HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06151993 - D.1 r• r
D. 1
THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on _June 15, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Smith, Bishop, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: North Concord Homeless Shelter
The Board on June 8, 1993 , deferred action on the
closure date of the North Concord Homeless Shelter pending a
report this day from staff and the Finance Committee on available
funding options.
The Board received the report of the County
Administrator and Executive Director of the Housing Authority on
this matter. (A copy of the report is attached and included as a
part of the Board Order. )
Supervisor Bishop advised that this matter was reviewed
by the Finance Committee and that the Committee concurs with the
staff report to operate the Concord Shelter for an additional
month (through July 31, 1993) with funds from voluntary
contributions by developers, county based organizations, cities
and churches.
Board members being in agreement, IT IS ORDERED that
the Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the County of
Contra Costa is AUTHORIZED to continue the operation of the North
Concord Shelter to July 31, 1993, by securing a $40, 000 advance
from the County with the understanding that it will be reimbursed
through voluntary developer contributions and/or donations from
cities, churches, and other community volunteer groups.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Executive Director of
the Housing Authority is REQUESTED staff to send letters to the
cities, churches, and community based organizations seeking
contributions for the Shelter.
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: "`
PHIL EVATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
Of Supervisors and County Administrator
By (, ._. ,Deputy
cc: Exec. Director, Housing Authority
County Administrator
1�1 D-1
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
Costa
FROM: County Administrator.and Housing Authority County
DATE: June 15, 1993
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES FOR EXTENSION OF
NORTH CONCORD HOMELESS SHELTER PROGRAM
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
At the Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, June 8, 1993 staff was directed by the Board
to review several potential revenue sources that might be used to continue the North Concord
Homeless Shelter. Described below are potential revenue sources that might be used to fund the
Concord Shelter on a month-to-month basis.
1. Voluntary Developer Contributions
Developers have provided homeless funding on.a voluntary basis which is paid upon filing of
a final map or obtaining a building permit in the unincorporated area. The recession and
construction downturn has significantly impacted the number of final maps being filed and has
limited homeless contribution opportunities. All developers that might be likely to contribute
have been contacted regarding the feasibility of providing an advance and further information
will be forthcoming at your meeting.
2. County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
CDBG funds forthe operation of Homeless Shelters would have to be allocated from the Public
Service category. All available funds for Fiscal Year 1992/93 have been appropriated to local
non-profit service providers, many of whom are already involved in a variety of Homeless
Prevention programs, as well as other human service activities. Attached is a list of agencies
who have received these funds and are under contract. Public Service category projects
include numbers 34 through 58 and 62 on the list.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: RYES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOM. N-DAT4bN OF BOARD COTTEE
APPROVE OTHER /
SIGNATURE(S):
�\ ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED—OTHER
VOTE OF SITPERVTSORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
_UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT: ,ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Scott Tandy 646-4087
ATTES
PHIL TCHELOR,CLERK OF
THE BOA OF SUPERVISORS
ANDCOUNTI MINISTRATOR
cc:CAO
BY I)EPUTY
3. Community Service Block Grant (CSBG)
CSBG funds are also used to provide additional financial support to local non-profit human
service agencies in Contra Costa County such as Cambridge Center, Family Stress Center,
North Richmond Neighborhood Home,Pittsburg Pre-School Coordinating Council and NCSSO.
In additional to assisting non-profits, the CSBG funds are also used to partially support the
administrative costs to administer the program and supplement costs not covered by Head
Start and Child Development funds.
All of the 1993 funds are programmed. Allocation of 1994 funds will be determined in October.
4. GAADDS and Workfare Programs
The Board of Supervisors authorized the General Assistance Alcohol and Drug Diversion
Service (GAADDS) and Workfare programs in recognition of the need to support and
encourage self-sufficiency. The GAADDS program helps General Assistance clients conquer
their dependency on alcohol and/or drugs, since substance abuse is a major impedient to
obtaining and maintaining employment. Workfare helps GA clients learn the work skills and
habits necessary for employment.
Both the GAADDS and Workfare programs have contributed to cost reductions in the General
Assistance program,which is a 100%General Fund program. As noted in the attachment,GA
was projected at $20.8 million for FY 92-93. However, due to the programs put into place by
the Board of Supervisors, these costs are now within budget of$15.4 million. (See attached
chart.)
5. Solicitation of Financial Support from Cities and Churches
Another potential source of revenue to finance the extension of the Homeless Shelter is
contributions received from cities or churches. The solicitation of funds from cities and
churches is possible,but not promising. Previous attempts generated a little over$20,000 from
the eighteen cities. Although cities are also having financial difficulties,it is advisable to contact
them again with a solicitation for any help they can provide.
SUMMARY
After reviewing all of these potential funding sources,the staff consensus is that diversion of funds
from the Community Development Block Grant Program, Community Service Block Grant
Program and the GAADD's/Work Program would not be feasible because it would mean taking
away funds from human service programs already devastated by previous cuts in funding levels.
The best source for an additional month of funding appears to be from voluntary contributions by
developers, county based organizations, cities or churches.
1 f
GAADDS AND WORKFARE HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF GA COST AVOIDANCEI
• GA caseload rose from 5,195 to a high of 6,250 cases/month in FY 91-92.
• GA expenditures projected at $20.8 million for FY 92-93.
• Board budgeted GA at $15.4 million for FY 92-93, and instructed Social Service
to vigorously pursue GAADDS and Workfare self-sufficiency programs.
• GA caseload has dropped from a high of 6,250 in April 1992 to 4,646 in April 1993.
• Even with the GA turnaround, Department has a projected $367,000 shortfall due
to state funding reductions.
• Phase 11 cutbacks in Social Service could trigger loss of $3 - 4 federal/state
revenue for every $1 cut of County General Funds.
GA CASELOAD
July 1991 through April 1993
6,500
6,000 -
5,500
5,000
4,500
4,000
..3,500
.- N N N N N N N N N N N N CV) ch co co
C1 C1 to C) to Qs Cs Ci W W C) C> t� M 0) Gs to Qs 0) to di
t 1 1 i
�' i O � u°.'¢ CO)tz 0 � Z 4 q co z o � d
PROJECT RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ALLOCATION
1. Youth Home Acquisition Youth Homes Inc. $80, 000
Acquisition of a 6-bed group home at 1603 Pleasant Hill Road,
Lafayette, to serve AFDC foster care youths aged 15 to 18 who have
suffered from child and/or sexual abuse. 24CFR570.201 (a)
2. West Pittsburg Resources for $70, 600
Multifamily Rental Housing Community Development
Site acquisition for 15 units of new multifamily housing at 112
Alves Lane, West Pittsburg, to be affordable to and occupied by
low-income households. Project will include two and three bedroom
units suitable for large families . Additional potential resources
for this project include County Redevelopment Funds and Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits . 24CFR570-201 (a)
3 . Rental Housing County Housing $200, 000
Rehabilitation Program Authority
Provides leveraged low interest and deferred rehabilitation loans
to owners of rental properties which are available at affordable
rents throughout the Urban County. Program income should provide an
additional $15, 000 in resources . 24CFR570.202 (a) (b)
4 . Housing Rehabilitation City of Pittsburg $180, 000
Program
Program provides low-interest deferred loans for the rehabilitation
of homeowner and rental housing units for low-moderate income
households in the target area bounded by E. 8th St. to E. 10th St.
and Harbor St. to Cumberland St. in Pittsburg. Additional
resources include City Redevelopment Agency funds and an estimated
$175, 000 in program income. Program administration is limited to
25% of CDBG funds . 24CFR570.202 (a) (b)
5. Neighborhood Preservation County Building $230,000
Program, Inspection
Program provides zero and low-interest deferred loans to
rehabilitate owner-occupied housing for low-moderate income
households throughout the Urban County, with marketing concentrated
in low-income target areas. Units are brought up to federal
Housing Quality Standards. Program income is expected to provide
an Additional $400,000 in resources. Program administration is
limited to 25% of CDBG funds. 24CFR570.202 (a) (b)
2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
FINAL STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OBJECTIVES AND PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS
1993/94
Major Objectives
A. Provide programs and activities which benefit lower income
persons.
