Los Angeles Homelessness Strategy

FORM GEN.
160
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
Date: January 7, 2016
To: The Mayor

The City Council
From: Miguel A. Santana, CityAdministrative ~ '£j~

Sharon Tso, Chief Legislative Analyst ~1(/J
c
Subject: COMPREHENSIVE HOMELESS STRATEGY
Summary
Pursuant to Mayor Eric Garcetti's request dated September 21, 2015, and Council direction
(C. F. 15-1138-51 ), the City Administrative Officer and Chief Legislative Analyst, with the
assistance of various City and County representatives, submits the attached Comprehensive
Homeless Strategy report. The report represents a shared approach of system-wide change
with mutual responsibility and aligned goals between the City and County of Los Angeles.
The City of Los Angeles continues to face growing numbers of homeless individuals and
families, even as national trends show homelessness decreasing across the United States.
The City's elected leadership has taken important steps and actions to address homelessness.
Mayor Garcetti included a Priority Outcome to prevent and reduce homelessness in the 2015-
2016 Budget and Policy Goals. Council President Wesson created the standing
Homelessness and Poverty Committee. The Committee itself, led by Councilmembers Harris-
Dawson and Huizar, has introduced and passed a series of Motions on a range of topics from
safe parking and rapid rehousing to winter shelters. Councilmembers Bonin, Buscaino, Koretz,
O'Farrell and Price have also submitted separate motions related to homelessness. At this
critical juncture, the City recognizes the need to address homelessness in a comprehensive
and collaborative manner.
Concurrent with City efforts, Los Angeles County launched a Homeless Initiative and held a
series of 18 summits this past fall on topics ranging from homeless employment, land use, and
Affordable Care Act opportunities. An unprecedented meeting was held October 20, 2015 with
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, the five County
Board of Supervisors, Mayor Garcetti, and the co-chairs of the Homelessness and Poverty
Committee. The County released its Draft Recommended Strategies to Combat Homelessness
for public comment today.
This report is not a $100 million expenditure plan. Rather, it is a blueprint for a comprehensive
strategy to address homelessness in the short term and long term. Given the City's financial
constraints due to extraordinary expenditures for liability claims, it is unlikely that we will be
able to identify a significant amount of additional funding on an interim basis beyond the $15
-2-
million already appropriated in prior Financial Status Reports. Future funding considerations
should be included in the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Budget cycle based on the priorities and
strategies included in this report as well as the others approved by the Mayor and Council.
The report also identifies potential new funding sources the Mayor and Council may wish to
consider to fund priority initiatives.
Public Hearing Process
It is our understanding that the Homelessness and Poverty Committee plans to hold meetings
on the Comprehensive Strategy Report on Wednesday, January 13 and an additional future
date. The County is also expected to hold a public hearing on its report on January 13. The
County Board of Supervisors is expected to hear their full report at its Tuesday, February 9,
2016 meeting. The City Council may wish to consider the Homelessness and Poverty
Committee's recommendations on the attached report within the same time frame. The Council
may also wish to refer elements of this report to the appropriate committees in advance of full
Council consideration.
Immediate Assistance for the Homeless - El Nino
As this report is released, unusually severe El Nino conditions are anticipated to bring
inclement weather to southern California this winter season. The Mayor and Council, in
preparation for high-levels of heavy precipitation and low temperatures, have proactively
mobilized various City assets and directed departments to ensure precautions are taken and
contingency plans are in place to provide emergency shelters and services to the City's
homeless community. Close coordination efforts between the City's Emergency Management
Department and the County of Los Angeles' Office of Emergency Management are active and
remain vigilant. Under direction of the City, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
(LAHSA) will have approximately 440 Winter "Surge" Beds, in addition to the City's already
existing (861) Winter Shelter Program beds, ready for operation in the case of an adverse
weather incident. The City understands the vulnerability of its homeless community during the
winter season and stands committed to provide them with resources to avoid injury or loss of
life. Therefore, the CAO and CLA recommend that Council, subject to the approval of the
Mayor, make $2.1 million in funds available from the original balance of $15 million in funding
for anticipated costs associated with El Nino related inclement weather shelters and other
matters. This allocation was discussed but an action to transfer funds was not included in the
Second Financial Status Report.
Recommendation
That the City Council, subject to the approval of the Mayor, authorize the Controller to transfer
$2.1 million from the Unappropriated Balance Serving and Housing LA's Homeless account to
a new account to be established in the General City Purposes Fund, entitled "EI Nino
Response" to fund El Nino related services for the homeless. The Mayor and Council further
authorize the Controller to expend, encumber, and/or transfer these funds, at the direction of
the Homeless Strategy Committee discussed in this report, without further approval from the
Mayor and Council so that these funds may be directed and expended as expeditiously as
possible.
-3 -
Fiscal Impact Statement
There is no fiscal impact related to the recommendation in this report. Existing funds have
been set aside in the Unappropriated Balance that will be used to support the El Nino related
activities. The fiscal impact associated with pursuing strategies presented in the
Comprehensive Homeless Strategy report will be identified in a future report back to the
Council and Mayor.
COMPREHENSIVE HOMELESS STRATEGY
Comprehensive Homeless Strategy
CITY OF LOS ANGELES 1

Page left intentionally blank.

Contents
COMPREHENSIVE HOMELESS STRATEGY.................................................................................................... 1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... 8
PURPOSE AND ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................................................................... 10
LONG-TERM COMMITMENT....................................................................................................................................................................... 10
ONE COORDINATED RESPONSE ............................................................................................................................................................... 10
MAPPING SHARED RESPONSIBILITY ........................................................................................................................................................... 11
STRUCTURE OF REPORT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 13
OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 13
2 – DEMOGRAPHICS .................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
3 – NO WRONG DOOR ............................................................................................................................................................................ 13
4 – COORDINATED ENTRY SYSTEM.......................................................................................................................................................... 13
5 – GOVERNANCE ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
6 – FACILITIES ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
7 – HOUSING ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
8 – LAND USE .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 16
9 – ADDITIONAL STRATEGIES .................................................................................................................................................................... 16
10 – BUDGET ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17
COUNCIL FILE REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................................................ 17
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 17
STRATEGY MATRIX ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
2. DEMOGRAPHICS .................................................................................................................................... 20
2.1. POINT-IN-TIME COUNTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 22
2.2. FUNCTIONAL ZERO FOR HOMELESSNESS .................................................................................................................................... 22
2.3. DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW OF LOS ANGELES HOMELESS ......................................................................................................... 22
2.4. AGE, GENDER & ETHNIC BREAKDOWNS .................................................................................................................................... 23
2.5. INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING TRAUMA, ILLNESS, DISABILITY .................................................................................................... 23
2.6. DEMOGRAPHICS BY COUNCIL DISTRICT ..................................................................................................................................... 24
2.7. CITYWIDE HOMELESSNESS ............................................................................................................................................................. 24
2.8. CITYWIDE HOMELESSNESS SERVICES MAP ................................................................................................................................... 25
2.9. LAHSA DASHBOARDS (IN DEVELOPMENT) ................................................................................................................................ 26
2.10. YOUTH HOMELESSNESS.............................................................................................................................................................. 27
2.11. PIT COUNTS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 27
2.12. REASONS FOR YOUTH HOMELESSNESS .................................................................................................................................... 28
2.13. DIFFICULTIES IN TRACKING YOUTH HOMELESSNESS ............................................................................................................ 28
2.14. ISSUES AFFECTING YOUTH HOMELESS ..................................................................................................................................... 28
2.15. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO LGBTQ YOUTH ....................................................................................................................................... 29
2.16. COUNTY FINDINGS FOR DEMOGRAPHICS .............................................................................................................................. 29
2.16.1. A2 – DISCHARGE PLANNING GUIDELINES .......................................................................................................................... 29
2.16.2. A4 – FOSTER CARE DISCHARGES ......................................................................................................................................... 29
2.17. DEMOGRAPHIC STRATEGY BRIEFS ............................................................................................................................................ 29

3. NO WRONG DOOR ............................................................................................................................... 31

3.1. CITY INTERACTIONS WITH HOMELESSNESS ................................................................................................................................ 33
3.2. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT (LAPD)............................................................................................................................. 33
3.3. LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT (LAFD) .................................................................................................................................. 34
3.4. LOS ANGELES PUBLIC LIBRARY (LAPL)........................................................................................................................................ 35
3.5. RECREATION AND PARKS (RAP) .................................................................................................................................................. 36
3.6. BUREAU OF SANITATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 36
3.7. 311, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AGENCY (ITA) ................................................................................................................. 36
3.8. LAHSA EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS (ERT)........................................................................................................................... 36
3.9. COUNTY FINDINGS FOR NO WRONG DOOR .......................................................................................................................... 37
3.9.1. D2 - EXPANSION OF JAIL IN-REACH ........................................................................................................................................ 37
3.9.2. E4 - FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING .......................................................................................................................................... 37
3.10. LEGISLATION................................................................................................................................................................................ 37
3.11. NO WRONG DOOR STRATEGY BRIEFS ................................................................................................................................... 37
STRATEGY BRIEFS | 3A - 3D ....................................................................................................................................................................... 38
4. COORDINATED ENTRY SYSTEM ....................................................................................................... 46
4.1. POLICY CONTEXT OF CES ............................................................................................................................................................ 48
4.2. CES VISION: PERSON, SYSTEM, PHILOSOPHY .............................................................................................................................. 49
4.3. CES SUCCESS TO DATE ................................................................................................................................................................. 49
4.4. CHALLENGES FACING CES ............................................................................................................................................................ 50
4.5. THOUSANDS NOT ENTERED......................................................................................................................................................... 50
4.6. HOUSING SUPPLY INADEQUATE FOR MATCHING ..................................................................................................................... 50
4.7. HOUSING SUPPLY NOT TRACKED CENTRALLY ......................................................................................................................... 51
4.8. DETAILED INTAKE PROCESSES, LONG TIMELINES FOR HOUSING ............................................................................................ 51
4.9. INTERACTIONS NOT BEING CAPTURED...................................................................................................................................... 51
4.10. HOMELESS RESOURCES NOT FULLY TRACKED....................................................................................................................... 52
4.11. CES CASE MANAGERS NEEDED................................................................................................................................................ 52
4.12. CARE PROVIDERS & CES............................................................................................................................................................ 53
4.13. NO SINGLE STANDARD FOR CASE MANAGEMENT................................................................................................................ 53
4.14. COUNCIL DIRECTION AND CES .............................................................................................................................................. 54
4.15. YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS............................................................................................................................................. 54
4.16. YOUTH HOMELESSNESS DATA .................................................................................................................................................. 54
4.17. TRACK HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS WITH PETS ........................................................................................................................... 54
4.18. 3 CES SYSTEMS, LONG TERM EFFORT TO MERGE.................................................................................................................. 54
4.19. CES SYSTEM & INTERFACE......................................................................................................................................................... 55
4.20. TECH ENHANCEMENTS TO CES & HMIS ................................................................................................................................ 55
4.21. BEST PRACTICES .......................................................................................................................................................................... 56
4.22. COUNTY FINDINGS FOR CES ................................................................................................................................................... 56
4.22.1. A2 - DISCHARGE PLANNING GUIDELINES .......................................................................................................................... 56
4.22.2. D5 - SUPPORTIVE SERVICES STANDARDS FOR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ............................................................................ 57
4.22.3. D5 - SUPPORT FOR HOMELESS CASE MANAGERS .............................................................................................................. 57
4.22.4. E6 - COUNTYWIDE OUTREACH SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................ 57
4.22.5. E7 - STRENGTHEN THE COORDINATED ENTRY SYSTEM .................................................................................................. 57
4.22.6. E9 - DISCHARGE DATA TRACKING SYSTEM ....................................................................................................................... 57

4.22.7. E13 - ENHANCED DATA SHARING AND TRACKING ......................................................................................................... 58

4.23. LEGISLATION................................................................................................................................................................................ 58
4.24. CES STRATEGY BRIEFS................................................................................................................................................................ 58
STRATEGY BRIEFS | 4A – 4E ....................................................................................................................................................................... 59
5. GOVERNANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 71
5.1. LAHSA COMMISSION & JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY .............................................................................................................. 73
5.2. LAHSA GOVERNANCE AND HUD .............................................................................................................................................. 73
5.3. CITY GOVERNANCE: HOMELESSNESS COORDINATOR ............................................................................................................. 74
5.4. CITY GOVERNANCE: HOMELESS STRATEGY COMMITTEE ......................................................................................................... 74
5.5. JOINT CITY-COUNTY IMPLEMENTATION GROUP ...................................................................................................................... 75
5.6. BEST PRACTICES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 75
5.7. COUNTY FINDINGS FOR GOVERNANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 76
5.8. LEGISLATION .................................................................................................................................................................................... 76
5.9. GOVERNANCE STRATEGY BRIEFS.................................................................................................................................................. 76
6. FACILITIES .............................................................................................................................................. 87
6.1. PRIOR ACTION ON HOMELESS FACILITIES................................................................................................................................... 89
6.2. PROPOSED GOALS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 89
6.3. LOCATION CRITERIA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 89
6.4. INTEGRATED ROLE OF HOMELESS STORAGE & SERVICE CENTERS .......................................................................................... 90
6.5. SAFE PARKING ................................................................................................................................................................................. 90
6.6. LONG VS. SHORT-TERM FUNDING FOR FACILITIES .................................................................................................................... 91
6.7. BEST PRACTICES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 91
6.8. COUNTY FINDINGS FOR FACILITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 93
6.9. LEGISLATION .................................................................................................................................................................................... 93
6.10. FACILITIES STRATEGY BRIEFS ..................................................................................................................................................... 93
7. HOUSING ............................................................................................................................................... 104
7.1. SHELTER TYPES & STRATEGY ...................................................................................................................................................... 106
7.2. BETWEEN SHELTER & HOUSING - BRIDGE HOUSING ............................................................................................................. 106
7.3. HOUSING TYPES & PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................. 107
7.4. DIVERSION & PREVENTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 108
7.5. HOUSING STRATEGY AND VOUCHER COSTS.......................................................................................................................... 108
7.6. HOUSING SUCCESS FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................... 109
7.7. HOUSING NEEDS FOR THE HOMELESS ...................................................................................................................................... 113
7.8. YOUTH HOUSING ........................................................................................................................................................................ 115
7.9. SHORT-TERM HOMELESS HOUSING STRATEGY ....................................................................................................................... 116
7.10. BEST PRACTICES ....................................................................................................................................................................... 118
7.11. COUNTY FINDINGS FOR HOUSING ...................................................................................................................................... 118
7.12. LEGISLATION............................................................................................................................................................................. 120
7.13. LIST OF EXISTING HOMELESS HOUSING IN THE CITY......................................................................................................... 121
7.14. HOUSING STRATEGY BRIEFS ................................................................................................................................................... 121
STRATEGY BRIEFS | 7A – 7N ................................................................................................................................................................... 122

8. LAND USE .............................................................................................................................................. 148

8.1. HOUSING FACTORS DRIVING HOMELESSNESS ........................................................................................................................ 151
8.2. CITY-CONTROLLED HOUSING REFORM MEASURES ............................................................................................................... 152
8.3. HOUSING REFORM: ENVIRONMENTAL...................................................................................................................................... 154
8.4. COUNTY FINDINGS FOR LAND USE.......................................................................................................................................... 154
8.4.1. F5 – INCENTIVE ZONING / VALUE CAPTURE STRATEGIES ................................................................................................. 154
8.5. LEGISLATION ................................................................................................................................................................................. 155
8.6. CITATIONS USED IN THE LAND USE SECTION ........................................................................................................................ 155
8.7. LAND USE STRATEGY BRIEFS ...................................................................................................................................................... 155
STRATEGY BRIEFS | 8A – 8D ................................................................................................................................................................... 156
9. ADDITIONAL STRATEGIES ............................................................................................................... 164
9.1. EMPLOYMENT................................................................................................................................................................................ 165
9.2. SOCIAL ENTERPRISE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 165
9.3. CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYMENT FOR FORMERLY HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS ............................................................................... 165
9.4. YOUTH EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 166
9.5. DISCHARGES INTO YOUTH HOMELESSNESS ............................................................................................................................. 167
9.6. YOUTH SERVICES.......................................................................................................................................................................... 167
9.7. HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS WITH PETS .......................................................................................................................................... 168
9.8. LACK OF SHELTER ........................................................................................................................................................................ 168
9.9. EMPLOYMENT AND LIFE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................................... 169
9.10. CITY SERVICES FOR HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS WITH PETS ................................................................................................... 169
9.11. HOMELESS DONATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................................ 170
9.12. BEST PRACTICES ....................................................................................................................................................................... 170
9.13. COUNTY FINDINGS FOR ADDITIONAL STRATEGIES ........................................................................................................... 171
9.14. LEGISLATION............................................................................................................................................................................. 171
9.15. ADDITIONAL STRATEGY BRIEFS ............................................................................................................................................. 171
STRATEGY BRIEFS | 9A – 9I ..................................................................................................................................................................... 172
10. BUDGET .................................................................................................................................................. 191
10.1. OUTREACH AND COORDINATED ENTRY SYSTEM (CES) COSTS ..................................................................................... 192
10.2. SCENARIO FOR 10-YEAR HOUSING PROGRAM COSTS ...................................................................................................... 193
10.3. SEPARATE TRUST FUNDS FOR HOUSING AND SERVICES .................................................................................................... 197
10.4. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES ............................................................................................................................................ 198
10.5. COUNCIL REQUESTED SERVICES............................................................................................................................................ 198
10.6. COUNTY FINDINGS FOR BUDGET ......................................................................................................................................... 199
10.6.1. F2 – LINKAGE FEE NEXUS STUDY ..................................................................................................................................... 199
10.7. LEGISLATION............................................................................................................................................................................. 199
10.8. BUDGET STRATEGY BRIEFS ..................................................................................................................................................... 199
STRATEGY BRIEFS | 10A – 10D............................................................................................................................................................... 200
GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 209
ATTACHMENTS .............................................................................................................................................. 219
FUNDING MATRIX .................................................................................................................................................................................... 221

1. Executive Summary
Samuel Smith
Image by Martin Schoeller

Page intentionally left blank.

Purpose and Assumptions

The primary purpose and scope of this report is to establish a Comprehensive Homeless Strategy through a short,
medium and long-term approach. This document provides the City Council and Mayor nearly 50 policy and funding
recommendations, and identifies areas warranting further study. Most importantly, this report establishes up front that
the City cannot achieve a reduction in homelessness unilaterally. Central to an effective system to reduce homelessness
is on-going coordination with the County of Los Angeles, existing non-profit providers, and Los Angeles Homeless
Services Authority (LAHSA).
Long-Term Commitment
Today’s homeless crisis did not develop overnight, nor will it be eliminated any time soon. The City must be committed
to multi-year goals, strategies and funding sources as there are no panaceas or easy answers to solve homelessness.
Initial progress may be slow as funding sources, systems and housing will require time to develop. To build and lease the
units needed to house the current number of homeless Angelenos, over $1.85 billion will be needed over 10 years. This
does not include all systems costs for coordinated case management, preventive steps or ongoing support services. In
light of limited resources and competing priorities such as public safety and public works projects to maintain streets and
sidewalks, new funding sources must be pursued. This report offers options for both “bricks and mortar” project-based
funds to help leverage other non-City sourced funds to build much needed affordable housing and more flexible funding
for outreach, services and temporary housing vouchers. Multiple strategies must be simultaneously pursued in order to
address homelessness most effectively.
The City Administrative Officer and Chief Legislative Analyst were directed to identify $100 million in funding priorities.
In response, $15 million was allocated toward strengthening efforts already underway in the current fiscal year and to
lay the groundwork for a more comprehensive strategic plan. The next significant milestone will be through the 2016-
17 Budget process. While a long-term strategy is recommended, the 2016-17 Budget provides the first major
opportunity to make a significant investment to implement the Comprehensive Homeless Strategy recommended in this
report.
Similar to the long-term data-based approach to reducing crime in Los Angeles over the past decade, homelessness
requires the same steadfast commitment and focus. Constant evaluation of tangible metrics is critical to ensure on-going
success. It is recommended that the City’s Comprehensive Homeless Strategy be updated annually to assess progress in
reducing the number of homeless Angelenos and to evaluate strategies, policies and investments. Policy and funding for
programs will need to adapt to changing circumstances and assessment of strategies.
One Coordinated Response

While progress has been made to coordinate City, County and non-profit resources and approaches particularly for
specific populations such as homeless veterans and families, further clarification of roles and responsibilities among the
City, County, LAHSA and the non-profit community is critical to the success of any comprehensive strategy. A
successful coordinated response to homelessness includes the following (See Figure 1):
1. PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES to stop the influx of homeless individuals due to economic and housing pressures as
well as gaps in the foster care, health, mental health and prison systems
2. CENTRALIZED CASE MANAGEMENT to navigate homeless individuals to the resources and housing they need
in a caring, supportive and persistent way
3. HOUSING to provide short and long-term solutions unique to the needs of the homeless individual or family
4. ON-GOING SUPPORT to ensure permanent housing and economic sustainability

Preventive Strategies Centralized Case Management Housing Services
City Proactive Outreach • Permanent

Systems Supportive
 Housing Crisis PSH Housing

• Project-Based or
 Economic Forces Voucher-Based
• Higher-needs user
County
Systems
RRH • Rapid Re-Housing
• Voucher-Based
Homeless • Lower-needs user
 Foster Care Person
 Health System • Transitional
 Justice System Other
Other Housing (TAY)
• Group Housing
(Nonprofit)
Other
 Family Issues
Self-Led Outreach
 Addiction
 Eviction City & County &
City & County Non-profit Community & LAHSA County Non-profit
Figure 1
When considering Figure 1, the Strategy Briefs included herein will provide a blueprint to address the causes of
homelessness in the City of Los Angeles (noted in green & yellow) and propose preventive strategies to these causes;
identify various policy changes for consideration; urge a shared investment between the City and County in the systems
to assess and serve the homeless (centralized case management noted in shades of orange); and recommend the City
and County take a larger role as provider of affordable and homeless housing (noted in shades of red), coupled with
supportive services to ensure individuals stay housed (noted in maroon). This collaborative and shared approach creates
a dynamic for a systemwide change, resulting in mutual responsibilities and aligned goals between the City and County of
Los Angeles.
Mapping Shared Responsibility

Who is ultimately responsible for addressing homelessness in the City of Los Angeles? The answer is complex. For
homeless individuals, jurisdictional and bureaucratic boundaries between the City and the County are often barriers to
permanent housing and economic sustainability. This comprehensive plan seeks to clarify roles and responsibilities of the
City, County, LAHSA and the non-profit sector.
In coordination and conjunction with the City’s efforts, at the direction of the Board of Supervisors, the County’s Chief
Executive Office has led a comprehensive effort to develop a complementary plan. In addition, both the City and County
strategies incorporate much of the thinking and approaches developed by the United Way of Greater Los Angeles’
Home For Good campaign. Through a series of County-led policy summits culminating with recommended strategies, a
broad group of stakeholders from non-profit providers serving the homeless to other cities in the County have been
consulted in the development of a coordinated plan.

Where possible, this report mirrors the County’s plan and recommends that the City either adopt, support, or integrate
a counterpart recommendation from the County’s plan.
Properly defining the key responsibilities of City and County government, the nonprofit community and LAHSA is the
critical link to ensure good governance that can reduce and eliminate homelessness in the Los Angeles region. With the
County seeking stronger alignment with not only the City of Los Angeles, but the 87 other cities within the County,
addressing homelessness offers a new means of deeper policy and administrative collaboration for the region. This
shared responsibility can be seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Entity Subject Responsibility

CES CES funding, hosting CES caseworkers in City facilities: police, fire, libraries
Housing/Land Use Housing construction, alignment w/County on strategy, land use
City Vouchers
Planning
Wages/Employment
Match Rapid-ReHousing voucher funding with County
Integrated homeless planning, strategies and data sharing with County, LAHSA
Higher wage floor, social enterprise, hiring formerly homeless
Public Services LAPD & LAFD First Responders training collaboration with County
CES CES funding, hosting CES caseworkers in County facilities

Housing/Land Use Common Housing service standards, alignment w/cities on strategy, land use
County Vouchers
Planning
Wages/Employment
Match Rapid Re-Housing voucher funding with cities
Integrated homeless planning, strategies and data sharing with cities, LAHSA
Higher wage floor, social enterprise, hiring formerly homeless
Public Services Overall responsibility for health & social services; Staffing cross-functional teams
CES CES administration, contracting CES providers, tech enhancements

Housing Ongoing Housing needs assessments, gap analysis
LAHSA Vouchers
Planning
Point-in-Time
Administration of LAHSA Housing Pool
Integrated homeless planning, strategies and data sharing with cities & County
Continued administration of Point-in-Time counts with nonprofit community
Public Services Staffing LAHSA Emergency Response Teams throughout County & cities
CES Staffing CES caseworkers, managers, contracting with LAHSA

Non- Housing
Vouchers
Nonprofit-funded housing construction & leasing
Care providers or housing locators in DMH Flexible Housing Subisidy Pool
profit Planning
Point-in-Time
Advocacy
Integrated homeless planning with LAHSA
Volunteer staffing for Point-in-Time counts
Continued policy, funding and resource advocacy
This report does not just seek to address major subject areas and policies related to homelessness, it sets strategy
reflective of the appropriate roles various stakeholders must play. Stepping through Figure 2 above, if we consider the
Coordinated Entry System (CES), both the City and County of Los Angeles have an active role in funding CES and
hosting CES caseworkers in their facilities. For the City, that could be a library branch or local police station. For the
County, that could be County health facilities. Both entities must adequately fund CES through LAHSA, our shared
homelessness administrator. LAHSA, for its part, must provide project management capability, technical enhancements
and contract administration with the 160+ homeless service providers operating in the City and County in order to fully
implement CES. The non-profit community, through contracts with LAHSA, staffs the CES as caseworkers on the
ground in City and County facilities and out in the public space providing homeless outreach, engagement, housing
navigation and eventual placement into housing. Similar to the CES, nearly every other major policy framework in this
report has staked out a shared responsibility between these four primary entities.

Structure of Report
Since homelessness is a multi-faceted issue cutting across a wide variety of subjects, causes and effects, policy solutions
and strategic prevention initiatives in this report have been divided into nine major topics, grouped by the following
sections: 2 – Demographics, 3 – No Wrong Door, 4 – Coordinated Entry System, 5 – Governance, 6 – Facilities, 7 –
Housing, 8 – Land Use, 9 – Additional Strategies and 10 – Budget.
Overview of Findings
Homelessness crosses all demographics, from age to race to gender and sexual orientation. As unique as each homeless
person’s story is, standardizing a response to the issue and committing resources accordingly begins to address our
homeless crisis. Basic needs of tens of thousands of homeless persons and families are not being met. Everyone has a
role in responding to these needs.
2 – Demographics
Los Angeles’ diversity as a City and region is also reflected in its homeless population. As noted in the Point-in-Time
(PIT) counts from January 2015, there are 25,686 homeless individuals and families living in the City. Homelessness, once
more concentrated in specific parts of the City has become more evenly distributed and widespread. LAHSA defines
four primary groups of homeless in the City and County: individuals, families, youth and veterans. Due to additional
federal funding, veteran homelessness in Los Angeles is expected to be eliminated sometime in 2016.
Council has directed the CAO and CLA to focus more closely on youth homelessness, the LGBTQ community and
homeless pet owners who are sometimes denied shelter due to their pets. Several Strategy Briefs specific to these
populations are included at the end of Section 9 – Additional Strategies and are referenced below.
3 – No Wrong Door
Best practices show that homelessness is resolved on an individual basis through sustained intervention, with a singular
focus on the person in need and a persistent and consistent civic response via repeated engagement and focus on the
overall well-being of the individual. Section 3 of the report presents the concept known as “No Wrong Door.” As the
name suggests, there should be no wrong door for a homeless person to get connected to the social, medical and housing
resources they need via case management regardless of what door of government they enter, be it Health Services on
the County side or the Los Angeles Public Library on the City side. The Strategy Briefs at the end of this Section
recommend standardizing first responder and responses to homelessness, widening access to first responder teams for
homelessness, and ensuring City and County jails provide the in-reach services to ensure individuals are not discharged
from a government facility into homelessness. Closely integrated with No Wrong Door is Section 4 – Coordinated
Entry System.
4 – Coordinated Entry System

The Coordinated Entry System (CES) incorporates the elements of person, system and philosophy, created to assist
homeless individuals to access aspects of No Wrong Door. CES standardizes a response to the homeless, reinforces a
series of steps that ultimately lead to housing, and ensures detailed and verifiable tracking of metrics at the level of the
individual. A stronger investment in technology and project management improvements administrated by LAHSA and via
more homeless case management personnel working through nonprofit providers and overseen by LAHSA is needed to
maximize the value of the system. The City and County will need to properly fund case management personnel through
LAHSA, will need to create a protocol to support and engage this personnel and should potentially host CES workers

within City and County facilities to ensure those needing help are provided the cross-functional team that will bring
them the care they need, wherever they may be. There are five detailed Strategy Briefs related to the CES at the end of
this section that develop specific proposals around these recommendations.
5 – Governance
As mentioned earlier, ensuring shared responsibility and close integration between City, County, LAHSA and nonprofit
stakeholders is vital to reducing and eliminating homelessness in Los Angeles. Several key governance changes are
proposed that acknowledge the strength of current structures, yet seek reform in several key areas. Within City
government, clearer accountability across departments is needed to ensure that City government is better able to meet
the needs of the homeless. The establishment of a Homeless Strategy Committee comprised of the CAO, CLA and
Mayor’s Office will ensure that City agencies and departments more quickly enact internal reforms to protocol and
policy for the homeless. These three Offices acting together replicates an effective and efficient model that exists today
and has been consistently used to coordinate and manage responsibilities for bond programs, municipal facilities and
other issues of Citywide importance. Paired with this Committee is the establishment of a Homelessness Coordinator.
This new position will be assigned to the CAO and will act as the subject matter expert and in-house point of contact to
execute the Strategy Briefs City Council and the Mayor decide to pursue. This Homelessness Coordinator will likely
have a County counterpart.
LAHSA is a vitally important bridge between the City, County and non-profit service providers. Under federal guidance,
LAHSA is creating a new governance structure independent of City and County reforms. This report recommends
continuing to monitor these changes and proposes the establishment of an intergovernmental Homeless Strategy
Implementation Group between the City and County to ensure shared strategies are fully implemented. The
aforementioned Homelessness Coordinator position to be established by the City would complement this Homeless
Strategy Implementation Group. Enhanced regional governance reforms are also included since homelessness and
transience affects Southern California and the State and approaches that formalize knowledge and resource sharing are
warranted.
6 – Facilities
It will take years for Los Angeles to build the inventory needed to house homeless Angelenos. Until such major
investments can be planned and constructed, better and more abundant homeless facilities are critical to mitigating the
effects of living unsheltered. Additional homeless storage facilities must be sited that provide storage options for
homeless in addition to the facility currently located in Skid Row. Storage facilities also offer opportunities to host CES
caseworkers, cross-functional health and social services teams from the County and hygiene facilities like showers or
laundry services so that homeless Angelenos can live with more dignity and can easily connect to the services they need
to better manage their personal wellbeing. Identifying the public land or properties capable of hosting these facilities is an
essential first step. Potential inclusion of housing into future facilities could create navigation centers containing storage,
hygiene, health, and case management support for the homeless all in one place.
Reaching storage facilities can be a challenge for high needs homeless individuals, e.g., those with mental illness, physical
illness or those who may lack the means to pay for transportation. The City, in partnership with LAHSA, should
establish a mobile shower program that travels to encampments and other areas of high need to meet the homeless
where they are and offer another opportunity to connect individuals with CES case management and cross-functional
health, wellness and social service teams from the County. A Safe Parking program that establishes oversight and
administrative capacity with the City’s homeless service providers, standards on maximum cars permitted per lot and

close coordination with law enforcement would provide stability and safety to individuals living in their cars or
recreational vehicles, while reducing the impact on neighborhood street parking and perceptions of safety. Safe Parking
programs would also create another means of connection to CES case managers.
7 – Housing
The decades-long period of underbuilding housing in Los Angeles has contributed to the homelessness of individuals and
families and, once homeless, made it difficult for those with vouchers or other benefits to gain housing. Underbuilding
housing in the face of increasing demand led by continued population growth in the region has created extremely low
vacancy rates. Supply side economics dictate that when demand exceeds supply, prices will rise. This rise has led to
conditions where rents continue to increase to the point where low income individuals are paying more than fifty
percent of their income on rent; are living in overcrowded, illegal housing; and are commuting long distances, increasing
regional traffic, to avoid high housing costs in the urban core.
Low and moderate income Angelenos are a job loss, medical emergency or relationship dissolution away from
homelessness. For those forced by personal or economic circumstance to move quickly, vacancy rates lower than New
York City mean affordable housing is increasingly difficult to find, thus increasing the likelihood of becoming homeless in
a moment of crisis. Los Angeles is last out of 20 major metropolitan regions in the country in producing housing. It is no
coincidence that our City is experiencing the highest rates of homelessness in the nation.
When considering all of the Strategy Briefs in this report, housing represents the largest number of recommendations.
The creation of housing is a City and County concern. Where possible, collaboration with the County on strategy,
standards and funding has been recommended in these briefs. As investments are made to expand the capacity of
housing, it is recommended that the Housing First approach be implemented, where appropriate. Housing First has been
a philosophy guiding strategies included in this report, as it works to remove barriers to housing upfront in order to
encourage better health outcomes for chronically homeless individuals. Upon entering a stable home, the person is able
to receive a range of assistance types, from supportive services to intensive wraparound services. This serves to help
meet other needs, including any health, mental health, substance abuse or other issues, that can contribute to a person
or family’s self-sufficiency. The County plays a vital role in delivering the supportive services that make Housing First a
federally-recognized best practice.
In the short-term the City must enhance its existing homeless shelter system and transform shelter beds into bridge
housing by including homeless case management and integrating supportive health and social services from the County at
appropriate levels of caseload via the CES. Rapid Re-Housing (tenant-based) vouchers should be expanded dramatically
in the short-term to house lower service needs individuals and families to help them get back on their feet and back into
the private housing market. Medium-term solutions call for additional funding for adaptive reuse of buildings capable of
supporting greater residential density. Taking detailed inventory of public land capable of supporting housing is also vital
to building long-term supply.
Better alignment between housing agencies within the City in coordination with LAHSA is critical to building to the
same vision and aligning development resources. This also applies to the region and in collaboration with the federal
government. Initiatives that reduce the hurdles for developers to build much needed supply should also be welcomed
and fast-tracked due to the critical nature of the housing crisis at hand. Underpinning all of these strategies, particularly a
shorter-term strategy favoring tenant-based vouchers, is a need for the City to adequately fund project-based (bricks
and mortar) housing via its already-established Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Establishing a dedicated funding source
and more closely aligning housing planning and development will ensure the City begins meeting and exceeding housing

targets, dramatically increase general and affordable housing supply and undo the effects an extremely tight housing
market is having on the lower and middle class of this City.
8 – Land Use
Land Use is an inseparable factor creating additional opportunities to increase housing stock. Los Angeles has not
responded to stronger housing demand by allowing for greater residential density in the nearly 500 square miles of our
City. Land use and zoning restrictions can and have limited the supply of housing throughout the City. Land use
limitations provide value by ensuring appropriate development occurs at the right places. But when increasingly stringent
zoning limitations on new residential density are used to permanently establish low density land use profiles, mandate
large portions of land for parking, or limit development near transit and along wide arterial thoroughfares, much needed
additional housing construction through new development is simply not possible. In order to meet current and future
housing demands, Los Angeles does not need to build high-rise housing regardless of location or existing community
profile. The City must, however, continuously plan for the future thoughtfully and balance zoning density profiles to
meet future demand.
Analyzing existing residential and mixed-use zoning and land use capabilities citywide, creating new citywide residential
zoning maps with greater density in areas most capable of supporting it, and working with local communities to
reconcile these citywide maps with their existing local neighborhood plans would ensure that the Los Angeles
Department of City Planning enables thoughtful, much needed housing development in the right places. If Los Angeles
hopes to remain competitive with other municipalities when applying for federal funds in support of affordable housing,
per revised federal guidelines, new affordable and homeless housing proposals must be located throughout the City, and
not solely in lower-income areas. Citywide zoning revisions that enable this outcome would more strategically position
Los Angeles to receive this funding and potentially lower the proportion of local costs required to build housing. In this
way, more strategic land use policy could provide strong returns on investment for the City by addressing our overall
housing crisis and by better positioning our housing agencies to receive federal support.
The City should also investigate how well its various zoning density programs are doing to encourage or mandate
additional residential development. Further study into reducing or removing parking minimums for affordable and
homeless housing profiles, where residents own cars at much lower rates than market-rate housing, could lower the
cost of affordable and homeless housing development and ensure efficient use of space for areas where more residential
density is needed. Additional density can be thoughtfully pursued, even in coastal areas under the oversight of the State
of California.
9 – Additional Strategies
The Homeless Summits led by the County identified several other Strategy Briefs worth adapting to City needs and are
included in this Section. The City currently supports social enterprise and targeted hiring to help achieve policy goals
deemed important by City Council and the Mayor. These Strategy Briefs call for studies or potential reforms to extend
hiring or contracting preferences for the homeless. Per the direction of Council, research into homeless youth and pet
owners has shown a need to identify specific solutions for these populations. Strategies to follow up on solutions for
these two groups have been included in this Section.
In addition, with a large philanthropic community in the region and a wealthy community of donors willing to direct
funds to help solve homelessness in the region, a Strategy Brief recommends establishing a new program to harness this
potential donor base to give to homeless causes for which the City or County may not have the capital to provide
support.

10 – Budget
City Council’s desire to dedicate $100 million in City funding is an important first step, but will need to be magnified
significantly over the course of a decade in order to properly fund the homeless services, facilities, case management and
housing needed to end homelessness in Los Angeles. Whenever possible, this Comprehensive Homeless Strategy has
looked for the most efficient ways to allocate funds, while by avoiding wasteful duplication, long-term liabilities for the
City, or the creation of entirely new programs when successful programs already exist. We estimate the need to fully
address homelessness in Los Angeles to exceed $1.87 billion over a ten year term. This significant amount is not
inclusive of all supportive service costs and is the result of underfunding and underbuilding affordable housing over an
extended period of time, while failing to build adequate capacity to serve and house existing homeless Angelenos. While
costs to fully address homelessness are significant, the cost of inaction will continue to grow. With City and County
leadership poised to act and strong alignment of strategies between both governments, the City of Los Angeles is
positioned to take the lead as the largest city in the region to make significant inroads addressing a long-standing social
issue that will only grow without targeted action.
Fiscal Impact Statement

This report provides budget recommendations for consideration by the Council and the Mayor.
Council File References

All Council File references related to this report can be found the Appendix, item 11.9
Acknowledgements
This report would not be possible without the contributions of many. The City Administrative Officer and Chief
Legislative Analyst would like to express our gratitude to the City and County employees who serve the homeless in
their own capacity and their efforts to date to improve the lives of the homeless in small ways and in large. The County
of Los Angeles Chief Executive Office, and Phil Ansell, have invigorated a spirit of collaboration and knowledge sharing
between City, County, LAHSA and the nonprofit community via the County-led Homeless Summits that did not seem
possible only a few months ago. In particular, Greg Spiegel, Homelessness Policy Director for Mayor Eric Garcetti,
Christine Margiotta, Vice President - Community Impact for the United Way of Greater Los Angeles, and Peter Lynn,
Executive Director of LAHSA, for their invaluable input to this report. Finally, special thanks to Geoff Kees Thompson,
FUSE Fellow on homelessness, along with staff members from the CAO and CLA, who contributed significantly to the
development of this report.
The nonprofit community has also been living on the front lines of homelessness for decades and without their work
and the hands of many volunteers, we would not have the data on how many homeless are living in Los Angeles City and
County. United Way – Home for Good has been one of the most prominent players and their work with the Point-in-
Time (PIT) counts, CES and via the many ways they serve our homeless, have been vitally important to date, up to and
including the housing of thousands of Angelenos. We would also like to thank the individuals who have contributed their
visual talent for the creation of this report. In particular we would like to recognize Martin Schoeller, the talented
professional photographer who created the portrait images that frame each of the different parts of this report. Like
other artists who have found inspiration in Los Angeles, his work with the Greater West Hollywood Food Coalition has
helped put faces on an issue affecting thousands of people across all demographics. Martin’s work would not be possible
without the leadership of Ted and Penny Landreth, founders of the Greater West Hollywood Food Coalition. We are
thankful for their generosity and for reminding us of the beauty of human engagement.

