Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/11/03 Item 01"' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT -1 ~ ~`~~ CITY OF CHUTA VISTA NOVEMBER 3, 2011, Item ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENDORSING THE KEYS TO HOUSING TOOLBOX WHICH IDENTIFIES REGIONAL STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TO ADDRESS FAMILY HOMELESSNESS SUBMITTED BY: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER / DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR ~ ~ REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER ~~ 4/STHS VOTE: YES ~ NO ~X SUMMARY The Keys to Housing Advisory Council and Steering Committee have developed a Toolbox to end family homelessness based on best practices. The Toolbox is a compilation of strategies from which stakeholders can identify action items that can be incorporated into their own plans. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that it is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical change to the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the actions proposed are not subject to CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Council adopt the resolution. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable DISCUSSION The public perception and face of homelessness in the region is changing as more families struggle with today's economic challenges. Some individuals seek out emergency housing only for a short time because of a temporary crisis like a job loss, eviction or an episode of violence in their home. The largest group is families with NOVEMBER 3, 2011 Item Page 2 of 3 children. Often families experiencing episodic homelessness can return to housing in a short period of time, with small instances of recidivism. The San Diego Grantmakers Homelessness Working Group embarked on an effort to address episodic homelessness. The working group was established in May 2010 as a collaboration of private foundations, public governments, and other key stakeholders. The Keys to Housing Advisory Council and Steering Committee met regularly over the past year to develop a regional vision of ending family homelessness, with the goal that the "keys" will be adopted and implemented by jurisdictions and agencies in the region. Chula Vista has been an active jurisdiction on both the Advisory Council and Steering Committee with representation by Coancilmember Castaneda and Amanda Mills respectively. The plan was developed as a Toolbox, rather than a mandated plan. This way stakeholders can identify those strategies and action items that they can and will incorporate into their own action plans. The Toolbox consists of eight outcomes in five key areas: Leadership, Policies & Advocacy • Policies are changed/created implemented to increase stability and support families • A sustainable structure is created and ensures implementation of goals Capacity, Data and Coordination of Services and Resources • Multiple pathways exist to access resources, centralize information and increase capacity and coordination of services and agencies Permanent Affordable Housing • The number of affordable housing units in the region is increased Increased Economic Security and Stability • Family members are fully employed and earn at sustainable income levels • Families increase financial stability and move to self-sufficiency Prevention + Families are identified as at-risk and assisted prior to losing housing • The number of families in poverty that enter homelessness is reduced The only action requested today is support for the regional plan. Councilmember Castaneda, through his service on the Keys to Housing Advisory Council, and City staff will remain active in regional and local efforts to address needs of the homeless and find realistic solutions to emerging issues. The City of Chula Vista will look at these strategies, along with other housing issues over the next yeaz as we develop the Housing Element, a State mandated Element of the General Plan. 1-2 NOVEMBER 3, 2011 Item ~ Page 3 of 3 DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decisions contemplated by this item and have determined that the actions contemplated are not site specific and, consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2(a) is not applicable. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There is no current fiscal impact to the General Fund as no action is being taken to fund or implement programs. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There is no current fiscal impact to the General Fund by this action to support the overall policy document. The City Council will consider specific City actions at a later date. ATTACHMENTS "Keys to Housing: A Toolbox to End Family Homelessness" Prepared by: Amanda Mills, Housing Manager, Development Services Department 1-3 RESOLUTION NO. 2011- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENDORSING THE KEYS TO HOUSING TOOLBOX WHICH IDENTIFIES REGIONAL STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TO ADDRESS FAMILY HOMELESSNESS WHEREAS, according to the San Diego County Office of Education Superintendent Randolph E. Ward, Ed.D., in the Student Services Report for 2009-2010, dated February 17, 2011, 13,200 homeless children in the San Diego region were served by public school homeless liaisons in 2010; and WHEREAS, according to the RTFH HUD HDX report, each night nearly 1,700 children in the region live on the streets, in shelters, or in cars or other places not meant for human habitation; and WHEREAS, affordable housing, education, and employment have been proven to positively impact the ability of families to maintain stable homes and productive participation in the community; and WHEREAS, housing, education, and employment are also known as keys in the prevention of and recovery from homelessness; and WHEREAS, stable housing is a proven platform for improved outcomes in education and health; and WHEREAS, over the past two years, homeless prevention and rapid re-housing services have proven effective in preventing and ending homelessness for nearly 2,000 households in our local communities as shown in the Homeless Prevention RP and Veteran Homeless Prevention DP reports; and WHEREAS, growing local and regional support has been offered from a broad cross section of community stakeholders during the development of the Keys to Housing Toolbox; and WHEREAS, advocacy and action are essential to achieving the goal of ending family homelessness in our region; and WHEREAS, the United States Interagency Coalition on the Homeless has established a goal of ending family homelessness by 2020. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby endorses the Keys to Housing Toolbox and will join with other jurisdictions and organizations to take action and measure progress in achieving the goal of ending family homelessness by 2020. 1-4 Resolution No. 2011- Page 2 Presented by: Gary Halbert, P.E. AICP Assistance City Manager/ Development Services Director Approved as to form by: Glen R. Googins City Attorney 1-5 i. z' ~., q Housing Matters Supportive housing is a community- based service model that provides housing integrated support services such as: mental health services, primary health care, alcohol and drug services, case management, and social services to help homeless individuals with men- tal illness gain stability and live more productive lives. Supportive housing consists of two main components: permanent housing and social and mental health services. The combination of a stable home to live, coupled with access to mental health and social services, medical care, counseling, education and employment, has been proven to benefit not only the participants, but their neighborhoods and communities as a whole. In San Diego, an estimated 8,500 people are homeless and roughly twenty five l~rne~t- „ x~, r u i a:-cvF i ~_s_~ ~ -, ~~d 7 percent, or 2,125 of the homeless popu- lation have mental illness, a major con- tributing factor to their homelessness. Often, those with mental illness face discrimination when looking for housing. San Diego County Mental Health Servic- es is working to break the stigma associ- ated with mental illness and homeless- ness. Homeless San Diegans with mental illness are young and old, women and men, parents, sons and daughters. Individuals with mental illness are much more likely to become homeless than the general population because un- treated mental illness can disrupt their ability to maintain relationships, hold jobs, receive health care, respond to offers of help, or maintain occupancy. Like other illnesses such as diabetes or heart disease, mental illness can be suc- cessfully treated with regular access to mental health care. But, treatment is sel- dom successful when people are living in shelters or on the street. In the San Diego region, the County of San Diego's Mental Health Services Administration (MHS) is partnering with service providers and housing de- velopers to address the dual stigmas of homelessness and mental illness. There are six Full Service Partnerships (FSP) that provide mental health services, case management, recovery services, educational programs, employment opportunities or training, and social services. The FSPs target all popula- tions-adults, older adults, transitional aged youth, and those in the justice system. The partnership between MHS, the FSPs, and the housing developers is instrumental to the success of the program. This partnership recognizes that Housing Matters, because a stable home in combination with social and mental health services can break the cycle of homelessness. Home is where recovery begins. CWNLY OF SAN DIEGU y ~ ~ la: ~ ~ ~; ~ ~~j ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~i ~; ~~HMHSA ~,~s ~vr~~~ ~~n D~~~fl _ ] J .~~ .i,4r~t~ .I,_. _ "'~- -a _. 1'~.~ Cdl7~' _ly o~.~y y -' l;.~l ~ _~~a`I@Yv~. Supportive Housing =Recovery How It Works Supportive housing units are typically part of a larger affordable housing development. County MHS works with community partners and hous- ing developers to designate a small percentage of units within the developments for qualified individuals who have psychiatric disabilities and who are homeless or at risk of homeless- ness. Tenants in these designated units are also provided with ongoing social and mental health services essential to their recovery and success- ful occupancy. • Participants qualified for the services are people diagnosed with serious mental ill- ness or other psychiatric disabilities, such as depression, post traumatic stress disorder or schizophrenia, who are also homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. • All applicants for the designated units are screened and selected for occupancy. • Tenants in the designated units hold their own leases, contribute to their rents, and are subject to the same rules and regulations as all other tenants. • Tenants in supportive housing units are provided mental health services, other medical care, coun- seling and key social services that support their recovery for a healthier, more productive life. Study after study has shown that the simple act of providing a home to homeless individuals with men- tal illness has positive, dramatic results -both for participants and for communities. MHSA Process A county-wide 30-day public notification process is required for all MHSA Housing Program-funded projects. All County residents have an opportunity to provide input and feedback to County MHS during the 30-day process. The 30-day Public Review posting for upcoming MHSA Housing Program developments can be found at: http:// www.sa ndiego.networkofcare.org/mh/countycontent/ san-diego/housing.cfm. Comments or feedback may be forwarded to (email): Kevine.Ky@sdcounty.ca.gov. J .. i ,.~ Developments and Developers in San Diego The long-term goal for the County's MHSA program is to provide 241 supportive housing units for the homeless with mental illness. However, this is highly dependant upon the availability of funds from financial markets. Currently, there are 10 County MHSA projects-with an estimated value of 34 million dollars in state and local fund- ing-identified for development across the region. These 10 supportive housing developments outline just one of the many elements of MHSAs supportive housing program. If all the existing projects are successfully developed, they will provide 829 housing units, with 172 of the units desig- nated for MHSA supportive housing residents. Developers currently active in the MHSA program: Father Joe's Villages, Townspeople, Squier/ROEM Properties, Affirmed Housing, The Trimble Company, Mental Health Systems, Community Housing Works, BRIDGE Housing Corporation, MAAC Project, Bronze Triangle, Wakeland Housing, and Meta Housing. Supportive housing units have been integrated into developments across the San Diego region. couerr ar s+rv oicco i ,_~~L1~.tiia3'~r~%i2T~~~~~IQ ~~'~HH A Liv;?~'~'edl,~anDi~e~~? O u~m .wo w~M~n sEawc~s ncer,cx More Cost Effective Providing a home is more cost efficient than allowing people with mental illness to remain untreated and living on the streets. Nationally, the cost of one hospital stay for a person who experiences chronic homelessness and mental illness typically exceeds the cost of an entire year of funding for a supportive housing unit. Supportive Housing Matters - to improve communities, to help the people -our friends, brothers, mothers, sons and daughters- who need help. Funding Supportive Housing is funded by the state of California Mental Health Services Act, avoter- approved measure that taxes individuals who earn more than $1 million a year. These indi- viduals pay an annual tax of 1 percent on any income over $1 million. Housing Matters because home is where recovery begins. If you know of someone who may benefit from supportive housing, or to learn more about why Housing Matters and the County of San Diego's supportive housing projects, please visit www.HousingMattersSD.org. Housing Matters funded by [he County of Cook ~ ,~ C San Diego and produced by: 4A chmid D60 Fifth Avenue. Suite 210 San Diego, CA 92103 (619) 814-23]0 Cookand5chmid.com -~ ___-,.... canrv cuuux nuuco cc ww .:i ~,~ t 1 ~ ± i1 j ., ~ ' ~: ~' a .~ ~ 1 ~ ' ~' ~'17f7a7tl Li4~a Y~19a3, Ssn ree~rol 7 - ~ .~~5 R ~, _ ;~ ua I~ ~ :,~ iT7 'i i ~ , = E , Who provides supportive housing programs? Supportive housing is sponsored by the County of San Diego's, Health and Human Services Agency, Behavioral Health Services under the purview of the Mental Health Services Department in partnership with mental health service providers and housing developers to provide housing to persons experiencing homelessness and mental illness. Supportive housing units are integrated into affordable housing developments across the region. Who needs supportive housing? Supportive housing is for our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. People who are either homeless or at high risk of becoming homeless and who are living with mental illness. • According to the National Institute of Mental Health, one in every four Americans suffers from a mental illness in a given year. • Approximately 3.5 million Americans, including 1.35 million children, experience homelessness in a given year, according to the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. The actual number is probably much greater. • Locally, it is conservatively estimated that 20 percent of the region's homeless suffer from mental illness. ~' What is "supportive housing?" Supportive housing is a community-based service model that provides housing integrated support services such as: mental health services, primary health care, alcohol and drug services, case management, and social services to help homeless individuals with mental illness gain stability and live more productive lives. Supportive housing programs are used throughout the United States as a way to solve the dual challenges of homelessness and mental illness. The National Coalition to End Homeless estimates that supportive housing is responsible fora 28 percent decline in chronic homelessness nationally between 2005 and 2008, with some communities experiencing even sharper declines. Supportive housing has two components: 1) permanent housing for participants and 2) mental health, case management services, rehabilitation and recovery services, substance abuse services, and social services for participants. • People with mental illness are much more likely to become homeless than the general population because untreated illness can disrupt their ability to maintain relationships, hold jobs, receive medical care, or respond to offers of help. • Like other illnesses such as diabetes or heart disease, mental illness can be successfully treated with regular access to health care. How does supportive housing work? Supportive housing units are generally integrated in new affordable housing developments. San Diego County Mental Health Services Administration (MHS) works with developers and community partners to make a small percentage of the units available to qualified participants in the Full Service Partnership (FSP) and to provide them with mental health services, case management, recovery services ,educational programs, employment opportunities or training, and social services. Participants hold their own leases and contribute to their rents, and are subject to the same rules and regulations as all other tenants. couN.r a uN ~EGo '~ HHSA Live L^~eJJ, ~~n Diegol NEALM ANO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY Who pays for supportive housing? Supportive housing among other mental health and recovery services is funded by the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), a California voter-approved measure passed in 2004. This act taxes individuals with a personal income of more than $1 million a year. These individuals pay a one percent tax on the portion of their income that exceeds $1 million. Is supportive housing safe to have in my neighborhood? Yes. Participants enrolled in the FSP are carefully screened for eligibility before being accepted to the housing program and receive ongoing support and care. • Statistics show that crime does not increase in neighborhoods with supportive housing. • Supportive Housing is not a temporary shelter or psychiatric facility. What kind of results does supportive housing get? • A 70% increase in recovery over traditional treatment programs. • Supportive housing increases part-time and full-time employment for participants, enabling them to become more self-sufficient- with 42% of participants able to work full or part-time jobs after just six months of supportive housing. • Formerly homeless people who move to supportive housing take better care of themselves, follow their medication schedules, and discontinue alcohol and drug abuse. • Housing homeless people with mental illness reduces ER visits. • Medicaid payments drop an average of 55% when clients enter supportive housing. • 17% fewer justice system referrals. Will my home decrease in value if supportive housing comes here? No. Numerous studies have proven that home values do not decrease when affordable housing developments with supportive housing for individuals with mental illness comes to a neighborhood. In fact, they frequently increase because of neighborhood improvements and revitalization. Why should I support the supportive housing program? Supportive Housing Matters because it works. It helps people get treatment for their illnesses and stop living on the streets. It helps communities save money on services for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness and mental illness. Homeless San Diegan's with mental illness are a small percentage of the overall population, however, they use a large proportion of the most expensive community resources including acute hospital care, emergency department services, and law enforcement services. • Studies in several cities have shown that a chronically homeless individual costs an average of $42,000 a year in public services such as emergency care. • In supportive housing, that cost dropped to $16,000 ayear-and often much less. Supportive Housing Projects and Developers in San Diego Currently, there are 10 County MHSA projects-with an estimated value of 34 million dollars in state and local funding-identified for development across the region. These 10 supportive housing developments outline just one of the many elements of MHSAs supportive housing program. If all the existing projects are successfully developed, they will provide S29 affordable housing units, with 172 of the units designated for MHSA supportive housing residents. Developers currently active in the MHSA program: Father Joe's Villages, Townspeople, Squier / ROEM Properties, Affirmed Housing, The Trimble Company, Mental Health Systems, Community Housing Works, BRIDGE Housing Corporation, MAAC Project, Bronze Triangle, Wakeland Housing and Meta Housing. Supportive Housing Matters because home is where recovery begins. If you know of someone who may benefit from supportive housing, or to learn more about supportive housing, visit www.HousingMattersSD.org. COIINix OF SFN [NEGO :J ~ ~HHSA ~ „-} nea.m sno iw+,nN ~ahv3 nGervcr ''," ,s, __ 9~{' ~_'_ HousingMattersSD.org ®HHSA jl live well, SanDiegol Supportive housing is a community-based service model that provides affordable housing integrated with support services such as: • mental health services • primary health care • alcohol and drug services • case management • social services Individuals with mental illness are much more likely to become homeless than the general population because their mental illness, left untreated, can disrupt their ability to maintain relationships, hold jobs, receive health care, respond to offers of help, or maintain occupancy. Mental illness is a major contributing factor to their homelessness. This model helps these individuals gain stability and live more productive lives. Supportive housing is for people who are The County of San Diego's Mental Health either homeless or at high risk of becoming Services (MHS) partners with service homeless and who are living with mental providers and housing developers to illness. They may be our brothers, sisters, provide supportive housing and break the stigmas of homelessness and mental parents, sons and daughters. illness. Z5% of these people suffer from mental illness -, Nearly Olle lIl eVely fOU! Americans suffers from a mental illness in a given year' Why it works Working with its partners, MHS designates a small percentage of units within affordable housing developments for qualified individuals who have psychiatric disabilities and who are homeless or at risk of homelessness and are in Full Service Partnership (FSP) programs administered by MHS. Tenants referred by the FSP to these designated units are also provided with ongoing social and mental health services that are essential to their recovery and occupancy. In addition, the tenants are given educational opportunities, enabling them to become more self-sufficient. All applicants are screened and selected for occupancy. Supportive housing tenants hold their own leases, contribute to their rents, and are subject to the same rules and regulations as all other tenants. / ' 1~ ev ,r. .v .u ) Y. .-. Program successes A stable home with integrated social and mental health services produces positive results, such as: 70% increase in recovery 55% drop in Medicaid payments ® 42% can work after six months 32% decrease in emergency services 17% fewer justice system referrals 14% fewer doctor's visits Supportive Housing: • does not increase crime or vandalism in neighborhoods • is not a temporary shelter or psychiatric facility • does not lower property values HOUSING MATTERS because home is where recovery begins If you know of someone who may benefit from supportive housing, or to learn more about why Housing Matters and the County of San Diego's supportive housing developments, please visit www.HousingMatterssD.org. Supportive Housing Matters because it works. It helps people get treatment for their illnesses and stop living on the streets. It helps communities save money on services for the chronically ill homeless. Housing Matters funded by the County of ;s San Diego and produced by: COO~C <.