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 recommendations 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.

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 funding 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.

Demographics

· Homeless Veterans - According to the evaluation report, ClientTrack data indicates that 10% of homeless individuals in Santa Monica are veterans (16% 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 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% for veterans among the overall homeless population for whom there is data in ClientTrack, and a rate of 16% 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 males), 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.

1) OPCC Shelter Plus Care Program 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 individuals 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 Program 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 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 shelters. 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 Management Information Systems (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 replacing 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 2008 Fully Operational

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 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/Program Issues

· Cost of Permanent Supportive Housing - 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

Multiplied 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 Parking Meter Program - One of the recommendations is to further investigate a project developed 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.

· Good Neighbor 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 Community Planning 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 Alliance 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 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: Impact 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.

Regional Issues

· Distribution of Residential Programs - One issue that impacts the distribution of homeless 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 Client 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 evaluation 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:

• 4 were over 60 years of age;
• 2 were placed in permanent housing in Culver City with Culver City resources;
• 1 was placed in permanent housing in Los Angeles through the Los Angeles Shelter Plus Care program;
• 1 client transitioned to PATH West Los Angles and is in the process of obtaining Homeless Section 8 from the City of Los Angeles;
• 1 client was placed in permanent housing in Lancaster after 3 days at SAMOSHEL;
• 1 client is searching for housing in Culver City with Culver City resources;
• 1 client returned to homelessness in Culver City after 6 months at SAMOSHEL;
• 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 Monica/Venice. 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 County. 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, 2 were from outside of LA County and the remainder (15) were from elsewhere in LA County. Fourteen (14) reported previous ties to the Santa Monica/Venice 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 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.

Regional Spending 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 Housing

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 factors of state affordable housing laws and enforceability:

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) Inclusionary zoning as part of 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 public interest groups.  The threat of a lawsuit has stimulated many towns to submit plans -- the result 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:	Forwarded to Council:
Barbara Stinchfield Director, Community & Cultural Services	P. Lamont Ewell City Manager

(for attachments A through I, scroll down)

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 I – Homeless Bed Survey-City Comparisons

Attachment J – Affordable Housing Production: Comparing the Expenditures of Six U.S. Cities

Attachment A

Homeless Veterans in Santa Monica
Agency	Questionnaire to Social Service Providers				Social Service Provider Comments
	Veteran Status Captured on Intake Forms	Veteran Status Verified and Recorded on Intake Form	Veteran Status Entered into ClientTrack	Accuracy of Urban Institute Report - 10% of Homeless are Veterans
Chrysalis	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	10% definitely sounds about right.
CLARE	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	We tend to fluctuate between 6% and 11% per year.