The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-16-16 Council Agenda Packet EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA November 16, 2016 12:00p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSION HarrisHall 125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 MeetingofNovember16,2016; HerHonorMayorKittyPiercyPresiding Councilors 12:00p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSION HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th 1.WORKSESSION RestStopandOpportunityVillagePilotPrograms J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161116\\A161116S.doc ¶¶¶ȁ¤´¦¤¤®±ȁ¦®µȁ J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161116\\A161116S.doc ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY ¶¶¶ȁ¤´¦¤¤®±ȁ¦®µ ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161116\\S1611161.doc RELATEDCITYPOLICIES QUESTIONSFORCOUNCIL CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161116\\S1611161.doc SUGGESTEDMOTION ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161116\\S1611161.doc ATTACHMENTA PotentialRestStopandOVEOutreachProcess ATTACHMENTB ATTACHMENTC Memorandum Background CurrentSiteLocations 2| SiteManagement SiteCharacteristics Table1.ResidentCharacteristics Age: 1 Gender: Ethnicity: 1 Race: 1 Veterans Disabled 1 Employed 1 ResidentCharacteristics 3| Table2.DestinationsforDepartingResidents Destination:RestStopsOVETotal Partnerships 4| Accomplishments Challenges 5| ATTACHMENTD Providing for the Unhoused: A Review of Transitional Housing Strategies in Eugene October 2015 Final Report Prepared by: Community Planning Workshop A Program of the Community Service Center Special Thanks & Acknowledgements Community Planning Workshop wishes to thank the University of Oregon Office of the President and Matt Roberts, Senior Director of Community Relations for their financial support. We also thank all of the individuals that consented to completing a survey or being interviewed. Without your assistance, this research would not have been possible. Working Group Michael Kinnison, City of Eugene Human Rights & Neighborhood Involvement Lorna Florma, City of Eugene Human Rights & Neighborhood Involvement Rene Kane, City of Eugene Human Rights & Neighborhood Involvement Erik de Buhr, Community Supported Shelters Danielle Bautista, Opportunity Village Eugene Brent & Andy, Opportunity Village Eugene Mary Broadhurst, Nightingale Health Sanctuary Sabra Marcroft, Nightingale Health Sanctuary Community Planning Workshop Team Robert Parker, AICP, Project Director Nicholas Meltzer, P.E., Project Manager Brody Abbott, Research Assistant Emily Brown, Research Assistant Henry Hearley, Research Assistant Jaleel Reed, Research Assistant This project was sponsored by the University of Oregon Office of the President and does not necessarily reflect the views of City of Eugene staff or elected officials. About the Community Service Center The Community Service Center (CPW), a research center affiliated with the Department of Planning, Public Policy, and Management at the University of Oregon, is an interdisciplinary organization that assists Oregon communities by providing planning and technical assistance to help solve local issues and improve the quality of life for Oregon residents. The role of the CPW is to link the skills, expertise, and innovation of higher education with the transportation, economic development, and environmental needs of communities and regions in the State of Oregon, thereby providing service to Oregon and learning opportunities to the students involved. About Community Planning Workshop Community Planning Workshop (CPW) is an experiential program within the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon. Students work in teams under the direction of faculty and Graduate Teaching Fellows to develop proposals, conduct research, analyze and evaluate alternatives, and make recommendations for possible solutions to planning problems in Oregon communities. The CPW model is unique in many respects, but is transferable to any institution that desires to link pedagogy with community service. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... I E’THS:RSM- ............................ UGENES RANSITIONAL OUSING TRATEGIES EST TOPS AND ICROVILLAGESI KF.......................................................................................................................... EY INDINGSII Rest Stops ......................................................................................................................... ii Opportunity Village ......................................................................................................... iii C ......................................................................................................................... ONCLUSIONSIV R ............................................................................................................... ECOMMENDATIONSVII I: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 II. UNDERSTANDING HOMELESSNESS: CAUSES AND BARRIERS ....................................... 3 CH ........................................................................................................ 4 AUSES OF OMELESSNESS B ................................................................................................................................ 5 ARRIERS THS........................................................................................... 8 RANSITIONAL OUSING TRATEGIES Housing First .................................................................................................................. 10 III. REVIEW OF EUGENE’S TRANSITIONAL HOUSING STRATEGIES .................................... 15 TC................................................................ 15 IMELINE OF ITY ACTIONS RELATED TO HOMELESSNESS RSP............................................................................................................. 19 EST TOP ROGRAM KF........................................................................................................................ 20 EY INDINGS Rest Stop Resident Perceptions ...................................................................................... 20 Service Provider Perceptions .......................................................................................... 21 Neighborhood Resident and Business Perceptions ........................................................ 21 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 22 OVE ............................................................................................... 22 PPORTUNITY ILLAGE UGENE Key Findings ................................................................................................................... 23 Residents ........................................................................................................................ 23 Service Providers ............................................................................................................ 24 Neighbors ....................................................................................................................... 