Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09171996 - D5 �CS7 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS F&HS-01 Contra r FROM: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE `s Costa County DATE: September 9, 1996 srq,coue+`t'i SUBJECT: CONTINUUM OF CARE HOMELESS PLAN & CONTRACT WITH SHELTER, INC. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. APPROVE IN CONCEPT the recommendations contained in the "Continuum of Care Homeless Plan," recognizing that the Plan provides a broad vision of what is needed in the County to address issues of homelessness and that there are no resources currently available to do more than begin the process of implementing the recommendations. WITHHOLD actual approval of the Plan itself pending further discussion at our Committee. 2. SPECIFICALLY approve the recommendation for the formation of a Continuum of Care Board, generally consistent with the specifics of the recommendation appearing on pages 89-90 of the Plan, subject to the release of HUD regulations which may require a slightly different composition and subject to the Family and Human Services Committee bringing specific recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for a process by which to obtain nominations for appointments to the Continuum of Care Board. 3. ACKNOWLEDGE the lack of affordable housing in Contra Costa County, which contributes substantially to the extent of homelessness in the County. 4. APPROVE the RFP process outlined in Dr. Brunner's September 4, 1996 memo to the Family and Human Services Committee (attached) for obtaining bids to operate the County's homeless shelters effective July 1, 1997 and authorize Dr. Brunner to proceed to implement that process. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD C MIT EE APPROVEDOTH� I SIGNATURE(S): MARK DeSAULNIER J F ACTION OF BOARD ON September 17. 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _)L OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT """""""-- ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED September 17, 1996 Contact: County Administrator P ATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: Health Services Director S E VISORS AND COUNTY AD TRATOR Public Health Director Executive Director, Shelter, Inc.(via Health Svcs ) Social Service Director BY ur D. s F&HS-01 5. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director or designee to execute Contract Extension Agreement #25-004-05 to the contract with Shelter, Inc. for the operation of the North Concord and Brookside (Richmond) homeless shelters to increase the payment limit by $588,920 (a one-time advance of$58,920 and ten monthly payments of $53,000) to a new payment limit of$1,473,278.25 for the two-year period from July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1997. 6. DIRECT the Public Health Director, Wendel Brunner, M.D., to report again to the Family and Human Services Committee on November 25, 1996 on the following: the status of the RFP for operation of the shelters, the Health Services Department's comments on the recommendations made to our Committee by the Homeless Advisory Committee dated September 6, 1996. the Health Service Department's comments on the precise size, composition, role and process for selecting members of the Continuum of Care Board, if their recommendations and HUD regulations differ at all from what is in the Plan and how the Department would propose to staff the Board. Which of the recommendations included in the Plan the Health Services Department believes can be implemented during the current fiscal year within the existing resources that are available to the Department. Any additional information the Health Services Department has available by that time on the impact of welfare reform on the homeless population in the County. Any other issues relating to homelessness in Contra Costa County which the Health Services Department believes should be brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: On June 18, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved a report from our Committee which asked the Health Services Director to report back to our Committee September 9, 1996 on several specific issues relating to the homeless. On September 9, 1996, Dr. Brunner, members of his staff, members of the Homeless Advisory Committee and members of the Grand Jury met with our Committee. We had been provided a copy of the attached Continuum of Care Plan and transmittal memo from Dr. Brunner dated September 4, 1996. We had also been provided with a copy of Dr. Brunner's memo dated September 4, 1996, which responds to the Board's order of June 18, 1996, a copy of which is attached. It is important to recognize that this Plan provides a framework for the County, the cities, community-based organizations, and the community to use in the effort to -2- D .5r F&HS-01 develop programs and policies that will move people from homelessness into housing. It is not and is not intended to be a Plan which can be fully implemented at one time. As resources become available, it gives a sense of the order in which programs should be added. Dr. Brunner noted that the formation of the Continuum of Care Board is a priority and will probably be required by HUD in the near future. He also noted that he considers Brenda Blasingame to be functioning in the capacity of the Homeless Coordinator position which is recommended. Dr. Brunner is not suggesting that any additional administrative staff be added at this time. In order to provide time for a very extensive RFP process to consider other organizations interested in operating the shelter program for the County, we are recommending that the contract with Shelter, Inc. be extended through June 30, 1997 and that the RFP process as outlined in Dr. Brunner's memo be approved. Members of the Homeless Advisory Committee shared their comments on the Plan. Those comments are attached and we have asked the Department to comment on them. Michael Barrington, CEO of Phoenix Programs cautioned against endorsing the Plan itself until we have gotten a better sense of the impact of welfare reform on our community and its residents. Other comments expressed support for the importance of filling the Homeless Coordinator position as soon as possible. There was also support for the concept of having the Homeless Coordinator report directly to the County Administrator and Board of Supervisors rather than being located within the Health Services Department. The Homeless Advisory Committee noted that it did not endorse the final version of the Plan since they had not received it sufficiently in advance of our meeting to review it fully. We are, therefore, recommending that the Board simply approve the recommendations in concept without formal approval of the Plan itself and without formal approval of the individual recommendations in detail until we have had an opportunity to review each of them and until the Homeless Advisory Committee has had an opportunity to review and comment in detail on the final Plan. We will meet again at the end of November to review the items we have asked Dr. Brunner to report back on and will make a further report to the Board following that meeting. -3- To: Family and Human Services Committee of the Board of Supervisors From: H.A.C. Date: September 6, 1996 Re: Contra Costa County Continuum of Care Homeless Plan Items Needing Further Consideration 1. A better name for the Continuum of Care Board would be "The Homeless Continuum of Care Advisory Board." 2. A procedure (such as FACT adopted) to handle "Conflict of Interest" issues by members of the Continuum of Care Board is needed as many members will have divided loyalities. 3. The Homeless Coordinator should be responsible to the County Administrator and the Board of Supervisors. The first job of the coordinator would be to develop a functional organizational chart for plan implementation. 4. Now is the time to implement the recommendations as prioritized in the plan. 5. Welfare Reform will have a drastic impact on Contra Costa Homeless and -the at-risk population. The Social Services, SSI and Job Development plans already in existance should be addded as information in the appendix of the plan. 6. We understand Paul Gibson and Associates had a contract to inventory existing services. We recommend that the survey be completed and included in the plan data. 7. The full membership of HAC has not endorsed the full document as it did not receive a copy until September 4, 1996. COMMENT The coordination and writing of the Continuum of Care Plan was a monumental effort skillfully handled by Lynn Nesselbush. She is to be congradulated for a job well done. Our comments listed above, in our opinion, would make the report even stronger. S _L Contra Costa County Health Services Department •*"%/ - #• PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION Administrative Offices b 597 Center Avenue Suite 200 'v Martinez,California 94553 sr`4 COUNZ (510)313-6712 TO: Family and Human Services Committee Supervisor Jeff Smith, Supervisor, District 2 Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier, Supervisor, District 4 FROM: Wendel Brunner, M.D. Director of Public Health ) DATE: September 4, 1996 SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON HOMELESS PROGRAMS CONTINUUM OF CARE HOMELESS PLAN The completed Contra Costa County Continuum of Care Homeless Plan has been included in your packet. The five-year strategic plan for preventing homelessness was developed through a year- long process facilitated by Lynn Nesselbush. An Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force was convened to guide the planning process. The members of this Task Force contributed many hours of time to the development of this comprehensive plan to address homeless issues in Contra Costa County. That membership included representatives from County departments, cities, the faith community, providers of homeless housing and services, and people who were currently or formerly homeless. The Continuum of Care Homeless Plan provides a broad vision of what is needed in the county to address issues of homelessness. The Plan provides a framework for the County, cities, community based organizations, and the community to use in the effort to develop programs and policies that will move people from homelessness into housing. The Plan is very extensive, encompassing much more than we will have resources to implement in the near future. It will serve, however, as a basis for developing additional Federal and other funding in the future, and includes a thoughtful prioritization to indicate where we should focus our efforts. Coordination and Administrative Structures for the Homeless Program The Plan recommends creating a Contra Costa County Continuum of Care Board (CCOB), re- establishing the Homeless Management Team involving a number of County departments, establishing a Homeless Inter-Jurisdictional Coordinating Council involving county and city governments and state and regional agencies, and establishing an additional administrative A372 (7/91) Family & Human Services Committee Supervisors Smith & DeSaulnier September 4, 1996 Page 2' position, a Homeless Coordinator. This is an extensive administrative structure which would be appropriate for a homeless program encompassing the full set of services and programs outlined in the Homeless Plan. Like the other activities in the Plan, the administrative structure recommendations also need to be prioritized. The Contra Costa County Continuum of Care Board will probably be required by HUD for our next years grant application, and in any case is important to moving forward the homeless programs and planning. We will attempt to identify the necessary resources for staffing that Board and plan on convening it in time to act as the local allocation body for the next round of HUD funding. The CCOB will also guide the ongoing process of implementation of the Continuum of Care Plan. Re-establishment of the Homeless Management Team, at least on a limited scale, is also appropriate. We propose to convene on a regular basis at least representatives from the Health Services Department, Social Services Department, and Housing Authority, and bring in additional departments as is appropriate. At this point, further expansion of the administrative structure would be unnecessary for the current scale of the homeless programs, and inappropriate considering the current limitations in resources for homeless services. LETTER OF INTEREST (LOI) AND PLANS FOR ISSUING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) The Letter of Interest for operating the Shelter was released in July with a deadline of August 30, 1996 for return. There were six non-profits that responded to the LOI, and at least a number of them appear to have the capability and interest to potentially implement the program. As a result, we will proceed with the development and release of a full RFP. The timeline for the RFP process is proposed as follows: TIMELINE September - October 1996 Development of RFP Team and application process November 1996 Release of RFP February 1997 RFP return deadline March 1997 RFP review and decision May - June 1997 Contract negotiations and preparation for transition July 1, 1997 Start of new contract Family & Human Services Committee Supervisors Smith & DeSaulnier September 4, 1996 Page 3 This timeline is proposed to allow sufficient time for careful, thoughtful preparation of an RFP, and adequate response from proposed contractors. In addition, the timeline is arranged around the next year's HUD RFP schedule, so that the County program and responding contractors will not have to focus on both the County and the HUD RFP's simultaneously. CONTRACT WITH SHELTER, INC. The contract with Shelter, Inc. has been amended to add time and funds. We propose to continue the Shelter, Inc. contract until June 30, 1997. At that point, the RFP process will be completed and either Shelter, Inc. or a new contractor will be in place for the next fiscal year. THE STATUS OF HUD'S 1996 HOMELESS ASSISTANCE FUNDING Attachment 1 identifies the projects submitted from Contra Costa County to HUD under our County Continuum of Care Plan. HUD has not indicated when they will release funding decisions, but we can be confident it will be before November. Our County put forward a strong consolidated application, proposing projects that were highlighted in our County Plan. An enormous collaborative effort and dedication to the homeless in Contra Costa County was exhibited by the agencies, which put forth much effort in developing their responses. In addition, an ad hoc group worked to prioritize the applications as requested by HUD, in order to make our County's applications overall stronger. FUNDING FROM THE BAY AREA REGIONAL HOMELESS INITIATIVE Attachment 2 describes the Bay Area Regional Homeless Initiative and the eight projects that have been selected for funding. Seven of those projects will serve Contra Costa County. In addition, the Initiative identified eight other projects to be implemented with community resources. Of the 16 projects funded or promoted through the Regional Initiative, 14 will provide direct services in Contra Costa County. A grantee awards ceremony for the Regional Initiative, called Reducing Homeless Around the Bay Area, has been scheduled for September 11, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon at the Federal Building in Oakland. Awards will be announced and all 16 selected projects will receive Reducing Homeless Around the Bay Area project certificates. The media, local elected officials, regional congressional representatives,funders, grantees,and Task Force members will be invited. We hope that Contra Costa County Board members or their representatives will be able to participate in this event. WB:ah Attachments M ' A'ITACtIMQ�I' CONSOLIDA'T'ED APPLICATION ' Homeless Assistance 1996 Continuum of Care: Project Priorities Project Name/Project Sponsor Numeric Requested Program Priority Project (0-d�onlyo-) Amount SHP S+C SRO Moving Out of Violent Environments(MOVE)/ 1 $284,478 X Battered Women's Alternatives GRIP Resource Center/Greater Richmond 2 $486,045 X Interfaith Program(GRIP) Family Employment Resources and Services 3 $885,672 X Together(FERST)Multi-Service Centers/St. Vincent de Paul Transitional Housing Partnership Program/Shelter, 4 $505,373 X Inc. Contra Costa County Shelter Plus Care Program/'I 5 $446,520 X The Housing Authority of The County of Contra Costa Money Management Program/Rubicon Program 6 $571,200 X Inc. Dually Diagnosed Homeless Project/Contra Costa 7 $525,499 X County Health Services Department Community Substance Abuse Services Division New Hope Housing/Pittsburg Pre-School 8 $289,779 X Coordinating Council, Inc. 1)Moving Out of Violent Environments(MOM: The MOVE program, sponsored by Battered Women's Alternatives(BWA)will create transitional housing serving victims of domestic violence(individuals and families)for 12 households/27 beds. Over the three years of the grant, 162 women and children will receive transitional housing with domestic violence services. In addition,MOVE staff will provide domestic violence services at other programs in the Continuum of Care system,l'tnPreby expanding the availability of these services to women and children outside of domestic violence facilities The Continuum of Care gaps analysis identified transitional housing for victims of domestic violence as a high priority. It is anticipated that 90%of the women completing the MOVE program will stay in permanent housing for a least one year following the program- 2)GRIP Resource Center. The GRIP Resource Center,sponsored by the Greater Richmond Interfaith Program(GRIP),will establish a regional multi-service center in West County to provide coordinated support services for over 1,200 people over the three year grant period. The GRIP Resource Center will serve all homeless sub-populations,in particular families and individuals with a substance abuse problem, a mental health disability or a dual diagnosis, and will work with other programs in the Continuum of Care system,including transitional housing programs,°the GRIP emergency shelter and the Souper Center soup kitchen,to provide clients with access to a broad range of support services designed to help them regain and maintain permanent housing. The Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force identified the creation of regional multi-service centers as a high priority in the County's Continuum of Care strategy,in order to increase access to key services and provide a structure for coordinating service delivery on a regional.level. It is anticipated that 450 people will obtain housing over the three years of the grant and that 709/6 will remain in permanent housing for one year. 3)Family Employment Resources and Services To °ether QMRST)Multi-Service Centers: TheFERST project,sponsored by St.Vincent de Paul,will establish regional multi-service centers in Central and East County to provide coordinated support services to over 1,200 people/site over the three year grant period. The FERST multi-service centers will serve all homeless sub-populations, in particular families and individuals with a substance abuse problem,a mental health disability or a dual diagnosis,and will work with other programs in the Continuum of Care system to provide access Ito key support services and assistance in regaining and maintaining permanent housing. The Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force identified the creation of regional multi-service centers as a high priority in the County's Continuum of Care strategy in order to increase access to key services and provide a structure for coordinating service delivery on a regional level. In addition,this project will establish an electronic management information system that links all three of the regional multi-service centers(both FERST multi-service centers and the GRIP Resource Center) to create a countywide coordinated service network. It is anticipated that 450 people will obtain housing over the three years of the grant and that 70%will remain in permanent housing for one year through each of the two multi-service centers. 4)Transitional Housing Partnership Prom=: TheTransitional Housing Partnership Program, sponsored by Shelter,Inc.,will provide transitional housing and support services for 38 households over the three years of the grant'. It targets three population groups: people with dual diagnoses(individuals and families),families with substance abuse problems and individuals with HIWAIDS. Transitional housing for each of these population groups was identified as a high priorityin the Continuum of Care gaps analysis. It is anticipated that 50%of program participants will remain in unsubsidized housing for a minimum of one year after completing the program. 5) Shelter Plus Care: The Shelter Plus Care Program,sponsored by the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa,will provide permanent supportive housing to 10 households over the five years of the grant through tenant-based rental assistance linked to support services. It targets individuals and families who are dually diagnosed with IMAMS and a substance abuse or mental health disability. Supportive housing for people with dual diagnoses was identified as a high priority in the Continuum of Care gaps analysis. It is anticipated that 80%of participants,will remain in their Shelter Plus Care housing for at least one year and that 80%of participants will remain in supportive services and maintain contact with their primary case manager at least once per month as long as they are enrolled in the program. 6) Mongy Management Program: The Money Management Program, sponsored by Rubicon Programs,will provide money management services for 350 people over the three years of the grant. The target population includes people who are dually diagnosed (individuals and families), individuals with HIV/AIDS, and families with chronic substance abuse problems. These services will be offered in coordination with other programs and services in the Continuum of Care system, including the multi-service centers. This project addresses one of the service needs identified by the Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force as important for self-sufficiency and serves sub-populations identified as having a high priority need for transitional or supportive housing. It is anticipated that 80%of program participants(280)people will maintain their housing while enrolled in the program and that 60%of the program participants(2 10 people)will maintain their housing for at least one year after graduating from the program. 7)Dually Diagnosed Homeless Project: The Dually Diagnosed Homeless Project, sponsored by the Contra Costa County Community Substance Abuse Services Division, will expand access to drug and alcohol treatment services for people who are dually diagnosed. It will create a mobile mental health substance abuse unit that will conduct outreach to people who are dually diagnosed and provide the ongoing support necessary to help them access and succeed in treatment programs. In addition,the proposal will create five beds specifically set-aside for people with dual diagnoses at Discovery House, one of the County residential treatment programs. The Continuum of Care gaps analysis identified transitional housing, including residential treatment programs,for individuals with dual diagnoses as a high priority. It is anticipated that 721/o of program participants will remain in permanent housing for one year after completion of treatment. 8)New Hope Housing Program: The New Hope Housing Program, sponsored by the Pittsburg Pre-School Coordinating Council,will create 8 units of transitional housing linked to support services for families. Over the 3 years of the grant,24-48 families will be served through these units. In addition,it will provide assistance to other homeless families and individuals in locating other transitional and affordable housing and in accessing support services. Transitional housing for families was identified as a medium priority in the Continuum of Care Gaps Analysis. }s As A=A(� 2 I ' Reducing Homelessness Axvund the Bay Area Selection of Projects for the Bay Area Regional Homelessness Continuum of Care Regional Innovative Homelessness Initiative Reducing Homelessness Around the Bay Area is a region-wide innovative multi- year Initiative involving nonprofit community based organizations, local governments, funders, homeless people, and the private sector. The Bay Area's program has received its first contribution of$7 million from HUD, authorized under the federal McKinney Act as a discretionary program for seeding innovative activity on homelessness. This Initiative has three components: • Community Building • Systems Change • Collaborative Projects, Reducing Homelessness Around the Bay Area has seven priority areas of work, developed in a community-wide process, and adopted by local jurisdictions. Community Building, Systems Change and Collaborative Projects are being designed in these seven areas. These are: • Improved delivery of support services to homeless people • Increased incomes of people eligible for public benefits • Accessible, affordable transportation • Job training, development, creation and placement • Expanding community acceptance strategies • Developing funding to support services linked to permanent housing • Developing an ongoing, revolving source of funds for housing. Each of the seven priority areas are being activated across the region to support local efforts at providing a comprehensive homeless service delivery system in each community. Taken as a whole, this Initiative composes a region-wide continuum of care for homeless people, the nation's first multi jurisdictional regional approach. t Initiative Projects now funded--$ roiec Fight projects have been awarded funds. These projects and amounts funded are: ♦ T rahn g and Enterprise Collaborative for the Homeless Lead Agency: Berkeley-Oakland Support Services ($339,000) Participating: Rubicon Programs, Larkin_ Business Ventures. Project Summary: Job training, development, creation, and placement through homeless job development and enterprise creation. To benefit all homeless people, including 526 jobs. Jurisdictions Initially Served: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond. ♦ Health,Housing and Integy-ated SeMees Network Lead Agency. Corporation for Supportive Housing ($979,000) Participating: Over 20 agencies in housing and program development, social, employment, and healthcare services. Project Summary: Interdisciplinary service teams linked to permanent housing, and interagency provider networks to access services funding. 453 homeless adults needing supportive services 'will be served. Jurisdictions Initially Served: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, to be expanded. A Bey Area Regional Employment Collaborative Lead Agency: Jobs for the Homeless Consortium ($1,800,000) Participating: Alameda County Social Services, Rubicon Programs, Community Action Marin, Napa Valley Council for Economic Development, Jewish 'Vocational & Career Counseling, San. Francisco Counsel on Homelessness, Solano Coalition Against Homelessness, Sonoma County Task Force on the Homeless, and collaborators in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties to be determined. Project Summary: Strengthening regional systems for job training, development, creation, and placement, for homeless people. To benefit nearly 7,000 homeless people. Jurisdictions Initially Served: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solaro, Sonoma, Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, San Jose. 2 A Community Acceptance Strategies Consortium Lead. Agency: Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California ($250,000) Participating: ABAG, California Affordable 'Housing Law Project, FAITHS Initiative, California Housing Law Project, Association of Homeless Housing and Service Providers, Citizens for Quality Neighborhoods, Council of Community Housing Organizations, Fast Bay Housing Organizations, Marin Housing Council, San Francisco Council of''Housing Organizations. Project Summary: Regional capacity building team to engender community acceptance of at least 6 homeless housing and service programs through integrated legal, educational, and public relations strategies. To benefit all homeless people. Jurisdictions Initially Served: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solana, ''Sonoma, Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, San Jose. ♦ Bay Area Homeless Aloe Lead Agency: Santa Clara Multi-Service Center ($1,307,000) Participating: Eden I & R, Contra Costa Crisis Intervention, Marin Housing Authority, Napa Valley Family Homeless Shelter, San Francisco Mayor's Office of Community Development, San Mateo Office of Homelessness, Solana Coalition Against Homelessness, and many other agencies in 9 counties. Project Summary: Enhancing service delivery through the creation of a regional computer network linking homeless housing and service providers, including a Provider Library of available services, possibly a Client Information System, and Voicemail Access System for Homeless People. To benefit at least 3,200 homeless people in the first 2 years. Jurisdictions Initially Served: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, San Jose. 3 A Bay Area Regional Benefits Access Collaborative Lead Agency: Volunteer Legal Services Program. ($299,000) Participating: General Assistance Advocacy Project, Homeless Action Center, Berkeley Community Law Center,. North Bay Legal Aid, Legal Aid of San Mateo, Hawkins Center, Mental Health Advocacy Project of the Santa Clara Bar Foundation. Project Summary: Increase access of 750 homeless people to SSI and the Earned Income Tax Credit through outreach and use of volunteers. To benefit all homeless people. Jurisdictions Initially Served: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, San Jose. A Homeless Youth 101 Lead Agency: Youth Advocates ($554,000) Participating: Central City Hospitality House, Larkin Street Youth Center, Alum flock Counseling, Bill Wilson Center, Youth and Family Assistance of San Mateo, more agencies to be added. Project Summary: Reduce youth (ages 12-20) homelessness, initially along the Highway 101 corridor then expanding to other parts of the region, through enhanced support services delivery and job training, development, creation, and placement. At least 1,208 youth to benefit from this effort. Jurisdictions Initially Served: Marin, San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Jose, to be expanded. A The Reducing Homelessness Regional Fuad for Special Needs Housing ($800000) Lead Agency: Low Income Housing Fund Participating: Citibank, sponsors of special needs housing Project Summary: Provide loans and guarantees to nonprofits creating housing opportunity for homeless, formerly homeless and very low income people at risk of homelessness. Jurisdictions Initially Served: all communities within the nine county region. 4 Initiative P-miec s to be Developed with ( this r Community Resources--8 proje� cts Eight projects were selected for further development using community resources, based on their relative strength to make an impact on homelessness. These 8 include those agencies who proposed to carry out a project working only with their organizational sister agencies or branch offices. The. Task Force and staff will work with the following projects towards identifying the resources necessary to make them successful. These lead agencies are: ♦ Association of Bay Area Governments Project Summary: Regional Internet service, information and referral, and technological training for local nonprofits. ♦ Center for Employment Training Project Summary: Comprehensive training program in collaboration with stable housing for Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Solano, Sonoma, and Santa Clara counties. ♦ Community Action Agency of San Mateo Project Summary: Stabilize lives through jobs and housing for Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. ♦ Foundation for Understanding and Enhancement Project Summary: Assist homeless people to overcome three major impediments to successful employment - lack of job skills, information access, and resources in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. ♦ Oakland Independence Support Center Project Summary: One-Stop Career/Employment and Homeless Support Center for Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco counties. ♦ St;Vincent de Paul Project Summary: Establish and improve an information and referral network and job training programs in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. ♦ Swords to Plowshares Project Summary: Establish a continuum of care for homeless veterans in the nine county Bay Area. ♦ Emergency Housing Consortium Project Summary: Enhanced and increased case management to improve service delivery and effectiveness of the continuum of care, for all homeless people, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, San, Jose. 5 The careful analysis of each project proposal was made possible by volunteer members of the Task Force spending many hours in a short time frame to read the project proposals, assess how Initiative criteria, mission, outcomes, and goals were met, to provide input on how the proposals should be tracked for further development, and to provide comments on each project proposed. The Committee met the goals directed by the community in designing a regional continuum of care for this Initiative. Next steps for the Task Force include enhancing the regional continuum of care through building community relations, further resource development, policy development, technical assistance and project support, and allocating further resources developed. For more information, please call Kathy Espinoza-Howard, Chair, Regional Task on Reducing Homelessness, at(408)299-4510, Martha Fleetwood,HomeBase Executive Director, at(415) 788- 7961,x12,or Tony Gardner, HomeBase Staff Attorney, at(415) 788.7961,x2o. 6 S _L Contra Costa County .: -.• Health Services Department •;G_. »`: PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION Administrative Offices O 597 Center Avenue _ _= •1,tik Suite 200 Martinez,California 94553 COUP (510)313-6712 TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Phil Batchelor, County Administrator FROM: Wendel Brunner, M.D. 1--�� Director of Public Health DATE: September 4, 1996 SUBJECT: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOMELESS PLAN Attached you will find the Contra Costa County Continuum of Care Homeless Plan. This five year strategic plan for preventing and reducing homelessness was developed through a year-long process facilitated by Lynn Nesselbush. An Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force was convened to guide the planning process. The members of this Task Force contributed many hours of time to the development of this comprehensive plan to address homeless issues in Contra Costa County. That membership included representatives from County departments, cities, the faith community, providers of homeless housing and services, and people who were currently or formerly homeless. In addition to the Task Force, other groups were convened throughout the county to obtain a more broad base of input. There were five public community meetings held in the county, and three regional meetings for housing and service providers. In addition, there were 15 focus groups held with groups with homeless persons involving over 200 people, to obtain significant homeless input into the planning process. The work of these individuals has produced a comprehensive five-year strategy for preventing and reducing homelessness in Contra Costa County. The Continuum of Care Homeless Plan provides a broad vision of what is needed in the county to address issues of homelessness. The Plan provides a framework for the County, cities, community based organizations, and the community to use in the effort to develop programs and policies that will move people from homelessness into housing. The Plan is very extensive, encompassing much more than we will have resources to implement in the near future. It will serve, however, as a basis for developing additional Federal and other funding in the future, and includes a thoughtful prioritization to indicate where we should focus our efforts. A372 (7/91) Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Phil Batchelor, County Administrator September 4, 1996 Page 2 This final version of the Plan is very similar to the extensive drafts we have provided your offices previously, and which have been discussed at the Family & Human Services Committee. This version will be presented on September 9, 1996 to the Family & Human Services Committee for further discussion and recommendation. WB:ah Attachment cc: William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY � CONTINUUM OF CARE 1 1 HOMELESS PLAN 1 1 ' A Five Year Strategic Plan For Preventing & Reducing Homelessness � JULY 1996 - JUNE 2001 July 1996 Acknowledgments , The Contra Costa Continuum of Care Homeless Plan was developed through a ' community-based planning process coordinated by the Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force. Staff support was provided by the County Health Services Department and by consultant Lynn Nesselbush who coordinated the planning process and wrote the Plan. Consultant ' Hilary Brown conducted the focus groups and assisted in data gathering and analysis. The Homeless Plan would not have been possible without the dedication of those who ' participated on the Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force and its four sub-committees. Their generous commitment of time and expertise over the past year is greatly appreciated. In addition, special thanks is given to all those who participated in the twenty-three(23) , ' needs assessment meetings that provided essential input to guide the development of the Plan's recommendations. This includes the many citizens who attended the community meetings, the housing and service providers who attended the regional provider meetings, ' and most especially, the clients who attended the focus groups and shared their first-hand observations and experiences about what is needed to prevent and reduce homelessness. ii ' Homeless Task Ad Hoc s k Force Pancduants ' • David Ammann, Citizen • Stuart Lichtner, Rubicon Programs • Melissa Ayres, City of Walnut Creek • Charee Lord, Contra Costa Interfaith ' • Brenda Blasingame, County Health Services Coalition& St. Vincent de Paul Department, Homeless Program • Ginger Marsh, Homeless Advisory • David Boatwright, City of Antioch Committee (HAQ • James Bonner, Pittsburg Pre-School • Aminta Mickles, County Health Coordinating Council Services Department, Community • Laurie Brown, Citizen Substance Abuse Services Division ' • Victoria Brown, County Health Services • Frank Motta, Health Services Department, Mental Health Division Department, Shelter Plus Care Program • JoAnn Brooks-Washington, Homeless • Bruce Oberlander, Homeless Advisory ' Advisory Committee (HAQ Committee(HAQ • Elaine Burres, The Housing Authority of the • Dorothy Payne-Cahee, Homeless County of Contra Costa, Shelter Plus Care Advisory Committee(HAQ Program • Pat Pinkston, County Health Services • Sue Crosby, County Health Services Department, Homeless Program ' Department, Health Care for the Homeless • Del Price, The Housing Authority of the • Tom Fulton, Northern California Family County of Contra Costa Center • Lillian Pride/Jams Glover, City of ' • Kathleen Hamm, County Community Pittsburg Development Department • Kathy Renfrow, Contra Costa Inter- - Roscoe Hankins, One Step at a Time Faith Coalition& Homeless Advisory ' • Benita Harris, Rubicon Programs Committee(HAQ • Sherry Hirsch, Rubicon Programs • Paul Schulze, Greater Richmond • Julie Hudson, Phoenix Programs Interfaith Program(GRIP) • Jim Jakel, City of Martinez • Violet Smith, Mental Health • Derek Jones, Loaves& Fishes of Contra Commission Costa • Jerry Snyder, AIDS Alliance • Neil Jortner, Phoenix Programs • Michael Starks, Association of • Janet Kennedy, City of Concord Homeless&Housing Service Providers • Peter Koster, County Social Services & St. Vincent de Paul Department • Suzanne Strisower, County Supervisor • Kathy Lafferty, Cambridge Community Jeff Smith's Office Center& Homeless Advisory Committee • Theresa Wilkerson, City of Richmond (HAQ • Merlin Wedepohl, Pro-Active • Mary Lou Laubscher, Homeless Advisory Community Team(PACT) & Shelter, Committee (HAQ Inc. • Devorah Levine, Battered Women's Alternatives ' iii TABLE OF CONTENTS , Executive Summary , I. Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 ' ♦ Background ' ♦ The Planning Process ♦ The Need For An Integrated Service System ♦ Guiding Principles ' ♦ Previous County Planning Efforts ♦ Compliance With HUD Planning Requirements H. Homelessness In Contra Costa County .................................................... 9 ♦ Overview of The Causes of Homelessness ' A. Data on Homelessness ............................................................. 11 ' ♦ Estimated Number of People Who Experience An Episode of Homelessness Each Year t ♦ Estimated Homeless Population By Region ♦ Estimated Number of People Who Are Homeless Each Night ' ♦ Data on Homeless Sub-Populations ♦ Data On Income Level, Education & Employment ♦ Other Miscellaneous Data on Homelessness ' ♦ Data On The Population At-Risk of Homelessness B. Statement of Need .................................................................. 24 ' ♦ Overall Needs ♦ Sub-Population Perspectives & Additional Needs ' ♦ System Coordination Needs III. Recommendations ............................................................................. 42 ♦ Overview ' ♦ Priorities ♦ Implementation of The Homeless Plan ♦ How to Read the Recommendations , iv ' ' A. Improve Access To Information& Assistance For People In Crisis .............................................................................................. 51 ' B. Expand The Availability Of Key Support Services To Enable People To Regain Their Housing Or Prevent Its Loss ' .............................................................................................. 61 C. Expand Affordable Housing Options in Order To Enable People To Achieve Long-Term Housing Stability ........................................................................... ................... 77 ' D. Coordinate Homeless-Related Services And Housing Into One Integrated Continuum Of Care System With The For On-Going Strategic Planning ' ............................................................................................ 89 ' Appendices Appendix I.—Endnotes For Chapter On "Homelessness In Contra Costa County" Appendix H.—Focus Group and Survey Locations Appendix M.—Endnotes For Housing p Y Gaps Analysis Chart Appendix IV.—Summary of Comments Received During The Public Review Process 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' The Contra Costa County Continuum of Care Homeless Plan lays out a comprehensive five- , year strategy for preventing and reducing homelessness. It provides a common vision to guide the County, Cities, faith community,non-profit providers, and the larger community in their , efforts to develop effective policies and programs that assist people in moving off the streets and into long-term, stable housing. The Plan's recommendations address the full continuum of need,including prevention, emergency shelter,transitional housing, support services and ' permanent affordable housing. They also address the need for improving the coordination of service delivery and creating the capacity for on-going collaborative planning and program development. , ♦ Background & Planning Process On November 8, 1994, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors mandated that a ' comprehensive, integrated plan for homeless services be developed for the County. It authorized the creation of the Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force to coordinate a countywide ' planning process and write the Homeless Plan. The Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force began meeting in August 1995 and completed the Plan in July 1996. Its membership included representatives from County Departments, Cities, the faith community, providers of ' homeless housing and services, and people who were currently or formerly homeless. Throughout the planning process, the Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force used a `Continuum of ' Care' framework to guide their efforts. `Continuum of Care' describes an integrated service system which includes each of the following components: prevention services, ' outreach and assessment, emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent housing, and support services. These components are linked together to create a seamless service delivery system that enables people to access the full range of assistance they need to ' obtain permanent housing. This allows for both improved service delivery to clients and more efficient utilization of resources. Although Contra Costa County has all of the components of a Continuum of Care system in place, better linkages and coordination ' between agencies are needed in order for it to function as a system rather than simply as an array of services. In addition, each of the components contains significant gaps in service capacity that limit its effectiveness and therefore the effectiveness of the system as ' a whole. Another key guiding principle in the planning process was that the Homeless Plan's , recommendations be dictated by the needs of people who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness rather than by the availability of funding. The limitations on resources due to budget cuts and program changes were recognized and taken into account in the , development of specific recommendations, however, the Plan as a whole was written to Vi ' I reflect the full range of need and to encourage a stretch beyond current funding capacity. The Task Force's intent was that the Plan be used as a tool to facilitate aggressive and ' coordinated efforts to secure funding from all possible sources. The Task Force recognized that the responsibility for addressing homelessness and implementing the Plan does not lie with any one jurisdiction, but rather that all segments of the County and community must be involved. The resources of the public, private and non-profit sectors are all needed in the effort to develop and maintain the continuum of housing and services necessary to effectively prevent and reduce homelessness in Contra Costa County. ' ♦Homelessness In Contra Costa County In Contra Costa County, at least 13,000' people experience an episode of homelessness each year. More than 75% of them are members of a family, including almost 7,000 children. On any given night, more than 3,600 people are homeless, living on the streets ' or in temporary accommodations, such as an emergency shelter or on a friend's couch. In addition, many others are at-risk of becoming homeless, such as the nearly 17,000 extremely low-income households in the County who are paying over 30% of their income for rent and struggling to make ends meet. In Contra Costa County, as elsewhere in the State and Nation, homelessness is usually the end result of multiple factors that converge in a person's life. The combination of loss of employment, inability to find a fob because of the need for retraining, and the high housing costs in this County lead to some individuals and families losing their housing. For others, the loss of housing is due to chronic health problems, physical disabilities, mental health disabilities or drug and alcohol addictions along with an inability to access the services and ' long-term support they need to address these conditions. While the specific nature of the factors causing homelessness vary with individual circumstances, they can all be traced to the following three root causes: Shortage of Affordable Housing,Lack of Access To ' Support Services, and Low Incomes. Strategies aimed at preventing and reducing homelessness must address each of these three root causes in order to be effective. ' The following chart provides a summary of the homeless-related needs in Contra Costa County, identified through meetings with people who were currently or formerly homeless, providers and community members. It encompasses both what is needed to prevent homelessness as well as what is needed to help those already homeless back into housing. This summary of need formed the foundation for the development of the recommendations in the Homeless Plan. ' The numerical estimates provided here are a known undercount. They are minimum figures based solely on the number of homeless people who received Aid To Families With Dependent Children Homeless Assistance or General Assistance (GA) in fiscal year 1994- 1995. They do not include the many people who were homeless but did not receive assistance from these programs. Vii HOMELESS NEEDS SUMMARY ♦ Overall Needs • Accurate, Updated Information On Where& How To Get Help ' • Early Intervention: Timely Prevention& Emergency Services • Employment At A Living Wage • Transportation • Counseling, Life Skills& Support Groups • Affordable Housing • Post-Program Linkages& Follow-Up Support ' • Community Education, Involvement& Advocacy ♦ Sub-Population Perspectives & Additional Needs a. Individuals b. Families • A Place To Go, Showers, Laundry, •Emergency Shelter Telephone, Message Services& • Transitional Housing Storage Space • Affordable Child Care • More Emergency Shelter Beds And/Or Legal Camps c. People With Mental Health d. People With Drug& Alcohol , Disabilities Addictions • More Emergency Shelter Beds •More Residential Treatment Programs • Supportive Housing • Intensive Case Management , • Expanded Access To Mental Health • Transitional Clean& Sober Housing Services ' e. Youth& Young Adults f. People With HIV/AIDS • Youth Crisis Residential Program • Service-Enriched ' • Better Preparation For Youth Leaving Emergency/Transitional Housing Foster Care • Supportive Housing • Transitional Shared Housing For , Young Adults g. Seniors = • Assessment Of The Needs Of Seniors Who Are Homeless or At-Risk ♦ System Coordination Needs • Capacity For System-Wide Data Collection& Analysis • Coordinated Service Delivery ' • Coordinated Planning, Program&Policy Development Viii r ' ♦ Recommendations ' The recommendations in this plan are organized into four broad goals that reflect the overarching areas of need identified through the planning process. An overview of the four goals and the recommendations contained within them are provided in the following ' pages and in the chart at the end of the Executive Summary (page xii). A. Improve Access To Information & Assistance For People In Crisis ' The recommendations contained in this section address the need to expand the accessibility of services to help people in crisis, both those who are homeless and ' those who are at-risk of becoming homeless. This includes expanding information and referral capacity so that people can more readily obtain information about affordable housing and about services to help them regain housing or prevent tits loss. It includes the establishment of regional multi-service centers to both enhance the availability of services and improve the coordination of service delivery, and it includes expanding emergency shelter bed capacity in order to meet ' a greater portion of the need for immediate shelter. ' B. Expand The Availability Of Key Support Services To Enable People To Regain Their Housing or Prevent Its Loss ' These recommendations focus on expanding key support services that enable people to address the issues interfering with their ability to maintain stable housing. The goal is both to help prevent homelessness as well as to assist those already ' homeless to regain their housing. Included are recommendations for expanding access to mental health services, drug and alcohol treatment, money management/ representative payee services and domestic violence services. In addition,there ' are recommendations calling for an increase in funding for subsidized child care, expansion of services helping people to obtain employment and training, and investigation of strategies for addressing the need for free and low-cost transportation. Also included here are recommendations to conduct assessments of the needs of homeless youth and homeless seniors in order to guide the development of services and programs to address their needs. C. Expand Affordable Housing Options In Order To Enable People To Achieve Long-Term Housing Stability ' These recommendations focus on the development of a range of housing options that meet people's income and service needs, thereby enabling them to achieve ' stable housing and maximum self-sufficiency. Included here are recommendations for developing more permanent housing affordable to people with the lowest incomes, expanding the supply of permanent supportive housing for people with ' on-going service needs and increasing the amount of transitional housing available for people in need of limited term services and structure. Also, included is a ' ix recommendation aimed at addressing the barriers to the development of housing ' and services for people who are homeless or who have low incomes. In addition, there are recommendations calling for the provision of housing advocacy services ' to help people find and retain housing and the expansion of rental assistance funds to help people cover move-in costs or pay back rent. D. Coordinate Homeless-Related Services And Housing Into One Integrated , Continuum Of Care System With The Capacity For On-Going Strategic Planning ' The recommendations in this section are aimed at developing an integrated service system in order to increase the effectiveness of service delivery, facilitate planning ' and resource management, enhance fundraising, and assist policy and program development. Included are recommendations for establishing a Countywide Continuum of Care Board to oversee the homeless service delivery system, for ' creating structures to facilitate improved coordination within the County and between the County and other jurisdictions, and for establishing a Homeless ' Coordinator staff position within County government. There are recommendations focusing on improving coordination at the level of service delivery, for conducting a public education campaign on homelessness and for developing a data collection ' system to facilitate analysis and planning on homelessness. In addition, there are recommendations for creating a Homeless Trust Fund and for facilitating consumer input into the development and operation of the service system. , ♦ Implementation of The Homeless Plan ' Upon finalization by the Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force, the Plan was forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and to each of the eighteen Cities for approval. As the initial step in ' the implementation of the Continuum of Care Homeless Plan, the Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force has requested that the Board of Supervisors establish the Contra Costa Continuum of Care Board (COCB) and a Homeless Coordinator staff position within the County ' Homeless Program. (See Recommendations D.1 & 4) The COCB and the Homeless Coordinator will be responsible for the implementation of the Continuum of Care Homeless Plan and on-going planning and oversight for the homeless services system. t ♦ Priorities In order to help guide the implementation of the Homeless Plan and the allocation of ' resources over the next year, the Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force has identified twelve recommendations as high priorities. This high priority designation means that these ' recommendations address high priority needs and should be addressed in the short-term (Years 1-2). It is anticipated that the County Continuum of Care Board will engage in a similar prioritization process each year to identify annual priorities to guide the on-going ' implementation of the Homeless Plan. X ' ' HIGH PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS ' ✓ Preserve existing programs& services in the Continuum of Care system as long as they are still needed (See Guiding Principles-page 5) ' ✓ Expand homeless-related information& referral services (See Recommendation A.1 —page 51) ' ✓ Establish regional multi-service centers in West, Central&East County with core services, including information and referral services, drop-in centers, and shower ' & laundry facilities (other support services to be added over time as resources permit) (See Recommendation A.2 -page 53.) ✓ Expand emergency shelter beds for families (See Recommendation A.4- page 56.) ✓ Expand access to residential drug and alcohol treatment for people with dual ' diagnoses (combination of mental health, drug or alcohol and/or HIV/AIDS diagnoses—families and individuals) and for families with drug or alcohol addictions (See Recommendation B.2.a&b -page 64.) ' ✓ Enhance people's ability to achieve economic self-sufficiency: P Y ' • Expand access to money management services (See Recommendation B.3 -page 66.) • Expand access to employment and training services (See Recommendation- ' B.6-page 71.) ✓ Develop more housing affordable to those with the lowest incomes (families and ' individuals) (See Recommendation C.1 -page 77.) ✓ Expand the supply of supportive housing for individuals with dual-diagnoses (combination of mental health, drug or alcohol and/or HIV/AIDS diagnoses) (See Recommendation C.3-page 82.) ✓ Expand the supply of transitional housing for victims of domestic violence(families and individuals) and individuals with HIV/AIDS (See Recommendation C.4-page ' - 84.) ✓ Establish the structures and staffing necessary to implement the Homeless Plan and ' engage in on-going planning and coordination: • Create the Contra Costa County Continuum of Care Board (See ' Recommendation D.1 -page 89) • Create a Homeless Coordinator staff position (See Recommendations D.4-page 93.) Xi r r r a CJS ° Q = � � � .o •� � y ... � � v, fl+ � a s� a 7 •v © +.+lot CSCcz+' •rr+ cr O U a r v U to oto x .. x cc ,4C r� O p 0904 (I � �+ y O C •� 4i � � �4 � i G 40 41 r Y/ ice. w W ice. � 4> •� } � C I nor I� "C7 C/ 34 ® CO IIx' O s. z � w h rr H W o a W -a c ao .� o .�' HO' O cz eG ,� ee ............... W z 1 o Od es U � dv -0 `o ai a d o u a x E. 41 �-a E"+ -v o a� a� � � o u N � •� o cc W o s r ec>' o +., o •� ._ a, rw > cc e�C y rte, w 4.1 s c = v a, L QOj ^ m y. s o V r.+ a, o IZ r+ O v, = CC w c; 'i7 z w `� .y r a °�' w a ;� �e .� .Q vi tem .� .� cC� kn 1 `z x o � r a r v ,o �r L Ey as o � r i L L r > rA c� y ZY dA 'v .non ca vii ci o ay U � � � a o +•� c o •� +r v� oia ra 'C L U y y o � Lt L o as ee o Cc cz rn 40 oj cz 4.1 rA cc cm cc cz ro cn Imo.• tv c_ Qi L Ca G y, rn o L L � � u •co Cx0 .0 v � '� C � � a � 6�i A o N o w > ec •w`— ' m o d ct cc en tj tn 2A, � r y on O y m a i y i L cc � ^ s 0 O i p ._ N y 'Gun >s T. Gm "FA i y oc i O cc C*w cc en H 0 i � w a.° .° �«. �..• � i �n a s ^o � > �... � i �n ... a s i y w 4 rA y o v ° c co a 'C "8 O ^ O O R s 'Aw E , a A-0 O C O > y y o — y els o 3 Q � w w oo •� > d = i w c y c rA ' ccy >, ee ti.. v wo cu i •� cc i lu f/1 w •i •CC w CD '� ° _� Gr CG 40. b°0 y .awy. a O W �, y y y CJ yC N 40 •a' F .r y y y C O as 0 41 EA y CwCN o � s °' r °' a'3 'O c .E- , Hca Z s ° O C eyC u y � ° Q >> y �, o w c c N s Q4 ' >, w U -p V w O i W v CSCCt CD O y w y G� ea ° >, C ' Q. eke °' �� oQ a Ucc o •�' O W c y QJ W W o o O •� U E i ' I A 06o N w i OwOl W W Ems-+ a. o•_ � � � c °o' � N � W � o ° _ � ro Q ►� W M z'. U o z �°. cco rx ee = Cc c FO �/ W �e � x -• Us 0.s ass a � 3 E 3 ce W � L Cai o c + ° l euc C y E•Ly O � W) ufa i 'cc V3 W in N O �4 O F4+ GO)a ' •O y r.+ , F .> O C ucc ae i••i rs,, C d = u y O, ai y 'y '� ea cc W F d a ,� a x w u c o. y •N w s ,x W a_o o o w sem. w a a •� ;� $ o CC p u p y OL i y v] u 5" i •L y CC ° 61 1�1 ++ CG a i44 cc u � � Si '� � '• � � s L' � ¢' CC i ' ee W = ewe D O s- •bn O u ocz N u p W s A2 w w � ,� � x45 4N o � v y � � •�+ fl., � �i "mss wF ;o ti c L Z o ,o Gn E A d o o s s oma, W y icc W � f� w } z u d ' :O v 'x A ' 3 x � y A u L � L' ° L +-� Cw COC C CSC ' Q r`� v u _ ,/��, X�.0.11 o •en L .� a� o u co • i V y U i y r O L O y � O u� �, y piv Os Q L Qn v1 •� u O._ � y R b0 X at O L. Te'e �, y • `- = w V ti ewe z>„ .„ U � cz rA ° ea a� •ct u 3 o L u :a eoe o00 =s eca U rAQj cz u ar yu = o c u `� a c Z ee O Cd -O O s- U cz L 'L7 O nA .S u r, dl g 4j cc cc ' Q W ++ OLA ee 'C _>, a..0 L 0. Z V [.w C W _yCd •� N L p •CC U rA ,O ee ti �o u Ce '� vs F r/� F•� h Ct cc ct Ct CL y CL C/1= 00 bRGoy r�= b9 O � OAO .0 �,/ • • In U RS U G� U C X eq It 'L7 y N 4-�. cd d u o s ssa � d y 1 tj 10 00- O Qc an fj O L Ct W i CL° L O � Fav x o 0 U UUU eA ^es v a ro W w p ce .= •o o �? ee s. a.. �ENO-�`-� V U '� � y '.r. UCD .� Cd 0 V a O .� b0 w O U rrn rO+ '= C b0 C 0,0 b0 ' aV rA a ce L w 4. ' M AQO y O U � o zs •E cc V2 in o C p o O orA > � z z r. ct Ge ei ^d a swo a� t x >ra x c s r O ccErA •� i CCcc o ai o aai s y a = •a a 4v co -rA cc O $ O ra Z cc = a� u u a a cc o �o = ee s •� a u o c o 6 s cues C. � L O Z E rA rl ac 's o y w '" eC v� a' 3 Q cc e.. v, O rA p x„ v ee s. � rVn a a E C O w O eC s ctV F h Q.�" e=C ap O N y c., y al IrAu O S cc 'C yrA ° = u C cc = o E 3 cc cc o — o rjD u C to �i vi '> ss mss° �' i L L O O O y CC' V] � V] CSV• Lw' O O O O O O W O O O W CE 'du UxU xUUUvs '►Z"iUUUO � ' i i CC rte.+ p 'C i y y i p '� '� L y •� CJ V a Po o c y fl. °-3' . 4Lo„ o o F ,d '�- � u o {� O= • x .�.� o..r x u C • � C i. i O s ° • � C � i O .= x C �+ C , O O p O C p y p O p a d u d 4• z 41 m v G C 4z rA v u y w rC+ v y w �cc � yQ yp Oa. C c y0 CL a � C � O M c a ; 'A o a • O u o 4+ • eC u o L • CC u C i rA O s i y 3 o c C. m y o 3 0 c o c ' GM C.4 ee ,,,, 'C ' bD ^C dA y _ '° OD•� CC 'i" O L O u L earA Of cc a o u to Wi C O L p L u O v� ulz an y �4- cj y A c ' A ee c "'v a O W L aom > rA E c L� -a o o U = a ao W ' � ... 00 ' C � 1 y CV' MM •� IWI h dd U ' � O p'aUUxxUUx UU Zo s Q. o o s ° o •3 pC, EH: W F v s a. o an• o •° L c r ON cr 44 cd GO QS Ln O `F-,/ Q a'•+°. d ice.+ O CL.1 x O� O V p Q O O w > JS � U "�" • C. ee .s� .� � s 'o ami . ts. � d • w ewe w u hH �« Cc C GJ L w w O a 3 c o O w 0 u o Z ° c . cs w u , ° O •p a� ecc w+ W > C ¢ p z' N C` 'y •y • a C by wr' s y c,0. �+Ui y y bD y O Oi" S ti r.+ G°J O T3 rn o y w C C 7 cci' c �►. G. ,� C. C O0 +�'+ y C Oci F = y y bA O V +d+ + Z W ° U ti •� y o u •i c°� ee u •W O s y L y O O >Cd LC C ' s O i •a L` y t], of C O cc cc a. 3 ;5 ; :Q c. •sem a £ o �.•°�' P o e cc CJ y9v s ° y C 6J �, W O y eC i2 w cv s ZS. v Q r0+ 0 A v O WW a 'COJ ° an 0 �. vU � � 8 o rA ej y Cda � r4 ou a ss CA � Y eC m eC CA cc tA C�d 6i ala tlal °^ • +' .� c ' cc OA • � � � � � C rig � r•+ tr''C eC � �:+ Ao > d an— ' t > taj a o W Ot cm Q $ as Q ami U 3 xs 3 H W Zo cc r/i CG "CC O. C� bA C `CyV �.r•�. J'� .� � •� G .air � CC S:i.. R. GC OD tc V *'Cfy •� 'C� a � � � � ...:� M � LaC � � do •i ' ao L L o Vi CC ren � � L U A � a+ o a UxUx a� rA ' M .o A ay aOL fid" c c ° w o o L a c cep - h IV Z cc rA Q 60� oN o o v� sU- . res .� v � 'o • Y a? ct a w Ct Q6 Cd ct CJ ' �. > a _ up Gro ct rA an rA Go to 04 ad W0 v ° w d 96o a00 1 wo z ° 3 z � xU xVV WxU 1 W o.� a.3 ^ � � �.r - on � • o :a � ° ea .� ee � o � E4-+ 0 z � o '' � °' � v � a o a� t� � � v °o c a. d � v •L o `•' � o � c ^ � � �, • U 8 � 8 .� � .00?3 B .E .� � �?3 o f H nD oo L7 U U g U v1 z eC O o cc o +.+ V !t �.+ U 7 r.+ CJ w cc Qj p i O O � O r"•" O C .yam. ° 1 O O Fes] 00 ee Ri 3 w a o = c �+ • 3 0 ° 41 cc w ox Q Olt ra CA Gn ro aye w cc U s IW ° c an - d a o +S+ d cC OL ti 'C U vQJ ��„ N GT� CC O CC V C� 1 a .•y O .� a' N V � M .�. �r � �•' 1 z w i L O O y x Iz a> C eC bD y wl s ee v rArA O4.1 cw cd Q� I� �" •i � C C � � = > Q SCO R � � c� r=, fvr. w L roi .G "'L3 s ►� � vpi � .o •i h • rte/ • v ed G 7 • i V R U • • ¢ 7 O • ai 7�. s .f rrm FA L Op \1 y w O pA O y v OOLa O O E Ccc O rA = o eC p EA U � L > � arA O O cz O cc ycd iCc 0 3 o rA ti w Wx p •� V eC bi O (� .6.0 CSC pM1 'e� C GOcc cc on ' 0 0 ' x- mod ® oo U ' U O U _" ►`7' U _� {� U U C = L O i � C U O V1 O ' � O C/?_ 11. N eC O _.V= • O d � v v L. 41 L CL O O a. w i0. GJ O 40 O to Qcc rA Cd � ti C C3 w C3 w O O = y O ' O .0 v C C CC O Qo 4a 4. O .4a y c� oz O c.. v > Zi U C ,� C�UJ O y Ci L F AerA A C O v ro .O O 00 rz h a oo e>ers. So ¢• i W E� 0 ' L O w y � 'xUUU c GJ ++ L R O bD � c c = k GO U 'C3 O� i ce � y � ° •v � � � O. � O � O O •� � 4 •y C it o ro ee 1IZ ° o �• zs •� s 0.0 con i03o C ee D ecce ecce � e° Us° ciUU c; o a• I. INTRODUCTION ' • Background On November 8, 1994, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors mandated that a ' comprehensive, integrated plan for homeless services be developed for the County. It authorized the creation of the Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force to coordinate a countywide planning process and write the Homeless Plan. Responsibility for oversight and staffing of ' the Task Force and the planning process was assigned to the Health Services Department. In their mandate for the development of a comprehensive Homeless Plan, the Board also ' endorsed the following goals, as suggested by the Health Services Department in its September 1994 report to the Board of Supervisor's Internal Operations Committee entitled, `Framework For The Development Of An Integrated Plan For Delivering Homeless Services In Contra Costa County": • Increase clarity about the scope of the homeless problem and the roles of the ' existing structure of services in the County • Identify gaps in services and priorities for addressing them ' • Provide an opportunity for elected officials and the community to examine what PP Y tY ' is already being done to address the problem and to build consensus • Recommend the most appropriate structure to achieve an integrated and effective homeless delivery system • Recommend how to strengthen individual components and how to cross ' categorical funding and program barriers to maximize funding and effectiveness • Position the County to meet the HUD Continuum of Care requirements for ' future McKinney funding. • The Planning Process The Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force first met in August 1995 and continued to meet on a ' monthly basis through July 1996. Its membership included representatives from County Departments, Cities, the faith community, providers of homeless housing and services, and people who were currently or formerly homeless. The meetings were open to those ' formally appointed to the Task Force and to those informally participating. [Seepage iii for a listing of Task Force participants.] The Task Force developed its recommendations fbr the Homeless Plan through four working groups, each of which focused on a specific subject area, as follows: ' 1)Prevention, Emergency Services& Support Services 2) Transitional & Affordable Housing ' 3) Coordination 4) Community Education& Outreach. The planning process was conducted in three phases: ' Phase I -- Needs Assessment (September 1995 -January 1996) ' Twenty-three(23) meetings with community members, providers and clients were held to identify the unmet service and housing needs of people who are currently ' homeless or at-risk of homelessness and to solicit program and policy recommendations about how to best prevent and alleviate homelessness in Contra Costa County. The input from these meetings was supplemented with data t gathered from client surveys, the County Social Services Department, the Consolidated Plans for the Contra Costa Consortium and the City of Richmond, and public and non-profit provider year-end reports. This yielded an overall ' statement of homelessness-related need for the County and the identification of key gaps in the existing service delivery system. , Phase II --Recommendation Development &Prioritization (January-May 1996) In January and February 1996, the Task F'orce's four working groups met, ' analyzed the feedback from the needs assessment process and developed recommendations for the Homeless Plan. In March through May 1996,the full ' Task Force reviewed and adopted the recommendations from the working groups, set priorities and developed a draft of the Homeless Plan. Phase III—Public Review. Revision&Development of the Final Plan ' (June - July 1996) The draft Continuum of Care Homeless Plan was provided to the members of the County Board of Supervisors, the eighteen cities within Contra Costa County and to all affected County Departments for their review and comment. Two meetings ' with representatives from County departments were convened by Supervisor Jeff Smith's office to solicit comment and discuss implementation of the Plan. It was made available for review at the emergency shelters, detox and drug and alcohol ' treatment programs, and transitional housing programs where focus groups had been held in December 1995. It was also made available to the general public for review at main libraries and at each County Supervisor's office. In addition, the ' draft Plan was presented at a public meeting on June 26, 1996. Written and verbal 2 , ' comments were accepted from all parties until July 10, 1996. At its final meeting on July 12, 1996, the Task Force reviewed.the comments received and made necessary revisions to the Plan. The final version of the Plan was then submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval and adoption. At this time, it was also submitted to each City Council for their approval and adoption. ♦ The Need For an Integrated Service System Since homelessness first arose as a public issue in the 1980's, the efforts of public and non-profit agencies, civic leaders, the business community, foundations and community volunteers have created a broad array of housing and service programs designed to help people get back into stable housing. However, despite the significant successes of these programs, the number of people homeless each night in Contra Costa County continues at ' crisis levels. This is due in part to a lack of capacity on the part of existing programs to respond to the overwhelming numbers of people in need. It is also due to a lack of sufficient coordination of services between agencies that results in some people, especially ' those with multiple needs, recycling from program to program without being able to get the full range of assistance they need to regain and maintain housing. ' The magnitude of the homeless problem and the multiple causes of people's homelessness point to the need for a comprehensive, integrated service system. An integrated homeless services system, also called a `Continuum of Care', includes each of the following ' components: prevention services, outreach and assessment, emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent housing, and support services. These components are linked together to create a seamless service delivery system that enables people to access the full range of assistance they need to obtain permanent housing. This allows for both improved service delivery to clients and more efficient utilization of resources. (See Contra Costa County Continuum of Care System Chart on the next page) Although ' Contra Costa County has all of the components of a Continuum of Care system in place, better linkages and coordination between agencies are needed in order for it to function as a system rather than simply as an array of services. In addition, each of the components ' contains significant gaps in service capacity that limit its effectiveness and therefore the effectiveness of the system as a whole. ' Throughout the planning process,the Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force used this Continuum of Care framework as a guide for their efforts. In gathering information during the needs ' assessment and in the development of the Plan's recommendations, the following two questions provided a unifying frame of reference: ' •What are the key gaps in services that need to be filled in order to enhance the effectiveness of the entire service system in helping people to regain and maintain permanent housing? ' • What structures and capacity are needed in order to facilitate better coordination in service delivery and on-going system-wide strategic planning? 3 1 - v 1 a� Cad � c Lm CC tT 0-0 o UAB: � PCcoo •- a � ♦' rA tx, � O W _ on 1 � e •a>, rA TTT C� 'v 80 T FJD 4, = W tiAACODQ, A _ a . 0 0 ' Throughout the planning process,:the Task Force considered the needs of both people who are currently homeless as well as those who are at-risk of homelessness. This broad focus grew out of the Continuum of Care framework which includes prevention services that help people address the issues that threaten their housing stability before they lose their housing. The Task Force identified prevention as an important priority and ' recognized that many times the distance between being at-risk of homelessness and being on the streets is not very large and that the needs of these two groups overlap significantly. People at-risk of homelessness were identified as including the following: ' • Those who have extremely low incomes and are paying more than 30% of their income on housing; ' • Those who have a physical, mental health, drug or alcohol, or medical disability that threatens their housing stability; • Those in foster care, hospitals or the corrections system who have nowhere to go upon discharge; and/or ' • Those who are likelyto lose their benefits due to cutbacks and policy changes in P Y g ' federal, state and local benefit programs. ♦ Guiding Principles The following principles guided the Task Force in the development of the Homeless Plan. ' Likewise, they also offer a point of reference for the implementation of the Plan and future planning efforts. ' • Preservation Of Existing Levels Of Service Is A Top Priority Preserving the operation of existing affordable housing and services in the face of budget cuts and changes in public policy is a top priority and all efforts should be undertaken to do so. While the current level of services is by no means adequate to meet the volume of need, it provides a base level of care that should be maintained as long as the need exists. To allow needed programs to close their doors due to lack of funding, only to scramble in the future to open new programs to address the same need, is inefficient and a waste of resources. ' • A Comprehensive& Integrated Service System Is Essential To Preventing& Reducing Homelessness Generally, homelessness arises because of the intersection of a variety of factors in an individual's life and unless all the causes are addressed in a timely and Icoordinated fashion, long-term stability cannot be achieved. Therefore, each program within the service system must have linkages with other programs and all ' 5 components of the Continuum of Care, from prevention through to permanent , affordable housing, must be in place. The goal is to create an integrated system of care that allows people to move easily within the system, obtaining the full range of services they need in order to acquire permanent housing, maximize their self- sufficiency and move beyond the risk of homelessness. • The Plan's Recommendations Should be Dictated By Need,Not By Available ' Fundiniz The recommendations in this Homeless Plan should respond to the needs of people ' who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness rather than be dictated by the availability of funding. Although the limitations on resources due to budget cuts , and program changes must be recognized and taken into account in the development of specific recommendations;, the Plan as a whole should reflect the full range of need and encourage a stretch beyond current funding capacity. The , Plan should be developed with the intention of providing a tool to facilitate aggressive and coordinated efforts to secure funding from all possible sources. • Homelessness Can Only Be Effectively.Addressed Through Collaborative ' Efforts Involving All Jurisdictions And All Segments Of The Community_ The responsibility for addressing homelessness rests with all of us, and not just with those communities which currently have the largest numbers of people who are homeless. This means that the Cities, County, Region, State and Nation must work together to develop and coordinate their policies and programs across jurisdictional lines. It also means that all sectors, public, private and non-profit, must be involved and contributing to the effort to develop and maintain the continuum of housing and services needed to prevent and reduce homelessness in Contra Costa County. ' • Prevention Is The Most Cost-Effective& Humane Strategy For Addressing Homelessness Prevention means providing people who are at-risk of homelessness, including those who have low incomes, are disabled, or face unexpected crises, with the ' assistance they need to avoid losing their housing. This requires a comprehensive and integrated network of support services that can help people to address their needs, while they still have their housing. In addition, in order to facilitate early , and therefore more effective interventions., all social service programs should incorporate a homelessness prevention focus by training staff to recognize early warning signs and provide appropriate referrals and follow-up. 6 ' • Advocacy Is Needed To Change The Public Policy and Economic Decisions That Have Helped To Produce Homelessness Particularly in this time of budget cutting and welfare reform, it is vital to recognize the relationship between public policy decisions to reduce or eliminate critical support services, such as benefit programs and mental health services, and the rising number of people without homes in our communities. Likewise, it is important to see the connections between the increasing economic pressures felt by the"middle-class"and the economic forces causing homelessness for those whose income level places them closer to the edge. Advocacy to affect public policy decisions is essential in order to reverse the forces causing homelessness and 1 creating economic insecurity in our society. • Public Education Is A Ka Aspect Of The Effort To Address Homelessness ' Increased awareness and understanding of the causes and extent of homelessness is essential to building the support necessary for siting and operating programs and is critical to countering the stigma that makes it difficult for people to fully reintegrate themselves back into the community. Ultimately, homelessness cannot ' be solved without a deep commitment on the part of society that none of its members be without the opportunity to meet his/her basic needs. • People Who Are Homeless Are Full and Equal Members of Our Community People who are homeless enjoy the same rights and share the same responsibilities as other members of the community. Acknowledgment and respect for their civil rights should infuse all public policies and program regulations. Likewise, they have a responsibility to take advantage of available opportunities and work to maximize their self-sufficiency. • Planning Should Produce Concrete Results In The Lives Of Those It Aims To -p This planning process will only be effective if it results in greater opportunities for people to address the core issues that led to their homelessness or placed them at- risk of becoming homeless. The end result should lead to actions that improve the quality of people's lives in ways that are real and lasting. 