HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Support for AB 448 - OC Housing TrustTO:
FROM:
CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report
PREPARED BY:
PHONE:
101114
ABSTRACT:
June 26, 2018
Agenda Item No. 16
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Dave Kiff, City Manager - 949-644-3001,
dkiff@newportbeachca.gov
Dave Kiff, City Manager, dkiffCa_newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3001
Support for AB 448 - OC Housing Trust
As a member of the Association of Orange County Cities — Orange County (ACC -OC),
the City has been asked to consider taking a position in support of AB 448 (Daly)
regarding the formation of a Housing Trust to secure and consolidate funding for
addressing homelessness in Orange County. This item is returned to the Council agenda
after a two-week delay, as AB 448 was amended to delete certain language relating to
tax increment financing.
RECOMMENDATION:
a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because
this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly;
and
b) Authorize the Mayor to send a letter in support of AB 448 (Daly, as amended June 14,
2018) as shown in attached draft letter.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no fiscal impact related to supporting AB 448. However, should the bill pass and
the City desire to participate in some of its solutions, the Trust may be able to provide
both public and private funding for Permanent Supportive Housing and other efforts that
the City may use to address homelessness.
DISCUSSION:
In recent years, our region has been faced with increasing levels of homelessness,
including persons camping in public spaces in a manner that can be detrimental to public
health, individuals' well-being, and municipal costs (see Attachment F). Significant
efforts are underway regionally to attempt to find appropriate housing for the region's
homeless population. Most housing, when available, is provided in steps — sheltering,
then short-term (30-180 days) transitional housing, then "Permanent Supportive Housing"
16-1
Support for AB 448 - OC Housing Trust
June 26, 2018
Page 2
(PSH) whereby persons reside independently but are supported with necessary services
(recovery, mental health, physical health care, and more) onsite.
The County of Orange's approach to this care continuum includes adding at least one if
not two more regional multi -services centers such as the Courtyard in Santa Ana and the
Bridges at Kraemer Place in Anaheim. The County is looking for sites in southern Orange
County for these next facilities.
Not all communities will be able to participate in addressing the problem in the identical
manner. Some cities may be the locations for multi -services centers. Some might be
able to site a "crisis stabilization unit" to house persons briefly for 4-5 days as they
stabilize. Others may find the longer-term development of PSH as more appropriate for
their community. Other cities may find that a mix of providing funding, PSH, and some
employment or employment training may be the best way to participate.
As to PSH, the ACC -OC has worked on a plan that would attempt to site, fund, and
construct 2,700 PSH units across the county. For more about this effort, please see
Attachment E. Newport Beach has been assigned about 70 units under this plan (the
Cove in Newport Shores counts towards our 70). No plan envisions a shelter here.
Modern PSH today looks much like other apartments, with no outward sign that the
complex itself has supportive services onsite (such as a nurse, a social worker, and more)
to help ensure that tenants in the complex are able to stay housed.
As to funding for PSH, this staff report asks for the Council's consideration of supporting
recently amended legislation in the California Legislature (AB 448, Daly — Attachment C)
that would establish the Orange County Housing Trust, an entity that would help
consolidate private and public funds (of which there are multiple sources) that could assist
cities and the County in siting and developing PSH. Co-authors to the Daly bill include
State Senators Bates, Hertzberg, Moorlach and Nguyen, as well as Assembly Member
Quirk -Silva.
The June 14, 2018 amendments to AB 448 removed language pertaining to the possibility
that municipalities might voluntarily use property tax increment financing for housing
projects and programs. This was a method of funding used in California Redevelopment
law (previous to redevelopment's repeal a few years ago), and can be controversial both
in localities and at the State.
Recently, the Orange County Grand Jury in its Where there's a Will, There's a Way report
(within Recommendation #R7) suggested that a Joint Powers Agreement like the OC
Housing Trust that assisted in consolidating funding would be beneficial (see Attachment
D).
The City's own Legislative Platform does not address the homelessness issue
specifically. Given all of the above, it seems prudent for the City to support the AB 448
effort so that the community can participate in solutions like the OC Housing Trust (see
handout explaining more about the Trust as Attachment B) that may address and
mitigate the adverse impacts of homelessness on our community and our region.
Attachment A includes a draft letter in this regard.
16-2
Support for AB 448 - OC Housing Trust
June 26, 2018
Page 3
For more information about these issues, please see the attachments.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not
result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment)
and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no
potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
NOTICING:
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of
the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Draft support letter for AB 448
Attachment B — Handout from ACC -OC regarding the OC Housing Trust
Attachment C — Text of AB 448 — As Amended in Senate, June 14, 2018
Attachment D — OC Grand Jury Report (May 31, 2018) "Where There's a Will, There's a Way"
Attachment E — Voice of OC - Most OC Cities Support Adding 2,700 New Homes for Homeless,
Organizer Says (Feb 27, 2018)
Attachment F — Portion of OC United Way's Cost of Homelessness Study — Exec Summary
16-3
ATTACHMENT A
June 26, 2018
The Honorable Thomas Daly
Member of the California State Assembly
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0069
Via Fax: (916) 319-2169
Dear Assembly Member Daly:
On behalf of the City of Newport Beach, I am writing in support of your AB 448 (as amended in
Senate, June 14, 2018), which would establish the Orange County Housing Trust. The Trust would
aid our region's efforts to address homelessness in Orange County. The homeless challenges in
our communities have only increased over the years, and the time to find solutions is now.
Since 2013, Orange County has experienced a 53 percent increase in the unsheltered homeless
population, despite the expansion of expenditures by the cities of Orange County, the County of
Orange, and our healthcare industries, which totaled nearly $300 million in the 2014/2015 fiscal
year.
The establishment of a single, city/county entity may bring focus to the funding opportunities
that can help us all collectively address homelessness and housing affordability.
Additionally, the Association of California Cities—Orange County (ACC -OC) has released a
detailed 2700 Permanent Supportive Housing Unit plan, which seeks to address chronic
homelessness in a regionalized manner. The time to work together in addressing the homeless
challenges in our communities has never been more important.
The ACC -OC 2700 Unit Plan outlines and emphasizes the possibility of accessing state funding to
support these and other on-going projects. Utilizing a Housing Trust to receive and pursue state
funding ensures a better chance for Orange County to capture a fair share of these available
dollars, while reducing unnecessary competition between the cities.
Additionally, the Orange County Housing Trust will have the ability to receive both public and
private funding. Most importantly, it will accomplish these critical functions without acting as a
regulator of land use or as an owner/operator of housing units, therefore preserving local control.
There are many benefits to regionalizing our work on this issue and the financial implications are
too great for any single community to take on alone. The collaborative approach of the Orange
16-4
County Housing Trust will ensure that municipalities in our region are working together toward
pragmatic solutions that fit each community.
For these reasons, the City Council is pleased to offer the City of Newport Beach's support for AB
448.
Sincerely,
Mayor Marshall "Duffy' Duffield
Newport Beach, California
cc: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
The Honorable John MW Moorlach
The Honorable Matthew Harper
16-5
ATTACHMENT B
6/5/2018
16-6
H Unit Plan (1500 units already i
,ie -stop snc
ate and pu
A collaborator with other regional entities to maximize
opportunities for planning and project implementation
ATTACHMENT C
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 14, 2018
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 31, 2018
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 18, 2017
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE -2017-19 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL
No. 448
Introduced by Assembly Members Daly and Quirk -Silva
(Coauthors: Senators Bates, Hertzberg, Moorlach, and Nguyen)
February 13, 2017
An act to add Section 6539.5 to the Government Code, relating to
joint powers.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 448, as amended, Daly. Joint powers authorities: Orange County
Housing Trust.
Existing law authorizes 2 or more public agencies, by agreement, to
form a joint powers authority to exercise any power common to the
contracting parties, as specified. Existing law authorizes the agreement
to set forth the manner by which the joint powers authority will be
governed.
This bill would authorize the creation of the Orange County Housing
Trust, a joint powers authority, for the purposes of funding housing
specifically assisting the homeless population and persons and families
of extremely low, very low, and low income within the County of
Orange, as specified.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the
necessity of a special statute for the County of Orange.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State -mandated local program: no.
96
16-10
AB 448
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
(a) The County of Orange is in the midst of a fluid and
worsening homelessness crisis. Since 2013, the county has
experienced a 53 -percent increase in the unsheltered homeless
population, many of whom have sought shelter over the last five
years on the Santa Ana riverbed and at the Orange County Civic
Center in Santa Ana.
(b) There has been a lack of regional focus that continues to
stymie the implementation of a long-term solution to homelessness
in the County of Orange.
(c) The County of Orange and the cities within the county have
worked together to develop an approach under the Joint Exercise
of Powers Act (Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of
Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code) to
establish and authorize the use of an Orange County Housing Trust
that would not only be responsible for responding to the
homelessness crisis with the development of capital projects and
the acquisition of necessary funds for those projects, but also for
helping the county respond to the low-income and affordable
housing crisis that the region is experiencing in tandem with the
homelessness crisis.
(d) Permanent supportive housing and other services provided
to those within that form of housing is a nationally recognized
model for ending chronic homelessness, and can assist the County
of Orange in its response to the homelessness crisis.
(e) Neither the Orange County Housing Trust nor the act
authorizing the creation of the Orange County Housing Trust do
either any of the following:
(1) Regulate land use in cities or in the unincorporated area of
the County of Orange.
(2) Authorize the Orange County Housing Trust to serve as an
owner or operator of housing units.
(3) Authorize the Orange County Housing Trust to, in any
manner, exercise any authority to levy, or advocate or incentivize
the levying of, any fee, charge, dedication, reservation, tax
assessment, or other exaction related to development projects.
96
16-11
-3—
AB 448
1 (4) Authorize the Orange County Housing Trust to require or
2 incentivize inclusionary zoning requirements. It is the intent ofthe
3 Legislature that the power to adopt inclusionary zoning ordinances
4 remain with the entities that possess land use and planning
5 authority.
6 SEC. 2. Section 6539.5 is added to the Government Code, to
7 read:
8 6539.5. (a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the County of
9 Orange and any of the cities within the County of Orange may
10 enter into a joint powers agreement pursuant to this chapter to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
create and operate a joint powers agency to fund housing to assist
the homeless population and persons and families of extremely
low, very low, and low income, as defined in Section 50093 of the
Health and Safety Code, within the County of Orange.
(2) The joint powers agency created pursuant to this section
shall be known as the Orange County Housing Trust, and shall be
created and operate in accordance with this section.
(3) The Grtmge Gotutty Housing Tfust shall itielude the Gem"
within the Gem" of Grtmge.
(b) The Orange County Housing Trust shall be governed by a
board of directors consisting of representation from the County of
Orange, the cities within the county, and other community
stakeholders.
(c) Notwithstanding any other law, the Orange County Housing
Trust may do any of the following:
(1) Fund the planning and construction of housing of all types
and tenures for the homeless population and persons and families
of extremely low, very low, and low income, as defined in Section
50093 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited
to, permanent supportive housing.
(2) Receive public and private financing and f -
those ftmds to pledge repaymeitt of debt itistfumeitts. funds.
(3) Authorize and issue bonds, certificates of participation, or
any other debt =-�fi instrument repayable from funds and
financing received pursuant to paragraph (2) and pledged by the
Orange County Housing Trust.
96
16-12
AB 448 —4-
1
2 53398.50) of Paft 1 of Division 2 of Title 5. For purposes of Mi
3
4
5
6
7
8 tt_fter_ i a_n.__a : _ Seetions 53395.1 _._a 53398.5 1.
9 (B) An ittftastmeture fintmeing plan adopted by the Grtmge
10
11
12
13
14 ,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 .
22 (d) The Orange County Housing Trust shall incorporate into its
23 joint powers agreement annual financial reporting and auditing
24 requirements that shall maximize transparency and public
25 information as to the receipt and use of funds by the agency. The
26 annual financial report shall show how the funds have furthered
27 the purposes of the Orange County Housing Trust.
