EPL-
INFORMATION FOR YOUR BUILDING SOUL
1
Cost of Homelessness to the City of Sacramento October 2015
Executive Summary
In June 2015, the City Council requested a study analyzing the financial resources that the City commits to issues related to homelessness. The causes and symptoms of homelessness are broad and complex, and to fully understand the “cost” of homelessness, a larger effort involving other governmental partners, private non-profit organizations, and community services would be required. As an initial step in this broader conversation, City staff have compiled information on one year’s worth of expenditures and found that the City spends more than $13.6 million annually to address homelessness. In the past year, the City has taken bold new steps to address homelessness in the city, and the results of those efforts are just starting to surface. In the first nine months of 2015, over 1,200 homeless households were assessed for services and housing that meet their particular needs and engaged in the process of finding and securing appropriate housing.
Background
According to the 2015 Point-in-Time Homeless Count for Sacramento County, on any given night, approximately 2,650 people throughout Sacramento County experience homelessness. Over the course of a year, it is estimated that over 5,000 people will be homeless for one or more nights in Sacramento.1 While the majority of these people are sheltered, just over one third (predominantly single adults) are unsheltered, typically sleeping in their vehicles, an encampment, or another outdoor location.
Efforts to prevent and end homelessness in Sacramento County are led by Sacramento Steps Forward (SSF), the lead agency for administering over $18 million in Federal funding for homeless service programs. In 2014, the City of Sacramento approved an allocation of General Funds to pilot a coordinated entry and assessment system through Sacramento Steps Forward (SSF), and in early 2015, the City’s first Homeless Services Coordinator began working out of the Office of the City Manager. Through these strategic partnerships with SSF as well as with Sacramento County, the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) and numerous community organizations, the City has taken a deliberate and proactive approach to address the needs of the community related to homelessness.
Community Context
This report is one part of a broader community conversation on how the Sacramento region addresses homelessness. In order to fully understand the impacts in Sacramento, a similar analysis from other public and private organizations is needed, including Sacramento County, Regional Transit, the four private hospital systems, Property Based Improvement Districts (PBIDs) and others. While this analysis of costs to the City is helpful in making strategic decisions on City investments, if other systems serving the homeless population do not make similar commitments to understanding the role they play in the community’s response to homelessness, the value of the City’s efforts may not be fully realized.
1 http://sacramentostepsforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Sacramento-2015-PIT-Technical-Report-FINAL-7-16-15.pdf
2
It is also important to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs in which the City is investing and not simply identify the amount of money spent. Sacramento Steps Forward is currently in the process of completing an analysis of the efficacy of homeless programs, including those the City invests in. This information will be important as the City continues to consider funding and strategies to reduce homelessness.
Methodology
The City’s Homeless Services Coordinator sent details on the project to all City Department Directors, who were asked to consider their operating budget and whether their department had any costs related to homelessness.
Four departments indicated they did not have any costs associated with homelessness and were excluded from the study. Those departments eliminated are:
• Office of the City Clerk
• Office of the City Treasurer
• Finance Department
• Department of Human Resources
The remaining twelve City departments were asked to provide information on costs at the most granular level possible, preferably by project or activity or by geographic location and were asked to separate hard costs (e.g. equipment, contracts, etc.) from staff costs. Departments were also asked to provide a brief description of the activity or program, the funding source for the cost, methodology for reporting the cost, and any locational information.
In addition to the information from City departments, the Homeless Services Coordinator also met with the three City/County Joint Powers Agencies (JPAs): the Sacramento Employment and Training Agency (SETA), the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA), and the Sacramento Public Library. When the JPA’s funding could be clearly attributed to the City, it was included in the analysis; Appendix B includes a general discussion of how these three JPAs contribute to the City’s efforts to reduce and end homelessness. The compiled data from all departments is included in Appendix A, which is the basis for the detailed analysis provided below.
Findings
The City of Sacramento spends more than $13.6 million annually on costs related to homelessness: approximately $6.6 million on services and support for persons experiencing homelessness and approximately $7.0 million on mitigating community impacts of homelessness. Appendix A includes a detailed list of all costs accounted for in Fiscal Year 2014/15 by department. In addition to the raw numbers, there are other contextual findings from this study:
• Virtually every department works directly or indirectly on a regular basis with either people experiencing homelessness or with addressing the community impacts of homelessness.
3
• Departments are regularly diverting resources from other essential City activities to address the needs of the community related to homelessness. Over time, these activities have simply been absorbed into the regular operations of the departments; however, were they to cease, the average citizen would likely see a huge effect on their community.
• There is an impressive level of coordination between City departments to collaboratively address the needs of the community related to homelessness.
Analysis by City Department
Twelve of the sixteen City Departments incurred costs related to homelessness in Fiscal Year 2014/15 totaling just over $10.8 million. In addition to these costs, almost $2.85 million was expended by the JPAs (SHRA and the Library), for a total of $13,667,000. Because the budgets for the JPAs are broader than the City, their costs were extracted for purposes of analysis by department.
*Note that costs incurred by JPAs are not included in this table, but are included in subsequent analyses.
As seen above, the three departments with the largest costs are those that provide direct services to constituents: the Sacramento Police Department (SPD), the Sacramento Fire Department (SFD) and the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). These three departments collectively expend over $9
2 The City underwent a major reorganization in late 2015 which resulted in the Department of General Services and all its functions being absorbed by three other departments In order to reflect the current operational structure of the City, the operating budget for General Services from FY 2014/15 was divided and added into these departments.
3 Budget figures from Schedule 1-B of the FY 2014/15 City budget, found on page 61: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/Finance/Budget/Documents/Approved-Budget2014-15
City Department 2
FY 2014/15 Budget 3
$ spent on homelessness
% spent on homelessness
Mayor/Council (M/C)
$4,795,000
$67,291
1.4%
City Attorney (CAO)
$6,663,000
$242,841
3.5%
City Clerk
$7,761,000
-
-
City Manager (CMO)
$2,897,000
$637,715
22.0%
City Treasurer
$2,045,000
-
-
Community Development (CDD)
$23,602,000
$248,911
1.1%
Convention and Cultural Services (CCS)
$17,642,000
$98,254
0.6%
Economic Development Department (EDD)
$3,266,000
$35,000
1.1%
Finance Department
$8,724,000
-
-
Fire Department (SFD)
$95,591,000
$4,956,636
5.2%
Human Resources Department
$32,175,000
-
-
Information Technology (IT)
$9,529,000
$14,795
0.2%
Parks and Recreation (DPR)
$34,827,000
$1,302,101
3.7%
Police Department (SPD)
$124,607,000
$2,828,391
2.3%
Department of Public Works (PW)
$151,585,000
$307,391
0.2%
Department of Utilities (DOU)
$120,301,000
$80,200
0.1%
TOTAL
$640,010,000
$10,819,526
1.69%
Figure 1: Operational Budget Spent on Homelessness by Department, FY 2014/15
4
50%
29%
19%
2%
Impact
Investment
Service
Unknown
million annually on homeless-related issues, approximately 84 percent of the total homeless-related expenses from the City’s operational budget.
Analysis by Activity Type
For a more nuanced understanding of how funds are used, costs were divided into three categories:
1) Impacts: These are costs that the City pays to mitigate or reduce the impact of homelessness on the broader community. These are typically reactive type of activities and include such things as the costs to pick up and dispose of property left in abandoned homeless encampments, the cost to secure City property from homeless setting up camp, etc.