Strategy Matrix
Below is a high-level overview of all Strategy Briefs included in this report. They have been organized around the
Coordinated Response type noted in the “One Coordinated Reponse” heading in this Executive Summary.
Preventive
4D - Discharge Data Tracking System & Planning Guidelines
9E - Homelessness Prevention for Former Foster Care Youth
Centralized Case Management
4A - Strengthen CES Technology, Staffing & Standardization
4B - Strengthen Departmental Support for Homeless Case Managers
4C - Strengthen CES Data Sharing and Tracking
Housing
7A - Shelter System Personnel Need for Bridge Housing Conversion
7B - Expand Rapid Re-Housing
7C - Expand Adaptive Reuse for Homeless Housing
7D - Using Public Land for Affordable and Homeless Housing
7E - Annualize Joint Affordable & Homeless Housing Reports
7F - Linkage Fee Nexus Study
7G - Implement Existing & Recommend New CEQA Zoning Reforms
7H - Facilitate Utilization of Federal Housing Subsidies
7I - Regional Coordination of LA City & County Housing Authorities
7J - Housing Choice Vouchers for Permanent Supportive Housing
7K - Development of Second Dwelling Units Pilot Program
7L - Establish Planning and Zoning Policy on Homeless Micro Units
7M - Reform Site Plan Review Ordinance for Homeless Housing
7N - Youth Housing
8A - Analyze City-Wide Zoning for Homeless Housing
8B - Review Transfer of Floor Area Rights (TFAR), Greater Downtown Housing Incentive Area (GDHIA), & Density
Bonus Programs for Homeless Housing Inclusions
8C - Revise Parking and Trip Credit Guidelines for Homeless Housing
8D - Reestablish Mello Act Guidance
9G - Emergency Shelter for Homeless Individuals with Pets
10A - Full Funding for Affordable Housing Trust Fund to Finance Construction of Permanent Supportive Housing
10C - Augment the Supportive Housing Loan Fund
10D - Bridge Funding Program

Supportive Services
3A - Standardize First Responder Training for Homeless
3B - Develop Encampment Engagement Protocol
3C - Widen Access to First Responder Teams for Homeless
3D - Expansion of Jail In-Reach
4E - Supportive Services Standards for Subsidized Housing
6A - Co-Locate Homeless Services Within Homeless Storage Facilities & Create New Facilities
6B - Establish Citywide Safe Parking Program
6C - Establish Citywide Mobile Shower System
6D - Identify Public Land for Homeless Facilities
6E - Homeless Navigation Centers
9A - Employ Homeless Adults by Supporting Social Enterprise
9B - City Recruitment Process for Homeless/Recently Homeless
9C - Employment Development Programs for Homeless Youth
9D - Centralized Homeless Donation Coordination in LA County
9F - Expand Youth Homeless Services
9H - Proposals to Assist Homeless Individuals and Their Pets
9I - Employment Development for Homeless Individuals with Pets
10B - Establish the Homeless Services Trust Fund
Governance
5A - Establish Homelessness Coordinator
5B - Establish Homeless Strategy Committee
5C - Establish Regional Intergovernmental Coordination
5D - Evaluate LAHSA JPA
5E - Create Regional Homelessness Advisory Council; Joint County-City Implementation Group
10E - CAO and CLA Report on Desired Strategies

2. Demographics
Winter Santiago

The effective delivery of services and resources to the homeless depends on a clear understanding of that population
and its needs. In compliance with federal regulations, LAHSA has conducted a survey or Point-In-Time count (PIT) of
homeless persons in Los Angeles County every two years beginning in 2005, with significant support from homeless
service providers and volunteers. LAHSA advises that the PIT will now be conducted every year, and is scheduled to
take place January 22-28, 2016. Over the course of three days and nights, staff and trained volunteers fan across the Los
Angeles Continuum of Care and count the number of homeless persons, identify their demographic characteristics, and
note the locations where they reside. This data supports the allocation of federal and local funding for homeless
services, and the determination of where and what types of services are needed to serve the homeless living in Los
Angeles. This section provides a summary of the 2015 Point-in-time (PIT) Count.
2.1. Point-in-Time Counts

An essential component of the effort to understand the homeless population and its needs is the PIT count that
estimates the number of homeless individuals and families in Los Angeles City and County. LAHSA and United Way -
Home For Good join forces with other homeless service providers in the region to count the homeless from the
encampments of Arroyo Seco, to the RVs of Venice Boulevard, sidewalks from San Pedro to Skid Row to Sylmar, and
the beach tents of Pacific Palisades. The PIT is an invaluable source of data collected by dedicated volunteers using
national best practices to ensure accurate numbers. The PIT is a critical tool for Los Angeles to track the effectiveness
of homeless programs. It enables policy makers and service providers to determine whether or not adequate resources
to reduce and eliminate homelessness are being provided. PIT counts do this by means-tested methods that count
overall numbers of individuals and families, and evaluate their needs, based on their health, age, and employability, to
best determine where different types of housing and services investments can be made. For example, a clear
understanding of the number and needs of homeless veterans has enabled policy makers to advocate for increased
funding for Veterans Affairs’ Supportive Housing funds known as VASH. Increased federal funding for this program will
allow Los Angeles to eliminate veteran homelessness in the very near future.
2.2. Functional Zero for Homelessness

The ultimate goal of the City’s strategic plan to address homelessness is to enable Council and the Mayor to invest in a
system that reduces homelessness to functional zero. Functional zero means that at any point in time, the monthly
inflow of newly homeless persons in Los Angeles will be equal to the monthly available emergency shelter and housing
capacity.
A goal of functional zero seeks to reduce the period of time someone is homeless in order to best manage the wellbeing
of these individuals and families, while reducing costs to the social safety net and our public health system. This goal is
important since long-term homelessness, like that experienced currently by many, can have detrimental long-term and
cumulative effects on the physical and mental health. Long-term homelessness is also correlated with long-term
unemployment. The longer an individual is out of the job market, the more difficult it is to re-enter that market. Over
time, the economic, governmental, and societal costs associated with addressing long-term homelessness grow more
acute. This strategic plan assumes a ten year implementation plan for the City to achieve functional zero for
homelessness based on the homeless population identified in the January 2015 PIT counts.
2.3. Demographic Overview of Los Angeles Homeless

According to LAHSA’s PIT count, homelessness exists throughout the City and affects all segments of society, including
all ethnicities and ages. Homelessness has traditionally been associated with Downtown; however, multiple

concentrations of homeless have now emerged outside of Skid Row. This includes areas like Venice in the west, Arroyo
Seco Park in the east, lower density areas in the Valley, Hollywood, and, South Los Angeles. Though a portion of LA’s
homeless spend time in the City and later leave, many homeless remain in areas where they were once housed. Below is
the demographic breakdown of homeless Angelenos across the City provided by LAHSA:
2.4. Age, Gender & Ethnic Breakdowns

Out of nearly 26,000 homeless in the City, approximately 30 percent are provided shelter. The remaining 70 percent,
however, are unsheltered, that is, living on the streets, in river drainages, under freeway overpasses, and in other similar
locations. Over half are between the ages of 25 and 54, while almost a third are 55 and older. Nearly 70 percent of
homeless individuals are male. African Americans make up the largest group of homeless individuals in the City, followed
by nearly equal numbers of White and Hispanic individuals. 83 percent of the homeless are single.
2.5. Individuals Experiencing Trauma, Illness, Disability

A portion of homeless persons often experience multiple health issues, trauma, and disability. Nearly one fifth are
physically disabled and approximately one third are experiencing a mental illness. Almost a quarter have substance abuse

issues needing treatment. Over a fifth has experienced domestic violence. These factors complicate treatment.
Recommendations to be submitted to the County Board of Supervisors as outcomes to the County-led Homeless
Initiative Summits advocate for more County resources and a larger role ensuring health services are available.
2.6. Demographics by Council District

More detailed demographic information by Council District can be found in the Appendix (Item 11.2)
2.7. Citywide Homelessness

A comparison of PIT counts from 2013 to 2015 by Council District shows a rise in the total number of homeless
individuals and families, and wider distribution of homelessness. Percentage disparities between Council Districts are
smaller in 2015, as compared to 2013, and show that a Citywide approach will be critical to addressing this issue.

2.8. Citywide Homelessness Services Map

Below is a screenshot of the United Way of Greater Los Angeles’s interactive resources map detailing services for the
homeless population throughout the entire City, broken down by Council District. The map is accessible at
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=zBYJbLlfpmcY.kgMy7CMLmVv4.
The map represents a comprehensive guide to the services offered to the homeless within Los Angeles, including health
clinics, law enforcement headquarters, mental health programs, and hospitals and medical centers. The map also
reinforces the Citywide nature of homelessness and the organizations already serving homeless needs in one capacity or
another.

Westside Central
South Valley
South Valley
2.9. LAHSA Dashboards (In Development)

LAHSA defines four distinct subpopulation groups within the homeless population: singles, families, youth, and veterans.
Each of these subpopulations has unique service and housing needs. Services are targeted to each subpopulation in
different ways to improve effectiveness. LAHSA has begun creating data “dashboards” that display real-time data for
each of these subpopulations. These dashboards will be available to the public on the LAHSA website and allow decision
makers and the public to track progress on how well the Los Angeles region is doing in reducing homelessness. The first
dashboard expected to be released describes the homeless veteran population, as shown below. Data shown in future
dashboards will reflect the most current data available, up to the most recent month posted.

Data shown here is from September 2015
2.10. Youth Homelessness

2.11. PIT Counts
As part of its PIT count of homeless individuals conducted in January 2015, LAHSA identified 1,728 homeless youth 18
to 24 years of age in the City and 2,781 throughout Los Angeles County1. Homeless youth are oftentimes referred to as
1LAHSA advises that a new methodology for counting youth will be used in the 2016 PIT count, and will result in a more accurate assessment of
homeless youth throughout the Los Angeles Continuum of Care. LAHSA advises that the upcoming 2016 PIT count, scheduled to take place on
January 22-28, 2016, may result in a higher percentage of youth homeless as compared to 2015

Transition Age Youth (TAY). TAY account for 6.7 percent of the City’s total homeless population, and LAHSA
attributes that the following characteristics generally describe the youth identified in the City:
 West LA - traveling throughout the State

 San Fernando Valley - trafficked youth
 South LA – trafficked youth, foster youth
 East LA - undocumented and immigrant youth
 Hollywood - chronically homeless street youth and lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender & queer/questioning
(LGBTQ)2
2.12. Reasons for Youth Homelessness

LAHSA and homeless youth service providers, including Safe Place for Youth (SPY), the LGBT Center, and Covenant
House, have identified the following reasons for youth becoming homeless:
 Being kicked out of the home

 Abuse
 Running away
 Aging out of the foster care system
 Substance abuse
 Mental illness
 Family economic hardship
 Rejection of LGBTQ status by family
2.13. Difficulties in Tracking Youth Homelessness

Staff from LAHSA, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), the LGBT Center, the
National Network For Youth (NNFY) and other service providers note that homeless youth do not self-identify as
homeless for the following reasons:
 Do not want to stand out among their peers, youth prefer to “hide in plain sight”
 Fear of being preyed upon in adult environments, especially in Skid Row
 Unaware of targeted programs serving homeless youth
 Fear of being reported to law enforcement or child welfare
 Some youth are not ready to give up their freedom or lifestyle
2.14. Issues Affecting Youth Homeless

Exacerbating the problems leading to their homelessness, LAHSA and other homeless youth service providers indicate
that homeless youth are still developing (physically, emotionally, psychologically and socially) and do not have the life
skills to survive on their own. It is common for homeless youth to lack the education and job skills necessary to attain
employment and sustain themselves financially. Some even lack basic skills such as cooking, money management,
housekeeping and job searching. Additionally, as a consequence of homelessness, youth can experience the following
issues which are further discussed in Section 9:
 Mental health issues such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide
 Physical assault and sexual exploitation
2Queer and Questioning status means an individual is questioning their gender identity. It is advised that a person self-identifies as Queer and
therefore that label should only be applied by that individual.

 Involvement with the criminal justice system

 High risk activities leading to pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STDs)
 Barriers to education and employment
2.15. Issues Specific to LGBTQ Youth

Pursuant to Motion (Wesson - O’Farrell - Bonin / Huizar) (CF 15-075), this report also includes information pertaining
to LGBTQ homeless youth. LAHSA advises that 15-20 percent of homeless youth in the County self-identify as LGBTQ,
and the NNFY advises that nationally LGBTQ youth may make-up approximately 40 percent of homeless youth. The
percentage of LGBTQ youth in foster care is double the percentage in society.
In regards to the difficulties faced by other homeless youth as listed above, LGBTQ homeless youth experience higher
rates of physical assaults, sexual exploitation, and mental health deterioration. LGBTQ homeless youth also experience
rejection by their family and homophobia from society at large, including other homeless youth and individuals within the
Continuum of Care.
As part of LAHSA’s data collection efforts through its aforementioned dashboards, HMIS, PIT Count and the Youth CES,
more information will be available in the coming months relative to the causes of youth homelessness. See Strategy Brief
4C for recommendations related to improve reporting and statistics regarding youth homelessness.
2.16. County Findings for Demographics

Below are strategies the County of Los Angeles will be considering that are related to Demographics. All detailed
County strategies can be found here:
http://priorities.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Draft-Recommendations.pdf
2.16.1. A2 – Discharge Planning Guidelines

County Recommendation: Direct the Department of Health Services to convene a workgroup consisting of the
Department of Children and Family Services, Department of Mental Health, Department of Public Health, the Sheriff,
the Probation Department, the Veterans Administration, the Hospital Association of Southern California, and key
community agencies to develop Discharge Planning Guidelines utilizing known best practices that are specific to
institutions that discharge individuals who are homeless.
NOTE: Related City Strategy 9E is noted at the end of Section – 9 Additional Strategies in this report. City strategies
with corresponding County strategies have related County strategies cross-referenced at the top of each strategy brief.
2.16.2. A4 – Foster Care Discharges

County Recommendation: Direct the Department of Children and Family Services, in conjunction with the Probation
Department (Probation) and the LA Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), to develop a plan to strengthen the
County’s Foster Care Discharge Policy.
2.17. Demographic Strategy Briefs

No Demographic-specific Strategy Briefs are included at the end of this Section. Youth-related strategies are included in
Strategy 4C, Strategy 7N - Housing and Section 9 - Additional Strategies (Strategies 9C, 9E and 9F).


3. No Wrong Door
José Ramirez


The term “No Wrong Door” is used to describe a coordinated system where an individual can be immediately linked to
supportive services regardless of their point of entry to that system. In City terms this means each department that
interacts with homeless individuals would be similarly equipped to connect a homeless individual to the services they
need. It does not necessarily mean staff, regardless of City department or agency, would provide direct services to
homeless individuals. Instead, staff should be prepared to connect homeless individuals to homeless services case
managers discussed in greater detail in Section 4 – Coordinated Entry System. For departments with high levels of
homeless engagement (i.e., LAPD, LAFD, LAPL), cross-functional teams that assist the homeless may be most effective.
Existing cross-functional teams include the SMART teams comprised of LAPD and mental health professionals, or public
area cleaning teams comprised of LAHSA ERT’s, LAPD and Sanitation staff. Future cross-functional teams would include
County Health Services (DHS), Mental Health (DMH), Social Services (DPSS) and Coordinated Entry System (CES) case
managers discussed in Section 4. In City terms, No Wrong Door is fundamentally a shared approach where City
employees enable a coordinated response to vulnerable individuals in need of assistance. In coordination with County
strategies developed through its Homeless Initiative, City Strategy Briefs for No Wrong Door are located at the end of
this section. The Coordinated Entry System (CES) is an integral part to the implementation of No Wrong Door.
Strategy Briefs on the Coordinated Entry System are located at the end of Section 4 and should be considered in
tandem with Strategy Briefs for No Wrong Door.
3.1. City Interactions with Homelessness

In April 2015, the CAO released a report that estimated approximately $100 million of City resources are involved in
homeless-related interactions per year, across all departments. The report states that spending by Departments was not
targeted toward programs to strategically assist homeless individuals, but rather, Department activities included public
area cleanings by Sanitation, engagement with homeless individuals by public safety departments and hiring of security
officers at two libraries. Stronger collaboration with LAHSA and among City departments and County agencies will
result in a more coordinated and appropriate response to address the needs of individual homeless person interacting
with the City.
3.2. Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)

Current Initiatives
LAPD has taken actions to address the needs of the homeless, as follows:
 A Homeless Coordinator position has been designated within the Department;

 LAPD is organizing cross-functional teams with staff from other City agencies to serve the needs of homeless
individuals, such as LAHSA Emergency Response Teams (ERT) that work alongside police officers interacting
with the homeless;
 A 36 hour Mental Health Training Program for officers and support staff has been developed by the department;
 Training on LA. Municipal Code Section 56.11, relative to the storage of personal property in public areas,
including sidewalks
 LAPD officers have also been working directly with County Mental Health professionals in a program known as
SMART (System-Wide Mental Assessment Response Teams). SMART provides a more thorough response to
the needs of chronically homeless and results in better law enforcement engagement with mentally ill homeless
individuals. Council and the Mayor recently announced an expansion of this program.

The LAPD operates type-1 jails that process about 120,000 arrestees per year for stays between 48 and 72 hours before
the arrestees are moved to County jails. 25 percent are released on bail; 75 percent are transferred to County facilities
for further processing. There are five type-1 jails in the City, located in the Valley, South LA, the Westside, Hollywood
and Downtown. The LAPD estimates a significant percentage of arrestees (30-40%) are mentally ill. Currently the LAPD
hosts non-profit and religious organizations in jails as a service to inmates while they are incarcerated. Services include
connection with clergy, Alcoholics Anonymous groups and donated clothing providers. Connection to general health
services are provided, but not to mental health services.
Department Requests
The top three issues LAPD encounters with the homeless in Los Angeles include mental health, substance abuse and a
lack of storage facilities for homeless Angelenos in areas outside of Skid Row. To address homeless mental health issues,
LAPD has stated a need for more resources and closer collaboration with County Department of Mental Health
workers to ensure the LAPD can proactively manage care and reduce the number of calls for service to LAPD. LAPD
indicates that expanding the aforementioned SMART teams would address this request. To address substance abuse
issues, Sobering Units in coordination with the Los Angeles Fire Department are being investigated, but are not yet
functional (See Section 3.1.2. for additional information regarding LAFD’s involvement in sobering units) LAHSA ERT
teams are currently only available during standard business hours, however. LAPD advises that much of homeless-
related police work occurs during off hours.
LAPD has indicated that their inability to store and process excess personal property from homeless arrestees impacts
the Resources Enhancement Services and Enforcement Team (RESET) pilot that is currently in a phased roll-out that
could be used as a model for addressing homeless concerns around the City. LAPD anticipates proposed changes would
allow officers to return to the field, encourage better accountability, and create a replicable system that can be used in
other bureaus within the City.
Strategy Briefs 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D address LAPD requests and concerns and can be found at the end of this Section.
3.3. Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD)

Current Initiatives
The LAFD is revising its response to the homeless in several ways. The Department's Homeless Coordinator is seeking
more effective and efficient ways to serve homeless persons, including investigating more effective response to the 1,200
to 1,500 calls for service LAFD receives on average per day. The LAFD estimates about 5 percent of these calls for
service per day are homeless-related.
The Department is currently piloting the use of a Fast Response Vehicle, a mobile intensive care unit intended to reduce
the need for multiple calls and deployment of fire trucks solely for medical treatment. This vehicle is primarily servicing
the MacArthur Park area. Between 2013 and 2014 there were about 17,000 calls to the LAFD that were homeless-
related. Approximately 14,000 of these instances involved a homeless person being transported by ambulance. A Fast
Response Vehicle can be paired with the LAFD's Immediate Dispatch Algorithm that better determines the appropriate
response.
In addition, a pilot Nurse Practitioner Unit program, which includes a Paramedic, will be providing low acuity medical
services to homeless individuals experiencing health issues. The pilot is funded by the City’s Innovation Fund and is
deployed by Battalion 13 in South LA. The Nurse Practitioner Unit's goal is to provide quality care to those utilizing the
LAFD for health care and lower level medical needs, thereby reducing the strain on the 911 system and preserving

ambulance services and transport for more critical situations. The annualized cost of the Nurse Practitioner Unit and
Paramedic is roughly $245,000 per year and operates primarily between the hours of 8 am to 6 pm, Monday through
Friday.
LAFD is also implementing Electronic Patient Care Records with the ability to document when a client is homeless.
There is an existing MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) to mitigate HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act) health information privacy concerns regarding patient data.
Sobering Units are currently under review by the LAFD. These units may reduce Police and Fire staff time to monitor
individuals who need medical treatment for their addictions. LAFD Sobering Units are proposed to offer homeless
individuals with drug and alcohol addictions an opportunity to gain sobriety and connect to health services. State funding
for expanded addiction treatment services may be available in mid-2016.
Department Requests
As previously discussed, in practice with the No Wrong Door philosophy, LAFD advises it would prefer taking a more
proactive approach to engage and assist homeless individuals. Closer collaboration with County Department of Mental
Health (DMH) and Department of Health Services (DHS) resources has been requested, including standardized referral
processes. In addition, response protocols for riverbed encampments that pose drowning dangers to the unsheltered
homeless with closer integration with Recreation and Parks (RAP) and homeless services providers is also requested.
Strategy Briefs 3A, 3B and 3C address LAFD requests and concerns and can be found at the end of this Section.
3.4. Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL)

Current Initiatives
The Library estimates that at least 90% of branch library staff interact with an estimated 800-900 homeless library
patrons regularly throughout the City. The numbers of homeless persons with untreated mental health and substance
abuse issues are on the rise in LAPL's branches. Sanitation costs have also been increasing as growing numbers of
homeless patrons are using libraries for daytime shelter. This includes the increased presence of patrons with lice,
tuberculosis and other communicable conditions prevalent in homeless populations. Currently, LAPL reports that there
is no direct engagement with homeless patrons specific to their needs. No Wrong Door-style approaches have been
used by LAPL for other initiatives, most recently the roll-out of the Affordable Care Act. LAPL recently began hosting
LAHSA ERTs at an estimated 13 branches within the system. Additional support for cross-functional County teams is
being planned, including DMH, DHS, DPSS and the VA. LAHSA has committed to a year’s funding of ERT teams at
approximately two hours per morning, five days per week. LAPL has partnered with these cross-functional teams, and
offer free food and personal hygiene products to its homeless patrons. .
Department Requests
Training staff on homeless issues and protocols for engagement is an important next step. Training will allow staff to
build stronger relationships and trust with homeless patrons in the hope that it will result in referral opportunities to
LAHSA and connection to other resources that could provide needed health services and housing.
Strategy Briefs addressing LAPL requests and concerns and can be found at the end of the next section: 4 – Coordinated
Entry System.

3.5. Recreation and Parks (RAP)

Current Initiatives
RAP operates 420 parks across the City comprising 16,000 acres of land. Currently RAP has two full-time and two half-
time employees that are dedicated to encampment clean ups. Regional parks like the Arroyo Seco are particularly
affected by chronic homelessness. Park ranger staffing will be expanding from 36 rangers today to 76. RAP is
experiencing geographical challenges reaching populations across 16,000 acres.
Department Requests
Standardized ranger training on homeless protocol.
Strategy Brief 3B addresses RAP requests and concerns and can be found at the end of this Section.
3.6. Bureau of Sanitation

Current Initiatives
The Bureau of Sanitation regularly conducts homeless encampment clean ups and dispersals. 72 hours advance notice is
given (only 48 hours is currently required) prior to clean ups. During this timeframe, LAHSA ERTs provide outreach to
homeless individuals, usually over three visits. Recreational vehicles also pose challenges as septic waste discharges from
RVs sometimes occur.
Department Requests
The Bureau of Sanitation is in the process of developing step by step protocols for encampment clean ups by building off
the Operation Healthy Street protocol. Closer engagement with the LAPD is requested since safety issues for Sanitation
employees can arise during encampment dispersals. The Bureau has also stated a need for additional homeless storage
facilities in other areas of the City.
Strategy Brief 3B addresses Bureau of Sanitation concerns and can be found at the end of this Section.
3.7. 311, Information Technology Agency (ITA)

Current Initiatives
311 estimates that a very low number of calls per month (estimated 30-50 out of 125,000 calls) pertain to homelessness.
Calls generally are in regards to food, clinics, temporary shelter or housing availability. 311 operators often refer
individuals to LAHSA and to 211, the Countywide non-profit that provides connections to County health and social
services and disaster support. Currently the 311 service hosts about 20 reference articles dealing with homelessness
that require several hours of staff time each month to maintain.
Department Requests
ITA states that 311 operators require more information and better connection to referral services, homeless service
providers and LAHSA. 311 operators also request that City departments provide more regular updates to 311
information.
3.8. LAHSA Emergency Response Teams (ERT)

Current Initiatives
LAHSA currently runs an emergency response line for their ERT teams. The line operates during standard business
hours, but has the capacity to expand for more availability. LAHSA is also regularly engaging with 211, and has begun

real-time mappings of homeless encampments throughout the City and County. Regional homeless response teams are
in development.
3.9. County Findings for No Wrong Door

Below are strategies the County of Los Angeles will be considering that are related to the No Wrong Door. All detailed
County strategies can be found here:
3.9.1. D2 - Expansion of Jail In-Reach

County Recommendation: Direct the Sheriff’s Department (Sheriff) to work with its non-profit partner agencies to
expand Jail in Reach to make it available to all homeless people incarcerated in a Los Angeles County jail, subject to
available funding.
NOTE: Related City Strategy 3D is included at the end of this part of the report. City strategies with corresponding
County strategies have related County strategies cross-referenced at the top of each strategy brief.
3.9.2. E4 - First Responders Training

County Recommendation: Direct the Sheriff’s Department to develop: 1) a training program and implementation plan
for law enforcement, fire departments and paramedics throughout Los Angeles County, including but not limited to the
LA County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD); and 2) a Countywide protocol
to address encampments/unsheltered homelessness.
NOTE: Related City Strategies 3A and 3B are noted at the end of this part of the report. City strategies with
corresponding County strategies have related County strategies cross-referenced at the top of each strategy brief.
3.10. Legislation
No state or federal legislation currently requested or in progress.
3.11. No Wrong Door Strategy Briefs

No Wrong Door strategies are included in the pages immediately following. Additional No Wrong Door-related
strategy is located ahead at the end of Part 4 - Coordinated Entry System (CES) and should be consulted as well.

Strategy No Wrong Door
3A Standardize First Responder Training for Homeless
(Corresponding County Strategy E4)
Population  All  Families  TAY  Single Adult  Veteran  Chronically Homeless Adult
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in coordination with the LA County Sheriff’s Department to develop a
training program and implementation plan for law enforcement, fire departments and paramedics on standardized first
responder training for the homeless.
Description:
The proposed training program would educate law enforcement, fire departments, and paramedics, i.e., first responders,
about the complex and diverse needs of the unsheltered homeless population and how to connect homeless individuals to
appropriate services. Training is intended to better prepare first responders when interacting with people experiencing
unsheltered homelessness. The proposed training would emphasize awareness of, and strategies for dealing with, situations
that arise among unsheltered homeless individuals due to an array of issues, such as, mental illness; alcohol and/or
substance abuse/addiction, co-occurring substance abuse and mental illness; and/or physical health ailments. LAPD will
develop the training and protocol based on local and national best practices.
This training would include integration of LAPD SMART teams, LAFD Nurse Practitioner Units, Fast Response Vehicles
and Sobering Units mentioned in strategy 3C.
Coordinated Response Type:

Supportive Services
Population(s) Targeted/Other Categorizations:

LAPD and LAFD Street homeless and homeless persons in encampments will benefit from the training because they will be
engaged with greater sensitivity and understanding of their needs by first responders. (The implementation of this strategy
will complement Strategy 3B)
Potential Performance Metrics:

Number of first responders trained by department
Potential Funding Source:

General Fund and future Homeless Services Trust Fund
Implementation Time Frame:

Short-Term
Lead Agency: Collaborating Departments/Agencies:

Police Department (LAPD) Fire Department (LAFD)
Sheriff (LA County)
Connection to County:  Integrate  Support  No Relation

City of Los Angeles to work closely with strategy and execution of plan with County of Los Angeles.
3B Develop Encampment Engagement Protocol
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Los Angeles City Attorney, in coordination with the Bureau of Sanitation, Los Angeles Police Department
(LAPD), Recreation and Parks (RAP), Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD), and the Los Angeles Homeless Services
Authority (LAHSA) to develop a citywide protocol to address encampments and unsheltered homelessness.
Description:
The Point-in-Time homeless counts from January 2015 have confirmed a rise of 12% in homelessness in Los Angeles City
and County. In addition to a rise in homelessness, geographic distribution of homelessness throughout the City has
become more uniform and less concentrated in long-standing hotspots like Skid Row and the Westside. Chronic
homelessness due to a lack of housing resources and a desire for community among LA’s homeless community has led to
homeless encampments in riverbeds, parks, under bridges, along beaches and in areas that historically did not host
homeless populations.
In response, City Council revised Municipal Code 56.11, which strikes a balance between keeping to the City’s inherent
duty to maintain its public areas clean, safe, and accessible, and laying clear emphasis on its respect to an individual’s right
to maintain personal belongings in public areas.
The Bureau of Sanitation has been on the frontline engaging with homeless encampments in a thoughtful, consistent
manner. In order to operationalize protocol consistent with local, state, and federal guidelines the Bureau of Sanitation, in
close coordination with the City Attorney, LAPD, RAP, LAFD, and LAHSA is asked to develop a standardized engagement
policy to address encampments and long-term unsheltered homeless. Such a protocol would operationalize 56.11
enforcement and ensure the goals of No Wrong Door are met by:
• Standardizing defined protocol for engaging with homeless individuals in encampments

• Entering homeless individuals into the Coordinated Entry System by ensuring case management and engagement
via on-call teams based on SPA
• Connecting individuals in homeless encampments with bridge housing options
• Ensuring cross-functional County teams including public health, mental health and addiction medicine specialists
are available and onsite when homeless encampments are disbanded
• Coordinating encampment engagement with City provided homeless services such as Nurse Practitioner Units and
to be developed mobile shower and hygiene facilities
• Emphasize the focus on meeting homeless individuals where they are to provide them a level of services they can
consume
• Addressing sensitivities around identity, minority status, sexual orientation and transgender issues.
The Bureau of Sanitation should work with LAPD and RAP rangers to develop protocol addressing escalation proceedings
should law enforcement be needed and actively communicate with the County Sheriff’s Department to harmonize
strategy, protocol and training materials with the county. Integration with existing LAPD System-wide Mental Assessment
Response Teams (SMART) and LAHSA Emergency Response Teams (ERT) is also recommended.

Centralized Case Management, Supportive Services
City-affiliated responders that engage individuals that dwell in public space encampments and other types of informal
shelter. Street homeless and homeless persons in encampments will benefit from the training because they will be engaged
with greater sensitivity and understanding of their needs; however, the focus for this strategy is to ensure those city
departments charged with enforcing Municipal Code 56.11 have codified guidelines informing their interfaces with the
homeless community. The implementation of this strategy will complement the County’s Homeless Encampment Protocol
(E5).

Number of first responders trained by department and municipality
Number of jurisdictions which adopt the countywide protocol
Number of encampments and informal shelters deconstructed
Number of individuals engaged and delivered homeless services


Short-Term

Bureau of Sanitation City Attorney
Police Department (LAPD)
Fire Department (LAFD)
Recreation and Parks (RAP)
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA)
Bureau of Sanitation

3C Widen Access to First Responder Teams for Homeless
(Related to City Strategies 3A and 4A)
Population  All  Families  TAY  Single Adult  Veteran  Chronically Homeless Adult
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) to reduce homeless-related
non-emergency hospital admittance and jail intake by expanding first responder pilot programs, extending geographic
distribution of these teams, more closely integrating with County Health and developing stronger links to Coordinated
Entry System case managers.
Description:
The Los Angeles Police and Fire Departments are on the frontline of homelessness in Los Angeles. This includes regular
engagement with chronically homeless individuals who often have mental and physical health needs that are exacerbated by
living on the street. The LAPD has established SMART (System-Wide Mental Assessment Response Teams) which pairs
police officers with County mental health workers for a more comprehensive response to the needs of chronically
homeless. SMART teams will be expanding under additional funding.
Similar to SMART teams focusing on mental health needs, Los Angeles Fire Department has been piloting a Nurse
Practitioner Unit to provide triage levels of health care on the street. For higher needs users, the Nurse Practitioner Unit
has the potential to better serve their needs, while avoiding costly ambulance services and emergency room visits.
In November 2015, the LAFD introduced the Fast Response Vehicle (FRV) Pilot Program, which is a vehicle that functions
as both a fire-suppression and first-response Advanced Life Support unit that can respond to lower acuity emergencies
without needing to send larger ambulances or fire trucks. These vehicles are often much more nimble at navigating city
streets and promise cost savings.
LAFD Sobering Units will offer homeless individuals with drug and alcohol addictions an opportunity to gain sobriety in a
facility not affiliated with law enforcement like a local jail. Sobering Units are connected to health services future changes in
federal health laws funding addiction treatment in mid-2016 could provide greater opportunity to connect individuals with
addictions to services.
Each of these programs represents a shift in strategy regarding homeless Angelenos. Meeting a homeless person where
they are and serving their needs has the potential to create more meaningful engagement, reduce potential for conflict
with law enforcement and save the City and County money in the process.
These teams should be connected to CES. The Coordinated Entry System (CES) offers LAPD and LAFD personnel who
regularly interact with the homeless, visibility into any case management they may have received to date. This would
include information like their level of VI-SPDAT acuity, whether they have been assigned a case manager, and any
remaining steps they may need assistance with in order to gain housing. Closer integration with the CES and the LAPD
would foster focus on treatment, allow City employees to better connect to homeless case managers and build stronger
ties with County resources serving homeless physical and mental health needs.


Chronically homeless populations.
Reductions in homeless incarceration rates
Reductions in County health costs from high needs users
Reductions in emergency-related calls into LAFD and LAPD
Reductions in emergency room admittance and hospital stays for homeless individuals


Medium-Term

Fire Department (LAFD) Department of Health Services
Police Department (LAPD) Mental Health
Community-based homeless service and housing providers
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
Connection to County: Integrate  Support  No Relation

3D Expansion of Jail In-Reach
(Corresponding County Strategy D2, Related to City Strategies 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D)
Population  All  Families  TAY  Single Adult  Veteran  Chronically Homeless Adult
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) to work with the Sheriff’s Department (Sheriff) and non-profit partner
agencies to expand jail in-reach to make it available to all homeless people incarcerated in a Los Angeles City and County
jail.
Description:
Detention in City jails is very limited, to no more than 72 (or is it 48) hours, but this provides an opportunity to
immediately engage homeless persons and begin to identify services, needed when that person is discharged. This program
should include the following elements:
• Offer all homeless inmates jail in reach services from the beginning of incarceration.
• Provide case management to homeless inmates tailored to their individual need(s) and connect inmates to services
such as mental health and substance use disorder treatment on an as-needed basis.
• Coordinate all services provided to homeless inmates so that physical health, behavioral health, housing, education,
employment, mentorship, and other needs are integrated into one case plan monitored by one assigned case
manager, with the goal of ensuring strong service integration.
• Recruit and fund community-based service providers from across the county so that services can continue post-
release with the same case management team.
In addition, consideration should be given to the inclusion in the program of self-help support groups in jail, e.g. Alcoholics
and Narcotics Anonymous that are run by jail inmates. Such support groups are an integral element of the Community
Model in Corrections, an evidence-based practice.
The Department of Health Services’ (DHS) Housing for Health intensive case management program provides a model for
the style of case management that will be required for many individuals.

