write me a proposal to solve the homeless problem in marquette michigan including support from service clubs, possible grants, plans for creating and maintaining temporary dorm style housing with community facilities, community service projects to employ the temporarily housed

Comprehensive Homeless Solutions Initiative for Marquette, Michigan

Executive Summary

This proposal outlines a sustainable, community-driven approach to address homelessness in Marquette, Michigan through the creation of transitional dorm-style housing, comprehensive support services, and employment opportunities through community service programs. By leveraging local service clubs, state and federal grants, and community partnerships, this initiative aims to provide dignified temporary housing while helping residents achieve self-sufficiency.

Problem Statement

Marquette faces increasing challenges with homelessness, particularly acute during Upper Peninsula winters. Current resources are insufficient to meet demand, and scattered services create barriers to comprehensive care. This initiative addresses immediate shelter needs while creating pathways to permanent housing and employment.

Program Components

1. Transitional Housing Facility

Facility Design:

• Dorm-style accommodations with individual sleeping quarters (8×10 ft private rooms)
• Shared community facilities including:
  • Commercial kitchen and dining area
  • Laundry facilities
  • Computer lab with internet access
  • Meeting/recreation rooms
  • Case management offices
  • Medical consultation room
• Gender-separated wings with appropriate security
• ADA-accessible throughout
• Capacity: 40-60 residents initially

Housing Philosophy:

• 90-180 day transitional stays (extendable based on progress)
• Housing First approach with wraparound services
• Clear pathways to permanent housing
• Dignity-centered design and operations

2. Service Club Partnership Structure

Rotary Club of Marquette:

• Lead fundraising coordinator
• Professional mentorship program
• Job placement networking
• Quarterly facility improvements

Kiwanis Club:

• Children’s services for families in transition
• Educational programming
• Back-to-school supplies and support
• Youth mentorship for residents’ children

Lions Club:

• Vision and hearing screening/services
• Medical equipment donations
• Health and wellness programming
• Eyeglasses and hearing aids for residents

Elks Lodge:

• Veterans services coordination
• Recreation programming
• Holiday meal programs
• Clothing drives

Soroptimist International:

• Women’s empowerment programs
• Job training for female residents
• Childcare coordination
• Domestic violence support services

Chamber of Commerce:

• Employer recruitment
• Job fair coordination
• Small business partnerships
• Workforce development alignment

Service Club Coordination:

• Monthly coalition meetings
• Shared calendar of activities
• Volunteer scheduling system
• Joint fundraising events (annual gala, golf outing, winter carnival booth)

3. Community Service Employment Program

Work Opportunities:

• City beautification (park maintenance, trail cleanup, snow removal)
• Community garden management (produce for facility and food banks)
• Facility maintenance and operations
• Recycling and waste reduction programs
• Elderly assistance (yard work, snow removal for seniors)
• Beach and waterfront cleanup
• Historical site maintenance assistance

Program Structure:

• $15/hour compensation (above Michigan minimum wage)
• 20-30 hours/week availability
• Job skills training and certification
• Resume building and work references
• Gradual transition to external employment
• Partnership with City of Marquette, NMU, and local nonprofits

Skills Development:

• OSHA safety certifications
• First Aid/CPR training
• Equipment operation training
• Customer service skills
• Time management and professionalism

4. Comprehensive Support Services

Case Management:

• Individual housing and employment plans
• Weekly check-ins and goal setting
• Connection to permanent housing resources
• Financial literacy education
• Credit repair assistance

Healthcare Services:

• Partnership with UP Health System
• Mental health counseling (on-site weekly sessions)
• Substance abuse treatment coordination
• Medication management
• Mobile health clinic visits

Life Skills Programming:

• Budget management
• Cooking and nutrition classes
• Job search and interview skills
• Tenant rights and responsibilities
• Parenting classes (as needed)
• Computer literacy

Transportation:

• Coordination with Marquette Transit Authority
• Bus passes for residents
• Bicycle program for employment access
• Volunteer driver network

Funding Strategy

Grant Opportunities

Federal Grants:

1. HUD Continuum of Care Program (up to $500,000)
   • Transitional housing operations
   • Supportive services
   • Annual application cycle
2. HUD Emergency Solutions Grant ($100,000-$300,000)
   • Rapid re-housing assistance
   • Homelessness prevention
   • Street outreach
3. USDA Rural Development Housing Grants (up to $400,000)
   • Rural area housing development
   • Technical assistance funding
4. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) ($200,000-$400,000)
   • Treatment services
   • Co-occurring disorders programming

