SR-301-004 (28)~_ . .
~ ~;ty o, City Council Report
Santa Monica~
Supplemental Report - #3A
City Council Meeting: January 23, 2007
Agenda Item: 3A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Barbara Stinchfield, Director of Community and Cultural Services
Subject: Study Session on the Evaluation of Santa Monica's Continuum of Care
and Strategic Five-Year Plan
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the City Council receive the attached information and provide
policy guidance to staff based on the results of the study session.
Executive Summary
The Urban Institute has been authorized to conduct a system-wide evaluation of Santa
Monica's homeless continuum of care to produce a description of the current homeless
service delivery system and recommendations for a refined vision of service delivery
and action steps over the next five years. A presentation about the findings and
recommendatians of the evaluation and the final evaluation report was presented to the
City Council on January 9, 2007. On January 9, the study session was continued and
additional information, which is attached, was requested.
1
Discussion
Background
On January 9, 2007, Dr. Martha Burt and Laudan Aron presented to the City Council the
results of the evaluation completed by the Urban Institute, including a description of the
homeless population of Santa Monica; a description of the homeless assistance
network in Santa Monica; a description of the costs and fiunding sources associated with
those services; a discussion of the regional issues affecting Santa Monica's response to
homelessness; and specific recommendations and action steps, including potential
action partners. At that time, the City Council requested that the study session be
continued, to provide time for a more in-depth discussion and additional information was
requested.
Responses to the requests for additional information are summarized below, with detail
provided in Attachments, as needed.
Demoqraphics
• Homeless Veterans - According to the evaluation report, ClientTrack data indicates
that 10% of homeless individuals in Santa Monica are veterans (16°l0 of homeless
males). Dr. Burt indicated that this was lower then the national average of 23% cited
by the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (NSHAPC).
Dr. Burt indicated that one reason for this might be that the veteran status was not
being consistently collected at intake across the core agencies in ClientTrack.
Subsequently, City staff asked the Santa Monica core agencies four questions: 1)
Do each of the intake forms used by your agency have a question or field that
captures whether or not the client is a veteran? 2) Do staff consistently ask the client
if he/she is a veteran and record the information on the intake form? 3) Is veteran
status consistently entered into ClientTrack? 4) Does the Urban Institute's report
that 10% of the homeless people with an active case in ClientTrack at a Santa
2
Monica homeless assistance agency are veterans seem right to you? The agencies
responses to these four questions are summarized in Attachment A.
In addition, staff ran ClientTrack reports for all of the core agency programs for
FY03-04 and FY04 - 05 for comparison. In FY03-04, veterans comprised 11 % of
the homeless clients in ClientTrack (19% of males). In FY04-05, veterans comprised
9% of the homeless clients in ClientTrack (17% of males).
This information would seem to substantiate the rate of 10°lo for veterans among the
overall homeless population for whom there is data in CfientTrack, and a rate of 16°l0
for males. Whether or not those who are not in ClientTrack would be more or less
likely to be veterans is not clear. One reason why the 10% might still be an under
report, however, is that some individuals who have served in the military may not
consider themselves "veterans" or may not wish to self-identify as "veterans".
Rephrasing the question to be about "military service" might be advised to better
capture information about veteran status. It is doubtful, however, that this would
result in an increase of more than 1 or 2 percentage points to the rate for veterans in
ClientTrack.
• Gender - There are very few differences in the population characteristics of male
and female homeless people with records in ClientTrack, and most of the differences
that do exist are to be expected. Characteristics showing significant differences are
shaded in the tables in Attachment B.
On basic characteristics (Tables 2.2a and 2.2b), the only variables that show a
difference are household type and veteran status. More females are in families
while more males are homeless as single adults, but both males and females are
overwhelmingly homeless by themselves. More males than females reported being
veterans, as would be expected from gender differences in participation in the armed
forces during the past forty years.
On disabilities and other complicating characteristics, differences appear in the
proportions with mental illness only (more females), substance abuse only (more
mafes), and neither substance abuse nor mental illness (more males - which in turn
means that more males than females have no disabilities recorded in ClientTrack.)
Outcomes
Attachment C provides a summary of the outcomes for programs funded through the
FY05-06 Community Development Grant Program, and their performance rate. Three
programs did not meet 80% of their program goals.
3
1) OPCC Shelter Plus Care Proqram met 3 of 6 outcomes (50%).
• The program met goals related to number of people served (76); maintaining
residential stability - 65 participants maintained residential stability for over 1
year; and achieving greater self-determination and support systems (35
participants).
• The program did not meet its goal of obtaining permanent housing for five (5)
new participants. Instead, two (2) new participants obtained permanent housing.
o During FY05-06 there were only four (4) new Shelter Plus Care vouchers
available for new participants. Two (2) new participants found housing during
the FY. An additional two (2) participants were issued vouchers but had not
found housing by the end of the reporting period.
• The program did not meet its goal to provide benefits advocacy to 70 individuals.
Instead, 56 individuals received benefits advocacy.
o Many of the disabled individuafs in the Shelter Plus Care Program obtain their
SSI or other benefits early on in the housing location process and have been
stably housed for many years. Only 56 participants needed to receive benefits
advocacy during the reporting period.
• The program did not meet its goal that 66 {95%) of participants will maintain their
government benefits supporting financial stability. In the last year, 56 participants
maintained their government benefits supporting financial stability,
o All people who received benefits advocacy maintained their government
benefits.
2) Step Up on Second (SUOS) Shelter Plus Care Program met 3 of 4 outcomes ~75%~
• The program met or exceeded goals related to number served (33); housing
stability - 33 members maintained residential stability for one year; and internal
employment at SUOS - 4 members worked an internal job for at least 30 days.
• The program did not meet its goal of securing temporary or permanent job
outside of SUOS for 1(3%) participant. During the program year, no participants
secured a temporary or permanent job outside SUOS.
o After someone is housed and stable, there may be disincentives to
employment. Individuals are working to maintain their housing and manage
their mental illness, symptoms of which often do not allow members to look
for employment. Additionally, employment can disrupt their benefits, budgets
and other independent living arrangements.
3) Step Up on Second (SUOS) Case Management for Adults with Mental Disabilities
and Vocational Skills Proqram met 5 out of 7 outcomes (71 %~
• The program met or exceed goals related to number served (54); meeting case
management goals - 53 met at least one case management goal; employment
outside of SUOS - 3 members were permanently employed outside of SUOS;
transitional housing - 7 members secured transitional housing; and permanent
housing - 15 secured permanent housing.
• The program did not meet its goal of securing a stipend position within SUOS for
a total of at least 30 days for 20 members. Instead, five (5) members secured a
4
stipend position with SUOS for a total of 30 days and one (1) secured a stipend
position for less than 30 days in the reporting period. 14 members completed the
4 week mandatory work readiness course required prior to employment within
SUOS.
o All enrollees are aware that employment is an objective of the program, and
the internal stipend work is available. While employment is a worthy objective
for the general homeless population, persons with chronic mental illness may
have other priority needs such as housing. Many find that managing a chronic
mental illness with the demands of employment is difficult, experience
difficulty in obtaining necessary documentation, have a fear of becoming
ineligible for benefits or find that they can live off of their benefits and do not
need to work.
~ The program did not meet its goal of securing emergency housing for 12
members. During the program year, seven (7) members received emergency
housing.
o The unseasonable warm weather this winter allowed some members to prefer
being on the streets than shefters. Members are unwilling to enter shelters
due to safety concerns, stigma, violence, noised and sharing space, rigid
rules. Additionally, shelter beds continue to be limited.
Homeless Manaqement Information Svstems (HMIS)
One of the recommendations of the evaluation report was to replace the existing
ClientTrack HMIS with a new system. Santa Monica was one of the first communities in
the country to implement an HMIS, but the current system is not as robust and flexible
as ones that have been subsequently developed. Based on preliminary feedback, there
seems to be consensus that the recommendation of repfacing the existing ClientTrack
HMIS with a new system is important. If this holds true, the following steps could be
taken:
Spring 2007 Convene HMIS Planning Committee
Summer 2007 Release Request for Proposals for short-term
consultation on the selection and implementation of
an HMIS system
Fall 2007 Develop Plan
Release Request for Proposals for software vendor
Fall 2007/Winter 2008 Select System
Winter 2008 Data Conversion
Spring 2408 Fully Operationaf
Attachment D shows a preliminary comparison of some of the most popular HMIS
products currently in use, including systems used in Los Angeles County. This initial
comparison will be expanded and refined as the selection and implementation process
for HMIS advances. A detailed cost analysis is underway, but preliminary estimates
5
place the one-time cost at around $300,000 to $400,000 and on-going costs at around
$100,000 to $165,000 annually. There is $74,000 in Supportive Housing Program
funding currently available for on-going costs.
Best Practices/Proqram Issues
Cost of Permanent Su~portive Housinq - Staff has calculated the approximate
annual cost of providing permanent supportive housing, if it were available, for each
chronically homeless person served by Santa Monica core agencies at any point-in-
time, to be $ 20.3 million. The Urban Institute and the Santa Monica Housing
Authority estimate that the cost of a housing subsidy for one year is approximately
$12,000. Various studies place the annual cost of the ongoing supportive services
needed to maintain housing stability at $10,000, including the cost of health care,
mental health services and other services that may be provided by public agencies.
The calculation is as follows:
Estimated point-in-time count at core agencies: 2,800
Rate of chronic homelessness: X.33
Number of chronically homeless individuals at any
point-in-time (excluding those currently housed): 924
Muttiplied by the annual costs of housing ($12,000)
and supportive services ($10,000) X 22 000
Total annual permanent supportive housing cost: $20,328,000
• Baltimore Parkinc~ Meter Proqram - One of the recommendations is to further
investigate a project devefoped by the Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, wherein
old unused parking meters serve as money boxes for donations as an alternative to
giving to panhandlers. The meters, were installed in strategic locations of high
pedestrian traffic consisting of both tourists and panhandlers in November 2006.
The meters are painted bright green with the words "Give your change to make
change for homeless people". Every time a coin is deposited, the needle jumps from
"Despair" to "Hope". Hope is flashed for a few seconds before the needle returns to
despair. The goal of the program is to reassure individuals that their donations are
properly utilized in an efficient manner and attempt to curb the amount of
panhandlers in the targeted areas. For now, the parking meters are only in outdoor
locations, but there are plan to pilot them in indoor locations. Attachment E includes
a press release and marketing materials about the project.
• Arrests/Use of the Santa Monica Jail - Staff from the Santa Monica Police
Department will be available to answer questions about arrests and use of the Santa
Monica Jail.
6
~ Good Neiqhbor Agreements - These voluntary agreements between a service
provider and neighborhood address issues such as property maintenance and
appearance, neighborhood codes of conduct, community safety, communication and
agreement monitoring and compliance.
A Good Neighbor Agreement serves several important purposes: 1) promoting
communication, respect, and trust among neighbors, residents of proposed facilities
and apartments, providers, and funders by assuring that the rights and
responsibilities of all parties are understood and monitored; 2) assuring that safety,
security, codes of conduct, and property management standards are established
and upheld; 3) establishing successful, long-term relationships while providing all
affected parties with the opportunity with respect to safety, security, codes of
conduct and property management to be involved in planning, decision-making,
monitoring, evaluating and re-negotiating the agreements; and 4) providing a
structure and process for the resolution of conflicts minimizing the incidence of
litigation. Good Neighbor Agreements do not include any items that are governed by
law, such as fair housing laws and municipal codes. Attachment F contains an
example of a Good Neighbor Agreement. Good Neighbor Agreements may be
included as a contract requirement for City supported agencies and facilities in the
future.