~ Sehnli 2]60 Fifth Avenue, Suite 210 San Diego, CA 92103 (619) 814-2310 Cookandschmidcom : ' 1- = carvn La .urv ~ooi,cl1o ~+ AA ~ ~ J9 S Da ! ' ^? r ~) ~ ::~ ~ ~ : ~ , , :~ I7rl /y , an e~o Zive r le , «.~~. Summary By City I -Point-In-Time (PIT) count - 2010 ..:Sheltered ' CnunT ' ~' Street Emergency Safe Transitional Total % of I City Count Shelters Haven HPRP Housing Sheltered Total TOTAL I San Dlego35 ~ _. 2113 ~!,. ___,__ 595 -_ 42., ______„_ 7 __ 18401 2484 4597 _ 63.6%_. ~'I San Diego County Total (outside the Clty of EI Cajon ~ 354 ~',, 45 San Diego)3 l ~~ 6 0 84 129 483 _ 5.6% 88 286 ~~I ! Escondido ~ 11 0 356 455 741 8.6% ' __ ~ I National City _ 281 ~. 0 0 27 ~ 0 27 308 3.6% 212 '! 29 Chula Vista ~ 0 I 167 197 409 4.8% __ I Oceanside ~, 199 ~~!, 94 I -j_.------~,~ ~ -Carlsbad ~~_____ 1_41 ', 60 i 0 ~ ~~ ; 0 0 -~ ~ 231 0 325 60 524 201 6.1% 2.3% Encinitas l 142 ~'. 18 0 2 14 34 176 2.1% I --- ~ O 0 99 1 2% ~~, Lemon Grove ~_ 99~ 0 Vist~ _ 93 ~!_ 36 0 ~ 0 O 0 208 244 - 337 . 3.9% 0 66 ' h l B i 0 0 ~ 0 0 66 0.8% ; _ _ _ eac Imper a -, ~ San Marcos I 56 '! 0 0 ~ _ 0 0 0 56 7%i _ 0 0 ~ 35 ~~ d O 0 0 0 35 0.4% , o_ Corona ~ I_ I Poway ~, 33 ~''. 0 0 0 -~ 0 _ 0 33 I 0.4% II La Mesa 26 !~, 0 0 0 - 0 0 26 0.3% 15 '~ 0 ~ S t 1 0 0 0 0 15 0.2% _ an ee I - , ! i ~ I 5 ! 0 1 Solana Beach 0 0 0 0 15 0.2% __ _ ~ 6 1 0 l 0 ~ 0 0 0 5 0.1% ~ Mar De !--- - - i I ~' Multiple Cities'' O 0 D 20 ! 0 20 20 0.2% I Unincorporated Areas3B_ _ I I- _ ~ Lakeside ~ 144 ~! 0 0 -- D 0 0 144 1.7% I - - Spring Valley ~ 284 ~~~ 0 ~ 0 D I 0 0 284 3.3% I TOTAI ~'~ 4599 ~'. 965 I 53 ~ 57 !I 2900 3975 8574 100.0% ~!, 35 TheCity of San Diego Includes some southern regions oftheCOUnty lNestoq OtaY Mesa and San YSidrol. 3s The cities of Poway andCOronado were not counted In PIT 2010. Weap Proximated 33 individuals for Poway and 35 individuals for Coronado by taking the 2006 Homeless counts and applying the 17.5%regional increase in other cities. 3) San DlegoCOUnty distributes HPRP(HOmeessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Progrzm)fo multiple cities within the County. 38 These are the communities in the unincorporated area in San Diego County that were counte . Regional Task Force on the Nameless (RTFH) Regional Homeless Protue GUlll rage w o..~. Summary By City II -Point-In-Time (PIT) count - 2010 I Average i ~ City '. Income City Population Individ FW/DL Cars/ Tents Total Unshelt Total SHELT Of All Homeless Of City Pop San Diego $70,149 1,376,173 1294 97 361 2113 _ 2484 53,6% 0.33% EI Cajon $54,122 99,637 305 15 17 354 129 5.6% 0.48% Escondido $65,851 147,514 117 145 12 286 455 8.6% 0.50% _ National City - $46,731 - 57,7 99 65 14 101 281 27 3.6% _0.53% Chula Vista _ $74,881 _ 237,595 33 19 80 212 197 4:8% _ 0.17% Oceanside $69,044 _ 183,095 122 45 16 199 325 6.1% 0.29% Encinitas $99,043 65,171 54 70 9 142 34 2.1% 0.27% Carlsbad $101,358 106,804 20 89 16 141 60 2.3% 0.19% - Lemon Grove $61,568 --- 26,131 39 52 4 99 0 1.2% --__. 0.38% Vista $67,905 97,513 37 46 5 93 244 3.9% 0.35% Imperial Beach $54,017 _ 28,680 27 17 11 66 0 0.8% 0.23% San Marcos $75,336 84,391 17 25 7 56 0 0.7% _ 0.07% Coronado _ $102,583 23,916 35 O 0 35 _0 0.4% 0.15%_ Poway $105,420 _ 52,056 _ 33 0 0 33 _ 0 0.4% 0.06% La Mesa $63,069 _ 58,150 24 0 1 26 0 Di3% 0.04% Solana Beach $119,521 ____ 13,78_3 4 1 5 15 0 0.2% 0.11% Santee $78,872 _ 58,044 13 0 1 15 0 0.2% 0.03% Del Mar _ $118,087 4,660 5 0 0 5 0 0.1% 0.11% Unincorporated Lakeside $48,910 56,225 130 0 7 144 0 1.7% 0.26% Spring Valley $48,271 59,384 159 37 44 284 0 3.3% 0.24% 2,836,721 2533 672 1394 4599 3955 Regional Task Force on the Homeless (RTFH) Regional Homeless Profile 2010 Page 25 of 114 CITY O F CH U LA V 18TA • Located seven miles south of downtown San Diego, Chula Vista is the second largest city in the county. • Population: 237,595. • Area: 50.9 square miles. • People per square mile: 4,668. • Median household income $74,881. • Vacant housing units: 6,547. Point In Time fPlTl - 2010 Count h lt d U Individuals 33 ere ns e J 29 2010 Farm /Day Laborers 19 an. , Cars/Tents 160 Emergency Shelters 29 Sheltered Transitional Housing 167 Jan. 28, 2010 Safe Havens 0 HPRP 1 Total: 409 • There are 3 Emergency Shelters, 1 Hotel Voucher program, 1 Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing (HPRP) provider, and 4 Transitional Housing programs for singles, families, and youth. Some of the locations where unsheltered homeless persons were counted include: o The Terra Nova Shopping Center off of Eas[ H Street. o Major roads west of the I-5. o From [he Otoy Valley Road and Palm Avenue intersection going south to the end of Palm Avenue. o The intersection of Oxford St. and 3rd Ave.; Off of Santa Victoria Road Regional Task Force on the Homeless IRTPH) Regional Nameless Profile 2010 Page 56 of 114 -.,I'M sv � keysjhhousing ° Ending Family a Homelessness sx by 2020 ti iin Zn %t %� % ✓e af' Scv� .� %e90 �arantma.�ers �oMe /eS5ne55 GJor.� %n9 larou� Crisis House Laura answers the doorwith wet hair, a smiling seven year-old hanging onto her legs. This mom and herthree daughters live in aone-bedroom apartment in South San Diego. Whatthey are lacking in space they more than make up in love and energy. The girls giggle and play aboutthe apartment, which is cozy and clean.. Laura graduated from the EI Cajon Crisis House's domestic violence program. She had been living with a heyfriend whc was physically and verbally abusive; Laura began to fearfor her family's safety. "I knew I had to get us out of this, but I just didn't know how. I didn't make enough money to supportthree girls on my own," Laura remembers. After one violent incident, Laura couldn't take it anymore. Desperate, she called 2-1-1 and explained her situation. They connected her immediately with Crisis House. "Theytook us in and gave us somewhere safe to go. They also gave us counseling and taughtmetime managementand budgeting skills-it changed ourlives," Laura said. Today, life is safe for Laura's family. With rental assistance from the Crisis House they are living in an affordahle apartment. Laura has plenty of time to care far her girls and is also attending nursing school full time. She is grateful for the Crisis House's support but states, "I can't wait to be able to do all this on my own. When I became a nurse I'II make enough to take care of everybody." This year, Laura and the girlstoaktheirfirsttriphometovisitfarrlily.Laura's youngest looks at her with excitement. " "The girls lave telling this story," Laura smiles, a storywith a happy ending. Table of Contents We Can End Family Homelessness ............................................... 2 Advisory Council of Elected Leaders and San Diego Grantmakers Homelessness Working Group ............................. 5 Keys to Housing Planning Group ................................................. s Key Actions and Outcomes ~... Leadership, Policies & Advocacy 1. Policies are changed/created/implemented to increase stability and support families ................8 2. A sustainable structure is created and ensures implementation of go.'J.s ....................... 10 ~••• Capacity, Data and Coordination of Services and Resources 3. Multiple pathways exist to access resources, centralize information, and increase capacity and coordination of services and agencies ...........................................14 ~.~ Permanent Affordable Housing 4. Increase the number of affordable housing units in the region ........................... 18 ~~ Increased Economic Security and Stability 5. Family members are folly employed and moving toward self-sufficiency wages .................. 22 6. Families increase financial stability and move to self-sufficiency .......................... 26 ~~ Prevention 7. Families are identified as at-risk and assisted prior to losing housing ........................ 28 8. Reduce the number of families in poverty that enter homelessness ........................ 31 Conclusions ...................................................................34 Resources .....................................................................35 Acknowledgements ............................................................36 . Keys to I3emsire,~: Ending Family Homelessness was established in May 2010 by a collaboration of private foundations, public government fenders and other stakeholders working together under the auspices of the membership association San Diego Grantmakers. For more information, go to www.keystohousing.org, ema11 info@keystohousing.org, or contact San Diego Grantmakers at 858-875-3333. We Can End Family Homelessness Achild struggles to concentrate on homework in the corner of a noisy and overcrowded apartment. A mother and her two young children couch surfing every evening.A family living in [heir car and "bathing" in the sink at the local park bathmom.That is what family homelessness looks like. For many San Diegatss, these families go unseen and [heir stories untold. Often homeless for the first time due to loss of a job, medical emergencies or their landlord's foreclosure issues, homeless families look very different than the pictures of homelessness [hat most frequently come to mind. The numbers are growing. Since 2008, our region has experienced an 83% increase in children reported as homeless by the annual school homeless count. Schools- based homeless liaisons are serving children and [heir families who often axe living doubled up with another family, in their cars, in shelters, or on the streets. The children come to school hungry, anxious, exhausted, and unable to succeed in school. Children who are homeless have lower academic achievement, exacerbated by frequent moves and psychological distress.' Chr%d>•en ~eCerV n9 Y~oMe%55 carer/CeS - S,DC O{!i'Ce of Edur~~i :on In 2010, cotmmunity stakeholders began meeting in cross- sector discussions, under the auspices of the San Diego Grantmakers Homelessness Working Group's Keys to Housing: Ending Family Homelessness initiative to develop a regional vision and anategies to combat this growing concern. Regional approach is [he key word. Family homelessness exists in every corner of our county. It affects and is affected by employment, income levek and disparities, housing costs and inventory, healthcare access, education, and food supply. X4,000 %,ooo X0,000 fr,000 6,000 4,000 ~~ooo Solving and ending fandly homelessness is within our reach. And it is less expensive to prevent family homelessness than the cost of the status quo. But until we adopt a regional vision to end family homelessness and agree to each take an active role in solving the issue, we will not see sustainable change on those outcomes we most value. The Keys to Housing Advisory Council o£elected leaders, chaired by Todd Gloria, San Diego City Councilmember District 3, and the Steering Committee of broad-based community stakeholder, met regularly over thepast year to develop a vision and explore effective strategies.The result? AToolbox of potential actions in five key areas to achieve eight essential outcomes. Using the tools in these key azeas, we can accomplish the eight outcomes -and end family homelessness by 2020. 'National Canter °n Famiry Homelessness. IDO6, The Characteristics & Needs of Families Expariencirg Homelessness, httpy/www.hmityh°melessness.org/media/147.pdf =0J4 ~OOJ %OOs =J09 %O~O Leadership, Policies & Advocacy • Policies are changed/created/implemented to increase stability and support families A sustainable structure is created and ensures implementation of goals Capacity, Data and Coordination of Services and Resources • Multiple pathways exist to access resources, centralize inforrr><ation and increase capacity and coordination of services and agencies Permanent Affordable Housing • The number of affordable housing units in the region is increased Increased Economic Security and Stability • Family members are fully employed and earn at sustainable income levels Families increase financial stability and move to self-sufficiency Prevention • Families are identified as at-risk and asststed prior to losing housing The number of families in poverty that enter homelessness is reduced Homeless families look very similar to low-income families; there is often just one paycheck, one medical bill, or one emergency that separates the two, as homeless families tend to have fewer economic, social and housing resources =Solving the problems of family homelessness will logically use some of the strategies for addressing poverty. Strengthening our families to help them become more economically secure and self-sufficient will require a critical review and potentially significant changes to the policies, programs and funding for ouz most vulnerable residents. Nationally, about one percent ofAmericans svill experience homelessness over the course of a year; 50°/a are members of homeless families. Across our community, our state, and the nation, there is a shortage of resources to solve all the issues we face. Collaborative and coordinated use of precious resources is critical fox implementing long-range strategies with long-term results. In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act served as a springboard for developing new community strategies [o end family honaelessness.The $13 million of Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-housing temporary program funds brought into our conununity during the period October 2009 -March 2011 prevented 1,350 families from becoming homeless, and secured housing for more than 730 already homeless families. But when short-term programs end, we can be left with the same problems if we do not learn the lessons they offer and work to sustain successful strategies.ThisToolbox seeks to take the lessons learned through the stimulus funding as an important stazting point for the future. The timing is right to take on the issues of lo~v-income families who are at risk or experiencing family homelessness. The Federal government's enactment of the HEARTH Act, which redefines ho~v resources for all homeless people will be shared and prioritized, is a great catalyst for broader collaboration. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness are looking at how housing, employment, transporLltion, and health and social services all intersect [o bu$d wronger communities. San Diego County jurisdictions must also develop new Housing Element plans for the period 2013 - 2020, and will need to assess policies and programs to meet the housing needs of their future residents. State government is looking at opportunities to implement an interagency council to parallel the national councIl and coordinate efforts across California.The impact of the recent major recession will continue to drain resources and challenge our economy during this decade. Keys to Housing Advisory Council and Steering Conunittee have developed this as a Toolbox, rather than a mandated plan, so that jurisdictions, provider agencies, community groups, employers and the business community, housing advocates, and other stakeholders can grab hold of those strategies and action items that they can and will incorporate into their own action plans and for which they will take on 'National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2006: Soumebook: What You Shoultl Know Ahou[ Family Homelessness, twvw.andhomelessness.arg/contenVarticle/detail/1006 responsibility As a community, we will measure our progress on our goals in eight overarching outcomes. We will report back to each other on our progress and to the community at-large each year, sharing responsibility for the results. In 2020, we will be able to assess the status of our community, and recognize how far we have come to support and stabilize vulnerable fatnilies, azrd in the process strengthen our community. This Toolbox to end family homelessness is based on best practices from our community and around the country, and the shared wisdom of the planning processes that came before.The San Diego 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness (PTECH), or Home Again project now administered by United Way, outlined strategies that are nvrrored in the toolbox. Likewise, strategies from the HUD Strategic Plan 2010-15, the U.S. Interagency Cotmcil on Homelessness Plan, and the draft of the California Plan for Family Homelessness were incorporated to build on existing efforts, priorities and finding streams.The Regional Continuum of Care Councfl (RCCC) as the region's coordinating body for all types of homelessness began planning chapters for a comprehensive Blueprint prior to the launch plan to end chronic homelessness. The toolbox is both a compilation of strategies recently identified by diverse stakeholders during Keys meetings, as well the lessons ]earned over the past two decades. It is important to have the right tool for the each sination. As no two cities or two agencies are identical, it is the intention of the Keys fo Housing initiative to offer many tools, and request that stakeholder groups identify which ones they will choose to use, so that a measure of accountability across the county can be established. This is Where Homeless Students.and Their Families Live l ~ X81---~--..,, Ir ~ San Dlogo Unlfletl: Homeless Stutlents by ZIP cotle ~~ ti ~~ ~' a ,l itlilmek __ .. \ EMme1~ry ~el ~. EF ~ ~9wwYlVtion yyyy CwXel ~ • nrr v«rvn. VivtN °m y~ ..~~. - ~.... ~+,x~,3 51`i~mw ~M a ~y. L y .'..~ x~ ~. ,:...L e ':.+ A EMNIW U~ FJtTNN •}~~, u~w ~~.. fee 1 t_,, ~tl .. e.... .. ~, "~ ~ d^y. teJ ~ p~/~,~S~irc. ka J` ~1 ~ .w~.s.r ~~ . ~ uulu .: UniAW 'rf' f^ Ghunhe ' y~' r..! ~~°^~.. ~ p ~ ~.., . . a _ p~/~ 4 1> ~ BNW ' d.J.. ,M~I~M~r~/I1M~,q~ i1 U~M ~¢ v r, a ~Mrn~nta w~>. :. 'r i py: ,`: .E. c , 4 ~ _ @ MaE Mnla~lry :LIeM1eEe ~ ~~~.~ ~ . El,merme 5 t v6M'~ ~(. .. 1 1 ~ ~?I ~ T~ \ JaTWUUlewa _ ~µr p Unbn Elementary ~~ ~ ~eMY ©_-. ~_ , VNb ~ r' h r .,..I_., 1~_... ~ -- 6 ~{ i ~y~ yei 2~ ~_ 4 Keys to Housing Advisory Council of Elected Leaders Chair Todd Gloria, Snn Diego City Councibnember, 3rd District Chula Vista Steve Castaneda, Cormcilntember Coronado Carrie Downey, Coimcilrnember fincinitas Maggie Houlihan, Councilmember Teresa Barth,.Courtcilmember Escondido Olga Diaz, Councilmember La Mesa Art Madrid, Mayor Lemon Grove George Gas[il, Councilmember National City Rosalie Zarate, Councihnetnber Mona Rios, Counclmember Poway Jim Cunningham, Councilmember San Diego Marti Emerald, Councilmember 7th District Sherri Lightner, Councilmember 1st District San Marcos Kristal Jabara, Counnlmervtber Solana Beach Lesa Heebner, Mayor California State Assembly Drst 76 Toni Atkins, Assembly member San Diego Grantmakers Homelessness Working Group Chair Mary Herron, Tlxe Parker Foundation Alliance Healthcare Foundation Arthur Roke Corporation for Supportive Housing Simoane Ruff HomeAgain Brian Maienschein Leichtag Family Foundation Sharyn Goodson McCarthy Family Foundation Tim. McCarthy Regional Task Force on the Homeless Peter Callstrom San Diego Housing Commission Cissy Fisher & Kathi Houck San Diego Social Venture Partners Karen Brailean Union Bank Kathy Patoff , United Way of San Diego County Carol Williams U.S. Dept. HUD Frank Riley S Keys to Housing Planning Group Chair Mary Herron,The Parker Foundation 211 San Diego John Ghanian & Gabe Kendall Affordable Housing Advocates Catherine A. Rodman City of Chula Vista Amanda Mills City of EI Cajon Jamie Kascikis City of Oceanside Margery Pierce & Angie Hanifin City of Santee Joyce Easley Community Health Improvement Partners Kristin Garret[ & Clyde "Bud" Beck, MD Community HousingWorks Sue Reynolds & Patti Hamic-Christensen Corporation for Supportive Housing Simonise Autf &Tricia Tasto Levien County of San Diego, Department of Housing and Community Development Dolores Diaz County of San Diego HHSA Rene Santiago &Yolm&~Valdez Family Health Centers of San Diego Fran Butler-Cohen HomeAgain/United Way Brian Maienschein €c Lance Witmondt HomeStart Laura Mustari Hospital Association of San Diego & Imperial Counties Judith Yates Housing Advocate Hannah Cohen Housing Opportunities Collaborative Vino Pajanor Interfaith Shelter Network Rosemary Johnston 6 Le Sar Development Consultants/Ending Homelessness in Downtown San Diego Campaign Matthew Doherty Manpower Inc. Trevor Blair North County Alliance for Regional Solutions Donald Stump ReBOOT Ronne Froman Regional Continuum of Care Councn Patricia Leslie Regional Task Force on the Homeless (RTFH) Peter Callstrom c~Anne Kerr San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Susan Baldwin San Diego County Apartment Association tllan Pentico San Diego County Bar Foundation Briana Wagnet San Diego County OtFice of Education Michelle Lustig & Sophie Lor San Diego Housing Commission Cissy Fisher & Kathi Houck San Diego Housing Federation Susan Riggs Tinsky & Doris Payne-Camp San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Mike Nagy San Diego Social Venture Partners Karen BraIlean San Diego State University Institute of Public Health Sherry Patheal San Diego Workforce Partnership Jessica Mosier ~ Chvck Flacks Service Employees International Union Sherry Rednour University of California Extension Division Locke Epsten US Dept. Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Frank Riley & Myrna Pascual US Dept. Veteran's Affairs Clay King HPRP It's easyto see that Ron and Cody are related-they are both tall and lean with light blond hair and Kind faces. The father and son seem relaxed sitting nexttc the small pool in their EI Cajon apartment complex. "I wentthroughsome real hard stuff there for about a year," Ron reflects. "Itwas my mom, my heart, myjoh-everything all at once." Lastyear, when Ron's mother was diagnosed with Alzheimers disease, Ron and histeenagedson moved in to help her. Soon after, Ron was diagnosed with a heart condition that left him unahle to work. The same week as his scheduled surgery, Ron's mom was moved into a nursing home and within a month her properrywas put on the market and sold. Ron found himself with no job, no money and no place to go.0ut of options, he sent Codyto stay with his mom. Ron moved from seedy trailers to drug houses, to motels that he paid ferwith credit cards he had no hope of returning payment on. Lostwithout his son, Ron searched forways to get Cody back. He called the Grossmont Resource Center to ask ahout help with transportation to and from Cody's school, which wasn't accessihle 6y any bus lines. The case manager he spoke with connected Ran with the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing program and within two and a half weeks Cody and Ron had a place oftheir own. "I'm a Christian man and this was almost a miracle. We stayed there for a yearwhile I got back an my feet and then we were able to afford this place;' Ran motions to a serene courtyard in the middle of their complex in this quietsuburhan neighhorheod. Today Ron has a good paying jab with great benefits atthe San Oiego Zoo. He seems contentwith his situation and proud to be ahle to provide for his son. "I always tell him, don't he like me. I partied until I was 41,"smiling, Ron elbows his son. Cody shakes his head and reminds his dad of his 3.2 GPA. After high school, Cody wants to join the navy, become a cryptologist and see the world. Ron shudders tc imagine whatweuld have happened without HPRP. "I needed help. We neverwould have been here. All this never would have been passible withoutthe help of that program." ~." Leadership, Policies & Advocacy OUTCOME 1: Policies are changed/created/ implemented to increase stability and support low-income families Capacity within jurisdiction to allocate adequate staff resources to affordable housing Density bonus and accessory dwelling units/conversion of illegal units ordinances Identification of underutilized sites to meet Smart Growth objectives S trong leadership and political will are essential to ending family homelessness. Innovative public policies are required to address the needs o£low-income fanailies, coordinate appropriate use of public resources, and ensure that [he region receives its fair share of state and federal resources. In addition, by working regionally these policies can assure equitable distribution to match the needs of families throughout the region. The Keys to Housing initiative identifies best practices which combine innovative methods with improved coordination of services at the jtuisdiction level to make changes in every community.The next step is for jurisdictions to adopt the practices and tools either as individual cities or a region as a whole. Working together, our community can be on the cutting edge for ending homelessness and easuring stability for families. Most would agree [hat the greatest barriers to maintaining housing in San Diego are the high cost of housing and a lack of adequate inventory of affordlble housing. Many cities have aheady increased capacity of affordable housing through zoning anal land use changes. Within the City of San Diego redevelopment zones, more than 2,600 units of affordable housing have been created since 2005. During the Keys to Housing evaluation of the 2005 - 2010 Housing Elements, it became clear that some jurisdictions were able to accomplish more than others.The best practices that became evident from this comparison were: • The use of numerous tools to increase the quantity of affordable housing Indusionary housing ordinances with provision to add housing writs rather than in-lieu fees at rates inadequate to add units Numerous policies have been identified for potential regionalization, including [hose focused on increasing the inventory of affordable hotsing, enhancing resource coordination, and developing economic security. They include: the development of region-wide prioritization of needs and services; • pooling of federal, state and local funding, agreement across the region on allocation of resources such as Community Development Block Grant funds £or vulnerable families; ]and banking and the development of a county-wide Housing Trust Fund; and, standardization of ordinances including zoning and linkage fees. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness's strategic plan, Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness 2010, calls for engagement of state and local leaders along with citizens and the private sector to promote collaborative leadership. Ca]ifornia legislators support the implementation and funding of a state Interagency Council, as called for in the S[ateAction Plan for Califor+tia Homeless Families.' Through the implementation of the Keys to Housing tools, San Diego region can take a leadership role with the state Interagency Council, illustrate effective best practices for access to affordable housing, coordinate resources, motivate business to create sustainable vvage jobs, and provide appropriate resources to stabilize and strengthen families. Using these strengths to our advantage, it is time to develop and implement policies that will achieve real improvement for our region. 'http://www.homeEasecw.oig/POFS/CAianYearPlaN~mftCA4etionPlan.ptlf t n3r r ~, .: ra toolbox What we will measure to track our progress over time: • Number and impact of policies adopted for regionalization from Jurisdiction Consolidated Plans and annual action plans • Number ofnew/revised policies included in 2013 Housing Elements and reported in annual reports to State HCD • Memoranda of Understanding between jurisdictions adopted Action 1.7 1.11 1.12 1,13 11 1.21 1.22 1.23 1,24 1.3 1.31 1.4 1.41 Potential policies are identified as hest practices regionally and nationally • Build local support and advocate for an optimal mix of diverse housing and services options • Convene regular opportunities for elected leaders, providers and other stakeholders to learn ahcut hest practices that are cost-effective • Increase awareness to overcome opposition and address public concerns Best practice policies already enacted by individual cities or County are adopted 6y other jurisdictions • Engage housing developers, funding agencies, affordahle housing advocates and others to review zoning and building codes that provide barriers to affordahle housing; review recommendations • Ensure that all new housing developments include a Na fvr affordable housing • Encourage development of affordahle housing along transit lines in line with SB 375 and Sustainahle San Diego policies • Collaborate to address regulatory barriers hindering best practices Best practice policies identified from outside the region are adopted 6y local jurisdictions • Investigate shiftm outcomes-hosed contracts focused on housing and stability outcomes Key policies for regional adoption are identified and enacted by all jurisdictions • Advocate for increased and targeted state and federal resources including revision of federal funding formula, establishing housing trust funds, establishing state interagency council, and other critical policies Time frame Yrst•5 Yrs1-10 Yrs2-10 Yrs2-to Proposed Partners Jurisdictions, SANDAG Jurisdiction staff & elected leaders Jurisdiction staff & eleMed leaders Jurisdiction staff & elected leaders, SANDAG ~~ Leadership/Policies and Advocacy ~' Leadership, Policies & Advocacy OUTCOME 2: Structure for Sustainability is Created and Ensures Implementation of Goals he phrase "Collective Impact" is one catching fire throughout the country. Coined by John Kama and Mark Kramer in their Winter 2011 article in Sanford Social Innovation Review', collective impact is not a new concept; it speaks of highly engaged collaboration across all sectors leading to system and endemic change with long- range impact and community improvement.The Keys to Housing initiative fits the collective impact model as it was created through broad collaboration across all sectors in San Diego County. One of the 5ve critical conditions of collective impact is the need for a backbone support organization to provide continuous communication between partners and to coordinate multiple and mutually reinforcing activities focused on a common agenda with shared measurement systems.This organization must be able to "plan, manage and support the initiative through ongoing facilitation, technology and communications support, data collection and reporting, and handling the myriad logistical and administrative details needed for the initiative to function smoothly." The authors note the need for a highly structured process for effective decision-making. Over the course of the Keys to Housing planning process, elected leaders and regional stakeholders reviewed best practices across the country for sustaining efforts to end family homelessness by 2020.These disc>.usions led to [he design of this potential structure: ' Kania, J., and Kramer, M: Winter POI t, Collective Impact, $[a0lold Social Innmatian Aeview 10 POTENTIAL STRUCTURE FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND SUSTAINABILITY ENDING HOMELESSNESS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL PAREM ORGANIZATION Not-lor-profit Executive Committee Board of Direcrors Regional Continuum Elected Leaders from Executive Committee of Care Council each region Provider community Leaders from: Advisory capatlty Business Identifies re Tonal Presents Reports to y Education-School Districts ~ g SANDAL Health Care Issues & priorities Housing Development --=. CawEnfdRement legal Aid InterAgency Council Staff Rhilanthropy Governmen[Agencies Publid Housing ~ Advisory capadTy Executive Director PubLcSodal Services Identifies regional support staff Redevelopment Soclal5ervice Agencies Issues & priorities; Workforce or Labor develops strategies for coordination Data &EValuatfon Resource Coordination Pubbc Awareness Resource Planning Committee ~ Committee Committee , ;Cammrttee Special Populations Outcomes & Compliance Prevention Committee Committee Committee - Keys recommends a 501c3 as the appropriate structure for the San Diego region dve to the non-profit ability to be nimble, attract public and private resources, and potentially serve as a fiscal agent for homeless funding.The Regional Continuum of Care Council was established in 1994 as the region-wide volunteer, community-based collaborative to engage and coordinate efforts of organizations serving the homeless population. Currently the community is evaluating a ck><inge in structure to align with the new HUD priorities and policies, and to increase the capacity of the regiomThe Keys [o Housing Steering Conunittee and Advisory CovncIl have encouraged the RCCC consider to becoming the backbone organization for all homeless efforts, including as the stmctnre for the coordination and snstainability of activities and outcomes outlined in [he Keys to Housing: Ending Fnmily Homelessness Toolbox. Development of a Board of Directors with cross-sector representation and leadership by elected officials, who engage in implementation and on-going measurement of accomplishments is aitical to the achievement of the eight outcomes. A report card focused on key indicators for each of the eight outcomes will be published annually. Participatingjurisdictions and organizations will help aack progress towards gook. Comnwnication across sectors will ensure that the initiative continues to engage with city councils, the County Board of Supervisors, SANDAL, and to foster on--going public awazeness about issues and potential solutions related to family homelessness. 11 12 •~ Leadership/Policies and Advocacy Action 2.1 Steering Committee and Advisory Council concur anarecommendation for structure 22 A structure is defined and partiassign MOU or other documents to formalize with accountahility and funding 23 Develop adequate funding to support and sustain the implementation of a regional vision for ending family homelessness 2.31 • Investigate opportunities to create a designated funding stream 2.32 • Enlist6usinesscommunitytofacilitatefundingstream through corporate sponsorship, events, cause marketing, etc. 2.33 • Seek and attain sufficient & diverse funding to maintain opeations 2.34 • Garner and provide a share of funding through annual budgets and MOUs 2.4 Putilish an annual report card of progress on goals; use the reportto increase puhlic awareness and supportto prevent and end family homelessness 2.41 •Use data to create mechanisms forquality improvement 2.42 • Developacomprehensiveevaluationsystemthaireflects shared desired outcomes 2.43 • Distribute and communicate results of annual report card for continuous improvement 2.5 Jurisdictions, agencies, and other stakeholders report progress on their goals to the community 2:51 • Review progress towards goals and measure participation by various sectors 2.52 • Engage a media partner to assist in annual reporting of progress on goals Time Frame Year 1 Yrs 1-2 Yrs 2-10 Yrs 2-10 Yrs 2-10 toolbox Proposed Partners Steering Committee, Advisory Council Jurisdictions, philanthropy and foundations Jurisdictions, govt agencies, philahthropyand foundations, business community Governance structure entity, jurisdictions, planning staff, government agencies Jurisdictions, community agencies, stakeholders What we will measure to track our progress over time: • A Governance Structure is created and funded • Signed agreements between jurisdictions exist to authorize the Governance Structure • A Regional report card is published annually FOCUS Crystal's daughter Christina is a little shy. She sits quietly in their EI Cajon apartment, curiously looking around atthe strangers in her living room. Notyettwo years old, Crystal tells us that pottytraining is in progress, and is quite a challenge. Crystal and her hushand metwhile working at Walmart. They learned they were pregnant right in the middle of the economic crisis, and soon teund themselves laid off. When disagreements with family landed them on the streets, they didn't know whatthey would do. In love and determined to find a wayto provide forthe family, Crystal's husband took low- paying maintenance john,trying to keep them afloat. Living on the street, Crystal was scared. That's when they learned ahcutthe FOCUS program. "I wentthrough the FOCUS program and it'sjustchanged mywhole perspective;' Crystal said: FOCUS provides long-term case managementand housing assistance to families in need; they are currently helping Crystal and her husband with transitional housing. Now, Crystal works at Macy's in the shoe department and her hushand makes a living as a caretaker far the elderly. Although Crystal isn't yetworking fulltime, she's dedicated to creating a better life for herfamily. "I'm going to Kaplan Universitytc get my associate's degree in business," Crystal said proudly. "That way, I'll 6e able to get a management position." Christina holds on to her mom's neck and Crystal pats her hack reassuringly. "Now, if we could only getthe potty training figured out" ~~ Capacity, Data and Coordination of Resources OUTCOME 3: Multiple pathways exist to access resources, centralize information and increase capacity and coordination of services and agencies. The current mantra: Do more with less. Or at least: Do well with less.The after effects of the economic meltdown have forced everyone to look strategically at how to meet growing needs with fewer resources. Families who ofren become hornless, for the first time due to loss of job, foreclosure, medical emergency or other economic catastrophe, look very sinailaz to other low-income working families. More than 90,000 area residents receive benefits or services through County of San Diego Health & Hurr><1n Services Agency. Many more [urn to nonprofit organizations to help them fill the gaps to remain housed and fed. With so many opportunities to "touch" the lives of these families, the Keys to Housutg stakeholders focused on how to better coordinate the network of community agencies to provide an easier and more streamlined system for consumers to navigate. Tying resources together across the region can be challenging. Through the Keys to Housing process community leaders agreed on key strategies and tools to provide multiple, linked pathways to resources and services.The first builds on existing strong collaborations to serve as "front doors" to services through a network of triage, assessment and referral. Cross-training staff across agencies and finking homeless prevention services to other fam.Ily and community support resources are strategies [hat will bring results. Keys envisions `Navigator'services at agencies currently providing intensive case management. To serve more families with reduced resources, Navigators can provide short term assistance and guidance for those who can find resources, complete applications, and follow-up with agencies more independently. It is estimated that more than half of households at risk of or experiencing homelessness for the Fast time could have their needs met through the support and short term services of a Navigator rather than longer-term intensive services.This means more resources would be available for those fmlilies requiring more extensive services to succeed.The Navigator model could be pIlo[ed at sites already connected to a strong community network. Finding affordable houshrg is one of the most difficult tasks a family faces. Since many affordable housing complexes and rental assistance programs have waiting lists several yeazs long, it might take 100 phone calls to find appropriate and available housing.The development of a new regional, database of publicly subsidized and private affordable housing could greatly facilitate finding housing. The databasewould include an online screening process for preferences and eligibility, and the ability to apply to multiple waiting lists with the click of a mouse, saving time and energy for both the consumer and the housing provider. Another key tool identified to improve the pathways to resources is the sharing of data across agencies, allowing them to streamline eligibility and application processes 'Based an HPPP tlata 2009-2010. 14 for the household. Rather than submitting the same information numerous times for various services, the applicant could choose for information to be shared between partner agencies. Agencies could better serve clients by understanding the types of services they are currently using, or benefits they have been unable to receive and matching [he needs. Coordination of financial resources is also an important tool in the toolbox. Currently, many government funding streams can have li[de flexibilityThe HEARTH Act seeks i sult in r more Centralized inform on c at an e ff d tive u se of resour ces. e e creative an c to improve this, and other federal and state funds may be motivated to leverage and coordinate as well. Keys [o HousitsQ seeks [o advocate for more flexible and less categorical funding to better serve the needs of vulnerable families. These tools will all require the coordination of agencies throughout the region to actualize ma:dmum benefit. Each goals achievable, and would improve service to residents, reduce costs and duplication, and improve cotnmttnity outcomes. is Wham Lnw-income Families Receiving Mainstream Benefits Live " ° ~~ Capacity, Data and Coordination of Services and Resources lo~`t~l~~ to . toolbox Action Time Frame Proposed Partners 3.1 Strengthen existing regional collahoratians (North Coastal, Yrs 1 - 5 Provider agencies, North Inland, South, East, North Cenhal) to serve as "front HomeAgain, doors" to full continuum of services designed to strengthen Mainstream Resources families 3.11 • Launch pilot program in South Bay and/or North County 3.72 • Inventory best practices for replication 3.73 • Coordinate existing mainstream resources and community based organizations 3.14 • Cross-train staff regularly hetween organizations 3.15 • Identify funding opportunities 3.16 • Link homeless prevention services to other family and community support initiatives 32 Strengthen current system of care to enhance Yrs 1 -5 211, ACCC, provider agencies, "front door" to services and coordination of intake Familyflesource Centers, and services - MainstreamAesources 3.21 • Inventory programs to assess barriers and restrictions 3.22 • Create "warm" client handoffs 3.23 • Employ technology to provide services without walls; incl. WehEx interviews, electronic signatures, etc, 3.24 • Create opportunities for co-location and storefront settings 3.25 • Build capacity of 211 to serve as a "front door" connected with area providers 3.26 • Support RCCC to address challenges and fill gaps in services for families/youth 3.21 • Link homeless prevention services to other family and community. support initiatives 3.3 ~evelopandcultivateaNavigatorroletoassistfamiliesto Yrs2-4 Provider agencies. advocate for themselves, moving away from intensive case Mainstream Resources management for those appropriate 3.31 • Develop typology for range of services needed 3.32 • Incorporate Neighborhood Leaders and Promotoras models 3.33 • Leverage resources between agencies 3.34 • Develop opportunities for increased cooperation and coordination between agencies 3.35 • Assure that"service without walls"maintains human assistance 16 What we will measure to track our progress over time: • Use and growth of Database of Housing options • Use and growth of centralized client/service database • Extent of services linked together through community agencies, schools and 211 __ J ah . ,~`~ t Action Time Frame Proposed Partners 3.4 Work closely with school homeless liaisons to identity and Yrs 1 -10 SDCOE and homeless liaisons support families SDCDE and homeless liaisons 3.5 A regional, comprehensive and real-time datahase of Yrs 1 -1 D RTFH, 211, SDHOC, Apartment suhsidized and private aHordahle housing inventory is Association, PHAs, SDHF, HUD, estahlished, maintained and used; include an eligihility housing coordinators at area screening tool and centralized application and access to provider agencies. redevelopment waiting list agencies, Housing Opportunities Collaborative 3.57 • Prototype developed with common language, agreed-on fields, - 3.52 Resources identifed for developmentsnd operations 3.53 •Agency identifedtotake lead, assure works with HMIS, 211, EMS and other systems 3.54 • Begin with inclusion of all rent-restricted properties 3.55 • Add privately owned, non-restricted properties 3.56 • Provide incentives to cities/ agencies/property owners to keep updated 3.57 • Contracts mandate use/update 3.58 • Coordinate process of who monitors waiting lists 3.fi A program level and client level centralized database Yrs 2 - 5 flTFH, providers, and/or data warehouse and procaduresfoi sharing client FABC providers, information is established to view assessments, referrals and Mainstream Resources wait lists to minimizeduplicatioa of services 3.fi1 • Identify barriers to data sharing & develop solutions, including blanket MOUs for sharing info 3.62 •Developcommonlanguagefordatathatisconsumerfriendlyand providers can agree rouse/input 3.63 • Oneagencyhascentralresponsibilityfordatahase 3.64 • Agree to use same assessment tool/fields across agencies 3.65 • Identify common data pieces on client, program and jurisdiction levels 3.66 • Data match or merge ongoing 3.67 • Build capacity for data navigators/TA to assist agencies with data 3.66 • Include non-traditional providers serving low-income/at-risk 3.7 Develop and implement a communications and outreach Yrs 2 -10 SD Grantmakers, strategy to increase awareness of issues, resources ahd 2i1. RCCO, opportunities HomeAgain 3.8 Facilitate dissemination of data and evaluation to allpartnen: Yrs 1-10 Governance structure meet regularly to enhance collahoration,coordination and RTFH, RCCC, Providers, measurahle outcomes Jurisdictions 17 ~~ Permanent Affordable Housing OUTCOME 4: Increase the number of affordable housing units in the region he foundation of a healthy community -education, jobs, and economic prosperity -begins a[ home. Healthy communities need housing that serves the needs of all income levels. In. a community with a high cost of housing like San Diego, achieving the affordable housing goals that support and shape economic growth can be a daunting task. As of 2008, San Diego County had a deficit of 90,500 housing unitss at the very low and low-income brackets. Affordable housing is the key to many other critical factors. Research shows that the stability of an affordable mortgage or rent has profound effects on childhood development and school performance' and can improve health outcomes for families and individuals." The benefits of affordable housing extend well beyond the family into other parts of the community. In San Diego County, 48% of households spend 35% or more of their household income on rent°; these families have substantially less disposable income to spend in the community As a community, San Diego carries a higher rental burden nearly twice the national average oE26%.The development of affordable housing increases employment, provides revenue for local governments, and encourages the development of retail, office and manufacturing space, and transit enhancements. Without an adequate supply of affordable housing, it is difficult to attract and retain workers. Stable housing reduces the burden on other social sectors as well, reducing healthcaze, public safety and environmental costs. To 4F~ord I bedroom cjpC. "- +~~0•&I ff a ,~ To a{ford ~ 6edroon ctnt. ~`?5•yro { Cy;/d Care pJorker ~'ly.a1 .D~.rCa/ Rss%start ~5~.a1 E/eMenCary SCl7oo/ T gCher x`1(0.13 Cirgvh%e .~/ es9ner a~14~09 i ~ ~ //urSn~ ,Q~de 13.