Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-20-2016 Homeles Count - Federal Way
CITY OF Federal Way MEMORANDUM February 12, 2016 TO: Michael Morales Director, Community Development FM: Jeff Watson, Community Services Manager Cynthia Ricks - Maccotan, CDBG /Human Services Coordinator RE: City Funding for Homeless Services 2016 One Night Count The one night count of homeless persons outside (unsheltered) in King County was conducted on Friday, January 29th, 2016 between 2:00 and 5:00 AM. Over 1100 volunteers throughout the County (including a team of six City employees) counted at least 4,505 men, women, and children living outdoors (in tents, cars /RV's, riding late night buses, under bridges, in parks, etc.) There was a 19% increase in the number of those counted from 2015 (3,772 people outside). Overall, there was an increase in the number of persons counted than last year: One Night Count 2016 — Percent Change From Prior Year Federal Way So. King County Seattle King County 2016 2015 % Change 263 105 150% 750 530 42% 2,942 2,813 5% 4,505 3,772 19% One Night Count 2016 — Comparison to Prior Years 2016 2015 Federal Way 263 So. King County 750 East King County 245 North King County 135 Seattle 2,942 King County 4,505 105 530 134 48 2,813 3,772 2014 2010 113 181 415 422 178 141 115 45 2,303 1,986 3,123 2,759 The increase throughout the region has raised many questions about the effectiveness of the countywide Strategic Plan to end Homelessness, mobility of homeless from different parts of the county, and the availability of services to address homelessness. Below is a more in -depth summary of the 2016 one night - count of unsheltered homeless in King County. Page 1 Summary of the 2016 Unsheltered Homeless Count in Selected Areas of King County SEATTLE KENT NORTH EAST SW KING FEDERAL RENTON NIGHT OWL AUBURN VASFON TOTAL END SIDE CO. WAY BUSES ISLAND Men 827 21 Women 153 7 Gender 1,951 136 Unknown Minor 11 1 (under 18) 55 55 65 25 46 12 34 21 7 14 64 150 226 231 100 4 0 109 13 9 1,225 19 3 1 271 O 94 28 2,980 4 0 0 29 TOTAL 2,942 165 Benches 46 2 Parking 26 Garages Cars/Trucks ._.... 914 Structures 533 4 Under 257 2 Roadways Doorways 271 1 City Parks 24 0 Bushes/ 37 60 Undergrowth Bus Stops 29 21 Alleys 32 9 Walking 494 14 Around Other 279 8 TOTAL 2,942 165 135 245 315 2 1 5 O 25 0 85 161 4 27 55 2 8 4 2 3..... 10 3 0 0 3 9 2 42 53 263 1 160 132 110 38 4,505 0 0 0 0 57 1 0 0 0 54 199 75 2 1 3 0 30 12 18 14 9 O 48 • 3 0 31 1,608 7 653 2 0 290 O 0 0 297 O 30 0 66 O 0 0 153 5 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 64 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 10 15 13 13 16 0 4 0 579 51 72 65 6 7 132 23 0 643 135 245 315 263 160 132 110 38 4,505 19% increase 2016 4,505 people outside 2015 3,772 people outside For more information contact the Seattle /King County Coalition on Homelessness www.homelessinfo.org Alison Eisinger Sara Velkamp (206) 204-8355 (616) 238-5457 alison{4'homelessinfo.org saro ©homelessinfo.org City Funding for Human Services The City has funded human services with general funds for over fifteen years. Since becoming an entitlement community, the City has utilized the maximum of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation (15 %) for public services to provide additional funding for human services. The table below shows the City's funding for human services since 2010, and the funding for homeless services. Page 2 $1,000,000 $900,000 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 2010 -2016 Human Services Funding $535,533 $506,000 4T450,000 $497,932 $49/,500" $608,051 $608,051 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Human Svcs Funding . Homeless Services Note: 2015 -16 includes CDBG Public Services funding as well as City general funds. 