Attributes of Successful Communitv Planninq Processes, 10-Year Plans to End
Homelessness and Implementation
Given the Urban Institute's recommendation that the City of Santa Monica look to
Portland/Multnomah County's 10-year plan to end homelessness as a model, staff
reviewed the Portland/Multnomah County plan and current implementation strategies
and spoke with the City of Portland's Program Manager for its Ending Homelessness
project about that city's community planning process. From that, nine attributes of
successful community planning processes and implementation strategies emerged: 1)
political will; 2) a dynamic leader; 3) a lead entity; 4) the right people; 5) a method of
ensuring accountability; 6) dedicated staff; 7) strong providers; 8) a participatory
process; and 9) flexibility. The community planning process that resulted in the
Portland/Multnomah County, Oregon's 10-year plan and its subsequent implementation
contained all nine attributes. Attachment G details how these nine elements were
incorporated into the key actions that resulted in "Home Again: A 10-year plan to end
homelessness in Portland and Multnomah County" and its implementation. City staff
and the community will need to consider what elements from Portland and other
examples are applicable to the unique context of Santa Monica.
The National Afliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) recently examined local 10-year
plans to end homelessness in an effort to determine what makes plans strong. A New
Vision: What is in Community Plans to End Homelessness lists these key elements as:
quantifiable performance measures, timelines, a body that will take responsibility for
overall plan implementation and update the community on progress, and sufficient
7
funding sources to implement the overall plan and each key strategy. NAEH found that
the successful implementation of 10-year plans requires strong political leadership and
established partnerships between government agencies and the nonprofit sector.
All of the elements of a successful community planning and implementation process
are not fully under the control of the City of Santa Monica. A local homeless system is
an arrangement of funding, social service providers, City departments, community
groups, County departments, residents and business. Santa Monica is also strongly
impacted by policies and practices elsewhere in the region. System change is a
complex process; success will depend on many variables, some of which are beyond
the control of the City.
Attachment H lists indicators of system change, provides an excerpt from a report by
the Corporation for Supportive Housing, Taking Health Care Home: lmpact of System
Change Efforts at the Two-Year Mark by Martha R. Burt and Jacquelyn Anderson that
cites examples of successes and challenges within system change efforts relative to
developing permanent supportive housing and special needs housing.
ReqionaF Issues
• Distribution of Residential Proqrams - One issue that impacts the distribution of
homefess persons is the location of emergency shelter and housing resources.
Attachment I shows the distribution of year-round emergency shelter, transitional
housing and permanent housing beds for homeless persons county-wide. Three
comparisons are provided: total number; beds per capita; and beds per square mile.
Santa Monica ranks either second or third based on these comparisons.
• The Impact of Regional Programs on Ctient Flow - One general question regarding
this which was raised through the evaluation process was how regional resources
used by the core Santa Monica agencies influence the flow of clients into the City.
The evafuation demonstrated that, in part, this flow went both ways, and that
resources provided by entities outside of Santa Monica benefits many individuals
homeless in Santa Monica.
A specific question was raised about the impact of outside resources was St.
Joseph Center's contract with Culver City to do outreach to homeless persons in
Culver City, and the potential impact of that program on Santa Monica's resources.
For the period of July 1, 2005 through January 17, 2007, St. Joseph Center has
worked with 43 clients homeless in Culver City. Eight (8) of these clients have
enrolled in SAMOSHEL. Of the 8:
0 4 were aver 60 years of age;
0 2 were placed in permanent housing in Culver City with Culver City resources;
0 1 was placed in permanent housing in Los Angeles through the Los Angeles
Shelter Plus Care program;
8
0 1 client transitioned to PATH West Los Angles and is in the process of obtaining
Homeless Section 8 from the City of Los Angeles;
0 1 client was placed in permanent housing in Lancaster after 3 days at
SAMOSHEL;
0 1 client is searching for housing in Culver City with Culver City resources;
0 1 client returned to homelessness in Culver City after 6 months at SAMOSHEL;
0 1 clients is whereabouts unknown.
A second question was raised about the so called "family vouchers", a DPSS Single
Allocation Emergency Shelter/Outreach program funded by the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) and administered by LAHSA. The
program provides emergency housing and services as well as hotel/motel vouchers for
homeless families. The length of stay in shelters or hotels/motels is up to 120 days.
The program is designed for CalWorks eligible families who are not eligible for, or have
exhausted all of their DPSS homeless benefits. Agencies throughout the region,
including Van Nuys, Skid Row, Long Beach, South Los Angeles, Compton and Carson
have received this funding, including OPCC in Santa Monica and St. Joseph Center in
Venice. Concerns were raised as to whether these resources were attracting homeless
families to the Westside, and whether homeless families from other areas were being
referred to the Westside by DPSS, LAHSA or other programs outside the area.
City staff surveyed both OPCC and St. Joseph Center to determine the legitimacy of
these concerns. It does appear that a significant number of the families served by this
program were first homeless in locations other than Santa MonicaNenice. It does not
appear, however, that a significant number make their way to the Westside because of
referrals from outside agencies. They may find their way to Westside agencies through
word-of-mouth or regional directories such as the Rainbow Guide and databases such
as 211 LA Countv. Case managers report that the majority of the clients presented
themselves for homeless services, without prior knowledge of the DPSS voucher
program.
In a three month period St. Joseph Center served 38 families. Nine of them were from
Santa Monica - 6 had been evicted from rental units, 1 was fleeing domestic violence, 1
had been staying with a friend and had to leave, and 1 moved to a motel after a job
loss. Of the 29 families not from Santa Monica 9 were from out of state, one was from
Skid Row, 2 were from Venice; `? were from autside of LA County and the remairder
(15) were from elsewhere in LA County. Fourteen (14) reported previous ties to the
Santa MonicaNenice area, including having family and friends locally. None of these
families reported being referred by another provider or public agency from outside the
area, but rather found St. Joseph Center of their own accord, or through word-of-mouth.
OPCC served 10 families over a 3 month period, with many of the same findings. One
was from Santa Monica, 3 were from out of state, with the remainder (6) originating from
elsewhere in the county. Two were referred by another service provider outside of
9
Santa Monica, one by an agency inside of Santa Monica, and the rest (17) were self-
referred or heard about OPCC from a friend or family member.
At the time of the survey, 16 of these families were placed in transitional or permanent
housing through the efforts of St. Joseph Center and OPCC. Others were still in the
program or had left the area.
The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District has noticed an influx of homeless
families. Approximately 50 homeless families, some of whom became homeless as a
result of Hurricane Katrina, have enrolled children into local schools. Each family has
its own set of complex issues. Some families are in crisis or have high or multiple
needs.
Reqional Spendinq on Homelessness
A comparison of regional spending that includes all components of a homeless service
delivery system has not been made. However, a 2003 report by the Southern California
Association of Non-Profit Housing (SCANPH), Affordable Housing Production;
Comparing the Expenditures in Six U.S. Cities by Kate O'Hara examined the housing
production expenditures of major U.S. and California cities, including Los Angeles, San
Diego, San Jose, New York, Chicago and Phoenix. In total amount per capita, San Jose
spends the most on affordable housing production ($101.87). Los Angeles, the second
largest city in the nation, spends nearly the least per person ($43.16). Only Phoenix
spends less ($30.52). A copy of the full report is included as Attachment J.
State Approaches to Fair Share Housinq
Many states have attempted to develop laws that promote affordable housing. New
Jersey and Massachusetts are notable examples. Staff at the Fair Share Housing
Center in New Jersey have identified and shared what they think are four essential
fiactors of state affordable housing laws and enforceabifity:
1) Incentives for towns to develop their own plans
2) Independent standing to sue a town that is not in compliance (meaning the town
can be sued by anyone, including a public interest group, not just by a resident)
3) A state agency with the obligation to police compliance. in New Jersey, this is
the Council on Affordable Housing
4) lnclusionary zoning as part ofi the statute
New Jersey and Massachusetts require each town to have a plan, filed with the state
agency. If a town fails to file, or fails to act on its plan, the state laws in both states
allow independent actors to file suit. In New Jersey, a municipality may comply with
state law either by filing its own plan and acting on it, or by being sued, including by
10
public interest groups. The threat of a lawsuit has stimulated many towns to submit
plans -- the resuit so far has been 50,000 new units of affordable housing throughout
the state. The New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) is also quite vigilant
at enforcing the law, but the independent ability to sue has kept progress progressing
even when hostile governors squash COAH efforts.
Budget/Financial Impact
There is no immediate budget or financial impact associated with this study session,
however, policy decisions by the Council could have an impact on the 2007-2010
Community Development Grant Program and the upcoming budget process.
Prepared by: Danielle Noble, Sr. Administrative Analyst - Homeless Services
Approved: F~ard~jd to ~uncit:
01 a.~.l.~--.-.--
Barbara Stinchfield , nt Ewell
Director, Community & Cultural Services Ci anager
Attachment A- Matrix of Agency Responses to Questions about Homeless Veterans in
Santa Monica
Attachment B - Gender Data
Attachment C- 2005-2006 Year End Outcome Data
Attachment D- Comparisons of HMIS Software
Attachment E- Baltimore Marketing Material
Attachment F- Sample Good Neighbor Agreement
Attachment G- Components of Community Planning and Implementation Strategies for
10-Year Plans to End Homelessness
Attachment H - System Change
Attachment !- Homeless Bed Survey-City Comparisons
Attachment J- Affordable Housing Production: Comparing the Expenditures of Six U.S.
Cities
11
Attachment A
Homeless Veterans in Santa Monica
<.: ;, : _ :.: ,: ;: : ;: <: ::
;: ;:.
Agency Questionnaire to Social Service Providers Social Service Provider
Comments
Veteran Status Veteran Status Veteran Status Accuracy of Urban
Captured on Verified and Entered into titute Report -
~ns
Intake Forms Recorded on ClientTrack ~
10 /o of Homeless
fntake Form are Veterans
Chrysalis Yes Yes Yes Yes 10% definitelysoundsaboutright.
we tend to fluctuate between 6%
CLARE Yes Yes Yes Yes and 11 / per year.
I know that generally we assume in
the city of LA fhat abouf 25% of
folks are veterans. 1 am hearing
that apparent/y in SM (and my
' New Directions Yes Yes Yes Yes working down here for the last 3
years has been with a 100 %
I veteran popu/ation) has
consistent/y seen i0% veterans
and everyone l speak with
corroborates that number
10% seems /ike a bulls eye to us at
OPCC. In reviewing Veterans'
status over the past seven years at
OPCC Yes Yes Yes Yes the Access Center the percentages
have f/uctuated 6etween 9-11 %
with only one year a spike to 14%,
Of all new intakes over the past
two years, vets comprised 10.2%
Step Up On Second Yes Yes Yes Yes of new intakes.
Of afl members over the past two
years, vets comprised 11.4% of all
participants.
St. Joseph's Center Yes Yes Yes Yes
January, 2007
12
Attachment B
Table 2.2a
Distribution, Separately for Ma1es and Femafes, of Basic
Characteristics of Homeless People with an Active Case in
ClientTrack at a Santa Monica Homeless Assistance Agency
From July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006*
` (N-4,807)
,
!! Percent of Homeless
Characteristic '! Heads of Household*
_.. _..... _ _..
' Gender _
Male 60
Female 39
Transgender 0.23
..- - _. ... Male Female
; < (N=2,904) (N=1,888)
': Household type
Single adult 97 ` 81
Adult(s) plus child(ren) 2'= 16
2+ adults without children 1 2
Unaccompanied youth *~' ' *~`
€ Total ': 1 ~0 : 1 ~0
'; Age of household head
<18 1 1
18-24 10 10
25-34 17 16
35-44 28 28
45-54 29 27
55-64 11 13
65 or older 4 6
°': Total 100 i 00
,.. _.._.
! Race
_ _..
B1acklAfrican-American 36 37
W hite 54 52
Other/mixed race 10 11 '
Total 100 100 '
Hispanic origin _ . ..
Yes 13 14
No 87 86 '
: Total 100 100
_ .. _. _..
Veteran
Yes ! 16 ' 1
No $4 99
Total 100 ' i Op
_ . _.......
'" Data are based on unduplicated client records from ClientTrack, the
' database used by all City-funded homeless assistance programs to record '
i'; case information about the people they serve . All statistics pertain to the
'; "head of household," which means that information is not available for
; spouses, partners, or children in multi-person homeless households. '
`"" More than 0 but less than half of 1 percent.
_. _
... _ __.....