(09 ~ "' • Pr%son Guard X10.60 • I ' / • Schoo/ 8u5 ,Dr%/er ~9~G& LJ4%t 62'aff' ,B`g,p3 ~O d`5 ~i0 wCrS d~0 /15 ~B'a0 Smueez: National Lmv Inc°nm Hu°xing C°:ditiun, Center [ r Huudvg P°licg Vetennz Village uCSan Uie~ , 2e~,nmdTuk Pune °n dm Humelers San llieyu aCaunry of San Diego Consortium, 2010-2015 c°nsolitlated Plan and 2010 Attion Plan, May 2610, C°unry of San Diego Department of Ho°slnA antl Community ~evel°pment. Section II page 16. Wbetl, Jaflrey, aM Maya Brannan. 2001, July Framin0 the Issues-the Positive Impacts of Afbrtlable Housing an Education. Washington, DG Center for Housing P°Iicy. a Wbell, Jefhey, Agsahm Crain, and Rebecca Cohen.2gg7, July. Framing the Issues-the Positive Impacts gf AffoNable Housing °n Health. Washington, OC: Centerfgr Housing P°liry. 18'U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey 5'ny/e Parent & a IGdS ~`y350 Nlont/7/y jisCOryle The income needed in the San lliego region to afford a two-bedroom unit in 2009 was $56,720 annually, or $27 per hourt°. At the current minimum wage in California of $8 per hour, a household must maintain three minimum wage jobs at 40 hours per week year-round to afford the rent. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment currently underway by SANDAG and area jnrisdic[ions will allocate the Slate Housing and Community Development's determination of zoning for an additional 107,301 housing units to acconunodate the 2050 Regional Growth Forecast. Our region will need to plan for 24,143 additional units at Very Low Income category, 18,348 at Low Income category, and 20,280 a[ Moderate Income category to meet anticipated county-wide growth." I[ is hoped that the upcoming Housing Element will reflect the regional vision for ending family homelessness as a community value as well as a response [o State law requirements. During the first years of recovery from this recession the community will be hard pressed to build new units. Strategies were identified to position jurisdictions to plan more pro-actively for the recovery and for meeting the needs of working-poor families. Jurisdictions are asked to review these tools, and to commit to those most appropriate for their ciraimstances. The tools identified on the next pages can be used by jurisdictions, housing and planning departments, HUD, housing developers and organizations, u well as private property owners to improve housing outcomes for all San Diegans. ~'~,aoo d'yg00 /~,~oo di,ooo daoo duoo X400 ~~oo ~'o 10SANDAG, Pegional Comprehensive Plan 2009 Annual Performance MOniroring Report loads/mectid ro ectid_I09_12244.pdf. "SANOAG, Negional Housing Neetls Assessment lNHNAI allocation Gom CDHCO: http://wur++sandag.org/up p 1 /P i ~.nw~;~y ~an< Month/y R<~t 19 Rf> ordn6/ Y1ous% y Mark t ~P~< ></ars:.y L.1- ~r~ keysmhousinq I,I „~ ~T~Wn ~~ Increase the number of affordable housing units l ""I' ~~3°1 in the region What we will measure to track our progress over time: • Creation, strengthening and use of policies and laws regarding development & affordability of units, as reported on annual Housing Elements reports • Number of units built, preserved, conserved, demolished, as reported on annual Housing Elements reports • Number of rent-restricted, Affordable housing units by jurisdiction • Number of people living with housing burden greater than or equal to 50% as measured by American Demographic Survey Action ~~ Permanent Affordable Housing 4.1 4.17 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.110 4.111 4.112 4.113 4.114 4.115 42 4.21 4.22 423 424 4.25 4.2fi 4.27 4.28 Increase and conserve the numher of units dedicated as aHardahle housing with rent restrictions • Advocate for and leverage local, state and federal capital, operating subsidies, and services resources to create new housing units • Identify and provide incentives for building of new units • Acquire and convert distressed properties • Align redevelopment agency plans with housing plans • Increase % of redevelopment funds above 20% • Establish policies to motivate rapid development of new units • Provide variance in parking ratio restrictions • Develop incentives in transit overlay zones • Grant surplus lands to housing developers for very low income housing projects • Amend inclusionary zoning requirements to provide incentives to developers • Prioritize units for homeless families, TA youth, veterans • Communicate and educate public and decision makers on benefits and needs of affordable housing and reduce NIMBYism • Advocate for extension of bond funding or other dedicated funding source • Develop a regional strategy for a housing trust fund, land banking and other funding strategies •Advocateforhomelessfamilypriorityinaffordablehousing - Preserve at-risk inventory o1 affordable rental housing • Identify affordable housing developers topurchase at-risk units • Assist owners to sell to affordable housing providers • Seek project-based subsidies and voucher • UseCDBG/HOMEfunds • Use Acquisition/Aehabilitationfunds • Seek designated HUD funds • IdentiTyfundingforgrantsorloanstolandlordsforrepairsinexchangefor affordahility • Encourage bond projects to include 55-year affordable units Time Frame Yrs1-t0 Yrs1-10 Proposed Partners Jurisdictions, HUD, Housing & Planning depts. Private owners, Non-profit housing orgs, Redevelopment agencies Jurisdictions, HUD, Housing & Planning depts. Private owners, Non-proft housing orgs 20 4.3 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.4 4.47" 4.42 4.43 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.47 4.5 4.51 4.52 4.53 4.54 4.55 4.6 4.61 4.62 4.63 4,64 4.65 4.66 4.7 4.71 q.8 4.81 4.82 4.63 Action Create opportunities to increase and retain naturally aHordahle/private market units without rent mstrictions • Develop effective shared housing and accessory units models and policies • Aeviewandreviseanti-demolitionandconversicnordinances • Facilitate Rehah programs • Estahlish replacement requirements for"naturally"affordable units • Investigate and advocate for appropriateness of ordinances regarding occupancy limits so as not to create barriers to self suffciency based on square footage Increase the numher of vouchers in region, including those available for families • Regionally prioritize existing vouchers for homeless families • Annually apply for allavailahlevouchers • Seek vouchers for family reunification 1100 received 201DI • Advocate for increased Sec B, VASH, othervoucher allocation • Develop set-asides and ensure priority access to rental suhsidies and project hosed subsidies for homeless families • Evaluate admission policies of PHAs to ensure that families who received temporary housing assistance are prioritized forvouchers as appropriate; reduce harriers to housing caused by local Dolicies • Investigate Federal policies related to time limits on Section 8 vouchers Develop programs far short-term rental assistance and services for economically displaced families • Develop strategies to house families with barriers to housing • Develop shared housing or match programs where appropriate; offer rental suhsidies • Provide intensive joh-search activities and supportive services • Identify and secure master leases to create units at affordable rates • Prioritize units for homeless families, TA youth &veterans Develop programs far short-term rental assistance and services for economically displaced families Time Frame • Identify best practices atvarious levels of service • Collect local data • Provide incentives orfunding to developers that provide higher levels of services • Facilitate partnerships to provide enriched services and PSH as needed • Encourage collaborative funding to increase the fl of service enhanced/ supportive units • Implement set-aide requirements for PSH within jurisdiction affordable housing programs Preserve opportunities for development of affordahle housing through redevelopment agencies • Preserve or increase redevelopment set aside funds Transform systems to respond to crisis that prevent homelessness and oHet rapid return tb stable housing. • Determine optimal mix and array of housing needed to address the needs of various homeless family types. • Utilize temporary or interim housing when needed to move families off the street and into stable housing as soon as possible. • Develop screening tools to assess the optimal housing and residential services match for families at risk. Yrs1-10 Yrs 1-1 D Yrs 1-4 Yrs 1-2 Proposed Partners Private owners, SD Apt. Association, jurisdictions Jurisdictions, housing authorities, HUD Jurisdictions, Providers, Mainstream Resources Affordahle housing developers and agencies, service providers, jurisdictions Affordable hcusingdevelopers andagencies,sewiceyroviders, jurisdictions 21 ~~ Increased Economic Security and Stability 0 UTCO M E 5. Where will newjobs come from?The San Diego Business Journal" listed 16 cluster that offer the potential for Family members are fully economic growth, and currently employ 25%of the regions total workers.The clusters include biotech, employed and moving toward pharmaceuticals and biomedical products, communications, self-sufficiency wages environmental/Green technology, financial services, mploymen[ is key [o family economic stability and self-sufficiency And education and training are paramount to being able to secure a stu[ainable wage job in our communi[yTraining [he workforce to meet the current and furure needs of employers, havingjob-ready workers with few barriers to employment, and nurturing business and industry growth will lead to increased household income and improved fanuly self-sufficiency. Currently, three in 10 working-age San Diego County households do not earn enough to make ends meet."- 50% of these households are working full-time. The Center on Policy Initiatives sets a self-sufficiency household wage (essential expenses only) in 2010 dollars of $64,957 for a family oftwo adults and two young children. That compares to the 2009 Federal Poverty level of $21,756. Families in poverty often live doubled up or in other inadequate environments, and are without health insurance. Poverty also displays racial dispazities with greater proportion of Hispanic/Latino and Black/African American households compared to White non-Hispanic and Asian households. According to the Center for Policy Initiatives, the median income for Hispanic households in 2009 was 73% of the overall median, and For Black households was 80% of the overall median Jobs in our region will come primarily from small businesses and new businesses in target industries, including healthcare, biotech, Green Jobs and hospitality. "Center on Policy Initiatives, Making Entls Meet in San DieAO C°unry, 2DID "http://sdhj.com/nevs,2D11/feD/27/pillars-pommunity/!pnnt recreational goods, and defense and transportation.WhSle touristn and hospitality are also an important cluster in our economy, the sector employs primarily low-income workers, further exacerbating the gap between wages and self-sufficienry. Getting the workforce working will take collaboration and cooperation from all sectors. High schools, conununiry colleges and four-yeaz universities must be equipped to educate and prepare a workforce for the 21st century, Business must work hand in hand with the educational and training sector to assure a prepared workforce.And employers must commit to lifelong leanting and internal training opporrunities to move people up from entry level to sustainable wage employment. While ttnemployntent rates have hit an all-time high in recent years, a mole important metric for our region will be growth in jobs.The Workforce Index, published montlaly by the California Economic Development Department, will be measured through 2020. At a low in 2008, growth in jobs is beginning to rise. 22 /.t~or~'~orCe rndek self'suffic ency wages'ly employed and moving toward keyamha¢sag 11 OUTCp E • a • • What we will measure to track our progress over time: • Increase in families applying far and receiving EITC • Number of workers employed, as measured by monthly Workforce Index • Number and distribution of families at various levels of income and poverty level • Targeted families increase household income, as measured on RTFH database Action ~~ Increased Economic Security and Stability 5.1 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.1 B 5.2 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.21 528 5.29 5.210 5.271 Build stronger connections hatween training programs and employers • Engage employers in assessing needs for training future employees • Provide orientation/trainingortoolkitforemployersonhow to maximize internships/apprenticeships and integrate entry level employees • Assess fastest growing industries and develop specific training • Increase linkage from training to employers through Connect, BioCom, Chamber, other employer groups • Increase paid and unpaid internships for youth & adult workers • Enhance post-HS pipeline to STEM industries • Use Career Transitions Program as model • Encourage paid internships Assist employers to develop and maintain employment opportunities • Identify specifc opportunities in targeted growth industries: "green" jobs, healthcare, hospitality • Educate employers on available financial resources • Facilitate layoff aversion strategies • Facilitate increase in manufacturing • Develop incentives to decrease outsourcing, look at Econ Dev Councils, Enterprise Zone • Collaborate with Imperial Cty, Mexico • Advocate for improving corporate tax laws re foreign profits • Encourage employers to provide tuition reimbursement funds & promote internally • Develop incentives/award program for employers for community involvement or increase in workforce • Cities to provide incentives and engage business community to create jobs • Promote scholarships for training Time Frame Yrs 1 -2 Yrs2-e Proposed Partners EDC, Chambers of Commerce, employers, WP, training programs, Community Colleges. Foundations Workforce Partnership. EDD, EDC, BioCom, CONNECT, Philanthropy 23 5.3 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37 5.38 5.4 5.41 5.42 5.43 5.44 5.45 5.46 5.47 5.46 5.49 5.410 5.411 5.412 5.5 5.51 5.52 5.53 5.54 Action Provide job ready individuals and linkages to jobs. • Provide soft skills training • Increase access to employment and training opportunities • Increase registration of families served by homeless prevention resources at careercenters, ROP, Comm. College • Assess capacity of career centers to increase client load /participation • Increase awareness of career centers • Assure career centers are client focused and meet needs of youth, disahled, other populations • Case managers link familiesto training as part of workload • Expand employment soft skills training Increase access to child care and transportation; remove or reduce other harriers to employment • Work with mainstream resources, child care providers to increase capacity for affordable care • Train and license community based child care providers • Work with transit systems to increase bus passes, etc. • Create transportation co-ops • Expand policy linking transit centers and access to employment • Increase employment-based van pools and ride sharing • Incorporate best practices of land use and transportation aligned with 56375 initiatives • Reduce'lastmile'banierstoemployment,andchildcare • Promote employment based transit circuits • Build awareness of social inequity for low income families - • Advocate for best land use practices to facilitate access to housing and transportation • Identify the SB375 effort as a key initiative Convene puhlic and private educational organizations to assess and structure programs to increase high school graduation rates, access to BOP, vocational training and certificate programs, apprenticeship and internships, and other educational and training opportunities • Advocate for expansion of five-year high school plan to increase high school graduation • Develop content and training forgrow[hsectors • Develop and expand certification programs for soft skills and growth sectors • Publish results of meetings and planning recommendations Time Frame Yrs2-10 Yrs 1 -4 Yrs 1 -2 Proposed Partners Community Colleges, RDP, training agencies, Workforce Partnership, Homeless providers, trainingagencies, Community Colleges, highschool ADP programs,Workfome readiness programs,FABC providers, teen centers Child care providers Mainstream Resources Transit districts Educational institutions, High Schools/ ROP, Business community, Commuhiy colleges, UCSD/SOSU, Grow[h sector leaders, Healthcare, CONNECT & BioComm, Workforce Partnership 24 r., Action Time Frame Proposed Partners P p e o ortunities, and sinesso ortunities,coo -typ pP b Yrs 3-B Micraenterprise lenders, i di 5.6 u P Increase incuhation of new husinesses/entrepreneurial enterprises tun ons SBA,banks,cre CONNECT, BioComm, Chambers of Commerce, Evo Nexus and SCORE. 5.61 • Research new johs far future employment and training programs available 5.62 • Identify sector opportunities; communications, green jobs 5.63 • Partner with Innovation Institute 5.64 • Develop microenterprise lending programs 5.65 • Facilitatebusinesscoops 66 5 • Work with social enterprise model, CEO Works, non-proft sector . 5.67 • Advocate to support efforts to maintain jobs and build sectors that hire at self-sufficent wages 5.68 • Promote Child care co-ops and needs-based subsidy programs 5.69 • Investigate foundation support for micro-enterprise 5.610 • Acclimate new small business owners to'class A' facilities; helping families in transition acquire skills and business acumen 611 5 • Foster links with tech industry . 5.612 • Identify underused offce and business resources to incubate small business activity 5.7 Increase per capita wages of low paying jobs ro self-sufficiency Yrs 4 -10 Community col eAesnIEDD, income levels Chamber of Commerce ROP programs. Unions, Human Resource Associations. Compensation study groups, Center on Policylnitiatives 5.71 • Assist employers to increase internal internships from entry level to - midleveljohs 5.72 • ProvideTAtomanageEmployerTrainingPanelfunding 5.73 • Encourage employers to provide tuition reimbursement funds & promote internally 5.74 • Link employers with skill upgrade training 5.75 • Work with comm colleges, universities, ROP to increase enrollment in certificate programs Yrs 3-10 SANDAG, EDD, Chamber 5.8 Build workforce through sustainahle community efforts of Commerce, Business Improvement Associations, jurisdictions, Sustainable San Diego, Housing Federation 5.61 I • Work with SB375 efforts 25 ~~ Increased Stability OUTCOME6: Families increase financial stability and move to self-sufficiency loot needing/using income supports- oving from poverty to middle income and self- sufficiency is the dream for virtually all low- income households. Maintaining a stable home environment where claIldren can flourish, successfully complete high school and attain post-secondary education and training that sustains stable employment is part of the American dream. With 30% of our households not earning an income sufficient to make ends meet, that dream may not be realized for many The difference between families at poverty who are stable and those at risk of homelessness may ofren be the availability of mainstream resources such as CalFresh (food stamps), CalWorks child care supports, health insurance, or short-term rental assistance such as the Homeless Prevention & Rapid Rehousing Program of 2009-2012. Yet many low-income families do not qualify for or cannot access mainstream resources. Boosting our county's CalFresh enrollment is a goal of the County of San Diego Housing & Human Services Agency. Through coordination of resources and agencies, more targeted at-risk families can avail themselves of resources utilized by other low-income families. Strategies can be engaged regionally to smooth structural barriers to access, increase program capacity, and address eligibility barrier. Further, with the lack of sufficient Section 8 housing vouchers to meet demand, i[ is imperative that the San Diego region develop local programs to provide time- limitedrental assistance for the most vulnerable families. to seek training, employment and self-sufficiency wages, and gain the self-sufficiency [ha[ will improve their quality of life. Two populations have been identified for targeted response: transition-age youth (18 - 24) including [hose e.~iting the foster care orjuvenile justice system, parenting, or unaccompanied youth; and military and veteran. fanulies who are serving or have served our country yet experience poverty and have low education levels and little training for civilian jobs. Transitional housing programs throughout the country have been instrumental for moving families from homelessness to hope. While the HEARTH ACT of 2009 amends the Continuum of Care policy to strengthen prevention and rapid rehousing opportunities, it is believed an array of housing including emergenry, transitional, or interim housing will continue to play a significant role in stabilizing at-risk and homeless Families. Lack of affordable child care and public transportation are significant barriers to employment. Counseling and behavioral health services for victims of domestic violence and those with depression or other behavioral health issues are critical components for success.These and other barriers [o employment must be addressed [o meet the needs of workers. Keys to Housing recommends a targeted approach to farilies already receiving housing and employment assistance determined ready to move forward, families in shelter and transitional housing, and transitidn-age youth and military/ veteran families. Advocacy to amend policies at the federal and state level will be needed for long-term systemic change. The tools identified for this outcome will increase participation in mainstream resotuces, produce rental assistance for those not likely to qualify or receive federal housing subsidies, and reduce the length of slay in non- permanent housing.These tools seek to increase the stability for at-risk fannies so that they are better able and equipped 26 2F ., p . _ i ..':( .. to toolbox What we will measure to track our progress over time: • Participation in homeless services, as measured by RTFH • Improvement of targeted families in housing status, education, employment and wages, as measured by RTFH database • Length of stay in shelter, transitional and other non-permanent housing, as measured by RTFH and Regional Continuum of Care Council reports Time Action Frame Proposed Partners 6.t Participation in mainstream resources is increased ~ Yrs1-5 Government agencies, 211, community agencies fi.11 • Begin with families receiving homeless assistance and increase outreach and enrollment 6.12 • Utilize Services without Walls 6.2 Length of time for families in shelter, transitional and other Yrs 1 -10 RCCC providers non-permanent housing to permanent housing is reduced Housing authorities 6.21 • Triage families at entryto shelterfor needs, appropriate housing using common assessment tools 6.22 • Assure that unsheltered families receive priority housing assistance; 6.23 • Move families in transitional housing to permanent housing as soon as feasible fi.24 • Move familiesfmm shelter to transitional ASAP fi.25 • Align housing strategies with Federal targets fi.26 • Analyze and use best practice tools proven to be most successful for families 6.3 Develop programs and funding sources to provide long-term rental subsidies Yrs 5 -8 forthase not likely to increase their earning potential to afford market-rate housing 6.4 Families memhers "fleady to Go"are identified and fast-tracked; provide Yrs 1 -3 Mainstream Aescumes supportive services, i.e., employment supports, sub abuse treatment Service Providers 6.5 Transition-age youth 116-241 including those exiting thefoster care, Yrs2-10 Mainstream Resources, juvenile justice systems, parenting and unaccompanied youth, are stably community agencies, housed and have access to services, i.e., education, employment, training, SOCDE homeless liaisons child care and/or healthcare 6.51 • Work with community resources to enroll youth in mainstream resources fi.6 Military/veteran families are stably housed and have access to services, Yrs 1 -10 VA Discharge, contract providers, i.e., education, employment, training, child care and/or healthcare child care agencies, Workforce Partnership, job training agencies, Mainstream Resources 6.fi1 • Work with military, VA to enroll families in mainstream resources 6.7 Faith community is engaged to sponsor and support families, including Yrs 1 -1D Faith community housing assistance 27 ~~ Increased Economic Security and Stability ~""' Prevention 0 UTC 0 M E 7. In almost all cases studied, the costs associated with providing housing and services for literally homeless Families are identified as at-risk families far exceeds the Fair Market Rent cost of an 0 o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0=_ k~ Cq F~ h \~ C~ O~ u h f h ~ E and assisted prior to losing housing The cost to rebuild family life after loss of home and the majority of household possessions is staggering. Natural. disasters such as wildfires, hurricanes, and Hoods make this painfully dear.This devastation is also experienced daily by the hundreds of people evicted fiom their homes because [hey cannot pay the rent. A recent study conducted for HUD'^ shows the high cost of homeless programs for individttak and families who primarily need permanent housing without supports or those whose service needs can be met by mainstream sys[ems.The study of families in four communities (Houston, Washington, DC, Kalamazoo, and Upstate South Carolina) demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of providing housing assistance support over homeless system supports. For the four communities, the average cost per family [o [he homeless services system ranges from $3,]84 in Kalamazoo, to $20,031 in Washington, D.C. 6600 6900 600 6000 &00 GOO 900 X00 f ~ww"'"M"N~wM e ti ~s ~~'.