B. Prevent or reduce deterioration in designated neighborhoods.
C. Preserve the existing housing stock and increase housing
opportunities for lower income persons.
D. Provide incentives for business expansion and stabilization
in order to expand employment opportunities for lower income
persons.
E. Improve the public works infrastructure, including storm
drainage and street improvements in lower income areas.
F. Develop neighborhood facilities to serve lower income areas.
G. Provide housing counseling and information services and
further fair housing.
H. Remove architectural barriers to the handicapped and increase
opportunities for disabled persons to participate in society.
I. Provide appropriate public services to assist lower income
persons and agencies to meet client needs.
In order to meet these objectives, Contra Costa County, by
recommendation of the Housing and Community Development Advisory
Committee, proposes to utilize its 1993/94 Community Development
Block Grant Funds from the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development for the following activities. All activities
benefit low and moderate income persons, addressing the Primary
Objective of the CDBG Program, as set forth in 24CFR570.208 (a) of
the applicable federal regulations. (The number after each activity
indicates the section of the federal regulations which describes
the eligibility of that particular activity.)
2
PROJECT RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ALLOCATION
12 . Fair Housing Program SHELTER, Inc. $22, 500
Funding permits continuation of fair housing services to residents
of the Urban County, specifically Supervisorial Districts I-IV.
Office located at 1070 Concord Ave. , Suite 200, Concord.
24CFk570.206 (c)
13. Fair Housing Services PCSI, Inc. $20, 000
Funding provides continuation of fair housing services to residents
of the Urban County, specifically Supervisorial District V. Office
located at 501 Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg. 24 CFR 570 .206%(c)
14 . Operation Self-Sufficiency Bi-Bett Corp. $58, 000
Funding will provide start-up costs for a painting and contracting
business operated by Bi-Bett Corporation, creating jobs for alcohol
and drug rehabilitation patients from the facility at 11540 Marsh
Creek Road, Clayton. 24CFR570.204 (a)
15 . commercial Area City of San Pablo $10, 000
Revitalization
Funding will support the City's new commercial business renovation
and facade rehabilitation, program in the Old Town section of the
City. Funds will be used for direct loans and/or grants to Old
Town businesses for commercial facade rehabilitation.
24CFR570.203 (a) (b)
16. Building Bridges Rubicon Programs $60, 000
Project continues partial funding of operating costs for Rubicon' s
overall economic development strategy which creates jobs within
businesses owned and operated by Rubicon and in neighboring West
County communities for the homeless and disabled population.
Office located at 2500 Bissell Avenue, Richmond.
24CFR570.204 (c) (1)
17. Close to Home Bakery Rubicon Programs $34,000
Funding will renovate Rubicon's kitchen facility on Bissell Ave. in
Richmond for the operation of the catering and bakery companies,
allowing for business expansion. 24CFR570.204 (c) (1)
18. Business Management CCC Private $39, 000
Assistance Program Industry Council
This continuing project provides technical assistance and
management counseling to small start-up and/or expanding businesses
in low income areas throughout the Urban County. office located at
4
PROJECT RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ALLOCATION
6 . Ohio Street Rubicon Programs $80, 000
Transitional Housing Inc
Acquisition of an existing 6-unit multifamily building at 534 Ohio
Street, Richmond, to provide transitional housing for previously
homeless individuals and families enrolled in programs to achieve
economic independence. Additional potential resources include City
of Richmond CDBG funds, FHLB Affordable Housing Program, and
McKinney Act funds . 24CFR570.201 (a)
7. Housing for Developmentally Las Trampas, Inc. $100,000
Disabled Adults
Acquisition of two single family homes in Central County to provide
shared housing for 12 developmentally disabled adults . Additional
funds include private mortgage funds and donations . 24CFR570.201 (a)
8 . Parkway Estates Community Housing $200,000
Development Corp.
Acquisition of a site at the Northwest corner of W. Gertrude Ave.
and First St. in North Richmond for the construction of 41 single
family homes . Other funds provided by County Redevelopment Agency.
After construction, CDBG funds will be rolled over into silent
seconds to enable qualified low-moderate income first-time
homebuyers to buy a minimum of 13 units . 24CFR570 .201 (a) (n)
9 . Housing Rehabilitation City of San Pablo $180,000
Program
Programprovides low-interest and deferred loans for rehabilitation
of owner-occupied and rental housing for low-moderate income
households . Program administration is limited to 25% of CDBG
funds . 24CFR570.202 (a) (b)
10. Housing Development CCC Community $644,700
Assistance Fund Development Dept.
This fund is set aside to provide funding for opportunities that
assist low-income housing development projects throughout the Urban
County which arise . during the program year.
24CFR570.201 (a) (m) (n) /24CFR570.202 (a) (b)
11. Fair Housing Project CC Legal Services $22,500
Foundation
Funding permits the continuation of legal services to Urban County
residents experiencing fair housing, problems and discrimination.
Office located at 1017 MacDonald Ave. , Richmond. 24CFR570.206 (c)
3
PROJECT RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ALLOCATION
26 . Brentwood Community Service United Council of $81,662
Center Spanish Speaking
Organizations
Funding will assist in the renovation of the heating and
ventilation system of UCSSO's Brentwood facility serving the East
County. 24CFR570.201 (c)
27. Handicap Barrier Removal City of Pleasant $12, 000
Hill
Curb cuts in downtown Pleasant Hill will be constructed to ensure
mobility for handicapped residents . 24CFR570.201 (k)
28. Wheelchair Ramp Installation City of El Cerrito $10, 000
Curb cuts in the central business district of El Cerrito will be
constructed to ensure mobility for handicapped residents.
24CFR570.201 (k)
29 . Facility Acquisition CCC Administrator's $86,700
Office
County will purchase a facility at 1515 Market Street,. San Pablo,
which provides social services to homeless and low-income
residents, thus allowing the continuation of these services at this
site. 24CFR570.201 (a)
30. Recreation Center Remodeling Amerson Corporation $10, 000
A recreation facility at 180 Enes Avenue in West Pittsburg will be
renovated for the 12 youths who reside at this juvenile probation
home. 24CFR570.201 (c)
31. Citywide ADA Improvements City of Martinez $20,000
Handicap barrier removal projects will be undertaken at the
municipal pool, library, and on selected downtown streets in
Martinez. (24CFR570.201 (k)
32. Alexander Park Improvements Crockett Recreation $71,000
Association
Sidewalk repair, playground surface, and equipment improvements
will be completed with these funds. 24CFR570.201 (c)
33. Clyde Sidewalk Improvements CCC Public Works $45,772
Funding will support removal and replacement of sidewalk, curb and
gutter in Old Clyde downtown area. 24CFR570.201 (c)
6
PROJECT RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ALLOCATION
19 . Homecare Workers Family & Community $10, 000
Services
Continuation project funds operating costs to this non-profit which
creates homecare worker positions in the community and trains and
places low-income persons into those positions throughout I the Urban
County. office location is 1300 Civic Drive, Walnu' t Creek.
24CFR570.201 (e)
20 . Los Arboles Childcare Center CCC Housing $35, 000
Authority
Funds will assist in the construction of a childcare facility on
Las Dunas Street, Oakley, serving children of law-moderate income
families through the federal Head. Start Program. 24CFR570.201 (c)
21. Kitchen Renovation Project County Community $71, 656
Services Dept.
