In the past two years, our community has made significant progress in addressing the needs of homeless veterans, however, much remains to be done. Following U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki’s 2009 commitment to end homelessness among veterans, the number of homeless veterans nationwide has decreased from 75,609 homeless veterans on a single night in 2009 to 67,495 veterans who were homeless nationally in HUD’s January 2011 homeless census. This is largely due to federal government funding of 37,190 permanent housing vouchers nationally over the past four years (2,375 of those in Los Angeles County), with another 10,000 to soon be released nationally.

According to the 2011 homeless count performed by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, there are an estimated 8,817 veterans who are homeless in Los Angeles County. With increasing numbers of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, without intervention, this number is likely to increase. While the federal initiative is a significant investment, there are still many barriers to successfully serving homeless veterans—especially those who have been homeless for long periods of time. Hopefully, two new initiatives will improve our success in this area. One, the VA will contract out to community-based agencies case management for many homeless veterans, including housing placement. Two, the VA has established a goal that 65% of all veterans receiving such assistance will be chronically homeless veterans.

The landscaped terrace at Westside Residence Hall II is available both to new residents and to current residents of Westside Residence Hall I (in background).

And in the community, after many unfortunate delays, housing for veterans is being developed. In December 2011, U.S. Veterans Initiative completed their 196 units of permanent, affordable supportive housing in Inglewood for homeless veterans as well as affordable housing for low-income veterans, many of whom are in the workforce. And just last week, A Community of Friends and New Directions broke ground for New Directions Sepulveda I and II in the San Fernando Valley, which will provide permanent supportive housing to 147 homeless veterans.

There is much to celebrate as our community and our nation turns its attention to those who have given so much to our country.

The attractive entrance to the Westside Residences, where final touches are being made to the exterior.

The Westside Residence Hall II terrace includes barbecues and a fireplace for the residents to enjoy together.

A gleaming industrial kitchen helps support the quality of life for the Veterans at Westside Residence Hall II.

• The poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1%, with 46.2 million people living below the poverty line, or $22,113 for a family of four.  These figures represent the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate, and the largest number of impoverished people since the Census began tracking poverty estimates 52 years ago.[1]
• Real median household income in 2010 was $49,445, down 2.3% from 2009.[2]
• Over 30% of female-headed households lived in poverty in 2010, another increase from the previous year.[3]

Data from The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 2011 KIDS COUNT Data Book was just as bleak.

• 42% of children in the United States, almost 31 million, lived in low-income[4] families in 2009, a 7.4% increase from 2007.[5]
• In 2009, 20% of children lived below the federal poverty line.  The rate was even higher for Black (36%), American Indian (35%), and Hispanic/Latino (31%) families.[6]

Unfortunately, at a time when so many families are struggling, the safety net is not providing adequate support.  Contending with their own budget crises, many states are reducing welfare benefits and imposing stricter rules.  According to a recent analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, cash benefits from Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), the federal welfare program for families, have not kept pace with inflation.  In fact, while the level of cash benefits varies, in all 50 states the incomes of families receiving TANF benefits are below half the federal poverty line.[7] In Los Angeles County, the maximum cash benefit for a family of three is a mere $762 per month.  Yet the average asking rent for a 2-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles in 2010 was approximately $1700.[8]

One need not be an economist to realize that these trends do not bode well for the ability of families to afford housing.  As it stands, families in poverty are only one crisis away from homelessness.  The future will remain uncertain for these families unless policymakers and advocates work to not only raise the employment rate and strengthen the safety net, but also to increase the supply of affordable housing.

On Wednesday, I had the privilege of participating in the California State Assembly Select Committee on Homelessness’ Los Angeles hearing. Eight legislative leaders were present, including Speaker John Perez (Los Angeles). Speakers from Los Angeles were asked by Chairperson Toni Atkins (San Diego) to present three proposals that the State could implement—with the proviso that these proposals should not cost the State any money. Based on these hearings and other input she receives, Assemblywoman Atkins’ intent is to develop a legislative packet on homelessness.