25 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 25 IV: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 27 C ........................................................................................................................ 27 ONCLUSIONS R .............................................................................................................. 32 ECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX A: CITY ORDINANCES ................................................................................... 35 4.815Prohibited Camping. ......................................................................................... 35 4.816 - Permitted Overnight Sleeping. ........................................................................... 36 ORDINANCE NO. 20517 .................................................................................................. 37 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 53-13-13 ......................................................................... 39 APPENDIX B: REST STOP EVALUATION .......................................................................... 42 F .............................................................................................................................. 42 INDINGS Resident Perceptions ...................................................................................................... 42 Neighbor Perceptions ..................................................................................................... 46 Service Provider Perceptions .......................................................................................... 49 Transcript of Written Comments .................................................................................... 53 APPENDIX C: OPPORTUNITY VILLAGE EVALUATION........................................................ 55 F .............................................................................................................................. 55 INDINGS Resident Perceptions ...................................................................................................... 55 Neighbor Perception ...................................................................................................... 60 Service Provider Perceptions .......................................................................................... 62 Transcript of Written Comments .................................................................................... 63 APPENDIX D: CASE STUDIES .......................................................................................... 64 CFV ..................................................................................................... 65 OMMUNITY IRST ILLAGE Austin, Texas .................................................................................................................. 65 TC3&4..................................................................................................................... 67 ENT ITY Seattle, Washington ....................................................................................................... 67 DV .................................................................................................................... 69 IGNITY ILLAGE Portland, Oregon ............................................................................................................ 69 RHC ...................................................................................................... 71 IVER AVEN OMMUNITY Ventura (San Buenaventura), CA ................................................................................... 71 QV ................................................................................................................... 73 UIXOTE ILLAGE Olympia, Washington..................................................................................................... 73 Homes at Quixote Village. .............................................................................................. 73 CH/HF......................................................................................... 75 ENTER OF OPEOUSING ACILITY Greensboro, North Carolina ........................................................................................... 75 R2DT .............................................................................................................. 76 IGHT REAM OO Portland, Oregon ............................................................................................................ 76 Right 2 Dream Too Camp ............................................................................................... 76 Photo credit: Molly Hottle, The Oregonian .................................................................... 76 APPENDIX E: REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 78 ES XECUTIVE UMMARY Homelessness in Eugene is not a new problem. A 2015 point-in-time survey identified more than 1,473 homeless individuals in Eugene of which the majority (817) were unsheltered. Given the systemic nature of homelessness, it continues to be a challenging problem in our community. If easy solutions existed, the city would have implemented them and solved the problem long ago. In 2011, the Eugene City Council asked Mayor Piercy to form a task force to develop recommendations regarding the needs of unhoused community members. The first recommendation of the Task Force—which is the subject of this report—focused on finding one or more sites to provide short-term, transitional housing opportunities. Starting in 2013, the City piloted two programs that relate to the siting recommendation: (1) so-called “rest stops” which Homelessness in Lane County provide city sanctioned camping areas; and (2) a micro- by the Numbers, 2015 housing community called Opportunity Village. 1,473 people counted In short, the City of Eugene is testing alternative methods of transitioning the unhoused population that are new and 223 family members in relatively unique. As the policies supporting these programs homeless households with require periodic renewal, providing information on how the children; 151 sheltered; and programs are functioning is critical to helping city staff and 72 unsheltered elected officials make decisions regarding their continuation. 210 homeless veterans: 110 As such, the goal of this project was to gather information on sheltered; 100 unsheltered: the performance of the transitional housing strategies to 697 chronically homeless better understand how they work and what impacts they are people: 318 sheltered; 379 having on rest stop and Opportunity Village residents and unsheltered nearby property owners. 