1 ♦ Previous County Planning Efforts ' This planning process built on previous planning efforts that have taken place in Contra , Costa County. Planning documents that were reviewed for the needs assessment and recommendation development phases of the planning process include the following: • A Beginning Plan For Dealing With Homelessness In Contra Costa County, 1986 ' • Report To The Board Of Supervisors On Homelessness In Contra Costa County ' And Recommendations For Action, by the.Task Force on Homelessness, July 1987 •Long Term Affordable Housing Solutions To Homelessness, by the Community Homeless Action&Resource Team(CHART), April 1989 • Strategic Plan On Homelessness, by the Social Services Department, November ' 1989 • Symposium on Homelessness in Contra Costa County, Planning Session Summary, October 1991 • A Homeless Prevention Plan: Creating Options and Opportunities for the , Homeless of Contra Costa County(1992-1995),by the Association of Homeless & Housing Service Providers • Report of the Contra Costa County Mental Health Advisory Board Ad Hoc Planning Committee, June 1993 •Housing Report of the Contra Costa County Mental Health Commission, June 1994 ' • Contra Costa Consolidated Plan, FY 1995-1999 • Richmond Consolidated Plan, FY 1994-1997 ' • Contra Costa County AIDS Housing Plan, May 1996. ♦ Compliance With HUD Planning Requirements ' This planning process, while oriented to addressing the needs of Contra Costa County, was also designed to fulfill anticipated requirements by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that localities have in place a Continuum of Care strategy developed through a community-based planning process in order to receive HUD homeless assistance funding. ' 8 II. HOMELESSNESS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ' ♦ Overview of The Causes of Homelessness Homelessness is not an isolated circumstance in Contra Costa County. Rather, it affects at ' least 13, 0002 people per year. More than 75% of them are members of a family, including almost 7,000 children. On any given night, more than 3,600 people are homeless, living on the streets or in temporary accommodations, such as an emergency shelter or on a ' friend's couch. In addition, many others are at-risk of becoming homeless, such as the nearly 17,000 extremely low-income households in the County who are paying over 30% of their income for rent and struggling to make ends meet. ' In Contra Costa County, as elsewhere in the State and Nation, homelessness is usually the end result of multiple factors that converge in a person's life. The combination of loss of employment, inability to find a job because of the need for retraining, and the high housing costs in this County lead to some individuals and families losing their housing. For others, the loss of housing is due to chronic health problems, physical disabilities,mental health ' disabilities or drug and alcohol addictions along with an inability to access the services and long-term support needed to address these conditions. While the specific nature of the ' factors causing homelessness vary with individual circumstances, they can all be traced to the following three root causes: ' • Shortage of Affordable Housing: The lack of affordable housing in Contra Costa County is both one of the factors pushing people into homelessness and one of the barriers making it difficult for people to regain housing, once homeless. With ' some of the highest housing costs in the nation and a median rent of$615/month', many people are unable to find housing that is within their means. Over 1,000 households2 are currently homeless and in need of affordable housing. However, ' according to the Consolidated Plan', the County has a severe shortage of rental housing affordable to people with extremely low incomes_ It is estimated that there are 7,500 more households with extremely low incomes than there are rental ' units affordable at this income level. The need for access to housing that is affordable is shared by all people who are homeless. Ultimately, once other service needs are addressed, access to housing ' 2 The numerical estimates provided here are a known undercount. They are minimum figures based solely on the number of homeless people who received Aid To Families With Dependent Children Homeless Assistance or General Assistance (GA) in fiscal year 1994- 1995. They do not include the many people who were homeless but did not receive assistance from these programs. 9 affordable for one's income is the only way out of homelessness. • Lack of Access To Support Services: For a significant portion of the homeless population, access to key support services is paramount and must be addressed in ' order to facilitate their moving back into permanent housing. These support services include: health care, mental health services, drug and alcohol treatment, ' employment and training services, and child care. The following provides some indication of the need for these services: • An estimated 41% of the homeless population has a problem with drugs ' and alcohol. On any given night, this is over 830 households. • An estimated 17% of the homeless population has a mental health disability. On any given night, this is over 345 households5. 70% of them are estimated to be dually diagnosed with a drug or alcohol problems. ' • 34%6 of women who are homeless report that they have experienced domestic violence at some point in their lives. • Physical disabilities and health problems, including HIV/AIDS, are a factor in many people's homelessness. ' • Families make up 57%7 of the households which experience an episode of homelessness in the course of year. Child care is essential to their being ' able to obtain employment, attend job training programs and access other support services to help them regain housing and address issues contributing to their homelessness. ' Because of limited funding for these services, too many people are unable to ' access the assistance that they need. Looming cutbacks due to federal, state and local policy and budget changes are likely to result in the availability of these services being even more restricted. ' • Low Incomes: Almost 90% of people who are homeless have a gross monthly income of$1000 or less, over 60% have a.gross monthly income of$500 or less$. ' With a median rent in Contra Costa County of$615/month, it is nearly impossible for them to cover their costs of living. These low incomes are due both to low benefit levels and to low wages. Benefit levels, including General Assistance ' (GA), Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), have been steadily eroding in comparison to the costs of living and are threatened with further cut backs, thus making it even ' more difficult for those relying on these programs to maintain stable housing. For the over 10% of the homeless population who are employed, low wages still ' put housing and self-sufficiency out of reach. The average wage earned by those 10 , . .3 ' who are assisted by Rubicon's employment services is $7.00/hr, however at least $12.00/hr is needed to pay the County's median rent and not incur an excessive ' housing cost burden. For those without jobs,barriers to finding and keeping employment include: the lack of access to showers and telephones, lack of job skills, limited employment options in today's poor economy, and discrimination by ' employers who are reluctant to hire homeless people. Strategies aimed at preventing and reducing homelessness must address each of these ' three root causes in order to be effective. The following two sections provide more in-depth information about homelessness in ' Contra Costa County. Section A outlines the data available on the numbers of people who are homeless, their demographics and their service needs. Section B lays out a comprehensive statement of homeless-related need derived from meetings with people ' who are homeless or formerly homeless, providers and community members. It encompasses both what was identified as being needed to prevent homelessness as well as what is needed to help those already homeless back into housing. 1 A. Data on Homelessness This section presents the available data on homelessness in Contra Costa County. ' Unfortunately, data on the number of people who are homeless, their demographics and their needs is extremely limited due both to the difficulties in obtaining this information and to the lack of resources available to conduct such data gathering and analysis. However, a picture of the magnitude of the homeless population in Contra Costa County ' and their needs was derived based on the following three data sources: ' * Contra Costa County Social Services Department data on the Aid To Families With Dependent Children-Homeless Assistance Program (AFDC-HAP) and the General Assistance (GA)program; ' • A survey of homeless people conducted by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department in December 1995; and • Year end reports and other statistics from County programs and non-profit providers of services to people who are homeless. ♦ Estimated Number of People Who Experience An Episode Of Homelessness Each ' Year In Contra Costa County •Homelessness is not an isolated circumstance in Contra Costa County. Rather, ' it affects over 13,000 people per year. •Contrary to popular impression, the majority of people who are homeless are ' members of a family. Over half are children. In Fiscal Year 1994-95: ' Population Breakout • At least 13,266 people were homeless at ' some point during the year • 78% (10,388)were members of a 22% ' family • 53% (6,975)were children ' • 2,878 were individual adults, 56% (1,612)were men & 44% (1,266)were fig% ®Individuals ' women Family Source: Derived from Contra Costa County Social Members , Services Department data on AFDC-HAP recipients&GA recipients 10 ' In Fiscal Year 1994-95: ' Household Breakout • At least 6,628 households were homeless at some point during the year 57% ' • 57% (3,750)were family households T • 43% (2,878)were adult-only ®Adult-Only households " T Households ' Source: Derived from Contra Costa County Social 43% 0 Family Services Department data on AFDC-HAP Households recipients&GA recipients10 ' The preceding estimates of the number of people who experienced an episode of homelessness during fiscal year 1994 (July 1994-June 1995)were derived from data from ' the Contra Costa County Social Services Departmentlo. The number of homeless families 12 ' ' during FY 1994-95 is based on the number of families who received assistance from the Aid To Families With Dependent Children Homeless Assistance Program(AFDC-HAP). ' According to AFDC-HAP, applicants are considered homeless if they do not have permanent housing, including those who are living in a temporary shelter, residing on the streets or in a place not designed for human habitation, or living temporarily doubled up ' with friends or family. The number of individuals who were homeless during FY 1994-95 is derived from data on the number of people who applied for General Assistance (GA) and the percentage of recipients who self-declared that they were homeless. ' These numbers are a recognized undercount;they are minimum figures since they represent oniv people known to have been homeless because they received AFDC-HAP, ' or because they applied for GA and declared themselves to be homeless. These numbers do not include all the families who were homeless but who were ineligible due to immigration status or income level or because they had already received AFDC-HAP ' assistance within the previous 24 months. These numbers do not include homeless families, who were eligible for AFDC-HAP, but who for a variety of other reasons never applied for it. These numbers also do not include all the individuals who were homeless ' but who did not apply for GA or who did apply but did not declare themselves to be homeless. ' These numbers are a yearly count and do not show the number of people homeless on any given night. The length of each homeless episode is unknown and ranges between one night and the entire year. 1 ' 13 ♦ Estimated Homeless Population By Region ' •Homelessness is a significant problem in all regions of the County. ' In Fiscal Year 1994-95: Homeless Population ' • At least 6,257 people were homeless Regional Breakout = in West County, including 4,675 family members and 1,583 individual 7000 , adults 6000- 5000— At 0005000 At least 2,901 people were homeless in Central County, including 2,181 4000 3 t family members and 720 individual 3000 - adults 2000 • At least 4,108 people were homeless 10001— in 000 in East County, including 3,532 family - members and 576 individual adults West Central East Source: Derived from Contra Costa County ■Families -_ Social Services Department data on AFDC-HAP ❑Individuals recipients&GA recipients 11 13 Total A breakout of the estimated number of people who are homeless in each region was ' derived from the estimated yearly count using Contra Costa County Social Services Department caseload data for AFDC and GA". The breakout of homeless families is ' based on the relative proportions of the AFDC caseload in West, Central and East county. Similarly, the breakout of homeless individuals is based on the relative proportions of the GA caseload in the three regions. These numbers are an undercount since they are based ' on the yearly estimates which do not include all homeless people. 14 ' ' ♦ Estimated Number of People Who Are Homeless Each Night In Contra Costa County -Each night in Contra Costa County, almost 3,700 people are living on the streets or in temporary accommodations, such as an emergency shelter or on a ' friend or relative's couch. -The majority are members of a family. Almost half are children. ' In Fiscal Year 1994: ' • At least 3,687 people were homeless on 70% Population Breakout any given night ' x= ■Individuals • 70% (2,587) were members of a family and 47% (1,737) were children � 30% 0 Familv ' Members • 1,100 were individual adults, 56% (616)were men & 44% (484)were ' women Household Breakout • At least 2,034 households were ' homeless on any given night. 54% 46% (1,100) were adult-only households and 46% (934)were family households. :� ■Adult Only ' Source: Derived from Contra Costa County Social ° O Families Services Department data on AFDC-HAP 54/° ' recipients&GA recipients and from a Health Services Department December 1995 survey of homeless people 12 ' Estimates of the number of people homeless on any given night in Contra Costa County were derived based on data from the Contra Costa Social Services Department and results ' from a December 1995 survey conducted by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department Homeless Program 12. Those considered homeless are people who do not have permanent housing, such as those living in a temporary shelter or transitional housing ' program, residing on the streets or in a place not designed for human habitation, or living temporarily doubled up with friends or family. ' 15 ♦ Data on Homeless Sub-Populations , The following data is based on year-end reports and other statistics from public and non- ' profit providers of homeless services . It is supplemented with data from a survey conducted by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department Homeless Program in December 1995. This survey was conducted as part of an outreach effort to people who ' were homeless in order to obtain input to guide the development of the Homeless Plan. As part of this outreach effort, focus group interviews were conducted with over 200 people at fifteen programs, including emergency shelters, transitional housing programs, ' soup kitchens, drug and alcohol detox and residential treatment programs, and a multi- service center for people with mental health disabilities. (See Appendix H for a listing of the programs where focus groups were held.) At-the close of each focus group, ' participants were asked to fill out surveys. A total of 192 people filled out the surveys, 76%were homeless, 10% were formerly homeless and 14% had never been homeless but considered themselves at-risk of homelessness. , Given that the people who filled out the survey were not selected by a random or scientific process, the survey results are not statistically representative and cannot on their own be , used to depict the needs of the County's overall homeless population s3. However, in combination with the other provider-based data, a picture of the needs of people who are homeless in this County can be discerned. , a. People With Drug or Alcohol Addictions , •Drug and alcohol addiction is a problem for a significant number of those who are homeless. •Residential detox programs and long-term residential treatment are the types of , drug and alcohol services most often used by people who are homeless. •Drug and alcohol addiction affects both individuals and families. , • In calendar year 1995, 1,527 homeless people in Contra Costa County accessed some type of county-funded drug or alcohol treatment, including 1,106 men and 411 women 14. ' This is a minimum figure because it does not include those who accessed treatment but chose not to declare themselves as homeless, and it does not include people with drug or , alcohol problems who were homeless, but did not: access any type of treatment. Given that the demand for alcohol and drug treatment is greater than the supply,the number of people with a drug or alcohol problem cannot be determined solely by looking at the , number of people who access these services. 16 ' • Estimates of the proportion of the homeless population in Contra Costa County with drug or alcohol problems range from 23%to 59%, with a mid-point of 41%. Sources for ' these estimates include the following: ✓ Dividing the 1,527 people who accessed drug or alcohol treatment by 6,62815, ' the overall estimate of the number of homeless adults in a year, yields a percenta&: of 23%. ✓ 59%16 of those surveyed by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department Homeless Program in December 1995 reported that they had a drug or alcohol problem. ' ✓ 35% of those who received services from Rubicon Programs, Inc. in fiscal year ' 1994 reported that they needed drug or alcohol treatment services or that they were in recovery17. ✓ 46% of the adults served at Mt. View House during the three year period September 1992 and August 1995 had a problem with drugs and/or alcoho118. ' • According to Shelter Plus Care client data, 61% of those they serve with an alcohol or drug problem are in adult-only households and 39%are in family households. • More homeless people access services with a residential component(detox and long- term recovery programs)than access outpatient services. In 1995, County-funded drug and alcohol programs reported that people who are homeless constitutel9: ' ✓ 72% of residential detox clients (1,771 people) ✓ 32%of long term residential recovery (3-6 months) clients(115 people) ' ✓ 54% of pregnant/post-partum women in long term perinatal residential programs (44 people) ✓ 7% of out-patient program clients (98 people). b. People With Mental Health Disabilities ' • Almost 20%of those who are homeless have a mental health disability. ' •Both individuals and families need access to mental health services. • In calendar year 1995, 1,142 people who were homeless were served in the County mental health system20. ' This is a minimum figure because it does not include those who received services but did not declare themselves as homeless and it does not include those who were homeless and had a mental health disability but did not access any type of services. Given that many ' 17 people who need mental health services are unable to access them, the number of people , with mental health disabilities cannot be calculated solely by looking at the number of people who access services. , • At least, 171/o of the homeless population in Contra Costa County is estimated to have a mental health disability. Sources for this estimate L.clude the following: ' ✓ Dividing the 1,142 people who accessed mental health services by the 6,62821 adults estimated to be homeless in a year yields a percentage of 17%. ' ✓ 17%22 of the people surveyed by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department Homeless Program in December 1995 indicated that they had a mental ' health disability. • According to Shelter Plus Care client data, 68%of those they serve with a severe mental , health disability are in adult-only households and 32%are in family households. c. People Who Are Dually Dia-nosed •Over 10%of the homeless population have both a mental health disability and ' a problem with alcohol or drug use. •Almost 75%of homeless people who have a mental health disability also have a ' problem with alcohol or drug use. • 12 0 of those surveyed by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department Homeless Program in December 1995 indicated that they had both a mental health disability and a problem with drug or alcohol use. , • In the December 1995 survey, 72% of those who indicated that they had a mental health disability also said they had a drug or alcohol problem. 20% of those who indicated that ' they had a drug or alcohol problem also said they had a mental health disability24. •According to Shelter Plus Care client data,67%of those they serve who are dually ' diagnosed(have a some combination of a mental health disability, an alcohol or drug problem and/or HIV/AIDS) are in adult-only households and 33%are in family households. 18 , d. Victims of Domestic Violence ' •Domestic violence is a significant aspect of their homelessness for many women and their children. ' • 34%25 of the women surveyed by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department Homeless Program in December 1995 indicated that they had experienced domestic violence at some point in their lives, either as a child or as an adult. e. Persons With HIV/AIDS ' • There are an estimated 468 homeless people with HIV/AIDS in Contra Costa County. This is 18% of the reported 2,600 people who are living with HIV/AIDS in the Count y26. ' •Accordingto Shelter Plus Care client data, 67%of those they serve who are diagnosed with � ey � HIV/AIDS are in adult-only households and 33%are in family households. f. Young Adults •Almost 1/4 of homeless individuals are young adults (age 18-24). ' • After leaving foster care, 25% of young adults had experienced at least one night of homelessness and 40% were a cost to the community, according to a national stud Y27. ' • In fiscal year 1994, an estimated 691young adults(age 18-24) were homeless at some point during the year28. 264 were homeless on any given night 29. g. Other Sub-Populations ' •Physical disabilities and health problems are a factor in many people's homelessness. •Significant numbers of people who are homeless report that they were discharged from a hospital or prison in the past year. ' •Over 10%of the homeless population are veterans. ' • People With Physical Disabilities: 20% of those surveyed by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department Homeless Program in December 1995 indicated that they had a physical disability30. ' 19 • People With Health Problems: 20% of those surveyed by the Contra Costa County r Health Services Department Homeless Program in.December 1995 indicated that they had health problems and 10% of those surveyed said that they had stayed in the hospital during , the past 12 months''. 10% of the adults served at Mt. View House during the three year period September 1992 through August 1995 had a chronic health problem32. • People With A Criminal Record: 20% of those surveyed by the Contra Costa County ' Health Services Department Homeless Program in December 1995 reported that they had spent time in jail during the previous 12 months". 33% of those served by Rubicon I Programs in FY 1994 reported that they had been convicted of a crime34. • Veterans: 16% of those surveyed by the Contra Costa County Health Services , Department Homeless Program in December 1995 indicated that they were veterans'S. 12% of those served by Rubicon Programs in FY 1994 reported that they were veterans36. ♦ Data On Income Level, Education And Employment a. Income Level ' • The majority of people who are homeless have a gross monthly income so low ' that it makes it nearly impossible for them to find housing that is affordable. E ' Gross Monthly Income 70 62 , 60 w. 50 — 40 X30 — 2' , a, 20 s 7 10 0 `' 2 1 2 <$500 $500-1000 $1000-1500 $1500-2000 $2000-2500 >$2500 Source: Contra Costa Countv Health Services Department December 1995 survev of homeless people37. . ' • 87% of homeless people surveyed by the Contra Costa County Health Services , Department Homeless Program in December 199:5 had a gross monthly income of$1000 or less, 62% had an income of$500/month or less''. • The median rent in Contra Costa County is $615/month'8. In order to pay this rent and not incur an excessive cost burden(payment of over 30% of gross monthly income as rent), a household would need an income of$2,050/month($12.00/hr wage). ' 20 , 1 • It is estimated that there are 7,500 more households with extremely low incomes than there are rental units affordable at this income level39. b. Education Level •People who are homeless have a varied educational background. A significant number, at least 113, have completed some college or obtained a degree. Education Level Attained 33% 14 A'; r 22% El Not Completed High School or GED x: ❑Completed High School or GED 1 31% ■Some College AA or BA Degree or Graduate School Source: Contra Costa County Health Services Department December 1995 survey of homeless veovle40 • In the December 1995 survey conducted by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department Homeless Program, 47% of the respondents had completed some college or obtained a degree, 31% had completed high school or the GED, and 22% had not completed high schoo140. In comparison, 33% of those served by Rubicon Programs in FY 1994-95 had completed some college or had obtained a degree, 40% had completed ' high school or the GED, and 28% had not completed high school or the GEDai c. Employment Data •Despite the obstacles, more than 10%of those who are homeless are employed. ' • 17%42 of those surveyed by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department Homeless Program in December 1995 were currently employed. 11% of those served by Rubicon Programs in FY 1994-95 were currently employed43 . i 1 21 1 ♦ Other Miscellaneous Data On Homelessness • The majority of people who are homeless have had at least one previous experience of homelessness. •Public transit is the predominant means of transpo-.'ation for most people who , are homeless. • 64%44 of those surveyed by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department ' Homeless Program in December 1995 had been homeless more than one time. • 80%45 of those surveyed by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department Homeless Program in December 1995 said they use the bus or BART to get to appointments or to work. • In the December 1995 survey conducted by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department Homeless Program, respondents indicated that during the previous twelve months46: ✓ 43% had lived on the streets ✓ 22% had lived in a vehicle , ✓ 59%had been in a shelter or transitional housing ✓ 45% had stayed with a friend. (The percentages do not add up to 100%because the survey respondents were able to give multiple responses to the question. ♦ Data On The Population At-Risk of Homelessness •Almost 17,000 extremely low-income households are paying an excessive portion of their income for rent and are therefore at-risk of homelessness. •Many people's incomes are so low that they are unable to meet their basic needs, including food and medical care. •Due to cut-backs in benefit programs, many current recipients may lose their only source of income and the only thing.standing between them and homelessness. • According to the Contra Costa Consolidated Plan:47 ✓ 16,700 households, nearly 3/4 of all households with extremely low incomes, are potentially at-risk of homelessness because they pay more than 30% of their , income for rent. Over 13,000 households bear an even greater housing cost 22 S ' burden, paying 50% of their income on rent. ' ✓ Over 11, 000 people are on the waiting lists for Section 8 Rental Assistance and subsidized Public Housing48. ' • According to the Contra Costa County Hunger Task Force's 1993 report"Hunger in the Midst of Affluence": ' ✓ 125,000 people received food from emergency food pantries in 1992, an 80% increase since 1987. ' ✓ Two parent families are the largest group receiving emergency food; they constitute 28% of all emergency food recipients. ' ✓ 31% of emergency food recipients are putting off medical care because they cannot afford it and 52% are putting off dental care. ' • Changes in federal and state level benefits programs, some proposed and some already enacted, will eliminate or reduce the benefits available to many households, including ' those dependent on AFDC, GA, SSI and Medi-Cal. Without these benefits, the number of people falling into homelessness is likely to increase. ' ✓ According to the Social Security Administration, as of January 31, 1997, 1,463 people in Contra Costa County will no longer be eligible for their Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)benefits due to changes in the ' eligibility requirements that disqualify people whose primary disability is due to drug or alcohol addiction. This change creates more demand on the County- funded General Assistance (GA) program and will likely lead to more homelessness, since the benefits from the GA program are substantially lower than those paid by Social Security. 1 ' 23 B. Statement of Need , A comprehensive needs assessment process was carried out in November and December 1995 with the following goals: ' • To identify the unmet service and housing needs of people who are currently ' homeless or at-risk of homelessness; • To solicit input about the concerns of the larger community in relation to homelessness; , • To obtain feedback about how the service delivery system is presently operating; and • To solicit program and policy recommendations about how to best prevent and ' alleviate homelessness in Contra Costa County. Twenty-three (23) meetings were held with people representing diverse viewpoints, ' including members of the community, service providers and people who are currently or formerly homeless. These meetings included the following: • Five community � ,meetings were heldeach co-sponsored by one of the County ' Supervisors and held in her/his district. These meetings were attended by over 180 people, including community members, business people and local service ' providers. • Three regional meetings for service providers were held, each co-sponsored by ' the Association of Homeless and Housing Service Providers. These meetings were attended by over 70 providers. ' •Fifteen client focus groups were held at emergency shelters, soup kitchens, transitional housing programs, alcohol and drug detox and residential treatment ' programs, and a multi-service center for people with mental health disabilities. These focus groups were attended by over 200 people. In addition, short surveys were filled out by the participants at each focus group. (See Appendix II for a ' listing of the programs where focus groups were held.) The feedback from all the meetings and all the viewpoints was synthesized to yield a , comprehensive statement of homeless-related need, encompassing both what is needed to prevent homelessness as well as what is needed to help those already homeless back into housing. This statement of need formed the foundation for the development of the , recommendations in the Homeless Plan. The needs have been organized into the following three categories: ♦ Overall Needs ' ♦ Sub-Population Perspectives& Additional Needs ♦ System Coordination Needs. ' 24 ' HOMELESS NEEDS SUMMARY ' ♦ Overall Needs ' • Accurate, Updated Information On Where& How To Get Help • Early Intervention: Timely Prevention& Emergency Services • Employment At A Living Wage ' • Transportation • Counseling, Life Skills& Support Groups • Affordable Housing ' • Post-Program Linkages& Follow-Up Support • Community Education, Involvement& Advocacy ♦ Sub-Population Perspectives & Additional Needs ' a. Individuals b. Families • A Place To Go, Showers, Laundry, • Emergency Shelter Telephone, Message Services& • Transitional Housing Storage Space • Affordable Child Care • More Emergency Shelter Beds And/Or Legal Camps ' c. People With Mental Health d. People With Drug& Alcohol Disabilities Addictions ' • More Emergency Shelter Beds • More Residential Treatment Programs • Supportive Housing • Intensive Case Management •Expanded Access To Mental Health • Transitional Clean& Sober Housing ' Services e. Youth& Young Adults f. People With HIV/AIDS ' • Youth Crisis Residential Program • Service-Enriched • Better Preparation For Youth Leaving Emergency/Transitional Housing Foster Care • Supportive Housing ' • Transitional Shared Housing For Young Adults g. Seniors •Assessment Of The Needs Of Seniors Who Are Homeless or At-Risk ' ♦ System Coordination Needs • Capacity For System-Wide Data Collection& Analysis ' • Coordinated Service Delivery • Coordinated Planning, Program&Policy Development ' 25 1 ♦ Overall Needs ' Certain needs were raised as being important to all segments of the homeless and at-risk ' population—to single adults, families, those with a mental health disability or a drug or alcohol addiction, and youth. These needs were identified as being essential to preventing people from falling into homelessness and/or assisting those already homeless to regain ' and maintain housing. • Accurate, Updated Information On Where& How To Get Help , "Information is too worker-dependent and getting it can be like pulling teeth. What if you don't know the right question to ask? Everyone should have access to ' the same information about what is available. "-- Client in a transitional housing program There was widespread consensus across all the needs assessment meetings that ' more readily accessible information about services is crucial both to prevent people from becoming homeless and to empower those already homeless to obtain the ' assistance they need. Clients, providers and community members all complained about the difficulty in obtaining information about the types of services available. People who are homeless spoke about not knowing where to go to get help and of ' calling telephone numbers, over and over, that were always busy or answered only by machines. They expressed frustration about being given piecemeal and incorrect referral information from caseworkers, and about not even being told , about other services because they did not have enough information to ask the right questions. They stressed the importance of there being a source of accurate information about services that they can access by themselves, and therefore not be ' dependent on case workers who often do not know about the services offered by other agencies and who have large caseloads which limit the attention they can ' give any one client. This was felt to be particularly important in terms of information about housing programs. Service providers spoke of the time-consuming and inefficient process of calling ' numerous agencies to find out who currently has motel vouchers or rental assistance monies, while clients wait for a call-back at a telephone booth. A ' central source of regularly,updated information about emergency housing services would greatly facilitate their ability to assist clients. Community members spoke about knowing people in need but not knowing where to suggest that people go for help and about wanting to help but not:knowing where to call about volunteering or making a contribution. A well-publicized number to call was identified as important in enabling people to play a role in responding to ' homelessness in their communities. 26 ' • Early Intervention: Timely Prevention& Emer eg_nc_yServices ' "Being homeless eats at your self-esteem. It puts you into a survival mode, and you can't think about anything except getting by each day. 1 need to learn again how to think and plan for my future, and to believe I have one. "- Client at an ' emergency shelter Early intervention to prevent homelessness and to limit the length of time on the streets for people who do lose their housing was stressed as being both cost- effective and humane. While providers and clients saw prevention as an important priority, they also expressed fiustration about the limited availability of services ' that can help people before they become homeless. Many programs cannot serve people until they hit a crisis. For instance, rental assistance programs do not provide assistance until people receive an eviction notice and consumer credit ' counseling programs do not help until people are already behind in payments;too often this is too late to prevent homelessness. Households in severe crisis, ' spending over 80% of their income on living expenses, are not able to qualify for most kinds of prevention assistance since they are considered to be at high risk of not being able to maintain their housing. This means that they cannot be helped ' until they actually lose their housing and are homeless. Expanded access to support services was also identified as an important aspect of homelessness prevention. There was an emphasis on the need to target support ' services, such as employment and training and life skills, to youth leaving foster care and to those who are currently receiving assistance(GA, AFDC, SSI and ' Section 8 rental subsidies), but are likely to lose their aid due to changes in the program regulations. Overall, providers stressed the importance of people accessing assistance early;they said that too often people wait too long and by the ' time they try to get help, there is little that can be done quickly enough to help them avoid homelessness. ' Once people become homeless, they often do not know where to go. Both providers and clients felt that quicker, easier access to the service system is needed. This includes places people can turn to for immediate assistance in ' regaining housing or accessing other services as well as more emergency beds. They stressed that the best time to help people is in their moment of crisis, not months later after the problem has been complicated by the stresses of ' homelessness and people's self-esteem and ability to cope effectively have been diminished. There was consensus that the less time people spend on the streets and in homelessness, the easier it is for them to regain housing and stability. ' 27 •Employment At A Living Wage , "7f you've been on the streets and been tore up,you can't go right into the job ' market. You need some help on how to prepare and present yourself. '— Client at an emergency shelter Access to stable employment at a living wage was identified as an essential aspect , both of preventing future homelessness and helping those currently homeless to regain self-sufficiency. For those already homeless, a spectrum of employment- , related needs was identified. For some,the main barriers to finding a job were related to their homeless living situation;they need access to showers and laundry facilities, an address, access to a telephone, and a place to get mail and messages ' that does not identify them as being homeless. Help in developing resumes and polishing interview skills were also mentioned. For others, a lack of job skills poses the main barrier;they need education, apprenticeships, vocational training ' and re-training. In regard to training, many,people stressed that they thought training programs should have better linkages to actual jobs, and that those who finish programs should receive assistance in lining up employment. Finally, an ' overall lack of stable jobs at a living wage was identified as a significant issue. Given the poor state of the economy and the reluctance of employers to give people a chance, strategies to promote job creation were felt to be particularly ' important. • Transportation Lack of transportation was consistently raised as a barrier for people trying to ' move out of homelessness. People are unable to get to job interviews and to jobs because they don't have a car or gas money to drive their car. Others find it ' difficult to access services or keep their appointments with their Social Services case worker. The size of the County and the limited public transportation makes it difficult to get from one area to another without taking the whole day. The , problem is especially severe in East county where there are communities that are not served at all by public transportation. Suggestions included operating a van service between programs, developing a discount bus pass for people with low , incomes and creating volunteer ride programs. • Counseling,Life Skills& Support Grouts , 'Everyone needs help recovering from homelessness."