All homeless inmates in City and County jails including those being held prior to trial.
Reduction in recidivism
Reduction in homelessness
Increased employment
Improved healthcare outcomes


Short-Term
Police Department (LAPD) LA County Sheriff
Alternate Public Defender
Health Services
Mental Health
Probation
Public Defender
Connection to County:  Integrate  Support  No Relation

4. Coordinated Entry System
Rebekka Lewis


In order to end homelessness, Los Angeles must understand the scope of the problem by taking into account the
characteristics and details of the homeless, and using this information to develop a system of data that helps analyze the
effectiveness of homeless-related programs. Accurate, detailed data will allow City and County of Los Angeles
government and the many service providers assisting the homeless to measure outcomes and progress. This is one of
the main goals of the Coordinated Entry System (CES).
4.1. Policy Context of CES

Data with regards to the characteristics and circumstances of the homeless population is currently centralized through
the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), which is a database administrated by LAHSA, the local agency
responsible for a Continuum of Care (CoC) serving the homeless. HMIS is a HUD-mandated (Interim Rule 24 CFR 578)
compliance tool that creates a system of accountability with regard to performance measurements for CoCs that
receive federal funding. LAHSA locally administers the HMIS system, and utilizes it to store and evaluate homeless client
data, services rendered, and housing data for the currently homeless or those who are at risk of homelessness. HMIS
data from Los Angeles is combined with data from other local municipalities and CoCs to provide national agglomerated
data on homelessness. The HMIS system is often the primary source of data populating LAHSA’s homeless population
dashboards referenced in Part 2 of this report.
Following the establishment of the HMIS system, HUD mandated the use of a coordinated assessment process as part of
their Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) regulations and the CoC Interim Rule from the HEARTH Act of 2009. In
response, a collaborative consisting of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and United Way of Greater Los
Angeles, commonly known as “Home For Good,” created the Coordinated Entry System (CES) module. As its name
suggests, CES was created to streamline the navigation of the homeless-to-housing system by fostering coordination
among all the entities in the Los Angeles region that serve the homeless, ranging from City and County government
agencies to the 8 LAHSA-designated Los Angeles County Service Planning Areas (SPAs) Leads and service providers,
which serve specific geographies and populations. CES is both a technological system and a process that supplements the
HMIS system. Integral to the design of CES is the goal of removing common barriers to housing and shifting toward a
needs-based approach to housing and servicing homeless individuals. CES was created to serve the single adult
population, as they form the largest group of homeless in Los Angeles. In order to better serve the remainder of the
homeless population, two additional systems that share the goals, processes, and framework of CES have been created;
one for families, the Homeless Families Solutions System (HFSS), which was developed primarily by LAHSA, and one for
Transition Age Youth (TAY), which is currently a pilot program. Longer-term, these three systems will be merged
together to create a single coordinated assessment system that will serve all homeless populations. See the Strategy
Briefs at the end of this section for more detail and recommendations regarding this effort. All CES systems currently
integrate with the HMIS database.
Determining individuals most in need of housing is done through a standardized assessment measuring the acuity of
homeless clients known as the VI-SPDAT (Vulnerability Index-Service Prioritization and Decision Assistance Tool). The
VI-SPDAT is an outcome of HUD’s mandate for a coordinated assessment system and the 2009 HEARTH Act to help
standardize homeless evaluation and response across the country. Within Los Angeles, CES’ intake process assesses
homeless individuals through the VI-SPDAT and homeless families through the VI-FSPDAT (Vulnerability Index-Families
Service Prioritization and Decision Assistance Tool). The outcomes from these surveys are the priority score and acuity
score. Priority is assigned on a scale from 1 to 4 with 4 being the highest priority users requiring immediate placement
into housing and services due to factors such as severity of mental and physical health issues. Acuity is evaluated

separately by evaluating the current needs for the homeless individual or family on a scale of 1 to 20, with 20 being the
highest acuity requiring greater intensity of supportive services and types of supportive housing.
Formerly homeless individuals placed in housing from CES based on acuity levels (2014-2015):
Priority Score Acuity Score Number of Homeless Housed Definition
1 0–4 230 Affordable Housing
2 5–9 715 Rapid Rehousing
3 10 – 13 528 Permanent Supportive Housing
4 14 – 20 136 Permanent Supportive Housing
4.2. CES Vision: Person, System, Philosophy

An individual’s acuity score focuses the homeless housing and services system to respond to those in most need. CES
ultimately connects a homeless individual with housing supply manually once housing is available. A series of steps in the
CES process are recorded as they are completed and any service provider connected into CES can access an individual’s
timeline to acquire housing. CES was created to provide a standardized response to homelessness based on need. First,
higher-need users are housed in facilities providing a higher level of care, then lower acuity users are subsequently
housed in buildings with lower levels of supportive wraparound services and care. Finally, the lowest acuity users are
referred to affordable housing.
The CES requires the coordination of three elements: 1) - Person, 2) - System and 3) - Philosophy. CES coordinates the
process of engagement, assessment, and eventual assignment of housing for a homeless individual. In order to succeed in
this goal, primary contact with a homeless individual or family must be established. Though a variety of resources exist in
the Los Angeles homeless provider community, for the intent of this report, primary contact is made through a CES
Case Worker (1 - Person). This case worker engages directly with a homeless person regardless of their acuity and
develops trust and rapport over time to begin collecting data on the homeless individual (2 – System). This data system
ensures that tasks are performed each step of the way, as sequencing response steps is important. An example of a
pertinent step that needs to be performed and noted is the collection of proper identification and paperwork for the
homeless person prior to their applying for federal, State and County benefits through the CoC. After placement of the
individual into the appropriate level of housing, coordination of continued care when necessary maximizes the likelihood
that the formerly homeless client stays in housing. Inherent in the framework of the CES is a philosophy (3 – Philosophy)
that housing will always be the end goal for the engagement process with homeless individuals.
4.3. CES Success to Date

Though the CES has only been operational for 2 years, the value of the system is firmly established. With the need for
homeless services and housing so great across the City and County, CES has created a platform of engagement across
service providers and allowed LAHSA to establish a more structured framework to provide services. This framework
prioritizes housing for those most in need and results in financial savings for the City and County by focusing on high
needs users, who often absorb the greatest amount of public costs. More than just a compliance tool, CES when paired
with HMIS, is creating a new national model using technology to respond to a complex societal issue. Leadership at the

United Way, the Chamber of Commerce and all the organizations comprising Home For Good should be recognized for
their proactive approach taken to create this system.
However, in order to reap the maximum benefits of this system, greater investment of time, strategy, project
management, technological enhancements and financial resources must be made.
4.4. Challenges Facing CES

Below are a series of challenges facing CES. These challenges help frame the Strategy Briefs that address them at the end
of this Section of the report.
4.5. Thousands Not Entered

In order to best serve the homeless population, accurate and reliable data on who, where, and what level of need is
experienced by each homeless individual is critical for policy makers, agencies and service providers. Currently LAHSA
estimates that only about 10,000 of the County of Los Angeles’ homeless are entered in CES and HMIS. Though this
represents a rapid gain relative to numbers from a few months prior, three quarters of the estimated 44,000 homeless
individuals Countywide have not been formally entered into CES and HMIS. This disparity between estimations of
homeless individuals counted versus those recorded and tracked through CES undermines the goal of CES. Truly
understanding the homeless population requires a majority of homeless individuals to be assessed and served via CES
per federal HUD guidelines. The PIT counts contain valuable data that will require continual, real-time updating to
ensure greater accuracy and efficiency, as well as sufficient capacity when serving the homeless population. Today, the
PIT acts as an estimate and the lack of exact numbers of the homeless in the City has funding implications relative to
County, State and federal sources. Los Angeles is coping with a crisis that continues to grow, even while federal sources
of funding for affordable housing and social services are threatened by budget cuts.
Knowing the exact need at the City level would help direct County health and social service resources, State housing
grants, and federal resources through the Affordable Care Act, Social Security, VASH, and HUD. Los Angeles is a
national outlier due to the continual growth of its already above average homeless population, even as nationwide trends
reflect a downward shift in overall homelessness. Stronger data would enable the City and County to call State and
federal attention to the severity of Los Angeles' homeless issues.
4.6. Housing Supply Inadequate for Matching

Estimates from the November 2015 “Shelter and Housing Needs for the Homeless” CAO report reinforces the
conclusion that demand for housing units for homeless Angelenos far outstrips supply year after year. This lack of
housing supply undermines the primary goal of CES, which is to match the appropriate housing unit to meet the needs
of the user. More detail regarding housing needs and ways to address these needs is discussed in Section 7 of this
report. Lack of housing supply discourages participation in CES as this significantly increases the case managers’ timeline
to secure housing for a homeless individual, creating less of an incentive for the use of CES as a matching tool. If service
providers know homeless housing is constrained that all they can offer lower-needs users is a shelter bed, confidence in
CES as a way to match homeless individuals with housing erodes. This erosion of confidence undermines both the data
capture process critical to the success of the system, and the trust a case worker has built up engaging a homeless
person with an ultimate goal of finding housing.
At the local level, accurately tracking which portion of the homeless require what types of housing to ensure they
remain housed provides the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA), the Housing and Community

Investment Department (HCID), and the Los Angeles Department of City Planning the data necessary to appropriately
respond with policy reform, city planning initiatives, and resource requests that sufficiently address this growing crisis. In
the immediate term, LAHSA has estimated these housing needs relative to the current homeless population, which has
been reported in the “Shelter and Housing Needs for the Homeless”. This report included input from HACLA and
HCID, but agency-specific estimates from both Departments and City Planning that are independent from LAHSA’s
estimations on the need for homeless housing, are not currently available. Aligning estimates and goals between these
departments and agencies could facilitate funding and construction of more affordable and homeless housing. Strategy
Brief 7E at the end of Section 7 of this report develops this strategy more fully.
4.7. Housing Supply Not Tracked Centrally

Though the supply for homeless housing currently outstrips demand across the City, having accurate numbers of units
available that were developed via public or private developers is critical. When first debuted, CES contained an
inventory of available housing units that aligned with various acuity levels of homelessness. This functionality was disabled
due to initial technical limitations between HMIS and CES. Since the initial launch of CES, both the HMIS system and
CES module have been integrated to align a proportion of the homeless population that has been evaluated via VI-
SPDAT acuity level to types of housing, As CES is further enhanced and the homeless population further integrated,
availability and occupancy units of housing available to the homeless population, both privately and publically, could be
tracked centrally within CES.
The nonprofit community has played an invaluable role in constructing and maintaining affordable and homeless housing
in the City. LAHSA maintains a master list of all homeless housing units, their addresses, and housing type provided by
public and nonprofit entities County-wide. Reconciling this data, ensuring it is input in CES and matched with existing
and formerly homeless individuals and families would give policymakers a central source of data on the region's
homeless and how it is being addressed using a variety of funding sources. This information will allow stakeholders to
evaluate data in terms of housing units as they become available, as portions of formerly homeless individuals transition
out of housing assistance programs like Rapid-Rehousing (RRH).
4.8. Detailed Intake Processes, Long Timelines for Housing

Ensuring all relevant data is captured for a homeless individual via CES intake is critical, but has proven to be time
consuming due to the volume of pertinent information needed. Given the various funding sources for which a homeless
person can qualify, from Social Security Income (SSI) to programs like the Flexible Housing Subsidy Pool (FHSP)
administered through the County, questionnaires can be lengthy and challenging to complete. This is especially true for
clients with more acute mental and physical health needs or clients with substance abuse issues. This lengthy intake
process also limits the number of people homeless service providers can enter into CES. Time is a valuable commodity
for staff at the front line of this crisis and different service providers from LAHSA to non-profits plan to further improve
timelines to housing with a more efficient intake process of CES through technological enhancements and increased
resources.
4.9. Interactions Not Being Captured

In Section 3 of this report, the concept of “No Wrong Door” was discussed as a way to frame the interactions various
public agencies have with the homeless. Public agencies are a common point-of-entry for the homeless population as
they look towards these institutions to connect them to housing and services when homelessness providers are not
accessible. However, interactions between public agencies and the homeless population are not captured due to a lack

of standardization. This leads to inaccurate data and makes it more difficult for both policymakers, and housing and
service providers to effectively serve the homeless population. In that context, CES will become more and more
valuable in resolving this issue for public agencies, policymakers, and service providers as it will give them detailed data
to address this issue.
A holistic, strategic response to homelessness from public agencies requires resources interacting with the homeless
across a variety of agencies be equipped with relevant information regarding homeless Angelenos who utilize their
services. As mentioned earlier, interactions between municipal employees and homeless individuals are not fully
captured within the context of the department where the interaction is occurring. More fully capturing this data would
enable agencies to understand where they could potentially play a more constructive role in engaging the homeless and
directing them to the services they need. Gathering this data would better inform agencies during the annual budget
process, enabling data-driven estimations of which portion of their budgets serve homeless Angelenos. Capturing more
interactions with government in CES would also help prevent homeless individuals from falling out of the system if they
move to different encampments or areas in the public space. Strategy Brief 4C further expands on these concepts and
outlines actions that will enhance interactions between public agencies and the homeless population.
4.10. Homeless Resources Not Fully Tracked

Homeless individuals and families are often eligible for county, state and federal programs that act as a de-facto income
source to offset the cost of housing. Pooling of resources ensures a shared stake across all levels of government to
address the basic needs of individuals. Though the process of acquiring this funding occurs at the level of the individual,
often via a case manager or housing navigator, detailed capturing of the dates applied, amount of funds secured or
denied, and the length of time the funds are provided for are not captured in a single record associated to the individual.
Informally, general notes on the client can provide a portion of this data, but no standardized procedures for the
tracking of this data have been planned for within CES. Little federal guidance is available since HUD only has a handful
of prescriptive policies regarding HMIS systems and even fewer for CES-type systems. Therefore, the City has an
opportunity to track pooled sources of funding leading to housing within CES since having information on specific
amounts of federal, state, county, city, and philanthropic subsidies each homeless person receives would give
policymakers valuable insight when assessing the financial needs of each homeless individual. Accurately tracking this
information also provides an opportunity for public agencies and service providers to advocate for increases in state and
federal sources and working with the nonprofit community to address homelessness. Strategy Brief 4A presents an
opportunity for the integration of this funding information into CES as the system continues to be strengthened to
better resolve the homelessness issue.
4.11. CES Case Managers Needed

Since CES is a person, a system and a philosophy, it is critical that the person portion of CES is staffed adequately via
case managers to ensure homeless individuals receive the repeated engagement needed to get them off the street and
into housing. LAHSA and the homeless service providers they work with are organized by County SPA (Service Planning
Area), with the SPA Lead contractually defined as the CES Lead. There are also CES subject matter experts LAHSA
employs to ensure the goals of the system are met and enhancements to the system are made.
Case managers within CES would also prove to be useful when supported by City departments. Extending this
engagement within City departments or facilities would provide opportunities for homeless individuals to engage with
City departments who will be able to connect them with housing and service providers. Utilizing case managers and
service providers that are supported by City departments further reinforces the concept of “No Wrong Door,” giving

homeless individuals the opportunity to access resources regardless of where they are being engaged (See Section 3).
Strategy Brief 4B outlines actions that will help departments support CES case managers when engaging with homeless
individuals.
Though these case managers are essential components to the success of CES, both LAHSA and the SPA leads do not
currently have enough case managers to manage optimal caseloads. As CES continues to be enhanced, increased staffing
of case managers will follow, as LAHSA and service providers will be able to better assess the need for case managers
relative to the overall needs of the homeless population (See Strategy 4A).
4.12. Care Providers & CES

With over 160 non-profit service providers participating in CES across the City and County and operating in different
SPAs, providers vary in scale, location and primary demographic served. CES is the first step in getting all these care
providers into the same system to reduce duplication of effort and to best direct public and private monies toward
homeless initiatives. In order for CES to work most effectively, it requires collaboration within the system of homeless
providers. This strategy is conducive to the current system in that it forces fragmented service providers, all with their
own strategies for serving a niche in the homeless community, to adapt a more collaborative approach.
LAHSA designates a lead homeless service provider in each of the eight County SPAs. The City and County both have a
strong interest in ensuring these SPA leads prioritize higher acuity users, and can enforce this interest via funding.
Smaller service providers, however, might not receive public contracts, leaving an absence of incentive for them to
utilize CES. Other than for contracted CES providers, financial incentives or penalties do not exist for service providers
that are not publically funded to use the system to organize their resources and outreach. While the initiative that
homeless service providers in Los Angeles have taken to support CES should be recognized, it is in the best interest of
the public that local City and County governments enable CES to expand this strategy to include as many service
providers as possible via expanding the role of non-profits play to enable coordinated case management through the
tool.
4.13. No Single Standard for Case Management

Regular engagement from initial outreach to housing navigation, through housing retention, is essential to ensuring the
homeless do not return to the street. This process can have each of these roles blended into one person administering
services or split among people. Between eight County SPAs and the wide variety of service providers in each of those
SPAs, there is an inconsistent model of homeless case management.
Housing
Outreach Retention
Navigation
This has implications when determining the right number of homeless case workers needed to staff CES properly to
ensure consistently positive outcomes. If all three (Outreach, Housing Navigation, Retention) of these roles are blended,
a case manager’s case load, or the number of individuals they see regularly decreases. If the roles are separated and
handed off during each part of the process, there is a risk that someone may slip through the cracks. However, the case

load in this type of framework would be higher and the case workers can specialize on building a more specialized
skillset if they are focused on one or two of these steps. Longer term, as the City and County seek stronger
collaboration for staffing CES, case management models should be standardized so that common staffing models and skill
sets help homeless individuals stay housed is achieved. Future CES funding requests should be based on models that take
these staffing and skill set needs into account. Strategy Brief 4E outlines actions with regards to defining types of
supportive services and subsidized housing that are integral to the standardization of case management.
4.14. Council Direction and CES

4.15. Youth Mental Health Needs
Youth service providers, including the LGBT Center advises that mental health issues are a major issue for homeless
youth, including LGBTQ youth. LAHSA staff advises that housing acts as a stabilizer for youth and allows them to begin
to address their underlying causes of homelessness. As such, LAHSA should ensure that the CES system under
development addresses mental health issues for homeless youth and youth at-risk of homelessness. (Item in Strategy
Brief 4C)
4.16. Youth Homelessness Data

Section 2 of this report addresses youth homelessness. As part of LAHSA’s data collection efforts through the following
databases, HMIS, PIT Count, data Dashboards and the Youth CES, more information will be available in the coming
months relative to the causes of youth homelessness. (Item in Strategy Brief 4C)
4.17. Track Homeless Individuals with Pets

Motion (Wesson - Koretz / Huizar) introduced on August 28, 2015, directs the Department of Animal Services (Animal
Services) and the Chief Legislative Analyst to report relative to providing assistance to homeless individuals with pets so
that the pets are provided proper health care such as spay or neuter surgery, vaccinations, and licenses, and to ensure
homeless persons are separated from their pets when the individuals seek services. (Item in Strategy Brief 4C)
4.18. 3 CES Systems, Long Term Effort to Merge

There are currently three CES systems based on different populations of homeless individuals in Los Angeles. As
mentioned earlier, the Home For Good collaborative took the lead in establishing the first version of CES that targeted
the single adult population. This system is regularly reconciled with HMIS to ensure accurate data and compliance
reporting to HUD. LAHSA took the lead on creating a CES system for families. Since housing needs for families are
often different than they are for singles, housing stock and services in the families’ system of CES differs accordingly.
Finally, there is a new system of CES created to address the TAY population with another mix of preferred housing for
that group. Efforts to merge these three systems are underway.

4.19. CES System & Interface

In order to facilitate greater understanding of CES, we have included screen captures of the intake screens that service
providers use to determine levels of acuity for clients.
4.20. Tech Enhancements to CES & HMIS

Technological enhancements are continually being made to CES & HMIS, including CES support for tablets and
geotagging of interaction points with homeless clients, as well as HMIS database upgrades to ensure system efficiency.
Technological enhancements have impacts to end users of the system including the service providers who work in CES
everyday to coordinate care and structure their case workload. Enhancements can reduce this workload by digitizing
paper forms and streamlining graphical user interfaces for the system.
Enhancements like these have positive downstream impacts and require a robust project management infrastructure in
order to ensure project rollout timelines are met. Impacted users must continually be trained on enhancements and a
mechanism for user feedback must be in place to ensure that the system adds value and is worth the time and resources
it takes to maintain it. Challenges to the CES and HMIS platforms, like ones mentioned earlier, have management and
resource costs that policymakers should be aware of when making funding decisions. Proper funding of project
management is critical to achieve the aforementioned benefits of coordinated entry. Strategy Brief 4A addresses this.

4.21. Best Practices

Before HUD mandated coordinated assessment, Los Angeles was already developing a coordinated entry system, rolling
out pilot programs and reviewing best practices, including essential database revisions to HMIS to better coordinate
services among and within communities. This implementation provided critical information that helped shape the future
of coordinated assessment within HMIS. There is no clear model nationally for a CES-type system, so Los Angeles may
be perceived as a place where best practices exist. The following list articulates some of those lessons learned:
 Strength of Existing Systems - There is a strong foundation of CES provider relationships and infrastructure
that can be improved and built upon rather than simply imagined or starting from scratch.
 Common Providers - Many of the regional leads for the family and single adult systems are the same, providing
ample opportunity to begin testing integration concepts. Additionally, the 2-1-1 phone system is regularly used
by the general public and a wide range of service providers as an entry point to the shelter provider network.
 Common Funders - Public and private funders are increasingly interested in broad-based systems change
versus simple programmatic improvements. There are several funders that also have interests in multiple
populations and regions. The Home for Good Funders Collaborative has been exploring how CES can be
strengthened and expanded. LAHSA’s funding of single adult, family, and youth services provides a vehicle for
consolidation and coordination as well.
 Technology - The single, family, and youth entry tracks are primarily located in the LAHSA HMIS system. While
in separate modules at the moment, developing a core set of assessment tools could result in one system that
provides resource matching and care coordination across populations and regions. The County’s Enterprise
Linkages Project (ELP) system, which organizes County agency data, also provides a potent source of
information
 SPDAT Family of Tools - The single adult, family and youth entry tracks use the SPDAT family of assessment
tools. Each tool has population-specific supplements, but includes the ability for standardized scoring across
groups. Additionally, Justice and Discharge SPDATs are being developed for use by populations that have been
institutionalized or are coming out of the prison system.
 CES Survey - The broader CES survey, of which the VI-SPDAT is a part, contains questions about a variety of
services and needs that would allow for referrals and screening to resources beyond housing like health or
social services.
4.22. County Findings for CES

Below are strategies the County of Los Angeles will be considering that are related to the CES. All detailed County
strategies can be found here:
4.22.1. A2 - Discharge Planning Guidelines

County Recommendation: Direct the Department of Health Services to convene a workgroup consisting of the
Department of Children and Family Services, Department of Mental Health, Department of Public Health, the Sheriff,
the Probation Department, the Veterans Administration, the Hospital Association of Southern California, and key
community agencies to develop Discharge Planning Guidelines utilizing known best practices that are specific to
institutions that discharge individuals who are homeless.

NOTE: Related City Strategy 4D is noted at the end of this part of the report. City strategies with corresponding
4.22.2. D5 - Supportive Services Standards for Subsidized Housing

County Recommendation: Instruct the LAHSA in collaboration with the Departments of Mental Health, Public Health,
Health Services, and Public Social Services, to draft and adopt a definition of supportive services and establish a set of
standards for high-quality supportive services for persons in subsidized housing who have recently experienced
homeless.
NOTE: Related City Strategy 4E is noted at the end of this part of the report. City strategies with corresponding
4.22.3. D5 - Support for Homeless Case Managers

County Recommendation: Direct the Chief Executive Officer to work with each department identified below as a
collaborating department to develop and implement a plan for each department to support homeless case managers,
which reflects the extent and nature of each department’s interaction with homeless families/individuals.
NOTE: Related City Strategy 4B is noted at the end of this part of the report. City strategies with corresponding
4.22.4. E6 - Countywide Outreach System

County Recommendation: Direct the LAHSA, in conjunction with relevant County agencies and community based
organizations, to develop a plan to create multidisciplinary, integrated street-based teams to identify, engage and
connect, or re-connect, homeless individuals to interim and/or permanent housing and supportive services.
NOTE: Related City Strategy Brief 4A is noted at the end of this part of the report. City strategies with corresponding
4.22.5. E7 - Strengthen the Coordinated Entry System

County Recommendation: Direct the LAHSA, in collaboration with the departments/agencies listed below, to assess the
adult CES and the Homeless Families Solutions System (HFSS), develop a recommended plan to strengthen CES and
HFSS, and submit the plan for consideration.
NOTE: Related City Strategy 4A is noted at the end of this part of the report. City strategies with corresponding
4.22.6. E9 - Discharge Data Tracking System

County Recommendation: Direct the LAHSA, in collaboration with DHS, LASD, DPH, DMH, and DCFS, to develop a
consistent, systemic approach to tracking and identifying people in an institution or residential setting who were
homeless upon entry or who are at risk of being homeless upon discharge.

4.22.7. E13 - Enhanced Data Sharing and Tracking

County Recommendation: Direct the Chief Executive Office and the LAHSA to develop and implement a plan to
enhance data sharing and tracking, as described below.
NOTE: Related City Strategy 4C is noted at the end of this part of the report. City strategies with corresponding
4.23. Legislation
4.24. CES Strategy Briefs

Strategy Briefs with regards to CES are included in the pages immediately following. Additional Coordinated Entry
System-related strategies are located at the end of the previous Part 3 – No Wrong Door and should be consulted as
well.

Strategy Coordinated Entry System
4A Strengthen CES Technology, Staffing & Standardization
(Corresponding County Strategies E6, E7)
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), in collaboration with the departments/agencies listed
below, to report quarterly on progress and milestones in fully implementing the Coordinated Entry System (CES) including
technology deployment, staffing and case management standardization.
Description:
CES can be strengthened through enhancements to its database and technology, standardization of protocols, and
implementation of the coordinated entry systems for single adults and families, as well as the youth system that is currently
in pilot.
The plan to strengthen CES should include, but should not be limited to, the following five elements:
1. Develop and implement a common core curriculum training for outreach workers, case managers and other staff
participating in CES, inclusive of the various applicable protocols and processes, as well as how others, such as local
law enforcement, should be directed to access CES. Differentiation between homeless outreach versus homeless
engagement should be established. These enhancements should improve database efficiencies and implementation.
2. Develop a team of SPA-based (Service Planning Area) teams consisting of homeless case manager(s), health outreach
workers, mental health outreach workers, substance abuse providers and LAHSA Emergency Response Team (ERT)
personnel. As needed, the teams would include outreach personnel from agencies that specialize in TAY, Veterans
and Family populations.
3. Strengthen the network of housing locators in each service planning area (SPA) to enhance communication,
capitalize on best practices and housing/real-estate expertise in securing units, increase efficiency, and minimize
duplication of landlord contacts.
4. Implement the following database improvements to the CES module within the Homeless Management Information
System (HMIS):
A) Assess the CES/HMIS platform to enhance functionality for local users, including the development of a system
design workflow;
B) Review and evaluate new user training for CES/HMIS, including the time to receive HMIS log-ins and identify
process improvements to remedy deficiencies
C) Identify data software that can support a CES/HMIS report feature by service planning area (SPA) and site
specific reports, as well as a proposed budget for implementing this reporting feature.
5. Develop a standard of tiered access that allows users at agencies and departments with differing levels of
engagement with the homeless, different levels of access in order to facilitate case management to best serve the
needs of the homeless, while protecting their confidentiality.
LAHSA should also report to Council on the following:
• Current variations in the case management process including variability among CES roles, handoffs between
various stages in the housing navigation process, and the implications for staffing and training this variability has on
CES funding and operations
• Advantages and disadvantages to merging the three instances of CES, including technological barriers and potential
timelines to achieve this goal
• Quarterly progress reports to Council on past and current timelines to deploy future system enhancements to
both CES and HMIS, including resource or personnel constraints that may be impeding these deployments
previously or currently
• A proposed case management structure across all 8 county SPAs including proposed homeless client to case
worker ratios to properly staff CES, proposed management ratios, and costs to provide this level of case
management
• Progress attaining 90+% of City and County homeless population to be entered and unduplicated in CES and the
project management timelines to get to this goal
• How many individuals, families and TAY are currently recorded as homeless in CES matched with the PIT counts
• Feasibility and potential timelines to restore the tracking of housing units to allow CES to match homeless
individuals in the system

All homeless populations

Number of Permanent Housing Placements
Length of Time from VI-SPDAT screening to housing
Number of Persons Engaged and Assessed (in relation to the Point-in-Time Homeless Count)
Number of Matches Completed Resulting in Housing
Returns to Homelessness
Percent of permanent housing resources matched to homeless clients through CES
Number of Persons Successfully Diverted from the Homeless Services System


Medium-Term

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Community-based homeless service and housing providers
(LAHSA) Community Development Commission
Children and Family Services
Health Services
Mental Health
Public Health
Public Social Services
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Housing
Authority of the County of Los Angeles Probation
Sheriff
United Way – Home For Good
Public Library (LAPL)
Animal Services

LA City and County to contribute funding to CES to support the connection of homeless populations within city
boundaries to stable housing and supportive services.
4B Strengthen Departmental Support for Homeless Case Managers
(Corresponding County Strategy D5)
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct all City departments listed below to work with the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) to develop
and implement plans to support homeless case managers to the extent and nature of each department’s interaction with
homeless families/individuals.
Description:
Homeless case managers play a key role in combating homelessness, by engaging homeless families and individuals,
connecting them to housing, assisting them to navigate and access various public services, and providing ongoing support.
City departments can play a key role in supporting homeless case managers by: (1) helping homeless families/individuals
connect to a homeless case manager; and (2) responding effectively to homeless case managers assisting homeless
families/individuals to access and navigate County services. The specific role of each City department will vary depending
on the extent and nature of the Department’s contact with homeless families/individuals.
To assist families/individuals connect to a homeless case manager, individual City departments could:
1. Provide space for homeless case managers to collocate at their facilities and conduct in-reach with homeless
families/individuals who go to the Department for services. (This would only be applicable to departments that
serve a very high volume of homeless families/individuals.)
2. Implement a standardized protocol to contact a homeless case manager to come to the department’s facility to
engage a homeless family/individual.
3. Transport a homeless family/individual to a location where they could meet with a homeless case manager. (Few
departments will have this capacity.)
4. Provide a referral to a local homeless case manager to the homeless family/individual.
5. Establish a protocol for interacting with homeless case managers escalation proceedings for issues beyond the
scope of case management (like pressing health issues, etc.)
6. Provide CES systems-level verifications of homeless individual identities and their respective case managers
(related to item 7 in 4C)
7. Work with LAHSA to designate one or more homeless case manager liaisons at each location that provides
services to a significant number of homeless families/individuals, plus a departmental liaison. (For some
departments, a departmental liaison may suffice, if the frequency of homeless contact is low.)
8. Facilitate relationships between local homeless case managers and the staff at various facilities.



Number of co-located case managers by departments, days of availability
Number of case manager interactions by department, location
Changes in departmental costs (higher or lower) after supporting homeless case managers
Changes in security costs or law enforcement engagement

Short-Term

Homeless Strategy Committee Fire Department (LAFD)
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Police Department (LAPD)
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles
Economic and Workforce Development
Department of Aging

City of Los Angeles to work closely with strategy and execution of plan with County of Los Angeles to direct respective
departments which interact with homeless families/individuals to develop a plan to support homeless case managers.
4C Strengthen CES Data Sharing and Tracking
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Homeless Strategy Committee and collaborating departments, with Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
(LAHSA), to develop and implement a citywide plan to enhance data sharing and tracking across departments.
Description:
Data sharing and the development of homeless performance targets are central to the development and effective
functioning of a coordinated system to combat homelessness. The following actions are recommended:
1. Implement common categories for tracking homelessness across key City & County departments that touch or
serve a large proportion of homeless residents, that differentiates between:
a. Those who are literally homeless using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s
(HUD’s) definition;
b. Those who are at imminent risk of homelessness using HUD’s definition; and
c. Those who are homeless under the individual department’s definition, but do not fall within the HUD
definition.
2. Identify the costs for implementing homeless data collection on a monthly basis in City agencies listed in the
“Collaborating/Department Agencies” below.
3. Build common standard of quantifiable costs for each department interfacing with the homeless
4. Develop and implement a plan to add and utilize departmental data markers for homelessness.
5. Report on feasibility of homeless case managers inputting government financial benefits information and charitable
sources of income or support into CES as case managers assist homeless individuals and families to qualify and
receive these benefits.
6. Report on feasibility of agency and department data from City sources that will feed into proposed LAHSA
Homeless Population Dashboards that will provide real time display and access via a publically accessible portion of
their website.
7. Investigate tracking homeless pet owners with options including: internally in CES, tracking homeless Animal
Services patrons within departmental systems, including pet owner category in the annualized PIT counts.
8. Investigate a standard of tiered access that allows users at agencies and departments with differing levels of
engagement with the homeless to track agency engagement at the individual level, while protecting the
confidentiality of the user.


Average amount of public financial expenditure received monthly broken down by source per homeless/formerly homeless
person (can include SSI income, etc.)
Any employment income by individual.
Overall staff interactions by personnel type noted in CES


Medium-Term, Prerequisite: Strategy 4A

Homeless Strategy Committee (City) Community-based homeless service and housing providers
Chief Executive Office (County) Community Development Commission
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Children and Family Services
Health Services
Mental Health
Public Health
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Housing
Authority of the County of Los Angeles Probation
Sheriff
United Way – Home for Good
Economic and Workforce Development
Department of Aging
Animal Services
311 Information Technology Agency (ITA)
211

LA City and County to contribute funding to CES to support the connection of homeless populations within city
boundaries to stable housing and supportive services.
4D Discharge Data Tracking System & Planning Guidelines
(Corresponding County Strategies A2 and E9)
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), in collaboration with LAPD, DHS, LASD, DPH, DMH, and
DCFS, to develop a consistent, systemic approach to identifying people and providing discharge planning guidelines for
individuals in an institution or residential setting who were homeless upon entry or who are at risk of being homeless
upon discharge.
Description:
As part of an overall effort to improve and enhance effective discharge planning processes to reduce and prevent
homelessness within LA County, a consistent approach to tracking and identifying homeless persons and those at risk of
being homeless upon discharge is critical. There is currently no consistent method of identifying and tracking current and
potentially homeless persons in jails, hospitals, the foster care system, or other public systems upon discharge from these
facilities. Such identification is key to the implementation of effective and appropriate discharge planning that seeks to
reduce homelessness.
The main components of the system would:
• Adopt common data elements with definitions to be incorporated into data and reporting structures within City &
County departments involved in discharge planning.
• Update LAHSA’s Homeless Management Information System data collection fields to track and report on
homeless clients who were discharged from institutions.
• Utilize the County Enterprise Linkages Project to capture data and produce reports that can be used to measure
progress in reducing homelessness and regularly inform discharge planning processes.
Potential programmatic elements of an effective discharge plan include, but are not limited to: Family Reunification;
connection to the Coordinated Entry System; physical health care; substance use treatment; connection to a Federally
Qualified Health Center; and mental health treatment. The actual elements of an individual’s plan will depend on the
individual’s circumstances.
Potential housing elements of an effective discharge plan include, but are not limited to: recuperative care, board and care,
motel voucher, halfway house, and bridge housing.
The County’s proposed strategy would have Department of Health Services convene a workgroup comprised of LAPD
(City Jails) DMH, DPH, DCFS, Probation, LASD and non-County agencies identified below to develop the recommended
Discharge Planning Guidelines, including both common elements and elements that are specific to a particular
department/institution. The workgroup will draw on best practices and established guidelines in use by other agencies.

Currently or potentially homeless persons who are in an institution or receive residential services from LAPD (jails),
LASD, DMH, DHS, DPH, DCFS, and private hospitals.
Overall amount of individuals discharged into homelessness
Overall amount of individuals connected to case management and housing

Short-Term, Prerequisite: Strategy 4A

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority LA City Jail System (LAPD)
(LAHSA) Children and Family Services Health Services
Mental Health
Public Health
Sheriff
Private Hospitals
Close integration with County, adoption of same strategy for City.
4E Supportive Services Standards for Subsidized Housing
(Corresponding County Strategy D3)
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) and the Housing and Community Investment
Department (HCID) in collaboration with the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), Departments of Mental
Health, Public Health, Health Services, and Public Social Services, to develop a definition of supportive services and
establish a set of standards that define the quality of supportive services for persons in subsidized housing who have
recently experienced homeless.
Description:
Supportive services are critical to effectively transitioning formerly homeless persons from being on the streets to
becoming a thriving tenant and member of the community. Supportive services in subsidized housing involve the
development of a trusting, genuine partnership and relationship between the service provider and the formerly homeless
tenant. This connection brings value and enhances participation in the supportive services, furthering the tenant’s journey
of recovery and housing stability. To most effectively achieve this goal, the City needs a consistent definition of supportive
services with measurable standards for quality.
The definition of supportive services should include, but not be limited to, the following activities:
• Connection to financial benefits (such as General Relief, Supplemental Security Income [SSI], CalFresh, etc.).
• Connection to health insurance, which is generally Medi-Cal.
• Linkages to and direct connection/collaboration with treatment-related services (such as mental health, physical
health, and substance use disorder treatment).
• Linkages to job development and training programs, school, peer advocacy opportunities, advocacy groups, self-
help support groups, and volunteer opportunities, as needed and wanted by the tenant.
• Money management and linkage to payee services.
• Transportation and linkage to transportation services.
• Peer support services. (Utilizing people with lived experience in outreach, engagement, and supportive services is
an evidence-based best practice.)
• Community-building activities, i.e., pro-active efforts to assist tenants in engaging/participating in the community
and neighborhood. Additionally, the standards for high-quality supportive services should specify that supportive
services should be: (1) tenant-centered; (2) accessible; (3) coordinated; and (4) integrated.

Supportive Services

Recently homeless adults in subsidized housing

Number of Permanent Housing Placements
Length of Time from VI-SPDAT screening to housing
Number of Persons Engaged and Assessed (in relation to the Point-in-Time Homeless Count)
Number of Matches Completed Resulting in Housing
Returns to Homelessness
Percent of permanent housing resources matched to homeless clients through CES
Number of Persons Successfully Diverted from the Homeless Services System

Staff time absorbed by agencies.

Short-Term

Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department
Health Services
Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles Mental
Health
Public Health

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles to adopt the County’s definition of supportive services for formerly
homeless adults and the County’s standards for high-quality supportive services.
5. Governance
Carmell


In 1993, the City’s programs and services related to the homeless were transferred to LAHSA, which was formed to
coordinate and manage homeless programs in the City as well as the County. The Housing and Community Investment
Department (HCID) was designated as the lead agency within the City to manage the LAHSA contract, as well as other
policies related to homelessness.
As indicated in the CAO report concerning City engagement with homelessness (CF# 15-0211), many City departments
are involved with homelessness even though their responsibilities are not primarily or directly associated with
homelessness. The report found that interactions among departments were not coordinated or tracked. These findings
suggest that greater interdepartmental coordination of homelessness policies, issues, and services could ensure greater
responsiveness to the needs of the homeless (pursuant to Strategy Brief recommendations Parts 3 and 4 of this report).
Reform to the City’s governance over homeless program and policy is needed to address this concern, as well as to
ensure that long-term oversight is provided to implement the goals and objectives of this strategy.
5.1. LAHSA Commission & Joint Powers Authority

The County and City established LAHSA through a joint powers authority (JPA) in 1993, with amendments in 2001. The
term of the agreement is indefinite until terminated by either or both of the parties. LAHSA has powers common to the
City and County to provide homeless programs and services and other related social services to assist those persons in
the community who are eligible. LAHSA effectively serves as the City’s department for homeless services.
LAHSA is governed by a Commission of ten members, five appointed by the County and five appointed by the City. An
Executive Director manages implementation of services and programs provided by LAHSA and serves at the will of the
Commission.
The JPA does not provide details concerning LAHSA’s relationship with the City, other than a requirement that
LAHSA’s Chief Financial Officer provide a report on the organization’s finances to the City within 180 days of the end of
each fiscal year. The purpose of the JPA is to ensure that LAHSA operates as a fully independent organization, capable of
setting its own policy and budgetary priorities. The LAHSA Commission was established to ensure public oversight and
accountability.
Principal coordination with LAHSA is currently managed by HCID, which administers all contract obligations between
the City and LAHSA. HCID also serves as the conduit between LAHSA and the Council with regard to all reporting
requirements.
Recent efforts by the City, as well as the County’s Homeless Initiative policy summits, concerning solutions to address
homelessness, have shown that improved communication, coordination, and reporting are necessary components of any
strategy that seeks to relieve the homeless crisis. Concurrently, recent discussions at LAHSA concerning the Continuum
of Care seek to create new governance structures to continue that dialogue. At the same time, additional consideration
of the JPA with regard to the relationship between the City and LAHSA may be warranted. As such, it may be
appropriate to amend the JPA to reflect revised governance structures within the City and LAHSA in order to
strengthen service delivery and program accountability. Strategy 5D addresses periodic review of the LAHSA JPA, with
the intent to ensure the provision of efficient service delivery, transparency, and accountability.
5.2. LAHSA Governance and HUD

The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (the HEARTH Act) amended federal
laws related to various federal homeless assistance programs, consolidating them into a single grant program known as

the Continuum of Care (CoC). Among the provisions of the HEARTH Act is a requirement that local delivery of
services receiving federal funding be coordinated through a chartered group of representatives from across the
spectrum of organizations and institutions that are involved with homeless services. The composition of the Continuum
is to be tailored to the circumstances of the local community, and should include representatives from government,
service providers, health care, universities, law enforcement, housing developers, and homeless or formerly homeless
individuals. Geographic representation is also a key factor.
Continuums are expected to hold regular meetings, add new members each year, establish governing documents that
address board selection and operations, and appoint committees and subcommittees. The Continuum would monitor
the performance of recipients of funds, evaluate performance, and other actions to ensure the quality of service.
LAHSA currently receives advisory assistance from a Coordinating Council comprised primarily of service providers, but
the organizational requirements of the HEARTH Act have not been fully implemented. As such, LAHSA is currently
exploring options related to the development of a Continuum Board. The planning process for this new Continuum
Board was initiated in October 2015 and is on-going. Proposals for the Continuum Board structure will be coming
forward to the LAHSA Commission for consideration.
The Continuum applies to a significant portion of the LAHSA work program, though the City and County provide
additional support. HUD expects that the local homelessness program is fully integrated and that the Continuum should
be positioned to coordinate all homeless program areas. Strategy 5D concerning the LAHSA JPA would address any
amendments to the JPA that may be required to further implementation of HUD requirements for regional oversight of
the Continuum.
5.3. City Governance: Homelessness Coordinator

Motion (Huizar-Bonin, CF# 14-1101) recommended that a single individual be appointed to coordinate City homeless
services. Upon consideration of a CLA/CAO report dated November 10, 2015 (CF#14-1101) on this matter, the
Homelessness and Poverty Committee recommended that a Coordinator be incorporated into the City’s governance
solution. Strategy 5A recommends that a Coordinator be appointed to the CAO and that this individual serve as the
City’s point-person on homelessness issues. The Coordinator would support the Homeless Strategy Committee and
provide day-to-day support and attention on implementation of the Comprehensive Homelessness Strategy and all other
matters related to homeless services and policies.
5.4. City Governance: Homeless Strategy Committee

The City has used several models to coordinate efforts among City departments when addressing significant Citywide
issues. These range from very informal technical groups to oversight designated by law, and are discussed in detail in the
CLA/CAO report. In that report, staff recommended formation of the Homeless Strategy Committee, comprised of the
CLA, CAO, and Mayor, to coordinate all City departmental efforts related to homelessness.
Of the interdepartmental models, formation of a Committee provides the strongest oversight without additional
budgetary commitments. This model ensures that the Council and Mayor provide regular, focused attention on the issue
of homelessness and that responsible departments remain accountable to them. A Strategy Committee comprised of the
CLA, CAO, and Mayor would provide focused attention on departmental work products and report regularly to the
Council and Mayor on the results of those efforts. These offices do not deliver the services that impact the homeless

directly, providing independence in evaluating service delivery. Further, these offices would report to the Council and
Mayor concerning any budgetary, staffing, or policy adjustments necessary to improve services.
Whereas several of the models can be highly effective, such as technical groups, they require staff to remain engaged
over the long-term and departmental management to provide support to that staff. Likewise, departmental oversight is
dependent upon management maintaining long-term support and focus for the issue. Should departmental budgets or
staffing come under pressure, the focus on homelessness could falter.
Another key concern is that without the force of law, such as an ordinance or Charter requirement, a lead department
may have difficulty receiving support from another department. Each department is responsible for managing its budget,
resources and priorities. Although departments are generally cooperative with one another, in times of difficulty related
to budgets or staffing, it may be difficult for one department to sustain and direct work efforts by another department.
A commission would be an effective choice under other circumstances. With regard to homelessness, though, significant
participation by appointed constituent and institutional groups is provided through the LAHSA Commission and the
Continuum, which may be expanded. It may not be efficient to create another commission to provide oversight and
advice to the Council and Mayor when existing public forums are currently in place and being enhanced. It should also
be noted that the Council recognizes homelessness as a significant issue and assigns review of homelessness issues,
policies, and programs to one of its committees, currently the Homelessness and Poverty Committee.
The Committee model has proven to be successful. It provides focus on the issue at hand, no extended process is
required to establish such a board, and costs to operate the board are limited. Committees report regularly to Council
and the Mayor, who can provide direction expediently as needed. Strategy 5B addresses formation of the Homeless
Strategy Committee.
5.5. Joint City-County Implementation Group

Beginning in September 2015, the County initiated a series of policy summits on issues related to homelessness. Leaders
in local government, service providers, and other stakeholders participated in these summits, exploring in-depth the
causes and possible solutions to address homelessness in Los Angeles. Many participants in these summits expressed an
interest in establishing a forum to continue the conversation and ensure that all parties remain committed to this
matter. To that end, Strategy 5E recommends that the City and County jointly convene a Regional Homelessness
Advisory Council. This group would provide a forum for broad-based, collaborative and strategic leadership on
homelessness in cooperation with Home for Good.
Strategy 5E also recommends that the City and County establish a Homeless Strategy Implementation Group, comprised
of governmental agencies. The intent of this Group is to ensure that governmental agencies, with LAHSA support, would
coordinate their administrative and policy actions, and to maintain alignment of homeless services strategies. Improved
government coordination is expected to streamline services to the homeless.
5.6. Best Practices

The November 10, 2015, CLA/CAO report provides information concerning the governance structures for homeless
services in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and Salt Lake City. In summary, all local governments are faced with the
challenge of coordinating the efforts of multiple local, state, and federal government agencies and nonprofit and private
service providers. Some cities appoint a single person to oversee their multi-departmental efforts, but all are reliant on

coordinating committees to steer policy and decision-making responsibilities for some or all of their policy and resource
decisions and actions.
The LAHSA effort to enhance the Continuum is consistent with federal requirements, as well as best practices in cities
across the nation. Local governments with integrated county-city services, such as New York and San Francisco, are able
to designate a single coordinator, while Chicago, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake coordinate services among multiple
governmental and community stake-holders.
5.7. County Findings for Governance

The County of Los Angeles is considering support of a strategy identical to Strategy Brief 5E at the end of this Section.
All detailed County strategies can be found here:
5.8. Legislation
No legislation is recommended at this time. No consideration by the State or federal governments is necessary to align
governance over homelessness in the City. The JPA that created LAHSA is an agreement between the City and County
that can be revised as needed. Further, the City can structure its oversight of homelessness at the will of the Council
and Mayor. Likewise, LAHSA is fully empowered to establish the internal governance structures necessary to comply
with federal regulations regarding the Continuum.
If the Council and Mayor seek additional regional coordination, it may be appropriate to request that the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) initiate a dialogue concerning homelessness. SCAG has significant
planning and coordination responsibilities with regard to housing resources in the region. For example, SCAG generates
the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) which quantifies the amount of housing needed in each city and
county in the region. A dedicated focus on homelessness at SCAG may be another opportunity to improve coordination
on the response to homelessness. In addition, the several Councils of Government operating in the County could be
engaged on homelessness issues as well.
Further, the League of California Cities is evaluating opportunities to improve regional collaboration and expand regional
solutions to coordinate and address homeless services and needs. The City could participate in these efforts to
encourage statewide homelessness solutions. Strategy 5C recommends greater intergovernmental coordination in Los
Angeles County, southern California, and across the State.
5.9. Governance Strategy Briefs

Included in the pages immediately following.

