The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem B: Update on Homeless Initiative Action Plan ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: City Council Goal - Update on Homeless Initiative Action Plan Meeting Date: January 26, 2009 Agenda Item Number: B Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Sarah Medary www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5336 ISSUE STATEMENT The City Council is reviewing progress toward the Homelessness Initiative Action Plan. In February 2005, the Eugene City Council adopted a Priority Initiative to “Help the Homeless in Eugene.” This goal was renewed in 2006 and again in 2007 with an added priority to work with community partners to end chronic homelessness in ten years in support of Lane County’s Ten Year Plan. The council, in May 2006, directed the Mayor to appoint a Blue Ribbon Committee to identify stable, sustainable funding to address homelessness. BACKGROUND This is the fourth year since the council first selected a goal related to homelessness. A City of Eugene team aided by staff from the Lane County Human Services Commission, local service providers, members of the City of Eugene Human Rights Commission, and community stakeholders (including homeless people themselves) identified numerous options to both assist the homeless population and address the local impact of homelessness. An action plan for this goal is provided in Attachment A. For the coming year it focuses on continuing activities that were prioritized in the past and suggests new activities based on the recommendations of the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee. Highlights of Work Plan Accomplishments: The City’s efforts concerning homelessness have been and continue to be beneficial in addressing the needs of many homeless people in the community. The following is a progress summary of key strategies. 1. Allocate and monitor the use of targeted funds for homeless prevention and services. These activities are cost effective simultaneously preventing new cases and continuing programs that benefit the safety of the community. This includes emergency housing payments to prevent evictions, expansion of business hours at access centers, and the continued funding of services that assist various homeless populations. a. Provide funding for prevention and re-housing During the first six months of the current fiscal year the City’s homeless prevention allocation provided emergency funds for 111 households. This is consistent with services provided in previous reporting periods. These funds are administered through four nonprofit agencies (ShelterCare, Looking Glass New Roads, St. Vincent dePaul, and Catholic Community Services). The average expenditure per client was $281.21. A typical assistance situation might concern a person who lost wages due to illness or injury or someone whose hours were cut at Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090126\S090126B.doc work. In many cases a skilled case worker can come to an inexpensive solution with either the client or a landlord allowing allocated funds to be stretched even further. b. Provide funding for increased hours at access centers City funds are being used to extend the hours at the First Place Family Center. This allows the center to be open on weekends and during the summer months. They have typically served about 183 people on a weekend, but that number has risen to nearly 300 this fall. During the entire last fiscal year they served 2,510 unduplicated clients during the expanded hours. At the Eugene Service Station, City funds have enabled the building to be open until 7:00 each night. During the entire last fiscal year they served 10,274 unduplicated homeless clients during all hours. The result is that people both receive critical services and are provided an alternative to being on the streets during the day. c. Provide funding for transportation assistance LTD has used carryover funds from the previous City of Eugene allocation to provide reduced price ($.25) bus tokens. Twenty-five different service providers distribute them to homeless clients who need transportation to get to an appointment. 2. Use Project Homeless Connect to provide services and engage and educate the community. Project Homeless Connect combats homelessness in a powerful way by connecting homeless people with services that provide on-going benefits. Additionally, it engages the community in a unique and positive manner. Last year’s event occurred on February 7, 2008, and provided services to 1,158 guests. They were assisted by 602 community volunteers and 281 service providers. The next event is scheduled for March 6, 2009. 3. Support City Council discussions related to the implementation of the Blue Ribbon Committee’s recommendations for funding. The Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee to Finance Homelessness and Housing Programs was charged with identifying stable, sustainable funding to address homelessness. In February 2007, the Mayor appointed a 21-member committee representing multiple jurisdictions and a broad spectrum of community values and interests. The committee completed its work and issued a report on April 2, 2008. The committee’s recommendations, with respect to funding, are divided into immediate, short term and other actions. Immediate actions include completing a more comprehensive community analysis to determine the best actions and strategies to be funded and continuing the existing City appropriations targeted at helping homeless people. The short term recommendation is for a ballot measure to enact a levy. Other recommendations include involving regional partners in addressing the housing crisis and changing laws and policies that might contribute to the homeless problem. A copy of the final report and recommendations are provided in Attachment B. 4. Provide training opportunities for City staff, particularly around interaction with homeless people. The most recent staff training took place in April 2008. Over 450 City staff have attended related trainings to date. BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE’S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE HOMELESSNESS WORK PLAN The Blue Ribbon Committee proposed immediate, short term and other recommendations which include: Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090126\S090126B.doc 1.Immediate: Support existing City budget expenditures targeted towards homelessness. Action: To be determined through the City’s budget process. 2.Immediate: Develop a comprehensive community analysis to identify a specific set of goals, strategies and actions that will address low-income housing and homelessness. Action: May be added to the work plan pending direction of the City Council. This can be partially addressed through a study in cooperation with the Lane County Human Services Commission. 3.Short term: Position the housing and homelessness issue for a local option ballot measure. Action: May be added to the work plan, pending future direction of the City Council. 4.Other: Work with regional partners to identify approaches to address the housing crisis. Action: May be added to the work plan, pending future direction of the City Council. 5.Other: Make changes in local government policies by examining laws and policies that contribute to housing and homeless problems. Action: May be added to the work plan, pending future direction of the City Council. RELATED CITY POLICIES Each year since 1987, one of the City Council’s annual goals has related to affordable housing or homelessness. Numerous documents have been adopted with language related to this goal, including the HUD Consolidated Plan, the Community Development Block Grant and HOME annual statement of objectives and one-year action plan, the City’s Growth Management Goals and Residential Land Study. Financial and/or Resource Considerations A variety of recommendations with financial implications are addressed in the final report of the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee (Attachment B) COUNCIL OPTIONS The City Council may accept the final report of the Blue Ribbon Committee, accept the final report with modifications, reject the final report, or postpone approval to a later date. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends accepting the final report of the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee for future council goal setting sessions. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to accept the final report of the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee. ATTACHMENTS A. Homeless Work Plan Summary B. Blue Ribbon Committee Report C. Brief Profile of Local Homelessness Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090126\S090126B.doc D. Fast Facts: City of Eugene Low Income Housing and Homelessness E Summary of Lane County’s Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness F. September 2008, Quarterly Report on the Homelessness Goal FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Sarah Medary Telephone: 682-5336 Staff E-mail: sarah.j.medary@ci.eugene.or.us Staff Contact: Richie Weinman Telephone: 682-5533 Staff E-Mail: richie.d.weinman@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090126\S090126B.doc ATTACHMENT A HOMELESSNESS WORK PLAN SUMMARY Action Items Summary Council Status Lead Priority Approval 1. Examine ways to more efficiently 11/21/05 Complete Phase I deliver services with existing resources (18-24 months) based on an evaluation of City service delivery to homeless/at-risk populations 2. Assemble community stakeholders 11/21/05 Complete Phase I to form a collaborative base to identify (18-24 months) areas of critical need. Review pertinent Human Rights Commission priorities. 3. Engage homeless/at-risk community 11/21/05 Complete Phase I members to listen to their views and (18-24 months) identify the greatest needs 4. Provide training for City staff related 11/21/05 Complete and on- Phase I to homelessness and at-risk going (18-24 months) populations. 5. Prioritize issues of critical needs 11/21/05 Complete and on- Phase I where the City can re-deploy resources going (18-24 months) 6. Assign appropriate City staff to 11/21/05 Complete and on- Phase I short and long-term options approved going (18-24 months) by the Mayor and Council. 7. Advocate for positions at the 11/21/05 On-going PDD, Phase I and II regional, state and federal level that IGR support the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness 8. Support a strategy to establish a 5/17/06 Blue Ribbon PDD Phase II stable funding source to address 6/25/07 Committee was (3 – 5 years and prevention, intervention and treatment appointed and they beyond) of homelessness in Eugene by completed their report appointing a committee. in April 2008 9. Provide $150,000 to be divided 5/17/06 On-going PDD Phase I among one-time emergency payments, (18-24 months) additional hours for access centers and transportation assistance. 10. Plan and implement Project 6/25/07 Complete and PDD Phase II Homeless Connect 2008 proposed to continue (3 – 5 years and in future years though beyond) community partnerships Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090126\S090126B.doc ATTACHMENT B Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee To Finance Homelessness and Housing Programs Committee Charge: Examine the local impact of homelessness, identify strategies and make recommendations to the City Council related to new funding and finance options. Photo from Project Homeless Connect, 2008 Report and Recommendations Adopted April 2, 2008 1 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page COMMITTEE MEMBERS Andrea Ortiz, Eugene City Council Hillary Wylie, Springfield City Council Faye Stewart, Lane County Board of Commissioners Susan Ban, ShelterCare Ron Chase, Sponsors, Inc. Charles Dalton, Eugene Water and Electric Board Marcia Edwards, Prudential Real Estate Professionals Gerry Gaydos, Attorney Colt Gill, Bethel Public Schools Tracy Lampman, AIG/VALIC, United Way of Lane County Father David Lubliner, St. John Maximovitch Serbian Orthodox Church Hugh Massengill, Eugene Human Rights Commission Lynne McKinney, Lane Independent Living Alliance Terry McDonald, St. Vincent dePaul Michael Milbradt, U.S. Bank Susan Posner, Lane Forest Products John VanLandingham, Lane County Legal Aid and Advocacy Center Clayton Walker, C.W. Walker and Associates Marieke (Mo) Young, City of Eugene Human Rights Commission Dan Whelan (ex-officio), Congressman Peter Defazio’s office Staff Angel Jones, City Manager Pro-Tem, Executive Goal Lead for Eugene’s Homelessness Initiative Stephanie Jennings, Community Development Larry Hill, Finance Twylla Miller, Finance Mike Sullivan, Community Development Richie Weinman, Community Development For more information please contact: Richie Weinman City of Eugene Community Development Division th 99 W. 10 Avenue Eugene, Or 97401 541 682-5533 richie.d.weinman@ci.eugene.or.us 2 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page SUMMARY The charge of the Blue Ribbon Committee to Finance Housing and Homeless Programs (BRC) was to examine the local impact of homelessness, identify strategies and make recommendations to the City Council related to new funding and finance options. Through monthly meetings and tours, the committee examined existing services, program gaps and impacts of homelessness. They heard and discussed testimony and learned of the challenges faced by those who are homeless or at risk. The committee considered the impacts on public safety, public education and a variety of public and private institutions and businesses. The BRC examined an array of financing options and learned that local revenue sources are severely restricted by statewide limitations. The committee was unable to identify a viable long- term and sustainable source that could be realistically implemented in the near future. Instead, the committee opted to recommend a three step approach to address the housing and homelessness problems that are proving to be very costly to the community. 1.Immediate Action: a. Request funding to develop a comprehensive community analysis that would identify a specific set of goals, strategies and actions to address low-income housing needs and homelessness and provide a roadmap for a community education effort prior to a vote for revenue. b. Request that the City of Eugene continue existing interim funding for homeless prevention, extended day shelter services (at First Place Family Center and the Eugene Service Station), and transportation assistance. 2.Short Term Action: a. Based on the recommendations resulting from the comprehensive community analysis (described above in “1.a”) the local jurisdictions should pursue the recommended short term funding options which will presumably include a five-year serial levy dedicating funding to affordable housing, transitional housing, homeless prevention and homeless services. The committee recommends that Eugene, Springfield and Lane County each consider this levy, in recognition that housing and homelessness are regional problems. If Lane County is able to enact such a levy it could be an alternative to Eugene and Springfield’s measures. b. Urge each local government to initiate an examination of existing codes and policies that may directly or indirectly contribute to the local housing affordability crisis and to consider these impacts as new codes and policies are proposed. c. Recommend that local jurisdictions, through the “United Front”, advocate for both rule changes and increased federal funding to address low-income housing and homelessness. 3.Reconvene the BRC, or another committee, two to three years after a serial levy takes effect to review options for a permanent funding source. The serial levy’s results may 3 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page demonstrate to the voters the value of the funding. The committee and the community can then draw upon the track record of the programs funded in order to make a stronger case for long-term funding. 