The third of four hearings, this meeting was focused on homeless families, women and youth. The major overriding theme that nearly all speakers addressed was the need for a source of financing for permanent, supportive housing for people with disabilities experiencing homelessness. Another theme was advocacy for the creation of the California Interagency Council on Homelessness modeled after the National Council.

For me, it was all a bit surrealistic to have the hearing at this time, given the dire financial strait that California is navigating and the recent actions that the State Legislature has taken. This includes the 8% grant cut to individuals on TANF, bringing the grant to the lowest real grant level in 20 years. Additionally, SSI/SSDI payments to an individual on disability were cut to the lowest level allowed by Federal law. These two actions alone will result in more homelessness in our communities.

The State budget crisis, combined with the current irreconcilable
National debate on raising the national debt ceiling, do not portend well for poor households, let alone those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. But it’s good news that some of our State leaders care and we keep trying!

The proposed Section 8 Savings Act (SESA) contains many worthy proposals.  It also includes a change that would result in many extremely low-income households remaining homeless or at-risk of homelessness for longer periods of time.

Currently, 75 percent of admissions to the Section 8 tenant-based Voucher program and 40 percent of admissions to project-based Section 8 and public housing units must be households with incomes at or below 30% of Area Median Income (AMI) in the local area.  SESA would broaden these targets to include households with incomes at or below 30% of AMI or the federal poverty level, whichever is higher.

Backers of this change claim that housing authorities would have greater flexibility to target working-poor families and that the change would generate savings for the federal budget.

Of course, for every higher-income household admitted under a policy of “flexibility,” a lower-income household in greater need would wait longer.  And naturally such a policy would save money; higher income households require less subsidy.  But the purpose of the Section 8 and public housing programs is not to save money by leasing to higher-income households, rather it is to serve the poorest of the poor.

Immediate Impact if SESA Becomes Law

In areas with relatively high AMIs, there would be little impact.  For example, in Los Angeles County, there would be no change for households composed of one to five members, because the current federal poverty level is below 30% of AMI.  For households of six or more members, the poverty level is higher than 30% of AMI, so more of these large households would qualify.

In areas of the country with relatively low AMIs, the federal poverty level is more likely to be higher than 30% AMI, so the SESA change would have greater impact.  In these typically rural areas and high-poverty urban areas without balancing affluent households, there would be immediate winners and losers:

Potential Longer Term Impact if SESA Becomes Law

An initiative is under way to correct the statute governing the definition of the federal poverty level to more accurately reflect real costs of living.  Should this become law, the poverty level would increase significantly, so the change proposed in SESA would greatly expand the number of households that qualify for the income targeting preference, resulting in longer waits for affordable housing for those who currently qualify under the existing definition, in effect gutting the original intent of the income targeting rule.

Earlier this year, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) and the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles (HACoLA) convened the Barriers to Access Working Group to review their respective admissions policies and procedures for their Section 8 Special Programs, including the Section 8 Homeless Assistance Program and the Project-Based Voucher Program.  Shelter Partnership was actively involved in the Working Group, as were other community stakeholders.  To inform the Working Group’s discussions, Shelter Partnership surveyed homeless clients in emergency shelters (with the help of New Image Shelter) and sober living homes (with the help of A New Way of Life Reentry Project).  Similarly, Skid Row Housing Trust reviewed their tenant applications for permanent supportive housing (PSH).

Among our goals was to seek alignment between the requirements of the Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) and the community stakeholders’ determination to provide housing for people who have had long periods of homelessness, often referred to as the chronically homeless.  Chronically homeless individuals often have a record of offenses that exclude them from publicly assisted housing.  Yet research and practice show that PSH is critical to their recovery and, in most cases, is key to permanently ending their homelessness.