Strategy Governance
5A Establish Homelessness Coordinator
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the City Administrative Officer (CAO) to establish a Homelessness Coordinator position housed in the CAO to
report to the Homeless Strategy Committee and implement the strategies approved by City Council.
Description:
A coordinated, focused approach is necessary to ensure that homeless persons and families are connected to available
services and resources. City efforts should be organized in a manner that is sustained over time, monitors and improves
the delivery of services, and implements the Strategic Plan. This effort requires interdepartmental coordination and
cooperation.
One new position shall serve as the City Homelessness Coordinator and administrative coordinator to the Homeless
Strategy Committee (See Strategy 5B) and shall be housed in the office of the CAO. This position shall be the primary
point-of-contact for homelessness issues and in coordination with the Homeless Strategy Committee be responsible for
monitoring and oversight of departmental implementation of the recommendations approved by the Mayor and Council.

N/A
Improved governance is anticipated to assist all homeless persons through streamlined service delivery and greater
accountability.

Implementation metrics from each of the City Strategies contained in the Comprehensive Homeless Strategy document.

Implementation Time Line:

Short-Term

City Administrative Officer Chief Legislative Analyst
Office of the Mayor
Connection to County:  Integrate  Support  No Relation
Strategy Governance
5B Establish Homeless Strategy Committee
Impact:
Recommendation:
Establish the Homeless Strategy Committee, to be comprised of the City Administrative Officer, Chief Legislative Analyst,
and Mayor to coordinate City homeless services.
Description:
A coordinated, focused approach is necessary to ensure that homeless persons and families are connected to available
services and resources. City efforts should be organized in a manner that is sustained over time, monitors and improves
the delivery of services, and implements the Strategic Plan. This effort requires interdepartmental coordination and
cooperation.
To that end, it is recommended that Council establish the Homeless Strategy Committee, to be comprised of the City
Administrative Officer, Chief Legislative Analyst, and Mayor, or their designee, to manage implementation of the
Comprehensive Homelessness Strategy; coordinate services for the homeless provided directly or indirectly by any City
department, agency or office; collect and report data concerning the homeless and homeless services; coordinate and
collaborate with other agencies, such as the County of Los Angeles, other cities, and the State; oversee actions related to
services and programs related to homelessness as necessary; and to report to the Council and Mayor.

N/A
accountability.


NA

Short-Term

City Administrative Officer Chief Legislative Analyst
Office of the Mayor
Strategy Governance
5C Establish Regional Intergovernmental Coordination
Impact:
Recommendation:
Establish regional intergovernmental relationships with Councils of Government, the Southern California Association of
Governments, and the League of California Cities to coordinate homeless services, resources and strategies across
multiple jurisdictions.
Description:
The City is not the only governmental entity seeking to address issues related to homelessness. The County and the other
87 cities in the County are similarly impacted by homelessness, as are local jurisdictions across California. The City would
be best served by improving communications and coordination among jurisdictions across California to identify best
practices, coordinate resources and responses, and to further legislative and administrative actions that would help
improve services and resources to help the homeless.
One opportunity may be to request that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) initiate a dialogue
concerning homelessness. SCAG has significant planning and coordination responsibilities with regard to housing resources
in the southern California region. For example, SCAG generates the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) which
quantifies the amount of housing needed in each city and county in the region. SCAG also has a role in the review of
applications to receives housing funds under the Cap-and-Trade program. A dedicated focus on homelessness at SCAG
may be another opportunity to improve coordination on the response to homelessness. Likewise, the various Councils of
Government in Los Angeles County provide another venue to develop cooperative programs and policies to assist the
homeless.
Further, the Councils of Governments and League of California Cities is evaluating opportunities to improve regional
collaboration and expand regional solutions to coordinate and address homeless services and needs. The City could
participate in these efforts to encourage statewide homelessness solutions.

N/A
accountability.


NA

Medium-Term
Office of the Mayor Chief Legislative Analyst
City Council City Administrative Officer
Adjacent City Executive and Legislative Bodies County of Los Angeles
Los Angeles Council of Governments Other cities and counties
Southern California Association of Governments
League of California Cities

Strategy Governance
5D Evaluate LAHSA JPA
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the City Homeless Strategy Committee to evaluate and recommend amendments to the Los Angeles Homeless
Services Authority Joint Powers Authority agreement, if necessary, to ensure the highest and best delivery of services to
the homeless.
Description:
The joint powers authority agreement (JPA) between the City and the County that created LAHSA should be evaluated on
a regular basis to ensure that the highest and best delivery of services is provided to the homeless. Changes in federal,
state and local laws, regulations, and policies may affect the governance of LAHSA and require adjustments to the JPA. For
example, revisions to the federal HEARTH Act require certain organizational considerations that impact the governance of
LAHSA.
As the City’s primary department for the delivery of services to the homeless, regular review of LAHSA, and its programs
and services is required to ensure that the City’s policies and objectives are being met.

N/A
accountability.


NA

Short-Term

Homeless Strategy Committee County of Los Angeles
Strategy Governance
5E Create Regional Homelessness Advisory Council; Joint County-
City Implementation Group
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) to convene a public-private Regional Homelessness
Advisory Council to ensure broad-based collective strategic leadership. Instruct LAHSA to establish an intergovernmental
Homeless Strategy Implementation Group jointly with County public administrative leaders, City public administrative
leaders, and LAHSA to coordinate the ongoing implementation of the homeless strategies agreed upon.
Description:
Regional Strategic Alignment: The purpose of a Regional Homelessness Advisory Council is to provide an enduring forum
for broad-based, collaborative and strategic leadership on homelessness in Los Angeles County in alignment with Home
For Good. The Advisory Council would facilitate wide understanding and acceptance of national and local best practices,
and communicate goals, barriers and progress to community stakeholders.
Objectives for a Los Angeles Regional Homelessness Advisory Council include:
1. Provide strategic leadership to all homeless system stakeholders, including consumers, providers of housing and
services, public funders, private philanthropy, and public officials.
2. Support implementation of best practices and evidence-based approaches to homeless programming and services.
3. Promote alignment of funding across all sectors (e.g. public mainstream, private non-governmental, and homeless-
specific) and the leveraging of resources in the most effective way possible.
4. Coordinate programmatic approaches across all homeless system providers and mainstream systems.
5. Support a regional strategic response to identify and resolve the primary factors contributing to housing instability and
homelessness.
6. Identify and articulate artificial barriers across geographic and political spheres, in order to eliminate them.
7. Influence mainstream systems to ensure access and accountability to homeless consumers.
8. Track progress and evaluate results.
Intergovernmental Implementation Support: The purpose of a joint LA County-City Homeless Strategy Implementation
Group is to provide ongoing leadership support and oversight of the implementation of aligned homeless system strategies.
The goal of the Group is to provide an ongoing forum. A formally convened body will ensure an ongoing forum for high-
level coordination across jurisdictions between public administrative agencies charged with implementation of aligned
homelessness strategies, including but not limited to, tracking metrics, removing barriers, resolving conflicts, promoting
shared responsibility, and maximizing the effective utilization of resources by the respective agencies.
N/A
accountability.

• Homeless Population Decrease/Increase (PIT Homeless Count; Monthly Change in CES By-Name Registries/HMIS)
• Housing Placement and Retention for All Homeless Sub-Populations (HMIS)
• New Entrants to All System Points – Outreach, Shelter, Transitional Housing, Rapid Re-Housing, Permanent
Supportive Housing by referral source (HMIS)

NA

Short-Term

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Community Development Commission
Health Services
Mental Health
Office of Education
Public Health
Probation
Sheriff
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles
Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles
LA City Housing & Community Investment Dept
Various LA City public administrative agencies
United Way of Greater Los Angeles
LA County Continuum of Care leadership
Philanthropy representatives
Business Leadership
Various Regional Sector Leadership

6. Facilities
Dan


Facilities for the homeless, including public hygiene and storage facilities, are an important part of an integrated and
strategic approach to homelessness. The availability of facilities can mitigate the effects of homelessness in the short
term while temporary or permanent housing options are identified. They also offer an opportunity to engage with
homeless individuals and connect them to the supportive services they need through No Wrong Door and the
Coordinated Entry System (CES).
6.1. Prior Action on Homeless Facilities

In August 2015, the CAO and CLA reported to the Homelessness and Poverty Committee on the preliminary steps and
resources required to provide storage facilities and services, including but not limited to public restrooms and showers,
for unhoused and unsheltered homeless individuals Citywide (C.F. 15-0727). This report recommended a set of goals for
potential storage facilities, the framework for short- and long-term storage options, and criteria for their strategic
implementation. Additionally, the recommendations of the report identified LAHSA as the implementing agency for the
Citywide expansion of storage and services. The report was adopted by the Mayor and Council on November 18, 2015.
6.2. Proposed Goals

The following goals were adopted as guiding principles for the expansion of storage and services and state that the
intention of the expansion of storage and services for the homeless is to:
1. Integrate storage and service facilities into a larger plan to provide long term supportive housing and promote a
healthier environment for individuals living on the street;
2. Maintain clean and sanitary streets and public areas that are free of debris and human waste and are safely
accessible for their intended use by the public;
3. Reduce the volume of abandoned property and hazardous materials left in public areas; and,
4. Reduce the need for street cleanings by facilitating the utilization of voluntary storage and services.
6.3. Location Criteria

The location criteria outlined in the August report were designed with guidance from the above goals and with the
objective to maximize the efficacy of resources allocated to storage and service facilities by the Mayor and Council.
Shown below is a truncated version of these criteria; a complete version of the criteria can be found in the attached
report (Appendix Item 11.8). Potential locations for expanded storage and services will be evaluated based on the
following:
1. Data from the most recent homeless Point-in-Time (PIT) Count;

2. Multi-stage evaluation of demand in conjunction with an analysis of anticipated regional demand and the
cumulative storage capacity of nearby sites to determine the size of potential facilities;
3. Impact on residential and high-traffic commercial areas;
4. Start-up and operations costs compared to other sites and delivery models that could be implemented in the
area;
5. Where traditional sites cannot be found, LAHSA will analyze the feasibility of mobile options for storage;
6. Prioritize City owned properties as potential sites; and,
7. Prioritize sites that have the potential to accommodate hygiene and outreach services in addition to storage
services.

6.4. Integrated Role of Homeless Storage & Service Centers

Due to the pace at which housing units are created in the City and the sheer quantity of homeless individuals who need
housing, it is not feasible to find long-term housing solutions for all, or even most of the homeless in the City in the
immediate future. In the interim, new storage and service centers could be used to improve the quality of life for those
still on the street by providing a place to store their property, utilize sanitary services, and connect to service providers.
Additionally, these centers would promote a safe and sanitary environment on the streets and public areas of the City
and allow for their intended use by all members of the public. The co-location of services within new storage facilities
will be contingent upon facility size, funding, and the availability of service providers. As stipulated in the August report
the following services could be added to these facilities:
1. Hygiene services: showers, laundry, bathrooms and water fountains.

2. Entry into integrated data management systems (CES/HMIS) for services and housing.
3. Case management, counseling services and housing navigators to guide homeless individuals on their path to
permanent housing and resolution of any issues that contributed to their state of homelessness.
4. Space for a storage facility to serve as an outreach hub for LAHSA ERTs or other homeless outreach workers.
5. Lots for safe parking during specified hours.
Homeless Vehicle Occupancy by Council District

6.5. Safe Parking City Total = 3,366
Throughout the City, thousands of homeless CD 4
individuals are living in their vehicles. According CD 12 CD 5
2%
3% 3%
to the last PIT count from January 2015, there
are approximately 3,366 vehicles occupied by
CD 11
homeless Angelenos. Although vehicle dwelling by CD 3
15%
the homeless population is scattered across the 4%
City, vehicle density is more prevalent in some CD 6
5%
Council Districts than others. This is
demonstrated by the chart to the right. CD 15 CD 2
10% 6%
Vehicles provide a sense of security for homeless
individuals, alleviating the fears normally CD 1
associated with living on the streets at night. CD 10 6%
However, overnight dwelling within vehicles 9%
means homeless individuals often must move CD 7
their vehicles to avoid violating ordinances that 6%
regulate overnight parking. Additionally, there are CD 9
concerns from residents within neighborhoods 8% CD 13
7%
where vehicles are parked regarding safety, CD 14 CD 8
sanitation and street parking availability. This 8% 8%
leads to a continued lack of stability for homeless
individuals living in vehicles and added challenges
for homeless service providers to connect with

individuals residing in their cars. In order to alleviate this issue, a Safe Parking Program should be established that
provides homeless individuals a stable location to park overnight connected with homeless case management to help
ensure they find housing in the long term.
Several cities have implemented a Safe Parking program within their jurisdictions to meet the needs of rising homeless
populations. Participants in these programs are often required to undergo background checks and enroll in programs
that will help lead to stable housing. Models of Safe Parking programs are described below.
 The New Beginnings Counseling Center in Santa Barbara has partnered with local churches, the City and
County of Santa Barbara, businesses, and non-profit agencies to provide approximately 115 overnight spaces
spread across 19 separate lots for homeless individuals. Participants in the program typically receive social
services and case management that helps transition them into permanent housing programs.
 The Safe Sleep Program in Ventura has partnered with local churches to provide approximately 20 overnight
spaces with access to bathrooms. Participants are required to pass a background check and have photo
indentification to enroll in the program. In addition, participants must also work with a case manager from the
Salvation Army to find permanent housing.
 The Road to Housing program in Seattle has established a public-private partnership between the City and faith-
based organizations to provide overnight spaces that have access to restrooms, meals, and other essential
services. The program currently administers 52 overnight spaces. Participants are required to enroll in case
management services that will help them find permanent, self-sustaining housing.
The City can establish a Safe Parking program that is framed by the lessons learned from other cities and include City
Planning (DCP), Building and Safety (DBS), Fire, CAO, CLA, City Attorney, LAHSA, nonprofits, and faith-based
organizations. See Strategy Brief 6B at the end of this Section.
6.6. Long vs. Short-Term Funding for Facilities

As the City implements a comprehensive strategy to address homelessness, and a number of homeless individuals gain
housing, the facilities that provide homeless storage and hygiene services will experience reduced demand for these
services. As demand decreases, facilities and the staff needed to maintain them will also decline. Standardized metrics
regarding the usage of facilities will be critical in gauging demand over time and enable City operations teams to
determine which facilities can be decommissioned. In the short term, funding for these services will need to expand
before they contract. Section 10 – Budget of this report will reflect an assumption that facilities costs will decline over
time as the City houses increasing numbers of homeless individuals.
6.7. Best Practices

6.7.1. Lava Mae (Mobile Shower Program) in San Francisco
Non-profit organizations and service providers that serve the homeless population have noted that an essential aspect in
a homeless individual’s path to stable, sustainable housing is their mental and physical well-being. Due to the expansive
geography of the City, it is often difficult for homeless individuals to access essential services that will help them maintain
their personal health. This issue is further exacerbated by the lack of public shower facilities within the City. Lack of
personal hygiene for a homeless individual is often a major barrier toward their sense of stability, as their inability to
maintain hygiene obstructs their goals of attaining independence and self-sufficiency.

Although Skid Row is currently home to the greatest density of the homeless population, the majority of homeless
Angelenos are scattered across the entire City and have limited to no access to hygiene facilities.
One approach to providing hygiene facilities has been piloted in the City of San Francisco by the non-profit organization
Lava Mae. Lava Mae utilizes decommissioned transportation buses that are re-purposed to include showers, toilets,
sinks, and changing areas. When in operation, buses are connected to fire hydrants for water and are located near city
sewers to dispose of wastewater. With two buses working on a rotating schedule, Lava Mae has been able to provide
approximately 500 showers a week in the City of San Francisco. A similar program inspired by Lava Mae is currently
being piloted in Hawaii.
Several service providers provide these amenities within the City and County, but are hampered by their limited
capacity at their available facilities compared to the high volume of clients. Implementation of a mobile program could
prove useful for the homeless population within the City, as public shower facilities are scarce and in fixed locations. A
mobile shower program would help alleviate the issues mentioned above for both the City and service providers, while
at the same time maximizing the reach and efficiency with which the City serves the homeless population.
6.7.2. Multi-Service Centers (Navigation Centers) – Various Cities

Several cities across the country have implemented multi-service centers to provide assistance to homeless individuals.
Services range from laundry facilities and showers to substance abuse and mental health treatment, and employment
services. Some of these facilities, like the City of San Francisco’s Navigation Center, are no-barrier centers, meaning no
individual is denied assistance. The San Francisco center also provides temporary housing on site so the homeless
individuals being served have immediate access to the services they need to become self-sufficient.
In September 2015, San Francisco’s Mayor announced a $3 million expansion of the City’s pilot Navigation Center for
homeless individuals, which was established in March 2015. The Executive Director of the center advises that the
center is different from traditional emergency shelters because the center allows people to bring their possessions,
partners and pets to the facility. San Francisco’s Homeless Coordinator stated that the center would not have barriers
to service. It would be aimed at serving the needs of homeless individuals who have resisted services in the past and are
the most committed to living on the streets. The Center’s goal was to allow its clients 10 days of temporary housing
until more permanent housing is secured. In September, City officials estimated that the center would bring 400 people
off the streets for the year, and an expanded program could double the number of homeless individuals served.
The Navigation Center is located on a former high school campus and was initially funded with a $3 million donation
from the San Francisco Interfaith Council. The Navigation Center includes temporary housing for 75 individuals and
offers a variety of services including the following: counselors to connect to services and benefits, laundry, showers,
meals, a pet area, and reunification services. San Francisco’s family reunification program, Homeward Bound, has
reunited at least 8,000 individuals with their families. If a homeless person can confirm that they have secured housing
with their out-of-town family, the City will pay the cost of bus fare.
Other municipalities have instituted multi-purpose centers to serve homeless individuals, including Miami, Glendale, Long
Beach, and Orange County. Miami established two homeless assistance centers with a private partner, which assisted
the City in siting, construction and operation of the Centers. HUD recognized the partnership as a national model for
its ability to raise $8.5 million in donations. Long Beach’s multi-purpose center serves 26,000 individuals annually, has 12
public/private organizations on-site to link clients to services. Orange County recently purchased a warehouse for
approximately $4 million to convert it into a multi-purpose center for homeless individuals.

It is recommended that staff be instructed to report relative to the establishment of a Navigation Center that serves
homeless individuals, and the report should consider, but not be limited to including the following services to be
provided to homeless individuals: enrollment into CES; case management; domestic violence services; temporary
housing; health clinic, including HIV services; computers/email; safe parking; substance abuse treatment; child care; pet
services; LGBTQ services; meals; employment services; laundry; storage; and transportation. Corresponding Strategy
Brief 6E is located at the end of this Section.
6.7.3. Public Portable Restrooms in Miami

Downtown Miami experienced sanitation issues related to a lack of public toilets that forced homeless individuals to
relieve themselves in public places. From May to November in 2015, instances of public defecation dropped by 57
percent after establishing the “Pit Stop Program” that installed four portable restrooms overseen by two attendants.
Toilets are open from 2 p.m to 9 p.m.
6.8. County Findings for Facilities

The County of Los Angeles is not currently considering any strategies related to facilities. The County Homeless
Initiatives Summits were primarily focused on services the County provides, and not capital investments in facilities for
homeless property storage or hygiene services. All detailed County strategies can be found here:
6.9. Legislation
6.10. Facilities Strategy Briefs


Strategy Facilities
6A Co-Locate Homeless Services Within Homeless Storage Facilities
& Create New Facilities (Related to City Strategies 6D and 6E)
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) under the oversight of the Municipal Facilities Committee,
with the assistance of the Economic Workforce Development Department, the Bureau of Sanitation and Department of
General Services to create additional homeless storage facilities. Direct the Planning Department to assist as necessary
with zoning and land-use information for identified properties. Instruct the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority to
work with Coordinated Entry System (CES) Leads in the County’s 8 Service Planning Areas that include the City of Los
Angeles to ensure homeless outreach and engagement case managers are available in homeless storage facilities on a
regular basis to assist homeless clients with housing navigation and other case management activities. Instruct LAHSA to
integrate facilities providing for personal hygiene within homeless storage facilities.
Description:
Until additional homeless housing stock can adequately meet demand, additional homeless storage facilities are needed
throughout the City to augment the capacity offered at the sole storage facility currently located in Skid Row. These
storage facilities would provide homeless individuals with the ability to store their property, a standard process to access
those belongings on a daily basis if needed, and procedures for disposing of belongings that go unclaimed for more than 90
days.
Utilization of the location criteria for storage facilities adopted by the Mayor and Council (C.F. 15-0727) will optimize
distribution of these facilities across the city, this strategy will include construction of homeless storage facilities at
locations identified by strategy 6D.
Supportive services will be co-located within new storage facilities where possible to improve the quality of life for those
living on the street while waiting to be housed. Supportive services that could be offered include:
1. Hygiene services: showers, laundry, bathrooms and water fountains.

2. Entry into integrated data management systems (CES/HMIS) for services and housing.
3. Case management, counseling services and housing navigators to guide homeless individuals on their path to
permanent housing and resolution of any issues that contributed to their state of homelessness.
4. Space for a storage facility to serve as an outreach hub for LAHSA ERTs or other homeless outreach workers.
5. Lots for safe parking during specified hours.

Supportive Services
All homeless populations utilizing City-provided homeless storage facilities

Case management interactions tracked to homeless storage facilities via the Coordinated Entry System
Number of services provided at storage facilities
Case manager utilization rates at storage facilities
Medium-Term

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Municipal Facilities Committee
Economic Workforce Development
Los Angeles Department of City Planning
County Department of Health Services
County Department of Mental Health
County Department of Public Health
County Department of Public Social Services

Strategy Facilities
6B Establish Citywide Safe Parking Program
Population  All  Families TAY Single Adult Veteran Chronically Homeless Adult
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Homeless Strategy Committee, with assistance from the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, City
Attorney and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) to develop and submit for approval a Safe Parking
program including permits for predetermined locations, contracting guidelines for homeless service providers, max vehicle
occupancy guidelines per location, service provider engagement for enrollment in homeless case management, and
integration with Los Angeles Police Department local policing personnel.
Description:
In the City there are thousands of homeless individuals who are living in their vehicles as a last form of housing. Vehicle
dwelling by the homeless population is scattered across the City, with some areas having a greater density of occupied
vehicles than others. Vehicles provide a sense of security for homeless individuals, as they help alleviate fears that are
commonly associated with living on the streets or in shelters.
Throughout the City, several areas designated by ordinances do not allow for overnight parking of oversized vehicles. As a
result, homeless individuals who live in their vehicles must move their vehicles or face the risk of getting issued parking
fines. This lack of stability further entrenches these individuals into homelessness, stymieing their path to self-sufficiency
and housing.
To help alleviate this issue, the City should establish a Safe Parking program that allows for overnight parking at pre-
determined locations for homeless individuals who currently dwell in their vehicles as a form of shelter. A Safe Parking
program in the City presents opportunities for further integration into city systems and processes that help better serve
the homeless population. Safe Parking further enhances the concept of No Wrong Door, as the program can be used to
connect homeless individuals to homeless service providers and case management services, including CES.
As a secondary strategy, a Safe Parking program presents an opportunity to further enhance the City’s capacity during an
emergency. By having pre-determined designated lots, individuals within the City will have the ability to meet at locations
that could be retrofitted as emergency sites. Doing so will create a common point-of-access and alleviate the congestion of
traditional emergency sites, while creating effective areas to provide services.
To assist individuals who depend on their vehicles as an alternative to shelters or encampments, the Safe Parking program
should include:
• Issuance of Temporary Use Permits that allow for overnight dwelling within vehicles for a period of 120 days to
allow for the development of a Safe Parking program
• A legal framework that allows for the use of designated city-owned lots for overnight parking
• A streamlined permitting process that would allow for non-profit and faith-based organizations to opt-in and utilize
their parking lots for overnight parking
• Mobile facilities at several designated locations for homeless individuals to use, as some overnight lot locations may
not have or allow for use of their facilities

Supportive Services
All homeless populations.
Case management interactions tracked at safe parking sites via the Coordinated Entry System
Case manager utilization rates


Short-Term

Homeless Strategy Committee Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
Department of Transportation
Department of City Planning

Strategy Facilities
6C Establish Citywide Mobile Shower System
Population  All  Families  TAY  Single Adult  Veteran  Chronically Homeless Adult
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority to establish a citywide Mobile Shower System, including service
provider engagement for homeless case management, and coordinate with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD),
Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) and Recreation and Parks (RAP) to ensure the deployment of mobile shower
systems in areas that will have the greatest impact for homeless individuals.
Description:
Non-profit organizations and service providers that serve the homeless population have often noted that an essential
aspect in a homeless individual’s path to stable, sustainable housing is their mental and physical well-being. Due to the
expansive geography of the City of Los Angeles, it is often difficult for homeless individuals to access essential services that
will help them maintain their personal health. This issue is further exacerbated by the lack of supply in terms of public
shower facilities within the City. Lack of personal hygiene for a homeless individual is often a major barrier towards their
sense of stability, as their inability to maintain hygiene obstructs their goals of attaining independence and self-sufficiency.
To help alleviate this issue and give homeless individuals a sense of dignity, the City should implement a mobile shower
program. Administering a mobile shower program will give the non-profit community and service providers the flexibility
to reach those experiencing homelessness in locations that often lack these resources.
Several service providers currently provide these amenities within the City and County of Los Angeles, but are often
hampered by their limited capacity of available facilities when serving high volumes of clients. Citywide implementation of a
Mobile Shower program could prove useful for the homeless population within the City, as public shower facilities are
scarce. A mobile shower program would be able to alleviate the issues mentioned earlier for both the City of Los Angeles
and service providers, while at the same time maximizing the reach and efficiency to which the City serves the homeless
population.
Instruct LAHSA, with the assistance of LADOT, to report on:
• Availability and capacity of decommissioned buses to be reused as mobile showers

• Availability of facilities relative to the homeless population
• Effectiveness and feasibility of a mobile shower program with decommissioned buses
• Areas/zones within the City that would allow for the operation of a mobile shower program
• Contracting with homeless services providers who could administer this program, and integrate homeless case
management
• Creating bus rotation schedules that align with LAPD, LAFD and Recreation and Parks homeless encampment
clean ups
• Ensuring that Los Angeles Public Libraries are aware of bus rotation schedules and can provide guidance to
homeless library patrons
• Coordinating public health engagement with County Health and Mental Health Services

Supportive Services
TAY, Single Adults, Veterans, Chronically Homeless Adults
Case management interactions tracked to mobile shower facilities via the Coordinated Entry System
Number of homeless individuals served

General Fund and future Homeless Services Trust Fund.

Short-Term

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Community-based homeless service and housing providers
Health Services
Mental Health
Public Health
Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)
Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD)
Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL)
METRO
Los Angeles Department of Transportation

County could create their own program, no detailed strategy from County currently under development.
Strategy Facilities
6D Identify Public Land for Homeless Facilities
(Related to City Strategy 7D)
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the City Administrative Officer (CAO) under the oversight of the Municipal Facilities Committee and with the
assistance of the Economic Workforce Development Department, the Housing and Community Investment Department
and Department of General Services to identify City-owned property that could be used for the development of homeless
facilities and to report to Council with a comprehensive list and next steps for development. Direct the Planning
Department to assist as necessary with zoning and land-use information for identified properties.
Description:
housing it is not feasible to find immediate long-term housing solutions for all, or even most, of the homeless in the City
without additional resources or options. In order to assist homeless individuals while housing is procured, it is necessary
to consider the use of existing surplus or underused City properties that could be developed into facilities for the
homeless.
By evaluating the City’s real estate assets to optimize public benefits, this strategy will identify opportunities for
development of homeless facilities like storage or sanitation facilities. The initial report should include the following:
1. Comprehensive list of available City properties suitable for homeless facilities;

2. Proximity and frequency of public transit to available properties
3. Land-use and zoning information and any restrictions on use of each property;
4. Outline of next steps and plan for strategic implementation or evaluation of each property with rough timeline for
development;
5. Subsequent report on each property with funding strategies or proposals for development
Supportive Services

Frequency of use for public homeless facilities


Medium-Term

City Administrative Officer Economic Workforce Development
Planning Department

Strategy Facilities
6E Homeless Navigation Centers
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) with assistance of the Homeless Strategy Committee,
Municipal Facilities Committee, Economic Workforce Development Department, Bureau of Sanitation, Department of
General Services and Department of City Planning, in consultation with relevant County departments, to report on the
feasibility of establishing all-purpose homeless services Homeless Navigation Centers.
Description:
The City of San Francisco established a pilot Homeless Navigation Center to serve the needs of homeless individuals as
they await more permanent housing. The Navigation Center provides homeless persons temporary housing for 75
individuals as well as substance abuse and mental health services, laundry facilities, storage for belongings, bathroom and
shower facilities, food services, and a pet area. There are no barriers to service, and the Navigation Center allows
individuals to come and go at their discretion.
Similar to San Francisco, the City can address the essential needs of homeless individuals living on the street by developing
multi-service Navigation Centers. Services provided to homeless individuals at navigation centers should include, but not
be limited to the following:
1. Hygiene services: showers, laundry, bathrooms and water fountains;

2. Inclusion into the Coordinated Entry System and the Homeless Management Information System for services and
housing;
3. Case management, counseling services and housing navigators to assist homeless individuals in securing services
and housing as needed;
4. Office space for LAHSA Emergency Response Teams, or other homeless outreach workers;
5. Family reunification services;
6. Safe parking services; and,
7. Pet kennels.
Adoption of Strategy 6D will help to identify locations for the establishment of city navigation centers.
Supportive Services, Centralized Case Management, Prerequisite: Strategy 6D

Number of individuals connected into the Coordinated Entry System via Navigation Centers
Number of individuals storing belongings in the Navigation Centers
General Fund and future Homeless Services Trust Fund (storages, services portion)
Affordable Housing Trust Fund (housing portion)
Medium-Term

Los Angeles Homelessness Services Authority Municipal Facilities Committee
Homeless Strategy Committee
Economic Workforce Development
General Services
Planning Department

7. Housing
Alejandro Varas


Fundamental to any comprehensive strategy to end homelessness is a strong commitment to provide homeless
individuals with housing. Designing a system that best addresses the diverse needs of the homeless population is the
ultimate housing goal under the City’s efforts. This Strategic Plan will establish a framework in which to make future
decisions concerning program priorities, including a diverse pool of housing types and funding allocations.
7.1. Shelter Types & Strategy

Before providing an overview of housing geared to the formerly homeless, it is important to distinguish between shelters
and housing. Shelters provide temporary refuge and safety for those living in public space, while housing is permanent.
Shelters are a temporary option to begin the process of securing permanent housing, and providing a shelter space is
not as a solution in and of itself. Below are some descriptions of the types of shelters the City and County fund.
7.1.1. Emergency Shelter

Emergency Shelter (ES) provides a space, most commonly overnight, when one becomes homeless or otherwise
experiences a housing crisis and has no place to go. This is a time-limited intervention that federal HUD guidelines are
de-prioritizing in favor of permanent housing.
7.1.2. Winter Shelter

Winter Shelter (WS) provides a place to stay or bed to sleep in overnight if one becomes homeless or otherwise
experiences a housing crisis and has no place to go. This type of shelter is typically limited to winter months for 90 days,
usually from November 1 to February 28/29 in the City and County.
7.1.3. Short-Term Expansion, Long-Term Contraction

As the City systematically addresses the needs of the homeless, temporary expansions in the shelter supply will be
needed. When shelters are paired with standardized CES engagement via a Bridge Housing model (discussed below),
supportive services and housing navigators help reduce the chance that homeless individuals fall back into street
homelessness. Funding for shelters at the federal level is no longer prioritized by HUD in the Super-Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA). Local and State resources for shelters will be required to fill this gap in the interim, with the
assumption that federal dollars will target housing for placements from shelters. As Los Angeles works to reduce street
homelessness over time, shelter need will contract accordingly.
7.2. Between Shelter & Housing - Bridge Housing

When providing an overview of the homeless shelter and housing systems, there is an important intermediary that
straddles both, with the ultimate goal of a permanent housing placement. Most often referred to as Bridge Housing,
aspects of both temporary shelter and permanent housing are combined in this model to form a connection between
the two.
7.2.1. Bridge Housing

Like shelter, Bridge Housing provides an interim facility to homeless individuals or families to ensure they are not
sleeping in the public space while they await permanent housing. Bridge Housing offers a stronger value proposition to
homeless Angelenos through a one-on-one case management relationship that leverages personal trust and expertise to
help a homeless person into permanent housing. Shelter alone does not offer this added level of assistance. This case
management activity could include procurement of personal identification, application and approval for various types of
public assistance like Social Security (SSI) and completion of the CES intake process that determines acuity and priority

levels to match a homeless individual or family with the right type of housing. Per Section 4 - Coordinated Entry System
of this report, homeless client to caseworker ratios have been fairly consistently reported by providers as around 20 to
one. Funding caseworkers from public dollars will be critical to the success of Bridge Housing. This aspect of care is
currently underfunded and understaffed through the CES. Funding a higher level of care and converting existing
emergency and winter shelter space to Bridge Housing creates a stronger incentive for homeless individuals to remain in
interim housing until permanent housing is provided. Unlike Transitional Housing, Bridge Housing is provided with an
almost fullproof expectation of moving the client into a permanent housing outcome. Strategy Brief 7A at the end of this
Section, more fully develops strategy around Bridge Housing.
7.3. Housing Types & Programs

Shelters are not the solution in every situation and access to a shelter does not always lead to housing. Homeless
individuals require various types of housing and services. Regardless, proper analysis of a client's housing needs via CES
and the VI-SPDAT mentioned in Section 4 of this report is essential to matching the user with the right type of
permanent housing no matter the path they take to housing.
7.3.1. Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)

PSH is non time-limited housing with supportive services provided to assist homeless persons with higher levels of acuity
based on their VI-SPDAT score. People experiencing chronic homelessness often incur significant public costs – through
emergency room visits, run-ins with law enforcement, incarceration, and access to existing poverty and homeless
programs. PSH has high retention rates of 90% and above, according to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
and the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation Chronic Homelessness Initiative, effectively ending chronic homelessness in a
cost-efficient manner. PSH units of housing can be located in project-based buildings owned by public or nonprofit
entities, or can be integrated into private housing stock supported by tenant-based leasing strategies. PSH has been
prioritized by HUD in Super-NOFA funding.
7.3.2. Rapid Rehousing (RRH)

RRH is time-limited housing provided to assist homeless persons with moderate to lower levels of priority based on
their VI-SPDAT score. RRH is individualized and flexible. Services prevalent in PSH like integrated mental health often
involve employment assistance and other programs that reinforce financial independence for the individual or family
once the RRH rental assistance ends. While it can be used for any homeless person, preliminary indications show that it
can be particularly effective for households with children. Generally the time-limited amount of assistance averages
around six months. RRH clients enter into lease agreements with landlords upon move-in. Once time-limited subsidies
end, a formerly homeless tenant pays the full rate of the housing unit agreed upon in the lease. The tenant can continue
living at the unit pursuant to agreement with the landlord, just like a standard rental contract.
7.3.3. Transitional Housing

Transitional Housing (TH) is time-limited with a wide variety of housing periods lasting for up to 24 months as defined
by HUD, with LAHSA defined averages of six to 13 months. Many TH programs place conditions on potential residents
prior to move in. Requirements often involve mental counseling or sobriety. Though TH offers an important next step
for many in their journey to housing, retention rates tend to be lower than RRH and PSH programs. HUD has de-
prioritized this type of housing in their Super-NOFA funding.