28 SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute
29 is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable
30 within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California
31 Constitution because of the unique challenges faced by the County
32 of Orange and the cities located within the county in addressing
33 the housing needs of extremely low, very low, and low-income
34 households and the homeless within the county.
O
96
16-13
ATTACHMENT D
Where There's Will, There's a Way
Housing Orange County's Chronically Homeless
iEGRAND NRY 2-019-2-018
Where There's Will, There's a Way
Table of Contents
SUMMARY................................................................................................................................... 4
REASON FOR THE STUDY......................................................................................................
5
METHOD OF STUDY.................................................................................................................
5
BACKGROUND AND FACTS...................................................................................................
6
An Overview of Homelessness in Orange County.....................................................................................
6
The Debilitating Effects of Homelessness.............................................................................................
7
HUD Recognizes Housing First as the Primary Approach for Homeless Housing.................................8
The Chronically Homeless in Orange County............................................................................................9
The Number of Chronically Homeless is Increasing..............................................................................9
Most Chronically Homeless are Longtime Orange County Residents................................................10
A Combination of Economic Issues and Disabilities Account for much Chronic Homelessness .........
10
Costs to Orange County from Homelessness..........................................................................................11
Health Care Costs are the Largest Area of Expense............................................................................12
Orange County's Chronically Homeless Account for a Significant Portion of Costs ...........................13
Permanent Supportive Housing Decreases Medical Costs and Police/Jail Contacts ..........................14
High Retention Rates are Reported with Permanent Supportive Housing.........................................16
Permanent Supportive Housing in Orange County — Insufficient to Meet the Need .............................16
A Proposal for Increasing Permanent Supportive Housing in Orange County of Orange ..................17
Roadblocks and Challenges to Creating More Permanent Supportive Housing in Orange County .......18
Lack of Consensus and Buy -in within Cities for PSH Solutions...........................................................18
County Leadership that has been Crisis Driven rather than Strategic................................................21
Lack of Collaboration and Cooperation Among County and Cities.....................................................22
SecuringSufficient Funding.................................................................................................................23
Lack of Adequate Staffing within County Housing & Community Development Department to
Review and Facilitate Projects............................................................................................................25
Service Planning Area Meetings Encourage Information Sharing, but do not Promote Action .........
25
Perception that the Homeless are Service Resistant..........................................................................
25
Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................
26
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 2
16-15
Where There's Will, There's a Way
COMMENDATION................................................................................................................... 27
FINDINGS................................................................................................................................... 28
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 30
RESPONSES............................................................................................................................... 32
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 3
16-16
Where There's Will, There's a Way
SUMMARY
"The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable
members." Mahatma Gandhi
Does the County of Orange have the political will to overcome the roadblocks to housing the
county's chronically homeless population? The chronically homeless are among our county's
most vulnerable residents, many with a complex mix of physical and mental disabilities and life
expectancies well below the national average.
Research shows that housing the chronically homeless not only dramatically improves their
overall health, but also significantly decreases their costs to the community. Placing the
chronically homeless in Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), which combines subsidized
housing with access to supportive services, has proved particularly effective. In fact, estimates
show that the average cost of caring for a chronically homeless person on the street could be cut
in half if they were placed in Permanent Supportive Housing. However, the supply in Orange
County lags behind the need, contributing to overcrowded emergency shelters and an increased
unsheltered homeless population.
The Grand Jury discovered a number of roadblocks to developing additional Permanent
Supportive Housing in Orange County, none more challenging than the lack of leadership from,
and collaboration between, County and city officials. Other significant roadblocks certainly
exist, such as resident resistance, the difficulty of locating sites on which to build housing
(siting), and the lack of sustainable funding sources. However, the degree of finger -pointing and
lack of trust that exists between the County and the cities, and even among the cities themselves,
makes it extremely difficult to address any of the impediments identified in this report.
So, what is the answer to the question posed above? If political will is defined as a sufficient
number of key decision -makers who are intensely committed to supporting Permanent
Supportive Housing as a solution for the chronically homeless, then the answer is "not yet." To
improve collaboration and overcome roadblocks, the Grand Jury recommends the County and
cities establish a regional body empowered to develop and implement a comprehensive business
plan for siting and funding Permanent Supportive Housing development.
A Glossary of Terms can be found in the Appendix.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 4
16-17
Where There's Will, There's a Way
REASON FOR THE STUDY
Homelessness within Orange County continues to grow, showing an 8% increase in 2017 relative
to the previous Point in Time Count & Survey Report (PIT count) performed in 2015. Articles
and news reports on homelessness in Orange County appear daily, with the recent clearing of the
homeless from the flood control channel dominating the spotlight for months. In the 2018
Chapman University Annual Survey conducted among Orange County residents, 24% of
respondents cited "homelessness/poverty" as the most important issue facing the county, second
only to "housing affordability" reported at 27%. While homelessness remains prominent in the
public eye, an often overlooked issue is the overwhelming physical and mental trauma
experienced by those living on the streets. A homeless person in the U.S. has an average life
expectancy of about 50 years compared to 78 years for someone with an established home.
Another lesser-known outcome of homelessness is the enormous cost borne by cities, counties
and health care providers in caring for them. A 2017 study conducted by Orange County United
Way, Jamboree Housing, and UC Irvine estimates that approximately $299 million was spent on
health care, housing, and law enforcement for the homeless in Orange County in a 12 -month
period during 2014 — 2015. hi particular, caring for the chronically homeless is especially
expensive, with 10% of this group incurring annual costs in excess of $440,000 per person. This
study, along with a number of others conducted across the nation, has demonstrated that placing
the chronically homeless in housing significantly decreases the costs of caring for them and
improves their overall quality of life. Permanent supportive housing (PSH), which combines
affordable housing with supportive services such as substance abuse and mental health
counseling, dramatically decreases overall service costs for this group.
Given the large reductions in costs and the significant improvements in mental and physical
health reported among the chronically homeless placed in Permanent Supportive Housing, the
Grand Jury investigated the state of PSH within Orange County to determine if a sufficient
quantity exists, and to identify roadblocks to creating more.
METHOD OF STUDY
In conducting its investigation, the Grand Jury examined a broad spectrum of resources
associated with homelessness in general and the effectiveness and availability of Permanent
Supportive Housing in particular. The Grand Jury interviewed over forty people, some of them
multiple times, involved in housing for the homeless, including members of County and
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 5
16-18
Where There's Will, There's a Way
municipal governments, non-profit service providers, academia, and non-governmental
organizations.
The following interviews provided the most important source of information for our
investigation:
• Municipal employees with relevant levels of decision-making authority selected
proportionately from sixteen of the northern, central, and southern Orange County cities.
• Five non-governmental civic associations directly involved with homeless housing issues
• Representatives from three affordable housing developers
• Selected County employees and elected officials who have direct responsibility/decision-
making authority for housing and supportive services
The Grand Jury obtained significant information from Homelessness in Orange County: The
Costs to Our Community as well as Orange County Continuum of Care 2017 Homeless Count &
Survey Report and from a number of other local and national reports. Additionally, Grand Jury
members attended or viewed local symposiums on homelessness, relevant city council and OC
Board of Supervisors meetings, and federal court proceedings. A list of references is located at
the end of this report.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge that the Grand Jury conducted its investigation over the
course of a consecutive eight-month period spanning 2017 — 2018 when the issues surrounding
homelessness were being hotly debated and changing weekly. Although the state of discussions
and actions on this subject is dynamic, the findings and recommendations of this report are
accurate as of the date of publication.
BACKGROUND AND FACTS
An Overview of Homelessness in Orange County
Estimates of Orange County's homeless population primarily derive from the biennial Point in
Time Count and Survey conducted most recently in January 2017. A PIT Count is an
unduplicated count, conducted on a single night, of people who are homeless, and is carried out
across all major metropolitan areas in the U.S.
Similar to trends seen in Los Angeles and San Diego counties, homelessness in Orange County is
increasing. The most recent PIT Count revealed a homeless population of 4,792 within the
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 6
16-19
Where There's Will, There's a Way
county, representing an 8% increase compared to 2015. Over the course of a year, approximately
15,000 people cycle in and out of homelessness in Orange County.
While the PIT count provides valuable information about the state of Orange County's homeless
population, especially in drawing comparisons between years, some skepticism exists regarding
the accuracy of the total count provided. Critics worry that the homeless population, particularly
those who are unsheltered, are undercounted since a number may be residing in places that are
not visible to the County, city, and agency staffs, and community volunteers who are mobilized
to do the count. Nevertheless, the count represents the only countywide estimate for the number
of homeless living here and provides a good basis for illustrating and understanding
homelessness within Orange County.
Table 1: Total OC Homeless Persons and Living Situation, 2015-2017
Source: Adapted from Orange County Continuum of Care 2017 Homeless Count & Survey Report
As shown in Table 1, not only was there an overall increase in the number of homeless within
the county, the number of unsheltered homeless also increased 17% compared to the 2015 PIT
count.
The Debilitating Effects of Homelessness
The debilitating effects of homelessness on the mental and physical health of homeless
individuals are well documented. Homelessness not only aggravates existing medical
conditions, but can create new ones. In fact, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and
HIV/AIDS are often found at rates three to six times greater than the general population.
Existing conditions can worsen due to lack of access to appropriate medical care. Homeless
individuals report higher levels of stress and depression, further increasing their likelihood and
incidence of mental illness. It is not uncommon for the homeless to suffer from multiple
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 7
16-20
% Change
2015
2017
2015-2017
Number of Sheltered Homeless
2,251
2,208
(2%)
Number of Unsheltered
2 201
2,584
17%
Homeless
Total Number of Homeless
4,452
4,792
8%
Source: Adapted from Orange County Continuum of Care 2017 Homeless Count & Survey Report
As shown in Table 1, not only was there an overall increase in the number of homeless within
the county, the number of unsheltered homeless also increased 17% compared to the 2015 PIT
count.
The Debilitating Effects of Homelessness
The debilitating effects of homelessness on the mental and physical health of homeless
individuals are well documented. Homelessness not only aggravates existing medical
conditions, but can create new ones. In fact, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and
HIV/AIDS are often found at rates three to six times greater than the general population.
Existing conditions can worsen due to lack of access to appropriate medical care. Homeless
individuals report higher levels of stress and depression, further increasing their likelihood and
incidence of mental illness. It is not uncommon for the homeless to suffer from multiple
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 7
16-20
Where There's Will, There's a Way
conditions with a complex mix of severe physical, mental, substance abuse, and social problems.
High stress, unhealthy and dangerous environments, and poor nutrition result in ER visits and
hospitalizations. Those experiencing homelessness are three to four times more likely to die
prematurely than the housed population, and have a much lower life expectancy. (Homelessness
& Health, 2011)
HUD Recognizes Housing First as the Primary Approach for Homeless Housing
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has designated "Housing
First" as the recommended approach to providing housing for the homeless. Housing First
describes an overall system approach to homelessness that prioritizes moving someone into
permanent housing as quickly as possible so that they have a stable foundation from which to
address other issues, such as finding employment or dealing with substance abuse.
Table 2: Descriptions of Homeless Housing/Shelters within Orange County
Type of Homeless Housing
Description
Emergency Shelter
Provides a short-term stay for an individual or family
experiencing homelessness.
Transitional Housing
Provides temporary housing of up to two years along with
appropriate supportive services, and is designed to facilitate
movement to permanent housing once an individual is deemed
ready to do so. This type of housing is often used for people or
families who may be at a transition point in their lives, such as
those leaving prison, youth aging out of foster care, and women
fleeing domestic violence.
Rapid Rehousing
Based on the Housing First approach, this intervention is
designed to prevent individuals and families from becoming
homeless, or to quickly exit homelessness and return to stable,
permanent housing. The program provides assistance in three
major areas: locating appropriate housing, rental and move -in
assistance, and case management and services. It is typically
time-limited and focused on those who can become self-
sufficient at some point in the near future.
