Housing in Sonoma County

Greetings!

The following are SmartMaps which have been created to improve Homeless Housing development in Sonoma County:

California Continuums of Care

All County Housing Projects Tracking

Santa Rosa Low Income Housing Resources

Rental Property Owners in Sonoma County

Homeless Nonprofits in California

Senate Finance Committee Hearing on July 20th

 

This weekend, I saw a replay of a hearing the United States Senate Finance Committee held a month ago.  The Senators interviewed a variety of representatives of home builders, funders, and advocates about their views on several pieces of legislation being considered.  I came away even more convinced that changes being made to the low income tax credit (responsible for 90% of the financing of subsidized housing in the country) would be enacted into law in the next couple of years.  The changes being considered would allow the funds to be used to build housing for a larger segment of area median income-eligible residents.  Expanding the parameters twenty percent up and twenty percent down would provide enough profits on the high end to pay for reaching down to the low.

   

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COSTS vs. INCOMES SONOMA COUNTY and CALIFORNIA 2000 - 2022

 

Greetings!

This afternoon, the City of Santa Rosa will be presenting at a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Housing Authority a report it has prepared on the current condition of housing in the City, and what it plans on doing to meet the housing needs of its residents going forward.  At the meeting, I plan on congratulating the City for its report, and for its continued attempts to provide affordable housing. 

Here is a link to the Santa Rosa Draft Housing Element.

I also plan to mention an excellent report prepared by John Lowry, who served as the Executive Director of Burbank Housing Development Corporation.  Burbank has produced a great number of the low income houses in the City, with funding from a variety of governmental sources.  His excellent report details why it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so, and what needs to be done to reverse that trend.

Here is a link to that paper.

Juggling plates on sticks

Greetings!

This morning, I listened to a workshop for the City Council of Santa Rosa, at which their staff made presentations to the Council about the accomplishments and challenges ahead meeting the many goals established by the Council earlier this year.  Generally evaluating their performances in light of widespread vacancies and appointments as acting and interim staff positions, they braced the Council for cautious progress.

I remember as a young adult watching a performer on the Ed Sullivan show keep lots of plates spinning on sticks in the air.  Multi-tasking was never so clearly displayed.  

Jason, and Clare in particular, seemed to be our modern day plate spinners.  Only now, we're asking them to do it while turning in circles and wearing fogged glasses.

The Council needs to adopt fewer short-term goals and objectives, and collaborate regionally to develop strategic plans which spread the burden of keeping those plates spinning.  The spinners need to know they have our full support, and that our voices won't confuse or distract them from their performance.

Gregory

 

 

Tracking Success - HEAP and HHAP over the past three years

Greetings!

Several of us datawonks have begun a serious dive into the available reports provided by the 70 providers of housing and housing-ready and supportive services funded by local, state, HUD-Housing, and HUD-Cares sources over the past three years.

Our goal is to figure out what is happening as a result of all the expenditures and efforts using client outcomes.  What have been the housing outcomes for participants, and how much has the money and work undertaken improved their ability to achieve stable, unsubsidized housing?  More importantly for local government, and the newly-constituted Sonoma County Continuum of Care Governing Board, what has worked and what hasn't?

This comes at a time when the California Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (HCFC) is asking the same questions.  At their Dec 18th virtual meeting, Governor Newsom described the progress of his Roomkey and Homekey Programs, which have pumped $1 billion into local hands in record time.  

With Public Record Act requests being submitted to acquire the past year's agency reports, including de-identified client reports from the local Homeless Management Information System (the same data that the the HCFC will be aggregating into their own database this spring), we should be able to answer these important questions for decision-makers and the public to review.

For each of the programs and expenditures, what do we know about our client housing histories before they enrolled in our program?  Given that we assess them at the beginning for their health and housing vulnerability in order to provide priority services to the most in need, who were our clients served?  Do they reflect the overall homeless community?  Are they the most needy?  What did they ask of us?  What did we provide to them?  How long did we do so?  What were the outcomes achieved?  What was not achieved?  Why?  Did it impact the level of our ongoing work needed?  When they left our program, did they enroll in another program?  What type of housing was it?  What services were provided?  Did the subsequent provider learn anything from the previous provider and records?  What was the client's experience there?  Did it result in their being more or less capable of improving their housing security and capabilities?

Many homeless advocates are unconvinced that the CoC understands the outcomes it has achieved, and are asking the Governing Board to direct staff to provide more information on program performance.  This blog will contain what the requested reports and records reveal.  What is likely to be the result is that far more questions and tracking systems need to be formulated to improve our chances of addressing the issue of homelessness.   With an estimated $100 million having been spent locally over this period on law enforcement, emergency room utilization, facility development, and services provisions, we owe it to both clients and ourselves to do a better job.

April 7th Meeting of the Board of Supervisors

Greetings!

The April 7th Meeting of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors contains important information on the efforts of the County to house unsheltered to protect them from the COVID-19 Virus.  (Click Here)

HMIS Usage and Value in Sonoma County

Greetings!

I want to use this post to collect the information that Sonoma County reports to HUD.

This information below (and commentary from me) provides insight into how many beds we have in various categories, and what percentage in each category are participating in our HMIS system. It is helpful to me to be able to better understand our capacity for serving homeless, and how accurately we can measure outcomes.

Gregory

The summary is:

699 shelter beds, 28 dedicated to domestic violence, 93.44% participating in HMIS.  100 beds not in HMIS.  Which agencies are these beds in?

275 transitional housing beds, 182 in HMIS, 193 not in HMIS. Which agencies are these beds in?

495 rapid re-housing beds, all in HMIS.

764 permanent supportive housing beds, 305 in HMIS, 459 not in HMIS. Which agencies are these beds in? 

318 other permanent housing beds, 169 in HMIS, 149 not in HMIS.  Which agencies are these beds in?

Excluding rapid re-housing, 1255 beds in HMIS, 901 not in HMIS (72%).

If outcome measures beyond the shelter are the key to the performance of our system, how do you accomplish that if a majority of those beds are not being included?  Of the 1357 beds in non-shelter, non-rapid re-housing in Sonoma County (which HMIS was designed for), 801 beds are not being entered into HMIS (59%).