2010 -2014 are general funds only. In the past seven years, the City has provided $3,703,067 for human services including child care, mental health, domestic violence, medical and dental programs, substance treatment, employment, legal assistance, developmental disability, emergency services, information and referral, youth, senior services, etc. For the past seven years, roughly a third of the City's annual human services funding has supported programs and services that address homelessness. City Funding for Programs and Services to Address Homelessness Since 2010, the City has expended $1,881,512 to address homelessness, representing half (51 %) of the City's total human services funding. (The figure for 2016 is the amount allocated to human services from the general fund and the estimated CDBG award for public services). $400,000 -7 $300,000 $ 200,000 $100,000 so 2010 -2016 City Funding of Homeless Services $296,100 ____._... $301,056 $301,056 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Types of Programs and Services to Address Homelessness There are several categories of homeless services. Typically, services are provided to address the various needs of the housing spectrum: Page 3 AVOID HOMELESSNESS HOMELESS — TEMPORARY SVCS PERMANENT HOUSING Avoiding Homelessness — Homeless Prevention Homeless prevention services are designed to keep people in their housing and avoid homelessness. An example of homeless prevention is emergency services like rental /mortgage assistance, utility assistance, hotel /motel voucher programs, and legal assistance for eviction prevention. Other homeless prevention programs include domestic violence, mental health and substance abuse. Homeless — Temporary Services Some homeless services address both prevention and currently homeless, like food and clothing banks, information /resource /and referral programs (e.g. King County 211, crisis clinics and hotlines). Other programs like shelters and transitional housing are temporary programs that meet the needs of those who are currently homeless. All of these services address the needs of those who are in the "avoid homelessness" to "homeless - temporary services" of the housing spectrum. Permanent Housing The last category reflects those programs and services that ensure access to and securing of permanent housing. Such programs include housing search /placement assistance, deposit and /or moving assistance, supportive services to help people maintain their housing, rehab assistance, etc. Some landlord tenant programs assist those in maintaining their permanent housing and thus avoiding homelessness. Note that many vulnerable populations (e.g. victims of domestic violence, mentally ill, etc.) move along the housing spectrum, from avoiding homelessness, to homelessness, and securing permanent housing. People who have been homeless for two or more years are often considered "chronic homeless." It is likely that those experiencing chronic homelessness have been through every facet of the housing spectrum more than once. The table below illustrates the types of homeless services and programs funded since 2010. Info /Resource /Referral Other Homeless Prevention Food /Clothing Shelters /Transitional Hsg Emergency Services City Funding to Address Homelessness $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 2016 2015 ■ 2014 ■ 2013 2012 1 2011 2010 Page 4 Community Partners The City has worked with several organizations, jurisdictions and special purpose districts (e.g. utility companies) to address the human services needs of our residents, including homeless services. The table below lists the funding to our community partners and the applicable homeless program(s) since 2010. Organization Catholic Community Services Crisis Clinic Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN) Emergency Feeding Program FUSION Federal Way Community Caregiving Network Hospitality House Multi Service Center St. Vincent de Paul Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation YMCA Homeless Service /Program 2010 -16 Funding Emergency Assistance & Shelters $ 339,600 Crisis Line & 211 $ 62,000 Transitional Housing, Crisis Line $ 126,000 Emergency Feeding Program $ 35,000 Transitional Housing $ 80,000 Rent Assistance & Emer. Shelter $ 164,500 Shelter - Single Homeless Women $ 32,832 Emergency Assistance, Transitional Housing, Food $ 565,652 & Clothing Bank, Emergency Feeding Program Emergency Human Services $ 142,928 Mental Health Services $ 270,000 Emergency Housing, Domestic Violence Services $ 63,000 TOTAL $1,881,512 Day Shelter The City has committed $100,000 over two years to support Catholic Community Services' (CCS) efforts for a day shelter within the city's limits. In addition to the City's support, CCS has the following: • $41,000 from King County; • $100,000 from the State over two years; and • An