State Grants:

1. Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA)
   • Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing
   • Housing Resource Fund
   • Estimated: $150,000-$400,000
2. Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC)
   • Community Development Block Grants
   • Public Spaces Community Places
   • Estimated: $50,000-$250,000
3. Michigan Department of Health & Human Services
   • Emergency Services Program
   • Homeless Services
   • Estimated: $75,000-$200,000

Foundation Grants:

1. Consumers Energy Foundation (up to $50,000)
   • Energy efficiency improvements
   • Utility assistance
2. DTE Energy Foundation (up to $25,000)
   • Basic needs support
3. Kresge Foundation ($100,000-$500,000)
   • Community development focus
   • Detroit/Michigan emphasis
4. Fred A. and Barbara M. Erb Family Foundation (up to $100,000)
   • Michigan-focused
   • Environmental and community health
5. Community Foundation for Marquette County
   • Local priorities alignment
   • Various grant cycles

Corporate Sponsorships:

• Cleveland-Cliffs Foundation
• Lake Superior Community Partnership members
• Local banks and credit unions (Range Bank, Superior National Bank)
• Upper Peninsula Power Company
• Local healthcare systems

Fundraising Initiatives

Annual Revenue Targets:

• Service club campaigns: $75,000
• Community fundraising events: $50,000
• Individual donations: $40,000
• Corporate sponsorships: $60,000
• Faith community support: $25,000

Signature Events:

• “Home for the Holidays” winter gala
• Summer Harbor Run 5K
• Art auction featuring local artists
• “Sleep Out” awareness event
• Community cookout series

Budget Projections

Year One Capital Costs:

• Building acquisition/renovation: $800,000-$1,200,000
• Furnishings and equipment: $150,000
• Technology infrastructure: $30,000
• Initial operating reserve: $100,000
• Total Capital Need: $1,080,000-$1,480,000

Annual Operating Budget:

• Staff salaries (director, case managers, support): $280,000
• Utilities and maintenance: $60,000
• Food and supplies: $75,000
• Programming and services: $40,000
• Insurance and professional services: $35,000
• Transportation: $15,000
• Community service program wages: $120,000
• Total Annual Operating: $625,000

Revenue Mix (Steady State):

• Government grants and contracts: 60% ($375,000)
• Service club/community support: 25% ($156,000)
• Resident contributions (scaled): 5% ($31,000)
• Earned income/social enterprise: 10% ($63,000)

Implementation Timeline

Months 1-3: Foundation Building

• Form steering committee with service club representatives
• Hire executive director
• Identify and secure facility location
• Begin grant writing process
• Establish fiscal sponsorship or 501(c)(3) status

Months 4-6: Development Phase

• Complete grant applications
• Finalize building acquisition
• Begin renovation planning
• Recruit additional board members
• Develop policies and procedures manual
• Establish community partnerships (City, NMU, healthcare)

Months 7-10: Construction & Preparation

• Complete facility renovations
• Hire case managers and support staff
• Furnish facility
• Conduct staff training
• Establish community service work sites
• Create marketing and outreach materials

Months 11-12: Soft Opening

• Begin accepting first residents (limited capacity)
• Test systems and procedures
• Adjust programming based on feedback
• Launch community service projects
• Evaluate and refine operations

Year Two: Full Operations & Expansion

• Reach full capacity
• Implement all programming components
• Evaluate outcomes and impacts
• Plan for sustainability
• Consider expansion or replication

Community Partnerships

City of Marquette:

• Community service project coordination
• Zoning and permitting support
• Potential financial contribution
• Marketing and communication assistance

Northern Michigan University:

• Student volunteer programs
• Social work internship placements
• Research and evaluation partnership
• Possible facility location options

UP Health System Marquette:

• Healthcare services coordination
• Mental health support
• Addiction treatment referrals

Michigan Works!:

• Job training programs
• Employer connections
• Unemployment benefits assistance

Local Schools:

• Services for children of residents
• School supplies and support
• Educational stability planning

Faith Communities:

• Volunteer support
• Donation drives
• Pastoral care
• Meal programs

Superior Watershed Partnership:

• Environmental service projects
• Job training opportunities
• Community garden support

Success Metrics

Housing Outcomes:

• 70% of residents transition to permanent housing within 180 days
• 80% of exits are to stable housing destinations
• Reduced returns to homelessness (under 15% within 12 months)

Employment Outcomes:

• 60% of residents gain external employment within 90 days
• 85% participate in community service work program
• Average income increase of 150% from intake to exit

Community Impact:

• 5,000+ hours of community service completed annually
• 20+ community improvement projects completed
• $120,000+ in wages paid to residents
• Reduced emergency service calls related to homelessness

Program Quality:

• 90% resident satisfaction rating
• Zero tolerance for violence/safety incidents
• Full compliance with all grant requirements
• Annual third-party evaluation

Risk Mitigation

Potential Challenges:

1. NIMBY Opposition: Extensive community education, open houses, good neighbor policies
2. Funding Gaps: Diversified revenue, strong reserves, phased implementation
3. Behavioral Issues: Clear expectations, professional staffing, mental health support
4. Capacity Limitations: Waitlist management, coordination with other shelters
5. Winter Challenges: Enhanced cold-weather protocols, winter employment options

Sustainability Plan

Long-term Financial Health:

• Build 6-month operating reserve by year three
• Develop social enterprise opportunities (thrift store, landscaping business)
• Create endowment fund for facility maintenance
• Annual giving society for sustained donor engagement

Program Evolution:

• Data-driven decision making
• Regular community needs assessments
• Continuous quality improvement
• Staff professional development
• Resident advisory council

Call to Action

Marquette has an opportunity to become a model for rural homelessness solutions. By combining community compassion with evidence-based practices, we can create a system that honors dignity while building pathways to stability.

Immediate Next Steps:

1. Convene initial meeting of interested service clubs and stakeholders
2. Establish steering committee with representatives from each partner organization
3. Hire or designate project coordinator
4. Begin facility search and grant research
5. Schedule community information sessions

Contact Information: [To be completed with project leadership details]

---

“A community’s strength is measured not by its wealth, but by how it cares for its most vulnerable members. Together, we can ensure every person in Marquette has a safe place to call home and a pathway to a brighter future.”

now compare to the cost of providing each person a house and the same services but sperately

Cost Comparison Analysis: Congregate vs. Scattered-Site Housing Model

Executive Summary

This analysis compares the costs of the proposed transitional dorm-style facility (congregate model) versus providing individual houses with the same services delivered separately to each resident (scattered-site model). The findings show significant cost differences that impact feasibility and sustainability.

---

Model Comparison: 50 Residents Served Annually

CONGREGATE MODEL (Proposed Dorm Facility)

Capital Costs (One-Time):

• Single facility acquisition/renovation: $1,000,000
• Shared furnishings and equipment: $150,000
• Shared technology infrastructure: $30,000
• Total Capital: $1,180,000
• Per Person Capital: $23,600

Annual Operating Costs:

• Staff (centralized): $280,000
• Utilities (one building): $60,000
• Food (bulk purchasing): $75,000
• Programming (group delivery): $40,000
• Insurance/professional: $35,000
• Transportation (coordinated): $15,000
• Community service wages: $120,000
• Maintenance (single site): $25,000
• Total Annual: $650,000
• Per Person Annual: $13,000

Efficiency Factors:

• 24/7 staff coverage at one location
• Bulk purchasing power for food and supplies
• Shared utilities and maintenance
• Group programming and services
• Centralized case management
• Economy of scale benefits

---

SCATTERED-SITE MODEL (Individual Houses)

Capital Costs (One-Time for 50 People):

Assuming 25 small houses/apartments for 50 people (2 per unit):

• Property acquisition (25 units × $120,000 avg): $3,000,000
• Furnishings per unit (25 × $8,000): $200,000
• Appliances and equipment (25 × $4,000): $100,000
• Initial repairs/improvements (25 × $15,000): $375,000
• Technology/internet setup (25 × $1,500): $37,500
• Security deposits and closing costs: $125,000
• Total Capital: $3,837,500
• Per Person Capital: $76,750

Annual Operating Costs:

Staff (dispersed model):

