title
DISCUSSION OF HOMELESSNESS SOLUTIONS
recommended action
RECOMMENDATION
None. Information only.
Summary
At the May 24, 2016 Council meeting, Mayor Silva submitted a proposal for homeless services and requested staff analysis. This report provides background information regarding Stockton’s homeless population and discusses the research conducted to develop the requested analysis. Council should consider this information carefully along with a companion item on this agenda that seeks direction regarding the Legislative Committee’s work on tiny and micro houses.
body
DISCUSSION
Background
This analysis has been prepared at the request of the Mayor and City Council and is intended to provide general impressions, thoughts, and concerns to form the framework for the policy decisions to be made.
In advance of, and as part of this analysis, the team has collected data via several sources. Within the local area this has included site visits of encampments, shelters, and service providers. (For information about local area service providers see Attachment A.) Externally, this has involved one-on-one in-person interviews, phone calls, webinars, and site visits from several sources including other cities and counties in Northern and Southern California and Seattle. I have also convened a committee of experts in homeless services to provide information and advice. For more information about the City Manager’s Committee on Homeless Policy please see Attachment B. In addition, the team has remained engaged in the countywide working group led by Supervisors Miller and Zapien.
Present Situation
Homelessness is an age old problem to which a solution has been elusive. In some cases, the population has been lumped together as if there was a single obstacle and therefore a single solution to cure the entire realm of homelessness. Like all human beings, each homeless person has a unique story and requires a solution that caters to their needs. If, for example, mental illness is an underlying condition, simply providing a housing structure alone isn’t likely to adequately address the problem any more than substance abuse counseling alone will cure a purely monetary issue for someone else. Emergency shelter, transitional or permanent housing (see definitions Attachment C), medical/dental care, mental health/substance abuse counseling, and employment-related services are among the needs of some members of this population.
In Stockton, like most of the West Coast, the last couple of years have shown a dramatic increase in issues related to homelessness. Ironically, several experts are hesitant to attribute this to an increase in the number of homeless individuals and families and, instead, question whether it is primarily the visibility that has changed. Previously, many homeless encampments were located in the most remote of areas but today it is more commonly accepted to be located near a highly trafficked roadway, residence, or business. As this visibility has increased, so have the impacts on the non-homeless community. Business owners and residents have expressed concerns about panhandling, urination, defecation, theft, and obstruction of ingress/egress. Passersby and visitors have observed remnants of encampments during their stay and used this to form opinions about this community.
Within the homeless population there are varying perspectives. Some have been clear that they want assistance and are willing to accept it. Many of those individuals have benefitted from the services provided by some of our local non-profit agencies who provide case management, counseling, food, shelter, or job assistance. Others, despite their claims, have proven to be less than willing to accept help. Others have been forthright that they are content with their current situation and have no interest in the confines of sheltered living. These different categories of people will require different solutions to meet their needs. That equation is further complicated based on the existence, if any, of underlying conditions like substance abuse, mental health issues, etc.
Characterizing the affected individuals and families is a daunting task. The biannual Point In Time count (Attachment D) is conducted by Central Valley Low Income Housing. While this methodology is admittedly flawed, it represents the most accurate and reliable source of information available. The information contained in that report helps to paint a picture of the needs and quantity of people experiencing homelessness.
Your Council allocated $250,000 in one-time General Funds in the 2016-17 Budget for homeless initiatives, though a specific plan for its use has not yet been identified. With the exception of these recent funding efforts, the majority of funding for addressing homelessness is allocated by the County on behalf of state or federal governments. In recognition of the tremendous work of local service providers, Stockton has prioritized homelessness as an issue to be addressed and provided General Fund dollars as well as federal dollars to facilitate the process. Stockton is fortunate to have several highly effective, but underfunded, non-profit agencies who each cater to a particular population. In some cases their services are oversubscribed (families or men with children) and in other cases there is often room to meet the needs of additional persons (single males). These non-profits, along with the County, form the backbone of a complicated but effective system. Understanding the intricacies of that system would be a useful effort prior to engaging in a new endeavor.