HACLA has released its proposed amendments to the 2011 Section 8 Administrative Plan to address these issues and, under several categories, is reducing exclusionary periods for admissions to Section 8 Special Programs.  The draft version of HACLA’s proposed amendments can be found here: http://www.hacla.org/pdocs/.  Public comments will be accepted until June 28th.

Highlights of HACLA’s proposed changes for Section 8 Special Programs include:

• Reduces exclusionary period from 5 years to 2 years for prior drug-related criminal activity
• Reduces exclusionary period from 5 years to 2 years for violent criminal activity
• Eliminates exclusionary period if previously terminated from HACLA Section 8 Programs for cause due to:
  • Failure to notify before moving out of unit
  • Failure to notify before absence from unit
  • Violation of annual HQS inspection
• Reduces ban for termination from any housing assistance program for damages to unit exceeding $1,000 from 5 years to 3 years
• Reduces ban for fraud from 10 years to 5 years
• Eliminates exclusionary period if applicant who owes money to HACLA or other PHAs enters into repayment agreement

There is widespread agreement among experts that the way the federal government measures poverty is inadequate and outdated. The current formula is premised on the average family’s food cost and has been in place for more than four decades.

One of the more compelling attempts to develop a new measurement has been undertaken by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the Insight Center for Community Economic Development. Begun in 2008, The Elder Economic Security Standard Index is a county-specific measure of the minimum income necessary to cover all of a senior’s basic expenses using reliable government statistics and includes housing, food, health care and transportation. Because housing costs vary so greatly by region and also by whether an individual is a renter or a homeowner, the specificity is illuminating.

The current federal poverty level is $10,870 annually. According to the most recent updated Elder Index, 1.46 million (39%) of older Californians have incomes above the federal poverty level and so are not considered “poor” yet do not have enough income to meet their basic needs.

According to the Elder Index, economic insecurity is highest among elders of color, women and those older than 75 years of age. Interestingly, more than one-third of seniors live in extended households and are highly vulnerable to economic insecurity should their living arrangements change.

One in three California seniors rely exclusively on Social Security, which is an average of $12,540 annually. However, in Los Angeles County, according to the Elder Index, a senior needs an annual income of at least $16,355 if they own their own home and do not have mortgage payments; $22,827 if they rent their housing; and $30,591 if they are a homeowner with a mortgage. Even many seniors with some retirement income fall short of these necessary incomes.

Shelter Partnership anticipates that seniors will become homeless at increasing rates in the next several years, largely as a result of their inadequate incomes and the rising cost of housing, coupled with a decline in state services. This is why we are so committed to seeing more senior housing developers accept homeless seniors in their projects and work to see more housing developed for seniors who have become homeless.

For more information on the Elder Index, go to http://www.insightcced.org/communities/besa/about-elder-index.html

Last week, the Los Angeles Times featured a 4-part series of articles on Project 50.  The articles profiled a few residents who had been placed in Skid Row Housing Trust permanent supportive housing units.  These residents had been selected for permanent supportive housing because the County-sponsored Project 50 deemed them most likely to die on the streets on Skid Row, a neighborhood in the City of Los Angeles.

Despite its length, the articles failed to provide context about homelessness in Los Angeles County or the roles played by our local government, including individual cities and the County, to make it possible to end homelessness.  We are attempting to address this lack of context through a series of blog posts.  This blog post will describe the relationship between the County of Los Angeles and the various cities that lie within the massive region that make up the County.

Approximately 10 million people live in Los Angeles County, which is the most populous county in the nation.  These 10 million people live in 88 different cities within Los Angeles County.  The City of Los Angeles is just one of those cities.

It is important to realize that, at the local level, all of the funding for services such as mental health and public health are controlled by the County of Los Angeles.  This means that most cities, such as the City of Los Angeles or Santa Monica, have no control or access to funds for services.  For example, because the County of Los Angeles and the Board of Supervisors control funds for mental health services, the City of Los Angeles has to depend on the County when it comes to funding services.

