SF's Episcopal Community Center's Navigation Center

Greetings!

With all this conversation taking place concerning new funding for housing navigators, focusing on homeless who traditionally haven't utilized shelters, it's important to learn about the experience of San Francisco's Navigation Center, run by Episcopal Community Services.

Local Reporter's 2014 Article Provides Useful Housing First Review

Greetings!

Angela Hart, reporter for the Press Democrat, wrote an article for the San Francisco Public News in 2014.  It as titled "Promise of Supportive Housing For Homeless Faces Reality of Short Supply".  It should be mandatory reading for all of those trying to make sense of the Santa Rosa Homeless Summit held recently.

Coordinated Entry into Permanent Housing

Testimony from Teddie Pierce at Santa Rosa Homeless SubCommittee Meeting, February 13, 2017

Intro:

I attended the OrgCode Summit and have known of Iain’s work for several years and I built the OrgCode tools in the local HMIS.  Iain’s presentation had much value in sparking the beginning of systems change thinking. His perspective about managing vs. ending homelessness is well taken and not new.

1.     Let me offer some “alt-facts” to a few Iain’s comments regarding resourcing emergency services. When somebody says something is evidence-based and doesn’t cite the source of that evidence I do my own follow up. In regard to tiny houses, homeless huts, I could find one formal research paper and the findings were generally positive.

2.     Internet information was mostly based on local media articles so I contacted a peer who works at the City of Seattle. Seattle operates three dignaty village “type” projects that include huts and tents. Residents are formally case managed and data is collected.  Seattle’s performance data as of two weeks ago indicates that approx 28% of the village clients had exits to some type of permanent housing.

3.     Another interesting piece of research is HUD’s 37 month update of the Family Options Study.  This was an eight year research initiave they characterize as  “deep”, landmark”,“rigorous” and “data-driven”.  It was done in 12 communitiess nationwide over three years looking only at families but the data showed no substantial difference at both a 20 month and 37 month benchmark.

4.     It worked this way – looked three “types” of housing interventions - subsidized housing through vouchers, rapid re-housing and transitional housing.  All three were compared to what is known as “usual care”.  UC means clients who make their way through the service system without priority access to any intervention being offered.

5.     Across five domains “the survey said” J…“rapid re-housing did not lead to improvements in housing stability or meet other outcomes relative to usual care” Other outcomes they call radiating or non-homeless benefits and included in addition to housing stability:

§  Housing stability – length homeless, length ES stays, doubled up

§  Family presevervation – child or partner separation

§  Adult well being – health, AOD, violence and distress

§  Child well being – same but did see impact in behavior problems

§  Self-sufficiency – employment and food security

6.     What the study did find is the effectiveness of housing subsidy through PHA’s are the most sustainable programs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.     A final hot off the press item from HUD is regarding emergency services in the Coordinated Entry design.  Newly published CES flow charts do not negate Emergency Shelter or street assistance in whatever form. 

8.     I take this all to point to the fact that the “type” of emergency assistance (shelters, huts, encampments) is less critical than assurances to the access points to housing opportunties and mainstream benefits.  This is good system design coupled with case management.

9.     Please be clear I am not saying that Rapid ReHousing, Diversion or Housing Navigation should not be funded.  My advocacy is to encourage caution when considering the defunding of one type of service over another and perhaps the dedication of resources to an overall system analysis that looks at these services end to end in the Sonoma County context.

Storage Idea - What can we do in Santa Rosa?

Gregory—

below is a link to one of the working ideas for storage.

it is not the article that I initially read and ref’s to you in our conversation, but it gives you an idea.

-Carole

http://curious.kcrw.com/2016/02/storage-facility-for-homeless

StreetTeam - Homeless Working

Greetings!

Click on the link below to learn about a program  that Homeless Action is looking into.  Its currently being implemented in several Northbay cities:  StreetTeam.  