398 people have a mental illness Eugene’s Transitional Housing 20 people have chronic Strategies: Rest Stops and Micro-villages alcohol/substance abuse issues 23 unaccompanied homeless To address homelessness and some of its negative impacts, youth (under18) the City has established a number of policies and programs to address the issue. Central among these is a citywide prohibition on camping that was adopted in 1983 (city ordinance 4.815). Such ordinances are common in cities and are intended to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Illegal camps have been a perennial issue in Eugene and often have significant environmental impacts. The implementation of the ordinance, however, creates a significant limitation on temporary shelter for unhoused individuals. Moreover, not all individuals that camp create negative community impacts. To address the issue, the City adopted an ordinance that permits camping under specific circumstances. The Permitted Overnight Sleeping Pilot Program or “rest stop” ordinance (Ordinance 20517) establishes a set of prohibited behaviors and A Review of Transitional Housing Strategies in Eugene October 2015 Page | i requires rest stops have a site manager. Eugene City Council has approved six rest stop locations since the ordinance was initially adopted in September 2013. As of September 2015, two Eugene nonprofit organizations are managing four rest stops. Community Supported Shelters (http://communitysupportedshelters.org/) manages three rest stops and Nightingale Health Sanctuary http://respectexistence.org/) manages one rest stop. ( Key Findings To gather information and understand the rest stop policy and programmatic context, CPW facilitated two meetings with city staff and rest stop and OVE volunteers. We collected 178 surveys from service providers, rest stop residents, and rest stop neighbors: 13 OVE residents 37 rest stop residents (at four rest stops) 99 neighboring residences and businesses (properties within 500’ of a rest stop) 28 representatives from service provider organizations Rest Stops Rest stops are designated areas within the Eugene city limits where up to 20 people are allowed to sleep in tents, trailers or Conestoga huts. They are intended to provide a temporary, safe, legal option for people experiencing homelessness. Community nonprofits provide site supervision, portable restrooms and trash collection. The organizations must keep a roster of individuals registered to stay at the site and ensure site rules are followed, such as no alcohol or drugs on site and no disorderly behavior. The sites are fenced to control access and promote safety. The Rest Stop pilot program has had more than 600 applicants and has served more than 210 individuals since its establishment. The program has seen nearly 100 residents transition to alternative housing options and has dismissed 35 residents for violations of the rules. Moreover, of the more than 210 residents served, 13 have been veterans. Police data has shown no considerable increase in reported activity due to the rest stops. The average length of stay is approximately six months. Following are key findings from our survey research. Nearly all of the residents heard about the rest stops through personal networks or someone staying at the camp. Rest stop residents reported that it was not difficult to apply to live at the rest stop. Residents reported that staying at the camp makes them feel safer, more confident, and more independent. Residents report that camp staff were helpful and site rules are effective. Page | ii Community Planning Workshop Residents report that staying at the rest stop helped them transition to permanent housing; many reported they still face barriers to obtaining permanent housing. Service providers identified opportunities to create stronger linkages between the rest stops and service providers. Service providers see rest stops as a cost efficient approach to provide transitional housing to the unhoused. Moreover, most service providers think rest stops are a good start, but that more is needed. Thirty percent of neighboring residents and businesses indicated they were unaware of the City’s rest stop program Eighty-four percent of neighboring residents and businesses indicated that they support of the rest stop program. Sixty-two percent of neighboring residents and businesses indicated they feel “safe” or “very safe” in their neighborhood. Opportunity Village A second transitional housing strategy Eugene is also experimenting with is a micro- housing community called “Opportunity Village” (OVE). In the first 18 months (July 2013-December 2014), OVE served 77 people for various lengths of time—with 27 voluntary transitions and 13 departing due to rule violations. Between January 1 and June 30, 2015, OVE served an additional 34 individuals. OVE consists of up to 30 micro-homes, community showers, kitchens and other communal areas. OVE residents helped construct the homes, contribute rent, and stay for anywhere from one week to longer than a year. Like the rest stops, Opportunity Village was approved through a City Council action. The process was initiated by the City Manager at the direction of City Council in 2011. The objective was to find a location to pilot project a low-cost, micro-housing project. The identified location was a one-acre parcel of city-owned land on North Garfield Street. Unlike the rest stops, Opportunity Village was permitted under Eugene Code 9.2450, which classifies OVE as a “Homeless Shelter.” As a homeless shelter, the approval required a conditional use permit based on the I-3 (Heavy Industrial) zoning of the property. Data provided on the OVE website suggest that the approach is cost effective: Start-up costs were about $220,000 and funded with around $98,000 in private cash donations, plus an estimated $114,000 of in-kind materials and labor. Operating costs are around $1,200/month. OVE concludes: “If capital costs are amortized over 5 years and similar operating costs are assumed, OVE comes at a cost of just $3/night/person. Of which, $1/night is paid or raised by our residents.” Following are key findings from our survey research. Nearly 1/3 of the residents heard about OVE through social media networks. A Review of Transitional Housing Strategies in Eugene October 2015 Page | iii Residents indicate that it was not difficult to apply to live at OVE. Residents indicated that staying at the camp helps them feel secure, safe in their neighborhood, and independent. OVE provides a space in which individuals regularly interact with one another and establish community. Residents indicate camp staff are helpful and site rules are effective. Site rules directly impacted the neighboring residents and businesses level of support for Opportunity Village. Residents view the operational structure and rules of Opportunity Village positively. Staying at the rest stop helps residents transition to permanent housing; some reported that the still face barriers to obtaining permanent housing. While opinions vary on their current connection (some report strong connections, others, weaker connections) with Opportunity Village, many service providers see an opportunity for improvement. Neighboring residents and businesses generally felt the neighborhood surrounding Opportunity Village was perceived as safe. Eighty percent of neighboring residents and businesses indicated they were aware of OVE. Survey results show that nearly 90% of neighboring residents and businesses were supportive of the OVE program. Many neighboring