Permanent Supportive
Also based on the Housing First approach, this model combines
Housing
rent -subsidized, permanent housing with ongoing access to
services such as mental health and substance abuse counseling
and is typically targeted at the chronically homeless who may
need this assistance for the remainder of their lives.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 8
16-21
Where There's Will, There's a Way
As shown in Table 2, various types of housing options targeting homeless individuals and
families are available within Orange County.
In 2016, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 1380, which requires all state housing
authorities to adopt core components of Housing First, including:
• Low Barrier Access to Housing —must accept applicants regardless of sobriety or use of
substances, or participation in treatment or services
• Services Tailored to Tenant Needs— supportive services emphasize voluntary engagement
and problem solving without having to meet predetermined goals.
• Tenants have lease protections with all the rights and responsibilities of tenancy
The Chronically Homeless in Orange County
HUD defines a chronically homeless person as "either (1) an unaccompanied homeless
individual with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for a year or more,
OR (2) an unaccompanied individual with a disabling condition who has had at least four
episodes of homelessness in the past three years." An "unaccompanied homeless person" means
an individual who is alone, and is not part of a homeless family or accompanied by children.
Presence of a disabling condition, such as physical disability, mental illness, or addiction,
represents a defining element of chronic homelessness. hi some cases, a disability may have
been a key factor contributing to homelessness, while in other instances the disability arose due
to the mental and physical stress of living on the street. The chronically homeless include some
of the most vulnerable individuals among the homeless population, people whose life
expectancies and quality of life have been diminished by their time living without shelter.
The Number of Chronically Homeless is Increasing
The 2017 PIT count identified 893 individuals as chronically homeless in Orange County. Of
those, the majority — 68%— were unsheltered. The remaining 32% categorized as sheltered were
those living in an emergency shelter without a permanent home.
The number of chronically homeless has increased dramatically — 60% — since the 2015 PIT
Count.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 9
16-22
Where There's Will, There's a Way
Table 3: Total Number of OC Chronically Homeless and Living Situation
Source: Adapted from Orange County Continuum of Care 2017 Homeless Count & Survey Report
Most Chronically Homeless are Longtime Orange County Residents
From the demographic data included in the 2017 PIT count and the 2017 Homelessness in
Orange County: Costs to the Community reports, the following general observations can be made
about the chronically homeless population:
• Most are older males in the 45 — 60 year-old age group
• Females makeup about 20 — 25% of this group
• Roughly half are Non -Hispanic white
• About 1 in 7 are Veterans
• The overwhelming majority have lived in Orange County longer than 10 years
• They are predominantly U.S. born
A Combination of Economic Issues and Disabilities Account for much Chronic Homelessness
The causes of chronic homelessness are related to the same factors that produce homelessness in
general. Figure 1 shows the various reasons for becoming homeless as reported by those
currently living on the street compared to reasons provided by the formerly homeless in PSH.
Among the former chronically homeless now living in Permanent Supportive Housing, two
primary factors stand out: (a) the most cited reasons for their homelessness were economic in
nature, such as job loss or inability to afford high rents; and (b) the relatively high incidence of
reported mental and physical health issues underscores the need for ongoing access to supportive
services once they are in permanent housing.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 10
16-23
2015
2017
% Change
2015-2017
Sheltered Chronically Homeless
111
284
156%
Unsheltered Chronically Homeless
447
609
36%
Total Number Chronically Homeless
558
893
60%
Source: Adapted from Orange County Continuum of Care 2017 Homeless Count & Survey Report
Most Chronically Homeless are Longtime Orange County Residents
From the demographic data included in the 2017 PIT count and the 2017 Homelessness in
Orange County: Costs to the Community reports, the following general observations can be made
about the chronically homeless population:
• Most are older males in the 45 — 60 year-old age group
• Females makeup about 20 — 25% of this group
• Roughly half are Non -Hispanic white
• About 1 in 7 are Veterans
• The overwhelming majority have lived in Orange County longer than 10 years
• They are predominantly U.S. born
A Combination of Economic Issues and Disabilities Account for much Chronic Homelessness
The causes of chronic homelessness are related to the same factors that produce homelessness in
general. Figure 1 shows the various reasons for becoming homeless as reported by those
currently living on the street compared to reasons provided by the formerly homeless in PSH.
Among the former chronically homeless now living in Permanent Supportive Housing, two
primary factors stand out: (a) the most cited reasons for their homelessness were economic in
nature, such as job loss or inability to afford high rents; and (b) the relatively high incidence of
reported mental and physical health issues underscores the need for ongoing access to supportive
services once they are in permanent housing.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 10
16-23
Figure 1: Reasons for Becoming Homeless
50
45%
40
35%
30
25%
20
15%
10%
5%
0%
Where There's Will, There's a Way
■ Homeless on Street
ori\ air axe �a\
KoF
P
o� �¢ Qrd' e\easea
P
■ Chronically Homeless in PSH
Source: Adapted from Homelessness in Orange County: The Costs to our Community
Costs to Orange County from Homelessness
The estimated cost for addressing homelessness across all service sectors over a twelve-month
period from 2014 - 2015 in Orange County was approximately $299 million. These sectors
included municipalities, hospitals, the County, non-governmental housing agencies, and other
non-governmental agencies. Of the three biggest sectors, Orange County cities appear to bear
the greatest cost burden, funding an estimated $120 million for the year studied. The cost data
associated with caring for Orange County's homeless population was reported in a collaborative
study, Homelessness in Orange County: The Costs to our Community published in 2017 and
sponsored by Orange County United Way, Jamboree Housing, and UC Irvine. Data was
collected from five primary sources: the County of Orange, the cities within the county, Orange
County hospitals, non-profit agencies serving the homeless, and homeless individuals
themselves. (In the remainder of this report, the study will be referred to as "The Cost Study of
Homelessness').
2017-2018
Orange County Grand Jury
Page 11
16-24
Where There's Will, There's a Way
Figure 2: Cost of Homelessness Across Sectors in OC
$140,000,000
$120,000,000
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
3
$120,338,343 $76,565,034 $62,167,417 $34,583,038 $5,638,823
Non -govt.
Other non -govt.
Municipalities Hospitals County Housing
Agency agencies
Source: Adapted from Homelessness in Orange County: The Costs to Our Community
Other cities and counties across the U.S. have also identified large cost outlays for addressing
homeless issues in their areas. For example, in the study entitled "Home Not Found: The Cost
of Homelessness in Silicon Valley," (Flaming, et al, 2015) Santa Clara County discovered they
had spent approximately $520 million per year providing homeless services over the six-year
period covered by the study.
Heakh Care Costs are the Largest Area of Expense
According to the Cost Study of Homelessness, cities, hospitals, and the County fund the largest
area of expense — health care — at approximately $120.6 million per year. This result is in line
with many other studies conducted across the U.S. showing the substantial cost of providing
health care to the homeless. These cost estimates were derived prior to establishing two new
county emergency shelters as well as prior to relocating the homeless on the Flood Control
Channel. In addition, many cities recently hired Homeless Liaison Officers and contracted for
homeless Outreach and Engagement staff. These actions taken together potentially increase
costs across both the city and the county sectors.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 12
16-25
Where There's Will, There's a Way
Table 4: 2014-2015 Costs of Addressing Homelessness in OC across Three Largest Cost Clusters
Health Care
Housing
Law Enforcement
$120,582,177
$105,932,061
$23,771,292
Source: Adapted from Homelessness in Orange County: The Costs to Our Community
Orange County's Chronically Homeless Account for a Significant Portion of Costs
The Cost Study of Homelessness discovered wide disparities in the costs to provide services to
the various homeless sub -populations within Orange County. In particular, the costs associated
with providing services to the chronically homeless living on the street were the highest among
any segment of the homeless population. As shown in Figure 3, the average cost of services for
a chronically homeless person on the street is almost twice that of a resident in Permanent
Supportive Housing — even taking into account the cost of providing that resident with housing
and services.
Figure 3: Average Annual Service Cost per Person by Type of Housing, 2014-2015
$120,000
$100,000
$50,000 —
$60,000 —
$40,000 —
$20,000 —
$0 —
Street- Shelter- Permanent Street - Non- Shelter - non- Rapid Re -
Chronic Chronic Supportive chronic chronic housing
Housing
Source: Adapted from Homelessness in Orange County: The Costs to Our Community
2017-2018
Orange County Grand Jury
Page 13
16-26
Where There's Will, There's a Way
Chronically homeless persons make greater use of emergency departments, inpatient care,
psychiatric care, detoxification services, and jails. Indeed, in comparison to people with similar
characteristics who are housed, the homeless use more emergency services and experience more
and longer hospitalizations. To underscore the high cost of leaving the chronically homeless
unsheltered, the Cost of Homelessness study identified that the costliest 10% of the those living
on the streets generated average annual costs of about $440,000 per person— primarily due to
high medical expenses.
Many other studies across the U.S. have substantiated these results. For example, in a study
entitled "Getting Home: Outcomes from Housing High -Cost Homeless Hospital Patients"
(Flaming et al, 2013) the authors found a 72% decrease in average total health care costs among
the study participants who moved into supportive housing. Likewise, a study entitled "Begin at
Home: A Housing First Pilot Project for Chronically Homeless Single Adults" (Srebnik, 2013)
reported 74% fewer hospital admissions among those in supportive housing compared to those
not in PSH. As a result of the numerous studies demonstrating the effectiveness of Permanent
Supportive Housing for the chronically homeless, HUD increased funding for this model by 39%
between 2012 and 2016.
Permanent Supportive Housing Decreases Medical Costs and Police/Jail Contacts
To achieve a stable housing situation, most chronically homeless not only need a rent -subsidized
apartment, they also require access to supportive services to ensure they can remain there. For
example, someone with mental health issues may need assistance to ensure they get counseling
and take medications as prescribed. Likewise, a person suffering from a chronic and debilitating
illness may require help managing their diet and ensuring they make their doctor appointments in
order to avoid emergency room visits and hospital stays.
As Table 4 demonstrates, residents of PSH access medical services and have brushes with the
law less often than the chronically homeless on the streets or in emergency shelters.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 14
16-27
Where There's Will, There's a Way
Table 5: Average Service Utilization and Criminal Justice Contacts in One Month
Source: Adaptedfrom: Homelessness in Orange County: The Costs to Our Community
The main exception to this pattern of decreasing incidence is the number of times they access
"other health services." Authors of the Cost Study of Homelessness theorized these "other
health services" represent more routine and preventative services such as visits to doctors'
offices and outpatient clinics — activities which are decidedly less expensive than pricey
ambulance transports and ER visits.
Why the large decrease in usage of hospital care and contacts with law enforcement? Studies
show that the mere fact of having a permanent place where one has a legal right to stay positively
impacts a variety of environmental, social, and physiological influences on health and well -
2017 -2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 15
16-28
Chronically
Permanent
% Decrease in
Homeless in Street
Supportive Housing
Incidence
or Shelter
(# times accessed in
Among those in
(# times accessed in
one month)
Permanent
one month)
Supportive
Housing
# times accessed soup
19.13
2.22
88%
kitchen or pantry
# times in ER
0.58
0.33
43%
# times in ambulance
0.27
0.06
78%
# times inpatient in
0.17
0.08
53%
hospital
# times accessed other
0.62
1.78
(187%)
health services
#times ticketed
0.46
0.08
83%
# times arrested
0.15
0
100%
# times appeared in court
0.20
0.02
90%
# nights in holding cell,
0.13
0
100%
jail or prison
# nights in shelter or
6.9
0
100%
emergency shelter
Number of Interviewees
53
49
Source: Adaptedfrom: Homelessness in Orange County: The Costs to Our Community
The main exception to this pattern of decreasing incidence is the number of times they access
"other health services." Authors of the Cost Study of Homelessness theorized these "other
health services" represent more routine and preventative services such as visits to doctors'
offices and outpatient clinics — activities which are decidedly less expensive than pricey
ambulance transports and ER visits.