History and current conditions in housing development in Santa Rosa - Jan 2017

Since 2011 LHMP Year Residential ,Non-residential 

2013 - 488 permits issued

•  121 single family dwellings 
•  359 multifamily dwellings 
•  7 second dwelling units 
•  1 mobile home 

Located: 

•  39 in northeast Santa Rosa 
•  139 in southeast Santa Rosa 
•  8 in southwest Santa Rosa 
•  302 in northwest Santa Rosa 

239,465 square feet of new construction permitted, including:

•  144,388 square foot Target store in Coddingtown 
•  14,450 square foot parts storage and service bay to Volkswagen and Subaru 
•  8,600 square foot Firestone store on Santa Rosa Avenue 
•  4,000 square foot market and gas station on Farmers Lane 

2014 - 252 permits issued 

•  183 single family dwellings 
•  64 multifamily dwellings 
•  5 second dwelling units 

Located: 

•  28 in northeast Santa Rosa 
•  96 in southeast Santa Rosa 
•  73 in southwest Santa Rosa 
•  55 in northwest Santa Rosa 

151,311 square feet of new construction permitted, including: 

• 87, 800 square foot storage facility on Sonoma Highway 
•  Dick’s Sporting Goods store in Coddingtown 
•  Fiat dealership on Santa Rosa Avenue 

2015 - 126 permits issued 

•  93 single family dwellings 
•  26 multifamily dwellings 
•  7 second dwelling units 

Located: 

•  23 in northeast Santa Rosa 
•  56 in southeast Santa Rosa 
•  47 in northwest Santa Rosa 

 

•  Nordstrom Rack store in Coddingtown 
•  Senior Care Facility, Vineyard at Fountaingrove 
•  Museum of the Square renovation 
•  Industrial Building on Square Court 

2016- 2017 Building Permits 
Permit Number Land Use Size Status 
Catalina SFR-Attached 60 units - Under construction 
Duke Court Lot #6 General Industrial 16,390 sq ft - Under construction
Nordstrom Rack Retail 31,000 sq ft - Under construction
Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Restaurant 2,695 sq ft - Application under review
Range Ranch Multi-family 270 units - Recently completed
Range Ranch II Multi-family 120 units - Application under review
Rock Star University Light Industrial 10,025 sq ft - Under construction 
SR Sports & Entertainment Recreational 128,000 sq ft -  Under construction 
Southern Gardens SFRDetached 14 units - Under construction 
Tapestry SFRDetached 34 units - Under construction 
The Meadows at Oakmont SFRDetached 36 units - Recently completed 
Wilibees of Sonoma Retail 6,500 sq ft - Recently completed 

2017+ Engineering Permits 
Permit Number Land Use Size Status 
Bay Village Development SFR-Attached 12 units - Final Map under review 
Calistoga Village SFRDetached 17 units - Grading permit issued
CarMax Auto retail - Grading permit issued 
Fox Hollow Subdivision SFRDetached 143 units - Under review 
Francisco Village SFRDetached 77 units - Under review
Kawana Meadows Subdivision SFRDetached/ Duplex lots 124 units - Grading permit issued 
Kylie Lane Subdivision SFRDetached 12 units - Grading permit issued
North Street Apartments Multi-family 20 units - Under review
Pantoja Lane Subdivision SFRDetached 16 units - Under review 
Prospect Oaks Subdivision SFR-Attached 32 units - Grading permit issued 
Pullman Lofts Multi-family 72 units - Approved
Ravello Subdivision SFRDetached 13 units - Under review 
Sandalwood SFRDetached/ Multi-family 16 units/ 2 units - Grading permit issued 
 Skyfarm 3 SFRDetached 30 units - Under review

2017+ Planning Permits
Permit Number Land Use Size Status 
Airway Community Care Community care 90 units - Application under review
Canyon Oaks Multi-family 96 units - Application under review 
Smith Village/ Pantoja Lane SFRDetached/ Second units 67 units/ 9 units - Approved 
Spring Lake Village East Grove Multi-family 24 units - Application under review 
Stony Village North SFRDetached 40 units - Application under review
Stony Village South SFRDetached 115 units - Application under review
Terrazzo at Fountaingrove SFRDetached 19 units - Application under review
The Shops at Austin Creek Retail 43,206 sq ft - Application under review