residents and businesses reported that they had not noticed any changes since OVE’s inception. Conclusions Our general conclusion from the review is that the programs are working. Our specific conclusions integrate themes that we identified through the literature review, case studies and surveys. The lack of affordable housing remains the biggest barrier in providing for the unhoused in Eugene. While this is an obvious point and is perhaps more expansive than the scope of this study intends, it is important to acknowledge the challenge Eugene continues to face in providing housing that is affordable for all residents. In short, though many factors contribute to homelessness, the absence of housing affordable to people with little or no income presents a significant barrier to unhoused individuals that want to transition into permanent housing. The “Housing First” strategy is a demonstrated transitional housing strategy that is effective and saves money. Housing First is an effective alternative for individuals that are unhoused, particularly those who face substance abuse disorders along with mental and physical health barriers. While the Housing First approach requires key components like vacant land, financial stability, and Page | iv Community Planning Workshop collaboration from local, state, and federal agencies, this method is a cost-effective way to mitigating homelessness. Few individuals residing at Rest Stops or Opportunity Village are homeless by choice. CPW’s survey showed that only 8% of Rest Stop residents and no Opportunity Village residents reported they were homeless by choice. Moreover, CPW found that many of the respondents lived in Eugene at the time that they first became unhoused. Our research suggests that the causes of homelessness are as diverse as the homeless population and dispels the myth that all homeless individuals are “chronically” homeless. Nationwide, chronically homeless individuals accounted for 15% of all homeless people. CPW’s survey shows that 19% of Rest Stop residents and 8% of OVE residents had been homeless five or more years. Rest stops and Opportunity Village residents have more self-confidence, are better able to provide for themselves, and feel as though they’re part of a community. Not only do the legal camping programs provide a safe, legal place for the unhoused to sleep, but they appear to help the residents in other ways. Rest stop and Opportunity Village residents indicated that living in the communities increased their self-confidence (69%), made them feel more independent (81%), and gave them a sense of community (92%). Additionally, volunteer site managers expressed similar thoughts about how staying in the rest stops and Opportunity Village benefitted the residents. The rest stop ordinance is successful at providing a legal place for the unhoused to sleep. More than 70% of rest stop residents indicated that staying at the rest stop is helping them transition into permanent housing. While no formal evaluation of outcomes has been conducted, CSS and NHS collect data on residents. The statistics suggest the rest stop program is helping many residents transition to stable housing. CSS reports that 45 residents transitioned to rental housing), HUD VASH (housing for veterans), Shelter Care, friends or family. While incomplete, these figures suggest the program is having some level of success at transitioning residents into stable housing. The rest stop ordinance lacks a clear purpose statement. Based on review of the ordinance and other available materials, it is unclear whether the rest stop ordinance has an intent beyond providing the unhoused a temporary, safe, and legal place to sleep. In short, it is unclear whether the city intends the program to have a broader set of outcomes and how it fits in with other efforts in the region to address homelessness. Opportunity Village appears to be successful in transitioning individuals into more permanent housing. This reinforces the viability of micro-villages as transitional housing and suggests micro-villages as suitable, long-term housing for the unhoused. According to the Opportunity Village quarterly reports, of 47 residents that transitioned, 30 found housing. Fourteen moved into rental housing, 13 moved in with family or friends, and others transitioned into Section 8 housing or other transitional housing. While incomplete, these figures suggest the program is having some level of success at transitioning residents into stable housing. A Review of Transitional Housing Strategies in Eugene October 2015 Page | v Neighboring businesses and residents are very supportive of the programs, and experience little to no negative impacts from being located near the facilities. A large majority (83%) of residential or commercial neighbors of the rest stops and Opportunity Village support the programs, often justifying their support with the simple belief that everyone deserves a place to live. What’s more, very few of those surveyed reported experiencing any changes in their neighborhoods related to the nearby programs. The location of rest stops and Opportunity Village present equity issues for residents and neighbors. There is a sense of unfairness among neighboring residents and business owners related to the concentration of the rest stops and Opportunity Village in one part of the City. This sentiment of unfairness was communicated neighbors whom identified two aspects of unfairness with relation to the siting of rest stops: (1) the rest stops were concentrated in one part of the City; and (2) rest stops are sited are in industrial areas near railroad tracks and distant for day-to-day services. Neighbors and business suggested that the siting of rest stops and any future micro-villages should be reconsidered so as to evenly distribute the rest stops and/or micro-villages across the City. While the City of Eugene has taken significant steps to address homelessness in the community, it lacks a long term, clear vision for addressing the issue. Before expanding on this conclusion, it is necessary to note that the Lane County Human Services Commission is the lead agency in the region for addressing homelessness. Lane County has developed a comprehensive strategy and provides funding for homelessness outreach, emergency and transitional shelters, homelessness prevention and transitions out of homelessness. The Lane County Poverty and Homeless Board is a collaboration of local governments and nonprofit organizations focused on developing and implementing more holistic programs targeting the unhoused in Lane County and is a good example of regional collaboration among local governments and nonprofit organizations. The Poverty and Homeless Board are actively working to develop and implement a Housing First program. Some progress has been made towards that end; data provided by the County identify eight “Homeless First” programs run by local nonprofit organizations with the capacity to accommodate about 30 families and 130 individuals. Despite all these efforts, it is unclear what the City role is in implementing the County’s 10-year plan or in the