SR-301-004 (7)
+CD PROGRAM-PROGRAM AREAS\Homeless Programs\Staff Reports\Annual Review 2001.doc
Council Meeting: September 11, 2001 Santa Monica, CA
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Transmittal of the FY 2000-01 Annual Review of the City’s Coordinated
Plan for Homeless Services and Recommendation to Hold a Public
Hearing
INTRODUCTION
This report transmits the FY 2000-01 Annual Review of the City’s Coordinated Plan for
Homeless Services and recommends the City Council hold a public hearing on the Plan
pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.69.030.
BACKGROUND
The Public Safety Initiative (now Municipal Code Section 2.69.010 through 2.69.030),
adopted by the City Council in September of 1994, required the City to adopt a plan to
coordinate services to homeless individuals and to report on the effectiveness of this
plan annually. The City’s Coordinated Plan for Homeless Services was adopted by the
City Council in June of 2000 as part of the City’s Consolidated Plan, a five-year planning
document required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
This report transmits the FY 2000-01 Annual Review of the City’s Coordinated Plan for
Homeless Services and related issues.
1
In connection with the annual review and pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.69.030,
a public hearing is required to gain input on:
the impact of the City’s homeless population on other residents of the City,
?
the effectiveness of the delivery of services to homeless persons by the City and
?
various social service agencies,
the cost of those services; and
?
the changes which should be made in the plan in order to carry out its primary
?
goals and objectives
Notice of this public hearing has been sent to City Boards and Commissions, the
Chamber of Commerce, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, Santa Monica
College, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), City-funded organiza-
tions, local hospitals, and other relevant community groups. A display ad was placed in
the “Westside Weekly" section of the Los Angeles Times on August 31, 2001, as well as
notices in the Santa Monica Mirror and Surfsantamonica.com.
DISCUSSION
As detailed in the attached FY 2000-01 Annual Review of the City’s Coordinated Plan
for Homeless Services, the City continues to refine its coordinated homeless services in
compliance with Municipal Code Section 2.69.010. In FY 2000-01, over 2,000
homeless people seeking stabilization were provided with shelter and case managers
with whom they could work out plans to achieve self-sufficiency; nearly a fifth of that
group transitioned into permanent housing during the course of the year. There was a
10% increase in program participants during FY 2000-01 over FY 1999-2000, the lowest
increase in several years. In FY 1998-99, enrollment in homeless case management
2
programs jumped 35% over the previous year, and FY 1999-2000 saw a striking 52%
increase in the number of unduplicated persons served over the year before. These
dramatic increases were believed to represent the impact of welfare reform, as well as
the number of dually diagnosed homeless people who were beginning to seek services,
*
stretching the capacities of service providers to their limits.
With the supply of affordable housing continuing to shrink on the Westside, permanent
housing placements dropped 21% this year to 373 from the previous year’s 471.
Emergency shelter placements decreased 18% over FY 1999-2000, while transitional
housing placements increased 17% over the previous year. This may indicate lower
turnover of emergency shelter beds in addition to the lack of affordable long-term
housing, as participants stayed longer in transitional programs or were moved to other
transitional beds outside Santa Monica. In spite of the decrease in permanent housing
placements, almost 62% of those people seeking stabilization services received some
form of housing during the year. Job placements rose 4% over last year, which
indicates that 29% of those receiving case management held or found jobs during the
course of the year. Fifty six percent of all people in the system experience one or more
disabilities, and many were not able to enter the job market.
During this last year, service providers anecdotally reported more elderly people
displaced from long-time rent control apartments. Of 168 units lost this year or pending
*
Dually diagnosed indicates people who suffer from two or more disabilities, such as a mental disability
and a substance abuse problem.
3
loss due to the Ellis Act, 21 seniors are currently in apartments pending removal
through the Ellis Act.
During the last quarter of the year, there was a significant rise in the number of single
homeless women seeking shelter in Santa Monica and not enough beds to house them,
as a result of the Union Rescue Mission in downtown Los Angeles changing its program
to house only women with children (this policy has since been revised). Local service
providers have reported a rise in assaults against homeless women since this influx has
occurred.
The increase in people seeking services appears to be tapering off during the past year.