Within the County, each of the 88 cities is responsible for funding and providing housing for its residents.  California State law requires that each city set aside land to build housing for low-income and homeless residents but only a handful of cities comply with State law and set aside resources to house the homeless.  The City of Los Angeles along with cities like Santa Monica, Pasadena, Long Beach and a few others are among the small number of cities in Los Angeles County that have taken seriously the need to devote resources and political will to build housing for the homeless.

Over the last 25 years, the City of Los Angeles and a few other cities have provided the leadership required to provide affordable housing with services attached (permanent supportive housing) which has housed thousands of homeless families, veterans, seniors and chronically homeless residents.  But apart from the cities mentioned above, very few of the remaining 88 cities in our region have contributed to solving homelessness.

This is a problem because we know that homelessness is not an issue that is generated in one city or a few cities.  Homelessness occurs across the entire region – all 88 cities.  When a family or individual becomes homeless or is at risk of homelessness, we know that it is best to provide services close to home, within the community where they have some sort of connection.

Unfortunately, because of what is sometimes referred to as NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) or “I would love to help homeless people, but I just don’t think that it is appropriate to have services or housing for my homeless neighbors in my community,” it is usually not possible for homeless individuals to receive help in their own communities.

Skid Row is the inevitable result of NIMBYism and a lack of interest in devoting resources to solve the needs of vulnerable families and individuals throughout the County.  Skid Row is a 10-block neighborhood within the City of Los Angeles.  Over the last 25 years, nonprofit housing developers in the City of Los Angeles have converted the old buildings in Skid Row into affordable housing for the homeless with services provided on-site.  At the same time, the Skid Row area continues to function as a residence of last resort for vulnerable homeless residents from all over the County who, lacking any help in their own communities, make their way to the City of Los Angeles and Skid Row.

If we really want to end homelessness, there needs to be a mechanism to fund services in housing across the entire region.  While Los Angeles County is responsible for funding and providing services such as mental health services and public health services across the entire region, it was only a few years ago that there was a concerted effort to provide dedicated County funding towards services for homeless people.  However, it is still the case that the City of Los Angeles and other cities that are meeting their obligations to fund housing for the homeless desperately need County funds for services to keep families and individuals in housing.

Within the City of Los Angeles and even within Skid Row, there are new permanent supportive housing projects that have been built this year but lack the funding for the services that are needed to help their tenants remain housed.  It would be much more cost-effective for the County to provide the funding to experienced community-based service providers who have a track record in providing quality services to vulnerable individuals and families living in permanent supportive housing.

As the Times articles pointed out, we know what it takes to remedy chronic homelessness and it is not a new remedy but something that has been practiced for the last 25 years:  affordable housing with services.  This remedy has worked but the community-based agencies providing housing for the homeless have struggled to access the funding for supportive services.  And in order to ensure a continued housing pipeline for people who are homeless and have major disabilities, this essential need must be addressed.

Many people have asked us what we at Shelter Partnership think about Christopher Goffard’s four-part story on Project 50 that appeared last week in the LA Times.  Given the complexity of homelessness and its solutions, it’s not surprising that Goffard’s series raised many questions.

We think Steve Lopez’s reasoned analysis in Sunday’s LA Times summarizes the principle lessons of Project 50.  Here’s a link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0808-lopezcolumn-20100808,0,5137075.story

Last week, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) published the nation’s first Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness.  Click here to read the Plan.

The Plan comes on the heels of an unprecedented investment of $1.5 billion nationwide in Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Rehousing funds, increased investments in homeless assistance in federal budget requests, the reauthorization of homeless assistance (McKinney-Vento) funding through the HEARTH Act of 2009 and a push to coordinate funding across federal agencies providing services and housing for the homeless.