Renovation of this kitchen facility at 847 Brookside Drive, San
Pablo will enable the CSD to consolidate food preparation for over
1, 000 Head Start lunch program participants. 24CFR570.2011 (c)
22. Ambrose Park Pool Ambrose Rec & Park $71,000
Facilities District
Funding will allow renovation of the pool and recreation facilities
room at 3105 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, revitalizing * West
Pittsburg's only swimming pool. 24CFR570.201 (c)
23 . Orinda Community Center City of Orinda $44,500
Improvements
The Orinda. Senior and Community Center, 26 Orinda Way, Orinda, will
undergo handicap barrier removal renovations which will ensure
improved access for all residents . 24CFR570 .201 (c) and(k)
24 . Facility Repairs Martinez Early $12,000
Childhood Center
Playground infrastructure improvements and plans for complete
architectural barrier removal will be accomplished with these
funds. 24CFR.201 (c)
25 . ADA Facilities Alterations CCC Administrator's $30, 000
Office
Handicap barrier removal projects will be undertaken at county
buildings in the Martinez area to ensure access to facilities for
all county residents. 24CFR570.201 (k)
5
PROJECT RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ALLOCATION
40. Emergency Housing/Homeless SHELTER, Inc. $80, 000
Services
Funding will allow the continuation of housing counseling and
homeless referrals to Urban County residents, primarily located in
Supervisorial Districts I-IV. Office is located at 1070 Concord
Ave. , Suite 200, Concord. 2.4CFR570.201 (e)
41. Housing & Homeless , CC Legal Services $20, 000
Assistance Project Foundation
This continuation project provides legal fees and operating funds
for the provision of supportive legal services to low-income
households who experience housing and homeless problems throughout
the Urban County. Office is located at 1017 McDonald Ave. ,
Richmond. 24CFR570.202 (b) (9)
42 . Villa San Ramon: City of San Ramon $30, 000
ConSery Program
Funding of this project will subsidize the costs of congregate
meals and other services for up to 24 very-low income seniors and
disabled persons at Villa San Ramon, 9199 Fircrest Lane, San Ramon.
The program will be administered by the City of San Ramon.
24CFR570.201 (e)
43 . Brentwood Preschool Liberty Childcare Inc $25, 000
This project continues to support the staffing at Brentwood
Preschool to serve low-income children in East County. The school
is located at 734 3rd St. , Brentwood. 24CFR570.201 (e)
44. Delta Community Services Delta Community $5,400
Youth Program Services
Funding will support a drop-in Friday night recreation center for
low-income East -County Youth, as an alternative to drugs or other
negative choices. The center will be at the Delta Community
Service Center, Brentwood, or the Delta Family YMCA, Oakley.
Office location is 730 3rd St. , Brentwood. 24CFR570.201 (e)
45 . New American Support Center for New $45, 000
Services Americans
This continuation project provides operating funds for a program
which ' assists immigrants in coping with the problems of
assimilating into the American culture. $31,000 will fund services
throughout County; $15,000 will assist the North Richmond Laotian
community. Main office is at 1135 Lacey Lane, Concord; North
Richmond program is at 305 Chesley Ave. , Richmond. 24CFR570.201 (e)
PROJECT RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ALLOCATION
34 . Homeless Assistance Cambridge Community $10, 000
Center
This continuation project assists with operating funds for the
Cambridge Community Center which meets emergency needs and assists
homeless clients to prepare emergency housing grant applications.
Office is located at 1135 Lacey Lane, Concord. Service area is
primarily Supervisorial Districts I-IV. 24CFR570.201 (e)
35 . After School Program East Bay Center for $18, 000
Outreach the Performing Arts
This activity funds the continuation of an arts outreach program at
Verde School in North Richmond. The project offers arts training
and activities to low-income children. Office located at 339 11th
Street, Richmond. 24CFR570.201 (e)
36 . Sexual Assault/Prevention Rape Crisis Center $25, 000
Program
This activity funds the continuation of assistance in the operation
of the Rape Crisis Center to provide supportive services to rape
victims and provide rape education and prevention programs in West,
South, and Central County. Office located at 2023 Vale Rd. , #2,
San Pablo. 24CFR570.201 (e)
37. Child Assault Prevention- Rape Crisis Center $25, 000
Teen Program
This funding assists with the operating costs of a school outreach
program which educates junior and senior high school students on
child assault and abuse issues and works with identified assault
victims and their families in West, South, and Central County.
Office located at 2023 Vale Rd. , #2, San Pablo. 24CFR570.201 (e)
38. Prevent Loss of Basic Needs CC Legal Assistance—
for the Elderly
Funding assists with the operation of this program which provides
free legal assistance to the over-60 population of the Urban
County. Services are focused on the frail elderly whose basic needs
are at risk. office is located at 1305 MacDonald Avenue, Richmond.
24CFR570.201 (e)
39 . Hospice of East County Hospice of E. County $20, 000
This continuation project partially funds the services of aides and
other medical personnel to provide hospice services to terminally
.ill patients. in East County. Office is located at 3835 Railroad
Ave. , Pittsburg. 24CFR570.201 (e)
7
PROJECT RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ALLOCATON
52 . Teens Need Teens and Battered Women' s $30, 000
Parents Program Alternatives
This continuation project funds operating costs of a program which
reaches out 'into the schools to work with teens on violence issues.
The program educates youth on sexual violence issues, including
date-rape, and teaches appropriate alternative behavior models.
Office location is 127 Aspen Drive, Pacheco. 24CFR570 .201 (e)
53 . HIV/AIDS Nursing Facility Hospice of CC $40, 000
Funding will subsidize cost of patient care in a skilled nursing
facility for persons in the terminal stages of AIDS from throughout
the Urban County. Office location is 3480 Buskirk Ave. , Suite 225,
Pleasant Hill. 24CFR570.201 (e)
54 . Senior Service Network Pleasant Hill $15, 000
Recreation & Park
District
Funding will continue this model program which provides supportive
services to low-income elderly residents from throughout the Urban
County. Center location is 233 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill.
24CFR570.201 (e)
55. Senior Home Equity Eden Council for Hope $10, 000
Conversion and Opportunity
Funding will support counseling of Urban County elderly residents
on the availability of Reverse Annuity Mortgage programs, which
allow seniors to receive monthly payments to supplement their
incomes, based upon the equity in their homes. Services will be
provided in elderly persons , homes . office location is 1305
Franklin Street, Suite 305, Oakland. 24CFR570.201 (e)
56. Comprehensive Housing Pacific Community $10, 000
Counseling Services Services, Inc.
This funding is for the continuation of Housing Counseling Services
to low-income residents of the Urban County, primarily in
Supervisorial District V. Office location is 501 Railroad Avenue,
Pittsburg. 24CFR570.201 (e)
57. Weekend Meal Services Marina United Senior $23, 650
services
Funding will support a program which will provide weekend meals and
activities for low-income seniors living primarily in. the Pittsburg
area. Program is located at the Pittsburg Marina Community Center,
340 Marina Blvd. , Pittsburg. 24CFR570.201 (e)
10
PROJECT RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ALLOCATION
46 . West County Adult Day Care Greater Richmond $10, 000
Interfaith Program
This continuation project provides operating funds for an adult day
care center for the frail elderly population of West County. The
Center is located at 1015 Nevin, Suite 108, Richmond.
24CFR570 .201 (e)
47 . Child Parent Enrichment Family Stress Center $14,700
Program
This continuation project provides in-home services to pregnant
women and families with young children who are at high risk of
child abuse and neglect in East and Central County. Office
location is Lavonia Allen Center, 94A Medanos, West Pittsburg.
24CFR570 .201 (e)
48 . Child Assault Prevention Family Stress Center $25, 000
Program
Funding continues to support operating costs of a school outreach
program which educates children on child assault and abuse issues
and works with identified victims and their families in East and
Central County. Offices are at 2086 Commerce Ave. , Concord, and
94A Medanos, West Pittsburg. 24CFR570 .201 (e)
49 . Prepared Food Program CC Food Bank $12,500
Funding assists with the operating costs of a program which picks
up surplus ready-to-eat food from restaurants, corporate
cafeterias, and elsewhere throughout the Urban County for delivery
to soup kitchens and other local charities who feed the very-low
income population of the County. Office location is 5121 Port
Chicago Highway, Concord. 24CFR570.201 (e)
50. Homeless Shelter Program CCC Housing Authority $100, 000
This funding will assist with the operating costs of two homeless
shelters, thereby allowing them to remain open year-round. The
shelters are located at 845B Brookside Drive, Richmond, and 2047
Arnold Industrial Way, Concord. 24CFR570.201 (e)
51 . Community Services Program United Council of $10, 000
Spanish Speaking
Organizations
This project will partially support a community worker at UCSSO' s
Community Center, 837' Arnold Drive, Martinez. The Center provides
translation and social services to low-income residents of Central
County. 24CFR570 .201 (e)
9
Program Administration $400, 250
Contingency Fund 99 , 685
Total Funds Allocated $4,173,525
SOURCES OF FUNDS
1993/94 Grant $3, 800, 000
1992/93 Program Income
(From Housing Rehab Programs) 678, 000
(From Muir/Biggs Loans) 22, 000
1992/93 Contingency Carryover 226,125
1992/93 Housing Development- Assistance Fund 125,400
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $4, 8511525
If you have any questions, call Susan J. Griffin, Chief, Community
Development and Housing, at 646-4208 . Telecommunications device
for the deaf may be accessed by calling 1-800-735-2929 and asking
the relay service operator for 646-4208 .