—Client at an emergency , shelter Homelessness is a major trauma that often produces depression and other stress- , related conditions that can interfere with people's ability to respond and cope with 28 ' l their situation. The longer the period of homelessness, the greater the likelihood of dysfunctional behavior. Many providers and clients interviewed felt that ' counseling services and support groups should be available to everyone who is homeless,whether or not they have an actual diagnosis, in order to help people process and deal with the issues facing them. ' In addition to counseling, a variety of life skills, including money management (budgeting, credit& consumers skills and representative payee services), conflict mediation, advocating for one's needs within the service bureaucracy, planning and goal setting, and parenting skills, were identified as being vital to ensure that people are able to maintain themselves in housing after being homeless. It was ' consistently stressed that no one should be exiting from the emergency shelters, transitional housing programs, the foster care system or residential recovery programs without these skills. These skills were also identified as an important ' aspect of homelessness prevention. • Affordable Housing ' "I thought Id be fine because my job training will enable me to earn$10/hr. Then I looked at the high rents in this area and realized that combined with my child care costs, it wouldn't be enough. I am one of the lucky ones;I'll be able to make it because 1 am getting one of the last Section 8 vouchers. I don't know how others will be able to do it without the vouchers. "-- Client in a transitional housing program ' "A previous eviction is like a straight-up wall;you just can't get past it. Client at an emergency shelter The lack of housing affordable to people with extremely low incomes (recipients of General Assistance(GA), Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), ' Supplemental Security Income(SSI) and those earning low wages) was stressed as being both one of the factors causing people to lose their housing and one of the principle barriers to people being able to move out of homelessness. An estimated ' 1,00049 homeless households are in need of permanent affordable housing. Nearly 17,000 households with extremely low incomes are at-risk of homelessness because they are bearing an excessive housing cost burden(total housing costs exceed 30% of the gross household income)50. The size of the need is also demonstrated by the over 11,000 households on the waiting list for Public Housing or Section 8 Rental Assistance51. In addition to the lack of funds available to develop housing affordable to those with extremely low incomes, many providers and clients also felt that local zoning laws and planning processes raise unnecessary barriers which delay development. 29 In order to move out of homelessness, people must obtain a stable income stream ' to pay for their living costs, including housing. For many homeless people, this income stream, at least initially, is General.Assistance (GA). However, there is ' virtually no housing that is affordable at this income level. The median rent in Contra Costa County ranges from $257/month in North Richmond to $1,046 in Clayton52, while a GA grant is $300 a month. For those who are employed, high , rental costs still pose a significant barrier. 'The average wage earned by those who are assisted by Rubicon's employment services is $7/hour; however at least $12/hour is needed to afford the County's median rent of$6155' and not incur an , excessive housing cost burden. For those whose housing costs are excessive, the threat of falling back into homelessness will continue to be present. Many providers and members of the community spoke of the need for shared housing , programs that would match potential roommates and provide training in successful shared living so that people can better afford housing. They also identified supportive housing, housing linked with support services, as an important housing ' arrangement for people with disabilities. In addition to the lack of low cost housing, many people are unable to obtain ' housing because of bad credit histories, previous evictions and/or because they cannot come up with the steep move-in costs necessary to enter housing (first and last months rent plus security deposit). , • Post-Proaxam Linkages&Follow-Up Support ' There was strong feeling that people should not be leaving programs with nowhere ' to go. Providers and clients agreed that the number of people recycling through the system was a problem and evidence of program failure. Programs need to put more resources into providing people with assistance in lining up their next step, , whether it is another program or permanent housing. Follow-up support was seen as an important aspect of ensuring that people are able to retain their housing and not fall back into homelessness. In addition to follow-up case management, peer support groups and mentoring programs through the churches and other ' community agencies were suggested as possible ways to provide follow-up support. These follow-up support services help to ensure that people do not ' become isolated, and that in the event they need assistance,they will have the linkages necessary to get help. • Community Education, Involvement& Advocacv Providers and community members felt that community education is an important ' way to increase the public's understanding of homelessness and build support for programs which prevent and alleviate homelessness. Mobilizing public opinion and , conducting advocacy in support of safety net programs was seen as essential in the 30 ' current political context. Homeless people spoke of the need for community education to counter the stigma and discrimination they run into from prospective ' employers and landlords. In addition, participants at all the meetings acknowledged that the larger community has an important role to play in addressing homelessness and that government and the non-profit sector would not ' be able io do it all. ♦ Sub-Population Perspectives & Additional Needs As with the general population, the homeless population is composed of many diverse sub- populations. Each group has different perspectives on what is needed and how it should best be provided. The following is an overview of some of the different perspectives along with a listing of any additional needs that were identified for that sub-population. a. Individuals: It is estimated that over 2,878 individual adults experience an episode of homelessness at some point during the year and that over 1,100 are homeless on any given night. Men make up the majority(56%) of homeless individualssa ' The most important needs for many individuals are an adequate and stable income stream and a place to live. Many expressed frustration about the difficulties of ' finding employment when homeless and focused on the need for services to help them obtain jobs. Finding employment is particularly difficult for parolees. Others focused more on problems with General Assistance(GA)which is so low that it ' makes it practically impossible for them to find housing and get back on their feet. In addition to low benefit levels, many were frustrated about disrespectful and non-helpful attitudes from GA staff and the program requirements for job search ' and alcohol and drug treatment that seem more punitive than helpful. For many individuals, independence and control over their lives is of paramount importance and this affects how or if they access services. Some choose not to stay in the ' shelters or to access GA because there are too many rules and requirements for them. In addition, some no longer believe that the `system' has anything to offer them;they just want to be left alone to get by in whatever way they can, without ' harassment. Those individuals adults choosing to use the shelters expressed frustration about the shelter rules and operation. Most felt that three months is just not enough time to get oneself stabilized, emotionally and physically, after being on the streets. It is not enough time to be able to deal with all they need to in order get housing lined ' up and it is not enough time for them to be able to enroll in job training programs. Many people were angry and scared about the lack of options available to them once their time is up at the emergency shelters. The shelter curfew is also a cause ' of fiustration for many who say it causes them to miss evening job opportunities and that as adults they should not be subject to such a stringent and early curfew. ' 31 Finally, some expressed frustration about the shelters serving such a diverse group , of people, including those with mental health disabilities, alcohol and drug addictions, and medical problems, but not having proper staffing or programming to reflect this diversity. , Single men also expressed some frustration about the overall lack of resources and ' assistance available to them. While they felt that families need and deserve assistance, they thought that the focus on families and children results in their getting short shrift, and that they too need a break in order to get back on their ' feet. Some also felt that those who have drug and alcohol addictions have more options for assistance than those who are clean and sober. Additional Needs • A Place To Go, Showers, Laundry, Telephone, Message Services, and Storage , Space: For those not in the shelters, the lack of places they can go to clean up was identified as a major problem, both in relation to their ability to get jobs and also in terms of self-esteem. Both those staying in shelters and those outside the shelter system identified a place to go, such as a drop-in center, as being very important. Some talked about the need to have someplace to go during the day where`you don't feel so homeless". Others talked about being able to use telephones and get ' messages, especially in relation to job searches. For those not in the shelter system, a drop-in center was seen as somewhere that they could go to hook up with services and get information. ' •More Emergency Shelter Beds And/Or Legal Camps: A great deal of frustration ' was expressed over the lack of places for people who are homeless to stay. There are not enough shelters beds for all the individuals who are homeless and there is no place in the County where it is legal for them to live in camps or in their , vehicles. A need for more emergency shelter beds for individual adults was identified, especially in East county. Some people were interested in places they could stay for an extended period of time and receive other services (like the ' Central County& Brookside shelters), while others were more interested in shelter that could be accessed for three or four days at a time to provide some respite from the streets and allow them a chance to clean up. Some people also stressed , the need for shelters which do not require that one be clean and sober. Those who were unable to stay in the shelters because of lack of bed space or because they choose not to use the shelters identified a need for places that they can go to camp ' or stay in their vehicles without harassment. b. Families: It is estimated that over 10,000 parents and children in Contra Costa ' County experience an episode of homelessness each year. On any given night,it is estimated that over 900 families are homeless,including an estimated 1,700 , children55. While the majority of homeless families are single women with 32 ' ti. ' children,providers report that intact families and men with children are also part of the mix. Affordable child care and affordable housing were identified as the two most important needs for families and the two hardest needs to meet. Women in ' transitional housing talked about their fear of not being able to find housing they can afford in neighborhoods where they would choose to raise their children. Even with job training to increase their skills and earning capacity,women were nervous ' about their ability to be self-sufficient given the combined costs of rent and child care. They worried about not being able to make it now that there are no more Section 8 rental assistance vouchers;part of the success of the women who had ' previously moved out into permanent housing was attributed to their having had Section 8 assistance. ' Employment services and job training were also raised as important to families because these services enable parents to increase their earning capacity. Many ' women in transitional housing identified developing their own businesses as a long- term goal because of the flexibility it would give them in terms of caring for their children. As with other segments of the homeless population, fife skills were part ' of the mix of services that people thought were important for families. In addition to money management skills,parenting classes were identified as being vital, especially by younger women interested in not repeating patterns from their own family histories that they felt contributed to their homelessness. They felt that parenting classes were a form of homelessness prevention for their children. ' Other issues raised included the need for more services for intact families. At several of the meetings,men spoke of having been forced to separate from their families so that they all could access services. Also,the need for drug and alcohol ' and mental health services which are oriented to serving the whole family and not just the disabled adult was reiterated. Many people expressed frustration with the rules for Aid To Families With Dependent Children(AFDC);they felt that it is as if ' the system is designed to make it impossible for them to ever get off welfare. Complaints about rude and unhelpful case workers were also raised. In addition, some felt that the overall system was not responsive to their needs and that they ' had been forced into homelessness because of the lengthy time it takes to resolve disputes abut benefits, child support and alimony issues. A need for free and low- cost legal services was identified. ' Also raised was the need for more services for battered women and their children. Along with this is the need for more understanding and sensitivity to these issues by staff at mainstream programs serving families. ' 33 Additional Needs: Emergency Shelter: More emergency shelters are needed for families, especially in Central and East county. Other than the Richmond Rescue Mission.,AFDC- Homeless Assistance Program(HAP)motel vouchers and a small number of motel vouchers from non-profit agencies, there is nothing available for families who need ' emergency housing. • Transitional Housing: More transitional housing was identified as an important ' need for families. Families staying in transitional housing programs felt very strongly that for many families transitional housing is a necessary step before obtaining permanent housing. They felt that they needed a place to repair their ' self-esteem, obtain skills and hook up with a support network of people who understand their situation. They talked about how their previous support networks disintegrated after they became homeless because people burned-out on helping , them,did not have the resources to help them because they were also living close to the edge themselves, and/or simply could not understand or relate to their being homeless. ' * Affordable Child Care: The lack of affordable child care was identified as a major barrier to women leaving welfare and returning to work. As long as women are on ' welfare,their income will be low enough that they will be perpetually at risk of homelessness. Lack of child care was also seen as also a barrier to women ' attending job training programs that can help them to raise their earning capacity. In addition,many said that a lack of child care inhibits their ability to access other services to help them regain housing and address the issues contributing to their ' homelessness. c. People With Mental Health Disabilities: It is estimated that at least 17%of people who are homeless have a mental health disability. On any given night,this is over 345 households. Over 70%are believed to be dually diagnosed with a drug ' or alcohol problem in addition to their mental health disability. 68%are in adult- only households and 32%are in family householdS16 People with mental health disabilities, providers and community members all ' stressed the need for expanded availability of mental health services. Currently, only people who are diagnosed with a severe and persistent mental health disorder ' are able to access the County mental health system. However,limited resources due to budget constraints result in limitations on the range and intensity of services available. People with significant mental health disorders that fall short of the ' severe and persistent diagnosis and those with situational disorders are largely unable to access any type of mental health services at all. Many people felt that parks,general homeless shelters,hospitals and jails are currently functioning as`de facto' mental health programs because so many people end up in these places due 34 , 1 to the lack of other options for them. The need for more supportive housing was stressed by both clients and providers. In addition, many people felt that they needed help in finding housing. Several people with Shelter Plus Care vouchers were frustrated about being unable to use ' them because they could not cope with the process of locating housing. They also identified the need for on-going services, once housed,to help them deal with bill paying and other responsibilities. Many stressed the importance of representative ' payee services that help clients manage their funds and pay their bills,thereby helping people to maintain their housing. 1 Currently,the number of supportive housing beds available for those with mental health disabilities falls short of the need. It is anticipated that this shortfall will be exacerbated in the near future due to pending budget cuts that will decrease the ' number of beds available at the Napa State Hospital and in the Institutes for Mental Disease(I1VIDs). As the number of beds in these facilities are reduced,there must be a concurrent increase in supportive housing options for those released in order to prevent people from hitting the streets and becoming homeless. In addition, the Contra Costa County Mental Health Commission's Housing Report(June 1994) ' found that 1,700 people with mental disabilities are currently living with caregiving parents who are over age 65;many of these individuals will need supportive housing in the near future when their aging parents can no longer care for them. ' Some mental health clients were comfortable obtaining assistance through programs like the Phoenix multi-service centers which only serve people with ' mental health disabilities. However, others wanted to be able to access the help they need through mainstream programs where they do not have to identify themselves as having a mental health disability. Finally, a great deal of anger, frustration and paranoia was expressed about the`system'. In reference to General ' Assistance(GA)and Supplemental Security Income(SSI),people felt there is `too much red tape for too little assistance'. Many felt the rules were set up to stop ' people from getting aid, rather than to help them get the assistance they need. Additional Needs ' •More Emergency Shelter Beds: A need for more emergency shelter beds was identified. Some called for another Antioch-type shelter in West county. Others ' wanted to see more emergency beds through shelters that serve the general populations but have capacity,through staffing and program structure,to serve people with mental health issues. The Central County and Brookside shelters were ' felt to be too intense and to have too many rules for many people with mental health disabilities. 35 • Supportive Housing: The need for affordable housing linked to support services , was identified as a primary need for this population. While the level of services needed will vary over time,there is a long-term need for some level of service connection. It was felt that supportive housing is the best way to ensure that people can retain their housing, avoid homelessness, and diminish their need for crisis services. The array of support services linked to supportive housing will vary ' depending on the specific needs of the population served,but may include mental health services,representative payee/money management services,drug and alcohol treatment,peer support groups, employment and training, etc. ' •Expanded Access To Mental Health Services: There is a need for expanded access to mental health services for both people who have a severe and persistent ' mental health disability and those with less serious disabilities,including those who have situational disorders due to a particular life crisis. Services that are needed include counseling and therapy,case management,independent living skills,peer ' support groups, and crisis services. d. People With Drug&Alcohol Addictions: It is estimated that at least 41%of , the homeless population has a drug or alcohol problem. On any given night,this is over 830 households. 61%are believed to be in adult-only households and 39%in , family households. Over 66%are believed to be dually diagnosed with a mental health disability or HN/AIDS in addition to their drug or alcohol problem57. Many people expressed frustration about the difficulty in accessing drug and alcohol services, especially residential treatment programs. People in detox complained that the lack of access to residential treatment means that there is `no i next step from detox' and that it is just a revolving door--they will soon be back out on the streets and probably using again. While most people agreed that it is ' appropriate that people go through some hoops in accessing programs in order to demonstrate their motivation and commitment to getting clean,they also felt that the length of the waiting lists(3 mo- 1 yr)make it excessively difficult for people , to succeed. People in detox programs spoke;emotionally about how hard it is to stay organized and motivated to make the weekly call necessary to stay on waiting lists when you are homeless, on the streets,and surrounded by drugs and alcohol. ' Because of the nature of homelessness,there:was consensus that residential treatment is generally the best form of treatment for homeless people. People in drug and alcohol programs emphasized repeatedly that their primary goal is to stay clean and sober. In addition,they are focused on finding employment and a place to live in a clean and sober environment. Some people expressed concerns that their years of addiction had left large gaps in their work history which could interfere with their ability to find work. This was especially a concern for young adults who felt that they lacked both work history and skills. Others raised , concerns about not having anywhere to go when they finish the program except 36 back to the streets or to their old neighborhoods where the odds of their being able to stay clean are greatly diminished. Many expressed a need for assistance in ' helping them to line up housing and other services for when they leave the program. The need for drug and alcohol programs to incorporate a stronger ancillary services component,including life skills,housing advocacy,mental health services, employment services and case management,was raised repeatedly. Some providers noted that people are entering programs in worse condition than ever before, many with dual and triple diagnoses. This makes the ancillary services ' component as well as longer treatment times absolutely essential. In addition, many stressed the need for after-care and follow-up services to help clients stay clean and sober outside of the program. People in residential treatment programs did not think that the mainstream homeless programs effectively serve people with addictions, saying that"it is too easy to put one over on the staff?'. Many stressed over and over that drug and alcohol treatment has to provided first;otherwise the other services will not help and provision of them will just be a waste of resources. Finally,many expressed frustration with the fact that, despite the obvious need, ' many drug and alcohol programs are cutting back on services because of loss of funding. It was felt that all steps should be taken to keep programs open since it is more cost-effective to keep a program going that it is to start a new one in the future. Additional Needs •More Residential Treatment Programs: More residential treatment beds are needed for all population groups. In particular,the need for programs that treat the whole family and that can address issues of domestic violence were identified. Also, single women and those with a dual diagnosis were identified as being especially in need of programs to serve them. •Intensive Case Management: Intensive case management was identified as an important component of treatment. It is needed to help clients access ancillary services to address their other needs, such as employment services,life skills, medical care,mental health services and permanent housing. It was also identified as a vital after-care component that helps to facilitate the client's successful ' adjustment outside of the treatment program. Because of the particular issues posed by addiction,case management staff working with these clients must understand addiction,the process of recovery and how to deal with relapse. •Transitional Clean& Sober Housing: Man people,after finishing residential � YP P � g treatment, still need structure and support in order to remain clean and sober and achieve long term self-sufficiency. Facilitated clean and sober shared living was identified as a successful program model. 37 e. Youth&Youna Adults: It is estimated that almost 700 young adults(ages 18- 24)experience an episode of homelessness each year. Over 250 are homeless on any given night58. Statistics on the numbers of homeless youth are not available. Youth who have clear evidence of physical or sexual abuse are served by Child Protective Services(CPS)and put into the Foster Care system. However,because of a lack of resources CPS only accepts children and youth whose abuse is severe. Some of those interviewed complained that those who do enter the system are not adequately served and that many who leave the foster care system at age 18 or 19 do not have skills or a support network to sustain themselves. Too many are believed to fall into homelessness. Youth who do not meet the CPS criteria for abuse,yet who are in crisis and have left their homes have virtually no access to assistance. Previously, Sherman House provided short-term residential services but the program was closed due to funding constraints. It was felt that ensuring that youth graduate from high school and have basic living skills and job skills is a priority. A need for places where youth can go for recreational activities,to socialize and which foster their self-esteem was also identified as important. , There are not many services targeted for the needs of young adults(18-24 years of age)who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless,many of whom are believed to have come out of the foster care or the juvenile justice systems. Generally,they do not show up in the emergency shelters;rather they rotate from place to place,live in vehicles and end up on the streets after they burn-out their support networks. Many have trouble finding and keeping employment because of poor job skills,inadequate social skills and low self-esteem. Special programs are needed to serve this population as employment and training programs geared to adults who already have some job skills and life experience do not meet their needs. Overall,it was felt that information about the magnitude of the homeless youth and ' young adult populations and their needs is lacking, due in part to the absence of programs to serve their needs. More attention and resources should be devoted to understanding and serving these population;9roups. Additional Needs • Youth Crisis Residential Program: The need for a program to serve youth who leave home yet are not candidates for the foster care system was identified. The type of program suggested was one that would allow short-term stays to provide a cooling off period for the youth and their families. Services would be provided to help resolve the conflict and get the family back together. Linkages with on-going support services , would be provided, as needed. 38 ' •Better Preparation for Youth Leaving Foster Care: The foster care program needs to put more emphasis on ensuring that youth complete high school and have basic living ' skills before they leave foster care. • Facilitated Transitional Shared Housing for Young Adults: Young adults ' leaving the foster care or juvenile justice system who do not have anywhere to go nor the skills to support themselves would be the target population for this type of housing. It should be designed to provide a structured, supportive ' environment through shared living in a communal house. There should be case management support to facilitate the living arrangements and linkages to services, including mental health services, drug and alcohol treatment, life skills ' and job training. It should be a transitional program(6 months to Z years) aimed at helping provide young adults with the skills they need to live independently. f. People With HIV/AIDS: It is estimated that 18%of people living with HIV/AIDS ' in Contra Costa County are homeless. This is over 460 people. Many of them are believed to be dually diagnosed with a mental health disability and/or a drug or ' alcohol problem in addition to their HIV/AIDS diagnosis. 67% are believed to be in adult-only households and 33% in family households59 According to the Contra Costa County AIDS Housing Plan(May 1996), low incomes, the expense of on-going medical care and the high housing costs in Contra Costa County combine to make many people with HIV/AIDS homeless ' or at-risk of homelessness. Many people receive their income from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or General Assistance (GA) and it is not enough to cover rent, medical care and other costs of living. In addition, those ' who are dually or triply diagnosed, having a mental health disability and/or a drug or alcohol problem in addition to a HIV/AIDS diagnosis, face even greater difficulties obtaining and maintaining housing. Access to a variety of support services, including case management, drug and alcohol treatment, mental health services, money management, transportation, attendant and home health care, and nutrition services is needed. It was also noted that ' people who are discharged from hospitals who are homeless and still in need of medical care are not being served in existing emergency shelters. Facilities with appropriate services are needed for this population until they can get back ' into permanent housing. Additional Needs •Service-Enriched Emergency/Transitional Housing Emergency/transitional housing with on-site medical services for people with a variety of illness,including ' HIV/AIDS,is needed. People being discharged from hospitals who are homeless and still in need of medical attention would be served here until appropriate 39 1 permanent housing can be arranged. ' • Supportive Housing: Low cost housing linked to support services was identified ' as a primary need for people who are disabled with HIV/AIDS. This was felt to be especially important for people who are dually or triply diagnosed(have a mental health disability and/or drug or alcohol addiction in addition to a HIVAAIDS ' diagnosis) and for those who have families and/or young children. It was felt that supportive housing is the best way to ensure that this population can maintain stable housing. ' g. Seniors: It is believed that the number of seniors(age 65 and over)who have ' fallen into homelessness or are at-risk of becoming homeless is growing. However, there are no programs specifically targeted to work with this population. In addition,little data is available on the number of seniors in this situation or their ' needs. Based on the Contra Costa County Consolidated P1an60, it is known that the ' number of people age 65 or over is growing more rapidly than the general population. Many of the elderly live on fixed incomes which do not keep pace with inflation and this discrepancy can put them at-risk of homelessness. The Contra 1 Costa County Consolidated Plan estimates that there are 14,650 seniors who have a mobility limitation or difficulties in caring for themselves. Additional Needs • Assessment Of The Needs Of Seniors Who Are Homeless or At-Risk: Not ' enough is know about this population,including the number of seniors in this situation,why they become homeless and what their needs are. Based on a fuller ' understanding of the needs of seniors who are homeless or at-risk, services should be developed to help them maintain their housing or to regain it if already homeless. ' ♦ System Coordination Needs , Both clients and providers expressed frustration at the lack of linkages between programs. They felt there was too little flow between the components of the ' system. Many people in emergency shelters and detox programs complained of not having anywhere to go,because there was no room in residential treatment or transitional housing programs and/or they were unable to access permanent ' housing. In addition, fragmentation of service delivery and duplication of services were raised as issues that prevent efficient use of limited resources. The need for coordinated policy and program development across County ' 40 ' 1 1 departments and between County government, the Cities and the non-profit sector was emphasized. 1 • Capacity For System-Wide Data Collection&Analysis: There is a need for data on the demographics of clients,their needs and the outcomes of service provision 1 to be gathered and analyzed in order to guide program development, planning and resource allocation. 1 • Coordinated Service Delivery: There is a need for greater integration of the homeless services system. Service provision needs to be more coordinated so that clients can be served in a more efficient,responsive and humane way. Better 1 linkages between programs and more information sharing among providers about clients were identified as important aspects of improving overall service coordination and system operation. 1 • Coordinated Planning,Pro 'am&Poligy Development: Enhanced capacity to 1 engage in system-wide planning and program and policy development was identified as an important need. This was seen as essential to ensuring that the homeless services system function in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Especially in the current environment when public policy changes and 1 budget cuts are altering the form and capacity of the safety net,it is crucial that there be an ability to plan and respond to these changes in a manner that produces 1 the least disruption for people relying on these services. 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 41 1 III. RECOMMENDATIONS ♦ Ov-Irview ' The recommendations in this plan are organized into four broad goals that reflect the overarching areas of need identified through the planning process. The recommendations , within each goal outline the priority actions for achieving the goal. The following is an overview of the four goals and the recommendations contained within them. (A chart listing all the recommendations contained in the plan is included in the Executive , Summary beginning on page xii.) A. Improve Access To Information & Assistance For People In Crisis , The recommendations contained in this section address the need to expand the accessibility of services to help people in crisis, both those who are homeless and ' those who are at-risk of becoming homeless. This includes expanding information and referral capacity so that people can more readily obtain information about affordable housing and about services to help them regain housing or prevent its ' loss. It includes the establishment of regional multi-service centers to both enhance the availability of services and improve the coordination of service delivery, and it includes expanding emergency shelter bed capacity in order to meet ' a greater portion of the need for immediate shelter. B. Expand The Availability Of Key Support Services To Enable People To ' Regain Their Housing or Prevent Its Loss These recommendations focus on expanding key support services that enable i people to address the issues interfering with their ability to maintain stable housing. The goal is both to help prevent homelessness as well as to assist those already ' homeless to regain their housing. Included are recommendations for expanding access to mental health services, drug and alcohol treatment, money management/ representative payee services, and domestic violence services. In addition,there , are recommendations calling for an increase in State funding for subsidized child care, expansion of services helping people to obtain employment and training, and investigation of strategies for addressing the need for free and low-cost ' transportation. Also included here are recommendations to conduct assessments of the needs of homeless youth and homeless, seniors in order to guide the development of services and programs to address their needs. ' 42 ' ' C. Expand Affordable Housing Options In Order To Enable People To Achieve Long-Term Housing Stability ' These recommendations focus on the development of a range of housing options that meet people's income and service needs,thereby enabling them to achieve ' stable housing and maximum self-sufficiency. Included here are recommendations for developing more permanent housing affordable to people with the lowest incomes, expanding the supply of permanent supportive housing for people with ' on-going service needs and increasing the amount of transitional housing available for people in need of limited term services and structure. Also, included is a recommendation aimed at addressing the barriers to the development of housing and services for people who are homeless or who have low incomes. In addition, there are recommendations calling for the provision of housing advocacy services to help people find and retain housing and the expansion of rental assistance funds ' to help people cover move-in costs or pay back rent. D. Coordinate Homeless-Related Services And Housing Into One Integrated ' Continuum Of Care System With The Capacity For On-Going Strategic Planning ' The recommendations in this section are aimed at developing an integrated service system in order to increase the effectiveness of service delivery, facilitate planning ' and resource management, enhance fundraising, and assist policy and program development. Included are recommendations for establishing a Countywide Continuum of Care Board to oversee the homeless service delivery system, for creating structures to facilitate improved coordination within the County and between the County and other jurisdictions, and for establishing a Homeless Coordinator staff position within County government. There are recommendations focusing on improving coordination at the level of service delivery, for conducting a public education campaign on homelessness and for developing a data collection system to facilitate analysis and planning on homelessness. In addition, there are ' recommendations for creating a Homeless Trust Fund and for facilitating consumer input into the development and operation of the service system. 