The Plan sets forth four goals:

• End chronic homelessness in 5 years
• Prevent and end homelessness among Veterans in 5 years
• Prevent and end homelessness for families, youth, and children in 10 years
• Set a path to end all types of homelessness

In order to achieve these four goals, the Plan lays out objectives and strategies organized by 5 themes:

• Increase leadership, collaboration, and civic engagement
• Increase access to stable and affordable housing
• Increase economic security
• Improve health and stability
• Retool the homeless crisis response system

The Plan describes several Signature Initiatives that hope to test models of federal collaboration. One such initiative focuses on ending the chronic homelessness of 4,000 people.  HUD and HHS would connect housing vouchers with health and social services provided through Medicaid and wraparound services funded through SAMHSA.

Another Signature Initiative targets families and children.  HUD, HHS and the Department of Education are working together to implement a housing and services program for 6,000 families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.  HUD will provide Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers targeted to communities with high concentrations of families experiencing homelessness.  Applicants will need to demonstrate coordination of these HUD vouchers with HHS-funded programs like CalWORKs.  The Department of Education will help identify families through its network of homeless liaisons.

USICH will monitor progress by using HUD’s annual point-in-time measures (which capture information on the number of sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations), Homeless Assistance Grants (which capture information on permanent supportive housing projects and units) and Annual Progress Reports (which capture information on employment and participation in mainstream assistance programs).  We can also look forward to implementation plans, an annual report card on progress, an annual update to the Plan itself and evaluations of the Signature Initiatives.  New documents will be posted to the USICH website, so those interested in learning more should bookmark the following page: http://www.usich.gov/index.html.

Last week, 777 participants, representing 47 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and three Canadian provinces, attended the 2010 National Health Care for the Homeless Conference in San Francisco.  Barbara Poppe, Executive Director of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, and Jim O’Connell, President of the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program, were the Keynote Speakers.  (The speeches are available online at http://www.nhchc.org/2010conference/webcastinfo.html and photos can be found on Shelter Partnership’s Facebook page.)

The conference focused on innovative approaches and offered over 70 different workshops on a variety of policies, programs, research, and advocacy efforts related to health care for the homeless.  Following are summaries of two workshops that stood out.

Differences Between Self-Reported and Actual Medical Conditions
Surveys are frequently administered to homeless clients to find out about their health conditions.  Many times, we are told to take the results of these surveys with a grain of salt since it is all “self-reported” data, which have not been corroborated with client medical records.

An interesting study was undertaken at Tom Waddell Health Center in San Francisco to test the reliability of self-reported medical data.  Survey data collected from 340 homeless clients was matched to each client’s actual medical records.  The results showed that medical data collected through self-report agreed quite strongly with each homeless client’s actual medical history!  Especially strong agreement was demonstrated by the following categories:  ER visits; asthma; emphysema; heart disease; liver disease; HIV infection; mental health issues; substance use issues; and trimorbidity (co-occurring medical, mental and substance use issues).

Advanced Issues in Documenting Disability
Service providers from San Francisco’s Tom Waddell Health Center and Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program asked the audience to describe clients for whom they were finding it difficult to obtain SSI disability.  Each presenter then suggested several strategies to help document the client’s disability in an effective manner so that the claim would be approved sooner rather than later.

The presenters stressed the importance of documenting only direct observations of the client’s behavior that might indicate that he or she could not be gainfully employed.  Other strategies included having lay persons (non-clinicians) write letters testifying to their direct observations of the client’s disability; attaching a letter with a narrative that “paints a picture” of the client for the disability claims analyst; and even, in extreme situations, enclosing a photograph of the client to support the disability claim.

The presenters recommended that interested parties take the online training course on documenting disability that is available on the National Health Care for the Homeless Council website at the following link: http://www.nhchc.org/documentingdisabilities.html.

For those who are interested in learning more, all workshops from the 2010 conference will be available soon at the following link: http://www.nhchc.org/2010conference/.  We highly recommend this conference to those engaged in finding solutions for the homeless; the 2011 conference will be held in DC and more details can be found at the National Health Care for the Homeless Council’s website: http://www.nhchc.org/index.html.