12
PROJECT RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ALLOCATION
( 58 .) Senior Citizens Program Neighborhood House of $47, 000
North Richmond
This funding allows the continuation of the Senior Citizens Program
for elderly residents of North Richmond, located at 515 Silver
Ave. , Richmond. Funds are for operating costs of the program.
24CFR570.201 (e)
59 . Contra Costa Resource Center CCC Community $10, 000
Services Department
Funding continues this prcJect, which collects and maintains a
fundraising library for non-profits and provides fundraising
training to boards of directors of non-profit organizations serving
low-income clientele throughout the Urban County. The. library is
maintained at the Pleasant Hill Library. CSD's office location is
2524 Bisso Lane, Suite 120, Concord. 24CFR570.206 (b)
60. Revolving Loan Fund Pacific Community $30, 000
Services, Inc.
Funds for this continuing project will provide for the marketing
and packaging of loans to small businesses in the Urban County.
Loans are packaged for submission to the Small Business
Administration. The project also funds direct business loans to
start-ups and ongoing businesses. Office location is 501 Railroad
Avenue, Pittsburg. 24CFR570.204 (c) (3)
61. Targeted Code Enforcement CCC Building $111, 600
and Rehabilitation Project Inspection Dept.
This project will focus on the revitalization of two residential
neighborhoods located in the North Richmond and West Pittsburg
redevelopment project areas, low-income areas displaying marked
deterioration. Funds will be used to fund a code enforcement
officer position to work with residents to bring properties into
conformance with existing codes through rehabilitation and other
efforts, and for program delivery costs . Project will be
implemented by the Building Inspection Department in cooperation
with the Redevelopment Agency. * 24CFR570 .202 (c)
62 Hotline, Grief Counseling, Crisis & Suicide $10, 000
and Education Intervention
This project will support the crisis hotline and supportive
services for all residents of Contra Costa County. The hotline
telephone number is 939-3232. Office address is P.O. Box 4852,
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 . 24CFR570.201 (e)
11
TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
cc: Assemblyman Robert Campbell
Senator Nick Petris
Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation
Protection and Advocacy, Oakland
Homeless Advisory Committee
Richard Martinez, Housing Authority
Mark Finucane, Health Services
Dr. Wendell Bruener, Public Health
Gary Hamilton, GAADS
FROM: Susan Prather, Advocate
DATE: June 7, 1993
RESPONSE TO REPORT WRITTEN BY RICHARD MARTINEZ, 5/24/93
REGARDING COMPLAINTS FROM SHELTER RESIDENTS ON 5/13193
1. FILE REVIEW AND ACCESS
Although the rule regarding file access has changed, residents
are still not allowed to review their file or have access to
a copy in a timely manner. After making a request, residents
often wait for more than 3 to 4 weeks to see the file or
receive a "censored" copy. Access to such files is covered
under. the State Department of Social Services Rules and
Regulations. Those are the "rules" that should be followed -
a client has a right to see the file on demand, in a timely
manner, so that nothing is deleted or added by staff due to
the request.
Also, clients are wondering where the information gathered and
comments written by the Shelter, Inc. counselors is being
stored. They would like to see those f iles, which were
cleaned out by the Home Team staff. They have a right to
review all files and notes that pertain to their case
management. Where are they and how do they access that
information?
The Home Team staff often puts clients off saying "I haven't
had time" or "I 'm too busy" or "Make an appointment. " You
can write and change all the rules in the world but it is
IMPLEMENTATION that matters.
2. SPECIAL TREATMENT
If the perception of special treatment is out there then it is
happening and it is not necessarily special GOOD treatment.
It is no secret and, in fact, is well documented by Legal
Services, that special treatment exists. If people are
different, of color, emotionally or mentally disabled, or
1
speak out and demand their rights they will receive "special
BAD treatment. "
This is also well documented by the Housing Authority because
they hold the final appeal on these decisions - and have
thrown out nearly every Notice of Action that has been written
that is appealed at that level. Unfortunately, not many
residents know or understand that they can call Legal Services
or an advocate for assistance. If they mention to staff that
they intend to do so, staff refuses to give them the numbers
for Legal Services or advocates and, in fact threatens and
intimidates them further.
Constant Notice of Actions are written, the search of personal
belongings, and threats and intimidation by staff. Staff will
pull a client into the office for a "talk" and goad them until
they "go off" and then they will throw them out of the. shelter
for "Disruptive Behavior. " This is a frequent happening.
Also, in such closed-door meetings, when the client requests
a resident witness they are denied. Richard Martinez assured
Assemblyman Bob Campbell that this was not happening and that
a resident witness was allowed in all meetings. Merlin
Wedepohl also has stated that resident witnesses be allowed to
attend all closed door meetings - as of June 5, 1993 closed
door meetings are still being held without a resident witness.
A client requested that someone go into such a meeting with
her on Friday, June 4th and shelter (Inc. ) staff refused to
allow a resident witness to attend. Again, you can SAY that
resident witnesses are allowed and there is no "special
treatment" (and hide behind client confidentiality) but it is
there - the worst kind of discrimination and harassment and it
is extremely cruel.
Even worse is the fact that Richard Martinez is well aware of
this treatment and has done nothing to stop the problems (they
are addressed case by case, over and over again) and then
writes a report that denies the facts.
3. PAINTING THE ALHAMBRA HOUSE
First of all, the men were told by Shelter, Inc. that they
were going to be paid in "cash" so it wouldn't interfere with
their General Assistance. An illegal and despicable practice
for a contractor to the county to participate in. (The County
should require agencies who hire people living and
participating in programs to employ them properly - name on
the books, covered by workers comp. and with the appropriate
withholding, etc. OR run the paperwork through a temporary
employment agency. BUT DO IT RIGHT. )
2
The arrangements were not "reframed" at each site inspection.
In fact, when the men completed the work that they were hired
to perform and asked to be paid they were told to do more work
or they WOULDN'T be paid. One Shelter, Inc. employee who
provided some oversite on the work reportedly told the men
that "If they complained about doing more work before they got
paid that Shelter, Inc. would pay them by check and really
screw-up their G.A. " Intimidation?
Finally, the men involved called me for help. I spoke with
most of the men individually and they all told the same story.
I called Wedepohl who told me the same thing he told Richard
Martinez. After speaking with Wedepohl I called Steve
Roberti, a member of the Shelter, Inc. Board of Directors and
had a member of the paint crew tell him the story in his own
words. Roberti said he would call me right back - he did in
approximately 10 minutes and said "Tell the men to go and pick
up their checks. " That was how they got paid - because they
called me and I called a board member who intervened and told
Wedepohl to pay them.
The saddest part of this incident is that one of the men on
the crew was newly sober and as a result of being jerked
around by the Shelter, Inc. management and staff began
drinking again and lost his bed in the shelter. He wound up
in detox and then back on the streets. This man met with
Supervisor Jeff Smith and told him exactly what happened
around this paint job, therefore, Smith should have had some
hard questions for Richard Martinez about this part of his
report, since he had already heard from one of the men
involved and knew that it was not as simple or easily
explained as Martinez and Wedepohl would like people to
believe.
4. VIOLENT OR DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR
In his report Martinez describes the rule and its purpose.