7.4. Diversion & Prevention

LAHSA has also pursued strategies that do not offer housing assistance, but instead help prevent individuals and families
at risk of becoming homeless from getting to that point. They are as follows:
7.4.1. Diversion
Diversion is a case management approach that focuses on helping clients utilize other housing options within their
personal network rather than enter the shelter system. This generally involves mediation among friends or family to
locate an alternate to entering the homeless system.
7.4.2. Prevention
Prevention involves programs that offer assistance that leverage other income and provide support to keep clients at
risk in their current housing situation or move them rapidly to alternate housing. The assistance is temporary and may
take the form of rental housing assistance or utilities assistance.
7.5. Housing Strategy and Voucher Costs

7.5.1. Housing Strategy Costs - LAHSA
As a way of comparing the various housing interventions in use by LAHSA, the table below details a rough estimate of
the costs of five housing services commonly employed in the City:
Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Permanent Supportive Housing Rapid Re-Housing Prevention
$18,250 per bed $29,200 per bed $15,000 per household $11,500 per household $3,500 per household
(annually) (annually) (annually)
Because each strategy revolves around a different timeframe, the cost basis differs for each. Furthermore, the first three
strategies are based on the total budget amount and not solely what LAHSA funds. RRH costs are based on research
that estimates the costs to house individuals as well as actual reports of the costs to families from the Homeless Family
Solutions System. For RRH, the average estimate of $11,500 per household is the one-time cost to move someone who
has resided in a shelter for three months into an apartment for a six-month stay. Finally, the $3,500 average cost per
household of Prevention is best thought of as a cost avoidance figure; for instance, paying $3,500 in Prevention services
is a way to help ensure that the client being served minimizes costs in the future by avoiding a more expensive housing
intervention, such as shelter or TH. Prevention cost estimates are provided by the Corporation for Supportive Housing.
More detailed information on the cost estimates for PSH, RRH and Diversion is detailed in the table below.
Permanent Supportive Housing Rapid Re-Housing Diversion
Unit Size Capital Costs Annual Annual Annual PSH Rental Annual Services Rental Services
Per Unit Operations Cost Services Cost Leased Assistance Costs per Assistance
Per Unit Per Unit Household
Studio/1 BR $350,761 $6,576 $5,322 $12,096 $6,451 $729 $2,016 $600
2 BR + $413,921 $7,975 $5,677 $20,100 $11,893 $907 $3,350 $672

7.5.2. Voucher Costs - HACLA

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) has established seven initiatives through its Housing Choice
Voucher Program (Section 8) designed to assist the homeless in obtaining and keeping housing. Funding from HUD is
used to pay for the various voucher programs. Each initiative offers services and housing based on the homeless
subpopulation it was designed to target (more detail can be found in the Appendix, Item 11.1); because of these
differences, the average cost of a unit under each initiative varies to some degree. The table below, provided by HACLA,
provides a summary of the unit costs for each initiative.
Per Unit Waiting List Waiting List Permanent HUD- Waiting List Shelter Plus Moderate
Cost Limited Limited Supportive VASH Limited Care Rehabilitation
Preference: Preference: Housing Preference: (Continuum of Single Room
Homeless Tenant Based Project- Homeless Care Rental Occupancy (SRO)
Supportive Based Veterans Assistance)
Housing Voucher Initiative
Monthly $868 $868 $868 $785 $868 $783 $561
Annually $10,416 $10,416 $10,416 $9,424 $10,416 $9,400 $6,736

Detailed definitions of these programs can found in Section 11 - Glossary
7.6. Housing Success Findings

7.6.1. Timelines to Housing
A formal and regularly updated set of metrics is needed to ensure that housing needs are being met. As a baseline for
understanding what needs to place the homeless population in permanent housing, the following table provided by
LAHSA depicts the average length of time it takes to place the homeless in certain housing interventions as well as the
average length of time the homeless remain in the same interventions.
Program Length of Shelter Stay (days) Length of Program Stay (months)
Prevention N/A3 1
Shelter Only N/A 1
Transitional Housing 60 6-13
Rapid Re-Housing 90 6
Permanent Supportive Housing (from shelter) 90 N/A4
3
Prevention and Shelter Only programs do not include shelter stays prior to program entrance. If an individual or family is enrolled in Prevention,
the services they receive are meant to prevent them from ever having to enter shelter. If an individual or family is enrolled in a Shelter Only
program, then no shelter stay prior to enrollment exists because they are coming from a situation where they were either previously housed or
living on the streets.
4
Permanent Supportive Housing, on average, includes a 90 day stay in shelter before an individual or family is enrolled. The reason there is no
applicable length of program stay in PSH is that it is a permanent and, therefore, on-going housing outcome.

The second column depicts the average length of time a homeless individual or family stays in a shelter before moving on
to a different form of housing assistance. While those who are moved into TH face a shelter stay of approximately 60
days before move-in, research on TH shows that after their six to 13 month residence, clients are less likely to achieve a
permanent housing outcome and, as a result, remain in a state of homelessness. Although it takes an average of 90 days
to move the homeless from shelter to PSH or RRH, the long term housing outcomes they face are much more positive.
The average six month stay in RRH upon placement is different from the six to 13 month stay in TH in that the
subpopulation served tends to be of moderate acuity and is thus much more likely to find permanent housing upon exit.
Prevention, as a strategy, does not entail a shelter stay because its aim is to offer assistance that keeps the potentially
homeless housed in their current dwellings; this assistance tends to last for a month before the client is able to stabilize
their housing situation. The homeless who experience shelter initially are likely to stay there for a period of one month
before returning to the streets. Finally, the homeless who are moved from the streets into PSH immediately, without an
interim stay in shelter, are those with the highest acuity and are therefore placed in permanent housing at the earliest
point of intervention.
7.6.2. Chronically Homeless Retention of Permanent Supportive Housing

As a subpopulation, the chronically homeless tend to show the greatest need and therefore use a disproportionately
large amount of resources when compared to other homeless subgroups. The high acuity the chronically homeless
display is the result of protracted stays within homelessness (at least one year, or four separate homeless events
equaling 12 months over three years), often coupled with one or more debilitating medical conditions or disabilities.
Taken together, these attributes lead to cyclical stays in a wide range of institutional facilities, from emergency rooms to
jails, and result in large expenditures of public funds. At last count, the City was home to 8,060 chronically homeless
individuals and 945 family members, figures that amount to approximately 30 percent of the City’s total homeless
population.
Long term solutions to homelessness in the City should make housing the chronically homeless a high priority, a goal
that LAHSA and homeless service providers have sought to address by fast-tracking the subpopulation for entry into
PSH. PSH has been shown to be the most appropriate and effective housing intervention for the chronically homeless,
not only because of its provision of affordable housing, but also because it includes wraparound services tailored to the
needs of the individual or family services that lead them to stabilize their housing and improve health outcomes,
according to the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. In the past, other housing strategies, such as
emergency shelter and TH, have fallen short of effectively serving the chronically homeless, as their limited time
horizons hamper these individuals from gaining a permanent foothold in housing and alleviating the medical and social
problems they face. As a result, the chronically homeless have not retained spots in permanent housing upon exiting
shelter or TH. The key difference in PSH is that if the client served is not ready to exit to permanent housing without
services, they simply remain in PSH and still register as permanently housed. This difference has proven essential to
keeping the chronically homeless off the streets, as they can function knowing that they do not face a prescribed exit
date. In shelter and TH, this exit date sometimes discourages the chronically homeless from entering in the first place,
or results in the individual leaving before their stay is up. The table below, provided by LAHSA, shows the proportion of
families and individuals remaining permanently housed both six months and one year after having entered into a
Permanent Supportive Housing program.

Retention Rates for Chronically Homeless (CH) in Permanent Housing

Metrics 2011 2012 2013 2014
Households Households Households Households
with without with without with without with without

children children children children children children children children
Total CH served 8 596 38 839 37 944 44 1033

by PSH
6 month Retention 88% 90% 100% 92% 100% 95% 100% 96%
Rate in PH/PSH
One Year 88% 84% 100% 86% 92% 89% 100% 90%
retention rate in
PH/PSH
With most years showing retention rates of 85 percent or higher for individuals and families, the data supports the
conclusion that PSH is the best avenue for ending chronic homelessness. Although individuals are less likely to retain
permanent housing (permanent or PSH) at each time interval, they are more likely to exit PSH for traditional permanent
housing than households with children. Furthermore, the small percentage of those not retaining a permanent housing
outcome does not necessarily mean that they have returned to the streets or shelter. Some may find a permanent living
situation with a friend or family; however, most of the time, members of this group are shown as not retaining
permanent housing because they leave without communicating where they are going or because the PSH provider is
unable to confirm that they moved on to other housing. According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority and
the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation Chronic Homelessness Initiative,, the increasing number of chronically homeless in
PSH from year to year shows that the strategy has been strongly embraced as the best practice for serving this
subpopulation,. Perhaps most significantly, this increase in entries into PSH has not resulted in a lower rate of housing
retention from year to year; instead, the increase has actually correlated with a higher retention rate in most instances.
7.6.3. Prevention Service Activities and Outcomes

During LAHSA’s HUD-mandated reporting period of September 2009 to October 2011, 4,218 people at risk of
becoming homeless were served through a Prevention strategy. Of this total, 2,475 were adults and 1,743 were
children; rolled into these numbers were 1,366 families. The brief table below breaks down the data:
Total Adults Without Children With Children and Adults
Adults 2475 1109 1366
Children 1743 0 1743
Total 4218 1109 3109

The data below, compiled by LAHSA and its support services contractor, Adsystech, details the kind of services offered
to those at risk of becoming homeless over the same two-year period. The data also offers a fuller picture of the kind of
services offered under a Prevention intervention.
Financial Assistance
Activities Persons Households
Rental Assistance 2,971 1,196
Security/Utility 1,065 445

Deposits
Utility Payments 1,035 381
Moving Cost Assistance 214 86
Motel & Hotel 83 27

Vouchers
Total 3,756 1,532
Housing Relocation and Stabilization Services
Activities Persons Households
Case Management 4,218 1,724
Outreach & 350 147

Engagement
Housing 905 380

Search/Placement
Legal Services 2,712 1,096
Credit Repair 0 0
Total 4,218 1,724

Destination for Leavers with Length of Stay Destination for Leavers with Length of
90 Days or Greater Stay 90 Days or Less
Outcome Clients Served
Permanent Destination 1,831 551
Temporary Destination 62 40
Institutional Destination 0 1
Other Destination 477 74
Subtotal 2,370 666
Total (Greater/Less Than

3,036
90 Days)
The figures show that under the Prevention strategy used by LAHSA, most individuals and families on the brink of
homelessness require rental assistance and case management in order to remain successfully housed. All 4,218 people
served by Prevention required some form of housing relocation and stabilization services, while a smaller group (3,756)
required financial assistance. An expanded version of the table below, found in the appendix of this report, shows the
different housing outcomes associated with Prevention services; most outcomes are positive, with the client residing in
some form of permanent rental housing with or without an ongoing subsidy.
7.6.4. Rapid Re-Housing Success

According to LAHSA, RRH interventions, intended primarily for families, have shown great levels of effectiveness since
their introduction to regionally based Family Solutions Centers (FSC) located throughout Los Angeles. Since 2013, when
the FSCs first began offering RRH, 93.5 percent of clients served by the strategy have remained stably housed, with only
6.5 percent returning to a homeless program tracked in LAHSA’s database. From 2013 to 2014, RRH programs tracked
by LAHSA successfully housed 727 families. While still in its early stages, RRH is already proving to be effective at
serving its target populations in Los Angeles. In order to remain effective, however, regularly updated numbers on both
the number of clients housed under RRH and their ability to remain in housing in the long term are needed.
7.7. Housing Needs for the Homeless

In the fourth quarter of 2015, both the Homeless & Poverty and Housing Committees heard a detailed report from the
CAO regarding the number of units needed to house the City's homeless. The report (dated October 27, 2015)
presented the numbers of units of housing needed to bring current levels of city homelessness down to functional zero.
The report also presented potential options the City could take to address the gap in the short and long terms, including
lease/tenant-based strategies and owned/project-based strategies. That report is attached as part of the Appendix, item
11.7. The following are the homeless needs across the City:

Current System Proposed System Difference (Current

Program Types - SINGLES for Indiv (Beds) for Indiv (Beds) Housing Gap)
Emergency Shelter (ES) 2,401 2,952 -551
Prevention/Diversion 0 600 -600
Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) 156 3,480 -3,324 -6,648 annualized
Transitional Housing (TH) 2,209 583 1,626
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) 7,960 17,010 -9,050
TOTAL 12,726 24,625 -11,899
Current System Proposed System Difference (Current

Program Types - FAMILIES for Fam (Units) for Fam (Units) Housing Gap)
Emergency Shelter (ES) 643 463 180
Prevention/Diversion 0 630 (-630)
Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) 184 294 (-110) -220 annualized
Transitional Housing (TH) 445 227 218
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) 1,110 1,954 (-845)
TOTAL 2,382 3,568 (-1,187)
Data presented in these tables was prepared by LAHSA in tandem with Abt Associates, a national provider regularly
contracted by HUD for their expertise in the field of housing research and their track record with Home For Good.
The CES helped inform these estimates as well.
Numbers presented in Tables 1 and 2 are based on population counts from 2015 PIT with no adjustment in the years
ahead. They do not include projections or estimates reflecting growing or declining numbers of homeless in the City, but
show the amount of housing units that would be needed as of today in order to house the City’s homeless. Future
studies will be needed in the years ahead to track progress on the reductions in homeless housing demand as the City
and County implement programs to reduce homelessness.
Based on these numbers, with a 9,049 bed deficit, PSH for single individuals represents the highest need the City is facing
relative to the housing gap for LA’s homeless. RRH for singles comes in second at a 6,648 deficit of beds when
annualized and assuming six months of RRH vouchers. Housing current numbers of Los Angeles homeless singles will
require nearly doubling the current housing supply. This involves a significant, sustained commitment by the City and
County over a period of years to fully address. The strategies to address this commitment will also need to adapt and
adjust to future changes.

7.8. Youth Housing

A variety of shelter and housing programs such as Emergency Shelter (ES), Transitional Housing (TH), Rapid Re-Housing
(RRH) and Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) provided by government institutions and private organizations are
available to homeless youth. In addition, there are crisis housing, interim/bridge housing, shared housing, and transition-
in-place housing. LAHSA advises that throughout the County there are 929 beds for homeless youth, which includes the
following: 153 emergency shelter beds; 671 transitional living program beds; and 148 supportive housing beds.
Local homeless youth service providers state that additional housing is needed for youth in all types ranging from shelter
to permanent supportive housing. For example, members of the Hollywood Homeless Youth Partnership (HHYP) which
includes Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, LGBT Center, Los Angeles Youth Network, Step Up on Second, My Friend’s
Place and Covenant House, advise that Transitional Housing (TH) plays a key role as a stepping stone for youth to learn
the life skills needed to succeed in a more permanent housing environment. LAHSA states that not all youth thrive in
TH. For example, as transitional housing is not permanent, the pending move-out date can be felt as ominous, causing
anxiety, and can distract some vulnerable youth from focusing on attaining essential life skills.
County departments advise that additional shelter beds available for the youth in excess of 90 days would be a key
resource. DCFS and many youth-oriented service providers indicate that additional shelter space is needed to
accommodate those youth that are asserting their independence and are not yet ready for a structured lifestyle, but
would still have a place to go when ready. However, despite the existence of these various housing types to serve
homeless youth, LAHSA advises that the specific numbers of each housing type needed to accommodate the housing
needs of all homeless youth is unknown. See Strategy Youth Housing to Instruct LAHSA to conduct a youth specific
housing gap analysis and report with the housing intervention most appropriate for the homeless youth in the City.
DCFS staff advises that there are vacancies amongst the County’s foster care beds system as a result of the beds not
being located in areas where the youth want to reside. Therefore, in order to help ensure youth do not become
homeless because of the location of youth housing, LAHSA should determine where homeless youth are concentrated
and the vacancy rate of housing in those areas. See Strategy 7N Youth Housing to instruct LAHSA to determine
strategic locations for foster youth housing.
One study of chronically homeless individuals determined that approximately 47 percent of chronically homeless
individuals were also homeless youth. LAHSA advises that a goal of the Youth CES is to prevent homeless youth from
becoming chronically homeless adults. The Los Angeles Coalition to End Youth Homelessness advises that youth and
young adults experiencing homelessness face significant barriers to stability, wellness and self-sufficiency, and are highly
vulnerable to becoming chronically homeless. The California Homeless Youth Project advises that housing authorities in
the State should prioritize housing for youth because youth housing also provides opportunities to learn how to be
independent and self-sufficient. As stated above, a variety of housing options are needed for homeless youth. HCID
advises that approximately 300 units of PSH are developed every year. The HHYP advises that doubling-up may be an
appropriate housing option for youth, including in Section 8 housing. HACLA, which manages Section 8 housing
vouchers in the City, advises that it may be possible for youth, but further study is required See Strategy Brief 7N
relative to developing PSH and housing voucher options for Youth.
The LGBT Center advises it will be adding 24 units of youth housing within the next couple of years, and that the
Center is considering developing mini-units for the youth. See Strategy 7L relative to developing micro units in the City.

LAHSA advises that personal growth can only occur for homeless youth after the youth is placed into housing. LAHSA
advises that because many homeless youth have experienced significant trauma and disruption to their lives such as
rejection by their family, abuse, or financial hardship, housing acts as a stabilizer and allows the youth to begin to address
the underlying causes of their continued homelessness, such as substance abuse or lack of education and employment all
of which can be made more difficult by mental illness. Strategy 7N requests LAHSA to ensure the housing gap analysis
for youth includes mental health housing needs.
Local service providers have indicated that the federal government’s focus on ending veterans’ homelessness has proven
effective and can serve as a model to eliminate homelessness for other subpopulations, including homeless youth. The
HHYP advises that the State of California only provides $1 million to specifically address youth homelessness. On
December 11, 2015 the West Coast Conference of Mayors, which includes the Mayor of the Cities of Seattle,
Washington, Portland and Eugene Oregon, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, released a letter asking the federal
government to provide funding assistance to address homelessness. The needs of youth homelessness were also
addressed in the letter. Strategy 7N instructs the CLA to report relative to sponsoring/supporting State and federal
legislation to increase funding to address youth homelessness.
7.9. Short-Term Homeless Housing Strategy

7.9.1. Lease-Based Approach
Los Angeles faces a shortage of housing stock that is pushing up rents as vacancy rates decline Citywide and price
increases continue to outpace inflation. For homeless individuals, project-based strategies that bring thousands of units
of supply online over the next few years will be critical to ensuring thousands of Angelenos on the streets can be
housed. Tightening of the rental market increases the cost of tenant or lease-based strategies as rents rise and makes
finding affordable units more difficult.
Before such time and resources can be identified and neighborhood-level approvals for project-based affordable and
homeless housing projects can be made, lease-based housing strategy must be pursued in order to house homeless
Angelenos in the short to medium term over the next 3 years. The City could, in partnership with the County fund this
short term strategy by committing funds to housing subsidy pool programs currently in existence or in development.
7.9.2. FHSP-Type Programs

Flexible Housing Subsidy Pools (FHSP) administers and distributes rental vouchers to homeless individuals. Federal or
state funded voucher programs, such as VASH and Section 8, can be very effective tools to house the homeless but have
limitations which make it difficult to utilize them in a tight housing market. Specifically, VASH and Section 8 vouchers
cannot be used to hold a unit vacant while a homeless individual is preparing to move from temporary housing to a rent
subsidized unit. Weeks can pass by while the move in process and coordination of vouchers is secured. In a tightening
rental market, this makes it more difficult to find landlords willing keep a unit vacant without being paid rent.
Additionally, federally-funded vouchers provide limited financial support for wrap-around services including on-call
caseworkers to manage issues that may occur with a formerly homeless tenant that is adjusting to new realities. The
County Department of Health Services (DHS) Housing for Health (HFH) Flexible Housing Subsidy Pool (FHSP) has
overcome these issues using County General Funds to supplement federally funded voucher programs and allow for
more flexibility to quickly house its clients.

The FHSP pays for a contractor to provide Housing Location services and on-call supportive services for program
participants. One of the keys to the contractor’s success is the employment of real estate experts with knowledge and
skill building relationships with a network of landlords that accept FHSP-financed tenants. The contractor provides an
on-call service to landlords who agree to house clients, whereby a case manager will travel on-site to resolve issues that
may arise between tenant and landlord. This gives landlords peace of mind that any issues that the formerly homeless
tenant has will not affect the landlord's business and become their responsibility. The combination of services and
flexible funding has allowed the FHSP program to quickly house its clients and to avoid many of the impediments facing
other voucher housing programs.
FHSP has housed about 1500 people since its creation in 2013, with plans to house thousands more. Though the existing
housing profile for the majority of FHSP clients to date has been PHS, RRH housing offerings are under development.
LAHSA is also working on a flexible voucher program that will be integrated into LAHSA's current housing program
utilizing the CES. This program will be implemented by contracts with regional agencies in addition to a master contract
with an organization that will provide Citywide housing location services for LAHSA’s housing efforts. The CES SPA
Coordinators are proposed by LAHSA to serve as the regional implementing agencies because they would provide a
regional nexus between the CES and the new flexible housing vouchers administered by LAHSA. The LAHSA flexible
housing program would potentially use General Funds received from the County or City where needed, to pay landlords
to hold units vacant while a homeless tenant moves in, pay for supportive services that will vary based on individual need
and on-call services for landlords/clients. The focus of this program is to supplement housing vouchers traditionally used
to house the homeless and to focus on landlord wants and needs to incentivize them to rent to homeless individuals.
This flexible housing program will function similarly to the FHSP with a few key differences listed as shown below:
Housing for Health Flexible Housing Subsidy Pool LAHSA Flexible Housing Program
Program County DHS-HFH implements the program with LAHSA will administer a master contract
Implementation programmatic help from non-profit contractors to with a nonprofit contractor to provide
Structure provide housing location and supportive services for housing location services Citywide and
clients. Additional financial support has been individual contracts with other non-profits
provided to the program by the County for the administration of the program at the
Departments of Mental Health, Public Social SPA level. This program will serve as part of a
Services and Probation to pay to house additional larger program to house the homeless.
sub populations of homeless individuals
Project Based Funds project based vouchers through master lease Will not finance project based vouchers
Vouchers agreements signed with landlords for a set of units through master lease agreements.
within a building
Potential Savings Housing for Health clients generally incur large May provide cost savings compared to other
medical costs borne by County DHS and savings are housing models but these are not anticipated
realized by housing them and stabilizing their to be significant.
condition to avoid high medical bills. Cost savings
from DMH, DPSS, and Probation clients are not
clear

The City could make use of either or both of the flexible housing programs run by County DHS and LAHSA. The
County DMH, DPSS, and Probation Department employ contracts with HFH-FSHP to house target homeless
populations funded by County General Funds received as part of their operating budgets. Funds provided by these
departments are tracked to ensure that they are only used to pay housing and service costs for the sub-population(s)
that the originating department would like to target. The LAHSA flexible housing program has not yet been
implemented; however it could be supported in a similar manner through the existing contract between LAHSA and the
HCID.
The current average annual cost to house an individual through the FHSP is approximately $16,800. However, DHS staff
has indicated that rental costs for the program continue to trend upward and based on their expectations for cost
increases the figures in the table below are used for budgetary purposes.
Cost Type Average Cost ($)
Monthly Annual
Rent Subsidy 925 11,100
Supportive Services 450 5,400
Admin Costs 125 1,500
Total 1,500 18,000
There is currently no cost data for LAHSA flexible housing program as it has not yet been fully implemented.

7.10.1. Housing Trust Funds
Many large cities with comparable homelessness issues have found ways to commit sustainable funding to their local
housing trust funds. Take for instance the City of San Francisco, which in 2012 passed a local ballot measure recapturing
funding streams that their city’s dissolved redevelopment agency generated. The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
provided a significant part of its affordable housing funding, but with the abolishment of the redevelopment agencies the
city needed to ensure that revenue stream for future funding was not lost.
7.11. County Findings for Housing

Below are strategies the County of Los Angeles will be considering that are related to the Housing. All detailed County
strategies can be found here:

7.11.1. B3 - Partner with Cities to Expand Rapid Re-Housing

County Recommendation: Direct the Department of Health Services and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
to partner with cities and expand the availability of rapid rehousing, as described below.
7.11.2. B4 - Facilitate Utilization of Federal Housing Subsidies

County Recommendation: Direct the Community Development Commission (CDC) to develop the following
temporary, two-year programs to encourage landlord acceptance of subsidized tenants with a HUD voucher issued by
CDC: (1) Damage Mitigation/Property Compliance Fund; and (2) Vacancy payments to hold units.
NOTE: Related City Strategy 7H is noted at the end of this part of the report. City strategies with corresponding
7.11.3. B7 - Interim/Bridge Housing for those Exiting Institutions

County Recommendation: Direct the Department of Health Services, in collaboration with the Department of Mental
Health (DMH), Probation Department, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), Sheriff (LASD), and the Los
Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), to develop a plan to increase the interim/bridge housing stock across
the County, including identification of funding that can be used to support the increase.
7.11.4. B8 - Housing Choice Vouchers for Permanent Supportive Housing

County Recommendation: Direct the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles (HACoLA) to dedicate a
percentage of Housing Choice Vouchers which become available through routine turnover to permanent supportive
housing for chronically homeless individuals.
NOTE: Related City Strategy 7J is noted at the end of this part of the report. City strategies with corresponding County
strategies have related County strategies cross-referenced at the top of each strategy brief.
7.11.5. E10 - Regional Coordination of Los Angeles County Housing Authorities

County Recommendation: Direct the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles, in collaboration with the
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, to convene an ongoing, quarterly Homeless Issues Roundtable of all public
housing authorities in Los Angeles County, for the purpose of identifying common issues related to combating
homelessness and developing more integrated housing policies to assist homeless families and individuals. As
appropriate, invite the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, the Departments of Health Services and Mental
Health, and community providers with subject matter expertise in housing to participate in the Roundtable.
NOTE: Related City Strategy 7I is noted at the end of this part of the report. City strategies with corresponding County
strategies have related County strategies cross-referenced at the top of each strategy brief.

7.11.6. F2 - Linkage Fee Nexus Study

County Recommendation: Direct the Department of Regional Planning to conduct a nexus study for the development of
an Affordable Housing Benefit Fee program ordinance.
NOTE: Related City Strategy 7F is noted at the end of this part of the report. City strategies with corresponding
7.11.7. F4 - Development of Second Dwelling Units Pilot Program

County Recommendation: Direct the Community Development Commission and the Department of Regional Planning
to work with the Chief Executive Office and Department of Public Works to develop and recommend for Board
approval a Second Dwelling Unit Pilot Program that: 1) simplifies the review and approval processes to facilitate the
development of second units on single-family lots in the unincorporated areas of the County; and 2) provides County
incentives to assist homeowners in constructing second units in exchange for providing long-term affordability covenants
or requiring recipients to accept Section 8 vouchers, such as: (a) waiving or reducing permit fees and/or utility/sewer
hookup charges; and/or (b) easy-to-access low-interest loans and/or grants that could use a mix of conventional home
improvement loans, loan guarantees and CDBG or other funds.
NOTE: Related City Strategy 7K is noted at the end of this part of the report. City strategies with corresponding
7.11.8. F6 - Using Public Land for Homeless Housing

County Recommendation: Instruct the Community Development Commission, in collaboration with the Chief Executive
Office, Internal Services Department and Departments of Health Services, Regional Planning, and Public Works, to
assess the feasibility of making County-owned property available for the development of housing for homeless
families/individuals, and develop a public land development strategy/program that shall include: 1) a comprehensive list of
available County land suitable for housing; 2) governing structure options, such as an agency authorized to own, hold,
prepare, and dispose of public land for affordable housing; 3) identification of funds that can be used for pre-
development of properties, and 4) policies to: a) identify and protect publicly owned sites that are good for affordable
housing; b) define affordability levels on public land, e.g., homeless, very-low income, low-income, etc.; c) engage
communities in the development process; d) link publicly owned land to other housing subsidies; and e) reduce the cost
of development through public investment in public land set aside for housing.
7.12. Legislation
The California State Senate declared that combatting homelessness is a policy priority for 2016. The legislative proposal,
which was unveiled January, 4, 2016 at news conferences in Los Angeles and Sacramento, aims to address the rising
numbers of chronically homeless in California, and specifically within the City, by building housing and increasing cash aid.

Under the plan, provided by Senate leader Kevin De León's office, the State would issue a $2 billion bond to build
permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless people who have mental illness. The bond would be paid for by
re-purposing money generated by the Mental Health Services Act that voters approved in 2004 (Proposition 63).
It also would include around $225 million in new spending to provide temporary rent subsidies while the permanent
housing is being built and increase grants to the elderly, blind, and disabled and fund other specialized housing programs.
7.13. List of Existing Homeless Housing in the City

Please refer to Appendix item 11.3 for a consolidated list of all homeless housing providers in the City of Los Angeles.
7.14. Housing Strategy Briefs


Strategy Housing
7A Shelter System Personnel Need For Bridge Housing Conversion
(Corresponding County Strategy B7)
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) to report on the required Coordinated Entry System
(CES) case manager personnel required to transform the City’s existing shelter system into bridge housing.
Description:
Although the emergency shelter model increases a homeless individual’s dependency, it should continue to be enhanced
and refined, as it is an effective point-of-access to and component of an integrated homeless services system. An adequate
crisis housing system ensures that homeless individuals have a safe place to stay in the short-term with access to resources
and services. An enhanced model of the emergency shelter system that has proven to be successful is interim/bridge
housing. The interim/bridge housing model would prove useful to implement and would augment the concept of Housing
First, as it creates an enabling environment that promotes self-sufficiency and stability for the homeless individual.
The emergency shelter system should be refined through the following:
• Transform the emergency shelter model into interim/bridge housing from which homeless individuals/families
could transition into the appropriate form of permanent housing (rapid-rehousing or permanent supportive
housing). The CES process should be integrated in each shelter, where housing location search assistance and
individually tailored services are available for homeless individuals. Sufficient housing placements and services for
individuals with a range of acuities will allow for individuals to effectively exit the interim/bridge housing system,
creating shelter capacity for additional homeless families/individuals.
• Establish a common criterion for shelter eligibility across the city that is low threshold and has reduced barriers-
to-entry for homeless families/individuals. This would allow for the homeless population to enter and remain in the
shelter system as they transition into more stable and permanent housing.
• Fully utilize the shelter bed assignment system in LAHSA’s HMIS that would allow for providers seeking a shelter
bed for their clients to readily identify beds as they become available
Like shelter, Bridge Housing provides an interim facility to homeless individuals or families to ensure they are not sleeping
in public space. Bridge Housing offers a different value proposition to homeless Angelenos via a one on one case
management relationship that leverages personal trust and expertise to help shepherd a homeless person into housing.
This case management activity could include procurement of personal identification, application and approval for various
types of public assistance like Social Security (SSI) and completion of the CES intake process that determines acuity and
priority levels to match a homeless individual or family with the right type of housing. Per the Los Angeles Homeless
Services Authority (LAHSA), homeless client to caseworker ratios have been fairly consistently reported by providers as
around 20 to 1. The funding of caseworkers from public dollars will be critical to the success of Bridge Housing. This
aspect of care is currently underfunded and understaffed through the Coordinated Entry System. Funding a higher level of
care and converting existing emergency and winter shelter space to Bridge Housing creates a much stronger incentive for
homeless individuals to remain in shelters until housing is provided. The following housing types should be available for
individuals exiting institutions:
• Shelter beds
• Stabilization beds
• Shared recovery housing (can be used for interim or permanent housing)
• Recuperative Care beds
• Board and care (can be used for interim or permanent housing)
There will be an historic opportunity to increase the supply of bridge housing in 2016, when LAHSA will stop funding
approximately 2000 transitional housing beds, per direction from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development to shift funding away from transitional housing. LAHSA is currently in discussions will all impacted
transitional housing providers regarding potential ways in which their facilities could be re-purposed, which includes the
potential utilization of those facilities for bridge housing.
Housing, Supportive Services, Centralized Case Management

• Number of individuals being discharged from institutions needing interim/bridge housing
• Number of individuals who are discharged from institutions to interim/bridge housing.
• Number of individuals who are discharged from institutions to interim/bridge housing who are connected to physical
health, mental health, substance use disorder treatment and sources of income
• Number of individuals who are discharged from institutions to interim/bridge housing who leave interim/bridge housing
for permanent housing
• Number of individuals who are discharged from institutions to interim/bridge housing who leave prior to being able to
transition to permanent housing
Potential Funding Sources:

Short-Term

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Department of Health Services (County)
Mental Health
Probation
Sheriff
Cities
LA Care
Health Net
Hospital Association of Southern California
City of Los Angeles to identify and contribute funding for bridge housing and/or facilitate the siting of bridge housing in
conjunction with County plan to increase interim/bridge housing stock across the County, including identification of
funding that can be used to support the increase.
Strategy Housing
7B Expand Rapid Re-Housing
Population  All  Families  TAY  Single Adult  Veteran  Chronically Homeless Adult
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Housing and Community Investment Department along with the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles
(HACLA) to work with the County Department of Health Services and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority to
expand the availability of Rapid Re-Housing, as described below.
Description:
Rapid Rehousing (RRH) is time-limited housing provided to assist homeless persons with moderate to lower levels of
priority based on their VI-SPDAT. RRH is individualized and flexible. Services like integrated mental health that tend to be
more prevalent in PSH, often take the form of employment assistance and other programs that reinforce financial
independence for the individual or family once the time-limited period of RRH rental assistance ends. While it can be used
for any homeless person, preliminary evidence indicates that it can be particularly effective for households with children.
Generally the time-limited amount of assistance averages around 6 months. RRH clients enter into lease agreements with
landlords upon move in. Once time-limited subsidies end, a formerly homeless tenant pays the full rate of the housing unit
agreed upon in the lease. The tenant can continue living at the unit pursuant to continued agreement with the landlord,
just like a standard rental contract. RRH units are most often co-mingled in private housing stock via tenant-based leasing
strategies. RRH has high retention rates, has been prioritized by HUD in Super-NOFA funding, and includes the following
supports:
• Financial assistance includes short-term and medium-term rental assistance and move-in assistance, such as
payment for rental application fees, security deposits, and utility deposits. Financial assistance can come in the form
of a full subsidy, covering the full rent for a period of time, or a shallow subsidy, covering a portion of the rent
with gradual decreases in the subsidy over time.
• Case management and targeted supportive services can include, but are not limited to: money management; life
skills; job training; education; assistance securing/retaining employment; child care and early education; benefits
advocacy; legal advice; health; mental health; community integration; and recreation.
• Housing Identification/navigation supports address barriers for individuals and families to return to housing, which
includes identifying a range of safe and affordable rental units, as well as recruiting landlords willing to rent to
homeless individuals and families. Landlord incentives can include items such as a repair fund and/or recognition at
relevant landlord events. Housing navigation staff should assist clients in housing search, assistance with completing
and submitting rental applications, and understanding the terms of the lease.
RRH is the most effective and efficient intervention for more than 50 percent of homeless individuals and families based on
available data. The success rate for permanent placement is higher and recidivism rates are lower than other forms of
housing interventions. However, it is not the best intervention for those who have been chronically homeless and/or face
high barriers that impact housing placement.
RRH is generally categorized as a short-term housing resource lasting 6-12 months, but in some cases up to 24 months, if
steady, but slow improvements are made by recipients in making the transition to permanent housing and self-sufficiency.

Housing

Homeless families, single adults and youth who are not chronically homeless and would benefit from a short to
intermediate housing intervention and supportive services to regain housing stability

• Number/percent of families/individuals who can sustain unsubsidized housing upon program exit
• Number/percent of individuals and families with permanent housing placement within 90 days
• Number/percent of returns to homelessness within 24 months of placement in permanent housing
• Number/percent with increased income from all potential sources at program exit
$8 million from County requesting $8 million match from City.
The City will be asked to contribute $500/month (approximately 50% of the total rental subsidy) per family/individual that
it wants to receive access to the County’s program. The County will fund the remainder of the rental subsidy and the full
cost of the associated services. The average duration of rapid re-housing is 6-12 months per family/individual, so the total
city cost would be $3,000-$6,000 per family/individual who is permanently housed. Cities that choose to partner with the
County would have the opportunity to collaborate with the County in selecting the families/individuals that would be
offered a slot in the program.

Medium-Term

Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID) Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) Department of Health Services (County)

City of Los Angeles to contribute funding for rapid re-housing to address short-term/intermediate housing interventions
for homeless populations (families, singles, youth) within the City who are likely to succeed through RRH.
Strategy Housing
7C Expand Adaptive Reuse for Homeless Housing
(Related to City Strategy 7D)
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID) and the Los Angeles Department of City Planning to
identify additional opportunity for adaptive reuse for existing private and public properties in the City of Los Angeles
capable of being converted into bridge housing or more permanent homeless housing. Special focus could be paid to
existing high-density structures like hotels, motels or multi-story buildings capable of residential conversions.
Description:
The adaptive reuse program has been remarkably successful in expediting the renovation of older office or other
commercial buildings for new housing. Almost 14,000 units (most of which are located downtown) have been created
through the program since 2006. Affordable housing developers have taken advantage of the program and adaptive reuse
units have been found to be slightly cheaper than comparable new units. At the same time, use of the program has slowed
over time, as the number of suitable buildings for conversion becomes smaller. The re:codeLA Evaluation Report calls for
rethinking the eligibility date, minimum unit size and possibly expanding the concept beyond the current five Adaptive
Reuse Incentive Areas.
Homeless housing and service providers in Los Angeles have successfully converted buildings once used for temporary
lodging as hotels or motels into bridge housing and permanent supportive housing for the homeless. Though adaptive
reuse of buildings draws on a variety of funding sources, the City of Los Angeles could expand opportunity for
redevelopment by facilitating building conversions through funding via the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and fast-tracking
the zoning and permitting process for these projects throughout the city.
Building conversions address the needs of the homeless while preserving historic structures and existing neighborhood
character. Historic conversions also address City of Los Angeles sustainability goals to reduce landfill waste and
greenhouse gas emissions that large building demolitions and intensive new construction create compared to adaptive
reuse projects. With federal funds for historic preservation increasingly rare, the City of Los Angeles could help fill a need
the private real-estate market is not capable of fully addressing.
A joint report from the Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID) and City Planning should be prepared to
identify opportunities for adaptive reuse projects throughout the City and include the following:
• Locations of potential projects, including potential number of future units

• Current zoning designation of existing parcels, including proposed zoning (if needed)
• Proposed housing or shelter types that could be supported in each project
• Estimated funding shortfall private developers and philanthropies would need to fill in order to develop each
project
• Potential projects the City of Los Angeles could undertake within existing publically-owned properties
• Potential property the City of Los Angeles could purchase and convert to public Housing

Housing

All homeless populations.
• Number of potential homeless housing units to be gained citywide from historic reuse
• Capital costs for conversion/rehabilitation of existing units
• Number/percent with increased income from all potential sources at program exit
Affordable Housing Trust Fund

Medium-Term

Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID) Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA)
Los Angeles Department of City Planning Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
Private and philanthropic homeless housing providers in Los
Angeles

Strategy Housing
7D Using Public Land for Affordable and Homeless Housing
(Corresponding County Strategy F6)
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the City Administrative Officer under oversight of the Municipal Facilities Committee and Department of General
Services to identify City-owned property that could be used for the development of affordable housing and housing for the
homeless and to report back to Council with a comprehensive list and next steps for development. Direct the Planning
Department to assist as necessary with zoning and land-use information for identified properties.
Description:
housing it is not feasible to find immediate long-term housing solutions for all, or even most of the homeless in the City
without additional resources or options. In order to hasten the pace at which additional housing opportunities are
developed, it is necessary to consider use of existing City properties, including unimproved lots and those with facilities
that are either surplus or underused that could be developed for affordable housing and/or housing for the homeless.
By evaluating the City’s real estate assets to optimize public benefits, this strategy will identify transit-oriented and other
opportunities for development of housing for the homeless and housing units at a range of affordability levels, including
low-income and market-rate housing. The initial report back should include the following:
1. Comprehensive list of available City properties suitable for housing, including HCID-controlled properties that are
currently earmarked for housing, as well as appropriate properties controlled by other departments
2. Land-use and zoning information and any restrictions on use of each property, as well as City opportunities to up-
zone
3. Outline of next steps and plan for strategic implementation or evaluation of each property with rough timeline for
development;
4. Subsequent report back on each property with funding strategies or proposals for development

Housing

Reduction in the annual count of homeless persons/families throughout the City of Los Angeles
Increased housing units
Affordable Housing Trust Fund

Long-Term

City Administrative Officer Municipal Facilities Committee
Housing and Community Investment (HCID)
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA)
Strategy Housing
7E Annualize Joint Affordable & Homeless Housing Reports
(Related to City Strategy 8A)
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Homeless Strategy Committee in collaboration with Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), the
Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID), the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) and
the Los Angeles City Planning Department to publish a joint report on the status of affordable and homeless housing in the
City of Los Angeles on an annualized basis. Topics for inclusion in this report are as follows:
Description:
To fully address the housing system and how that system can be utilized to prevent lower-income Angelenos from falling
into homelessness, an annual joint report from the City departments that plan, estimate need and build affordable and
homeless housing is needed. This report should include the following information:
• A plan to implement the permanent housing and supportive services identified through the 10-Year Permanent
Housing and Rapid Rehousing Cost scenario described in the Budget Section of this report and subject to available
funding
• Current shelter and housing needs for homeless including comparisons with prior years
• Counts of currently housed formerly homeless and detailed analysis of what factors changed the shelter and
housing needs numbers over the year
• Current homeless and affordable housing supply (public and private) & occupancy rates
• Advantages and disadvantages of shared housing programs for TAY and Single Adults
• Cost differentials for shared housing programs for TAY and Single Adults
• Change in the supply (positive or negative) of units completed since prior reports
• Anticipated number of additional units to be completed in the next year
• Total public funds committed to homeless and affordable housing for the year and by project broken down by
City, County, State and Federal sources
• Locations of all public and private affordable and homeless housing projects by council districts
• Adjustments as needed on an annual basis to the 10-Year Permanent Housing and Rapid Rehousing Cost scenario
used to determine housing needs within the City
• Changes to State or federal funding criteria for affordable and homeless housing projects
• Demographic breakdowns for affordable and homeless housing population
• Homeless housing typology breakdowns for all units Citywide
• Estimated Citywide potential land capacity of future housing units based off of zoning capacity
• Estimated potential land capacity on City-owned land of future housing units based off of zoning capacity
• Changes in potential land capacity based on neighborhood planning and zoning changes
• Analysis of housing and land use reforms made in the last 5 years including estimations of positive or negative
impacts on the overall supply of affordable and homeless housing
Housing

Metrics mentioned above in list format.