~ ft , r ~ ~ ,~ ,~' , apartment, even if the rent were fully subsidized. The Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Program (HPRP) is providing valuable lessons for the prevention and rapid rehousing of those at risk and experiencing homelessness. From October 2009 -March 2011 a total of 2,086 families received HPRP assistance.The average amount provided to each at risk (not yet homeless) family in San Diego County for rental and other financial assistance for that time period was $3,362; theaverage financial assistance provided to literally homeless families was $3,257 Homeless prevention and diversion are substantially more cost effective than emergency shelter or transitional housing, and have significantly better outcomes for families. The Keys to Housing stakeholders prioritized groups of families at risk of homelessness for targeted assistance: • Families receiving unlawful detainer and/or eviction. notices • Families losing their housing due foreclosure • TANF/CalWorks families These highest risk families, often identified through services provided by the San Diego Cotmty Office of Education school-based homeless liaisons, would receive legal assistance and landlord mediation services, referrals to resources, enrollment in workforce training programs, and emergency financial assistance.A coordinated strengths- based case management system utilizing the Navigator role would assist families to receive appropriate services to prevent homeless episodes. As low-income families will continue to be challenged by the risks of homelessness even afer the future economic recovery, prevention efforts will be needed ongoing for our most vtilnerable populations. "Spellman, B., Khatlduri, J., Sokol, B, & Leopold, J., Abt Associates, Inc., March 2070, Costs Associated With Frst-Tme Homelessness for Families & Individwls, xuw.hutluseaprg. 28 ~~ Prevention Action 7.1 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.2 7.21 7.22 7.23 7.24 7.25 7.26 7.21 7.2A 7.29 zz19 7.27 7 7.212 7.3 7.31 7.32 Families receiving unlawful detainer and/or eviction notices receive legal assistance and referral to homeless prevention resources • Improve outreach and linkage to eviction preventiop • Provide legal assistance at courthouse/small claims court to assist families • Engage SD Mediation Center, volunteer lawyers • Provide housing counseling assistance and education on landlord- tenantlaw • Work with HP families to assure they do not become homeless after aid ends • Educate commissioners and judges re resources and opportunities for referral • Develop/use emergency funds forfinancial assistance Families losing their housing due to foreclosure are identified and assisted • Educate new owners on obligations and responsihilities • Educate families on rights and legal options, required notifications • Assist with$fvr deposits and moving expenses • Encourage cities to require registration of foreclosed properties, notices of default • Encourage use of NSP $ • Outreach and educate landlords and provide letters of reference • Educate tenants about their rights • Outreach campaign to tenants to huild awareness of posted notices • Tenant education about rent when property is in default • Encourage posting of foreclosures in public spaces (Housing Authorities, Section 8 Offces, regional centers) • Utilize website or database to notice defaulted or vacated properties • Use social-networking resources in awareness campaign leg: blog; Craig's list TANF/CalWorks families are prevented from hecoming homeless • Assure high-risk families receive appropriate referrals to resources • Develop set aside funds to increase access to prevention services through mainstream resources r ~', to . toolbox Time Frame Yrs1-1g Yrs1-10 Yrs1-10 Proposed Partners Legal Aid Society, volunteer lawyers; Office of Puhlic Defender, Housing Dppartunities Collaborative, free legal clinics, law students Cities. County, PHAs, consumer advocacy agencies, SDHOC, property management companies PHAs, housing coordinators, Mainstream Resources 29 What we will measure to track our progress over time: • Annual SDCOE count of children/families identified by housing category • Households assisted with eviction prevention through Legal Aid Society for non-payment of rent • Housing status of targeted families as reported in RTFH database 7.4 7.47 7.42 7.43 7.44 7.5 7.5T 7.52 7.53 7.6 7.67 7.62 7.63 7.64 7.65 7.fifi Action Coordinate emergency funding to provide resources for housing and utilities, food, healthcare and other vital needs • Prioritize target populations based on vulnerability • Outreach through family's current service providers • Coordinate funding through central clearing house • Identify and assist with healthcare access and services for uninsured Develop eneeEive landlord/tenant collahoration, including education, mediation options, and waivers for rental applications, deposits and move-in fees • Work with landlords and jurisdictions/agencies to create opportunities for master leasing • Use existing landlord/tenant mediation processes to increase education • Provide guarantees for deposit waivers Coordinate housing and services by developing a strengths-based case management approach responsive to individuals/Families to prevent fragmentation of resources • Triage families seeking services for immediate needs and link with resources using common assessmenttools • Utilize Navigator case management model and more intensive case management as needed to serve at-risk families and prevent from homelessness; • Develop funding and strategies for case managementto support stabilization of newly housed /re-housed families • Assist to qualify at-risk for mainstream services including SSI, mental health services; • Dutreachtoat-risk communities; coordination with other regional resources • Develop volunteer mentor programs to support families Time Frame Yrs 1 - 70 Yrs1-3 Yrs1-10 Providers, Case managers 1,357 families were prevented from becoming homeless through short and medium-term financial assistance from October 2009 - to March 2011. Source: Regional Task Force on the Homeless, RPRP Reports 30 Proposed Partners HUD, RCCC providers, FEMA, hedRhdare partners, Mainstream Resources JurisdiRions, Providers Landlords/property owners/ property management companies, San Diego County Apartment Association ~' Prevention OUTCOME 8: Reduce the number of families in poverty that enter homelessness has been stated throughout this toolbox A ~ narrative, homeless families look very similar to other low-income families, and the combination of the high cost of housing, lack of sufficient inventory of adordable housing, and slow-income, service-based econotny creates challenges to adequa[c]y solving the proUlems of our region. By focusing on fatnilies living in poverty with the highest levels of vulnerability, efforts can potentially stem [he growing crisis.The most vulnerable categories of families identified through. the Keys to Housing planning process include: • Families with young children enrolled in Women, Infants, Children (WIC) nutrition programs Families identified by Child Welfare Services as at-risk of separation due to lack of stable housing • Families with children enrolled in school free and xednced-cost meal programs • Families already homeless seeking shelter and transitional housing • Victims of domestic violence and [heir children These strategies are aligned with those in Outcome 7: Families are identified as at-risk and assisted prior to losing housing, and Outcome 3: Coordination of resources. Clearly, we do not currently have in our region, nor do we anticipate generathrg sufficient resources to address the needs of all vtdnerable individuals and families. Coordination and targeting of limited resources to those most vulnerable are seen as the most productive shategies by the Steering Conunit[ee,cub-committees, and the Advisory Council. The Regional Continuum of Caxe Council, for the 2010- 2011 Supportive Housing Program application to HUD, set five-year and 10-year goals for program success. They include: San Diego Regional Activity ~ Continuum of Care 5-Year 10-Year Goal Gnal Households retained 80% 9D% in Permanent Housing Moved from Transitional to 65% 75% Permanent Housing Employed at 36°h 55% Fait from SHP H of Families 10D D on Street The Keys to Housing initiative is aligned with current conununity efforts to end all homelessness, and goals for this outcome are consistent with these established benchmarks and goals. 31 r ~~~ kegsmhousing ° I > i Reduce the number of families at poverty level that OU~CO(vlE enter homelessness `~ ' • • • • What we will measure to track our progress over time: • Annual Point in Time Count • Annual SD County Office of Education homelessness count by housing category as compared to children enrolled in free and reduced lunch programs • Families with housing burden equal to or greater than 50% Action ~"" Prevention 8.1 8.11 8.12 8.13 g.2 8.21 a3 8.31 6.32 g.4 6.41 8.42 6.43 6.44 6.45 8.46 6.47 8.5 6.51 8.52 8.53 At-risk families with young children are identified at enrollment in services • Support education of staff on available resources • Provide referral info at WIC locations • Assist to enroll in mainstream resources Families identified by Child Welfare as appropriate receive reunification housing vouchers • AdvocatefortargetedvouchersinFamilyReunificationVaucher program Families identified far homeless liaison services through enrollment in school tree or reduced lunch ate assisted • School homeless liaisons provide info to families served • Work with Legal Aid to assure access to public benefts and assistance with other legal issues Families seeking shelter end transitional housing are assisted at "front door" and diverted to more permanent housing • Triage families using common assessment tools • Develop service navigators throughout the region • Families assessed through 211 are connected with appropriate regional housing center or agencies • Families receive most stable housing available • Motet vouchers are used for short term placements • Families are kept together • Educate community(providers,families, advocates about HEARTH Act Address specific needs of victims of domestic violence • Assisttosecure available resources • Provide safe and conftlential housing to facilitate transition and move toself-sufficiency - • Early identification of families at risk for domestic violence Time Frame Yrs 1 - 2 Yrs 1 - 5 Yrs1-10 Yrst-10 Yrs1-10 Proposed Partners WIC agencies, pediatricians, community clinics Family Reunification Program School homeless liaisons 211, RCCC providers, shelters, transitional housing, HDC DV agencies, 211, RCCC providers, law enforcement, faith congregations 32 The Most Vulnerable Homeless Students Living in Shelters or Unsheltered ~.,~. San Diego Unlfietl: Homeless SNtlents --""~~- In Snel[ero eintl Unshelteretl Ey 21P <dtle !~ i iYOmok 1L, ~ Unian "~~~ ENmemary kmenb ~~ .nb .au f.^ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _: ~ i~ J +ry BXniall Unlm Mer YdNy Ca €,~ u... ENmeMa M PaVna UNM ~\ irof~~ an ~ exxrtr / ~ V I~ ~ . m Oce de-~ , ~ ~~. . f. ~ 0....4 _ w~:.d. ~, ~"! ~nlWxl~ ~'- EUNand ~~.yr 3it '~ ~ m[~ a ~w '~ . UNnetl UnXled P f4u_ ~r~f. ~Fm. une~`~ ENmemaT 1.,. Cyr `. ''hn V o...~ a C.ggq-~---~~~ I CaNtll a~ la Fe Parry t _ R mom E EIIm~XaH ElemeroaH) UXAed Ir CA~'UnYled } .~ . \,,.. wf.~ay. ' Yr ~ EMmelnery~~ 1. a era~i I ~f ~ aUnlen Homeless SVd~~11m'T~ ~.r'~`~o~kfrujn ~ P~.e _. I))) t-- s ~, P Elemenbry tlnfied~~rtElementdry 5 K ~d ~ r Sehogtbfstr~et - ®` iyme,n,~ /' ~ eow~ IN SHEFSERS~"AND. .,"zv- ~ .(~ ~"'~h~%"'i~`.c .::- UNSpE~LTERED ~~ ~: "` /~ ~ ""u°."""` I 7aW y T.r \Mw^dIN1"'a8 I ~.r OaM1na I Nanlam Empln Lalen VallsV~EMmemW 1 ~~ UMlbd U9in ILJ tai i, +~ ~S LemoyOrm ~~ -~.l ~ t ~ • 3 •,, AmuLOXlaure x° x1r?~'> "i Nano ~ unlen ElememW XpYNaeT slaps CWNYOXw ~-~ aedXdmnmekmwNma ~~ yXMnN W11YfNwMeab T. A ~.'be~ pem.~dan ~~' ( ~^~_•^ '.~ `~ N IJJ - ~xaw z-Y.d1' , '` mot' ~ awls eey O e~-F~ieX~dn ~'XeYrncebureao ~ .+ 'Unlan9mFn _ _ ~-~-~"~'\-~~r=-.. ~aira~:.,..: r ~~' 33 Conclusion he tools identified in this Keys to Housing toolbox can be used in concert with other activities employed by cities in our region, [he County o£San Diego, area nonprofit agencies, [lre business cotnmunity and philanthropy to effectively end family homelessness in San Diego County by 2020.A regional vision for ending family homelessness has been confirmed and documented through the planning process leading up to the publication o£this toolbox. The next steps are clear: 1 ~ formalize a structure to assure the sustainahility ofthe effort and accountahility of partners; 2. Gain the acceptance and adoption of specific tools from the toolbox by a broad spectrum of stakeholders and partners throughout the region; 3, Identify policies for regionalization; 4,~ Begin using the tools and measure results annually; and 5. Communicate regularly among partners and to the community, to identity best practices and recommend changes. The full toolbox, with links to best practices, research and tools for action, can be found at www.keyStohouSirlg.Otg. The website provides strategies for government, community agencies, businesses, and individuals ready to take action to end family homelessness by 2020. Included on the website will be tools chosen by community partners, the annual report cards of progress towards the eight adopted outcomes, and opportunities for community engagement for advocacy. As a toolbox, new tools will continually be identified and added. Please send comments, suggestions and success stories to info@keystohousing.org. 34 Resources General Sites HUD Homeless Resource Exchange vvww.HUDHRE.info Interagency Council On Homelessness www.ICH.org National Center on Family Homelessness vvww.familyhomelessness.org National Coalition for the Homeless www.nationalhomeless.org Key 1: Advocacy, Leadership, Policy Center for Policy Initiatives v~nnrw.CPl.org HomeBase vvww.homebasecc c.org Housing California vvww.housingca.org National Alliance to End Homelessness www.endhomelessness.org HUD Reducing Barriers in Our Community www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/wnioc.pdf Key 2: Data, Coordination, Services 2-1-1 Referral Resource www.211SanDiego.org Homeless Management of Information vvww.HMlS.info Supportive Housing: Regional Continuum of Care Council vdww.sdcounty.ca.gov/sdhcd/homeless/supportive_ housing_program.html Regional Task Force on the Homeless www.RTFHSD.org Also see: Agency & Jurisdiction Sites Key 3: Affordable Housing Corporation for Supportive Housing vwwv.csh.org Fair Housing Council of San Diego www.fhcsd.com Housing Departments www.sdcounty.ca.gov wwwsdhc.org Key 4: Economic Security and Stability California Department of Fair Employment & Housing www.dteh.ca.gov Department of Labor, Women's Bureau vvww.dol.g ov/W B National Association farthe Education of Homeless Children and Youth vwuw.naehcy.org National Law Center on Children. Poverty & Homelessness wv~nnr. n l c h p. o rg/ h a p i a. c fm Key 5: Prevention Housing Opportunities Collaborative hocnetworksquarespace.com National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty www.nlchp.org National Coalition for Homeless Veterans www.nchv.org National Healthcare forthe Homeless Council vvww.nhchc.org/council.html National Alliance on Mental Illness www.nami.org Substance Abuse, Mental Health Center vvww.homeless.samhsa.gov 35 Acknowledgements he Keys to Housing: Ending Family Homelessness initiative owes its origins to the commitment and dedication of the San Diego Gran[makets Homelessness Working Group.Their focus on the increasing number of families homeless for the first time as pazt of their work on all homelessness issues shone a light throughout the community that has ignited many other efforts. Special appreciation for her perseverance, time, energy and passion to Mary Herron, tmstee,The Parker Foundation, chair, Homelessness Working Group, and board member, San Diego Grantmakers. Under her leadership, all things were possible. Her past experience as 8-year mayor of the City of Coronado brought the initiative to the attention of SANDAG from its Regional Housing Working Group to its Executive Committee.And her contacts with elected leaders, including with chair Todd Gloria, brought many to the table that did not have family homelessness on their priority list previously. Kudos also to Homelessness Working Group members Karen Brailean and Tim McCarthy for their extraordinary contributions. Keys to Housing gained momentum and political wffi thanks to the tireless efforts of Advisory Council Chair Todd Gloria, San Diego City Councihnember District 3. His exhaustive understanding of the issues facing low- income families, compassion for those most vulnerable, and astute ability to engage his fellow elected leadership brought approval of this toolbox to fruition at breakneck speed. Great appreciation to his entire staff for these efforts, particularly Policy Director Stephen Hill. San Diego County has faced the issues of homelessness for decades, and the group most focused throughout the yeazs has been the Regional Continuum of Cate Council. This dedicated, volunteer group of convnvnity advocates and nonprofit providers has been moving the boulder up the hill for many years. It has been a privilege to illuminate their fine efforts, pazticularly those focused on the less- seen families at risk of homelessness.The Keys to Hoeising 36 tools incorporates many of the strategies identified in the RCCC's Blueprint documents created in 2004/05. Special appreciation for the enormous time, teaching and wisdom pazticularly by Patricia Leslie, RCCC facilitator; Dolores Diaz, San Diego County Housing & Community . Development; and Cissy Fisher, San Diego Housing Conunission. The Keys to Housing initiative has been. privileged to have the expertise of more than 45 members of the Planning Group [ha[ formed a Steering Committee and five subcommittees. Their work over the past year has been exhaustive and inspirational. While there is not room to call out each member's contributions, their inclusion in the listing in the front bf this toolbox document is testament to their integral involvement. Additionally, the initiative is indebted to those elected leaders from throughout our region who came together ofren and consistently as members of the Advisory Council over the past year, shared ideas, engaged in thoughtful debate, and approved this toolbox for adoption regionally Special acknowledgement to the staff of the many nonprofit organizations and public agencies that contributed to the development of the Keys toolbox. Finally, colleagues across the country have informed, inspired and improved the work of the Keys to Housing initiative. Foremost they include Nan Roman, National Alliance to End Homelessness; Bob Hohler, Melville Charitable Trust and FundetsTogether; David Wertheimer, Bill & Melinda Gales Foundation; Bill Pitkin, Conrad Hilton Foundation; Katherine Gale, Focus Strategies; and Bridget DeJong and Stacey Murphy, HomeBase. It was a great privilege and honor to have Barbara Mandel serve as scribe and editor for the ideas, strategies and goals of this illustrious effort, which will result in a healthier comnuutity for all San Dieg~ns. Snn Diego Grarttmakers Homeless Working Group Solutions 4 Change At 18 Dawn joined the army and spentihe next decade serving her country anyway she could. With a good jab, decent savings and a daughterwho was her 6estfriend, Dawn felt pretty goad about her life. Then, she was called into another kind of service. "When my mother had a stroke, we moved in with her in Texas. My entire life became about caring for her-that's just whatycu do in Asian families," Dawn said. "My savings were gone so quickly, paying all those medical bills," Dawn shakes her head rememhering.lt soon became clearthat Dawn's mother wouldn't 6e ahle to stay in her home, and they would need to sell the house to payfor board and care. Dawn and her daughter would be homeless. When a friend in California invited them outtothe west coast, Dawn didn't see another option. "Itfelt like the end of the world. Three days with motion sickness an a Greyhound bus," Dawn reflects. Shortly after arriving in San Diego, Dawn found Solutions 4 Change. Solutions gave them a home while Dawn recovered emoticnallyfrom all they'd been through and got herfeet back on the ground. Naw, a year later, Dawn seems optimistic about the future. With a jab as a security guard she is nurturing another savings account and is looking forward to saving enough to buy a carfor herself and her daughter. Amber, now t6, has adapted well to life in California. Dawn laughs as she recounts the firsttime Amber sawthe Pacific Ocean, "It's infinity!" she shouted. With the security of a stahle home, Amber has completed her GEO and is already working on even bigger goals. She has enrolled in the Art Institute with plans for a career creating video games. Oawn laves their peaceful life. "I just can't believe there's a program like this outthere to help people. It's a community there. They're just like family." keys~housin Ending Family Homelessness by 2020 c% San Diego Grantmakers 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92122 858.875.3333 ww~¢keystohousing. org info@keystohousing. org aY h ~~ + xy* f k 2~ .~ ~gax t ~ !rl ar # R2 F~+f is c~, .~r s`!Y F. ~ -.{ :fit . ,. ~ ~ .+ sq ~~, f ~ e -e~ r Nm^ s.` ~,, ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' MS xi._ .4 ~ y .. ~I~~,. ^~9A!~9 .; -.ro?/kygm;...... .. h~~j T Y ^V k ~ r ~~ ,~ u A p.: ~~ ~, l : _ c '~} ti„ q aye i v s ai'~~..~-_~.: .,... ~ _ _ ..m.. vnw'x~ .h . a :b "I felt there was to live ire a °~. ~~~ world where no one ." i. •in r, ~,, , ~ { ~_,. -' a iego,~Ashley tried her best to fit in with her uncle's family. She helped ... ;.. _~~ .t ousehold chores, she received excellent grades and, yet, her uncle's v . u~ n; sue;. .. ~` ".