amount to be determined from private donations to the Day Shelter Coalition. "All Home" Strategic Plan for Ending Homelessness in King County "All Home," formerly the Committee to End Homelessness in King County (CEH), was created in 2005 to include a broader coalition of stakeholders to address and eliminate homelessness in King County. In July of 2015, All Home presented a four -year strategic plan to end homelessness in Seattle /King County. The plan is based upon the rapid re- housing concept, specifically to make homelessness: Page 5 Rare Strategies to make homelessness rare (address the causes of homelessness): • Advocate and aligning systems to prevent people from experiencing homelessness cb Advocate and support partners to preserve existing and create more affordable housing for those making below 30% AMI • Expand evidence -based pre- adjudication and post - conviction sentencing alternatives that minimize involvement in the criminal justice system for people experiencing homelessness Brief and One -Time Strategies to make homelessness brief and one -time (rapid - rehousing efforts): • Address crisis as quickly as possible (sufficient shelter capacity, increase support and community education for crisis response needs) • Foster collaboration between first responders, service providers, and local communities to increase housing stability or those experiencing homelessness • Assess, divert, prioritize, and match people with housing and support (e.g. coordinated assessment to ensure appropriate housing & priority) gill Right -size housing and supports to meet the needs of people experiencing homelessness • Increase access to permanent housing • Create employment and education opportunities to support stability & Community Engagement A community to end homelessness (strategies for community engagement): a Engage residents, housed and homeless, to take community action a Provide effective and accountable community leadership Housing First versus Rapid Re- Housing There are two common approaches or methodologies to address homelessness, housing first and rapid - rehousing. Below is a summary of the two approaches. Housing First Rani Re- Housing Background Began as a reaction against view that people experiencing homelessness must "earn" their way to permanent affordable and supportive housing: r Provide homeless with housing without treatment pre - requisite Focus on reducing barriers to entry Models were implemented across the country through HUD's Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re- housing Program (HPRP). Rapid re- housing programs were found to be a highly successful and cost - effective intervention for most homeless families. Page 6 Housing First Rapid Re- Housing Present Evolved into a distinct approach for delivering permanent supportive housing r Services informed by harm reduction and motivational interviewing Project -level policies and procedures that prevent lease violations and evictions Effectiveness © Higher housing retention rates E1 Lower returns to homelessness © Significantly reduces the use of crisis services and institutions Core Components • Few to no programmatic prerequisites to permanent housing entry • Low barrier admission policies • Rapid and streamlined entry into housing • Supportive services are voluntary • Tenants have full rights, responsibilities, and legal protections ■ Practices and policies to prevent lease violations and evictions • Applicable in a variety of housing models r Can be an appropriate intervention for many different households experiencing homelessness. r Experience has shown that it is more cost - effective to target rapid re- housing assistance to families who are currently staying on the streets and in emergency shelters. El More cost- effective than transitional housing © Higher rates of permanent housing placement & lower rates of return to homelessness Note — it is not designed to comprehensively address a recipient's overall service needs or poverty Tailored package of assistance • housing identification • rent and move -in assistance • case management and services Case Management • Connects households to resources that help them improve their safety and well -being and achieve their long -term goals • Client- directed, voluntary services, respectful of individuals' right to