Response to Grand Jury Report Report Title: Like, Home? There’s No Place Report Date: 6/28/19 Response by: Humboldt

Existing shelters have restrictions that prevent use by significant segments of the homeless population. Response: Agree Existing shelters include the Eureka Rescue Mission (ERM), Arcata House Partnership’s (AHP) Adult Shelter and Family Shelter, Betty Chinn’s Blue Angel Village and Betty Chinn’s House Family Shelter. Access to Betty’s House is limited to families referred by the county through CalWORKS and Child Welfare Services. Requirements listed on ERM website include sobriety, photo identification, and specifically excludes children between the ages of 13 and 17. Both ERM and AHP Adult Shelter ban persons that have been disruptive in previous stays. In general, shelters frequently exclude persons with serious mental illness or substance use disorders, registered sex offenders are excluded, none allow pets and each limits the number of possessions allowable per person. Currently, both Betty’s Village and AHP Adult Shelter have active wait lists as they are usually at capacity. 2

The Housing First emphasis on creating affordable permanent housing does not address the problem of an immediate need for shelter while waiting for permanent housing to become available. Response: Partially agree Housing First programs are critical to providing effective flow through local shelters. When individuals are able to exit shelters as quickly as possible with the assistance of Housing First-oriented permanent housing programs, the shelters are able to effectively provide shelter to more people on an annual basis. Humboldt County is in need of expanded Housing First-program capacity so that more people can move out of the shelters. When shelter capacity is expanded without expanding permanent housing capacity populations at shelters tend to increase, causing bottlenecks in service delivery. Every increase in permanent housing capacity reduces the pressure on shelters by reducing the total number of people needing immediate shelter.

The number of individuals and families who are currently homeless far exceeds the number of available permanent affordable housing units. Response: Agree The 2019 Point-in-Time (PIT) count found 1,704 people to be homeless in the county. The Grand Jury Report did not define the term “available permanent affordable units,” however according to data obtained from the Urban Institute, there are just 30 adequate, affordable, available units per 100 extremely low-income renter households in Humboldt County. The Urban Institute uses the term “available” in a way that may be much broader than what the Grand Jury intended. This definition states an available unit as those that are currently affordable to, and that is either vacant or is occupied by, an extremely low-income renter household. In the county, if a household is not currently receiving some kind of federal housing assistance from either Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA), the number of adequate, available affordable units for extremely low income renter households drops to 17, and a household that meets criteria for inclusion in the PIT count is never in receipt of federal housing assistance. To make matters even worse, households that are homeless are not renter households. Of those 17 adequate, available, affordable units that have no USDA or HUD assistance per 100 extremely low-income renter households, the vast majority of them are occupied by an extremely low-income renter household at any given moment and are not vacant.

The production rate of affordable housing units is insufficient to meet the needs of the County's residents and homeless. Response: Agree The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RNHA) and Housing Element requirements mandates California cities and counties to track their progress toward meeting their RHNA. The county and its seven cities have not 3 met the goals set by RHNA for persons at 80% Area Median Income or below. The only local jurisdiction that met any of the RHNA goals was the City of Arcata which exceeded the goal for moderate income unit permits.

The county and City of Eureka's failure to hold regular meetings of their inter-government Leadership Group has resulted in a lack of collaboration between them regarding homelessness. Response: Disagree The city and the county continue to collaborate on projects related to housing, including MIST, The Lodge, a potential day center site and a new project at 7th Street and Myrtle Ave. At times, there has been a gap in the meeting series which reflects scheduling challenges relating to the need for collaboration within the Homeless Leadership Group. These scheduling challenges also result from ongoing projects occurring outside the group, but concern members of the Homeless Leadership Group. The Homeless Leadership Group met in May, June, July and August of 2019.

The Housing Trust Fund and Homelessness Solutions Committee is hampered by the dual objectives of addressing the shortage of permanent affordable housing and short-term sheltering needs. Response: Disagree There is no inherent conflict in addressing both needs. The county has observed this challenge, within DHHS, in needing to have short-term safe space available for vulnerable clients while also needing permanent housing for clients who can be connected with Permanent Supportive Housing monies and case management. DHHS’ efforts in both areas are informed by the entire spectrum of need and the resulting deepened understanding of the many elements contributing to housing and homelessness issues throughout Humboldt and California. As stated in the response to F2, meeting the dual objectives of addressing the shortage of permanent affordable housing and short- term sheltering needs can provide complimentary solutions to the sheltering needs of county residents.

The Housing Trust Fund and Homelessness Solutions Committee lacks sufficient funds to accomplish its goals and there is no ongoing funding source. Response: Partially Agree The duties described in Resolution 18-73, , sections B and G, note the committee is responsible for recommending to the Board ongoing funding sources that could support this committee. These duties outline federal, state, local government and private funding sources. To date, no recommendations have been made. The HTFHSC is working with the Department of Health & Humans Services to submit a supplemental budget request to the Board of Supervisors in the amount of $500,000. However, this request would need to be made from the General Fund and there are many competing demands for General Fund dollars. No other funding sources have been identified by the HTFHSC. 4

Existing day centers are insufficient to meet the needs of the Humboldt County homeless population. Response: Agree There are currently no day centers in the County that provide a safe, legal place homeless people to be that also provides services geared toward helping people exit homelessness. The Arcata House Annex and the Betty Chinn Day Center provide valuable services to persons experiencing homelessness, but they do not provide a safe, legal place for those people to be day in and day out. The Eureka Rescue Mission’s day use area is only open to male visitors without children and provides minimal services.

Safe parking programs would address an immediate need for the hundreds of people living in their vehicles in Humboldt County. Response: Partially Agree Safe parking programs offer some advantages compared to other options, such as not enforcing camping ordinances, in that they typically provide bathrooms, showers, trash pickup and security. However, those services would require increased funding that could divert funds from other programs targeting low income and homeless housing services.