That's not the concern. The complaints are about arbitrary
.enforcement and the staff's inability to determine "disruptive
behavior. " It has ranged from calling a cop without
permission and asking for the phone number to legal services,
talking back to a staff person, actually slugging someone to
using the public address system without permission.
Disruptive behavior is used to throw people out that are
different, demand their rights, upset the staff in some way
and, not as often, to throw out people whose behavior is
actually disruptive. There are no parameters for "disruptive
behavior" in the rules and when you have an untrained,
unprofessional staff who does not care - or understand - what
it means to send someone back to the streets, such a rule
3
becomes their best weapon against those who bother them or
demand too much or that they just don't like for some reason.
Probably one of the worst examples of how clients are treated
and how this rule is used to abuse them is the following:
County rules state that residents must be bussed or
driven to and from the shelter on Arnold Industrial Parkway.
Josie returned to Concord around 9:00 p.m. one night and
called the shelter from the BART station and both client
phones were busy. Josie then called the shelter office and
asked a Shelter, Inc. staff person to tell her friend, Patti,
that was at BART and needed a ride.
The Shelter, Inca staff person refused, telling Josie to "get
here the best way you can" and hung up on her. Josie didn't
have any more change for phone calls and began to walk from
Concord BART to the Arnold Industrial Parkway shelter. Josie
was accosted by four men, kicked, hit, roughed up and was
scared to death that they were going to rape her.
Patti, who had been waiting for Josie to call her, left the
shelter to look for her. She found her just after the attack.
Upon her return to the shelter one staff member joked about
it; the others did nothing to help. No one offered to get her
medical attention, nor did they call the police to make a
report.
When Josie called me for help, we did a conference call on the
11800" line to the Concord Police and they took a report and
agreed to send an officer to the shelter for more details. As
we were talking to the police, three staff members came out of
the office and wrote her up for "Disruptive Behavior" because
she was using the phone after curfew. Josie is a person of
color and had been subject to discriminatory treatment
throughout her shelter stay.
Again, the abuse of this rule is well documented by legal
services and the Housing Authority because most of the Notices
of Action on this rule are thrown out. But a lot of people
have spent a lot of time back on the streets because of the
arbitrary and cruel use of this rule as a means to throw
people out.
5. MONEY KANAGEMENT
Home Team and Shelter, Inc. counselors may know that money
management is "voluntary" and that residents may have their
own bank accounts but they neglect to tell the clients. Money
Management has been used to control residents and the money is
often withheld by staff to "punish" a resident.
When new people come to the shelter they are often told during
the intake process that unless they agree to money management
4
(and save an amount determined by staff, regardless of the
needs of the client) , they will not be able to stay. All of
this violates state funding laws and again, this is well
documented by Legal Services (see attached letter) and has
been brought to the attention of the Housing Authority on many
occasions. Richard Martinez is well aware of the problems
that surround this particular program and, again, plays it off
in his report as though it has never been an issue.
6. DRUG TESTING IN SHELTERS
As discussed above, residents must put their money in a "money
management program" and it is handed out by staff. In many
case management files under the "case management plan"
Shelter, Inc. staff had included the requirement that clients
agree to mandatory random drug testing. When the "Home Team"
took over and began to clean up the files they found this
inappropriate and illegal requirement in many of the client
files.
Then the staff began requiring residents to,"drug test" (not
a county requirement) before they would give them their money.
In fact, they referred to the accounts as "frozen" unless the
person "tested clean." These tests were illegal and done
without the knowledge of the County Housing Authority who
oversees the shelter contract and rules involved.
The tests were administered at a County testing site without
the knowledge of either the Health Services Department or
director of that program (Gary Hamilton) . Shelter staff
simply went around every county department head and outside
the parameter of the program guidelines and made a deal to
have the testing done. The county had to shut the testing
site down for 3 or more weeks to perform an audit to find out
who was tested illegally. I would suggest that you request a
report from Hamilton and Finucane to find out more about this
"incident. "
7. LENGTH OF SHELTER BENEFIT
Again, Richard Martinez wrote about the "rule" and not the
implementation. Shelter favorites are allowed to stay up to
two to three months longer than the rules allow. Many people
have had "extensions" and many others have had "extensions"
denied arbitrarily because they were not a favorite or because
they "talked back" and angered the staff.
It is a completely arbitrary decision as to who stays for how
long. The rule is as Martinez stated but, again, that rule is
not applied fairly to all residents. This has been discussed
with the Housing Authority on many occasions.
5
Others have been mis-informed about the requirements to obtain
a Section 8 certificate through the shelter program, resulting
in many complaints to HUD. To the best of my knowledge there
is no written criteria for residents that explains the
eligibility requirements in order to obtain a Section 8
certificate through the shelter program. Again, it seems to
be an arbitrary decision, based on favoritism. It is also a
great concern that the majority of certificates, even in
Richmond, have been given to white individuals. I have made
a complaint to HUD based on this belief and have asked them to
investigate.
S. SHELTER, INC. EMPLOYEE ALLEGATIONS
These allegations were reported many times by many people.
All complaints were referred to Richard Martinez and Susan
Smith. There are many versions of what Wedepohl did and what
he said about the employee in question. Where is the
retraction or correction? If one is demanded of the
newspaper, in writing, and it is appropriate it usually
appears. Does anyone have a copy?
9. SHELTER CLEAN IIP
The shelter is filthy. Fiberglass from the ceiling in the
men's dorm leaks dust all over the beds and belongings of the
residents; the floors are filthy; and garbage and trash pile
up in the cans. Residents have called the county health
department for inspections and they have refused to inspect
the shelters and have referred the calls to the City of
Concord.
10. RESIDENT MEDICATIONS
The withholding of prescription medication by staff from
several clients. Medication .is held at the front office and
dispensed from there. Often staff is unavailable when it is
time for a client to take the meds or they are "in a meeting"
and tell them to come back later. Again, the needs of the
client come last.
Non-medical, non-professional staff has often decided -
without medical consultation - to withhold a clients
medications "because they need to detox from it. " This has
included the denial of a young woman's anti-depressant meds
(which are usually tapered off gradually and closely monitored
by a physician when the medication is stopped) . The
medication in this case was Triavil and in another case Elavil
was withheld.
This is just one example of what happens when the staff does
not like a particular client and decides to use the rules to
6
harass and intimidate them to drive them out of the shelter:
Stephanie was taking four prescription medications during her
stay at the Concord Shelter. Stephanie returned to the
shelter after a night out and the staff checked her medication
back into the office. They discovered that her bottle of
Benedryl had only a few tablets in it and immediately assumed
that Stephanie had taken 48 Benedryl. The staff did not ask
her where the medication was or if she had taken it (she had
left the pills with her mother) .
Instead, Stephanie was sent to Chenum Center Detox by the
Shelter, Inc. Concord staff because they "suspected" that she
had taken 48 Benedryl tablets. They requested a five day
stay, however, the staff at Chenum would only allow a three
day stay. If Stephanie refused to go to detox or left before
the three days were up then she would have lost her bed in the
Concord Shelter.
The staff of the Chenum Center was very angry that Stephanie
had been sent to them for "detox" when it was clear that she
had not taken anything and, in fact, was sober. They agreed to
a three day stay because they knew that she would lose her
shelter bed if she did not stay in detox.
Stephanie stuck out the three days locked up in detox and
returned to the shelter. Upon her arrival she was told that
the staff (non-medical staff, of course and they never
consulted with a physician) had decided that she needed to
"detox" from her prescription medication and then they
proceeded - with the knowledge of the Contra Costa County
Housing Authority - to withhold her Triavil, an antidepressant
that she had been taking for quite some time.
The medication was prescribed by Stephanie's long-time
physician, Dr. Murdock of Richmond. Stephanie contacted Dr.
Murdock and asked him to call the shelter staff and instruct
them to release her medication. Dr. Murdock called the
shelter and advised the staff that he had prescribed the
medication and that Stephanie needed to take it. The staff
refused to release the meds because"they didn't know for sure
that the man who called was a doctor or just someone Stephanie
had call the shelter. " No one, not even the director of the
shelter, returned Dr. Murdock's call.