MAYOR’S PROPOSAL
The Mayor’s proposal is admirable in many ways. For one, it seeks to improve the quality of life for people living in Stockton. It expresses the desire to identify a humane way for disadvantaged people to maintain their self-worth. Most notably is simply the fact the he proposed such a bold initiative to address an issue for which the Mayor and City Council have placed a high priority. With that said, there are a series of issues with the proposal that should be addressed before deciding how or if to proceed. In some cases, the proposal is too vague for me to adequately analyze the impacts or provide recommendations. In other cases, the proposal would require a departure from accepted policies. The last category includes legal concerns for which compliance would require revisions to local code and, in at least one instance, the change would require a Constitutional amendment.
THE PROPERTY - The proposal sets parameters for the selection of a site (i.e. completely empty, at least 100 units, etc.). A separate part of the proposal specifically identifies the Phase I site as being the Stockton Civic Inn (1005 N. El Dorado).
With certain exceptions, the City is required to conduct an open and competitive process for the selection of vendors or the procurement of services (Attachment E). The primary exceptions revolve around a special circumstance and require the Council to make findings. Based on the limited information in the proposal I do not have adequate justification to recommend those findings to you. Ironically, this process of hand picking is precisely the type of action the procurement rules were created to discourage.
The floor plan and site plan were intended to be used for a specific purpose. Despite similarities, the proposed use is not the same. The Committee of experts weighed in on the physical space and concluded that costly renovations would be required in order to make the best use of this particular site.
The compatibility of the proposed use and proximity to services would require additional analysis and should be consistent with the land use/zoning requirements so as not to interfere with any property rights of neighboring uses.
THE PROGRAM - The large scale housing of a fragile population can present a myriad of management challenges. The proposal does not provide adequate data to analyze the quality, adequacy, or capacity of the management team. The Committee did advise that this is a complicated task that should be performed by someone well-qualified in this area. The proposal was also unclear about the funding source for management and coordination of the program.
THE COST - The proposal identifies an annual City contribution of $480,000 or $400 per unit per month. Separately, the proposal explains that the City will pay one half of the water bill. It is unclear whether this is intended to reduce the monthly per unit fee by a like amount or if the City would be expected to add those funds on top of the $480,000. A similar question is raised with respect to the management of the facility, furnishing of the rooms, repairs and corrections of the 74 outstanding code violations (attachment F), transportation needs, advertising, selection and screening, or coordination of the program.
Based on those factors, the Committee felt strongly that the $480,000 annual cost for housing 100 individuals and families was grossly underestimated. Housing is not a core competency of the City so I defer to the experts on the Committee.
The City’s Phase III Director of Homelessness position is undefined in the proposal and consequently, no analysis can be completed. As a Director-level position the assumption is that additional positions would also be added in order for the Director to have someone to direct. The expectations and scope of the position will drive the responsibilities and qualifications for the position. This, in turn, will drive the analysis of the salary for the position. Once all of that has been completed, the total cost of salary, benefits, training, travel, etc. would need to be considered in the context of the City’s Long-Range Financial Plan. The City recently negotiated new labor agreements for all 9 bargaining units and, consistent with direction from the Mayor and Council, the City sought to provide the highest affordable compensation levels. Doing this meant exhausting the available resources for the foreseeable future and dropping the City’s reserve balance to almost exactly 5% in the out years. This left no new capacity for ongoing expenditures without making a conscious policy decision to drop below the 5% reserve threshold. Subsequently, the Mayor and Council allocated ongoing funding for a priority project which leaves the projected reserves slightly below the 5% threshold. Adding this or any other new position without a change in circumstance would require the additional policy decision to drop further below the 5% reserve level. That funding constraint applies equally to the proposed new Director-level position as well as the entire proposal itself including the ongoing subsidy, cost of repairs to bring the building up to code, and all of the related expenses that accompany the proposal.