13
Table 2.2b
Distribution of Males and Females within Each Basic
Characteristic of Homeless People with an Active Case
in ClientTrack at a Santa Monica Homeless Assistance
Agency
From July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006*
(N-4,807)
s. Percent of Homeless
Characteristic Heads of Household*
Gender... __ ... __ _. _.. :
Male 60 '
Female 39
Transgender ;: 0.23
_..._.. _... ,.... _._
Male ..
Female __...
; (N=2,904) ' (N=1,888) Total
Household type ,.. .
Single adult 65 ! 35 ' ' 'iQ0 :
Adult(s) plus child(ren) 'i2 ' 8$ ! ! '1~0 :
2+ adults without children 49 ' S'1 ' 100 :
Unaccompanied youth 67 : ' 33 ' !~ QO i
_...._.. _
1 Age of household head ....... ... ...... _ ..
'
<18 51 49 100 '
18-24 61 39 100
25-34 62 38 100
35-44 61 39 100 '
45-54 62 38 100 '
55-64 58 42 100
65 or older 53 47 100 '
' Race _ .. .
B~acklAfrican-American 60 40 100
W hite 61 39 100
Other/mixed race 59 41 100
Hispanic origin -% yes 59 41 100 '
0
' Veteran -!o yes
' 95 '
S!
100
....
* Data are based on unduplicated client records from
ClientTrack, the ... ...._
database
used by all City-funded homeless assistance program s to record case information ''
! about the people they serve. All statistics pertain to the "head of household," '
!: which means that information is not available for spou ses, partners, or children in
' multi-person homeless households.
14
Table 2.3a
Distribution, Separately for Males and Females, of Disability and
' Other Complicating Characteristics of Homeless People With an
Active Case in ClientTrack at a Santa Monica Homeless '
Assistance Agency '
From July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006*
(N-4,807)
-
_ ....................... .......... ._.....__............................_..................__..._......... .....___...................._.....:..._........._..............................._...... ....... ..... _...._:
'' Percent of Homeless `:
':' Characteristic i Heads of Household*
_.
Male Female
;
; (N=2,904) , (N=1,888)
,
Mental illness/substance abuse status
Neither mental illness nor substance abuse 7' 4
Mental illness only, no substance abuse 9 22
Substance abuse only, no mental illness 63 47
Both mental illness and substance abuse 21 27
' Totaf 1(lQ i ()0
..
_...
; Physical disability
Yes 8 8
No 92 92
Total 100 100
' HIV/AIDS disclosed to case managers
Yes * *
No 100 100
''° Total 100 100
_ .... ;.. _....
_ _. ,
; Number of disabling conditions (mental illness,
substance abuse, HIV/AIDS, and/or physical
disability) 7 4
None 67 63
1 25 30
2 2 3
3 or 4 100 100
Total
_ _. .
; Domestic violence is an issue NA NA
Chronically homeless (hc„,.aless for 1 year or NA NA
, more, or homeless 4 or more times in past 3 years) ;; i
_
;; ' Data are based on unduplicated client records from ClientTrack, the database used by
'_` afl city-funded homeless assistance programs to record case information about the
; people they serve. All statistics pertain to the "head of household," which means that
> information is not available for spouses, partners, or children in multi-person homeless
households.
'" More than 0 but less than half of 1 percent.
' NA = not included on the ClientTrack data extract received by the Urban
Institute.
15
Table 2.3b
Distribution of Males and Females within Each Disability and Other
' Complicating Characteristics of Homeless People With an Active Case in '
ClientTrack at a Santa Monica Homeless Assistance Agency
From July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006*
(N-4,807)
_ _........ _ _.._ ,....... _ ... . _
Percent of Homeless Heads ';
of Household*
,
' Chal'aCteflStlC Male Female _
'_ (N=2,904) ; (N=1,888) j Total `
_...:... ......
_
Mental illness/substance abuse status
Neither mental illness nor substance abuse :74 26 1fl0
Mental illness only, no substance abuse !39 61 1Q0
Substance abuse only, no mental illness 67 33 iflt3
Both mental illness and substance abuse '55 45 1t?0
Physicat disability .
Yes 59 41 100
No 61 39 '
: 100
_..._ _ ......... _ _ ....... _.... _
_ _ _
HIV/AfDS disclosed to case managers _ :
......._
'
Yes 71 29 ' 100
No 61 39 100
_.... . _.
Number of disabling conditions (mental iflness,
substance abuse, HIV/AIDS, and/or physical
! disability) 73 27 100
None 62 38 100
1 56 44 100
2 56 44 100
3 or 4
Domestic violence is an issue NA NA ;
NA
Chronically homeless (homeless for 1 year or more, NA NA NA
or homeless 4 or more times in past 3 years) " '`",
_ .. ....... .... .... ... .. . _ ;
" Data are based on unduplicated client records from ClientTrack, the database used by all city- ,;
funded homeless assistance programs to record case information about the people they serv e. All
' statistics pertain to the "head of household," which means that information is not available for
' spouses, partners, or children in multi-person homeless households.
NA = not included on the ClientTrack data extract received by the Urban Institute.
i6
Attachment C
2005-2006 Year End Outcome Data
Year-End Actual
Performance
met or
Program
Numbers
Percenta es exceeded
80% of
goals
Chrysalis W Ernplo ment Pro ram 100%
500 Total SM Partici ants 746 149%
1000 clients will enter orientation 1,104 110%
500 ros ective clients 50% will receive case mana ement services 546 49°l0
40 new clients 8°lo wi{I be laced in a Ch salisWorks a renticeshi 41 8°l0
40 new clients 8% will be laced in Ch salis Staffin assi nment 70 13%
310 new clients 62% will secure rivate sector em lo ment 352 64%
200 new/on oin clients will receive post employment/job retention services 229 115%
20 retention clients 10% will retain their 'obs for 3 months or more 84 37%
Ci ofi Santa Nlonica Caortlinatetl G~se Man~ ement Pro ram SHP *' ~ 00°!0
132 Number of Sin les Not in Families to be Served at a Given Point in Time 121 92%
60 Number of Families to be Served at a Given Point in Time 66 110%
256 Partici ants Exited Durin the Pro ram Year; 453 Participants Served Durin the Pro ram Year N/A N/A
13 artici ants 5% will be laced in transitional housin when the exit the ro ram 24 9%
7(50%) of those placed in transitional housing will remain in housing for at least 4 months after they exit
the ro ram
15
63°/a
64 artici ants 25% will be laced in ermanent housin when the exit the ro ram 126 49%
3(5%) of those placed in permanent housing will remain in housing for at least 4 months after they exit the
ro ram
34
27%
90 participants (20%) will obtain increased income from mainstream health and human services programs
durin the ro ram ear
79
17%
90 artici ants 20% able to work will obtain full-time em lo ment durin the ro ram ear 92 20%
23 25% of those who obtain em lo ment will remain em lo ed for at least 4 months 59 64%
90 participants (20%) will achieve at least 50% of the goafs laid out in their case plan during the program
ear
143
32%
" The City of Santa Monica Coordinated Case Management Program (SHP) includes: Chrysalis Supportive
Housing Program; OPCC Access Center Family Services; New Directions Supportive Housing Program; St.
Joseph Center Homefess Service Center Supportive Housing Program; and Step Up on Second Supportive
Housing Program. Outcome measures are mandated by LAHSA.
17
2005-2006 Year End Outcome Data
Year-End Actual
Performance
met or
Program
Numbers
Percenta es exceeded
80% of
goals
~L~-RE ~aunclaticr~ - +~CM ~~°lb
80 Total SM Partici ants 94 118%
80 will be enrolled in case mana ement services 109 136°l0
64 80% will be referred to Health, Dental and Vision services at VFC and UCLA 85 78%
20 25% will remain alcohol and dru free 37 34%
50 62% will be referred/ laced in transitional housin 68 62°/a
16 20% will be referred/ laced into ermanent housin 12 11%
20 25°/a will rocure ermanent em lo ment 28 26%
'CLARE Fountlationi - SIOR 100°lp
186 Total SM Participants 186 100%
50% of arrestees will be willin to artici ate in an outreach counselin session N(A N/A
10% of the 50% will elect to artici ate in additional recover services 62 32%
<Comm~n Graund 82°!0
120 Tota{ SM Partici ants 108 90°l0
80 particpants wi{I receive onsite HIV-related services 83 104%
30 HIV ositive SM residents receive individual, cou fes, famil counsetin 32 107°l0
85% or 25 clients self-re ort reduction of s m toms identified at initial mental health assessment 28 88%
60 HIV ositive SM residents receive care mana ement 64 107%
85% or 51 clients will self-re ort ro ress on meetin one or more case lan oal 58 91 %
30 HIV positive SM residents receive treatment medication 32 107°/a
85°/a or 25 clients self-re ort better mana ement of side effects and im roved adherence to medication 26 81 °/a
2700 at-risk SM residents and students will receive education and revention services 4396 163%
12 resentations will be made to 300 adult artici ants 12; 272 100%; 91 %
80% or 240 ersons will have an increased knowled et of HIV risk and sexual health 258 95%
40 peer educators will be trained 25 63%
80% or 32 eer educators will self-re ort and increase in self-esteem 22 88%
80 presentations will be made to 2,000 youth by peer educators
85; 2,313 106%;
116°10
Post-test data will show that 80% or 1,600 students have increased knowled e of HIV risk and sexual 2197 95%
18
2005-2006 Year End Outcome Data
Year-End Actual
Performance
met or
Program
Numbers
Percenta es exceeded
80% of
goals
health
400 at-risk ersons will receive HIV testin and counselin 561 140%
5 of 6 individuals who test ositive 90% will access earl interv. HIV medical care at Westside Partners 7 88%
QP~C Access Genter 83%
325 Total SM Participants 364 112°l0
46% 150 will obtain emer enc shelter 116 32%
15% 50 artici ants will obtain mental health services 55 15%
6% 20 artici ants will be laced in transitional shelter 25 7%
3% 10 will obtain ermanent hausin 9 2°fa
15% 50 will access ur ent medical care services 76 21 %
23°l0 75 wifl obtain overnment benefits 72 20°l0
Communit Response Team will respond to 100 calls for intervention 98 98°/a
Of the 100 CRT calls, 15% 15 will access referrals to emer enc shelter, detox, GR, medical 28 29°/a
Identify 10 participants for the CHP 12 120%
50% 5 will artic+ ate in the CHP 7 58%
50% 5 will obtain ermanent housin 1 8%
:OPCC' Daybreak 9~%
560 Total SM Partici ants 583 104%
525 women served Da Center) 529 101 %
350 Da Center artici ants will become en a ed in the Da break continuum of care 351 100%
50 CoC artici ants 14% will be laced in emer enc she{ter 51 15%
80 CoC artici ants 23% will re ort a decrease in health roblems as documented b surve s 88 25%
105 CoC artici ants 30% will secure or maintain overnment benefits 173 49%
15 CoC participants (4%) in the Dual Diagnosis program will report a decrease in substance abuse as
documeted b surve s
17
5%
45 women provided case mana ement (Daybreak Shelter) 54 120%
15 or 33°!0 of Da break Shelter residents wi{I com lete the ro ram and secure ermanent housin 16 30%
44 or 97% ofi Da break Shelter residents will secure or maintain overnment benefits 53 98%
40 or 90% of Da break Shelter residents will obtain vocational skills b artici atin in the client-based 31 57%
19
2005-2006 Year End Outcome Data
Year-End Actual
Performance
met or
Program
Numbers
Percenta es exceeded
80% of
goals
micro-businesses
5 or 11 % of Da break Shelter clients will increase income throu h Da break Desi ns earnin s 5 9%
Provide services for 5 CHP clients 5 100%
1 CHP client will be laced in ermanent housin 1 20%
4i~~G!Sh~lter + ~are 5(1°Ib
70 total SM Participants 76 109°!0
65 artici ants or 93°!o will successfull maintain residential stabilit for one ear 65 86%
35 or 50% of artici ants wi{ re ort reater se{f-determination and su ort s stems 35 46%
5 new artici ants will obtain ermanent housin 7°l0 of all 2 3%
Provide benefits advocac to 70 eo le 100% 56 74%
66 or 95°l0 of artici ants will maintain their overnment benefits su ortin financial stabilit 56 74%
4PCC So'o~urn - Ocean ~ro'ect : 82%
500 Total SM Partici ants 467 93%