4 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page BACKGROUND In February 2005 Eugene City Council identified “Helping the Homeless in Eugene” as a priority initiative. A cross-departmental staff team, augmented by members of the Human Rights Commission and staff of the Lane County Human Services Commission, studied the problem, reviewed past efforts and visited with groups of homeless people in order to formulate recommendations. Initial recommendations resulted in the City of Eugene providing temporary funding for homeless prevention programs, transportation assistance, daytime shelters and assistance for homeless youth. The City also initiated staff training and reviewed existing policies. One policy change enabled more homeless people to obtain library cards. City Council renewed its goals in 2006 and 2007 and expanded the homeless initiative to implement Lane County’s Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness. Acknowledging that a significant local funding source is needed to address the problems associated with homelessness, Council empowered Mayor Kitty Piercy to appoint a committee to identify a stable funding source. The first meeting of the newly established Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness occurred on May 2, 2007. The committee’s charge was to “examine the local impact of homelessness, identify strategies and make recommendations to the City Council related to new funding and finance options.” The committee was comprised of 20 members representing a spectrum of private, nonprofit, religious, and public interests. It included elected officials from the three local jurisdictions and an ex-officio member of Congressman Peter DeFazio’s staff. The Blue Ribbon Committee received presentations about the causes and impacts of housing and homelessness from numerous perspectives in order to better understand the problem. There has been a growing intergovernmental and community awareness about these issues over the last twenty years. These responses, while of critical importance, are inadequate to even keep pace with the growing needs. The Human Services Commission and the Housing Policy Board (both include elected officials from each metro jurisdiction) have studied the issue and funded responses. Lane County has been instrumental in providing funding. The Eugene City Council has consistently adopted low-income housing goals during the past 20 years. As a result there is a significant degree of local expertise and prior experience. Committee presentations included: Role of United Way and Human Permanent and transitional housing Services Commission Children, youth, and school impacts Housing and Community Services People with disabilities and supported Agency (HACSA) programs housing Impacts on police and public works Tour of low-income housing Crises Assistance Helping Out on the developments Streets (CAHOOTS) Tour of First Place Family Center Public health impacts “Community Pulse” (political realities) 5 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Local Homeless People Homelessness is an acute symptom of poverty resulting in the loss of basic shelter. For most homeless households the predicament is fundamentally a problem related to the supply and affordability of housing. Affordability is driven by both the price of housing and inadequate income to cover local housing costs. In Eugene over 80% of very-low-income renters are “rent burdened” paying more than 30% of their income for housing. A significant difference exists between the reality of homelessness and the community’s perceptions. The majority of homeless people are never identified or counted, as they are doubled up with friends or relatives until they either stabilize or must move out. Of those who seek services, 95% are from Lane County. Most (84%) local homeless people have a “situational” condition that can be averted with a relatively inexpensive emergency intervention. Many of these people are employed and experienced a temporary loss of income or an extraordinary expense – often due to health care. Others are victims of domestic violence or are military veterans. In 2007, more than 8,800 unduplicated homeless individuals received services in Lane County. Although the public image of homelessness is a single adult, about a third of homeless people are children. 1,965 homeless children were enrolled in Lane County schools in 2006/2007 -- over 70% in Eugene and Springfield. These children are severely disadvantaged educationally and struggle to learn the basics because they transfer schools frequently, miss classes, suffer with low self-esteem and social isolation, and lack suitable places to do their homework. The results are troubling for society, as illiteracy is the single biggest indicator of future criminal activity. Chronically Homeless Some households are in a precarious financial condition because their expenses aren’t covered by a consistent and adequate income. They cycle in and out of “situational homelessness”. If they do not stabilize they can become long-term “chronically homeless”. Chronically homeless people make up about 16% of the local homeless population. Most have challenges including physical impairment, psychiatric disability, and substance abuse, which prevent them from earning enough money to afford housing. Many have multiple diagnoses. Typically, chronically homeless people live in the shadows and try to avoid attention. However, some reflect the common community image of homelessness when they ask for spare change at busy intersections. Chronically homeless people disproportionately cost society much more than those who are situationally homeless because they place significant demands on public health and safety systems. The federal government is encouraging each community to adopt a Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness. The federal government focused on this population because the numbers are smaller and the impact is larger. The state of Oregon is also working on its Ten Year Plan. Lane County adopted its plan in November 2006. Communities, including Portland, which have both adopted a plan and targeted resources, are now witnessing notable successes. 6 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page Homelessness Trends Homelessness has steadily increased during the last twenty years, both nationally and locally. The annual one night street and shelter count doesn’t fully recognize the increases because the primary locations for counting (shelter spaces) are actually decreasing. Local rental housing is in short supply. Rental vacancy rates are estimated at less than 2%, creating an environment where poor people, often with tarnished credit history, struggle to compete for a limited commodity. During the last ten years housing costs have risen at a much higher rate than incomes. Other factors that lead to homelessness include reductions in funding for mental health programs, cuts and regulation changes in the federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), reductions in the Oregon Health Plan, the national health care crisis, and the increase in war veterans and their families. Impacts of Homelessness The committee recognizes the many competing financial priorities facing local governments. The status quo is a costly option related to housing and homelessness. The community is directly and indirectly paying the price of homelessness through increased medical and hospital costs, jail costs, public safety impacts (including emergency and non-emergency calls to 9-1-1), impacts on the school system, illegal camping, paramedic responses, and park clean up. The less tangible costs related to human suffering and family dysfunction forecast long-term community impacts as well. During presentations some committee members were particularly impressed when a typical case of a chronically homeless individual was chronicled. One evening, during a four-hour period, this person generated costly responses that involved the 9-1-1 center, Sacred Heart Emergency Room, CAHOOTS, Police, Buckley House, and possibly park clean-up by Eugene Public Works. It was very similar to the case of “Million Dollar Murray” of Reno, Nevada, who was the subject of a broadly circulated essay by author Malcolm Gladwell. Murray cost programs in Reno at least $1 million over a ten year period. Other presentation examples included the high costs of homelessness that impact public schools and homeless children, and the challenges and expenses of assisting homeless people with disabilities who try to apply for federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Nationally an increasing number of homeless people are elderly. Many have a disability and most have monthly income from Social Security or Supplemental Security, but it is inadequate to pay for housing and other expenses. The committee concluded that proactively responding to homelessness would be less expensive and more effective than reacting to the problems associated with homelessness. The indirect total expenses associated with responding to homelessness are significant. Over time, efforts should be made to shift these costs to decreasing the incidence of homelessness by addressing the root of the problem. We strive to be a community where people feel safe, valued, and welcome. The BRC acknowledges that an intergovernmental approach is ideal for a problem that crosses geographic boundaries. Local goals for sustainability embody the concept that people are able to meet their basic needs. This requires public assistance to offset disadvantages experienced by many of our family members and neighbors. Some people hold a misperception that assistance programs targeted at the homeless population have made Eugene/Springfield a magnet for homeless people 7 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page or have in some way allowed people to choose homelessness as a way of life. This is not supported by evidence. Existing assistance programs were actually created as a remedy for complaints from the public related to the impacts of homelessness. The homeless people being served are from this community. Those who become homeless end up in their situation as a last resort, rather than by choice. The committee finds that it will be more cost effective in the long run to end homelessness than to continue treating the symptoms. Additional details of findings are located in the appendix. 8 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS A. Funding Mechanisms 1) Immediate Action: a) Develop a comprehensive community analysis that: ? Identifies a specific set of goals, strategies, and actions which would be targeted by a new funding source, and ? Provides a roadmap for educating and informing the community prior to a vote. b) Continue the current annual appropriations of $150,000 for homeless prevention and related services. 2) Short Term, limited duration: Position the housing and homelessness issue for a local option levy ballot measure that directs funding to high priority, highly feasible activities in a four to five year time frame. In the interim, the committee recommends that local jurisdictions, through the “United Front”, advocate for both rule changes and increased federal funding to address low-income housing and homelessness. 3) Long Term permanent, sustainable funding source: The committee recognizes the importance of a long-term stable funding source and concludes that, despite the need, it is neither practical nor feasible to implement at this time. Rather, the BRC or a new committee should be convened after there is a track record from the local option serial levy. B. Regional Approach Work toward cooperative regional approaches to address the housing crisis. C. Changes in local government policies Examine laws and policies that contribute to the housing and homeless problems. RECOMMENDATION A: FUNDING MECHANISMS The Committee recommends three sequential approaches for Eugene City Council as well as Lane County and Springfield to consider: 1) immediate action, 2) short-term, limited duration funding, and 3) long term stable funding. 1) Immediate Action: Develop a comprehensive community analysis to identify a specific set of goals, strategies, and actions to address low income housing and homelessness. A targeted expenditure of $75,000 would support the development of this plan. In addition, continue the current City of Eugene annual appropriation of $150,000 for homeless services. 9 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page The committee recommends two budgetary actions for 2008. a) Fund a comprehensive community analysis that has two purposes. ? The analysis would identify specific goals, strategies, and actions for housing and homelessness that would be funded by a local option levy. ? The analysis would then provide a road map for community engagement and education that would take place prior to Council placing the proposal on the ballot. The Blue Ribbon committee helped the community identify what is commonly known and not known about the housing and homelessness crisis. One important conclusion of the BRC’s work is that there is much more that still must be learned and a deeper look is needed by professionals who can provide perspectives from other communities. A $75,000 budget is recommended based on previous City of Eugene experience with the cost of contracting with skilled consultants to work with staff and community members to write a plan. The work would take place over a six to nine month period. Funds would pay for facilitation, consulting assistance, staff time, meeting expenses, and costs of printing and other materials. Existing Eugene housing staff is currently unable to perform these tasks while continuing to meet existing work demands, including the allocation of existing federal funds and managing the contracts that result in the creation of low-income housing units and services. Additionally, because existing work is primarily funded through federal grants sources, it can not be easily allocated for this type of planning. The product would be modeled after other planning efforts such as Portland’s “Bridges to Housing” or the City of Eugene planning efforts, such as the Pedestrian and Bicycle Strategic Plan and the Park Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan. The PROS plan, for instance, determined specific proposals for park developments which were subsequently funded by a voter-approved bond measure. If the community is to support a dedicated funding source at the polls, it must be first provided with a blueprint of actions and funding justifications. The proposed strategic plan process recognizes the critical involvement of a wide range of agencies and entities within Eugene as well as the need to activate a community-wide response to homelessness. This process will include the following components: Comprehensive Community Analysis, Part 1: In-Depth Assessment The first phase will involve gathering critical information and perspectives in several areas of housing and homelessness. Much of this data is available from service providers but has not been organized and presented in a concise report that can easily inform and educate elected officials and the public. A consultant will likely be used to compile and analyze existing information provided by regional public and private entities. Because housing and homeless problems are regional issues that ideally embrace regional solutions, data from Eugene, Springfield and Lane County must be considered. In addition, the assessment phase will gather and analyze the perspectives of community stakeholder groups. The primary areas for assessment are as follows: ?Needs and perspectives of persons who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness ?Perspectives of the public at large ?Perspectives of services and housing providers 10 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page ?Impacts of homelessness on the community including other government systems and services, hospitals, schools, etc. ?Existing and potential funding from local, state, federal, and private sources Comprehensive Community Analysis Part 2: Identification of Critical Gaps and Prioritization for Action Utilizing the information gathered in the environmental assessment, stakeholders will identify critical gaps and advise on opportunities to address such gaps. Comprehensive Community Analysis Part 3: Develop Strategies and Actions to Address Priority Issues Based on the identified priorities, stakeholders will form working groups to develop regional strategies, actions, and specific measurable outcomes. Such actions may be carried out by public entities, selected agencies, or members of the public. These strategies would also guide use of existing funding and identify areas where new funding is necessary. Future Role for the Blue Ribbon Committee The Blue Ribbon Committee was created by the City of Eugene as a limited duration committee with a targed purpose. Once the recommendations are completed the committee’s work is completed. The Mayor or City Council may choose to reconvene this committee or appoint a new committee to review the report and potentially advocate for the implemenation strategies. b) Continue the City of Eugene’s interim funding allocations that provided for homeless prevention and related services during the last two years: i) Prevent homelessness through emergency rent payments or security deposits. This strategy has been demonstrated to be very effective. ii) Aid homeless people and the health and safety of the whole community through increased operating hours at the First Place Family Center and the Eugene Service Station. iii) Provide transporation assistance for homeless people who find it both expensive and challenging to get to job or benefit appointments, get their children to and from school, or who need transportation for critical medical needs. Cost: $150,000 (currently funded as “annual one time” as opposed to an ongoing “base budget” item). A recent quarterly report to City Council on the use of these funds is attached in the appendix. Summary of Arguments Related to 1) Immediate Action Pro Con Remedies the lack of comprehensive and This is a low impact response in the short detailed information required in order to run compared to the enormity of the gain public acceptance. problem. 