Attachment D
Previously Submitted Memo
CITY OF GLENDALE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
TO:Golanian Roubik, City ManagerDATEJanuary 14, 2025
FROM:Bradley Calvert, Director, Community Development
BY:Peter Zovak, Assistant Director
Sipan Zadoryan, Housing Supervisor
SUBJECT: Program Review of Monthly Housing Subsidy Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following memo provides details on the Monthly Housing Subsidy Program, a status report on the program and some preliminary findings of the effectiveness of the program as requested by the City Council. This memo was requested in advance of a future Council report to discuss possible new rent subsidy programming to assist Glendale renter households.
In October 2019, the City of Glendale approved the Monthly Housing Subsidy which was designed to provide a $300 monthly subsidy to 1,000 senior households in Glendale. The 2-year program was allocated approximately $8.4 Million in funding with $7.2 Million for direct assistance. Marketing for the program began in November 2019, followed by application registration. Over 2,500 applicants applied of which 1,750 were drawn in a lottery to establish order for qualification. Staff began qualifying applicants in March 2020, approving them in batches until a total of 1,000 applicants were qualified.
In December 2021, the City of Glendale approved an additional 600 applicants to be drawn from the waiting list for qualification. Approval was also given to extend payments to the original 1,000 participants for an additional year. While the program was approved to support a total of 1,600 applicants, at its peak, it served 1,200 seniors with a monthly subsidy. This was due to some applicants not meeting qualification criteria, and as new participants were approved, others either passed away or became ineligible due to changes in their status.
PROGRAM REVIEW
In October 2019, City Council approved the Monthly Housing Subsidy Program as a pilot program designed to assist 1,000 low income, disabled, senior Glendale rental residents with $300 in monthly housing subsidy for 24 months.
The program originally approved $8.4 million in Measure S funding which included:
$3.6 Million Allocated Annually for Direct Assistance Subsidy $447,000 Allocated for Staffing
$120,000 Allocated for Program Costs
Total Budget of $4.2 Million Annually ($8.4M Total)
Additional funding was approved in December 2021 to serve the remaining applicants on the waiting list and to extend assistance to applicants already receiving the subsidy.
Funding included 5 staff members designated for the following positions:
1 Customer Service Representative
1 Administrative Assistant
1 Housing Assistant
2 Housing Associates
Under the supervision of an existing employee, five full-time, unclassified positions were initially funded to administer the program. Only three full-time salaried employees were originally hired, followed by an additional hourly employee and one Glendale Youth Alliance (GYA) employee to complete the team. The program operated with those three salaried employees, one hourly employee, and one GYA student for its first two years. As the workload for the program began to decrease, staffing gradually decreased as well. Currently, the program is managed by one Housing Supervisor and is staffed by one part-time GYA employee.
Staff demonstrated exceptional operational efficiency by effectively managing the original $1.3 million funding allocation, which was intended to support the program for three years. Due to savings achieved from not being fully staffed with five full-time salaried employees, the program was able to operate for an additional two years—sustaining operations for a total of five years. By carefully monitoring expenditures and optimizing staffing levels based on program needs, staff not only kept the program considerably under budget but also ensured the continuity of essential services for a prolonged period without requiring additional funding.
This is particularly noteworthy given the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite disruptions caused by stay-at-home orders, shifts to remote work, and increased uncertainty during the pandemic, staff remained adaptable and committed to delivering uninterrupted services to the community.
FUNDING
Funding Expenditures Surplus Budget
Staffing $ 1,341,000 $ 992,250 $ 348,750 Direct Assistance $ 13,200,000 $ 11,945,000 $ 1,255,000
M&O $ 360,000 $ 282,731 $ 77,269 Total $ 14,901,000 $ 13,219,982 $ 1,681,018 The program currently has 167 participants receiving payments. Staff expects to provide the final Subsidy payments before the end of the current fiscal year.
PROGRAM IMPACT ON PARTICIPANTS
Despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent Stay-at-Home orders, staff successfully implemented a program that had a meaningful positive impact on a highly vulnerable population. The program's timing proved to be both serendipitous and crucial during a particularly difficult period.
The MHSP has had a positive impact on the lives of the applicants it serves and the Glendale community at large. According to applicants—many of whom rely primarily on Social Security as their main source of income—they previously had to borrow money from family or friends to make rent payments. With the assistance provided by the MHSP, these applicants became less dependent on family support and were better able to cover their living expenses.