2) Investments: These are funds that the City is providing to programs or services that are directly providing solutions to end homelessness. Investments include funding SSF to deliver a coordinated intake system, the hiring of the Homeless Services Coordinator, creating the Police Impact Team, etc.
3) Services: These are costs to provide services for people while they are homeless. The largest “service” cost is the cost for the Fire Department to transport people experiencing homelessness in ambulances. Service costs do not mitigate community impacts but also do not
help to reduce or end homelessness.
When looking at the totality of City spending, including funds spent by the JPAs, the City is spending half of all funds on mitigating community impacts of homelessness, 29 percent of all funds on investments to end homelessness and 19 percent on services supporting people experiencing homelessness.4 As spending on investments in housing and supportive services increases and is adjusted to best meet the needs of the homeless population, the City should see both a reduction in the overall spending and a redistribution of this pie such that the greatest percentage is in the “investment” category.
4 An additional two percent of activities are coded as “unknown”. These are the activities of the City Attorney’s Office, whose time is in support of other department activities, and not affixed to particular activities/projects.
Figure 2: Homeless Expenses by Activity Type, FY 2014/15
5
Figure 3: Homeless Expenditures by Fund Type
74%
12%
11%
3%
0.6%
0.4%
$2M
$4M
$6M
$8M
$10M
$12M
Citywi…
D4
D3
D6
D5
D2
Figure 4: Homeless Costs by City Districts
Analysis by Fund Type
In regard to funding, homeless expenses are paid for primarily through General Funds. After General Funds, the combination of funding administered through SHRA, mostly from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the second most commonly used funding source for homeless activities. HUD funds for homeless activities come through a variety of programs, some of which are specifically set-aside for homeless programs and services and some of which have more general intended uses such as affordable housing or community development. Note that the amount of HUD funds is likely an under representation, given the known data challenges with pinpointing both the location of some of the subsidies and the housing status of the residents (see Appendix B for more details).
Analysis by City District
In general, the vast majority of spending on homeless related activities was not specific tracked to a particular area or Council district – 74 percent of the costs were coded as “Citywide”. The few exceptions are things such as targeted, neighborhood based impacts, such as cleanup efforts at specific parks or libraries, funding for housing units in a particular location, or a neighborhood based outreach program where the services are targeted towards street homeless in a defined area.
5 TI funding is associated with (now defunct) Redevelopment Agency (RDA) activities. When the State eliminated redevelopment, existing obligations were captured in the RDA’s Recognized Obligation Payment (ROP) of the Redevelopment Successor Agency. ROPs are enforceable obligations that were in place at time of the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in the State of California and, therefore, are still funded through property tax distributions.
6 “PILOT” is a Payment in Lieu of Taxes that is paid by projects financed by SHRA with tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds. The payment is equal to 20 percent of one percent of the value of the project to offset the property taxes forgone by the City by virtue of the tax exempt bond financing. SHRA then uses these PILOT fees to finance other housing projects and programs.
Fund Type
Amount Spent on Homelessness
Percent of Expenditures
General Fund
$10,897,346
80.0%
HUD Funds
$1,747,715
13.0%
Tax Increment (TI) 5
$451,801
3.3%
PILOT Funds 6
$271,894
2.0%
Enterprise Funds
$261,286
1.9%
Parking Fund
$33,667
0.25%
Special Revenue Fund
$3,000
0.02%
TOTAL
$13,666,709
100%
6
Conclusion
The City expends approximately $13.6 million annually on challenges related to homelessness and on solutions aimed at preventing and ending homelessness. Given the transitory and hidden nature of the homeless population, while these numbers are as accurate as possible, they are likely an under-representation of the City’s annual commitments. The true and complete cost would include other costs shared by governmental and private partners as well as the cost of lost opportunities to the community and for those people experiencing homelessness.
As local partners, including the City, SSF, SHRA and others, continue to refine the data they have available on the efficacy of programs serving people experiencing homelessness, the findings of this report may take on different meaning. Ending homelessness is more than a financial strategy and more than a housing strategy. Ending homelessness requires the efforts and commitment in the fields of mental health, drug and alcohol addiction, family reunification, education, employment, and poverty in general. As SSF continues to lead our regional approach specific to homelessness, the City will maintain the support of these efforts and those of other systems of care integral to impacting the broader underlying causes and symptoms of homelessness.
Sump 60 before and after Department of Utilities cleanup and fencing project.
7
Appendix A – Detailed Cost Matrix
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
CAO
Provide legal services on homeless issues and activities to City staff (Supervising DCA)
Citywide
$25,622
General Fund
Staffing
Unknown
CAO
Provide legal services on homeless issues and activities to City staff (Senior DCA)
Citywide
$55,291
General Fund
Staffing
Unknown
CAO
Provide legal services on homeless issues and activities to City staff (DCA II)
Citywide
$59,132
General Fund
Staffing
Unknown
CAO
Provide legal services on homeless issues and activities to City staff (DCA I)
Citywide
$102,796
General Fund
Staffing
Unknown
CCS
Supplies for cleaning related to homelessness at the Convention Center
4
$300
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CCS
Daily cleaning of trash and debris at Convention Center
4
$13,837
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
CCS
Water used for cleaning of homeless trash and defecation at the Convention Center
4
$120
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CCS
Cleaning of human defecation at the Convention Center
4
$4,612
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
CCS
Emptying and maintenance of garbage cans at the Convention Center
4
$4,612
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
CCS
Staff time to remove homeless people from the Convention Center
4
$10,977
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
CCS
Contract for private security to address homeless issues at Convention Center
4
$38,420
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CCS
(one time) Parts/supplies for repair to bench at 13th and J
4
$700
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CCS
(one time) Labor to repair bench at 13th and J
4
$71
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
CCS
(one time) Parts/supplies to install irrigation vandalism deterrent
4
$50
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
8
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
CCS
(one time) Labor to install irrigation vandalism deterrent
4
$350
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
CCS
(one time) Parts/supplies to replace flush meter
4
$1,854
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CCS
(one time) Labor to replace flush meter
4
$350
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
CCS
(one time) Installation of three security gates
4
$22,000
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CDD
Housing & Dangerous Buildings Inspectors securing vacant buildings
Citywide
$64,170
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
CDD
Securing costs of vacant buildings due to persons breaking into windows, doors, perimeter fencing, etc. 7
Citywide
$174,741
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CDD
Intake, care and release of pets of the homeless8
Citywide
$10,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CMO
Administration of City's Homeless Services Coordination activities 9
Citywide
$137,715
General Fund
Staffing
Investment
CMO
"Common Cents" homeless coordinated entry system (contracted through SSF) 10
Citywide
$500,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Investment
DOU
Repair and clean up Sump 60
4
$20,407
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Staff time to install signs and add security fencing at Sump 60
4
$3,176
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
DOU
Construction of fence and installation of no trespassing signs at Sump 60
4
$14,343
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Repairs to fence and installation of no trespassing signs at Pioneer Reservoir
4
$250
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Staff time to repair fence and install no trespassing signs at Pioneer Reservoir
4
$11,691
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
7 Securement invoices received by CDD are paid as received and in turn, invoiced to the property owner. However, they may go unpaid for extended periods of time and end up as special assessments collected through the County of Sacramento.