self - determination ■ Unless basic, program related case management is required, participation should not be required ■ Connection to community -based services that already exist Table Source: "HUD and USICH: Core Principles of Housing First and Rapid Re- Housing Webinar, "July 22, 2014. In 2005, Housing First was implemented in Utah and in 2014 gained national recognition as a successful method to eliminate homelessness. While there have been many successes with Housing First specifically in the Salk Lake community, we must keep in mind the difference it our geographies, their more centralized homeless services system versus our decentralized system, and difference in the various mix of homeless populations (i.e. chronic homeless, those with mental health and /or chemical dependency concerns, cultural and ethnic groups, etc.). It is worth noting that rapid re- housing has shown effective results at reducing homelessness, especially amongst chronic homeless families in our region. Rapid re- housing is the Federal housing policy, although it does not come with the resources to implement the policy in a meaningful way. Page 7 Assumptions of Housing First & Rapid Re- Housing There are several assumptions of both approaches to address homelessness that should be considered when assessing the merits of their methodologies. False. In our region, there is insufficient housing stock to meet ✓ the needs of all residents, especially for lower income, those needing accessible housing, and appropriate housing located in one's preferred community. False. In our region, there is a HUGE affordability gap for those at or below 100% of the area median income compared to ✓ ✓ other communities. For example, in Salt Lake, the affordability gap is much less than our region. The average one bedroom in King County is about $1800 versus roughly $870 in Salt Lake. (Note these figures come from local relator data). False. Public financing is the greatest source of funding for housing at or below median income in most communities. We have limited public financing to construct new housing for our most vulnerable (those at or below 80% AMI), let alone funding ✓ ✓ (public or private) to preserve (rehab) affordable housing. Note that in our region, the cost to construct new housing is pretty high compared to other communities. In the Seattle- Everett- Tacoma area, the average cost per square foot for new residential is $140 compared to national average of about $125. False. Our housing market is bifurcated in terms of the structure for rental vs for sale housing, and it varies across the county. For example, we have more affordable rental and for sale housing in South and Northwest King County (affordable to those at or below 100% AMI). However, the majority of that affordable housing stock is older. There is a greater need for ✓ ✓ housing preservation in South and Northwest King County compared to other parts of the County. In addition, the cost of new construction of for -sale housing varies, with much higher costs in Seattle, East, and SE King County. This is mostly due to land costs. Given the complexity of our real estate market, it is difficult to re- allocate resources to address the plethora of affordable housing needs. Adequate resource and affordable housing - just need s" Attachment: All Home Strategic Plan Page 8 COMPARISON TABLE FOR HOUSING IN SELECTED CITIES Median Home Price o 0 fT to IO Vi $281,000 $300,600 $359,2001 0 0 N .O co N 69 0 0 N 0 C•i O CO 69 0 0 CO N CO N 69 0 0 N d' ID N 69 0 0 N M .D N Vf (Seattle 6624001 332694 461 54] 1434261 43 189127 57 141jless than 1 1* ` * 1* * $1,131 $530,100 0 CC Z $1,032 $1,012 N 10 t, 69 CO 0 Vi I ti00't$ 43 ID 0 b9 0 Cc) 0, 69 1 .O G, 69 o co y O 0 y 2 C u C F n d' d• M d• N d' T # Section 8 Vouchers M d' .--■ cr, ID Cn N e-'■ N .--1 c-1 r•-1 O ..-I c-■ - 4431 5421 N to Cn • Subsidized Total Housing Units N I0 d• .D N d' m co % Subsidized Multi- Family Housing ID In .-■ 1--1 O• N c-. lO 0 .ti O 1--1 .O Subsidized Multi - Family Housing 2517 2810 16281 18481 4751 0 d' - N In N % Total Units in Mobile Homes in Parks CO d• N 0, less than 11 CO In M y 7.444 tii Y pC a i C M 0, N CO c-. - O. N 10 N 0, 0 CO CO to I0 N u y 0 c G d• 0 d• M m en m d• to a 7 C IL P. N O. N N to co c+ .-1 to N co W .-. N d' O 1-■ M .O N O 0, d' N If) d' M 0 • d ?, 7'4 ... 