Why the large decrease in usage of hospital care and contacts with law enforcement? Studies
show that the mere fact of having a permanent place where one has a legal right to stay positively
impacts a variety of environmental, social, and physiological influences on health and well -
2017 -2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 15
16-28
Where There's Will, There's a Way
being. Having one's name on a lease greatly reduces the stress associated with not having a
permanent place to sleep each night, and stress reduction has been shown to assist with
recovery. A person in supportive housing has increased opportunity for employment, family
involvement, and maintaining a stable social network, all of which contribute to improved
mental and physical health. Research shows that when individuals with mental illness are placed
in PSH settings, they have better rates of recovery than those in other settings. (Dohler, 2016)
Many municipalities have enacted ordinances targeting activities such as camping or sleeping in
public, begging, loitering, living in vehicles, or storing personal belongings in public spaces. A
person provided with PSH, therefore, avoids being ticketed or incarcerated for engaging in these
activities, resulting in decreased costs to law enforcement, courts, and jails.
High Retention Rates are Reported with Permanent Supportive Housing
Former chronically homeless individuals living in PSH demonstrate high retention rates,
according to studies commissioned by cities and counties. Analyzing data from the years 2011 —
2014, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority found that chronically homeless individuals
residing in PSH had retention rates of 90 — 96% over a six-month period, and 84 — 90% over a
one-year period. In a three-year San Diego study funded by the United Way and entitled
"Project 25: Housing the Most Frequent Users of Public Services among the Homeless," twenty-
eight homeless individuals who were among the most frequent users of public services, including
ERs, hospitals and jails, were placed in PSH. Their use of services was tracked for two years
and then compared with their usage of these programs in the year prior to their enrollment. Not
only did their service costs decrease by 67% over the two-year period, twenty-five of the
individuals — 89%— either remained in PSH or graduated to housing requiring less intensive use
of services.
Permanent Supportive Housing in Orange County — Insufficient to Meet the Need
According to the most recent information from Orange County's Housing Inventory Count
(HIC), 1,724 adult -only Permanent Supportive Housing beds exist in OC. These units are
typically located in small apartment complexes and fourplexes scattered across the county, with
the majority found in the central and northern regions. hi some of the more recently developed
PSH units, an affordable, multi -family housing complex has set aside a portion of its units for
PSH. Several projects have involved renovating abandoned hotels and transforming them into
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 16
16-29
Where There's Will, There's a Way
PSH. Some PSH units target a specific sub -population of the chronically homeless, such as
veterans, those with mental illness, or the physically disabled. Complexes may employ
caseworkers to live onsite to provide ongoing assistance and services to the formerly homeless.
Others have case workers visit regularly to check in with residents and provide services.
While the number of PSH units has slightly increased across the county in the past few years,
these units are typically at 100% of their capacity with long waiting lists. In fact, the 2017
Housing Inventory Count from the County's Homeless Management Information System
(HMIS) indicated a PSH waiting list of over 1,000 people.
Table 6: Number of Adult -Only PSH Units in OC, 2016-2017
Source: Orange County HMIS -Housing Inventory Count
A shortage of PSH units within the county contributes to the need for more emergency shelter
beds to accommodate those needing an interim place to stay. The Grand Jury heard reports of
individuals being housed in emergency shelters for up to a year while awaiting a permanent bed,
resulting in a logjam as the newly homeless tried to find a place to stay. Given the concurrent
shortage of emergency shelter beds, the ultimate outcome is an increase in the unsheltered
homeless population living on Orange County streets.
A Proposal for Increasing Permanent Supportive Housing in Orange County of Orange
During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury could find no single, agreed-upon
estimate for the number of PSH units needed. Several County sources have indicated that a
housing strategic plan, which would include a PSH estimate, is in development.
Meanwhile, the Association of California Cities — Orange County (ACC -OC) — a group that
provides Orange County cities assistance with policy development and legislative advocacy —
recently presented a proposal identifying the need to create 2,700 additional Permanent
Supportive Housing units across the county in the next three years. This estimate was
determined using the size of the unsheltered homeless population from the 2017 PIT count as a
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 17
16-30
2016
2017
% change 2016 -
2017
Number of
1,456
1,724
18%
PSH units
Source: Orange County HMIS -Housing Inventory Count
A shortage of PSH units within the county contributes to the need for more emergency shelter
beds to accommodate those needing an interim place to stay. The Grand Jury heard reports of
individuals being housed in emergency shelters for up to a year while awaiting a permanent bed,
resulting in a logjam as the newly homeless tried to find a place to stay. Given the concurrent
shortage of emergency shelter beds, the ultimate outcome is an increase in the unsheltered
homeless population living on Orange County streets.
A Proposal for Increasing Permanent Supportive Housing in Orange County of Orange
During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury could find no single, agreed-upon
estimate for the number of PSH units needed. Several County sources have indicated that a
housing strategic plan, which would include a PSH estimate, is in development.
Meanwhile, the Association of California Cities — Orange County (ACC -OC) — a group that
provides Orange County cities assistance with policy development and legislative advocacy —
recently presented a proposal identifying the need to create 2,700 additional Permanent
Supportive Housing units across the county in the next three years. This estimate was
determined using the size of the unsheltered homeless population from the 2017 PIT count as a
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 17
16-30
Where There's Will, There's a Way
guide. To underscore the regional nature of homelessness, the proposal recommends allocating
these 2,700 units proportionally across all thirty-four cities and unincorporated county areas by
population. Thus, larger cities within the county would receive a greater allocation of PSH units
while smaller communities would be allocated fewer units.
In April 2018, the County signaled its approval of this proposal by announcing it will take a lead
role. Meetings with city officials have already taken place and a working group of interested
cities formed. The final business plan for this proposed project is still in development, with
major issues such as funding sources, site availability, and degree of city buy -in still to be
determined.
Roadblocks and Challenges to Creating More Permanent Supportive Housing in Orange
County
Given the critical need for more PSH development within the county, the Grand Jury
investigated the various roadblocks and challenges that could impede its development, including
the 2,700 units identified in the proposal.
Lack of Consensus and Buy -in within Cities for PSHSolutions
1. Each citv trying to address homelessness on its own: A prevailing issue encountered in this
investigation was the preference of many cities to address issues such as homelessness in a
"silo"; that is, addressing the problem on their own without engaging with other cities to pool
resources and knowledge. In one sense, a city's tendency to combat this issue on its own is a
natural consequence of how Orange County cities have traditionally operated. Each city has
its own city council, city manager and staff, and other supporting departments to allow it to
operate autonomously.
However, a city trying to go it alone ignores the regional nature of homelessness. First,
homelessness does not recognize city, or even county, borders. In addition, the magnitude of
the issue requires large dollar investments and expertise in navigating the very complex area
of siting and funding PSH development — resources and knowledge that often exceed the
ability of one city to address on its own. In some cases, cities trying to go it alone have
become so overwhelmed that they have responded by establishing rules to only care for
"their own" homeless. That is, before providing services of any type, they require a
homeless person to show proof that he or she previously resided in their city.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 18
16-31
Where There's Will, There's a Way
To be fair, some cities approach the issue on their own because they believe no other group is
willing or able to provide leadership, be it expertise or in funding. Many cities reported that
they have been looking for an entity, such as the County, to step forward and provide
leadership on homelessness in general, and housing solutions specifically.
It was instructive to note the number of cities with whom the Grand Jury spoke who believe
they are doing more than any other city in the county with respect to providing homeless
services and housing. A number of other cities did not necessarily think they are providing
the most services, but did believe they are doing more than their fair share. These inequities
concern them, in large part, due to the major financial outlays they are making to care for the
homeless. hi addition, there is significant concern that being a leader in providing services
and housing would make their city a magnet for attracting more homeless, not only
increasing their financial obligations, but spurring resident outcry as well.
2. Misperceptions and lack of knowledge about PSH: While some city officials - both elected
and city staff— have voiced strong support for PSH, others do not appear to understand what
Permanent Supportive Housing provides and the benefits it delivers. For some, PSH invokes
images of "the projects" —those affordable housing projects constructed in the 1960s and
1970s that were negatively associated with increasing crime and perpetuating poverty.
Others voiced concerns that placing chronic substance abusers and the mentally ill into
housing would just move the problem from the street into a housing development — not
understanding that case management services would be provided to help prevent this from
happening.
Some city officials may be unfamiliar with the 1,724 PSH units currently available within
Orange County. By all accounts, these units are successfully integrated into a number of
different communities. In fact, in researching these communities, the Grand Jury heard
claims that these developments are often the most attractive in the neighborhood and
increase, rather than depress, housing prices in the area.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 19
16-32
Where There's Will, There's a Way
Rockwood Apartments provides housing and support services for forty-eight formerly homeless
families, as well as fifteen Permanent Supportive Housing units for clients receiving mental health
services. In conceiving the project, Jamboree Housing made a concerted effort to engage the
neighboring community, holding a contest for local school children to name the development, and
utilizing harmonious architectural designs that integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. Partners
in the development include the City of Anaheim, the Anaheim School District, and the Illumination
Foundation, all of which continue to provide supportive services to the formerly homeless residents.
Rockwood was a finalist in the Affordable Housing Finance Reader's Choice Awards for 2017, which
assesses its selections based, among other characteristics, on the nominee's role in overall community
revitalization; tapping new funding sources or demonstrating new efficiency in capital costs and/or
maintenance/operating costs; offering outstanding social services for tenants; and receiving broad
community support, including state and local government financial assistance.
3. Lack of understanding of the cost savings Provided by PSH: While general awareness of the
Cost Study of Homelessness was relatively high among city staff, there was a fair amount of
doubt whether their cities would achieve significant savings if PSH is developed. This
skepticism appears to primarily arise from the fact that the cost categories outlined in the
study don't necessarily align with a city's budget line items, making it difficult to estimate
savings from developing more PSH. Providing health care to the homeless, the largest cost
area in the study, is typically not a line item in a city budget. While these costs ultimately
translate into higher medical insurance rates, they do not correspond to those line items.
4. Local resident resistance to Placing PSH Projects within their citv ("NIMBYism'): Of all the
issues identified as roadblocks to siting PSH within Orange County cities, one of the most
challenging is resident opposition to placing any type of housing for the homeless within
their neighborhoods. Several cities provided examples of projects that had to be abandoned
due to overwhelming resident resistance. Others had declined to even bring certain projects
forward due to concerns over encountering massive resistance. Cities report their residents
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 20
16-33
Where There's Will, There's a Way
appear resistant to any type of housing that accommodates the homeless near them. This
resistance is primarily due to public safety fears, though concerns of negative impact on
housing values were also voiced.
While the Grand Jury could find no specific studies detailing crime statistics in areas within
OC with PSH, information gathered from other areas of the country suggests that there is
little evidence of an appreciable increase in crime. This may be due to the stabilizing effect
afforded by living in a house, as well as the presence of housing support staff who can check
on residents or call to report suspicious activity. (Coburn, 2015) Studies indicated that
housing values in the areas of PSH had remained stable, or had even risen. (Impact of
Supportive Housing, Furman Center)
NIMBYism certainly isn't unique to Orange County. In November 2013, the Central Florida
Regional Commission on Homelessness published the results of a nationwide survey on best
practices in addressing homelessness, and a major best -practice theme was dealing with
resident resistance to siting housing for the homeless. One of the most frequently mentioned
recommendations specified that no program succeeded without educating the community
about homelessness and gaining its investment in the solutions.
The Orange County United Way has enlisted private and philanthropic partners, as well as various city
officials, in a campaign to educate people about the causes of homelessness and the need to build more
housing. United to End Homelessness is focused on building public awareness and engagement in an
effort to circumvent resistance to housing the homeless in Orange County communities.