8 Costs include staffing and care of the animals, but have been coded as "hard costs”, as the majority of the costs can be attributed to facilities, materials, etc.
9 The Homeless Services Coordinator came on board half way through FY 2014/15. The annualized cost of this position has been included as it is now an annual cost.
10 In FY 2015/16, the City committed an additional (one time) $500,000 of General Funds to provide housing, education and employment services for some of the households identified through the Common Cents program. This amount is not included in this analysis, which looked only at costs from FY 2014/15.
9
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
DOU
Removal of trees on fences to stop homeless from climbing over at Sump 104
5
$11,000
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Sign replacement to deter homeless from cutting fence to reach water at Sump 147
6
$200
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Staff time to replace signs to prevent fence cutting at Sump 147
6
$2,000
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
DOU
Installation of sign notifying that equipment will start anytime to keep homeless from getting hurt at Sump 96
6
$200
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Staff time to install sign regarding equipment at Sump 96
6
$159
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
DOU
Repair to fence at Sump 38
3
$321
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Staff time to repair fence at Sump 38
3
$2,000
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
DOU
Staff time to clean out parkway turnouts
Citywide
$312
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
DOU
Security contract to patrol DOU facilities
Citywide
$540
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
PARC clean up, including haz-mat and Hyjentek to clean bio-waste and syringes
Citywide
$5,000
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Clean up of homeless camp at Bell Avenue and Burgess Drive
2
$600
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
DOU
Contract with Hyjentek to pull needles out of a Designated Inlet (storm drain)
Citywide
$4,000
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Major cleanup of homeless camp and debris in partnership with SPD at Sump 113
3
$4,000
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
DPR
Operation and staffing of warming center at Southside Park Pool Center
4
$4,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Service
DPR
Winter motel voucher shelter program (contracted through SSF)
Citywide
$100,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Investment
DPR
Comprehensive Alcohol Treatment Center for 80 homeless inebriates (contracted through VOA)
3
$708,351
General Fund
Hard Costs
Investment
DPR
Response to citizen calls regarding unsheltered homeless
Citywide
$25,000
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
10
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
DPR
Community meetings, outreach/education and overseeing contracts
Citywide
$10,750
General Fund
Staffing
Investment
DPR
Homeless camp clean ups in parks, trails and river parkways: Park Safety Ranger Unit
Citywide
$116,800
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
DPR
Homeless camp clean ups in parks, trails and river parkways: Park Maintenance Division
Citywide
$7,200
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
DPR
Homeless citations: Park Safety Unit
Citywide
$4,000
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
DPR
Impact of homeless sleeping in park restrooms overnight, and/or bathing or using for shelter during the day
Citywide
$326,000
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
EDD
Staff time related to addressing homeless issues, primarily in the River District
3
$10,000
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
EDD
(portion of) Homeless outreach navigator for the River District PBID
3
$25,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Investment
IT
Answer, record, and refer 3-1-1 calls relating to homelessness 11
Citywide
$14,795
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
LIB
Coordinate library security program
Citywide
$36,275
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
LIB
Clean up of abandoned items
Citywide
$4,500
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
LIB
Electrical repairs due to damage caused by homeless camps
Citywide
$2,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security guard for Del Paso Heights Library
2
$23,830
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security surveillance for Del Paso Heights Library
2
$2,200
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security guard for North Sacramento Library
2
$21,316
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security surveillance for North Sacramento Library
2
$1,600
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
11 Key words used to identify homeless related calls = Homeless, Urine, Feces, Hypo, Hypodermic, Needle, Shopping Carts. Total 3-1-1 budget is inclusive of staffing and operating costs, including equipment and overhead.
11
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
LIB
Contracted Hyjentek clean up (needles, urine & feces) for North Sacramento Library
2
$685
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security guard for Central Library
4
$126,601
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security surveillance for Central Library
4
$3,200
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted Hyjentek clean up (needles, urine & feces) for Central Library
4
$10,898
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted power washing for Central Library
4
$9,030
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Homeless outreach coordinator (contracted through SSF) for Central Library
4
$57,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Investment
LIB
Contracted security guard for Colonial Heights Library
5
$23,829
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security patrols for Colonial Heights Library
5
$60
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted Hyjentek clean up (needles, urine & feces) for Colonial Heights Library
5
$1,934
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security surveillance for Colonial Heights Library
5
$22,804
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted property improvements for Colonial Heights Library
5
$300
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security guard for Belle Cooledge Library
5
$7,998
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security surveillance for Belle Cooledge Library
5
$19,300
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted Hyjentek clean up (needles, urine & feces) for Belle Cooledge Library
5
$413
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
M/C
Staff time in D3 office related to homeless activities and concerns
3
$42,934
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
12
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
M/C
Staff time in D4 office related to homeless activities and concerns
4
$24,357
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
PW
Cost of equipment to work with PD every other Friday to assist in homeless camp clean up 12
Citywide
$38,881
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
PW
Cost of staffing to work with PD every other Friday to assist in homeless camp clean up
Citywide
$43,951
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
PW
Provide trucks and equipment to clean up illegal dumping
Citywide
$20,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
PW
Street construction labor and street construction operator and supervisors
Citywide
$60,000
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
PW
Custodial/maintenance costs for City owned garages
4
$33,667
Parking Fund
Staffing
Impact
PW
Cleaning up trash and debris, assisting with responding to homeless needs, coordination of clean up and response with PD
4
$75,392
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
PW
Cleaning up after homeless scavenging in garbage at Marina
4
$3,000
Special Revenue Fund
Staffing
Impact
PW
Alley abatement program costs associated with complaints due to homeless issues
Citywide
$32,500
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
SFD 13
SFD fire calls for persons experiencing homelessness
Citywide
$2,335,482
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
SFD
SFD explosion calls for persons experiencing homelessness
Citywide
$15,578
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
SFD
SFD medical calls for persons experiencing homelessness
Citywide
$1,952,807
General Fund
Staffing
Service
12 Solid waste likely also collects other illegal dumping piles generated by homeless people and encampment as part of their daily collection program, but there is no way to know this for sure and/or quantify this amount.
13 SFD instituted a “flag” to indicate if calls are related to homelessness in June, 2015. SFD used one month of service calls from June to July 2015 and annualized the costs of these calls to estimate the annual cost. Moving forward, SFD will have the ability to pull a full year’s worth of calls to get a more accurate estimate. Note that the month in which data was available was a time in which there were many grass fires on the parkways, which may be leading to a slightly overstated annualized cost in this category.
13
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
SFD
SFD service calls for persons experiencing homelessness
Citywide
$138,325
General Fund
Staffing
Service
SFD
SFD "good intent" calls for persons experiencing homelessness
Citywide
$492,618
General Fund
Staffing
Service
SFD
SFD false alarm calls for persons experiencing homelessness
Citywide
$364
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
SFD
SFD special calls for persons experiencing homelessness
Citywide
$21,462
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
SHRA 14
Operations and programming for shelter serving single men and women. (Salvation Army)
3
$70,000
CDBG
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Operations and programming for emergency shelter serving single men. (Bannon St. Shelter)
3
$195,853
ESG
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Operations and programming for emergency shelter serving single men and women with HIV/AIDS. (Open Arms Shelter)
3
$440,000
HOPWA
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Operational support for Sacramento Steps Forward
Citywide
$171,894
SHRA
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Contract for design, implementation and analysis for the bi-ennial Point in Time homeless count and survey.