Housing First strategy. Effective homeless strategies require partnerships—every case study community that had seen success in their homeless strategies involved all levels of local government, nonprofits, and private businesses. The Rest Stop program and Opportunity Village are working. This is perhaps the most important conclusion of this work. CPW structured the research as a 360- degree review of the programs and considered the experience of residents, neighbors and program managers. All three groups reported positive experiences with the program. One of the consistent themes we heard was that the programs should be expanded. Page | vi Community Planning Workshop Recommendations The University of Oregon Office of the President and Community Relations sponsored this review of the Eugene Rest Stop ordinance. As such, our intent was to provide a credible, objective, and external review of the rest stop program. In the spirit of contributing to efforts that address the long-standing issue of homelessness in our community, we offer the following recommendations. 1.The City should revise the rest stop ordinance to clarify its intent, to better articulate the application process and siting guidelines, and to make it permanent. The City should extend the sunset date of the Permitted Overnight Sleeping Pilot Program to remain in place permanently—or at least provide for longer periods between the sunset dates. Additionally, the City needs to develop a better pathway for accommodating the rest stops. If the City Council wants to continue to have direct oversight of the program, we recommend that either (1) the ordinance be modified to articulate the application process and siting criteria, or (2) if the preference is to keep the ordinance simple and focused, direct staff to develop guidance for prospective applications. Finally, we recommend the City consider amending the ordinance to explicitly identify an intention for the rest stop program. This could be incorporated into a revised ordinance or into a set of program guidelines. 2.Work to enhance the multijurisdictional partnership of local governments, nonprofits, and private businesses to fully implement the Housing First model. Continue multi-jurisdictional efforts that involve local governments, nonprofits and the business community in crafting solutions using the Housing First model as a priority. The Lane County Poverty and Homeless Board is implementing a number of efforts focused on Lane County’s homeless population—including Housing First. Given that the Poverty and Homeless Board is the lead coordinating agency, the Board should coordinate this effort. It is notable that these efforts require resources—time and dollars. Local governments should consider dedicating staff time and funding to implement the Lane County Housing First program. 3.Review land-use options for accommodating micro-housing development. The concept of allowing micro-villages as an outright use in one or more zones should be explored. A substantial movement exists around “tiny” homes; micro-villages could be one option for accommodating households that would like to choose to live in a smaller dwelling than currently allowed by City code. This would allow facilities to serve as more than homeless shelters or transitional housing. We recommend the Eugene City Council direct the Planning Department to conduct a review of the City Development Code with respect to micro-village and micro-apartment development. That review should include analysis of the merits of code amendments and recommendations to the Planning Commission about A Review of Transitional Housing Strategies in Eugene October 2015 Page | vii whether such amendments would be appropriate, and if so, in what context. 4.Monitor the geographic location of transitional housing and support services and work to equitably distribute the facilities in the community. Due to perceived geographic inequities identified by program residents, site managers, neighboring residents and businesses, and service providers, we recommend the continued monitoring of the geographic location of rest stop and micro-village facilities. CPW’s analysis shows that the rest stops are concentrated in two parts of the City. While it would be optimal for these facilities to be located in every Council Ward, the reality is that locational decisions should take into consideration the location of support services and basic needs. This approach is consistent with the Housing First principles. 5.Take steps to better inform the community about the rest stop and micro-village programs. Our research suggests that many Eugene residents are unaware of the programs and their impacts. Providing education about the impacts of these facilities and the people who live there would facilitate a better relationship between the sites and the surrounding neighborhoods. This would make it easier to expand the program, and also create a better relationship between the City, neighboring residents and businesses, and unhoused residents at the sites. 6.Work with site managers to develop mechanisms to more systematically monitor outcomes from the Rest Stops and micro-villages. CPW recommends that site managers implement systematic information gathering on intake (e.g., when residents move in) and periodically during individuals’ residence. Opportunity Village has a systematic data collection method that could easily be adapted to the rest stop program. We do not believe this would impose a lot of additional effort on site managers—the ordinance requires certain information (e.g., a list of names of individuals residing at the rest stop). Page | viii Community Planning Workshop ATTACHMENTE Lane County Poverty & Homelessness Board Strategic Plan 2016-2021 Approved on April 21, 2016 Executive Summary The plight of poverty and homelessness affects the lives of thousands of individuals and families who live in Lane County. The solutions to this growing problem are as myriad as the causes. Government agencies, nonprofit and civic organizations, schools, and churches all contribute resources through a wide variety of programs and assistance. In an effort to facilitate better-coordinated efforts, the Poverty and Homelessness Board (PHB) was formed in 2014. It is an action-oriented group of elected officials, community stakeholders, and individuals who represent low- PHB’sMission income and homeless people’s concerns in Lane Create innovative partnerships County. and programs that use best practices to reduce poverty and The PHB serves as the administrative board for the Lane County Community Action Agency and as the homelessness in Lane County. oversight board for the Lane County Continuum of The PHB works to generate Care. It provides advice to the regional Human community and legislative Services Commission and the Lane County Board of support and other resources for Commissioners with the goal of reducing and housing and services to achieve preventing poverty and homelessness in Lane its goals. County. The PHB has identified three areas of strategic focus to guide its work to alleviate poverty and homelessness over