Short-Term

Homeless Strategy Committee Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Housing and Community Investment Department

Strategy Housing
7F Linkage Fee Nexus Study
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Department of City Planning to establish a Housing Unit and conduct a nexus study for the development of an
Affordable Housing Benefit Fee program ordinance.
Description:
An Affordable Housing Benefit Fee program (alternatively referred to as a housing impact fee or linkage fee program) in
the City would charge a fee on all new development to support the production of affordable/homeless housing and
preservation of existing affordable/homeless housing. The fee would contribute to City affordable housing programs,
including bridge housing, rapid re-rehousing, and permanent supportive housing.
A nexus study is necessary for the City to adopt a linkage fee for affordable housing. The purpose of the nexus study
would be to accomplish the following:
a) Document the nexus between new development and the need for more affordable housing;
b) Quantify the maximum fees that can legally be charged for commercial and residential development; and
c) Make recommendations about the appropriate fee levels with a goal to not adversely impacting potential new
development.
The study should be conducted consistent with the goal of flexibility and adaptability to local economic conditions through
some of the following key considerations:
• Assess appropriate fee rates for specific industry types;
• Explore potential exemptions for industries that would otherwise bear an unfair burden from the fee program;
• Set thresholds so that fee amounts vary by project size; and
• Explore applying fees in high-growth zones, expanding residential areas or near transit.
This study builds off the 2011 Affordable Housing Benefit Fee Study underwritten by the City of Los Angeles’ Housing and
Community Investment Department (HCID) and the Department of City Planning (DCP).

Housing

Amount of fees received
Number of affordable housing units constructed

Medium-Term
Los Angeles Department of City Planning Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID)
County is conducting its own nexus study
Strategy Housing
7G Implement Existing & Recommend New CEQA Zoning Reforms
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Department of City Planning to report back on internal processes and procedures to implement CEQA-based
incentives in areas targeted for housing growth and Transit Oriented Development and release a timeline of when
implementation will occur. Additional reporting regarding potential CEQA-related reforms to benefit homeless housing
projects are also requested.
Description:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was originally written with language so broad it created conditions
favorable to additional reviews, traffic studies and litigation of real estate development throughout the State of California.
Since infill development in existing urban areas and transit oriented development (TOD) reduce the environmental impacts
born from additional transportation needs, the State has passed several CEQA-related bills in recent years that provide
incentives for TOD and infill developments (SB 375, SB 226, and SB 743). A new process was created that streamlines
(without weakening) CEQA review for qualified projects.
Another new type of project is exempted from regular CEQA review if it is near transit and includes affordable housing or
significant open space. Despite their promise to reward more sustainable development patterns, the tools are still new and
have not been widely used in Southern California. Several barriers have been identified that impede effective
implementation of these new State laws. The City has recently been awarded grants from the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) and Strategic Growth Council to work on alleviating the major constraints.
The Department of City Planning should report on progress implementing these CEQA-related reforms as they relate to
the city’s affordable and homeless housing, including impacts to adding additional housing density in response to these
reforms, reducing traffic study thresholds through the zoning process for affordable and homeless housing profiles that use
cars less than market-rate housing profiles, and potential report backs to additional statewide reforms that can be pursued
to relax homeless housing environmental requirements.
Housing

Reductions in development timeframes for projects
Reductions in per-unit costs to build affordable housing
Costs to be absorbed by Los Angeles Department of City Planning

Medium-Term

County could collaborate on this study and apply this to the unincorporated areas.
Strategy Housing
7H Facilitate Utilization of Federal Housing Subsidies
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) to develop the following temporary, two-year
programs to encourage landlord acceptance of subsidized tenants with a HUD voucher issued by HACLA: (1) Property
Compliance/Damage Mitigation Fund; and (2) Vacancy payments to hold units.
Description:
Federal housing subsidies play a critical role in combatting homelessness; however, the current very low vacancy rate in
the rental housing market makes it very difficult for families and individuals with a federal subsidy to secure housing. To
mitigate this problem, for two years, the City could provide the following incentives for landlords to accept subsidized
tenants:
• Property Compliance/Damage Mitigation Fund. This program should be similar to Oregon’s Housing Choice
Landlord Guarantee Program, which provides financial assistance to landlords to mitigate damage caused by
tenants during their occupancy under the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Housing Choice Voucher
Program. In addition, the program should provide landlords with modest financial assistance to repair and/or
modify their property to comply with HUD Quality Housing Standards, if property non-compliance is the only
barrier to accepting a subsidized tenant.
• Vacancy payments to hold units. Develop a program to provide landlords vacancy payments to hold a rental unit
for 1-2 months once a tenant with a subsidy has been accepted by the landlord, while the landlord is going through
the HUD approval process. This program is needed on a temporary basis, due to the current, exceptionally low
rental housing vacancy rate in Los Angeles.

Housing

Increased number of landlords willing to accept housing subsidies
Property Compliance funds distributed annually
Damage Mitigation funds distributed annually
Top landlords receiving funds
Vacancy payments distributed annually


Medium-Term

Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles (HACoLA)
Other Public Housing Authorities
Department of Housing and Community Investment (HCID)
Community Development Commission (County)
The County is implementing the same program. Cities which operate their own public housing authorities could
implement the same or similar programs to facilitate utilization of the housing subsidies which they issue.
Strategy Housing
7I Regional Coordination of LA City & County Housing Authorities
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) in collaboration with the Housing Authority of the
County of Los Angeles (HACoLA), to convene an ongoing, quarterly Homeless Issues Roundtable of all public housing
authorities in Los Angeles County, for the purpose of identifying common issues related to combating homelessness and
developing more integrated housing policies to assist homeless families and individuals. As appropriate, invite the Los
Angeles Homeless Services Authority, the Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID), and community
providers with subject matter expertise in housing to participate in the Roundtable.
Description:
The Housing Authorities of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) and the County (HACoLA) have responded to local, state,
and federal efforts to end homelessness by engaging in various collaborative activities that have proven to be beneficial to
families and individuals in need across the City, such as:
• Partnership with the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) and the United Way of Greater Los
Angeles to develop and utilize coordinated access systems that match homeless clients with housing resources and
supportive services that meet their specific needs.
• Interagency agreements for several housing programs that allow families to locate units in either jurisdiction by
eliminating the cumbersome “portability” process.
• Creation of a universal housing assistance application that eliminates the duplicative effort of completing several
different applications when applying for multiple housing programs across both Housing Authorities.
• Alignment of policy, where possible, to facilitate a uniform eligibility determination standard across both Housing
Authorities.
This history of collaboration between HACLA and HACoLA provides a foundation to institutionalize ongoing collaboration
across all public housing authorities in the County with the goal of maximizing the positive impact on homeless families and
individuals.

Housing
Homeless populations with subsidized housing needs

Amount of policies harmonized/integrated between agency
Amount of forms standardized/harmonized between agencies

Staff costs to be absorbed by agencies.

Medium-Term


The County and cities which operate their own public housing authorities can ensure that their housing authorities
participate in the Homeless Issues Roundtable.
Strategy Housing
7J Housing Choice Vouchers for Permanent Supportive Housing
Population  All  Families  TAY  Single Adult  Veteran  Chronically Homeless Adult
Impact:
Recommendation:
Request the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) to report back on increasing the percentage of
Housing Choice Vouchers which become available through routine turnover to permanent supportive housing for
chronically homeless individuals.
Description:
Chronically homeless adults are the homeless population most in need of permanent supportive housing, which combines a
permanent housing subsidy with case management, health, mental health, substance use disorder treatment and other
services. The primary source of permanent housing subsidies is Housing Choice Vouchers (commonly known as Section
8), which are provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Though the number of Housing
Choice Vouchers (HCV) has not grown in recent years, some vouchers become available each month through routine
turnover, as current Housing Choice Voucher holders relinquish their vouchers. For the Housing Authority of the City of
Los Angeles (HACLA), approximately 2000 Housing Choice Vouchers turnover each year. As part of their efforts to
combat homelessness, various other jurisdictions across the country have dedicated 100% of their turnover HCV
vouchers to homeless people or to one or more homeless sub-populations.
Currently the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles has approximately 30% of its housing supply dedicated to
housing formerly homeless individuals and families. The requested report back should provide the context for determining
if this percentage should increase and the impact the increase would have on non-homeless populations that would receive
fewer vouchers.
This proposal would direct HACLA to dedicate a larger percentage of future Housing Choice Vouchers to housing the
homeless.

Housing

Chronically Homeless Adults

Significant reduction in the number of chronically homeless individuals

No local funding would be required for housing subsidies from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The cost of services would be funded through a combination of Medi-Cal dollars, County General Fund, funding from
other departments, and philanthropy.

Short-Term

The County has its own Public Housing Authority (PHA) and could dedicate a substantial percentage of available Housing
Choice Vouchers for permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless individuals in cities within the County that do
not have a PHA.
Strategy Housing
7K Development of Second Dwelling Units Pilot Program
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID) to report back on creation of by-right guidelines for
single and multi-family residential zoning that would support second dwelling units. Direct the Los Angeles Department of
City Planning to work with the Department of Building and Safety to develop and recommend for Council approval a
Second Dwelling Unit Pilot Program that provides City incentives to assist homeowners in constructing second units in
exchange for providing long-term affordability covenants or requiring recipients to accept Section 8 vouchers.
Description:
In 2003, the California Legislature passed AB 1866, which explicitly encouraged the development of second units on single-
family lots. It precluded cities from requiring discretionary actions in approving such projects, and established relatively
simple guidelines for approval. Some cities have adopted local ordinances and some have taken additional actions to help
homeowners build second units. For example, the City of Santa Cruz made second units a centerpiece of its affordable
housing strategy by providing pre-reviewed architectural plans, waiving fees for permitting and processing, and providing a
free manual with instructions about the development and permitting process. Santa Cruz also helped arrange financing
with a local credit union to qualify homeowners for a period of time. This example shows how the locality removed
barriers, and actively encouraged residents to pursue this type of development.
AB 1866 provided a general set of State standards that would apply unless cities developed their own regulations. Without
a local ordinance, the City of Los Angeles relies on the statewide standards that do not necessarily account for City
priorities. For example, the current rules constrain the establishment of secondary units in many of the most urban,
transit-friendly neighborhoods in the City, while permitting them in most (larger) lots in the San Fernando Valley.
Housing

• Number of second dwelling units approved under new program
• Number of households with a housing subsidy housed in a second dwelling unit under new program
Staff costs absorbed by agencies

Medium-Term

Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID) Los Angeles Department of City Planning
Department of Building and Safety

The County is developing its own pilot program to promote the development of second dwelling units tied to subsidized
and homeless housing.
Strategy Housing
7L Establish Planning and Zoning Policy on Homeless Micro Units
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Los Angeles Department of City Planning to evaluate opportunities and recommend changes or special
exemptions to residential zoning codes and parking requirements to allow for smaller units for homeless housing.
Description:
Many point to changing lifestyles and demographics to promote the idea that smaller (and therefore more affordable)
housing units should be part of the response to the housing crisis. Smaller unit sizes help to provide a diversity of housing
types and costs as well as increase density in areas where it may be desired. In a bid to provide housing to more homeless
individuals in Los Angeles, smaller housing units have not been formally studied as an option.
Several cities have recently passed legislation to broaden the opportunity for small efficiency apartments, better known as
micro-units or tiny homes. Unlike some other cities, the major limitation in Los Angeles is not any citywide minimum unit
size. Instead, density limits and parking requirements appear to be primary barriers.
The Los Angeles Department of City Planning should evaluate the following:
• Recommended density profiles and credits for homeless Micro Units

• Viability of Micro Unit inclusions across the range of existing residential and mixed-use building codes
• Exempted parking requirements for Micro Units for the homeless

Housing

• Number of second dwelling units approved under new program
• Number of households with a housing subsidy housed in a second dwelling unit under new program
Staff cost absorbed by agencies

Medium-Term

Los Angeles Department of City Planning Department of Building and Safety

The County could support its own study or help offset any costs incurred by LA Dept. of City Planning
Strategy Housing
7M Reform Site Plan Review Ordinance For Homeless Housing
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Los Angeles Department of City Planning report on potential amendments to the Site Plan Review ordinance
to reduce development timelines for affordable housing units dedicated to homeless individuals.
Description:
Site Plan Review requirements were imposed in 1990 to promote orderly development and mitigate significant
environmental impacts. The process requires that residential projects with a net increase of 50 units or more undergo a
discretionary review, even if no other planning entitlements are needed. The process requires that a CEQA (California
Environmental Quality Act) review takes place and that projects are properly related to its site and compatible with its
neighbors. Although it serves an important role in project review, the process forces otherwise by-right development to
undergo a time-consuming, costly and unpredictable review processes that are subject to appeal from multiple parties.
Many projects choose to reduce their allowable density below 50 units to avoid the process altogether. Therefore, this
practice results in a cumulative effect on the availability of new housing units. Due to capital costs, savings at scale and a
desire to reduce transit time for case managers serving the formerly homeless, homeless housing providers often
concentrate new PSH development into units of at least 60 or more. Site Plan Reviews create a direct impediment to this
strategy.
There may be ways to achieve the same important objectives and outcomes, while ensuring the process itself does not
become a barrier to quality housing projects. Recently, several Specific Plans have included their own design and CEQA
review processes that largely exceed the types of objective standards required under Site Plan Review. In those areas,
projects that meet all of the required regulations receive an administrative clearance by Department of City Planning staff,
achieving many of the same goals of the traditional Site Plan Review process.
Housing
Affordable and homeless housing development community

Reduction in projects going through Site Plan Review ordinance

Staff cost absorbed by agency

Medium-Term


Strategy Additional Strategies
7N Youth Housing
Population  All  Families  TAY  Single Adult  Veteran  Chronically Homeless Adult
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct LAHSA and HCID to take steps to ensure the housing needs of homeless youth are identified, reported, funded
and developed.
Description:
1. Data
LAHSA is currently conducting multiple adjustments to its data collection efforts. Actions include the following: develop a
youth specific coordinated entry system; develop its dashboard data bases of specific subpopulations of homeless
individuals; and conduct its Point-In-Time Count, which includes a youth count, on an annual basis. Output of these efforts
is expected to be available in the coming months.
Homeless youth services providers advise that homeless youth and youth at-risk of homelessness require a variety of
housing needs including, but not limited to, rapid-rehousing, transitional housing, shared housing and permanent supportive
housing.
2. Mental Health Housing Needs

LAHSA staff advises that housing acts as a stabilizer for youth and allows them to begin to address their underlying causes
of homelessness. Youth service providers, including the LGBT Center advises that mental health is a major issue for
homeless youth, including LGBTQ youth.
3. Strategic Locations for Foster Care Housing

Staff of homeless youth service providers advises that youth concentrate in specific areas of the City, including Hollywood
and Venice, but that many foster care beds are not located in areas where youth want to live. LAHSA should report
relative to the number of homeless youth eligible for foster care housing, which neighborhoods those homeless youth
travel in and where the youth would like to live.
4. Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) for Youth

HCID advises that it currently develops approximately 300 units of PSH annually as part of its Affordable Housing Trust
Fund Pipeline. HCID should ensure that it develops the appropriate number of PSH units for homeless youth or youth at-
risk of homelessness.
5. Doubling-Up in Section 8 Housing

HACLA advises that it may be appropriate to include doubling-up in Section 8 units for transitional age homeless youth or
youth at-risk of homelessness, but that further study is required.
LAHSA should provide updated data relative to homeless youth and youth at-risk of homelessness in order for the City to
have the information it needs to appropriately address youth homelessness. LAHSA should also identify the appropriate
housing strategy for homeless youth or youth at-risk of homeless.
1. Instruct LAHSA to conduct a youth specific housing gap analysis and report with the housing intervention most
appropriate for homeless youth in the City, including, but not limited to, emergency shelter, transitional housing,
shared housing, rapid-rehousing, interim/bridge housing and permanent supportive housing, and the number of
units for each housing type that would be needed to house all homeless youth in the City.
2. Request LAHSA to ensure that the housing gap analysis for youth include mental health housing needs, including
the mental health needs of LGBTQ homeless youth and LGBTQ youth at-risk of homelessness.
3. Instruct LAHSA to report on the vacancy rate of foster care beds and the population centers of homeless youth in
the City.
HCID should report as follows:

4. Prioritize the funding and development of Permanent Supportive Housing for youth within the Affordable Housing
Trust Fund Pipeline.
HACLA should report relative to possible adjustments to its Section 8 housing program.
5. Instruct HACLA to report on the feasibility of expanding its Section 8 housing program to allow doubling-up in
units for transitional aged youth.
Housing
Homeless youth and youth at-risk of homelessness.

Housing statistics for homeless youth tracked through the CES, LAHSA databases and the City’s Affordable Housing Trust
Fund Pipeline.
HACLA Section 8 vouchers provided to homeless youth.


Medium-Term

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Homeless Strategy Committee
HCID Commission on Community and Family Services
HACLA
8. Land Use
Nicole


Land use policies ultimately determine where, how much, and what type of housing can be built in the City. Land use
restrictions that prevent change can also prevent future growth in the City. With increasingly strong housing demand
driven by population growth and migration, restrictive land use policies and regulations limit the supply of housing
available for City residents.
To rebuild housing capacity, the Department of City Planning (DCP) has developed a two-pronged approach that
focuses on expanding capacity at strategic transit-rich locations and making adjustments to the zoning code. Additionally,
the re:codeLA zoning code revision and the City-wide Development Reform processes offer opportunities to improve
zoning/permit regulations and procedures that currently constrain housing development. The strategy briefs that
accompany this Section focus on City-wide zoning modifications to structurally address the City’s housing stock deficit
(8A), potential revisions to the Transfer of Floor Area Rights (TFAR), Greater Downtown Housing Incentive Area
(GDHIA), and the Density Bonus programs to better achieve the City-wide objectives of providing affordable and
homeless housing (8B), lowering parking requirements for affordable and homeless housing profiles where lower car
ownership is common (8C), and a permanent Mello Act implementation ordinance for the City that results in
replacement of lost affordable housing (8D). Additionally, the DCP in their November 17, 2015 report to Council (C.F.
14-1325) proposed a number of areas that should be evaluated to identify opportunities to facilitate the development of
housing through entitlement reforms which could reduce the incidence of homelessness. As part of an interim budget
request, the DCP is currently working with the Office of the City Administrative Officer (CAO) to identify funding for
four positions to establish a Housing Unit to address the strategies identified in this Section. A list of these strategies is
provided in Section 8.2 below.
The State-mandated element of the City’s General Plan that evaluates housing conditions and identifies goals to meet
future housing demands was most recently revised in 2013 to address housing needs in the City from 2013 through
2021. A critical component of the Housing Element is an evaluation of the housing unit development capacity in the City.
The DCP conducted a parcel-by-parcel review to determine the number of sites available for housing construction and
the number of units that could be built at those locations. The DCP (C.F. 13-1624) has indicated concern that the City
may not be able to produce the number of housing units identified in the Housing Element without targeted zone
changes and General Plan amendments that create additional housing capacity. Although much of the City’s downzoning
over time was required by a voter-approved measure (Proposition U in 1986) and State Law (AB 283 in 1978), the City
must be cognizant of pending land use regulations which could result in a reduction in the number of housing units that
may be built by-right.
Since 1980, the difference between new housing and population growth has resulted in a deficit of approximately
105,000 units in the City. This is the number of housing units that would have been required to house the new
population without leading to increased overcrowding, "doubling up", and reducing vacancy rates below where they
were in 1980. The City’s Housing Element projects the need for an additional 82,000 units from 2013 through 2021.
Therefore, the Mayor has set a goal of building 100,000 units from 2013 to 2021 to structurally address the City’s
housing stock deficit. Addressing the supply question means creating enough housing for future demand and chipping
away at the historic deficit.
In no other major city in the United States is the cost of housing so out of proportion to the income of its residents as it
is in our City. While many factors contribute to the situation, the basic mismatch between housing supply and demand
is a central cause. Over time, the supply of new housing has been insufficient to meet rising demand due to growth.

From 1980 to 2010, the rate of population growth was nearly 50 percent higher than the rate of housing unit
production in the City. This mismatch between new housing and population is the highest of any other major city in the
United States. See the chart below.
Several recent Council motions have highlighted the need for additional policies to address the City’s mounting housing
crisis. The first motion (C.F. 13-1624) called for the development of policy initiatives to encourage the development of
affordable housing in close proximity to transit stops. The second motion (C.F. 13-1389) requested an analysis of major
policy options for the increased production of affordable housing overall. The DCP and the Housing and Community
Investment Department (HCIDLA) have both issued reports responding to these motions; planning and land use tools
are discussed in a report prepared by the DCP while financial and legislative approaches are discussed in a report
prepared by HCIDLA. Although separate reports were issued, discussion, analysis and recommendations on these issues
were vetted by both departments. Budget instructions adopted as part of last year's budget process called for an analysis
of options to fund the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund to compensate for the loss of housing funding (C.F 14-
0600-S34 and C.F. 14-0600-S123). The City also recently released the Sustainability City pLAn, which calls for rebuilding
the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund, reducing the number of rent burdened households and increasing housing
production near transit. The Sections below pull from the reports prepared by both departments and detail the housing
tools that are currently being employed, as well as those that could be developed to alleviate the City’s housing and
homeless crises.
8.1. Housing Factors Driving Homelessness

For most of the last 25 years the City of Los Angeles, like much of coastal California, has struggled with the lack of
housing affordability. The City has the dubious distinction of being the most unaffordable rental market in the nation,
when comparing rents to incomes. The average household within our City now pays close to half their income in
housing costs, a level far beyond the federal recommended standard of 30 percent of income. The problem has also
spread to middle-income earners. While only 11 percent of middle-income households were rent burdened in 2000,

today the figure is roughly 50 percent. Given the disparity in housing costs and incomes, the City also leads the country
with the highest percentage of overcrowded units and has the highest number of unsheltered homeless persons.
The root cause of the affordability crisis has been identified as a mismatch in the supply and demand for housing,
particularly for those with lesser means. Recently, severe cuts to federal, state and local housing funding has decimated
the amount of funding available for affordable housing development. The limited supply of multi-family zoned housing
sites and the difficulty in entitling multi-family housing projects throughout the City limits the creation of affordable
housing units. A constrained affordable housing supply coupled with high rent burdens increases the likelihood low
wage earners will fall into homelessness if their hours are reduced or if they encounter unavoidable/unforeseen costs.
Angelenos on the lowest end of the wage scale have the greatest difficulty in finding and paying for housing. However,
they are important to community stability and economic growth, as they are typically workers in the service and retail
sectors with earnings at or just above the minimum wage. On one end of homelessness spectrum we have an
increasingly constrained supply of affordable housing trailing demand which results in low income individuals spending a
higher percentage of their income on housing. This constrained supply also makes finding affordable replacement housing
more difficult and opens the door to homelessness. Once homeless, neighborhood opposition to affordable and
homeless housing projects becomes a barrier to much-needed construction that can bring homeless Angelenos back
into housing. One primary factor is a localized planning process where housing projects are subject to discretionary
approvals and appeals, where local neighborhood opposition prevents new construction.
8.2. City-Controlled Housing Reform Measures

The City regulates the development of new housing largely through the zoning code, building code and land use
regulations established in local community plans and specific plans. In these efforts, the DCP works with local
communities to respond to specific conditions and plan comprehensively for local needs, of which housing is a critical
piece. The amount and type of residential development permitted by these plans is referred to as “residential capacity."
Increasing or lowering the residential capacity can significantly impact the amount of new housing production.
In the 1960s, the City shifted from a top-down City-wide planning process to a bottom-up community planning process.
The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan is comprised of 35 community plans which are designed to address the
needs of local communities, while at the same time incorporating Citywide planning objectives. The City has been slow,
however, to amend the Community Plans due to a lack of funding, staffing, and legal action. The General Plan is also in
need of update to increase residential capacity and best direct this future growth around transit infrastructure. Since the
early 1970s, the residential capacity in the City has declined significantly. In 1970, the City had a theoretical maximum
build-out capacity of roughly four times its population level (10 million person capacity vs. 2.5 million population). Today,
the capacity figure is less than one and one-half times our current population level (5.5 million person capacity vs. 4
million population). Using more realistic estimates of residential zoning capacity, the City is believed to have capacity for
about 300,000 additional housing units; however, much of it is located in areas where the market has shown little
interest in building or where other development constraints exist.
Another factor that impacts the ability to add to housing supply is the dominance of single-family zoning. Eighty-six
percent of all of residentially zoned land in the City is zoned only for single-family or two-family use. Combined with the
significant down-zonings described above, the remaining areas where multiple-family housing can be built have become
very desirable. This has significantly increased the price of this land, making new housing very expensive to build.

Relatively low zoning capacities and high land acquisition costs compound the issues faced by most multi-family housing
projects which also require at least one kind of discretionary review to be built. Discretionary reviews require public
hearings, findings, appeals, and mandatory California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance - all of which
introduce considerable uncertainty and risk for a developer. This discourages many would-be developers and is another
reason for the lower housing production during the last 25 years compared to the 1970s and 80s, when more housing
could be built by-right.
Planning processes that empower local residents and organizations to have a voice in drafting policies that shape their
neighborhoods is critically important. But, it is important to balance local and City-wide planning objectives. Addressing
City-wide issues, such as homelessness and housing growth, is critical to the long-term sustainability of our City.
To rebuild housing capacity in a way that is compatible with community character, the DCP has developed a two-
pronged approach that focuses first on expanding capacity at strategic transit-rich locations and second on making
adjustments to the zoning code. The re:codeLA zoning code revision and the City-wide Development Reform processes
offer opportunities to improve zoning/permit regulations and procedures that currently constrain housing development.
re:codeLA is moving towards creating a new zoning code that will unbundle building form from land use and will contain
enhanced development standards to enable more projects that comply with the applicable standards to be built by-right.
In addition, re:codeLA will create new and expanded residential typologies to accommodate new housing types, such as
micro units and accessory dwelling units, to increase opportunities for providing additional housing that is more
affordable. The re:codeLA effort will also reexamine ways to expand, improve, or integrate current provisions, such as
adaptive re-use and transfer of floor area, to encourage increased production of affordable housing.
The items on the list below are specific housing strategies that could facilitate the development of more housing through
entitlement reforms which will reduce the incidence of homelessness in the City. Some of these strategies could also
provide funding to support the production of more affordable housing. Many of these strategies will require significant
preparatory work to develop ordinance changes and implement effectively. These land use and planning strategies were
identified by the DCP in their November 17, 2015 report to Council. Their full report provides a summary of each
strategy and is attached to C.F. 14-1325. The DCP is currently working with the CAO to identify funding to establish a
Housing Unit to develop strategies on the following:
 Affordable Housing Linkage Fee, as well as, additional Mitigation Impact Fees
 Inclusionary Zoning
 Project-Based Value Capture/Plan-Based Value Capture
 Traffic Impact Fee Standardizations, Modifications, and Trip Credits
 Housing Incentive Area Reform
 Density Bonus Program
 Review Transfer of Floor Area Rights and Greater Downtown Housing Incentive Area Programs
 Transitional Height Requirements
 Adaptive Reuse
 Streamline the Zoning Variance Process for New Housing Construction
 Streamline Site Plan Reviews
 Streamline the Zoning Entitlement Process
 Parking Minimums and Car Usage Assumptions

 Accessory Dwelling Units (Granny Flats) and Micro Units

 Preservation of Unpermitted Dwelling Units
 Expand AB 2222's Replacement Housing Provisions
 Develop a Citywide Strategy for Mello Act
 CEQA Appeals Procedures
Many of the aforementioned Housing strategies and solutions that could enhance the production of housing and reduce
the incidence of Angelenos falling into homelessness were requested under several Motions (C.F. 15-1001, -1002, -1003,
-1004, -1005, and -1007) introduced by Councilmember Cedillo under the House LA Initiative also recommend
consideration of these land use reforms.
8.3. Housing Reform: Environmental

CEQA was originally written with language so broad it created conditions favorable to additional reviews, traffic studies
and litigation of real estate development throughout the state of California. CEQA reviews have contributed to reduced
residential density and increased the costs to develop new housing in Los Angeles and throughout the State. Since infill
development in existing urban areas and transit oriented development (TOD) reduce the environmental impacts born
from additional transportation needs, the State has passed several CEQA-related bills in recent years that provide
incentives for TOD and infill developments (SB 375, SB 226, and SB 743). A new process was created that streamlines
(without weakening) CEQA review for qualified projects.
Other qualifying projects may be exempt from regular CEQA review if it is near transit and includes affordable housing
or significant open space. Despite their promise to reward more sustainable development patterns, the tools are still
new and have not been widely used in Southern California. Several barriers have been identified that impede effective
implementation of these new State laws. The City has recently been awarded grants from the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) and Strategic Growth Council to work on alleviating the major constraints.
8.4. County Findings for Land Use

The County will be considering a strategy to develop incentive zoning. More detail can be found below. All detailed
County strategies can also be found here:
8.4.1. F5 – Incentive Zoning / Value Capture Strategies

County Recommendation: Instruct the Department of Regional Planning (DRP) to secure a consultant to assess the
feasibility of implementing various Incentive Zoning/Value Capture strategies, including those outlined in DRP’s Equity
Development Tools report provided to the Board on June 24, 2015. The consultant, with the direction of DRP, would
be tasked with: - Coordinating with jurisdictions and stakeholders in the County to develop an inventory of best
practices on Incentive Zoning/Value Capture strategies; - Assessing the market conditions of the various unincorporated
areas to determine where and which Inventive Zoning/Value Capture strategies would be most practical and effective;
and - Identifying potential uses of the generated funds.
NOTE: Details regarding similar potential strategies for the City are presented in Section 10 - Budget of this report.

8.5. Legislation
Strategy Brief 8D refers to state policy for land use.
8.6. Citations Used in the Land Use Section

In addition to the Council Files and other reports identified within this Section, the following resources were utilized:
1. Department of City Planning, 2013 Annual Progress Report for the Housing Element.
2. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (2014) The State of the Nation’s Housing 2014 Cambridge,
MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University
3. US Department of Housing and Urban Development (2013). The 2013 Homeless Assessment Report to Congress.
https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/ahar-2013-part1.pdf
4. Ray, Rosalie; Paul Ong and Silvia Jimenez (2014) Impacts of the Widening Divide: Los Angeles at the Forefront of
the Rent Burden Crisis. Center for the Study of Inequality UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
8.7. Land Use Strategy Briefs


Strategy Land Use
8A Analyze City-Wide Zoning For Homeless Housing
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Department of City Planning to report on a citywide plan of zoning modifications to increase residential
capacity across the city to structurally address the City’s housing stock deficit, including density profiles inclusive of
affordable and homeless housing goals. This study should include the impact of modifying Transitional Height Requirements
to allow affordable and homeless housing along commercial corridors.
Description:
Relatively low zoning capacities and high land acquisition costs compound the issues faced by most multi-family housing
projects which also require at least one kind of discretionary review to be built. Discretionary reviews require public
hearings, findings, appeals and mandatory California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance - all of which
introduce considerable uncertainty and risk. This is another reason for the lower housing production during the last 25
years compared to the 1970s and 80s, when more housing could be built by-right. Zoning variances are some of the most
common reviews that impede development. Zoning variances are required when a property owner needs different zoning
than what the parcel currently has in order to build a new project. The variance process requires a property owner to
justify the need for a change to a parcel's zoning. Conflicting guidance from various interest groups can result from an
increasingly localized planning process. Localized planning interests often run counter to overall City-wide planning goals.
Currently, there is a mismatch between the demand for affordable housing and the ability to build it. Further investigation
into the City’s current zoning mapping would help identify areas where rezoning would be appropriate to enable affordable
and homeless housing development. This study should include the effects of modifying Transitional Height Requirements
along commercial corridors, as these areas, due to proximity to public transit and existing mixed-use zoning profiles are
often most capable of supporting additional density.
Housing
Development community building for affordable and homeless housing.

Difference in the number of potential affordable and homeless housing units in current zoning, versus the zoning
classifications proposed in the citywide potential density profiles.

Medium-Term

Department of City Planning
Strategy Land Use
8B Review Transfer of Floor Area Rights (TFAR), Greater Downtown
Housing Incentive Area (GDHIA), & Density Bonus Programs for
Homeless Housing Inclusions
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Department of City Planning to report on potential revisions to the Transfer of Floor Area Rights (TFAR),
Greater Downtown Housing Incentive Area (GDHIA), and the Density Bonus programs to better complement each other
and to better achieve City-wide objectives of providing affordable and homeless housing.
Description:
The State of California's Density Bonus Program allows for certain zoning incentives like adjustments to building height and
floor area ratio (FAR) for residential developments that include affordable housing. To align local procedures with the
State legislation, the City adopted its own density bonus program in 2008. Though not mandatory like inclusionary zoning,
the program has proven popular. However, some issues have arisen since 2008 with regards to interpretation and
implementation of the program, particularly as recent changes to the state law have not been incorporated into the City’s
ordinance. New, more tailored incentives can also be developed as part of the program, including those to increase more
affordable housing near high quality transit via a coordinated transit oriented development (TOD) strategy with Metro.
The Greater Downtown Housing Incentive Area (GDHIA) was established in 2007 to encourage the construction of
housing in the downtown area. It removed density limits and modified parking, yard and open space requirements as
incentives to build housing downtown. Similar to the State's Density Bonus Program encouraging affordable housing, the
GDHIA allows for, up to, a 35% increase in FAR in exchange for the provision of affordable units. Since its inception, the
GDHIA has helped spur housing development; however, it has not led to any significant amount of affordable housing in
mixed-income projects. Only a couple of projects have requested the additional floor area in exchange for affordable
housing. Applicants needing additional floor area tend to utilize the Transfer of Floor Area Rights (TFAR) program, which
does not require the provision of affordable housing. The net effect of the "competition" between the TFAR and GDHIA
program is that the housing boom downtown has yielded relatively little affordable housing in market rate developments.
Additional fees generated could be utilized to generate additional affordable housing programs.
Housing

Difference in the number of potential affordable and homeless housing units in current zoning, versus under a modified
Density Bonus Program, GDHIA and TFAR


Medium-Term
Department of City Planning Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID)
Strategy Land Use
8C Revise Parking and Trip Credit Guidelines for Homeless Housing
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Department of City Planning (City Planning) to prepare a report on lowering parking requirements for
affordable and homeless housing profiles where lower car ownership is common. Include recommended adjustments to
the vehicular trip credits for affordable housing in the City's Traffic Study Guidelines.
Description:
Parking minimums increase the cost of housing development and required storage for cars reduces potential living space
or additional units of housing capacity. Constructing parking spaces in the City often costs more than $30,000 per space
between materials, architectural costs, and lost residential capacity. With most units requiring at least two spaces, the cost
of parking as a portion of the overall housing construction is significant and also prevents additional units from being built.
Therefore, getting parking standards correct, or "right-sizing" them, is a high priority.
Within the context of homeless housing, units of permanent supportive housing (PSH) are typically geared toward
individuals that do not own a car. Yet outdated land zoning classifications and a desire to avoid the zoning variance process
have caused homeless housing providers in the City to build unnecessary on-site parking facilities. These facilities sit
empty, negatively affect the design of a project, increase per unit build costs, create environmental waste, and reduce the
amount of units that a facility can host on a given plot.
Despite significant opportunities, the City offers limited reductions of parking minimums for affordable or homeless
housing or for projects near transit. The Department of City Planning (DCP) should prepare a report on the impacts of
lowering parking requirements for certain projects. The study should include an investigation into reducing parking
requirements for projects that include affordable or homeless housing and projects along commercial and transit
corridors.
Recent studies have shown that low income households drive approximately half as many miles as the average market rate
household. Yet today, a 100% low income project is only given a 5% trip credit reduction in the City's Traffic Study
Guidelines. City Planning recently received a grant from the Strategic Growth Council to study vehicle trips created by
different types of housing development. Greater recognition of the traffic benefits of affordable housing through the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation analysis process would create an incentive to provide
affordable units.
Several areas of the City have adopted traffic impact fees to provide a mechanism for new development to pay for traffic
infrastructure improvements. Similar to trip credits, traffic impact fees should be adjusted for affordable housing units in
recognition of the significant difference in traffic impacts between very-low and low income households and wealthier
households. One such opportunity for this is the update to the Westside Mobility Plan, which is currently reconfiguring
traffic impact fees for most of the Westside of the City.
The DCP should prepare a report recommending adjustments to the trip credits for affordable housing in the City's Traffic
Study Guidelines. Include ways to operationalize and standardize reduced trip impacts fees for new developments for
lower-income households city-wide.