11 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page Pro Con Study will identify the most cost effective The currently funded programs ($150,000) opportunities for assistance. are mostly targeted at homeless prevention rather than the chronically homeless. Can lead to greater levels of community Staff time will be required to manage service coordination. contracts for the proposed study. Additional analysis could lead to greater Additional analysis could result in a intergovernmental cooperation and regional perception or reality of endless study, partnerships. tangential debate and development of community controversy and opposition. Responds to a Council priority. Information from the study will inform the next HUD Consolidated Plan 2) Short Term, limited duration: Position this issue for a local option levy ballot measure that directs funding to high priority, highly feasible activities in a five year time frame. The committee recommends that local jurisdictions place a five-year local option levy on a future ballot, possibly in November, 2010. Despite the critical need for immediate funding, the Blue Ribbon Committee wants to pursue a strategy that will be successful at the polls. This requires the creation of the comprehensive community analysis identified in A-1. The committee discussed a $5 million annual target. A local option levy allows the voters to examine the results and benefits prior to making a long-term commitment. The Committee views the serial levy as a bridge toward a longer duration and more comprehensive funding source that could be identified later. The committee recommends that funds from the levy be targeted for prevention and re-housing (25%-35%), temporary housing or emergency shelter (12% - 25%) and new construction and acquisition of low-income housing (50%). A list of suggested uses is provided in the appendix. A levy is a familiar mechanism and relies on demonstrated public support through a vote of the people. Because housing and homelessness issues directly and indirectly impact the entire community, everyone is a stakeholder. A property tax spreads the support over a broad base of donors. On average, a $5 million levy would cost the owner of a median priced home about $60.00 per year or 16 cents per day. Non-residential property owners would pay 31% of the total tax. A local option levy, although renewable, must be viewed as a temporary source. The revenues cannot be committed to paying for on-going projects. Funds from this source would either be contracted through existing systems, such as the Human Services Commission or through the City’s own request for proposal processes. 12 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page There are additional options to fund specifically targeted programs. These may include, for example, State funds, bond financing mechanisms, EWEB energy credits, or special consideration of publicly assessed fees. There are a variety of creative and innovative revenue sources that have the potential of raising a limited amount of funding. Many are worth further review during the time that the serial levy is in place. However, none have a significant potential of raising the amount of money that is needed or they may be difficult and expensive to collect. These options can be pursued following additional discussion and study. Federal funding, the most significant source of funds to combat homelessness has been either flat or reduced. The committee recommends Eugene, Springfield and Lane County to advocate for housing and homelessness assistance through the “United Front” efforts. Examples of funding options that were reviewed by the committee are included in the appendix. Summary of Arguments Related to 2) Short Term, Limited Duration Pro Con Broad based, rather than narrowly targeted Serial levy is not well suited for on-going services. Services would be provided by skilled There is a risk of creating dependencies on nonprofit community providers. the funds, which creates problems when they terminate. Would be a source to fund critical capital A local option levy is a property tax, and needs, including land banking. may be politically unacceptable. Funding would leverage other public and Could conceivably contribute to tax private resources. revenue compression in the future. Levy funding could reduce some existing Requires a public vote. General Fund expenditures over time, through the implementation of prevention measures. Funding for some short-term expenditures, Capital projects that increase the service including capital projects, would have infra-structure require long-term funding long-term benefits. commitments for operations and service revenue. Would result in educating the public on the There will be administrative expenses needs and solutions related to housing. associated with selecting services to fund and monitoring contracts 3) Long-term permanent, sustainable funding source: This enables a full range of programs to be funded, including implementation of the Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness. Ending homelessness and providing affordable housing in the community is the ultimate goal of the Eugene City Council’s initiative. This requires a long-term funding source, in excess of ten 13 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page years, that provides funding for on-going needs in addition to emergency responses. The benefits of a long term, stable funding source include the ability to implement long-range planning and to commit support for long-term solutions. This is not possible with a local option levy. Options for long-term revenue are very limited due to current state laws which severely limit the ability of local jurisdictions to increase taxes. Jurisdictions may consider broad-based options (favored by the committee) such as an income tax or a targeted option such as a tax on a particular commodity (provided it is legally taxable under state law). Both options typically face fierce opposition from tax opponents on principle, regardless of what public benefit the funding will be used for. The Committee reviewed a list of alternative funding options, including ideas presented by staff and ideas raised by members or the community. Some options, such as the transient room tax have a dedicated use due to state law. A car rental tax is currently collected by the County and can be used for general purposes of government. However, most cars are rented at the airport, which is outside City limits. Therefore the potential tax is only available to Lane County and not available to Eugene or Springfield. Other options may be complicated or expensive to collect or would have an inadequate revenue potential. The committee was unable to identify a satisfactory and feasible long-term funding source. If local jurisdictions identify a new revenue sources for the general purpose of government, they should consider dedicating a portion of it to this initiative. Likewise, an additional choice is to fund housing and homeless activities through the current budget by reallocating general fund priorities. Any long-term, dedicated, funding source for this initiative would be most effective if it could be implemented county-wide or at least in the entire metropolitan area. Summary of Arguments Related to 3) Long-term permanent, sustainable funding source Pro Con Adequate funding, over time, to address a There is currently no comprehensive broad range of needs. community analysis blueprint in place to guide revenue expenditures. Unlike the limitations of a local option Politically challenging to pass a measure. levy, it can address a broad range of needs, Broad based options, such as an income tax including long term support for projects. have failed in the past. Targeted options historically Narrow options Capable of implementing the Ten Year Public support is uncertain. There is a need Plan to End Chronic Homelessness to build consensus through community education. Significant opportunity to provide local The public generally dislikes new taxes. match to leverage other funds For instance, one targeted to a specific commodity usually stimulates a well- funded opposition from the industry being 14 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page Pro Con targeted by the tax. Source will grow as community needs increase RECOMMENDATION B. REGIONAL APPROACH One plan, three jurisdictions The Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee was appointed by Eugene and specifically advises the City of Eugene while recommending to all local governments. This committee includes a Lane County Commissioner and a Springfield City Councilor because housing and homeless issues have regional importance. The City of Eugene has close intergovernmental partnerships with Lane County and Springfield through the Human Services Commission and the Housing Policy Board. Eugene and Springfield have formed a consortium to receive federal HOME funds. Eugene worked closely with Lane County in developing a Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness. The Blue Ribbon Committee encourages Lane County and Springfield to work closely with Eugene to provide similar funding levels for housing and homelessness or place a similar initiatives on their respective ballots at the same time. All three jurisdictions could then benefit from increased investment and a single voter education effort. If Lane County approved a funding source it would raise revenue from Eugene and Springfield residents, possibly negating the need for specific funding in those cities. The Blue Ribbon Committee also recommends that each jurisdiction advocate for improved legislation and funding to address these issues. This can be accomplished in the State of Oregon by joining the “Housing Alliance” and at the federal level through the “United Front” process. RECOMMENDATION C. CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT POLICIES Review the impacts of existing regulations The Blue Ribbon Committee is concerned about unintended consequences associated with existing laws and policies. Many regulations that were adopted to respond to important community needs indirectly contribute to the housing and homelessness crisis. These include codes related to land use, growth management, sustainability and livability. It may be that improved “livability” for some is accomplished through limited housing options for those with fewer resources. Locally, the Blue Ribbon Committee recommends that each jurisdiction ensure that they are carefully considering the impacts on low-income households and potential homelessness as part of ongoing planning efforts. For instance, in Eugene there are potential impacts associated with the minor code amendment, in-fill and opportunity siting processes. Jurisdictions are encouraged to appoint a special task force that can examine local codes with regard to affordable housing and homelessness and make recommendations to Planning Commissions or elected officials. 15 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page APPENDIX Table of Contents Scenario: Targeting Needs and Assistance Revenue Options Committee’s Meeting Schedule Eugene City Council’s Homelessness Goal Quarterly Report Written Comments Submitted by Committee Members 16 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page Scenario: Targeting Needs and Assistance The following is a scenario of an annual allocation of $5 million to address housing and homeless needs. A program of $5 million per year for five years is not enough to solve homelessness – a problem that has been steadily growing for over 25 years. However, it is enough to demonstrate to the community that there are viable responses that will decrease the number of homeless people, save the community money and improve the quality of life for our relatives and neighbors. The committee acknowledges that specifying an annual financial target is challenging because there are many unmet needs. On one hand, the total local cost to fully address the problem could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. On the other hand, there is a substantial community cost to not addressing the issue. The recommended demonstration period enables systems to be created, pilot projects to be funded, and data to be collected in order to evaluate effectiveness, including money saved over time, as a result of this investment. The committee believes that allocating funds now will have the dual benefits of saving money later and meeting the critical needs of people now. The committee recommends the following as a guideline for the allocation of funds and also recognizes that there may be unknown future opportunities to pursue based on either emerging needs, special federal or state grants or matching funds. I. PREVENTION AND RE-HOUSING MAINTAINING PEOPLE IN THEIR OWN HOMES 25% -35% OF THE TOTAL a. Emergency Assistance Support funding for emergency assistance to prevent evictions caused by a healthcare emergency, temporary job loss, utility bill, automobile breakdown or an acute need for home repair or disability accommodation. Assisting people to remain in their home is the most effective way to fight homelessness because it prevents homelessness from initially occurring. For those with special needs including, youth, domestic violence victims, people exiting treatment programs, and people with disabilities extraordinary support is needed. This includes re-housing, vocational training and case management. It may also include fostering special contracts with landlords to reserve rental housing for targeted populations. Prevention funding may also assist people with disabilities to remain housed while awaiting a determination for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Proposed funding: $500,000 400 households receive emergency payments to prevent evictions and case management to support long-term success. Proposed special- needs funding: $700,000 17 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page 375 households receive preventative supportive services and case management in order to stabilize in permanent housing. b. Re-housing The speed with which a newly homeless person becomes re-housed can be instrumental in the long-term cost and impact. This funding enables quick re-housing of situationally homeless households by providing emergency payments to cover leasing and move-in costs (e.g. first and last month rent, security deposit). Once homelessness occurs a cascade of problems emerge and it becomes very costly (financially and emotionally) to become stably housed again. Proposed funding: $500,000 400 households receive emergency payments to prevent evictions and case management to support long-term success. II. TEMPORARY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES RESPONSES FOR PEOPLE IN CRISIS 12% - 20% OF THE TOTAL a. Emergency Shelter Respond to the critical need for emergency shelter for people who are currently homeless. A minority of members strongly expressed a position favoring a new, publicly funded, emergency shelter for adults. These members raised concerns that the Eugene Mission is unable or unwilling to serve important segments of the population, including people with physical and psychiatric disabilities and those unwilling to participate in the religious chapel requirements. The Eugene Mission is not always a safe place for those with a psychiatric disability and isn’t accessible for many people with mobility challenges. The argument in favor of a new shelter was countered by a viewpoint that emergency shelter is both expensive to operate and not cost effective in terms of long-term outcomes, when compared to other responses to homelessness. New emergency shelters are very difficult and expensive to site. For example, a special land use zone was created for the Eugene Mission when it relocated to its current location in 1967. Emergency shelters typically cannot expect any rental income, so they must have either a debt-free facility or a long-term funding stream to retire the debt. Either scenario presents an enormous challenge. A shelter that provides services ranging from meals, food, showers, job assistance, and case management is estimated to cost as little as $10,000 per year per bed for some populations and over $24,000 per bed for others – depending on a number of factors including the economy of scale and generally assuming a debt-free facility. The higher the degree of services, the more likely the possibility of positive outcomes – as measured by people obtaining and succeeding in housing. There is a continuum of services and options in the community. With increased case management, households could move directly from homelessness into permanent housing 18 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page (Housing First model) and bypass emergency shelter. The long-term success rate for this type of transitional housing is near 90%. Because of the expense and the belief that the Housing First model is more effective, the majority of committee members did not recommend a new emergency group shelter based on the information available at this time. An additional consideration of shelters may be considered in the as an element of the recommended comprehensive community analysis Proposed Funding: $350,000 Expand existing shelter capacity, including services and case management to serve 10 households per night. Funds could also support emergency motel vouchers. b. Day programs Day programs such as First Place Family Center, New Roads, and Eugene Service Station offer guidance, hope, support, and critical services for homeless residents. They provide a safe place for respite and an alternative to streets and parks. At First Place, affordable licensed childcare is a significant service. Current funding is not keeping up with inflation and demand and is augmented by temporary Eugene funding. Proposed Funding: $170,000 Serve 200 people per day by retaining and improving existing day programs and improve long-term outcomes through expanded case management and training programs. c. Transportation assistance Many lower income and homeless people face a significant barrier as they struggle to get their children to school or to show up for critical medical or service appointments. They do not have cars and cannot afford the cost of public transportation. With temporary funding, Eugene currently supports a program that enables social service providers to purchase bus tokens at a deep discount. They provide the tokens to their clients. The Committee recommends this program be continued and expanded. Proposed Funding: $80,000 Provide transportation assistance for 300,000 trips annually. d. Emergency response, sobering and detoxification services A paradox is that people who need treatment for alcohol or drug dependencies often must detox and be sober in order to participate. The Buckley House sobering station and detoxification programs are critical to the community’s public safety system. Its ongoing funding is tenuous and there is demand for increased services. Nationally there is growing evidence that the Housing First model, which can provide “wet,” housing for people who are alcohol or drug dependent, works successfully. This results in long- term positive outcomes that are both better for the person and much less expensive for the community. Because people will not cure their addictions while homeless, they must have affordable housing – preferably with support services. 