The proposal appears to espouse the concept of transitional housing - although it doesn’t appear to meet the federal definition. The federal government (which is the largest provider of funds for this purpose) has defunded the transitional concept and instead is seeking permanent housing solutions. In fact, San Joaquin County lost $737,000 last year (out of $4.8 million) because of this defunding of transitional housing programs. This further inhibits the sources of funds to sustain the program.
LEGAL - There are several areas worthy of further evaluation. The most glaring is the proposal’s intention to ‘escort to the City line’ anyone who refuses our offer of services and their subsequent arrest upon reentering the City. This does not require deep legal analysis. On its face it is clearly unlawful.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposal admirably seeks to house 100 individuals or families (unclear whether the total number of individuals would be greater, perhaps 2-300). The herculean task of housing such a large percentage of the City’s homeless population with a single project is a daunting task. The most recent San Joaquin County Point In Time count estimated approximately 545 unsheltered homeless individuals with approximately 250 of those living in Stockton. After adjustments for those who may have been temporarily sheltered or were otherwise undercounted, this proposal nearly seeks to solve the entire homeless issue. Given the various segments of the homeless population with the differing needs and varying levels of willingness to accept services, this approach may be too aggressive. Cohabitating people with differing needs and minimal supervision presents serious safety concerns. The culture among many homeless people is hierarchical with status often determined by physical strength. Committee members pointed out that even the restrooms provided by the Mayor required informal permission from that hierarchy in order to use them. Similarly, other encampments use the term Mayor for the person atop that structure. Ignoring the existence of that structure and the supervision demands that accompany it could endanger the very people the proposal is seeking to protect.
After reviewing the proposal I have concluded that the effort and desire to improve the current conditions of homeless individuals is a laudable one. Unfortunately, the current proposal has some shortcomings that should be addressed before moving ahead. The Mayor and Council retain the ability to move forward with the proposal in its current form by making the necessary policy decisions and taking the legal risks associated with some of the provisions.
Alternatively, I recommend a different course of action. Prior to selecting a specific plan it may be useful to identify a more discrete and clear starting point. Perhaps veterans or children of a certain age as an example. This revised target may help to guide the future actions and clarify the actual need. This is important because it is rare for no beds to be available. Nearly all of the time there is an available bed of some type. The individual seeking services may not choose to accept that particular bed or the accompanying rules. Consequently, being armed with this information could make the best use of the City’s efforts. Should the focus be on bridge housing, an escalator option, permanent housing, etc.? Given the complex and layered issues at play, I recommend consulting experts who understand this issue the best. A starting point for that could be the City Manager’s Committee on Homeless Policy. Their expertise is unmatched and they are also part of the countywide effort convened by the Supervisors. This approach would allow the City to achieve the most beneficial solutions and allow the leverage of Continuum of Care funds and other sources specifically designed to meet the same needs outlined in the proposal. It would also allow for a conversation about where the system wide gaps currently exist.
Until or unless the City acquires funds specifically for this purpose I recommend continuing the planning process, using its bully pulpit to bring attention to the issue and solicit donations of buildings or case management funds that could be utilized by existing providers to expand services, and continue learning more about this complicated issue. Further, I support the efforts of the countywide working group led by Supervisors Miller and Zapien. They are convening the service providers, policy makers, and other officials that need to be part of a regional strategy. I suggest staff continue to participate in these efforts.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
This item is information only, therefore, there is no financial impact. Should the Council choose to move forward with the Mayor’s proposal the financial impacts would need to be refined and a funding source identified.
Attachment A - Local Area Service Providers
Attachment B - City Manager’s Committee on Homeless Policy
Attachment C - Definitions
Attachment D - Biannual Point In Time count
Attachment E - Charter Article XX Section 2000 and 2001
Attachment F - Code Violations