60 children will be sheltered 57 95°/a
45 children will artici ate in em owerment la rou s 39 87%
20 children 45% will demonstrate im roved assimilation of non-violent/em owerment hiloso h 10 26%
100 teens will artici ate in health relationshi worksho s 213 213%
60 teens 60% will demonstrate im roved knowled e of datin violence 194 91 %
16 women will receive emer enc res onse services 25 156%
5 women 31 % will access emer enc safet services 21 84%
2 women 13% will access lon term services available throu h the OCEAN Team 7 28%
100 women will receive court advocac 164 164%
10 women 10% will artici ate in lon -term court advocac services 14 9%
QPGC' Sci aurn - Wesfiside Dprnestic Vialenc~ Netwark 88%
50 Total SM Participant A encies 60 120%
50 ersons will attend the Westside Child Trauma Council Conference 29 58%
80°fo of evaluation res ondents will re ort learnin wa s to im rove their services 16 84%
80% of evaluation res ondents will re ort ex anded knowled e about resources for clients 15 79%
35 ersons will attend the Center for Non-Violent Education and Parentin Conference 36 103%
20
2005-2006 Year End Outcome Data
Year-End Actual
Performance
met or
Program
Numbers
Percenta es exceeded
80% of
goals
80% of evaluation res ondents wifl re ort im roved knowled e of non-violent arentin skills 32 97%
30 ersons will attend DV 101 Trainin s 31 103%
100% of evaluation res ondents will better understand how to identif lintervene with victims 21 100%
65 ersons will attend Networkin rainin meetin s 199 306%
80% of evaluation res ondents will re ort increased knowled e of communit resources 107 73%
80% of evaluation res ondents will re ort increased knowled e of the to ic 112 76%
30 ersons will attend the Famil Services Task Force meetin s 31 103%
30 eval res ondents 100% will re ort'm roved ractices in their intervention with families 27 100%
10 ersons will attend the Latino Se~ vices Committee meetin s 42 420%
7 eval res ondents (70% will re ort im roved communication and/or knowled e 32 84%
24 ersons will attend the Coordinatin Council meetin s 46 192%
20 eval res ondents 85% will be re ort im roved communication/reduced intera enc barriers 32 94%
CJPCG'i7urrtin Point 83°lQ
125 total SM artici ants 149 119%
125 individuals 100% will obtain case mana ement 149 100%
70 individuals 56% will be laced into housin 67 45%
10 individuals 8% will be laced into other transitional housin 14 9%
En a e 90 individuals in the Alumni ro ram 113 126%
85 Alumni or 95% will maintain stable housin for six months 52 46%
f~PCC'~ SAAAt1SHEL 87°I4
375 SM Participants 364 97%
262 ersons 70% wi11 move into more intensive services Levels II and III within 20 da s 284 78%
356 ersons 95% will receive on-site TB testin durin their sta 292 80%
Provide case mana ement to 375 ersons 100% 364 100%
56 ersons 15% will be assisted in securin transitional housin 63 17%
56 ersons 15% will be assisted in securin ermanent housin 102 28%
75 ersons 20% will secure em lo ment durin their residenc or financial assistance 96 26%
113 30% will receive on site le al assistance 132 36°to
21
2005-2006 Year End Outcome Data
Year-End Acfual
Performance
met or
Program
Numbers
Percenta es exceeded
80% of
goals
~DF~CC'- SHWASHLQCK ipb% :
166 SM artici ants 280 169%
at. Jase h's ~enter -~oordinated Case Mana ementfShower Pro rarr- : 90°la
130 Santa Monica Participants 157 121 %
Of 150 contacted throu h Outreach 130 homeless SM residents will receive CM 157 121 %
70% or 90 homeless SM residents will move from the streets to emer enc shelter 82 52°/a
15% or 20 homeless SM residents will move from the streets or emer enc shelter into transitional housin 20 13%
8% or 10 homeless SM residents will move from the streets or emergency shelter into substance abuse
lacements
7
4%
15°/a or 20 homeless SM residents will obtain ermanent housin 24 15%
12% or 16 homeless SM residents will maintain housin for 12 months or lon er 17 11 %
15% or 16 homeless SM residents will obtain all ublic benefits to which the are eli ible 20 13%
15% or 20 homeless SM residents will obtain mental health assessment and/or on-going treatment for 1
month or lon er
26
17%
7,000 showers will be provided to homeless SM residents enabling them to experience improved
hy iene and health behaviors
7429
106%
St. Jos h's':Center - Sh~l#er Rlus Gare Pr rarn 100°!0
40 Total SM Partici ants 40 100%
5 Santa Monica households who are S+C eligible will receive a S+C voucher, based on available
vouchers due to turnover, and be placed in housin
6
120%
Of 40 clients, 20 will have histories of substance abuse; 15 75% will maintain sobriet 22 ofi 26 85%
Of 40 clients, 20 will have mental health issues; 15 75% will maintain medication com fiance 20 of 23 87%
Of the 35 previousl enrolled, 31 or 89% will continue to maintain their housin for 12 months or lon er 31 89%
13% or 5 S+C artici ants will obtain/maintain em lo ment 7 18%
40% or 2 of em lo ed artici ants will increase income 3 43%
13% or 5 S+C participants will increase their vocational skills by enrolling in academic or job training
courses
6
15%
' Ste U C1n Secand - Case Mana ement & Jota Pro "raro 71 °to
54 Total SM Participants 54 100%
22
2005-2006 Year End Outcome Data
Year-End Actual
Performance met or
exceeded
80% of
Program Numbers Percenta es goals
49 members 90% will meet at least one case mana ement oal 53 91 %
20 members 37% will secure sti end 'obs within SUOS for at least 30 da s 2 4°/a
2 members 4°/a will secure tem ora / ermanent em lo ment in the communit 3 6%
12 members 22°to will secure emer enc housin 7 13%
5 members 9% will secure transitional housin 7 13°l0
4 members (7%) will secure permanent housinq 15 28%
32 Total SM Participants 33 103°/a
30 members 94% will maintain residential stabilit for 1 ear 29 88%
4 members (12% will work in an internal SUOS 'ob for at least 30 da s 4 12%
1 member (3%) will work in a iob outside of SUOS 0 0°to
22 Total SM Households 25 Total Households) 47 214%
18 households 72% will achieve lacement in ermanent housin within 12 months of ent 28 57%
22 adult residents 88% of 25 will secure an income stream within 12 months of ro ram ent 52 100%
14 families 65% will save 1 month's income within 6 months of ro ram entr 49 100%
23
Attachment D
Comparisons of HMIS Software
V~'ndt~~' ' AdSysTech Softscape Bowman MetSys Pathways VisionLink Mid America
Systems LLC Community Assistance
Network Coalition
Prc~[uct ! AESenginuity CaseOne ServicePoint Met COMPASS Tapestry MAACLink
Enter rise
G~trr~~it US2r'5 i LAHSA; Long Michigan Texas; Georgia Colorado Kansas;
: Pasadena; Beach Nevada; Charleston,
' Glendale; OC Kentuck WV
1Jr~~t~UQ [d~C~tifii~rl i Back-end Unique iD Unknown Unique ID Back-end Unique ID Built-in user
~~~~~~~ ~pr . and back- and data and back-end alerts
~~~~ ~~~~~~a~ end merges
Cli~rit (r1t~k~;~nd ! Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Gase i
~tar~~~ern~~rt
~cr~er~s
Q~~~~m~~ ! Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tracl~in
~~~#~~j~~~j~~; Yes Unknown Yes Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown
1r~ta~C~ S+~Ce~r~~
~~~#~~i~~~~~ ', Yes Yes Yes Yes Unknown Yes No
!f ~{~r~~~~;~y t~~~~ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
sharin"
}~~{~~r~( ! Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
~a a~~Iities '
~~s~ ', ' Unknown Unknown Lower Higher Higher Unknown Higher
24
VE;~td~7r ' Coelho Foothold HousingWorks, Inc Harmony Radii Technologies Domus
' Consulting Technology Information Inc. Systems, Inc.
S stems, Inc.
i~rodu~t CARES AWARDS The Ecosystem Harmony Radii Advanced Domus HMIS
Client Management
S stem
C~irr~tl'~ ~,JS~rS ' Philadelphia lndiana, New New Bedford, MA Virginia Salvation Army, San Francisco
Jerse , New York Southern Territor
U~tiqu8; [d~~ttifi~~I ' Unique ID and Unique ID Unique ID Unique ID and Built-in user alerts Unique ID
~~~}~~q~ ~ar j '. back-end forced searches and data merges
~rtdU IiC~tic3rt
C{i~€tt (~it~ke.and '
_ _ __ __ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Gas~;
4ttianag~m~~t!
~cr~sr~s
(~~t~p~~~ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
T'r~ckin
_ __,
CUStC~t't'ijzd~7~~_ _' Unknown Yes Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown
Inta~~ S~r~er~s
~ustt~rni~able Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
~;~~~r~~~~~y ~~#~ ' Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
sharir~ '
J~~f~~'I`c~1 ' Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
~a ~~i(i#ies '
Cost Unknown Lower Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
25
Attachment E
~ ~~
nn,~~Tn....,
~V^^.•~VYVn
PARTNERSH{P
Press Release Contact: Mike Evitts
410.528.7719
410.913.1697 cell
NEW DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP CAMPAIGN AIMS TO TAKE THE MONEY OUT
OF PANHANDLING, INCREASE SUPPORT TO TRULY NEEDY
Downtown visitors, workers & residents encouraged to
"Put your change where you can make one"
In an effort to increase homeless outreach while discouraging panhandling, Downtown
Partnership has begun the "Make a Change" program in the 106-block Downtown
Management Authority district. This area is home to 88,600 office workers, 13,000
students, almost 10,000 residents. It also has the region's top tourist destinations,
including the Inner Harbor, Convention Center, and Camden Yards and M&T Bank
Stadium.
The Make a Change campaign encourages people to "put your change where you can
make one" by explaining that it's better to give to a charitable organization than it is to
give directly to a panhandler who may use the money to feed an addiction or support
other negative behavior.
To provide an outlet for those who care to make a donation, special Make a Change
collection boxes are being placed in Downtown businesses, hotels, attractions, and
other public places. Downtown Partnership collects money from the boxes and 100% of
the proceeds go to Baltimore Homeless Services, Inc. to improve homeless outreach.
"Panhandling can allow people with serious problems such as addiction and mental
illness, to stay on the streets," said Downtown Partnership president Kirby Fowler. "At
the same time, there are many panhandlers who are in it simply to make a fast buck,
even though they present themselves as being in need."
"Our goal with the Make a Change campaign is to increase services for people who are
truly in need and discourage a behavior that adversely affects the quality of life for
thousands of people each year," Fowler said.
26
"With the money collected through the Make a Change campaign, Baltimore Homeless
Services, Inc. will be able to increase outreach services in Downtown Baltimore and
make a difference in a homeless person's life," said Laura Gillis, President/CEO of
Baltimore Homeless Services, Inc.
"Panhandling is a major issue, particularly around the Inner Harbor," said Tom Yeager,
Downtown Partnership's Executive Vice President of Clean & Safe Services.
"Downtown is one of the safest areas in the city but that's not the impression many
people have when they are constantly being approached for money."
"The Baltimore Area Convention and Visitors Association's (BACVA's) research points
to issues of security and the perception that some popular tourist areas in Baltimore are
often regarded by visitors as unsafe, mostly the result of homelessness and aggressive
panhandling," said BACVA President & CEO, Leslie Doggett. "This campaign is a step
in the right direction toward ensuring the visitor experience in Baltimore is a positive
one."
Already, many Downtown businesses, hotels, and cultural attractions are displaying the
Make a Change donation boxes in their lobbies. One hotel, the Renaissance
Harborplace Hotel, is placing the fliers in each room where every guest will see it. The
hotel is also donating the money it collects from the lobby coin fountains.
h~wever.: We plan on contributing to a positive outcome for our guests, our associates
and our community."
