needed for homeless services.
•Modify the current contract before July 1, 2026, to include precise performance metrics, a formal communications plan between the City and the contractor, and a clear understanding of funding responsibilities.
•Require Martha’s Village to provide a five-year strategic plan with specific goals, tactics, and milestones for long-term housing, the Early Entry program, and the Access Center.
•Do not extend the contract’s two-year option unless the stated year-three goals are being achieved.
Operational and Facility Improvements
•Require a formal plan to address client requests for better nutritional quality, more variety, and healthier food choices. •Establish a formal protocol or feedback loop for communication between residents and staff to resolve friction points. •Create an indoor space for residents and Early Entry clients to use for socializing, exercise, wellness activities, and games. •Implement a city-wide standardized digital survey instrument to ensure cleaner and more professional data aggregation.
•Ensure the facility provides fully accessible accommodations for residents with disabilities.
Programmatic Enhancements
•Provide daily on-site mental health and substance abuse counseling , and consider adding recuperative care services similar to those in Indio.
•Establish an employment office on-site staffed by an "employment matchmaker" to connect clients with local job openings.
Page of 45
•Partner with a culinary education provider to utilize the commercial kitchen as a training center for back-of-the-house restaurant skills. •Expand the use of employment internship models, similar to the existing program with Palm Springs Disposal.
•Partner with the Palm Springs Animal Shelter to provide veterinary care, supplies, and temporary boarding for clients' pets.
Access Center and Early Entry Specifics
•Find a new location for the Access Center, noting the current site is too small and poorly located.
•Open the Early Entry facility during the day to provide a safe, cool environment for 125+ people.
•Tighten the screening process at the Access Center to better understand which jurisdictions individuals are coming from. •Add skilled evening shift staff at the Early Entry facility who can assist with job searches and financial counseling.
•Create a dedicated space in the Early Entry facility where individuals can sleep near their pets.
Page of 55
Independent Review of the City of Palm Springs Contract Services Agreement 23S339 Martha’s Village and Kitchen
March 30, 2026
Committee members: Ginny Foat, Tamara Hedges, Bryan Rogers, Bob Smiland Council liaisons: Councilmember Grace Garner, Councilmember Ron deHarte
Scope of review: Evaluate Martha's Village (MV) performance against the specific requirements set
in
the
contract
scope
of
work
and
contract
deliverables.
Committee Observations:
1) There are no apparent violations of the current contract, although we find the current
contract
inadequate
in
scope.The
contract
is
obsolete
as
written
before
opening
the
facilities,
as
much
has
been
learned
and
discovered
since
opening.
2) The Martha’s staff at Navigation Center is committed to their work and the leadership
team
we
met
with
are
clearly
passionate
about
their
mission,
however
more
resourceful,
creative,
out-of-the-box
thinking
from
both
MV
and
the
City
is
needed
to
clear
the
challenges
and
obstacles
to
make
the
program
truly
successful.
3) The budget written in 2024 is obsolete. 4) Communications between MV and the City appear to be consistent, but there is room
for
improvement.
5) The Navigation Center is the largest transitional housing facility in Riverside County. 6) In some cases, the HUD Home Key restrictions stifle the ability for MV to be flexible and
nimble
in
admission
policies.
7) Challenges arise with the federal program “Housing First” which requires the Navigation
Center
to
admit
individuals
with
no
or
very
low
income.
The
current
maximum
income
per
month
to
qualify
for
housing
is
$1070
per
month
for
an
individual.
Often
these
no-income
or
acutely
low-income
individuals
are
experiencing
serious
life
challenges
in
addition
to
financial
hardship.
This
places
an
unreasonable
burden
on
the
Navigation
Center
to
support
the
transition
to
a
new
lifestyle
and
steady
employment
that
enables
the
individual
to
exit
the
Navigation
Center.
Additionally,
and
tragically,
this
stipulation
requires
MV
to
turn
away
those
who
make
more
than
the
maximum
threshold.
8) MV leadership has recently implemented a policy to limit residency to six months if the
resident
is
not
demonstrating
an
acceptable
level
of
engagement
in
the
DRAFT
supportive development programs provided by MV. The committee sees this as an important,
proactive
step
toward
encouraging
individual
accountability.
Without
any
incentives
to
engage,
it
is
conceivable
that
a
resident
can
spread
a
full
two
years
in
the
housing
without
active
engagement
in
the
MV
support
programs.
9) A structured “life plan” system or development agreement for those in longer term housing
does
not
exist.