Citywide
$25,000
CDBG
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Rapid re-housing program - rent subsidies and supports for homeless families and individuals
Citywide
$126,216
ESG
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Operational subsidy for 38 permanent supportive housing units for chronically homeless. (7th & H Apartments)
4
$250,000
TI
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Annual rent subsidies for 37 project based vouchers specifically for chronically homeless individuals. (7th & H Apartments)
4
$322,566
HCV
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
23 S+C sponsor based vouchers. (Boulevard Ct.)
6
$160,655
S+C
Hard Costs
Investment
14 Note that SHRA operates on a calendar year, not a fiscal year. Costs included in this report for SHRA are generally costs budgeted for calendar year 2015.
14
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
SHRA
Operational subsidy for 49 permanent supportive housing units for chronically homeless. (Boulevard Ct.)
6
$201,801
TI
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
25 S+C sponsor based vouchers. (Shasta Hotel)
4
$174,625
S+C
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Operational subsidy for 20 permanent supportive housing units for chronically homeless. (Shasta Hotel)
4
$100,000
SHRA
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Mental health and supportive services for formerly homeless persons. (Shasta Hotel)
4
$120,000
CDBG
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Annual rent subsidies for homeless persons
4
$112,800
Mod Rehab
Hard Costs
Investment
SPD
Cost to book, store and release property of homeless people, including custodial services
Citywide
$385,183
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
SPD
Supplies related to booking and storing property of homeless people
Citywide
$4,803
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
SPD
SPD vehicles - portion of prisoner wagons, including fuel and maintenance
Citywide
$77,525
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
SPD
SPD vehicles for Impact team, including fuel and maintenance
Citywide
$19,151
General Fund
Hard Costs
Investment
SPD
SPD response to calls flagged as "transient" in SPD database
Citywide
$2,341,729
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
Total
$13,666,709
15
Appendix B – Joint Powers Authorities
Sacramento Employment and Training Agency (SETA)
The Sacramento Employment and Training Agency (SETA) is a joint powers agency of the City and County of Sacramento tasked with providing critical community services in the fields of workforce development, family services and self-sufficiency.15 SETA has three main funding/programmatic components, each which provides services that are available to people experiencing homelessness, but, in general, are not dedicated to this population. Additionally, while SETA receives and expends funding on behalf of the City and County, they do not account for funding or program participation by jurisdiction. Because none of their programs exclusively serve people experiencing homelessness, none of their costs were included in this report.
However, as the City moves toward more coordinated and collaborative approaches to end homelessness, partnerships with existing “mainstream” services will be critical. To this end, the City, the County and SSF are working purposefully to integrate the services currently offered through community partners such as SETA with homeless-specific services and program. Those programs in SETA include:
1) Providing child development services, including education, health and nutritional services to over 6,200 children from birth to age five through the Head Start program. Eligibility for Head Start is income based, so children in homeless families would almost certainly be eligible.
2) Administering the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funding for Sacramento County to fund neighborhood-based organizations providing direct services assisting low-income people attain self-sufficiency. Some of the organizations funded through CSBG, including Francis House, Next Move and Sacramento Self Help Housing, are organizations who also operate direct shelters and housing programs for persons experiencing homelessness. In most cases, the CSBG funds provide flexible funding for supportive services for clients, some of whom may be homeless (but not required per the funding).
3) Providing employment training and support and workforce development programs for unemployed and underemployed persons. Many homeless serving programs currently connect their clients with employment services offered through SETA, and there may be opportunities to expand these collaborations.
Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA)
The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) is a joint powers agency of the City and County of Sacramento, administering federal funding related to housing and community development and over 15,000 units of affordable housing units as the Public Housing Authority. Some of SHRA’s programs operate as some of the “investments” that the City is making to end homelessness in Sacramento. Some of the funding that SHRA oversees is specifically targeted towards solutions to end
15 http://www.seta.net/about/
16
homelessness, while others are intended to serve lower income households, including those experiencing homelessness. When available, data from these programs has been included in the matrix in Appendix A and the detailed analysis.
Because of lack of available data, some of the programs that are known to support homeless households as well as some that are thought to support homeless households have been excluded from this analysis. The specifics on these programs and why they were excluded are below.
Programs that serve exclusively homeless households:
• Shelter Plus Care (S+C) Vouchers
This program provides permanent housing subsidy and case management for disabled homeless households. SHRA currently administers 638 vouchers throughout the County.
• Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH)
This program provides permanent housing subsidy and case management for homeless veteran households. SHRA currently administers 399 vouchers throughout the County.
In previous presentations to the City Council, SHRA has included costs associated with the entire S+C and VASH programs as an investment in ending homelessness in the city. While these programs do exclusively serve literally homeless populations, all of the funding flows through the County Housing Authority and SHRA does not track recipients of this support by either jurisdiction at entry (e.g. while homeless) or by jurisdiction once housed. With the exception of the 69 project based S+C vouchers at the Boulevard Court Apartments and the Shasta Hotel, the rest of the 968 homeless-specific voucher subsidies could not be included as data was not available at the jurisdictional level.
Programs that serve low income households, inclusive of (but not exclusive to) homeless households:
• Public Housing Units
As the Housing Authority, SHRA owns and operates approximately 3,300 site-based public housing units where rent levels are tied to the individual household’s ability to pay. These units have no selection preferences, but in general, serve extremely low income households.
• Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV)
As the Housing Authority, SHRA manages almost 12,000 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV, formerly “Section 8”) that provide a rent subsidy in a privately owned unit that is tied to the individual household’s ability to pay. For the vast majority of these vouchers, there are locally defined preferences for elderly, disabled, and rent burdened households.
For both public housing and HCV, SHRA does not track the housing status (e.g. housed vs. homeless) of people entering these units. Therefore, with the exception of the 37 project based HCVs at 7th and H and the 20 Mod Rehab public housing units, SHRA is unable to measure the use of these resources by people experiencing homelessness. SHRA is exploring adding such a feature to their database to be able to track and report in the future. At a recent national conference on ending homelessness, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development shared national data from Housing Authorities that
17
were collecting this information at approximately five percent of all public housing and HCV units being occupied by a formerly homeless household.
Sacramento Public Library
The Sacramento Public Library is a JPA of the City and County, overseeing the operations of 28 public library locations throughout the County; 12 are located in the City of Sacramento. Operations of the library are supported through City Parcel Taxes, County Property Taxes and City General Funds. In FY 2014/15, the City contributed approximately $12.7 million through the Community Supports portion of the budget to the Sacramento Public Library, approximately 21% of the total library budget. As a public service, the library is available for the use and enjoyment of all residents. Their books, services and programs are frequently used by a cross-section of the community, including many homeless people, especially in the Central Library. Recognizing both the impacts of the homeless population on the library facilities and the opportunities to reach homeless people using the services offered through the library, the Sacramento Public Library has been a very
Cost of Homelessness to the City of Sacramento October 2015
Executive Summary
In June 2015, the City Council requested a study analyzing the financial resources that the City commits to issues related to homelessness. The causes and symptoms of homelessness are broad and complex, and to fully understand the “cost” of homelessness, a larger effort involving other governmental partners, private non-profit organizations, and community services would be required. As an initial step in this broader conversation, City staff have compiled information on one year’s worth of expenditures and found that the City spends more than $13.6 million annually to address homelessness. In the past year, the City has taken bold new steps to address homelessness in the city, and the results of those efforts are just starting to surface. In the first nine months of 2015, over 1,200 homeless households were assessed for services and housing that meet their particular needs and engaged in the process of finding and securing appropriate housing.