The public can learn more about the "Make a Change" campaign and ways to get
involved by contacting Tom Yeager at ty~er@dpob.org or 410.244.1030.
Downtown Partnership is a nonprofit corporation working with the public and private
sectors to make Downtown Baltimore a great place for businesses, employees,
residents, and visitors. The Partnership's policies and programs have led to a cleaner &
safer powntown, to an increase in housing and retail opportunities, to the retention of
key employers, to the developm~~~t of solutions to transportation challenges, and to
increased public and private investments in the area.
# # # #
27
28
Attachment F
GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE COMMONS AT GRANT
AND
THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Commons at Grant, which owns the property at 398 S. Grant Avenue, is a non-
profit organization that provides housing and supportive services for low-income and
formerly homeless residents of Columbus, Ohio.
The Neighborhood Advisory Committee to the Commons at Grant is a group of
neighboring businesses and individuals whose mission is:
"To help and advise in the ongoing development of the Commons at Grant program and
facility,
and assist residents' integration into the neighborhood."
Both parties share a common desire to:
• Create a peaceful, safe, and beautiful neighborhood;
• Share open and honest communication;
• Help each other address concerns and solve problems;
• Offer public service for the benefit of the neighborhood.
In order to accomplish these goals, the two parties agree to commitments described in
this agreement.
1. Property
Property owners have a responsibility to keep their properties well-maintained and
attractive.
It is desirable for property owners and residents to show pride in the community by
caring for public spaces, and by assisting the neighborhood's service organizations,
such as schools, charitable organizations, etc., with improving the landscape. In order
to maintain property at the highest possible values,
The Commons at Grant will:
A. Maintain the building and grounds in good condition, and promptly make any
repairs needed;
B. Keep the building and grounds clean and neat in appearance;
29
C. Maintain a well-lighted facility and grounds;
D. Install and maintain attractive lawns, trees, gardens, and other landscaping that
contribute to the beauty of the neighborhood;
E. Conceal graffiti within 48 hours;
F. Encourage residents to become involved in volunteer efforts to help clean and
improve the neighborhood's public spaces and the grounds outside nearby
service organizations.
G. Consider renting excess capacity within the previously existing office building to
appropriate businesses, including providers of goods and services,
restaurant/coffee shop, office space for community groups or service
organizations, etc.
H. Make common space within the facility available, when not in use by the
program, to neighborhood civic organizations, non-profit arts or community
groups, and nearby charitable or educational organizations.
The Neighborhood Advisory Committee will:
A. Make note of the condition of the building and grounds, and report to The
Commons at Grant when property issues require attention;
B. Help develop and participate in volunteer activities to create a more attractive
neighborhood.
2. Safety
Safety and security are essential for citizens to live peacefully and free from harm, and
for neighborhoods to remain desirable and attractive. Property owners and residents
share the responsibility of creating and maintaining a safe and secure neighborhood. In
order to promote safety and security for all residents of the neighborhood,
The Commons at Grant will:
A. Establish a block watch program in conjunction with Market Mohawk Apartments,
the police department, and other neighboring businesses and residents;
B. Prohibit and actively discourage loitering around The Commons at Grant and
surrounding properties;
C. Respond to all concerns that involve an emergency (defined as a grave or
imminent risk to the health or safety of any person) immediately; as appropriate
contact police or rescue squad and the supervisor on-call immediately.
The Neighborhood Advisory Committee will:
A. Offer advice and support in developing a block watch program for the
neighborhood;
30
B. Review summary reports of program outcomes, incidents, and neighborhood
concerns from The Commons at Grant;
C. Provide comments and suggestions for improving safety at The Commons at
Grant.
3. Conduct and Behavior
Conduct and behavior that is respectful of others contributes to the peaceful enjoyment
of life in the community. Individuals have the freedom to act as they please, so long as
those actions are lawful, and do not harm others or infringe upon their rights.
Cooperation and respect between citizens are desirable qualities, and will be actively
promoted in the neighborhood. In order to promote good conduct and behavior,
The Commons at Grant will:
A. Create and enforce house rules that encourage respect for others and prescribe
lawful behavior for residents and guests;
B. Prohibit loud music and loud or offensive language in public;
C. Prohibit all firearms on the premises;
D. Investigate and respond promptly as indicated above to all concerns about
resident behavior expressed by neighbors or other community members.
The Neighborhood Advisory Committee wilf:
A. Offer suggestions and advice in developing house rules that promote good
behavior while respecting the individual rights and freedoms of residents;
B. Offer suggestions and advice in developing effective methods of responding to
behavioral issues.
4. Communication
Communication between The Commons at Grant and the neighboring community is
important to develop and maintain positive relationships. Progress reports help make
the community aware of positive developments and efforts to achieve success.
Awareness of upcoming events offers the community ways to interact with residents
and staff, and helps both parties become more integrated. Methods will be established
to ensure routine communication, feedback, and monitoring of this agreement's
commitments. In order to promote communication between the program and the
neighborhood,
The Commons at Grant will:
A. Provide notice of upcoming events, and invite the community when appropriate;
31
B. Meet with the Neighborhood Advisory Committee quarterly to report as required
by this agreement, and to review program and facility design, outcomes, policies,
procedures, progress reports, and other relevant information;
C. Document and report positive outcomes from the program, inc{uding
employment, educational, volunteer, and accomp{ishments, in aggregate data;
D. Respond promptly to all concerns expressed by neighbors or community
members regarding residents, using the following procedure:
I. Staff taking such a call will determine if it is an emergency (defined as a
grave or imminent threat to the health or safety of any person), in which
case police or rescue squad will be contacted as appropriate, along with the
supervisor on-call.
II. Staff will notify the caller of the initial plan for response and a suggested
time frame for follow-up.
III. Staff will contact a supervisor within 24 hours to discuss the concern.
IV. The supervisor will review the issue, interview all persons involved, and
gather additional information as needed to form a plan to resolve the
concern within five business days.
V. The supervisor will make follow-up contact with the original calfer and other
parties involved as necessary within five business days (sooner if possible),
and advise all parties of the plan and/or current status of investigation to
resolve issue, within the boundaries of confidentiality.
E. Provide written response regarding resolution of repeated issues, problems, or
patterns of behavior that cause the community concern at quarterly meetings;
F. Notify neighbors and others at least annually of procedures for raising issues and
concerns which describe contact persons, resolution process, and time frames
for resolution of issues;
G. Document all complaints, and concerns, including responses to problems and
outcomes to responses, and provide a summary report to the Neighborhood
Advisory Committee, in aggregate data.
H. Notify the Neighborhood Advisory Committee of major changes proposed to the
program or facility, and seek advice with regard to implementation.
The Neighborhood Advisory Committee will:
A. Encourage the community to attend events and programs to interact with
residents and staff at The Commons at Grant when possible;
B. Meet at least quarterly to monitor progress and commitments made within this
agreement, and offer suggestions and advice to The Commons at Grant with
regard to program and facilities;
C. Serve as a vehicle for communication between neighbors and the community
and The Commons at Grant, including sharing or information, appreciation,
issues, and concerns;
D. Notify The Commons at Grant of repeated issues, problems, or patterns of
behavior that cause the community concern, and seek resolution;
32
E. Seek resolution of community concerns with the Commons at Grant prior to
notifying the media or outside entities, whenever possible and appropriate.
5. Changes to Aqreement
This agreement may be changed or modified from time to time upon mutual agreement
of The Commons at Grant and The Neighborhood Advisory Committee. '
' http://content.knowledgeplex.org/kp2/cache/documents/11758.doc
33
AGREED:
Name Organization Date
Name Organization Date
Name Organization Date
Name Organization Date
Name Organization Date
Name Organization Date
Name Organization Date
Name Organization Date
Name Organization Date
Name Organization Date
Name Organization Date
Name Organization Date
Name Organization Date
34
Attachment G
Key Components of Community Planning and Implementation Strategies for
10-Year Plans to End Homelessness
In December 2005 and January 2006 HSD staff reviewed 10-year plans to end homelessness and talked
with local lead agencies as well as people across the country to identify components of effective
community planning, implementation and governance structures. At that time staff identified the following
key components:
1. Political will to create a 10-year plan, interagency body, joint powers or administrat~on for a
funding source.
2. A dynamic leader who others recognize as an expert in the fieid, volunteers a significant amount
of his/her time, champions a 10-year plan, uses his/her personal experience to engage others.
3. A lead entity where the work can be done.
4. The right people, people with power in the system and the ability to direct resources and
implement change.
5. A method of ensuring accountability, an individual or body or department willing to accept
responsibility for the process and report on its progress.
Since then, and at the suggestion of the Urban Institute, staff have spoken with more people involved in
successful community planning processes and believe that the following are also essential:
6. Dedicated staff to support the work of the planning committees.
7. Strong providers who share their best practices and experience.
8. A participatory process that unites existing groups to more effectively pursue a common
agenda.
9. Flexibility to allow the pfanning process, committee structure and membership to evolve and
change in response to emerging issues.
Example: City of Portland and Multnomah County, Oregon
"Home Again: A 10-year plan to end homelessness in Portland and Multnomah County"
Political Will, Dynamic Leader, Dedicated Staff
The Citizens Commission on Homelessness (CCOH) was established by the Mayor of Portland with
endorsement from the Chair of Multnomah County to demonstrate political will and bring together
stakeholders to come up with a 10-Year Plan for PortfandlMultnomah County. Comprised of 12 persons
including a City Commissioner and County Commissioner, business and community leaders and persons
experiencing homeless, the CCOH oversaw the development of the 10-Year Plan and was set up
intentionally without representation of local government or non-profit agency staff to allow for an external
process that would help develop broad community support for a plan. Its chairman, Daniel Steffey, was
an assistant to Mayor Bud Clark in the i 980s, the author of the 1986 12-Point Plan and the former
director of the Bureau of Community Development. The Commission met monthly between November
2003 and November 2004 and was staffed primarily from the City of Port~and's Bureau of Housing and
Community Development.
35
Lead Entity
The Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC), an inter-jurisdictional citizens' body that
reviews and makes housing policy recommendations to three }urisdictions (Portland, Gresham, and
Multnomah County) regarding housing and community development issues, is responsible for the
development of the county-wide Consolidated Plan and is the lead entity for the Continuum of Care.
HCDC acts on the recommendations of the Coordinating Committee to End Homefessness (CCEH),
incorporating them into the Consolidated Plan.
Lead Entity, Accountabifity, Strong Providers, Dedicated Staff, Participatory Process, Flexibility
The Plan to End Homelessness Coordinating Committee (PTHCC) performed the necessary coordination
and planning with approximately 50 representatives of non-profit agencies, mainstream agencies,
representatives from other planning bodies, and homeless and formerly homeless people. BHCD staff
convened and staffed three workgroups, the remainder originated from members and were supported by
members. Workgroups included: Discharge Planning; Short-Term Rent Assistance; Chronic
Homelessness; Outreach and Engagement; Facility Based Transitionaf Housing; Consumer Feedback;
Shelter and Access; and Bridges to Housing (regional approach to services for homeless families across
four counties). The Committee met monthly between November 2003 and November 2004. Workgroups
met once or twice a month and reported progress during monthly PTHCC meetings. The Committee was
staffed primarily from the City of Portland's Bureau of Housing and Community Development.
Since the plan's release, the PTHCC has evolved into the Coordinating Committee to End Homelessness
(CCEH) and has become the lead entity for ongoing community planning and provides broad-based
feedback on implementation issues. Participants are from various interest groups, networks, commissions
and planning efforts. They represent homeless and formerly homeless persons, housing providers, the
business community, the private sector, nonprofits, faith-based organization, as well as staff from the City
of Portland's Bureau of Housing and Community Development, Multnomah County, the Housing Authority
of Portland and the HCDC. Membership is open to anyone who has attended three out of the last six
meetings starting with the October 2005 meeting. The group is also charged with updating the 10-Year
Plan over time, developing strategies for ending homelessness that are incorporated into the Continuum
of Care plan, applying for McKinney-Vento funding and overseeing and implementing a comprehensive
Continuum of Care.