10) The neighbors seem to be pleased and satisfied that the facility has not caused disruption,
crime
or
trash
in
the
neighborhood
11) Working contracts with various outside social service providers seem to be starting; more
is
needed.
Coordination
and
collaboration
with
other
organizations
providing
services
to
the
homeless
population
are
not
always
possible
or
productive
due
to
the
difference
in
funding
sources
12) MV recently went through a HUD audit and passed. 13) Currently, nine of the long-term housing units are not occupied due to maintenance issues,
five
because
the
AC
units
are
not
functioning.
14) Many of the clients are experiencing mental health and/or substance abuse challenges.
MV
does
not
have
mental
health
services
in-house
onsite,
but
partners
with
Riverside
University
Health,
which
is
not
adequate
for
the
level
of
services
needed
by
many
residents.
15) When the local hospital discharges a MV client, they are sent back to the Navigation Center,
but
MV
is
not
equipped
to
support
clients
needing
physical
assistance,
such
as
walking
and
bathing
support.
16) The Navigation Center recently added one RN and one certified nursing assistant, which
is
not
adequate
for
the
level
of
need.
17) There is no day to day assistance for elderly residents and residents with disabilities. 18) Rental housing in Palm Springs and the local area is expensive, with a very limited number
of
affordable
units
available,
making
it
difficult
for
clients
to
transition.
19) The computer lab is available to clients but staffing support for clients is limited. 20) MV will pay for an online Food Handlers card. Not many have taken advantage of this
offer
at
the
time
of
our
interview
with
MV.
21) MV has a six-month internship program set up with Palm Springs Disposal, organized by
the
city.
The
internship
can
turn
into
a
permanent
position.
Two
individuals
have
gone
through
this
internship
program.
22) We did not observe any exercise or wellness activities such as mindful meditation for the
residents
or
clients.
23) There is not an adequate indoor area for socializing, exercising, games, and other relaxation
and
recreation
activities
that
build
community
at
the
Navigation
Center
for
residents
or
for
overnight
Early
Entry
clients.
DRAFT
24) Building C, a large building, is underutilized and is currently just used for a small suite of
administrative
offices
and
storage.
25) The kitchen was originally designed to be used as a training center for food handling licenses
and
back-of-the-house
restaurant
training.
That
is
not
happening.
26) MV received a grant from the city of Indian Wells to purchase work clothes and other items
for
clients.
These
funds
are
used
to
purchase
items
that
help
clients
dress
and
groom
themselves
professionally
for
job
interviews
and
for
employment.
27) There are currently four case workers at the Navigation Center. 28) Public transportation to the Navigation Center is difficult. The nearest Sunline bus stop
is
a
distance
away.
During
the
hot
summer
months
the
walk
can
be
difficult.
29) The Early Entry facility at the Navigation Center is only used at night; daytime capacity
is
140.
30) There are no incentives provided for overnight Early Entry facility clients to help them
acquire
skills
to
get
off
the
streets.
The
committee
sees
this
as
a
missed
opportunity
for
engagement.
(Note:
a
client
expressed
to
our
committee
that
the
staff
of
the
overnight
facility
are
kind
but
inexperienced
in
assisting
with
resources
and
even
minor
problem-solving)
31) Many unhoused people have pets and will not go to the Early Entry facility because the
pets
are
separated
from
them
overnight.
The
current
setup
can
be
stressful
for
both
the
client
and
the
pet
who
are
accustomed
to
spending
24 hours
together.
32) There is little for the overnight residents to do at the Early Entry overnight facility from
arrival
time
to
when
they
depart
after
breakfast
except
watch
TV,
play
games,
or
sit
around.
33) Palm Spring Police Department officers, both those assigned to the unhoused population
and
officers
in
general,
do
not
feel
that
they
have
a
partnership
with
the
Navigation
Center.
34) PD officers report that the Access Center has told late arrivals who need overnight shelter
to
go
over
to
the
police
department
and
an
officer
will
take
them
to
the
Early
Entry
overnight
facility,
which
is
not
appropriate.
35) The screening process at the Access Center, which is used to gather information before
clients
can
access
the
Early
Entry
services,
is
inadequate.
Police
would
like
a
more
thorough
screening
process
so
that
they
can
map
out
where
the
clients
are
coming
from.
This
will
help
PD
assess
if
they
are
actually
Palm
Springs
residents
and
help
PD
to
determine
if
there
is
a
problem
with
other
cities
dropping
off
homeless
individuals
in
Palm
Springs.