With permanent housing placements decreasing, it is possible the homeless service
system has reached, or exceeded, its capacity to shelter and permanently house
people. The implications of the homeless service system reaching maximum capacity
will be examined as the Human Services Division formulates the funding rationale for its
next three-year grant cycle beginning in FY 2003.
There were several community roundtables discussing the problems of homelessness,
culminating in a forum hosted by the Social Services Commission in May 2001, as
described in the report that follows.
4
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
On June 20, 2000, the City Council approved City funding of homeless programs for
FY2000-01 in the amount of $1,783,200. Funding for homeless services in FY2001-02
was approved on June 19, 2001, in the amount of $1,826,722. (These amounts do not
include the HUD Supportive Housing Program grant, as the City acts as a pass-through
agent for those funds.) The City’s FY2001-02 homeless services budget represents a
1.1% increase over last year.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that the City Council accept this report and hold a public hearing
to gain input on the FY 2000-01 Annual Review of the City’s Coordinated Plan for
Homeless Services.
Prepared by: Barbara Stinchfield, Director
Julie Rusk, Manager
Tracy Scruggs, Supervisor
Joel Schwartz, Homeless Services Coordinator
Human Services Division
Community and Cultural Services Department
Attachment 1: Report: FY 2000-01 Annual Review of the City’s Coordinated Plan for
Homeless Services
Attachment 2: Letters: Input from the Public and Service Providers
5
Attachment 1
FY 2000-01 Annual Review
City’s Coordinated Plan for Homeless Services and Related Issues
Overview
This report provides an overview of the effectiveness and cost of service delivery to
homeless persons by City-funded social services. Additionally, the report discusses the
computerized case management tracking system, as well as how the City complies with
the stated goals of Municipal Code Section 2.69.010. Concluding the report is an
overview of homeless funding since FY1993-94.Also attached are letters submitted by
the public and from homeless service providers regarding the City’s Coordinated Plan.
Effectiveness and Cost of Delivery of Services
Homeless services in Santa Monica are based on a “continuum of care” model char-
acterized by the following components: outreach, emergency assistance (i.e., food,
clothing, showers, laundry, lockers, mailing address), intake and assessment, emer-
gency shelter, case management and employment services, transitional housing,
permanent housing and aftercare. These components work together to assist a
homeless individual or family in moving off the streets and into permanent housing and
employment. Case management and other supportive services are provided throughout
the continuum of care as depicted below:
CONTINUUM OF CARE MODEL
Out- Emergency/ Intake & Emergency Transitional Permanent Aftercare
- - - - - -
reachDay ServicesAssessmentShelter Housing Housing Services
???????
|__________________________________________| |______________|
Food
?
| |
Clothing
?
ShowersCoordinated Case ManagementJob Retention
??
LockersIntake and AssessmentSupport Groups
???
Address
MailingBenefits Advocacy (e.g., GR, SSI)Counseling
???
Crsis
iInterventionMental Health ServicesMentoring
???
/
InformationReferralsHealth Services
??
Drug/Alcohol Intervention
?
Money Management
?
Job/Skills Training
?
Employment Search Assistance
?
Employment Placement
?
Housing Search Assistance
?
1
In FY 2000-01 the City supported ten agencies including Chrysalis, the CLARE
Foundation, New Directions, Ocean Park Community Center, St. Joseph Center,
Step Up on Second, The Salvation Army, Upward Bound House, the Westside
Food Bank, and the YWCA. Each agency’s program plan, included in the City’s
Grantee Agreement, specifies how delivered services will address this continuum
and effectively assist homeless individuals to obtain greater self-sufficiency.
Each agency is required to monitor the effectiveness of service delivery by
generating regular progress reports from a computerized case management
system and evaluating client outcomes. City staff monitors the delivery of
services and clients’ progress toward self-sufficiency through site visits and
regular review of reports.
The following table summarizes homeless participant and program outcomes
during FY1999-00 and FY 2000-01.