CCEH's recommendations on the 10-Year Plan and strategies to address homelessness go two citizen
bodies for review: HCDC, which meets monthly and CCOH which meets twice annually to review
progress and make recommendation on Plan Implementation.
CCEH presents issues for HCDC to consider when voting, but is not a voting body. Decisions will be
made by consensus whenever possible. Votes will be taken when necessary, with a simple
majoritylminority of inembers present. The CCEH meets once a month from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. and is
staffed by the City of Portland, Bureau of Housing and Community Development Homeless Program
Coordinator.
The CCEH has two Committees. The Evaluation Committee evaluates provider progress toward
established goals of ending people's homelessness, makes recommendations for improvement and
shifting of resources as appropriate and is responsible for evaluating and ranking McKinney-funded
projects for renewal, A Steering Committee, which meets once a month, helps frame
questions/recommendations for CCEH, follows-up on integration of the 10-Year Plan and Continuum of
Care plan, and drafts monthly agendas for CCEH meetings.
36
Process fhat Developed PorfJarrr~ artd Mul~r~amah G'ocrr~ty 10 ~~ar J°Jan to Errd Norrrelessnes~
pppoctuniUes for {Jngoing Pu61ic Pariidpation
Homeless Hausing,
and Formerfy Speciai Needa, Busi~ess and
Neighbart~^od
Housir+g and Community Deveiopmen4 Commission Flomeless and Homelass
~'~0~~
[4versees Consolidated Plan and C^ntinuum Pracess) People qo~a~~g
Citixens Commissicn on Hor~elessness
[Oversees 10 year Plan Pracess)
, 90 Year Plan fo End
Hamelessness and
~ Continuam of Care Paan
Speciai Neatis Committae ~ ~aordinating Commlftoe Mukavrystems Changa
• Housing and Servioes ! • Wflrtc9roup Leads sffact[ng:
FartnershSp Gruup I ' Govemmenl Reps, l{r~ency Reps,
• FamiG~s with Specaai Heeds ~ Advoca[es, 4ther Parh~ers i • Cfly end Coun€y Polices
• Liaisons to Sp~ciaf Needs Camm, Bridges - • Funding PrioriEies
i ta Housing Hnme[essness Workgroup I • Roles and Responsibilities
j Group, State Pdicy Team, G^alilion for ~ -
j Homeless Families, Povecty Advlsory ~
=
Committee /
YYork~rwps ! (
° Chmnic Homeless S[ake[~older i ~
• Consumer Feedi~ack ~-
I
• aischarge Planning i
• Facility Based Trensitional Fiousing
• MclSinney Prtorifization ~
• Dulteach and Eng~qement j
• Short ferm reni asslsfance t
• SheiterfAccess Worl4group . ~OY'~~817C~ Ci{~ ~iO1.~T1C1~
• Bridges to Hausfng ` ~
! ~li1t~
Mulfno~ah Gounty Bflard of
~ornmissioners
Hameless Aduft Dtrectors Nehwrk
Non•profi~, komeless Family V~olence Coordinating Council, ~omestic Violence Provider NeUn~~rk
Agency ~letvrarks by
Papulation System Homeless Famil3es Nst~vork, Parenting 7eens Network, Coalition far Hflmeless Families
HamelessYo~IF~ OversighE Commitfee, Homeless Youih Continu~m P[anning
~
C'7
Attachment H
System Change
Excerpted from: Corporation for Supportive Housing, Taking Healfh Care Home: Impact of
System Change Efforts at the Two-Year Mark by Martha R. Burt and Jacquelyn Anderson.
The Taking Health Care Home Initiative
In 2002, the Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) launched a national effort to prevent and
end long-term homefessness for tens ofi thousands of people with chronic health problems. The
effort is aimed at changing the way that heath and social support services are financed,
organized, and delivered, to make access to initial and on-going capital, operating, and services
funding for permanent supportive housing easier and more reliable.
The Taking Health Care Home Initiative (THCH) is one part of that campaign. The Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation initially awarded CSH a two-year grant of $6M in 2003. This grant was
extended in 2005 for another two years. Through THCH, CSH has made grants to states and
localities, which are using THCH resources to create new systems able to produce supportive
housing that ends homelessness for people with chronic health conditions including mental
illness, alcohol and chemical dependency and HIV/AIDS.
System Change Indicators
1. Power - People with formaf authority are invested in and responsible for developing
supportive housing in the community.
2. Money - Funding is earmarked for supportive housing - either a special funding stream
is created (preferably) or special funding is allocated on a regular basis such that most
supportive housing developers and providers can rely on ongoing resources.
3. Habits - Interactions among the agencies and organizations involved in funding,
developing, and operating supportive housing become part of a normal routine, rather
than part of a speciaf initiative or because of a directive from top-level authorities.
4. Knowledge, Technology, Skills - A growing set of skilled practitioners at most or all
levels in the delivery chain has developed. A set of mutually agreed upon "best
practices" is being used; staff brings new knowledge and skills to bear on promoting
system change.
5. Ideas or Values - A new definition of performance or success has been created, such
that there is a greater focus on long-term homefessness and developing supportive
housing to solve the problem.
6. Goordination - A designated position is created within government to promote system
change. This person develops and follows a plan to bring relevant actors into the new
system that makes PSH development easier and more certain.
Levels of System Change
1. Local Elected Officia{s - city, county, and state politicians - mayors, city or county
council representatives, state legislators, governors - who need to proposed and then
champion new money, joint contracting options, altered or extended eligibility, and other
enabling legislation.
2. Public agency administrators - agency heads and the directors of key divisions within
public agencies, who need to come together to fund and support PSH.
3. PSH providers and potential providers - the housing developers, housing managers,
and services agencies, usually but not always nonprofit, who need to work together to
produce and run PSH.
38
4. People and units - the disabled homeless people who need PSH and the projects that
have units available.
Two Themes Related to How System Change is Occurring -These themes cross-cut and
underlie all progress toward system change at every level.
1. Having Someone Whose Job is System Change - having one or more people "minding
the store," facilitating, coordinating, stimulating, reminding, organizing, assessing
progress, bringing in new players, and keeping the many actors moving in the right
general direction
2. Need for a Neutral External Facilitator - having an external facilitator whose interests are
not tethered to any of the parties who must negotiate and implement a changed system.
Success: System Change at the Level of Local Elected Officials
Connecticut - The governor's Office of Policy and Management (OPM) has been a key partner
in the increased focus on PSH in the state, and has continued its supportive role through
changes in governors and agency heads. The OPM secretary co-chairs the state Interagency
Council on Supportive Housing and Homelessness, which monitors the state's supportive
housing efforts.
Maine - Two Maine governors have supported efforts to end homelessness. Governor Angus
King established a Senior Staff Group and supported development of a state Action Plan.
Senior Staff inembers were cabinet-level agency heads. Main teams attended policy academies
under King, and began writing a state ten-year plan.
The Action Plan crystallized the ideas of what should be done, but the governor never officially
endorsed it and many state agencies did not strongly buy into the plan. When the new governor,
John Baldacci, came into office, he was also officially committed to ending homelessness. But it
still took almost a year and a half for him to give the Action Plan his official endorsement. The
governor made Maine the first (and still only) state in the nation to raise homelessness to
cabinet level by appointing the first Director of Home{ess Initiatives. This new position reports
directly to the governor, but is housed at the Maine State Housing Authority (MSHA). The
director's job is "to make it all come together" through the Work Group and other mechanisms.
Having someone in this role is already having an important consequences for Maine, as the
director travels around the state developing and understanding of the regional planning
processes and sharing information about the resources available through MSHA and other state
agencies for various homeless-related developments. Also, the fact that the director is in the
Governor's office as well as at MSHA means she, and the homelessness issue, has access to
decision makers that never existed before.
Challenges: System Change at the Level of Local Elected Officials
Kentucky - In the fall of 2003, the Kentucky governorship changed parties for the first time in
several decades. The change of governors was followed by changes in the staffing and
direction of state agencies, reorganization of all departments and cabinets, and changes in
some priorities that affected Kentucky Housing Corporation. During the next year and a half all
of the original Taking Health Care Home project staff left, including people who had been
instrumental in making the Kentucky Housing Corporation a model for addressing
homelessness issues in a largely rural state, including a good deal of PSH development. Under
these circumstances of political and bureaucratic transition, which every public jurisdiction
experiences from time to time, the ability to keep an issue such as PSH on the political agenda
39
is particulariy difficult to accomplish from the middle-management level within government.
Despite these circumstances, Kentucky has made some important steps toward system change.
Success: System Change at the Level of Public Agencies
Los Angeles - The primary vehicle of change in Los Angeles at the level of public agencies is
the Special Needs Housing Alliance (SNHA). SNHA members are county-level agencies plus
the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA). Agencies include the Community
Development Commission (CDC), the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the County,
LAHSA, the county Housing Authority (HACoLA), and the department of Mental Health, Public
Social Services, Probation, Child and Family Services, Health Services, and Community Senior
Services. The CAO and CDC co-chair the committee.
SNHA began meeting in the mid-1990s when the county recognized the need to coordinate
housing and services for people with special needs including victims of domestic violence,
people with mental illness and s~bstance abuse issues, transitional foster youth, people with
HIV/AIDs, the elderly, and people with developmental disabilities. When SNHA first started it
was a fairly ad hoc group that grew out of a group of county agency heads working to facilitate
all the changes required by welfare reform. As more money became available for special needs
housing, the SNHA evolved as the entity to address this issue. SNHA developed a strategic
plan and prioritized eight of the plan's recommendations to move forward on immediately. Next
SNHA began the process of implementing its recommendations. Its first step was to draft a
letter for the Board of Supervisors, including the eight top-priority recommendations plus a
request to allow SNHA to serve as a"funnel mechanism" for partner agencies' resources and
issue requests for proposals. At that time, SNHA had no RFP issuing power and control over
any funding sources as a group. The Board of Supervisors endorsed the SNHA's letter and
gave it some authority to act. Although the county is a long way from creating a"funnel
mechanism" for permanent supportive housing, the Board's approval is an important first step.
In Los Angeles, which has never had any entity devoted to coordinating the activities of public
agencies toward the goal of promoting permanent supportive housing and special needs
housing, SNHA's current status is a giant step forward.
Success: Changes at the Level of Permanent Supportive Housing Providers
Los Angeles - The Skid Row Collaborative is a project funded by the federal Chronic
Homelessness Initiative (CHI). Partners include the Skid Row Housing Trust (a housing
developer), LAMP (a homeless services provider); the City Housing Authority (HACLA), the
County Department of Mental Health, and the VA. 162 chronically homeless people are being
served throughout the program, 62 of whom are housed at the newly rehabilitated St. George
Hotel. One important change in organizational practice is the availability of a DMH psychiatrist
to help Collaborative tenants where they live or at LAMP, so people do no have to use the
relatively uninviting local mental health clinic setting.
Success: Changes at the Level of Getting People into Units F
Seattle - Seattle permanent supportive housing providers and allies are starting to develop
habits among providers and public agencies to increase odds that new units go to chronically
homeless people. For example, to fill the 60 units in its new 1811 Eastlake project, the
Downtown Emergency Service Center (DESC) will exclusively target people who have been on
the street, mostly chronic inebriates. DESC is creating a list of people who are the highest users
of the jails, hospitals, and sobering stations (overnight shelters for people who are intoxicated).
DESC staff will be enlisting staff from the sobering station and the police to identify and refer
appropriate people to DESC.
40
Attachment I
Homeless Bed Inventory
Data compiled from the LAHSA Beds and Services Inventory, January 2006. Some corrections to the
LAHSA inventory have been made. Santa Monica, Long Beach, Glendale, Pasadena, Bell, Artesia, and
Whittier beds and services compiled from local sources and LAHSA data.