19 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page Proposed Funding: $110,000 Expand capacity at Buckley House to serve 3 additional people per night for detoxification, for a total of 14 beds. III. HOUSING CREATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, HOUSING FOR THOSE WHO NEED SERVICES, AND “HOUSING FIRST” 50% OF THE TOTAL To succeed in school, work, and life people need to have a place to call home. Many hardworking people do not earn enough money to pay for housing. Some people, due to a disability, are physically unable to fully support themselves. Others, including many who receive Social Security Disability benefits, need assistance to succeed in housing because they are unable to qualify for the medical and mental health services that support their stability. In recent years housing costs have increased at twice the rate as wages. The three legs of sustainability are: social equity, economic sustainability and environmental sustainability. In response to the social equity leg and the community needs, the backbone of efforts to address homelessness must be the addition of housing that is affordable for lower-income households. This involves acquiring land and supporting new construction and also acquiring existing housing. Some of this housing must be tied to either temporary or permanent services that will enable the residents to succeed. There is a continuum of housing needs. Some households simply need an affordable place to live. Others require increasing levels of case management or services in order to succeed. Detail of Findings A. Need and impacts on people experiencing poverty and homelessness 1. During the course of a year, over 7,600 unduplicated homeless individuals receive services in Lane County. 2. 2,296 homeless people were specifically counted during a Lane County one-night homeless census on January 25, 2007. 3. 1,906 homeless children were enrolled in Lane County schools in 2006. About half were in Eugene. 1,100 homeless and runaway youth received services from Looking Glass in 2005-06. Homeless children, if they are in school, frequently miss many school days and move from one school to another. They struggle with basic education. Illiteracy is the single biggest predictor of adult criminal activity. Success in school and life is tied to a stable home. 4. 95% of local homeless people who receive any type of services are from our community. 5. 21% of Eugene residents are living in poverty (over 30,000 people). 20 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page 6. 20% of Lane County households have received food assistance from Food for Lane County in 2007. Children make up nearly half of those assisted. 7. Over 6,000 Lane County households received energy assistance last year. 35% of EWEB’s customers qualify. 8. 20,000 area households are income eligible for subsidized housing, according to the 2000 census. About 4,500 actually receive assistance. Those who are not assisted are typically renters who are “rent burdened” because they pay over 30% of their monthly income for housing costs. 75% of low-income renters are cost burdened. 9. Our community is experiencing a severe housing crisis. Vacancy rates are below 2%, leaving lower income households to compete in an environment where demand exceeds supply. Families with children and people with disabilities particularly struggle. Once people lose their housing they are faced with significant challenges in order to become re-housed. 10. Homelessness is an extreme form of poverty. It damages lives, breaks up families and is very costly for the whole community as it impacts public safety, public health, and public education. 11. People with both physical and mental disabilities, even when employed, are frequently unable to earn an adequate wage to afford housing. Furthermore, if their income increases they may lose benefits or access to healthcare. 12. For people eligible for federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the application process is daunting, generally requires an advocate, and typically takes two or more years before any assistance is received. 90% of applicants are rejected on their first attempt. B. Causes of poverty and homelessness 1. Housing costs have increased at about twice the rate as incomes during the last decade. 2. Households are forced to make challenging spending decisions when there isn’t enough money for shelter, food, healthcare and other critical needs. 3. A household healthcare crisis is a leading cause of homelessness. Cutbacks in the Oregon Health Plan contribute to the problem. Health care problems result in 52% of all bankruptcies in America. 4. Two-thirds of Eugene renters and one-third of Eugene homeowners are experiencing a hardship. Low vacancy rates and rising rents and home prices will contribute to an even greater need for affordable housing. 5. Public funding for assistance services of all kinds continues to decrease nationally. Since 1980, the federal government has reduced Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) funding by 87%. 21 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page 6. “Deinstitutionalization” resulted in closed hospitals and treatment facilities and caused a migration to cities of adults with disabilities. Funding for localized group homes, supported housing, case management and other treatment facilities proved to be inadequate. 7. Women and children who are victims of domestic violence often have no resources independent from the batterer. With small children and limited job experience, many women find it difficult to support and independent and safe life in the community. 8. Locally, 84% of homeless households are “situationally” homeless as opposed to long-term “chronically” homeless. They are often in trouble because of a one-time financial emergency. Prevention mechanisms are very cost-effective and successful for this population. 9. Chronically homeless people typically have one or more disabilities. Of those able to work, few are able to earn enough money to afford housing and they often require supportive services in order to succeed. C. Impacts on the community 1. The shortage of housing that is affordable for low-income people negatively impacts the whole community. 2. Homeless people frequently use the emergency room for primary medical care. The costs for their services are indirectly passed on to the community. The average daily cost of an emergency room visit is $362.00. 3. Homelessness often results in a mental health crisis. The average daily cost at Sacred Heart Hospital’s Johnson Unit (psychiatric) is $858.00 and the average stay is 7-10 days. The costs of this treatment are indirectly passed on to the community. People in stable housing are less likely to experience a crisis. Those in supportive housing, which can be provided for about $850.00 per month, are less likely to need hospitalization. 4. The average daily cost for one person at the Lane County jail is $359.00, including shelter, food, arrest, booking and custody. 5. All school children in a class are impacted by the presence of homeless children. Homeless children have special needs and when compared to other students they command a disproportionate amount of attention from teachers and staff. 6. The success of children, in school and life, is tied to having a stable home. 7. Children who miss classes or frequently move from school to school struggle to learn the basics. Illiteracy is the single greatest predictor of future criminal behavior. 8. The status quo is a costly option. The community is directly and indirectly paying the price of homelessness through increased medical and hospital costs, jail costs, public safety impacts 22 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page (including emergency and non-emergency calls to 9-1-1), illegal camping, paramedic responses, and park clean up. 23 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page Revenue Options Reviewed by the Committee DESCRIPTION OF TAX POTENTIAL ANNUAL YIELD REVENUE OPTION Admission Tax An excise tax on the sales price of admission to an event A 1% tax on movie and Hult Center tickets, or performance. video and DVD rental charges, and golf and bowling fees is estimated to yield $175,000 in 2002. Business/Corporate A flat or graduated tax based on business net income A 1% tax on the income of corporations Income Tax earned within the City; a subset of this tax could be based doing business in Eugene would generate on net corporate income earned within the City. approximately $2.7 million in FY03. A 10% State corporate income tax surcharge would generate approximately $1.8 million in FY03. Business License A fee on businesses for the privilege of operating within Based on Oregon Employment Department Fee the City. Usually a set dollar amount. records, there are roughly 5,800 businesses registered in Eugene area zip codes. Based on Salems proposed fee schedule and = estimate of business size distribution, a business registration tax would generate an estimated $1.4 million per year in Eugene in 2002. Employer Per A business privilege tax based upon the number of persons Gross Revenue Generation per $10 Per- Capita Tax employed in the City. Capita Tax is approximately $730,000. General Fund Funding could be provided through the City of Eugene Would vary. Allocation budget process to homelessness and housing issues, prioritized against other competing needs. General Sales Tax A tax on the retail sales of goods and services (usually a Based on 2001 data, a 1% sales tax would percentage), to be collected at the point of sale. generate approximately $19.5 million. Gross Receipts Tax A flat or variable tax on the gross income of all companies A City gross receipts tax of .02% would have engaging in business in the City. raised an estimated $2 million in calendar year 2001. This estimate is based on taxing all businesses and therefore may need to be reduced for any exempted businesses. New Construction A flat fee or percentage charge on new construction In 2001, a 10% surcharge on building permit Fee activity. fees would generate $308,000. Payroll Tax A tax on wages and salaries earned within the City. The approximate private payroll figure would be $2.4 billion. With a 0.1% payroll tax on private employers, gross revenue would be approximately $2.4 million. Personal Income A tax on earned and unearned income received by In 2001: $31 million with 1% tax on Tax residents of Eugene and non-residents earning income in Adjusted Gross Income or $1.8 million with Eugene. 1% surcharge on State Income Tax Property Taxes A temporary local option levy or general obligation bonds Varies Real Estate A fee is collected when taxable real estate is sold; could be Preempted by state law. Transfer Tax a flat fee or a percentage. Restaurant Tax An excise tax collected at restaurant facilities. Based on estimates developed for the 1993 proposed restaurant tax and assuming 6% average growth, a restaurant tax would generate approximately $2.3 million in 2001. Sales Tax on A tax on the retail sales of select goods and services Would vary depending upon the goods and Selected Items (usually a percentage), to be collected at the point of sale. services selected as the tax base. Utility A utility bill surcharge to be paid by electrical, natural gas, In 2001, a .2% tax rate would generate Consumption Tax and cable television utility customers in Eugene approximately $2 million. 24 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page Blue Ribbon Committee on Financing for Homelessness Meeting Schedule Committee Charge: Examine the local impact of homelessness, identify strategies and make recommendations to the City Council related to new funding and finance options.” MONTH TOPIC May 2 1) Welcome and Committee Charge – Mayor Piercy 2) Introductions and ground rules 3) Presentation: Why is homelessness an issue in Eugene? 4) Identifying questions, concerns, requests for information June 6 1. Current funding processes Priscilla Gould, United Way of Lane County ? Steve Manela and Pearl Wolfe, Human Services ? Commission (HSC) Mike White, Housing and Community Services ? Agency (HACSA) Stephanie Jennings, City of Eugene ? 2. Overview of financing alternatives City of Eugene Finance Division July 2 1. City Impacts Police, Lt. Carolyn McDermed ? Michelle Mortensen, PSO ? Kevin Finney, Public Works ? CAHOOTS, David Zeiss, White Bird Clinic ? 2. Public Health Impacts Paul Wagner, Sacred Heart E.R. ? Bob Dritz, White Bird Clinic (not confirmed) III. Subcommittee visits (subcommittees will meet in July) 1)Homeless youth issues 2) homeless adult issues ? 3) transitional and permanent housing issues August 2 Finance Subcommittee 25 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page MONTH TOPIC September 5 1. Permanent and Transitional Housing Existing Tools, current capacity, barriers to increasing productions Norton Cabell, HPB Susan Ban, ShelterCare Terry McDonald, SVDP Jim McCoy, HACSA September 5 2. Reports and insights from site visits and tours (cont) 3. Report from Finance Committee 4. Selecting a date for a second meeting in October October 3 2. Community Pulse Ed Weeks, U of O Jenny Ulum Janet Byrd, Portland 3. Report from Finance Subcommittee Criteria for selecting a funding source November 7 1. Children, Youth and Special Populations Including impacts on schools and challenges for people with disabilities Lessons from Portland and other Oregon ? communities Creative financing options for housing ? Recommendations: Priority activities to be prioritized for funding December 5 Review of Draft Report Financing Options – Deliberations February 6, 2008 Review of Draft Report April 2 Review of Draft Report 26 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY ISSUE STATUS REPORT Develop a Strategy to Help the Homeless in Eugene Contact: Angel Jones, City Manager Pro Tem, 682-5336 Richie Weinman, Staff Lead, 682-5533 Reporting period: October – December 2007 DESCRIPTION Eight strategic issues were identified at the February 2005 retreat of the City of Eugene’s Mayor, City Council, and Executive Managers. One strategic issue was to “Develop a strategy to help the homeless in Eugene.” Council wanted to determine the City’s future role in addressing this complex, international issue. The inter-departmental Homelessness Action Planning Team worked to develop a three- to five-year action plan. This team was expanded to include staff from the Lane County Human Services Commission and representatives of the City’s Human Rights Commission. Mayor Piercy frequently attended the meetings. Council reviewed this plan on two occasions in 2005 (July 13 and November 30) and approved the work plan. Council has since reaffirmed this goal for 2006 and 2007. On May 17, 2006, Council reviewed options to address homelessness. Following a recommendation to the Budget Committee, council approved a series of “one-time” appropriations and provided direction on the next steps for stable, sustainable funding. OUTCOMES Since homelessness has the potential to touch every resident and neighborhood within the City, council acknowledged staff’s expanded definition of “the homeless” to include community members who are “at risk” of becoming homeless because they cannot afford food and shelter. Homelessness is not isolated to Eugene; therefore, the City of Eugene needs a great deal of public assistance, especially from Lane County, the State of Oregon, and the Federal Government. The following goals and actions were taken by the City’s staff team in order to make recommendations to the City Council: 1. Examined ways to more efficiently deliver services with existing resources based on the evaluation of City service delivery to homeless/at risk populations. Result: Beginning in 2005, service delivery improvements include providing library cards to homeless people and improving the way the City addresses homeless camping complaints. 