FY99-00 FY00-01 %
No. No. increase/
Served Served <decrease>
% Placed
% Placed
Total SM Program ---
3,254 --- 10%
2,953
Participants
Placements in 471 16%
373 11% <21%>
permanent housing
Placements in 743 25%
870 27% 17%
transitional housing
Placements in
931 767 24% <18%>
32%
emergency shelter
Placements in
369 11% <4>%
384 13%
permanent employment
Placements in temporary 213 7%
251 7% 18%
employment
2
Note that 73% of those seeking stabilization services in FY 1999-2000 were
?
placed in a shelter or found permanent housing, whereas that percentage
dropped to 62% in the current fiscal year. This represents both the dwindling
supply of affordable housing, and the increase in numbers of those seeking
housing.
Since no new transitional housing beds were added to the system, the 17%
?
increase in those participants placed in transitional housing represents
program graduates who were not successful in finding permanent housing
during the limits of their stays and had to be referred to transitional housing
programs in other communities.
Without the availability of more affordable housing on the Westside, the capacity
of the local homeless service system is capped at the “back end” and is not in a
position to expand. Although the increase in the demand for services appears to
be tapering off, there are still far more people seeking stabilization than existing
resources can accommodate.
Impact on the Public
“Homelessness” was again cited in the annual City Resident Survey conducted
by phone last November as the most pressing issue facing the City. Several
organizations held roundtable discussions about the issue, and the Ocean Park
Community Organization facilitated a large neighborhood dialogue on the subject
during its last annual convention. Most of the concerns focused on the sizable
mentally ill population, whose members have limited options, since Santa Monica
programs targeting the mentally ill are operating at maximum capacity and there
is a significant shortage of beds in the County Mental Health system. Concerns
voiced by the public at last year’s Annual Homeless Review about the need for
quicker police response to reported misdemeanors, such as public drunkenness
and aggressive panhandling, have resulted in an increase in the Police
Department’s Homeless Liaison Program (HLP) team from four to five full-time
officers. Possibly as a result of this increase, there were only sixteen written
complaints (including email) regarding the homeless from unduplicated residents
or businesses during the year, which is a decrease over last year. More than a
third of those complaints—plus several telephone complaints—occurred shortly
after non-Westside missions, from Van Nuys to Koreatown, introduced new
feeding programs in Santa Monica parks.
The City’s Social Services Commission focused on homelessness as one of its
top concerns during FY 2000-01. During the first half of the year, it held public
meetings to determine the scope and needs of homeless youth on the Westside,
resulting in a White Paper to the City Council concluding that the size of that
population has still not been clearly identified. In May 2001, the Social Services
Commission hosted a very well attended community dialogue on homelessness,
with a panel representing those from the public and private sector—including the
3
faith community—who provide services to the homeless. A wide range of
opinions were expressed as to how the community should respond to the
numbers of unserved homeless people on the streets, with an emphasis on
prioritizing recently evicted long-term Santa Monica residents and homeless
seniors.
Effectiveness of the Service Delivery System
Santa Monica is fortunate in having a comprehensive continuum of care (though
with limited services for homeless youth) within and around the community. The
ten City-funded agencies provide twenty-two programs ranging from senior
outreach to job retention for those who have stabilized with housing and
employment. Programs share a common computerized data bank in a Wide
Area Network (WAN) to track unduplicated participants and their outcomes, as
well as coordinate case management within the system. For example, a
participant may be sheltered and receive case management at one agency,
receive mental health services at another agency, substance abuse services at a
third provider, and employment assistance at a fourth. Through the
computerized network, these complex case plans can be coordinated to provide
the most effective use of the community’s limited resources.
During this last year, the computerized network was upgraded to a cutting-edge
Windows-based system with photo scanners capable of digitizing clients’
personal documents, such as California ID’s or MediCal cards, which are
traditionally mislaid by clients and can now be restored through system printouts.
The system, which “went live” in June 2001, is considerably more user-friendly
than the previous system and requires less training for case managers and other
data entry inputters. Its annual maintenance costs are half the previous system’s
cost.
Also during this past year, with the help of outside consultants, program directors
and frontline staff have developed a unique survey instrument to test the
effectiveness of the network as a whole, as well as feedback for each agency’s
executive directors. For example, responsiveness among agencies will be
examined, as well as the knowledge level of all service staff regarding resources
available. Nearly 100 staff members of the City-funded agencies have now been
surveyed, and an Executive Summary will be transmitted to the City Council
when the data has been analyzed.