Housing

Reduction in building costs for homeless housing providers
Reduction in unused parking spaces in homeless housing provider development projects


Medium-Term

Department of Transportation (DOT)
Strategy Land Use
8D Reestablish Mello Act Guidance
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Department of City Planning, with the assistance of the Office of the City Attorney, to prepare a permanent
Mello Act implementation ordinance for the City that results in replacement of lost affordable housing, inclusive of a
potential required in-lieu payment option into the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The ordinance may include
potential additional reforms to the California Coastal Commission oversight that would enable greater residential density
and height by-right for projects containing affordable and homeless housing.
Description:
The Mello Act is a state law that went into effect in January 1982 to help protect and increase the supply of affordable
housing along California's Coastal Zone. The Mello Act consists of two primary rules, 1) if existing housing units occupied
by low or moderate income households are converted or demolished, they must be replaced one-for-one with new
affordable units, and 2) new housing developments must provide affordable units. Exceptions are allowed based on
feasibility.
As a result of a settlement agreement that resolved a lawsuit filed against the City in 1993, the City has been operating
under a set of interim administrative procedures since 2000. The agreement planned for the interim procedures to be
replaced with a permanent implementation ordinance. A permanent ordinance would address various policy questions that
are not settled by the current procedures, such as whether to include an in-lieu payment option and whether to allow the
conversion of market-rate units to affordable units to meet the affordability requirements.
Housing

Additional units capable of being built or replaced based off of Mello Act
Reduction in building costs for homeless housing providers


Medium-Term

Office of the City Attorney
9. Additional Strategies
Steven Adkinson

This Section consolidates strategies that cross multiple subjects. Some strategies were in response to Council direction,
while others were informed from the County’s Homeless Initiative Summits conducted in late 2015.
9.1. Employment
9.2. Social Enterprise
Social Enterprises are mission-driven businesses focused on hiring and assisting people who face the greatest barriers to
human and environmental well-being. Those focused on employment earn and reinvest their revenue to provide more
people with services or transitional jobs to become job ready with the basic skills necessary to compete and succeed in
the mainstream workforce. They help people who are willing and able to work, but have the hardest time getting jobs,
including individuals with a history of homelessness and/or incarceration, and youth who are out of school and out of
work.
Many services procured by local government could be provided, in whole or in part, by Social Enterprises/Alternate
Staffing Organizations (ASOs) which, help employers attract and retain reliable, motivated workers and link job seekers
to competitive employment, and provide opportunities for skills development and pathways to hire by employer
customers.
The City could utilize Social Enterprises/ASOs to help homeless/formerly homeless adults increase their employment
opportunities and income through Cooperation with Social Enterprises/ASOs, including engagement with City
WorkSource Centers; Supporting the creation of Alternative Staffing Organizations (ASOs); developing and distributing
a comprehensive inventory of the services currently being provided by Social Enterprises and ASOs to City
Contractors/Sub Contractors and City Departments; and Exploring options to adopt a Social Enterprise Agency
Utilization Ordinance, modeled on the County’s current Expanded Preference Program.
Strategy Brief 9A instructs EWDD to report on increasing employment opportunities for homeless adults by promoting
Social Enterprises/Alternate Staffing Organizations.
9.3. Civil Service Employment for Formerly Homeless Individuals

Civil Service Employment includes the following three features:
1. examinations for certain civil service positions which are public, competitive and open to all
2. testing methodologies to establish rank ordered lists for hiring opportunities
3. stringent background standards
Given the formal requirements of the civil service process, a targeted recruitment and hiring process would
acknowledge both the institutional barriers and the individual barriers often experienced by those who are homeless or
recently homeless. The targeted recruitment and hiring process would expand hiring opportunities for entry level
positions and provide for targeted recruitment of those who are homeless or recently homeless. Possible strategies
could include exploration of the Phased Entry approach leading to permanent City employment. This approach involves
utilizing coordinated services provided through City WorkSource Centers and other existing workforce development
services and programs for long-term preparation for civil service employment. Strategy Brief 9B instructs Personnel and

EWDD to report on specific strategies promoting targeted recruitment opportunities for the homeless or recently
homeless.
9.4. Youth Employment Development

As stated in Section 2.6.4, exacerbating the problems leading to homelessness for TAY, LAHSA and other homeless
youth service providers indicate that homeless youth are still developing (physically, emotionally, psychologically and
socially) and do not have the life skills to survive on their own. It is common for homeless youth to lack the education
and job skills necessary to attain employment and sustain themselves financially. Some even lack basic skills such as
cooking, money management, housekeeping and job searching. LAHSA advises that the longer a youth is on the street,
the more susceptible that indivdiual becomes to pregnancy, STDs (including HIV), arrest, and drug abuse. The NNFY
advises that up to 28% of homeless youth trade sex for basic needs such as food and shelter.
Many programs such as Safe Place for Youth and the LGBT Center offer GED and employment assistance. LGBT Center
staff advise that they were provided City funding for 40 summer jobs through the City’s Hire LA: Summer Youth
Employment Program, but that it is difficult for LGBTQ youth to find continuing employment and that they would
consider prioritizing these programs if more funding was available.
In December 2015, EWDD was authorized to accept a $700,000 federal Performance Partnership Pilots grant to
provide employment assistance to disconnected youth, building off the work of the Department’s 16 Youth Source
Centers. EWDD also operates the Los Angeles Regional Initiative for Social Enterprise (LA RISE) program to stimulate
job acquisition and retention for the hardest-to-serve populations, including those with a history of homelessness and
incarceration. EWDD has submitted a 2016-17 budget request to double the number of individuals served. EWDD
advises that the budget request was designed, in part, to provide employment opportunities to various homeless youth
and youth at-risk of homelessness. The requested expansion of LA RISE may include employment and related services
for LGBTQ youth. Strategy 9C instructs EWDD to report relative to expanding employment opportunities for
homeless youth or youth at-risk of homelessness.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department advises that programs serving youth such as the Sheriff's Explorer
program are effective at engaging youth and providing positive experiences by assisting young adults to become more
responsible, compassionate, independent and self-confident. The LAPD Cadets program for youth age 13-20 helps to
instill discipline, leadership, academic excellence and life-skills. The LAPD Cadet Program also seeks to empower
students to maximize their personal, scholastic and life potential by building positive relationships between the police
and the youth. The program also provides law enforcement-based community service and improved physical
fitness. LAPD indicates that the greatest reward of this program may be the social interaction that cadets have with like-
minded peers who are driven to succeed. The Sheriff’s LGBT liaison advises that a Sheriff’s Explorer Program or City
Cadet program would be beneficial to LGBTQ youth. Neither the Sheriff’s Office nor LAPD has such a program
specifically for LGBTQ youth. Strategy 9C directs LAPD to report on the feasibility of expanding the LAPD Cadet
program to include homeless transition age youth up to 24 years of age, including LGBTQ youth and LGBTQ youth at-
risk of homelessness.

9.5. Discharges into Youth Homelessness

Currently, it is unknown how many individuals, including youth, are discharged into homelessness in Los
Angeles. Discharges occur from institutions such as hospitals, jails, prisons and the foster care system. According to
national data, between 31 and 46 percent of youth who exit foster care experience homelessness at least once by age
26. The Los Angeles County Probation Department (Probation) asserts that the courts within the juvenile justice system
will not terminate supervision of a juvenile unless that minor has secured housing. In addition, Transition Age Youth
within the foster care system managed by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) also cannot be
discharged from care without housing. However, foster youth are not tracked after they exit the foster care system.
Furthermore, DCFS states that if a youth’s location is unknown after discharge, their case is terminated. Strategy Brief
9E instructs staff to develop a partnership with the County to help prevent homelessness for former foster youth.
9.6. Youth Services

HHYP advises that approximately 36 percent of the homeless youth in Hollywood have had juvenile justice system
experience. LAPD advises that a Homeless Outreach Liaison position was created in the fall of 2015 to, among other
duties, spread awareness among officers throughout the department relative to interacting with homeless individuals and
to provide to officers referral information for homeless individuals in need of services.
The Sheriff’s office and LAPD, including Hollywood Division and Venice, advise that they do not have specific programs
targeting homeless youth. Officers have the authority, however, to take youth into protective custody and refer them to
DCFS. LAPD officers are trained to provide homeless persons, including homeless youth, referral information relative to
housing and supportive services. LAPD staff advises that service providers in Venice such as SPY and Teen Project are
at-risk of becoming overburdened as a result of the number of referrals provided by the department. SPY reports that
it served approximately 800 different youth last year. LAHSA staff and members of the HHYP, including the LGBT
Center staff, advise that there is a lack of services provided to homeless youth in the City. LAHSA advises that 1.3% of
the supportive services they fund are provided to youth.
Both the Sheriff and LAPD have LGBTQ liaisons. LGBT Center staff advise that LGBTQ homeless youth are more likely
to have mental illness, and LAPD further advises that 40 percent of all transgender individuals, including youth, have
attempted suicide. Strategy 9F instructs LAHSA to report on the feasibility of expanding the hours of operations of
youth service providers to ensure youth have access to services outside of normal business hours, including after 5pm
and on weekends and holidays.
There are a number of university schools of social work in Los Angeles, including UCLA, USC, Pepperdine, and multiple
regional campuses of the California State University system. As part of the degree programs many social work
candidates are required to conduct related activities through internships. Given the lack of case managers and services
provided to homeless youth, LAHSA should investigate if there is an opportunity to partner with the various schools of
social work to provide case management services to homeless youth. Strategy 9F instructs LAHSA to report on the
feasibility of developing a partnership with local schools of social work to train Master of Social Work candidates to
provide case management services to homeless youth, including LGBTQ homeless youth.

9.7. Homeless Individuals with Pets

Motion (Wesson - Koretz / Huizar) (CF 15-1019) was introduced on August 28, 2015 and instructs the Department of
Animal Services (Animal Services) and the Chief Legislative Analyst to report relative to providing assistance to homeless
individuals with pets so that the pets are provided proper health care such as spay or neuter surgery, vaccinations, and
licenses, and to ensure homeless persons are provided services without being separated from their pets.
A number of organizations both in and outside the City have provided preliminary information and recommendations
relative to the services that are provided to homeless individuals with pets. These recommendations are incorporated
into the strategy briefs and Animal Services is instructed to evaluate the proposals.
Pets of the Homeless, a non-profit organization based in Nevada that provides pet food and basic emergency care to
homeless individuals with pets nationwide, states that approximately five to 10 percent of homeless individuals are pet
owners. Hope of the Valley Rescue Mission (Hope of the Valley) located in Sun Valley advises that they serve between
two and five individuals with pets at their day center on a daily basis. My Friend’s Place (MFP), an organization that
serves homeless youth in Hollywood, estimates that approximately 50 of its 1,500 clients last year had pets. Downtown
Dog Rescue (DDR), an organization based in South Los Angeles, provides basic services to homeless individuals with
pets or pet owners at-risk of homelessness. DDR is also sited at the City’s South Los Angeles Shelter and provides its
clients with dog food; dog supplies such as collars, leashes and dog bowls; and funds to cover minor medical expenses
including spay/neuter, vaccines, dental needs and trauma. DDR advises that the major driver of homelessness for its
clients is their inability to pay rent or recent rent increases.
Additionally, the Department of Animal Services, with its Board of Commissioners has begun to look at services which
may better address the needs of the City’s homeless with pets. Several strategy briefs are included which address the
various issues and are discussed below.
9.8. Lack of Shelter

Although organizations such as Hope of the Valley and People Assisting the Homeless serve homeless individuals with
pets, LAHSA and many service providers advise that pet ownership is a barrier to housing for homeless individuals.
LAHSA further states that there is a lack of homeless shelters, housing and service providers that accept pets. Hope of
the Valley advises that they allow pet owners access to their daytime services, however, they do not have kennels. Dogs
are simply allowed to be secured in an outside area while the owner takes a shower or eats lunch.
Homeless service provider staff state that many homeless people do not wish to relinquish their pet and will, as a result,
forgo services and housing. Hope of the Valley staff advises that some of their homeless clients choose to sleep in their
vehicles with their pets, and may even double-up with other homeless persons with pets in large vehicles.
The Department of Animal Services advises that as part of its FY 2016-17 Budget request to the Mayor they have
requested funding to purchase three tents large enough for 100 animals and portable kennels so homeless individuals
with pets can access services without having to relinquish or be separated from their pet during emergencies. Strategy
Brief 9G instructs Animal Services to report relative to their Budget Request.

9.9. Employment and Life Skills Development

As part of discussion involving homeless with pets, the Executive Director of DDR advised that she is an owner of a
furniture business that has a factory located in South Los Angeles and that she provides employment opportunities for
many homeless individuals at her factory. The jobs are entry level manual labor such as loading, packing and sanding, as
well as occasional driver positions. There may be other opportunities for business owners or other employers to
provide jobs to the homeless, if appropriate connections can be made Strategy Brief 9I instructs EWDD and LAHSA
to report on the feasibility of working with local employment agencies to provide homeless individuals and homeless
individuals with pets employment opportunities.
MFP advises pet ownership is a very powerful tool to engage homeless youth and to teach them adult
responsibilities. Pets allow service providers to subtly help the youth learn life-skills and decision-making. MFP advises
that not all youth understand how to care for pets properly, but caring for another living creature is a non-threatening
way to teach the youth how to care for themselves and others. MFP staff advises that there may be an opportunity to
develop formerly foster youth peer-educators to engage with and provide services to currently homeless youth with
pets. Strategy Brief 9I instructs EWDD, LAHSA and Animal Services to report relative to developing a peer educator
program.
9.10. City Services for Homeless Individuals with Pets

The Department of Animal Services has suggested a number of initiatives that can be taken with regard to homeless
individuals with pets.
Animal Services advises that State law allows an animal to be tethered to a stationary object for a reasonable period of
time, but not to exceed three hours. Currently, the City’s Municipal Code is more restrictive than the State law, and
only allows tethering for an amount of time to complete a temporary task. Strategy Brief 9H instructs Animal Services
to report relative to amending the Municipal Code to provide animal owners, including homeless individuals with pets,
an extended opportunity to tether their animals.
In January 2016, it is expected that the Board of Animal Services Commissioners will discuss a proposal by Animal
Services to expand its spay/neuter program. Animal Services advises that in order to better serve homeless individuals
with pets and the health needs of those pets, the Department has proposed easing its requirements for free spay/neuter
services. Currently, the Department provides free spay/neuter vouchers for low-income individuals who can show proof
of income by, for example, a W2 or pay-stub. By removing the proof requirement, a barrier will be lifted for homeless
individuals to receive services for their pet. Strategy Brief 9H instructs Animal Services to report on this proposal.
Animal Services advises it is considering amending its departmental policy to no longer require a physical address for
license renewal and microchipping, and would instead only require an email address. Owners would still be able to
communicate with the Department through the postal system if desired, but it would not be a requirement. Strategy
Brief 9H instructs Animal Services to report relative to updating its department policies to allow licensing renewals and
microchipping activities to be processed using an email address rather than requiring a physical address.
The Department of Animal Services advises that it may be possible for the Department to establish free vaccine clinics
that could serve homeless persons with pets. The clinics would be staffed by a Registered Veterinary Technician and

could provide vaccines for rabies, parvo and distemper. The department advises that funding above its current FY 2016-
17 Budget Request would need to be identified to establish and operate the clinics. Strategy Brief 9H instructs Animal
Services with assistance from LAHSA, to report on the feasibility of establishing free vaccine clinics for pets of homeless
individuals.
Discussions with DDR has also resulted in a number of potential strategies to address homelessness for which further
study is merited. These include the following: identifying locations to temporarily house pets of homeless individuals or
individuals at risk of homelessness while factors impacting those individuals’ homelessness is addressed; locating office
space in Skid Row in order to operate a pet services program for homeless individuals with pets; and developing a
program based on Downtown Dog Rescue’s Shelter Intervention Program at other locations, including City animal
shelters (See Strategy Brief 9H).
9.4.4 Coordinated Entry System

LAHSA states that it does not have data relative to the number of homeless with pets in the City. LAHSA advises, however, that the
Coordinated Entry System (CES) has the capacity to track data regarding homeless individuals with pets, but that data is not
currently collected. Strategy 4C (See Section 4 Coordinated Entry System) instructs LAHSA to incorporate homeless individuals
with pets into CES and to include this information in its reports to Council as appropriate. Strategy 4C further instructs LAHSA to
ensure Animal Services staff is providing training to refer homeless individuals with pets into CES.
9.11. Homeless Donation Program

The City of Los Angeles, along with its collaborative partners, should capture the philanthropic community’s interest in
solving homelessness by making it easier to identify a particular cause and contribute to it. LAHSA can leverage the Los
Angeles philanthropic community’s interest by creating a user-friendly clearinghouse system that allows donors to
choose and fund specific projects or initiatives associated with homelessness.
Taking the Donors Choose model, homeless service providers or non-profit organizations would be able to post their
particular needs online, allowing donors to exact tax-deductible contributions to the project of their personal choice.
LAHSA and the administering entity would review all participating organizations and funding requests, while enforcing
strict reporting measures to ensure multiple dimensions of transparency and integrity. Strategy Brief 9D instructs
LAHSA, with assistance United Way and the Mayor’s Office of Strategic Partnerships, to report on a strategy to
establish a centralized mechanism that facilitates the ability of individual donors and philanthropies to fund homelessness-
related projects and initiatives of their choice.

Included throughout this report are homeless intervention Best Practices. This information was included in response to
CF 15-0211 and Motion (Wesson - Harris-Dawson - O’Farrell / Bonin - Buscaino - Huizar) (CF 15-1138-S2). Best
Practices include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Housing First – Section 7

 Santa Barbara Safe Parking – Section 8
 LavaMae, portable showers – Section 8
 San Francisco Housing Navigation Centers - Section 8

 Homeless Youth Peer Outreach/Engagement – Section 9

 Regional Groups – Government Section
The League of California Cities (LCC) was also contacted in the development of the report. The League is continuing to
engage with cities across the state to develop homelessness related legislative strategies, however, no recommended
actions have been proposed by the League to date. Staff will continue to partner with LLC.
9.13. County Findings for Additional Strategies

County strategies related to this Section are included below. All detailed County strategies can be found here:
9.1.1 C2 - Increase Employment for Homeless Adults by Supporting Social Enterprise

County Recommendation: Direct the Chief Executive Office to support Social Enterprises/Alternate Staffing
Organizations to increase employment opportunities for Homeless Adults.
9.1.2 C3 - Expand Targeted Recruitment and Hiring Process to Homeless/Recently

Homeless People to Increase Access to County Jobs
County Recommendation: Direct the Department of Human Resources to expand targeted recruitment opportunities
to include those who are homeless or recently homeless.
9.14. Legislation
Strategy 9F requests staff to report relative to sponsoring or supporting legislation to increase State and Federal funding
to address youth homelessness.
9.15. Additional Strategy Briefs


9A Employ Homeless Adults by Supporting Social Enterprise
(Corresponding County Strategy C2)
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Economic and Workforce Development Department (EWDD) to report back on specific strategies promoting
Social Enterprises/Alternate Staffing Organizations to increase employment opportunities for Homeless Adults.
Description:
Social Enterprises are mission-driven businesses focused on hiring and assisting people who face the greatest barriers to
work. They earn and reinvest their revenue to provide more people with transitional jobs to become job ready with the
basic skills necessary to compete and succeed in the mainstream workforce. They help people who are willing and able to
work, but have the hardest time getting jobs, including individuals with a history of homelessness and/or incarceration, and
youth who are out of school and out of work.
Many services procured by local government could be provided, in whole or in part, by Social Enterprises/ASOs.
Alternate Staffing Organizations (ASOs) operated by Social Enterprises provide temporary workers and act as
intermediaries between employers and job seekers, helping employers attract and retain reliable, motivated workers and
linking job seekers to competitive employment, opportunities for skills development and pathways to hire by employer
customers. Unlike conventional temporary staffing companies, ASOs operated by Social Enterprises have a dual mission to
satisfy their customers and promote workplace success for people with obstacles to employment, such as those with
unstable housing history, criminal backgrounds, or those participating in recovery programs.
The City could utilize Social Enterprises/ASOs to help homeless/formerly homeless adults increase their income through
employment opportunities by taking the following actions: (1) Examining various City employment opportunities and
options for cooperation with Social Enterprises/ASOs, including through City WorkSource Centers; (2) Support the
creation of Alternative Staffing Organizations (ASOs) operated by Social Enterprise Entities and designate them as the
preferred staffing agency for City Departments, Contractors and Sub-contractors to use for their temporary staffing
needs; (3) Develop and distribute a comprehensive inventory of the services currently being provided by Social
Enterprises and ASOs to City Contractors/Sub Contractors and City Departments. Recommendations could explore how
to encourage every contractor providing services to the City to work with Social Enterprises/ASOs to perform functions
consistent with its business needs, as part of its City contract; and (4) as proposed by the County, explore options to
adopt a Social Enterprise Agency Utilization Ordinance, modeled on the County’s current Expanded Preference Program.

Supportive Services


• Increase in the number of employment opportunities available for homeless people, recently homeless, or those at
risk of homelessness resulting from increased utilization of social enterprises/ASOs
• Percentage of social enterprise employees who are able to move on to non-supported employment
• Number of workers engaged in ASO assignments
• Reduction in dependence on public benefits due to ASO assignment
Staff time required to be absorbed by each department.

Short-Term

EWDD All City Departments which contract for goods and/or
services
9B City Recruitment Process for Homeless/Recently Homeless
(Corresponding County Strategy C3)
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Personnel Department and the Economic and Workforce Development Department (EWDD) with assistance
from the City Administrative Officer to report back on specific strategies promoting targeted recruitment opportunities
for the homeless or recently homeless.
Description:
Civil Service Employment includes the following three features: 1) examinations for civil service positions which are public,
competitive and open to all; 2) testing methodologies to establish rank ordered lists for hiring opportunities; and 3)
stringent background standards.
Given the formal requirements of the civil service process, a targeted recruitment and hiring process would acknowledge
both the institutional barriers and the individual barriers often experienced by those who are homeless or recently
homeless. The targeted recruitment and hiring process would expand hiring opportunities for entry level positions and
provide for targeted recruitment of those who are homeless or recently homeless. Possible strategies could include
exploration of the Phased Entry approach leading to permanent City employment. This approach involves utilizing
coordinated services provided through City WorkSource Centers and other existing workforce development services and
programs for long-term preparation for civil service employment.

Supportive Services

Individuals who are homeless or formerly homeless would be eligible to participate in the targeted recruitment and hiring
process upon being stabilized and assessed by a County department or designated homeless service provider as
employment-ready.

• Percent of employees participating in targeted recruitment who secure civil service employment
• Percent of employees hired through targeted recruitment who successfully pass their initial probationary period
Staff time required to be absorbed by each department.

Short-Term

Personnel Department All hiring City Departments
EWDD
9C Employment Development Programs for Homeless Youth
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Economic and Workforce Development Department (EWDD) and the Los Angeles Police Department
(LAPD) to report relative to expanding employment opportunities for homeless youth or youth at-risk of homelessness,
including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) homeless youth and LGBTQ youth at-risk of
homelessness.
Description:
EWDD was recently authorized by Council to accept a federal multi-agency $700,000 grant, the Performance Partnership
Pilots (P3), for a comprehensive service delivery system that coordinates and integrates the multiple layers of services
being provided to disconnected youth ages 16-24, including homeless youth, youth at-risk of homelessness, foster care
youth and youth involved in the Probation system. The grant will strategically build off of the employment, educational, and
social/health well-being services provided through the City’s 16 existing YouthSource Centers.
The City’s Hire LA’s Youth, summer employment program, operated by EWDD, prepares young adults for the workforce
and develops long-term employment opportunities with the City’s business community.
The Los Angeles Regional Initiative for Social Enterprise (LA RISE) is a demonstration project operated by EWDD that
provides employment services to individuals with a history of homelessness and/or incarceration. LA RISE serves
approximately 500 individuals and EWDD has submitted a 2016-17 budget request to double the number of individuals
served. EWDD advises that the budget request was designed, in part, to provide employment opportunities to various
homeless youth and youth at-risk of homelessness. The Los Angeles LGBT Center advises that it is difficult to find
employment opportunities for LGBTQ youth. The requested expansion of LA RISE may include employment and related
services for LGBTQ youth.
In response to the instruction at CF 15-0675, relative to youth homelessness, including LGBTQ youth homelessness, staff
contacted the Sheriff’s Office, which advised that law enforcement programs targeting youth are effective at engaging youth
and providing positive experiences in their development. The Los Angeles Police Department’s LAPD Cadet Program is
one of these programs. However, neither the County nor the City has a program specifically for LGBTQ youth. If such a
program is developed, the Sheriff’s LGBTQ liaison advises it may be beneficial to include a LGBTQ staff member as part of
the program to help the cadets feel accepted, as it is common for LGBTQ youth to experience discrimination, even within
the homeless services network. The Sheriff’s office further advises that given the challenges of homelessness, such a
program may be more appropriate as a homelessness preventive measure, rather than as a service provided to already
homeless youth that may not be in a stable environment.
The report provided by EWDD relative to expanding employment opportunities for homeless youth and youth at-risk of
homelessness, including LGBTQ Youth, should include the following:
1. The feasibility and requirements to expand the number of homeless youth and youth at risk of homelessness
being provided workforce development services and employment through the City’s existing workforce
development programs, including City YouthSource Centers, the Los Angeles Regional Initiative for Social
Enterprise (LA RISE), Hire LA, and the Summer Youth Employment Program; and
2. A status update of EWDD’s Los Angeles Performance Partnership Pilot (LA P3) grant to serve disconnected
youth and include in the report the number of homeless youth or youth at-risk of homelessness being served
and recommendations on how to serve additional homeless youth or youth at risk for homelessness.
Instruct LAPD to report:
1. On the feasibility of expanding the LAPD Cadet program to include homeless transitional age youth up to 24
years of age, including LGBTQ youth, and LGBTQ youth at-risk of homelessness, and potential for having an
LGBTQ sworn officer support the program.

Supportive Services

Homeless youth and youth at risk for homelessness, including LGBTQ homeless youth and LGBTQ youth at-risk of
homelessness.

Number of job placements for homeless youth or youth at risk of homelessness, including LGBTQ homeless youth and
LGBTQ youth at-risk of homelessness.
Number of homeless youth or youth at risk of homelessness, including LGBTQ homeless youth and LGBTQ youth at-risk
of homelessness
LGBTQ graduates of LAPD’s Cadet Program

NA

Short-Term

Economic and Workforce Development Department
(EWDD)
Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)
9D Centralized Homeless Donation Coordination in LA County
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority to report back on a strategy to establish a centralized mechanism
that facilitates the ability of individual donors and philanthropies to fund homelessness related projects and initiatives of
their choice.
Description:
The City of Los Angeles, along with its collaborative partners, should capture the philanthropic community’s interest in
solving homelessness by making it easier to identify a particular cause and contribute to it. LAHSA can leverage the Los
Angeles philanthropic community’s interest by creating a user-friendly clearinghouse system that allows donors to choose
and fund specific projects or initiatives associated with homelessness.
Taking the Donors Choose model, homeless service providers or non-profit organizations would be able to post their
particular needs online, allowing donors to exact tax-deductible contributions to the project of their personal choice.
LAHSA and the administrating entity would vet all participating organizations and funding requests, while enforcing strict
reporting measures to ensure multiple dimensions of transparency and integrity.

Supportive Services

All homeless populations, philanthropic community, non-profit organizations, and individual donors.

Amount of contributions from individual donors and philanthropies
Types of projects and initiatives funded
Funded project follow-up protocol

Staff time required to be absorbed by LAHSA.

Short-Term

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority United Way - Home For Good
Mayor’s Office of Strategic Partnerships

9E Homelessness Prevention for Former Foster Care Youth
(Related to County strategies A2, A4)
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), Economic and Workforce Development Department
(EWDD) and the City’s Homeless Strategy Committee to monitor and report relative to upcoming changes to the
County’s services provided to foster youth to prevent homelessness, and actions the City can take in partnership with the
County to prevent or end homelessness for former foster youth.
Description:
LAHSA advises that according to national data, between 31 percent and 46 percent of youth who exit foster care
experience homelessness at least once by age 26. County staff and LAHSA advise that transitional age youth under
supervision of the County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and Probation Department will not be
discharged without a housing option. DCFS and LAHSA advise that foster youth are not tracked after they exit the foster
care system.
The County predominantly serves foster youth. However, as detailed in Strategy 9C, EWDD recently received a $700,000
federal grant to provide educational and employment opportunities to disconnected youth including foster care youth.
EWDD also administers the City’s 13 YouthSource Centers which provide employment and educational development
services for eligible youth ages 16 to 24 with significant barriers to employment, including current or former status in the
foster care system.
County staff advises that establishing a connection between the City and the County on a staff level may be an effective
strategy to address and prevent homelessness for youth involved or formerly involved in the foster care system. The staff-
level connection would help to ensure that the needs of the youth are addressed personally by a staff member to ensure
the youth receive the services for which they are eligible.
Given the County’s Homeless Initiative included a discussion of possible strategies to enhance the County’s discharge
policy for foster youth, the City should monitor actions taken by the county to prevent homelessness among former
foster youth and partner with the County to take actions to assist foster youth transition into self-sufficiency.
The report should include actions the City can take in partnership with the County to prevent or end homelessness for
former foster youth, including the following:
1. Monitor recent County strategies to reduce homelessness for individuals formerly involved in foster care;
2. The feasibility of establishing a City homelessness liaison to partner with the County to ensure both City and
County services are received by homeless youth and foster youth at-risk of homelessness; and
3. The feasibility of partnering with Los Angeles County to provide and, if appropriate, possibly partially fund
homeless prevention and post-release services to youth involved with the County’s foster care system.
Coordination Response Type:

Prevention
Foster youth and formerly foster youth who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness.
LAHSA and DCFS statistics relative to the number of foster youth who are or become homeless.
Services provided to foster youth or former foster youth.

NA

Medium-Term
Estimated Timeframe:
TBD

Homeless Strategy Committee Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) Services
Economic and Workforce Development Department
(EWDD)
9F Expand Youth Homeless Services
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) to report on the feasibility of expanding services targeted
to homeless youth and youth at-risk of homelessness.
Description:
LAPD staff advises that service providers such as Safe Place For Youth and Teen Project in Venice are at-risk of becoming
overburdened with the number of referrals from the department. Additionally, LAHSA, and members of the Hollywood
Homeless Youth Partnership, including LGBT Center staff advise that there is a lack of services provided to youth,
including services provided in off-peak hours including at night, on weekends and on holidays. LAHSA advises that 1.3
percent of the supportive services they fund are provided to homeless youth.
There are a number of university schools of social work in Los Angeles, including UCLA, USC, Rand, Pepperdine, and
multiple regional campuses of the California State University system. As part of the degree programs many social work
candidates are required to conduct related activities through internships. For example, the USC School of Social Work
requires its students to complete 1,000 hours of hands-on training, in nearby social service agencies, government entities,
schools, hospitals, businesses or other non-traditional settings. Given the lack of case managers and services provided to
homeless youth, LAHSA should investigate if there is an opportunity to partner with the various schools of social work to
provide case management services to homeless youth.
Youth service providers advise that neither the State of California nor the Federal government prioritize funding for youth
homelessness. The providers state the State only dedicates $1 million for youth homeless programs and the federal
government is currently dedicated to ending veterans’ homelessness.
LAHSA’s reports should address the following issues to expand services provided to homeless youth and youth at-risk of
homelessness.
1. Instruct LAHSA and the City Administrative Officer to report on the feasibility of expanding the hours of
operations of homeless youth service providers to ensure youth have access to services outside of normal
business hours, including after 5pm and on weekends and holidays.
2. Instruct LAHSA to report on the feasibility of partnering with local schools of social work to train Master of Social
Work candidates to provide case management services to homeless individuals including homeless youth, and
LGBTQ homeless youth.
3. Instruct the Chief Legislative Analyst to report relative sponsoring or supporting legislation to increase State and
Federal funding for youth homelessness.
Supportive Services
Homeless youth and youth at-risk of homelessness.
Statistics relative to additional services provided to homeless youth and youth at-risk of homelessness.
The number of MSW candidates providing services to homeless youth.
NA

Medium-Term

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) City Administrative Officer (CAO)

Strategy Housing
9G Emergency Shelter for Homeless Individuals with Pets
Impact:
Recommendation:
Department of Animal Services (Animal Services) with the assistance of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority to
report relative to Animal Services’ proposal to purchase tents and kennels so homeless individuals with pets can access
shelter without having to be separated from their pet during emergencies.
Description:
In response to Motion (Wesson – Koretz / Huizar) and the Homelessness and Poverty Committee’s Homelessness Budget
Request, the Department of Animal Services (Animal Services) has submitted a proposal for consideration during the
2016-17 Budget process. The proposal includes the purchase of three large tents, and kennels, to allow homeless
individuals to shelter their pets during emergencies. The proposal would prevent homeless individuals from having to
relinquish or abandon their pets during emergencies. Currently, LAHSA advises that owning pets is oftentimes a barrier to
securing housing for homeless individuals.
Animal Services advises that the tents would be large enough for at least 100 animals. The Department also advises that it
would require partnership with agencies that provide shelter to the homeless during emergencies. Animal Services advises
that the tents cost approximately $15,000 each and that the cost of kennels ranges from $40-$150 based on their size.
The Department should be instructed to report, with the assistance of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority,
relative to its proposal to purchase tents and kennels so homeless individuals with pets can access shelter without having
to be separated from their pet during emergencies.
Housing
Homeless individuals with pets.
Statistics for homeless individuals with pets that are able to access shelter.

NA

Short-Term

Department of Animal Services Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
9H Proposals to Assist Homeless Individuals and Their Pets
Impact:
Recommendation:
Instruct the Department of Animal Services to report relative to the following proposals to assist homeless individuals and
their pets.
Description:
Below is a series of actions the Department of Animal Services (Animal Services) should investigate to ensure homeless
individuals and their pets, and pet owners at-risk of homelessness are provided assistance to address or prevent
homelessness.
1. Tethering Law
Currently, Municipal Code 53.70 only allows a dog owner to tether their pet to a pole or tree to complete temporary
tasks, while the pet remains under supervision. Animal Services advises that State law allows tethering up to three hours
within a 24 hour period, and therefore aligning City policy with State law would allow all dog owners, including homeless
dog owners, more leniency to secure their animals.
2. Expansion of Spay/Neuter Services

The department advises that the Board of Animal Services Commissioners will be considering a proposal to reduce
requirements imposed on pet owners to obtain free spay/neuter surgeries for their animals. Currently, the department
requires proof of low-income status through a W2 or a pay stub. Animal Services is proposing to eliminate this
requirement, which would eliminate a barrier for homeless individuals to receive the service.
3. Licensing and Microchipping

Currently, Animal Services’ policy requires animal licenses and microchipping to be processed with a physical address. The
address is used to send out renewal notices and to stay in contact with residents receiving department services. The
department advises it is considering amending the requirement to allow email addresses to suffice for processing licensing
and microchipping services. This policy change would allow homeless individuals without a physical mailing address to
receive animal licenses and microchips for their pets.
4. Temporary Housing for Pets in Danger of Relinquishment

Downtown Dog Rescue (DDR) is a non-profit animal service organization which operates part-time from the City’s South
Los Angeles Shelter. DDR provides a variety of services to its clients including the following: supplying dog bowls, dog
leashes and dog food; spay/neuter vouchers; and funding to cover the costs of minor surgeries for animals. DDR advises
that many of the clients they serve are homeless or on the verge of homelessness and the costs of redeeming a dog from
impound, which can exceed $350, or even purchasing a $20 animal license fee can be too costly for someone whose
housing status is in jeopardy. As a result, the Department should investigate the possibility of securing temporary shelter
for the pets of homeless individuals so that those individuals do not have to relinquish their animals while the factors
causing housing and financial instability are addressed.
5. and 6. Pet Services Programs

DDR has offered to staff a pet services clinic in the Skid Row area of downtown for approximately half a day a week, if the
City can provide the office space. City staff should investigate the possibility of providing office space in the downtown
area.
In addition, DDR has established a Shelter Intervention Program (SIP) to train other providers how to establish and
operate an animal services program similar to DDR. The City should determine if a SIP can be established in other areas
of the City, including at other City shelters to serve homeless individuals with pets or pet owners at risk of homelessness.
9I Employment Development for Homeless Individuals with Pets
Impact:
Recommendation:
Research the feasibility of providing employment opportunities to homeless individuals with pets or pet owners at-risk of
homelessness.
Description:
Downtown Dog Rescue (DDR) is a local non-profit that provides pet supplies and funding for minor medical interventions
for animals, to homeless individuals with pets or pet owners at-risk of homelessness. DDR’s Executive Director advises
that it also offers some of its clients employment. The positions are generally manual labor jobs, such as loading, packing
and sanding, with occasional driving positons. The Executive Director also informs that job vacancies can be identified
through employment agencies.
A homeless youth service provider has advised that pet ownership is a powerful tool in which to engage homeless youth.
Not only does it serve as an easy way to initiate a conversation, but discussions of animal care with homeless youth who
have pets allows service providers, in a non-threatening manner, to educate the youth relative to a variety of life skills,
such as personal responsibility, hygiene and medical care. The service provider advises that pet ownership could also
serve as a foundation in the establishment of a youth peer educator program that prepares former homeless youth to
engage current homeless youth and homeless youth with pets.
To determine the feasibility of establishing the following employment development programs for homeless individuals, staff
should report as follows:
1. Instruct the Economic Workforce Development Department (EWDD), the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
(LAHSA) and the City Administrative Office (CAO) to work with local employment agencies and local businesses that
may be interested in providing homeless individuals employment opportunities.
2. Instruct EWDD, LAHSA and Animal Services to report relative to developing a peer educator program of formerly
homeless youth to conduct engagement to homeless youth including those homeless youth with pets.
Supportive Services
Homeless individuals with pets.
Statistics for jobs provided to homeless individuals with pets.

NA

Short-Term

EWDD Animal Services
LAHSA CAO
10. Budget
Andrew

7. Determine feasibility of Free Vaccine Clinics
Currently, Animal Services does not operate free vaccine clinics in the City, however, the department does have a
contract for a low-cost vaccine clinic. The Department has advised it could determine the feasibility of providing a free
vaccine clinic accessible to homeless individuals.
To assist homeless individuals with pets or pet owners at-risk of homelessness, staff should be directed as follows:
1. Instruct the Animal Services to report relative to amending Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 53.70 to allow an
attended animal to be tethered for a reasonable period not to exceed three hours in a 24 hour period, as set forth in
California Health and Safety Code Section 122335;
2. Instruct Animal Services to report one-year after the updated spay/neuter program is implemented with
recommendations to further increase the number of homeless clients served;
3. Instruct Animal Services to update its department policies to allow licensing renewals and microchipping activities to
be processed with an email address rather than with a physical address;
4. Instruct Animal Services and LAHSA to report relative to identifying locations to temporarily house pets of homeless
individuals or individuals at risk of homelessness while the factors causing housing and financial instability are
addressed;
5. Instruct the Department of General Services with the assistance of Animal Services and LAHSA to locate office space
in Skid Row in order to operate a pet services program to serve homeless individuals with pets, and pet owners at-
risk of homelessness;
6. Instruct LAHSA and Animal Services to report on the feasibility of developing a program based off of Downtown Dog
Rescue’s Shelter Intervention Program at other locations, including City animal shelters; and
7. Instruct Animal Services and the City Administrative Officer, with assistance from LAHSA, to report relative to
establishing free vaccine clinics for pets of homeless individuals.
Supportive Services
Homeless individuals with pets and pet owners at-risk of homelessness.
Statistics for increased spay/neuter surgeries, license renewals, microchipping, and vaccines provided to homeless
individuals with pets, as well as the establishment of service programs at locations throughout the City.
NA

Short-Term

Department of Animal Services Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
Department of General Services
City Administrative Officer
The implementation of many of the strategies proposed in this report will require a funding component; yet, in many
cases, the costs associated with these strategies and the sources from which they will be funded have not yet been
identified. Individual strategies in this report include an instruction to report on the costs to develop and implement that
particular program. It is not possible at this time to say what the overall cost would be to implement a comprehensive
Homeless Strategy. The cost will be significant and cannot be done without new funding sources.
The development of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 Budget presents the most significant opportunity to specify costs
relative to the Comprehensive Homeless Strategy by prioritizing homelessness-related programs and proposing new
funding streams. The budget process is currently underway and will be released by the Mayor on or before April 20,
2016. While the Mayor has stated intents to focus on homelessness needs in the upcoming budget, details relative to the
dollar amounts that will be invested in housing and supportive services for the homeless are not available until the
budget is submitted to the Council for consideration.
In advance of the Mayor’s budget, it is recommended that the Council direct the CAO and CLA to report with cost
estimates to finance the strategies to address homelessness adopted by the Mayor and Council with proposals to fund
these strategies in the near and long term (Strategy 10D). Rather than providing a line-by-line prescription of how future
funds are to be spent, the focus of this Section is to discuss the following issues in general terms that can be refined as
the Mayor and Council select which strategies to pursue:
 Potential housing costs over the next 10 years;

 Possible strategy for expedited construction of permanent housing;
 Costs relative to supportive services;
 Potential new funding sources that are critical to fund some of this report’s proposed strategies;
 Dedicated, separate trust funds for housing construction and homeless services provision; and,
 Legislation that could result in additional resources for homelessness housing and services.
10.1. Outreach and Coordinated Entry System (CES) Costs

Building and leasing costs are not the only expenses associated with providing housing options for the homeless.
Services to support the newly-sheltered and housed are needed to help ensure ongoing success. These services include
outreach, operation and continued development of the Coordinated Entry System (CES). In some cases, expansion of
existing services is recommended by LAHSA, and informed in part by the shortfalls identified in the LAHSA Housing Gap
analysis (C.F. 15-1091). It should be noted that new sources of funding need to be identified to accommodate any
expansion of services. The four components of CES apply to individuals and youth; their estimated short-term annual
costs are as follows:
 Crisis and Bridge Housing (CBH) – provides a total of approximately 1,100 beds at 15 locations throughout the
City. This program offers critical, basic housing for homeless individuals, youth, and unaccompanied minors in need
of immediate shelter. This component also acts as a point of entry into the Continuum of Care (CoC). CBH
provides 140 24-hour bridge housing beds to individuals identified by CES and case management, counseling, and
housing placement services. LAHSA estimates that the annual cost of CBH is approximately $9.6 million and would
provide the services listed above, plus 1) fund the expansion of the 14-hour crisis housing system to 24 hours, 2)
increase the reimbursement per bed night rate, as recommended by LAHSA, to $30, and 3) create new CBH beds
by re-using existing Transitional Housing locations for which funding is running out.