the next five years: 1.Increase availability and access to coordinated, supportive housing, shelter, and services 2.Prevent homelessness and poverty 3.Inform and enhance public awareness and advocacy efforts To address these concerns and help define a path of coordinated action various agencies and organizations serving Lane County, the PHB has defined a set of five-year goals and supporting strategies. The strategies are built on the assumption that the core human services, supportive housing and healthcare services, supported by the community, will continue to be in place as a foundation to meet basic needs. Together, they will effect a significant improvement in the lives of the most vulnerable, chronically poor and homeless people in our community. Increase Availability and Access to Over the next five years, the PHB partners Coordinated, Supportive Housing, will coordinate with other agencies in Lane Shelter, and Services County to create an additional 600 units of supportive housing for chronically homeless people, including veterans, youth, those who experience mental illness, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and those exiting the criminal justice, foster care and child welfare systems. This effort will include 200 Housing First Page 2 of 9 units in various configurations and with appropriate support services and 100 units of housing and rental assistance for veterans. In addition, the PHB will create a long-term plan to identify targeted needs and funding sources to develop an additional 300 units of supportive housing. The temporary emergency housing needs of those who are homeless are ever-present and require different solutions based on unique needs. During the next five years, the PHB will work to create 300 emergency shelter beds for homeless singles, both seasonal and year- around; 30 emergency shelter units designed specifically for homeless families with children; 40 safe parking spaces for homeless people who live in their vehicles; an emergency medical care shelter; and a shelter dedicated to homeless individuals experiencing acute mental illness. Prevent Homelessness and Poverty Prevention is at the center of all long-term strategies to eliminate homelessness and poverty. The PHB’s goals include increasing the stability of low-income families with children in the seven Lane County neighborhoods with the highest concentration of poverty. Efforts will focus on ensuring those families live in safe, reliable housing and have opportunities for adequate employment income to meet their basic needs. To help prevent new generations from entering a life of poverty and homelessness, particular efforts will be made to reduce first-time homelessness among low-income families with children and school-aged youth by 30 percent by 2021. Inform and Enhanceand Public Awarenessand Advocacy Efforts Most residents of Lane County encounter someone nearly every day that lives in homelessness and poverty. Some aspects of homelessness and poverty are highly visible while others are largely hidden from public view. Because the problems are extremely complex and interconnected, however, it is easy to form misunderstandings and misconceptions. The PHB believes that successful long-term efforts to reduce and eliminate poverty and homelessness in Lane County will require heightened public awareness, a well-informed understanding, and broad community support. The PHB will focus concentrated efforts to dispel myths and broaden community understanding of the multiple issues related to homelessness and poverty. In addition, the PHB will advocate for changes to state and federal policies and procedures that will remove barriers to service delivery and support more collaborative efforts. To turn advocacy into action the PHB will use a collective impact approach bringing volunteers, nonprofits, faith, businesses and government together around shared goals and strategies. Page 3 of 9 Poverty and Homelessness in Lane County - What are the Facts? Poverty On any given day, on any given street in Lane County, on average, one of every five people you meet are living in poverty. Despite the fact that Lane County is home to a major state university and a highly regarded community college, along with several large industrial employers, its poverty rate of 21.5% is still higher than the Oregon statewide average of 78,203 Lane County residents live 16.6%. A Lane County family of three whose on an income below 100% of the income is at or below 100 percent of the federal poverty level. federal level lives on an annual income of --2104 U.S. Census data $19,790 or less. The high poverty rate coupled with the high cost of rent creates an environment in which it is difficult for thousands of households to maintain stable living situations. Insufficient Affordable Housing The housing market in Lane County is not unlike many other counties across the country. The economic recession of 2007 and the resulting tight mortgage market led to increased demand for rental housing. Demand pushed rental rates higher while the supply of available rental units decreased. While mortgage lending for homebuyers has eased somewhat in recent years, many households with healthy incomes are still choosing to rent rather than buy. Moreover, in Lane County, the presence of the University of Oregon creates additional demand for rental units by students. The construction of new multi-family rental units in Lane County has been largely concentrated near the university campus, and the rents are relatively high, well above what families with poverty-level incomes can afford. Who Are the Homelessness? The sub-population of Lane County residents who are in poverty and are homeless lives on little or no regular income. The life circumstances that led to their homelessness are many and varied; however, mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and involvement in criminal activity all play significant roles. In 2014, 11,668 homeless individuals sought social services through the Lane County Human Services Division. During the 2015 Annual Homeless Point in Of the 1,473 homeless people counted Time Count, 656 individuals were staying in in Lane County on January 25, 2015, emergency shelters; 101 were living in 697 were chronically homeless. “transitional housing;” and 716 men, women, - Lane County 2015 Annual Homeless and children were living without shelter. The Point in Time Count. count included 210 homeless veterans; 100 of them were living unsheltered. Nearly 400 of 2,154 homeless students attended the homeless were identified as suffering public schools in Lane County during from mental illness; 206 were believed to the 2013-14 school year (including have chronic alcohol or substance abuse doubled-up or homeless). issues. Finally, 23 homeless youth under age -Oregon Department of Education - 18, were youth unaccompanied by an adult. Page 4 of 9 The Cost of Homelessness The problems associated with homelessness are expensive for the community. People without shelter often require medical care that is frequently accessed in hospital emergency departments, one of the most