Cost of Services
In FY 2000-01, the City budgeted $1,783,200 to fund homeless services. In
addition, the City administered $430,780 in HUD funds for the first year of a two-
year Supportive Housing Program grant. The grant was awarded a three-year
renewal; however, changes in HUD’s criteria reduced funding for the
4
computerized system. While the new system is half as expensive to maintain as
the previous system, its future funding is presently uncertain beyond next year.
Dividing the amount the City budgeted by the number of homeless people served
in City-funded programs, an average of $519.28 was spent per person. This is
less than the cost of two weekends in County Jail, or $1,320 per day at UCLA’s
Neuropsychiatric Institute (Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center’s psychiatric
affiliate). Therefore, stabilization through homeless services is a highly cost-
effective use of public funds for this population. It should also be noted that for
every dollar the City allocates from its General Fund to its grantees for homeless
services, it leverages $2.85 in non-City funding.
Consistent with Municipal Code Section 2.69.010, and to promote a continuum of
care that addresses the divergent needs of Santa Monica’s homeless population,
City funds have increasingly supported long-term employment services including
job retention, aftercare counseling programs, and case management linked to
housing. In FY 2000-01, City funding for employment services and case
management linked to housing represented 83% of all City funding for homeless
services, compared to 26% in FY 1993-94. A series of pie chartsprovides an
overview of homeless funding since FY1993-94 (see pages 8-9).
Changes Which Need to be Made
As the numbers indicate, there is a limit to the size of the population which can
be served successfully. While success at the end of the continuum of care is
limited by the decreasing availability of affordable housing, the “front end”
continues to provide services to greater numbers than the system can
accommodate. Guided by their organizational missions, the service providers do
not refuse services to anyone seeking stabilization, despite the dwindling hope of
finding permanent housing on the Westside. City funding increasingly is targeted
toward housing and job placements, addressing long-term stabilization rather
than front end emergency services. Since much of the attraction of homeless
people to Santa Monica has been attributed to the availability of free food in the
parks (which is not funded by the City), staff will be re-evaluating policies
regarding feeding programs from non-Westside communities so as not to
increase the size of the local homeless population. While City staff and the
service providers have developed close relations with the Edelman Mental Health
Center through its new Homeless Outreach Team, the City also needs to
advocate with the County and State Mental Health Departments for more funding
targeting the homeless mentally ill.
Public Input and Agency Comments
The rising cost of housing is not only a limiting factor for the homeless but for
service providers as well. Office space is becoming more expensive, and
agencies have expressed concerns about space considerations. Due to present
5
limitations, several of the homeless service agencies have renovated or
refurbished their current offices and shelters—in some cases with City capital
grants—to make more efficient use of the space they have.
Since the public and the service agencies may have additional perceptions
regarding homelessness during this past year, a collection of letters submitted to
the City for this Annual Review follows this report (see Attachment 2).
Conclusion
The existing homeless service system continues to work more efficiently in
providing a coordinated approach to case management. While staff at agencies
have become more knowledgeable about working with the dually diagnosed
population, it is unreasonable to expect that the City can provide sufficient mental
health resources and beds to meet the needs of the homeless with mental
disabilities and/or substance addictions. Since the increase in feeding programs
conducted by Los Angeles-based missions has created the greatest amount of
disruption in the parks and impact on residents, the ability of the City to address
these programs should be reevaluated, considering the complex legal issues.
6
Compliance with the Public Safety Initiative
The Public Safety Initiative requires the City to implement a coordinated plan for homeless
services in compliance with the following seven goals. City-funded programs are addressing
these goals as described below.
Goal #1- Effectively assist homeless individuals in returning to a self-sufficient
?
status
Homeless services effectively assist individuals in achieving self-sufficiency through
housing and employment. The chart at the end of this reporthighlights the amount of
funding targeted toward helping program participants obtain housing and employment in FY
2000-01.
Goal #2- Monitor the progress of individuals receiving services
?
City staff and service providers monitor the progress of individuals receiving services
through the computerized case management system, program reports and regular site
visits.
Goal #3- Eliminate duplication of services
?