Cit Total Year-Round
Beds
Los An eles 19174
Lon Beach 2827
5anta Monica 673
In lewood 544
Lancaster 520
Pasadena 453
Bell 350
Glendale 335
Norwalk 332
Downe 292
W hittier 230
Pomona 171
Com ton 146
Santa Fe S rin s 87
Carson 78
L nwood 70
Confidential 67
La Puente 46
EI Monte 43
Beilflower 40
Lawnda~e 40
Claremont 37
San Fernando 32
South Pasadena 32
West Covina 32
Hermosa Beach 24
Redondo Beach 24
Culver Cit 20
Scattered 18
Pico Rivera 10
41
Cit Year-Round Beds
Per Capita
Bell 9.5
San#a Monica : ! 7.8ii
Lon Beach 6.1
Los An eles 5.2
Santa Fe S rin s 5.0
In lewood 4.8
Lancaster 4.4
Pasadena 3.4
Norwalk 3.2
Whittier 2.7
Downe 2.7
Glendale 1.7
Com ton 1.6
San Fernando 1.4
South Pasadena 1.3
Hermosa Beach 1.3
Lawndale 1.3
Pomona 1.1
La Puente 1.1
Claremont 1.1
L nwood 1.0
Carson 0.9
Bellflower 0.5
Culver Cit 0.5
Redondo Beach 0.4
EI Monte 0.4
West Covina 0.3
Pico Rivera 0.2
Note: The City of Bell includes a 350-bed shelter operated by the Salvation Army.
42
Cit Year-Round Beds
Per Square Mile
Bell 140.0
Santa lVlonica ' ' g~ .0';
In lewood 59.8
Lon Beach 56.1
Los An eles 40.9
Norwalk 34.2
Downe 23.5
Lawndale 20.0
Pasadena 19.6
Hermosa Beach 17.1
Whittier 15.8
Com ton 14.5
L nwood 14.3
San Fernando 13.3
La Puente 13.1
Gfendale 10.9
Santa Fe S rin s 9.9
South Pasadena 9.4
Pomona 7.5
Beliflower 6.6
Lancaster 5.5
EI Monte 4.5
Carson 4.1
Culver Cit 3.9
Redondo Beach 3.8
Ciaremont 2.8
West Covina 2.0
Pico Rivera 1.2
F:\HumanServices\Share\CD PROGRAM-PROGRAM AREAS\Homeless Programs\Staff Reports\01 23 07
Evaluation Study Session 7ransmittall 2.doc
43
Attachment J
Affordable Housing Production:
Comparing the Expenditures of Six U.S. Cities
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing
Kate O'Hara
May 2003
Produced under contract with the
City of Los Angeles, Housing Department
This report examines the housing production expenditures of major U.S. and California Cities,
including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, New York, Chicago and Phoenix. In total
amount and per person, San Jose spends the most on affordable housing production. Los
Angeles, second largest city in the nation, spends nearly the least per person.
Affordable Housin Production Ex enditure of Ma'or U.S. Cities
Ci Ex enditure Po ulation S ent er Person
Los An eles $ 159,478,977 3,694,820 $ 43.16
San Die o $ 87,142,948 1,255,700 $ 69.40
San Jose $ 93,517,778 917,971 $101.87
New York $ 599,667,700 8,008,278 $ 74.88
Chica o $ 167,651,431 2,896,016 $ 57.89
Phoenix $ 40,319,850 1,321,045 $ 30.52
This analysis ~nds that:
• Cities depend heavily on federal government funds for housing development.
• California cities depend heavily on Redevelopment Agency funds for housing
development.
• Cities are using innovative mechanisms, including public-private partnerships to
increase funding sources.
Los Angeles
Total Housing Production Funds: $ 159,409,877
Los Angeles, home to over 3.8 million people and one of the least affordable housing stocks
in the nation, established an Affordable Housing Trust Fund in July 2000. Affordable
housing development is administered largely by the Los Angeles Housing Department and in
part by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles and the Community Redevelopment
Agency.
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing
3345 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1005, Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 48U-1249 F(213) 480-1788 www.scanph.org
Los Angeles Housing Department
The Housing Department received a budget of $30 million for the 2002-03 Fiscal Year. A
quarter of that ($7.5 million) goes to
housing production, defined as providing
loans to non-profit and for profit
developers and property owners for new
construction and rehabilitation of existing
homes~. LAHD combines this with money
received from federal sources including
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and HOME funds to support
Table 1: Los An eles Housin Production Funds
Source Amount
Ci Funds $ 7,506,969
CDBG $ 21,887,835
HOME $ 43,178,669
Nousin Trust Fund $ 42,000,000
HUD $ 40,393,000
CRA $ 4,512,504
Total Funds $ 159,478,977
Sources: LA FY 2002-03 bud et, HACLA A enc Plan
housing production2.
LAHD also administers the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Currently at $42 million this
fund is meant to grow to $100 million of permanent-sourced funds. Currently this money
comes from the City's general fund, CDBG fund, CRA set aside savings, LA's Department of
Water and Power Public Benefit fund, and LAHD bond fund3. Although the funds are not yet
permanently codified, the Trust Fund shows the political will to commit public local dollars to
solving LA's housing crisis.
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles
The Housing Authority is a state-chartered public agency that provides the largest stock of
affordable housing in the Los Angeles area and is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing
& Urban Development. Most of HACLA's money goes to rental assistance and, but the
Authority also received $40.3 million in construction funds for 20024.
Community Redevelopment Agency
Pursuant to California law, redevelopment agencies obtain funding through "tax increment
financing." The City invests in a pre-approved project area and as the property tax value
increases, the Redevelopment Agency reaps a portion of the benefits. Redevelopment
Agencies invest those funds in other community projects, putting 20% of the revenue towards
housing development affordable to low and moderate income familiess. In 2002-03, Los
Angeles CRA allocated $4.5 million to support in part 13 projects throughout the city. For
2003-04, the CRA projects to invest $9.2 million in housing development6.
1 City of Los Angeles, Budget Summary 2002-03, Housing Department. p.56-57.
Z Los Angeles Housing Department. Proposed Consolidated Plan Housing Budget, 2002-03. Exhibit 1.
3 City of Los Angeles, City of Los Aneeles Proposed Bud~et, FY 2002-03. p.l 1-13, 97-99, 271-286.
4 U.S. Dept. of HUD. Housin~ Authoritv of the City of Los Angeles, Year 2003 A~enc~
htt~://www.hacla.arg/public doainaents/home.htm Oct. 15, 2002. p. 18.
5 San Jose Redevelopment Agency, www.sjredevelopment.org/finance.htm
6 Interview from Public Information desk, CRA.
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing 2
3345 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1005, Los Angeles, CA 9U010 (213) 480-1249 F(213) 480-1788 www.scanph.org
San Diego
Total Housing Production Funds: $ 87,142,948
The second Iargest city in California, San
Diego, declared a Housing State of Emergency
in the fall of 2002. Housing development
programs are administered by the San Diego
Table 2: San Die o Housin Production Funds
San Die o Hs Commission $ 32,142,948
Redevelo ment A enc $ 55,000,000
Total Housin Funds $ 87,142,948
Housing Commission (SDHC), serving as
Housing Authority and the Housing Department, and the City Council, serving as the
Redevelopment Agency.
San Diego Housing Commission
In 2002 SDHC allocated $32 million to housing
and finance development, seen in Table 3~. This
$32 million comes out of the larger SDHC budget
of $139.7 million which is comprise of mostly
federal, local and some state funds8. San Diego
depends largely on federal dollars to support
housin construction Table 4lists all the
Table 3: Housin Financin & Develo ment, SDHC
Rental Housin Production $ 16,252,174
Home-ownershi $ 3,488,581
Rehabilitation $ 5,158,962
Occu anc Monitorin $ 2,262,869
S ecial Pu ose Housin $ 4,980,362
Total Amount $ 32,142,948
Source: SDHC FY03 Bud et Pro osal
g •
funding sources for SDHC which are allocated to a variety of programs, including production.
Table 4: Sources of Housin Funds, SDHC
Local Funds $ 15,918,562
Rental Rehab $ 526,011
Housin Trust Funds $ 7,754,736
State $ 1,072,817
HUD $ 97,239,419
CDBG $ 4,170,552
HOME $ 12,985,237
Total FY 02 Bud et $139,667,334
Source: SDHC, FY03 Bud et Pro osal
xedevetopment Agency
San Diego uses its Redevelopment Agency as a way
to create public-private partnerships for funding
housing. Revenue from the Redevelopment Agency
is invested SDHC, the Centre City Development
Corporation (CCDC) and the Southeastern
Economic Development Corparation (SEDC), two
non-profits incorporated through the city. In
February 2003, the Redevelopment Agency (RA)
announced a$55 million Affordable Housing NOFA
available through the CCDC and in collabaration with SEDC and SDHC9.
San Jose
Total Housing Production Funds: $ 93,517,778
The City of San Jose, population 917,971 is the heart of the second least affordable
Metropolitan Area in the country10. Housing production and funding in San Jose is
~ City of San Diego, Cit~of San Die~o City of San Diego, City of San Diego FY03 Bud~et,
o FY03 Budget. San Diego Housing Commission, Addendum p.3.~16-3.33.
$ City of San Diego, City of San Diego FY03 Budget, San DieQo Housin~ Commission. Schedule I.
9 City of San Diego. City of San Die~o Affordable Housing NOFA Pro~ram, Public Notice. Feb. 2003.
10 NLIHC. Out of Reach, 2002. http://www.nlihc.org/oor2002/table2.htm
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing
3345 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1005, Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 480-1249 F(213) 480-1788 www.scanph.org
administered by the San Jose Housing Department, financed in part by the San Jose
Redevelopment Agencyl l
San Jose Housing Department
For 2002-03, the Housing Department
receives a budget from the city of $9.2
million. From this, the department s~ent
$5.7 million on housing production~ . In
Table 5: San Jose Housin De arhnent Ex enditures
From Housing Dept $ 5,760,982
From Redevelopment Agency $ 87,756,796
Total to Housing Production $ 93,517,778
Source: Ci of San Jose Housin De t Bud et
addition to this, the Housing Department manages a total of $229,406,782 in funding from a
variety of sources. The primary funding source is money set aside from property tax
increments by the Redevelopment Agency and deposited into the Low and Moderate Income
Housing Fund. Also, the department is funded by HOME funds, CDBG funds, the City's
General Fund, and other local and states sources including13.
Redevelopment Agency
For 2002-03, the Redevelopment Agency has projected investing $80 million towards housing
unit construction14. In the next five years, the Agency projects to invest $259 million in
housing development and homebuyer education programs. The Redevelopment Agency
invests revenue in housing by transferring funds to the Housing Department and to non-profit
organizations. To support that, the Agency put $7.5 million to support housing production,
for a total of $87,756,796 to enhancing the quality and supply of housing15.
New York
Total Housing Production Funds: $ 599,067,700
In 2002 New York City Mayor
Bloomberg announced a $3
billion plan to create and preserve
more than 65,000 units over the
next five years through public-private partnerships~b. One goal of this plan is to reduce public
dollars spent, by leveraging the assets of the NYC Housing Development Corporation. The
City expends on housing through the Housing & Preservation Department, New York City
Housing Authority and the Capital Commitments Program.
Housing & Preservation Department (HPD)
HPD administers most of the new programs created by the Mayar's initiative. For fiscal year
2002-03 New York City allocated $365.3 million to HPD far operations and programs. A
~' Public Housing in San Jose is built and managed by the San Jose/Santa Clara Nousing Authority,
encompassing an area larger than the city and therefore omitted from this analysis.
'Z City of San Jose, San Jose 2002-03 Adopted Bud~et, Summarv of Transfers, Loans and
Contributions. P.TII-7 to III-30.
13 City of San Jose, City Budget FY 2002, Housing Department, p. P. 271-273, 319-340.
14 City of San Jose, The Redevelopment Agency, Adopted 2002-03 Capital Budget, p.A-47-49.
15 City of San Jose, City Budget FY 2002, Redevelopment Agency, p. 561-566.
16 www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/htmUfor-developers/new-markets-for-housing.html
Table 6: Housin Develo ment & Preservation Ex enditures, NYC
Housin & Preservation De t $ 229,988,880
Ca ital Commitments $ 369,078,820
Total to Housin Production $ 599,067,700
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing 4
3345 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1005, Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 480-1249 F(213) 480-1788 www.scanph.org
large portion of this money goes to the development and preservation of units, as displayed in
Table 717. Most of this budget is supported through federal programs.