1 ♦ Priorities ' All of the recommendation in this Homeless Plan address basic human needs, such as housing, hygiene, medical and mental health care, and access to adequate income to support oneself. Prioritization among these basic necessities and between the various sub- populations, each of which have significant and compelling levels of need, is extremely difficult. The reality is that all of the needs are priorities and that unless all of the gaps in the Continuum of Care are addressed, Contra Costa County will continue to face a serious ' and persistent problem with homelessness. However, it is also true that the resources available to address these needs are limited and that the system's short-term capacity to ' 43 1 expand and implement new programs is finite. Therefore, in order to help guide the ' implementation of the Homeless Plan and the allocation of resources over the next year, the Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force has identified twelve recommendations as high ' priorities. This high priority designation means that these recommendations address high priority needs and should be addressed in the short-term(Years 1-2). It is anticipated that the County Continuum of Care Board (See Recommendation D.1 -page 89.) will engage ' in a similar prioritization process each year to identify annual priorities to wide the on- going implementation of the Homeless Plan. The housing and shelter priorities were identified by developing estimates of the nightly ' need for emergency shelter, transitional housing and permanent housing by sub- population. These numbers were compared to the; current inventory of beds to yield , estimates of the unmet need for each housing type:by sub-population. (See Appendix III for details on the calculation of the estimated need and the inventory.) Relative priorities of Low, Medium or High were attached to each category of need based on an evaluation , of the following: • the magnitude of the unmet need for the sub-population ' • the unmet need as a relative percentage of the overall need for that sub- population ' • how addressing the need accomplishes the following six objectives: • Addresses The Needs Of Children ' • Prevents Homelessness • Addresses Life threatening Emergencies • Addresses A Basic Need ' • Is Cost Effective • Promotes Coordination. (See Housing Gaps Analysis Chart on page 46.) The support services& system priorities were identified by considering the services and system needs identified through the needs assessment process and evaluating how addressing them would accomplish the six ' objectives outlined above. 44 ' ' HIGH PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS ' ✓ Preserve existing programs& services in the Continuum of Care system as long as they are still needed (See Guiding Principles-page 5) ' ✓ Expand homeless-related information& referral services (See Recommendation A.1 —page 5 1) ' ✓ Establish regional multi-service centers in West, Central& East County with core services, including information and referral services, drop-in centers, and shower & laundry facilities (other support services to be added over time as resources permit) (See Recommendation A.2 -page 53.) ' ✓ Expand emergency shelter beds for families (See Recommendation A.4- page 36.) ✓ Expand access to residential drug and alcohol treatment for people with dual ' diagnoses(combination of mental health, drug or alcohol and/or HIV/AIDS diagnoses—families and individuals) and for families with drug or alcohol addictions(See Recommendation B.2.a& b-page 64.) ' ✓ Enhance people's ability to achieve economic self-sufficiency: Y ' • Expand access to money management services (See Recommendation B.3-page 66.) • Expand access to employment and training services (See Recommendation- ' B.6-page 71) ✓ Develop more housing affordable to those with the lowest incomes(families and individuals) (See Recommendation C 1 -page 77.) ✓ Expand the supply of supportive housing for individuals with dual-diagnoses ' (combination of mental health, drug or alcohol and/or HIV/AIDS diagnoses) (See Recommendation C 3 -page 82.) ✓ Expand the supply of transitional housing for victims of domestic violence(families and individuals) and individuals with HIV/AIDS (See Recommendation C 4-page 84.) ' ✓ Establish the structures and staffing necessary to implement the Homeless Plan and engage in on-going planning and coordination: ' • Create the Contra Costa County Continuum of Care Board (See Recommendation D.1 -page 89.) ' • Create a Homeless Coordinator staff position (See Recommendations D.4-page 93.) ' 45 .� r' HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS CHART (L=Low, M=1V[edium H=High ' HOMELESS POPULATIONS:: ES7CIMATED CURRENT UNMET RELATPVEi' ' NEEDINVENTORY NEED/GAPPRIORITY' '' INDIVIDUALS ' EMERGENCY SHELTER GENERAL POPULATION 806 280 beds 526 beds M TRANSITIONAL CHRONIC SUBSTANCE ABUSIRS 151 95 beds 56 beds L , HOUSING SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL 59 32 beds 27 beds L DUALLY-DIAGNOSED 358 39 beds 319 beds H PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS 132 0 beds 132 beds H , VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC 165 2 beds 163 beds H VIOLENCE GENERAL POPULATION 236 126 beds 110 beds M , PERMANENT CHRONIC SUBSTANCE ABUSERS 72 27 beds 45 beds L HOUSING SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL 114 55 beds 59 beds M DUALLY-DIAGNOSED 376 18 beds 358 beds H ' PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS 198 66 beds 132 beds M PERSONS W/OTHER 56 0 beds 56 beds M , DISABILITIES GENERAL POPULATION 568 117 beds 451 beds H PERSONS INFAMILIES W/CHILDREN ' EMERGENCY SHELTER GENERAL POPULATION 2,318 248 beds 2070 beds H 745 HH ' TRANSITIONAL CHRONIC SUBSTANCE ABUSERS 532 39 beds 493 beds H HOUSING 178 HH SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL 118 0 beds 118 beds M ' 43 HH DUALLY-DIAGNOSED 369 0 beds 369 beds H 133 HH ' PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS 248 0 beds 248 beds L 90 HH VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC 880 53 beds 827 beds H , VIOLENCE 299 HH GENERAL POPULATION 440 177 beds 263 beds M , 95 HH PERMANENT CHRONIC SUBSTANCE ABUSERS 262 102 beds 160 beds L HOUSING 58 HH ' SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL 147 29 beds 118 beds M 43 HH DUALLY-DIAGNOSED 38;8 19 beds 369 beds M ' 133 HH PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS 284 36 beds 248 beds L 90 HH ' PERSONS W/OTHER 186 0 beds 186 beds M DISABILITIES 67 HH GENERAL POPULATION 1,821 315 beds 1506 beds H ' 544 HH ' ♦ Implementation of The Homeless Plan Upon finalization by the Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force, the Plan was forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and to each of the eighteen Cities for approval. As the initial step in the implementation of the Continuum of Care Homeless Plan, the Ad Hoc Homeless Task ' Force has requested that the Board of Supervisors establish the Contra Costa Continuum of Care Board (COCB) and a Homeless Coordinator staff position within the County Homeless Program (See Recommendations D. 1 &D. 4-pages 89&93.) The COCB ' and the Homeless Coordinator will be responsible for the implementation of the Continuum of Care Homeless Plan and on-going planning and oversight for the homeless services system. The COCB will provide a formal structure to facilitate on-going coordination and collaboration among all the components of the homeless services system for purposes of service delivery, planning and resource management, fund-raising, and policy and program development. The Homeless Coordinator will staff the COCB and ' play a central role in coordinating the County's overall response to homelessness. Establishment of the COCB and Homeless Coordinator staff position are both recommendations that were identified as high priorities, to be carried out in the short term. ' Each of the recommendations in the Homeless Plan contain the following information to ' facilitate their implementation: • Cost • Implementation Timeline • Targeted Outcomes •Responsible Entity(s) ' •Potential Funding sources. The Implementation Timeline is listed as short, medium or long term. Short term means the recommendation should be implemented in Years 1-2. Medium term means implementation during Years 3-4 and long term means implementation in Year 5. Those recommendations assigned a short-term timeline are primarily those which were identified ' as high priorities. In addition to these, other recommendations which were assigned a short-term timeline are those which take minimal resources to implement, are already underway to some extent, and/or are part of the Homeless Coordinator job description. ' The Plan includes a range of recommendations, some of which are already operational and others which need further planning as a first step in their implementation. This further ' planning will include all the involved parties and will focus on fleshing out the details of program structure, operation and funding. All of the recommendations include"Targeted Outcomes"which provide information about the anticipated impact of the ' recommendation and how it will help to prevent or reduce homelessness. Responsible entity(s) are identified for each recommendation to take the lead in ' coordinating the implementation process. The entities designated include County Departments, Cities, community-based organizations and congregations. The potential 47 funding sources identified include the full range of options, including federal, state and t local funding, foundations, businesses, congregations and other private donations. Preventing and reducing homelessness in Contra Costa County requires an on-going and , substantial effort. Just as homelessness did not arise in our communities overnight, it will not be solved overnight. Rather, real and lasting soktions will come about through ' sustained and concerted efforts over the long run that seek to address the underlying causes of the problem. The magnitude of the need and the fiscal realities of the County, its Cities, the State and the Nation mean that obtaining the funding necessary to implement ' the Plan will require an aggressive, creative and collaborative effort involving public agencies, business, congregations, non-profits and the general community. This process has already begun; proposals have been submitted.to HUD for the following grants: , • HUD 1996 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Competition—Eight proposals have been submitted to HUD for funding. Seven of them address high , priority needs identified in the Plan and one addresses a medium priority need. (See Housing Gaps Analysis Chart on page 46.) These include the following: • Transitional housing for battered women and their children • Regional multi-service centers for West, Central &East County, ' including funding for expansion of the Homeless Hotline • Transitional housing for people with dual diagnoses, drug and alcohol problems, and HIV/AIDS ' • Permanent supportive housing for people dually diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and a mental health or substance abuse disability • Money management services , • Outreach&treatment services for people who are dually diagnosed • Transitional housing for families. • HUD Regional Initiative Process—Contra Costa County is participating in ' several collaborative proposals with other Bay area counties that will address important needs, including creating low-cost transportation options and enhancing ' employment and training services. ♦ How To Read The Recommendations ' Many of the recommendations in the Homeless Plan are interconnected. Therefore, cross- , references indicating other related recommendations are provided in parentheses. In addition, those recommendations which also play a role in the prevention of homelessness are designated by the following notation: (Prevention). The recommendations identified ' by the Task Force as high priorities are marked by a ** symbol. 48 ' Definitions ' At-Risk Of Homelessness, as used in the Homeless Plan, refers to people who have extremely low incomes who are paying more than 30% of their gross monthly income for housing; have a disability, physical, mental health, drug or alcohol addiction, or medical, ' that threatens their housing stability; are in foster care, hospitals or the corrections system and have nowhere to go upon discharge; or are threatened with the loss of their benefits due to cutbacks and policy changes in federal, state and local benefit programs. ' Adult-Only Household, as used in the Homeless Plan, refers to households which include at least one adult and no children. ' Continuum of Care, as used in the Homeless Plan, refers to the full service delivery system including prevention, outreach and assessment, emergency shelter, support services, ' transitional housing and permanent housing. Dually-Diagnosed,as used in the Homeless Plan, refers to people who have a combination ' of two of the following diagnoses, mental health, drug or alcohol addiction and/or HIV/AIDS. ' Extremely Low Income, as used in the Homeless Plan, refers to incomes which are at or below 30% of the area median income. This means a yearly income of not more than $12,250 for a household of 1; not more than $14,000 for a household of 2;not more than $17,500 for a household of 4; and not more than $20,300 for a household of 6. (Source: Contra Costa County Community Development Department and U.S. Department of ' Housing and Urban Development) Family Household, as used in the Homeless Plan, refers to households that include at least ' one adult and children. High Priority, as used in the Homeless Plan, refers to those recommendations targeted to ' be addressed in the short-term(Year 1-2). Homeless, as used in the Homeless Plan, refers to people who do not have permanent housing, including people living on the streets or in parks, in shelters and transitional housing, in sub-standard housing, in vehicles or other places not designed for human habitation, or living temporarily doubled up with a friend or relative. ' Implementation Timeline: In the Homeless Plan, Short Term means the recommendation should be implemented in Years 1-2,Medium Term means implementation during Years 34 and Long Te means implementation in Year 5. 1 49 1 Abbreviations 1 BOS —Board of Supervisors , CAO—County Administrator's Office CBOs— Community-Based Organizations CDD—County Community Development Department , COCB — County Continuum of Care Board CRA—City Redevelopment Agency CSAS—County Community Substance Abuse Services Division , HA—Housing Authority HICC —Homeless Inter-Jurisdictional Coordinating Council HP—County Homeless Program , HSD—County Health Services Department MHD— County Mental Health Division PIC —Private Industry Council ' SSD— Social Services Department 1 1 i 1 1 r 1 50 ' A. IMPROVE ACCESS TO INFORMATION & ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE IN CRISIS Obiectives: To make information about prevention services, emergency assistance, support services and affordable housing more readily available to people in need, to providers and to the community at-large. To provide regionally, coordinated access to a broad range of services in order to both enhance the effectiveness of service delivery to those who have lost their housing and facilitate prevention of homelessness. To enable people to meet their basic needs for shelter,food, hygiene and a place to be, until they can move back into housing. ' ** 1. Enhance the existing crisis information and referral capacity by establishing a countywide, centralized database of accurate, updated information on services for people who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness and a 24 hours/day, 7 days/week telephone hotline. (Prevention) a. Enhance the capacity of the Homeless Hotline, an information and referral line for homeless services, operated by Crisis and Suicide Intervention of Contra Costa. b. Identif satellite information sites including the three multi-service Y � g centers to provide regional, agency-based access to referral information. (See Recommendation A.2—page 53.) c. Conduct outreach and training to publicize the services and enhance the skills of agency staff in identifying client needs and making appropriate referrals. Enhancement of the existing crisis information and referral capacity will help to prevent ' and reduce homelessness by expanding access to information and assistance. For clients, this means better and more immediate access to the service system. For service providers, especially case managers, it means access to a source of accurate information about ' services that will enable them to better serve their clients. For community members, it allows access to information about resources when they are trying to assist friends or family, or when they are looking to volunteer. This enhanced capacity will include a centralized database of accurate and up-to-date information about affordable housing and services available throughout the County for people who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. The centralized database will build on the existing Homeless Hotline database. Currently, Crisis and Suicide Intervention Of 51 Contra Costa operates nine 24 hour crisis lines, including the Homeless Hotline. The Homeless Hotline provides 24 hours/day, seven days/week information and referral to people who are homeless or at-risk and is the initial intake point for the two County- funded emergency shelters. It is recommended that the staffing for the Homeless Hotline be expanded and the technology upgraded, as needed, so that the Homeless Hotline can provide all the service components outlined below: Time sensitive information about the availability of emergency shelter bed space, detox beds, rental assistance funds and motel vouchers that is updated several ' times daily; A regularly updated catalogue of all the services available throughout the County , along with pertinent information to assist people in accessing the services, such as eligibility requirements, hours of operation., bus routes etc; An inventory of permanent affordable housing available in the County, (including shared housing/roommate arrangements); ((See Recommendation C.2-page 79.) o Personalized res situation-specific advice on how to and to one's immediate P P crisis and evaluate the options and choices at hand; o "Patch-Through" capacity that will allow staff to route callers directly to the agency they need to talk with about their services needs; (This is especially important for people who are homeless or without easy access to telephones.) - The structure and capacity to engage in on-going data collection and maintenance, and to conduct outreach and publicity efforts to ensure that people in need, other providers and the community at-large are aware of the service and how to access it. , In order to further enhance access to the resource and referral information, it is recommended that satellite information sites be established at other interested agencies by supplying them with the data from the centralized database. The resource and referral data can be made available on computer disk and through custom-made resource directories. (The proposed regional multi-service, centers will be satellite information sites—See Recommendation A.2-page 53) It is also recommended that periodic staff trainings for public agencies, non-profit , organizations and churches be conducted by the Homeless Hotline to help to ensure that staff have updated resource and referral information and an understanding of how to access information via telephone, computer or resource directory. Trainings can also be conducted on topics such as identifying client needs, conducting effective referrals and needs/issues pertinent to specific population groups. 52 ' conducted on topics such as identifying client needs, conducting effective referrals and needs/issues pertinent to specific population groups. Expanded I&R Capacity ' Cost: $90,000/year Implementation Timeline: Short Term ' Target Outcomes: 19,000 callers provided with information and assistance per year, 1,500 callers assisted/month ' Responsible Entity(s): CBOs and HSD ' Potential Funding Sources: McKinney, General Fund, Foundations, Business Contributions ' (The County's 1996 application for the HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Competition requests funding for the creation of the housing and ' services database and the expansion of the Homeless Hotline as part of the multi- service center proposals.) ** 2. Establish regional multi-service centers in West, Central and East County to provide coordinated access to the full service continuum, including information & ' referral, prevention services, emergency assistance, basic hygiene services, support services and affordable housing. (Prevention) t a. Initiate planning in each region of the County to establish multi-service centers and identify the network of existing public, non-profit and faith- based services to be linked through the centers. This will include ' consideration of how to facilitate greater coordination of service delivery and information-sharing among providers. (See Recommendation D.S.-page 94.) ' b. Identify sites in each region for a drop-in center and work with government and the community to obtain all necessary approvals. ' c. Identify other sites (regional and sub-regional)which can provide shower and laundry services, ideally as an adjunct to another service (drop-in centers, food programs etc.). 1 It is recommended that regional multi-service centers be established to both expand the ' availability of key support services and improve the coordination of service delivery, thereby linking more people to the services they need to regain and maintain permanent ' 53 housing. The proposed multi-service centers will consist of a lead agency or agencies that ' provide regional points of entry for accessing the ibll continuum of services. They will serve both people who are currently homeless and those who are at-risk of homelessness. ' The multi-service centers will be designed to buildon and enhance the existing service networks in each of the three regions. Each will have a unique structure depending on the opportunities and needs in the region; however they will all offer ar;;ess to a broad range , of services through a combination of on-site service provision at the lead agency or agencies and concrete linkages with other providers in the region. The following three services should form the core of the multi-service center around ' which other services will be added and integrated over time: • Information& Referral Services & Case Management: Information about other ' needed services and assistance in accessing those services will be offered at each multi-service center. (See Recommendation A.1 -page 51) ' • Drop-In Center: Drop-in centers provide people with a place to go so that they can get off the streets. They provide access to telephones and message services so ' that people can make calls about employment, housing, services and other needs. Drop-in centers provide space for peer support groups and opportunities for ' socialization, thus helping to address the isolation and alienation felt by many people who are on the streets. They also provide a structure that encourages people to engage in constructive actions to address their situation. For many t people, especially those most distrustful of the service system, drop-in centers provide a first place of connection that can result in their accessing other needed services. While Phoenix Programs operates three regional multi-service centers ' with a drop-in component for people with mental health disabilities, there are no drop-in centers for the general population. • Showers&Laundry Facilities: Access to these basic hygiene services helps ' people to maintain their self-esteem while homeless and is essential for those looking for employment. There are almost no shower and laundry facilities ' available for people not staying in one of the shelters or other residential programs. These services are also needed on a sub-regional basis. In addition to these three core services, it is envisioned that over time each multi-service center will become a service hub that provides access to the full service continuum, including the following: ' • Prevention Services • Emergency Assistance& Shelter ' • Telephone, Voice Mail/Message&Mail Services • Limited Storage Space • Housing Advocacy& Counseling Services (See Recommendation C.2 -page , 79.) 54 t ' • Vocational Services, including job announcements (See Recommendation B.5.a- page 71.) ' • Life Skills, including money management/representative payee services, advocacy skills on how to navigate the service system etc. (See Recommendation B.3 -page 66.) ' • Support Services, including mental health services,job training, legal services, medical care, drug & alcohol treatment, domestic violence services, peer support groups etc. (See Recommendation B.1, 2, 5 & 6-pages 61, 64, 69, & 71) ' • Transportation Services, linkages with other service providers in the region,with other transportation systems, etc. (See Recommendation B.6-page 74.) ' It is also envisioned that the multi-service centers will become the linchpin for regional coordination of service delivery. They will be staffed by case coordinators whose function, in addition to any service role, will be to ensure that clients are receiving a ' coordinated service package. The case coordinators will play the lead role in ensuring that one inter-disciplinary service plan is developed for each client, that inter-agency team meetings occur and that appropriate information sharing about clients occurs across agencies. (See Recommendation D.5-page 94.) ' Planning processes for creating multi-service centers should be initiated in each region of the County and should involve the Homeless Coordinator, County programs, City departments, non-profit and faith-based service providers, and people who are currently or ' formerly homeless. The planning process should assess the existing service networks and where inter-agency coordination is already taking place(such as at the County Service Integration Sites), consider the needs of both single adults and families, identify missing components, and set priorities. The assessment of existing service networks should include services offered by both public and private providers, services that are identified as `homeless' services, and those which are `mainstream' services (available to the general ' population but also important for people who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness). Lead agencies should be identified, along with other collaborating providers. If drop-in centers, showers and laundry services are not part of the existing regional service mix, ' sites should be identified for locating these services. This planning to create regional multi-service centers has already begun in each of the three regions of the County. ' 55 Regional Multi-Service Centers ' Cost: $350,000 -450,000/year for operating costs for core services , Year of Implementation: • Planning and Core Services— Short Term • Full Range of Services--Long tem, ' Target Outcomes: • 400 people/year linked with housing and/or services at each region multi-service center(1,200 people/year served ' countywide) • Of those assisted, 40% will obtain permanent housing Responsible Entity(s): CBOs, Homeless Coordinator ' Potential Funding Sources: McKinney, CDBG,United Way, Congregations, , Private Donations, Foundations (The County's 1996 application for the HUD Continuum of Care Homeless ' Assistance Competition requests funds for the creation of three regional multi- service centers) ' 3. Expand emergency shelter capacity for individual adults and provide more ' immediate access to shelter. The goal is to establish at least 100 more beds over five years. a. Maintain operation of the existing emergency shelter space for single adults (280 beds). b. Operate the Central County shelter at its full capacity of 100 beds, an addition of 40 beds. c. Establish another 60 bed emergency shelter, most likely in East County. , Expanded emergency shelter capacity will enable:more people to get off the streets each , night and will provide them with entry to the service system so that they can access other services they need to regain housing. Currently, aLn estimated 5262 individual adults are ' without shelter each night. However, the existing;emergency shelters operate continually at full capacity, leaving many people to sleep in their vehicles, in parks or under bridges because they do not have other options for shelter. ' The goal of the expanded bed space will be to provide immediate access to shelter for ' 2 See Housing Gaps Analysis Chart on page 46. 56 t ' people in an emergency situation and to offer an alternative to people who for whatever reason are unable to or choose not to access beds at the Central County or Brookside ' shelters. The programmatic requirements for the new beds will be more flexible and less intensive; case management through the multi-service centers will be available but not required. (See Recommendation A.2-page 53.) The length of stay for the new bed space will be shorter, somewhere in the range of two weeks to one month. During this time people will be expected to have either lined up permanent housing or accessed other longer-term emergency shelter or transitional housing. Although not specifically ' designated to serve people with mental health disabilities, the additional bed space will be available and programs will have a staff person who is trained in mental health issues to serve these clients. The County's general emergency bed capacity for individuals peaked in fiscal year 1991- 92 and since then the emergency shelter capacity has decreased by approximately 100 ' beds. Currently, there are a total of 1964 general shelter beds, 157 for men and 39 for women. There are an additional 32 beds for clients with a mental health diagnosis, 2 for women fleeing domestic violence, and 45 detox beds. This yields a total of 280 emergency beds. During the winter there is an additional 13 beds available for single adults. ' Maintenance of the existing emergency bed space is a priority. In addition, it is recommended that emergency bed space be expanded by 100 beds over five years, ' bringing the County's total bed space back to the 1991 level. The Central County shelter is currently operating at less than peak capacity because of a lack of resources. It is recommended that its bed count be expanded by 40 beds so that it operates at its peak ' capacity of 100 beds on a year-round basis. It is also recommended that another 60 bed emergency shelter be established, most likely in East County. Currently, while Central and West County both have emergency shelters for individual adults,East County does not have any emergency shelter facility. ' 4 See Appendix III - page 4. 57 Emergency Shelter For Individuals ' Cost: $730,000 for 100 beds/year operating costs(assumes costs of$20 per bed ' per night) plus development or rehabilitation costs Implementation Timeline: Medium Tenn ' Target Outcomes: • 2,600 people/year will receive temporary shelter(assuming an average two week shelter stay), 40%will obtain other ' temporary or permanent housing Responsible Entity(s): CBOs& HSD , Potential Funding Sources: ESG, CDB(J, EHAP, FEMA, General Fund, Private Donations ' ** 4. Expand year-round emergency shelter beds for families. The goal is to establish at least 150 more beds over five years. ' a. Maintain operation of the existing emergency shelter space for families (248 beds). , b. Expand the capacity of the Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP) winter shelter program to operate on a;year-round basis and add another 20 ' beds, for a total of 50 beds. c. Encourage the establishment of similar congregation-based shelter ' programs in Central and East County, each region creating bed space for 50. d. Expand emergency shelter system capacity to serve more women who are ' victims of domestic violence. Expanded emergency shelters ace for families will enable more families to get off the , streets and will provide an entry point for accessing other services. An estimated 7455 families (2,070 parents and children) are in need of emergency shelter beds each night. , However, the existing emergency shelters for families are continually full as are the transitional housing programs. 5 See Housing Gaps Analysis on page 46. ' 58 ' Currently, available emergency shelter beds for families include 846 general emergency shelter beds, 17 shelter beds for victims of domestic violence, an average of 6 beds/night ' provided through motel vouchers from Crisis and Suicide Intervention and an estimated 141 beds/night through the AFDC-HAP (Homeless Assistance Program). This is a total of 248 emergency shelter beds each night. During the winter months, there are an ' additional 27 beds. Maintenance of this bed space is a priority. In addition, it is recommended that emergency ' bed space for families be expanded by 150 beds over 5 years. This can be accomplished by expanding the Greater Richmond Interfaith Program's (GRIP)winter shelter program to a year round program and increasing the number of beds provided by 20, for a total of ' 50 beds. Currently, the GRIP winter shelter program provides 30 shelter beds and operates 4 months of the year. In addition, similar congregation-based programs should be encouraged to operate in Central and East County, thereby providing 50 emergency ' shelter beds for families in each of the two regions. St. Vincent De Paul and the Contra Costa Interfaith Coalition have already initiated discussions on the replication of the GRIP winter shelter program in Central and East County. Anappropriate len h of shelter should be determined which balances the needs of the � stay families and the capacities of the congregations to provide this service. The goal is that ' families stay in these emergency shelters for the shortest time possible. During their stay, they will be expected to apply for AFDC, if they are not already enrolled or have other ' employment, and to line up housing for themselves, whether permanent, transitional or other emergency shelter. Families will be encouraged to access case management services through the regional multi-service centers (See Recommendation A.2 -page 53) to assist ' them in lining up housing and other needed services. In addition, it is recommended that the emergency shelter system's capacity to address the specialized needs of the estimated 34%7 of homeless women who have experienced domestic violence be expanded. This can be accomplished by expanding the emergency shelter run by Battered Women's Alternatives to serve women fleeing life-threatening situations by six beds. In addition, in order to meet the needs of those women experiencing lower intensity domestic violence, other emergency shelters and the regional multi-service centers should be equipped to conduct domestic violence screening and ' provide linkages to domestic violence services, including counseling, support groups and legal assistance. (See Recommendation B.5 -page 69 &C.5-page 84.) 6 See Appendix III - page 4. See page 19. 59 1 Emergency Shelter For Families 1 Cost: • b & c. $440,000/year for year round congregation-based family ' emergency shelters, $160,000/year in both Central and East County, $120,000 for the expansion in West County • d. $57,000/year for 6 domestic violence beds , Implementation Timeline: • Congregation-Based Emergency Shelter -- Short Term ' • Expansion of Domestic Violence Beds—Medium Term Target Outcomes: • b& c. 1 400 families 3 900 family 1 � � Y members / ear will) Y receive temporary shelter(assuming an average 2 week shelter stay), 50%will obtain permanent housing , • d. 37 families fleeing domestic violence(104 family members)/year will receive temporary shelter(assuming an average 3 week shelter stay), 50%will obtain other ' transitional or permanent housing Responsible Entity(s): Interfaith Organizations, Congregations, CBOs ' Potential Funding Sources: Congregations,ESG, CDBG, EHAP,FEMA, ' General Fund, Private Donations i 1 1 1 1 60 ' ' B. EXPAND THE AVAILABILITY OF KEY SUPPORT SERVICES TO ENABLE PEOPLE TO REGAIN THEIR HOUSING OR PREVENT ITS LOSS ' Obiective: To enable people to address issues interfering with their ability to maintain stable housing and maximum self-sufficiency, thereby preventing homelessness and assisting those already homeless to regain their housing. 1. Expand access to mental health services for people who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. This includes both those who have a severe mental health disability ' and those in need of services to cope with a specific life crisis, such as homelessness. (Prevention) ' a. Increase the mental health staffing of the Health Care for the Homeless Team in order to expand the hours spent at the emergency shelters and increase the number of sites visited, including the regional multi-service ' centers. (See Recommendation A.2 -page 53.) b. Establish a network of private mental health providers (doctors & ' therapists) willing to offer pro-bono services on-site at the multi-service centers and other appropriate locations. ' c. Develop a mobile mental health outreach team within the County to provide assessment and stabilization services to people who are experiencing ' a mental health crisis. ** This mental health team will also provide outreach and case management to people who are homeless and dually diagnosed to assist them in accessing drug and alcohol treatment. (See Recommendation ' B.2.a-page 64.) ' Expanded access to mental health services will enable more people who are homeless to access assistance that will help them to stabilize their situation and regain housing. For people who have housing, access to mental health services may be the key that enables them to maintain ' their housing and avoid a crisis. It is estimated that on any given night there are 3458 people with a serious mental health disorder who are homeless. In addition,many other people who are homeless are in need of situational counseling and support in order to cope with their ' homelessness or other life crises. Currently, access to County mental health services is extremely limited. Only people who are ' diagnosed with a severe and persistent mental health disorder and who are determined to be at- risk of hospitalization are able to obtain services. However,limited resources due to budget constraints result in limitations on the range and intensity of services available. People with 8 See Appendix III- page 1. 