~~t amdy'was unable to give'her the love that every young person needs to success- . 'mss ~.^ ,,,mss- I~,r'~ . fully move into-adulth d' n a~famdy rs5ue became a crisis, her uncle kicked -.~"~ ~~ . 9.i"e_ .,~.. - e r ~'. • • " " Ashley,~duf ~ ceagain she found herself homeless Despite ..:~. , , - !, the sll ermined to get back into high school and to receive M ' _ • • c;F'= ~ ,~ -~,..~ o ip Dina. Ashley mstirictnrel ne at education was the best ~;, ~ ~, ,~ m roved "eand~to. cur - after uture'~ ice'.,`" ' .~yrtw ' + , '~. ' E" r • • • endows ` etermmat~on. llllitiidut a street address, - tn- . - .~ ' i ng ~ u wit e;~ayµs~sistance of a two-year transi- ' ~,Y, m~'+ +F4rc ~ -' FY r ' ~ -e syma I, ceepte into hschool as a senior. ,~# ~. ~ ~"S "~M ~°.: ~., ~~1 may' .f • - ` srn parogram provided her witfi~badgeting and life se an alone finally caving my"earrof emotional - er o er fiigh scfiool,graduation ceremonycame as a :. a era - er pride m achse,~rmg a goal dampened by,having no ~- liar 'the oment or to wish her"congratulations 4 ,; ~~.., "~` a.. a . ~~,~• -• • - ~> • ~ r duat'r`on shley s depression deepened and she tned;to take her own life. «~r - o~c ~ s Dunng a weekof observation m the hospital, Ashley learnedahbout a new pro- d- a, r a ; ~ gram from her there ' t.Shat could help her with her depression and give her the t' ~ ~ L~ ~' _ ~ - n of one du 'and nu nng~that 5 ~h~ad never hated The; program was called ~; i I G to c 'd' a i „31me m her young life Ashleyfelt there were people who s ~ ely~cared~ o ifier and wanted to see her succeed~_. '` w kar "a t"^^:4 ~~~ hj~`-~ Shn ~ ~ a rt gY~,xw ~ Representatives with the Catalyst Program checked on her, asked how she was x ~ "-'~ 'i^hPt~'~" ;, ~ doing, met with her, supported her emotionally and helped her confront her a ~ ~ rys" ~~~",~ `_ ~} .mental health issues of depression. Slowly and surely, the walls that Ashley had built up around her began to come down. The good people~of Catalys£also helped :? ~ - I ~' ` ~ ~liefand an a~rSrtment here she now pays rent. Ashley now feels safe and her ~~~,,.,~~ piry 1 i a ~ ~ "I think euetion is the number-one key to a suc~;essful life." The Musician: 51ST STREET APARTMENTS ~ DEVELOPED BY TOWNSPEOPLE "My d~e~c~P~t~r is the I i I~~ of my I ife:' Ken Nelson comes from a large family and grew up in between Los Angeles and Oregon in the 1970s. Surrounded by a culture of bikers and drugs, he had little or no positive influence or support during his formative years. He grew up thinking and feeling that the chaotic and unpredictable world that surrounded him was "normal." As a young adult, Ken began battling both addiction and mental illness. In his twenties, Ken left Los Angeles in search of a new start with his girlfriend. Together they had a little girl, but Ken was unable to obtain the help he needed to recover from his mental illness or deal with his addiction. He lost custody of his daughter when she was just a small child. Ken then spent seven years liv- ing on and off the streets in San Diego, longing to create a stable home for his daughter's sake but never able to find a way to leave the streets behind. Ken finally received rehabilitation services through the court system's non-profit CRASH (Community Resources and Self Help) program. He found temporary shelter at Joshua House, a nationally recognized drug rehabilitation and alcohol- ism treatment center; and in 2007, Townspeople welcomed Ken into the 51st Street Apartments. - He has thrived within a safe, affordable environment where he receives the sup- . port and services he needs -including access to affordable medical care for his ' chronic illnesses. Soon after moving in, Ken successfully reached his long-term goal of stable employment; he is currently the property manager at the apart- ment complex. And, he recently reunited with his daughter, at last. "Townspeople has allowed me to live again:' ENCE 1 SENIOR COMMUNITY CENTERS "I had a couple of ~~e~~~t ~ . . ~~, and I coE~~~~~ E ..~ ~~€~ ~~ :' '~ I Althoughhis merchant marine father was often absent, Joe spent his early child- hood years in a fairly stable home in Brooklyn with his mother, sister, and brother. Later, his mother's drinking problem interfered with maintaining a healthy home environment. There was seldom enough money left from his father's monthly ' stipend to pay the rent. Joe became accustomed to a familiar living pattern -his mother would find a place, pay a month's rent, miss the next couple of payments, J get thrown out on the street, and then look for a new apartment. Joe remembers this pattern being a way of life from about the age of five until he enlisted in the service. At the young age of 17, Joe enlisted in the U.S..Navy and came to San Diego for ;;: , _ ... basic training. He was deployed to Sisimiut, Greenland, to help with the installation i ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ of distant early warning li esrym radar stations. After his service in. Greenland, Joe - ~ i PS .d returned o San Diego. His~;easyway with people and his delight in engaging people a in co os e = i o`tafCe ~Y~p"story telling as a hobby and eventually a liveli- hood rt aner a set up4shopxon a sidewalk inSeaport Village and ~1~ . ;was sin ettng good t p `a'nd oewsional jobs at private parties as a raconteur, ' "magician, and juggles .- , M.7'i njn "! a "`'~ ~ ,Joe reveled inhis persona as a street entertainer but his life on the street was ' ~:~~.. increasingly hard. After suffering two heart attacks, busking on the streets as a .rti .,. ..: a storyteller became just too difficult. A friend told him about Potiker, a supportive housing projeM, and linked him with Cesar, a coordinator there. Cesar understood how important a stable home would be to Joe, and found an apartment for him. -~ ~ Cesar also helped Joe set up a checking account to assist him with paying rent ' ~ ~ ~ and other bills. b - + ks; ... -. ,. ,~ , t... ,... ,m. '~ t r x , 'Life at Potiker has given Joe access to other social services and occasional appoint- . ~ ~. ,: , ~' men{a with a nurse. Joe enjoys the community he has found and faithfully pays his k~~~^ Fa i Y~ ` Ln I n~ 1 ~~ , rJ :.:. .. .. "I couldn't make ends meet. was just hurting too bad:' ~- Hi' ana ~ ~y capital "+ .. tly pro=,~~~ sand' x~' utrve, tn;~., well- a=k*'- sm ~' ~`" ~:~ S~p~ortive }~o~sin~: __ _ ~~r ppp~ppp~: ~~F.: V :M •-..: ±* Featured Community ~ Housing Community ~~~ f -. _~ hula Vista Imperial More than justa to live. ~~ CS THE CSH SUPPORTIVE HOUSI[~1G SURVEY For 20 years, CSH has led the national supportive housing industry. We're transforming how communities address homelessness and improve lives by making it easier to create and operate high-quality, cost-effective supportive housing. Together with our partners across the country, we've built an industry that is strong and thriving. As the industry leader, CSH oversees the annual State of the Industry Survey to take the pulse of the supportive housing field and enhance our understanding of the challenges, opportunities, trends and issues that we all face. KEY FINDINGS 'The results of this survey present a picture of an industry slightly hampered by financial constraints, but undeterred and unshaken in its belief that supportive housing is an unparalleled and cost-effective solution ro homelessness and a tool for solving other tough social problems. Findings from the survey include: • Industry members aspire to achieve scaled public investment and integrated systems change for financing and creating supportive housing. However, survey respondents report decreased funding availability and political will due to budget crises at the state and local level. • The industry continues to demonstrate ingenuity and innovation, developing new ways to finance and create supportive housing, and extending supportive housing's reach to underserved segments of the homelessness crisis. Among respondents, 80% feel that the industry should expand its reach to include vulnerable populations that have not been the main focus for supportive housing in the past. • While mainstream resources like TANF, Substance Abuse Treatment Block Grants and Medicaid remain underused as sources of funding for supportive housing, more and more industry members are seeking ways to tap these resources. "This year's survey responses also indicate the growing role and participation of public housing authorities (PHAs) in supportive housing creation. • States and localities note some capacity limitations around increasing employment opportunities for homeless and formerly homeless persons. Additional limitations include pursuing solutions for young adults aging-out of foster care and for frequent users of hospitals and the criminal justice system-both identified as important populations by Opening Doors, the federal strategic plan to end homelessness. • Survey responses indicare that much work is needed to increase state and local alignment with the saategies identified in Opening Doors. In particular, state and local efforts to end homelessness seem to be making less progress among veterans and families. ABOUT THE SURVEY In March 2011, we asked individuals who are part of the supportive housing industry to complete this survey, and the response was tremendous. We received more responses than in 2010, with a total of 577 people responding to the survey (390 people completed the entire survey). In general, the composition of the respondents was similar, with the exception of having a more diverse sector representation-which may reflect the fact that supportive housing is expanding to serve people in systems such as criminal justice and child welfare. To get a sense of how, if at all, industry dynamics have changed from last year, we asked many of the same basic questions regarding the outlook of the industry, trends in practice and priorities, funding availability and political will. In light ofthe adoption of the federal strategic plan to end homelessness, Opening Doors, we also included questions about how community efforts are aligned with Federal strategies and about communities' readiness to pursue these strategies. ABOUT THE RESPONDENTS Among respondents, 77% are from nonprofit agencies; 20% represent local, state or federal government agencies; and 3% are from public housing authorities. A large number of sectors are represented in the survey, but most prominent are housing and community development, mental health, substance abuse and other social services. Respondents also represent organizations involved in criminal justice, veteran services, workforce development and youth services. THE FUTURE OF SUPPORTIVE HOUSING Although the nation is seeing signs of recovery, the economic and financial crisis continues to take a toll on the supportive housing industry. State and local budget deficits mean fewer resources for new supportive housing creation and in some places, eroding political support. Despite these obvious setbacks, industry members continue to be optimistic about the prospects for supportive housing, and its value as a proven solution to homelessness. Respondents remain undeterred in their desire and commitment, advocating for greater investment and coordination of public resources to create supportive housing. • Supportive housing continues to have a bright future, even though the current economy and budget climate has industry members feeling more cautious Than last year. In order to remain viable and thrive, the industry must continue to create integrated financing systems and advocate for additional resources for supportive housing. Close to two-thirds (63%) of industry members feel "hopeful" or "somewhat hopeful" about the future of supportive housing, down from 68% in last year's survey. Despite this finding, respondents feel strongly that the industry should continue to move forward on creating the systems and resources necessary to expand supportive housing's reach. An overwhelming majority (95%) of respondents agree or strongly agree that the future success of the industry depends on creating coordinated systems for financing and funding supportive housing. A similaz proportion of respondents feel that increasing federal, state and local sources For supportive housing is extremely important to industry viability. The decrease in resources for supportive housing has not come with a narrowing of Eocus or a decline of faith in supportive housing's impact. In fact, 80% agree or strongly agree that the industry should expand its reach to include vulnerable populations not traditionally served by supportive housing. • Because of the budget crises that many states and local jurisdicxions face, industry members report decreased political support for supportive housing and anticipate more erosion moving forward. One-third of the respondents think that political support for supportive housing has decreased, compared to only 1 ~% that think it has increased. Close to half of the respondents (46%) expect political will to continue to erode, compared to only 14% that expect it co increase. These findings underscore the need to highlight supportive housing's cost-effectiveness as a solution to lonb term homelessness and frame it as a means of controlling, not increasing, government spending. Among elected officials, respondents report the most political support at the local level, with 69% of the respondents reporting a high or medium level of support. Among government agencies, respondents report the highest level of commitment among housing and community development agencies, and mental health agencies. Interestingly, support among public housing authorities (PHAs) increased (from 61% reporting high or medium support in the 2010 survey compared to 69% in 2011), suggesting a trend towards increased pazticipation by PHAs in the creation of supportive housing. FUNDING AVAILABILITY "Ihe supportive housing industry relies on many different sources for the capital, operating and services funding necessary to develop new projects. During this period of fiscal austerity, CSH will continue to promote supportive housing as aboth acost-effective and humane solution for serving individuals and families with long histories of homelessness and complex needs. Moreover, despite growing policy interest in using mainstream resources like TANF and Medicaid to finance services in supportive housing, at present these sources remain underutilized by the industry. • Given the current budget climate, funding tot supportive housing on average is less available, especially for acquisition and construction financing. As shown in Table 1, respondents report funding being either less available or equally available as compared to the previous year. This is especially true for acquisition and construction funding, where over 40% of respondents report that these funding sources are less available, likely reflecting the continued contraction of financial and capital markets. Very few respondents (less than 7% for each type of funding) think that funding is more available now. TABLE FUNDING AVAILABILITY AS More Less Equally Nor Don't COMPARED W1TH PREVIOUS YEAR Available Available Available Available ....................... Know ............... .................................................................................................................. Predevelopment financing ......................... 5.4% ........................ 33.9% ..... ......................... 22.8% ......................... . 1 1 6% ........................ 26.2% ............... ............................................................................................. ..................... Acquisition financing ......................... 4.0% ................... 40.1 % ......... 21.4% ......................... 8.5% ........................ o ............... ................................................................................................................. Construction financing ......................... 6.9% ............... 42.7% 17.6% 8.4% 24.3% .................................................................................................................. Permanent financing ............ 5.0% 35.0% 22.5% ........... 9.5% ........................ 28.0% ............... ................................................................................................................... Operating funding/rental assistance ....................... 4.3% ........................ 35.4% ................ . . .............. 3Z2% ......................... 7.8% ........................ 15.3% ............... ................................................................................................................... Supportive services funding ......................... 4.0% .. . ... 37.3% 34.8% 12.8% 1 1.3% • Supportive housing continues to use many different funding sources, underscoring the importance of encouraging the systems change. necessary to integrate funding streams. Respondents were asked about funding sources used for supportive housing in their communities. As shown in Table 2, there has been little change in sources used most often for development, operation and services funding. Equity from low-income housing tax credits continues to be the most widely used source to finance development, followed by federal sources (HOME and CDBG), and state and local sources. In funding operating and services costs, federal sources continue to play a huge role with Section 8, Shelter Plus Care and Continuum of Care as the biggest funding sources. However, over half of respondents report that state mental health funding also largely contributes as well. Mainstream funding sources such as Medicaid and TANF cominue to be under used with only 32°/o and 16% of respondents, respectively, reporting that they are using them. Clearly, much polity advocacy and capacity-building is needed to help communities tap mainstream resources for supportive housing. TARlE 2. FUNDING SOURCES FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING a i° Low-income housing tax credits ............................................................................... State housing trust funds ............................................................................... Local/county housing trust funds ......................... HOME, CDBG .................................................... HOPWA .................................................... Ciy/count' tax levy capital .................................................... Bond financing programs .................................................... Section 811 Section 8 Shelter Plus Care Other Continuum of Care ........................................................................... State/local Rental Assistance Programs ........................................................................... HOPWA .......................................................................... Section 811 HUD VASH ~~i Ma Continuum of Care funding State/local Mental Health funding (from general fundl ...................................................................................................................... State/local Substance Abuse funding (from general fund) ...................................................................................................................... Federal grant programs (i.e. SAMHSA, Ryan White, HOPWAI ............ Medicaid .................. TANF Y of respondents that are using funding sources for supportive housing zolo 12011 7s s% 7a s% ................................................ 52.7% ........ ..................................................... 40.6% ................................................ 36.7% ....... ...................................................... 29.4% ................................................ 70.0% ....... ...................................................... 67.4% ................................................ 25.3% ....... ...................................................... 26.2% ................................................ 17.3% ....... ...................................................... 12.9% ................................................. 26.2% ....... ...................................................... 20.6% 32.9% 31.5% 65.9% 68.1 ................................................. 69.8% ....... ...................................................... 61.6% ................................................. 46.0% ....... ...................................................... 39.5% ................................................ 51.2% ........ ...................................................... 50.1% ................................................ 20.6% ........ ...................................................... 20.7°/ ................................................ 22.6% ........ ...................................................... 23.2% .......................:......................... *not asked in 2010 ........ ...................................................... 48.2% 67.9% 61.9% ................................................ 56.4% ........ ...................................................... 54.1% ................................................ 27.4% ........ ...................................................... 23.8% ............................................... 42.7% ........ ....................................................... 45.3% : ............................................... 33.3% ........ ........... ........................................... 32.2% ............................................... 14.5% ........ ....................................................... 16.3% INNOVATIONS IN SUPPORTIVE HOUSING Continually improving the supportive housing model, creating new development and financing mechanisms, and adapting to new populations keep the industry thriving. Respondents were asked to provide information about the innovation efforts they are currently pursuing or hoping to pursue. Similaz to 2010, respondents this yeaz report being very involved in the innovations necessary to coordinate and increase funding for supportive housing, and to adapt the model for new populations. There continues to be significant innovation taking place among industry members. The top focus is on implementing housing-firsdharm reduction models (50%); followed by integrated housing (46%), housing for veterans (31 %) and housing for frequent users of crisis services (31%). Respondents also report their engagement in efforts to extend supportive services to public housing residents. Interestingly, a fair number of respondents report that they are actively planning to leverage mainstream funding sources such as Medicaid (17%) and Substance Abuse Treatment Block Grants (6%). Leveraging Medicaid and integrating supportive housing with Federally Qualified Health Centers also top the list of innovations chat respondents plan to implemen[ in the future. Notably, while only 4% of respondents report implementing supportive housing for American Indian communities, 16% plan to in the future. • Because supportive housing is being increasingly targeted to new populations, reseazch and evaluation will help the industry determine what models of housing and service delivery work best for whom. Respondents were asked where the industry needs more information or research on the impact and effectiveness of supportive housing. Not surprisingly, 70% of the respondents consider understanding more about what housing models work best for whom to be important. Many feel that having more information about the effectiveness around specific populations is critical, including Families (65%), youth (53%) and veterans (46%). Other areas of research that are important to respondents include quantifying the unmet need for supportive housing at the state/local level (63%), and better understanding the impact of supportive housing on health outcomes, hospitalizations and Medicaid expenditures (62%), and on incarceration and recidivism (63%). CSH currently has a number of research projects evaluating the impact of supportive housing on homeless families in the child welfare sysrem, people involved in the criminal justice system, and other vulnerable groups that will help the industry answer many of these questions. TAS LE 3. which, iF any, of these Which, if any, of these INNOVATIONS I N innovations are you actively innovations do you plan SUPPORTIVE HOUSING implementing? to implement? ........................... . .. .......................................................................................................................... Coordinated interagency financing and production for .............................................................. 