Contra Costa County Public Health Director Wendell Bruener was
contacted and he was shocked to learn that shelter staff was
withholding prescription medication. He called the shelter
director Richard Caudillo and ordered him to release Stephanie
Wright's medication.
This has happened to more than one shelter resident. A staff
member decides that a client needs to "detox" from meds and
7
then they with-hold them. It seems to happen most of the time
with clients who are taking prescription anti-depressants
which are drugs that, when suspended or the dose changes, are
usually tapered off over a period of time and closely
monitored by a physician. It should be noted here that a
course of anti-depressants is very common treatment for people
who are kicking drug and alcohol, especially cocaine. To
allow this to happen to one client is horrible; to continue
to allow the staff to interfere is criminal and negligent.
And it continues.
CONCLUSION•
The report issued by Martinez was incomplete and no real
investigation was done. He simply listened to the complaints and
then asked Wedepohl and his staff for a response. Martinez, who
responds to the constant complaints "case by case, " did not
"investigate" case by case for this important report. He did not
"back-track" to investigate and substantiate the individual
complaints, nor did he supply any documentation of the complaints
that were already on record with the Housing Authority. I have
been told that he has spoken with Wedepohl on many occasions about
the shelter operation, the complaints, and what needs to be
improved. If that is true then that documentation should have been
included in the report as well.
However, since the Board of Supervisors had decided to "honor"
Shelter, Inc. , the agency under investigation, prior to the
completion of the "investigation" perhaps Martinez thought it in
his best interest to issue a mild, non-committal document and call
it an investigative report.
The complaints continue and the staff remains out of control.
People are being hurt badly by the arbitrary decisions that send
them back to the streets, the cruelty, and the denial of their
civil and human rights. The Board of Supervisors, by honoring
Shelter, Inc. and allowing this treatment to continue, has sent a
very clear message to the poor and homeless residents of Contra
Costa County - and that is the fact that you are running a county
that operates under APARTHEID.
You honor the upper and middle class people who run the agency and
actively participate in the denial of the civil and human rights of
those who are poor and homeless. It is shameful to say the least.
But it is business as usual in Contra Costa County, the South
Africa of the East Bay.
ATTACHMENTS: 2/04/93 Letter to Richard Martinez from Legal Svcs.
3/29/93 Mailagram to R. Martinez from Susan Prather
4/14/93 Letter to Susan Prather from Legal Svcs.
4/15/93 Letter to Susan Smith (HA) from Legal Svcs.
5/24/93 Report to the Supervisors from R. Martinez
8
LAW OFFICES OF
CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION
Main Office Telephone
1017 Macdonald Avenue Wes County(510)233-9954
P.O. Box 2299 East(510)439-9166
Richmond,California 94802 Cental(510)372-8209
Fax(510)2364W
February* 4 , 1993
4
Richard Martinez, Acting Executive Director
Contra Costa County Housing Authority
3133 Estudillo St.
Martinez, CA 94533
Dear Mr. Martinez,
It has come to our attention that certain mentally disabled
homeless people may be improperly screened out of or terminated
from the regular shelter program in Contra Costa County. The
best way to avoid discriminating would be to have clear written
policies regarding mental disabilities and adequate staff
training in implementing those policies.
There are federal and state policies in regard to this
matter, and are applicable to programs that receive federal and
state funds. Federal regulations state that "A recipient may not
deny a qualified individual with handicaps the opportunity to
participate in any federally assisted program or activity that is
not separate or different despite the existence of permissibly
separate or different programs or activities. " 24 CFR S8.4 (b) 3.
This means that the existence of a separate shelter for people
with mental disabilities, while permissible and laudable, can not
be used as an excuse to exclude people with mental disabilities
from general shelters. The decision as to which shelter to stay
in must be left to the homeless person, unless there are
independent, legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for
assigning them to a different shelter.
California State HCD requirements are more detailed, and
provide a helpful guide as to how to develop a sound policy on
this matter. In the 1992 Notice of Funding Availability for the
Emergency Shelter Program (ESP X NOFA) HCD makes it clear that
"any requirement by a grantee that denies admission to a program,
places conditions on the provision of services . . [or)
terminates the provision of services IS UNACCEPTABLE IF it is
based on previous history of mental illness, alcohol or
substance abuse (note that, while grantees may not refuse shelter
. . . they may properly address [associated) behavior problems. ) "
• "Restrictions on behavior must not be based on vague or ambiguous
criteria. They must relate to specific legitimate concerns for
shelter operations and security. "
"Examples of unacceptable requirements due to vagueness or
[other] inappropriate requirements include: requirements that
clients "get along with" other clients and staff; prohibitions on
"inappropriate, " "bizarre" ��
nappropriate, bizarre or insubordinate behavior" ; .
[or) prohibition of "immoral conduct" . . . ;"
"However it is acceptable to reject or terminate participants
based on behavior that: threatens the health, safety or welfare
of other participants or shelter staff; unreasonably interferes
with other participants' ability to benefit from the program's
services; (or) results from physical or mental impairments so
severe that the grantee cannot provide adequate supervision or
services. "
Right now, it appears that there are not clear written
policies and procedures in place, and that there are problems
with implementation of the policies that do exist around this
issue.
We are prepared to help you review policies, review
implementation procedures, and provide training to workers
regarding discrimination based on perceived mental disabilities
of shelter residents.
To reiterate: mentally disabled people cannot be excluded
from shelters unless that exclusion is based on behavior, and
prohibited behaviors must be adequately defined and affect the
ability of the shelter to provide services.
Sincerely,
Zachariah H. Nethercot, Esq.
cc: Richard Caudillo, Shelter Inc.
Manuel Velasquez, County Mental Health Division
RENO' NEVADA 89502-2375
007802001582 03/29/93 OKAC
►SUSAN PRATHER
1019 MACDONALD AVE
RICHMOND CA 94801-3113
- THIS IS A CONFIRMATION COPY OF THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE :
5105248286 TDBN RICHMOND CA 82 03-28 1110P EST
9308709991951602-1
MR RICHARD MARTINEZ
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
PO BOX 2759
MARTINEZ CA 94553
YOU ' VE BEEN AWARE FOR SOME TIME THAT THE COUNTY SHELTERS ARE BADLY
MISMANAGED AND STAFF IS OUT OF CONTROL . GIVEN THE LATEST INCIDENTS
OF ILLEGAL DRUG TESTING. WITHHOLDING PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS AND
ADVISING CLIENTS THAT THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SECTION 8
CERTIFICATES FOR ARBITRARY REASONS, I SEE NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO
FILE COMPLAINTS DIRECTLY WITH HUD . IT ' S TAKING TOO LONG FOR THE
COUNTY TO DEVELOP POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN
PLACE FROM THE BEGINNING TO PROTECT THE CLIENTS.
SUSAN PRATHER
- 15067
15 : 38 EST
MGMCOMP
To reply by Mailgram Message. see reverse side for Western Union's toll-free numbers.
LAW OFFICES OF
CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION
Main Office Telephone
1017 Macdonald Avenue West County(510)233-9954
P.O. Box 2289 East(510)439-9166
Richmond,California 94802 Central(510)372-8209
Fax(510)236-6846
April 14 , 1993
Ms. Susan Prather
Homeless Advocate
C/O Ellen Tabachnick
Contra Costa Legal Services
HAND DELIVERED
Dear Susan:
As we discussed on the telephone today, I am concerned that
Shelter, Inc. is violating its funding requirements. The
violations are as follows:
Residents are handed an already prepared Case Management
Plat, ("Coral%, C%" upon arrival to the Shelter. They are
told they will not gain admittance unless they sign the
Contract. In this way, residents are prevented from
participating in setting the specific goals for a program
designed to prevent future homelessness. While Shelter,
Inc. may require participation by shelter residents in a
program of services designed to assist them to avoid future
homelessness, the shelter must allow the resident to
participate in setting the specific goals for the program in
order to receive funding. This funding requirement is not
being met.