27 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page 2. Assembled community stakeholders and formed a “collaborative base” to identify the most critical areas of need. Result: Ongoing collaboration with stakeholders which include, but are not limited to, homeless/at-risk community members, City & County staff, the Eugene Human Rights Commission, Housing Policy Board, Human Services Commission, Commission on Children and Families, elected officials, past and present service providers, and business owners. 3. Engaged homeless/at risk community members—listened to their views, identified their needs, and determined what enhancements they felt would provide the greatest benefit. Result: Completed in 2005 and 2006 by the staff team and again by the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee. 4. Trained City staff on issues relating to homeless/at risk community members. Result: Total attendance at staff trainings on homelessness has now exceeded 300 with 34 on the wait list for the next training. More detailed training is offered for City employees and work groups who are more likely to have frequent, daily interaction with homeless/at risk persons. 5. Prioritized the issues of most critical need and/or areas where the City and the “collaborative base” of partners can deliver the most effective assistance, taking into account discretionary funding and the potential to re-deploy resources to higher priority areas. Result: Completed by staff team and reviewed by City Council. Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee is expected to recommend a more comprehensive study of these issues. 6. The staff team presented the highest priority action items to the Mayor and City Council, and requested that Council inform the City Manager as to which options should be implemented. Result: Completed in May 2007 7. Assigned appropriate City staff and other applicable resources to short- and long- term options approved by the Mayor and City Council. Result: Ongoing 28 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page PROGRESS SINCE LAST REPORT Through the budget process, Eugene allocated $150,000 to address homelessness in three different categories: 1) funds for prevention, 2) transportation assistance, and 3) day services for homeless people. Transportation assistance is allocated over a two- year period. Prevention The following table summarizes the results of prevention allocations since July 1, 2007. Note: Fewer services occurred in the first quarter, because funds were not contracted until September 18, 2007. PROVIDER HOUSEHOLDS AMOUNT AVG. SPENT YTD YTD SERVED SPENT PER CLIENT SERVED AVERAGE SHELTERCARE 17 $4,914 $289 24 $366 ST. VINCENT 18 $8,310 $462 22 $455 CATHOLIC CS 11 $5,177 $345 16 $421 LOOK. GLASS 7 $3,156 $450 14 $365 TOTAL 53 $21,557 $406 76 $415 Examples of assistance: ? During the same month, a 17-year-old female’s rent was raised and hours cut at work. She received assistance during the next month, which gave her enough time to secure a better paying job with more hours. ? A disabled senior woman, who lives on a fixed income of $265 a month on Social Security, had been living with her young adult son. He moved to Florida to seek better career options and left her on her own. He was paying most of the rent and intended to return to live with his mom because he knew she couldn't manage financially on her own. The family assistance broke down, and City funds helped her with her rent and case workers helped her set goals. One of her goals was to be in low-income housing that was be based on her income. She was given lists of places to try, and about a week later, secured a place based on her income. She is very happy that she does not have to depend on her son. ? A 54-year-old Veteran, who suffers with Hepatitis-C, must start chemotherapy, which can last up to a year. He will be very sick for quite awhile. His 27-year-old daughter moved in to help take care of him. In January, she will begin going to college and, with assistance of financial aid, will pay the rent until his VA disability and VA pension start in February or March. City funds provided $345 for the one month they needed help to bridge a financial gap. This stabilized the household and prevented eviction. 29 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page ? An Elderly woman’s debit card was stolen causing her to get behind in her rent. This situation was verified by her bank. She was provided bridge funding to pay her rent until the credit card situation was resolved. ? A woman had a two-week layoff at work. She works full time but got behind on all bills. City funding provided the financial assistance necessary. ? A client with epilepsy had to miss work because of repeated seizures. The client is now back to work but got behind in rent and couldn’t catch up. City funding provided emergency assistance. ? A client whose car broke down, used his rent money for vehicle repair because the vehicle was critical to keeping job. Emergency funds prevented eviction. Transportation Assistance LTD provided half-price bus tokens through City of Eugene funding through ten agencies and through 23 separate programs that serve homeless people. The total allocated by LTD: October 2007 $2,009 November 2007 $2,702 December 2007 $2,234 2007 Full-Year Total $25,710 Day Services City of Eugene funding enabled First Place Family Center to increase its summer and weekend hours and the Eugene Service Station to operate in the evening and on weekends. CHALLENGES Homelessness impacts the community in numerous ways and the homeless population is as diverse as the city itself. There are numerous approaches to addressing the problem. Among them are prevention, affordable housing, and services for homeless people of all ages and conditions. The homeless problem has increased over the last 25 years. This can be attributed to severe reductions in funding of various programs and to wages failing to keep up with housing prices. A close-to-home example of cuts includes the City’s Community Development Block Grant which has experienced a 20 percent reduction over the last six years (a number that is even more significant if inflation is factored in). Solving the homeless problem requires a combination of creativity and funding. 30 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page The Federal Government is focusing financial efforts on the ten percent of people nationally who meet HUD’s narrow definition of “chronically homeless” (chronically homeless is actually 16 percent of Lane County’s homeless population). While it is true that this 16 percent often costs the various systems significant resources, the ability to help the 84 percent of situational homeless remains a crisis. If left unassisted, many are likely to become chronically homeless. Lane County’s budget crisis, although mostly averted in 2007, could still result in widespread and significant budget cuts to providers of services in 2008 and beyond. Day and night shelter, sobering and detox, and other critical treatment programs could either close or be curtailed. These cuts will impact public health and safety in Eugene. In addition, a Federal law now limits households to five years of benefits under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. [This program used to be known as “welfare”.] For the first time, the five-year window is closing for many households. This will have serious repercussions. INTERMEDIATE MEASURES Identify and Track: ? The number of meetings with homeless community members, service providers, homeless advocates, City and County commissions and other key stakeholders to determine and prioritize gaps and needs. ? The amount of City budgets allocated to programs that directly help the homeless. ? The number of City staff who have completed training around interaction with homeless community members. Highlights of the quarter On June 25, 2007, just prior to the quarter, Council reviewed the homelessness goal, and members expressed support for both the measurable outcomes that have been achieved and the continued direction for the coming year. The Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee for Financing the Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness has been the priority activity of the quarter. Key meetings and events this quarter: Homeless Action Planning Team (staff) 1 meeting Blue Ribbon Committee 2 meetings Blue Ribbon Steering committee 2 meetings 31 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page FINAL OUTCOME MEASURES Community indicators – measures which reflect the complexity of this issue require the support of many organizations and individuals in addition to the City: ? Number of beds available to homeless community members, by type of person/group served (youth/singles/family). City Measures – measures that are mainly or wholly controlled by City staff or City elected officials. ? Amount of City budget authority allocated to programs that directly help the homeless, including those dollars allocated to service providers. ? Number of City staff who have completed training around interaction with homeless community members. ? Number of trainings and other actions undertaken by the City to educate and address homelessness and understanding of homelessness. ? Number of policies changed to benefit homeless people in Eugene. Next Steps The “Blue Ribbon Committee” will complete its work during the first quarter of 2008. The work plan involves developing an understanding of the complexity of issues followed by consideration of funding options. Council can then consider the recommendations and determine next steps related to funding. Committee members have discovered that the depth and complexity of needs are significant, and that narrowing the focus or identifying the best approach to finding solutions is challenging. Additionally, the committee has met with experts who advise that the public will likely respond more favorably to discussions of “housing needs” rather than “homelessness”. One expert compared the terms to “poor” and “broke.” Housing needs can be interpreted as a temporary problem while homelessness creates images of permanence. Project Homeless Connect is being planned for February 7, 2008 at the Lane County Fairgrounds/Events Center. The organizing team is now meeting regularly to organize this event. More information is available at: www.homelessconnect.org. The Honorary Chairs for the upcoming event are Mayor Piercy, Mayor Leiken, Commissioner Stewart and 2008 United Way Chair, Tracy Lampman. 32 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page omments Submitted by Committee Members C Hugh Massengill: I cannot support this proposal. As indicated by the person presenting it to the Blue Ribbon Committee (John) , it deliberately will not help single people, and it will deliberately not be used to increase emergency shelter for the greatest mass of the chronically homeless; single male adults. The emergency shelter described is mostly for families. If my "bad old days" were to come back, there is very little in this that would be of help to me. There is very little in this that would have helped the hundreds of single men who lived with me at the Mission. This allows the Mission to be the de-Facto city shelter. It allows city police to cite/arrest homeless people for the "crime" of being homeless and sleeping on the street or in the park, even though they have no place to go. It allows the city/police to force homeless single people to live in the Mission or be arrested. It is, in effect, Lane County's 10 year plan to end chronic homelessness, and Lane County will be doing nothing to help the very poor single adults. I think it might be better to do nothing and stay frustrated than pretend to do something that really won't help the great mass of homeless. It hinges on waiting two years and getting the voters to go for a serial levy, and that is iffy at best. I really do see the problems in attacking the problem in a more substantive way. Still, this reads as if it will help those on the street corners or sleeping in parks, but in truth, it will do little if anything in that regard. So, with the greatest of respect for those who drew this up, and with the greatest of respect for the others around the table, I cannot support it. John VanLandingham I write to respond to Hugh regarding the issue of more shelter for homeless single adults (primarily men) in our Blue Ribbon Committee Report. I do this for the (hoped-for) benefit of those who were not able to attend our last meeting, on April 2. At that meeting, Hugh argued for more single adult shelter, and I argued against. A motion to amend the report to call for more shelter failed on a 5 to 5 vote. (To be specific, something lawyers are often loathe to do, the motion was to remove a statement in the report providing that the majority of the committee does not support more shelter.) Before I describe my reasons for opposing that amendment let me note that I very much appreciate Hugh's gentle persistence in advocating for more shelter. Here is why I oppose calling for more emergency shelter for singles in our report: 1. To be blunt, more shelter is not going to happen, and we would mislead readers and voters were we to suggest that it is. I don't say that because I think that shelter is a bad idea. I've advocated for increased shelter many times over my 30 years of doing this work. I say that 33 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page because we do not have the money -- even with our proposed new funding -- or the will to provide more shelter. a. Emergency shelter is very expensive, because it has to be staffed 24/7. As a reflection of this, we have actually decreased our existing emergency shelter units for families over the past 20 years because we cannot pay to operate the units. b. Emergency shelter is incredibly difficult to site, especially for single men. I believe that we could not site the Mission in this community if it had to move from its current location under the Chambers overpass. There are others in our group who know this subject better than I, such as Ron Chase. But I have been involved in 4 very contentious efforts to site homeless shelters in Eugene, the "homeless moms" of the old Jefferson Pool site (which led to the Opportunity Shelter, now run as a day access center by SVDP for homeless families) and 3 tries over 3 years to site a homeless campground. None were successful except on a temporary basis; we could not find an acceptable permanent site. c. I understand the concerns about the Eugene Mission -- about the lack of accessibility, the forced religion, the "go-to-the-Mission-or-be-arrested attitude of some police, the separation of teenage boys from their mothers. But I suggest to you that Eugene voters will not support a tax to provide something that the Mission provides with no taxpayer support. 2. So, given my assumption that we do not now and will not ever have enough money to both fund more shelter and build new transitional and permanent affordable housing units, I strongly support putting our limited funding into preventive services -- to help people, including single adults, not become homeless -- and into new transitional or permanent affordable housing units, and not into more shelter. a. If we don't, we will only be able to keep providing shelter. We will never make any headway on meeting the need for more affordable housing. . b. Shelter is not the answer for homeless people, be they families or singles. Homeless people don't want emergency shelter, living in a dorm-like setting with dozens of other people. They want a home, a private space, just like everyone else. c. Shelter is also not the answer for helping homeless people get and succeed with alcohol and drug treatment. Those services are not going to work well in a shelter setting. Richie recently circulated the Portland article about Portland's version of Million Dollar Murray. The article described the success of helping that "Murray" go into detox, and then stay clean and sober -- in a permanent housing unit, not in a shelter. Finally, while I accept that our report, as it stands, lacks a call for more emergency shelter, it is unfair to say that it does nothing for homeless people, families or singles. We have had some significant success recently with prevention programs -- helping people avoid evictions. Prevention helps singles as well as families. And we have built new apartments for single adults, and can and should build more. Prevention and new housing are successes. But we need more money to do both. Is this a difficult choice? Yes, perhaps even unfair. But it's the choice we've got. Remember that our overall strategy in the report is to make a modest proposal for taxpayer support and then show the voters that we can use their money effectively and efficiently, so that they will trust us 34 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page with their money. We can't make that argument by putting all or most of the money into more shelter. But if we can succeed with this strategy, then we can seek support for more money, and do more with it, and make some headway. Will this strategy take time? Yes. It won't solve the problem in 1 or 2 or even 5 years. But let me remind you that some of us have been working on this issue for 20 years or more. Our last shot at getting significant public money in Eugene was more than 10 years ago. The time before that was in 1989. If we fail now, it will be a long time before we get another chance. Is this the best solution? No. Is it the best possible solution, the solution most likely to succeed with the voters and to produce positive change? I think yes. Mo Young: I’m not comfortable supporting the committee’s recommendations. I appreciate the need for affordable housing in the Eugene area, but the proposed plan addresses only a portion of the larger issue. Eugene needs to have a secular emergency shelter. We are not effectively serving homeless people who are single. Also, I am not confident that a tax levy will pass and I would like to see a plan that does not depend on the will of the tax payers. Ron Chase: Virtually every word that Hugh wrote I have spoken at some point over the past 20 years, and I am in total agreement with Hugh's condemnation of how single homeless people are treated and how little our efforts will change that even in the distant future. This will be true even if our efforts are successful and we do pass a serial levy dedicated to developing housing and funding homeless services and prevention. Despite the fact that some of the proposed services will provide some benefit to homeless single people, it will not alter the basic fact that they are offered a Hobson's choice when confronted by law enforcement for sleeping or camping illegally. It will not change the legal risk in which they find themselves and the harassment they endure for simply being too poor to afford shelter. Nevertheless, I stand by my vote for the reasons articulated by John. I do not believe that there is the political will on anyone's (Eugene, Springfield or Lane County) part to build a public shelter. I do not believe the public would vote for funds for that purpose. I believe that siting a shelter is damn near impossible in today's political/social environment. Most of all, I have more first hand experience that I want in seeing what happens when community-based committees make recommendations that don't have mainstream support or realistic funding possibilities. These reports end up on shelves, never again to see the light of day. I desperately want something to come from this effort as imperfect as it might be. For those reasons, I can not support including a public shelter in our recommendations. 