61 significant mental health disorders that fall short of the severe and persistent diagnosis and ' those with situational disorders are largely unable to access any type of mental health services. County-funded mental health services targeted specifically for people who are homeless or at- ' risk of homelessness include the three regional multi-service centers and the Antioch emergency shelter operated by Phoenix Programs. These programs serve only those with a ' mental health diagnosis. In addition,the Health Care for the Homeless team's mental health treatment specialist visits a variety of sites including the County emergency shelters and provides assessment and individual and group counseling to people. A diagnosis is not , required for these services.. It is recommended that another full-time mental health staff position be added to the Health ' Care for the Homeless team in order to expand access to mental health services for people who are homeless. Currently,the team is staffed by one full gime mental health treatment specialist. An additional staff position will allow for more visits;to the emergency shelters and the addition , of new outreach sites, including the regional multi-service centers. (See Recommendation A.2- page 53.) This will enable more people to access services,whether or not they have an actual mental health diagnosis. The range of services that should be available includes: ' Independent Living Skills Workshops, Case Management Services, Counseling& Therapy, Peer Support Groups, including groups for people with dual diagnosis. In addition in order to further expand services to meet the need and taking into account ' P � g the very limited resources available to the County, it is recommended that a network of , private mental health providers willing to offer pro-bono services to people who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness be established. Services will be provided at the multi- service centers, the Phoenix Program facilities, and other appropriate locations. This will ' require a half-time position to recruit, orient and coordinate mental health providers willing to donate services. After the first year, the amount of time needed to recruit and coordinate the providers will decrease, likely requiring five-ten hours/week to maintain the ' pro-bono network. A model exists in Berkeley run through the Berkeley Mental Health Clinic. Establishment of the network of private therapists was funded through a foundation grant obtained by their Mental Health Commission. Now the network is , maintained by one of the therapists at the Mental Health Clinic who devotes less than ten hours/week to this function. The Berkeley pro-bono network includes approximately 30 therapists who provide 2,000 hours/year of services to clients referred by 20 agencies. ' Services include group and individual counseling, supervision of interns, staff consultations and in-service trainings. It is also recommended that a mobile mental health outreach team be created to expand access to services for people who are experiencing a mental health crisis. This team will be available 24 hours/day and 7 days/week to provide assessment and stabilization services ' to people in crisis. It will serve people experiencing emotional or situational crises as well as people with severe mental health disabilities. The crisis team will provide services wherever necessary, in people's homes (prevention measure), at the multi-service centers, , at shelters etc. It is cost-effective because it can help to reduce utilization of expensive 62 ' ' at shelters etc. It is cost-effective because it can help to reduce utilization of expensive emergency services. A mobile mental health crisis team is one of the recommendations in the 1993 `Report Of The Contra Costa County Mental Health Advisory Board Ad Hoc Planning Committee". According to this report, 70%of those brought to Mental Health Crisis Services/E Ward on a 51509 are dually diagnosed,using drugs or alcohol in addition to ' having a mental health disability. The mobile mental health unit will also provide outreach and case management to assist people who are homeless and dually diagnosed in accessing drug and alcohol treatment. (See Recommendation B.2.a-page 64.) Expanded Access To Mental Health Services ' Cost: - a. $50,000 for 1 FTE Mental Health Treatment Specialist - b. $25,000 for 1/2 FTE staff to establish pro-bono service network(1/4 ' FTE staff to maintain network) - c. $125,000 -$150,000/year for the mobile mental health outreach team Implementation Timeline: - a. Additional Mental Health Staff on the Health Care For the Homeless Team(HCH)—Medium Term ' - b. Pro-Bono Service Network—Long Term - c. Mobile Mental Health.Outreach Team— Short Term ' Target Outcomes: - a. 300 people provided with assessment and group& individual counseling through HCH staff expansion, 15% ' access mental health services through the County system - b. A network of 20 pro-bono mental health providers providing 2,000 hours/year of services ' - c. The mobile mental health outreach team will eliminate some of the over 7,000 visits/year to Mental Health Crisis Services/E Ward10 and assist 100 dually diagnosed homeless ' people to access drug& alcohol treatment Responsible Entity(s): HSD/Mental Health Division, Community Substance ' Abuse Services Division& Homeless Program ' Potential Funding Sources: Redirection of existing mental health& substance abuse funds, General Fund, McKinney,Medi-Cal billing, Foundations, CDBG ' 9 5150 refers to the section of the Welfare and Institution Code that authorizes involuntary holds for persons who are a danger to themselves or others or are gravely disabled. ' 10 Report Of The Contra Costa County Mental Health Advisory Board Ad Hoc Planning Committee, June 24, 1993, p.33. ' 63 2. Expand access to drug and alcohol treatment services and to ancillary support , services to help maintain sobriety. (Prevention) ** a. Target beds at Discovery House, a County operated residential ' treatment program,for people who are dually diagnosed with a drug or alcohol problem and a mental health disability. In addition, create a mobile ' mental health outreach team to provide outreach and case management to assist people who are homeless and dualily diagnosed in accessing drug and alcohol treatment. (See Recommendation B.1.c page 61) ' ** b. Expand access to drug and alcohol treatment for homeless families by providing outpatient services linked with intensive case management and , transitional rental subsidies. (See Recommendation C.5-page 94) c. Provide intensive case management and access to ancillary support services to help people who are homeless and in drug and alcohol treatment programs to obtain permanent housing and maintain their sobriety after completing treatment. ' Expanded access to drug and alcohol treatment services will enable more of the , estimated 41%11 of the homeless population who have drug or alcohol problems to address a key factor causing their homelessness. In addition, access to ancillary support services in conjunction with the drug and alcohol treatment will help to ensure , that people are able to regain stable housing and maintain their sobriety after completing a treatment program. ' In Contra Costa County, there are approximately 4512 detox beds and over 200 drug and alcohol treatment beds, including 48 beds for families. In addition,there are 151 , clean and sober transitional housing beds, including 25 for families, and 53 transitional housing beds for people who are dually diagnosed with a mental health disability. These beds serve all County residents and are not specifically set-aside for people who are homeless. This is not enough capacity to serve the over 8001' people, including , 300 adults in families with children, who are homeless on any given night and in need of alcohol and drug treatment. Over 190 of them are dually diagnosed with a mental ' health disability, including over 65 adults who are in families with children. Currently, there are no residential treatment beds specifically designed to serve people who have a dual diagnosis. However, experience indicates that this population has the best chance of success through the combination of residential drug and alcohol 11 See page 16. 12 See Appendix III -page 4.. ' 1' See Appendix III - page 1. 64 ' treatment and intensive mental health support. In order to meet this need, it is recommended that five (5)beds at Discovery House, a County operated residential ' drug and alcohol treatment program, facility, be set-aside for people with a dual diagnosis. The program will include drug and alcohol treatment, mental health services, intensive case management and assistance in locating transitional or ' permanent housing. In addition, it is recommended that a mobile mental health outreach team (See Recommendation B.1.c -page 61.) be created to further expand access to services for people who are homeless and dually diagnosed. The mental health outreach team will visit a variety of sites, including the multi-service centers, encampments, and ' emergency shelters to identify people who are dually diagnosed and to help them access treatment, either at Discovery House or other residential treatment programs. Once in treatment, this unit will provide on-going mental health services and case ' management to help clients access other services and arrange for permanent housing upon completion of the program. Once in permanent housing, follow-up services will be provided to ensure the client's long-term stability. Another important o sub- ulation to be served is homeless families. The need p pp Y ' treatment services that take into account the needs of the whole family unit. While the housing needs of a homeless family must be addressed in order for treatment to be effective, residential treatment is often not the best solution because it does not keep the family intact. Instead, it is recommended that a program combining outpatient services with intensive case management and rental subsidies be established. The rental subsidy would be for one year, giving the family time to go through treatment ' and get back on stable footing. The family would be able to access the treatment needed, obtain stable housing and receive assistance in addressing other ancillary needs, such as employment, money management etc. ' Finally,it is recommended that more case management services be provided to people in treatment programs who are homeless. This intensive case management will help them to access other needed services and to ensure that they have transitional or permanent housing lined up for when they complete the treatment program. This will help to cut down on the number of people repeatedly recycling through treatment programs. This could be accomplished by creating a case management position to work with people in drug and alcohol treatment at each of the regional multi-service centers. (See Recommendation A.2 -page 53) 65 Expanded Access To Drug and Alcohol Treatment Cost: • a. $140,000/year for five beds at Discovery House ' • a. $125,000-150,000 Mobile Mental Health Outreach Unit (See Recommendation B.I.c.) • b. $14,500/year per household for rental subsidies and services for , families • C. $115,000/yr—3 Case managers, 1 at each regional multi-service center Implementation Timeline: • a. Discovery House-- Short Term ' • a. Mobile Mental Health Outreach Team— Short Term ' • b. Family Treatment Program— Short Term • c. Case Managers—Medium Term Target Outcomes: • 60% of those receiving combined treatment and case management (through Discovery House, Mobile Mental Health Team, Family Treatment Program or the regional t multi-service centers) will remain in permanent housing for one year after treatment , Responsible Entity(s): HSD/CSAS Potential Funding Sources: McKinney, Redirection of substance abuse and r mental health funds, General Fund, Medi-Cal billing, Foundations, CDBG (The County's 1996 application for the HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Competition requests funds for the creation of a mobile mental health , outreach team to serve people who are dually diagnosed and a transitional housingitreatment program for families) ** 3. Expand access to comprehensive money management/representative payee services for people who need assistance in managing their funds to retain stable housing. (Prevention) Expanded access to money management/representative payee services will enable more ' people to avoid becoming homeless and assist many who are currently homeless to regain housing. Money management/representative payee services provide structure and support to enable people to adhere to an agreed upon budget plan that ensures that their rent and ' other bills are paid and that they are able to maintain themselves in housing over the long term. For many people, especially those with a mental health disability, an addiction to , drugs or alcohol, a dual diagnosis or an HIV/AID,S diagnosis, this service is essential to preventing their becoming homeless or enabling them to regain and maintain housing. An 66 independent evaluation of one money management program in Contra Costa County demonstrates that this service vastly reduces client use of shelters, hospitals, mental health services and jails, resulting in substantial savings to the Countyi'. Money management/representative payee services help clients to obtain and maintain ' permanent housing, provide direct payment of rent and utilities to the vendor, ensure that clients have access to weekly allocations for food and other necessities, and teach clients to manage their own money so that they can become free of the need for a representative ' payee. It is recommended that funds be identified to increase the availability of money management/representative payee services. Target populations to be served include people who need assistance in managing their funds because of a mental health disability, an addiction to drugs or alcohol, a dual diagnosis or an HIV/AIDS diagnosis and who are receiving or are eligible to receive Social Security or Supplemental Security Income(SSI), Aid To Families With Dependent Children(AFDC) or other benefits. ' Expand Money Mana ement/Representative Payee Services ' Cost: $1800/client (assumes a cost of$100/month/client and an average enrollment in the program of 18 months) Implementation Timeline: Short Term Target Outcomes: • 80% of people enrolled in a money management/ representative payee program will maintain their housing while enrolled • 60% of those enrolled will maintain their housing for at least one year after graduating from the program • Use of emergency shelters, mental health services, hospitals ' and jails will be reduced by 75% for those enrolled in the program Responsible Entity(s): CBOs Potential Funding Sources: McKinney, General Fund, Foundations, CDBG, ' Business, Sliding Scale Client Fees, Medi-Cal Reimbursement 1 (The County's 1996 application for the HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Competition requests funds for expansion of money management/ ' representative payee services.) 1' Evaluation of Rubicon SSI and Money Management Program, by Imam,Foster, and 67 4. Expand the availability of child care for homeless families. (Prevention) a. Advocate that the State expand the child care monies available for day ' care through the Child Development Programs, maintaining the current priority for homeless families. Direct the Child Care Task Force to play the lead in carrying out a lobbying strategy. b. Investigate the feasibility of increasing County and City Transient Occupancy Taxes to fund subsidized child care. ' Access to affordable child care was identified as one of the most pressing needs of families who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. It gives parents the opportunity to find employment, access education and training and/or obtain needed support services. This both can help prevent homelessness as well as enable families to regain housing. In Contra Costa County, on any given day, there are an estimated 934 families15 with children who are homeless on the streets, in emergency shelters or transitional housing, or temporarily doubled-up with friends or family. The bulk of subsidized child care slots are paid for by the State through one of the following programs: ' • The General Child Care Program funds full-day care for children • The State Pre-School Program funds half day pre-school for children ages 3-5 • The School Age Community Child Care Program funds before and after school care for children. In addition, the federal Head Start Program also provides half-day pre-school for children ages 3-5. County Transient Occupancy Taxes also fund subsidized child care slots. ' Currently, the greatest need is for more full-day child care. This can be accomplished by increasing the funding for the General Child Care Program and/or funding agencies ' offering State-Pre-School Programs or Head Start programs to expand their services to provide full-day child care for children. In addition, increased funding for the School Age Community Care Program is needed for families with school-age children who need before or after-school care. The County's Child Care Task Force should engage in advocacy to lobby that the State increase child care funding and that programs with a priority for serving homeless families, maintain this priority. They can coordinate their efforts with , other Counties and with advocacy groups such as the Child Development Policy Institute. Given the current focus being put on helping families to move from welfare to work, it is a politically opportune time to lobby for increased child care monies. In addition, the Downs at the Center for Applied Research (CAL Research), January 1995. ' 15 See page 15. 68 , ' Child Care Task Force should investigate the feasibility of raising County and City Transient Occupancy Taxes to fund more subsidized child care slots. Expand Availability Of Subsidized Child Care Cost: $4,000-5,000/year per child for school-age children, costs are higher for ' younger children and infants Implementation Timeline: Short Term ' Target Outcomes: • Increase in subsidized child care slots available for homeless families ' • Increase in the number of homeless families able to obtain employment or enroll in job training or education ' Responsible Entity(s): BOS/Child Care Task Force Potential Funding Sources: State Funds, Increases in City and County Transient ' Occupancy Taxes,Foundations 5. Provide domestic violence screening and linkages to domestic violence services to ' women and children who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness at programs such as emergency shelters, transitional housing, residential treatment programs, and the regional multi-service centers. (Prevention) (See Recommendation A.4-page 58 & C. ' S-page 84) ' Expanded access to domestic violence services would enable more of the 34% of homeless women in Contra Costa County who have experienced domestic violence to address an issue that often is a key factor in their homelessness. On any given night, this is ' an estimated 41015 women. Domestic violence ranges from repeated, life threatening physical battery to emotional ' abuse tied to threats of physical harm. Those women who are in actual life-threatening situations and have nowhere to go are in need of specialized emergency shelter that addresses the specific emotional and security issues they face. Battered Women's ' Alternatives (BWA) operates an emergency shelter and transitional housing program to serve women in this situation. Other women experiencing lower intensity domestic violence may not need the security and specialized support of a domestic violence facility 15 See Appendix III - page 2. ' 69 for battered women, and can be served in other programs geared for the general homeless , population. However, they do need access to domestic violence services, including counseling, support groups and legal advice. These services can help them to address one ' of the causes of their homelessness and facilitate their efforts to regain stable housing. it is recommended that expanded access to domestic violence services be accomplished by ' providing outreach services to other programs serving women and children who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, residential treatment programs, and the regional multi-service centers. These outreach ' services will include working with program staff to raise awareness of domestic violence as a cause of homelessness and helping to develop screening tools to identify women who are in need of domestic violence services. In addition, outreach staff will provide on-site , services to women and children at the program, including counseling, facilitating the formation of support groups, and providing referrals for other needed services, such as legal advice. This will expand access to domestic violence services to a broader ' population than is currently being served. Expanded Access To Domestic Violence Services Cost: $65,000/yr(assumes 2 full-time outreach staff, one to work with parents ' and the other a child specialist) Implementation Timeline: Short Term ' Target Outcomes: • Domestic violence screening procedures established at 15 ' sites • 624 women and children provided with domestic violence services ' Responsible Entity(s): CBOs Potential Funding Sources: McKinney, CDBG, Foundations, Private Donations ' (The County's 1996 application for the HUD Continuum of Care Homeless ' Assistance Competition requests funds for the creation of domestic violence outreach services.) 70 ' ' ** 6. Expand access to employment & training services and increase employment opportunities for people who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. (Prevention) ' a. Offer employment& training and ancillary services through the multi- service centers. This includes job announcement postings, message and mail ' service, access to telephones as well as vocational assessments,job search assistance, help in accessing training and apprenticeship opportunities and ancillary services to help with job retention. (See Recommendation A.2 -page ' 53) b. Facilitate access to job training programs by providing rent subsidies to people for the time they are in training. c. Advocate to ensure that the One Stop Career Centers being established to ' bring all of the employment and training program together into a single system address the needs of people who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. d. Expand employment opportunities for people who are currently or ' formerly homeless. Expanded access to employment and training services will help more people to find and maintain jobs. This will both help prevent homelessness as well as provide people who are homeless with the resources they need to obtain housing. Currently, employment and ' training services are provided at the emergency shelters and transitional housing programs through sub-contracts with Rubicon Programs. In addition, these services are available outside of the shelter and housing programs through agencies, including Rubicon, St. ' Vincent De Paul, Battered Women's Alternatives and the Cambridge Community Center, who serve people who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. ' In order to expand access to employment and training services, it is recommended that these services be provided at each of the regional multi-service centers. (See Recommendation A.2 -page 53) The services offered should include job announcement ' postings, message and mail services and access to telephones as well as vocational assessments,job search assistance, and help in accessing training and apprenticeship opportunities. In addition, ancillary services to help with job retention should also be ' provided, including budgeting, assistance with opening checking& savings accounts, planning and goal setting, and other life skills. ' For many people, training is necessary in order to be able to earn a wage high enough to achieve independence and move beyond the risks of homelessness. However, training is out of reach for many homeless people because they do not have stable housing. In order to address this barrier, it is recommended that a rental subsidy program be established to provide rental assistance to people for the time, generally 6-9 months, that they are in 71 training. In order to expand the number of people who can be served by the subsidies, it , should be a required that a percentage of the subsidies be used for shared housing arrangements. ' In addition, it is recommended that advocacy be undertaken to ensure that the One Stop Career Centers being established to bring all employment and training programs together ' into a single system address the specific needs of people who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. This will ensure that this population has access to other important training resources. ' Another barrier faced by people who are homeless is the lack of jobs available to them because of the poor economy and because of the reluctance of some employers to hire ' people who are or have been homeless. It is recommended that the County and Cities undertake the following strategies to help increase: employment opportunities for this population: ' • Encourage the unions to open up their apprenticeships to people who are underserved, including people who are homeless or formerly homeless ' • Enact a County hiring policy that requires that all building projects that will serve people who are homeless or who have extremely low incomes to make a best faith ' effort to hire from this population for a specified percentage of the jobs • Establish criteria that award extra points to all County development bids that hire people who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. 72 ' 1 Expanded Access To Employment & Training Services ' Cost: • a. $115,000 for three employment counselors, one at each multi-service center • b.$9,000/year per subsidized unit (assuming an average rent of ' $750/month) • c. No direct cost • d. No direct cost ' Implementation Timeline: • a. Expanded Services Through The Multi-Service P � Centers— Short Term • b. Rental Subsidies—Medium Term • c. Advocacy With One Stop Career Centers— ' Short Term • d. Strategies To Expand Employment Opportunities— Short Term ' Target Outcomes: • a. 70% of those receiving employment and training services will obtain jobs ' • b. 70% of those who receive rental subsidies while in training will obtain employment and remain in permanent housing for at least one year • c.& d. Increased availability of training and employment opportunities ' Responsible Entity(s): CBOs,BOS, CC, PIC, COCB Potential Funding Sources: McKinney, CDBG, Foundations, Business ' Contributions, Private Donations, HUD Regional Initiative ' (The County's 1996 application for the HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Competition requests funds for employment and training services as part of its proposals for the establishment of regional multi-service centers.) ' 73 t 7. Expand free and low-cost transportation options. ' a. Explore options for increasing access, to free and low-cost transportation, ' including operating a van service, expansion of the existing disabled bus pass program to include people with low incomes, and creating volunteer ride progL-ams. Implement the findings. ' Free and low-cost transportation is necessary to enable people who are homeless or have ' low incomes to access jobs and other services. 80%17 of homeless people use the bus or BART to get to work or appointments. The size of Contra Costa County and the limited public transportation make it difficult to get from one area to another without taking the ' whole day. The problem is especially severe in East county where there are communities that are not served at all by public transportation. Currently, the County does not have a program of discounted transportation passes for people who have low incomes. ' It is recommended that options for providing free and low-cost services be investigated, including working with existing transit providers to expand discount pass programs to ' include people with low incomes and to develop inter-change agreements between transit providers in neighboring counties. In addition, other options such as operating a van service and creating volunteer ride programs should also be explored. ' Expand Transportation Options Cost: Staff cost for investigating options, implementation costs contingent upon ' nature of findings Implementation Timeline: • Medium Term for investigating options, Long Term ' for the implementation of the findings Target Outcomes: Improved access to transportation for people with low ' incomes, thereby improving their ability to obtain employment and needed services Responsible Entity(s): COCB, Homeless Coordinator Potential Funding Sources: HUD Regional Initiative,Foundations ' 17 See page 22. 74 ' ' 8. Conduct an assessment of the needs of homeless youth in order to guide the development of services and programs to address their needs. ' Not enough information is known about the numbers of youth who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness and their needs. A needs assessment should be conducted to gain a better ' understanding of their situation and the types of interventions which can best help to prevent future homelessness or help them to regain housing. ' Possible programs and services to be investigated include short-term crisis housing for run- away youth to provide a cooling off period for the youth and their families and offer services to help resolve the conflict and if appropriate,get the family back together. Another area to be ' investigated is ensuring that youth in foster care complete high school and have basic livings skills so that they will be prepared to live independently when they leave foster care. Assess Needs Of Homeless Youth ' Cost: Staff cost to conduct the needs assessment, implementation costs will depend on the nature of the programs and services proposed ' Implementation Timeline: Medium Term ' Target Outcomes: - Information on the numbers of homeless youth and their needs Recommendations for preventing more youth from ' becoming homeless and helping those already homeless back into housing ' Responsible Entity(s): Homeless Coordinator, COCB, CBOs& SSD Potential Funding Sources: General Fund, Foundations, CDBG ' 9. Conduct an assessment of the needs of seniors who are homeless or at-risk in order to guide the development of services and programs to address their needs. ' Not enough information is known about the numbers of seniors who are homeless or at- risk of homelessness and their needs. A needs assessment should be conducted to gain a ' better understanding of their situation and the types of interventions which can best help to prevent future homelessness or help them to regain housing. ' 75 1 Assess Needs Of homeless Seniors Cost: Staff cost to conduct the needs assessment, implementation costs will , depend on the nature of the programs and services proposed Impleme,itation Timeline: Medium Term ' Target Outcomes: • Information on the numbers of homeless seniors and their needs ' • Recommendations for preventing more seniors from becoming homeless and helping those already homeless back into housing ' Responsible Entity(s): Homeless Coordinator, COCB, CBOs& Office On Aging ' Potential Funding Sources: General Fund, Foundations, CDBG 76 ' C. EXPAND AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS IN ORDER TO ENABLE PEOPLE TO ACHIEVE LONG-TERM HOUSING STABILITY _Objectives. To provide a range of housing options that meet people's income and service needs, thus enabling long-term housing stability. ' To assist people in accessing housing. ' ** 1. Develop more housing affordable to people with the lowest incomes. (Prevention) ' a. Establish housing for people with extremely low incomes(at or below 30%of the area median income)ls as a high priority for receiving County and City housing funds. b. Setaearl goal that 10%of all units developed or rehabilitated with County ayearly g p ' & City housing funds be targeted to this population. c. Maximize the amount of funds available for affordable housing by ' leveraging other private resources, including private lending institutions, non-profit organizations, community development banks and for-profit developers. The lack of affordable housing in Contra Costa County is both one of the factors pushing ' people into homelessness and one of the barriers making it difficult for people to regain housing, once homeless. An estimated 1,00019 homeless households are in need of permanent affordable housing. Almost 17,000 households with extremely low incomes ' are at-risk of homelessness because they are bearing an excessive housing cost burden (total housing costs exceed 30% of the gross household income)20. ' In order to ensure that a portion of County and City affordable housing funds are directed to projects serving people with the lowest incomes, it is recommended that an explicit priority be established for projects which create housing for people with extremely low 18 Extremely low income, at or below 30% of the area median income, means a yearly ' income of not more than$12,250 for a household of 1;not more than $14,000 for a household of 2; not more than$17,500 for a household of 4; and not more than $20,300 for a household of 6. (Source: Contra Costa County Community Development ' Department and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) 19 See Housing Gaps Analysis Chart on page 46. 451 individual households and 560 family households are in need of permanent housing_ 20 Contra Costa County Consolidated Plan (FYI 995-1999), p 20. incomes and a yearly goal set that at least 10% of all units developed or rehabilitated with , County and City affordable housing funds be targetted to this population. According to the Contra Costa Consolidated Plan(FY1995-1999), almost 10% of the County's households , have extremely low incomes, at or below 30% of the area median income 21. This includes those receiving General Assistance(GA), Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), Supplemental Security Income(SSI), and those earning low wages. Establishing ' a priority for housing for people with extremely low incomes is consistent with the affordable housing priorities identified in the Contra Costa Consolidated Plan's (FY1995- 1999). This priority and goal should be adopted by the County and each City and ' incorporated into their local housing plan. In addition, it is recommended that the Homeless Coordinator, the COCB, and the ' Homeless Inter-Jurisdictional Coordinating Council (See Recommendation D.3 -page 92) work with the County Community Development Department and City Redevelopment Agencies to facilitate inter jurisdictional collaboration on the development of affordable ' housing, including efforts to identify and leverage other sources of funding and facilitate siting. (See Recommendation D.6-page 96.) This type of collaboration is essential in order to maximize the number of affordable units developed and rehabilitated each year. ' Develop More Affordable Housing ' Cost: No cost for program administration, but will require increased per unit ' subsidies for housing developments targeting the extremely low income population Implementation Timeline: Short Term/On-Going I Target Outcomes: Increased number of units developed or rehabilitated for , people with extremely low incomes, resulting in more people being able to regain stable housing Responsible Entity(s): BOS, City Redevelopment Agencies, CDD, City Redevelopment Agencies,Housing Authority,Homeless Coordinator, COCB, Homeless Inter-Jurisdictional , Coordinating Council Potential Funding Sources: HOME, HOPWA, CDBG, Redevelopment Agency ' Funds, Tax Credits, Bond Funds, Private Funds, McKinney Act Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation SRO Program ' 21 According to the Contra Costa Consolidated Plan(FYI 995-1999), there are a total of ' 268,289 households in Contra Costa County and 22,582 of them are households with 78 ' ' 2. Provide housing advocacy services to help people find and retain housing. (Prevention) a. Establish a computerized affordable housing inventory and assist people in locating housing that meets their income and service needs. (See ' Recommendation A.1 -page 51.) b. Provide prevention & housing retention services through the regional ' multi-service centers to help people maintain their housing. (See Recommendation A.2 -page 53.) ' c. Address problems stemming from housing discrimination by educating tenants about their rights and conducting outreach to landlords to increase their awareness and compliance with the law. Housing advocacy services help people find affordable housing in the extremely tight Contra Costa County housing market. They also help people to maintain their housing through linkages with appropriate services, such as money management/representative ' payee services, mental health services, etc. In order to expand access to these important services, it is recommended that housing advocates be hired to provide these services at each of the regional multi-service centers. (See Recommendation A.2-page 53) rHousing advocacy services should include the following: • A Computerized Affordable Housing Inventory&Housing; Search Assistance Services: The affordable housing inventory will be developed and maintained as part of the countywide, centralized information and referral database on housing ' and services for people who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness (See Recommendation A.1 -page 51) It will include information about available affordable housing units and roommate openings in shared housing arrangements. This information will be available through the telephone hotline and through satellite information sites, including the regional multi-service centers (See Recommendation A.2 -page 53) ' In addition, housing advocates will provide housing search assistance, including advising people on conducting their housing search and in negotiating with ' potential landlords or roommates. • Prevention&Housing Retention Services: Information about resources available to address issues threatening housing stability will be available through the telephone hotline and satellite information sites, including the multi-service centers. (See Recommendation A.2 -page 53.) In addition, the housing advocate extremely low incomes. This is 8% of all households in the County. ' 79 and life skills, and provide necessary follow-up support. These services are , important both to those who have never been homeless, but are at-risk, and to those recently re-housed, who need follow-up and support to ensure that they do , not fall back into homelessness. For those persons entering into shared housing arrangements, shared living skills , workshops and follow-up support will be available. These living situations may be transitional, until individuals are able to increase their income and savings, or they may be permanent. , • Housing Discrimination Education: People with HIV/AIDS, mental health disabilities, those who are formerly homeless and others report that they face housing discrimination from landlords who either knowingly or unintentionally are not complying with Fair Housing law. The housing advocate staff will educate tenants about their rights. The County Community Development Department , already plans to provide workshops for landlords to ensure that they are aware of the law and complying with it. Provide Housing Advocacy Services , Cost: • a. Computerized Affordable Housing Inventory& Prevention Information and Referral—cost included in Recommendation A.l • b. $115,000 -- 3 full-time housing advocates, one at each multi-service center • c. Staff cost Implementation Timeline: • a. Computerized Housing Inventory& Prevention Services Information&Referral— Short Term , • b. Housing Advocates—Medium Term • c. Landlord Fair Housing Workshops— Short Term , Target Outcomes: 150 people/year obtain or retain housing through each regional multi-service center, 450 people/year countywide ' Responsible Entity(s): CBOs & CDD Potential Funding Sources: McKinney, CDBG,Foundations, Private Donations ' (The County's 1996 application for the HUD Continuum of Care Homeless r Assistance Competition requests funding for housing advocacy services as part of its proposals for the establishment of regional multi-service centers. ' 80 , 3. Identify other sources of funding to expand the availability of rental assistance funds for people trying to regain housing after homelessness and for those threatened with losing their housing because of a temporary crisis. (Prevention) Expanded rental assistance will enable more people who are homeless to access housing by covering their move-in costs, including deposits and furnishings, and will help those facing temporary financial crises to prevent the loss of their housing by providing rent grants and loans. Over 1000 homeless households are estimated to be in need of permanent housing. It is recommended that the Homeless Coordinator and the Continuum of Care Board (COCB)work to identify sources for expanding rental assistance funds. An expansion of funds by $75,000/year will allow another 10021 households/year to be served. Expand Rental Assistance Funds Cost: $75,000/year to serve 100 households ' Implementation Timeline: Medium Term Target Outcomes: 100 households helped to retain their housing or to move-in to new housing Responsible Entity(s): Homeless Coordinator, COCB, CBOs ' Potential Funding Sources: HUD Regional Initiative, CDBG, United Way, Business&Private Donations, Foundations, Congregations, FEMA, Season of Sharing funds 21 Assumes that each household receives an average of$750 in assistance. 