Background
According to the 2015 Point-in-Time Homeless Count for Sacramento County, on any given night, approximately 2,650 people throughout Sacramento County experience homelessness. Over the course of a year, it is estimated that over 5,000 people will be homeless for one or more nights in Sacramento.1 While the majority of these people are sheltered, just over one third (predominantly single adults) are unsheltered, typically sleeping in their vehicles, an encampment, or another outdoor location.
Efforts to prevent and end homelessness in Sacramento County are led by Sacramento Steps Forward (SSF), the lead agency for administering over $18 million in Federal funding for homeless service programs. In 2014, the City of Sacramento approved an allocation of General Funds to pilot a coordinated entry and assessment system through Sacramento Steps Forward (SSF), and in early 2015, the City’s first Homeless Services Coordinator began working out of the Office of the City Manager. Through these strategic partnerships with SSF as well as with Sacramento County, the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) and numerous community organizations, the City has taken a deliberate and proactive approach to address the needs of the community related to homelessness.
Community Context
This report is one part of a broader community conversation on how the Sacramento region addresses homelessness. In order to fully understand the impacts in Sacramento, a similar analysis from other public and private organizations is needed, including Sacramento County, Regional Transit, the four private hospital systems, Property Based Improvement Districts (PBIDs) and others. While this analysis of costs to the City is helpful in making strategic decisions on City investments, if other systems serving the homeless population do not make similar commitments to understanding the role they play in the community’s response to homelessness, the value of the City’s efforts may not be fully realized.
1 http://sacramentostepsforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Sacramento-2015-PIT-Technical-Report-FINAL-7-16-15.pdf
2
It is also important to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs in which the City is investing and not simply identify the amount of money spent. Sacramento Steps Forward is currently in the process of completing an analysis of the efficacy of homeless programs, including those the City invests in. This information will be important as the City continues to consider funding and strategies to reduce homelessness.
Methodology
The City’s Homeless Services Coordinator sent details on the project to all City Department Directors, who were asked to consider their operating budget and whether their department had any costs related to homelessness.
Four departments indicated they did not have any costs associated with homelessness and were excluded from the study. Those departments eliminated are:
• Office of the City Clerk
• Office of the City Treasurer
• Finance Department
• Department of Human Resources
The remaining twelve City departments were asked to provide information on costs at the most granular level possible, preferably by project or activity or by geographic location and were asked to separate hard costs (e.g. equipment, contracts, etc.) from staff costs. Departments were also asked to provide a brief description of the activity or program, the funding source for the cost, methodology for reporting the cost, and any locational information.
In addition to the information from City departments, the Homeless Services Coordinator also met with the three City/County Joint Powers Agencies (JPAs): the Sacramento Employment and Training Agency (SETA), the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA), and the Sacramento Public Library. When the JPA’s funding could be clearly attributed to the City, it was included in the analysis; Appendix B includes a general discussion of how these three JPAs contribute to the City’s efforts to reduce and end homelessness. The compiled data from all departments is included in Appendix A, which is the basis for the detailed analysis provided below.
Findings
The City of Sacramento spends more than $13.6 million annually on costs related to homelessness: approximately $6.6 million on services and support for persons experiencing homelessness and approximately $7.0 million on mitigating community impacts of homelessness. Appendix A includes a detailed list of all costs accounted for in Fiscal Year 2014/15 by department. In addition to the raw numbers, there are other contextual findings from this study:
• Virtually every department works directly or indirectly on a regular basis with either people experiencing homelessness or with addressing the community impacts of homelessness.
3
• Departments are regularly diverting resources from other essential City activities to address the needs of the community related to homelessness. Over time, these activities have simply been absorbed into the regular operations of the departments; however, were they to cease, the average citizen would likely see a huge effect on their community.
• There is an impressive level of coordination between City departments to collaboratively address the needs of the community related to homelessness.
Analysis by City Department
Twelve of the sixteen City Departments incurred costs related to homelessness in Fiscal Year 2014/15 totaling just over $10.8 million. In addition to these costs, almost $2.85 million was expended by the JPAs (SHRA and the Library), for a total of $13,667,000. Because the budgets for the JPAs are broader than the City, their costs were extracted for purposes of analysis by department.
*Note that costs incurred by JPAs are not included in this table, but are included in subsequent analyses.
As seen above, the three departments with the largest costs are those that provide direct services to constituents: the Sacramento Police Department (SPD), the Sacramento Fire Department (SFD) and the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). These three departments collectively expend over $9
2 The City underwent a major reorganization in late 2015 which resulted in the Department of General Services and all its functions being absorbed by three other departments In order to reflect the current operational structure of the City, the operating budget for General Services from FY 2014/15 was divided and added into these departments.
3 Budget figures from Schedule 1-B of the FY 2014/15 City budget, found on page 61: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/Finance/Budget/Documents/Approved-Budget2014-15
City Department 2
FY 2014/15 Budget 3
$ spent on homelessness
% spent on homelessness
Mayor/Council (M/C)
$4,795,000
$67,291
1.4%
City Attorney (CAO)
$6,663,000
$242,841
3.5%
City Clerk
$7,761,000
-
-
City Manager (CMO)
$2,897,000
$637,715
22.0%
City Treasurer
$2,045,000
-
-
Community Development (CDD)
$23,602,000
$248,911
1.1%
Convention and Cultural Services (CCS)
$17,642,000
$98,254
0.6%
Economic Development Department (EDD)
$3,266,000
$35,000
1.1%
Finance Department
$8,724,000
-
-
Fire Department (SFD)
$95,591,000
$4,956,636
5.2%
Human Resources Department
$32,175,000
-
-
Information Technology (IT)
$9,529,000
$14,795
0.2%
Parks and Recreation (DPR)
$34,827,000
$1,302,101
3.7%
Police Department (SPD)
$124,607,000
$2,828,391
2.3%
Department of Public Works (PW)
$151,585,000
$307,391
0.2%
Department of Utilities (DOU)
$120,301,000
$80,200
0.1%
TOTAL
$640,010,000
$10,819,526
1.69%
Figure 1: Operational Budget Spent on Homelessness by Department, FY 2014/15
4
50%
29%
19%
2%
Impact
Investment
Service
Unknown
million annually on homeless-related issues, approximately 84 percent of the total homeless-related expenses from the City’s operational budget.
Analysis by Activity Type
For a more nuanced understanding of how funds are used, costs were divided into three categories:
1) Impacts: These are costs that the City pays to mitigate or reduce the impact of homelessness on the broader community. These are typically reactive type of activities and include such things as the costs to pick up and dispose of property left in abandoned homeless encampments, the cost to secure City property from homeless setting up camp, etc.