Through the use of the computerized network and improved service coordination,
duplication of services has been greatly reduced and nearly eliminated.
Goal #4- Emphasize long-term solutions to homelessness by combined housing,
?
counseling, and job training
The coordinated network of Chrysalis, CLARE, New Directions, Ocean Park Community
Center, St. Joseph Center, Step Up on Second, The Salvation Army, the Westside Food
Bank, and the YWCA together offer long-term solutions to homelessness by providing
services which combine housing, counseling, job training and placement.
Goal #5- Provide non-housing services for approximately the same number of
?
homeless individuals as can be temporarily sheltered in the City
Given the nature of homelessness and the crisis of affordable housing in the community,
City-funded programs provide non-housing services for a greater number of homeless
individuals than can be temporarily sheltered in the City.
Goal #6- Prevent an increase, and wherever feasible, reduce expenditures relating to
?
homeless services
The City has sustained an effective level of services without substantially changing its
budget. The FY 2000-01 budget includes a 1.1% increase over FY 1999-2000.
Goal #7- Impose reasonable time limits on the provision of services to the same
?
individuals
City-funded organizations impose varying time limits on the provision of services to the
same individuals, from six months at SAMOSHEL and SHWASHLOCK, to a range from
nine months (Daybreak Shelter and Turning Point) to eighteen months (Upward Bound)
and other longer-term transitional living programs.
7
FY 1996-97 FUNDING LEVEL: $2,248,486
FY 1993-94 FUNDING LEVEL: $1,141,397FY 1994-95 FUNDING LEVEL: $1,487,859FY 1995-96 FUNDING LEVEL: $1,611,711FY 1998-99 FUNDING LEVEL: $2,158,196FY 1997-98 FUNDING LEVEL: $2,126,400
GF $1,346,452 Prop A $44,400 CDBG $244,200 Federal $613,434
GGF $1,430,245 Prop A $42,520 CDBG $233,700 Federal $451,731GF $1,459,986 Prop A $45,000 CDBG $86,725 Federal $20,000F $1,387,165 Prop A $42,520 CDBG $245,100 Federal $451,615GF $1,381,506
Prop A $35,000 CDBG $71,353GF $1,111,397 Prop A $30,000
FY 2001-02 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
OVERVIEW OF HOMELESS CONTINUUM OF CARE FUNDING SINCE 1993
Outreach
Outreach
Emergency/
Employment
5%
7%
Employment Day Services
14%
Emergency/
18%
31%
Day Services
Case
45%
Case
Management
Management
15%
9%
Shelter
Shelter
Transitional
Transitional
23%
4%
Housing
Housing
12%
17%
Tracking
11%
Emergency/
Emergency/
Outreach
Day Services
Outreach
Day Services
Employment
4%
13%
3%
15%
14%
Employment
Shelter
12%
18%
Shelter
26%
Case
Transitional
Management
Case
Transitional
Housing
32%
Management
Housing
8%
33%
11%
TrackingTracking
3%3%
Emergency/
Emergency/
OutreachOutreach
Day Services
Day Services
3%3%
14%
17%
EmploymentEmployment
14%14%
Shelter
20%
Shelter
18%
Case
Case
Transitional
ManagementTransitional
Management
Housing29%Housing
30%
16%
16%
8
FY 2001-02 FUNDING LEVEL: $2,233,838FY 1999-00 FUNDING LEVEL: $2,192,743FY 2000-01 FUNDING LEVEL: $2,213,980
GF $1,524,758 Prop A $42,520 CDBG $238,350 Federal $428,210GF $1,462,873 Prop A $42,520 CDBG $235,200 Federal $452,150GF $1,485,760 Prop A $42,520 CDBG $233,550 Federal $452,150
Tracking
3%
Emergency/ Emergency/
Outreach
Tracking
Day ServicesDay Services
4%
Employment
3%
17%17%
14%
Employment
14%
ShelterShelter
18%18%
Case
Case
Management
ManagementTransitional Transitional
32%
28%
HousingHousing
16%16%
Emergency/
Tracking
Day Services
Employment
3%
17%
14%
Shelter
19%
Case
Management
Transitional
31%
Housing
16%
9
Attachment 2
Public Input and Agency Comments
10