4 C •E C y A , 0 N N N 'n .O Ln to ' # Single Family Units 1.0 to .� 0' 0 to N N 22229] 16042 .--I Cr. N c+ N to N 5605] 0 to CO y c6 C CC • 45 46 47 O d• 48] N d' CO d' .--1 .D t..0 y 0 It °' O u o O N d• In to M to 0 ID N to CO In N N 0' M C •7 1� C .". xa Si ID 0• r-1 ID N D CO d' 41285 N to 0, N N H 0 N 12687 105051 7779 0 0 a 0 Ow 90760 122900 98470 75545 48810 o 0 CO 0 O N N 0 M O. .--1 B u N (Federal Way Kent Renton Auburn Burien Des Moines 1SeaTac F o 0 fT to IO Vi o 0 ' .D .--1 In 69 0 0 d' `-1 .D 69 0 0 Ni N to 69 0 00 .--i .-. N 69 0 0 0 0 co C7 ID N N N 69 69 CO 0 .--i In dam• O. ,I). .-■ •• CO to CO 0 c+ $: 49 69 6A 69 i i • M i i ! d• N in aD 0 d' .D O 1-1 In O• .-I .-. ca O. NI d' e-1 `:. CO CO .O d' .-- to N N 8 12 O .O .D 9 - - c-. to .--I ess than 0 m y y Y ess than 0 m y N N ID O O d• M .-1 N O - to N d• - .D c-1 .-1 eY eY In •• M d• d Ill NI O. CO N.0 0 VD d' N M 0 .O CO .D NI .D 1-1 CO c-. N .--I c-1 CO c-4 ID VI to .O N O e). c-I to d• c+ 10 to 0, to N to NI N N to 32 .-1 N NI .-1 7 56 13 10 COd. d' d• IOIJ 49 IO c-■ O .--1 .D •■ to 6 to IO to d• to N tn 0 V 5904 3776 2614 O O c-1 8757 2667 1701 135000 83460 59180 33330 202300 58400 38950 Issaquah t, 0 0 r d 9 x C E U 1 :oma tewoo, yallup Ca W a : 0. Subsidized Housing M Percentage of Multl- Family Housing ■ Percentage of All Housing Units Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Units. ■ Percentage Rentals Percentage Owner Occupied i 0 03 d m a E p m V ), a E K C p C m m C V d LL w w m Des Moines 1 c � a a SOUTH KING COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING AVAILAB Percentage of 'Occupied Units Deemed Affordable 2e tN o de a o N * o N 2F o 6 a 0 a N 2 m m 0 a to a 0 6 N 2 e o N 00 e 6 Cr 00 .- 1 ( a 2 CO o a 23.7 %, * 0 t+ 0 a Cl. 2 Q to N rn 0 a .-1 3 m * CL1 0 ( a N 0 N N to to N N a N Total Affordable Units a CO m a0 m Vl al D ul to to 00 ul ut o N 0 CO O o 5,070 1 1,094 12,724 4,286 N tO N M m CO co to CO al 0 al N N . a 485 I 1 4,578 01 u o O 01 N a O. 1-1 b N H . 20,799 1 N M 03 a. N m N . N V M to 2,415 2,764 a1 u N 5,438 1 Percentage of Affordable Owner Occupied Units 1 24 %I N a .-1 N T N .. '"1 Q a 3 %1 01 00 N CO - N a m 01 a N N 00 ut N 24.7% CO r to N CO N N 00 • CO 24.8% O m N r .-1 38.7% Total Affordable Owner Occupied Units _..__ 3,229 O N 135 a' f Q ni 2,417 1 M to 402 3,332 I 1,226 I 286 I to nn .. 00 f1 CO N N N N 1,142 ON N m S a m N 0r u e 2,582 I 480 3,826 V O .. u N m 1,327 Percentage of Affordable Renter Occupied Units N n CO IN V N m CO CO CO m V 0 ul ao ul m O O 6 N M CO 6 m rn m N n n N n b a N e co a to oi CO n V a r N a N Cr Q n al a0 N 01 0 to a CO . ,Affordable Renter Occupied Units Total 5,705 of m to 16 5301 12,624 M 'Cr v N M Ul OF N cg, o CO of 3,060 CO a CO" ILOL 7,248 1 tO CO V1 .. N A .. CO M 3,436 1 W r tri '�. 8,477 LC6 16,207 7,255 CO m b n v CO 0 of 0 al m -. CO Ol Cr 117 ry it 00 2 y 3, tD to N N N 2Q N to N .-I N N .. to to '1 N N .. N N .. o* 6 N nu N .N -I b to .i N N .. N N rl tp CO .. N rl 2` N to 0 N N rl N .-1 %of AMI 51-80% (Moderate) 31-50% (Low) 30% & Below (Very Low) Sum 51-80% (Moderate) I 31 -50% (Low) -� —� 30% & Below (Very Low) Sum 51 -80% (Moderate) 3 X02 U A 30% & Below (Very Low) Sum 51 -80% (Moderate) 3 `. o '^ m 30% & Below (Very Low) I tuns 51 -80% (Moderate) I 31 -50% (Low) 30% & Below (Very Low) Sum 51-80% (Moderate) 3 0 0 m 30% & Below (Very Low) Sum.._ -. 51 -80% (Moderate) 31 -50% (Low) 30% & Below (Very Low) E to Total Owner Occupied Units w/ Mortgage co `r CO: 'm^ .. 11:11, tc 110 v r ... 15,456 ■a rvi v m C .D 0 m _ n m g 1- u O 15,338 o o oc r N n o N m of a a N n o0 v v a. v 00 O C a O Q M O n MNN N N • 11,347 42,457 o m a cn m V Federal Way Auburn Burien Des Moines Y Renton Sea Tac Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 -2014 American Community Survey 5 -year Estimates South King County Affordable Housing I Percentage of Occupied Units Deemed Affordable at Percentage of Affordable Renter Occupied Units Percentage of Affordable Owner Occupied Units 90% 80% 70%' 60% 50% 40% e3 ,0 9f 30% � �� � � • 20% + �_ ",•, 10% 0% £ .,f ,• , g Federal Way Auburn Sudan Des Moines tent Renton Sea Tac tAtEll St, Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 — 2014 American Community Survey S -year Estimates y with more than 20 units in order to • • • •