36) The Access Center is too small, poorly maintained, over-use, and in the wrong location
by
the
airport.
A
new
location
must
be
found.
37) The outside showers at the Access Center are often in disrepair because the clients vandalize
or
misuse
them.
DRAFT
38) Police are concerned that there is no place currently to take unhoused individuals for alcohol
rehabilitation
treatment.
39) Other PS PD concerns are: the unclean condition of the outside showers at the Access
Center;
the
lack
of
services
and
accessible
beds
for
people
with
disabilities
at
the
Navigation
Center;
returning
to
5 beds
reserved
for
PD
drop-offs
at
the
Early
Entry
facility
instead
of
2;
much
better
communication
and
partnership
with
MV.
40) Homeless services remain a high priority for residents and businesses in Palm Springs.
41) Currently no full-time oversight from the city.
Recommendations:
1) Evaluate the current level of oversight for homeless services to determine if more staff time
is
needed,
ideally
a
dedicated
position.
This
committee
is
happy
to
provide
recommendations
for
the
scope
of
work
for
the
position.
2) Modify the current contract before year -three of Phase III starts on 7-1-26 to include metrics
for
all
programs,
precise
communications
plan
between
City
and
MV,
an
understanding
of
funding
responsibilities,
and
verification
of
the
budget
and
financial
expectations.
Based
on
the
City’s
updated
contract
scope
and
specific
deliverables,
MV
to
provide
a
five
year
strategic
plan
with
specific
goals,
tactics,
metrics
and
milestones
for
the
services
outlined
in
the
new
contract
for
long-term
housing,
as
well
as
the
Early
Entry
program
and
the
Access
Center
services.
3) Long-term funding of our City’s Homeless Services, including the Navigation Center, needs
immediate
and
careful
attention.
The
current
contract
with
MV
does
not
identify
who
is
responsible
for
funding
programs
at
the
Navigation
Center
nor
is
there
a
budget
for
those
doing
the
grant
writing.
Start
by
identifying
the
parties
who
will
seek
funding
and
then
set
goals
on
type,
source,
and
timing
for
all
possible
funders
-
government
entities,
private
citizens
and
foundations. 4) Create a collaborative working plan with city-wide nonprofit providers of food and shelter.
5) Encourage all services to be provided each day at the Navigation Center NOT at churches, business
locations,
and
other
sites
throughout
the
city
6) Establish a strong volunteer program to encourage continued support for the 100+ volunteers
now
servicing
this
community.
7) Pilot a community mentor program, utilizing volunteers who have themselves experienced
hardship
and
have
successfully
reentered
the
workforce
and
are
self-reliant.
DRAFT
8) Recruit and train skilled volunteers to assist clients in the computer lab in the areas of social
services,
employment,
career
development
skills,
writing,
technology,
and
other
key
development
areas.
9) Create an employment office at the Navigation Center, accessible to Navigation Center residents
and
to
Early
Access
Center
clients,
staffed
by
someone
tasked
to
gather
information
on
available
employment
in
the
area
and
assist
clients
who
are
ready
to
work.
An
employment
matchmaker.
10) Establish more employment internship programs (Palm Springs Disposal model). 11) Partner with a culinary education provider to utilize the kitchen as a training center for culinary
arts
and
back-of-the-house
restaurant
training.
12) MV clients have expressed the desire for more food choices to meet various dietary restrictions,
more
variety,
and
healthier
choices.
Partnerships
with
local
food
providers,
the
local
farmers’
market,
and
a
culinary
education
provider
would
be
positive
steps
towards
this
goal.
13) Provide housing vouchers to fill gaps in rent for those who transition from the Navigation Center
housing
to
rental
housing
for
a
limited
period
of
time.
14) Do not extend the contract’s two-year option unless year-three goals are being achieved. 15) Provide onsite mental health and substance abuse counseling daily. 16) Create an indoor community space on site for games, exercise, wellness activities, support
group
meetings,
etc.
to
facilitate
positive
resident
interaction
and
peer
to
peer
networking.
17) Partner with the Palm Springs Animal Shelter to provide general veterinary care to pets of the
unhoused,
including
vaccines,
microchips,
flea
and
tick
treatment,
wellness
exams,
spay/neuter
services,
leashes,
collars,
carriers,
litter
and
litter
boxes,
pet
food,
and
other
critical
pet
needs.
18) Partner with the Palm Springs Animal Shelter to provide temporary boarding or foster care
when
clients
are
experiencing
extraordinary
hardship
such
as
illness
or
injury.