expensive points of medical care at an average of $200 to $1,800 per visit. Emergency mental health care is even more expensive. A day of in-patient mental health care at Sacred Heart Medical Center’s Johnson Unit costs between $2,500 and $2,900. Unfortunately, people living without shelter and who may be experiencing drug or substance abuse problems or mental illness frequently run afoul of the law and end up incarcerated and involved in the criminal justice system. Both bring additional expenses to the community that could have been averted through better access to housing and supportive services. What is Being Done? Government agencies, nonprofit organizations and the faith community together provide a variety of housing programs aimed at assisting those in poverty and homelessness in Lane County. Emergency shelters, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, During the winter of 2014-15, 948 rapid-rehousing and extreme weather individuals slept in our Extreme Weather shelter are all part of the mix. Each is Shelter Program, Egan Warming Center, different and uniquely designed to on sub-freezing nights. accommodate a different segment of the population depending on its particular needs. Emergency Shelter is short-term, generally up to 60 days, and might include large communal settings or a single unit for a family without stable housing. Seasonal emergency shelters provide protection from the elements when temperatures drop below 30 degrees during winter months. Transitional Housing provides rent assistance and supportive services for up to 24 months and facilitates the movement of homeless households to permanent housing. Permanent Supportive Housing provides long-term, community-based housing and support to homeless households that include individuals with disabilities. Rapid Re-Housing provides homeless households with rent assistance and supportive services for up to 24 months with the goal of moving into permanent housing and long- term stability. Safe Havens are supportive housing units that serve those who are often referred to as “hard-to-reach” homeless persons with severe mental illness and other debilitating behavioral conditions. Page 5 of 9 Solutions The current inventory of housing for homeless individuals in Lane County includes 870 units of Rapid Re-Housing, transitional, and permanent housing, and 481 year round emergency shelter beds. With all types combined, only about 10% are designed to accommodate households with children. Based on the 2015 Point in Time Count, a minimum of at least 600 additional housing units would have to be added to house all of the homeless individuals in the county. Experience has proven that emergency shelters alone are not the optimal solution for helping people escape homelessness. At the same time, however, shelter capacity needs to be expanded if the supply of available private market and affordable housing, coupled with supportive services, is insufficient to meet demand. For some people, access to permanent housing is all they need to escape homelessness. Others need supportive services to be successful in gaining permanent housing. Housing First Housing First is an approach to quickly and successfully connect individuals and families experiencing homelessness to permanent housing without preconditions and barriers to entry, such as sobriety, treatment or service participation requirements. Housing First offers people immediate access to permanent housing along with services appropriate to their needs. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, this model yields higher success in treatment outcomes, higher housing retention rates, lower returns to homelessness, and significant reductions in the use of crisis services, hospitals, and jails. Human Rights and Alternatives Human rights and alternative community strategies should be pursued in tandem with Housing First and the other strategies in the PHB Strategic Plan. While these strategies are not prioritized or incorporated into the strategic plan it is recognized the City of Eugene Human Rights Commission and other community based non-profits and advocacy groups should continue to pursue solutions that are inclusive of people living in poverty, people who are homeless including minority communities and underrepresented groups. Decriminalization of homelessness Restorative Justice Community Courts with alternative sentencing Legal protections (fair housing) Alternative legal places to live e.g. rest stops, micro-shelters, safe spots, unsanctioned camps, legal overnight parking, small size tent encampments (10 per camp) Page 6 of 9 STRATEGIC GOALS 1. Strategic Focus: Availabilityand Accessto Coordinated Supportive Housing, Shelter, andServices GOAL 1.1: Create 600 additionalhousing opportunities throughout Lane County by 2021 for chronically homeless individuals andpeople with particularneeds,including:veterans, youth, domestic violence survivors, those with mental illness, drug and alcoholabuse problems,and those exiting criminal justice, fostercare and child welfare systems. Strategy Potential PHB Partners Committee a. Develop 100 Housing First units, including a 50-unit apartmentbuilding with on-site Lane County/ Facilities HACSA/ behavioral health services, and 50 micro-apartment housing units with mobile support Non-Profits services by 2019. b. Dedicate 100 units of Housing First, including 50 scattered site HUD housing vouchers and HACSA/Facilities Non-Profits HACSA units, and 50 units integrated into low-income housing developments for special populations by 2019. c. Develop assertive engagement “wrap around” services and supports for 150 scattered Lane County & Services Trillium site and integrated Housing First units by 2019. Promote successful housing outcomes Behavioral and move more individuals to independent living. Health d. Develop and dedicate anadditional 100 units and rental assistancefor Veterans to meet HACSA/St. Facilities Vincent the goal of ending veteran homelessness. DePaul/VA e. Create a long-term, supportivehousing production and operations plan for 300 units for HACSA/ Eugene/ Facilities Springfield/ individuals and family households. Non-Profits f.Develop tactics to help reduce risk to private landlords and help incentivize them to rent Rental Owners Services Assoc. to people with special needs. GOAL 1.2: Create additional emergency shelter and respite care for homeless individuals, youth and families with children awaiting housing by 2021. Strategy PotentialPHB Committee Partners a. Create 300 beds of emergency shelterfor homeless singles including 150 year-around Lane County/ Facilities HACSA beds and 150 beds of winter season shelter. b. Create 30 units of year-around emergency shelter forhomeless families with children, Lane County/ Facilities HACSA including domestic violence survivors with children. c. Create 40Safe Parking spaces for homeless persons who live in their vehicles. Lane County Facilities d. Create 16 infirmary beds of emergency shelter to provide immediate medical triage, Trillium, local Facilities hospitals assessment, and care. e. Create 20 beds of crisis respite for persons experiencing acute mental illness. Lane County Facilities f. Develop ACTTeam andmultidisciplinary services for shelter and supportive housing. White Bird/CHC Services g. Expand Rapid Re-housing funding and services to more quickly move people into housing. State of Oregon/ Services HUD Page 7 of 9 GOAL 1.3: Increase opportunities to enhance services forfrequent users through service integration and coordination, and the development of new partnerships. Strategy Potential PHB Committee Partners Create a Frequent Users Systems Engagement (FUSE) Workgroup as part of an initiative to Inter- Services/ governmental Ad Hoc break the cycle of incarceration and homelessness among individuals with complex Work Group behavioral health challenges who are the highest users of jails, hospitals, emergency medical, homeless shelters and encampments, and other crisis service systems. 