81 ** 4. Expand the supply of permanent supportive housing for people with on-going service needs. (Prevention) a. Establish supportive housing for people with on-going service needs as a high priority for receiving County and City housing funds. b. Maximize the resources available for supportive housing by identifying other i public and private sources of capital funds and encouraging the development of supportive housing integrated into mainstream affordable housing ' developments. c. Facilitate the development of supportive housing by bringing developers and providers(County& non-profit)together to plan the service linkages for new housing. Require that Memoranda of Understanding(MOU)be developed to ensure that the services are there for proposed new projects. Explore new options for paying for operating expenses,including redirecting funds that pay for services in high-cost institutional settings,such as hospitals and jails. Permanent supportive housing is permanent housing that is linked to an array of support services, provided either on-site or off-site. Expanding the supply of this type of housing will ' allow more people who are currently homeless and have on-going services needs, such as a those with a mental health disability,HIV/AIDS or a.drug or alcohol addiction to regain housing. Permanent supportive housing enables people to live;as independently as possible, outside of an institutional setting. The program structures vary in the range and intensity of services offered and in the manner of service delivery, depending on the needs of the specific population served. Services may be offered on or off-site and may include information and referral,case I management, employment services, drug and alcohol services,money management/ representative payee,life skills,medical services, mental health services,peer-based support groups and recreational activities. Staffing may involve weekly contact with a case manager or other core service provider or may involve up to 24 hours/day on-site staffing and services. Service arrangements may change over time as the needs of the population change. In order to increase the development of permanent supportive housing,it is recommended that ' an explicit priority for these projects be established for the use of County and City affordable housing funds. In addition,the County Community Development Department should facilitate ' the development of supportive housing by bringing developers and providers(County&non- profit)together to plan the service linkages for new:housing. Memoranda of Understanding (MOU)should be required in proposals for funding to demonstrate that the services are there for proposed new projects. It is also recommended that the Continuum of Care Board (COCB)and the Homeless Coordinator explore new options for paying for operating expenses,including redirecting funds that pay for services in high-cost institutional settings, ' such as hospitals and jails. 82 1 Priority population groups to be served by supportive housing are people with long-term disabilities,including those with a mental health disability, medical needs(including HIV/AIDS), chronic drug or alcohol problems, and physical disabilities. Permanent supportive housing targeting the following population groups was identified by the Ad Hoc Homeless ' Task Force as being a high or medium priority need: (See Housing Gaps Analysis on page 46.) ' **High Priority Need People Who Are Dually-Diagnosed(mental health substance abuse and or ' HIV/AIDS(adult-only households): Estimated need—358 adult-only households Medium Priority Need ' •People With Serious Mental Health Disabilities(family and adult-only households Estimated need—59 adult-only households and 118 family households. ' •People With AIDS/HIV(adult-only households): Estimated need— 132 adult-only households ' •Persons With Physical Disabilities famil and adult-onl households): Estimated y Y Z ' need--56 adult-only households and 67 family households •People Who Are Dually-Diagnosed osed(mental health, substance abuse and or ' HIV/AIDS(family households): Estimated need— 133 family households 1 1 1 1 ' 83 Expand The Supply Of Permanent Supportive Housing Cost: Level 1 Supportive Housing: $3,500 - $8,000 per household/year service costs ' Level 2 Supportive Housing: $13,000 - $36,000 per household/year service costs Development costs range from$80,000- $130,000 per uiut t Implementation Timeline: Short Term/On-Going Target Outcome: More supportive housing units developed, 800/o of those who ' enroll in supportive housing remain in permanent housing for at least one year ' Responsible Entity(s): CDD, City Redevelopment Agencies,Homeless Coordinator, COCB ' Potential Funding Sources: McKinney,HOPWA,CDBG,HOME,Redevelopment ' Funds, Section 811,Low Income Tax Credits,Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program,HUD Regional Initiative ' (The County's 1996 application for the HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Competition requests funds for the expansion of Shelter Plus Care ' supportive housing to serve people who are dually diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and another disability.) ** 5. Expand the supply of transitional housing. a. Establish transitional housing as a high priority for receiving County and City housing funds. b. Maximize the resources available for transitional housing by identifying ' other public and private sources of development and operation funds. Work with interested congregations to facilitate development of congregation- , supported projects. Transitional housing provides people with stable housing that is linked to support services for t an extended,but not permanent length of time(6 months-two years). The goal of transitional housing is to provide people with the structure and support they need to address critical issues ' contributing to their homelessness. It provides people with the skills they need to maintain permanent housing and achieve long-term self-sufficiency. ' The program model depends on the needs of the specific population served, and includes the 84 ' ' following: ' •Facility-based transitional housing where clients all live together in one complex but have separate, private living space. Many services are provided on-site. Former hotels/motels and apartment buildings have been rehabilitated to develop this type of ' transitional housing. • Scattered site transitional housing where clients live in private units scattered ' throughout the community. Clients receive rental assistance, case management and linkages to other off-site services. This can be effective for populations that need less intensive support to achieve self-sufficiency. •Facilitated shared transitional housing where clients live in a communal house and receive rental assistance, case management support to facilitate the shared living arrangement, and linkages to off-site services. In order to increase the development of transitional housing,it is recommended that an explicit priority for these projects be established for the use of County and City affordable housing funds. In addition,efforts should be made to encourage and support the efforts of congregations to develop and operate these programs. Currently,the Contra Costa Interfaith Council is looking into the development of transitional housing for families. ' Priority population groups for transitional housing are those who are in need of limited term services and structure to stabilize and address issues which contributed to their homelessness or arose as a result of an extended time period homeless, such as drug or alcohol use, domestic ' violence, low wages,medical needs or a lack of life skills. Transitional housing targeting the following population groups was identified by the Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force as being a high or medium priority need: (See Housing Gaps Analysis on page 46.) ' High Priority ' •People Who Are Dually Diagnosed(mental health, substance abuse and or HIV/AIDS (family and adult-only households) Estimated need--319 adult-only households and 133 family households •People With HIV/AIDS (adult-only households): Estimated need— 132 adult-only households •Victims Of Domestic Violence(family and adult-only households): Estimated need- - 163 adult-only households and 299 family households. (See Recommendation B.5- page 69.) •Families With Drug or Alcohol Problems(family households): Estimated need-- 178 family households (See Recommendation B.2.b-page 64.) ' 85 Medium Priority ' • General Population(family and adult-only households): Estimated need-- 110 ' adults-only households and 95 family households. •People With Serious Mental Health Disabilities family householdsL Estimated need ' —43 family households Expand The Suooly of Transitional Housing , Cost: $7,500- $9,000/year per household operating& service costs,plus rental subsidies or development costs Implementation Timeline: Short Term/On-Going j Target Outcomes: More transitional housing developed, 70%of those who complete ' a transitional housing program will stay in permanent housing for one year after completing the program Responsible Entity(s): CDD, Cities, CBOs,,Homeless Coordinator ' Potential Funding Sources: McKinney,H:OPWA, CDBG,HOME,ESG, , Redevelopment Funds, Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program (The County's 1996 application for the HUD Continuum of Care Homeless ' Assistance Competition requests funds for transitional housing for people who are dually diagnosed, have HIV/AIDS,families with chronic substance abuse problems, victims of domestic violence and the general population of homeless families. 1 86 , ' 6. Remove barriers to the development of housing and services for people who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. ' a.Establish a sub-committee of the Homeless Inter-Jurisdictional Coordinating Council to work with the County and each City to review their planning processes and zoning ordinances and make recommendations regarding how to facilitate development of affordable and supportive housing in each jurisdiction. Implement recommendations from the required Impediments To Fair Housing ' Analysis being carried out by each jurisdiction. (See Recommendation D.3-page 92) ' b.Provide assistance and support to developers and providers seeking to site new housing or services by helping to facilitate community acceptance. (See Recommendation D.6-page 96) Community opposition to the siting of affordable housing and services is a difficult and ' expensive barrier that impedes the development of housing and services that are vitally needed in order to prevent and reduce homelessness. It is recommended that a sub-committee of the Homeless Inter-Jurisdictional Coordinating Council(HICC)work with the County and each ' City to identify how to facilitate siting of affordable housing and services. This will involve review of zoning ordinances and planning processes to identify barriers to the development and ' siting of projects. Many jurisdictions have already carried out an"Impediments To Fair Housing Analysis". The sub-committee should work with these jurisdictions to assist them in implementing the recommendations. ' In addition,it is recommended that the Continuum of Care Board(COCB)and the Homeless Coordinator work with developers and providers to assist them in siting new housing and ' services. This may involve assistance with organizing community meetings and working with local governments and Planning Departments to secure necessary approvals. The public education campaign recommended to be developed by the COCB and the Homeless ' Coordinator will be aimed in part at addressing negative stereotypes of homeless people that produce community opposition to the siting of affordable housing and services. (See Recommendation D.6-page 96.) ' 87 Remove Barriers To The Development of Housing& Services ' Cost: Staff costs ' Implementation Timeline: Short Term Target Outcomes: Quicker siting of affordable housing and services Responsible Entity(s): COCB,Homeless Coordinator,Homeless Inter-Jurisdictional ' Coordinating Council 88 ' D. COORDINATE HOMELESS-RELATED SERVICES AND HOUSING INTO ONE INTEGRATED CONTINUUM OF CARE SYSTEM WITH THE CAPACITY ' FOR ON-GOING STRATEGIC PLANNING Objectives: To enhance the effectiveness of service delivery and maximize efficient use of resources. To facilitate coordination among all components of the system for ' purposes of service delivery,planning and resource management,fund- raising, and policy and program development. ' 1. Create a Contra Costa County Continuum of Care Board (COCB) to oversee the homeless service delivery system and monitor the implementation of the County ' Homeless Plan. a. Consider issues raised during the planning process that merit further ' research, evaluation or consideration. In order to oversee the implementation of the Homeless Plan and to provide an on-going ' forum to facilitate coordinated planning, program development and fund-raising for homeless housing and services, it is recommended that the Contra Costa County ' Continuum of Care Board(COCB)be established. The COCB will be an inclusive body with representation from County departments, Cities, service providers, the faith community, the business sector, the community at-large and people who are currently or ' formerly homeless. The COCB will be formed by reconstituting the existing Homeless Advisory Committee (HAC) and revising its mission. ' The Continuum of Care Board's mission and responsibilities should include the following: • Monitoring the implementation of the County's Homeless Plan; ' • On-going planning and the establishment of annual action priorities based on the Homeless Plan; • Advising the Board of Supervisors, the Affordable Housing Finance Committee and the CDBG Advisory Committee regarding the allocations of all federal and ' state block grant funds(including HUD, McKinney, HOME, HOPWA and CDBG monies)for homeless-related projects in order to ensure consonance with Homeless Plan priorities; ' • Advising the Board of Supervisors, County Departments and City Governments on existing and proposed policies that affect people who are homeless or at-risk; ' • Providing a forum for communication and coordination about the overall 89 operation of the homeless services system and of agency specific program ' operation, fund-raising and program development efforts; •Providing a forum for addressing complaints and grievances regarding homeless , programs or policies; and • Development and implementation of a community education campaign on ' homelessness; (See Recommendation D.6•-page 96.) • Advocacy on federal, state, county and city policy issues affecting people who ' are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. It is recommended that the Contra Costa County Continuum Of Care Board be appointed ' by the Board of Supervisors. It should be composed of 23 members overall and not less than 51% of the Board, 12 members, should represent people who are currently or , formerly homeless, homeless advocates or homeless services providers. The rest should represent County government, City governments, the business sector, voluntary organizations and the community at-large2'. Attendance guidelines, terms of service on 1 the COCB, conflict of interest policies and the process for nominating and selecting candidates to the COCB will be determined in conjunction with the Board of Supervisors. The proposed COCB membership composition is as follows: ' • 3 members will be people who are currently or formerly homeless , • 2 members will be homeless advocates, one of whom has expertise in civil rights • 2 representatives will be citizens at-large(neighbors, homeowners etc.) , • 4 representatives from agencies providing homeless housing or services • 2 representatives from voluntary organizations(service clubs) • 2 representatives from faith organizations and congregations, who are providing , homeless services • 2 representatives from the business sector 3 representatives from County government, the Social Services,Health Services , and Community Development Department representatives to the Homeless Management Team (See Recommendation D.2 -page 91.) • 3 representatives from City government, selected from the Inter-Jurisdictional Coordinating Council. (See Recommendation D.3 -page 92) 23 It is anticipated that the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development , (HUD) may require that local jurisdictions have a local Continuum of Care board in place to oversee the implementation of their Homeless Plans. Since regulations about the , composition of local Continuum of Care boards have not yet been adopted by HUD, the composition outlined in this Plan is subject to change to ensure compliance with any regulations released by HUD in the future. Care was taken in the development of the , Continuum of Care board composition outlined in.this Plan to anticipate the future HUD regulations to the greatest extent possible. 90 ' The Contra Costa County Continuum Of Care Board will be staffed by the Homeless ' Coordinator who will organize the meetings, conduct information gathering and analysis, facilitate decision-making, and follow-up on actions taken by the Board. The Homeless Coordinator will not be a member of the COCB. (See Recommendation D.4-page 93) During the planning process, the following issues were identified as needing further research, evaluation or consideration: the 90 day time limit at the Brookside and Concord shelters,the 30 day limit at the Antioch shelter, General Assistance(GA) regulations, and the need for more information on the needs of homeless youth and homeless seniors. Each of these issues should be taken up by the COCB. ' Create A County Continuum of Care Board Cost: Staff Cost— See Recommendation DA - page 93 ' Implementation Timeline: Short Term ' Target Outcomes: • Improved Coordination In Program&Policy Development • Improved Delivery of Services • Regular Countywide Meetings For Problem-Solving, Long- Range ongiRange Planning& Communication Responsible Entity(s): BOS & Homeless Coordinator ' 2. Re-establish the Homeless Management Team to facilitate coordination of County government efforts to address homelessness. ' a. Participate in the regional planning meetings for the development of multi-service centers in order to identify County resources that should be linked to the multi-service centers and plan for how services will be ' coordinated regionally and countywide. ' It is recommended that the Homeless Management Team be re-established to provide a forum for coordination among County departments and agencies on policy, program and fiscal issues related to homelessness. The Homeless Management Team's mission will be ' to ensure that departmental policies, programs and budgeting are consonant with the County's Homeless Plan, provide an inter-departmental perspective to the Board of Supervisors on proposed policy changes affecting the homeless services system, and facilitate joint planning, grant-writing and program development. The Homeless Management Team will include representation from all County departments ' 91 and agencies that have a role to play in addressing homelessness, including the following: ' Community Development, Community Services, County Administrator's Office, County Counsel, General Services, Growth Management and Economic Development, Health , Services,Housing Authority, Office of Education,Private Industry Council (PIC), Sheriffs Department, Social Services and Veteran's Services. Representation will consist of participation by the department/agency head or his/her designee. ' It is recommended that the Homeless Management Team participate in the development of the regional multi-service centers, helping to identify County services that should be linked with the multi-services centers, both homeless services and main-stream services, and planning for how services can be coordinated regionally and countywide. (See Recommendation A.2-page 53 &D. 5-page 94.) ' The Homeless Management Team will be co-convened by the County Administrator's Office and the Health Services Department, and should meet on a regular basis. It will be , chaired by the Homeless Coordinator. (See Recommendation D.4-page 93.) Re-Establish The Homeless Management Team ' Cost: Staff Cost -- See Recommendation DA - page 93. , Implementation Timeline: Short Term Target Outcomes: • Regular Inter-Departmental Meetings to Increase Coordination& Communication Regarding Policy& ' Programs Related to Homelessness Responsible Entity(s): Homeless Coordinator& CAO , 3. Establish a Homeless Inter-Jurisdictional Coordinating Council to facilitate , coordination between the County, the Cities, and State and Regional Agencies operating within the County on homelessness-related issues that cross jurisdictional lines. ' It is recommended that the Homeless Inter-Jurisdictional Coordinating Council (HICC) be established to provide a forum for coordination and communication between County government, City governments, and State and Regional Agencies operating within the County on policy, program and fiscal issues related to homelessness. The HICC will address issues requiring inter jurisdictional collaboration and cooperation, such as , responding to homeless encampments, CDBG allocations, fundraising and grant-writing, state and federal legislative issues, and zoning and land use for affordable housing and support services. , 92 , ' The Homeless Inter-Jurisdictional Coordinating Council will include representation from each City Manager or their designee, the County Homeless Management Team, CalTrans, ' Southern Pacific, the East Bay Regional Park District and BART. The Homeless Inter-Jurisdictional Coordinating Body will be convened by the County ' Board of Supervisors or their designee and should meet on a quarterly basis. It will be staffed by the Homeless Coordinator. (See Recommendation D.4. -page 93) ' Establish A Homeless Inter-Jurisdictional Coordinating Council ' Cost: Staff Cost—See Recommendation DA - page 93 Implementation Timeline: Short Term ' Target Outcomes: Quarterly Meetings To Increase Inter-Jurisdictional Communication, Coordination and Capacity For Problem- Solving on Issues Related to Homelessness ' Responsible Entity(s): BOS &Homeless Coordinator ' 4. Establish a Homeless Coordinator staff position within County government to oversee the Countywide Continuum of Care system and facilitate on-going strategic planning and coordination of service delivery. ' It is recommended that a full-time Homeless Coordinator staff position be created to oversee the Countywide Continuum of Care system. The Homeless Coordinator will head ' the County's Homeless Program and report to the Assistant Health Services Director For Public Health. It is also recommended that a full-time administrative staff position be assigned to the Homeless Coordinator to provide administrative support. ' The Homeless Coordinator's responsibilities should include the following: ' • Chairing the Homeless Management Team, and staffing the Continuum of Care Board and the Inter-Jurisdictional Coordinating Council; (See Recommendations D.1-3 -pages 89-92) ' • Working with appropriate parties, including County departments, Cities, and providers, to implement the Homeless Plan's recommendations, ' • Facilitating on-going planning and coordination including anticipating and Facilitating on-going � � � P b ' responding to shifts in public policy and funding levels; • Engaging in community education and outreach; (See Recommendation D.6- 93 page 96.) ' •Exploring the establishment of a Housing Trust Fund (See Recommendation D.8 ' -page 98.); and • Engaging in advocacy activities. , Currently, the County Homeless Program includes two staff positions: the Homeless Program Development Director and the Homeless Program Services Director. The ' Development Director is responsible for the development of resources for the County's Homeless Program and compliance with funder reporting requirements. The Services Director oversees the day-to-day program, including the emergency shelters, the ' transitional housing programs, and the work of the Homeless Ombudsperson. The addition of the Homeless Coordinator position will provide the staff resources needed to focus on long-term planning, policy and program development, facilitate coordination of , resources countywide, and oversee the implementation of the Homeless Plan. Establish A Homeless Coordinator Staff Position , Cost: $100,000 -$130,000/yr(Homeless Coordinator& Administrative Staffing) ' Implementation Timeline: Short Term Target Outcomes: • More Effective Service Delivery • Improved Coordination Around Homeless-Related ' Planning, Policy and Program Development Responsible Entity(s): BOS & HSD ' 5. Facilitate greater coordination at the level of service delivery in each region and ' throughout the County. The need for greater coordination at the level of service delivery has been identified as essential both from the standpoint of utilizing limited resources more efficiently by , eliminating duplication of services as well as from the standpoint of providing services to clients in a manner that is least confusing and most helpful to them in addressing their ' needs. One of the issues identified by both providers and clients is the duplication and overlap of case management services between agencies. Sometimes a client will have several case managers working with him/her, who are not in touch with each other and , who each have given the client a different treatment plan. This is not only a waste of resources, it is confusing to the client who may be receiving conflicting messages from 94 ' their case managers about what they need to be doing and when. Since many people have intersecting issues that combined to cause their homelessness, in order to regain housing ' they need a menu of different services that are coordinated together to address the full range of their needs. ' There is a need for agreements among providers in each region and throughout the County about the development of inter-disciplinary service plans, about how to share information between providers in a manner that does not breach client's rights, and about processes ' for ensuring that each client receives a coordinated service package. It is recommended that the Homeless Coordinator and the Continuum of Care Board work with County, non- profit and faith-based providers to develop protocols and procedures that allow for the ' sharing of appropriate information and at the same time protect client confidentiality. This discussion should occur as part of the planning taking place in each region to develop multi-service centers. The multi-service centers are envisioned as the linchpin of regional ' service coordination. Multi-service center case coordinators will play a lead role in coordinating the different providers serving a particular client to ensure that one inter- disciplinary plan is developed and that information-sharing occurs. (See Recommendation A.2 -page 53) In addition, the Homeless Coordinator should initiate a discussion through the Homeless Management Team regarding the protocols and procedures needed to facilitate sharing of information about clients among County departments and with County contractors. Facilitate Coordination Of Service Delivery ' Cost: Staff Cost— See Recommendation DA -page 93 ' Implementation Timeline: Short Term Target Outcomes: • Agreements, regionally and countywide, about sharing ' client information • Increased efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery ' Responsible Entity(s): Homeless Coordinator, COCB, Homeless Management Team, & CBOs 95 6. Conduct a countywide, coordinated public education campaign on homelessness. A countywide public education campaign is vital in order to begin to effect public perceptions and understanding of homelessness and to build support for the programs and services which help people to regain housing or prevent its loss in the first place. It is recommended that a county wide public education campaign with the following goals be , conducted: • To increase the public's understanding of-homelessness and to answer their ' questions and concerns about homeless people • To shed light on the stereotypes about homeless people, put more positive images forward, and alleviate the stigma caused by negative beliefs about those who are homeless • To build community support for programs serving the needs of those who are ' homeless or have low incomes and alleviate opposition to the siting of new housing and services, thereby facilitating the implementation of the Homeless Plan , (See Recommendation C.6-page 87.) • To spur greater involvement by the community in responding to homelessness , • To build support for federal and state policies and programs (ie AFDC, Medi- ' Cal, Section 8) that are needed to prevent homelessness and prompt voting and advocacy It is recommended that the development of the public education campaign be overseen by the Homeless Coordinator and the Continuum of Care Board. (See Recommendations D.1 &4-pages 89 &93) They will identify the themes for the campaign,types of ' materials needed, and strategies for reaching audiences, including speakers bureaus, Public Service Announcements (PSAs), etc. They will also explore sources of funding and/or pro-bono assistance to operate the campaign. , i 96 Conduct A Public Education Camnaisn Cost: Contingent upon nature of the education campaign Implementation Timeline: Medium Term ' Target Outcomes: • Increased public understanding of homeless • Increased support and resources for homeless housing& services Responsible Entity(s): COCB &Homeless Coordinator i7. Develop a Countywide Management Information System to facilitate collection and analysis of data on homelessness and homeless services. a. Develop standardized data collection forms and a reporting schedule for collecting data from all County departments, County contractors and from ' other agencies providing homeless services. Input data into the system and generate reports. In order to engage in effective on-going planning and program development, accurate data on the number of people served, their needs, and the effectiveness of current programs is vital. Currently, providers keep their own data according to agency needs and funder specifications. A uniform data collection form would enable consistent data to be collected from all providers serving homeless people and would yield better data for planning purposes. It is recommended that the Homeless Coordinator and the Health Services Department request assistance from the County's Data Processing Services Department to develop a ' management information system that will collect and analyze data on homelessness and homeless service provision. Data should be collected from all County departments, County contractors and from other agencies providing homeless services. This will create a better information base to guide planning and program development in the Continuum of Care homeless services system. 97 Develop A Countywide Homeless Data Collection System Cost: Contingent upon an evaluation of existing data collection capability and data needs Implementation Timeline: • Data Collection—Medium Term Target Outcomes: • Comprehensive Data on Homelessness, including numbers of people, their needs and effectiveness of service ' programs • Unduplicated & Cost-Effective Service Provision Responsible Enti : HSD &Homeless Coordinator P h'(s) i 8. Explore the development of a Homeless Trust Fund and other avenues for raising the resources necessary to implement the Homeless Plan and fund housing and services to prevent and alleviate homelessness. The combination of growing need and diminishing public dollars to fund housing and ' services requires development of other sources of funding to maintain the current service delivery system and to permit any expansion in services or housing. It is recommended that the Continuum of Care Board and Homeless Coordinator explore the development of a Homeless Trust Fund. This will include identifying potential funding sources, such as placing requests for donations in the property tax bill (like the Ann Addler Trust Fund), implementing special taxes or fees, and major donor solicitation strategies. It will also include identification of the specific types of housing and services for which Homeless Trust Fund monies will be used. This exploration should build off the work of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Task Force which investigated these issues, as recommended by the 1989 Community Homeless Action& Resource Team report, "Long Term Affordable Housing Solutions to Homelessness". Development Of A Homeless Trust Fund Cost: Staff Cost— See Recommendation DA - page 93 ' Implementation Timeline: Short Term/On-Going Target Outcomes: Establishment of A Locally Controlled Funding Source for Homeless Housing& Services Responsible Entity(s): COCB &Homeless Coordinator ' 98 ' 9. Create mechanisms for consumer input into the development and operation of the homeless services system. ' a. Require that all programs have survey procedures for soliciting client feedback. Information gathered will be analyzed by agency directors to ' guide program development and shared with the Continuum of Care Board. b. Facilitate involvement of people who are homeless or formerly homeless as ' full participants in the Continuum of Care Board and other bodies addressing issues related to homelessness. ' c. Publicize and promote the Homeless Ombudsperson position. Create a structure for periodic reporting to the Continuum of Care on the operation of the homeless service delivery system. Feedback from consumers about the operation of homeless programs is essential to ensure ' that programs serve clients in the most effective and humane manner possible. Likewise, consumer feedback is also needed on the system-wide level to inform the development of programs, prioritization of needs and resources and crafting of public policy. Consumer ' input was incorporated into the development of this Homeless Plan through the on-going participation of consumers in the Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force and through focus groups ' and surveys where consumers were given the opportunity to provide specific feedback on their needs and their experiences with the existing system. This level of consumer participation is needed on an on-going basis to guide the decisions made by the Continuum ' of Care Board about homeless policy and programs. This can be accomplished by enhancing and formalizing procedures for soliciting ' consumer input. It is recommended that all programs within the County's Continuum of Care system be required to have a survey procedure in place that gives consumers an opportunity to provide feedback about the program. Each program will be responsible for ' compiling the feedback and sharing it with the Continuum of Care Board on a regular basis, as specified by the Board. ' In addition, three positions on the Continuum of Care Board have been designated for people who are currently or formerly homeless. (See Recommendation D.1 -page 89.) In order to ensure that people have the ability to fully and actively participate on the Board, it ' is recommended that the Homeless Coordinator and the Continuum of Care Board explore how to put effective recruitment and training mechanisms into place. For those people who are interested, training could cover topics such as the role of Continuum of Care ' Boards and how to be an effective board member, how to effectively communicate one's knowledge and experience about homelessness, and leadership skills. Currently, HUD has technical assistance monies available to train currently and formerly homeless people on ' these topics. ' 99 1 Consumer issues and problems with specific programs can also be addressed through the ' Homeless Ombudsperson. This position was created to assist clients in conflicts with the bureaucracy and to advocate for their rights and needs. It is recommended that publicity ' about the existence of this position be enhanced and that the ombudsperson provide regular feedback to the Continuum of Care Board. about the operation of the homeless services system, based on his direct experiences with clients and the system. ' Create Mechanisms For Consumer Input ' Cost: • a& c. staff cost • b. $400-$600/year for training ' Implementation Timeline: Short Term Target Outcomes: • More effective& responsive service delivery system ' � P rY • a. Formalized Exit Survey Procedures in Place • b. At Least One Training/Year for People Who Are ' Currently or Formerly Homeless To Enhance their Participation ' • c. Regular Reports from the Homeless Ombudsperson to the Continuum of Care Board Responsible Entity(s): Homeless Coordinator, COCB, CBOs ' 100 , APPENDIX I. -- EndNotes For Chapter On "Homelessness In Contra ' Costa County" 1 Contra Costa Consolidated Plan (FY 1995-1999), p. 50. ' 2 See Housing Gaps Analysis Chart on page 46 of the Homeless Plan. 451 individual households and 544 family households are in need of permanent housing. ' 3 Contra Costa Consolidated PlanFY 1995-1999 74. ( )� P 4 See pages 15 & 17 of the Homeless Plan. 2,034 adults homeless each night x. .41 = 834. 5 See pages 15 & 18 of the Homeless Plan. 2,034 x .17 = 345. 