Residents are required to participate in a money management
program operated by Shelter Inc. Residents are not allowed
to participate in any other alternative money management
program. In addition, residents are not allowed to hold back
enough of their monthly income to pay their bills. This
violates the funding requirements, which state that a
shelter may only require a resident to deposit a specific
percentage of his/her income in a bank if the shelter has
provided alternate means of saving income which are
unreasonably rejected by the resident and if the resident is
allowed sufficient resources to provide food, clothing and
medical attention.
Residents are frequently disqualified for "disruptive
behavior", which has not been defined. "Disruptive
behavior" has been interpreted to include swearing or using
the P.A. system without permission. This violates the
shelter's funding requirements, which prohibit restrictions
` on behavior that are based on vague or ambiguous criteria.
The restrictions on "disruptive behavior" do not related to
specific legitimate concerns for shelter operations and
security, as required by the funding requirements.
I have attached pages 69 through 73 of the funding
requirements for your review.
I would also like to bring to your attention the fact that
Shelter Inc. is not following the Contra Costa County Homeless
Sheter Program Disqualification Procedure, as follows:
Part 1 states, in pertinent part: "A person is disqualified
from the shelter program by a written notice from the case
manager or shelter staff stating the grounds for
disqualification, the facts supporting the disqualification
and the period of disqualification. " Enclosed are copies of
4 Notices of action. Please note that none of them state
the period of disqualification and that two of them, (notice
to dated 4-9-93 and notice to ; t,
dated 2-28-93) fail to state facts supporting the
disqualifications. It is my opinion that -Shelter Inc.
cannot support an action against any resident who recieves
such inadequate notice.
Part 8 states, in pertinent part: "At the hearing, a client
has the right to be represented by an individual of his/her
choice. " I'm sure you remember my phone call to Shelter,
Inc. , in which I was the right to speak to my client before
a hearing. The denial of a resident's right to speak to his
or her own attorney not only violates the spirit of the
above rule, it constitutes a flagrant violation of his or
her rights to communicate with counsel.
I have attached the Contra Costa County Homeless Shelter
Program Disqualification Procedure for your review.
As I stated in my telephone message today, the
attorney/client privilege requires me to get our clients'
permission before releasing their names to anyone besides you, so
I would appreciate your keeping them confidential until I have
had an opportunity to discuss this with them. In any case, I
hope that the above points will be helpful to you in your meeting
on Friday.
I look forward to meeting you at Pamela Ybarra's appeal
tomorrow.
Sincerely,
YaL.Mar Wallace
Temporary Staff Attorney
/mlw
Enclosures
LAW OFFICES OF
CONTRA COSTA LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION
Main Office Telephone
1017 Macdonald Avenue West County(510)733-9954
P.O. Box 2289 Fast(510)439-9166
Richmond,California 94802 Central(310)3724209
Fax(510)236.6846
April 15, 1993
Ms. Susan Smith
Acting Director of Housing Operations
Housing Authority
P.O. Box 2759
Martinez, CA 94553
VIA FACSIMILE: (510) 372-0236
Re: John Ybarra . resident at Shelter, Inc.
Dear Ms. Smith:
I am writing to confirm our telephone conversation of this
morning. As you know, this office represents Mr. John Ybarra,
who until yesterday resided at Shelter, Inc. in Concord. On
April 9, 1993 , Mr. Ybarra received the attached notice of action,
which fails to state specific facts supporting the
disqualification or to state the period of disqualification. In
spite of the inadequate notice, Mr. Ybarra lost his informal
appeal in front of Debbie Pitts yesterday and was told he would
be disqualified for residency until May 15, 1993 . By this
letter, Mr. Ybarra appeals this decision and requests immediate
reinstatement at the shelter until the appeal may be heard.
Shelter, Inc. failed to follow the Contra Costa County
Homeless Sheter Program Disqualification Procedure. Part 1
states, in pertinent part:
"A person is disqualified from the shelter program by a
written notice from the case manager or shelter staff
stating the grounds for disqualification, the facts
supporting the disqualification and the period of
disqualification. "
Part 2 states, "Fill out Part I of the NOTICE OF ACTION (NOA)
form providing complete and accurate information at the time of
the rule violation. " The NOA form was not filled out completely
and accurately. Shelter, Inc. should not be allowed to enforce
such an inadequate notice of action against any resident. I have
attached the Contra Costa County Homeless Shelter Program
Disqualification Procedure for your review.
Prior to the hearing, Ms. Pitts refused access to Mr.
Ybarra's file, but merely made copies of certain pages of the
file. Ms. Pitts added the period of disqualifcation to the
notice of action only after the hearing was completed. The
notice of action did not state a period of disqualification at
the time Mr. Ybarra received it. The Contra Costa County
Emergency Shelter Program Rule Violation Penalties, attached
Letter to Ms. Susan Smith
April 15, 1993
Page 2
hereto, indicate that failure to follow through with signed case
plan can carry a penalty of anywhere from one to thirty days for
the first Notice of Action and 60 days for the second notice of
action. Since Mr. Ybarra's notice does not even state whether
this is the first or second notice of action, Mr. Ybarra had no
way of knowing how long the period of disqualification would
last. For these reasons, the incomplete Notice of Action should
be interpreted in the light most favorable to Mr. Ybarra and the
period of disqualification should be for 15 days or less.
The reduced period of disqualification• is very important,
because rule 7 of the Contra Costa County Homeless Shelter
Program Disqualification Procedure states:
"A client was disqualified for fifteen days or less who
requests an appeal has the right to remain in the
shelter while he/she is waiting for his/.her appeal
hearing, unless the disqualification was due to rule
violations which involve assault, threat of assualt, or
damage or theft of property. "
Because Mr. Ybarra's disqualification did not involve assault,
damage or theft of property, he should be allowed to stay in the
shelter until the time of his appeal.
We believe that at the appeal hearing, the hearing decision
should be summarily reversed, because the notice of action is
inadequate in that it fails to state specific facts supporting
the disqualification and fails to state a period of
disqualification, because Mr. Ybarra's representative was not
given full access to his file prior to the hearing and because
the disqualification period later added is unduly long given the
alleged violations. In addition, Mr. Ybarra will explain that he
was twice coerced to sign the case management plan in spite of
the fact that he disagreed with it, and that even though he did
not agree with .the case management plan he did comply with it.
It is my understanding from our conversation this morning
that you agree with the above and Mr. Ybarra will be allowed to
stay at the shelter until his appeal hearing, which will be held
at 3 : 30 next Tuesday, April 20. Thank you for your cooperation
in this matter.
Sincerely,
Marta L. Wallace
Temporary Staff Attorney
/mlw
Enclosures
cc (without enclosures) : Mr. John Ybarra
Ms. Susan Prather, Homeless Advocate
Ms. Debbie Pitts, Shelter, Inc.
HOUSING AUTHORITY
of the
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
3133 Estudiilo Street • P.O.Box 2759 • Martinez,California 94553
Central Administration • (415)372.0791
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Richard Martinez, Executive Director
DATE: May 24, 1993
SUBJECT: Report regarding complaints from some shelter residents
presented at a meeting on May 13, 1993
The following conclusions have been reached as a result of a review
of the issues raised by eight current and former shelter residents
at a meeting on May 13, 1993 with Supervisors Sunne McPeak and Jeff
Smith, Housing Authority staff, and Board members and staff of
Shelter, Inc. regarding alleged incidents and events at the Central
County Homeless Shelter in North Concord.
1. FILE REVIEW & ACCESS:
The current guidelines regarding the case management files of
shelter residents and the process by which a resident can
inspect and review his or her file are being followed by the
HOME Team Case Managers, under the supervision of Sue Crosby
and the case counselors and shelter directors of Shelter,
Inc. , under the supervision of Richard Caudillo.
2. SPECIAL TREATMENT:
Client confidentiality issues prohibit the discussion of
specific reasons for the perception of special treatment of
some shelter residents by shelter staff. There may be
specific health and mental health conditions which exempt the
resident from various activities at the shelter or explain a
greater tolerance for certain behavior.