30.6% . . ............... 35.1 supportive housing ...................................... ................................................ .......................................................................................................................... Models of integrated supportive/affordable housing ....................... 46.4% 27.2% ......................................................................................................................... Leveraging Medicaid for supportive housing .................................:............................ 1 7.0% ............................... . ................................................ 38.5% ............................................... ......................................................................................................................... Integration of community health clinics (FQHCs) and ............................. . 1 7.4% 36.4% supportive housing ...................................... ............................................... ........................................................................................................................ Required set-asides of supportive, special needs or homeless, ........................ 20.2% 28.1 housing in Tax Credit Qualified Allocation Plans ............................ . ... ............................................... .......................................................................................................................... Use of Vulnerabiliy Index or other tools to prioritize homeless ... . .......................... 25.5% 28.1% individuals for supportive housing Supportive housing or services models for high users of crisis 30.6% 27.4% health services ............................................ .......................................................................................................................... Supportive housing or services models for frail elderly .............................................................. 15.7% ... 23.4% Housing first, harm reduction and low-demand models of 49.8% 20.0% supportive housing ....................................................... .. .............................................. .......................................................................................................................... Reentry supportive housing for people leaving or diverted .... . 24.3% 26.2% from prisons/jails ......................................... .............................................. .......................................................................................................................... Veterans supportive housing (including VASH) ..................... 31.1 % ................................. 23.2% .............................................. ....... .. .. .............................................................................:............ Supportive housing models for child-welfare involved families ............................. 14.9% - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 23.6% ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~Repurposing~~substance abuse treatment block grants far ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~6.2% 26 ~2% services in supportive housing American Indian/Native American supportive housing 4.3% ....... : 16.0% .............................................. .......................................................................................................................... Critical Time Intervention ....................... ............................... 9.6% 20.9% .............................................. .......................................................................................................................... Intensive case management/wrap-around services for ............................................................. 22.6% . 21.5% vulnerable public housing residents TARGET POPULATION AND SERVICE NEEDS The supportive housing model continues to expand to new vulnerable populations that are homeless or at risk of homelessness, including people involved in the criminal justice system and families involved in the child welfare system. The survey asked respondents about the populations that they are currently targeting. • Most supportive housing targets chronically homeless individuals and people with serious mental illness. As Table 4 illustrates, 69% of respondents report targeting people with serious mental illness and 68% target chronically homeless single adults. Other key target populations include people with substance abuse issues (57%), general homeless single adults (52%) and low-income households (51%). Families are a tazget group for a significant proportion of the respondents, including chronically homeless families (37%), general homeless families (43%) and child welfare involved families (15%). "These priorities have changed very little fcom last year. TABLE 4 . % of respondents who report that KEY TARGET POPULATIONS FOR SUPPORTIVE populafionwasapriorilyfartheir I-I O U S I N G current work .............................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................... Chronically homeless singles ................................ ..... ..... ..... 67.7% ................................................................................... ......................................................................................... Chronically homeless families ............................... ..... 37.2% ............................... ................................................................................................................ General homeless singles _ ....... : ..... 52.3% ................................................................................... ..................................................... .............................................................. .. General homeless families 42.6/ ................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................. Poor/low-income households ..... .... .... 50.8 ................................................................................... Persons with mental illness . 69.2 ..................................................................................... ......... ...................................................................................................................... Persons with addiction and substance use issues .. ... . .. 56.8% .... ....................................................................... ........ ............................................................................................................................................ Persons living with HIV/AIDS . .. 26.6% Child welfare involved families . . . . 15.3% . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Young adults/youth aging out of foster care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.8% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Formerly incarcerated/criminal justice-involved/reentry ........................................ ..... 30,9% .... ....................................................................... ......... ...................................................................................................... Veterans 35.3 .................................................................................. . ........................................................................................................................................... American Indians ...... . . 5.8/ .... ....................................................................... ......... ......................................................................................................................................... Seniors/elderly ..... 23.4% • Affordable housing remains the most urgent need for these tazget populations, followed by case management and employment services. Respondents were asked to identify the most pressing unmet needs for the people with whom they work. As in 2010, they overwhelmingly identify affordable housing as the number one priority. Among respondents, 86% identify affordable housing as a significant unmet need. Interestingly, the second-most identified unmet need is employment support and job training (58%). Housing-based services and case management followed (50%), along with mental health and psychiatric services (47%) and access to benefits and income supports (42%). PROVIDER CAPACITY AND QUALITY IN SUPPORTIVE HOUSING A thriving supportive housing industry relies on providers' capacity to delivery ahigh-quality produce "Ihe survey asked respondents questions about the quality of supportive housing in their communities and their organisations' capacity to deliver high-quality supportive housing. • On the whole, industry members report having supportive housing in their communities that met the quality standazds according to the CSH Seven Dimensions of Quality. Respondents were asked about the quality of the supportive housing in their communities, according to the CSH Seven Dimensions of Quality (shown in Table 5). In general, industry members feel that their community provided acceptable-quality supportive housing along most of the Dimensions, particularly the administration and management of projects, the physical environment provided to tenants, and the design and delivery of on-site supportive services. Rating slightly lower are access to housing and services; tenant rights, input and leadership; and data and evaluation. Of these, access to housing and services received the greatest number of "low quality" ratings, suggesting the need for greater adoption of housing-first practices that give people access to housing without requiring sobriety or participation in treatment or ocher services. TABLE 5. THE QUALITY OF SUPPORTIVE HOUSING BASED ON THE CSH SEVEN DIMENSIONS OF QUALITY High Quality Accepfa6leQuolity Low Quality Don't Know ....................... ................................................................................................. Administration and management ............................... 20.9% ........................................... 54.9% ....... : ............................ 1 2. 1 % ............................ . 1 2. 1 ........................ ............................................................................................... Physical environment ............................... 25.8% ... ................................ 49.9% 15.9% 8 5% Access to housing and services 9.6% 49.6% 32.1 % 8.8% Supportive services design and delivery 21.4% 50.4% ...................... . 17.3% ............................ 1 1 .0% ........................ ................................................................................................. Property and asset management ............................. 14.0% ................... . 47.9% 18.4% 19.7% Tenant rights, input and leadership 12.6% 49.5% . ...... 20.3% ............................ 17.6% ........................ .................................................................................................. Data, documentation and evaluation ............................... 9.2% . ................................... 46.1 % 26.3% 1 8.4% • Respondents generally report high levels of capacity, but indicate needing to build capacity in a few key areas. The survey asked respondents about their organization's capacity in a variety of different areas. Those areas where there is the greatest level of capacity include: • Supportive services/case management delivery in supportive housing (87% think that their organization has a "high" or "medium" level of capacity) • Supportive services design (87% think that their organization has a "high" or "medium" level of capacity) • Finding sites for supportive housing (83% think that their organization has a "high" or "medium" level of capacity) • Benefits and entitlements, advocacy and coordination (82% think that their organization has a "high" or "medium" level of capacity) • Building community support for supportive housing (81% think that their organization has a "high" or "medium" Level of capacity) Areas where respondents report having less capacity include: • Tailoring services for people involved in the criminal justice system (43% think that their organization has a "low" level of capacity) • Tailoring services for young adults. (40% think that their organisation has a "low" level of capacity) • Employment services and vocational support (39% think that their organization has a "low" level of capacity) • Forming tenant councils and involving tenants (34% think that their organization has a "low" level of capacity) • Mobile case management in scattered-sire supportive housing (29% think that their organization has a "low" level of capacity) Among respondents, 12-25% report needing training orcapacity-building assistance along all of the areas included in the survey those that scand our include building tenant councils, tailoring services for chose involved in the criminal justice system, and securing both public and philanthropic funding for supportive housing. PLANS TO END HOMELESSNESS Supportive housing has always been a key component of Ioca1 and stare ten-year plans co end homelessness. 'This year's survey included a see of questions about these plans. • Over two-thirds of the respondents (77%) indicate that their local community has a plan to end homelessness, and over half (54%) indicate that their state has a plan. In general, respondents report a fair amount of progress toward their local and state plans, if they exist. Local community plans have made slightly more progress than the state plans, pazticularly in terms of ending chronic homelessness for single adults and ending homelessness among families, youth and children. For both goals, over one-third of the respondents indicate than their community has made some progress or significant progress. Interestingly, despite the federal commitment to end homelessness among veterans, less progress has been made in this area at both the local and state level. In addition, while many of the local and state plans include a goal to "sec a path for ending all types of homelessness," over 40% report that little to no progress had been made to date on this goal. TABLE 6. PROGRESS ON LOCAL AND STATE GOALS T O Goal included in plan with some/ Goal included in plan with END HOMELESSNESS significant progress to dare limited/no progress fo date End chronic homelessness in 5 years 37.5% 31 .2% 31.9% ....................................................... Prevent and end homelessness among veterans 23.9% 20.0% 28.3% 31 . o in 5 years Prevent and end homelessness for families, 36.3% 28.4% 38.1 % 39.4% youth and children in 10 years ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Set a path for ending all types of homelessness 33.0% 23.7% 43.3% 44.5% • Some communities may need to significantly increase their capacity in order to meet the goals of the federal plan to end homelessness. In June 2010; the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness released Opening Doors. This plan sets out a course for ending homelessness nationally and includes ten key goals. The survey asked respondents to indicate whether or not their community and state has the capacity to meet these goals (as shown in Table 7). Again, in general, local capacity is given slightly higher mazks than state capacity At both levels, respondents chink capacity is highest for the first four goals: promote collaborative leadership; strengthen the capacity of public and private organizations; provide affordable-housing; and provide supportive housing to end chronic homelessness. Respondents feel that substantial capacity-building is needed to increase employment among homeless individuals; provide housing for youth aging out of foster care; and create prevention and rapid re- housingprograms. LOCAL PLAN S STATE PLANS . TA ~ L E 7. ......................... ......................... Have ............................. Unprepared ......................... ..................... Have ..................................... Unprepared CAPACITY TO MEET Have high limited but and need substantial Have high limited but and need substantial GOAL 5 O F OPENING or some growing capacity or some growing capacity DOORS capacity capacity building capacity capacity ......... .. building ...................................... ............................p................................................. Provide and romate collaborative ......................... 55.4% ........................ 22.6% ............................. 12.5% .......................... 47.9% .......... . 18.7% 14.4% leadership at all levels of government and across all sectors to inspire and energize Americans to commit to preventing and ending homelessness ............. . ......................... ...................... ....................................... .............................................................................. Strengthen the capacity of public and ......................... 60.9% ......................... 24.9% .............. . 7.5% 53.3% 19.1 % 9.7% private organizations with increased knowledge about collaboration, homelessness, and successful interventions to prevent and end homelessness . ...... ...................... ....................................... ......................................................................... Provide affordable housing for ......................... 56.6% ......................... 25.2% .............................. 12.5% . ................. 45.5% 23.1 % 14.9% people experiencing or most at risk of homelessness ...... ...................... ........................................ ..................P .....................-pP ............................ Provide ermanentsu ortive ........................ 57.7% ......................... 27.3% ............................. 8.6% .................. 47.2% 23.0% 13.7% housing to prevent and end chronic homelessness ........... . ...................... ........................................ .................................g......................................... Increase meanin ful and sustainable ......................... 23.5% ......................... 32.7% ............................. 35.8% ............ . 26.7% 25.9% 25.5% employment for people experiencing or most at risk of homelessness ..... ...................... ........................................ ........................................................................... Improve access to mainstream ......................... 41.2% ......................... 36.5% ............................. 1 3.4% .................... 34.6% 29.2% 15.2% programs and services to reduce people's financial vulnerability to homelessness .......... ...................... ........................................ ........................................................................... Integrate primary and behavioral ......................... 44.2% ......................... 29.3% ............................. 17.5% ............... 36.6% 24.3% 16.2% health care services with homeless assistance programs and housing to reduce people's vulnerability to homelessness and to end the impacts of homelessness ...... ....................... ........................................ ............................................................................ Advance health and housing stability ......................... 21 9% ......................... 36.0% ............................. 26.7% ................... 28.1 % 26.4% 21.7% for youth aging out of systems such as foster care and juvenile justice ..................... . ....................... ........................................ ............................................................................ Advance health and housing ......................... 34.0% ......................... 36.2% ............................. 19.7% .. . 28.1 % 26.6% 2.1 .9% stability for people experiencing homelessness who have frequent contact with hospitals and criminal justice ...................... ........................ ....................... ......................................... ................................................:........................... Transform homeless services to ........................ 31.4°6 ......................... 35.1 % ........ 22.8% 28.8% 26.5% 20.6% crisis response systems Ihat prevent homelessness and rapidly return people who experience homelessness into stable housing CONCLUSION In many ways, these are the best and worst of times for the supportive housing industry. There is greater federal support for supportive housing and efforts to end homelessness which culminated in the adoption of Opening Doors. 17ae federal plan identified supportive housing as the central vehicle for ending chronic homelessness and for reaching vulnerable populations like veterans, frequent users of corrections and hospitals, and transition-age young adults. Still the industry struggles with a slow economic recovery and timid capital markets. Funding for supportive housing generally remains limited, and shortfalls in state and local budgets mean shrinking investments. The industry faces real challenges-stalled supportive housing projects, eroding political support and limited capacity. Rather Chan retreating in the face of These challenges, the supportive housing industry is redoubling its efforts and responding wirh innovation and adaptation. New applications of supportive housing are being cried for underserved subsets of people experiencing homelessness. The industry is exploring new ways ro create and finance supportive housing through mainstream resources like Medicaid, Substance Abuse Treatment Block Grants and public housing partnerships. The results of this year's survey indicate that the supportive housing industry is undeterred in its conviction that supportive housing can end homelessness and transform the lives of our most vulnerable citizens. CSH is proud to be a leader and supporter in this industry of innovation. For 20 yeazs, CSH has been the leader in the national supportive housing movement. It is a catalyst for housing connected with services to prevent and end homelessness. CSH develops innovative program models, provides research-backed tools and training, offers development expertise, makes loans and grants, and collaborates on public policy and systems reform to make it easier co create and operate high-quality supportive housing. CSH's goal is to help communities create 150,000 units of supportive housing nationwide by 2012. Cover Photo: ~Vmtt Moyer/Osed wig ae~mksian ham 'he Po6ert'Aaoo !ohnson fnundoficn ia~pcmrion for Suaooriw Housiay 0.11 11/03/2011 in our Region Mandy Mills, Housing Manager City of Chula Vista ~,.. o, ~~,~,,,. •, Redevelopment bHousing Homelessness 11/03/2011 +Agenda ^ Overview of Homelessness ^ Chronic Homeless ^ Episodic Homeless ^ Local Efforts ^ What can we do? ^ Questions/discussion ^ Proclamation: National Homeless and Hunger Awareness Week ^ Resolution: Endorse Keys to Housing Toolbox ~„r e. ~~~~,~~ .