The stated goals of the campaign are to rally community support for Permanent Supportive Housing;
to identify homes both through accessing existing rental units and working with partners to support
and champion efforts to develop new units; and, working with the County and others to leverage data
that helps the community gain insight in order to enhance the overall system of care.
County Leadership that has been Crisis Driven rather than Strategic
The Grand Jury could identify no evidence of a detailed and systematic strategic plan that lays
out either the number or type of housing options needed to create more countywide housing for
the homeless. A comprehensive regional plan should include elements such as the number of
units needed within all housing categories (homeless shelter, rapid rehousing, transitional
housing and PSH) and the cumulative funding required over a multi-year landscape to reach this
goal.
It might seem unfair to fault County officials for lack of planning and leadership on homeless
housing issues given the amount of activity that has taken place on this front over the past
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 21
16-34
Where There's Will, There's a Way
several years. For one, in 2016 they hired a Director of Care Coordination ("homeless czar")
that had been recommended by the 1988-89, 1990-91, and 2005-06 Grand Juries —
recommendations that were ignored at the time. Within a relatively short time, they opened the
county's first all -season homeless shelter, the Courtyard in Santa Ana, and opened the Bridges at
Kraemer Place in Anaheim. A number of other projects are in the works, including establishing
a much-needed second Crisis Stabilization Unit that can assess and treat the mentally ill
homeless population.
While all these activities were certainly necessary, they appeared driven more by the County
operating in crisis mode rather than from any strategic plan developed to address the homeless
housing shortage. The homeless population at the flood control channel was allowed to grow to
over 700 people while the County and the cities debated ownership of the issue. In attempting to
relocate them, the County struggled to find appropriate housing for those individuals and spent
large amounts of money to do so. In addition, two federal lawsuits were filed against the County
on behalf of those living on the flood control channel, resulting in a federal judge's involvement
in the equation.
As the County tries to catch up with providing sufficient housing and emergency shelters for the
homeless, their efforts are often stymied by cities' refusals to provide locations for these
facilities. Since cities are the land use authority within their borders, the County relies on their
cooperation to allocate building sites. The County has indicated it is willing to fund shelters, but
needs the cities to step up and provide locations.
Lack of Collaboration and Cooperation among County and Cities
Here we arrive at the basic point of contention that framed much of this investigation — that is,
the finger -pointing and lack of trust that exists between the County and the cities, and even
among the cities themselves, on the homeless issue. The cities believe the County is not
providing sufficient leadership in outlining a countywide plan for the homeless and is too frugal
in disbursing the state and federal homeless funds it receives. Meanwhile, the County is
frustrated that cities are not responsive to repeated requests for siting any type of homeless
housing, be it emergency shelters or permanent housing. The cities are mistrustful of each other
since each may think they already are providing more homeless services than other cities in their
area. However, winds of change may be on the horizon. With the County signaling they will
take a leadership role in the 2,700 -unit PSH proposal, and with a number of cities indicating
strong interest, actual steps toward collaboration could occur.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 22
16-35
Where There's Will, There's a Way
Over a decade ago, the State of Utah committed to ending chronic homelessness within its borders.
As of 2018, it has reduced their number by 91%, from 1900 to 158. The key factor in this success
is the formation of a leadership body with the ability to operate "above the silos," according to
Lloyd Pendleton, the project's chief "champion." Pendleton advocates establishing a group with
limited membership — no more than fifteen people — who are able to implement systemic change
and are empowered to control and allocate at least thirty percent of the revenues available for PSH.
These champions, as Pendleton calls them, should represent a collaborative of providers, funders,
and county and city political leaders who are results -oriented, biased to act, with stamina, a sense
of personal responsibility, and a belief in the common good. He maintains that this is the type of
coalition necessary to affect a unified vision and plan for addressing homelessness.
Securing Sufficient Funding
1. Funding sources for PSH are unpredictable and inconsistent. Funding for Permanent
Supportive Housing originates almost entirely from state and federal sources. At the federal
level, Section 8 housing vouchers, Community Development Block Grants, Emergency
Solutions Grants and Continuum of Care funds — among others — are distributed to state and
local housing agencies and community development departments to assist with housing
development. At the state level, dollars collected from the Mental Health Services Act
(MHSA) provide a source of funding to house the mentally ill homeless population.
Affordable housing developers apply for federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits, which
provide gap financing for affordable housing projects, including PSH.
However, over the years, funding from these sources has fluctuated depending on the state of
the economy and the priorities of the political party in charge. Most recently, the 2018-2019
federal budget initially included major cuts to many of the federal housing programs, though
last minute negotiations on the spending bill have apparently reinstated much of this funding.
Since state and federal funding for homeless housing can be so unpredictable, and often
insufficient, many counties have turned to alternate sources to supplement financing.
In Los Angeles County, voters approved Measure H, while City of Los Angeles voters approved
Proposition HHH in 2016. Measure H includes a 0.25% countywide sales tax to fund homeless
support services, housing, outreach and development. Proposition HHH will provide $1.2 billion
from a general obligation bond to construct 10,000 units of PSH. Alameda County passed the Al
Bond Measure which will raise $580 million to fund affordable housing efforts. In September
2017, San Diego County created the Innovative Housing Trust Fund which recently announced
$25 million in gap financing to affordable housing developers to facilitate the construction,
acquisition, rehabilitation, and loan repayment of affordable, multi -family housing.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 23
16-36
Where There's Will, There's a Way
2. New state funding sources are on the horizon, but will require close collaboration between all
parties — cities, County, and non-profit —to receive optimum funding.
In 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation enacting the "No Place Like Home"
(NPLH) program. This program is intended to provide $2 billion in bond proceeds in
California for the development of PSH for persons who are in need of mental health services
and are experiencing homelessness, or are at risk of homelessness. Specific county
allocations have not yet been made, but are expected to be released at some point in 2018.
A major funding component of the program is the Competitive Program, which will allocate
dollars to counties — at least in part — based on a county's population. In addition, a key to
achieving greater funding will be an assessment of how closely a county is partnering with its
cities and community-based organizations to create PSH and homeless services.
3. Supportive services will require ongoing funding. Once formerly homeless individuals are
moved into PSH, they will likely require access to ongoing supportive services, such as
mental health or substance abuse counseling, or assistance with a physical disability.
Financing 2,700 PSH units is only the first part of the equation; funding for the ongoing
services for residents of those units must be planned and budgeted. In fact, one of the
threshold requirements of the No Place Like Home Program is a 20 -year commitment to
provide supportive services to NPLH tenants.
HOMF(FUL), a 501(c)3 non-profit, receives and allocates a voluntary fee assessed on the
sale of homes originally built by Lennar. The fee is one-tenth of one percent of the sale
price; the seller may opt out if he or she does not wish to participate (the information is
disclosed on the property title). At the close of escrow this fee transfers to HOMF(FUL),
which maintains a roster of charitable organizations that provide housing and supportive
services to the homeless and distributes funding to those that successfully apply.
HOMF(FUL) identifies a number of benefits for those home sellers participating in the
program: the fee is tax-deductible; the seller provides a direct, tangible benefit to a person
without a home; and the fees generated remain within the community and can contribute to
projects typically paid for by taxes. HOMF(FUL) estimates they will raise ten billion dollars
with this program over the next ten years. Lennar's goal moving forward is to enlist as many
builders as possible to participate in the program.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 24
16-37
Where There's Will, There's a Way
Lack ofAdequate Staffing within County Housing & Community Development Department to Review
and Facilitate Projects
Housing and Community Development (HCD), a division within Orange County Community
Resources, administers the County's affordable housing development, community development,
homeless prevention programs, and housing successor agency programs and activities. HCD
plays a key role in working with affordable housing developers to notify them when state and
federal housing funds become available, and to ensure that projects, such as those targeted for
PSH, move through the pipeline as quickly as possible.
The two positions currently budgeted within HCD are now vacant, one for over a year. During
the investigation, the Grand Jury heard that lack of staffing interferes with speedy review and
facilitation of projects. In some cases, developers had to use back -channel communications to
other County officials in order to get a project considered.
Service Planning Area Meetings Encourage Information Sharing, but do not Promote Action
In an effort to increase collaboration and sharing of best practices among cities on homeless
issues, the Director of Care Coordination (the "homeless czar") subdivided the county into three
Service Planning Areas (SPAS): north, central, and south. Each planning area holds monthly
meetings with a portion of each city's staff and elected officials, as well as with non-profit
agencies and advocates serving the homeless.
Feedback the Grand Jury received indicated that SPA meetings are well -attended, since most
cities are seeking any available assistance or information to address homelessness. However, a
number of city attendees are disappointed that the meetings primarily focus on sharing
information rather than promoting action. In some instances, due to city staff frustration with the
lack of significant action, lower -level staff now attend meetings in lieu of their bosses. However,
these individuals typically do not hold the decision-making authority required if opportunities do
arise for joint city planning activities.
Perception that the Homeless are Service Resistant
In conducting its investigation, the Grand Jury discovered that some city and County officials
believe that homeless individuals will not accept offers of service, including housing. This
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 25
16-38
Where There's Will, There's a Way
perceived service resistance leads them to question the need for establishing housing options,
such as PSH, since, in their view, the homeless will not want to live in this housing anyway.
The Grand Jury spoke with a number of non-profit personnel who regularly interact with the
homeless to understand their perspective on the matter. Service providers report that a level of
trust must be established with homeless individuals before they will feel comfortable accepting
services, including offers of housing. Outreach workers say it may take seven to eight
engagements with a homeless person to gain sufficient trust for them to believe you really have
their best interests in mind. One service provider indicated that the willingness of homeless
individuals to receive offered services depends on who is making the offer and what they are
offering. For example, when uniformed officers approach a homeless individual with an offer of
help, the offer may be refused out of hand due to that individual's unease with law enforcement.
While most providers believe there is a segment of the homeless population that will ultimately
be resistant to accepting services, they estimate that segment represents a relatively small
percentage of the population — perhaps in the 10-15 % range.
At the kickoff of the United Way's "United to End Homelessness" program, Andrae Bailey—
Orlando, Florida's former homeless czar who is credited with helping to substantially decrease
homelessness in that area— said the following: "Beliefs dictate policy and investments. If you
believe the homeless don't want help, that will influence your policy."
Conclusion
The Grand Jury discovered many issues impeding increased Permanent Supportive Housing
development, such as funding and a shortage of sites on which to build more PSH units. While
these are vital issues that need to be addressed, nothing can be accomplished without leadership
and collaboration between the County and cities. During the investigation, the Grand Jury heard
both sides level claims of "lack of political will." However, while political will — or the lack
thereof— is frequently and glibly used as an accusation, its explicit meaning is vague, making
efforts at addressing the real, underlying problems difficult.
In a paper entitled "Defining Political Will" (Post, et al, 2010), the authors state that political will
exists when these four components exist:
• A sufficient set of decision -makers in positions of power who support desired reform,
• With a common understanding of a particular problem and agreement that the problem
requires government action,
• Who are intensely committed to supporting a fix for the problem,
• And agree on a potentially effective policy solution
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 26
16-39
Where There's Will, There's a Way
The Grand Jury identified issues within each of the four components listed above, including the
following: cities at odds over whether to allow homeless housing, disagreements over who
should lead development efforts for homeless housing, and even conflicts over whether PSH is
the best solution for the chronically homeless.
Officials in many cities have not reached consensus among themselves on the value of PSH,
making it difficult to create compelling arguments and a unified front to overcome resident
opposition to siting these units within their communities. County officials only recently
acknowledged they hold lead responsibility for homeless housing in Orange County. Until
consensus is achieved on these issues, the County and cities will not be able to overcome the
many roadblocks to building more PSH in Orange County.