2. Strategic Focus: Prevent Homelessness and Poverty GOAL 2.1: Increasethe stability of low-income individuals and families in Lane County.Ensure they are stably housed and have adequate employment income and/or benefits to meet their basic needs. Note: A draft action plan for goals 2.1-3 should be developed by the PHB Services Committee and submitted to the PHB by October 1, 2016. Strategy PotentialPHB Committee Partners a. Develop nutrition, employment services andaffordable childcare for residents at Non-Profits Services affordable and supportive housing programs. b. Develop transportation options for program participants. LTD Services c. Expand rental assistance programs. HACSA Services DHS d. Support the preservation of existing affordable housing. GOAL2.2:Reduce homelessness among low-income families with children and school age youth, as measured by the Oregon Department of Education, by 30 percent by 2021. Strategy Potential PHB Committee Partners a. Develop a homeless diversion program families and unaccompanied youth in McKinney Services Vento Schools conjunction with the school districts (i.e. periodic homeless, precariously housed, th 15 Night doubled up). Identify flexible funding to address critical barriers to stabilization. Initiative GOAL2.3: Increase employment opportunities, education,and employment andtraining activities for participants who are in poverty, and/or homeless with special needs. Strategy Potential PHB Committee Partners a. Support collaboration among job partners to develop employment and training programs Lane Workforce Services/ Partnership Ad-Hoc for individuals who are homeless or in supportive housing with significant barriers to LCC Work Group employment. DHS Goodwill b. Implement employment training programs. Identify resources for targeted employment St. Vincent programs for people who are unstably housed. Voc Rehab Page 8 of 9 GOAL2.4: Increase access to integrated health care for persons who are unstably housed, homeless or are community members in supportive housing. Strategy Potential PHB Committee Partners a.Support collaboration among community health care organizations that serve people CHC Lane Ad Hoc County Integrated who are homeless and supportive housing community members. VIM Workgroup White Bird TBA b.Develop expanded outreach and site based healthcare for people who are homeless Clinic Occupy and supportive housing community members. Medical 3. Strategic Focus:Informand Enhance Public Awareness and AdvocacyEfforts GOAL 3.1: Increase public understanding of poverty and homelessness issues and how they’re being addressed. Note:A workgroup of the PHB will be formed by June 1, 2016 to address Goal 3.1 Strategy Potential PHB Partners Committee a. Develop a brand and communication plan forPHB. PRfirmAd-Hoc Work Group b. Promote the capabilitiesof the Coordinated Entry System, in conjunction with HMIS, to Non-profits HMIS identify the characteristics or trends of individuals in the homeless system. c. Educate and engage the community on poverty and homelessness issues through social University of Oregon media (highlight best practices). GOAL3.2: Advocate for support toreduce poverty and homelessness. Strategy Potential PHB Partners Committee a.Alignand coordinate legislative agendas (early) with other groups that are working on Housing Legislative, Ad- Alliance Hoc Work group similar efforts or have common interests. Develop a one-page “leave behind” sheet with TBA Assn. of key talking points. Coordinate with federal and state agencies. Counties League of b.Align and coordinate policy agendas among cities in Lane County and the county Oregon Cities Oregon government. Opportunity c.Participate and collaborate with public, private, and community organizations to Network advocate for support. Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENTF 2016 Annual Homeless Point in Time Count HIGHLIGHTS 1,451 people were counted during Lane County‘s 2016 Annual Point in Time Count This number includes homeless community members who were counted in a myriad of locations including the streets, under bridges, in parks, at food pantries, day access centers, schools, churches, emergency shelters, and transitional housing programs for homeless persons on January 27, 2016. Approximately 124 staff and volunteers from 32 organizations counted homeless people this year. Of the 1,451 people counted: 405 individuals were staying in Emergency Shelter 112 individuals were living in Transitional Housing (up to 24 months) designated for people who are homeless 934 men, women, and children were without shelter Total 1,451 individuals Highlights of the count: 224 family members in homeless households with children; 129 sheltered; 95 unsheltered 162 homeless veterans: 52 sheltered; 110 unsheltered: 574 chronically homeless people: 86 sheltered; 488 unsheltered 434 people have a mental illness 232 people have chronic alcohol/substance abuse issues 13 unaccompanied homeless youth (under 18) Other Factors 12,167 individuals who were homeless sought social services through Lane County Human Services Division funded programs during Calendar Year (CY) 2015. 4,646 had a long-term disability and 942 were veterans. 949 unduplicated individuals were served at the St. Vincent de Paul Egan Warming Center during 12 nights of the winter season at 14 faith-based sites and the Lane Community College during the 2015-16 winter season. 2,156 homeless students attended public school in Lane County during the 2014-15 school year (Oregon Dept. of Education). 258 homeless youth were served at the Looking Glass New Roads Access Center, (ages 16-21) CY 2015 165 runaway and homeless youth stayed at Station 7 ( under age 18) during CY 2015 2,298 people stayed at the Eugene Mission during CY 2015 Unique to This Year’s Count 1.5% decrease of overall count between the 2015 and 2016 Counts. (A 31% decrease from 2011 to 2016) Veterans organizations made a concerted effort to count homeless veterans. 644 formerly homeless people live in permanent housing designated for homeless people on the night of the count. Law Enforcement shared locations with Count Organizers to increase the accuracy of the Count. Report Owner: Lane County Human Services, Contact Pearl Wolfe