2) Investments: These are funds that the City is providing to programs or services that are directly providing solutions to end homelessness. Investments include funding SSF to deliver a coordinated intake system, the hiring of the Homeless Services Coordinator, creating the Police Impact Team, etc.
3) Services: These are costs to provide services for people while they are homeless. The largest “service” cost is the cost for the Fire Department to transport people experiencing homelessness in ambulances. Service costs do not mitigate community impacts but also do not
help to reduce or end homelessness.
When looking at the totality of City spending, including funds spent by the JPAs, the City is spending half of all funds on mitigating community impacts of homelessness, 29 percent of all funds on investments to end homelessness and 19 percent on services supporting people experiencing homelessness.4 As spending on investments in housing and supportive services increases and is adjusted to best meet the needs of the homeless population, the City should see both a reduction in the overall spending and a redistribution of this pie such that the greatest percentage is in the “investment” category.
4 An additional two percent of activities are coded as “unknown”. These are the activities of the City Attorney’s Office, whose time is in support of other department activities, and not affixed to particular activities/projects.
Figure 2: Homeless Expenses by Activity Type, FY 2014/15
5
Figure 3: Homeless Expenditures by Fund Type
74%
12%
11%
3%
0.6%
0.4%
$2M
$4M
$6M
$8M
$10M
$12M
Citywi…
D4
D3
D6
D5
D2
Figure 4: Homeless Costs by City Districts
Analysis by Fund Type
In regard to funding, homeless expenses are paid for primarily through General Funds. After General Funds, the combination of funding administered through SHRA, mostly from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the second most commonly used funding source for homeless activities. HUD funds for homeless activities come through a variety of programs, some of which are specifically set-aside for homeless programs and services and some of which have more general intended uses such as affordable housing or community development. Note that the amount of HUD funds is likely an under representation, given the known data challenges with pinpointing both the location of some of the subsidies and the housing status of the residents (see Appendix B for more details).
Analysis by City District
In general, the vast majority of spending on homeless related activities was not specific tracked to a particular area or Council district – 74 percent of the costs were coded as “Citywide”. The few exceptions are things such as targeted, neighborhood based impacts, such as cleanup efforts at specific parks or libraries, funding for housing units in a particular location, or a neighborhood based outreach program where the services are targeted towards street homeless in a defined area.
5 TI funding is associated with (now defunct) Redevelopment Agency (RDA) activities. When the State eliminated redevelopment, existing obligations were captured in the RDA’s Recognized Obligation Payment (ROP) of the Redevelopment Successor Agency. ROPs are enforceable obligations that were in place at time of the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in the State of California and, therefore, are still funded through property tax distributions.
6 “PILOT” is a Payment in Lieu of Taxes that is paid by projects financed by SHRA with tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds. The payment is equal to 20 percent of one percent of the value of the project to offset the property taxes forgone by the City by virtue of the tax exempt bond financing. SHRA then uses these PILOT fees to finance other housing projects and programs.
Fund Type
Amount Spent on Homelessness
Percent of Expenditures
General Fund
$10,897,346
80.0%
HUD Funds
$1,747,715
13.0%
Tax Increment (TI) 5
$451,801
3.3%
PILOT Funds 6
$271,894
2.0%
Enterprise Funds
$261,286
1.9%
Parking Fund
$33,667
0.25%
Special Revenue Fund
$3,000
0.02%
TOTAL
$13,666,709
100%
6
Conclusion
The City expends approximately $13.6 million annually on challenges related to homelessness and on solutions aimed at preventing and ending homelessness. Given the transitory and hidden nature of the homeless population, while these numbers are as accurate as possible, they are likely an under-representation of the City’s annual commitments. The true and complete cost would include other costs shared by governmental and private partners as well as the cost of lost opportunities to the community and for those people experiencing homelessness.
As local partners, including the City, SSF, SHRA and others, continue to refine the data they have available on the efficacy of programs serving people experiencing homelessness, the findings of this report may take on different meaning. Ending homelessness is more than a financial strategy and more than a housing strategy. Ending homelessness requires the efforts and commitment in the fields of mental health, drug and alcohol addiction, family reunification, education, employment, and poverty in general. As SSF continues to lead our regional approach specific to homelessness, the City will maintain the support of these efforts and those of other systems of care integral to impacting the broader underlying causes and symptoms of homelessness.
Sump 60 before and after Department of Utilities cleanup and fencing project.
7
Appendix A – Detailed Cost Matrix
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
CAO
Provide legal services on homeless issues and activities to City staff (Supervising DCA)
Citywide
$25,622
General Fund
Staffing
Unknown
CAO
Provide legal services on homeless issues and activities to City staff (Senior DCA)
Citywide
$55,291
General Fund
Staffing
Unknown
CAO
Provide legal services on homeless issues and activities to City staff (DCA II)
Citywide
$59,132
General Fund
Staffing
Unknown
CAO
Provide legal services on homeless issues and activities to City staff (DCA I)
Citywide
$102,796
General Fund
Staffing
Unknown
CCS
Supplies for cleaning related to homelessness at the Convention Center
4
$300
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CCS
Daily cleaning of trash and debris at Convention Center
4
$13,837
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
CCS
Water used for cleaning of homeless trash and defecation at the Convention Center
4
$120
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CCS
Cleaning of human defecation at the Convention Center
4
$4,612
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
CCS
Emptying and maintenance of garbage cans at the Convention Center
4
$4,612
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
CCS
Staff time to remove homeless people from the Convention Center
4
$10,977
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
CCS
Contract for private security to address homeless issues at Convention Center
4
$38,420
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CCS
(one time) Parts/supplies for repair to bench at 13th and J
4
$700
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CCS
(one time) Labor to repair bench at 13th and J
4
$71
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
CCS
(one time) Parts/supplies to install irrigation vandalism deterrent
4
$50
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
8
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
CCS
(one time) Labor to install irrigation vandalism deterrent
4
$350
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
CCS
(one time) Parts/supplies to replace flush meter
4
$1,854
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CCS
(one time) Labor to replace flush meter
4
$350
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
CCS
(one time) Installation of three security gates
4
$22,000
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CDD
Housing & Dangerous Buildings Inspectors securing vacant buildings
Citywide
$64,170
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
CDD
Securing costs of vacant buildings due to persons breaking into windows, doors, perimeter fencing, etc. 7
Citywide
$174,741
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CDD
Intake, care and release of pets of the homeless8
Citywide
$10,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
CMO
Administration of City's Homeless Services Coordination activities 9
Citywide
$137,715
General Fund
Staffing
Investment
CMO
"Common Cents" homeless coordinated entry system (contracted through SSF) 10
Citywide
$500,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Investment
DOU
Repair and clean up Sump 60
4
$20,407
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Staff time to install signs and add security fencing at Sump 60
4
$3,176
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
DOU
Construction of fence and installation of no trespassing signs at Sump 60
4
$14,343
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Repairs to fence and installation of no trespassing signs at Pioneer Reservoir
4
$250
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Staff time to repair fence and install no trespassing signs at Pioneer Reservoir
4
$11,691
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
7 Securement invoices received by CDD are paid as received and in turn, invoiced to the property owner. However, they may go unpaid for extended periods of time and end up as special assessments collected through the County of Sacramento.
8 Costs include staffing and care of the animals, but have been coded as "hard costs”, as the majority of the costs can be attributed to facilities, materials, etc.