COMMENDATION
The Grand Jury was offered significant insight into the issues surrounding homelessness through
its interviews and tours of non-governmental organizations serving on the front lines in Orange
County cities. For many years, social service non -profits and housing developers have provided
substantial leadership and stewardship in the area of housing for the homeless, including
advocating for the construction of more Permanent Supportive Housing, emergency shelters, and
crisis stabilization units. Despite seemingly intractable resistance to incorporating these types of
housing in neighborhoods, these organizations have persevered in their efforts to find the needed
funds and political support to realize their mission. The fact that the County currently has 1,724
units of adult -only PSH within its borders can be attributed to their vision and commitment.
Additionally, the Grand Jury commends the civic membership organizations that have taken a
public stance in advocating for appropriate housing and services for Orange County's homeless
population.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 27
16-40
Where There's Will, There's a Way
FINDINGS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury
requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in
this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Based on its investigation titled "Where There's Will, There's a Way: Housing Orange County's
Chronically Homeless," the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at ten principal
findings, as follows:
F1. Homelessness in Orange County is a regional problem requiring regional approaches and
solutions.
F2 The lack of a regional plan designating specific development goals for Permanent
Supportive Housing contributes to an insufficient number of available units to house the
chronically homeless.
F3. The County's overreliance on unpredictable and inconsistent federal and state funding risks
funds being unavailable for future Permanent Supportive Housing development and
supportive services.
F4. Cities' reluctance to provide sites for Permanent Supportive Housing development has
contributed to overcrowded emergency shelters and an increased unsheltered homeless
population.
F5. A staffing shortage exists within the County Housing and Community Development
Department impeding Permanent Supportive Housing development.
F6. Service Planning Area meetings have successfully brought together city, county and non-
profit entities to share information on homeless issues, but have not fostered decision-
making or action.
F7. NIMBYism has impeded the creation of housing for the homeless, including Permanent
Supportive Housing, in the County of Orange.
F8. Orange County cities and the County have engaged in blaming and finger -pointing,
hampering the collaborative efforts needed to site, finance, and maintain Permanent
Supportive Housing.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 28
16-41
Where There's Will, There's a Way
F9. Cities have taken a silo approach to developing Permanent Supportive Housing, resulting
in inefficient leveraging and pooling of funds across municipal borders.
F10. There is no established, independent leadership body in the County empowered to address
regional homeless issues in an effective manner.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 29
16-42
Where There's Will, There's a Way
RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury
requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations
presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court.
Based on its investigation titled "Where There's Will, There's a Way: Housing Orange County's
Chronically Homeless," the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following nine
recommendations.
To be completed by September 1, 2018
Rl. Orange County cities and the County should develop a Permanent Supportive Housing
development plan, and should consider a plan structure similar to the proposal put forth
by Association of California Cities — Orange County, that proportionally allocates sites
among the cities. (F1, F2, F4, F7, F8)
R2. Each Service Planning Area should identify sites for Permanent Supportive Housing
proportional to the allocation suggested in the Association of California Cities — Orange
County proposal. (F1, F4)
R3. The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service
Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent
Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F 1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4. Cities should ensure decision -makers fully participate in their region's Service Planning
Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
R5. Orange County Community Resources should add an appropriate number of additional
positions to the Housing and Community Development Department beyond the two
currently budgeted to be optimally positioned for the increased Permanent Supportive
Housing development that will likely arise. (F5)
R6. Cities should collaborate with, and leverage the work done by, United Way on their
"United to End Homelessness" public awareness campaign. (F7)
To be completed by June 30, 2019
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 30
16-43
Where There's Will, There's a Way
R7. To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and
its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that
is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and
supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8. Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing
business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units
needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones.
(F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10)
R9. Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental
sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated
support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10)
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 31
Where There's Will, There's a Way
RESPONSES
The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public
agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report:
§933(c)
"No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any
public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall
comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall
comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy
sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters
under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that
officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall
forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand
jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the
public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain
on file in those offices.... "
§933.05
"(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) ofSection 933, as to each grand jury finding, the
responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response
shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the
reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the
responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented
action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future,
with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and
parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion
by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 32
16-45
Where There's Will, There's a Way
governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six
months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or
personnel matters of county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the
agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand
jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or
personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the
elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations
affecting his or her agency or department. "
Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05
are required from:
RESPONDENT
FINDING
RECOMMENDATION
Board of Supervisors
F1, F2, F3, F5, 176,177, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R3, R5, R7, R8, R9
City Council of Anaheim
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
City
Council of Brea
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
City Council of Buena Park
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
City
Council of Costa Mesa
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
City Council of Dana Point
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
City
Council of Fountain Valley
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
City
Council of Fullerton
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
City
Council of Garden Grove
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
City
Council of Huntington Beach
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
City
Council of Irvine
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
City
Council of Laguna Beach
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
City
Council of Mission Viejo
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
City
Council of Orange
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
City
Council of San Clemente
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
City
Council of Santa Ana
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
City
Council of Tustin
F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10
Rl, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9
Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.(c)
are requested from:
County Executive Office F5, F6 R3, R5
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 33
16-46
Where There's Will, There's a Way
REFERENCES
Documents/Reports
1. 2-1-1 Orange County, Orange County Continuum of Care 2017 Homeless Count &
Survey Report, July, 2017.
2. ACLU, Nowhere to Live: The Homeless Crisis in Orange County & How to End It.
3. California Department of Housing & Community Development, Homelessness in
California, 2017.
4. Central Florida Commission on Homelessness, A Survey of Best Practices: Communities
Making a Difference, November 2013.
5. Cho, Richard, 2014, Four Clarifications about Housing First, United States Interagency
Council on Homelessness.
6. City of Anaheim, Anaheim Homeless Census, November 2016.
7. Colletti, Joe, 2017, The Realignment ofHUD Continuum of Care Program Homeless
Assistance Funding: What are the Outcomes?, HUB Urban Initiatives.
8. Commission to End Homelessness, Orange County Ten -Year Plan to End Homelessness,
2012.
9. Dohler, Ehren, Peggy Bailey, Douglas Rice, and Hannah Katch, May 31, 2016,
Supportive Housing Helps Vulnerable People Live and Thrive in the Community, Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities.
10. Flaming, Daniel, Gerald Sumner, Patrick Burns, and Susan Lee, 2013, Getting Home:
Outcomes from Housing High Cost Homeless Hospital Patients, Economic Roundtable.
11. Flaming, Daniel, Toros, Halil, and Burns, Patrick, 2015, Home Not Found: The Cost of
Homelessness in Silicon Valley, Economic Roundtable.
12. Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy, New York University, The Impact of
Supportive Housing on Surrounding Neighborhoods: Evidence from New York City.
13. HUD Exchange, Housing First in Permanent Supportive Housing, 2014.
14. National Alliance to End Homelessness, Housing First, April, 2016.
15. National Health Care for the Homeless Council, Homelessness & Health: What's the
Connection, June, 2011.
16. Office of Community Planning and Development, Defining Chronic Homelessness: A
Technical Guide for HUD Programs, September 2007.
17. Orange County Commission to End Homelessness Bylaws, January 23, 2018.
18. Price, Susan, 2016, An Assessment of Homeless Services in Orange County, Orange
County Executive Office.
19. Reaser, Lynn, PhD, 2015, Project 25: Housing the Most Frequent Users ofPublic
Services among the Homeless, Fermanian Business & Economic Institute at PLNU.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 34
16-47
Where There's Will, There's a Way
20. Shinn, Gregory A., 2014, The Cost ofLong-Term Homelessness in Central Florida,
Central Florida Commission on Homelessness.
21. Snow, David A., and Goldberg, Rachel, June 2017, Homelessness in Orange County:
The Costs to our Community.
Journal Articles
1. Post, Lori, Amber Raile, and Eric Raile, 2010. "Defining Political Will." Politics &
Policy 38, no. 4 (August): 653-886.
2. Srebnik, Debra, PhD, Tara Connor, PhD, and Laurie Sylla, MHSA, BSW. 2013. "A Pilot
Study of the Impact of Housing First -Supported Housing for Intensive Users of Medical
Hospitalization and Sobering Services." American Journal ofPublic Health 103, no. 2
(February).
Websites
1. Alameda County Community Development Agency. "Alameda County Al Housing
Bond." http://nonprofithousing.org/wp-content/uploads/Alameda-County-Measure-A1-
Housing-Bond.pdf. Accessed April 27, 1018.
2. Andrews, Jeff. 2018, "HUD, Affordable Housing Programs get a Boost in Latest
Congressional Spending Bill", Curbed, March, 22.
https://www. cu rbed.com /2018/3/22/17151758/congressiona I -spend i ng-bi I I -h ud-afforda ble-
housing. Accessed April 27, 2018.
3. City of Los Angeles. "City of Los Angeles Comprehensive Homeless Strategy." Adopted
February 9, 2016, http://clkreP.lacity.org/onIinedocs/2015/15-1138-51 misc 1-7-16.pdf.
Accessed April 27, 2018.
4. City of Vancouver. "Get the Facts on Supportive Housing." http://vancouver.ca/people-
programs/supportive-housing-in-your-neighbourhood.aspx. Accessed April 27, 2018.
5. Coburn, Jesse, 2015. "After the Shouting, Do Shelters and Supportive Housing Harm
Neighborhoods?" City Limits. https://citylimits.org/2015/02/25/after-the-shouting-do-
shelters-and-supportive-housing-harm-neighborhoods/. Accessed April 27, 2018.
6. County News Center. "County Approves $25 Million to Ease Affordable Housing
Shortage." https://www.countynewscenter.com/county-approves-25-million-to-ease-
affordable-housing-shortage/. Accessed April 27, 2018.
7. HUD Exchange. "2017 HUD Homeless Assistance Programs Housing Inventory Count "
https://www.hudexchanae.info/resource/reportmanagement/published/CoC HIC CoC C4-602-
2017 CFl 2017pdf. Accessed April 27, 2018.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 35
om
Where There's Will, There's a Way
8 "Measure H, Los Angeles County Plan to Prevent and Combat Homelessness. "
https://ballotpedia.org/Los Angeles County, California, Sales Tax for Homeless Services an
d Prevention, Measure H (March 2017). Accessed April 27, 2018.
9. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. 2017. "Don't Count on It: How the
HUD Point -in -Time Count underestimates the Homelessness Crisis in America" 2017.
https://www.nichp.org/documents/HUD-PIT-report2017. Accessed April 27, 2018.
10. "Proposition HHH: City of Los Angeles Permanent Supportive Housing Program."
http://hcidia.lacity.org/prop-hhh-terms-regulations. Accessed April 27, 2018.
11. Smoller, Fred and Moddian, Michael A. "The Chapman University Annual Survey
2018."
https://www.chapman.edu/wilkinson/ files/2016%20smoller%20conference%20bio%20photos
/Housing-Co nference-Final- Report. pdf. Accessed April 27, 2018.
12. United Way. "United to End Homelessness. " https://www. unitedtoendhomelessness.orp/.
Accessed April 27, 2018.
Videos
1. ACC -OC Homeless Partnership Event, February 15, 2018,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk78J2aCCh4&feature=youtu.be, accessed April 27, 2018.
2. United Way, United to End Homelessness Kick-off, February 28, 2018.
Legislation
1. California State Assembly Bill 1618: No Place Like Home, July 1, 2016.
2. California State Senate Bill No. 1380, Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council,
Chapter 6.5, Section 8255, September 29, 2016.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 36
16-49
Where There's Will, There's a Way
APPENDIX
GLOSSARY
1. Association of California Cities — Orange County (ACC -OC) — is a membership
organization established in 2011 which represents the interests of Orange County cities on
regional public policy issues.
2. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) - is a federal program established in
1974 that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community
development needs. The CDBG program provides annual grants on a formula basis to 1,209
general units of local government and States.