19) Include alcohol rehabilitation services in the contract (PSPD recommended this). 20) Provide handicapped accessible accommodations. 21) Consider adding recuperative care accommodations and services at the Navigation Center,
as
is
provided
in
Indio.
22) Establish and maintain a strong communication system with PSPD. 23) Work with the City and Sunline to bring a bus stop to the Navigation Center, or closer to it.
24) Evaluate Building C for full or partial buildout, including a much-needed indoor resident community
space.
25) To allow for maximum occupancy, the City must aggressively pursue and resolve any issues
that
are
causing
PODS
to
not
be
habitable.
DRAFT
Early Entry Overnight Shelter recommendations: 1) Open the Early Entry facility to allow 125+ people to be safe, cool and cared for during the
day.
2) Add knowledgeable, skilled evening shift staff and who can assist with job searches, resume
development,
financial
counseling,
etc.
3) Create an overnight housing space for Early Entry clients with pets, allowing individuals to
sleep
next
to
their
pets.
Separate
cats
from
dogs,
in
two
distinct
areas
where
there
is
a
visual
barrier
between
the
two
species.
4) One night a week, host representatives from other non-profits who set up tables and offer
services
to
Early
Entry
clients.
5) Create incentives to entice the overnight clients to gain some skills while they are at the Navigation
Center.
6) When a pod becomes available there should be a selection process that includes creating
a
life
plan
of
what
individuals
hope
to
achieve
while
they
are
at
the
facility.
Even
though
they
cannot
be
forced
to
participate
fully
in
skill
building
to
achieve
that
plan,
there
can
still
be
monthly
meetings
to
catch
up
on
progress
and
incentives
to
encourage
participation.
Access Center Recommendations: 1) Improve and tighten up the screening process at the Access Center to allow PSPD officers
to
have
a
better
understanding
of
the
jurisdiction
the
individual
is
coming
from
(outside
of
Palm
Springs).
2) Relocate the Access Center. 3) Provide better maintenance of the current Access Center facilities. Summary : The committee will provide a summary after the preliminary report meeting on March 30, 2026.
Additional comments:
DRAFT
As of this month, the HomeKey agreement for the Navigation Center has officially been amended,
increasing
the
AMI
limit
for
all
units
from
15%
to
30%.
This
is
a
significant
and
meaningful
change
for
the
program.
This adjustment will support the Navigation Center in several important ways. It allows Martha’s Village
to
serve
individuals
who
have
some
level
of
income,
which
can
strengthen
overall
program
stability
and
outcomes.
It
also
opens
the
door
to
participants
who
may
be
better
positioned
to
engage
in
employment,
increase
their
income,
and
more
quickly
stabilize
as
they
work
toward
permanent
housing.
In addition, this flexibility helps us create a more balanced participant mix, which can support peer
motivation,
improve
program
flow,
and
ultimately
help
more
individuals
successfully
transition
into
long
term
housing.
Client Survey Summary — Martha's Village & Kitchen, Navigation Center Palm Springs Based on a review of ~47 client satisfaction surveys across 237 pages
STRENGTHS — Evidence Supporting Renewal
1. Staff quality is exceptional and consistent This is the single most repeated theme across the entire
dataset.
Clients
spontaneously
praised
staff
across
virtually
every
survey.
Specific
comments
include:
● "Staff is wonderful" / "Keep same staff" ● "They help out a lot" ● "Friendly" ● "Respectful and knowledgeable about housing" ● "Always answered my concerns and questions" ● "They do a fabulous job" ● "Everyone here really wants to help you do better" ● "Your staff works hard" ● "Thank you to all staff for making this experience possible for me" One client even cited
a
case
manager
by
name
(Elias)
as
their
favorite
thing
about
the
program.
Staff
retention
is
clearly
a
significant
asset.
DRAFT
2. Safety is a documented impact. Multiple clients named safety and stability as a primary benefit
of
the
program
—
not
just
physically
but
emotionally:
● "It's a safe place for both me and my son" ● "It's safe, I can take the time and breathe and get things done and make long-term plans"
● "The open door policy and flexibility of the friendly staff" For a navigation center serving
homeless
clients,
this
is
core
mission
delivery.
3. The facility is well maintained. Q26–Q30 (unit condition, common areas, pest control, locks, laundry)
are
rated
"Excellent"
or
"Always"
by
a
large
majority
of
respondents.
No
property
complaints
surfaced
in
any
open-ended
field.
4. Case management is highly rated. Every case management question — responsiveness, respect,
approachability,
community
knowledge,
confidentiality
—
is
checked
"Always"
in
the
overwhelming
majority
of
surveys.