• Case managers (need 5 for scattered visits vs. 3 centralized): $300,000
• Mobile crisis support staff: $85,000
• Housing inspectors/liaisons: $65,000
• Administrative coordination: $55,000
• Staff Subtotal: $505,000

Housing Costs (25 units):

• Property taxes (25 × $2,500): $62,500
• Insurance (25 × $1,800): $45,000
• Utilities not covered by residents (25 × $3,000): $75,000
• Maintenance/repairs (25 × $4,500): $112,500
• Lawn care/snow removal (25 × $800): $20,000
• Property management fees (if outsourced): $60,000
• Housing Subtotal: $375,000

Services (individual delivery):

• Transportation (individual vs. coordinated): $45,000
• Food assistance (grocery gift cards): $90,000
• Individual programming/counseling travel: $35,000
• Healthcare coordination: $25,000
• Life skills (individual home visits): $30,000
• Services Subtotal: $225,000

Other Costs:

• Community service wages: $120,000
• Insurance/professional services: $55,000
• Technology/communications: $25,000
• Emergency response fund: $30,000
• Other Subtotal: $230,000

Total Annual Operating: $1,335,000 Per Person Annual: $26,700

Inefficiency Factors:

• Staff travel time between locations (20-30% of work time)
• Duplicate utilities and maintenance across 25 sites
• Loss of bulk purchasing power
• Individual rather than group programming
• Harder to monitor and respond to crises
• Property management complexity
• Scattered supervision and support

---

Side-by-Side Comparison

CategoryCongregate ModelScattered-Site ModelDifferenceInitial Capital$1,180,000$3,837,500+$2,657,500 (325% more)Capital Per Person$23,600$76,750+$53,150 (325% more)Annual Operating$650,000$1,335,000+$685,000 (205% more)Operating Per Person$13,000$26,700+$13,700 (205% more)5-Year Total Cost$4,430,000$10,512,500+$6,082,500 (237% more)10-Year Total Cost$7,680,000$17,187,500+$9,507,500 (224% more)

---

Cost Analysis Details

Why Scattered-Site Is More Expensive

1. Real Estate Costs:

• Marquette median home price: $220,000 (need smaller, but still ~$120,000 each)
• 25 properties vs. 1 property = 25× property taxes, insurance, maintenance
• Market-rate housing acquisition vs. institutional/commercial conversion

2. Staffing Inefficiencies:

• Case managers spend 6-8 hours/week driving between sites
• Need more staff to cover emergencies at multiple locations
• Cannot share overnight supervision across residents
• Lost productivity due to travel logistics

3. Service Delivery Costs:

• Group therapy session at facility = 10 people, 1 hour, 1 location
• Individual home visits = 10 people, 12+ hours (including travel), 10 locations
• Programming must be repeated or offered less frequently
• Medical/mental health professionals less willing to travel to multiple sites

4. Economies of Scale Lost:

• Bulk food purchasing (congregate) vs. individual grocery assistance
• One furnace vs. 25 furnaces to maintain
• One roof vs. 25 roofs to repair
• One internet connection vs. 25 connections
• Negotiated rates for single-site services

5. Hidden Costs in Scattered Model:

• Property vacancy periods between residents
• Damage repairs more extensive when unsupervised
• Utility bills when units empty
• Neighborhood complaints/relations management
• Code violations across multiple properties
• Vehicle maintenance for mobile staff
• Higher insurance due to dispersed liability

6. Management Complexity:

• Coordinating maintenance across 25 locations
• Monitoring 25 different properties for issues
• Managing 25 different landlord/neighbor relationships
• 25× the lease agreements, inspections, turnovers

---

Break-Even Analysis

When might scattered-site become cost-competitive?

The scattered-site model could approach cost parity with congregate housing only under these conditions:

1. Long-term housing (5+ years per person): If residents stay in individual homes for many years, the higher annual operating costs are offset by the asset appreciation and avoided facility replacement costs. However, this defeats the “transitional” purpose.
2. Donated or heavily subsidized properties: If 80%+ of properties are donated or provided at $1/year leases, capital costs drop by ~$3 million.
3. Volunteer-based service delivery: If case management and services are provided entirely by volunteers (unrealistic for quality care).
4. Very small programs (<10 people): At extremely small scale, a single-family home might be comparable to a small facility.

Realistic Assessment: For a transitional housing program serving 40-60 people in Marquette, the scattered-site model would cost approximately 2-3× more than congregate housing, with no clear advantages in outcomes.