3. Continuum of Care Funds - provides funding for nonprofit providers, as well as State and
local governments to quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families, with the goal of
minimizing the trauma and dislocation caused to homeless individuals, families, and
communities by homelessness. The goal is also to promote access to, and effect utilization
of, mainstream programs by homeless individuals and families; and optimize self-sufficiency
among individuals and families experiencing homelessness.
4. Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) — assists individuals and families to quickly regain
stability in permanent housing after experiencing a housing crisis or homelessness. ESG
funds are provided by formula to states, metropolitan cities, urban counties and U.S.
territories to support homelessness prevention, emergency shelter and related services.
5. Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) - is a local information technology
system used to collect client -level data and data on the provision of housing and services to
homeless individuals, families, and persons at risk of homelessness.
6. Housing and Community Development (HCD) — is a County agency that administers the
County's affordable housing development, community development, homeless prevention
programs, and housing successor agency programs/activities.
7. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) —is a federal agency that works to strengthen the
housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers; meet the need for quality
affordable rental homes; utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life; and build
inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 37
16-50
Where There's Will, There's a Way
8. Housing Inventory (FLIT) Count - is a point -in -time inventory of provider programs within
a Continuum of Care that provide beds and units dedicated to serve persons who are
homeless, categorized by five Program Types: Emergency Shelter; Transitional Housing;
Rapid Re -housing; Safe Haven; and Permanent Supportive Housing.
9. Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) - is a dollar -for -dollar tax credit given for
affordable housing investments. Created under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, LIHTC provide
incentives for the utilization of private equity in the development of affordable housing
aimed at low-income Americans. These tax credits are more attractive than tax deductions as
the credits provide a dollar -for -dollar reduction in a taxpayer's federal income tax, whereas a
tax deduction only provides a reduction in taxable income.
10. Not In My Backyard (NIMBYism) — is a term used to express opposition by local citizens
to locating a civic project in their neighborhood that, though valued and needed by the larger
community, is considered potentially unsightly, dangerous, or likely to lead to decreased
property values.
11. Point in Time (PIT) Count - is a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a
single night in January. HUD requires that Continuums of Care conduct an annual count of
homeless persons who are sheltered in emergency shelter, transitional housing, and Safe
Havens on a single night. Continuums of Care also must conduct a count of unsheltered
homeless persons every other year (odd numbered years). Each count is planned,
coordinated, and carried out locally.
12. Section 8 Housing Vouchers — a federal program, named for Section 8 of the Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 , for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the
disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. In practice, the
Section 8 Voucher will pay the balance of a rent payment that exceeds 30% of a renter's
monthly income. The participant is free to choose any housing that meets the requirements of
the program and is not limited to units located in subsidized housing projects.
2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 38
16-51
ATTACHMENT E
Most OC Cities Support Adding 2,700 New Homes For Homeless, Organizer Says
VOICE OF OC -- By NICK GERDA I February 27, 2018
Cities across Orange County are now on board with a plan to double the amount of permanent
supportive housing for homeless people from the current 2,700 units to 5,400 units, divided among
cities by their population, according to the countywide association of cities.
The housing effort is being organized by the Association of California Cities — Orange County and Orange
County United Way, which commissioned a study by UC Irvine that found it costs the public less to
house people with wraparound health services than keep them on the streets where they often rotate
in and out of emergency rooms and jails.
If built, the 2,700 new units would be enough to house more than half of the 4,792 homeless people
counted in Orange County during the latest official count in January 2017.
The idea is to fund the housing with a variety of sources, including private donations from wealthy
families, county mental health money, state grants, and federal tax credits. And cities are looking at
allowing the housing to be built on land they already own, to help reduce costs.
An effort also is underway to raise a total of $100 million from 50 wealthy Orange County families for
the effort, which would be outlined in a business plan, according to the cities' association. The plan is to
use that local money to compete for state and federal dollars and develop supportive housing for
homeless people.
And a wide swath of local leaders — from business, religion, philanthropy, and government — are
convening Wednesday to launch a collaborative campaign to reduce homelessness based on an
approach in Orlando, Florida that officials say cut homelessness there by 50 percent.
These efforts come amid a rapid pick-up in urgency locally to address homelessness, with a federal judge
prompting quick action this month from county officials to relocate over 700 people living along the
Santa Ana River Trail into short-term housing at motels.
The relocation was finished Sunday, with county officials saying they've spent at least $2.6 million on the
motel -housing effort so far, including $1.7 million on a six-month lease for a motel.
U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter has said he plans to continue his oversight to ensure homeless
people are treated humanely, including monitoring county officials' commitment to set up organized
tent camps on county property with centralized food, health, and sanitation services.
The judge also has said longer-term solutions are needed, and that it will be up to community members
to step up and collaborate to make it happen.
16-52
The city -level interest in expanding housing received a major boost Feb. 15, when officials from 31 of
Orange County's 34 cities attended a dinner hosted by the cities' association, said Heather Stratman, the
association's CEO.
The cities' association presented data showing it cost less to house chronically homeless people and
provide services than leave them on the streets, and issued a call to action for cities to add 2,700 new
housing units for the homeless.
"It costs twice as much to keep people living on the street than providing them permanent supportive
housing," Sue Parks, the new CEO of Orange County United Way, told attendees.
The idea is for the housing to be split among cities based on their population, to share the responsibility
and lessen the number of units each individual city would take on.
"I invited every city manager and every mayor, or their designee," to come to the Feb. 15 dinner, said
Stratman, the city association's chief executive, in an interview Friday.
She said her group wanted buy -in from each city for the new housing units and for city officials to work
with the association to find locations and implement a countywide plan to build the 2,700 new units.
That kind of call to action never happened before in Orange County, Stratman said. And she said she was
blown away by the reaction. Most cities are on board, she said.
"To be honest, I was kind of holding my breath that night. But the overwhelming response and
enthusiasm has been awesome," Stratman said.
"It's ambitious. But I will tell you I have never seen this level of cooperation or enthusiasm to get it
done. And so we're gonna push hard, and we'll see. In my mind, failure is not an option on this one."
By splitting the housing based on city population, Stratman said it makes the number of units in each
city much smaller and more feasible.
"When you break it down like that, it's very doable," she said.
Stratman said a few hundred of the housing units could come online between the end of this year and
mid -2019, with the rest becoming available over the following 18 to 24 months.
And work is already underway to start finding locations. City officials plan to meet this week to identify
potential sites for the new housing and build that into a business plan, Stratman said.
Simultaneously, the cities' association is working on finding funding, which could include donations from
local corporations, wealthy families, state grants, mental health money managed by the county
government, and infrastructure financing districts.
16-53
Many of the perceptions of housing for homeless people are based on outdated conceptions of public
housing in the 1980s, Stratman said.
"I think the stigma around permanent supportive housing is Section 8 housing from the 80s. And it's just
not the case," she said.
So last year, the association took local city leaders on tours of modern permanent supportive housing to
help them understand what it looks like and who it serves.
Stratman cited local projects, like Potter's Lane in unincorporated Midway City, that have been widely
viewed as successful.
And last month, the association took a group of 50 people from OC, mostly elected officials and city
managers, to San Antonio, Texas for 36 hours to learn about a nationally -recognized homeless services
center called Haven for Hope.
The group toured Haven for Hope, and spoke with the mayor who helped get it off the ground, San
Antonio's current mayor, and private founders who donated millions for the effort, Stratman said.
"It was powerful," Stratman said. She and others knew that coming out of that trip they had momentum
leading into the Feb. 15 dinner meeting where cities were asked to step up.
As for how the new housing would be paid for, the idea is to leverage local money to make local housing
projects competitive for state grants and federal tax credits.
There's "a significant amount of state money" that will be rolling out in the coming months, Stratman
said, adding local officials in Orange County need to prepare a strong plan and seek those dollars.
Bill Taormina, a wealthy Anaheim businessman, told attendees of the Feb. 15 dinner that he and others
were working to raise $100 million for homelessness efforts from Orange County families.
"There's a groundswell of opposition to doing nothing" about homelessness, said Taormina, who in the
1980s inherited a large trash hauling company that had the city of Anaheim's exclusive waste hauling
contract.
Taormina said he and Dan Young, a former homebuilding executive at the Irvine Company, met with
Carter in his chambers earlier that day about homelessness efforts.
The federal judge said "he's gonna watch over us, he's gonna make sure that this action takes place, and
he's gonna clear obstacles," Taormina said.
Regarding the fundraising effort, Taormina said: "Our mission statement is to have 50 Orange County
legacy families put $2 million each in a conduit financing program to provide $100 million dollars, to
[leverage] up to $300-500 million dollars."
16-54
"I don't make promises I can't keep," he added. "I will stand 50 Orange County legacy families in the
front of this room within 30 days of the time that that [business] plan is complete, and the money —the
seed money — will be there."
The UC Irvine cost study found the savings would come largely because permanent supportive housing
significantly reduces the massive cost of hospitalizing and jailing people who have been on the streets
for a longtime.
The researchers found those costs drop so significantly when long-term homeless people are provided
housing with health services — known as permanent supportive housing — that it costs taxpayers less
overall even when factoring the costs for housing and services.
Further momentum around the housing effort could come this week, when the United Way launches a
campaign among top Orange County leaders in business, philanthropy, government and faith groups to
"long-term, sustainable solutions to reduce homelessness."
The initiative, "United to End Homelessness," will utilize best practices and insights from an Orlando,
Florida campaign known as "Rethink Homelessness," which United Way says reduced homelessness in
that community by 50 percent.
The OC campaign is scheduled to be launched at a Wednesday morning event where local leaders will
hear from officials who led the Orlando effort.
Regarding the effort to raise $100 million from local families, Stratman said Taormina "has the ability
through his network and his peer groups to put that money on the table."
Taormina told the cities' association that if it develops a business plan that people can invest in, they will
invest.
"That $100 million becomes our self-help money," Stratman said.
Lots of people are now coming to the table and saying "we want to solve this," she added.
"We all agree on the problem," Stratman said. The focus now, she said, is on solutions.
Nick Gerda covers county government and Santa Ana for Voice of OC You can contact him
atngerda@ voiceofoc. org.
16-55
Purpose
The current wave of homelessness is a pressing
problem sparing few communities across the
United States. Since the issue came to the
forefront in the early 1980s, estimates of the
number of homeless have waxed and waned,
but the crisis of American citizens experiencing
homelessness continues to persist. Orange
County and its 34 municipalities have not
been spared this crisis. According to the 2015
Orange County Point in Time Count report,
nearly 4,500 people experienced homelessness
(2,200 of whom were unsheltered) on any
given night, and 15,291 people were expected
to be homeless over the course of the year.
This equates to one in 200 Orange County
residents experiencing at least one night of
homelessness during 2015. In addition to the
devastating and traumatizing physical and
psychological costs of homelessness to those
individuals and families who experience it,
homelessness imposes considerable economic
costs on the communities in which it exists.
There have been a number of cost studies
across other major localities in the U.S., and in
California in particular, but no such cost study
has been completed for Orange County.
The purpose of this project has been to
conduct a countywide cost study, with two
primary objectives:
First, to estimate the economic expenditures
on homelessness that have accrued to the
county, its 34 municipalities, and its non-
governmental service agencies, including
hospitals and non -profits providing services
to this population,
- RETURN TO CONTENTS
ATTACHMENT F
Second, to assess the extent to which the
costs of serving the homeless vary across the
spectrum of those living on the streets and
in shelters versus those living in alternative
forms of housing.
The Study
This is a collaborative study among Orange
County United Way, Jamboree, and the
University of California, Irvine, with the support
of the Association of California Cities - Orange
County (ACC -OC), 2-1-1 Orange County (21100),
and the Hospital Association of Southern
California. In addition, an Advisory Committee
representing a cross section of Orange
County experts and practitioners from various
institutions and organizations served to guide
our design and process. The study was also
conducted to leverage the work of the United
Way's FACE 2024 strategic plan, the county's
10 Year Plan to End Homelessness, and the
county's new Office of Care Coordination.