6 See page 19 of the Homeless Plan. See page 12 of the Homeless Plan. ' 8 See page 20 of the Homeless Plan. 9 See page 21 of the Homeless Plan. ' io Methodology For Calculating The Estimated Yearly Count ' A. Homeless Families: According to the Contra Costa County Social Services Department, 3,750 families received assistance from the Aid To Families With Dependent Children -Homeless Assistance Program(AFDC-HAP) in Fiscal Year 1994 (July 1994- June 1995). AFDC-HAP is a statewide program that is administered locally by the Contra Costa County Social Services Department. It provides two types of cash assistance to homeless families: 1) Temporary Assistance to pay for motels or other temporary shelter arrangements and 2) Permanent Assistance to help with move-in costs for permanent housing, including last month's rent, security deposit and utility hook-up costs. In order to qualify for this assistance, families must be receiving or eligible to receive AFDC, have ' no more than $100 in the bank or on hand (excluding the current month's AFDC income), and they must be homeless. According to AFDC-HAP, applicants are considered homeless if they do not have permanent housing, including those who are living in a temporary shelter, residing on the streets or in a place not designed for human habitation, or living temporarily doubled up with friends or family. In Fiscal Year 1994-95, families were not eligible to receive AFDC-HAP if they had received it in the previous 24 months. ' This limitation was changed on January 1, 1996 to exclude families who have ever received it before in their lifetime. 1 Th number f f families 4-95 3 750 ' Theo a es who received AFDC-HAP assistance in FY 199 ( , families)was multiplied by the countywide number for the average size of an AFDC family , (2.77)to yield the number of family members (parents and children)who were homeless at some point in FY 1994-95 (10,388). The number of families (3,750)was also multiplied by the dountywide average number of children in an AFDC family (1.86)to yield the , number of children who were homeless at some point in FY 1994-95(6,975). 3,750 (number of families who received AFDC-I-IAP) ' x 2.77 (average family size) 10,388 family members who were homeless in I Y 1994-95 3,750 (number of families who received AFDC-HAP) ' x 1.86 (average number of children) 6,975 homeless children in FY 1994-95 , These numbers are a known undercount. They are minimum figures that include only those homeless families who received AFDC-HAP. They do not include many other ' families who were homeless but did not receive AFDC-HAP, such as: • Homeless families ineligible for AFDC because of their immigration status or I because they did not meet the income and savings limitations necessary to qualify; • Homeless families ineligible to receive AFDC-HAP because they had already ' received it in the previous 24 months; • Homeless families who were eligible but who for whatever reason did not apply ' for it. An informal survey of family emergency shelters and transitional housing programs conducted in December 1995 by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department Homeless Program revealed that 59% of the families who had stayed in the programs ' during Fiscal Year 1994-95 were either ineligible for AFDC-HAP or did not apply for other reasons. This is an additional 662 families who are not represented in the estimate based on the AFDC-HAP numbers. ' B. Homeless Individuals: According to the Contra Costa County Social Services Department, 19,214 people applied for General Assistance(GA) during Fiscal Year 1994 ' (July 1994-June 1995). GA is a state-mandated, county-funded program that provides cash assistance to individuals who are not eligible to receive assistance from other government programs. The maximum monthly cash benefit is $300. In October 1995, ' GA regulations were changed so that the portion of the GA grant to cover rent (up to $158) is paid directly to the landlord by the Social Services Department and the remainder ($142) is paid directly to the recipient to cover personal needs. Homeless people are ' referred into the County emergency shelters and receive the $142 payment. If there is no 2 ' room in the shelters, they can receive the full $300 payment. ' The number of GA applicants in FY 1994-95 (19,214)was multiplied by the percentage of applications that were new (53.5%)to yield the number of unduplicated GA applicants ' (10,279). The number of unduplicated GA applicants(10,279) was multiplied by the percentage of approved GA applicants who declared themselves as homeless (28%)to yield an estimate of the number of individuals who experienced an episode of ' homelessness in FY 1994-95 (2,878). 19,214 (number of GA applicants) ' x .535 (duplication rate) 10,279 unduplicated applicants in FY 1994-95 ' 10,279 (unduplicated applicants) x .28 (percentage of people who self-declare as homeless) 2,878 homeless individuals in FY 1994-95 ' This number is a known undercount. It is derived from figures based only on people who apply for GA and who declare themselves to be homeless. It does not include many other people who were homeless, such as: • Homeless people who did not apply for GA. Many people choose not to apply ' because they do not think the low benefit level ($300/month) is worth the difficulty of complying with the program requirements, such as participating in job search and/or alcohol and drug counseling. ' •Homelesseo le who receive GA but who do not declare themselves to be P P homeless. Applicants are not required to identify themselves as homeless and many people choose not to. ' The calculation of the number of homeless men and women is derived by multiplying the relative proportions of the number of men and women receiving GA by the overall yearly estimate of the number of homeless individuals(2,878). In the"General Assistance Client ' Demographic Study in Contra Costa County", prepared by the Bay Area Social Services Consortium(January 1996), the percentage of GA recipients who are female is 44% and the percentage of recipients who are male is 56%. This yields 1,612 men and 1,266 women. 11 Methodology For Calculating The Homeless Population In Each Region The breakout of homeless families by region is based on the relative proportions of the AFDC caseload in West, Central and East county. In December 1995,45% of the AFDC ' caseload was in West county, 21% was in Central county and 34% was in East county. The breakout of homeless individuals adults by region is based on the relative proportions 3 o , of the GA caseload in West, Central and East county. In December 1995, 55% of the GA caseload was in West county, 25%was in Central county, and 20%was in East county. , 12 Methodology For Calculating The Estimated Nightly Count A. Homeless Single Adults: According to the Contra Costa County Social Services ' Department, the average monthly General Assistance (GA) caseload was 4,624 cases in Fiscal Year 1994 (July 1994-June 1995). Because the monthly caseload is the total ' number of all cases open at some point during the:month, it is higher than the average daily caseload. The average daily caseload is about 85% of the average monthly caseload. Applying this percentage to the FY 1994-95 average monthly caseload yields an average ' daily caseload of 3,930 cases (4,624 x .85). The average daily caseload of 3,930 was multiplied by the percentage of approved GA recipients who declare themselves as homeless (28%)to yield an estimate of 1,100 individuals homeless on any given night in ' FY 1994-95 (3,390 x.28). This number is an undercount— see Endnote I.B. for a more detailed explanation of the limitations of this estimate. The calculation of the number of homeless men and women is derived by multiplying the ' relative proportions of the number of men and women receiving GA by the overall nightly estimate of the number of homeless individuals (1,100). In the"General Assistance Client Demographic Study in Contra Costa County", prepared by the Bay Area Social Services Consortium(January 1996), the percentage of GA recipients who are female is 44% and the percentage who are male is 56%. This yields an estimate of 616 men and 484 women. ' B. Homeless Families: The number of families who are homeless on any given night is , derived by averaging a low and a high end estimate. The low end estimate is based on AFDC-HAP data. According to the Contra Costa County Social Services Department, an average of five days of temporary shelter was provided for families who received AFDC- HAP temporary assistance during the six month period of January-June 1995. Assuming that 5 days is the average length of homelessness for families yields an estimated nightly , count of 51 families. (365/days/yr divided by 5 days= 73, and 3,750 families homeless over the course of the year divided by 73 = 51 families homeless on any given night.) Based on the experiences of providers serving this population as well as on surveys of , homeless families, the average length of homelessness for families is thought to be considerably longer than 5 days. The discrepancy between the AFDC-HAP data and the ' experiences of providers and many homeless families is likely due to the fact that AFDC- HAP recipients do not include all homeless families and are not reflective of the overall population of families who experience homelessness. t The high end estimate is derived from a survey conducted by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department Homeless Program in December 1995. Of the 192 people , surveyed, 16 indicated that they had children living with them. Of these,16 families, 6% 4 , ' had been homeless less than 1 month 25% had been homeless for 1-3 months 50% had ' been homeless for 3 months-1 year, and 19% had been homeless for over 1 year. In order to derive a nightly count of homeless families, this data on the length of time homeless was applied to the yearly count using the following assumptions: • Under 1 month assumes the family was homeless for exactly 2 weeks. The yearly count is multiplied by the proportion of families homeless for under one ' month (6%) and divided by 26. • 1-3 months assumes the family was homeless for exactly 2 months. The yearly ' count is multiplied by the proportion of families homeless for 1-3 months (25%) and divided by 6. ' • 3 months-1 year assumes the family was homeless for exactly 6 months. The yearly count is multiplied by the proportion of families homeless for 3 months-1 year(50%) and divided by 2. • Over 1 year assumes the family was homeless for exactly 1 year. The yearly count is multiplied by the proportion of families homeless for over 1 year(19%). ' Adding together the results of the four calculations yields an estimated nightly count of 1,816 families. [This methodology was developed by Shelter Partnership, Inc. of Los Angeles.] This estimate is assumed to be a high end calculation because it is derived from a small sample of families in emergency shelters, transitional housing, residential treatment programs, etc. This sample cannot be assumed to be reflective of the overall population of ' homeless families and is likely biased toward families who have been homeless longer amounts of times. ' An average of the low end and high end figures yields an estimate of 934 families homeless on an given night. The AFDC average family size and average number of children (See Endnote 1.A.) were used to calculate estimates of the number of family members (parents and children) and the number of children homeless on any given night. Based on this, 2,587 family members were estimated to be homeless on any given night in ' FY 1994-95, including 1,737 children. 1' In addition, to the lack of a random or scientific sampling process, the applicability of the survey data is also limited by the fact that the surveys were filled out by the respondents themselves. The quality and completeness of the surveys is not consistent; some people did not understand how to fill out certain questions and others chose not to ' answer all the questions. Accuracy is particularly an issue with the questions that asked people to self-report information on personal issues, such as mental health disabilities, drug and alcohol use, and domestic violence. Given the differing motivations people have ' in answering these questions, a precise estimate of the overall percentage of the homeless population affected by these issues cannot be obtained solely by looking at the proportion ' 5 of people who identified themselves as having a particular problem on the survey. ' 14 Source: State of California Alcohol and Drug Data System, 1995 , 15 6,628 is the estim.9te of the number of homeless.households in FY 1994-95 (2,878 adult only households plus 3,750 family households— see endnote 1 for sources.). For convenience, this number is used as the estimate of the number of homeless adults although it is likely that some of the family households contained more than one adult. ' 16 113 of the 192 people surveyed (59%) indicated that they had a problem with drug or alcohol use. ' 17 Source: Rubicon Programs, Inc. Homeless Demographics, FY 1994-1995 18 Source: The Transitional Housing Program Grantee Annual Reports for Mountain ' View House, 9/92-8/93, 9/93- 8/94, 9/94-8/95 19 Source: Memo from Robert Kajdan, Contra Costa County Health Services Department ' Substance Abuse Program Manager to Contra Costa County Supervisor Jeff Smith 20 Source: Contra Costa County Health Services Department General Accounting ' Department Homeless Program (340 Grant)Budget January 1 -December 31, 1995 21 See Endnote 15. 22 32 of the 192 people surveyed (17%) indicated that they had a mental health disability. ' 23 23 of the 192 people surveyed (12%) indicated that they had both a mental health disability and a problem with drug or alcohol use. , 24 23 of the 32 people(72%)who identified themselves as having a mental health disability also said they had a drug or alcohol problem. 23 of the 113 people(20%) who ' identified themselves as having a drug or alcohol problem also said they had a mental health disability. 2s 24 of the 70 women surveyed (34%) indicated that they or their family had a problem with domestic violence. ' 26 Source: Contra Costa County Health Services Department AIDS Program 27 Source: "A National Evaluation of Title IV-E Foster Care Independent Living , Programs For Youth, Westat, Inc. (1990-1991) 28 Jewel Mansapit, GA Program Analyst, estimates that 24% of their entire GA caseload ' 6 ' is 18-24 years of age. Applying the 24% to overall yearly estimate of homeless sin 1 e ' adults (2,878) yields an estimate of 691 homeless young adults in FY 1994-95. 29 1,100 (nightly estimate of single adults) multiplied by 24% (the percentage of the GA ' caseload with is between 18-24 years of age) yields an estimated 264 young adults homeless on any given night. ' 30 39 of the 192 surveyed (20%) indicated that they had a physical disability. 31 39 of the 192 people surveyed (20%) indicated that they had a health problem. 19 1 (10%) said they had stayed in the hospital during the previous 12 months. 32 Source: The Transitional Housing Program Grantee Annual Reports for Mountain View House, 9/92-8/93, 9/93- 8/94, 9/94-8/95 33 36 of the 192 people surveyed (20%) reported that they had spent some time in jail in ' the previous 12 months. 34 Source: Rubicon Programs, Inc. Homeless Demographics, FY 1994-1995 ' 35 30 of the 192 people surveyed (16%) reported that they were veterans. ' 36 Source: Rubicon Programs, Inc. Homeless Demographics,FY 1994-1995 '' 103 of 167 survey respondents (62%) had a gross monthly income below $500, 42 ' (25%) had an income in the range $500-$1000, 12 (7%) had an income in the range $1000-$1500, 4 (2%) had an income in the range $1500-$2000, 2 (1%) had an income in the range $2000-$2500 and 4 (2%) had an income over$2500. 'g Contra Costa County Consolidated Plan (FY 1995-1999), p 50. ' 39 Contra Costa County Consolidated Plan(FY 1995-1999), p 74. ' 40 40 of 184 survey respondents (22%) had not completed high school or the GED, 57 (31%) had completed high school or the GED, 61 (33%) had completed some college, 26 (14%) had obtained a degree. ' 41 Source: Rubicon Programs, Inc. Homeless Demographics, FY 1994-1995 ' 42 32 of the 192 people surveyed (17%)were currently employed. 43 Source: Rubicon Programs, Inc. Homeless Demographics, FY 1994-1995 ' 44 94 of 147 survey respondents (64%)were homeless more than one time. 7 45 153 of 192 survey respondents said they use the; bus or BART to get to appointments or to work. , 46 83 of 192 people surveved (43%) had lived on the streets, 42 (22%)had lived in a vehicle, 114 (59%) had been in a shelter or transitional housing, and 86 (45%) had stayed ' with a friend. 47 Contra Costa County Consolidated Plan(FYI 995-1999), pages 20 & 26. , 48 Contra Costa County Consolidated Plan(FY1995-1999), page 48. ' 49 See Housing Gaps Analysis Chart on page 46 of the Homeless Plan. 451 individual households and 544 family households are in need. of permanent housing. , So Contra Costa County Consolidated Plan (FY 1995-1999), p 20- " Contra Costa County Consolidated Plan (FY 1995-1999), p 48. ' 52 Contra Costa County Consolidated Plan(FY 1995-1999), p 50. , 5' See Endnote 51. 54 See page 12 & 15 of the Homeless Plan. 55 See page 12 & 15 of the Homeless Plan. ' 56 See page 18 & Appendix III - page 1. 57 See page 17 & Appendix III-pages 1-2. There are an estimated 834 homeless people ' (individual adults and adults in family households)who have a drug or alcohol problem. An estimated 244 are dually diagnosed with a mental health disability and 310 are dually , diagnosed with an HIV/AIDS diagnosis. Overall, 66% of those with a drug or alcohol problem have some type of dual diagnosis. Ss See page 19 of the Homeless Plan. , 59 See page 19 of the Homeless Plan. ' 60 Contra Costa County Consolidated Plan, FY 1995-1999, p 27-28. ' e ' ' APPENDIX II. — Focus Group And Survey Locations ' In December 1995, focus groups were held at a variety of homeless housing and service programs in order to solicit input from people who were homeless, formerly homeless or ' at-risk of becoming homeless about what is needed in Contra Costa County to prevent and reduce homelessness. These focus groups were attended by over 200 people. In addition, short surveys providing demographic information were filled out by the participants at ' each focus group. Both the focus groups and the surveys provided key information about the needs that guided the development of the recommendations in the Homeless Plan. ' The following is a listing of the sites where the focus groups were conducted and the surveys distributed: ' 1. Loaves&Fishes Soup Kitchen—Martinez 2. Loaves&Fishes Soup Kitchen—Concord ' 3. East County Detox Program 4. Wollam House 5. Diablo Valley Ranch ' 6. Love- A- Child Housing Program 7. GRIP Winter Shelter Program 8. Phoenix Multi-Service Center-- Concord ' 9. Holloman Detox Program 10. Pittsburg Family Center 11. Battered Women's Alternatives Transitional Housing Program 12. Rubicon Homes 13. Mt. View Transitional House 14. Brookside Emergency Shelter ' 15. Central County Emergency Shelter 1 APPENDIX III. -- EndNotes For Housing Gaps Analysis Chart ' I. CALCULATIONS OF ESTIMATED NEED ' Note: The Continuum of Care Homeless Plan is the source for the percentages used in the following calculations—see the"Data On Homelessness" section of the Plan—page 11. A. Emergency Shelter/General Population: =nightly count minus the number of people in transitional housing (total inventory of transitional housing beds) ' • Individuals =nightly count (1100 people) - inventory of transitional housing beds (294) = 806 • Family members= nightly count (2587 people) - inventory of transitional housing beds (269) _ 2,318 ' B. Transitional Housing 1. Chronic Substance Abusers = nightly count of homeless adults(2,034) X .41 (percentage of homeless population with a drug or alcohol problem)= 834 people. Multiply by the proportion of people in adult only households or in family households and subtract the number of people who are dually diagnosed with substance abuse and a mental health disability or HIV/AIDS. ' • 834 X .61 (percentage of Shelter Plus Care recipients with drug or alcohol problems who are in adult only households)= 509. 509 - 176 (people in adult only households who are dually diagnosed with a drug or alcohol problem and a mental health disability— see note 3) =333. 333 - 182 (people in adult only households who are dually diagnosed with a drug or alcohol problem and AIDS/HIV— see note 4) = 151. • 834 x .39 (percentage of Shelter Plus Care recipients with drug or alcohol problems who are in P b p g family households) = 325. 325 - 68 (adults in family households who are dually diagnosed with a ' drug or alcohol problem and a mental health disability— see note 3) = 257. 257 - 128 (adults in family households who have AIDS/HIV and a drug or alcohol addiction— see note 4)= 129. 129 x 2.77 (average AFDC family size)= 358 family members. 2. Seriously Mentally Ill=nightly count of homeless adults (2,034) X .17 (percentage of homeless population with a mental health disability) =345 people. Multiply by the proportion of people in adult only households or in family households and subtract the number of people who are dually ' diagnosed with a mental health disability and substance abuse. • 345 x .68 (percentage of Shelter Plus Care recipients with mental health disabilities who are in ' adult households) =235. 235 - 176 (people in adult only households who are dually diagnosed with a drug or alcohol problem and a mental health disability—see note 3)= 59. ' • 345 x .32 (percentage of Shelter Plus Care recipients with a mental health disability who are in family households) = 110. 110 - 68 (adults in family households who are dually diagnosed with a drug or alcohol problem and a mental health disability— see note 3) =42. 42 x 2.77 (average ' AFDC family size) = 118 family members. 1 3. Dually Diagnosed = nightly count of homeless adults (2,034) X .12 (percentage of homeless population with a mental health disability and an addiction to drugs or alcohol) =244 people. ' Multiply by the proportion of people in adult only]households or in family households. • 244 x .72 (percentage of Shelter Plus Care recipients with a mental health disability and an addiction to drugs or alcohol mental health disabilities who are in adult households) = 176. 314 homeless single adults have HIV or AIDS (see note 4)x .58 (percentage of Shelter Plus Care recipients in an adult only household with HIV or,AIDS who also have w drug or alcohol addiction) ' = 182. 176 + 182 = 358 people who have some type of dual diagnosis. • 244 x .28 (percentage of Shelter Plus Care recipients with a mental health disability and an ' addiction to drugs or alcohol who are in family households) = 68. 154 adults in families households have HIV or AIDS (see note 4) x .42 (percentage of Shelter Plus Care recipients with AIDS/HIV and an addiction to drugs or alcohol who are in family households) =65. 68 + 65 = 133 adults in ' family households who have some type of dual diagnosis. 133 x 2.77 (average AFDC family size) = 368 family members. ' 4. Persons With HIV/AIDS =number of people in Contra Costa County living with HIV/AIDS ' (2600)x .18% (percentage of people with HIV/AIDS who are homeless)=468. Multiply by the proportion of people in adult only households or in family households. Subtract the number of people who are dually diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and substance abuse. ' • 468 X .67 (percentage of Shelter Plus Care recipients with AIDS/HIV who are in adult households) = 314. 314 - 182 (people in adult only households who are dually diagnosed with , AIDS/HIV and a drug or alcohol problem— see note 3) = 132. • 468 X .33 (percentage of Shelter Plus Care recipients with AIDS/HIV who are in family households) = 154. 154 - 128 (adults in family households who are dually diagnosed with AIDS/HIV and a drug or alcohol addiction—see note 3) = 26. 26 x 2.77 (average AFDC family size) = 73 family members. , 5. Victims of Domestic Violence=number of homeless women x .34 (percentage of women who ' have experienced domestic violence). • 484 homeless single adult women x .34 = 165 i • 934 families x .34 (percentage of homeless women who have experienced domestic violence) 318. 318 x 2.77 (average AFDC family size)= 880 family members. 6. General Population=the total nightly count minus the estimated need in all the other transitional , housing categories. 2 1 C. Permanent Housing r1. Chronic Substance Abusers =30% of the chronic substance abusers in transitional housing+ those housed in the current inventory r2. Seriously Mentally Ill= all those seriously mentally ill in transitional housing+those housed in the current inventory r 3. DuallyDiagnosed = all those duan diagnosed in transitional housing +those housed in the Y current inventory ' 4. Persons With HIV/AIDS = all those with HIV/AIDS in transitional housing+those housed in the current inventory 5. Persons With Other Disabilities= 11% of the general population in permanent housing (See note 6.). According to a national survey of shelters, 11% of the nation's shelter population had physical disabilities. (Contra Costa Consolidated Plan FY 1995-1999 (page 43)) (See note 6.) 6. General Population= 70% of the chronic substance abusers in transitional housing+ all the general population in transitional housing+ all the victims of domestic violence in transitional housing. 11% of this total is assumed to have a physical disability(see note 5). The remaining ' 89% is estimated to need permanent housing for the general population. r r r r r r r r r s r H. INVENTORY OF EMERGENCY SHELTER, RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, SUPPORTIVE AND PERMANENT HOUSING FOR PEOPLE ' WHO ARE HOMELESS FOR HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS CHART A. Emenzency Shelter Individuals 1. Brookside— 56 beds , 2. Concord— 60 beds(70 beds during the winter months) 3. Richmond Rescue Mission— 80 beds 4. GRIP—3 beds during the winter months , 5. Antioch (for people with mental health disabilities) —20 beds 6. Nierika House (crisis residential for people with mental health disabilities)— 12 beds 7. Drug & Alcohol detox facilities -- 45 beds 8. BWA— 7 beds Total: 280 beds plus an additional 13 beds during the winter months for a total of 286 beds Families 1. GRIP—27 beds—winter only 2. Richmond Rescue Mission— 84 beds 3. BWA— 17 beds , 4. Crisis& Suicide Intervention motel vouchers—estimated 6 beds/night (based on $34,200 available for vouchers in FY 96-97 divided by average cost of$42 = 814 motel nights, 814 motel nights/365 =average of 2 motel vouchers/night, 2 x 2.77 average family size= average of 6 beds provided each night 5. AFDC HAP motel vouchers— estimated 141 beds/night (based on an estimated 51 families using HAP vouchers each night x 2.77 average family size) Total: 248 beds plus an additional 27 beds during the winter months for a total of 282 beds B. Transitional Housing/Chronic Substance Abuse Individuals—Residential Treatment average 3-6 rnonths ' 1. Diablo Valley Ranch(BiBett)— 72 beds , 2. Discovery House (County)—23 beds 3. Fauerso New Way Center— 14 beds 4. Sunrise House— 36 beds 5. Ozanam—26 beds Total: 171 beds Individuals—Clean& Sober Transitional Housing 1. Diablo Valley Ranch(BiBett)—35 beds ' 2. Fauerso New Way Center— 9 beds 3. Ozanam—9 beds 4 4. Love-A-Child— 58 beds ' 5. Gregory Center— 15 beds Total: 126 beds ' The residential treatment beds and clean& sober transitional beds are not reserved specifically for people who are homeless. The County estimates that 32% of the people using County-funded ' residential treatment beds are homeless. Therefore, it is assumed for purposes of the inventory that 32% of the residential treatment and clean& sober beds are available for people who are homeless(297 X .32 = 95 beds). ' Families—Residential Treatment (average 3-6 months) 1. The Rectory(Tri-County Women's)— 15 beds ' 2. Wollam House (County)— 12 beds 4. La Casa Ujima—21 beds ' Total: 48 beds ' Families—Clean& Sober Transitional Housing 1. The Rectory— 6 beds 2. Wollam House—4 beds ' 3. Love-A-Child— 15 beds Total: 25 beds ' The residential treatment beds and clean& sober transitional beds are not reserved specifically for people who are homeless. The County estimates that 54% of the women using County-funded perinatal residential treatment beds are homeless. Therefore, it is assumed for purposes of the inventory that 54% of the residential treatment and clean& sober beds are available for people who are homeless (73 X .54 = 39 beds). C. Transitional Housing 1 Mental Health ' Individuals 1. San Joaquin I (Rubicon)—9 beds 2. Maple House (Phoenix)— 7 beds 3. Access Program(Phoenix)—22 beds Total: 38 beds ' All of the Access beds and all of the San Joaquin beds are for people who are homeless. It is estimated that 20% of the Maple House beds serve people who are homeless. This yields a total of 32 beds available for people who are homeless. Families 0 beds 5 t 1 D. Transitional Housing/Dually Diagnosed Individuals ' 1. Pine House (Phoenix)— 5 beds 2. Nevin House— 12 beds ' 3. Access Program(Phoenix)—36 beds Total: 53 beds ' All of the Access beds are for people who are homeless. It is estimated that 20% of the Pine and Nevin House beds serve people who are homeless.. This yields a total of 39 beds for people who ' are homeless. Families ' 0 beds E. Transitional Housing/Persons With AIDS/HIV 0 beds F. Transitional Housing/Domestic Violence ' Individuals& Families ' 1. BWA—(includes 8 to open in September '96) 2 beds for single adults and 53 beds for families G. Transitional Housing/ General Population 1. Mt. View House—8 beds ' 2. San Joaquin II(Rubicon)—8 beds 3. Ohio Street(Rubicon)—4 beds ' 4. 21' Street Apartments (Rubicon)— 7 beds 5. 22nd Street Apartments (Rubicon)—4 beds 6. Reach Plus(Shelter Inc.)—63 beds ' 7. Rubicon has another 20 beds in development to open in September 1997 8. One Step At A Time— 12 beds ' Total: 126 beds Families 1. Deliverance House— 11 beds (to open soon) 2. Mt. View House — 17 beds 3. Pittsburg Family Center— 19 beds 4. San Joaquin II(Rubicon)--6 beds 5. Ohio Street(Rubicon)-- 8 beds ' 6 1 6. 22nd Street Apartments (Rubicon)— 8 beds ' 7. Reach Plus (Shelter Inc.)— 102 beds(37 family households x 2.77 (average AFDC family size) = 102 beds) 8. Antioch House(Shelter Inc.) 3 beds ' 9. One Step At A Time— 3 beds Total: 177 beds H. Permanent Housing/Chronic Substance Abuse ' Individuals 1. Shelter Plus Care—27 beds Families 1. Shelter Plus Care— 102 beds (37 family households x 2.77 (average AFDC family size) = 102 beds) ' I. Permanent Housing/Mentally Disabled ' Individuals 1. River House—75 beds 2. Clayton Way — 10 beds ' 3. Community Living Program (Phoenix)— 11 beds 4. Kirker Court —25 beds 5. Rubicon Homes—7 beds ' 6. Santa Fe I— 8 beds 7. West Richmond Apartments (Rubicon) - 4 beds 8. Shelter Plus Care—24 beds ' Total: 164 beds ' The Shelter Plus Care beds and the West Richmond Apartments are for people who are homeless. It is estimated that 20% of the beds in the other beds are available for people who are homeless. This yields a total of 55 beds for people who are homeless. ' Families 1. Shelter Plus Care—28 beds (10 family households x 2.77 (average AFDC family size)=28 beds) 2. Rubicon Homes—7 beds ' Total: 35 beds The Shelter Plus Care beds are for people who are homeless. It is estimated that 20% of the Rubicon Homes beds serve people who are homeless. This yields 29 beds available for people who are homeless. 7 J. Permanent Housing/Dually Diagnosed ' Individuals , 1. Shelter Plus Care— 18 beds Total: 18 beds Families ' 1. Shelter Plus Care— 19 beds (7 family households x 2.77 (average AFDC family size)= 19 beds) K. Permanent Housing/HIV& AIDS Individuals ' 1. Shelter Plus Care—35 beds 2. Amara House— 6 beds ' 3. Shelter Inc. —4 beds 4. 21 units are in development by Resources For Community Development/Aspen House ' (1 lunits) & Rubicon (up to 10 units) Total: 45 beds , Families 1. Shelter Plus Care—36 beds (13 family households x 2.77 (average AFDC family size) =36 ' beds) L. Permanent Housing/Other Disabilities ' 0 beds ' M. Permanent Housing/General Population ' Individuals ' L Shelter Inc. VA Properties -- 9 beds 2. HOPWA units (Shelter Inc.)— 1 beds 3. Housing Authority Section 8 vouchers& certificates— 99 beds 4. Shelter Inc. VA properties— 8 beds Total: 117 ' 8 Families ' 1. Shelter Inc. VA Properties—30 beds 2. HOPWA units (Shelter Inc.)— 8 beds 6. Housing Authority Section 8 vouchers & certificates—277 beds ' Total: 315 beds ' Note: For programs which serve more than one population group (ie individuals and families or mentally disabled and dually diagnosed), estimates were made about the proportion of beds to be assigned to each category based on the program's current client demographics or on the projected long-term demographic ' break-out. 9 1 ' APPENDIX IV. — Summary Of Comments Received During The Public Review Process The Drat Continuum of Care Homeless Plan was released for public review and comment .f ' in June 1996. It was provided to the members of the County Board of Supervisors, the eighteen cities within Contra Costa County and to all affected County Departments for their review and comment. Two meetings with representatives from County departments ' were convened by Supervisor Jeff Smith's office to solicit comment and discuss implementation of the Plan. It was made available for review at the emergency shelters, detox and drug and alcohol treatment programs, and transitional housing programs where ' focus groups had been held in December 1995. It was also made available to the general public for review at main libraries and at each County Supervisor's office. In addition, the draft Plan was presented at a public meeting on June 26, 1996. Written and verbal ' comments were accepted from all parties until July 10, 1996. At its final meeting on July 12, 1996, the Task Force reviewed the comments received and made necessary revisions to the Plan. The final version of the Plan was submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval and adoption. At this time, it was also submitted to each City Council for their approval and adoption. ' The following is a summary of the comments received from the public, providers, County departments and Cities: • The needs of homeless youth must be addressed. Quantification of the size of the homeless youth population and the range of their needs is made difficult by the existing ' lack of services for this population. There are so few agencies which serve them that homeless youth have no where to go to get help. ' • The needs of the senior populations must be addressed. For many seniors, the combination of low incomes, medical problems and the lack of affordable senior housing forces them into homelessness. All of the existing senior housing has waiting lists. • The needs of people with physical disabilities must be addressed—many of the existing homeless and mainstream support services do not adequately serve this population. 1 • Contra Costa County needs more affordable housing. Currently, there is not enough of it and much of what there is is located in drug-infested neighborhoods. • Benefit levels G SSI AFDC are way too low and the safety net is being eliminated. � � � ) Y Y g ' These issues must be addressed in order to prevent and reduce homelessness. Public education and advocacy are essential in order to bring about necessary changes in our public policies and priorities. The Board of Supervisors and the City Councils must ' become advocates as well regarding the pending changes in benefits programs as it is local government who will bear the burden if people lose their benefits and become homeless. 1 •Public policy decisions have created much of the need we see. , • The advocacy role of the Continuum of Care Board should be emphasized. , • Coordination is the key to enhance the effective use of available resources. In addition to coordination within the County,there is a need for regional coordination throughout , the Bay Area. • It is important to identify where duplication of services is happening and to eliminate the , duplication. • The siting of housing and services will be a problem due to neighborhood opposition. ' There is a need for public officials to take stronger stands in support of siting needed housing and services and a need for enhanced public education efforts. Communication with property owners, elected officials and the community is essential to the siting of affordable housing. • In order to expand the development of affordable housing, require that developers create ' affordable housing in in-fill locations in order to develop new market-rate housing tracts. Provide density bonuses to developers for including low income units in their , developments. • There needs to be a focused effort to address the needs of people with mental health ' disabilities who are in the parks and on the streets. • The pending cuts in the number of beds at the Napa State Hospital and the Institutes for ' Mental Disease (FVIDs) will result in more homeless people unless steps are taken to ensure that people released from these facilities have somewhere to go. There needs to , be an increase in the amount of supportive housing available for people with mental disabilities. •No one wants multi-service centers or supportive housing in their neighborhoods. , Currently, all these programs get dumped on the same neighborhoods and it is not fair. The"burden" should be shared throughout the County. , • Some people choose to be homeless and to live in a manner where they are not bound by any rules and no one tells them what to do. It is not fair that other working people have , to pay the price for this attitude, • People who are receiving benefits who have a drug or alcohol problem should be ' required to have the rent sent directly to their landlords. This will help to prevent homelessness and makes more sense than building shelters. In addition, they should be required to look for jobs and to turn in job applications. Many times irresponsibility ' leads to homelessness and the direct payment mechanism will address this by keeping people in their housing. ' 2 • Set-aside some of the county's residential treatment beds for people in the emergency ' shelters so that the case mangers can get them into treatment right away. • Expansion of information and referral services, increasing emergency shelter beds and ' instituting transportation subsidies to facilitate employment searches by GA applicants are all needed. ' • Prevention is the key and should be emphasized. The economic factors that push people into homelessness must be addressed. It is important that people learn to call for assistance earlier and not wait until the last minute then it is harder to help them. • In order not to have homeless encampments, there must be adequate emergency shelter P � q g Y capacity and other needed services to give people a place to go and help them back into housing. Too much money is spent shuffling people around and cleaning up sites without providing any"real" assistance to people. It would be more cost-effective to ' help people get into housing than it is to clean up after them when they are homeless. • Counseling and other services need to be provided to people living on the streets and not ' just those in the shelters. • Homeless Services should be a protected service in the County budget so that when ' there is a budgetary shortfall Homeless Services are not touched. A cut in Homeless Services affects everyone else and forces them to incur other costs (ie Public Works and the encampment costs). ' • County overnment cannot be expected to solve homelessness on its own. The Cities, g service providers, businesses, congregations and general public all must help to secure ' the resources needed to implement the Homeless Plan. ' • Approach the congregations and ask them to use their facilities, resources and volunteers to help people who are homeless. ' • Housing advocacy services should be provided to people in the emergency shelters to help them find and maintain permanent housing.