Table 7: Allocation and Sources of Nousin Preservation and Develo ment De artment Bud et, NYC
Pu ose Allocation Source Amount
Develo ment $ 126,96],408 Cit Funds $ 62,764,296
Preservation $ 103,027,472 Ca ital Fund Transfer $ 15,068,551
Maintenance & Sales $ 99,704,947 State $ 877,186
Administration $ 45,145,496 Federal $ 286,584,138
Source: Ci of New York 2003 bud et
New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA)
NYCHA manages public housing units. While the majority of their work includes resident
services, they also engage in capital projects to preserve existing units and construction of
new units. For the 2003 fiscal year, NYCHA received $1,648,000 from the Capital
Commitments Program for maintaining and rehabilitating units, as seen in Table 8. Also,
under the Mayor's new initiative NYCHA has entered into collaboration with HPD to
rehabilitate and develop affordable housing on NYCHA land that is currently vacant or
underused18.
Capital Commitments Program
NYC's has a separate Capital
Budget for all city development
projects, totaling $6.2 million for
FY 2003, over half of which is
funded by local dollars. $369
Table 8: Ca ital Commitments Pror ram for Housin Develo ment, NYC
Housin Preservation & Develo ment $ 367,430,820
Housin Authori ca ital ro'ects $ 1,648,000
Total Ca ital Commitments to Housin Develo ment $ 369,078,820
Source: NYC 2003 Ado ted Ca ital Bud et and Ca ital Pro ram, . 4C
million goes to housing construction or rehabilitation as seen in the table above19
Chicago
Total Housing Production Funds: $ 167,651,431
Chicago, population 2.9 million, also uses private investment to supplement public funds
spent on housing development. Housing is developed through the Department of Housing,
the Low-Income Housing Trust Fund, and the Chicago Housing Authority.
Department of Housing
The Department of Housing (DOH) administrates the fiva year Affordable Housing Plan
which supports the construction and preservation of rental and for-sale units as well as
homebuyer education programs and policy to improve the process of housing development.
The five year goal is to commit $1.2 billion in resources to developing 35,000 units of
housing, 13,500 of which will be multifamily. In 2002, $267 million in resources were
utilized towards 9,950 units20. The majority of this money i
~~ City of New York 2003 budget, Housing Preservation and Development Department, p. 294E
18 www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/pdf/cnmah-collaboration.pdf
19 City of New York 2003 Adopted Capital Budget and Capital Program, p. 4C
20 City of Chicago Department of Housing, Affordable Housing Plan Quarterly Update, December 2002.
Southern Califarnia Association of Non-Profit Housing
3345 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1005, Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 480-1249 F(213) 480-7788 www.scanph.org
s used for development and
preservation. DOH uses local, state
and federal funds for housing
production, as listed~i.
Low Income Housing Trust Fund
Since its inception in 1989, the Trust
Fund has dedicated over
$65,000,000 and served almost
15,000 households. While most of this money goes to rental subsidy and tenant services, in
2002, $2.3 million was allocated to building low income units through the Affordable Rents
for Chicago Program22. The Trust Fund is an incorporated non-profit organization that
includes private and public funding.
Chicago Housing Authority
Historically, CHA is one of the largest developers and managers of public housing in the
country. Currently they are relocating families and reconstructing units because of the mass
clearing of dilapidated units. This 10-year, $1.5 billion dollar Plan for Transformation is the
largest public housing overhaul in this nation's history. By the end of 2003, the CHA will be
halfway toward its goal of 25,000 new or rehabilitated unitsz3.
~ Phoenix
Total Housing Production Funds: $ 40,319,850
Phoenix, rapidly growing to 1.32 million, finances and
develops housing through its Housing Department and
its Capital Improvement Plan. Some development
programs in Phoenix serve the entire county rather
than just the city, making it difficult to differentiate
city spending.
Housing Department
The Housing Department, receiving $70.2 million
from the total City budget, oversees the development, maintenance and services of public
housing and low-income affordable housing24. The Department allocates $1.5 million to the
Housing Development Section for operating expenses some programming. Housing
production is funded through local and federal dollars as seen in Table 10.
Phoenix Industrial Development Authority
Additionally, the Housing Development Section assists in staffing the Phoenix Industrial
Development Authority (PIDA), by reviewing and administering applications for funding
submitted and approved by PIDA for a variety of housing programs. PIDA is an example of a
21 City of Chicago, Department of Housing, Description of funds, 2002.
zZ www.ci.chi.il.us/Mayor/2002Press/news~ress_lowincomehousing.hml
23 www.thecha.org/PlanforTran/dwnld docs/Plan%20for%20Transformation%20Brochure.pdf
24 City of Phoenix. Citv of Phoenix Housin~ Department 2002-03 Operating Bud e~t, p 236-243.
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing (
3345 Wilshire Bivd., Suite 1005, ~os Angeles, CA 9001Q (213) 480-1249 F(213} 480-1788 www.scanph.org
Table 9: Housin Production Mone , Chica o DON, 2002
Ci Land, Fee Waivers, Bonds, Tax Increments $ 80,350,853
Low Income Housin Trust Fund $ 2,296,153
Rental Rehab $ 3,446,000
State Donations Tax Credit $ 9,540,000
HOME $ 26,997,000
CDBG $ 9,550,000
LIHTC $ 45,021,425
Total $167,65 ] ,431
Source: Descri tion of funds, DOH, 2002.
Table 10: Housing Development Funds,
Phoenix
Source Amount
CDBG $ 900,000
HOME $ 5,150,700
HOPWA $ 569,150
Ci Bond $ 33,700,000
Total $ 40,319,850
Source: Ci of Phoenix, 2002-03 Bud et
successful public-private partnership to fund housing development. It is a non-profit
corporation designated a political subdivision of the State of Arizona. The City appoints its
Board but much of its funds are private.
Capital Improvement Plan
Additionally, the City of Phoenix is implementing a 4 year Capital Improvement Plan
beginning in 2002, in which housing is included as an area of infrastructure improvement.
This Plan, approved by the voters, allocates $62.9 million for housing programs that provide
for the purchase and modernization of housing units for low-income families25. In 2002-03,
$18.3 million in CIP funds are allocated to housing improvements. These programs are also
funded by CDBG money.
ZS City of Phoenix. Citv of Phoenix 2002-03 Budget Summary, Capital Improvements Bud~ p 143-160.
Southern California Assaciation of Non-Profit Housing
3345 Wilshire B~vd., Suite 10Q5, los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 480-1249 F(213) 480-1788 www.scanoh.org
Conclusion
This analysis of six majar city budgets finds the following conclusions in regards to
expenditures on affordable housing production:
Cities depend heavily on federal government funds for housing production. Each
city uses a large portion of CDBG and HOME funds to subsidize production. For
many cities, the federal share is many larger than their local contribution.
Furthermore, maintaining and improving public housing units is funded through HUD
monies. Considering the large impact federal funds have on city housing expenditure,
cities should be aware of the federal budget process which looks to further cut housing
funds.
California cities utilize relatively large amounts of Redevelopment funds for
housing development. Los Angeles, San Diego and San Jose all use funds
transferred from Redevelopment Agencies. This process has come under scrutiny
because housing departments do not expend money quickly enough. Recently,
California Governor Davis used this reasoning to try to shift cities' redevelopment
funds to balance the state budget. This analysis shows, however, the need for these
funds to remain at the local level for affordable housing development.
Cities are beginning to use innovative mechanisms, including public-private
partnerships to increase funding sources. In light of budget shortfalls at the local,
state and federal level, cities are turning to private investment for affordable housing.
The Low Income Housing Tax Credit has long been a popular funding source, and
some cities are repeating that model on a municipal level and incorporating non-profit
organizations directly in housing development plans. Leveraging local funds with
private funds is leading cities through these tight budget times and ensuring continued
housing production.
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing g
3345 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1005, Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 480-1249 F(213) 460-1788 www.scanph.orq
Sources
Los Angeles
U.S. Dept. of HUD. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, Year 2003 Agency
Plan, htt~//www.l~acla.or~/public documentslhome.htm Oct. 15, 2002. p. 18.
City of Los Angeles. Budget Summary 2002-03. p.56-57.
---------Citv of Los An~eles Proposed Bud~et, FY 2002-03. p.l 1-13, 97-99, 271-286.
Los Angeles Housing Dept. Proposed Consolidated Plan Housing Budget 2002-03.
Exhibit 1.
San Diego
City of San Diego, City of San Die~o FY03 Budget, San Diego Housing Commission,
Addendum 1. p.3-16 to 3-33.
---------City of San Die~o FY03 Bud~et, San Die~o Housing Commission. Schedule I.
---------Citv of San Die~o Affordable Housin~ NOFA Progr~, Public Notice. Feb. 2003.
San Jose
City of San Jose, San Jose 2002-03 Adopted Budget, Summary of Transfers, Loans and
Contributions. P.III-'7 to III-30.
---------San Jose 2002-03 Adopted Bud~et, Housin~ Dept. Overview. P. 271-273, 319-340.
---------San Jose 2002-03 Adopted Bud~et, Redevelopment Agency Overview. p.561-580.
---------Redevelo~ment A~ency, Adopted 2002-03 Capital Bud~et, p.A-47-49.
New York
www.rivc. ~ov/htinl/hnd/html/for-dcvclot~ers/new-markets-far-housin~.html
City of New York. City of New York 2003 budget, Housin~ Preservation and
Development Department. p. 294E
---------City of New York 2003 Adopted Capital Bud~et and Capital Pro rg am• p. 4C.
www.nyc. gov/html/hpd/pdf/cnmah-collaboration.pdf
Chicago
City of Chicago Department of Housing, Affordable Housin~ Plan Quarterly Undate,
December 2002.
City of Chicago, Deparhnent of Housing, Description of funds, 2002.
www. ci. chi. il.us/Mayor/2002Press/news~ress_lowincomehousing.hml
www.thecha.or~/PlanforTran/dw111d docs/Plan%20for%20Transformation%20Brochure.pdf
Phoenix
City of Phoenix. City of Phoenix Housing Department 2002-03 Operatin~~ p 238
--------City of Phoenix 2002-03 Bud~et Summar~Capital Improvements Bud~ p.143-160
Sauthern California Association of Non-Profit Hausing (~
3345 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1005, Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 480-1249 F(213) 480-1788 www.scanph.org
~I~ ^ ^
C~ty Council Report
~ City of
Santa Monica~
City Council Meeting: January 9, 2007
Agenda ltem: ~ ~~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Barbara Stinchfield, Director of Community and Cultural Senrices
Subject: Study Session on the Eval.uation of Santa Monica's Continuum of Care
and Strategic Five-Year Plan
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the attached report and provide policy
guidance to staff based on the results of the study session.
Executive Summary
The City retained the Urban Institute to ~onduct a system-wide evaluation of Santa
Monica's homeless continuum of care to produce a description of the current homeless
service delivery system and make recommendations for a refined vision of service
delivery and action steps over the next five years. This study session and the attached
report present to the City Council the results of the evaluation completed by the Urban
Institute.
Discussion
Backqround
The Community Priority addressing the impacts of homelessness on the community
adopted by City Council in the FY2005-06 and FY2006-07 Budgets includes a system-
1
C.C,# 148
Budaet/Financial Impact
There is no immediate budget or financial impact associated with this study session,
however, policy decisions by the Council could have an impact on the 2007-2010
Community Development Grant Program and the upcoming budget process.
Prepared by: Danielle Noble,-Sr. Administrative Analyst - Homeless Services
Approved:
6o~~•~e..~+-
tsarnara 5tincnrieia
Director, Community & Cultural Services
3
n~anager
C.C,# 150
Forwarded to CounciL• ~
ac men
. .
ava ~ a e o r rev ~ ew
. . ,
in i er s
o ~ce.