9 The Homeless Services Coordinator came on board half way through FY 2014/15. The annualized cost of this position has been included as it is now an annual cost.
10 In FY 2015/16, the City committed an additional (one time) $500,000 of General Funds to provide housing, education and employment services for some of the households identified through the Common Cents program. This amount is not included in this analysis, which looked only at costs from FY 2014/15.
9
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
DOU
Removal of trees on fences to stop homeless from climbing over at Sump 104
5
$11,000
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Sign replacement to deter homeless from cutting fence to reach water at Sump 147
6
$200
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Staff time to replace signs to prevent fence cutting at Sump 147
6
$2,000
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
DOU
Installation of sign notifying that equipment will start anytime to keep homeless from getting hurt at Sump 96
6
$200
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Staff time to install sign regarding equipment at Sump 96
6
$159
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
DOU
Repair to fence at Sump 38
3
$321
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Staff time to repair fence at Sump 38
3
$2,000
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
DOU
Staff time to clean out parkway turnouts
Citywide
$312
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
DOU
Security contract to patrol DOU facilities
Citywide
$540
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
PARC clean up, including haz-mat and Hyjentek to clean bio-waste and syringes
Citywide
$5,000
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Clean up of homeless camp at Bell Avenue and Burgess Drive
2
$600
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
DOU
Contract with Hyjentek to pull needles out of a Designated Inlet (storm drain)
Citywide
$4,000
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
DOU
Major cleanup of homeless camp and debris in partnership with SPD at Sump 113
3
$4,000
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
DPR
Operation and staffing of warming center at Southside Park Pool Center
4
$4,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Service
DPR
Winter motel voucher shelter program (contracted through SSF)
Citywide
$100,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Investment
DPR
Comprehensive Alcohol Treatment Center for 80 homeless inebriates (contracted through VOA)
3
$708,351
General Fund
Hard Costs
Investment
DPR
Response to citizen calls regarding unsheltered homeless
Citywide
$25,000
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
10
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
DPR
Community meetings, outreach/education and overseeing contracts
Citywide
$10,750
General Fund
Staffing
Investment
DPR
Homeless camp clean ups in parks, trails and river parkways: Park Safety Ranger Unit
Citywide
$116,800
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
DPR
Homeless camp clean ups in parks, trails and river parkways: Park Maintenance Division
Citywide
$7,200
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
DPR
Homeless citations: Park Safety Unit
Citywide
$4,000
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
DPR
Impact of homeless sleeping in park restrooms overnight, and/or bathing or using for shelter during the day
Citywide
$326,000
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
EDD
Staff time related to addressing homeless issues, primarily in the River District
3
$10,000
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
EDD
(portion of) Homeless outreach navigator for the River District PBID
3
$25,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Investment
IT
Answer, record, and refer 3-1-1 calls relating to homelessness 11
Citywide
$14,795
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
LIB
Coordinate library security program
Citywide
$36,275
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
LIB
Clean up of abandoned items
Citywide
$4,500
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
LIB
Electrical repairs due to damage caused by homeless camps
Citywide
$2,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security guard for Del Paso Heights Library
2
$23,830
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security surveillance for Del Paso Heights Library
2
$2,200
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security guard for North Sacramento Library
2
$21,316
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security surveillance for North Sacramento Library
2
$1,600
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
11 Key words used to identify homeless related calls = Homeless, Urine, Feces, Hypo, Hypodermic, Needle, Shopping Carts. Total 3-1-1 budget is inclusive of staffing and operating costs, including equipment and overhead.
11
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
LIB
Contracted Hyjentek clean up (needles, urine & feces) for North Sacramento Library
2
$685
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security guard for Central Library
4
$126,601
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security surveillance for Central Library
4
$3,200
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted Hyjentek clean up (needles, urine & feces) for Central Library
4
$10,898
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted power washing for Central Library
4
$9,030
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Homeless outreach coordinator (contracted through SSF) for Central Library
4
$57,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Investment
LIB
Contracted security guard for Colonial Heights Library
5
$23,829
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security patrols for Colonial Heights Library
5
$60
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted Hyjentek clean up (needles, urine & feces) for Colonial Heights Library
5
$1,934
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security surveillance for Colonial Heights Library
5
$22,804
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted property improvements for Colonial Heights Library
5
$300
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security guard for Belle Cooledge Library
5
$7,998
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted security surveillance for Belle Cooledge Library
5
$19,300
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
LIB
Contracted Hyjentek clean up (needles, urine & feces) for Belle Cooledge Library
5
$413
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
M/C
Staff time in D3 office related to homeless activities and concerns
3
$42,934
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
12
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
M/C
Staff time in D4 office related to homeless activities and concerns
4
$24,357
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
PW
Cost of equipment to work with PD every other Friday to assist in homeless camp clean up 12
Citywide
$38,881
Enterprise Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
PW
Cost of staffing to work with PD every other Friday to assist in homeless camp clean up
Citywide
$43,951
Enterprise Fund
Staffing
Impact
PW
Provide trucks and equipment to clean up illegal dumping
Citywide
$20,000
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
PW
Street construction labor and street construction operator and supervisors
Citywide
$60,000
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
PW
Custodial/maintenance costs for City owned garages
4
$33,667
Parking Fund
Staffing
Impact
PW
Cleaning up trash and debris, assisting with responding to homeless needs, coordination of clean up and response with PD
4
$75,392
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
PW
Cleaning up after homeless scavenging in garbage at Marina
4
$3,000
Special Revenue Fund
Staffing
Impact
PW
Alley abatement program costs associated with complaints due to homeless issues
Citywide
$32,500
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
SFD 13
SFD fire calls for persons experiencing homelessness
Citywide
$2,335,482
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
SFD
SFD explosion calls for persons experiencing homelessness
Citywide
$15,578
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
SFD
SFD medical calls for persons experiencing homelessness
Citywide
$1,952,807
General Fund
Staffing
Service
12 Solid waste likely also collects other illegal dumping piles generated by homeless people and encampment as part of their daily collection program, but there is no way to know this for sure and/or quantify this amount.
13 SFD instituted a “flag” to indicate if calls are related to homelessness in June, 2015. SFD used one month of service calls from June to July 2015 and annualized the costs of these calls to estimate the annual cost. Moving forward, SFD will have the ability to pull a full year’s worth of calls to get a more accurate estimate. Note that the month in which data was available was a time in which there were many grass fires on the parkways, which may be leading to a slightly overstated annualized cost in this category.
13
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
SFD
SFD service calls for persons experiencing homelessness
Citywide
$138,325
General Fund
Staffing
Service
SFD
SFD "good intent" calls for persons experiencing homelessness
Citywide
$492,618
General Fund
Staffing
Service
SFD
SFD false alarm calls for persons experiencing homelessness
Citywide
$364
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
SFD
SFD special calls for persons experiencing homelessness
Citywide
$21,462
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
SHRA 14
Operations and programming for shelter serving single men and women. (Salvation Army)
3
$70,000
CDBG
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Operations and programming for emergency shelter serving single men. (Bannon St. Shelter)
3
$195,853
ESG
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Operations and programming for emergency shelter serving single men and women with HIV/AIDS. (Open Arms Shelter)
3
$440,000
HOPWA
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Operational support for Sacramento Steps Forward
Citywide
$171,894
SHRA
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Contract for design, implementation and analysis for the bi-ennial Point in Time homeless count and survey.