35 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page From my perspective, the "problem" is not the mission but rather the lack of a public "take people as they come" shelter to supplement what the mission does. To get a true feel for the Mission I would suggest spending a night there unannounced, experiencing it as a guest would. Touring a mostly empty building during the day may give a person an academic understanding of what they do and their structure and rules, but the experience is much more revealing. I do not mean that as a cryptic suggestion that bad things go on there, but rather that the experience is difficult to explain. Having said that, perhaps making the mission more accessible with public funding could be worked out, and perhaps Ernie (or Lynn, whom I don't know) would be amenable to that idea. Ernie is a wonderful human being whose commitment to what he does is remarkable. We have had many conversations over the years and he has been very consistent in discussing what he does and why he does it. But, as John stated, he has been battered around some in the public arena and may be reluctant to get involved in public process. I do not think having treatment or other interventions there is a viable option at this time for the reasons already discussed. I had intended to respond to Hugh's disappointment with the committee's failure to recommend a public shelter, and still intend to, but John eloquently stated much of what I would have said. 36 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page ATTACHMENT C A Brief Summary of Local Homelessness Current conditions related to homelessness Homelessness is part of the affordable housing continuum and is an acute symptom of poverty. In many cases the provision of affordable housing could be an adequate response to the problem. In other cases, when a medical condition or disability is involved, services are also needed. In our community, one could argue that homelessness is a local problem. 95% of the local homeless population is rooted in the area as opposed to coming here from distant communities. This has been confirmed through Lane County’s examination of data from service providers. Homelessness is a challenging but solvable problem that is destructive to families and deeply hurts individuals. It results in long-term negative consequences. These consequences are felt through the public safety and justice system, education system and public health programs. The local homeless population can be generally divided into two groups, chronic and situational. About 84% of the local homeless population is short term and situational. With assistance they can become re-housed and stabilized. The remaining 16% are chronic, typically involve a disability, and their impact is the most costly to the community. . Despite local efforts, homelessness is now increasing here and elsewhere. Local service providers and school districts are reporting new case increases of 33% to over 50% compared to the same period a year ago. For example, staff at 4J and Bethel school districts each report a one-third increase of homeless families on their caseloads. Both also report a notable spike in currently housed families looking for help as they face foreclosure or eviction. This problem is not isolated to Eugene. Portland, after reporting reductions in homelessness for two years, now reports that homelessness is up 33% over four years ago. These increases are largely a product of community economic conditions rather than a systemic failure of assistance programs. Programs do not have the resources to meet the increasing demands. One local service provider explained that the reductions in funding for support and treatment programs, such as Lane County Mental Health, are resulting in increased homelessness among people who have significant challenges to overcome. The funding crisis has forced local agencies to either curtail programs or refocus them. For instance, ShelterCare has “sold” many of their emergency housing beds to Veterans Services and mental health programs because they need the funding to keep the doors open. This leaves far fewer emergency shelter beds for families with children. Local homelessness providers cooperate with a centralized emergency shelter waiting list. That list now has 239 people (58 families) on it, representing a wait of at least 15 weeks. Estimate of local homeless populations Based on the annual one-night count, on any given day in Lane County 2,111 people are homeless -- on the streets or in temporary shelter. Of these, 594 are unsheltered. In a typical year, approximately 2,000 homeless children are enrolled in Lane County schools, with about half in Eugene. Looking Glass identifies about 2,000 unduplicated homeless youth annually. In 2007, 8,813 unduplicated homeless individuals sought social services though Lane County Human Services Commission funded programs. The most common and obvious reason for homelessness is poverty. According to the 2000 census, housing costs are no longer affordable to 20,000 very-low income local households (whose incomes are less than 50% of area median and are eligible for subsidized housing). Fewer than 4500 subsidized housing units exist. A household on the edge, financially, is often pushed over the edge by a healthcare situation/emergency and thus Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090126\S090126B.doc becomes homeless. Over 50% of renters in Eugene are “rent burdened” because they are paying more than 30% of their income for housing. People who experience situational homelessness often become chronically homeless if their initial crisis is not addressed, or if they are unable to remedy the situations that placed them at risk. Approximately 16% of our local homeless population is “chronic”, compared to 10% nationally. The HUD definition of chronic homelessness is an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for more a year or more or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years. Social service agencies and public schools are reporting a significant spike in homelessness during the past six months. They attribute this to the downturn in the local economy and they report seeing a clientele comprised of many people who have never faced this sort of financial hardship. Characteristics of some homeless people Multiple diagnosis: With adults and youth an increasingly common challenge is people with multiple diagnoses including psychiatric disabilities such as bi-polar disorders or schizophrenia, developmental disabilities, numerous physical disabilities, and addictions. Many in this group are chronically homeless. Often, they do not have the capability of earning enough money to afford local housing. Youth, some of whom have mental/emotional, developmental or physical disabilities, are runaways, throwaways or are often homeless because their entire family is homeless. They are on the street or choosing dangerous options for numerous reasons. Many have experienced abuse at home. If not helped, they often age into becoming homeless adults, where they garner even less sympathy and are considered more hard-core. Families with children are comprised of both single parent and two parent families. They are often homeless due to financial crisis brought on by a variety of factors, sometimes but not always, due to poor choices. The economic downturn is resulting in more homelessness among people who have previously had stable employment but are now either laid off or their hours have been reduced. It is common for at least one adult in a homeless household to still have a job. Their children are (or can become) homeless youth. One-time emergency payments prevent homelessness and a cascade of other financial problems. Domestic Violence; another common cause of homelessness, is a woman fleeing an abusive situation in order to protect herself or her children. Of the families with children who use the local emergency shelter system, more than one-fourth are homeless because they are fleeing a violent situation at home. Various national studies have found that between 25% and 50% of homeless women fled a domestic violence situation. Single adults become homeless for numerous reasons. Many are disabled through a job or military injury. Some have experienced abuse or homelessness for much of their lives. Others struggle with addictions. Some simply do not possess the skills to earn enough money to afford a place to live. Veterans are identified separately because they have unique situational problems. Many are profoundly impacted by post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) or other emotional and physical disabilities. Many have come back from war and find it impossible to recreate the life they left, become estranged from society and turn to self-medication, using alcohol or drugs to remedy symptoms of distress and anxiety. Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090126\S090126B.doc Income Limits 2008 HOUSHOLD SIZE MEDIAN INCOME 80% OF MEDIAN 50% OF MEDIAN (LOW INCOME) (VERY LOW) 1 $38,750 $31,100 $19,450 2 $44,375 $35,500 $22,200 3 $49,937 $39,950 $25,000 4 $55,500 $44,400 $29,950 5` $59,937 $47,950 $29,950 Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090126\S090126B.doc ATTACHMENT D City of Eugene, Low Income Housing and Homelessness FAST FACTS HOMELESSNESS “Hardworking people should be able to afford housing and still have money left for basic necessities.” 11,113 Number of homeless individuals (9,134 households) who received social services in Lane County . 1,814 were homeless when they sought health care at Springfield’s Riverstone Clinic in calendar year 2007. 1,600 Approximate number of individuals who actually received emergency shelter or housing assistance in Lane County in 2005-06. 1,965 Number of homeless children enrolled in Lane County schools in 2006-07. About half are in Eugene. 1,100 Number of homeless and runaway youth seen by Looking Glass in 2005-06. 2,111 Number of homeless people on the streets or living in temporary shelters (combined 2008 “one- night shelter count” and 2007 street count). 594 of those counted were unsheltered. 12% Percentage of the 38,000 Lane County Veterans who are homeless (4,560 in 2006). 95% Percentage of local homeless households who receive services who are from this community. 16% Percentage of Lane County homeless who are “chronic” under the federal definition (continually homeless for a year or more or 4 episodes of homelessness in the past 3 years and an unaccompanied homeless person with a disabling condition.) Nationally about 10% all homeless people are chronic. 11% Percentage of families who request emergency shelter who receive it during the same month as their request. 5,000 Approximate number of domestic violence calls made to Womenspace each year. Each call represents a person who becomes potentially displaced or homeless. Womenspace has 15 shelter beds. HIDDEN COSTS OF HOMELESSNESS “Housing gives people a chance to build better lives. To succeed you need a place to call home.” $389 Hospital emergency room services daily average cost per visit. (Peace Health). (2007) The cost at McKenzie Willamette is approximately $300. $996 Johnson Unit Psychiatric Unit average daily shelter cost per bed.(2007) $220 Buckley House detoxification daily average cost per bed. (3-4 days alcohol detox; 4-5 days heroin detox) (2007) $379 Lane County Jail average daily cost, including $134 for shelter, food, processing and transport and $245 for the cost of arrest on warrant, jail book-in, and custody. (2008) HOUSING “It’s only fair that everyone has a safe, decent place to live.” 20,000 Number of households in Eugene and Springfield area that are eligible for subsidized housing, according to the 2000 census. This number doubled from the 1990 census. 4,500 Number of households in Eugene and Springfield area that receive a housing subsidy. $626.00 Monthly cost of an average pre-1988 two-bedroom rental in Eugene. The average cost for a newer two-bedroom rental is $804. For a new three bedroom it’s $967. (Source of data: Duncan & Brown Real Estate Analysis, November 2005. The Fall 2006 survey doesn’t report specific rent levels but notes that rents have raised $10-40 per month.) <1% Overall vacancy rate in Eugene-Springfield (when 3 new and not fully leased complexes are removed from the survey. If these are included the rate is 2.04%). This is the lowest since 1994. Vacancies rate by type: studio is 1.05%, 1 bedroom is 1.11%, 2 bedrooms is 2.13%. As a result, rents are rising and lower income households with credit barriers or the inability to pay up-front costs find housing even more challenging. (Source of data: Duncan & Brown Real Estate Analysis, Fall 2006) $434 Affordable rent for a one-person household earning full time minimum wage ($8.40 as of January 1, 2009), including utilities, if 30% of household income is allocated for housing. $16,536 Annual gross income for a minimum wage full-time worker ($7.95/hr.). This is 43% of area median income. $49,326 Area median income for a 3 person household. Very-low-income is 50%: $24,600. (HUD 2007). $24,000 Typical per-unit local subsidy for new construction of very-low-income rental housing (including federal CDBG and HOME grant funds, fee contributions, and Lane County Road funds. Subsidies on projects range from as low as $7,000 per unit to as high as $50,000 per unit.) $2.19 Subsidy per unit/per day when averaged over 30 years at a $24,000 local subsidy. For the average 3 ¢ person household this is 67 per person. Projects remain viable much longer than 30 years. $500,000+ Cost of a typical acre of medium density zoned land (R2) in Eugene. In 1999 an acre would sell for $100,000; in 1994, $40,000 and in 1990 it was hard to find a buyer at $20,000. Now it is hard to find an acre to purchase. 1,567 Number of subsidized housing units built, acquired, or in advanced planning in Eugene since 1989. 