 Rapid Re-housing (RRH) – is a housing strategy and best practice that provides a limited-term rental subsidy and
support services to help homeless individuals move into their own permanent housing. The subsidies and support
services help these individuals make the transition from the street and back into housing until they can become self-
sufficient; rental subsidy payments will taper off over time as the person becomes able to make their own rental
payments. Services include diversion, bridge housing, move-in assistance, housing location, and housing retention.
LAHSA estimates that approximately $43.3 million is necessary to help address RRH needs in the City.
 Coordinated Case Management, Housing Navigation and Outreach (CCM) – includes outreach, engagement,
navigation, housing location and housing retention services. Funding includes one or more case workers assisting
homeless clients throughout the participant’s path toward permanent housing stability. LAHSA states that over
10,000 individuals will benefit from these activities and the estimated cost is $6.1 million.
 Regional Coordination (RC) – is the regional coordination component of CES in the City. CES Lead Providers
oversee and coordinate the CES processes of engagement, assessment and interim support by identifying housing
alternatives and assigning case workers to participants through the move-in process. The coordination activities
allow nearly 90 service providers to participate in the CES module of the Homeless Management Information
System (HMIS). This module is where data is entered and shared to ensure the most vulnerable clients have
priority access to housing and services. LAHSA anticipates annual costs of $1.3 million to provide regional
coordination activities for approximately 10,300 individuals.
10.2. Scenario for 10-Year Housing Program Costs

In October 2015, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) provided our offices with a report detailing
housing needs and associated costs to reach “functional zero” for homelessness in the City (see Glossary). Previous
estimates of housing costs to the City were further refined based on the information contained in that report, along
with subsequent dicussions with LAHSA and staff from HCID. As mentioned in Section 7 of this report, a mixture of
housing options should be provided to most effectively address homelessness. In particular, Council must decide what
proportion of homeless permanent housing options should be Permanent Supportive Housing lease-based (PSH Lease)
and how much should be Permanent Supportive Housing new construction or rehabilitation (PSH Construction).
A 75 percent PSH Construction/25 percent PSH Lease model (Table 2) is presented for consideration, where the
majority of funding at the outset is dedicated to support lease-based programs. The proposed model would project a
peak in subsidies in Year 5, when newly constructed units would come online. In Year 6, funding for the PSH units
provided by the more costly lease-based approach begin to decline with a corresponding increase in funding for the new
construction of PSH units. In Year 1, the City’s cost for PSH Lease is approximately $27 million and for PSH
Construction $35 million. These estimates are based on the following cost assumptions (Budget Table 1):
Budget Table 1: Cost Assumptions for 10 Year Housing Model

PSH Construction PSH Lease RRH Diversion
Homeless Annual Annual
Population City Capital Cost Services Rent Rent Services Rental Services
a a a a a
Type Subsidy per unit Cost Subsidy Assistance Cost Assistance Costa
Individuals $100,000 $5,322 $12,096 $6,451 $729 $2,016 $600
Families $100,000 $5,677 $20,100 $11,893 $907 $3,350 $672
Source: LAHSA/Consultant Housing Gap Analysis presented to Council in C.F. 15-1091 and HCID Staff Recommendations
a. These cost figures are per household

By the end of Year 10, funding for lease versus construction programs would adjust to 25 percent PSH Lease/75 percent
PSH Construction. In Year 10 and beyond, the City’s costs to maintain PSH Lease funding would be approximately $45
million annually. The tables below illustrate the costs for the 10 year model described with funding broken down by
year:
Budget Table 2: Illustration of Annual Costs for 10 Year Housing Program

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost

PSH Lease $ 26,901,546 $ 53,828,869 $ 80,738,774 $ 107,648,679 $ 134,558,584
PSH Construction 34,700,000 34,700,000 34,700,000 34,600,000 34,500,000
PSH Subtotal $ 61,601,546 $ 88,528,869 $ 115,438,774 $ 142,248,679 $ 169,058,584
RRH 5,336,464 10,672,928 16,009,392 21,345,856 26,682,320

Diversion 410,346 820,692 1,231,038 1,641,384 2,051,730
TOTAL $ 67,348,356 $ 100,022,489 $ 132,679,204 $ 165,235,919 $ 197,792,634
Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 TOTAL
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost

PSH Lease $ 116,604,249 $ 98,649,914 $ 80,695,579 $ 62,767,021 $ 44,838,463 $ 807,231,678
PSH Construction 113,900,000 113,800,000 113,800,000 113,700,000 113,700,000 742,100,000
PSH Subtotal $ 230,504,249 $ 212,449,914 $ 194,495,579 $ 176,467,021 $ 158,538,463 $ 1,549,331,678
RRH 32,018,784 37,355,248 42,691,712 48,028,176 53,364,640 293,505,520

Diversion 2,462,076 2,872,422 3,282,768 3,693,114 4,103,460 22,569,030
TOTAL $ 264,985,109 $ 252,677,584 $ 240,470,059 $ 228,188,311 $ 216,006,563 $ 1,865,344,915
The model can be modified to demonstrate alternative housing scenarios based on policy decisions and funding
availability. The following graph illustrates the annual unit production for the 10 year housing model (Figure A):

Figure A: Illustration of Annual Unit Production for 10 Year Housing Program
Cost model based on LAHSA/Consultant Housing Gap analysis presented to Council in C.F. 15-1091.
Note: Unit figures for PSH Construction show the year that units are funded; actual construction would happen in future years
The primary reason that this model replaces leases with constructed units is that the long-term use of rental assistance
to provide PSH is less feasible than new PSH construction. This is because rental assistance vouchers would: 1) increase
demand on the City’s constrained rental housing market and become an ongoing obligation of the City, costing more in
the long term than the one-time costs associated with new PSH construction. It should be noted that PSH construction
financed by the City is more viable when vouchers are available; however, these vouchers have historically been State
and federal vouchers. This model assumes sufficient State and federal vouchers would be available for these projects and
our Offices will work with HCID and HACLA to determine the availability of these and other vouchers as part of the
report recommended by Strategy 7E.
Additional assumptions made in the cost models shown in this section are: 1) City investments in PSH construction
would leverage funds at the current ratio; 2) Rapid Re-housing (RRH) and diversion programs will be expanded at a flat
rate over ten years; and, 3) sufficient housing stock will be available for individuals with PSH lease or RRH rental
assistance to find housing.
10.2.1. Expedited Construction Using Four Percent Tax Credit Funding

The effective implementation of the 10 year cost model illustrated above will require a significant increase in the
construction of new PSH units by the City. In conversations with HCID staff it was recommended that one avenue to
drastically increase the rate that the City constructs new PSH units would be to increase the utilization of Four Percent
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) for the financing of new PSH projects. Generally, Nine Percent LIHTCs are
used to finance PSH projects in the City; however, HCID staff have stated that Nine Percent LIHTCs are oversubscribed
because Four Percent LIHTCs provide a lower level of funding and require a larger contribution of local funds to make
up for the lower level of subsidy. In addition, Four Percent LIHTCs are more readily available than the Nine Percent
LIHTCs. Increased utilization of Four Percent LIHTCs could be achieved by the City through the provision of larger
subsidies to PSH projects. The HCID estimates that a per unit subsidy of $150,000 would be required. The table below

shows the 10 year cost model with capital costs adjusted to illustrate a PSH construction program utilizing Four Percent
LIHTCs and larger per unit subsidies (Budget Table 3):
Budget Table 3: Illustration of Annual Costs for 10 Year Housing Program Utilizing Four Percent LIHTCs
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost

PSH Lease $ 26,901,546 $ 53,828,869 $ 80,738,774 $ 107,648,679 $ 134,558,584
PSH Construction 52,050,000 52,050,000 52,050,000 51,900,000 51,750,000
PSH Subtotal $ 78,951,546 $ 105,878,869 $ 132,788,774 $ 159,548,679 $ 186,308,584
RRH 5,336,464 10,672,928 16,009,392 21,345,856 26,682,320

Diversion 410,346 820,692 1,231,038 1,641,384 2,051,730
TOTAL $ 84,698,356 $ 117,372,489 $ 150,029,204 $ 182,535,919 $ 215,042,634
Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 TOTAL
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost

PSH Lease $ 116,604,249 $ 98,649,914 $ 80,695,579 $ 62,767,021 $ 44,838,463 $ 807,231,678
PSH Construction 170,850,000 170,700,000 170,700,000 170,550,000 170,550,000 1,113,150,000
PSH Subtotal $ 287,454,249 $ 269,349,914 $ 251,395,579 $ 233,317,021 $ 215,388,463 $ 1,920,381,678
RRH 32,018,784 37,355,248 42,691,712 48,028,176 53,364,640 293,505,520

Diversion 2,462,076 2,872,422 3,282,768 3,693,114 4,103,460 22,569,030
TOTAL $ 321,935,109 $ 309,577,584 $ 297,370,059 $ 285,038,311 $ 272,856,563 $ 2,236,456,228
Cost model based on LAHSA Housing Gap analysis presented to Council in C.F. 15-1091.
Note: Unit figures for PSH Construction show the year that units are funded; actual construction would occur in future years.
10.2.2. Revolving Loan Funding for PSH Construction

10.2.2.1. Supportive Housing Loan Fund (SHLF) and New Generation Fund (NGF)
The City has provided financing in the form of a loan for two revolving loan funds, the Supportive Housing Loan Fund
(SHLF) and the New Generation Fund (NGF), to provide pre-development and acquisition loans to fund permanent
supportive and affordable housing projects in the City. The SHLF and NGF are designed to leverage limited funds to
develop and/or rehabilitate housing units in the City. The objective for the SHLF and NGF is to provide hard-to-obtain
acquisition and pre-development funds at more flexible terms than are offered in the marketplace and to incentivize the
production and preservation of affordable housing units. The SHLF provides loans solely to permanent supportive
housing projects and the NGF makes loans to affordable housing projects and larger permanent supportive housing
projects that need loans beyond the amount that could be provided by the SHLF.
These two funds were created in January 2008 (SHLF) and May 2008 (NGF) subsequent to Mayor and Council
authorization given to HCID to contribute a total of $15 million in Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) monies and
execute loan agreements for the establishment of the funds. Since their launch, the SHLF and NGF have made loans to
more than 41 projects which will produce approximately 2,400 units of PSH and affordable housing. The NGF and SHLF

have leveraged their respective City investments with private funding at about a five-to-one ratio. In addition, during
their initial terms, the SHLF and NGF did not realize any loan losses and the City investment was fully intact at the end
of those terms. The extensions of the loan agreements for these two funds were approved by the Mayor and Council in
December 2014 (C.F. 14-1628).
The HCID staff have indicated that the loans provided by the SHLF and the NGF are integral to quickly moving PSH and
affordable housing projects into the HCID Managed Pipeline and through the development process. Additionally, HCID
staff stated that the SHLF and NGF are currently at capacity and that an additional investment in these funds would
expedite future housing development and support higher rates of new construction of PSH and affordable housing.
Strategy 10C recommends that the CAO and CLA with the assistance of HCID and LAHSA to report on funding
options for the SHLF and the NGF to support the development of PSH in the City.
10.2.3. New Funding Programs or Guidelines

HCID advises that new programs or a change to policy changes to existing guidelines can facilitate and expedite the
development of new PSH units. Below is a list of options that HCID can report on as requested in Strategy 10D.
10.2.3.1. Bridge Funding Program

Beyond the City’s current level of subsidy (approximately $100,000/unit), provide additional subsidy as bridge financing
for projects before outside sources are secured.
10.2.3.2. Bridge Project-Based Lease Payments (vs. Tenant-Based)

Consider new lease payment programs that are “project-based” and tied for a period of time to a specific project, so
that the lease payments can be underwritten for debt service and used as a tool by housing developers.
10.2.3.3. Flexible Capital

Ensure that any new Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) or other funding be flexible and can be used for capital or
operating funds. The new MHSA-funded “No Place Like Home” initiative is further described in the Legislation section
below.
Studying the feasibility of new City programs and guidelines is outlined in Strategy 10D.
10.3. Separate Trust Funds for Housing and Services

Some funding sources are flexible and can fund both services and vouchers, while others are restrictive and only finance
infrastructure and permanent housing development. Our offices recommend that two separate trust funds be maintained
to manage these funding streams. The existing Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) would continue to finance new
housing construction, rehabilitation and facilities. A new Homeless Services Trust Fund (HSTF) is recommended to
contain funding to finance homeless services, outreach, CES and voucher programs. Strategy 10A recommends full
funding for the AHTF and Strategy 10B recommends full funding for the HSTF. Both strategies further instruct staff to
investigate potential funding sources for each trust fund.

10.4. Potential Funding Sources

Attachment 1 shows a list of potential funding sources that could be used to finance either permanent housing, services
for the homeless, or both. The list contains options that range from those within the Mayor and Council’s purview to
control, such as approving an affordable housing benefit fee or a General Fund set-aside, to those requiring a ballot
measure, such as increasing the City’s Parking Occupancy Tax or its Transient Occupancy Tax, or providing a new
dedicated funding stream through a bond measure. The information presented here is not intended to be exhaustive
nor prescriptive; rather, it is a list of possible, permanent funding sources that the Mayor and Council may consider in
order to finance additional housing and supportive services for the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless
beyond the City’s current level.
10.5. Council Requested Services

Prior to the release of the upcoming FY 2016-17 Budget, the Mayor and Council may wish to fund basic, relatively low-
cost services previously discussed in the Homelessness and Poverty Committee. The following items may be available
for a cost of $500,000 or less and could be feasible for funding on an interim or pilot basis in FY 2015-16. It should be
noted that costs shown reflect those experienced in jurisdictions outside of the City; actual costs for the City to
procure these services may be subject to a competitive process and therefore costs are likely to vary from the estimates
listed below. The following proposals have been described elsewhere in this report.
Safe Parking Program (Section 6)

 Santa Barbara - $150,000 annually to manage the program and provide case management services through to permanent
housing.
Portable Showers (Section 6)

 San Francisco – Lava Mae Mobile Shower Program costs $75,000 per bus conversion, plus $160,000 to manage each bus
annually.
 Santa Rosa reports spending $74,000 on a mobile trailer fitted with a shower and bathroom.
Public Restrooms (Section 6)

 San Diego - $500,000 for purchase of two “Portland Loo” restrooms, plus installation, connection and modification to State
standards costs.
 Madison Wisconsin – a range of costs from $70,000 per portable toilet for rental, maintenance staffing costs and supplies to
a Portland Loo-style restroom with separate facilities for men and women that costs approximately $100,000, not including
installation costs and connection to a sewer.
 San Francisco – the Pit Stop Program, which is two toilets mounted on small, mobile trailers and hauled in and out to three
spots four days a week near park areas that attract large groups of people. Features full-time attendants. Rental costs and
staffing are $203,000 per month.
 Miami – a “pit stop” program very similar to that in San Francisco, but with four attendant-serviced toilets at an annual cost
of $500,000.
Water Fountains (Section 6)

 Philadelphia – standard models cost $3,000 to $5,500 not including installation and water connection costs and ongoing
maintenance.
 Vancouver – portable, temporary water fountains cost $15,000.

 New York City – Water-on-the-Go temporary drinking fountain project, consisting of 10 portable fountains that hook up
to fire hydrants around the city and are available six days a week. Government staff set up and disconnect the fountains at
the beginning and end of each day and rotate locations according to a summer schedule.
Flexible Housing Vouchers (Section 7)

 Los Angeles County – Housing for Health reports that costs associated with their Flexible Housing Subsidy Pool vouchers
are estimated at $1,500 per month or $18,000 per year for PSH. This amount includes an average rent subsidy per month,
case management, and administrative services.
10.6. County Findings for Budget

All detailed County strategies, including revenue-related strategies, can be found here:
10.6.1. F2 – Linkage Fee Nexus Study

County Recommendation: Direct the Department of Regional Planning to conduct a nexus study for the development of
an Affordable Housing Benefit Fee program ordinance.
NOTE: Related city strategy strategy 7F is noted at the end of this part of the report. City strategies with corresponding
County strategies have related County strategies cross-referenced at the top of each stategy brief.
10.7. Legislation
The following legislative actions are recommended for initial or continued support:
 The “No Place Like Home” initiative was introduced by a bipartisan coalition of members from the State Senate
and will provide over $2 billion bond to construct permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless
persons with mental illness and $200 million over four years to provide rent subsidies while the permanent
housing is constructed or rehabilitiated.
 AB 1335 (Atkins) Building Homes and Jobs Act. AB 1335 is a two-year bill that would generate up to $700
million per year for affordable rental or ownership housing, supportive housing, emergency shelters, transitional
housing and other housing needs through a $75 recordation fee on real estate transactions with the exception
of home sales. It is anticipated that AB 1335 would provide an ongoing, permanent State source of funding that
would allow the State to fund existing programs at dependable levels and leverage additional City investment.
 A May 2015 Resolution (Cedillo-Bonin) supports AB 90 (Atkins) which would authorize HCID to administer the
federal Housing Trust Fund to increase affordable rental and ownership housing.
10.8. Budget Strategy Briefs

Strategy Briefs with regards to Budget are included in the pages immediately following.

Strategy Budget
10A Full Funding for Affordable Housing Trust Fund to Finance
Construction of Permanent Supportive Housing
Population  All  Families  TAY  Single Adult  Veteran  Chronically Homeless Adult
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the City Administrative Officer (CAO) and the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA), with the assistance of the Housing
and Community Investment Department (HCID) and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), to identify
permanent funding sources in the amount of $75 million annually for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) to finance
the construction of affordable and permanent supportive housing (PSH) and updated costs for programs proposed by this
report to be funded by the AHTF.
Description:
Our Offices recommend exploring the utilization of a variety of funding sources to reach the estimated annual funding goal
for the AHTF as identified in the budget narrative section. This funding goal represents only the projected need for City
funding for the new construction of permanent supportive housing units and maintenance. Potential funding sources that
will be explored in the report from our Offices are listed below:
Potential Permanent Funding Sources for the AHTF (Detailed descriptions in Attachment XX)
• Development Linkage Fee

• Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District(s) (EIFD)
• Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIA)
• Community Facilities District(s) (CFD)
• Conversion Fees
• Demolition Fees
• Former Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) Excess Non-housing Bond Proceeds
• Former CRA/LA Excess Housing Bond Proceeds
• Increase Documentary Transfer Fee
• Increase Parking Occupancy Tax
• Increase Transient Occupancy Tax
• Increase Sales Tax
• Billboard Tax
• General Obligation Bond
• Debt Financing by the Municipal Improvement Corporation of Los Angeles (MICLA)
• Community Development Block Grant
• New Market Tax Credits
• Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) Distributions
• Delay Scheduled Business Tax Reductions
• General Fund Setaside
Our Offices will report back to the Mayor and Council regarding the feasibility and funding potential of these funds and
recommend the specific sources of funding needed to finance a $75 million annual commitment to the AHTF.

Housing
All non-veteran homeless populations in the City
N/A

NA

Medium-Term

City Administrative Officer Housing and Community Investment Department
Chief Legislative Analyst Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
Strategy Budget
10B Establish the Homeless Services Trust Fund
Population  All  Families  TAY  Single Adult  Veteran  Chronically Homeless Adult
Impact:
Recommendation:
and Community Investment Department (HCID) and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), to identify
permanent funding sources in the amount of $113 million annually for a new Homeless Services Trust Fund (HSTF) to
finance the construction of lease based permanent supportive housing (PSH), rapid re-housing (RRH), homelessness
diversion programs, and supportive services and updated costs for programs proposed by this report to be funded by the
HSTF.
Description:
The proposed Homeless Services Trust Fund (HSTF) is needed in addition to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF)
to avoid the co-mingling of funds restricted to the construction of PSH and the financing of lease based permanent
supportive housing, rapid re-housing (RRH), homelessness diversion programs and supportive services that require
unrestricted funding sources. Our Offices recommend that annual funding in the amount of $95 million should be allocated
to the new HSTF to fully finance these strategies over ten years. Potential funding sources to be explored in a report back
from our Offices are listed below:
Potential Permanent Funding Sources for the HSTF
• Development Linkage Fee

• Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) Distributions
• General Fund Setaside
• Community Facilities District(s) (CFD)
• Conversion Fees
• Demolition Fees
• Former Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) Excess Non-housing Bond Proceeds
• Former CRA/LA Excess Housing Bond Proceeds
• Increase Documentary Transfer Fee
• Increase Parking Occupancy Tax
• Increase Transient Occupancy Tax
• Community Development Block Grant
• Billboard Tax
• Delay Scheduled Business Tax Reductions
Our Offices will report back to the Mayor and Council regarding the feasibility and funding potential of these funds and
recommend the specific sources of funding needed to finance a $113 million annual commitment to the HSTF.

Supportive Services

N/A

NA

Medium-Term

City Administrative Officer Housing and Community Investment Department
Chief Legislative Analyst Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
Strategy Budget
10C Augment the Supportive Housing Loan Fund and New Generation
Fund
Impact:
Recommendation:
and Community Investment Department (HCID) and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), to report
back on funding options and amounts to be loaned to the Supportive Housing Loan Fund (SHLF) and New Generation
Fund (NGF) to finance pre-development and acquisition loans for permanent supportive housing projects in the City.
Description:
Supportive Housing Loan Fund (SHLF) and New Generation Fund (NGF)
The City has previously provided financing in the form of a loan for two revolving loan funds, the Supportive Housing Loan
Fund (SHLF) and the New Generation Fund (NGF), to provide pre-development and acquisition loans to fund permanent
supportive and affordable housing projects in the City. The SHLF and NGF are designed to leverage limited funds to
develop and/or rehabilitate housing units in the City. The objective for the SHLF and NGF is to provide hard-to-obtain
acquisition and pre-development funds at more flexible terms than are offered in the marketplace to incentivize the
production and preservation of permanent supportive and affordable housing units. The SHLF provides loans solely to
permanent supportive housing projects and the NGF makes loans to affordable housing projects and larger permanent
supportive housing projects that need loans beyond the amount that could be provided by the SHLF. The CAO and CLA
with assistance from HCID and LAHSA will report back on funding options and amounts to augment the operations of the
SHLF and NGF; including how additional funds loaned to the NGF could be identified specifically for the support of
permanent supportive housing projects.
Housing

Additional projects financed due to future funds committed (annualized).

N/A

Medium-Term

City Administrative Officer Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
Chief Legislative Analyst
Strategy Budget
10D Bridge Funding Program
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID), with the assistance of the CAO and the CLA, to
report on new programs or a change to policy changes to existing guidelines can facilitate and expedite the development
of new PSH units.
Description:
The HCID will investigate and report on the feasibility of various changes to housing programs and policies that could
facilitate the faster construction of permanent supportive housing. This report will include information on the following:
 Bridge Funding Program
 Bridge Project-Based Lease Payments
 Flexible Capital sources

Housing
All non-veteran homeless populations in the City.
Additional projects financed due to future funds committed (annualized).

N/A

Medium Term

HCID City Administrative Officer
Chief Legislative Analyst
Strategy Budget
10E CAO and CLA Report on Desired Strategies
Impact:
Recommendation:
Direct the City Administrative Officer (CAO) and the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA), with the assistance of the Los
Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), and City departments as needed, to report with cost estimates to finance
the homelessness-related strategies emerging from the Comprehensive Homeless Strategy as adopted by the Mayor and
Council, and direct the CAO and CLA to include proposals to identify implementation time frames for these strategies.
Description:
The implementation of many of the strategies proposed in this report will require a funding component; yet, in many cases,
the costs associated with these strategies and the sources from which they will be funded will still need to be identified. It
is not possible at this time to say what the overall cost would be to implement a Comprehensive Homeless Strategy.
What is known is that the cost will be significant, and cannot be done without new funding sources.

N/A
All homeless populations in the City.
Varies depending on which strategies are adopted by the Mayor and Council.

Multiple

Ongoing

City Administrative Officer LAHSA
Chief Legislative Analyst Other departments as needed

Glossary
Marcos Hernandez


Accessory Dwelling Unit (“Granny Flat”) – An apartment that can be located within the walls of an existing
or newly constructed single-family home or can be an addition to an existing home. It can also be a freestanding
structure on the same lot as the principal dwelling unit or a conversion of a garage or barn.
Acuity – Term used to describe the severity of a homeless individual or family’s situation as well as their level of need.
In coordinated assessment systems like CES, tools such as the VI-SPDAT are used to determine an individual’s level of
acuity (represented by a number) and, consequently, the housing intervention best suited to them. A higher number
denotes more severe and pressing struggles, often co-occurring.
Adaptive Reuse – Refers to the process of reusing an old site or building for a purpose other than which it was built
or designed for. The purpose of Los Angeles City’s Adaptive Reuse Ordinance is to revitalize certain areas of the city by
facilitating the conversion of older, economically distressed buildings to apartments, live and work units or hotel
facilities. This will help to reduce many vacant spaces as well as preserve the architectural and cultural past of those
areas, thus creating a more balanced ratio between housing and jobs in the region’s primary employment center.
Affordable Care Act (ACA) – The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as the
Affordable Care Act or ACA, is a federal law enacted to increase the quality and affordability of health insurance, lower
the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage, and reduce the costs of healthcare for
individuals.
Affordable Housing – Housing for which the occupant(s) is/are paying no more than 30 percent of his or her
income for gross housing costs, including utilities.
Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) – The AHTF provides gap financing to developers of large-scale
affordable and permanent supportive (homeless) rental housing by making long-term loans for new construction or for
the rehabilitation of existing residential structures through an open competitive Call For Projects process.
Area Median Income (AMI) – The median divides the total area’s income distribution into two equal parts: one-
half falls below the median income and one-half above the median. HUD uses the median income to calculate income
limits for eligibility in a variety of housing programs.
Bridge Housing – A housing intervention that provides an interim residence to participants while they work with
housing navigators to become document ready and matched with appropriate permanent housing.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) – A statute that requires state and local agencies to identify
the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible.
Coordinated Entry System (CES) – A process through which the most vulnerable homeless residents of Los
Angeles County are matched with the available and appropriate housing resources. It is being developed by housing
developers, service providers and systems leaders in each of the county’s eight Service Planning Areas (SPAs) to more
efficiently connect homeless single adult searching for permanent housing to the most appropriate housing resource.

Similar systems are being implemented nationwide as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) now
mandates this in all communities receiving HUD homeless housing funding.
Continuum of Care (CoC) – Term that serves dual purposes in the arena of homeless service delivery. As a
service delivery system, a Continuum of Care is an integrated system of care that guides and tracks homeless individuals
& families through a comprehensive array of housing & services designed to prevent and end homelessness. As a
jurisdictional body, a Continuum of Care is a regional or local planning body that coordinates housing and services
funding for homeless families and individuals. The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) serves as the CoC
for the City and most of the County of Los Angeles. Through its Continuum of Care program the Department of
Housing and Urban Development allocates homeless assistance grants to CoCs. As the lead agency for the Los Angeles
CoC, LAHSA submits the annualfunding application. a program designed to promote communitywide commitment to
the goal of ending homelessness; provide funding for efforts by nonprofit providers, State and local governments to
quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families while minimizing the trauma and dislocation caused to homeless
individuals, families, and communities by homelessness; promote access to and effect utilization of mainstream programs
by homeless individuals and families; and optimize self-sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing
homelessness.
Diversion/Prevention – Service programs that divert persons who are at imminent risk of losing their housing from
entering the homeless system. Prevention programs offer assistance that leverages other income and provides support
to keep clients at risk in their current housing situation or move them rapidly to alternate housing. The assistance is
temporary and may be in the form of rental housing assistance, or utilities arrears. Diversion is a case management
approach that focuses on helping clients utilize other housing options within their personal network rather than enter
the shelter system. This generally involves mediation between friends or family to locate an alternate to entering the
homeless system.
Enterprise Linkages Project (ELP) – Formerly the Adult Linkages Project, the ELP provides comprehensive
information on the multi-system service utilization patterns of persons participating in the County’s General Relief (GR)
Program. The ELP tracks the costs associated with and service utilization of the County’s GR program and other public
program participants across a spectrum of publicly funded health, mental health, social and corrections services.
Emergency Shelters – Temporary shelter and services designed to facilitate homeless individuals and families’
transition from the streets to appropriate housing. Emergency Shelter is provided free of charge for a maximum of
ninety (90) days per client. On a case-by-case basis, clients may remain for a period longer than ninety days if they
require a longer period to accomplish a specific goal. Funding may be discontinued if more than 25% of the clients
remain in the project longer than 90 days. The shelters are typically in a dormitory style with communal bathrooms and
beds are assigned on a first come, first served basis; however, many clients use the same shelter frequently and may have
a “regular” bed. Shelters funded by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority may use a 14-hour (clients must leave
shelter each day) or 24-hour model and provide two or more meals. Beds, sheets, and blankets are provided, and
bathroom facilities are available.
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program – HUD-administered grant that provides funding to: (1) engage
homeless individuals and families living on the street; (2) improve the number and quality of emergency shelters for

homeless individuals and families; (3) help operate these shelters; (4) provide essential services to shelter residents, (5)
rapidly re-house homeless individuals and families, and (6) prevent families/individuals from becoming homeless.
Fair Market Rents (FMR) – Term used to indicate the amount of money a given unit of housing were to command
if it were open for leasing. HUD sets FMRs for metropolitan areas and counties across the United States. FMRs are
primarily used to determine payment standard amounts for the Housing Choice Voucher program, to determine initial
renewal rents for some expiring project-based Section 8 contracts, and to determine initial rents for housing assistance
payment (HAP) contracts. HUD annually estimates FMRs for 530 metropolitan areas and 2,045 non-metropolitan county
FMR areas. By law the final FMRs for use in any fiscal year must be published and available for use at the start of that
fiscal year, on October 1.
Flexible Housing Subsidy Pool (FHSP) – A supportive housing rental subsidy program of the Los Angeles
County Department of Health Services, designed to secure quality affordable housing for DHS patients who are
homeless and have complex physical and behavioral health conditions.
Functional Zero Homelessness – A state of homelessness achieved when the resources available to house and
provide services to the homeless exceeds the need of the population requiring those services. Achieving functional zero
would not mean there are no homeless on the street, but that they are housed within a short period of time (e.g.,
within 30 days).
Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act (HEARTH Act) – Federal
law enacted in 2009. HEARTH consolidated three of the separate homeless assistance programs administered by HUD
under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act into a single grant program. It revised the Emergency Shelter
Grants program and renamed it the Emergency Solutions Grants program; codified into law the Continuum of Care
planning process; and directed HUD to promulgate regulations for these new programs and processes.
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) – A local information technology system used to
collect client-level data and data on the provision of housing, services to homeless individuals and families and persons at
risk of homelessness. Each Continuum of Care is responsible for selecting an HMIS software solution that complies with
HUD’s data collection, management, and reporting standards.
Home For Good – A blueprint spearheaded by United Way of Greater Los Angeles whose mission is to end
chronic and veteran homelessness by building the most efficient and effective system that connects homeless individuals
with the resources available.
Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) – The amount paid by a public housing authority (PHA) to the owner of a
Section 8 unit or property. The PHA and owner/landlord enter into a HAP contract that sets the amount the PHA will
pay to the landlord as a way of providing Section 8 tenant-based housing assistance to a family or individual.
Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) – The federal government's major program for assisting very
low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Since
housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are able to find their own housing,

including single-family homes, townhouses and apartments. The participant is free to choose any housing that meets the
requirements of the program and is not limited to units located in subsidized housing projects. Housing choice vouchers
are administered locally by public housing agencies (PHAs). The PHAs receive federal funds from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to administer the voucher program.
Housing Element – California State law requires each governing body (City Council or Board of Supervisors) of a
local government to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city, city and
county, or county. The housing element is one of the seven mandated elements of the local general plan. The Housing
Element of the General Plan identifies the City’s housing conditions and needs, establishes the goals, objectives, and
policies that are the foundation of the City’s housing and growth strategy, and provides the array of programs the City
intends to implement to create sustainable, mixed-income neighborhoods across the City.
Housing First – An approach that offers permanent housing as quickly as possible for people experiencing
homelessness, particularly for people with long histories of homelessness and co-occurring health challenges, while
providing the supportive services people need to keep their housing and avoid returning to homelessness. Income,
sobriety and/or participation in treatment or other services are voluntary and are not required as a condition for
housing. The guiding philosophy of the Housing First approach is that housing provides people with a foundation from
which they can pursue other goals. Tenants are assisted in developing or improving skills for independent living while
they live in permanent housing instead of requiring them to complete a transitional residential program first.
Housing for Health (HFH) – A division within the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS)
focused on providing permanent supportive housing, recuperative care, and specialized primary care to homeless people
with complex physical and behavioral health conditions. HFH intends to reduce inappropriate use of extensive health
care resources and improve health outcomes for vulnerable populations.
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) – The United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Inclusionary Zoning – Ordinances that typically provide residential developers with incentives to reserve a certain
number of units in a development at prices affordable to low- and moderate-income households, or require them to
make affordable homes available at an alternative site or pay a fee in lieu of development.
Infill Development – Refers to building within unused and underutilized lands within existing development patterns,
typically but not exclusively in urban areas. Developments occur in areas with existing transportation infrastructure,
often repurposes or replaces existing buildings, parking lots, or other impervious areas, and adds homes and/or
businesses near the center of cities and towns.
Jail in Reach – A health care-based intensive case management "in reach" program that engages incarcerated persons
from the homeless population who have behavioral health disorders (mental illness, substance use disorder, or both) in
establishing a plan for specific post release services. Jail in Reach’s intent is also to engage incarcerated persons at risk of
becoming homeless once they are discharged from incarceration.

Joint Powers Authority (JPA) – An entity that is established when two or more public agencies by agreement
jointly exercise any power common to the contracting agencies.
Linkage Fees – Fees levied on non-residential and market-rate multifamily residential projects, usually upon receipt of
a building permit or prior to construction. The proceeds are used to fund the construction of affordable housing
residential developments.
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) Commission – The governing body for LAHSA. It
is politically appointed, ten member board with five members selected by the County Board of Supervisors and five
members chosen by the Mayor and City Council of Los Angeles. The Commission has the authority to make budgetary,
funding, planning, and program policies.
No Wrong Door – A philosophy that helps structure a response to homelessness. Any government agency
regularly interacting with the general public is a means of connecting homeless individuals with homeless service
providers capable of providing basic care, shelter, and housing. Any interaction between homeless individuals and City
employees is an opportunity for meaningful engagement that ultimately results in a homeless person connecting with a
care provider or case manager.
Operation Healthy Streets (OHS) – A program launched by the City of Los Angeles to address public health
risks specifically in the Skid Row and Venice areas of the City. The program’s initial focus was on eliminating hazards that
posed immediate health threats to those encamped on the sidewalks of Skid Row. The initiative was in response to a
citation issued by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health that identified the public health risks presented
by Skid Row street and sidewalk conditions. OHS involves Bureau of Sanitation Street Services, LAHSA, the Los Angeles
Police Department and Department of Transportation in various cleaning, outreach and traffic coordination tasks.
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) – A housing intervention with indefinite rental assistance and
supportive services to assist homeless persons with a disability achieve housing stability. Use of services by PSH tenants
is purely voluntary and a tenant may not be evicted for lack of use of such services. Tenants must have a written lease
which can only be terminated for cause. Tenants pay a portion of the monthly rent based on their income. Homeless
individuals may live in converted hotels or Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units (one unit/bed) with kitchenettes, or in
houses with individual bedrooms and shared kitchen facilities. Family housing is dependent on family size and is usually
one or two bedroom apartments.
Point-in-Time (PIT) Count – A count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night in January.
HUD requires that Continuums of Care conduct an annual count of homeless persons who are sheltered in emergency
shelter, transitional housing, and Safe Havens on a single night. Continuums of Care also must conduct a count of
unsheltered homeless persons every other year (odd numbered years). Each count is planned, coordinated, and carried
out locally.
Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) – A housing intervention that connects homeless individuals and families (from
emergency shelters or the streets) to permanent housing through the provision of time-limited financial assistance and
targeted supportive services. Component services and assistance generally consist of short-term and medium-term

rental assistance, rental arrears, rental application fees, security deposits, advance payment of last month's rent, utility
deposits and payments, moving costs, housing search and placement, housing stability case management, mediation, legal
services, and credit repair. Living arrangements are typically SRO units, non-SRO apartments or project based
permanent supportive housing.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) – An assessment mandated by California State Housing laws
as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements of a City’s General Plan. The RHNA quantifies the
need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. The most recent planning period covered
October 2013 to October 2021. Used in land use planning, prioritizing local resource allocation, and in deciding how to
address identified existing and future housing needs resulting from population, employment and household growth.
Safe Parking Program – A program that provides a safe parking environment and supportive services for
transitional homeless individuals living in their vehicles for overnight stays. Onsight service providers work with
participants to help develop a plan with a final emphasis on permanent housing, employment and training.
Section 8 Program – See “Housing Choice Voucher Program”
Service Planning Area (SPA) – A specific geographic region within Los Angeles County. These distinct regions
allow the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health to develop and provide more relevant public health and
clinical services targeted to the specific health needs of the residents in these different areas.
Sheltered Homeless – A homeless person that resides in an emergency shelter, including temporary emergency
shelters only open during severe weather; or in transitional housing for homeless individuals who originally came from
the streets or emergency shelters.
Single Room Occupancy – A form of housing in which one or two people are housed in individual rooms within a
multiple-tenant building.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) – The nation’s largest metropolitan planning
organization, representing six counties, 191 cities, and more than 18 million residents. SCAG undertakes a variety of
planning and policy initiatives.
Subsidized Housing – A government sponsored economic assistance program aimed towards alleviating housing
costs and expenses for people in need with low to moderate incomes. Forms of subsidies include direct housing
subsidies, non-profit housing, public housing, rent supplements and some forms of co-operative and private sector
housing.
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) – A type of development that creates compact, mixed-use

communities near transit where people enjoy easy access to jobs and services. TODs focus growth around transit
stations to promote ridership, affordable housing near transit, revitalized downtown centers and neighborhoods, and
encourage local economic development.

Transitional Age Youth (TAY) – Young people between the ages of sixteen and twenty-four who are
in transition from state custody or foster care and are at-risk of homelessness. Once they turn 18 they can no longer
receive assistance from the systems of care that previously provided for many of their needs.
Transitional Housing (TH) – A housing intervention that provides homeless individuals and families with the
interim stability and support to successfully move into and maintain permanent housing. Transitional housing may be
used to cover the costs of up to 24 months of housing with accompanying supportive services, but clients can be
charged a portion of the rental cost up to 30 percent of adjusted gross income. Transitional housing can be facility based
at the project site or community based in apartments (scattered site or transition in place models). The living
arrangement is up to 24 months after which the client must move to another apartment or it may “transition in place”
where the client remains in the unit and takes over the lease. Under the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development regulations, clients are still considered homeless, but they lose their chronically homeless status
that affects their ability to move on to PSH or RRH.
Unsheltered Homeless – A homeless person that resides in a place not meant for human habitation, such as cars,
parks, sidewalks, abandoned buildings, or on the street.
Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) – A joint program administered the United States Departments
of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development which allows veterans to receive housing choice voucher that
offset the cost of housing for veterans and ensure no more than 30 percent of a VASH participant’s income goes to
housing.
Vulnerability Index-Service Prioritization and Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) – An

evidence-based tool that is designed to help service providers determine the most appropriate housing intervention for
a particular individual or family.
Winter Shelter – Shelter intervention that provides a place to stay or bed to sleep in overnight if one becomes
homeless or otherwise experiences a housing crisis and has no place to go. This is limited to winter months for 90 days,
usually from November 1 to February 28/29 in the City and County of Los Angeles.
Zoning Variance – The process by which an applicant can request deviation from the set of rules a municipality
applies to land use and land development, typically a zoning ordinance, building code or municipal code.


Attachments
Ken Forter


Los Angeles Homelessness Strategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Los Angeles Homelessness Strategy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Los Angeles Homelessness Strategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FORM GEN.

Date: January 7, 2016

To: The Mayor

From: Miguel A. Santana, CityAdministrative ~ '£j~

Public Hearing Process

Immediate Assistance for the Homeless - El Nino

Fiscal Impact Statement

Comprehensive Homeless Strategy

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 1

Page left intentionally blank.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 2

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 3

3. NO WRONG DOOR ............................................................................................................................... 31

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 4

4.22.7. E13 - ENHANCED DATA SHARING AND TRACKING ......................................................................................................... 58

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 5

8. LAND USE .............................................................................................................................................. 148

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 6

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 8

Page intentionally left blank.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 9

Purpose and Assumptions

One Coordinated Response

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 10

Preventive Strategies Centralized Case Management Housing Services

City Proactive Outreach • Permanent

 Housing Crisis PSH Housing

Mapping Shared Responsibility

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 11

Entity Subject Responsibility

CES CES funding, hosting CES caseworkers in County facilities

CES CES administration, contracting CES providers, tech enhancements

CES Staffing CES caseworkers, managers, contracting with LAHSA

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 12

4 – Coordinated Entry System

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 13

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 14

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 15

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 16

Fiscal Impact Statement

Council File References

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 17

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 18

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 19

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 20

2.1. Point-in-Time Counts

2.2. Functional Zero for Homelessness

2.3. Demographic Overview of Los Angeles Homeless

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 22

2.4. Age, Gender & Ethnic Breakdowns

2.5. Individuals Experiencing Trauma, Illness, Disability

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 23

2.6. Demographics by Council District

2.7. Citywide Homelessness

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 24

2.8. Citywide Homelessness Services Map

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 25

2.9. LAHSA Dashboards (In Development)

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 26

Data shown here is from September 2015