---

Qualitative Considerations

Advantages of Congregate Model:

• Community building: Peer support, reduced isolation
• Immediate crisis response: Staff on-site 24/7
• Structured environment: Helpful for those rebuilding routines
• Efficient service delivery: Multiple residents access services simultaneously
• Supervision for safety: Particularly for substance abuse recovery
• Cost sustainability: More attractive to funders
• Easier quality control: All services in one location

Advantages of Scattered-Site Model:

• Privacy and independence: Individual living spaces
• More closely resembles permanent housing: Better transition preparation
• Family accommodation: Easier to house parents with children
• Reduced institutional feel: More dignity and autonomy
• Neighborhood integration: May reduce stigma
• Flexibility: Can match housing to individual needs

Disadvantages of Congregate Model:

• Institutional atmosphere
• Less privacy
• Potential conflicts between residents
• Stigma of “shelter” label
• May not suit everyone’s needs
• Zoning challenges for larger facility

Disadvantages of Scattered-Site Model:

• Social isolation risk
• Harder to monitor for relapses or crises
• Property damage and maintenance burden
• Neighborhood opposition (“not in my backyard”)
• Inefficient staff utilization
• Much higher cost makes program vulnerable
• Difficult to sustain without massive funding

---

Hybrid Model Alternative

A Middle-Ground Approach:

Consider a “clustered housing” model that balances costs with independence:

• 3-4 multi-unit buildings (duplexes or 4-plexes) in different neighborhoods
• Each building houses 10-15 people in private units
• Shared community space in each building
• Rotating case manager visits to each site
• Weekly group programming at a central location
• 24/7 on-call support (not on-site)

Estimated Costs:

• Capital: $2,000,000 (between the two models)
• Annual Operating: $900,000 (between the two models)
• Savings vs. Scattered-Site: $6+ million over 10 years
• Additional Cost vs. Congregate: $2.5 million over 10 years

This provides more independence than a single facility while maintaining most cost efficiencies.

---

Recommendations

For Marquette’s Context:

1. Start with Congregate Model (as proposed)
   • Most cost-effective for initial program
   • Easier to secure grant funding
   • Proven model with strong outcomes
   • Sustainable with realistic funding streams
2. Use Scattered-Site Strategically
   • Reserve for “step-down” graduates (already stabilized)
   • Partner with landlords for 2-5 units for specific populations (families, veterans)
   • Keep to under 20% of total program capacity
3. Plan for Hybrid Expansion
   • Once congregate facility is stable (Year 3-5)
   • Use proven success to fund clustered housing
   • Maintain core facility while adding smaller satellite sites
4. Avoid Full Scattered-Site Model
   • Costs are prohibitive ($9.5M more over 10 years)
   • Funding extremely difficult to secure and sustain
   • Staff burnout from travel and dispersed work
   • Quality of services suffers

---

Conclusion

While scattered-site housing offers more privacy and independence, the congregate model is 2-3× more cost-effective and significantly more sustainable for Marquette. The $6-9 million saved over 10 years can serve more people, provide better services, or fund permanent housing vouchers.

The numbers clearly favor the congregate approach, especially for a community like Marquette with:

• Limited philanthropic base
• Harsh winters requiring stable shelter
• Small staff pool
• Need to demonstrate efficient use of funds to secure grants

The proposed dorm-style facility with strong programming offers the best balance of dignity, effectiveness, and fiscal responsibility. Additional scattered-site housing can be added strategically as the program matures and funding allows, but should not be the foundation of the homelessness response.

can you provide a mock up of financials for the housing project

Marquette Transitional Housing – Financial Dashboard

Interactive artifact 

I’ve created a comprehensive financial dashboard for the Marquette Transitional Housing project. The interactive mockup includes:

Key Features:

1. Overview Metrics – Quick view of total capital needs ($1.18M), annual operating costs ($650K), per-person costs, and capacity
2. Capital Budget Breakdown – Visual pie chart and detailed listing of one-time startup costs
3. Operating Budget – Bar chart showing the eight major expense categories with personnel (43%) and community service wages (19%) as the largest items
4. Personnel Detail – Table breaking down the 5.5 FTE positions and their costs
5. Revenue Projections – Interactive year selector (Years 1-5) showing how funding sources evolve:
   • Federal grants starting at $250K, growing to $375K
   • State grants growing from $150K to $225K
   • Service clubs, corporate, and individual donors increasing steadily
   • Line chart comparing revenue vs. expenses over 5 years
6. Grant Timeline – Table showing six major grant opportunities with amounts, timelines, current status, and success probabilities
7. Cash Flow Projection – Month-by-month view of Year 1 showing the challenging early months (negative balance) before stabilizing, highlighting the need for operating reserves
8. Financial Assumptions – Detailed notes on revenue growth rates, expense inflation, risk mitigation strategies, and success indicators

The dashboard shows that while the project needs significant capital investment, it becomes operationally sustainable by Year 2-3 with diversified funding sources and growing community support.

Marquette Transitional Housing Financial Dashboard

Comprehensive financial projections and budget analysis for 50-bed congregate facility

Total Capital Need

$1,180,000

Annual Operating

$650,000

Cost Per Person/Year

$13,000

Capacity

50 Beds

Capital Budget Breakdown

0: 42%1: 42%2: 13%3: 3%

Building Acquisition$500,000

Renovation & Construction$500,000

Furnishings & Equipment$150,000

Technology Infrastructure$30,000

Total Capital$1,180,000

Annual Operating Budget

PersonnelCommunity Service WagesFood & SuppliesUtilitiesPrograms & ServicesInsurance & ProfessionalMaintenanceTransportation$0k$70k$140k$210k$280k

Total Annual Operating$650,000

Personnel Budget Detail

Position	FTE	Annual Salary
Executive Director	1.0	$75,000
Case Managers (3)	3.0	$135,000
Program Coordinator	1.0	$45,000
Facilities Manager	0.5	$25,000
Total Personnel	5.5	$280,000

Revenue Projections by Year

Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5

Federal Grants

$250,000

State Grants

$150,000

Local/Municipal

$75,000

Service Clubs

$75,000

Corporate

$60,000

Individual Donors

$40,000

Other/Earned

$0

Total Revenue

$650,001Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5$0k$300k$600k$900k$1200k

• Revenue
• Expenses
• Net Income

Grant Funding Timeline & Strategy

Grant Source	Amount	Timeline	Status	Success Probability
HUD CoC	$500,000	Months 1-3	Applied	70%
HUD ESG	$200,000	Months 2-4	Planned	60%
MSHDA Housing	$300,000	Months 3-5	Planned	75%
USDA Rural Dev	$400,000	Months 4-6	Research	50%
Kresge Foundation	$250,000	Months 5-7	Research	40%
Community Fdn	$50,000	Months 2-3	Planned	80%
Total Potential Grants	$1,700,000

Year 1 Cash Flow Projection

Month 1Month 2Month 3Month 4Month 5Month 6Month 7Month 8Month 9Month 10Month 11Month 12$-55k$0k$55k$110k$165k

• Monthly Income
• Monthly Expenses
• Cumulative Balance

Cash Flow Note: Negative cumulative balance in early months requires $100,000 operating reserve. Grant payments are typically reimbursement-based, creating temporary shortfalls until funds arrive.

Key Financial Assumptions & Notes

Revenue Assumptions

• • Federal grants increase 8-10% annually after Year 1
• • State funding stabilizes at $200k-$225k by Year 3
• • Service club contributions grow 5-7% yearly
• • Earned income begins Year 2 (thrift store, social enterprise)
• • Individual giving doubles over 5 years with cultivation
• • Local government support increases with proven outcomes

Expense Assumptions

• • 3% annual inflation on operating costs
• • Personnel includes 25% benefits/taxes
• • Food budget based on $4.10/person/day
• • Utility costs for 12,000 sq ft facility
• • $25k annual maintenance reserve
• • Insurance includes general liability and D&O coverage

Risk Mitigation

• • $100k operating reserve required (included in capital)
• • Diversified funding prevents single-source dependency
• • Grant applications exceed annual need by 40%
• • Month-to-month expense flexibility built in
• • Emergency fund target: 6 months operating (Year 3)

Success Indicators

• • Break-even or surplus by Month 11 of Year 1
• • 85%+ bed occupancy rate maintained
• • At least 4 major grants secured by end of Year 1
• • Service club commitment totaling $300k over 5 years
• • Growing earned income reducing grant dependency