2,000+ Number of housing units rehabilitated with City of Eugene loan support since 1989. $10,000+ Typical cost to rehabilitate a housing unit through Eugene’s loan program. th For More Information: Richie Weinman, City of Eugene Planning and Development Department 99 W. 10 Ave. Eugene, Or 97401; 541 682-5533 richie.d.weinman@ci.eugene.or.us [Aug 12, 2008] ATTACHMENT E Lane County’s Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness Goal 1. Create new permanent housing beds for chronically homeless persons. Goal 2. Increase success rate of homeless persons staying in permanent housing six months or more. Goals 3. Increase the success rate of homeless person moving from transitional housing to permanent housing Goal 4. Increase the success rate of homeless persons becoming employed and staying employed. Goal 5. Ensure that the Continuum of Care has a data collection system Goal 6. Coordinate regional efforts to end homelessness by the year 2015 Goal 7. Improve the continuum of homeless services Goal 8. Increase permanent affordable housing in Lane County Goal 9. Stop discharging vulnerable populations into homelessness due to a lack of safe options (including permanent housing) Goal 10. Increase services to homeless youth to prepare them for independent living. CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY ISSUE STATUS REPORT Develop a Strategy to Help the Homeless in Eugene Contact: Sarah Medary, Assistant City Manager 682-5336 Richie Weinman, Staff Lead, 682-5533 DESCRIPTION Reporting period: July – September 2008 Eight strategic issues were identified at the February 2005 retreat for the City of Eugene’s Mayor, City Council, and Executive Managers. One strategic issue was to “Develop a strategy to help the homeless in Eugene.” Council wanted to determine the City’s future role in addressing this complex, international issue. The inter-departmental Homelessness Action Planning Team worked to develop a three- to five-year action plan and was then expanded to include Lane County Human Services Commission staff and representation from the Human Rights Commission. Mayor Piercy frequently attended the meetings. Council reviewed this plan on two occasions in 2005 (July 13 and November 30) and approved the work plan. Council has since reaffirmed this goal each year. On May 17, 2006, Council reviewed options to address homelessness, recommended to the Budget Committee a series of “one-time” appropriations and provided direction on the next steps for stable, sustainable funding. Most of these funding allocations have been renewed annually. Additionally, Council authorized the Mayor to appoint a committee to recommend a future funding source. In 2007 the Council’s Homeless Initiative was expanded to “Continue to work with our community partners to end chronic homelessness in 10 years.” Focus includes Project Homeless Connect, the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee to Finance Homelessness and Housing Programs, and addressing the specific needs of women, youth and children. Because homelessness has the potential to touch every resident and area within the City, the scope of this goal was expanded by Council to include community members who are at risk of becoming homeless because they cannot afford food and shelter. The action plan includes identifying gaps in current services, promoting public awareness, fostering collaboration with stakeholders, and proposing appropriate actions. Homelessness is a broad community issue that is not isolated to Eugene. The City relies on assistance from Lane County, the State of Oregon, and the Federal Government. The following goals and actions were undertaken by City staff and community partners. OUTCOMES 1. Examined ways to more efficiently deliver services with existing resources based on the evaluation of City service delivery to homeless/at risk populations. Page 1 of 8 Result: Beginning in 2005, service delivery improvements include providing library cards to homeless people and improving the way the City addresses homeless camping complaints. 2. Assembled community stakeholders and formed a “collaborative base” to identify the most critical areas of need. Result: Ongoing collaboration with stakeholders which include, but are not limited to, homeless/at-risk community members, City & County staff, the Eugene Human Rights Commission, Housing Policy Board, Human Services Commission, Commission on Children and Families, elected officials, past and present service providers, and business owners. 3. Engaged homeless/at risk community members—listened to their views, identified their needs, and determined what enhancements they felt would provide the greatest benefit. Result: Completed in 2005 and 2006 by the staff team and by the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee in 2007. 4. Trained City staff on issues relating to homeless/at risk community members. Result: Total attendance at staff trainings on homelessness has now exceeded 450, with the most recent training occurring in April 2008. Job- specific trainings are offered for City employees and work groups who are more likely to have frequent and daily interaction with homeless/at risk persons. 5. Prioritized the issues of most critical need and/or areas where the City and the “collaborative base” of partners can deliver the most effective assistance, taking into account discretionary funding and the potential to re-deploy resources to higher priority areas. Result: Completed by staff team and reviewed by City Council. Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee is recommending a more comprehensive study of these issues. 6. Planned and executed Project Homeless Connect (PHC) as an event that provided direct service to homeless guests, engaged and educated the community, and fostered improved communication between service providers. Result: The success of the 2006 event was eclipsed in 2007, when 1,158 guests attended and were assisted by 602 community volunteers and 281 service providers. PHC was funded by 185 cash and in-kind donors. This will become an annual event, with the next event scheduled for March 8, 2009. 7. The staff team presented the highest priority action items to the Mayor and City Council and requested that Council inform the City Manager as to which options should be implemented. Result: Most recently completed in May 2007. The next work session with City Council is scheduled for November 26, 2008. Page 2 of 8 8. Assigned appropriate City staff and other applicable resources to short - and long- term options approved by the Mayor and City Council. Result: Ongoing. PROGRESS SINCE LAST REPORT Trends The economic downturn is having a profound impact on homelessness. Providers are seeing both an increased demand and a different clientele. For instance, St. Vincent dePaul’s social services programs are seeing a 30% increase in requests for assistance across the board, including rent, utilities, and food boxes. They report seeing many people who are very new to requesting assistance. In the first few days of October, 2008 they had 1,500 requests for EWEB energy assistance and could only help 320. ShelterCare reports that calls for homeless prevention assistance have doubled from last year to this year. Last year they received 30 calls during an average week – which at the time was considered to be a lot. This year during the same period they are receiving 60 calls a week. The First Place Family Center reports a significant influx of homeless families that are totally new to the system and have previously had a long history of stable housing. Additionally, the City is experiencing an increasing amount of complaints about on- street camping. Many campers have few options and the police have few tools to address the complaints. There are more tough cases where the campers are homeless and also afflicted with other diagnosis. They cause problems for neighbors and resist efforts to voluntarily relocate. During the most recent budget process, Eugene allocated $100,000 to address homelessness in two different categories: 1) funds for prevention and 2) day services for homeless people. Transportation assistance was not renewed but funding will continue during part of the next year because of carry over funds. Prevention The following table summarizes the results of prevention allocations since July 1, 2008. ShelterCare receives all of the funds from the City of Eugene and allocates them to other providers. No administrative funds were budgeted to accompany these dollars. Jul- Jul - Sept # Sept $ Jul - Sept Provider Served Spent Avg./Client Catholic Community 356.67 Services 3 1,070 Looking Glass - 0.00 New Roads 0 0 458.09 St. Vincent 11 5,039 Page 3 of 8 Jul- Jul - Sept # Sept $ Jul - Sept Provider Served Spent Avg./Client dePaul 209.92 ShelterCare 36 7,557 TOTAL 50 13,666 273.32 ShelterCare served 15 families with rent subsidies for an average of $415 per family. The remaining families received emergency utility payments ranging from $25 - $75 as an incentive to keep in contact with the program and continue to receive case management. Transportation Assistance, Lane Transit District LTD provided $1,857.25 worth one-fourth price bus tokens through City of Eugene funding through 25 separate programs that have been identified to serve homeless people. Funds are used to help people with transportation needs, particularly for critical appointments. Day Services First Place Family Center used City of Eugene funds to increase its summer and weekend hours. At First Place Family Center they provided weekend service to 184 people in July and 183 in August. This number was comparable to the same time last year. However, in September the number increased to 298, a dramatic increase. At the Eugene Service Station the following additional services were provided in the first quarter as a result of City of Eugene funding for extended hours. Requests Amount Total Visits 1,130 Showers 799 Meals 1,786 Laundry 999 Phone 412 Mail 544 Internet 17 Ltd bus tokens 377 Page 4 of 8 CHALLENGES Homelessness impacts the community in numerous ways and the homeless population is as diverse as the city itself. There are many approaches to addressing the problem. Among these are prevention, affordable housing, and services for homeless people of all ages and conditions. The homeless problem has increased over the last 25 years. This can be attributed to severe reductions in funding of various programs and to wages failing to keep up with housing prices. A close-to-home example of program cuts includes the City’s Community Development Block Grant which has experienced a 20 percent reduction over the last six years (a number that would be even greater if inflation was factored in). Solving the homeless problem requires a combination of creativity, discipline and funding. The Federal Government is focusing much of their funding on the ten percent of people nationally who meet HUD’s narrow definition of “chronically homeless” (chronically homeless is actually 16 percent of Lane County’s homeless population). While this 16 percent typically costs the various systems significant resources, the ability to help the 84 percent of local situationally homeless people remains a crisis. If left unassisted, many are likely to become chronically homeless. Lane County’s budget crisis is not solved and is expected to result in significant impacts during the coming years. The long term result is likely to be widespread and significant budget cuts to service providers. Public Health, Veterans assistance, day and night shelters, sobering and detox, and other critical treatment programs could either close or be curtailed. The results will negatively impact public health and safety in Eugene. In addition, a federal law now limits households to five years of benefits under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. [This program used to be known as “welfare”.] For the first time, the five-year window is closing for many households. This will have serious repercussions. The recession has lead to lay-offs and a general belt-tightening in the community. Every social service provider is finding that their donations are down while their demand for services is increasing. Some report that the lay-offs are a “ticking time bomb” because when a person’s unemployment compensation runs out their housing is at risk. INTERMEDIATE MEASURES Identify and Track: ? The number of meetings with homeless community members, service providers, homeless advocates, City and County commissions and other key stakeholders to determine and prioritize gaps and needs. ? The amount of City budgets allocated to programs that directly help the homeless. Page 5 of 8 ? The number of City staff who have completed training around interaction with homeless community members. Highlights of the quarter ? The Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee for Financing the Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness completed its final report in April, 2008. Key meetings and events this quarter: Homeless Action Planning Team (staff) 0 meeting Blue Ribbon Committee 0 meetings The following are examples of fund recipients and the type of services they received: ShelterCare: Jane and John have three children. They live in Eugene to be near family and struggle each month to make ends meet. John was working two jobs that still did not equal full time work. The homeless prevention program was able to assist this family so that they remained in their home when they were unable to pay their rent. John’s work hours have now increased and Jane is attending a trade school and is also making and selling crafts to make ends meet. After six months of case management they are meeting their expenses on their own and have expressed their sincere gratitude to the case worker that assisted them. St. Vincent dePaul: a) Client was laid off work and got behind on the rent. They are now employed in a new job and the homeless prevention funds helped them catch up on rent so they could stabilize. b) Client was hospitalized for several weeks and not able to work. They have now qualified for disability payments and the HPP funds helped them stabilize. c) Client’s partner died and left them with half the income. HPP funds were used as a bridge until a roommate could be found to help with the rent. Note: Looking Glass did not provide funding to youth this quarter. They are operating with reduced services due to a fire at New Roads that has resulted in a temporary relocation. First Place Family Center: Mike & Alisa and their children, Heather (14), Amiee (13), McKenzie (11), and Lindsey (3), were living with and caring for their grandmother who was suffering from Alzheimer ’s disease. When the grandmother’s condition deteriorated to the point where she was making threats on her granddaughter’s life, she was placed in a care facility. The result was the loss of their housing and livelihood. Mike, a veteran, had significant, self-taught computer skills. The family stayed in our Interfaith Night Shelter Program while Mike looked for work. He is now employed as the IT Manager for a local company and the family is stable again. Gary & Linda, their adult disabled son, and six-year-old daughter, Dedra came to us after Gary lost his job and then their housing due to his health problems. Linda, the mom, had not worked outside the home for many years. Her Case Manager worked with her regarding possible employment opportunities for her to pursue. She entered CNA training which she completed with flying colors in spite of her anxieties about her ability to learn and find employment. She is now employed, loves her work, and the family again has stable housing. Eugene Service Station: Page 6 of 8 Two men who work for a local construction company come in Monday through Friday. They have missed their normal meal time because of work. They are fed a snack and they take a shower. They will be getting permanent housing in two weeks. A local man was kicked out of his house by his wife. He did not want to go to work without showering and shaving. He came in for breakfast and to clean up. About a week later his wife called and thanked SVDP. She said he was back home and was grateful that he did not have to go hungry and could show up for work, clean and with his pride in tact. FINAL OUTCOME MEASURES Community indicators – measures which reflect the complexity of this issue require the support of many organizations and individuals in addition to the City: ? Number of beds available to homeless community members, by type of person/group served (youth/singles/family). City Measures – measures that are mainly or wholly controlled by City staff or City elected officials. ? Amount of City budget authority allocated to programs that directly help the homeless, including those dollars allocated to service providers. ? Number of City staff who have completed training around interaction with homeless community members. ? Number of trainings and other actions undertaken by the City to educate and address homelessness and understanding of homelessness. ? Number of policies changed to benefit homeless people in Eugene. Next Steps The “Blue Ribbon Committee” completed its work in April 2008. Their recommendations will be forwarded to Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. The Lane County th Commissioners received a presentation on the proposals on July 30. A presentation to Eugene City Council will occur on November 26. A Springfield City Council presentation will likely take place in the fall or winter. Blue Ribbon Committee members concluded that the depth and complexity of needs are significant, and that narrowing the focus or identifying the best approach to finding solutions is challenging. Additionally, the committee met with experts who advise that the public will likely respond more favorably to discussions of “housing needs” rather than “homelessness”. The Committee also concluded that existing laws and policies contribute to the problem and recommended a future review. Project Homeless Connect will continue as an annual event that provides service, education, and community engagement. Reflecting the importance of community Page 7 of 8 solutions, Mayor Piercy, Mayor Leiken, Commissioner Stewart, and United Way Chair Tracy Lampman were honorary chairs. United Way is the fiscal sponsor. Lane County and Eugene staff serves as co-chairs, and Springfield staff coordinates logistics. Next year’s event will be held on Friday March 6, 2009, a day when public school is not