3 . PAINTING OF ALHAMBRA HOUSE:
A report from Merlin Wedepohl clarified the original agreement
made with five shelter residents for the painting of the
Alhambra House in Martinez, including the of scope of work and
payment arrangements. The site work was not completed as
quickly as planned and the arrangements were reframed at each
site inspection by Mr. Wedepohl. Five residents were paid by
manual payroll for the work completed.
a
4. VIOLENT OR DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR:
Shelter program rules and disqualification procedures are
designed to help provide a safe and orderly environment at the
shelters. Any acts of violent or disruptive behavior are
dealt with quickly with every effort made to de-escalate the
situation and maintain order in the facility. Shelter staff
seeks the assistance of the police or sheriff when
appropriate.
5. MONEY MANAGEMENT:
Both County HOME Team case managers and Shelter, Inc. case
counselors understand that the Money management program is
voluntary and that they can not mandate participation for any
shelter resident. Residents may elect to open their own
checking or savings account, use Shelter, Inc. 's Money
Management account handled by Wells Fargo Bank, or use a
representative payee.
6 . DRUG TESTING IN SHELTERS:
In the past, residents with a history of substance abuse were
asked as part of their case management plan to submit to drug
testing. The Housing Authority has ordered this stopped and
the practice has been discontinued by Shelter, Inc. The only
exceptions are residents on General Assistance who are
required to participate in the GAADDS Program.
7. LENGTH OF SHELTER BENEFIT:
Resolution 911608 of the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors established program policy for the county's
shelters for homeless adults. Included in this resolution was
the length of shelter benefit allowed during a twenty four
month period for shelter residents eligible for general
assistance ( 180 days) or not eligible for general assistance
(90 days) .
Shelter residents length of stay is tracked at each county
shelter and residents are notified when they have only 30 days
of shelter benefit available to them. Shelter residents
receiving general assistance are discharged at the beginning
of the month.
8. SHELTER, INC. EMPLOYEE ALLEGATIONS:
Shelter, Inc. conducted a very thorough investigation of
sexual misconduct allegations. Shelter, Inc. did not state to
the newspaper that an employee had been fired for misconduct.
Merlin Wedepohl called the reporter on April 28, 1993 to
question her use of words and request a correction.
9 , SHELTER CLEAN UP:
Each shelter has a procedure for daily shelter clean up in
which shelter residents participate. Clean up coordination
and supervision is provided by shelter staff, The Housing
Authority will monitor this process more closely as a result
of recent complaints.
20. RESIDENT MEDICATIONS:
Most medications belonging to shelter residents are kept in a
locked cabinet in each shelter office. Shelter staff give
each resident his or her bag and log the medications taken.
Staff try to assist residents in as timely a manner as
possible.
�A5[der &.i
LAW OFFICES OF JACK C. PROVINE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JACK C. PROVINE 500 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD, SUITE 300
JAMES V. JOYCE WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
JOHN H. PATTON TELEPHONE 510-944-9700
BRUCE W. PHILLIPS FACSIMILE 510-944-9981
June 11, 1993 RECEIVE®
JUN I 11993
VIA HAND-DELIVERY
Board of Supervisors I CSR CONTRAOCOS A CO.ISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: North Concord Homeless Shelter/2047 Arnold Industrial
Way/Notice of Termination of Shelter Programs/June 15
Board of Supervisors Meeting
Dear Supervisors:
I write on behalf of Memory Gardens, Inc. ("Memory
Gardens") , 2011 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord, California, with
regard to the above-referenced homeless shelter at 2047 Arnold
Industrial Way, and in connection with the Board's upcoming June
15 meeting regarding this project, and any action contemplated by
the Board with regard to same.
As you know, the shelter opened in December of 1991, and has
been in operation since that time, on an "emergency" basis until
the Spring of 1992 , and thereafter contrary to the requirements
of the County General Plan and the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") . By judgment rendered at hearing on
December 14 , 1992 , and entered February 25, 1993 (which has now
become final) , the Superior Court for this County found that the
project has not comported with and must comport with CEQA and the
General Pian. It further required the respondents, including the
County, to reimburse Memory Gardens and other interested parties
for their legal expenses reasonably incurred to obtain such
judgment. While the Court has not yet enforced the judgment by
enjoining present operation of the project, based primarily on
representations by the respondents that it would be brought into
compliance, the project remains in violation of the above-
referenced laws, and is therefore illegal.
Memory Gardens does not believe that the project can be made
legal, no matter what efforts may be contemplated by County
staff, or what monies are expended to do so. For example, the
General Plan clearly and logically prohibits residential uses in
193\cor\board2.1ct
cc: BOARD MEMBERS (Provided)
CAO
C rn t4Yet
Board of Supervisors
June 11, 1993
Page 2
light industrial areas, and industrial uses in this North Concord
business community have historically been protected from such
residential incursion, for good reasons. An effort to create a
limited exemption for homeless shelters, if one is contemplated,
flies in the face of the careful planning considerations which
established this scheme, and cannot succeed.
We have been informed that the Board is currently
considering its options concerting continuance or discontinuance
of the shelter at this location, including termination of the
shelter program as of July 1, 1993 . While Memory Gardens
understands that the main reason for the potential termination is
most likely a fiscal one, it nevertheless feels that such a
decision is the only legally and fiscally responsible one, given
the illegality of the project at this particular site. What is
troubling, however, are reports of comments from the Board and
County staff suggesting that the shelter can or will be reopened
on an "emergency" basis at this site come next winter, and that
scarce County monies should be used to continue to lease the
property even after closure this summer, and perhaps perpetually,
in the hopes that the subject site can be used as a "temporary"
shelter on such a basis. Such a plan, if it is being
entertained, is wrongheaded and a disservice to the homeless and
the taxpayers.
The Court has found that under the present circumstances,
2047 Arnold Industrial Way is an improper site for a homeless
shelter, as has been maintained by Memory Gardens for almost 2
years. It is time for the Board to face that reality and develop
an appropriate site at another location if it is contemplated
that the shelter program will continue in Central Contra Costa
County, on either a permanent or temporary basis.
However, it makes no sense to continue to lease the subject
site, which is illegal, and which the County can terminate on 180
days' notice to the landlord, if not immediately on grounds of
illegality and/or frustration of purpose. The coming of winter
in 6 months is not an "emergency" (winter comes every year) ,
exempting this site from compliance with CEQA. The Board is on
notice, and has been since December of 1992, that this site is
improper, and that another one must be selected. Absent the
"emergency" exemption, the site may not be used for residential
purposes without first meeting the requirements of CEQA and the
193\cor\board2.1et
Board of Supervisors
June 11, 1993
Page 3
General Plan. As you know, the time for such compliance is
before the project begins, not after. Memory Gardens urges the
Board to face that reality, and to move onto another site while
there is still sufficient time to do so, and before further local
resources and funds are wasted. If not, Memory Gardens will
continue to oppose any effort to reopen or continue the shelter
at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, whether temporary or permanent,
unless and until full compliance is first had with CEQA and the
Gener--1 elan. The face that zf.`Lrurts are contemplated or may -then
be underway to finally try to comply does not constitute an
"emergency" under CEQA, nor does the annual onset of winter.
There can be no justification for continuing the lease for
the subject property and expending precious resources on same
without first making the project legal. If you are truly
concerned about establishing a homeless shelter in the Central
County with the most efficient expenditure of State and County
dollars, it is respectfully submitted that monies earmarked for
this location would be more wisely used in evaluating realistic
alternative sites which are in conformity with the General Plan,
zoning ordinances, and for which environmental impacts are
absent, or minimal.
Memory Gardens respectfully requests that this letter be
discussed and considered in your deliberations regarding the
County shelter program, and incorporated into the minutes of any
upcoming Board meetings on the topic, including the one presently
scheduled for June 15.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF JACK C. PROVINE
J n H. atton
/jhp
Enclosure
cc: Kevin T. Kerr, Esq. (Via Facsimile)
Michael P. McCabe, Esq. (Via Facsimile)
Memory Gardens, Inc. (Attention William A. Silva)
193kor\board2.ld