The
comment
"I
am
glad
to
have
a
case
manager"
captures
the
sentiment.
5. Program structure is valued. Multiple clients praised the structure and accountability the program
provides:
● "The structure of the program" ● "I believe the program is good how it is" ● "I like that the program makes you do a lot of your own footwork because it helped me become
responsible"
● "The willingness to keep looking for new ways to help the ones that are homeless like me"
6. Emotional impact is significant. The most telling comment in the entire dataset: "I wish I knew
about
this
place
sooner!!"
That's
a
strong
signal
of
community
need
and
program
effectiveness.
AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT — Recommended Contract Conditions DRAFT
These are patterns, not deal-breakers, but worth formalizing as benchmarks in any renewed contract.
1. Food quality & access needs attention. This was the most repeated specific complaint across the
dataset:
● "Better more food choices" ● "Improving the nutritional quality of meals served" ● "Not being able to get meals in the cafeteria when I'm not scheduled" (meal access tied
to
scheduling
is
causing
friction)
● "We should have the option for sack lunches" ● "Provide better food" Recommendation: Require Martha's Village to submit a food service improvement plan — specifically
around
nutritional
quality,
menu
variety,
and
flexible
meal
access
for
clients
with
irregular
schedules.
2. Communication between residents and residential staff Two separate surveys flagged this:
● "Have better communication with residential staff" ● "Communication" (listed as the one thing that would make the program better) Recommendation: Include a staff communication standard or resident feedback loop as a contract
deliverable
—
e.g.,
a
monthly
resident
check-in
or
a
posted
communication
protocol.
3. Skills/workforce development gap
One of the most substantive improvement suggestions came from a client who requested:
● "More classes — employment, typing, basic computer, driving, and transportation needs
—
studio
kitchen/coffee
maker
—
more
games
for
nights
and
weekends"
● Another asked for "a volunteer program to gain experience in work areas" ● Another said they need "more skill groups helping with housing" DRAFT
This points to a gap between the navigation/housing side of the program and employment/life skills
readiness.
Recommendation: Ask Martha's Village to document what workforce development or skills programming
is
currently
offered
and
whether
it
can
be
expanded
or
partnered
with
other
city
programs
(e.g.,
Desert
Hot
Springs
workforce
programs).
4. Childcare access
One client specifically noted the need for "some sort of childcare so parents are able to take job offers
after
the
program."
Given
that
a
number
of
clients
appear
to
be
families,
this
is
worth
flagging
to
the
city
as
an
unmet
ancillary
need
—
potentially
addressable
through
a
referral
partnership
rather
than
direct
service.
5. Power outlet access
One client noted wanting "more access to power sources" — a small quality-of-life item but worth
passing
along
as
a
facility
note.
PROCESS OBSERVATIONS (For the City's Own Records) ● Survey collection is inconsistent. Some surveys are on old Xerox-scanned forms, others
on
a
cleaner
Martha's
Village-branded
template.
The
city
may
want
to
standardize
the
survey
instrument
or
platform
going
forward
for
cleaner
data
aggregation.
This
NEEDS
to
be
a
digital
survey.
● No negative outliers on safety or abuse. Across all surveys reviewed, there were zero complaints
about
feeling
unsafe,
being
mistreated,
or
experiencing
any
form
of
misconduct.
That's
meaningful
for
a
program
serving
a
vulnerable
population.
● The satisfaction rate is high. Q3 (overall program satisfaction) skews heavily toward "Very
satisfied,"
with
a
handful
of
"Somewhat
satisfied"
—
almost
no
dissatisfied
responses
across
the
dataset.
DRAFT
● Survey respondents are almost entirely new clients — Q1 shows most check "Less than
1 year."
This
is
expected
for
a
navigation
center,
but
it
means
the
data
reflects
entry-level
experience,
not
long-term
outcomes.
Recommendation: Ask Martha's Village for outcome data on exits — how many clients transitioned
to
permanent
housing,
employment,
or
other
programs.
Survey Summary
Martha's Village is running a clean, well-staffed, well-maintained navigation center with genuinely
positive
client
reviews.
The
surveys
show
a
program
that
clients
appreciate.
Food
service
quality
and
communication
are
the
only
recurring
friction
points,
and
neither
is
severe.
Recommendations based on client surveys:
1. A food service improvement plan 2. Outcome/exit data (housing placements, employment) 3. Documentation of skills/workforce programming 4. A resident communication standard
DRAFT