in session for either Eugene 4J or Bethel, enabling better services to children. Page 8 of 8 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY ISSUE STATUS REPORT Develop a Strategy to Help the Homeless in Eugene Contact: Sarah Medary, Assistant City Manager 682-5336 Richie Weinman, Staff Lead, 682-5533 DESCRIPTION Reporting period: July – September 2008 Eight strategic issues were identified at the February 2005 retreat for the City of Eugene’s Mayor, City Council, and Executive Managers. One strategic issue was to “Develop a strategy to help the homeless in Eugene.” Council wanted to determine the City’s future role in addressing this complex, international issue. The inter-departmental Homelessness Action Planning Team worked to develop a three- to five-year action plan and was then expanded to include Lane County Human Services Commission staff and representation from the Human Rights Commission. Mayor Piercy frequently attended the meetings. Council reviewed this plan on two occasions in 2005 (July 13 and November 30) and approved the work plan. Council has since reaffirmed this goal each year. On May 17, 2006, Council reviewed options to address homelessness, recommended to the Budget Committee a series of “one-time” appropriations and provided direction on the next steps for stable, sustainable funding. Most of these funding allocations have been renewed annually. Additionally, Council authorized the Mayor to appoint a committee to recommend a future funding source. In 2007 the Council’s Homeless Initiative was expanded to “Continue to work with our community partners to end chronic homelessness in 10 years.” Focus includes Project Homeless Connect, the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee to Finance Homelessness and Housing Programs, and addressing the specific needs of women, youth and children. Because homelessness has the potential to touch every resident and area within the City, the scope of this goal was expanded by Council to include community members who are at risk of becoming homeless because they cannot afford food and shelter. The action plan includes identifying gaps in current services, promoting public awareness, fostering collaboration with stakeholders, and proposing appropriate actions. Homelessness is a broad community issue that is not isolated to Eugene. The City relies on assistance from Lane County, the State of Oregon, and the Federal Government. The following goals and actions were undertaken by City staff and community partners. OUTCOMES 1. Examined ways to more efficiently deliver services with existing resources based on the evaluation of City service delivery to homeless/at risk populations. Page 1 of 8 Result: Beginning in 2005, service delivery improvements include providing library cards to homeless people and improving the way the City addresses homeless camping complaints. 2. Assembled community stakeholders and formed a “collaborative base” to identify the most critical areas of need. Result: Ongoing collaboration with stakeholders which include, but are not limited to, homeless/at-risk community members, City & County staff, the Eugene Human Rights Commission, Housing Policy Board, Human Services Commission, Commission on Children and Families, elected officials, past and present service providers, and business owners. 3. Engaged homeless/at risk community members—listened to their views, identified their needs, and determined what enhancements they felt would provide the greatest benefit. Result: Completed in 2005 and 2006 by the staff team and by the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee in 2007. 4. Trained City staff on issues relating to homeless/at risk community members. Result: Total attendance at staff trainings on homelessness has now exceeded 450, with the most recent training occurring in April 2008. Job- specific trainings are offered for City employees and work groups who are more likely to have frequent and daily interaction with homeless/at risk persons. 5. Prioritized the issues of most critical need and/or areas where the City and the “collaborative base” of partners can deliver the most effective assistance, taking into account discretionary funding and the potential to re-deploy resources to higher priority areas. Result: Completed by staff team and reviewed by City Council. Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee is recommending a more comprehensive study of these issues. 6. Planned and executed Project Homeless Connect (PHC) as an event that provided direct service to homeless guests, engaged and educated the community, and fostered improved communication between service providers. Result: The success of the 2006 event was eclipsed in 2007, when 1,158 guests attended and were assisted by 602 community volunteers and 281 service providers. PHC was funded by 185 cash and in-kind donors. This will become an annual event, with the next event scheduled for March 8, 2009. 7. The staff team presented the highest priority action items to the Mayor and City Council and requested that Council inform the City Manager as to which options should be implemented. Result: Most recently completed in May 2007. The next work session with City Council is scheduled for November 26, 2008. Page 2 of 8 8. Assigned appropriate City staff and other applicable resources to short - and long- term options approved by the Mayor and City Council. Result: Ongoing. PROGRESS SINCE LAST REPORT Trends The economic downturn is having a profound impact on homelessness. Providers are seeing both an increased demand and a different clientele. For instance, St. Vincent dePaul’s social services programs are seeing a 30% increase in requests for assistance across the board, including rent, utilities, and food boxes. They report seeing many people who are very new to requesting assistance. In the first few days of October, 2008 they had 1,500 requests for EWEB energy assistance and could only help 320. ShelterCare reports that calls for homeless prevention assistance have doubled from last year to this year. Last year they received 30 calls during an average week – which at the time was considered to be a lot. This year during the same period they are receiving 60 calls a week. The First Place Family Center reports a significant influx of homeless families that are totally new to the system and have previously had a long history of stable housing. Additionally, the City is experiencing an increasing amount of complaints about on- street camping. Many campers have few options and the police have few tools to address the complaints. There are more tough cases where the campers are homeless and also afflicted with other diagnosis. They cause problems for neighbors and resist efforts to voluntarily relocate. During the most recent budget process, Eugene allocated $100,000 to address homelessness in two different categories: 1) funds for prevention and 2) day services for homeless people. Transportation assistance was not renewed but funding will continue during part of the next year because of carry over funds. Prevention The following table summarizes the results of prevention allocations since July 1, 2008. ShelterCare receives all of the funds from the City of Eugene and allocates them to other providers. No administrative funds were budgeted to accompany these dollars. Jul- Jul - Sept # Sept $ Jul - Sept Provider Served Spent Avg./Client Catholic Community 356.67 Services 3 1,070 Looking Glass - 0.00 New Roads 0 0 458.09 St. Vincent 11 5,039 Page 3 of 8 Jul- Jul - Sept # Sept $ Jul - Sept Provider Served Spent Avg./Client dePaul 209.92 ShelterCare 36 7,557 TOTAL 50 13,666 273.32 ShelterCare served 15 families with rent subsidies for an average of $415 per family. The remaining families received emergency utility payments ranging from $25 - $75 as an incentive to keep in contact with the program and continue to receive case management. Transportation Assistance, Lane Transit District LTD provided $1,857.25 worth one-fourth price bus tokens through City of Eugene funding through 25 separate programs that have been identified to serve homeless people. Funds are used to help people with transportation needs, particularly for critical appointments. Day Services First Place Family Center used City of Eugene funds to increase its summer and weekend hours. At First Place Family Center they provided weekend service to 184 people in July and 183 in August. This number was comparable to the same time last year. However, in September the number increased to 298, a dramatic increase. At the Eugene Service Station the following additional services were provided in the first quarter as a result of City of Eugene funding for extended hours. Requests Amount Total Visits 1,130 Showers 799 Meals 1,786 Laundry 999 Phone 412 Mail 544 Internet 17 Ltd bus tokens 377 Page 4 of 8 CHALLENGES Homelessness impacts the community in numerous ways and the homeless population is as diverse as the city itself. There are many approaches to addressing the problem. Among these are prevention, affordable housing, and services for homeless people of all ages and conditions. The homeless problem has increased over the last 25 years. This can be attributed to severe reductions in funding of various programs and to wages failing to keep up with housing prices. A close-to-home example of program cuts includes the City’s Community Development Block Grant which has experienced a 20 percent reduction over the last six years (a number that would be even greater if inflation was factored in). Solving the homeless problem requires a combination of creativity, discipline and funding. The Federal Government is focusing much of their funding on the ten percent of people nationally who meet HUD’s narrow definition of “chronically homeless” (chronically homeless is actually 16 percent of Lane County’s homeless population). While this 16 percent typically costs the various systems significant resources, the ability to help the 84 percent of local situationally homeless people remains a crisis. If left unassisted, many are likely to become chronically homeless. Lane County’s budget crisis is not solved and is expected to result in significant impacts during the coming years. The long term result is likely to be widespread and significant budget cuts to service providers. Public Health, Veterans assistance, day and night shelters, sobering and detox, and other critical treatment programs could either close or be curtailed. The results will negatively impact public health and safety in Eugene. In addition, a federal law now limits households to five years of benefits under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. [This program used to be known as “welfare”.] For the first time, the five-year window is closing for many households. This will have serious repercussions. The recession has lead to lay-offs and a general belt-tightening in the community. Every social service provider is finding that their donations are down while their demand for services is increasing. Some report that the lay-offs are a “ticking time bomb” because when a person’s unemployment compensation runs out their housing is at risk. INTERMEDIATE MEASURES Identify and Track: ? The number of meetings with homeless community members, service providers, homeless advocates, City and County commissions and other key stakeholders to determine and prioritize gaps and needs. ? The amount of City budgets allocated to programs that directly help the homeless. Page 5 of 8 ? The number of City staff who have completed training around interaction with homeless community members. Highlights of the quarter ? The Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee for Financing the Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness completed its final report in April, 2008. Key meetings and events this quarter: Homeless Action Planning Team (staff) 0 meeting Blue Ribbon Committee 0 meetings The following are examples of fund recipients and the type of services they received: ShelterCare: Jane and John have three children. They live in Eugene to be near family and struggle each month to make ends meet. John was working two jobs that still did not equal full time work. The homeless prevention program was able to assist this family so that they remained in their home when they were unable to pay their rent. John’s work hours have now increased and Jane is attending a trade school and is also making and selling crafts to make ends meet. After six months of case management they are meeting their expenses on their own and have expressed their sincere gratitude to the case worker that assisted them. St. Vincent dePaul: a) Client was laid off work and got behind on the rent. They are now employed in a new job and the homeless prevention funds helped them catch up on rent so they could stabilize. b) Client was hospitalized for several weeks and not able to work. They have now qualified for disability payments and the HPP funds helped them stabilize. c) Client’s partner died and left them with half the income. HPP funds were used as a bridge until a roommate could be found to help with the rent. Note: Looking Glass did not provide funding to youth this quarter. They are operating with reduced services due to a fire at New Roads that has resulted in a temporary relocation. First Place Family Center: Mike & Alisa and their children, Heather (14), Amiee (13), McKenzie (11), and Lindsey (3), were living with and caring for their grandmother who was suffering from Alzheimer ’s disease. When the grandmother’s condition deteriorated to the point where she was making threats on her granddaughter’s life, she was placed in a care facility. The result was the loss of their housing and livelihood. Mike, a veteran, had significant, self-taught computer skills. The family stayed in our Interfaith Night Shelter Program while Mike looked for work. He is now employed as the IT Manager for a local company and the family is stable again. Gary & Linda, their adult disabled son, and six-year-old daughter, Dedra came to us after Gary lost his job and then their housing due to his health problems. Linda, the mom, had not worked outside the home for many years. Her Case Manager worked with her regarding possible employment opportunities for her to pursue. She entered CNA training which she completed with flying colors in spite of her anxieties about her ability to learn and find employment. She is now employed, loves her work, and the family again has stable housing. Eugene Service Station: Page 6 of 8 Two men who work for a local construction company come in Monday through Friday. They have missed their normal meal time because of work. They are fed a snack and they take a shower. They will be getting permanent housing in two weeks. A local man was kicked out of his house by his wife. He did not want to go to work without showering and shaving. He came in for breakfast and to clean up. About a week later his wife called and thanked SVDP. She said he was back home and was grateful that he did not have to go hungry and could show up for work, clean and with his pride in tact. FINAL OUTCOME MEASURES Community indicators – measures which reflect the complexity of this issue require the support of many organizations and individuals in addition to the City: ? Number of beds available to homeless community members, by type of person/group served (youth/singles/family). City Measures – measures that are mainly or wholly controlled by City staff or City elected officials. ? Amount of City budget authority allocated to programs that directly help the homeless, including those dollars allocated to service providers. ? Number of City staff who have completed training around interaction with homeless community members. ? Number of trainings and other actions undertaken by the City to educate and address homelessness and understanding of homelessness. ? Number of policies changed to benefit homeless people in Eugene. Next Steps The “Blue Ribbon Committee” completed its work in April 2008. Their recommendations will be forwarded to Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. The Lane County th Commissioners received a presentation on the proposals on July 30. A presentation to Eugene City Council will occur on November 26. A Springfield City Council presentation will likely take place in the fall or winter. Blue Ribbon Committee members concluded that the depth and complexity of needs are significant, and that narrowing the focus or identifying the best approach to finding solutions is challenging. Additionally, the committee met with experts who advise that the public will likely respond more favorably to discussions of “housing needs” rather than “homelessness”. The Committee also concluded that existing laws and policies contribute to the problem and recommended a future review. Project Homeless Connect will continue as an annual event that provides service, education, and community engagement. Reflecting the importance of community Page 7 of 8 solutions, Mayor Piercy, Mayor Leiken, Commissioner Stewart, and United Way Chair Tracy Lampman were honorary chairs. United Way is the fiscal sponsor. Lane County and Eugene staff serves as co-chairs, and Springfield staff coordinates logistics. Next year’s event will be held on Friday March 6, 2009, a day when public school is not in session for either Eugene 4J or Bethel, enabling better services to children. Page 8 of 8