Citywide
$25,000
CDBG
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Rapid re-housing program - rent subsidies and supports for homeless families and individuals
Citywide
$126,216
ESG
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Operational subsidy for 38 permanent supportive housing units for chronically homeless. (7th & H Apartments)
4
$250,000
TI
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Annual rent subsidies for 37 project based vouchers specifically for chronically homeless individuals. (7th & H Apartments)
4
$322,566
HCV
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
23 S+C sponsor based vouchers. (Boulevard Ct.)
6
$160,655
S+C
Hard Costs
Investment
14 Note that SHRA operates on a calendar year, not a fiscal year. Costs included in this report for SHRA are generally costs budgeted for calendar year 2015.
14
Department
Activity
City District
FY 2014/15 Amount
Funding Source
Staff or Hard Costs
Cost Type
SHRA
Operational subsidy for 49 permanent supportive housing units for chronically homeless. (Boulevard Ct.)
6
$201,801
TI
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
25 S+C sponsor based vouchers. (Shasta Hotel)
4
$174,625
S+C
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Operational subsidy for 20 permanent supportive housing units for chronically homeless. (Shasta Hotel)
4
$100,000
SHRA
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Mental health and supportive services for formerly homeless persons. (Shasta Hotel)
4
$120,000
CDBG
Hard Costs
Investment
SHRA
Annual rent subsidies for homeless persons
4
$112,800
Mod Rehab
Hard Costs
Investment
SPD
Cost to book, store and release property of homeless people, including custodial services
Citywide
$385,183
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
SPD
Supplies related to booking and storing property of homeless people
Citywide
$4,803
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
SPD
SPD vehicles - portion of prisoner wagons, including fuel and maintenance
Citywide
$77,525
General Fund
Hard Costs
Impact
SPD
SPD vehicles for Impact team, including fuel and maintenance
Citywide
$19,151
General Fund
Hard Costs
Investment
SPD
SPD response to calls flagged as "transient" in SPD database
Citywide
$2,341,729
General Fund
Staffing
Impact
Total
$13,666,709
15
Appendix B – Joint Powers Authorities
Sacramento Employment and Training Agency (SETA)
The Sacramento Employment and Training Agency (SETA) is a joint powers agency of the City and County of Sacramento tasked with providing critical community services in the fields of workforce development, family services and self-sufficiency.15 SETA has three main funding/programmatic components, each which provides services that are available to people experiencing homelessness, but, in general, are not dedicated to this population. Additionally, while SETA receives and expends funding on behalf of the City and County, they do not account for funding or program participation by jurisdiction. Because none of their programs exclusively serve people experiencing homelessness, none of their costs were included in this report.
However, as the City moves toward more coordinated and collaborative approaches to end homelessness, partnerships with existing “mainstream” services will be critical. To this end, the City, the County and SSF are working purposefully to integrate the services currently offered through community partners such as SETA with homeless-specific services and program. Those programs in SETA include:
1) Providing child development services, including education, health and nutritional services to over 6,200 children from birth to age five through the Head Start program. Eligibility for Head Start is income based, so children in homeless families would almost certainly be eligible.
2) Administering the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funding for Sacramento County to fund neighborhood-based organizations providing direct services assisting low-income people attain self-sufficiency. Some of the organizations funded through CSBG, including Francis House, Next Move and Sacramento Self Help Housing, are organizations who also operate direct shelters and housing programs for persons experiencing homelessness. In most cases, the CSBG funds provide flexible funding for supportive services for clients, some of whom may be homeless (but not required per the funding).
3) Providing employment training and support and workforce development programs for unemployed and underemployed persons. Many homeless serving programs currently connect their clients with employment services offered through SETA, and there may be opportunities to expand these collaborations.
Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA)
The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) is a joint powers agency of the City and County of Sacramento, administering federal funding related to housing and community development and over 15,000 units of affordable housing units as the Public Housing Authority. Some of SHRA’s programs operate as some of the “investments” that the City is making to end homelessness in Sacramento. Some of the funding that SHRA oversees is specifically targeted towards solutions to end
15 http://www.seta.net/about/
16
homelessness, while others are intended to serve lower income households, including those experiencing homelessness. When available, data from these programs has been included in the matrix in Appendix A and the detailed analysis.
Because of lack of available data, some of the programs that are known to support homeless households as well as some that are thought to support homeless households have been excluded from this analysis. The specifics on these programs and why they were excluded are below.
Programs that serve exclusively homeless households:
• Shelter Plus Care (S+C) Vouchers
This program provides permanent housing subsidy and case management for disabled homeless households. SHRA currently administers 638 vouchers throughout the County.
• Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH)
This program provides permanent housing subsidy and case management for homeless veteran households. SHRA currently administers 399 vouchers throughout the County.
In previous presentations to the City Council, SHRA has included costs associated with the entire S+C and VASH programs as an investment in ending homelessness in the city. While these programs do exclusively serve literally homeless populations, all of the funding flows through the County Housing Authority and SHRA does not track recipients of this support by either jurisdiction at entry (e.g. while homeless) or by jurisdiction once housed. With the exception of the 69 project based S+C vouchers at the Boulevard Court Apartments and the Shasta Hotel, the rest of the 968 homeless-specific voucher subsidies could not be included as data was not available at the jurisdictional level.
Programs that serve low income households, inclusive of (but not exclusive to) homeless households:
• Public Housing Units
As the Housing Authority, SHRA owns and operates approximately 3,300 site-based public housing units where rent levels are tied to the individual household’s ability to pay. These units have no selection preferences, but in general, serve extremely low income households.
• Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV)
As the Housing Authority, SHRA manages almost 12,000 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV, formerly “Section 8”) that provide a rent subsidy in a privately owned unit that is tied to the individual household’s ability to pay. For the vast majority of these vouchers, there are locally defined preferences for elderly, disabled, and rent burdened households.
For both public housing and HCV, SHRA does not track the housing status (e.g. housed vs. homeless) of people entering these units. Therefore, with the exception of the 37 project based HCVs at 7th and H and the 20 Mod Rehab public housing units, SHRA is unable to measure the use of these resources by people experiencing homelessness. SHRA is exploring adding such a feature to their database to be able to track and report in the future. At a recent national conference on ending homelessness, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development shared national data from Housing Authorities that
17
were collecting this information at approximately five percent of all public housing and HCV units being occupied by a formerly homeless household.
Sacramento Public Library
The Sacramento Public Library is a JPA of the City and County, overseeing the operations of 28 public library locations throughout the County; 12 are located in the City of Sacramento. Operations of the library are supported through City Parcel Taxes, County Property Taxes and City General Funds. In FY 2014/15, the City contributed approximately $12.7 million through the Community Supports portion of the budget to the Sacramento Public Library, approximately 21% of the total library budget. As a public service, the library is available for the use and enjoyment of all residents. Their books, services and programs are frequently used by a cross-section of the community, including many homeless people, especially in the Central Library. Recognizing both the impacts of the homeless population on the library facilities and the opportunities to reach homeless people using the services offered through the library, the Sacramento Public Library has been a very
No comments:
Post a Comment
PLEASE COMMENT, OR ADD INFORMATION YOU FEEL PERTAINS