To understand the impact of the program on recipients, staff surveyed them to better understand how the subsidy payments have impacted their lives. Applicants were asked a series of questions as to their thoughts on MHSP and assistance received. Highlights of the over 600 household surveys received include the following:
98% of respondents stated that the MHSP helped them afford their rent or ensure they could make their monthly payments.
51% of respondents said that the subsidy was relative to their needs, while 48% said the subsidy was not appropriate to their needs and stated that a subsidy of $500 to $600 would be more adequate.
8% of respondents reported that receiving the subsidy allowed them to save for emergencies.
Applicants were surveyed and asked whether they had been receiving financial support from a family member prior to receiving the subsidy. Among the respondents, 17% indicated that they had received family support before the subsidy was introduced.
However, this figure decreased to 11% after receiving the $300 monthly subsidy. A majority of applicants spent their subsidies primarily on rent with some spending it on items such as bills, food and medication.
Survey results demonstrate that the subsidy payments have had a positive impact on the majority of applicants who received the payment. Applicants felt more comfortable financially.
The data suggests that the subsidy may have reduced applicants' reliance on financial support from their families. This could indicate that the subsidy provides sufficient assistance to cover some of their financial needs, thereby reducing the need to seek help from relatives. This has helped alleviate the financial burden on applicant’s support systems. Although the subsidy provided some level of financial comfort for recipients, the subsidy was just enough to allow recipients to maintain their quality of life but did not lead to drastic increases in savings or changes in lifestyle.
PROGRAM SUCCESS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE PROGRAMING The Monthly Housing Subsidy Program (MHSP) successfully achieved its primary goal of assisting senior households in Glendale by alleviating some of the financial burden associated with high rents and rent increases. With a $300 monthly subsidy, the program provided relief to over 1,200 seniors during its peak, addressing a critical need within the community, particularly during the challenging period of the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, while the subsidy was meaningful, survey results suggest that the $300 monthly amount provided only partial relief. 48% of respondents felt the subsidy amount could have been higher, with many indicating that $500–$600 would have been more appropriate. Some participants even suggested a need for subsidies of $1,000 or more. Moreover, the assistance was sufficient to maintain participants' quality of life but did not enable significant savings for future emergencies.
44% of participants reported receiving rent increases during the program period, with 43% of those increases exceeding $100 per month, which significantly diminished the subsidy’s impact on affordability.
While the MHSP successfully delivered modest relief to a broad group of seniors, its impact was diluted by the relatively low subsidy amount and the high number of participants. Future programming could be designed to prioritize fewer recipients with larger subsidies to maximize the impact on individual households.
Key recommendations for future programming include:
1)Higher Monthly Subsidy Amounts: Future programs should increase the subsidy amount to better align with participants’ needs. A higher subsidy in the $500–$600 range would provide more substantial relief, particularly for those facing significant rent increases. 2)Targeted Support: Reducing the number of recipients to focus resources on the most financially vulnerable seniors.
a)Seniors with Adult Children with Developmental Disabilities: These households often face compounded financial and caregiving burdens, requiring tailored support to maintain housing stability.
b)Seniors at Risk of Homelessness: Targeting individuals at imminent risk of losing their housing would directly address the most urgent cases.
c)Seniors Not Receiving Family Support or Other Income: These individuals are entirely self-reliant and often face greater financial vulnerabilities due to a lack of supplemental resources or support systems.
3)Needs-Based Allocation: Introducing criteria to ensure subsidies address the greatest financial need, with specific consideration for seniors in high-rent or high rent to income gap.
4)Enhanced Metrics for Evaluation: Incorporating measures to track housing stability, financial independence, and quality of life, allowing the program to adapt and improve based on participant outcomes.
By focusing on fewer participants with greater need, future programs can provide more meaningful assistance, better addressing the root causes of housing instability among Glendale’s senior population. This approach represents a more effective use of the City’s resources and aligns with the goal of creating sustainable solutions for housing affordability.
On a final note, one important consideration when designing a new program to serve seniors is the ability to efficiently process applications. A unique aspect of the MHSP program was its focus on low-income, disabled seniors. Qualifying seniors by income is generally a much simpler and faster process compared to family households. Senior households typically have straightforward and consistent income sources, requiring minimal paperwork.
In contrast, family households often have multiple and sometimes sporadic income sources, making documentation more challenging. This complexity is evident in programs like Section 8.
If a new program is designed to serve families, the administrative burden, both in terms of time and staffing, will be significantly higher.