~. RedeveIopment~ bHousing Introduction of Partners `~~/~ CIPY OP CHULA VISTA Redevelopment ~ my~~A erHousing REGIONAL TASE FORCE °.,,°^HotYteo ess • F , ~9 ume.a w,y RIS,n DI,ER tnunry ~b yEgRS keys housing EnAng F4miiy iiomelesmmsa REGIONAL OF CAPE COVNCIL RCCC~ 2 11/03/2011 Jennifer Litwak, J.D., Manager of Projects and Development Regional Task Force on the Homeless RLCIONAL TAbK FORCE a. e.ry „HOMELESS w Why Collaboration and the PITC is Important I' ^ U.S. Housing and Urban Development Requirement for Funding ^ $216 Million Nationally ^ $15.6 Million for San Diego Region ^ Completes the National Picture of Homelessness ^ Annual Homeless.rlssessmentRegort (~IHIIR) to Congress ^ Enhances Local Grant Applications ^ Basis for Reporting, Analysis, and Education ^ What do you want to know? 3 11/03/2011 2011 PoeNr-m-TLVe Cwnr RECgN1L BRE.IKUOWN NC Coastal T3T NaB'm Courvtt Cowsrw Noans CouRn~ lu..wo iii r~anxl NC Inland 946 :'.ale Itieyc L ) 1 'rrc rc S.av Dcco 5,195 (15.15X) a (' Cm to Fxem ENI'CpIBPY an a+BX~ East County 802 _ I s«,R awn,v Regional Task FOrce on Ne Homeless UB p.lBX) (mw~.RTFHSD Org) Homelessness In San Diego County Point-In-Time Counts Since 2008 sooo 9000 8.3% (29.1% increase from 2008 to 2011) 14.6% _~ 4000 - , (E•4% Increase Irom 2008 to z01p 4.1% 1% 3.1% 3000 +Unsheltered 2000 (Sheltered looo O T I f-'--"---1 2008 2008 2010 2011 6owce: Pag~onal'liak Form onlNe Nomaleaa(www.R'IFH6U.mg)200~3011 PoiN-N-Tine COUnI (PITC) 4 11/03/2011 ,.W. Homelessness in Chula Vista Point-in-Time Count January 28, 2011 Individuals on Street 4~ (Unsheltered i Individuals in Vehicles* 132 Individuals in Hand-Built Structures* 56 Emergency Shelters 36 Sheltered Transitional Housing 171 I *~.~mnPUe> o~z Total 441 -- _J Sewce:Reglonel Taak Force o~lhe Hameleaa(www.RTFNSD.arg)-2011 Poinl-In-Tme Cowl (PITC)'II~aM1ellered5wvey'-1905wvap 5 11/03/2011 Race & Ethnicity 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 White African-Amedcan(Black Mixed Race Native American or Alaskan O[her .~~ ,~:~ Pacific Islander Aslan I 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 Age Range 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.15 O.LS 0.10 0.20 0.05 0.05 57°/ -.~- ® O.oo a.oo a 24 ~ 25-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66+ Sow<e:RaplowlTaak Forte on Na Hameleaa(www.Rl}HIO.org)-2011POi~1-In-Tme Cowl (PITC) Nrvaellere d5~rvey'-]40 SYrvep 6 11/03/2011 Education o.oo o.oa o.oe o.lz oas o.zo o.2a o.ze o.3z K-8th Grade .. Some High School High School Graduate GEO Completed - Some College (or 2 year degree] AiP 9 College Grad (q year degree) .. 33°/0 Post Graduate ...with college experience Other , 0. 00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32 6owce: Ragiwal'hak Pmw w !ha Homelea~ [wnw.RTFNSO.argj - 2011 Poin W ~-Tme Cawl (PITI:)'Ilnehelle~etl Survey' - ]90 6wvep Homeless -One Year Or Longer This Time? No 24.58% No Answer 6.94% Ye 68.47 sow~:Rey~owT,.R eo.~.o~ma xomma.. f..-.+~..mexsn.o.v)-zatl vomvm-'nm.cowe mvrc)'v~,n.u...asw.~.v'-zao suw.y. 7 11/03/2011 Veterans ruo 82.1495 • San Diego County is home to more 'recently returned'veterans than anywhere else in the country • San Diego County: 27,080 (48.3% higherthan L.A.County) • Los Angeles County: 14,000 (next highest in the country) sow=.: a.a~awr,.ero.a.aa,n•xom.v.. Mw-n.rtrexso.o.¢l-zon eow,i-m.i,n,. caw, ryrrc)'u..xuer.asuvr'-raoswen 0.00 Unemployment Eviction /Foreclosure 0.04 0.08 0.72 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.3ti 10% 37% Drubs .. , ., A,~oho, Reasons For Mental Health Issues- Homelessness I Chose TO Live On Street 7.8% Released from Lail/Prison Domestic Violence yJ y ; ~ p% for women I Don't Know Runaway From Home Refused' 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.76 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 eom~ m-m~a.cow, ryrrc) va.na,...asur,.v -aaosu,wr. 8 11/03/2011 °F I1tC0111@ $Ol1Y'C@S D.00 O.D2 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 Recycling nn p 16. CJO~p NO INCOME . . - Ip,50~0 SNAP /Food Stamps Panhandling 551/56D1 8.9% work - Famliy / Frienr s~+..-.~ General Relie( l~ Drug Trade VA (Veterans Affairs) Unemployment ^ Pension /Retirement CaIWORKS Education /School Rela[ed Alimony Child Support OB,er 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 D.14 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.22 9aume:fle9ional Task Force on lM1e Homeless lwwvi.RTFH50 org)-]011 POinLlmTlme Gaunl )PITC)'V e45urvry-]In SUrveVs A Cost of Homelessness... Use of Emergency Room & Hospital -Past 12 Months... . I 1049 T,221 $524Mi9ion (at $366 per visit) ~. .319 , 2,200 $1I:66Million (atf$6,300 per visit) 1,366 9,421 $16.90 Million Sourte: Regional Tesk Force on iM1e Xamele551mwi.flTFH50.o~g)-]011 Point-In-Time COUni (PITC)'VnsM1elie~ea Survey-]i05urvey5 9 11/03/2011 Roxana Kennedy, Captain Chula Vista Police Department =~ ~. 10 11/03/2011 ~, ~,r~,. \. ~~•,; ,: ° r `~ ~ J F' d U x; .r . a~ Frequentl ....,~. •` t Q~n:--._ ` ~~ #~... ~ J aw+~.~_,.~-wry A r Transient Related Calls ^Decreased feeding of safety for residents ff sLoss of reven~}e for local businesses ^Negative health impacts / i ^ Increase in trash: and litter I e Safety hazards ~ I~ V ` l ~ XXX/// i+ ~~ ~ ~~S ,f. 11 11 /03/2011 ~~ l' 1 4J~ !l n ~ `~' `, _ c 12 11/03/2011 .° ^ Born 1948 and is one of six children ^ Served in the Air Force during Vietnam War ^Alcohol abuse began after his return from the war ^ Family history of substance & alcohol abuse ^ Siblings have tried unsuccessfully to offer help 13 John Doe's Story 11/03/2011 °~. john Doe's Story .Arrested in San Diego County 58 times .Approximately 212 hours of police officer time .Over 100 hours of jail staff time ^ Other impacts: .Fire Department .Ambulance services .Hospital stay .Incarceration f In John's Own Words... "1 will keep drinking until l die. 1 have sadness over the loss of my brother and sister. l drink to numb myself from the pain in my life. 1 feel 1 have been a disappointment to my family and have not done anything of worth in my life: ' 14 11/03/2011 Simonne Ruff, Director CSH San Diego C-H Corporation for ~'°i j Supportive Housing `` CSH is a national nonprofit organization and Community Development Financial Institution that helps communities create permanent housing with services to prevent and end homelessness. Founded in 1991, CSH advances its mission by providing advocacy, expertise, leadership, and financial resources to make it easier to create and operate supportive housing 15 11/03/2011 What is Supportive Housing? What is Supportive Housing? Supportive housing is permanent, affordable housing combined with a range of supportive services that help people with special needs live stable and independent lives. 16 11/03/2011 a .$~ Who is Supportive Housing For? People who: ^But for housing cannot access and make effective use of treatment and supportive services in the community; and ^But for supportive services cannot access and maintain stable housing in the community. ® Who is Supportive Housing for? ^ Single adults, families and unaccompanied youth who have often experienced: ^ Long-term poverty coupled with persistent health problems, including mental illness, substance abuse, HIV/AIDS ^ Histories of trauma, abuse and violence ^ Repeated engagements with institutional settings and crisis care services ^ Long histories of homelessness D 17 11/03/2011 Features of Permanent Supportive Housing ^ Permanent Rental Housing ^ Each resident holds lease on his/her own unit ^ "Permanent" ~ "Forever" necessarily ^ Resident can stay as long as he/she pays rent and complies with terms of lease (no arbitrary or artificial time limits imposed) ^Affordable ^ Tenants usually pay no more than 30% of income for rent Features of Permanent Supportive Housing ^ Flexible Services ^ Participation in a "program" is not a condition of residency ^ Services are designed project by project for the target population and the housing setting ^ Services are flexible and responsive to individual needs ^ Cost Effective ^ Costs no more, and often much less, than the cost of homelessness or institutional care and produces better outcomes. 18 11/03/2011 R~Supportive Housing is: ^ Not Treatment ^ Not Transitional ^ Not Licensed community care ^ Not Board and Care ^ Not `Service enriched' housing ^ Not Independent Living Facility a ~~ What kinds of services do tenants use? All services are flexible and voluntary. Services may include: ^ Health and Mental Health Services ^ Alcohol and Substance Use Services ^ Vocational Counseling and Job Placement ^ Independent Living Skills ^ Community-Building Activities 19 11/03/2011 Supportive Housing Effectiveness Strategy That Works For People ^ Supportive housing with adequate support services is effective for people who don't meet conventional criteria for "housing readiness" ^ Positive impact on housing stability - endingpeople's homelessness ^ Even among tenants with long histories of homelessness and the most severe psychiatric disorders. 20 11/03/2011 A Review of the Data: 2001 NY/NY Study ^'fYacked 4,679 homeless people with psychiatric disabilities who were placed into service-enriched housing. ^ 3,615 units of affordable housing supported with clinical and social services. ^ Examined use of emergency shelters, psychiatric hospitals, medical services, prisons and jails in the two years before and in the two years after they were placed into the housing. ^ Compared their service use to the service use of control groups. E4 A Review of the Data: 2001 NY/NY Study Cost Savings Annualized Savings DHS Shelter System $ 3,T79 OMH Hospital $ 8,260 HHC Hospital $ 1,771 Medicaid-Inpatient $ 3,787 Medicaid-Outpatient $ 2,657 VA Hospital $ 595 NYS Prison $ 418 NYC Jail $ 382 Total Savings $16,282 21 11 /03/2011 Where We Sleep Economic Roundtable/LAHSA report ^ Supportive housing reduces public costs by 79% for chronically homeless individuals with disabilities. ^ The typical cost of public services for residents in supportive housing is $605 per month compared to $2,89T for people with similar characteristics who remain homeless. ^ The cost of homelessness increases for individuals that are older, have HN/AIDS, co-occurring disorders, and/or no recent employment history. A Strategy That Works For Communities ^ Improves vitality and safety of neighborho ^ Saves public tax money by shifting resources from costly emergency services toward long- term solutions ^ Preserves affordability of -and diversity within - communities. 22 11 /03/2011 ~` Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) What is the MHSA? ^Passed as Proposition 63 in 2004. ^ Objective: to transform mental health services in California to be more client- centered and focused on recovery. ^ Funded by a 1 % tax on personal income over $1 million. ^Not subject to general appropriations. 23 11 /03/2011 Housing under the MHSA ^ Stable, affordable housing is a high priority. ^ $33 million has been dedicated to the development of new supportive housing opportunities (rental and shared) in San Diego County (130 units are currently in the pipeline). ^ San Diego County Mental Health Administration contracts with Full Service Partners to provide services under the MHSA program. The State MHSA Housing Program ^ "Over-the-counter," non-competitive ^ Funding for permanent rental housing (new construction or acquisition /rehabilitation) ^Funds one-third of the total development costs up to a maximum of $112,486 per MHSA unit ^MHSA units may also receive 20 years of operating subsidies through a capitalized reserve held by Ca1HFA 24 11/03/2011 ~MHSA Full Service Partnerships - Current Housing for 1,012 clients >~o~N TRIINSI9'fONI[T. Living Situation (Between BO days SHOR71'ERM OTHER 44 Clients and I S months) (Leas than 90 (Fhmily, FYiend) ~-- 73 Clients days) 49 Clients 5 Clients ~ . ~. Contact Information Simonise Ruff Corporation for Supportive Housing -San Diego 328 Maple, 4th Floor San Diego, 92103 Tel: 619.234.4102 simonise. ruff@csh. org CSHhelps communities create permanent housing with services to prevent and end homelessness. 25 11/03/2011 Lance Witmondt, United Way, Home Again ~, /~' ST. VINCENT DE PAUL tl V I L L A G E f/.11 XEf f f.i ff IOf'1 VILL.4[C .,M CIE.u IIVYEIM. iVMMlftl011 Unlled'Wey oFSen Diego County An Unprecedented Collaboration • The United Way Scripps Mercy Hospital • St. Vincent de Paul Village Veteran's Village of San Die • The County of San Diego HHSA Dept. of Veteran's Affairs Health Care for Veterans • San Diego Housing Commission SHARP Healthcare • Telecaxe Alpha Project • SVdPV Federally Qualified Health Volunteers of America (VOA) Clinic San Diego Rescue Mission • San Diego Police Dept Homeless Recuperative Care Unit (RCU) Outreach Team Point Loma Nazarene University • The City of San Diego PERT Fermanian Business and Economic Institute • San Diego Sherriff's Department Bridges to Recovery • Catholic Charities Salvation Army Homeless • Emergency Medical Services Outreach • UCSD Medical Center Housing Providers 26 11/03/2011 ~~Who Are The Frequent Users ^ 71 people on current list ^ 57 Men (80%), 14 Women (20%) ^ Average Age = 47 ^ 8 Veterans (1 I %) ^ Criminal Justice 59% arrested at least 1 time in 2010 ^ AmbulanceTransports = 1,052 (16 rides per person) ^ ER Visits = 1,204 (17 ER visits per person) ^ IP Med Admits and Days = 358 admits for 1,865 days ^ Shelter Stays and Days = 34 for 1,657 ^ Deceased = 9 of the 71 or 12% s Outreach for 35 Enrolled ^ Began outreach in March and enrolled the 35'h person at the end of August 2011 ^ 14 (40%) first contacted in jail ^ 9 (26%) first contacted through services at SVdPV including Transitional Housing, Guest Services, Lunch Line, and the Medical Clinic. ^ 6 (17%) first contacted through other programs and partners (sober living, drug treatment program, etc...) ^ 5 (14%) first contacted at local hospitals ^ 1 (3%) first contacted on the street (close to hospital) 27 11 /03/2011 +Permanent Housing. ^ Housing First Model ^ Scattered Site Housing ^ 25 Sponsor Based Vouchers (San Diego Housing Commission) ^ 10 client's housing subsidized through FuA Service Partner MHSA ^ Currently as of mid October 25 people are in permanent supportive housing ^ The other 10 are either in temporary housing (shelter or hotel). -F Goals and Evaluation • Decrease costs of public services including ambulance services, ER visits, hospitalizations, jail, cr isis houses, detox facilities, and homeless shelters • Improve overall quality of life for project participants • Remain in permanent housing • Establish Medical Home Use of Emergency-Type ~~ Publicly Funded Services will be compazed against base line frequency and cost data and demonstrated by: • Reduction in Frequency (incidents) • Reduction in Duration (days) • Reduction in Costs (dollars) 28 11/03/2011 Gathering Data • Created Central Release with hospitals, jails, ambulances, a CMH and approved by all pazties • Had 35 people enrolled sign the release • Entities providing data (pre and post): • UCSD Medical Center • EMS • Sheriffs Dept • County Mental Health Services • SHARP HealthCaze • VA Hospital • Paradise Valley HospitaUBayviewHnspital • Alvarado Parkway Institute • Promise Hospital • Still working with Scripps Healthcare and Alvarado Hospital `- Is it Working? ^ 72% reduction in ambulance rides in first 6 months ^ 70% reduction in ER visits at two participating hospitals ^ 83% reduction in in-patient medical hospitalizations at two participating hospitals ^ 56% reduction in arrests ^ 65% reduction in # of jail days ^ 30% reduction in PERT visits ^ 57% have established a medical home defined as 3 or more primary care visits at the same location ^ 15 are using the St. Vincent de Paul Medical Clinic 29 11/03/2011 Pat Leslie, Facilitator REGIONAL CONTINUUM OF C11ftE COUNCIL 'RCCC T Regional Continuum of Care Council (RCCC) The mission of the RCCC is to engage organizations in a community-based process that works to address the underlying causes ofhomelessness and to lessen the negative impact ofhomelessness on individuals, families, and communities. 30 11/03/2011 Key Characteristics of the RCCC ^Focus on all types of Homelessness ^Regional forum meets monthly ^Community-based ^Coordinates Continuum of Care ^Collaborative Applicant for HUD funds ^Responds to local concerns ~ What does the RCCC do? • Works to insure availability of a CoC region-wide ' •Coordinates response to federal funding opportunities ($15 million annually) • Provides opportunity for inter-agency collaboration • Promotes the logical use of available resources • Helps inform local planning processes • Informs stakeholders of actions impacting homelessness • Advocates for homeless in areas with limited access • Implements specific actions identified in the community process 31 11 /03/2011 RCCC & I{eys to Housing •The RCCC joins with many other community partners in response to local concerns For example the Keys to Housing Initiative Pat Leslie, Facilitator Keys to Housing keys housing Endmy Family Homelessnaa 32 11/03/2011 'R II1tYG~1l'Ctl®11 San Diego Grantmakers (SDG) is anon-profit membership association of organizations that carry out $25,000 or more annually of charitable giving. Grantmakers facilitates efforts among its members based on similar funding interests. The Homelessness Working Group is one of the collaborations Grantmakers keys['~housing so-me~+ vnwenm~oov F.n~ivg Flnnil9 HOrz:>lcssnuss 33 11/03/2011 + Homelessness Issues • More than 13,200 children at risk of homeles served in schools in the region • 2,190 in South Bay in 2010 • (61 in Chula Vista) • Stretched economy impacting families • Increase in episodic homelessness • New veteran families at risk Grantmake~s keys housing Ending Fanny Homeiennese + The Response Keys to Housing Initiative More than 60 people from government, philanthropy, business, and service agencies worked together to develop a regional vision and identify the actions needed to make ending family homelessness a reality. G~antm„,~kers keys housing Ending Family Homelezeraas 34 11/03/2011 €~The Result Y A Regional vision ^ 5 Key areas for action ^ 8 Essential outcomes Tools to qet the job done ^ Toolbox ^ Website Realisation ^ Homelessness can touch anyone ^ Together, we can end family homelessness. G~antm„,~kers keysmhousing FiiNng Gzmily Hom¢Ir~nr-s F Actions and Ott mes __ Leadership, Policy, Advocacy •Policies are created, changed, implemented to support families Capacity, Data, Coordination of services and resources • Sustainable structure is created • Multiple pathways exist to access resources, centralize information, increase capacity and coordinate services Grantmakers si:miou~ure vniwm.wr keys housing P.vtlm~ Emily Homvless:ms; 35 11/03/2011 + Actions and Outcomes ^ Permanent Affordable Housing ^ Increase the number of units of affordable housing ^ Increased Economic Security & Stability ^ Families are employed and moving toward self sufficiency wages ^ Families increase financial stability ~"°~°° keys • housing Grantmakers F,~,,nq Fmn ly H~n,~~a~„~>; Actions and Outcomes Preveantion • Families at-risk are identified and served prior to losing housing ^ Reduce the number of families living in poverty who become homeless Grantm„,~kers keysmhousing enOing Famlly Homble peas 36 11 /03/2011 What Makes Keys to Housing Different from Other Plans? ^ It's focused on families ^ It's not a "plan" ^ It's tools to get the job done .It's part of the customized approaches to solving different types of homelessness Grantmakers keys ~ housing keys housing Bncu1G Famil~,~ Homelessness Printed Toolbox .Planning Guide .Policies including `budget neutral' ideas .Best practices for each outcome .Actions and potential partners 37 11/03/2011 ~~ /~Ia~e1NMtlI~Mwby.~ toolbox Aw LIB I~7~1~A~ rr•I~iW-iY~ i 1. McYMi~i~ti4 Y~Y ~~I M~^Y`4 T~4~~ ~Y~I~t~+~ ~~w~~i~ rwM •4+e1rY~~Fi •14~-TfJMW~M iarwp-`awT uupae.rwr,YYyn-n..~ i.n.w~4~4~~r~ •Yyrr-Yr4r ~ cniy.w~~4.~u~ns..~r.i-.r, ~µ^~+M+~+•n~Ym Wu.y~- • ~/r~~w~-~Ma W'Wwy~IWM- l ~~MYlysiyrYY, ~4~sh••'rwn~vu uulr l ~Y~YVry~Y~~My WrA~iY~~ll-Y I. Y~Y~w~~ly; Y1i~17 •aM~~~yYb~e~wrW yiWe ~~VJW u~Vavr.u Y~~xa • Y4M1Y~W VeWM1TY~4~ ~ yura~~~\wiYY4 keys :housing Ending Famzly Homelessness Website Toolbox ^ On-line access ^ Information tailored to constituent groups ^ Local success stories and progress reports ^ Hundreds of resources: linkages, reports, actions to help get the job done 38 11/03/2011 Keya to Mousln8 Ia.... ma r mawm ¢nuNmC beMnp ma WntY rNb IXbmty nomebn b Sm e.w obmb F ylUanYy aw IXb swaxaaati b pa axaaly b aep eur ixpim.i pYn MEW O~a[b.a. wr aimbMm4.iNimN m~.ma. aw mnm~~wy b.a~ b bad. nu. bma. Keys to tlousinfl 81og p..apxy~ Join our malling Ilsll ~_ Bc rpund me mend. ~i._ . nP o n n ao or sxn . em., .,.. I r xel.w ubieecorc vxie~l3le. sir 5 Key Areas for Action Leadersh p Polies BAtlvocary . w~o....waau..mm.+w.mmwmw.wrwn.w [:wu w..... w [mu.w rwrw. x ~.xa m m~[an mwmmm+n a yr[ Capacity, Data and Coordination of Servitts and Resources wow.wm.+r[.ma..w[mm~.[.m.-.u..rtmnwr~. w..n.n..ea:..rm ao~anm,u, a [.r^....w xrN4m Permanent Affordable Housing . rIXwmxaanNON+. mrmya[.e.NOmavo.ma Increased Economic Security . rx:.rm.me..m.urcx.pw..aa.x..i[.n.n.m ~~,.+w.+.[a,x.s,m:r f off. nmaw lnintl Na'Nry sb non b f M.f JAtknry i^N..w~w~aim xume aµ{an[I Prevention . rsm.[ma~axse.abm-.nyv a+vv..an~a bw[mnomm . rbmoxaum;+,m wkm.,a..i.~m,mowwa+.n~.u:a 39 11 /03/2011 + Remember ^ 5 Key Areas for Action ^ 8 Essential Outcomes ^ 2 Places for Toolbox .!. You Ending family homelessness by 2020 + How You Can Help ^ Adopt the vision ^ Go to the Keys Website ^ Open the Toolbox ^ Choose your Tools ^ Take Action ^ Check on community progress 40 11/03/2011 Don Hunter, Family Wellness and Self-Sufficiency Director South Bay Community Services SBHAC Objectives i~ Increase AWARENESS of the homeless issue in Chula Vista and South Bay 2) Identify current RESOURCES and gaps in resource needs a~ Serve as a CLEARING HOUSE of services for the homeless 41 11/03/2011 Members of the SBHAC ^ Chula Vista Community Collaborative ^ Chula Vista Elementary School District ^ Chula Vista Police Department ^ City of Chula Vista Housing ^ County Health & Human Services Agency ^ Family Health Centers ^ Interfaith Shelter Network ^ Life Acts ^ Regional Task Force on the Homeless ^ Renewing Life ^ South Bay Community Services San Diego County Office of Education ^ South Bay Guidance and Wellness for Recovery -I- SBHAC Accomplishments ^ Increased Awareness ^Directory of Services for the South Bay Region ^ Collaboration Among Agencies ^Annual Forums ^Leverage Opportunities ~i~B9Y ~~« Dtr<tm» & M~~SAhd«~ ~ J'1L'~~O~rL '~QM}D Rey'VSfdllCp VM1~.~ s~'uoreaL. /._ No~yeleri,9~n_ J so~,~ `EM^nv6. b,.M1 ~~~NI &.~~ 42 11/03/2011 ~- Local Resources Rotation Winter Shelter Cold Weather: MoteVHotel Vouchers Shelter Plus Care Units Homeless Preventionand Rapid ReHousing _ Safe Parlan Lot at Turning the earts Center a Annual FORUMS .Facilitate Collaboration ^ Share Resources and Best Practices ^ Support Agencies and Organizations .Identify Gaps (Unmet Needs) 3~ ^ Next Forum: Nov 16th 9AM '" ,`"~ a',, Turning the Hearts Center ..,~,, ~ ,_ ,._ 43 11/03/2011 What can we do? ^As an Individual ^As an Organization ^As a City 44 Angelica Davis City of Chula Vista, Housing Division 11/03/2011 can What can we do as a City? ^Focus more funds on services for the Chronic Homeless .~ Annual Federal Grants HOME E5G $870,000 $83,000 31% 3% CDBG $1,820,000 66% 45 11/03/2011 Homeless Services Housing Programs Public Services CIPs and Community Enhancement ^ Admin/Planning Funding for Homeless Services ,o_ ^ Data ^ Gen. Svcs. "~o ^ Food ^ Shelter Funding for Homeless Services 46 11 /03/2011 ~. What else can we do as a City? ^ Supportive Housing Development ^Implement tools from the Keys to Housing Toolbox ^Adopt the Project25 model in Chula Vista Homelessness in our Region 47