The study is based on data collected from
five main sources: the County of Orange,
the municipalities within the county, Orange
County hospitals (via the Hospital Association
of Southern California and Cal Optima),
a sample of non-governmental agencies
addressing homelessness and individuals
experiencing homelessness themselves. The
data was gathered through questionnaires
sent to municipalities, hospitals and service
agencies as well as structured, in-person
survey interviews conducted with a sample
of 252 homeless individuals throughout the
county. Given the breadth and volume of data
assembled, this is clearly one of the most
16-56
T
comprehensive studies of the public costs of
homelessness in the United States.
Key Findings
Demographic and Biographic Characteristics
of the Homeless Population
Results from our sample of homeless
individuals indicate that Orange County's
homeless population is defined largely by the
following characteristics:
They are mainly long-term OC residents, with
68% of the 252 homeless surveyed having
lived in the county for 10 years or longer
They are predominately US -born
individuals (90%)
A significant share are middle-aged (52% are
age 50 or older), non -Hispanic White (47%),
male (57%) and live alone (67%)
Key Finding: The vast majority of Orange County's
homeless, whether male or female, are U.S.
citizens and long-term Orange County residents
of over 10 years, rather than individuals who have
recently chosen to come to Orange County.
The major factors precipitating homelessness in
our sample (in order of frequency of mention) are:
Securing or retaining jobs with sustainable
wages (40%)
Finding or retaining affordable housing,
including evictions and foreclosures (36%)
Family issues, which include domestic violence,
family dysfunction, relationship dissolution and
death of a family member (28%)
Alcohol and/or drugs (22%)
Mental health (17%)
Physical health (13%)
Release from jail/prison (/%)
- RETURN TO CONTENTS
Key Finding: Homelessness is caused primarily
by lack of sufficient income or job loss combined
with high costs of housing in Orange County.
Other factors, like family dysfunction, health, and
substance abuse, increase one's vulnerability to
homelessness in such a context.
This observation is further substantiated by
the following finding: The median monthly
income of the homeless in our sample, from
all possible sources, is $860. Income varies
greatly by housing status, ranging from a
median of $500 for those living on the street
to a median of $1,958 for homeless individuals
and families placed into a rapid re -housing
program (who are often supporting dependent
children). Nonetheless, across all housing
categories, these income levels put housing
rental out of reach given the average cost of
rent for a single bedroom apartment in OC of
$1,700 to $1,800+ in 2015.
The Cost of Homelessness
We estimate that approximately $299 million
was spent to address homelessness in Orange
County by governmental and non-governmental
entities in a 12 -month period encompassing
2014/2015.
Municipalities account for the largest share
of this total (—$120 million), followed by
Hospitals (—$77 million),
The County (—$62 million)
Non-governmental housing agencies (—$35
million)
Other non-governmental agencies servicing the
homeless (—$5 million with incomplete data).
Key Finding: Orange County's city governments
and public services bear the brunt of the costs
associated with homelessness in Orange County.
16-57
T
Across the major service clusters (health care,
housing, and criminal justice), we estimate that
approximately $121 million was spent providing
health care to the homeless in a 12 -month
period encompassing 2014/2015. Counties,
municipalities and non-governmental agencies
spent approximately $106 million on all types
of housing for the homeless, and an estimated
$23 million was spent on criminal justice
contacts (police/jail/prison).
Key Finding: Costs are highest in Orange County's
health care service cluster, which is consistent
with other cost studies across the country.
Based on our interviews, we estimate that the
average annual cost per person for all services
is approximately $45,000. Heavy service
consumers, particularly of health and medical
services, drive the average cost up greatly,
so much so, that if the most costly 10% are
dropped from the analysis, the mean annual
cost per person drops to approximately $10,000.
Key Finding: The costs of homelessness are driven
upwards by the heaviest service users among
those who are chronically street homeless.'
Costs by Housing Categories (Street and
Emergency Sheltered Homeless versus those
housed in Bridge, Rapid Re -Housing,
or Permanent Supportive Housing—PSH)
Our interviews with those experiencing
homelessness indicate that use of social and
health services and criminal justice contacts
- RETURN TO CONTENTS
are lower among those who are housed
compared to those living on the streets. Those
in permanent supportive housing reported
78% fewer ambulance transports in the last
month, and 100% fewer arrests, compared to
those who are chronically homeless living on
the street or in emergency shelters.
As a result of decreases in service utilization
and criminaljustice contacts, the estimated
average annual cost of services is 40% lower
for the chronically homeless in permanent
supportive housing ($51,587) in comparison
to the chronically homeless living on the
streets and in emergency shelters ($85,631),
even taking into consideration the program
costs of permanent supportive housing.
Similarly, the average annual cost for those
housed in rapid re -housing ($9,175) and
bridge housing ($22,686) is 75% and 38%
lower, respectively, than the annual cost for
the non -chronically homeless on the street
and in emergency shelters ($36,419) net of
the program costs of housing.
When looking at health service utilization
alone, the estimated average annual cost
among those homeless who are housed
($26,158) is half the annual cost incurred by
those on the street or in emergency shelters
($51,855), with the disparity even greater
between those in permanent supportive
housing ($43,184) and the chronically street
homeless ($98,199).
Key Finding: Whatever the service or housing
category, the costs of homelessness declines
when the homeless are housed. This holds for both
the non -chronically and the chronically homeless.
16-58
Cost Savings of Housing Chronically
Street Homeless in Permanent Supportive
Housing (PSH)
The estimated average annual cost of services
per capita for permanent supportive housing
clients is 50% lowerthan for the chronically
street homeless ($51,587 versus $100,759).
Taking into consideration the average cost
of services per capita, we estimate a cost
savings of approximately $42 million per year
if all Orange County chronically homeless were
placed into permanent supportive housing.
The potential cost savings of housing the
homeless are even more significant for the
chronically street homeless who are the
- RETURN TO CONTENTS
heaviest service users, and in particular for
those in the upper decile of costs. We find
that 10% of the chronically street homeless
incur annual costs higher than $439,787 per
person, whereas the most costly 10% of those
in permanent supportive housing incur annual
costs in excess of only $55,332.
Key Finding: The cost savings data on housing
the homeless in general, and particulanythe
chronically street homeless, show a consistent
and compelling pattern: costs are markedly lower
among the homeless who are housed, and this is
especially true for the chronically homeless.
16-59
T
Chronically Homeless Individuals refers to
those homeless who have been continuously
homeless for one year or more, or who
have experienced at least four episodes of
homelessness in the last three years where the
combined length of time homeless in those
occasions is at least 12 months, and who have
a diagnosable disability (e.g., serious mental
illness, developmental disability, post traumatic
stress disorder, substance use disorder,
cognitive impairments resulting from a brain
injury or chronic physical illness or disability).
Continuums of Care (CoC) are local planning
bodies ideally responsible for coordinating
the full range of homeless services in a
geographic area, which may cover a city,
county, metropolitan area or an entire state.
According to HUD, it is "a community plan to
organize and deliver housing and services to
meet the specific needs of people who are
homeless as they move to stable housing and
maximize self-sufficiency. It includes action
steps to end homelessness and prevent a
return to homelessness" Components include
prevention, street outreach, a Coordinated Entry
System (see below), emergency shelter, bridge
housing and permanent housing placement
through rapid re -housing and permanent
supportive housing. To receive federal financial
support for homeless services, HUD requires
each community to work collaboratively to
submit a single CoC application ratherthan
allowing applications from individual providers
in a community. HUD's intent underlying this
application process is to stimulate community-
wide planning and coordination of programs for
homeless individuals and families.
- RETURN TO CONTENTS
Coordinated Entry System (CES) encompasses
a process developed to ensure that all people
experiencing a housing crisis have fair and
equal access and are quickly identified,
assessed, referred and connected to housing
and assistance based on their needs. The
Coordinated Entry System allows resources to
be better matched with individuals' needs. A key
component of this system is the Vulnerability
Index - Service Prioritization Assistance Tool
(VI-SPDAT) [see below].
Homelessness is variously defined depending
on the governmental entity. The most
commonly referenced and restrictive is HUD's,
which includes four clusters of individuals: (1)
individuals and families who lack a fixed, regular,
and adequate nighttime residence, as defined,
(2) individuals and families who will imminently
lose their primary nighttime residence, (3)
unaccompanied youth and families with children
and youth who are defined as homeless under
other federal statutes who do not otherwise
qualify as homeless under this definition, and
(4) individuals and families who are fleeing,
or are attempting to flee, domestic violence,
dating violence, sexual assault, stalking or
other dangerous or life threatening conditions
that relate to violence against the individual or
a family member. Somewhat more expansive
is the definition from the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act which is used by
many federal programs: A homeless person is
an individual without permanent housing who
may live on the streets, stay in a shelter, mission,
single room occupancy facilities, abandoned
building or vehicle, or in any other stable or non-
permanent situation. This also includes persons
who are "doubling up" and previously homeless
individuals who are to be released from prison
or a hospital without a stable residence to
16-60
which they can return (National Health for the
Homeless Council, 2016).
Homeless Management Information System
(HMIS) is a HUD -based local information
technology system used to collect homeless,
client -level data and data on the provision
of housing and services to homeless
individuals and families and persons at risk
of homelessness. Each Continuum of Care is
responsible for selecting an HMIS software
solution that complies with HUD's data collection,
management, and reporting standards. When
the system is fully and reliably functional at the
community level, the data has been used as
the basis for conducting cost studies wherein
encrypted identifiers from recently homeless
adults residing in housing for the homeless,
typically permanent supportive housing, are
matched with correspondingly encrypted
identifiers from the service records of relevant
city, county or state agencies (e.g., county
departments of health, public health and mental
health, sheriff and probation departments, and
local or state hospitalization records).
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) is a
program designed to provide housing (project -
and tenant -based) and supportive services on
a long-term basis to formerly chronic homeless
people. In addition to being homeless, clients
are required to have a disability. As such,
clients are typically categorized as chronically
homeless. The program is based on a "housing
first" approach to homelessness.
Point -in -Time Counts are one-night,
unduplicated counts of the literally homeless
within communities as defined by HUD.
The literally homeless include those living
unsheltered on the streets, in a vehicle or
other places not fit for human habitation or
in emergency shelters. These counts provide
snapshot estimates of the incidence of
homelessness, since many people considered
homeless, such as those in prison orjail, living
- RETURN TO CONTENTS
in motels /hotels or "couch surfing;' are not
included. The one-night counts are conducted
by Continuums of Care nationwide and occur
during the last week in January of each year.
Rapid Re -Housing (RRH) is a housing
model designed to provide temporary
housing assistance to people experiencing
homelessness, moving them quickly out of
homelessness and into housing, typically for
six months or less. It provides time-limited
assistance for market -rate rental units that
covers move -in costs, deposits and rental and/
or utility assistance.
Bridge Housing is a housing program that
provides temporary residence, ranging from
six to 24 months, for people experiencing
homelessness. It typically includes supportive
services to help residents secure some stability
and enhance their employability, with many
residents being employed. In addition to being
referred to as "bridge" and "interim" housing,
it is sometimes called "transitional" housing.
Whatever the preferred term, its application is
much the same: relatively short term housing
that ideally is to function as a conduit to a more
permanent housing situation.
Vulnerability Index — Service Prioritization
Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) is an
assessment tool used within the Coordinated
Entry System to prioritize which homeless
should receive housing assistance first. It is
designed to assist case management and
to improve housing stability outcomes via
homeless clients' responses to a short set of
questions regarding their history of housing
and homelessness, risk, daily functioning, and
wellness. With each question, the respondent
is given a point for answering "Yes, thus
exhibiting increased vulnerability and a higher
score for service priority. By using the SPDAT,
social services can target vulnerable homeless
populations that are most service -dependent
and in need of assistance.
16-61